THE COLONIAL OFFICE versus COLONIZATION. EVERYBODY being disgusted with party
politics just now, this is a good opportunity for attending to matters of less exciting but more permanent interest.. We are therefore tempted to notice a curio- sity in political literature, published by Rion wAv—a Report of the recent speeches on Colonization, by Mr. WARD, Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTII, Mr. LmOUCmEaE, Mr. WARBURTON, and Lord Howica, "corrected by the several speakers." The question at issue between the two sets of' contributors to this joint-stock publication — Mr. WAno, Sir WILLIAM Moms- woirrn, and Mr. WARBURTON taking one side, Lord IIowtex and Mr. LABOUCIIERE, speaking for the Colonial Office, the other—is the merits of the system of colonization which has nowhere taken effect but in the infant colony of South Australia, and which its advocates would extend to many other colonies with a view to the suppression of Chartism and the like, by means of indefinitely ex- tending, both abroad and at home, the field of employment for British capital and labour.
The end desired is of sufficient importance, and scarcely admits of any dispute. The only question is as to the means. The pro- posed means consist. of a discovery or invention in the art of colo- nizing. Whether the adoption of this new, or rather only system of colonization, would raise both wages and profits in Britain so as to remove the causes of Chartism, depends upon the extent rattler than the nature of time operation in political economy ; and it is with the latter subject only that we have to deal at present. The difference between Mr. W.tan and Lord Howie': is as to the best sort of colonization, without regard to the measure or degree of its application. They join issue upon the South Australian system. The easiest and most elfcvtnal method of illustrating the points in dispute, will be by reference to the peculiarities of South Aus- tralian colonization. And here we beg leave to infbrm King STummx and his Ministers in Parliament, including Lord Ilowletc and not excluding Lord NORMANIIY, that no one con- nected with this journal has any personal interest, direct or in- direct, in recommending emigration to the new colony rather than to any other. It' we have, as they say, " puffed" South Australia, it has been with a view to urging the application of its system to the other colonies, whereby all would be placed on an equal footing, and South Australia would cease to enjoy what we consider peculiar advantages. This is our answer to the charge of puffing. It would be well if the Bumbureancracy of the Colonial Office could as easily repel that of hating the new colony, and doing all they can to disparage it, (Lord llowiinc is very active at this mean work,) because it puts to shame their own neglect and mismanagement in other colonies.
The South Australian system is founded on this main principle— that the public land of' a colony should be disposed of, not by grant or gift, but by sale, and at such a price as to preclude emigrant labourers from becoming landowners until they have worked as hired labourers for some years. It is thus only, where
land is, as one may say, naturally cheap, that, except by means of some kind of slavery, combination of labour and division of em- ployments can ever be secured. This principle, which was gene- rally deemed absurd ten years ago, is now acknowledged by every- body, who knows anything of the subject, to be not less sound than important in its essential and incidental consequences. The most important of its incidental consequences is the creation of revenue from the sale of lands. This revenue being employed in defraying the cost of immigration, labourers are poured into the colony at the greatest possible rate ; and a lower price suffices for the sole object of a price, than if this revenue were any otherwise em- ployed. This is the second leading principle of the system.
Lord Howica imagines that he has adopted these principles in his Regulations for New South Wales. In order to undeceive him, as well as to explain his other differences with Mr. WARD, we shall now compare South Australia with other colonies. In South Australia, no one can obtain a single acre except by purchase. In New South Wales and other colonies, land is still granted to officers of the Army and Navy. This exception from the rule necessarily interferes with the system, by rendering land cheaper than it would be if all had to pay, and is also grossly un- just towards those who are obliged to pay. It is a remnant of the old system of favouritism. To make some pay and let others take without paying, is to tax the payers for the benefit of the others. In South Australia, there is perfect equality for all as to the terms on which public land may be obtained. Lord HowicK prefers the method of unjust exceptions in fitvour of a particular. class.
