COLONIAL MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XVII, Issue 995, 24 May 1862, Page 2

COLONIAL MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

The following' important debate took place in the House of Commons on the 4th of March. Another interesting debate occurred on the 13th on the expenses of the troops in New Zealand. We have not the space to publish this latter debate, the result oi which was that the Government declared it would be a short-sighted policy to remove the troops at present, and that England must necessarily continue to endure the burden of the military expenditure for the protection of New Zealand. Mr. A. Mills rose to call the attention of the House to the report of the select committee of last session on colonial military expenditure, and to move the following resolution :—" That this House (while fully recognising the claims of all portions of the British empire to imperial aid in their protection against perils arising from the consequences of imperial policy) is of opinion that colonies exercising the right of self-govern-ment ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security." The hon. gentleman said the committee had been most impartially selected, and they had examined the heads of the military, the colonial, and the financial departments of the Government. They had also as witnesses many gentlemen both in official and non-official situations; and he believed, in fact, that they had taken all the evidence which was accessible to them. The main conclusions of the committee had been unanimously agreed to; and his resolution was based upon those conclusions, so adopted. He wished altogether to disclaim the imputation which had been too freely cast upon every gentleman that wished to reduce our colonial military expenditure, namely, that he was desirous of dismembering our colonial empire. The committee had throughout assumed that England wished . to retain her colonies, that she accepted the responsibility of protecting them so far as her imperial policy was concerned, and that it was her wish to give them self-government at the earliest possible opportunity ; but the committee had never for one moment entered upon the question of dismemberment. Though the terms of the reference were very wide, they had thought it best to exclude India, the Mediterranean garrisons, the stations on the coast of Western Africa, Bermuda, the convict establishment in Western Australia, and, in short, all that were not in the strictest sense of the word colonies. The area of their inquiry had thus been restricted to Australia (except the convict establishment), the West Indies, the Cape of Good Hope, the South African colonies, New Zealand, Mauritius, and Ceylon. On the subject of fortifications, his hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) had given notice of an amendment by way of an addition to his resolution, and to him therefore he would leave that subject, merely remarking that there had been, in his opinion, a vast expenditure under that head on objects which were not likely to prove of the least utility. The principle set forth in his motion was no new one. He might quote in its favour the despatches of Lord Grey, Lord Elgin, Sir ' Charles Fitzroy, Sir William Denison, and many other gentlemen of high eminence. It was also fully supported by the evidence of that noble and patriotic statesman, Lord Herbert. That noble lord said that so long as we had the supremacy of the sea the colonial garrisons would be useless, but at the same time they offered to colonists an excellent excuse for not raising a militia of their own. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Grey gave very similar evidence. He (the hon. gentleman) protested against the idea of treating the colonists as prodigal sons. He denied that the parental analogy held good at all; but if it did, the only mode he knew of treating a prodigal was to throw him upon his own resources. It was said that if the people at the Cape or in New Zealand came in collision with the natives, our philanthropic feelings would prompt us to interfere. It was argued that, whatever our abstract notions might be, we should never allow the barbarities of the commando system to be revived ; but he protested against such reasoning, involving, as it did, a gross libel upon the colonists. (Hear, hear.), On this point he might quote the evidence of Mr. Owen, a gentleman who had been sent out by Lord Grey with Sir G. Clerk to the Cape about 11 years ago, and who was in every way well qualified to speak on the subject. Mr. Owen said in his evidence that we pampered the Kaffirs until they were strong enough to fight us. The same gentleman gave his decided opinion against the prospect that our frontier system would have the effect of avoiding future wars. As for the inhumanity of throwing our colonies upon their own resources, it was a very cruel thing to keep these colonists in a state of incapability to defend themselves. But so long as we gave them to understand that they had an unlimited call upon the Imperial army, there was a dead certainty of more Kaffir wars, and it was almost as great a cruelty to send the 15th Hussars on an expedition against these savage tribes, as it was that the unfortunate natives should perish. The commissariat expenditure in these wars was enormous, and the colonists had a direct interest in the increase of these expenses. Sir H. Smith said, speaking of an expedition against Sandilli, " This unfortunate brush cost us £56,000 in waggon hire alone." That outlay all went into the pockets of the colonists at Cape Town. He did not blame the colonists for endeavouring to put money into their pockets when they could get it, but he did blame the Imperial Government for this depressing system of keeping the colonies in a state of everlasting minority. The question was one of time only. It was impossible that the Imperial Government could undertake the defence of the colonies everlastingly. At the present moment Sir George Grey had to serve two masters, the Imperial Government at home and the Executive Council in the colony. Notwithstanding the sarcastic remarks that he (Mr. A. Mills) often heard about the attempts made by the colonists to govern themselves, it must be remembered that they were trying to solve the problem of self-go-vernment tinder the greatest difficulties. He

mmmmmmaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i i maintained that if the colonies governed themselves they must also protect themselves. The Imperial Government must take the same course with regard to the colonies that Lord Grey had done with Australia some years since—that of simply announcing to them that they should have such and such a supply, and no more, of ships and troops from England, and if they wanted more they must pay for them. At the time that he (Mr. Mills) did not object to the steps that had been recently taken by the Government for the defence of Canada, and even if they had gone further he should not have blamed them. He had heard that a force of from 70,000 to 80,000 volunteer militia were beirioenrolled in Canada—a step which he regretted had not been taken earlier. (Hear, hear.) Some years ago we handed over to the Canadian government the ordnance lands and the garrisons, on an understanding that they would take some steps to organise such a force. He (Mr. Mills) had just been informed that a member of the legislature of New South Wales moved a resolution, which was carried by a majority of 39 to 11, in the chamber of that colony, almost in the same words as that of the resolution he was nowproposing. If the colonists themselves, therefore, carried such a proposal as this, it was no disparagement to them that he should it in the House of Commons. He certainly meant no discourtesy whatever to any part of our colonial empire by his motion: and he trusted, notwithstanding the prejudice with which these questions were surrounded, that it would be received by the House with the attention which its importance merited. Mr. C. Buxton, in seconding the motion, said that the point of his hon. friend's speech in which he felt most interest was, if they resigned to the colonies the management of their own defences what the effect would be on the freedom of the aborigines. He admitted that it was much to the honour of the home Government that they had showed themselves so sensitive towards the nations under their rule; but it was yet open to doubt whether their policy as well as being a noble had been also a sound one. In New Zealand we were involved in a bloody war with the natives; at the Cape we had had frequent encounters with the Kaffirs; in North America the Red Indians had dwindled to a miserable remnant; and it was a question whether our policy had not been attended by results precisely opposite to those we intended. When the colonists knew that the expenses of their wars fell upon us, he did not say that they were more ready to pick quarrels, but he thought they were less cautious in avoiding causes of dispute than they would be. The great question was whether, since the colonies were liable to be invaded in consequence of wars arising from our policy, we were not bound to shelter them from the consequences of such wars. That was the essence of the objection to his hon. friend's resolution. When war was proclaimed only by that portion of the British empire which was represented in that assembly, the objection might have some weight, and that the mother country was responsible; but there were many instances in which, wars were declared by the head of the executive government. It was by the force of our naval supremacy that our colonies were protected ; and in a contest with a naval Power, it was only right that we should throw our jegis round them. But it must be remembered that whilst the colonies were exposed to this danger, they were protected from every other risk. It was for them to decide whether the dangers of being united to us were not more than counterbalanced by the benefits; and it the balance were struck, he (Mr. Buxton) certainly thought it was a greater boon to the colonies to be connected with us than to be separated from us. The feeling in the colonies was that we insisted on their union with us, not because it was a boon to them, but because it was an advantage to ourselves. He believed that the present system engendered discontent and jealousy : and if we only put ourselves in the position of the colonists, and had our defences provided for us by some foreign nation, we could easily understand how such feelings could arise.

Mr. Baxter said that after the able and clear speech of his hon. friend he would not say one word on that branch of the subject. He agreed in the resolution that on the colonies ought to rest the entire responsibility of their internal defences; but he thought it hardly went far enough, nor did it grapple with the main grievances which were brought under consideration of the committee to which he referred. He believed that the people of this country acquiesced in rather than approved of the policy which had been pursued towards the colonies, and that it would be absolutely necessary to reverse it when the taxation of this country became greater, as it must become greater whenever a great war occurred. As the colonies increased in filiation and wealth it would become more and more impossible for us to supply them with defences—not only with ships of war, but with troops and fortifications. As long as we governed the colonies we were bound to provide for their defence; but now that they governed themselves—now that they framed their own laws and were independent communities to all intents and purposes—Canada even imposing protective duties on the manufactures of this country —(hear, hear) —they were no longer bound to defend them. Formerly,we caused the colonies to trust to themselves mainly, and we defended them in time of need with no unwilling or illiberal hand; and to that system we must return, to prevent an outbreak of public feeling in this country. That was the reason, he asked the House to add some words to the resolution of his hon. friend. The position which he contended for was stated more ably than he could pretend to state it by his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the evidence which he gave before the committee, and also by Mr, Godley. The committee passed a resolution on the subject, which was cautiously worded no doubt, but which was the same in effect as the addition which he now proposed t'o make to the resolution of his hon. friend. That resolution was to the effect that the cost of the military defences should mainly fall on

