University of South Carolina Libraries
"?v' MM8, STATE PRINTER. COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, JUKE 26, I8a?. _ _ , *,???. VOLUME XV?KCMMHl JW. PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY MOHMKQ ttMM8?Tkrm Dotlart jwr w?w,pf?lf? id ?lMMti?rFNr Dolim pqpbltmt tkttmdi/ f A ? yiir. ADVERTISEMENTS in?Tint ?i(k**mulrmltr TARIFF. r'OM TMB ruk T?*l ADVOCATB , 2 Ae doctrine of counter restriction*. Amonnt the idvocaUl of the restrictive system, there ere many who hold the opin ion that the principles of free trade are those upon whieh the policy of a state should he founded, provided, that all nations were to adopt themt bat who think them to bo er rooeoas, in the aeteal condition of the world, whUstso many countrieshavedeparted from them. This view of the subject, which has been widely propagated, has done more to strengthen the prohibitory party, than all their other arguments put together. Al though we have examined this doctrine up on a former occasion, in our temarks upon Mr. Madison's letters, it is a subject of suf ficient importance, to merit a repeated in vestigation, and we shall therefore trouble the reader with the following additloiml views. Legislative protection, by high duties, imposed for the purpose of excluding for eign commodities in whole or in part, i? ne ver resorted to, except where a foreign ar ticle can be imported cheaper than a similar or a kindred one can be made at home. A protective law, therefore, is a law declar ing, that the productive power of the nation shall be so applied as to produce less of per tain commodities, than it Is capable of pro ducing, if left to the exercise of its faculties in a slate ot perfect freedom. It is a law in other words, which declares that it is bet ter for a nation to have few commodities, than to have many?that it is better to buy dear than to buy cheap?or what Is the same thing, that it is better for individuals to pro cure the necessaries of life by n more labo rious than by a less laborious process. For, if a bale of cotton be put into the hold of a ship, and be there converted, by the process called commerce, into 300 yards of cotton cloth, whdst a similar bale of cotton, put into n factory, can, by the process called manufacture, be con verted only into 300 yards, it is very clear, that those who advocate the latter mode of production, consider that the cummunity is much better ofT with two hundred yards of cloth, than with three hundred. Now, in this view of the subiec;, there is something so absurd, that we doubt if a sin gle individual in the land could be found to yield his assent to it, so revolting is it to the dictates of common sense; snd yet, strange us it mnv appear, this is the doctrine upon ?which the famous " American system1' is founded. All that is requisite to gain prose lytes to the most silly ana injurious schemes, seems to be to dress them up with patriotic and high sounding phrases, and then to con nect them with the fortuues of some favor ite politician. This is the course that has lieen pursued, in regard to the " American system," which has hence become, not so much a question of reason, a* of party pas 6ion, and is therefore not so easily to be overthrown, as other erroneous projects, which can be combntcd by addressing the understandings of their advocates. If a far mer were to be asked whether it was most for his Interest to buy a coat for ten dollars of n manufacturer, or for five dollars of a mer chant, he would have no hesitation in de stenating the latter; but when the same <luestioit is put to him upon a larger scale, and when he is asked, whether it is most for the interest of the whole people to buy their coats dear, or to buy them cheap, hi appears to be lost in the magnitude of the question. The terms 14 domestic industry," ?the great American ?ystem," " patriot ism," "paying foreign tribute," dancc be fore his eyes like so many phantoms; and he soberly answers, that the nation would gain, by enacting a law to compel the whole population to give ten dollars for their coats* instead of Ave. Such, readet is the tr?e state of *his case.i-.nd not only are such *'?