The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-02-15 00:00:00

well worth notice,—he meant the expense to the public conse-
quent upon the cholera visitation. In England, but £12,072 of
the pubiic money was thus employed; in Ireland, the cost to
the public was not less than £164,21; a fact which, in itself,
spoke volumes as to the indisposition of the government to-
wards relieving the wants of Ireland, as compared with Eng-
land. (Hear.) The sums, then, expended on Ireland since the
union, stand thus :
Charitable and literary institutions . . . £4,225,750
Encouragement of agriculture and manufactures . 4,340,421
Public works and employment of poor . . . 3,072,160

£8,638,331

Cholera expenses in England .j 12,072
in Ireland . . . . . 164,324
But even that was not all. They all recollected the Public
Works (Ireland) Bill of last session, which the learned gentle-
man prophesied would be of no practical use whatever—that it
was, in fact, a mere delusion. (Hear.) But what was the fact?
He was happy to say that not less than £819,451 Is. 9d. had
been applied in the internal improvement cif Ireland, and fur-
nishing employment to its poor. In illustration of this state-
ment, Mr. Rice read the following table :

PUBLIC WORKS.

Memorandum respecting the Proceeedings under the Public Works'
Act. 1 and 2 William IV, c. 33.
Loans for works carryitrg on under special acts £. s. d.
of Parliament—bridges, docks, harbours, ca-
nals, and roads •••• 167,949 19 2
Loans to companies and individuals—quarries,
mines, drainage •••• •••• 11,800 0 0

£179,749 19 2
Loans on security of county-rates .... 36,812 18 9
Grants—piers and roads .... .... 9,700 3 0

GENERAL ABSTRACT.

Loans—Applications received and sanctioned..2l6,s62 17 11
recommended and before the Treasury .. 750 0 0
not fully concluded,but under consideration 297,866 19 6
—applications rejected .... '273,773 7 4

£788,953 4 9
Grants—Applications received and sanctioned 9,700 3 0
under consideration .... 14,657 0 0
rejected .... .... 6,140 14 0

£819,451 1 9
Before he sat down, he begged to say that there were two points
on which he was anxious not to be mistaken and misrepresented,
—not in that house, for there he could defend and explain him-
self,—but out of doors, where he might have a less dispassionate
set of commentators to deal with. it might be said, in the first
place, that he had quoted these facts, which so irrefragably.proved
that much had been done for Ireland by the imperial legislature
since the union, with a view to thereby deny the existence of
extreme poverty in that country. He meant no such conclu-
sion. In common with every man at all acquainted with the
real state of the working classes in Ireland, he could but lament
their destitute condition. But was that destitute condition the
product of the union ? Would the repeal of that union remedy
it? He confidently answered both questions in the negative.
If they consulted the journals of the Irish Parliament, —if they
believed the statements of the generations which had gone be-
fore them, they would learn that distress was a too common
occurrence among the Irish artizans and labourers. They
would also learn another important fact,—that the apparent
prosperity of some local manufactures in Ireland was an entirely
forced prosperity (hear) contrary to every sound principle of
political economy,—the exclusive result of bounties and pro-
tecting duties. (Hear, hear.) The next misconception he wished
to guard against was, that it might be said that having thus
shown how much the imperial Parliament had done for Ire-
land, he meant it to be inferred it was to stop there and do no
more. He meant no such thing; all that he meant was, to de-
ny, by the evidence of incontrovertible facts, that there existed
any indifference or want of affectionate sympathy on the
_part
of the Parliament or people of England towards. their Irish
brethren. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman concluded
with repeating his conviction, that a repeal of the union would
lead to the dismemberment of the empire, and with hoping that
God would protect us from the consequences of the acts of its
more zealous advocates.

