wards occurred which prevented it from being resumed on the day at first appointed, and a succession of other matters subsequently engaged the time of the House, and occasioned the motion to be postponed sine die.

No question connected with colonial affairs occupied a more prominent position in the public mind at this period, than the state of the important British settlement in South Africa. The internal condition of the Cape colony was indeed highly unsatisfactory. The British settlers had resented, in the strongest manner, the conduct pursued towards them by Lord Grey, in attempting to thrust a body of transported convicts upon them in defiance of their strong remonstrances, and as they alleged, in violation of his own express assurances to the contrary. Their minds were inflamed against the Home Government by a sense of these grievances, and by the withholding of that charter of constitutional self-government to which they considered themselves to be entitled. At the same time the renewal of hostilities on the part of the Caffre tribes threatened to involve this country in a warfare equally costly and inglorious. Both the political and the military embarrassments of the colony became the subject of repeated inquiry, and of some important debates in both Houses of Parliament.

On the 15th of April Mr. Adderley, one of the members for Staffordshire, who had taken an active interest in colonial policy, moved an address to the Crown, praying that a Commission might be appointed, to proceed to South Africa to inquire as to the best mode of adjusting the relations

between this country and the Caffre tribes, and of determining the engagements entered into in the settlement of the extended territory. In introducing this motion Mr. Adderley observed that there was not at this moment a Government at the Cape; there was a Governor, but not even a Council, whilst a dangerous war raged upon the frontier, and our policy with relation to the native tribes had utterly failed. His object was, to put an end to this policy, and to wind up for ever the outstanding engagements with the tribes and settlers at the Cape, conceding to the colony a representative Government, which would then take upon itself the responsibility and task of its own administration. He set forth his objections to the amendment of which Lord J. Russell had given notice, to intrust the inquiry to a Select Committee of that House, and to Sir W. Molesworth's amendment of that amendment, the object of which was to relieve this country from any expense of wars with the native tribes. The circumstances which rendered his motion necessary were, he said, the endless recurrence of these native wars,. the destruction of the lives and property of the colonists, perpetual irritation amongst the African tribes, enormous expenditure cast upon this country, and perplexity to the Imperial Government. Mr. Adderley reviewed the course of: policy pursued by Sir H. Smith, his military colonization, his system of commissionerships, his mode of dealing with the destitution of the native chiefs, and: with the influence of the wizards; : and he insisted that this policy: had resulted in failure and disgrace, the existing war being:

waged, not against the colonists, but against the Government, to recover territory and the authority of the chiefs, which Sir Harry, at the instance of Lord Grey, had broken up.

Lord J. Russell, in moving his amendment, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the relations between this country and the Caffre and other tribes, traced the history of the colony from its cession to us by the Dutch, when its limits had been extended to the Great Fish River. In 1819, a settlement, approved by the House, was formed at Graham's Town; the emigrants soon after complained of the depredations of the Caffres, and successive governors had endeavoured to remedy this mischief. The Fish River was found to be an ill-chosen boundary, and our frontier was extended to the eastward. The objectionable commando system having been abolished, in 1835 the Caffres ravaged the eastern districts, and a more costly system of military defence was necessarily adopted. Sir B. D'Urban carried his retaliatory hostilities beyond the Kei River, and declared that the security of the colonists required the extension of the frontier from the Keiskamma to the Kei. Lord Glenelg relinquished certain acquisitions of territory, and directed that treaties should be formed with the chiefs; but in 1845 fresh hostilities were commenced by the Caffres, which even the benevolent Sir P. Maitland charged to their treachery and rapacity, and he also suggested that our boundaries should be advanced to the Kei. Sir H. Pottinger adopted views not dissimilar, and laid down a system, ably detailed, for the pro

