this light the practical politician would be content to secure such an amount of representation as would ensure a bearing for colonial questions advocated from the colonial point of view.

That the fact of the colonies having now Parliaments of their own for local self-government should be adduced by an Oxford professor of history as a decisive objection against an incorporating union with the mother country is indeed surprising. It is inconceivable that the learned professor should be unaware that the university of which he is a member, has a constitution of its own for local self-government, yet sends representatives to the House of Commons. The city of London and other great corporations in the kingdoms have what are equivalent to Parliaments of their own, levying taxes and maintaining forces for local purposes, and yet send representatives to the imperial Parliament.

Those distinct municipal governments represented, in the aggregate, Parliament derived from the Folkmote and the Shiremote, and the Witinagemote of Saxon England, have been the admiration of statesmen and philosophers in all ages, and we are now assured they constitute an insufferable anomaly.

These premises have not stood the test of examination. They are disproved, and the professor's conclusion "That the only remedy is complete political separation" falls to the ground. But it is objected that neither Mr. Adderley nor any other writer has brought out any practical scheme of incorporating relations between the mother country and her colonies. This may well arise from consideration that until the principle be considered it would be premature to adduce any specific programme, as it might have the appearance of dogmatism, or frustrate the main object by inviting discussion upon details. As, however, the objection has been taken, I will, without pledging myself or others to any of the details, and merely as an example, give the outline of a programme sufficient at least to show that no serious impediment, far less impossibility, obstructs the reasonable adjustment of this question. Assuming as a basis of proportionate representation, and without in any way interfering with the existing privileges of local self-government, that each colony having 50,000 inhabitants, should send to the British House of Commons, one member having 250,000 to 500,000, two members having 1,000,000 and upwards, three members to be returned by the same constituency which elects members to the Upper Legislative Chamber of such colony, or if there be no elective Upper Chamber, then by the suffrage of the members of the nominated Upper Chamber and Elective Chamber conjointly, or by the members of the Single Chamber when there is but one.

Let an Act of the Imperial Parliament confer the privilege of sending representatives to the House of Commons in these proportions conditioned-1st. That the trade between the mother country and any colony availing itself of such Act, be as regards interchange of the products and manufactures of each, placed on the footing of a coasting trade. 2nd. That such colony grants to Her Majesty as an

1

additional civil list, to be set aside annually as a first charge on the revenue, such sums as may be the proportionate contribution of such colony estimated on the capitation basis of the empire, to make up the aggregate sum voted by the House of Commons for the expenses of the navy. The placing of the trade on the footing of a coasting trade should be made a sine quâ non, for as pointed out by Professor Smith, the anomaly of suffering British settlements to levy a hostile tariff against the products of the mother country which protects them, opposed as it is to the true interests of both, would be altogether repugnant to and incompatible with a more intimate relation between the mother country and her colonies. Under this hypothesis it would be optional with each colony to accept or reject the terms, and in this latter case, should the majority of the British Parliament, dissenting from what I hold to be the sound views of Mr. Herman Merivale, respecting the expediency of retaining our dependencies even under the present unequal adjustment of burdens, decide upon casting off such colonies as refuse to avail themselves of the proffered terms, whatever objections might be raised on other grounds, there could be none on the plea of injustice. Although, as I said before, the colonies have by long immunity been encouraged to regard protection by the mother country as a prescriptive right, I believe, they would eventually see that justice and expediency alike dictated continuance of the connexion by closer incorporation with the mother country, with its necessary corollary of participation in burdens for mutual defence; in which case, New South Wales, Victoria, and New Zealand, would be entitled to return each two members; South Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland, each one member; South Africa, two members; Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, British Columbia, each one member; Canada, three members; The West India Islands, three members.

The addition of twenty-two representatives of colonies remote from each other in interests as in situation, and therefore not likely to form any factious combination, would scarcely disturb the equilibrium of parties in the House of Commons, the condition of their presence there would set at rest the objection on the plea of taxing dependencies for imperial purposes, the injustice to which the inhabitants of these islands are now subjected in having to maintain an army for the defence of the colonies would be removed, the colonists would be sufficiently protected against partial or injurious legislation of the Imperial Parliament such as formerly occurred, and is now imminent on the transportation question.

The conclusions which practical experience as a colonist has forced upon me, I find expressed by a high authority on such questions, the Right Hon. C. B. Adderley, in the following clear and forcible language "The question is not of separation, but of sounder relations. There is a defect in colonial administration, not inherent in the nature of things, but the accident of [recent policy, in its essence, fatal to prolonged connexion; I mean the communication of freedom without responsibilities, the attempt to give a colony its full share of

self-government in common with the home country, yet to relieve it of the duties and liabilities which are essential to self-government. Such terms of intercourse compose no friendship, nor alliance, nor community, nor solid interconnexion of any sort, but a fool's paradise of mutual promise and expectation, equally visionary and evanescent. If the colonies will undertake the duties as well as privileges of British citizens, we may go on together as members of one great empire, each part habitually maintaining itself, and the whole ready to rally round any threatened point."

