s-.sK^.**-** -^:. 
 
 N 
 
 GA TIVE 
 
 NO. 91-80229-10 
 
MICROFILMED 1991 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States ~ Title 17, United 
 States Code ~ concerns the making of photocopies or other 
 reproductions of copyrighted material... 
 
 Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 
 accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 ■.*■>?*■ .'; 
 
 ft.* • •- < '-« 
 
 LLE 
 
 TITLE 
 
 QU 
 
 iMM 
 
 STIO 
 
 PI ACE 
 
 r'w*- 
 
 18 
 
 i ■5#' *31 
 
 r 
 
 ) 
 
Restrictions on Use: 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVEI^ITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 Master Negative ti 
 
 DI13LIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 Original Material as Fihned - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 '^wrmtfmtf^^m 
 
 ■«^nm^*«[9ip 
 
 i9 3G>EMac Donne 
 
 CUTiV\s.S. 
 
 : London >52,9. 
 
 E 
 
 Btas^ 
 
 one 
 
 aue.slion3 kHers on se- 
 
 D. 
 
 h<c 
 
 P 
 
 ' Ko. I 'c ofa volume ofpamplilcts. 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 FILM SIZE: ^*^J01^__^^__ REDUCTION RATIO: 
 
 IMApE PLACEMENT: lA @ IB IIB 
 
 DAfE FILMED: ?l^_/_'_<^L__ INITIALS_j/^::2>^ 
 
 RLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE. CT " 
 
 H. 
 
VI I* Hi*! ^ #> 
 
 E 
 
 Association for Information and Image Management 
 
 1 1 00 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1 1 00 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Sir 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 I 2 3 
 
 ML 
 
 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 
 
 rTTT7 
 
 Inches 
 
 iiiiiiiim 
 
 TTT 
 
 1 
 
 5 6 7 
 
 iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii 
 
 T^rT7 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 
 
 iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 
 
 T I I 
 
 UL 2.8 
 
 12.5 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 1^ IIIP-2 
 
 2.2 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 It m "" 
 
 Hr 1^ 
 
 2.0 
 
 i& 
 
 
 •- .. 
 
 t^u.^i. 
 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 TTT 
 
 15 mm 
 
 ii 
 
 •I 
 
 MfiNUFfiCTURED TO fillM STPNGfiRDS 
 BY APPLIED IMPGE, INC. 
 
 
N 
 
 lO. ! <- 
 
 CatftoUr iSint^titin 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 ON 
 
 SECURITIES 
 
 BY 
 
 ENEAS MACDONNELL, ESQ., 
 
 AGINT OF THE CATHOLICS OF IRELAND. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JAMES RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY. 
 
 / 
 
 *5i^ 
 
 1829. 
 
ErjaPSJB^ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 •(KVKLL AND SBBARMAN, SALISBURT tQVARK. 
 
 The following Letters were, originally, published 
 before the announeement of His Majesty's gracious 
 dispositions towards his Catholic subjects. Their 
 republication, in the present form, is not intended 
 to intimate any distrust in the professions of the 
 Government, but is considered a reasonable pre- 
 caution, rendered adviseable on account of the ab- 
 sence of any declamtion of the intentions of His 
 Majesty's advisers, upon the subject of Securities. 
 
 The intense anxiety, notoriously felt and declared 
 by the Catholics of Ireland regarding this subject, 
 down to the latest moment, must constitute tlie justi- 
 fication of their Agent, w hen soliciting the attention 
 of Members of the Legislature to the facts and 
 observations embodied in these Letters. 
 
 Should such obnoxious measures have, unfor- 
 tunately, obtained any favour in the Cabinet, I am 
 not without hope, that a perusal of these Letters 
 may induce a reconsideration of propositions, tend- 
 ino", directlv, to neutralize the advantages of con- 
 cession. On the other hand, should it, hereafter, 
 appear, that I have assumed an uncalled for labour, 
 
 b2 
 
 ( 
 
 ^^fS^^^^-'TX^-^^^^W''"'^^' 
 
IV 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 no person will exult more sincerely or more grate- 
 fully in that result, or welcome, more cordially than 
 myself, the acceptable proof of the genuine liberality 
 and sound policy of the proposed measures of relief. 
 
 A small tract is annexed to these Letters, in the 
 expectation that it may be permitted to aid in the 
 removal of British prejudices, and the promotion of 
 British sympathies towards my country. 
 
 Eneas Macdonnell. 
 
 London, February 23d, 1829. 
 
 LETTERS, 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 As there appears to exist considerable misappre- 
 hension, in the public mind, respecting the objections en- 
 tertained, by the Catholicbody,tothe arrangements gene- 
 rally designated Securities, 1 should feel much obliged bv 
 vour permission to offer some observations upon the sub- 
 ject. In the first place, it is a great mistake to imagine, 
 that the Catiiolic hostility to those measures is influenced, 
 in the slightest degree, by a disposition to offend any 
 person or party whatsoever, or to raise a factious oppo- 
 sition to them. We oppose them, because we consider 
 them unnecessary, offensive, and mischievous. Upon these 
 grounds the Catholics of Ireland have resisted them, and 
 will continue to resist them. They feel that their reli- 
 gious and political interests are involved in this resis- 
 tance. They have declared this feeling, year after year, 
 for twenty years, and no reasonable man will insist, that 
 a spirit of mere faction could have governed so large a 
 body, for so long a period of time. 
 
 I am aware that some influential advisers have recom- 
 mended, that the Catholics should abstain from noticing 
 the subject, until distinct propositions are brought before 
 them ; but 1 cannot overlook the fact, that those advisers 
 generally accompany that recommendation with two ad- 
 missions : first, that they expect securities will be pro- 
 posed ; and, secondly, that they approve of their being 
 
 b2 
 

 accepted: thus, appearln^r disposed to practise an unfair 
 advantage over the great body of the Catholics, who are 
 opposed to such measures. 
 
 If we coidd be assured, that Government would consult 
 with us before anv proposition would be made to Parlia- 
 ment, it would hie reasonable to require from us obedi- 
 ence to such advice. But when no such promise is held 
 out ; surelv, our onl v rational course is to state the present 
 feelings of the Catholics upon the principle, generally, 
 and ifpon those measures which have been proposed 
 hitherto. Bv doing so, we inform Government of our 
 views; and if thev introduce measures hostile to them, 
 they, not we, will be the aggressors; whereas, if we wait 
 till' the precise measures be proposed, and then, for the 
 first time, announce our opinions adverse to them, then 
 the Catholics will be the aggressors, and not the Go- 
 vernment. Moreover, it would be obviously bad policy 
 to wait until the Government became pledged to Parlia- 
 ment (and we should bear in mind that it is to Parliament, 
 and not to us, the propositions will be made), and then, 
 to have the ffreat additional force of such a pledge op 
 
 posed to us. , , , 1 1 
 
 Common honestyreqniresthat we should always speak 
 
 candidly, and inform theGovernment, the Parliament, and 
 the people of our feelings, which may be done without 
 offence to a single member of the community, or preju- 
 dice to a single interest, Protestant or Catiiolic. I tliink 
 that the propositions hitherto made may be set down in 
 the following order: — 
 
 1st.— Jurisdiction or control of the Crown over the 
 appointmont of Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical Autho- 
 rities, in the Catholic Church. 
 
 •2d.— Control of the Crown over the intercourse be- 
 tween the Catholics and the Head of their Church m 
 
 3d.— State Provision for the ]Maintenance of the Ca- 
 tholic ClerffV. . „ ,^, .,,. _, 
 
 4,|,._l)isfranchisement of the Forty Shilling Free- 
 holders of Ireland. ■ , r j..„:„„ 
 
 The two first have been under consideration during 
 the last twenty years in Ireland, particularly the pro- 
 
 position of granting to the Crown an influence in the 
 Appointment of the Catholic Dignitaries. It is by far 
 tlie most material of all; and, as such, shal receive 
 mv first consideration. I trust, that if it should appear 
 that this measure is opposed bv the Spinti.al Heads 
 of the Catholic Body m Ireland, by their Clergy and 
 the entire communitv, no man will hesitate to doubt, 
 but anv attempt to enforce it by civil P?"'«''.«'""' ^be 
 direct; unmixed persecution. And if we find the Catho- 
 lic opinions in Ireland sustained not^only by Catholic 
 Authorities in England, b:it also by Protestants of dif- 
 ferent parties, friends and foes, of high rank and estima- 
 tion, it will not be too much, on my part, to insist, that their 
 opposition is entitled to the respect and deference of the 
 Parliament, and the Government 
 
 On the Uth Sept. 1808, the Irish Catholic Prelates 
 assembled in Synod, in consequence of the proposition 
 made to Parliament, of admitting the Crown to exercise 
 a Veto over the appointment of bishops, and they unani- 
 mously declared, •' that it is inexpedient to introduce any 
 alteration in the convenient mode, hitherto observed, m 
 the nomination of the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, 
 which long experience has proved to be unexceptionable, 
 
 wise, and salutary." .it.- ii • r 
 
 The letter of Lord Grenville to Lord Fingal!, in fa- 
 vour of arrangements (now, I believe, abandoned by the 
 noble writer), having been published on the 25th of Ja- 
 nuary, 1810, again brought the subject under the con- 
 sideration of the Catholic Body in both Islands, and the 
 Irish reiected it in unmeasured terms of condenrination. 
 
 The Prelates assembled in Dublin on the 24th I<ebru- 
 ary, and agreed upon several Resolutions, and an "Ad- 
 dress to tl^e Clergy and Laity of the Roman Catholic 
 Churches in Ireland." They " confirmed and declared 
 their unaltered adherence to the Resolutions unaniraous- 
 Iv entered into, at their last meeting, on the Uth Sep- 
 tember, 1808." Those faithful pastors observed :- 
 " it is most necessary to admonish our flocks, lest that 
 Providence which has carried onward that paternal faith, 
 throu<^h meritorious constancy, to the verge of freedom, 
 henceforth abandon us, in the last moment of tempta- 
 
8 
 
 tlon, in punishment of yleldini^ to unbelief and contra- 
 diction, now that we are relieved, by the mercy of law, 
 from positive sufferings." 
 
 On the 12th November, 1812, they published another 
 Pastoral Address, in which they declared, they would 
 prefer the surrender of their lives to the surrender of the 
 integrity of their religion, which they considered to be 
 soug-ht for bv the proposed measure. 
 
 On the 26th May, 1813, the Catholic Bishops of Ire- 
 land published, in their Pastoral Address to the Clergy 
 and Laity of the Roman Catholic Churches in Ireland, 
 the following Resolutions, in reference to the Relief Bill 
 of that year : — 
 
 " I. That, having seriously examined a copy of the 
 Bill lately brought into Parliament, purportinij to pro- 
 vide for the removal of the civil and military disqualifi- 
 cations under which his Majesty^s Roman Catholics la- 
 bour, we feel ourselves bound to declare, that certain 
 Ecclesiastical Clauses or Securities, therein contained, 
 are utterly incompatible with the discipline of the Ro- 
 man Catholic Church, and with the free exercise of our 
 religion. 
 
 ** 2. That we cannot, without incurring the heavy 
 guilt of schism, accede to such regulations; nor can we 
 dissemble our dismay and consternation at the conse- 
 quences which such regulations, if enforced, must ne- 
 cessarily produce." 
 
