suaded that if this House does but consent | perhaps, out of all those who oppose this to entertain the question, you will have gone a great way towards the conciliation of Ireland. question, or who make use of it for their own purpose, the only man to whom I do ascribe sincerity. But I much doubt whether the same quality can be ascribed to all of his subservient colleagues, some of whom have accepted office under circumstances the most peculiar. How they, after the testimonies they have given, and the pledges they have tendered, (or implications of pledges equally binding upon honourable ininds) can consent to come into a government which is sworn to contend against the Catholics, is what they, perhaps, may, but what I cannot account for. To him, however, I certainly will give the credit of sincerity, because he has told the people of Ireland conscien tiously of his scruples, and he has told a higher power, that should he accede to their claims, he must make his bow and retire. If such persons as those to whom I have alluded, can condescend, after their former conduct, to hold the offices they now occupy, the House and the country will know how to appreciate their future pledges on any other subject. Sir, an hon. gentleman who spoke on the other side of the House, (Mr. Bankes,) has told us, that history and experience were against us. I deny the fact, and he has not brought one proof of his statement. He told us, indeed, that if these materials, (speaking of the various, and, as he contends, clashing interests, in the state) were brought together, they would be more likely to explode. Now, is the hon. gentleman not more afraid of this explosion in the situation in which we now stand; are we not much more liable to the dangers he talks of, as long as you have four millions of irritated people to contend with; than after you have endeavoured to unite and conciliate them? The fact is, that history is against him. Even within the memory of persons here present, he will find powerful arguments against him. Let him look at America; let the House consider well that important lesson. To her small and equitable demands England opposed what we were pleased to term firmness. America perI believe the right hon. gentleman is severed in her demands, and England in sincere; and I am persuaded, that his her firmness; the pretensions of the scruples proceed from a firm attachment former grew with the resistance of the to the Church: but, in the opinion which latter, till war and separation terminated I entertain upon the subject, I think that the contest. May the parable not be concession to the Catholics is, in fact, the complete! But surely, no man can doubt, way to preserve the constitution, and, in but, if England had known how and when preserving the constitution, to preserve to yield, America might, at this hour, the Church also; for without the constituhave been a British colony. To the same tion, the Church is nothing: but if we spirit of firmness we owe, in a great de-mean to preserve both, we must gratify gree, our contests with the Irish Catholics; the Catholics. Under these circumstances, for the fact is, that in cases of this kind, Sir, I give my hearty vote for the motion men who have once embarked in a system of my right hon. friend. of error, continue to cherish it, thinking that by perseverance, they may, as it were, Mr. Charles Adams.-Sir, at this adturn wrong into right. Now, at the pre-vanced time of the night, I cannot think of sent moment they cannot think of abandoning their erroneous opinions with regard to Ireland, favourable even as the results might be, for fear of encouraging the imputation of contradicting themselves. Upon all these grounds, therefore, and seeing no danger whatever to the Church, the alarm about which is a mere bugbear to the people, I cannot but give my cordial assent to this motion. In the cry that has been raised upon this subject in favour of the Church, and to warn us of its dangers, I can assure the right hon. gentleman over the way, that I believe him to be very sincere. He is, (VOL. XXII.) troubling the House at any length, with a statement of the grounds upon which I shall give my vote against this motion. Sir, I think this is a question attended with so much difficulty and embarrassment on both sides, that it can be productive of no good consequences to either party in its discussion; and as I think that any change in the laws of Ireland as they affect Catholics, could not be attended with the benefits that, it is suggested, would arise, it would, in my opinion, be better to leave them alone. Besides, in the present political state of the country, it would not be politic to agitate a question which cannot (3 I) but tend to abstract people's attention from the consideration of objects connected with our foreign relations. Unanimity, both in design and action, are of essential importance to our successful execution against a foreign enemy. Now, Sir, little disposed as I am to go into a discussion upon the religious part of this question, as it respects foreign nomination, I cannot but think that there is in it greater danger than gentlemen seem to apprehend. I would ask what is there to prevent the nomination of a Catholic French bishop to some of the sees in Ireland? and it would be unnecessary for me to point out the inevitable danger that would arise to the country from the nomination of such a bishop. Now, Sir, for my own part, the religious view of this question in matters of faith, I have always considered by much the most important; and I cannot but complain that in the course of this debate, it has been kept very much in the back ground. The Roman Catholic doctrine, in