TOPICS OF TH E DAY.

THE COERCION BILL OF THE MELBOURNE MINISTRY.

THE Canada question has started all at once into great impor- tance. Notwithstanding bureaucratic arts which seek to present the subject in a trivial point of view, and overloaded with a mass of colonial details which can never be understood by the people of this country—devices for inducing the British public carelessly to surrender their judgment on this matter to the mere authority of Downing Street—yet the truth has come out; the leading features of the case are perceived; all the tyranny of the Government measure is understood by many ; a degenerate Russets, inviting power to destroy a free constitution, has awakened the old English lcve of liberty; Irish sympathies have been aroused in behalf of a conquered people, whose cry for " justice " is met by " coercion;" and, lastly, mere party politi- cians—men incapable of generous and noble sympathies—are moved to examine a question which involves the character, the credit, the moral influence, and it may be the existence, of the present Government. Lord Gnev's Ministry committed suicide with its Coercion Bill : this, it is seen, may prove the Coercion Bill, the self-inflicted death-blow of the MELBOURNE Administration. So, rare event in our politics! the concerns Isla distant and help- less colony are the topic of the day. This whole case turns upon the necessary indifference of the mother-country to the local affairs of a colony. The principle was fully understood by our ancestors ; and they never displayed .their wisdom more, than by a thorough comprehension of the justice and expediency of bestowing upon distant colonies the in- estimable boon of local self-government. They perceived that government from a distance was sure to be bad; and for this simple reason—that an authority distant from its subjects, must necessarily, because of the distance, be careless of their well- being. They were aware that a different locality, involving diffe- rent circumstances, different objects, and, though not contradic- tory, still distinctly separate interests, requited a special local authority for local purposes ; and that the government of the mother-country was no more fit to rule within the colony, than the government of the colony was fit to rule within the mother- country. Accordingly we find, as respects all the old English colonies without exception, that the mother-country reserved to herself no other powers than those which related to matters of common or general interest—such as questions of peace or war with foreign nations—but bestowed upon the colony, from the very outset of its career, a thoroughly sovereign power with re- gard to objects purely local or colonial. Every one of our thirteen great colonies, now United States of North America, enjoyed local self-government, and, above all, the sole power of raising and appropriating taxes in the colony. Not reckoning the penal settlementu of Australia as colonies, and with the exception of some quite recent settlements in that part of the world, there never was an English colony—that is, a colony founded by the Anglo-Saxon race—which did not enjoy this power. This power was given to them all, because it was not to be expected that the people of the mother-country should know or care about the foe l affairs of a colony.

Nor, except when the government of the mother-country has attempted to deprive a colony of this power, have the people of the mother-country ever known or cared about the local affairs of a colony. The exceptions of an English interest in colonial matters, prove the rule of general indifference. The grand case of exception was GEORGE the Third's disregard of all the principles and practice of our old colonial system, when he sought to levy taxes in the English colonies of North America ; and this is another case of exception. Such attempts are apt to cost us blood and treasure; and therefore they obtain our attention. Besides blood and treasure, the folly or wickedness of GEORGE the Third cost us the colonies whose charters of local self-govern- ment were invaded by the rulers of the mother-country. The parallel may hold good throughout. Until we had thus thrown away our thirteen great colonies of North America, there had been no such thing, because there was no call for any such thing, as a Colonial Office in Downing Street. The American war, of which the object was to rule colo- nies from Downing Street, established a Colonial Office, and left us nothing else. Then it was, in order perhaps to find occupation for the novel nuisance of a colonial department at home, that we set about seizing the colonies of other nations. Chartered colo- nies, it had been found, would not submit to government from Downing Street ; but conquered colonies—colonies not planted by the English race, but emanating from despotic states—having no

charters or constitutions of local self-government, but accustomed to government from a distance, which is another term for oppres- sions—such feeble and slavish communities would nicely serve the purposes of those who had invented a Colonial Office. Hence "the Crown Colonies"— which means colonies obtained by con- quest, and remaining without any charter or constitution of local government—governed in all things by Downing Street. We will venture to say that there are nut fifty Members of the House of Commons, nor a thousand persons in all England, who have any notion of the difference between a Crown colony and a Char- tered one: so indifferent are the people of this country about colonial matters—so conclusive is the argument for letting colo- pies manage their own merely colonial affairs without interference

from the Crown or Parliament of the mother-country.