 Thev, at the same time, passed a Resolution, expres- 
 sive of their continued esteem, confidence, and gratitude 
 towards Dr. Milner; and the Catholics of Ireland, at an 
 Aggregate Meeting lield in Dublin, on the 15th June 
 following, resolved, " That the warm approbation and 
 gratitude of the Catholics of Ireland be conveyed to the 
 Right Reverend Dr. Milner, for his manly, upright, and 
 conscientious opposition to those Ecclesiastical regu- 
 lations." Similar Resolutions of hostility to the Bill of 
 1813, and of gratitude to Dr. Milner for resisting it, 
 were passed at all the Meetings held in Ireland, at that 
 period. 
 
 The late Dr. Poynter, Vicar Apostolic of the London 
 District, having made some commimication to Rome, 
 
 I 
 
 
 9 
 
 received a reply thereto, from Signor Quarantotti, dated 
 10th Februarv,'l8l4, recommending the acceptance of 
 the Bill of 1813. I am not aware that Dr. Poynter ever 
 published his own letter, but the answer from the Roman 
 Prelate was immediatelv promulgated, and copies trans- 
 mitted to the Irish Catholic Prelates. Upon the publi- 
 cation of this document, there was an universal outcry 
 ag-ainst it, throughout Ireland. Meetings were held by 
 the Clergy in the different Dioceses, and also by the 
 Laity, at which the measure was most loudly denounced. 
 The Prelates assembled in Maynooth, on the 2/th 
 May, and passed a Resolution, earnestly intreating Lord 
 Donouo-hmore and Mr. Grattan, " that when the question 
 of Catholic Emancipation shall be discussed in Parlia- 
 ment, thev will exert their powerful talents in excluding 
 from the Bill, intended for our relief, those clauses (in the 
 Bill of 1813) which we have already deprecated, as se- 
 verely penal to us, and highly injurious to our religion." 
 The Synod, at the same time, deputed two Prelates to 
 proceed, forthwith, to Rome, to convey their "unanimous 
 and well-known sentiments," on this subject, to the Chief 
 Pastor. The Irish Catholic Laity also forwarded a re- 
 monstrance to the Pope, against this Letter and injunc- 
 tion of Quarantotti. . 
 
 The communications from Rome not having been sa- 
 ti^factorv, the Prelates again assembled in Synod, on the 
 23d and' 24th August, 1815, the Most Reverend Doctor 
 Kellv, Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, President; and 
 unanimously adopted the following Resolutions :— 
 
 " Resolved— That it is our decided and conscientious 
 conviction, that anv power granted to the Crown of Great 
 Britain,ofinterfering,directlyorindirectly,intheappoint- 
 
 ment of Bishops, for the Roman Catholic Church mjre- 
 land, must essentially injure, and may eventually subvert 
 the Roman Catholic'religion in this country. 
 
 " Resolved— That, with this conviction deeply and un- 
 alterably impressed on our minds, we should consider 
 ourselves asbetraving the dearest interests of that portion 
 of the Church which the Holy Ghost has confided to our 
 care, did we not declare, most unequivocally, that we 
 will, at all times, and under all circumstances, deprecate 
 
 li 
 
10 
 
 and oppose, in every canonical and constitutional war, 
 any such interference/' 
 
 These Resolutions were adopted and promulgated by 
 twentv-ei<^ht Prelates, with their signatures affixed there- 
 unto/ Nor did thev rest there ; for thev added two other 
 Resolutions, well worthy of being* deliberately consider- 
 ed by those politicians of our times, who imagine, that 
 they can settle the question by concordats or arrange- 
 ments surreptitiously obtained, without the privity of the 
 Irish Prelates. The additional Resolutions were the fol- 
 lowing : — 
 
 " Resolved — That though we sincerely venerate the 
 Supreme Pontiff, as visible Head of the Church, we do 
 not conceive that our apprehensions, for the safety of the 
 Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, can or ought to be 
 removed by anv determination of his Holiness, adopted, 
 or intended to be adopted, not only without our concur- 
 rence, but in direct opposition to our repeated Resolu- 
 tions, and the very energetic Memorial presented on 
 our behalf, and so ably supported by our Deputy, the 
 Most Rev. Dr. Murray; who, in that quality, was more 
 competent to inform his Holiness of the real state and 
 interests of the Roman Catholic Church, in Ireland, than 
 any other with whom he is said to have consulted. 
 
 '* Resolved — That a declaration of these our senti- 
 ments, respectful, firm, and decided, be transmitted to the 
 Holy See, which, we trust, will engage his Holiness to 
 feeland acknowledge the justness and propriety of this 
 our determination." 
 
 These Resolutions were almost immediately communi- 
 cated by the Prelates to the Catholic Board then sitting, 
 and the people at large, and received throughout Ireland 
 with most enthusiastic delight, which was declared from 
 meetings of the Clergy and Laity, convened in every 
 quarter of the island. 
 
 At the same time that the Prelates promulgated those 
 solemn Resolutions, they also presented an Address to 
 the Prince Regent, in which they say — " We cannot but 
 be surprised and alarmed that, under the pretence of 
 securing the loyalty of our body, an intention has been 
 manifested of compelling us, in direct opposition to the 
 
 I 
 
 11 
 
 dictates of our consciences, to submit, in the event of 
 Catholic Emancipation, to the interference, of persons of 
 a different religious persuasion, in the appomtment of the 
 principal Ministers of our Church. Such a vieasiire, may 
 it please your Royal Highness, tvould only substitute for 
 one mode of servitvde another still more (falling and 
 oppressive. The political freedom of Irish Roman Ca- 
 tholics might be enlarged; but their religious freedom, 
 which they hold incomparably more dear, would be ma- 
 terially diminished. Under such a restriction, the most 
 extensive concession of temporal advantages would he foU 
 loived hif continual heart-burnings and discontent.'' 
 
 After the second Deputation had returned from Rome, 
 the Prelates again assembled, in Kilkenny, on the 26th 
 April, 1816, and resolved to petition both Houses of 
 Parliament, " most earnestly praying them to resist any 
 application which may be made to the Legislature to 
 errant to the Crown, or the servants of the Crown of 
 breat Britain, any leofal power of interference m the ap- 
 pointment of Roman Catholic Bishops, in Ireland." They, 
 at the same time, declared that the proposed arrange- 
 ment is full of danger to the Church of which they are 
 
 Pastors " 
 
 As the Resolutions passed by the Second Order of the 
 Clero-v and the Laity, in support of the Prelates, and 
 in hostility to those miscalled securities, would occupy a 
 laro-e space, and their general spirit cannot be unknown 
 to any Member of tbe Legislature, 1 deem it unneces- 
 sary to insert them, or observe any more respecting theni, 
 further than to aver their enthusiastic coincidence with 
 the sentiments embodied in the above Resolutions. 
 
 It is further to be noted, that the Prelates evinced their 
 abhorrence of those measures, upon every occasion that 
 furnished them, individually, with an opportunity of 
 makino- known their feelings. One or two instances will 
 suffice? Dr. Moylan, late Catholic Bishop of Cork, uni- 
 versally esteemed for great virtue and personal worth, 
 addressed a letter (in reply) to Sir John Cox Hippisley, 
 dated 8th Mav, 1811, in which he observed:— 
 
 " You consider the proceedings in Dublin (I presume 
 you mean the Resolutions entered into by the Roman 
 
12 
 
 Catholic Prelates last year) as calculated to do much 
 mischief to the interests of our Body. They may, indeed, 
 injure us in the opinion of those, who, like Lord Redes- 
 dale, wish to destroy the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland, 
 and in the opinion of those who wish to render our 
 bishops mere tools and slaves to the caprice of every man 
 in power, and of every Orange Magistrate in the kingdom; 
 but to such as have no views hostile to our religious 
 Establishment, and to those who have the peace and 
 tranquillitv of our country at heart, the conduct of the 
 Prelates, at that Meeting, should appear most expedient. 
 
 " Should they (the Prelates), for any worldly conside- 
 ration whatsoever, be so forgetful of their charge, and 
 so insensible to the support of their religion as to consent, 
 even if thev had the power — which they have not, without 
 the consent of the Holy See — to grant any interference 
 whatsoever, to the Minister of the day, in the appointment 
 of Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, tliere can be no doubt 
 but Bishops, thus appointed, would lose all influence over 
 the Catholic people of this kingdom ; for their flocks 
 would no lonofer consider them the shepherds, appointed 
 by the Catholic Church, to lead them into the ways of 
 eternal salvation; but mercenary hirelings, unworthy of 
 their respect or confidence, 
 
 " It is reported, but I can give no credit to the report, 
 that the alterations, intended to be made in our Church 
 discipline and Government, are to be enforced against 
 us by Acts of Parliament. If so, we must only prepare 
 for a new persecution on account of our religion ; and I 
 trust that, in such an event, our Prelates will prove 
 themselves worthy of their dignified state, by cheerfully 
 suffering everv sort of persecution, as their predecessors 
 have done, rather than consent to any encroachment on 
 the spiritual independence of their Hlerarchy--an inde- 
 pendence so necessary to the respect and existence of 
 their religion." 
 
 In another letter, written by the same most venerable 
 Prelate to one of his brethren, attending in Rome as one 
 of the Deputies from the Irish Episcopal Body, dated 
 "Dec. 4, 1814, he uses the following solemn and emphatic 
 expressions: — 
 
 13 
 
 " I am the oldest of the Catholic Prelates in this king- 
 dom, and expect soon to appear before the awful Tri- 
 bunal of the Almighty Judge— in whose sacred presence 
 I solemnly declare, that any compromise made, or con- 
 trol whatsoever given, to our Protestant Government 
 or Ministers, in the appointment or nomination of the 
 Catholic Bishops or Clergy of this kingdom, or any m- 
 terference whatsoever, or influence over them, in the 
 exercise of their spiritual functions, will eventually lead 
 to the subversion of our venerable Hierarchy, and, in 
 consequence, to the ruin of the Catholic religion, in this 
 long-suffering and oppressed Catholic country." 
 
 In the same spirit of virtuous zeal and anxiety, the pre- 
 sent Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Murray, a Pre- 
 late whose great abilities and acquirements are excelled 
 only by his Christian amenity and benevolence, availed 
 himself of the most solemn occasion, to raise from the pul- 
 pit his warning voice to some mistaken Catholics, who had, 
 inconsiderately, yielded to delusions too artfully prac- 
 tised upon them. When preaching a sermon upon Good 
 Friday, in the year 1816, and having arrived at that part 
 of our Divine Redeemer's passion where he is repre- 
 sented as bound to a pillar, the Most Reverend Preacher 
 said—" To this bound and suffering victim I would now 
 implore the attention of those misguided Catholics, who 
 seem willing to impose new and disgraceful bonds, not, 
 indeed, on his sacred person, but on his mystical body-^ 
 that is, his Church, which was ever more dear to him than 
 
 even his life I know that our mistaken 
 
 brethren would not consent to yield up any point which 
 they deem essential, and that they look not beyond what 
 they consider safe and honourable conciliation. But, 
 unliappilv, it is now too well known that the conciliation, 
 which is expected, is such as would imply the degrada- 
 tion and enslavement of the sacred Ministry. And what 
 virtuous Catholic would consent to purchase the chance of 
 temporal advantages, at the price of such a real spiritual 
 calamity ? Oh, if the stroke must come, let it come from 
 those who have so long sought the extinction of our reli- 
 gion—but, in the name of God, let no Catholic press for- 
 ward to share in the inglorious work— let no one among^ 
 
 c 
 
14 
 
 us be found to say of his Church, as the treacherous dis- 
 ciple said of its bivine Founder, 'What will you give 
 me, and 1 will deliver (it) unto you?'" 
 
