"A lie, an odious lie,
Upon my word, a lie, a wicked lie."
Gentlemen, after this short explanation of the Hierarchy, and of the Pope's Bull, I appeal to you as free-born Englishmen, whether there can be any English law, or statute against it? If there be, where is our vaunted boast, of "liberty of conscience to all?" Now MARK, whether there be any law in the Statute Book against it, I do not pretend to have sufficient of the lawyer in me to determine, but this, I will shew you, that the acts of the Pope, in establishing the spiritual Hierarchy in this kingdom, by his Bull, or spiritual decrees, are in keeping with the spirit, upon which the English law has acted during these late years.
By the spirit of the English law, we, Catholics, are allowed to maintain the Pope's supremacy in ecclesiastical, and religious matters; we are also allowed to be governed by Catholic Bishops, and of course, we are allowed to be governed by them, according to the proper and perfect form of Episcopal government, and there is no English law, to prevent these Catholic Bishops from taking the titles of any place, provided they are not titles of places, held by the Anglican Hierarchy. Now, these conditions have been observed, in the late establishment of the Catholic Hierarchy in these realms.
And that it is in keeping with the spirit of the English Law, Lord John Russell's own words, will convince you. In the House of Commons, August 6th, 1846, he said, "There is another offence of introducing a Bull of the Pope into the country, the question is, whether it is desirable to keep up that, or any other penalty, for such an offence. It does appear to me, that we cannot possibly attempt, to prevent the introduction of the Pope's Bulls into this country. There are certain Bulls of the Pope, which are absolutely necessary, for the appointment of Bishops and Pastors, belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quite impossible, to prevent the introduction of such Bulls." (Hansard, vol. lxxxviii., p. 362.) Again, what said Lord Lyndhurst, speaking, in the House of Lords. "You tolerate the Catholic Prelates, and you know, that these Prelates cannot carry on, their Church Establishment, without holding communication with the Pope of Rome. If the laws allow the doctrine, and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it (the Roman Catholic Church) ought to be permitted, to be carried on perfectly and properly." (Hansard, vol. lxxxv., p. 1261.) So you see, that this Noble Lord proclaims, that to pretend to tolerate the Catholic Religion as we do; and yet, prevent the Catholics from holding free communication with the Pope, would be a mere nullity. The Catholics, says he, should be allowed to carry out the organization of their Church perfectly and properly. Now, this cannot be done without the Hierarchy. Accordingly, all the penal laws in question were, then and there, torn from the statute book.
Also Joseph Hume, Esq., who may be justly styled, the father of the present House of Commons, and who, in that House, has been so long the promoter, the pillar, and the bulwark of civil and religious liberty, honourably, and openly, tells the world, that the Pope is warranted, in all he has done, by the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel's government. These are the words of the noble champion of civil and religious liberty—"Your view of the subject, will be adopted as soon as the thinking part of the public, get their eyes opened to the real merits of the alleged innovation. I say alleged, because Mr. C. C. Grenville has shewn, that the Pope is warranted in all he has done, by the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel's government, which were not at the time objected to by any person, except by Sir Robert Inglis, and his limited class."—(Joseph Hume, to the Editor of the Hull Advertiser, Nov. 18th, 1850.)
There was a time, when the Protestant Bishops were excluded, for some time, from the House of Lords. In 1661, a motion was made to restore these Protestant Prelates to their seats, and mind, six and twenty Catholic Peers voted in favour of these Protestant Bishops. But such is the illiberality of the present time, that now, the Catholics find the most determined and eager opposition on the Bishop's bench. There are, however, exceptions; few, indeed, but on that account, more entitled to our gratitude. Long will the name of the late Bishop of Norwich, be cherished in the remembrance of every sincere Catholic. And happy am I to observe, another Protestant Prelate, willing to walk in his charitable footsteps. I mean the sensible, the pious, and the learned present Protestant Bishop of St. Davids. This illustrious Protestant Prelate, liberally and candidly, told the Archbishop of Canterbury, that in his humble opinion, "the provision cited from the Act of Elizabeth, has been virtually repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act * * * * And it was equally set 'at defiance,' by the appointment of Vicars Apostolic, who have so long exercised their functions without complaint or molestation. And it seems unreasonable, to charge the Pope with defying a law which, has been so long permitted to sleep." For these and other reasons, this most liberal minded Protestant Prelate, lately refused to sign the address of the other Protestant Bishops to the Queen. (Bishop of St. Davids to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Nov. 26th, 1850.) Well I cannot but gratefully, address this generous Prelate in the words of the poet—
——"I quit you now,
But peradventure I may come again!
Your bounteous kindness ne'er shall be forgot,
While beats this warm heart within my bosom."
Certainly, you will say, these are high, and weighty authorities on the Catholic side, and clearly demonstrate, that there can be nothing wrong, on the Pope's sending his Bulls, into this country. But, perhaps, the greatest grievance lies in this, that the Catholic Bishops, have assumed English titles, calling themselves Bishops of Hexham, of Beverley, &c. This, you hear it said, is contrary to all law and decency. Now, mark, gentlemen, how soon I shall prove to you, that it is neither against law, nor decency. I observe that the law as it regards Catholics, forbids only one thing, it forbids Catholic Bishops, to assume the titles of Protestant sees. Thus it forbids us, to have an Archbishop of Canterbury, or a Bishop of London, of Durham, &c. And why so? Because there are Protestant Bishops of these places. But it manifestly allows us to take the titles of those places, in which, there are no Protestant Bishops. For, if the law meant, to exclude us from all places and all titles whatsoever, why did it not say so? But, it says no such thing. It excludes us only from places where there are Protestant Bishops. Well, this restrictive law, the only law, that there is upon the question, has been most scrupulously observed in every instance by the Catholics. Not one of their Bishops, has assumed the title of any Protestant see. For who ever heard of a Protestant Bishop of Hexham, of Beverley, or of Liverpool. How then can it be contrary to law? But I have yet, more to say on this subject. Lord John Russell is an advocate for the repeal of even this restrictive law, which he considers, an absurdity in a land of religious liberty. Nay, he considers it childish to hold the Catholics