* views ;ertalned by the great hodv/'f the farmers in the middle states, but r*en? and we arc sorry to say it, by a gi Cj?portion of our lawyers, physicians, schoK*? ?nd oth er influential citizens, of a di*|?osition to investls"** * "ubject which would require the Y of a volume or two, suffer themselves^*? k* deluded into a course, which i* r< ?c to their Individ ual Interests, a'1* '? *h<>se of the nation. The corn ?? Great Britain stand as one of thc^0*1 prominent examples of le elslativr*?Ny' **y impor tation * grain into Great BrltAln, for con Mirtption, is burthened with duties so ex travagant as to amount to a prohibition, ex cfpt in,limes of great scarcity. The con ieqneite is, that the population of Great Arita*) are eompelletl to pay dearer for thel' bread, than they would have to pay, wc^e the doty a mudetate one, imposed n*rcly for purposes of revenue. That this fcan evil to the population of Great Britain, is too Dalnable not to be Keen hv the mmt uneducated mind. It is universally con <!cmned by the people of th? United States, not only as ait inhuman measure, but also as un impolitic one, inaimuch as Great Bri tain, by refusing to purchase grain from fo reign countries, deprives them to an equal extent of the means of purchasing her man ufacture*; And betides, if food were cheaper in Great Britain than it now it, her manu factures would be cheaper, and her com mand over the mnrketsofthe World, in the ?etne proportion extended. But, however Seat the folly of other nations may be, we v? no right to inter*mcddlc with them. All thai we have tod?, i? to profit by their expinoncg, and their want of wisdom; and if we can perceive, that a restrictive law, which rakes the price of bread, is injurious to the nation which enacts it, let us keep in mind, that one which raises the price of clothingis also injurious. What is folly in Great Britain, would lw folly If adopted by any other nation, and not less so if iidopt ?d by ourselves. The restrictive system in *11 its forms it an eflbft to diminish pwduc tieo, end consequently the eomforta of the peoplej and that branch of It, whteh has a tseaway to multiply naked backa, is no bet Mr then the one which has a tendency to fhnltipljr empty stomachf. But, tay ou' restrict ionists, if Great Bri tain will not buy our flour, it is for our in tere .5 not to buy her manufactures. If that be the case, then, it is very certain that wo will not buy them. VVc understand what is for our interest n? will as other people. But, where laws are railed in at the urgen cy of interested partus to force people to leare off purchasing British manufactures, it excite* atleHSt a suspicion, that it la not for our interest to leave off. The interest o< the American nation, as one family, ia to buy maunfactures of Great Britain, so long as she ran supply them heaper than we can make them, and is wi tin r to take pay ment in any of our production*} and t?r pre cisely the name reason that it would be for the interest of Great Britain, to buy grain ot foreign nation*, if they would sell it cneaper than she could raise it, so long as they would take payment in any of her manufac tures. Of late years, Great Britain has done no act, signifying tha* '-he will not take payment of us in products of some kind or other, for us many of her manufactures as we are willing to buy. It is true she exer cises the right of choosing the articles which suit hi-r best. But this is precisely the same rh-hr which weoursclvesexercise in our purchases from her. We should think it strange if the owners of the coal mines in P.nghuul should represent it to par liament as a grievance, that the New-York er? would buy no more of their coal, since they get supplier frorr the Schuylkill and Lehigh coal mines?or If the farmers of Ireland should with to prohibit our flax seed, beennse wc will only take potatoes from them in times of great scarcity, as nt this moment?or if the manufacturers of Scotland, should advocate the exclusion of American produ< tions, hccause it suited our convenience to purchase chiefly of the man ufacturers of Manchester and Bermingham. There is uodouht, that the restr ctive laws of each nation, limit the interchange of commodities which would take place did they not exist, and it is very clear, that it is not "the policy of either to push them any further. As to the question of which was thcfirit'ffendc>, itUnot material toenquire. The legislative nets of neither, in the first instance, were intentionally hostile. Com laws prohibiting the importation of foreign grain under certain circumstances, have existed in Great Britain for a great number of years. They were not levelled at us, but designed to extort money from the consu mers of bread, in order to promote the in terests r.f the landholders, and the tenants who entered into long leases when grain was at a high price. Wc therefore, have no right to complain ot the existence nf those laws, any more thnn we have of the law* of Peru nnd Mexico, which shut out our flour and cotton fabrics from their mar kets. And wc should certainly not act wisely, were we, in retaliation for their measures taught t/irm by the advocate? of the " American system," to prohibit the importation of their specie, copner, cocoa, and other commodities, which they arc willing to give us in exchange for others of our products. From this view of the subject, it will be seen, that every step which is taken in a war of restrictions, does equal injury to ootli parties, for every refusal to 6uy of a foreign nation, ?? ?