The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-08 00:00:00

FYntan, who stated that he had been unjustly deprived of his
v by his Bishop, and that he had not been restored in
‘.Le rescript from the proper authority. The Noble and
,i.4e.arried Lord had stated the real ground on which the pe-
tition was presented. He had stated that it was an appeal to
Public opinion through the House, by a petition which he
(Viscount Melbourne) would say the House could not en-
tertain. He did not know whether he was prepared in all
respects to condemn such a mode of proceeding, but he would
°,eserve that it was a mode which might be carried a great
deal further than their Lordships expected; and on the pre-
Sent occasion he could not do otherwise than express consi-
derable doubt as to the prudence and propriety of the pre-
sent petition. The Noble and Learned Lord had made ano-
ther observation, to which he was desirous of adverting. The
Noble and Learned Lord, from the proceedings of these ec-
clesiastical authorities, read the titles of Bishop and of Dean,
and he stated that the assumption of those titles was in disre-
gard and in contempt of the Act for removing the disabilities
of the Roman Catholics. He (Viscount Melbourne) appre-
nended that the clause in question only intended to prohibit
the Roman Catholic Clergy from ordinarily styling them-
selves by those titles. If that were not the meaning of the
clause, it would in fact amount to an abolition of the Roman
Catholic Church. That Church was an episcopal Church ; it
required Bishops—in fact, they were essential to its existence ;
and he therefore apprehended that the words in question did
not apply to matters relating to discipline, or to the exercise
of those powers or functions which were absolutely necessary
to and inherent in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Duke of WELLINGTON rose and said—My Lords,
I have not heard from anybody but the Noble Baron that this
Petition ought not to be received. Perhaps the Noble Baron
will be so kind as to move, as an amendment to my Noble and
Learned Friend's motion, that the petition be rejected ; for
that is the course which the Noble Baron ought to take, if he
is of opinion that it cannot be received. My Lords, it is true
that this House cannot take steps in order to remedy the griev-
ance stated in this petition. But, my Lords, this is frequently
the case. Petitions are often presented in cases in which this
House cannot take steps, and still more frequently in cases in
Which the House does not take steps, though it has the means
to do so. My Lords, Ido not believe that there is any instance
on record of the rejection of a petition respectfully worded,
only because the House could not take any steps on the sub-
ject. My Lords, Ido not agree in the argument used by the
Noble Viscount opposite, that the Act of Parliament did not
refer to these titles when used by these persons in the exercise
of their duties : because, forsooth, they are absolutely neces-
sary to an Episcopal Church, and because it is absolutely ne-
cessary to have ecclessiastical titles in that Church. Now, my
Lords, I should like to know whether we never heard of Re-
Mtn Catholics in England or in other parts of the world ; but
deny that the law has forbidden, and that the law has suc-
ceeded in preventing the use of these titles in England ; but
that it has not been as yet successful in preventing the use of
them in Ireland. The execution of the law, however, rests
With the Noble Viscount opposite; but less us look to other
Countries in which these titles have been abolished, and let us
look at home, and we shall find that the law has been obeyed
here and in those countries as I say the law ought to be obeyed
in Ireland.—( Hear. )
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would ask their Lord-
ships whether they would be justified in receiving the petition
without any inquiry as to the accuracy of the statements ?
Did the Noble Lord propose such an inquiry ? Did the
Noble Earl ( Wicklow) opposite invite such an inquiry ? And
yet they were told that an appeal was to be made to public
opinion through the medium of that House, without any in-
quiry as to the veracity of the facts ; yet, upon those facts the
Noble Duke thought he was justified in supporting the extra-
ordinary terms used by the Noble and Learned Lord with
reference to the bulk of the population of that part of the
kingdom. If this petition were received he was not certain
that in the other House of Parliament petitions would not be
presented from parties complaining of acts done by persons
over their own property—from stewards, from secretaries,
treasurers of societies, and such parties ; and were these per-
sons, he would ask, to appeal to public opinion, and have a
right to make use of that House as a means of appealing to
public opinion, for the purpose of obtaining that redress which
the laws of the country did not afford them ? He had been
Surprised to hear the Noble Duke refer to certain articles pro-
posed to the Clergy of the Established Church. Was the Roman
Catholic Church, he would ask, established? Had Parliament
any authority to reform the discipline of a Church which they did
not recognize as a Church ? Undoubtedly, Parliament had
authority to interfere with respect to the discipline, the emo-
luments, and the possessions of the Established Church of the
country, which Parliament paid and supported; and it was
because Parliament paid and supported that Church that their
Lordships had a right to inquire into its discipline. But Par-
liament did not pay the Roman Catholic Church, and conse-
quently it had no right to interfere with respect to the conduct
of that Church. but in the degree in which it might contra-
vene the established law of the country. In the present case
it was not stated that the parties had acted in contravention of
any law. If there had been any injustice committed the party
had his remedy.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that the case to which
be had referred was that of an examination previous to an or-
dination. If he had to consider the prudence and propriety of
inquiring into the subject, he should say that a question of or-
dination between the Bishop and the person called for the
Purpose of being ordained was as improper to enter upon as
anything that could be thought of.
