succeeded in pulling down the illicit trade."

Sir J. Newport appeared to much less advantage upon anMay 3. other business," which," he said, "was of most material importance, as it concerned the revenues of Ireland, and deeply affected the interests of that country. It was most necessary to abolish the plan of incidents, under which denomination not only pensions and salaries were ranked, but every emolument and fee obtained by those connected with the revenue. The commissioners appointed to inquire into the abuses of the Irish revenues had censured this system as most injurious. In their ninth report, they had censured a grant of 10001. made to Mr Croker, surveyor-general, for extraofficial duties; he did not mean to under-rate the exertions of Mr Croker, or the services which he had rendered; the commissioners allowed that his business was of a most weighty nature, but yet not such as to justify a grant to that amount; nor could he conceive any greater evil, than that of applying the public money upon occasions where it was not deserved." He therefore proposed a resolution, that this sum had been paid to Mr Croker for extra-official duties, and that the commissioners of inquiry did not conceive those duties were such as to entitle him to such a sum. Another resolution which he proposed, was to censure, upon the same authority, a grant made to Sir George Shee, the receiver-general, who had been super. annuated after having been in office only eight years, during which he had not attended to the duties of his of fice. Another resolution related to Mr Forward, the treasurer of the post-office; he could not help stating the grounds upon which that gentle

man had requested a superannuation. The money received at the post-office, instead of being delivered into the bank, was left in the hands of the deputy-treasurer; a reform was thought necessary, and a minute was made for the purpose of getting the money into the bank; many attempts were made to do away this minute, that the cash might return into the old channel, but these were ineffectual; the treasurer waited for a government which would superannuate him for his services, and at last he found it. He supposed, as he had not made away with the money which went through his hands, that he was entitled to a large remuneration. Sir J. Newport therefore moved, as his third resolution, that the house considered such a system of conduct as this highly reprehensible. "These," he said, "were but parts of a very extensive system; many officers, nominally superannuated, had salaries under government arising from other situations; and it would even be found, that 5 or 60001. a-year, were given to a storekeeper, when it could be proved that between 130,000l. and 150,0001. value, in goods, had disappeared, and never been accounted for by those who were justly responsible."

With regard to the first resolution, Mr Foster said " he would state in broad and strong terms, that what had been advanced respecting Mr Croker was not founded in fact, and that if Sir J. Newport read through the report of the commissioners upon which his statement was founded, he would have found that he was mistaken.

The sum of 1000l. was not given to that gentleman for extra services; it was a debt due to him, which he would have recovered had he sued at law for it." Mr Foster then read a memorial of Mr Croker's

from the report, in corroboration of this assertion; and this made the matter so plain and glaring, that Mr W. Smith declared his opinion, that no censure could be too strong for the conduct of the commissioners who made the report. Mr Croker's son then rose, and entered into the following statement: "In the year 1801, the elder Mr Croker was appointed surveyor-general of the port of Dublin, with a salary of 800l., being 4001. less than any other surveyor-general had when employed, though his duty required a constant residence in Dublin. He found very considerable arrears of duty due from the distillers, which arose from this cause, that the commissioners could not ascertain the amount of the arrears, nor the quantity of spirits which had gone into consumption without payment of duty, till the end of every quarter, and then it sometimes happened that it was too late to recover. But Mr Croker turning his attention to the subject, found in an act of parliament the means of compelling the distillers to make their return, and pay the duties weekly. There was a clause in this act, enacting, that if any distiller suffered an arrear to exist beyond a given time, he should be liable to a certain penalty, one half of which was to go to the crown, the other to the prosecutor. But it was well understood by the distiller, when Mr Croker put this law into force, that his sole intention was to enforce the payment of the money due to the public weekly; and that though he should, by prosecuting them in case of any failure on their part, become entitled to certain penalties, he would not touch a farthing of these penalties, provided they paid their arrears; and the Board of Excise would, in like manner, remit the other half of the

penalties. In pursuance of this plan, Mr Croker obtained judgements for penalties to the amount of 42,9001., to one half of which he would have been, by the letter of the law, entitled; but, in consideration of his understanding with the distillers, he merely kept those penalties in terrorem over them, and remitted them as soon as the arrears were paid; and in this manner he proceeded for several years, regularly enforcing payment of the arrears, and regularly giving up the penalties. It remained to explain in what manner that sum became due to him, which had given occasion to the misrepresentation of the commissioners, and the consequent error of Sir J. Newport. Two distillers, who had often got into arrears and paid them up, became insolvent at a time when penalties to the amount of 2,1001. were hanging over them. The arrears not being paid on the occasion, the officers of the court, when the conviction took place, proceeded to levy the penalty, and it was then vested by law, one half in the crown, one half in the prosecutor. Mr Croker happened at that time to be in England, in discharge of his duty, and knew nothing of this transaction till he was called upon to know whether he had received his moiety. It then appeared, that the money, when levied, had been paid into the hands of the collector of the excise, and he, by mistake, instead of carrying it to the amount of fines and seizures, carried it to the account of arrears. Mr Croker's moiety having in this manner got into the treasury, the mistake could not be rectified except by a memorial. Such were the real facts of the case, and assuredly they gave strong grounds to complain of the commissioners. The memorial which Mr Croker presented

