COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 166, 28 May 1862, Page 5

COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS.

The London Times of March 5 has the following article upon this subject :— .'. I : A discussion in the House of Commons last night revived a subject which has always received especial attention in this journal. It is this— How far are we justified in taxing. pur own island resources.and in expending our own island population, for the purposes of our colonies ?. It is a subject Wliich is growing upon us, ahd which must at some future day force a decision. When Sir George Lewis on Monday, night undertook to, show the cause of the continuous increase of our military necessities, he omitted from his consideration the fact that, although the British; Isles are. a fixed quantity, the British Empire*is like a young-forest tree, to which every year adds greater girth, and stronger limbs, and wider foilage. What were little settlements but a very lew years ago are immense cities to-day, and will be mighty nation's" in a few years hence. What we governed as little subject dependencies we have already allowed to grow up into free democracies, and we watch tliem with pride jas they expand into power and wealth. We are glad to count these strong sons of our family, and to reciprocate all the kindliness of intimate relationship. But the union is much more a matter of sentiment than a matter of interest. . Whenever it comes to a matter of business theyj make as hard" bargains with us as they could do with strangers, and we neither ask nor expect any more liberal treatment at tlieir hands. > The tariffs of our own colonies are generally much more heavy than the tariff of France, and,, although we think them unwise, for their interest as well as ours, we never expect those tariffs to be mitigated out of any feeling for the Mother Country. They are all frequently doing what jwe think most injudicious, and even unjust or cruel.but we feelno right in ourselves to interfere. • There is one interference, however, and one only, which is tamely submitted to by our colonies—it is, that we should build and garrison fortifications for them, and keep up at bur oivn expense a large military force in their cities. So far from resenting this, they are, for the most part, indignant at the niggard, manner in.. which, they often think we discharge; this duty., If the Cape of Good Hope chooses to quarrel with the tribes of Africa, we are reproached at once that a great army of Englishmen is not on the spot to follow the savages into their fastnesses. If the Parliament of New Zealand desires to appropriate the, lands of the aborigines, the first cry is one of shame upon the Mother Country that a greater military force is not upon the spot to do the necessary work of hunting the red men. Much more than this ; if Chinamen are troublesome at Melbourne, ; or Protestants are obnoxious in Newfoundland, it is the British redcoats who are called out to be the instrument of perpetrating the local injustice, orof consummating.the sectarian vengeance. We are quite aware that in the evidence given before the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure, the late Lord Herbert, having in his mind,-we' believe, these very facts, said that. the Colonial Legislatures "could make no claim to use the troops in "such a mariner ;" but it is difficult to see how, when resistance has been provoked, and a breach of the peace has arisen, the Governor can refuse the aid of troops to protect the colony, orto put" down a riot, and we know that in practice such aid never is refused. We are aware, also, that during the same inquiry, it was .stated by the Duke of Newcastle and other statesment of experience that it would be impossible to instruct the defence of a colony in time of war to the Volunteer forces, unaided by Imperial troops, but that "we must meet large efforts on the part of the colony by correspond- ! ing assistance from home." It is admitted also by all experienced public men who gave evidence upon this subject,thatthere is a very earnest spirit of volunteering in the whole of, the colonies. It is not that their loyalty is doubtful, or that their, courage requires stimulating. If any English minister'were ever so stupid and so wicked as to interfere with the coristitutional_.rights of any of these colonies, we should " soon discover that they have spirit enougb and strength' enough to vindicate their local privileges; against any Imperial force we might have upon the spot. But they like the "profit and the protection, which a little Imperial army, spending much and costing them nothingjgives them. We, inthe meanwhile, have to pay, directly ; and .indirectly,' about three millions of. money in quiet years ;. and every now and then an extra two or three millions when it ■pleases "any one of our saucy offspring to go to

