rose to present a petition from some of the most respectable, and he might add most intelligent, silk manufacturers in England. It related to the arrangements which it was understood were to be made for carrying into effect the propositions of the chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of this trade; and it prayed that no alteration might be made in those arrangements. The petitioners especially prayed that there might be no delay in their execution; and they added, that if this question of delay had not been agitated afresh, the whole of their hands would have been by this time in active employment. They also expressed their perfect satisfaction with the intention which had been avowed, of allowing them a drawback upon manufactured articles. With regard to the suggestion as to spreading the operation of the new arrangements over a certain number of years, he really thought it could have no other effect but to paralyze the trade, and repress the energy, which, if the right hon. gentleman's propositions were at once adopted, it would undoubtedly manifest. He had seen that morning some silk merchants, as well as the manufacturers, and had expected to be intrusted with a petition from them. He was, however, enabled to say, that the silk merchants were favourable to the new arrangements.

said, that from the speech of his hon. friend, the House might be induced to suppose, that he was holding it up as the petition of a certain number of persons, in favour of the measures proposed by the chancellor of the Exchequer. No such thing. His hon. friend having favoured him with a sight of this petition, he was enabled to state, that there was in it no recommendation of the measure. What he meant by "the measure" was, the free trade of silk manufactured goods, of the goods of France coming into competition with the goods of this country. Now, in support of this proposition, the petition contained not a single word. The fact, he believed was, that there were some gentlemen in the trade who had large stocks on hand, and who were therefore very willing to put their hands deep into the public purse. But he would repeat, that neither had this, nor any other petition, yet presented, proceeded from any body of persons concerned in the silk trade, who approved of the general principles upon which the House was in this case legislating.

thought the House would know how to estimate the argument of his hon. friend who spoke last, when it remembered the petition, signed by twelve persons, which his hon. friend had presented on the preceding night. Twelve persons, he believed, were all that could be found in the city of London to subscribe it. Those individuals (at the head of whom he observed the respectable name of Hale) wished to keep up the Spitalfields monopoly. Now, the petition which had just been presented was signed by thirty-three of the principal persons of the trade in London, in the short space of two hours and a half; and so far from their not being favourable to the principles upon which the chancellor of the Exchequer was proceeding in this business, they earnestly prayed that the measures proposed by the right hon. gentleman might be acted on with as little delay as possible. He had received a letter from one of the very first houses in London, that of Messrs. Wilson, Moore, and Robinson, in which they expressly said, that, with the time which was now allowed for the arrangements, the silk trade in London had nothing to fear from a competition with the manufactures of France.

said, that any person who had read the evidence taken before a committee of the Lords—evidence not taken with a view to the plans of the chancellor of the Exchequer, but not the less applicable to his views—must feel convinced, that the English manufacturer had nothing whatever to fear from a competition with France. The very man who now petitioned against the arrangements of the chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated before that committee, that in no one article of manufacture had the French any superiority over us. The hon. gentleman next adverted to the East India monopoly, which he considered deserving of immediate attention, Such was the jealousy entertained with respect to the trade in the East Indies, that no clerk or manager, however high in the confidence of his employers in London, would be permitted to go out to India, to manage the concerns there. Much apprehension had been expressed as to the injury which the silk trade might sustain, if the chancellor of the Exchequer persevered in his plans. Now, he was clearly of opinion, that these fears were unfounded, and that before two years had expired, the trade would be found to have extended and improved.

said, he had received letters from various parts of the country, embracing the same opinions as those which the petitioners had expressed. The manufacturers of Coventry were anxious that the right hon. gentleman should not make any alteration in his measures. Indeed, those measures had proceeded so far, that it would be difficult, even if it were desirable, for the right hon. gentleman to go back. Having said so much, he felt himself bound to take notice of an assertion which he had heard that night. It. was said, that the silk manufacturers of this country were able to compete with the manufacturers of France. This he must deny. The English manufacturer was not able to do so in the article of dyeing, nor had he machinery of equal excellence. A number of looms had been some time since imported from France, and Frenchmen had even been brought over to work at them.

begged to remind the House, that with every disposition to obtain and get up petitions on this subject, not one had yet been laid upon the table approving of the whole of the project of the chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. member for Aberdeen had indeed read a letter from one house in London, but that firm had been the advisers of the chancellor of the Exchequer, and were of course anxious that the scheme should be carried speedily into effect, as they had so conducted their speculations as to be burgely benefited by the change.

added, that the petition had been prepared and signed in an hour and an half that morning. The petitioners did not say, that they were satisfied with the measure itself, but with the arrangements to carry it into effect.

