GOVERNMENT OF THE COLONIES. [From the Morning Chronicle, December 20.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VI, Issue 505, 5 June 1850, Page 3

GOVERNMENT OF THE COLONIES. [From the Morning Chronicle, December 20.]

[Mr. John Robert Godley, the writer of the following letter, to whose ability and practical knowledge of Colonial matters oar contemporary the Times yesterday bore willing testimony, is the eldest son of a gentleman in the north of Ireland, and wss a candidate at the last general election for the representation of Leitrim, bis native county. Educated at Harrow and Oxford, his " grand tour" comprised British North America and the United State*, as well as the North and South of Europe ; and he became known to the reading public by an interesting work on the former countries. At the time of the famine in Ireland, the miseries of that part of the United Kingdom directed his mind, practically to the subject of colonization, with which his travels in America had made him acquainted ; and, in concert with a number of very eminent members of both houses of Parliament, he brought forward a comprehensive scheme of Irish emigration, which excited much attention in 1847. Afterwards be became a director of the New Zealand Land Company, and the founder of the Canterbury Association, for the purpose of planting a colony in the Middle Island of New Zealand, which is now in progress ; and he has just quitted this conntry with his family, as the organ of the Association, and pioneer of the first body ot intening colonists, who will proceed to their destination in the ensuing summer.} Plymouth, 11th December, 1849. To the Bight Honorable W. E. Gladtione, M. P. My Dear Mr. Gladstone. — On the eve of leaving England for one of our most distant colonies, I cannot resist the desire of saying a few words, before I go, to the British pubi lie, on the subject of colonial politics, under

the new aspect <which they have lately assumed ; a' subject in which I have long been speculalively interested, and in which I am now about to acquire a deep and immediate personal concern. And I have ventured, with your kind permission, Jo prefix your name to my observations, not from any presumed accordance between your views and my own, but simply because,' as you seem to me to be the one among our leading statesmen who has most fully considered the question of Colonial Reform, so you are the one, most likely to appreciate and encourage the humblest effort to advance that cause. Judging, indeed, from the speeches which you have made during the last two sessions, and from the line of conduct which you think it right to adopt with reference to this question, I infer that you do not agree with me ; that is, that you are far from estimating so thighly as I do the danger which threatens our Colonial empire, and the necessity -of meeting it promptly by measures of thorough reform. If you did, I feel sure (from my faith in your patriotism and public spirit) that, waiving, all considerations of a personal and patty nature, you would stand forth as the active champion of these searching remedial by % wjnch alone the disease which is consuming out greatness can now be cured. .1 speak confidently, perhaps presumptuously, butjny convictions have st least not. been formed without much thought and observation. My . occupations have, for some time past, thrown me into habitual intercourse with colonists personally, and acquaintance with the various organs of, colonial opinion. No one has had better opportunities of appreciating the immense change which has lately come over the colonial mind, and the utter hopelessness of satisfying it now with " gradual instalments" of freedom. A year or two ago I thought, as perhaps you think now, that, though a system so absurd in theory, and so unsuccessful in practice, as that by which our colonies are ruled must break down sooner or later, still, it might last indefinitely ; for ten years to come, perhaps for twenty ; and that our efforts might safely be directed to a gra* dt/aZ amelioration of.it. lam now convinced that I was wrong : ,the real danger is, not that the despotism of , the Colonial- office will last ten or twenty years ; not that • the colonists will be oppressed' by- it for an indefinite time to come; but that it may last just long enough to break up the British empire ; a consummation which, at the present rate of progress, will not perhaps take a great deal more than ten or twenty months. I should be very glad now to be as sure that the flag of my country will not be hauled dow.n, during my lifetime, in any part of the Queen's dominions, as 1 am that the hours of "'Mr. Mother-country's" reign are numbered. The point, therefore, which I am. most anxious to urge upon you, as upon all colonial reformers is, that whereas they have hitherto pleaded in the interests, as they thought, of suffering colonies alone, they must now plead in the interests of British honour, and British supremacy ; that whereas the alternative has hitherto appeared to be between local self-government aud the centralism of Downing-street ; now it is between local self-government and national independence. Many causes have contributed to this change in the aspect of the question ; but the chief of them are these : Ist, the increased strength of the colonies, or rather perhaps their increased consciousness of strength ; and,.2ndly, the growth in England of a political school holding the doctrine that -the colonies ought to be abandoned. As I -am 'anxious to 'avoid even the semblance of •writing in a party