The Bishop of Chester presented a petition from the magistrates, clergy, and inhabitants of Bolton-le-Moors, against the Catholic claims. The petition was signed by 8,000 persons; but there were some stigmas thrown out on the Catholics, of which he did not approve. Lord King regretted very much to see so much advice sent to their lordships he would say so much bad advice; for it was said, by lord Clarendon, that the clergy, however learned, were very ignorant of the affairs of the world. What would the king of Prussia say to his clergy, if they were to pour in such quantities of advice on him. If his Lutheran clergy, were to tell him, the Catholics are dangerous, they cannot be trusted, you must not employ them, do not admit them into your government, they will become your masters? Why, he would tell them to hold their peace, and not stir up hostility and strife in his dominions. He must say, that it was extraordinary to see the members of a religion, which professed to be the religion of charity, peace, and good will amongst men, promoting dissention and discord. Their lordships would do well not to take such advice, and to act as he had supposed his Prussian Majesty would act, and reject all bad advice from the clergy. The Bishop of Gloucester said, that the clergy came not before their lordships as advisers, but as petitioners. They expressed their opinions in plain manly language; but they left it entirely to the wisdom of their lordships to determine what measure should be adopted. Ordered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, April 14. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] The Lord Chancellor presented a petition against the Catholic Claims. He observed, that it was respectfully worded, and properly drawn up. He took that opportunity of stating, that the noble lord near him (lord Holland) showed, by what he said last night, that his meaning had been misunderstood. He had not said, that the words of petitions ought never to be commented upon. On the contrary, he thought it very natural, when noble lords disapproved of the language or terms of a petition, that they should mention their disapprobation; and, if they approved of the style and object of a petition, that they should pass it by unnoticed. The Duke of Newcastle presented a petition against the Catholic claims, from Redford, and expressed his hope that the table of the House would soon be covered with similar petitions. It was full time for the people of this country to step forward, and declare their sentiments on this subject; and he hoped that every honest man would put his name to petitions against concessions to the Catholics, the danger of granting which was so strongly apprehended by the nation. He thought that the sense of that danger, expressed by the petitioners, was not altogether unworthy of their lordships' notice. Lord King hoped that their lordships had been edified by the very tolerant petition which they had just heard read. The petitioners, in the fulness of their generosity, were willing to allow the Roman Catholics to worship God in their own way; but this, it seemed, was the utmost extent of their toleration to onethird of his majesty's subjects, whom they wished to exclude from the privileges of freemen. Their lordships had heard something last night of its having been said that the clergy were proscribed. Now, he must say, that the noble duke, who hoped that every honest man in the country would come forward and sign petitions against the Catholics, had made the most sweeping proscription he was acquainted with; for, under the stigma of dishonesty, he proscribed all the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom, and in addition to them, all those Protestants who did not choose to sign such petitions as that which the noble duke had presented. Though the endeavours made to get up petitions of this kind were great, the opinion of the country on the question could not be disguised. The hope to raise again the cry of "No Popery," which had so much influence some years ago, was vain. That horrid cry was now dead, he trusted, for ever. CONDUCT OF JUDGE KENRICK.] The Earl of Essex said, he had formerly troubled their lordships with some observations relative to the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, who was a judge. He had then asked the noble and learned lord some questions to which he had received no satisfactoryanswers. If he had since abstained from bringing the matter before their lordships, it was from a wish to ground on it some definite proceedings, to which, he being a judge, there were a great many technical objections, and some almost insuperable difficulties. Since he had mentioned the subject to their lordships, another affair had been made public, involving the grossest violation of justice on the part of Mr. Justice Kenrick. He knew, also, that several magistrates of Surrey had refused to set on the bench with Mr. Kenrick. Indeed, it was every magistrate's interest, it was for every magistrate's honour, that conduct which appeared so very flagrant should be reprobated. In the latter case, in which Mr. Kenrick was implicated, he could not state the particulars, because the proceedings had been compressed. In the other case, as reported in the newspapers, and as detailed in the speech of the Attorney-general, there were circumstances which excited the greatest disgust. Several magistrates of Surrey had expressed very strong opinions on the subject. After all these proceedings, he wished to know had Mr. Kenrick retired? Was he still a Welch judge? was he not still a