The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-20 00:00:00

just quoted, of the preceding session, in the following
terms:—
" Allusion havin4 been made to him (by Sir R.
leglis), he wished to say a few words as to his former
declaration, that he was not ready at once to repeal
these laws without consideration.' Last session he had
voted for the Committee, but had reserved to himself the
right of weighing the details. It appeared to him that
there was one part of the question that had not been
sufficiently attended to: the measure* of Government, as
far as it was stated last year, did not effect that relief to
the Roman Catholic from a law by which they were
punished, both for assuming episcopal titles in Ireland,
and for belonging to certain religious orders. That part
of the subject required interference by the Legislature.
As to preventing persons assuming particular titles,
nothing could be more absurd and puerile than to keep
up such a distinction. He had also the strongest ob-
jection to the law which made Jesuits in certain cases
subject to transportation; the enactment was intolerant
as it was inefficacious, and it was necessary that the
law should be put on au intelligible and rational foot-
ingt:

It would appear, therefore, that whatever hesitation
Lord John Russell had about repealing other clauses in
the Emancipation Act, his mind was made up about the
restriction from Catholics assuming the very titles of
sees held by Anglican bishops. Had he obtained his
wishes in 1846. the law would now have permitted us to
call ourselves Bishops of London or Chester, and Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. I quote these passages. not for
the purpose of charging Lord John Russell with incon-
sistency, but merely to justify ourselves, and to show
how little reason we could have had for believing that
our acting strictly within the law respecting episcopal
titles would have been described as it has. For if it
was peurile in 1846, to continue to prevent Catholics
even taking the prohibited titles, and no good reason
existed for the continuance of even that restriction, is it
manly in 1850 to denounce as insolent and insidious'
the assumptisn of titles different from those accorded to
us by the authority which Lord John acknowledges can
alone bestow episcopacy upon us.
"I hate already alluded to Lord Minto's being shown
the brief for the hierarchy, printed, about two years
ago. The circumstance may have escaped his memory;
or he may not at the time have attended to it, having
more important matters in his mind, But as to the fact
that his attention was called to it, and he made no reply,
I can have no doubt.
" I trust, therefore, that I have said enough to prove
that Catholics have not acted in an unbecoming manner,
in claiming for themselves the same right of possessing
a hierarchy, as had been allowed to the colonies, and
clearly acknowledged, as no less applicable to them.
One more topic remains.
" SEC. VI.-THE TITLE OF WESTMINSTER.

" The selection of this title for the metropolitan see
of the new hierarchy has, I understand, given great
offence. lam sorry for it.l It was little less
than necessity which led to its adoption. I must
observe that, according to the discipline of the
Catholic Church, a bishop's title must be from a town
or city. Originally almost every village or small town
had its bishop, as appears from the history of the Afri-
can Church. But from a town or city a bishopric must
still be; a 'territorial' title is never given. Thus, in Van
Diemen's Land, while the Anglican bishop takes his
title of Tasmania from the territory, the Catholic derives
his of Hobart Town from the town. In re-establishing
a Catholic hierarchy in England, it was natural and de-
corous that its metropolitan should have his see at the
capital. This has been the rule at all times; though of
course those capitals may decay into provincial towns
without losing their privilege. The very term metropo-
litan signifies the bishop of the metropolis. This being
the principle or basis of every hierarchy, how was it to
be acted on here? London was a title inhibited by law:
Southwark was to form a separate see. To have taken
the title of a subordinate portion of what forms the
great conglomerate of London. as Finsbury or Islington,
would have been to cast ridicule, and open the door for
jeers upon the new Episcopate. Besides, none of
these are towns or cities. Westminster naturally sug-
gested itself, as a city unoccupied by any Anglican see,
and giving an honourable and well-known metropolitan
title. It was consequently selected, and I can sincerely
say, that I had no part whatever in the selection. But
I rejoice that it was chosen, not because it was the seat
of the courts of law, or of Parliament, or for any such
purpose, but because it brings the real point more clearly
and strikingly before our opponents; Have we in any-
thing acted contrary to law? And if not, why are we
to be blamed?'

