colonies. These are questions not of colonial administration, but of national legislation. The administrative authority which the Colonial Minister exercises in some distant provinces (some colonies and some not), was given to him by the Legislature; while the Legislature has placed some distant provinces quite out of his control. It was not the Colonial Minister, but Parliament, which made the Swan River a Crown Colony, and which renewed the charter of the East India Company. The whole question, then, is properly legislative and may be divided into three parts.
"1st. The expediency of colonisation on national grounds.
"2nd. Which is better, that new settlements should be Crown Colonies, governed entirely by the Colonial Minister, and at the national cost, according to the French principle of central authority, or, chartered colonies founded and governed by a body corporate, at no cost to the nation, according to the English principle of delegated authority and the well-tried practice of the British Government in respect to the foundation of colonies?
"3rd. Supposing colonisation to be expedient on national grounds, and that we cannot decide which is better—a Crown Colony or a Chartered one—still is not a chartered one better than none at all?
"Before this paper had gone in to Mr. Lefevre, Pottinger showed me a paper which he had prepared, and which contained heads of a plan for founding a Crown Colony. This I was not sorry to have, as it would at any rate prevent the annoyance of his opposition. His paper as read to me rendered the produce of the sales of land applicable to the expenses of Government as well as to the purposes of emigration. This I insisted on erasing, and finally it was agreed to say that the immigration fund should be applicable to the expenses of Government in case of the failure of all
