Indies and America was not to be in his time. He lived till 1813, but his strength gradually declined, and during the last few years of his life he seems to have been hardly capable of transacting business. In 1816 the African Society erected a monument to his memory in Westminster Abbey.

The above is a bare outline of the work of one of the most remarkable of our English philanthropists. Probably none of them can be compared to him with regard to the magnitude of the results achieved, with the exception perhaps of the late Lord Shaftesbury. And the characters of these two men seem to have had much in common. Both of them were animated by the deepest possible religious convictions, which showed themselves continually in their correspondence and diaries; both of them. sacrificed all personal considerations in order to further the benevolent objects which they had in view. But with regard to social advantages, the comparison entirely ceases. The heir to an ancient earldom, with every advantage that birth, wealth, and education can give, began life on a very different footing from the obscure individual who, although of gentle blood, had only quitted a trading establishment in the City to become a clerk in an unfashionable Government office. The great results of Sharp's life were due to himself alone.

He

possessed one of the acutest intellects of his time. Again and again, as we have seen, the amateur took the field against the professional, and usually came off victorious. The grammarschool boy engaged in controversies with the pride of the English universities, the leading Greek and Hebrew scholars of the day, and more than held his own. The junior clerk in the Ordnance Office entered the lists singlehanded against practically the whole legal profession, headed by one of the ablest of our judges, and backed by the dread precedents of the law, gradually won over deserters from the enemy's camp, and ended by defeating him completely and for ever. Nor was it only with reference to philanthropic effort and Biblical criticism that his grasp of mind became apparent. In the domain of politics he saw clearly the folly and injustice of the war with the American colonies, and sealed his convictions by the resignation of his government employment; and he also recognized the faults of the parliamentary representation of the day. Ever in advance of his time, he looked forward to social and political reforms which were not carried out till many years after his death; but his writings remain to prove a far-reaching sagacity which is not always joined even to the highest powers of the mind.

GRANVILLE BROWNE, LT.-COL.

IN a letter written to "The Times' at the close of last year Sir George Bowen drew attention to the opinions of the late Earl Russell upon the question of Imperial Federation. It appears that in his "Recollections and Suggestions" (published in 1875), Lord Russell, in the following words, made a suggestion which resembles that recently made by Lord Rosebery: "I am disposed to believe that if a congress or assembly representing Great Britain and her dependencies could be convoked from time to time, to sit for some months in the autumn, arrangements reciprocally beneficial might be made." He further expressed in conversation his deep concern at the then prevailing indifference to colonial questions, and authorised Sir George Bowen to tell the Australians that so long as he lived his voice would always be raised in support of the integrity and consolidation of the British Empire; and Sir George Bowen consequently proceeds to claim him as 66 a vigorous supporter of what is now called (for the want of a better name) Imperial Federation."

Political controversy has no more favourite, if somewhat unscrupulous, device than that of extracting an approval of a course which it is desired to recommend from the words of some dead statesman, spoken in circumstances totally different from those to which they are made to apply. We have not yet seen Sir Robert Peel quoted as a socialist, or the Duke of Wellington as an advocate of female suffrage, but Lord Russell has already been claimed as a Home Ruler, and Sir George Bowen's letter at first suggested a similar attempt to make use of a great name. It is, however, perhaps susceptible of a more

interesting explanation. Taken in conjunction with Lord Rosebery's speech at the Mansion House in last November, it suggests that Imperial Federationists may have recognised the impossibility of their object as it has been generally understood: that they now exist merely as a protest against the idea of separation; and that their aims are now such that the consent of any English statesman may be assumed for them without indiscretion. Failing some such explanation as this, Sir George Bowen's statement must considerably surprise any one who, even in the most superficial manner, has studied the history of the self-governing colonies for the past half century. For to Lord Russell, more than to any other single statesman, are due those relations between England and her colonies now considered by the Imperial Federationists to be so unsatisfactory. He was the author on two different occasions of utterances which may, with little exaggeration, be said to have decided the fate of the empire: namely, the famous despatch, defining the nature of local responsible government, which he wrote as Colonial Secretary to Mr. Poulett Thomson, Governor-General of Canada, during the debates on the union of the Canadas in 1840; and the speech (quoted by Mr. Spencer Walpole) upon

the introduction of the Australasian Colonies Bill in 1850. With Lord Grey and the Whig party generally, he laid down the lines upon which our Colonial policy has proceeded, and if in later years its authors became dissatisfied with the result, it must be assumed either that they changed their opinions as to the object to be desired, or that they proceeded in the beginning without foreseeing the na

The

tural consequences of their acts.

subject, which has not been noticed in the discussions excited by the publication of Mr. Walpole's excellent book, is one of considerable importance; and in spite of the tedium of colonial questions, and still more of colonial history, we may perhaps be permitted to develope a little more in detail the attitude of the great Whig statesman and his colleagues.

