HC Deb 31 May 1872 vol 211 cc912-38
MR. MACFIE

, in rising pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the relations between the mother country and the colonies, and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should consider whether it is expedient and opportune that they should advise Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire as to the propriety and best means of admitting the Colonies, which, by their loyalty and patriotism, their intelligence and vigour, their numbers, geographical position, and resources, have become a highly important part of the nation, to participation in the conduct of affairs that concern the general interest of the Empire, said, that the subject, although most important, had as yet received very little attention from the House. Happily, the relations of the United Kingdom with the colonies had never formed a party question, and he trusted they never would. We had just completed arrangements with the Dominion of Canada which had been required, in some degree, in consequence of the want of representation in this country of that great colony, and matters bearing on its connection with the mother country must before long be brought under the consideration of that House. Again, that subject was rising rapidly and prominently into the view of the public here, and especially of the working classes, who regarded the colonies in some degree as their natural future homes, and the vast unoccupied territory held by the Crown as affording lands to be cultivated by subjects of Her Majesty, who would hereafter form communities which would add to the strength and prosperity of her Empire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) when starring it in the provinces lately, had publicly stated that if the party with which he was connected came into office again it would be one of their great duties to maintain our colonial Empire. He hoped that declaration would stir up the present Government to greater zeal than they had in time past felt at liberty to show in carrying out the wishes of the people in favour of a consolidation of the Empire. What might now be done with ease in that direction might before very long become a work of difficulty. Into two great groups of our colonies the system had been introduced of what was called responsible government—a high-sounding phrase which he was afraid was rather calculated to mislead them. Sir Philip Wodehouse, a recent Governor of the Cape Colony, in a despatch lately laid on the Table of the House, said he had always held responsible government to be applicable only to communities which were fast advancing to fitness for absolute independence. The then Colonial Secretary in 1870 wrote to Sir Philip Wodehouse that he could hardly expect the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government in the views he had put forward respecting the consequences to be speedily anticipated from the establishment of responsible Government in any colony. About the same time, writing to Sir George Bowen, Governor of New Zealand, the Colonial Secretary said Her Majesty's Government disavowed any desire to bring about any separation between the mother country and that colony. Instead of that somewhat weak language he should have preferred a declaration from the Government of a resolute determination on the part of this country to uphold the relations which subsisted between England and her colonies, and to draw still closes the bonds which united them to her. The late Sir William Denison, another Governor of great eminence, expressed his opinion that in order to get rid of the cost of supporting the colonies we were trying to induce them to claim their independence. Earl Grey, in 1869, stated it as his view that the result to be looked for from the policy declared by Her Majesty's Government was the breaking up of our colonial Empire. After quoting the opinions of Mr. Haliburton—son of the author of Sam Slick—and other colonial writers as to the progress now being made in the career of dismemberment, and denying the power of any Government to fritter away by carelessness or indifference the rights of citizenship from its colonial subjects unless they showed a wish to cast off their allegiance to it, the hon. Member referred to a Commission appointed in the Australian Colonies, which said that the relations now subsisting between those communities and the mother country was so wanting in mutuality that it could not safely be regarded as a lasting one, and that it became necessary to consider how it might be so modified as to give a greater security for its permanence. The Government of Queensland had declared that the time was not distant when the colonies would ask from the British Government a declaration as to how far the latter would recognize any duties towards the colonies in time of war. It was evident that the colonies looked forward to the time when the Government of this country would be inclined to sever the connection which at present joined them to us. Statesmen in this country had uttered predictions relative to the colonies which unfortunately had a tendency to fulfil themselves. They had regarded the future separation of the colonies from the mother country with complacency; they had told us that in such an event they and we should remain allies—a fact which he very much doubted—and that we should not suffer in our trade with them. With reference to the latter subject he felt bound to point out that those countries which had been separated from Great Britain consumed less British goods proportionately than our colonies did. The United States took but a comparatively small amount of British goods. When a man emigrated from this country, if he went to Canada he took with him his property, whatever it might be, and it was not lost to the Empire; but if he went to America, besides the possibility of his becoming an enemy, he took his property with him, and the Empire became so much the poorer. In the event of war our colonies would be of infinite service to us, as they would furnish us with coal and other necessary supplies, while their ports would afford our ships shelter in case of need. Were we, on the other hand, to be separated from them, we should not have a single port open to us in the world, because our colonies, having the neutrality laws before their eyes, would be afraid to receive us. The United States treated their colonies in a very different manner. Instead of constantly threatening them with separation, they asked them to send representatives to Congress, and to contribute towards the general expenses of the country. [The hon. Member proceeded to read somewhat long extracts from the late Lord Elgin's letters, with the view of showing that he was in favour of a more intimate connection than now existed between this country and our colonies.] It was not, however, merely in words that this country had taken pains to inculcate the belief that its connection with the colonies was only temporary, but every opportunity had been taken of showing our intention on the subject by means of our deeds. We had conferred upon one of our colonies the ambiguous name of Dominion; we had withdrawn our troops from them; we had urged them to provide themselves with armies and navies apart from those of the Empire, and we had permitted them to enter into independent negociations with foreign Powers. We had not required the colonies to contribute to the Imperial Revenue, although