was printed in a separate tract, and in the hands of every Protestant in the united empire, and in the hands of every Roman Catholic also. It is the oath and declaration by all the Roman Catholic bishops and signed by them. Here are their names (holding up the book). At the head of one column is the name of the Roman Catholic primate of the period, and at the head of the other is Dr. Murray; the title is, "The oath and declaration of the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland." It is addressed to the Protestants of the empire. I do not know the exact date of the document, but I believe it to be 1826, for I have it here appended to a book which is an "Essay on the Roman Catholic claims," addressed by Dr. Doyle ta Lord Liverpool, which was published in that year. Here is one part of their declaration

"The Catholics of Ireland, far from claiming any right or title to forfeited lands resulting from any right, title, or interest which their ancestors may have had therein, declare upon oath, that they will defend to the utmost of their power, the settlement and arrangement of property in this country as established by the laws now in being. They also disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present church establishment for the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment in its stead. And, further, they swear they will not exercise any privilege to which they are or may be entitled to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant government in Ireland."

That is the statement in which, as they say, they have declared on oath "that they will defend to the utmost of their power the settlement and arrangement of property in this country as established by the laws now in being;" and it is now my painful duty to read to the meeting the next resolution which I shall propose for its adoption. But I beg pardon; before I read the resolution I wish to say two or three words in respect to the declaration of the Roman Catholic bishops; I wish to point out to the meeting the influence which that and similar declarations had on the minds of the Protestants of the empire.

On the night before my coming here I happened to open a trunk, and I found an old newspaper in it; I took it up, and the first thing that presented itself to my eye was the speech of a gentleman, which was delivered on this subject in the House of Commons in 1825. The paper is the Courier of the 20th April, 1825, and the speech to which I shall refer is one reported to be made by Mr. Brownlow; he was, I

believe, the first of those who were at first opposed to the concession of political power to Roman Catholics, but who afterwards went over to the other side: here are some of his reasons on the subject:—

"In support of this conviction on his own mind the hon. member proceeded to refer, at considerable length, to the evidence given before the committee above stairs by the Catholic bishops and archbishops, particularly to that of Dr. Doyle, whom he panegyrised in the warmest language. [The hon. member also referred to the evidence of Dr. Murray, the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, to show that the authority and influence of the pope at the present day were purely spiritual.] On the subject of the dispensing power formerly assumed by the pope, that of selling indulgences by anticipation, and the doctrine that faith was not to be kept with heretics, the testimony of Drs. Doyle and Murray was also most satisfactory, for they solemnly denied that such doctrines were now held by Roman Catholics. On the subject of forfeited estates, one answer given by them would be sufficient to show that the idea of Catholics re-claiming such property was groundless and absurd. 'The greater portion of those confiscated lands are now possessed by Catholics, who purchased them.' He felt, therefore, bound to declare, that with himself all the difficulties he had formerly felt on these points, had been completely removed by that indisputable evidence."

These are Mr. Brownlow's reasons for his opinion delivered in the House of Commons. I do not know what part of Dr. Murray's statement was here alluded to by him, but the same principle is assumed by him as was by Mr. O'Connell, that the security of property depended upon the purchase of it to such an extent by Roman Catholics. I have read this speech to show the effects which the evidence, the declarations, and the oaths of these Roman Catholic bishops, have made on the minds of Protestants, and I shall now propose the next resolution to the meeting; it is—

"That it has been laid down, since the year 1832, by the Roman Catholic bishops of Leinster, as the papal law for Ireland, that all the forfeited property, civil and ecclesiastical, is to be restored to its original possessors. That Roman Catholics who may have purchased it are bound to restore what they have purchased. That no treaties made with heretics on the subject can be valid without the approbation of the pope, and that the title being originally invalid, no prescription can secure it."

That is the resolution, which I say is to be proved by documents, and you are now to judge of the validity of those documents. I mentioned to you before, that the questions proposed last year for the conferences of the priests created a great sensation amongst the people of England; but on referring to Dens, I find no very considerable light thrown upon the subject of the resolution; the answers upon prescription and restitution in Dens are given upon abstract principles; in which there are some that are good, and some that are objectionable, but now I refer to the Supplement to Dens, that book which was published with Dr. Murray's sanction and approbation (for it was, from his knowledge of the contents of it-the "Supplement to Dens's Theology" was published), and I will show you one single sentence in it. They are all, as I mentioned to you, alphabetically arranged, and here is one subject, the principle laid down under the head "Restitutio," and what do you imagine is the doctrine laid down in the "Supplement to Dens," published for the first time in 1832, on restitution?

"Real property taken by an enemy in an unjust war, suppose by pirates, infidels, heretics, &c., even if it be bought by the faithful, ought to be restored to its proper owner, no price being exacted from the same, which formerly was decreed by the congregation for propagating the faith, in the year 1630, whose opinion Benedict XIV. admits in his Epistle to P. Nicolaus Lercari, the secretary of the same congregation. (Bullarium, tom. iii. No. 57.) But as to chattel property, the same congregation thought that it should be restored by the purchasers to its lawful owner, the price for which it was bought being, however, exacted from him. In this, however, Benedict XIV. does pronounce his judgment."

