NEWS OF THE WEEK.

AT the hour when these pages must he sent to press for our read- ers in the country, the House of Lords sits for the third day, and at an extraordinary time, deliberating on the motion for the se- cond reading of the Catholic Relief Bill. The bill was read a third time in the House of Commons on Monday evening, after a long, but now uninteresting debate. The Marquis of Cnalvvos divided the Home on an amendment that the bill be read six months hence ; which was carried against him by 320 votes to 142—majority 178. Colonel SIBTHORPE was still more signally beaten in a motion to exclude Roman Catholics from the corporations—negatived by 233 to 17. Mr. SADLER wound up the lament of his party in the following strains. " Sir, the people of England want no incentives to come forward in defence of the altar and the throne, the cause of their fathers and of their God. Sir, the abettors of this measure say triumphantly that the bill will pass: the triumph is over their former selves-=their2resent country- men. Sir, we will contend the cause to the last. In this moral battle we stand at the Thermopylm of Protestantism, secure of immortality even in defeat ; nor would it be a defeat but that some recreant Meehan leads the enemies of the institutions of his country through secret passes to their melancholy triumph. Exult then over the still faithful band who remain true to their principles and professions ! Boast in your majority Carry up your bill to the other branch of the Legislature as in a tri- umphant procession Tell us of the honours, the wealth, the influ- ence, you muster in its train ! These, Sir, may be there. But I tell you who will not, Sir. The people of England will not be there ; they will not assist you to carry up this nefarious bill ; they stand aloof; and, despised and insulted, -they pursue it through every stage of its progress, with curses not loud but deep—but with curses that may still deepen and wax louder, till, as they once did, on a like occasion, they break forth in those thunders which shook the very pillars and foundation of the throne. This bill you will take up; but at will be received by a noble race, which has hitherto sent its heroes to the defence of the cause of England—of a sacred order who have gone to prison and to death for it. We fix our hopes on them ; but even they, Sir, are not our last hope. We trust in our Monarch and our God ! Sir, I have done. I am aware my feeble voice can have no influence. I am told none would, however powerful, against the phalanx united in hostility to the Protestant cause. Cemented and influenced as it is, rea- son, entreaty, remonstrance, are unavailing. All I can do is done. I have laid this last offering upon the altar of my country, humble as it is. My life should be added, could the sacrifice be availing A feeling which I partake with millions ! "

The Relief Dill was brought to the House of Lords on Tuesday, and read a first time. Lord BEXLEY objected to the second read- ing on Thursday, on the score of want of precedent for such haste ; and he was supported by Lords MALMESBURY, ELDON, FARNHAM, SIDMOUTH, LONGFORD, and WINCHILSEA. It was answered by Lord HOLLAND, that the search for precedents had been partial ; for the acts it was now proposed to repeal had been passed much more rapidly, and bills for suspending the habeas corpus had been passed in two or three days. It was determined that their Lordships should proceed.

The second reading of the bill was moved on Thursday, by the Duke of WELLINGTON. His speech lasted above an hour: in its general structure it resembled Mr. Peel's introductory statement to the Home of Commons ; but it was more concise, and the speaker had evidently made the best use of the debates in the other House, and a number of his points were extremely well put. The state of Ire- land—the state of the Irish Church—the state of public opinion— and the impossibility of devising any other remedy for present or future evils —formed his main grounds. The Duke reviewed the history of Ireland for the last two years. He argued, that there had been an organization of the people for the purposes of mischief; proofs of which organization had been afforded by the declarations of its framers and managers—by the effects of such organization on the elections of churchwardens—the election for Clare—the conse- quences of that election—the proceedings of a person who went, at the head of a body of men, into the North of Ireland—by the simul- taneous proceedings of a variety of persons in the South of Ireland —by the events which ensued in other place—by the attack of a town by a body of men from Augher, who were driven out by the inhabitants with arms in their hands. The evils Which had before ,existed were still further to be aggravated by the adoption of a measure for putting an end to all dealings of Roman Catholics with Protestants. Such a situation of affairs rbnderecr the law almost powerless, and exposed the lives and properties of his Majesty's subjects to the greatest danger. Even the King's prerogative was clogged, for Ministers could not advise his Majesty to create a Peer, and thus incur the dangers incidental to the election of a member to fill the seat vacated by such creation. There was no law to reach this state of things, for there was no tangible resistance to the laws. Neither could new laws be obtained, owing to the divided opinion of Parliament.

