been less freely dispensed to the honourable ambition of their countrymen. One illustration will suffice. In 1860, of the fifteen judges on the English bench, no less than four were Irishmen.1 Freedom, equality, and honour have been the fruits of the Union; and Ireland has exchanged an enslaved nationality, for a glorious incorporation with the first empire of the world.

1 Viz., Mr. Justice Willes, Mr. Justice Keating, Mr. Justice Hill, and Baron Martin; to whom has since been added Mr. Justice Shee, an Irishman and a Catholic.

CHAPTER XVII.

FREE CONSTITUTIONS OF BRITISH COLONIES:-SOVEREIGNTY OF ENGLAND-COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIONS:-TAXATION OF THE AMERICAN COLONIES:-THEIR RESISTANCE AND SEPARATION:-CROWN COLONIES-CANADA :-AUSTRALIA:- COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION AFTER THE AMERICAN WAR: NEW COMMERCIAL POLICY AFFECTING THE COLONIES:-RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT:-DEMOCRATIC COLONIAL CONSTITUTIONS:-INDIA.

Colonists

have borne with them

the laws of

IT has been the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race to spread through every quarter of the globe their courage and endurance, their vigorEngland. ous industry, and their love of freedom. Wherever they have founded colonies they have borne with them the laws and institutions of England, as their birthright, so far as they were applicable to an infant settlement.' In territories acquired by conquest or cession, the existing laws and customs of the people were respected, until they were qualified to share the franchises of Englishmen. Some of these, held only as garrisons, others peopled with races hostile to our rule, or unfitted for freedom,

-were necessarily governed upon different principles. But in quitting the soil of England to settle new colonies, Englishmen never renounced her freedom. Such being the noble principle of English

1 Blackstone's Comm., i. 107; Lord Mansfield's Judgment in Campbell v. Hall; Howell's St. Tr., xx. 289; Clark's Colonial Law, 9, 139. 181, &c.; Sir G. C. Lewis on the Government of Dependencies, 189-203, 308; Mills' Colonial Constitutions, 18.

colonisation, circumstances favoured the early development of colonial liberties. The Puritans, who founded the New England colonies, having fled from the oppression of Charles I., carried with them a stern love of civil liberty, and established republican institutions. The persecuted Catholics who settled Maryland, and the proscribed Quakers who took refuge in Pennsylvania, were little less democratic.2 Other colonies founded in America and the West Indies, in the seventeenth century, merely for the purposes of trade and cultivation, adopted institutions,-less democratic, indeed, but founded on principles of freedom and self-government.3 Whether established as proprietary colonies, or under charters held direct from the crown, the colonists were equally free.

form of

constitu

The English constitution was generally the type of these colonial governments. The gover- Ordinary nor was the viceroy of the crown: the colonial legislative council, or upper chamber, tions. appointed by the governor, assumed the place of the House of Lords; and the representative assembly, chosen by the people, was the express image of the House of Commons. This miniature Parliament, complete in all its parts, made laws for the internal government of the colony. The governor assembled, prorogued, and dissolved it; and signified his assent

In three of their colonies the council was elective; in Connecticut and Rhode Island the colonists also chose their governor.-Adam Smith, book iv. ch. 7. But the king's approval of the governor was reserved by 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 22.

2 Bancroft's Hist. of the Colonisation of the United States, i. 264; iii. 394.

• Merivale's Colonisation, ed. 1861, 95, 103.

1

2

or dissent to every act agreed to by the chambers: the Upper House mimicked the dignity of the House of Peers; and the Lower House insisted on the privileges of the Commons, especially that of originating all taxes and grants of money, for the public service. The elections were also conducted after the fashion of the mother country.3 Other laws and institutions were imitated not less faithfully. Jamaica, for example, maintained a court of king's bench, a court of common pleas, a court of exchequer, a court of chancery, a court of admiralty, and a court of probate. It had grand and petty juries, justices of the peace, courts of quarter-sessions, vestries, a coroner, and constables.4

The sovereignty of England.

Every colony was a little state, complete in its legislature, its judicature, and its executive administration. But, at the same time, it acknowledged the sovereignty of the mother country, the prerogatives of the crown, and the legislative supremacy of Parliament. The assent of the king, or his representative, was required to give validity to acts of the colonial legislature: his veto annulled them; while the Imperial Parliament was able to

5

1 In 1858 a quarrel arose between the two Houses in Newfoundland, in consequence of the Upper House insisting upon receiving the Lower House at a conference, sitting and covered, an assumption of dignity which was resented by the latter. The governor having failed to accommodate the difference, prorogued the Parliament before the supplies were granted. In the next session these disputes were amicably arranged. Message of Council, April 23rd, 1858, and reply of House of Assembly; Private Correspondence of Sir A. Bannerman.

2 Stokes' British Colonies, 241; Edwards' Hist. of the West Indies, ii. 419; Long's Hist. of Jamaica, i. 56.

Edwards, ii. 419; Haliburton's Nova Scotia, ii. 319.

Long's Hist. of Jamaica, i. 9.

5 In Connecticut and Rhode Island, neither the crown nor the governor were able to negative laws passed by the Assemblies.

bind the colony by its acts, and to supersede all local legislation. Every colonial judicature was also subject to an appeal to the king in council, at Westminster. The dependence of the colonies, however, was little felt in their internal government. They were secured from interference by the remoteness of the mother country,' and the ignorance, indifference, and preoccupation of her rulers. In matters of imperial concern, England imposed her own policy: but otherwise left them free. Asking no aid of her, they escaped her domination. All their expenditure, civil and military, was defrayed by taxes raised by themselves. They provided for their own defence against the Indians, and the enemies of England. During the seven years' war, the American colonies maintained a force of 25,000 men, at a cost of several millions. In the words of Franklin, they were governed, at the expense to Great Britain, of only a little pen, ink and paper: they were led by a thread.' 2

But little as the mother country concerned herself in the political government of her colonies, Commercial she evinced a jealous vigilance in regard to restrictions. their commerce. Commercial monopoly, indeed, was the first principle in the colonial policy of England, as well as of the other maritime states of Europe. She suffered no other country but herself to supply their wants: she appropriated many of their exports;

1 'Three thousand miles of ocean lie between you and them,' said Mr. Burke. 'No contrivance can prevent the effect of this distance in weakening government.' Adam Smith observed: Their situation has placed them less in the view and less in the power of the mother country.'-Book iv. ch. 7.

2 Evidence before the Commons, 1766; Parl. Hist., xvi. 139–141.