The spirit of colonial government, however, has been sensibly affected by the policy of Great Britain. The enlargement of popular freedom at home has relaxed the severity of colonial rule. For every considerable amelioration the colony has been indebted to the whigs. They gave trial by jury: they stopped white slavery in the Australian colonies, and thus in the end transportation. They placed religious denominations on an equal footing: they introduced the sale of land, for the purposes of immigration: they granted first to New South Wales, and since to all the colonies, the legislative assemblies which now watch over their rising liberties. In the days of a Castlereagh or a Bathurst, England possessed far less practical freedom than her colonies now enjoy. It is impossible to prevent the contagion of opinions, and the colonies may see in the growing intelligence and spirit of the United Kingdom the assurance of their own gradual advancement in the ranks of freedom. In this respect Australia is more happily conditioned than was once her American sister. The colonies of that continent were in advance of the parent country. The royal government not only detested their institutions as democratic, but as a standing reproach to the maxims of domestic policy. Thus, the appearance of a royal governor was ominous to their liberties. He came to entrap, to report, and to betray them. They had to hide their charters, to preserve them from violent abduction; and to threaten insurrection as the alternative of liberty. Whatever Australasia gains she will attain with the approbation of English statesmen. She will look to the spirit of the times as the guardian of her rights. While privileged exclusiveness is in Great Britain crumbling to the dust, it cannot be that the middle classes will impose upon the necks of infant colonies the burdens they themselves abhor.
In seeking the improvement of colonial government, a prudent colonist will guard against the extravagance of theory. It is true that the people are the best judges of their own interests, but not that the interests of all colonists are uniform, or that they are capable of impartially disposing of all the incipient interests of the colonial state. Their covetousness as landholders might absorb the inheritance of the nation—their ambition as citizens contract the franchises of the humbler classes. The most strenuous opponents of Downing-street have denounced most fiercely the extension of the popular power. Mr. Wentworth, whose services in the cause of Australian freedom have immortalized his name, is yet a lictor when he turns towards the multitude, and a tribune only when he faces the seat of authority. His defiance of Earl Grey was pronounced nearly the same time that he imprecated vengeance on the Sydney democracy. The most strenuous educated advocates of self-government are not yet prepared to carry out their principles to their utmost limits. If the people have reason to dislike the autocracy of Downing-street, they would find no amelioration in the ascendency of an oligarchy which would divide the universe into sheep walks for the benefit of flockmasters, and convert the residue of mankind into shepherds. True liberty is a compromise, and if a small community would prevent faction from establishing a tyranny, it must exchange some advantages for a control which defends while it restrains. Thus the claim of responsible government, and the appointment of officers chosen from the colonial ranks, though favorite projects, and certain finally to prevail, require a considerable growth before they could be useful. Our functionaries hold their office at the pleasure of the crown and thus survive the confidence of the assemblies; but evils of another class would issue from an opposite system. Official men, always fearful of defeat, would strengthen their position by the most desperate use of their power, and a dozen voices would decide. Thus family compacts would be formed, and cliques and cabals would finally determine the distribution of office. For this the Americans have found a remedy in the meagre pay of those who occupy their highest situations. Ambition is moderated by its unrequited toils, and the public business chiefly carried on by paid servants of humble designations. But were thousands a year the prize of a successful opposition, not better men, but worse than the nominees of the crown might be expected to climb or creep into the seat of government.
In looking down the lists of colonists who have most largely benefited their adopted country many would be found who were appointed from home to fill offices they have long since quitted. Nor would it be just to deny that they have largely contributed to whatever has elevated the taste and improved the social condition of these countries. For some time to come the appointment of well-educated Englishmen, though not to the exclusion of Australians, would be desirable, unless the recent discovery of gold should rapidly augment the population, and thus extend the basis of government and the number from which its officers may be chosen. The feelings of the colonists have, indeed, been too often violated by the scandalous multiplication of offices and the utter incompetence of those who have filled them. But a community little more than half a century old cannot be entitled to denounce Englishmen as foreigners, or to complain that strangers usurp the rights of the country-born. A wise administration of local patronage, without distinctions which are unnatural and absurd, would strengthen the hands of the executive and satisfy the reason of the people.