The question, then, is-Is this confirmed; is this a mere opinion; is it a point of moral theology or of canon law? It is clearly laid down as a principle of canon law. You have here the principle laid down which is to be observed as to real property, which is, that all real property taken by heretics in an unjust war, even when it is bought by the faithful, must be restored, and this principle is confirmed in the papal decretal, published in the Bullarium of Benedict XIV. Here is the decretal-here is the letter in the original text; but I have translated it, as I thought it would be read more fluently and correctly when written out, than in translating from the original: and my friend Mr. Thelwall will be good enough to read it to the meeting.

The Rev. Mr. Thelwall then read as follows:

"Of the goods of churches which being once seized by unbelievers then came into the power of Christians.

"Epistle to Nicolaus Lercari, secretary of the sacred congregation for propagating the faith, on occasion of the questions proposed to the same congregation by the Archbishop of Antivari.

"Benedict XIV., Pope.

"Beloved Son,-Health and apostolical benediction,

"Section 1.-The city of Antibarum, in the Italian, Antivari, called so because it was built on the coast of that country which is now called Albania, opposite to Barium, a city of Apulia, was long since, as you know, subjected to the Ottoman yoke, namely, from the year 1571, as Jacob Diego, a senator of the republic of Venice, testifies in that beautiful history of the same republic which he has recently published-vol. ii. book 7, p. 261. Nor were the Venetians able to recover possession of it, although they attempted to do so with great exertions of valour, both in the year 1648, and also in 1717, as the same historian relates.

[In consequence of the length of the document Mr. M'Ghee did not read that part of it which follows and is printed within brackets, but it is now furnished by Mr. M'Ghee, as tending to give a fuller view of the subject.]

"Section 2.-[Our venerable brother, the present Archbishop of Antivari, to be highly extolled with praise for his pastoral zeal, when he had visited his diocese, and had sent the acts of his visitation to the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, requested that light should be afforded, and aid given to him by the same, on the two following heads. In the first head he explains that the Turks having got possession of Albania, had seized a great part of the goods belonging to the churches, of which some were afterwards sold to Christians; but others were given to the same to cultivate. On the second head he states, that some among the Christians, having houses near to churches that had been overturned, and lands contiguous to the lands of the churches, had usurped lands and tenements formerly belonging to the same churches. He asks, therefore, how he ought to conduct himself in these difficulties, and whether any or what remedy can be applied to these evils, declaring he will use the light afforded to him so that by suitable (opportunis) documents he may instruct the confessors, who vehemently desire them. While there are some of the possessors of this property who care nothing on the subject, but others wish to lull the stings of their own conscience, and to be absolved from those censures which they know to be decreed (statutas) and enacted (latas) against those who detain the goods of the church. The archbishop

VOL. II.

R

adds, moreover, that this same thing which, in making the aforesaid visitation, he found to have happened in his own diocese, happened also in the other dioceses of Albania; so that as they were about to undertake a great work, he greatly feared they might go to excite great tumults and discords. Each of these heads being maturely discussed in the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, the congregation thought that the archbishop ought, having called to him the missionaries, parish priests, and confessors, to enjoin the same, that they should show to the penitents, that they could not, without condemnation in their own conscience, detain those goods which, formerly belonging to the churches, then having been seized by the Turks, had come into their hands, whether they had bought them from the Turks themselves, or had seized them as being abandoned to their possession ; and that therefore, it was altogether necessary that they should have some legitimate title by which they might comfort themselves (confovere se) in the possession of those goods; and that the whole difficulty lay in finding a new legitimate title of this description. Wherefore the congregation itself proposed that those possessors ought to come to the archbishop, and to lay before him a distinct exhibition of the quantity and quality of the goods which had so come to them from the ancient property of the churches; but that it was to be left to the equity and prudence of the archbishop himself, that as far as it was lawful, he might provide both for the utility of the churches, and endeavour to procure a new legitimate title for the possessors, by admitting them to new contracts, suppose copyhold (emphyteuticos); even the smallest fines being imposed according to the power which had been granted by us to the aforesaid archbishop. Finally, it concluded, that this facility was to be afforded only to those who, being invited, had come to make the aforesaid exhibition; the contumacious being abandoned to their own destruction.]

"Since all these things have been diligently related to us by you, O beloved Son, according to the duty of your ministry, and you have supplicated for a timely concession of a faculty; but we, having devoted some time accurately to inspect and weigh the matter, have now at length determined to reduce to writing our opinion on this affair, which may produce effects of great moment. Truly, it cannot be called into doubt by any one, that whatsoever is taken in a just war, which belonged to the enemy, passes into the power of the conqueror; to wit, chattels into the power of him who shall first have seized upon them, but real property into the possession of the supreme governor, who carried on the war, that he may satisfy himself for the expenses of the war; sometimes also, that he might acquire greater power for his defence, and protect himself against future disasters.