COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HONORABLE FRANCIS SCOTT, 
 
 ON MOVING FOP THE APPOINTMENT OF A 
 
 SELECT COMMITTEE, 
 
 ox the 16th April, 184!i. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY TRELAWNY IV. SAUNDERS, 
 6, CHARING CROSS. 
 
COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 MR. SCOTT.—The subject which I venture to bring under the 
 consideration of the House, namely, the condition of the Colonies, 
 has. unfortunately, not been deemed worthy of any place in the 
 Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, 
 which contained reference to foreign affairs, and all other topics, 
 hut not one word upon colonial matters. Sir, when I consider 
 the vast and growing importance of the colonial possessions of 
 the British Empire, spread as they are over the whole world; and 
 when I reflect upon the critical and disastrous position of many of 
 those colonies ; I feel that the subject is one which well deserves 
 the consideration and attention of Parliament. 
 
 I wish that topics so wide in scope, and so deep in interest, had 
 fallen into abler and more experienced hands ; still I will not shrink 
 from the undertaking; and, without venturing to suggest the 
 amendment which the system requires, and craving for a short 
 time that indulgence from the House which I so greatly need, 
 1 will briefly endeavour to establish a ease, w hy 1 should move for 
 a Select Committee, to inquire into the political and financial rela¬ 
 tions between Great Britain and her dependencies, with a view to 
 reduce the charges on the British treasure, and to enlarge the 
 functions of Colonial Legislatures. 
 
 Remembering the opinions of the Secretary of State for the 
 Colonies, 1 am not without hope that I shall obtain the support 
 of honourable gentlemen opposite. 
 
 The colonies of Great Britain are between forty and fifty' 
 in number, and between forty and fifty times as large as the 
 British Islands. Our trade to the colonies, including the East 
 India trade, takes one-third of our exports ; and, if the exports 
 of raw materials and semi-manufactured articles were thrown 
 out of consideration, our exports to the colonies equal our exports 
 to the rest of the world. In Its 15, the tonnage inwards in our 
 foreign trade amounted to 2,2iU,000 tons, while the tonnage em¬ 
 ployed in the colonial reached to upwards of 2,000,000 tons. 
 
That is not the only reason why we should take this subject into 
 consideration. The expenditure of the colonies is £3,372,000 
 yearly; while the expenditure of Great Britain on account of the 
 same colonies is £3,1/0,000; making in all a sum of nearly 
 £6,600.000 in round numbers. The population of the British 
 colonies is reckoned at 5,000,000 souls; whereof 1,600,000 are 
 of British extraction, and the rest are negro and coloured races. 
 
 It would appear that in Great Britain itself the government of a 
 population of 30,000,000 costs £24.000,000 annually, including the 
 amount defrayed for colonies ; while a population of 5,000,000 in 
 the colonies costs £6,600,000 ; being at the rate of 16s. a-head at 
 home, and of 26s. per head in the colonies. Indeed, excluding the 
 coloured, the uncivilized population, the charge of government 
 for every colonial British subject is 52s. per head annually. 
 
 It is worth inquiry, whether this enormous outlay is neces¬ 
 sarily attendant upon the possession of colonies ? 
 
 Whether the cost were rather attributable to the vast conti¬ 
 nents which we hold in America, in Africa, and Australia, or to one 
 small irresponsible geographical spot in Downing Street. When 
 gentlemen speak of making changes, and of giving up colonies, 
 it behoves them to enquire, whether they might not with more 
 advantage, both to the colonists and ourselves, make some changes 
 nearer home ? 
 
 Adam Smith, in his chapter upon colonies, in the last cen¬ 
 tury, said, “ the expenses of our civil establishments in North 
 America, before the commencement of the late disturbances, 
 were £64,700; an ever memorable example at how small an 
 expense 3,000,000 of people may not only be governed, but well 
 governed.” The highest possible authority on the subject, Lord 
 Grey, in the House of Lords, on the 10th of August last, stated 
 to the effect that “ colonization was never so perfect as at the pre¬ 
 sent moment.” Itj then, colonization was never so perfect as 
 now, it follows that if 3,000,000 of people were well governed for 
 £64,700 in 1770, 5,000,000 of people might be well governed 
 now for £105,170. But the government of these five millions, in 
 these days of perfection of colonization, costs not £105,000, but 
 £3, (72,193, or 32 times as much as in former days; and taking into 
 account the imperial as well as.the colonial expenditure, sixty 
 times as much as before the art of colonization was so perfectly 
 understood. The government of a single colony, such as New¬ 
 foundland, with less than 100,000 inhabitants, costs as much now 
 as 3,000,000 of people did in 1770; and the one small island of 
 Mauritius, scarcely larger than the Isle of Wight, with a popula¬ 
 tion less than almost any English county contains, is taxed, in 
 a time of ruin and distress, and costs for its government, more than 
 five times the amount required to pay for the government of 
 
colonial inquiry. 
 
 3,000,0000 people in 1770. Each Mauritian subject was conse¬ 
 quently taxed 140 times as heavily as the North American colonist 
 was 70 years ago The governor of the Mauritius and of Ceylon 
 each receive for their salary alone nearly one-ninth of the whole 
 cost which it took to govern 3,000,000 of souls in days when colo¬ 
 nization was not so well understood as at present; and the salaries 
 of all the governors of the British colonies comes to almost double 
 that amount. Lord Grey, in his evidence before the Committee on 
 the Miscellaneous Estimates, last year, says he thinks “ that many 
 of the governors of colonies are exceedingly underpaid, and that, 
 generally, the scale of their salaries is insufficient.” I do not 
 blame the noble lord for entertaining this opinion. The duties 
 which fall to the lot of the Colonial Secretary to perform are too 
 heavy for any one individual to discharge properly, and render it 
 impossible for him to afford them the attention they deserve. 
 
 The duties which press upon the Secretary for the Colonies 
 are of every description, and from every quarter of the world 
 —moral, social, legal, judicial, penal, political, civil, ecclesiasti¬ 
 cal, naval, military, ordnance, financial, fiscal, commercial; mat¬ 
 ters relating to the establishment of new, or the maintenance 
 of old, colonies—to convicts, to pensions, and the rewards of old 
 servants—to places and the salaries of present servants—to the 
 patronage of the thousand and one places at his disposal, and the 
 creation of new offices. Hong-Kong, for instance, which was 
 settled in 1843, has, since its establishment as a colony, cost this 
 country above £300,000, and the governor enjoys £6,000 a year. 
 
