"ments of the catholics, respecting it, left no doubt

upon our minds that the matter might be easily "and satisfactorily adjusted. Provision was also “intended to be made for the decent and necessary "subsistence of the catholic clergy of that country. "More than that they did not ask; and even that they were unwilling to receive in any manner "that might tend to separate their cause from that "of their community *."

It may not be improper in this place to subjoin, what lord Grenville said in this speech, on the nature of the spiritual supremacy of the king of England in spiritual concerns. "We are often told," (his lordship said), "that catholics refuse to acknowledge the same obedience to their sovereign,

*The writer was in the house of lords when lord Grenville made this speech, and till that time had not heard of the veto. Having soon afterwards occasion to write to lord Grenville on other business, he took the liberty to inquire from his lordship, on what authority he had made the declaration, which has just been copied. His lordship replied by a letter, now in the custody of the writer: it contains the following passage; which, with his lordship's permission, he presents to his readers. 66 Sir, "Camd. House, Feb. 4, 1809. "What I said in the house of lords on this matter, as con"nected with Ireland, I spoke from a paper in Dr. Milner's "hand-writing, which is still in my possession, and to the "words of which I carefully adhered. Dr. Milner, who heard "ine, came to me the next day for the express purpose, as he "said, of expressing to me his satisfaction in what I had said; "and in a printed paper, dated, I believe, on that or the fol"lowing day, which he drew up for private circulation, he "expresses the same sentiment as to my speech on this point. I am, dear sir, most truly yours, "Grenville."

66

66

"which he receives from all his other subjects. "The charge is wholly groundless. They recog"nise, as you do, in the civil government of their country, all temporal power and authority. Their "uniform and repeated declarations, the pledges they have already given, the oaths they have already taken, ought to satisfy you fully on this "head. If more security be necessary, let it be "exacted; but let your measure apply only to that, "for which it professes to provide,—the authority of your sovereign and the security of your government. The oath, as it now stands, includes a "question of spiritual supremacy, foreign to those objects. The church of England itself does not "acknowledge any such supremacy in the crown. "The king, acting by the councils, and exercising "the powers which the laws have given him, is in“deed in all matters, ecclesiastical or temporal, su

66

66

66

preme. But he is so as a civil magistrate only. "He is not the spiritual head; he is not, if I may "so express it, the pope of the church of England. Such a claim was indeed once maintained by the capricious despotism of a prince, whose wildest imagination it was not always safe to resist. But "the wise and virtuous men who laid, after his de“cease, the true foundations of our church, admitted

66

66

no such authority in their sovereign. It exists "not, therefore, in the church of England. Of the "other established church of this united kingdom, "the king is not, in any sense whatever, acknow

46

ledged as the head. The same temporal obe“dience, which both these protestant churches pay

"to their sovereigns, the catholics acknowledge "also. In all matters of civil government, even of "that mixed nature in which ecclesiastical and "civil jurisdictions are combined, they submit themselves, without reserve, to the supreme au"thority of the king, in his parliament, as legisla"tor;-in other councils, as civil governor of this "empire. In the spiritual head of their church, they acknowledge, as all the subjects of this realm "formerly acknowleged, a spiritual authority con"fined to questions of faith. The Reformation has taught us, that for that spiritual authority there "is no warrant in the principles of our religion. "But this is a question purely of religious belief; "in no degree affecting that absolute duty and "undivided allegiance, which our catholic fellow

subjects, in common with ourselves, owe and pay "to the person and government of their sovereign. "In a committee, you may place this matter in its "true light, and bring it to the unerring test of "experience. With that view, it was intended, at "the period to which I have so often referred, to "submit to parliament, in lieu of the oath of supre

macy, framed, as we all know, for the purpose of "exclusion, a new form of oath, calculated to unite, "not to divide, our people. That oath would have "contained an explicit pledge of support to the "established constitution, and the most express dis"claimer that could be devised, of any interference "with his majesty's legitimate and undoubted sove"reignty. Whatever words may be most effectual "for this purpose, let them be adopted: provide

"the fullest security, that jealousy itself can dictate, "for that which we are all equally anxious to de"fend; and let it then be seen, whether the catho"lics in Ireland are reluctant to concur in such "declarations."

LXXXVI. 9.

Continued adherence of the Irish Prelates, to their Resolution in 1799, until their meeting in September 1808.

THE effect produced in favour of the catholic cause, by what was said in both houses of parliament of the willingness of the catholic prelates of Ireland to accede to the veto, was very great: even their most determined adversaries seemed to consider that it had gained them their cause. This was the general language within the walls of parliament: the first expression, which any catholic heard, from his protestant acquaintance, on the following day, was a congratulation on the turn of the debate, and the event which occasioned it.

The Irish prelates distinctly expressed to many, their approbation of what had been said on the veto, by their parliamentary advocates; and a considerable time elapsed before the slightest murmur against it was heard.

66

"The debate in the house of commons," says sir John Hippisley*, "took place on the 25th May 1808; and in a few days the report of it "reached Dublin. Those parliamentary friends, "who had been advocates of the measure, received "deliberate acknowledgments of their efforts, and

* Substance of his speech in the debate in 1808.

"thanks in the name of the roman-catholic prelacy "in Ireland.

"Till towards the end of the following July, not "a word escaped, to lead their parliamentary friends "to doubt that the same impressions continued in "the minds of those, who, from their stations, must "naturally have been considered as the most pro"minent to object or approve.

Mr. Ponsonby, in his speech in the same debate, mentioned, that, "subsequently to his having in“formed the house, on the authority of Dr. Milner, "of the willingness of the Irish roman-catholic prelates, that the crown should have the negative powers in question in the appointment of their bishops, he, (Mr. Ponsonby), had received letters,

66

66

on the subject, from two of those prelates, thank'ing him for what he was supposed to have said "on the subject. One was from an archbishop;" he read it to the house, and it contained, (in the language of the reporters of that debate), the most unqualified approbation of the arguments and observations which had been used by Mr. Ponsonby. The other letter thanked him only in general

terms*

In reply to Mr. Ponsonby's explanation, Mr. Perceval expressed himself in these terms:

"I have great satisfaction in finding that the "honourable gentleman and his noble friend,-two "individuals whose characters unquestionably stand

very high in the public regard, have not been

* Debates on the Petition of the Roman-catholics in 1808, P. 140.