observed, that in consequence of an accusation made in the progress of the last night's discussion by the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. A. Cooper) supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, against him, whilst he had the honour to hold the office of secretary to the board of Ordnance, he then felt it his duty to give notiće, that on this night he would move for certain papers in his own vindication. The charge then advanced against him was, that he had not required from Mr. Ridge, who was appointed by the earl of Moira, agent to a part of the corps of royal artillery, such securities, as by virtue of his instructions he was bound to do. He had first to observe, that in the perusal which he had since given these instructions, he found in no part of them such a duty pointed out. He had not certainly read every line of them, and to meet that part of the question it was his intention to move, that an extract of the instructions applicable to the exercise of such a duty should be laid upon the table. He had then to ask the hon. gent, who made the charge, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by whom it was supported, whethey yet persevered in their accusation? whether they still were ready to assert that Mr. Ridge, at the period referred to, had not entered into the necessary securities? If, as he believed, they found that the result of their further inquiry proved that such securities were given by Mr. Ridge, it would then be his duty to move for a return of their date. There was also another question which he was anxious to put to them. He wished to be informed whether, when lord Chatham succeeded lord Moira at the head of the Ordnance department, the securities given by Mr. Ridge were renewed? Because it was well understood that as they were given directly to the individual at the time at the head of the department, they were not binding on Mr. Ridge when a change of administration had placed another person at the head of that board. There were some other observations which he felt necessary to make, but which he by no means brought forward to screen himself in any part of his official conduct from the fullest responsibility. Although he must say, that, even if there had been culpability in the case of Mr. Ridge, he could only be exposed to a proportion of it, for at the same board there sat then two officers nearer to him, and who still continued in the same situations, and who, of course, must, if blame was deserved, take their share of the criminality. He had also to impress upon the House that there was a very great distinction between the case of Mr. Ridge, even if what was alleged against him (Mr. C.) was true in every particular, and the case of Mr. Hunt, upon the discussion of which it was introduced as parallel. It was this, that all agents appointed as paymasters to the corps of artillery, indeed to all regiments, were responsible to the commanding officer of such corps, and the commander of course, responsible to the country for the conduct of his agent In the place of secretary of ordnance, the situation held by Mr. Hunt, there was no reciprocal responsibility, and the consequence was, that the country became the loser by his defalcation.

stated, that although there was no insertion in the instructions specifically injoining the duty of requiring securities, still it was the universal practice to demand security from all agents, through whose hands any portion of the public money went. Independent of all provision or enactment, the principle was itself conclusive. In answer to the questions of the hon. gent. he had to state, that the bond in the case of Mr. Ridge had been made out, but was not executed by that gentleman.

asked across the table whether it was executed by his sureties?

. Yes; it was executed by his sureties. With respect to the other question, he must say, that he did not acquiesce in the conclusion, that securities were not available if not renewed in case of a change in the department. The security was given not to the person at the head of the board, but to the King. There was one other topic introduced by the hon. gent. to which he felt it incumbent upon him to advert. He had been charged with bringing forward against that gentleman, an accusation for his conduct in the case of Mr. Ridge. He had done no such thing, but when his own character was implicated by the hon. gent, in censure on account of Mr. Hunt's defalcation, surely it was natural for him to turn upon his accuser and say, even in your own administration, you yourself have been guilty of the very omission, for which you now so loudly proclaim that I am culpable. As a further proof of that omission in his administration he would beg to recal the attention of the hon. gent, to the case of Mr. Hopkinson, who also was an agent, and by whom no security whatever had been given, though his appointment took place during the administration of that honourable gentleman.

. This is altogether a new charge, but I have no doubt it stands upon equally strong grounds as the case of Mr. Ridge, which the confession of the hon. gent. has confuted almost as quickly as he uttered it. Let those gentlemen be brought to the bar. Let the House be put in possession of the fullest evidence upon the subject, and I feél confident that such accusations must recoil upon those who have so indirectly advanced them. But allowing we were guilty, can that be an excuse for the offences of those who perpetuate the abuse, until the country is made to feel the actual loss and evil? Will the country think it receives a just performance of duty from those for whose services large salaries are paid to them, merely, because when charged with a dereliction of their trust, they think they have the power or the opportunity to re-criminate. Recrimination is no defence. If their charges are well founded, let them bring them directly before the House in a parliamentary shape, and if we are guilty let us be subjected to that merited censure under which the present board so very justly suffers. It is quite ridiculous to make a parallel between the cases of Mr. Ridge and Mr. Hunt, even if the accusation against me in respect to the former was true; but, as it is most unfounded, as clearly appears even .by the admission of him who has made it, I must say it is insulting the public, which has been robbed to a large amount, to distract the course of public justice by the introduction of irrelevant and unconnected subjects.

admitted, that recrimination was not a good set off, and constituted a miserable defence; but when the hon. gent. in the pomp of official superiority denounced his successors, it was natural for them to retort the charge if they could, and try him by his own acts. If omissions of a similar nature could be laid to his charge, it was impossible in the overbearing triumph that he was inflicting, that flesh and blood could rest silent, and with the knowledge they had of some of his own omissions, not illustrate them.

stated, as the characteristic distinction of the present ministers, particularly of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that for every grievance complained of, for every act of misgovernment and mistake—for every measure of policy which had bequeathed calamity and ruin to the country, the only justification was the power and capacity to recriminate. What had the country to do with their bickerings and recriminations? If any charge or accusation could be brought against their opponents, why not bring them? To insinuate them, and not venture to arraign those whom the ministers were anxious to depreciate, was, in his opinion, instead of a defence for their own misdeeds, an aggravation of their offence, insomuch as they kept such charges secreted merely as an apology for their own derelictions.

agreed with gentlemen opposite, that nothing could be less a justification of the conduct of ministers than finding fault with others. Nothing could be farther from his intentions than a wish to build his character, or the character of his friends, on the failings of others, and really he did not think the House, or the country, would think highly of him, or of his friends, because they stood a little higher than the hon. gentlemen opposite.—If the hon. gent had the same ideas of the duties of the office he had held, while he filled that situation, as he appeared to entertain yesterday, from the view be had of his duty, he was in a greater degree culpable than had been supposed. Persons coming into office had a right, finding places of that description filled up, to suppose that the proper securities had been given. But it had been said that he, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in particular, was always finding out some subject of recrimination. If he did always recriminate when gentlemen came forward with their charges against government, did it not follow that he always had an opportunity of so doing? Thus it appeared that in thirteen months their administration had contrived to make up a little sample of all that had been complained of for the last twenty of thirty years. He could not but own, that they had been very adroit in such a short space of time to act so as to furnish out of their abundance a counterpart to every thing of which they complained. This was the consequence of that concentration of talent of which they had vaunted so much. The charges made against them had not been intended to reduce them below the ordinary standard of men in point of talent, but to bring them down from their vaunted elevation to the level of fallible beings. Yet to think that an hon. gent. should come there and plume himself so much on what he had done, when such an omission could be proved, was too much to be borne in silence. It really was but just to give him a hint on the subject. If the hon. gent. wished for information on the subject he had no objection to granting it; he would only state, that on the preceding day, when he entered that House, he had no more intention of speaking of the case of Mr. Ridge than he had of discussing the concerns of the emperor of Morocco. That case would not have been brought forward but for the exultation of the hon. gent.

