The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-14 00:00:00

IRELAND.

ARCHBISHOP CROLLY AND MR. O'CON-
NELL.- LETTER FROM THE PROPA-
GANDA.

DUBLIN, JAN. 11.—The following most important
letter from the Roman Catholic Primate, Dr. Crolly,
addressed to Mr. O'Connell, appears in the Dublin
Evening Post of this afternoon.

Archbishop Crolly has published this letter, in
consequence of certain statements in the letter of Mr.
O'Connell, which we have already published :

" TO DANIEL O'CONNELL, ESQ. , M.P.

Dear Sir,—On reading in the Pilot, of the 10th
instant, your interesting letter, addressed to the
Right Rev. Dr. Cantwell, Roman Catholic Bishop of
Meath, I was surprised and sorry to find that you
had ventured to assert that a letter sent to me some
time past from the Propaganda was not a canonical
document Allow me to assure you that, in the year
1839, I received from the Cardinal Prefect of the
Propaganda a communication of a similar description,
in which I was directed to admonish some political
ecclesiastics, who had made at public meetings such
violent speeches as were not congenial to the mild
spirit of their sacred ministry. In obedience to the
injunction of the Holy See, I endeavoured to reclaim
admonitionsthose misguidednot clergymen,
prod ue e the desired effect, his but, as my fraternal
Iloliness directed the Sacred Congregation to send
me another letter on the same subject, in order that
I should more efficaciously admonish such priests or
prelates as I might find taking a prominent and im-
prudent part in political proceedings.
" I considered it my duty to lay this document
before the assemblid prelates at our last general
meeting in Dublin, oho not only acknowledged it to
be authentic and canonical, but to be a document of
such importance that they entered it on their minutes,
and unanimou-ly resolved that they would regulate
their conduct according to its iijunctions, and use
their influence with their clergy, in their respective
dioceses, to prevail on them to follow its salutary in-
structions. You have repeatedly declared that you
would be guided by the decision of the assembled
prelates, and lam sure that you will not wonder at
my astonishment, when I found that you had publicly
denounced a document which met with their unquali-
fied and unanimous approbation. Knowing the
honesty of your heart, and the fidelity with which
you adhere to the authority of the holy Catholic
Church, I deem it my duty to subjoin the entire
letter which I received from the Propaganda, together
with the resolution of the prelates at their late meet-
ing, in order that you may not be misled by unsatis-
factory information, but may. have these genuine
documents fairly placed before your own impartial
and powerful understanding :

" Ti.T.ME. AC RIVE. DOMINE—
" ' Memmisse profecto debut Amp. Tua Batas ad Te
die 12 Martii, Anni 1839, ab Sac 'lnc Cungre. fuisse
litteras, quibus illud Tibi. SSmi etiam Dni Nri Gregoni
P.P. XVL nomine, vehementor commenditbatur, ut Uni

