| 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. 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. Mr. William Fitzgerald 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. t Mr. Grattan 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 imprac. ticable, 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 tion 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. Dr. Duigenan 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 fact, 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 proprie tor to his lands: and to their being a se vere 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. General Matthew 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 enti tled 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 Chancel lor 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. The Chancellor of the Exchequer 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 col lection. In that case he was persuaded the tenantry of Ireland would pay larger sums than they did at present. much object to the practice of reporting, nor was it his intention to follow up what he should now say with any motion. He only wished to awaken the House to the situation in which this indulgence of ad Mr. Hutchinson 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 sys-mitting strangers to hear the debates of tematically 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. Mr. Wilberforce 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. that House, and to communicate what they heard to the public, now stood. Any interruption to the practice of reporting, in his opinion, would be ill-advised. Nothing could be more distant from his intention than to restrain this practice. Some gentlemen might think it more advantageous, others less so; for his own part, he thought the advantages arising from the practice were greater than its disadvantages. Two things, however, were absolutely necessary to be observed in carrying it on. First, a respectful decency towards the House; secondly, all that fairness in detailing the speeches of individual members, which, in the circumstances of things could be attained. With Sir G. Hill opposed the motion, as tend-out the first, the sufferance would be daning to hold out a false hope to Ireland.. The House then divided; For the motion, 48; Against it 69; Majority 21. gerous-without the second, the practice be useless. He particularly meant to allude to a speech of a right hon. baronet (sir John Anstruther) a short time ago, which had appeared in a morning paper in such a manner as to throw ridicule on the speaker, being accompanied with annotations, and some parts of it printed in different character from the rest, so as evidently to betray the intention of the reporter. He reprobated the idea of encouraging such a practice. He had also. remarked that the speeches of some of the most considerable and distinguished members of that House were suppressed, and even where any allusion was afterwards made to the arguments or observations of those members such allusions were also omitted. In this manner did the proceedings of that House go before the public in a mutilated and partial form. If they were to be reported at all, they ought to be reported fairly. By suppressions of this kind the most destructive system of unfairness and misrepresentation might be introduced, and the liberty given by the House of reporting its proceedings fairly, would be completely perverted to an op. posite purpose. He should make no motion on the subject at present, but should feel it his imperious duty to call on the House to resort to the measures, which might seem necessary on the occasion, if what he had now said was not taken as a sufficient warning. He should expect in this endeavour the support of every gen2 Y tleman in that House, particularly of those who were most friendly to reporting; and he was also satisfied that he would confer an obligation on the public, who would naturally wish to see a fair, a full, and impartial account of the proceedings of the House. Mr. Tierney disclaimed all knowledge of any intention on the part of the hon. gent. to submit any observations on the subject to which he had now alluded. He had never thought of doing any thing in relation to the subject, so far as he himself was concerned. Sir S. Romilly's Motion respecting [692 himself right with the House and the country, and should even have been anxious to be allowed to answer the arguments which had been urged against him. But he should never for the sake of any object personal to himself, or from any idea of enforcing his own opinion on any subject, however important, think of risking the imprisonment of an individual even for a single day. He submitted, that now, at least, the imprisonment of Mr. Jones would be admitted to have been a suffi ciently severe punishment for the offence committed. He believed it had been generally the practice of the House not to listen to applications on the part of persons imprisoned under their authority, but on petitions, admitting the justice of the sentence, and the contrition of the party for the offence of which he had been guilty. He could not pretend to be so well acquainted with the practice of the House, as to say whether this was an invariable rule. But he did not conceive that there could be any practice, or any rule of practice so binding upon the House as to preclude them from proceeding on their own ideas of humanity, and from recollecting that, in the dispensing of justice, it ought to be tempered with mercy. Was Mr. Wortley hoped that all combinations of the kind alluded to would be broken through, and that some paper would set the example of taking up the matter in a fair point of view, by giving the speech of every member impartially. The Speaker said, the hon. gent. must be aware that this was an irregular con versation. proceeding in that House, that they were not competent to discharge any person who might have been committed under their authority, because he did not chuse to confess the justice of his punishment, and to express his sorrow and contrition? If that House had such a rule, it was one which did not belong to any court of jus tice in the