in time, when the greater part of Her Majesty's subjects resided out of England, the question would arise whether we were to undertake the protection of their trade solely at our own expense. The colonists were excluded from representation in the British Parliament, though they were obviously interested in many Imperial questions, India, for instance, from its proximity and probable future trade, being as much a matter of concern to the Australians as to ourselves. In other respects our treatment of the colonies was very liberal. They bore no part of the burden of the National Debt; the hundreds of thousands who yearly left our shores thus freeing themselves from all liability; the lands won by British valour had, excepting some slight changes, been handed over to them; self-government was allowed them; their Bills being scarcely ever vetoed; they were protected by us in case of war, without obligation to assist us with a man or a shilling; they were permitted to frame hostile tariffs, and part of the New Zealand Loan guaranteed by us was being expended in the conveyance of Scandinavian emigrants—8,000 of whom were now under contract to go to the colony—to the neglect of our own workingmen. The attitude of the Colonial Office towards the colonists was undoubtedly courteous and conciliatory. He trusted that the guarantee of a loan for New Zealand, the policy now pursued towards the Cape, the acquisition of Dutch territory in Africa, and the loan to be handsomely guaranteed to Canada indicated a change of policy on the part of the Government. Having gone thus far we were bound to go further. Considering the anxiety which prevailed to give political representation to every class of the community at home, our millions of prosperous and enterprising colonists ought surely to be represented. Prance and Spain allowed their colonies representation, and Germany—which unless we looked sharp would probably seize upon some island to which we might fancy we had a claim—would probably do the same. When representation of the colonies in Parliament was advocated by Adam Smith, it was objected that the complexion of the House of Commons was corrupt, that the distance was too great, and that the colonial members would be outvoted, but that these objections or most of them had no longer force. Joseph Hume, at the time of the first Reform. Bill, proposed representation of the colonies, and in Mr. Cobden's speeches he found nothing in disparagement of the connection of the colonies with the mother country. He believed a Council of State, on the German principle, would be an advisable arrangement. Persons in the colonies were anxious that a great federation should be established, of which England should be the centre. He thought no time should be lost in carrying that idea into effect. Who were opposed to the scheme? He knew of no one. It might be objected that it was too soon to undertake such a work, but he hoped he had shown that it was not too soon. The danger was rather that it was too late. Surely, when the Empire was at peace, when there was so much prosperity, we should be willing to negotiate with the colonies on this subject. No time should be lost in making earnest endeavours to carry into execution a scheme which appeared to be wise and popular. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name upon the Paper.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

, in seconding the Motion, said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that the connection between this country and the colonies ought to assume a more definite, regular, and intelligible shape than it had at present, and although differing from him as to the possibility of federation, which was a subject full of difficulties, yet he could not see why we should accept the policy of drifting no one knew whither. The reason why our policy of late had been so indefinite was not only owing to the fact that successive Administrations had been lukewarm on the subject, but that the House of Commons and the country had been indifferent to the manner in which the colonies were governed. We had been living too much upon our luck, and so long as things went well we had been content, without looking the dangers and difficulties of the subject boldly in the face. He would confine the remarks he was about to make to one portion of the subject to which his hon. Friend had called attention, and would preface them by the assertion that it was impossible to give assent to the statement that our colonies were in as satisfactory a state as we could wish; for instance, at the present moment it was hardly possible to find one of our colonies in so unsatisfactory a state as our great North American Possessions, and yet it was one that might so easily be brought into a satisfactory condition. We had not in all our dominions a people more thoroughly loyal than the people of Canada, and yet at that moment, because they did not know that England would stand by them so long as they stood by England, a large party was growing up in Canada favourable to annexation; for a small population of 4,000,000 so near a neighbour to a great country with 40,000,000 of people, if left unprotected, must necessarily gravitate towards the latter. It was not that the people of Canada desired to become part of the United States—they were too acute to wish to become one of the most heavily-taxed populations in the world, instead of remaining one of the least taxed; but they believed that they had not got that equivalent in the shape of assured protection which they considered themselves entitled to. In that remarkable, comprehensive, and statesmanlike speech which Sir John Macdonald lately delivered—and which did him such great honour—he showed that he relied ont he promise that England, in the event of difficulties arising, would come to the aid of Canada; but, while we were promising to send men whom we had not on the spot, and fleets which were on this side of the Atlantic, there was no doubt that the principal places in Canada would be pounced upon, nor would they be given up until at the end of a costly and probably a protracted war. Therefore, he was one of those who were sorry at the withdrawal of the last of our troops from Quebec a year ago. He admitted his entire unacquaintance with military matters, but he could not think that a country ought to be left for defence to an ill-trained and ill-provided Militia alone; for instance, in this case Canada had 40,000 Militia on paper, but they had no arsenals, nor magazines fitted for carrying on a campaign, nor were their officers sufficiently numerous or well trained. It was, therefore, in his opinion, the duty of this country, not through menace or with an idea of menace, to keep such a body of troops in Canada as would secure it from a filibustering expedition or a coup-de-main. Then, again, he did not think we sufficiently estimated the grandeur and importance of Canada, a colony growing in wealth and material prosperity year by year, as a proof of which he would name that in the past year we had discovered of what enormous value as a grain-growing country Canada was likely to become. The new Provinces which had lately been made a part of the Dominion, only required capital to bring land of the most fertile description into cultivation. Their climate was capable of ripening every cereal with which this country was acquainted; the summer temperature was of 70 degrees, and in the western