established in some parts of Ireland already for some tithable articles? Is it impossible to have a moderate modus on corn, and some modus on pasture? Or to lay on potatoes a very small modus, or rather to exonerate them as well as flax? Would it not be practicable to get rid of the tithe-farmer, and give his plunder between the people and the parson? If all this be a difficulty, it is a difficulty which is worthy of you, and if you succeed in any part of it you do service.

The other argument relies on the times; and I acknowledge they are an objection to the bill at present, but none against the laying the foundation now of a measure to take place on the restoration of public peace.

The meeting of the common people is partial, but the complaint is general; it is the complaint of the whole community; it is the complaint from the north to the south; and if it be the complaint of the insurgents, it is also the complaint of those gentlemen who have been most active to suppress them. This motion, therefore, may be an inducement to preserve that peace, it cannot be an incentive to the contrary; it is giving government the full force of reward and punishment, and Ï apprehend, if no step whatsoever was taken, and no debate introduced at present, nothing would be done in future. I have purposely refrained from mentioning some shameful acts of oppression which had given rise to tumult, though they could not apologize for it, it had been known that tithe-farmers had received sixteen shillings an acre when the parson had received but six. I have heard of tithe-proctors picketting poor men who could not pay their demands. I have been well assured that among that worthy set of characters, a good process server who could swear well was in great estimation, as by his means they were enabled to drive away poor people's cattle, without the trouble of any process at all; but I refrain from upholding to the House a picture which would strike every man with indignation. As to the method of giving redress, I do not mean in any degree to contract the living of the clergy, or to say that a want of moderation in them has caused the present complaints. I do not think it has; I think they are founded in the radical defect of the system established for their support, and in the rapaciousness of their agents; I do not mean then to deprive the clergy of the benefit of the growth of the land, or the growth of religion, but I wish to collect their revenue by a modus. In the next session of Parliament, I will introduce a plan that will go a great way in effecting this, and though perhaps it may not be altogether perfect, yet certainly it will be more perfect than the present

system. I shall, therefore, trouble you with a motion now, and next session with a bill.

He then moved the following resolution :

“That, if it shall appear, at the commencement of the next session of Parliament, that public tranquillity has been restored in those parts of the kingdom that have been lately disturbed, and due obedience paid to the laws, this House will take into consideration the subject of tithes, and endeavour to form some plan for the honourable support of the clergy, and the ease of the people."

The motion was seconded by Sir Henry Harstronge, and sup ported by Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Major Doyle, Mr. Todd Jones, Mr. Charles O'Neil, and Mr. Curran. Mr. Curran observed upon certain controversial publications between the Bishop of Cloyne (Dr. Woodward) and the Reverend Dr. O'Leary. He said, it is difficult and delicate to speak any thing on this subject, peculiarly so to me, who, I know, have been grossly misrepresented as an enemy to the rights of the church. I disclaim the charge. I respect the clergy. I will never hear of any attempt to injure their legal rights. I love their religion. There is only one religion under Heaven which I love more than the Protestant; but I confess there is one, the Christian religion. As the subject has been forced into the debate, I cannot help saying, that I think it incumbent on the House to show themselves untainted by the intolerant principles of certain publications. In doing so, I am persuaded they will perfectly concur with the respected author of one of them. I am satisfied, that good and pious man has long since regretted the precipitate publication of those hasty sentiments, and rejoiced that their natural tendency had been happily frustrated by the good sense of the public. But I see no reason for introducing the name of his adversary as a subject of censure in this House. Mr. O'Leary is a man of the most innocent and amiable simplicity of manners in private life. The reflection of twenty years in a cloister has severely regulated his passions, and deeply informed his understanding. As to his talents, they were public; and, I believe, his right reverend antagonist has found himself overmatched as a controversialist. In this instance, it was just that he should feel his superiority. It was the superiority, not of genius only, but of truth, of the merits of the respective causes. It was the superiority of defence over aggression. It was the victory of a man, seeing the miseries of his country, like a philosopher and a tolerating Christian, and lamenting them like a fellow-subject, obtained over an adversary who was unfortunately led away from his natural gentleness and candour, to see those miseries, and, of course, to represent them through a fallacious medium.

It was a victory in which, I am persuaded, the vanquished rejoiced, and of which the victor rather bewailed the occasion than exulted in the achievement. I am sorry that these subjects should

be introduced into a debate of this kind; but as they were, I think we should show the public that we were not inflamed against our fellow-subjects by that persecuting or suspicious spirit, which had been relinquished even by those that first caught and incautiously endeavoured to propagate the infection.

The motion was strongly opposed by Mr. Orde, Sir Hercules. Langrishe, Mr. Bushe, Mr. George Ponsonby, Mr. Connolly, Major Hobart, Mr. Mason, and Sir Francis Hutchinson. They argued, that the time was improper; that this would be to capitulate with insurrection, and offer a reward for that obedience to the laws on which they had a right to insist.

