The Express.
London, England, 1861-03-06 00:00:00

COLONIAL MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

I Mr. A. MILLS moved for the appointment of • select
committee on calculi' military expenditure, to inquire and
report whether any and what alterations might be advan-
tageously adopted in regard to the defence of the British
dependencies, and the proportions of cost of such defence us
now defrayed from imperial and colonial funds respectively.
Mr. MARSH had particular pleasure in seconding the
motion, because the colony of New Zealand, with which he
was principally connected, hail no soldiers and no military
defence. He thought that our colonies ought not, strictly
speaking, to have &military defence. A fleet, with &sufficient
number of marines, would, in his opinion, be a much more
effectual defence than • garrison of soldiers. The advantage
possessed by a fleet was that it could move very readily to 1,
any point on the coast where its presence might be re-
uired. It would be recollected that the volunteers of New
Zealand were, one recent occasion, placed in great jeopardy,
and would have been cut off by the natives but for the
assistance of blue jackets. The lion. member who bad sub-
mitted the motion to the house had, lie thought, made •
mistake In raying that the Australian colonies contributed
only 740001. to the Patriotic Fund, as it was within his own
knowledge. that New Routh Wales, by no means the largest
of these colonies, had alone subscribed h'3,000/.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE (who was indistinctly heard)
assured the hon. gentleman that he would not treat his
motion as • party attack opts the government. That was
not the view which the government took of it, and he
should consider the motion simply as a proposal no the
subject to which it related. He was convinced that
if the House of Commons took the negotiation from
the bands of the executive government and carried it on
by means of • committee of the house, this would cause dis-
satisfaction in the colonies, and would not promote the end
they had in view. Most of the colonies were so far inde-
pendent that any change of system could oely be carried out
by oautioua negotiation. The house might as well attempt
to carry on negotiations with the government of France as
to carry on negotiations with the government of the colonies.
Then theta was not after all so much difference as to the
principle on which improvement in our colonial system was
to proceed. His noble Meal at the head of the colonial de-
Etment was quite reedy to &dolt the principle laid down
General Peel. He made an exception as to all the
rges of the internal police falling on the colonies.
That could only apply to commuoities of English origin, and
not to places where there was a heterogeneous population,
like that in Trinidad and the Mauritius, where, if the
control of the crown were to be withdrawn for six months,
he thought it would be necessary for them to trtnefer their
allegiance to some other crown. Applying one by one that
principle to the colonies, that wad a task that might be ful-
filled, bat it meat be left to be done by the department*

