Page images
PDF
EPUB

give institution to our bishops, as he does for instance in France, to the Catholic bishops there.

In the case of Catholic emancipation being granted, would the Catholic clergy feel any objection to an arrangement being made, by which they might receive a salary for the performance of their ecclesiastical duties?-Upon that subject I could not make known to the Committee, the sentiments of the clergy as a body, or even of many of them as individuals; but I can tell what I think myself upon the subject: I should be adverse to the receiving of any emolument or compensation whatever from the Crown; and I should prefer receiving the slender support which I receive at present from the people whom I serve; but if His Majesty's government, or those through whose favourable exertions the Bill for our emancipation might be carried forward, were to require, as a condition, that I would receive such bounty as His Majesty might be pleased graciously to confer upon me, I should not refuse it if such refusal would be an obstacle to the passing of such Bill; but were I too choose for myself, I should prefer not receiving it. I would beg also to give the Committee to understand, that I would not, for any consideration whatever, receive a stipend or a means of support, which it would be in the power of His Majesty's government to give or withhold. If I were to receive any thing, I should expect it would be given, and that I would have a right to receive it, as long as I comported myself loyally and peaceably as it becomes a subject.

When you say, that you would consider that it would be proper that it should be liable to be taken away, in case of your not comporting yourself loyally, and in proper obedience to the laws, the Committee conclude you mean, in case you were convicted by some legal court of such conduct?-Unquestionably.

You stated, that the power of appointing to bishoprics in Ireland, resided in the Stuart family; will you state how that power came to reside in the Stuart family?—In the same manner as in most of the other royal families of Europe. Originally, in the Catholic church, bishops were elected by the people and clergy conjointly; afterwards those assemblies became scenes of riot and tumult, and the right of election was confined to the clergy alone; the clergy then being a numerous body, intrigues and cabals, and those other faults which human nature is liable to in every class and description of men, produced much evil, and hence the election of bishops was confined to chapters; those chapters in time also became seats of intrigue, and kings were anxious to get into their

own hands the patronage of the church: hence they entered into treaties or concordats generally throughout Europe with the Pope, that they should have a right of sending a conge d'elire to chapters, recommending a certain person to them to be elected by them, and they the sovereigns agreed at the same time with the Pope, that he should give institution to such person, he being fit and proper, as the chapter had elected, upon the royal recommendation. An arrangement of this, or of a similar nature, exists in almost every country in Europe; and it existed in Ireland in the time of the Stuarts and Tudors.

Will you have the goodness to state, whether the Catholic clergy in Ireland recognise that right in a Protestant sovereign? We never recognise such right in any Protestant sovereign whatever.

Then, in point of fact, it was only recognised in the person of James the Second?-Only in the person of James the Second, of all the Stuarts.

You hold, that that same power still resides in the king, if that king happened to be a Catholic, but that during the sovereignty of a Protestant monarch, such power is extinct?— It is a right like all others; whether we call it a right derived from the law, or a right derived from usage or compact which ceases by disuse; and if by a supposition, which is merely possible, the king upon the throne were to be a Catholic, I do not think, that thereby this right, formerly residing in his predecessors being Catholics, would accrue to him; I think it has been lost by disuse, but it is a right, however, which a Catholic sovereign could easily obtain, by treating with the Pope.

Was the right of appointing to the Roman Catholic bishoprics of Ireland, ever practically exercised by James the Second-Yes, I should think it was; and also by Mary, previous to the accession of the Stuarts. I cannot state the instances, because I should refer to the history of the church, at that particular period; and without doing so, I might fall into an error; but I am quite confident the right resided in him, and I should have no hesitation in saying, that it was exercised by him in more instances than one.

Do you think it was exercised by James the Second, before his arrival in Ireland?—Yes; during the entire of his reign. From the period of his accession ?-From the period of his accession till the time of his expulsion from Ireland.

He was at that time head of the church of England?-He might also have a right to present to the sees of the church in Ireland; but he would not become the head of our church, by

having a right to direct the chapter to elect a certain individual to be instituted as bishop by the Pope.

After his abdication, do you think he exercised practically that right, which the Catholic church still admitted to reside in him?-I am sure, after his abdication, or his expulsion from those countries, that he did recommend, whilst in France, individuals to the Pope, which individuals were appointed to bishoprics in Ireland; and not only he, but his son after him. I could name, but I should rather not, unless the Committee required it, I could name the last bishop who was appointed by the Pope to a see in Ireland, at the express recommendation of the late Pretender.

In the former part of your evidence, you mentioned that there was a possibility of such an arrangement being made with respect to the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, in case Roman Catholic emancipation should be carried, as would provide for the domestic nomination of the prelates?—That such an arrangement could be made, I think is quite certain; and there is nothing that I would be more desirous of.