 Thus we find this proposition, of ^rantin^ to the British 
 Crown, or rather to the friends of the Minister, a con- 
 trol over the appointment of the Irish Catholic Prelates, 
 repeatedly discussed, and as often deprecated by that 
 body, in unison with their Clergy, and the Catholic People 
 of Ireland. This opposition cannot be fairly set down as 
 hasty and captious. For more than twenty years has the 
 subject engaged their continued attention, and their hos- 
 tility to the proposition is unaltered and unalterable. If 
 my opinions upon this point be doubted, let the Catholic 
 Prelates of Ireland be a^ain appealed to by the Govern- 
 ment, and their flocks will cheerfully abide the result, with 
 undiminished confidence in their integrity. I am as cer- 
 tain of their adherence to their former Resolutions, as I am 
 
 of my existence. Would not it then be most idle and unjust 
 to make such an inadmissible scheme the basis or asso- 
 ciate of any measure of emancipation? It will, assuredly, 
 be met and treated as a fresh persecution ; and if there 
 be any person who seeks to persuade the Government 
 that it will be quietly acceded to, after a little time, that 
 man practises most unworthy deceit, or is himself much 
 deceived. Neither let it be imagined that the Irish Catho- 
 lics are, or were, the only opponents to the proposition. 
 It is well known that the late Dr. Milner, an illustrious 
 English Prelate, was a most zealous opponent to it ; others 
 of liis order were equally hostile, and it may be truly as- 
 serted, that the great body of the British Catholic Clergy 
 and people concurred with their Irish fellow-suft'erers. 
 
 The Right Rev. Dr. Collingridge, Vicar Apostolic of 
 the western district, in his pastoral Address to the Clergy 
 and Laity of his district, dated April 13, 1817, objects to 
 the Legislature " being influenced by precedents drawn 
 from countries that are strangers to the liberties of the 
 British Constitution;'' and declares, that he " could not 
 refrain from manifesting his deep regret, that clauses had 
 been introduced into the draft of the Bill, that was pre- 
 pared for our emancipation in 1813, to which it was impos- 
 sible we ever could give our approbation or consent.*' 
 
 i 
 
 15 
 
 The venerable Prelate thus proceeds: "As official guar- 
 dian of the interests of the Catholic Church in the western 
 district, we have felt ourselves called upon by strict duty 
 thus to reiterate to you our former instructions; and, 
 moreover, in the present circumstances, to seriously warn 
 vou against the opinion, that you may conscientiously 
 assent to regulations respecting the concerns of your reli- 
 gion, on the mere ground that similar regulations have 
 occasionally been made and enforced in foreign States. 
 At no time, my beloved brethren and children in Jesus 
 Christ, have we felt ourselves called upon to attend to our 
 high charge, of guarding inviolate the sacred deposit of 
 reTigion, with more vigilance and fidelity than at present; 
 whel-efore, we again most earnestly exhort, and strictly 
 charge all those among you who may have influence, to 
 employ the same by every legal and peaceable means, to 
 prevent the insertion of clauses, in any eventual Bill for 
 Catholic Emancipation, that may be any ways repugnant 
 to the present discipline of the Church, and most parti- 
 cularly such as may tend to give, in any degree, the power 
 of nomination of Catholic Bishops to a Prince who is by 
 law the head of a different religious establishment, or to 
 impede that free intercourse on all ecclesiastical matters 
 which must subsist between the chief Bishop and the 
 Members of the Catholic Church ; for we cannot but view 
 and deprecate such clauses as pregnant with consequences 
 that may prove highly injurious to our holy religion." 
 
 Neither let this united' British and Irish Catholic oppo- 
 sition to the measure be condemned or scoffed at, as a 
 mere Sectarian or Popish insubordination. No Catholics 
 have been more decided in their resistance to it than 
 some Protestants, and those, too, men of high station in 
 the political world, governed by their regard to the 
 peace and prosperity of the State, generally, not of any 
 particular sect alone. 
 
 The following extracts from a letter of the late Right 
 Hon. Edmund Burke, written, 1 believe, in 1782, and 
 addressed to Lord Kenmare, deserve most respectful 
 consideration. They prove the proposition to be long 
 agitated, and also that his views of it were equally deli- 
 berate and decided. 
 
 c 2 
 
16 
 
 The Rio-ht Honourable Gentleman observes, " Before 
 1 had written thus far, 1 heard of a scheme of giving to 
 the Castle the patronage of the presiding members of 
 the Catholic Clergy. At first I could scarcely credit it ; 
 for I believe it is the first time that the presentation of 
 other people's alms has been desired in any country. . . 
 Never tcere the members of one religious sect Jit to ap~ 
 point the pastors to another. Those who have no regard 
 for their welfare, reputation, or internal quiet, will not 
 appoint such as are proper. . . . Allowing the present 
 Castle finds itself fit to administer the government of a 
 Church which they solemnly forswear, and forswear with 
 verv hard words and many evil epithets, and that as often 
 as they qualify themselves for the power which is to give 
 this very patronage, or to give any thin^ else which they 
 desire; yet they cannot insure themselves that a man 
 like the late Lord Chesterfield will not succeed to them. 
 This man, while he was duping the credulity of Papists 
 with fine words in private, and commending their good 
 behaviour during a rebellion in Great Britain, as it well 
 deserved to be commended and rewarded, was capable 
 of uro-ino- penal laws against them in a speech from the 
 Throne, and stimulating with provocatives the wearied 
 and half-exhausted bigotry of the then Parliament ot 
 Ireland. . . . Suppose an Atheist, playing the part ot a 
 biffot, should be in power again in that country, do you 
 believe that he would faithfully and religiously admi- 
 nister the trust of appointing pastors to a church, which, 
 wantino- every other support, stands in tenfold need ot 
 ministel-s who will be dear to the people committed to 
 their charge, and who will exercise a really paternal 
 authority amongst them? But, if the superior power 
 was alwavs in a disposition to dispense conscientiously, 
 and like an upright trustee and guardian of these rights, 
 which he holds for those with whom he is at variance, 
 has he the capacity and means of doing it? How can the 
 Lord Lieutenant form the least judgment of their merits, 
 so as to discover which of popish priests is fit to be 
 made a bishop ? It cannot be— the idea is ridiculous ! 
 He will hand them over to Lords Lieutenants of Coun- 
 ties Justices of the Peace, and other persons, who, for 
 
 V 
 
 m 
 
 
 17 
 
 the purpose of vexing, and turning to derision this mise* 
 rable people, will pick out the worst and most obnoxious 
 they can find amongst the clergy, to set over the rest. 
 Whoever is complainant against his brother will be con- 
 sidered as persecuted ; whoever is censured by his su- 
 perior will be looked upon as oppressed; whoever is 
 careless in his opinions and loose in his morals, will be 
 called a liberal man, and will be supposed to have 
 incurred hatred, because he was not a bigot. Informers, 
 tale-bearers, perverse and obstinate men, flatterers, who 
 turn their back upon their flock, and court the Pro- 
 testant gentlemen of the county, will be the objects of 
 preferment ; and then I run no risk in foretelling, that 
 whatever order, quiet, and morality you have in the coun-^ 
 try will be lost. A Popish Clergy, who are not re- 
 strained by the most austere subordination, will become 
 a nuisance, a real public grievance, of the heaviest kind, 
 in any country that entertains them ; and instead of the 
 great benefit which Ireland does, and has long derived 
 from them, if they are educated without any idea of dis" 
 cipline and obedience, and then put under Bishops who 
 do not owe their station to their good opinion, and whom 
 they cannot respect, that nation will see disorders, of 
 which, bad as things are, it has not yet an idea, I do 
 not say this, as thinking the leading men in Ireland 
 would exercise this trust worse than others; not at all — 
 no man, no set of men living, are fit to administer the 
 affairs, or regulate the interior economy of a church to 
 which they are enemies. 
 
 " As to Government, if I might recommend a prudent 
 caution to them, it would be, to innovate as little as 
 possible upon speculation, in establishments, from which, 
 as they stand, they experience no material inconvenience 
 to the repose of the country — quieta non movere.*^ 
 
 No person worthy of political station can refuse to 
 o-ive to these opinions of Mr. Burke the most respectful 
 attention, or to deny to them an influence almost govern- 
 ing. They manifestly speak the language of common 
 sense. 
 
 In more recent times, other eminent Protestants have 
 
 c3 
 
18 
 
 expressed similar opinions. I shall confine myself, for 
 the present, to the following extracts from the late Lord 
 Donoutrhmore's Letter to the Irish Catholics, dated 
 March t2th, 1817:—" No consideration," says his Lord- 
 ship, "shall ever induce me to purchase for you the 
 civil privileges, by the concession of a veto to the Minis- 
 ters of the Crown. . . .To the veto I have an unconquer- 
 able repugnance, as entirely uncalled for, and, therefore 
 an unjustifiable innovation ; and, because I am sure that 
 it would work ill, and introduce Court intrigue into the 
 sanctuary of that Church from which it has been as yet 
 excluded. I would resist it also on another account ; 
 because I am fully persuaded that, by making them on 
 whom it would be'inflicted, less pure and uninfluenced 
 in the selection of their own moral and religious instruc- 
 tors, it would not be calculated, on that account, to im- 
 prove them much in the relations in which they stand, as 
 subjects to the Protestant State. . . . They (the Prelates) 
 will not make a less favourable estimate, as I hope and 
 trust, of the zeal of their advocate, because he will not 
 condescend to entertain any unseemly compromise what- 
 ever on their behalf, nor"' submit the most important 
 situations of the Roman Catholic Church to the licenser 
 of the Court, whoever he may happen to be, in this Pro- 
 vincial Government." 
 
 Neither was this veto security approved by the most 
 influential opponents of the Catholics. Mr. Peel, if J 
 mistake not, has more than once declared in Parliament 
 that he sets no value on it ; and Lord Liverpool was still 
 more distinct, in his disapprobation of that course of 
 policy which would connect obnoxious conditions with 
 any measures of grace or favour, that Parliament might 
 be pleased to extend to the Catholics. In his speech 
 on the I7th of May, 1^19, his Lordship declared that 
 « he always thought the Catholics right in objecting to 
 the veto, while he felt that the enactment of such a 
 measure would afford no security whatever to the Pro- 
 
 tpstants 
 
 I apprehend that the most zealous of our opponents 
 must admit, that I have made out a good cause of justifi- 
 
 I 
 
 19 
 
 cation for the resistance manifested by the Irish Catholics 
 to this proposition ; and that I have shewn that their 
 resistance cannot be fairly set down as factious or que- 
 rulous. I shall resume the subject in another letter. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Eneas Macdoxnell. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE. 
 
