and favourable review of the governments of Lord Sydenham and Sir C. Bagot. The long illness of the latter had, perhaps, thrown political power more largely into the hands of the executive officers than would otherwise have happened; and that was the state of affairs on the arrival of Sir C. Metcalfe, whose conduct fully deserved approbation. He did not apprehend that the Canadians would persevere in idle and vexatious disputes, impeding their own happiness and prosperity. The notion that Canada would become an independent republic was a mere delusion, and the disadvantages which she must sustain from an absorption into the United States must be obvious to her people. Mr. Trelawney said a few words; after which On the 8th of August Lord Palmerston entered into a critical review of the foreign policy of the Government, according to the course adopted by him at the close of former sessions. The substance of his speech was to the effect following: The system of foreign policy adopted by Government appeared to him to be one of unlimited concession abroad and of resistance at home. The first concession was that to America, of the disputed territory on the North-eastern boundary; which, instead of leading to harmony, resulted in another claim by the United States to the Oregon territory. The spirit was the same in the concessions to France: the Spanish Government were counselled to submit to degradation and insult in the Salvandi and Lesseps affairs; the French in Sir R. Peel pronounced a cor1830 were allowed to keep posdial eulogium upon Sir C. Metcalfe, session of Algiers; and the arwho had been personally unknown rangement of France to take the to all Her Majesty's Ministers, and protectorate of Tahiti, which we had been selected by them solely had declined, was acquiesced in. in consideration of his character In fact, the line of policy underand of his previous services. With taken by Government was founded respect to the particular question on two leading principles-one was, which had occasioned the schism, to obtain temporary quiet, without he desired to distinguish between regarding the sacrifices which the fitness of a Sovereign gener- might be made to secure it; and ally following the advice of his the other was, to shape their Ministers, and the fitness of his course, not with reference to the binding himself down to follow it, interests of their own country, but especially in the case of the Go- merely considering what might be vernor of a small community, its bearing on their position with where it might be very mischiev- respect to other states. It had ous to make appointments wholly happened to the late Government and exclusively in the spirit of to be sometimes in a minority in party. He believed that the dis- the House of Commons; but among position of the Canadian people the great Powers of Europe its in general was much more favour- general policy was supported by a able to the Government than some large majority. What might be persons in this country appeared to the influence of the present Gosuppose. vernment he would not say; but The discussion then terminated. he was anxious to draw the atten tion of the country to the results already visible. He denied that what are called the "war parties" in several countries have any effect on their respective Governments. He would contend, that even under the present Government, England was too powerful not to make any nation pause before it entered into war with her except on just grounds and in its own defence; but having laid down its ultimatum, it would not be satisfactory to the country if it receded on any other than fair and open reasons. Recurring to the subject of Tahiti, he maintained that, although Mr. Pritchard's consular functions were necessarily suspended, he retained his commission and character as Queen Victoria's Consul; and he finished by exhorting Government to make no concession which would tend to the dishonour of the country. Sir Robert Peel replied, observing that Lord Palmerston had not conformed to the usual rule of giving notice of his attack on the whole foreign policy of the Government. The noble Lord's speech seemed to him to have been prepared for the purpose of supplying some omission in his former speeches, and of pronouncing a panegyric on himself, — though, truth to say, it did not seem that any blank of that kind had remained to be filled up in his two preceding speeches; for they, like the one now just spoken, were not at all wanting in his own praise. (Laughter.) The assertion that our present policy was one of concession abroad and resistance at home might appear finely antithetical and high-sounding; but he gave it a flat denial. He proceeded to vindicate Lord Ashburton's mission; appealing to the thanks voted to that nobleman on the motion of Mr. Hume. The war party in France condemned M. Guizot for his concessions to England. As to Algiers, Lord Palmerston himself had acquiesced in the French occupation; and in Spain, Espartero's fall was precisely owing to the popular belief that he was the too fast friend of the British Government and was receiving support from it. Into the question of Tahiti he did not think it proper to enter; but he maintained that there never was a time when the name and honour of the British Government stood higher than at present. CHAPTER III. Irish Affairs-Attacks on the Policy of Government-The Marquess of Normanby moves a Resolution in the House of Lords-Speeches of Lord Wharncliffe, the Marquess of Clanricarde, the Earls of Roden, Devon, Fitzwilliam, Ripon, and other Peers-The Resolution is rejected by 175 to 78-A Debate commenced in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, who moves for a Committee of the whole House on the State of Ireland, is continued for nine nights by adjournment— Summary of the Speech of Lord John Russell-The Motion is seconded by Mr. Wyse-Sir James Graham leads the defence of the Government-Speeches of Lord Clements, Mr. John Young, Sir George Grey, Lord Eliot, Mr. Shaw, Lord Howick, Lord Stanley, Mr. Macaulay, Sir William Follett, Sir T. Wilde, Mr. T. B. Smith, (Attorney-General for Ireland,) Mr. Maurice O'Connell, Sir F. Pollock, (AttorneyGeneral for England,) Mr. Roebuck, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Sheil, and Sir Robert Peel-After a reply from Lord John Russell, the Motion is rejected by a majority of 99. T HE Ministerial policy towards Ireland, especially their conduct in reference to the trial of Mr. O'Connell and his associates, became very early in the session the subject of animated discussion in both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Lords the attack was led by the Marquess of Normanby, who, on the 13th of February, moved as follows:: "That this House having, in answer to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, assured Her Majesty that they entered into Her Majesty's feelings in forbearing from observations or comments on Ireland, in respect to which proceedings are pending before the proper legal tribunals,' feel it, in consequence, to be their