HC Deb 07 March 1873 vol 214 cc1520-34
LORD EUSTACE CECIL,

in rising to call attention to the undue taxation now imposed upon the taxpayers of the United Kingdom for the defence of the Colonies, and to move— That this House is of opinion that the time has now come when, having regard to the best interests of the Empire, the taxpayers of the United Kingdom should be relieved from the unequal burden of taxation which they have hitherto borne for Imperial purposes; and that with this view each Colony should be invited to contribute, in proportion to its population and wealth, such annual contingents of men or such sums of money towards the defence of the Empire as may, by arrangement between the Home and Colonial Governments, be hereafter deemed just and necessary, begged to state that his object certainly was not to alienate the Colonies from the mother country, or to curtail their defences in any way. On the contrary, he should be very glad to bind more closely those ties of mutual interest and friendship which existed between the mother country and the Colonies, and to see such a re-organization of the land forces of the Empire that those forces might be available at any time for its defence, even for the most insignificant part of it. But in order to effect this object, it seemed to him that one of the first necessities of the case was, that the relations which existed between the mother country and the Colonies, so far as the burden of taxation was concerned, should be founded upon a principle of justice, and that principle, so far as the taxpayers of the United Kingdom were concerned, he had not been able to discover. He had taken some pains to ascertain what the cost of the Colonies had been to this country during the last half century; and he found that in a period of 57 years, from 1815 to 1872, it had been £103,000,000. None of this sum had been expended in keeping up the Navy, which might be looked upon as a proper charge upon the Home Exchequer, but it had been incurred for the civil and military expenses of our 31 Colonies, exclusive of India. If they examined into these figures a little more closely, they would find that about £86,000,000 of that money had been spent since 1845, and about £66,000,000 of it had been expended during the last 18 years. Previous to 1845, the Colonies did not on an average cost the country more, or even so much, as £500,000 a-year, but since that date the average expenditure had been between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 a-year. In order to fortify himself with official support, he would refer to a speech which was made during the Recess by the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) to his constituents at the Deal and Walmer Institute, in which that hon. Gentleman said—if he was correctly reported—he found, from a Report presented to that House in 1870, that the cost of the Colonies during the previous year was £3,693,000, but that part of that money was expended for Imperial, and not strictly Colonial, purposes. It seemed to him (Lord Eustace Cecil) that throughout the lecture upon this subject there had been a confusion of ideas in the mind of the hon. Gentleman as to what was the meaning of Imperial expenses. He did not blame the Government for this, because there was a very general idea that Imperial expenses were to be paid by the British taxpayer—although he, for one, had always contended against that theory, being of opinion that Imperial expenses should be borne by the whole Empire, and not by a part of it only. Such great stations as Bermuda, Malta, and Gibraltar were maintained for the benefit of the Colonies as much as for that of England, and therefore the whole Empire, and not Great Britain alone, should be called upon to pay for them. The sum which we now paid for the Colonies was so considerable that it would enable us to pay such a sum as the Alabama Claims every year, or it would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give more agreeable answers to those persons who went to him in reference to the income tax and the malt tax. Whatever had been the theory hitherto in justification of this expenditure from the Home Exchequer, it was now altogether indefensible, because the Colonies were no longer dependencies, but had constitutions of their own. It might be said that the colonial Parliaments had no voice in the declaration of peace or war, but neither had the Parliament of Great Britain in theory. It had only an equal right with the colonial Parliaments to address the Crown upon a question of foreign policy, and surely in these days of steam and telegraphy that right could be as well exercised by the one as by the other. Lord Lytton, he believed, in 1858 wrote a despatch to the Colonies, in which he called upon them to raise local forces for the purpose of defence. A Return which the Under Secretary for the Colonies had kindly given to him showed how far that despatch had been acted upon. Exclusive of India and Canada—which, of course, had forces of its own, and to which great credit was due for having raised forces sufficient to meet any emergency—the Colonies, numbering 27 or 28, had a force of only 25,109, and were scattered all over the globe. Such was the result of a paternal Government. Last year he had brought the question of colonial fortifications before the House. He moved then, on grounds which he thought were sufficient, that the Vote for fortifications at Bermuda should be refused; and he should have more to say this year on the sub- ject at