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

THE 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-
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-
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 ef the witnesses examined 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 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 forte, 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
not only to our colonies but to ourselves.
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, ani he regarded the Mauritius as valuable
to this country as Gibraltar or Malts. 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. He contended that if a single rock belonging to
England were abandoned it would have the effect of weak-
toning 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 as 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 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-
Inored fcr their defence. The effect would have been
thaty
if an attack had been made on that colony without
the troops Ns:had sent, and which, owing to the mildness
of thesettso
it must hav-j,reached their destination at an early period,
fallen to the enemy.
Lord H.
member for xontrohoped his hon. friend below him, the
no doubt the duty :et
thewould withdraw his motion. It was
mother country to protect its colo-
nies, but, at
de
saute time,
prisanel that protection should be car-
ried out on judicious principles. The hon. gentleman, how-
ever,having elicited what
not but be regarded as a
highly satisfactory eleicolarrlavtisozafhrom the right hon. gentle-
man the Secretary
trusted his hon. friend
would bo satisfied with that detscleazaaivL
jaind not think it
necessary to press his motion.
Mr. HALIBUILTON said that he
r must
sayto
that the
deal with
mr.mdersr
this question in a friendly spirit, but
objections of the right hon. gentlemanhc
re-
spect to the Canadians were wholly uncalled for. lie) in
the remarks of the right hon. gentleman h
sr
ever, attributed tohis 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 was not a naval station,
yet it commanded the river St. Lawrence, and as they could
fist 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
waste of money to build them in such places. (A. laugh.)
He was sure the house would be much obliged to the bon.
gentleman if he, in a formal manner, laid down a prin-
ciple
the purpose of which was to establish a truism of this
kind, no 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.
THE CASE OF THE RESERVED CAPTAINS OF
THE NAVY.

Sir J. HAY then rose to ask the Secretary of the Admi-
ralty to state whether it was the intention of the Board of
Admiralty to continue to withhold from the captains on the
reserved list the pay to which they were entitled under the
Order in Council of 1851; and moved that an humble ad-
dress be presented to her Majesty, praying her to take into
her most gracious consideration the case of the reserved
captains of her Majesty's navy. The hon. and gallant
member said that this was a question as to the legal cor-
k truction of an Order in Council under which certain offi-
cers in the navy were induced to accept a position which
it appeared to them the order in council gave them, but
which had never been carried into effect, and consequently
a breach of faith had been committed by the Admiralty.
The state of the reserved lists was one of inextricable con-
fusion, but as the bargains made under the order were
entered into with their eyes open, these officers had no claim
upon the house. But this was the case of the aggrieved
captains of the navy, who were told that though their ser-
vices would not probably be required afloat, they should
receive the same benefits and the same rewards as their
brethren of the active list. There could be no doubt that
these captains had a legal claim to the slight increase of pay
of 2s. a day, but it appeared that through some error in
framing the order, they had been cajoled out of it. If these
officers had justice done to them, their increased pay would
not cost the country more than the sum of ls. 6d. a day
in the aggregate, and he hoped their claim would receive
the attention of the noble lord the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty. (Hear, hear.)

Admiral W ALCOTT, in seconding the motion, :slid he
could confirm what his hon. and gallant friend had stated
in reference to these captains, and he sincerely trusted that
the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would have
the good sense to propose to secure to these gentlemen the
additional pay to which they were justly entitled. He did
not agree that any attempt had been made by the right
hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring)
to "cajole" these officers, for he believed the right hon.
baronet, at the time he drew up the order, had no intention
that these officers should rise to an increase of pay and
rank. He (Admiral Walcott) was sorry that that was so,
for great injustice had been done to them. (Hear, hear.)
He was decidedly of opinion that the officers were entitled
in common justice to what they claimed.
Lord C. PAGET agreed with the gallant officer the
member for Christchurch in regretting that the hon. and
gallant gentleman should have applied such a term as
" cajole" to the right hon. baronet the member for Ports-
mouth, who had left the Admiralty with the good opinion
of the whole navy for his fairness and ability. (Cheers,)
Those were, happily, things that First Lords, at least at
the present day, never did. (Laughter.) He believed that
a great many of the officers referred to by the hon. and
gallant member did conscientiously think that they had
suffered a wrong ; but ho (the noble lord) was positive that
there was nothing, either in the form of their commissions,
or in the hopes held out to them, or in the circumstances
of the case, to justify them in the idea that they had a right
to be considered in the same position as officers on the ac-
tive list. The fact was there were two classes of officers
dealt with. In the first place, there were commanders who
were not entitled by seniority to be placed on the captains
list; in other words, who would have had to wait years
and years before they attained to that rank. Those the right
hon. baronet offered to promote at once, and to place them
on the retired list, intending that to be in lieu of all future
promotion. The other category consisted of commanderswhose

