Are any vicars apostolic in England, bishops in partibus?I believe every one of them.

It appears that, by a concordat between the government of France and the see of Rome in 1800, it was provided, that no national council should be held in France without communication with the government, and the consent of the government; could a national council upon religious matters be held in Ireland now, according to the constitution of the Roman Catholic church ?-I do not know that there exists a law prohibiting us from holding a council in these countries; I have never known of it, nor has it ever been intimated to me that there was such a law.

You are speaking of the statute law?Yes.

It would be quite consistent with the discipline and doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, to hold such a council, in case the interests of religion required it ?-By all means.

What would be the means of convoking such a council?—The metropolitans agreeing with each other, or the primate, that is, the archbishop of Armagh (though we do not recognise him as having a jurisdiction over us), still we would, through respect for his office, assemble, if he called us together. In our church, the jurisdiction of the metropolitan bishops over their suffragans has been greatly lessened by the Council of Trent; and as to the jurisdiction of the Primate of all Ireland over the entire Church of Ireland, that, I might say, has ceased altogether, from the time of St. Lawrence O'Toole; in fact, the office of primate in the Catholic church has gone into disuse, I might say entirely; and they have become simple metropolitans.

If a council of that kind was held, would you esteem it a national council, or an ecumenical council ?-A national council. Could an ecumenical council be called, without the authority of the Pope?-No.

Would it be consistent with the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic faith, for the Pope to appoint a nuncio or legate, or any officer of that nature, to communicate with the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, or with a national council? On the contrary, it is quite in accordance with our discipline, that he should do so.

Has there been any instance of the appointment of a nuncio or a legate, since the appointment of Rentoccine?-No; and he came here as a political emissary, and did a great deal of mischief.

Upon any matter relating to the interest of the Roman Catholic church, such an appointment might be made by the see of Rome?-Certainly it might be made; but no nuncio would come to reside in these countries, because his residence here is illegal;

besides, he is a sort of ambassador from the Pope, and he would not demean his master, by coming into a country where he could not live with the honour that generally attends an envoy from the Pope.

It was supposed, that the nuncio or the legate should be commissioned not to communicate with the King, but to communicate with the national council of bishops, or with the bishops individually?—The Pope might send one for a special purpose, to remain for a short time, and in a private capacity, but he would not give him the title of legate, which is the most honorary distinction that an agent from the court of Rome can have; he might, as I have said, send an individual as a nuncio, but not to reside permanently in the country.

Had Doctor Hussey no such character ?-Never.

Had he no character of political agent? Not that I ever heard or knew of; and I am very confident he had not.

Was there any thing in the conduct of the Roman Catholics, in your opinion, during the reigns of the Stuarts, that justified the English Parliament in passing the penal laws against them?Yes; I think at that time, the connexion of the Roman Catholics with the Stuarts was such as justified, and even made it necessary for the English government to pass some penal laws against the Catholics; such as the excluding them from offices of trust, and perhaps even from the councils of the Sovereign; but I think that the necessity which existed, and which certainly would justify, perhaps demand of the government, to pass cer tain restrictive laws against the Roman Catholics, could not jus tify them in passing the very harsh and unnatural laws which abounded in the penal code.

Inasmuch as that conduct was hostile to the principle of the constitution of England, and civil liberty, are you of opinion, that they were in that degree justifiable?—I do think they were justifiable; nay, that it was their duty to pass restrictive laws against the Catholics, considering the political principles of the Catholics at that period.

Do you think there would be any objection, in case the question of Catholic Emancipation should be carried, to the re-enactment of such laws, with respect to the Roman Catholic church, as were enforced in this country, when that religion was the esta blished religion of the state?-I am but very imperfectly acquainted with the state of the laws at that period, in England, but from the knowledge that I have of them, and it is very imperfect, I should think not; however, the laws at that period, regarded chiefly the appointment to benefices and alienations of them, and giving situations, to which emoluments were attached;

now the title of the Catholic Church to every thing of that kind, has long since been extinct, and never can be revived; and to reenact those laws, would be like making laws to regulate the winds; they would have no subject matter on which to act.

There were very strict laws enforced previously to the Reformation, with respect to the admission of documents into this country from the see of Rome ?-What I said before, I should think, is the same that I would be disposed to say again; namely, that with regard to communications from Rome, as far as I am personally concerned, I really cannot see what objection I could have, or ought to have, to any restriction of any kind whatsoever that might be imposed upon them, provided they were permitted to come into my hands, and I might see the purport of them. I was going to observe, that at that time such restrictions were exceedingly necessary, as the Popes at that period pretended to have in this country rights and privileges, which are now utterly abolished, and never can be revived; on that account, it was very necessary that his correspondence with this country should be carefully watched, and an interference with the rights of the country and the rights of the Crown strictly guarded against; but at present, when no such right on the part of the Pope is pretended to, such laws as then existed cannot be thought necessary; but if they were thought necessary, I could not have any objection to them.

