COLONIAL OFFICE REPLY TO SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH.
Tin reply which Mr. Hawes consented to make for the Colonial Office to Sir William Molesworth has created a sensation never produced by the Member :for Lambeth's happiest speeches. Al- though politicians in and out of Parliament have been well aware of the difference between Mr. Hawes out of office and in office, and were therefore prepared for a great extent of officialism in the quondam purist, the speech went so far beyond all expecta- tion in its peculiar traits as to excite unbounded surprise. We will not venture to characterize it ; we will not condescend to em- ploy the only epithets applicable to his conduct ; but the averments of which he was the mouthpiece must not be allowed to pass muster by the mere force of their audacity. Sir William Molesworth applied to the present Colonial system the test of the advantages derived from it ; showing that with the same resources and the same expenditure the Government ought to secure for the country a vast increase of advantages. In re- ply, Mr. Hawes resorted to the most elaborate and curious ap- plication of the principle of " cross questions and crooked an- swers " : he met each of the most damaging arguments with some assertion, if true in itself, entirely divorced from its true bearing ; or with an assertion that was meant to surprise Mem- bers out of their belief by an excess of groundlessness so incre- dible that it was easier to believe the assertion than to imagine the unscrupulousness of the utterer.
Sir William Molesworth had shown that the system, costly and imperfect, by no means realizes all the advantages that it ought to yield : to which Mr. Hawes replies, that it is the most success- ful that the world has ever witnessed." Sir William meant the official system : Mr. Hawes points to the nett result of the con- flict between the national energies and the official system that impedes but cannot destroy those energies. Other nations have been more disastrous-in their colonial government; but how does that prove that our system is_the best that we could, devise ? According to Mr. Hawes's mode of argument, the ligatures which bound the legs of Lightfoot, in the fairy tale, would have been the cause of his fleetness, since he won the race in spite of them. Without official aid, the early colonists of America laid the foundations of the great republic which we see ; their method involving the emigration of incorporated communities, with self- government : Sir William Molesworth advised a revival of that principle. Mr. Hawes replies, that the Old. England settlements underwent "violent vicissitudes and misfortunes,"---which had not been denied : and with that he contrasts the modern system exemplied—by what I—by South Australia and New Zealand ; colonies founded in opposition to the wishes, views, and intrigues of the Colonial Office, and succeeding in spite of those intrigues. They merely survived the pressure of the system whose success he adduces them to prove. Restore, says Sir William, the old plan which made settlements complete societies and gave them vigour to defend themselves. And truly the colonies thus founded not only survived the "violent vicissitudes" to which they were exposed, but were able to cope with the whole power of ,England. No, says Mr. Hawes,—taking advantage of smoother times and more peaceful circumstances,—our system is better ; and to prove it he brings as witnesses settlements that haveaurvived by vanquishing the system.
His use of these two colonies is remarkable. Of South Aus- tralia he did not scruple to say that the "pet colony" would have been bankrupt but for the interference of the Colonial Office : it was transferred from its- " amateur " managers to the Colonial Office, and " from that moment became one of the most flourish- ing colonies" ; the notorious fact being, that its bankruptcy was inflicted by its Governor, the only officer of the Colonial -Office in the settlement, and that its success is entirely owing to so much of the plan and such of the early settlers as survived the disas- trous and malignant endeavours of the Colonial Office to mar the experiment. Can Mr. Hawes be the only man in England igno- rant of all this ?
His allusion to New Zealand is not less astounding. He says that "he does not know any instance of a more successful co- lony." Now, New Zealand was founded in spite of " the system " ; two Governors appointed by "the system" ruined the colony ; the misconduct was so flagrant, the disaster was so frightful, the appeals of the colonists were so unanswerable, that the appoint- ment of a competent Governorbeeame a mere act of decency : a Governor trained in South Australia was sent ; he reversed the policy of the two Colonial Office Governors ; and, by the help of extraordinary energy in the colonists, he has in some measure re, trieved the colony ; though it is still a prey to a monstrous sys. tem of Chancery suits created by the first two Governors, and to an aboriginal war invited by those two officials. In endeavouring to prove the "success" and progress of the colony, Mr. Hawes went so far as to compare its present state with that to which it had been reduced by Captain Fitzroy ! New Zealand was pro- hibited by " the system," and was then nearly destroyed by it : Mr. Hawes vaunts it as a proof of success. The Colonial Office is accused of being despotic—where it can be so : to prove the reverse, Mr. Hawes indicates the " respond, Bible government" in Canada, extorted from " the system " at the expense of insurrection, war, and treasure. The Office is accused of being arbitrary: Mr. Hawes describes a proceeding in which Lord Grey sent a constitution, like that which he revoked in New Zealand, for the consideration of New South Wales ; and so invited an ignominious rejection of his lefthanded offer by that intelligent community. To prove that the Office is not despotic and arbi- trary, as it had been described to be in British Guiana, Van Die- men's Land, and other colonies, Mr. Hawes points to historical instances, in which its despotism was defeated in Canada, and its twaddling was snubbed in New South Wales.
A small matter painfully illustrates the spirit in which the ob- sequious Under-Secretary spoke. Sir William Molesworth had complained of the royalties on mines, which, in breach of all good faith, the Government had latterly resolved to reserve in South Australia : Mr. Hawes declared that the royalties had been relinquished. " Within the last three or four days? " asked Sir William Molesworth. " Not so recently," was the reply. How recently then ! If not three or four, how many days had elapsed? Not so many, we believe, but what the act of honesty was still an undivulged secret.
Those who saw and heard Mr. Hawes on Tuesday last remem- bered the time when he used to figure among Colonial Reformers the once independent Member was now seen "humbly begging" to share the ignominy of a public department with an Earl at its head. Why the independent Member for Lambeth should be se ready to accept office, puzzled many: it is now observed that he is more familiar with rank and courtly distinctions. It also per, plexed people to account for his being selected, as they were not aware that he had been eminent in the conduct of Colonial affairs: he is now acknowledged to display a conspicuous and extraordinary aptitude to serve the Colonial Office. The Office certainly never before possessed a servant so absolutely at its disposal. Often during his speech, the question occurred, whether he knew what he was saying ? People would have felt it a moral relief to im- pute to him a very culpable ignorance; but in the absence of that alternative, painful as it is to see a man who has been respected overwhelmed with not unintelligible blushes, it would have been a far less distressing sight than to witness an offhand fluency that provoked compassion and a boldness- of demeanour that did not inspire respect.
Previous page