Lord It. CECIL said that the speech of the Under- I
Secretary for the Colonies was • conclusive argument for
the motion. He admitted that there were many doubts
and uncertainties in the case—if so, what more proper
tribunal to which to refer it than the House of Commons ?
After some remarks from Sir J. TRILLAW:tT,
Mr. ADDERLEY said that wars were just as likely to
arise out of colonial as out of home questions, showing
that more money bad been spent io Kaffir and other colonial
wars than in those of our own making. He deuied that
the colonies had, in fact, shown • proper spirit of self-re-
Banes. The military expenditure on amount°, the colouies
was extravagant and unjustifiable. Ho implored the '
government to reconsider their determination with regard
to this committee.
Lord PALMERSTON—The right hon. gentleman oer. '
I *Maly thinks the opinion of this house capable of very rapid
formation if be imagines that It has bees maimed and
brought to perfection in the sheet period daring which this
discumio• his been carried on. I perfectly agree with my
Lon. friend in the objections he bas urged to the motion
proposed. It seems to me that the objects to which the
committee would direct its atteutima may be classed under
two heads : first of all, it would have to determine what
number of troops should be retained in each of our foreign
colonies and dependencies • and next, it would have to de
ternune by whom throe ;mops should be paid. Now, I
think it is not too much to say, that the question
of what should be the proper amount of garrison
from time to time and from year to year under the via ping
and fluctuating circumstances of the empire and its relations
with foreign powers—what should be the actual number of
troops in each of our dependencies, varying infinitely in
their actions and relations—cannot be properly determined
Ly • committee of this house, Lut is one which must Le re-
solved by the discretion of the executive government, con-
versant from time to time with all the considerations by
which such a decision is to be governed. Then as to the
question of how these troops are to be paid. It is not
within the competence of • committee, nor of the House of
Commons, nor of the British government itself, to
determine what amount of oontributions each of
these colonies should make ; because we all know
that many of them have independent legislatures,
and that any arrangements for dividing the expense of gar-
risons could only be effected by negotiations between the
British government and colonial government' and legisla-
tures. Such negotiations could not be carried on by a com-
mittee of the House of Commons. Therefore lam bound
to say that the tendency of the motion is rather to transfer
to • °palmate° of this house duties and functions which pro-
perly belong to the responsible advisers of the crown. This is
my opinion ; and I can therefore anticipate no great political
result from a committee, if the house affirm that one should
be appointed. The right hon. gentleman who has just sat
down, in his real to induce the government to consent to
the motion, made use of an argument not very likely
to carry conviction to our minds. He mid that if
the government would agree to this inquiry, he should be
greatly tempted to vote for the abolition of the hop duties.
(Laughter.) If the government is its aegutiations with
colonial legislatures should be provided with no better
arguments to produce an impression on them than throne
which the right bon. gentleman has endeavoured to use in his
negotiations with the government, I am afraid that neither
the government nor the colonies would make such progress
in the distribution of expenses which the right hoe. gentle.
man wishes. (A laugh.) But although undoubtedly
I do not think any good ground Las been laid
for • committee, and I cannot anticipate any
good malts from it, yet if it appears to be the
trwish of the house, as I have collected
tlis in the mune of this debate. (Ironical cheers.) I
have no each strong objection to the motion as to induce
the government to divide the house upon it. At the same
time, I repeat that Ido not anticipate those advantages
from the appointment of • committee that the mover ex-
pects, bemuse we think that the information accessary for
the guidsnes of the government is already in our hands.
But nevertheless as it seems to be the wish of the house
that the motion should be agreed to, I do not oppose it,
and will not put the house to the trouble of • division.
The motion was them agreed to without • division, sold
some laughter.
THE HOP DUTIES.

Donlon and Mr. MILDMAY premoted petitions in
favour of the abolition of the tax upon hope.
Mr. DODSON then rose, pursuant to notice, to more that
the maintenance of any duties upon hope is impolitic, and
that is any remission of taxation or adjustment of financial
burdens provision should he made fur the removal of such
duties. He said that the hop duties immediately interested
only a few English counties, otherwise they would long ago
have beets abolished. The tax operated as an excise duty
which was ultimately borne by the consumer, who had
to pay not only the amount of the tax, hut the
suecessive accumulations of interest which it bore.

The right bon. bert. the member for Carlisle condemned it
in 1/452 u injurious both to the producer and the consumer,
whilst the cost of collection was excessive. It was collected
bye special staff, so. that if the duty were repealed the
whole staff might be abolished. (Hear, hear.) His next
authority was the hen. member for Rochdale, who stigma.
timed it as a tax which was fitter for the atmosphere of
Turkey than thatof free trade England. In ISM Lon] Aberdeen
said to • deputation that so greet were the objections to the
tax, that if it did not exist already nobody would think
of putting it on. Other Chancellor* of the Exchequer had
condemned it, and only one bad attempted to praise it,
namely, the right hon. baronet the Secretary for India.
He (Re. Dodson) had waittxl on the present Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and the right hon. gentleman
bad not advanced • single argument in favour of
the tax. Indeed, it would be bard to defend
this excise duty. True, our expenses were great
and oar financial burthens heavy', but if the latter must be
heavy, surely they ought to he made le equal and as little
Er:ive as possible. (Hear, hear.) All he asked was
hen the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the
finances of the country into consideration he would see
whether this small but unfair and unequal pressure might
not be removed. (Hear, bear.) lie knew how powerful
the right hon. gentleman was to make the WORN) appear the
better reason, but be implored the house not to be led away
by the right hon. gentleman's eloquence, but to consider the
question on its own merits. The hon. member in conclusion
repeated his motion.

