Cathouc be « « « * » * H i a « * # former, at>(‘ £ tji(» P latter; a^o b) ^ [ 111 •hooln at DEfup£oV il 300 to 400 if ■lJ‘W . . course of * C»*t mted to.—(K o U jO ix W ^M A K5 r^ RCII, nA jgpV ; preached, °n ’ r* ol KRIS, in 8«PP^fll «°* . llizh Mas* « ' I AM KELLY; A F .L C O N " -V ... Ce 7— —-A h j f > imiti), lF:a- Ti r t£ w $ c r airy, and tnt 4hfl al Conway. at t King-street. te«1”« r t * V ’s, 3 & G U A R £ * $ » ; DK.—MISS ' ' ' Y “ Prize Book. ” *t being now set’’ s desirous to te ijn11’ , TION, the vc « from seven 1 sp»r^i every respect ® „rg, um. to be paid Q ij •viousto ivniOva‘'0f C* oery, and the u, yd* the pupil libera ^.cll cheerfulness, a- f v> the cultivation ^ e the French 1* ft w in addition to nation.—Any ion to Miss " O R D S . - A y w j iglish CatboW' O, „ig in eminent anoV , (flu IRM at a fairrf” Jj ortable Farmho • ^K iholie Chapel- 1 would occupy'n^jj^ vili be given.-" . Lady, of h 'Á té in France, are ‘ 1» ablishment, vl,e i LISII would be t xÆ lging, and •eferenees w,^0:ní^f» A.B., Messrs. *^a\Sr herrard-street, u t o * - -K .0). "'W ! $ v ' ASl , f e > onmouto^, ^ r th d iS S j .I make ^ ” referen^! rould » “djr^, ■rred.— igea „r •S ^rAVord. 1 of M-ethÿkf « «h oaP :,. ^ ■s.ing If'¿à'ii one cbi^uJJ itandinS ijtl1 i..y ot lof rfti lie yroP« , . Bank OK» tlV Servan1’ ^ ed fon $0 it.plac« e ^ V í , and ■ »V f;. t a b l e OF CONTENTS. * à î? Æ î i U T ,0 » = :: j»ENcî,Trad"r,0f S, ven Brazilian ’’INp'ri" Mal’1' ,!y Mrs S O II 11 CÎ*B o/ F * ^ “ d Sériai«: £ the^ol'io ^ t ïG E N C E : _ ,»itteCeh,a‘nnan w r f ” 1**1 *>y *n<l w\° Cathri.^ctlnK Com«M & ^ P r ;V b v,i'", Vf England ■^ntfi¡„e Iri»h pr- /.ter^l,nencensis t niSli(^ u ^ f e t8- By Sacerdos K™*‘on in the Colo '•'“ttily i'fjf1 Vincent of Paul " «u rn s to th« Provili 497 497 498 498 499 500 rial Council—Deptford Schools—Letter of the Marshall ............................ P rovincial:— Isle of Man—The Catholic Schools— Catholic Rev. \V. Liverpool — St. Mary’s Catholic. Church, Edmund-street—MountSt. Bernard—Conversion by Lightning —Orrnskirk Sick and Burial Society—Preston—Choir at St. Ignatius’s Catholic Church— Catholic Temperance Society—St. Alban’s Mission—Letter from the Rev. S. Ward—Weld Bank Confirmation and Charity Sermon Ireland :— Clongowes Wood College—The Je­ suits— Clonmel Confirmation — Tulsk Confirmation—8t, Ignatius— The Festival in Dublin—The Bequests Act—Letter from the Most Rev. the Archbishop of Dublin to Daniel O’Connell, Esq., M.P. Page TABLET TABLE OF CONTENTS. Colonial Malta. By John O’Connell, Esq., M.P. ............................. Foreign :— IRELAND POLITICAL:— Loyal National Repeal Association— Letter of the Liberator, with a Sketch of the Future Plan of the Repeal Movement— The London Repeal Wordens and the Dublin Repeal Association — Removal of Pa qers—Tenant Right—Slavery— Texas •• ................... SECOND EDITION .................... FOREIGN&COLONIAL INTELLIGENCE France—Spain —Syria-Peru—Cuba —United States—Canada IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT .— Business of Saturday — Taxing Masters—Is it a .Job?-Lunatics— Valuation Bill—Brazils Cathedral —Official Bribery— VentilationSmall Debts — Irish Poor - Law Pag« 502 503 603 504 Reforms —Sunderland Election— London and York Railway—The Fire at Quebec—Trains and Engines — Accidents and Compensation—Writ of Chichester—Review of the Session—Adjournment POLITICAL :— DOMESTIC NEWS Court and Fashionable Life The Queen and Court at Osborne House—Departure of the King of Holland—The Queen’s Visit to Germany PERSONAL MATTERS MISCELLANEA PUSE VISM :— ACCIDENTS AND OFFENCES:— LAW AND POLICE :— NAVAL ANI) MILITARY NEWSMONEY MARKET AND CITY NEWS MARKETS .. ................... GAZETTES ............................ ADVERTISEMENTS................... page 510 òli 511 511 511 0t" V I . N o . 2 7 5 . S A T U R D A Y , A U G U ST 9 , 1 8 4 5 . P r ic e Gd. t'i/o^othp T H E AR CHBISHOT D U B L I N . O F ?* f W T U column will be found a letter from J*ct„f t],e c Archbishop o f Dublin, on the suli..cf rphia Y 0misei1 amendments in the Bequests " l , ° 1‘ on* letter ' vi'l naturally engage the atteni jH s ( ; “r Baders. Wv\ loisiV^Tposes that Sir James Graham has ^ ¿ C í ^ p o r a ‘‘ th theeSï ï ? llim as having said, on the autlio<lm, lizard„ f n lan Catholic Commissioner of “ *? .