Star.
London, England, 1821-03-24 00:00:00

PETITION OF RICHARD HAYES.

Mr. PEEL held in his hand a Petition from one
Richard Hayes, a Franciscan fa iar, which he had re-
ceived last night. Of the Petitioner he hail no know.
ledge, and could not vouch.for the veracity of the
various allegations contained in the Petition. The
Petiaiorrer, in his letter to him (Mr. Peel), enclosing
the Petition, stated, that he was fully, aware of the
sentiments of the great majority of the Catholic
clergy and laity, can the subject of
,the Bills then in
progress through that House, and he knew and could
prove that they were hostile to the Bills. As he (Mr.
Peel) and the Petitioner came to the same conclusion
on the subject, although by a different process of
reasoning, he regretted that the Petitioner had se-
lected him to present his Petition. He moved that
tae Petition be read.

Mr. C. W. WYNN objected to the reading of the
Petition at full length, on accottnt of its appearing
to be very long, and suggested that its substance
might be stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman'.
Mr. PEEL said the Petition was not a long one;
it was written in a large hand ; but he thought it' ex
traordinary that the Hon. Gentleman should object
to its being read, on account of its apparent length.
The Petitioner stated, that from his own personal
knowledge, he was able to inform the House of the
sentiments of the See of Rome on the subject before
the House, and those sentiments sere hostile to the
Bills. Tnat he knew also, that a strong spit it of tip-
position to the Bills existed among the Catholic
clergy and laity of Ireland. That he was aware that
reports to his prejudice were in circulation, founded
on his disagreement with his-Bishop; but the Court
of Rome was now convinced of his in►iocence.

Mr. C. W. W YNN contended that his objection
to the reading of the Petition at length Was by no
means a new one, and he instanced a. Petition pre-
sented from Cobbett, which, flour its extreme length,
caused several Members to leave the House, and,
the House being counted, the Petition was lost.
Mr. C. CALVERT would not object to receiving
the Petition, but reminded the House that another
Petition against the Bill, from a Roman Catholic
Clergyman, had been presented on a former night.
Mr. R. S. CAREW -knew the Petitioner Hayes, a
few years ago, and knew him to be always ready to
throw opposition in the way of, and excite disturb-
ance at public meetings of the Catholics=( Hear,
kear).--Ile knew several of his (Mr. Carew's) own
friends, who, while presiding at those meetings, have
declared they would quit the Chair, if the Petitioner
(Hayes) persisted in his then line of conduct. lie Was
a Clergyman in Wexford, and preached a sermon
which his own Bishop (Dr. Ryan) considered of so
seditious a nature, and tending to separate the two'
countries, that Dr. Ryan (the Bishop) reprimanded
Hayes, and, he believed, silenced him. In conse-
quence the Petitioner (Hayes) had gone to Rome to
explain his conduct. He (Petitioner) stated, that Orel
sentiments of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy and
laity were against the Bills. He (Mr. Carew) had
received a letter from a Gentleman in Ireland, who
had often filled the Chair at Catholic Meetings, and
who, consequently, must know the sentiments of the
Irish Roman Catholics better than the Petitioner.—
He begged to read that letter—" I wish you to use
your influence with Mr. Plunkett and other friends
of the measure, not to take notice of what.dema-
gogues here may say or do ; they are now furious ;
but they are weak and despicable, even in numbers.",
He here mentioned the names of certain Lawyers in
Dublin, who were attempting to excite disturbance,
and hoped their conduct would have no weight
against the measure.
The Petition was read, and ordered to be printed.
PETITION Or ROMAN CATI/OL4C PEERS.

Lord NUGENT presented a Petition, signed by
four Roman Catholic Peers—the only Catholic Peers
who happened to be then in London, praying that
the Bills now before the House might pass into laws.
He need not add, that the Petition was most re-
sFectably signed. The first signature to it was that
of the first, by rank and the precedence of centuries,
of the Peerage of the kingdom—(Hear, hear).—The
second w4s the premier -Earl of England ; the two
others were nearly at the heads of their class. They
were—the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Shrewsbury,
and Lords Petre and Arundel. -The Bill now before
the House was one which, the Petitioners said, would
relieve five millions of their fellow-subjects from seri-
ous disabilities. Their ancestors had suffered perse-
cution, and they themselves had patiently borne ex-
clusion and imputation—( Hear, hear).—He (Lord
Nugent) would-contrast that Petition and those Peti-
tioners with another, which had been presented. An
exposition of the doctrines of Roman Catholics had
been given to the House, this night, by three indivi-
duals. To this unauthorised document the House
ought not to pay the slightest attention for unau-
thorised it was in every part, because nothing ,could
be more untrue, than that the principles of the Bills
were at variance with the satinteuts of the Roman.

