These objections were replied to, by Sir William Mayne, the Marquis of Kildare, Mr. Denis Daly, Mr. George Ogle, Mr. Thomas Le Hunte (member for the borough of Newtown in the co. of Down) Sir Edward Newenham, Mr. Henry Flood (member for the borough of Callan in the county of Kilkenny) and Mr. George Hamilton (member for the borough of Belfaft in the county of Antrim). The arguments ufed by thefe gentlemen were, That the nation was fo much diftreffed, that it was proper to have compleat and just estimates, that they might know for what, and how much to provide. That where the expences could be precifely afcertained, eftimates were not wanted, but only where the charge could be nearly gueffed; and then, if the eftimate fell fhort of the expence, the overplus could be provided next feffions. That as there muft be fome officer capable of making the ettimate on each head, it was not imimpracticable; and that by the estimates only, the public could know if any reduction of the past burthen upon the eftablishments was really intended.

The houfe then divided on the queftion for the amendment, which was carried by a majority of thirty-fix, there being Ayes 88.-Noes 52.

And then the motion for the addrefs, thus amended, was voted.

On the fame day the houfe proceeded to take the Lord Lieutenant's Speech in to confideration, when itwas read, and a fupply voted to his Majefty.

The Right Hon. Anthony Malone (Kt. of the Shire for county of WeftMeath) moved that the house would refolve to-morrow into a committee of fupply, which paffed nem. con. Yet altho' there was no oppofition to the motion, there was still fome altercation on the fubject of supply and grievances.

Sir William Mayne faid, the feffion had opened with a moft flattering hope of having the public grievances redreffed, and the public burthens leffened; but he feared the reports of fuch intentions were groundless; adding that the practice of fome parliaments had been, to infist on a redress of grievances before they would grant any fupplies.

Mr. Malone anfwered, that when they went into the committee that would be the proper time to confider the pub

lic burthens, but it was now premature. Sir William Mayne replied, he fancied no reduction of the public expence was intended; and that it would be as unreasonable to expect government would difannul the new boards, as that a general would difband his army at the opening of a campaign.

Mr. Warden Flood (member for the borough of Longford) faid the houfe had voted an addrefs to his Majefty, in full confidence of having redrefs; which, if they had not expected from Lord Harcourt, they would have conveyed their griefs to the royal ear. But he found the Adminiftration fo mighty fecret in their intentions, that nothing would make them open their mouths to give any affurance of hope, or intimation of what they were to fear:-That the first care of a viceroy was to do the bufinefs of the crown, at all events; and then, let him act ever fo oppofite to the public good, he was fure of protection and reward in England: And concluded with hoping no fupplies would be granted until they had an affurance of redrefs.

Mr. Henry Flood, declared he never knew a time in which there was fo much wanted by government, and fo much diftrefs in the people; which diftrefs arofe from evil counsellors and mal-adminiftration. That he had ever, and ever should heartily take the part of administration, when it was right, and as heartily oppofe it, when it acted wrong: He called on the fervants of the crown to act openly, to give fome light into its prefent fyftem, and urgued moderation on all fides.

Sir William Mayne inftanced the parliament in the time of Charles the first, refufing fupplies till grievances were redreffed.

The Rt. Hon. John Ponfonby, (Kt. of the fhire for the county of Kilkenny) faid, he hoped all members were without either refentment or expectation; there fhould be no refentment, for no affront thould be given; and it would be as ridiculous for any to be actuated by expectation, as it would be to contend for the best cabbin in the ftate room when the fhip was finking.-He spoke largely in praife of the King, and of Lord Harcourt; and quoted Tacitus, where he lamented that the Empire fhould be unhappy under the reign of a good and virtuous Emperor; which unhappiness

arofe

arofe from the fovereign's following the advice of others, and not his own opinion.

Mr. Henry Flood replied, that that was the cafe of the King, who had followed evil counfellors; but the true caufe of the miseries of the Romans at that period was, that the fenate had loft all its authority, and were become a fet of mercenary tools; that this country might be ruined, if not from Lord Harcourt's intentions, yet from his want of proper information; that to attempt to feize the bett cabbin now, would be rash, as well as foolish; and if government would not declare its intended fyftem, the house ought to adopt one of

its own.

Mr. Langrishe answered, that he thought any communication of the intentions of government was unneceffary, unlefs fome augmentation of expence was defigned.

