CHAPTER VI. COLONIAL AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS-Military Expenditure for the Colonies—Mr. Arthur Mills moves a Resolution in the House of Commons, affirming the obligation of Colonies enjoying self-government to contribute to their own defence-Mr. C. Fortescue, on behalf of the Government, assents to the Resolution, with some modifications sug gested by Mr. Baxter-The Motion is agreed to—Mr. Adderley calls attention to the duty of Canada to provide for her own security against invasion-Remarks of Mr. A. Mills and Mr. Roebuck-Sir George Lewis states the views of the Government with respect to the protection of Canada, and the employment of the British force there-Speeches of Mr. T. Baring, Lord Bury. Mr. Disraeli, and Lord Palmerston— The Earl of Carnarvon, in the House of Lords, enters at large into the subject of Colonial Expenditure in general-Observations of the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Ellenborough, Lord Wodehouse, Lord Lyveden, and other Peers. Foreign Affairs-The State of Poland -The Earl of Carnarvon addresses the House of Lords upon the condition in which that country is placed, and the policy pursued towards it by Russia-Earl Russell's Speech in answer. The New Kingdom of Italy-State of opinion in England upon Italian Affairs— The Marquis of Normanby takes a conspicuous part in denouncing the new régime-He charges the King's Government with unconstitutional and tyrannical conduct-Earl Russell controverts the facts alleged, and vindicates the King of Italy's policy-The Earl of Malmesbury justifies the policy pursued towards that country by the Government under which he acted as Foreign Secretary-Lord Wodehouse arraigns the correctness of Lord Normanby's representations— The Marquis of Normanby a second time brings forward accusations against the Government of Italy-His statements are controverted by the Earls of Russell, Eellenborough, and Harrowby, and by Lord Brougham-Sir George Bowyer makes a vehement attack upon the policy of the English Government towards Italy in the House of Commons-He is answered by Mr. Layard-Mr. Pope Hennessy defends the Papal Government from the imputation of misgovernment-The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a very effective speech, confutes Sir George Bowyer's arguments-Speeches of Mr. M. Milnes, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Maguire, Lord Palmerston, and other Members. Operations in China-Employment of the British force against the Rebels in that country-Earl Grey calls attention to these circumstances, and impeaches the policy of interference pursued by the British Government -The Duke of Somerset ex, lains the grounds upon which the employment of a British Marine force has been sanctioned-Lord Stratford de Redcliffe approres 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. IN N connection with the subject 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 Com. mittee 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 Impeial 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 the dependencies of the Crown powers of self-government. He He to which it could not be readily suggested reasons why the Colo- applied. With respect to the nies should have the responsi. Amendment, as it had been mobility of self-defence cast upon dified by Mr. Baxter, he agreed them, in local quarrels, instead to it on the part of the Governof leaning upon the mother ment, 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 en bodied. 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 Resolu tion 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 Sir J. Ferguson thought that Mr. Baxter's amendment wenttoo 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 Stated 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. Lord Palmerston observed that our colonies must be looked at as part and parcel of the British empire, and, so far from wishing to see the day approach when these great communities would desire to separate from the mother country, he hoped that day would be long deferred. But the connection must be preserved by the link of mutual interest, and he regretted very much that the local Legislature had declined to make adequate provision for self-defence, which it was their duty to make. He denied that the sending of 3000 troops to Canada in June had anything to do with the refusal of the Legislature to provide an adequate Militia. So small a force could not have led the Canadians into the mistake of supposing that the mother 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 dif ferent 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 the wisdom of expending large sums on such places as the Mauritius, St. Helena, and Corfu, and condemned altogether the fortifications at Jamaica, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. If these latter colonies valued their connection with England they ought to depend principally on their own efforts. He was quite ready to grant any expenditure for colonial defences, if our honour and interest rendered the position worth fortifying, and if the position was capable of being fortified. wished to see some definite plan, instead of none at all, on which our colonial defences should be based. In conclusion, he referred to the Militia Bill recently passed in Canada, and declared its provisions totally inadequate for the He |