< levnl,,,iîc<l rity'“ 'epresent'1' l ' lat sentence oi ,lis sPee.clh “V o vw devoivlHe<luests,” that some portion of the of ar‘aiice w .i u,Pon the Commissioners was “ at. tJ>rse * ‘ .lue canons of the Church.” It is, hjy P°MedP Sp^e.that Sir James may have been tC|.e been llt if so, it isstrangethat heshould ■Cfeiice « '" uiisreported in two speeches, and in lUot lbe f,'U‘e an<l the same point. “v»-’ the 1 sPeech, from which Dr. Murray “ rel‘4.nce winXP,ression is very general—“ at “ di. a'red lhe canons of their Church, which “ th-Pbue , . aH matters of doctrine and ltjt. ! lr *1iocesa “ ‘*s nature should he settled by «Xcl ".'"st li:,,,II,,a*one” Surely, something of this heal Ve iu*' ?n sa'‘b This reference to the v«m-Object. Sd,ction °1 diocesans over their clew j ' ; 1' o{ ,i. Cau hardly have lieen the pure in-T/*d .. e reporter. ° « -d 2 that .... .. topic. a>atioi, of Something must liave W'iien we come to tlie tlic right honourable ba- iiuicli continued— very f ì l l i tNVO Points , bih points as to which lie proposed to 'boli* the ifxt Session. The first related to matters 'duir,,]. octrine and discipline of the Homan (>a) St . lì!/ as /i nnw stuod, if there was c ç ? 'o fa'; av » ‘c tv stch *avonr * ------ ’‘he ° r of a 1 ?dignitary of the Homan Catholic Uff the pan*8^1,priest, and a dispute arose as to P aPpeaS'0',d, >■ Party claiming it, such a case wasnow, as ho’wevft^ l° fhe decision o f the commissioners ^ver, that by a canon o f the Roman & * y mC* ? gestion must be decided by an auicai [yjccUliasiÎü. The Government intended ‘Jlo-ult,, 1IV making the certificate of the ut,iorities conclusive as to the rights ot 'be do à 'e ' lavf a distiuct reference, by Sir to a “ canon o f r w ee, f s interval, very >Uni* ,. holic Church,” which hr supposes n ^ rQbal,h , r tu violate- It is not, w vc submit, ■uiiunvAtne reporters have blundered to the la ^ b t L, !v ln Dr- Murray’s letter. We liave v» ? a8 Eot . 'v°rld tliat somehow or otlier Sit h ^ h t J . -lt >nto I,,, t.—a . . . - - - - - ‘ :,as » a. ■*«?? ^‘is imA-ath°lic Church discipline ; and ' 'í.d’t T i'^retion ^'^r!’ be blurted it out with iiis davi* ~ w s a * With 1pt<î, b'? head that this act was at lid I. Cholic i^Hir/*h tlicoinlinn • finii V.^ich him°qn ^ le Commissioners, of course, t*: Sdve hinj0,^ b”t they told him something 1 ¡a vuat impression. They put into as from which those words naturally y ’ hat th ofydd if ^ jiid so we should he abundantly conW r- blu*r laa no other evidence than the letter tw letter- on " Thich we are now commenting. ^ w4 ^ « t h a t the — net omits certain pro • th'-'hsfo Ma» himself considers to be k6 Ar vfcthe À * * lfety ° f ,he Chur‘ hb, Î of t'b'sbop —nr,tnte between the language of N lw lbe Secrm! man °f holy simplicity ajdriti babitg T|? ®tate—a man of shrewd ha.1' ’'Wk..°n whi*liCv,Arcbbisbop enumerates the t|k®4 y^bat We hav'',b® relies at great lengtli. i S l ^ t h ^ , before written ' ^ —and mat ti »** *wen on this subject . . ( i " fiernl c°Bsistenr.lese Secnr‘^ cs are o f exactly ■ )> .t l .em " S as soaP bubbles? Let us , N he An "They are— 'vas n ;..^bcrf ple(. which “ it is underthe hoard-th, ! 5i.shopS “ should . — — *• »k b®j, heen tent , bis “ implied pledge” 4 * 2 * Bui n o n u f e . b A Y bee,” P l“ ccd "hi Ja| & Kln(- folli , —oej, l>ut no pledge was given that they Mi \ ation , 'here. On the contrary, a distinct taV ' h>edce asV\ade by Sir Robert Peel that no ‘¿a , the ff,n<0' l<i) should, or would be given. M e L ; 'd lL thpv'o^ from tlie Chronicle o f August ij “"dona * -1" being then in committee in the wbi>roalv|' the Parliamentary7 discussions upon b deli8®1»!, nin l !f'lr elose. >iin* 'V|Hi K, ,V<“ that three of the five commissioners He -a* or ii- \"an Catholic charities should be ArchS ly W f “ 'shPa of th* » - '■ 7 ‘ F8 of si'ouiu be Arc * iegislaiiv.. H° lnan Catholic Church. sanction ot a great prin V . ' h* Crô'Y'i Ob dd fay'®®», and n*td ,0 .the amendment as fet. Ut n>hat he rf-jVentlnK ’ ’ Aom doing as a object to, though he could offer no pledge. divide against it. If the amendment were put, he must.' The reason given by Sir Robert a few minutes ' afterwards for persisting in this refusal is so eminently complimentary to some o f the Irish prelates that we cannot but reprint it here. Sir R. Pm:i. said the Government would do what waa right, whether