 Sir, ^ ^ 
 
 The objection entertained by the Catholics of the 
 
 United Kingdom to the admission of any right in the 
 Ministers of the Crown to direct or control the appoint- 
 ment of their Prelates are two-fold — religious and poli- 
 tical. They feel that, as Catholics, such an authority 
 could not be endured by them, or conceded to men whose 
 policy is irreconcileable with a due regard to the essen- 
 tial qualifications for such sacred ofllices ; and, as citizens 
 —and, above all, as Irish citizens— they are opposed to 
 measures which would extend the influence of aristocratic 
 power, of the worst order, over the only class of society 
 in their country that has hitherto escaped from such 
 contamination. There is no impartial man that will \ \ 
 not admit that the people of Ireland have been much I * 
 more afflicted by the internal Church Establishment of I 
 Protestantism, than by the external Church connexion of I 
 Catholicism. Yet, under the pretence— for it is no more ' 
 than pretence — of securino^ the State against evils that 
 may, we are told, possibly arise from the latter, the 
 minds of honest men are diverted, by specious theories, 
 from contemplating the existing practical injuries in- 
 flicted upon that people. 
 
 This is a common practice with the managers of Anglo- 
 Irish policy. They endeavour, and generally with too 
 much success, to place the injured party in the position 
 of defence, and to subject the actual sufferers to all the 
 taunts and reproaches of an odious inquisition, as if they 
 
20 
 
 were the votaries, and not the victims, of the system which 
 generates the admittedly indefensible state of society in 
 Ireland. This position will be found to be most abun- 
 dantly, and not less unhappily illustrated, in the exami- 
 nations instituted by Parliamentary Committees into the 
 state of Ireland, in which every Catholic witness, without, 
 I believe, one solitary exception, is made a defendant 
 against false representations, instead of a complainant 
 against odious and extensive injustice and oppression. 
 
 In the same spirit the outcry is raised, at the present 
 day, atrainst the connexion between the Catholic sub- 
 jects of'^our Kin^ and the head of their Church, merely 
 because he resides out of this realm ; and to provide 
 against this circumstance, we are taunted with a demand 
 of two of those securities — namely, the right of interfe- 
 rence in our ecclesiastical appointments, and the right of 
 inspecting all communications between the See of Rome 
 and the Irish portion of the Catholic Church. As to the 
 latter, it is quite absurd to expect that such an inquisi- 
 tion will be tolerated; and it is not to be forgotten, 
 that the See of Rome has already declared, by the letter 
 of Cardinal Letta, dated Genoa, 26th April, 1815, that 
 such a proposition " cannot become the subject even of 
 a discussion." 
 
 This proposition becomes the less tolerable, when it is 
 known, as stated in that letter, that one of the primary 
 instructions from the Sovereign Pontiff to the Prelates, 
 is, that in their communications with the Holy See they 
 never shall advert to any thing that may regard the 
 political state of the country. One must suppose, pur- 
 suant to this doctrine, that if Christ had postponed his 
 sacred mission to the present day, no British subject 
 could be permitted to become a Christian, because, for- 
 sooth, Judaea is not situated in England ! 
 
 The manner in which this subject is treated by our 
 opponents, is generallv most indecent and discreditable ; 
 the profession of alarm is, I verily believe, in ninety-nine 
 cases out of a hundred, sheer affectation. The outcrv 
 against foreign connexion is downright hypocrisy with 
 many of them. They raise no complaint against foreign 
 connexion in any other instance, although they might, 
 
 \' 
 
 21 
 
 with at least equal semblance of propriety, object to 
 foreign intercourse of every kind, as to the spiritual in- 
 tercourse with Rome. As well may thev object to our 
 commercial dealings with the subjects of Foreign States, 
 to travellino- in foreign countries, to loans to foreign 
 Governments, to foreign alliances, to holding possessions 
 in foreign countries, as the Duke of Wellington holds m 
 Spain and Portugal ; or to the acceptance of foreign 
 civil or military orders, or other honourable distinc- 
 tions. . 
 
 These sensitive guardians of our internal security may, 
 with far more appearance of sincerity, object to the 
 divided Government of a British King, between the 
 United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Hanover, than to 
 what they are pleased, most incorrectly, to desio:nate 
 the divided allegiance of that King's Catholic subjects 
 between his Majesty and the Sovereign Pontiff. How 
 must their patriotic sensibilities be shocked to find their 
 Sovereign a Knight of no less than fourteen foreign 
 
 orders! viz. — • 
 
 The Elephant, of Denmark. 
 
 Black Eagle, of Prussia. 
 
 William, of the Netherlands. , . ^ „ . 
 
 St. Andrew, St. Anaa, St. Alexander Newski, of Russia. 
 
 Golden Fleece, of Austria. 
 
 Charles HI., of Spain. 
 
 St. Ferdinand and Merit, of Sicily. ^ ^ j 
 
 Christ, St. Bento d'Avis, St. Jago, Tower and Sword, 
 of Portugal. 
 
 St. Esprit, of France. . , t> . . . u-i 
 
 Of these orders, two only. are strictly Protestant, while 
 not less than eight are strictly Popish ! ! And to add to 
 the awful and alarming circumstances of this multiplied 
 foreio-n and Popish connexion, they must shudder at the 
 contemplation of the appalling fact, that the 14th Statute 
 of the last named order (St. Esprit) marks the character 
 and duties of the Knight in the following words :--«Nul 
 ne pourra estre fait Commandeur, et recevoir I habit 
 dudit Ordre, si notoirement il ne fait profession de ladite 
 Religion Catholique, Apostolique et Romaine, et n'ait 
 proteste vouloir vivire et mourir en icelle ! ! !" 
 
# 
 
 22 
 
 What will be said of this intimation by the high and 
 mighty Lords of Kenyon, Newcastle, Winchilsea, Bexley, 
 Chandos, Exmouth, and Colchester, who have been gra- 
 ciously pleased to take the Kin^, the Church, the Constitu- 
 tion, the people and the State into their holy keeping? ! ! 
 
 These " Seven Champions of Christendom'* now lead 
 the cry against Pope and Popery, and affect to dread an 
 intercourse with the Sovereign Pontiff, as full of danger 
 to this empire, at the same time that they join in all the 
 rude and vulgar reproaches uttered against the visible 
 head of the Catholic Church. — Yet, if they had an object 
 to obtain, they would not be restrained by such fears 
 from courting the same power, in the most servile terms. 
 It is notorious that the Lord of Colchester was one of the 
 most humble adulators, while in Rome ; and the Lord of 
 Exmouth, notwithstanding the attachment he now pro- 
 fesses towards the Brunswickers of Exeter, and to their 
 No-Popery doctrines, by his letter of the 14th of last No- 
 vember, was, " once upon a time," not indifferent to the 
 value of Popish friendship, or even to the efficacy of a 
 Pope's prayers. Really, these Brunswickers, like certain 
 other folk, should have good memories. Who could 
 imagine that the Lord of Exmouth, a hater of Pope and 
 Popery, could ever have been the author of the following 
 letter to the Pope ! ! Gentle reader, hear the Lord of 
 Exmouth : — 
 
 Letter of Lord Exmouth to Pope Pius VII,, dated ^l" 
 giers, the Slst oj'.^ugust (lbl6), on board the Queen 
 Charlotte : — 
 
 " Most Holy Father — 1 have the honour of inform- 
 ing your Holiness, for your satisfaction, of the success 
 of the expedition against Algiers, confided to my com- 
 mand. Christian Slaverif is abolished for ever; I have, 
 in consequence, the satisfaction of sending back to their 
 families 173 slaves, your subjects. I hope they will be 
 an agreeable present to your Holiness, and that they 
 will give me a claim lo the efficacy of your prayers, 
 
 " Exmouth." 
 
 Can any thing prove more clearly the utter inconsis- 
 tency of this party than such a document? Here we be- 
 hold a man denouncing seven or eight millions of his fellow 
 
 23 
 
 subjects as unworthy of being admitted to the full enjoy- 
 ment of civil rights, because they are in spiritual com- 
 munion with one to whose prayers he, himself, endea- 
 vours to establish a claim! ! And the same man who 
 exultingly boasted that " Christian slavery is abolished 
 for ever,'' (and that, too, by himself,) connects himself 
 with a party, who insist that Christian slavery is essential 
 to the maintenance of the constitution ; thai seven mil- 
 lions of the king's subjects are slaves, and should be 
 continued in bondage ; that the Church requires it, and 
 the law commands it ! ! ! He may allege that Ireland 
 is not enslaved; but there is higher authority than a 
 Brunswicker on the other side of that question. The 
 late Right Honourable Edmund Burke, in his letter to 
 Dr. Hussey (in the year 1797), distinctly designates Ire- 
 land as an " enslaved country." 
 
 It is not surprising that Lord Colchester should manifest 
 an Anti-Irish spirit. His Lordship has the peculiar merit 
 of having been the only Chief Secretary for Ireland who 
 had a mind to devise, and a tongue to propose, a measure 
 of Irish Government too strong for the adoption even of a 
 British Parliament. His Lordship will readily recognize 
 in this position a reference to his proceeding in Parliament, 
 on the 10th of June, 1801, when his superiors in the Go- 
 vernment disclaimed any connexion with his scheme of 
 martial law, while the late Mr. Ponsonby denounced it 
 as " a monstrous and abominable proposition, unprece- 
 dented not only in the worst times of Ireland, but in the 
 worst times of England ; in the days of the most Gothic 
 barbarism, in times of the most infuriated bigotry and 
 political rancour that ever disgraced the annals of thii 
 realm ;" and Mr. (now Earl) Grey added, that " from 
 the principles he (Lord Colchester) manifested, no tran- 
 quillity was to be expected in any country committed to 
 his direction."— (Plowden, p. 99—100.) 
 
 That such a man should be a Brunswicker is not strange. 
 Nay, it is meet and just that he should hold high station 
 amongst the enemies of Irishmen; but, surely, it will b© 
 conceded, on all hands, that he is inadmissible as a judge 
 or a witness, when the interests and character of Catholic 
 Ireland are put upon trial. 
 
24 
 
 I have wandered somewhat from my intended course of 
 observations, but the digression will be excused by those 
 who set any value upon character, in estimating the pre- 
 tensions of the men who assume to be specially qualified 
 for the direction of the public mind. 
 
 Those who are really anxious to deal fairly with the 
 principles and conduct of their Catholic countrymen, 
 will not submit to the blind guidance of the " Seven 
 Champions," collectively or individually, but r.ither 
 ground their judgment upon their own observations; 
 and if they find that the spiritual communion subsisting 
 between Catholics and the See of Rome does not produce 
 any results injurious to the State, they will decline being 
 connected with the violent men who would put the fame 
 and interests of this United Empire at hazard, rather than 
 do an act of justice, or denvto their own factious bigotry 
 a gross and barbarous indulgence. 
 
 As 1 may, in another letter, return to this subject of 
 Ecclesiastical Securities, 1 shall not detain you longer at 
 present, than to point vour attention to the oaths taken by 
 Catholics, in which they, in the most solemn terms, dis- 
 avow the odious doctrines and practices imputed to them ; 
 and it is worthv of observation, that upon this ])oint of 
 the civil power or influence of the Pope in these Kealms, 
 the Catholics of Ireland have, in our own times, furnished 
 a practical proof of their opinions and principles, more 
 deserving of the consideration of any honest and impar- 
 tial Legislator than all the assertions of all their enemies 
 
 put together. 
 
