each communion, who will not fail to attack them on the subject, and harass them for many years to come. I hope they will provide answers, and such answers as may be defended against men of talents to the following questions, which will incessantly be put to them, as they have in part been already frequently put to me. "The head of the Church is allowed a direct interference and power in the appointment of bishops throughout the greater part of the Christian Continent, to a man who has apostatised to Mahometanism, and shall it be deemed unlawful for our Monarch to interfere in this business just so far as it is necessary to ascertain the loyalty of men, who are to possess such great influence over his subjects?" "The schismatical Sovereign of Russia, and the heretical King of Prussia, have always been consulted in the choice of Catholic prelates for the vacancies within their respective dominions; what then hinders the Sovereign of the United Kingdom from enjoying the same privilege?He actually possesses it now in his American dominions; is that unlawful in Ireland which is lawful in Canada? But you have already declared, after three days solemn deliberation on the subject, that such interference of government in the appointment of prelates as may enable it to be satisfied of the loyalty of the person to be appointed is just, and ought to be agreed to; and that, therefore, the candidate elected is to be presented to government: " and that if government has any proper objection against him, the president will convene the electors, and proceed to the election of another candidate." "Such were your decisions delivered to government nine years ago, and which have remained with it ever since, to be acted upon whenever circumstances should permit!!! Do you break faith with it? Or is that become false and unlawful now, which was true and baneful then? In a word, will you reject these resolutions (for the purpose of quieting the alarms of the nation, and promoting the emancipation) which you heretofore voluntarily made in order to obtain a provision for yourselves?!!!"

"Such are the objections in part, which, I am confident, will be thus held out against the prelates on every side, should they retract their decisions. It is wise, Sir, to anticipate mischief of every kind, in order to guard against it. If, on the other hand, the prelates should abide by what they have solemnly resolved upon, they will have nothing more to do than what is perfectly within their sphere, and what is comparatively easy to be done; namely, to enlighten their people, and shew them how grossly they have been imposed upon, both as to facts and reasoning.

65

I answer, 1st, as far as our English Catholic prelacies are concerned, (and that these are, or will be, concerned, whenever this business is to be concluded, I have very good reason to believe,) I acted as the Vicar Apostolic of fifteen counties in the centre of England, and as Deputy for the Western Prelacies: I acted as the Agent of the Catholic prelates and clergy of Ireland, at the seat of government, in such concerns as I had been, or might be, instructed by them to transact on this account; having been authorised to this effect at

6

Maynooth, July 1st, 1807, under the hands and seals of the four metropolitans, in the presence, and with the approbation, as it appeared to me, of other prelates. But it has been said, if I am not misinformed, that there is no ecclesiastical canon which constitutes the metropolitans themselves representatives of the other prelates, in the transacting business of this nature with the Imperial Parliament.— 2d. Grant there is no such canon; neither is there any which appoints bishops to represent the officiating clergy, nor the officiating clergy to represent the inferior, and the regular clergy. Must it be an unpracticable thing to communicate with the prelates and clergy of Ireland, for the benefit of religion and themselves?! In fact, the metropolitans, from their dignity, their authority, their local situation in the four provinces of Ireland; and, I will add, from their merits and qualifications, are, morally speaking, the proper representatives of their brethren, and the other clergy, and as such have been allowed by the legislature and the public to represent them, in signing the petition of 1805, and on several other occasions: however, to remove all jealousies that you may entertain on my account, I assure you, Sir, that I have ceased to describe and consider myself as Agent of the Irish prelates and clergy, from the moment that I understood there was the slightest question on this subject with any individual. My anxiety, however, for the welfare of our common religion, on various recurring occasions, for the defence of the Irish prelates, individually, no less than generally, as I have often experienced, and for the particular support of that spiritual jurisdiction, and those rights of the Church, which are the subject of the present misunderstanding between so many zealous, but misinformed Catholics, and myself; make me anxious that some other person or persons of the prelatic, or at least of the sacerdotal character, should be duly and unanimously appointed to transact the particular concerns of religion, and of its ministers at the seat of government. Without such an agency, you leave every thing that is most dear to you in the hands of lay people, who neither understand nor care, for more ecclesiastical matters. You will easily fine agents of greater talents, experience, and suppleness, than myself; but you will not find one more rigidly, otherwise, more jealous of the rights of the Church and the prelacy, more disinterested, more docile to the instructions of his constituents, or more zealously devoted to the welfare of the Irish Catholics, than is,

"Sir, your humble servant,

"Wolverhampton, Aug. 1, 1808.

