FEEE TEADE 
 
 NO COLONIES. 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD JOHN RUSSELL, 
 
 Longum iUr cst tier precepla,^ 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS, 
 
 EDINBURGH AND LONDON. 
 
June 10, 1848. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Our colonial policy has of late years undergone so 
 radical a change, and the results have already been so 
 important and instructive, that the time appears to have now 
 arrived when the wisdom of that policy and its probable 
 consequences may be fairly made the subject of investigation. 
 
 In considering this subject, your Lordship is well aware 
 that no assistance can be derived from the experience of other 
 nations, whether ancient or modern; for, as our recent policy 
 has been altogether peculiar and unprecedented, its wisdom 
 must be tested solely by its own results. The principle upon 
 which our colonial, and indeed the whole of our recent 
 commercial legislation is based, is new in the history of 
 civilised states. The doctrine of free exchange or unrestrained 
 competition between nations, may be said to constitute the 
 entire basis of that legislation. It has long been maintained 
 by a certain section of the modem school of political economy, 
 that this principle of universal competition is the true path to 
 the material prosperity of nations; and after much contention 
 this principle has been adopted by the British Legislature. 
 If, therefore, it is right, it must necessarily admit of receiving 
 full effect; if it is wrong, the farther it is carried out the 
 more disastrous must be the results. 
 
 Now, it is obvious that this principle of competition is one 
 A 2 
 
derived from the notion of self-reliance or self-dependence. 
 The state which adopts it necessarily presupposes that it is 
 at least on a footing of equality with all others; for we cannot 
 ima^ne any nation deliberately to expose itself to the rivalry 
 of a neighbour its superior in all the great branches of industry. 
 No nation will, in fact, adopt it unless it expects to derive 
 immediate advantage from the change; because the commercial 
 spirit, which necessarily directs the legislator upon this point, 
 is the one of all others which looks to speedy results. And 
 this consideration ought amply to account for the rejection of 
 our Free-Trade principle by the statesmen both of Europe 
 and America. Our legislators considered, whether justly or 
 not I shall not now stop to inquire, that we had nothing to 
 lose and everything to gain by a free competition with foreign 
 states, while they seem to think that they have much to lose 
 and nothing to gain by a free competition with us. 
 
 The same principle of freedom has been applied to our 
 colonial as to our foreign commercial policy, and this circum¬ 
 stance leads me to the point upon which I have been induced 
 to address your Lordship. If we examine, however cursorily, 
 the colonial systems of all modern European states, wo shall 
 find that the connection between the mother country and its 
 foreign settlements has been founded on the observance of a 
 totally different principle. That connection has had its 
 foundation on a system of mutual dependence and support, 
 The very notion, indeed, of a modern colony implies depen¬ 
 dence, while that of the parent state implies support, as well 
 in a political as in a commercial sense: and under the 
 colonial system of Great Britain a trade of reciprocity between 
 the foreign dependency and the parent state was a natural 
 result. Let us suppose that under that system the British 
 North American provinces exchange their raw produce for the 
 manufactured produce of the mother country; although such a 
 trade, from its exclusive nature, may be liable to speculative 
 objections, it is still, upon the whole, as Adam Smith has 
 
5 
 
 expressed it, “greatly advantageous” to the parent state.* 
 It is true, indeed, that England might be able to obtain her 
 corn and timber from a cheaper market, but the loss which 
 may arise from this circumstance is more than compensated 
 by the gain she derives from the exclusive possession of the 
 colony trade. Abolish the colonial system, and introduce in 
 its place the principle of free competition, and a great change 
 necessarily takes -place. England finds that she can obtain 
 her corn and timber at less cost from the Baltic than from 
 America; and the Canadian provinces, in their turn, may find 
 that they can buy their manufactures cheaper in Virginia 
 than at Manchester. In such a case, supposing the free 
 principle to be in full operation, it is obvious that the import 
 and export trade between the colony and the parent state 
 would greatly diminish, if it did not entirely cease. The 
 colony trade would, in fact, be exchanged for a foreign trade; 
 and this would be attended with a double result; for, in the 
 first place, the more certain would be abiindoned for the less 
 certain market; and secondly, we should retain the responsi¬ 
 bilities of our colonial sovereignty without its commercial 
 advantages. Without participating, to any beneficial extent, 
 in the trade of the colony, wo should still be oalled upon to 
 contribute to the expense of its maintenance in time of 
 peace, and to defend it in time of war. 
 