vel Alteri Antistiti nonnullisque Ecclesiasticis istius
Regni viris, qui tarnquam politicis nogetiis nimium ad-
dicti, et de Republica minus prudenter coram Populo
disserentes traducebantur, seniors, si relata subsisterent,
suggereres consilia, ratiouemque sacro ministerio magis
consentaniam diligentissime suaderes. Equidem non
dubitat Sac Congregatio quin Tu omni studio in id adla-
boraveris, eamque operam adhibueris, quam rei gravitas
postulabat, et i tuo in Apostolicam Sedem obsequio ex-
pectat licebat. Atqai tamen impensis per Te curis opta-
turn exitum non appirnd respondisse, ex publicis priesertim
istarum Regionum Ephemeridis apparet, übi sermones
referuntur ab aliquibus, ed clero, et non ne
mine ctiam Episcoporum turn in conventibus et
conviviis, turn in Templis ad populum recens habiti,
qui eerte, si ita esset, illos annimarum saluti, Reli-
' gionis bond, Dieque honori nuke, ut par esset,
intentos, atque adeo I politicarum partium studiis, et
sreculi negotiis prorsus alienos'rninime demonstrarent.
Dissimulandum sane non est id Sac. hurt Cogi.i. ipsique
SSmo Domino molestius accidisse, quod in Ecclesiastici
Ceetus detrimentum, ac dedecus vergat ; imm° vero
Apostolicm Sedi injuriam creet, quasi nimirum ea de
salutaribus ad istum Clerum monitis, opportune dirigen-
dis parum sollicita, memoratis nonnullorum ex illo
consiliis faveat, aut saltum coanivere videatur. Et
reapse his querimoniis sea potius criminationibus locum
jam non semel extitisse Ampm. Tuana fortasal latet,
sed Apostolica Sedes tristi experientia summopere dolet.
Thee, porro cavea est cur Sacra Congreatio. rursus ad
Te de gravissimo hoc argumento scribere, ipso SSmo
Dno. Nostro auctore festinet.. Nosti optime, Prwsul
amplissime, qum sit Eccletiastici muneris ratio, atque
indoles ; quantumqu© deceat, et religionis incolurni-
tati intersit, ut qui sacris sunt mancipati, Regis
pacifici ministri, et mysteriorum Dei dispensatores ;
rnaxime. vero spirituali fidelium et regimini prmpo-
siti, nullimode se negotiis smcularibus implicent ;
quietem, tranquillitatem, ac pacem, quae Christianitatis
vinculum est, sedulo in populo foveant ; subjectionem
temporali potestati:in liss gum ad res chiles pertinent de-
bitam jugiter exemplo, ac verbis insinuent, et singularom
prudentiam animique moderationem praeseferentes, Chris-
turn et hunt Crucifixum solummodo, praxlicantes, quid-
quid commissum sibi gregem vel leviter concitare, corn-
movere, et ab Evangelicas Lagis lenitate abducere possit
cautissimi devitent. Ejusmodi est semperque fuit Ca-
tholicte Ecclesim doctrina, quam Apostolica Sedes ex sui
officii sanctitate tradere, et data occasions inculare nun-
quam intermisit. Tuam itaque erit, Amplissime Domine,
his vestigiis studiose insistere et prienuncitos de tanta re
Sac. Congis., ac Sanctitatis Sum sensus pro opportunitate
aperiendo, quotqut ex Ecclesiasticis viris prmsertim in
episcopali gradu constitutis inde ulla ratione devios ag-
noscas in omni charitate ac patentia efficacissime admo-
nere. Quod quidem dum satin perspectm prudentim, et
sollicitudini turn committo, observantiarn meam Tibi ex
animo profiteor, et fausta oninia precor a Deo.
" Amplitudinis Ture.
" ' Roman ex dEdibus Sac. Congris. de Prop. Fide. die
15 Octobris, 1544.
" Ad oflicia paratissimus,
" J. PH. CARD. FRANSONIUS, prmfectus.
" JOANNES BRUNELLI, secretarius.

"' R. P. D. Guillelmo Crolly, Archiepo Armachano
totius Hibernim Primati.

" Concordat cum originali,
"` Gulielmus
" At a general meeting of the archbishops and
bishops of Ireland, held in the Presbytery-house, Marl-
borough-street, Dublin, on the 13th day of November,
1844, the following resolution was adopted, the Most
Rev. Dr. Crolly in the chair:—
" Moved by the Right Rev. Dr. Browne, of Elphin ;
and seconded by the Right Rev. Dr. M‘Nally,. of
Clogher

" That the Most Rev. Dr. Crolly be requested to
reply to the letter received from the holy father, stating
that the instructions therein contained have been re-
ceived by the assembled prelates of Ireland, with that
degree of profound respect, obedience, and veneration,
that should ever be paid to any document emanating.
from the Apostolic See ; and that they all pledge them-
selves to carry the spirit thereof into effect. Also, that
the original be entered on our minutes.
" k W. CROLLY, Chairman,
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, Secretary."
" With regard to the Concordat between the Pope
and the British Government, which has so justly excited
alarming apprehensions in the minds of all the clergy
and laity of Ireland, I can only state, in the most solemn
manner, that I know nothing of it directly or indirectly,
except by public rumour ; and that I shall join the pre-
lacy of Ireland by using every influence in my power to
prevent any such insidious scheme, which would be de-
structive of the independence and purity of our holy
•

