Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

country-Earl Grey calls attention to these circumstances, and impeaches the policy of interference pursued by the British Government -The Duke of Somerset explains the grounds upon which the employment of a British Marine force has been sanctioned-Lord Stratford de Redcliffe approves of the course adopted-Earl Russell justifies the conduct of the Government-Mr. White raises the same question in the House of Commons, and moves a Resolution adverse to interference -Mr. Cobden disapproves of the action of the Government-It is defended by Lord Palmerston and Mr. Layard-Mr. White's Resolution is rejected by 197 to 88. Joint Expedition of France and England against Mexico-Lord Robert Montagu impugns the Policy of our Government in joining in the operations in that country-He is answered by Mr. Layard, who enters into a statement of the circumstances that had called for interference-The debate is brought to a premature close, the House being counted out. Indian Finance Sir Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India, makes his Annual Statement on this subject-Differences between Sir C. Wood and Mr. Laing, late Finance Minister in Calcutta-Remarks of Mr. H. Seymour, Mr. Smollett, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Kinnaird, and other Members-The Resolutions proposed by the Minister are agreed to. Treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America for the Suppression of the Slave Trade-It is laid on the Table of the House of Lords by Earl Russell-Congratulatory remarks of Lord Brougham and other Peers.

N connection with the subject

IN

of the national defences referred to in the preceding chapter, the protection of our Colonial possessions against aggression, and the provision to be made for their military expenditure and fortifications, were brought on several occasions this year under the notice of Parliament. In the preceding Session a Select Committee of the House of Commons had been appointed, to which the general subject of Colonial military expenditure was referred, and a Report was made by them to the House. To this Report attention was called early in the present Session by Mr. Arthur Mills, who proposed a Resolution, founded upon the unanimous conclusion of the Committee, for adoption by the House. The Resolution was in these terms:-"That this House

(while fully recognizing the claims of all portions of the British Empire to Imperial aid in their protection against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy) is of opinion that Colonies exercising the rights of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security." He indicated the area to which the inquiries of the Committee had been limited, and said his object was to restrict the effect of his Resolution to those points within that area upon which the Committee had been unanimous. He read extracts from the evidence taken by the Committee in support of his Resolution, which, he thought, embodied the right principle on which the Imperial authority ought to act in dealing with those parts of our Colonial

Empire which had undertaken Resolution, there being some of

the office and exercised the powers of self-government. He suggested reasons why the Colonies should have the responsibility of self-defence cast upon them, in local quarrels, instead of leaning upon the mother country.

This Motion was seconded by Mr. Buxton, who disclaimed, as Mr. Mills had done, any desire for the dismemberment of our Colonial Empire.

Mr. Baxter approved the Resolution so far as it went, but, in his opinion, it did not go far enough, and did not grapple with the main grievance. He moved, as an Amendment, to add the following words :-" That such Colonies ought to assist in their own external defence." He cited an opinion expressed by the Committee and evidence taken by it in favour of this Amendment.

Mr. C. Fortescue said he agreed with Mr. Mills that the employment of the Queen's troops in internal disorders in the Colonies was most objectionable. But in giving, on the part of the Government, his assent to the Resolution, he observed that there were some exceptional cases, which did not come within this general condemnation. He concurred with Mr. Baxter that the policy recommended in the Resolution would not weaken, but strengthen, the Colonies; he had no doubt it would augment their means of defence, and he hoped that such a Resolution of the House of Commons would impress this truth upon the minds of the colonists. He repeated, however, that there were partial and temporary exceptions to the rule laid down in the

the dependencies of the Crown to which it could not be readily applied. With respect to the Ainendment, as it had been modified by Mr. Baxter, he agreed to it on the part of the Government, since it only enlarged, and properly enlarged, the scope of the Resolution. But he again warned the House of the difficulty of a sweeping and rapid application of the principle it embodied.

Sir J. Ferguson thought that Mr. Baxter's amendment went too far: it did not originate in the Report of the Committee, and he was sorry that the Government had adopted it.

