Star.
London, England, 1827-03-17 00:00:00

had been espimild pram/station of them to the King in
their robes, ars whir their titles.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN was convinced that
theie was no objection on the part of; she Noble Lord
on the Woolsack to receive any petiiion 'which pas
properly worded and signed. His objection in 'the
present instance he took to arise to the appearance of
an assumption of supremacy itithiscountry w,bickwas_
not authorzed .by. law. But -asanother petition had
already been ridelved from the Roman Catholic Bishops
in Ireland, if the present petition were withdrawn and
signed with the name i.f the person, stating( himself to
be a Roman Catholic Bishop in. Ireland, he IA as we
all objection would cease.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was no enemy to Pe-
titions, from whatever quarter they might come, pro-
vided they addressed the House in language and used
a style admissible by Parliament. There was no doubt
that the petitioner was a Bishop in Ireland, but he
could not be permitted to call himself Bishop of Wil•
terford, as the Constitution admitted only of one Bishop
for one place, and he (the Lord Chancellor) acknow-
ledged only his Sovereign's Bishop. If the respect.ble
Petitioner would sign himself Bishop in Ireland, the
Petition would be received.
The Bishop of NORWICH then withdrew the Petition, fot the
purpose of its being properly signed.
Earl DARNLEY wished to make some observation(
on the Petitions which a Noble Friend of his (the Earl li
of Winchasea) had presented from Parishes in Kent;
but before making them, he could not but lament that
the first appearance of his Noble Friend, with the zeal
and energy which belonged to him, should have been,
in a bad cause; he lamented. also that he should have
used such strong language towards a living person of
transcendent genius, who had long advocated the claims
of the Catholics, and lie hoped would soon obtain their
accomplishment. However, .as .his Noble Friend had
expressed .himself open to conviction, he did not despair
of his future conversion to sounder views.• The Noble
Earl then stated char most of the Petitions sent to his
Noble Friend had been got up by some zealot going about
with a Petition in his hand, and asking persons to sign
it. who knew nothing but the name of bloody Queen •
Mary, and that they burnt Guy Fawkes in effigy once
a year. He himself knew one instance in which a
Clergyman had applied to a tenant of his (Earl Darn-
ley's) who had refused to sign what be did not under.
stand. Ills wife bad been asked; then the High Con-
stable of the place, his wife, his children, and as they
all refused, signatutes had at last been procured from
labourers at some litre works in the neighbourhood, and
every individual there who could write had been
pressed into the service. The Noble Earl then treated
the idea of converting all the Irish Catholics to the Pro-
testant faith, much as it were to be desired, as chimeri-
cal; but contended that if anything could render their
convertion possible, it would be the removal of those
disabilities which made them a persecuted sect, and
therefore gave them a distaste towards the Protestant
religion. He said they felt as they ought with respect
to the late rejection of theirclaims and read two Reso-
lutious,.passe.d by the Catholic. Association in Dublin,
expressing deep regret at...the 'me of. the House ef
Commons—a vote which .deprived coven millions of
Catholics of their just rightss.but recommending peace,
perseverance, and C,hristian-pietp, !with confidence in
GOD, and the justice ottheir.canse, and telling them to
wait calmly the course of events, and not to give way
to despondency or irritation. He maintained thatthere
was no proof of the Catholic Priests_ having interfered
more than wit natural and proper in the last Election,
and that Emancipation must be granted to Ireland,
either as a b00n,., or under the, pressure of na-
tional calamity. . . .
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM held several Peti-
_

tions from Catholics, in the county of Roscommon,
praying for the concession of their Claims. He depre-
cated all collateral debate of the Catholic Question, as
it was impossible in such a debate to bring that great
and unfortunately terrific question to a settlement. He
also agreed in the postponement which had taken place
for the. present. He would only say, that when the
Noble-Earl 'opposite (the Earl of Winchi sea) brought
it as a charge against the Catholic Clergy, that they
hid exercised not the influence of property, but their
. spiritual power over their flocks during the last election,
he wished to Gon that the same complaint could not be
made against our own Clergy. However necessary
postponement might be for the time, be hoped and
trusted that the earliest opportunity would be taken tol
br ng the Catholic Question to a decision. Nothing
would be so mischievous as for the people of Ireland to
believe that their friends despoiled of their cause, and
that that House had set its face against their claims.—
. He was confident that the tide was very near turning,
when the question would be carried, and it was for their
Lordships to decide in what spirit it should be made
. the law of the country. The course of human reason
could not be stopped any more than the springs of the
ocean. It was for their Lordships to regulate it, and
on them depended whether it should fertilize the land,
or carry with it devastation and ruin. Many on both
sides of the Channel rejoiced at the late decision, and

many experienced Statesmen deploted it. The triumph
was felt by those who did not wish the pimple of Ire-
land to look to the Imperial Parliament for protection,
but to demagogue., and Leland was sacrificed at that
altar. It (tang,: toweled, let it be met at' once, and
let the question be settled, by admitting the Irish Ca-,
tholics to a participation in the rights of British sub-
jects, and accepting the allegiance and affection which
Ireland offered. Many would tell her that they were
her of ly frituds. In the language of prayer and the
attitude of Petition she implored to be saved from those
men, and to be restored to hetself. Let not their Lord-
ships then leave her to those who would lure her to
destruction.

The Bishop of CHESTER rose in consequence of an
expression which hat fallen from the Noble Duke. He
lad alluded to the statement of a Nclsle Earl (Winchil.
se.l) respecting the use made by the Roman Catholic
Clergy of their spirtual influence during the late elec-
tion, and expressed a wish that the Protestant Clergy
had exercised no other. He (the Bishop cf Ches!ei(
was convinced that the Noble Duke had misunderstood
the Noble Earl, who could not have imputed to the Ca-
tholic Priests, the exercise of their spiritual influence as
a crime. The Noble Earl must have meant to argue
• from the extent of that influence the danger which
might arise from augmenting it, and uniting it with
temporal power. LI must have meant that they had
. abused that sacred influence. And indeed he (the
. Bishop of Chester) conceived that they had taken the
• polished weapons of the armoury of Heaven and em-
ployed them in carnal warfare. But our Clergy neither
had, nor could have acted so. One single Clergyman
had recommended fetitions against the Catholic Claims
from the pulpit, and his conduct had called forth