taking a view of the state of that country in his official capacity, found that it was not the practice to prosecute officially at the Quarter Sessions those persons who had been guilty of assaults, and who engaged in quarrels which often led to bloodshed. He was of opinion that leaving such crimes unpunished encouraged the peasantry in lawless outrages, and contributed to excite in them a disregard of the law. My right hon. Friend directed that not only the Crown Solicitor should attend at the different assizes, but that solicitors should be appointed to attend and prosecute these assaults at the various Quarter Sessions in Ireland. A question on this subject was raised in the House only a few weeks ago. It was asked, whether many of the solicitors appointed to carry on these prosecutions were not Roman Catholics. The object was to put down outrages and prevent crime, and for this purpose to use the efforts and skill of the different solicitors in the various towns in Ireland. The question was not raised as to whether this proceeding was desirable—as to whether the revenues of the Crown should be used for the purpose of preventing crime, but as to whether the solicitors employed to carry on these prosecutions were or were not Roman Catholics. I can give another instance of the same kind with respect to the administration of justice in Ireland, and with reference to which my right hon. Friend has succeeded in making an alteration. It has been the practice for the Crown to challenge fifty or more persons called as jurors in a common case, and where there was nothing of a serious nature, and this merely on some political or religious suspicion. The consequence of this practice was, that there arose an impression on the part of the people against the trial by jury, and it was believed that in these cases the source of justice was tainted and was not impartial. My right hon. Friend directed that the practice should cease, and that all

persons called upon juries should serve. I have received a number of letters from impartial persons in Ireland, who inform me that this change had already had a visible and obviously beneficial effect on the minds of the people. They now feel a security in the administration of justice, and they say that they shall have a fair trial when called up. The trials for offences which grew out of popular differences are attentively regarded by the people, and they now say, when a man is prosecuted, that at any rate he will have a fair trial, and justice will be done. It is only by means such as these, and by attending to the wants and wishes of the people of Ireland, that we shall prevail on them to cease to resort to crime on a light occasion, and to support the law and the institutions of the country, and to give to the Government and Parliament that confidence without which armies are useless for the preservation of tranquillity. But I cannot avoid mentioning another subject which, indeed, is different from the present matter of debate, but which I shall soon have an opportunity of bringing under the consideration of the House. I mean the Bill which was proposed to the House on the subject of Municipal Corporations in Ireland. This is one instance of a measure by which we propose that Ireland should be governed on the same principles of equal justice which we wish to apply in this Bill—and let no man say this does not belong to the subject before the House-for Municipal Reform for Ireland was opposed on similar grounds to those which are now urged against this measure; and in both instances such arguments were used, because the principles of the two parties were essentially different as to the mode of governing Ireland. We hold that the Roman Catholics of Ireland are to be considered on an equal account with their Protestant fellow-subjects, and that, as they freely wish to join with us in loyalty to the Throne and attachment to the Con

stitution, it is right they should enjoy the same rights and privileges as we enjoy. Our opponents, on the other hand, maintain that the Roman Catholics are aliens in blood, differing from their fellow-subjects in religious opinions, and only waiting for an opportunity to shake off the Government of this country as tyrannous and oppressive. Undoubtedly, adopting such principles, our opponents must adopt, and did adopt, a course of proceeding very different from that which we recommend, and in which we are supported. I have now had an opportunity (which I had not had when I last addressed the House on this subject) of seeing the printed Bill sent down to the House on the subject of the Corporations of Ireland; and I must say, that the principle which ran through the alterations which had been made in that Bill was the same on which the amendment moved to-night by the noble Lord (Stanley) was founded-namely, the principle of contempt for the Roman Catholics, and the desire for their degradation. That principle runs through the whole of the amendments of the noble Lord; and I must confess, that when the noble Lord (Francis Egerton) proposed the instruction to the Committee on a former occasion, I wondered by what provisions it was intended to carry the principle of that instruction into effect. But when I now see my noble Friend (Lord Stanley) supporting precisely the same principle, I am still more disposed to wonder how it is that the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet agree in supporting that principle, their opinions on political questions having long been so different. I cannot find that their new proposition is founded on the Whig principle of liberty, or on the Tory principle of reverence for ancient institutions; but, on the contrary, it is a mixture of some foreign adaptation, in which is combined whatever is worst in the example of the destructiveness of the French republic with what is most despotic

in their military empire. In considering the amendment of my noble Friend I am compelled to look at it with reference to the whole of the political principles adopted with regard to Ireland. From that point I shall not depart. I consider the Bill as involving the whole question of the principles on which Ireland is to be governed; and whether that shall be in accordance with the wisdom and sense of the country, and directed by that reason which, as my noble Friend observed, should be the guide of the course of Government, or whether it shall be only in conformity to the domination of one party. If the House be of opinion that we must consider the wants, and wishes, and interests of the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty, then it will be right and consistent to allow the Bill of my noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) near me to be proceeded with; if, however, the House be of opinion that this important point should be altogether omitted from our consideration, then I must admit that the plan of the noble Lord (Stanley) opposite is well worthy of consideration. I contend that the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite involves this consequence that after the House of Commons has decided upon the principle on which Ireland shall be governed for the future, namely, the principle of justice and equal laws, if we should now rescind that promise and make the cup we have held out to them as bitter as disappointment can make it, if we are now to persist in a course which is degrading to them and which pollutes the source of justice as regards them, we shall have to contend with much opposition and with many obstacles from the feelings which will be manifested by the people of Ireland; and I think likewise, that we should have to contend with the reason and opinion of the people of England, who now are turning their attention to Irish subjects, and will not be willing, I think, to maintain the present system in

Ireland. I have confidence in the English nation, I feel convinced that they will do as they have always done, namely, do as they would be done by, and on these subjects treat their Irish fellow-subjects with regard and affection, and thus lead to a real and complete union of the two countries.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

March 6, 1836.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL:

-I can assure you, Sir, that I never rose with so much reluctance to make a proposition to the House of Commons, as I now rise to propose the resolutions of which I have given notice, and with which proposition I mean to conclude the observations I am about to make. It is my duty, and it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to which I belong, and of which I stand here as the representative on this occasion, to bring under the notice of the House the affairs of Canada, with a view to the declaration of what is our sense of the conduct of the representatives of the people of Lower Canada, and to ask this House to apply to the necessary services of that colony those sums of money which ought, in the regular course, to have been voted by the Colonial Assembly. I feel that it is necessary, in order to justify us in taking such a course, to show, first, that there is a necessity for interference on the part of Parliament; and, secondly, that that interference should not stop short of that which I shall have the honour to propose. In making this proposition I do so with very great reluctance, yet, at the same time, I feel that the House of Assembly of Lower Canada have the advantage of being represented in this House, and that their case will be stated with as much