portion the cattle might be fed through the winter season out of doors. Then there were in those Provinces gold and copper and minerals of every description; there were fisheries, and everything that went to make up national wealth. Was that a country which we ought to be content to lose for want of a little help at the right moment? There was no more loyal people than the Canadians, especially those of the Lower Province, who at one time were so disaffected. What they asked was, to know one of two things—either that they were to be united to us by closer bonds, or that they were to stand alone. In the latter case Canada would be able to make her own terms, instead of being taken as a conquered country, and one of the first results of adding Canada to the United States would be, that property in Canada would go up at once from 15 to 20 per cent, because the United States would give her ample means of opening up her great resources, while we were looking at both sides of the paper before consenting to guarantee aloan of some £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. Let Canada feel assured of the support of the mother country, and all doubts would cease, and there would be but one Queen, one flag, one destiny, one Empire.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should consider whether it is expedient and opportune that they should advise Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire as to the propriety and best means of admitting the Colonies, which, by their loyalty and patriotism, their intelligence and vigour, their numbers, geographical position, and resources, have become a highly important part of the nation, to participation in the conduct of affairs that concern the general interest of the Empire,"—(Mr. Macfie,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, there were two deprecatory remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken which he had listened to with great pleasure—one which regarded the withdrawal of our troops from Canada, and the other with respect to the guarantee of the loan which it was proposed to give. It appeared to him, considering the great value of the connection between this country and Canada, and that we did not risk one sixpence by giving that guarantee, that it was most unfortunate that there should appear to be any haggling or bargaining about the matter. He hoped, therefore, that when brought forward the proposal would receive the unanimous assent of the House. In former times, before the great change made in the Constitution of this country by the Act of 1832, the colonists found it much easier to obtain a seat in the House of Commons; and, although there were, no doubt, countervailing evils in the condition of things before 1832, yet it was very forcibly argued by the advocates of the old system that it practically gave representation to the colonies. Rich Indians or rich colonists could get seats for such places as Old Sarum and Gatton; and the great man who was afterwards Lord Clive, when he first came home from India, was returned for the now extinct borough of St. Michael's. Colonial statesmen, in fact, now found it more difficult to recommend themselves to any constituency, for the reason that they had lived so long abroad, and were consequently not so familiar as others with the class of subjects most interesting to the people, and adapted to the legislation of the day. The time had now come, however, when we should look this question seriously in the face, for there was no doubt of the immense importance of the colonies to this country, and that we maintained our place among the great nations of the world by means of our Colonial Empire. Take that away, and this country would sink into the position of a third-rate Power. We ought, therefore, to do everything we could in reason to meet the wishes of our colonists. All of them united in hearty attachment to the Sovereign. We had evidence of this feeling during the illness of the Prince of Wales. They, moreover, would regret to dissever themselves from this country. While cordially reciprocating this feeling, we ought to do all we could to meet their wishes, and he was, therefore, glad that his hon. Friend had brought this important subject under the notice of the House.

MR. R. TORRENS

said, that no person could regard the position of affairs in the Dominion of Canada and the group of colonies in the Southern Hemisphere, without feeling that there was great danger in the indefinite postponement of this subject with a view to settle it once for all. Having taken part in the foundation of one of our most thriving colonies, he could not agree with those who thought that the severance of the colonies from the mother country was either desirable or inevitable. On the contrary, he was unable to see anything which should bring about such a severance, unless it were neglect to take advantage of the present opportunity, and establish our relations with the colonies on a satisfactory basis. He could not say that our existing institutions were such as to insure harmonious relations with the colonies, or lead them to depart, if depart they must, in amity and good-will, instead of in bitterness of heart and with angry feeling, for our institutions could hardly be vindicated either upon philosophic or constitutional principles, or on the ground that they worked practically in an advantageous manner. The position of a Governor of a colony under the old régime was one consistent with the then existing colonial system. The Governor ruled the colony through the instrumentality of Officers of State, who were oppointed to carry out the pleasure of the Home Government; and most efficient instruments they were for inforcing upon the colonists that policy. But when the change came, and responsible government was introduced in the colonies, the Governor, who formerly had but one master to serve, then became the servant of two masters, occupying the position of Her Majesty's Representative and the potential advocate of the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers; he had now put upon him the incompatible duty of being the sole recognized medium of communication between the colonists and the Home Government—the advocate to urge upon the Secretary of State the colonists case from the colonists point of view. An officer so placed naturally leaned towards the interests of those upon whose favour his future career was dependent. The colonists were not adequately represented, and whilst that state of things continued he did not think there could be the harmonious understanding which was desirable between the mother country and the colonies. As to the remedies suggested, he could not approve of them. He demurred altogether to the view of the hon. Mover of the Resolution that the colonists should be represented in that House. It might have been so at one time, but now they had given to the colonies a degree of independence which they could not retract, and which was inconsistent with representation in that House. Neither did he concur in the view advocated by some, that an Imperial Parliament should be established superior to and overriding this and the other House of Parliament, which should take cognizance of all the greater matters of State, for he could not conceive how the existence of such a body could be reconciled with our form of Government by Parliamentary majorities. Nor was he in favour of another proposal advocated by