I have the honour to remain, with the highest re-
spect and esteem, dear Mr. O'Connell, your faithful and
obedient servant, " k W. CROLLY.
"Dublin, Walsh's Hotel, Jan. 11, 1815."
MR. O'CONNELL'S LETTER ON THE CHA-
RITABLE BEQUESTS ACT.
DUBLIN, JAN. 11.—The following is the concluding
portion of Mr. O'Connell's letter, addressed to the Right
Rev. Dr. Cantwell, Roman Catholic Bishop of Meath,
which appears in the Pilot of this evening :
Ninthly. I object to the connexion between our pre-
lates and the Government, English or Irish, upon the
principle avowed, and published, and proclaimed by those
prelates themselves when they unanimously declared
they would never, never accept a State provision for
themselves or their clergy. What is the objection to a
State provision ? What, but that it would place them
under the imputation of being instruments in the hands
of art anti-Catholic, an anti Irish Government ? The
State provision would have the good effect of relieving
the poor Catholics from the support of their Church ;
but our prelates rightly deemed that it would be in its
nature contaminating, and therefore they rejected all
such connection.
" Tenthly. I object to this statute, because I see
plainly, and recent events demonstrate thaf however
well-intentioned and pure our prelatic commissioners
are, this is one great step—l had almost said another
great step—towards facilitating the introduction of
power and control in the British Government over the
appointment of our bishops—a power and control which
our hierarchy, and clergy, and gentry, and laity have in-
dignantly rejected as the price of civil liberty—but a
power which the British Government most anxiously
desires to obtain, and is now known to be engaged in a
dark plot to achieve.

" kleventhly. I object to the Act, because it purports
to give jurisdiction by Act of Parliament to Commis-
sioners, eight of whom are Protestants, and two of whom
are Catholic laymen, over the usages and discipline of the
Church of Rome, and over the title of every bishop,
parish priest, or other ecclesiastical incumbent in Ireland.
I object to that jurisdiction as being Protestant in prin-
ciple—namely, emanating from an Act of Parliament, an
Act of the lay Legislature. It may be said that there
is an inherentjurisdiction in the Catholic priests, named
in the Commission, over these spiritual matters of usage
and discipline, and perhaps ever what the Act fantasti-
cally calls intendment of usage.' But my answer is,
that such spiritual jurisdiction can exist only within the
diocese of each bishop who is a Commissioner, and the
power under the Act to decide upon the usage and dis-
cipline of the Catholic Church is not confined to that dio-
cese. Another answer is, that no such inherent jurisdic-
tion can be said to exist in the two lay Commissioners.
Sir Patrick Bellew and Mr. Blake are not spiritual per-
sons. At least, the only title they have to be so is de-
rived from the Act of Parliament—a derivation the vali-
dity of which I utterly deny.
" Twelfthly. I object to the statute, because the power
of the Commissioners extends to deciding who is the
lawful incumbent according to the discipline of the Ca-
tholic Church, as a bishop of any diocese, and as a parish
priest of any parish. For example, as to the bishop :
suppose a legacy bequeathed to the Bishop of Elphin, and
that any dispute arose as to who was, according
to the discipline of the Catholic Church, the bishop of
the diocese, that question would have to be decided in the
first instance by the three Catholic prelates and two
Catholic laymen—being Commissioners—it being, as I
presume, admittedly uncanonical for them to make any
such decision.

" Thirteenthly. I object to the statute, inasmuch as it
gives jurisdiction to the three Catholic prelates and two
Catholic laymen to decide, in the first instance, upon a
disputed title to the incumbency of a parish in the diocese
of another bishop—it being perfectly clear that those five
Commissioners. or any of them, cannot have any canonical
right to decide that question.
" Here I am bound, mce more, to take up the pastoral
of the Most Reverend Doctor Murray, and accurately to
state how he seeks to solve this difficulty. His answer
to it will be found at page 22. These are his Lordship's
words:—

" In cases of doubt, as to who is the authorised priest,
fur whom a donation or legacy may be intended, the
usagys and discipline of our Church are for the present
placed under the guardianship of your own bishops, who
will be able, with the blessing of God, to have a rule
established, whereby, in all such cases, the certificate
of the diocesan bishop shall be taken as conclusive
evidence.'

