part of the ordinance was illegal, however imperative it might, and must
of necessity be without assistance and co-operation at home. In another
paper, of the same date, he entered at great length into an examination
of the conduct of ministers in the late proceedings, arraigning them
with great severity for deserting him in the hour of need. He asked,
"in what their opposition to the second reading of Lord Brougham's bill
consisted? In a concession far more calculated 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." His
lordship added, "A vote of the house of lords adverse to her majesty's
government, or merely condemnatory of any proceedings 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
attributed to the mere party motives of a powerful opposition." After
remonstrating against the conduct of ministers, Lord Durham proceeded
to vindicate his policy. As regarded the particular defect of the
ordinance, his lordship contended 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. At the same time his lordship
admitted that his jurisdiction did not extend further: once landed in
Bermuda, the prisoners were subject only to the laws of the island.
Lord Durham, after justifying his policy, made some remarks on the
impossibility of governing the country with any effect; and then
proceeded to consider Lord Glenelg's suggestions of the course which it
was advisable to adopt in the present emergency. His lordship treated
the suggestion of another ordinance, banishing from the province the
eight persons who had been sent to Bermuda, as futile; and stated that
he had strong objections to the suspension of the _habeas corpus_. He
remarked:--"Men's notions of right and freedom would be more shocked at
such an universal violation of every man's dearest rights, than by any
summary process adopted for the punishment of the undeniable guilt of
a few. In the event of a general outbreak, it might be proper that the
government should be armed with the power of arresting objects of its
suspicion without trial. But there existed no such necessity at present;
and he did not thin