Considering that Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, and all the leading Peelites, as well as Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Bright, and the advanced Liberals, joined the Roman Catholics on this occasion, the minority was surprisingly small, showing how deep and wide-spread was the national feeling evoked by the Papal aggressions. Several amendments were moved in committee; but they were nearly all rejected by large majorities. On the 27th of June Sir F. Thesiger proposed certain amendments with a view of rendering the measure more stringent, when about 70 Roman Catholic members retired from the House in a body. Lord John Russell, alluding to this "significant and ostentatious retirement," said it would not save them from the responsibility, as it would cause the passing of the amendments. They were accordingly carried against the Government. On the 4th of July, the day fixed for the third reading, Lord John Russell moved that those amendments should be struck out. One of them was that it should be penal to publish the Pope's Bulls, as well as to assume territorial titles; and another to enable common informers to sue for penalties. There was a division on each of these clauses. The question was then put by the Speaker, "that this Bill do now pass." Another long debate was expected; but no one rising, the division was abruptly taken, with the following result:--For the third reading, 263; against it, 46: majority, 217. On the 21st of July the Bill was introduced by the Marquis of Lansdowne, into the Upper House. The debate there was chiefly remarkable for the speech of Lord Beaumont, a Roman Catholic peer, who gave his earnest support to the Bill as a great national protest, which the necessity of the case had rendered unavoidable. The Duke of Wellington remarked that "the Pope had appointed an Archbishop of Westminster; had attempted to exercise authority over the very spot on which the English Parliament was assembled. And under the sanction of this proceeding, Cardinal Wiseman made an attack upon the rights of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. That this was contrary to the true spirit of the laws of England, no man acquainted with them could doubt, for throughout the whole of our statutes affecting religion we had carefully abstained from disturbing the great principles of the Reformation." Lord Lyndhurst supported the Bill in an elaborate and able speech. The second reading was carried in this House also by an overwhelming majority, the numbers being--for the bill, 265; against it, 38. On the 29th of July it was read a third time and passed, and shortly afterwards received the Royal Assent, after occupying nearly the whole of the Session. So far as the assumption of titles and the actual establishment and working of the Roman Catholic hierarchy were concerned, the Act undoubtedly proved a dead letter; but it is not to be inferred from this fact that it did not substantially answer its purpose