The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-04 00:00:00

LETTER FROM ARCHBISHOP MURRAY TO

MR. O'CONNELL.

DUBLIN, AUGUST 2.—The Dublin Evening Post n'
this afternoon contains the following letter from the Diosi
Rev. Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dub.

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

" Mountjoy-square, August 1, 1845.
" My dear Mr. O'Conneil,—l avail myself of the first
possible moment after my return to Dublin to correct a
mistake into which you have been unconsciously led by
the report (apparently a very inaccurate one) of a speech
attributed to Sir James Graham.
" The Freeman's Journal, of the 22d ult., states, that
at a public meeting on the preceding day, you spoke as
follows : _ _

" I find in the Times of Friday last the following dia-
logue between Lord:Arundel and Sir James Graham: the
Earl of Arundel and Surrey asked whether it was the in-
tention of her Majesty's Government to propose any amend-
ment in the Charitable Bequests Bill? Sir James Graham
replied that the Lord Lieutenant had received represen-
tations from the Roman Catholic Commissioners of the
Board of Bequests,, stating that the duty had devolved
upon them of determining who the ecclesiastics were,
who, in certain districts, were entitled to the benefit of
the bequests left to the clergy of the Church of Rome,
and stating:also that it was at variance with the canons
of their church, which required that all matters of doc-
trine and discipline of this nature should be settled by
their diocesans alone.'
" You are then said to have continued thus

" Oh I feel my heart at ease and my mind tranquil.
I was accused and assailed and abused for offering my
humble opinion that that Bill was uncanonical and in.
consistent with the canons of the Catholic Church.
They. laughed at me for giving that opinion, poor theo-
logian us I run ; but humble as my opinion is,- here it is
confirmed by those venerable characters themselves, the
Most Reverend and always esteemed Dr. Murray, the
Most Reverend Dr. Crolly, and the Right Reverend Dr.
Denvir. I have their authority that the Bill gave un-
canonical power to the Catholic prelates.'
" Believe me, my dear sir, thati it gives me inexpres-
sible pain to be obliged:to contradict, before the public,
any assertion that you would think it right to make,
and that it would ne delightful to me, and to the oil< r
prelates in question, to be the medium of commurli-
eating, were it in our power, that ease and tranquillity
of which you sp< ak, to a heart so fervently glowing as
yours is with the love of religion. But as, on this
occasion, you have been pleased to put my name
prominently forward, the painful duty devolves on me
of declaring that you have allowed yourself, in this
instance, to be led, unintentionally of course, into an
error, the publication of which is but too well 'cal' u'ated
to cast a grievous, censure upon characters which you
would be most unwilling to defame. Permit me, then,
most respectfully to assure you, that you have not
the authority of the prelates in question to sus-
tain your assertion. They have never said, or hinted,
or thought, that the Bequests Act gave to theM an
uncanonical power. The speech, therefore, on which
you relied must have been most inaccurately re-
ported; and the Minister must haVe alluded to objec-
tions which have been urged by the opponents of the
Act—objections which, in the opinion of those prelates,.
had no sclidfoun,dAtiusqo,eq 0y044 whirh.they.thought
it right hVitig unaer the notice of Government, in the
hope that every pretext, how groundless soever, for the