the whole expense of the local government of
the colonies, save for defence from aggression by a foreign power.
Parliament was, as a rule, so little moved by colonial concerns that,
according to Mr. Gladstone, in nine cases out of ten it was impossible
for the minister to secure parliamentary attention, and in the tenth
case it was only obtained by the casual operations of party spirit. Lord
Glenelg's case showed that colonial secretaries were punished when they
got into bad messes, and his passion for messes was punished, in the
language of the journals of the day, by the life of a toad under a
harrow until he was worried out of office. There was, however, no force
in public opinion to prevent the minister from going wrong if he liked;
still less to prevent him from going right if he liked. Popular feeling
was coloured by no wish to give up the colonies, but people doubted
whether the sum of three millions sterling a year for colonial defence
and half a million more for civil charges, was not excessive, and they
thought the return by no means commensurate with the outlay.[223] In
discussions on bills effecting the enlargement of Australian
constitutions, Mr. Gladstone's views came out in clear contrast with the
old school. 'Spoke 11/2 hours on the Australian Colonies bill,' he records
(May 13,1850), 'to an indifferent, inattentive House. But it is
necessary to speak these truths of colonial policy even to unwilling
ears.' In the proceedings on the constitution for New Zealand, he
delivered a speech justly described as a pattern of close argument and
classic oratory.[224] Lord John Russell, adverting to the concession of
an elective chamber and responsible government, said that one by one in
this manner, all the shields of our authority were thrown away, and the
monarchy was left exposed in the colonies to the assaults of democracy.
'Now I confess,' said Mr. Gladstone, in a counter minute, 'that the
nominated council and the independent executive were, not shields of
authority, but sources of weakness, disorder, disunion, and
disloyalty.'[225]

HIS WHOLE VIEW

His whole view he set out at Chester[226] a little later than the time
at which we now stand:--

... Experience has proved that if you want to strengthen the
connection between the colonies and this country--if you want to
see British law held in respect and British institutions adopted
and beloved in the colonies