Are you aware of the fact, that any Roman Catholic bishops were appointed to examine the evidence, and to state their opinions upon the evidence?-I am aware of the fact, that Doctor Doyle did examine, and that Doctor Murray did examine; but I know they did it of themselves, without any appointment.

Did not the two bishops, who undertook to examine into the credibility of those miracles, express publicly their opinion that such miracles were actually performed ?-They did.

Did you ever hear of any other bishops who dissented from them, as to the degree of credibility which was to be attached to them?—I have not heard of other bishops, but I should not be surprised if there were others.

Have you heard that any bishop has publicly expressed a dissent from those two Roman Catholic bishops? It would not be expedient for a bishop to express his dissent, as to facts publicly affirmed, if he had not examined into them; neither is he called upon to approve of alleged facts that he has not had an opportunity of examining and ascertaining.

If the only men who examined the facts stated a decided opinion that the miracles were performed, and no other bishops dissented from that opinion, nor instituted any inquiry for the purpose of enabling them to form an opinion for themselves, do not you think that the published opinion of the two bishops who did examine, must tend to create an universal impression on behalf of those who read their opinion, that the miracles were actually performed ?—Yes; it carried motives of probability and credibility with it, but it carried no motives that rendered it imperative upon the Catholics to believe.

But the tendency must be to produce a general belief; the character of the parties and their situation would induce a general confidence in their belief?-Yes, it would.

Then the Committee understand you to say, the Roman Catholic population are of opinion that the efficiency of the priesthood is best secured by the circumstance of their not being in possession of large emoluments ?-Certainly.

If that is their opinion with respect to their own priesthood, is it also with respect to the priesthood of other religious persuasions?-They have no interest in the priesthood of other religious persuasions.

Have they no interest with regard to the payment of tithes ? -They would pay their tithes as a matter enjoined by law; but they have no interest in the purity of character and conduct of the priesthood of other denominations.

The question does not refer to purity of character, but to

temporal emoluments, have not they a direct interest in lessening the emoluments of another church ?-The Roman Catholics have no interest in lessening the emoluments of the established church more than they have in lessening the quantum of rent which they pay to their landlord.

They are equally satisfied to pay the tithe to the Protestant clergyman as they are to pay rent to the landlord?—No, I do not think they are.

Why are they not?—In the first place, the tithe is imposed as a tax, the rent is a matter of convention between the landlord and the tenant; the rent is so much money paid for a quantity of land, like paying for the use of a machine, and paid by agreement; and the tithe is paid not for the rent of the land, it is paid not only out of the machine, but the capital and labour vested in it.

There is nothing in the circumstance of its being paid to the minister of another church that makes it objectionable to the Roman Catholic peasantry?-They would not pay it to their own church.

They do not object to the payment of tithes as a due to the Protestant clergyman ?-Not as a due to the Protestant clergyman; but they would wish to get rid of it, in common with many Protestants.

Just in the same way that they would wish to get rid of their rent?-In the same way that many Protestants would wish to get rid of the tithes; in the first place, they look upon the tithes as an impost placed upon the public, for the upholding of a corporate establishment; they look upon them as the public property of the state; and many Catholics, in conjunction with many Protestants, think, that the state might appropriate a great part of that property to more useful purposes, and in a more effectual manner, than at present; but, as Catholics, they have no feeling with respect to the conversion of tithe into a means of support for their own priesthood; neither do they object to it as Catholics, but as thinking men.

You are speaking of the feelings of the peasantry?—No; of the gentry, and intelligent Catholics and Protestants.

Will you state what the feeling of the peasantry is with respect to the payment of tithe ?-They look upon it as a hardship, as it takes a tenth part, and sometimes more, of the value of the produce of the land; and on account of its variableness and uncertainty, and their inability to pay it.

They do not object to it as a payment made to the minister of another church? They do not object to it as a payment

made to the minister of another church, as contrasting that minister with the minister of their own church.

They would rather prefer the payment of dues to the minister of their own church, in order to secure his comparative poverty, than that he should be paid out of the tithes ?No, I do not say that; if it were the will of the legislature that they should be relieved from what they pay at present to the ministers of their own church, by paying part of the tithes to them, I believe they would have no objection; but if they were allowed to get rid of tithe altogether, and left at liberty to give or withhold a part of it from the ministers of their own church, they would withhold it.

In order to put it into their own pockets ?-To get rid of the burden of it.

Do not you think that the universal impression among the population is this, that if tithe is to be continued, it is more just that it should be paid to Roman Catholics than to Protestants?—I do not think so.