the colonies themselves. He had a return of the contributions to milir,irv expenditure of the colonies to March 31, 18u), fro in which it appeared that New South Wsiles contributed £33,000; Victoria. £72,000; South Australia, £7,000; Ceylon,£97,ooo; Mauritius,£23,ooo; Malta, £6,000; Jamaica, £1,000; the Windward and Leeward Islands, £29;000; the lonian Islands, £25,000. Of these sums, amounting to £300,000, only £73,000 had found its way up to that time into the imperial exchequer. Far be it from him to say a word in depreciation of the inhabitants of Canada, nor should he propose that they should pay all the imperial military expenditure incurred for their defence; but up to 1858 Canada had only 5000 embodied militia, and we did not receive sixpence from that colony in aid of the military expenditure on account of Canada. The Canadian regiment was even paid for out of the imperial treasury. The people of Canada, whether in time of peace or war, ought to bear a portion of the military expenditure; and although the people of this country might be content to bear the whole expenditure as long as it was a small amount, he did not believe they would do so now that there were 18,000 men in that colony. Up to 1858 there was not a single colonial soldier, militia man, or volunteer in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia, and the whole military expenditure of the colonies was £198. In South Africa our military expenditure was £450,000, and all we got was £56,000. Of all their great colonies there were only two which formed an honorable exception to all the rest in this respect. These were the colonies'of New South Wales and Victoria; and even with regard to these the committee recommended that the number of soldiers should be reduced. These two colonies, which were the only ones that could be said to be in any sense self-dependent, were the only colonies that ever contributed fairly to the expenses of the imperial War Department, so that this very thing which some persons thought would lead to the separation of the colonies, only tended to attach them more firmly to the mother country. (Hear.) It had been suggested to him that his resolution might be made more acceptable to the House and the colonies if he put it in these terms: —"That the colonies should assist in their own external defence." The resolution of his hon. friend referred to the internal defences of the colonies, and he proposed to add that such colonies should assist in their own external defence. With regard to the fortifications of the colonies, the opinion of the committee was that the multiplication of fortifications in such places as the Mauritius involved a useless expenditure, and failed to provide efficient protection for places the defence of which mainly depended on superiority at sea. Sir J. Burgoyne calculated that to put ,these colonies in a proper state of defence an expenditure, amounting, on the whole, to £1,000,000 would be required. He did not know whether the Government intended to adopt that, but not a single witness who had been examined before the committee concurred in the view of Sir J. Burgoyne, and Earl Grey went so far as to say the wisest thing they could do would be to blow up those which had already been built. He believed that the resolution before the House would strengthen the hands of the Government in negotiating with the colonies, and that the adoption of the principle it contained would prove advantageous to the mother country and to the colonies, and would be the means, not of weakening and dividing, but of strengthening and consolidating that empire on which the sun never sets.

