taken by the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, first omitted? -In the life-time of Pius the Sixth; I think about the year 1793.

To your knowledge, have they been uniformly omitted ever since? They have been uniformly omitted ever since.

Who exercises the power of the see during the vacancy?-A vicar capitular. Where there is a chapter, they elect the person to administer the diocese during the vacancy; that person is called a vicar capitular.

Where there is no chapter?-Then the metropolitan appoints such vicar capitular.

Is it the practice in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland for the bishops to have coadjutors ?-There are many instances of the bishops having coadjutors; but it is not a uniform nor a general practice, and it is discouraged rather than encouraged by the Pope.

Who appoints the coadjutor?—The coadjutors are generally appointed in the same manner as bishops are appointed; but in the appointment of coadjutors, the wishes and feelings of the bishop to whom he is given are principally attended to.

Is the person appointed coadjutor considered to have a right to look to nomination to the see ?-He is appointed cum jure successionis.

What is the authority of the Warden of Galway?-His office is quite a peculiarity in our church. I do not know that there is in the universal church any one like his. I will, if it be wished, explain it at more length. The warden of Galway is elected by certain persons in Galway and the neighbourhood, who are supposed to be the descendants of certain English families who settled many centuries ago in that town, Those persons assemble once in three years, as I recollect, and they elect a clergyman to be the guardian, or warden as they now call it, of their ecclesiastical concerns. This warden, so elected by the clergy and people, is inducted by the ecclesiastical vicars; and then he is placed in jurisdiction to govern that little church. At the end of three years, if I be correct as to the number, the same process must be gone through again, and his jurisdiction renewed,

Has he episcopal jurisdiction ?-He has what we call quasi episcopal.

To the exclusion of any other bishop in his district?—Not to he exclusion; for the Archbishop of Tuam has a right of visitation, with some other rights, within that district.

Have not the metropolitans the right of visitation over all the bishops within their provinces?-They have not; the right of metropolitans has been greatly limited in the Council of Trent.

The only right, which remains to them in our church, is that of receiving appeals from the decisions of their suffragans; but there are very few cases indeed in which they have the right of visitation.

What is the extent of the power of the warden of Galway?His jurisdiction extends to the town and suburbs. I believe there are eight or ten parishes subject to him. Upon that subject I may be in error; but the error is not material.

By whom are the parochial clergy appointed in each diocese?By the bishop exclusively.

Does the bishop remove a parochial priest from one parish to another?-He may remove him if the priest consents to it, but without the consent of the priest he cannot do so, unless the priest be guilty of some canonical fault.

The question refers to translation?-He may do so.

Is that a frequent practice?-Pretty frequent, not very. By whom are the curates of each parochial priest appointed?They are uniformly appointed by the bishop.

Is the money paid to the parish priest for performing the ceremony of marriage exclusive of the money paid for the license? There is no money paid for the license, nor no license granted by the bishops for the celebration of marriage in the province in which I live, with the exception of the diocese of Ferns, throughout which there is something which must be given by the priest to the bishop on account of each marriage which he solemnizes.

Are there banns published in the church previous to marriages?—No, it is not customary, in most instances, to do so. Are licenses granted by the bishops for marriages?—No,

Is it merely on the application of the parties to the parish priest that the marriage is performed?-Unless it be within the prohibited time. The parish priest has a right to solemnize the marriage of his own parishioners, on application being made to him, without reference to any one; but if the parties should appear to be related, within the prohibited degrees, or any other impediment, such as a promise of marriage made to any other person by either of the parties previously existing, reference must then be made to the bishop.

In what manner are the deans and chapters paid?-They hold parishes; they have no particular emolument.

The deans and chapters have no particular emolument whatever? They have not: their's is a mere honorary distinction. When a priest is appointed a dean, he has a particular parish, which is usually annexed to that deanery?-Not a particular parish; I do not know that particular parishes are at all joined to deaneries in Ireland.

Are the customary payments of parishioners ever withheld from the parochial clergy?-I am sure they sometimes are, for in the time of the Whiteboy system in Ireland, we found the people complained as much of the dues paid to the priests, as of the tithes required by the clergy of the established church; and I think I might state, that the priests very frequently are unable to collect the customary dues from the people. This results generally from the poverty of the poorer classes, and often from an unwillingness, on the part of some, to contribute.

Are those payments ever enforced?-I cannot say that they are. I apprehended that in my own diocese, sometimes, persons very poor might be obliged to pay something; and, in order to prevent the possibility of oppression of the poor, I prohibited the priests, under the penalty of suspension, from withholding their ministry from any, whether rich or poor, on any such ground.

Occasionally they did withhold their ministry from them on that account?—I believe there have been instances.

Is the rule, you state yourself to have laid down, general in the other dioceses?-I believe it may have prevailed in some other dioceses; but I cannot say that it is general.

