Star.
London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

IgAtURDAY, MARCH 17, 1821.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 16.
Their Lordships heard, Counsel in the Scotch Appeal Cause,
Astley v. Taylor. Judgment postponed.
In an Appeal, Norbury v. Meade, by Writ of Error, from
the Exchequer Court, the Attorney-General was heard for ap-
pellant, and Mr. Wetherell for respondent.—Judgment deferred.
* DefeU v. Brookblank." Writ of Error from the Court of
Exchequer. The Solicitor-General and Mr. Bickerstaff were
heard for the appellant. Further hearing postponed.
Mr. Ssirru, from the Commissioners of Roads and Bridges in
'Scotland, presented the Seventh Report of the Commissioners.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a Petition from
the Proprietors of Land in the province of Lower Canada,
praying that the present Duties on the Importation of Foreign
Timber into Great Britain might not be altered.
The Cochineal Bill, the Silk Bill, and Glass Duties 8111, were
read a second time.

The Earl of DARNLEY said, he held in his hand a Peti•
Lion, signed by several Clergymen of the Church of England,
praying that the Queen's name might be restored to the Liturgy,
As he did not then see the Right Rev. the Archbishop•of Can-
terbury in his place, ke should for the present decline presenting
the Petition until be was present, which he supposed would be
on Monday next.
Mr. BSOGDSN brought up a Message from the Commons' sig-
nifying that the house had given leave to John Gladstone, Esq.
and James Drummond, Esq. to attend their Lordships' Com-
mittee
on Fortign Trade.
Mr. Bowman brought up from the House of Commons the
Flax Encouragement 13111, which was read a first time.—Ad-
journed to Monday.

sentiments of the Roman Catholics were still unal-
tered—(flear, hear). He hoped the attention of the
House would be seriously directed to it. He *mild
ask, could any expectation be indulged that the Ro-
man Catholics would be satisfied with the present
Bills, when one of the greatest authorities among the
Roman Catholics, Dr. Milner, had subscribed to the
'Petition now before the House? He regretted that
the Right Honourable Member opposite (Mr. Plun-
[ ken) had lent the aid of his powerful talentl to a
measure which was likely to afford so little satisfac-
tion on both sides, 'lt appeared to him, that the
Right Honourable Gentleman would have to come
'to the House year after year with new Petitions for
the repeal of the very measure which he now advo-
cated, should that measure be sanctioned by the
House. His decided conviction was, that in the
event of the present Bill passing into a law, a second
Bill would be introduced for the repeal of it, so little
did he think it calculated to meet the ends proposed.
fle had the highest respect for the Roman Catholics,
but from a regard for them, as well as for the Pro-
testants, he should oppose any further concession to
that body 1A laugh). Let the House grant them
what they would, still something more would be re•
quired. He could not anticipate a greater disaster
to the country than the entire removal of the re-
straints upon Roman Catholics. He could not but
again express his regret that the Right Honourable
Gentleman, o whom he had already alluded, was
found an advocate for claims, which were fraught
with so much danger to the Constitution, both in
Church and State.

