Commons Sitting of 4 March 1862

POOR RELIEF IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, On what day the Lord Advocate of Scotland will introduce the Bill, as promised last Session, to extend to Scotland the provisions of the: "Act to amend the Law relating to the Removal of Poor Persons to Ireland, 1861"?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSreplied, that the Lord Advocate was in communication with the Poor Law authorities on the subject, and such a Bill would be brought in.

  THE CURRAGH CAMP.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRUENsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any objection to provide a place of recreation for the Officers and Soldiers at the Curragh Camp, by inclosing a suitable piece of ground for a Cricket Ground, in such a manner as to prevent Artillery and Cavalry from crossing it?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that there was no objection on the part of the War Office; but the assent of the Commanding Officer must be obtained.

  PUBLIC STATUES.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he desired to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any application has been made for permission to erect a Statue of the late Mr. Joseph Locke, in the Gardens near St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, in which the Statue of George Canning is placed; and, if so, whether he has granted or refused his consent thereto?
  MR. COWPERreplied, that some of the friends of the late Mr. Joseph Locke desired to erect a Statue to his memory, and had offered to place one in the vacant space near the end of Great George Street, provided that such a site could be appropriated for the purpose; but it had become his duty to state to those gentlemen that he was unable to offer them the site to which they alluded.

  ITALY—MURDER OF DR. M'CARTHY AT PISA.—QUESTION.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid,
  1024
  he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the murderer of Dr. M'Carthy at Pisa has been arrested and committed to take his trial; and, if not, whether the authorities in Tuscany or the British Consul at Leghorn have done their utmost to bring the offender to justice; and whether he will lay upon the table Copies of all Communications which have been addressed by British Diplomatic Agents and British Residents in Italy to the Government of Turin on the subject of Dr. M'Carthy, and the Replies thereto?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that the circumstances under which the unfortunate Dr. M'Carthy had been murdered were well known. Immediately after the attack on him, the murderer and his accomplices were arrested. He would avail himself of the present opportunity to contradict a report which he had seen in the public press, to the effect that there had been an omission in not taking the murderer into the presence of Dr. M'Carthy that he might be identified. It had been proposed to adopt that course, but the public authorities at Pisa considered that there had been a sufficient identification, and they did not wish to put Dr. M'Carthy to the pain which such a proceeding might cause him. Immediately after the murder was made known to Baron Ricasoli he expressed himself in such a manner as those who knew him might have expected. The English residents at Florence and Pisa met soon after the occurrence. Their proceedings were characterized by an excitement which, under the circumstances, was, perhaps, but natural. However, the Italian authorities had done everything that was to have been expected. The prisoners had been sent to Lucca, where they would be tried and, no doubt, punished as they deserved. The memorials referred to by the hon. Gentleman had already been published; and he did not think it necessary to lay them on the table. No representations to the Italian Government were necessary, as they had shown their readiness to act with efficiency in this melancholy affair.

  THE OUTRAGE ON ITALIAN OFFICIALS AT MALTA.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received that, previous to the late

  1025
  alleged outrages and insult being offered to the dwellings and persons of the Italian Consul and of Signor Fabrizzi, Deputy to the Italian Parliament, on the 9th and 10th of February, at Malta, the editor of the Portafoglio Maltese, Mr. Debono, had not been assaulted and severely beaten with a bludgeon in his own house by Captain Dini, of the Sardinian man-of-war Mozambano, assisted by his Lieutenant and some of his sailors; and whether Captain Dini and his Lieutenant had not been sentenced to imprisonment, the Captain to three months and his Lieutenant to two months, and whether the Government have made any representation to the Sardinian Government in consequence of these proceedings?
  MR. LAYARDregretted to say that the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman had been proved. Captain Dini and his Lieutenant, feeling them selves aggrieved by some articles that had appeared in the Portafoglio Maltese, called on the editor, entered his room in presence of his family, and beat him with a stick very severely. The Captain and the Lieutenant were tried by the authorities and sentenced—the former to three and the latter to two months' imprisonment, which was afterwards commuted to a pecuniary fine. Her Majesty's Government had called the attention of Baron Ricasoli to the act as one unworthy of Officers in the Italian Navy.

  THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill this Session relating to the recommendations of the Committee on Public Monies of 1856?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the recommendations of the Committee on Public Monies, appointed in 1856, were very varied and very numerous, but he did not think there was any one of them which the Treasury could be disposed on principle to dissent from But as his hon. Friend had asked him the question, he might state to the House the position in which those recommendations stood—which of them had been applied in practice, and which of them had not been carried fully into effect. He would also embrace in his answer the recommendations of the Committee on Public Accounts, which last Committee was itself the off spring, through the intervention of the
  1026
  House and the Government, of the original recommendations of the Public Monies Committee. He might say that all had been done which depended on the sole action of the Treasury. There had been various measures to be taken with regard to the audit of accounts which depended on the Treasury. These had been taken, including an arrangement by which, for the future, the whole subject of civil contingencies would be managed. Those subjects had been disposed of by an Act of the last Session. The new arrangement of the Treasury chest, the recommendations of the Public Monies Committee with respect to Exchequer Bills, and the annual communication of all grants on behalf of the Revenue Department, were subjects that had been dealt with by Act of Parliament. There were four other subjects. One was with respect to the income arising from Crown lands—a recommendation that it should be paid in gross into the Exchequer, and that the expenditure for the Crown lands should he sanctioned by that House. That recommendation would require an Act of Parliament, and it rather pertained to the period at the commencement of a new reign, when arrangements were made with the Sovereign for the whole reign. The next subject was that respecting the mode of Exchequer issues. The Committee had made a recommendation on that subject which had been carried into effect. No Bill had as yet been presented to obtain the sanction of the Legislature to the new arrangement; but the Government intended to take an early opportunity of submitting such a measure. The next recommendation was with reference to the issue of Deficiency Bills and a new mode of arrangement in respect to advances that might be required from the Bank of England. That was a subject which the Government had under consideration with the view of proposing a Bill to Parliament. The only other recommendation related to the mode of presenting the Miscellaneous Estimates from year to year. The Government were desirous of giving effect to it, and hoped to be able to submit the Miscellaneous Estimates for the present year in the new form.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that some doubt had arisen, though not in his mind, as to whether it was the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendation that the Committee on Public Accounts should be appointed annually.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not express myself in my former answer with sufficient clearness; but when I stated that the Committee on Public Accounts was the offspring of the Committee on Public Monies, I meant to imply all that my right hon. Friend has alluded to. I think the annual Select Committee on Public Accounts is an essential part of the duty of this House in voting the public money.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the last Report of the Committee on Public Accounts, in which it was stated that the system of auditing the Public Accounts was very unsatisfactory, and that while that system continued such, a Committee would be a delusion and a blind.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that whatever recommendations as to the audit of accounts depended on the action of the Government had been adopted. With respect to prospective improvements, he thought that the appointment of the Committee on Public Accounts from year to year would be the best method of insuring their adoption.

  ASH WEDNESDAY—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, according to our usual custom this House would not meet to-morrow, being Ash Wednesday, until two o'clock. I understand that the Orders of the Day which were on the paper for to-morrow have all been postponed until another day, and therefore, as there is no public business that requires this House to meet to-morrow, it would probably be more convenient to the House, when it adjourns to-day, that it should adjourn until Thursday. Committees on private business, however, will meet, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House. I will therefore move that this House at its rising do adjourn until Thursday.

