§ The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, Mr. Goulburn moved, That 2000l.be granted to defray the expense of the Royal Cork Institution, for the year 1824."
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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?
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, 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.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, it was proposed in 1806, when this vote was first made, that this should be a circulating grant; 1294 that was to say, that after having established the Institution at Cork, the grant should be transferred to some other city.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, 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.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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as well as in this country and every where else, the moment the government gave its funds, private subscriptions were withdrawn.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?
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, 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.
§ Sir J. Newportsaid, 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.
§ Mr. W. Williamsdoubted 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.
Mr. Secretary Peelagreed with the hon. member, that the principle of these parliamentary grants was objectionable, 1295 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.
§ On the resolution, "That 7,000l. be granted to defray the expense of the Royal Dublin Society, for the year 1824,"
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, 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.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, 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.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, 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.
§ Mr. T. Ellissaid, he fully concurred with his right hon. friend as to the utility of the Institution.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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 1297 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.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, 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.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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.
Mr. Alderman Woodsuggested 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.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonthought 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.
§ Mr. Moncksaid, 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.
§ Sir J. Newportsaid, 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- 1298 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.
§ Mr. W. Williamssaid, 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.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, 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 1299 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.
§ Mr. W. Williamssaid, 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.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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.
§ On the resolution "That 10,000l.be granted, to defray the expense of the Commissioners of Wide Streets in Dublin, for the year 1824,"
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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 1300 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.
§ Mr. John Smithsaid, 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.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, 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 1301 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.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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."
§ Mr. Humeallowed, 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.
§ Sir John Newportrose 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.
§ On the resolution, "That 16,000l.be granted, to defray the expense of printing, stationery, and other disbursements of the chief and under secretaries offices and departments, and other public offices in Dublin Castle, &c."
§ Mr. Humerose to inquire, if the reform which had last year been promised as to the stationery department had been carried into effect?
§ Mr. Goulburnwas 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 1302 persons would do. On his observing that condition, the paper was still supplied by him.
§ Mr. Humesaid, it had been understood that the prices of stationery in Ireland were to be brought down to the level of those in England.
§ Mr. Goulburnreplied, 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.
§ Sir J. Newportthought 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.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, 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.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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 1303 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.
§ Mr. Goulburnsaid, 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.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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.
§ On the resolution, "That 6,500l.be granted to defray the expense of publishing Proclamations, and other matters of a public nature, in the Dublin Gazette, and other newspapers in Ireland, for the year 1824,
§ Mr. Humeopposed 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 1304 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.
Mr. Hutchinsoncould 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?
§ Mr. Goulburndefended 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.
§ Mr. S. Ricethought, 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?
§ Sir J. Newportwas 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.
§ Mr. Goulburnobserved, that if there was any surplus remaining of the grant, it would be satisfactorily accounted for.
§ Mr. Bennetalluded to some abuses 1305 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.
§ Mr. Dawsonsaid, that the proclamations in question were frequently inserted to fill up the country papers, without being paid for by government.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that if the country papers did not want money for the insertion of the proclamations, why vote this grant?
§ The committee divided: for the Amendment 27. Against it, 51.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Althorp, visc. | Newport, sir J. |
| Allen, J. H. | Palmer C. F. |
| Bennet, hon. H. G. | Parnell, sir H. |
| Calcraft, J. | Robarts, G. |
| Calvert, C. | Rumbold, C. |
| Duncannon, visc. | Rice, S. |
| Evans, W. | Rickford, W. |
| Hamilton, lord A. | Robinson, sir G. |
| Hobhouse, J. C. | Smith, J. |
| Hume, J. | Tierney, rt. hon. G. |
| Hutchinson, hon. C. H. | Webb, Ed. |
| James, W. | Wood, alderman. |
| Kennedy, T. F. | |
| Leader, W, | TELLER. |
| Monck, J. B. | Gordon, R. |
§ On the resolution, "That 27,000l.be granted, to defray the expenses of the Police and Watch Establishments of Dublin, for the year 1824,"
§ Mr. Spring Riceobserved, 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.
§ Mr. T. Ellisdefended 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.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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 1306 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.
§ Mr. Ellissaid, 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.
§ On the resolution, "That 19,938l. 9s. 2½d be granted, to defray the expense of the linen board of Ireland, for the year 1824,"
§ Sir H. Parnellsaid, 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 1307 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.
§ Mr. Spring Ricewas of opinion, that the cases of Ireland and Scotland were not analogous. He strongly urged the new modelling of the Linen Board.
§ Mr. Humesaid, 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.
§ Mr. Dawsoncontended, 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.
§ Sir G. Hillreferred 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.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgeraldanimadverted 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.
§ Sir John Newporturged the necessity of making the Linen Board a more efficient body.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, 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. 1308 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.
§ Sir H. Parnellbegged 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."
§ The several resolutions were agreed to.