Sir B. BRIDGES seconded the motion. He asked the
right hon. gentleman opposite whether the hop duty was
not the most troublesome, and hop growers the greatest
bores he had ever met with in his official capacity (The
Chancellor of the Exchequer nodded assent. Laughter.)
Well, the right bon. Kentlemau nodded assent, but it was
the galled jade that winced ; the hop grower was the most
persecuted tax payer in the country. (Hear, bear.) The
cost of celiac:me was the same no mutter what the product,
and hot veer the duty of the collector was nearly a
sinecure. 'The hop growers wore subject to many vicis
situdes. Even the hops themselves suffered from many

First the flea, then the fly,
Then the bug, and then they die.
And be would add—then the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir J. SHELLEY, an a bop grower, felt bound to support
the inotioa. . . .

Lord PEVENSEY supported the motion.
Mr. BRIGHT coded that the hop duty was absurd
and ridiculous. It could never be regarded as a permanent
source of revenue. Nevertheless, he maintained that other
imposts, and especially the paper duty. stood before it for
remission. . . .

.--
Loral HOLHESDALE, on the contrary, contended that
the tax on hops, as being a tax on the raw material. ought
to have priority for remission.
The CH.tNCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the question now to be decided did not turn upon
the merits of the hop duty, or the policy of continuing it as
a source of revenue. As a tea it was fairly chargeable with
many peculiar evils, being unequal, uncertain, precarious,
and tending to press heavily upon the contributor during
*eases' of distress. It might also lie designated an impost
on raw material. On the other hand it was every cheaply
collected tax, and its collection, unlike that of the
paper duty or the spirit duty, did not interfere
with any process of manufacture. Thu fact was,
that hop cultivation was altogether a lottery, Ia
which the duty operated as a deduction from the prime,
and an aggravation of the blanks. The abolition of the
duty would not remove the liability to loss and distress
which the growers suffered through the operation of
natural cause. ; and though the product to the revenue was
equally liable to fluctuation, he could nut concur in the
conclusion that it ought, under present circumstances, to
be surrendered. The motion pledged the house to an ab-
stract resolution, which many considerations might render
it most impolitic to fultL
Mr. E. BALL and Lord H. YANK supported the motion.
Mr. DISRAELI hoped the house would well consider the
step they took before they agreed to the motion. He was
not at all insensible to the strength of the claim which
had been brought before them that evening. It had been
his lot on several occasions to have the care of the hop.
growers placed before him with great ability, and with
greet Juices' of detail, and on no occasion hail it barn put
forward with more efficiency than it had been to-night by

