expence of my life. Amongst other arguments with which I had provided myself for this purpose, was the well-known declaration of Mr. Burke, signifying that "the members of one Church are never fit persons to appoint the ministers of another." This declaration I carried about with me for a long time in my pocket-book.-But to return from this disgression: my motive for stating the abovementioned circumstances is to shew that it was not I who created the present embarrassment, but that it existed long ago; and to convince you that it is likely to continue from the joint attack upon you on both Catholics and Protestants, should your prelates at the present critical juncture recede from their solemn resolution of 1799!— which resolution declares: "That in the appointment of prelates of the Roman Catholic religion to vacant sees within the kingdom, such interference of government, as may enable it to be satisfied of the loyalty of the person to be appointed, is just, and ought to be agreed to."

"It was from a recollection of the tenor of these resolutions, and of the conversations which I had held last summer with different prelates, that I gave the answers that I did give to several of our illustrious and generous parlimentary advocates, when they demanded of me, in London, a very few days before the first debate took place, how far the Catholic prelates were disposed to give satisfaction to the legislature and the nation in the important article of nomination to their vacant prelacies? My answer, on the different occasions alluded to, was uniformly to the following effect:-That I had no instruction from the Irish prelates on the subject proposed, and that the shortness of the time, previous to the day appointed for the debate, did not permit me to receive any instruction; and that therefore I could give no absolute pledge on their behalf: I said, however, that I had good reason to believe that they never would consent to attribute any positive power to the crown, not even so far as to its selecting one candidate out of three of the prelates own proposing: nevertheless, that in case there were to be a friendly Ministry, and that the emancipation were to take place, I thought they would not be averse to consult his Majesty's Ministers, after they themselves had chosen, in the usual way, the person fittest to be presented to the Pontiff, in order to ascertain whether these Ministers entertained any suspicion of the purity of this person's civil and political conduct and principles; which in fact is to ascribe to the crown a negative power and interference in this transaction. I added, however, that they would not, according to my notions, allow the crown an unrestrained negative power, as this might be made to operate like a positive power, and open a door to intrigue and ambition; but that they would wish to restrain the negative power, or veto, to a reasonable number of times. I must observe, that by the term a reasonable number of times, I did not understand, as it has been objected to me, an indefinite number of times, to be left open for contention between Ministry and the prelates, as the case should occur, but a definite number, whether twice, thrice, or four times, to be settled by the latter whenever the proposed treaty should be actually concluded.

Such, sir, were the guarded terms in which I proposed to our legislators my opinion of what the Irish prelates would agree to; for I always professed to have no authority or instructions from them on the subject. If, then, in the warmth of debate, any of the illustrious personages who advocated our cause, should have forgotten my statement, or should have indulged their imagination in the flowery fields of rhetoric, I hope I am not more accountable for this than I am for the stupid, blundering report of many other parts of the debates which have appeared in the newspapers. It would be indelicate and ungenerous to enter into certain particulars which I have alluded to on the present occasion; but thus much I may be allowed to state, that one Right Honourable Gentleman, who is represented in the newspapers as professing to make a certain proposal from authority, basely said, that he made it almost from authority; and that another Right Hon. Gent. the bold flights of whose eloquence, with the help of newspaper fabrication, have chiefly contributed to raise the present outcry in Ireland, did, in his explanation, confine himself pretty nearly to the account which I have given above of my conversation to him.

"I now 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 exclusions in the executive government. The first of these grounds is the actual consent which they (that is to say, the four metropolitans, and six of the most ancient bishops, speaking in the name of the whole episcopal body!) have actually given to the proposed measure, in their solemn deliberations held at Dublin on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of 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:

"Art. 4. The candidate so elected (that is, according to the usual forms) to be presented by the President of the election to government, which, within one month after such presentation, will transmit the name of said candidate (if no objection be against him) for appointment to the holy see or return said name to the President of the election, for such transmission as shall be agreed upon.