It was Canada that first engaged the attention of the English Parliament, and in the case of Canada the new departure was in the first instance taken. The debates on the union of the Canadas in 1840 were interesting and important, and in them the nature of local responsible government first received a full consideration and discussion. Lord Durham, in his great and elaborate report on Canada in 1839, upon which the Government Bill, introduced by Lord John Russell, was based, made the following recommendation: "The responsibility to the United Legislature [of the British North American Provinces] of all officers of the government, except the governor and his secretary; should be secured by every means known to the British constitution. The governor, as the representative of the Crown, should be instructed that he must carry on his government by heads of departments, in whom the united legislature shall repose confidence ; and that he must look to no support from home in any contest with the legislature, except on points involving strictly Imperial interests."

The view of the Government and of the supporters of the bill founded upon Lord Durham's report, was clearly defined in debate and in despatches. It is first of all to be noted that they were clearly in favour of the maintenance of the connexion with the colonies. In reply to those who feared and those who hoped for separation, Lord John Russell said that he could listen to no proposition having for its object to lead to a separation between the two countries, believing

it to be for the best interests of both that the connexion should subsist. He considered our colonies to form an inherent part of the strength of this empire, and deeply impressed with that conviction, he said without hesitation that they could not continue to govern Canada without going back to the principles of representative govern ment. Lord Melbourne, in reply to Lords Ashburton and Brougham, who both frankly looked forward to separation, said that he should look on the loss of these colonies by their becoming independent of the connexion with the mother country as a most grievous one, and above all as a heavy blow to the character and reputation of this country.

On the other hand, the serious disaffection in Canada consequent on the rebellion, and on the excitement which had attended Lord Durham's mission, made a return to the principles of representative government a necessity. Lord Durham had adopted the cry of responsible government, hitherto the cry of the party in the Canadas hostile to the British connexion, as the best means of perpetuating that connexion. The result was a compromise, the principles of which were set out in the despatch already referred to, from Lord John Russell to Mr. Poulett Thompson, a despatch which Lord Brougham afterwards with justice described as, "worthy of him who by his writings has so ably illustrated the principles of the British constitution-who by his legislation has re-invigorated that constitution-whose ancestors by their martyrdom founded that constitution." After stating the English theory of ministerial responsibility, Lord John proceeds:

"If we seek to apply such a practice to a colony we shall at once find ourselves at fault. The power for which a minister is responsible in England is not his own power, but the power of the Crown of which he is the organ. The governor under whom he serves receives his orders from the Crown of England. But can the colonial council

be the advisers of the Crown of England? Evidently not, for the Crown has other advisers, for the same functions, and with superior authority. It may happen therefore that the governor receives at one and the same time instructions from the Queen, and advice from his executive council totally at variance with each other. If he is to obey his instructions from England, the parallel of constitutional responsibility entirely fails; if on the other hand he is to follow the advice of his council, he is no longer a subordinate officer, but an independent sovereign. There are some cases in which the force of these objections is so manifest that those who at first made no distinction between the constitution of the United Kingdom and that of the colonies, admit their strength. I allude to the question of foreign war, and international relations, whether of trade or diplomacy. It is now said that internal government is alone intended." Lord John then proceeded to quote some cases of internal government in Lower Canada affecting British officers, emigrants, and merchants, in which "the honour of the Crown, or the faith of Parliament, or the safety of the State, are so seriously involved that it would not be possible for Her Majesty to delegate her authority to a minister in a colony."

Lord John was a master of constitutional theory, and nothing so far can be more clearly or admirably put. He went on: "While I then see insuperable objections to the adoption of the principle as it has been stated, I see little or none to the practical views of Colonial Government recommended by Lord Durham, as I understand them." There was no desire, he said, to thwart the representative assemblies. Her Majesty would look to the affectionate attachment of her people in North America as the best security for permanent dominion. The objection that no fixed line is drawn between the power of the Governor and the privileges of the Assembly, was met by the

statement that "such a distinction could never be drawn in the case of a political constitution in which different bodies share the supreme power, for such constitutions are only enabled to exist by the forbearance of those among whom the power is distributed. Each authority must exercise a wise moderation."

