considerable numbers, laboured to defeat his plan. He sent for Dean Andrews, who sat in the chair of the committee of that House; told him how ashamed and scandalized he was at their proceedings; represented how unheard-of a part it was for a few petty clerks to presume to make articles of faith in the spirit of Brownism, and in contradiction to the bishops and to the State; and so intimidated him and those who acted with him, that the canons, as they now stand, were voted with only one dissentient voice.

I have given this short account of this memorable transaction, as it is more than probable that some of the Bench and many of the Clergy will oppose the measure of incorporating and identifying the two Churches. The present Primate, as well in temper and manners as in many points of learning, may well rank with Primate Usher. But the Bench is not without some of a different description-violent and impracticable, condemning and opposing whatever does not originate from themselves, and not likely to brook any appearance of subordination to the See of Canterbury, which would be necessary to this plan.

In this, however, as can be made appear from history, there would be nothing new. We can fairly infer, from Archbishop Usher's account of the religion professed by the ancient Irish, that, were it not for Pope Eugenius's extending his usurpations to Ireland in the twelfth century, the Church of Ireland would have maintained the same dependence on the See of Canterbury, as from that century till the Reformation she maintained on the See of Rome.

This learned and candid prelate proves, from authentic records, that the election of bishops, previous to that period, was by the King and by the chief of the clergy and laity of the respective dioceses; that the bishops elect were sent by them to be consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury; and that the pastoral staff was given in his court by the English King. He proves that the Ostmen, or Danish strangers who

possessed the three Cities of Dublin, Waterford, and Limerick, followed the same rule, and would not allow the bishops whom they chose to receive their consecration from any other metropolitan than the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The first bishop they had in Dublin, as appears by the records of that Church, was one Donatus, or Duranus, upon whose death, in the year 1075, Gothric, their king, with the consent of the clergy and people of Dublin, chose one Patrick for their bishop, and directed him into England, to be consecrated by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury. Lanfranc sent him back, with commendatory letters as well to Gothric as to the chief king or monarch of the Irish. Upon the decease of this Patrick, in 1085, the same monarch of the Irish joined with the clergy and people of Dublin in the election of a second Donatus; and sent him, in like manner, to be consecrated by Lanfranc, one of whose monks he was.

6

There is another instance on record, of a bishop elect of Waterford being sent by the king, clergy, and people, for consecration to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. In the year 1122, a bishop elect of Dublin was sent to Ralph, Anselm's successor, for his consecration, "touching which," says Usher, "I have seen this writ of King Henry the First: Henry King of England to Ralph, Archbishop of Canterbury, greeting. The King of Ireland hath intimated unto me by his writ, and the Burgesses of Dublin, that they have chosen this Gregory for their bishop, and send him to you to be consecrated. Wherefore, I wish that, satisfying their request, you perform his consecration without delay. Witness, Ranulph, our Chancellor at Windsor.""

In 1151, Passaro, the Pope's legate, came into Ireland. He brought with him four palls, the badge devised by the See of Rome as distinguishing archbishops, and the grant of which from the Sovereign Pontiff was declared to be indispensably necessary to the discharge of any metropolitical authority. From that time, the intercourse with the See of Canterbury

ceased, and the Irish bishops received consecration from their own metropolitans, subject to and deriving their authority from the Church of Rome.

From all this it evidently appears that the intimate connexion of the Church of Ireland with that of England, and the acquiescence of the clergy of Ireland under the government of the See of Canterbury, as it is implicitly and unequivocally expressed in the recommendatory letter which they gave to the same Gregory for Archbishop Ralph, were only broken off by establishing the dependence of the Church of Ireland on the Pope; and that, had not this usurpation taken place, and been settled previous to the introduction of the English, the same connexion would have continued, and extended itself to all the dioceses, as they came gradually to be included within the English pale.