. The right hon. gent. has assumed, that the merits of his administration are so transcendent as neither to require foil nor contrast. He has presumed that the results of his government and the interests of the country, every day give an additional value to his services, and a splendor to his ministry; that the higher he lifts himself in office, the more dignified he becomes in reputation, and that the country accords with the panegyric which he has so modestly pronounced upon himself. But it is not to his talents that his praises are restricted. No! his charity for the misdeeds of his opponents—his compassion for their defects form no inconsiderable share of his own eulogium. He, forsooth, will never build his reputation upon any recriminating attack upon his political opponents. Indeed, one is at a loss which to admire most, the modesty with which he speaks of his own exploits, or the compassion which he kindly extends to our demerits. Let him allow me to protest against his generous condescension. Let me hope to impress upon him, that we seek no such irresponsibility for our public conduct. If we have acted improperly—if the country has suffered in its interests by our offences—if we have afforded illustrations of dereliction of duty and breaches of trust, in God's name let the Chancellor of the Exchequer recollect the paramount duty he owes the country, and bring us to trial for our misdeeds. For such attacks we are prepared; and when unequivocally brought forward, we must be grateful. The acrimony, the violence, the political asperity of the right hon. gent. we are not inclined to fear, but I do beg leave to protest against, and deprecate as the most disheartening of all visitations, namely, their commendation and compassion.

said, he held in his hand a copy of the sureties of Mr. Ridge. If there was only one name to the bond, the public would be secure; but he would be able to shew that the sureties were completed. The right hon. gent. had said that he had accused him of recrimination. It was not of recrimination he had accused him, but of attempting to recriminate when there were no grounds for it. He had also taken merit to himself for granting the papers necessary to a member's defence; he had talked as if he had the House of Commons in his pocket; but he (Mr. Calcraft) did not ask it from him as a favour, he asked it from the House of Commons as a right, and not from him, who seemed to carry the majority in his pocket.

conceived that such language was disorderly and unconstitutional; no member had a right to say that any person carried a majority of that House in his pocket.

said, that though, perhaps, the language was disorderly, it was not unconstitutional. The right hon. gent. did not carry a majority in his pocket, but, from the force of his eloquence, and the cogency of his argument, together with the independent circle by which he was surrounded—he did manage to quash such inquiries as were disagreeable to him.

The motion was then carried; after which Mr. A. Cooper moved for the papers relative to the case of Mr. Hopkinson, copies of his sureties, &c. which was also agreed to.

said it was at the option of the House whether the Letter should be entered on the Journals;

thought that the Letter ought to be upon the Journals.

was of the same opinion. The Letter contained nothing that could make it unfit to be received; and it might be the ground of great questions hereafter to be tried.

The Letter was then ordered to be inserted on the Journals.

moved for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the taking of securities in all offices, where securities ought to be taken, and to avoid the grant of offices, if the securities were not given within a certain time. He supposed the House would have no objection to the bringing in of the bill.

said, that it was not enough to say that he supposed the House would have no objection to the measure. Something more was required to shew the necessity for a new law. Such laws for the most part were nugatory. To avoid the grant of an office, when the same persons who granted had the power of reappointment, would amount to nothing. The man would be told, that it was very foolish in him to have neglected to give his securities, and after this slight reprimand he would be again appointed. The public might lose considerably in the meantime. This was nothing more than abrogating the power of the Commons to punish delinquents of this sort, with the additional evil of accumulating useless statutes.

replied, that with all the ingenuity of the hon. gent.—and few men could possess more—he could not prove that this bill would be nugatory. It appeared that persons in office had continued a long time without entering into securities. This bill would at least save the greater part of the time. As to avoiding the office, it was, true the person neglecting to enter into the securities might be reappointed; but by the avoidance of the previous grant, he would be obliged to refund all the salary he had received. If the bill should have no operation hut this, he thought it would be a very effectual one.

observed that such bills would not prevent delinquencies. The only effectual way to that would be by address to the House, praying for the removal of those who had failed in their duty. If no one else should do it, he would himself propose an address to that effect.

, as an instance how nugatory such regulations were, adverted to the case of Mr. Villiers, who had, been reappointed in 1803, two offices being then consolidated into one, with a special provision that he should enter into a bond of security, which he never did. In the very office now to be regulated, Mr. Hunt had broke through a statute. So nugatory was it to legislate in many of these matters. The true way to prevent such evils in future, was to punish defaulters for the past. These delinquencies would perpetually take place until the House compelled the ministers to punish public defaulters, and to be answerable for losses incurred through their negligence. Acts were of no use when those who were the law makers were the law breakers, and he should have a pretty strong cage of that kind to state on Monday.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

desired that the Petitions presented to the House in 1808 might be entered by the clerk as read, and spoke nearly as follows:

Sir; In rising to make a motion which, has for its object the improvement of the condition of the people of Ireland, and to conciliate their affections to the connexion subsisting between these countries, I feel that I have a strong claim upon the attention of the House. But when I reflect upon the new obstacle that has arisen in the way of carrying the great question of emancipation, I feel that this claim is peculiarly strong, because it has become the duty of this House to take every practicable method of counteracting the effects of the disappointment and despair which this obstacle has occasioned. The House could do nothing that would so much contribute to an end so desirable, as by acceding to the motion I shall conclude with, and shewing the people of Ireland that the subject of Tythes will be fully investigated; for though this may be a subject greatly inferior in importance to the emancipation of the Catholic body, still the people would receive any amendment in the present system with the greatest gratitude, and be encouraged to hope that, sooner or later, all their grievances and complaints would be duly attended to.

I beg leave, before I explain the nature of my motion, to call to the recollection of the House the proceedings that have already taken place on this subject. In 1807, several Irish counties held meetings, and, by their unanimous resolutions declared the expediency and necessity of a commutation of tythes. In the next year Mr. Perceval informed the House, that the subject was under the consideration of his Majesty's ministers, and that he intended to propose a specific measure in the subsequent session. When that arrived, the right hon. gent. discovered that it was impracticable to arrange any plan of amendment; I therefore proposed to the House that plan which he had had originally in contemplation, but my motion was negatived. Feeling that the grievance complained of, still exists, and it being admitted by every one that there exists also a necessity of doing something, and believing that there is no such difficulty belonging to the subject as that which the right hon. gent. conceives, I have thought it my duty again to call the attention of the House to the question; and, in order to ascertain whether or not any thing be practicable, and if any thing be practicable, what plan is the best to be adopted, to propose to the House to appoint a select Committee.

The manner in which I shall endeavour to prove to the House how great a grievance the tythe system of Ireland is, will be to shew, in what manner it is different from the tythe system of England. In the first place, the religion of the people of Ireland renders the provision of the clergy of the established church by tythes, necessarily unjust and odious. Of the whole body, by far the greatest part do not profess the established religion, and consequently have to pay, not only the established clergy, but those who discharge the religious services belonging to their own persuasion. According to the best authorities on this subject, if the whole population of Ireland is taken at five millions, four millions are Catholics; of the other million, one-half are dissenters and quakers; the whole, therefore, of the tythes of Ireland, go to provide the maintenance of the clergy belonging to only one-tenth of the population.^*

^*"In Ireland, the Protestants are not one fourth of the people; the numbers of the establishment, little more than an eighth." State of Church of Ireland, by Richard bishop of Cloyne, 7th Edit. p. 81, 1787.

That this is not an exaggerated statement, will appear by the following returns of the relative proportion of Catholics to Protestants, which are to be found in works of established authority. In the province of Ulster, where the Protestants are more numerous than in any other part of Ireland, the Catholics are more numerous than the Protestants, and of the Protestants there are two dissenters to one of the established church. In the provinces of Munster and Connaught, the Catholics are to the Protestants as 15 to 1: in the province of Leinster, as 5 to 2. This statement of the general average of the four provinces, is fully borne out by the actual enumerations which have been made in smaller districts. In the diocese of Tuam, the Catholics are to the Protestants as 60 to 1; in the parish of Tullow, which is the most Protestant parish in the diocese of Leighlin and Ferns, as 6 to 1; in the parish of St. Mullins in the same diocese, as 4,000 to 1; in the parish of Allen, and many other parishes, there are no Protestants; in the county of Kilkenny, the proportion is as 17 to 1, and in the county of Clare, as 15 to 1; from which it is to be inferred, that stating the Protestants of the established church as forming one-tenth part of the population of Ireland, is by no means an exaggerated statement.^*

"There are probably in this kingdom, five papists at least to one protestant." Primate Boulter's Letters, Vol. 1. p. 169.

^*The following statement of the population of but a very limited portion of Ireland, will shew the magnitude of the Catholic population:

Newenham's View of Ireland, App. 26,38.

