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

HIERARCHY?

" We have seen that, not only we possess a full right,
by law, to be governed by bishops, bat that we have an
equal right to be governed by them according to the
proper and perfect form of episcopal government, that is,
by bishops in ordinary, having their sees and titles in
the country.
"If we have a perfect right to all this, we have no
less a perfect right to employ the only means by which
to obtain it.
We have seen that Catholics are allowed by law to
maintain the Pope's supremacy in ecclesiastical and re•
ligious matters; and one point of that supremacy is, that
he alone can constitute a hierarchy, or appoint bishops.
Throughout the Catholic world this is the same. Even
where the civic power, by an arrangement with the Pope,
names, that is proposes, a person to be a bishop, be oan•
not be consecrated without the Pope's confirmation or
acceptance; and if consecrated already, he can have no
power to perfirm any functions of his office without the
same sanction.
If therefore the Catholics of this country were ever
to have a hierarchy at all, it could only be through the
Pope. He alone could gr.nt it.
" This is no new or unknown doctrine; it has long
been familiar to our statesmen, as well as to every one
who has studied Catholic yrinciples.
" Lord John Russell, in hi:4 speech in the House of
Commons, August 6, 1846, thus sensibly speaks upon
the subject:—` There is unother offence of introducing a
bull of the Pope into the country. The question is,
whether it is desirable to keep up Mat or any other pe-
Deity for such an offence. It does not appear to me that
we can pobsibly attempt to prevent the introduction of
the role's hulls into this country. There are certain

* It is clear that no ch&rence whatever is made in
this ( nactment between England and Ireland. Indeed,
the vA rd " as•uming" seems to upply to the former,
using to the letter. JO George W., chap. 7, see. 24.
t Hamra, vol. p. 860,

THE SUN,

ulls of the Pope which are absolutely necessary for the
appointment of bishops and pastors belonging to the Ro-
man Catholic Church. It would be quite impossible to
prevent the introduction of such bulls:.
" Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst—' They tolerated the
Catholic prelates, and they knew that these prelates
could not carry on their Church establishments or con-
duct its discipline without holding communication with
the Pope of Rome. No Roman Catholic bishop could be
created without the authority of a bull from the Pope of
Rome, and many of the observances of their Church re-
quired the same sanction. The moment, therefore, that
they sanctioned the observance of the Roman Catholic
religion in this country, they by implication allowed the
communication (with the Pope) prohibited by this sta-
tute, and for which it imposed the penalties of high
treason. If the law allowed the doctrines and discipline
of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be per-
mitted
to be carried on perfectly and properly; and
that could not be without such communication. On
these grounds he proposed to repeal the Act't (13t h
"These quotations prove that in both Houses of Par-
liament the principle has been clearly laid down, that if
Catholics are to have bishops at all, the Pope, and the
Pope alone, can make them for them. Then it enters
as completely into the principles of religious liberty that
the Pope should name the hierarchy, as that Catholics
should have the right to possess one—a right as neces-
sary for them as for the Wesleyans that of having con-
ferences with superintendents.
" But it may be said, what induced the Pope to ap-
point this hierarchy now, and in so sudden a manner ?
" For an answer to this question, I must refer you to
my introduction, in which you will find, I trust, a satis-
factory one. You will see that the Pope has finally
granted now to his Catholic children in England, what
they had petitioned for, and obtained three years ago ;
and that if half the attention had been paid to our affairs
then, which they receive now, the public would have
known all about it. I will only repeat what I have there
observed ; that, in what has been done, the Pope has
entirely acted, not only in accordance with the wishes,
but at the earnest petitions of his vicars-apostolic, and has
seconded a warm desire of the great body of Catholics in
England.
" Let me then sum up briefly what I have proved
thus far. _ _

