superiors, which is sparingly and reluctantly yielded. When in the college, out of the twenty-four hours, he has not quite three for recreation; and if he is in orders, which about half the students are, upwards of an hour out of the three ought to be devoted to reading his breviary. Moreover, except during that hour or two destined to amusement, he is condemned to profound silence, and any deviation from this rule is almost uniformly visited with the severest reprehension. Even during their time for relaxation, their liberty is far from extensive. In rainy weather, they are confined to the cloisters, though in fine they are permitted to play at ball, or possibly at prison-bars, in a gravelled court; but they are strictly prohibited from amusing themselves with foot-ball, as that game is not deemed decorous for lads of seventeen-a notion worthy of the great Martinus Scriblerus. Not satisfied with curtailing the amusements of the students, the superiors seek to become acquainted, if possible, with their most private feelings, and in pursuance of this desire, they claim and exert a right of searching all desks. Nay, more, they affirm that no letter should enter or leave the college till they have perused it, though they have not of late dared to enforce this unwarrantable assumption of power. It will, of course, be readily imagined that if they are thus strict with regard to their actions, they are not less rigid with respect to the books they allow them to read. The authorities, why we cannot tell, seem reluctant to enter on that subject. Their catalogue does not, like the Index Expurgatorius of Rome, contain a list of forbidden, but only of permitted works, the number of which, as far as we can collect, appears to be very small. We were much surprised at some which were excluded; for besides several which might have been expected, such as Gibbon, Voltaire, and the French Encyclopedie, they prohibit all works on surgery or anatomy, together with others containing what we should reckon most valuable information. The directions on this subject are most strictly enforced; expulsion is the penalty of disobedience. The introduction of newspapers is also *We do not think it would have been amiss if the Catholic clergy in Ireland had availed themselves of the power of prohibition, with regard to some of the books used in the schools under their charge. The Bible is strictly forbidden, but the following books, amongst others, are read: The Irish Rogues and Rapparees-The Life of Captain Freney the Robber-The Garden of Love-The Feast of Love-The Effects of Love-Faublas-The Monk-The Life of Moll Flanders-Philander Flashaway-Fanny Meadows-Sir Harry Wildair-Lydia (a loose novel)-Mon Oncle Thomas-Aventures de Mariane-Liaisons Dangereuses, (the three last translated)—and Pastorini's Prophe cies. In the schools in the counties of Donegal, Kerry, Kildare, and Galway, there were found sixteen catechisms, ninety-seven books on religion, and three hundred and sixty-four novels and works of entertainment, of which the above are part; which we have selected, almost by chance, out of many quite as improper. The commissioners chose those four counties at hazard, as a specimen of the whole. rigidly rigidly forbidden by a bye-law, which is, however, completely illegal. For by the 33 Geo. III., if the trustees wish to enact any new statute, it must be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, and it becomes law if, within one month, he does not signify his disapprobation. But with regard to the prohibition of newspapers, though the board of trustees have chosen to make a byelaw, they, for some reason not assigned, have not thought fit to transmit it to the Viceroy. The statute, as at present existing, has, therefore, no legal authority; and were a student to be expelled (the threatened punishment) for disobeying it, the visitors would of course, on appeal, immediately restore him. Mr. Dowley, however, seems to consider the reluctance of the college to expel for a violation of this statute as a proof of their kind and lenient disposition-kind indeed to the student, in enacting a bye-law, in fact illegal,-though of that he may not be aware, since no copy of the statutes is given to him-lenient indeed in abstaining from enforcing an illegal decree, which, if enforced, must necessarily render themselves liable to heavy damages! This is not the only instance, however, in which we observe them anxious to accommodate the authorised statutes to their wishes-not regulate their conduct by the statutes. For example: if a young man be expelled, a communication is made to the Roman Catholic bishop of his diocese, but of that letter no official copy is kept-no cause for his dismissal assigned to the young man himself. Why? 'We cannot find it in the bond,' is the answer. The statutes do not compel us to place our reasons on record.' Again-before a student is admitted, he ought to produce a certificate of his having taken the oath of allegiance.