25 APRIL 1840, Page 13

COLONIZATION AND THE CONSERVATIVES.

Toe slise.thle Post cautions us against what he terms our " ha- bitual tendency to the enormous blunder of exhibiting a warm and indiscriminate sympathy with the projectcws and adventurers who engage in schemes of colonization, however wild, rash, or ill-di- gested."

Which schemes be they ? There have been at least fifty, we should think. during the life of the Spee/aS»r i and we do not re- member to have supported more than one. The one scheme of colonization which we have steadily supported for ten years, was first completely developed in a Supplement to this journal in the spring of 1830; and is the only one, in our humble opinion, to which the terms " wild, rash, and ill-digested " are not

applicable. For not only is it a scheme deduced from the widest experience and consisting of definite principles, but it has been eminently successfid in practice. But partially adopted as to New South Wales in 1s32, it has produced few that colony an Emigration-thnd of 500,000/. ; and is regarded by the colonists generally as of the utmost importance to their future prosperity. NA hen the Duke of Ws:Luxe:Tots called it an " important experiment," and on that ground carried the

South Australian Aet through the House of Lords, (for the bill would have been thrown out but for the Duke's vigorous support,) lie could hardly have foreseea that it would so soon produce in a wilderness a colony of 15,000 people, who have wholly escaped the disasters theretofore common to new settlements, and whose progress is a wonder to the patrons of " wild, rash, and ill-digested schemes of colonization." Who sympathized with the "projectors and adventurers" of the Swan River abortion? Not the Spectator, whatever the Tory papers of that day may have done. Our sym- pathy has been strictly confined to one scheme of colonization, wherever applied and wherever applicable. In sympathizing with all who have anywhere endeavoured to carry into effect the prin- ciples of that scheme—whether in New South Wales, South Australia, Canada, or New Zealand—the attraction for us has been, not the particular project, but the principles on which it was founded. Our support of colonization-schemes, instead of being " indiscriminate," instead of embracing every " wild, rash, and ill- digested" adventure, has been exclusively limited, and consistently extended, to every measure for giving execution to a remarkably well-digested system of colonization. The caution, therefore, which the Morning Post bestows on us, was wholly unnecessary. But as our contemporary is so obliging as to warn us against a supposed error, perhaps he will allow us in return to express our wonder at his own indifference. and that of his party, as a party, to all schemes of colonization. They indeed call out " Ships, colonies, and commerce !" but seem utterly unconscious of the meaning of the say. It is vain to tell them that this country has trebled its population since it began to colonize : it is a waste of trouble to explain to them that the greatness of England has grown and can only extend, in due proportion to the extension of her Colonial empire. Not do they seem in the least aware of' the Conserva- tive tendency of colonization, through its tendency to raise profits and wages by enlarging the field of employment for pent-up capital and labour. Above all, it is most surprising that they should not perceive the advantage which they might gain as a party, by correcting the blunders and follies of the Whigs in this matter of colonization. The subject well deserves their serious attention.