" I am positively certain that this state of things, bordering upon civil war, with nearly all the evils of civil war, might have continued for a year and a half, or for a considerable time longer, to the great injury and decay of the country ; and that those who managed this state of things would prevent that resistance which would alone create or justify a civil war. They know as well as I do that they are not strong enough to wrestle with the King's Government—they know that they would be the first victims of any attempt of that kind ; and knowing this, and being, as I believe them to be, able and sensible men, and being perfectly aware of the nature of the materials with which they are :working, I say I do not doubt that this state of things might have continued for years, and your Lordships would never have had the opportunity of putting it down by force. But even if I were certain ,tbat we possessed any such means, I should certainly wish to avoid using them, if possible. My Lords, I have passed more of my life in war than most men, and I may say, in civil war ; and if I could avoid by any sacrifice whatever—if I could avoid even for one month a civil war in a country to which I am at- tached, I would sacrifice my life to do it. (Loud cheering.) There is nothing which destroys the prosperity of a country to such a degree as civil war— in which the hand of one man is raised against another—in which neigh- bour strikes at neighbour—in which a son is ranged against the father, the servant betrays his master, and the whole scene ends in confusion and devastation."

He asked for what all this enormous mass of evil was to be en- • countered ?

"The cause for which all these evils are to be encountered is, we are told, the preservation of the principle of the constitution of 1688. The principle of the constitution of 1688 Is, we are told, the permanent ex- clusion of the Roman Catholics from Parliament."

The Duke proceeded to argue very forcibly, and to adduce malty proofs from history and the statutes, against this doctrine. He then came to the necessity of the measure before the Howe. He avowed that the bill went further in concession than any pre- vious measure ; and the reason was, his knowledge of the conse- quences which followed the concessions of 1782 and I 793i "So long as any restriction is continued, concession not only-increases demand, but gives increased power to enforce that demand.'

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY led the opposition. He was so hostile to the principle of the bill, that he moved an amendment that "the bill be read a second time this day six months." His . Grace grounded his opposition to it upon the fact avowed by the heads of the Catholic clergy, that their religious principles were not only unaltered but unalterable ; that the Catholic clergy exercised a most dangerous influence over the temporal as well as spiritual concerns of their flocks ; that little reliance was to be placed upon their gratitude, as was shown by the manner in which they had abused the elective franchise, by the efforts they had made to raise taxes for improper purposes, by their making the places of public worship meeting-houses for fac- tion. He hinted at the possibility of extinguishing the Church of England in the Colonies if the Colonial Department were in the hands of a Catholic Secretary of State. He was not dissatisfied with the securities.

The Archbishop of ARMAGH, the Primate of Ireland, seconded the amendment. He felt assured that the bill would not tranquil-. lize Ireland. The Catholics themselves did not contemplate plate the tranquillity of the country: the great mover of agitation is reported to have declared that he had accepted the compromise of seven shillings and sixpence in the pound, in the present session, only that he might hereafter come forward and insist upon the pay- ment of the balance of twelve and sixpence. The bill would in- crease the power of doing mischief without lessening the inclina- tion. It would not make the Church of Rome more tolerant, or induce the priesthood to consent to hold an inferior rank to a clergy the divinity of whose order they denied. His Grace was against exposing the Church to danger upon the calculation of future facilities of defence.

The Bishop of OXFORD conceived the bill to be called for and sanctioned by an evident necessity. His Majesty had recommended - the measure • it was supported by all the Pnnces of the Blood, except the Duke of Cumberland ; by a large majority of the other House of Parliament, and of the nsing intellect of the country. The consequences of its rejection would be a civil war; and when the sword was sheathed, they would just be where they were. The Duke of Ricloytoxn, the Bishop of SALISBURY, and Lord WINCHILSEA considered the measure to be fraught with peril to

our civil and religious liberties. •

Earl Somsns was convinces' that the Protestant religim, so far from being destroyed, would be secured and Promoted beyond its present condition. They had given the Catholics power, And it was bad policy to deny he their rights. The Earl of HAREWOOD thought the bill neither calculated to pacify Ireland nor to secure the Church. The ingenuity of man , could scarcely have devised a measure less likely to accomplish their ends. It merely rewarded the Catholic Association.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE supported. the bill, in a fluent speech.