spirit, I forbear to enlarge on the stimulus imparted to the operation of "hboth.these causes by the persevering mismausgement to which the colonies have been of late subjected'; < but it would be mere affecta- , tion'to ignore altogether an influence so un- ; deniable and so important. ■ -On* the one Hand, I say, the colonists have acquired an increased confidence in their own strength ; a* confidence derived not only from - theknowledge that their material resources are yearly increasing, but also from the moral'power which is imparted by the experience •of successful conflicts. Not-only has the Colonial Office received many damaging defeats ■ of late, but 'it has<so timed its resistance and its concessions, as to give precisely the utmost possible encouragement to colonial revolt. Canada, for example, gained by rebellion, nearly all for, the sake of which she ' rebelled and which during years of peaceful agitation • she had been refused ; and she is now given • to' understand;" very plainly, by official peo4 • pie, that the' resVof . her demands will be si- - milarly granted, if she dpply ma similar way.' - New South Wales, too, has more than 1 once -within the last two years repulsed the aggres-; sions of the Colonial Minister/ But the turn-j •ing point <rf< the' conflict I consider to be the successful resistance of the Cape of G6od Hope. It is morally impossible that the authority of Downing-street over the colonies can long survive., thej shock which it has just received in Suuth Africa. That small and feeble, but high-minded dependency, has

taught a lesson, which others, more powerful at once and more aggrieved, will not be 'slow to learn. The machinery which she has employed for her special purpose may be employed by any other colony for any other purpose with respect to which <the~ colonists shall beat issue -with the Imperial Government, and, if equal energy and unanimity be displayed, with equal success. It will be used to obtain immunity from convict 'emigration in every shape ; to acquire local self-govern-ment, or even to assert independence. Fortified places we may continue to hold, and naval stations ; but I think it is henceforth established that we cannot govern, or even occupy, a distant colony permanently without the consent of its population. It would be useless to deny that these facts,, and the knowledge of them prevailing among colonists, are very dangerous under present circumstances to the stability of the empire. On the other hand, a political school has grown up in this country which is supposed to advocate the abandonment of colonies on the ground that they do not " pay." I say supposed to advocate, because I do not know that the doctrine has yet been distinctly stated and (airly avowed. Still, there is no moral doubt of its being in fact held, or of its being in accordance with the general tone and views proclaimed by a powerful and Increasing class of English politicians. With those who entertain this anti-imperial doctrine, I need hardly tell you that I feel no sympathy; but I cannot help perceiving how formidable it is, because it falls in with the positive and material character of the age, and especially with the habits of thought prevailing among the now very powerful middle classes of this country.,, Moreover, I see manifold grounds for believing that statesmen of far higher .position and greater mark (some from spite, aid more from indolence) regard the possibility of a separation between England and, her colonies without any kind of dissatisfaction. "Mr. .Mother-country" is of opinion, no doubt, that if our colonial empire is not to be kept as a toy for him to play with, it is not worth keeping at alk On the whole then, it appears to me that ,we are on the eve of what may truly be called a revolution in our colonial relations'; , and that during the next year or two, in all probability it will be decided whether " the British Empire" is to endure and to grow, as it has hitherto grown, for an indefinite time xo come, or whether it is to shrink by a rapid progress of disintegration into the .dimensions pf two small islands. Mow, although to me, an intending colonist, this consideration is one of deep and momentous import, it will appear, I fear, to a large portion , of my countrymen a matter of comparative indifference. There are powerful and popular reasoners who will soon enquire openly, as jthey now do by implication, " What shall we lose by separation ? If, as you say, colonies are no longer to be used as fields of official patronage ; no longer to be debarred, for our profit, from the commerce of the world ; no longer to be made receptacles for the surplus population of our gaols ; if, in short, their proper functions are to be henceforth undischarged, what, we beg leave to ask, is the good of the colonies ?" This will soon become the question of the day ; and it is one for which it behoves us to prepare betimes an j answer. I The best argumeut, perhaps, against separation is to be found in the strength aod prevalence of a moral instinct which separatists do not recognise, and which they hardly understand, though they bear a strong testimony to its truth in the remarkable reluctance which they manifest to avow their doctrines. A true patriot personifies and idealizes his country, and rejoices in her greatness, her glory, and her pre-eminence, as a loving son would exult in the triumphs of a parent. Doubtless, 'such greatness and glory may be too dearly bought ; but that is not the question. I say that, independently of reasoning, they are felt to possess