"Art. 5. 'If government have any proper objection against such candidate, the President of the election will be informed thereof within one month after presentation, who in that case will convene the electors, and proceed to the election of another candidate.' Signed, R. O'Reilly, I. T. Troy, Edward Dillon, Thomas Bray, P. J. Plunkett, F. Moylan, Dan. Delany, Edm. French, James Caulfield, John Cruise.' With respect to these resolutions, I have to observe, First, that they are in the hands, as I have reason to believe, both of Ministry and of the Opposition, and are considered by both as binding upon the episcopal body. Secondly, that the exclusive power itself, or the right of the veto, is not less explicitly offered in them than it is mentioned in my negotiations. Thirdly, that the necessary checks upon

this veto are not so distinctly expressed in the former, as they are in the latter. This I think I can shew in several instances.

My second ground for the opinion which I have stated, is the implied consent of the "sacred congregation of the propaganda" to the proposed veto, with respect to the Catholic prelates of England, on the supposition of this measure appearing requisite, and in case proper restrictions should be devised for preventing the exclusive power of the crown from becoming an absolute power; which restrictions, I think, are provided in the above-stated proposals. 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.

"In the third place I have to observe, that the exercise of ecclesiastical power being of so much consequence to the welfare of the state, there is, perhaps, no civilized christian country in which the government does not interfere in the appointment of the prelates, who are to exercise this power; and it is judged that there is no country in which this interference is so necessary as in Ireland!!! In Catholic countries, the prince nominates without any controul, and the Pope gives jurisdiction as a matter of course. In almost every uncathol c country means are provided, and care is taken, both by those who have a right to present, and by the Holy See herself, that no person obnoxious to the sovereign, shall be raised to the prelacy within, her dominions. The sovereigns of Russia and of Prussia will be found to have exercised a power in this respect, which far exceeds that which the Irish prelates have offered to his Majesty, and accordingly these sovereigns had each of them an accredited agent at Rome, chiefly for the exercise of this power. The King himself enjoys it, with the consent of Rome, in the province of Canada; the Bishop of Quebec not being allowed so much as to choose his coadjutor, until the latter has been approved by the civil Governor.

Fourthly, whatever outcries of the " Church in danger" may have been raised by ignorant, or violent Catholics in Ireland, I challenge any learned divine, or other writer to shew, that the allowance to government of an exclusive power, in presenting to Catholic prelacies, if confined to three times, and accompanied, each time, with the avowal of a well-grounded suspicion of the candidate's loyalty, contains any thing either unlawful in itself, or dangerous to the church. For it is to be observed, that it is the Pope, (whose rights are not touched in the present proposal, and who can refuse jurisdiction, and the permission for consecration, when every other party is agreed,) it is the Pope, I say, who makes the Catholic bishop. The other prelates do no more than present a fit subject to his holiness; and what they are supposed to agree to, or rather what they have agreed to in their resolutions, may be explained by them in the following terms: "It is an invariable rule with us, never to present any priest for episcopal jurisdiction, whose civil or political principles we judge to be suspected by government. For it is of so much consequence, that the bishop of a district should stand well with the civil

power, that we would, on every occasion, set aside any three of the most deserving priests, candidates for the episcopacy, who laboured under that disadvantage, and we would choose some other good and learned man, but of inferior qualifications, if we could only, by this means, preserve a good understanding with government. Instead, however, of guessing (as we have hitherto done) at this circumstance, namely, whether his Majesty's Ministers have heard any thing disadvantageous of the political character of the priest we approve of, we will, henceforward, since we are permitted and desired to do so! immediately ask them the question. If they answer in the affirmative, it is a hundred to one that we shall be able to vindicate the priest's character; and thus, instead of being more shackled, we shall be less shackled than we have heretofore been in the choice of candidates; and instead of that real, and extensive, though silent power which government has hitherto exercised over us in the choice of our prelates, this power will in future be confined within very narrow, because avowed, just, and rational bounds!!!"

