ure.1 available for securing parliamentary support, fell short of the demand, and appointments were accordingly multiplied abroad. Of these, many of the most lucrative were ex ecuted by deputy. The favored friends of ministers, who were gratified by the emoluments of office, were little disposed to suffer banishment in a distant dependency. Infants in the cradle were endowed with colonial appointments, to be executed through life by convenient deputies. Extravagant fees or salaries were granted in Downing Street, and spent in England; but paid out of colonial revenues. Other offices again, to which residence was attached, were too frequently given to men wholly unfit for employment at home, but who were supposed to be equal to colonial service, where indolence, incapacity, or doubtful character might escape exposSuch men as these, however, were more mischievous in a colony, than at home. The higher officers were associated with the governor in the administration of affairs; the subordinate officers were subject to less control and discipline. In both, negligence and unfitness were injurious to the colonies. As colonial societies expanded, these appointments from home further excited the jealousy of colonists, many of whom were better qualified for office, than the strangers who came amongst them to enjoy power, wealth, and distinction, which were denied to themselves.2 This jealousy and the natural ambition of the colonists, were among the principal causes which led to demands for more complete self-government. As this feeling was increasing in colonial society, the home government were occupied with arrangements for insuring the permanent maintenance of the civil establish "As to civil officers appointed for America, most of the places in the gift of the crown have been filled with broken members of Parliament, of bad, if any, principles, — valets-de-chambre, electioneering scoundrels, and even livery-servants. In one word, America has been, for many years, made the hospital of England."— Letter of General Huske, in 1758; Phillimore's Life of Lord Lyttelton, ii. 604, cited by Lord Mahon. 2 Long's Hist. of Jamaica, i. 27, 79; Edwards' Hist. of the West Indies, ii. 390; Sir G. Lewis on Dependencies, 278-284; MS. Memorandum by the Right Hon. Edw. Ellice, M. P. ments out of the colonial revenues. To continue to fill all the offices with Englishmen, and at the same time to call upon the jealous colonists to pay them, was not to be attempted. And accordingly the home government surrendered to the governors all appointments under 2007. a year; and to the greater number of other offices, appointed colonists recommended by the governors. A colonial grievance was thus redressed, and increased influence given to the colonists; while one of the advantages of the connection was renounced by the parent state. New com affecting the While England was entering upon a new period of extended liberties, after the Reform Act, circummercial policy stances materially affected her relations with the colonies. colonies; and this may be termed the third and last period of colonial history. First, the abolition of slavery, in 1833, loosened the ties by which the sugar colonies had been bound to the mother country. This was followed by the gradual adoption of a new commercial policy, which overthrew the long-established protections and monopolies of colonial trade. The main purpose for which both parties had cherished the connection was lost. Colonists found their produce exposed to the competition of the world; and, in the sugar colonies, with restricted labor. The home consumer independent of colonial supplies, was free to choose his own market, wherever commodities were best and cheapest. The sugars of Jamaica competed with the slave-grown sugars of Cuba; the woods of Canada with the timber of Norway and the Baltic. These new conditions of colonial policy seriously affected the political relations of the mother country with her dependencies. Her interference in their interrelations of nal affairs having generally been connected with commercial regulations, she had now less interest Its effect upon the political colonies. 1 Earl Grey's Colonial Policy, i. 37-41; Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service, ch. iii.; Mills' Colonial Constitutions, App. in continuing it; and they, having submitted to it for the sake of benefits with which it was associated, were less disposed to tolerate its exercise. Meanwhile the growing population, wealth, and intelligence of many of the colonies, closer communications with England, and the example of English liberties, were developing the political aspirations of colonial societies, and their capacity for self-government. of Jamaica Early in this period of transition, England twice had occasion to assert her paramount authority; but Contumacy learned at the same time to estimate the force of repressed. local opinion, and to seek in the further development of free institutions the problem of colonial government. Jamaica, discontented after the abolition of slavery, neglected to make adequate provision for her prisons, which that measure had rendered necessary. In 1838, the Imperial Parliament interposed, and promptly supplied this defect in