namely, that of agriculture, which he suggested might be promoted by the removal of tithes, and a substitution for the payment of the clergy, in the place thereof. He had heard of three modes: substitution by land, substitution by modus, and substitution by salary. The first was liable to this objection, it must be very slow, and extremely difficult. The second, that by modus, was certainly much less embarrassing, it relieved the farmer from one great objection to tithe, namely, the uncertainty, it prevented the increase of demand on the increase of industry, and was an idea familiar and recognised, certain produces had been subjected to a modus by act of parliament, others by common consent; and when the clergy were enabled to recover the tithe of 1786 by statute, the statute enacted, that they should recover by acreable ratages, on an average of the three antecedent years, to be ascer tained on oath. However, he thought the third method of substitution the best, viz. salary; a commission might be appointed to ascertain the receipt of the parochial clergy, for a certain number of years; and having thus ascertained the receipts of each living, the sum should be raised by applotment, in the manner of county presentments. The clergy should be secured against a depreciation in the value of money, by having at certain periods a comparative valuation of the leading produce of the land, suppose corn, and a proportional rise in the income of the clergy: this plan was in his opinion very practicable, and would, as he conceived, put the clergy in a better situation than at present; giving them, for their income, public security, and relieving them from all the painful consequences, and uncertainty attendant on the payment by tithe. He begged to observe, that there was no doubt whatever, but that the late disturbances in the West of Ireland arose from tithe. The Right-Boy insurrection arose from tithe; the White-Boy insurrection from tithe; and the Hearts of Steel insurrection from tithe. Whatever method should be adopted, he thought a due regard should be had to the interest of the church, and the necessity of a respectable and dignified establishment. He should not have gone into these subjects, but that they were in the contemplation of the former administration, and were in progress, and he hoped would not be neglected by the present. Having dwelt for some time on this subject, he came to the third part, namely, religion. And here he observed, that, notwithstanding temporary bars, the success of the Catholic claims might be ultimately secured by the Catholics themselves. Against the full participation of the privileges of the constitution by the Catholics, at any time hereafter, one argument, and one argu ment only, had been adduced, namely, that, to establish their religion, they would use those privileges to favour the enemies of the country in subverting the government. All the arguments against the Catholic religion, were only inducting to that conclusion; they who argued against the mass, against transubstantiation, against the worship of the Virgin Mary, were not so absurd as to say, that such things ought in themselves to disqualify; but they said, that the persons holding such things as an essential part of their religion must wish to establish them on the ruins of the Protestant faith, and to accomplish that end would join the enemy. I hold such a position in contempt; I ever have, and still do, despise and deride it, as destitute of foundation in fact and argument. But the Catholics can now answer it themselves, and refute their enemies with more effect than any of their advocates, by doing what they are doing, joining cordially their brother Protestants against the enemy; such a conduct must render the claims of the Catholics hereafter wholly unanswerable. The importance, at this moment, of Ireland, and of course the Catholics, as a great proportion of her inhabitants, was such as might decide the fall of the British empire: the part, therefore, that they took on this occasion, must decide their own; taking a leading part to save that empire, what man would be listened to afterward, who should quote against them the canon of Constance, or any of those musty scrolls of which we have heard so much, and of which I hope I shall hear no more. I was glad to see an idea of this sort, adopted by the people of the county of Kilkenny, whose resolutions I had read, observing how much they deserved praise; if there was good sense in either country, both might be saved. I deprecate prejudice on one side, and impatience on the other; I reject the supposition that there stood against the Catholics any permanent bar, the bar was only temporary, and those who should now, in the defence of the empire, share the danger, must ultimately share the privileges. If Ireland saw her present situation, with a spirit which was truly great, if the strength of her mind is equal to the importance of her station; if she contemplates the present state of things, with a temper superior to a senseless outcry against necessary laws, and with the same sense which she had felt in 1779, when she recovered her trade, or in 1782, when she recovered her liberty, she may find at once credit and security; she will find them in the suppression of every kind of insurrection, in the determination to resist a foreign yoke, and in the oblivion most absolute and unfeigned of all animosities on account of religion. If she looks to example, she may find them in other nations, she may find them in her own. I have pointed out to her the best and wisest conduct to be pursued; and, following such conduct, she must obtain, by legitimate means, all her legitimate objects; not merely the discontinuance hereafter of these two bills, for they are not her grievance, nor would their repeal be her remedy, but the repeal of all those severe bills which distinguish the condition of an Irishman from that of an English subject, and deprive the former of what I hope will ultimately be his inheritance, all the privileges of the British constitution. Mr. Sheridan replied, and the House divided. ORDERS IN COUNCIL. March 11. 