the proper time. In his opinion, so long as English money was spent in this way, so long would the expenditure incurred be enormous. He was aware that there were some military men in favour of a large expenditure upon our Colonies. He held, however, the opinion that military men were quite as ready to run riot in matters of expense as any other class when they were not subject to sufficient control. Now, the remedy for this large expenditure which he proposed, was that the Colonies should be invited to pay, according to their means, for strictly Imperial defences. What was worth having was worth paying for. If our Colonies were to enjoy the privilege belonging to this great Empire, they ought to be ready to bear their fair share of the expense. This was not his own opinion exclusively, for he found the same opinion had been fermenting in the minds of many others, and the object of his Motion was to elicit the view of the House and the Government on the subject. He might quote on the subject from an article which appeared in Fraser's Magazine of last February, written by Mr. Cyril Graham, formerly private secretary to Lord Carnarvon, in which he advocated the establishment of one Army and Navy toward which the Colonies should be asked to contribute in a given ratio. Mr. Baden Powell, too, the author of a recent work entitled New Homes for the Old Country, was in favour of a federal fleet, and said that a common Army would be a great source of union. The leading journal, The Times, of the 16th November, 1872, said that the Imperial integrity should be maintained "upon equal terms," and equal terms must mean that the Colonies should bear their fair share of Imperial expenditure. He might also refer to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), who, in a recent lecture delivered during the Recess to his constituents, said that the Colonies must henceforth take, not a Colonial, but an Imperial view of questions, according to their general bearing upon the state of the whole Empire. Lastly, he might quote the authority of Adam Smith, who, writing apparently at the time of the War of Independence with America, strongly enforced the policy of requiring our Colonies to bear a fair share of the burdens imposed for their own defence, and stated that if the British Colonies could not be made to contribute towards the support of the whole Empire, Great Britain had better free herself from them. Considering how wealthy the Colonies were, and how able they were to contribute towards Imperial expenditure, he (Lord Eustace Cecil) thought it time our Colonial policy in this matter was re-considered by the Government. He dared to say it would be advanced as an objection to his Motion that it would necessitate the representation of the Colonies in that House. He confessed he did not see any necessity for such representation. In Austria and Hungary and in Switzerland, considerable sums were raised by independent Legislatures for the purpose of Imperial and Federal defence. We had after all the machinery at hand. The Agents General of the Colonies might be empowered by their Governments to make arrangements with the Home Government as to the quotas of men or money which each Colony should be invited to contribute, and such quotas might afterwards be voted by the Colonial Legislatures. He merely threw out that idea as a suggestion, and if there was a better one he should be glad to adopt it, as he was only anxious that this matter should be considered by the Government. He was most desirous that no suspicion of hostility to the Colonies should for a moment attach to him in making this Motion. He was most sensible of the advantages which the Colonies conferred upon the mother country in promoting her wealth and grandeur, as well as of the fostering which this country had shown towards them, and which had contributed so much to the wealth of the Colonies themselves. But it was because there existed the joint partnership in interests and privileges between the Colonies and this Empire that he was anxious that there should also be a joint partnership in bearing the burden of Imperial defence. The Colonies were no longer dependencies; they were practically free States, with free institutions. They were not infants in swaddling-clothes; they were not even children at school; but had arrived at the mature age of manhood with all its privileges and responsibilities. They had a splendid future before them, with unbounded resources and enormous capabilities, while we had arrived at, if we had not passed, the meridian of our wealth and power. Was it not time, then, that the Colonies should be asked to contribute their fair share towards the maintenance of our common Empire.