Now Sir, when I make this statement, I beg to be distinctly understood as having no sort of intention to propose that those who do not profess the established religion should be relieved from supporting the Protestant clergy. I know that such a remedy cannot be adopted. But even if it could, it would not be necessary for me to propose it, because those who may have reason to complain, do not desire it. The Catholics by no means refuse to contribute to the support of the Protestant establishment; all they seek, is to be relieved from a mode of paying them, which is on all sides acknowledged to be most oppressive, and to be permitted to yield their contributions in a manner less vexatious. But when I thus mention the Catholics as being desirous of a change, I beg the House will understand, that not only the Catholics, but the Protestants, with the Quakers and the Presbyterians of Ireland most anxiously desire a change. The Protestants feel Tythes as a great grievance, though not in the same degree; and it is to them, if to any more than to others, that the demand now made upon the legislature for redress, is correctly to be attributed; they having been the most forward in promoting applications to parliament in the several counties which have declared opinions in favour of a change. I will also add, that the Protestant clergy of Ireland are anxious for an alteration. I stated this to be the fact two years ago; and as I have never been told by a single clergyman that what 1 then stated was incorrect, and as I have seen no publication coming from that body to resist the change that has now been so long in contemplation, I feel that I have good authority to consider them as contributing their opinion to render the opinion of all Ireland universally unanimous on the subject.

But there is another circumstance by which the the system in Ireland is materially affected, and is made very different in its operation from the tythe system in England.

In Ireland it is necessary that every individual who has a family, should be a sort of a landholder. In England, indeed, the demand for labour is so great and so constant, that the labouring class can depend upon their day's wages for the means of subsistence; and they accordingly purchase what they want in the markets. But in Ireland, the want of such a demand renders it absolutely necessary that each person should have a piece of land on which to raise his food, or otherwise he must starve; the consequence is, that every one has land, and, however poor, is therefore liable to pay, and made to pay, tythe. Even those who are exempt by law, on account of their extreme and lamentable poverty, from paying the king's taxes, are obliged to pay the clergy of two religions. So great, in fact, is the poverty of many hundred thousand people who pay tythe, that I have no hesitatation in saying, that if they existed in this country under similar circumstances of indigence, they would be considered as entitled to parish assistance. The necessary effect of such a state of things, is the impossibility of tythes being collected by the clergy themselves. They are obliged to employ proctors, or to let their tythes to tythe farmers, in order to relieve themselves from the labour, and to avoid the odium of seeking their income from multitudes of paupers. That under such circumstances as I have described, there should be a constant resistance made to the demands of the clergy can be matter of no surprize—That in many instances the proctors and tythe farmers oppress the people, and that the people in return revenge themselves on their oppressors, are the necessary consequences of the system, and not crimes natural to those, who engage in the outrages that follow ^*. I will not take up the time of the House in enumerating instances that have occurred of great cruelty and oppression; it is notorious to every one that there are such instances. But I beg to be understood, in speaking of the cruelty of some of the Irish clergy, I by no means bring a charge of that nature against the whole body—on the contrary, my opinion is that they do not deserve any such censure, but as a body are conspicuous for their liberality towards the people, and for a faithful discharge of their duties. If however, the system is such as to give to one clergyman the power to oppress a whole parish, this is enough to condemn it, and to shew the necessity of getting rid of it; for during a long incumbency what must the amount of misery be, under such a system, and what must be the necessary result of the active, avaricious, and relentless oppression even of a single individual?

^*"The usual way of proceeding in collecting tythes is this: the proctor, with, an assistant, views the crops in July, and again before or after they are cut. He notes the crop and value in his field-book. He generally estimates by the acre, but sometimes by the barrel; he usually at the second view makes a bargain for the tythe with the occupier on the spot; reducing the charge to a certain degree, and the farmer passes his note for it. If no bargain be made, the proctor makes a return to the clergyman agreeable to his field-book. The payments are generally tardy; the tythe frequently is not paid for near a year and a half. Debtors for 40s. are summoned before two magistrates, who hear the proctors proofs, and give a decree accordingly. Debtors above that sum, and under 10l. are proceeded against at the quarter sessions. For sums above 10l. citations are served to appear at the bishop's court. If the proctor chooses to oppress a poor man, he may cite him for a few shillings. There are few acts of the proctor deemed illegal in the ecclesiastical courts. He is the favoured person, who replenishes their coffers. The only remedy which landholders have against any new and extraordinary demand is faction, intimidation, or flight. The proctors and tythe farmers always have it in their power to ruin a poor man, first by giving him long credit, and then by suing him for principal, interest, and costs, in the bishop's court. The consequence is, that the proctor, and the proctor's family and friends, rule with despotic sway in the parish." Speech of Mr. Parnell, May 19, 1809, See vol. 14 of this Work, 631.

A third distinction between the system of tythes in the two countries, is to be found in the laws for collecting them.

In proportion as the power of the clergy was resisted in Ireland, it was the practice to resort to the Irish legislature for fresh, powers to compel obedience—and thus, though tythes originally in Ireland were payable under statutes exactly similar to those under which, tythes are collected in England, the law, of Ireland is now altogether different from the law of England.^* In England, if the clergyman exacts more than his right, he may be compelled to draw his tythes. But in Ireland it is enacted, that if above a certain number of parishioners call upon the clergyman to draw his tythes, such a proceeding shall be considered a conspiracy, and the parties be liable to heavy penalties; in Ireland, therefore, situated as that country is, the landholder is far from having the means of righting himself, which he is allowed to have in England.

In England the tythe on flax is limited by law to 5s. per acre. No such regulation exists in Ireland. In the north, indeed, of Ireland, it is limited by a modus to 6d. per acre; but in other parts of the country it is made subject to a very heavy tythe. Why should not a similar limitation be extended to the rest of Ireland? The extent of its linen trade in the north shews how beneficial any measure would be, that went to take off a restriction from the growth of the material of it in other parts. It might greatly contribute to the extension of that trade through the south and west of Ireland, and thus afford a new source of improvement to Ireland, and of wealth and strength to the British empire.

If, therefore, the labours of such a committee as I propose to have appointed, were even to terminate in a measure for assimilating the laws, I should feel that a considerable advantage was gained; a heavy restraint upon the staple manufacture of Ireland would be, in a great measure, done away, and, instead of a code, the principle of which is to give uncontrouled power to the clergy, there would arise a system founded more on the true principle of legislation, that of affording redress against the encroachments and abuse of power.

^*—The English statutes are 32 H. 8, c. 27. 2 and 3 Ed, 6, c. 16. 7 and 8 Wm. 3, c. 6. 3 Anne, c.18—The Irish statutes which correspond with these are, 33 H. 8, c. 12. 3 G. 3, c. 25. 11 and 12 G. 3, c. 19. 1 G. 2, c. 12.—The 29 G. 2, c. 12. 1 G. 3, c. 17, and 27 G. 3, c. 15, are statutes peculiar to Ireland.

I will not, Sir, take up the time of the House, by entering upon an inquiry into the objections that can be brought against tythes, as a mode of collecting money from the people: it is enough to say, that it is condemned by all writers on taxation, as inconsistent with every principle connected with that subject. As to agriculture, it is sufficient to say, that Dr. Paley condemns them as a most mischievous restriction. But as to the agriculture of Ireland, they form an obstruction which it is the interest of the people of this country instantly to remove. It is now fully proved that this country cannot possibly provide grain enough for its own consumption. I wish then to know where a supply is to be had, so long as the Baltic is shut by the decrees of Buonaparté, and the trade with America put a stop to by the embargo, where, except in Ireland? What would have been the distress of this country during the last two years, had it not been for the importation of grain from thence, will appear by examining the quantity imported; in the last year it was no less than 800,000 quarters. Is it not then an object of British interest, to remove from the agriculture of Ireland this great obstruction to its extension and improvement?

I have now only to call the attention of the House to one more topic, to illustrate the necessity of a change of the present tythe system. What effect has it had upon the tranquillity of Ireland? The insurrection of the White Boys was of 30 years continuance. This was succeeded by the United Irishmen, who were principally induced to embark in the conspiracy against the government by arguments founded on the grievances of tythes.^* To them succeeded the insurrection of the Threshers† So that for a space of 50 years, a continued system of active and open resistance and insurrection has disturbed the tranquillity of Ireland, arising from this mode of paying the clergy. Surely this circumstance alone, if no other existed, to prove the absolute policy of an alteration of system, is quite sufficient, and ought to induce the House to assent to my motion.

^*"If tythes had been commuted according to Mr. Grattan's plan, a very powerful engine would have been taken out of our hands."—Evidence of Dr. M'Nevin, 1798.

†An insurrection that was against the mode in which tythes were collected, and not against tythes as a provision for the Protestant clergy; the oath of the association requiring that tythes should be paid to the clergy and not to proctors.