 I will refer to the opinion of a statesman, from whom much 
 was then expected, and who thus expressed himself in the House 
 of Commons in June, 1845 :—“The duties of government re¬ 
 quired in an infant settlement might be discharged by the colo¬ 
 nists themselves, who had a stake in its welfare, either gratuit¬ 
 ously, for the honour such functions conferred, or at all events for 
 a small remuneration. He hoped they would revert to the ancient 
 and wise policy of their ancestors, and' allow the colonists to govern 
 themselves. No doubt they would commit some mistakes, perhaps 
 serious ones; but all experience was in favour of self-government. 
 When he looked at what their ancestors accomplished two centu¬ 
 ries ago under this system, and contrasted it- with the results of 
 attempting to govern from Downing Street a settlement at the anti¬ 
 podes, he must say experience was decidedly in favour of allowing 
 a colony to govern itself. We have now before us a melancholy 
 proof of the height to which misgovernment (Sight be carried in 
 Downing Street before an effective remedy could be applied. From 
 some experience at the Colonial Office, he was persuaded that it 
 was utterly impossible for any man, be his talents and industry 
 what they might, adequately to administer such complicated affairs 
 

 as those of the British colonies scattered all over the world.” 
 Lord Howick is now Earl Grey. The statesman in opposi¬ 
 tion is now the minister in power. He has the means of carrying 
 out his views to the fullest extent. With change of place has 
 come change of policy. 
 
 His praise formerly was bestowed on the policy of times 
 past—his praise new is all for the present. He then thought 
 that 3,000,000 of people were well governed at the charge of 
 £04,600a year; and he now thinks that the colonies were never 
 so well governed as at the present day; that £121,000 was too 
 small a sum for the salaries of the governors alone. The salaries 
 of these officials vary from £7,000 to £600, and they may be 
 taken at an average of nearly £3.000 a year. The colonies, to 
 which Lord Grey referred on the former occasion, had charters for 
 their government, which had been given to them during the reign 
 of the Stuarts—certainly not the most liberal period of our history. 
 Some of these charters were drawn up by Lord Somers, one of 
 the greatest statesmen this country ever had. The charter of 
 Massachusetts might be somewhat democratic, but that of Caro¬ 
 lina was most aristocratic, and others were virtually hereditary 
 monarchies. They were not bureaucratic dependencies. They were 
 not settlements at the antipodes attempted, as Earl Grey com¬ 
 plained in 1S45, to be governed by instructions from Downing 
 Street. They were states which possessed to the fullest extent the 
 power of managing their own affairs, and making their own laws. 
 At present you desire that Ireland should rest on self reliance. 
 You refuse to apply the same principle to your colonies. 
 
 The Minister praised the system of the past centuries. 
 
 At the period to which he referred, when the colonies were well 
 governed and were cheaply governed, there was no Colonial Minis¬ 
 ter. When the colonies prospered and were well affected, there was 
 no Colonial Office. It was not until the madness and the folly 
 of British statesmen forced this country into war with the colonies, 
 that we appointed a Minister for £: War and Colonies;” the name 
 was well selected, and the claim to the title was well sustained. 
 By war we lost the most valuable colonies we ever possessed; by 
 war we took the colonies of others; we retained them less by 
 affection than by war. We kept them within the pale of the 
 British dominions, but without the pale of the British constitution. 
 We deny them civil rights, and govern them by arbitrary 
 instructions and despatches from the Office of War and Colonies. 
 Tin- statesman wb# condemned this policy in 1S45, continues it in 
 1.649. In 1632 the lords of Charles the First’s privy council first 
 made a committee of nine members of that board to take cogni¬ 
 zance of colonial matters. Afterwards, in 1670—and not in 1672, 
 as Earl Grey stated in his official document—King Charles the 
 
COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 Second constituted a special and select council for foreign plan¬ 
 tations, and “ for promoting the welfare and preserving the flour¬ 
 ishing state and condition of the colonies.” 
 
 Lord Somers, who it is said, framed the constitution of the 
 council, also in 1684 drew up the heads of the charters which were 
 then proposed to be given to the colonies. Under this council 
 and their own charters the colonies prospered; and when, at length, 
 we lost them, the two causes which tended chiefly to alienate the 
 colonists—the two causes which tended principally to light the 
 flame in America—were samples of injustice and folly, which are 
 now copied to the letter in some of our colonies. 
 
 The one, was the attempt to levy taxes without the consent of 
 the colonists, which is done annually, to the amount of £81,000, 
 in New South Wales, and many other colonies, by means of an enor¬ 
 mous civil list. The other, was the claim to alter their constitu¬ 
 tions without their concurrence; thus refusing to them the prin¬ 
 ciple of self-government. In 177L the colonies of North America 
 complained that they were taxed without their consent; and, as their 
 complaints were not attended to, they asserted their independence. 
 The same system, which is endeavoured to be enforced in our former 
 colonies without their consent, was at the present time adopted 
 towards New South Wales, the Mauritius, Jamaica, and other 
 colonies; for they are taxed with a heavy civil list against their 
 consent. I presented on the 26th of last month, several colonial 
 petitions against similar attempted invasions of rights. 
 
 What is this but) acting in the way a former Government did 
 towards America, which cost this country the United States in the 
 last century; respecting which, Mr. Pulteney in 177S, said ; “ That 
 there could be no doubtthat thetwo motives,which led to the existing 
 contest between England and North America,were, first, the attempt 
 to levy taxes against the consent of the colonies; and secondly, to 
 alter their constitutions without their concurrence;” and concerning 
 which, Mr. Burke wrote, “ The charters ought not to be altered at 
 all, but at the desire of the greater part of the people who live under 
 them.” I know it is a common question to ask, “ What are colonial 
 rights? What rights have the colonists?” The colonist has the same 
 rights that we ourselves have in this country. I do not mean to as¬ 
 sert that all colonists, having different degrees of civilisation, could 
 be governed by exactly the same rules as British subjects in this 
 country. That would be as difficult to arrange, as it would be to 
 govern by the same laws a city and a desert; but, on the other 
 hand, we have no right to refuse to British colonists the exer¬ 
 cise of any rights which do not interfere with imperial interests, 
 and which resemble those which we claim for ourselves. The 
 want of this freedom is the chief cause of complaint in the 
 colonies. I find it stated in a letter from a leading member of the 
 
COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 Legislative Council of New South Wales, dated October last, 
 
 “ It appears to be the fashion in Parliament, as well by those in 
 office as by the opposition, to talk about the expediency of allow¬ 
 ing the distant dependencies of the empire to manage their own 
 concerns. Almost every act of the administration belies such an 
 intention. Everything in the Colonial-office appears to be done 
 in a spirit of supercilious despotism, not with a desire to conciliate, 
 but to alienate the best and most loyal feelings of the colonists.” 
 
