ciple of religious equality. The Precursors are also instructed to furnish accurate details of the state of the franchise in each parish, and to assist in keeping up and extending the registry.

We may here mention Colonel Shaw's resignation of the office of inspector-general of the Irish Constabulary force. When the Irish Constabulary Bill was passing through Parliament, much objection was felt, in both Houses, to the transfer of the patronage from the hands of the local magistracy, who had theretofore ap pointed a part of the police force, into the sole power of the Lordlieutenant. However, it appears, that upon its being announced, that Colonel Kennedy had been selected for the office of Inspectorgeneral a gentleman, as free from exception on the score of party, as upon all other ground-the opposition to the proposed measure was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn. But, unfortunately, Colonel Kennedy did not long remain in the situation, which, with the concurrence of all parties, he had been invited to assume. He

tendered his resignation in the Spring of 1838, and it was, we know not how accurately, understood that he had been induced to take that step in consequence of some interference of the Irish Government in the department under his direction.

In reply to some questions which were asked by Sir Robert Peel, on the 23rd of March, upon the subject, Lord John Russell said, that he must decline to state the reasons of Colonel Kennedy's resignation, as the disclosure might lay the seeds of future discussions upon the subject which would be highly inconvenient. But, at the same time, he promised, that before a successor should be appointed, Colonel Kennedy, himself should be consulted respecting the general management of that force, and the possibility of improving it, and that the new Inspectorgeneral would be appointed on a similar principle to that which regulated Colonel Kennedy's nomination to the office, that is to say, personal fitness, without regard to party considerations.

T

com

enviable feelings that Lord Glenelg penned the despatch to Lord Durham which communicated the determination of ministers to annul his ordinance. After informing him, that so much of that edict as related to the Bermudas, was generally admitted to be invalid, he adds, that the law officers of the Crown were of opinion, that in all other respects its provisions were within the competency of the governor and special council. But, in consequence of the discussions in Parliament, and the extreme unpopularity of the penal parts of the ordinance, the government, pelled as they were to admit, that a portion of the ordinance, though comparatively unimportant, rested on no legal foundation, most reluctantly advised her Majesty to disallow the ordinance." Lord Durham is then directed, with a view to prevent the return of the Bermuda prisoners, to pass an ordinance subjecting them to such penalty, short of death, as may be thought expedient, in the event of their being convicted of returning to the province without permission. "With regard to those who had previously fled from justice, it might be sufficient, by proclama tion, or any other clear and unam

make it publicly known, that should they re-enter the province, they would be forthwith arrested, and dealt with according to law, on the charge of treason." The expediency of suspending the Habeas Corpus act is pointed out, as well of giving to such suspension as much publicity as possible. The despatch concludes with an assurance of the earnest desire of ministers to afford Lord Durham the utmost support in the discharge of his arduous duties-an assurance, it may be thought, of no great value in his eyes, after what had happened. But, before this letter reached its destination, Lord Durham had notified to Lord Glenelg his resolution to resign his office. The incessant persecutions to which he was exposed in the House of Lords, the backwardness of ministers in his defence, and the injurious effects of these circumstances upon the moral authority of his government, form the theme of a despatch of the 25th of September. Upon two things alone, he wrote, he could chiefly rely for ultimate suc cess. First, the great extent of the legal powers conferred upon him. Secondly, the impression, which prevailed throughout the colonies, that he might reckon,

with perfect confidence, on the undeviating support and approval of the government. By the proceedings in question, he was deprived of these, the only, but allsufficient grounds of confidence in his own exertions. The prestige of his situation was gone for ever. Under such circumstances, he felt, from the first, greatly tempted to resign an authority which appeared to have become inadequate to the emergency which alone had called it into existence. But he did not give way to despair; and had made up his mind to struggle on with his task, when an American newspaper made him acquainted with the proceedings in the House of Lords of the 7th, 9th, and 10th of August. "At present," says he, significantly, no other information on the subject has reached me." He, at once, therefore, resolved "on quitting a post which had been rendered untenable by those from whom he expected every possible assistance in maintaining it."