some—namely, that the Colonial Secretary should be aided by a Council, to be chosen from retired colonists, for what could a Canadian know of New Zealand, or vice versâ? But there was ready to hand a practical mode of redressing the grievance. The colonists complained, and he (Mr. R. Torrens) thought rightly, that they were not placed at home on a footing of equality with foreign States—many of which were of much less importance—in the matter of diplomatic representation. In his opinion, our colonies should have the right to appoint chargés d'affaires or Envoys to wait upon the Secretary of State and represent their interests. The self-governing colonies had sent home some of their most eminent men to act as agents here for the management of their affairs, and he must at once admit that those agents had been of late placed in a much better position than they used to be. But further advance in that direction was required. The colonists should have the privilege of sending their own political agents to this country, and that those agents should enjoy the same rank, position, and prestige that was at present accorded to the Envoys of foreign States. That would afford a ready and easy solution of the difficulty which existed at present. He would now state, as an instance of the value to this country of the colonies, that the value of the British products exported from this country for consumption to the Australian Colonies alone amounted to £10,000,000 annually, or little less than the amount of our exports to France; quite as large as that of our exports to Spain, Portugal, and Italy combined, and double the amount of the British products exported either to Belgium or to Russia. The tonnage of the shipping, too, which sailed from England to Australia amounted to 4,000,000 tons annually, of which 93 per cent was British owned. Now, some of those who advocated a separation of the colonies from the mother country contended that if they were independent to-morrow, the colonies would maintain their commercial relations with this country just as they existed at the present time. The facts, however, were strongly and clearly against any such view, for when an Englishman or an Irishman emigrated to British North America, he consumed double the quantity of home products that was consumed by an Englishman or an Irishman who emigrated to the United States, and if he went to the Australian Colonies the consumption was twelve times greater than in the United States. That the trade follows the flag was further demonstrated by what took place in settlements originally planted by other countries. The French Canadians retained the language, their habits, their tastes; yet their trade had so completely passed over since their annexation to us that these French colonists consumed £5,000,000 British produce as against £250,000 French. If this were attributed to the less commercial spirit of the French, he would point to the Cape Colony, where the descendants of the Dutch settlers consumed £1,760,000 of British as against £26,000 of Dutch produce. There was another feature connected with this question which deserved consideration. Irishmen who emigrated to British Colonies almost invariably remained loyal subjects of Her Majesty. The truth of that was illustrated by the cases of Mr. Gavan Duffy—formerly a Member of that House—and Mr. D'Arcy M'Gee, who in this country were at least suspected of disaffection; but, emigrating to British colonies, became eminently loyal subjects and advocates of the British connection. But when such men went to the United States they at once began to organize themselves into societies whose object was to overturn the Government of this country and erect some other form of Government in its place. From that he contended that the more intimate were our relations with the colonies, the better it was both for this country and them. Another aspect in which the importance of the colonies to this country was shown, was involved in the consideration of our position in the event of war. England existed simply by reason of her command of the sea: she could not retain that command unless she had numerous and secure coaling stations for the ships composing the Navy, and she could not have these coaling depôts unless she retained her colonial possessions. How long would Great Britain retain her position in the the Mediterranean if she lost Gibraltar or Malta? For what length of time would the Red Sea continue to be the channel between this country and India if Aden was lost to the possession of England? Precisely similar was the case of King George's Sound, which, situated at the south-west angle of New Holland, formed one of the finest harbours in the world. The nation which held possession of that harbour and coaling station absolutely commanded the navigation and the commerce of the whole Southern Seas. He did not wish a shilling of the taxes of this country to be expended for the benefit of the colonies, but it was a mistake to suppose that outlay on naval stations, such as King George's Sound, Halifax, Sydney, and Melbourne, came within that category. The colonists were unable to defend some of those places. King George's Sound, for example, having only about 100 inhabitants, and in case of war it would make a material difference whether those harbours could be used by our fleets for shelter, coaling, or refitting, or whether they would be debarred from those advantages, for the latter would be our position if the colonies were severed from us and acted towards us as neutrals. He thought, then, the custody of those places should be resumed by the mother country, not in the interest of the colonists so much as in that of British shipowners and merchants, for it was a fact that nearly all the ships plying to and from Australia, amounting to up wards of 4,000,000 tons annually, were, with their cargoes, the property of British merchants, Australian produce being paid for, wholly or partially, prior to shipment. The colonists should not be called upon to undertake the armament and defence of these strategic positions. It was neither consistent with security nor justice that this burden should be imposed upon them. In conclusion, he would observe that those philosophers of the closet who spoke lightly of the severance of the colonies could not be aware of the advantage of common rights of citizenship between Englishmen and the colonists. An Englishman who had spent years in the colonies was not deemed the less an Englishman on his return, and might, as in his own case, be elected by a British constituency; while the younger sons of our gentry found a career open to them in the colonies, with similar institutions, habits, and social position; members, too, of our over-crowded Bar were elevated, sometimes in a few months, and in one case that he remembered in a few weeks, to the colonial Bench. On the other hand, the colonists always regarded themselves as Englishmen, and their children were taught to regard the mother country with veneration and respect. Taking those facts into consideration, he thought the colonies should not be deemed less a part of the nation than the Isle of Man, and he saw no possible advantages, whether in a military, economical, or mercantile point of view, in separation. He hoped the Government would not receive the Motion for inquiry in a hostile spirit, and he believed that the policy he had suggested would be the best solution of all pending difficulties.