<? mmiliilution of the power to tell precisely to the same amount. To sup pose, then, that a nation can gain by a coun ter restriction, is altogether fallacious. The restrictive system is nothing but.?tying of the hands of the nation which adopts it, and retaliation is nothing hut imitating the folly. If nine nutnns out of ten, are silly enough to helicve, that the lewer commodities they produce the better, and in con^oui-ncc of that belief, re strict the industry of their people, it would be An the interest of the remaining one, to keep herself unshackled, and to buy of the* as much as they would be wil ling/'* exchange for her productions. This truth is constantly dlsulayed in the trans itions of private life. If a farmer had nine ncighbours,cmploycd in various trades, who should take into their beads to raise a considerable part of their own butter, eggs, poultrv, vegetables, and fruit, but were still willing to buy of him grain ?o the full extent of what he was ?illim* to buy of them, such as hats, shoe*, and cloths, would it be for the interest of the farmer >to be come his own hatter, shoemaker, and tailor, and thereby cut off t be only market which he had far nit grain* Would It not be bet ter for him, to continue to buy, so long as he could get more hats, shoes, and cloths, for his grain than he could make at home? If the time indeed, should ever arrive, when the hatter, shoemnkcr and tailor, would take nothing for their fabrics, which he e?uld offer in payment, then his trade with them would cease of ittelf, without the ne cessity of anv compulsory law. This case is precisely parallel to that of our relations with Great Britain. She says to the Unit ed States, "I will take products from you to the extent of your purchases from my manufactures. I will, however, exercise the right of choosing amongst the assort ment of articles, that which ?uits me best, in tne (tint manner, that you exercise the right of bnylng Irom me the manufactures which suit >ou best." Now, in all thit, there is nothing unfair. Wo certainly have no right to designate the articles which she shall take, any more than she has a right to designate the articles whirh we shall takes and we would he very silly, if, l>er.au*e she will not huy from us products which the does not want. ve should refute to well her tho*e which ? e d-f? W ?nt And yet, thisi?wh>' we have done. Our tariff laws are n??thing more nor lets, than declaration* to Knglaml, that we will not Mill her our cotton; for a nation which say* " I will no* buv," say# at the same time, *'1 will not sell." Within the last few years, an attempt has been made hy some of our politician*, to (u^ify our restrictive law*, upon the ground of their being retaliatory against the com laws. This was certainly not the ground upon which the tariffof 1816, whleh was the first one enacted with the ivowed Object of protecting dome?t?o manufac-tare* was ad vocated. That law was Intended to relieve the manufacturers who had embarked their capitals in buildings end machinery, during the war, when high price* held nut a strong temptation. To pretend therefore that the subsequent act* of 1824 and 1838, were re taliatory, when Great Britain had done nothiog in the interim, calculated to limit her trade with us, but had on the cbhtrary, manifested various dispositions to rriix her cxisting laws, and had, as evidence of an approach towards liberal principles, reduc ed the duty on American cotton to ilk per cent, and by a convention placed American vessels in her potts on the same footing as her own, is in the highest degree absurd, and reminds nne of the fable of the wolf, who, because he could find no just ground of complaint against the lamb, pretended that he had a right to retaliate for an act com mitted by his grandfather, which at the time it was committed was not at all level led at the wolf. But even admitting, th>?t those lawi were retaliatory, would that jus tify them, ns m? ?M?r ? oi vat- policy f V e apprehend not, and tor the reason that they could not by possibility have effected theii object-?or if they could have effected their objcct, it would have been difficult after wards to have repealed them, so as to have restored the ancicnt relation between the partlgs. The com laws of Great Britain are de fended by their advocates, upon the same ground as our tariff