of any gentleman, authorised by Dr. Murray, to come over to Exeter Hall. No such gentleman appeared. The same gentleman, Mr. Woods, wrote to the Committee at Hereford, stating that an accusation had been made, and that he had not had an opportunity to defend himself. The committee replied, inviting him to come over, and offering to defray the expenses of any gentleman who chose to attend. This was likewise not accepted. Dr. Murray then complained that his calumniators went to a distance. Every single charge which had been made was recapitulated and condensed, in a letter addressed to Dr. Murray in the public papers. He was told that the gentlemen who brought the charges were ready to meet any individuals whom he pleased to appoint in Dublin, in the midst of his own diocese. This was unanswered. Charges were made respecting the Bibles, of which I shall presently speak, in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Dr. Murray denied any knowledge of them. The same charges were again recapitulated in a letter addressed to himself, and an opportunity offered of meeting them. in Dublin. That he did not deign to notice. The persons who made these charges were denounced in the House of Commons, and were denounced from a quarter from which I must say they had not a right to expect denunciation, and in language of which it is not for me to complain. All the charges that had been made were again recapitulated in letters addressed to the noble lord from whom it had emanated in the House of Commons; he was invited to bring the persons who made the charges against the Roman Catholic bishops, with their documents, to the bar; as the liberties, properties, and lives of some of his majesty's subjects were at stake. His lordship took no notice of it whatsoever. He certainly did not abstain from so doing on account of any tenderness to the accusers; perhaps his lordship's sympathies may have been somewhat awakened for the accused. Though last, not least, the honourable and learned member for Kilkenny has been invited to come here this day-to divide the tickets for this assembly in Exeter Hall-to meet the charges which have been distinctly specified, and distinctly told to him in the letter-and to defend not only his Church but himself, who is personally implicated in them; and the honourable and learned member has thought proper to decline the invitation. I submit, therefore, to my Roman Catholic friends who may be here-I submit to my Roman Catholic friends in Ireland, whether any unfair charge has been made against their instructors, and whether they have not had the fullest and most ample opportunity of meeting every one of them? I call on them, as a Christian minister, solemnly to reflect, that the persons who have propagated these doctrines among them, as with the authority of God, have refused to stand forward and answer for them, even before the insignificant judgment of their fellow-creatures; and I suggest to my dear countrymen, my Roman Catholic countrymen, whom I do love in my soul, and whom in proportion to the love which I bear them, I mourn over when I see them the victims of iniquity such as this—I call on them to lay their hands on their hearts, to retire into their secret chambers, and to think, as in the presence of the Judge of heaven and of earth, how doctrines and principles shall stand before the bar of God, which those who inculcate them dare not bring to the tribunal of human opinion. Mr. O'Connell was informed of the object of this meeting; he was told that certain facts respecting "Dens's Theology" were to be mentioned; he was told that the Rhemish notes were to be spoken of; he knew all the facts concerning them; he was deeply implicated in them; and he confessed, as you shall hear, at one time, their vast importance: he was informed most fully the nature of the charges; he was allowed abundant time to prepare his answer, and he has refused to appear: he has suffered, as they say, judgment to go by default. The honourable and learned gentleman has given his reasons in his letter to the committee; they are several. First, "the unhappy person's exhibitions in public," whom he was called on to meet. Secondly, "the indescribable conduct of that unhappy person to that meek and venerable prelate, Dr. Murray." Lastly, the utter "want of courtesy" on my part. I feel indebted to him for the delicacy which has been displayed on his. He says "that unhappy person;" you know what he means by that. That fanatical person, that (here the reverend gentleman significantly put his hand to his head)-(cheers and laughter)— you understand, I see, what he means. But after all, he was called upon to meet not an individual, but facts and documents. Now, you know, facts are not fanatical-documents, you know, are not deranged. As to myself, I know not how far the "march of intellect" may have left me behind, but I recollect the time when it was not considered indicative of insanity to appeal to sober facts and documents—and when it was not considered the part of conscious inno "indescribable cence to decline the investigation. As to my conduct to that meek and venerable prelate, Dr. Murray," it is not for me to remark on the professional peculiarities of any gentleman; but I must confess that the honourable and learned member for Kilkenny is the first lawyer I have known, whose clients were so exceedingly innocent, and whose cause was so exceedingly good, that he could not undertake to defend it. As to the neglect of courtesy on my part, perhaps I must plead guilty to the charge; and if so, I cannot sufficiently deplore my own loss in being deprived this day of the benefit of the instruction and the example of the hon. member himself. Oh! Mr. Chairman, how you are to be envied! Oh! happy House of Commons! What an era of chaste and classic eloquence has dawned upon the senate since the honorable gentleman has graced that august assembly! Oh! happy senate! happy, thrice happy country! if her statesmen were only governed by such principles, and her orators fashioned on so chaste and finished a model! But I have one piece of intelligence to convey to the meeting, which I have no doubt will be humbly and thankfully received. The honourable gentleman, though he declines coming here today, condescends to say to the meeting, "Accept, I beg of you, my full consent