HC Deb 28 February 1873 vol 214 cc1102-23
MR. MACFIE

in rising to call attention to the Relations that subsist between the United Kingdom and the Colonies; and to move that A Select Committee be appointed to consider the relations that subsist between the United Kingdom and the Colonies, particularly as they affect the direction which emigration takes and the occupation of waste lands within the Empire, said, the relations between England and her Colonies were not of so satisfactory a character as some people supposed, and people in the Colonies certainly did not look upon those relations as anything like what they ought to be. No doubt the intercourse between the Colonies and the Colonial Office was everything that could be desired in civility and cordiality, but something more was required, and what was contended for was a closer union between the two than at present existed. In proof of this the hon. Gentleman read numerous extracts from speeches and writings of various statesmen of eminence in the Colonies. He then proceeded to say that it was the duty of England to initiate a system which would build up a great Empire, and add prosperity, strength, and permanency to it and the Mother Country. Even admitting that the present relations of the Colonies to England were satisfactory to the Colonies themselves, he would ask whether they could be regarded as satisfactory by the English people? We were at present in the enjoyment of peace, but no one could say how soon we might not be engaged in bloody war. If such a calamity unfortunately befel us, what arrangement had we for mutual co-operation in de- fence of the common cause? If war was to break out, the Colonies were at this moment totally unprepared to assist us, and to come forward to fight side by side with us. He maintained that the present state of things ought not to be satisfactory to us, either as patriots or philanthropists. It was said that to bring about a closer relationship between Great Britain and the Colonies would be a work of great difficulty. No doubt it would; but what attempt had yet been made to surmount those difficulties? The statesmen of this country on both sides of the House seemed to be lukewarm. They were like the man who, with hands in his pockets and pipe in his mouth, was quietly smoking as he was hurried along the stream till he was hurled over Niagara. As a proof of the little interest this country took in the welfare of its Colonies, and in the bringing about of a closer intimacy, he would refer to the subject of waste lands. He found from a Return that in the year 1870 the United States disposed of 8,000,000 of acres of waste lands in that country, and in 1872 the number of acres was still larger. Vast areas were given away gratuitously to persons to cultivate, or to develop the country with railways, roadways, &c. He thought they might derive large benefits if they would take an example from the experience of the United States in regard to these waste lands. They made them an Imperial question, and did not leave the matter entirely to the Colonies themselves, as we did. The United States found it pay to give certain lands away to industrious men, because they became good citizens, and contributed largely to the taxes of the country. Then he came to the important subject of emigration. As far as the House of Commons and the public were aware, no efforts had been made during the last 12 months to stem or turn the tide of emigration which flowed from this country to the United States instead of to our own Colonies. In 1853, the proportion of Scotch and English who emigrated was 31 per cent; and in 1863, the proportion was 40 per cent; and in 1872, it was 66 per cent. But the increase was more remarkable when they took Englishmen alone. In 1853, the number of Englishmen who emigrated was 63,000; while in 1872, it was 118,000, the lamentable fact being that most of these did not proceed to our own Colonies, but to the United States. The number of Englishmen who emigrated to the United States last year was 82,000; Scotchmen, 13,000; Irishmen, 63,000. He would ask, was it a small matter that England should be sending out of the Empire hundreds of thousands of tier best men? Such a state of things was viewed very differently by France and Germany. Why, in one of these countries an emigration agent had been silenced and not allowed to lecture; while in the other an emigration agent had been sent out of the country altogether. He calculated the loss of the men who emigrated from this country at £500 per head; and in addition to losing that sum he calculated we lost £20,000,000 a-year, which would otherwise have been contributed to the taxes and wealth of the country. If they had a statesman-like policy and judicious management in connection with the Colonies, these things might be prevented, and the stream of money and men largely directed into our own Colonies, instead of the United States. At all events, let them make an effort to retain some of these emigrants within the folds of the Empire. He regretted to think that in spite of all that had been said on this subject we were still without a policy on the colonial question. If a few years ago attention had been seriously given to the matter, how different might have been the position of the English Colonies at this moment to what they were. He had been very much surprised to learn, and he had no doubt the House would be surprised to hear, that less than one-third of the citizens of the United States were native-born—that was to say, that more than two-thirds were either born out of the United States, or were children of parents born out of the United States. The hon. Gentleman next proceeded to quote