STATE OF AUSTRALIA

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 91, 2 October 1852, Page 10

STATE OF AUSTRALIA

[From the " Times."]

We rejoice to see that the truly alarming state of Australia has at last drawn to it the attention of the Government, and that an, effort, however slight, is to be made to shake off the listless apathy with which the question has been treated. It is something' to have obtained an admission from the Colonial Minister that emigration alone is no adequate remedy, and that mere laissez faire can never arrest the disorganization of a community trembling on the very verge of dissolution, which unless averted by some external force, must infallibly take place. It is something-, also, to see the grievances of a remote dependency met in a careful and conciliatory temper, free from the arbitrary and dictatorial spirit of Lord Stanley, or the narrow piques and prejudices which disfigured the administration of Lord Grey. On this as on other occasions we have pleasure in recognizing the good qualities of Sir John Pakington, whose office happily exempting him from the necessity of dissimulation and mystification, seems to have become one of the easiest and most agreeable in Lord Derby's Cabinet.

Sir John Pakington purposes to send 400 troops ami a ship of war to Melbourne, and 200 troops to Sydney, to prevent the desertion of seamen from the ships in harbour. For these troops he purposes that the colonists should pay. We quite admit the principle that the burden of maintaining troops in colonies enjoying full powers of local self-government, when such troops are employed "for colonial purposes, ought not to be thrown upon the Imperial Revenue, but should he defrayed from the resources of the colonies themselves. In the present instance, however, we observe that neither of these conditions arises. The service required from the troops is not of a colonial, but of an imperial nature, and the colonies are far, very far, from being entrusted; with powers ■of self-government. .The object of sending troops is to prevent desertion from merchant ships—a most desirable end certainly, but one in which the colony is indirectly interested, and has indeed, opposing and contradictory interests. If on the one hand freight is raised by the impunity and facility of desertion, on the other, a community perishing for want of labour receives a seasonable supply from such a source. The interest of the ship-owner is clear and undoubted, and Government has done well and wisely to look to it it is by no means clear that the colonists ought to be called upon to pay all the cost of troops whose principal object will be to check the influx of population.

Waving, however, this objection, which is comparatively of small importance, let us see liow far our treatment of these colonies justifies us in considering them as quasi independent States having full control over their own revenues, complete powers of management of their local affairs, and therefore liable to defray any expense which the Imperial Treasury mayincur on their behalf. If we give up onr old practice of meddling with the local affair of these distant, communities, it is no doubt equally just that they, in their turn, should surrender all claim from us for assistance in the expenses of their internal government. They can then raise such a revenue as they think fit; and that revenue, not ours, is the proper fund for all their expenses. But, if we insist on appropriating huge portions of that revenue as we please, in a manner quite different from that which the colonists themselves would choose if we will not trust them to make the most insignificant regulation for themselves without reserving the royal veto upon it-if we will not allow "them to have the slightest influence upon the management of their own waste lands, the appointment of their own officers, or the personnel of their executive government, we must not expect that they will cheerfully consent to pay our demands upon a revenue which we have been careful in so many ways to anticipate. Now. let us see how the matter really stands. We lake from the Australian colonies, under the name of a civil list, upwards of a hundred and fifty thousand pounds a year, wuiuh they are compelled to pay over to such purposes as Parliament has directed, before they are per-

mittecl to touch a single shilling of the revenue which they have raised by taxing themselves. They ;ue also compelled to support a Customs' department, appointed and salaried by the home government. At this heavy price they are forced to purchase the right of appropriating the remainder of their revenue by their own votes, or rather by a Chamber, one-third of which is nominated by the Crown. The whole of the funds arising from the sale and lettiug of the land are taken away from the recognizance of the local Legislature, and appropriated at the will of three Lords of the Treasury. It appears to us perfectly unreasonable to expect that communities so situated will endure at the same time the evils of tutelage and independence, and while forced to submit to the restraints of infancy, will undertake the duties and responsibilities of manhood. If they are to find the ways and means, they ought also to have the right of appropriating-' them, and the first step towards making the colonies self-sup* porting- is to make them self-governing.

We are informed that a resolution has been agreed to by the Legislative Council of New South Wales, offering to undertake the expense of their own military defence in consideration of the surrender of the land fund. It would be quite in accordance with the Colonial Office practice to accept the offer without making the surrender; and, indeed, as the management of the waste lands cannot be vested in the Colonial Legislatures without an Act of Parliament, and as Sir John Pakington has not announced his intention to introduce any such measure, this appenrs to be really the case. The colony makes an offer in consideration of a benefit, and the Colonial Office forces upon the colony the performance of its offer, and withholds the benefit altogether. Before, however, Sir John Pakington ventures on this course, let him well count the cost. The land fund is worth nothing to the Imperial Government, but is of priceless value to the colony ; and, if their advances towards a compromise are met in such a spirit, there is no reason to doubt that this is the last offer of a peaceful nature which the Colonial Office will ever receive.

We would press on the Colonial Minister a wider view of the subject. Great as are said to be the losses of the British shipowner, they are as nothing compared to those of the Australian capitalist. Ships deserted by their crews may be recovered under more favourable circumstances, but sheep and cattle untended are doomed to immediate destruction. The same principle which induces him to send a small force to protect the one, ought to compel him to send one sufficiently large to protect the other. There is the same risk of desertion in either case, and if it be possible to retain soldiers in the vicinity of gold for the purpose of coercing runaway sailors, it is equally possible when the object is to control mutinous miners. It is impossible not to be struck with the difference between our proceedings at the Cape and in Australia. In the former we are employing 15 regiments entirely at the cost of this coun* try, to conquer a worthless country, to destroy the crops of our enemies, and to carry on a contest at which humanity shudders. In Australia one-fifth of this force would probably be sufficient to preserve a vast capital, to save a flourishing community, and to raise a large revenue, without costing this country a farthing; and yet, in this enlightened ;ige we prefer to squander our money in spreading desolation over South Africa, rather than save it by diffusing the blessings of peace and abundance over the settlements of Australia.