The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-26 00:00:00

PRUSSIA.

Lord J. RUSSELL laid upon the table, by command of
her Majesty, a copy of the despatch addressed by himself to
Lord Bloomfield, •

SUPPLY.

MILITARY DEFENCES OF THE COLONIES.

The order of the day for going into Committee of Supply
having been read, on the question that the Speaker leave the
chair,

Mr. ADDERLEY rose to call the attention of the house
to the military defences of the colonies, and to the source
from which those defences were supplied. He had moved
for certain papers on this subject, which had not yet been
circulated, and he must therefore rely in a great measure
upon the returns which had been produced on the motion
of the hon. and gallant member for Aberdeen. He appealed
to the hon. member for Birmingham whether be did not
think it a question of importance whether this country
should be required not only to furnish from its limited
population troops for the defence of the colonies, but also to
supply the greater part of the cost of maintaining those troops.
The plan pursued was not only needlessly expensive to
country, but the result of it was that not one single colony
belonging to this empire was in an adequate state of defence.
England had granted self-government to her colonies, and
had abrogated all those commercial laws by which she once
sought to advance her own interests by interfering with
colonial commerce. The natural corollary of these changes
was that we should have called upon the colonies to under-
take their own defence. Instead of that, however, our ex-
penditure upon them for naval and military purposes was no
less than £3,250,000 per annum. Of this vast sum the colo-
nies themselves paid only £337,000, or but one-tenth of the
whole. Deducting the charge for such military stations as
Gibraltar, Malta, the lonian Islands, the Mauritius, and
Bermuda, the expenditure incurred for our colonies, pro-
perly so called, was £2,500,000. Deducting, however, the
amount contributed by the inhabitants of the military
stations, the sum borne by the colonies proper was reduced
to £220,000, leaving the proportion of the entire cost de-
frayed by colonies like Australia and Canada for their own
defence at only one-tenth. Even of the inadequate force
maintained in our colonies, only one ;quarter consisted of
colonial militia or police, the rest being made up of her
Majesty's troops. The people of England were taxed to
the extent of M per head for their army, navy, and ord-
nance ; whereas the colonists of Canada did not pay more
than one-fiftieth part of that sum for their own defences.
But great as was the disproportion between the burden on
the people at home and in the colonies, there was a still
greater inequality in the distribution of that ex-
penditure between the different colonies' themselves.
The general rule seemed to be, make those colonies that
ought to pay the least pay the most, and those that ought
to pay the most pay the least. The small military stations
and dependencies above enumerated were most of them
taxed to the full amount of their own defences, while
Canada, the Cape, and Australia contributed little or
nothing. Speaking of Australia, a despatch of Lord Grey,
written in 1849 to Sir Charles Fitzroy, then Governor of
New South Wales, laid down the rules which ought to
govern that question. The principles of that despatch,
however, had been but very imperfectly carried out, and
even in the Australian colonies the matter was arranged, as
it were, haphazard, Victoria being made to pay much more
heavily than the other colonies, for no reason except that it
was richer and could bear the burden of taxation better.
But costly and unequal as the system was, it had not the
redeeming merit of providing efficient means of defence.
We had now in England, inclusive of militia, 110,000
troops, in addition to which we had in India 85,000
Europeans. But in the whole of our colonies, scattered
over the entire surface of the globe, we had but 42,000 sol-
diers, or rather, after deducting the number quartered in
the purely military stations, we had but 22,000. Our
colonies were consequently in a very insecure position ; and
in the event of war, an4great maritime Power would be
able to deprive us of some of them. Moreover, if a general
war should break out, we should probably have to call
home the colonial garrisons, and then the colonists, having
been taught to lean upon the mother country, and having
by her system had everything like a military spirit crushed
out of them, would be wholly incapable of defending them-
selves. The noble lord the present Foreign Secretary had
repeatedly
,stated that, if we did not furnish troops for our
colonies, ()filer countries would take them from 'us. The
converse of that proposition would hold good—viz., if we
continued to defend our colonies as we are now doing,
most assuredly in the end some foreign Power would gain
possession of them. Another evil effect of the system was,
that with a considerable portion of our force abroad, when
war occurred, we had to resort to the raising of German
and Swiss Legions, and in our endeavour to obtain troops in
Foreign States we got embroiled with foreign Governments.
Another reason against the present mode of scattering the
Queen's troops in the colonies was that, after all, they were
not the best troops for the defence of the colonies. The
colonial militia had always hitherto been found the best
troops for the defence of the collinies. They understood
local warfare, and were more accustomed to the peculiar
climates in which they had to act. Again, the practice of
English troops garrisoning the colonies led to a wasteful
expenditure. Under the existing system, the more English
troops the colonies obtained the richer they became, while
the control of the Imperial Parliament was no control at
all. We knew nothing of the expenditure on account of
the German Legion. Since their arrival in South Africa
they had never been without full pay, and yet up to the
present moment no account had been presented to the
house. England had paid many millions for the Caffre
wars, but the Imperial Parliament had not been allowed to
consider a single item of that expenditure. If the colonies
were called upon to provide for their own defence they
would look sharply after their military expenditure, and the
present wasteful system would be abolished at once. (Hear.)
Earl Grey, in a despatch addressed to Sir Charles Fitzroy,
the Governor of New South Wales, laid down the principle
which ought to be pursued. The noble earl fully recognised
the right of the Australian colonies to expect a fair share of
protection from the mother country, but he added that, see-
ing the great progress in wealth and population which those
colonies had made, their inhabitants ought to bear a large
part of the burden which with a view to their protection
was imposed upon their fellow subjects of the United King-
dom. He advised the formation of colonial volunteer artil-
lery corps, and warned the Australian colonists that if they
did not make adequate provision for her 'Majesty's troops,
those troops would be removed. The colonists showed at
first some inclination to resist the applicativ of the principle
laid down by Earl Grey, but the concluding " threat" as to
the withdrawal of the Queen's troops brought them to their
senses, and they had since provided 50 per cent. of the cost
of their military defence. (Hear, hear.) Nobody could
contend that the mother country should provide the local
police _ of the colonies, or do more than defend them from
foreign aggression. ut he had shown that the garrisons
we sent out were worthless against foreign aggression, and
could only be used for local purposes. They were, therefore,
utterly indefensible. He did not say that the colonists
should bear equally with the residents in the United King-
dom their share of expenditure for'the defence of the empire.
That would be an unfair demand to make upon them, be-
cause they were not represented in the Imperial Parliament
—but the fact of their not being so represented was no rea-
son why we should supply them with military stores, bar-
racks, troops to garrison them, and every species of naval
defence. They ought to bear a certain share of that expen-
diturehe would not say what share, but certainly the
asked to defend
_ ldwhichthey now paid fell far short of the call which
ahou
whatbe ravi,adse upon them. . (Hear.). He did
.not be-
lieve
because he sometimes said, that if the colonies were
themselves they would soon become inde-
pent,and readiness to ad confidence, not only in their power
provide for their own military expendi-
ture, but in their
We had proof of heartythat the to the mother country.
le time of the Crimean war, when Canada offered us both /none
troops; but he had no
u meant,
have the colonies
hesitation in saying that he Lat
independent, if by that term wasßing
belonging,
'for example, the
existence in Canada of a
family, than see the present system continued. defending
Nor was it
to our Royal
populatign three Her
true that Canada was incapable of
those of the United States when re
greater
intelligence, her wealth, and her
than were
of theythe gainedot r
their independence, not with the help
country, but in spite of her resistance. (Hear, hear.) IL
trusted, then, that the Government would give their
earnest and immediate attention to this subject; if not, at