I have now, Sir, explained to the House such reasons as occur to me, to shew that the peculiar circumstances of Ireland require a new manner of providing for the established clergy, independent of the general objection which may prevail in this country against the tythe system. I have shewn, that the religion and poverty of the people, the injustice of the laws, and the long continuance of insurrections, give to the question a character quite distinct from that which belongs to it in England; and therefore that a reform may be effected without prejudice to the interests of those who are concerned with tythes in this country.

In regard to the plan by which a remedy may be provided, I have no objection to state the opinion I have formed respecting it. I am aware, that it would be properly considered as temerity in me to pledge myself to any specific plan, or to call upon the House to adopt any plan on my recommendation: this I do not mean to propose; all I desire is, that the House will pledge itself to inquiry, and, according to the result of its investigation, adopt that plan which shall seem most expedient. That it is impracticable for the wisdom of the whole House to discover any plan, is a supposition which I cannot entertain, nor shall I ever believe it to be true, till proper attempts have been made, and the inefficiency of their labours been fairly shewn.

In the view that I have taken of the subject, my great objects have been; first, to exonerate the peasantry; secondly, to get rid of the direct payment by the Catholic, Presbyterian, or Quaker, to the Protestant clergyman; and lastly, to give the clergy a just and fair equivalent. To the several plans that have been proposed of giving land, or corn rents, or of selling the tythes, though very fit for a country like this, abounding in capital, and accustomed to the execution of measures of great labour and detail; as applicable to Ireland, there appear to me to be great objections. The proprietors of estates in Ireland have had an opportunity of purchasing on very easy terms from the crown, the quit-rents chargeable upon them; and yet few purchases have been made, though the quit-rents are of small annual amount; a circumstance which shews there is no probability, that, if the tythes were to be sold, purchasers would be found. If land were to be given in lieu of tythes it would be found extremely difficult to get it, without paying for it most extravagant prices. And as to the plan of corn rents, this objection exists to it, that those who do not profess the established religion would continue to pay directly to the established clergy.

I do not, however, mean at this time to say, that I have formed a decided opinion upon these several plans; and I wish to be understood in what I say respecting any plan, as reserving to myself a right to take advantage of the investigation of the proposed Committee, and to alter my opinion, if I shall think proper so to do. Under this qualification, I submit to the House the following as an outline of such a plan, as I conceive would give an effectual and a fair remedy for all that is complained of. 1st. The value of each benefice should be ascertained; 2d. the net income of it paid by the Treasury; and, 3d. the improved value of it secured to the incumbent, by a regulation to provide against the effects of a depreciation of money. In respect to the valuation, there is an act of the Irish Parliament, which would be a good precedent to govern the proceedings. It was passed in 1787, to give the means of compensating several of the clergy of the south of Ireland, who had lost their tythes by the insurrection of the White Boys. This act enabled the chancellor to appoint commissioners with full power to enquire into the value of the livings of those clergy to whom tythes were not paid. The value of them was ascertained, and compensation thus given to the suffering clergy. By following the same course, the value of each benefice might be easily and satisfactorily attained. As to the amount of the fund which it would be necessary to provide for the payment of the clergy, it is not easy exactly to ascertain it. In a publication of a right hon. and learned Doctor (Duigenan), it is stated that the number of the clergy is 1,300, that their whole revenues divided among them would not produce 150l. per annum to each of them, thus making them amount to 195,000l. per annum; but from this is to be deducted the annual value of 20,000 acres of glebe to obtain the annual amount of tythes. In a speech of the same learned gent. printed in 1791, he says, the parochial clergy are 800 in number; 100 of them have incomes above 300l. per annum, the rest have incomes below 200l. But I believe I am correct when I say, that no great dependence ought to be placed on these statements, it having been the object of the learned Doctor when he made them, to prove the great poverty and distress of the clergy. The more accurate way of taking the value of the income derived from tythes, is to adopt the prevailing opinion that they cannot be less than 500,000l. per annum, of which one-third belongs to lay impropriators. It is better and more candid to calculate on a sum somewhat large, than to lead the public to adopt a great measure on false data, and thus to produce disappointment. In respect to the means by which the Treasury shall be provided with this annual sum, it is not necessary for me now to point them out; this would be a fitter subject of consideration for the committee; but this is quite plain to be seen, that if the public purse is relieved from paying tythes, as they are now paid, it will be available to give the same amount in some other more convenient channel. In regard to securing the incomes of the clergy from the effects of the depreciation of money, I should propose that they should be regulated periodically by the prices of grain; if they had been so fixed in the year 1799, the average price of wheat then being for the last 29 years, 49s. 4d. per quarter: and of the last 10 years, to 1810, 83s., each clergyman in 1799 entitled to 100l. per annum, would now be entitled to 170l. and surely an arrangement that would give so large an advance, would have been one favourable to the clergy. But when I say that the incomes of the clergy ought to be increased as the prices of grain advance, I must also add that they should be diminished as they fall; because I consider the present high prices of grain not to be real prices, but to be the result of a depreciation of bank paper, of not less than 20 per cent, an evil that I trust will be remedied, by adopting the measures that will be recommended by the committee now sitting on that subject.

In proposing, Sir, this extensive alteration, I am fully aware that I am making myself liable to a charge of invading the rights of the clergy;—but I feel that I can defend myself from such an accusation if it shall be made, in the first place, by saying that I am discharging a duty my constituents hare imposed upon me; and se- condly, by a reference to the nature and legal import of those rights. I have not embarked in this undertaking of attempting to induce the House, to adopt the measure of a commutation of tythes without examining the grounds on which those rights are founded. I find it is laid down by Mr. Justice Blackstone, "that tythes are due of common right to the parson of the parish, unless there be a special exemption"—and in explaining what the meaning of an exemption is, he says, "lands may be exempted by prescription or by a real composition.—A real composition is where an agreement is made between the owner of the lands and the parson or vicar, with the consent of the ordinary and the parson, that such lands shall for the future be discharged from the payment of tythes, by reason of some land or other real recompence given to the parson in lieu and satisfaction thereof. This was permitted by law, because it was supposed that the clergy would be no losers by such a composition. But experience shewing, that even this caution was ineffectual, the disabling statute of 13 Eliz. was made."^* The inference to be drawn from this statement is, that the common law recognizes the principle of composition or commutation. That if I proposed to give land in the lieu of tythes, I should propose to do that which was strictly conformable to the common law. That when I propose to give money, though I do not propose a real composition, I propose what is consistent with the principle of one, because I take care that the clergy shall not be losers by the composition. I am aware this objection may be made, that in proposing to pay the clergy out of the treasury, they will lose the solid security of land. But to this I can answer, that tythes in Ireland are held by such a tenure, that if the treasury went, they must go also; for the system of government which preserves the one, must continue in order to secure the other.—Not so in England. The treasury might fail here, and at the same time no attempt be made to deprive the clergy of their unquestionable claim to their property in tythes. On the whole, therefore, I feel entitled to say, that in the outline of the plan which I have stated to the House, I have in no degree asked the House to invade the just and legal rights of the clergy of Ireland. I have not, I am aware, proposed to do all that some hon. gentlemen may be ready to say, ought to be done, because I have only proposed to give an equivalent for the net income of the clergy, and not an equivalent for the real value of the full tenth of the produce. But, Sir, if such a demand is made on behalf of the clergy, then I must make a claim upon the clergy for a distribution of the tythes, according to the original principles on which tythes were given them; I must claim one-fourth for the bishop, one-fourth for the poor, and one-fourth for repairing the church. It will be therefore more for the interest of the clergy not to raise any such demand; and I feel sure that no one, who is a true friend to the Irish clergy, will make it.

^*2 Blackstone's Comm. 2S.

I have now stated to the House an arrangement, which in my opinion, would operate as a sufficient remedy for the evil complained of. The plan is strictly consistent with the legal rights of the clergy; the valuation of benefices may be made on tried and established precedents; the value of the incomes of the clergy may be protected against the depreciation of money; the indigent poor may be exonerated by it from the payment of tythes; and the clergy themselves relieved from great vexation and great loss, by this mode of attaining their provision^*. It is, in truth, a plan nearly similar in every respect to one proposed to the Irish House of Commons, by a right hon. gent., the member for Dublin, in 1786. It differs only in this respect, that he proposed to raise the fund for paying the clergy by a baronial tax, and that I propose to raise it by a tax of a general nature, so that the Catholic, the Quaker, and the Presbyterian, shall no longer actually or directly make any payment under the name of a tythe tax to the Protestant clergy.