The Bishop of LONDON thought the Catholics had something beyond emancipation in their view. The Catholic clergy would not be benefited by the measure ; and they would strive to obtain those ulterior objects. Strongly as he opposed the bill, however, he Concluded by saying,

" If this measure should pass into a law, of which scarcely a doubt exists, I will do all in my power to impress on the minds of the clergy with whom I am connected, the propriety of giving a cheerful acquies- cence to the act of the Legislature—to urge them, in consequence of it, to a more vigilant attention to their duties, and to furnish, by their zeal, their learning, and energy, new bulwarks to the Church in place of those which have been relnoved."

The Marquis of SALISBURY and the Earl of ENNISKILLEN thought the bill the death-warrant of the Church of Ireland. The Earl of WICK Low, on the other hand, considered the oppo- sition to the bill as the result of prejudice and prejudice alone.

The discussion on Friday night was opened by the Archbishop of YORK; who in moderate language opposed the measure, because the securities did not appear to him at all sufficient to protect the Protestant Church of Ireland—for he admitted that the measure would be attended with no danger to the Church of England. But with reference to the Established Church of Ireland there was nothing to prevent that conflict between the Church established by law and the Roman Catholic Church supported by numbers, which there was too much reason to fear would follow this system of yielding to the utmost the claims of the Catholics of Ireland.

The Bishop of DURHAM was more decided in the tone of his op- position, which partook more of a religious than a political chit. racter.

"The few observations," he said, "which I have ventured to submit to Your Lordships are such as, a short time hence, might not be so pa- tiently listened to in this House ; for I fear the time is not distant when a Protestant bishop may not have it in his power to deliver his sentiments in this House with the same freedom which on this occasion, as on former occasions, I have been permitted to enjoy."

The Duke of SUSSEX, along with much good temper and consi- 4erable tact as a debater (in a skirmish with Lord KENYON), ex- hibited a familiar acquaintance with some points of theology and of constitutional law. On the Constitution of 1688— " As a member of the Royal Family, I claim credit as much for enter- taining no desire to encroach on the prerogatives of the Crown, as I do, in my character of a Peer of Parliament, claim credit for entertaining no design of violating the rights and liberties of the people. (Cheering.) My Lords I deny that this bill is a violation of the constitution of 1688. It is as little injurious to that constitution as it is consistent with the great principles on which that constitution was founded. My Lords, the con- stitution of 1688 was the end of a long contest between the co-ordinate power of the two Houses of Parliament and the Crown. That revolution swept away all those powers claimed and exercised by the Crown since the reign of King John, namely, the power claimed by the Crown of making laws without the consent of the two Houses of Parliament : the regal power of issuing ecclesiastical commissions without the consent of the two Houses of Parliament ; the power ofdevyine' money ; and other royal prerogatives. In fact, the Revolution put an end to all the points of dispute between the prerogatives of the Crown and the pri- vileges of the people, as maintained by their representaves in Parlia- ment. Now, my Lords, the principles of that Constitution were con- solidated in the Bill of Rights ; and I ask noble Lords, does the Bill on your Lordships' table evade the provisions of the Bill of Rights ? I say it does not ; for one of the great principles of the Revolution was the recognition of the co-ordinate power of the two Houses of Parliament without consent previously had from the Crown to propose the enact- anent of new laws or the alteration of existing statutes. Now, another point of the constitution of 1688 was, that provision which enacted that any person holding religious communion with the Church of Rome, or any person who should marry a Papist, should be declared incapable of enjoying or inheriting the Crown, that the people of this country would be dissolved from their allegiance to such a person, and that the Crown Would devolve to the next heir. Now, in the present bill I see nothing to impugn that principle.

On the oath of allegiance- " It has been contended that the Roman Catholic, by virtue of his con- nexion with the Pope, is in a condition in which he finds his allegiance is necessarily divided. Give me leave to say, my Lords, that this term allegiance' is either very much misunderstood or very grossly misinter- preted. The term'allegiance' is one of civil import only, and means a faithful adherence to alr the civil duties owing by subjects to the laws, and to that authority by which they are governed. Now, I take upon myself to say, on their behalf, that the English and Irish Roman Catholics are as ready to take this obligation, and have proved it under as trying cir- cumstances as any other portion of his Majesty's subjects."