The greater part of the colonies which we obtained by conquest, vegetate without any local constitution. This has been the ge- neral rule with respect to conquered colonies. But an exception was made in favour of French Canada. In 1791, the Legislature of this country gave the French Canadians a constitution—a fundamental law, a bill of rights, a veritable magna charta. This Canadian constitution was intended to resemble that of Eng- land. It consists of a King, with the title of Governor : of a Privy Council, called the Executive Council ; of a House of Lords, called the Legislative Council ; and of a House of Commons, called the Legislative Assembly. The Governor and the two Councils are appointed by Downing Street; the Legislative Assembly is elected by the people, and closely resembles the British House of Com- mons in another most important particular—that is, in being the sole master of the public purse. The very basis of this colonial constitution, as of our own, is an absolute right in the represen- tative assembly to grant and to withhold supplies. CHARLES JAMES Fox said at the time, that this constitution would not work well. He remembered probably, as the ignorant House of Commons was informed by Mr. LABOUC HERE on Wednes- day night, that in those colonial constitutions which had worked best in America, the Councils as well as the Assembly were elected by the people, and, in not a few instances, the Governor also. He ap- pears to have felt that there was too much of Downing Street in the Canadian constitution. The Governor and the Councils really mean Downing Street. Considering that the Colonial Minister of Eng_ land, and one of the two Under-Secretaries, are changed about once a year, (we have had seven of each in little more than seven years,) the Governor and Councils of Lower Canada really mean the permanent Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office ; whose name just now is JAMES STEPHEN. The British public ought to thank us for this curious piece of information on a colonial sub- ject ;—but revenons a nos moutons. Well, precisely as Mr. Fox foretold, many differences and disputes have taken place between Downing Street in Westminster and the Canadian House of Commons. It was impossible that they should not take place, considering, first, what government from a distance is; and, se- condly, that the ignorance and indifference of the people of this country with respect to colonial matters, renders the Colonial Office in Downing Street—or let us say just now Mr. STEPHEN—as completely irresponsible as the Grand Turk himself. No, stay— even Downing Street has some responsibility under the Canadian constitution; or rather, that fundamental law of the colony con- tains some check upon the proverbial corruption and tyranny of irresponsible authority. In a word, the Colonial Assembly is en- titled to refuse supplies ! The large infusion of Downing Street in the Canadian constitution was deliberately counterbalanced by bestowing this right upon the people of the colony. They have exercised this invaluable right ; and therefore a RUSSELL pro- poses to deprive them of it. To use terms which will find an echo in every true English breast, it is for "a redress of grievances" that the Canadian House of Commons has exercised its right to " withhold the supplies." Those grievances have all arisen from Downing Street. We notice them only for the purpose of showing their origin ; for, in truth, the nature of those grievances is quite foreign to this great con- stitutional question. When the magna charta of Canada enabled the people there to "withhold supplies for a redress of grievances," it also gave them a right to determine for themselves what are grievances, to them, in their own country : it created one standard of grievance, denying all others, — namely, the feeling of the people. Whatever the people of Canada, and none but the people of Canada, consider a sufficient reason for withholding the Cana- dian supplies, that their constitution holds to be a sufficient reason for the act. An absolute right to withhold supplies, without an equally absolute right to determine when and for what the right should be exercised, would have been the mockery of a free con- stitution. In discussing this question, therefore, we might admit that the complaints of the Canadian people are, in our estimation, tnoat unreasonable—the ease against Lord JOHN RUSSELL would be as strong as ever. But it so happens that the reasonableness

of the complaints of the Canadian people has been over and over again acknowledged by the Heine Government. No one denies that the Canadians have suffered many grievances frotn a series of Downing Street Governors and Councils. Those grievances have existed for many years. The constitutional efforts of many Assemblies to redress those grievances, have been defeated by equally constitutional obstruction from many Governors and Councils. There has been a long struggle between Downing Street and the Canadian people. At length, the people resort to the last constitutional remedy—and thereupon the Reform Govern- ment of England proposes to deprive them of their constitution. Lord JOHN RUSSELL; Sir GEORGE GREY, and other tools of the Colonial Office in this matter, tell us that the Canadian Assembly, by withholding the supplies, have subjected judges and other

officers, and suitors in the courts, and even (so Sir GEORGE GREY said) poor prisoners waiting for trial, to the greatest " inconve-

nience;' but these Whigs (!) say nothing of the grievances of the people—of appointments to the judicial bench, which, as truth is a libel, we dare not describe—of various legislative obstructions by the Council—of robbers of the public chest fostered and rewarded by