justice of the peace for the county of Surrey? He felt strongly that there had been a flagrant violation of justice; but he saw no mode in which he could proceed against the offender. He could only, therefore, repeat his former questions, and wished particularly to ask the noble and learned lord, whether any communication had been made to him on the subject of these proceedings from the court of King's-bench? The business, he was aware, must remain in the hands of the noble and learned lord: it was for him to act in it as he thought proper. He could only say for himself, that if the noble and learned lord declared that he did not mean to remove him from the commission, if he did not think fit to displace him from the magistracy, he should not have one word further to say. The Earl of Liverpool reminded the noble earl, that Mr. Kenrick, as a Welch judge, was in the same situation as other judges, and could not be removed but by an address to the Crown. The Earl of Essex said, that this was the difficulty which made him decline taking any proceedings; but Mr. Kenrick was not only a judge, he was also in the commission of the peace. The Lord Chancellor said, that the noble earl and their lordships must be aware, that for any thing Mr. Kenrick had done as a judge, he could only be removed by an address to the Crown. In his conduct as a justice, it was also known to their lordships, that on representations made to the keeper of the Great Seal, he might be struck out of the commission. He must, however, state, that he had always been very cautious how he listened to representations against magis. trates. There was no part of his duty which required more caution. He had in a particular case, refused to attend to numerous representations and petitions, stating, that a magistrate had applied to his own use monies which he had levied as fines on convicting persons of offences. These representations were very strong, and were supported by numerous affidavits; but it afterwards turned out, that this magistrate brought actions against all the parties who had petitioned against him, and convicted them of perjury. Had he proceeded on these affidavits, and struck this gentleman out of the commission, he should have acted with great injustice. He had seen no account of what had taken place in any court of justice, relative to Mr. Kenrick, but what he had seen in newspapers; which were not very correct authority. Mr. Kenrick moved in the court of King's-bench for a criminal information; which was refused, on the ground that he had previously defended himself by writing letters to the Stamford News. He saw nothing in this which should make any communication from the court of King's-bench to him necessary; and he had received none. As to the other case, he knew nothing of it. He had nothing before him, therefore, calling in any way for his interference with regard to Mr. Kenrick. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, April 14. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE-FORGERY OF NAMES TO A PETITION.] Mr. Secretary Peel said, that he rose to present a petition which complained, and complained most justly, of a gross breach of the privileges of that House, and of a most unjustifiable violation of the right of petition. The petition he held in his hand was from certain undersigned Protestant inhabitants of the town of Ballinasloe, and adjoining parishes. They stated, that having understood from the votes of parliament, that on the 17th of March last, a petition, alleged to be from the Protestant inhabitants of that town, had been presented by the right hon. baronet opposite (sir J. Newport), in support of the Catholic Association, and in favour of further concessions to the Catholics: so soon as they heard that such a petition was presented, they were anxious to see the petition, as printed at length, and the names attached to it. They were, on perusing the document, not a little surprised to see thirteen of their own names attached to that forged document, These petitioners now declare, that their names were, wholly without their knowledge, affixed to that petition: that, in truth, their opinions were opposed to those very points, which, in the forged document, they were alleged to have recommended. That was not, how ever, the present question. The object was, to decide, whether an inquiry was not now necessary. It was useless to dilate on the evils that must follow, unless the communication of the people with the House of Commons was guarded from imposition and fraud. It was most unjust towards the individuals, whose names were fraudulently affixed: it was most unfair towards members, who could not make the fullest inquiry; for it would be a most grievous burthen on the members of that House, if they were to be compelled to institute such a particular investigation on the subject of every petition sent to them. It was, therefore, the duty of that House to take such steps as would prevent a repetition of such a fraud-which, as it affected the privileges of parliament, was a gross insult; and, as it trenched upon the right of petition, a great detriment. He should, therefore, after laying the petition on the table, move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the allegations, with the view of discovering the authors of such an imposition. The result of such a course would, even for the purposes of caution, be most salutary. These resolutions appeared to have been Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that there was not the remotest idea in the mind of any man to impute any blame to the right