The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-04 00:00:00

PAPAL AGGRESSION.

The Duke of ARGYLE, in presenting a petition from
Glasgow, on the subject of Papal aggression, declared
that, in the event of such an aggression taking place in
Scotland, the difficulty would be not to excite, but to
restrain popular indignation. He could not agree that
the Papal power was a dead power, but a living and an
aggressive power; and he rejoiced to find that it had
been impossible to form an Administration on the basis
of passing over the aggression unnoticed. He supported
the measure of the Government.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
Roman Catholic inhabitants of Cork against the Go-
vernment Bill for repressing Papal aggression.
This petition characterised the Government mea-
sure as tyrannical ; in that he could not
agree, neither could he agree in the other
terms in which the petitioners characterised that Bill;
but, considering the present state of agitation, he be-
sought their Lordships and the Government not to le-
gislate at present on the subject, but to content them-
selves with resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, in
order to afford an opportunity for the present heats to
subside.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented several
petitions against the Papal aggression, lied could
assure their Lordships that the people of Scotland
would have tolerated no such aggression. He thought
that a more complete irciairy ought to take place into
this subject before legislation, so as to ascertain pre-
cisely the powers which the person lately arrived in this
country—who was at the same time a British subject
and a foreign Prince—claimed to exercise. He considered
that the existence of nunneries was incompatible with
civil liberty, and they should introduce some measure to
make the law of this country paramount over the civil
and every other law.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
The Earl of ABERDEEN had been misappre-
hended by the Noble Duke. He had not recom-
mended this aggression to be passed over in si-
!nee ; on the contrary, ho had said that he thought
it might engage the attention of Government and of Par-
liament, and he was of opinion with his Noble and Learned
Friend, that the proper way of proceeding would be
by resolution of both Houses, carried to the foot of the
Throne; but that he did not think it was a fit subject of
legislation.—(Hear, hear.) He was much mistaken if
the experience of their Lordships and the other House
of
.Parliament did not convince them of the difficulty of
legislation on this subject. The Noble Lord who was
again at the head of the Government had already pro-
posed to alter the Bill as iutrodueed very materially,
and he believed that as further advances were made in
the prosecution of the measure, it would be found, as in
all cases of the kind, that greater difficulties would daily
arise.—(hear, hea-.) The Noble Earl (the Earl of
Rodeo) had thought fit to allude to his having styled
Ihe measure a penal one, carrying persecution with it.
Now, no deub;, whether they imposed a penalty of 1001.
or imprisoned a man, it was a penalty, and a Bill inflict-
ing either was a penal measure. It was another ques-
tion how far it might be severe or not; but he would re-
mind the Noble Earl. that persecution was very different
at different periods. People entertained different notions
of what persecution was according to the age in
which it was exercised, and according to the
state of society in which they lived. He did
not doubt that when Archbishop Cranmer burnt a
poor wretch for denying the King's supremacy, he had
not the slightest idea that he was a persecutor, or that
Calvin when he burnt Servetus thought himself guilty
of persecution. Ha doubted not that Philip 11. and the
Duke of Alva believed that what they did in the way of
persecution was redeemed by their tender regard for
the salvation of souls; but those days were past. He
remembered having often and often heard most elo-
quent speeches in that House, and especially from the
Woolsack, to prove that . the Roman Catholics had no
cause of complaint, and that they enjoyed every privi-
lege to which they could with reason lay claim; and he
had heard the greatest opposition made from quarters
of eminence to that Bill which gave them the full pos-
session of their present privileges, and which a great
majority of their Lordships believed were properly be-
stowed upon them.—(Hear.) But the speech of the
Noble Duke, if good for anything, was a good reason for
repealing the Catholic Relief Bill, for the whole spirit of
that speech would completely justify such a course.
Now, the proposed measure would, in the
first place,
probably be ineffectual, and, therefore, would not
operate penally. But though, sit icily speaking,
every Bill that was penal might be called one
of persecution, still it might not be considered as a
measure of severity. It, however, it was, as he main-
tained it was, the lawful right of the Roman Catholic
Church in this country to constitute regularly and in
an orderly manner their episcopal government, any im-
pediment to that actidn was persecution, because it de-
nied them the right inherent in every church that was
acknowledged. For times were now changed. If the
Roman Catholic Church was not tolerated, the whole
case would be altered; but, having admitted them to an
equality of civil rights—having fully tolerated their
Church—they had a right to constitute that Church in a
legal and regular manner. For reasons that. might sa-
tisfy themselves, they might think fit for a time to have
vicars-apostolic only; but there was nothing whatever in
justice or common sense, after full toleration was given
to that Church, to prevent them carrying
go-
vernment in a regular manner.-(Hear, hear.) He re-
gretted the daily recurrence of these debates on the pre-
sentation of petitions—(Hear, hear)—though he desired
of expressing
most ardently to have an opportunity on their
ressing fully
the views he took of the subject, and the conviction he
had that the course they were taking was one fatal to the
best interests of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY made an observation that was alto..
gether inaudible in the gallery.
Lord BROUGHAM again postponed his motion on
the subject of the extension of the County Courts.
Their Lordships then adjourned-till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 3.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes to Four
o'clock. At that hour there was an unusually large
attendance of Members.
ELECTION PETITIONS.
The SPEAKER announced that the recognizinces on
the part of the petitioners against the returns of Mem
hers for Aylesbury and St. Albans were unobjeo
tionable.

SECOND READINGS.
Thefollowing
blloeweinogmmßills were read a second time, and
ordered
Bann Navigation.
Cam Navigation (No. 2).
Dublin and Kingstown Railway.
Duffield and Sheffield Turnpike Road.
Hove Improvement.
Lee River Trust.
Malmesbury Turnpike Roads.
Malton and Driflield Juaction Railway.
Poulnasherry Embankment.
Thames Haven Dock and Railway.
Ulverstone and Lancaster Railway.
Birkenhead Dock Trustees (Alteration of Liverpool Doek
and Birkenhead Doak Rates, Sic.)
Dee River Conservancy.
Royal Naval School.
Shrewsbury and Chester Railway.
Stockton and Darlington, Wear -Valley, and Middlesbrough
and Redcar Railway Companies Amalgamation (No. 2).
Waterford and Limerick Railway.
PETITIONS.
Colonel TYNTE presented a petition from Bridgwater
against the window-tax.
Lord HOTHAM presented a petition from Yorkshire
against the paper duty.
Mr. OTLAHERTY presented several petitions from
Ireland against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Lord ARUNDEL and SURREY presented a peti-
tion from Kent to the SUMO eff,xt.

Similar petitions were presented by lir. Kershaw, from
a place iu Lancashire; by Mr. M. Gibson, from Um-