the hon. member for Kent, whom he hoped to see taking
a more active part in their debates. Ilia boo. friend the
member from Cambridgeshire did not establish a case for
therepml of the tax when he said the tax was a grievance.
Whether a tax were a grievanoe was a secondary matter.
They must first look to the state of the revenue. There
was nothing that was not a grievance and which was not •
restriction to enterprise. The supporters of the motion
assumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequerhad a earplug
and they put in their claims fur o share of it, whereas they
were at that moment in a state of deficiency, which was
only supplied by annual nod temporary taxation. Under
these circumstances, they were not to consider a grievance
which pressed on a particular class, but they must consider
the general prospects of the country with regard to its
financial resources. He did not want to enter now into the
principle' that guided the commercial legislation of last
year, or the consequences that had accrued from it. They
would soon have an authentic account, and be better able to
give an opinion, but that those consequences were serious
no one doubted: Then they must remember that they un-
fortunately had experience of the evil effects of a bad har-
vest. They were told by those who embraced the principle' of free trade that the disasters of • bad harvest would no
longer be experienced. He would not now enter into any
discussion whether those representations were just, but be
thought they would all agree that a bad harvest in this
country was • great evil. We bad had to encounter finan-
cial and commercial disturbances and • bad harvest in
the face of an increased and increasing expenditure.
It seemed to him this wane critical period in which we lived,
and it was the duty of every member of that house to form
his own opinion as to what might be the character of palls
events, and what might occur in the fortunes of the world-
, (Hear. He had no hesitation in saying that this was •
cell' period, and be would be a very rash leader of his
countrymen who should lead them to indulge in any hope
of any considerable reduction of expenditure or taxation.
! In fact every man knew it was • difficult period, sod that
we ought to husband our resource.. Every one felt that
. the future was obecure and ambiguous, and that it was •
' period in which no one could speak with authority to guide
I them. Now, was this a pecizel in which they should come
forward to further embuirroas the minister entrusted with
: the management of the finances, and who must, under the
circunistarices, have so many difficulties to encounter? He
did not think he should be justified in supporting the
motion of the bon. member for Sussex. The hon. gentle-
man and his friends might justify this motion by the reeo-
-1 lotion to which the house agreed on the paper duties ; but
really there was no similarity between them. It was
the office of the House of Commons, if it bad
a strong opinion with reference to any particular tax, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some surplus at his
disposal, it was the highest duty of the House of Commons
be
preliminarily to express its opinion as to the tax which it
believed to a prominent grievance. That was the condi-
tion with regard to the paper duties when the house came
to that resolution ; but the government announced in no
unequivocal langusp that it was accepted by them as a re-,
solution that would not affect their conduct. But was that
the position of the member for Sussex? The resolution with
respect to the paper duties did not at all touch the im-
pending budget. The present was a resolution which must
affect the budget, and it was impossible if it we carried
that it should not affect the financial arrangements which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to recommend to
the house. Was that fair He was aware of all the argil-
inenta that could be urgediagaiast the bop duty ; he had
trial to relieve that interest, hut he could not subscribe to
the doctrine that this was • tax that as a grievant
took the highest rank of those which could In-
jure her Majesty's subjects. He thought there were many
others which they must consider before, in the remission of
taxation, they came to that ; and he thought nothing could
be more =Wile, in the present condition of the country,
than that we should enter into those fanciful and
schemes of remission of taxation, when they ought fOuPtet
pare their minds for real snd severe toil, for really under
standing the difficulties of their position, sod bringing ; .
bear on it all the resources of the country, and what we
the most important of all national resources, that spirit*
the community which was ready to bear greet burdens
when they felt they were required by the necessities of the
country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DODSON in reply, disclaimed all intention of inter-
fering with the financial arrangements of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. As long ago as 18113 a resolution was
moved by Mr. Peewee, and erred to by the house, to the
effect that the hop duty was impolitic and ought to be re-
moved. On that occasion the hon. member for Birmingham
said the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought t~ be obliged to
the boeourable member for bringing forward the resolution
before the budget. and he (Mr. Dodson) claimed the
vote of the collaigne of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to-night (Mr. M. Gibbon), because on that occasion he voted
for the motion of Mr. Peewee. ("Hear, hear,"and • laugh.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had that night gratified
the advocates of the repeal of the hop duty. He admitted
threafourths of the arguments in favour of that raped and
be passed over bigamies the other fourth. The Chasaellor
of the Exchequer was not correct on another point, for the
acreage of the hop growth was quite as large twenty
years ago as it was DOW. As to the proper
period for bringing forward such a resolution it
might be said th it if it was introduced by
an audependent member lie was told it was too soon, and if
slier the budget it was too late. (Hear, hear.) If en in-
dependent member moved a resolution lie was told it was
an abstract resolution ; if he brought in a bill, either before
the budget or after it, he WAS told that the measure ought
Dot to be in the hands of a private member. The mode
which he had adopted of bringing forward a hypothetical
resolution appeared to him to be the only way of bringing a
resolution of that kind before the house. (Hear.)

