Extracts.

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

Extracts.

THE COLONIAL DEFENCES,

During the debato■■on national defences in the House of Commons, August 5, the' following remarks were made upon the various colonies :— Mr. Adderlejr rose to call the attention of the House to the military defences of ; the colonies', arid tothe source from winch those defences were supplied. He had moved for certain papers on this subject, which had not yet been circulated, and he must therefore rely in a great measure upon the returns which had been produced on the motion of the hon. and gallant member for Aberdeen. He appealed to the hon. member, for Birmingham whether he did not think it a question of importance whether this country should be required not only to furnish from its limited population troops for the defencos of the colonies, but also to supply the greater part of the cost of maintaining those troops. The plan pursued was not only needlessly expensive to this country, but the result of it was that not one single colony belonging to this empire was in an adequate state of defence. England had granted self-government to her colonies, and had abrogated all those commercial laws by which she once sought to advance her own interests by interfering with colonial commerce. The natural corollary of these changes was that we should have called upon the colonies to undertake their own defence. Instead of that, however, our expenditure upon them for naval and military purposes was no less than £3,250,000 per annum. Of this vast sum the colonies themselves paid only £337,000, or but one-tenth of the whole. Deducting the charge for such military stations as Gibraltar, Malta, the lonian Islands, the Mauritius, and Bermuda, the expenditure incurred for our colonies, properly so called, was £2,500,000. Deducting, however, the amount contributed by the inhabitants of the military stations, the sum borne by the colonies proper was reduced to £220,000, leaving the proportion of the entire cost defrayed by colonies like Australia and Canada for their "own defence, at only one-tenth. Even of the inadequate force maintained in our colonies, only one quarter consisted of colonial militia or police, the rest being made up of her Majesty's troops. The people of England were taxed to the extent of £1 per head for their army, navy, and ordnance; whereas the colonists of Canada did not pay more than one-fiftieth part of that sum for their own defences.' But great as was the disproportion between the burden on the people at home and in the colonies, there was a still greater inequality in the distribution of that expenditure between, the different, colonies themselves. The general rule seemed to be, make those colonies that ought to pay the least pay the most, and those that ought to, pay the most pay the least. The small military stations and dependencies above enumerated were most of . them taxed to the full amount of their own defences, while Canada, the Cape, and Australia contributed little or nothing. Speaking of Australia, a despatch of Lord Grey, written in 1849 to Sir Charles Fitzroy, then Governor of New South Wales, laid down the rules which ought to govern that question. The principles of that despatch had, however, been but very imperfectly carried out, and even in the Australian colonies the matter was arranged) as it were, haphazard, Victoria being made to pay much more heavily than the other colonies, for no reason except that it,was richer and could bear the^burden of taxation better. But costly and /unequal, as the system was,'it had not the redeeming merit of providing efficient means of defence. We'had. now Jn England, inclusive of militia, llOjOOO.troops, in addition to which we had in India 85,000 Europeans. But in the whole of our colonies, scattered over the entire surface of the globe, we had but:42,000 soldiers, or rather, after deducting the number quartered in the purely military stations, we had but 22,000. Our colonies w.ere consequently in a very insecure position; and, in the event of. war, any great maritime power would be able to deprive us of some of them. Moreover, if a general war should break out, we should probably have to. call home the colonial garrisons ; and then the colonists, having been taught to lean upon the mother country, and having by her system, had everything.like a military spirit crashed oat of them, would be wholly incapable of defending themselves. The noble lord the present Foreign Secretary had repeatedly stated that, if'we did not furnish troops for our colonies, other countries would take them from us. The converse of that proposition would hold good—viz., if we continued to defend our colonies as we were now doing, most assuredly in the end some foreign power would gain possession of them. Another evil effect of the system was, that with a considerable portion of our force abroad, when war occurred, we had to resort to the raising •of German' and Swiss legions, and in our endeavours to obtain troops in Foreign States we got embroiled with other governments. Another reason against the present mode of scattering the Queen's troops in the colonies was that, after all, they were not the best troops for the defence of the colonies. The colonial militia had always hitherto been found the best troops for the defence of the colonies. They understood local warfare, arid were more accustomed to the peculiar climates in which they had to act. Again, the practice of English troops garrisoning the colonies led to a wasteful expenditure. Under the existing system, the more English troops the colonies obtained, the richer they became, while the control of the Imperial parliament was no control at all. We knew nothing of the expenditure on account of the German legion. Since their arrival in South Africa they had never been without full pay, and yet up to the present moment no account, had been presented to the house. England had paid many millions for the Caffre wars, but the Imperial Parliament had not been allowed to consider a single item of that expenditure. If the colonies were called upon to provide for, their own defence they would look sharply after their military. expenditure, and the present wasteful system would be abolished at once. (Hear, hear.) Earl Grey, in a despatch addressed to -Sir Charles Fitzroy, the Governor of New South Wales, laid down the principle which ought to be pursued. The noble Earl fully recognised the right of the Australian colonies to expect a fair share of protection' from the mother country, but he added that, seeing the great progress in wealth and population which those colonies had made, their inhabitants ought to bear a, large part of the burden.which with a view to their protection was imposed upon their fellow subjects of the united kingdom. He advised the formation of a colonial volunteer artillery corps, and warned the Australian colonists that if they did not make adequate provision for her Majesty's troops, those troops would be removed. The colonists showed at first some inclination to resist the application of the, principle laid down by Earl Grey, but the concluding 'threat ' as to the withdrawal of the Queen's troops brought them to their senses, and they had since provided 50 per cent, of the cost of their military defence. (Hear, hear.) Nobody, could contend that the mother country should provide the local police of the, colonies, or more than defend them'from foreign aggression. But he had shown that the garrisons we sent out were worthless against foreign aggression, and could be used only for local purposes. They were, therefore, utterly Indefensible. He did not say that the colonists, should bear equally with, the residents in the Oinited kingdom their share of expenditure for the. -defence at the empire. , That would be an unfair •demand to make upon themy becausp they were not' represented in the Imperial Parliament; but, the fact of their not being so represented was no