" Mark well that his Grace here distinctly admits the
existence of the difficulty. He admits that, according
to the statute, one Catholic bishop being on the Com-
mission, gets jurisdiction over the diocese of another
bishop. Nay, the Catholic laymen in the Commission
obtain from the statute similar jurisdiction. Mark, also,
that it will not be denied by anybody that the exercise
of such jurisdiction by a bishop or layman is uncanoni-
cal, and, I believe, therefore necessarily criminal. Mark,
also, that it is this statute that thus confessedly gives
jurisdiction, the exercise of which would be essentially
criminal, which is the subject of the present diseussion.
Who can be surprised, then, that many Catholic prelates
have strong conscientious objections to co-operate in any
way in carrying out a statute that, beyond a doubt,
authorises the commission of a canonical crime ?
" The existence of an uncaaonical authority in and by
the Act being avowed, his Grace suggests a remedy—
namely, the making a rule whereby the certificate of a
diocesan, in case of a controversy as to who is the autho-
rised priest, shall be taken as conclusive evidence.'
" Such is the remedy suggested by his Grace. A 5

:.

lawyer, I am bound- to inform him that such remedy is
impossible,' for these reasons:—
" First. There is no such rule in the statute, nor any-
thing to authorise the making by the Board, or any
part of them, any such rule. No authority is given to
anybody to make such a rule.
" Secondly There is nothing in the statute to au-
thorise the making of any rules or regulations whatso-
ever relative to the charities. It would require an ex-
press clause in the statute to that effect, and to give
the power of making rules of evidence, and there is cer-
tainly none such.
" thirdly. The controversy as to who is the autho-
rised priest to receive a legacy, must necessarily include
at all events the fact of at least two persons, each claim-
ing to be the authorised priest ; and as only one of
them could be the person appointed by the bishop, so
the ether must be- driven to controvert the bishop's
right of such appointment. It would, therefore, be
against every rule of evidence to allow the bishop's cer-
tificate to be conclusive evidence of the validity of the
appointment made by that very bishop. It would be
considered in point of law monstrous to attempt to con-
clude the person who disputed the bishop's appoint-
ment, by the certificate of that very bishop. Such a
certificate could not be made evidence—still less con-
clusive evidence—without an Act of Parliament.
"Fourthly. The Pith section, that gives to the Com-
missioners the authority over the discipline of the Ca-
tholic Church, takes special care to prevent the doing
I any act, and,of course the making any rule, inconsistent
with our law. Its provisions, in particular, render any
rule for the admission of illegal evidence impossible ;
because on the one hand it prevents the certificate even
of the entire five Catholic Commissioners from being
carried into effect, unless so far as it can be lawfully
executed according to the provisions of the Act. And
it contains this proviso :
" Provided always, that nothing herein contained
shall be construed to limit or affect the jurisdiction of
any court of law or equity.'
" The jurisdiction, therefore, of our courts as to
legal evidence cannot be limited by the Commissioners,
or by any rule they may make to substitute a convenient
certificate for strict and technical legal evidence.
" Fifthly. The certificate of the Catholic Commis-
sioners, though authorised by the statute, is not in itself
conclusive. They cannot themselves make a conclusive
certificate. It would, therefore, be quite absurd to sup-
pose that they could empower another person to make
a conclusive certificate.