extracts to show that the indifference with which England was viewing the breaking up of her colonial Empire was causing serious thought and anxiety in the minds of the best and most thoughtful people. It was by some said that separation was inevitable. That he denied, and characterized it as a disloyal and heretical doctrine. It was the destiny of England to populate the great globe, and she must retain her Colonies, because to separate from them would be to deprive herself of much strength. Then, why not endeavour to bring about a closer intimacy? The Colonies wanted men; England had got the men in abundance. The Colonies wanted money; England had plenty. There was scarcely anything which the Colonies wanted with which this country could not supply them. Some people said —"Oh! the Colonies are insular." But that was no more a drawback than was the insular character of the Western Highlands of Scotland. He believed that any Ministry that was to openly avow itself in favour of the separation of the Colonies would not be in power six months. Now, various plans had been suggested for bringing about a closer relationship between the Colonies and the Mother Country, but he would only just mention one. It was for the formation of a kind of Imperial Council. Take first the British Ministry—that consisted of 15 members. Its functions he would divide into two parts—one being for domestic matters connected with the British. Isles, and the other Imperial. With these there might be associated four Representatives from Canada, three from Australia, two from the African Colonies, one from the West Indies, and one from the Eastern Colonies; making a total of 26 altogether, including the English Cabinet. Then there might be added six more to represent British India, making an Imperial Council of 32. This body could, when secrecy was requisite, meet with all the secrecy of the present Cabinet, and would guide the general policy of the Empire, negotiate treaties, fix the armaments, and declare war or peace. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Committee.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE,

in seconding the Motion, said, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in the discursive range which he had taken, but would confine his remarks to the question of Canada alone. Hon. Gentlemen had omitted to touch that most important subject, the Canadian fisheries. He (Mr. Dalrymple) trusted that they would be made the subject of particular inquiry by that House; and if no more competent Member could be found to introduce the question of the Canadian fisheries to the House, he would undertake to do so. His great desire was, that by the development of the resources of our Colonies, and especially of those of the Dominion of Ca- nada, we should link that great and important country more closely to our own. He had heard with great pain the expression that the guarantee of £2,500,000 had been used as a bribe to obtain the consent of the Canadian Legislature to the Treaty of Washington. He regretted it, because it was an untrue representation of the fact; because it was an insult to Canada, and no less an insult to ourselves. Last night the Secretary of State for War was very eager to assure the Committee that there was not a single British soldier in Canada. He regretted that was the case. Thinking of the important position of Quebec, with its deserted bastions and empty barracks, he wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to evacuate Halifax also, and whether that grand military and naval position was to pass out of our hands, and, if so, who was to get it? How was such a proceeding to be prevented? By developing the resources of Canada. Would that be possible and profitable? He answered both questions in the affirmative. It might be made an exceedingly profitable proceeding to develop that vast region of mineral and agricultural wealth extending to the Rocky Mountains which Canada possessed, and which was more fertile than any in the United States to the east of the 19th parallel. There was nearly one-third, if not more, of the vast territory of the United States which was far from being attractive to the farmer and the emigrant. Besides the development of the agriculture and trade of the Colony, a more important object would be gained by the opening up of a new, a nearer, a quicker, and a more certain route to the great markets of the East, China, and Japan. The Pacific Railway, towards which we were now giving Canada our guarantee to the extent of £2,500,000, would give a shorter route by 600 miles than its rival the San Francisco route. It would take eight or ten years, and probably as many millions of money, to carry it out; but there would be no difficulty in obtaining the latter by giving Canada a guarantee, which she richly deserved, and which would enable her to go into the market and borrow the money at 4 per cent, instead of having to pay 5 and 5i per cent for it. He knew that the term "guarantee" was not a favourite one in that House; but Canada had always loyally and faithfully fulfilled her financial engagements to this country. The effect of such a measure would be to link Canada to this country by new ties of loyalty. Regarding this subject, however, from a Canadian point of view, and not from the federal or representative aspect of it, he seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to consider the relations that subsist between the United Kingdom and the Colonies, particularly as they affect the direction which emigration takes and the occupation of waste lands within the Empire,"—(Mr. Macfie,)