duty to take the earliest opportunity, when no prejudice can arise therefrom in the minds of the Jury, to record their intention to examine into the causes of the discontents now unhappily so prevalent in that country. That with a view to the removal of existing evils, and the restoration of confidence, this House look to the full developement of the only principles of a perfect union, by securing to Her Majesty's subjects of all classes and persuasions, in all parts of the United Kingdom, the practical enjoyment of equal rights. He supported this motion in a long speech, impugning the conduct of the Government, whom he reproached with the discontent in Ireland, which was not confined, he said, to the Repeal party, as appeared by a recent meeting at Charlemont House. He condemned the course taken in the suppression of the Repeal meetings, which he contrasted with his own method of combating the Repealers by fair argument, when an address was presented to him from the county of Cork in 1836; and he contrasted the Irish policy of Government with that which they had pursued in Canada. He touched upon Lord Lyndhurst's phrase about "aliens," the dismissal of the Repeal magistrates, the imputations thrown upon the Roman Catholics by the Irish Attorney. General respecting their lax observance of oaths; and the formation of the jury on the State Trials. He also animadverted on the Chief Justice's charge to the jury. He proceeded to contrast the severity shown to the Repealers with the indulgence exhibited to the Orange meeting at Hillsborough, in 1834. It had been announced that Sir R. Peel's policy towards Ireland was to be a wise and conciliatory one; but only one Bill had passed -the Arms Bill. Touching upon remedies, Lord Normanby said that the state of the Protestant Church should be left open to a free and full inquiry; and he argued for religious equality; but he regarded the present as an unfortunate time for talking of payment to the Roman Catholic clergy. He wished that the Landlord and Tenant Commission had been allotted a wider field of inquiry. He cited the example of Austria, which had latterly conquered disaffection in Lombardy by a liberal policy; regretted that, while he saw at least three Scotchmen among the Ministers before him, there was no one connected with Ireland, except the Duke of Wellington; and wound up with some observations on the expediency of no longer governing Ireland by the sword. Lord Wharncliffe said that he found nothing in the resolutions to oppose, but he was prepared to meet the charges contained in the noble movers speech. He defended the course taken by Government in suppressing the Repeal agitation, and explained the facts connected with the formation of the jury in Mr. O'Connell's case. In speaking of the remedial measures, he mentioned, that in the alteration of the law which the Government proposed to bring forward in the present session respecting charitable trusts, stipends and glebes, and the appropriation of money for the building of Roman Catholic chapels, were contemplated. The Marquess of Clanricarde followed up the attack of Lord Normanby upon the Government, chiefly on the same grounds. He re commended a careful consideration of the Report of the Committee on the Irish Grand Jury Laws, which showed how a saving of 160,000l. a-year might at once be effected to the public out of the local rates and taxes. The Earl of Roden defended himself from some incidental censure passed on him by Lord Normanby; on whom he retorted, by imputing the present troubles in Ireland to the effect of the wholesale discharges from gaols, and other conduct of the Whig Viceroy. He justified the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury on the late trials, asserting that the Romish priesthood were universally in favour of Repeal, as a means of destroying Protestantism. In the Grand Jury which found the bill, there were three Roman Catholics; and one of these Roman Catholics came forward into the box after the bill had been brought up and found, and, after having taken his oath that he would keep his own counsel and the counsel of his fellow-jurors-in that box he declared to the Judge that he had dissented from the finding. This he thought in itself afforded a sufficient justification of the course which the Attorney-General had pursued. The Earl of Devon introduced some particulars to show how zealous the Landlord and Tenant Commissioners were in obtaining information from all quarters, and in pushing their inquiry into every part of the subject. The examination of the Report on the Grand Jury Law would be part of their task. They did not proceed on the idea that the landlords were 'wrong," or that the tenants were "wrong" but sought to discover the root of the evil. The motion, or rather Lord Normanby's arguments, were opposed by Lord Howden and the Marquess of Westmeath, and supported by Lord Beaumont. The debate was adjourned, and the next evening was continued by Earl Fitzwilliam and Lord Monteagle on the one side, and the Earls of Haddington and Ripon on the other. Nothing, however, of much novelty or interest was added on either side to the debate, which terminated in rather a sharp personal altercation between Lords Brougham and Campbell, which afforded considerable amusement. On a division there appearedNon-Contents (including 96 proxies), 175; Contents (including 39 proxies), 78; Majority against the motion, 97. In the House of Commons, on the 13th, commenced a debate, which if it did not exhaust the fertile subject of Irish policy, extended to a length amply sufficient to have done so. For nine evenings the discussion was protracted, being opened by Lord John Russell in a very full and minute statement of his case, which occupied three hours in the delivery. The attempt to introduce in these pages even a summary of the statements and arguments adduced by the numerous members who took part in the controversy on either side, would necessarily involve much sameness and repetition. The object of presenting a fair outline of the topics which were urged for and against the motion, will be best answered by giving a sketch of the line of argument pursued by some of the leading speakers, with occasional extracts from the more striking passages of their orations. Lord John Russell's motion was nominally aimed at the appointment of a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of Ireland. He began by describing Ireland as filled with troops-Ireland, which two years ago was surrendered into the hands of the present Ministers tranquil and undisturbed, was now occupied and not governed by this country. A man who might be said to live in the affections of the great mass of the Irish people had been found guilty of a conspiracy, and would probably be condemned to imprisonment: this offered an unpromising pros pect for the future. Lord John surveyed the relations of the two countries since the Legislative Union; beginning with an address presented by both Houses of Parlia ment in 1799 to George the Third, which promised "a complete and |