" Sixthly. Itidoes not follow that if such a rule were
made, and were (what it cannot be) validly made in point
of law that it would be acquiesced in, or adopted by,
the prelates who differ with his Grace Dr. Murray on
the subject of the Act. His Grace acts from strictly con-
scientious motives, and he has powerfully expressed the
obligation of that conscientious feeling. He thus
strongly expresses it, page 6: Conscience (he says) is 0.
stubborn monitor—it is unsafe to
.4espise its admoni-
tions.' But there are many Cathdb3 bishops who think
they cannot, without crime, co-operate in carrying out
this Act. Conscience is to them an equally stubborn
monitor as to his Grace. It is equally unsafe for them
as for his Grace to despise its admonitions. The pre-
lates I allude to would deem it criminal to co-operate in
carrying out the Act. There can, therefore, be no use
in a rule which these prelates cannot sanction without
committing what they deem a crime.
" There is another point of view in which the un-
canonical nature of this Act of Parliament jurisdiction
in the diocese of other prelates is beyond the power of
such a remedy as that suggested by his Grace, even if it
were valid. It stands thus :—Suppose the question of
the legacy to arise between two bishops—and it might
quite as well arise between two bishops as two priests—
wrat certificate can possibly meet the objection of
bishops, Commissioners, deciding between two of their
equals ? Who is to certify?
" In fine, layman though I be, nothing can, in my
humble judgment, be more manifest than the uncanoni-
cal nature of this Commission jurisdiction. It originates
from an impure source, having nothing spiritual about it
but its usurpation of spirituality. It originates in and
by an Act of Parliament ; and it will require to work
itself out, that the Commission, prelates or laymen,
should exercise jurisdiction in localities where they can
have none, except by usurpation. Ido not dispute the
right of Protestants to have the jurisdiction of their pre-
lates conferred, if they think fit, by Act of Parliament.
At the same time, I utterly deny any Act of Parliament
authority over the usages of discipline' of the Catholic
Church.

" I now return to my objections :
" Fourteenthly. I object to this Act of Parliament
Commission, because the Bequests Act contains what is
admitted by his Grace Dr. Murray to be a mischievous
clause. The Catholic Church of Ireland, in Catholic
times, was abundantly endowed. Its wealth and its
lands, its churches and its possessions, were all swept
away by iniquitous Acts of Parliament, and transferred
either to laymen, or for the sustentation of a mode of
worship utterly repugnant to the judgment and faith of
the original donors. The Catholic Church and Catholic
charities were reduced to utter destitution. We do not
seek to recover the lands or possessions, but is it not too
bad that the heirs of the spoilers should dare to limit the
portion of the life of a Catholic in which he may restore
Catholic churches and charities to some degree of com-
petence, by granting his land for church or charitable
purposes ? Yet this Bequests Act actually limits the
period of the life of every Catholic, during which he is
permitted to dedicate lands to the service of religion, and
the sustentation of the sick and poor, or other charities.
" Fifteenthly. I object to the Bequests Act because
the mischievous clause,' as his Grace so well calls it,
necessarily implies a foul and false calumny against the
Catholic clergy of Ireland. It suggests that our beloved
clergy avail themselves of the weakness of dying per-
sons to extort bequests of land for the benefit of the
church or charities. We laymen have challenged inves-
tigation upon this point, and defied the ingenious and
active malignity of our enemies to show any one case
where such undue influence was exercised. They have
been unable to show any such case; yet the mischievous
clause' in the Act continues to proclaim the calumny.
And though the mischief is admitted and the calumny
proclaimed, yet those who admit the one and proclaim
the other may be found supporting and carrying out this
fatal statute. Would to God it were otherwise.

" Sixteenthly, I object to this Bequests Act because
it most unjustly takes away from Catholics altogether
the power of demising or charging for the necessary
purposes of the charity any lands which may be de-
vised under its provisions. The power of letting Ca-
tholic charity lands is given altogether to the Protes-
tant majority of the Commissioners—that being the ne-
cessary result of the majority. It is true the Act re-
quires the assent to every such lease of the Catholic in-
cumbent; but if he shall not assent lands may lie waste,
and the Board of Commissioners have thus a power of
coercing him into signifying his assent. This is a most
vexatious portion of the Act, and would he round most
mischievous in practice; but I still entertain the strongest
hopes that all Catholics will desert the Act, and let it
perish by inanition, unless, indeed, it be sooner repealed.
" Seventeenthly. I object to this Act of Parliament
from the absolute, uncontrollable, and irresponsible
power it gives the Secretary at the Castle, or whoever
else represents the Government in Ireland, over the Ca-
tholic Commissioners. The three reverend prelates that
are now in the Commission may be turned out (if I were
not speaking of such reverend personages, I would say
might be kicked out) at at any moment, without any
fault assigned, or assignable, and without the form of
even one hour's previous notice. The Lord Bishop of
Down and Connor may come up from Belfast to attend
his duty as a commissioner, and may find on his arrival
that he was superseded, without any other ceremony
than such an uncivil letter as that written by Mr. Henry
Sugden to the repeal magistrates. In fact, there never
was such unqualified despotic authority as that granted
by the Bequests Act to the Government over those Ca-
tholics who have accepted, or shall hereafter accept, the
office of commtationer.

