ENGLISH NEWS.

New Zealand Herald and Auckland Gazette, Volume I, Issue 46, 26 January 1842, Page 2

ENGLISH NEWS.

RESIGNATION OF THE MINISTRY. House of Lords, August 30. Lord Melbourne announced the resignation of Ministers in the following terms:— “ My Lords, I consider it my duty to acquaint your Lordships, that in consequence of the vote which was come to by the other House of Parliament on Saturday morning last, which was precisely similar in terms to a vote came to by your Lordships at an earlier period of the week, I have, on the part of my colleagues and myself, tendered to her Majesty the resignation of the offices we hold; which resignation her Majesty has been graciously pleased to accept; and we now continue to hold those offices only till our successors are appointed.”

House of Lords, August 30. Lord Marcus Hill appeared at the bar of the House of Commons, and read the following answer to the Address:—

“It is the greatest satisfaction to me to find that the House of Commons are deeply sensible ol the importance of those considerations to which I directed their attention in reference to the commerce aud revenue of the country, and the laws which regulate the trade in corn ; and that in deciding on the course which it may be desirable to pursue, it will be their earnest desire to consult the welfare of all classes of my subjects. “ Ever anxious to listen to the advice 0 f my Parliament, I will take immediate measures for the formation of a new Administration.”

Shortly after, Lord John Russell rose to address the House, which was at that time very much crowded. He stated that, in consequence of the division on Friday night, Ministers had tendered their resignations to the Queen; bv whom they had been accepted. Very briefly recapitulating the events which had led to Ministers* resignation, and abstaining from arguments to show why they were justified in prolonging the struggle up to that point, Lord John said that they had only done so from tne conviction of the duty which they owed to the Sovereign whose confidence they enjoyed, He would not say that while they had power to benefit the country, they held office with reluctance; but—

“l do not think the possession of power in this country can be accompanied with satisfaction, unless there are means of carrying into effect the measures which Ministers feel essential to the welfare of the country. I do not allude now to particular measures of less or minor importance, but to measures of greater and transcendent moment. With regard to such measures, we began, in the commencement of Lord Grey’s Administration, with the Reform Act; we ended by proposing for the freedom of commerce. With large ana important measures we conclude. In pursuance of great objects we triumphed, in the pursuance of great objects we have been defeated.

The leading members of the Whig Government had not abused the power which they had possessed—

“ Earl Grey, in the first year of the Reform Bill, enjoyed great and unexampled popularity ; Lord Melbourne, as first Minister of William the Fourth, became, at the accession of the present Queen, the adviser of a Princess who came to the Throne at the earliest period at which by law it was allowable to exercise the power of sovereignty ; and therefore it became his duty to offer that advice and give that information which a Queen without experience could not be supposed to have, and which was received with the confidence and reliance that became the frank and generous nature of the Royal person now on the Throne. Now, I will venture to say, that neither of these powersneither the great powers of popularity which were enjoyed by the Ministry of Earl Grey, nor the power and favor of the Sovereign enjoyed by the others, owing to the circumstances in which Lord Melbourne was placed—was ever abused by either of them. On the contrary, while fault has been found with both of them for not having proposed measures which it was said at the time, would be more to their advantage and the security of their power, they both have shown great forbearance, and a great desire to preserve untouched and unimpaired the constitution of the country and the prerogatives of the Crown.

Lord John then turned to considerations per^ 1 sonally affecting himself—- “ YYith respect to the merits of the measures which I have proposed, or of the measures which I carried into effect, I will not now enter into any dispute; all I wish to observe is, that I have endeavored, to the|best of my power and ability, to exercise such judgment as I possess for the promotion of the best interests of the country, and of the Sovereign whom I serve, and whom I had the honor to advise. Sir, this House has decided at the very commencement of the session that it will take measures for directing the attention of the Executive to the measures alluded to in Her Majes'y’s speech. I can only say, that although that decision may call upon us to give our opposition to measures to which we cannot give our approval, I am sure that in all the future consultations of the House, I shall be ever ready to give that advice to the House which I think will best promote its object, which will tend to secure to it the affections of the people of the United Kingdom, and conduce to the welfare and prosperity of the great empire of which this House is the centre and representative.”

He hoped that political opposition had engendered no personal animosity. Lord John concluded by moving the adjournment of the House till Monday.

Lord Stanley avowed, in the name of every member in the House, a cordial participation in Lord John’s hope that no personal hostility remained—

“ As I feel it mv duty to claim for myself, and for every gentleman who has thought it his duty to oppose the noble lord, a belief on the part of the House that we have acted on conscientious motives and no ethers, so 1 fully give to the noble lord credit for being influenced by no other consideration but that sense of duty which, to a man of his high honor, must be paramount to every other feeling. No one can have regarded with any sentiment but one of high admiration, the distinguished zeal and perseverance, and the ability and talent, with which, whether in the immediate and peculiar duties of his own department or in conducting the public business in the House, the noble lord lias performed his very arduous and difficult task.’’