 If it is alleged that, from our superiority in manufactures, 
 or from any other cause, the case adduced is not likely 
 to occur, I reply that that is no sufiicient answer, because, if 
 the universal freedom of trade is the true principle of com¬ 
 merce, we are bound to follow that principle through all its 
 legitimate consequences. In the foregoing case, however, I 
 have assumed that the industry and commerce of the British 
 colony have not suffered from foreign competition; I have only 
 assumed that they have found a different channel. But, to take 
 
6 
 
 a further illustration from existing circumstances, it is now a 
 matter of certainty that the British colonies in the West Indies 
 are unable, in their present condition, to compete in the produc¬ 
 tion of sugar with Cuba and Brazil. Carry out the free 
 system to its full extent, and in all probability the cultivation, 
 in a commercial sense, of these colonies, must very shortly 
 cease. The most ardent advocates of that system are now led 
 to this too palpable conclusion. Struck^ indeed, by the 
 impending destruction of so great an amount of capital, but 
 unwilling to question the truth of their theory, they boldly 
 assume that the ruin of our sugar colonies was inevitable; 
 but, while they are eloquent upon the subject of past impru¬ 
 dence, they have failed to enlighten us as to the future; they 
 have failed to inform us whether the burden of maintaining 
 these showy, but profitless appendages, is to fall upon the 
 mother country; and yet, if we pursue our present course, 
 there seems to be no choice between this bitter alternative and 
 unconditional abandonment. 
 
 While upon the subject of these unfortunate colonies I 
 cannot refrain from noticing a popular error, which may 
 be said to have formed the groundwork of our recent West 
 Indian legislation. It was asserted, on the authority of 
 certain economists, that free labour is cheaper than slave 
 labour, and that our colonists had therefore nothing to fear 
 from the competition of the latter. This opinion may be 
 traced to Adam Smith, who, in one portion of his work, states 
 his reasons generally for entertaining it. In another, however, 
 he cites an example in proof of this opinion, by referring to 
 a statement of Montesquieu, to the effect that the Hungarian 
 mines were tvrought at less expense by free men than the 
 Turkish mines, on the neighbouring frontier, by slaves.* 
 There seems to be no reason for questioning the truth of this 
 statement; but general conclusions can seldom be safely drawn 
 
7 
 
 from isolated facts. We have now for the last ten years had a 
 continued trial of free labour in our East Indian dominions, 
 where it is both cheap and abundant; but that which may be • 
 true on the banks of the Danube has not been proved to be 
 true on the banks of the Ganges ; for the planter of Bengal 
 is unable to compete in the production of sugar with the 
 slave-owner of Brazil. Again, if we look to the West Indies, 
 we find that the island of Barbadoes, although for a long period 
 in a state of high cultivation, and plentifully supplied with 
 labour, is equally unable to compete with the neighbouring 
 island of Cuba. The opinion in question, therefore, has not been 
 proved to be correct; and if we were to investigate the cause 
 of the apparent inconsistency of the experience of Montes¬ 
 quieu with our own. we should most probably find it in the 
 simple fact that the Turk is a more humane taskmaster than 
 the Brazilian or the Spaniard. 
 
 Nor can the partial success of free labour in Porto Rico 
 be referred to as at all conclusive of the truth of Adam 
 Smith’s theory. By far the greater portion of that island 
 being occupied by small proprietors of European descent, who 
 cultivate their plantations in many instances with their own 
 hands, the state of society in that island is so totally different 
 from that of the neighbouring British colonies that no 
 satisfactory comparison can be drawn between them.* Judg¬ 
 ing, therefore, from the experience of the present age, it is 
 impossible to resist the melancholy conclusion, that the balance 
 of testimony is decidedly against the truth of the proposition 
 contended for by Adam Smith, and relied upon by a great 
 portion of liis followers. 
 
 But to return to our new commercial system, it is obvious 
 that, supposing it to be in full operation, no trade will be 
 carried on between England and her colonies unless the 
 advantages to be derived from that trade are more immediate 
 
and direct than those which would be derived from an inter¬ 
 course with foreign states. And as there are few articles of 
 British colonial growth which cannot be obtained at less cost 
 from foreign states, it follows that the commercial ties 
 between the colonies and the mother country must become 
 rapidly weakened, and liable to be snapped asunder at any 
 time when cheaper markets may be discovered. 
 