removal to the reserved list had been compulsory, and
who had certainly been promised that the step should not
affect their prospects as to promotion. The position of the
two classes was thus materially different; those of the re-
tired list being no longer liable to serve. it would with
justice be felt a great hardship by those who were on the
active list, if officers who were exempt from duty were en-
titled to rise with them pari pauu. (Hear, hear.) He
would really ask, therefore, if the hon. and gallant member
knew what it was that he desired ? He world in fact be
inflicting a great hardship upon the very persons whom he
was seeking to serve. It was perfectly true that the order
in council had not been quite so distinctly worded as he
could have wished—(hear, hear)—and the Board of Admi-
ralty had, in consequence of that ambiguity, considered
what course they could take to satisfy these officers. Two
years ago he (the noble lord) proposed a scheme to benefit
them according to the length of time they had spent in
active service. Those who had served more than a certain
number of years received a considerable augmentation of
pay ; and of the 90, upwards of 70 had thus been benefitted,
some of them actually receiving as much as 6s. a day more
than they would have if they were on the active list. If

the hon. baronet's proposal were agreed to, those officers
would have to lose that advantage. Thus what was asked
for,was to inflict a considerable damage on more than three-
fourths of them ; besides which, there could be no doubt
that it would produce great discontent in the navy large.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. HAY begged to explain that he had no wish what-
ever to charge the right hon. baronet (Sir F. Baring)—for
whom he had the greatest possible respect— with intending
to cajole any officers. What he meant to say was, that those
officers had been cajoled by the way in which the document
was worded. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON was very glad to hear the hon.
and gallant member's explanation, and he should like now
to know what construction the noble lord meant to place
upon the phrase " First lords, at least at the present day I"
(Laughter.)
Lord C. PAGET intended it, of course, to include the
right hon. baronet. (Laughter.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON in that case entirely agreed with
the noble lord, (Laughter.) He believed that the right hon.
baronet the member for Portsmouth was incapable of any
such conduct, and he was glad that the hon. gentleman had
by his explanation acquitted the right hon. gentleman of the
imputation which his words seemed to imply. (Hear.) The

order in council was admitted, however, to have been ambi-
guous ; and he submitted that nothing:could be more unsafe
than to trust to the explanation which the framer of a public
document might afterwards place upon it. The right hon.
baronet might for instancehave lost his seat for Portsmouth,
and then he would not have been able to give the house
that explanation at all. The proper course was to consider
what the order in council expressed. (Hear.) He (Sir J.
Pakington) had not only had occa.ion to study the instru-
ment himself, but he had high legal authority for saying
that the true construction to be placed upon it was in favour
of the officers. He had heard with great regret, therefore,
the noble lord arguing on the other side. Tiiese officers were

the best judges of their own interests, and when they had
thought fit to have their claims placed before the house it
was not competent to the noble lord to meet them by a
statement that to grant their request would be to inflict a
pecuniary injury upon 70 of them. He appealed to the
generosity of the noble lord to grant their request. (Hear.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE protested against the noble lord
treating the question as if it were a mere financial question.
What the officers wanted was a recognition of their posi•
tion in the service. (Hear, hear.)
Lord C. PAGET explained that he did not admit the
wording of the order to be really ambiguous.

Sir F. BARING admitted that even if the order did not
perfectly carry out his intentions, those intentions ought
not to interfere with any just rights which it might have
conferred. Still, when there was any doubt as to the meaning
of a public document, it was not unusual to refer to those
by whom it had been framed. He denied therefore that
the order made any promise whatever to the officers whose
case had beenbrought before the house. There were, as the
noble lord had explained, two distinct classes of officers with
whom he proposed to deal, There were a certain number of
old commanders to whom he had never any intention to
give any further advantage than the promotion which they
received on being placed upon the retired list of captains,
and which, he was bound to say, they at the time gladly re-
ceived, The other class of officers he had merely moved
from the active to the reserved list ; and those he intended
to retain all the advantages as regardeJ promotion which

they possessed before. lie was obliged, therefore, to repeat

that he could not admit that the officers of the former class
had any claim upon the house whatever. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY said no one could doubt what the right
hon. gentleman had said about his intentions; but that
which the house had really to consider was what the order

in council said. He did not wish to speak of it as a lawyer,
for it was not a lawyer's question ; but still he was satisfied
that no court of justice:would place on the document a con-
struction adverse to the claims of the officers. (Cheers.) He
considered the case hqd been very fairly brought forward,
and the scheme of promotion of the previous year could
never be permanent or satisfactory. It was his intention to
vote for the motion of his hon. and gallant friend.
After an observation from Sir H. LEEKE,
Mr. WHITBREAD said these officers had last year got a
rise over their normal half pay ten years sooner than they
Could have otherwise expected it. Besides, it was posted up
that the rise could only be given to the first 70 on the retired
and the first hundred on the active list. The Admiralty had
very much extended the benefit in the case of the retired
elththe e
retiredrf°re
"s• The house must understand that an officer could
not be treated at once on the retired and on the half-pay
list. If,
the house accepted the motion, it would
deprive
enjoyed in officers of the emoluments which they
virtue of their retirement,
Ayes ... . ...

Noes ....... .

72

THE C1V1L..........
ESTIMATES. 66-6
SERVICE
Mr. AUGUSTUS SIAITT3 next moved the following :.__" That all the
that for the civil contingencies, ought to be laid on the table
_civil- Bervice estimates, except
of this how° within ono month after the raeetin__
.g,. of Parlia-
resolution