be excommunicated, without the Emperor's consent. Why should not the same regulation exist in Ireland, and throughout the whole of the dominions of Great Britain ?

Though excommunication is an act of spiritual power, temporal consequences flow from it.

The priest or bishop who can excommunicate a voter, who will not support a candidate in favour of the Church of Rome, has a control over that man's vote, and thus influences the return of Members of Parliament. Hence, we may have in St. Stephen's, those who have been elected, not by the free votes of independent electors, but on the nomination of Roman Catholic priests.

The influence of the priests at elections can scarcely be overrated. The organization of the Irish population is so simple and so complete, merely consisting in the blind and uninquiring obedience of the populace to their priests, that Dr. M'Hale was, perhaps, not far wrong, when he affirmed that "he would return a cow-boy for the important county of Galway."

There is at this time a strong feeling amongst Roman Catholics themselves, as to the evils effected by Papal interference.

If ever, therefore, there was a time, it is now, that England expects every man to do his duty.†

Two passages from amongst many others in

*"Church of England Quarterly Review," July, 1839, p. 53. † A portion of these remarks appeared in 1846; the feeling is stronger now—1851.

Caudrey's Case deserve here to be specially noticed. Caudrey's Sir Edward Coke tells us that,

From the first until the eleventh year of the late Queen Elizabeth's reign, no person of what persuasion of Christian religion soever, at any time refused to come to the public Divine service celebrated in the Church of England, being evidently grounded upon the sacred and infallible word of Almighty God, and established by public authority within this realm; but after the Bull of Pius Quintus was published against her Majesty in the eleventh year of her reign, containing amongst other things too long to be repeated for this purpose, in these words: Pius, Bishop, and servant of God's servants, &c. She (Queen Eliz.) hath clean put away the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fastings, &c., &c., &c.'

After this Bull all they that depended on the Pope obeyed this Bull, disobeyed their gracious and natural Sovereign, and upon this occasion refused to come to the Church." Page 57.

Another passage is one setting forth the real grounds on which proceedings were had against Jesuits (p. 64):

:

"By this, and by all the records of the indictments it appeareth, that these Jesuits and priests are not condemned and executed for their priesthood and profession, but for their treasonable and damnable persuasions and practices against the crowns and dignities of monarchs and absolute princes, who hold their kingdoms and dominions by lawful succession,

Case.

What is to be done?

Ireland.

and by inherent birthright and descent of inheritance (according to the fundamental laws of this realm) immediately of Almighty God, and are not tenants of their kingdoms (as they would have it) at the will and pleasure of any foreign potentate whatsoever." *

But what can now be done? What can be done? Is Great Britain yet so crippled by legislative concessions or by ministerial acts, that she is left powerless in the matter? Have the intrigues of

official men-intrusted for a time with the institutions of their country upon their honour, if not upon their oath, not to betray them-brought matters to such a pass as this? Is England yet so crippled that she cannot do what for centuries past she has done, or might and could have done?

Can she not, as a Protestant nation, for her protection against Papal aggression, do what Roman Catholic nations have done to secure the independence of their own Church and country against the intrigues of the Vatican in almost every nation of Europe?

Can she not do what in the Papal kingdom of Sardinia has recently been done with one or two Papal Archbishops, who sought to overawe the Government, to defy or to evade the laws, and to assume a power superior to that of the temporal ruler?

Ireland, it is said, and England, form no parallel * See Watson's "Important Considerations, or a Vindication of Queen Elizabeth from the Charge of Unjust Severity towards her Roman Catholic Subjects, by Roman Catholics themselves." Printed in 1601. Edited by the Rev. Joseph Mendham. London, 1831.

cases in their position and circumstances, and, therefore, are to form no parallel cases for legislation. This, however, if true, instead of removing, would but increase the difficulty

"Point out the fault, but not the way to mend."

Lalor's Case, given hereafter, shows that the an- Lalor's Case. cient statute law of the realm was held to apply to those who had received from the Bishop of Rome office, promotion, and jurisdiction of a spiritual character in Ireland, which the Pope, on the one hand, had no right to confer, nor the priest, on the other, any right to receive or exercise.

I do not quote the case of Lalor, as one precisely similar to that of the new Papal Archbishoprick, &c., though there are very many points of similitude between them.

The first few pages of Lalor's Case show this:Like Lalor, Dr. Wiseman has been for many years past of no mean credit and authority.

Like Lalor, Dr. Wiseman has "also made his name known in the Court of Rome."

Like Lalor, he has held intelligence with persons high in authority there; and like Lalor, for his devotedness to the " Holy See," he has obtained "title and jurisdiction," though carved by the Pope out of the prerogatives of the Crown and the temporal dominions of Great Britain.

Lalor obtained "the title and jurisdiction of VicarGeneral of the See Apostolic, within the Archbishoprick of Dublin, and the Bishopricks of Kildare

and Ferns." This pretended jurisdiction he exercised for many years.

Like Lalor, Dr. Wiseman is promoted, and made, not a Vicar-General, but a Cardinal and an Archbishop, with a pretended jurisdiction extending over the newly-constituted Roman Catholic province of England, now happily restored to "its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament.' Here, we expect, the likeness ceases.

Lalor, in his defence, said, that he had been no suitor for the office of Vicar-General. Can Dr. Wiseman, or his advocates, with truth, say as much ? This appears doubtful, if any weight is to be attached to certain rumours, if not to letters which have appeared in the public prints.

In the next item, the parallel in the particular instance fails entirely. We cannot say of "Wiseman as it was and is said of Lalor.

Lalor was first indicted and convicted under an Irish stat., 2 Eliz. Subsequently, an indictment was framed against him in the King's Bench, upon the stat. of 16 Rich. 2, cap. 5, containing these several points:1. That he had received a Bull or Brief, purchased underthe stat. or procured in the Court of Rome, which Bull or Brief of 16 Rich. 2. did touch or concern the King's crown and dignity

The indict

ment of Lalor

royal, containing a commission of authority from the Pope of Rome unto Richard Brady, and David Magragh to constitute a Vicar-General for the See of Rome, by the name of the See Apostolic, in the several dioceses of Dublin, Kildare, and Ferns, within this kingdom of Ireland.