§ MR. ADDERLEYsaid he was sorry to be obliged to add one more subject to the heterogeneous discussion which had already taken place; but the Question of 1638 which he had given notice was, he thought, of so important a character as to justify him in asking the Secretary at War for an immediate explanation. If the answer to his question should not be satisfactory, he should ask the House to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject after the Easter holidays. His question had reference to a better apportionment of the expenses for the defence of the Colonies between the Imperial and Colonial Treasuries. He was of opinion that the present system of charging those expenses almost wholly on this country was not only burdensome to this country, but was mischievous in its effects to the Colonies themselves. The facts were these—that for the purpose of the military defences of the Colonies there was thrown upon the English taxpayers a burden of nearly £4,000,000 a year, whilst the amount contributed towards that object by the Colonies themselves was somewhat less than £400,000 a year, being less than one-tenth of the whole sum required. It seemed to him that that was a most unreasonable state of things, and that the House would do well to consider it with a view to a more just and satisfactory arrangement of the matter. The taxpayers of the mother country derived no advantage from the contribution of that money, whilst the exemption of our Colonies from their own taxation was indefensible and injurious, if not seriously mischievous to themselves. The two colonies of New South Wales and Victoria no doubt contributed somewhat more than our other Colonies towards the expense of their defence. He could not understand the reason why the British Colonies should be the only part of the empire—indeed of any empire in history — exempted both from personal service and money payment for the cost of their own defence. The effect of the arrangement was to weaken this country by occasioning the Queen's forces to be scattered in small detachments all over the world. The number of our troops supposed to be appropriated to the defence of the Colonies was 42,000. Those were scattered over a great number of the Colonies, and were lost to this country when their services were really wanted. In time of war we were obliged at the risk of incurring a bad understanding with Foreign Powers to resort to German and Swiss legions from the circumstance of being unable to avail ourselves of all our own troops. But with regard to the Colonies 1639 themselves it did a still greater injury. In the first place, these few soldiers could not really defend the Colonies. Their numbers being totally inadequate, and there being only two or three companies often in a large tract of country, the colony trusting to such defence would be at the mercy of any enemy who had anything like a competent naval force; whereas if the Colonies were obliged to depend on their own resources they would provide a sufficient force for their defence. The great inequalities, too, of the system—some of those colonies, often those the least responsible, being required to contribute more than others—naturally created a feeling of jealousy, and an impression that injustice was done to the former. Another anomaly of the system was shown in the colonial allowances made to English troops—allowances being granted liberally by some of the colonies, whilst others made no such allowances. The consequence was that the British Treasury had to make up the difference to Her Majesty's troops when stationed in the liberal colonies; and the troops stationed elsewhere complained. Last year the late Secretary at War, whilst referring to this question, complained of the present system being unjust, capricious, wasteful, and mischievous. Some colonies were not even required to pay for their own local forces, and very few had raised any local militia whatever. When he brought the question on the last occasion under the consideration of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said that a Committee had been appointed to investigate the subject. That Committee consisted of the Secretary of the Treasury, the permanent Secretary of the Colonies, and the permanent Assistant Secretary of the War Office, who were required to state the existing system, and to make some suggestion as to a better principle of apportionment of military expenditure in Colonies between the Imperial and the Colonial Treasuries, and as to the best mode of carrying out that apportionment. He had asked for the Report of that Committee; but he was told that it was a Departmental Report. He, on the other hand, held it to be the property of the House, because it had been so referred to in that House, and made a pretext for stopping his intended Committee of Inquiry; and the less right had the Secretary of State for War to withhold it when it was remembered that the Committee was appointed by his predecessor 1640 in office (General Peel), and was actually sitting when he went out of office. He, therefore, now asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was still disinclined to produce that Report, and, if so, whether he, on the part of the Government, would offer any objection if he (Mr. Adderley) should think it his duty to move for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject, in order that he might obtain and lay before the House the same information as was probably contained in that document?