MR. HERMON

said, that though he concurred with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) who introduced the Motion, that it was most desirable to maintain the most friendly and intimate relations with our colonies, yet he was not prepared to support it in its present terms, and was glad that hon. Members had an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the important question to which it referred, more especially because what was said in that House on the subject might aid in dissipating the feeling which obtained in the colonies—that we desired to separate ourselves from them entirely. With regard to the guarantee proposed between this country and Canada, until its terms were fairly before the House, he would reserve any opinion he might entertain upon the matter; though he could not help saying that the House ought to have a chance of knowing what was the nature of such guarantees, before they were actually entered into, for he believed it would be found that certain circumstances connected with the guarantee between this country and Canada were not so satisfactory so the House could wish. The Government ought not to enter into such a guarantee without the sanction of Parliament, or they might as well impose taxes without its concurrence.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, he would at once admit the right of any hon. Member to bring forward any Motion which he thought deserving of discussion; but he questioned the wisdom and discretion of the hon. Member for Leith in submitting that Resolution at the present moment, and when informed of the hon. Member's intention he had endeavoured to dissuade him from proposing it. There was some subjects which did not gain by frequent and constant repetition in that House, and he asserted, without hesitation, that the repetition of debates in which the question of separation between this country and the colonies was brought under public notice did not tend to strengthen the ties between the colonies and the mother country. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the opposition, or any hon. Gentleman who had some Parliamentary following or long Parliamentary experience, thought fit to bring before Parliament the colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government, or the general question of the relations between this country and her colonies, the result was that public attention was called to the subject, the benches of the House were well filled, persons well known in the political world expressed their opinions on the subject, and the subject was thoroughly discussed; but when an hon. Gentleman who, however respectable his position, could not boast either of a Parliamentary following or of long Parliamentary experience brought forward a question of this magnitude, it often happened that public interest was not awakened, the benches were not filled, and the discussion was sometimes brought to an abrupt and inglorious termination. That had before now happened to the hon. Member for Leith. Of course, the colonists could not be expected to enter into all the considerations which affected the amount of importance given to a debate in this country, and consequently they might be led to attribute to the British Parliament the blame which in reality attached to the want of judgment of the hon. Gentleman who brought forward such a Motion on his own responsibility. Having made that remark because he deemed it his duty to do so, in order that the colonies might understand why a debate on their affairs was not carried on by the Leaders on both sides of the House, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think he was actuated by a spirit of personal incivility towards himself. He could state his objections to the present Motion in about four sentences. First, he maintained that the relations between this country and the colonies were satisfactory as they at present existed; and, moreover, that there scarcely ever had been a period when they were more satisfactory; secondly, inasmuch as no demand for a change of that description had been made by the colonies themselves, and as they had, on the contrary, expressed their opinion in opposition to any such change, he did not think it at all desirable that the change should be made by us; thirdly, he maintained that there were great inherent difficulties in the working of all the schemes which had been proposed for an alteration of the present system; whether the plan were adopted of a council to consult with, or rather to embarrass the Secretary of State, or of another council whose authority would inevitably clash with that of Parliament; and, fourthly, the subject had twice been amply discussed in the House of Commons within the last two years, and he was not aware of any new circumstances which should induce the House again to take it into consideration. With these few remarks he should have been inclined to dismiss the subject, but he could not address the House on the general question of our colonial relations without adverting to the language of hon. Gentlemen who carried greater weight even than his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Macfie). It was no doubt the right, and perhaps it was the duty of the Opposition to criticize the policy and measures of Her Majesty's Government; but these criticisms, however severe they might be, ought to have some foundation in justice; and he was bound to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite and their supporters in the country had, especially during the last year and a-half, delivered speeches which had not such a foundation in reference to the colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government. He wished to call the attention of the House to two statements made with respect to that policy by the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) and his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy). He had extracts from their speeches which he must allude to in the hope of obtaining from them some satisfactory explanation. Twice during the past year the noble Lord the Member for North Leicester had made attacks on the colonial policy of the Government, and was reported to have said at a dinner of the Conservative Registration Society in the City of London—"They," that was, Her Majesty's Government—"have endeavoured to alienate our colonies." However, since he entered the House that afternoon the noble Lord had informed him that he did not make use of those exact words; but that he meant to say an impression had been created in the country that such was the intention, or was likely to be the result of the colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government. Still, he regretted that the noble Lord should have allowed the words to appear so long uncontradicted in the public Press. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had, during the Whitsuntide Recess, made a short, and he hoped a pleasant tour in the provinces, delivering addresses on political topics at Canterbury and Bradford. In the latter occurred this statement, according to a report which appeared in two daily newspapers— The colonial policy of the Government was no better. From every colony came complaints of neglect on the part of the Government; and it was not too much to say, that discontent in the colonies was an increasing danger to the Empire. Another report, which subsequently appeared in The Standard, and which was probably revised by his right hon. Friend, gave his words as follows— Without entering into our colonial policy, I say this—that from every colony almost that we have, there comes a voice saving they are neglected, they are treated ill, and that, if there is no interference with them, there is a want of warmth and heartiness of feeling to reciprocate the affection which they bear to the mother country. They tell us that they are ready to do all for us, if we will do what we can for them. They do not ask us to undertake their liabilities; they do not ask us to undertake their defence now in the same way as we did on former occasions; but they ask that this country, who sent forth the founders of these colonies, shall be a home to the colonists; that they may look to us as the mother country, and that so long—and we should never put forth a hand to separate them from us—so long as they cling to us we will cling to them, whether it be in peace or whether it be in war, and that, under all circumstances and on all occasions, we will not neglect the responsibility of duty which lies on us in this matter. The House would observe that, under these expressions of sympathy with the colonies, in which he himself heartily concurred, his right hon. Friend brought accusations of neglect and want of warmth of feeling on the part of Her Majesty's Government towards the colonies.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

The quotation which my hon. Friend read first is taken from an abstract of my remarks that appeared in one of the newspapers. I had nothing to do with the report which appeared on a subsequent day in The Standard. It does, however, express what I said; but I may remark that I sedulously avoided saying anything in reference to the colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government; and with respect to my hon. Friend himself, he knows I have spoken of what he has done in quite different terms from those I might apply to some of his predecessors. Therefore, that part of my speech was not an attack on the Government, but a statement of my views of colonial policy.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

, while grateful to his right hon. Friend for the remark he had just made, was unable to accept any expression of feeling which would separate him from his Colleagues on a question like that. He must stand or fall by the general policy of the Government. He alluded especially to the speech in question, because he had the greatest respect for his right hon. Friend who had held high office under the Crown, and had proved himself an able and efficient public servant; but in proportion to his respect for him was his regret to find him lending the weight of his authority to such statements. His right hon. Friend said that complaints came from nearly every colony, and that the colonies were not treated with sufficient warmth and heartiness. To that statement he was bound to give a distinct denial. Here and there might perhaps be individuals who raised objections; but it was not anything like a correct statement to say that complaints were coming from almost every colony of coldness, neglect, and ill-treatment. He wanted to ask his right hon. Friend—who appeared to have access to channels of information from which Her Majesty's Government were excluded—from which colonies was it that these complaints proceeded? Was it from Canada? Some persons, he was aware, thought Canada had not been well treated in the recent negotiations with America; but such was not the opinion of the Canadian Parliament. With regard to that point, it was not now his intention to enter into a consideration of the Washington negotiations; but he might remark that in a recent speech Sir John Macdonald, the Prime Minister of Canada, used language which by no means bore out the idea than any complaint existed there of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. Sir John spoke of the relations between England and Canada having been of "so friendly and pleasant a character throughout the negotiations;" and, referring to the proposed loan, he said— No one can say now, and under these circumstances, that England has any idea of separating herself from or of giving up her colonies. This will put a finish at once to the hopes of all dreamers and speculators who desire or believe in the alienation or separation of the colonies from the mother country. And, speaking of the great sacrifice which, in the interests of peace, England had made in consenting to make herself liable to large money payments under the Geneva Arbitration, he says—"Has she not made it principally for the sake of Canada?" And all through the speech of that able and eminent man—the opinions expressed in which were afterwards ratified by the Canadian Parliament, he shows that Her Majesty's Government have acted in a loyal and friendly spirit towards Canada. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would put this point to the House. If during these negotiations Canada had been treated as she would have been, if she had been a separate or independent country, nothing could be urged against us; but if she had suffered in the slightest degree; if any concession had been made by her which would not have been made if she had not been a colony, then by that action we were pledged more deeply than ever to the assertion that we consider Canada to be an integral part of the Empire, and that in her hour of danger we should be bound to use the whole power and strength of the country to defend her as much as if she were a part of the United Kingdom. Were there any other colonies from which complaints had come? Were there any complaints from the great colonies of Australia? The accounts received from them concurred in describing a state of great and, even at this moment, exceptional prosperity. Did the Colonial Secretary and himself display lack of interest and coldness by attending early this year a large dinner given to an eminent colonist about to return to Australia? The language they heard on that occasion, the language they used, and that which was addressed to them, must have convinced all who were present that the most kindly feelings existed between the colonies and the Colonial Office. It was not possible for an Englishman worthy of the name to look at Australia without feelings of the deepest sympathy, without satisfaction at its increasing prosperity, and without being proud of the enterprize and ability which were developing its resources, and which were exalting the English character in that part of the world. In New Zealand, no doubt, the policy once pursued caused bitterness and soreness, which at the time were not unnatural; but a change of policy had been cordially accepted by the colonists, who deserved the highest praise for the conciliatory course they had pursued towards the native tribes. So happy were the results that had followed that within the last few days information had been received that William King, to whom the late war was due, and which lasted almost without intermission from 1860 to 1870, had voluntarily tended his submission, and had become a warm supporter of the Crown. In fact, there never was a period when loyalty was at a higher flow in New Zealand, when the prosperity of the country was greater, nor when the relations with the mother country were more satisfactory. Had the Cape or the South African Colonies complained of the lack of interest taken in them? The Government had lately advised the Crown to assent to the annexation of a large portion of valuable territory, and he took his full share of the responsibility for that, having warmly recommended it to his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office. In regard to the Cape and Natal, recent events had shown a sincere desire on the part of the Government to promote the prosperity of the colonies and to carry out the wishes of the colonists in their management, and the debate of the previous Tuesday showed that the House appreciated, as would the colonies, the action taken by the Government. In West Africa we had just effected an amicable arrangement, and though of course there were some complaints—as would be the case everywhere where free discussion and a free Press happily prevailed—there was increasing prosperity in every one of the West African Colonies, and we might anticipate that their material prosperity would promote the advancement of civilization and Christianity in the interior of Africa. Turn to Ceylon, which had now a revenue of £1,000,000 a-year, and an annual surplus and where, on the recent report of an eminent engineer, his noble Friend the Secretary of State had been able, as he had long wished, to adopt the views of the colonists as to the construction of a breakwater instead of an inland dock at Colombo. Turn to the West Indies; the Act for the federation of the Leeward Isles, passed last year, was working satisfactorily; and Jamaica was never more prosperous than now. Had we neglected British Guiana? To that colony we had sent a Commission to enquire into the labour question, and in consequence of its Report we had just sent out an Ordinance, by which we hoped to remove various difficulties and to improve the condition of the labourers. Had Mauritius cause to complain? There had, indeed, been financial embarrassment and complaints of insalubrity of climate, greatly owing, he believed, to the felling of the forests; but we had lately been endeavouring to promote works which would preserve the public health, and the financial prospects of the colony were better than they had been for many years. He might go further through the list of our colonies without discovering whence the alleged complaints proceeded. No doubt something in the nature of complaint must have reached his right hon. Friend, or he would not have made the statement he did, and the only quarter from which he could imagine complaints had come was Hongkong. True, it was flourishing, and had a port the tonnage of which was exceeded by that of only three ports in the United Kingdom. Action had been taken with respect to the licensed gambling-houses there, which had been suppressed, and it was possible complaints might have been received by his right hon. Friend from Chinese gamblers. If such was the case, he heartily, though very respectfully, wished his right hon. Friend joy of his clients. After the kind expressions to which his right hon. Friend had given utterance, it must be inferred that he did not intend to make any severe attack upon the Government; but when these charges were made by Gentlemen of position and authority, and were published in the papers, the damage they did was not confined to the Government; indeed, that was as nothing compared with the damage to the country resulting from the uncomfortable and disagreeable feelings produced in the minds of colonists. Therefore, no public man could make such grave charges without incurring great responsibility. The proper place to make them was the floor of the House of Commons, where they could be answered; and therefore he would say—"Hit us fairly in the face here; but don't stab us in the back at Conservative banquets." If there was a subject on which patriotism ought to rise above party, it was that of colonial policy. Of course, there were difficulties in dealing with the colonies, which required different treatment according to their age, position, and circumstances; and the policy of the Government was to foster and aid their development, at the same time strengthening the links which bound us and our colonies together. What was the difference between this policy and that of the Government which preceded them? It was impossible to discover. Last year it fell to his lot to expound the policy of the present Government. The Prime Minister sat by his side as he did so, and would have corrected him had he been wrong. Therefore his exposition must be taken to have been just and true. He knew that that speech had been received with great satisfaction in the colonies. For himself, he would be the last man to remain connected with a Government which had adopted a policy of separation; indeed, he would rather take his seat on the back benches behind his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) than be committed to such a policy upon the Treasury Bench. There might be some who valued the colonial connection less highly than he did; but the policy which he advocated was not only the policy of the present but must be that of any future Government, because it was the only policy which would be supported and endorsed by the spirit of the British people. The colonies did not make extravagant demands upon us; they wanted nothing that we ought not really to grant them; they wanted warmth and heartiness in our dealings with them; and so long as he occupied his present position, that warmth and heartiness of sympathy on the part of the Government would not be wanting. As it had been stated that there was a large party in Canada who wished for annexation to the United States, it must be remembered that there would be varieties of opinion in a country where discussion was free; but he was sure that the great bulk of the Canadian people were thoroughly loyal and true, and the cordial expression of our good feeling was all that was required to secure a continuance of their loyalty. The statements made with respect to the Canadian Militia were not quite correct; a large proportion of the total number enrolled had gone through their annual drill this year, and the Reserve Forces of Canada numbered 700,000, including an increase of between 30,000 and 40,000 which had been made during the last two years. He would not enter into any speculation as to the future of Canada, if certain eventualities should happen; but this he would say—there was every determination in the Government and the country to stand by Canada, and he would add, he knew that the loyal spirit of the English people was thoroughly reciprocated by the Canadians. With regard to the language used by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens), no doubt there were inherent difficulties in the position of some colonial Governors. That was a subject well worthy of consideration; but, for his own part, he did not find that either the colonies or Governors themselves complained of any such awkwardness as had been referred to. No doubt, however, the Governor at the head of a large colony with responsible government must assume a somewhat different position from that of the Governor of a small Crown colony. With regard to federation, so long as they received no complaints from the colonists, it would be most unwise, either by a Royal Commission, or by a Committee, to investigate the subject, especially when our doctors disagreed as to the remedies they prescribed. He entirely agreed with the tribute paid to the colonies in the Resolution. He owned that they were an important part of the Empire, and considered it our duty to cement the alliance between them and the mother country. He considered the colonists separated from us only by water; they were just as much our fellow-subjects as if they lived in this country; and, taking that as the basis of our policy, he always had been and always should be in favour of maintaining and cementing the bonds between them, and of dealing with every colony as much as possible according to the wishes of the colonists themselves. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that he was not sorry—even at the expense of what he considered to be a somewhat unfair attack upon himself—that the hon. Gentleman opposite the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies should have risen in his place and spoken out so plainly in regard to the policy of the Government towards the colonies. He had heard the hon. Gentleman read the extract from his (Mr. G. Hardy's) speech with great satisfaction, because it expressed exactly what he felt, but not a word of it justified the attack that the hon. Gentleman had made on himself. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman might have remembered that on one occasion last year, when the hon. Gentleman expounded the policy of the Government on the subject, he (Mr. G. Hardy) had taken the opportunity of expressing then—as he begged now to express again—the satisfaction with which he had heard the hon. Gentleman speak of the union which it was so desirable to maintain between the colonies and the mother country. The hon. Gentleman might have known, therefore, that he had had no intention of attacking him. It was a little inconvenient, however, to say the least of it, that he (Mr. G. Hardy) should be called upon then, at a moment's notice, to defend what he said, because he had had no opportunity of providing himself with documents, but he would say that he was prepared to stand by everything that he had expressed on the question. It might have been a rhetorical expression to say that "every colony" was in a state of dissatisfaction; but any hon. Gentleman who had received the number of pamphlets that had been sent to him from various parts of the world with reference to the grievances of our colonies would admit that the feeling of soreness was very widespread indeed among them. Certainly, all the great colonies considered that they had ground of complaint; the very debate that evening proved it. They had heard one hon. Gentleman—formerly a distinguished politician in Australia—rise and complain of the conduct not of the Government only, but generally of the attitude of the country towards that colony; and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Dalrymple) considered that Canada had been in some respects unfairly used—nay, more, it was notorious, even with respect to the Governor General of Canada, that he had used expressions with regard to the probability of the separation of Canada which had given rise to the impression that such an event might be near at hand. That very day, moreover, he (Mr. G. Hardy) had been in conversation with a colonist of some distinction who had sent him a pamphlet on the subject, and his tone throughout was—not, indeed, that there was anything specially wrong, but that they had not been treated by the Government or by the country in the way that they had expected. The gentleman in question had also complained of the neglect of the interest of the colonies in that House; but he (Mr. G. Hardy) had assured him that it was not by passing abstract Resolutions that they would show their affection or interest for the colonies. Abstract Resolutions led to no result, but if there were grievances, let them be brought before the House and discussed; while with regard to the Motion, he objected to it as much as the hon. Gentleman himself did. It was vague and uncertain. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie), who moved it, was in favour of a federation; the hon. Member for Bath was in favour of something different, which he did not explain; while the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens) wanted neither a federation, nor a Council, but something else—he did not exactly seem to know what—in the interest of the Australian Colonies. Well, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hugessen) would deal a little more mercifully with him (Mr. G. Hardy) on any future occasion, seeing that he had expressed sentiments entirely concurring with the hon. Gentleman's own, for he had only spoken in favour of a cordial feeling with the colonies, and against that party which was rising up in the country who wished for a dismemberment of the Empire. He knew that there were hon. Members in that House who wished it—there were even some who thought that it would be desirable that we should give up our connection with India. It was against that feeling, which he considered would be fatal to the country, and not against the Government, that he had directed his remarks at Bradford. He was glad, however, to have been the means of stirring up the hon. Gentleman to the vigorous speech they had just listened to; for he did not believe that the hon. Gentleman would have arrived at such a pitch of high enthusiasm if it had not been for the attack that he supposed had been made upon him. Therefore, he (Mr. G. Hardy) had done a great deal of good, by enabling the hon. Gentleman to prepare an answer to the hon. Member for Leith beforehand. The skeleton speech made by the hon. Gentleman last year had been clothed with a degree of warmth which it might otherwise have lacked but for him, and it would now go forth in vigorous flesh and blood. They had now received a fresh and clear embodiment of the views of the hon. Gentleman, who loved the colonies even beyond his party; and if ever any of these insidious enemies of the State who wished for the disintegration of the Empire should creep into the Cabinet or on the front bench, the friends of the colonies on the Opposition side of the House were in that case to have the hon. Gentleman as a recruit to speak with enthusiasm in their behalf, while he would no doubt be received with due consideration if he did not become the great exponent of colonial policy of the Opposition. He hoped that the hon. Member for Leith would be content with the discussion and with the enthusiastic appreciation of the hon. Gentleman, and would not press the Motion, because it would do the colonies harm and the mother country no good.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he was greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University for having drawn out the explicit statement they had heard from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and he only regretted the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose able speech on the subject they must all remember. They were now acting generously by their colonies, and Canada might dismiss her apprehensions for the future; although he feared that the withdrawal of the troops, both from Canada and New Zealand, at a critical moment had produced an indelible impression on the minds of the colonists.

MR. GREENE

said, that anyone after listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies would imagine that the Millennium was about to commence. Now, as a colonist, he must say that there was much to complain of. The Under Secretary talked of federation, but how had it been carried out in the Leeward Islands? If he (Mr. Greene) had known the opportunity would have offered itself that evening, he should have been glad to call attention to the manner in which that Confederation had been forced upon the inhabitants of those islands. For six successive times the Governor in chief had caused the Legislative Assembly to be summoned to meet for the dispatch of business, and had afterwards annulled the summons, to the great inconvenience of the Members of the Assembly and of the public, the object of his Excellency being to secure a packed Assembly, in which he might carry the vote in favour of Confederation. He (Mr. Greene) could produce testimony for what he had asserted, and must say that he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy) that there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction among our colonies at the treatment they were receiving from the mother country.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to