kingdom; and it was extremely difficult to understand on what ground the House could have such a dominion as did not extend to the measure of punish ment alone, but entitled them to call on the individual to abjure any errors or prin ciple which he might maintain. This might have been the privilege of reli [MR. JOHN GALE JONES.] Sir Samuel Romilly rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move that John Gale Jones be discharged from his confinement in Newgate, for an alledged contempt of that House. Though the opinions he had delivered in that House on the subject of the legality of his commitment remained un-it to be esteemed an unalterable rule of altered, it was not his intention to call on the House to do any thing on the ground of the opinions he had then delivered, but he now built his motion on the simple ground, that the punishment already inflicted was sufficiently severe for the offence. He understood, at least so he was informed, that, when the matter was for merly before the House on a similar motion made by an hon bart. now in the Tower, several gentlemen had said, that they would have agreed to the motion for Betting Mr. Jones at liberty, if it had been made on any other ground, than that the proceeding of the House in committing him to prison was illegal; and though many agreed at that time that the punish-gious tribunals, which were content to ment was even then sufficient, yet they did not feel themselves at liberty to assent to his liberation, because they were afraid that they might thereby seem to acquiesce in the doctrine on which the motion for discharging him was then founded and supported. On this ground he (sir S. Romilly) should be careful not to say a word which could deprive him of single vote of any gentleman who might be thus situated. He should however have been happy of the opportunity of setting a make hypocrites when they could not make converts; but he hoped it would not be contended for in that House.Let gentlemen but reflect what might in such a case be the situation of indivi duals who might from conviction enter tain particular doctrines. One might publish a declaration, that this govern ment was a pure monarchy, and that the two Houses of Parliament were emanations from it, which might be spared. Would the House contend, that previous to the liberation of such a man from confine- for a breach of the privileges of the House; ment, he must abjure and renounce his and he had since suffered an additional theoretical opinions, and so complete by punishment, by imprisoning for five weeks a confession of what he was satisfied was longer, for the omission of presenting the not true, the measure of his own disgrace? petition, in other words, for not complying If the House had such a power it was with that formality which was usual on greater than that which any court in the such occasions. No man, surely, would kingdom possessed. To insist on such a contend that the breach of privilege for power, was to contend for what amounted which Mr. Jones was originally committed to the height of degradation, against the was not an offence of much greater magperson who was exposed to it. It went nitude than this latter omission; if so, and infinitely beyond any corporal punish- he ought to have been discharged five ments whatever. If such a power as this weeks ago, having then suffered sufficient was to be asserted and maintained, if after punishment for the greater offence, who imprisonment the person committed was would contend that he ought not now to to be forced to retract--if this was to be be discharged for the smaller offence, one of the privileges of the House-it was unless, indeed, it was to be insisted, that high time that the line of distinction should besides submitting to an adequate, or more be drawn, and that it should be seen how than an adequate punishment, he must also far the principle was to be carried.-It undergo that torture of confessing that to would be necessary, in this view of the be an offence, which in his heart he did subject, to look back to times past, when not feel to be one. On this principle, if they would see, that the form of proceed- he could not bring his mind to admit as ing with respect to the privileges of the true what he knew to be false, he must reHouse in this respect, had undergone as main in prison till the close of the session, great a change as our general manners. which might not be sooner than the latter Formerly, when a person was called to end of July-a punishment which he (sir the bar to be discharged, it was not suffi- Samuel Romilly) could not but conceive cient for him to petition and to express to be inordinately severe. Supposing sorrow for the offence, but the prisoner was Gale Jones to have an opinion, however obliged to ask pardon on his knees. It erroneous, that he had committed no such was now half a century since such an ex- breach of the privileges of the House, as hibition had been made, and he believed warranted them in committing him to the last person who had kneeled at the prison, and holding that opinion, to be imbar in that manner was Alexander Mur-pressed with the idea that it would be criray. Not only was kneeling at the bar formerly the practice, but on the occasion of a Cornwall election, two persons of considerable rank, one of them a baronet, who had incurred the displeasure of the House, were ordered not only to kneel at the bar to receive the Speaker's reprimand, but also at the assizes to acknowledge their offence before the judges and the county. He did not suppose the House would think these precedents on which they should act. He begged them therefore to consider, whether they now felt themselves intitled to impose any thing beyond an adequate punishment? If they did not, the question would then be, What was the punishment which the individual had suffered in this case? It was imprisonment for nearly two months. On the 12th of March last, at which time Mr. Jones had been in prison only 20 days, it was the general sense of the House that if a petition had then been presented, he should have been discharged. He had then suffered an imprisonment of 3 weeks, minal conduct in him to confess the con- |