CHAPTER III.

Vast Amount of the British Empire unrepresented in the Imperial Parliament-Schemes for Colonial Representation -- Main Divisions of our Transmarine Possessions-Classifications of Colonies-Title by Conquest Title by Occupancy-Medieval and Modern Theories as to the Rights of Heathen Pre-occupants-Distinction between Crown Colonies and Representative Colonies-Official Classification of Colonies-Colonies with responsible Governments-Geographical Classification-The Three great Masses.

Look at the map, and see how small a territorial portion of the British Empire the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland comprises. Yet none but the inhabitants of this United Kingdom send representatives to the Imperial Parliament, which is politically omnipotent over the whole Empire. A very large proportion of the natives of its outlying portions, such as the Asiatics of India and of the adjacent districts, the Hottentots and Kaffirs of the Cape, the aborigines of Australia, the Esquimaux, and the Red Indians of the Hudson Bay territories, may be rightly considered to be unfit for the constitutional functions of electors to the sovereign Legislature. But there are many thousands of the British race settled or resident in our transmarine possessions to whom that observation does not apply. There are

many colonies, especially in North America and Australia, in which men of European race form a majority; men who, as to education and property, are at least on a level with the bulk of the electors in the home country. Almost all philosophical and political enquirers into our institutions, almost all who, like Burke, have felt it to be a duty to instruct themselves in everything which relates to our colonies, and also to form some fixed ideas concerning the general policy of the British Empire;' almost all students of this character have inquired more or less frequently, and more or less vividly, whether it be not possible and desirable to admit the people of the colonies into an interest in the Constitution by giving them representation in the Imperial Parliament. While the thirteen North American colonies, which afterwards became the independent commonwealth of the United States, still formed portions of the British Empire, projects of this nature were very frequently put forward; but they never found general acceptance from the leading statesmen on either side of the Atlantic. In 1754, when discontent among the American colonists was beginning to create anxiety, Shirley, the British Governor of Massachusetts, proposed to the great colonial leader, Franklin, the plan of uniting the colonies more intimately with Great Britain, by allowing them representatives in Parliament.' Franklin discouraged the

project, though others of his fellow-colonists regarded it with favour.1 In 1768, Otis, the most vehement of the early supporters of American rights, strongly advocated a general union of the British Empire, in which every part of its wide dominion should be represented under one equal and uniform direction and system of laws.' 2 The Congress at New York opposed this. Their reasons for this opposition may be found in the correspondence between the French Minister Choiseul and his agent in America, who obtained his information chiefly from Franklin. The French Minister was told that the Americans objected to a solution of the difficulties between them and England by admitting deputies from each colony into Parliament as members, because they could not obtain a representation proportionate to their population, and so would be overwhelmed by superior numbers, because the distance made their regular attendance in Parliament impossible, and because they knew its venality and corruption too well to intrust it with their affairs.' 13

Mr. Grenville, in England, declared his opinion that the colonies ought to be allowed to send members to Parliament. Burke, in his great speech in

1 Bancroft's History of the American Revolution,' vol. i., p. 187.

Bancroft, p. 133.

Bancroft, vol. iii., p. 201.

Adam Smith, whom some will consider a higher authority than

the House of Commons on March 22, 1775, spoke of the project as follows: 'You will now perhaps imagine that I am on the point of proposing to you a scheme for a representation of the colonies in Parliament. Perhaps I might be inclined to entertain some such thought; but a great flood stops me in my course. Opposuit natura-I cannot remove the eternal barriers of the creation. The thing in that mode I do not know to be possible. I meddle with no theory, I do not absolutely assert the impracticability of such a representation. But I do not see my way to it, and those who have been more confident have not been more successful.'

As

Though many expressed opinions favourable to it, no actual attempt was made to introduce colonial representation before the agitation in England of the Reform measure of 1831-32. In the Parliamentary Debates of the first of those years, it is reported that on August 16, 1831, Mr. Hume brought forward a motion that members should be given to the colonies, and that the motion was negatived without a division. Yet the debate in the House of Commons on this subject is of permanent interest, and so is the commentary on it which is to be found in the fourth volume of Alison's History of Europe.' It is to

any that have been previously named, considered Colonial Representation to be both practicable and desirable.

1 P. 344.

be remembered that the proposer of this motion, Mr. Joseph Hume, was a very advanced Liberal; and that the historian, who laments the indifference which the proposal met with, was a very strong Conservative. Mr. Hume's proposal was of the most moderate kind, for all he asked was, that nineteen members should be given to the whole colonies of Great Britain, including four for British India, with its 100,000,000 of inhabitants. He proposed to give the Crown colonies eight, Canada three, West Indies three, and the Channel Islands one. One member of politics generally opposed to those of Mr. Hume, who spoke in the debate (Mr. Keith Douglas), observed that 'the idea of giving due proportion to the commerce and colonies which had raised this country to its present pitch of greatness was worthy of the most attentive consideration. They were now about to localise the representation, and in all probability the various boroughs would in future return gentlemen resident in their immediate vicinity, so that the class of persons connected with the colonies who had hitherto found their way into Parliament, and who were alone able to give information concerning colonial matters, would be completely excluded. In whatever point of view the great question of our colonial policy and government came to be considered, it was impossible to doubt that the honour