Page images
PDF
EPUB

In his letter from Cork, above referred to, as a reason for withholding an answer to the questions which had been put to him in the Dublin Evening Herald, in addition to that already noticed, of the indecorum of publishing a confidential conversation, he says, "It would evidently be still more indecorous, it would even be a crime too bad to be named, to betray the confidence of the venerable Prelates, whose business I so lately transacted. plains, that they themselves have thought proper to keep him in Laicus comthe dark with respect to it; and he applies to me, their confidential agent, to inform him of it.”—If Dr. Milner had no instructions from his constituents upon this subject, where would be the crime, when he found much prejudice excited against them in the minds of their Roman Catholic flock, on account of the instructions which they were supposed to have given, to have stated that they had really given him none? If, indeed, they had given him any, it might be to betray them inconveniently enough, had he disclosed the fact, when they wished it to be concealed; but unless he had some instructions from them upon this point, which, under present circumstances at least, they do not feel it convenient to have disclosed, it is difficult to conceive how he could have been misled into the idea that it would be a crime to tell the world, not what his instructions were, nor even what they were not,-but merely and solely that he had no instructions at all; and that, consequently, whatever he had said in conversation, whether more or less consistent with what might have been expected from him, and whether rightly or wrongly understood and represented by those to whom he had said it, had nothing in the remotest degree to do - with any instruction from the Roman Catholic Bishops; and that no possible responsibility, therefore, could attach upon them on account of it. Could such a statement betray any confidenoe, or constitute any crime? Nay, does it not seem that fairness and justice towards his constituents would, under such circumstances, have imperiously required it of him?

But besides this, the conduct of the Roman Catholic Bishops themselves seem to afford reason to conclude, that they had given some instructions or authority to Dr. Milner upon this subject ;-for what do they do? They find a strong impression made in the minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in consequence of this proposal. In the language which Dr. Milner, in his Letter to the "Morning Chronicle, puts into the mouths of some of them: "We find (he makes them say) that a vast majority of our people is decidedly against the concession, even, insomuch, that we should lose their confidence and our influence over them were we at present to sanction it." Under this impression, at a synod held by them in Dublin, on the 14th and 15th of September, they declare, that "It is the decided opinion of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland, that it is inexpedient to make any alteration in the common mode hitherto observed in the nomination of Irish Roman

Miscellanies.

Catholic Bishops; which mode long experience has proved to be unexceptionable, wise, and salutary." Now, can it possibly be supposed that, if, when they were assembled and considering the effect of those declarations in Parliament; when they were impressed with a strong sense of the decided disapprobation of a when they were vast majority of their people to this concession, desirous of recovering the confidence and preserving the influence which they might fear to lose, in consequence of the proposal, can it possibly be supposed, that if they had given no authority, or no instructions, specific or general, that they would not have availed themselves of such an opportunity of declaring that fact? One simple declaration to that effect, would not only have restored to them the confidence of their flock, but it would have proved that they had never done any thing upon the subject for a moment to lose or to shake it; and when, instead of this, they content themselves with barely stating that it is "inexpedient," in language which Dr. Milner thinks justifies him in arguing that it is an inexpediency" which depends upon existing circumstances, and which obviously may vary," the inference surely is, That they could not in truth and honour deny the fact that they had given some authority. Such certainly would at least be the inference which I should have drawn from this circumstance, if it had not been for Dr. Milner's declaration in his Letter to the Parish Priest, That he had uniformly declared he had no instructions from them whatever upon that subject. As it is, however, there are difficulties both ways; and this question must, as far as depends upon any materials which are, to my knowledge at present, before the public, remain involved in some degree of uncertainty. I am aware, that to many readers it may seem a matter of very inconsiderable importance whether this difficulty should ever be removed; but, on the other hand, I am confident, that to others it will appear to be a question affecting in no slight degree the good faith and sincerity of the transaction itself, as well as the consistency of the account which Dr. Milner has given of it.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

A. B.

LETTER V.

Having endeavoured to shew in my former letters (with what success you, Mr. Editor, and your readers, must determine) that a proposition was made by the Parliamentary Advocates of the Roman Catholics, in the name of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland, under the asserted authority of Dr. Milner; and that it was made under the assertion of a degree of warrant or authority, which Dr. Milner now says he never gave; and having further shewn, in my last letter, the difficulty that there is in ascertaining whether those Bishops had really given Dr. Milner any authority at all, I now proceed to the last question which 1 proposed to consider; namely, Whether the proposition which was so made (under

whatever degree of warrant or authority) was or was not conformable to that which Dr. Milner had authorized his Parliamentary Friends to make?

I shall here again begin with endeavouring to understand, from Dr. Milner's statements, what the proposition was which he had given his Parliamentary Friends reason to believe would meet with the concurrence of the Irish Bishops; and I shall then compare it with the proposition, as it was really stated according to the best account which can be procured of it.

Dr. Milner's own words, in his letter in the Morning Chronicle on this point, are as follows:

:

"That I know full well the Catholic Bishops could not give to his Majesty, nor he, as Head of the Established Church, receive a right of patronage, or any other positive power in this concern, as this would be an incontestable pledge and act of mutual religious communion; nevertheless, I had very good reason to believe the Catholic Bishops in Ireland would not be averse, under CERTAIN circumstances, and as a part of a general arrangement, from con, ceding to the Crown a certain negative power or veto, such as would, in my opinion, afford the desired pledge, provided that this power. were limited within the bounds necessary for the safety, as well as the independency of our Church; and in such manner as to prevent the negative power from becoming a positive power, or from being otherwise abused for the oppression, corruption, or detriment of our religion."

The questions which occur to be asked upon this statement are, What these limitations were to be? and, Whether, whatever they were, they were specified by Dr. Milner to his Parliamentary Advocates, and acceded to by them? — and, if so, Whether they were stated by them to parliament ?