 I allude to the Address and Remonstrance forwarded 
 to the late Pope by the Catholics of Ireland, and dated 
 80 late as September 16, 1815, in which they assert their 
 feelings in the following explicit terms, in reference to 
 the published communication from Rome, on the same 
 subject of securities:—** We feel that we should be 
 wanting in the practice of that candour, which it is our 
 pride to profess, were we not further to inform your Ho- 
 liness, that we have ever considered our claims for po- 
 litical emancipation to be founded upon principles of 
 civil policy. We seek to obtain from our Government 
 nothing more than the restoration of temporal rights; and 
 
 25 
 
 must, most humbly, but most firmly, protest against the 
 interference of your Holiness, or any other foreign Pre- 
 late, State, or Potentate in the control of our temporal 
 conduct, or in the arrangement of our political concerns. 
 
 "We, therefore, deem it unnecessary, most Holy Father, 
 to state to your Holiness the manifold objections of a 
 political nature which we feel towards the proposed mea- 
 sure. We have confined ourselves in this Memorial to 
 the recapitulation of objections founded upon spiritual 
 considerations ; because, as on the one hand, we refuse 
 to submit our religious concerns to the control of our 
 Temporal Chief, so, on the other hand, we cannot admit 
 any right on the part of the Holy See to investigate our 
 political principles, or to direct our political conduct ; it 
 being our earnest desire and fixed determination to con- 
 form, at all times, and under all circumstances, to the 
 injunctions of that sacred ordinance which teaches us to 
 distinguish between spiritual and temporal authority, 
 " giving unto Caesar those things which belong to Caesar, 
 and unto God those things which belong to God." 
 
 This address and remonstrance to the Pope was framed 
 and proposed by myself, as was well known to the Catho- 
 lics of Ireland, at the time when they did me the honour 
 of selecting me as their Agent. The opinions 1 then 
 expressed in this document I still retain, and I hold them 
 in common with every Catholic in Ireland. They are 
 embodied in the doctrines delivered by the Catholic 
 priests of Ireland to their flocks, as may be fairly deduced 
 from the following extract from the " Summary of Catho- 
 iic Principles," contained in the Catholic prayer-book 
 compiled bv the Right Rev. Dr. Coppinger, the present 
 most venerable Catholic Bishop of Cloyne, in which he 
 instructs his flock in the following word's :— 
 
 "Nor do Catholics, asCatholics, believe that the Pope 
 has any direct or indirect authority over the temporal 
 power and jurisdiction of princes. Hence, if the Pope 
 Jihould pretend to absolve or dispense with his Majesty^ 
 subjects from their allegiance, on account of heresy&r 
 schism, such dispensation would be vain and null, and all 
 Catholic subjects, notwithstanding such dispensation or 
 absolution, would be still bound, in conscience, to defend 
 
'26 
 
 their king and countrif, at the hazard of their lives and 
 Jortunes, (as far as Protestants would be bound) even 
 against the Pope himself', should he invade the nation.** 
 Thus, do the Catholics of Ireland manifest the sincerity 
 of the oaths bv which they are bound to an undivided civil 
 allegiance to their Sovereign ; at the same time that ther 
 give proof of their determination never, under any cir- 
 cumstances, or for any political advantages, to sanction 
 or submit to any measure of arrangement or condition 
 that may endanger or embarrass their spiritual com- 
 munion with the chief pastor of their Church ; and 
 by this honest and candid deportment, they prove the 
 total absence of any necessity for those securities whicli 
 their enemies demand from them. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Eneas Macdqnnell. 
 
 LETTER III, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE. 
 
 Sir, 
 The third of the proposed Securities is a provision for 
 the support of the Catholic Prelates and Clergy, out of 
 the public revenue. Our opposition to this measure is 
 manifold, direct, and unalterable. We are unwilling to 
 have our Clergy become the stipendiaries of the Crown, 
 or burthens upon the people of Great Britain. We have 
 no wish that they should be placed in connexion or con- 
 tact with State Authorities; and this caution is bv no 
 means mitigated by the reflection, that the proposition 
 originated with the most acrimonious of our political and 
 religious opponents. For, though we hold their opinions 
 and principles in very humble estimation, yet we have so 
 much respect for their foresight as to feel assured, that 
 they would not suggest any such measure, without having 
 
 previously ascertained it to be injurious to our interests. 
 
 Upon this subject, as upon every other Irish subject, the 
 
 27 
 
 great excellence and object of English instruction ap- 
 pears to have been to teach the people to be ignorant. 1 
 shall endeavour to pursue an opposite course; and, for 
 that purpose, request your consideration of the state of 
 the Catholic portion of the population in the United 
 Kingdom. In a small pamphlet, to be had in the British 
 Museum, intitled "A Letter from Duke Schomburgh's 
 Camp, giving an Account of the Condition of the English 
 and Irish Army, and a True Account of all the Papists in 
 Ireland, their Number and Estates in Ireland, &c. ; from 
 the Camp at Dundalk, November 4, 1689;" published in 
 London in the same year — the writer states, that *'the 
 whole of them (Papists'), men, women, and children, are 
 but one million ; of which 40 or 50,000 in arms. There 
 are four Titular Archbishops, 23 Bishops, and 2,328 Parish 
 
 Priests." 
 
 At present, notwithstanding all the labours of Church 
 and Parliament to prevent the growth of Popery, the 
 Irish Papists exceed six times that amount; and, if the 
 number of their Clergy were to be upheld in the same 
 proportion as in that age of persecution, they should, of 
 course, amount to 13,968 ; or, stating them in round num- 
 bers, to about 14,000. But estimating the necessary 
 number at even a third oi the proportion that existed, ac- 
 cording to this writer, in 1689, there would be still 4,656, 
 exclusive of Bishops and other dignitaries, to be sup- 
 ported by the State, should this proposition be adopted by 
 Parliament. 
 
 Passing from Ireland to England, we find the number 
 of Papists in the latter country, at the same period, set 
 forth in the official Report found in the iron chest of King^ 
 William 111., and published by Sir John Dalrymple in his 
 Memoirs, 
 The numbers are thus stated : — 
 
 In the province of Canterbury - 23,740 
 Ditto York - . 3,956 
 
 Total of Papists in England - 27,696 
 We are informed, by the same official report, that the 
 total number of Papists then in England, and lit to bear 
 arms, was — 
 
 D 2 
 
28 
 
 In the province of Canterbury 
 Ditto York 
 
 4,239 
 701 
 
 Total - - 4,940 
 
 The efforts to prevent the gro^vth of Popery in England, 
 since that period, do not appear to have been more 
 successful than those made in Ireland. It will be seen m 
 the sequel of this letter, that there are at present not less 
 than 456 Catholic congregations in Great Britain, of 
 which there are 393 in England alone; and I can, with 
 perfect safety, aver, that one of those congregations, 
 namely, the district of Moorfields, in the city of London, 
 contains, at this dav, a larger number of Catholics than 
 existed in all England in the year 1689, according to this 
 official Report. The Catholic baptisms in that district of 
 Moorfields, for the vear 1828, amounted to 920 ; and as 
 the official returns of the year 1820 state the baptisms of 
 the Metropolis to amount' to 30,422, and the population 
 to 1,469,692, being an average of one baptism to forty- 
 eio-ht of the population, we should, of course, (according 
 to^this official computation, for the accuracy of which I 
 am not accountable,) estimate the Catholic congregation 
 of Moorfields at 44,160; being 16,464 more Catholics 
 than all England contained in iiie year 1689. There are 
 two other Catholic congregations in the metropolis—- 
 namely, Virginia-street and St. George's-fields— each of 
 which,' according to this average, would be found to 
 contain a oreater number of Catholics than the amount 
 for all England in 1689. The Catholic con^egations of 
 London and its vicinity amount to twenty-five, and the 
 baptisms for the last year were about 4,500, which, multi- 
 plied by 48, would produce 216,000, as the total amount 
 of the Catholic population of the metropolis; of which 
 nearly 200,000 are either natives of Ireland or the 
 children of Irish parents, being about one-seventh of the 
 population of the metropolis. 
 
 in the same Official Report of William III., the propor- 
 tionate numbers of Conformists, Non-conformists, and 
 
 Papists, is stated thus: — ^^ ,^ ,r» i 
 
 Proportion of Conformists to Papists - 178 10-13 to 1 
 Conformists to Non-conformists . - 22^ 4-5 to 1 
 Conformists and Non-conformists to Papists 186 2-3 to 1 
 
 » '\ 
 
 29 
 
 1 apprehend that were an accurate statenuent of the 
 proportions of Churchmen, Protestant Dissenters, and 
 Catholics of the United Kingdom to be made out now, 
 the numbers of these respective classes would prove to be 
 nearly the same; and were none but strict followers 
 of the Established Church ('confined to her doctrines and 
 worship,) to be counted as her members, there can be no 
 doubt but the Catholics would prove to be the niost nu- 
 merous religious community of the United Kingdom, 
 although treated by Parliament as the lowest of all in 
 rank or influence. 
 
 Coming now to the question more immediately under 
 consideration, I shall, in the first instance, submit a sketch 
 of the Catholic Ecclesiastical Establishments of the 
 United Kingdom ; and I do this the more readily, be- 
 cause I am not aware that Parliament, or the British 
 public, has a correct idea of the extent of the incumbrance 
 upon the public revenue which a State provision for the 
 Catholic Clergy would, necessarily, create. 
 
 At present the Catholic Hierarchy of Ireland is by no 
 means sufficiently supplied ; the benefices (very niany, of 
 necessity. Unions,) amounting only to 981, being an 
 average of more than seven thousand souls in each, and 
 generally scattered over large tracts of country. The 
 following will be found to be a correct account of the 
 number of benefices in the Catholic diocese of Ireland : — 
 
 Diocese. 
 
 Number of Benefices. 
 
 Ardagh 41 
 
 Armagh 49 
 
 Ardterl and Aghadoe 41 
 
 Achonry 20 
 
 Cloyne 54 
 
 Clonfert 23 
 
 Cork 34 
 
 Clogher 34 
 
 Cashel and Emly 47 
 
 Derry 34 
 
 Down and Connor 35 
 
 Dromore 17 
 
 Dublm 46 
 
 Elphin 38 
 
 Ferns 36 
 
 Were the benefices to be 
 
 Diocese, Number of Benefices. 
 
 Galway (Wardenship) 13 
 
 Killaloe 49 
 
 Kilmore 44 
 
 Killala 25 
 
 Kildare and Leighlm 46 
 
 Kilfenora andKilmacdaugh. . . , 15 
 
 Limerick 40 
 
 Meath 64 
 
 Ossory 27 
 
 Raphoe 24 
 
 Tuam 48 
 
 Waterford 37 
 
 m 
 
 increased to 1,500, the con* 
 3 
 
 t^i 
 
30 
 
 i 
 
 31 
 
 firreffations would still average 4,600 souls each ; and 
 when I estimate the necessary number of parochial 
 Clerffv at onlv 4,500 for all Ireland— namely, 1,500 parish 
 priests and 3,000 curates, no reasonable man can retuse 
 to admit the moderation of my allowance. A contrast 
 with the Church Establishments of Eng and, Ireland, 
 Scotland, or France, would place this fact beyond doubt. 
 The Episcopal Catholic Establishment of Ireland is, at 
 present, as follows :— 
 
 Archbishops ^ 
 
 Bishops '^'i 
 
 Warden ^ 
 
 Coadjutor Bishops ^ 
 
 Total 32 
 
 To these must be added twenty-six Deans, and an 
 equal number of Archdeacons; so that the number and 
 stations of Catholic Ecclesiastics to be sustained by a 
 State provision in Ireland, would be— 
 
 Archbishops ^ 
 
 Bishops ^1. 
 