+ But that ceremony, as we suppose it is termed at Maynooth, is almost always postponed. Why? They cannot say it is not found in the bond, but they assert that a contrary practice is more convenient. We can easily believe that, in many cases, (the Twice a year they are read in hall-few probably would understand them thus hurried over still fewer attend to them, or thence learn what is the right of appeal. Yet expulsion follows a violation of them. Both at Oxford and Cambridge a copy of the statutes is given to every under-graduate on matriculation. He is then bound to be acquainted with them. The oaths are far too long to insert. The substance of the first is, to bear true allegiance to the king; to disclose any conspiracies which may come to his knowledge; to abjure the Pretender and his family; to reject the doctrine that heretics may be murdered, or that no faith need be kept with them; and that princes excommunicated by the see of Rome may be deposed; to deny that the pope has temporal or civil power in the realm; and to affirm that in taking the oath there is no mental reservation, and that no power exists in the pope to absolve from the performance of it. The second denies that the infallibility of the pope is an article of faith; or that any sin can be forgiven without true repentance. They swear that they will support the existing arrangement of property; and they abjure any wish to overthrow or weaken the Protestant Church, religion, or government. evidence evidence proves several instances,) it is convenient to explain the oath of allegiance, and especially those clauses which relate to the power of dispensation claimed by the pope, and the overthrow of the Protestant church establishment. On these points the feelings of many Roman Catholics are directly at variance with the declaration contained in the oaths. It is, therefore, of some importance to argue them into taking these oaths without apparent reluctance, since to refuse them would be a too decided manifestation of opinion. We do not mean to say that this interpretation is always publicly given, or even given by a professor; but a monitor may convey to the junior students the wishes of the superiors as to the line of conduct they should pursue, and in some cases such an explanation may have been absolutely necessary. It does not appear, indeed, that these oaths have always been very strictly construed, or very faithfully obeyed; for in 1798, so much had the spirit of rebellion spread, that when Dr. Flood, then president of Maynooth, was directed to tender an oath, as a test to discover what united Irishmen were among the students, no less than eighteen out of, we believe, not quite two hundred, left the college to avoid taking it. What numbers remained, who did not scruple to deny their treasonable connections, it is, of course, impossible to say; but if we may judge from the conduct of some of their leaders at that time, who were all the most candid, the most open, the most patriotic, and the most worthy of men,' (vide evidence of Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Fox, and others, on the trial of Arthur O'Connor, at Maidstone,) it would seem they did not hesitate at perjury to cover their designs. We cannot but consider it as somewhat singular that, under the strict discipline maintained at Maynooth, with the privilege of inspecting correspondence, and with the still greater powers possessed by the superiors, as the religious guides and sole confessors of the students, that the president, the deans, and the professors, should all be so utterly ignorant of the treasonable feelings and proceedings in the college as not even to think it advisable to take some steps for the discovery and repression of them, till compelled to it by higher authority. In later times the same ignorance, or the same negligence, has prevailed; for even in Emmett's rebellion, when it might have been imagined the proceedings of 1798 would have awakened their attention, no notice was taken of a treasonable toast given publicly in the hall; nor was it till after the insurrection had been quelled, that it was generally known that several of the students had been acquainted with the intended rising some time before it actually occurred. We now come to the consideration of the doctrines inculcated at Maynooth; but here we shall totally omit those of a purely theological theological nature, and confine ourselves to those relating to the conduct of Roman Catholics towards their fellow-subjects and towards the state. The most important refer, first, to the infallibility and authority of the pope, and of general councils, embracing the question of the Gallican liberties; secondly, to the canon law of Rome, and how far that is of authority in Ireland; and, thirdly, to oaths and vows-when they are binding, and when they may be dispensed with. of With regard to the Maynooth doctrines touching the powers the pope the result seems to be that even now, if he pronounces decrees ex cathedrâ, on questions relating to doctrine or to church