Star.
London, England, 1825-03-02 00:00:00

wpm

• ....,.,..., ..-....... _______ _____ _ _ . _ ....„
ft.. .
... ...,_,_
. .
• -.....,
ill' 0 . ?Qirceut.
•......
. • •
. .
,c,..„
ittie, ~. ~..,‘:;.,
a.... .• . _
. ..-..._•••,,,,,, -,,,
. .1
( fff‘ )S . .
0 14....Vimi- ir •. . gdoi. •A , r ..111 • 1
.e '/ • ... •! t
f 4 .
, • - • P-..._ .% .
. 41-1111 Pr gr l (
__..., ie
..' . .
. • . . . . . . . .

PRICE SEVEN PENCE.

oil, answer the Priest, as the Petitioner repiesented,
q‘,itteil him in a rage, and threatened him .with yen-
,• eance. On the neat Sunday, at church, he was pointed
totts and vengeance was denounced against him as a
teforrner of the national teligion, and those parents
were likewise denounced who Should continue to send
their ch:ldren to his school. The Hibernian School,
however, still contained siaty pupils. The Priest took
the opp. ronity, when the parents came to confession,
to pet suade them to with& aw their children. In a
short time the Petitioner was brought into great discredit amongst
his neighbours, and obliged to move to mother part of the country,
hut even then he was pursued by the hatred of the Priest, and all
countenance was denied him. He was cruelly assauhed, knocked
down, and even his life was put in danger, because be dared to
speak against Father Egan, the Parish Priest. This was only one
out of many instances of the Catholic Clergy acting against school-
masters who retused to adopt their system of education. The sub.
ject was one of great importance, and deserved the consideration
of the House.
Mr. F. LEWIS hoped that the Meuse would not be
led into a premature discussion on this subject, by the
observations of the Ll2nourable Member for Armagh_
('Hear). The evil stecf in the Petition certainly existed
in lielanti, and he (Mr. F. Lewis) could mention a
thousand cases of it. It was a contest between the
Roman Catholic Priesthood and a respectable class of
well-meaning persons. The one resisted a particular
system of education, which the other wished to propagate. The
Priests used their peculiar Influence to prevent it, and the other
party used such influence as was at their command to extend it.—
Many instances of the evil results of this contest had been brought
before the Commissioners of Inquiry (of which he was a Member)
during their labours in Ireland, and the Commissioners had endea-
voured to provide a remedy. It was useless to Intrude any details
on the House now, but after their Report had been made (and it
would be made soon), the House would be in a condition to judge
whether such remedy was adequate? In the meantime, he hoped
no discussion on the subject would take place.
Mr. M. FITZGERALD concurred entirely with the
Honourable Member for Beaumaris (Mr. F. Lewis), as to the pro-
priety of deferring the discussion.
Mr. PLUNKETT said that he had a few observations •
to make respecting the Petition. The Petition it ap-
pealed had been placed in the hands of the Honourable
Member for Armagh (Mr. Brownlowy during the last Session: lie
had not thought proper to present it to the House until now, at the
very moment when the Honourable Baronet (Sir F. Burdett) was
about to bring forward a motion respecting the Catholic Claims—
(Hear). On that motion, perhaps, some allusions might be made
to the Catholic Priesthood, and it was not fair to bring forward
statements against that Priesthood. which the Honourable Member
knew to be true, but which no one else knew to be so. It was just,
therefore, that the House should suspend its judgment till every
man had had an opportunity to learn accurately what were the
real facts of the case. He did not know whether the Honourable
Member meant to create any improper feeling against the Catholic
Priesthood, by presenting such a Petition at such a time; but it
was certainly calculated to have such an effect, and be (Mr.
Plunkett) hoped the good sense of the House would interpose to
prevent it—(Hear).
Mr. GEORGE DAWSON said, he differed entirely
from the Right Hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland
in his view of the case. It would have been extremely
wrong in his Hon. Friend to present the Petition, until
he had made some inquiry respecting its truth. He had
done so, and then he pursued the proper Parliamentary
course of choosing his own time to present it. lion.
Gentlemen on the other side lithe House had acted in
the sante way. They had loaded ,the table with Peti-
tions reflecting on the character of Orangemen on the
very evening when a discussion of the Catholic
claims was to come on, without affording the per ens
attacked any opportunity of vindicating themselves.
As to giving opportunity for explanation and defence,
it was after all very idle talk. The practice of the House
was for one Member to assert certain things to be true
which some Member opposite denied to be so, and there the matter
generally rested. It was the duty of his Hon. Friend to present
the Petition, and he had done so. As to the remarks of the Hon.
Member fa Beaumaris (Mr. F. Lewis) be did not 'disagree with
them, but he was convinced that the Catholic Priesthood had been
most active in checking the benefits of education, and this opinion
he should declare at all times and on all occasions.
Mr. GRATTAN denied that the. Catholic Priesthood
were hostile to education. The real fact was, that the Protestants
wished to teach the Catholics, and the Catholics wished to teach
themselves. He joined in the protest made by his 'tight Han.
Friend (Mr. Plunkett), and be believed that the Petition was pre-
sented to influence the discussion.
Sir T.- LETHBRIDGE thought the Honourable
Member for Armagh entitled to the thanks of the House
for presenting the Petition. On such an important question it was
desirable to have all possible information. The Petition stated the
conduct of a Catholic Priest on the subject of education, and the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Lewis) said be knew a vast number of
other cases of the same kind—t(Ucar). He regretted that the Com-
missioners had not got their report ready, and in the meantime -he
should profit by the facts contained in the Petition.
Mr. BROWNLOW, in answer to the Attorney-Ge-
neral fur Ireland, would only observe that he did not
receive the Petition until the very day he was to leave
town for Ireland ; and as he did not wish to come be-
fore the House without knowing something as to its accuracy,he hid,
during the holidays examined into its statements. On the opening
of the Session, be hesitated about presenting it ; nor was he decided
until yesterday, when he received a letter from Ireland, blaming
him for the delay, and requesting 'hint to present it before the dis.
cussion this evening. After stating these facts, he hoped the House
would not join in the censure cast on him by the Right I ion. Gen-
tleman—(Hear, hear).—The Petition was laid on the table and or.
dered to be printed.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD presented a Petition (NM the Roman
Catholics of the County of Clare against the Bill fur suppressing
the Catholic Association.