expressed a wish, that the chancellor of the Exchequer should state to the House the exact sum which the country was likely to lose by the amount of the drawbacks. Some had fixed it at 100,000l., while others had stated that it would amount to 1,300,000l. He was anxious that the real sum to be lost by the country should be known. He had been applied to by the cloth manufacturers, who were anxious that the duty on their stock on hand should also be taken off. It would be unfair not to put both parties on a footing with respect to a remission of duties.

feared, that although the chancellor of the Exchequer was disposed to be very liberal to the dealers in silk, the dealers in wool would suffer severely by the proposed changes in our system. Reports had gone abroad, that it was not intended by government to allow any drawback upon wool, and he had called the attention of the president of the Board of Trade to the point on a former day. The two trades were of equal importance to the welfare of the state, and ought to be treated with equal justice. The woollen manufacturers were in a state of the greatest alarm, in consequence of an apprehension that they were to be dealt with most unfairly by the chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, that as the petition before the House related to silk and not to wool, a more convenient time might be found for discussing the claims of the manufacturers of the latter. That time was necessarily near at hand, when he should be quite ready to enter fully into the subject; and he undertook to demonstrate, even to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Bristol that the course he intended to pursue, was identically that which the woollen manufacturers themselves had proposed. As to the question which had been put to him by the hon. baronet, he must be aware of the extreme difficulty of arriving at any calculation, as to the cost of this measure, within a few thousand pounds; Thus much he would say, that of all the exaggerations that had ever entered into the mind of man, that which had been propagated so industriously on this subject was the grossest. It had been stated in some quarters, that the drawbacks would amount to not less than from a million to 1,500,000l., but he would venture to assert that they would not even distantly approach any such sum. The calculation, if such it were, seemed founded upon a supposition, that there was a larger quantity of manufactured silk uncut on hand than was possible, in the way in which the trade was carried on; for the compulsion to attend to the fluctuations of fashion and other circumstances, rendered it impossible that there should at any time be a very large stock on hand. Besides, the bounty to be returned was only half the duty paid on the raw material; and, in the third place, that bounty, was only to apply to goods uncut. The expense, in the whole, might perhaps be 200,000l., or even 250,000l. If this expenditure were attended with immediate and increased activity on the part of the manufactories it would soon be more than repaid, not only in the employment for the industry of the people, but in the money actually paid into the Exchequer. The more he had thought of it, the more he was convinced that the calculation was founded upon a gross exaggeration,

said, that he was anxious that the drawback should be allowed on cut as well as uncut silk.

stated, that his constituents were satisfied with the arrangement.

admitted, that the alarm formerly prevailing in Derbyshire had subsided. The silk manufacturers were now content with what had been conceded. He hoped the chancellor of the Exchequer would persevere.

remarked, that the manufacturers of Derbyshire might very reasonably be contented, because the chancellor of the Exchequer had given them a special protection and exemption. They were silk-throwsters, and had an advantage over the rest of the trade, in opposition to all the fine principles of political economy.

presented a petition from the retail silk-mercers of London, praying that the drawback may extend to cut pieces of silk goods. They stated, that ninety-nine hundredths of their stock consisted of cut goods, and contended that they were entitled to compensation, as they should otherwise be losers to the extent of 800,000l.

supported the prayer of the petition, and contended that the retail dealers in silk were better entitled to compensation than the wholesale manufacturers, because they could least afford the loss they would sustain by this measure. He recommended their case to the serious consideration of the chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, that as he understood that the counsel who was to have been heard to-day was prevented from attending by indisposition, he proposed now to go into the committee, merely to fill up the blanks, that it might be put into an intelligible shape, and that on Monday, when the counsel hoped to be able to attend, they might go into the committee again.

wished to represent to the chancellor of the Exchequer the serious hardship upon individuals in this trade who had large stocks of silk, which though not strictly uncut, were in pieces of 30 or 40 yards in length. These dealers would suffer great loss; because, if simply a pattern was cut off, the drawback could not be obtained on it. He had heard of an individual who had a stock of 50,000l., of which 30,000l. consisted of cut pieces.

said, he was perfectly ready to concur in the suggestion of the chancellor of the Exchequer; but he was anxious that the right hon. gentleman should give some explanation to prevent what be had now thrown out from being misunderstood. From the anxiety which prevailed on the subject, he hoped he would now state, that he did not intend to vary, in any material degree, the measure now before the House.

said, he was quite ready to state again, that it would not be expedient to introduce into the bill any changes other than those which he had already mentioned to the House, The bill with the blanks filled up and those amendments introduced, would be in the state in which, according to his view, it ought to pass.