my opinion, leads to the most erroneous and dangerous conclusions; and I do not hesitate to assert, that some of the tenets of that religion are as abhorrent to the true principles of Christianity as even Judaism itself. What is their zeal for that tenet of their creed called sacerdotal absolution? I would ask is it any thing more or less than a cloak to all sin? Can there be a more dangerous and subversive doctrine than this? And yet we are told that all this is nothing. But will any man of reflection and common sense say, that it is perfectly harmless? Far be it from me to cast any reflection upon the moral character of the Roman Catholics. I am well aware that there are many individuals of that persuasion who are most worthy and valuable members of the community. I may say I have lived amongst them, and what I have thus observed is not with a view of disparaging those qualities which I know they possess. But on a great national and constitutional question like this, I could never forgive myself, were I to deceive them by holding out any hopes which must be founded upon principles in my humble opinion, subversive of the true interests of the commonwealth. I shall not say a word upon the policy or expediency of the subject; nor take notice of the many arguments that have been urged under those heads in the course of this discussion. I have one ge neral answer on this subject, and which I shall repeat as often as this question is brought before parliament. Never let us cease for one moment to guard our establishment; and never let us expose it to the possibility of danger at all. And I do not hesitate to say, that it is daily and hourly exposed to danger, even by those who call themselves its friends. One word more on this point: an hon. gentleman, the son of a right reverend prelate who also has spoken very eloquently in support of this question, has been held out to us as an example to prove that if there was any thing really dangerous in granting this question, be at least would not be likely to give it his support. But, Sir, I beg leave to say, that instance has not sufficient weight with me to lull my apprehensions; for notwithstanding the purity and liberality of his sentiments and intentions upon the subject, still I cannot shut my eyes against consequences which to me at least appear obvious. And suppose even that the immediate question for going into a committee should be carried by a very great majority, still there are objects avowedly connected with it so utterly insurmountable, that it would, in my mind, be impossible ultimately to come to a satisfactory understanding. I sincerely wish well to the Catholics; but being a member of the Established Church, and having a high duty to discharge towards the rest of my fellow-subjects, I must, to be consistent with my views of the constitution, vote against the motion. Mr. Bernard.-Sir; in this stage of the debate, I am very unwilling to trespass long on the patience of the House; but I feel it my duty shortly to state the grounds of my vote. The right hon. gentleman has declared, that he can see no danger in conceding to the foreign nomination of the Catholic bishops merely in a spiritual sense, provided such securities can be given to us as shall be perfectly satisfacfactory that no danger from such nomi nation shall arise to our Protestant establishments. In that sentiment I should heartily concur; but I have heard no reason yet assigned to induce me to alter the opinion I entertained when this question was last discussed. We are not now more secure, as much as has been said about the present situation of the Pope, than we were at that time. " I am one of those that conceive, that if the Catholic clergy are suffered to remain under a foreign influence, usually unconnected with and uneontrouled by government, we shall then place the Catholics just in the situation where the Protestants now are; and they will next be desirous of having on the throne a king of their own religion, and of introducing a power hostile to the present form of the constitution. The hon. baronet on the other side of the House has asked several times where was the danger to the government in the mere spiritual nomination of the Catholic bishops by the Pope, which is allowed in every other government of Europe whether Protestant or Catholic. Why, Sir, he has himself admitted, that even in Catholic governments this power is exercised by the Pope only with the internal controul of those governments, without which his nomination of the bishops can have no effect. How much more necessary then is this controal in our government, where the religion of the state is Protestant, and so intimately interwoven with the frame of our constitution. I cannot therefore agree to go into any consideration of a question having for its object to make any material change in that constitution. I should wish those laws to be left as they are; and however disagreeable they may be thought to some, yet, until some permanent and adequate securities are given to us against the dangers so justly to be apprehended from a change, it were better to leave the matter untouched than run the risk of such fatal consequences. It being now two o'clock, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the House be adjourned until to-morrow, which was agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, April 24. ORDERS IN COUNCIL-DECLARATION OF THE PRINCE REGENT.] The Earl of Liverpool laid on the table the following DECLARATION OF THE COURT OF GREAT BRITAIN RESPECTING THE Orders in COUNCIL. At the Court at Carlton-house, the 23d of June 1812, Present his Royal Highness the Prince Regent in Council. "Whereas his royal