Mr. PLUNKETT being loudly called on, the
Right Hon. Gentleman rose and said, that the Hon. I
Baronet had in some respect anticipated the discus•
sion which was to take place upon the general ques-
tion of the Roman Catholic claims. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then moved, that the names to the Peti-1
tion be read, with the view of ascertaining whether
that of Dr. Milner was subscribed to it ; when it ap-
peared that the first signatures were those of Messrs.
Hanly and Jinks, Roman Catholic Priests ; after
which came Dr. Milner's name. He was desirous
it should appeal? to the House that Dr. Milner's,name
was actually subscribed to the Petition, as nothing
could more strongly mark the principle that had
given rise to it. It was not extraordinary that the
Hon. Baronet should be pleased with the Petition,
for, among Protestants and Catholics, the principle
of bigotry was undeviating—(Cheers).—He (Mr.
Plunkett) had felt a proud exultation of mind at the
hope, that an object which would be hailed with such
delight by so many of his fellow-citizens, would that
night be attained; yet, at the same time, he found
thoughts arise which he fain would have repressed--
thoughts of an ominous prescience that something
would happen which would dash the cup of expecta-
tion from the lips of millions. He felt that the same
malignant spirit was at work which displayed itself
with so much activity in 1819, instigated, he pre-
sumed, by the same Dr. Milner. But the sentiments
of the Roman Catholics were not to be collected from
the Petition now before the House. When the Noble
Lord, the Member for Aylesbury (Lord Nugent), had ,
presented the Petition of the English Roman Catho-
lics, it appeared that it was signed by seven out of
the eight Apostolic Vicars, and the eighth, be it re•
collected, was no other than Dr. Milner, upon Whose
opposition, this evening, the Hon. Baronet (Sir T.
Lethbridge) congratulated the House—(Hear, hear).
He would now state, and he would not be understood
as stating anything against the sacred profession of
which Dr. Milner was a member, that Dr. Milner
was the same man who, in 1813, came forward and
opposed, in decided terms, a measure of conciliation
which was likely to be attended with the most happy
effects. He was the same Dr. Milner who had been
removed from those Gentlemen in this country who
managed the affairs of the Roman Catholics, in an
association denominated the Catholic Board—( Hear).
—He (Mr. Plunkett) held in his- hand a document
which would skew that Dr. Milner had represented
the day on which Roman Catholic emancipation
should be granted, to be the day of the downfall of
the Roman Catholic religion in England. But in
what did his objection to the measure arise ? Not
in any alarm for the downfall of this religion; no,
he only dreaded the downfall and total annihilation
of all feuds and distinctions between Roman Catho•
lies and Protestants--(Cheers).—lt was quite clear,
and he (Mr. Plunkett) was convinced of the fact,
that no measure, however carefully framed, could
conciliate prejudiced minds. Bigotry was not to be
conciliated. With bigotry h was impossible to reason,
whether it appeared in the mind of the Roman Ca-
' tholic or the Protestant. for bigotry time acted in
vain—it lost its influence. Bigotry worshipped
figures imprinted on the sand, which, though wasikd
away by the tide, were re-imprinted again--(Cheers).
—k was blind, it was deaf; it was not accessible to
the force of reason, of justice, or of truth—( Loud
cheers).—He was glad the Petition had been read,
but he should certainly oppose its lying on the table;
and he should found his objection principally to the
wording of it. It was not addressed as it ought to
be, to the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland,
but to the Parliament of England and Ireland,
thereby omitting Scotland altogether, which was ob-
viously incorrect.

Lord NUGENT begged the' House to compare
this Petition with that which he had presented on a'
former night, one which had been signed by all the
Roman Catholic Clergy of distinction, except Dr.
Milner, whom he should very freely leave to the Ho-
nourable Baronet.

Sir G. HILL contended, that Dr. Milner had dealt
more candidly with the House than any other of the
Roman Catholic Bishops. No part of the Roman
Catholic bigotry was removed, yet we were called
upon to give up our PrOtestant Constitution.
Mr. WILBERFQRCE, though by no means con-
cuiiing in the sentiments of the Petition, yet wished
that itAould be laid on the table, to prevent any
thing like a feeling of ezasperatiun.

Sr.vr.N-iiNcE.

•
Mr. PLUNKETt said ite.woitld comply with the
wish of the Hon. Member, from that consideration,
and should theretOre waive hia technical chjeftion.
Mr. J. SMITH said, that many of the namet
signed to the Petition bad evidently been written by
the same band.