In point of fact, if they are to pay it, they have not the least objection to pay it to the Protestant clergy?-It is altogether matter of indifference to them, if they are obliged to pay it, to whom they pay it; they certainly would wish to be relieved of part of the burden of paying their own priests. At the same time I do think, that if the choice was given them, and that they were told, you must pay tithe to somebody, you must choose between the Catholic and the Protestant clergy, they would choose their own priests; but if they were told, you shall get rid of tithes, and you have in your power to give or withhold it to your own priests, they would withhold it.

A large body of Roman Catholics have lately expressed an opinion, in a petition to the House of Commons, that in order to ensure permanent peace in Ireland, first of all, that the political disabilities must be removed; but also that the present church establishment of Ireland must be reformed, and its temporalities reduced, and that the corporations must be disfranchised; that is a petition which has lately proceeded, not from the Roman Catholic Association, but encouraged by them; it comes at their instigation; do you concur in that petition or not?-I deem it very inexpedient and improper in the Catholic Association to mix up extraneous matter with what ought to be the single object of their labours, the repeal of the penal code.

Why improper?-Because as Catholics, they ought not to come forward; they may come forward in conjunction with Protestants, but they ought not to mix up that question with

their character as a Catholic association; I thought it was very improper.

Do not you think it was perfectly open to them, and perfectly fair, if they thought, that in order to insure the permanent peace of Ireland, something more was necessary than to remove the political disabilities; was not it perfectly fair and candid in them to state it ?—To state it as individuals in connexion with other religious denominations would be perfectly fair, but to state it as coming from a Catholic body, and as speaking the opinions of the Catholics as such, I thought unfair, and not justifiable.

Do you agree with them as to the main fact; do you think, that in order to insure the permanent peace of Ireland, that those other measures are necessary; namely, the reduction of the temporalities of the present church establishment, and the disfranchisement of the corporations; or do you think they are not ?—I should not be inclined to think so; but I have not made up my mind upon that point.

Then how do you reconcile that last opinion with the former one, that if political disabilities were removed, there would cease to exist any cause of animosity?-Because then it would not be between Catholic and Protestant, but between the people and the clergy.

Would not the question of reduction of the temporalities of the church, be a question between Protestants and Roman Catholics?-No; it would be as much a question between the Protestant clergy and the Protestant laity, between Protestant and Protestant, as between Catholic and Protestant; in fact, the word Catholic or Protestant would not intervene at all.

You are then of opinion, as far as you can form a judgment upon it, that although, if the political distinctions were removed, there would be no cause of animosity between Protestants and Catholics, yet, that in order to secure the permanent tranquillity of Ireland, some more permanent reform must be made?-I would incline to think, that it would conduce to the amelioration of the country, but I do not think it would be necessary to the tranquillization of the country; I would rather wish that those reductions were made, because I think the country would be the better for it; but I say that as a person speaking, not as a Roman Catholic, but from my own reflections, and from reading the Edinburgh Review, and other Essays on Political Economy.

Do you think that that petition which has been referred to, speaks the opinion of Roman Catholics generally ?-There are many that coincide with it, and many that do not.

G

Will those that do not coincide with it express their dissent in any way?—No; I think there are many Catholics that disapprove of the conduct of the Association in bringing forward that question, as connected with the Catholic cause, but who do not feel themselves called on to express their dissent.

This petition is not the petition of the Association; it is a petition of the undersigned Catholics; it does not profess to be the petition of the Association ?-As connected with Catholic disabilities, or arising from Catholic feeling, I do not approve of the petition at all; it does not speak the sense of the people.

Do you think it likely that those whose sense it does not speak will state explicitly how far they agree or disagree with it; if it is improper and unjust, according to your opinion, that the petition should be presented, do not you think it would be becoming in others, who entirely dissent from it, if they were to disavow it?-I should think the expression of such a dissent would be misconstrued into a disavowal of the sentiments entertained not as Catholics, but as Irishmen generally, or as inhabitants of the country.

As Irishmen generally, they entertain those opinions, but as Roman Catholics, they do not think it becoming in them, when they are petitioning for a relief from disabilities, to state those opinions to the legislature?—I do not think they are at all connected with their grievances as Catholics; many of them may join with Protestants in entertaining that opinion, but I do not conceive they are more called upon to disavow those sentiments than Protestants are.

As to the dissolution of the Union, what do you think is the general impression with respect to that, which has been stated by some Roman Catholics to be essential to the restoration of tranquillity?-As to the dissolution of the Union, I thought it one of the most mischievous, and false I may say, political propositions that could be propounded. For my part, I do think that the well being of Ireland is intimately and inseparably connected with England; and I believe that it is the general feeling throughout Ireland, that the project of dissolution is both visionary and mischievous.

You entirely dissent from that proposition?-I do most cordially. I do not see what good can arise from the separaration of the countries; on the contrary, I can fancy the greatest evil to our unfortunate country from such an event.

The question does not refer to the actual separation of the countries, but the restoration of such a state of things as existed previously to the Union ?-I do not think that the