 I do not think, my Lord, that I have over-stated the pro¬ 
 bable consequences of ourrecent legislation. It would, indeed, 
 be an easy matter to fill pages with startling evidence of 
 Canadian disaifection and West Indian despair—to dwell on 
 the vast importance, at the present time, of emigration, and to 
 point out the mighty augmentation of imperial power which 
 colonial dominion has brought to England. But as the whole 
 of our recent commercial policy has been based on a certain 
 defined course of action, I prefer tracing that principle to 
 its source, in order to ascertain, if possible, whether it is just 
 in theory, although it may have hitherto proved unsatisfactory 
 in practice. 
 
 On the occasion of the introduction of the budget for the 
 present session of parliament, your Lordship took occasion to 
 state, more than once, in order apparently to silence all 
 objection, that our new commercial policy had been adopted 
 in accordance with the opinions of Adam Smith. But your 
 Lordship is well aware that that philosopher is not infallible; 
 and there are strong reasons for believing that, in our recent 
 commercial changes, we have generally rejected his opinions 
 when they happen to be right, and adopted them when they 
 happen to he wrong. 
 
 In confirmation of this assertion, I do not allude to his well- 
 known opinion on the navigation laws, which are now imder 
 the consideration of the Legislature. I allude more parti¬ 
 cularly to his opinion upon a matter of even more fundiimental 
 importance, and which, in fact, goes directly to the root of 
 the whole doctrine of free trade. 
 
9 
 
 Adam Smith states that the home trade is twice as advaii- 
 tageoiiSj in a national point of view, as the foreign trade; and 
 as the proposition is one, in an economic sense, of the very 
 highest importance, I shall give it in his own words:— 
 
 “ The capital which is employed in purchasing in one part 
 of the country, in order to sell in another the produce of the 
 industry of that country, generally replaces, by every such 
 operation, two distinct capitals that had both been employed 
 in the agriculture or manufactures of that country, and thereby 
 enables them to continue that employment. When it sends 
 out from the residence of the merchant a certain value of 
 commodities, it generally brings back in return at least an 
 equal value of other commodities. When both are the produce 
 of domestic industry, it necessarily replaces, by every such 
 operation, two distinct capitals which had both been employed 
 in supporting productive labour, and thereby enables them to 
 continue that support. The capital which sends Scotch manu¬ 
 factures to London, and brings back English corn and 
 manufactures to Edinburgh, necessarily replaces, by every such 
 operation, hoo British capitals w'hich had both been employed 
 in the agriculture or manufactures of Great Britain. 
 
 “ The capital employed in purchasing foreign goods for 
 home consumption, when this purchase is made with the 
 produce of domestic industry, replaces also, by every such 
 operation, boo distinct capitals, but one of them only is 
 employed in supporting domestic industry. The capital 
 which sends British goods to Portugal, and brings back 
 Portuguese goods to Great Britain, replaces, by every such 
 operation, only one British capital: the other is a Portuguese 
 one. Though the returns, therefore, of the foreign trade of 
 consumption should he as quick as those of the home trade, the 
 capital employed in it will give but one halfoi the encourage¬ 
 ment to the industry or productive labour of the country.”* 
 
 * Vol. ii. book ii. chap. v. p. 02. 
 
10 
 
 It is remarkable that the researches of the most eminent 
 of the French economists have led him to precisely the same 
 Conclusion. Z7ia British Government" observes M. Say, 
 “ seems not to have perceived that the most profitable sales 
 to a nation are those made by one individual to anotlier 
 within the nation, for these latter imply a national pro¬ 
 duction of two values, the value sold and that given in 
 exchange."* How far this remark may be applicable to 
 the recent commercial policy of the British Government 
 I shall leave your Lordship to determine; but it is almost 
 superfluous to observe that the opinions of these two autho¬ 
 rities—and hone higher can be produced in their respective 
 countries—are obviously and necessarily inconsistent with the 
 principle of free trade, or universal competition. If the home 
 trade is more advantageous than the foreign, why .allow the 
 latter, in any instance, to displace the former 2 for even if foreign 
 nations, as was predicted, were to reciprocate with us, which 
 they do not, the free exchange of our produce with theirs would, 
 according to the opinions of Smith and Say, be only half as 
 advantageous as if an exchange took place within the nation 
 itself. 
 
