Panzani was recalled. Mr. Berington has prefixed to these memoirs a sketch of the history of the Romanists previous to Panzani's coming, from Queen Elizabeth's time, and has added a supplement, continuing the history down to 1793. Mr. Dodd and Mr. Berington (especially the latter) were liberal Romanists. Indeed, Mr. Berington glories in declaring himself one of the Roman-catholic body in opposition to the papists, and in denouncing the mischievous and preposterous conduct of the Roman Court on many occasions. One point about him is curious. After the last of the English bishops who had retired from their sees, on Queen Elizabeth's accession, had died, the Romanists in England had, in fact, no governor or church government. Many inconveniences arose, but the chief was the growth of the Jesuits, who were much more anxious about establishing their own power than their faith. The disputes between them and the other clergy grew to a most extraordinary height, and Dodd gives a most curious account of a disturbance produced by the Jesuits in Wisbech gaol, where above thirty priests were confined, and where two or three Jesuits endeavoured to introduce the yoke of their power. The flame spread through all the Roman clergy in the kingdom, and the seculars petitioned Rome for bishops. The history of the intrigues and falsehoods of the Jesuits to prevent the appointment of bishops-their attack on episcopacy altogether—their success in getting a creature of their own, a Mr. Blackwell, appointed arch-priest instead of bishop-the dislike and remonstrances of the clergy—the imprisonment of their deputies at Rome, through the intrigues of the Jesuits-their perseverance-the succession of two other arch-priests and then the appointment of one vicar-apostolic (a bishop in partibus) to govern all England-his nomination of a dean and chapter, and then, after a time, the introduction of the present system of four vicarsapostolic-all this will be found in both Dodd and Berington. Berington is a strong maintainer of episcopacy-dislikes the system of vicars-apostolic, as mere delegates from the Roman Court, not possessing the full and independent or ordinary powers of diocesan bishops, (the very point which the Regulars, who always hate episcopacy, were anxious to dwell on,) and contends that such appointments could not re-establish the " English-catholic church." But, with all this, he maintains, twice over, that the Romanists always had a church in England, because they always had a priesthood regularly succeeding in the ministry over a believing flock, and united to the common centre of unity. (p. 106, and also p. 42.) If this is true, a bishop would be no necessary part of a given branch of the church. But, however this may be, these books give us a valuable and interesting view of the constant bickerings and jealousies between the Jesuits, chiefly, (and, to a certain degree, the other Regulars,) and the Seculars-of the intrigues perpetually going on, and the hopes entertained that, some time or other, England would be again re-united to the Holy See.

The Second Volume of Dr. Phelan's works contains a most valuable and interesting account of the policy of the church of Rome in Ireland, from the time of Henry II., almost to the present day, and illustrates that policy in England. It is a first-rate book in all ways.

These will probably suffice for most readers. The works of Cox, of Walsh, ("History of the Remonstrance,") Routh's "Analecta Sacra," Dr. O'Connor's "Letters of Columbanus," and Mr. Butler's works, may also be used. A list of scarcer works for the real student shall, if possible, be given shortly.

EXTRACT FROM MR. M'GHEE'S SPEECH AT HEREFORD,

THE next document which threw light upon the subject was of a singular nature. It gave some curious information respecting the publication of Dens

