The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-21 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented against the modified Revised
Code, and in favour of an amendment of the Irish Poor
Law.
EXCISE OFFICE, &c.

Mr. COCHRANE moved for returns showing the amount
received by the sale of the old Excise-office and Govern-
ment property in Broad .street, in the city of London, and
in what manner the proceeds were disposed of ; whether
paid into the Exchequer or otherwise ; and, the cost of
the additional building at Somerset House lately erected for
the Inland Revenue, stating whether it is large enough to
contain the whole of that department, and, if not, the num-
ber of rooms occupied in Somerset House or elsewhere to
meet the additional wants of the office.—Ordered.
PHCENIX PARK (DUBLIN).
Sir E. GROGAN asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
if any, and what, steps have been taken, or were intended
to be taken, by the Government, for carrying into effect the
prayer of the memorial presented to the Lord Lieutenant
on the 10th May, 1861, relative to the planting of orna-
mental and other trees and shrubs, and the making of
walks and pleasure grounds, in the Phoanix-park, Dublin,
as has been done in Kensington-gardens and in the Vic-
toria and Battersea Parks ?

Sir R. PEEL said that the subject had been under the
consideration of the Irish Government, and they had made
an arrangement for the ornamentation of Phamix Park.
The subject, however, was still under the consideration of
the Treasury, and no grant of money had yet been made.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON
Mr. INGHAM asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department if he would lay upon the table of the
house a copy of the Royal Commission recently issued to
inquire as to certain classes of mines P
Sir G. GREY said he had no objection to produce the
papers in question if the hon. member would move for
them.
THE COLONIES.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Mr. BARTER called the attention of the house to the
subject of colonial fortifications, and moved the following
resolution:—" That, in the opinion of this house, the mul-
tiplication of fortified places in distant possessions involves
a useless expenditure ; that the cost of erecting and main-
taining fortifications at places not being great naval stations,
in self-governed colonies, is not a proper charge on the
Imperial Treasury." The hon. member referred to commit-
toes that had sat on the subject, and said that the opinions
of the members who composed these committees were ad-
verse to the system of fortifications that was being carried
out from year to year. Some ef the witnesses examit ed before
the committee stated that certain fortifications erected in
our colonies were in situations in which they could not pos-
sibly be of any use. it is said that amongst the witnesses
examined were the Duke of Newcastle, Sir John Bur-
goyne, Lord Herbert, and other distinguished autho-
rities on this subject, and he contended that
the inference to be drawn from the whole evidence
was that for the defence of our 41istant colonial possessions
we should rely on our fleets arlltnot on fortifications. It
oulfudrthienr,
manythat
instances prove very
in case of war, these
dangerous. He alluded to the Mauritius and other
appeared
dtions even
w
self-governed colonies, and contended that their being
called to construct forts, if necessary for their defence, out
of their own treasuries, would not alienate their affections
from this country, while it would render them self-reliant,
which would form the greatest bulwark of their safety.
(Hoar, hear.)
Mr. CHILDERS seconded the resolution. He thought
it was necessary that a clear principle should be laid down
on this subject, which he considered would be effected by
the adoption of this resolution, which would be beneficial
not only to our colonies but to ourse'ves.
Mr. CAVE said that, while he agreed with the hon.
member opposite (Mr. Baxter) as regarded some of our
West Indian and other colonies, he thought the Mauritius
should be viewed in a different light. At one time no less than
between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 of property in English
vessels had been taken by the French when they possessed
that colony, and he regarded the Mauritius as valuable
to this country as Gibraltar or Malta. The inhabi-
tants of that colony would view with no disfavour a
return to French dominion, with whom their sym-
pathies were, and it must be the policy of this
county to do all mite power to retain so iraf ortant a posses-
sion. He contended that if a single rock belonging to
England were abandoned it would have the effect of weak-
ening the prestige of this country in our distant dependen-
cies. (Hear, hear.)
Captain JERVIS opposed the resolution. He agreed
that fortifications in our colonies should be es few as
possible, but he argued that this was a subject which
should be left to the Government of the day, as the politi-
cal circumstances of the colonies might be altered, and con-
sequently a different practice introduced.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the question of fortification of
the colonies, and of the military defence of thesef
ocolonies,
could not be disassociated. The general question
ocher evening,
de-
fending our colonies had been debated the
and in dealing with this resolution
tothe value of colonies to
they must consider
iner
the question in reference .
the mode in which
the mother country, leaving .
defended to the execution of the Govern-
they were to be.
Govern-
ment. He drew attention to the fact that the 'United States
and great Britain were the two great Powers, who wanted
to appropriate the largest portion of the surface
of the 'world to themselves, and he pointed out
the different modes in which they proceeded to show that
the tendency of this country was to colonize, and not to
conquer. He contended that it was impossible to
lay down any arbitrary formula on the subject
to which the Executive Government could possibly
assent, and he pointed out that in certain cases the expen-
diture would not only be wise, but economical in averting
disasters from any particular colony. He trusted, under
these circumstances, that the hon. member (Mr. Baxter)
would not press the house to a formal division. (Hear,
hear, and cries of " divide.")
Mr. ADDERLEY opposed the resolution, and contended
that nothing would be more dangerous than extending
our fortifications generally. He alluded to the fact that
in Canada the troops were unequal to the defence of that
colony, and had the effect of rendering the Canadians un-
prepared for their defence. The effect would have been
that if an attack had been made on that colony without
the troops we had sent, and which, owing to the mildness
of the season, reached their destination at an early period,
it must have fallen to the enemy.
Lord H. VANE opposed the resolution.
[LEFT SPEAKING]. 1