stead, until the King's approbation of some one of them be received. Even then, they send that name to Rome to receive the approbation of the Pope. This, however, is giving the real and effectual nomination to the Crown."

And afterwards, in his explanation upon a question put to him by Mr. YORKE, he says,

"He made the statement upon the authority of Dr. Milner, who was a Catholic Bishop in this Country, and who was authorized by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland to make the proposition in case the measure of Catholic emancipation should be acceded to. (No mention of the other condition-the existence of a friendly Administration.) The proposition was this:-That the person to be nomi. nated to any vacant Bishopric should be submitted to the King's approbation; and that if the approbation was refused, another person should be proposed, And so on in succession, until his Majesty's approbation should be obtained; so that the appointment. should finally rest with the King."

Now, let me ask Whether it be possible to reconcile this account of the Speeches in Parliament with Dr. MILNER's account of what he authorized them to state? Dr. MILNER says the arrangement was to take place under certain circumstances, explained by his letters to the Roman Catholic Priest, to mean the existence of a friendly Administration. This essential circumstance, this sine qua non, this condition precedent to the whole, is not once mentioned or glanced at by either of the speakers who made the proposition. The negative power, says Dr. MILNER, "was to be Limited to a certain number of times ;"—and in his Letter from Cork- must necessarily end at the rejection of these Candidates." Mr. PONSONBY says it is to be exercised "until the King's approbation of some one of them be received." And in the other passage, "and so on in succession, till his Majesty's approbation be obtained." Dr. MILNER says, the negative power was to be so limited, that it should not grow into a positive power; nor be an "actual" or "effective" power, direct or indirect! Mr. PONSONBY, however, considers it as giving an actual effective power to the Crown; "This, is however," he says, "giving the real and effectual nomination to the Crown;" and again," so that the appointment should finally rest with the King."

But the matter by no means rests here. Dr. MILNER, as has been shewn before from his own Letter, was present in the debate in the House of Commons. The debate in the House of Lords did not take place till the next day but one; there was therefore a whole intervening day, in which Dr. MILNER might communicate with his Noble Friends; and there could not possibly have been a better opportunity for correcting any mistake which had occurred in the House of Commons, than to have prevailed upon his friends in the House of Lords to have set this matter right, and explained the mistake into which the Members of the House of Commons had

fallen yet nothing like it appears. Lord GRENVILLE and the

APPENDIX, ANTIJAC. REV., VOL. XXXI.

LI

Duke of NORFOLK, instead of correcting the error, if it was one, repeat it; and therefore confirm the impression (the erroneous impression Dr. MILNER would call it) which had been produced in the House of Commons.

Lord GRENVILLE is made to say by the same Reporter,

"It is unquestionably proper that the Crown should exercise an effectual negative over the appointment of the persons called to execute those functions (meaning the Bishops). To this effectual power the Catholics declare themselves perfectly willing to accede," And in his reply,-"With regard to the proposition itself, he should rather think, that, instead of presenting the names of the three persons to the King, for his Majesty to choose one of them, as had been mentioned, it would be more eligible to present but one name; and if that were rejected, another, and so on in succession, until his Majesty's approbation should be obtained."

And the Duke of NORFOLK, in explaining the proposition, says, (page 686)

They (the Catholics) were disposed to lay before his Majesty a list of three persons, of whom his Majesty was to be at liberty to reject two; the remaining one would be invested with the Episcopal Dignity; but if his Majesty were to reject the whole three, then another list of three distinct persons would be submitted to his consideration, and so on, until his Majesty should signify his approbation of any individual, by allowing his name to remain."

Here then, without wasting more time, it appears that the same proposition of effectual interference, without any limitation, was repeated in the House of Lords. And, what is still more remarkable, Lord Grenville, in his reply, after having heard the Duke of Norfolk's distinct statement of the proposition, as his Grace conceived it, recommends it with some variation; but that variation is proposed as an idea of his own, what he would rather think to be more eligible," and relates only to the manner in which the names should be proposed to his Majesty, without in any degree limiting the extent to which his Majesty might be at liberty to reject them.

