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 he 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 this
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 £1 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.
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 Cane, 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 or 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, any great 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, other 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 colonies. 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 mclination to resist the application of the principle
laid down by Earl Grey, but the eoncluding " 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-
diture ; he would not say what share, but certainly the
tenth which they now paid fell far short of the call which l
should be made upon them. (Hear.) He did not be-
lieve what was sometimes said, that if the colonies were
asked to defend themselves they would soon become inde-
pent, because
and readiness to
had confidence, not only in their power
provide for their own military expendi-
tureWe ,
but in their
had proof of heartythat at theattachment
timeof
theto the mother w
acro,u country.
hesitationhen
offered
seas both moneyw
was
sld rather have the colonies
inying that he would and tr°°troopsbut he had no
independent, if by that term
Kinment, for example, the
family, than see the present systegm continued. existence Canada of a
belonging to our Royal
Nor was it
laltaiL.herself. Her
true that Canada was incapable of defending
intelligence, her wealth, and her
were
greater
than were those of the United States when they
their independence, not with the help of thee gainedmother
country, but in spite of her resistance. (Hear, hear.)He
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
had stated to the house. (Hear, hear.)
Lord A. CIIURCHILL 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 colonies,
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, where there
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 tine 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 ships, 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 Gre,at Bri-
tain were oven 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 atifiloyd'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.)
THE NATIONAL DEFENCES.