" But I am glad also for another reason. The Chapter
of Westminster has been the first to protest against the
new archiepiscopal title, as though some practical attempt
at jurisdiction within the Abbey was intended. Then
let me give them assurance on that point, and let us
come to a fair division and a good understanding.
" The diocese, indeed, of Westminster, embraces a
large district, but Westminster proper consists of two
very different parts. One comprises the stately Abbey,
with its arljaceet palaces and royal parks. To this por-
tion the duties andoccupation of the Dean and Chapter
are mainly confined; and they shall range there undis-
turbed. To the venerable old church I may repair, as
I have been wont to do. But perhaps the Dean and
Chapter are not aware that were I disposed to claim
more than the right to tread the Catholic pavement of
that noble building, and breathe its air of ancient conse-
cration, another might step in with a prior claim. For
successive generations there has existed ever, in the
Benedictine order, an Abbot of Westminster, the repre-
sentative, in religious dignity, of those who erected, and
beautified, and governed that church and cloister. Have
they ever been disturbed by this ' titular?' Have they
heard of any claim or protest on his part, touching their
temporalities? Then let them fear no greater aggres-
sion now. Like him, I may visit, as I have said, the old
Abbey, and say my prayer by the shrine of good St.
Edward; and meditate on the olden times, when the
Church filled without a coronation, and multitudes hourly
worshipped without a service.

" But their temporal rights, or their quiet posses-
sion of any dignity and title, they will not suffer.
Whenever I go in, I will pay my entrance fee, like other
liege subjects, and resign myself meekly to the guidance
of the beadle, and listen, without rebuke, when he points
out to my admiration detestable monuments, or shows
me a hole in the wall for a confessional.

" Yet this splendid monument, its treasures of art and
its fitting endowments, form not the part of Westminster
which will concern me. For there is another part which
stands in frightful contrast, though in immediate con-
tact, with this magnificence. In ancient times, the ex-
istence of an abbey on any spot, with a large staff of
clergy and ample revenues, would have sufficed to create
around it a little paradise of comfort, cheerfulness, and
ease. This, however, is not now the case. Close under
the Abbey of Westminster there lie concealed labyrinths
of lanes and courts, and alleys and alums, nests of igno-
rance, vice, depravity, and crime, as well as of squalor,
wretchedness, and disease; whose atmosphere is typhus,
whose ventilation is cholera; in which swarms a huge
and almost countless population, in great measure, no-
minally at least, Catholic; haunts of filth, which no
sewage committee can reach—dark corners, which
no lighting-board can brighten. This is the part
of Westminster which alone I covet, and which
I shall be glad to claim and to visit, as a blessed pas-
ture in which sheep of Holy Church are to be tended,
in which a bishop's godly work has to be done, of con-
soling, converting, and preserving. And if, as I hum-
bly trust in God, it shall be seen that this special culture,
arising from the establishment of our hierarchy, bears
fruits of order, peacefulness, decency, religion, and
virtue, it may be that the Holy See shall not be thought
to have acted unwisely when it bound up the very soul
and salvation of a chief pastor with those of a city
where, the name indeed is glorious, but the purlieus in-
famous—in which the very grandeur of its public edifices
is as a shadow, to screen from the public eye sin and
misery the most appalling. It the wealth of the abbey
be stagnant and not diffusive, if it in no way rescue the
neighbouring population from the depths in which it is
sunk, let there be no jealousy of any one who, by what-
ever name, is ready to make the hitter his care, without
interfering with the former.
"I cannot conclude without one word, on the part
which the clergy of the Anglican Church have acted in
the late excitement. Catholics have been their principal
theological opponents, and we have carried on our
controversies with them temperately, and with
every personal consideration. We have had no re-
cuurse to popular arts to debase them; we have never
attempted, even when the current of public feeling
has set against them, to turn it to advantage, by join-
ing in any outcry.' They are not our members who
yearly call for returns of sinecures, or episcopal in-
comes; they are not our people who form Anti-Church
and State Associations; it is not our press which sends
forth caricatures of ecclesiastical dignitaries, or throws
ridicule on clerical avocations. With us the cause of
truth and of faith has been held too sacred to be advo-
cated in any but honourable and religious modes. We
have avoided the tumult of public assemblies, and far-
thing appeals to the ignorance of the multitude. But
no sooner has an opportunity been given for awaken-
ing every lurking p tssion against us, than it has been
eagerly seized by the ministers of that establishment.
The pulpit and the platform, the church and the
town-hall, have been equally their field of labour ;
and speeches have been made, and untruths uttered,
and calumnies repeated, and flashing words of dis-
dain, and anger, and hate, and contempt, and of every
unpriestly, and unchristian, and unholy sentiment
have been spoken, that could be said against those
who almost alone have treated them with respect.
And little care was taken at what time, or in
what circumstances, these things were done. If the
spark had fallen upon the inflammable materials of a
gunpowder treason mob and made it explode, or, what
was worse, had ignited it, what cared they? If blood
had been inflamed, and arms uplifted, and the torch in
their grasp, and flames had been enkindled, what heeded
,hey? If the persons of those whom consecration makes
holy, even according to their own belief, had been seized,
like the Austrian general'e, and ill-treated, and perhaps
maimed or worse. whet reeked they? These very thine,