^*"Whenever a better plan shall be suggested for the payment of the clergy, that is one equal in value to them in succession, and more convenient to the laity, they will thank the statesman, who shall disencumber them of the constant trouble and the occasional ill-will arising from tythes." State of Church of Ireland, by Richard Bishop of Cloyne, p. 52.

"In 1807, 141 actions respecting tythes were tried in the Queen's county, at the quarter sessions; 146 in the county of Sligo; 198 in the county of Kerry; 283 in the county of Limerick; and 653 in the county of Tipperary."—From papers laid before parliament.

It only remains for me to call the attention of the House to a point, which I must always allude to whenever this question comes before it: I mean the fact, that the people of Ireland believe that relief from tythes was promised to them as a condition of the measure of Union. I know no article visibly and expressly exists to bind this country: but I know Mr. Pitt held out this relief as an inducement to the people to admit the measure. I know that the speech in which he called the system of tythes a great practical evil, and promised redress, was circulated through Ireland at the expence of government; that it was distributed gratis in every village of the kingdom; that the agents of government were instructed to tell the people that redress would be the result of the Union; and I know the universal opinion of the people of Ireland now is, that the faith of this country is pledged to grant that redress. What sort of policy then will it be for the minister of this country, at this period of time, to attempt to prove to the people of Ireland that they have formed an erroneous expectation—would it not be better, under all the circumstances of the case, the admitted necessity of a change, and this confirmed expectation, to meet the feelings and the injuries of the country, and to grant the redress that is desired? As to the motion which I am about to make, I beg the House to understand its true purport; it is one calling on them, to do what?—only to enquire into the complaints of the people of Ireland, laid before them by petitions, in a respectful and constitutional manner. This is all that is now asked; and will the right hon. gent., the prime minister of this country, at a time when the mass of the population of Ireland have been placed in a state of despair, in consequence of the unexpected obstacles which have arisen in the way of the great measure of emancipation; when the most powerful, the most enterprising, and the most successful enemy that this country has ever had to contend with, is on the eve of becoming master of the peninsula of Spain, and ready to take advantage of our divisions, and to carry into effect his long intended and favourite project of invading Ireland, that vulnerable part of the British empire; will, I say, the prime minister of this country refuse to inquire into the just and well-founded complaints of Ireland? I advise him, and I advise the House, to take care how they come to a decision so repugnant with every principle of the constitution, and at this time so inconsistent with every principle of sound policy. Rather let them do that which it is obvious they ought to do. Shew the people of Ireland that at length the time is come when this country is ready to fulfil the engagements on which the measure of Union was carried, and that it is sincere in a determination to do justice, and to afford redress to the long neglected and oppressed people of Ireland.

I beg leave to move, "That a select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner in which tythes are collected in Ireland, and such other matters relating to the levying and collecting of tythes in that country, as they shall judge it proper to direct their attention to."

requested the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while he stated his sentiments upon the subject which the hon. gent. had brought forward. It was one which had long engaged his attention, and had been the object of his most anxious solicitude; it was one to which his Majesty's ministers had most seriously devoted their thoughts. In many of the points which had been stated by the hon. gent. who had just sat down, he perfectly concurred. He admitted that it was a subject of the greatest importance, and that it was the duty of government to apply a remedy to the evils complained of, provided it could be done consistent with justice; but he did not agree with the hon. gent. with regard to the remedy which he had suggested, nor could he give his assent to the motion with which the hon. gent. had concluded. He could not give his assent to a motion for the House now to appoint a Committee to inquire into this subject because he thought it would be most injurious to the cause which all parties had in view, and most unjust to the parties concerned, for the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into this subject, without seeing their way much more clearly than they did at present, and without having some rational prospect that that inquiry would be attended with success. If the hon. gent. had moved for leave to bring in a bill, and had stated the provisions which he meant to introduce into it, if he had proposed any specific plan, he would have been ready to discuss that plan; but the hon. gent. had pursued a different course; he had proposed to refer all the petitions, which had been presented to the House, to a Committee, and to desire it to consider the whole subject, and to devise some remedy, although the hon. gent. himself had not, with all the information that he had obtained, and with all the diligence which he had employed, been able to propose any plan to the House himself. The hon. gent. had stated, that the great evil respecting tythes, arose from the mode of collecting them.—That he did not accuse the body of the clergy, but the greater part of the oppressions were practised by the proctors, whom the clergy were obliged to employ. It appeared to him that the hon. gent. was mistaken with respect to the source of the grievances, which were complained of. The grievances, in his opinion, arose from a cause not perhaps generally known to the members of that House, but it was proper that it should be fairly stated to them. A practice had prevailed generally throughout Ireland for a great many years, of letting their lands by public cant, that is, of letting them to the highest bidder, without any consideration of the incumbrances to which the land was liable. The consequence was, that ignorant persons bid for the land, and gave the full value for it, without at all considering that in addition to the very high price that they paid, that they had also to pay tythes. It appeared to him that the tythes ought to be considered as the first rent to which the land was subject; but ignorant persons, as he had before stated, in their eagerness to get the land, agreed to pay the full extent of its value, without reflecting that besides that rent they had to pay the tythes. The landlord forced the tenant to pay the rent, and when they were unable to pay the tythes, supported them against the clergy and the proctor, so that in fact the landlord was the oppressor, and not the clergyman, the lay impropriator, or the proctor. He could assure the House, that this subject had been for a long time under the consideration of ministers, that several bills had actually been prepared for the purpose of applying some remedy, but upon mature examination, it was found they could not be carried into effect with justice to the parties interested. The hon. gent. had declared it to be his opinion, that none of the plans which had hitherto been suggested by those who had devoted their attention to this subject, viz. those of corn rents, of selling or of leasing the tythes, would produce the desired effect, and yet each of these plans had been strongly recommended by persons who had devoted their time to the consideration of this subject. In one part of his speech the hon. gent. seemed to think that the clergy had an undoubted right to the whole of the tythes, and yet when he came to suggest his own plan, he had stated, that in making the clergy a compensation, it should be for the tythes as they were first established, and not for the tythes as they were now. He really had never heard such an idea broached before; in all the plans which he had ever heard suggested, it had never once been proposed that the clergy should not have their rights fully secured. In his view of the subject that object ought always to be carefully attended to; (sir J. Newport nodded assent)—he was happy to find that upon that point he had the concurrence of the hon. baronet, who had turned his attention so much to the question of tythes. He had himself often and anxiously looked to this subject, and from all the reports which he had seen respecting it, it appeared to him that the lay impropriators received about one third of the tythes and the clergy the other two thirds; but instead of receiving one-tenth, they did not receive, in some cases above one twentieth, and in others above one thirtieth. But in any plan proposed for the relief of the Clergy, the plan must be founded upon the principle of their being intitled to one tenth. Here then was one great difficulty; he did not mean to say that the difficulty was insuperable, but it must be obvious to every gentleman that it was an obstacle which it would not be very easy to get over. It undoubtedly was the duty, and it certainly was the sincere wish of his Majesty's ministers, to endeavour to get over these difficulties, and to adopt if they could, a plan which would do justice to all parties, and give general satisfaction; but he was sure that the House would agree with him, that it would be highly improper to give hopes and to raise expectations, when there was not a fair and rational chance of accomplishing the object in view. Another difficulty, and a serious one too, was, that in different parts of Ireland tythes were paid in different ways. In some places tythes were paid upon potatoes, in others they were not. In short, there were so many diversities that it would be most difficult to frame any general system that would embrace, them all. No man, he was sure, could suppose that government were not disposed to alleviate the sufferings of the people, if they did suffer; but it would be unfair not to take into consideration all the difficulties that presented themselves. The great difficulty was, that the landlords got more for their lands than they ought to get, and, in his conscience he believed that that was the chief cause of the dissatisfaction that subsisted. One of the plans which had been most strongly recommended in order to remove the complaints respecting tythes was, that of leasing them; but be was convinced, that when gentlemen looked at the state of Ireland, they would agree with him in thinking, that to give power to the incumbent to lease the tythes for a certain number of years, would not afford any adequate relief. In considering this subject, he had of course endeavoured to obtain information from every quarter, and among others, he had applied to the clergyman of the parish in which his house stood, and asked him the number of persons from whom he received tythes. The answer he received was, that the number who paid tythes last year was 1937. This seemed to be a great number; but the clergyman added in his letter, that the tythes of a very great proportion of these persons did not exceed from 1 to 10 shillings. From this statement, the House would at once see the difficulty of granting leases of tythes. The clergymen would let them to what is called in Ireland a middle man, that person would let them to another, and so on, until the person who was to pay the tythe, instead of one shilling, would have to pay five or six. The hon. gent, in his plan for abolishing tythes, seemed to think it necessary to ascertain not what the whole value of the tythes in each parish was, but what was the net value of the living, and then to lay a tax upon the people to pay the clergymen the value of this net receipt, now from this net receipt the hon. gent. would in the first instance, according to his own principle, have to deduct tythes paid by all extremely poor persons, whom be meant to exonerate from this burthen.—And this tax was to he laid in such a way, acording to the hon. gent.'s plan, that the Catholics were to pay it without actually knowing that they paid tythes. The hon. gent. had himself admitted that the Catholics were convinced of the justice of paying tythes, and certainly there were no people in Ireland who paid their tythes more cheerfully than the Catholics did. But he begged the House to consider the justice of this plan as it respected the clergyman. The hon. gent. would first pay him, not according to the fall amount of the tythes, but according to the net value of the living. Now he begged the hon. gent. to apply that principle to the parish which he had before mentioned. In that parish the incumbent let the tythes to the curate, and of course the hon. gent. would only allow for the net sum received by the incumbent, leaving; out of the question all that was received by the curate, which certainly upon every principle of justice, ought to be taken into the calculation. It would have been as well perhaps if the hon. gent. had informed the House in what manner he meant to lay this tax which was to supply the place of tythes, so that the mass of the people should not know that they were in fact paying tythes. There was something very extraordinary in the proposition of the hon. gent.; did he mean to say that the Catholics ought not to pay tythes? If he did, let him state that proposition fairly at once, and he would see what reception it would meet with from the House. If he meant that the Catholics should be subject to the tythes, why not let them at once fairly, and distinctly know what they were paying? One of the grievances complained of certainly was the conduct of the proctors of non-resident clergymen, but the great source of the evil, he would still maintain, was the circumstance of the landlord taking too high a rent. With respect, however, to the grievances resulting from the conduct of the non-resident clergymen, he hoped they would be in a great degree, if not entirely, removed by the bill for enforcing the residence of the clergy.—He regretted very much that he could not agree with the proposition of the hon. gent. but he thought it would be highly improper to go into the Committee without having something specific proposed to them. If he had proposed a bill, and stated what provisions that bill was intended to contain, the House could then have proceeded to the discussion of those provisions; but to resolve at once to go into a Committee, without at all seeing their way through the difficulties that surrounded them, would, in his opinion, be not only useless but injurious. No man could possibly feel a more anxious solicitude upon this subject than his Majesty's ministers did; they had many plans in their contemplation; but upon a mature investigation, they were found impracticable. Still however, they were anxious to put this subject upon a better footing; and during the recess he wou1d devote the utmost of his attention to it, and he trusted that by the next meeting of Parliament, he should be able to propose some plan to the House, or if he could not, he should at once state that he considered the measure as impracticable.—He should not follow the hon. gent, through the calculations he had made respecting the number of persons professing different religions in Ireland, because he did not think that they had any application to the question before the House, though he should have no difficulty in shewing that the hon. gent. was in many instances erroneous. But he believed that persons of all descriptions were anxious to apply some remedy to this evil, as they considered it. Whether he agreed with them upon that point or not, still he felt that it was the duty of government to allay even a prejudice, or to shew that they had done every thing in their power to remove the cause of the complaint. But he thought it would be highly improper to go into the Committee without having previously a rational chance of success; if they were to do so, they would excite a flame of expectation throughout Ireland, which they would not find it very easy to allay. He had shewn that the plan proposed by the hon. gent. was attended with insuperable difficulty. The hon. gent. had declared that none of the plans which had been previously proposed met with his approbation; under these circumstances, he confessed he did not see any chance of succeeding in the object which they all had in view by going into the Committee at present, he therefore felt himself bound, though very reluctantly, to oppose the motion.