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that the time has now come when, having regard to the best interests of the Empire, the taxpayers of the United Kingdom should be relieved from the unequal burden of taxation which they have hitherto borne for Imperial purposes: and that with this view each Colony should be invited to contribute, in proportion to its population and wealth, such annual contingents of men or such sums of money towards the defence of the Empire as may, by arrangement between the Home and Colonial Governments, be hereafter deemed just and. necessary," (Lord Eustace Cecil,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he wished to explain the reasons why he could not concur in the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil). It appeared to him that as it stood on the Paper it implied a different object from that which his noble Friend had in view. At the conclusion of his speech the noble Lord said he was most anxious to preserve our connection with the Colonies, and recommended an appeal to the Colonies to contribute towards Imperial taxation; but he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) submitted that the Motion as it stood was not likely to effect that result. He thought that if such a demand were made on the Colonies it would result in the deepest discontent and heart-burnings in them. As it had been said in the American war of independence, it would be argued that we had no right to tax the Colonies when they were not represented in that House. There were great difficulties connected with the proposed plan. He was, however, not prepared to say that those difficulties were insuperable. It was, he believed, the general feeling of the British people that our connection with the Colonies should be preserved, inasmuch as they contributed to the greatness of this country, which was acknowledged in the common expression that the Queen reigned over an Empire upon which the sun never sets. Probably this country was never richer than it was at present; but looking abroad he did not think our power was as great as it was some 40 or 50 years ago. If they took up any foreign paper they would find quite as much, if not more, attention given to a small state like Switzerland than to Great Britain. What made this country great was her connection with Colonies scattered all over the world, and with her dependency of India, the most remarkable in the history of the world. The people of this country would cheerfully bear all the expenses incurred by our connections abroad rather than suffer the loss of our Colonies, which would reduce us to a third-rate power. He could conceive of nothing more fatal to the best interests of the Empire than a separation between this country and Canada, and he deprecated any suggestion of severance. He had heard with great pain the word "bribe" used in respect to the loan made to the Canadian government. That was a most improper expression. The national Exchequer did not risk one farthing in the transaction, while it enabled Canada to raise money upon better terms than they would otherwise have been able to do. He was glad to take that opportunity of repudiating the offensive word. In conclusion, he would express a hope that his noble Friend would not press his Motion to a division.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

did not propose to follow the example of his hon. Friend who had last spoken, who never started in a colonial debate of any description whatever, without somehow or other finding his way to the Canadian Loan. He felt personally indebted to his noble Friend for the course he had taken, inasmuch as he had supplied him with the solution of a problem which had for some time past been a source of perplexity to him. During the last two or three years he had noticed that at many meetings held by gentlemen connected with the Conservative party speeches had been made in which, after the orators had exhausted their criticism upon the home measures of the Government, they had dropped dark and mysterious hints about the Government's fatal colonial policy, and had accused the Government of dealing in an unfriendly spirit with the Colonies and of adopting a course which tended to alienate the affections of the Colonies and to weaken the ties between them and the Mother Country. He had often wondered what could be the meaning of those speeches, knowing, as he did, that the colonial policy of the present Government differed in no material respect from that which had been pursued by every Government which had sat upon those benches for a quarter of a century; and his curiosity was considerably excited to know what would be the soothing, kindly, and remedial measures which the party opposite on their accession to power would adopt. His noble Friend was the Œdipus who had solved the enigma, and as he was the near relative of an eminent Conservative statesman, he could not question the authority with which he had spoken. It was, then, at last declared, that the real remedy for all colonial ills, the Conservative panacea for supposed colonial discontent, and the way in which the colonial craving for closer union with this country was to be satisfied, was to be a demand for increased contributions from the Colonies for the defence of Imperial interests. Whilst giving full credit to his noble Friend for the most sincere desire to preserve the connection between this country and her Colonies, he questioned very much whether the policy which he would initiate would have that effect, or whether the colonists were prepared to accept that policy of the Conservative party—["No, no!"]