laws are defended by our re strict ion ists, that of rendering the country independent of foreign nations for | an article of necessity. They say that no nation ought to be dependant upon a foreign nation tor bread, and really if there be any force in the argument of our '? American system" people, that a nation should not be dependent upon foreigners for cloths, iron, glass, and hardware, there is much more force in the argument of the British; and, consequently, the act ought not to be re garden as one which should excite our in dignation, and merit a vindictive retaliation. These corn laws, granting a monopoly, in some form, or other, to the landed interest of Great Britain, have, ns we have said, existed for a long period of years, long be fore we dreamt or rivalling her manufac- | tures, and have become so interwoven in her institutions and with her pursuits of in dustry, that it would be altogether impossi ble for her to abandon them, except b> u process extremely slow and gradual. It is not a question merely touching the interests of her land owners. It involves the for tunes and interests of the whole body of her tenant'/y, who. in general, holding their farms upon long lease* of twenty-one year* and upwards, and who being the furnishers of tne capital expended in the improvement of the land, would be totally ruined, by an)' sudden changes in the system. To expect, therefore, to accomplish a repeal of the corn laws, by any law, the operation of which could only directly rcach the manu facturers of Great Britain, would be alto gether vain; and as no retaliatory legisla* tlon should be resorted to, where there Is not n reasonable prospect of accomplishing the end proposed, it is very clear, that none could be politic in the case to which we have referred. But suppose success to attend such effort*, what would be the consequent*' Would we, if the corn law- "ere Abolished, aban don on-usurers, and see the hundred millions of dollar* wa'.tcd, which now exist in the form of buildings and machinery f If we ate not prepared to do that?if we arc not willing at every sacrifice to restore matters to the statu quo ante, would it not be impolitic to adopt a measure upon the ground 'if retaliation, which, after produc ing its effect, must be still persevered in to the manifest injury of ourselves? In pre senting the question thus, we do tt in order to meet our adversaries on their own ground. Wc arc far, however, from thinking that the abolition of tho corn laws would not oucratc on our national policy. The mass of this nation arc farmers and planters, and if Great Britain were to modify those Inws sons to remove the pretext, which is em ployed by our politicians to operate on the people, the Congress of the United States would have little hesitation in repealing the duties which now so heavily tax the na tion. [From llie Kentucky Gazette ) AWFUL WARNING I ! ! The foliowin^ is from the last llcporrcr. Although the sage editor of that Interesting paper, may not bo known to persons at a distance, as he is to the citizcns of this hap py and enlightened "Athens of the west," yet we would advise them to give it all the weight to which it is entitled and no more; and he himself asks only for that. We are gratified under the alarm which the article has produced, that Mr. Smith's m$*r Intel ligent political friends disagree with him in his opinions. Whether it will produce a cessation of contracts concerning articles which maybe connected with the Tariff we do not know, but we will enquire and let our readers know. " A'otice U hereby given, that a united effort will be made next winter by the Ex ecutive of the United State* and the anti tariff party in Congress, to reduce t/iefirlcet of all the firoilutt* of agriculture and ftrot irair i/ie manujaeiuring ritaoiwnmetu* of American citizen* by repealing in whole or in part the Tariff of Wc conceive it to be our duty to give thin notice,?-leaving it to those more immediately concerned to take step* to avert the blow, or nmke Mich arrangement* to meet the crUls an their in terest* and Judgment* may dictate. We would particularly caution all person* whatsoever against the making of contract* or entering into engagement* of any kind, unon the supposition that the existing Ta riff law* will be undUturbcd by the next Congres*. And that this caution may be estimated at what It is worth nnd no more, wo fs'ill ?