 I appeal to the good sense of the house, whether it is wise to 
 allow such an opinion to gain ground ? I do not ask whether it 
 is fair or just; but, whether it is prudent or politic to propagate a 
 feeling, that there are no kindred or common principles of govern¬ 
 ment, of commerce, of society at home, and in the colonies, on 
 which we are to remain united ? Is it discreet to encourage a 
 belief, that this country tampers, not only with their commerce 
 and constitutions, but trifles with their reason, and prevaricates 
 with their condition, or uttering constitutional doctrines—to act 
 as if British subjects were to be governed by different rules in 
 different parts of the same dominions of the same Sovereign '/ 
 
 These evils arise from the accumulation of duties upon the Colo¬ 
 nial Minister, and the unconstitutional power which he exercises 
 over the prosperity, the security, and the property of the colonists; 
 and the existence of these evils is prominently apparent in the 
 opposite opinions held by colonial ministers. I am fully aware of 
 the difficulties which beset any minister who has to govern a Colo¬ 
 nial Empire so complicated and extensive as that of Great Britain. 
 
 The noble lord at the head of the Colonial department, sensible 
 of these difficulties, had proposed an arrangement, by which certain 
 duties connected with the colonies should devolve upon the Com¬ 
 mittee of the Privy Council. This was effected by a letter from Lord 
 Grey, dated the 12th of April, 184S, and addressed to the Board 
 of Trade. This plan, however, continues, rather than removes, 
 the grievance. This minute did not state that these duties must 
 devolve on the Committee of the Privy Council, but that they 
 might devolve on that body. Now I would ask, when was this 
 to be done, and at whose desire? Not at the desire of the 
 oppressed colonists who appeal, but at the arbitrary will of the 
 person who was appealed against as an oppressor, when alone he 
 thought fit. And, then, how was this to be done ? By the colo¬ 
 nists complaining ? No such thing ; but by the Secretary of State, 
 stating,—of course,— all points connected with the question ? By 
 no means,—stating only those points upon which he considered 
 it expedient that the committee should be consulted. Why was 
 this to be done? For the advantage of the colonies? Not at all, 
 not to relieve the colonists, but the Colonial Minister, merely fur 
 

 JKQU1HY. 
 
 the convenience of the Secretary of State, so as to enable him to 
 take, whenever he thought fit, the responsibility of his own acts 
 off his own shoulders. If any doubt existed on the question, I 
 would ask those honourable members who feel an interest in the 
 subject of the welfare of the colonies, to turn their attention for a 
 moment to a point well worthy of the attention of the house. 
 I would ask them to refer to the evidence of the Colonial Minister 
 given before a committee of the house last year. In answer to 
 question 6850, in the evidence taken before the Committee to which 
 the Miscellaneous Estimates were referred, Earl Grey said, that the 
 ostensible decision was by the Board of Trade; but actually and 
 substantially it remained with the Secretary of State on his express¬ 
 ing his opinion. It appears, then, that there was no change, as the 
 decision rested with the Secretary; and he added that he did “ not 
 in the slightest degree intend to alter that practice.” The noble 
 lord, in his letter, said :—“ In this proposal I have not suggested 
 a mere innovation, but rather a return, as nearly as possible, to the 
 mode of action contemplated on the original appointment of the 
 Board of Plantations.” The only return it really contained was 
 the return of Mr. Stephen to judge of colonial matters. I pro¬ 
 test against its being supposed that this arrangement was any 
 return to the original plan for the constitution of the board. We 
 learn from this letter, and from Earl Grey’s evidence in June 
 last, that he proposed to add Sir J. Stephen to the board, to judge 
 of colonial matters, which certainly could not be considered any 
 great novelty or innovation, for it would be doing the same that 
 they had done for the last quarter of a century : and I doubt 
 whether our colonies would consider the return of Sir J. Stephen 
 to office would be attended with any great advantage. 
 
 The Hon. gentleman would declare, and I am wdling to ad¬ 
 mit, that, in the constitution of the Privy Council, so far as it 
 had control over colonial matters, was comprised all that was high, 
 wise, and learned ; but, nevertheless, I must repeat what was said 
 by Mr. Pulteney in the last century, namely, that its constitution 
 affords a just subject for complaint — complaint on account of 
 hardship, complaint on account of delay, and complaint especially 
 on account of the numberless cases which came under the head of 
 prerogative. The delay, the expense, the secrecy, the enormous 
 power of the Colonial-office patronage, which brings cases under 
 the head of prerogative, are calculated to create in the colonies 
 that estrangement, which the undue exercise of the power of the 
 Crown created at home under the Stuarts. 
 
 Rather than express any opinion of my own upon the exercise of 
 judicial authority, which refuses to give any reason for its decision, 
 I will allude to an extract from a despatch of Lord Aberdeen, when 
 
10 
 
 IXQUI 
 
 he was Colonial Minister, which did not, however, refer to the Privy 
 Council, but to another judicial tribunal, where a practice had been 
 adopted of not giving reasons for its judgments. The remark of 
 Lord Aberdeen, with reference to a judge who refused to give 
 reasons for the decisions which he gave, was, “ If it be really true 
 that the withholding the grounds of bis decisions is either the 
 privilege or the duty of any judge in any part of her Majesty’s 
 dominions, it is impossible that such a principle of law could he 
 abolished too soon or too completely. The absolute dominion of 
 the law, as enforced by its judicial interpreter, would be nothing 
 less than a degrading oppression and tyranny, if they were not 
 compelled to explain distinctly the grounds of every decision they 
 
 If these remarks apply to the case of an individual judge, 
 how much more strongly do they apply to a body like the Privy 
 Council. As an illustration of this, I will take the case of a 
 judge removed, into the particular merits of which I will not 
 however enter, but which shows the secret proceedings of the 
 Privy Council. Mr. Justice Willis set aside proceedings pro¬ 
 nounced illegal, he gained his cause and paid his costs, while the 
 party who lost had his costs paid for him. lie can obtain no re¬ 
 cord of the ground of this decision. 
 
 Again, Justice Reduic’s case, on which papers will shortly be 
 in the hands of Hon. Members, also shows the uncertain conduct of 
 the Colonial-otBce; tor he was appointed, suspended, replaced, and 
 displaced; and the colony of St. Lucia had to pay for these various 
 vagaries caused by the vacillating fancies of the supreme dictator. 
 