highness the Prince Regent was pleased to declare, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, on the 21st day of April, 1812, "That if at any time hereafter the Berlin and Milan Decrees shall, by some authentic act of the French government, publicly promulgated, be absolutely and unconditionally repealed, then and from thenceforth the Order in Council of the 7th of January, 1807, and the Order in Council of the 26th of April, 1809, shall without any further Order, be, and the same are hereby declared from thenceforth to be, wholly and absolutely revoked:" "And whereas the Chargé des Affaires of the United States of America, resident at this Court, did, on the 20th day of May last, transmit to lord viscount Castlereagh, one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, a copy of a certain instrument, then for the first time communicated to this Court, purporting to be a Decree passed by the government of France, on the 28th day of April, 1811, by which the Decrees of Berlin and Milan are declared to be definitively no longer in force, in regard to American vessels. "And whereas his royal highness the Prince Regent, although he cannot consider the tenor of the said instrument as satisfying the conditions set forth in the said Order of the 21st of April last, upon which the said Orders were to cease and determine; is nevertheless disposed on his part to take such measures as may tend to re establish the intercourse between neutral and belligerent nations, upon its accustomed principles-his royal highness the Prince Regent, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, is therefore pleased by and with the advice of his Majesty's Privy Council, to order and declare, and Order in Council bearing date the 7th day it is hereby ordered and declared, that the of January, 1807, and the Order in Council bearing date the 26th day of April, 1809, be revoked, so far as may regard American vessels, and their cargoes being American property, from the 1st of August next. "But whereas by certain acts of the government of the United States of America, all British armed vessels are excluded from the harbours and waters of the said United States, the armed vessels of France being permitted to enter therein; and the commercial intercourse between Great Britain and the said United States is interdicted, the commercial intercourse between France and the said United States having been restored; his royal highness the Prince Regent is pleased hereby further to declare, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, that if the go vernment of the said United States shall not, as soon as may be, after this Order shall have been duly notified by his Majesty's minister in America to the said government, revoke, or cause to be revoked, the said acts, this present Order shall in that case, after due notice signified by his Majesty's minister in America to the said government, be thenceforth null and of no effect. measures herein as to them may respectively appertain. JAMES BULLER." Earl Grey asked whether the Declaration was issued in consequence of the official communication of the document to which it referred from the French government, and whether there would be any objection to lay that document before the House? The Earl of Liverpool said, that the document had not been officially communi official paper of the French governmentthe paper which was declared to be official with reference to all the acts of the government. That being the case, he felt a difficulty in point of form in laying such a document before the House. "It is further ordered and declared, that all American vessels, and their car-cated, but that it had been published in the goes being American property, that shall have been captured subsequently to the 20th day of May last, for a breach of the aforesaid Orders in Council alone, and which shall not have been actually condemned before the date of this Order; and that all ships and cargoes as aforesaid that shall henceforth be captured under the said Orders, prior to the 1st day of August next, shall not be proceeded against to condemnation till further orders, but shall, in the event of this Order not becoming null and of no effect, in the case aforesaid, be forthwith liberated and restored, subject to such reasonable expences on the part of the captors as shall have been justly incurred. "His royal highness the Prince Regent is hereby pleased further to declare, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, that nothing in this present Order contained, shall be understood to preclude his royal highness the Prince Regent, if circumstances shall so require, from restoring after reasonable notice, the Orders of the 7th of January, 1807, and 26th of April, 1809, or any part thereof, to their full effect, or from taking such other measures of retaliation against the enemy, as may appear to his Royal Highness to be just and necessary. "And the right hon. the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury, his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and the Judges of the Courts of Vice-Admiralty, are to take the necessary Lord Holland conceiving only certain parts of the Berlin and Milan Decrees were contrary to the law of nations, wished to know whether it was the meaning of the Declaration that on those parts of the Decrees being repealed which were contrary to the law of nations, the Orders in Council were to cease. The Earl of Liverpool said, that with reference to the repeal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, it was intended that the Court of Admiralty should judge of the fact-whether in the event of any act of the French government announcing the repeal