duties will be what they have ever been, to promote the
morality of those committed to pay charge, especially
the mas9es of our poor, and keep up those feelings of
good• will and friendly intercommunion between Catho-
lics and their fellow-countrymen, which, I lb.:ter my-
self, I have been the means of somewhat improv:rg. I
am confident that time will soon show what a temporary,
excitement may conceal, that social end public advan-
tages must result from taking the Catholics of England
out of that irregular and necessarily temporary sta.() of
government in which they have been placed, and ex-
tending to them that ordinary and more definite form,
which is normal to their Church, and which has already
been so beneficially bestowed upon almost every colony
of the British Empire.
" 'I beg to apologise for intruding at such length
upon your Lordship's attention; but I have been en-
couraged to do so by the uniform kindness and courtesy
which I have always met with from every member of her
Majesty's Government with whom I have had occasion
to treat, and from your Lordship in particular, and by a
sincere desire that such friendly communication should
not be interrupted.
"' I have the honour to be, my Lord,
" 'Your Lordship's obedient servant,
(Signed) " N. CARD. WISEMAN.
" The Right Hon. the Lord John Russell,
First Lord of the Treasury, &c., &c., Sic.'
" I give this letter, because it will show that there was
nothing in my mind to prepare me for that warm ex-
pression of feeling that was manifested in the Premier's
letter; which, though it appeared a day or two before
mine reached him, I must consider as my only reply.
And I do not think that the tone of my letter will be
found to indicate the existence of any insolent or insidi-
ous design.
"It is my duty, therefore, now to show calmly and
dispassionately, and apart from any party feelings, the
reasons which led me and others to believe, that no rea-
sonable objection could exist to our obtaining the organi-
zation of our hierarchy in England.
" 1. It was notorious not only that in Ireland, the
Catholic hierarchy bad been recognised and even royally
honoured, but that the same form of ecclesiastical go-
vernment had been gradually extended to the greater
part of our colonies. Australia was the first which ob-
tained this advantage, by the erection of the archiepisco-
pal see of Sydney, with suffragans at Maitland, Hobart
Town, Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne, and Port Victoria.
This was done openly, and was known publicly, and no
remonstrance was ever made. Those prelates in every
document take their titles, and they are acknowledged,
and salaried, as archbishop and bishops respectively, and
this not by one, but by successive Governments.
" Our North American possessions next received the
same boon. Kingston, Toronto, Bytown, Halifax, have
been erected into dioceses by the Holy See. Those titles
are acknowledged by the local Governments. In an Act
enacted by the Queen's excellent Majesty, by and with

" 1. Catholics are not bound to obey, or to consider as
their bishops, those appointed by the Crown, under the
royal ecclesiastical supremacy, which legally they are not
bound to hold. _ _

44 2. Catholics belong to a religion fully tolerated, and
enjoying perfect liberty of conscience, which is episcopal,
and requires bishops for its government.
There is no law that forbids them to have such
bishops, according to their proper and ordinary form.
" 4. That form is, with ordinary jurisdiction, local
sees, and titles derived from them; that is a hierarchy.
" 5. They are fully justified in employing the only
means in their power to obtain this form of ecclesiastical
government—that is, by applying to the Holy See.
" 6. And they have not acted contrary to any law, by
accepting the gracious concession of what they asked.
" But it will be said that though we, the Catholics,
may have kept within the bounds of law, the act of the
Pope is derogatory from, and contrary to, the royal pre-
rogative. Let us see.

the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of
the province of Canada' (12 Viet., c. 136), the Right
Rev. J. E. Guignes is called Roman Catholic Bishop
of Bytown,' and is incorporated by the title of ! the

Roman Catholic Episcopal Corpora-Mon of Bytown.'*
" In an Act passed March 21, 1849 (12 Vict. c. 31),
the Right Rev. Dr. Walsh is styled ' Roman Catholic
Bishop of the Diocese of Halifax, Nova Scotia;' and
through the Act he is called 'the R. C. Bishop of the
said diocese.'t
" Lately again, after mature consideration, the Holy
See has funned a new ecclesiastical province in the
West Indies, by which several vicars-apostolic have been
appointed bishops in ordinary.
. .