"J. MILNER.

"P. S. I must add here, that in my communication with certain members of the legislature, equally powerful and friendly, I contend so strongly and so repeatedly for the necessity of even the negative power being restricted to a certain number of times, to be afterwards determined upon by the prelates themselves, (for on this delicate point I could not so much as hazard an opinion,) that I conceived myself to run the greatest risk of losing their friendship! ! !"

AS it is our wish to do justice to the impetuous Bishop Milner, however he may continue to misrepresent our sentiments, and to furnish our readers with data for a history of the Popish machinations of the present day, we insert the following exculpatory letter, addressed by him to the Editor of the Dublin Herald, and alluded to in p. 505 of the letters of A. B. published in our last Appendix.

"SIR,I hope it will not be understood that I acquiesce in the imputation of a crime too bad to be named: of sacrificing the principles, tenets, and rights, of the Episcopacy; if I still decline answering the queries put to me by your correspondents, Sarsfield and Laicus, concerning my late communications with our advocates in parliament, and concerning the conduct of Dr. Troy, Dr. O'Reilly, and other Catholic prelates, in 1799. (See the Herald' for August 31, and September 2.)

I have always understood, Sir, that it is highly indecorous to commit to the press any account of a conversation held with another gentleman concerning business of importance, without the revision or consent of that gentleman. Certain it is that I have lately experienced such to be the sense of the higher ranks of society in an instance relative to the matter in question. Now, it is not in my power to communicate at all with the illustrious personages alluded to at the present time, and I have great doubt whether at any future time I could obtain their consent to the desired publication. It would evidently be still more indecorous, it would even be a crime too bad to be named, were I to betray the confidence of the venerable prelates whose business I so lately transacted. Laicus complains that they themselves have thought proper to keep him in the dark with respect to it, and he applies to me, their confidential agent, to inform him of it!

"Independently of this, how can it be expected of me, who write, as I always have written, for the public under my own name, to answer the interrogatories put to me in the newspapers by writers who think proper to observe the strictest incognito themselves, and who question me upon points of the utmost delicacy and importance. They may be Catholics of the most exemplary piety who are actuated by the purest zeal for their religion, or they may be mere nominal Catholics, a disgrace by their principles and conduct to the religion they profess; they may even be wolves in sheeps' clothing, who come only to kill and destroy, for any thing I can know of them. The disclosure of their real names would probably settle my opinions upon these points, and enable me to decide how far they are deserving of my respect and regard. It is true they profess to interrogate me in the name of the Catholic body: but where are their credentials for the high character they assume?-Indeed the very idea of an anonymous representative or agent, is perfectly ridiculous.

"Another reason for my refusing to answer them is, that this would evidently lead to an exceedingly long and unprofitable controversy. For I find, Sir, that they and I do not agree in first principles, concerning the constitution and government of the Catholic Church.