the House divided or not; but if the spirit which actuated the Government was a lair one, how futile it was to attempt to control them,ybr i f compelled to lake ecclesiastics [ i- e. Bishops, in tile terms of Mr. Sheiks motion] Ihetj might take those who were most objectionable to the Roman Catholic body. i The validity o f this reasoning consists in taking it for granted that out o f the entire range o f the Catholic laity it is next to impossi hie to select as guardians of Church rights individuals worse qualified than three that might be chosen from the Bishops! That the average capacity and character o f the Catholic Episcopacy are not higher than those o f the laity ! That the Episcopacy presents the same extremes of baseness and vice that are to be found among the laity ! And that in confining the choice o f the Minister to the Rulers of their Church, the Catholics get no additional security for the propriety of his appointments ! But more than this. Not only was no pledge given, but in the course o f the same week an intimation was given by Sir James Graham o f a state of affairs in which Catholic Bishops would not be appointed. And what “ state” was that ? It was when the Government should not be able to find Catholic Bishops to its mind ! Literally so. We cut the following sentences from a report of Sir James Graham’s speech, to be found in the Morning Jleraltl o f July 30, 1844. lie was bound to state that lie could only anticipate one objection which was likely to be raised to this measure as not being entirely satisfactory to his Homan Catholic fellow-subjects, land that would arise from a peculiarity of the Church of Rome, whether the status of persons in holy orders could be decided by persons not themselves ecclesiastics. That discussion would arise on the question as to the nomination of the Homan Catholic members of tlie board. Though they should he 'persons in u-hom the Roman Catholic body had confidence, yet, on the other bund, be could not conceive that her Majesty's! Ministers, tn the exercise o f their discretion, as the responsible advisers o f the Crown, would concur in thepropriety e f appointing or permitting to be appointed, individuals in whom they hud no confidence. Nothing can he more explicit. The Government retained the power ol filling the Board with laymen, because they foresaw the possibility of a time to come in which— to leave Bishops out o f the question— they could not find so many as three ecclesiastics of any grade in whom they could have confidence! This species o f “ implied pledge,” which “ it is “ understood was given” to somebody, and which by the very Ministers who “ are understood” to have given it was explained to be no pledge at all, and to be obligatory to the limit of perfect convenience and not one hair’s breadth beyond; this “ pledge,” which, in the event of an exclusive nomination o f laymen might have been fairly quoted as au honest warning that laymen might some day be exclusively appointed—this “ implied pledge” is the first and chief o f those “ ample securities” with which, in Dr. Murray’sopinion, nothing but the “ over-sensitive scruples” o f the majority of his episcopal brethren prevent them irom being perfectly satisfied! The second is like nnto it. The very first act of the Prelates on entering the Board was to place on record a declaration of this principle o f Catholic discipline, that “ in every such case the tes“ tiinony ol'a Bishop is to he received as conclusive “ evidence as to who is the rightful pastor of anv “ parish in his diocese.” This rule—this bye-law —was sanctioned at once by “ the entire Board.’ And this is the whole—literally the whole—of what Dr. Murray considers “ ample security” for ecclesiastical interests, which may hope to last some few years beyond the days allotted to the longest-lived Commissioner now in existence! It is, perhaps, hardly necessary for us to press, in opposition to his Grace, tlie point that this very rule may by some be thought to be in itself detective; that it gives no security touching disputed bishoprics; and that it seems hardly to provide for a case like that recent one in the North, where a priest was supported in the possession of his parish by his Archbishop against “ the testi“ mony” o f Ilia Bishop. We leave these points, at any rate lor