" 9ECT. IV.-DOES THE APPOINTMENT OF A CATHOLIC
HIERARCHY TRENCH ON THE PREROGATIVE OF THE
CROWN?

" This is indeed a delicate question; and yet it must
be met. Every address and every reply of bishops
and clergy assumes that the royal prerogative has been
assailed. _ _

" But there fins been a more remarkable instance of
the exercise of the Papal supremacy in the erection of
bishoprics nearer home. Galway was not an episcopal
see till a few years ago. It was governed by a warden,
elected periodically by what are called the Tribes of
Galway, that is, by families bearing certain names,
every member of whom had a vote. Serious inconveni-
ences resulted from this anomalous state of things, and
hence it was put an end to by the Holy See, which
changed the wardenship into a bishopric, and appointed
the Right Rev. Dr. Brown, since translated to Elphin,
first Bishop of that diocese. Bishop Brown was conse-
crated October 23, 1831. No remonstrance was made,
no outcry raised, at this exercise of Papal power.
" But to return to our colonies ; it had come to
pass that, with the exception of India, hardly a vicar-
apostolic was left i❑ our foreign possessions. Fur am
I from blaming the sound policy of successive Adminis-
trations, which had seen the practical inconveniences
of a half-toleration and semi-recognition, where
friendly official intercourse and co-operation were
necessary. But I may ask, is it anything unreason-
able, extravagant, still more, insolent and in-
sidious,' in the Catholics of England, to have sought and
obtained what insignificant dependencies had received?
Many of the bishops of the new dioceses had scarcely a
dozen priests, and but scattered flocks, generally poor
emigrants. And could it be supposed that they intended
to remain for ever in a temporary or provisional state,
when they possessed not only stately churches, eight or
ten great and generally beautiful colleges, and many
extensive charitable institutions, but nearly 600 public
churches or chapels, and 800 clergy; and when they
reckoned in their body some of the most illustrious and
most distinguished men of the country? But, moreover,
the increase of bishops, from four to eight, was already
found to be insufficient, and it was become expedient to
increase it to twelve or thirteen. Now an episcopate of
thirteen vicars-apostolic, without of course a metropoli-
tan, would have been an anomaly, an irregularity, with-
out parallel, in the church. Was it then something so
unnatural and monstrous in us to call for what our colo-
nies had received, or had we any reason to anticipate
that the act would have been characterised in the terms
which I do not love to repeat?
" 2. But further, considering the manner in which acts
of the royal supremacy had been exercised abroad, and
taking it for granted that it could not be greater when
exercised in foreign Catholic countries than the Pope's
in our regard, we could not suppose that his appointment
of Catholic bishops in ordinary in England would have
been considered as more inconsistent with the Queen's
supremacy,' than that exercise was considered incon-
sistent with"the Pope's supremacy' acknowledged in those
countries. I will refer my readers to Mr. Bowyer's
pamphlet, published by Ridgway, fur details of what I
will briefly state.
" In 1842 her Majesty was advise:l to erect, and did
erect (5 Viet., cap. 6), a bishopric of Jerusalem, assigning
to it a diocese in which the three great patriarchates of
Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were mashed into
one see, having episcopal jurisdiction over Syria, Chal-
des, Egypt, and Abyssinia, subject to further limitations
or alterations at the royal will. No one supposes that,
for instance, the King of Abyssinia, in which there is not
a single Protestant congregation, was asked. Mr. Bow-
yer also shows that Bishop Alexander was not sent
merely to British subjects. but to others owing no alle-
giance to the Crown of England. Suppose his Majesty
of Abyssinia, or the Emir Beshir, had pronounced this
to be an intrusion inconsistent with the right of bishops
and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the
nation,' how much would this country have cared?
" Under the same statute a Bishop of Gibraltar was
named. His see was in a British territory, but its ju
risdiction extended over Malta—where there was a
Roman Catholic archbishop, formally recognised by our
Government as the Bishop of Malta—and over Italy.
"Under this commission Dr. Tomlinson officiated in
Rome, and, I understand, had borne before him a cross,
the emblem of archiepiscopal jurisdiction, as if to ignore
in his very disocese the acknowledged Bishop of Borne.'
He confirmed and preached there, without leave of the
lawful bishop; and yet the newspapers took no notice of
it, and the pulpits did not denounce him. But, in fact,
the statute under which these things were done is so
comprehensive, that it empowers the ArcLbishops of
Canterbury or York to consecrate not only British sub-
j-cts, but subjects and citiz ns of any foreign state, to be
bishops in any foreign country. No consent of the re-
spective Governments is required; and they aro sent not
only to British subjects, but to 'such other Protestant
congregations as may be desirous of placing themselves
under his or their authority.'
" If, therefore, the royal supremacy of the English
Crown could thus lawfully exercise itself, where it never
has before exercised authority, and where it is not re-
cognized, as in a Catholic country—if the Queen, as head
of the English Church, can send bishops into Abyssinia
and Italy, surely Catholics had good right to suppose
that, with the full toleration granted them, and the
permitted exercise of Papal supremacy in their behalf,
no less would be permitted to them without censure or
rebuke.