Lord Stanley wished to set right a matter to which Lord John had incidentally alluded. He denied that the Government measures had been submitted to the decision of the House; the House had last session pronounced unequivocally that the policy of the Ministry had failed as a whole ; and when Ministers again come before Parliament they were not in a position to submit particular measures for consideration. That they were not to be construed to have done so, was obvious from the reception met with by the Address.; which was opposed by persons who agreed in the part re ating to the Budget, while it was supported by otters who, like Lord Worsley, disapproved of t e Government proposals. Lord Stanley expressed his regret that the Speech was so framed as to be liable to misconstruction with regard to the sentiments of the Queen; but he again repeated his expressions of respect for Lord John’s gharacter and of admiration for his talents. Lord John Russell disavowed the construction which had been put upon the speech. He was sorry that there should any where exist such a misconception as that to which the noble lord had alluded, to the effect that the Speech delivered from the Throne was to be regarded as a Speech from the Sovereign, and not as the Speech constitutionally advised by her Ministers. He thought that it was so generally known that the Speech from the Throne was advised by Ministers, on their responsibility, that he was surprised such a misconception could exist; but that it might not con-

tinue to exist—if, indeed, it did exist—he would at once state that the Speech was the advice of Ministers, and that they alone were responsible it. Lord John’s motion was agreed to. THE CASE OF ALEX. M'LEOD.—MEETING OF THE COLONIAL SOCIETY. Yesferday a general meeting of the members of the Colonial Society took place, at the Society’s Club House, St. James’ square, in conformity with the request of the North American Colonial Committee, for the purpose of considering the cruel and unjust imprisonment and intended trial of Mr. M'Leod, in the state of New York. The Right Hon. Earl Mountcashel was called to the chair. The chairman observed, that it fell to his lot to lay before the meeting the steps which were advised to be taken by the North American Committee in reference to the arbitrary detention of Mr. M'Leod by the United States. They considered that although late, great blame would attach to the Colonial Society, did they not take up this most important question which involved not only the life of a British subject, but also many serious considerations in a political point of view. The North American committee had drawn up certain resolutions expressing strongly the feelings which they entertained upon the subject. They considthat the Colonial Society ought not to bebackward, however such an impression might exist in the public mind, in proving to the people of the United States that the cause of Mr. M'Leod was not forgotten in England, although the feelings of the English people were not expressed so loudly and clamorously as the people of the United States might expect. (Hear.) The trial of Mr. M'Leod was fixed for the 19th of the ensuing month, only twenty days from that time, and therefore no time was to be lost. The people of the state of New York were, in opposition to the declaration of Great Britain that the burning of the Caroline was an act of her government, and in opposition to the declaration to the laws of nations, about to bring an innocent man to trial on a charge of murder. The committee felt that, having delayed so long, they ought to be determined to use every means in their power to obtain Mr. M'Leod’s release. (Hear hear.) He felt it was not his (the noble chairman’s) province to dilate upon the conduct of the United States’ Government; but he considered it had been exceedingly imprudent and unjust. It might be said that Congress wished to excuse themselves, under the plea that they had not the power to interfere with the special laws of each independent state, and that therefore they could not prevent the government of New York bringing Mr. M'Leod to trial. His (the noble chairman’s) reply to that was, they might not so interfere ; but when it was recollected that Mr. M'Leod had been in confinement eight months, and that during that time Congress had been sitting, and the subject debated, they might have remedied the evil. Had the Government of the United States been willing to meet the case fairly —to have done justice to Mr. M'Leod, and at the same time to Great Britain, they could have passed an act of the Legislature for his release—(hear, hear.) This would have been their most fair and proper course, but which they had tried to work out of in a most unsatisfactory manner. With the general govern ment, and with the general government of the U. States alone, rested the power of peace or war, and not with individual states. If so, they ought not to permit an individual state to commit acts which would involve the whole in war—(hear.) The noble chairman here referred to the conduct of the Diet of Switzerland in similar cases, to show that the committal of a wrong by an individual canton was not to be tolerated. Some years since the northern states of Carolina committed an aggression, anddidnot the general government send troops and remedy the evil ? (Hear, hear.) If Congress had been sincere, they might also have done so in the present instance, and thus have saved the peace of Europe, which he had great fear would be endangered. He believed that all well-wishers to the United States or to this country must hope to see war averted, (Hear, hear.) It appeared from what had recently taken place in the House of Commons, that the government of the United States and the government of this country perfectly understood one another, and Lord Palmerston asserts that the life of Mr. M'Leod is safe. If this was the fact, what a delusfon was being practised. Was there to be a mock trial? He (Earl Mountcashel) was of opinion Mr. M'Leod would be tried, and that he would not be acquitted. Not that he believed that he could not prove an alibi, but that thirty or forty witnesses would be brought against him who would swear to anything. Supposing the American government were to save tiis life, it would not be very gratifying either to the individual or this country, which had been treated with so much contempt. If Mr. M'Leod were acquitted, he should not be the least surprised to hear that he had become a victim to mob law. Under such circumstances, ought England to accept the sorrow of the Ameri:an government, or ought not they to hold that government responsible ? (Hear, hear.) The noble chairman pro-

