THE EXAMINER.

{From the Novascotian, August 23. COLONIAL EXPENDITURE.

We have often looked on in astonishment as enormous sums of money, year after year, were voted by the Im- perial Parliament to defray the Civil, Military and Ecclesiastical expenses of the Colonies. ‘T'o pay those sums, the already over-taxed people of England, Ireland and Seotland, have toiled and moiled, sweat and groaned, and in some instances starved, that civil functionaries night be extravagantly paid,—the military men might glitter on parades and in drawing-rooms in brilliant uni- forms,—that expensive and useless fortifications might be reared,—and that Christianity might be taught to wealthy Colonists, while the poor of the Mother Country were treated as if they had neither wants to‘ be supplied in this world nor souls to be saved in the next.—Parlia~- mentary grants for Ecclesiastical purposes, in the Colonies, are much more rare tham formerly. The appropriations for civil: expenditure, in some of the dependencies of the Empire, havealso been considerably reduced. Not so, however, the charges connected with Naval and Military services, which have, both in the Mother Country and her Colonies, gone on steadily in- creasing. Various arguments and expedients have been put forward, from time-to time, to reconcile the English nation tothe enormous expenditure.—“ Ships, Colonies and Commerce,” have long been censidered the principal sources of England’s greatness. Without her Colonies, England, it has been said, would degenerate into a fourth or fifth rate power—surrounded by Colonies in every quarter of the globe and in every sea, she stands pre-eminent among the nations of the world. The English merchant conceived that Colonies were indis- peusable that he might enjoy a monopoly of the colony trade. Ours is a maritime power, argued others, and without colonies and the colony trade to recruit our navy, England would not be able to retain her supre- macy on the seas.

Hence the army was increased to garrison distant

dependencies, and ships of the line built, manned and ‘equipped to protect the colony trade at an enormous cost to the mother country. The principal part of this ex- penditure might, however, have been saved, but for the erroneous.views of Colonial Government, and the false views of commercial policy which prevailed up to a very recent period. it was believed:that the less the colonies governed themselves and the fewer commercial privile- ges they enjoyed:the more faithful, attached and profit- able would they be to the MotherCountry. ‘Times have ) changed. English statesmen have discovered that if they would have the colonies governed cheaply and well, the Colonists, generally, must. be allowed to manage their local affairs, and that a monopoly of the colony trade, while fatal te the interestsof the cclonists, brought no corresponding advantage to the mother country. With these prefatory remarks we.direct the attention of oar readers to the speech of Sir William Molesworth, delivered in the Commons a few days ago, en Colonia] expenditure. It is almost unnecessary to add that a speech so full of information, so accurate in detail, and so well argued made a profound impression on the House,, ag it doubtless will do upon the Country :

“Sir W. Moreswortu rose to bring forward the ‘ollowing motion: ‘'That it is the opinion of this house that the colenial expenditure of the British empire demands enquiry, witha view to its reduction: and that ‘o accomplish. this object, and to secure greater content- ment and prosperity tothe colonies, they ought to be :nvested with large powers for the administration of their ‘ocal affairs’—He maintained, and wes prepared to show, that the redaction might take place without dotri- nent to the interests of the empire, and with advantage ‘o the government of the colonies, rendering their re- sources more usefut and their inhabitants more attached | to the British empize. In speaking of the colonies, he} alluded to these only which were ender the jurisdiction’ of the Colonial-office. They embraced an arena of be- sweea 4,000,000 and 5,000,000 of square miles, about: °,800,000 of which were divided. into forty different; colonies, having separate governments, and 5,000,000) inhabitants, one of whom only. were of European| origin; their expenditure amounts to about £8,000,000 amiually, one-half being defrayed by the colonies, and’ ‘ae other by Great Britain. That portion defrayed by) Great Britain was under four different heads—military, | naval, civil and extraordinary.—The military expendi-| cave in 1332, was 1,790,000/.;.in 1843, it was 2,500,009%,;| and, at present, it could not be less, having in our colo- ues about 42,000 troops, for which alone we should have co vote 500,000/ ; so that he thought he under-estimated | the present military cost in saying it was only. 2,5Q0,- 200/.—They had 255 ships ia eommission, and taking; tof them, with a complement of &00@men, as required | ‘or the colonies, the naval expense would be at least 700,000L, to which.must be added the cost of naval es- ‘ablisinnents and works, and freights, and expe |

aman AE 2S iat

Fame

eed

ce a ee

Eicon eee

|

ct ..ellgga

pear NE a ee APS OE

Se a --

Ss

|

i j

g nse of | reliefs, raising that sum to more than 1,000,000/.—The| zivil expenditure annually voted in the miscellaneous | estimates. consisted ofa great variety ef items, and) amounted to 300,0004; and the extraordisary expendi-|