To some of these questions at least, an answer can, in part, be supplied by a reference to Dr. Milner's other Letters. In his Jetter from Wolverhampton to the Parish Priest, which has been before referred to, the account given of the conversation with his Parliamentary Friends, is in these words:

"I said, however, that I had good reason to believe that they (the Roman Catholic Bishops) never would consent to attribute any positive power to the Crown, not even so far as to its selecting one Candidate out of three of the Prelate's own proposing ; nevertheless, that in case there was to be a friendly Ministry, and that the emancipation were to take place, I thought they would not be averse to consult his Majesty's Ministers, after they had themselves choscu, in the usual way, the person fittest to be presented to the Pontiff, in order to ascertain whether those Ministers entertained any suspicion of the purity of this person's civil aud political conduct and principles, which is in fact to ascribe a nega. tive power and interference in this transaction. I added, however, that they would not, according to my notions, allow the Crown an unrestrained negative power; as this might be made to operate like a

positive power, and open a door to intrigue and ambition; but they would wish to restrain the negative power, or veto, to a reasonable number of times. I did not understand, as it has been objected to me, an indefinite number of times to be left open for contention between the Ministry and the Prelates, as the case should occur; but a definite number, whether twice, thrice, or four times, to be settled by the latter, whenever the proposed treaty should be actually concluded." (And in the postscript to that letter) "I must add here, that in my communication with certain Members of the Legislature, equally powerful and friendly, I contended so strongly and so repeatedly, for even the negative power being restricted to a certain number of times, to be afterwards determined by the Prelates themselves" (for on this delicate point I would not so much as hazard an opinion) "that I conceived myself to run the greatest risk of losing their friendship."

And in his letter from Cork to their Editor of the Dublin Herald, after stating the manner in which he thought there could be no ob jection to the King's exercising his negative upon the three first candidates who were proposed, upon the supposition that all three might be rejected, he says, "Here I conceive its negative power must necessarily end; for, I repeat it, I would rather lose my life than consent to an Uncatholic Government's obtaining any actual power, or such a negative power as might grow into an actual power."

Taking therefore those letters as explanatory of that which Dr. Milner wrote to The Morning Chronicle, it appears that the circumstances under which Dr. Milner said the Bishops would, in his opinion concede, were the case of the emancipation taken place, and the existence of a friendly Ministry. And the limitation which was to prevent the negative from growing into a positive, was-that the negative power was to be restricted to a certain number of times; and the necessity of this limitation was so strongly and so repeatedly contended for by Dr. Milner, that he thought he had run the greatest risk of losing the friendship of his most powerful and friendly Parliamentary Advocates, by the earnestness with which he urged it.

This last circumstance is the more worthy notice, because it is impossible, if it was urged so strongly and so repeatedly, that it could have been either misunderstood or forgotten; and that the whole was to depend upon the contingency of there existing what he calls a friendly Ministry; without which, the whole arrangement was to fall to nothing, was so very remarkable a circumstance, and one so peculiarly flattering to his Parliamentary Friends, that it is also impossible that, if such a circumstance had been specified, they could have either misunderstood it or forgotten it.

Having thus seen from Dr. MILNER'S statement in these letters, what was the proposition which had his sanction, let us now see what was the proposition which was made to Parliament; and if it shall appear that, instead of its having been conditional, and dependent upon the existence of a friendly Administration, no such

condition was mentioned; and that, instead of the limitation upon the negative power to a certain number of times, there was no such limitation mentioned or hinted at,—it will follow that there has been something most extraordinary, if not most disengenuous, in the conduct of some of the parties to this transaction. That Dr. MILER should so far forget himself as to state that he accompanied the proposition which he made to his Parliamentary Advocates, with those in portant conditions and limitations, when in point of fact he never mentioned them, is what every candid mind will feel the greatest reluctance to believe; but that those public Men, the Parliamentary Advocates of Dr. MILNER, should have made their statement of the proposition as coming from Dr. MILNER, and either intentionally or through inadvertence, have omitted to mention these limitations and conditions which constitute such essential parts of it,-is what it is equally repugnant to every honourable feeling to sapose possible. It will, therefore, remain for Dr. MILNER to shew how far his Parliamentary Friends are vindicated from the foul charge which he says has been brought against them by their political adversaries; or else to vindicate himself from having given an erroneous account of the conversation which passed between them and him.

I shall here azam refer to Mr. COBBETT'S Parliamentary Register, as the source from whence we may derive the best account of what really passed; and, at all events, one which cannot be suspec ed of having intentionally misrepresented the effect of it. In that Register (vol. xi. page 556) Mr. GRATTAN is made to say,

"I have a proposition to make, a proposition which the Cathoics have authorized me indeed to name. It is this:-That in the future nomination of Bishops his Majesty may interfere and exercise his Royal Prerogative, by putting a negative upon such nomination; that is, in other words, to say,-That no Catholic Bishop shall be appointed without the entire approbation of his Majesty.”

Again, in a following page,

"The proposition will make a double connection. The two Churches will be as one, and the King at the head."

Mr. PONSONBY (ibid. p. 607)—after adverting to the conrection between the Roman Catholic Clergy and the Pope, as the most weighty circumstance,—is made to say,

"The Catholics considered amongst themselves; and they determined to give to the Government every information upon the subjec, and to make their Superior Clergy subject to the Crown."

Then he proceeds to state the manner in which the three candidates are now elected and sent to the Pope; and he goes on,

"Now they have agreed," (not, it is conjectured by Dr. Milner, that they will agree, but, after considering among themselves, they have determined and agreed) When the names are returned, to send them to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ; and if he should object to all these, to strike them out, and send other three in their

« PreviousContinue »