One of them, in the avowed character of a layman, talks of his rights in the appointment of bishops-the other denies the possibility of my receiving any authority relative to this matter from the prelates, (notwithstanding its being wholly and exclusively in their hands) because I did not receive it also from laymen and inferior priests.-Now, Sir, these are not the lessons which I have learned from the canons and the fathers, from Bellarmine, Thomassenus, Van Espen, De Marca, Cabassutius, and other modern doctors: nor are they the lessons which I have taught in those works which these very gentleman are pleased to commend as containing the principles and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, the purity of its discipline, and the divine right of its episcopacy,' namely, the Letter on the appointment of Bishops, the divine Right of Episcopacy, and Ecclesiastical Democracy detected. Nor are your correspondents, Sir, better informed concerning modern matters of fact, relative to the present business, than they are concerning the theory and the ancient and present practice of the Church in recruiting the episcopacy. One of them, Sarsfield, addressing Dr. O'Reilly in your Herald some weeks ago, with equal gravity on his part, and contumely to me, thanks the prelate in the name of the Catholic body for the pretended seasonable reproof which he had addressed to me on the subject of the debates in parliament. Now it is a fact that there is not one word of reproof, or even of complaint against me in the letter in question, which is still in my possession ; but, on the contrary, every expression of regard and esteem which friendship would dictate. Again, it is evident that the writers give implicit faith to the accounts of the negligent, drowsy, tippling, and ignorant reporters, concerning the late debates which they have seen in the newspapers. It is likewise plain that they make no allowance whatever for the unguarded and unwarranted expressions and arguments of the orators themselves. Now it is a fact which I can aver, as having attended the whole of the debates in both houses, that the speeches themselves are most incorrectly and unfaithfully published in most of the newspapers; that the orators themselves did not by any means proceed so far in their unwarranted concessions as they are reported to have gone, and that they made subsequent explanations of what they had actually said, of great importance, which are not at all noticed in the newspapers. I may add, in justice to them as well as to myself, that, after the debate was over, they acknowledged themselves to have advanced certain positions, the most alarming of all that were made, for which they had no warrant but their own way of viewing the subject. It is probable that your correspondents will again tell me, that my account of this matter is evasive and unsatisfactory; but it is all that I can give, in the existing circumstances, consistently with honour and duty. If, in consequence of this omission, I must forfeit popularity, as these writers threaten me, my determined answer to the threat is, Let me perform my duties still-and then let popularity follow if she will. Such has been my way of thinking and acting throughout life in England, which is the cause of whatever little popularity I have met with in Ireland.

"But though I am resolved not to betray the confidence of others, I have no objection to declare my own sentiments on the grand subject of debate, because I am not declaring any thing which I actually agreed upon on the part of the prelates, not having in fact authority so to do, and because having no claim to take part in their deliberations, I am not anticipating them. My object is barely to dissipate that mist of error and calumny, and that consequent scandal which has been industriously collected around it, to my great injury.

"I wish then most earnestly for the Emancipation of the Catholics of Ireland, and this not so much to please a few nobleman and gentlemen in parliament, as to make the poor peasant's cabin his castle, so that he may no longer be liable to have it burnt down in his midnight slumbers, or be otherwise exposed to illegal violence, or cruel oppression. When this is effected, I shall confidently expect to see the Irish cabin smile with all the comforts of the English cottage; but to effect it, the wall of legal separation between the different religions must be destroyed to its foundations, and all must enjoy the benefits of the constitution upon equal terms. To obtain this, Ì would not indeed sacrifice one atom of the tenets or essential discipline of the Catholic Church. I would not even expose these to the remotest danger, or do any thing which should not obtain the entire approbation of the Apostolic See; but I would do that which is perfectly lawful, perfectly safe, that which the Apostolic See has agreed to in other countries of a different communion, and what I have reason to believe she would agree to in our own. To be brief, I should have no objection, if I were a prelate of the Catholic Church of Ireland, after I had, in conjunction with my brethren, agreed who were the three clergymen most proper to be recommended to the Pope for episcopal powers in the usual way, to ask government, whether they knew any thing against the loyalty of the first person upon the list. For I never would allow it the Positive Right of choosing even one among the three, who had been previously approved of by myself and my brethren. If government answered in the affirmative, it would be incumbent upon them to substantiate their charge; the consequence of which would be, I may safely say, in every case, that the candidate's character would be cleared of the unjust imputation, or rather that no objection would be made against him at all. If any one, however, is willing to suppose that government would be so unjust to itself, as well as to the Catholics, as to object, in succession, to all the three candidates, here, I conceive, its negative power must necessarily end: for, I repeat it, I would rather lose my life than consent to an uncatholic government's obtaining any actual power, or such a negative power as might grow into actual power, in any portion of the Catholic Church, however desirous I am that the loyalty and civism of our prelates with respect to their king and country should be ascertained and publicly recognised, for the greater good of their flocks. On the other hand, I trust in God, that there always will be as many as four parish priests, or other inferior clergymen, in Ireland, worthy and qualified in every respect to wield the crosier. But,' says Sarsfield, in a former letter, would it not be an injustice