The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-22 00:00:00

ROYAL COMMISSION ON MINES.

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 ?
Sir G. GREY said he had no objection to produce the
papers in question if the hon. member would move for
them.

TILE COLONIES.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,

Mr. BAXTER 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-
tainingfortifications 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-
tees 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 of the witnesses examined before
the committee stated that certain fortifications erected in
cur 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 distant colonial possessions
we should rely on our fleets and not on fortifications, It
appeared even further, that in case of war, these
fortifications would in many instances prove very
dangerous. He alluded to the Mauritius and other
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.
(Hear, 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
Trot 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 adifferent 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, ani 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 inits power to retain so important a posses-
sion. lie 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 cur 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 these colonies,
could not be disassociated. The general question of de-
fending our colonies had been debated the other evening,
and in dealing with this resolution they must consider
the question in reference to the value of colonies to
the mother country, leaving the mode in which
they were to be defended to the execution of the 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 oui: 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.")
ADDERLEY opposed the resolution, and contended
that nothing would be more dangerous than extending
einur fortifications generally, He alluded to the fact that
Canada the troops were unequal to the defence of that
colony, and had the effect of rendering the Canadians un-
prepared fer their defence. The effect would have been
that if
an attack had been made on that colony without
the
of the troops we hadseason, sent, and which, owing to the mildness
e to
ruched their destination at en early period,
it must have fall
the enemy.
Lord H. N'Alit
hope
for montroseoped his hon. friend below him, the
member
would withdraw his motion. It was
no doubt the duty of the otthhaer country to protect its colo-
nies, but, at the same time,niprincipiest protection should be car-
ried out on judicious
couldThesot
hon. gentleman, how-
ever, having elicited what
eutribhetregarded as a
trusted'auhdi
highly satisfactory declaration from
shohno.ng. efrnitelned-
man the Secretary for War, he th
would be satisfied with that declaration
not think it
necessary to press his motion to a division.
Mr. lIALIBUICION said that he purposed
to
deal with
this question in a friendly spirit, but he
must say that the
objections of the right hon. gentleman (Mr•Atiderley)in rn
spec
t to the Canadians were wholly uncalled for. Ise, how_
ever, attributed the remarks of tho right hon. gentleman to
his total ignorance of the feelings and views of the Cana-
dians. (Hear.) With respect to the observations made in
reference to the fortifications at Quebec, he would observe
that, while it was true that Quebec wris not a naval station,
ypt it commanded the river St. Lawrence, and as they could
n)t have any fortifications for 2,000 miles up the river, the
fortifications at Quebec were consequently most necessary.
The hon. gentleman then referred to the wording of the re-
solution moved by the hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Bax-
ter), and said that if it meant anything it meant this—that
where fortifications were not wanted it would be a useless
7nuite of money to build them in such places. (A laugh.)
He was sure the house would be much obliged to the hon.
gentleman if he, in a formal manner, laid down a prin-
ciple the
purpose of which wes to establish a truism ofthis'
kind. He would only add another remark, and that was,
that as Canada Was the vulnerable point in our North

American colonies, it was desirable that they should club
all the colonies together, so as to make them strong against
any inroad from the United States.
Mr. ADD ERLEY said that his observations in reference
to Canada were based upon the hon. gentleman's own re-
marks.
Mr. A. MILLS said that as his hon. friend (Mr. Baxter)
had elicited a strong feeling in favour of his resolution, and
as the Government had expressed views in accordance with
the feelings of the house on the subject, he hoped his hon.
friend would not press his motion to a division. He might
add that the resolution of his hon. friend was in accordance
with the report of a committee of the house on the subject.
Sir G. GREY said he could not assent to the last obser-
vation of the hon. gentleman.
The motion was then withdrawn.
TIIE CASE OF THE RESERVED CAPTAINS OF