influence, lest the statements which he had to make in your name, "should obtain easy access to our ear. When you wrote this, you were little acquainted, as it seems to us, with that man's mode of "conducting himself; for, having abused that hospitality which he "enjoyed in the city, he furnished us with many and weighty causes of grief and vexation, as well as his deportment altogether unbecoming a man professing a religious institute, and by "incessant aspersions on our Government, as by writings dis"seminated in every direction, overflowing with calumny and rancour, no less injurious to us and to this Holy See, than to his "own government, of which he boasted every where, and publicly, "that he was the author, until, at length, he proceeded to such a degree of arrogance and audacity, that he did not blush to offend "ourselves by injurious expressions; so that we could no longer suppress our sentiments, without the abandonment of our personal "dignity. Wherefore, though we could have proceeded with severity against him, nevertheless, acting towards him with lenity, the causes of complaint which we had, having been "declared by our orders, some without any difficulty, he did not "blush to acknowledge, and others, indeed, he could not deny. "We caused it to be notified to him, that he should, of his own "accord, depart from the city; which intimation of ours, when "he altogether and obstinately refused to obey, we ordered, at I length, that he should be removed, even by force, beyond the "limits of our territory. Wherefore, as we were induced to act "towards him in this manner, by motives quite different from "those which you imagined, and these of weighty moment, you "have no reason to complain, as if by this act we had inflicted an 66 " injury on the affairs of the Catholics, which are dear to us, for "most essential reasons. In the mean time, that same man, of "whom we speak, since his return to his own country, has not "changed his line of condnct; for, in the public journals of the " 17th of last December, printed in Dublin, we have seen a report "delivered by him to you of his proceedings in this city; like his former writings, it is full of falsehood and calumnies, to which report, therefore, we most unreservedly declare to you, that no "credit should be attached. 66 "To conclude, assuring you of our paternal charity, we "impart to you, from our heart, the apostolical benediction. "Given at Rome, at St. Mary Majors, this 21st day of "February, 1818, of our Pontificate the XVIII. "PIUS P. P. VII." From the preceding documents, it will be readily collected, that the Roman Catholic Prelates, and also the laity of Ireland, -so far as the association, termed "the General Board," can be considered as the organ of the great mass of Catholic population,-appear to be as much at issue with the See of Rome, as with those, who have been their principal advocates, with a very few exceptions, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. What is stated in the Pontifical Rescript, of the proceedings of the Delegate Hayes-does not appear to have shaken the confidence reposed in him by his constituents. To "the General "Board's" declaration of their "apprehensions" of the proceedings of Sir J. H.-and of their earnest conjuration," that His "Holiness should give no credit to his representations”—His Holiness has not condescended to give any reply ;-but, on the other hand, an authentic official statement was delivered to Sir J. H., on the 3rd of May, 1818,-containing a detailed by the Card : cc: account of the conduct of the Delegate Hayes, conformably of Plate in person with that recited in the Brief,-enumerating, also, many other circumstances of too gross a nature to be admitted on the face of the Pontifical Rescript. These facts were also well known to many highly respected Catholics of the United Kingdomecclesiastics and laymen-at that period in Rome,—and whose testimony, it is to be hoped, may materially tend to disabuse the great mass of their Catholic brethren, who have been, so long, and so injuriously, the dupes of their factious leaders. P List of Documents annexed to the original Statement presented to His Holiness P. PIUS VII. II. Extract of a Letter of the Cardinal De Zelada, Secretary of State-to Sir J. C. Hippisley 31 Aug. 1793. III. Circular Letter to the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland, accompanying the preceding Letter. IV. Note of the Cardinal Secretary of State to Monsignor VI. Extract of a Letter of the Congregation of Propaganda VII. Letter of the Secretary of the Congregation of State to IX. 5. Letter of Bishop Milner to "a Parish Priest of Ireland." 6. Letter of Bishop Milner to the Editor of the Dublin 7. Resolutions of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland 8. Letter from Lord Southwell and Sir Richard Bellew to Archbishop O'Reilly of Armagh - - - 26 Oct. 1808. 9. Reply of Archbishop O'Reilly to the preceding Letter 29 Oct. 180S. 10. Letter of Bishop Milner to the Editor of the Oracle 23 Nov. 1808. 11. Resolutions of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland 24 Feb. 1810. 12. Address and Resolutions of the Roman Catholics of Ireland 26 Feb-1810. 13. The Fifth Resolution of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain-Lord Stourton in the Chair 1 Feb. 1810. 14. Vote of thanks of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland to their Agent, Bishop Milner -26 Feb. 1810. 15. Extract of a Letter of a Roman Catholic Prelate of Ireland--published by Bishop Milner, 25 April 1810. X. Extract of a Letter of Sir J. C. Hippisley to His Holiness Pope Pius VI. 17 Feb. 1795. 26 Feb. 1795. XI. Reply of His Holiness Pope Pius VI. 1809. The preceding Documents will shortly be printed entire.Those containing the Compilations of Mr. Clifford have. appeared in many publications. The Extracts from Bishop Milner's Letter to a Parish Priest-with the concluding Note of a Sketch of proposed Regulations, [No. XII.] -also an Extract from Sir J. H.'s Letter to P. Pius VIL. of the 17th February, 1795-with the Reply to it, are here subjoined. Extracts from a "Letter to a Parish Priest," &c. by Dr. MILNER, Bishop of Castelbala, V. A. in the Midland District, dated 1st August, 1808. "I proceed to shew upon what grounds I rested my opinion, "that the Irish Prelates, in the event of a friendly Ministry "succeeding to power, and of the emancipation being granted, "would not hesitate, under the presumed sanction of His Holiness, to admit of a limited power of exclusion in the Execu"tive Government. The first of these grounds is the actual "consent which they (that is) the four Metropolitans and six of "the most ancient Bishops, speaking in the name of the whole "Episcopal Body, have actually given to the proposed measure " in their solemn deliberations, held at Dublin on the 17th, 18th, "and 19th of January, 1799. In these deliberations, having 'premised the justice and propriety of the interference of "Government in the appointment of Catholic Bishops, as far as "it is necessary to ascertain their loyalty, they resolve as " follows:" - [The Resolutions of 1799 are then quoted by Bishop M.]" With respect to these Resolutions, I have to "observe-1st, That they are in the hands, I believe, both of "Ministry and Opposition, and are considered, by both, as "binding upon the Episcopal Body:-2ndly, That the exclusive power itself, or the right of the Veto, is not less explicitly "offered in them than it is mentioned in my negotiations :-"8dly, The necessary checks upon this Veto are not so distinctly "expressed in the former as they are in the latter.-Again, -"In almost every uncatholic country means are provided, "and care is taken, both by those who have a right to present, "and by the Holy See herself, that no person, obnoxious to the 66 Sovereign, shall be raised to the Prelacy within his dominions. "The Sovereigns of Russia and Prussia will be found to have "exercised a power in this respect, which far exceeds that "which the Irish Prelates have offered to His Majesty; and |