  ADDRESS OF CONDOLENCE FROM MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he trusted the House would allow him to avail himself of that opportunity to put the question which stood in his name on the paper, and which was, to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he took any and what means to
  1028
  ascertain whether the Address of Condolence lately presented to Her Majesty, purporting to emanate from the President, Superiors, and Students of Maynooth College, did in fact emanate from those persons? The address to which he alluded appeared by the public journals to have been presented to Her Majesty. He confessed that it did occasion in his mind great surprise that such a document should either have emanated from the college, or that it should have been presented to Her Majesty if it did not emanate from it. Since that time he had received various communications respecting that address; and much surprise had been expressed that an address of condolence should have been presented to Her Majesty, making it appear that the College of Maynooth was in fact a loyal institution, which would be entirely at variance with the statements that he had felt it his duty on former occasions to make to the House, and which had also been made to the House on authority so much greater than his. [Cries of Name, name!] The hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Now, if the House would allow him, he would give better authority for his statements than his own or that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He had put the notice on the paper in consequence of the rumours which had reached him, and which he had endeavoured to verify before he put the question. Those rumours had been embodied, and to some extent confirmed, by a declaration contained lately in a newspaper called the Nation. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not quote that paper on account of its authority, but for the convenience of quotation. The declaration purported to be written on behalf of the students of Maynooth. The writer stated, speaking of the address, that the framers of the address had no authority whatever from the students to speak their sentiments, and they had gone in direct opposition to the wishes as well as to the sense of the community. The students therefore thought it proper to dissociate themselves from the framers of the address; and though it was not their province to condemn, they might be permitted to withhold their approbation of an act which, as far as it included them, they utterly disavowed. The address, the writer went on to say, was read before the entire body of students had re-assembled, and also at a time and in a place of solemn character which secured it from a reception which otherwise it

  1029
  would assuredly have met with. As it was, it was received with the strongest marks of disapprobation that piety or decorum would permit. The letter concluded with the expression that with these convictions the students could not so far give the lie to their conscience, or be capable of such meanness as to declare they felt sympathy when in fact they felt none. [Cries of Name!] "Maynooth Student." [Renewed cries of Name!] He had no name to give, If the right hon. Gentleman doubted that the letter did truly represent the state of feeling at Maynooth, which was one of utter disloyalty—in fact, the very hotbed of disloyalty—he could assure him that he would not have read it unless he had taken means to satisfy himself that it did truly represent the sentiments of the students at Maynooth. In proof of that he would read an extract from the evidence given before the commission appointed at the instance of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to inquire into the teachings, &c, of the college. That evidence showed that at the College of Maynooth the very keystone of the whole system was direct and positive disloyalty to the Sovereign of these realms. That was embodied in the evidence of four or five witnesses. One witness (Mr. W. J. Burke) said, that both open and disguised disloyalty were inculcated at Maynooth. He (Mr. Burke) used, when there, to be thirsting, and desiring and praying for the destruction of the British Empire, solely because it was Protestant. He added that those were not only his own feelings, but the feelings of all the students. This teaching even pervaded the amusements at Maynooth. He (Mr. Whalley) would read to the House a song which was sung, "Columbia's Banner," [laughter.] He thought it necessary to read this in justification of the question which he wished to ask. [Cries of Sing, sing! and laughter.] Any hon. Gentleman who desired to sing the song could have the book.
  "Columbia's banner floats on high,
  Her eagle seizes on its prey;
  Then Erin wipes her tearful eye,
  And cheers her hopes on Patrick's Day."
  There were only two more lines.
  "The toast we give is Albion's fall,
  And Erin's pride on Patrick's Day."
  Such were the amusements of Maynooth. The evidence of the disloyalty of the institution was before the right hon. Gentle
  1030
  man, and he wished to ask him whether he took any care to ascertain that the address of condolence did really emanate from Maynooth, or whether it was not an actual forgery, a mere pretence, an insult to Her Majesty, and calculated to deceive the public?
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to say, that as the hon. Gentleman had stated that he had put his question partly on his authority, he would excuse him for saying that although he was prepared to abide by all that he had ever stated on the subject of Maynooth, and although he would not dispute the grounds on which the hon. Gentleman had put his question, yet he knew nothing of the matter that the hon. Gentleman had brought before the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had not alluded to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but to the other hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner).
  SIR ROBERT PEELwas sure it was unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) to disclaim having anything to do with the question before the House. He was not aware that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to inaugurate a new debate on Maynooth, but he was prepared to answer his question. He would only say that the Address of Condolence was forwarded from Maynooth to the Home Secretary, and dealt with in the usual manner. The rumours which had reached the hon. Gentleman had not come to his ears, and he had no reason to doubt the loyalty of the students of Maynooth. In proof of the authenticity of the Address of Condolence, he held in his hand a letter from Dr. Russell, written from St. Patrick's College, and addressed to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—
  "I have the honour to transmit to you by this post the dutiful Address of the Scholars of the College to Her Gracious Majesty the Queen—an Address of Condolence on the death of the Prince Consort, and to request that you will present it to Her Majesty on their behalf."
  That letter was, he thought, a complete answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman,
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE:—Sir, I will say nothing about the good taste which has induced the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to drag before the House any Address of Condolence offered to Her Most Gracious Majesty. Sir, that is a matter which the hon. Gentleman will settle between himself and his followers,

  1031
  who are about to attend at that tower which he has built in a corner of his leased premises in the county of Denbigh. But I roust warn the House that the hon. Gentleman in quoting this evidence has been playing one of those old tricks which I heard him play the other day in Ireland at the Rotunda meeting, and which he afterwards followed up in Scotland. He goes about with that blue-book, and he is continually quoting that song. We had that song read at full length at the Rotunda in Dublin. I was fortunate enough to obtain a ticket to attend an assembly at which Mr. Whalley was advertised in red letters in the bill to appear. He appeared there, and taxed not only the Roman Catholic priests but also the Roman Catholics of Ireland with disloyalty; and I should say there could be no greater proof of their good humour than the fact that the hon. Gentleman walked out of the building in the Catholic city of Dublin with a whole skin. The hon. Gentleman thought proper to read that song, and there was of course tremendous cheering and some laughter—such laughter as that which I am glad to see predominated in this House; because I think the British House of Commons is far too sensible to let a subject which has descended from the hands of that otherwise highly respected Member for North Warwickshire be now dragged through the kennels of Peterborough. I do hope, Sir, that as there is a great lack of business this Session, if we are to have this Maynooth debate revived, the noble Lord will give the hon. Member to-morrow after two o'clock, to discuss this question. But what I do deprecate is, that insulting questions should be put with respect to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and, above all, that they should be dragged before the House by means of the stale arguments and forgotten songs which the hon. Gentleman is in the habit of using when he stars it in the provinces.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEROSSEsaid, that as one of the trustees of the College of Maynooth, he protested against the language just used by the hon. Member (Mr. Whalley), and he had to state that the statements contained in that anonymous letter which the hon. Gentleman had just read were quite untrue. He had the best reason for making the assertion that the statements in that letter were not founded on fact.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he rose merely
  1032
  to explain. The statement of the hon. Member for Liskeard was not in accordance with the fact.
  MR. SPEAKER: —The explanation must be confined to anything which the hon. Member has said himself. He must not reply to the hon. Gentleman.
  Motion agreed to; House at rising to adjourn till Thursday.

COLONIAL GOVERNMENT.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, that he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee of last Session upon Colonial Military Expenditure. It would be recollected that that Committee was instructed to inquire and report whether any and what alterations might be advantageously adopted in regard to the defence of the British Dependencies, and the proportions of cost of such defence as now defrayed from Imperial and Colonial funds respectively. That Committee had been very impartially selected, and comprised many hon. Members who had devoted much attention to the subject. The question being at once of a financial, colonial, and military nature, the heads of the Colonial Department, the Secretary for War, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Inspector General of Fortifications, and other experienced witnesses (among them Lord Grey and several gentlemen who had held office under Home and Colonial Governments), had been examined, and all the attainable evidence which appeared to have any bearing upon the question had been taken by the Committee. The result was, that a Report was presented to the House which, in all its main recommendations, he might say, had been unanimously adopted. There were, of course, some special recommendations which were not agreed to altogether unanimously. That report was now on the table of the House. Before alluding to the Motion which stood in his name, and which was founded on the recommendations of that Committee, he might be allowed to disclaim the imputations which had been too freely cast upon those hon. Members who had thought it their duty to take any active part in reducing our colonial military expenditure. It had been said that those who, whether in or out of Parliament, ventilated this question, in which the Dependencies and the

  1033
  parent State were alike interested, were, in fact, aiming at the dismemberment of our Colonial Empire. For his own part and that of the Committee, he entirely disavowed any such intention. Throughout the inquiry it was not only assumed that Great Britain desired to maintain her Colonial Empire, but that she aimed at developing the resources of her colonies and qualifying them for present self-government and eventual independence. It was also assumed by the Committee that Great Britain recognised the claim of all portions of the British Empire to Imperial protection from perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy, and that the naval assistance of England was essential—indeed, was the only substantial protection which the Colonial Empire could expect to receive from the Imperial Government. But the Committee never entered into any question which would at all affect the dismemberment of our Colonial Empire, or invite a policy which would tend to the premature severance of a single province which now volunteered allegiance to the British Crown. Though the terms of the reference were very wide, embracing in the comprehensive term "Dependencies" all the outlying portions of the Empire, India, the Mediterranean garrisons, the West African Settlements for the suppression of the slave-trade, and all the military and naval stations where so ever situate, the Committee thought it best not to extend their investigation to those stations which were maintained for Imperial purposes, and which must necessarily be maintained, if at all, at Imperial cost, but to limit their inquiry to those which came strictly under the designation of "Colonies." The area of inquiry, therefore, comprised the North American colonies, the Australian colonies (with the exception of Western Australia,) the West Indies, the Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand, the Mauritius, and Ceylon. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had given notice of an amendment by way of addition to the Motion now before the House with reference to fortifications. He would merely remark, therefore, that the main evidence given before the Committee on that subject related to the Mauritius, and tended to show that while enormous expenditure had been incurred, it was extremely doubtful whether the works that had been carried out would ever prove of the least utility to the Imperial Govern-
  1034
  ment. Upon the question of fortifications, a resolution was passed which conveyed the opinion of the Committee; and if any hon. Member would take the trouble to read the evidence of Lord Herbert, Lord Grey, Admiral Erskine, and others, they would, he believed, agree with him in thinking that the paragraph taken from the report of the Committee was well founded. Rut to return to the Motion of which he had given notice:—Hon. Members might consider that his Resolution was a mere abstract proposition, and that the adoption of it by the House would be either superfluous or mischievous; but he begged to say that the opinions embodied in the Resolution were by no means original, but opinions which had been publicly expressed by Lord Grey in his official correspondence with Lord Elgin, and other statesmen of high eminence in this country, and were to be found in the despatches of Sir William Denison, one of the ablest of our colonial governors. They had been supported by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), who stated, when the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure was appointed, that this country ought to assist the colonies against external aggression and, in a lesser degree, against the attacks of formidable tribes; but that in no case, except where the colonies were mere garrisons, should the mother country assume the whole responsibility of their defence. That principle had been also fully supported by the evidence of that noble and patriotic statesman Lord Herbert, who stated that instead of keeping the troops scattered about the British dependencies he would concentrate them more at home; and that the maintenance of large garrisons in the colonies furnished them with an excellent excuse for not raising any militia of their own. He would also refer to the evidence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave it as his opinion that the fact of the parent State undertaking the defence of the colonies had an enervating and mischievous effect upon the latter; and likewise to that of Lord Grey, who maintained that the introduction of the system of self-government into the colonies made a material difference in respect to the policy to be pursued, and that, power and responsibility ought to go together. There were differences in the different groups of colonies both as regarded their internal resources of defence, and their exposure to

  1035
  external perils; but the principle set forth in his Resolution was the right principle on which the Government should act in dealing with the Colonial Empire. All the witnesses examined by the committee had agreed that where responsible government was given to a colony the primary responsibility of its military defence should also be cast upon it. That was the principle he had embodied in his Resolution. He admitted that to enunciate a sound principle and to carry it into practical operation were two different things; but he did not admit, as some were prepared to contend, that they must submit in despair to the condition of things now existing; and that, as in giving the colonies responsible government no contract was made that the colonies should undertake their self-defence, therefore the whole coat of the defence of the colonies must for ever be borne by the mother country. Was it for a moment to be contended that because no clause had been inserted in the Act or Order in Council which conferred representative government on a Colony, expressly stipulating for its self-defence, that burden was eternally to rest on the parent State, whatever power or wealth the Colony so circumstanced might attain? He protested against that argument as altogether unsound, and maintained that the acceptance by the colonies of the advantage of self-government implied at the same time a compact on their part to undertake their own defence against all perils, except those to which they might be exposed by the results of Imperial policy, and, at all events, to provide for their own internal order and security. But it was said that, after all, the Colonies of Great Britain, though they might be expensive to the parent State, could only be regarded as prodigal sons, and must be treated accordingly. He dented that the parental analogy held good at all; but if it did, the only successful mode he knew of treating a prodigal son was to throw him upon his own resources. It was said, again, by some, that in certain colonies, such for instance as New Zealand and the Cape, the colonists must not be left to deal single-handed with the natives, as in that ease scenes would result which would arouse the indignation of the people of England; but he thought that after trusting the colonies with the entire management of their own affairs, it was an insult to them to insinuate that in collisions with the natives they would resort to barbarous
  1036
  and disgraceful practices. With respect to the argument as to the inhumanity of throwing our colonies on their own resources in the matter of their defence, he could only say it was criminal to give them the right of self-government if they were totally incapable of protecting themselves; and he believed that so long an we went on giving them unlimited power to draw on the Imperial army in the case of every quarrel of their own, there could be no certainty that we should not have a perpetual succession of Kaffir wars, which had already cost this country five millions sterling, and similar difficulties in other portions of our Empire. There was, moreover, an additional and cogent reason for compelling the colonists to take upon themselves the main responsibility of keeping themselves out of those quarrels. The commissariat expenditure in these wars was enormous, and the colonists had a direct interest in the increase of these expenses. Sir Harry Smith said, speaking of an unsuccessful attempt on the Cape frontier to capture Sandilli, "This bit of a brush with Sandilli 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 out of the commissariat expenditure; but he did blame the Imperial Government for perpetuating the present system of keeping the colonies in a state of everlasting minority and childish dependence. The fact was, that our present system was not only far more extravagant but little less cruel than the old Commando system. Not many years ago the 12tb Lancers were almost massacred in an impenetrable thorn-bush on the Cape frontier, on a service on which it was inhuman to employ them; and, according to the evidence of Mr. Owen, whose experience in the command of frontier levies in that colony gave weight to his opinion, it seemed that there was little to choose between the old system and the modern one on the ground of philanthropy. In New Zealand the result of the present system was, that Sir George Grey was placed in a most anomalous position—that of having to serve two masters—the Imperial Government and the Legislative Assembly. He knew it might be alleged that the troubles in which the Colonists became involved, were in a great measure the result of Imperial policy, but there could be no

  1037
  doubt that the hostilities had for the most part a purely local origin; and he did not see why the Government and the people of this country should have for ever to undertake the defence of the colonies in wars in which they might engage from motives which we could not gauge and under a policy which we could not control. It appeared to him it was a case in which we must either go forward, and leave the colonies more to their own resources, or draw back, and deprive them of the privileges of self-government. But that latter course was now practically impossible. He confessed that he was not of those who were disposed to indulge in sarcastic observations on the mode in which our Colonists had made use of their free institutions, for he could make a large allowance for the many and great difficulties with which they had to contend in attempting to carry out a system of government for which they had undergone no previous preparation; and he entertained sanguine hopes that under a sounder policy they would prove themselves to be as well qualified to bear the burdens as to exercise the privileges of freedom. But perhaps he might be told that a correct theory was one thing and that its practical application was another; and he might he asked what course he would recommend the Imperial Government to pursue in the matter. The system he would suggest would be to leave off the undignified haggling with local Governments, hitherto of such frequent occurrence, and which had invariably ended in bitter recriminations, and often in Imperial humiliation, and pursue the course adopted by Lord Grey in the case of our Australian colonies some ten or twelve years ago—namely, that of simply announcing to them that certain aid would be allowed them by the Imperial Government in the shape of troops from England; and that if more than that was required, it must be at their own expense. If that principle were adhered to, the colonists would not be so ready to involve them selves in war, and would be rather more circumspect in their dealings with the native population, and the Imperial Government would be spared the everlasting drain which was made upon its treasury for the defence of the colonies. He might be told that the present was a very inopportune moment for saying anything that could possibly give offence to our colonists. So far as our North American
  1038
  colonies were concerned, he admired, in common with others, the spirit which they had recently displayed; nor should he have complained if even a larger number of troops had been sent out there during the winter for the reinforcement of the garrisons; but he begged to remind the House that in those colonies there were from 80,000 to 90,000 Volunteers either already trained or in course of training, and he regretted very much that these defensive operations had not been sooner commenced. He hoped Canada would never forget that the training of her militia was a matter of the greatest importance, and one which deeply affected her own security. All our colonies, indeed, should be made to feel that they were primarily responsible for their own defence against all dangers in which their own and not our Imperial policy had involved them. He might mention that about three years ago a member of the Legislature of New South Wales moved a resolution, which was carried by a majority of 39 to 11, in almost precisely the same terms as that which he had now the honour to submit to the House. If in a colonial Legislature such a proposition was moved and carried, it could not be regarded as discourteous to the colonies that the Imperial Parliament should adopt a similar Resolution. He hoped the House would believe that he had not intended to utter a single word which could be considered as discourteous or unfriendly towards the citizens of any portion of our Colonial Empire. So far from wishing to alienate the colonies or to prejudice their interests, his object was to draw closer the bonds of alliance which united them with the mother country, and to qualify them for all the rights, privileges, and duties of self-government. He concluded by moving, "That this House, while it fully recognises the claim of all portions of the British Empire on Imperial aid against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy, is of opinion that Colonies exercising the rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security."
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He was glad that the hon. Member for Taunton had repudiated so distinctly, on the part of the Select Committee of last Session, any feeling in favour of the dismemberment of our Colonial Empire. In endeavouring to weigh

  1039
  both sides of the important question before the House, the point in which he felt the greatest interest was its bearing on the treatment of the aborogines in the colonies. It had always been felt to be a difficulty in the way of leaving colonists to manage their own military affairs, that they might, perhaps, act with violence and cruelty towards the native tribes. It was highly honourable both to the Government and people of this country that the apprehension of injury resulting to the aborigines of their colonies from a discontinuance of the present system had been hitherto regarded as a powerful argument in favour of its continuance, notwithstanding the enormous expense thereby entailed. But, although that policy was noble, it became necessary to inquire whether it was also sound. Now, as a plain matter of fact, the merit of success could not be attributed to it. At that moment the nation was engaged in a bloody war with the aborigines of New Zealand. At the Cape this country had again and again been forced into campaigns against the Kaffirs, while the Indians in Canada were reduced to a miserable remnant. The general failure of our policy might well lead us to ask whether it had not been attended by results directly opposite to those which had been intended. Nor was it hard to understand that the real consequence of our having undertaken to protect the colonists from the attacks of the original inhabitants, had been this—that the colonists had been by no means desirous of averting war, knowing as they did that the cost would not fall upon them. So far, indeed, from war being considered an evil, it had been hailed as a positive advantage, causing, as it did, a vast outlay of money in the colony; and the colonists consequently had been much more ready to trespass on the rights of the natives than cautious of avoiding offence. It was not probable, that if the colonists in New Zealand had been left wholly to their own resources in dealing with the aborigines, they would have dreamt of endeavouring to exterminate them from their native fastnesses; but they would have done their best to conciliate them, and to make such political arrangements with them by treaty as would have tended to preserve peace. That was not a matter of mere theory. The House knew practically that when the North American colonies were young, and the colonists left to deal as they would with the natives, although in those days
  1040
  the idea of acting with humanity to them had scarcely entered the mind of any one, yet treaties had been at once made, and mere considerations of prudence compelled them to respect their rights. Who could doubt that it would have been the same at the Cape of Good Hope? Unless the colonists there had known that upon this nation would fall the burden, and to them would accrue the profits of war, they would in some way or other have contrived to avoid difficulties with the Kaffirs. He thought that experience and the obvious reason of the case made it sufficiently evident that it would be to the interest of the natives, if the colonists, and not the mother country, had to find the sinews of war. But he also hoped that common humanity, no less than prudential motives, would restrain colonists from ill-treating the aborigines. Were the responsibility of preserving or exterminating the native races thrown upon them, he believed they might trust to the increasing thoughtfulness and love of justice of their countrymen to restrain them from any gross violation of its principles. Events in New Zealand had shown what a very strong feeling of sympathy there was with the natives among an important section of the colonists. The missionaries were sure to take that side, and public opinion at home would be so strongly expressed against any acts of cruelty, that for their own credit's sake the colonial authorities would scarcely venture to be guilty of them. The next consideration to which in a great degree the maintenance of the present system was to be ascribed was now becoming obsolete. The Duke of Wellington, he believed, always resisted any proposal to reduce the armed force in our colonies, because in his time, the feeling at home being strong against the maintenance of a large standing army, he thought it prudent to keep as large a force as possible away from the country. Whether for good or for evil, that feeling no longer existed. The Government now could come down, as had been the case only on the previous day, and in a time of profound peace ask for £ 27,000,000 for the defences of the country. That objection, therefore, fell to the ground, and he might pass on to what had been called the sentimental argument—namely, that it was emblematical of the tie between England and her colonies to see not only the British flag flying, but the red coats of our soldiers guarding it from dishonour. But it surely would bind England more

  1041
  closely to her colonies if she were to place absolute trust in the loyalty of her colonists, and were to intrust the honour of the flag of the empire altogether to their keeping. There remained a fourth consideration, which demanded the most candid examination—namely, that since the colonies might at any time he involved in war by reason of the foreign policy pursued by the mother country, it was only fair that they should be protected from the consequences of that policy. It seemed to him an essential point to bear in mind, that it was not owing to any decision of the representatives of the people that this country engaged in war. No doubt public opinion might be consulted with regard to it, but war was decided upon by the Queen—in other words, by the Executive Government, not by the representative Legislature of the country; and therefore it was not only those portions of the empire which were represented in that House that were responsible for the war, but the whole of the empire over which the Queen's Government extends. And since it might be hoped that in future this country would engage in war, not for the sake of ambition or conquest, but simply to guard her rights from trespass and her honour from stain, every part of the empire would be deeply interested in its prosecution. While, then, the outlying portions of the empire were not asked to share the cost of such war, it might at any rate he demanded that the strength of the mother country should not be impaired by the colonies constantly requiring the presence of her troops. Let it not be forgotten that the real and true defence of colonies lay in the naval supremacy of the mother country; and that so long as that was maintained, so long we were actually shielding our colonies from attack, and affording them an infinitely better protection than could be afforded by any troops on land. There was an exception to that rule in the case of Canada, so far as regarded the contingency of an invasion from the United States. But, on the other hand, although Canada and although our other colonies might be involved in war by our imperial policy, still they were saved from all wars except those to which our imperial policy might lead. But for their connection with this country, any quarrel between them and a powerful neighbour might lead to an invasion, and possibly to their subjugation; and Canada would have been
  1042
  singularly liable to such a danger from her ambitious and somewhat grasping neighbours, and possibly even from Russia or France. There was no reason why the whole advantage should be on the side of the colonies. Their connection with us brought some risks. It relieved them from still greater risks. They might well take their share of the former when they remembered, that so long as they were English colonies, there was no shadow of danger of their being permanently deprived of their liberty and in dependence. But let them weigh the two; and if they thought that the risks incurred by their connection with us exceeded the importance of those from which it saved them, and the prestige gained by them as portion of the British empire, why what statesman was there who would refuse them permission to withdraw from what they regarded as a disadvantageous bond? He supposed there was no statesman who would not allow that the prudent as well as the right way to deal with the colonies was to let them feel that they were free to cancel the bond if they chose, and that the evils resulting to us from that severance would be infinitely less than the disadvantages which would accrue to them. It was further to be considered, that although we occasionally involved them in war, they were quite as likely to involve us in war. We were quite as likely to be set at issue with the United States owing to some Canadian misunderstanding, as the Canadians were to be attacked by the United States owing to some quarrel with England. Lastly, he would ask whether in reality we rendered our colonies more secure from attack by undertaking their defence on land? After all, a very few troops, comparatively speaking, could be spared from home; and he thought the experience of our great wars with France had shown plainly enough that a small force being stationed in a colony, so far from being any defence to that colony, acted as a direct temptation to the enemy to attack it for the sake of making the garrison prisoners. And more than that, if the garrison attempted to defend itself, violent measures would be instantly resorted to by the enemy, who otherwise, if he thought it worth while to come at all, would take peaceable possession, from which, however, he would probably be dislodged if our naval supremacy had not been impaired. And more than that, although the military force sent out might