hon. baronet. The petition was laid on the table, and a select committee was appointed "to inquire into the circumstances under which a paper professing to be a petition from the Protestant parishioners of the town of Ballinasloe, and the united parishes of Kilelooney and Creagh, was presented to this House on the 17th day of March last, and report the same to the House." LINEN TRADE OF IRELAND.] Sir H. Parnell said, he had been induced to give notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a select committee, to take into consideration the state of the Linen Trade of Ireland, in consequence of his having been intrusted with certain Sir John Newport said, that if the sub- memorials from a considerable number of ject had not been brought forward by the the linen merchants of Dublin, and which right hon. secretary, it had been his in- had been duly presented by him to the tention to have introduced it that very Treasury. He had, however, received, evening. Every member of that House since that notice, an intimation from his was equally interested in the subject as majesty's government, that they were dishimself; for they were all liable to be posed to move for a select committee for similarly imposed upon. He had received the same purpose. Under such circumthe former document, as he had received stances, he should leave the subject with nine-tenths of all the petitions which he satisfaction in such efficient hands. presented to the House; namely, by post. understood, that the consideration of such It came accompanied by a string of reso- committee would be first directed to those lutions, stated to have passed at the meet-laws which affected foreign yarn and foing where the petition was agreed to. reign dressed flax. He Sir G. Hill, after observing that it would be much more satisfactory that the subject should undergo the investigation of a committee above stairs, moved "that a select committee be appointed to consider the laws which regulate the linen trade of Ireland, particularly such as relate to foreign linen yarn and foreign dressed flax." Mr. Maberly was extremely desirous that the consideration of the protecting duties should form one of the objects of the committee. The present condition of those duties was such as must be altogether ruinous to the linen trade of Ireland. He entirely agreed in the wisdom of the general principle on which the right hon. gentlemen opposite were proceeding with respect to commercial affairs; but he was certainly desirous that they would travel by degrees. All he asked, however, on the present occasion was, that the subject of protecting duties should be comprehended in the labours of the committee. Sir G. Hill replied, that the suggestion of the hon. gentleman might be very advantageously made to his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, but that it could not properly form one of the topics of consideration of the committee for which he had just moved. Mr. Hume, while he was of opinion, that the question of the duties was one of great importance, certainly thought that it could not be advantageously comprehended in the inquiries of the present Committee. Mr. V. Fitzgerald approved of the appointment of the committee, and thought it better to confine the inquiry at present to the two objects stated in the motion. The motion was then put and agreed to. EPISCOPAL UNIONS AND PLURALITIES IN IRELAND.] Sir J. Newport rose to move for leave to bring in a bill " to limit the power of holding a plurality of benefices, and to repeal the statutes, granting to the archbishops and bishops the power of forming episcopal unions in Ireland." The only pretences held out for the reason of the case in regard to unions were, continuity, weight of debt, and inability to meet the expenses. What would the House say to a parish connected with another, under these powers of union, which were eighteen miles asunder? He wished to draw the consideration of the House to this question, because it was one which involved the well-being of the It was established church in Ireland. right that the body of the people in that country, who adhered to the established religion, should have the fair means of religious instruction. What he had to offer to the House on this subject would be deduced from the actual statement of the archbishops and bishops of Ireland themselves, contained in the papers laid before the government on the state of the church in Ireland. The primate of Ireland stated, that the union of parishes in that country might rank amongst the greatest defects of the system by which it was governed. The episcopal unions, it should be observed, ought to be distinguished from those made by the lordlieutenant and the privy council. The former were not placed under the same restrictions as the latter. If the House would examine the statements on the subject, which were laid before parliament in 1811 and 1820, they would at once perceive the evils arising from this system. He had taken the trouble to inquire into the grounds on which these episcopal unions were formed, and had come to the conclusion, that there was not, in reality, a statute allowing archbishops and bishops to make them. There was an act of parliament of the reign of Charles 2nd, which gave a semblance of that species of power; but, in his opinion, the construction placed upon that statute was not correct. He had also examined into the power exercised on this point by the archbishops and bishops of England, and had discovered that, with the exception of the bishop of Norwich, no such authority was delegated to the prelates of this country. If such a power existed at all, it would be more likely to have been allowed in England than in Ireland; because, here it would be more directly controlled by the force of public opinion.