VETO
393
VETO
was about, to bo founded. The Irish bishops were
asked if they would agree that the president or pro-
fessors of the proposed college be appointed by Gov-
ernment ; if they would consent, that the bishops be
appointed by the king; and how they would advise
the por>o if such a proposal about the appointment of
bishops wc>re laid lief ore him. The bishops on 17 Feb.,
17!)."), rejected the tirst and second proposals categor-
ically. To the third they answered that they would
advise the pope "not to agree to his Majesty's nomi-
nation if it could be avoided; if unavoidable, the king
to nominate one of the three to be recommended by
the Provincial bishops".
In connexion with the Union, Pitt intended to bring in a Catholic Relief Bill, or at least he so pre- tended; and he sought for such security of Catholic loyalty as might allay the prejudices which he should have to encounter in England. He commissioned Lord Castlereagh to make such arrangements as would satisfy the king that no priest whose loyalty the king should ha^■e reason to suspect would be appointed to an Irish bishopric. Ten bishops, trustees of Maynooth College, met on 17 Jan., 1799^ to transact college business. Castlereagh submitted his views to them, reminding them of the suspicion of disloyalty under which the Catholics of Ireland lay since the insurrection of the year before. The ten bishops embodied their reply in certain resolutions, of which this was one: "That in the appointment of the Prelates of the Roman Catholic Religion to vacant sees within the kingdom, such interference of government as may enable it to be satisfied of the loyalty of the person appointed, is just, and ought to be agreed to." And as a way towards that security, the>' expressed the opinion that the name of the priest cliosen to be submitted to the pope might be trans- mitted to the Government, but that the Government should declare within a month whether there was any cause to suspect his loyalty. They did not leave to the Government to decide the reasonableness of such suspicion, for they said "if government have any proper objection against such candidate". More- over they laid it down that no security given must in the working out "infringe the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, or diminish the religious influence which the Prelates of the Church ought justly to pos,sess over their respective flocks", and that any agreement made "can have no effect without the sanction of the Holy See".
Those were not resolutions of the Irish episcopate, but simply the opinion of ten bishops who had met to transact business of another kind; they were driven again,st their wish to give an opinion. On 1.5 June, 1790, Cardinal Borgia, Prefect of Propaganda, having heard a report that Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, wa.« leader of a party which was disposed to compro- mise the jurisdiction of the Holy See by assenting to some plan about church discipline, wrote to him a.sking him for the facts. On 17 .\ug., 1799, Dr. Troy replied to the cardinal declaringit %vas quite false that .any plan had been arranged, and having given an account of the meeting and resolutions of the Maynooth trustees he .adds: ".\s to the proposal itself, the Prelates were anxious to set aside or elude it; but being unable to do so, they determined to have the rights of the Church secured." In the spring of 1800, Dr. Troy, writing on the same topic to his agent at Rome, Father Concannon, .says: "We all wish to remain as we are; and we would so, were it not that too many of the clergy were active in the wicked rebellion, or rlid not oppose it. If the Prelates had refused to lonsider the proposal, they would be accused of a design to exercise an influence over the people, inde- pendent of government, for seditious purposes. Nothing but the well grounded .apprehension of such a charge, though groundless in itself, would have induced the Prelates to consider the proposal in any
manner ... If we had rejected the proposal in loto
we would be considered as rebels. This is a fact . If
we agreed to it without reference to Rome we would
be branded as schismatics. We were biUveen Scylla
and Charybdis." The opinion thus expressed by those
ten bishops in Jan., 1799, was never published by
them. It was not meant for publication; the bishops
never took official cognizance of it except to discard
it. Every pronouncement of the Irish bishops from
that time forward rejected absolutelj- any proposal
which would allow the British Goverimient to meddle
in appointments to Irish bishoprics.
In ISO.") Fox and Lord Grenville presented to Parliament a petition to relieve the Irish CathoUcs from their civil disabilities. In the debate which followed. Sir John Hippisley spoke in a general way of securities for Catholic loyalty. That was the first time any such proposal was made in public; but nothing definite was proposed. On 2.5 May, 1808, Grattan, in moving for a pariiamentary committee to consider the claims of the Catholics, said he was authorized by them to ijropose "that no Catholic bishop be appointed without the entire approbation of His Majesty". On 27 May, Lord Grenville pre- sented a petition for the Catholics in the Lords, and, in moving for a committee, proposed an effective veto for the king on the appointment of bishops. \\'hat is known as the "veto" thus assumed a definite form as a public question in Ireland and in England. How did the Irish bishops meet it? Dr. Milner tells us in his "Supplementary Memoirs of the English Catho- lics" that "both in conversation and in correspond- ence they universally disavowed" what had been said by the promoters of the Bill on the subject of the veto; and on 14 September they met and officially protested against the veto. In 1810 Grattan gave notice that he would again bring the Catholic claims before Parliament. On 1 Feb. the Enghsh Catholic Board held a meeting in London at which a series of resolutions were carried, including one which involved the veto. It is known as the 5th resolution. Charles Butler, the leader of the English Catholic vetoists, says of that resolution that it "was with the single exception of the Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District, agetit of the Irish bishops, unanimously adopted". He was Dr. Milner, whom the Irish bishops had commissioned in 1807 to represent them. The Irish bishops at once condemned the 5th resolu- tion. In May, Gratt.an's motion for a committee to consider the Catholic petition was defeated. Early in June Lord Donoughmore made a like motion in the House of Lords, which was also defeated. Rut here was the parting of the ways between the great body of the Irish Cathohcs led by the bishops, and the English Catholics, with whom were the vicars Apos- tolic except Milner.
In 181.3 Grattan, Canning, and .Castlereagh brought in what purported to be a Catholic Relief Bill, with a condition which would practically pl.ace the appointment of bishops in the hands of a board of commissioners to be named by the king; it also provide<l that anyone exercising special functions or receiving documents from the Holy See without the knowledge and approbation of that Board, was to be considered guilty of a misdemeanour. Those imcath- olic conditions notwithstanding, 'an amendment to the Bill was proposed and carried, which wordd still disable Catholics "to sit and vote in Parliament". Thus the Bill was lost : bigotry had defeated itself. The Irish bishops had declared that they could not accept the Bill "without incurring the guilt of schism". A few d.ays after, .at a meeting of the Irish Catholic Bo.ard in Dublin, O'Connell proposed that their th.anks be sent to the bishops. .Some of the laity, who were in agreement with the English Catholics, opposed the vote; but it was carried by a very large majority. The vetoists were disappointed at the
