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

fig SUN,

duties will be what they have over been, to promote the
morality of those committed to my charge, especially
the masses of our poor, and keep up those feelings of
good-will and friendly intercommunion between Catho-
lics and their fellow-countrymen, which, I flatter my-
self, I have been the means of somewhat improving. I
am confident that time will soon show what a temporary
excitement may conceal, that social and public advan-
tages must result from taking the Catholics of England
out of that irregular and necessarily temporary state 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.
" 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., Sec.'
" I give this letter, because it will show that there was
nothing in my mind to prepare-sane 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 Ido 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 feeling•, 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 had 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
LI enacted by the Queen's excellent Majesty, by and with
rthe 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 Corporation of Bytown.'s`
" In an Act passed March 21, 1849 (12 Viet. 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 oc the
said diocese.l-
- 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.
" But there has been a more remarkable instance of
the exercise of the Pape' supremacy in the erect4m 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 Itev. 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 in our foreign possessions. Far 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
moat 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 cf
thirteen vicars-apostolic, without of course a metropoli-
tan, would have been as 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, for details of what I
will briefly state.
" In 1842 her Majesty was advised to erect, and did
erect (5 Vice, 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-
den, 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. Tomlieson 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 Rome.'
He confirmed and preached there, without leave of the
lawful bishop; and yet the newspapers took no notice of
ir, and the pulpits did not denounce him. But, in fact,
the statute under which these things were done is so
comprehensive, that it empowers tha Archbishops of
Canterbury or York to consecrate not only British sub-
jects, but eubjects 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 are 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
hat, with the full toleration granted them, and the
permitted exercise of Papal supremacy in their behalf,
rio lees would be permitted to them without censure or
rebuke.

" 3 But not only had Catholics every ground to feel
justified 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
Sea 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
Meftip' or Imaums,
so that you do not ask us to do any-
thing for 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 Eno that, having
laid the matter before the head of the department,
the answer was the same as he had before 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
this transaction will bo found in the Colonial-office. Iu
the debate on the Catholic Relief Bill, July 9, 1845, Lord
John Russell, then in opposition, spoke to the following
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 those clauses,
but he was willing to go into Committee to deliberate 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 grourel
for the continuance of this restriction.' # It must be ob-
served that there is nothing in the context which limits
these 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
Relief Bill, February sth, 1846, he referred to his speech,

Roman. Catholic Church (India, &c.) Ordered by
the House of Commons to be printed, Aug. 15, 1850,
p. 10.
-I- Ibid., P. 15.
"# Hansird, vol. lsx xii, p. 299,