Mr. Haliburton disapproved of the Motion as ill-timed. He defended the legislation of the North American Colonies, and insisted that Canada did not want British soldiers kept in the country. It was hard, therefore, to charge the colony with their cost.

After a few words from Mr. Childers, the Resolution, as amended, was agreed to.

Towards the end of the Session the same subject, as far as referred to Canada, was renewed by Mr. Adderley, who called the attention of the House of Commons to the defences of that country, and required of the Government that they should declare, before Parliament separated, their intentions on the subject. Was the colony, he asked, thought to be exposed to danger? If not, why were 12,000 British troops retained there? If there was danger, to what was the colony to look for protection? He contended that it was bound to make exertions for its own defence, and that it had no special

plea for inaction. Yet, as regarded the defence of the frontier, the Canadians had done nothing, or what amounted to nothing, to provide against an emergency. One of two courses must be adopted, if we did not desire to lose Canada; either we must very largely increase our force there, or let it be distinctly understood by the Canadians that, unless measures were taken for their self-defence, the British troops now in the colony would be withdrawn.

Mr. A. Mills differed in some degree from Mr. Adderley. He thought that the consequence of suggesting such an alternative as the withdrawal of the British troops would be to provoke and irritate the Canadian Parliament, and that a more dignified course would be to allow the Parliament an opportunity of reconsidering what it had done.

Sir De Lacy Evans expressed his opinion that there was no present danger to Canada; that the United States had no means of invading it, and that if the people of the colony were true to themselves, the whole strength of the Northern States would fail against them.

Mr. Roebuck said England had never derived any benefit from Canada, which had treated us as aliens, levying heavy duties upon our trade. He wanted Canada to understand that if we maintained her independence, it was for her benefit, not ours.

Sir George Lewis reminded the House of the circumstances under which a reinforcement of British troops had been sent out to the colony, and the reasons which had led Her Majesty's Government to hope that the Canadians would

make energetic efforts for their own defence. This hope had been in some degree disappointed as the alarm of invasion diminished. Looking to the manner in which the affair of the Trent had been adjusted, Her Majesty's Government did not believe that there was any immediate probability of a rupture of diplomatic relations with the United States. An invasion of Canada would be a war with England. He did not, therefore, think there was any ground for sending out a reinforcement of British troops, and, as to the penal withdrawal of these troops, that would be a policy unworthy the Legislature of this country. Although great irritation existed on the part of the Northern States of America against England, wholly undeserved by the conduct of its Government, and which had been mainly caused by the recognition of the Southern States as a belligerent Power, he could not but think that, as the contest in America proceeded, the Northern States would, upon reflection, see that England had no alternative.

Mr. T. Baring deprecated any harsh proceedings towards Canada, which, he thought, ought not to be coerced but conciliated.

Lord Bury observed that, though Canada might not have done what she could have done, what she had done was only an instalment of what he had no doubt she would do. In the meantime he earnestly deprecated the employment of irritating and derogatory language towards the colony, which had shown in the field a will and a power to maintain its independence, and a desire to evince its attachment to British

rule. He contended that the efforts which Canada had made were under-valued, and explained and defended the conduct of the Colonial Parliament with reference to the Militia.

Mr. Disraeli, after tracing the causes which had placed Canada in its present position towards the mother country, observed that he trusted to the sense and spirit of the Canadians, and to the ability of their Governors in the conduct of their difficult relations. He pointed out what he considered to be the faults of the Home Government, which had not reposed sufficient confidence in the resources of Canada. In June last, before the affair of the Trent, they had sent troops thither, thereby damping the ardour of the Canadians, by indicating a desire to monopolize their defence. At the same time, he did not agree with Mr. Adderley in all his conclusions.

country desired a monopoly of their defence.

