Then, under that interpretation, would you consider all the divines of the Established church and of the Presbyterian church, and, in short, of every denomination of Christians differing from the Roman Catholic church, as contumacious?--If the errors which they held, were involuntary and invincible on their part, I should not consider them so.

But if what are called errors, arise from a conviction in the mind of the person who holds them, of their not being errors, and are thereby involuntary on his part, would you then consider them contumacious?-When he has had sufficient opportunities of being instructed and enlightened, and he still continues to hold what I consider erroneous doctrine, I do no longer consider his error involuntary, I consider it voluntary, and then, of course, comes the guilt of contumacy.

Then, in short, every person who has had education, and has turned his attention to these matters, who has received the general instruction that people do upon a religious education, is, in your interpretation of the word, a heretic, if he does not agree with the principles of the Catholic religion?-I could not undertake to pronounce sentence upon any individual, the individual is the best judge whether he has used the necessary diligence, in order to remove his error; all I assert, generally, is, that those who, after having had a full opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of the truths which I consider necessary to salvation, and of having their error removed, if they still persist, I do consider such error on their part to be voluntary, and that they therefore become contumacious; but who the individuals are that are so circumstanced, is what I do not take upon myself to determine.

You of course believe that your own church is the true church; it is the nature of every church, that the conscientious professors of it believe that their own profession is the true one?—Yes; I do believe the Roman Catholic church to be the true one.

Then with respect to a person who differs from your church, if in your opinion it is merely error, on his part, and that he honestly and conscientiously differs from your church; and after he has endeavoured to inform himself, still continues in error, you do not count that person a heretic ?-I do not count a person a heretic, whose error is involuntary and invincible.

What is the distinction you take between Schism and Heresy ; is it that the one is voluntary, and the other involuntary ?-No. Schism and Heresy are different things; schism refers to the government and discipline of the church, and heresy to its doctrines.

Whether a person differs in a voluntary manner, or an involuntary manner, still you consider that Catholics are bound to keep faith with him, as well as with one of their own communion? Just as much as with persons of their own communion.

And all other moral ties that subsist between man and man, subsist equally between a Catholic and a heretic, and between a Catholic and one of his own communion ?-Exactly the same; it makes not the smallest difference. All moral ties, all contracts, and all engagements, we are bound to fulfil towards those who differ from us in religion, as well as towards those who are of the same persuasion.

Then, if the Committee understand your evidence right, it is perfectly consistent with the general belief in the mind of a Roman Catholic, that a church which differs from his own in important matters of faith, may be heretical; that yet that Roman Catholic may not be disposed to visit with the severity of that opinion, individuals belonging to that church?—Exactly.

Do not you think it almost impossible, for one human being to look so into the heart of another, as to determine positively, whether he is in a state of involuntary ignorance, or of obstinate refusal to the truth ?-I would not undertake to do it.

Do not you think, under those circumstances, that persons who differ from one another in religion, are bound to the observance of mutual duties as to each other, and to put a kind interpretation their motives and conduct?-They are strictly bound to love each other, and to discharge the duties of society and of christian charity towards each other, just the same as if they agreed upon every point of religious belief.

upon

Is it your opinion, that the general question of Catholic Emancipation excites a considerable degree of interest among the lower orders of Catholics, in the part of Ireland with which you are particularly acquainted?-In the part of Ireland with which I am particularly acquainted, it is my opinion that the question of Catholic Emancipation, engages the thoughts and the attention of all ranks of Catholics considerably.

Though in the case of Catholic Emancipation being granted, no particular or immediate benefits might be considered to be granted to the lower orders of Catholics, is it not your opinion, that they would look upon it as a boon to the Catholic population at large, removing from the higher ranks of their religion, the mark of infamy and degradation which is now affixed to them?-I am perfectly satisfied that they would receive it as a boon, and that they would feel the utmost gratitude for it; and that it would tend most materially towards tranquillizing their minds, and leaving them more at ease than they can feel at present.

Do not you think it would have a soothing effect upon the lower orders of Catholics ?-It would have the most soothing effect.

Do not you think the payment of the Catholic clergy by the State, would have a yet more soothing effect upon the lower orders in Ireland ?-I am not aware that the payment of the Roman

Catholic clergy by the State, would by any means be considered a boon by the lower orders.

Do not the lower orders of Roman Catholics in Ireland, feel an objection at times to paying the dues that the Roman Catholic priests receive from them ?-In some instances, I have no doubt that they may feel some reluctance.

Would not relieving them from the payment of those dues, be considered by them as a boon ?—They would prefer paying their clergy as they do at present, to seeing them become the stipendiaries of government.

Do you mean to say, that they would prefer continuing to pay their clergy as they do at present, rather than to see them become the stipendiaries of government, if the grant of those stipends was accompanied by what is called Catholic Emancipation; or do you mean to confine the consideration of that grant, your answer to separate from Catholic Emancipation ?-My answer referred to our present state; whilst the Roman Catholic laity remain excluded from the benefits of the constitution, I do conceive that they would feel much hurt at seeing their clergy become the stipendiaries of government.

