England was not the first among Eu ropean nations that planted settlements in parts beyond Europe. But by her own colonization, and by the conquest of the settlements of other nations, she has now acquired a more extensive dominion of colonies and dependencies than any other nation.
The English Colonies have, as a general rale, local legislatures, elected by the people, and a governor and executive council named by the crown. In New South Wales, which obtained a legislative council in 1842 (5 & 6 Viet. c. 76), twelve of the thirty-six members are ap pointed by the crown and the remainder are elected by the people. The colonies which are governed by the secretary of state for the colonies without tLa inter ference of a local legislature are termed Crown Colonies. In such colonies there is an executive council, which consists partly of ex-officio members who hold offices at the pleasure of the crown, and partly of persons selected from among the principal inhabitants, who are likewise removable at pleasure. The foreign com merce of these colonies is regulated by the sovereign parliament of the mother country, and put on such a footing as generally to allow the products of the colonies admission into British ports on more favourable terms than the like products of other countries. To the amount of this protecting duty, the colo nies then have the advantage of a mono poly in the markets of the mother country. The old strict colonial system of exclud ing foreign countries from direct com mercial intercourse with the colonies. had the double object in view of securing all the supposed advantages of the exchange of British for colonial products, and giv ing employment to the British merchant navy. The rigour of this system, how ever, has gradually relaxed, and given way to clearer views of self-interest. Still the colonial system, as maintained by Great Britain, presents in many in stances examples of foreign possessions which are expensive to the country with out any equivalent advantages ; and also of foreign possessions the trade with which is so regulated as to be designedly put on a footing which shall be favourable to the colony and unfavourable to the parent state. This is effected by discri minating or differential duties, as they are termed, the effect of which is to make the consumer of sugar (to take that as an example) in Great Britain pay to the favoured colonists a sum equal to the difference between the duty on colonial sugar and the higher duty on other sugar. The mother country which imposes this additional duty to protect her colonial subjects, not only gets no revenue by such ill-timed partiality in favour of her foreign dependencies. but she loses the increased revenue that she might have, if she would allow her own people to buy foreign sugar on the same terms as the sugar of the colonies.
The direct expenditure in some of the colonies for the purposes of administra tion is beyond the means of the colonial revenues to meet, and the deficiency must of course be supplied by the parent state. Colonial possessions put some amount of patronage at the disposal of the home government, and colonies are therefore looked upon as profitable things by those who participate in the advantages of posts and places in them. On the other hand, those who only contribute to these expenses may reasonably ask for some proof of solid advantage to the parent state in return for the deficiency which she sup plies. Setting aside the interests of those
concerned in the administration of the colonies, it is asked, in many cases, what advantage does the rest of the nation re ceive? So far as some colonies may be desirable posts for protecting British com merce and shipping, the advantage of maintaining them may be fully equivalent to the expense. But in every particular instance the question as to the value of a modern colony to the mother country (omitting, as before mentioned, the value of the patronage to those who confer places in the colonies, and the value of the places to those who receive them) is simply this ;—what advantage is this said colony to the productive classes of the country ? a question not always easy to answer ; but this is the question, the solution of which must decide whether a colony ought to be maintained or not, if we look only to the interests of the mother coun try. If we look to the interests of the colony, it may be in many, and certainly is in some cases, the interest of the colony to remain as it now is, under the protec tion and sovereign authority of the mo ther country ; for it is protected at little or no cost to itself, and it often gets commer cial advantages which, if the relationship to the mother country were to cease, would cease with it. But again the question re curs, what is the advantage to the mother country If some advantage cannot be dhown, the maintenance of a useless co lony is a pure act of national benevolence towards the colony and to these few of the , mother country who have places or pro perty in it, If our present relation with a colony such as Jamaica or Canada entails any expense on the mother country, we may ask whether all the commercial advan tages that result from this relation, what ever they may be, would not be equally secured, if only a free commercial rela tion existed, and that of administration were to cease. In support of this view, it is shown that the commerce of Great Britain with the United States, now free and independent, has increased most won derfully since the separation, and probably more rapidly than it would have increased under the colonial system. This being the case, a similar increase might be an ticipated in the trade with all those foreign possessions whose trade is really of any importance. This argument, to which it is difficult to reply, is met by saying that if we give up those colonies that cause expenditure on the part of the mother country, some of them at least would be a prize for other nations, who would ex clude us from the commerce of those former colonies, or allow it only on un favourable terms ; or that these colonies would throw themselves into the arms of foreign nations, and the same result would follow. To this it is replied, that no other nation is in a condition to take on itself the management of expensive colonies ; that nations, like individuals, will, if let alone, buy where they can buy cheapest, and sell where they can sell dearest ; and that if we should be shut out from the commerce of any of our present colonies, there are equally good or better markets from which we are now in part or altogether excluded owing to those very regulations, which only exist because we have colonies to maintain.