It is certainly true, that great part of the weight of these observations rests upon the accuracy of the Report which Mr. Cobbett has given of these Debates; it is therefore proper to see how far it is reasonable that this Report should be relied upon. It will be necessary, however, to defer this consideration for another letter. I am Sir, your obedient Servant, A. B.

LETTER VI.

It is admitted, in the conclusion of my last letter, that great part of the observations there made, rest upon the accuracy of the report which Mr. COBBETD has given of the debates upon the Catholic Question. It probably will be remarked, that that report is not authentic, and may be inaccurate; that Mr. COBBETT'S

Register is no record, and possibly little more than a collection made from the different Newspaper reports of the same debates ; and that the inaccuracy of the Newspaper reports is the continual subject of complaint. It is undoubtedly but just that every atten tion should be paid to this remark, because Dr. MILNER, in his letter from Cork, alludes to the inaccuracy of these Newspaper reports, denies their correctness, and complains of the manner in which they seem to have been relied upon.

"It is evident," he says, "that the writers give implicit faith to the accounts of negligent, drowsy, tippling, and ignorant reporters, concerning the late debates, which they have seen in the Newspapers. It is likewise plain that they make no allowance for the unguarded and unwarranted expressions and arguments of the orutors themselves. Now, it is a fact which 1 can aver, as attending the whole of the debates in both Houses, that the speeches themselves are most incorrectly and unfaithfully published in most of the Newspapers; that the Orators themselves did not, by any means, procced so far in their unwarranted concessions as they are reported to have gone; and that they made subsequent explanations of what they had actually said, of great importance, which are not at all noticed in the Newspapers. I may add, in justice to them as well as to myself, that after the debate was over, they acknowledged themselves to have advanced certain positions, the most alarming of all that were made, for which they had no warrant but their own way of viewing the subject."

Now it certainly is nothing more than fair to give Dr. MILNER the full effect of this complaint, as far as it is possible; and if he has not the advantage of it to the full extent which the truth of the case would admit of, he has nobody to blame but himself; for as he was present at the whole of these debates, he might have told the public how far the Newspapers misrepresented the unwarranted concessions which were made; what the explanations were which corrected the first mis-statements; nay, what were the most alarm. ing positions which, after the debate, the orators themselves acknowledged to Dr. MILNER, that they had made without authority. If Dr. MILNER had done this, and if, after such a statement, he had been attacked, by reference to a report of a debate, the inaccuracy of which he had corrected, he would have had good reason to complain of the unfairness of such a proceeding. But as it is, he cannot justly complain. His own statement, above alluded to, admits, that concessions were made by the orators themselves, which were unwarranted. His own statement admits that alarming positions were advanced, which these orators afterwards acknowledged to him, that they had advanced without his authority, and which were only founded upon their view of the subject. Why, then, did not Dr. MILNER state what those unwarranted concessions were? Why did he not state what those alarming positions were, which had been thus confessedly advanced without his authority? Why, the reason is obvious:-The object of Dr. MILNER was (in his

own words) "to vindicate these most distinguished and honourable characters from the foul fraud imputed to them by their political adversaries, of having proposed a plan for a certain restricted interference of the Crown, in the nomination of the Catholic Prelates of Ireland, without any warrant for this purpose;"—and if he had stated distinctly what they had proposed, and then confronted it with what he says he warranted them to propose ;-if he had specified what those concessions were which (however over-stated in the Newspapers) he asserts to have been unwarranted, even as they were stated by the orators themselves; if he had shewn what those most alarming propositions were which, after having given them as from authority in public and to Parliament, they were contented to acknowledge to him in private to have been authorized, it is obvious that, instead of vindicating them from this charge of foul fraud, which was so imputed to them, he would, as far as his evidence would have gone, have proved and have established it against them. What allowances, therefore, may be made for the inaccuracy of the Parliamentary Reports, enough must remain, according to Dr. MILNER's own assertion, to shew that, if he is to be relied upon, his Parliamentary Advocates advanced a proposition to Parliament, as coming from the Roman Catholic Bishops, under the authority of Dr. MILNER, when Dr. MILNER says he never gave them such authority to make any proposition; but only ventured to conjecture and presume what would be the disposition of these Bishops upon this point; and that the proposition itself, which they advanced, contained in it concessions which he never warranted in any manner; and alarming positions which they acknowledged to him they had advanced merely upon their own views, and which he would have lost his life rather than have suffered to be adopted.