" But this is nothing compared with till address to
her Majesty, signed by some hundred members of the
bar, to the effect that, by this measure, a foreign poten-
tate has interfered with her Majesty's undoubted prero-
gative, and has assumed the right of nominating arch-
bishops and bishops in these realms, and of conferring
on them territorial rank and jurisdiction.'
One naturally supposes that those who signed this
memorial, being professionally learned in the law, have
studied the question—have come to a deliberate conclu-
sion as to the truth of their assertion. On ordinary oc-
casions one would bow to so overwhelming an authority:
on the present, I think we shall not be wrong in de-
murring to its award.
" There is one point which I would beg respectfully
to suggest to the consideration of persons better versed
in law than I am.

" In this document, and in many other similar ones,
including the Premier'S letter, the Pope's acts are
spoken of as real, and taking effect. The Pope has ' as-
sumed a right,' he has parcelled out the land;' he has
named archbishops and bishops.' If, according to the
oath taken by the non-Catholics, the 'Pope not only
ought not to have, bat really' has' not power or juris-
diction, ' spiritual or ecclesiastical' in these realms; it
follows, that, according to them, the Pope's ecclesias-
tical acts with regard to England are mere nullities, and
are reputed to have no existence. It is as though the
Pope had not spoken, and bad not issued any document.
To act otherwise is to recognise an efficient act of
power on his part.
" I am confirmed in this view by Lord John Russell's
explanation of the Protestant oath. The oaths now
taken are not altered. We shall continue to take the
oath, that " the Pope has not," &c.; though at the same
time there is no doubt, in point of fact, that he exercises
a spiritual authority in these realms. I have always in-
terpreted the oath to be, that, in the opinion of the per-
son taking it, the Pope h's not any jurisdiction which
can be enforced by law, or ought not to have.l Accord-
ing to this test, the Pope (permissively, at least) does
exercise a spiritual jurisdictioa in E,gland, and is
within the limits of that toleration, so long as he does
not exercise a jurisdiction which can be enf Teed by law,
or purporting or claiming to be a jurisdiction enforcible
by law. Now, no one for a moment imagines that the
Pope, or the Catholics of England, or their bishops
dream that the appointment of the hirearchy can be 'en-
forced by law.' They believe it to be an act altogether
ignored by law; an act of spiritual jurisdiction, only to
be enforced upon the consciences of those who acknow-
ledge the Papal supremacy, by their conviction and their
faith.

