The Sun.
London, England, 1869-10-01 00:00:00

ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES.

What ought to be the legal and constitutional relations
between England and the colonies engaged the attention of
the International and Municipal Law Section of the
Jurisprudence Department. A letter was read from the
Duke of Manchester regretting his inability to attend this
discussion. His Grace expressed his deep anxiety to pre-
vent the separation of the colonies from the mother
country. "If we lose our colonies, our power is
gone. Gai the other hand, if we amalgamate
our colonies with us, if we take them into
partnership with us in the government of tho
empire, I am convinced we should greatly increase our
power. At present the Parliament of Westminster, in
which the colonies have no voice, can pass laws which
affect not only indirectly, but directly, the material inte-
rests of the colonies. But, if they had a voice in the
Government of the empire, they would be bound, and I do
not doubt that they would be willing, to bear their fair
share in the defence of the honour and interests of the
empire. At present, no doubt, many of the colonies would
not be able to do much in this way—but every year,
especially if we assist their prosperity more than
we do now, their wealth and power will increase.l do not think it would be practicable to give the colonies
an adequate voice in the Parliament of Westminster.
Either the representatives of the United Kingdom must
be vastly reduced in numbers, or the representatives
of the Colonies must be so numerous as to make the
assembly utterly unwieldly. It seems to me that the
only practicable plan would be to substitute for the
Colonial Office, a Council containing representatives of
the United Kingdom and the Colonies in fair pro-
portion according to their wealth and the number of
their inhabitants. The system is already in practice
by the Colonial Secretary in reference to some of
the laws passed by the Colonial Legislature ; but the
Colonial Governments are not consulted about any decisions
which may be come to by the Parliament of Westminster."
By such a system the Imperial Legislature would abdicate
much of its powers. But its constituencies would be
relieved of a certain and increasing weight of naval and
military expenditure, and besides it would be doing justice
to the colonies. On the subject of emigration his Grace
represented himself in favour of imperial assistance. As
the country the emigrant leaves, the colony to which he
goes, and the emigrant himself aro each benefitted (in
different proportions), the three parties ought tocontribute
towards the expense.
The paper by Mr. J. E. Gorst, the late member for Cam-
bridge, set out with the assertion that the relation
between England and her colonies was not like the
relation between parent and child, and the theo-
ries of colonial government based on the supposition that
it was, must be erroneous. The relation between colonists
and the Colonial Office must from the first be a relation
between equals. In affairs strictly colonial, the colonists
must be free, the Colonial Office restricting itself to pro-
viding for interests which are imperial. Having dwelt on
the theory upon which colonies are now managed, Mr.
Gorst proceeded to contend that the Council which now
exists in the Crown colonies, and is appointed by the
Colonial Office, ought to be the embryo of a future free
Parliament. The members of the Council ought to vote
according to their real opinions, and their resolutions
should be accepted as the expression of the colonial will,
and should, in colonial matters, be final. This was
not the case now, the Council in most instances being
made a sham. A good working majority of officials
was secured to vote according to instructions
given them from Downing-street. Instances of this
were pointed out in the paper which described this system
of arbitrary government as being the more mischievous
because it was the government of an office and not of the
House of Commons. No department was so entirely exempt
from the control of Parliament as the colonial department,
and in England there was no public opinion on colonial
matters. Having vindicated the right of colonists to the
management of their own affairs from the outset, the
paper admitted their liability from the outset to pay the
whole cost of their own maintenance and defence. The
privilege of self government necessarily entailed the obli-
gation of self defence. Every free colony must fight its own
battle with its own enemies, whether rebel or alien. Free.
dom, Mr. Gorst added, was not necessarily separation
In America the independence of the States was not found
inconsistent with the maintenance of the Union, and
there was no reason why Great Britain and the
other enfranchised countries which acknowledged the
sovereignty of the Queen should not continue in one free
confederation.