th# present, to the Canonists, But supposing the rule to be in itself ample, Dr. Murray admits, first, the necessity o f such a rule in order to keep Catholic discipline inviolate; secondly, the necessity of. having Catholic prelates on the Board to watch over the execution and application of the rule. O f the first of these two necessities the only security is a bye-law, by which at the utmost no human being is bound even in honour but the individual Commissioners who attended the Board the day it received their sanction; and which if any future Commissioner shall be so disposed, may (on a hint from the Government) be thrown aside as so much w'aste paper, or cunningly infringed upon, or formally repealed at their absolute and secret discretion! O f the second “ ne“ cessity” the only security is “ an implied pledge,” which is no pledge ; which is rather a distinct intimation that no such understanding will he held binding! lt is with perfect amazement that we thus sum up these things, and find ourselves compelled to call them “ securities!" Until this moment we thought that Dr. Murray agreed with tlie rest of his colleagues in considering the omission o f greater securities an e v i l ; that his Grace consented to accept Office 0 11I37 on condition o f having the omissions rectified; and that he differed from the majority o f his Episcopal Colleagues mainly in degree, in a strong conviction that the good o f the Act preponderated over its malice. But we now see the thing in a different light. In the way o f security, the utmost desire o f his Grace's heart, even in his most romantic imaginations, extends no further than to “ an implied pledge," which contains in it a threat; and to a bye-law which some day, after his Grace is r/e-Commissioned, three gentlemen in a private room may subject to the action of a sponge, with no more formality than a schoolboy uses in wiping out the scribblings on his slate. Anything beyond this; the desire to have statutory7 security; the notion that Queen, Lords, and Commons afford any barrier to evil doing; the idea that publicity may check crime; the feeling that definite, written words are more tangible than vague and contradictory “ implied pledges;” the sentiment that a solemn Act of Pari ¡ament is better than a bye-law; or that the word publicly given o f the Three Es tates o f the Realm is more to be desired than an assurance from five or ten very estimable and very fluctuating private gentlemen styled Commissioners—all these foolish ideas o f purely worldly wisdom Dr. Murray utterly renounces. Those who cherish them he treats as incurably timid and “ over-sensitive,” and their scruples as utterly “ groundless.” “ Groundless”—mind! Not over-strained, or exaggerated, but “ groundless.” In Dr. Murray’s judgment the d is tin ction taken by the m a jo r ity of his Episcopal Colleagues between TransitoryCommissioner-Security, and A c t-o f-P a r lia m en tSecurity, is utterly “ groundless!” Not thus do the money-brokers of tnis metropolis reason. But his Grace, with his accustomed charity, sees 111 the half-expressed intentions of a present Minister ample guarantees against tlie evil dispositions ol all possible Ministers in all time to come. Mark, now, the contrast! Sir James Graham, whatever bad qualities he may have, has perhaps a little too much o f the wisdom ot the serpent, and is a man of the world. Mark how different a judgment the Baronet lorineu lrom that of the Archbishop on the facts communicated to him by the latter. , Dr. Murray sent him word that the Catholic rule of discipline, is to the effect that a Bishop shall be absolute judge in Ins own diocese; that Dr. M 'lfa le and iris friends will not be satisfied without having this rule m the Act of Parliament ; and therefore requesting him to get the act altered. “ Oh,” says Sir Janies, “ that is the “ rule or canon of your Church is it ? Tf)e f / “ says nothing about that or any similar rule or “ canon; the Act enables the Commissioners to “ decide without taking that rule or canon into “ account; the Art enables them to violate that “ canon i f they think t it ; the Act therefore gives “ them uncanonical powers. \ ery we] I then, be “ it so. The Act shall be altered, and the powers “ o f the Commission«s shall be brought within “ canonical limits. So said, so done. Sir