" Has this assumption of titles been within the terms
of the law? Is there any law forbidding the ast:umption
of the title of bishop? A certain Dr. Dillon assumed it,
and ordained what he called Presbyters, and no one
thought of prosecuting him. The Moravians have bishops
all over England; and so have the Irvingites, or Apos-
tolicals; yet no one taxes them with illegality. Then
our taking the title of bishops merely constitutes no
illegality. Is there any law that forbids our taking the
title from any place not being a see of an Anglican
bishop? No one can say that there is.
"Then I ask those more learned in the law than my-
self, can an act of a subject of her Most Gracious Ma-
jesty, which by law he is perfectly competent to do, be
an infringement of her royal prerogative? If not, then
I trust that we may conclude, that by this new creation
of Catholic bishops that prerogative has not been
violated.

"No one doubts that the bishops so appointed are
Roman Catholic bishops, to rule over Roman Catholic
Socks. Does the Crown claim the right; under its pre-
rogative, of naming such bishops?
It will be said that no limitation of jurisdiction is
made in the Papal document, no restriction of its exer-
cise to Catholics; and henca Lord Joh❑ Russell and
others conclude, that there in this a pretension
to supre=cy over the realm of England, and a claim
to sole and undivided sway.' Every official document
has its proper forms; and had those who blame the
tenor of this, taken any pains to examine those of Papal
documents, they would have found nothing new or unu-
sual in this. Whether the Popo appoin•s a person
Vicar-Apostolic or Bishop in ordinary, in either case
ha assigns him a territorial ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
and gives him no personal limitations. This is the prac-
tice of every church which believes in its own truth,
and in its duty of conversion. What has been done in
this brief, has been dine in every one ever issued,
whether to create a hierarchy or to aupoint a bishop.

" SEC. Y.-HAS THE MODE OF ESTABLISHING TUE HIER-
ARCHY BEEN INSOLENT AND INSIDIOUS ?'

.: .

" The words in this title are extracted from the too
memorable letter of the First Lord of the Treasury. I
am willing to consider that production as a private set,
and not as any manifesto of the intentions of her Ms-
jeety's Government. Unfortunately, it is difficult to ab-
stract one's mind from the high and responsible situation
of the writer, or consider him as unpledged by anything
that he puts forth. There are parts of the letter on
which I would here refrain from coramPtiting, because
they might lead me aside, in sorrow, if not in anger, from
the drier path of my present duty. I will leave it to
others, therefore, to dwell upon many portions of that
letter, upon the closing paragraph in particular, which
pronounces a sentence, as awfully unjust as it was un-
called for, on the religion of many millions of her Ma-
jesty's subjects, nearly all Ireland, and some of our most
flourishing colonies. The charge, uttered in the ear of
that island, in which all guarantees for genuine and pure
Catholic education will of necessity be considered, in
future, as guarantees for confining the intellect and
enslaving the soul,' all securities for the Cathode reli-

gion as security for the mummeries of super-
stition, in the mind of their giver—guarantees and
securities which can hardly be believed to be heartily
offered—the charge thus made, in a voice that has been
applauded by the Protestantism of England, produces in
the Catholic heart a feeling too sickly and too deadening
for indignation; a dismal despair, at finding that, where
we have honoured, and supported, and followed for
years, we may be spurned and cast off, the first moment
that popularity demands us as its price, or bigotry as its

" But to proceed; so little was I, on my part, aware
that such feeling as that letter disclosed existed in the
head of our Government, on the subject of the hierarchy,
that having occs,inn to write to his Lordship on some
hn.iness, I took the liberty of continuing my lett-r as
fal" Vienna, Nov. 3, 1850.
" My Lord,

* * *

," I cannot Lut, most deeply regr-t the erroneous, and
even distorted view which the English papers have pre-
sented of what th.,., Holy See has done in regard to the
spiritual government of the Catholics of England. But
I take the liberty of stating that the measure now pro-
mulgated was not only prepared, but printed, three years
ago, and a cory of it was shown to Lord Minto by the
Pope, on occasion of an audience given to his Lordship
by his Holiees. I have no right to intrude upon your
Lorfi,hip further in this matter beyond offering to give
any zxplanations that your Lordship may desire, in full
c nfidence thmt i!. will be in my p ,w er to remove parti-
cularly the tiffunSiVe iut. rpretation put upon the late act
of the H,,ly See, that it was suggested by political views,
or by any hostile feelings.
• Ant with regard to myself, I beg to add, that I am
invested wi h a purely ecelesiaßtical dignity—that I have
Int secular or t.mporal delegation whatever—that my

• Hanford, vol lxxxviii., p. 362.
t Hansard, vol. lxxxv., p. 1,261.
;,;17,`. Hansard, vol. lxxxviii. p. 363.