 But with regard to more public affairs, it is of course neces¬ 
 sary that the crown should have a veto, with respect to all the 
 acts of the colonial legislatures, as well as of the legislature of this 
 country. In Great Britain, government relies on the advice of its 
 recognised responsible advisers, whose high position is a guarantee 
 for their ability ; but the affairs of the colonies are left to the de¬ 
 cision of gentlemen of Westminster, unknown in Westminster 
 Hall: personally indeed known to myself, and I have no desire to 
 underrate their abilities. If we take the account of the noble 
 lord at the head of the Colonial-office, the mode of proceed¬ 
 ing was most unfair to the colonies ; for the veto on the acts of the 
 Assemblies was decided in the most light manner. The noble lord, 
 in his evidence before the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates 
 last year, stated that the veto upon the deliberations of the Legis¬ 
 lative Assemblies were decided, upon the advice of Mr. Wood or 
 Mr. Rogers, by the Secretary of State. Who were these gentle- 
 
 remefccit Olympum.” 
 
COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 Should the authority, which extended from pole to pole, be hid up 
 three pair of stairs in a cttl de sac in Westminster, and the laws 
 passed by the Mauritius, and those other colonies which have only 
 Legislative Councils, be allowed or disallowed by a simple des¬ 
 patch ? Q,u. 6S52, Misc. Est. Such proceedings destroy confi¬ 
 dence, irritate opposition, and create indignation. 
 
 It is hardly decent or creditable to this country, that matters of 
 the greatest importance to the colonies should be decided at the 
 suggestion of persons whose names are not known to the parties 
 thus affected, and who, at the same time, are altogether irre¬ 
 sponsible. 
 
 I will now' briefly call the attention of the House to the 
 practical inconvenience, and the hardship and personal injustice, of 
 the mode of keeping and auditing colonial accounts. Great 
 Britain pays upwards of £52,000 a year to 170 persons employed 
 in the Audit-office. A considerable saving might be made by al¬ 
 lowing the colonies to audit their own accounts, instead of sending 
 them home to Somerset-house, where they lie for years. The 
 accounts connected with the first American war during the last 
 century, were only settled in the Audit-office about twenty years 
 ago. Things are not quite so bad now; but if, however, they 
 allowed the colonies to audit and settle their own accounts, this 
 sum might be considerably reduced. The error of a shilling or 
 two often causes a vast outlay of money to correct it, with a volum¬ 
 inous correspondence, and the delay of two or three years before 
 it is disposed of. Another great subject of grievance to which 1 
 wish to call the attention of the House, and which is one great 
 evil of our colonial system attendant on the present plan, is its 
 constantly-changing policy. In ordinary times, the action of Go¬ 
 vernment is less required to control men, than with steady 
 policy, to direct business and to guide commerce into productive 
 and permanent channels. Before and since the time of Earl 
 Bathurst, the average tenure of office of a Colonial Minister has 
 been eighteen months; and in the last four years we have im¬ 
 posed upon them four new secretaries and four fresh under¬ 
 secretaries in the Colonial-office. Latterly they had seen still 
 greater changes in the office. The colonies, not only changed 
 their chief ruler every year or eighteen months, but that master 
 changed his own mind every six weeks; and the orders sent to the 
 colonies were revoked by himself before they could come into 
 operation ; and important matters promoted by himself, were not 
 unfrequently rescinded by himself, within this brief period. 
 
 For instance, the despatch affecting the social condition of 
 Canada was sent out and revoked within a month. The con¬ 
 stitution for New Zealand was sent out and recalled within the 
 year. The Governor, not knowing what to do, in the meantime 
 
12 
 
 COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 acted upon it in one island, while he entertained doubts as to 
 • whether he should adopt it in the other. I will not allude to the 
 settlement established in North Australia, further than to observe, 
 that this country was saddled with £15,000 for this vagary. 
 Transportation to Tan Dieraan’s Land was adopted, then it was 
 abandoned, then resumed, to be again abandoned, and since to be 
 resumed in an altered form. A constitution, which proved a misfit 
 was sent out to New South Wales, and was now reported to have 
 been only a sample, a pattern not meant for wear, and only sent 
 out as a joke. I may add another of the same sort, which was 
 sent out to the Cape, and which was equally as bad a fit and 
 of as little comfort to the intended wearer. I remember hearing 
 of the noble lord, in 1S30, sending shoes to the negroes, and 
 razors to men who had no beards; but this is worse; and this 
 cup-and-ball, this battledore-and-shuttlecock play, may be ex¬ 
 cellent sport in the Colonial - office, but is poor fun for the 
 colonies. 
 
 A signal instance of this perpetually shifting policy is to be 
 found in the ruinous land system pursued in Australia, whereby 
 the settlement has been injured, capital has been consigned to 
 bankruptcy, and enterprise converted to despair. 
 
 In a very few years the Colonial-office, not only without, 
 but contrary to the advice of every governor, as well as of 
 every other person possessed of colonial information, had per¬ 
 petrated nine principal, and committed in all seventy minor 
 changes, each change altering or affecting the article of the 
 greatest importance in the colony. I have heard in this house the 
 question—what is a pound ? But in New South Wales nobody 
 could tell what is an acre. In a few years there was the dis¬ 
 position of land—first, by free grants ; second, by sales at a fixed 
 price; third, by sales by auction; fourth, by auction with a mini¬ 
 mum of 5s. per acre ; fifth, by auction, with a minimum of 12s.; 
 sixth, with a minimum of 20s. an acre; seventh, occupation by 
 tenancy at will under the crown; eighth, occupation by annual 
 licence under the crown; and ninth, occupation by leases for 
 fourteen years. At last the Colonial-office came to a stand on 
 this question. In vain every governor* remonstrated, that they 
 had taken their stand on the wrong place—in vain every governor 
 in every colony protested against the course that was being pur- 
 
 * Governors: Sir R. Bourke, Governor of New South Wales. Sir G. Gipps, 
 Governor of New South Wales, Speech to Legislative Council, September, 1812. 
 Sir John Franklin, Governor of Van Dieman’s Land. Lieutenant-Governor 
 Latrobe. l’ort Philip. Captain Me Arthur, Commandant Port Essington, and. 
 I believe. Governors Hobson and Fitzroy, New Zealand. Sir T. Mitchell, Sur¬ 
 veyor General of New South Wales. All the evidence before Colonial Com- 
 
COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 sued, as being absolute destruction to the colonies—in vain did 
 eight or nine committees expostulate and demonstrate the error 
 and the folly of persisting in such proceedings:— 
 
 “ Sic volo, sic juheo, stct pro ratione voluntas.” 
 was the conciliatory characteristic reply. 
 
 Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that some of those changes were 
 made by act of Parliament.* 
 
 Mr. SCOTT: That may be the case, but the evil is not the 
 less. The fact is they could not blame the colonial minister. 
 It is impossible that he could be responsible for all that was 
 going on. The great evil is in the erroneous policy on this sub¬ 
 ject. The mere opening of the despatches from forty to fifty 
 colonies, the occasional composition of didactic and moral essays, 
 for the diffusion of sentences and the confusion of ideas, and mis¬ 
 named despatches are sufficient for any man, “ be his talents and 
 industry,” as Lord Howiclc has said, “ what they mayto say 
 nothing of the distribution of the patronage to the hordes who 
 are quartered on the poverty of the colonists by the colonial 
 minister, in the shape of treasurers, auditors, secretaries, surveyors, 
 &c. The worst misfortune is when the minister has a crotchet 
 or favourite theory which is to be worked out at the expense of 
 the colony, as was the case in the land question and others. But 
 this land crotchet has worked most cruelly in Australia, as I 
 shall have occasion to show. Notwithstanding this, the emi¬ 
 gration commissioners in their fifth report, had the assurance to 
 speak of “all the facility and certainty, in the acquisition of 
 land which might be expected from the provisions of the Land 
 Act m the Australian colonies.” This was asserted when land 
 was ten times the price in these colonies that it was in the 
 United States. The honourable gentleman, on a former occasion, 
 boasted that Great Britain had given free institutions to her colo¬ 
 nies. No other country has such free institutions to give as Eng¬ 
 land; but the power vested in colonial representative bodies 
 resembles that existing under the constitution of Great Bri¬ 
 tain, about as much as the institutions of Russia or Turkey re- 
 
 JIr. Hawes also in his reply desired to shift the responsibility from Govern¬ 
 ment to Parliament. The apathy of the Legislature on Colonial subjects, of 
 winch he complained, shows that the responsibility of the measures generally 
 
 ted on those who proposed them ; reference to Hansard shows, that°iue 
 referred to by Lord John Russell, New South Wales Constitution Act, passed 
 without a single remark from any but the 
 tion from Lord Monteaglc, which 
 
 'ough all its stages, in both 
 Minister who introduced it, ej 
 
 occupies four lines of one column. The “ Waste Lane_, 
 
 August, 1846, and hurried through both Houses at the close of the sessiouTwitii 
 —F/I. ., nC fe wl !“ any at . tem I ,t at ,liscussion "'as hopeless. Thus on Colonial 
 es the powers of the Legislature, and then throws 
 ity of acts which it has blindly sanctioned. 
 
 matters the Executive ex 
 

 semble those of England. I may be told that the charters of 
 the colonies are counterparts to the constitution of Great Britain ; 
 but my reply is, that they are not counterparts but counterfeits. 
 Canada, by rebellion, obtained a form of government not altogether 
 to be admired, for it is too republican in its composition, as re¬ 
 cent events are proving; but by tumult it gained the power of 
 self-government. Did the Colonial-office desire to produce the 
 same effect through the same means ? 
 
 Some colonies have legislative assemblies, others legislative coun¬ 
 cils ; and from the rules and regulations of the Colonial-office, 
 it would seem, in theory, that their privileges are very great. 
 The practice is, however, opposed to the theory. Some have 
 representative chambers, with a greater or less power of choosing 
 representatives, which is called self-government. In many, the 
 non-elected members are literal nominees of the governor, who 
 vitiate or neutralize the independent opinion of the Cham¬ 
 ber by their undue preponderating influence. On that subject 
 complaints are now proceeding from British Guiana and Ja¬ 
 maica, and other places. Here I would warn the house against 
 this irritating system of attempted control, by reminding them 
 that one of the earliest, if not the first, cause which led to the 
 American war, was the refusal of Sir E. Barnard, the governor 
 of Massachusetts, to admit into the representative chamber a 
 member against whom he had an objection. That is exactly the 
 course pursued iu many of our colonies now; and if it be per¬ 
 severed in, the result must also be the same. In the case of British 
 Guiana, complaints are made that the despatch of a British 
 minister is held to be sufficient not only to supersede all law in 
 the colony, but even to prevent any new law from being enacted. 
 In many of the colonies the chamber is useless. The executive 
 power is totally independent and irrespective of majorities, and 
 .the Government sat safe and absolute. If the same rule pre¬ 
 vailed here, the noble lord could, under such a system, continue 
 as firm iu that house with only a score behind him as if he had 
 four hundred to support him. It might be said on both sides 
 of the house, that what had occurred in North America made it 
 most impolitic to bring forward a question like this under con¬ 
 sideration. I maintain that it is indifference in this country to 
 the state of the colonies, and the absence of discussion, which has led 
 to all our colonial difficulties, whether in North America or else¬ 
 where. How can satisfaction be expected to exist under a system 
 which allows to Canada the entire management of its own affairs, 
 while a neighbouring colony—that of Prince Edw ard’s Island—is 
 governed by a bureaucracy, or what is called a family compact? 
 I find that in that colony, one gentleman, Mr. Haviland, holds no 
 fewer than ten offices of responsibility, emolument, and trust, 
 
which are these: — 1, Secretary; 2, Registrar; 3, Member of 
 Executive Council; 4, Clerk of Executive Council; 5, Clerk of 
 Legislative Council; 6, Accountant-General in Chancery; 7i 
 Master in Chancery; 8, Registrar of the Admiralty Court; !). 
 Puisne Judge; 10, Naval Officer, a sinecure of £150 a year from 
 the Imperial Treasury. Mr. Henry Haviland, son of the former, 
 is Provost Marshal with £i00 a year from the Imperial Treasury. 
 Then, in the same colony, Mr. Pope, the son-in law of Mr. Ifavi- 
 land, holds no fewer than six offices, namely :—1, Speaker of the 
 House of Assembly; 2, Commissioner of Roads ; 3, Commissioner 
 for taking acknowledgment of Deeds; 4, Deputy-Receiver of Land- 
 tax ; 5, Sub-Collector of Customs : G, Collector of Imports. The 
 same gentleman is a magistrate ; and it is almost needless to say 
 that Mr. Haviland and Mr. Pope are opposed to responsible go¬ 
 vernment. The right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer said, in March last, “ Nothing contributed more 
 to the stability of our social and constitutional system, than did 
 our habits of self-government. Self-government was an advan¬ 
 tage for which we could hardly pay too high a price. To attempt 
 to undermine this, would be to inflict a blow, not only on the pros¬ 
 perity, but on the peace and happiness of this country, which they 
 would rue to the end of their days.” 
 
