Star.
London, England, 1802-06-04 00:00:00

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.

Mr. CoRRv obferved, that in confequence of the
Union with Ireland, the emoluments of the Lord
High Chancellor of that part of the kingdom, had
undergone cordiderable diminution by the aboli-
tion of the office of Speaker oldie Houfe of Lords,
and of the fees payable upon the paling of Bills.
By an A& of the Trills Parliament, compenfation
was to be given to perfons holding offices, to the
extent of what they lhould be lofers by the Union.
That AR extended to the Lord High Chancellor,
and in confequence of it, a compenfttion for life
had been made to the Noble Lord who had lately
filled that important office. His much lamented
death rendered it necelfary that the Houk fhould
be in poireffion of the exaa amount of the falary
and fees of the office of Chancellor of Ireland. He
concluded by moving, that there fhould be laid
before the Houfe an account of the grofs and net
proceeds of the salary and fees of the Lord High
Chancellor of Ireland.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR expreffed his fatisfaftion at
the litbjeet having been brought before the'Houfe ;
he thought it of the greatett importance that the
office of Lord High Chancellor lhould be filled by
a man ,of talent, and that he fhould be amply
compenfated for dilCharging the arduous duties of
his lunation.

Mr. STEWART Paid, he highly approved of the
motion. The quellion was put and carried in the
affitmative. SLATS *TRADE.
General Gascota ME rofe to withdraw his notice
of the motion relpeeling the Slave Carrying Bill.
His motive for fo doing was the advanced period
of the Sctlion. He willted to fubmit to the con-
fideration of an Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilber-
force) whether it would not be expedient that the
motion of which he had given notice on a fimilar
fuhjea, though of a contrary tendency, Mould alto
he deferred till the next Setlioni

Mr. WiLasitroact. raid, he could not fit ffer the
prefent Seffion to pals over, without fubmitting a
motion u. the Houfe upon the fubjea. He was
proceeding to advert to fame former proceedings
of the H.•ufe, when he was interrupted by
Mr. Sr r AKER, Who defired to know wjyther the
Hon. Member meant to withdraw his motion, and
whether he-was aware there was another Order of
the Day to be difctifTed before it
Mr. WitacaFoacc declined withdrawing his
motion. Mill{ SIX PER CENTS.

1 The Honk thcn rdelved itfelf into a Committee
lon the Bill for taking cif the duty of &per Cent.
,from kith R ctatlers.

I Mr. CARRY f.tid, that in order to explain the
fitbjed completely to the Committee, it would be
uccefiry for Lim to take a Ilion view ut the origin

and progrefs of this duty of 6 per Cent. on Pt-
railers. In the reign of Charles 11. o (lacy
per Cent. was !aid upon all Goo it invorttd i].7o
Ireland. The excite was allowed to be paid 1111
transferring the goods to theta tiler and confurncr,
intlead of levying it immediately cm importatien.
At. a contiderable interval after war ‘IF,, thele ex-
emptions and advantages were tal wtvay, and
iii lieu of them the v.lnleiale Dealers were 31i(it7.
cd a difeount of 6 per Cent. on immediate payment
of the Duties. Affairs remained in thi- note 61;
the year 1782, when this dilefillnt vests tirely dif-
continued, and the Wholetak K:rehain t, as acjl
:la the Retailers, flood in the fame t not: in a'. on.
der the original Aft ; but, at the fame time, the
'difparity between them was continued by a new
impofition of 6 per Cent. on the It etaiic,.s. Th_
was laying an unequal, and at very heavy lon (1,-ri
on that body of men ; but in reality 6 per Cenx.
wt. not the whole of their burtleen; for :Wiwi!. the
Importation Duty to it, they, in fact, paid riper
Cent. on their goods. • Such a heavy taxatinu
tainly called for relief. A Petition lay before the
Committee to this effect from the frith Retodei s :
They underflood that no unequal Duty was paid
by the Englifh Retailers; they therefore peti:ioaed
that Parliament would aflinsilate ther,lto the Eng.
lith Retailers, according to the Ipirit of the
Union. The Duty, befides, was not produdive,
and taking it off would the a very fmall diminu-
tion of the Revenue. He was convinced of the
propriety and jufkice of hearkening to this Eli-
lion ; and, therefore, he concluded with movin[e.
" That leave be given to bring in a 8111 to relieve
the Irith Retailers from the Duty of 6 per Cent."
Mr. BERESFORD faid, he could by no Tr =11.5
agree with the ideas of the Right Hon. Gentleman
on this fubjed. The allegations in the petition he
looked upon as by no means corred. They
feemed to give a recent origin to a duty that arofe
from the nature of the Excite Ad pages in the
reign of Charles 11. The wholefale merchants
were allowed originally to bond their goods. 1 his
privilege they exchanged in 1679 for 6 per cent.
difeount on prompt payment of the duties. This
regulation continued till 1785. It was impolELle
to allow the retailers to bond their goods, and there.
fore they had never had this privilege, or any cow.-
penfation for it, and confequently the difference
between them and the wholefale Merchants had
continued for a fpace of 123 years. Another alle-
viation was, that no fuch difference exifted in Eng.
land. But this arofe from there having been no
Import Duty there ; othcrwifc inch a difference
would have been a necelfary confeciticnce. The'
6 per cent. impofed in 1785, only placed the
wholefale and retail dealers on the lame ielattve
fituation as they were before that period. Aa
alteration in this relative fituation would require
alfo an alteration in the other mercantile laws...—
It had been urged, that it was intended to place
the retailers on a footing of equality with the other
dealers. He did not like the term equality ;be
was not for altering old laws, and introducing in-
novations, in order to favour that ()Item. And as
the wholefale dealers laid out 'a much greater ca.
pital, and their returns were-flower, he thought it
was juft that they fhould have fuperior advanta-
ges to the retailers.
Mr. 011titSBY thought the retailers entitled to
relief.

General GascoYwa gave the meafure his cor-
dial fupport, and expreffed his fatislaftion that the
principle of affimilation between the two countries
was carrying into effea.
Mr. Coital' did not.wifh himf .c.. to he consi-
dered as pledging liimfelf to the principle of affi-
milation, except, w 1 ere it could he aged upon
with fairnefs
•both countriei. The prefent
queftion had no conneflion with the relative lima-
tion of the two countries in refpeEeto each other;
it turned entirely upon the internal policy of Ire-
land, and in this ref pe alonehe wifhed to he un-
derftood as at prefent claiming its affimilation whit
England.
Mr. FOSTER contended, that-the relief at pre•
fent moved for was tumeceilliry. The 6 per cent.
impofed in 1785, was never complained of till ihe
retailers were, four or five years ago, brought
forward, and (heron how to form complaintc.—
When it was confidered that the revenue of Ire-
land laft year fcarcely amounted to 40c,c001.
above the inttreft of its debt, we ought to be very
careful in taking off the fitralleil tax, unlcis a hin-
ter fubftitute for it could be firft provided. But
no better could be found than a tax fanaione,i hlr
time, fubmitted to without complaint, and no ways
vexatious in its operation.
The Houfe then divided on Mr. Corry's ma
tion.—Ayes 33—Noes rB—Majority 15.