On the next day (Wednesday October, 27.) the house went into a committee of fupply, which agreed to a fupply, and the report was ordered to be received on the morrow. Mr. Gorges Lowther (Kt. of the fhire for county of Meath) moved to refolve" that from the great difcouragement of the exportation of the manufactures of Ireland, and the decay of trade, many tradefmen were in great diftrefs and want." Mr. Mafon and Mr. Langrifhe oppofed this motion, as the house had no evidence whereon to ground fuch a refolution. Mr. Ponfonby faid it would be beft to appoint a committee, to enquire into caufe of the decay of trade; to this Mr. Lowther acquiefced, and withdrew his motion; when Sir Edward Newenham, remind ing the house that there was a standing committee of trade, moved, that committee should be instructed to take that affair into confideration: which motion was carried.

On Thursday October, 28. Luke Gardiner, Efq; being returned knight of the fuire for the county of Dublin, took the oaths and his feat in the house. Mr. Malone reported, that the committee had agreed to grant a fupply to his Majefly, the houfe agreed with the committee, and refolved to go into a committee to confider the fame on Monday November, 15. The committee of accounts was ordered to meet on the morrow, and the houfe was called over. The Marquis of

Kildare prefented "Heads of a bill to repeal the act against the Northern rioters," which he had moved for on the very first day of the feffions, which bill was read, and ordered to be committed for the next day.

Sir Lucius O'Brien, made a motion of a very extraordinary length, for accounts of the whole appropriation of the revenue from March 1762, to March 1772, a debate arofe thereon relative to the practicability of complying with the order, if it fhould be agreed to; in the courfe of which many gentlemen deviated greatly from the point in debate, and ran into applaufe or cenfure of Ld.Townfhend's adminiftration, according as their opinions or interefts urged them to fpeak. It began by Mr. Scot faying, The worthy member who made this very long motion, may poffibly comprehend the whole of it, but I wifh he would condescend, in favour of those who are not equal to him in comprehenfion, to divide it fo as to make it clear to every capacity. At prefent it may be properly called a brief for the plaintiff'; and the defign is apparently, by a comparison of the expences in the laft, and in former adminiftrations, to draw fome conclufions unfavourable to Lord Towfhnend. But let them examine as much as they please, I am confident the refult of it will only ferve to prove that nobleman what I always thought him, a careful and provident Lord Lieutenant, and an honest man; and will fully warrant every mark of approbation fhewn to him by this houfe.

Sir Lucius O'Brien answered, his defign in this motion was to have before them a clear state of thofe accounts, not to caft any odium on Lord Townshend, whom he had never mentioned; and thould be glad to do justice to his character, which would be best cleared or condemned by this enquiry.

Col. Brown faid, he always refpected Lord Townfhend, and was fo fure the enquiry would turn out to his advantage, that he moved to amend the motion by going five years farther back, and taking the account from March 1757.

Sir Lucius O'Brien replied, In regard to the amendment propofed, it does not come within my idea, which only takes in the comparison between two periods of five years each, and both in times of peace. The debate then grew warm,

and

and the following gentlemen fpoke to the following purport.

go

Sir William Mayne.-If we fhould back for the five years in the time of war, as the gentleman propofed, Lord Townshend, will get nothing by the retrofpect, for I have proof that the expences for the five years of his adminiiration, in time of profound peace, far exceeded those of the five years in the time of war.--But indeed we were not at peace in Ld Townshend's time; for he made war on this houfe, the liberties of the people, and the welfare of the nation. Lord Kildare.-I am furprised that gentlemen can speak in favour of Lord Townfhend, when it is so notorious that his adminiftration was fatal to the honour, the intereft, and even the well being of this country. His mal-adminiftration has well nigh involved us in ruin. The proteft and prorogation are not forgotten; the first steps to fuch a feries of mifrule and unconftitutional actions, that before this feffions ends, and when proper enquiries are made, I hope, nay I have no doubt, but this house will refolve Lord Townshend was an enemy to Ireland.

Mr. Langrishe.-I am forry to fee gentlemen deviate fo much from the subject of debate. In regard to the amendment to this motion, I must object to it, for if the motion is too complex, the propofed amendment would make it still more fo. Colonel Brown.-I do not think fo, and if there was any fault in the amendment it was that it did not go far enough back, I therefore move to go back to the year 1752, that we may compare ten years with ten years, not five years with five years.-Gentlemen, I find, do not on any occafion, forget proteft and prorogation, neither do others forget the octennial bill, the bankrupt act, the involent act, the abfentee tax, and a multitude of others, for which we are indebted o Lord Townfhend.

Lord Kildare.-I am really amazed that gratitude for private fervices, or private friendship, can prompt any gentleman to infult the common fenfe of this house. What! are we indebted to Lord Townshend for the octennial bill? What then are the Lords and Commons, who laboured, debated on and perfected that bill? All that he did was to give the affent to it, which he was ordered to do, and could not refuse. Had it

depended on him we thould never have had it; on the contrary he laboured to do all the mifchief in his power to the interefts of this kingdom, witness the infolvent act, in which he fhamefully caufed names to be foitted, of men who were neither in prifon, when the the bill was introduced, nor had prefented petitions to the houfe as infolvent, fuch as the two Whitehouses, and many others. Not content with lavishing public treafure, he wantonly injured the private property of private individuals.