Would you apply it in any case where the person was able to pay?—Yes, I would even there, because I think that money ought not to be a subject of dispute between the priest and his parishioners at all. If a man be not generous enough to give a contribution to a priest who labours for him, and has devoted his time and his talents to his service, I should rather go without it, and live in peace: and that is the disposition I wish to impress upon the clergy under my care.

Would it be felt by the peasantry in Ireland as a relief to them, if the provision for their priests were provided from some other funds?-I am sure it would; a very considerable relief.

If any provision were made by government towards the maintenance of Catholic priests, should you think it better to relieve the people from the annual payment, or the payment of fees? I should say that, with the exception of a few towns, where there is a kind of annual payment distinct from fees, every contribution made by the people to the clergy is made at the time when the priest is performing some office for them, so that all of them might be denominated fees in some measure. If, then, I were to suggest any thing, it would be that all and every contribution to be made by the people, or accepted of by the priest, should cease altogether, with the exceptions that I have before mentioned, that is baptisms, marriages, and burials. I think the relief to the people would be very great, if the dues of priests were entirely done away; and unless pro

vision is made to put an end to them, they will be continued by avaricious men in various ways, and the relief of the people Iwould not be attained. I would add, that in the event of a regulation of that kind being made, the contributions at funerals, marriages, and baptisms, would be diminished by I suppose one-half; for now the people, knowing that the clergy have only the precarious kind of support which they have, are liberal on those occasions of baptisms and marriages; but if they saw that the priest had a provision independently of those, many probably would give much less than they now do, and some nothing at all.

Would you object to this measure being an isolated measure separate from any other measure that may be in contemplation for the relief of the Catholic laity?-Yes, I should sooner lay my head on a block than accede to the receiving any relief whatever from Government in a pecuniary way, unless the disabilities under which the laity labour were first removed.

Would you object to an arrangement by which every person obtaining a living in Ireland should memorialize the crown upon coming into such living, for the usual stipend allotted to his situation; and afterwards, when promoted to a bishopric or any other dignity, should memorialize the crown for such additional stipend; the crown having the discretion to grant or withhold such stipend, but the stipend being once granted, not to be forfeited or changed in amount, except for canonical_offence? I think there is nothing more just or reasonable than that such an arrangement should take place, for I think it would be very fair and very just that a man who expected to eat the bread of the state, should make known to the government who he was, and that they should be satisfied he was a proper person to get such stipend, I think that is just and fair; but I think the parochial clergy would do better to memorialize through the bishop, or that he should be the channel through which their memorials should pass. I hope your lordships would not have in your minds a disposition to exclude the just authority of the bishop, which he now has over the parish priest; so that, in case the priest were convicted of any fault, or unable to perform his duties, that he should not continue to receive such stipend.

Is it understood, the memorial of the bishop in that case should be received by the government as conclusive upon their making that grant? That the government is to exercise its judgment; but the bishop, in my opinion, would be the proper channel to make the communication, in order that the parochial clergy should not be holding communication directly with the government.

Do you think it would be desirable, in such a case, to throw the livings into classes, annexing different salaries to them, in some proportion to their duties?-I think there should be a scale of the salary; but I doubt whether that scale should be regulated by the extent of their duties. I think it ought rather to have reference to the towns or cities in which they would dwell. It might happen that a clergyman in the country, in a mountainous country, might have very laborious duties to perform; and yet his situation is obscure, and he himself not exposed to expense; whereas the person in the town must be a person of improved manners, pay more for a house, and be obliged occasionally to entertain friends. There should, then, be a scale; but it ought not to be regulated, in my humble opinion, by the duties to be performed.

Do you conceive that there exists a desire, on the part of the Catholic church generally, or of many individuals in it, supposing the arrangements referred to in a former question to be made or not, to possess themselves of any part of the revenues of the church of England?Whether such arrangement were made or not made, I never discovered in others, nor have I ever entertained myself, any disposition whatever to be put into possession of any portion at all of the revenues or property belonging to the established church. I will add, that if any portion of that property were offered to me, I would not accept of it; that if it were proposed to grant the stipend at present spoken of out of the tithes received by the clergy of the establishment, I would not be induced to accept of it.

Without meaning to doubt that which you have stated, were it possible to suppose such a disposition to exist on the part of the Roman Catholic church, is it one that would find any countenance or favour on the part of the Roman Catholic laity ?Unquestionably not; they would be more averse to it than the Roman Catholic clergy, if more averse to it they could be.

Do you mean to say that there is no indisposition on the part of the Roman Catholic laity to allow the established church to continue in possession of all her present emoluments?—I do not by any means say that; for it may be that Roman Catholics, as well as the dissenters of other kinds from the establishment, may think that the present property enjoyed by the clergy of the establishment is rather great for the means of the country. I could not, therefore, say that Catholics would not, in common with others, wish that the amount of that property were diminished, and applied to other uses of the state; but I am quite clear, that neither the Catholic clergy nor Catholic laity have any disposition at all to possess themselves, in any kind of way, of such property.