a great and real, although an immaterial value, and that they are the, more keenly so felt in the most heroic periods of a nation's history, and by the best and noblest of its sons. Nay, I maintain, that the love of empire properly understood — that is, the instinct of self-development and expansion — is an unfailing symptom of lusty and vigorous life in a people ; and that, subject to the conditions of justice and humanity, it is not only legitimate but most laudable. Certain I, am, that the, decline of such a feeling is always the result, not of matured wisdom or enlarged philanthropy, but of luxurious imbecility and selfish sloth. When the Rpman eagles retreated across the Danube, not the loss of, Dacia, but the satisfaction of the Roman people at the loss, was the omen of the empire's fall. Or, to take an illustration nearer home, it is unquestionable that, notwithstanding the disgraceful circumstances under which America was torn from^ the grasp of England, we suffered less in prestige and in strength by that obstinate and disastrous struggle, than if like the soft triumvir, we had " lost a world, and been content to lose

it." Depend upon it the instinct of national .pride is sound 'and true ; and it is no foolish vanity which makes Englishmen shrink from the idea of seeing their country diminished and humbled in the eyes-pf the world. But the case of those who defend the preservation of our colonies does not rest on any such instinct alone ; it rests also on perfectly tangible and material grounds. I will admit, for the sake of argument, that our trade with the colonies might not suffer by, separation, though I have little doubt, in fact, that it .would. A certain kind of emigration, too, such as that which now proceeds to the United States, would, of course, go on. But there would be no good colonization ; no English gentlemen — no monied Englishmen — indeed, lew Englishmen of any class who were not bad specimens of it, would deliberately renounce their allegiance, and place themselves in a position where they might be .called upon, by their duty to their adopted country, to fight against the country which gave them birth. They would not consent to stand towards their friends and kindred in the relatiou of foreigners — they would never give up the name, the rights, and the privileges of Englishmen. This may be a very foolish and unphilosophical feeling; but experience, as well as theory, shows that it is entertained, and consequently, by making foreign coun- I tries of our colonies, we should cut off, on the one hand, the best part of the British nation from colonization ; and, on the other, we should abandon the plain duty of building up society, in its best form, throughout those wide regions which are destined to be peopled by our descendants. We should deliberately provide for the construction of hostile democracies out of the worst of the materials which compose the British people. Again, the union of the provinces which make up the British empire constitutes a positive element of material strength. It is, .perhaps, true, that now the value of our colonies may be counterbalanced by their cost : but such has been the case only since the invention of the Colonial Office ; that is, since we have made colonies effeminate by our protection, and disaffected by our tyranny. The early , British colonies contributed largely, both in men and money, to the military expenses of ihe Imperial Treasury ; they fitted out privateers to destroy the commerce of the common enemy ; nor did, they confine themselves to the defence of their own territory against aggression, but single-handed they conquered and kept new realms for England. Why should we doubt that modem British colonies, if allowed similar liberty, would show j equal loyalty ? Their imperial patriotism is a thing of which we at home have but a faini idea. Until they ate spoiled by bad government, they delight in their connexion with England, they, worship the British flag, their eyes fill with tears at the thought of "home," and their highest boast is the share they claim in the triumphs of English literature, arts, and arras. But, notwithstanding their good natural dispositions towards us, there is one thing | which colonists will not endure at our hands; and that ia being governed from Downingstreet. They would not be Englishmen if they did. By a steady and persevering course of, distant government, we do succeed in destroying, to a very great extent, the love of mother-country, and implanting in its place a feeling which is peculiar to colonies governed from home, a feeling made up of jealous dislike and cowardly dependence. But this is factitiously engendered, and would disappear with the causes that produced it. The normal sentiment of colonists towards England greatly resembles that felt by ourselves towards our -Sovereigns. We should not like them to govern us ; but so long as they abstain from that, our affection for them is not only enthusiastic, but deep and real. We, rejoice in their joys, and sympathize with their sorrows, as matters in which we have a personal interest ; nay, I fully believe that there., are not many individuals in this island who would hesitate to sacrifice property and life, in order to save the Queen from indignity or danger. Of a like nature is the feeling which colonists cherish for an ideal England ; and I would ask those who hold that its existence and maintenance are of no importance, whether loyalty, such as I have described (and such as is- perfectly consistent with a determination to be self-governed) does not exeicise a powerful and ennobling influence on the national character and national history of England., It may seem that I have unnecessarily insisted on the desirableness of a colonial connection, and that I should have better employed my time in explaining and defending the practical means which I would propose for' preserving it. Ido not think so, however, and I am sure time will show that I am right. I am not going to waste arguments in support of , the Municipal system, as applied to colonial government, became, in fact, everything has been said that can be said on that side of the question, whilst literally nothing worth notice ,b.as been said on the other, Besides,

