Star.
London, England, 1814-05-18 00:00:00

RONAN CATHOLICS.

Cis. 1 C. HIP i'ISLLY, in rising in pursuance to
notice, tomo* that the papers for the production of
uhich he had moved oa a lc)e ii r occasion, should be
primed, sail, that he should not, on a eight when a
discussion on another subject was expected, occupy
the time of the llouse with any ohseryations on the
Catholic Claims, which were not immediately con-
mct: with the motion which he intended tin propose.
His object was to put the House in possession of the
regulations which had been adored respecting his
,Majesty's Catholic subjects in Malta and Canada,
and other documents which threw light on the nature
of the practice of the Roman Catholic Church. There
was another subject of a graver nature, on which he
wished to remark—the rcestablishntent of the Ordta
01 the Jesuits. In the last Session, a doubt arise as
to the fact which he had mentioned, that reso.QuO Lad
been remitted Irons Rome to Ireland. for the estab-
lishment of a Jesuitical Seminary. Not only uas this
sum remitted, but Castle Brown had been purchased
for the sum of ,e 16,000 for the institution, at•the head
'of which a professed Jesuit was placed. A pinfessulis
nel Gentleman of eminence (Mr. Brown) .0 an etilis
gium A the Order of Jesuits, lately published by
bun, had admitted that young men had been send
from Ireland to Naples, thereto receive ordets i atria
had maintained that an oath was bindings ti it stews.
dot Immotittene iwinosentit, but rainarin inisisliosson pp.
rdwtir-4be bid Jesuitical macros. The far
ells
triestablisissnent of this once lOmidable- rgoso
'deeply laid, sitcl, those best attiraisted 12s=to
of Ireland dreaded the event. Anothet •

had t,I Ireland dreaura um evvin. s-xamitics %WhMOIPINOM/11•••
LIU • which he tilviiiiht Aught be viewed with je.delisy

/was, the frequent meet:4l,gs which had been held by
the Catholic Clergy P. n (;eland; an assumption of
authority the more IP:ander ful, considering the restric.
tions which the C?.tholic Clergy had submitted to in
Catholic as well as reformed countries. The columns
of the Dublin papers were full of accounts or pro.
jects of such ar,semblies ; and to prove their assump-
tion of corporate authority, he had only need to refer
to resolutions of the Catholic Prelatei, adopted in a
Meeting held at Dublin on the 16th of February,
1810. Ile hoped the Government of Ireland was
alive to the consequences of such meetings, as well
as tot rat of another body—the Catholic Board—a
body which had taken on itself to appeal from its
own Government to the Spanish Cortes. Of this
proceeding, the mischievousness of which was only
to be equalled by its folly, for they thus appealed
against intolerance to the most intolerant government
, of Enrope. The Honourable Baronet then proceeded
to advert to the umtradicti(in which existed between