On the oath of supremacy- " If I understand any thing of the oath of supremacy, it grants to the Crown full and complete predominancy in all ecclesiastical affairs and the temporal government of the Church ; but it confers no spirituality; and in these is contained nothing which the Roman Catholics feel any diffi- culty in conceding. I wish both parties to recollect, that the supremacy belonging to the Crown of England, and the supremacy of the first Bishops Of the Christian Church, widely differ. The one confers as I have already said, power over all the ecclesiastical affairs and temporal government of the Church ; and the other is strictly limited to matters of faith and doc- trine, and can only be exercised by ecclesiastics. The King of England assumes no spiritual attributes which the Catholics feel bound, to mist. In these they submit to the Pcse, and ay other.", _ But the great speech of the night Was delivered by the LORD .0H4RiCELLOR; W)I0 acldresswl hinrAf not only to every branch of The general question, but more particularly to a defence of his own ,charaetnr from thp assaults of Sir Charles Wetherell, and the insi- nuations of Lord Eldon.

" I have never addressed Parliament upon this subject except on two occasions, once when I was a member of the other House, and during the last discussion of the question here. Upon those occasions I stated what has been the constant principle of my conduct and feelings upon this subject—that if the concession of civil privileges to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects could be effected with safety to the Protestant esta- blishment and the great interests of the empire, we were in duty bound to make these concessions. This I stated in terms so distinct and explicit that it was impossible that my meaning could be misunderstood. I know well that, in point of fact, it was not misunderstood ; as I know that by the sentiments which I expressed on that occasion I offended some of those persons who now oppose the present measures, and who said that I did not take sufficiently high grounds, and was not sufficiently tram. cendent. At that time I had the honour of representing the University of Cambridge, and certainly my constituents made a representation to me on the subject, complaining of the course I had adopted. It may be in the recollection. of your Lordships that I afterwards repeated the same senti- ments, perhaps not in the very same terms, but certainly in substance when I had last the honour of addressing your Lordships upon the sub: ject. So much for the charge of inconsistency. But another charge—a most grave and serious accusation has been brought against me : the charge was, that I had forgotten the obligations of the oath which I had taken to his Majesty when I had the honour of being appointed to the office which I hold. My Lords, the obligation of that oath is, that I should truly counsel the King, and this I have done. have most carefully examined all the facts and arguments connected with this great question, and I have arrived at the conviction, that if we regard the tranquillity of Ireland—if we regard the safety of the empire, and wish for the perma- nence of tranquillity and the integrity of the empire, I could not have honestly given my sovereign any other counsel than that which I have done. Upon this subject I have been loaded with expressions the most reviling and calumnious ; but when I. bear in mind that the person who had made this attack upon me stated.in the same breath that he excluded every consideration of Ireland from his view, I am induced to impute his conduct rather to a disordered intellect than to consider it as the result of a sound mind exercised with deliberation."

"A noble duke on a former night did me the honour to refer to something that was supposed to have fallen from me in the debate to which I have alluded as having taken place in the other House of Parliament, when it was stated that I, not being a responsible adviser of the Crown, was not then called upon to offer advice. That proposition may be true as applied to me then, or to the noble duke now; but for myself now, my situation being changed, thave means of information which it is my duty to avail myself of, and the advice that is now the subject of discussion, was the result of the information my changed situation gave rue the power of ac- quiring. But I will ask, whether that observation of the noble duke, as then applied to me, can be applied to the noble and learned lord now at the table ? (Lord Eldon.) That noble and learned lord, for the period of

five-and-twenty years, was one of the responsible advisers of the crown, and during that period he saw and doubtless attentively observed the state of Ireland. Yet, it was under that noble and learned lord's administra-

tion that the state of Ireland grew from bad to worse. (Cheers.) Now I ask that noble and learned lord to give us the result of his long expe- rience and attentive observation of Ireland. I ask him, fertile in expes dients of every description as he is—(hear, hear)—I ask him, I call upon him, to suggest any line of policy that will put an end to the disorders of Ireland other than that recommended by his Majesty's Ministers." (Chee4.) He denied that exclusion was sanctioned as a permanent prin- ciple of the Constitution by the Revolution of 1688.

