Two Addresses. N. Rigby
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.
Hence in Ireland, the Catholic Hierarchy, has not only been recognised, but royally honoured; and the same form of Ecclesiastical Government, has been gradually extended, to the greater part of our Colonies. Australia was the first, which obtained this spiritual advantage, and this was openly done, and was publicly known, and yet, no remonstrance was ever made against it. The Catholic Prelates of Australia, in every document, are addressed by their titles, and are acknowledged, and salaried, as Archbishops and Bishops, respectively, and this not by one, but by successive English governments. Our North American possessions, were the next, to receive this spiritual government, Kingston, Byetown, Toronto, and Halifax, have been erected into dioceses by the Holy See, and the titles of their respective Bishops, are acknowledged by their local governments. The Holy See, has also formed a new ecclesiastical province in the West Indies, where several Vicars Apostolic, have been appointed with titles, and with all the spiritual powers, allowed by the Hierarchy. Now, gentlemen, if the Catholics of Ireland, and the Catholics of our English Colonies, are thus allowed by Government, to enjoy the spiritual benefits of the Hierarchy, do you not think it unreasonable, that the Catholics of England, should be refused the same spiritual blessings? Do not the Dissenters also, enjoy in England, the free exercise of their spiritual powers? Dr. Dillon, assumed the power, and ordained, what he called Presbyters, and no Englishman thought proper, to call him to account, for assuming those spiritual powers. The Moravians, and the Irvinites or the Apostolicals, have their Bishops in England, and yet, they are not taxed with illegality. The Scotch Kirk, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Independents, the Presbyterians, and all other Dissenters, appoint their Ministers for themselves, and mark the limits of the separate districts, in which they are to exercise their spiritual authority, and yet, no one has the presumption, to question the legality of their exercising such authority in England. If therefore, all these various dissenting sects are allowed these spiritual privileges, why should the English free-born Catholics, be debarred from them?
Her present Majesty was advised to erect, and did erect, (5 Vic. cap. 6.) a Bishopric of Jerusalem, and assigned to it a diocese, in which the three great Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, were formed into one See, which had episcopal jurisdiction over Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia, and subject to further limitations, or alterations at the Royal Will. Now do any of these possessions belong to Her Majesty? No. But you may reply, there are in some, and may be in others, British Protestants, and therefore, the Queen thought proper, to extend Her spiritual blessings to them. Granted. Why therefore, has not the Pope, an equal right to extend his spiritual blessings to the Catholics of England? It is plain then, that the Irish Catholics, and the Catholics of many of our Colonies, are allowed to exercise their spiritual rights unmolested, it is plain that all other dissenting sects, are allowed to enjoy in England the same spiritual privileges, and it is plain likewise, that the Queen assumes and exercises abroad, in the most independent manner, Her spiritual powers, tell me then, in the name of common sense, by what law, either human, or divine, you wish to deprive the English Catholics of the free exercise of their spiritual rights?
Oh, but you will object, "the Pope has assumed a right over us Protestants, he has parcelled out the land of England, he has named Archbishops and Bishops, and appointed them to rule over us, whom he impudently styles heretics." To this objection, gentlemen, I reply, Do the Catholics in England acknowledge the Queen's supremacy in spiritual matters? Do the Dissenters of England acknowledge Her supremacy in spiritual matters? No. Now divide the English population into two parts, and if you calculate accurately, you will find, that the greater half of the English population, consists of Catholics and Dissenters, who do not acknowledge the Queen's spiritual supremacy. But when the Queen issues Her Spiritual Instruments, or if you please, Bulls, does she not parcel out the land of England? Does she not name Archbishops, and Bishops, and apparently appoint them to rule over us Catholics and Dissenters, in short, does She not in those Spiritual Instruments, or Bulls, apparently assume over us Catholics and Dissenters, the very same spiritual power, which the Pope appears to assume, in His Bulls, over Protestant Englishmen? But do you ever hear of us Catholics, or Dissenters, styling this an extraordinary movement on the part of the Queen? No. Because we have the common sense to know, that such parcelling out of the land, and such extension of Her Spiritual Authority to her Archbishops, and Bishops, regard only the real Protestants of the land, and that they have no more to do with us and the Dissenters, in a spiritual point of view, than they have with the inhabitants of Turkey.
If you would likewise ask some of