by order of the Bishops in 1808. At that time the question of Catholic emancipation was not a little agitated. With reference to this subject, and the concession of a veto upon the appointment of Roman-catholic bishops to the King of Great Britain, it appeared that a meeting was held in the county of Kilkenny. Shortly afterwards, on the 5th of November, 1808, the following document, signed by Major G. Brien, a Roman-catholic gentleman of fortune, (he believed, the claimant to the Slane peerage, which was lately before the House of Lords,) appeared in the Leinster Journal:-"Reports having been most industriously circulated, in order to injure the Roman-catholic committee for the county and city of Kilkenny in the estimation of their Romancatholic brethren, I feel myself called upon to lay the following statement before the public :-On the 17th of October last the committee met and voted addresses to Lords Fingall and Grenville, and to Messrs. Grattan and Ponsonby. It was then thought advisable to apply to Dr. Lanigan, the titular Bishop of Ossory, for his signature. We, in consequence, sent him a deputation for that purpose, and adjourned until the 20th, in order to give him time to consider of the answer he might think proper to return. On the 20th we accordingly again met, when the deputation reported to us that the bishop had promised to sign our addresses. What then must have been our astonishment to find on the 22d he refused to fulfil his solemn promise given to our deputation? I cannot avoid saying that the manner in which Dr. Lanigan has acted on this occasion convinces me more than ever how very necessary it is that the Crown should have a veto in the nomination of Irish Roman-catholic bishops." On the 8th of November the following statement appeared in the Leinster Journal:-"An advertisement appeared in the Leinster Journal of last Saturday, signed 'George Brien,' in which I am charged with a breach of a solemn promise. A public attack of the kind necessarily calls on any man to justify his conduct if in his power. A plain narrative of the facts as they happened, and an explanation of the motives on which I acted, will complete the justification, I hope, in the eyes of any impartial man. First, I acknowledge that I promised some gentlemen of the committee that I would sign these addresses when some lines to which I objected should be expunged; but I utterly deny having made any solemn promise, if by a solemn promise Mr. Brien means more than a serious promise; for nothing in actions, expression, or writing was superadded to the verbal declaration I made of signing the addresses when corrected. The nature of the case did not at all require a solemn promise, and the gentlemen who presented those addresses to me had too much sagacity and judgment to alarm any suspicions by such a proposal, for the consequence would probably be a rejection of the addresses on the spot. Secondly, some days elapsed before the corrected addresses were again brought to me to be signed. In this interval many of the clergy and laity of this city came to me, and remonstrated against my signing these addresses. They urged that these addresses were calculated to pass an indirect censure on the proceedings of the prelates in Dublin, and to diminish the respect due to their late resolutions; that they were preparatory steps to the concession of a veto to the Government in the nomination of the Catholic prelates of Ireland; and that a general dislike and disapprobation of these addresses prevailed among the great majority of the priests and Catholic laity of the city. When I ascertained this last fact, I resolved not to sign the addresses, and was at the same time persuaded that I was guilty of no sin or crime by such a refusal. I am convinced that a serious, sincere, and voluntary promise binds a man who makes it, under the pain of sin, to fulfil it. But I am likewise convinced that the obligation arising from a promise ceases in the following cases;-First, if a man promises a thing impossible for no man can be bound to do a thing impossible to be done. Secondly, if a man promises to do anything sinful or unlawful: for no promise, though confirmed with an oath, can bind a man to commit sin. Thirdly, when a person in whose favour a promise is made releases the promiser from the promise he has made. Fourthly, when a man

promises a thing pernicious or useless to the person in whose favour the promise is made. Fifthly, when before the promise is fulfilled the circumstances become so changed that the person promising, had he foreseen those circumstances, would never have made the promise. (General cries of 'Oh, oh, oh.') On this case I rest my justification, for had I foreseen or known that the signing the addresses would produce such alarm and consternation, such dislike and disapprobation, as I afterwards found they would in the minds of the great majority of the Catholic priests and laity of this city, I would by no means have consented to sign them. St. Thomas says, that a man is not guilty of an untruth in such cases, because when he promised he intended to perform his promise; nor is he unfaithful to his promise, because the circumstances are changed afterwards. This is not only the opinion of St. Thomas, but is also the opinion of all the theologians and canonists I ever saw or read. -James Lanigan." To this Major Brien pithily and forcibly rejoined, that "such a statement required no answer."

DR. MURRAY.

THE Roman-catholic Archbishop of Dublin has written another letter upon the subject of "Dens's Theology." It is as follows:

"Mountjoy-square, Dublin, Sept. 12, 1835.