wished to know whether the chancellor of the Exchequer intended to exclude the consideration of the question of cut goods? He hoped not. As the public would pay so much in the way of drawback he trusted that injustice would not be done to a few individuals, by a regulation which would prevent them from receiving the compensation on their stock which others received. He thought some rule should be adopted to give the drawback to all cut pieces of not less than a certain number of yards, say 30 or 40. The rule had, in fact, been already laid down in respect to ribbons; all pieces exceeding 18 yards receiving the drawback.

thought it would be better that the chancellor of the Exchequer should go into the committee, unshackled by any such pledge as that which the hon. member for Coventry wished to exact from him. Let them go into a committee on Monday, and then do what seemed just.

explained, that it was by no means his intention to prevent the chancellor of the Exchequer from yielding in any particular point on which reasons should be offered. He merely wished it to be clearly understood, that the chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to give up his measure in any material point.

said, he perfectly understood the declaration of the chancellor of the Exchequer to go to that extent only. It would certainly be absurd to say to any petitioner "you shall not convince me;" though he was persuaded, in point of fact, that they would not persuade the chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the question of the cut goods, he knew that the allowing the drawback upon them would augment very considerably the sum to be paid by the public; but the more he looked at the question, the less he saw any reason to resist the claim of the holders of this species of goods. The small dealer who had a few hundred, or a thousand pounds worth of silk, consisting of cut pieces, was injured as much, in proportion to his means and fortune, as the great manufacturer, and was just as much entitled to compensation. The shopkeepers seldom had whole pieces of silk, because on fancy goods, large quantities of one kind would be inconvenient. To say that the drawback should not be allowed to them, therefore, was to say, that the large dealers should have compensation, and the small ones none at all. The shopkeeper, as the bill now stood, would have the cheap goods of the manufacturer, to whom the duty had been remitted, poured forth in competition with his goods, on which the duty had not been remitted. A question which he wished to put, as to the words of the resolution, was—as to the meaning of the term "new and uncut," which had puzzled some of the manufacturers. [Mr. Herries said across the table, "Uncut, merely"]. In that sense, all the old and unsaleable rubbish, lying in the corners of shops and warehouses, would be poured in to receive the drawback. As to the term uncut, too, there were some difficulty; for all pieces of silk were cutout of the loom.

said, the term was under stood by the dealers to mean silks made up in the original packages in which the wholesale dealers had supplied them, and not used. He had heard no complaint of the term, which was generally well enough understood.

said, there need be no apprehension of the old and unfashionable pieces of silk being sent in to receive the drawback, because, as soon as the fashion changed, they were usually exported.

said, there seemed a great injustice in the treatment of the holders of uncut goods. The regulation was extremely hard upon many who held 20,000l.or 30,000l.worth of silk, of which great part were cut pieces, He wished to know whether their representations had been heard.

said, that though he had not himself seen the individuals interested in the drawback on cut silk, their case had been fully stated to his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) at the Board of Trade, and, without now going into the case, he would say, that they did not seem to him to have established their claim to have the drawback returned on all their remnants; for to that extent must their claim, if admitted, go. It was not consistent with the principle usually acted upon in the return of duties, nor was it morally possible for the government to receive all the remnants that might be sent in by the little shopkeepers in country towns.

thought it would be impracticable to allow the duties on the cut pieces. The holders of mixed goods would, however, be considerable sufferers by the change of duties. One of his constituents, for instance, was a large holder of silk twist; on which the duty was not returned, though twelve parts of thirteen of its composition was silk, the other thirteenth being mohair. If it was practicable, surely an allowance should be made to persons similarly circumstanced.

called the attention of the committee to the case of those wholesale dealers in silk who sent travellers round the country, and who were in the habit of cutting off small pieces as patterns to shew the colour. Now, these persons, though they might not have sold a yard of their goods, could not get a return of the duty, because they were "cut." Many of his constituents were in this situation, and had from ten to 25,000l.of stock in this condition. As to the country shopkeepers, there need be no alarm on their account, as they were obliged to keep a stock in their shops, at this time of the year. Even if the return of duty were offered them, they could not send much of their goods to the warehouses.

said, he would repeat the question he had put last year—why should a sum be voted to a scientific Institution at Cork more than at Liverpool, or any other city? Certainly some reason should be given why the government, after having set the Institution a-going, should not withdraw its aid, and leave it to be supported by the subscriptions of the inhabitants? Were there any funds from that source?

said, there certainly were funds; but the reason why he proposed a vote for Cork, and should not do so for Liverpool, was, that there was a difference between a town abounding in capital, such as Liverpool, and a much less opulent one, such as Cork.

said, it was proposed in 1806, when this vote was first made, that this should be a circulating grant; that was to say, that after having established the Institution at Cork, the grant should be transferred to some other city.

said, the grant had been a great boon to Cork and its neighbourhood: and he doubted, though the support from private subscriptions was considerable, whether the Institution could survive the cessation of the grant.