conse

tection of the colonists, and he thought the frontier should be extended to the Kei. The policy of Sir H. Smith had been based upon that of his predecessors, and, so far from his having been unjust to the chiefs, Sir Harry had been charged with an excess of lenity towards them. The present war had been kept at a distance from the colonists, which was so far good; but further measures were requisite, which ought to be considered dispassionately. The House could not say, he thought, "let the colonists have free institutions and take their own course at their own cost." He feared in that case this country would be responsible for serious quences a war of races, murder and rapine upon a large scale. Dismissing this alternative, then, there were, first, the plan of Lord Glenelg, of restricting rather than extending the colonial frontier, and making treaties with the native tribes, which had been fairly tried and had failed; secondly, the plan of Sir H. Smith and his three predecessors, of extending the frontier to the Kei, which would afford means of watching the motions of the savage tribes, establishing a line of ports as places of security. His opinion was, that this system was the most consistent with safety and with humanity. At the same time it was a plan which involved military movements and expense; and he thought it quite right that the House of Commons should delegate to a Committee the task of obtaining information and reporting their opinion whether it was a plan which the Government ought to adopt.

Mr. Vernon Smith said that he could not give his assent to either

motion, considering that this was a question entirely for the Executive Government, and that the appointment of a Commission to the colony in particular, would weaken the authority of the Governor. Mr. Smith entered at much length into the practical parts of the question, urging that the Cape was not a colony on whose account much expense should be incurred by the mother country.

Mr. Francis Scott supported the amendment, believing that the sending a Commission to the Cape would be highly prejudicial to that colony.

Mr. Mackinnon said the contest in Caffraria was the inevitable result of the contact of civilization with utter barbarism. No amalgamation could take place: the savage would retire farther and farther back until he disappeared altogether. These outbreaks would occasionally take place; nothing could prevent them. The amendment took a middle course, and he should support it.

Mr. Gladstone said the philosophical theory of Mr. Mackinnon did not much help the inquiry; the question was, were the incidents of that theory capable or not of being affected by prudent or impolitic conduct on our part? It was impossible to decide on whom the blame rested for the past; the future, however, was in our power. Like Mr. V. Smith, he did not agree with either proposition. As to the appointment of a Commission, he was not aware that anything could be done by a Commission that could not be done by the Governor. With respect to a Committee, not dwelling upon the old objection that it tended to shift the responsibility from the

Executive Government, a Select Committee would hang up the question for two sessions, and it would be a bad instrument for such an inquiry. He thought the best Government for a colony was one in itself, but if there was to be a colonial Government in this country, let us have a Queen's Government. It was impossible to devise in this country the means of settling our relations with the Caffre tribes. The whole matter should be carried over as speedily as possible to the colony itself. The main ground upon which he objected to a Committee was, his anxiety to avoid giving a fresh Parliamentary sanction to the mischievous and unsound system of managing the affairs of our colonies at home. He did not wish to throw the costs of the colonial wars, with the management of their affairs, upon the colonists from motives of economy alone: a much higher principle was involved. The plague and scourge of war could only be kept down by the colony being responsible for its expense. He protested against the doctrine that a colony was to be treated like an infant, and that it was necessary to prepare it for free institutions. This was, in his opinion, a great practical and mischievous fallacy. Colonies should be founded in freedom.

Lord Mandeville supported the amendment.

Colonel Thompson argued that the best security against semi-barbarous tribes was to treat them with justice.

Sir E. Buxton did not think that the policy of Lord Glenelg had entirely failed. If the colonists were left to themselves, he feared the wars with the natives would be of an exterminating character,

as in all countries where the white man came in contact with the black. He prayed the House to return to the high principle laid down by Lord Glenelg, to treat the natives as we would wish they should, in similar circumstances, treat us.

Mr. Roebuck said we had no business in Caffraria, except on the understanding that we were about to plant there a people of higher intelligence, and this could only be done by the gradual annihilation of the native population. They might oppose cunning and artifice to knowledge and force, but it would be vain. It was an utter pretence, then, to talk of humanity, and the principles of the Christian religion, and the Decalogue; the black man must vanish in the face of the white. We must, therefore, make up our minds to the event. He still said "colonize;" he knew it could not be done without great suffering by the native population; he regretted this, but the end sanctioned it. How should it be accomplished? Just as in the case of the NorthAmerican colonies, by telling the colonists, "We will protect you against great powers, but against the aborigines you must defend yourselves." He severely condemned the proposition of Lord John Russell, which, he said, abrogated the functions of Government; he denounced it as a miserable subterfuge to escape responsibility, while lives as well as money would be sacrificed in the colony, and the great name of England perhaps prostituted.

