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 con demned 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 justi fied 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

the ordinary grants for the army, navy, and commissariat departments for 1851-2. The right hon. gentleman prefaced his motion by a brief explanation of the requirements for this purpose. The motion led to a lengthened discussion on the affairs of the colony and the war.

Mr. Adderley availed himself of the occasion to enter fully into South-African politics, being precluded by form from moving an address, of which he had given notice, praying that Her Majesty would bestow on the colony of the Cape of Good Hope the means of self-government.

Lord J. Russell replied to Mr. Adderley, justifying the course pursued by the Home Government, with reference to the subject of representative institutions and frontier policy.

In the debate which ensued, in which the principal speakers were Mr. Hume, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Bright, Mr. Labouchere, Lord Naas, and Mr. Wakley, Lord John Russell pledged himself to the declaration, that at the earliest practicable period a representative Government would be established at the Cape. The vote was then agreed to. Subsequently, on bringing up the report of the Committee of Supply, the same subject was resumed by Mr. Hume, who impugned the conduct of the Government for withholding from the colonists of the Cape a representative system which had been granted to them by letters patent.

Lord J. Russell, in reply, stated the mode in which a representative system had been granted to the Cape. The letters patent contained no distinct details, but only an outline of the system, to be

filled up in the colony, and the scheme was to be sent home in the shape of ordinances for the decision of Her Majesty's Government. He explained the course adopted by Sir Harry Smith, who, instead of filling up the vacant seats of the council by nominees, completed that assembly, by which the new ordinances were to be framed, by members elected in the colony; and he detailed the result of that measure-the differences which arose in the Council, and the secession of Sir A. Stockenstrom and his colleagues. Those persons, he thought, had taken a most unfortunate course, since, but for it, the ordinances would have been transmitted to this country and received the consideration of the Home Government, and a representative constitution would now have been in force in the colony.

In the House of Lords, not long afterwards, the whole policy of the Home Government, in reference to the Cape colony, underwent a searching and protracted discussion, on a motion brought forward by the Earl of Derby. This was one of the most important debates of the session-the repu tation and, as it seemed probable, the existence of the Government being involved in the issue.

The resolution proposed by the noble leader of the opposition party. and which he sustained in a speech of great eloquence and power, was in the following terms: That the papers laid before their Lordships, during the present and last session of Parliament, relative to the granting representative institutions to the Cape colony, be referred to a Select Committee." In the outset of his speech, Lord Derby rapidly sketched the late history of the Cape constitution. That colony

was one of the Crown colonies, originally acquired by conquest, and subject to the authority of the Crown. At first the Government was carried on by the authority of the Governor alone; he was afterwards assisted by an Executive Council; in 1834 that became the Legislative Council, nominated by the Governor, and comprising a majority of official members. In 1842 a petition was presented from the Cape, praying for a representative constitution. To that petition Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley and Chief Secretary for the Colonies, replied, pointing out certain difficulties in the way of adopting representative institutions, pronouncing no final decision, but waiting further information and explanation. In 1846 Lord Grey, then at the head of the Colonial Office, called for an answer to Lord Stanley's letter of 1842, which had been up to that time neglected. Sir Harry Smith, then Governor of the Cape, laid Lord Grey's dispatch before his official advisers. They expressed various opinions as to the expediency of introducing representative institutions, but unanimously agreed that there should be a Governor, a Legislative Council, and a House of Assembly, sitting at Cape Town, for the whole of the colony. Lord Grey referred the matter to the Board of Trade, who suggested that the Legislative Council should be elective as well as the House of Assembly, and that the Chief Justice should preside in the Lower House.

The report was sent to the Government at Cape Town; and the Governor was instructed that the details should not be included in the letters-patent, but should VOL. XCIII.

be supplied by the members of the Council on the spot.

In the interval, however, occurred those differences under which the Anti-Convict Association arose into being. Lord Derby felt that a great and grievous error had been committed on that point by Her Majesty's Government; for when pledges were held out, under the authority of the Crown, that convicts should not be admitted into certain colonies except when their labour was asked for as a boon, as it sometimes was, and when, in the teeth of all the public bodies of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, convicts were sent out to it and their reception was pressed-he would not say on a reluctant colony, for reluctant was not the proper word-but on a colony unanimous in refusing their introduction, there was no other mild expression applicable to such transactions except that of great and grievous error. No error, he repeated, could be more great and grievous than to hold out, in the name of the Crown, any expressions or pledges respecting boons to be granted or privileges conceded, and then to recede from those pledges in spirit as well as in letter. The error on this occasion met with a grievous punishment, of which the example would be followed not only in the colony of the Cape but also in all our other colonies. The spirit of resistance had been evoked in a just cause, and had been carried to such an extent, that, after a vain struggle on the part of the Crown, its authority had been rejected and lowered in the colony; and not petitions, but threats and menaces, and even hostilities, had been directed against the Governor on the [K]