London, March 3. At the sitting the day before yesterday the 
House of Commons, as everybody knows, rejected Lord 
Goderich’s motion allowing non-commissioned officers to reach 
the rank of captain. Palmerston used the old dilemma: a partial 
reform is impossible because one part of the old system depends 
upon the other.* Individual practical reforms are thus impossible 
because they are theoretically impossible. The total reform of the 
system is impossible because that is not reform but revolution. 
Theoretical reform therefore is impossible because it is not 
practical. This House of Commons—a House which takes to heart 
the principle principiis obsta was eager to be convinced, or rather 
it did not need convincing as it had passed sentence before the 
trial. 

Palmerston argued on this occasion that the system of selling 
officers’ commissions was old, and he was right there. As we 
indicated earlier,© it began with the “glorious” revolution of 
1688,° with the introduction of the National Debt, banknotes, and 
the Dutch succession. Already in the Mutiny Act of 1694 the 
necessity is stated of forestalling 

“the great mischief of buying and selling Military Employment in his Majesties 
Armies”, and it is enacted that “every commissioned officer” (only non- 

commissioned officers have no commissions) should swear that he has not bought 
his commission. 

This restriction was, however, not carried into effect; on the 
contrary, in 1702 Sir Nathan Wright, the Lord Keeper,* decided in 
the opposite sense. On May 1, 1711, a statute of Queen Anne 
expressly recognised the system by decreeing 

“that commissions shall no longer be sold without royal confirmation and that 

no officer may buy himself off unless he has served 20 years or has become 
incapacitated in the service, etc.” 

From this official recognition of the trade in military commis- 
sions it was but one step to officially regulating the market price of 
commissions. Accordingly, in 1719-20 market prices were fixed for 
the first time. The prices of officers’ commissions were renewed in 
1766, 1772, 1773, 1783, and finally in 1821, when the present 
prices were fixed. As early as 1766 War Minister Barrington 
published a letter which states: 

“The consequence of this trade in officers’ commissions frequently is that men 
who enter the army with the most ardent desire to serve, who have distinguished 
themselves at every opportunity, are kept for their whole lives in the lowest rank 
because they are poor. These deserving officers suffer the most cruel humiliation 
of being under the command of youths from wealthy families who entered the 
service much later but whose fortune enabled them to find entertainment outside 
the service, while the others, who are constantly at service quarters, carry out the 
duties of these gentlemen and have learnt their own.” 

It is true that England’s common law declares it illegal to give a 
present or a “broker’s fee” for any public office, just as the Rules 
of the Established Church place a ban on simony. Historical 
development, however, shows that the law does not determine 
practice nor does practice remove a contradictory law. 

The latest news from Australia adds a new element to the 
general discomfort, unrest and insecurity. We must distinguish 
between the riot in Ballarat (near Melbourney and the general 
revolutionary movement in the State of Victoria.°* The former will 
by this time have been suppressed; the latter can only be 
suppressed by far-reaching concessions. The former is merely a 
symptom and an incidental outbreak of the latter. Concerning the 
Ballarat riot, the facts are simply these: A certain Bentley, owner 
of the Eureka Hotel at the Ballarat goldfields, had got into all 
sorts of conflicts with the gold diggers. A murder which occurred 
at his house increased the hatred of him. At the coroner’s inquest 
Bentley was discharged as innocent. Ten of the twelve jurymen, 
who functioned at the inquest, however, published a_ protest 

against the partiality of the coroner,* who had attempted to 
suppress witnesses’ evidence disadvantageous to the prisoner. At 
the demand of the people a second inquest was held. Bentley was 
again discharged despite very suspicious evidence by some 
witnesses. It became known, however, that one of the judges had 
financial interests in the hotel. Many earlier and later complaints 
show the dubious character of the government officials of the 
Ballarat district. On the day Bentley was discharged for the second 
tme, the gold diggers held a tremendous demonstration, set his 
hotel on fire and then withdrew. Three of the ringleaders were 
arrested on a warrant issued by Sir Charles Hotham, the 
Governor-General of Victoria State. On November 27 a deputa- 
tion of gold diggers demanded their release. Hotham rejected the 
demand. The gold diggers held a monster meeting. The Governor 
sent police and troops from Melbourne. It came to a clash, several 
dead remained on the scene, and according to the latest news, 
up to December 1, the gold diggers have hoisted the flag of 
independence. 

Even this story, which is in the main taken from a government 
paper, does not put the English judges and government officials 
in a favourable light. It shows the prevailing distrust. There are 
actually two big issues around which the revolutionary movement 
in Victoria State is revolving. The gold diggers are demanding the 
abolition of the gold digging licences, i.e. of a tax directly imposed 
on labour; secondly, they demand the abolition of the property 
qualification for Members of the Chamber of Representatives, in 
order themselves to obtain control over taxes and legislation. Here 
we see, in essence, motives similar to those which led to the 
Declaration of Independence of the United States, except that in 
Australia the conflict is initiated by the workers against the 
monopolists linked with the colonial bureaucracy. In the Mel- 
bourne Argus we read of big reform meetings and, on the other 
hand, of large-scale military preparations on the part of the 
Government. It says among other things: 

“At a meeting of 4,000 persons it was decided that the [...] license-fee is an 
imposition and an unjustifiable tax on free labour. This meeting therefore pledges 
itself to take immediate steps to abolish the same, by at once burning all their licenses. 

That in the event of any party being arrested for having no licenses, [...] the united 
people will [...] defend and protect them”. 

No. 2359, December 1, 1854.— Ed. 

On 30 November Commissioners Rede and Johnson appeared 
with cavalry and police at Ballarat and demanded with drawn 
swords and fixed bayonets that the gold diggers show their 
licences. These, mostly armed, held a mass meeting and resolved 
to resist the collection of the hated tax to the utmost. They 
refused to show their licences; they declared they had burnt them; 
the Riot Act was read, and so the revolt was complete. 

To describe the joint actions of the monopolists lording it in the 
local legislatures and the colonial bureaucracy in league with them, 
it is sufficient to mention that in 1854 government expenditures in 
Victoria amounted to £3,564,258 sterling, including a deficit of 
£1,085,896, that is of more than one-third of the total income. 
And in face of the present crisis, of the general bankruptcy, Sir 
Charles Hotham demands for the year 1855 a sum of £4,801,292 
sterling. Victoria has barely 300,000 inhabitants, and of the above 
sum £1,860,830 sterling, that is £6 sterling per head, are intended 
for public works, namely roads, docks, quays, barracks, govern- 
ment buildings, customs offices, botanical gardens, government 
stables, etc. At this rate of £6 per head, the population of Great 
Britain would have to pay £168,000,000 sterling annually for 
public works alone, i.e. three times as much as their total tax. It is 
understandable that the working population is indignant at this 
supertaxation. It is likewise evident what good business the 
bureaucracy and the monopolists between them must make with 
such extensive public works defrayed at other people’s expense.