‘` Eigbteenthly. I object to this Act because it gives
s?insulting a preponderance to the Protestant Commis-
sioners. It is really monstrous. The Catholics of Ire-
land are the overwhelming majority of the Irish people ;
and are therefore entitled, upon principle, to a majority
in the Commission. They would ask nothing more than
an equality; yet they are entitled for another reason to
the majority—that is, because the Parliamentary returns
show, that in the last year 22,0001. was vested in Catho-
lic charities, and only 8,000/. in Protestant charities.
The Catholics being thus in the majority of 9.loths of
the population, and paying 3-4ths of the quantity of
money devoted to charity, yet this Act of Parliament
gives them but five. commissioners to eight. How
bitterly do I regret that such an Act of Parliament has
received any countenance from any
of our reverend
prelates !
" Nineteenthly. I object to this statute by reason of
the insulting manner in which it was carried. It was
passed through both Houses of Parliament without any
previous consultation with the Catholic clergy orlaity ;
or, if any of the laity were consulted, it was in such
privacy as not to have been as yet discovered, and must
have been with some one of that class who are never
consulted except when mischief is intended. It was
carried, I need not say, when my son and I were unjustly
imprisoned. If I had been in the House I think I would
rather have perished on the floor than have allowed such
an Act to pass at the period it did—the close of the

session.
Twentiethly. I object to this statute because in its
nature it must have tended to create a schism or division
among the Catholic prelacy and clergy of Ireland— to
raise doubts, dissensions, and distrusts in the Catholic
body, clergy and laity ; and above all, to create suspi-
cions, however unfounded, and a tendency to irreverence
towards such of the clergy as may connect themselves
with the present anti-Irish Administration.
Twenty-firstly. I object to this statute because it is
a direct assertion on the part of the Legislature of a
right to give to commissioners of the appointment of the
Government authority over Catholic spiritual matters ;
such commissioners having no other spiritual qualifica-
tion than that they must profess to be Catholics.'
" Twenty-secondly. I object to this statute because it
poses duties on Catholic Commissioners which, I

they performs,
In my _de judgment the administration of Catholic
charities should be left to Catholics exclusively—the ad-
ministration of Protestant charities to Protestants ex-
clusively—the administration of Presbyterian charities
to Presbyterians exclusively—and the administration of
Unitarian charities to Unitarians exclusively ; whereas
this statute confounds all in one mass, and renders it
incumbent on the Catholic as well as the other Commis-
sioners to adhere strictly to the education of Protestants
in Protestantism, of Presbyterians in Presbyterianism.
and of Unitarians in Unitarianism.
" There is another duty which this statute imposes on
the Catholic Commissioners—that is, to sue for and re-
cover property belonging to the regular clergy, and to
apply that property to other charitable purposes.
" Upon this subject my opinion is firm and undoubted.
I mean my opinion that it will be the duty, under this
Act, of the Catholic Commissioners to spoliate the pro-
perty of the regular clergy, and to apply it to other cha-
ritable purposes.
"His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin has upon this
subject preferred the opinion: of Messrs. Smith and
Greene to mine. It will be my lovable duty respect-
fully to show his Grace that the opinle:lef these gentle-
men is either inapplicable or equivocal, or, at all events,
that it is unfounded. But this letter heterunito Such
a great length that I must reserve this subjeCi AS the
exclusive topic for a second letter, to follow this without
any delay whatsoever. I trust by the next poet after
this letter arrives in Dublin it will be followed bs, the
letter on the regular clergy.
" I cannot, however, conclude the present letter with-
out
expressing, in sorrow and in anguish, the apprehen-
sions I deeply entertain from the facts I have avowed—
namely, the existence of a conspiracy betwen the English
Government and English Catholic agents at Rome to
delude the Ministers of his Holiness the Pope, and to
obtain measures calculated to affect the civil rights, but,
above all, the religious independence of the Catholic
Church in Ireland.
" Since I commenced this letter, I find it avowed by
the Whig press, that the Whigs whilst in office had an,
English agent residing at Rome, in order, if possible, to
influence the political opinions of that Court unfavour-
ably to the liberties of the Irish nation. It is no longer
concealed that Mr. W. Petre is actin.. in that capaelky
for the present Administration. 1 have already ase
serted, and I assert again, from undoubted authority, that
his Grace the Most Rev. Dr. Crolly is in possession of a
letter from the Propaganda relating to the repeal agita-
tion in Ireland. It is an awful predicament to have the
Catholics of Ireland placed in. The secrecy that has
been hitherto observed makes the tit,
ets at present disco-
vered only the more formidable. How e.an we be secure
if, under such circumstances, any minority of our pre-
lates should enter into any arrangements with tn; British
Government, or sanction any arrangements. uninflue'.need
by the judgment of the majority of the Irish prelsitee,
and perhaps uncommunicated to the laity or to the re•-
sidue of the prelacy ? I do not say or insinuate that any'
such arrangement has taken place, or is at all likely to+
take place ; but it is unfortunate, very unfortunate, that
at such a moment as this, with a full-blown conspiracy
against the independence of our Church just discovered,