—instead thereof.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, that if the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) had pursued the same line of argument as the Seconder of his Motion, he should not have felt it necessary to oppose the appointment of the Committee—although he did not see, if it were granted, how it would forward the views of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple), and which he shared with him. The fisheries was a question that would be discussed in "another place" in a totally different manner from what it could be considered in a Committee; and with regard to the land part of the question, it was one on which the future of Canada depended, and was not within our consideration at all, nor had it been for the last 40 years. The waste lands of Canada were as completely under the government of Canada as were the Crown lands of this country under the Advisers of the Crown. The subject could not be inquired into before a Committee. They might, therefore, dismiss from their consideration the whole argument relating to emigration and waste lands. He must, then, consider the speech of the hon. Member for Leith on its merits. He objected to the hon. Member for Leith being considered as an authority on the question. The hon. Gentleman had not been properly accredited to us, and he did not speak with the authority of the Colonies he represented. The hon. Gentleman was an active member of the Colonial Society; but he (Viscount Bury) had it in charge from the authorities of that Society to say that they dissociated themselves from the views of his hon. Friend. They did not think the course he took was a good one, or that it would be conducive to a better understanding between this country and the Colonies. A short time ago the hon. Member for Leith summoned a meeting at the office of the Colonial Society. Invitations were addressed to some hundred or more of its members, but only 14 responded to his appeal, and of that 14 not one would endorse any of the proposals he had brought forward, but all begged him not at this time to press the Motion of which he had given Notice. Among those present was the Agent General of South Australia, Mr. Dutton, who said he was not aware of the existence of any grievance in that Colony, and if there were any, it would not be left to England to point out that the Colony did not require federation, neither had they any desire or idea of separating from Great Britain. They were perfectly satisfied with their position. Almost all the speakers held the same language. He objected to this Motion on another ground—it was an old friend with a new face. For some years his hon. Friend the Member for Leith had made a very able speech on the subject of delegates from the Colonies to confer with the Colonial Office—to form a sort of Colonial Council, very much like the old Indian Council; but he found that view did not find much favour in the House, and therefore, on this occasion, he had mixed it up with the subject of emigration. But the two subjects were entirely distinct. The hon. Gentleman's instances of colonial grievances were old ones. He had quoted passages written in 1866, when the policy of taking away our troops was being for the first time vigorously carried out, and was bearing hardly on New Zealand, then in financial embarrassments; but it had passed away. The troops had been removed, and the grievance, such as it was, had passed away. True, we might be going from bad to worse. We might be, as the hon. Member described it, smoking our pipe with our eyes shut, and slipping down over the Falls of Niagara; but, supposing it were so, the proposed Committee would not alter our position, or enable us to avoid Niagara. All colonizing nations—Spain, Portugal, Holland—founded their colonization on trade monopoly, and interference with local government, and this was also the case with our original North American Colonies. This policy resulted in failure, and but for our providentially having new fields for the development of a new system we should now be denuded of Colonies. The new system was based on mutual interest and the influence of a common language and religion, a tie the very elasticity and slightness of which constituted its strength. To be constantly probing what the hon. Gentleman wrongly deemed a wound, to be constantly investigating the strength of the claim and raking up grievances, would be the very way to lose our Colonies. It was true that the stream of emigration was to a great extent directed to the United States; but the principal Colonies had agents in this country, whose business it was to hold out inducements for immigrants, and to call attention to the advantages of their respective territories. A Committee could not do more than this, and he believed the agents would deprecate its appointment as a hindrance rather than a help. Our trade with our Colonies was much larger in proportion to the population than that with the United States or France, consisting chiefly in the importation of raw materials and the exportation of manufactured goods, while it was, carried on mainly by British shipping. This would continue to be the case as long as the connection remained, for the Cape, Natal, Ceylon, Java, Dutch Guiana and Surinam, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the West India Islands, Colonies which had all changed their allegiance, proved that trade always followed the flag. Their present trade was entirely or nearly entirely with the country with which they were at present connected. The connection between the Colonies and the Mother Country was mutually profitable, and a Committee would throw no new light on the matter. Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Leith would not press his Motion to a division.