*.indidly state that the >piuinns of the most intelligent politicians o* our ac quaintance do am justify the apprehensions which we entertain. It is neverthetes* our deliberate conviction, that the attempt to destroy our manufactures, particularly those of hemp and woel, which will most indubitably be made, will be miceeftful. Besides the F.xecotive and party influent e which wilt be brought to bear upon the question, other means olcorrupting and se ducing the IVrttem Member* of Congrett have been determined upon,by the Irarferi, though not at present to be made Known to * ttie pw body of the Jackson party. We repeat therefore, to all couctrncd?take hetd ! bt firtfiaredfor the wont!" f foreign. BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS MR. O'CONNELL. Friday, May 15. In ooiucquenco of tho general expecta tion that Mr. O'Coniioll would tliiM dav present himself at tho tabln of tho House, u? be sworn in a ittemtor for tltc county of Clare, the gsllery wax opened at three o' clock, and wn* very soon afterwards com pletely filled. The Speaker entered the House at tlie usual hour, by which time nearly three hundred monitors were as sembled, and, toloru lie had takeu tho chair two miuutes, the body of tho liouso, and also the side galleries, were us fully crowd i?d as on any night during tho discussion of tho great question of Catholio Emancipa tion; , Afh (yConnell.?The Speaker having twico or thrice called order, before tho ex treino anxiety and confusion which prevail ed in the Ilouhe subsided, said?"Members to bo sworn will to pleased to come to tho table." Mr. O'Coniioll, with Lord Duncannon on his rigid, ami Lord Ehriugtou on his loft hand, to introduce him in the customa ry forms, forthwith passed the bar of the House, and proceeded towards tho table. Mr. Lea, the Chief Clerk of (he House, then loft his Mat and proceeded to the low er end of the table, and there met Mr. O'Connell. Mr. O'Connell handed in the certificate from the Commissioners of (lie Lord High Steward, his rctu.n, and his qualification. The Clerk living examined these docu ments, and found that they were all per fectly correct, immediately opened the large ho:;, in which are kept various o Hie in I forms file, and took out the old oaths aftixed to patsclnsurd*! and handed them to Mr. O'Con nell, together with tho New-Testament, on which to swear him. Mr. O'Connell took tho Testament, hut on the oaths being presented to him, lie said, in offset, to Mr. Lea, tho Clerk, (the conversation was not addressed to the Speaker of tho House, and of course it was not heard in tho gallery,) " I apply to take my seat und^r the new Act. I am ready to take the oath directed to to taken by Human Catholic Members. I do not feel that I am hound to take these oaths, (passing his hand over the oaths of Supremacy, fcc. to |Miint out which he meant.) Perhaps, Sir, you will state the fact to the Speaker for me?that I do not consider I ought to to called on to take other Ulan the oath named in the new Actl Mr. Lea, the Clerk, then went to the { Speaker, and made the required communi cation, taking the old oaths with him anil jKtintitig out the exceptions made hy Mr. The Speaker said?" ft is my duty to state, if I havo toon correctly informed, that the course which the honorable mem-! tor has propo?ed to take, is a course which,1 until overruled by stronger authority, I do not conceive it my duty to acquiesce in. I understand that ho proposes to take the oath prescribed to tA; taken by Roman Cath olics, as it is to to found in an act of Parlia ment recently pawed.. As I read that Act of Parliament, it in my impression?and on that impression it is my duty to art?that it involves two points relative to the course to to pursued in taking seats in this house. The first point is Uiat of repeating the de claration against transuhstantiation; (lie other, that of appointing an oath to to ta ken hy such members of tIbis liouso as pr< fess the Roman Catholic creed; but with this condition, that those members should to returned Kubseaucnt to the passing of the act. Now, tho lionorablo member was returned, as the house is well aware, long before the passing of this act. I liave, therefore, only to rufer to tho law affecting all the member* of this house until the late act passed; and, with tho single oxeeption of repeating (ho declaration against tran suhstantiation, I have to state, that the con struction which has toen uniformly put on the law of tho land, and which has been repeatedly sanctioned and con firmed hy act of Parliament, is, that every member, before taking bis seat, shall take the oath of abjuration at the table of Ibis house. This is tho course which by taw tho dignity and tho privileges of this house require. I state this the rather, because it is well known that this house is open to an appeal hy petition, or it may be brought forward by any member in this liouso. In that case, the house will to totter able to judge, ami