this Act of Parliament Commission should be in exist-
ence, and should be accepted by any of our prelates,
however venerable or venerated. For one, I tremble at
the possible result.

" Something should be done to quiet the just fears
and necessary apprehensions of the ever faithful people
of Ireland. It will not do to attempt to muffle those fears
and apprehensions by alleging that more consolatory
intelligence has been received from Rome. Until now
we did not know of the conspiracy at all—the entire was
concealed. How know we what it may be the interest
of the English agent to conceal ? I believe there is no
doubt that the letter to his Grace the Archbishop of
Armagh was obtained and trarismitte 1 at a period when
the friends of the independence of the Irish Church at
Reme were absent, either in vacation or upon business.
There was a singular dexterity in obtaining and dis-
patching thitt letter.
" There is no part of the Catholic Church in the uni-
verse more faithfully submissive in spirituals to the
authority of his Holiness the Pope than the Catholic
Church in Ireland. Clergy and laymen both join in this
unqualified submission. As a layman I myself proclaim,
and I trust practise, the most dutiful submission in
spirituals, morals, discipline, and doctrine to the see of
Rome. Yet I have sworn—and so have all the Irish
Catholics—that the Pope has not any temporal or civil
jurisdiction within this land.

" But we must be vigilant. We are bound to preserve
the independence of our Church from all temporal power.
We are bound to protect our political liberties from
every infringement. It is a miserably unhappy thing
that, at such a moment, the Bequests Act should appear
to afford any facilities to the British Government for
further ensnaring or deluding any of our prelates. We
have flung off before, and we fling off again, please God,
all vetoistical arrangements.
"In my second letter to your Lordship I will not only
discuss the state of our regular clergy, but submit some
suggestions as to the propriety of a lay deputation to
Rome on these most interesting subjects. There is no
law to prevent or interfere with such a delegation. In
fact, the law respecting communication with Rome is
very imperfectly known to our public writers.
" The proposition which I shall most respectfully
submit, as a rule in future, would be the establishment,
by a synod of the Catholic Church in Ireland, in the
most canonical manner, of some law or regulation which
would effectually prevent any minority of the Irish
prelacy from involving themselves in any atatutable
commission, or board, without the canonical assent of the
majority of the synod. Can and ought this to be done?
" There remains, however, this most pleasing con-
solation.—There never was a period at which the
Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, without exception, was
composed of prelates of more learning, purity, piety,
and perfect devotion to all their spiritual duties. Tho
majority of such prelates ought not to be superseded by
the minority.
" I have the honour to be, my loved and revered Lord,
most respectfully, and with deep veneration, your most
faithful and devoted humble servant,
" DANIEL O'CONNELL, M.P.
" The Right Rev. Dr. Cantwell, Bis Lop of Meath."
NATIONAL EDUCATION.—pRafEsT OF THE