To establish a metropolitical pre-eminence in the See of Canterbury over the united Church of the whole empire is not therefore altogether a new idea; and the proposal cannot be unacceptable to the enemies of Popish usurpation, even if it were not necessarily connected with the proposal of a Legislative Union and incorporation, and if there were no other reasons that powerfully recommended its adoption.

That there are a multiplicity of such reasons is obvious. I shall instance one of them. The maxim laid down by Archdeacon Paley has been greedily adopted, and zealously inculcated in this kingdom by all the sectaries, but particularly by the Roman Catholics: "The established religion ought to be that which prevails among the majority of the people. The faith of the nation ought to be consulted, and not that of the magistrate."

The safety of our establishment has been menaced not only by having this maxim urged in theory, but by endeavours to act upon it. As long as the distinction of the Church of Ireland remains, as long as our establishment continues separate and distinct, and to rest upon our own internal regula

tions, so long will this plausible and palatable maxim continue to keep alive the expectations of our adversaries, so long will it excite their desires, and encourage them to hope for our subversion. But, let the distinction cease; let there be no longer a Church of Ireland, separate and distinct from the Church of England, and resting upon other laws, and depending upon other jurisdictions. Let the two Churches be identified, and the Church of England (for that auspicious and sacred name must not be changed) be the only Church of the empire. Let this be done; and Paley's maxim, whatever the intrinsic weight it may possess may be, will cease to apply. Our Church will be unassailable to our adversaries; and none of them will dare to disturb or subvert the establishment, unless under circumstances that may encourage them to attempt the subversion of the whole political system under which we live, and the separation of the two kingdoms. Upon the whole, I think the principle of incorporating and identifying the two Churches cannot be controverted. The manner of carrying it into effect can easily be settled. Although the See of Canterbury must have a metropolitical authority over the whole Church, still the Archbishoprics of Ireland must continue to be invested with all their present privileges and jurisdictions, only with an appeal to the chief See.

There are various Statutes in force relative to the Church of Ireland, resulting from local circumstances, that must be continued and confirmed. Several regulations are at this moment necessary that ought to be added. Other circumstances may occur hereafter, for which the United Parliament may occasionally provide. Should the measure once become ripe for it, all these particulars may be specifically stated. An assembly of the Bishops, or a Convocation, appears to be necessary, to digest and state them, as well as to arrange every matter previous to a final settlement.

The Rev. Dr. Troy to Mr. Robert Marshall.

Dublin, November 20, 1799.

My dear Sir—I did not purpose to trouble you with a second letter when I wrote the former one some time ago. A circumstance of a singular nature and recent date will, I hope, justify me for again intruding on you.

Some English papers, the Sun in particular, as I am told, have copied a paragraph from the Dublin Journal, stating "that great intercession had been made by the Roman Catholic clergy of this city, to save the life of Hearne, a student of Maynooth College, lately executed for seditious practices." On reading the original paragraph, I wrote to Mr. Marsden, to have the former part of it contradicted, as no such intercession had been made, and to have it observed that Hearne had been expelled the Maynooth College, in May, 1798, previous to the Rebellion. Mr. Marsden wrote to Mr. Giffard, who, in a subsequent publication, contradicted, lamely indeed, the intercession of the clergy, but omitted the expulsion of Hearne. I need not remark the bad impression the original paragraph, appearing in a print supposed to be under the patronage of Government, must make, circumstanced as this distracted country now is, on the public mind in England. Every loyal man must conclude, on reading it in the Sun, copied from the Dublin Journal, that the Roman Catholic clergy of this city, and I at their head, are abettors of treason, and Maynooth College a nursery of traitors. Hearne, with some others, were expelled Maynooth College by order of the trustees, at the same time that many of Trinity College students were expelled from it by order of the Lord Chancellor. The visitors of both establishments deserve praise for their vigilance, nor does the expulsion of scholars from either reflect upon it. On the whole, my dear sir, my request to Lord Castlereagh is, I beg my most respectful compliments to his Lordship, that he will have the goodness to procure a contradiction of the misrepresentation on the