to state its opinion of the pro priety of the conduct which it appeared to nie to be iny dut y to pursue. (1 lear, hear!) I therefore state to the honorable gentleman that lie must withdraw " Mr. O'Cintttll withdrew accordingly Mr. Hrouvhum rose?He was sure? The Vfiralrr?Order! The Honorable Gentleman at the table must withdraw. Mr. (yC'onnril then withdrew amid much confusion, l>ut without, we tolievc, attempting to make a Mingle observa tion m Mr. firouv/iam again ro*o, and, in th<* tumult whirl) prevail**!, endeavored to make himwll beard. Ho naiil, no one watt motif disposed than bimxcli" to Ik>w with suhmiflMion to the opinion of the Chair, hut on thin occasion he could not help thinking that the opinion delivered by the Speaker wax erroneous. and that the Hon. Gentle man who had jimt left the table had a right to be hoard in defence of hi* claims?(hear, hear.) The disorder at thin moment wax no great, that the Sp**ker waa compelled im Grativcl) to direct the Member* below the r to take their placca. Ah ?ooii as order waa roKjored. Mr. nmuffham repeated bin lx>lief that the Sneaker had miaconatrnrd the act, when ne rame to the eoocluaion that the Honorable member for Clare liad not, ac cording to the uaacra of Parliament, a right to ad((reiw the Ifouae. The find diffi eulty which preaetttad itnlf in thi* raae arose from the Honorable member for the county of Clat? being ordered to withdraw ; and while h#wa* attempting t*i gain a hearing the Sneaker called him to otd^r, and thoHonorabto member withdrew wid wa* thui precluded fmm nnrakinz on the quimtMN). Now if it Went ut all d'-ubt . ,w bother tho Honorable mcml>er hud a right to l>? heard in hiti own behalf, he thought that qtieMtion might have been disposod of before tho Honorable member was compelled to have tin- House; but now that ho had withdrawn, ho (Mr. Droug ham) would state his opinion oftho matter a* it now stood, which was, Uuit, acting on principle, and according to tho usages of Parliament, ho was of opinion that tho question ought to be so far discussed as to aatisfy tho House that tbey are now follow ing a correct course. He thought abio that the Hon. (?vntlcman ought to bo allowed to state his objections to the taking of the oaths. W ilh profound respect to the Chair he must beg to deny his authority in deter mining this question. It was a question of tho greatest inqiortancc. and Uic opinion of no single individual, either in or out of the Cltair, ought to hind tho House. The opinion oftho whole House ought to be ta ken. According to the construction which was now put on the law, tho Hon. ineinbor for < laro was precluded firom addressing tho House on a subject which affected his personal rights. Ho contended that he (.Mr. t)'Conned) had a right to bo heard at tho table, without taking tho oaths, for the purpose tti stating his objections to those oaths; and for this he could produee two or three precedents. The pro)xisition he had to submit to the House was, that a member was eligible to speak at tho table Iwforo he took the oaths and his neat. The furl case he had to refer to was that o'i Sir Henry Monson, who was returned in 1GM). The second was that of Mr. Archdalv. Sir Henry Monson, was asked what objections he had to take the Oath of Sup macy! and he replied, that his objections were |>ersonai to himself, and had not the least tendency to disturb tho (iovernment of the country. Now it ap|>eared by the imperfect record* which had comedown toiiH, and by Parlia mentary history, thai he was permitted to j speak a few sentences, in explanation of j Jos objections to subscribe to the oaths ? I The House, however, was not satisfied I with the reasons lie assigned, and he was1 directed to withdraw, and a new writ was! onlered. Hut what ho wished to call the attention of the House to was that which) took place lieforc the new writ was issued I ?namely, that Sir Henry Monson was' heard at the table of the House, in the I ease of Mr. Archdalo also it ap|>earcd lie was permitted to statu his reasons for refu sing to take the oaths. In a third case (he I alluded to that of l?ord Patishawe, which ( wa* also the case of a refusal to take the | oaths) the proceedings were not very dis- j tinctly given, but he apprehended in that | instance, bis Lordship was likewise heard at tbe table previous to being ordered to withradw. if, adopting the course of these precedents, tho House should l?e of opinion I that the Honorable inemlier for Clare ought | to Ik* heard, then the House would order |-himi to he recalled, and having heard his ob jections, he would In- ordered to withdraw, and the House would then deal with the question an it should think proper