Mr. Cramer. I pofitively affert, that Lord Townthend had no fhare in the merit of the octennial bill.

James Ager, Efq; (Kt. of the thire for county of Kilkenny) I call that member (Lord Kildare) to order, he is running into invective, which is foreign to the queftion in debate.

Mr. Cramer. Since gentlemen have thought fit to attribute the merit of the octennial bill to Lord Townshend, I insist upon it that I have an equal right to deny that merit. I will pluck the ufurped laurel from his head, and placed it where it is due. And indeed if all the borrowed feathers with which Lord Townfhend had been adorned, like the daw in the fable, were to be plucked from him by the rightful owners, he would be left quite bare. Lord Townshend gave the royal affent to the bill, but we owe it to Lord Chatham; so that the other has juft the claim to the merit of that meafure, as the fexton had to the full churches, when Bishop Sherlock preached; the Bishop preached, and the fexton tolled the bell.

Mr. H. Flood.-I am not in any wife amazed, that thofe who are under obligations to Lord Townshend, should attempt to defend his conduct; gratitude exacts this duty from them, and though the debt is paid at the expence of their integrity, yet the juice of this private virtue may femingly account for it. But as I ara under no fuch compliments to that nobl· Lord, I will fpeak my thoughts with freedom, and exprefs my fentimentetved. Formy part, I have ever o ftration of Lo d perfonal pin o from a man fd, ↑ viction that he fince the opy

od the admininhend, not from 22 ipleen, but rranted con! Wong. I have, of this fofonṛthe bec

been filent on his conduct, because I wifhed those wounds which he gave my country might be healed, and that a name fo hateful to the virtuous part of this house should be buried in oblivion; but, when I find unmerited applause beftowed, unjuft panegyrick given, and he who deferves the fevereft confure, adorned with laurels, I cannot patiently fit, and filently liften,

A gentleman (Mr. Ager) on my left hand has called a noble Lord to order, because he should dare to speak against his patron. Who was it firit began the theme? I appeal to the house-if from the governnient fide, the altercation did not originate. An honourable member oppofite to me (Mr. Scott) first mentioned Ld. Townshend; I did not, nor did any of my friends; they brought him on the the carpet, and are anfwerable for what has or may be faid of him. It was obferved in this now abfent nobleman's praife, that the most falutary laws we ever experienced owed their being enacted to him:-I deny it from my foul, -I fpeak with confidence, nor am I apt to tell untruths. The Octennial bill, which has been fo loudly echoed as his deed, he derives not the smallest merit from: It was I who gave the affifting hand to that excellent law; nor am I afhamed to pay myfelf the compliment, for honeft fame is the just reward of an upright heart, and I am not averfe to the gift. I followed the bill to the other fide, and when it was the doubt of the minifter whether it fhould pafs, I told him the arguments that were bere its foundation: In this I was backed by Lord Chatham, and the minifter allowed them unanswerable. I therefore do aver, that from this tranfaction Lord Townshend cannot expect the fhadow of honour. I fpeak freely, for I am afraid of no man. I feek no favour but the applause which may flow from performing my duty. I am under (as I laid before) no obligation to this or that Viceroy; and I believe I may fay I rejected proffered benefits. I fhall now only remark, that, from every obfervation I could make, from every observation an honeft man could make, Ld. Townshend acted as an enemy, a profeffed enemy to our country, our conftitution, and our liberties: For which reafon, inftead of panegyrick, he should, by every real friend to Ireland, be

treated as a publick malefactor. The proteft, for which that noble lord was fo juftly cenfured, was his own fole act, therefore he deferved all could be faid against it. The honourable member on the opposite floor (Mr. Mason) formerly did oppofe the octennial bill, and now he would give to his benefactor praise for it; fo that either Lord Townshend can derive no merit from the act, fuppofing him to have done it, or he (Mr. Mafon) must be wrong, in oppofing it. But for my part, I want not any proof to reconcile to my own mind, that the law was in every respect falutary; for I look on it to be what it has and will be proved, an act of the greatest publick utility to both the country and the constitution.

Mr. Mafon.-I have ftill the fame opinion I ever had of the octennial bill; I look upon it as a destructive law, and that the paffing it was the greatest blemish on Lord Townshend's administration.

Lord Kildare. I must call that member to order, I was called to order myself laft feffions for cenfuring a bill that had paffed this house.