—as likely to conciliate the people of the Colonies. He had no apprehension that his noble Friend's policy was likely to be adopted by any party in that House. He believed that a fair share of the public burden was placed upon the Colonies, and therefore the House was not justified in adopting any such measure as that of the noble Lord. Without entering into the history of the last 30 years, during which there were many exceptional expenses, he would point out that the attempts of the present Government to reduce the expenditure on behalf of the Colonies where it could fairly be reduced, having regard to colonial and Imperial interests, had been persistent, and that a material reduction had been effected. Whereas in 1869 the expenditure cost this country £3,388,033, according to the Returns presented the other day, it was now only £1,708,290, and this saving had been incurred, not by really weakening any Colony by withdrawing the men, but by an economical system of concentration which the Government believed would be found beneficial both to the Colonies and to this country. From the noble Lord's statement he gathered that he had not paid very close attention to the Estimate presented the other day, because he found from it that the Colonies which had free constitutions and representative Governments were precisely those Colonies upon which they did not have any military expenditure. The expenditure at Nova Scotia and Bermuda was entirely for the defence of our maritime interests; the establishments at Malta and Gibraltar were Imperial; Cape Town was a great naval centre, and the Cape Colony paid towards the expenditure for the local advantages it received; Hong Kong paid a full contribution, and the Straits Settlements a sum which had been complained of as really more than their fair share. It would interest the House to know that the larger portion of the expenditure incurred on behalf of the Colonies was for Imperial purposes. He had carefully worked out the figures, and he found that, considering the Imperial interests that were at stake, and which required an expenditure that ought to and would be in any case defrayed by England, out of the total of £1,708,290,£1,205,026 might be fairly charged to Imperial purposes, leaving about £500,000 for local purposes in the Colonies. That sum, he believed, was really in excess of the right amount, and it might be fairly said that the £238,600 repaid by certain Colonies—as shown in a recent War Office Return—amounted to a full half of the total sum so expended; or, to put it in another way, it appeared that all the Colonies made full repayments, except the settlements on the West Coast of Africa and the West Indian Colonies. With regard to the former, even his noble Friend would not like to call upon them for a contribution, and in the case of the latter the local revenues had not been strong enough to bear the expenditure, though it was hoped that this might gradually become the case. But with regard to these Colonies our expenditure was the result of our policy in abolishing the slave trade, and was not an expenditure which would be grudged by the taxpayers of this country. But in truth the whole of this question hinged a great deal upon another question—namely, as to the value which the country set upon the possession of the Colonies. If the noble Lord believed that the Colonies were of little value to this country, of course he would be right in maintaining that no burden on their account should be imposed on the taxpayers of Great Britain. But he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) held a very different opinion. The Colonies were not only standing monuments of the energy and enterprise of Englishmen; not only by their means the fame of England was spread abroad through every quarter of the world; but they were of great practical value also as depots for our trade, coaling stations for our ships, as homes for our emigrants, and safe channels for the extension and development of our commerce. But Colonies could not at all times be self-maintaining; in their infancy they required the fostering aid of the Mother Country; as they advanced towards maturity they became more and more independent of that aid, and the House might depend upon it that just in proportion to the kindness and equity with which that aid was distributed would be the duration of the affectionate connection between the Mother Country and the Colonies. It was very difficult to determine what exact sum should be paid in these cases, but it was the duty of the Government to take care that it was not excessive; and, on the other hand, he was sure that the people of this country would never allow the Government to deal with the Colonies in a niggardly or parsimonious spirit. The Colonies had a right to expect just and fair consideration; they did not expect that the Government should engage in any lavish expenditure on their behalf which would impose a heavy burden upon the ratepayers of this country, and the people of England on the other hand would be ready to sanction such wise and prudent expenditure as would tend to promote colonial prosperity, and at the same time to consolidate Imperial power. On behalf of the Government he could not accede to the Motion. It was their duty from time to time to see what Colonies were able to take upon themselves their fair share of the expenditure, and to take care that that expenditure should be borne by them; and anyone who would look back to the policy of the Government since it came into office would see that it had endeavoured to carry out that duty. The Government must decline to accept the vague idea of a great improvement suggested by the noble Lord in his Resolution, which, if adopted, would very likely awaken misgiving in the Colonies, and perhaps would not be attended by the good results which he expected and desired. But the noble Lord and the House might rest assured that no effort would be spared on the part of the Government, on the one hand to prevent the infliction of any unnecessary burdens upon the taxpayers at home, and on the other hand to deal with the Colonies in that fair, just, and liberal spirit which ought always to pervade the policy of a great and generous people.

