The Lyttelton Times. Saturday, December 3, 1859.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XII, Issue 738, 3 December 1859, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. Saturday, December 3, 1859.

We publish to-day a brief summary of a debate in the House of Commons on a subject which very nearly touches all the colonies of Great Britain. The arguments used on the subject of colonial defences are unanswerable ; and from the general tone of the colonial press, we doubt that the Imperial Government will find it as difficult as Mr. Sydney Herbert fears to make an equitable arrangement between the mother country and her dependencies. Of the three gentlemen appointed as a committee to report on the whole subject, and to lay down the principle on which the expenses should be apportioned, we 'know that one, Mr. Godley, has given much attention to colonial questions, and is deeply interested in them. So that it is not likely that the points raised before the commission will be decided entirely from the ( old country' point of view. After all, is it not probable that, when the whole subject is duly considered, it will be found that the interests of all portions of the British dominions are identical ? It cannot be good for British Colonies to grow up, like the Eoman dependencies of old, so completely incapable of self-defence as to become, when the Imperial legions are withdrawn, an inviting prey for foreign aggression. We go on looking to standing armies forgetful of their origin and of our altered position. The standing armies of modern Europe arose out of a state of things unknown in younger countries. Although England has kept up a considerable standing army, she has always looked upon it as a necessary evil.consequent upon her close relations with the Eurjpean family. But those countries which, like the United States of America, are free from the complications of European politics, will entrust the defence of their country more safely to its militia than to a regular army; more especially if that army be equipped and maintained without care or responsibility on the part of the inhabitants of the country defended. The jealousy of standing armies which is conspicuous among Anglo-Saxons,—which shows itself in England in the yearly passing of the Mutiny Act and the anxiety to keep the home garrisons at the lowest number consistent with safet} 7", —and which in America keeps down the regular army to a few thou- : sand men, —this jealousy, so far from proving a want of military spirit, arises from a spirit of self-dependence and a belief that freedom is the best guarantee for security of life and property. If the colonists of England wish to nourish this feeling, and to avoid the helplessness of " protected" traders, they must learn early to do without English regiments. While it is true that the rifles of American militia-men may be sufficient to defend Americans from foreign aggression, it is also true that British colonies may suffer in the event of European quarrels in the origin of which they have had no part. On the other hand it may be urged that the knowledge that England would protect a country in time of need is a protection in itself, and that the power of England preserves weak colonies from piratical attacks such as those made in late years on Cuba. But still the fact that European wars, in which England may take part, will involve unrepresented colonies in hostilities, casts the duty of

active protection to a certain extent on the mother country. Taking- into consideration the comparative wealth of the colonies and the very small drain on their resources that would be required to train their populations for self-defence, we do not think that the demand on the mother country should he a heavy one. To England the maintenance of a large and powerful navy is a vital question, and her ships could not be better employed nor her crew better trained than by stationing1 them on the coasts of her world wide colonies. The latter should make up to the crews whatever difference of pay would equalise their earnings with the average earnings of men working on the coast. But on land those colonies which are not maintained by England merely as military posts should gradually dispense with all military help from the mother country, except perhaps a staff to organise on a uniform and useful footing 1 local militia levies. If such a change were made, not too suddenly, hut step by step as occasion offered, a strengthened feeling of mutual confidence and esteem would grow up between the mother country and her off-shoots. As to New Zealand, it will be much better for many reasons to depend on v a regularly organised militia than on volunteer corps.

The latter are doubtless very valuable when there is any expectation of immediate-war; but for regular and permanent duty there is nothing- like an institution established by law, compulsory on all alike; and one which will make men look on their duty as one entailed by the privileges of citizenship. ( Whatever military spirit arises in the performance of such duty as this will be a reality and not a sham.