discipline, as matters 'credenda ac tenenda,' he claims complete infallibility and expects implicit obedience. It would appear, however, that it is not matter of faith to believe in this infallibility: and the opponents of this claim assert, that before any dictum of the pope need be submitted to, it must be communicated to the whole Catholic church; but if no objection is made to it within a reasonable time by a majority of the bishops, such dictum must be received as matter of faith. But in points not pertaining to faith or morals, it is admitted that popes may possibly err. Such seems to be the doctrine which, it is said, is taught at Maynooth. We use this indefinite language, as we are really afraid of pronouncing with too great confidence on the belief held, or the tenets inculcated, by the professors. It is said by the Rev. Dr. Anglade, Professor of Moral Theology, that it is highly probable that the pope is infallible, but equally probable that he is not so. The same Dr. Anglade considers doubts on matters of probability so improper, that he declares he never will cast his eyes on a theologian who maintains a lax doctrine on that subject. The same Dr. Anglade moreover informs the commissioners he cannot say what is generally thought at Maynooth on the matter of the pope's infallibility, nor is he sure what is his own opinion on that subject. Dr. Slevin, Professor of Canon Law, Librarian, and Prefect of the Dunboyne Class, goes still a little further; he not only tells us that the students have not made up their minds on this question, but lets out the important fact, that he believes no Catholic bishop in Ireland has formed any opinion, still less delivered one, upon it. The opinions given on the temporal authority of the pope are not much more decisively or satisfactorily expressed; on this head many of the answers appear to be studiously evasive. It is true, the witnesses declare they do not believe the pope now possesses the power of dethroning the king of England (could they have owned the reverse?) nor do they think the Irish Catholics would obey a bull commanding them to rise in arms against their sovereign. 6 sovereign. This latter answer was, however, generally coupled with an expression of the witness's opinion that such a bull is not likely to be issued. It, moreover, deserves attention, that some, and only some, Irish priests abroad, seem to have felt any reluctance in reading the lessons for the day of St. Gregory VII., in which it is recited as a merit in him that he had deposed Henry IV. of Germany, and which are to this hour used in Rome. Two things are certain, that whatever may be the opinions now entertained or professed to be entertained by the clergy of Ireland on this subject, many popes have asserted the possession of this power, and no pope has ever, in express terms, relinquished the claim. It would be wasting the time of our readers, were we here to enumerate any considerable number of the cases commonly and unanswerably cited on this head. It is sufficient to notice the celebrated bull, Unam Sanctam,' issued by Boniface VIII., in which his temporal power is asserted in the plainest language, viz., Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omnem humanam creaturam, declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus de necessitate salutis.' That of Pius V. deposing Queen Elizabeth, and calling on the Irish Roman Catholics to assist the rebel O'Neil against her, is also remarkable, not only for the country for whose benefit it was destined, but for the approbatur it received. It was approved of, in the fullest manner, by the Jesuits and the doctors of Salamanca and Valladolid, than whom no abler divines could at that time be found in Europe. Even subsequent to the declaration of the Gallican clergy in 1682, many instances might be adduced. In 1741 Benedict XIV., in the bull Pastoralis Romani,' excommunicates all magistrates who interpose in any capital or criminal cases against ecclesiastical persons. In 1756 he declared, that none could resist the bull Unigenitus,' and his when the question had become entirely temporal, a struggle between Louis XV. and his parliaments. In 1768, Clement XIII., being offended with the Duke of Parma for some alleged disobedience, in spite of the humble requests of the kings of France, Spain, and Portugal, threatened to excommunicate him and his adherents, and exempted all his clergy from laic jurisdiction. No pope has ever renounced the powers thus assumed; no council has ever declared these pretensions to be unfounded. We think we are, therefore, fairly entitled to argue that, though permitted to be dormant, these powers are not, in the regions of the Vatican, considered as dead. It was unquestionably difficult for the witnesses examined before the commissioners to prove that the power thus exercised was not temporal. They evade the difficulty by saying, that in such cases the pope does not act jure divino,' but jure humano:' that is to say, he does not depose princes because |