believe Catholicism to be wrong, and in the name of that liberty which is superior to sect, which knows nothing of party, which is not one-sided, and which never can depart from man so long as man professes to be guided by its authority-in the name of that liberty I will go forth, trying to rally my fellow-countrymen to the rescue of the one grand thought which must be uppermost in the minds of Englishmen, until we finally achieve the entire separation of Church and State. Sirs, this is the one, sole, supreme idea that must be maintained in these theological discussions. No more Popes; no more prelates; no more taxes levied upon one man to sustain the creed of another; no right on the part of the State to persecute and brand any citizen who discharges in a peaceable way the duties the State devolves upon him. For, gentlemen, there are questions in England, important questions too, that certain men in this country would desire to shelve, if they could, under the wing of this No-Popery discussion. There is the question of Parliamentary Reform, which, by the way, would put down a good many Poperies if we could once get it settled. There are many men will be called now very intelligent; if they merely pass No-Popery resolutions; but I trust the working men will remember that, between the two rival hierarchies their interest is rather to look on and say, Gentlemen, it is a very pretty quarrel as it stands." The working classes, the sensible working men, I am quite sure, will go to bed at night without feeling that the Pope can steal away their intellects; and if they are righthearted working men, they will give their children such a sound education as to deliver them from the dominancy of all kinds of Popes. Then there is the question of financial reform—a very important question for our commercial and manufacturing classes; but who can press for financial reform when the country is "in danger from the Pope?" Oh, you will "be patriotic," you will "unite as the heart of one man against the foreigner ;" and "when the foreign foe is destroyed, then we can attend to our own domestic matters." Surely you will stand stoutly out and "defend the supremacy of the throne in religious matters; for it would indeed be cruel at the present moment, when such' terrible danger overhangs our faith, from a man who, as I said before, is not able to take care of himself. And surely, you would not press upon the attention of the Government any merely material or political questionsfor, of course, the Church will maintain in Parliament that this is not a question of materialism, when every man of sense in the country knows it to be a very material question, as far as the Church is concerned. And though this assertion may be made, it cannot for a single moment be kept from the minds of the people of England, that the question of money does largely mix itself with this discussion. What will our poor farmers do, if we don't come to their rescue in these large towns? I do not know what is to become of them for the next six or eight months. Their agricultural dinners will be full of nothing but Popes; Protection itself will be laid aside in the presence of a greater enemy than Free-trade. The landlords--those who are very much afraid of the growing radical tendency of the farmers, a tendency more and more developing itself in the southern and south-western counties-they will say, "You have always been patriotic men, loved your sovereign, and been defenders of our glorious constitution. You surely won't talk about cheap bread now? Farmers (though many of the farmers never heard of the Pope)! farmers! the Pope's at the door! the Pope! the Pope! the Pope!"-"Who's the Pope ?" "Oh, such a man, you have no idea, but what is a general or a lumpy idea, of what the Pope is; but he has most enormous power, possesses more mysterious authority than any other man possesses for clawing people unseen away from their own opinions." [After proceeding a little further in this strain, Mr. Vincent exhorted the voluntaryists to rely upon their principles, as all-sufficient in every emergency, and deprecated any act of the Legislature which might tend to cripple regious liberty. He laid down and advocated the broad principles of political justice; exhorted his audience to be courageous, and concluded with the following words.] Today, in the presence of intelligent people; to-day, in the presence of commercial and trading activity so mighty that it stands without a parallel, as contrasted with the past-to-day, with mighty armies of intelligence impregnated with thought and science, with the results of Christian teachings, to-day shall we trample upon the memory of those former glories? No! by the memory of those former struggles! No! by the memory of those sacred truths that God has implanted in the soul! This world will continue to rise. The din and clamour of the moment may obscure from the vision of the people that form of glory, that grand form of freedom, that looms before the eyes of the people in moments of calm and of reflection; the clouds of some State policy, of some ecclesiastical craft, may, for a few fleeting weeks or months, obscure the brilliancy of that eternal sun of glory and intelligence that constitutes humanity's luminary, constantly lifting it up to the contemplation of higher and higher agencies; but still the world will advance, until, ultimately, Pope and prelate, tyrant and priest, affrighted by the very Frankensteins their own arts have called into being, will quail before them, and the majesty of truth and justice, of power and liberty, will hereafter be dominant; for God has decreed one great teaching, in which all the world may place its confidence, that Pope and prelate, and priest and tyrant, must fall, and that, upon the ruins of them all, effulgent with enduring glory, will rise higher and