 Warden ^ 
 
 Deans ^^ 
 
 Archdeacons J^ 
 
 Parish Priests 1.^00 
 
 Curates * o,uuu 
 
 Exclusive of occasional Coadjutor— Bishops, &c. 
 
 1 come now to the British Catholic Ecclesiastical Esta- 
 blishment, as it should, of course, be included in any 
 Legislative arrangement for a state provision. I propose 
 to furnish a list of the Catholic Congregations of Great 
 Britain, setting forth those of England and Scotland in 
 the alphabetical order of their respective counties, viz.— 
 
 ENGLAND. 
 
 1 
 6 
 1 
 1 
 
 Catholic Congregation?. 
 
 Bedford 
 
 Berks 
 
 Bucks 
 
 Cambridge 
 
 Cheshire ^ 
 
 Cornwall 2 
 
 Cumberland 4 Herts ... 
 
 Derbyshire 8 Kent..... 
 
 Devonshire 9 Lancashire 
 
 Catholic Congregations. 
 
 Dorsetshire 
 
 Durham 
 
 Essec 
 
 Gloucestershire 
 
 Hants 
 
 Herefordshire 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 87 
 
 Catholic Congregations. 
 
 Leicestershire 7 
 
 Lincolnshire 1 1 
 
 Monmouthshire ^ 
 
 Norfolk 8 
 
 Notts 3 
 
 N.Hants 3 
 
 Northumberland 20 
 
 Oxon 8 
 
 Shropshire 7 
 
 Somersetshire 8 
 
 Staffordshire 22 
 
 WALES 
 
 Catholic Cangregations. 
 
 Suffolk 5 
 
 Surrey 3 
 
 Sussex 6 
 
 Warwickshire 12 
 
 Westmoreland 2 
 
 Wilts 3 
 
 Worcestershire 8 
 
 Yorkshire 47 
 
 London and Vicinity .... 25 
 
 Total in England 393 
 
 SCOTLAND. 
 
 Aberdeen 8 
 
 Angusshire 1 
 
 Argyleshire 1 
 
 Ayrshire 4 
 
 Banffshire 9 
 
 Buteshire 1 
 
 Dumbartonshire 1 
 
 Dumfriesshire 1 
 
 Edinburgshire or Mid-Lothian . . 2 
 
 Elgin or Murrayshire 1 
 
 Kircudbrightshire 2 
 
 Lanarkshire 4 
 
 Peeblesshire 1 
 
 Renfrewshire 2 
 
 Ross-shire. . . 
 Wigtonshire. 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 Total in Scotland 
 Total in Great Britain 
 
 57 
 
 456 
 
 Inverness-shire 17 
 
 In Great Britain, the Catholic mission is presided over 
 by seven Bishops, who are at present assisted by four- 
 coadjutor Bishops— I take it for granted, that there are 
 in eacli of the seven episcopal districts persons discharg- 
 ing the duties of Dean and Archdeacon ; and I do not 
 think it an unreasonable estimate, or average, to allow 
 two Clergymen — namely, one principal Pastor, and one 
 assistant Curate, for each of the 456 congregations. 
 
 Coming now to the annual provision for each of the 
 several ranks of Catholic Ecclesiastics, 1 think the pro- 
 posed scale of 1825 would average- 
 To each Archbishop £1,500 
 
 Bishop 1»000 
 
 Dean 500 
 
 Archdeacon 400 
 
 Parish Priest in Ireland, or Principal 
 
 Pastor in Great Britain 250 
 
 Curate, or Assistant 75 
 
 According to this scale, the total amount of the annual 
 provision for the Catholic Prelates and Clergy of the 
 United Kinsrdom would be as follows ;— - 
 
32 
 
 IRELAND. Annual Charge. Total. 
 
 4 Archbishops, at 1.5001. each £6,000 
 
 22 Bishops, at 1,0001. each 22,000 
 
 Warden ol Galwav 1»^00 
 
 27 Deans, at 5001. each 13,500 
 
 27 Archdeacons, at 4001. each 10,800 
 
 1,500 Parish Priests, at 2501. each 375,000 
 
 3,000 Curates, at 751. each 225,000 
 
 Total annual charge for Ireland £653,300 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN. 
 
 7 Bishops, at 1,0001. each 7,000 
 
 7 Deans, at 5001. each 3,500 
 
 7 Archdeacons at 4001. each 2,800 
 
 456 Principal Pastors, at 2501. each 1 14,000 
 
 456 Assistant Curates, at 751. each 34,200 
 
 Total annual charge for Great Britain 161,500 
 
 Grand total £81 4,800 
 
 In addition to this annual charge of 814,8001., there 
 should also be provided means of support for aged and 
 infirm Clergymen, who may be rendered unable to dis- 
 charge the duties of their respective offices. There would 
 also be, of necessity, other considerable expenses con- 
 nected with this measure, as new officers and offices, 
 commissioners, &c. &c. which would soon bring the an- 
 nual charge up to 900,0001. 
 
 The first observation to be made upon this proposition 
 of increasing taxation to so lar^e an annual amount is, 
 that it not only is not desired, but is most earnestly re- 
 sisted by the parties who would be ostensibly the most 
 interested in its establishment — the Catholic Hierarchy 
 and people of Ireland. The former have repeatedly ex- 
 pressed their wishes to receive their supnort from the 
 flocks whom thev serve; and the people have been 
 equally loud in tlie expression of their desire to be the 
 sole supporters of the pastors whom they revere ; and, 
 perhaps, 1 may be allowed to add, that the fact of the 
 aoent of the Catholics of Ireland being the writer of this 
 letter, is, of itself, some evidence of the sincerity of our 
 opposition to this measure. 
 
 I 
 
 3S 
 
 The following Resolutions of the Irish Bishops indi- 
 cate their feelings very distinctly :— 
 Resolution of the Irish Catholic Bishops, assembled in 
 
 Synod, 2ilh July, 1810:— 
 
 « Resolved, That we neither seek nor desire any 
 other earthly consideration for our spiritual ministry to 
 our respective flocks, save what they may, from a sense 
 of religion and duty, voluntarily afford us. 
 Resolution of the Irish Catholic Bishops, assembled in 
 
 Synod, 2bth January, 1826:— 
 
 " Havinff taken into consideration the project of a 
 provision to be made by law for the support of the 
 Prelates and Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church m 
 Ireland, Resolved, That no such legal provision for our 
 support, and that of our Clergy, will be acceded to by us, 
 until the Catholics of Ireland' shall have been emanci- 
 pated ; and that at no period can we accept any such 
 leffal provision, unless an acceptance of it be Imind by 
 us consistent with the independence of our Church, 
 and the integrity of its discipline, as well as with the 
 cordial union and affectionate attachment which has 
 hitherto subsisted between the Catholic Clergy and that 
 faithful people, from whose generous contributions we 
 and our predecessors have, for centuries, derived our 
 
 ^"1? cannot affect to be ignorant that some expressions of 
 a distinguished Irish Prelate (Dr. Doyle) have been 
 referred to as evidence of a contrary disposition ; but, m 
 justice to him and to his opinions, I be^ leave to pomt to 
 liis speech at the Preliminary Meeting preceding the 
 Leinster Provincial Meeting, 14th December, 18^5: 
 — " My opinion was this, that if the Prelates approved 
 of a provision, emanating from the Treasury— if the 
 Ministers of Christ were to be paid by the Ministers ot 
 State for dispensing the mjsteries of God— in that case, 
 that I would not create dissension amongst them ; but 
 that sooner than my hand should be soiled: by it, 1 would 
 lay down my office at the feet of him who conferred it; 
 for that if my hand were to be stained with Government 
 money, it should never grasp a Crozier, or a Mitre ever 
 afterwards be fitted to my brow." 
 
3^ 
 
 1 am not aware that the Catliolic Prelates, Clergy, or 
 Laity of Great Britain, have published any official de- 
 claration of their feelings upon the subject ; but my 
 opinion is, that there would be no difference between 
 them and their Irish brethren. 
 
 I am, Sir, &c. 
 
 Eneas Macdonnell. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE, 
 
 Sir, • 
 
 The fourth proposition, in the name of a Security, sug*- 
 ^ested to Parliament, is the disfranchisement of the forty- 
 shilling freeholders of Ireland ; and this measure, we are 
 told, is grounded upon the abuses which are stated to 
 have been latterly manifested in the exercise of the elec- 
 tive franchise. These alleged abuses consist in the diso- 
 bedience of the freeholders to their landlords, and sub- 
 mission to the influence of their Priests. It is not stated 
 that in any instance they voted, or were advised by their 
 Clergy to vote, in a manner injurious to their political 
 interests, or prejudicial to their political fame ; and it is 
 notorious, that in most instances the landlord, who sought 
 to exercise full dominion over their franchises, was go- 
 verned solely by his own feelings, without the slightest 
 regard to those of the freeholders. 
 
 In after times it will be subject of reproach to our age 
 that such pretensions should have been, for a moment, 
 tolerated, much less sanctioned by any portion of the 
 Legislature. The whole attempt indicates such a spirit 
 of oase and barefaced jobbing, such downright corrup- 
 tion, that one feels shame in oeing obliged to contend 
 aofainst it. So long" as the freeholder was seduced bv 
 selfish considerations, or compelled by threats to lay his 
 franchise at the feet of his landlord, without any regard 
 to his own honour, interests, or conscience, there was no 
 complaint against him ; but the moment he assumed the 
 right of voting or thinking for himself, and presumed to 
 
 f 
 
 35 
 
 exercise his franchise, for the purposes of which, and for 
 which alone, it was granted to him by the Constitution, 
 then he is set down as an offender against Law and 
 Gospel, and denounced as unworthy to enjov the right, 
 fop no other reason than because he had the courage * 
 and the honesty, perhaps once in his life, to exercise it 
 conscientiously. 
 
 The general objections to disfranchisement of con- 
 stituents, by their own representatives, are so obvious, 
 and have been so often and so ably urged, that I 
 do not think it necessary to repeat tnem ; but hav- 
 ing always thought that the Catholic fortv-shilling free- 
 holder of Ireland possessed peculiar claims to legis- 
 lative protection, some of which have not been suffi- 
 ciently, if at all, noticed in the discussions on this 
 subject, I shall now endeavour to supply, in part at least, 
 the omission. All the objections now made to the exer- 
 cise of the elective franchise by forty-shilling freeholders 
 in Ireland, were made to its restoration in 1793. They 
 were fully discussed in the Irish Houses of Lords and 
 Commons, and ultimately and deliberately overruled in 
 each House, as a reference to the debates, and particularly 
 to the speech of the present Lord Ross, will establish. The 
 Act restoring the right having been thus passed into a 
 law, after such full consideration, cannot now be repeal- 
 ed without great injustice and bad faith, nor can it be 
 abolished under the pretence of its repeal being made 
 necessary by unforeseen circumstances. If it should ap- 
 pear that the attainment and enjoyment of this franchise, 
 as well for the poor as for the rich, was the declared 
 primary object of the Catholic Body in 1793, it must be 
 admitted, that the withdrawal of it at the present day 
 would be an atrocious abandonment of the spirit of con- 
 cession and relief that was avowed in that year ; yet, that 
 it was then the primary object of Catholic anxiety, can- 
 not now be questioned by any person informed of the 
 history of that time. 
 