The future independence of the Australian colonies is written in the book of fate; but the inevitable change may be long postponed with advantage to themselves. A superior power is desirable to regulate their development, and to preserve at once their order and their freedom. The reins of government, if snatched from vice-regal hands, would not immediately fall into those more worthy. The love of order is too strong in the English breast to tolerate anarchy, and whatever changes transpire the public voice would pronounce in favor of a strong and regular administration. But since life is short, no wise man would wish to waste a considerable portion in passing through the disorders of a revolution to gain the mere name of a State. The royal government may redress every grievance, and the colonist may turn with confidence to the seat of empire for the accomplishment of every municipal change requisite to advance the country of his adoption. But were independence desirable in itself, the colonists would, notwithstanding, calculate its cost. Those who have pretended that England does not prize her colonies, know little of her temper: her colonies are her pride, her ornament, and her strength. One day she will lose them; but that day will be a day of mourning and humiliation.
The discussion of this question by the metropolitan press, and the predictions of parliamentary statesmen, have induced many ardent minds to anticipate an early realization. These prophecies are but the weapons of party which would disappear in the presence of real danger; one voice would be heard proclaiming the rights of Great Britain. To her power what could Australia at present oppose? The American revolutionists had an army: they had thrust out the Indians and beaten the French, and their national character was deepened by the political and religious sentiments in which they had been cradled. But Australia has not a soldier or a gun. Her population may quickly reach the three millions numbered by the Americans at the era of independence; but she has not the habits of Americans—she has not their country, their forests, their frozen rivers, their terrible snows. England, when America resisted, hired a few German troops to assist her own feeble army. Since then she has conquered Napoleon, subdued India, and established her military power in every region of the world. Whether the mutual interests of Great Britain and her colonies are sufficient to bind them together may be a question at issue. Independence may be desired; but it is well to remember that those who will attain it must fight for it, and that in this war they will not only contend with the most benign and just, but with the most powerful government on the earth. England will not permit her ministers to oppress the colonies; but would hazard the last regiment rather than lose the colonial empire.
The British government will not, if wise, rely on any abstract principles of loyalty, or conclude too confidently that no attempt will be successful. The distance of the central power; the peculiar structure of colonial societies; the mountainous regions of Van Diemen's Land and New Holland, where small bodies could resist all the armies of the world; the possibility of foreign sympathy: all these are considerations proper to moderate imperial confidence, and to teach that the integrity of the empire is only safe in the unity of interest and affection.[282]
The colonies have every motive for preferring the British rule to any other; yet the contingencies of war may expose them to extraordinary sufferings. Foreign nations would scarcely attempt a permanent occupation; but the cities which contain half the inhabitants, and more than half the moveable wealth, might be successfully assailed, pillaged, and easily destroyed. Thus, a powerful European state may expose her distant colonies to the calamities once endured by those of Spain. Such may be the expectation of the Australias. When they are required to support armies for their defence it will be felt that these are necessary chiefly because they are united with an empire whose interests are complicated with every government in the world.
To strengthen the authority of the British crown no measure would be more effectual than a federal union of these colonies. They require a senate exalted by station above the influences of mere localism, and capable of holding in check individual ambition. Statesmen, gathered from the various colonies, would restrain and moderate each other. The highest questions of colonial government being confided to their care, they would leave the internal improvement of the districts to be pursued by the local legislative assemblies. The state and expense of colonial governments, which now maintain distinct departments in each colony, assuming all but imperial style, might then be abated. Monetary establishments find no difficulty in conducting their affairs under a general inspectorship assisted by a local direction. The American states, by remitting all great questions to the federal government, are sustained at less cost than the branch establishments of the Bank of Australasia. It is true that a federal union would increase the importance of the colonies among nations, and contract the power of the ministry to a distant superintendence: it would, however, prevent many of the evils of political dependence, and secure to Great Britain all the advantages of imperial authority so long as it shall last.
It is infinitely important that intelligent and upright men should occupy their true position in public affairs. A reluctance to face the virulent and brutal opposition of low adventurers must be naturally felt by every refined and educated man. The future character of these colonies will, however, depend on the courage and perseverance of the respectable classes. The widest extension of suffrage cannot be long resisted, and qualifications for office founded on property will inevitably break down. But the reputable and intelligent will be able to command the public mind if they think it worth while to instruct and conciliate it. Religious men must no longer avoid the strife of the hustings as inconsistent with piety, or set the claims of religion in opposition to the obligation of the citizen. Both are in reality one; and while churches in their corporate capacity stand best when they are most distant from the arena of politics, it is the duty of all who reverence the Almighty's will and regard the welfare of mankind, to devote themselves to the social and political amelioration of society. Personal character and social position are distinct elements of political power. The Queen of England and her illustrious husband are instead of armies: wherever they have moved they shed light and pleasure, not only through the mansions of the rich but the cottages of the poor. The theoretical republican is compelled to doubt whether an example so valuable may not be worth all the cost and prerogatives of royalty.