speaking, in the House of Lords. "You tolerate the Catholic Prelates, and you know, that these Prelates cannot carry on, their Church Establishment, without holding communication with the Pope of Rome. If the laws allow the doctrine, and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it (the Roman Catholic Church) ought to be permitted, to be carried on perfectly and properly." (Hansard, vol. lxxxv., p. 1261.) So you see, that this Noble Lord proclaims, that to pretend to tolerate the Catholic Religion as we do; and yet, prevent the Catholics from holding free communication with the Pope, would be a mere nullity. The Catholics, says he, should be allowed to carry out the organization of their Church perfectly and properly. Now, this cannot be done without the Hierarchy. Accordingly, all the penal laws in question were, then and there, torn from the statute book.

Also Joseph Hume, Esq., who may be justly styled, the father of the present House of Commons, and who, in that House, has been so long the promoter, the pillar, and the bulwark of civil and religious liberty, honourably, and openly, tells the world, that the Pope is warranted, in all he has done, by the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel's government. These are the words of the noble champion of civil and religious liberty—"Your view of the subject, will be adopted as soon as the thinking part of the public, get their eyes opened to the real merits of the alleged innovation. I say alleged, because Mr. C. C. Grenville has shewn, that the Pope is warranted in all he has done, by the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel's government, which were not at the time objected to by any person, except by Sir Robert Inglis, and his limited class."—(Joseph Hume, to the Editor of the Hull Advertiser, Nov. 18th, 1850.)

There was a time, when the Protestant Bishops were excluded, for some time, from the House of Lords. In 1661, a motion was made to restore these Protestant Prelates to their seats, and mind, six and twenty Catholic Peers voted in favour of these Protestant Bishops. But such is the illiberality of the present time, that now, the Catholics find the most determined and eager opposition on the Bishop's bench. There are, however, exceptions; few, indeed, but on that account, more entitled to our gratitude. Long will the name of the late Bishop of Norwich, be cherished in the remembrance of every sincere Catholic. And happy am I to observe, another Protestant Prelate, willing to walk in his charitable footsteps. I mean the sensible, the pious, and the learned present Protestant Bishop of St. Davids. This illustrious Protestant Prelate, liberally and candidly, told the Archbishop of Canterbury, that in his humble opinion, "the provision cited from the Act of Elizabeth, has been virtually repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act * * * * And it was equally set 'at defiance,' by the appointment of Vicars Apostolic, who have so long exercised their functions without complaint or molestation. And it seems unreasonable, to charge the Pope with defying a law which, has been so long permitted to sleep." For these and other reasons, this most liberal minded Protestant Prelate, lately refused to sign the address of the other Protestant Bishops to the Queen. (Bishop of St. Davids to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Nov. 26th, 1850.) Well I cannot but gratefully, address this generous Prelate in the words of the poet—

Certainly, you will say, these are high, and weighty authorities on the Catholic side, and clearly demonstrate, that there can be nothing wrong, on the Pope's sending his Bulls, into this country. But, perhaps, the greatest grievance lies in this, that the Catholic Bishops, have assumed English titles, calling themselves Bishops of Hexham, of Beverley, &c. This, you hear it said, is contrary to all law and decency. Now, mark, gentlemen, how soon I shall prove to you, that it is neither against law, nor decency. I observe that the law as it regards Catholics, forbids only one thing, it forbids Catholic Bishops, to assume the titles of Protestant sees. Thus it forbids us, to have an Archbishop of Canterbury, or a Bishop of London, of Durham, &c. And why so? Because there are Protestant Bishops of these places. But it manifestly allows us to take the titles of those places, in which, there are no Protestant Bishops. For, if the law meant, to exclude us from all places and all titles whatsoever, why did it not say so? But, it says no such thing. It excludes us only from places where there are Protestant Bishops. Well, this restrictive law, the only law, that there is upon the question, has been most scrupulously observed in every instance by the Catholics. Not one of their Bishops, has assumed the title of any Protestant see. For who ever heard of a Protestant Bishop of Hexham, of Beverley, or of Liverpool. How then can it be contrary to law? But I have yet, more to say on this subject. Lord John Russell is an advocate for the repeal of even this restrictive law, which he considers, an absurdity in a land of religious liberty. Nay, he considers it childish to hold the Catholics 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