• .

" 3 But not only had Catholics every ground to feel
:testified by what bad been elsewhere done before, doing
the same when to themselves seemed expedient, without
their act, any more than preceding ones, being charac-
terised as we have seen, but positive declarations and
public assurances led them to the same conclusion.

"In 1841 or 1842, when, for the first time the Holy
See thought of erecting a hierarchy in North America,
I was commissioned to sound the feelings of Government
on the subject. I came up to London for the purpose,
and saw the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, of which
Lord Stanley was the Secretary. I shall not easily
forget the. urbanity of my reception, or the interesting
conversation that took place, in which much was spoken
to me which has since come literally true. But, on the
subject of my mission, the answer given was somewhat
to this effect:—' What does it matter to us what you call
yourselves, whether Vicars-Apostolic, or Bishops, or
Muftis, or Imaums, so that you do not ask us to do any-
thing fur you? We have no right to prevent you taking
any titles among yourselves.' This, however, the
distinguished gentleman alluded to observed was his
private opinion, and he desired me to call in a few
days after. I did so, and he assured me that, having
laid the matter before the head of the department,
the answer was the same as he had beforo given me.
I wrote it to Rome,
,and it served, no doubt, as the
basis of the nomination of bishops in ordinary in North
America. I have no doubt the documents referring to
l following45, Ld
this transaction will be found in the Colonial. office. In
jt hoeh
nd eRb autses
eolni tht
he
eCna
fah 00l
pi cp Ro
sei
tl iieofn
pl keo a it
y9t
e
effect:—' He, for one, was prepared to go into Commit-
tee on those clauses of the Act of 1829. He. did not say
that he was at once prepared to repeal all tnor clauses,
but he was willing to go into Committee to deliterate on
the subject. He believed that they might repeal those
disallowing clauses which prevented a Roman Catholic
bishop assuming a title held by a bishop of the Estab-
lished Church. He could not conceive any good grouni
for the continuance of this restriction.' I It must ha ob-
served that. there is nothing in the context which limitsthese sensible and liberal words to Ireland. They apply
to the repeal of the whole clause, which, as we have
seen, extends equally to both countries.
" What his Lordship had said in 1845, he deliberately
and even more strongly, confirmed the following year.
In the debate on the first reading of the Roman Catholic
Rdief Bill, February sth, 1246, he referred to his speech,

R,,man Catholic Church (India, &c.) Ordered by
the House of Commons to be printed, Aug. 15, 1850,
p. 10.
" f Ibid., p. 15.
p. 290.
" Hansard, vol. lxxxii.

!•1, a S

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 2O, 1850.

and most adroitly gives the go-bye to the very
matter that is in dispute. Thus he says—

