TOPICS OF THE DAY.

LORD DURHAM AND THE MINISTERS.

Is Lord DURHAM justified in resigning ? This question is not discussed, but decided in the negative, by the Ministerial jour- nals, daily and weekly : for they have been at pains to insinuate, what they dare not openly declare, that the Governor-General

was moved by personal pique, and displayed want of patriotism and magnanimity, in throwing up his appointment. He ought, in south, to have despised the factious attempts of " Lord BROUGHAM and the Tories" to annoy him by curtailing his power and dignity : he should have kept the even tenor of his way, re- BROUGHAM and the Tories" to annoy him by curtailing his power and dignity : he should have kept the even tenor of his way, re- gardless of assailants, and confident in the approbation (though he lacked the effectual support) of Ministers, and of his Royal M is' ress.

Fine words, no doubt !—Lord DURHAM would not, merely be- cause his pride and personal feelings were wounded, have been

justified in throwing up the government of Canada before the ful- filment of his mission. But he is justified, if he feels, on the one band, his powers inadequate to cope with the exigencies of his government in the spirit of a peacemaker and redresser of wrongs, and fears, on the other hand, that a crisis of sheer sword-govern- ment is approaching, where the benevolent statesman must give

way to the stern soldier, and deeds will be done not only incon- sistent with the habits of his life and the views with which he entered upon the great task, but of a kind to render all his future efforts as an impartial mediator and reforming lawgiver unavailing and hopeless.

How stand the facts? Nobody disputes that unusual powers were needed for the Governor during the suspension of the ordi- nary Legislature. In every community occasions for legislation

arise. But it may be doubted whether Lord DURHAM and his Council had really any legislative power. Clause 3d of the "Act

to make temporary provision for the Government of Lower Ca- nada" empowers the Governor and Council "to make such laws or ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of the said province of Lower Canada, as the Legislature of Lower Ca- nada as now constituted is empowered to make;" but the proviso tacked to the same clause, on Sir WILLIAM FoLLETr's motion, says it shall not " be lawful by any such law or ordinance to repeal, suspend, or alter any provision of any act of Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or of any act of the Legislature of Lower Canada as now constituted, repeal-

ing or altering any such act of Parliament" This may be called a " nullifying " clause. It reduces the legislative power of the

Governor and Council to almost nothing. Who would undertake the simplest measure of public improvement clogged with the condition of not touching any provision of any act of the British Parliament ? What was Lord DURHAM sent to Canada for, if not to supersede the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council ? But his authority was infinitely less than theirs. The acts of the suspended Legislature of Lower Canada might be set aside by the English Government, but there was no peremptory prohibi- tion of measures unaccordant with English laws. The Canadian Legislature was not fettered as Lord DURHAM was fettered. Yet, with authority less than that given to the smallest local corpora- tion in England, he was expected to remodel the internal polity of the province, and to effect the most extensive changes and im- provements! It is mentioned in the Canada newspapers, that even the power to impose a lighting-rate for Montreal is not possessed by the Governor and Council : and this seems a true construction, for the Act declares that no new " tax, duty, rate, or impost '' shall be made by the Governor and Council, though old ones may be continued.

Now, when Lord DURHAM found that a majority in the House of Lords were resolved to construe strictly and apply generally the restrictive clauses of the Act, especially that which goes by the name of " Sir William Follett's proviso," the conviction was irresistible that his mission was at an end. For instance, he

hid prepared a measure for improving the system of tenures: but

what said the proviso ?—it forbade him to "repeal, suspend, or a'ter" any existing English law. So there he is stopped in his attempt to abolish the feudal tenures, (a barbarous and

injurious custom of French origin, but almost universally con- demned by French natives as well as by English settlers); for the

system is sanctioned by the Canada Act of the British Parlia-

ment. He could not bestow the benefits of self-government, cum- pried in a system of free municipal institutions ; for would not

some new rate or impost be required ? Whichever way he turned some new rate or impost be required ? Whichever way he turned be met with glaring obstacles ; and the concealed rocks on which he might he wrecked were innumerable. For who could affirm that his most cautious acts would not clash with "any provision of any act of the Parliament of Great Britain ? "—yet if they in- terfered with any line in any page of the Statutes at Large, they were illegal.

The Canada Coercion Act was passed before Lord DURHAM went away ; and he ought to have been aware of the limitation of his powers. But he was deluded by the grandiose terms in which

the Downing Street intriguers spoke of his Dictatorship : he pointed to his commission as his authority, and was flattered into the belief that he was really made Dictator of Canada ; whereas be was actually a smaller potentate, as regards the amount and extent of authority, than the Governor of St. Lucia or Swan River. He only awoke from his dream of greatness when the

proceedings of Parliament respecting the Ordinances reached him ; and then he discovered that his authority was " Made- quote" for the purposes of his government. Under these circum- stances, and wit h this conviction, he had no choice but to resign.