Whether, therefore, Dr. MILNER is to be believed, or whether his Parliamentary Friends are to be trusted, is the matter in dispute between them. That Dr. MILNER has not vindicated but condemned them, if he is to be relied upon, is quite clear. But it does seem a little unfortunate for the clearing up of this strange business, that Dr. MILNER, instead of stating, as it appears he has done, from recollection, what passed at these conversations, did not introduce into his letter a copy of that short printed paper which, he says, was composed by him, dated May 26, 1808, and is now in the hands of different Gentlemen.

He says, "that paper will shew that he has not materially varied in his present exposure, from that which he made at the time of the debates." The public would probably have been better pleased to have seen the variations which he does not deem material, and to have judged for themselves how far they were so or not. That paper, if produced, dated, as he says, on the day between the two debates, would have shewn, upon the face of it, the impression which he had of the conversation at that early period; and would have shewn that impression also, with direct reference to the misrepresentations

which had been made of his conversation by his Friends in the House of Commons.

The existence of that paper is naturally connected with some questions, which must be answered before this strange transaction can be satisfactorily explained. Did Dr. MILNER, or did he not, communicate that paper, or the contents of it, to his Noble Friends before the Debate in the House of Lords? If he did not, what reason can be given why, having so convenient and accurate a mode of communicating precisely what he meant to his Noble Advocates, he did not, by sending them that paper, avail himself of their assistance to correct the error into which his Friends had fallen in the House of Commons? and why he did not furnish them with those materials which would have precluded the possible repetition of the same mistake by themselves in the House of Lords? or, if he did communicate it to their Lordships, it would remain for their Lordships to vindicate themselves for their imperfect execution of an authority, which had been, with such accurate preci sion, intrusted to them.

The remainder of the letter in Dr. MILNER proceeds to state, not what he proposed to his Parliamentary Friends, but what he should not now object to, may well be passed over without any notice; the only object of these letters being to point out the insufficiency of the explanation which has been given, and the injustice which has been done to the Public (Roman Catholics as well as Protestants) by one or other of the parties to the declarations in question. Dr. MILNER'S present statement of a proposition upon this point, with the qualifications which he thinks would render it unobjectionable, is nothing to this purpose; especially as he ad. mits he did not give his ideas upon this subject to his Parlia mentary Friends quite so clearly and in detail as he does in his letter; and says, also, that

"It is very possible some of the personages whom I had the honour of then communicating with, may not have fully compre hended my meaning; and I have reason to suppose that the conces. sions as they are here stated in this exposure, fall short of the idea which the public formed of them as they were first laid down."

Why he did not state them thus clearly, and in this detail, to his Parliamentary Friends, seeing the importance which he conceives to belong to them, it is difficult to understand; and as the concessions which he states in that exposure do, in his opinion, fall short of the idea which the public formed of them, why he let that public remain so long in ignorance of the real extent of them, is equally inconceivable.

Under a strong impression and conviction that the public have been grossly and unjustifiably imposed upon by some of the parties to this transaction, I have been desirous first of proving the fact, that such imposition was practised; and next of discovering upon whom the blame of having practised that imposition should rest. That this is no unimportant enquiry must be admitted ;-for, if it