higher, until the very heavens shall reflect again the majesty of God, and reflect upon the people that which the people must reflect towards the skies-the spiritual freedom, the intellectual liberty, and the political rights of all mankind.

ADDRESS TO CARDINAL WISEMAN.

On Saturday morning, December 21st, 1850, about thirty English Catholic noblemen and gentlemen assembled at the episcopal residence in Golden-square, for the purpose of presenting to Cardinal Wiseman an address which during the last fortnight has been in circulation, and has obtained the signatures of the principal Catholic families of England. Amongst those present were Lord Petre and Lord Dormer, the Hon. T. E. Stonor, the Hon Charles Langdale, Sir Robert Throckmorton, Bart., Robert Gerard, Esq., Edmund Jerningham, Esq., C. de la Barre Bodenham, Esq., &c.

When the deputation had assembled, the Cardinal entered the room, and Lord Petre, advancing towards him, read the following address :

'MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EMINENCE, The arrival amongst us of your Eminence, bearing in your own person a distinguished proof of the paternal kindness of the Holy Father for this portion of his flock, and charged with the highest place in that Catholic hierarchy, the restoration of which we most gratefully welcome, affords of itself a sufficient occasion for us to offer to your Eminence the most respectful and most affectionate assurances of the gratitude we feel for the part which your Eminence has taken in this great work, and of the gratification with which we hail your return amongst us. "An additional motive for thus publicly testifying these feelings is found in the misrepresentations that have prevailed, and in the unprovoked insults which have been offered to our Holy Father, and to your Eminence, on this, to us, most auspicious event. "Your Eminence has nobly expressed your desire to stand between the Holy Father and the vituperation cast upon his act. In this generous rivalry we cannot consent to be omitted. We do not claim to share in the merit of reconstructing the Catholic hierarchy, but we will not forego our right to share in all the odium which has been excited by it.

"It is our ardent wish that our Holy Father, Pope Pius the Ninth, should be assured of the heartfelt gratitude which we feel towards him for the great blessing which he has bestowed upon us, in establishing the hierarchy in our beloved country. We therefore beg your Eminence to make known our sentiments to his Holiness, and to assure him, whilst as British subjects we yield to none in loyalty and attachment to our Sovereign, that as Englishman we will assert our right to the free exercise of our religion, and that, as Catholics, under all circumstances, we will, by the aid of God, stand fast by the See of Peter.

"That your Eminence may long be spared to enjoy the dignities so deservedly conferred upon you, and that you may long continue to govern your Archiepiscopal See of Westminster, to the glory of God, the advancement of religion, and the salvation of the souls committed to your charge, is our most fervent prayer."