said that if expectations of remedy for these evils had not been held out at the time of the Union, that measure would not have been so easily accomplished; and contended that government, having held out these expectations to the people of that country, were bound to take every measure, and consult every means of effecting what was then so solemnly held out. But now, instead of applying the remedy the same expectations were renewed, and the same offer was made, as was made two years ago, of doing something or other after the recess.

But it was not alone the expectations held out to the people of Ireland at the time of the Union that intitled them to redress, he contended, that they had additional claims to a modification of the tythes. For his own part, he must ever regard the marked inattention of ministers to every application for the redress of the Irish people upon this subject, as a gross breach of those pledges by which the noble lord (Castlereagh) had contrived to accomplish the Union. But this pledge was not made merely by the noble lord, but by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) whose successor the present minister boasted of being, aye, and by the right hon. gent. himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) who, immediately upon his succession to office, promised to take up the business. That right hon. gent. however, was contented to promise, and from session to session to renew that promise, without any apparent intention to fulfil it. The last speaker now succeeded to the same system of promise, and he very much feared he would succeed to the same system of performance also. The right hon. gent. called upon the House to wait until next session, and that then he might do something. But was it fair thus to deal with the people of Ireland?—and if they must wait, would the enemy wait also? Would that enemy who was ever active in his hostility to the British empire, decline to avail himself of the neglect of the English government to perform its engagements to the Irish people? Would he overlook the discontent with which the severe oppression of the tythe system was perpetually corroding the mind of the Irish? This was a consideration to which that House ought to attend, ere it was yet too late. They should take care to strengthen Ireland, as Ireland was the vulnerable point, and that strength was best to be produced by removing the discontents of its unfortunate population. The people of that country had really been so very ill treated upon the subject of the motion, that it could not be too emphatically urged upon the consideration of the House. At the period of the Union, an article was inserted in the act of Union for abolishing the tythes of agistment, because, according to the distinct declaration of a learned prelate in the Irish House of Lords, that measure must be carried as one of the conditions of an acquiescence in the Union. But the complete commutation of tythes was also promised. The latter, however, not hav- ing been granted, the effect of the former was wholly to transfer the burthen of tythes from the rich landed proprietors to the poor. It might be pretended, that there was no distinct pledge at the time of the Union to accede to a commutation of tythes. There might have been no written bond; but there was that which was equivalent to a bond in the mind of men of honour. There were prospects held out in various directions, and promises made by the highest authority, that a commutation of tythes should be one of the first consequences of the Union; and these promises he could assert had principally served to reconcile many to the adoption of that measure. Still it was possible that the same miserable expedient might be attempted with regard to these promises which had been resorted to upon the subject of the claims of the Catholics. How the pledges to the Catholics had been evaded could never escape the recollection of that House or of the Irish nation. But the evasion was glaring. He could prove at the bar, as he had before offered, that those pledges had been actually made. He could indeed shew, by irrefragable testimony, how the noble lord (Castlereagh) had managed the business—how the Catholics had received a solemn promise in one room, while a different promise was made to the Protestants in another—and how the promises to both had been grossly violated—how the noble lord

"Kept the word of promise to the ear,

"And broke it to the hope."

