The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VII, Issue 435, 3 January 1857, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Saturday, January 3rd. In an article on the subject of transportation of convicts, which we republished from the ■' Times,' on Saturday last, there appears to be still too much of the old feeling with respect to the Colonies, —a desire to use them or abuse them to suit the convenience of the -Mother-Country. The oninion of the 'Times' seems to be that the Colonies should not be annoyed more than is necessary to the convenience of England ; that if England finds it easy to consume her convicts she ought to do so ; but that if she^does not, why, the Colonies must do it for her. The whole of the real arguments for the resumption of the system of transportation are on the English side of the question. The 'Times'does not appear to consider colonists as British subjects who have rights to be attended to as well as those who stay at home. The only argument on 'the colonists' side of the question that the 'Times' pretends to advance is, that the colonists of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, are so much iii want of labour that during the last three years the three Colonies have transmitted to the Emigration Commissioners in London more than a million and-a-half of money, in order to obtain recruits for their population. Therefore, it is argued, for the sake of all pnrties transportation should be renewed. But for the well-known ability and clearsightedness of the 'Times' oiie would be inclined to set clown such an argument to inconceivable folly ; our only alternative is to set it down to inconceivable impudence. When three young Colonies have so lately and so strougiy expressed their determination not to submit any longer to the contiiminnrion of convict immigration, and have evinced the earnestness of their purpose by the enormous expenditure which they have submitted to in order tp replace that convict population by free labour; and when those" Colonies are reaping the benefits of their efforts so signally that the eyes of the whole world are turned to this young empire growing up in the South Seas, the 'Times' has trie audacity to turn the very proofs of their determination into an argument against it. The tone of the whole article is degrading to such a paper as the 'Times.' Tie question is looked upon as one only of pounds, shillings, and pence. But if the 'Times' can see no ether side of the question, the Colonies can ; and they could not have expressed a determination more strongly than that of opposing, by every legitimate means in their power, the reconversion of their shores into n receptacle for England's ponvicts. We observe that the Committee of

the House of Lords suggests the renewal of the transportation system by founding new convict colonies in the north of Australia. But this is only blinking1 the difficulty for a time. As soon as any colony of Englishmen becomes, large enough and strong enough, it will protest against the system, and England will have to reconsider the question. Every colony will unfortunately have its own convicts to provide for; the means of doing so is a question which ultimately every country will have to decide for itself. We hope that all the Australian Colonies will protest in time against the first symptoms of a wish to recur to the old system. It is a bad thing both for the Mother Country and for the Colonies when such a scene takes place as that which took place at the Cape on the occasion of the colonists refusing to allow convicts to be landed. Although New Zealand is not alluded to as a fitting place for planting a convict population, yet she is bound to make common cause with Australia in protesting against the meditated injustice. We have been already annoyed by some of Australia's ticket-of-leave men, and there is no knowing, if once the principle is allowed, how far it may be extended in the South Seas.

We are sorry to find the ' Times ' misusing its power and abilities so far as 10 advocate the question in so unworthy a manner. Such arguments should be left to men with reputations as hateful and despicable as those of Lord Grey, and other statesmen who have the same narrow and prejudiced views as that nobleman on subjects of colonial policy.