Mr. Jephfon. The name and character of Lord Townshend have been treated with great heat and indignity, notwithstanding this houfe has frequently approved of his conduct, I move that the last address to Lord Townshend may be read.

Several members-No! No! No!

Mr. Ponfonby. Every member has an undoubted right to have any thing read in this houfe, that is upon the table, but as it is quite foreign to the question, I hope the honourable gentleman will not infift upon it.

Mr. Jephfon-Well then, I will not infift upon it.

The original motion was then divided into feven diftinct parts, for fo many feperate accounts (which will be specified in the continuation of the papers laid before the house on the 9th of November) and agreed to.

On Friday October 29th, the heads of the bill for repealing the Northern Riot Act were committed, reported, agreed to, and fent up to the Lord Lieutenant, by Lord Kildare, in order to be transmitted to Britain,

The rest of this day was spent in the committee of accounts, in receiving and

ordering

ordering more public papers; and receiving from the Rt. Hon. James Fortefcue, Heads of a bill for amending public roads.'

The committee of accounts continued to fit from day to day; and as fresh accounts were called for and prefented to the house, they were conftantly referred to the faid committee, and fcrutinized into with the most minute exactnefs, Sir William Mayne, in particular, not leaving one fingle article unexamined.

As the divifion of the revenue board into the two boards of excife and cuftoms, had given great offence laft feffion to many members; more efpecially, as that measure was adopted in direct oppofition to a refolution of that houfe, fo the re-uaiting them was a favourite object. Hitherto no affurance had been given on the part of government, that that re-union would be made; but as foon as the committee of accounts had adjourned, on Saturday, October 30, Mr. Barry Barry (knight of the fhire for the county of Cavan) entreated the fervants of the crown to break a filence, which he called mysterious, and let the house know what were the intentions of government. He was feconded in his requeft by Mr. George Hamilton (member for the borough of Belfast) and then Mr. Secretary Blaquiere arofe and faid, that all the fchemes of government were not yet ripe for a declaration, yet declared that the bouds were to be re-united, but that the difcarded officers were to be, fome how, properly provided for. Mr. Langrifhe, and fome other members exprefled their gratitude for this measure, by which the dignity of the houfe was afferted; but others were not fo fanguine in their acknowledgments. Sir William Mayne complained of the new board of accounts, and his diffatisfaction at the hint, that the difcarded officers were to be penfioned. Mr. George Ogle was of the fame opinion; and Mr. Huffey faid, until it was known what conceffions were expected from the house in return for this favour, he could not tell whether it was a boon of the King, or a trap for the country and added, he fhou'd not grudge any incenfe to his majesty that did not arife from the facrifice of the people.

On Monday, November 1, after the committee of accounts had adjourned, Mr. Gorges Lowther moved for a return Auguft, 1774.

of all the patents, granting commiffions for the laft four years. Mr. Prime Serjeant replied, the gentleman fhould also add, additional falaries by King's letters, thefe words were added, and the refolution pafled for "the feveral patents and King's letters, creating new offices with falaries, or giving additional falaries to old offices, from the 1st of January, 1751, to this day."

Colonel Browne thought proper to fhew, that the great expence of government did not arife folely from new offices or additional falaries, but also from the exceffive liberality of parliament in premiums, &c. he therefore moved for a return of all the premiums, bounties, and parliamentary payments during this King's reign; and alfo of a comparison of the penfion lift on the 19th of Auguft, 1767, with the faid lift on the 30th of November, 1772,' which were ordered,

He alfo moved for an account of the whole charge of the augmentation of the army, to the 10th of October, 1773.' To this Mr. Barry moved to add "and the diff rence between the effimate laid before the houfe to induce it to agree to the measure, and the real charge that has actually arifen from that augmentation." This motion of an amendment produced a debate; during which Mr. Scott faid, among other things, in oppofition to the amendment, Let us, gentlemen, do things in a proper manner; for I am fure if the honourable member but confiders for a moment, he will fee the impropriety of his amendment; for my part, I fhall, and do confider it as confounding propofitions, and rendering complex ideas more complicated; for I can confider the quefton, with the amendment, as nothing lefs than a downright Hibernicifm; for fuppose I should have an inclination to know how many candles were in that branch; is it neceffary, pray, that I fhould make an amendment, in order to come at the knowledge, by including the books on the table? Surely, no; this would be fophifticating arguments, by fophiftical propofitions.'

Mr. Chapman replied, however firenuous that gentleman's affertions are, and however seemingly ftrong his argu ments, I must nevertheless beg leave to differ materially from him. The hon. member who propofed the amendment, did it merely to come at the knowledge L11

of