diction properly implies a forum externum, authority need only refer to the forum conscientiæ.*

Let us pass on to the colonies, inasmuch as Mr. Bowyer has again fallen into error in a very important statement in regard to our Australian colonies.

Now, the earliest occasion of any Roman Catholic Prelate being allowed to exercise episcopal authority in any of our Australian colonies was in the year 1835, when her Majesty's Government, in a spirit of benevolent consideration for the religious wants of the Roman Catholic population, acceded to the proposal, that Dr. Polding, who was, when first selected, intended only to officiate as chaplain, should be permitted to exercise episcopal authority. In the same year, her Majesty was pleased to erect, by letters. patent, the Archdeaconry of New South Wales, and to nominate Mr. Broughton to the new See, as Bishop of Australia. Dr. Polding, as it appears, continued to exercise episcopal functions as Vicar Apostolic, under the title of Bishop of Hiero-Cæsarea in partibus, for about five years, when he quitted the colony

* Lord St. German's calls attention to the fact that a petition was once received by the House of Commons from a Roman Catholic prelate styling himself Archbishop of Tuam, and that it was argued on that occasion, that the law did not prohihit the assumption of that title by a Roman Catholic, there being no longer an Archbishop of Tuam of the Established Church. It seems, however, that there was a division against the reception of the petition, so that the principle was disputed on a question involving the Right of the Subject to petition the House of Commons, in which the greatest possible latitude is allowed. The resolution of the House on this occasion does not in any way establish the law, but merely records the opinion of a majority of members then present, as to the objection not being fatal to the reception of the petition.

† See Appendix A.

for a time, and returned to it once more in March, 1843. On his return he seems to have brought back with him the title of Archbishop of Sydney, in lieu of Bishop of Hiero-Cæsarea*. He does not, however, appear to have sought at once an authoritative recognition of his local title, but left his name at the Government House, as "the Most Reverend Dr. Polding."

The circumstance, indeed, of an archiepiscopal See being erected in the city of Sydney, within the already existing Diocese of the Bishop of Australia, led to a formal protest on behalf of the Bishop and his clergy, and her Majesty's Government has hitherto never recognised any archiepiscopal See of Sydney.t Moreover, her Majesty had been pleased to take into consideration the great extent of the existing Diocese of Australia, and accordingly, in 1847, directed that it should be divided into four dioceses; and thereupon erected the Metropolitan See of Sydney, and the three diocesan Sees of Newcastle, Adelaide, and Melbourne, and at the same time, the diocesan Sees of Tasmania and New Zealand, the five last being suffragans of the Metropolitan See of Sydney. This increase in the number of Bishops of the Church of England in New South Wales was accompanied by an increase in the number of Roman Catholic Bishops, and her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies was called upon to lay down more precise rules, as to the mode in which the Roman Catholic Prelates were to be recognised by the Colonial Authorities. The Metropolitan Bishop of Sydney was directed to take precedence of the Roman Catholic Archbishop, as being

* See Appendix B.
† See Appendix C.
See Appendix D.

of equal rank, although bearing a different title, and the Bishops of the Church of England* were to take precedence of the Roman Catholic Bishops. The former were, of course, to bear the title of their Seest; the latter to continue to be designated, in accordance with the existing regulation, by their names, as "the Right Reverend Bishop ," and not by the titles

of the Dioceses, which had been assigned to them by their own Church, or else as "the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church at "&c. The latter was ruled to be the proper description in a deed, of which the provisions were to apply to the Bishop for the time being.

Mr. Bowyer states, that in the "case of the Bishopric of Melbourne, the Anglican Bishop contended that the Catholic Diocesan had been guilty of a violation of the law by the assumption of the style of his See: but the law officers of the colony, to whom the question was referred by the Government, held that the Catholic Bishop might, WITHOUT ILLEGALITY, call himself Bishop of Melbourne."

Now it is really of importance that a statement of this kind should be accurate, inasmuch as it is intended to preclude discussion, and if accurate, would be conclusive. But such is not the fact. The question which was referred to the Colonial law officers had regard to the penalty specified in the 24th clause of 10 Geo. 4. c. 7., and they gave an opinion that, although the Act itself had been adopted by an act of the colonial legislature, the provisions of the 24th section of that Act, which relate to the penalty, were

* It must be kept in mind that the Bishops of the Church of England in the colonies, have not the rank of Spiritual Peers of Parliament.

† See Appendix E.

limited to England and Ireland solely. Of the soundness of this opinion there can be but little doubt; but it stopped far short of the statement, that the law officers held that the Catholic Bishop might, without illegality, call himself Bishop of Melbourne. That question does not appear from Governor Fitzroy's despatch to have been submitted to the Colonial law officers, but rather to be under reference at the present time to the authorities at home.*

It may therefore be safely said, that her Majesty's Government has carefully declined to recognise the territorial titles assumed by Roman Catholic Bishops from Sees assigned to them by their Church within the Australian colonies. And so far from no remonstrance having been ever made, as Dr. Wiseman asserts, in consequence of the erection of the Papal Sees, and the assumption of the style and title of the Australian Bishops of the English Church, that the printed correspondence on the subject laid before the House of Commons in 1849 and in 1850 supplies very full evidence to the contrary.†

Nor has her Majesty's Government observed any other rule in the island of Mauritius, on the occasion, in 1849, of the Pope withdrawing from Bishop Collier his office of Vicar Apostolic, and his title of Bishop of Melevé in partibus, and substituting in lieu of this, the title of Bishop of Port Louis or Mauritius. Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, on this occasion, expressly ruled, that the Roman Catholic Prelates were not to be recognised by the local Government under the titles assigned to them by their own Church.

*See Appendix F.

† See Appendixes F. and G.
See Appendix H.

But," Mr. Bowyer writes, "the fact of the Government not recognising the provincial or diocesan, or territorial style of these colonial Bishops, is immaterial, for we do not ask the Government to recognise the style of Archbishop of Westminster, or Bishop of Liverpool, this would hardly be a reasonable request to a Protestant Government, in a Protestant country, though of course we should rejoice if they were to do so."

Now the answer to this remark is obvious. Either it is lawful for the Roman Catholic Bishops to bear the titles, or it is not lawful. If it is lawful, her Majesty's Government are bound in justice to recognise them; if it is unlawful to bear them, it is unlawful to have accepted them: yet they have been both accepted and borne. After the gauntlet has thus been thrown down in the face of her Majesty's Government, it is idle to say, "we do not ask her Majesty's Government to recognise the style of Archbishop of Westminster, or Bishop of Liverpool." Yet her Majesty's subjects are publicly invited to recognise them, in an Appeal to the English People, on the part of Cardinal Wiseman himself; in which his Eminence expressly discusses his newly assumed title, its decorousness, and the little less than necessity for its adoption. "London was a title inhibited by law; Southwark was to form a separate See." Surely there is a vein of humour in the irony of this passage; his Eminence pleads a necessity for taking Westminster on the ground that Southwark was not available, after his own Pastoral Letter had announced his approaching advent in his united character of Archbishop of the Metropolitan City, and Administrator Apostolic of the separate See!

It has been already pointed out, that the title of an existing Bishopric of the Established Church