Lord HOLLAND said that the Noble Duke had said that
he thought that he (Lord Holland) was the last man in the
world to oppose the reception of any petition, and the Noble
Duke then asked could any instance be found in which the
House had refused to receive such a petition as this? He
(Lord Holland) thought he could charge his memory with a
great many such cases ; but he would say, though the Noble
uke declared that he was the last man who ought to refuse
receiving such a petition, that he had always given it as his
opinion that every petition should be received which was
!onehed in respectful language. For many years it was
31ought that the House enjoyed de facto, though perhaps not
efure, an original jurisdiction between one man and another;
and whenever a petition had been presented, asking the House
10 exercise such jurisdiction, he (Lord Holland) had always
thought it his duty to oppose it. He did not intend to press
the House to a division ; but he should content himself with
merely expressing his dissatisfaction.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH could not understand the
principle on which Noble Lords opposite acted. The into-
lerance and inquisitorial spirit of the Church of Rome was well
known, and if their Lordships should decide upon rejecting this
petition it would in effect prevent the future acts of that church
from ever being brought before the Houso. He was acquainted
with a case which no doubt the Noble Baron opposite (Hol-
land) well knew. He alluded to the case of the Rev. Mr.
Charles O'Connell, a gentleman who had written a work on the
subject of Catholic Emancipation. That gentleman, he could
assure the House, was brought to an untimely end by the op-
pressive tyranny of the Bishop of his diocese. For having stated
alis opinions on that subject he was placed under interdict. It
Vias subsequently raised, but it was too late. He totally dis-
sented from what had fallen from the Noble Baron opposite
(Holland).
Viscount DUNCANNON said that in this case the gentle-
'Pan had obtained redress by the laws of his country, and why
Jae now applied to this House appeared to him most extraordi-
tarY• The petitioner was chaplain to the titular Archbishop
who being of opinion that he had behaved improperly
thought proper to remove him from his living. It was very true
that upon an application to him by this gentleman the Lord
Lieutenant of the county had given him a character. The Lord
Lieutenant now was anxious that it should not be conceived that
he had expressed with the character any opinion as to the alleged
'oppression of Dr. Kelly.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that the Lord Lieutenant
bad given this character after he had heard the facts of the
ease, and consequently he might be supposed to have given a
tacit approval of the conduct of Mr. Mulholland.
Viscount DUNCANNON said that, so far from thinking
that the Lord Lieutenant approved of the petitioner's conduct,
the Lord Lieutenant was of opinion that he had been properly
removed by Dr. Kelly.
Viscount MELBOURNE said that, as he had been fur-
tished with a letter from Dr. Croly, he thought it only fair
to read it to the House. That letter, in the first place, stated
that Mr. Mulholland had never been a parish priest, but only
an administrator : that he had dragged a worthy clergyman
into Court on a matter with respect to which a jury gave him
a verdict of one farthing damages, and left him to pay his own
costs ; that his conduct had been disapproved of, and that his
removal from the office of administrator had been confirmed
by the proper authority; that he had been offered three cu-
racie, all of which he had contemptuously refused; and lastly,
at the conference at Dundalk he had refused to accept a cu-
racy, being as unwilling to become a curate as the priests were
to have him associated with them. This, therefore, was the
ease of Dr. Croly.
Lord LYNDHURST said that a Noble Lord had been
Pleased to allude to a certain expression made use of by him,
er alleged to have been made use of by him.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was not the first.
Lord LYNDHURST said the Noble Baron had been so
Food as to commence the attack, and that he had been fol.
4°Wed in it by the Noble Marquis. He ( Lord Lyndhurst)
I°°llld assure their Lordships that whether he had made use
,f
the expressions with the qualifications which he had in-
tended to use, he should never shrink from them, and he
never felt less inclined to do so than on the present occasion.
What he would ask the House, was the conduct which he
Way bound to pursue with respect to this petition? A gentle-
tan came to him and stated that he had been unjustly treated
TY Persons having a considerable power in Ireland. He (Lord
''Yndhurst) very naturally wished to know who this person
/43, and the gentleman then produced the very highest testi-
taonials as to his character—one even from the individual from
Whom he had received the alleged wrong. He was described
Dr. Croly as " insignem zealo, doctrina, pietate," &c.,
'e• It was said that the case was merely a statement in
itPetition. Was any case ever brought before their Lord-
ships hi the shape of a petition anything but a statement on
retition ? Was he, lie would ask, responsible for the statement
,
Hear, hear)—when lie found it based on the statement of
Croly ? The Noble Viscount had objected to the mode
n which the question was brought under consideration. He
(Lord Lyndhurst) abstained from giving the petition any false
e°l"ring, and he would say that in presenting it he had only
WllO his duty. The Noble Viscount had asked whether he
as Prepared to enter into an enquiry on the subject. He
(Lord Lyndhurst) could inform the Noble Viscount that the
Prayer was directed towards an inquiry, and if the Noble Vis-
e°llnt thought proper to yield that inquiry, he should be pre-
4f/red to to enter into it, with respect both to the conduct of Mr,
ulholland and of Dr. Croly.
13 Lord HOLLAND asked whether he was to understand if
det;:e-dC?rol y presented a petition that it would also be consi-
Lord LYNDHURST said that if it were signed by the
'rehbishop of Armagh, he certainly should object to receiv-