Mr. GRATTAN replied: Sir, the subject has been agitated in such a variety of different ways, and opposed by so many gentlemen, that, even at this late hour of the night, I feel myself under the necessity of making some observations; and at the same time I assure the House, that nothing but a conviction of the propriety of the motion could make me resist the wishes of so many gentlemen, whom personally I love and respect; but I would appear a very light man, should I, by withdrawing the motion, give any ground to suppose that I have taken up the subject without the most mature consideration, or that I would hazard such a motion without duly considering its consequences. This is not the case; and, therefore, it is not the smallness of the minority in which I might be found that would induce me to relinquish a measure arising from justice, mercy, and true policy. The only effect a defeat on the present occasion can produce is, to confirm me in a resolution of doing, in the next session, that which the situation of the church and the people both require. I have the utmost veneration, love, and respect for the church, which I am determined to prove, not by words only, but by acts. I have heard, indeed, very plausible professions of regard to the church; but while they remain mere words, unaccompanied by deeds, I shall pay little regard to them. I am determined to prove my affection to the church by my actions, by securing her ministers in an honourable affluent independence, and by removing every cause of dispute that could endanger their persons or properties.

I could have wished that government had not taken any part in the business. I cannot see what an English cabinet, or an Irish secretary, has to do with it. The gentlemen of the country know best their own situation; it must therefore be left to them. On the Riot-bill, the House had resolved themselves into a committee on that part of the Lord Lieutenant's speech which respected the disturbances; they did not, however, examine at all whether there were any dis

turbances, but they adopted a measure more adapted to an adult sedition than to the suppression of a flying peasantry. However, as ministers were responsible for the quiet of the country, the measure was agreed to; but having done so, it certainly is now necessary to enquire into the distresses of the people; to enquire into their grievances after they had become coerced into obedience; after it has been declared, by some of the first officers of the state, and allowed by every one, that they were bowed down with misery, and ground to the earth with oppression; after we had passed a law to shoot, and to hang, and to whip, and to banish, and to imprison them, could it be thought too soon to enquire into their grievances? It might, indeed, be too late; but the dignity of Parliament would be injured. And how has the right honourable gentleman maintained that dignity? By sealing up the lips of the majority, and pronouncing his veto against compassion. I should have wished he had not rose, or that the imperial veto had not sealed up the springs of humanity.

It has been said that the exoneration of potatoes from tithe would be of no advantage to the poor. Where have gentlemen learned this doctrine? Certainly not in the report of Lord Carhampton. Or, will they say, that taking sixteen shillings an acre off potatoes, is no benefit to the miserable man who depends on them as his only food?

It has been admitted that some tithes are illegal, such as those on turf, and the poor man is advised to institute a lawsuit for relief. Are gentlemen serious when they give this advice? or will they point out, how the man who earns five pence a-day is to cope with the wealthy tithe-farmer who presses him?

op

It has been said we should not pay any regard to people in a state of resistance; that it would be derogatory to the dignity of Parliament, and that they should apply in proper form. I laugh at this lofty kind of language; there can never be a time when it is improper for the legislature to do justice.

The question was then put for going into the order of the day (to supersede Mr. Grattan's motion), and it was carried without a division.

NAVIGATION ACT.

March 20. 1787.

ON the 5th of March, Mr. Grattan had enquired from the Attor ney-general, regarding a bill for which leave had been given on the 23d of February, under the title of a bill for the Improvement of Navigation, whether the bill was to go farther than the mere registry of ships. The Attorney-general said, the intention was to insert a clause in the bill declaratory of the navigation act being in force in this kingdom.

MR. GRATTAN then said: I find this bill is to enact the navigation law; a law of greatest anxiety to the British minister; a law intended, indeed, to confer equal benefits, and impose equal restraints; but so construed by Britain as to confer benefits on herself, and exclude Ireland. This was a principle of the propositions, and a very old complaint. England sent plantation goods to Ireland, and refused to receive them from us under colour and construction of one and the same law, this act of navigation. This law, it seems, now, gentlemen begin to suspect is not valid in Ireland; and it is now proposed by them to be enacted here, subject to the hostile construction, and it is to be brought in on Wednesday, to be pressed, I suppose, with the usual expedition.

The Attorney-general said that the right honourable gentleman laboured under an error in his conception of the matter.

Mr. GRATTAN. If I am in error, I err with authority; I have the authority of as good lawyers as the right honourable gentleman, to say, that the act of navigation is not the law of Ireland; if I am in error, I have the authority of the measure of the right honourable gentleman himself, who, justly diffident of his own assertion, calls on Parliament to give it the authority of law, and proposes to enact the navigation law now, about whose validity he says he has no sort of doubt, but acts as if he had great apprehensions. This is a question of the greatest consequence. I have no objection that the bill should be brought in on Wednesday, provided it is to be printed, time given to consider it, and the House to be called. Gentlemen will recollect, that it has been ever the policy of England to have the act of navigation acknowledged in Ireland, and that, if a commercial adjustment should be proposed next session, a doubt about the validity of the

VOL. II.