Catholic prelacy of England. A person called Doc-
tor Milner; had naleviaken to say they were so ; but
he (Lord Nugent) repeated, that the assertion was
false, and this person, when he made itosiust have
been sensible that it was Pa.—(Hear, hear).—What
authority was this Milner against the evidence af-
forded by the Petition which he (Lord 'Nugent) had
the honour to present some time ago—a Petition
signed by all that was great )end respectable of Ca-
tholicity in the land, and one too that was signed by
every Vicar Apostolic in England, except himself—
(Hear, hear).—These Petitioners were the true organ
of the Roman Catholic body. With' this hereditary
spirit they had signed their names to the Petition, and
would place these names and their titles in the breach
which Doctor Milner attempted to make. They were
loyal and good subjects, ar.d faithful to their engage-
ments; they had declared themselves ready to take
such-oaths as this House in its wisdoM thought fit to
impose upon them—(Hear, hear). •
The Petition was then brought up, and on the
question that it be printed,
Sir J. MACKINTOSH rose, to point out the re-
spectability of the signatures tO.the Petition. At this
day, there were but six resident Catholic Peers in
England, and of these, four were signed to the Pe-
tition—the other two were not within reach of the
Metropolis. Now, these Noblemen had come for-
ward very properly to declare their readiness to take
the required oaths, because they were the more likely
to be called upon first. It would not look so well in
any body of Commoners to put themselves forward:
for could any individual say that they would ever be
chosen, either by the King or the People, to fill an
office, where the disqualifying oath was required to
be taken ?—(Hear, hear.)—lhe Peers had to think
for themselves, whether they would take the oaths or
not ? for, if it werenot for the oaths, they could now
take their sears in the other 1-louse of Parliament.—
The case was different with Commoners, who were
still to stand the chance of being chosen to any office.
He wished to point out the distinction, in order to
do away with any invidious feeling which might be
..itt relied to the Peers petitioning by themselves. And,
talking of their authority as the organs of Catholic
feeling, he asked, could there be a question between
these high-minded Noblemen, and Franciscan friar
flaps, a man who, after having been superseded by
his Bishop for disloyal and seditious preaching, was
now taken tip as an ally by some zealous Pretestants
in that House, in their attempts upon a communion
to which this Hayes was already a disgrace ? (hear.)
Mr. PEEL declared, in the most solemn manner,
that he never meant to connect himself with the indi-
viduals Milner or Ilnyes, who had been mentioned.
Sir MACKINTOSH, in expldnation, said, that
he had no intention of imputing anything personally
to the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Sir GEORGE HILL said, that so far as the Press
of Ireland was the organ of public opinion, be could
understand from the Papers in Belfast, Cork, Dublin,
and Galway, that the feeling was generally against the
Bill now pending in that House, which they declared
would, instead of emancipating the Roman Catho-
lics, only insult them. The Hon. Baronet declared,
that if he thought the measure would produce conci-
liation, or preserve the Constitution, no man would
be a warmer friend to it than himself. His opposi-
tion was founded on a conscientious belief, that fur-
ther concessions to the Roman Catholics would not
be safe, and he had heard nothing lately to remove
that conviction. The Hon. Baronet then read a sort
of Protest, signed by Dr. Milner, his Ordinary, and
Chaplain, against the principles of the Bills before
the House; and pronounced the Petition presented by
the Noble Lord, to be a very scanty production.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON was glad that at length,
when every argument had failed, as they long since
had in and out of doors against the emancipation and
union of millions of his Majesty's subjects, that an
Honourable Baronet who had opposed them so long
from .principle, was now driven to borrow his last
argument from a Protest, signed by one er two in-
dividuals of that great body—(Hear). Ile hailed
this as an auspicious circumstance for the cause of
his country, w!sen he assured Or.? House the general
feeling was in favour of this Bill. He bad the ho-
nour to represent a great city in Ireland, and ma a
word came from it to lint, nor, indeed, from any
'other part of Ireland, unfriendly to this Bill.
Lord NUGENT again protested
_against the opi-
nions of an individual such as Dr. Milner being re-
ceived as the sentiments of the Roman Catholics of
England. With regard to what was said of the Pe-
tition which he had the honour to present being a
" scanty document," he would Only remind the Ho-
nourable Baronet that it was signed by the Repre-
sentative of every Noble Roman Catholic family
which time had spared.
Sir GEORGE HILL said, *he only meant to say
that the document was " scantily signed."
Mr. R. MARTIN said, the great majority of the
respectable Catholics of the county of Galway were
favourable to the Bill.

Mr. LUKE WHYTE gave the same evidence as
to the feelings of the Roman Catholics in the county
of Leitrim, in Ireland.
Mr. DALY confirmed the statement given by the
Honourable Member for Galway, as to the feelings
of the Roman Catholics there on the Bill for their
relief before the House. He was surprised the Ho-
nourable Baronet should call the Noble Lord's Peti-
tion a 4. scanty document," when he himself placed
so much reliance upon a still more scanty document,
which was,signed by only three individuals,
Mr. M. FITZGERALD contended that the cir-
cumstance of only three individuils from England,
and one from Ireland) having protested against this
Bill, afforded a presumption that the aggregate
body of the Prelacy of these countries were favour-
able to its principles.—Ordered to be printed.
COMMITTER ON THE CATHOLIC BILL.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that when it became
his let under any circumstances to move the Order
of the Day for a Committee of the whole House
upon the Bill for the relief of his Majesty's Roman
Catholic subjects, involving, as that Bill did, ques-
tions affecting the best interests of the Empire at
large, he would have to request the special indul-
gence of the House whilst he discharged the outy so
Imposed upon him. He was now called upon, in
consequence of the absence of a Right Hon. Friend,
who was absent from a severe domestic calamity.
He regretted that absence less for his own sake) than
the cause to which he feared he should not do jus-
the; and he could not help observing, that ditt