COLONIES AND THEIR GOVERNMENT.

New Zealander, Volume 1, Issue 17, 27 September 1845, Page 4

COLONIES AND THEIR GOVERNMENT.

I [From the Atlas.] The conviction that our present system of colonial government is insufficient for the end of all government, the advancement and prospeiity of ihe govei ned, and is unworthy of a country w hose dependencies have never been rivalled in extent, in variety, iv productiveness, and in number, and whose " mission " seems to be the subjection of the uttermost paits of the eaith to civilization undelete Anglo Saxon dominion— -this conviction yearly grows deeper and deeper, and has, if we do not mistake the signs of the times, reached that state in which infoimed public opinion requites a remedy. The trouble our colonies have occasionally given us, the cost they appear to impose upon us, and, above either, the obstructions their supposed commercial interests have raised to the adoption of free trade with foreign countries, have indeed disposed an intelligent, though a small, ! class of thinkers to cut the Gordian knot of colonial difficulties by the abandonment of all coloI vies. Instinctively, however, on the part of the many, and for most substantial reasons on the part ofotheis, that conclusion finds no response m the public mind. Colonies so obviously augment our political importance that their abandonment would necessaiily diminish our influence in the affairs ot Europe, and its diminution would inevitably beget another struggle by France, if not for universal dominion, at least forsupremacy in the European system. French supremacy therein is inconsistent with our existence as a first rate power ; and our reduction to a secondary state would re-act prejudicially on civilization and liberty generally. Moreover, the trouble our colonies give us is not inherent in, but is extraneous to, their possession ; it is not a necessary condition of colonial existence, but the result of colonial mismanagement} it is not an argument for their abandonment, but a reason for tuelr better government. The cost, too, of colonies to England is vastly exaggerated, and such as tt is, might readily be 1 educed. A latge item of what is called "colonial expenditure" is most improperly so termed, in consequence of a misapprehension of the word "colony." In modern phraseology, all dependencies are termed colonies. This is, however, an abuse of language. A colony, in its ancient and accurate signification, is a territory of which the soil is either entirely or principally owned by .settlers from the mother country— -a possession in 1 which the art of colonization may be practised by the dominant state. Military stations, such as Malta, Gib! altar, the lonian Isles, the Falkland Islands, Aden, St. Helena, and Hong Kong—conqueied districts possessed by native inhabitants

with a slight admixture of the conquerors, such asCeyloi, — dependent empires filled by crowded and various people, such as India — mercantile factories, such as our posts on the coast of Africa — convict establishments, such as Norfolk Island — are not colonies. To charge their expenses against colonies is to inflict an injury on the great cause of colonization and civilization. And yet great part of our " colonial expenditure " is so made up. Undoubtedly, however, the military expenses of our colonies is large ; but just in proportion as they are well governed may it be reduced. By internal good government one half the troops now in the colonies might be spared ; and as tranquility and prosperity are the result of good government, the military cost of our coI lonies might be reduced to the expense of external defence — small in time of peace. At present we have in foreign service 77 regiments. But of these 45 are not in colonies; 29 are in India, ]£ in our military stations, and 2 in Ceylon j and of the 22 thatarein the colonies, no less than 13 are in British America, and 11 in the tropical colonies. Now, the fact of this large proportion of the troops actually in colonial service being in | North America and (the West Indies, is owing, 1 1st, to the misgovemment of the mother-country which produced rebellion in Canada, and dissensions between masters and labourers in the tropical colonies ; and 2dlv , to the unsatisfactory state of our foreign relations with the United States, which compel us to guard Canada and the West Indies. So that to the 45 regiments on foreign service that are not in colonies, at least 15, other regiments that are in them must be added as part of the price colonial misgovemment costs the mother country. And similar deductions must be made in naval expenditure before we can arrive at what the cost of defending the colonies really is. These large deductions made, the item of colonial expenditure, now so striking, would be small indeed, Aad as the army and navy form in their present state the greatest obstacle to reduction of taxation, good government in the colonies would, by allowing a considerable part of I the troops in them and the ships of war abont them, to be withdrawn, enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to largely reduce the estimates,and to proportionably lighten the public burthens. Thus the people at home are pecuniatily interested in the better administration of the colonies. Equally erroneous is it to hold a restrictive commercial policy inseparable from the possession of extensive colonies. If free trade be good for the mother country, it must be quite as beneficial for colonies. The trade of all our colonies was perfectly free at the outset j while free, their progress in pro»perity was uninterupted. "To clip the wings of the Dutch," as Rlackstone ha» it, who monopoliztd the carrying trade of the world, Crom well, passed the Navigation Laws, and instantly the principle of restriction was ap» plied to their colonies their prosperity declined. Subsequently colonial prosperity revived; but what is true of the mother country is also true of (he colonies — their progress has been in spite of, and notwithstanding, our economical policy. And even now, when much of that policy ha» beeu relaxed, we still limit the advancement of the colonies for the sake, as it is assumed, for our shipping. No : give to the colonies free trad* with the rest of the world, and they will progress quite as much under it as the mother-country. Protection is their bane. If, then, there be every reason to preserve and extend, instead of to abandon the colonies, the duty of governing them well is thereby increased. Nor oughl good governmeet to be restricted, because it may end in separation j for, firstly, bad government is. as experience testifies, the readiest road to separation; and secondly, every people, however situated, have an inalienable right to be well governed. We neither can nor ought to hope for the perpetual dependence of our colonies. Colonization is the art of creating new nations. Separation, peaceably and friendly,, is, therefore, its legitimate termination ; and the sooner we can place our colonies in a position tobecome independent states the more successful shall we be in this art. Nor aught we by separation to diminish thenumber of our colonies; but rather, in expectation of separation, to. be continuously forming new settlements, in their turn to« be thrown off in like manner. The vice of the present colonial system is that we govern our colonies tor the sole purpose apparently, ofpreservingtheirdependence. Whereas the Hue principle is, we repeat, so to govern them as to hasten their independence. Canada achieved responsible government by rebellion only. For twenty years we kept the colony in a state of chronic anarchy rather than concede responsible government ; the Canadians were not, we deluded ourselves by sajing, fit for it, white their very desire was the best evidence we could have of their fitness. So now, under the guise of the same poor fallacy, we refuse representative government to the Cape of Good Hope, and palm off on New South Wales a system of representation that dissatisfies every settler in it. Russians might not be, if placed in New Zealand, fit for a system of governmentdenied them at St. Petersburgh; but Englishmen settled there arefit, becau-e they themselves have enjoyed constitutional rule at home, and because their traditions teach them nothing of any other sort of government; under any other they become bad, not good subjects. English colonies cannot be well governed by any despotic sjstem, because in England there are no materials to form good despots. To be well governed, our colonies must in the main be self-governed. Our early colwrists, instead of parting with a portion of their rights when they settled in a distant dependency, felt that they breathed a purer air than even that of the land they had relinquished. Thus we rendered colonies attractive to men of intelligence, activity ,Jand spirit. By pursuing the opposite conrse, we are reducing colonization to a mere shovelling out of paupers. We must return to our older and wiser system of colonization. Colonial boards at home are not, as the Times supposes, the want of the colonies. Local representation is their want. Without representation, boards are useless; with it, they are, as we shall hereafter show, needless.