.

have any foundation in the fact; but to put this defiance to issue, I ask the right honourable gentlemen on the other side, have they any authority from the British minister, to tell Ireland, that, unless she shall re-enact the navigation law, England will repeal the settlement of 1782? I wait for an answer; there is no such thing.

The plantation trade is out of the question-I congratulate you, your minds are at ease, that fear is idle. But if you were to examine the value of that trade, with the loss of which you are threatened, perhaps you would find that it is not inestimable. I allow it is of some value; I do not wish to depreciate the grants of England; you do import directly and you do export directly something, but not in any very great quantity. Whence do you get your sugar? From old England; what bales of cotton manufacture or woollen manufacture have you exported directly to the plantations? Have we forgotten what we have heard on the subject of the propositions, that our plantation trade did not depend on the act of navigation, but on the issue of the second market, that is, on the equal operation of the navigation act, of the act before you? I thought gentlemen went too far when they talked down the plantation trade, as it were nothing without the market of England, without this point of construction or operation; but I am astonished that they now urge the plantation trade as an argument for adopting the act of navigation, without taking the precaution of securing that equality under the act, withou which the plantation trade, in their opinion, is inoperative. One gentleman says it is law, another it is not law; but both agree to prepossess your judgment, by exciting a false indifference or a false panic. There is another argument that comes in aid of these, which tells you, it is of no consequence whether the navigation act is or is not law; because the inequality arises from two outstanding acts of Parliament; one the act of customs in Ireland, which admits British plantation goods; the other the act of the twelfth of George III. in England, which prohibits their import from this country; and therefore he advises you to adopt the act of navigation, because there are two other acts of Parliament which deprive you of its benefits. Before you pass the clause under consideration, recollect that we have not very indirectly been invited to institute an adjustment with Great Britain. I am against advancing on that subject; I do not wish to make new points with England; there are some things might be better adjusted, but I would leave that adjustment to temper and to time. England now receives France and excludes Ireland. I do not believe she need be afraid of being rivalled by either; but this

is a consideration for her and not for us; we have done our part; we have opened our market to England; we cannot give our constitution; if she chuses to advance; if ashamed to give privileges to France which she refuses to Ireland, she wishes to relax, it is well; we are ready to thank her; but if the court wishes to advance, and proposes the removal of a new doubt, by adopting a new and experimental measure, such as the present, we must assert, and we reply by establishing an old claim and an old principle. My answer to this proposition is to take the act of navigation on its true principle, and my sentiments are Irish equality and British shipping; and my amendment is as follows, and my vote shall be for the amendment and for the bill, for the English navigation act on its own principle.

He concluded with moving the following amendment to the preamble of the act:

"And whereas it is the meaning and intention of the said act, passed in England in the twelfth year of King Charles II. to impose the same restraints and to confer equal benefits on His Majesty's subjects in England and in Ireland, and that both kingdoms shall be thereby affected in the same manner."

To put the House in possession of the whole measure, he stated that he intended to follow the amendment, by moving the annexed proviso for the bill:

"Provided, that the said act, passed in England in the twelfth year of the reign of Charles II. shall bind his Majesty's subjects of Ireland, so long as it shall have the effect of conferring the same benefist, and imposing the same restrictions, on both kingdoms.

The amendment was supported by Mr. Corry, Mr. Ogilvie, and Mr. Curran. It was opposed by Mr. Denis Daly, Mr. Beresford, Mr. Mason, Sir Hercules Langrishe, and the Attorney-general. They said, that in their conception the navigation act comprised the same benefits in the two countries, and therefore the amendment was unnecessary. The Attorney-general, alluding to the propositions, made an attack on the English opposition, and ridiculed the idea that they had shown any regard for the Irish constitution in the whole or any part of that proceeding.

Mr GRATTAN observed: Sir, the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Fitzgibbon) makes a reply necessary; he charges me with speaking without knowing well what I was about. I had rather be the object of his severity than the retaliator of it; he has mis-stated what I said; perhaps a very able advocate, which most undoubtedly he is, may think mistating a very fair figure of argument. I did not say that the act of navigation was the

law of Ireland; I gave no opinion; I said some great lawyers doubted, but the people obeyed. I did not say that we had no benefit from the direct plantation trade, but I did say that as yet we had not any great benefit from it, no great direct export or import. The right honourable member has spoken of the English opposition much to their disadvantage; he will allow, however, they had one merit, that of making the right honourable member Attorney-general. He is, however, too high in situation, ability, and independency, to be the partizan of the party in government, or any party; but if he has censured the English opposition, he has censured his own countrymen at least as liberally. Sir, they were invited to discuss the subject by the minister, they gave such an opinion as was approved of by many very able and very honest men. We should treat that opinion at least with good manners, particularly the right honourable member should do so, because he has abilities and pretensions sufficient to enter into the fair field of argument without any other assistance. However, what has fallen from the right honourable member is a proof that a certain asperity is not inconsistent with an excellent head and a very good heart.