ceeded at considerable length to show the inevitable result of war in the event of the condemnation of Mr. M'Leod, and the disastrous consequences which must ensue to America should such an occurrence take place. He, however, wished to meet the government of the United States in peace and amity, yet determinedly to demand that justice should be done to an injured British subject, and the insult which had been offered to the British Crown repaired.

Sir D. M'Dougall moved a series of resolutions to the effect “ that the society had refrained from giving public expression to their feelings with respect to the unjust detention of Mr. M'Leod in the United States, in consequence of a well-grounded expectation that every succeeding packet would have conveyed the intelligence of that gentleman’s release, more especially as the Queen’s Government had communicated with the Government of the United States in terms the most distinct and unequivocal, that the attack and capture of the Caroline was approved of and justified by the British Crown. That such attack and capture having taken place under the order and authority of the Queen’s representative in Upper Canada, and the approval of that act having been officially announced to the Government of the United States by her Majesty’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the opinion of the society it is in direct opposition to all international law and to the usage of civilization to hold Mr. M'Leod or any individual personally responsible for an act committed under the orders of his own Government. The society now learning that this innocent British subject is not only ignominiously detained in prison, but that his trial by a foreign court and jury has been finally determined upon they no longer refrain from giving expression to the strong feelings they entertain in respect to this unprecedented outrage. That as the allegiance of the subject and the protection of the monarch are reciprocal duties, the society is assured, in the event of the commission of the atrocity contemplated towards Mr. M'Leod by the state of New York, that their beloved and gracious Queen will direct the energies and resources of the empire over which her Majesty rules, in vindication of a national wrong, which, if suffered with impunity, would leave our numerous and widely-dispersed colonists at the mercy of every lawless and unprincipled aggressor, and thus endanger the safety, peace, welfare, and honor of her Majesty’s possessions.” As an old soldier he felt keenly the situation of Mr. M'Leod, for had he been at the burning of the Caroline, which he denied, he dared not to have disobeyed the order of the Governor without subjecting himself to a court martial for mutiny and as a traitor. The Government of the United States agreed with the .British Government that it was a matter between themselves. But this comparatively petty state of New Y r ork set itself up in opposition to the whole of the civilized world. He had received that day a letter from Montreal, which expressed no doubt but M'Leod would not only be tried but found guilty, asthere were at New York a number ot Canadian refugees, whose antipathy to England was such that they would swear any thing. If they did commit such an outrage, he hoped England would not only let slip the dogs of war, but do it with determination, for they should be waging war with a nation of murderers, and not with Christian men. If the conduct of Mr. M'Leod by the United States was just, then would it have been equally so for Denmark, after the battle of Copenhagen, to have served the brave Nelson and his gallant followers the same. He believed, however, that our beloved Queen had a feeling for her own rights as Sovereign, and would not permit an injustice to be done to her subject, however humble he might be. (Cheers,) Sir Augustus D’Este seconded the resolutions, Mr. M. Martin observed, that this was not a case of local interest, hut applied to every portion of the British dominions, It certainly excited in him a feeling of deep surprise and regret that a government of one of the United States should have been petty enough to seize upon an unfortunate individual because he had performed a duty to his Sovereign. This was not a party question, but he must say that blame did attach to the late government that they did not earlier take the responsibility of the act of destroying the Caroline upon themselves. If M'Leod was brought to trial, it was derogatory to the character of England, for it was virtually the Crown of England itself that was put upon its trial. Such a course they had met to reprobate, and he hoped they would do so firmly. The hon. gentleman proceeded to quote the New York Enquirer and other American publications to show that England having declared that the burning of the Caroline was her act, and not that of an individual, they had no right whatever to detain or bring Mr. M'Leod to trial. He concluded by supporting the motion. Mr. Lyall,jun., the Hon. Mr. King, Mr. Lyard, and several other gentlemen addressed the meeting ; and it was agreed that the resolutions of remonstrance should be forwarded immediately to the Congress of the United States. Thanks were then unanimously voted to the noble Chairman, who having briefly returned thanks, the meeting separated.— Times,