of those Decrees, it was such an act as under the Declaration authorized the cessation of the operation of the Orders in Council. With respect to the noble lord's question, the repeal contemplated by the Declaration, was a total repeal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, in which case alone the Orders in Council were to cease to operate. The Earl of Lauderdale thought that the Milan Decree repealed the Berlin Decree, it being stated in the former, that its operation was to cease on the repeal of the Orders in Council; whilst this Decla ration stated, that the latter were to cease upon the repeal of the former, there was no prospect whatever held out of reliev ing the distresses of the manufacturers of this country, or lessening the evils inflicted upon neutral powers. Earl Bathurst observed, that in all the communications from the French government, whether to Mr. Russel, the American minister, or in any other way, the Berlin and Milan Decrees were uniformly spoken of together, which could not have been the case if the Milan Decree had repealed the Berlin Decree. to stopping the distilleries five weeks ago, on the ground that it was too late, and now at a later period they brought forward the very same measure. The Earl of Lauderdale subsequently suggested, in order to get rid of the dif ficulty in point of form, that the French paper containing the document referred to in the Declaration, might be allowed to find its way upon the table, for the information of the House, without any motion. The motion was then agreed to. PEASANTRY AND TENANTRY IN IRELAND.] Earl Stanhope moved the second reading This suggestion was assented to by the of his Bill for the relief of the Peasantry earl of Liverpool. and Tenantry in Great Britain and Ireland, observing, that the law of distress being the same in Great Britain as in Ireland, Great Britain was therefore included in the Bill. His lordship proceeded to comment upon the speech of a noble and learned lord (Redesdale) on the first reading of the Bill, observing, that a letter he had quoted of a great lawyer, stating the evils arising from the operation of the law of distress in Ireland, was the letter of that noble and learned lord himself, who in contradicting by his arguments his own DISTILLERIES IN IRELAND.] The Earl of Darnley adverted to what he had stated five weeks since, respecting the expediency of stopping the distilleries in Ireland, in consequence of the high price of grain, and lamented that recourse had not then been had to this measure, which ministers now found themselves compelled to adopt. The consumption of the distilleries in Ireland was 50,000 barrels of oats per week, which during the five weeks since he first noticed the subject, amount-letter, had shewn the utmost impartiality, ed to 250,000 barrels, and this taken from the stock of an article, which in a failure of the crop of potatoes, was necessary to the subsistence of the people, the chief article of their food, for want of potatoes, being oatmeal. The price of oats in Ireland, which five weeks ago was 27s. per barrel, had now risen to 32s.-wheat had also risen from 66s. or 67s. to 82s. His lordship argued from these facts, that the stoppage of the distilleries ought to have been resorted to at the time he first mentioned the subject, and with the view of ascertaining what quantity of oats had been consumed in the distilleries, moved for an account of the number of gallons of spirits distilled in the months from Oc-precated the making public confidential tober to April, both inclusive. Earl Bathurst denied that the high price of grain in Ireland was to be attributed solely to the distilleries, one of the causes being the export of grain to this country. The Earl of Darnley admitted, that the high price was not to be attributed solely to the distilleries. Some further conversation took place, in the course of which the earl of Limerick denied that there was any scarcity at Limerick or in its neighbourhood, where potatoes were at 5d. per stone. The earl of Darnley and the marquis of Lansdowne thought, that the latest intelligence from thence was rather of a contrary description. The earl of Limerick contended for the correctness of his statement. Lord Holland observed, that ministers objected it being the maximum of impartiality to write one way and speak another, and had thus fallen into a trap which the noble and learned lord had himself baited. His lordship then recapitulated his former statements, putting them in different points of view for the purpose of shewing the gross injustice of permitting the occupying tenant to be distrained upon, not only by his immediate lessor, but also by all the intermediate lessees, or middle-men, by which the occupying tenant was subjected to the greatest oppression. Lord Redesdale denied that his arguments were at all at variance with his letter alluded to by the noble earl, but de letters (the letter being confidential to whom it was written), as it tended to destroy all confidence between man and man. His lordship then observed upon the impossibility, as it appeared to him, of making any legislative provision upon this subject, without committing the greatest injustice, by operating retrospectively in the most injurious manner upon rights of property, which had in various ways, been made the subject of contract and settlement. He would not, however, oppose the second reading, being willing to try if any practicable mode of lessening an evil which undoubtedly existed in Ireland, though not in this country, could be devised. The Lord Chancellor thought the Bill tended to unsettle the whole law of landlord and tenant in England, Scotland, and |