said, he held in his hand a petition from Richard T. Blunt, for himself and others, distillers of the city of Cork, praying to be heard themselves, or counsel, against this bill.

stated, that if it was a petition against a tax bill, it was contrary to the standing orders to receive it. The petition being read, it was found to have nothing in it contrary to the standing orders, and was ordered to lie on the table. On the motion that the petitioner be heard by himself or counsel on the report,

suggested that the proper time for hearing counsel would be before the committee, and moved that the bill be now read a 2d time.

pleaded the injury which this bill would do to the trade of Ireland, as an excuse for his counting out the house upon it yesterday, and for the opposition which he was about to give it in the present stage. It was not necessary for him here to enter into any panegyric on the loyalty of the distillers of Ireland, or to state their willingness to support a fair proportion of the public burdens of their country. It was sufficient for him to say what he could clearly establish, that some of the provisions of this bill were contrary to the principles of the act of union. The Irish distillers, in consequence of certain revenue laws in Ireland, enjoyed a bounty of 8 per cent. on all spirits distilled in stills of above 500 gallons, of 16 per cent. on all distilled in stills of above 1000 gallons. This regulation was still more beneficial to the revenue than to the distiller, for the effect of it had been to increase the revenue from distilleries from 60,000l. to 120,000l. in the first year. and at last to 800,000l. and to reduce the number of distilleries from 1000 to 600, and thereby diminish the expense of collection. These provisions were granted prior to the union, and enforced then. At the union, by the 3d section of the 6th article, it was enacted, that all articles of the growth, produce, and manufactures of either country, should be imported into the other, on paying the same duties which were paid for similar articles in the country into which the importation was made. A regulation had been made conformably to this principle, for the mutual importation of the produce and manufacture of both countries, and papers had been laid on the table, and schedules had been framed accordingly, in which no alteration had been, as to these duties, which were the only advantage the Irish had. This bounty had now been enjoyed 20 years by the Irish distillers, and it was to be supposed that those who had framed the present schedules were not aware of this and the other circumstances when they arranged them. In the 2d clause of the 6th article, where the rights of the English distillers were proved, for it was enacted, that all duties and bounties which interfered with the mutual intercourse should cease,' and this allowance was still permitted to subsist. It may be said, the act of union did away this allowance; he submitted it did not, for all that the union allowed was, the power of enacting a counteracting duty, to counteract internal regulation. If there was any person who was more concerned than another to guard the rights of Ireland in this instance, it was the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose faith was pledged that the provisions of the act of union should not be a mere dead letter. What he principally rested on was the declining state of the revenue of Ireland, he would not say in consequence of the union; but at least since that measure, the increase of the debt of Ireland, the falling off of the manufactures of that country, even of its staple, the linen manufacture, according to the high authority of the right hon. gent. the diminution of its provision trade, the annihilation of its woollen manufacture, and that this was the only point in which the trade of Ireland had any prosperity. He did not say that the union did not afford many sources of public benefit, but none of them had yet come into action, and this was, in fact, the only benefit that Ireland enjoyed; but the manufacturers here found out it was some advantage to Ireland, and they wished to take it away. The question was before the judges, and there was every reason to believe their decision would be in favour of the Irish manufactures. Why then, was it proposed to turn short, and to endeavour by this act to deprive the Irish distillers of the advantage they enjoyed. The most respectable legal opinions of both countries had been taken on this measure, and the result of all was, that this benefit should not be taken away from Ireland. This bill was held out as a boon to the Irish nation, by excusing the payment of duty on warehousing; but on the distillers it would be a burden, as it deprived them of their former allowance, Of the spirits which were exported from Ireland, nine-tenths were sent to Britain; so that on the remaining portion no advantage could be counted on. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware of the preset it state of Ireland. The right hon. gent. built his glory on the achievement of the union, and if the union could be carried into effect, by the consolidation of the affections, and the advantages of both parts of the empire, it would have that effect; but he was sure, if the right hon. gent. clearly turned his attention to this bill, he was sure he would not so far counteract the interest of Ireland.