"To admit at all that the Constitution of this country was formed and

established as it now exists in the year 1688, would be in effect to state that all our liberties are little more than a hundred years old. In l(i+3, the Constitution was not formed, but re-established; and nothing new was then enacted as a permanent part of it, except the limitation of the

Crown to Protestant successors. With the exception of this one import- ant principle asserted at the Revolution, and reserved, in consequence of

the flagrant violation of his duty to his people by James II., the other acts revived or enacted at that period were not made an essential part of the

Constitution of this country. To prevent the Throne from being again filled by a Popish Prince, from which such calamity had flowed upon the nation, the exclusion of a Monarch of that religion was made an indis- pensable and fundamental part of the law of the land. It is true that the two Acts referred to principally in these discussions, the Test Act and the Act of Charles II., which provided for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from Parliament and other offices, were re-enacted at the Revolution; but they were re-enacted in this sense—alterations at this time were made in the oaths, and it was found necessary to make mention of parts of these Acts, and it was by reason of this necessity that the mention of these

Acts was at all revived at the period of the Revolution. What better proof can be fiirnished of the fact that they were not intended to be per- manent, than that the great Lord Somers, who was a principal actor in the scenes of the Revolution, was also a party afterwards to the Union with Scotland ; in the articles of which Union it is set forth, that the

oaths which now exclude Roman Catholics from Parliament, should

continue to be taken by the members returned from Scotland, until Par- liament shall otherwise direct.' * * * In 1817, a Bill for the removal of

the military incapacity of Catholics was introduced, and pursued through that House, whilst the noble lord sat upon the woolsack without making a single objection, or without once complaining that the measure was in violation of the Revolution of 1688. In 1791, my noble and learned friend (Lord Redesdale) was the Solicitor-General, and his sentiments respecting the measure of that year was, that it did not go far enough. In 1793, the noble lord was Attorney-General; and he then saw, without offering a single objection that I am aware of, the magistracy—the offices of excise —the elective franchise, and other privileges, thrown open to the Catho- lics at one sweep."

The Earl of ELDON—" I was not Attorney-General for Ireland : I had nothing to do with it."

The LORD CHANCELLOR-" No, but the noble lord was Attorney-Ge- neral for England; and if he thought the extension of such privileges to Roman Catholics was a violation of the Constitution, he might have expressed his objection to such a measure ; and when we hear the doc- trine sounded daily in our ears of the responsibility that belongs to At- torney-Generals in advising their Sovereign, we might naturally suppose that he would have offered some objection to that concession which be now geema s unceastitutianal. Again, tit@ noble lord was 4 party, ak Attorney-General, to the Act in 1793, which extended to Scotland the measure framed in the Engli,sh Parliament, in 1791, for the relief of Roman Catholics." After referring to other instances in which Lord Eldon sup- ported measures of concession, Lord Lyndhurst particularly called the attention of their Lordships to the Act of 1817, givinm° the important boon of military officces to the Roman Catholics, which boon was conceded not when the noble lord was Solicitor-General—nor when he was Attor- ney-General, but when he was sitting upon the Woolsack—a member of the Cabinet, a responsible Minister, and adviserof the Crown. (Loud cheers.) "I regret that the noble lord did not remain a short time longer in office; for if he had done so I am sure he would have completed the work which he so auspiciously began, and would have admitted Roman Catholics to Parliament." (Loud cheers.) "In looking to the history of this country, my Lords, when we con- sider the dangers of admitting Roman Catholics into the Constitution, we should bear in mind, that for one hundred years since the establish- ment of our Protestant Constitution—for I date the Protestantism of it not from the reign of William III., but of Elizabeth—Roman Catholics have been admitted into Parliament. Formerly Roman Catholics have not entertained the objection which they now do to the taking of the oath of supremacy, and many of them sat in Parliament, especially in this House, where, until a comparatively recent period, with the other Acts affectino•° Roman Catholics, no obstacle to them interposed. That they had satin this House, was manifest from a passage in the speech of Colo- nel Birch, who stated, as one ground of opposition to the exclusion of Members from seats in Parliament, that 'it would deprive that House of so many Members,' alluding to the Roman Catholic Members who then sat in it. For a whole century, therefore, from the introduction of Pro- testantism, I contend that the right of Roman Catholics to sit in Par- liament was not disputed."