Sir DE L. EVANS said it was more than a month since
he had placed on the notice paper the resolution which he
was now about to move—
Mr. D. SEYMOUR (who had given notice that he would
call the attention of the house to the undefended state of
the coast between Weymouth and Southampton) rose to
order. He was unaware that the last subject had been dis-
posed of, and as his notice was placed immediately after-
wards on the paper he believed that he had precedence of
the hon. and gallant general. (" Order I")
The SPEAKER said the motion before the house was
that he should now leave the chair, and the hon. and gal-
lant officer, having risen to submit another resolution, was
rightly in possession of the house. (Laughter.)
Sir DE L. EVANS, continuing, said he should not trou-
ble the house with many observations in support of his mo•
tion, as he understood the Government intended to assent
to the appointment of this commission. It was hardly
possible to mention at the present moment a matter of
greater importance than the subject of the national defences.
Some persons thought the expenditure on this head was far
too great, while others believed our means of defence were
still far from sufficient. Great were the differences of
opinion which existed, and he thought some attempt ought
to be made to inquire into the real facts of the case. For
his own part, he was sorry to say he did not think this
matter had been gone into by the present and by former
Governments as it ought to have been. The present Go-
vernment, it was true, were hardly yet seated at their
bureaux, and with regard to the late Ministry, he quite
concurred with those who thought that the bright spot in
their administration had been their efforts to maintain the
maritime forces of the country. He trusted that those ex-
ertions would be continued, and he believed this would be
the case, for he had every confidence in the judgment and
ability of the noble duke now at the head of the Admiralty.
Vast interests were concerned in this inquiry. The value
of the commerce which every year went into or passed from
our ports was, he believed, £300,000,000; and if any dis-
agreement arose between this and a foreigri country, so as
to endanger these vast interests, what terrible ruin would
result to the people of England. (Hear, hear.) As
the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Sydney Herbert) had been
kind enough to say that he would assent to the motion, it
would only be necessary now to submit to the House :
" That in the opinion of this House, taking into considera-
tion the relations existing between some of the great mili-
tary Powers of the continent, it is advisable that a commis-
sion be appointed, consisting of civilians and military and
naval officers, to inquire into and collect information con-
cerning the present condition of our national defences; to
ascertain what improvements may be made therein in order
to ensure the utmost efficiency combined with economy ;
and to report thereon to Her Majesty's Government."
Mr. D. SEYMOUR then rose, pursuant to notice, to call
the attention of the house to the undefended state of the
coast between Weymouth and Southampton. The hon.
gentleman, in doing so, took occasion to say that while a
large expenditure had been incurred by the Government for
the construction of thirty line-of-battle ships, that portion of
our shores to which his motion related—or rather that
which lay between Weymouth and the Needles, which stood
opposite to Cherbourg, and which in case of attack would be
found the most accessible to an invading force, had been
left without any adequate means of protection.. It had not,
however, been left thus undefended in former times, for he
found on reference to a map, which bore the date of 1765,
that no less than five or six batteries were then erected
along that part of the coast. As an illustration of the danger
which might arise from leaving things in their present state,
he might mention that while Pools, the borough which he
had the honour to represent, was sixty miles from Cherbourg,
it was at a distance of thirty miles from Weymouth, and
that in case of a hostile attack the fleet which might be
situated at the latter place could hardly be brought up in
sufficient time to be of service in keeping off the invading
force. He should, therefore, urge the Government to turn
their attention to the subject, and to allay, if possible,
any feeling of panic which might have arisen in the
publio mind by placing themselves in a position to pro-
claim to the country that they were prepared for every
emergency. He might add, that it seemed to him desirable
that inasmuch as it was difficult to establish rifle corps in
maritime towns, gunboats should be employed along the
coast—a large number might, for instance, be draughted
from Portsmouth to the port in question—in working the
rifled cannon placed on board which as well as batteries
erected at different points on the shore volunteers from
these towns, who would not be found disposed to join
rifle corps, might with ad vantage be employed. He
should, above all things, recommend his right hon. friend
the Secretary at War not to rest satisfied with im-
perfect information on so important a question as the
state of our defences. Hon. members were no doubt aware
that some time ago the Government of Belgium stated
that the defences of Antwerp were in a perfectly efficient
condition, and that they had gone to great expense to attain
that object. It had, however, turned out, when the matter
had been sifted before a committee, which had been moved
for by a member of the Belgian Chamber, that all the good
will which the Government had exhibited had not availed
to secure the end which they had in view, and which they
imagined they had accomplished. It was, therefore, hemain-
tained, the duty of his right hon. friend to take nothing on
trust, but to examine into the subject for himself, and to
see that no part of the country was left without adequate
means of defence. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. HERBERT—I have got, sir, a somewhat multi-
farious number of questions to which to reply. (A laugh.)
I shall commence by answering those which have been put
to me by my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Adderley), in
the greater part of whose observations I must say I en-
tirely concur. My attention was some time ago called to
the subject of the payments by different colonies towards
their own defence, and I confess it is scarcely possible to
conceive anything more capricious or unreasonable than the
varying proportions in which those payments are made.
(Hear, hear.) The Government of the mother country
sends troops to the colonies for the purposes either of defence
or of internal police. So far as the first object is concerned,
they have some sort of claim to ask her to bear a share of
their military expenditure, inasmuch as she arrogates to
herself the settlement of all questions of peace and war,
and their interests may suffer as the result of the policy
which she chooses to pursue. That is a doctrine which,
however, may be pushed too far, because if the prospects of
a colony are injured by war, she enjoys all the advantages of
being placed under the protection of a powerful State in
time of peace. These operations apply not only to colonies
which have great wealth, but to those garrisons which belong
to us in the Mediterranean and whose strength makes their
possession coveted by other nations. Now, with respect to
the question of the maintenance of troops in our colonies for
the purposes of police, I must say I think such a course is
one which is indefensible. (Hear, hear.) We at home pay
our military and police expenditure ; the one out of the pro-
ceeds of Imperial taxation ; the other out of local rates.
That is a distinction which ought, in my opinion, to be as
far as possible maintained in our colonies. The question,
however, is beset with difficulties, but, before I proceed
to state the views of the Government with respect to it, I
shall quote, for the information of the house, from a
document which I hold in my hand, the propor-
tion in which the mother country and the colonies pay
for the defence of the latter. In the case of the North
American colonies, £441,639 are paid by Great Britain, and
only £218,111 by these colonies ; the greater portion of that
sum being paid by Canada. For Australia the Home Go-

vernreent pays £228,000, the colonies themselves £156,000,
to the payment of which amount Victoria is the principal
contributor. We have, however, entered into arrangements
with them which I think ought to be extended to other

colonies, and in accordance with which the colonists pay a
certain allowance, and confer several advantages on the
troops in the way of procuring provisions for four com-
panies ; their agreement being to maintain entirely at their
own charge any troops which they may require above that
number. The result is that we do not receive from those

colonists such pressing solicitations for troops as wo do from
other quarters—(a laugh)—while the relations which exist
between them and us are placed upon a much sounder foot-
ing. (Hear, hear.) For our colonies in the Mediterranean