{11b} “When Drs. Doyle, Murray, and Kelley, the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, were examined before a committee of the Parliament, the following confessions were made by them:—(_Question to Dr. Doyle_)—You were educated in Portugal? Yes. Did you ever see in Portugal any translation (of the Scriptures) into the vulgar tongue, whether allowed or not? No, I did not. (_Question to Dr. Murray_)—You were educated in Salamanca? I was. Can you give any information as to any authenticated version of the scriptures in the Spanish language? I did hear that there was a Spanish version of the Holy Scriptures, but I do not happen to know the fact. Have the Scriptures any practical circulation in the vulgar tongue in Spain? They had not then. Have the people seen the Scriptures in a language they could understand? I believe they were not generally read by the people. Do you imagine that any material portion of the people have so much as seen the Scriptures in a language they could understand? I do not know that they have.” Hear again extracts from the evidence of these Roman Catholic Bishops before the Parliamentary Commissioners, 1825— “_Ques._ Are the Commissioners to collect that you think it improper for the children to read through the Gospels and Acts? _Ans._ Without explanation I think it is improper; I think no portion of scripture ought to be read without being accompanied with explanation and instruction. _Ques._ Is it a venial or a mortal sin in an adult peasant to persevere in reading the New Testament in the authorised version of the Church of England, after his priest has forbidden it? _Ans._ I should feel great delicacy in fixing the amount of guilt which constitutes the one or the other. _Ques._ Would you allow any of the peasantry of Ireland who might persevere in reading the Scriptures in the authorised version, after having been prohibited by your clergy, to be received to the Sacrament? _Ans._ No, I certainly would not. _Ques._ Should you think it improper for such an individual to bury the Word of God? _Ans._ I should be highly amused with such a proceeding. _Ques._ Would you think him highly deserving of approbation? _Ans._ I do not know but I would: it might show a disposition which I would prize highly, though I do not think the act a very laudable one, but attending to the disposition more than the act itself, I would reward the man. _Ques._ You would consider it in the man a proof of orthodoxy? _Ans._ Yes, a proof that he was filled with a right faith, only pushed to an extreme.” Now compare with these answers what Dr. Doyle said in his evidence respecting the authorised version.