 The Irish Catholic Association, or committee of that 
 day, distinctly and unequivocally put it forth as the 
 dearest object of its pursuit, and all the Anti-Catholic 
 Grand Juries, Corporations, &c. were equally distinct 
 
36 
 
 and unequivocal in making its concession the first object 
 of their resistance ; so that it had been fully considered, 
 as well out of Parliament as in Parliament, before it was 
 
 determined upon. « , , , ^ j . 
 
 The Petition of the Catholics of Ireland, presented to 
 his late Majesty, January 2, 1792, states—'* There re- 
 mains one incapacity which vour loyal subjects, the Ca- 
 tholics of Ireland, feel with most poignant anguish oi 
 mind, as being the badge of unmerited disgrace and ig^ 
 nominv, and the cause and bitter aggravation of all our 
 other Calamities. We are deprived of the elective fran- 
 chise, to the manifest perversion of the spirit of the Con- 
 stitution ; and we most humbly implore your Majesty to 
 believe, that this our prime and heavy grievance is not 
 an evil merely speculative, but is attended with great 
 distress to allranks, and in many instances with the total 
 ruin and destruction of the lower orders of your Majes- 
 ty's faithful and loval subjects, the Catholics of Ireland. 
 Thus was the elective franchise sought for, m a particu- 
 lar manner, for the enjoyment of the lower orders, and 
 for their advantage, though it is now not unfrequently 
 insisted upon, by ignorant men, that it never was in- 
 tended to extend the franchise to that class of the people. 
 In the same spirit, the same Catholic Committee of 1792, 
 in all its circulars, declared its first object to be, " to pro- 
 cure for the Catholics the elective franchise ;' and par- 
 ticularly in their circular *' on the manner of conducting 
 the election of delegates,'^ to the Committee, they address 
 themselves emphatically to the Catholic Clergy, in the foU 
 lowing words:— " The Clero:v,being the natural guardians 
 of moralitv, will undoubtediv consent to co-operate with 
 the Laitv,' when they consider that the restoration o{ 
 the elective franchise to the Catholic community will 
 tend to prevent those perjuries which are so common 
 at, and which disgrace the return of electioneering con- 
 tests." In the same manner, the Committee, in its au- 
 thentic and published " Vindication of the Conduct and 
 Principlesof the Catholics of Ireland," observes, 'Mhere 
 remains one disqualification yet unmentioned, which 
 the Catholics of Ireland feel more seriously than ali 
 others-^ih^y are excluded from the elective franchise. 
 
 37 
 
 no-uage of Mr. Secretary Hobart, on the 4'h of 
 \\1^^, when introducing the Bill of Catholic 
 
 The lani 
 Februarv. 
 
 Relief in the Irish PairKiment, places beyond all doubt 
 the deliberate intention of the framcrs of the law to ex- 
 tend the elective franchise to every order of the com- 
 munity. " My first object (said he), and ichat the Ro^ 
 man Catholics seem to have at heart, is the right of voting 
 at elections for Members of Parliament ; this I wished to 
 have restored to them. Many opinions have been main- 
 tained with respect to the limitations under which this 
 right should be extended to Roman Catholics ; but 
 under all the circumstances of the case, I would recom- 
 mend the nnlhnked extension of this franchise. By this 
 the main object would be better answered, and I think it 
 more becoming the House, either not to grant at all, 
 or to (jrant liberally, 1 hope you will concur in gv^nU 
 mgWwithout limitation; fori f there w ere aj iy reserve 
 or i miitation, there would^ stnT remain a sore place In " 
 thcRoman Catholic mind." 
 
 This clause in the relief bill was also fully considered in 
 ihoi Irish House of Lords, on the 15th ot' March, 1793. 
 Lord Enniskillen '* gave it his decided negative, and 
 moved that the clause be expunged." 
 
 " The Lord Chancellor, Clare, spoke in the defence and 
 support of the clause, and opposed, of course, the motion 
 for its expunction. His Lordship agreed, that this clause 
 contained the very principle aid essence cf the bill, and 
 that to reject it would be to defeat every object both of 
 the Catholics and the legislature," 
 
 " Lord Farnham also supported the clause on a similar 
 ground." 
 
 " The Archbishop of Cashell said, he should not vote 
 against the clause, because it seemed to contain the li ading 
 principle of a Bill, originally recommended by his Ma- 
 jesty, framed by his Ministers in this country, approved 
 by the other House of Parliament, and generally accorded 
 to as the sense of the people without doors." 
 
 The question was put and carried for the clause against 
 Lord Enniskillen's motion. The numbers stood : — 
 For the clause - - - 39 
 
 A^rainst it 
 
 E 
 
 6 
 
38 
 
 No impartial or honest legislator, who may be informed 
 of these facts, can any longer doubt but that the extension 
 of the elective franchise to all classes of the community 
 was distinctly contemplated and intended by the Parha- 
 ment that restored that important right to the Irish 
 
 Catholic Body in 1793. , t . ., , ,- 
 
 It is, moreover, to be considered that the elective 
 franchise was restored to the Catholic Body eight years 
 prior to the Legislative Union of Great Britain and 
 Ireland, and was an existing right enjoyed by the people 
 of Ireland at the period of the enactment of that conven- 
 tion by the two Parliaments, and that it was not then 
 disturbed or altered, or questioned ; at the same^ time 
 that its operation at elections, and its enjoyment by the 
 lower orders, as well as of Roman Catholics as of Protest- 
 ants, was then manifest and uncontrolled. And here I may 
 observe, that the lower orders of Irish Protestants were in 
 the habit of exercising that franchise before 1/93, in the 
 same manner as it has been exercised by them and the 
 Roman Catholics since that time ; and that in tact, the 
 only effect of the Bill of 1793 was to place the Catholics 
 upon the same footing with the Protestants, and, by no 
 means, to alter the nature of the franchise, or to extend 
 it to any other species or amount of property than that to 
 which it was extended prior to 1793, and which never was 
 objected to, so long as it was enjoyed by Protestants, 
 
 pvclusivelv 
 i ' Now, as the Act of Union deprived Ireland of two- 
 thirds of its representative rights, by reducing its Mem- 
 hers from 300 to 100, at the same time that the number ot 
 Eno-lish Representatives was upheld without any reduc- 
 tion, nothing could be a more flagrant violation ol 
 honest or decency than, after such a conventional set- 
 tlement, under which Ireland made such heavy sacri- 
 fices, to require from her, at this day, a reduction or 
 abandonment of her elective rights also. Common 
 honesty would, on the contrary, suggest that the right ot 
 election should rather be extended, as some compensa- 
 tion for such a reduction of the right of represen ation ; 
 and I have, therefore, not the slightest hesitation in 
 insistino-, that anv alteration in the election system that 
 
 ».ri 
 
 i 
 
 39 
 
 would operate a diminution of the elective rights, as at 
 present possessed by the forty-shilling freeholders of 
 Ireland, would be an unwarrantable infraction of the 
 LegislativeUnion, as well as an unconstitutional spoliation 
 of public rights, and, as such, open to the farthest extent 
 of popular objection and opposition that the spirit of 
 British law would sanction or tolerate. 
 
 The exercise of this right must, of course, be subject to 
 the incidents, passions, and excitements of the hour, but 
 its existence never should be disturbed or questioned; and, 
 really, when we bear in mind that the great body of the 
 Irish people are Catholics, it cannot be deemed strange 
 that the majority of the electors should also be Catholics, 
 and, as such, feel deeply indignant and vilified, when 
 contemplating their condition in the State, produced, in 
 a principal degree, by the misconduct or neglect of their 
 nominal Representatives in Parliament. Ine necessity 
 and the good results of the active attention of the Catholic 
 electors to their own elective rights cannot be better 
 proved, than by a reference to the fact, that when the 
 Catholic claims were brought before the Commons of the 
 Imperial Parliament in 1^5, forty-four Irish Represen- 
 tatives voted against Emancipation, and only twenty-nine 
 in favour of it ! ! 
 
 Nothing could be more impolitic than the revival of \\ ( 
 any attempt to disfranchise the 40a\ freeholders of Ire- U \ 
 land. It would naturally and almost necessarily lead to ? ^ 
 further investigations of the legislative system of this | 
 country. Assuredly, for example, if the exercise of the 
 40^. elective franchise be questionable, the privilege of 
 the Peer to vote by proxy is not less so. The freeholder 
 may be one of five or ten thousand voters, whose united 
 force does not constitute a greater legislative power than 
 is confided to a single Peer. Nor is this a speculative 
 evil with the Irish Catholic. On the contrary, the repeated 
 rejections by the House of Lords, of measures for Catholic 
 relief passed by the House of Commons, and the refusal 
 of the Lords, in the last Session, to accede to the Resolu- 
 tion of the Commons in favour of the Catholics, all prove 
 the actual injury sustained by them, and that such injury 
 is inflicted by the House of Peers. This injury may be 
 
 £ 2 
 
40 
 
 inflicted by a few individuals, or even one, as on the 1st 
 July, 1812, who never heard the question proposed or 
 discussed, and, of course, could not have exercised any 
 judgment or reason upon it. No man will allege that the 
 exercise of the elective franchise in Ireland is more op- 
 posed to common sense or common decency than such a 
 practice, or stands so much in need of revision and amend- 
 ment. Similar observations may be suggested in refe- 
 rence to other practices of the Legislative Estates, should 
 the exercise of the 40.^. franchise be again canvassed, in 
 an affectedspiritof Constitutional jealousy; and who can 
 tell where such an inquiry or its results would end ? 
 
 The imputations of undiie influence cast abroad against 
 the Catholic Clergy of Ireland, may be disposed of by 
 this solitary observation — that those who have been most 
 clamorous'in making the charge, have uniformly fouled 
 in proving, or even attempting to prove its truth. That 
 the Clergy have occasionally advised their confiding 
 flocks, not only is not denied', but should be referred to 
 as the proudest demonstration of their virtue. Their 
 whole advice consisted in urging a preference to truth 
 and conscience over falsehood and deceit; and they 
 would have been base, indeed, had they shrunk from aid- 
 ing, by their counsels, that honest peasantry which has so 
 many claims upon their consideration. 
 
 Moreover, it is to be considered, that the Catholic 
 Clergymen of Ireland did not interfere with the political 
 pretensions of the landlords, until the landlords had inter- 
 fered with the religious duties of the Clergymen, by 
 endeavours to sow dissensions between the Catholic 
 pastors and their flocks, and for that purpose, usin^ the 
 influence of their station, and the supposed dependence 
 of the poor people upon them, to enforce a system of 
 education obnoxious to the religious principles of both 
 pastors and people. Any person who will take the 
 trouble of comparing dates, will find that the landlords, 
 as a bodv, were the aggressors ; and as they provoked 
 hostility,' let them endure its consequences. 
 
 This much would suffice on the subject of clerical 
 influence, were it not that all these securities are in part 
 demanded upon the same false pretences of a necessity 
 
 (V> 
 
 41 
 
 to guard against such influence. For my own part, 
 viewing the condition of Ireland and all its distractions 
 and discontents, I consider the influence of the Catholic 
 Priesthood a great national blessing, and would be happy 
 to increase and extend its powers. All persons admit 
 that the o-eneral conduct of the people committed to 
 their pastoral care, indicates the possession of generous 
 and charitable principles. It is worse than absurd to 
 deny that they must be in some degree indebted to their 
 relio-ious teachers for such dispositions, particularly when 
 the°possession of such influence is ascribed to those 
 teachers. The desire and labour unceasingly engaged 
 in advancing the spiritual and temporal interests of the 
 people necessarily obtains an influence, and that of the 
 best kind ; and the experience that it is always used for 
 the benefit of the giver, insures its continuance. 
 