the commencement of next session he should move for a
select committee to inquire into all the circumstances he
lied stated to the house. (Hear, hear.)
Lord A. CHURCHILL concurred in the opinions ex-
pressed by his right hon. friend, and thought we should
arrive at some definite conclusion as to the amount of pro-
tection which this country ought to afford to,the colenies,
and that which they ought to afford to themselves. The
Australian colonies viewed just now with the utmost alarm
the naval power of France in the South Pacific, wherethere
were now 10 French to five British ships of war. With
regard to the four regiments now in those colonies, how-
ever, he could say that the three on the mainland were per-
forming the duties of police. He had himself seen them
acting as a gold escort and keeping the peace upon the gold
fields, and at the time of the Russian war they were taken
away from Melbourne to perform this duty. He could not
but believe that if the matter were properly represented to
the colonists they would provide a local militia for their
own. defence. It could be done without much additional
cost, and this country would probably not object to find
arms and ammunition, and to take some part in the work
of organisation. Block shipi, too, might be sent out for
the colonists to man. In the event of war the Australian
colonies would certainly be attacked by the French, and
thus, though no parties to the rupture, they would be called
upon to suffer for the misunderstandings of the mother
country, This would be rather hard upon them, and he
thought we ought rather to protect them fully by a large
and efficient force, so that they might not be exposed to
danger on the occurrence of hostilities, or else we ought to
give them their independence, which would free themfrom
attack in any such case. He did not assert that the time
had come for giving the colonists their independence, or
that they themselves wished for it. There existed among
them, on the contrary, the utmost loyalty and patriotism,
which had been greatly increased since they received a free
Government, and this feeling towards the mother country
was evinced by the large amount subscribed towards the
Patriotic Fund during the Russian war, when Tasmania
subscribed £28,000, or nearly 10s. a head upon her whole
population. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MARSH said, the sea-board of the Australian colo-
nies was so vast that it 'Was almost impossible that troops
could be provided to defend it. Such troops would be of
very little use against external attack, and nothing was so
unlikely as internal trouble among a population so prospe-
rous and wealthy, unless the Government were very badly
administered indeed. At present nothing could exceed
their loyalty, and he thought that the advantages which
the colonies derived from their connection with Great Bri-
tain were even greater than those derived from it by the
latter, seeing that they had nothing to pay either for arma-
ments or diplomacy. With regard to the naval forces on
the Australian coast, the British navy would be as neces-
sary there for the protection of British commerce as if Aus-
tralia were independent. Almost every ship in the ports
of that colony belonged to British subjects, and was in-
sured at'Lloyd's or in some other part of the United King-
dom, so that the colony would not be the losers if those
ships were captured. The naval force on that coast was,
therefore, an imperial question, but he admitted that to the
land defences a very different principle applied. (Hear.)