" While the State reserves for that Establishment,
within the limits of which the royal supremacy is strictly
and fully exercised, all dignity, honour, pre-eminence,
and endowment, it freely grants to all who choose to
hve nut of its domina'ion, as their equivalent, perfect to-
leration, complete freedom to practise their religion,
whether new or old, according to its principles, and to
its perfect development, so long as the practice is within
the bounds of law, and trenches upon no other's rights."
And thereupon he, proceeds to argue that the new
territorial division of this island into bishoprics by
the POPE is perfectly justifiable; thus assuming the
very matter in dispute, viz., that such division is
within the bounds of law and trenches on no other's
rights ; and so on throughout the whole of his mani-
festo the Cardinal takes for granted that which he
ought to prove and argues merely on assumptions.
The great question in dispute he has left absolutely
untouched, viz., the assumption of spiritual superiority
over all the inhabitants of these realms by
himself and his coadjutors ; he nowhere ventures
to deny that he claims absolute allegiance and obe-
dience to his commands of all baptized persons,
whether of the Roman Catholic faith or not, who
reside within his diocese ; that as being responsible
fur their salvation, he claims a right to use force, when
necessary or expedient, to " compel them to come in."
This right has been claimed for him in express
terms by the Lamp, the organ of the Roman Catho-
lics in the north of England, and by the Tablet.
Does he distinctly repudiate it—Aye ! or No I There
is no sign of any such repudiation in the manifesto.
A note on the word "govern,' although a most artful
attempt at insinuating such repudiation, is so cautiously
worded as to be capable of any interpretation the
Cardinal may hereafter be pleased to put upon it. We
give it as a specimen of the Jesuitry of the whole
manifesto:—

"I have also been told that great offence has been
taken at the use of the word to govern,' found in my
Pastoral, as though implying some temporal authority. I
find, however, that in this appeal I have again and again
used the word, because it is the usual, and almost only
word, applied amongst us to episcopal rule. It must be
remembered that the Pastoral was addressed, in the
usual form of such documents, to the clergy, secular
and regular, and to the faithful,' which showed it to
be meant for Catholics alone, who could understand the
word. I have been in the habit of addressing several
Pastorals a year to the Catholics confided to my charge,
which have always been read in our churches and
chapels. But this is, I believe, the first which the press
has done me the honour of transferring to its columne.
It thus came to be represented as addressed to all the
inhabitants of certain counties, a sort of edict or mani-
febto, instead of a Pastoral, usually confined to Catholic
hearing or perusal."

:I,,feltalt
•
LONDON, WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 20, 1850

Cardinal WtsEmAN has at:le,ngth published his long-
threatened manifesto, which Will be found in esenBo
in our journal of this day, and which, together with
" the Address of the Catholics of England to her MA-
JESTY," which appeared in The Sun of Saturday last,
and which is also from the pen of the Cardinal, may
be considered as the statementof the case for the defence
on the part of those concerned in the recent Papal
aggressions. The manifesto is a perfect specimen of
Jesuitical casuistry, affectedly mild in tone, in manner
most oily, when carefully analysed it denies nothing
explicitly,
of fence, but it in-
sinuatesexpl much.icitly, it
T a ffi r
mhse Cnaortdhiinnagl iscunning

It is clear that the object of this note is to induce
the unwary to believe that the Cardinal repudiates
the claim " to govern," at which great offence has
been taken, but does he repudiate the claim in reality?
On the contrary, he re-affirms it ; he says he has
used the word, because it is the only word applied
to episcopal rule. This is no repudiation of the
offensive claim. Again, he says, " that the docu-
ment was meant for Catholics alone, who could under.
stand the word." This, again, is no repudiation; on the
contrary, it is rather a confirmation of the truth of
the accusation, inasmuch as the Romanist writers in
the Lamp and Tablet, who, as Catholics, must, ac-
cording to Cardinal WISEMAN, understand the word,
have attached to it precisely the meaning which the
Cardinal declares has given such great offence.
Could we forget the writings which have emanated
direct from Rome in relation to this matter ;
could we forget the preaching of Cardinal WISEMAN'S
own coadjutor, we might be inclined to place more
implicit reliance on the denial by Cardinal WISEMAN
of any intention of aggression on the part of the
Romish Church. Thus, when.the Cardinal, after de-
tailing the negotiations with the POPE on the subject
of the recent organization, says—
" Such was the main and solid ground on which the
hierarchy was humbly solicited by Catholics from the
Holy See. It was one that referred to their own internal
organization exclusively. Thoughts o aggression never
entered the heads of the petitioners or of the petitioned;
nor were the bishops moved by stupid idtas of rivalry
with the Established Church;"

