After what passed in both houses of parliament it became a matter of notoriety that the opinion of parliament was, that the legislative union should not be repealed, and that every effort on the part of the government should be made to resist the attempt to occasion that repeal.  Then, my lords, under these circumstances, the lord chancellor finds Lord French and other magistrates calling meetings to repeal the union, assisting at the meetings, presiding at them, and urging all the proceedings.  At this time the opinion of parliament was notorious, yet meetings consisting of 10,000, 20,000, 100,000, no matter as to the number of thousands, continued.  My lords, I wish to know with what object they were continued?  Was it with a view to address parliament to repeal the union?  No, my lords, they were continued to obtain the desired repeal of the union,—­by terror, if possible,—­if not, by force and violence.  And the persons calling these meetings, I beg your lordships to observe, were the magistrates, the very men who must have been employed by government to take measures to resist this violence, to prevent breaches of the peace, to arrest those who should be guilty of such breaches, and to bring them to justice; and then the noble lord says, that the government ought not to have removed those magistrates from their situations, and that they ought not to draw a distinction as to the time when it became notorious to the whole world what were the views entertained by parliament and the government on this important question.  My lords, in this and the other house of parliament, no one would have any idea of repealing the union except in regular course, like another act of parliament; but with these meetings of 50,000 and 60,000 men, was there any question of discussion?  No, my lords, the question was terror, force, and violence.  That was the ground on which the lord chancellor told these magistrates after the views of the government had become notorious, you must be dismissed if you attend, or excite others to attend, such meetings.  I am as much concerned that this state of affairs should exist as the noble lord can be; but of this I am quite certain, that the way to be prepared is not to have in the service of the government—­not to have government dependant upon the exertions of—­a number of magistrates who have excited and encouraged these proceedings, assisting at and presiding over these very meetings.  That could not have been desirable, and I say that the lord chancellor and situation as that of governor-general of India, an officer who was so for little more than two years—­an officer who has given satisfaction in so high a situation to those by whom he was intrusted and employed—­whose acts have been concurred in and sanctioned in every instance; to recall that officer suddenly, making no provision for the performance of the great duties which are to be performed, and which must he performed in that country—­to recall an officer in whom the government fully confided, without the concurrence