$55] HOUSE OF LORDS, Orders in Council-Declaration of the Prince Regent. [856 measures herein as to them may respectively appertain. 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. "It is further ordered and declared, 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 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. "Provided that nothing in this Order contained, respecting the revocation of the Orders hereinmentioned, shall be taken to revive wholly or in part the Orders in Council of the 11th of November, 1807, or any other Order not hereinmentioned, deprive parties of any legal remedy to which they may be entitled under the Order in Council of the 21st of April, or to 1812. " 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 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. 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 Declaration stated, that the latter were to cease upon the repeal of the former, there was no prospect whatever held out of relieving 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. The Earl of Lauderdale subsequently suggested, in order to get rid of the difficulty 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. This suggestion was assented to by the earl of Liverpool. 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, amounted 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 October 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 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 motion was then agreed to. PEASANTRY AND TENANTRY IN IRELAND.] Earl Stanhope moved the second reading of his Bill for the relief of the Peasantry 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 letter, had shewn the utmost impartiality, 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 deprecated the making public confidential 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 Ireland, and that as at present framed, it would operate most unjustly. If any thing could be done with it in committee, he had no objection to its going to that stage; but he was confident that no one clause at present in the Bill could be allowed to remain a part of it. The Earl of Liverpool suggested the necessity of appointing a distant day for the committee, in order that accurate information might in the mean time be obtained respecting the extensive and important interests which would be affected by such a measure, and proposed this day two months. Earl Stanhope suggested one month, which was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and committed for this day month, HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, April 24. PETITION FROM GLASGOW RESPECTING THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] Lord A. Hamilton presented a Petition from several merchants and manufacturers in Glasgow, setting forth, "That in Glasgow, as well as in other commercial and manufacturing towns and cities of the empire, the late stagnation of trade has been attended with the most calamitous effects; that the number of bankruptcies has been unprecedented, the demand for manufactures limited, and the distresses of the workmen most afflicting; and that, although the sufferings of the petitioners, and the distresses of the people, might not perhaps have been altogether prevented, it appears to the petitioners that they would have been greatly mitigated by adhering to the established laws of neutral commerce, the loss of the American market for our manufactures would not then have been added to that of the greater part of Europe, and our commodities might more easily have reached even the ports of our enemies through circuitous channels; and that the petitioners beg leave, with all humility, to represent to the House, that the rights of neutrals, as recognized by the practice of Europe, are of the most essential advantage to commercial nations when unfortunately engaged in war; and, in the present circumstances of Britain, excluded as she has been from many of her accustomed and most extensive markets, the recog. nition of those rights would be more beneficial to her than even to those by whom the trade might be carried on; and that the petitioners, reasoning on these general views of commercial policy, could not approve of the attempt, by retaliatory measures affecting neutrals, to force the enemy to relinquish his unjust attack upon our manufacturing and colonial interests: but, while there was any prospect of this object being accomplished, they did not presume to oppose their opinion to what seemed to be considered as the general policy of the state; now, however, that the trial has been made, and has failed; now that experience has shewn that neither the ruin of his merchants can prevail upon our enemy to relax his anti-commercial system, nor the scarcity on the continent of commodities believed to be indispensable, can induce the enthralled nations to throw off the yoke, the petitioners apprehend that measures proved to be detrimental to our own interests, and inefficient against the enemy, should at length be abandoned; and praying the House to take such steps, as to them may seem best, for procuring the recall of those Orders in Council, by which the usual commerce of neutral states has been impeded, and for reverting to the enlightened policy of former times." Ordered to lie upon the table. MR. GRATTAN'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS-ADJOURNED DEBATE.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Catholic Petitions. The order being read at the table, Sir William Scott rose and said:-Sir, before I proceed to the few observations which I think it necessary to offer upon the subject now before you, I feel it right, in the first place, to take notice of some observations which fell in the course of last night's debate, from an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, touching a Petition which I had the honour to present from the University of Oxford, against the claims of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. But however brilliant the talents displayed by that hon. gentleman in the sarcasms which he was pleased to cast upon the proceedings of that University on this occasion, it must be confessed that in those sarcasms he has not displayed much of filial affection for the place of his education. The attack was most undeserved, and I beg leave to 1 say, Sir, that no body of men in this coun- | therefore, Sir, warranted in saying, that try has ever demonstrated a stronger at ✓ tachment to the constitution of their country. In former times, when at a memorable period of our history, that constitution was in danger of being destroyed by the usurpations of a popular branch of it, they rallied round their monarch, beset with perils. They evinced the most unshaken fidelity to the throne, and supported that cause which was no less the cause of their country, than of their king. In the latter part of the same century, when the popular branch of that constitution was in imminent danger of being overwhelmed by the arbitrary proceedings of the crown, where was the first effectual resistance made to this encroachment? Where was the regal tyranny more firmly opposed, or the cause of liberty and truth more zealously supported than in that University of Oxford-that same college-that very grove, which has been the object of the hon. gentleman's sarcasms. The members of that very University in that arduous crisis not only sought for the truth, but they found it, and acted upon it; they set an example which was followed by their country, with so much advantage to the British dominions-advantages which, I hope, will be maintained to the remotest posterity. That college has ever stood forward in defence of civil liberty and personal independence, uniformly opposing themselves at the proper seasons to the undue encroachments of the crown on one hand, and to popular turbulence on the other; and I need hardly remind you, Sir, (Mr. Abbott, the Speaker,) of the liberal manner in which they have returned their representatives to this House. Sir, the representation which the