When Lord Petre had concluded, the Cardinal returned the following answer :—

My Lords and Gentlemen,-I cannot adequately express the feelings of gratification with which I receive this address of congratulation on the establishment of our hierarchy. Were it an expression only of kindness and attachment towards myself, I might be flattered by the public manifestation of sentiments of which I have had so many individual proofs. But far more do I value the declaration which you have here embodied, of much higher and more sacred feelings, those of inviolable fidelity to the great principles of our holy religion, and of filial love and reverence for our supreme and venerable pontiff. When, however, I see the names attached to this address, and know how many of them represent families as noble by ancestral religion as they are by their unblemished escutcheons-families which have remained faithful to God and to their Sovereign through ages of proscription, in spite of fine and confiscation-families which have proved their religious sincerity and stedfastness in the prison, as well as their unshaken loyalty in the field-I cannot be surprised at finding those who now bear those illustrious names at the head of the Catholic laity, when circumstances call them forward to avow their religious principles and their attachment to the Church. I have great pleasure in announcing that yesterday I received a letter from the Earl of Shrewsbury at Palermo, which proves how readily and cordially he would have joined his name to yours had he been amongst us. His lordship is enthusiastic in his expressions of satisfaction at what the Sovereign Pontiff has done. It will be to me a gratifying duty to lay at the feet of our Holy Father the expressions of your filial attachment, and of your gratitude for the restoration of our hierarchy, and to join to it my testimony that the Catholic laity of

England have been found equal to the crisis created through that event, by their zeal, devotedness, and noble bearing. And on my own behalf, again tendering to you my sincere thanks, I earnestly pray God to bestow on you and your families every temporal and an eternal blessing."

Amongst the signatures attached to the above address the following names appear :-
EARL-The Right Hon. the Earl of Newburgh.

VISCOUNT-Southwell.

LORDS-Stourton, Petre, Arundell of Wardour, Dormer, Stafford, Clifford, Lovat. HONOURABLES-Thomas E. Stonor, George Mostyn, Simon Fraser, Francis Stonor, William Stourton, Philip Stourton, Charles Langdale, Albert H. Petre, William Stafford Jerningham, Charles Thomas Clifford, Henry Hugh Clifford, George Fraser.

BARONETS-Sir Edward Doughty, Sir Charles Wolseley, Sir Edward Blount, Sir Robert Throgmorton, Sir James Fitzgerald, Sir Henry Bedingfeld, Sir Edward Smythe, Sir Thomas Rokewood Gage, Sir Clifford Constable, Sir William Lawson, Sir Charles Tempest, Sir Thomas Joseph de Trafford.

MESSIEURS-Renfrick Arundell, Henry Arundell, Theodore Arundell.

Charles Bodenham, of Rotherwas; C. De la Barre Bodenham, of Rotherwas; Robert Berkeley, of Spelchley; Robert Berkeley, jun., of Spelchley; Swinburne Berkeley; Charles Berington, of Little Malvern; Anthony Wright Biddulph, jun., of Burton Park; T. H. Bowdon, of Southgate; Henry Bowdon, of Southgate; John Butler Bowdon, of Plessington-hall; Thomas Weld Blundell, of Ince Blundell; Michael H. Blount, of Maple Durham; John Blount, of Maple Durham; Walter Blount, Michael Joseph Blount, Walter Aston Blount, George Blount, Gilbert R. Blount; Charles Blount, of Usk; William Blundell, of Crosby-hall; J. Standidge Byron, of Westayton.

Edward Canning; W. H. Charleton, of Hesleyside; Francis Cholmeley, of Brandsby; George Clifford, of York; W. Clifford, L. Clifford, Thomas Clifton, Henry Clifton, Talbot

Clifford Constable.

Ferdinand Eyston, of Overbury; John Eyston, of Welford.

Marmion E. Ferrers, of Baddesley Clinton; John Fitzherbert, of Clifton; George Fitzherbert, Francis Fitzherbert, of Clifton.

J. Vincent Gandolfi, of Foxcolli; R. T. Gillow, of Leighton-hall; Robert Gerard. H. M. Hawkins, of Usk; Compton J. Hanford, of Wollas-hall; John A. Herbert, of Llansatfraed; Arthur Herbert, Edmund Herbert, Washington Hibbert, of Biltongrange; T. C. Hornyhold, of Blackmore-park; Philip H. Howard, M.P., of Corby. castle; James Hunloke, of Wingerworth; Edward Huddlestone, of Sawston. William Jones, of Clytha; Philip Jones, of Langattock; Edward Jones, of Clifton Wyborne Jones, of Clifton; Edmund Jerningham; Arthur W. Jerningham. James Kirsopp, of the Spittal.