The discussion then terminated. The question of Colonial Expenditure was about the same time raised on a more extensive scale, by a debate which arose upon a motion made by the Earl of Carnarvon, in the House of Lords. Taking a comprehensive view of the subject, the noble lord discussed it in its several bearings, in reference to the different classes of our Colonial possessions, and he complained of the serious magnitude of our expenditure upon the dependencies of the Crown in various parts of the world, which in six years had risen from 320,000l. to 937,000l., and which, if naval and military expenditure were added, would be four or five times as much again. While he did not grudge the outlay of money on such fortresses as Malta, Gibraltar, and Bermuda, he doubted Lord Palmerston observed that the wisdom of expending large our colonies must be looked at as sums on such places as the part and parcel of the British Mauritius, St. Helena, and Corfu, empire, and, so far from wishing and condemned altogether the to see the day approach when fortifications at Jamaica, Nova these great communities would Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newdesire to separate from the mother foundland. If these latter cocountry, he hoped that day would lonies valued their connection be long deferred. But the con- with England they ought to denection must be preserved by the pend principally on their own link of mutual interest, and he efforts. He was quite ready to regretted very much that the local grant any expenditure for colonial Legislature had declined to make defences, if our honour and inadequate provision for self-de- terest rendered the position worth fence, which it was their duty to fortifying, and if the position was make. He denied that the send- capable of being fortified. He ing of 3000 troops to Canada in wished to see some definite plan, June had anything to do with the instead of none at all, on which refusal of the Legislature to pro- our colonial defences should be vide an adequate Militia. So based. In conclusion, he referred small a force could not have led to the Militia Bill recently passed the Canadians into the mistake in Canada, and declared its proof supposing that the mother visions totally inadequate for the

defence of the colony, and unfair to the mother country by throwing the burden of protection upon her. He moved for correspondence on the subject.

The Duke of Newcastle pointed out errors in the figures on colonial civil expenditure quoted by Lord Carnarvon, and asserted that, instead of increasing, those figures had been steadily decreasing for many years past. It would be more correct, instead of three classes, to divide our fortresses into five classes-three for imperial, commercial, and naval purposes; one for the protection of persons on the West Coast of Africa; while the fifth comprehended forts of small value, and which might be abandoned. He could not defend a great deal of the expenditure on colonial defences, but he maintained the necessity of fortifying the Mauritius to protect the immense trade passing between India and the Cape, assigned reasons for keeping a strong garrison at Corfu, and pointed out the advantages of Port Royal as a naval station for stores for the fleet. Passing to the North American colonies, he showed the necessity of fortifying the colonial harbours for the defence of our fleets in case of war with America, and assured the House that measures were under consideration for the reduction of colonial military expenditure. There never were so few British troops in our dependencies as at present. In regard to the Canada Militia he concurred with the remarks of Lord Carnarvon, and much regretted that the first Bill on the subject had not been passed. He had no objection to produce the papers moved for.

Lord Ellenborough concurred in regretting that the Canadian Parliament had not passed the Militia Bill, and could not understand by what infatuation they had so acted. Enthusiasm was no match for disciplined troops, and it would be idle to oppose the American army by it. If Canada wished to be defended, it must rise like the Southern States, and come foward in defence of its soil.

Lord Wodehouse thought Canada should not shrink from her duty as long as this country was ready to aid and support her. Canada had recently preferred her own to Imperial interests, and, while enjoying the advantages of our protection, had refused to share the burden.

Earl Grey thought Her Majesty's Government should instruct the Governor to call together the Canadian Parliament, and present them with the alternative of making such arrangements as would afford our troops support, or of seeing the troops withdrawn from the colony.

After some remarks from Lord Lyveden, Lord Stuart de Redcliffe, and Earl Powis, the Motion was agreed to.

The debates of the Session on questions of foreign policy were not, if we exclude those relating to the United States which have been already noticed, either numerous or important. Some occasions, however, arose on which the affairs of foreign States were brought under the consideration of Parliament, the principal of which may here be adverted to. The condition of Poland was first brought under discussion in the House of Lords, on the 25th of March, by

« ForrigeFortsett »