This business being settled, Mr. Cuvillier presented to the House articles of impeachment against Mr. Foucher, a Judge of the King's Bench, at Montreal, for malversation, corrupt practices, and injustice. A committee was appointed to examine into these charges, and having reported adversely to the judge, the House prepared and adopted an address to the Regent, asking for Mr. Foucher's removal from office, and that justice should otherwise be done. The House further requested the Governor-in-Chief to suspend Mr. Foucher, while the charges made against him were pending. The Governor complied with the request of the House, by desiring Mr. Foucher to abstain from taking his seat upon the Bench, until the will of the Regent should have been ascertained. The Legislative Council were most indignant. They remonstrated against the suspension of Mr. Foucher. Every public officer was by the assent given to the act of the Assembly, liable to be put to the expense of going to England before he could even get a hearing, if at the mere dictation of the Assembly, a public officer was to be suspended. The Assembly replied that, if suspension could not take place, offenders, out of the reach of ordinary courts of justice, could not be brought to trial, and that an illegal, arbitrary, tyrannical, and oppressive power, over the people of the province, would be perpetuated. And so the suspension did take place. The judges were in very bad odour in those days. They were between two fires. If they thwarted the government, they were dismissed, and if they annoyed the people they were impeached. Another complaint was made against Mr. Chief Justice Monk. He, it was alleged by the family of the late Francois Corbeil, had exceeded his authority, by issuing a warrant for the arrest and imprisonment of Corbeil, on a charge of treasonable practices, well knowing that such changes were notoriously false, and, by so doing, had accelerated or caused the death of Corbeil, the disease of which he died having been contracted while in prison. Mr. Samuel Sherwood also complained, on his own behalf, against the Chief Justice of Montreal. It appeared that he had been prosecuted and imprisoned for libel, in having burlesqued the pamphlet published and circulated by the Chief Justices in Montreal and Quebec, to show to the public and their friends that the impeachments against them had fallen through. At the trial for the libel, Mr. Chief Justice Monk presided. He seemed to be both prosecutor and judge. The jury box was packed. The court was specially held. The indictment against Sherwood had been framed on suspicion. In the pretended libel the name of James Monk was thirty times mentioned, and yet James Monk, in the character of Chief Justice, sat upon the Bench. He took a lively interest in the prosecution. He had fiercely assailed a member of the Bar, who had smiled during the reading of the indictment, and threatened to remember the smile in his address to the jury. Such an