to your drawing up and passing any resolutions you please." How gracious! I trust you are deeply sensible of this condescension. How long Protestant freemen may be at liberty to stand in public, and in the spirit of the British and Christian truth, to maintain the cause of God's eternal Word against the superstitions of the church of Rome, it is not for me to calculate. But this I say, that, since we have the permission of the hon. and learned member for Kilkenny, we shall proceed to enjoy it. He says "I care not whether your resolutions be reproba-tory, or approba-tory, or lauda-tory, or any other tory," &c. I beg to say that they shall be not any of these tories, but with the honourable and learned gentleman's permission, they shall be EXPOSI TORY. Therefore, without dwelling longer on the subject, I shall proceed to lay before you the first resolution, which it is my intention to propose : : "Resolved, That from the facts and documents already laid before the public, and from those laid before this meeting, it is clearly estab lished, that the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland have, for twentyseven years past, and upwards, set up a standard of theology as the best guide for their priests, which contains principles of the most intolerant and persecuting nature towards Protestants of all denominations. That it is also clearly established, that the Roman Catholic Bishops of Leinster have set up this same standard of theology as the conference book for their province since the year 1831; and that, notwithstanding the just sentiments of indignation and alarm repeatedly expressed on this account, at numerous public meetings of their Protestant fellowsubjects, they continue to hold up this book as their standard still." This resolution merely calls on the meeting to re-affirm, in part, its conviction of the truth of the facts already laid before the public. It is not my intention to recapitulate those facts, or to dwell on "Dens's Theology;" but there are one or two documents in my possession not yet laid before the public on this subject, which I will just mention. One is a catechism and sketch of Irish history, compiled by way of question and answer for the use of schools. It was printed in the year 1815, and is of such an infamous description, that neither the name of the printer nor that of the author is prefixed to it. It is a catechism of sedition. I have been credibly informed, but I cannot assert it as a fact, that it was composed by a person-a Roman Catholic priest, who was one of the greatest agitators in Ireland, and who was sent from Ireland as a bishop to America, to import the same principles there which he had planted at home. It was, at all events, composed by one who was acquainted with all the movements of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for in it, for the first time, I have seen two resolutions actually entered into by the Roman Catholic bishops, on the day upon which they first selected "Dens's Theology" in 1808. They met on that day to consider the principle of the veto, and passed resolutions declaratory of their determination not to allow any alteration in the canonical mode hitherto observed in the nomination of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops. The point to which I call your attention is this:this catechism states, "these synodical resolutions against the veto were signed by twenty-three prelates;" so that every Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland but one, was concerned in the adoption of Dens's work as their standard of theology, and in the commission given to Mr. Coyne to print the first edition. The next document to which I call your attention is a very singular one. This book which I hold in my hand contains two pamphlets, one published in the year 1821, and the other : in the year 1822. They are entitled "A Development of the Cruel and Dangerous Inquisitorial System of the Court of Rome in Ireland;" and come from the pen of a Roman Catholic priest—a man who lived and died in conscientious communion with the church of Rome. He was, therefore, not converted to Protestantism-there is no Protestantism in the book; it is the confession, or rather the statement, of an honest, conscientious, loyal Roman Catholic, who fell himself a victim to the sincerity of those principles of duty and loyalty to his sovereign which he maintained. His name is Morrissy, and he states in his pamphlets two matters connected with Dens as facts. He says "A respectable divine called Dens wrote the Course of Theology. This author is highly recommended by our bishops and superiors to parish priests, and all those who have the care of souls and government of the people. This same author was reprinted in Dublin by a Roman Catholic bookseller, a few years ago, and distributed among the Roman Catholic clergy throughout Ireland. In his treatise on faith, he explains and inculcates what punishments are and should be inflicted on heretics." He then details the statements on this head, which have been read in Exeter Hall. This was in 1822. He states that in the year 1815 —the year in which this catechism was printed, when a certain bishop, Doctor Marum, was appointed to the diocese of Ossory, he had proposed printed conferences to his clergy, and that in these printed conferences he asks his clergy, "What is the definition and division of heresy? What are the punishments decreed against heretics? Quænam sunt pænæ contra hæreticos late ?" The very questions which you find in the Directory of the Roman Catholic priests of Leinster for 1832. He states, that among the questions proposed in the printed conferences of Ossory in 1815, these very questions were discussed in this diocese. He proves, at least he confidently asserts, that all the constitutions which the courts of Rome ever enacted against heretics were kept in full and powerful operation by the bishops of Ireland; and the statement of that man I assert can be proved by most incontrovertible documents. It was, indeed, my intention to have brought forward these documents to-day, and to have put by the question of the Bibles; but the committee having stated that they were pledged to the public, that that question should be brought forward, I have omitted these documents, and shall call your attention more particu |