James, finding it convenient to concede this boon goes down to the House, meditating these things, and makes his promised declaration. Having made up his mind to concede the matter, it was not wortli his while to pretend that there were any real securities in a Minister swhisper, or in a bye-law. Accordingly, in his speech (not wishing to be laughed at) he said nothing about either o f them. But he contented himself with explaining more or ]ess ac. curately the rule of discipline laid down by Dr Murray, and with the avowal that the Art does not hind down .the Commissioners to the observance of that rule. Sir James stuck to the substance—to the Act, while his Grace, like a man of simplicity, was amusing himself with “ bye-laws” and “ implied pledges.” Dr. Murray did not write that the Act was uncanonical, but from what he did write, Sir James’s vigorous understanding inevitably drew the unfortunate conclusion which has given rise to this Archiépiscopal disclaimer. Whether the Act really is or is not uncanonical is a hard question we shall not affect to answer. Great lights oi the Church differ about the matter. But whether uncanonical or not we have formed a very strong conviction that, considering the men and the tim e,it is to the last degree nnvife. IVe take it that the Supreme Canon, in all matters ol prudence, is the safety o f the Church ; andthat 111 new circumstances, not regulated by old canons, the standing function o f all Bishops is analogous to that conlerml in old times on Roman Consuls by special decree, “ to take care that the Common-' “ Weal sustain no injury.” Snrelj7, it is not by adopting and following mit such notions of “ ample security” as are contained in the letter before us, that this exalted function will beadequately fulfilled ! [The Editor has to congratulate his readers that a slight indisposition compels him to have recourse for the rest o f the usual Editorial matter to a pen already well known and appreciated.in this journa . He hopes this will be taken as a valid excuse for not touching on one or two subjects that seem to require notice at the present momen LORD BROUGHAM ON PR IV ILE GE OF PARLIAMENT. The protestsigned by Lords Brougham and Wicklow, and inserted in our last number, is certainly the most important State paper which has appeared since the allocution o f 1842. Far be it from ns t-o compare the two documents ! tVe do not require to be told, that the concerns o f the Universal t-hurch are higher than those of any temporal State; and that the authority, which condemnsd the world-wide usurpations o f the Czar, should be more venerable to mankind than the authority of the noble witnesses against the paltrier usurpations o f a British Parliament. But, as among wrong-doers, so among those who set îemse ves honestly to redress the wrong, there ia a c ose a mity. 1 he common enemy is centralisation ¡—tyranny used to be the word;—and— w atsoever the sphere o f action, whether Church 0 1 «tâte,—-howsoever represented—whether by a zar ol Muscovy or a standing majority o f British uclegates— that enemy is still the same ; still ruthless by nature, still hateful to the good, s‘ ul mischievous to all mankind. It is the vice e f aii times and all countries, but more especially of this country and this time. It is so epidemical while it lasts, that in the whole community none are too high to be endangered, none lowly enough to escape. Whilst, therefore, from the Pope to the peasant, it is the common interest to keep out the common foe, it is always a satisfaction to observe the accession of some new ally to the good cause, or the new achievement ol an ancient ally, even though it should beone far inferior in station, capacity, and other means of usefulness, to the distinguished statesman and judge whose protest has called for these observations. Whatever the true privileges o f the House of Lords may be, it ’ 3 unquestionable that, in their origin, those privileges belonged to that House as the Sovereign Court of Judicature, original and appellate; and, whatever those of the House of Commons may be, it is equally certain that, in their origin, they belonged to that House as the Grand Jury or Inquest o f the nation. Considered in that point of view, the claim o f Privilege becomes, for the first time, intelligible and practical ; 4 a