ENGLISH EXTRACTS. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE AUSTRALASIAN LEAGUE. (From the Morning Chronicle, July 31.)

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 590, 10 December 1851, Page 3

ENGLISH EXTRACTS. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE AUSTRALASIAN LEAGUE. (From the Morning Chronicle, July 31.)

Mr, Caiuylc lias remarked, in his " History of the French Revolution/ 1 that it is of apoplexy, so to speak — of a plethoric, lazy habit of body — that churches, kingships, and social institutions oftenest die. Assuredly, the last days of a worthless Parliamentary session do not belie the saying. To the other negative trophies of the session of 1851 must now bo added a second count-out on one of the most criu'cal questions affecting the security of our southern empire— namely, the compulsory continuance of trauspoitatiou to Van Diemen's Land. We shall not, of course, deny that honourable members had their reasons for absence on these two occasions. It is quite true that, in the one case, the debate fell on the eve of the Derby ; and m the other, Mr. Anstey was the mover. Doubtless, the pleasures of hope and the lessons of experience proved equally distracting to the attention of our laughing fuineunls legislators. A bore and a racehorse— the slowest and the swiftest of their species — do yet agree marvellously in the single faculty of distancing their fellows. The only question is, whether the colonists will find comfort in this explanation? Instead of sullenly brooding on the reraembranca that, after the most solemn promises on the part of tbp Government te relieve speedily thr evils with which we are afflicting them, the case has twice been burked at the very moment whi li it was on the point of obtaining a hearing — will the people at the antipodes be good-humonredly amused with the exquisitely satisfactory ciuses of their discomfiture. It is, we fear, just possible that the more "natural" we prove the conduct of honourable members to have been on these occasions, the worse will be the effect on our Southern fellow-subjects. Of course it is natural to care less for remote interests than for those that are under our eyes—for Australasia, c. g., than for Smithfield, It is natural also to lack the genius for empire. It may be natural, perhaps, for Englishmen to disperse rather than to cohere—to found settlements energetically rather than to rulp them wisely. Nay, the very activity of thefr talents for self-gorernment may divert them from the cares of aa Imperial policy. But, if bo, what more natural than that, after encountering tbp cost and burden of planting colonies we should contrive to alienate them just as thpy become worth having ? it is scarcely prudent, we submit, to rely much on a plea which proves so ivrefragably that it is the interests of our fe) low -subjects to throw oif their allegiance. Anger they might appease — piejudice they might con eel; but how can they conquer our indifference. The truth is, these are the instances which teach, trumpet-tongued, not only to the colonists but to other people, the need ot direct representation. Ever since the Refoim Bill, the Lower House has been faithful to two interests, and two only — namely, the landlords and the shopkeepers who return it. How the masses are cated for, our Letters on " Labour and the Poor" have told — how the professions, may be seen from the unadjusted Income-tax — how the colonies, from two couutouts in a single session on a matter directly affecting their deepest and most vital interests. The bourgeoib Commons have left the Southern Wof Id to wag on as it may under the accumulated hordes of our criminals, for anothpr year, without a word of hope for the future, or of reparation for the past. But supposing that, on the occasions referred to, some huckste:ing interest had been at stake — rome lotten suburban monopoly, or some chicoiy-adulteration question, does any one doubt that ft House would have been found to sit out the debate, in spito of Goodwood and of Mr. Austey 1 There is but one inference, we may assure ourselves, which our dependencies can draw from this ; and rre may safely leave the reader to decide on the effect which a few more such flagrant proofs that the coloaies are neither actually nor virtually represented at home, are likely to have on the loyalty of our distant countrymen. Not the least formidable part of the matter is, that while the mother country has been made to assume this attitude of stupid hostility towards the great, group of her Southern colonies, the latter are in the very act of entering on the exercise of their new legislative functions. There constitutions are on the point of coming iflto play. Now, surely, if Van Diemen's Land was intended to continue the receptacle of our criminals in spue of its own remonstrances, it does seem rash to have given it institutions which will enable it to organize its opposition into the most irresistable shape. Count-outs may be excellent methods of escaping the trouble of answering petitions ; but why, if you meant to rely on them, did you deliberately give your victims a Parliamentary platform, from which to pour their complaints with redoubled force? Moreover, Van Diemen's Land does not stand alone. The whole Australasian group, owing to the injury they have sustained from the immigration of vagabonds from that nucleus of crime, have made common cause with it ; and they have lately adopted, uader the name of •* the Australasian league," the self same organization that successfully repelled our convicts from the Capo. The members of that combination are solemnly bound to furnish no employment to any of our criminals ; to refuse " all dealings, intercourse, and fellowship" with any colonists who may aid us in carrying out the systeni of transportation ; and to help with money, and by other means, all who may suffer for the objects of the League. We may add that, on the occasion of the first count out, in May, Sir W. Molesworth warned the House that a petition m accordance with the views of the coniederates would shortly arrive here, signed by fifty- thousand persons. Quite apart, therefore, from tbe morality of the question, this reiterated slight to our southern colonies does appear about as efficacious a method as could well have been devised, of aggravating an already embarrasiing crisis. Had the motion which was thus quashed on Tuesday led only to a frank expression of sympathy from which the colonists could have gleaned hopes for the future, something would have been gained. Their opposition to our convict system might, at any rate, have been modified, it not disarmed, until, by the creation of fresh depots, we should have found other means of disposing of our criminals. On the contrary, tbe opportunity of conciliation has been turned into an occasion of insult. The principal fault lay, doubtless, with the Cabinet. They, of course, could easily have secured a house. But they weie only too glad to escape the discussion of a theme which, treat it as it may, reveals at every turn some fresh instance of their injustice and their bad faith. Let us hope that the empire at large may not pay the cost of tbe official impunity which they hate thus selfishly secured. In the tone of the English press, the colonists may haply yet perceive a truer expiession of the national sympathy for their wrongs, than in the conduct of an Assembly which, hiurying recklessly from the public stage, appears as insensible to its responsibilities for the future as it has proved barren of achievements in the past.