must these venerable prelates possess, from the stern inflexibility of their confidential agent, who has so repeatedly declared, that he invites martyrdom, sooner than give up an atom of the essential discipline of his church? His own constituents, nevertheless, for the very act now deprecated (which is authenticated by their signatures, namely, that of the four metropolitan and the six senior bishops), are acccused" of a commerce of robbery not less than sacrilege, and of an acquiescence in a measure calculated to stir up insurrection, to suffocate Christianity, to desolate Ireland."*

Adverting to the progress of these illfated transactions, we come to the period when Dr. Milner (as the avowed agent of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland) communicated with noble lords and right honourable gentlemen, who, in consequence, stated in Parliament the result of that communication, and announced, as they conceived they were warranted, the assent of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, to the spirit, if not the letter of the proposal virtually sanctioned by Dr. Milner. On this part of the subject great misapprehension has taken place, and volumes have been written upon it: the git of the question however is this Was any measure stated to the House, in 1308, as having obtained the actual or virtual assent of the Roman Catholic prelates which, in point of fact, was not consonant to the letter of their own resolutions in 1799? It matters not how those noble lords or gentlemen may have themselves reasoned on the effects of that measuredifferent conclusions may be drawn from the same premises: the fact was simple, and stood on record and there was no disposition to bind Dr. Milner beyond his authority; he had stated that he was not accredited to assent to the specific measure, though he considered himself well warranted to express his confidence in the assent of his constituents.

But we will look a little further.-The debate in this House took place on the 25th of May, and in a few days the report of it reached Dublin. Those parliamentary friends who had been the advocates of the measure, received deliberate acknowledgments of their efforts, and thanks in the name of the Roman Catholic prelacy of Ireland. From the 2d of June till towards the end of the following July,

*Letters of Detector, Dublin, 1809.

not a word escaped to lead their parlia mentary friends to doubt that the same impressions continued in the minds of those, who, from their stations, must naturally have been considered as the níost prominent to object or approve, sir J. H. observed that no person was more competent to speak to this fact than himself. About the end of July, commenced the attack upon this proposal in the public prints, led by a writer under the signature of Sarsfield, and followed by Lacius, Inimicus Veto, and other assumed signatures; and by some writers, who attested their opi nions under their real names. The tone

of all was in unison with the denunciations that have been quoted; and increased in violence, as the period approached for assembling the Catholic prelates in Dublin, to deliberate on the precise object which had been so much misconceived and misrepresented, and had thereby excited an almost general discontent.

If particular periods are to be marked by distinct appellations, the hour of this ecclesiastical convention might truly have been termed the reign of terror:-for, unquestionally, many of the prelates went thither under a very alarming anticipation of the possible result. No imputation is meant to be cast upon the integrity, the patriotism, or the truly Christian spirit of those who constituted that assembly of divines; and still less is any reproach intended to be cast upon the feelings of an honourable, frank, and high-spirited class of our fellow-subjects, deeply interested in the resolutions of their prelates, and more jealous of the independency of their religion, than anxious for their own resto ration to the common franchises of the constitution. Such, however, was the ill omen and misfortune of the times, that a combination of circumstances, some extraneous, and some more or less connected with the interior discipline of the Roman Catholic church, very forcibly operated, at this conjuncture, to produce that collision, which militated so powerfully against the united efforts of their best friends, "insure the success of a system of univer"sal and unreserved benevolence."*

to

*The above passage is from the speech of lord Grenville, on moving the question on the 27th of May, 1805. Mr. Trotter, formerly private secretary to Mr Fox, asserts, in a recent pamphlet, that the exministers were pledged to suppor! Catho lic emancipation, without any such con

As opinions seem to change with the fleeting hour, it is instructive to look back to the estimation in which the proposal of the Veto was held by the accredited agent of the Irish prelates, a few months after it was renewed on the presumed acquiescence of his constituents, in 1805.

Dr. Milner, V. A. and bishop of Castabala, in his Letter to a Parish Priest, dated 1st August, 1808, says I proceed to shew upon what grounds I rested my opinion, that the Irish prelates, in the event of a friendly ministry succeeding to power, and of the emancipation being granted, would not hesitate, under the presumed sanction of his Holiness, to admit of a limited power of exclusion in the executive government. The first of these grounds is the actual consent which they (that is, the four metropolitans and six of the most antient bishops), speaking in the name of the whole episcopal body, have

dition. The following extract of a letter written during the contest for the chancellorship of Oxford will supply the best answer to this assertion: The state of the question, as agitated in Parliament, is, in general, very ill understood. The Catholics petitioned for equal rights: Lord Grenville never moved that the House should agree to the prayer of the Petition; but that it should resolve itself into a committee to consider the Petition. In that committee, he adds, the subject could be fully investigated; to consider what new safeguards its adoption might require by what suggestions jealousy could be satisfied, and fear allayed: that, on this subject, he had concurred entirely with Mr. Pitt; their opinions had been formed together, by mutual communication and unreserved confidence; their plans embraced the whole ecclesiastical state of Ireland, including measures of considerable benefit to the established church, calculated to promote both its honour and advantage. The erection of churches and glebe houses, in a country where, of 2,400 parishes, not more than 400 had glebe houses, formed an essential part of their plan."-"The state of the Roman Catholic church adminis ering to the spiritual wants of four millions of our people, had also been an object of their deliberate consideration. If you tolerate the Roman Catholic church, which is episcopal, you must of course allow it to have bishops; but, adds lord Grenville, it is unquestionably proper that the Crown should exercise an effectual negative over

actually given to the proposed measure in their solemn deliberations, held at Dublin, on the 17th, 18th, and 19th January, 1799. In these deliberations, having premised the justice and propriety of the interference of government in the appointment of Catholic bishops, as far as is necessary to ascertain their loyalty, they resolve as follows:"-The Resolutions of 1799, are then quoted by Dr. M.] "With respect to these Resolutions, I have to ob serve-1st, That they are in the hands, I believe, both of ministry and opposition, and are considered by both as binding upon the episcopal body:-2dly, That the exclusive power itself, or the right of the Veto, is not less explicitly offered in them than it is mentioned in my negocia tions:--3dly, The necessary checks upon this Veto are not so distinctly expressed in the former as they are in the latter."