The Earl of ELnox,—" Did you not recollect all this last year ?"

The LORD CHANCELI.OR—" I did not know all this last year. Since the debate of last year I have studied the subject more attentively • I have

advanced in knowledge of it since that debate ; and if the noble lord devotes more study and attention, it is probable he may advance in knowledge too, and profit by the example which I have held out to him." (Cheers and laughter.) Towards the close of his speech, he spoke of the Church's secu- rities.

"If I am asked after this, what do I consider the security which the Protestant religion possesses against the attacks and the hostility of Popery, I answer, that I rely on the soundness of our faith—on the argu- ments by which that faith has been supported in all former times—and upon the power by which I know it can be supported in the present. I was brought up in the reverence of the doctrines of that Church ; and in the opinion, that no man of an enlightened understanding could atten- tively consider them, without being fully convinced of their truth and their purity. In that faith I was brought up ; to that faith, from convic- tion, I adhere ; and J cannot suffer myself to indulge the slightest fear that, even supposing the Catholics and the Protestants to be placed under the same circumstances, there would be the slightest fear of the Catholic undermining or affecting the religion of the Protestants. I appeal to the right reverend body I see before me as a proof of the truth of this asser- tion; and I appeal to the character of the clergy, with many of whom I am intimately connected, and to many of whom I owe great obligations as a security for the integrity of the Protestant religion. * * I know and feel that the subject is exhausted. It admits of nothing new in argument or illustration ; and I can plead anything but the vastness of the stake as an apology for intruding myself so long upon your Lordships' attention. We are called upon by everything that is valuable to us as men, and sacred to us as Christians, to carry forward this great measure for the maintenance and the security of civil and religious liberty ; and I conjure you, at this the last hour, not to waste your time in trifling or bestow grudgingly and with a bad grace, but to do your work manfully, and to give liberally as well as quickly. Millions are looking to your Lordships' decision with hope and with fear. The peace and the pros- perity, perhaps the safety, of the empire is in your hands : let me conjure you to adopt that course which the wisest and the most upright of our Sena- tors have advocated ; and if I could hope that my name would be ever associated with theirs, even though the last and the lowest in the accom- plishment of this great object, I should look upon all other honours as trifling in the comparison." (Loud cheers.)

The Earl of FALMOUTH opposed the bilL Where were the securities ! Did their Lordships ever behold a bill, after so much promise, with so few securities, so naked, so devoid of every thing in the shape of security. It kept quite clear, he might say sacrilegiously so, of every thinv° like security. He did not agree that the admission of some fifty Roman Catholic members into the Lower House would be quite so harmless as some would represent it. Let them recol- lect the result of a former division in that House : the question regarded Church property in Ireland, and the object of it was to promote a differ- ent appropriation of it : for that motion 79 voted ; now, had the fifty Roman Catholic members been in the House, they also would have voted for such motion, and thus it would have been supported by 129 members. He did not mean to say that 129 members would have carried the mea- sure, though they might have done ; but he could not hide from himself that 129 members, acting in a body, must become a formidable opposi- tion. The Catholic Association was but a small minority to the rest of the kingdom : and yet that minority frightened a great portion of the Aristocracy, and overcome the noble Duke who was supposed the firmest Minister that ever held office. Again, supposing the King—a future King—had a Roman Catholic favourite, and appointed a Catholic Pre- mier and Catholic Secretaries of State : might they not advise, and natu- rally enough, the Sovereign to make an addition to the Peerage, selecting the objects for such Royal favour from the Roman Catholic gentry ? He

repelled the idea of being thought a Reformer ; but if this bill passed how would it affect Parliamentary Reform? If there were any doubt as to its tendency, ought it not to be removed by the fact, that the Radicals to a man were charmed with this bill? The Unitarians and unbelievers of all sorts were charmed with it.

Lord GODERICH made a long and rather diffuse speech in sup- port of the measure. We select two of his most effective points.

