The name of this illustrious bishop recalls our attention to Dr. Magennis, bishop of Down and Connor, of whom we treated in the March number of the _Record_. An esteemed correspondent, in a highly interesting letter, published in May (p. 385 _seq._), contends that that prelate, in his public acts at least, deviated from the path of orthodoxy, and allied himself to the enemies of our holy faith. His reasons, however, are far from sufficient to justify such a serious charge.
1. In the first place, he argues from the fact of the bishop of Down having surrendered his bulls to the crown. However, the bishop of Dromore did the same, and, nevertheless, no one questions his orthodoxy. Long before the dawn of Protestantism we find the same course pursued by some bishops, as, for instance, by the celebrated Oliver Cantwell, bishop of Ossory, towards the close of the fifteenth century (_Ware_, p. 414). In fact, the surrendering of the bulls was regarded as a purely civil ceremony, which secured to the canonically appointed bishop the peaceful possession of the temporalities of his see.
2. The learned correspondent lays special stress on the bulls being described as "obtained from _Paul, Bishop of Rome_, not _His Holiness_". However, it is in the letter of the king that this form of expression is used (_Morrin_, i. 91), and any insult which it may involve must be referred to the good taste of Henry VIII., and not to the bishop of Down.
3. It is added: "_It is an oversight to suppose that about 1541 and 1543 the northern chieftains who submitted to Henry VIII. were exempted from all pressure in matter of religion_". The statement which we made on a former occasion (p. 268) had reference only to 1543; and it was not without historic grounds that we asserted that, "the northern chieftains who _then_ submitted were exempted from all reference to religion when professing their allegiance to the government". It is true that in 1541 O'Donnell and O'Neil, and other chieftains, acknowledged the king's supremacy; but it is equally true that this submission of the Irish princes was an illusory one, and their profession was so lavish of loyalty that even the government felt that no reliance could be placed on such declarations. To similar professions, made in 1537, the King "replied by his letter to the lord deputy, that their oaths, submissions, and indentures, were not worth one farthing". (_Cox_, p. 253, ad. an. 1537). In fact, we find O'Donnell, in 1542, sending to Rome a commissioner (whom we shall have to commemorate again as bishop elect of Raphoe), humbly asking pardon for the guilt of perjury which he had incurred. However, in 1543 it was far different. The government feared the reconstruction of the confederation of the Irish chieftains; and hence, when _the great O'Neil_, as he is styled by Cox (p. 257), sailed in this year for England and surrendered his estate to the king, the conditions imposed on him, howsoever humiliating to his national pride, were wholly silent in regard of religion. These conditions are given in full by Cox (p. 275).[3] About the same time, O'Brene made also his submission, and the articles exacted from him omit all reference to the royal supremacy or other matters of religion. The letter of the King, March 5th, 1543 (_Morrin_, i. 99), giving instructions to the Deputy regarding O'Neil Connelaghe, nephew of the earl of Tyrone, in like manner makes no mention of the religious articles. On the 24th of May an agreement was made with the Magennises, as Cox informs us, yet without the obnoxious clauses; and on the 9th of July, 1544, these clauses were again omitted, when several grants in Dublin, including 140 acres of the beautiful "Grange of Clonliffe" (_Morrin_, i. 103), were made to the earl of Desmond. These examples sufficiently prove that the government in 1543 was anxious to conciliate the Irish princes, and hence was not particular in exacting the obnoxious declaration of supremacy.