The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-30 00:00:00

q, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 30, 1870

cost in those same years, £1,595 and £59,126 res-
pectively, and for troops £171,654 and £806,247.
The total cost of the defences of that colony increased
more than three-quarters of a million sterling in ten
years. Besides these there were military and mari-
time stations pure and simple, which are nothing if
they are not fortifications, and of these Gibraltar cost
us about 50 per cent, more in 1867-8 than it did in

1858-9. These figures chew how, in spite of the com-
mittee which was appointed about eight years ago, on
the motion of Mr. Arthur Mills, formerly Conservative
M.P. for Taunton, the military expenditure in our
colonies has continued to increase. This increase
seems to have culminated during the late Conservative
Administration, and it was not surprising therefore
that one of the first acts of a reforming and
economical Government was to cut down this ex-

penditure by recalling the troops and leaving the
colonies to defend themselves. But this step is one
thing. Severance of the colonies from the mother
country is another. The first we know to be wise,

the wisdom of the second has yet, to be
proved. What we complain of is. that 'Lord
Granville is taking the second step without

the knowledge and the assent of the nation.,
and is doing it, as in the case of New Zealand, with
exceeding harshness, and regardless of very serious
results. The policy of turning our colonies adrift
may be wise, may be statesmanlike, but it is one
that has never yet been discussed, and. upon which
the Government ought to take the nation into its con-

fidence. Nevertheless, it seems as if we were called

upon to take this great leap into a darkness so dense

that the obscurity into which Lord Derby compelled
his followers to plunge is sunlight itself.

(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)
WE ask the attention of Mr. Newdegate and Mr.
-Whalley to the following statement. There is a
certain country in Europe where, unfortunately, the
Roman Catholic is the prevailing religion, and where
also, unfortunately, a large number of the criminals
are Protestants. The Government of the country is
so tyrannical and so bigoted, that for many years it
would not allow these prisoners to be taught by min-
isters of their own religion, but forced them toreceive
the ministrations of Popish priests whom the said
prisoners believed to be idolators. Of late there has
been some little improvement. Protestant clergymen
have been permitted to visit the prisoners of their
own faith. Yet even now they are forbidden in
most of the prisons to hold a service, and are refused
all payment. The Popish priest, who has often very
little to do, and may gather all his co-religionists
into a chapel and address them at one time, receives
£4OO a year; the Protestant clergyman is compelled
to visit each prisoner singly, so that his work is
multiplied a hundredfold, and at the same'

time he is refused all remuneration. Now here is a
clear case of hardship, of spiritual despotism much
harder than any of those wild stories with which the
members for. North Warwickshire and Peterborough
are wont to regale the House of Commons. We
counsel them to hire Exeter Hall for an
indignation meeting. We advise them to
"coach up " Mr. Murphy thoroughly in the history
and mystery of this iniquitous arrangement. We
exhort them:to sound the tocsin in this our Protestant
Zion, to leave no stone unturned (they will pardon
the confusion of metaphors, for they are used to it)
until they have put an end to this scandal, and made
the many-headed dragon on the seven hills disgorge
its ill-gotten gains.

We ask the hon. member's pardon. We find that

we have made a slight mistake. The main facts are
true; only it is not a Roman Catholic, bnt a Protes-
tant country in which this state of things prevails,

and it is not Protestant prisoners who have to submit
to Popish ministrations, nor Protestant clergymen

who are treated with insult, and kept without pay-
ment, but Popish prisoners and Popish priests who
are treated thus. Here are the facts as given in evi-
dence before a select committee of the House of Com-
mons on Monday. Mr. White was formerly a
Homan Catholic priest visiting the Westminster
House of Correction. There were on an average
about 180 of his co-religionists among the- prisoners.
But up to the close of 1867 ho was compelled to visit
the prisoners singly, and his request • to see them
collectively was refused. Afterwards this request
was granted.; Protestant right-of-private-judgment
being at last convinced, we suppose, that it was not
quite consistent to do otherwise. Nevertheless Mr.

White must be taught to know his place. He was only
tolerated. lle had no locus eandi. So when he
asked to have the assistance of a woman to teach
the female prisoners the first elements of Christianity

he was refused; and. when a lady of rank offered to
play the harmonium at the service, she was snubbed,
fur whoever heard of ladies of rank undertaking
such a task as. that? Protestant ladies of
rank know better. To allow Popish prisoners
to worship at all was enough. and here

Uovernment. This very important statement maae
by a man of the greatest influence and the highest
position in British AmeriCa caught the eye of a mem-
ber of Parliament. Unfortunately, that member was
Mr. Whalley, and any question which he might put
respecting the matter was not one that the Govern-
ment would feel bound to consider as weighty. So
when asked if Sir A lexander Galt's assertion that the
British Government desired the independence of the
Dominion was made with the authority of the
Government, Mr. MonEell replied that Sir Alexander
had no such authority. Ca va sans dire. Ministers
of the Crown are not in the habit of authorising no::-
official persons to make official communications
on great questions of State. But though_ Sir Alexander
Galt may have had no " authority " to make his
statement, he may have had very good ground for it.
He may have come to know IN hat the wishes of our
Government are, and being in opposition he may
have felt himself at liberty to make use of that
knoivledge for the benefit of his fellow countrymen.
Just at this juncture there has been presented to
the Legislature a Parliamentary return which has
not yet received half the attention it deserves.
It is entitled " A return of the annual cost of the
several colonies of the British Empire at the expense
of the British Exchequer." The return was.moved
for by Colonel Sykes, and though a mass of figures
it is a most significant document to those who have
eyes to see. Our colonies cost us in the first year of
the decade to which this return refers, in 1853-9,
£2,920,251, and in the last, 1867-8, £3,967,926; an
increase, in round figures, of a million sterling. But
for the last three of those years the lonian Islands
dropped out of the account, and taking these at the
average cost of the preceding seven years, we find a
saving of about £160,000, so that but for our aban-
donment of this military station the increased charge
would have been just the £200,000. If we examine
still further we shall find that it some stations there
has been a considerable decrease: notably at the
Cape, which costs us £150,000 less than
it used to cost. Nevertheless, there is a net
increase, as we have said, of (reckoning the
lonian Islands) £1,200,000. The • expenditure
is divided under various heads ; and by taking out
the four which concern the military defences of the
colonies, we find an increase of from £2,400,000 to
£3,600,000, just 50 per cent. In fact, the net in-
crease and the increase in military expenditure come
to the same amount. A study of these rqturna soon
shews how this increase has arisen. It occurs
chiefly under the head of Fortifications, Barracks,
and regular troops. Bermuda, for- instance,
which in 1859-60 cost under the head of
fortifications £95, cost in 1867-8 £46,382.
Canada (the old colony not the. present " Dominion")