we really .have ipassed the argumentative <§tage in this part pf, the business. That '.the .Central system, whether right orwrong, I#iH be speedily abolished, no man with a grain, of political foresight can doubt. I repeat,: that the, <anly, question which remains to be [Settled is, whether its abolition shall be the result of a dissolution of our Colonial Empire or not. I have, therefore, confined myself to urgingra proposition which will be much more seriously debated — namely, that such a dissolution is neither unavoidable<nor desirable* but ..preeminently the reverse. But it is necessary for me to state what; I mean by local self-government, as the phrase, though hacknied, has been much abused. I do wo* mean, then, mere .powers of paving and lighting and road -making ; nor 'the privilege of initiatory legislation ; nor, the liberty of miking subordinate official appointments; I do not mean a regimen involving, the reservation of civil lists or the interposition Sof vetoes, or any other of those provisions ; in virtue of which Ministers in Downing-sjfreet are in the habit of interfering with the internal concerns of colonies. I mean by local self-government the right and' power to do, within the limits of each colony respectively, without check, control, or intervention of any kind, everything that the supreme government of this country can do within the limits of the British islands, with one exception. I allude to the prerogative of regulating relations with foreign powers. This one prerogative, the concentration of which is essential to the imperial unity, the colonists themselves would gladly see reserved, in exchange for the privilege and the security of being identified with the empire ; but more than this it is neither beneficial nor possible for us to retain. 1 need hardly say that my idea of self-government includes the power of making and altering local constitutions. We ought not, I am sure, to impose upon the colonists any form of government whatever, even to start with. When we shall have duly authorised them to act for themselves, our function with regard to their internal affairs should end. Paper constitutions, drawn up by amateurs without personal interest, in the subject, never answer. All the best of the old colonial constitutions were framed by the colonists, and while many of them have endured, with hardly an alteration, for more than 200 years, all of them, whether altered from the originals or not, give (being home made) perfect satisfaction to those who live under them. 1 have yet to to hear of a Colonial Office constitution 'which has lasted ten years, or given a moment's satisfaction to any one but the doctrinaires who drew it up. I define, then, the proper conditions (as they appear to me) of a colonial relation to the mother country in three terms: 1. An acknowledged allegiance; 2. A common citizenship; 3. An offensive and defensive alliance. Less than tbe.e it is idle to offer, because to these, after whatever struggles, we shall come at last ; only that if granted after struggles, and not freely, they will perhaps lose all their efficacy. As a matter of course, colonies enjoying, as those of New England did, the perfect administration of their own affairs, ought not to cost the mother country a shilling for. their government ; and lam confident that, like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania of old, they would regard total pecuniary independence of the mother country as an important means of preserving their municipal privileges. There is, I suppose, little doubt that even the Colonial Office will think it necessary to "do something" in the way of colonial re lform next year ; that what they do will be in advance on the absurd measures proposed' last session ; but I capnot bring myself {o,belieye that they will do anything " thorough-," and I most earnestly hope that the friends of, t the colonies will not be satisfied with anything less. We must hear no more of "gradual ameliorations :" things have gone much, too far for experiments and instalments ; ;andthe session after next it may be too , lttefor , $eform. I conclude by , repeating that, if to you at home the issue of this impending struggle be a matter of comparative indifference, I can answer for it that to British colonists it will appear one of absolutely vital moment. For my own part, lean onty say, that though I might consent, in spite of reason and experience, to live in a, colony t permanently governed by a minister in London, I would neither do so myself, nor ask others to do so, if the colony we founded, were destined, during our lifetime, to be teparatqd from the mother country. It is in. the hope of seeing the only means adopted J by which, you can avert such a consummation that ; I now leave England. , , (• ( • ; > .Believe me, my dear Mr, Gladstone, t Yoiir's, very faithfully, John, Robert Goi^y.,