to the lord-lieutenant distinctly stated the grounds of his claim; but it concluded, as is usual in memorials, with requesting the favourable attention of the lord-lieutenant to it, in consideration of his long, faithful, and extra-official services. The clerk in entering it, instead of entering the grounds of the claim, merely stated, that it was for extra-official services; and so the commissioners had disingenuously stated it, though they had all the documents before them: their own garbled story they inserted in the very front of their report, and it was only by wading through an appendix of 300 folio pages, in which they had buried Mr Croker's memorial, that the real truth of the case could be found out. They had stated, that there was no difference between this case and any other: the difference was this, that in other cases the penalties had not been levied, but remitted; in this, the money had actually been levied, and of course legally vested under the act of parliament; and with this legal and marked difference, the commissioners had been pleased to say that they could ɛee none! They had not stated, that this case had been referred to the solicitor of the board, and that he had made a report decidedly in favour of the right accruing under the warrant. It might also have been expected that, in point of fairness, when they were about to make this report, they would have examined Mr Croker himself upon the subject; but no one question did they ever put to him upon it, though they had daily opportunities of so doing.'

The speaker bore testimony to the high character of the gentleman who had been thus wantonly injured. Mr M. Fitzgerald, in like manner, declared that he deserved every favour

which government could shew him, by the length, the zeal, the talents, and the integrity of his public life. Mr W. Pole and Mr Perceval both observed, that if Sir J. Newport had taken the trouble to read through the report and examine the appendix, he would have found the real merits of the case; and Mr Perceval added, that Mr Croker had great cause of complaint against the commissioners for having made so incorrect a report, which had now for more than a year been rankling against him in the public mind. The facts were so clear and so apparent, that Sir J. Newport admitted them to be perfectly satisfactory, and of course withdrew his first resolution. His second resolution shared the same fate. In the case of Sir George Shee, the receiver-general, Mr Foster said, there was no favour asked or granted, nor was there any due. It had formerly been the custom to allow the receiver-general a quarter per cent. on the sums passed through his hands, which on the average amounted to upwards of 50001. a-year; this enormous emolument was prohibited after the death of Sir Henry Cavendish, and his successor, who should have enjoyed it, was entitled to a moderate compensation, which was stated at 14001. a-year. Would Sir J. Newport say, that 1000 1. a-year was a compensation for discharging the duties of an office through which three millions and a half of the public money passed, and for the due execution of which security to the amount of 25,000l. was given?

The third resolution was still before the house. "In this case," Mr W. Pole said, "he believed he should convince the house that Sir J. Newport was as completely mistaken as to the facts, as he had been in the

tithes. 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 tithes, that if they existed in this country, under similar circumstances of indigence, they would be entitled to parish assistance. The necessary effect of such a state of things, is the impossibility of tithes being collected by the clergy themselves. They are obliged to employ proctors, or to let their tithes to tithe-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 surprise. That in many instances the proctors and tithe-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.

"The laws respecting tithes are as different as the other circumstances under which the institution exists. In England, if the clergyman exact more than his right, he may be compelled to draw his tithes. In Ireland, it is enacted, that if above a certain number of parishioners call upon the clergyman to do this, such a proceed ing shall be considered as a conspiracy, and the parties be liable to heavy penalties. I will not enter into the objections against tithes as a mode of collecting money from the people; it is condemned by all writers on taxation, as inconsistent with every sound principle. I will not therefore in

quire how it impedes the agriculture of Ireland, now of such infinite importance to Great Britain; but I will ask, what effect has it had upon the tranquillity of that country? The insurrection of the White Boys was of thirty years continuance. Then came the United Irishmen, the greater number of whom were principally induced to embark in the conspiracy against the government, by argu ments founded on the grievances of tithes. The leaders of that conspiracy told the privy council, that if tithes had been commuted, according to Mr Grattan's plan, a very powerful engine would have been taken out of their hands. The Thrashers then succeeded; their insurrection was against the mode in which tithes were collected, not against them as a provision for the protestant clergy, the oath of the association requiring that tithes should be paid to the cler gy, and not to proctors. Thus, for fifty years, a continued system of active and open insurrection has disturbed the tranquillity of Ireland, arising from this mode of paying the clergy.

"The objects which I have proposed to myself," said Mr Parnell,

are to exonerate the peasantry, to get rid of the direct payment by the catholic or dissenter to the protestant clergyman, and to give the clergy a just and fair equivalent. If the tithes were to be sold in Ireland, purchasers would not be found. If land were to be given in lieu of them, it would be extremely difficult to get it without paying the 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 it. I do not mean to say, that I have formed a decided