reason why we should supply them with military stores, barracks, troops to garrison them, and every species of naval defence. They ought to bear a certain share of that expenditure; ho would not say what share, but certainly the tenth which they now paid fell far short of the call which should be mado upon them. (Hear, hoar). He did not believe what was sometimes said, that if the colonies were asked to defend themselves they would soon become independent, because he had confidence, not only in thoir power and readiness to provide for thoir own military expenditure, but in. their hearty attachment to tho mother country. We had proof of that afe the time of the Crimean war, when Canada offered us both money and troops; but he had no hesitation in saying that he would rather have the colonies independent, if by that term was meant, for example, the existence in Canada of a king belonging to our royal family, than see the present system continued. Nor was it true that Canada was incapable of defending herself. Her intelligence, her wealth, and her popu» lation were greater than were those of the United States when they gained their independence, not with the help of the mother country, but in spite of her resistance. (Hear, hear.) He trusted, then, that the government would give their earnest and immediate attention to this subject;,if not, at the commencement of next session, he should move for a select committee to enquire into all the circumstances he had stated to the House. (Hear, hear).

Lord A. Churchill concurred in the opinions expressed by his right hon. friend; and thought we should arrive at some definite conclusion as to the amount of protection which this country ought to afford to the colonies, and that which they ought to afford to themselves. The Australian colonies viewed just now Avith the utmost alarm the naval power of France in the South Pacific, where there were now ten French to five British ships of war. With regard to the four regiments now in those colonies, however, he could say that the three on the mainland were performing the duties of police. He had himself seen them acting as a gold escort and keeping the peace upon the gold-fields, and at the time of the Russian war they were taken away from Melbourne to perform this duty. He could not but believe that if the matter were properly represented to the colonists they would provide a local militia for their own defence. It could be done without much additional cost, and this country would probably not object to find arms and ammunition, and to take some part in the work of organisation. Block ships, too, might be sent out for the colonists to man. In the event of war the Australian colonies would certainly be attacked by the French, and thus, though no parties to the rupture, they would be called upon to suffer for the misunderstandings of the mother country. This would be rather hard upon them, and he thought we ought rather to protect them fully by a large and efficient force, so that they might not be exposed to danger on the occurrence of hostilities, or else we ought to give them their independence, which would free them from attack in any such case. He did not assert that the time had come for giving the colonists their independence, or that they them? selves wished for it. There existed amongst them, on the contrary, the utmost loyalty and patriotism,; which had been greatly increased since they received a free government, and this feeling towards the mother country was evinced by the large amount subscribed towards the Patriotic Fund during the Russian war, when Tasmania subscribed £28,000, or nearly 10s. a head upon her adult population. (Hear, hear.) .

