For your information therefore, I will state in short, what we Catholics mean by the Hierarchy, and the Pope's Bull. We all know, that good temporal government, consists in having all the various rights of its members, properly understood, and justly protected. Thus the Queen, the Peers, the Commoners, the Magistrates, in short, the higher classes, the middle classes, and the lower classes, have all their rights properly defined, and their several interests justly attended to in a good temporal government. Now reason tells us, that this ought to be the case in a good spiritual government, and we Catholics maintain, that these objects are best attained by the means of a spiritual Hierarchy; and, at the same time we believe, that this spiritual Hierarchy, can be established only by the spiritual power of the Pope. When the Pope therefore thinks, that either the number of his spiritual members, or their spiritual necessities, require the establishment of the Hierarchy, in any part of the world, he issues his spiritual Bull, or decrees to that effect; and all the Archbishops, and Bishops, and Clergy, and laity, to whom this spiritual government is extended, receive it as a spiritual boon, and fully understand and believe, that it has regard only to spiritual matters. They all know, and believe, that it has nothing to do with any temporal matters whatever, in any shape or form, directly or indirectly, and if any person, after this explanation, was so impudent as to maintain, that the Hierarchy, or the Pope's Bull, had any reference to any temporal matters, either directly, or indirectly, affecting the temporal power of Her Majesty, over Her Catholic subjects, and the temporal allegiance which they owe to Her Majesty, my loyalty for our gracious Queen, and my feelings of honour, would tempt me to address him in the words of the Poet,
"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 under such restrictions. "I believe," said he (in July 19th, 1845, speaking in the House of Commons,) "I believe we may repeal, those insulting clauses, which prevent a Roman Catholic assuming a title held, by a Bishop of the Established Church. I can conceive no good grounds, for the continuance of this restriction." (Hansard, vol. lxxxii., p. 290.) And again on February 5, 1846, "as to preventing persons assuming particular titles, nothing can be more absurd and puerile, than to keep up such a distinction." (Hansard, vol. lxxxiii., p. 502.) Now, gentlemen, this was spoken in the House of Commons, and by the first Minister of the Crown. You see, he vindicates for the Catholics, greater liberty than they have either exercised, or demanded; the liberty to have Catholic Bishops, side by side, with the Protestant Bishops throughout the land. And yet, let me ask, did the then Member for Whitby, or indeed any, of the thirty and more members, who represent this great county of York, raise a voice against these opinions and views? Did they cry out, that this, would be an innovation of the Royal prerogative, and an encroachment upon the spiritual, or civil liberties of this realm. No, not they, not one of them. Both the Parliament and the Public heard all this, either with approbation, or with indifference. Judge, then, with what scorn the Catholics, hear themselves charged with insidiousness, and aggression. Insidiousness! Why, the leaders of the two great portions, in the state (for who stood higher with the Tories than Lord Lyndhurst, and among the Whigs, than Lord John Russell), and yet, these two leaders, actually encouraged, and invited the Catholics to do, what they have done. I repeat, they not only claimed for the Catholics the right to do them, but encouraged them to do them. After the Catholics had thus been encouraged, and backed by two of the first leaders, one of the Whigs, and one of the Tories, after they had received the sanction of the public by its silence, or indifference on these points, the Catholics at last received the Hierarchy from the Pope's hands; when lo! Lord John Russell, immediately writes a flaming philippic on the subject, suddenly and unjustly rouses the indignation of the people; and the Protestant clergy immediately head the crusade against the Catholics, for doing, what they had been encouraged, and invited to do by two of the first ministers of the land, and for doing, what the English public had already sanctioned, by its silence, or by its indifference. Really, gentlemen, was not this a "most extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the rights of your Catholic fellow subjects? And, this, in the nineteenth century, when the march of intellect, and of civil, and religious liberty, have been making such rapid progress in the British Empire. But what have I to say to Lord John Russell's late letter? I answer, it is not my business to reconcile Lord John Russell's former declarations, with his present late proceedings, they are as marvellous and unaccountable in the eyes of the public, as they are in mine. He will shortly have to give an account of his stewardship, before the Parliament, in whose presence, he made the declarations, which I have quoted. If he means to continue a Champion of civil and religious liberty, he must retrace his steps—but if he chooses to abandon the sacred cause, then, he will dwindle into a most insignificant, and contemptible statesman: and will not be permitted long to direct the government of a free and liberal people.
Thus you see, gentlemen, that the words of Lord John Russell, and of Lord Lyndhurst, the opinion of Joseph Hume, Esq., and that of the learned Protestant Bishop of St. Davids, plainly shew, that the late acts of the Pope, have been in keeping, with the present spirit of the English law.