the Executive—or of monstrous jobbing in the disposal of waste land by the bureaucracy here and there. Let us mark, however, that upon this last point, Sir GEORGE GREY carefully prevented all inquiry last year, by jockeying Mr. WARP out of a Pilaw mentary discussion of the subject. All those grievances of the people, which have led to a stoppage of the supplies, are of no consequence, say these Whigs. Let the people perish, so that the bureaucracy gets paid. We are called upon to sympathize only with the unfortunate creatures of Downing Street hungering for their salaries. Let us acknowledge the great "inconvenience suffered by these official gentlemen—what then ? Why, the people, represented by their Assembly, have adopted the only means they possess of drawing attention to their grievances. With a constitution given to them by England, they have done that which every Englishman should be proud to ()ear of. Their constitution says—If intolerable evils arise from so much of Downing Street in this charter, yet the charter gives you a means of remedying such evils : if Downing Street has power to attack you in your dearest interests, yet here is a constitutional power of defence. They defend themselves constitutionally ; and, for doing so, they are to be deprived of their constitution. Because the people of Canada complain against D iwning Street, and, in order to enforce their complaints, put Downing Street to great "inconvenience "—therefore (admirable constitutional logic they are to be handed over, utterly defenceless, to the tender mercies of Downing Street. Because, in their own defence, they use a power given to them for the purpose of defence, the power of defence is to be taken away from them. Their constitution is to be destroyed—the grievances to remain untouched. Instead of redressing the acknowledged grievances of this distant and help- less people, Lord JOHN RUSSELL would tear from them the only means by which, in such a case, grievances can ever be redressed. It is enough to bring a RUSSELL of the ancient stock indignant from his grave. Will Sir FRANCIS BURDETT and Lord FITZ- WILLIAM agree, can Lord WILLIAM BENTINCK and Lord HOL- LAND have agreed, to this iniquity ? Surely, it is time for Lord DURHAM to come home.

o But government is at a dead stop in Canada; and some re-

medy for such a state of things most be adopted."--Unquestion- ably but then, what sort of remedy ? The dead stop arises from a dispute between the Council and the Assembly—between the officials of Downing Street and a represented people. In order to set the machine of' government in motion, two very diffe- rent measures are proposed. The officials propose to annihilate the freedom of the people ; the people propose to weaken the irre- sponsible power, that is, the tyranny of the officials, by rendering the Council elective. The officials ask that Lower Canada should be made a mere Crown colony ; the people ask that their consti- tuti n may be assimilated to that of several of our ancient Ame- rican colonies, under which the Legislative Council was always elective. The demand of the officials is to be granted. Not merely is the demand of the people to be rejected, but, for having made it, the people are to be punished with the loss of their con- stitution. Suppose that otr House of Commons, wishing to re- form our obstructive House of Lords, should withhold the supplies in order to enforce their demand, and that it were proposed, as a remedy for this dead stop in the government, to abolish the right of the House of Commons to withhold the supplies ; to overturn the very foundation of the British constitution,—this is the Cana- dian case. In order to set the machine of Canadian government in motion, there are two ways of proceeding—one popular, and agreeable to the ancient Colonial practice of England; the other most despotic, and entirely new into the bargain. The English Whigs of 1837 prefer the tyrannical innovation. There are Whigs, and Whig organs of the press, who have the impudence to assert, that the demand of the Canadian people for an elective council, amounts to a demand for com- plete independence. It is a mere falsehood. All the most flour- ishing, the most orderly, and the most loyal also, of the old English colonies in America, lied elective councils. They had something to be loyal for. And until the King of England in- terfered with their precious, but merely local rights, he had no more attached subjects. They, having elective councils, had no reason for bringing government to a dead stop. Why, then, should the Canadians be denied an elective council? Mr. Fox fore,aw that, with such a council as they have, their government would come to a dead stop. He was anxious to give them, at first, that which they now pray for. Mr. LABOUCHERE, who knows the Canadians well, who is a Whig and a member of the Govern- ment, agrees with Mr. Fox in deriding that Downing Street council without which, says Lord STANLEY, the supremacy of the mother-country would be an idle name. This Lord, who seldom speaks but the tyrant semis confessed, must know that an elective council, along with an elective assembly, establishes nothing but a purely colonial or local supremacy—the very thing whieh is in- dispensable to the good government of a colony. He puts England for Downing Street; and, when he saes the supremacy of the mother-country, he means that of Mr. STEPHEN. Yet Mr. LAROUCHERE, who confesses all the evil of Downing Street su- premacy, is made to vote with Lord STANLEY! The inferior members of Lord GREY'S Government at the time of the Irish Coercion Bill, used to call this being "dragged through the dirt." Some people object to the Canadian Coercion Bill on the ground that it is inadequate to its purpose ; that it disposes of colonial funds for payment of " arrears " only, leaving the future disposal of colonial funds to the Assembly, and leaving, therefore, the prospect of another dead stop in the government. " You show your teeth," says Lord STANLEY to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, "but show that. you dare not bite? He thinks that it would be better to abolish the Canadian constitution outright, in so many words. Let him take consturt on retlecii m. The constitution of Canada will be bitten to the quick by Lord JOHN RUSSELL. The only

real difference between these•Lords is, that the Tory shows his

teeth when be bites, and the Whig bites without showing his teeth. From the moment when it shall be seen that Downing

