HL Deb 03 June 1889 vol 336 cc1678-84
LORD LAMINGTON

My Lords, I rise pursuant to notice to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having undertaken to assist the maritime defence of the Australian Colonies, it may not be desirable to revert to the former system of sending a small number of Imperial troops to each of these Colonies. My Lords, I think I am justified in saying that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in assisting the Australian Colonies in their maritime defence has given universal satisfaction. It is another link added to those which previously bound those Colonies to the mother country. There is nothing so remarkable as the close interest which has been taken in the Colonies by the people of this country of late years. The Colonial Exhibition in London was one of the most successful I think of any of the Exhibitions we have had, and it testified to the rapid growth and development of the Australian Colonies especially. My Lords, we know how great an interest is taken in the colonial industries, and in the development, moral and physical, of the Colonies. Germany, France, and other Powers, are now endeavouring to establish colonies in the Pacific, and it is necessary that measures should be taken to provide for the defence of our Colonies against the contingency of war breaking out. Steps have been taken in reference to their maritime protection, but their land defences also demand attention. Until 1870 there was always a certain limited number of Imperial troops in the Australian Colonies. In consequence of the Maori War in New Zealand, the troops there, which were numerous—amounting in 1864 to as many as 10,336 men—were recalled; and it was no doubt a wise policy to withdraw them, and leave the colonists to carry on such wars themselves. Their presence caused the colonists to carry on wars with the Maoris; or, at all events, those wars ceased when the troops were withdrawn. In Australia, however, in 1860, there were only 1,695 troops; in 1861, 1,044; in 1862, 1,154; in 1863, 1,000; in 1864, 369; in 1865, 405; in 1866, 359; in 1867, 1,651; in 1868, 1,901; and in 1869, 994. Those were the numbers of our soldiers there at those dates, and the colonists had to pay £40 per head for them. I think we should have paid for them ourselves. I do not think we should make the colonists pay for the support we give them by the Queen's troops. On that subject a gentleman who was a Governor of one of our greatest Colonies, and a most exemplary Governor too, wrote to me to this effect: — It should be represented to the Colonies that, in view of the changed circumstances since the opening of the Pacific Railroad, the re-instatement of the English garrisons in the five capitals of Australia would fill up the gap now existing in the military connection between England and her vast Colonies. Thus, Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, India, Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong, by extending the line to Australia, and viâ Vancouver to Quebec. It could be further represented to them that the occupation of territory in the Pacific is now seriously engaging the attention of foreign Powers. and that any combination of them in the event of a European war might seriously menace their security, which could only be saved from danger by the maintenance of a military force. That is on the very high authority of a gentleman who has filled the position of Governor of a most important colony. I should like to take this opportunity of calling the attention of my noble Friend to the position of the Government on one very important point. As regards the position of Governors, I would ask the Colonial Secretary to consider the expediency of placing the Colonial Service as respects pensions on the same footing as the Diplomatic Service. Until 1868, strange to say, no Governor was entitled to any pension, and gentlemen who had filled those important posts often came home perfectly destitute. It was left to myself, a private Member, to introduce a Governors' Pension Bill. And by that Bill, at whatever age a Governor might retire and become entitled to a pension, he could not enjoy it until he was 60. That Act was amended by the Act of 1872, and the Colonial Secretary has a discretionary power to grant pensions at an earlier age; but the original limitation exists, and I think that ought to be altered, for it is surely as important a position as representing Her Majesty in a great Court, and many of our Colonial Governors are as distinguished as our most eminent diplomatists. I need not say, that as regards sending troops to the Colonies, nothing should be done without the Colonies. being consulted. With regard to the question of expense, to ask for any payment from the Colonies is not to be thought of. Why should they pay? We do not ask them to pay for the ships employed on the Australian station. It is for our advantage to have troops there, and it is well to remember that the Colonies are more important to England than England to the Colonies. They should be treated not as possessions, but as a part of Great Britain. We must not forget how much the Colonies have done for their own defence. Let us act in the spirit New South Wales acted in towards us, when, under the administration of that distinguished statesman, Mr. W. Dalley, they did us such noble service by despatching the Soudan contingent. I trust the Government will express their readiness to meet the wishes of the Colonies if they desire to have an Imperial force stationed among them. A small force would suffice, and the expense would be very small—not so much as the subsidy proposed to be given to the Canadian railways. This, my Lords, is a time when, in the language of a most illustrious personage in a remarkable speech, we must show our sympathy with our brethren beyond the seas who are no less dear to us than if they lived in Surrey or in Kent. That is my reason for taking the present opportunity of bringing forward this question, and of asking the Government whether they will not consider the expediency of again sending out a small number of Her Majesty's troops to each of the Australian Colonies?