Mr. BRIGHT was of Opinion that bigotry might
be charged on both sides, yet it was clear that the
country could not have rest till either everything
was granted, or a determined stand was made
against the claims of the Roman Catholics. lie
thought that the present was the time for making
that stand. Let men disguise the fact as they would;
still they must feel, that if the present Bills should
pass, other sects would be coming to the House to
demand equal concessions. To him it appeared that
the claims of the Protestant Dissenters ought to have
precedence. Let the Protestant Dissenters first be
restored to their rights, and then let the House con-
sider how far it might be expedient to grant ail that
the Roman Catholics requited.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH obsetved, that the
County_ of Stafford contaihed some of the most re;
spectable Roman Catholic families in England, yet
none of them had signed this Petition. Would not
the House think it of material importance, that such
men as the Earl of Shrewsbury and Lord Stourton;
and such families as the Cliffords, the Jerninghams,
and the Fitzherbeits, were exceptions to the senti- •
ments contained in this Petition ?—(Hear, hear).---t
These ought to have infinitely more weight with the
House than the parties who had signed a Petition
which had called forth the approbation of the lions
Baronet. He understood that the Petition did not
contain the name of a respectable individual, except
that of Dr. Milner. But the House would recollect
that Dr. Milner was the irreconcileable enemy of all
amicable arrangement between the Roman Catholics
and Protestants. As to the Roman Catholics of Staf-
ford, he should not say that they were not in a situa.
tion to sign a Petition with their own hand, had they
chosen to do so; but certain it was that the respect-
able proportion of them had not signed it. It was
very evident that the names of Dr. Milner or of the
Honourable Baronet could not be included in any
proposition for an amicable arrangement. The man
who regretted the repeal of the laws which hitherto
had affected Roman Catholics, was not a man likely
to acquiesce in any measure of conciliation.
Mr. ELLIS read a Resolution, passed by the Irish
Roman Catholic Bishops, in 1810, approving of Dr.
Milner's conduct in opposing the Veto. The Resolu-
tion, he maintained, had not since been withdrawn.
Mr. W. WYNN insisted that the Catholics were
not responsible for any change in the opinion of Dr. •
Milner. It was quite impossible that uniformity of
sentiment could be expected in any measure of great
public importance; all that"could be looked for was,
that those who had most influence, from character,
station, and wealth, should acquiesce in a particular
principle. The Petition of the Roman Catholics -of
England had been signed by 8,000 individuals; and
of the Vicars-Apostolic, Dr. Milner was the only one
who had not put his name to it. It was a well-knowtt
fact, that no Roman Catholic Gentleman of any re-
spectability was found among the persons who had -
subscribed to the present Petition, .
Mr. ELLIS explained.--He would not say that
Dr. Milner had received the thanks of the Roman
Catholics of Ireland after Mr. Grattan's Bill had
been thrown out.

Mr. WAR R E said, that the Honourable Member
who had spoken last ought to recollect the sentiment,
expressed by Di-. Milner in 1808, as well as thoie
which he had delivered in 1810. In 1808, Mr.Pon-
sonby had read in that House a letter from Dr. Mil-
ner, in which he acquiesced in the measure of a Vdo;
but a man who at one time was. ready to grant every.
thing, and at another was furious to retract, ought.
not to be held forth as an authority worthy of the
least notice—(Hear, hear).
Mr. PEEL was anxious that the House should
understand the teal facts of the case. They. would
immediately see that the object of his Hon. Friend
(Mr. Ellis) was not to involve the fir.man Catholics,,
as a body, in the same opinions with Dr. Milner; but
to shew that when a similar Bill to the present }fad
been introduced, and a similar ecclesiastical arrang.e.
merit proposed, the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ire-
land deprecated it in positive terms, as tending to
injure the interests of their religion—Wear, I,e r ).
The Right Honourable Member here read a Resolu-
tion passed by the Irish Catholic Bishops on the (~.'6th
of May, 1813, expressing their decided opposition to
the securities provided by the Bill which in that year
bad been introduced, and stating that they coulanct
agree to those securities without incurring the guilt
of schism—(llear).
Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, that out of every twenty-
five names that appeared to the Petitin, at least five
seemed to have been written by the same hand.
Sir H. PARNELL observed, that the Roman Ca-
tholic Bishops of Ireland thought they would have .
been guilty of schism, had they agreed to the Bill of
1813 without first having; communication with the
Pope. They understood urn the words introduced in
the Bill, would go to al:Tr and affect the discipline
of the Church, and this they held to he schism, un-
less it was sanctioned by the Roman Pontiff. But as
the Court of Rome had agreed to the Bill, there
could be no incoasisteney in the Prelates of Ireland
acquiescing in one of a similar nature—(Hear);-...
He deprecated the dissensions which had taken place
in 1813, and he hoped they would never again occur..
A great change had manifested itself all over Ire.
land with respect to this question, in proof of ss hich
k would beg leave to read to the Howe a letter
which he had received from a most respectable Gene
ti, ernan in that country; a Gentleman who had con.
siderable influence with the Roman Catholic body,
had had the best oportunity of forming a correct.
' cklimate cf their views—(The Hon. Baronet hot
read the letter, which stated that a lively sensat,oa
/tad been excited among the RerrP.n CatluAtits of