said, that in Ireland, as well as in this country and every where else, the moment the government gave its funds, private subscriptions were withdrawn. The subscriptions when the grant was first made were now called considerable. They amounted to sixty pounds a year! This was not very creditable to the public spirit of the people of Cork and its neighbourhood. Were there lectures, and how many students attended them?

said, he should be prepared from the advantages conferred by the Institution on Cork and its neighbourhood, to support the grant, even if the subscriptions were smaller. There were lectures and they were attended; though he could not say by what number of students. The object was, to diffuse information among the middle classes, and in that way the lectures Could not fail to be useful.

said, that the original object of this Institution did not involve the establishment of a botanical garden. The grant ought not to be confined to Cork, but should be extended in succession, to other provincial towns. Belfast, for instance, would have good reason to complain, if Cork enjoyed this parliamentary bounty exclusively.

doubted the policy of such votes as this. As long as parliament defrayed the expenses of such institutions, private munificence would not flow in its natural channel. The greatest benefit that could be conferred on Ireland would be, to diffuse education throughout that unhappy country; the greatest part of which was involved in the grossest bigotry and ignorance. The mass of the people of Ireland could derive no advantage from a botanical institution. If the sense of the House were taken, he should vote against the grant; not that he thought the Institution absolutely useless, but because he thought the money might be more usefully employed.

agreed with the hon. member, that the principle of these parliamentary grants was objectionable, because they tended to discourage local exertion. He did not think it adviseable to withdraw the existing grant, but he certainly should object to any extension of it.

said, he observed that the expense of this establishment considerably exceeded the sum which appeared in the estimates. He wished to know how this difference was made up.

said, that the difference was made up by the members of the society, who contributed materially towards the support of the Institution: each member on his admission paying a sum of 50l.

said, he doubted very much whether any benefit was derived from the Royal Society of Dublin. He believed the member for Limerick and some other hon. members had lately visited the Institution and had expressed their satisfaction at finding every thing nice and neat: but for his part, he really believed, the whole society was a humbug. There was a charge for a school of design. In what way the sums charged for that purpose were applied he knew not. There was also a charge for sending pupils to Rome. He had asked last year, whether any pupils had been sent to Rome, and had been told that there were; but he had reason to doubt the accuracy of this information. There were at present two pupils in London; but if any pupils had been sent to Rome, he should be glad to know their names, and when they were sent. It appeared that 300l.was distributed in premiums to such ladies and gentlemen of Ireland, as might make any scientific discoveries, or improvements in agriculture. The Society of Arts in this country gave medals and rewards, without calling upon the public to defray the charge. Why was not the Royal Society of Dublin put upon the same footing? The people of England were charged with the expenses of an Institution which was, in fact, nothing more than a place of amusement where the gentlemen read the newspapers, while the ladies promenaded on the lawn; which he understood was very pretty. A sum of 750l. was charged for opening collieries, and taking mineralogical surveys. This was surely an unnecessary expense. He trusted that some inquiry would be made without delay into the whole management and expenditure of this Institution.

said, the hon. member had been misinformed as to the object of his recent visit to the Royal Society of Dublin. His object in visiting the Institution was not one of mere curiosity; but as a plan was at that time on foot, among a number of gentlemen in Dublin, for embarking a considerable capital in opening mines, he had visited the Institution for the purpose of obtaining information with a view to that object. He had succeeded in obtaining some very valuable information, and the result had been the formation of a company, with a capital of half a million, for the purpose of carrying into effect some of the plans which had been suggested. The school for design, to which the hon. member had adverted, had been established with a view to the cultivation of the fine arts in Ireland; and that object had been prosecuted with a considerable prospect of success. He was happy to add, that a gentleman who had held an office in the Board of Works, Mr. Johnson, had munificently devoted from 10 to 12,000l.out of his private fortune, for the purpose of building a gallery, for the exhibition of the works of Irish artists.

said, that the utility of the Institution consisted in the opportunity of access which it afforded to various materials, for those who were in the pursuit of the arts and sciences. The lectures delivered there had been productive of great advantage, and were well attended. He was satisfied that the society would be more justly appreciated if its objects were more fully understood.

said, he fully concurred with his right hon. friend as to the utility of the Institution.

said, that all the good which he could discover had arisen from the society, was an improvement in carpentry. No doubt the cabinet-makers were greatly improved in their trade, in consequence of the lectures. But his real opinion was, that politics were more attended to there than matters of science. He should like to know how many mines had been opened, and what was done with the 7,000l. annually voted. There was more of the public money expended annually on the Dublin Society, than upon any literary institution in Europe. Bonaparte, in all his extravagance, never lavished money more wantonly. There never was an institution upon which so much had been expended and so little done. He should therefore be inclined to move a reduction from the vote of 3000l. Nothing could be more ridiculous than the practice of selling seeds in this society. Upon the part of the seedsmen of Dublin he protested against its continuance. It was contrary to the principles of free trade, that Timothy Wilson should be allowed to undersell the ordinary dealers.