war. Of course, our objection docs not apply to cases where danger fi-om a. foreign enemy arises by reason of the Imperial policy. Even Mr. A.Mills, in the very moderate speech with whicli he introduced his motion last night, did not seek to impeach the propriety of the recent dispatch of troops to Canada. It may, doubtless, be said that jf Canada had not been a possession of Great Britain, the Federal States would not have ventured so far towards a war as they did, and it may be answered that if Canada had not desired to remain British, and had not entertained a strong disinclination to be annexed, ive should neither havo had the wish nor the power to protect her. But it is enough that the danger, to Canada arose out of a danger threatening the British Empire, and that wcwerc as much bound to protect her as we were bound to protect Kent and Sussex, expecting from her the same hearty and co-operative efforts as we should expect from tlie Sussex farmers or the men of Kent. Strategically, perhaps, it may be true that in the case of a great war,our wide spread colonies would be a weakness to us, but we are sure that even if this be so, there is no class among us who would refuse the risk. We feel as a nation-that tliey arc an element of our glory and our power; individually, we all regard them as a means by which we spread our race and language over the earth, affording scope for industry to our sons, and sowing the seeds of great nations which shall flourish when perhaps England may be but an honored history, iio, also, if our colonies have their risk in this connection, it is a risk which they willingly undergo; for it is fairly counterbalanced by .the consideration that, under the protection of an empire, the peaceful policy of whicli is respected throughout the world, they are more secure from the ambition of great Powers, and more likely to be Allowed to develop themselves unmolested,than they would be if they stood alone, or if they were broken into fragments by intestine usurpations. The question1 of Imperial war is.distinct from that which the Colonial Military Expenditure Committee discussed and reported upon, and from the object of the members of the House of Commons who last nightattempted to give effect to its recommendations. That the colonies, having local legislntures,s hould also have their own military establishments, and should maintain them, is by no means inconsistent with their having the assistance of any necessary amount of naval and military Imperial force in j case of an Imperial war. To us the argument's seem conclusive that it would be better, when the Empire is at peace, that there should not be a soldier of the Imperial army in any of our great colonies. It is, we think, a powerful argument in favor of this conclusion, that when the time shall come that some; one or m»re of the great democracies we are now rearing shall break away from us, it will be to the interest of nil that it should go in peace, and not after a conflict. If there be. English troops and English fortresses in the country, military honor will require a struggle, and we shall part in hate and bloodshed, as the States of Americaaie now parting. If there be no English army, there can be no contention, except among themselves, and the consciousness of the power to effect the act of folly will, probably, for a long time yet to come, prevent it. It is neither just nor pleasant to us to do this unnecessary office of defence. We cannot afford either the waste cf-life, or the waste of money, and we , should be acting quite within our right if we were to. recall every soldier during this general peace, J and leave our colonies to their own resources for their defence. This was admitted as frankly last night by Mi', Chichester Fortescue from the Treasury benches as it was urged by Mr. Mills and Mr. Baxter. But what' is theoretically right is often practically impossible. No minister dares I do this under the responsibility which weighs upon him. It is very easy to demonstrate that the colonists of the Cape of Good Hope and of New Zealand are able to protect themselves from the Caffres and the Maories. But if, acting on this abstract truth, any minister had left these colonies bare of troops, and a great calamity had come upon them, what would be his fate when the news arrived-in England ? It is easy for three millions of Canadians to secure the principal points upon the Canadian frontier, but what minister could contemplate without dismay the popular indignation that would be. excited by the news that Toronto, Montreal, or Quebec were in the hands of the Federalists ? These things cannot be done roughly and suddenly. They must be brought about by the consent of the colonists themselves, by.showing, them the justice-of tlie case, and by firmly withholding all interference in their intestine quarrels, and all encouragement to unnecessary local wars. It is" very hard if great communities of Englishmen cannot, after they have grown into a' State, keep their- own police and hold their own against the neighboring: savages. Thus the House of Commons seem to have thought last night; and, the members being all of one mind iv favor of the reasoning, and almost equally unanimous against any immediate action, left the House to be counted out.