Tho 1 question wos one of the first importance, and each step tlmt was taken in it ought to Ik? taken onlv alter the fullest deliberation. | The Honombto member concluded, by nuf-1 ving that tho Honorable member tor Clare be calb'd l?ack, and heard in hir* own behalf at tho table of the House. Mr. Sfcrriarn Prtt said be had need scarcely remind the House that the ques tion now proposed came U'fore them in their strict judicial rapacity, and must lie decided according to the laws of Parliament and the strict letter of the statute. jjpon tho oucMtiun itself ho did not entertain a doubt that tho learned gentlemen could not address the House before the <>aths were taken, bccause, if ho did eve. v other mem ber who might feel sodisposetf, would linvo an equal right to raise objections to tho oaths, to the prescribed o-iths ofthe House. Tho law was iMMtitive in directing that ev ery member should takethooaths hefoiehc took his seat, and, before taking tho oaths, it was quite clear that Iwfore he had ho qual ified himselfho could have no right to be heard in the House As to the precedents which had been referred to, there had been no time to examine into them and as it was extremely important that tho question should I>o maturely considered he trusted the House would not come to a premature decision, but would tike time for consider ation. With respcct to tho motion of tin Honorable member from Winchelsea, he wished toolmerve that it would l?e desira ble to avoid agitating this important ques tion till the preliminary point wasdis|Krs?d of; and ho w?ntld only now State that the impression on his mind was decidedly diff erent from that o| the Honorable gentleman opposite, (Mr. Hrotiffhaiii.) As to the oth er question at issue, he would, as he had before olwervcd, ^ive no opinion, but if *ns impossible that the House could consis tently with its diirnitv, proceed with the discussion without taking matured time for deliberation. He therefore proposed, that the further discussion be postpoilodtill Mon day. The Speaker naid before he proceeded to not the question to the Iloune, ho trusted lic*hould not Ik* thought unreasonable if hp put the house in possession of the consid eration which determined him in taking the coiiru) he lint!. flowovnr difficult or important the question might hp, ho had not time to deliberate?the S|>oakor in the chair wan compelled toderide on the instant. The course ho had taken wait Much at oc curred on the instant to he corrcct, and he decided with the !raa rehietanco, knowing the lloutto would correct him if he wero wrong. With respect to hearing an honor ahle inemher nt th<- table, ho knew of no precedent of it* being done under any cir cunatance* abort of the hon. gentleman be ing a complete member of the House. It wan not the atatute of Klinaboth but that of Cltarlca the Kecond, which directed certain oetha to be taken by member* previoua to their admission into thin Houao, In-fore (tie Ixwrd High Steward and hia Commission*: and without a certificate from the Lord High Steward or hia Deputing it would be impossible for the Hduaeto know whether or no the uaual oatha had hern conformed to, and in the atwcence of any evidence tc the contrary, H ia pte?un;cd the pf oher oath* had UeentAKon. Mr. Tirmry Mud, it t|i|>ctrad to him to bd very singular, tlwt after n committee of th?i Houmj It.id decided ou tho validity of Uio hon. member'* election, that the llouso should say when the hon. member cum tv take hi* seat-. "We do not know what td say nor what todo." It seemed tfruly sin gular (hat after the hon. member had been, declared duly elected, that tho Houmj or Commons should say. "We Hunt know what to inako of thin, but wo will adjourn fur a day ur two, uud then we rhall coruo prepared with better iufonnatkm cn Uio subject." He thought it would bo much better if the hon. member was called in and allowed to address, tho House, and then the House would know on what it was to decide. Sir Frartci* Burden mid, he thought it wan a very inii>ortant question to bo inqui red into, and if the Houhc wax not then prepared for the discussion, it ought tobo iH>Kt|?oncd. Whether the hon. membor for I Clare wan heard at the table or at tho bar he considered unimportant, and thought tho House wan certainly ripe far tho decision; it wan not no for the dincunerion. Oir J'jtefih York : Kiid, that in the case of l*ord Fanshawe, that nobleman roftisedto take the oath*, and was sent for by tho Speaker to stato tho ground* for that refu sal. A/?. 