 In further corroboration of his opinion, M. Say, in another 
 place, makes the following remarks:— 
 
 “The most productive employment of capital for the 
 country in general, after that laid put on the land, is that of 
 manufactures and the home trade; because it puts in activity 
 an industry of which the profits are gained in the country, 
 while those capitals, which are employed in foreign com¬ 
 merce make the industry and lands of all countries to be pro¬ 
 ductive without distinction," f 
 
 Again, these views entirely coincide with those of Adam 
 Smith, while treating of the different employments of capital. 
 
 * Say^s Works, translated by-Prinsep, vol. i. p. 248. 
 
 + See « Political Economy,” by Ricardo, who cites this passage, p. 492, 
 
11 
 
 “ After agriculture,” he says, “ the capital employed in 
 manufactures puts into motion the greatest quantity of pro¬ 
 ductive labour, and adds the greatest value to the annual 
 produce. That which is employed in the trade of exporta¬ 
 tion has the least effect of any of the three.'’ * * * § 
 
 It will be observed, therefore, that the commercial legisla¬ 
 tion of the last six years has been mainly directed to the 
 increase of that branch of industry which Adam Smith 
 considered the least advantageous to the state. 
 
 Adam Smith does not indeed appear to have perceived that 
 the inferences to be drawn from his opinion, as to the compa¬ 
 rative advantageousness of the home and foreign trade, were 
 at variance with other portions of his work. But later writers, 
 observing that they stood directly opposed to the universal 
 freedom of trade which they advocated, were compelled to 
 question the doctrine of Smith and Say upon this fundamental 
 point. Mr. Eicardo has accordingly constructed an argument 
 to show that that doctrine is erroneous.! He found it neces¬ 
 sary to overthrow the theory of Smith and Say, before he 
 established the truth of his own; but he has entirely failed 
 in the attempt. Any one who will examine his argument, 
 will,find that it is based upon a palpable fallacy, which it is 
 surprising should have escaped so acute a reasouer.J Mr. 
 M‘Culloch has since.come to his aid, and assailed the position 
 of the two great economists, but with no better success than 
 
 • Vol. it p. 58. t Ricardo’s " Political Economy,” p. 444. 
 
 J: See "Principles of Political Economy,” by William Atkinson, wliere tins 
 
 fallacy has been ably e.vposed, p. 17. 
 
 § See IPCulloeh’s " Commerce,” p. 13, et seq. In a former work Mr. JPCul- ■ 
 loch stated broadly tliat the qnestion admitted of " no satisfactory solution.”— 
 Prin. of Pol. Economy, p. 147. In the work first cited, however, he qualifies 
 tills assertion by stating tliat the question “ docs not, perhaps, admit of any very 
 satisfactory solution.” We need not be surprised to find, therefore, that the 
 arguments he has brought forward to ovcrtlmow the position of Smitii and Say 
 
12 
 
 The question, then, remains precisely where it was left by 
 Smith and Say; and if their opinion is correct, there is an 
 end of the so-called doctrine of “ free trade.” If it is erro¬ 
 neous, it is incumbent upon the advocates of the latter system 
 to show it to be so. 
 
 With all submission to your Lordship, therefore, I maintain 
 that we have not adopted the more matured opinions of Adam 
 Smith and the better informed economists; we have become the 
 disciples of a newer and a bolder school, and allowed our policy 
 to be guided by the theories of legislators who dream of never- 
 failing markets and eternal peace. I do not, indeed, maintain 
 that our old commercial system was incapable of improvement; 
 but our object has been, not to amend, but to destroy. We 
 have thrown away the substance for the shadow'. We are 
 deliberately ruining our colonial, in the mere hope of extending 
 our foreign trade ; we are encouraging the continental artisan 
 at the expense of our own. Nor is it difficult to account 
 for the temporary success of this national delusion. It was 
 addressed as well to the selfish passions of the many, as to the 
 more elevated sentiments of the few; for while the capitalist 
 and the trader anticipated a speedy increase of their profits, 
 the philanthropist contemplated with satisfaction the idea of 
 a vast union of civilised nations, bound by the peaceful ties of 
 eommercial brotherhood. Of the mode in which these capti¬ 
 vating doctrines obtained their temporary triumph—of itine¬ 
 rant agitation and political apostacy—I shall not speak; biit 
 of all the gross delusions to which they have given rise, none 
 surpassed the assumption that they would ameliorate the 
 condition of the labouring class. It is evident that, of all 
 classes, they are the most exposed to foreign competition; 
 and it is a significant fact, that the localities in which the 
 greatest amount of destitution at present prevails, are those 
 which may be supposed to suffer most from the importation 
 of commodities from abroad. There is. more distress, com¬ 
 paratively speaking, in London and in Nottingham, than in 
 