said, this question lay in a narrow compass. There could be no doubt of the religious obligation of the act of union, in the letter as well as in the spirit. In the spirit, nothing could be more clear, than that articles of the produce and manufacture of each country, should be admitted into the other, on paying the same duty that the home manufacturers paid. On this principle, all spirits from Ireland to G. Britain were to receive a drawback to the amount of the whole of the duties they had paid at home, to be charged in England with the same as home-trade spirits paid here. It happened, that in Ireland, an allowance of 8 per cent. was given to stills of 500 gallons, of 16 per cent. to spirits distilled in stills of 1000 gallons. When these spirits came to be exported, they received a drawback of the whole they had paid, with the allowance, which operated as a bounty of 8 per cent. in one instance, and of 16 in the other, against the British spirit. It was true, this regulation had subsisted as an internal one in Ireland for 20 years, and great benefit had been found from it to the revenue. As an internal regulation, it was allowed to remain, but he did not think any regulation could be regarded as a permanent compact. At the time the regulation was adopted, there could be no view to the union, but having been passed by the act of union, was it to be supposed that it was to be unaltered. Every act of the separate parliaments remained subject to the discretion of the united parliament. With respect to the legal opinions, the only difference was, that the Irish law officers thought this allowance so opposite to the spirit of the act of union, that it must have been done away by that act; the English law officers, though they agreed that the allowance was contrary to the spirit of that act, thought it was due to the letter of that act to frame a legislative measure for that purpose. One thought it was not necessary to apply to parliament, the other thought it was. He had considered the subject particularly, and he was convinced that if, this provision was not agreed to, there would be such a hardship on the English distillers as he could not reconcile himself to be a party to.

, at the time the act of union was passed, expected that there would have arisen many delicate questions of this sort between the two countries. Although there were many different ways of doing away the inequality complained of, yet he must support the principle that the intercourse between the different parts of the united kingdom should be as much as possible on the principle of equality.

perfectly agreed that equality was the fair principle by which the intercourse of the two countries should be governed; but in the present difficulties and embarrassments of Ireland, he thought as much tenderness as possible should be used towards her.

said, that when representations were made on this subject last year, it was clearly the opinion of the Irish govt. that this allowance was a bounty; and the only question was, whether the act of union, coupled with the temporary acts which had followed, had established them so as to make them a matter of faith. Proceedings had been commenced by the distillers here for laying their case before parliament, but had been withdrawn on the assurance of the consideration of their case on the part of govt.

said, the Irish parliament was not pledged eternally to an act, which, if not annually renewed, expired every 29th of September. He contended that the corn laws of the present session did vast benefit to Ireland beyond what it suffered by this bill. This allowance of a deduction of 16l. for every 100l. was in fact a bounty as 16l. on 84l. or of 20l. per cent.; the advantage of warehousing was besides to be considered. The Irish distillers, who had come to London last year on the subject, would, he was sure, have been very well satisfied with this arrangement, so he was sure would the whole of the Irish distillers, when the measure was explained to them.

allowed the provision alluded to had been in force in Ireland for 20 years, and had teen instituted without any view to the union. How then could the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt), be so clear as to the sense of the articles of union, when this provision of the Irish parliament of such long standing had not been altered by the act of union, and had been confirmed by every act since that æra? If it was so obvious that this was an injustice to the English distillers, why was not that injustice pointed out before? It was true, application had been made by the English distillers, but these applications had always been withdrawn. Hence there was reason to presume that the allowance would be continued, and the Irish distillers had accordingly vested their capital in large works, and extensive stock. This was hard. The thing should be left to a legal decision, and while that was expected, the allowance should not be withdrawn, where there was reason to expect that the trade of Ireland would be fostered and cherished.