MR. W. JOHNSTON

said, that whatever might be the result of the Motion, it was satisfactory to know that the House did not grudge some of its valuable time to the discussion of so important a subject as emigration and the welfare of our Colonies. It was, however, to be regretted that they were often spoken of as aliens from the Mother Country rather than as members of one great Empire. On the other hand, it must have been gratifying to Canada to find that the Under Secretary of the colonies so warmly expressed himself during the Recess in indicating on the part of the Government their firm determination to maintain the British Empire in its integrity and uphold the British flag. Great benefits would result from the appointment of Lord Dufferin as Governor General of Canada. Having recently visited that great Dominion, he could speak, from personal intercourse with many of its inhabitants, of their close attachment to the British Empire, id of their determination, under all circumstances, boldly to maintain their connection with it. The superficial area Canada was greater than that of the lifted States, and was almost as great the Continent of Europe, extending as did to 3,500,000 square miles. Yet it contained a population of only 4,000,000, while it was, according to the most reliable calculations, capable of sustaining a population of 140,000,000. He could not, therefore, but regret that the stream of population should be diverted from the Dominion to a foreign, and not always friendly, State. We could not, of course, compel our fellow-countrymen to emigrate to British soil and still live under the British flag, however gratifying it would be to us if they would always do so; but at least every inducement might be held out to immigrants to remain under the Red Cross of St. George rather than emigrate to the country of the Stars and Stripes. He might mention that inducements were offered in Canada to emigrants to remain in the Dominion, and especially to industrious artizans in the province Ontario. That province contained 121,260 square miles—about the superficial area of Great Britain and Ireland. Its population in 1871 was only 2,136,308, while it was capable of sustaining 10,000,000 souls. The climate of Canada is was healthy and beneficial as that of any country on the face of the globe. True its winters were severe, and its summers rather warmer than ours; but a race of more healthy men or handsomer women than the Canadians was not to be found. He regretted to hear the hon. Member who introduced the Motion (Mr. Macfie) allude in somewhat disparaging terms to the loan guaranteed to Canada on account of the Treaty of Washington. What were the views expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald, Prime Minister of the Dominion, in the debate on the Treaty in May, 1872. He said— Besides the double advantage to ourselves in getting the endorsement of England, without disadvantage to the English people, there is to be considered the great, the enormous benefit that accrues to Canada from this open avowal on the part of England of the interest she takes in the success of our great public enterprises. No one can now say.… that she has any idea of separating herself from us, and giving up the Colonies..ߪ It will put a finish at once to the hopes of all dreamers or speculators who desire or believe in the alienation and separation of the Colonies from the Mother Country. He (Mr. Johnston) had travelled thousands of miles through the Dominion during last summer, and among the tens of thousands of people he met with, he did not find one annexationist. They always regarded with interest whatever was done by the statesmen at home with a view of more closely uniting the bonds that bound Canada to England. There was an extreme desire on the part of the Canadians to have more frequent intercourse between the leading men in England and the Colony. The visits of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and other Royal Princes to Canada had aided very beneficially in promoting a good feeling between the two countries, and he believed that if the Sovereign Lady who ruled the Empire would cross the Atlantic and visit her loyal subjects in Canada, it would tend still further to deepen their attachment to the Throne. He could not vote for the appointment of the Committee.

MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN

said, if the Motion had been confined simply to the appointment of a Committee to consider the political relations between this country and the Colonies, he could not have supported it; because he believed that such an inquiry at present would not be productive of beneficial results, but would be premature. The Motion, however, asked for a Committee to consider the subject of emigration and the occupation of waste lands, and so far he considered it deserving of support. They could not shut their eyes to the fact that for the last 20 years emigration had been directed from these islands to the United States, which might have been diverted—or, at all events, a considerable proportion of it, had proper inducements been held out—to our own Colonies. He was strongly of opinion that some legitimate means to that end might be devised without the imposition of any considerable burdens on the people of this country. When such Powers were growing up in the world as Russia in Europe and the United States in America, compared with which all other Powers would be as dwarfs to giants, this question became one of serious importance. Without entertaining the slightest animosity, but, on the contrary, the most perfect goodwill towards the United States, he maintained that the object we in this country ought steadfastly to keep in view was to increase the power and population of our own dependencies, whether or not those dependencies should become at some distant period independent nations, rather than allow their surplus population to go and swell the strength of the great Transatlantic Republic. The figures quoted by the noble Lord (Viscount Bury) showed that our own colonists took a far greater proportion of our manufactures than did the people of any country in Europe, or than the United States, and the degree to which they would