A Menses under the gallery supported the prayer of the Petition
—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. T. ELLIS presented a Petition from the Guild of Mer-
chants in Dublin against Catholic Emancipation--Ordered to be
printed.

Sir ELIAB HARVEY presented a Petition from Royden in
Essex, fur the repeal of the Coal Duties—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a Petition from the Merchants,
Bankers, and Traders of Bristol, praying that all religious sects
might be placed on an equal footing with regard to their civil and
political rights. The Petitioners were highly respectable, and well
qualified to form an opinion—as well qualified. as himatif—(A
laugh). What he meant was, that as his opinion dift red from
theirs, he did not wish to say that they were wrong, or iccip:.ble
of judging for themselves. He agreed with the Petitioners in every
part of their prayer, except what related to the Roman C,inholic,.
When be looked to the principles of the Revolution—which was a
Fri-At-at:int Revolution—and when be looked at tte uniform con-
duct of the Catholics thkoughout Eur•Te, be could never consent to
put them on the level with the Established Church of England, of
even wish the Dissenters.
The Petition was brought up and ordered to be printed.
Sir J. NEWPORT presented a Petition from Waterford in fa-
vour of Catholic Emancipation, and another from the Town of
Belfast. This latter Petition was signed by the Lte High Sheriff
and the prevent High Sh. riff for the County of boon ; by the
President, Vice-President, and Members of the Chamber of
Commerce in lirlia.t ; by two Clergymen of the Established
Church-(Hear)—and by the entire Commercial Body of 13elfsat
representing a property of five millions in value—(Hear).—Or-
tiered to be printttl.