exception of its expenditure on account of military stations or convict settlements." 2. "That it is expedient, at the same time, to give to the inhabitants of the colonies, which are neither military stations nor convict settlements, ample powers for their local self-government, and to free them from that imperial interference with their affairs which is inseparable from their present military occupation."

ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL THE BETTER GOVERNMENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.

FOR

FEBRUARY 8, 1850.

[The resolutions proposed by Lord John Russell before the introduction of the Australian Government Bill were as follows:

1. That provision be made for the better government of Her Majesty's Australian colonies.

2. That the Governor and Legislative Council of Her Majesty's Australian colonies be authorised to impose and levy duties of customs on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into such colonies.]

THE noble lord, the Prime Minister, commenced the very able speech to which we have been listening by tracing the origin and progress of our colonial empire, and in so doing he stated many important facts with regard to the amount of the population and the extent of the commerce of our colonies; thence the noble lord inferred that the loss of our colonial possessions would be a heavy blow and a great injury to the British Empire, and that every one who wished well to this country would endeavour to prevent such a catastrophe. Then the noble lord proceeded to make known his opinions on the subject of colonial government; he declared that his colonial polity would be founded on the principles of commercial freedom and of

colonial self-government; and he expressed his hopes that he should be able by these means to promote the wealth and population of the colonies, and to attach them firmly to the British Empire. And the noble lord concluded this speech with moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better government of the colonies of Australia, the provisions of which Bill he fully explained to the Committee. The question, therefore, for consideration is, has the noble lord laid down the true principles of colonial polity; and if he has done so, is his Bill framed in accordance with those principles?

I assent without hesitation to the general principles of colonial polity, which the noble lord has laid down; and I may presume, likewise, to do so on behalf of the gentlemen who formed the association for the reform of colonial government. As the noble lord referred in terms partly of censure to that association, of which I have the honour to be a member, I may be permitted to state very shortly why we formed it. We did so because we agreed with the noble lord that we ought to maintain our colonial empire; because we knew that discontent prevailed throughout our colonies; because we believed that a train of errors, similar to that which lost us the United States, was endangering the colonial possessions that remained; because, to save those possessions, we wished for a reform of our colonial system; because we despaired of any such reform coming from the Colonial Office; and because past experience warned us against putting faith in the promises of the Colonial Office.

We held that we were right in forming that

association; because every year since the present Government came into office free institutions have been promised to Australasia, and every year those promises have been broken. For instance: four years ago, on August, 14, 1846, the honourable gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies1 began by stating that "he hoped and trusted that her Majesty's Government would be enabled in a short time to consider a better form of government for Van Diemen's Land." On the receipt of this intelligence great was the joy of the inhabitants of the Australian colonies; they believed that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was about to fulfil all the expectations which had been raised by his unofficial speeches on colonial reform. And greater still was their joy when they received the intelligence, three years ago, that on May 17, 1847, the UnderSecretary of State for the Colonies had announced to this House "that a measure was in contemplation, he might say in preparation, with a view to giving the benefits of the British Constitution to the Australian colonies generally "“ the measure (said the honourable gentleman) was in an advanced state, and would assuredly very speedily, either in that Session or in the next, be brought under the notice of Parliament." Now, how was this promise, made three years ago, fulfilled? No such measure was brought under the notice of Parliament in the Session of 1847, nor in 1848; but instead of it came a shower of fresh promises, each of them to be again broken. On March 7, 1848, the right hon. gentleman

1 Mr Hawes,

the President of the Board of Trade' appeared amongst the promise-makers, and stated that "the noble earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies hoped during the present Session of Parliament to propose a measure for granting free institutions to the Australian colonies." On the 31st of the same month the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, having found a seat, declared "that he was only waiting for an opportunity to introduce a Bill." On May 8, 1848, the noble lord the Prime Minister stated "that it was his intention to introduce a measure at the earliest moment that it was possible." And, I ask, how were these promises, made two years ago, fulfilled? May, June, and July passed away without the arrival of the "earliest possible moment" of the noble lord. For four months the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies waited in vain for "an opportunity." At length, on August 18, 1848, the honourable gentleman assured the House that "at the very earliest period of the next Session the Bill would be laid upon the table of the House." How was this promise kept? On April 16 last I heard, to my astonishment, the honourable gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies reckon the Australian colonies among those which possessed free institutions; because, as he explained, they had had representative institutions conceded to them in principle, and were included in a Bill which he hoped shortly to lay on the table of the House. At length, two months afterwards, on June 4 last, the Bill was produced, the offspring of three years' protracted parturition; but

1 Mr. Labouchere.