do so depended, of course, upon the extent of their population; and this consideration alone ought to induce us to consider whether means might not be used to cause emigration to flow in the direction of our own Colonies. What was the conduct of the Government in this matter? If they laid down the rule, as universal in its application, that to expend the public money in promoting such an object was contrary to the principles of free trade, he could understand their argument, and admit there was some force in it; but they sent out expeditions, and established expensive military stations, in order to find markets for British goods. In Japan we maintained from 1864 to 1870 a force of more than 1,000 seamen and marines. The expense of British troops could not be less than £100 per head, in addition to which was the enormous expense of transporting the troops that were sent to distant places; so that we were spending above £100,000 for those we had in Japan, though Japan only took about £1,500,000 in the matter of our exports. He could scarcely reconcile that fact in the argument of the Government on this question. It was said that there was too much emigration already; that it caused wages to rise, and that it was desirable nothing should be done to cause a greater increase of wages. He would not have them increase. All he desired was to see emigration flowing in one direction instead of another. If a man went to America, it cost him only £5 for his passage, if to Australia, £15. He therefore went to the former country, in many cases simply because it cost him less to go there. Assist that man to go to Australia, and the difficulty would be met, and in that manner the tide of emigration would be diverted, with advantage to this country. There was another aspect of emigration to which he thought attention ought to be paid—he meant the great preponderance of male over female emigrants. There was in this country an excess of females over males to something like the number of 600,000. This was due, no doubt, to natural causes; but it was aggravated by the much larger number of men who emigrated than of women. On the other hand, in those lands to which they emigrated there existed a much larger disproportion of men to women. He thought that a matter which deserved very grave attention. He trusted that on those grounds the Government would think it right to grant the Committee which was asked for.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that as the House of Commons was a practical Assembly he did not see what would be the use of continuing a debate of this character, and he hoped that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies might be allowed at once to draw a graceful curtain upon what was really becoming merely an annual sentimental exercitation. If there was any advantage whatever that the debate should take place, in order that it might draw expressions of attachment to the Colonies, and if the performance was of any practical service, the House would no doubt be quite willing to allow the hon. Gentleman to pay his compliments to the Colonies once per annum. For his own part, he did not think there was a single Member of the House who was not as anxious to maintain our connection with the Colonies as the Colonies were undoubtedly anxious to maintain intimate relationship with this country. The feeling of loyalty and attachment to the Crown on the part of all the Colonies never had been stronger than it was now, though it was not a whit stronger than the affection of the Mother Country towards the Colonies. We were attached to them not only by material interest, but by every possible sort of tie, national, domestic, political, economical, and commercial, and the relationship was as close and as vigorous now as it could be. He accounted for that satisfactory state of things to our having gradually fallen back upon our old colonial policy—the policy that the colonists should take upon themselves all the functions of citizenship which we assumed at home. That was, he believed, the only healthy relation. We had ceased from the absurd attempt to manage their affairs, and to keep them leaning upon us in a relation of dependency, merely for the sake of maintaining a connection through their weakness; and as a consequence of having allowed them to defend their own hearths, and manage their own affairs, not only their spirit, moral character, and prosperity, but their feeling of loyal attachment towards the Mother Country had greatly increased. Their peaceful relations with their neighbours also dated from their acceptance of full responsibility, and their actual strength was for the first time drawn out. When the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple) deplored the withdrawal of English troops from the Colonies, and said we were stripping Canada of troops, the hon. Gentleman betrayed his real depreciation of colonists as not being British subjects equally with ourselves. He seemed utterly unconscious that colonial troops were none the less British troops, and that for every home soldier withdrawn from Canada there were 100 Canadian soldiers drawn out, who might be considered as much British troops as those withdrawn. The withdrawals had therefore only increased the strength of the Imperial Army garrisoning every part of the Empire. When lie said that this was purely a sentimental debate—a mere debating society exercitation, he maintained that the Motion of the hon. Member for Leith led to nothing which could be properly called a proposition in any practical sense whatever. The nearest thing to a proposition the hon. Member offered—namely, that there should be a Council consisting of Representatives of all the Colonies, who should hold the position of a Congress over the whole Empire—was one which every Member of the House must regard as being as chimerical as the restoration of the Heptarchy. That would mean, if anything, a Congress deciding peace or war, deciding great commercial questions; in fact, overriding the debates of the British Parliament on all matters that were Imperial. To say nothing of the absurdity of imagining Representatives from worldwide Colonies discussing each other's relations, the submission by this