Mr. Labouchere justified the course proposed by the Government by precedents. The report of the Aborigines Committee of 1837, he observed, cast a sacred

duty upon the Government, which was bound to exercise the authority of this country to prevent the frightful consequences of allowing the passions of black and white men to be arrayed against each other.

Mr. Hume insisted that the time had come when the colonists should have self-government, and the management of their own affairs, which they were prepared to undertake. He hoped the House would not appoint a Committee, but he believed a Commission sent out to the Cape would be of great service.

Mr. J. Bell protested against the doctrine laid down by Mr. Roebuck, who had avowed the principle of doing evil that good might come. If a doctrine characterized by such a bloodthirsty and rapacious spirit were to be acted on, where would the mischief end? Who was to be the judge which of two nations was the more civilized?

Mr. S. Herbert disputed the precedents appealed to by Mr. Labouchere. But, independent of precedent, did this particular case, he asked, justify the appointment of a Committee? The circumstances of the case required the exercise of discretion in the colony or by the Government at home, and this attempt to delegate responsibility, while it was not justified by the circumstances of the case, would be detrimental to the public service.

Mr. Booker supported the amendment.

Mr. Hawes said the appointment of the Committee would not suspend the functions of the Government, while there was an advantage in having a Committee that could collect the fullest in

formation, and satisfy the House that the policy of the Cape Government had been misrepresented.

Upon a division, Lord John Russell's amendment was carried by 128 against 60, and a Select Committee was appointed.

Towards the latter end of May, however, it transpired that the Government were about to send out some persons in an official character to the Cape, and Lord Wharncliffe put some questions to Earl Grey in the House of Lords upon the subject.

Lord Wharncliffe observed that when in the House of Commons Mr. Adderley moved for a Royal Commission, the Ministers had objected that it would interfere with the operations and impair the efficiency of the colonial authorities: they proposed a Select Committee, and the House agreed to the proposition, on the assurance that if the Committee should be of opinion that a Commission should be sent out, no objection would be made. The Committee had not yet sat, and had had no opportunity of expressing any opinion on the propriety of sending a Commission, yet one had been appointed. Who were the Commissioners? and what were their powers and objects?

Earl Grey said the objections made by the Government were to a Commission of inquiry. It still was Lord Grey's opinion that the appointment of such a Commission, as was proposed by Mr. Adderley, would be attended with inconvenience, though some of his colleagues differed from him on that point. Inquiry would throw but little light on the question of border policy. That policy had long been a settled one, and all

parties had coincided in its principles; but great difficulties arose in applying the principles. But Sir Harry Smith required assistance while he was so much otherwise engrossed; and, in consequence, two gentlemen had been chosen who would act as his subordinate assistants in the separate commission which he held as High Commissioner among the border tribes, in deciding difficult questions and in putting the decisions into prompt execution. One of them was Major Hogg, late a Captain in the 7th Dragoons, who had raised among the Hottentots levies which had great influence in terminating the late Caffre war. The other gentleman was a graduate of the University of Oxford, who was well acquainted with and spoke with fluency the Caffre language; and who only returned to this country in May last, bearing with him the highest testimonials both from Sir Henry Pottinger and from Sir Harry Smith. In a few days, additional papers, explaining the state of affairs in the colony, would be laid on the table, and this Commission would be among them.

Subsequently the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated, in answer to questions asked in the House of Commons, that the expenses of the Caffre war had considerably swelled. The latest reports seemed to negative the hope of a speedy termination of the contest, and it was feared that a sum beyond the original estimate would be found necessary.

On the 13th of June, in a Committee of Supply, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that a sum not exceeding 300,000l. be granted towards defraying the expenses of the Caffre war beyond