A.—3d

20

have been some of the noblest of any age or people. And yet what scenes of cruelty and bloodshed have been witnessed! If European civilization is now to be represented in the Pacific by the irreconcilable ruffianism of France, the outrages of abandoned wretches wijl be avenged upon the innocent, peaceful trade will become impossible, and missionary enterprise synonymous with martyrdom. The Pacific will be converted into a pandemonium, and all hope of extending civilization over its islands must be indefinitely abandoned. The common-sense of humanity revolts from the consummation of so hideous a crime. Secondly, what is to be the effect on the colonies of Australasia? It is certain that those of the wretched criminals who escape the tomahawk of tho savage' -will gravitate towards those communities where wealth and the isolation of population will offer a tempting field for their professional outrages. We know, by sad and costly experience, whs/o bushranging means in a country where vast solitudes shelter the bandit from the arm of the law. To the Australian and New Zealand colonist the presence of these hardened criminals means the insecurity of all life and property in thousands of homes scattered throughout the bush, the exchange of the peaceful freedom of country life for the constant and wearing dread of impending danger : it means a vast increase of tho machinery for repressing crime, and a corresponding burden of taxation on all classes of the community. To all this we are asked to submit, solelv for the convenience of the French people. Thirdly, what will be the inevitable re-action on European politics ? It cannot be believed that these powerful colonies will calmly submit to such an intolerable burden. They will be driven by sheer necessity, in defence of life and property and all that is dearest to men, to put an end .to the terrible infliction. It is inconceivable that they will permit all that they have been toilfully building up for many a century —a state of law and order and peaceful settlement in secure and attractive homes—to be corrupted and spoiled, only to save a foreign State from the expense and trouble of maintaining and dealing with the criminals who have been bred and nurtured in her own breast. It may be said we exaggerate the danger. But we know that the recidivistes law has passed, and that a very large sum of money has been voted by the French Chambers to carry it into operation ; and we know to a certain extent the numbers to which the law will apply, if really and fully enforced. And, if the principle bo admitted, if a stop be not at once put to it, why should it not be enforced ? Assuming that it will be carried out to the full extent, what resource will the colonies have ? If England fails in her duty to stay this iniquity at the outset, I can see but one result—Australasia must put an end to it by force of arms. I am the last to indulge in language of bravado or bounce, which is sometimeSjattributed, perhaps not without justice, to colonists. But I ask our countrymen in England soberly and calmly to consider what they would themselves do in our case. Suppose that this influx of French convicts becomes, as it threatens to become, an intolerable grievance, and suppose that no effort is made on the part of the British Government to crush it before it becomes a formidable reality—what, then, would Englishmen do, whether at Home or in the colonies? I am well convinced they would fight, and they would be unworthy of their name and race if they did otherwise. Over-run by a horde of miscreants more terrible than an invading army, because unrestrained by discipline, and owing no allegiance to God or man, Australasia would have but one resource left—namely, to destroy the settlements whence the noisome stream flowed. If France were to place her convicts in boats on the south side of the British Channel, and tell them to go where they would—to the nearest foreign shores—would England look tamely on or welcome the dangerous emigrants as they landed on her coasts? Are the shores of Australasia less the shores of the British Empire because they are separated from England by the ocean? What our fathers and brothers would do in the one case, we, be well assured, will do, and will be compelled to do, in the other. Hence I am driven to the conclusion, that the recidiviste law of France means, sooner or later, war-—a war for the mastery of the Pacific—a prolongation of the great struggle whose history during three centuries Professor Seeley has so ably traced —a struggle for the mastery of the New World. If the Australasian Colonies are driven to destroy the French settlements in tho Pacific, bo surely England will be compelled to support her dependencies: for England cannot afford to see these rapidly-growing States transformed into French colonies. Apart from the question of prestige —and. the loss of Australasia would surely be the first scene in the downfall of the British Empire—her pecuniary interests are too deeply engaged to permit her to stand aloof in the contest. England holds mortgages over Australasia, in public and private debts, in investments both by land and sea, in banks, companies, and ships, which would not be overstated at £300,000,000. It is to these colonies that England looks, and will probably for a long time look, and wisely look, for profitable investment of her superabundant capital, and as a home for her superabundant population. A large part of her labouring classes are supported by manufacturing goods and conveying them to the Australasian Colonies, in exchange for the cereal and animal food, for the gold and raw material, she requires. The value of her trade, import and export, with these communities is worth more than £100,000,000 annually. Can England, rich as she is, afford to lose all this? And for what ? Merely to avoid the unpleasantness of firmly telling her neighbour that a great crime contemplated, a grave violation of international justice, must not be perpetrated, and will not be permitted. To talk of Australasia going to war with France may create a smile. But why ? Even if she stood alone, the story of the revolt of the American colonies might teach us that it would be very difficult for a country on the other side of the world to conquer a small community fighting on their own soil for hearth and home. With her large fleet of fast steamers, her ample armaments, and her fairly-disciplined and trained Volunteer corps, it would be an easy task for Australasia to overwhelm the forces which France at present maintains in her settlements in the Pacific. It would be hard to show that a greater disproportion exists between Australasia and France now, than between the American cotenies and England in the last century. But Australasia would not fight alone. As I have shown, England would be compelled to join in the struggle; nor, if England shrunk from what would be her manifest interest and duty, would Australasia necessarily be single-