House of its control of the English purse to men coming from other Legislatures taxing our colonial fellow-subjects independently, and not taxed by us, would be a sufficiently impossible supposition. The proposition of the hon. Member was so fanciful that it was almost an insult to the sense of the House to occupy time in discussing whether a Committee should be appointed to inquire into it. Then there was another apparent proposition —namely, that the colonial waste lands should be resumed. The Crown had not given up the control of the Crown lands in any part of the Empire. The waste lands were as much Crown lands still as they had ever been; but the Parliament which dealt with the disposal of the money arising from the sale of these lands was the Parliament belonging to the Colony in which the sale took place. That was all that had been conceded, and most properly. The hon. Gentleman complained that so many English emigrants went to the United States; but he (Sir Charles Adderley) would like to know how any Committee of that House could suggest any mode of preventing that. Could anything that that House could do alter the greater attractions of the United States as compared with Canada? A number of the emigrants who went to Canada passed on to the United States; but he supposed the hon. Gentleman would not only make them go to Canada, but tether them down when they arrived there. It was neither within the functions nor the power of the House of Commons to affect the attractions of one or another quarter of the world to emigrants. With regard to the State assisting emigration, he believed that whatever this House might be foolish enough to grant in the way of assisting emigration would be just so much diminution of the actual practicable funds available for emigration, whether supplied voluntarily from this country or sent home by families who had emigrated, to their relations and friends in this country. The sum remitted by persons who had emigrated amounted to £1,000,000 per annum, and that was a far greater sum than the hon. Member would venture to propose to give by way of aid to emigration.

MR. MACFIE

said, he had not contemplated the application of any Government fund to emigration.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, that nothing had been suggested for the consideration of the Committee but shadowy hints at possible propositions of the most chimerical character, and he hoped that the House would not debate the Motion further, much less consent to impose its consideration on a Committee.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, that we lived in the age of Select Committees. The House had recently agreed to appoint Committees on the Estimates, the Sale of Stores, and the Coal Supply; and, considering that so many able Members of the House had consented to serve on those Committees, he must object to refer the subject of our colonial government to a fourth Select Committee. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) always treated this subject with such an earnest and honest persistency that he felt a sort of friendly desire, almost bordering on anxiety, that his hon. Friend might one day propose a Resolution to which, on behalf of the Government, he could agree. The present Resolution could not, however, be classed in that category. Select Committees should be only appointed under one of two conditions, or both combined—first, that a Committee might be able to afford some information, not otherwise accessible to the House, in a convenient form; and, secondly, that there should be some chance that their deliberations would lead to some practical result. Both these conditions were wanting in the present case. The House was already in possession of the fullest information, partly owing to the hon. Member himself, who had for two years initiated a debate in which it had been his duty to describe in detail our colonial relations, and to explain the policy of the Government. As to any practical result, if the Committee sat from now to Doomsday they could arrive at none, unless the House was prepared to do what it could do without a Committee—namely, reverse the policy of the present and past Governments for many years, and recall or limit the powers of self-government in our larger Colonies, thus provoking a conflict of which none living would perhaps see the end. He would ask his hon. Friend, for instance, to consider the question of waste lands. With the exception of Western Australia and Natal, there was no large Colony to which Parliament had not given up the management and control of its own waste lands. These Colonies might safely be trusted with the management of their own affairs and any attempt to resume such power; would only lead to confusion. Was there any indisposition on the part of the Colonies to receive our emigrants? The answer must be in the negative. He agreed with his hon. Friend in the desire to see every English emigrant inhabiting some English Colony; but, if that were not the state of things at the present moment, it was not to be imputed to any defects in our colonial arrangements, but to the perversity of Englishmen, who insisted on going where they were likely to be most prosperous. If they preferred the United States to Canada, no statesman on either side of the House would propose an Act to restrain free Englishmen from going where they pleased. He did not suppose that his hon. Friend wished to send to our Colonies, against their will, emigrants of the pauper class. That would be a step by no means likely to improve our relations with our Colonies. He could only mean that it was desirable that able bodied emigrants of the class who were likely to thrive and prosper should be directed to the Colonies. Agents were, however, appointed by the larger Colonies to give every information to intending emigrants, and to afford facilities to those who were anxious to obtain passages. All that could be done to attract the emigrants they desired to receive was done by the Colonies. Only that day he had read a letter from the Canadian agent containing supplementary information in regard to emigration, and stating that additionally favourable terms were to be granted, as Canada was greatly in