said, he thought that the hon. gentleman, instead of proposing the reduction of this vote, would do well to go over to Dublin and subscribe 50l. to the Dublin Society, and become a member of it. From the porters of the establishment, the hon. gentleman would no doubt collect some very valuable suggestions; wherewith he would be able to make out a most excellent new case, if he should be defeated in this.

said, he would be most happy to attend to the suggestion of the right hon. secretary, if he would promise to allow him a committee on the spot.

suggested to the right hon. secretary for Ireland, to propose the admission of his hon. friend as an honorary member, as soon as he returned to that country. His hon. friend was well acquainted with the details of the Institution, and with all its proceedings, and there was no doubt that whether admitted as an honorary member or as a pecuniary subscriber, his presence would be productive of great advantage.

thought that the right hon. secretary for Ireland should convince himself of the public utility of the vote, before he called for the vote of next year. The Horticultural Society was not supported by public subscription; and he saw no reason why the Dublin Society, as well as all others, should not be supported by individual contributions.

said, he looked upon this Institution as a national museum. It was the fashion now-a-days to have museums. Paris had her museum, London had hers, and he could see no reason why Dublin should be without one.

said, that by the measure of the Union, England had withdrawn from Ireland her wealth and capital; and it should not be forgotten, that many of the institutions in this country, which boasted of their ability to exist without a public grant, received large donations from Irish noblemen and gentlemen resi- dent here. At the time of the Union, a promise was specifically held out, that these grants, instead of being diminished, should be augmented, according as the exigencies of the country required them. He referred gentlemen to the committee which sat in 1815, on the expenditure of the united kingdom. They would find that the exertions in Ireland to raise those contributions had been far greater, in proportion, than in this part of the empire. It was unwise to press upon a country for more contributions than they were able to pay; they were then driven to subscribe, not from income but principal. His only objection to these grants was, that they were not all united in one common fund, instead of being divided as at present. The funds voted by parliament might then be distributed in the manner most conducive to the interests of the country.

said, he was more and more confirmed in his opinion by the speech of the right hon. baronet as to the impolicy of supporting these institutions by the public money. That Irishmen contributed largely to the institutions in this country, it would ill-become him to deny. That assertion was well founded; and upon that alone he would found his opinion, that parliament should not interfere. That the Irish gentry should be so insensible to national pride and national honour, as to neglect the institutions of their own country whilst they supported those of another, was what he could never believe would be done without some good cause. The cause appeared: to him to be this—that they thought their money would be better expended on institutions which were supported by individual contributors than on establishments which were sure to be lavishly supplied with money from parliament. He had the honour and happiness to be acquainted with many Irishmen; and he was persuaded, from their national feeling, that if this grant were withdrawn, they would at once come forward to support the institutions of their own country. Once give them this stimulus, and the institutions in Ireland would soon vie in splendor and vigour with the most favoured establishments of this country.

said, he could not hear the people of Ireland accused of any indisposition to contribute to the support of the charitable or literary institutions of the country. There was not a disease to which the human frame was subject, for the remedy of which some establishment did not exist in Dublin. There was no city in the world in which there were more liberal contributions and, connected as he was officially with Ireland, he should be most inattentive to his duty, if he failed to repel such a charge; for, in the great cause of charity, Ireland, if not superior, was at least equal with England. His only object in rising was, to correct the impression which had been erroneously made. If, by the measure of the Union we had compelled a portion of the Irish gentry to reside in England, it was natural that they should contribute to the support of institutions from which they derived advantage.

said, he must have been greatly misunderstood, if it was supposed that he meant to make the slightest charge either against any individuals connected with Ireland, or the body of the people at large. His object was, not censure, but praise. His great objection to the grant was founded upon the impolicy of supporting these institutions by the public money.

said, that he also had not the slightest idea of casting any reflection on the Irish people. If he were asked, whether he would withdraw these grants, he should answer no; but his objection to them was, that he could not learn how the money was applied. Only once point out to him how the people of Ireland could really be benefited, and he would vote double or treble the sum proposed.