"The case of Ireland had not been fairly put to England; if it had been fairly represented, it is impossible that petitions against concession would have poured in so numerously. Why had it never been proposed fairly to the people of England ?—Why had it never 'been placed before them as a matter of mere justice to Ireland ? And how came it to pass that the people of England had the power of refusing this measure of jus- tice ?—Only by the Union. "No man can maintain that the Roman Catholics can hereafter have

the power of forcing obnoxious doctrines on the world. I'dy Lords, it is notorious that for a long series of years, and even after the Reformation, the Pope assumed not merely spiritual authority, but temporal authority, and to such an extent as to effect the stability of the thrones of Europe; but though he had formerly assumed this power, and though it had not been formally retracted by any Council, still it was disavowed by all those of the Catholic faith ; and I will undertake that no person can adduce an instance in which the Pope has attempted to carry those principles into effect, though there are ample instances in which he had not attempted it. I believe that the power of the Pope has now dwindled to the shade of the shadow of a shade. Whatever may have been the pretensions of the Pope in former times, I now believe that they are crippled by an yn- provement that no prejudice can withstand—I mean the progress of.mind. I mean that march of intellect which has been alluded to in derision by many noble Lords in this House. I mean the improvements in the gene- ral habits of mankind."

The Earl of MANSFIELD spoke at some length against the bill.

The Marquis of ANGLESEY rose to dissipate the gloom with which some of the pictures of the consequences of the measure oppressed the minds of their Lordships.

"I shall now beg leave to state to your Lordships the expectations which I entertain from this bill. The state of Ireland, as it is to be affected by this measure, may be considered in three different lights,— political, religious, and military. Now, with regard to the first conside- ration, I say that from the moment of the passing of this bill I shall date the regeneration of Ireland. My Lords, Ireland wants much, but what it wants most is repose. This repose it has enjoyed for several months, The gaols are empty, the police are idle, and the military force unoccupied. This bill, when it becomes a law, will secure the continuance of tranquil- lity, without which there can be no prosperity. Tranquillity will produce this effect and immediately, that it will cause an ample flow of British capital into Ireland. As illustrating the probability of this effect, I can state a fact which is deserving of Your Lordships' knowledge and consi- deration, and for the truth of which I can vouch. It is, that in the year 1825, upon the mere expectation that a bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics would pass into a law, one solicitor in Dublin had 1,300,0001. placed in his hand to be invested in Irish speculations, and to be speedily followed by a much greater sum. That bill was unfortunately rejected, and I take blame to myself for being one of those who combined in the rejection, of which the consequence was the immediate withdrawal of the money which I have mentioned. The influx of capital into the country would increase the value of land, and reduce the rate of interest: it would open canals, reclaim bogs and waste lands, and draw out all the natural resources with which the country abounds : but what is more-important than all, the restoration of tranquillity would bring back the wandering absentees, and confer on the country the greatest blessing which a country can enjoy—that of the natural and legitimate protection which the land- lords afforded to their tenantry. It is with regret that I enter upon the religious part of the question, but I must ask, is the Church of Ireland really in danger ? If it be, I am convinced that this bill will do more for its security than any other measure whatever, and will give it more effectual support than a hundred penal enactments. Now, as to the mili- tary consideration, I think there is no man who knows any thing upon the subject who will not agree with me, that even in a period of profound peace, whilst under the system of exclusion 25,000 men was but a scanty garrison for Ireland: but in war, or even in a rumour of war, that would be well regarded as an improvident Government, which should not rein- force that garrison with 15,000 additional men. One reason which renders the maintenance of this force necessary in Ireland is, that there exists a focus of disaffection in America and France, from whence, the parties taking advantage of any disturbance which may take place in this coun- try, may throw arms into Ireland at their pleasure. I am now, my Lords, talking of what would be the case under a system of exclusion. Whilst these exclusive laws exist, if any combination should be made by foreign powers against this country, not less than 70,000 troops would be neces- sary to guard Ireland; whereas, if this bill pass into a law to-day, let war be declared to-morrow, and I venture to assert that you would not have the least difficulty in raising 50,000 men in Ireland in six weeks, men able-bodied and willing-hearted, who would be ready to march to any part of the world where the interests of this country require their presence. I say, therefore, that the simple passing of this bill is worth to the British empire more than 100,000 bayonets."

At two o'clock this morning, the debate was adjourned to one o'clock this afternoon.