want of emigrants. The Colony of New Zealand had also reduced the passage-money from £16 or £15 to £5, thus showing that the Colonies themselves were making strenuous and well-directed attempts to promote emigration to their shores. As time advanced, and as the Colonies required population for their waste lands, those efforts would naturally be continued. It was quite obvious that any action on the part of the Home Government was of very doubtful policy. It would check free emigration, and he did not believe that, unless under exceptional circumstances, Parliament would be prepared to vote public money for the purpose of enabling people to obtain employment in the Colonies, which would be a step towards using the public money in order to give employment to persons in this country. Such a proposal would open large questions which might be looming in the future, but into which he would not enter on the present occasion. His hon. Friend had told the House that if what he called a bloody war were to break out, there would be no soldiers ready to defend our Colonies, while in almost the same breath he complained of maintaining the large establishments at St. Helena, Gibraltar, and Malta. The policy lately pursued of withdrawing troops—a policy pursued by Conservative as well as Liberal Governments, and the reversal of which had never been attempted by the former when in Office—had never been intended to weaken the ties existing between the Colonies and the Mother Country, nor to show any diminution on our part of regard for the Colonies; but the question was, whether in the case of a great insular Power like Great Britain, the concentration of troops in particular depôts would not in the long run prove most beneficial to the Colonies themselves, besides augmenting the general strength of the Empire. Considering that this was the third year in which he had had to speak on this subject on the Motion of his hon. Friend, he should not now address the House at unreasonable length; but he felt bound to add his testimony to that of his noble Friend the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury), and to say that he could not accept the hon. Member for Leith as an accredited agent of the Colonies in regard to this matter. Not wishing to show his lion. Friend any disrespect, he would refrain from reading extracts either from the colonial Press or from certain private letters he had seen. If he was to read them, he was afraid his hon. Friend would think he did not evince that respect which he was anxious to show him. Indeed, the language he had heard and read on the subject of this annual Motion was of such a character, that his natural feeling of politeness towards his hon. Friend induced him to forbear from quoting it. The colonists said in effect that they were well able to manage their own affairs, and that if they had a grievance they had representative institutions and a responsible Government which could investigate it, and if necessary bring it under the notice of the Home Government. Further, the colonists said they had never found in individual cases, a lack of Members of the House of Commons who would take up grievances which the responsible local Government had failed to redress. Such being the case, they did not approve this annual disturbance of the relations existing between them and us; nor could they perceive that any alteration in those relations was necessary. He thought the Colonial question could take care of itself, and, therefore, he deprecated this annual Motion, which was not only useless, but might become positively mischievous. No doubt the hon. Gentleman had received letters complaining of this or that grievance. In the great Colonies we possess, with a free Press and people allowed to say what they pleased, it would be strange indeed if an hon. Member who proposed any colonial crotchet should fail to have a few correspondents to support him. But the general evidence before him showed conclusively that the hon. Member for Leith would have exercised a more mature discretion if he had listened to the members of the Colonial Institute, and had refrained from bringing forward his Motion. In contrasting our position with that of the United States, the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that we were a great insular Power with Colonies in different parts of the globe, and that consequently it was impossible for public men here to know all the ins and outs of waste lands in distant parts of the Empire; whereas in America, which was one great continent, the state of affairs was altogether different. His hon. Friend had referred to the colonial agents under the somewhat disrespectful terms "Tom, Dick, and Harry." No doubt the agents, who were able and valuable men, would be very glad to give his hon. Friend any information he might desire in order to facilitate his emigration, and though, for his own part, he hoped the House of Commons would not lose so valuable a Member, he should himself feel bound to forward his views in that respect as far as might lie in his power. He thanked his hon. Friend for the care with which he had read his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) speech of last year; but he was only sorry that it did not make a greater impression upon him. He would entreat him to study it again and compare it with the general tone of the colonial Press, and if the hon. Gentleman applied his mind to the arguments which he had then, and now in this debate again, used, he thought he would come to sounder conclusions upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman spoke of federation. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had never been able to find a man yet who could define exactly what it meant, for they all desired the union to be close between the Mother Country and her Colonies; and no one had spoken more frequently and earnestly than he had done upon that subject as to the opinions which he held of the great value of our Colonial Empire, and which he believed to be the opinions of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the expressions of the leading journal in a certain article, and he could only say that he had read with the greatest regret those expressions, which gave the greatest pain to Canadians and to Englishmen also. He was bound to state with respect to any severance of the ties between England and Canada, that on the part both of Englishmen and Canadians there was not only not a desire for, but a shrinking from the idea of any such severance, and that this feeling was shared by Her Majesty's Ministers. Two schemes had been proposed to the House. One was, that the Colonies should have Representatives in that House, and the other that there should be a Colonial Council. He had always thought that the former was the preferable of the two; but there were very great objections even to it. The distance of the Colonies from this country was one objection; another was, that whilst we managed our own affairs at home, we had given the Colonies a similar power for their affairs, and under the proposed scheme there would be the anomaly of colonial Representatives voting upon our internal affairs, whilst we had nothing to do with theirs. But the remedy would be still more difficult—namely, to have Members sitting there without possessing the full power which their brother Members had. Another objection was, that the House of Commons would either get the best men of the Colonies and thus rob their local Parliaments of them, or else they would obtain inferior men, which would be satisfactory neither to the Colonies nor to the House. But the Council proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be quite unworkable. If 15 English statesmen sitting on that Treasury Bench to manage the affairs of the nation, and finding they had plenty to absorb their time and attention, were to have added to them 15 other gentlemen from various parts of the Empire, all intent upon their own affairs, he would feel inclined to exclaim "God help the united Cabinet." The ultimate determination of peace or war, or of any great Imperial question, the English people would never be satisfied to let pass out of the hands of their own Representatives, and the 15 colonial Members would be placed in an entirely false position. As the subject of the Canadian Loan would come before the House later in the Session, he would not anticipate the discussion now, but would confine himself to the expression of a hope and belief that the House would vote it cheerfully and gladly. The people of Canada entertained the warmest feeling towards the Mother Country, and this was reciprocated in the hearts of the British people. Indeed, there was no better feeling between the inhabitants of the different counties in England than existed between the great body of the English people and their loyal Canadian brethren. He quite appreciated the motive of his hon. Friend in bringing forward this Motion; but believing that it would produce no practical result; that it might give rise, as far as emigration was concerned, to hopes which would end in disappointment; and that it was, moreover, not wise to enter upon sentimental debates, he should, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, give to the proposal a respectful but decided opposition.

SIR ROBERT TORRENS

wished to make a few thoroughly practical remarks on this proposition, which had been characterized as a sentimental and non-practical one. In consequence of the Geneva Award, it had been settled that coals were henceforth to be deemed contraband of war, and that if a belligerent vessel coaled in a neutral port, the neutral Power should be responsible for all damage thereafter inflicted by such vessel. These two alterations in the law would greatly alter the position of this country in the event of war, and they supplied strong reasons for re-considering the policy of withdrawing all military aid from the Colonies. He could best illustrate this by stating an actual case. King George's Sound commanded the Southern Ocean. Coals being now necessary for propelling all vessels of war, any ship making for Australia or the Southern Ocean, whether she came by the Cape route, or from the Red Sea viâ Ceylon, or the Mauritius, would arrive off Cape Leewin with coals exhausted after at least a fortnight's steaming to that point, and must put into King George's Sound for a fresh supply. The place might, at a small expense, be rendered as impregnable as Aden; but we had not a single gun there, and, as he believed, not a single artilleryman. The whole population did not exceed 100 souls, most of them convicts. They could offer no resistance to an invading or intruding force, and probably would not do so even if they could. Under the Geneva Award we were absolutely responsible unless we took reasonable precautions to protect the many thousand tons of coals stored at this place by the Peninsular and Oriental Company; for, if we allowed them to be taken possession of by a belligerent Power, we might have to pay compensation for the amount of injury which they enabled that belligerent Power to commit. Upon these grounds he thought the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) was fully justified in bringing the case before the consideration of the House, although he must add that he did not think that a Committee of that House was the best means of disposing of the question which had been raised.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he was of opinion that anyone who took an interest in the Colonies must recognise the very great exertions which his hon. Friend (Mr. Macfie) had made in order to promote those interests and to strengthen the good feeling and the good understanding which prevailed between England and her Colonies. But he would venture to submit to his hon. Friend that the course which he had taken was not calculated to promote the cause which he had in view. He could not but think that there would be great difficulty in finding Members especially qualified to sit on such Committee, and he was inclined to think that the House would not find any good result from such appointment. He would therefore entreat his hon. Friend not to take up the time of the House by dividing, especially as a division would be no accurate test of the feelings of hon. Members.

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

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.