You do not believe that the same jealousy would be felt by the Catholic population, if the two measures, a provision for the clergy and the removal of political disabilities, on account of religious persuasion, were made concurrent measures?—I am not aware exactly what effect it might then produce; perhaps it would be then considered a kindness, provided the Roman Catholic clergy were allowed the free exercise of their functions, and there were no influence or authority, direct or indirect, exercised over them in the discharge of their duties.

Will you have the kindness to explain to the Committee, what interference with the discharge or exercise of their functions could be suspected, by their receiving a provision from the State, in lieu of their present mode of payment?-If, for example, the appointment of Catholic ministers were to be vested in those who differed from them in religion, they would conceive that in that case persons might be appointed as clergymen of their communion, whose selection might be influenced by motives distinct from the consideration of their fitness for the discharge of their duties.

Then the objection would be, not to the clergy receiving a provision from the State, in lieu of their present payment, but to allowing an interference in the appointment of their bishops or other clergy?-I should think principally so.

Then the doubts which you felt, with regard to the question how far a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy would be ac ceptable to the Catholics of Ireland, referred altogether to the independence of the Catholic church in the question of appointments,

and their protection from what might be considered an undue in terference on the part of the Crown?-It is in that sense particu larly I understand it at this moment.

Then, in the event of a payment for the Roman Catholic clergy being connected with arrangements that would secure the inde pendence of the Catholic clergy, as well as being connected with Emancipation itself, have you any doubt that that measure would be acceptable to the Catholics of Ireland?-I really have not turned my thoughts to that question exactly, as it is now put; I do believe that some of the people would have no objection, in that event, to a provision being made for them.

You have stated, you are not aware what the feelings of the Catholic population might altogether be; would there be any ob jection do you believe, believe, on the part of the prelates and clergy, to receiving such a provision, provided, as was stated in a former question, the grant of it was accompanied by the concession of political privileges to the laity, and the security of the indepen dence of the Catholic church?—I cannot exactly answer what the feelings of our prelates and clergy might be on the occasion; I would not undertake to say.

Should you, yourself, as one of the prelates of that church, have any objection to such a provision being made?-As one of the prelates of the church, I will candidly confess, I should prefer remaining as I now am.

Would you have any objection to state to the Committee generally, what the value or amount of revenue received by the bishop and clergy of your diocese, may be ?-I can safely answer, I should think, although I have never made an exact calculation, my receipts, within any one year, never amounted to 7007.; and I do not suppose, that in general, they ever much exceed 500l.

With respect to the clergy of your diocese, what is the average income of a parish priest ?There may be three or four parishes. in the arch-diocese of Tuam, where the receipts of the priests amount to perhaps about from 250l. to 300l. per annum.

Do those parishes include the towns? They include the

towns.

The parish of Tuam is your own parish ?-It is.

From what other sources, besides the parish of Tuam, is your revenue derived ?-Each parish priest gives a guinea or two in the year, and for each marriage that is performed in the parish, there is a certain portion of that money given to the support of the bishop; those are the sources of his emolument as bishop.

Have you more than one parish ?—I have the charge of Westport parish at present.

Is it the custom of the Catholic church to have unions of pa rishes, in the same manner as in the Established church? It

sometimes happens. On my appointment to the see of Tuam I found the revenues of it inadequate to the objects I had in view. I wished to establish an episcopal seminary, and to establish schools for the education of the poor; and I wished, besides that, to have it in my power to give occasional assistance towards the erection or repair of Roman Catholic chapels throughout my diocese: and finding that the revenues of the diocese were inadequate to those objects, I made application to be allowed to hold another parish along with the parish of Tuam, in order that by receiving some emolument therefrom, I might be able to fulfil those objects I have alluded to.

How do you administer the parish of Westport?-By cu

rates.

May the Committee ask, what is the value of that parish ?I should think about 300l. a year.

Is the union of parishes in themselves, separated by great distance, usual in the case of Catholic archbishops or bishops, with a view of augmenting their income, or supplying the inadequacy of their income?—The principal object I had in view, in obtaining a second parish, the parish of Westport, was what I have stated. I had other objects besides; I did apprehend, that perhaps if I were to send another priest to the place, he would not be very kindly received by certain individuals there, and I thought that an unpleasant difference would be avoided by taking the parish in charge myself.

When you state the average income to be from 500l. to 7001.' a year, of the parish of Tuam, and of your office of bishop, do you mean to include the produce of the parish of Westport also, or is that an addition to the average income?-Although I have held the parish of Westport now for nearly three years, I can declare safely, that I have not received 100%. out of it during the whole time I have held it. The poverty of the people was such, that I gave directions to the curates there, in consequence of the severe pressure of the times, and the distresses of the people in that town and parish, not to be very urgent in the collection of the dues, for which reason I have received very little

emolument out of it.

Is there the same union of the bishopric of Ardagh with the archdiocese of Tuam in the Catholic, as there is in the Protestant church? No.

Do you hold any bishopric united with the archdiocese of Tuam ?-None.

Did you mean, by stating that you would rather things remained as they are, with respect to any project of a stipendiary provision for the clergy, to carry your objection to that stipendiary provision so far as to say, that you would regret it should