MR. MACFIE

regretted the total absence in the House of any direct representation of the Colonies; while their quota of indirect representation was very small; nor, indeed, was that deficiency made up by any surplus of representation in the Upper House; and although the Colonial Department was satisfactorily managed, it by no means spoke with the authority of a representative body. When he ventured to recommend the more intimate connection of the Colonies with the Mother Country a week ago, he did not speak on behalf of the Royal Colonial Institute. The noble Lord (Viscount Bury) had made an allusion to the subject, seeming to think that he had professed to do so. But he was happy to say that he had since received a communication from the hon. secretary, who, by authority of its council stated that his (Mr. Macfie's) views were in accord with the views of those colonists who assembled there. What was wanted to be done might be effected in a variety of ways; and what was proposed was virtually done by other countries in regard to their Colonies. The Colonies were quite prepared to pay their reasonable quota of our expenses; and by bringing them into the relation of contributories they would identify them more and more with the interests of the Mother Country. It was a question of justice and expediency, and one worthy of the consideration of the highest statesmanship. The noble Lord would act wisely not to press his Motion to a division.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, he could not quite accept the argument of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) against the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), that the military expenditure of the Colonies was at this moment almost entirely for Imperial purposes, and that as the expenditure at Halifax was for Imperial purposes, the Canadian Dominion ought not to be called on to contribute towards it, and as the expenditure at Cape Town was for Imperial purposes, the Cape colonists should not contribute. If that argument were good it amounted to this, that as the expenditure at Portsmouth was for Imperial purposes, Hampshire ought not to be called upon to contribute towards the Naval Estimates connected with that port. In both cases the expenditure was as much for the local as for Imperial interests. In both cases the locality was part of the Empire. The same Sovereign in both cases had the sole prerogative of making war, under Parliamentary responsibility. That was not his argument against the Motion, but that this country had no right to tax the Colonies. They had their own Parliaments and their own way of raising taxation, and it was not for us to pass resolutions directing them what taxes they should raise, or how they should appropriate them. This country rather should abstain from taxing itself for what the Colonies ought to pay for themselves than resolve what they should pay. It was not more than 20 years ago that the Colonies did not pay one shilling towards their own military expenses; but this country taxed itself to the extent of £3,000,000 sometimes in one year for military and police expenses in the Colonies, which the colonial subjects of the Queen ought to have defrayed for themselves. For the last 20 years, England had gradually refrained from following out this foolish policy, which unduly burdened this country, demoralized the Colonies, and which often led to the stirring up rather than the putting down of wars. This country had withdrawn her troops from the Colonies, or called upon them to pay a contribution in the first place, and now the whole cost of the troops sent out from England for their benefit and protection. That plan was first adopted by Lord Grey, and it had since been adopted by every Government, whether Liberal or Conservative. It had resulted most successfully—the Colonies had become more prosperous, and local wars had been less prevalent. It had, in fact, increased the strength of the Empire, as well as saved our resources, and to no one was the country more indebted for this satisfactory change than to the present Secretary of State for War, who had boldly carried it out. Those who had criticized that policy as a desertion of the Colonies showed that they did not look on them as parts of the British Empire, able and as willing and interested in conducting their own affairs, as those at home. He hoped that policy would be adopted in the naval as well as military expenditure. They had begun to add local ships of war to the British Navy in Australia; and in Canada the armed flotilla which for some years had guarded the fisheries must be considered as an addition to the naval power of Great Britain. He hoped the policy he had indicated would be steadily encouraged, and thought it would have been wise, when we got rid of Woolwich dockyard-men as emigrants to Canada, if we had offered them to the Government of that Dominion, and suggested that Canada might have by their means set up a dockyard of her own. He rose rather to protest against the line of argument taken by the Under Secretary of State, and to insist that, as the Colonies had Parliaments of their own, it was their business to tax themselves, and that we should not again be guilty of the folly of attempting to tax them. Leave them to defend themselves, and the Queen will soon have as good an army as her home forces added by them to her power. Some of the elder Colonies had fought for the Empire and increased its territory, and we should encourage the present ones to assume this responsibility as part of a free and self-reliant Empire.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of his having used the term "tax the Colonies." The right hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood him. The term he used in his Notice of Motion and in his speech was that the colonists "be invited to contribute."