theßescripis which had on former occasions been
obtained from Rome, and which thus rendered them
of no authority. In. 1805, when Dr. Milner wrote
to Rome, to obtain a Rescript respecting a provision.
to be made for the clergy, from the State, the Secre-
tary de propaganda had returned a Rescript, which
deprecated such, a measure, as one fraught with the
most ruinous conseq•uences 'to the Catholic. Church.
This Rescript was in exact echo of the letter which
Dr. Milner had written, and the Rescript of the fol-
lowing year, which wasiintanded to carry a lit:fen:lnt
poirat, sontaine.d sentiments completely opposite to it.
The Papers which he should wish to be printed would
inform the House of the regulations adopted in fo-
reign edentries, respecting the Catholic Clergy, and
would rive them a more accurate idea of the practice
of the,.catholic Church, than could be obtained from
the varying and contradictory rescripts of the Papal
See. The Honourable Baronet, after recommending
the .diffelence between the Prelates and the Catholic
Clergy 40 the attention of the:lrish Government, con-
cluded by !nosing, that the 42d and 43d paragraph
of the instructions to Sir G. Prevost, Governor of
Lower. Canada, of the 2.2c1 Ootober, 1811, presented
to the House of Commons in July, 1813, belaidbefore
the Honse.
Sir H. PARNELL stated, that he had an inter-
view with Mr. Kenny, the head of the Institution,
which had been alluded to by the Hon. Baronet, and
had been fas'oured with a prospectus of the establish-
ment, which was in tact no other than a lay establish-
ment for the education of young people in Ireland of
any religious persuasion. Not only were no new 'doe-
trines to be taught in this seminary, but it was open
to the inspection of any person who had curiosity
enough to desire it. The Honourable Baronet (Sir
J, Q. Hippesley) had not stated any fact to the House
to induce them to believe that the Institution was any
other than he (Sir H. Parnell) had described it. Any
fears from the efforts of the Jesuits in the present state
of that society, and of religious opinions, he conceiv-
ed to be lidictilous; and he did not see how the House
or Government could interfere to prevent a gentleman
frpm keeping a school because he was formerly edu-
cated at a Jesuit's college. '
Mr. PEELE said, he should not have spoken on
the subject before the House unless he bad thought
that his silence might be misconstrued. He should
therefore protest against any inference that the Irish
Government had negkcied the subject alluded to by
the Hun. B.ironet. He (Mr. P.) had, in consequence
of some conversation in the blouse last year, request-'
ed an interview with Mr. Kenny, the head of the in-
stitutton at castle Brown, and bid been informed by
hint that it was a lay institutioa, for instruction—not
exclusively, for Catholics, and carried on by Itim, not
as agent for any other person, but on his own account.
To a question respecting tlit source from which he
bad derived his funds, that gentleman had given no
answer. He (Mr. P.) had then told him that he was
sita. to infer that the .liish Government acquiesced in
the existence of the institution? but, that they should
continue to watch it with jealousy.
Sir J. NEWPORT said, that in 1806 or 7, in con-
sequence of a refusal on the part of the Archbishop
of Dublin to licence a Roman Catholic teacher, the
Trish Government had authorised the Benches of Md..
gistrates, or the Ordinary, to licence teachers of that
religion. The teachaa at Castle Brown must have
been licensed by one sof these atathorities, and if so, lie
was legally compettnt to superintend that seminary.
He should not enter into the question whence the
fonds for the support of that seminary were derived,
but it was highly desirable that there should be some
Inst tation in Ireliind fur the Lay Catholics, as May.
not,th was not open to them.
Sir H. FA ItNELL explained, that he was autho-
rised .0 say that Mr. Kenny had ref used to answer the
apt-soon from what quarter he der‘ved his funds,
merely because he had conceived such a question
to be an impropa' interference with his private con-
cerns.
Mr. PEELE, in eTplanation, observed that the ut-
most jealousy of Jesuitic Institutions had always been
evinced by the Legislature and Goyerament of this
country, and, therefore, when he had the communi-
catioo alluded to with Mr. Kenny, he felt himself
bound to state to that gentleman, that he should con-
ceive it his drty, in his official station, to a atch the
establish:nein with which he (Mr. *Kenny) was con-
nected, ia ith peculiar jealousy, to which he. was the
more disposed by that Gentleman's refusal to state the
funds from which he derived the very considerable
sum will which that establishment was supporteda:—
He was besides induced to feel jealous of such an In-
stitution by the same motives which urged the Go-
vernmeut of Canada to abolish the Order of Jesuits,
and to confiscate the property belonging to that order.
Sir J. NI.WPORT denied that the property of the
Jesuits had been confiscated in Canada, althougli the
establishment of the order was prohibited, that pro-
perty having been, on the contrary, settled upon the
individuah possessed of it with benefit of survivorship,
so that the whole of this property had actually fallen
into tie bar;cl% of an .ti(riVid94. •
Sir J. C. HIPPISLEV contended? that the pro-
perty of the Jesuits had been confiscated in Canada by
the ordei of the Canadian Qoverninent, and that this
property kid been since granted to Lord 4mherst.
lie contended also; that according to theßultOf Pope
GAnganelli, whockodered the universal abolition oa
the Jesuits, who waf, much more deyoted to
their own General than to the Pope, 41 Christian
countries, whether Catholic or Protestant, must fees
ilaitzen to discountenance such institutions

74,1

All Christian States had indeed manifested their sense 1
of this interest ; and it behoved the Government of I
England to look with peculiar care to the institution
under discussion, especially when it was known that
such a considerable sum had been found to support it,
and that sum too derived from some source which the
Principal of the Institution refused to reveal; He
(Sir J. C. Hippisley) could not help declaring his re-
gret. that Gentlemen of great weight and character in
that House had thought proper to decline expressing
any objection to the establishment alluded to. Upon
the character of the Jesuits he did not think it neces-
sary tqAtate any opinion, nor to call to the recollection
of the House the jealousy which all the free and hide.
pendent States of Europe had manifested against that
Order. But he must again caution the British Go-
vernment to be on its guard. For the moral charac-
ter and general good disposition of the present Pope,
he ptofesied the highest respect.. But the Jesuits had
always been found a powerful means of influence, a
formidable band of intriguers, apd he therefore would
wish to protecthis country against the fat of any Pope,
for the resurrection and reorganization of such an order.
The motion was agreed to ; and the several papers
presented to the House in May last with regard to the
Catholics were, on the motion of Sir I C. HIPPISLEY,
ordered to be re-printed. •