  1043
  be very small, still it was always sufficient to give the most direct and effectual discouragement to the endeavours of the colonists to defend themselves. It stood to reason that, so long as the colonies could look to the mother country for defence, they would not be so short-sighted as to establish defences of their own, which not only would cost them large sums, but would prevent the British Government from expending a large amount of money in the country. The result was, that while a very costly force was being maintained by us, still in the event of war the colonists themselves would have no military organization, and would do little or nothing in conjunction with our forces. Whereas, if we had left them alone, they would, in all probability, have prepared themselves for such emergencies, and nearly every man in the colony would have had some training as a soldier. Those were the four main objections to the change proposed by his hon. Friend, and when looked into they did not seem valid. On the other hand, the motives for making the change were strong, but he would touch on them briefly. In the first place, the system was an innovation. In former times the colonists resented every proposition to keep troops among them as a slur on their independence. Again, the mortality among the soldiers in some of the colonies was awful. Then the cost to us, not including that of the military colonies, was £1,700,000 a year. Above all, the system tended to lower the self-respect of the colonists. It damped their energies, it chilled their loyalty. So far from being a bond of union with us, it gave them the notion that they were held in subjection; that they were our property, not our brethren. It naturally led them to regard their connection with England, as insisted upon by her for her own purposes, not, as it really was, a boon to themselves. Nor did it fail to engender that greed and grumbling which was so apt to arise where favours were so lavishly bestowed. Let it be imagined for a moment what the effect would be if Englishmen were thus looked after, and saved from the necessity of self-defence by some distant country. Surely we should feel degraded, and, instead of gratitude, should be filled with jealousy and discontent. In a word, the system ran directly counter to the true principle of colonization. England ought not to dream of sway over those who have gone forth from her. Her aim should be to surround
  1044
  herself with a noble band of sister States, bound to her only by the tie of loyal love, standing shoulder to shoulder with her against all attack, but not released by her from the invigorating necessity for self-reliance. And who could doubt that our Queen's empire, from the rising to the setting sun, would be all the more firmly rooted when her colonies were neither dandled nor overawed, but were treated by her with perfect trust as her children—with perfect reverence as her equals.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "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 rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security."
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that after the clear and able speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, he would not say a single word on that branch of the question which had been so well brought under the notice of the House. He entirely concurred in the Resolution proposed, and quite agreed that the colonies should have the entire responsibility of their internal defence; but he thought the Resolution of his hon. Friend scarcely went far enough; nor did it grapple with what appeared to him the main grievance brought prominently into view by the report of the Committee. No more important subject could possibly be brought before the public, and, whatever interest might attach to his hon. Friend's Motion now, the subject would by-and-by force itself on the notice of the people. In moving the addition of the Resolution which stood in his name, he wished to refer to the main principle really involved in the discussion, and brought out in the report of the Select Committee. They had reached the turning point in the colonial history of Great Britain, at which they must cautiously and gradually, but steadily, reverse that policy on which they had been acting for a number of years past—the policy which had thrown the primary responsibility of defending the colonies not on themselves but on us. That was a policy in which the people of this country had been induced to acquiesce rather than to approve; and in proportion as our possessions increased in number, in population, and resources,

  1045
  it would be found utterly impossible to continue to supply the colonists with the means of defence. Not only were we supplying them with ships and munitions of war, but with troops and fortifications. So long as we governed the colonies, there was an obligation on tins country to provide for their defence; but that was now changed: the colonies governed themselves; they framed their own laws; to all intents and purposes they were independent communities—so free and independent that some of them, Canada for instance, had a high protective duty upon the manufactures of this country. If hostilities should break out, the present system of colonial policy would be found most embarrassing by the Government. At present some of the largest and wealthiest colonies of Great Britain trusted to her entirely for defence—raising no soldiers and contributing nothing towards the Imperial military expenditure. Our ancient colonial policy was altogether the reverse of this, and to that we must return if it were desired to prevent an outbreak of feeling in this country at the heavy amount of taxation in the event of war, which would endanger the connection between the colonies and the mother country. This was really the great point involved in this discussion. There had been a great deal of evidence adduced before the Select Committee, and nothing could be more clear and distinct than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who used these words—
  "I think that to arrive at a system under which the primary responsibility of self defence by land should be thrown upon the colonists themselves—speaking, of course, of those colonies which are, so to say, normally constituted—would be not only an immense advantage to the British Exchequer, but would have, I think, many still more important and higher recommendations, independently of the question of cost."
  He was asked—
  "You think that any such arrangement, by which the primary responsibility should be thrown upon the colonies, would be advantageous to communities circumstanced as the British colonies are?"
  His answer was—
  "I would almost venture to say, without speaking of cases in which the circumstances are altogether peculiar, that no community which is not primarily charged with the ordinary business of its own defence is really, or can be, in the full sense of the word, a free community. The privileges of freedom and the burdens of freedom are absolutely associated together; to bear the burdens is as necessary as to enjoy the privilege, in
  1046
  order to form that character which is the great ornament of all freedom itself."
  He was asked by the Chairman—
  "I understand your view to be that the fact of the defence of the colonies being undertaken by the parent State has rather an enervating effect upon those colonies, and therefore a mischievous one?—That is my strong opinion. I think that the principle of conjoining burden and benefit is a sound principle, and is equally advantageous to those upon whom the burden is imposed within just limits, and to those from whose shoulders the burden is removed."
  Mr. Godley gave precisely similar evidence. He was asked—
  "Your main object is to diminish the Imperial expenditure in respect to the military defences of the colonies?"
  His answer was—
  "No; my main object is to throw upon the colonists the habit and responsibility of self-defence; it is a secondary but very important object to diminish the Imperial expenditure."
  That was precisely the view taken by the Committee. There was no division when the resolutions were passed. He held in his hand a statement of the sums contributed by the colonies towards military expenditure. In the pay of troops, and for general purposes of defence the following sums had been expended. In New South Wales, £ 33,000; Victoria, £ 72,000; South Australia, £ 7,000; Ceylon, £ 97,000; Mauritius, £ 25,000; Malta, £ 6,000; Jamaica, £ 1,000; Windward and Leeward Islands, with Guiana, £ 29,000; Ionian Islands, £ 21,000. Out of the total of £ 369,000 thus made up only £ 73,000 were repaid during the financial year into the Imperial Exchequer, He did not wish to say a word in disparagement of the late manifestations of patriotism and loyalty which redounded so highly to the credit of Canada; on the contrary, he endorsed in the fullest manner everything that had been already said on that subject, nor should he dream of contending that the colonies ought to bear all the charges of military expenditure incurred in their defence. But he found that until the year 1858 Canada had only 5,000 embodied militia, though the British Government did not receive a shilling on account of the defence of that colony. Nay, at the present moment the Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment was paid out of the Imperial Treasury, While he entirely approved of the step taken by the Government in sending out troops recently, he maintained that at all times, whether the expenditure were great or small,