said, he should like to know what they want with wide streets in Dublin. If the people of London widened their own streets, why should not the people of Dublin do the same? He saw here a sum of money to defray the interest of the funded debt. Now, he could not see why they should go beyond their means, or get in debt at all. This must have been done by the corporation [no, no, no, from Mr. Ellis and some others!]. Well, he thought the corporation were the only people who could have acted so foolishly. Really, to call upon the English people to pay for widening the streets of Dublin, exceeded any thing that ever came to his knowledge. Notwithstanding all that was said about the poverty of Dublin, he had been informed, that within a short period two companies had been established in that city with a capital of 2, or 300,000l.each. If the Irish metropolis required these improvements, let those who wanted them provide the means; but why should the people of Aberdeen, for instance, be taxed for this purpose.

said, his hon. friend ought to have known, that to much of the distress which had existed from time to time in Ireland, this country had been instrumental. His hon. friend was constantly objecting to the votes for Ireland, but we grant money for the purchase of pictures and works of art in this country, and why should not Ireland have the same advantages? As to the widening the streets of Dublin, he could not say, whether it was necessary or not but he would tell his hon. friend, that the inhabitants of Dublin had as good a right to public money for this purpose as the people of Scotland had for the making of the Caledonian canal, or for the repairing of their roads. He regarded this subject in quite a different light; and the only objection he had to the present vote was, lest it might be converted into a job. He should be happy to see a much more liberal and extensive grant proposed. England owed a long debt of gratitude to Ireland, for much of her present splendor and prosperity had been derived from the humiliation of Ireland. Upon that subject he would not now enter; but as an Englishman, having no connexion or interest with Ireland further than the dictates of his own conscience, he would say that if the grant were infinitely more liberal, it should have his cordial support.

said, that in addition to the general principles, so strongly and laudably urged by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and who had taken so deep an interest in the welfare of Ireland, there were local reasons which made it necessary to extend the grant to Ireland. No part of the empire had suffered more than Dublin in consequence of the removal of the parliament. The Irish parliament had always been liberal in their grants for the improvement of Dublin, and it would ill become them to be niggardly. Let the hon. member for Aberdeen only look at the money voted for improving the avenues leading to that House; for the improvements in Westminster Abbey, and other places; and he would find that it was only justice to do the same for Dublin. All this money had been contributed by the people of Ireland, as well as of England; and if the Irish people were to pay for the local improvements of London, he could see no reason why the same sacrifice should not be made by the people of England for the improvement of Dublin.

said, that the grants to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, by no means justified the present grant. He considered the grant to Westminster Abbey to be very ill bestowed, especially as the public were now excluded from entering it, unless they paid a heavy fee to the Dean and Chapter. No grants had ever been made to the citizens of London for the improvement of their city. A Member.— London Bridge, to wit."

allowed, that 1,50,000l.had been granted for the purpose; but contended that it made no difference to his argument, as he had been one of ten members who opposed it. Besides, it was only a payment to the city out of the funds which it had set aside in the reign of queen Anne for the building of new churches, and which for the last seventy years had been diverted into the public exchequer. The proposed grant, in his opinion, was perfectly unjustifiable.

rose to suggest a mode of diminishing this grant. A funded debt had been created most improperly; and now, instead of paying interest at the rate of 6 per cent, they might raise an advantageous loan, by which means a considerable saving might be effected.

rose to inquire, if the reform which had last year been promised as to the stationery department had been carried into effect?

was not aware that any promise had been made to effect a reform, or that any reform was necessary. Formerly, there were complaints that the price of the stationery was too high, and an arrangement had in consequence been made with the person who held the patent for supplying the stationery, that he should supply it at the same rate as other persons would do. On his observing that condition, the paper was still supplied by him.

said, it had been understood that the prices of stationery in Ireland were to be brought down to the level of those in England.

replied, that the prices could not be brought down to that level, because the greater part of the paper consumed in Ireland was English paper. The course now taken was this—a list of prices was furnished every year from England, and upon those prices 10 per cent additional was allowed in Ireland to the patentee, besides 6½ per cent, in consideration of his supplying the stationery retail, which saved the expense to government of a separate establishment.

thought it more than questionable whether the Crown had the power to grant patents for the supply of articles for the public service. The effect of this system, which was a remnant of the monopoly abuse of the reign of Elizabeth, was, that we were paying 16½ per cent for stationery in Ireland, more than we paid for it in England. What advantage it was to Ireland that the paper consumed there should come from England, he did not well understand. If the clerks in Ireland made shift to write upon Irish paper, it would, be to say the least of it, quite as well.

said, the paper was furnished at the lowest rate at which the public could possibly be served. The right hon. baronet asked, why persons in the different offices could not write on Irish, instead of English paper. Now he believed the right hon. baronet himself, when he was in office never wrote on Irish paper. He was convinced, if the right hon. baronet had as many letters to write as fell to his (Mr. G.'s) lot, he would be anxious to use English paper, on account of its superior smoothness. He was sure the committee would agree with him, that it was true economy to procure a good article at an advanced price, rather than a bad one at a very low rate.