1808. ON the 16th of May 1806, the British government issued an order in council, declaring the coast included between the Elbe and Brest to be in a state of blockade. On the 21st of November 1806, Buonaparte issued his Berlin decree, declaring Great Britain and her dependencies to be in a state of blockade. On the 7th of January 1807, the British government issued an order in council, prohibiting neutral ships from carrying on the coasting trade of the enemy. On the 11th of November 1807, the noted orders in council were issued, which declared the continental ports from which British ships were excluded to be in a state of blockade, (except in cases of ships cleared out from Great Britain,) and rendered liable to condemnation all neutral ships trading to or from the ports of the enemy, and his dependencies. On the 7th of December 1807, Buonaparte issued his Milan decree, declaring that any neutral ships which should have touched at a British port, or submitted to be searched by British cruisers, should be liable to condemnation; and, on the 22d of December 1807, the American embargo took place. In consequence of these measures, the trade of England was greatly affected, her exports and imports considerably diminished, the linen manufacture of Ireland materially injured, and the manufacturers in both islands in great numbers thrown out of employment. Numerous petitions were presented to both Houses of Parliament against the orders in council, which, on the 26th of January 1808, were, by command of his Majesty, laid before the House of Commons. On the 5th of February, the House resolved itself into a committee of ways and means, and the orders in council were referred to it; a bill was then introduced, for the purpose of indemnifying persons who had been concerned in them, and an order in council bill was likewise introduced, imposing certain duties upon goods conveyed in any vessel that came within the description set forth in the orders in council. The bill was read and committed on the 18th of February. The third reading was adjourned to the 11th of March. It was opposed by Mr. Ponsonby, Dr. Laurence, Lord Henry Petty, Mr. Baring, Mr. Whitbread, the Earl Temple, and Mr. W. Smith. The orders in council were supported by Lord Castlereagh, Sir W. Scott, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Rose, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Percival.) On this day (the 11th) they were supported by the Solicitor-general (Sir Thomas Plomer), Mr. Rose, and Mr. Bankes. They were opposed by Mr. Alexander Baring and Mr. Grattan. Mr. GRATTAN said, he was of opinion, that the name of the country, and the character of the country, were the only strength which it retained upon the continent; and that whatever was fatal to its character must be fatal to its interests. Viewing the measure before the House as inconsistent with justice, and, of course, injurious to the character of England, he felt himself bound to oppose it. He deprecated the idea of acting upon the principles of France; pursuing the system which gave birth to this measure, and taking away the best of our friends, by involving us in war with America. No measure should be more studiously avoided by England, than that which threatened to deprive us of the affections of America, or was likely to lead to a war with that country. For the effect of a war with America would be to render the interests of France triumphant, and to engage our fleets in the service of the enemy. None of the arguments of the learned gentleman (Sir Thomas Plomer), who preceded him, served to show that the empire would be benefited in its financial, commercial, manufacturing, or political interests, by these orders in council, while the evils they menaced were obvious. There were two capital faults in the speech of the learned gentleman; the one of law, the other of fact. He was erroneous in his definition of the law of nations, and his conceptions of the principles of the late ministers. For the law of nations could never sustain the notion, that because the decree of one belligerent might affect the interest of neutrals, the other belligerent was warranted in controling the trade of neutrals altogether. And in order to understand the principles of the late ministers, gentlemen had only to look to the letter of Lord Howick to Mr. Erskine, and to the memorial of Lord Holland and Lord Auckland to the American commissioners; from both of which it would be seen, that the further proceedings which the late ministers proposed to take against neutrals, were only in case they acquiesced in the French decree. They did not call upon neutrals to resist that decree, as the learned gentleman argued, and therefore the assertion was unfounded, that the present ministers acted upon the principles of their predecessors. According to these principles, America, not having acquiesced, should not have been proceeded against, upon the grounds stated. Indeed, the faith of the British government was pledged to America in the dispatches he had referred to, that no such proceedings should be taken. He laughed at the idea of reducing the tone of the enemy, or pressing him to peace, by any privations the operation of this bill might produce upon the Continent. We might refuse Jusuits' bark 'to the French soldiers; we might inflict pains and penalties, by the acrimony of statutes, upon those who were saved from the severity of war, but the calculation was contemptible, that by such an expedient, or by refusing tea and sugar, we could coerce the French, or the Spaniards, or, least of all, Buonaparte. On the contrary, we should only enable that potentate to injure our reputation, and inflame the prejudices of his subjects against us; therefore, this measure would not injure the enemy, while it would expose us to odium. With regard to the commercial effects of the bill before the House, the question was, whether it would be politic in us to deprive France of her commerce? Such might be the policy of Buonaparte, but it could not be ours; for France, deprived of commerce, would become more formidable to us; she would become a nation of soldiers. But if the commerce of the Continent were done away, what was to become of the commerce of England? France and England would return to their natural relations; and if so, the advantage must be on the side of the enemy; therefore it was quite absurd for England to talk of destroying commerce. But the effect of this measure upon Ireland was peculiarly alarming, and must be more so. Flax-seed, so essential to her staple trade, was in the proportion of four-fifths of her annual consumption imported from America, as appeared from accounts on the table. It was said, that the stoppage of the continental trade would give the Irish trade an advantage, by excluding the competition of the linens of Germany: but what was the fact? At the last Irish market, the sale of linen was not beyond onefifth of its usual quantity, while its price was depreciated at the rate of ten per cent. for home consumption, and twenty per cent. for the foreign market. Another, and a serious injury to Ireland would result from the loss of its commerce with America, in consequence of the supply of staves, one of those articles which she annually used in her provision trade, and for other purposes, and annually imported from that country. Ireland, therefore, must be peculiarly affected by an American war; indeed, she suffered so much by the orders in |