I have heard many more objections against several particulars of both these Bills, but they are of a high nature, and carry such dreadful innuendos, that I dare not mention them, resolving to give no offence because I well know how obnoxious I have long been (although I conceive without any fault of my own) to the zeal and principles of those, who place all difference in opinion concerning public matters, to the score of disaffection, whereof I am at least as innocent as the loudest of my detractors. DUBLIN, _Feb_. 24, 1731-2. ***** ***** ***** ***** SOME REASONS AGAINST THE BILL FOR SETTLING THE TITHE OF HEMP, FLAX, &c., BY A MODUS. NOTE. About the end of 1733 the Irish House of Commons had under consideration a bill for the encouragement of the growth of flax and the manufacture of linen. This bill contained a clause by which the tithe upon flax should be commuted by a _modus_ or money composition. The clergy, to whom this tithe was an important source of revenue, and, naturally, not wishing to lose its advantage, took steps to petition Parliament to be heard by counsel against the bill. Swift signed the petition, which set forth the injury which would be done to their order if the clause in the bill, then before the House, were allowed to become law. In addition to this he committed and arranged his arguments to writing, and issued them in the following pamphlet. The activity against the bill proved so efficacious that the House of Commons dropped it. It may be remarked that Swift's interference was purely disinterested, since no part of the revenue of St. Patrick's, as Monck Mason points out, comes from the "district appropriated to the culture of flax;" nor did Swift, "or any of his predecessors or successors, ever receive one shilling upon account of that tithe."