incident to the members of a limited community, whether that community be provincial or colonial. At present, the home government, in the exercise of a material power which is undoubted, and of a moral and legal right which is very questionable, appoints to each colony a governor and subordinate functionaries of its own selection, and removes and substitutes them, at its own pleasure. How much more graceful would it be that these appointments should be made at the request of the colony. No doubt the request would not be made, if the colony felt that the state of its society justified making such appointments from among its own inhabitants; or, if the request were made at the outset, this would cease so soon as the colony should come to think that the improved condition of its society justified the discontinuance. But why should this be otherwise? Why should such a government as that of Great Britain expose itself to the unworthy imputation of keeping a colony as a patronage farm. Let the government, with benignity and just pride, select from the inhabitants of the mother country such functionaries as a colony may ask for, and as will do honor both to the government and to the colony; and let it congratulate the colony on its progress in social improvement when it finds that the colony has discovered that it can make the selection from among its own inhabitants. If the colony has been premature in making this discovery, it will soon find out its mistake. The evils of official tyranny or incompetency are too direct and obvious to escape discovery in the limited community of a colony. With popular self-government, the source of the evil would soon be discovered, and its remedy be as readily applied. In the mother country, with its redundant population, official situations are objects of great request, not only by the middle classes of society, but by the offshoots from the aristocratic body. Official abuse and incompetency, therefore, is there too often covered over and protected. In the colonies, this is otherwise. In them, much more money can be made in trade or by agriculture than the salary of any office will yield, and there is no redundancy of population. Official situations, therefore, are left to such emigrants from the mother country as are unfit for trade or agriculture, either from want of capital or defect in habits and education, and, under a free constitution, which brings the supervision of everything and everybody within the power of the inhabitants, the public officers will be looked upon, as they are in fact, as public servants, instead of public masters, which, in past times, they have too probably considered themselves. This suggestion of Great Britain giving up authority over her colonies, and entering into treaties with them of the closest alliance, is not new. It will a be remembered that it was recommended by Smith, in his "Wealth of Nations," in the passage, which has already been quoted, wherein, after observing, ironically, that no country will ever take such a step, he continues, "If it was adopted, however, Great Britain would not only be freed from the whole annual expense of the peace establishment of the colonies, but might settle with them such a treaty of commerce as would effectually secure to her a free trade, more advantageous to the great body of the people, though less so to the merchants, than the monopoly which she at present enjoys. By thus parting friends, the natural affection of the colonies to the mother country, which perhaps our late dissensions have well-nigh extinguished, would quickly revive. It might dispose them, not only to respect for whole centuries together that treaty of commerce, which they had concluded with us at parting, but to favor us in war, as well as in trade, and, instead of turbulent and factious subjects, to become our most faithful, affectionate, and generous allies; and the same sort of parental affection on the one side, and filial respect on the other, might revive between Great Britain and her colonies which used to subsist between those of ancient Greece and the mother city from which they descended." In considering this subject, it should not be * Vide supra, p. 51. overlooked that sound reason and principle support the assertion, in regard to all colonies, but especially in regard to colonies founded by a government so popular in its elements as that of Great Britain, and by the inhabitants of a country enjoying such liberal institutions as those of Great Britain, that sooner or later they will achieve their independence of the mother country. They will do it the sooner, if circumstances should rapidly increase their population and wealth, and the later, if circumstances should concur to retard these events. But not more certainly does a young man leave his father's house so soon as he has attained the strength of manhood, and gained its knowledge and experience, and go forth into the world to be the founder of his own fortune, than will a colony shake itself loose from all trammels imposed upon it by the mother country, whether for wise or for selfish purposes, so soon as the colony feels itself powerful enough to contest the continuance of these trammels. Turgot, the French philosopher, said of colonies generally, "They are like fruits, which cling to the tree only till they have ripened;" and, he added prophetically of our North American colonies, “So soon as America can take care of itself, it will do what Carthage did," make itself independent of Great Britain, as Carthage did of Tyre. CHAPTER XVIII. REASONS AGAINST PARTING WITH OUR COLONIES CONSIDERED LORD GREY admits that "the view is at least plausible," which says, "if the colonies are no longer to be regarded as valuable, on account of the commercial advantages to be derived from their possession, the country has no interest in keeping these dependencies; and it would be better to abandon them, thus getting rid of the heavy charge on the country, especially in providing the requisite amount of naval and military force for their protection." His lordship also admits that "the view is at least plausible," which, on behalf of the colonists, inquires whether, "if they are no longer to enjoy their former commercial privileges in the markets of the mother country, they derive any real benefit from the continuance of the connection?" But his lordship considers that the British colonial empire ought to be maintained, " principally, because I do not consider that the nation would be justified in throwing off the responsibility it has incurred by the acquisition of this dominion, and because I believe |