"no bull, nor other papal rescript, containing any "ordinances of the see of Rome, should be circu"lated or published, till after it had been trans"mitted to one of his majesty's secretaries of state,

66

66

or some other appointed officer; and, in certain "cases also, be laid before his majesty's privy council, if thought expedient; to which such prelates, as were of the council, should be specially sum"moned. If, on due examination, those instru"ments contained only the ordinary faculties or

66

regulations of internal discipline, they should be "certified, without delay, by the officer appointed, as containing nothing contrary to the establish"ment in church or state. A regulation of this description might, with facility, be so modified, "as to give perfect satisfaction to his majesty's "roman-catholic subjects, by avoiding all unnecessary and vexatious interference or delay, and, "at the same time, to afford complete security to "the establishment.

"Another regulation, suggested at the same pe"riod, was, that any roman-catholic priest or school"master, applying to be licensed under the act of "the 31st of the king, should, in addition to the "oath of allegiance therein prescribed, produce a "certificate from the immediate superior, if a priest, "or from some known respectable person, if a layman, attesting his good moral character, and at"tachment to the civil constitution of the state; "which certificate should be authenticated by the "nearest resident magistrate; and, in consequence

"in the manner now directed.

As the law now "stands, any priest or schoolmaster, merely on "his own avowal, however notoriously bad his "character may be, provided he scruple not to "take the oath, may demand a license, on paying one shilling for his certificate. It is unnecessary "to observe, that the law is not so loose with re

spect to the clergy and schoolmasters, professing "the established religion, in view to those func"tions: testimonials and certificates are required qualifications.

"And further, with respect to the statute of the "13th of Eliz. :-by not enforcing its provisions, "which we are constrained to connive at, from their excess of severity, we tacitly permit the circula"tion of every sort of papal instrument, without "resorting to those safeguards, which other states, "as I have observed, have wisely instituted. Those, "who are apprehensive, that the rescripts of the "Thuilleries may be occasionally imposed upon us "in the guise of decretals of the Vatican, will ne"cessarily be alive to the possible abuse of a want " of some rational and practical restriction.

"The restrictions, to which I allude, are in strict conformity to the provident institutions of the old "Gallican church, ever jealous of the encroach"ments of Rome. Her privileges depended on "two prominent maxims:-1st, That the pope had "no authority to order or interfere in any thing, "in which the civil rights of the kingdom were "concerned :- 2dly, That notwithstanding the "pope's supremacy was acknowledged in cases

“purely spiritual, yet, in other respects, his power "was limited by the decrees of the ancient coun"cils of the realm. The supreme council of Provence, in the year 1482, decreed, 'That no letters "coming from foreign jurisdictions, though only "in spirituals, should be executed without the rati"fication of the court.' In consequence of these recognised principles, it was provided, that every "rescript from Rome should be presented to one "of the courts of parliament; where it was ex"amined, lest it should contain any thing hostile "to the privileges of the Gallican church, and the temporal rights of the crown. It afterwards be"came current, under a certificate, as a matter of " mere ecclesiastical discipline."

By this speech, the arrangement of the veto was first brought before the public; but it mentioned it only in very general terms; little more respecting it was intimated, than that it should be formed on the model of the legislative provisions of France against papal encroachments; and that it was to supersede altogether, the sanguinary provisions, enacted, ostensibly at least, for that purpose, by queen Elizabeth and her parliaments.

LXXXVI. 7.

1805-1808.

The Approbation given by the Irish Prelates to Sir John Cox Hippisley's Speech, and their earnest Request to him that he would print it.

In various publications, sir John Cox Hippisley

66

substance of his intended speech to Dr. Troy, Dr. Moylan, Dr. Milner, and some other catholics of distinction; that Dr. Troy returned his copy to sir John, with some corrections, and verbal emendations; but, without the slightest remark or observation on the passages, we have extracted from it, as suggesting the veto; that, in his letters to sir John, Dr. Troy uniformly mentioned the speech, in terms of the highest commendation; and repeatedly urged, in the strongest language, its republication for general sale; that Mr. Clinch, the prelate's confidential friend, wrote, by his desire, a letter to sir John, to inform him, that "his "speech had been very generally read, by intelligent and prudent persons ;" and that "the wish "of all those, who had read it, was, that sir John might be prevailed on to publish it, or to allow "it to be printed in Ireland ;"—that Dr. Milner, to whom also sir John Cox Hippisley sent his publication, equally approved it, and equally solicited its extensive circulation: that Dr. Milner also informed sir John, that, " in Ireland, there were the "highest encomiums of his speech;" that "they "waited there for his permission to reprint it:" That he repeatedly mentions Dr. Troy's desire to have it printed; and called it an "admirable "speech"-That, in the copy, which he received from sir John, and afterwards returned to him, he made two alterations only:-That, by those, he suggested an exception to the inspection of papal bulls and rescripts, in cases of the penitentiary, or forum internum:-That with this, lord Castlereagh, as the reader has seen, disclaimed every

kind of interference and finally, that, in 1808, Dr. Milner published four long and elaborate letters in its vindication.

Sir John Cox Hippisley has also informed the public, that he printed one thousand copies of his speech; that they were not sold, but generally distributed; and that sixty copies of it were sent to Dr. Troy, and distributed by him.

The petition of the Irish catholics in 1805, was presented to the house of lords by lord Grenville. On the 10th of May, he moved for its being taken into consideration:-On a division, the numbers appeared,

Contents

Non-contents

Majority against the motion

49

178

129.

On the 13th of May, a similar motion was made by Mr. Grattan in the house of commons :-On a division, the numbers appeared,

1. The Proposal of the Veto, in the House of Commons, by Mr. Ponsonby;-2. And in the House of Lords, by Lord Grenville, at the suggestion of Dr. Milner.

1. THE Irish roman-catholics having presented