colonial legislation. The local assembly, resenting this act of authority, was contumacious, stopped the supplies, and refused to exercise the proper functions of a legislature. Again Parliament asserted its supremacy. The sullen legislature was commanded to resume its duties; and submitted in time to save the ancient constitution of Jamaica from suspension.2 in Canada. At the same period, the perilous state of Canada called forth all the authority of England. In 1837 and Insurrection 1838, the discontents of Lower Canada exploded in insurrection. The constitution of that province was immediately suspended by the British Parliament; and a provisional government established, with large leg- Reunion of islative and executive powers. This necessary 8 act of authority was followed by the reunion of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada into a single colony,. under a governor-general. 1 1 & 2 Vict. c. 67. the provinces. 2 2 & 3 Vict. c. 26; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xlvi. 1243; xlvii. 459 &c 8 1 & 2 Vict. c. 9; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 53. 43 & 4 Vict. c. 35. colonial self admitted. But while these strong measures were resorted to, the Right of British Government carefully defined the pringovernment ciples upon which parliamentary interposition was justified. "Parliamentary legislation," wrote Lord Glenelg, the colonial minister, " on any subject of exclusively internal concern to any British colony possessing a representative assembly is, as a general rule, unconstitutional. It is a right of which the exercise is reserved for extreme cases, in which necessity at once creates and justifies the exception." Never before had the rights of colonial selfgovernment been so plainly acknowledged. government. But another principle was about to be established in Canada, which still further enlarged the powers of Principle of responsible colonial assemblies, and diminished the influence of the mother country. This principle is known as the doctrine of responsible government. Hitherto the advisers of the governor in this, as in every other colony, were the principal officers appointed by the crown, and generally holding permanent offices. Whatever the fluctuations of opinion in the legislature or in the colony, whatever the unpopularity of the measures or persons of the executive officers, they continued to direct the councils of the colony. For many years, they had contrived, by concessions, by management and influence, to avoid frequent collisions with the assemblies; but as the principles of representative government were developed, irresponsible rulers were necessarily brought into conflict with the popular assembly. The advisers of the governor pursued one policy, the assembly another. Measures prepared by the executive were rejected by the assembly; measures passed by the assembly were refused by the council, or vetoed by the governor. And whenever such collisions arose, the constitutional means were wanting, for restoring confidence between the contending powers. Frequent dissolutions exasperated the popular 1 Parl. Paper, 1839, No. 118, p. 7. 2 See Lord Durham's Report on Canada, 1839, pp. 27-39. party, and generally resulted in their ultimate triumph. The hostility between the assembly and permanent and unpopular officers became chronic. They were constantly at issue; and representative institutions, in collision with irresponsible power, were threatening anarchy. These difficulties were not confined to Canada, but were common to all the North American colonies; and proved the incompatibility of two antagonistic principles of government.1 2 government After the reunion of the Canadian provinces, a remedy was sought for disagreements between the exec- Introduction utive and the legislature, in that principle of of responsible ministerial responsibility, which had long been into Canada, accepted as the basis of constitutional government in England. At first, ministers at home were apprehensive lest the application of that principle to a dependency should lead to a virtual renunciation of control by the mother country. Nor had Canada yet sufficiently recovered from the passions of the recent rebellion, to favor the experiment But arrangements were immediately made for altering the tenure of the principal colonial offices; and in 1847, responsible government was fully established under Lord Elgin. From that time, the governor-generals elected his advisers from that party which was able to command a majority in the legislative assembly, and accepted the policy recommended by them. The same principle was and other adopted, about the same time, in Nova Scotia ;5 and has since become the rule of administration in other free colonies.* 1 Ibid. .5 colonies. 2 Despatches of Lord J. Russell to Mr. Poulett Thomson, governor-general of Canada, Oct. 14th and 16th, 1839; Parl. Papers, 1848, No. 621. 8 Earl Grey's Colonial Policy, i. 200-234, 269; Despatches of Lord Elgin: Parl. Papers, 1848. 4 See Resolutions of the Canadian Parliament, Sept. 3d, 1841; Parl. Paper, 1848, No. 621. 5 Despatch of Earl Grey to Sir John Harvey, Nov. 3d, 1846; Pari. Paper, 1848, No. 621, p. 8. 6 Mills' Colonial Constitutions, 201, 205, 209, &c. |