Again, "In almost every uncatholic

the appointment of the persons called to exercise these functions. Lord Grenville then proceeded to enumerate the measures with which Mr. Pat and himself always meant to accompany the proposal:

Great and important safeguards,' says his lordship, they were for the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the realm; wise and salutary provisions for promoting the interests of religion-for extending the beneficial intercourse of our reformed and established church-for conciliating the warmest affections of a people, whose various interests and feelings were thus consulted-and for insuring the success of a system of universal and unreserved benevolence.'" "What I ask (says lord Grenville) is only that you should enter fully into the discussion of the subject; whatever be the result of your deliberations, much benefit will be derived from the mere examination of these questions-asperities will be softened

unfounded jealousies allayed. Let it be indelibly impressed upon the mind of Ireland, that it is only by Union, by close and intimate Union with Great Britain, that she can, in this dreadful convulsion of the world, defend her soil, protect her people, or maintain her independence." -Such are lord Grenville's recorded sentimens, and if they were calculated to give offence to the Catholics of Ireland, why was he again selected to move the Petition, afterwards presented by the earl of Donoughmore? The Catholics of Ireland could not be ignorant of his senti

ments.

convention of the prelates was held in Dublin, and in that assembly they resolved, "That it is the decided opinion of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, that it is inexpedient to introduce any alteration of the canonical mode hitherto observed in the nomination of the Roman Catholic bishops," &c. Soon afterwards, Dr. O'Reilly, the Roman Catholic primate of Ireland, in answer to the enquiries of lord Southwell, and sir Edw. Bellew, says, I think and am certain that, in forming their resolutions, the prelates did not mean to decide, that the admission of a veto or negative on the part of the crown, with the consent of the Holy See, in the election of Roman Catholic bishops, would be contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, or to any practice or usage essentially and indispensably connected with the Roman Catholic religion." The primate proceeds to avow his opinion," that the objection raised against the negative is of a temporary nature resulting from existing circumstances, though many persons suppose it to arise from the nature of the measure, thus giving to the resolution of the bishops of 1808, a meaning which (he says) it does not deserve."

Such is the construction placed on the veto by the Roman Catholic primate of Ireland, and by the accredited agent of the Irish Catholic prelacy."*

*After the debates in 1805, when Mr. Fox moved to go into a committee on the Catholic petition, sir J. H. circulated a large impression of what was intitled "The Substance of additional Observations, &c." and copies were transmitted to Dr. Troy, for distribution to the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, in order that they might be fully aprised of the measures that sir J. H. had conceived it to be his duty to recommend to the consideration of the King's ministers, antecedent to the Union. Sir J. H. received many applications, particularly from two distinguished Roman Catholic prelates in Ireland, as well as from others in England, to reprint a large edition of the pamphlet, for circulation in Ireland; and a gentleman, who has since that period particularly distinguished himself by his opposition to the negative of the crown, then united with the Roman Catholic bishops in urging the re-publication of the pamphlet, as the " wish of all those who had read it." This pamphlet adverted to the

It is of some interest to consider the view taken of this proposed measure, by the see of Rome itself. Dr. Milner tells us, in the same Letter to a Parish Priest, that another ground of his opinion in favour of the proposed veto, was, "the implied consent of the sacred congregation of the Propaganda, adding, "I shall take care that the original note of the sacred congregation here alluded to, and which was addressed to me in answer to my enquiries, be laid before your assembled prelates." It is certain, that Dr. Milner did lay that note before the prelates assembled in 1808; it is certain, also, that they approved the whole of his conduct respecting his transactions here, as the assembly passed an unanimous vote of thanks in his favour, requesting him to

mode of appointing Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland; stated the practice, obtaining in the United Provinces, upon the authority of the cardinal secretary of the Propoganda,-namely, that all Catholic priests, or cures, were presented by the arch-priest to the civil magistrate, pour étre avoués comme Curés, (as, in the United Provinces, there were no Roman Catholic bishops.) Sir J. H. proceeded to object to the nomination of the Irish Catholic bishops by the crown, which had been suggested by an Irish county member, in the course of the debate of 1805, and quoted the letter of Mr. Burke to lord Kenmare in support of his objection to all power of nomination, adding, "that the wholesome end which the learned gentleman had in view, might easily be attained by another regulation." He then stated, "that, among the various regulations suggested to government, at that period was one, providing that, in future, all lists of persons recommended to fill vacant sees, or deaneries, previous to their transmission to Rome, should be communicated to his Majesty's ministers."-He then adverted to various other regulations, concluding, "that such regulations could not. be considered, even at Rome, as incompa tible with the acknowledgment of a spiritual supremacy." In fact, that suggestion was in conformity to the practice in nearly all the states of Europe, Catholic, Greek, or Protestant; but the authority cited by Dr. Milner on this head, in reference to the opinion of the see of Rome, is decisive.

Vide sir J. H.'s "Substance of additional Observations." Faulder, 1806.