Mr. COBBETT said, the right hon gentleman had charged him
with having promulgated very erroneous doctrines or principles
respecting commercial prosperity. He had put forth no doc-
trines, nor did he attempt to put forth or illustrate any politi-
cal principles. His statement, such as it was, was a mere state-
ment of facts, not theories or doctrines, facts which he quoted in
disproof of the doctrine of an hon. member for Knaresborough
(Arr. Richards,). that because the exports and imports of Ire-
land may have increased since the union, that therefore the
comforts and prosperity of the Irish workmen had increased in
the same proportion. He maintained that the increase of ex-
perts was no proof of prosperity,—that, on the contrary, it
would be shown in the evidence of facts which his hon. col-
league'was ready to substantiate before a committee of parka
ment, that as the trade of 'Manchester, as indicated by the in-
crease of cotton imported into it, increased, the wages' of the
workmen and the profits of the manufacturer diminished. The
same facts applied to the doctrine just laid down by the right
hon. gentleman, namely, that because the exports, which the
right hon. gentleman assumed to he pro Canto the representative
of Irish labour, from Ireland had increased since the year 1777
and the union, that therefore the
.prosperity of its inhabitants
had increased in the same proportion. The best way, perhaps,
to demonstrate the absurdity of this doctrine was to push it to
its legitimate length. Let them push it, then, and they would
find that in exact proportion as the manufacture of sugar in
Jamaica increased—that is, as the exports of that article in-
creased, the destitute and oppressed condition of the negro
workmen also increased. (-4 No, no," and " Hear, hear.")
He distinctly recollected having read, some twenty years ago,
in one of tl,,t pamphlets put forth by the abolitionist party, a
statement to the effect, " that the more the produce of sugar
augmented, the more heavily was the lash laid on the unfortu-
nate negro slave." This, perhaps, was a little exaggerated, so
that he would refer them to the statement of Mr. Cropper, of
Livei•pool, to the effect that " the more the imports of cotton
into Jamaica and the West India colonies increased, the more
did the treatment of the negro increase in severity." (Hear.)
Increase of exports, then, was no criterion of the prosperity of
Ireland, or any other country. No, the great evil of that coun-
try was, that all its produce was sent out of it. While the pro-
duce was thus sent out of the land, it was idle to talk of better-
ing its condition. He would maintain that the condition of that
country must be radically wrong which required grants from
the Treasury to put its productive industry in motion. (Hear,
hear.) The fact was, the whole produce of Ireland was con-
sumed in England. That fact would explain why it was in ap-
pearance, but certainly not in reality, that Ireland was favoured
in comparison with other places which sent its produce to this
country.
Mr. II OBINSON (of Worcester) said he was convinced that
the soreness displayed by the learned member for Dublin was
wholly owing, in the first instance, tothat passage in the King's
speech which gave a death-blow to his favourite project of a re-
peal of the union; and, in the next place, in the emphatic echo
to that passage which was given by the overwhelming majority
against the learned gentleman's amendment. Why, in the face
of that majority, did the learned gentleman persevere in scat-
tering the seeds of national discord among a generous but too,
confident people? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. RICHARDS said that he was anxious to support the gov:
ernment in any measures which he should think calculated to
prevent that fatal measure—the dissolution of the legislative
union; but he did not think himself pledged by his vote on the
address to support any coercive measures which ministers might
think it their duty to propose. Before he voted for such mea-
sures he should certainly give them a full and impartial consid-
eration. (Hear.) Notwithstanding all that was said of the
misgovernment of Ireland he was convinced that the country
was improving, and if the system of agitation which prevailed
was put an end to, it would improve much more. He (Mr.
Richards) had incidentally noticed the increase in the exports
of Ireland, and the reply of the hon. member for Oldham was,
that if the exports were a sign of prosperity, the population of
the West India colonies were most prosperous. There was
this great distinction, however, between the two cases, that there
was free labour in the one country, and slave labour in the other.
Mr. J. BROWNE said that he thought the time had arrived when
every Irishman, who had proper feelings of loyalty towards his
King and affection to his country, was bound to come boldly
forward and declare his sentiments. Under certain circum-
stances trial by jury was, in Ireland, a mockery. Jurors were
told that if they gave any verdict but one their lives would be
endangered. Some extraordinary measures were necessary
therefore to meet the exegencies of the case. In introducing
such measures the government should have his support; and he
wished distinctly to declare that, in his opinion, no measure
more fatal and more wanton could be agitated than the question
of the repeal of the union.
Mr. MORGA N O'CONNELL said that, so long as ministers re-
fused to explain their measures, he should take it for granted
that their petitions were to introduce violent coercive measures.
(Hear, hear.) Much was said of the disturbed state of the
country ; lie begged, however, to remind the house that Ire-
land was in a much more disturbed state a
year and a half ago
than it was at present, and that the disturbances at that period