Читать книгу Canada and its Provinces - Various - Страница 8

Table of Contents

Lord Durham’s relations with Lord Melbourne had not been of the happiest. The appointment of Turton and the association of Wakefield’s name with the mission added to Melbourne’s troubles in parliament. But the final thrust was the disallowance of Durham’s Ordinance of June 28. In the House of Lords an attack was made on the ordinance by Lord Brougham, who was actuated by personal bitterness, and by Lord Ellenborough. The main argument was that Durham had exceeded the powers of his commission in banishing prisoners to Bermuda and in threatening them with capital punishment should they return. The method by which Nelson’s statement was secured, the meeting of the Special Council, the three readings at a single sitting, were all subjected to criticism. Brougham’s ground was well chosen, and united both radicals and tories against the government. Durham’s defence by Glenelg and Melbourne was weak and half-hearted, and only in the Commons, where Lord John Russell entered the lists, was any genuine attempt made to justify Lord Durham. Brougham proposed a bill of indemnity, which was accepted by Melbourne, and on the advice of the ministry the ordinance was disallowed. It must be admitted that it was very difficult to justify Durham’s ordinance on legal grounds, but if the government had appealed to the generosity of the house, and had called upon patriotic grounds for the support of Durham, the legal difficulties might have been overcome by legislation.

Melbourne’s betrayal of Lord Durham is utterly unpardonable. If the offer of the Canadian mission to Durham were a scheme to liberate the ministers from a dangerous antagonist or a formidable rival, time has avenged Melbourne’s Machiavellian treachery. If the prime minister were honest and sincere in his appointment of Lord Durham, it was his duty to afford him every assistance within the power of the government. In minor details Lord Durham may have exceeded the powers of his office, but his conduct most assuredly permitted of defence. The peculiar character of the situation demanded exceptional treatment. A problem had arisen of which every strictly constitutional solution was open to serious objection. Lord Durham, by his exercise of the prerogative, obtained an agreement, considered at the time thoroughly satisfactory, and trusted to the sound judgment of those who had sent him to effect its ratification. Had he sentenced the prisoners to a penal colony his act would have been entirely constitutional, but for his humanity and consideration of the interests of the prisoners he was condemned. It was unfortunate that in reporting the passing of the ordinance a detailed explanation of the situation which had produced it was not given. The situation was one which required special defence, and it is regrettable that the most complete information had not been afforded to the ministry.

The news of the disallowance of the ordinance came to Lord Durham as a bolt from the blue. ‘He had received a bag with letters and despatches from England containing an account of the reception of the Ordinances, with private letters from Melbourne, Lord Glenelg and others, rejoicing over the manner in which the difficult affair of the Prisoners had been settled, and bidding him “go on and prosper” with other expressions of unqualified approbation. There was also a letter from the Queen to me, in answer to those we had written on her Coronation day expressing her thanks and her satisfaction at all that was going on.’^[1] The conviction that he had been ruthlessly betrayed, that the great work on which he had set his heart had been wantonly destroyed, overcame him with grief and despair. Deserted by his friends and discredited before those amongst whom his duties were to be performed, no alternative seemed open but resignation. His decision to resign was made at once, and in it he persisted despite the protests of Buller. His secretary advocated a much more daring scheme. Although his chances of success were greatly diminished, still his determination to bring the issue to a successful close might well, in Buller’s opinion, have overcome even these new obstacles. Ultimate success would justify his refusal to regard seriously the censure of his colleagues. But other reasons weighed heavily in Durham’s view. His health had been undermined, and he felt unequal to such a herculean task.