The Sun.
London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

to the petition, evidently written by the same band. This
be considered highly objectionable.
Mr. H. BIiIC;'HT was satisfied this question could never be
set completely at test, unless the House conceded all the Ca-
tholics ►eqoired, or resolutely took their stand where they
now acre. He therefore strongly recommended that they
should take t!atir stand where they now were. All who ;ap-
proved the Catholic Claims, were either directly, or by infe-
rence, accused of tru lie would, however. say. that
there was !attic rea-on t• suppose, that t hr Catholics, if their
prayer were granted, woteld not return to their former op-
rressive and intolerant doctrines. Let the Protestant Ms.,"
seater be first raised to his proper rank iis the State; and
then it would hr time enough to consider what ought to be
trone for the Catholic Dissenter. If the Protestant Dissenter
sr:lsnot tote attended tn. why was the Catholic to be relieved
from the test laws? It was necessary that the Honseshould
consider ibis bafore they went further. The Bill passed,
they could not t hen pause—that on which they decided, must
repain for re-cr.
Sir-JAMES MACKINTOSH contended, that the Petition
did-not speak the sentiments of the great body of Catho-
lics of Staffordshire. It was destribed as coming from the
catholic Clergy and Laity of that country. But whb were
the great names comprehended in that body? He would
ask whet hyr nu consideration was to be niade for the absence
•of the name of the Earl of Shrewsbury ? Vas Lord Tor-
ton'c name worthy of no consideration? Where were the
Cliffords—theJernyngbanis—the Blunts, the Fitzberberts ?
He would. ask whither they were not to consider their excep-
tions as decisive against unanimity? These were the natural
leaders of the Catholics, and'-:th.ev did not join in the objec-
tions mare by the Petitiouers. He.understood that, besides
the Clergy, there was not the name of any one Catholic of
distinction affixed to the Petition. It bad only been the work
of Dr. Milder, the im•concileable enemy to all'union. No
wonder., bring an enemy to union and concord, that his pre-
sent exertion should be. hailed by Protestants who were in-
eneoc.ed by the same motives and dispositions. It was im-
possible to expect that any arrangement could be made to
Kive satisfaction to Dr. Milner, or to the Hon. Member for
s:quer+et, who stated his regret that the penal laws against
the Catholics should have been repealed.
Sir T. LETHURIDGE said, that if he had uted the expres-
sions attributed to hint by the Hon. Member, he had dune so
unintentionally, hut to the test of hit recollection be did,not
use them —(!fear, hear!)
Mr. ELLIS (of Driblin).after what had been said respect-
ing Dr. Milner, wished to call the attention of the House
to some Resolutions agreed to by the Irish Carbolic Bishops
at Dublin, in the year IStO. The Resolutions expressed their
thanks to the Rev. Doctor for his exertions in the Catholic
cause as their avowed agent.
Nit-. WYNNE s rid that the Boman Catholics of Ireland
were not to be held responsible for the altered opinions of
Dr. Milner. . .

_ .....
Mr. ELLIS said that the Resolutions had been repeated
cffcct,• twice since the year 1810, particularly in the year
_ _ _

Mr. W.AII.RE wi,lied that when the Hon. Member told of
what bad been done and said by Doctor Milner in 1810 and
5813, Ihat he would also state what he said in 1800. At that
period Mr. Polisoulty read a letter in that House from Dr.
Milner, consenting to similar arrangements which were then
yraposed.
Mr. WII.IIEIIFORCE explained in'so low a tone of voice
as to be inan'ible in the Gallery.
Mr. PEEL rose °tithe present occasion, because bethought
it sight that the House should know the real facts of this part
of the case. He thought that his Hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis)
had been misunderstood as to his object in reading the Re-
solutions of the Irish Prelates. He did not wish to involve
the Homan Catholics of this emptily in any opinions held by
Dr. Milner in 1810, but that afterwards that individual act-
ing as the agent of the Irish Prelates, objected to a former
enactment, and with their decided acquiescence. But let
them go at once to the fountain head for the opinion of the
Prelates themselves, without examining whether they agreed
to those of Dr. Milner or not. On the 19th of May, 1813,
ilk,' came to a resolution that the provisions of the Act
then introduced into Parliament could not be agreed to, be-
eaNse they would create schism in the Roman Cat holic Church.
Be had said this much, because lie thought it right that the
House should know what were the opinions of the Catholics
themselves.