"Sir, In reply to your letter of the 8th inst., I beg to say, that the itinerant sowers of discord to whom you allude do well to carry their calumnies to a distance, where detection is not easy; here they could have no chance of success. They do not themselves believe, and they could not here get any one to believe, that I am an abettor of persecution. Doctrines of that description were attributed to me in London, on the ground that I directed the publication of the now celebrated Dr. Dens's Theology, which advocates the justice of punishing by temporal penalties the crime of heresy, not, however by private authority, but according to law; a doctrine which, at the time he wrote, was unfortunately acted on in all the states of Christendom, Protestant England not excepted. I denied, however, among other things, that I directed the publication' of the work, and asserted that it was a mere speculation in trade of a bookseller, who undertook it at his own risk. I never said, as you seem to have heard, that I did not permit it; for I would think it very unjustifiable to interfere with the fair speculation of a bookseller on the probable profits of a work, which, taken as a whole, is a valuable compilation, though it may contain some objectionable opinions, which, however, in the present state of society, are practically harmless. Of this nature is his opinion regarding the punishment of heresy. This doctrine, as far as regards any practical effects resulting from it, is every where losing ground. The spirit of toleration is rapidly on the advance. The Catholic states of Poland and Hungary were among the foremost to lead the way. Ireland, under Queen Mary, had previously set them the example. The states which embraced the Protestant Reformation, urged on by the first reformers, carried intolerance to a frightful extent; and the tenacity with which they clung to it so long should make the professors of that religion exceedingly cautious in advancing charges of intolerance against the professors of any other. Whoever wishes to compare Protestant with Catholic intolerance, will be enabled to do so by reading the 49th letter in Dr. Milner's 'End of Religious Controversy,' and the fourth of the same author's 'Letters to a Prebendary.'

"But is said that the work of Dens was dedicated to me; that the publisher says it was undertaken with my approbation, and that therefore in my letter to Lord Melbourne I must have told a falsehood, when I said that 'I did not direct the publication of it.' Surely there is no contradiction in these two state

ments. Allowing that what the publisher says in commendation of his work is true allowing that I assented to his plan, surely it does not follow that it was undertaken at my instance, or that I directed the publication of it.' That was the original charge that was brought against me; and that is the charge which I denied, and do still deny.

"As to the abstraction of the dedication from some of the copies, I know nothing whatever about it. In the copy which I possess it is very conspicuous. I cannot but feel obliged to the publisher for the compliment which he thus intended to pay me, but I do not on that account consider myself bound to adopt all the opinions of its author. There is no similar author that has any authority whatever for the support of his opinions beyond what is derived from the arguments which he employs; and all the reasons that Dens could adduce in support of intolerant opinions are utterly inoperative against the solemn oath taken by the Catholic clergy and laity of Ireland, as prescribed by the act 33 George III., chap. 21.

"I, A. B., do swear that I do abjure, condemn, and detest, as unchristian and impious, the principle, that it is lawful to murder, destroy, or in anywise injure any person whatsoever, for or under pretence of being a heretic.'

"Among my calumniators, some very sagacious persons endeavour to place my actions in contradiction with my declarations, by asserting that I was one of a meeting of bishops held in Dublin in 1808, which meeting is said to have ' agreed that Dens's complete Body of Theology was the best book on the subject that could be republished.'

"Whether or not such an episcopal declaration was made, I never heard, except through the publisher's advertisement; but it is at all events quite clear, that if it was, I at least could have no participation in it; for I was not then a bishop, but engaged in the duties of the more meritorious office of a working curate. Observe now the kind of proof by which it is sought to connect me with this meeting. In 1826 my name is found among the Irish Bishops, disavowing certain intolerant and antisocial doctrines, and therefore it is assumed that I must have been eighteen years before among the supposed episcopal approvers of Dens's complete Body of Theology! Is it not wise in these calumniators, when they wish to circulate their impostures, to go to a distance from home?