 If we assent to the doctrine laid down, that the colonies are an 
 integral portion of the empire, we ought to give them a larger 
 share in the management of their own domestic allairs. The Earl 
 of llipon, in his circular despatch, dated the 5th of November, 
 1831, said, “ We should ever bear in mind the propriety of uniting 
 together by a general law, settlements which are parts of the same 
 empire, and which are deriving their white population, their lan¬ 
 guage, and their commercial capital from Great Britain.” When 
 such sentiments are assented to, I have a right to expect 
 the support of gentlemen on the other side to this motion ; and 
 I do not see how those rights, for which we ourselves contend, 
 can be withheld from communities which are civilized, and 
 capable of governing themselves. 
 
 The crown colonies are governed from Downing-street. In 
 all of them, the enormous amount of reserved civil list places the 
 Government independent of any vote ; and the question of supply 
 —the keystone of political freedom—is denied to the colonists. 
 The noble earl at the head of the Colonial Department, recom¬ 
 mended that a wide discretion should be given to the governors. 
 This might, no doubt, be advisable, if we were to govern the colo¬ 
 nies on the Turkish principle of pachalics; for often, the more 
 widely they deviated from their instructions, the more wisely and 
 successfully did these proconsuls administer their provinces. But, 
 will it not be wiser to give a wider discretion to the governed, 
 

 In August last, Earl Grey called attention to the wonderful 
 fact, that the exports to Australia had increased twelve-fold in 
 seventeen years, or at the rate of forty-eight fold in sixty-eight 
 years. But even the most rapid progress of Australia, owing, as 
 Earl Grey had justly stated, to the enterprising spirit of the people, 
 aided by modern science and improvements in navigation, did not 
 equal or exceed that of Pennsylvania, which increased from 
 £11,800 to £507,900, or nearly fifty-fold, in sixty-eight years. 
 If a steady and fostering hand had aided not only the Australian 
 but our other colonies, their wealth and production would have 
 been far greater than they now were. 
 
 The principle of the colonial-office is adverse to colonial inter¬ 
 ests; and, as if the recent changes in commercial policy were not 
 sufficiently injurious, the colonial office literally imposes extrava¬ 
 gance upon indigence. This is especially so in the case of the sugar¬ 
 growing, or, as they had better be termed our bankrupt colonies. 
 Bankrupt by act of Parliament. The case of one is nearly that 
 of all. Jamaica, Barbadoes, St. Vincent, all are depressed ; and, 
 in almost all, the expenditure exceeds the income. They beg 
 for economy and retrenchment, England objects on the score of 
 expense. Why, economy, next to liberty, is the Shibboleth of 
 hon. gentlemen opposite. It is the watchword on which they 
 came into power. The Minister for the Colonies is the patron 
 of economy ; and yet he refuses to allow the colonies to retrench. 
 The spendthrift asks permission to reduce, but the economist 
 refuses his consent. In British Guiana, it had been agreed to 
 reduce the salary of the governor, but the minister refused. The 
 secretary was only entitled to £700 a year; but the noble lord the 
 Colonial Secretary, generous with the money of other people, 
 awarded him £1,500. Commerce and enterprise are literally 
 weighed down by taxation. 
 
 In Ceylon, commerce of £600,000 is taxed to the amount 
 of £408,000, while the civil list, sanctioned by the Home Govern¬ 
 ment, amounts to £ 236,000. In the Mauritius, commerce 
 amounting to £1,000,000 is burdened to the extent of £360,000, 
 being at the rate of £2 per head. In Guiana, the taxes are 
 £273,000, or £2 6s. per head ; while tile civil list is £39,000, 
 in which a reduction is promised, but the promise is broken, 
 and the expense is kept. In Jamaica tile trade is decreasing 
 and the debt increasing. The colonists there desires retrenchment, 
 and they had complained, first, of the civil list, and next against the 
 governor for an attempt—first, to avoid the retrenchment, imd 
 then to evade the complaint. The Assembly of Jamaica objected 
 to grant the supplies until retrenchment was effected, and passed 
 a bill granting them to February, but, on engrossing the bill ti,e 
 time was extended to December, and the assembly were alarmed 
 
IS COI.ON'JAL INQUIRY. 
 
 and irritated at the surreptitious alteration; and each mail brings 
 fresh tidings of suffering and angry feeling. The trade of the 
 island had sunk one half; the adverse balance upon exports of 
 only £894,621, was £395,293, and with a revenue of £190,700, 
 the expenditure in October last, amounted to £239,695. The 
 supplies were voted on condition of retrenchment, but the gover¬ 
 nor prorogued the assembly in order to obtain the supplies and 
 get rid of the condition. Jamaica, oppressed and impoverished 
 by the councils of her rulers, and the country to which she be¬ 
 longed, desires a system suitable to her present condition; but 
 economy is under home controul, and is denied. 
 
 The commercial policy of this country presses heavily upon the 
 island, yet the Minister for the Colonies incapacitates her from 
 bearing the pressure he imposes. The governor receives a salary 
 larger than that of the prime minister, but a reduction is refused. 
 The policy which reduced the finances, refused to reduce the ex¬ 
 penses, thus inducing the belief that the Government cared more 
 for the patronage of the governor, than for the poverty of those 
 he governed. 
 
 The catalogue of complaints is long, the list of redresses 
 short. The honourable gentleman opposite, (Mr. Hawes) would 
 probably challenge opinion as to the liberality of the Colonial- 
 office towards the colonies. Not a colony but would rejoice 
 to accept the challenge, and enter the lists with him. I claim 
 the support of the honourable gentlemen, who the other 
 evening exhibited so much jealousy respecting the local controul 
 of expenditure, and who applauded the constitutional senti¬ 
 ments that had been expressed by the right honourable gentleman 
 (the M.P. for Wilts) in March last, to the effect that “ nothing 
 was more unsound in principle, than that expenses should be 
 ordered and authorised by persons who had not themselves the 
 management and controul of the expenditure.’* But the whole 
 colonial system, was exactly one of centralization.* Berbice, De- 
 merara, Tobago, had all drawn up petitions, setting forth their 
 deplorable condition, and complaining of their civil lists; they 
 urged that governors were quartered upon them like Yerres upon 
 Sicily, to extort large exactions from their poverty, rather than to 
 foster and protect them. So likewise the Mauritius, first ruined by 
 our laws, and then oppressed by taxation, had its loyalty sorely 
 tested. Not questioning the supremacy of the British flag, and 
 being a part of the empire, it sought for constitutional liberty, and a 
 reduction of its expenditure. 
 
COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 19 
 
 Ceylon, driven to insurrection by harsh imposts, was chastised 
 into submission by sanguinary executions. Why was it that, 
 since the Colonial-office was established on its present footing, 
 not one of the colonies acquired from foreign powers since that 
 period had obtained responsible government? 
 
 Why do we always keep the chain about their necks, and, 
 calling them Crown colonies, never let them forget that they are 
 ours by force, and not by affection ? The honourable Under-Sec¬ 
 retary boasted of his liberal government. He assented to the pro¬ 
 position of responsible government in the colonies, but the acts of 
 the Colonial-office do not square with these professions. “ The 
 voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” 
 
 Insurrection and rebellion are the channels to the favour of the 
 Colonial-office ; and two millions of money is the stamp duty, 
 or fee, which Downing-strect exacts from the British public be¬ 
 fore it will consent to grant self government to a colony. 
 
 If this be a correct picture of the effects of our perfect coloni¬ 
 zation on the material or mercantile interests of many of our 
 colonies—its effects on the social condition of dependencies by na¬ 
 ture suited to the settlement of British subjects, and on the organ¬ 
 ization of rising states, are equally deplorable. Where existence 
 depeuds upon ministerial favour, and where office alone confers 
 rank or position in society, there could be no independence. Sta¬ 
 tion by virtue of holding office, especially in remote and small 
 communities, is apt to engender a haughty demeanour to those 
 who are excluded, and a servility to superiors. 
 
 Tabooed as unfit for any office above £300 a year, the pursuit 
 of wealth became the Colonists’ only business, and its possession 
 their idolatry. They are not settlers, they are merely gold-seekers. 
 The Government will not allow them a permanent interest, by rea¬ 
 son of the absurd price it placed on land—a price equal to four or 
 five times the price of like land in the United States. I have 
 much question as to the validity of the disposition of much of the 
 lands alienated in the Colonies, after the passing of the Civil List 
 Act in the first year of each reign, and under the provisions 
 G Henry IV. still in force; but I will not further allude to that sub¬ 
 ject, nor will I detain the House by telling how much country 
 land the Government has sold of late years in Australia. The 
 urban and the mining lots comprise almost the whole sales.* 
 There are comparatively no gentlemen permanently settled in 
 Australia; the few who had temporary interests returned as soon 
 as they could realize their capital. The noble earl was in error, 
 
 * The Third Report of the Lords’ Committee on Colonization from Ireland, 
 printed in March, 1349, sheas during ten years since sales of land in New South 
 Wales were first established, the following results, before and after the lniuimmn 
 
20 
 
 when, in August, he created an impression that there existed a 
 proper distribution of the grades of society. He quoted from a 
 late Governor of New South Wales six or seven years ago. It was 
 true that there then went out some of the best blood of the three 
 kingdoms—the Cliffords, the Petres, the Wrottesleys, Trevelyans, 
 Vemers, and Mackenzies. But where are they ? What are 
 they now? Are they settlers? They have never been allowed 
 to settle. They went out under the double delusion that they 
 might have some place in society—that perhaps they might have 
 some voice in the Government. They went out with hope; they 
 returned in disgust. If they went out with money, they have re¬ 
 turned in poverty. There was no such thing to be found as a 
 happy settler; there might be fortunate speculators ; and the 
 Colonial-office, being the obstacle to colonization, was the real 
 cause of the low tone of society. No means to colonise were af¬ 
 forded to the poor; no inducements to settle were extended to 
 the rich. There was absolutely no middle class—no yeomen—no 
 middle men. There was no framework, no order of society. 
 
 Government was everywhere to interfere, but nowhere to protect. 
 
 The finger of Government interposed viciously and feebly 
 from a distance. Hesitation referred back to ignorance, and in 
 the meantime the colony fretted and suffered. The Colonial-office 
 is weak as it is arbitrary, and arbitrary as it is blind. Feeble 
 and vacillating as it is here, it is omnipotent in the colonies; 
 and, itself being blind, all its work is done in the dark. Why is 
 this so: From an attempt to reconcile that which it is impos¬ 
 sible to harmonize. The shadow of liberty with the substance of 
 oppression; the profession of freedom with the practice of despo¬ 
 tism ; the arbitrary rule of foreign centralization with the liberty 
 of British subjects; permission given to communities to raise, 
 while they were denied the power to apply their own money; of¬ 
 ficial rank giving position to a few, but money the sole pursuit of 
 the many; real property retained in the hands of the Government; 
 society necessarily composed of speculators; capitalists, too wise 
 
 price of land was raised to .£'1 per acre, by the act which passed both Ilouses of 
 Parliament without discussion. 
 
 The quantity sold since lSlb has not increased, the sums raised for Emigration 
 have been from leases, but Mr. Hawes’s statement would, lead to an opposite 
 impression. 
 
COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 to make permanent investments, and gambling for the quickest 
 return of money. Such is the perfection of the model system of 
 Colonial government. 
 
 The Colonial-office assumes much credit for emigration; but it is 
 absolutely entitled to no credit whatever, and deserves censure rather 
 than praise. The emigration circular stated that nearly 2,00(1,000 
 had gone out in twenty-four years. But where had they gone '! Not 
 to our colonies, for altogether they did not contain two millions of 
 British people. The largest and an increasing proportion had gone 
 to the United States. When those States became independent, 
 they contained two millions, and they now contain eighteen millions. 
 All those who were able went not to our colonies, but to foreigners. 
 The whole of the British colonies do not contain as many British 
 inhabitants as there are paupers in the British workhouses, and 
 vet the country is told that colonization was never in so perfect 
 a state as at this moment. Emigration to the United States in 
 twenty-four years has risen from 40 to 60 per cent., and last year 
 to /G per cent, of the whole number, namely, 188,000 out of 
 248,000, being in one year equal to the whole population of New 
 South Wales. Earl Grey, in a despatch to Sir Charles Fitzroy, 
 maintained that the system must be good which in ten years raised 
 one million sterling, and added 50,000 souls to the population. 
 
