THE COLONIST.

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 425, 19 November 1861, Page 2

THE COLONIST.

.V/iLSOy, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1861

We had cut from a Tasmanian paper a petition said to be from the inhabitants of that island, praying to be te'lieved from the cares of sell-government; but on a second perusal we became so disgusted with such an unmanly production—such a picture of abasement—;suoh a slavish emanation of cowaidice, that we consigned it at once to the shades. We presume that it is only the smallest

and most sluggish section of the population which has looked upon its Constitution as a nuisance, and desired to substitute something'worse than formerly existed, namely, a sort of cockaleekie legislature: the petition runs thus—-'That her Majesty, in order to save the colony from further degradation and final ruin, to cause the existing Constitution Act to be repealed, and to substitute in its place a measure which will provide for a Legislative Council of twenty-four persons —one-third to be nominated by the Crown, and two-thirds to be chosen by the people.' ' The Melbourne Herald, we see, has thought, it worth while to notice so base a production, and as the article is written with the talent usually displayed in that excellent paper we extract it in full. When the frogs, in iEsop's well-known fable found that their second king was by many degrees a worse ruler than their first one, they sent Mercury, as the fabulist tells us, with a private message to Jupiter, beseeching him that he would take pity on them once more. But Jupiter replied that their circumstances were such as they had themselves chosen, and that another time they would learn to let well alone, and not be dissatisfied with their free natural condition. The moral of this fine fable is very generally misapprehended. It is supposed to teach that government of any kind is at best a choice of evils, and that the i regular alternation is between King Log and King Stork—between harmless imbecility and rapacious tyranny. Nothing however can bo further from the true moral of the fable than such an interpretation. If iEsop really had designed to convey any such lesson, instead of being one of the wisest he' would have been amongst the most foolish of men. For government of some kind i 3 a natural necessity in human society; and good government, equally removed from the extreme of Log or Stork, is perfectly possible in civilised communities. What iEsop means to teach is, that those to whom the inestimable blessing of freedom is given and who have proved themselves incapable or unworthy of exercising its precious privileges, must even submit to a despotism which shall be more or less destructive according to the character of the individual wielding h. That this is the true reading is evident from the very first words of the fable — 'In days of old, when the frogs were all at liberty in the lakes,' and so forth. Thus interpreted, the ancient legend may be illustrated by more than one ' modern instance.' Here, for example, are people in these free British colonies who are actually wearied of their very liberty, and, like the froi>s in the fable, are beginning to clamor for a little infusion of despotism to freshen their dull political existence. Their freedom has become an intolerable burden to them, and they long for the advent of some strong-lianded tyrant to introduce a new and livelier sfate of things. They are crying aloud to Jupiter to save them from themselves by a timely and kindly intervention. Jupiter may send them at his sovereign pleasure either a Log or a Stork, and they will be equally satisfied—anything, so that they may have a despot to govern them and be saved the infinite trouble of governing themselves. This was precisely the petition of the discontented frogs. It was also the prayer of the ancient Hebrews when, to their lasting detriment as a nation, they disowned and rejected the theocratic rule, and insisted upon having a ' King to rule over them.' The standard of public feeling in 3 community which acts thus is so contemptibly low that one can scarcely bring oneself to designate it as British.

Yet this is really the state of feeling, we are informed, amongst a considerable and influential section of the people of Tasmania. There is a class of persons there, it is affirmed, who are tired of the experiment of free government in that colony, and disgusted at its results; and they are actually getting up a petition to her Majesty—it is tlie call of the helpless frogs to Jupiter,—to take fheir political freedom from them and restore them their old King Stork. These people, that is 'O say, would rather have their fair island sunk in all the odium and degradation of a penal settlement ruled by an irresponsible Governor, than see it continue an enfranchised British colony. The Tasmanians, they allege, are unfit to use and unworthy to enjoy the common rights of all freeborn Englishmen. Is this really so ? Is the assertion undoubtedly true, or is it agrossaad scandalous libel ? For the honor of Tasmania, as one among the Australian colonies, we should be glad to believe it false. But if it be not false, then by all means let the petitioners have their wish complied withy and let the good old times of convictism and Governor Arthur be brought back again. But at he same time let the nameot Tasmania be blotted out from the roll of these free bouthern colonies, and let the hated designation of ' Van Dieinen's Land' with all its revolting associations bo substituted. Perhaps, after all, the enfranchi«ement of the old penal settlement was a premature and ill-considered step! Even in Victoria, however, we find a select few who pretend sympathy with the Tasmanian petitioners. There are people here who would rather have despotism than freedom, irresponsibility than constitutional government, and a nominee council than a representative legislature. These are the persons who are ever crying out against the odious "vils of universal suffrage and the ballot, and who see nothing before the country afflicted with such destructive institutions but speedy and irretrievable ruin.

These also are the persons who, whenever they happen to dissent from any measure passed by the Assembly, or any administrative act of the Executive Government, instantly betliink tliem of appealing to 'her most gracious Majesty to take the affairs of the colony into her consideration.; Well, we shall make ohorfc work of sentiment of this kind. It is either affected—this horror of the consequences of popular liberty, or it is perfectly genuine. If affected, those persons who deal in it ought simply to be scouted/out of all British society; for they are impostors as well as slaves in spirit. But if it be real, why then there is nothing ior the same persons but to leave the land of popular liberty and go to a country where'no such frightful evil exists. In any case, they are merely Tools for their pa ns if they continue here in a state of helpless wretchedness, bewailing their sad lot, and vainly imploring a deaf Jupiter to send then! relief.

Their case is worse even than that of the frogs in the fable. For the advent of a despot here, he he Lng or Stork, is simply a moral impossibility. Whilst Victoria remains a British colony it never can be! .

Our bread-and-butter politicians here, simply because the people do not their behests entirely, though far too much for their own benefit, have been talking the same way for the last three years; and many of. them have seriously contemplated getting'up a petition lor a 'little infusion of despotism to Jreshen their dull political existence. ' Their freedom has become an intolerable buiden to them, and they long for the advent of some strong-handed tyrant to introduce a new and livelier state of things.'

Well may the writer exclaim that the ' standard of public feeling in a community which acts thus is so contemptibly low, that one can scarcely bring oneself, to designate it as British.' Peihaps our would-be exclusives will waver in their opinion before they follow 6u*ch an example.

Substitute Nelson for Victoria, at the beginning of the last paragraph, and the writer might be supposed to be giving a description of that very small fussy clique we have alluded to. Many of our readers

will know how to apply it. Read—'Even in Nelson we find a select (ew who would rather have despotism than freedom, irresponsibility than constitutional government, and a nominee council than a representative legislature.' But we call especial attention to the whole of the article, yet more especially to the last paragraph, which they are called upon to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. After all perhaps, as is shrewdly guessed by another Melbourne paper, this petition in forma panperis is to be looked upon as an ingenious canard rather than a serious document, and that it will never reach the hands of her Majesty.