The Sun.
London, England, 1821-04-07 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 6.
ROYAL ASSENT.
At half-past three o'clock, the LORD CHANCEL...
LOR, the Earl •of SHAFTESBURY, and Viscount
MELVILLE, appeared with a Commission from his
,Majesty, and gave the Royal Assent to the fol-
lowing Bills :—The Commercial_ Intercourse, the
Husbandry Horses Duties, the Irish Attornies'
Fees Regulati.on,:the Irish Witchcraft Law Re-
peal; the-Grampound 'Witnesses Indemnity Bills,
and a vatiety-ef.private Message was
ordered to be sent to the Commons. to' request
leave for S.ir Manasseh Lopez to attend the se-
cond,:peading of the Grampound • Disfranchise-
ment White, -from the King's Bench
o.tliseargsented extracts and copies of certain
RecadS of Conviction, pursuant to their Lord-
ships';%rder.—Laid -on the table.—The Inn-
keeger's-hates Bill
.was read a third time, passed,
ansl sent to the Commons.
~• • •
ROMAN CATHOLICS..
Viscouit SIDMOUTII presented' a Petition from
the Pmn..and Chapter of the Collegiate Church
of St;P4er's, 'Westminster, against the Catholic
Ciaiins.—Laid on the table.. '
Th.--Bishop of • LONDON presented similar Pe-
titioss from the Clergy of Sion College, and from
the Rector, Churchwardens, and Inhabitants of
the P:iiish of chrisichurch, Middlesex. The
latter,'lN :Right Reverend' Prelate stated, was
signed by.2s€9o persons.—Read, and laid on the
table... - 77.

Viscoutit SIDMOUTH presented a petition against
the Catholic clahns from certain Parishes in the
county 'Of Stirling.—Laid on the. table.
The Earl. or SHAFTESBURY presented petitions
to the same effect from Hitchin, in the county
of Hertford,' Sutton Colefield, in the county of
Warwick, and from the Royal Burgh of Dum-
fries, irk the county of . Dumfries in Scotland.—
Laid on the ,table.
The Earl of DONPUGIIMORE held a petition on
the samPsubject, from a most respectable body
of Clergy Men; not of the Established Church.—
They., were, in fact, Roman Catholics, and ob-
jected ,not to. such a Bill as that which had come
befoie their Lordships, but to some of the provi-
sions which if contained. That objection was .the
same which he entertained, and would, he trust-
e I, be removed by the alterations which their
Lordihlps would think proper to effect in the
measure. The•petitio'n was from the Roman Ca-
thr,lic Bishop. and Clergy of the county of Li-
merick, than whom there could not be a mere
respectable body in; existence. As the petition
was against some parts of the Catholic Bill, he
should beg that it be read at length.
The petition having been read,
The LORD CHANCELLOR was understood to
object to the description given by the petitioners
of themselves, as the Roman Catholic Bishop and
Clergy•of the county of Limerick.
The Earl of DoNouanmonE-could not conceive
how any doubt could be entertained of the pro-
pri,4y of a person exercising the functions of a
Bishop. calling himself by that name. The
power of ordination was the touchstone by which
the character of a Bishop was to be known ; and
it wasa fact, that if any person ordained by a
Catholic Bishop afterwards chose to conform
to the -Fistablished Church,- he became at once a
Minister of that Church,,,Withotit undergoing any
freshordiriation: ThiStad been exemplified in
the ca.e..ot. the celebrated preacher, • Mr. Kir-
wan;,who had. become a Protestant Minister after
having :been ordained by a Catholic Bishop.—
This, proved- that -the character of a Catholic
Bishop was. acknowledged by our laws.
Tie Latin- CHANCELLOR had never meant to
denystfte character of a Bishop to the individual
mentioned in the-Petitions or that he had a. right
to exercise the Episcopal functions. lie only
objected to the phraseology of the Petition,
whicirrepresented him as the CatholicTishop of
Limerick,: for' t could not be admitted- that there
were twin 'Bishops for Limerick, any more than
for Glaticester,- or nay other places He, how-
trot•rneati to oppose the receiving of the
Petition.
The Petition was then ordered toile on the
table.A.djourned till Monday..: