ENGLISH EXTRACTS.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 771, 3 September 1853, Page 3

ENGLISH EXTRACTS.

THE TRANSPORTATION DEBATE. [F wa the “ Morning Chronicle," May I‘2.] Lord Grey’s motion of Tuesday night, on the subject of Transportation, met with the fate it so riciily deserved. Let us consider for one moment what was its real scope and meaning. It was a proposal that an address should be presented to the Queen, praying that the arrangements respecting transportation, which were in force last year, should not be altered until the sense of Parliament had been taken on the contemplated changes, But the only change winch had 1 ecu

made by the Government was this ;—They had determined to send no more convicts to Van Diemen’s Land, and they had announced that i determination to the colony in the most emphatic ( language. Ihe prayer, therefore, as was most I forcibly put by the Lord Chancellor, was neither j more nor less than “that Her Majesty should j direct her servants to violate a solemn pledge which they had given, and to do what they had entered into a distinct and positive engagement with the colony not to do.” Nay', Lord Grey himself explicitly declared that this was actually his intention. “ I do not scruple,” he observed, “to say 7 that if this address be carried, the Government must take measures to send convicts again to Van Diemen’s Land.” His Lordship may 7 deem himself qualified to lecture the House, as he did at great length on Tuesday night, on the wide distinction between able statesmen and shallow politicians; but wo need not stop to enquire to which of the tw r o classes that man must belong who attempts to induce the legislature to sanction the violation of national good faith. A promise, in Lord Grey’s vocabulary 7 , may be “something which ought to be broken,” but we trust that there are not many men in this country who will assent to His Lordship’s definition. Even had he been able to prove—which he egregionsly failed to do—that the Government had acted indiscreetly in promising to discontinue forthwith all transportation to Van Diemen’s Land, he ought to have recollected that the promise, having been given, could not be recalled, either with safety or honor. He had been taught this lesson by 7 Sir William Denison; for when, in consequence of his unfortunate despatch of the sth of February, 1847, the colonists had been apprised that transportation to Van Diemen’s Land was to cease, the Lieutenant-Governor did not hesitate to assure him that “any attempt now to revive the system, in any 7 form, would be looked upon as a breach of faith.” Lord Dei by 7 also, to whom the noble earl appealed for support, though “he was happy to say 7 that this was no party 7 question,” might have furnished him with a precedent little in accordance with the spirit of his motion. In 1840, Lord John Russell made a public declaration, as Colonial Secretary, that New South Wales should no longer be treated as a penal settlement. The policy 7 of that declaration was much questioned at the time. We believe that Lord John Russell acted wisely 7; but many 7 persons took a, different view, and certainly Lord Derby', who shortly afterwards succeeded to the office of Secretary for the Colonies, was exposed by the measure in question, to very 7 considerable embarrassment. What course, however, did he pursue? Did lie seek to recall the declaration of his predecessor, and again to force convicts on the inhabitants of the Australian continent? No. Lord Derby—in those days, at least—entertained a lively sense of the paramount necessity of a great country like England keeping its word. He appreciated the disastrous consequences which must ensue from making a deliberate promise one day 7, and then deliberately breaking it on the next; and consequently without attempting to violate any pledges, he was content to make the best he could of the position in which ho found himself placed. Nay 7 , we must do Lord Grey the justice to remember that even ho seems, on one occasion, to have been actuated by a vague notion of what is due to national ,honor and good faith. Although, in the autumn of 1048, he most improperly' attempted to renew transportation to New South Wales, we find him, on the 16th November, 1849, writing to the Governor of that colony a despatch, in which—after announcing that, in consequence of the reinonstancc of the Legislative Council, “it was not intended that any more convicts should be sent to any part of. New South Wales”—he states, as a reason for his change of policy, that “ the Order in Council which Her Majesty was pleased to make in 184T, directing that convicts should no longer bo sent