  1047
  Canada ought to bear its proportion. England could hardly be expected to bear for many years to come the sole charge of the military force in that colony, now that its numbers had risen to 18,000 men. In the Lower Provinces matters were even worse, for up to 1858 there was not a single colonial soldier, militiaman, or volunteer in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia, and the entire military expenditure amounted to £198. These colonies had not only increased' in population, but in wealth and resources, and he believed there was now not only an ability but a willingness to assist the Home Government in maintaining suitable defences, if they were only pressed to do so. Of all the great colonies of England there were only two—Victoria and New South Wales—which pursued in this respect a just course towards the mother country. Those were the only two colonies which could be called self-dependent, and they were the only two which contributed towards the expenses of Imperial wars, so that the policy of throwing on the colonies the primary responsibility for their own defence, which it was continually said would lead to their separation from the mother country, had in fact attached them to it, and tended to preserve the connection between them. These reasons induced him to go a little further than the hon. Member for Taunton, and to propose an addition to his Resolution; but as it had been suggested to him that the wording of the Amendment which stood on the paper might not be altogether acceptable to the House or to the colonies, he was desirous of altering its terms, and would not press that part of it having reference to colonial fortifications. At the same time, he would have been justified in doing so by the recommendations of the Select Committee, who recorded their opinion—
  "That the multiplication of fortified places and the erection of fortifications in distant colonial possessions, such as Mauritius, on a scale requiring for their defence a far greater number of men than could be spared for them in the event of war, involve a useless expenditure and fail to provide an efficient protection for places the defence of which mainly depends on superiority at sea."
  The Committee further submitted—
  "That the tendency of modern warfare is to strike blows at the heart of a hostile Power, and that it is therefore desirable to concentrate the troops required for the defence of the United Kingdom as much as possible, and to trust mainly to naval supremacy for securing against
  1048
  foreign aggression the distant dependencies of the empire."
  But that was not the system actually pursued. That House was annually voting small sums for building paltry fortifications in various colonies, and he held in his hand a paper submitted by General Sir John Burgoyne to the Committee, containing a rough estimate of the cost of completing works already in progress, and of new works necessary to place our foreign possessions in a reasonable state of defence, in addition to the sums in the Estimates for 1861–2, exclusive of armaments and ordinary barracks, and of such occasional improvements as art and science may from time to time render necessary. The items were Gibraltar £25,000; Malta, £75,000; Corfu, £75,000; Mauritius, £250,000; Bermuda, £150,000; Halifax, £75,000; St. Helena, £25,000; Cape of Good Hope, £25,000; Trincomalee, £36,000; Hong Kong, Bahamas, Falkland Isles, Jamaica, Antigua, Kingston, and Quebec, &c, £264,000; making a total of £1,000,000 sterling. It gave him pleasure to add, that not a single witness subsequently examined concurred in the proposals of Sir John Burgoyne. The Duke of Newcastle and the late Lord Herbert totally dissented from his views; and Earl Grey expressed himself in the following terms:—
  "I totally disapprove of the whole policy of large expenditure upon fortifications in the colonies. The experience we have had of the past seems to me to lead to the conclusion that almost the whole of the money we have spent upon colonial fortifications has been so much absolutely wasted, and that with respect to some of those fortifications, erected at great expense, the wisest thing we could now do would be to blow them up again."
  He was content with calling attention to the subject, and he had no wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, he believed the Resolution of his hon. Friend, amended as be proposed, would strengthen the hands of the Government in their negotiations with the colonies. The adoption of the policy suggested would prove of permanent advantage to the mother country, and would be the means not of weakening and dividing, but of strengthening and preserving that Empire on which the sun never sets.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "and ought to assist in their own external defence."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that Her Majesty's Government en-

  1049
  tirely concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), that the resolutions just proposed to the House, so far from embarrassing the Government in dealing with the colonies, would rather assist them in obtaining the object which they, as well as the House, had in view. He also concurred in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Mills) that the most objectionable way in which Imperial troops could be employed in a colony—whether at the expense of the mother country or its own—was in the maintenance of public order, or, to use other words, in performing duties which properly pertained to a domestic police. Such an occurrence, however, did not often occur in colonies which could be described as British communities; though even in those it had sometimes happened that our troops were so employed, He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend in the general condemnation which his Resolution implied of such an employment of Her Majesty's forces; but, in giving his assent to that proposition, he must point out to the House that among our various dependencies there were some in which British troops might be required to act for the maintenance of order without their employment for that purpose coming justly within the scope of the Resolution. Let them take the case of our West Indian colonies. Those communities were very peculiar. So far from being purely British, they were, perhaps, the most strange and heterogeneous of any that had ever been brought together in any part of the world. Nevertheless, they had been brought together under the sanction and protection of this country. Let them take for instance Trinidad, in which the bulk of the population consisted of French, Spanish, Hindoos, and Chinese, and of Africans imported in former days. Those colonies had over and over again been made the subjects of British experiments for British interests. They had been first favoured and fostered for the purposes of British policy in the days of the slave trade. Then they had been sacrificed to the con science of this country, in the matter of slavery and, afterwards, to her financial policy in the matter of sugar. He thought it was impossible not to regard them as exceptional communities to which the generally sound principle of his hon. Friend could not at once be applied. He made that observation to guard himself while on the part of the Government he assented to the Resolution. There was also the
  1050
  case of colonies such as the Cape of Good Hope, British Caffraria, Natal, and New Zealand, in which the relations between the colonists and the native tribes were partly domestic and partly foreign. Foreign they were to a great degree, but not wholly so, because local feelings and interests were liable to influence the conduct of a governor, and the policy pursued towards them could not be purely Imperial. With respect to New Zealand, when a responsible or popular Government was conferred on the colony, the authority given to the colonists was in effect unlimited. An attempt had, indeed, been made to restrict that power within bounds, and to separate the government of the natives from the action of the popular constitution; but he must confess that in a great degree that had been a failure. At the time of the first great change no substantial guarantees were obtained, no fund was appropriated to enable the governor to carry out the administration, and an admixture of the popular element had spread into all the departments. He spoke with some reserve, as the Government were waiting for advices from that able man who, he was happy to say, had gone to New Zealand within the last few months, before they could announce his matured policy; but, he must express his own conviction that the Government of this country had lost the duty, because it had lost the power to administer the affairs of the native tribes of New Zealand by officers responsible to itself, and that it would be necessary to hand them over to Ministers possessing the confidence of the New Zealand Legislature. There could be no doubt that this change would increase the obligations of the colonists to provide for their own protection. He must at the same time observe, that the system which in modern times had been pursued by this country towards these colonies was not one that had been without result. Would it have been possible of late years to have pursued towards the colonies the policy which this country carried out, or rather tolerated, two centuries ago? Would it have been possible in these days to have permitted the colonists and the natives to deal with one another as they had done in those? It was difficult for persons living in the present day to realize the situation of colonists of former times, when they were left unassisted and uncontrolled to deal with the native tribes. Mr. Herman Merivale, formerly Under

  1051
  Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, in his recent work, traced a comparison between modern colonists and those of former times, stated that a good deal was to be said for the old system, which left the colonists to deal as they pleased with the native tribes; while, on the other hand, great advantages, gained it must be admitted at great cost, were obtained by the modern system, Mr. Merivale quoted a passage written by a New England Governor, Mr. Pownall, in which he described the condition of constant insecurity and alarm in which the early American settlers lived, and the injuries inflicted on the Indian tribes under the influence of that terror. Mr. Merivale said—
  "It is hard in our days to realize the life of terror and watchfulness led by the pioneers of our American enterprise for some generations, while the slowly-receding forest around them was the abode of watchful and implacable foes—
  "'With dreadful faces through, and fiery arms.'"
  That feeling of insecurity existed for many generations in the early American colonies, and exercised a most unfavourable effect on their progress. Mr. Merivale showed the influence it exercised on the development of the colonies, and the effect of an opposite state of things, and for this purpose he contrasted the progress of the early American colonies with that of the colony of New Zealand. Mr. Merivale showed that while the New England colonies in the first twenty-three years grew in population 23,000, the population of New Zealand in a less space of time grew to 85,000, with a corresponding increase of commerce and revenue. The altered system had saved this country from great disgrace and materially increased the rate of progress at which our colonies were growing as self-sustained communities. He said that, notwithstanding the conflict which had taken place in New Zealand between the Government and a portion of the native tribes; a conflict which had however been attended with so little calamity and conducted with so much humanity on both sides that it could scarcely be equalled in the history of warfare. Thus, while the Government accepted the Resolution, it was right to caution that House that there were some of the dependencies of the Crown where the Resolution could not be so readily or so rapidly applied as to purely British communities, to which alone he understood it properly to relate. With regard to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter) as it originally stood,
  1052
  he thought the latter part needless, and that the former part went too far. The uselessness of multiplying colonial fortifications was abundantly shown before the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure, and that part of the Amendment was therefore unnecessary, as there was no fear either of the present or any Government multiplying such colonial fortifications, as those which he understood his hon. Friend to condemn. With respect to the former part of his hon. Friend's Amendment, he thought it laid down too rigidly the mode of inducing the colonies to contribute to their own defence. A money contribution towards the Imperial forces had been adopted with some success in the Australian colonies, but it was open to objections, and was hardly applicable to all the colonies. There was another simple mode, which consisted in the Government informing any colony that a certain number of troops was the quota which their sense of duty to the taxpayers at home and to the empire at large led them to allot to that colony, and that for any further assistance the colonists must trust to their own men and their own resources. That plan was much more likely to be applicable to our North American colonies than a money contribution. Since his objection, however, had been now removed, he was happy to be able to agree on the part of the Government to an Amendment which enlarged the scope of the original Resolution. He now begged to call the attention of the House to the amount of expenditure incurred on the military defences of the colonies to which his hon. Friend had referred. His hon. Friend had only referred to those colonies which were in the enjoyment of self-government. The colonies that came within that definition were as follows:—In North America—Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, Newfoundland, and Vancouver's Island; in Australia—New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania; in South Africa—the Cape and Natal; making in all fourteen colonies exercising the right of self-government. All the rest were either military garrisons, such as those in the Mediterranean, or stations not maintaining a British population, but occupied for Imperial interests, such as the Mauritius and Bermudas, or stations for the suppression of the slave trade, like the factories on the West Coast of Africa. He would acknowledge that

  1053
  he had omitted from the list the West India Islands. Jamaica, for example, did not enjoy the full rights of self-government in the sense in which they were enjoyed by a British community. The same might be said with regard to other West Indian Colonies. He had therefore excluded them from his calculation; but be had included the great British harbour and station of Halifax, the French fisheries at Newfoundland, the convict establishment and convict population of Tasmania, and the special case of the formidable native tribes at the colonies of New Zealand, the Cape, and Natal. Now what did hon. Members suppose was the total Imperial military cost of those colonies, including the Cape, upon which the outlay had been once so extravagant, for the year ending March, 1860. The entire amount, in spite of the exceptional cases which were included, was a fraction over the sum of £1,000,000.
  MR. BAXTERasked whether any account was taken of the force in Canada?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman thought that in a great emergency like that which had lately occurred it was wrong to incur the expense of sending troops to Canada, he was at liberty to urge that view. He (Mr. Fortescue), however, knew that such was not his (Mr. Baxter's) opinion. He repeated, then, that the expenditure on account of British colonies properly so called, including the exceptional cases of the Cape and New Zealand, was no more than £ 1,000,000. He did not state those facts for the purpose of showing that the colonies ought not to be called upon to contribute their fair share to the cost of their defence, but only to show that the present Imperial charges on their account were far smaller than they were often supposed to be. He believed that our colonies evinced no lack of spirit when occasion arose to provide against enemies, whether external or internal. It had been said lately by a few able men that those colonies ought to be left, like our early American settlements, to fight their own battles against foreign foes, and that no assistance ought to be rendered to them by the mother country. There had, in his opinion, been considerable misconception on that subject. He believed that if the circumstances of our modern colonies were the same as those of the early American settlements, the conduct of the colonists
  1054
  would be the same. But the North American colonies for several generations had carried on a series of petty wars against their French and Spanish neighbours; they engaged in those wars with great spirit and great passion, and with a degree of animosity even greater than that which they had imported from the mother country. At last, by the assistance of England, they were enabled to subdue their dangerous neighbours. When that was accomplished, the feelings of the colonists towards the mother country altered, and those men who had been more anxious than the statesmen at home, for the conquest of Canada became anxious to get rid of the British troops. And why? They were ripe for revolt; they found the British troops quartered upon them by the operation of an Act of Parliament, when they had no longer a foreign enemy to fear. They resented that state of things, and they made the presence of British troops one of their grievances against the mother country. Now, was there any resemblance between that state of things and the position of our colonies at the present day? In conclusion, however, while contending that it was not the policy or the duty of this country to abandon the colonies entirely to their own means of defence—a policy which, he was happy to say, was not forced upon the House, either by the Resolution or the Amendment—he did admit that it was quite possible to go too far in considering the wishes of the colonists, to forget the interests of the British taxpayer, and even the true interests of the colonists themselves. He was not going to enter into the profit and loss account which had been lately struck by some persons against our colonies. He admitted there were Borne of them which, in that point of view, the mother country would never have sought to wrest from any other Power. But it was desirable for this country to possess friends and sure allies, and stations for her commerce, all over the world. It was really, however, a question of duty, and nut merely of profit. It was the duty of this country to provide for the defence of those colonies, as they desired to be attached to her; and the only question was as to the amount of expenditure which such protection might require. It was our duty, on the one hand, to protect the colonies, and, on the other, to economize the men and money that might be necessary for that purpose. He thought that the

  1055
  Resolution and the Amendment would aid the Government in doing so, and he trusted the House also would give them its best assistance in performing that double duty.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONremarked, that the moderate language of his hon. Friend's Resolution was sufficient in itself to recommend it to the House, emanating as it did from the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee which sat on the subject last Session—a Report which was intended to enforce a policy recommended by no less a personage than Earl Grey. He thought that the Report of the Committee and the Resolution of his hon. Friend might be read in two very different senses, according to the views of persons who entertained different opinions on the matter. They might be accepted by those who held with his hon. Friend that the policy of this country ought to be one in the direction of the principle laid down by Earl Grey. The Resolution might be also accepted by the colonists without giving up any portion of what they considered their rights. But taking the Resolution of his hon. Friend as it had been amended by the hon. Member for Montrose, he was afraid that it would be received in a very different sense, and would bear a very different interpretation. The hon. Member for Montrose went much further than either the Report of the Committee or the Resolution of his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman had said that the colonists should be left gradually to depend exclusively on themselves, both as regarded the contingencies of internal war and foreign aggression.
  MR. BAXTER: I never for one moment intended to leave the colonists entirely to themselves.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he thought the terms of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment indicated that opinion. At all events, the hon. Gentleman contemplated a vastly more extended scheme than that comprehended by the Resolution of the hon. Member for Taunton. The remarks of the hon. Member for Montrose showed still more clearly what was his meaning. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the possible future independence of the colonies.
  MR. BAXTER: I beg pardon; I never said anything of the kind. I merely said that in every case the colonies should assist in the defence of the mother country.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he must apologize to the hon. Member for misapprehending his observations; but he
  1056
  certainly thought that words to that effect had fallen from him during his speech. He did not, however, wish to fasten the words on him as he had repudiated them. The Resolution, however, might be read in two different senses. The colonists might view it as a declaration on the part of the mother country that in future they would not only be left to protect themselves against all hostile attacks, but that they would be expected to contribute a share towards the expenses incurred in the defence of the mother country in any war in which she might be engaged. Now, no such view as that had been taken either by the Committee or by his hon. Friend, who moved the Resolution. Nor had Earl Grey ever contemplated such a result. As a Member of the Committee, he regretted to hear that the Government intended to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. It certainly could not have had its origin from the Report adopted by the Committee. He thought that the hon. Member for Taunton had, to a certain extent, lost sight of the important evidence given by Earl Grey before the Committee, in which he explained the policy he had inaugurated. With regard to the Cape of Good Hope, Earl Grey expressed his conviction that were it not for the presence of Imperial troops the colonists and the natives would carry on a war of extermination, and that the contest would probably end in the destruction of the native races. That noble Lord also pointed out that the Cape of Good Hope as a military station was not so useless as some might suppose, but that it was valuable as forming a reserve for India. The Select Committee, while indicating the policy of gradually leaving the colonies to themselves, wisely confided the selection of the mode and time of effecting that object to the responsibility of the Government of the day. He regretted very much to hear the hon. Member for Montrose repeat the taunt of what was called the protection tariff of Canada—that the hon. Gentleman should have put that fact forward as a reason why England should not be any longer taxed with the cost of maintaining the security of that country. Now, the indirect taxation of Canada was the only means that country had of meeting its engagements. There the income tax was impossible, and any sort of direct taxation most difficult. Although perhaps she had been formerly guilty of some extravagance and waste of money, hon. Members should re-

  1057
  collect that the development of her railway system and other useful public works was in far greater proportion than her own material wealth. He trusted that should the amended Resolution be carried, the Government would take no step which was calculated to alienate the affections of the Canadian people, by giving them reason to believe that this country was endeavouring to throw upon them all the responsibility of protecting their own interests, however formidable might be the attacks made upon them.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he did not rise to take any part in the discussion, but rather to express his deep regret that such a subject had been submitted to the consideration of the House at that time. In the first place, he thought the time selected for the discussion was most inopportune. In the second place, he looked upon the Resolution of the hon. Member for Taunton as delusive in its object, The hon. Gentleman might have read his Resolution without any observations, St spoke for itself, and was in effect a mere corroboration of the present practice. No colonist asked to be relieved from an obligation founded in the nature of things and common sense, and therefore he was at a loss to conceive why the subject was introduced at all, except as a peg for the hon. Mover of the Resolution on which to hang an interesting speech. But, in addition to the Resolution, they had the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Haliburton) that that was a singularly inopportune time for such a declaration. He begged to remind the House that this country had only just escaped a war with the United States on a subject entirely of Imperial interest. An insult had been offered to the flag of England. One of her ships had been boarded and temporarily seized, and four persons who were sailing under the protection of our Bag had been captured and held as prisoners. That was clearly an Imperial question. Further than that no other parties had any interest in the matter. How did the people of Canada behave under the circumstances? The conduct of the colonists of Canada on that occasion, in then relations to this country, was beyond all praise. Even sectarians had combined, and had risen as one man for the defence of their country. At such a time, with such exertions, it was rather inopportune to turn round and begin now to discuss
  1058
  the expense of sending out troops as reinforcements. No particular credit was due to the Government for sending out those troops; for it was done with the unanimous consent of England. There had been none of what the Americans called blustering, but a firm and resolute determination that redress should be obtained, and no Government would have stood for a month that had not demanded it. He believed that the first twenty men they might have met at any railway station would have done the same thing. In the words of the first Resolution there was, he would admit, a great deal of good sense with regard to the colonies bearing a larger share of the burdens in cases relating more especially to their own internal order; but then came the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, who had talked about the tariff the Government of Canada had imposed on English goods. There was an erroneous impression in this country on that subject. The tariff was a high one, no doubt; but then the colonists paid it themselves. It was originally the intention of the Canadian Government to have had discriminating duties, and to have imposed lower duties on English goods, but they were informed that that would be incompatible with the existing treaties If this country gave the colonies responsible government and free institutions, then Government ought surely to be allowed to be the best judges of the means of increasing its revenue. Direct taxation, he might add, could not be levied to any extent in any part of America except the great cities, and therefore when the Americans passed a law for the purpose of raising so many hundred millions of dollars, they could not succeed in their object unless they imposed the weight of the taxation on the merchants of the large towns. Money was not to be found ill the country districts. The farmers of Canada and the remote parts of the United States were, it was true, men who had plenty of meat, and butter and cheese. They had fleeces from which they wove their cloth, and their groceries they obtained by exchange; but they had no money. Therefore, if the tax-gatherer went to the fanner in the back country of the Western States and asked him for taxes, the answer would be, "I have horses and cows, and so many sheep, and so many pigs, but no money; and if you touch any of my property, I will

  1059
  shoot you." That would be the response of the Canadians under similar circumstances, and they therefore levied taxes on the importation of goods, which was the first means of raising a revenue resorted to in all new countries. He might further observe, that if £10 were levied on a man in the shape of direct taxation, he must part with £10 of hard cash, while the case of indirect taxation was totally different. If 6s. a gallon were imposed on spirit, a man might go without spirit and save the 6s.; or if 20 s. a yard were imposed on broad cloth, he might go without the broad cloth if he pleased. If the existing aid were refused to the colonies, it would render them less able to defend themselves; and to take away their revenue also, would be cutting at both ends. It did not appear to him to be necessary under ordinary circumstances to keep any soldiers in Canada. If the railway were extended from Toronto to the lower part of New Brunswick, troops could be sent from England to any part of Canada in twelve days, as the harbour of Halifax was always open. It was said that the military expenditure for regiments in the colonies in a time of peace was quite astounding. But there was not a colonist who desired the presence of a single regiment. England had command of the sea, end Canada could be invaded only from the United States. There might be some danger of invasion from that quarter, but from no other. The colonists would, however, be quite willing to effect one saving. The governors sent out by this country were as useless there as they were here. Indeed, the two or three last appointments had astonished every man, woman, and child in the country. The colonists, however, did not complain of having to support their governors; and £20,000 a year was contributed annually for the support of gentlemen who had previously been whippers-in or had filled some similar position in that House. Why, if the Government had sent out five large stamps, with Y. R. upon them, and had placed them in the custody of proper officers to affix to public documents when required, some £20,000 a year, which might have gone towards the military defences, would have been saved. He would undertake to say that the colonists would at any time be ready to enter into that agreement. The proposed Resolution raised, no issue, and consequently was useless. No general
  1060
  rule applicable alike to all the colonies could be laid down. The circumstances of every colony differed. Canada wanted no assistance except against the United States. They had no fighting savages there. [An HON. MEMBER: Agreed, agreed!] If hon. Members are agreed, it showed that he had made some impression upon them. The Cape of Good Hope was different to Canada. All the colonies required different treatment. No general rule for them could be laid down except the one now adopted. The best course would be to maintain in each of them as few troops as possible consistently with its safety. [Cries of Agreed, agreed!] If hon. Members were all agreed, it was quite unnecessary for him to say any more on the subject.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction with the Resolution, and to thank the hon. Member for having brought before the House a proposition so moderate and one so likely to conduce to the advantage both of the colonies and the mother country. He begged to give his cordial assent to the Resolution.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "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 rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own external defence."

REGISTER OF VOTERS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, that he begged to move the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he must oppose the Motion, unless the hon. Gentleman would fix the next stage for a Wednesday, when it could be fully discussed.
  MR. LOCKE KING: I am willing to allow the hon. Gentleman ample opportunity for discussing the Bill, and I will fix the Committee for Tuesday next.
  MR. COLLINS: No, that will not do. Unless the hon. Gentleman fixes Wednesday, I shall be under the necessity of counting him out now.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he did not see why he should be compelled to fix Wednesday.
  MR. COLLINS: I move, Sir, that the House be counted.
  Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock till Thursday.