504 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE Dr.
MDonnell.
he became an attorney—I became a priest.
I see no reason why, if we had changed — sides, and I had pursued the same course, why I should not have had the same 17 July 1835.
influence with the people.
8932.
Do the people really distinguish between your clerical character and your character as a citizen—the lower orders of the people, when you speak to them on these matters, touching elections, politics, and such matters ?—I
think they do.
8933.
And your opinion is that they do not give any weight to the spiritual portion of your character when you are speaking to them on political matters?—
Certainly, and I will give you my reasons: had my spiritual character been the efficient cause of my influence, it would equally preponderate whatever side I might take ; but it is evident from experience that had I taken a part hostile to the inte¬ rests of the people, that my influence as a clergyman would have been null and void.
8934.
But when your political and ecclesiastical character happened to coin¬ cide, as in this instance they did, does not your spiritual character add strength and influence to your political character with the lower orders of Roman Catholics?
—I think they are like two parallel lines that never meet, my duty as a clergyman and my duty as a citizen; they never come in collision one with the other.
The more I discharge the duties of a priest, the better citizen I shall be ; and on the contrary, the better I discharge the duties of a citizen, the better priest I shall be.
8935.
Do not both those characters blend in you ?—They
never come in col¬ lision.
To blend and to come in collision are different things.
One does not necessarily infringe on or destroy the other.
8936.
I am not putting the case of collision or a destroying one another, Lam putting the case where they both co-operate together, uniting in your person your political and spiritual functions; and I ask, does not the spiritual portion of your character add weight to the political portion of it when you are addressing the lower order of people, or rather does it not add weight to your character as a citizen ?—I
think if I am on the right side it does.
8937.
Now, to take an instance of a class of clergymen not belonging to your own religion : if a clergyman of the Protestant Established Church in Ireland takes a part in an election, has he an increased influence over those persons whom he is in the habit of addressing on serious subjects, and is his influence materially in¬ creased by his having that spiritual communication with them on important sub¬ jects, and is he not in fact a very influential person among them from being in the habit at other times of conversing with them on matters of great importance ?—My
opinion is, that if his expressed feelings be in accordance with theirs, it might be so.
S938.
Would they not be likely to listen to an opinion, even were it contrary in some degree from their own, if that opinion came from the lips of a person to whom upon the most important matters connected with this and a future life, they had been in the habit of listening with reverence and respect?—I
cannot judge what their feelings may be, but I know that the feelings of our people would be the contrary; that is, if a clergyman was to go contrary to what they considered the truth and justice .of
the case, they would sooner listen to any other; his cha¬ racter would not entitle him to more respect than any other man, because they would consider him to be more culpable, that is, if he acted contrary to what would be the light of reason, and honour, and integrity.
^939-Then you are of opinion that taking a different line to them in politics would impair the influence of his spiritual instruction ?—I
should think it would be so, with regard to those who differ from him in the humbler classes.
8940.
Is it with those who agree with you as to the person who would be worthy of support in the election, or those who differ from you, that you would prefer applying to, to support the side you prefer?
-I could not know whether they agree or disagree till I applied to them, unless by hearsay.
8941.
Now, for example, with regard to Barry, was it because he agreed with you that you applied to him ?—I
should not know till I applied to him.
8942.
Would your endeavours be generally directed to persuade those who you thought were wavering in their mind, as to which course they should pursue, those who had no fixed opinion ?—I
would, as a citizen or a member of society, ad¬ vise them to vote for what I considered I could prove to them, by reason and argument, to be most beneficial to them, and to the public at large.
8943.
When Barry told you that he had promised a vote for Mr.
, di(i you afterwards continue your conversation with a view to influence his vote ?—
Certainly not; I had onlv a few minutes' conversation with him, and I told him I
« had