This despatch was followed by another on October 16th, putting an end to the practice of allowing persons appointed to offices in the Colonial government to hold them for life or during good behaviour, from which it followed that the higher executive offices were to be held by persons having the confidence of the representative part of the legislature. This modus vivendi, for it cannot be called by any higher name, was further described in the course of the debate by Lord Howick. If by responsible government it were meant that the executive government of the colony should be directly responsible to the Colonial Assembly, he was of opinion that responsible government so defined would be incompatible with the maintenance of colonial government.

by Lord Howick.

But he believed that if the government at home, as well as the authorities in the colony, were to pursue a system of protective government, guided by a conciliatory spirit and a desire to consult the wishes of the people, then such a form of government would answer the object which those who were loudest in their clamours for responsible government had in view. On a later occasion, as Lord Grey, he further defined this by saying that the interference of the Imperial Parliament in matters of colonial government-the vagueness of this expression is noteworthy-ought to be confined to extreme cases. And he also enlarged on the impossibility of defining in exact terms the power of the Governor, the Assembly, the Secretary of State, and the Crown.

Amongst the critics of the Government proposals and of these rather contradictory utterances, the most

thorough, and, as the result proved, the most clear-sighted, were the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Gladstone. The Duke made three speeches and recorded a protest against the bill, which, so far as this point goes, are summed up in the emphatic statement that "their lordships might depend that local responsible government and the sovereignty of Great Britain were completely incompatible." Mr. Gladstone, in the course of a powerful argument in which he quoted Lord John Russell's despatch, admitted that the privilege which Parliament possessed in limiting the choice of ministers by the Crown was the security of every liberty which the people enjoyed. But if the Colonial Assembly possessed the same privileges why was this called the Imperial Legislature? He recollected well a speech made by a Right Honourable gentleman opposite some years ago on the motion for a repeal of the union with Ireland. The Right Honourable gentleman had said that to talk of a permanent union between two countries each possessing an independent legislature was one of the most visionary ideas that ever entered the mind of man; and yet this self-same visionary idea was what the report of Lord Durham had recommended as the best means of perpetuating the union between Great Britain and her colonies.

The bill passed, with dissentients numbering six in the Commons and ten in the Lords, and formed an epoch in Canadian history which an able writer on the colonies has well compared with the epoch of Independence in that of the United States. It is not here contended that, in the critical state into which Canadian affairs had been allowed to drift, any other policy was then possible. It is merely to be noted that the problem has been solved, not in the direction contemplated by Lord Melbourne's administration, but by the abandonment little by little of Imperial control not only over the internal affairs of Canada, but also over the international relations of trade and

diplomacy which Lord John Russell said it was out of the question to surrender.

The important debates which took place in the British Parliament on the Canadian Act for the indemnification of parties in Lower Canada whose property was destroyed during the rebellion in 1837 and 1838, which was affirmed in spite of the protests of minorities led by Lord Stanley, Lord Brougham, Lord Lyndhurst, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Gladstone, showed very clearly that, in Lord Lansdowne's words, the gift of constitutional government had under Lord Elgin's governorship become a reality, not a delusion-a substance, and not a shadow. The political arguments by which Lord Grey justified this act were conclusive, when he contended that the mass of the people should never be treated as criminals or offenders-that, in Burke's words, it was impossible "to draw an indictment against a people." But the constitutional arguments which the Government used in deprecating interference with the Colonial legislature meant independence if they meant anything.

Before leaving the subject of Canada it is worth while to look at the passing of the British North America Act in 1867. By this measure, while each province was given a provincial legislature with accurately defined powers, a central federal Parliament was established, with great and, as Lord Carnarvon, then Colonial Secretary, said, almost sovereign powers. Lord Russell supported the bill distinctly contemplating the possibility of ultimate emancipation, and Mr. Cardwell, who, as the previous Colonial Secretary may be considered as in part its author, said that the "object was to have the satisfaction of witnessing the growth of great and powerful communities attached to the mother country by no other ties than those of love and affection, and a reciprocal regard."

The granting of constitutions to the