But although all the promises to the people had been disregarded, promises to individuals were rigidly fulfilled, and Ireland had in consequence to deplore, among other evils, an absolute degradation of the judicial function.—The right hon. gent. was, in his opinion, extremely wrong in founding his argument on this ground, that all the Irish gentry were most avaricious, raising their rents to the utmost limit, and thereby begetting a feeling of resentment in the tenant, towards the clergy, for exacting dues they were so ill able to pay, after discharging the grievous imposition of their landlords. He could not see how the House could interfere in the letting of lands, even at higher rates than they were worth, between landlords and tenants. But, because they could not remedy this, it was no reason why they should not remedy what was within their power. The right hon. gent. had spoken of the canting of lands in the county of Waterford; for himself, he could say, that he had never canted an acre in the course of his life, nor had he ever turned out an old tenant. The right hon. gent. had stated what was done in his parish; and, as it was but fair to set one parish against another, he would state what was the case in the parish where he resided. The effects of a trial of the system recommended by his hon. friend (Mr. Parnell) was to throw upon the rich the burden before altogether borne by the poor. By a general tax on pleasure grounds, &c. they had lightened the tax on arable lands and the ground where potatoes were cultivated. Then, why might not this system be extended throughout the country, every corner of which might be made to participate in the benefit? Why might not clergymen be content to receive the same sum, in peace and comfort, which they now obtained through everlasting turmoils and disputes? As the tithe system at present existed, no part of it was favourable to the Protestant religion. It would never extend it. The letting of the smaller tenants to curates was not calculated to promote the interests of religion; indeed it had quite a contrary effect. As for the right hon. gent.'s argument concerning proctors, it was not correct, for they were employed by the resident, as well as the non-resident clergy. He had consulted many clergymen on this subject, and, among others, one most valuable authority, who had been resident in his parish for 40 years, and that reverend gent. had said, that if a clergyman for one year collected the tithes of his parish, he would, from a view of the disasters and distresses it occasioned, be an advocate for commutation ever afterwards. By these proctors a great sum was diverted from the pockets of the poor, in vexatious law suits, &c. which never came into the hands of the clergyman. The mode, too, in which these proctors often concluded their bargains with the tenantry was very productive of oppression. They would call a meeting at the ale-house, kept by a brother, a nephew, or some relation, and there feed at the expense of the parishioners. Other meetings of the same kind frequently took place before the agreement was concluded, and at length it was terminated, after dinner, when the peasantry were half-drunk, and unable to attend to their own interests. It was thus that a cant was called in Sligo, and the tithes sold to the highest bidders; from the conclusion of which many disturbances ensued. The measure now proproposed would not injuriously affect the clergy. If they had an equal income, they could not be interested in the mode in which it was raised; and he knew that many of the higher order condemned and abhorred the existing system. For these, and many other reasons, it was, that they called on government to remedy that vicious system. It was admitted by all to be wrong; therefore, they ought to have a remedy. But the right hon. gent. opposite said, "No! do not inquire. Trust to me, and, by next session, I will propose a measure of redress." For his part, he would rather trust to the collective wisdom of 658 members of parliament. It was also said by the right hon. gent. "do not hold out expectations which may never be realized." This came very ill from those who had held expectations to induce a nation to make the greatest sacrifice a nation could make. They were also told to wait for a year. Would these gentlemen be able to persuade a foreign enemy to wait? Would it not be better to heal and consolidate the empire against all external attacks. Were one great part of it to have no inducements but promises thrown out and never made good? Were they to be told without inquiry, that remedy was impracticable. As for his hon. friend (Mr. Parnell,) he had not said what was imputed to him. He said that the Catholics would pay, in an indirect manner, the same rate more cheerfully than they would pay it directly to a Protestant clergyman.—This argument was held good by the example of that respectable body of men, the Quakers, who paid more than they would do, were they compelled to pay direct tythes. The right honourable gentleman had also urged the inequality of the collection of tythes. This very inequality was what was complained of. In one parish they took tythes on potatoes, which was not done in another. In one part there was a modus to relieve from the tythe of flax, which was not allowed in other parts. These were grievances, and it was indeed strange to hear them now adduced as reasons for not complaining. He would not enter into a detail of particular facts; but he knew many of the parochial clergy of Ireland, who, but from the dread of offending the superior and controuling powers, would be ready to state their being entirely favourable to the system of his hon. friend. The House of Commons were not fully acquainted with all the circumstances attending this Irish question, and, therefore, were not able to apply the necessary remedy. But inquiry would give them full information, and then they might come to a just decision. As for its creating a flame of expectation, this was the usual and general objection. The contrary was the case—for when the people saw that the House was in earnest, prosecuting measures for their relief, they would be satisfied. They would be satisfied, even though the result should be that no remedy could be found. If the other course was pursued, and inquiry stifled, it would be the source of rooted and bitter discontents.

in explanation stated that he did not mean to cast any reflection upon the Irish gentry, but upon the middle men, to whose conduct, he fully believed, was attributable the greater part of the oppressions of the poor. Indeed, he was warranted in this belief from a fact which had lately came to his knowledge. In consequence of some recent disturbances in a particular part of Ireland, which he had yesterday mentioned to the right hon. bart., government thought it its duty to send down a person specially to inquire into the cause, and the result of his inquiry was, that the disturbances were owing entirely to the manner in which a man, who had just obtained a lease of a large estate, had let out the ground at a rack rent to the people. Such was the communication officially made to the Irish government, and such was the nature of the case in his mind, when he abscribed so much evil to the misconduct of landlords.

thought it better to endure some evils than attempt to remedy them, unless a digested plan were laid down to proceed upon. Such a plan he had not discovered in any speech he had heard. The hon. gent, opposite had argued on general principles. His first general principle was the abolition of tythes; his second was, that the treasury should pay the lay impropriators; his third, that a tax should be substituted for the present tythes. These were all speculations, in which the hopes of the projector must inevitably be disappointed; and therefore, he was averse from giving them any sanction or countenance, by sending them for consideration to a Committee. No doubt tithes were felt as an inconvenience; so were rents, taxes, &c.; still they must be borne, and it was nothing but folly to contend against them. Gentlemen in that House, arguing from their knowledge of the practice in England, were apt to have a very erroneous opinion of the system of tythes in Ireland. In that country small tithes were unknown, and the abolition of tythes of agistment exempted pasture lands from any payment. A third of the property in tythes too belonged to lay impropriators, and in this any change would be severely felt, and create much confusion; for in these the property had for centuries descended from father to son, and were the foundation of family settlements. The House he was sure would therefore be cautious of interfering with such property, and consequently the principle of legislation now proposed must be exclusively applied to the other two-thirds. The hon. gent. then adverted to the resolution of the Irish House of Commons in 1735–6, by which those demanding the tythe of agistment and those concerned in the recovery of them by suits at law, were declared enemies to their country. This vote he condemned severely, as having diverted the arable into pasture land, and thereby being inimical to the population and civilization of the country. By it the tax passed from the rich grazier and fell upon the poor man's potatoe garden. It was possible, that those who approved of thus taking one half from the clergy, might wish to take the whole; but to him it appeared much better to restore the part taken away, than, by secret measures, to form a substitute for the remainder. He would stand by what was left them. He, as much as any man, deplored the system of proctorage; but he could see no means of getting rid of it by any legislative measure. In itself, he was happy to observe it carried the seeds of decay. In Ireland ft appeared from the report before the House, that there were 1,180 benefices, on which there were only 740 glebe-houses, and 500 of the clergy were nonresident. The late act was, no doubt, very salutary; but, till the glebe-houses were completed (which active exertions were employed in carrying into effect,) complete residence could not be expected. As this succeeded, the proctorage would consequently decay. He was ready to go hand in hand in any rational amend- ment that could be proposed, but would rather wait for the gradual effect of the system, than go into a committee to encourage rash and unfounded hopes which must end in dissappointment and necessarily lead to discontent.

agreed perfectly with the hon. mover in all his views upon the question. If the statement of the right hon. gent. (Mr. W. Pole) was correct, it would act as an eternal barrier to the commutation of tythes. For he had said the clergy had now only one-twentieth, instead of one-tenth, which they ought to have; and that any change must have the effect of restoring their original claim. One tenth of the produce was one-sixth of the whole value of the land; and he would say, that were this to be allowed for the performance of clerical duties, it were much better, instead of the exactions, to do away with the law itself. He had one other great objection to the system of tythes—they fell on the industrious, and spared the idle. He wished a committee to be appointed; as, however it might now be urged to the contrary, he was convinced, a better mode of tything, than that now existing, might be devised. He concluded by warmly panegyrising the motion, as calculated to produce the utmost benefit to Ireland.