Charles Langdale, jun., of Houghton; John Lawson, of Brough.

William Constable Maxwell, of Everingham; Peter Maxwell, of the Grove; Marmaduke Constable Maxwell, of Terregles; Henry Constable Maxwell, of Scarthingwell; Lieutenant-Colonel M'Donell, late 79th Highlanders; Peter Middleton, of MiddletonLodge; John Middleton; Charles Middleton, Thomas Meynell, of Kilvington; Henry Mostyn; C. R. Scott Murray, of Danesfield.

A. Lisle Philipps, of Grace Dieu Manor; Charles Plowden, of Plowden.
Thomas Riddell, of Felton-park; John Rosson, of More Hall.

Walter Selby, of Biddlestone; Simon J. Scroope, of Danby; Henry Silvertop, of Minster Acres; Charles Stapleton; Thomas Molyneux Seel.

Henry Tempest; Charles Townely, of Townely; Henry Turvile, of Longbridge. William Vaughan, of Courtfield; John Vaughan; William Vavasour, of Hazelwood Castle.

Edward Waterton, of Walton Hall; Joseph Weld, of Lulworth Castle; George Weld, of Leagram; James Weld, of Archer's Lodge; Humphrey Weld, of Chidlock; James Wheble, of Bulmershe Court; E. J. Weld, of Tawstock; George Whitgreave, of Mosely; Henry Whitgreave, Francis Whitgreave, Joseph Whitgreave; John T. Wright, of Kelvedon; William Wright; Edward Wright, of Richmond; Charles Wright, of Richmond; Thomas Wright. SERGEANT-AT-LAW.-William Shee.

BARRISTERS.-H. R. Bagshawe, T. A. Cooke, George Bowyer, D.C.L., James Fleming, William Finelly, Richard Dearsley, Henry Stonor, R. R. Pearce, William J. Amherst, Henry G. Bagshawe, Alfred F. Blount, John D. King, Henry Leeming, John E. Wallis, Alexander J. Mansfield, William Finlason (pleader).

ADDITIONAL NAMES.

Henry Barnewell, Michael Blount, jun., of Maple Durham; Arthur Blount, Stanley Cary, of Follaton; Richard Dyneley Chamberlain, Pedro de Zulueta, Edward Darell, of Cale-hill; Robert Darell, James E. Doyle, Henry Doyle, O'French Duff, John Ffrench Duff, Thomas Dunn, Robert Eyston, Lewis Joseph Eyre, William Gillow, of Clifton; Joseph Gillow, of Clifton; Edmund Gorman, William J. Lescher, Daniel Lee, of Manchester; Edward Leeming,

of Manchester; Charles Leeming, R. H. Manners, J. McDonald, Francis New, Thomas Norris, C. J. Pagliano, Edward Petre, of Dunkenhalgh; Charles Riddell, E. Ryley, Bryan Stapleton, Charles Strickland Standish, of Standish; Simon Scroope, jun., of Danby; Edward Slaughter, S. Nasmyth, Edward Pegart, jun., Joseph Weld, jun., of Lulworth; Arthur Weld, of Leagrim; A. Walmesley, Edmund Wheble, of Clifton; William Wheble, T. Walmesley, T. E, Walmesley, H. W. Wilberforce.

SIR,-Will you allow a looker-on to say a few words on the subject that engages the public mind in England? I address you, as your paper is the most temperate of any that I see. A fortnight ago I could not have believed it possible that Englishmen could have uttered so much absurdity as I see they have. Still less could I have anticipated such deplorable ignorance as has been exhibited by men in high station in the Church. And least of all could I have dreamed of such a letter as has been penned by the Premier.