* LORD KNUTSFORD

I am sure your Lordships will regret to hear that Lord Harris, who if he had been present would have answered the question on the part of the War Office, is unfortunately too ill to be in his place. It is understood that in your Lordships' House a certain amount of latitude is allowed in the putting of questions; but I was not prepared to find the question of the pensioning of Governors introduced in a speech which raised for consideration the question whether Imperial troops should be sent to the Australian Colonies. I will, however, undertake to look into the matter and see how it stands. The question of having Imperial troops in the Colonies had been well considered. In 1869 and 1870 a final decision was arrived at to withdraw Imperial troops from the Australian Colonies. Th it decision was arrived at in pursuance of a well-considered policy which was intended to be complete and final. It was in accordance with a policy that had been marked out with respect to Canada so long ago as 1851 by Earl Grey, and again by the Duke of Newcastle in 1853. The troops were withdrawn in 1869 and 1870; and there was printed at the time a despatch by Earl Granville of the 19th of May, 1870, which set forth the reasons for the withdrawal of the troops, and contained the offer on the part of Her Majesty's Government of the services of British officers in the organization of local troops to take place of those that were withdrawn. In 1875, about five years after the withdrawal of our troops, there was received from the Colony of Victoria an inquiry as to the conditions upon which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared again to send troops to the Colony. I gather that my noble Friend the Earl of Carnarvon, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies,was not disinclined to meet the views of the Colonial Government; but, after a correspondence with the War Office, it was found that there was great difficulty in settling conditions, as at that time it was not found easy to raise recruits, and the matter was finally dropped. I may remark further that opinion in the colony upon the question was not unani- mous, and the inhabitants of that colony were much divided as to the desirability of again having Imperial troops there. Since that time very great progress has been made in Australia in matters connected with defence. This was one of the good results that was anticipated by Earl Granville when ho finally decided upon withdrawing our troops. He anticipated—and his anticipations have been realized—that the colonists would exhibit a spirit of self-reliance, and would show that they desired to defend themselves and were capable of doing so. The adoption of defensive measures has been watched with interest and sympathy by successive Governments at home, who have always been ready to assist the Colonies in any way they could, and to let them have the aid of British officers in organizing their troops. At this time there are in the Australian forces 1,593 officers, 28,419 infantry, 2,475 horses, and 107 field guns. These figures show what progress the Australian Colonies have made in providing for their own defence by land. I am unable to agree with what the noble Lord said as to the inexpediency of our requiring payment for any troops we might provide, as I hold that we should be right to demand such payment. I believe, however, that if the Imperial Government were prepared to send troops to Australia upon being paid for them the Colonies would decline to accept them; they would not be prepared to pay the great cost such an arrangement would entail, as well as to keep up their own defences. As I have before said, they maintain land forces of an excellent stamp, only requiring a perfected organization to secure the benefits of combined action. There may be good grounds for sending a small body of Imperial troops to the Colonies upon payment being made for them; but it is hardly worth while to discuss the question, or on what conditions financial and military they would be sent, until the Colonies make a request to have them sent. If there came a general request from the Australian Colonies that troops should be sent there again, Her Majesty's Government would not be indisposed to consider that request, provided the necessary conditions, pecuniary and military, could be agreed to; but I am bound to say that without strong pressure from the Australian Colonies, Her Majesty's Government would think it undesirable to depart from the settled policy which has been accepted by all parties; and which has been treated as settled by the Royal Commission over which the Earl of Carnarvon presided; and which has had the good effect already pointed out of establishing strong local forces in the Colonies.

* THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I should not have made any remark if I had not observed that the noble Lord said if there came a strong pressure from the Colonies that we should send out a certain number of our soldiers, that request would be considered. Of course, any request coming from the Colonies ought to be considered; but the circumstances should be very peculiar to justify us in reconsidering the policy we have adopted. Quite apart from the wishes of the Colonies, there are strong reasons why we should maintain our present system. Our Army is by no means too large for the duties it has to perform. We have a difficulty,sometimes serious, in keeping up our regiments at the strength necessary for foreign service. If we sent any troops to the Colonies we must maintain them at a respectable strength, for nothing can produce a worse impression than scattering handfuls of troops here and there, and a departure from our present system would increase that difficulty. Of course, if our Colonies were not willing to take any share in their own defences —an assumption which cannot be made—the case would be different; but, happily, no such state of things exists. I can hardly conceive a better system than one which encourages the Colonies to provide for their own protection with such assistance from home by way of advice as they may require. My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord in another remark he made, that we owe a great deal to our Colonies, but that they owe nothing to us, or that they are more important to us than we to them. Whilst I do not undervalue sentiment as a bond of union, I rely more on self-interest, and I believe there are very strong reasons why the Colonies should desire to remain connected with this country. We can afford them naval protection which they could not adequately provide for them- selves, and we may fairly leave them to their own efforts by land.

LORD NORTON

My Lords, I think it would be a great mistake to deal with the Colonies as if they were dependencies. What the colonists want at this moment is to be treated on an equality with other British subjects of Her Majesty. If colonists are to be treated by us as fellow-subjects, one of their first functions of free citizenship is to provide for self-defence and to pay their own way in military as in other matters. If we sent troops for their local defence it would be not a link of union as the noble Lord says, but a chain thrown upon them. The old principle of dealing with colonial defence was a bad one, and had so far alienated the colonists, and weakened our connection with them. The keeping of troops in New Zealand had only led to little wars being kept up with the Maories for the purpose of securing a pecuniary advantage to the colony by the support of British troops; and the withdrawal of the troops was the commencement of permanent peace and order. We should, I think, do very wrong indeed to revert to the policy of maintaining home troops in colonies. But in Imperial work the two should work together.