13 
 
 Manchester and Liverpool. If we refer to the actual 
 condition of national industry, as exhibited by the last 
 published returns of the Board of Trade, we find that during 
 the month ending the 5th of May, there was a falling off in 
 the gross value of our exports, of 1,483,04!6Z. as compared 
 with the same period in 1847.* 
 
 This enormous diminution of our export trade may, no 
 doubt, be accounted for in a great measure from the present 
 unsettled state of Europe. But the same cause ought to affect 
 our imports; yet of these there has been a large and general 
 inerease. In the article of silk manufaeturesf alone, the 
 imports, during the period referred to, nearly double those of 
 1847. What precise effect these increased importations may 
 have on our domestic industry, I shall not take upon myself to 
 determine; but it is well worthy of remark that the classes 
 most likely to be injured by them, and who, not two years 
 since, were ardent supporters of the free trade movement, 
 are now beginning to demand protection against the foreign 
 producer.]: 
 
 It is to be observed, that the first victims of free trade are 
 the weaker and more dependent interests of the state—viz., 
 our working elasses at home and our colonists abroad. But 
 the evil cannot rest there, for, in the political, as in the phy¬ 
 sical frame, the serious injury of a part must affect the whole; 
 and it is not difficult to foresee the war of conflicting interests 
 which we are still destined to witness. It has, indeed, been 
 customary of late to treat the question of free trade as 
 settled, and to thrust aside its opponents as bigots who would 
 vote back the Stuarts or restore the Heptarchy. But it is 
 neither probable nor desirable that the manufacturing interest 
 
 * Sec the city .wticle of tlio “ Times ” of June 9, 1848. 
 
 + Siik manufactures for home consumption, in 1847, 39,688 lbs.; in 1848, 
 72,670 lbs. See " Times ” of the same date. 
 
 J An account of the proceedings at a meeting of tile arlisans of London, pub¬ 
 lished in the "Daily News” of the 27th of April last, and the resolution that 
 was passed respecting foreign competition. 
 
14 
 
 should retain its present influence in the councils of the nation; 
 and there are symptoms of reaction and resistance now abroad 
 which promise its speedy diminution. There is no truth of 
 history more satisfactorily:established by the unvarying expe¬ 
 rience of all countries and all ages, than that manufacturing 
 prosperity is variable and ephemeral, when compared with that 
 derived from the cultivation of the land. Yet it is for the 
 supposed aggrandisement of this one interest that, the whole 
 of our recent policy has been directed. But a few months 
 more and the British agriculturist will be exposed to the 
 competition of the Eussian serf, as our colonist now is to that 
 of the blood-stained slave of Cuba. But a few years more, 
 and the mill-owners of Lancashire may find themselves en¬ 
 gaged in a struggle of life and death with the manufacturers 
 of the United States. Before that time arrives, however, the 
 nation may have awakened from its delusion. We may have 
 discovered that a moderate restrietion upon the importation 
 of foreign grain may have the effect, not only of preserving 
 our agriculture, but of increasing a falling revenue, with¬ 
 out materially enhancing the price of corn. We may have 
 discovered the value of our colonial empire, which the 
 presumptuous quackeries of a pretended science have placed 
 in jeopardy. And last, not least, the working classes of the 
 nation may hare spoken in a voice that will be heard against 
 this all-devouring spirit of free trade, which the genius of our 
 great dramatist seems almost to have typified in the following 
 words:— 
 
 " Then everything resolves itself in power, 
 
 Power into will, will into appetite, 
 
 And appetite an nniversal wolf 
 Must make perforce an nniversal sway. 
 
