The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-08 00:00:00

FOR THE SUN.

MR. EDITOR—T feel confident, that neither
you, nor any person of candid judgment, will think the Clergy
deserving of blame for humbly petitioning the Legislature
ag,ainSt the Bill for Catholic Emancipation. You will not,
am sure, be influenced by the coarse and violent sarcasms which
have been thrown upon our conduct in places, where, from the
high rank and polished education of the speakers, we might
have expected language of a much more liberal, dignified, and
gentlemanly description. At the same time, it has often ap-
peared to the indiVidual who now addresses you, that in peti-
tions presented against this Bill there have been inserted ex-
pressions which might more properly have been.omitted. Let
us recollect what is our object in petitioning ;—it is not to
utter the language of exasperation, but to speak the dictates of
caution ; it is not to restrain the charities of social intercourse,
but to act upon the allowable motive of self-defence ; it is not
to excite indignation by an allusion to past: events, bnt to ex-
press our opinions as to the probable effects-of, principles at
present maintained. Could I venture to hope, that a sugges-
tion from me would have any weight with my brethren, 1
would submit, that these petitions should be somewhat to the
following effect.:—

" We, the Clergy of beg leave humbly to approach
your Right Honourable House, and to express our earnest
hopes that your Lordships will not deem it expedient to make
any further concessions to our Roman Catholic Brethren. We
are most anxious that they should ever retain, without the
slightest alteration, the privilege which they at present enjoy, of
repairing unmolested to their various Chapels, and of perform-
ing Divine Worship after the manner of
:their ancestors. We,
however; feel-persuaded, that-our Raman Catholic :Brethreo, as
Men of honour and principle, as men laudably attached to their
own faith, would avail themselves, and most properly, of any
addition to their present political power, for promoting the pre-
dominance of their church m these dominions. Your Peti-
tioners, therefore, humbly conceive, that they are actuated by
'an allowable regard to the interests of their own Church, and
are quite uninfluenced by uncharitable' illiberality, in beseech.
ing your Right Honourable House to pause before youconeede
'A) these our fellow-subjects a degree of political power greater
han that which they at present enjoy,
" And your Petitioners," &c. _

March 4, 1820.

CLEItICUS.

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF' LORDS, MARCH 7.
The Earl of DARNLEY presented a petition from the Ro-
man Catholics of the town of Liverpool against the Irish Un-
lawful Societies' Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the
Clergy of the diocese of Exeter, in favour of the bill, and
against the Roman Catholic Claims. The petition, which, on
the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate, was read and laid on the
table, sttongly censured the violent language used in the Cathot
lie Association, protested against the Catholic doctrines, and de-
precated the repeal of laws which formed the security of the
Church and State.
Lord KING observed, that their Lordships had now before
them one more petition from the Clergy against granting the
.enjoyment of civil rights to their fellow-countrymen, the Ro-
man Catholics. How far these 'Reverend Gentlemen ought
thus to meddle with politics he should not now discuss ; but
they alWays appeared eager to take part in them. He was in-
formed that there was a city which had a Right Rev. Mayor,
and in which there were 'Very Reverend Aldermen and well.
beneficed burgesses. He did not know whether they held their
benefices in the dincess of the Right Reverend Prelate, but
he did know that the town was situated in his diocess. As
these Reverend Gentlemen bestirred themselves so much to
find fault where they had no business, he thought it would be
but right to bring them back fromayttererthey had gone to where
, they ought to be.
The Bishop of EXETER did not understand a what ground
it seas pretended that the Clergy sttould• not be allowed the
right of petitioning as well as any other class of His Majes-
ty's subjects. Why should they not be allowed to approach
that House when they addressed it in modest and humble peti-
dons ? With respect to the Clergymen to whom the Noble Lord
had alluded as holding magisterial offices, that was a circum,
stance which nobody More regretted than he did.-4 I-lear, hear!)
—Such cases did exist in his diocess ; but it was not in his power
to prevent them.
The Earl of DA RN'LE Y referred their Lordships to the pe-
tition which had been read at the desire of the Right Reverend
Prelate, in order to judge how far it wal.remarkable for mo-
desty and humility. These Reverend Persona dwelt very much
on the intemperate language and conduct of the Roman Ca-
tholic Association ; but if they had been placed in the same
situation as the Roman Catholics—if they had been so long de-
barred from their just rights, Whether, partaking; as they
surely did, of the common infirmity of human nature, they
would not have used still more violent language. They pro_
tested against the Roman Catholic doctrines, and said that they
could not, consistently with their duty, remain silent, when
the fences which surrounded the national church were proposed
to be removed. Their language was throughout sufficiently
strong' though they were not, like the Roman Catholics, suf-
fering from the operation of partial laws. Nobody was more
attached to the true interests of the church of England than he
was, but this was a question which did not affect those interests.
—lt was remarkable that no petitions had been presented in
faVoUr of the bill—at least, none had been presented in that
House, except such as-came from the clergy ; but he would
seriously advise those reverend persons to consider well whether
they could really believe that at the present moment there was
greater danger froth granting than withholding the Catholic
claims. He wished they would take the trouble to read what
Mr. Burke, the highest authority on this subject, had said.—.
They would then see that it was now too late to oppose the re-
ligious liberty of the Catholics.—[Here the Noble Lord read a
that the Roman Catholics
passage from Mr. Burke, sliewing
already possessed religious liberty, and that the only remaining
question was one of civil and political rights.]
The Bishop of EXETER would not go into any discussion
with The Noble Lord on the terms in which the petition was
drawn up. He could not be made answerable for every thing
in a petition which he presented. The Noble Lord had quoted
a passage from Burke. He would, in return, recommend to
the Noble Lord to read the last words of Lord Russell. He
was sorry he had not copied them, and brought them down in
his pocket. The Right Rev. Prelate then moved that the 11th
report of the Commissioners of Charities, together with the
appendix, be laid before the House.
Earl (111QSVENOR said a few words, after which the mo-
tion was agreed to.
Several private Bills were brought from the Commons.
SCOTCH PEERS.
Lord MELVILLE rose to move fora Committee to consider
of the law regulating the trial of Peers for offences committed
in Scotland. The Noble Lord briefly described the state of the
law in Scotland with respect to the trial of Peers, and the prac-
tice which had been followed since the Union. He proposed
the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the
law on this subject. He would move the same Committee as
that which sat last Session on the law of ..Seotland, with the
difference of ofie Member, who was absent.

Lord HOLLAND -wished-the inquiry to be extended to of-
fences.which were not political. From all he had heard and
read on the subjpct, he was convinced that the laws of Scotland
very much required to be looked into by their Lordships.
Lord AIELITI bLE asked the Noble Lord whether he would
sit on the Committee ; and on Lord Holland signifying his
assent, his nalike was added to the list.
The Marquis of LA NSDOWN presented petitions against
the Irish Unlawful Societies' Bill from the Catholics of the
county of Galway, and the Catholics and Protestants of the
town of (fort.

Lord GORT, on the latter petition being presented, stated
that several of the most respectable inhabitants of Gort, both
Catholics and Protestants, refused to sign it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWTN presented a petition from
Glastonbury, praying for an alteration of the law for the re-
covery of Small Debts. _ _