The Morning Chronicle pretends that the assurances of sup- port and esteem which the announcement of his resignation im- mediately called forth, ought to satisfy Lord DURHAM that his authority is not " weakened." But even if the testimonials re- ferred to were universal,—and the contrary is the fact as regards

the great bulk of the people to be conciliated and ruled,—could

they alter an act of Parliament, make that legal which the law prohibited, or rescind the Linda' censure of the Governor's pro- ceedings? Unless such were the effect of popular addresses in Canada, Lord DURHAM S authority would be in no way extended, or his position at all improved, by the demonstrations, whose real value the Chronicle absurdly overrates.

When Lord Dunn Am ascertained that the act of last session, as interpreted by the hostile majority in the Lords—whose interpreta-

tion Ministers acquiesced in—was insufficient in its powers, he had no alternative but to resign ; but the Ministers might have given a totally different turn to the whole affair. Their own Law Offi-

cers declared the Ordinances illegal on account of the banishment of NELSON and his compatriots to Bermuda ; and the Tory lawyers, supported by a majority of the Lords. interpreted Sir

WILLIAM FOLLETT'S proviso so as to reduce Lord DURHAM'S authority to a shadow. Now what course would Ministers pos- sessed of ordinary talent, or of the spirit of gentlemen, have taken in such circumstances?

They would have declared themselves responsible to Parlia- ment for any stretch of his powers by the Governor-General, seeing that his conduct commanded their entire approbation. They would have said—" We sent Lord DURHAM to Canada for purposes which he is ably, and to us satisfactorily, following out.

He is acting in conformity with the instructions he received from us. If blame attaches in any quarter, it is to the Queen's Minis- ters ; and we are ready to bear Lord DURH AM harmless. But it

is plain that the Act which Lord DURH AM was induced on our assurance to take as his sufficient authority, falls short of the emergency of the case. Increased powers are needed. Pray grant them. If you withhold them, we must resign."

To this issue PITT, FOX, PERCEVAL, CASTLEREAGH, CANNINC, WELLINGTON, or GREY would have brought the question. But Viscount MELBOURNE and his colleagues joined with their absent

colleague's "bitter foes in striking at his head." They betrayed, deserted, insulted him. They saw Lord DURHAM bound hand and

foot; and they assisted in riveting his fetters, instead of restoring

him to liberty. Who can believe, that if they had taken the initiative in the application—with the erect bearing of men of

straightforward purpose and manly spirit—they would have

failed in obtaining more extensive powers from Parliament? But whether they could, or could not have obtained the requisite powers, one thing is clear as daylight—they ought to have tried; tried in earnest, not by a sham motion feebly made and readily withdrawn ; and in the event of failure, to have gone out of egfce.

Then, indeed, there might have been meaning in the imputation that " Lord BROUGHAM and the Tories" had factiously thwarted Lord DURHAM. Then the blame of the first blunder only would have been chargeable on the Ministers; and the attempt to rectify it would have been duly appreciated.

But their conduct throughout has been consistent in meanness. Lord DURHAM had scarcely sailed when attacks on his subordi- nate appointments commenced; and how did the Ministers defend them? That is well known. What ought to have been the reply to Lord WINCHILSE A, and Lord DURHAM'S other assailants?

"My Lords," a manly Premier would have said, " the High Com-

missioner to Canada is responsible for these appointments; it was his province to make them; he, in the mean time, is the best judge of their fitness; and I shall not presume to interfere in limine with the exercise of his discretion." But Lord Mutat:maws at first pretended ignorance of Lord DtritHAm's intentions, though he was all along cognizant of them; and then joined in the hypo- critical condemnation. Thus, he encouraged the attack be should

have indignantly repelled. For the premature close, then, of Lord DURHAM'S mission, these Ministers, and they alone, are to blame. When an alteration in a Government measure, proposed by an Independent or Opposition

Member, is adopted by the Government, the amendment becomes the Government's, as much as any original clause. There is no compulsion in the case. They may take it or

reject it ; and if the altered measure, as a whole, is forced upon them by the Parliament, the alternative of resignation is always theirs. Rather than accept Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT 's proviso, or

Lord BROUGHAM'S Indemnity Bill unaccompanied with a mea- sure to render future Indemnity Bills unnecessary, Lord MEL- BOURNE might have resigned : inasmuch as he kept office, and adopted the measure of the Opposition, he became not merely a consenting party to, but a principal in, the injury inflicted on Lord DURHAM. Look at the Premier's acts, and then rate at their just value the swaggering. speeches quoted by the Morning Chronicle ; which only prove that Lord MELBOURNE was aware of the mischief of his own conduct, and the depth of the wrong and insult he inflicted on the absent. Gover or of Canada. Lord JOHN RUSSELL also could talk bravely, and make fine protesta- tions ; but he too is one of the precious " f iends " by whose Lord DURHAM was " put down " and " sacrificcd."