Living as I do in a country where the Pope's titular archbishops and bishops are everywhere to be met with, and knowing how completely their authority is limited to those within their respective territories who are willing to recognise it, I regard with extreme astonishment the commotion which has been excited by the recent act of the Pope., He is simply doing in England what his predecessors did in Ireland some two hundred and fifty years ago, and what others of his predecessors have from time to time done in the East. Unfortunately, the number of persons in England who are obedient to the papal authority has greatly increased of late years; partly, no doubt, by accessions from Protestantism, but chiefly by immigration from Ireland. It could not be supposed that the Pope would leave these persons destitute of a parochial clergy to take charge of them-that he would continue to the end of time the missionary establishments which sufficed when Romanists were but few in number. The introduction of the parochial system among English Romanists was a necessary consequence of the spread of Romanism in England; and the parochial system necessarily implies the diocesan system. English Protestants may not, indeed, see this last necessity, and some may perhaps think that Romish parish priests would be a good thing (of course, for Romanists only), but that Romish bishops are by no means to be tolerated. According to the Romish system, however (I speak advisedly), the existence of parish priests necessarily implies the existence of bishops-bona fide bishops of dioceses in England. The Pope might have assumed the same titles for the bishops of his new Church as were borne by the bishops of the old Church-that was the course adopted by his predecessors in Ireland. He has, however, rather chosen new sees; so that there can be no awkward confusion between the bishop of the original Church and the bishop of the new foundation, such as we are occasionally annoyed by in Ireland. Some cry out against this as an additional aggression. When people are displeased at a thing being done at all, it generally happens that they will complain of the manner in which it is done, as an aggravation of the evil. In such cases, however, I have often noticed that if a different manner had been chosen, there would have been a still greater cause of complaint. If the principal cities of London, Bristol, and Manchester had been taken for titles, in place of their subordinate adjuncts, Westminster, Clifton, and Salford, would the ground of complaint have been less? Would the Archbishop of London be a more tolerable title than the Archbishop of Westminster?

་་

In Ireland we are used to these titulars, and we do not find their existence an insupportable evil. In the highest station of all, the newspapers lately announced that Archbishop Cullen, the Pope's newly-appointed primate, paid a visit to the primate at the Palace. Of course it was a friendly visit. I happen to know that the Primate used frequently to cali for the late Archbishop Crolly, and take him with him in his carriage to those charitable or other meetings which they could attend in common. The Archbishop of Dublin and Archbishop Murray are also in habits of friendly intercourse. And to go down in the scale, there is a Catholic rector," as he calls himself, of the parish where I officiate. I claim that title as rightfully belonging to me, though I do not use it; but for all that, and though we may give one another some hard blows, or what we think to be such, in our respective pulpits, we are very good friends when we meet, and have no difficulty in acting in concert in matters of a temporal character. We of the Irish branch of the Church submit with a good grace to what we would wish otherwise, but what we have no power to prevent, and our brethren in England should do the same.

It is said, however, by many in England that, according to Catholic usage, there can be but one bishop in one territory; and that, accordingly, by the Pope's recent act he has ignored the existence of the bishops of our Church, and treated us as no longer Christians. It seems a strange assertion that the recent allocution ignores the existence of our bishops, when the new titles selected for the new bishops were evidently chosen with a view not to interfere

