te was maintained by the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Wellington, and
other opposition peers on the one hand, and Lord Melbourne and the lord
chancellor on the other. The two ex-chancellors made themselves very
remarkable on this occasion, Lord Brougham manifesting the utmost
excitement, and the most bitter personal hostility to Lord Durham,
to whose instrumentality he attributed his being overlooked by Lord
Melbourne in his cabinet arrangements. Lord Lyndhurst did the excellent
qualities of Lord Durham justice, and displayed a calmness in debate
which contrasted strikingly with the irritability and personalities of
Lord Brougham. The debate brought forcibly to light the disposition of
Lord Durham to carry matters with a high hand in his new government,
and his deficiency in that wariness and prudence so essential to a chief
governor. After a few remarks from Lord Brougham, the bill was read
a second time by a majority of fifty-four against thirty-six. On the
following day Lord Melbourne informed the house that ministers had
resolved to advise the queen to disallow of the whole ordinance. It was
with the deepest regret and alarm that they had taken this course; nor
was it without the greatest apprehension of the consequences that they
had come to this determination. His lordship then intimated his approval
of the indemnity bill, and that he should in a future stage of the
proceedings move a clause explanatory of Sir William Follett's proviso.
Lord Brougham commended ministers for their "judicious, wise, politic,
and most virtuous resolution." The Duke of Wellington was by no means
inclined to sanction Lord Melbourne's proposed explanation of the
proviso: Sir John Colborne had acted under the law as it stood, and
must have found it sufficient for the purpose. The Marquis of Lansdowne
remarked, that if the noble lords opposite acquiesced in the mode in
which Sir John Colborne had exercised his authority; if they admitted
that he had not exceeded the law, Lord Melbourne's proposed clause would
be unnecessary. That gentleman had been permitted to pass an act
of attainder, which had lain unnoticed on the table for six weeks.
Ministers only claimed for Lord Durham the power which was conceded to
his predecessor: he desired to know whether Sir John Colborne had acted
in conformity with the law. Lord Brougham replied, that Lord Durham's
powers were coextensive with those of Sir John Colborne; but as to
whether or not that officer h