said, that when he had last year proposed that the printing of certain public documents, should be executed in England, by which a saving of 2,500l.might have been effected, the right hon. secretary exclaimed "Oh! how can you think of injuring Ireland, by taking from her this branch of the public printing? "Now, he wished to learn, why the right hon. secretary did not adopt the 6ame principle with respect to the purchase of paper As to the inferiority of the paper, he would only say, that if they gave a fair price, they would procure as good an article in Ireland, as they could elsewhere. Much had been said of the right of an individual to supply the government offices of Ireland with paper; but, did not gentlemen recollect that sir Samuel Shepherd had given it as his opinion, that there was no patent? And why should they countenance this monopoly in the person of such a man as sir Bradley King? Could any man place his hand on his heart and say, that the transactions which had been brought before parliament, in which this sir Bradley King had taken a prominent part, were fair and just? Many an individual had been discharged from his situation, Who had not done half so much as he had been proved to have done.

said, that as to the inconsistency imputed to him, of having the printing done in Ireland and procuring the paper from England, the printing could be done, as well in Ireland as in England; but the paper could not be got so good in the former country as in the latter. If the patentee supplied the paper as cheap as it could be got elsewhere, there was economy in allowing him to continue it.

said, it appeared, from papers which had been laid before parliament, that the public had been defrauded to a considerable extent, in the stationery department in Dublin. What was the excuse which was made on that occasion? Why, they were told, that though the money went into the pocket of the master it was totally without his knowledge that the fraud was committed by his servant. There ought in his opinion, to be 2,000l. struck from this vote, which was paid in the way of commission.

opposed the grant. He could see no reason, why a mode of promulgating proclamations should be adopted in Ireland, different from that which was followed in this country. It had been over and over again stated, that the system, pursued in Ireland, with respect to publishing proclamations, was adopted for the purpose of bribing a great part of the public press in that country. Those who were thus bought over were ready to argue that black was white, or white was black. It sometimes happened, when there was not one of those convenient instruments in a county in which an outrage—calling for a proclamation was committed, that that proclamation scarcely appeared on the scene of the disturbance, though it was profusely published every where else. Thus the charge to the public was increased, whilst the effect of the proclamation was in a great measure destroyed. He had before shown the absurdity, partiality, and injustice of this system. It was proper that it should be altered, and therefore he should move that the sum of 3,250l.be substituted for 6,500l.

could not conceive why the right hon. gentleman should call for precisely the same sum this year as he had done in the last. What reason had he to suppose that the proclamations would be equally numerous?

defended the grant, the amount of which, he observed, was calculated with reference to the probable expenditure. Of course, if there were any surplus, it would be accounted for. He wished it to be understood, that the notices of commutation under the tithe bill, which, in consequence of a clause introduced into that bill at the suggestion of the hon. member for Limerick, must be inserted in the Gazette, had last year created an expense of 2,000l.; so that, taking this into consideration, the grant was by no means a large one.

thought, that this explanation of the right hon. gentleman only made the matter worse. For, if 6,000l.were enough notwithstanding this additional expense of 2,000l.which the right hon. gentleman said he had occasioned, how was it that he had required the same sum before that additional expense was incurred?

was also at a loss to know why, because this item of expenditure had amounted to a certain sum in the last year, it was to be estimated as amounting to exactly the same sum in the present.

observed, that if there was any surplus remaining of the grant, it would be satisfactorily accounted for.

alluded to some abuses that had been discovered on this subject a few years ago. It then appeared, that these proclamations were given to the Editors of certain country papers, for the purpose of bribing them to support the measures of Government; although their circulation was so small as not to render the insertion at all advantageous to the public. Why not confine the publication of the proclamations to the Gazette, as in this country.

said, that the proclamations in question were frequently inserted to fill up the country papers, without being paid for by government.

said, that if the country papers did not want money for the insertion of the proclamations, why vote this grant?

observed, that the Dublin aldermen, who received salaries for attending at the Police offices as justices, did not devote their time to the duties of those offices, but carried on business in Dublin.

defended the aldermen. He said, that the barristers, who were also justices, gave as much of their time as was necessary, to the business of the police offices.