In South Australia, the price is fixed and uniform : in all the other colonies, they sell by auction at an upset price. The differ- ence is very important. Where the price is fixed and uniform, the rule is " first come first served," and every intending purchaser obtains without delay the land which lie desires : whereas the plan of auction requires delay, (for there can be no competition without notice of the intended sale,) and, what is far worse, the intending purchaser, at whose instance the land is put up for sale, may be deprived of the spot which he has carefully selected, by the competition of others, who, relying on his industry and judgment in selecting, overbid him at the auction, and steal the fruit of his exertions. Nor are the delay and injustice of the auction plan compensated by a single advantage. For what is the sole object of any price ?—it is merely to prevent the too Cede acquisition of land by labourers. And this is accomplished quite as effectually by a fixed and uniform price as by auction. But, says Lord How-
" it is contrary to every principle of justice and common sense to affix the same price to all land, however it may vary in fertility and natural advantages." The remark is dictated by a profound misconception of the principle of selling. Whilst that principle requires that the price of all land should be sufficient for the object in view, it also forbids that the price of any land should be more than sufficient for that object. The upset price, being that at which practically most of the land is sold, should be a sufficient price ; then, why in any case take more by means of auction and competition? Suppose that some land is of inferior fertility or position ; it will not be sold till the increase of popula- lation makes it worth purchasing. Lord Howica is thinking about auction in an old country, where the object is to obtain the highest possible price. That is not the object in selling the pub- lic lands of a colony. Always enough but never more than enough, is the true principle, which is most surely carried into effect by a fixed and unitbrm price. The price of public land in a colony is the standard which determines the period of the poor emi- grant's service as a hired labourer. Lord How Ica understands the subject so little, or rather so completely misunderstands it, as to insist on a varying standard ! Does lie know why the Mitt price of gold is 3/. 17s. 10id. the ounce, whatever may he the demand for gold as a commodity, or the different prices that it would fetch at different times if sold by auction ? South Australia is the only colony in which the principle of a standard price for new land is recognized—the only principle on which the imposition of any price can be defended. This is an immense advantage, over and above those of avoiding delay and preventing injustice to the in- tending buyer who has taken pains to select the land for which lie is ready to pay. The whole produce of the sales of land in South Australia, without any deduction whatsoever, forms an emigration-fund. As respects the other colonies, this revenue is used for all sorts of purposes at the pleasure of the Governors or the Colonial Office. The buyer in South Australia, therefore, enjoys another great ad- vantage—that of having the whole of his purchase-money, and of all other purchasers, expended so as to give the greatest possible value to the land which he has bought. The buyers of land in New South Wales, on the contrary—some or all of their purchase- money being used for general purposes—are specially taxed for the general benefit. This is the same sort of unfitirness as is involved in making some pay and giving to others. Lord Howlett defends both these infractions of the South Australian principle. A com- parison of the sales of land in the two colonies shows how much he is the enemy of New South Wales. The universal voice of that colony (the Governor alone excepted) demands that the entire land-revenue should be devoted to emigration. The South Australian system is guaranteed by an act of Par- liament. Lord Howiex contends that no such security is required. He says that the system which lie set on foot for New South Wales in 1831, has been constantly pursued. This is a misstate- ment of fact. Lord Howica's original regulations for the sale of land devoted the whole purchase-money to emigration ; and it was on this pledge of the Colonial Office that so many persons were
induced to buy land. The pledge has been forfeited ; the buyers have been cheated of the consideration promised to them ; the purchase-money of land has, in glaring defiance of the original re- gulations, been diverted from the all-important purpose to which
it was appropriated. About three years ago, Lord GLENELO at- tempted to lay hold of the emigration-fund of South Australia:*
the act of Parliament alone prevented such a robbery of the buyers
of land. Lord DURHAM shows that Lord Howica's regulations of 1831 have been grossly violated in the North American Colonies.
Mere regulations are sure to be violated whenever it happens to suit the convenience of Governors or the people in Downing Street. The system is as insecure without a law as the payment of interest on the National Debt would be. In this grand point of security for the permanence of the system, South Australia stands alone.
The last, though by no means the least advantage enjoyed by South Australia, is a special authority for administering the system. The Commissioners are obliged to make an annual report to Par- liament, and are otherwise responsible for error or neglect. In the Colonial Office, which administers the colonization of New South Wales, nobody is responsible for any thing. The special and re- sponsible Commissioners have authority to sell lands in England; so that capitalists intending to emigrate, are induced to purchase here with a view to the expenditure of their purchase-money in taking out their hired labourers free of cost. The office of the Commissioners is also a place where full and correct infornmtion as to the colony is readily afforded to all applicants. This attracts to South Australia many a capitalist who has resolved to emigrate but is yet undecided as to his future home. Upon the whole, the progress of colonization in South Australia, though very remark- able, should excite no wonder. It is but the natural result of means carefully applied to well-understood ends. As a knowledge of the subject extends, this colony will be more and more preferred to all others—so long at least as King STEPHEN and Lord Howica shall manage to prevent the extension of the system to other colonies.
We must take this opportunity of saying a word, which justice requires, as to the authorship of the South Australian system. In the third edition of a useful little book which we received about a fort- night ago, CAPPER'S South Australia, we find the following state- ment—" These novel principles were explained by Colonel ToitanNs in the House of Commons on the 15th of February 1827 ;" and then, after what purports to be a quotation from the Colonel's speech, several passages arc quoted from a work which Colonel TORRENS did not write, in such a manner as to make it appear to have been written by him.t The effect and obvious design of the whole, is to leave an impression, that Colonel TORRENS is the author of the singular plan of colonization adopted in South Australia. Now this is so contrary to the truth, that we happen to have before us a very clever paper by Colonel TORRENS, which was published with his name in 1830, and which contains an elaborate and earnest condemnation of the theory of which the authorship is thus claimed for him. Mr. CAPPER, we understand, is a clerk in the South Australian Commission, of which Colonel TORRENS is the chair- man. It is the more incumbent on him, for his own sake as well as that of Colonel TORRENS, to ascertain the facts of the case, and correct the misrepresentation to which his attention is hereby directed.
* Sec Spectator, No. 419; 17th September 1836. ?lie New British Produce of South Australia. 1834
Previous page