 And last eat up himself.” 
 
 But, to return to the more immediate subject of this letter, 
 I need scarcely remind your Lordship that, independent of 
 all recent legislation, the home administration of colonial 
 
15 
 
 affairs has long been a matter of just complaint. I mean no 
 flattery when I say that, during the last twenty years, no 
 minister has conducted the business of that department mth 
 greater success than your Lordship ; no one, therefore, can 
 be better aware of the general inefficiency of the system, and 
 the necessity that exists for some important alteration in the 
 management of our colonial empire. 
 
 It is to he observed that our colonies have two interests 
 which are essentially distinct; the one is local, and oonflded 
 to the representative assembly, or if it does not enjoy that 
 privilege, to the executive government of the colony; the 
 other is imperial, and confided to the general legislature and 
 the executive government of the empire; and it is to the 
 latter that I now venture to draw your Lordship’s attention. 
 
 I assume, therefore—for it would be a waste of time to 
 prove the fact—that the imperial interests of the colonies do 
 not receive that degree of attention from the home govern¬ 
 ment which their great importance deserves. At the present 
 time, in particular, when the subject of systematic colonis¬ 
 ation is forcing itself upon the public mind, the want of 
 some organised means of effecting that desired object is pow¬ 
 erfully felt. With the double object, therefore, of obtaining 
 justice to the colonies, and at the same time of rendering 
 their resources most available to the mother country, I have 
 to suggest one of two remedies. The first is to enlarge both 
 the administrative power and the responsibility of the Colonial 
 Office; the second, and more effective plan is, to allow the 
 colonies the right of direct representation in the imperial 
 Parliament. 
 
 Your Lordship is doubtless aware that the scheme of 
 direct colonial representation was strongly advocated by 
 Adam Smith, and as resolutely opposed by Burke. “ There 
 is not the least probability,” observes the former, “that 
 the British constitution would be hurt by the union of 
 Great Britain with her colonies. That constitution, on the 
 
16 
 
 contrary, would be completed by it, and seems to be imperfect 
 without it. The assembly which deliberates and decides 
 cmtceming the affairs of every part of the empire, hi order to be 
 properly informed, ougla certainly to have representatives from 
 every part of it. That this union, however, could be easily 
 efifectuated, or that difficulties, and great difficulties, might 
 not occur in the execution, 1 do not pretend. I have yet 
 heard of none, however, which appear insurmountablo." * 
 
 The objections of Mr. Burke to this scheme are principally 
 founded on the distance of the colonies from England, and on 
 the unavoidable difficulties and delays which would occur in 
 the election and return of members to the seat of government.f 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to observe, however, that circum¬ 
 stances have very materially altered since these confficting 
 opinions were expressed. The principal, and in fact the only 
 valid objection of Burke, can hardly be said now to exist, at 
 least with reference to our American possessions—and he has 
 confined his argument to them. A voyage from Boston or 
 Halifax can now be performed in as short a time as a journey 
 from the north of Scotland or the west of Ireland in the days 
 of Burke; and throughout the year the West Indies are 
 probably more accessible than the Shetland Islands. In pro¬ 
 portion, therefore, as the force of Mr. Burke’s objections has 
 been .diminished by circumstances, the reasons adduced by 
 Adam Smith in favour of colonial representation have received 
 additional strength. And there is another circumstance 
 tp be considered, which, although for obvious reasons he 
 has not directly referred to it, could scarcely have failed to 
 operate on the mind of Burke, while treating of this important 
 question. At the period when he wrote, the close boroughs 
 afibrded a ready means of representation to the colonies; a 
 means which no longer exists. Practically speaking, therefore, 
 the colonies were represented in the imperial legislature in his 
 
 • Vol. u. p. 473. 
 
 t Burke's Works, vol. i. Observations on .v late state of the nation. 
 
17 
 
 day, although not so efficiently as if they had been allowed to 
 send their own representatives direct to Parliament. 
 
 In order to avoid the possibility of contested elections, and 
 the great delays that would necessarily attend them, the 
 colonial legislatures, wliich must still remain, might be em¬ 
 powered to send members to Parliament in the same manner 
 as the separate legislatures of the United States send members 
 to Congress. 
 
