sition, it being arranged that the debate on the principle of the Bill should take place on the second reading. That reading was fixed for the 17th, notwithstanding the opposition of the Anti-Catholic members, who insisted that a week was too short a period to allow the country to form an opinion on the Bill after it should have been printed, and its details known. It was answered, that as the general principle of the Bill was to be then decided, the details would be discussed in Committee; that delay was sought only to rouse the prejudices, and inflame the passions of the peopie; and that considering the state of excitation in which the public mind already was, it would be desirable to allay the agitation, by settling it with all possible speed. Sir Francis Burdett, in fact, had already said in the debate on the motion for a Committee, that "It was better to get on with the measure than to argue about it; that action, not talking was to be looked to." In truth, the inefficiency of the Anti-Catholic population of Britain consisted in their very quietude. If instead of confining their expression of opinion to petitions, they had followed the example of the Catholics of Ireland, and addressed to Ministers the same argument of " Agitation," which had been so effective in the hands of the Association, their opinions would have come in that form, which when adopted on the other side, Ministers allowed to be legitimate and irresistible.

On the 17th of March, Mr. Peel moved that the Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics should be read a second time. The motion led to a debate which was continued, by adjournment on the 18th. In so far as the speakers reiterated the grounds on which the pecessity of emancipation had been maintained, so long it would be wearisome to repeat what has been so often recorded.

The motion for engrossing the Bill with its amendments was carried by a majority of 233 to 106, and on Monday the 30th of March the third reading was moved by Mr. Peel. The Marquis of Chandos on the other hand moved that the Bill should be read a third time that day six months. A

debate ensued, in the course of which all that had been already said, more than once on both sides were said over again. The third reading was carried by a majority of 178, there being 320 in favour of it, and 142 against it. Thus, in only three weeks from the time at which it had been introduced, was passed a Bill which its own supporters acknowledged to be an infringement of the constitution, and which whether for evil or for good, introduced into the frame and spirit of that constitution, an infinitely more important change than Britain had witnessed since the Revolution.

Hitherto the most steady and uniform resistance to the demands of the Catholics, had been found in the House of Lords. Whenever the Commons passed a Bill, or adopted a resolution, favourable to their views, a large majority of the Peers had always refused to concur in any thing which went to alter the Protestant characteristics of the constitution. Even 1818 when the lower House had passed resolutions intended to be the foundation of a Relief Bill, they had been rejected by the Peers by a majority of 45. Not twelve months had elapsed; and the Protestants find themselves deserted, and betrayed among their own representatives, placed their last hope in the steadiness which had so often distinguished the House of Lords. It was not to be expected, however, that the dictatorial powers of the Ministry, which had been strong enough to make the lower House disregard the public opinion of which it ought to be the organ, would lose their efficacy when applied to a body, less dependant on popular sentiment. The Aristocracy obeyed the word of command, as the Commons had done; the same means which had secured a triumph in the one House, prepared the way for it in the other.

On the 31st of March, the day following that on which the Bill had passed the House of Commons, it was brought up to the Lords by Mr. Peel, and was immediately read a first time. The Duke of Wellington then moved that the second reading should take place two days thereafter, on the 2nd of April. Lord Bexley and the Earl of Malmesbury opposed the motion, on the ground that such precipitate haste was unbecoming :

urging that on all former occasions, a much longer time had been allowed for consideration, and that such breathless hurry was the conduct of men who were merely to decide as another dictated, rather than that of a Legislature, called to deliberate on a grave matter of public policy. The Duke answered, that the subject had been sufficiently discussed already, and that the public were anxious to obtain their Lordship's decision. Lord Holland justified him by referring to the haste with which the statutes about to be repealed, had been originally passed; and the motion was carried without a division.

On the 2nd of April the Duke of Wellington introduced the notion for the second reading, and as the speech which he then made, embodies all the arguments in favour of Catholic concession, and at the same time is explanatory of the line of conduct which the Ministers considered it to be their duty to adopt on one of the most important questions, which ever came before the Legislature of the country, we shall give it in its entire form.

The Duke of Wellington addressed their lordships as follows:

It was now his duty to move that their lordships would read this bill a second time, and to explain to their lordships the grounds on which he recommended the measure to their consideration. He might be under the necessity of requesting a larger portion of their lordship's attention on this occasion than he had hitherto been in the habit of occupying; but he assured their lordships that it was not his intention to take up one instant of their time with respect to himself, or his own conduct, in the transaction, any farther than to express his regret that he should differ in opinion on this subject from so many of those, for whom he entertained the highest respect and regard. He must, however, state, that he considered the part which he had taken as the performance of a public duty, absolutely incumbent on him; and he would say, that no private regard and respect for the opinions of any noble lord could induce him to depart from the course which he had considered it his duty to adopt. He must likewise say this-that