rry on the
government of Ireland on entirely different principles from those of
Great Britain? Does he believe that, at this period of man's history,
and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, doctrines
of government suited for the meridian of St. Petersburg can be carried
into actual practice? In a word, Does he believe that the system of
Protestant supremacy can be continued in Ireland without civil war?"
On the third night of the debate, Sir James Graham delivered a powerful
speech in support of Lord Francis Egerton's amendment. Mr. Shiel
followed, in a speech which was more personal than argumentative. Sir
Robert Peel deprecated this mode of conducting the debate. He had been
reproached, he continued, by Lord Howick for not having earlier seen the
necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. Would the noble lord ask
of his noble colleague of the foreign department, why he was not an
earlier convert than he had proved to reform? Would he put the same
question to the head of the present administration? If it were blindness
in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of concession to the
Catholics, was not the blindness of Lord Melbourne as great when, in
1826, he even opposed the transfer of representatives from Penryn to
Manchester? Mr. O'Connell followed, urging his usual topics--the long
misgovernment of Ireland, and the necessity of the repeal of the union
as her only chance of obtaining justice. After a reply from Lord John
Russell, the house divided; when Lord Francis Egerton's amendment was
negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two
hundred and forty-two.

Little discussion took place on the bill when in committee. The third
reading was moved on the 10th of April, when Mr. Goulburn opposed
the measure as pregnant with danger to the church, and tending by
its renewed agitation to place the two houses of parliament in an
undesirable situation. Another long debate ensued, in which the bill
was defended by Colonel Thompson, Lords Morpeth and John Russell, and
Messrs. Bulwer, Charles Villiers, and O'Connell; and opposed by Lord
Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel. The debate lasted two
nights; and on a division the bill was carried by a majority of three
hundred and two against two hundred and forty-seven.

The bill was introduced to the house of peers by Lord Melbourne on the
13th of April; and the second reading was fixed for the 25th of the same
month. On i