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