Ayes

The committee divided on Mr. Grattan's amendment; 52, Noes 127; Majority against Mr. Grattan's amendment 75.

TITHES.

MR. GRATTAN MOVES FOR A COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO THE STATE OF TITHES.

February 14. 1788.

On the 29th of January, the Secretary of State obtained leave to bring in a bill to "enable all ecclesiastical persons and bodies, rectors, vicars and curates, and impropriators, and those deriving by, from, or under them, to recover a just compensation for the tithes withheld from them in the year 1786, in the several counties therein mentioned against such persons who were liable to the same." The bill was read a first time; on which occasion,

Mr. GRATTAN said: I beg to recall to the recollection of the House the notice which last session I gave of my intention, in the course of the present, to lay before the House a plan for the commutation of tithes and the better maintenance of the clergy. I now give notice, that it is my determination, as

soon as the public business relative to the accounts and supply should be dispatched, I shall enter upon the subject of tithes; and I do not despair of being able to offer to the House a plan perhaps not altogether perfect, but such as the wisdom of Parliament might easily mature into such a system as would give the clergy a more comfortable and more honourable support than they at present possess, without proving in any degree burdensome to the farmer, or cultivator of land. I see no difficulty in uniting the interests of the clergyman and farmer, and putting an end for ever to those dissensions so injurious to both; at present I will not go farther into the subject, because I conceive it could not be investigated, on broad and extensive ground, till after the public business had been gone through.

On this day, the 14th of February, he brought forward his promised motion.

He began by observing, that it was not his intention to surprise the House at present, by introducing so important a subject as that of tithes. I would prefer submitting the grievances complained of by the peasantry to a committee, who would examine if they really existed or not. That such a mode of proceeding would meet with the approbation of the House, I have no doubt, as the committee, by considering the magical error in its true form, would see the necessity of a commutation of tithes ; a commutation which, if I was to propose in the first instance, without convincing the House that the peasantry were really distressed, might bring on an opposition that I would wish, if possible, to see avoided on the present momentous subject. It is a position in politics, as well as in physics, that for the purpose of removing the complaint, it was necessary for the physician to know the nature of the disorder. For this For this purpose there are many respectable witnesses ready, to attend, to prove their allegations, which, I am convinced, would show the necessity of a reformation being made in the mode of provision for the clergy. I therefore move, "That a committee be appointed to enquire, whether any just cause of discontent exists among the people of the province of Munster, or of the counties of Kilkenny or Carlow, on account of tithe, or the collection of tithes, and if any, to report the same, together with their opinion thereupon."

In this committee I shall state, and bring evidence of the grievances under which the wretched people labour. In this committee I shall also submit what occurs to me as the proper remedy. I do not wish, in the first instance, to usher these matters to the House, because, as I said before, I am unwilling to risk the interest of the clergy, the cause of the poor,

and the happiness of the country, upon my opinion. Let me then beseech an inquiry, from which much good, and no mischief whatever can possibly result.

The Attorney-general (Mr. Fitzgibbon), and Mr. Hobart, objected strongly to the mode pointed out by Mr. Grattan.

Mr. GRATTAN then rose, and spoke as follows: Sir, the people in the south have grievances, and one of their principal grievances is tithe; do not take it upon my authority; go into a committee. It has been said, in defence of clerical exactions, that though sometimes exorbitant, they have never been illegal. I deny it: and will produce proof at your bar, that exactions in some of the disturbed parts have been not exorbitant only, but illegal likewise. I will prove that, in many instances, tithe has been demanded, and paid for turf; that tithe of turf has been assessed at one or two shillings a house like hearth-money; and, in addition to hearth-money, with this difference, that in case of hearth money, there is an exemption for the poor of a certain description; but here, it is the poor of the poorest order, that is, the most resistless people, who pay. I will prove to you, that men have been excommunicated by a most illegal sentence, for refusing to pay tithe of turf. I have two decrees in my hand from the vicarial court of Cloyne; the first excommunicating one man, the second excommunicating four men, most illegally, most arbitrarily, for refusing to pay tithe of turf; nor has tithe of turf, without pretence of law or custom, been a practice only; but in some part of the south, it has been a formed exaction with its own distinct and facetious appellation, the familiar denomination of smoke-money. A right to tithe of turf has been usurped against law, and a legislative power of commutation has been exercised, I suppose for familiarity of appellation and facility of collection.

I am ready, if the House will go into the inquiry, to name the men, the parish, and all the circumstances.

It has been urged, the law would relieve in the case of demand for tithe of turf; but you have admitted the poverty of the peasant, and you cannot deny the expense of litigation. Sir, the law has been applied, and has not re

lieved.

I have authority from a person, now a most eminent judge, and some years ago a most distinguished lawyer, to affirm to this House, that he, in the course of his profession, did repeatedly take exceptions to libels in the spiritual court for tithe of turf, and that they were uniformly overruled; and I have the same authority to affirm to you, that the spiritual courts