we should give credit to his assertion did it stand
alone; but, unfortunately, we have the accredited organ
of the Roman Court, the Paris Univers, con-
tradicting Cardinal WISEMAN point blank, and
declaring that " the Holy See has aimed a
sturdy blow at their (the Anglican) religious
establishments," and that, " since the promulgation
of the Papal brief the sees of Canterbury, of York,
and of London, have ceased to exist ;" and
we find Dr. DOYLE speculating on the time when
there shall be no Archbishop of Canterbury.
Udder these circumstances, we ask to whom are we
to give credit—to Cardinal-Win/Lax or to the avowed
organ of the Court of Rome, to Cardinal WISE-
MAN or to Dr. DOYLE ? or to neither ? Our
remarks have already extended to such a length that
we have barely time to refer to the address to the
QUEEN. We believe that the address faithfully ex-
presses the opinion of the great majority of the
educated Catholic laity of England towards the
QUEEN -- it would be unjust and ungracious
to utter a doubt on the subject ; but
when we find Cardinal WISEMAN, the writer of
the address, travelling out of the record and broadly
declaring that in the religion of the Catholics loyalty
is a sacred duty and obedience a Christian virtue,
we cannot refrain from expressing a desire to
hear what the King of SARDINIA has to say on that
subject.

The inhabitants of " the modern Tyre" are a
shrewd, intelligent, and clearheaded race. Devoted
chiefly, if not altogether, to commerce ; engaged in
transactions of enormous magnitade, they are able to
discern the disadvantages to which they are exposed
by the restrictions still affecting trade ; and still more
so, by the restrictions imposed on money under the
existing monetary code. They are well aware that
when the representatives and measures of value are
wanting, the trade and commerce of the country can-
not be in a sound and healthy state. They are a
thinking and inquiring people, who, in the true spirit
of their calling, will take nothing on trust, will not
be misled by high sounding expressions, or grandi-
loquent phrases. The " sesquipedalia verbs" of the
bullionists have no charms for these practical men.
They take each transaction on its own merits, and de-
cide according to the plain and simple facts of the case.
If a project appears of a promising character, that it
will bear the test of the strictest examination in all

its details, if after a searching scrutiny there seems
every reason to anticipate an auspicious result, they
will not be deterred from embarking therein by the
fear of ridicule or the force of ancient prejudices.
They will not follow in the beaten track with a slavish
and unreasoning superstition, if a nearer, and in every
respect more eligible, pathway can be indicated, and
they can see their direction with sufficient accuracy
to be convinced that there are no insurmountable
impediments on the road. It is, therefore, by no
means surprising that they should have taken the
lead in demanding the fiscal and monetary reforms
so urgently required, and that they reject with dis-
dain the pompous platitudes which may serve as
bugbears to frighten children, but which cannot con-
vince the judgment or enforce the convictions of
thinking men.

Among other characteristics by which the men of
Liverpool are distinguished, are a just pride in their
native town, and a firm determination to develop to
the fullest extent all its natural capabilities. While
others are talking of the vast importance of an abun-
dant supply of pure and wholesome water, of the in-
jury inflicted upon the health and morals of a corn.
munity by a deficiency of that great desideratum, and
pointing out how far we are behind the ancients in
this particular, the men of Liverpool are adopting
active measures to remove the reproach from their
town. Various plans have been brought forward
and fully and maturely considered, fur the pur-
pose of providing the town with water from
the hilly district of Rivington, which, al-
though requiring a heavy outlay in the first in-
stance, will be far more than compensated by the
incalculable advantages attending its completion. We
believe that what is locally know❑ as "the P;ke
Scheme" may now be considered as finally
decided on, and that all that is now want-
ing is the mode by which the funds neces-
sary for th.e efficient execution of this gigantic
undertaking are to be obtained. The "sinews of
war" are to be provided, but while the municipality
will not shrink from any necessary expenditure, they
are very properly desirous of proceeding in the most
economical manner, so as to entail the least possible
burden on their fellow-citizens. " The ways and
means" are therefore closely scrutinized.
Heretofore no great work of the kind could be car-
I