"Fifthly, the great and signal advantages which the Catholic religion, and its prelates in particular, would derive from the realizing the proposal which they made in 1799, are so obvious, that they hardly stand in need of being pointed out! In the first place, one of the chief obstacles to the emancipation would be removed, and thereby the affection of the Catholic laity for the bishops and clergy would be increased.-Next, the character of a Catholic bishop, which, we are assured is not now recognized by the law, would be incontrovertibly established. The bishop elect, having gone through his political purgation! would be far less exposed to suspicion and obloquy than is the case with Catholic prelates at present.-Finally, a thorough good understanding and mutual confidence would be established between the civil and ecclesiastical power; in consequence of which the Irish Catholic prelate would acquire his proper weight and influence in the scale of the empire. This weight and influence he would not fail to employ a thousand ways for the benefit of the Catholic religion, and particularly of his poor people, in protecting them from the oppression of their most powerful enemies.

"I have heard but of two objections to the proposals in question: the first of which is the outcry of the lower order of the Catholics; and I am sory to say (for I had formed a higher idea of their abilities and learning) of some of the clergy, as if the rights of their Church were about to be surrendered, and as if the King's_ecclesiastical supremacy over it were about to be acknowledged. But since this opinion is founded on the grossest error, as I have demonstrated, nothing is so easy as to dissipate it, by exposing the true state of facts, in opposition to newspaper falsehoods, and by explaining, in its several parts, the true system of canonical elections. The other objection has appeared in point, and stands thus: "It is a great detriment that a priest of eminent merit, an O'Leary, for example, should be liable to be excluded from the prelacy, in consequence of government's unfounded prejudices against him."

I grant that this is a great detriment to the Church as well as an injury to the individual. But then I have shewn that this inconveniency exists already, in as much as the prelates will not recommend even an O'Leary, whilst any violent prejudice of government exists against him, whether well or ill founded; and I have also shewn, that there is a much better chance of such prejudice being done away, by means of a free communication between the electors and government, than if no such communication were to take place. I must add that the Holy See, during the existence of such prejudice, would refuse spiritual powers to the candidate, as she professes in the above-mentioned paper, not only to reject candidates who are disagreeable to government, but also to promote those exclusively who are agreeable to it.

"But you propose, it seems, to satisfy the legislature and the nation (that the public enemy shall not be able to influence the election of your prelates in favour of disaffected subjects,) by means of an oath of allegiance to be taken by the electors and the person elected. -I wish, sir, you may succeed; but I am not aware that you or any other person can devise a form of oath more solemn, express, or comprehensive, as to the duty of allegiance, than that which we have already taken. Should any new oath be required of us, I greatly fear it shall go to that mischief with which we have already been threatened by Catholics no less than Protestants, (see Considerations, &c. by Sir J. Throckmorton, &c.) and which otherwise, I apprehend, it will require great efforts to ward off-I mean an obligation on the part of the prelates, never to correspond with the Holy See, but through the Secretary of State's office!!!

"Your zealous and enlightened prelates (one half of whom I have. the honour of knowing personally, and the other half by character) will, at the ensuing assembly, weigh and decide upon the whole of this important matter. It has been said that I deprecate that assembly I can prove directly the contrary; and I am, on all occasions, the decided and warm advocate for canonical councils and synods of every kind, as the grand specific against all spiritual and ecclesiastical disorders. There are only three things which I deprecate; first, the degradation, in the eyes of the public, of that episcopal order to which I myself have the honour of belonging, and particularly of the illustrious prelacy which I have so highly extolled. Secondly, an opposition of the leading Catholic laity against their prelates, under an idea that the latter refused to adopt such means as are in their power for promoting their emancipation. Thirdly, a disunion of heart and co-operation among the prelates themselves.-I would suffer every calamity myself, rather than any one of these three mischiefs were to ensue.

"Should the prelates recede from the resolutions they entered into at Dublin in 1799, (which resolutions, observe, are before the public, as well as the leading men of the legislature, having been mentioned in the newspapers,) I hope they will be able to vindicate their proceedings and character, against the numerous and able opponents of