The house divided :
Az
ma moth's wu therefor* lad.
NAVY (PROMOTION AND

110
202-92

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE moved for a select committee to
consider the present system of prornution and retirement in
the royal navy, and the present pa, and position of the
several dames of naval officers, and to report what changes
therein were desirable, with a view to theurcreased efficiency of
the naval service. The hon. member said the officers com-
plained that their pay was deficient, and the command
money which had been granted them by the Admiralty wee
accompanied by conditions which left them in some
came worse off than before.

Mr. B. COCHRANE, in seconding the motion, begged to
call the attention of the government to the case of the
reserved captains, who had been treated in a most unjust
manner. By a bargain in 18.51, they had Leen induced to
place their names on a reserved, not upon a retired list
and then in 18.56, there was another order in council which
placed them in the position of retired °Mows. This was a
question of only :1,0001. a year, and he thought it was a
point well worthy the attention of her Majesty's govern-
ment.

The question having been put from the chair,
Sir H. STRACEY said if the con:oak,' were granted, he
believed the means might be found to make the navy an
efficient and a contented one.

Sir F. T. BARING thought this method of agitating
the House of Com'nons would not tend to the harmony
or discipline of the navy.
Admiral WALCOTT supported the motion. He must say
that in his own person it was most unfair and unjust to be
placed on the reserved list. In In; it was his good fortune
to be sent to the coast of Cuba to put down pirates. Me
succeeded in putting them down, and for that service he was
recommended for the companionship of the Bath by the Ad-
mbalty of the day, and yet to this hour every First Lord,
with the exception of Lord Ellenhormigh, had treated him
with indifference and neglect. He might say that he had
been refused the opportunity of being, he trusted, au orna-
meet to his profession. (Meer, hear.) If they treated
their ofßeers with justice, they would devote their lives to the
service of their country.
Sir M. SEYMOUR said he should have been glad if the
necessity for this motion had been avoided. Without
wishing to cast reflections on any one in the service, he
must say that he knew of recent instances in which a dis-
position had been evinced by officers to retire from edit.°
service. A very different feeling formerly animated naval
officers. He cordially supported the motion of his hon.
and gallant friend, and hoped it would be agreed to by the
house.

Sir J. PAKINGTON deeply regretted that the bon. and
gallant admiral behind him, led away by the warmth of his
feelings, had charged him with having, while he was at the
head of the Admiralty, treated him with neglect and con-
tempt. Admiral Wslcot—"So you did.") (Laughter and
cries of " Order.") He could assure the gallant admiral
and the both* that not even such expression+ of warmth
bad ever led him for a single moment to regard his services'
or his professional character with soy but feeling+ of sitimre
respect. The gallant admiral, he WWI NOM to say, took
greet offence at him, and that evening lie !Lavery candidly
told the house the muse of that oleuce, namely, that he
did not recommend him for the honour of a companionship
of the Bath.
Admiral WALCOTT—Not that you slid not recommend
me, but that you slid nut follow out the recommendation.
(Cries of "Order.")
Sir J. PAKINGTON said as the gallant admiral had
brought the subject forward, awl as he lad been made the
subject of attack, the house, he was sure, would feel it was
only justice to himself (Sir J. Pakington) that the truth
'should be known. If the gallant admiral would only refer
to the letters he had written to hint lie would see that he (the
right hoe. baronet) did convey this refusal—and be was
sorry to be obliged to convey it—in the kindest sod moat
conciliatory language. The simple reason for the refusal
was that the adraind's case did not come within the rule* of
the order, and therefore he really Lad no option in the matter
and no power to reeommeod.
Admiral WALMOTT—I think I have shown that it did
come within the rules._

Sir J. PARINOTON must now beg to touch fore few
momenta on the motion of the hon. baronet the member
for Portsmouth. He regretted that the tlitheugaion upon