-The right hon. baro net then proceeded to allude to the evidence which had been laid before parlia ment, relative to the episcopal unions, and narrated several cases where the pa rishes thus united extended over a very large tract of country; some of them being not less than eighteen miles distant from each other. It was impossible, where parishes were thus widely separated, that a clergyman could attend to the duties of both. In one union, three parishes were connected twenty-six miles long, and nine miles broad; in another union, the tract which it comprised was forty miles long. The conduct of the archbishops and bishops had heretofore, ation ought to be placed on a better footbeen very generally at variance with that ing. At present, the salary of the judge which they ought to pursue; for, though partly consisted of fees; and he thought they made those unions, they must have it indecent that any person holding such seen the evils that arose from them. In an office should be partly paid by fees Kilcooly, six parishes, several miles dis- and partly by a fixed salary. If the tant from each other, were united in reform which he recommended in the 1809.-The right hon. baronet then ad- church, took place, Dr. Ratcliffe would verted to cases of a similar description lose between 500l. and 6007, a-year; and which had occurred in Roscommon and it was proper that parliament should proSligo. In one instance, where, before a vide for that loss. The present primate, parish was united to another, there were greatly to his praise, had written a letter 16,000 inhabitants, the number was in- to that excellent judge, regretting that creased by the union to 22,800. The by certain arrangements which had been curate of the parish of Boyle, in the made, the doctor was likely to be deprived diocese of Tuam, was called upon to do of his fees, and offering to make up the all the duties of that parish, after it had loss out of his own pocket. This, howbeen united with another. One of those ever, Dr. Ratcliffe refused. He thanked parishes was twenty-six miles long, the the right rev. prelate for his kindness; other eight miles in length. Government but expressed his determination to rely had, however, much to its credit, divided on the liberality of parliament. The that union into three parishes. The emo- salary of Dr. Ratcliffe ought, in his opiJuments derived from these unions were nion, to be a fixed one, altogether indevery great. He knew an instance where pendent of fees. It was certainly unbefour parishes were thus united, the first coming a judge to be obliged, as Dr. of which produced 580l. a-year; the se- Ratcliffe was, to practise as a barrister, cond, 280.; the third, 100Z.; and the which he was allowed to do. He did not, fourth, 720/.; making an annual revenue indeed, plead in open court, but he gave of upwards of 1,500l. a-year; and yet the his legal opinions in private. He thereduties were inefficiently performed. The fore called on the right hon. gentleman incumbent of one of these unions, in the (Mr. Goulburn) to place the office held diocese of Kilmore, held 20,000 acres of by Dr. Ratcliffe in the same situation as land, besides 500 acres of glebe. The con- other judicial offices were. He again adduct of the present primate had gone a great verted to a variety of unions, which he way in reforming this abuse. He disap- thought ought, if possible, to be put an end proved of the reasons for which they were to. Some, he knew, could not be dissolved first created; but, notwithstanding the but by the consent or on the death of the meritorious conduct of the primate or of present incumbents; and there were others any other prelate, he thought the House granted by way of dignity, which the itself ought to provide by law against the bishops themselves could not dissolve. recurrence of this evil. He conceived He saw no reason whatever for giving to that no faculty should be granted, allow- the prelates of Ireland a power which the ing any individual to hold two livings, archbishops and bishops of England did while one was sufficient for his mainte- not possess. He then alluded to the opinance. He believed the bishops were at nions of the bishops of Kilmore, Meath, present doing all they could to place the and some others, who had declared that they established church in Ireland on a proper thought this power ought to be revised; foundation; but he thought the govern- and concluded by moving for leave to ment ought to put it out of their power bring in a bill to limit the power of to grant faculties for the union of parishes. holding a plurality of Benefices, and to That power should be confined by law to repeal the Statutes granting to the Archthe lord-lieutenant and privy council. He bishops and Bishops the power of forming was aware that if this right of granting Episcopal Unions in Ireland." faculties were abrogated, Dr. Ratcliffe, the present judge of the Prerogative Court, would suffer a diminution of his income, which in part arose from fees, paid on issuing those faculties. But, for the sake of that learned judge, and for the respectability of the office itself, the situ Mr. Goulburn said, that he did not mean to oppose the motion of the right hon. baronet. Whoever had attended to what had fallen from him, whenever the church of Ireland had come under the consideration of the House, would do him the justice to say, that he had always |