In making that arrangement for domestic appointment, would you contemplate the election of the Roman Catholic prelate upon the occurrence of a vacancy, by the clergy belonging to the diocese, to the appointment of which he might be a candidate?—I would contemplate such election to be made by a certain portion of the clergy of the diocese in which such vacancy occurred; but I would also require the concurrence of the metropolitan and suffragan bishops of the province in which the vacancy happened to exist. I would beg to explain myself; I fear I cannot do it as satisfactorily as I could wish. I would not like that the election to a vacant see should rest with the metropolitan and the suffragan bishops of the diocese alone, nor would I like that it should be vested in the clergy of the vacant diocese, to the exclusion of the metropolitan and the suffragan bishops; but I would desire that such election should originate with a certain class of the clergy of the vacant diocese, and that before it would be sent forward to the court of Rome, that the metropolitan and suffragan bishops should have concurrence in it in a certain way.

Would you think it advisable, under that arrangement, to retain the office of coadjutor to the bishop?-That could be done if, by the arrangement, the coadjutors should be elected in the same manner as the bishop, on the vacancy of the see. What would be the nature of the claim which, under this arrangement, the coadjutor would have to succeed to the vacant prelacy?-He would succeed upon the demise of the prin

cipal, as a matter of right, because the bull of his appointment to his coadjutorship would go, "We appoint you bishop of such a place in partibus," as we call it (that is in some country where Christianity formerly flourished, but where infidelity now prevails) cum jure successionis; so that his election to the coadjutorship would secure to him the succession, upon the demise of the person to whom he would be appointed the coadjutor.

Are the coadjutors at present bishops in partibus fidelium? -They are, but with right of succession.

Supposing after the election of a coadjutor, it should so happen, in some individual case, that the coadjutor should misconduct himself, and that to such a degree, that in the opinion of the original electors he should be unfit for the prelacy, would his right of succession still be absolute, or without any control on their part ?—It would be without any control on their part; but if he committed a canonical fault, he could be tried for it, and be removed from his right of succession, as he could be removed from his see.

Where would the trial take place?-The trial of a bishop is one of the causæ majores mentioned in the Council of Sardis, and should be referred to the see of Rome. That council was held some thirty or more years after the first Council of Nice, and it decreed that the causæ majores should not be definitively settled without the concurrence of the Pope, whenever such concurrence was thought necessary by any of the parties who happened to be aggrieved; those causæ majores included cases where the faith was concerned or heresy broached, and also criminal accusations of bishops; so that when a bishop is accused of any crime, in the first case, if he be a suffragan, the charge can be preferred before his metropolitan; he can appeal from the metropolitan, formerly he could make such appeal to the provincial council, but as now provincial councils are seldom or never held, he can appeal from the metropolitan directly to the Pope; and that usage has obtained in the Catholic church from the beginning, and was decreed at Sardis, a little after the middle of the fourth century, and still holds good.

Then the evidence by which the person in that situation would be affected, would be remitted from Ireland to Rome? -Yes.

Would the evidence be taken upon oath ?-The evidence would be taken upon oath.

Supposing a party summoned before the tribunal of the first instance, if it may be so called, the tribunal existing in Ireland refused to take an oath, would the proceedings be sus

pended?-In cases of that kind, we have no remedy, we are obliged to call in a magistrate, and request of him to administer an oath to the witness whom we wish to examine, and when he has done so, the witness is interrogated either through the magistrate, or by one of us.

Supposing the witness were a member of the Roman Catholic church, would he be subjected to any ecclesiastical censure, for demurring to the jurisdiction of the court?-As to a censure, I cannot say he would; but there is some remedy, there is some means whereby a witness can be obliged to give testimony in a bishop's court, what it is, as settled by the law and usage of the Catholic church, I do not at present recollect.

Before any arrangement, which provided for the domestic appointment of the Roman Catholic prelates in Ireland, could be carried into full effect, would the consent of the see of Rome be necessary?-Undoubtedly it would; because the see of Rome at present has the right to appoint, and any modification of that right could not of course be made, without the concurrence of the see of Rome.

Would the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland have it in their power to give a conditional consent to such an arrangement; the condition being, that the consent of the see of Rome should be subsequently obtained?-By all means they could.

You would still propose to reserve the institution of the bishop to the see of Rome?-Without it, he could not be a bishop in our church; he could not exercise any jurisdiction whatever, unless he received institution from the Pope.

By reserving the institution to the Pope, the Pope would still retain a discretionary power to reject the bishop who had been recommended to him, in virtue of the domestic arrangement; would he not?-The domestic arrangement would be one whereby the Pope would bind himself through a treaty, to give institution to such fit person as would be canonically elected by the persons named in such treaty. Suppose there was a concordat, enabling certain persons in Ireland to elect a bishop to a vacant see, the Pope by agreeing to such concordat, engages to give institution to all persons who may hereafter be elected by such electors as are therein defined, provided the person elected possesses the necessary qualifications for a bishop, and be duly elected.

Before any arrangement was made for a payment by the state of the Roman Catholic prelates and priesthood, would the consent of the Pope be absolutely necessary?-By no means, I should think not at all, for that is a matter of discipline

« PreviousContinue »