When were those powers formally disavowed by the Pope?—I do not know that they were ever formally disavowed by the Pope, nor do I suppose that they have been, nor was it necessary they should, because they have long since gone into disuse, and other laws have been enacted in the Church, which supposed their total abolition.

Where can the Committee find the laws which now define the powers or pretensions of the see of Rome, with respect to foreign countries?-We can best find them in the usages of the different churches in Europe; and we are not bound to recognise any of those ancient laws, which at all affected temporal rights.

Do the usages of the different States of Europe determine the power of the see of Rome?-Yes, the usages of each country respectively; for instance, in Spain, a usage, I think is, that the Pope should have the nomination to certain dignities in each chapter, upon their becoming vacant; also, that he should have the power, generally, through that kingdom, to nominate to benefices which became vacant in one particular month, or two months of the year; that is the usage of the Spanish church. In France, for instance, I believe he has no power to nominate to any benefice, either in the cathedral or out of it; thus the usage of one

.

church grants one thing, and the usage of another church denies the same thing to him in another country.

Can you state an instance of any country in Europe, being a Protestant country, in which there exist Roman Catholic prelates, with a provision of any kind from the State, in which the see of Rome does not permit a direct interference, on the part of the Protestant sovereign, in the appointment of the Roman Catholic prelates? The only one that I know of, is that of the King of the Netherlands, within his dominions; there has no arrangement as yet been come to upon the subject; and therefore, that is one State where the king is not recognised to have any authority whatever, with regard to the appointment of bishops; and certainly if a see were vacant in the Netherlands, the Pope could appoint to it, but whether the bishop appointed could take possession of it, that is another thing; perhaps the king might pre

vent it.

Are you aware, that a negotiation has been pending for some years, between the King of the Netherlands and the see of Rome? -Yes; and I was sorry to hear it had been broken off.

Do you know, whether in the Netherlands the Roman Catholic prelates have legal rights and possessions, or whether they rest upon the same footing on which the Roman Catholic prelates here do?-In Flanders they have legal rights and possessions.

In that respect they differ from the Roman Catholic prelates in this country, all whose possessions are dependant upon the payments of their flock ?—Yes.

If the Roman Catholic prelates were under any Act, to receive salaries from the State, does not it strike you, that it would make a considerable difference as to the propriety of some interference on the part of Crown in their appointment, either by regulation or by refusal ?—I think I replied to that question in substance, by saying, that I thought it just and reasonable, before a Roman Catholic, appointed here to a see, should receive any emolument from the state, that it should be certified to the Crown, that he was a loyal and peaceable subject, by such commission or persons as His Majesty might think competent to report to him with regard to it.

You observe now, that the Committee are not asking with reference to the propriety of the person who is to be appointed, having been born in these countries, or having been educated in these countries; but they are asking now, merely as to the propriety of his nomination belonging to a domestic body, would you think it reasonable, in the event of a provision being made for the clergy, that it should form a part of the certificate that the government should have, not only that he was loyal, but that he had been postulated by a domestic body?-I before answered

that, I thought it most desirable, as well as most reasonable, that his appointment should be domestic.

Do you think, in case the question of Roman Catholic Emancipation were settled so far as regards the removal of political disabilities, that there ought to remain any restriction with respect to the public exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, any restriction as to processions, or the performance, in the most public manner, of the ceremonies of that religion?—I think, wherever different religionists are living in the same country, the carrying abroad in the open air, and exposing to public view the ceremonies of any religion, is not consistent with sound sense, or that prudence which ought always to govern States; and therefore I think, that those processions in the open air, outside the precincts of a church, ought to be guarded against, even by law, if it were thought advisable; and to that I would make no exception, except as to the attendance of clergymen at funerals, and that attendance I would have so regulated, that his clerical dress, and the external shew which attends the performance of that rite, should be exhibited only at the burial-place, and not paraded through the streets, or through any place where it could offend the view, or hurt the feelings of persons of different religious persuasions.

You think there would be no objection to the enactment of provisions upon that head?-Really, I think it would be desirable they should be enacted, for the indiscretion of foolish men, by parading those things abroad, might create feelings in the community which would tend to evil; I should wish that such provisions were made.

Do you think it should be a part of Catholic Emancipation, that the Roman Catholic bishops should sit in the House of Lords?-On the contrary, I think it would be most pernicious to the public interest, both political and religious, that they should ever sit in it.

You have been examined upon the subject of the kingdom of the Netherlands, you are aware, that in the Catholic provinces, which form a considerable portion of the kingdom of the Netherlands, and which have lately been united to the former state of the United Provinces, the established religion is the Catholic religion? It is.

If then in those provinces, the result of a concordat with the see of Rome, were to give to the sovereign of the country (a Protestant sovereign) the nomination to the sees in those Catholic parts of his dominions; do you conceive there would be any objection, except a political objection, to such an arrangement being made with respect to Ireland; in a word, do you conceive that it would be perfectly consistent with the discipline of the church of