obtained without ultimate political independence. This proposition further assumed that a constitutional colony was essentially distinct from England. Neither of these assumptions can, in my opinion, be maintained. We are, it is true, distinct from the island called England, and from the local concerns of that island. But of that England which denotes the political relations of Englishmen in whatever part of the world they may be, we claim to be part quite as much as is the old island itself in the North Sea. If this be true, it is idle to talk of political maturity and ultimate independence. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the colonial relation to imply as a natural event separation. Separation may of course take place, but it will be the result of some external force, of some quarrel which might be avoided, and not the natural outcome of the organization itself. If the colonial policy of England a hundred years ago had been what it now is-if there had been no Navigation Laws, if the commerce of the colonies had been left free, and had not been sacrificed to the imaginary interest of English merchants and manufacturers-Queen Victoria might at this hour have been undisputed sovereign from the St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, and from the Atlantic to San Francisco. That great and most unhappy schism was not due to any inherent defect in the colonial relation such as I have described it, but was the natural result of that vicious political economy (very different, indeed, from that true economy which forms the best cement of nations) of which Napoleon rightly said that if it found a nation of granite, it would scatter it into powder. I cannot now delay you with an account of the causes which led to the War of Independence, although there are few subjects which furnish for a colonist more profitable meditation. I will merely quote to you the words of Mr. Huskisson, the statesman who in the last generation was the forerunner of all those great colonial and financial reforms which we have been accomplishing. He said in Parliament :-" It is generally believed that the attempt to tax our American colonies without their consent was the sole cause of the separation of those colonies from the mother country. But if the whole history of the period between the year 1763 and the year 1773 be examined, it will, I think, be abundantly evident that, however the attempt at taxation may have contributed somewhat to hasten the explosion, the train had been long laid in the severe and exasperating efforts of this country to enforce with inopportune and increasing vigour the strictest and most annoying regulations of our colonial and navigation code. Every petty adventure in which the colonists embarked was viewed by the merchants of this country and * Speeches, iii. 9. the Board of Trade of that day as an encroachment on the commercial monopoly of Great Britain. The professional subtlety of lawyers and the practical ingenuity of Custom-house officers were constantly at work in ministering to the jealous but mistaken views of our seaports. Blind to the consequences elsewhere, they persevered in their attempts to put down the spirit of commercial enterprise in the people of New England, until those attempts roused a very different spirit—that spirit which ventured to look for political independence from the issue of a successful rebellion." No such calamity as that of the American colonies is again likely to occur. None such, indeed, is now possible. And yet it is constantly taken for granted that a disruption of the empire is but a question of time. I maintain that this assumption is merely gratuitous, and is not supported by any proof. On the other side, I shall produce to you a witness well deserving of attention, the statesman by whom constitutional government was first practically administered in its full extent in a British colony, a man generally admitted to have been one of the ablest of England's many able viceroys, the late Lord Elgin. He thus writes from Canada, where he was Governor-General, to Earl Grey, the then Colonial Secretary :-"I am prepared to contend that with responsible government, fairly worked out with free-trade, there is no reason why the colonial relation should not be indefinitely maintained." To the same correspondent he writest on another occasion :-" We have on this continent two great empires in presence, or rather, I should say, two great Imperial systems. In many respects there is much similarity between them. In so far as powers of self-government are concerned, it is certain that our colonists in America have no reason to envy the citizens of any state in the Union. The forms differ; but it may be shown that practically the inhabitants of Canada have a greater power in controlling their own destiny than those of Michigan or New York, who must tolerate a tariff imposed by twenty other states, and pay the expenses of war undertaken for objects which they profess to abhor. And yet there is a difference between the two cases; a difference, in my humble judgment, of sentiment rather than substance, which renders the one a system of life and strength, and the other a system of death and decay. No matter how raw and rude a territory may be when it is admitted as a state into the Union of the United States, it is at once, by the popular belief, invested with all the dignity of manhood, and introduced into a system which, despite the combativeness of certain ardent spirits from the South, every American believes and maintains to be immortal. But how does the case stand with us? No matter how great the advance of a British colony in wealth and civilization, no matter how absolute the powers of selfgovernment conceded to it, it is still taught to believe that it is in a condition of pupilage, from which it must pass before it can attain maturity. For one, I have never been able to comprehend why, elastic as our constitutional system is, we should not be able, now more especially, when we have ceased to control the trade of our colonies, to render the links which bind them to the British Crown at least as lasting as those which unite the component parts of the Union. . One thing is, however, indispensable to the success of this or any other system of colonial government. You must renounce the habit of telling the colonies that the colonial is a provisional existence. You must allow them to believe that, without severing the bonds which unite them to Great Britain, they may attain the degree of perfection and of social and political development to which organized communities of free men have a right to aspire." I have thus endeavoured to show that we colonists, although we move in a smaller orbit than England, yet gravitate with it to a common centre, and