But neither Mr. Adderley nor myself can claim any originality, in enunciating these principles we are but echoing the voice of England's greatest philosophier, Adam Smith. This doctrine was his, to treat colonies not as separate states, but as integral portions of the nation, placing their trade on the footing of a coasting trade, and allowing them representation in the House of Commons. Had his teaching been attended to, the States of America might yet remain portion of this empire; or if, as is more probable, the vastness of such empire should ere this have dictated separation, there would have occurred a parting between the present state and her magnificent progeny from motives of mutual expediency, with lasting sentiments of goodwill and affection, instead of a disruption leaving beyond it irritating memories of unjustifiable aggression on the part of the powerful parent State, and successfully resisted on the part of her adolescent offspring. Again, in more recent days, the wisdom of our great philosopher would have dictated that in according to the colonies constitutions for local self-government, the gift should have been conditioned that the colonists accepting the privileges of British citizenship should at the same time assume the duties and responsibilities appertaining thereto, by reservation of a civil list to Her Majesty securing a reasonable contribution towards the defence of the empire, and bestowing as the corollary to that obligation the privilege of representation in the councils of the empire. Above all, care would have been taken that so long as the relation between mother country and colony should endure, the interchange of productions of each should be unrestricted as the interchange of produce and manufacture between town and country within the United Kingdom. We should not have seen the anomaly of a colony excluding by a hostile tariff the productions of those whose industry is heavily taxed for their protection. Neither would our statesmenship have assumed the ridiculous attitude of retaining the colonies as part and parcel of the empire with one hand whilst thrashing them off as foreign states with the other.

Finally, it is impossible to adduce any argument for casting off our Australian, South African, and American colonies which will not apply with equal force to casting off Ireland, or Anglesea, or the Isle of Wight. Under sound and equitable relations the wealth and population of these colonies, in their existing position on the globe, would constitute the power of Great Britain, as effectually as though they could be handed alongside, and materially annexed.

England's true policy consists, not in severing but in drawing closer the bonds of union, and dealing with her colonies as so many additional counties subjoined to the area of the United Kingdom. The nation with the colonies thus incorporated would receive an increase in wealth and population equivalent to an expansion of the narrow limits of these islands by the addition of so many counties as there now are colonies; and England with her North American counties on the one flank, and her Australian counties on the other, in her true position, equi-distant between European despotism on the one haud and American democracy on the other, may ever continue the secure home of liberty in the right sense of that much abused word.

An Ample Fund for Emigration in the Colonial Crown Lands. By C. E. BAGOT, Barrister-at-Law, Dublin.

THE unoccupied territory of the British colonies, that is, the land not yet assigned to private proprietors, is of almost illimitable extent. When we say that it comprises about 1,800 millions of acres, we are as far as ever from having any definite idea of its quantity. It is ample enough to absorb the population of the United Kingdom twenty times over, or to receive all the emigration of Europe for centuries to come. These lands, formerly worthless and so little thought of that they were left to be disposed of by the ministers of the day as favour or caprice dictated, have of late years acquired a substantial pecuniary value; a result which has been brought about simply by putting a price upon them; that is, a reasonable and sufficient price. So long as land was given away, men, eager to possess what seemed to be property in the colony, because it was wealth in the old country, obtained large tracts, which they were unable to cultivate or to colonise. Thinly scattered over a wide surface, too far apart for co-operation or for trade, the settlers quickly degenerated into a condition of rude plenty, perhaps, but in other respects little better than that of the savage whom they displaced. In the wild backwoods of America, and amongst the Dutch boers of South Africa, may be seen the results of free grants of land to individual emigrants; while Western Australia to this day pines from the consequences of tieing up immense tracts of land in the hands of private persons; no less than three millions of acres having been bestowed at a nominal price upon the first settlers.

In 1832, the present Earl Grey, being then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, caused certain ordinances to be issued, which put an end for ever to the abuse and mischief of free grants of land in the colonies. It was directed that all lands should in future be sold, and that the produce of the sales should be expended in bringing out emigrants from these countries, thus adopting the main provisions of the theory of systematic colonisation, which the late

૨૨

Edward Gibbon Wakefield devoted so many years of his life to explain and develop. In spite of difficulties and impediments, mostly arising from imperfect comprehension of the plan, and the partial or fragmentary application of it, Mr. Wakefield's system has proved its soundness and its usefulness by a marked success, especially in the colony where it received the fairest trial, and where its author's principles were most nearly followed, namely, in South Australia. The system has been departed from in some of its most essential particulars, but the colonial lands continue to be obtainable by sale alone. In 1860, the sales of land in the several colonies produced the sum of £1,539,856 9s. 11d., and adding the receipts for pasturage and mining leases, the entire land revenue amounted to £2,082,141 7s. 6d. As the colonies grow in wealth and population, the quantity of land sold will, of course, increase; and as there are 1,800 millions of acres yet unsold, even if but one-fourth or even one-tenth were good land and saleable, there would be enough for very many years to come.

Now to whom does this revenue, the price of these crown lands, belong? To the colony, or to the mother country? And how should it be expended? These are the questions to which I would invite the attention of the Department.

Our colonies have been founded in various ways: some, as New South Wales and Tasmania, have been established by the Government sending out an expedition which formed part of the public force. Others have originated with bodies of private persons, acting with the sanction and assistance of Government. Such was the case with Western Australia and South Australia. Others, again, are offshoots of the older settlements, which by the authority of the Imperial Parliament have been formed into separate colonies; such are Victoria and Queensland. There have been few instances in later times of colonies being established by private adventurers, without the help and countenance of the State. The first settlers in New Zealand were enterprising individuals, who were discouraged and disowned by the Home Government, of which they affected and hoped to be independent. But unable to hold their ground against the natives, and fearful of foreign intervention, they anxiously sought for the protection of the British Government, which, at length, in 1840. admitted them within its jurisdiction and the shelter of its power. Thus, all our colonies, whatever may have been the circumstances of their origin, have needed the protecting hand of the mother country to ward off molestation from without, to preserve peace and order within. It is the might of Britain, or the prestige of her name which shelters and affords courage and confidence to the infant settlement; which guards its trade and increasing wealth from piracy and plunder; and the growing colony enjoys from first to last the immense advantage of forming an integral portion of a mighty empire, whose commerce and whose arms extend to every region of the globe. But the protection of our colonies, their government, and the administration of justice in