Mr. S. Herbert: I have got, sir, a somewhat multifarious number of questions to which, to reply. (A laugh.) I shall commence by answering those which have been put to me by my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Adderley), in the greatest portion of whose observations I must say I entirely concur. My attention was some time ago called to the subject of the payments by different colonies towards their own defence, and I confess it is scarcely possible to conceive anything more capricious or unreasonable than the varying proportions in which those payments are made. (Hear, hear.) The government of the mother country sends troops to the colonies for the/purposes either of defence or of internal police. So far as the first object is concerned, they have some sort of claim to ask her to bear a share of their military expenditure, inasmuch as she arrogates to herself the settlement of all questions of peace and war, and their interests may suffer as the result of the policy which she chooses to pursue. That is a.doctrine which, however, may be pushed too far, because if I the prospects of a colony are injured by war she enjoys all the advantages of being placed under the protection of a powerful state in time of peace. I Those operations apply not only to colonies which ! have great wealth, but to those garrisons which ! belong to us in the Mediterranean and whose strength makes their possession coveted by other nations. Now, with respect to the question of the maintenance of troops in our colonies for the I purposes of police, I must say I think such a. course is one which is indefensible. (Hear, hear.) We at home pay our military and police expenditure: the one out of the proceeds of imperial taxation, the other out of local rates. That is a distinction which ought, in my opinion, to be as far as possible maintained in our colonies. The question, however, is beset with difficulties, but, before I proceed to state the views of the government with respect toit, I shall quote, for the information of the House, from a document which I hold in my hand, the proportion in which the mother country and. the colonies pay for the defence of the latter. In the case of the North American colonies, £441,539. are paid by Great Britain, and only £218,111 by these colonies; the greater portion of that sum being paid by Canada. For Australia the Home Government pays £228,000, the colonies themselves £156,000, to thS payment of which amount Victoria is the principal contributor. We have, however, entered into arrangements with them which I think ought to be extended to other colonies, and in accordance with which the colonists pay a certain allowance, and confer several advantages on the troops in the way of procuring provisions for four companies; their agreement being to maintain entirely at their own charge any troops which they may require above that number. The result is that we do not receive from those colonists such pressing invitations for troops as we do from other quarters —(a laugh)—while the relations which exist between them and us are placed upon a much sounder footing. (Heaiy Hear.) For our colonies in the Mediterranean we pay£9sß,OOO, while there is a sum of only £30,560 expended by them; but •then it must be remembered that, being garrisons, it is of the utmost importance for our interests that their defence should be adequately provided for. On the West Indies we lay out £432,000, while the colonists themselves pay not more than £6000. In our colonies in the east, Mauritius and Hong Kong, our expenditure for defensive purposes is £289,000, while they expend £91,000. The Cape of Good Hope costs us £635,000, while a sum of £29,000 is all that the colonists contribute. The last mentioned is, I must say, one of the strongest instances of that disproportion to which I have referred. My right hon. friend, in alluding to the Capo of Good Hope, spoke of the German Legion which was sent out there, and of which he says ho has for a long time heard nothing. . I am sorry to have to state that I cannot.say as much, for the War Department has of late had repeated solicitations addressed to it in connection with that body. I hold in my hand a statement which I have submitted to the Treasury, and which involves a! claim for a large sum of money, inasmuch as Sir G. Grey has kept the troops of the German Legion in pay from the

j time of their arrival in the Capo of, Good Hope until the present day. A considerable portion of those troops, it is true, volunteered to go to India but a largo number of them were left behind, and the oxpense of tho maintenance ol' such a body is very great. Without, however, going further into this point, I shall state to the right hon. gentleman the course we have taken. It is quite true that if there were only one party to the bargain we by an Imperial Act could easily overrule the intentions and feelings of the colonists by laying down some law which would sottle bnco lor ail the proportions upon which this expenditure for military purposes should be based. But this must bo made matter of negotiation between the several colonies. (Hear hear.) They have the great advantage of distance and the great advantage of passive resistance, and,* therefore, I do not feel very sanguine of an early and effectivo inroad upon tho system which now exists. But it ought, nevertheless, not to be neglected, and at the present moment there is a comittee sitting upon the subject, consisting of Mr. G. A. Hamilton (Treasury), Mr. Godley, who is' well known to my hon. friend, and Mr. T.F.Elliot (Colonial-office). The instructions which have been given to. those gentlemen are—to ascertain the< gross expenses of military defences for the five years 1853-57/ inclusive; the proportions borne by colonial governments; in what colonies they are necessary for imperial or colonial purposes or both ; to lay down the principle upon which the expenses ought to be apportioned; and to state the best mode of carrying that object into effect. ;. As I have before said, the government are most anxious to pursue this course. The Duke of Newcastle enters warmly into the matter; but, I repeat, that owing to the distance and the great power of resistance, I; am not sanguine as to an early or uniform settlement, although I am sure every exertion will be made to place the matter upon a more satisfactory footing than at present. .