Eventual separation from the mother country considered. anticipated some return for the amount invested in the plantations and in the ships fitted out for the carrying trade. Even those writers who expatiate on the general unremunerative character of her colonial possessions, with especial reference to Canada, do not consider the foundation of colonies inexpedient, but, on the contrary, admit unreservedly "that colonies have been in their consequences highly advantageous to this, as they have been to most old settled countries in all ages."[1] Therefore, whatever differences of opinion may prevail respecting the relinquishment of the governmental powers of the mother country over a powerful colony as soon as it is capable of defending itself and of directing its own affairs, every person concurs in the expediency of forming new colonies, their eventual severance from the parent state being only a question of the more or less satisfactory progress they may make towards a position of independence. At the period when the English Navigation Laws were inaugurated in imitation of the successful policy of pre-existing maritime states, there is no doubt that the Dutch[2] naval predominance on the seas rendered the distant possessions of Great Britain not only extremely insecure, but enabled her acute neighbours to carry away part of the prey which had been really acquired by her "bow and spear."
When these Acts were passed, and for some years
- ↑ Vide notes on Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' by J. R. McCulloch, 4th edition, p. 607; and E. Gibbon Wakefield's 'View of the Art of Colonisation,' Lond. 1849.
- ↑ See remarks on what the Dutch had done to the apparent injury of the English colonies previous to the passing of the Navigation Acts (Macpherson, ii. p. 487).