. ture made up of suci»charges as for relief to sufferers,

‘money lent to South Australia and promised to be lent! vo the West Indies, might atthe lowest calculation be} rat down at 260,000/., which, however; was much under ga rea! expenditure by Great Britain on aecount of her! splonies ;#hile the deelered. value of our experts only | aprgun ted 209,.0009907. .. 2,900,000. of whist) waz-am ex-!

ad A era ARR tt he

port trade toGibraltar for smuggling into Spain. So that our expenditure amounted to 9s. for every 11. worth of goods we exported. (Hear, hear.) Now colonies ought to be useful for political or commercial objects, and with that view were sometimes employed as military stations.—But in periods of war they might prove a source of weakness, instead of strength, as they would oblige us to scatter when we ought to concentrate our forces—(hear, hear)—and in the case of a 8erious strug- gle we might be compelled to abandon them tetheir fate.—Passing over Gibraltar and Malta, he would ask where was thenecessity of protecting the Ionian States with 2,500 troops, at a cost of 130,0001., that sum being something more than the value of our exports to those states? (Hear, hear.) In 1842 they were 122,500/. in arrear with this country; and he doubted not that, in- stead of diminishing, it had since increased, while we were this year to be called upon to vote 12,000/. to com- plete the fortifications. Bermuda, another military station, expended since the peace $00,000l. upon military and naval works; and to complete the fortitications we must expend 260,000/. more. St. Helena cost us 40,- 900 a year. Our colonies on the coast of Africa cost 25,0001. a-year; while we spent at least 50,000 in vain attempts-to suppress the slave trade. He could not avoid recommending the House to dispense with their military stations on the coast of Africa.”

Our readers have heard a good deal of the Kaftir War, at the Cape of Good Hope, from time to time, but very few of them had any idea of the causes, the expense, and the extraordinary results of that war. Sir William Molesworth furnishes the information, and the remedy for the waste of life and treasure im that distant and hitherto profitless. Dependency :

“Then there was the Cape of Good Hope, larger in extent than the whole of the United Kingdom, rendered particularly remarkable of late by the Kaffir war—the fourth war within the last twelve years; one which formed a strange instance of the little influence exer- cised by the Colonial-oftice overa distant colony—(hear, hear)—which cost this country 1,100,000/, and which would in all probability cost us 800,000 or 900,000I. nore. When Sir Henry Pottinger came to the colony he was astonished at the proofshe found of the enormous expenditure that had been committed, of the monstrous peculation that had been perpetrated, and peculation in which there was reason to believe men of very high station had been implicated. (Hear, hear.) As an ex- ample of the reckless expenditure he would mention, that a party of colonists settled in a frontier village had been receiving rations, &c., fromthe government to the extent of not less than 2,000/. per annum, on the pretext that they served as a sort of out-post. What had the renewal of the Kaffir war been owing to? Simply to the circumstance that 20 oxen having been stolen by some natives, although immediate restitution was made of 18 of them, the governor chose to say he was not content with this restitution, but must proceed to punish the whole nation to which the robbers belonged. ‘The war which proceeded was conducted on principles the least likely to bring it to a satisfactory issue, the troo employed being partly old peninsular soldiers, wholly unaccustomed to the sort of warfare, and partly of heavy, dragoons, armed with heavy rifles, which, once discharg- ed, they could scarcely manage to reload without dis- mounting, and it was not until resouree-was had, by the new governor, to native forcesyofficered by young and dashing British officers, that suecess was accomplished. When Sir. H. Smith arrived to replace Sir H. Pottinger he found the struggle terminated, and all the new go- vernor did was to make the native chiefs kiss his: feet, and to add to our possessions some 40,000 square miles of territory, of'as barrenand useless lands, to use the surveyor’s. phrase, as was to be found on tha earth’s crust. ‘This splendid result of a war, which originated ina removed axe and two stolen cows, had cost this! country. two millions of money. (Hear, hear.) As to the Colonial-effice here, the probabilities were, that while the struggle was going on they knew nothing at all about it, the nobie lord at the head of the department being, very possibly, more surprised than any body else when the bill of costs was presented to him.-~{ Hear, hear.) Lhe war was at an end now, indeed, but the house may be sure that, unless some effectual measures interposed, a similar war would be got up again befere many years had expired, for the Cape Town people admired thé sort of thing vastly, in consequence of the active expenditure upon it, by which they so largely benefitted. (Hear, hear.) Now his (Sir W. Molesworth’s) proposition was, to withdraw at all events the great bulk of the troopsfrom this colony, and to leave the colonists to protect themselves, which they could very well do, the more especially, that under such circumstances, they would take good care not:to provoke hostilities, (Hear, hear.) Ifa military station must be maintained at the Cape, 3,000 soldiers would be ainply sufficient for the! purpose ; but he thought that emigrants would serve the colony. and the mother country much better than troaps. Emigrants might be conveyed to, the Cape at the cost of 10/. per head, while every soldier kept. there cost.this country 60/. per annum, so that ifthe money spent.upon them were laid out in emigration, the colony would receive 9,000 new inhabitants.every year, who would be afar more efficient protection than the 3,500 soldiers

