movement, which in England rob revolutions of their initial "r," are perhaps cheaply purchased at the expense of some confusion of thought and of difficulty of knowing, at any moment of time, exactly where we stand. Be this as it may, some proposals in Molesworth's Bill were were certainly objectionable. His own friend and counsellor, Gibbon Wakefield, has well stated the argument against the proposal that the Governor's salary should be paid by England. "The obligation of colonies," he wrote, "to defray the whole cost of their internal government would be one security for the preservation of their municipal independence, and would therefore be considered rather a benefit than a burden." Nor, although it would be generally unwise to retain a Governor in a colony against the strong wishes of the colonists, would it have been expedient to enact that an address passed by two-thirds of the whole number of the members of each House of Parliament should involve of necessity the removal of a Governor. These, however, are matters of detail. The important point was that the Bill was an honest endeavour to put into formal language the theory which Molesworth had always held, that the colonists were Englishmen, though domiciled across the seas, entitled to all the rights and privileges of Englishmen.

At first sight Molesworth's criticism of the Government measure, which, after all, in the words of its draftsman, "in effect proposed one resolution, viz., that it was expedient to leave the form of their constitutions to be dealt with by the Colonial Legislatures," may seem a trifle "lurid." On the other hand it should be remembered that there was

M.

b

a serious risk lest, starting on wrong lines, the Australian Constitutions should never regain the right track, and in fact the measure was altered in a popular direction in the House of Lords.

Hitherto as the opponent of transportation, the advocate of emigration and of such a mode of dealing with the colonial lands as should promote English population, and lastly as the upholder of the principle of complete self-government in all local affairs, Molesworth is seen to anticipate the views with regard to Greater Britain of a later day. It is true that, compared to the stentorian notes to which we have become accustomed, the trumpet often gives forth an uncertain sound. We hear too much of the United States as still an English colony in the best sense of the term to suit the taste of those who, whatever their respect and affection for the great kindred Power across the Atlantic, still believe that the relations between the different parts of the British Empire must remain something much closer than are the relations between Great Britain and the United States, if Greater Britain is at all to fulfil the promise of its dawn. We must, however, always remember the times in which Molesworth lived, and the difficulty there was then in grasping the idea of Greater Britain. The loss of the American Colonies had seemed the full vindication of Turgot's memorable statement that colonies are like fruit, which, when ripe, falls off the parent branch. English statesmen held on, it is true, to the old colonial system from loyalty to past traditions or from habit, but there was little enthusiasm, and the gospel of Free Trade, which was no longer preached from the

philosopher's study, but from the manufacturer's mill, and from the crowded streets of half-starving cities, appeared to point to a new earth, wherein, in the reasonable satisfaction of mutual wants, sentimental and political considerations should be almost forgotten. It is, from the point of view of those who believe in the British Empire as a force making for liberty and justice, to the eternal glory of the colonial reformers that they did not lose faith or hope or allow themselves to be diverted to false ideals. The majority of them, strong Radicals where Home politics were concerned, they refused to be absorbed in the new Manchester school of Radicalism which came more and more to the front in the struggle and the triumph of Free Trade. In the special circumstances of the case it was inevitable that their language should sometimes seem halting and uncertain to the modern student, but, on the whole, they would have subscribed cordially to the words of Lord Elgin, "You must renounce the habit of telling the colonies that the colonial is a provisional existence. You must allow them to believe that, without severing the bonds which unite them to Great Britain, they may attain a degree of perfection and of social and political development to which organised communities of free men have a right to aspire." We have heard much in recent days of Imperial Liberalism. That such a creed is possible was, in the main, the handiwork of Lord Durham, Charles Buller and Sir William Molesworth. If this is so, it is not for us, to whom the glib commonplaces of Imperialism have become so stale that we almost welcome an Apemantus in the

shape of Professor Goldwin Smith, to grumble, if at times the faith of Molesworth in the Empire is not apparently as firm as that which is our present heritage.

A further article, however, in Molesworth's political creed cannot be so easily dealt with. Whoever reads these speeches will note the stress laid on the necessity for economy in the administration of the colonies. It would be dishonest as well as foolish to shirk this side of Molesworth's teaching. Molesworth, it cannot be too often repeated, was a strong Radical, brought up in the old creed of Radicalism, "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform," when such a creed was a simpler thing to believe in than it has become under the pressure of State socialistic tendencies at home, and economic competition, fostered by political influences, abroad. As a Radical of the Reform Bill period, Molesworth naturally spoke and thought as such. Consequently it is not unnatural to find him using language which, divorced from its context and the general tendency of his teaching, would rejoice the heart of the Little Englander. The judicious Imperialist, however, need not quarrel with the denunciation of the "prestige of might." By prestige we merely mean credit, and the credit, which has not, in the last resort, assets behind it, is, we should all allow, a house built upon the sand. Moreover the economist represents a side of the shield which can never with safety be neglected. The most stalwart Imperialist may well be given pause when he reflects on the thousands of pounds expended upon the fortification of the Ionian Islands, which for present

purposes might as well have been thrown into the Mediterranean Sea. It should further be remembered that the ships of the Royal Navy were not propelled by steam before the accession of Queen Victoria, and that, at the time of these speeches, strong coaling stations, though already of importance, were by no means the indispensable adjunct of sea power which they afterwards became. One way to apprehend Molesworth's attitude towards colonial expenditure is to compare it with the attitude of the Army reformers of to-day, who are opposed to huge estimates for military purposes, not because they do not realise the importance of military strength, but because they fear an inevitable reaction if the strain on the taxpayer be made too great. Molesworth, however, arrived at his conclusions on more positive grounds. His contention was that the colonies should be treated on a footing of equality; not as Cinderellas, which had been the old way; nor as pampered children, which had been the way substituted after the loss of the American colonies. Much depends upon the manner in which a change is made, and the men by whom it is carried out; and, if the Liberal policy of leaving the colonies to provide for their own local wars had been entrusted to the hands of a Minister who, like Molesworth, appealed strongly to colonial sympathies, it is probable that much. future friction and discontent would have been avoided. In one colony at least the policy advocated by Molesworth was boldly adopted by the Colonial Government. There is always the danger of assuming post hoc, propter hoc; nevertheless the satisfactory manner in which the Maori

b *