Mr. N. CALVERT said a few words as to the hand-writing
in which the signatures to the petition hppeared.
Sir H. PARNELL wished to state to the House what had
beetti the differences that occasioned the resolutions of the
Prelates which hail been referred to. When they stated that
they should be guilty of schism if they agreed to thr enact-
ments proposed in Isl 3, they meant by those words, that
those enactments interfered with the discipline and nut the
faith of the ttiniisii Catholic Church. Because if they agreed
to those alterations without communicating with the see of
Rome, they would base committed a breach of discipline.
Therefore. the resolutions bad nothing to do with the present
.perial.. Since the time when they were passed. the Prelates
had been in eonnutioicistion with, the See of Rome, and
they were now at Idierty to agree to the propositions. He
thought, however, that the opinion of the Irish Prelates
was not alto!retleer binding upon the Catholics of thiA Coun-
try, let it be "'sfliich way it. would. Witco the Bill of 1813 was
communicated to tilt' See of Rome, the_ most per feet acilni-
escrice was expressed in its provisions. Therefore when the
Right Hon. gentletrian endeavoured to bring forward the
resolutions as conveying the opinions of the Irish Pre-
lates, it mist he with the view of impressing the House
with the belief that they were opposed to ffesent
The unfortunate differences which operated to prevent the
passing of the last, ought DA to be excited upon the present
occasion. lie had that morning received a letter from Ire-
land, which stated that tin re was already symptoms of that
improved temper among the Catholic body which was so es-
sential to the great nit-cure now in contemplation. It was
impossible to conceive what satisfaction the late decision of
the House of Commons had given to all parties; and the final
ad:sr:lion of the measure was looked forward to with the most
anxious !lope,
Mr. PEEL appealed to the House, whether the imputations
cast upon hint by the Honourable Baronet were deserved.—
(Hear, hear l;—The Honouralile Baronet said that it was
unfair to refer to the opinions iif the Prelates before they held
communication with the See of Rome. Now be livid in his
hand at that moment a paper signed by the Roman Catholic
Bishops, after having communicated with the See of Rome.—
(Cries of Spoke :")—He would appeal to Honourable
Gentlemen whet her he was not to state a simple fact upon the
point which, was before the Ifou.-.e. lie meant to found no
argument upon it. He 'hew no inference from it. And he
should have thought that the came-which Honourable Mem-
bers supported, Was too good to depend upon mire forms in
order to prevent the statement °fa plain tact to the House—
(Cheers).—The resolution to which be alluded was agreed to
in 1/U4, after receiving the acquiescence of the See of Borne
to the Catholic Bill.. It expressed their hope that Mr.
Cratt-ts would support the Bill in Pasliament, but that
lie would endeavour to exclude ceitain clauses which it
contained.

Dr. PH ILLINIORE did think it a most tunfair thing to press
fors, ard opinions held in 181.1, and which the parties -now re-
nounced. He contended that the petition did not express
the sentiments of the most important Onsses of the Catholic
Liddy in the counties from which it came.
Sir H. PARNELI, explained.

Mr. DAWSON made an inquiry of the Hon. Baronet (sir
IL Rand!) as to the fetter which he had read to the liou,e.
He wished to know whether it was frJuf any of the Public
Authorities in Ireland ?

Sir H. PAIINILLL said, that the letter was private, but it
certainly came hour a source likely to be well informed upon
the subject.
Sir ACKINTOSrI.was utterly astonished at what bad
.fallen fi at the 1(lulit Hun. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel).
I le. lii-earrirelytittawarr-,-and it is-as-a mat terpf I he
most vital importance to the statement he had made, but be
seemed to be wholly unaware of the reieipts of Monseigneur
Ctiarentolli, and of Cardinal Litt a of Genoa, made in the
year 1815, conveying a qualified negative to the nomination
of. Cat hulic Bishops in _England. The Bight Honourable
Gentleman did nut appear to know that Pope Pius the 7th, in
181.5, addressed a letter to the Bishops, in explanation of this
qualified negative to these propositions, after the resolutions
which he had read. Or if he did, how came he to state that
the determination of the Prelates had been come to before they
had received the sanction at the See of Rothe.—(Hear, heat!)
Either he was unaware of the existence of these doennionts,
or else his assettion went to prove that the Irish Prelates
acted independent of the See of Rome. If he was in the latter
dilemma, then be must give up all his arguments against the
present 13111 upon the ground of the dependeoce of Catholics
upon a foreign Pat riareli.—(Cheers )
Mr. PEEL was quite aware of the existence of the docu-
ments to which the Han. and Learned :Member alluded, and
he had directly alluded to that of Monseignenr Cuarentolii,
When he spoke of the communications with tins See of Rome.
He stated it at the time, and certainly could hare no object
its concealing- the existence of these papers. There was only
one way of putting an end to the argutnent upon this point,
if he should jounit any argument upon the facts, and that was
by prodticing fresh resolutions of the Irish Prelates containing
a disavowal of the sentiments contained in those he had ;cad
to the House.

After a few words from Sir J. NEWPORT, and an Hon.
Member whose name could nut be ascertdined, the Petition
%Its ordered to be printed.
' Mr. toKE-presetoed r Petition from the Archdeacon and
(`ferrymen of the Established Church residing in the !No-
utasc ut Net wieb, stspport of the catly.dics' Bill. The