MR. GLADSTONE

I should be very sorry if this conversation should terminate in a manner which would leave it to be supposed that there was a serious difference of opinion on the subject. The noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), I presume, does not intend to take a division on his Motion:—I trust that he will withdraw it, but not under a sense of being discouraged in the view that he proposes. For my own part, I feel indebted to anyone who opens a question of this kind in the spirit in which the noble Lord has opened it, because I understand him entirely as he has explained himself. I believe it would be far from his desire to do anything in the way of assertion of arbitrary power over our colonial brethren. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles Adderley) on all occasions, whether in or out of office, with regard to colonial questions, holds one and the same language, and his conduct affords one of those examples which may be quoted with confidence to confute the declarations of those rather vulgar politicians who consider that men hold a different language when they are out of office from that which they held when they were in. The consistency of the right hon. Gentleman is well known, and I must say that his services in reforming the relations between this country and the Colonies have been conspicuous. I should be, therefore, exceedingly sorry if the right hon. Gentleman were to remain under the impression that there was, what there really is not, a difference of principle between the noble Lord and the Government and himself with regard to this question. It is very right, as my right hon. Friend urged, that an important distinction should be drawn between difference of times, circumstances, and degree, between those cases in which Imperial forces are supported for colonial purposes, and those in which they are maintained in reference to the general interests of the Empire. But it is not at all intended on the part of the Government to draw the inference that the colonists have no interest in that which relates to the general security and prosperity of the Empire, or that under no circumstances could it be right and allowable that they should make contributions towards the charge of such forces. But I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will feel, in the first place, that anything like a Parliamentary interference by a declaration of opinion would have a very unfortunate effect in a subject of this kind; and, in the second place, that all progress in regard to it must be of a gradual character, and that an attempt to quicken the pace would probably produce a reaction. What we wish is, not that the Colonies should under pressure from this country be brought to make, probably not insignificant, but at any rate grudging, contributions towards the expenses of the Empire; what we wish is to see the growth of the true spirit of freedom in the colonial communities which would make them not only willing, but eager, to share all the responsibilities of freedom and to take a part in the common burdens. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that he entertains that those views will not limit themselves with regard to burdens which are purely colonial, but that more and more will grow up the desire to claim the privileges as well as to submit to the burdens; to share in the great inheritance of the British Empire and in the custody of that Empire at large. That being the principle, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has himself in the fairest and handsomest manner acknowledged the efforts of the Secretary of State for War when he was at the Colonial Office, and has borne testimony to the fact that we are moving in the right direction. If that is so, he will, I am quite confident, confirm us in the belief that it is far wiser—possibly in the end far cheaper—but at any rate far wiser, to leave this matter to its free and natural growth; to endeavour to create in this country that harmony of feeling in the several parties into which we are divided which may gradually bring about that state of things that colonial policy shall no longer be a mark of distinction between us. If we can bring about that state of things we may naturally trust that the habits of freedom in the Colonies will secure to us, by their own spontaneous action—whether it be a little sooner or a little later is of less consequence—the aspiration of the colonists to fulfil in the largest sense all the duties, and bear their share in all the responsibilities, of citizens of the Empire.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.