"I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

"D. MURRAY."

Not one word of comment need be made on this miserable letter. One cannot but pity the person who is obliged thus to hold himself up to general contempt.

DOCUMENTS.

AN ACT FOR THE MORE EASY RECOVERY OF TITHES.

ANNO QUINTO ET SEXTO GULIELMI IV. REGIS.-CAP. LXXIV.

[9th September, 1835.] WHEREAS an Act was passed in the seventh and eighth years of the reign of King William the Third, intituled, "An Act for the more easy Recovery of Small Tithes," whereby it was amongst other things enacted, that two or more of his Majesty's justices of the peace were authorized and required to hear and determine complaints touching small tithes, oblations, and compositions subtracted or withheld, not exceeding forty shillings. And where

as an Act was passed in the fifty-third year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Third, intituled, "An Act for the better Regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts in England, and for the more easy Recovery of Church Rates and Tithes," whereby the jurisdiction of the said justices was extended to all tithes, oblations, and compositions subtracted or withheld, where the same should not exceed ten pounds in amount from any one person. And whereas by an Act of the seventh and eighth years of the reign of King William the Third, chapter thirty-four, provision is made for the recovery of great and small tithes (not exceeding the amount of ten pounds) due from quakers, by distress and sale, under the warrant of two justices. And whereas by an Act of the first year of the reign of King George the First, chapter six, the provisions of the said last-mentioned Act were extended, in the case of quakers, to all tithes or rates, and customary rights, dues, and payments belonging to any church or chapel. And whereas by the said recited Act of the fifty-third year of the reign of King George the Third, the aforesaid provisions in relation to quakers were amended, and were also made applicable to any amount not exceeding fifty pounds. And whereas by an Act of the Parliament of Ireland of the seventh year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter twenty-one, amended and extended by an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of the fifty-fourth year of the reign of King George the Third, chapter sixty-eight, similar provisions are in force in Ireland for the recovery, from quakers, of great and small tithes, and customary and other rights, dues, and payments belonging to any church or chapel, not exceeding the amount of fifty pounds. And whereas it is highly expedient, and would further tend to prevent litigation, if, in the cases and with the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, all claimants were restricted to the respective remedies provided by the said recited Acts. Be it therefore enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this Act no suit or other proceeding shall be had or instituted in any of his Majesty's courts in England now having cognizance of such matter for or in respect of any tithes, oblations, or compositions withheld, of or under the yearly value of ten pounds (save and except in the cases provided for in the two first-recited Acts), but that all complaints touching the same shall, except in the case of quakers, be heard and determined only under the powers and provisions contained in the said two first-recited Acts of Parliament in such and the same manner as if the same were herein set forth and re-enacted; and that no suit or other proceeding shall be had or instituted in any of his Majesty's courts either in England or Ireland now having cognizance of such matter, for or in respect of any great or small tithes, moduses, compositions, rates, or other ecclesiastical dues or demands whatsoever, of or under the value of fifty pounds, withheld by any quaker either in England or Ireland; but that all complaints touching the same, if in England, shall be heard and determined only under the powers and provisions contained in the said recited Acts of the seventh and eighth years of King William the Third, chapter thirty-four, and the fifty-third year of King George the Third; and, if in Ireland, under the said recited Act of the Parliament of Ireland, of the seventh year of King George the Third, and the said recited Act of the fifty-fourth year of King George the Third, in the same manner as if the same were herein set forth and re-enacted. Provided always, that nothing hereinbefore contained shall extend to any case in which the actual title to any tithe, oblation, composition, modus, due, or demand, or the rate of such composition or modus, or the actual liability or exemption of the property to or from any such tithe, oblation, composition, modus, due, or demand, shall be bona fide in question, nor to any case in which any suit or other proceeding shall have been actually instituted before the passing of this Act.

VOL. VIII-Oct. 1835.

3 M