Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

policy, which have undoubtedly been made of late years, bear the character of experiment rather than of experience-if they have more of empiricism in them than of scientific knowledge, the fault is attributable to the system of our colonial administration, rather than to the colonial minister, or those by whom he is assisted in his Herculean labor of governing fifty-four colonies, i.e., of being sovereign of as many states, for such, in fact, he is.

a

The object of this work will be to give a bird'seye view of our past colonial history, and thence to deduce the principles which would seem to be those that ought to guide us in our future colonial policy. The time was, and not long since, when it would have been vain to attempt such a deduction, with any expectation that it would prove acceptable to the public, or, perhaps, even to the minister. Not ten short years ago, it was the almost universal doctrine, that Great Britain owed her wealth, prosperity, and grandeur to her trade, and her trade to her navigation laws and system of differential duties. So long as this delusion prevailed, it would have been hopeless to broach any doctrine which seemed to have a tendency to loosen the tight hold which, with similar delusion, we thought we should ever retain over our colonies, by the mode in which we then administered them. Now that the film has fallen from the political eye, so far as to permit it to discover that Great Britain has achieved her unprecedented position amongst the nations of the earth, not in consequence, but in spite, of her navigation laws and differential duties, an attempt to show that the liberal character - which has undoubtedly marked our colonial administration during these few years past - may be pursued to a much, greater extent without injury, but, on the contrary, with benefit to the empire, seems neither to be presumptuous nor likely to be an unthankful task. For, without doubt, notwithstanding the liberal tendency of our present colonial legislation, there are looming in the political horizon very delicate and nice questions, between Great Britain and her colonies, arising out of her sovereignty over them, which it will be well for her to consider, before the time come when they may have to be solved by the sword instead of the pen.

* The text was written in the year 1854.

The extent of the sovereign power of the Crown, or of the united legislature, over the colonies has often been asserted at home, and has as often been questioned in the colonies. This subject has necessarily been much mixed up with the discussions, parliamentary and diplomatic, which have from time to time arisen in regard to our trade regulations with the colonies; and, more lately still, in those which have occurred in regard to the

constitutions to be conferred upon particular colonies. But the subject does not appear to have been ever probed to its depth. In Great Britain, the right has always been asserted, while its non-exercise has been conceded whenever the right was seriously questioned; and no one of its assertors has ever ventured to lay bare the principles upon which the right is supposed to be founded. The right has always been assumed, but has never been demonstrated. The time seems to have arrived when this question should be candidly, but fearlessly, discussed.

CHAPTER I.

THE NATURE OF THE RELATION WHICH HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BETWEEN COLONIZING COUNTRIES AND THEIR COLONIES, IN ANCIENT AND IN MODERN TIMES.

BEFORE considering the nature or the extent of the power of Great Britain over her colonies, it will be profitable to take a short retrospect of the history of colonization, ancient as well as modern, in order to see how far the assumption of supreme power by the mother country over colonies has been acted upon, or been successfully maintained, by other countries over their colonies.

The most ancient colonies we have any account of are those which were planted on the shores of the Mediterranean by the city of Tyre. Among these, Utica first, and afterwards Carthage, were the chief. We learn from the second book of Samuel, v, 11, that Tyre was governed by a king, so early as the time of David, king of Jerusalem. Whether the government of this ancient city was regal, oligarchic, or democratic, at the time at which Utica and Carthage were founded, we have no information; but, whatever its form of government may then have been, there is no indication that the power of that government extended over these colonies: the opinion of historians seems to be that it did not so extend. The colonies of Utica and Carthage seem to have been, from their very foundation, altogether independent of the mother city. At all eventswhich perhaps will be found to be more to the present purpose - they ultimately became independent. History is not so clear as to the early history of Utica, whose foundation preceded that of Carthage by about three hundred years, but it certainly became independent after the fall of Carthage; and its ruins disclose a history of former wealth and grandeur, which seems to say that it must have been independent originally. But we have positive historical information as to Carthage. That city achieved a condition of wealth, power, and splendor, which, if it did not exceed that of the mother city, Tyre, must, at all events, have equaled it.a Carthage was founded about one hundred years before Rome, and, so early as five hundred years before the Christian era, she, as an independent sovereign power, entered into a treaty with the then infant republic of Rome, and, two hundred years afterwards, renewed this treaty at the desire of the Romans, who were as yet without a navy, and required protection of their trade by the Carthaginian navy against the ravages of the Greek

* Polybius 111, 22.

« AnteriorContinuar »