~- .

our exports thither did not exceed 92,0001. The expen- diture, in fact, was far more than he had stated, for there were to be additional troops placed on the station, ang 150,000/. were to be expended, it appeared, on the im. provement of our defences. Yet here, as at the ca 1,000 soldiers would answer every legitimate purpose, the colonists receiving free institutions in return for undertaking their own protection. Ceylon was neither a military station nor a commercial colony, but came rather under the class of Indian possessions. Indeed jt seemed to him that it would be far better to-transfer- jt altogether to the East India Company, and to save the cost, which at present amounted to 110,000/. per annom in military expenditure, besides 70,000/. per annum paid by the colonists; the whole of our exports thither not exceeding 240,000/. Upon Hong Kong this year he found that 94,5191. had been voted—a small sum in comparison with what this station would very soon cost, The government had' begun very promisingly with the governor of this new station, who was to be paid no less a sum than 6,000/.sper annum. (Hear, hear.) Al- together, our expenditure within the Chinese and Indian seas did not fall short of 600,0007. annum, while al! our exports did not exceed two millions. Another station now figured on the list, Labuan, which was to cost ng in this its first year, 9,8271., of which'2,000 was to go to Mr. Rajah Brooke, whose territories at Sarawak, mean- while, were to be looked after by a consul, whom we were to remunerate with 500/. a year. Nv great length of time would elapse, under the present system of things, before Labuan: would figure as-largely in our estimates as the Cape of Ceylon;. and we should thus have to pay ten shillings purchase money for every twenty shillings of exports that we transmitted to this eclony.- (Hear, hear.) Then there were the miserable Falkland Islands,. which, smce 1841, has cost no Jess than £45,000, with. no return or advantage to us of any description, By all means, he would say, let this utterly useless sion be forthwith handed over to the acknowledged claims of Buenos Ayres. By reducing the troops at such military stations as it might be deemed expedient to reduce, from 21,000 to 10,000, there would be a say- ing effected of one million a year in military and naval expenditure alone.”

Sir W. Molesworth, although desirous: of dispensing with the Military Stations on the coast of Africa—the graves alike of England’s soldiers and treasure—and such useless and expensive appendages as the Falkland Islands, would retain any Colony worth possessing. He shows conclusively, however, that the old arguments by which an extensive Colonial Empire were defended, have been met and refuted by recent changes in the Commercial policy of England. It is no longer neces- sary, for instance, that expensive establishments should be maintained im the Colonies, that the Mother Country may enjoy a monopoly of their own trade—for the Co- lony trade is now as free as that of England. Why, then, it is asked, continue an expenditure, which in the British North American Colonies alone jis stated at a million annually, or about thirty per cent. upon the value of the goods exported thither?

Sir William says truly, that if that million of pounds were saved, and those Colonies independent, that they would be ag: valuable customers, and that the exports from the Mother Country would not be diminished 2 single pound in consequence. And who can doubt the immense benefits that would be conferred, if the sums that are expended year after year, under the head of Military and Naval services, to the Colonies, were ap- plied in directing a wholesome. stream of Emigration, or in promoting works of public improvement?

‘Then asto our colonies in N. A., the W. Indies. and Australasia, of what possible benefit was-it to re- tain the present system there? In former years, when monopoly was in the ascendant, that principle was al- leged as the ground for exercising the dominion we had assumed, for it was said this monopoly gave us the ex- clusive benefit of the. trade with all these possessions. But monopoly had now been struck: down by the strong arm of free trade, and there remained no com- pulsion on our colonies to trade with us inatead of with other markets. As regarded commerce, they were now virtually independent states; but, as independent states, they would still be very glad to sell us their produce. and, selling us their.produce, they would: receive our produce and our manafactures ig payment, so long as we at all enabled then to do.so. Atal] events no ex- penditure we might make in the way of military gr naval armaments. would better our cases and by eli means, therefore, let this expendaure be discontinued. In the year 1844 the, declared value of our exports t» our Nerth American colonies, toour West Indian and Australasian colonies was six millions sterling. in the same year our expenditure upon these colonies was not less.than two millions sterling, and afterwards we paid two millions a year for the chance of getting pur- chasers for six. millions a yearof exports.—(Hear, hear. | Cut off the whote of this two millions a year expenditure, and there would not be a diminution in the demand for our exporis to the extent of a single pound. On an aver- age of the last sixty years our .Vorth American Colonies, in one wey or another,had not cost us less than a million a year, in other words, full 30 per cent on our exports

hather, (Hear, hears) On what principle did we keep

could afford. (Hear, hear.)

“The Mauritius wasto be regarded at onee as a com-| mercial colony and 2s a military station. There the! expenditare, wax 285,000/. ner annum. avhile the total of

9,000 troops there? To protect our colonies from the United States? If the colonies were loyal, they woule very well protect themselves: if they were net layal, asa 9,000 troovs would not at all answer the purnose. ( Ebeet.