hon. gentleman has made of the manner in which their Petition on this subject was carried, I must beg leave to say was extremely unjust. An assembly was convened highly respectable in the persons and numbers who composed it. The question was regularly and dispassionately discussed, and although there was a considerable difference of opinion as to the propriety of preparing such a Petition, yet it was ultimately carried by a majority of the convocation of four to one in its favour. I beg, therefore, Sir, that I may not be told that this Petition is not a fair representation of the sentiments of that University, or that the result would have been different, if the whole body of its members had been present on the occasion. I am, the Petition is a fair statement of the sense of that University, as well as of the great body of the nation. The petitioners are men of the best education, of the greatest talents, and the most unblemished integrity. How, then, I would ask, can it be justly said, that they were but little capable of forming a correct judgment on a political question of great national importance? So much, Sir, I felt it my duty to say in reply to the illiberal reflections thus cast upon the University of Oxford. Upon the general question before you, Sir, I feel it necessary to trouble the House with only a few observations; having been so repeatedly called on upon former occasions to state my opinions upon the subject. That the question has been so repeatedly brought forward year after year, is to me a matter of serious regret. The perpetual agitation of it has roused the turbulent passions of opposite parties, and kept the public mind in a state of constant ferment. It is a question fraught with danger to the nation, and one which hazards the setting fire to the country. If I saw any thing like the probability of parties coming to an agreement, I should then see the propriety of pursuing this course; and I should hail it as a happy omen of the discontinuance of those conflicts; but although the question has come forward year after year, those differences of opinion still remain unaltered; and after the repeated determinations of this House upon the subject, and one of those determinations not many weeks old; how can it be expected that the decision of this night should be different from the former. The House has been repeatedly told every year that the thing must be done, that the feelings of the petitioners can no longer be trifled with; and that the danger of refusal is so great that it ought not to be encountered. The answer to this, however, is, that parliament has repeatedly said, "it shall not be done;" and what end, therefore, can be answered by repeatedly agitating this question, but to keep up a continual war, between the petitioners and the legislature? It has been admitted by those who are most competent to speak to the point, that neither in Ireland, nor in this country, is the public mind, as it is commonly, or rather vulgarly called, made up to the granting of these privileges to the Catholics; nor could they, I am satisfied, be granted without the imminent risk of exciting civil commotions. I venture to refer it to any man's observation, whether he really thinks the public sentiment has, in any degree, altered upon this subject. I would ask, is there any alteration for the better in the question itself? If I seek for any alteration in the language of the peti tioners, as a new ground for the anticipation of success, I find none; for so far from offering any security for the protection of the Established Church, they obstinately withhold even those securities which they were formerly ready to concede. I have heard of the necessity of securities guaranteed by the most enlightened advocate of this cause, and offered by the petitioners; but these they now retract. I have looked at this question, so important, in a view to our political and religious interests: I have observed the disposition of the parties urging these claims, and I own that I see nothing on their parts which appears like a disposition to afford proper securities to the Established Church. On the contrary, they seem to me to be anxious, not only for the unconditional attainment of civil privileges and power in the state, but also to gain for their religion a marked and public encouragement. What then is the duty of those who wish well to the established religion? Will it not be for them to consider whether this marked and public encouragement to the Catholics may not operate as a marked and public discouragement to the Established Church? There was a time, Sir, and not many years ago, when it was held in this country to be a fundamental principle of civil polity, that where a religious establish ment is formed consistent with the general principles of the nation, such an establishment should be supported with the utmost tenacity, as the basis, upon which rests the security of the state; but we are now told that such notions are quite obsolete-that there should be no religious distinctions whatever, no peculiar protection to the Established Church, while, at other times, though the propriety of a peculiar protection was admitted, it was at tlemen, as I do admit that there are many persons of the Catholic persuasion, who are men of great private worth, but I cannot withhold my own opinion, that if the Catholics are true to the principles of their faith, there is nothing which they can have more at heart than the complete extinction of the Protestant religion, and when I look to the genius of the Catholic religion, the exclusive spirit which universally pervades it when I look at its general doctrines, that salvation is not to be had out of the pale of its Church, I cannot contemplate, without alarm, the admission of the Roman Catholics as the guardians of a Protestant establishment. It may as well be asserted, that the Church would be as safe in the hands devoted to its destruction, as under the guardianship of those devoted to its protection. Seeing, therefore, Sir, no possibility of acceding to such a principle, I have the strongest objection to going into the proposed committee. It has been stated, that the Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland are hostile to the established religion, and yet are admitted into the highest offices of the state; but yet, Sir, I think this argument has no bearing upon the question, nor is it any fair ground to shew that the Presbyterians may not safely be trusted, for there is a principle of union amongst the Protestant sects in all their varieties, which must be friendly to a Protestant establishment; whereas the Roman Catholics, if they hold the sentiments professed for them by their own most approved authors, they must be anxious for the destruction of the Protestant establishment, and the erection of their own upon its ruins. The question, then, comes to this, whether for the purposes of civil government, one religion be not as good as another, or whether, if one be more proper than another, the protection of that one ought to be entrusted to those who must be necessarily anxious for its destruction, instead of those who are most interested in its preserva the same time gravely contended, that this ❘tion? Now, Sir, though I am unwilling to protection might very safely be entrusted to persons of a very different faith. Now, Sir, I would ask gentlemen whether they seriously think a Roman Catholic chancellor, Roman Catholic privy counsellors, or Roman Catholic legislators, could be considered as faithful guardians to the Protestant religion in this country? I do not mean to put this question with any purpose of irritating the feelings of gen say any thing that might have a tendency to awaken religious animosity, I must observe, that I cannot consider this as a mere political question, for it is a religious one also; and every man who so considers it, ought to look into his own mind, and weigh gravely whether it would be right to relax the severities of the established religion. But even in a political view, historical reflection must recal many |