Street can set aside the Canadian constitution, though but for payment of arrears, that constitution is at an end. A fundamental law, a charter, a constitution, dues not admit of occasional in- fractions: infringe it once, you may do so again and aeain : in-

fringe it once. and its reality ceases, though you should preserve its name. If this Canadian Coercion Bill pass, the power of the Canadian Assembly over the Canadian public purse will not be

worth a year's purchase. Indirectly, this Coercion Bill is a de- claration of war against all colonial assemblies—against the very

principle and essence of colonial constitutions. Lord STANLEY

ought to he content. But he would have the measure stripped naked, as he stripped it himself on Wednesday night, so that all its deformity may be seen aid gloried in. His bold, frank, and

arbitrary spirit repudiates the veil of " reluctance" and so forth, with which the cunning prompter of Lord JOHN RUSSELL would shroud this really despotic measure. We cannot but ad- mire Lord STANLEY fur eschewing the plausible pretexts and hypocritical professions with whirl' this most tyrannical measure has been brought forward by the Government. W by don't you show, said he, that you mean to bite? And certainly, a dog which lets sou know that he means to bite, is preferable to one which conies to bite you, sneakieg and fawning to put you off your guard. This is the only difference between Lord STANLEY and Lord JOHN RUSSELL on the Canada question. The same difference marked their behaviour when they urged on ti gether the Irish Coercion Bill.

The case of Ireland, however, differs in one respect from that of Canada. The Irish had many representatives in Parliament— the Canadian people have not one. The subterfuge by which Mr. ROEBUCK is described as the representative of Canada, is of a piece with ail the others by which this Russian measure is de- fended. Who sent him to Parliament ? who can deprive bins of his seat? to whom is he responsible as a Member of the House of Commons ?—the electors of Bath in England. Mr. ROEBUCK. it is true, happening to be Member for Bath, is also the agent of the Canadian Assembly ; but if this be Parliamentary repre- sentation, then Mr. STEPHEN is represented in Parliament ty Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Lord HOWICK, and Sir GEORGE GREY; and the official jobbers in Canadian lands, by ROBINSON and STEWART, two directors of Canada land-companies—two of the grievances of which the Canadian people complain. In fact, that people have no representation in Parliament. The vote of the House of Commons, with respect to them, is a m ,rely arbitrary exercise of power against the defenceless. Their constitution will be destroyed for weeks, if not months, before they can even hear of the loss. The plan of destruction has not even been com- municated to them. They have not even the opportunity of peti- tioning for mercy. And all this happens in the Reformed Par- liament, by dint of a close alliance between Whigs and Tories ! It is enough to make one, as Lord STORMONT says, " hate the very name of Reform."

We must conclude for the present with a glance at the Canadian Assembly, and indeed at all the other colonial assemblies whose dearest right is indirectly attacked by this measure. During the attack of' the present King's father upon the constitutions of his loyal colonies in America, ADAM SMITH prophesied the end thereof, in these remarkable words—" Should the Parliament of Great Britain be ever fully established in the right of taxing the colonies, even independent of the consent of their own assem- blies, the importance oh' those assemblies would front that moment be at an end, and with it, that of all the leading men of British America. Men desire to havueme share in the management of public affairs, chiefly on account of the importance which it gives them. Upon the power which the greater part of the leading men, the natural aristocracy of every country, have of preserving or defending their respective importance, depends the stability and duration of every system of free government. In the attacks which those leading men are continually making upon the im- portance of one another, and in the defence of their own, consists the whole play of domestic faction and ambition. The leading men of America, like those of all other countries, desire to preserve their own importance. They feel, or imagine, that if their Assem- blies, which they are fond of calling Parliaments, and of consi- dering as equal in authority to the Parliament of Great Britain, should be so far degraded as to become the humble ministers and executive officers of that Parliament, the greater part of their own importance would be at an end. They have rejected, therefore, the proposal of being taxed by Parliamentary requisi- tion; and, like other ambitious and high-spirited men, have-rather chosen to draw the sword in defence of their own importance."