228 



TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTELY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



revenue was £40,000 in 1875, and £35,000 in 

 1876, and England, though it had reluctantly 

 consented to the cession at the earnest request 

 of the Australasian colonies, asked whether those 

 colonies would be disposed to contribute £4,000 

 each, or £16,000 in the aggregate, toward this 

 expense, and singularly enough Sir Julius Vogel, 

 then minister of New Zealand, was the person to 

 declare that " it is not the business of govern- 

 ments to be liberal." In this case the contribu- 

 tion was to be wholly voluntary, Lord Carnar- 

 von's object having been to prove "the readiness 

 of the great colonies to accept their membership 

 in the common duties of the empire." It certain- 

 ly seems strange that the minister who, in a case 

 as strong as it is possible to conceive, refused to 

 grant a small contribution toward an expenditure 

 incurred at the express desire of the colonists, 

 should be the person to recommend an enforced 

 contribution toward imperial expenditure, the 

 bulk of which is incurred for the purpose of main- 

 taining the influence of England as one of the 

 great European powers. 



To revert to the question of military expendi- 

 ture for the defense of the colonies. This subject 

 was most carefully considered by a select com- 

 mittee of the House of Commons in 1861, and a 

 mass of evidence was furnished, to which I shall 

 briefly refer. The late Mr. Herman Merivale de- 

 fined the objects for which troops are maintained 

 in the colonies to be: 1. Protection against for- 

 eign aggression ; 2. Protection against internal 

 disturbance ; and 3. Against danger from native 

 tribes. For none of the foregoing objects is it 

 necessary to maintain an imperial garrison at Hali- 

 fax, Nova Scotia. Earl Grey gave it as his opin- 

 ion that " the fortress of Halifax is to be looked 

 at as a place of the same character as Malta or 

 Gibraltar, of which the possession is of impor- 

 tance with a view to our general naval power." 

 Again Lord Grey stated : 



" The troops cost very little more (in garrisons 

 at Kingston, Quebec, and Halifax) than at home. 

 The Imperial Government must keep up a certain 

 amount of regular army, and I think that a portion 

 of that army is better quartered in those fortifica- 

 tions than at home." 



Sir T. F. Elliot stated : 



" Great Britain, with a view to national objects, 

 keeps a large garrison at Halifax, one of the most 

 important positions in a strategical point of view in 

 North America. . . . "We keep a large force at 

 Halifax because it suits our own imperial purposes. 

 Nova Scotia does not want it." 



Rear- Admiral Erskiue said : 



" I think it necessary for imperial interests that 

 both Bermuda and Halifax should be maintained. 

 At Bermuda and in Australia I think it perfectly 

 safe to substitute a naval force for troops, but not 

 at Halifax." 



General Sir J. F. Burgoyne was of opinion that 

 several garrisons should be maintained in strength, 

 including Kingston, Quebec, and Halifax. The 

 Duke of Newcastle was of opinion that " Halifax is 

 not kept up for the benefit of Nova Scotia. Hali- 

 fax is an important military post ; it is still more 

 important as a naval station ; it is one of the 

 finest and in all probability the finest harbor in 

 the world. Halifax should no more be supported 

 by Nova Scotia than Portsmouth by Hampshire." 

 The Duke was thereupon asked whether it would 

 not be fair to impose on Nova Scotia a share of 

 the expenses of the fort at Halifax, as Hamp- 

 shire bears its share of the defense of England, 

 to which his Grace replied : 



' ' Perfectly fair. It is extremely difficult to argue 

 these questions upon principles of business, and 

 it is a very small ground to take. It might relieve 

 that expense by some few pounds. It would be a 

 very pettifogging and weak argument." 



It seems to me that no case can be made out 

 to justify Sir John Lubbock in treating the cost 

 of the Halifax garrison as a special expenditure 

 for the defense of Canada. The question re- 

 mains, however, for consideration, whether the 

 colonies should be required to contribute to the 

 military and naval defense of the empire. It is 

 admitted that contributions toward such expendi- 

 ture would involve the necessity of the colonies 

 having a just influence in the national councils ; 

 in other words, they would have to take part in 

 deliberations affecting the foreign relations of the 

 empire. Sir Julius Vogel is of opinion that "for 

 some time to come they would be content with 

 representation at a Board of Advice to the Sec- 

 retary of State for the Colonies." I should be 

 curious to learn what possible question could 

 come before the Secretary of State for the Colo- 

 nies in which a colonial Board of Advice could 

 be useful. What do we glean from Sir Julius 

 Vogel's paper ? He contends for change, and 

 admits that there should be " a knowledge on 

 each side of what the change meant." He thinks 

 that the colonies are not inclined " to submit to 

 a total exclusion from a share of control in the 

 affairs of the empire," and he adds, " We have 

 already admitted that they should contribute to 

 the national expenditure by bearing a portion of 

 the cost of the navy." Although I am persuaded 

 that Canada has no desire whatever for any share 