BISHOPS.
The following protest has been issued by the Primate
Lord=Sohn Beresford, and eight other prelates of th
Established Church in Ireland. It is really a rotes
against the course adopted by Sir R. Peel and his 110-
vernmerrt on the question of National Education.
" We, the undersigned prelates of the United Church
of England and Ireland, have judged it to be our duty;
upon some former occasions, to address those members
of the Church who are directly committed to our care
and government, and all others who are disposed to look
to us for counsel and support concerning the question of
the education of the poor in Ireland. And as there are
various particulars in the actual state of that question,
which appear to make a similar address from us pecu-
liarly needful at the present time, we proceed once more
to the discharge of this anxious, and in some respects
painful, though, as we cannot but feel, clear and most
important duty, in humble reliance upon the guidance
and blessing of Almighty God.
" Upon theformer occasions to which we have referred,
we felt constrained to make known the very unfavourable
judgment which we had formed of the national system of
education for this country—distinctly declaring that we
could not approve of it, or assist in the management of it,
or recommend to the patrons or superintendents of schools
that they should place them in connexion with it.
"It was with much reluctance and regret that we felt
ourselves obliged to declare so decidedly and publicly
against a plan of education established and maintaintli
by the State, to which we owe, and are ready to render,
all duty not interfering with that which we owe to God.
But this higher duty compelled us to express thus plainly
and strongly our disapprobation and distrust of this sys-
tem ; and we lament that it does not now permit us to
retract, or to soften, those declarations of our opinion.
We consider it to be the more necessary to state this ex.
plicitly, because it is conceived by some persons that
certain modifications of its rules, from time to time into.
duced by the Commissioners of National Education, have
done much to remove the objections on which it ha,
been from the beginning opposed and rejected by the
greater portion of the members of the Established
Church ; and as we are unable to form the same opinion
of these changes, we deem it our duty to obviate the mis,
apprehension to which our silence might give rise, by
stating distinctly that we cannot discern in them any
sufficient reasons for withdrawing or qualifying the con-
demnation which we have deliberately and repeatedly pro-
nounced.
" When the Government first announced its determi-
nation that this system should supersede those to which
the State had before given support, it was very generlly
opposed by the clergy and the laity of our Church. The
grounds on which this opposition were made to rest were
various. The undue prominence given to
secular to the
I depreciation of religious instruction; the disregard shown:
to the position and claims of the clergy of the Estab-
lished Church, tending to throw the direction of national
education into the hands of the priesthood of the Church
of Rome; and other defects and evils, both of the system
itself in the machinery by which it was to be worked,
were urged as grave objections against the proposed plan
of education. While its opponents differed as to the im-
portance which was to be assigned to some of those ob-
jections, there was one, upon the paramount importance
of which all were agreed. The rule by which the Iloly
Scriptures were to be excluded from the schools during
the hours of general instruction was treated by all as so
fundamentally objectionable, that while this should con-
tinue to be the principle of
the system, they could not
oththeefrorm groundsersocioeftioeps
conscientiously connect their schools with it, even though
all the
In opposition ttihoerk
educationw. akeonfthe
away.poor,
with which the clergy were connected, they had, in eret
ac-
commodation to the unhappy divisions of this country,
consented to forbear from any attempt to teach the for-
mularies of our Church to the children of Dissenters,
Protestant or Roman Catholic, who attended the schools
of which they had the superintendence. But they did
not judge themselves at liberty so to deal with the Word
of God. There was in every school a Bible class, and in
every school to read the Bible was a part of the daily
business ; and all the children in attendance, of whatever
religious communion, took their places in this class, as
soon as their proficiency enabled them to profit by the
reading of the Holy Scriptures. But the distinction of
the new system was that it placed the Bible under the
same rule with books of peculiar instruction in religion,
and excluded it, with them, from the hours of general
education. And, moreover, this great change was
avowedly made as a concession to the unlawful authority
by which the Church of Rome withholds the Holy Scrip-
tures from its members.
" It could not have been expected that the clergy of
our Church, who are bound by obligations so sacred to
resist spiritual tyranny rand to oppose the errors of
the Church of Rome, would join in a system of
acceptance and
educa-
tion, of which thy distinctive clsini to
of the most
support was the aid which it gave tot
wo.n.e.
hien is, in fact,
Violent exercises of this tyranny—the