71roi:g/iain said ho had nothimnelf sufficiently considered the subjeot to give a competent reason for supporting tho motion At tne present moment lie did not nercoivo how the case* of Lord Fanshawo, Sir Hen ry Monson, or Mr. Archdate, tho Quaker, difTored from the rano of tho llonomblo Mcmltcr for Clare. In two of these cases, he meant those of I^ord Fannhawe and Sir Henry Monson, Oioho individuals had been member* of tho Conventional Parliament; and that Parliament, strictly speaking, was not legally convened, and tho oaths wero afterwards introduced to which those gen tlemen objected. The other caso was that of Mr. Archdale'*. There the member wan Kent for by the Speaker, and tlwt certainly might make noine difference. tie agreed to the adjournment, in order that thoro might be a rr.r.rc regular and formal discuss - ion, and to afford time for looking into tho coven. An to the possibility of the Houno coming to the third conclunion, that Mr. O'connell was not to be allowed to bo beard either at the table or at tho bar, and that the discussion wan to Iks cloned With out bearing hint at all, he looked on it as quite i:niH>?sihlc, and beside tho question.' Lord lJuncannon said that he had been applied to 011 behalf of bin honorubla friend Mr. O'Connell, to move that ho bo heard, in support of bin claims, but that motion had become unnecessary by the proceed ing which had taken place thin day. Mr. 7Vr/ then moved that the discus ion be |x>*tponcd till Monday, which wrs agreed to without a division. Mr. 0'Cowndl had prepared himself to I commence his caso butan/er. He had ten 'or clevon volumes of the journal* of tho I House, besides several volumes of law books, kc. which all wore stationed in 0\? doorway ready for lib use. In reference to thin affair, tho Times ob serve*, that the account of the deboto can convey but an imperfect idea of the silent the almost breathless attention with which ho Wan received in the house advancing to and retiring from tho table. Tho Itehchcn were filled in an unusual degree With mem Ix rs, nnd there it no recollection of so largo a number of Peers, brought by cariosity into the House of Commons. The subject of the blast India Company's monopoly had been dincunsed for tteVoral ?iays in the Hoiine of Common*. The in* qtury demanded wan resisted for the present year, but will take place next year, and in the mcanWhilo all tho documentary evi dence which can prepare the way for it, is to bo obtained by the Government. ' AVon.Thero sectm tojlw rto such thing as killing Mr. Kcnri. He has recovered from his late illnennaml played Shylock to a fall bouse in Dublin. The Morning Journul, an opposition pa per, states that thev have the beet of rea son* for asserting tfj.it Uicro is abroach be tween the King and the Duke of Welling ton. FnAficr.?The Pari* paper* of the 14th May state that tho Duke do Ural had re ctified to accept the office of Minister of Foreign affair*, and hi* refusal had been accepted. No now nomination had been made. It was expected that after the bud Set, the Chamber would be prorogued till th of Drcember noxt. It Kf pms that a congress at Rome hi seri ously thought of, and it ha* been intimated to M. Chateaubriand that hi* presence was actually necemry toobserve what might be going on in an aftsemhly of Italian Princes convoked by Princo Mettemieh. i Tho cinlmrnKitiM.nt of the French Mini* | try in very strange, say*the Titnes. Ilov/ i ha* it eonm to tho neceMity of asking tho consent of the Duke do Lavsl or Ferier 1 Tho Duke whatever may ho his character inprivate life, is personally unqualified for office, and i* the man least fitted to appear in the tribune of a legislative Chamber. Conjecture* fluctuate l?etw^en M. de St. I'riest, Ambassador at Madrid; Viscount de Chateaubriand, and th<< I hike de Como Br *sac. Tli latt r it in Haiti has just sub mitted to the King a memoir on lit* iiesent situation of affair*. The noble DuV? has ambition, but I cannot believe fn.r oti- rti He i* a man < f timid mind and narrow views whose penonal appearance is far from impnfting. The present difficulties of the Ministry ari*c from the obstinate and absurd verence of tho Court in its ancient pi ce* and old aversions, The force cumntanrea I as bruught to the l*en? the left sid<- a majority which strengthen* itself every day, snd the Court requires Una Ministry to govern In opposition to this ma jority. lu this manner the favors of Gov ernment atre heaped upon those who teAtte it a support, while it endeavors to prolong the helot ism of those in whom its iftfueacn and force reside,?a state, cf things pfecart mit in itself, snd tending neceasanhr to pro luce a re-action which they can aaithpr prevent nor direct. s ? The demand of grain continues, and with it the public agitation. Distress ok tiim MArrtrr actv*m ?A letter frum Manchester states thai!