Mr. Noble, in a paper on the same subject, regarded the
question from an English point of view. Replying to the
arguments usually brought forward in favour of the reten
tion of the colonies, he shewed that British trade with
those possessions amounted to only one-seventh of ow
total foreign commerce. Three-fifths of the emigrants
who left the United Kingdom selected the United States
as their future residence. The number of paupers in this
country nearly equalled the population of Australia and
New Zealanl; whilst just above the line of pauperism
there was an equal number struggling for bare existence—
taxed for the benefit of prosirsous colonists. In addition
to deriving considerable benefit from the taxes levied or
the inhabitants of these island; the colonies enforced pro•
tective duties upon our manufactures—a proceeding des•
tructive of any real union. Mr. Noble laid down, as tile
only principles on which the union could be maintained,
the establishment of perfect freedom of trade throughout
the whole Empire, the disposal of waste lands foi
the benefit of the entire population, reserving an
adequate land-tax as a provision for future revenue, and
the equitable contribution of every state—the mother
country and the colonies—towards the Imperial expen•
diture. -

In the discussion which followed, Sir John Bowring
supported Mr. Noble's views as to the influence of
Free Trade on the relations between England and the
colonies. He deplored the spirit of Protection which some
of the dependencies exhibited. The interference of the
Imperial Government in colonial affairs was sometimes
absolutely indispensable.—Mr. Marsh, thought the
suggested confederation of tho Australian colonies would
not be practicable at present. He regretted that Mr. Stuart
Mill had suggested Protection as a good thing for the
colonies.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE POOR LAW.
In ghatl
Law be ptreosvpec(;
is under
cit
In the Economfyca,neEßl TigTitdenDene.pasrttempehnetn,
Cave,
the the presidency o
my
na- this subject several papers were read. That by Mr
special
the citAidemstiinonist
froartionof discussiontlte Poor
was,
Elisha Robinson specially referred to the inequality with
which the labour test is enforced, those places where the
practice is carried out being the exception rather than the
rule. Great stress was laid upon the beneficial effects of
work, not so much on account of the direct profit to the
union, but for the good which it does the pauper himself
by teaching him to be self-reliant. Mr. Robinson would
carry this principle to its extreme length, and rather than
neglect the application of the "labour test," would insist
on what is called " short drill," or the removing of stones
frora.949. plactt9 antler; tll9notachkinig tlagna back again,
aa_thiOnclitialltbslieft94l4l46-b • '64tUlop-Naitiqr ,

labour was not to be had. There is the habitual paliPerl
as well as the habitual criminal, and experience shows the_
this class has never been dealt with either in the letter 9r
the spirit of the Poor-law Amendment Act of 1834 and.
subsequent Acts. The aged sick, feeble, and imbecile
ought to be dealt with more generously than has been the
custom. The rearing of children in the workhouse wag
condemned by the author, who recommended that the
boarding-out system, in vogue in Scotland, should be
adopted. The Poor-law, he said, ought to enable guardians
to effect a separation of the " able " from the feeble in tlte
unions. This separation might be effected by sending the
" able " to the workhouse, which should be placed close to
the centre of population in the union, that no hardship,
should be inflicted by long travel. The " feeble" should
provided for in what would be a combination of
.tu,°
almshouse and infirmary, and might be called the hospital
Children might be sent to the district schools or distributed
amongst cottagers of good character. Another reform
suggested in the paper was that power should be given t°
the guardians to detain for a certain polio(' those who are
continually claiming their discharge, and running iii
out of the house.
In dealing with the same subject of Poor Law Admit"
tration, Mr. Francis Fox attributed the failure of the
existing system to the non-recognition of certain prineiPlri
which, he said, were essential for preserving the velar,
fabric in a healthy condition. Foremost amongst thr:
was that principle of mutual friendship and
.111,1
terest which entered so essentially into feudalisi,;
The guardians of the poor should have a sense °.;
individual and personal responsibility impressed re':
them by the charge or oversight of a definite number
of families. A broad line of separation should be est;
bashed between the pauperism of idleness and the Poverty
of misfortune. No relief should be afforded to the able
bodied except in the form of wages,