 As direct imperial representation must necessarily imply 
 imperial taxation, those colonies only would send members to 
 Parliament which could afford to contribute to the revenue 
 of the mother country, in some proportion to the expense of 
 their maintenance. The smaller colonies, therefore, and 
 those generally which have no local assemblies, would remain 
 governed as they now are, although they too would derive 
 great advantage from the presence in Parliament of men who 
 might bo personally acquainted with their actual condition 
 and resources. 
 
 If your Lordship asks for a precedent for so important an 
 innovation, I fear, indeed, that none can be furnished, either 
 from the history of this country or of any other. As the 
 idea of representation was unknown to the ancients, we cannot 
 look to them for information. Among the maritime states of 
 the middle ages, however, we may perceive the necessities 
 that sometimes existed for colonial representation at the seat 
 of government. During the fourteenth century, a colony* 
 of Venice claimed the right of sending deputies to the 
 great council of the Eepublic, but this privilege was denied 
 by the exclusive legislators of St. Mark.f During the 
 grandeur of the Spanish monarchy in the sixteenth century, 
 the gi’eat foreign dependencies of the crown were repre¬ 
 sented at Madrid by a separate council or hoard, which 
 appears to have superintended the affairs of the dominions 
 
 • The island of Candia. Comewall Lenis on the " Goveiranent of Depen- 
 
18 
 
 committed to their care, without the intei-vention of the Cortes. 
 Even this would be an improvement upon our loose and 
 changeful system of colonial management; but no remedy 
 would appear to be so efficient, so constitutional, and at the 
 same time so conducive to the strength and stability of the 
 whole empire as the one already suggested.* 
 
 . And if no historical precedent can be adduced in favour of 
 this proposed measure, it is also to be borne in mind that the 
 circumstances of the case have no parallel in the annals of 
 mankind. With an overflowing population at home, and a 
 boundless extent of colonial territory abroad, it is the obvious 
 destiny of this nation to employ its indomitable energies for 
 centuries to come, in civilising and peopling those vast regions 
 of the earth which Providence has committed to our care. 
 Such, in spite of the temporary triumph of theory over reason 
 and justice, is our inevitable course. Nor would anything 
 more facilitate the accomplishment of this great work, by 
 diffusing just notions of the wants and capabilities of our 
 colonial dominions, than the presence of their representatives 
 in England. If it is asked how they would affect the delibera¬ 
 tions of the supreme legislature, it may be safely replied that 
 
 ♦ The following extract from a speech delivered on the flth of Fehmary last, 
 by an influential memher of the legislature of New Brunswick, is worthy of attcn- 
 tion at the present time: Let the voice of the colonial subject be heard within 
 the balls of her Imperial Legislature. It was love for the venerable institu¬ 
 tions of their forefathers which prompted him to speak so plainly. If they 
 saw a friend about to take a road which they knew to be beset with danger, 
 would they not warn him to beware of the path which he was about to pui'sue ? 
 Was it not, then, his duty, and the duty of that house, if they saw danger in 
 the policy of Great Britain, to warn her of the dangers which surrounded her 
 colonial empire ? Did they not see the whole of the noble colonies of the 
 "West Indies laid prostrate by the policy which brought the produce of foreign 
 islands and slave labour into' competition with them in the Bntisli market ? 
 and if they believed as he did, tliat the same policy, if persisted in, would pro¬ 
 duce similar effects in this colony, would they stand quietly by until the evil 
 day had arrived, which would throw them helpless and ruined into the arms of 
 foreign states?” See speech of Mr. R. D. Wilmot in "The Colonial Advo- 
 cate ” of tlie 17tb February last This language is ominous, and reminds us of 
 that held by the colonists of the United States before their separation. 
 
19 
 
 tliey would add generally to their interest and utility ; because 
 under the plan proposed the ablest men only would be 
 returned. From their education and their habits there is also 
 every reason to believe that they would cherish a firm attach¬ 
 ment to the constitution of their forefathers, and thus, in 
 addition to the increased intelligence which they would bring 
 to Parliament, they would form an important element of 
 resistance to that destructive spirit now abroad, which, 
 whether under the attractive guise of a popular league, or the 
 bolder front of Chartism or Repeal, aims really at the destruc¬ 
 tion of our institutions and the subversion of society. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Your Lordship’s most obedient servant, 
 
 COSMOPOLITE.