was persuaded, that if this point was not noticed in forming the schedule on the act of union, it was by oversight. Application had been made by the English distillers, and redress had been promised in one way or another. The only fair principle was, the principle of equality; and if the extent of works and the expenditure of capital was added, it would weigh infinitely on the side of the English distillers.

was sure, that when the Irish distillers understood this bill, they would look upon what it took away from them as a just privation, and, on what it gave them as a benefit. Before the union, no exportation of Irish spirits could take place to England, now there was no limit to that exportation. Before the union, there was no power of warehousing, now there was. The duty at the union was very low; it was now 4s. a gallon, and all this was saved to the distiller. These advantages were long wished for by Ireland, and he was happy to have introduced the measure which gave them.

complained that this measure was brought forward at this late period of the session, when so few Irish members were present, when those birds of passage lately brought over for occasional service, and who were seen in such numbers a few days back, had returned to their native clime. If this advantage to Ireland, was an oversight in the act of union, the surrender of the constitution of that country, may be said to be a greater oversight. If it were now to be said, give us back that constitution, the surrender of which was an oversight, what would be the answer? At the sole advantage which Ireland enjoyed was asked back on the same ground. Parliament was certainly competent to make an alteration in this point, but he feared it scarce would.

contended, that there was at that moment a much larger proportion of Irish representatives, than any other in the house; and these were gent. of intelligent and enlightened minds, who had paid great attention to all business relating to Ireland. This fact, he thought it necessary to assert, in order to obviate the mischief which might be occasioned in Ireland, if the statement of the hon. gent. should go there uncontradicted If it was the hon. gent's intention to make himself popular in Ireland, by opposing this bill, it was the duty of every Irish member to deliver his sentiments upon it. The corn bill recently sent up to the Lords, was a proof that the parliament did not wish to deprive Ireland of any advantages. But what injury did this bill do to Ireland? None. The distillers had invested their capitals long before the exportation of their manufacture was allowed, or thought of: and this bill only went to regulate the duties to be paid on spirits when brought to this country.—After some observations from Col. Longfield, Mr. Ward, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Ker, the bill was read a 2d time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.

rose merely to ask a question relative to a point to which he should feel himself bound to call the attention of the committee, if the answer should not be satisfactory. The preamble of this bill stated, that it was to repeal all the existing duties on stamps, for which those contained in the subsequent schedules were substituted. The point on which he wanted explanation was, whether it was proposed to increase the stamp duty on newspapers. He supposed it was not intended, but until the matter should be explained, the bill appeared to have that effect. The discount for prompt payment was at present 16 per cent. and there was also an allowance of 18s. made to newspaper proprietors, as an equivalent for the rise in the price of paper, when the additional duty had been laid on paper. The 16 per cent. discount was inserted in the schedule of the bill, but there was no mention of the allowance of 18s. and it would be manifest, that if the bill were to repeal the act by which that allowance had been made, without re-enacting it, the effect would be to lay an additional duty to the extent of that allowance, on newspapers.

, replied, that the allowance was made out of the excise on paper, and that the present repealed only the stamp acts, and left all allowances under any other acts totally undisturbed. The matter, however, should be attended to.—The house then resolved itself into a committee. Many of the clauses of the bill were strenuously contested, more particularly that which tended to impose an additional tax on attorneys and proctors, in the form of an annual license. Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Fonblanque, Mr. Serjeant Best, Dr. Lawrence, and others, argued against the clause, both as a stigma on the profession, and as unjust and oppressive.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney General admitted the force of the objections to a certain extent, and consented to modify and reduce the tax in certain proportions, to be calculated from the length of time that the persons concerned were in the actual exercise of their profession. On the clause proposing an additional duty of 3d. on every sheet of paper employed in law proceedings, an opposition of some length ensued, principally on the part of Mr. Sheridan, Dr. Laurence, Mr. Serjeant Best, &c. when a division took place—Ayes 43, Noes 10, majority in favour of the clause 33.—The other clauses and amendments then went through the committee without any material alteration; and the house being resumed, the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.—Adjourned.