Mr. C. Fortescue said that the resolution proposed by his hon friend the member for Taunton, and the amendment moved by his hon. friend the member for Montrose, had been brought before the House in two temperate and useful speeches. The Government entirely agreed with the hon. member for Montrose, that the resolution, so far from embarrassing 1 the Government, in dealing* with the colonies on this important subject, would rather assist them and strengthen their hands. The employment of Queen's troops in the colonies, which was mainly condemned by the resolution of his hon. friend opposite, was, he admitted, most objectionable, whether at the expense of the mother country or not, and whether for the maintenance of internal order, or for effecting those objects which came under the category ot domestic police. The occasions for such employment did not frequently happen in British communities abroad. He went along with his hon. friend in the condemnation which his resolution implied, but, in giving his assent to the resolution he must point out that there were some dependencies where the employment of Queen's troops did not come within such sweeping condemnation. Take the West Indian colonies for instance. These presented a very peculiar case. They did not consist of British communities, but in a great degree of foreign populations and of different races. For example, Trinidad consisted of a mixed population of French, Spanish, Hindoos, Chinese, and Africans, all differing from communities of British origin. These colonies, then presented peculiar and exceptional features, and the resolution could not at once, as a matter of course, be applied to them. With regard to the colonies which were in danger from the native military tribes, the poliev pursued by this country could not be purely imperial, but must be dictated to a great extent by the feelings and wishes of the colonists, and in these cases the duty of protection should rest on the colonists themselves. The case of New Zealand was also peculiar and exceptional, for when popular and responsible government was given to New Zealand we had failed to reserve those substantial securities for providing funds for the protection of the colony, and the popular element in the administration was in the ascendant. He spoke with reserve, however, in the absence of information from Sir G. Grey, but he confessed it was his opinion that it would be absolutely necessary to hand over the administration of the affairs to the ministers who possessed the confidence of the

New Zealand legislature. The change would greatly increase the obligation of the colony to provide for its own protection against native tribes. It, however, ought to be borne

in mind that the present policy was not one which could be lightly or hastily abandoned, because of late years we had assisted them in their battles with the native tribes. We had interposed our assistance by means of considerable bodies of imperial troops. Mr. Herman Merivale, the late Under-Secretary for the Colonies, showed in his work that while on the one hand much was to be said in favour of the old system, which left the colonists to deal as they pleased with the native tribes; on the other, great advantages had resulted from the more modern system. He (Mr. Fortescue) believed that our altered policy had saved us from great disgrace, the native population from great misery, and caused a much more rapid growth of our colonies as self-sustaining communities. He would caution tbe House of Commons that, in accepting the resolution, there were some dependencies of the Crown to which it could not be applied as well as to purely British communities. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Montrose, it appeared to him that as it originally stood, the latter part was needless, and that the former part went too far, for the uselessness of increasing colonial fortifications had been abundantly testified by the select committee, and there was no fear of any subsequent Government multiplying them. What was the real amount of expenditure incurred upon the military defences of those colonies, to which the hon. member for Montrose had referred? What were the colonies which really enjoyed the right of self-government ? There were fourteen such colonies, and all the other colonies were either military garrisons, or stations held in various parts of the world for imperial purposes, which did not contain British communities; stations kept up for military, naval, or commercial purposes, or for'the suppression of the slave trade, such as the Mauritius, Bermuda, and the factories on the West Coast of Africa. From this list he omitted the West Indian Colonies. He did not conceal from the House that these made an addition to the expenditure of beween £300,000 and £400,000. He did not include Jamaica, which did not possess selfgovernment in the sense of a British community in North America, nor Barbadoes, which had a garrison quite out of proportion to the extent of the community. Including the great imperial station at Halifax, the force necessary for the protection of the fisheries at Newfonndland, the force requisite to keep in order the convict .population at the Cape and at Natal, including all these cases, the expenditure for the year ending March, 1860, the year dealt with in the report of the committee of last session, the whole amount of the expenditure was a fraction over a million. He did not state this by way of maintaining that the colonies should not be called upon to contribute their full share towards their own defence. He only wished the House to understand the difficulties that laid in the way of giving a wide application to the principle laid down in this resolution. It was said by some that the colonists should be left to fight their battles against all comers, and that no assistance should be sent them from this country. He thought there had been great misconception on this subject. He believed that if the circumstances of the colonists now were the same as those of the North American plantations in former times the conduct of the present colonists would be the same. The old colonists went to war with their neighbours, the French and Spaniards who had settled in their neighbourhood, and they obtained the assistance of the imperial troops to aid them in those wars. When by that assistance they had reduced their enemies, they desired to got rid of the imperial troops, and they made the presence of those troops in the colony a grievance against the mother country. But there was nothing resembling that state of things now. While he thought that this country should not leave the colonists to their own devices, he thought it was quite possible to go so far in that as to forget the interests of the British taxpayer. It was the duty of this country, within certain limits, to provide for the protection of its colonies so long as they were attached to her, and the only question was what amount of exertion and cost on the part of this country would enable her faithfully and honestly to peform this duty. Government had a double duty to perform, and he thought that the adoption of the resolution and the amendment would strengthen them in the performance of it. Sir J. Fergusson thought that the report of the committee and the resolution of his hon. friend might be read in two different senses, according to the different views which the person who read them might take of the policy of this step. He thought the resolution might be taken by the colonists without attacking what they considered their rights, but it might be taken, as it evidently had been by the hon. member for Montrose, in a somewhat different sense. The hon. member went further, and proposed that the colonies should be left entirely to themselves, not only as regarded their internal security, but even as regarded external defence.