 If one million abstracted, and 50,000 persons added, be a 
 good system, that which retained eighteen millions sterling, and 
 added 500,000 British subjects to the population, must be 19 times 
 as good as regards money, and 10 times as good as regards po¬ 
 pulation. Such was the system of emigration to the United States, 
 carried on in despite of our Government. It will be well to re¬ 
 member the haphazard emigration to Canada, which cost a million, 
 and in which 15,000 or 16,000 persons died in one year, on the 
 passage or on landing. And the emigration to Australia, of which 
 the Colonial-office boasted, and which was more than others under 
 Government control, had been as faulty as extravagant. 
 
 It is unjustly carried on at the sole cost of the colony, and 
 the expenditure has never been examined. It involves almost a 
 misappropriation of funds, sums having been thus unduly ab¬ 
 stracted from the colony. 
 
 Passing from this subject, I would refer, in the next place, 
 to that of convict transportation, in which they have tried every¬ 
 thing by turns, and nothing long, and concluded by deeming cri¬ 
 minals as bounties to be conferred upon every rising state, and 
 colonies conservatories for criminal exotics. 
 
 I do not lay all the blame of this upon the Colonial-office; but 
 I blame the system. In one colony three-fourths of the adult 
 population are, or have been, convicts. It appears to me that 
 on this ground alone this is a time for a serious inquiry. 
 
22 COLONIAL INQUIRY. 
 
 Complaints are made in Englaud of the expense of our armies; 
 and it is urged in reply, that the extent of our colonial empire, 
 and the severe duty it involves, renders the maintenance of con¬ 
 siderable military force absolutely necessary. There is no doubt 
 that colonial service kills our troops. Fiftyoutof 112 battalions, said 
 the Rijht Hon. Bart, the Member for Tamworth, are required for 
 the service of our colonies. The War-office requires force to coun¬ 
 ter-act the mischief of the Colonial-office. The system pursued 
 obliges the War-office to send out troops which might be disbanded 
 or sent home, if the colonies were governed well; in short, the 
 best economy and the surest means of reducing our military ex¬ 
 penditure would be to reduce the establishment of the Colonial- 
 office. In some instances the number of troops sent out was ab¬ 
 solutely useless for defence. Why send to New South Wales only 
 a single regiment, which had to do duty over a country of 1,400 
 or 1,500 miles? I purposely abstain from offering any plan or pro¬ 
 ject in this statement; that would be the result of the inquiry of 
 this committee; nevertheless without making any proposition, I 
 would ask. Might it not be worth consideration whether some ar- 
 ransement could not be made for the organization of a local militia, 
 by requiring those who obtain free or partially free passages, to 
 enrol themselves for militia service when called upon, or a plan be 
 adopted similar to that of Russia in her military colonies ? 
 
 Next as to our garrison colonies They are as requisite to 
 our dominion as to our strength. It is our empire of the sea 
 which enabled us to obtain those garrisons : it is their posses¬ 
 sion which enables us to retain the empire of the sea. But they 
 are not colonies, strictly — they are, rather, military stations; 
 they are the “ propugnacula imperiiand surely the Colonial- 
 office had enough to do, without interfering in their manage¬ 
 ment. Thev cost one million annually. 1 do not undertake 
 to say whether this amount is excessive or insufficient; but 
 I think the warmest advocates of economy hardly desire to 
 hand over Gibraltar or Malta to France or Russia, though one cost 
 ±‘226,000, and the other £140,000, per annum, in addition to 
 their own revenues of £100,000 each. These places, being great 
 military positions, ought to be under military command; but the ap¬ 
 pointment of the Lord Mayor of London to be commander-in-chief 
 at the Horse Guards could not be more inappropriate and prepos¬ 
 terous than the appointment of Mr. More O’Ferrall as governor of 
 Malta, with a salary of £4,000, or £5,000, per annum. No doubt 
 Mr. O’Ferrall could sleep well with the keys of Valetta under his 
 pillow, and that 1 believe is one of the duties of the governor. 
 
 Why not appoint a military man to be the governor of such an 
 important military station ? 
 
 The Under - Secretary for the Colonies has challenged the 
 
whole world to show a system of colonization so successful, 
 so effectual, and so beneficial in its results as that of the 
 British empire. If by this is meant the system by which we 
 have lost some of our best and most important possessions, the 
 system has been most successful. We have acquired others from 
 foreign powers; but what had the Colonial-office to do with the 
 capture of Canada, Trinidad, Jamaica, St. Lucia, British Guiana, 
 the Cape, Mauritius, Ceylon, Gibraltar, Malta, and the Ionian 
 Islands ? Does the Colonial office deserve any credit for retaining 
 these places ? Look at the “ successful and effective” result of the 
 latest attempt at colonization. Within the last few months—in¬ 
 deed, the ink is hardly dry—there has been given up a large and 
 rich island, the island of Vancouver, to a company not likely to 
 make the least use of it. That island has harbours, coal, and 
 other productions likely to be of incalculable advantage hereafter ; 
 but all has been surrendered to a company whose principles and 
 whose practice, since the days of Charles II., has been alike adverse 
 to public interests, and who, when they asked for it did not 
 think of colonizing, and whose profit and whose interest lay 
 not in peopling, but in depopulating the land. 
 
 Another instance was New Zealand, upon which, since 1841, 
 nearly £200,000 had been spent. New Zealand, from the means 
 that have been taken, ought to have been the most successful 
 colony of all. It was advocated most strongly by the noble lord 
 now at the head of the Colonial-office; and, for a long time, the 
 honourable gentleman, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, was a 
 director of the New Zealand Company. 
 
 Mr. HAWES: Not a director. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT: My informant then was mistaken. You boast, 
 however, of the success of New Zealand, and repudiate mili¬ 
 tary expenditure. Why, military expenditure has been the very 
 life’s-blood of New Zealand. It has subsisted on the com¬ 
 missariat expenditure alone up or nearly to the present time. 
 After this, I am sure New Zealand has a poor chance of being 
 urged in defence of this country’s system of colonization. Crime 
 might be transported, and poverty shovelled out, and this might be 
 called colonization; but was it the most successful system of colo¬ 
 nization the world has ever seen? 
 
 When the hon. gentleman boasts that the policy pursued 
 has been not only successful but beneficial, I would ask him 
 whether he alludes to the present state of the West Indies ? 
 Were they to look for its effects in the bankruptcy, the dis¬ 
 gust, and the disaffection visible there—in the feeling that bad 
 faith had been kept 1 Her Majesty in her speech from the 
 throne, at the beginning of the session, called upon us to 
 uphold the fabric of the constitution, founded as it was upon