 Those who allege, that the influence of the Catholic 
 Clergy of Ireland is directed against the Sovereign or 
 his Government, well know the falsehood of their own 
 allegations; and the cruelty of this calumny is the less 
 pardonable, when it is notorious that no portion of the 
 King's subjects has been so much dreaded and detested 
 as tRe same Clergy by the avowed enemies of that So- 
 vereign and Government. Thus we find, that when the 
 invasfon of Ireland was contemplated by the French 
 Republic, in 1796, the influence of the Irish Catholic 
 Clergy was considered the greatest obstacle to the 
 
 success of the invasion. «- i/. 
 
 The viewsof the French Government, and of Mr. \V olte 
 Tone, the promoter of that invasion, as to the political 
 bias of the Catholic Clergy of Ireland, may be collected 
 from his journal for that year, from which I beg leave to 
 make the following extracts :— " 1 also added (said Tone, 
 in his account of an interview with the French Minister 
 De la Croix), that 1 had a strong objection to letting 
 Priests into the business at all ; that most of them were 
 enemies to the French Revolution (March II)." " He 
 (General Clarke) then came to the influence of the 
 Catholic Clergy over the minds of the people, and the 
 apprehension that they might warp them against France 
 (March 14)." " He (General Clarke) dwelt a little on 
 
 E o 
 

 »» 
 
 42 
 
 the nobles and clergy; and I replied, as 1 had done in the 
 former conversation. He said he was satisfied that 
 nothino- was to be expected from either ; and I answered, 
 that he might expect all the opposition they could give 
 (March 21)." " Clarke then, after some civilities, m 
 reply, asked me what I thought of some of the Irish 
 priests yet remaining in France? I answered, that he 
 knew my opinion as to priests of all kinds : that in Ire- 
 land thev had acted all along execrably; that they hated 
 the very name of the French Revolution (March 2/). 
 " I objected all along to priests, as the worst of all pos- 
 sible agents (April 3)." " Clarke has also some doub^ 
 as to my report on the influence of the Irish priests, which 
 he dreads a good deal (April 13)." " He (Gen. Hoche) 
 then asked me, what I thought of the priests, or was it 
 likely thev would give us any trouble ? I replied, 1 
 certainly did not calculate on their assistance (July 12)." 
 Here then we find the prime mover of the hostile 
 invasion, together with two members of the French 
 Republican Government, and the invading General, all 
 concurring in distrust and abhorrence of those Irish 
 Clergy, against whose alleged hostile dispositions towards 
 the State, we are told, all these Securities are necessary! ! 
 The Catholic Priests of Ireland have been, for many 
 years, exposed to the most wanton and unwarranted 
 vituperation of calumniators of all orders. Their princi- 
 ples and conduct have been misrepresented in and out of 
 Parliament ; and it is, therefore, not to be wondered at 
 that their feelings should be deeply wounded. But, 
 notwithstanding all this excitement and provocation, they 
 have always proved to be the best promoters of public 
 good, and the best preservers of public order. It is, 
 therefore, the grossest injustice to allege, that any mea- 
 sures are required as securities against men, without 
 whose aid the peace of Ireland could not be preserved 
 for one hour. The best security that can exist for the 
 maintenance of the peace is that religion whose princi- 
 ples they inculcate, and by whose ordinances they have 
 been governed. 
 
 Let us hear no more, then, of these false and odious 
 pretences of the necessity for Securities. At present the 
 Protestant establishment possesses most extraordinary 
 
 43 
 
 securities. — The doctrines of self-interest, the power of 
 existing laws, the vigilance of Government and Parlia- 
 ment, and the obligations of solemn oaths, bind the Ca- 
 tholic Laity to the maintenance of the Government; and 
 the experience of the past conduct of the Catholic Pre- 
 lates and Clergy should prevent any declarations of dis- 
 trust towards them. 
 
 Add to this, that the Protestant hierarchy is most 
 abundantly represented by the Bishops in the Upper 
 House of Parliament, while the second order of Protestant 
 Clergy are enabled to vote for Representatives in the 
 Lower House ; and in both Houses of Parliament the 
 friends and near relatives of the hierarchy constitute 
 majorities. All these are connected with the Crown by 
 the constitution of the Established Church, which gives 
 to the Crown the appointment of all the Bishops, and to 
 the Lord Chancellor — an officer removable at the will of 
 the Crown — the appointment to all the Deaneries, and 
 more than one thousand livings in Great Britain; which 
 is a larger numerical Church patronage than is possessed 
 by all tlie Bishops of England, put together; the livings 
 in their gift amounting only to 981, being precisely the 
 same number, to the single unit, and, it is a curious 
 coincidence, as the number of benefices in the gift of the 
 Catholic Bishops of Ireland. 
 
 To those who are only anxious to possess reasonable 
 securities for the Protestant Institutions, these must 
 appear more than sufficient ; but those who wish, by the 
 demand of securities, to perpetuate the present system in 
 all its horrors, never can be satisfied, ana never should be 
 consulted. For what are the results of the system which 
 they desire to maintain? We find them consist in the 
 vicious administration of justice, the perversion of reli- 
 gion, the neglect of education, the neutralization of 
 natural resources, the disorganization of society, the vili- 
 fication of national fame, the maintenance of standing 
 armies, the deficiency of the revenue, dissensions in the 
 King's Government, and collisions between the two 
 Mouses of Parliament. — Those who wish for the conti- 
 nuance of such a system are well justified in calling aloud 
 for Securities, to ensure its permanency. But let them 
 beware ; bad as these evils are, there may yet come worse. 
 
44 
 
 No man will dare to prophecy the future results, though 
 none can refuse to imagine them. Some may go so far 
 as to think it possible that the bloodless conflict may 
 continue ; that no recruits may be raised from Catholic 
 Ireland for the Armv or Navy (and what would England 
 now be without them?); that no Catholic youths woulu 
 seek instruction in the Dublin University ; that the link-v 
 of society may be severed, and rents, tithes, and taxes 
 be erased from the list of obligations. 
 
 If such results of the present system be possible, (and 
 who will say that they are not possible ?) can any rea- 
 sonable or loyal man *be so enamoured of it as to require 
 securities for its continuance? , • , 
 
 Let us not, either, be threatened with "fearless legisla- 
 tion.'* The Catholics of Ireland know well how to meet 
 this fearless legislation ; for what is the Penal Code itself 
 but legislation? and yet it yields to the advances of 
 justice^and of public opinion. Let justice be the guide 
 and director of every measure of relief that may be pro- 
 posed or approved. Let Catholic feelings be well con- 
 sidered, and this doctrine of fearless legislation be scouted 
 from the Council Chamber. We find the Government 
 ready to communicate with any body of manufacturers or 
 traders on questions affecting their pursuits. This day 
 we read of intended conferences between the Home 
 Secretary and the citizens of London upon subjects 
 affectino-'their franchises, such as the warrants of Magis- 
 trates. °Then why should not the Government communi- 
 cate with the Catholics now as was done in 1 792 ? Surely 
 it would be as reasonable to consult with the aggrieved 
 party, as with those who seek to continue the grievances. 
 
 I conclude this correspondence with the repetition of 
 our prayer, that the great settlement may be founded on 
 principles of peace and charity, and mutual confidence. 
 This can be effected by the simple repeal of the laws that 
 a<ro-rieve us, and that repeal will prove to be the best 
 support of the Empire, the best ally of the Crown, and 
 the best security of the Constitution. 
 
 1 am, &c. 
 
 Eneas Macdonnell. 
 
 45 
 
 Since I commenced the publication of these letters, the 
 unaltered and unalterable hostility of the Catholics of 
 Ireland to these and similar arrangements or condi- 
 tions has been further illustrated by their distinct and 
 unequivocal declarations. 
 
 At an ao-o-reo-ate meeting of the Catholics of Ireland, 
 held in the'city of Dublin, on Tuesday, the 16th Decem- 
 ber last, the following resolutions were unanimously 
 adopted : 
 
 Resolved— That ardently desirous, as we are, of civil liberty, we are, 
 however, infinitely more anxious to preserve the faith of our fathers, and 
 our own, from any contamination or taint whatsoever ; and we therefore 
 repudiate and reject any plan of emancipation with, or in anywise including 
 any infringement of, or intermeddling with, the doctrines or discipline of our 
 holy religion. 
 
 Resolved— That whilst we give our undivided allegiance to the Sovereign 
 and the State in all matters whatsoever of a temporal and political nature, 
 we equally sever from the State, and dedicate to God all matters of a purely 
 spiritual, religious, and ecclesiastical nature ; and we therefore will not accept 
 of Emancipation coupled with any species of interference with the tenets, 
 doctrine, or discipline of the Catholic Church in Ireland. 
 
 Resolved— That we equally abhor and reject any State provision or 
 payment of our Clergy by the Government, and we deem it a solemn and 
 sacred duty to declare emphatically and irrevocably, that we infinitely prefer 
 remaining in our present state of unjust degradation and oppression, to 
 obtaining relief accompanied by any species of Government provision for the 
 Catholic Clergy of Irelaad. 
 
 Resolved— That the conduct of the Forty-shilling Freeholders of Ireland 
 demands our most enthusiastic gratitude and respect, and that we deem any 
 attempt to deprive them of their franchises a direct violation of the Consti- 
 tution; concurring in this sentiment with two of our bitterest enemies, the 
 late Earl of Liverpool and Mr. Peel; who, on a former occasion, publicly 
 declared, « that any person consenting to such disfranchisement was a traitor 
 to the Constitution ; and undeserving of participating in the advantages of 
 that Constitution." 
 
 Resolved— That we would prefer a perpetual exclusion from our remaining 
 civil rights, to any Emancipation coupled with any limitation or dimiuutioa 
 of the elective franchise. 
 
 Resolved— That the best security of the Government is to be found in the 
 happiness and freedom of the people, and that we are ready to give, in return 
 for Emancipation, the security of our interests, our allegiance, and our oaths j 
 
46 
 
 but we are bound to declare, that any conditions annexed to the restoration 
 of our rig-hls would be only an increase of danger to the State. 
 
 In addition to these solemn and explicit declarations, 
 the Catholic Association of Ireland thought it right, at 
 the moment of its dissolution, on the 12th of this month, 
 to promulgate the feelings of the body upon this most 
 important subject, in the following emphatic terms : — 
 
 That any Bill of Emancipation, accompanied with an encroachment upon 
 the rights of the Forty-shilling Freeholders, or with any interference, direct 
 or indirect, on the part of the Crown, with the discipline of the Catholic 
 Church in Ireland, wouldy instead of giving peace to this diatradcd country., 
 only produce deep and general discontent ^ and rouse every manly breast to the 
 most decided opposition. That should such measures be introduced, every 
 parish would be bound instantly to as:emble, to denounce in the strongest 
 terms, an attack upon the rights of men, whose constitutional conduct con- 
 stitutes their only crime, and any intermeddling with a Priesthood, who, for 
 virtue, piety, and implicit obedience to the laws, are revered throughout the 
 civilized world. 
 
 JFe^raflrj/ 23. 1829. 
 
 «U.NNBLt. AND aHKARMA.V, PRINTKRK, lALISBUKT SgVABA*