said, he did not think that the member for Dublin was the best possible judge of the mode of discharging the duties of a public officer. That hon. member received an enormous salary, for acting as master in Chancery in Dublin—an office supposed to have responsible and arduous duties attached to it, until, to the surprise of every body, the hon. member had entered that House. He would wish to put a question to the hon. gentleman. Had he any duties to perform as master in Chancery? If he had not, how could he reconcile it to himself to take a large sum of the public money every year for doing nothing? If he had duties to perform in his office in Dublin, what brought him into that House? How could he with propriety remain during the session in London, when he ought to be attending to the business of his office in Dublin? With respect to the corporation of Dublin, and the aldermen of that body, it would be quite impossible that he or any other person on earth could feel any thing but profound respect for them; but, was it not somewhat disparaging to their dignity to see those worthy aldermen take pay for performing certain duties, whilst the aldermen of London discharged similar duties as zealously and actively, without ever thinking of fee or salary Were the corporation of Dublin to be considered a beggarly set, meanly receiving money for doing certain acts, which the corporation of London did as efficiently without any charge to the public? God forbid! He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman would free the corporation of Dublin from this embarrassment, and do away with a pecuniary reward, which must be not less injurious to their dignity, than it must be unpleasant to the feelings of the body.

said, that the hon. gentleman seemed ignorant of the constitution of the corporation. There were but a few aldermen who received salaries as police magistrates. The great body of the aldermen did not receive salaries.

said, he was of opinion, that the numerous laws for regulating the linen trade of Ireland were no longer necessary. There were upwards of three hundred regulations for the managing of the making, packing, and selling of yarn and linen. Similar laws had existed in Scotland, but were repealed last year; and every one concerned in the Scotch manufacture, allowed that the repeal had been attended with advantage to the trade. These numerous laws were not only attended with vexation to the weavers and spinners, but were the source of frauds being practised by inspectors and seal-masters. They were the cause of the linen manufacture not being extended to the South of Ireland; for the numerous penalties deterred strangers from exposing themselves to their operation. Much more would be done towards establishing this trade in the south, by repealing all these laws, than by the continuance of the bounties.

was of opinion, that the cases of Ireland and Scotland were not analogous. He strongly urged the new modelling of the Linen Board.

said, that the linen trade was carried on in Scotland exactly in the same way as in Ireland; that the weavers lived over the country; that the laws about seal-masters, inspectors, and making-up yarn and linen, had been exactly the same in Scotland as they are in Ireland; and that the greatest advantages had been derived from the repeal of those laws. There was no second opinion on the subject in Scotland.

contended, that the purchasers of linen in Ireland were perfectly satisfied with the laws: and that, as the weaving was carried on by poor people, there would be endless frauds, were it not for the inspection and measuring of the linen.

referred to the report of the select committee of 1822, which expressed an opinion in favour of the policy of these laws. He denied that the repeal of the bounties would injure the Irish trade.

animadverted strongly upon the observations of the last speaker upon the bounties, and justified the laws as necessary to the protection of the trade. He, however, fully agreed as to the propriety of some alteration in the constitution of the Linen Board. He strongly objected to the opinions of the hon. baronet (sir H. Parnell) concerning the repeal of the bounties.

urged the necessity of making the Linen Board a more efficient body.

said, he was fully sensible of the many vexatious and useless regulations which fettered the linen trade of Ireland. He could not feel at all satisfied with the report of the select committee. He wondered how any trade could have prospered under these regulations. This code of laws which had been in existence for a century, had been varied almost every ten years, thus keeping the trade in a. constant state of uncertainty. He believed that no regulation could exist without a corresponding injury and that every sound view of this important branch of industry called for the repeal of all the regulating laws. The case of Scotland was in every respect the same as the case of Ireland; and nothing could be more successful than the measure of last session, for repealing all the Scotch Linen laws had been. All parties agreed in this, both buyers and sellers; and if the same course were pursued in respect to the Irish laws, it would no doubt be attended with the same effect.

begged to assure his right hon. friend (Mr. V. Fitzgerald), that he had not formed his opinions about the Linen bounties, merely upon theory. He believed that all the acknowledged general principles of trade could be sustained by reference to facts and experience. By such a reference he was ready to contend, that the bounties could not do what the advocates of them said they would do; namely, increase the employment of the people. The employment of the people could not be increased without an increase of capital. But how would the bounties increase capital? The fact was, that in proportion as the bounties brought capital into employment in the South of Ireland, to make linen, they would take it from some other occupation, and thus throw as many people out of employ in one way, as they gave employment to in another. The justification which had been set up for the linen laws by the member for Derry (Mr. Dawson), that they were necessary to prevent frauds, was the same that had been regularly advanced in support of the policy of all regulating laws. It was right to attend to the interests of the weavers as well as to those of the buyers; but he could not approve of so many penal regulations. This doctrine of protecting purchasers was founded on the mistaken views of the motives that influenced all men who depended upon their industry for their bread. The necessity of securing purchasers, was a certain inducement to fairness and honesty, and was quite a sufficient guarantee against all frauds. Purchasers had it always in their power to protect themselves against dishonesty; and no better course could be taken by the legislature than leaving every thing upon the wholesome saying of "caveat emptor."