form equally with it a part of the great English nation. I have contended that except our own will there is nothing to make us cease to be a part of that nation. I will only add that it is our duty to conduct ourselves as becomes members of that nation. Our mission is to spread the British language, the British religion, the British laws, the British institutions, over this remote portion of the globe. We are not to shrink from our task from any difficulties or discomforts incident to a new society, much less are we to mar this great design by senseless quarrels among ourselves. We are not, on the one side, to abandon our posts in disgust, because some of our companions are wayward and even perverse. Nor are we, on the other hand, when we are entrusted with great powers of self-government, to abuse those powers for the advantage of one class and for the detriment of another. We have been given English institutions; but the gift is worthless unless we take care to use it in the spirit in which it has been bestowed. English institutions must be worked by Englishmen in the English way. That way implies mutual respect, mutual forbearance, a readiness to concede what is not material, tenacity in holding fast that which is good; in one word, an honest and loyal desire to promote the public benefit, and to secure to every man his just rights, and neither less nor more than those rights. Such is the course that our fathers have pursued; it is thus that England has grown to greatness; such, if we wish to obtain the like results, is the course that we, too, must follow. III. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (Presented 12th August, 1884.) THE Committee of Elections and Qualifications have considered the matter referred to them by the resolution * of your Honourable House bearing date 24th June, 1884. They have examined witnesses and heard counsel on behalf of the Honourable Members to whom that resolution applies. As the question that has arisen out of the evidence is new, your Committee desire to state to your Honourable House not only the conclusions at which they have arrived, but also the reasons for those conclusions. The Honourable Frederick Thomas Sargood was elected a Member of the Legislative Council on the 17th November, 1883. On the 28th of December, in the same year, he was appointed a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Military Forces of Victoria. No salary or other emolument was then attached to that office. On the 9th of January, 1884, Lieutenant-Colonel Sargood obtained leave of absence during his continuance in office as Minister of Defence. On the 7th February, 1884, regulations were made which, among other things, annexed to the office of Lieutenant-Colonel an allowance of £35 a year. The other allowances granted by these regulations are not general, but are contingent upon the performance of certain definite services. It appears, although this point is not perfectly distinct, that a like rule applies to the case of Lieutenant-Colonels, and that these officers are not entitled to receive any allowance until they have performed certain duties. These duties were not defined in the regulations of 7th February, but are specified in supplementary regulations of the 12th of May of this year. Lieutenant-Colonel Sargood has not in fact performed any duty or received any pay, and, in the opinion of the Commandant, is not entitled to receive any pay, as Lieutenant-Colonel. But he has accepted the office, and may when he pleases return to duty and qualify himself to receive his allowance. The Act of Parliament No. 91, section 5, provides, among other things, that "if any Member of the said Council or Assembly shall *The terms of the resolution were-"That the question whether the Honourable Colonel Sargood and the Honourable Dr. Beaney have since their respective elections accepted any offices of profit under the Crown whereby their seats in this House have become vacant, or whether either of them has done so, be referred to the Committee of Elections and Qualifi cations." accept any office or place of profit under the Crown, or shall in any character or capacity, for or in expectation of any fee, gain, or reward, perform any duty or transact any business whatsoever for or on behalf of the Crown, his seat shall thereupon become vacant." The question referred to this Committee by your Honourable House is, whether, since his election, Colonel Sargood has accepted any office under the Crown whereby his seat has become vacant. The question, therefore, which the Committee is required to decide is whether, in the circumstances above stated, Lieutenant-Colonel Sargood has or has not accepted an office of profit within the meaning of the Act. Your Committee is of opinion that the words "office of profit," as above cited, mean an office to which profit is attached by law, whether that profit be large or small, and whether it be actually received by the grantee of the office or not. As a business * means an undertaking by which it is intended that money should be made, although in fact it has resulted in a loss, so an office of profit is an office from which the law intends that profit shall be received, even though the grantee may have waived all claim to such profit. That the amount or the receipt of profit is immaterial is shown from the well-known use of the acceptance of the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds and other similar offices as a means of avoiding the duty of serving in the House of Commons. It has been held, too, both in this country + and in England, that the acceptance of an office to which by law a salary is annexed, even though the appointment be made in express terms without salary, vacates the seat of the grantee. It further appears that the acceptance of an office of profit implies that profit must be attached to the office at the time when the acceptance took place. The Act contemplates the acceptance of an office of profit, not of an office which becomes profitable. When a person accepts an honorary office to which a salary is subsequently attached, he holds indeed an office of profit; but he cannot fairly be said to have accepted such an office. The Act might have provided that, if any person accept an office of profit, or any profit arising from any office, his seat shall become vacant. But it has not used any such words; and, as it involves penal consequences, and must therefore be strictly construed, your Committee do not feel that they are at liberty to extend its operation beyond the limit which its terms actually express. This construction is confirmed by a case which the Committee feel that they are bound to regard. The circumstances of the two cases * Bramwell v. Lacey, 10 Ch. D. 691; Rolls v. Miller, 25 Ch. D. 206. |