there, may fairly be regarded as virtually 7 conveying a pledge to its inhabitants, that, without their concurrence, the practice of so sending them would not again be resumed.” Thus far \\e have treated this question on the assumption—which, however, was not only 7 not proved, hut was actually disproved—that the Government, without sufficient reasons, had come to the conclusion that the refuse of our gaols should no longer be shipped off to Van Diemen’s Laud. But what are the real facts? That colony has now, for upwards of tin years, been earnestly remonstrating against the injustice of being compelled to receive whatever number of outcast convicts wo might think fit to land on her shores. In 184.6,' one Colonial Secretary, yielding to these remonstrances, declared that no morefelons should bo sent there for two years. In 1847, owing to another Colonial Secretary’s inability to convey his intentions in intelligible English”, the colonists were infoimed by 7 their Governor that an end was te bo put to transportation to their shores. Notwithstanding this assurance, however, convicts were sent out there in greater numbers than ever. The people resented this gross breach of faith with the deepest indignation ; but their resentment was regarded like the idle wind by Lord Grey. Then came a change of ministry ; and Sir John Packingtou announced in December last that “ Her Majesty’s Government had determined to adopt measures for the discontinuance, as far as practicable, of transportation to any of the colonies situated on the southern or eastern sides of Australia, including Van Diemen’s Land.” No specific time was announced for the accomplishment of this much-wished-for object; but the colonists were assured that, although it was “ impossible to fix the actual date for the end of transportation to Van Diemen’s Land” the Government were extremely anxious “to carry their measures into effect as speedily 7 as possible.” It seems incredible that after this. Lord Derby can have actually joined Earl Grey 7 in condemning the Government for carrying out the identical policy to which his own cabinet was committed. The ex-premier’s speech and vote of Tuesday night were neither move nor less than a distinct censure of his own Colonial Secretary. Lord Derby’s Ministry fell to pieces, and the present Government succeeded them. Surely it was their duty 7 , as was well urged by the Duke of Newcastle in the recent debate, “ not to keep the colony in suspense.” Indefinite promises on the subject of the discontinuance of transportation were fatally calculated to keep alive feelings of irritation and distrust. The colonists—recollecting how they 7 had been treated by Lord Grey, and having no means of estimating accurately 7 the difference between his lordship’s notions of good faith and those entertained bv his successor in the Colonial Department —were led to believe that the vague pledges of Sir John Pakington were intended, in Lord Grey’s language, as a mere “sham.” They determined that they would no longer be “ humbugged and their Legislative Council spoke in a language of remonstrance which could not be misunderstood. The present Secretary for the Colonies recognized the truth of Lord Grey’s maxim that “ the voice of the representatives alone ought to be the guide as regarded convict establishmentsand he felt, as every wise man must have felt under the-circumstances, that, “ if’t were done when ’tis done, then ’t were well it were done quickly.” He therefore lost no time in transmitting a despatch to Sir \yilliutn Denison, which, after stating that the Government had carefully weighed the subject, thus proceeded:—“ Considering that there will he much inconvenience in continuing to Van Diemen’s Land, for a short but indefinite term, a system avowedly condemned for the future, by which course all social arrangements must be kept in an unsettled state ; knowing, also, that a majority 7 of the inhabitants of Van Diemen’s Laiid, and almost the whole population of Australia, whose interests are deeply 7 involved, are in favour of its discontinuance, and that the altered circumstances of Australia have wholly changed its penal character; Her Majesty’s Government have come to the resolution at once to put aw end to transportation to Van,Diemen’s Land.” , This is the straightforward language of an honest man, conscious’of the existence of a gross abuse, to which he is determined to apply 7 an immediate and effectual remedy; and we rejoice that the House of RovJs, by so decisively rejecting Lord Grey’s most mischievous nlotioh, has assented to the just, and enlightened principle ‘6n which,the Govehimeiit have resolved t’o act .- "■’ * :