had been instructed most earnestly by his constituents, to impress the necessity of the measure, proposed by his hon. friend, upon the House. Had the pressure of tythes not been in general very severely felt, he could not have had such instructions from a county, which, from its nature, was as little liable to them, as any in the country. He gave his most cordial support to the hon. mover, who hid stated many aggravated facts, which were sufficient to induce even the friends of the tything system to call for inquiry. He therefore hoped the House would not withhold it. In their arguments, the hon. gentlemen opposite had confined themselves to the plan of his hon. friend, but they ought to have answered the numerous observations thrown out by him, which were in themselves sufficient to demand inquiry. There were many plans of redress to each of which plausible objections might perhaps be made, but the fact was, there did exist a great evil, and if a committee was appointed, and should even report that no remedy could be discovered, that proceeding itself would satisfy, and induce the Irish people to submit to their sufferings. But when ministers asked them to put off the question till next session, and to trust to their inquiry, what was it but to ask them to trust to what had already deceived them year after year. This had been a stale practice in the Irish parliament for 25 years.—It was ever, "do not agitate the public mind while you have no digested plan," but this was postponing the question for ever. As for exciting a flame of expectation, he was desirous of seeing it excited. It would be a new flame, and totally different from the flame of despair, which would be excited, should the House of Commons reject inquiry altogether. Inquiry they called for, because tythes were not levied in Ireland as in England; because the same class of persons did not pay them; because they fell upon the poor; because these poor had not the same legal remedies; and, from the terror of applying for redress to the spiritual courts, were driven to enter into civil contracts, on which the proctor levied costs, and distressed the people. In Ireland the church establishment was supported by the same class of people who in this country were the objects of parochial relief, and were placed in the poor-houses. In England the tythes were paid by the rich, who had capital, machinery, and great extent of land. In Ireland they were paid by the poor, without capital, and whose only machinery to cultivate a small spot of ground, was the sinews of themselves and sons. A member for one of the most arable counties in England, (Mr. Coke of Norfolk) had complained of the tythes being to the amount of 5s. an acre, but what would they think, when they were told that wheat in Ireland paid two guineas, and potatoes 36s. an acre? The hon. gent. then answered the arguments of the last speaker but one, as to the vote against tythes of the agistment in 1786. This, he contended, was an argument for, instead of against inquiry; as it made all the capital farmers withdraw from arable to pasture farming. The remedy proposed by the hon. gent. was to extend the tythes again to the pasture land. In his opinion this was no remedy. It would be to double the income of the clergy, without relieving those now burthened. The idea was preposterous, and even had not the matter been settled by the articles of Union, the hon. gent. would find it extremely difficult to prevail on parliament to double the revenues of the church.

The clergy were already abundantly paid, and it was indecent to call on the poor to pay the Protestant clergyman, who was not even expected to perform a single clerical duty, a baptism, or a burial for them. To prove this, the hon. gent. quoted a passage from a pamphlet attributed to Dr. Duigenan, published in 1787, and stating the danger of any portion of the laity from the want of Protestant pastors becoming the prey of rambling Popish friars. The hon. gent. then proceeded to argue from the nature of the original institution of tythes, that they were intended for various other purposes besides that of the maintenance of the clergy. It appeared that in the times of Richard the 2d, Henry the 4th, Henry the 6th, down to Edward 4, that but a fourth part of the tythes then collected was appropriated to the clergy merely. He perfectly concurred in the opinion, that the clergy should be liberally provided for; but could not acquiesce in the proposal that their emoluments should arise from the misery of the people. He wished that the House would act upon rational principles, and consider that such a mode of draining the country was completely inconsistent with justice, especially if the present condition of Ireland was at all an object of attention.

wished that an inquiry should be instituted, of a candid and legitimate nature, but differed from the hon. gent., who had proposed the motion, as to the grounds upon which it should be supported.

said, that he had for a considerable time entertained the same opinion, upon the oppressive nature of levying tythes in Ireland, and that he had not in all that time heard one argument that could prevail on him to alter that opinion. He was more and more convinced of the propriety, and of the necessity, and of the practicability of a commutation, it was not the commutation that was impracticable, but it was the strict levy of the tythe that was so. The Irish clergy ought not to attempt to levy a tenth of Irish produce, because the measure itself was an impossibility; they could not do it, and what was more, they would destroy themselves by attempting to do it, the attempt would involve their destruction as a corporation. But were it practicable, would it be expedient? Let the church take the tenth of the national wealth, and what do either the country or the corpora- gain? The church may become too rich for devotion, and then a comparison will naturally grow out of the wealth of the established clergy, and the poverty of the tolerated, the one will have its odium, and the other will have its praise, the odium and the praise being both popular, may be equally excessive, but not on that account the less mischievous. He did not wish to touch the present income of the church. He would make it the basis of any arrangement that was to be proposed. Tythes, though abolished, would not affect an income derived from a different source; the country was able to provide for their established clergy, unless gentlemen would say that it was easy to provide for the moderation of the Catholic clergymen, but impossible to provide for the hungry ambition of the Protestant; who would listen to no other commutation than that of a tenth for a tenth. But that would not be said; he would not say it; for he could speak from knowledge in testimony of the moderation of the majority of the Irish Protestant clergy. There were a few whom he found to be sufficiently acute, furnished with a quick scent in the pursuit of clerical profits. They were, however, but few; the generality were of a different order. But the tythe proctor was of another species and another stamp, a public factor of public rapine; he extended beyond himself the infamy of his galling and griping character. The church suffered from the officious ministry of those sordid harpies. The tythe proctor cannot help being a tythe proctor. He only follows his nature when he grinds. But the clergy should be removed to a jealous distance from the contagion, of such a connexion. He was for going into a committee, if it were only to shew the Irish public that their interests were not wholly indifferent to that House.

said, that the grievance of paying rent to a landlord, might as well be complained of, as that of paying tythes. He contended that the true cause of the poverty of the lower classes of the people of Ireland, was very different from what had been represented. The people, in feet, were not by any means in such a state of indigence as had been described. Attacks had been made upon the proctors; but the most avaricious proctors could never act in such a manner, as the House was given to suppose. It was impossible for a proctor to levy one tittle more than had been ordered by his em- ployer. And what were those tythes, so much talked of? To his knowledge no more than five shillings an acre was levied in the diocese of Dublin; and he begged leave to ask whether such an imposition was too heavy; and if it did not on the other hand appear almost insignificant, when the immense produce of the land was considered? But the conduct of the clergy in making these demands upon their parishioners was very indulgent and kind; for, after the tythes had been due for some time, they were content to take a note at a year's date, for the amount; this was surely a very great convenience. It was wrong to call tythes a tax; they were no such thing, as the clergy were as well intitled to them, as the land proprietor to his lands: and to their being a severe and partial exaction upon the property of the Roman Catholics, he contended that that could not be the case, while forty-nine parts out of fifty of the landed property of Ireland were in the hands of Protestants.

could pay little attention to the observations of the last speaker; having understood from a noble lord not now in that House, when he was made a member of the privy council in Ireland, so little confidence was he thought entitled to, that he was to be the muzzled doctor. He (the general) had a petition on the subject of tythes during the last year from his county (Tipperary) which, trusting to the assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had not brought forward; but he now found him to be a slippery person. He was therefore, in favour of the motion.

declared that it would be holding out a most mischievous delusion to the people of Ireland were a Committee to be appointed, from which nothing could be expected, since the gentlemen who proposed it, had not themselves any distinct, idea of the object which they had in view. If they would bring forward any distinct proposition, he assured them that he would examine it with the greatest candour and attention. He completely denied that the clergy were not entitled to the tythes. They were the inheritance of the church; and, if commuted, ought to be commuted to the value of a tenth, with a diminution for the expences now attendant on their collection. In that case he was persuaded the tenantry of Ireland would pay much larger sums than they did at present.

warmly asserted the necessity for the appointment of a committee. Adverting to the neglect which he observed the affairs of Ireland experienced in the imperial parliament, he declared that should motions of this nature be systematically negatived, and should no steps be taken to ameliorate the condition of the people of Ireland, he should feel it his duty to propose the dissolution of a measure to which he owed the honour of a seat in that House.

was clearly of opinion that it became parliament to inquire minutely into the situation of the Irish people, with a view to its improvement. The interests of Ireland were the interests of Great Britain; the strength of Ireland was the strength of Great Britain; and he hoped that the House would enjoy the honour and happiness of ameliorating the condition of the brave, and generous inhabitants of the sister country.

opposed the motion, as tending to hold out a false hope to Ireland.

The House then divided; For the motion, 48; Against it 69; Majority 21.