with the old ones. It seems also rather strange to affirm that the sending of missionaries from Rome to England, with bishops of places in Asia or Africa to preside over them as vicars of the Pope, was a treating of England as Christian and a recognition of her hierarchy. But is it not contrary to Catholic order for there to be two bishops in one place? No doubt it is; but this Catholic order was violated at a very early period; and the violations of it have been so numerous that a new instance of its violation can scarcely deserve a remark. If the English Church had been herself free from blame in this matter, she might have had some pretence for crying out against others; but how stands the case? When Canada was surrendered to Great Britain, it possessed a regular hierarchy in communion with the Pope; and this hierarchy was acknowledged by the British Government. Nevertheless, in course of time, the English Church sent over a Bishop of Quebec; and we have since had a Bishop of Montreal; and within the last year the diocese has been divided, and we have bishops of both Quebec and Montreal. In this instance our bishops have taken the titles of the existing sees in communion with the Pope. The English Church has acted with respect to Canada exactly as the Pope acted with respect to Ireland. In the case of Malta she acted differently. She sent a bishop there; but as there was a Bishop of Valetta already, she called him the Bishop of Gibraltar, and assigned him a cathedral there, as well as at Valetta, where he was to reside. She acted here as the Pope has just acted with respect to England. I say nothing of the Jerusalem bishopric, as an attempt was made to avoid the charge of schism in its creation. The English Bishop there does not claim to be Bishop of Jerusalem, but only to be "Anglican Bishop at Jerusalem;" and in the late primate's letter to the Bishop of Jerusalem, there is a disclaimer of interference with his jurisdiction, that of the new bishop being confined to European congregations, and to Jews converted through Europeans. This, then, is not so obvious an act of intrusion and aggression as the Canadian and Maltese appointments. I do not say that either of these was wrong-far from it; but I say that, having made them, the English Church has no right whatever to complain of the Pope's recent act being an aggression or intrusion. She has done the like herself whenever she had an opportunity.

The Pope, however, it is said (by few, indeed, and not in popular meetings), has by this act cut off all possibility of a renewal of communion between the English Church and his own. The possibility that certain doctrines defined at Trent might be reconsidered at a future council, at which Anglican bishops might assist, and that different conclusions in respect to them might be arrived at, and that in consequence of this "the sister churches" might be at one again-this possibility, which some good men have cherished in their minds, though with scarcely a hope of its being realised, now, it is said, at an end. The English Church is now altogether disowned.

If this were true, it would, I believe, be of no importance whatever; as the supposed possibility cannot be said to exist. Nulla vestigia retrorsum is the known maxim of Rome. The decrees of Trent may be added to, but Rome will cease to exist before she disowns any of them. It, however, is not true; and the recent act of the Pope has in reality made no change in his position towards the Church of England, nor in the possibility, such as it is, of a renewal of communion with her. This will be obvious if we look to the case of Syria. When the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches commenced, the Pope appointed a patriarch of Antioch, and bishops of some of the other cities; and the hierarchy thus constitued exists to this day. Yet, notwithstanding its existence, when a portion of the Greek Church, and a portion of the Monophysite Church, which rejected the decision of the council of Chalcedon, became willing to admit the supremacy of Rome, they were received into communion with her, retaining their ancient hierarchy and their peculiar customs. There are accordingly, at this time, five distinct hierarchies in Syria-five patriarchs of Antioch, for instance, three of them in connexion with Rome! The majority of the population of Syria who are in the Romish obedience are Maronites; their clergy are at liberty to marry; they communicate in both kinds, and retain their ancient customs and liturgy, the latter being merely purged of what Rome considered to be heretical. Surely what has been done in one place may be done in another. If any persons flatter themselves that a return to the Roman obedience can ever become desirable, there is still the precedent of the Maronites for them to refer And this case of the Syrian Churches may teach others also that, whatever they may think, the Church of Rome does not regard the existence of two or more bishops in the same place as an impossibility. She has herself three existing bishops within the same territory; and she has never denied the Greek bishops to be such, although she pretends that they are schismatic; so that she recognises a fourth, though she does not communicate with him. Surely this proves that it is a very small matter about which such an ado has been made.

to.

But for the insult to the Queen and the people of England, of which the Pope has been guilty, I cannot, for the life of me, see in what it consists. Allow me to illustrate his conduct by a parallel case. An Anabaptist preacher came into a certain parish, and exerted himself to pread his peculiar opinions among its inhabitants. The clergyman did what he could to put them on their guard against him; but the squire pooh-poohed the danger, and did what he