Mr. Baxter denied that he had said anything of the kind. He merely said that the colonies should in such a case assist the mother country in their defence. Sir J. Fergusson thought the words of the amendment sufficiently indicated that the lion, member did take that view. The resolution of the hon. member for Taunton only proposed that the colonists should be left to "themselves to maintain tranquility within their own borders. He regretted that Government intended to adopt the amendment. The committee was unanimous, but at the same time he thought that the policy of leaving the colonists to themselves ought to be adopted gradually. He regretted to hear the hon. member for Montrose speak of what he called the protective , tariff of Canada. It should be remembered that it was only by indirect taxation that Canada was enabled to meet her engagements.

Mr. Haliburton said he did not rise to take any part in this discussion, hut rather to express his regret that the subject should have been submitted to the House. In the first place, it was exceedingly ill-timed ; and, secondly, there was nothing new in the proposition contained in the resolution. The resolution was in fact a mere corroboration of the present practice, and he did not know why it had been proposed, except to hang a speech upon. The amendment he looked upon as exceedingly inopportune. We had only just narrowly escaped a war with the United States upon a subject entirely connected with imperial affairs, and one in which the North American colonies had no peculiar interest. The colonists laid aside all party feelings, and even sectarian differences, and he submitted that after such conduct on their part it would be very inopportune on ours to raise the question of how much the reinforcements would cost. He did not think that any particular credit was due to her Majesty's Government for the steps they had taken, for no Ministry could have retained office for a month which had disiegarded the unanimous opinion of this country. (Hear.) The hon. member for Montrose had talked about the Canadian tariff, but that had been much misunderstood. In the first instance, the Canadian government had intended to impose that tariff on foreigners only, and to make a distinction in favour of the 4 mother country; but they were told from England that that could not not be done because it would be incompatible with existing treaties. They had therefore been obliged to place England on the same footing as other nations. If we gave Canada a government of its own, we ought surely to allow that they know best how to raise their own revenue. Direct taxation in Canada as in America was impossible except in the great cities. When, therefore, the Congress passed a law to raise so many millions of dollars by direct taxation, the enactment would be practically inoperative except in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other large towns. The fact was that there was no money in the country. The farmers of the United States, like those of Canada, lived in abundance, but they had no money. They had plenty of corn and meal and butter —they spun cloth for their own wearing, and they exchanged the produce of their land for the groceries which they could not raise themselves. When therefore the collector went to the Western farmer and asked him for his taxes, his answer would be, " I have no money. I have a good horse, a cow, some fowls, and some pigs; but if you touch any of those things I will shoot you." (Laughter.) In America, therefore, and in Canada, they could only raise taxes by placing an impost on the imported goods; and it would be very hard treatment of Canada to refuse them on one hand military aid, and on the other to prevent them from raising a revenue to pay for their own defence. Under ; ordinary circumstances no soldiei-s were maintained in Canada at all, and it would be a very wrong thing to charge the colony with the expense of the soldiers that were kept there for purely- imperial objects. There was one respect in which the Canadians would be very willing to see a saving effected, and that was in governors. These governors were generally very useless people at home, and they did not improve when they got to Canada. (A laugh;) There had latterly been appointments mad 6 that had astonished—he would not say every man, but every man, woman, and child in the country; and he would suggest that a few handsome stamps with the letters V.R. should be sent out, and placed in the custody of proper officers to affix to public documents. They would do just as well as the governors, and the £20,000 they would save in salaries might be put to the account for military defences. (Laughter.) What rendered the resolution so useless was that it raised no issue. Besides, it proposed to place all the colonies under the same rule, whereas the circumstances of each were different from those of every other. (Agreed.) If they were agreed, it showed that he had made some impression upon the house, and he would not detain them any longer. (Laughter and cheers.) Mr. Childers, as a colonist, briefly expressed the satisfaction he felt at the resolution, and thanked the hon. gentleman for having brought before the house a proposition so moderate, and one so likely to conduce to the advantages both of the colonies and of the empire. The motion, as amended, was agreed to.