nourished and quickened by the sympathy of individuals high in office and station. The high sheriff and grand jury of the county of Louth ted the way: they published resolutions declaring, in their wisdom, that because Ireland had flourished in commerce, liberty, and wealth, without imparting the elective franchise to catholics, it would be incompatible with the protestant establishment, and the succession to the throne in the house of Hanover, to admit the said catholics to that pri vilege. They were, moreover, indignant that the catholics should presume to call their penal dis abilities, grievances, stigmatized the intended meeting of delegates, as "a popish congress," abhorred the seditious motives of the promoters of this congress, and pledged themselves to resist, to the utmost of their power, "such dangerous innovations." The county of Meath followed, pari passu. There the high sheriff, magistrates, and freeholders, denounced the circular letter as libellous and seditious, contended that the catholics felt no grievances, and affirmed that if the elective franchise was conceded to them, instead of а protestant parliament," they would "speedily be represented by a popish convention." This wise and patriotic course was also followed by the counties of Mayo and Fermanagh, and the general alarm was echoed from all quarters in essays, paragraphs, and letters, in the periodical prints, devoted to the interests of the Castle. Counter

66

.

tesolutions and addresses, were immediately issued by some grand jurymen, and many catholic bodies and the whole nation was in a ferment, Publications of a very equivocal nature began to make their appearance, and doctrines more attractive than sound were preached. A formal vindication of the conduct and principles, of the Roman catholics of Ireland, from the charges made against them was likewise published by order of the committee.

It could not but be matter of curious, speculation to the government, to reflect upon the rapid increase of confidence which marked every progressive step of the catholics. A few years ago they scarcely dared to mention or allude to their grievances, they were compelled to breathe their murmurs low, lest they should offend the delicacy of official ears: but now, they spoke out, and with a lofty tone, they appealed to the justice and magnanimity of their protestant countrymen. In proportion, however, as there was supposed to exist any sympathy or connexion between the catholic committee, and the society of united Irishmen, and other political clubs that then existed, they were obnoxious to the government. And the committee, imprudently there can be no doubt, took frequent occasions of expressing their gratitude for the liberal and warm exertions of these societies in their behalf; nay, in a debate of the committee, on the 23rd of March 1792, a Mr. Keogh said that for a late publication, (the Digest of Popery Laws,) the united Irishinen, and their

respectable chairman, Mr. Simon Butler, demanded their warmest gratitude *. In thus identifying themselves with a body of men whose proceedings were decidedly factious and hostile to government, at a time, too when the greatest alarm prevailed as to the dissemination of French principles, principles which the United Irishmen openly applauded in their commemoration of the 14th July (the day of the destruction of the Bas tile) the catholics did their cause much harm.

Yet, they were not inattentive to what might really serve it; for, at the express desire of Mr, Pitt, who was contemplating some relief to the English catholics, they procured from the foreign catholic universities, the following answers, respecting certain tenets imputed to them, and which if truly imputed would necessarily exclude them from the objects of their wish.

When the committee of the English catholics (for they had a committee with whom the English ministers of the crown did not disdain to communicate) waited on Mr. Pitt, he requested to be furnished with authentic evidence of the opinions of the catholic clergy, and the catholic universities abroad," with respect to the existence and extent of the pope's dispensing power." Three questions were accordingly framed and sent to the universities of Paris, Louvain, Alcala, Douay, Salamanca, and Valladolid, for their opinions.

This digest was made by the order of the Society of United Irishmen.

The queries and answers are as follow:

THE QUERIES.

1. Has the pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence whatsoever, within the realm of Eng land?

2. Can the pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his majesty's subjects, from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever?

3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the catholic faith, by which catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any trans action, either of a public or private nature?

Abstract from the answer of the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris to the above Queries.

After an introduction according to the usual forms of the university, they answer the first query by declaring: Neither the pope, nor the cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any other person of the church of Rome, hath any civil authority, civil power, civil jurisdiction, or civil pre-eminence whatsoever in any kingdom: and, consequently, none in the kingdom of England,

by reason or virtue of any authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence by divine institution inherent in, or granted, or by any other means belonging to the pope, or the church of Rome. This doctrine the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris has always held, and upon every occasion has rigidly proscribed the contrary doctrines from her schools.

Answer to the second query.-Neither the pope, nor the cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any person of the church of Rome, can, by virtue of the keys, absolve or release the subjects of the king of England, from their oath of allegiance.

This and the first query are so intimately connected, that the answer of the first immediately and naturally applies to the second, &c..

Answer to the third query.-There is no tenet in the catholic church, by which catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or those who differ from them in matters of religion. The tenet, that it is lawful to break faith with heretics, is so repugnant to common honesty and the opinions of catholics, that there is nothing of which those who have defended the catholic faith against protestants, have complained more heavily, than the malice and calumny of their adversaries in imputing this tenet to them, &c. &c.

Given at Paris, in the general assembly of the Sorbonne, held on Thursday, the 11th day before .the calends of March, 1789.

Signed in due form.