86

Shortly afterwards, Lord Durham forwarded to the colonial office a statement of the grounds, upon which he was prepared to maintain that no part of the ordinance was illegal, however inoperative it might, and must of necessity be, without assistance and co-operation at home. The despatch (28th September), containing the argument upon this subject, will be found in the Appendix, and is not undeserving of attention. In another state paper of the same date with the last mentioned, a part of which we subjoin, the governor-general enters, at great length, into an examination of the conduct of ministers in the late proceedings, and, as we think, very effectually disposes

of the question between them and himself.

"Your lordship informs me," says Lord Durham, "that her Majesty's government felt it their duty to offer a decided opposition to the second reading of the bill introduced by Lord Brougham; but in what, I venture to ask, did that opposition result? In a concession far more calculated, as it appears to me, to weaken my hands than would have been any vote of the House of Lords, in which, it is notorious, that her Majesty's government have never commanded a majority. A vote of the House of Lords, adverse to her Majesty's government, or merely condemnatory of any pro ceedings of mine, would have been considered almost as a matter of course in the present state of parties; and would, if it had been decidedly opposed by the ministers, have left my authority untouched, because it would have been attri buted to the mere party motives of a powerful opposition. Supposing that such a vote had passed, there would have remained the House of Commons, where. I am bound to presume, that a measure, decidedly opposed by her Majesty's ministers, would not have been adopted. In that case, the Parliamentary proceedings on this subject would but have resembled many others which have occurred of late years, and which have left the government unharmed by a hostile proceeding of the House of Lords. I should thus have suf fered no greater inconvenience than such as any government must be subject to, which is vigorously, and almost constantly, opposed by a majority in the Upper House. As respects these colonies, I do believe, that the inconvenience

would not have been very great. But, at all events, my acts and my authority would have been supported by the House of Commons and the Crown. How different is my actual position! In order to stop hostile proceedings in the House of Lords-(for, after your lordship's despatches, approving of all my measures, I can discover no other motive for the step)-her Majesty's ministers determine on advising the Crown to render abortive the most important act of my government. The Crown, therefore, whose representative I am, condemns me on the ground that I have acted illegally. But this is not all, the manner of the condemnation requires (at least, so it is supposed by those who advised it,) that I should be saved harmless from the consequence of the measure, which, whatever it may have been before, they render null and void. They imagine that I require such a shield; they think that, without it, the prisoners now in Bermuda, whom I refused to subject to the jurisdiction of such a tribunal as would assuredly have condemned them to death; whose property, as well as lives, I spared; whom I saved from the ignominy of transportation as convicts; whose parole of honour I took as sufficient security for their not at tempting to escape; that these men are to sue me for damages for such treatment. This is the opinion of her Majesty's ministers; and, therefore, having disallowed the ordinance, they support, in both Houses, the bill of indem nity. In addition to all this, the act requires that it should be proclaimed here; and I am thus compelled, unless I should instantly resign, to join in the condemnation that has been passed on me by the

Crown, the Lords, and the Commons. I may surely may be permitted to think, that adverse votes of the House of Lords would have been infinitely preferable to the course which has been taken, in order to avert that evil."

After this remonstrance against the conduct of ministers, Lord Durham proceeds to vindicate his own policy. With respect to the particular defect of the ordinance, which led to the disallowance of the whole, he contends, for reasons given in the last despatch, that he had power to banish people from the province, to keep them in custody during the transit, and to land them at Bermuda, or elsewhere; but he admits, that, as he well knew throughout, his jurisdiction did not extend further. Once landed in Bermuda, the prisoners were subject only to the laws of the island. It was known that they could be forcibly detained within the precincts of Bermuda, only by provisions to be made for the purpose by the legislature of the island, or by the Imperial Parliament. The words of the ordinance, which authorised her Majesty to impose restraints in that island, could give her no power which she did not antecedently possess. They were, it might be admitted, mere surplusage. But did it follow, that because they were inoperative, that the entire instrument containing them, became, ipso facto, illegal? Or, supposing some such technical necessity to arise, as lawyers alone could have discovered, was it not merely a technical necessity, and was it not the duty of the government to take care that a great and beneficent purpose should not be frustrated by any error which they could