rose to move the following Amendments, of which he had given notice:—

"Clause 1, lines 12 and 13, and subsequently throughout clauses 1 and 2, to substitute the words 'rating district' for 'electoral division.' Clause 2, lines 27, 30, 32, 33, and 40, to substitute the words 'electoral division' for 'union.'"

In the event of the Committee adopting the words "rating district" in the first clause in place of "electoral division," to move the following clause:—

"And be it enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, it shall and may be lawful for the Poor Law Commissioners, and they are hereby required, to divide the electoral divisions of the several unions in Ireland into such and so many rating districts as to them shall seem fit; and when the said division of such electoral division shall have been duly made by the said commissioners, each such rating district shall constitute a separate rating district for the relief of the poor now resident within the same, and no pauper or destitute person shall be entitled to relief under this Act or any Act for administering relief to the destitute poor of Ireland, save and except from and on account of the rating district so to be formed as aforesaid, in respect to which his legal claim for relief arises; and such electoral division, so divided into rating districts as aforesaid, shall continue to be an electoral division, for all the purposes of election of guardians and of representation at the board of guardians of the union within which the same shall be situate. Provided always, that in forming such rating districts the commissioners shall, as far as circumstances will permit, have regard to the boundaries of the several properties within such electoral division, so as to form the property of each proprietor in such electoral division (or in such union, if they shall so think fit), into a separate rating district, if such property shall amount in rated value to the annual sum of 1,000 l .; and if the rated value of any such property shall not amount to the said sum, it shall be lawful for the said commissioners to unite such and so many of the adjoining properties as to them shall seem fit, so as to form a separate rating district for the purposes of this Act. And provided also, that no rating district, to be formed under the authority of this Act, shall exceed in rated value the amount of 3,000 l . per annum. And provided also, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or prevent the said commissioners from forming any rating districts of any smaller extent than 1,000 l . rated value per annum, if it shall seem expedient and necessary to them so to do."

He said that it was the pressure of the poor-law on small classes of owners in Ireland which rendered it necessary, in his opinion, to diminish the area of taxation. He had proposed a rated value of 3,000 l . a year as the maximum area of taxation, and his object accorded with the view of the Boundary Commissioners, that the area of taxation should be as nearly as possible identical with the area of estates. There were some estates in Ireland in which, even amidst all the destitution which now prevailed generally, there was hardly any distress. The Isle of Arran formed an example of that state of things. The Boundary Commissioners supported his view, stating that in certain parts of Ireland in which the area was small, the poor-law system had worked well. What would be the practical advantage of adopting a smaller area of taxation? At the present moment all confidence was destroyed. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had proposed his maximum with a view of restoring it; but great holes were made in the plan in the discussion of the previous evening. The proposed limitation of area would be far more likely to restore confidence than the adoption of the maximum. The power of calculating the rates would enable persons to calculate the probable return from the employment of capital, and consequently the improvement of Ireland would be promoted. In the greater part of Ireland but two kinds of property existed—namely, that of the proprietor in the land, and the capital of the tenant employed in the cultivation of the laud. Although the poor-law would ultimately destroy the property of the landlords, its first action was upon the property of the tenants. To stop the progress of the evil it was necessary to modify the law; and all practical experience as well as sound theory suggested that the best modification would be to diminish the areas of taxation, making them as far as practicable coextensive with the boundaries of estates, by which means each proprietor would be liable for the destitution on his own property. This object could be effected by substituting in the first and second clauses the words "rating districts" for those of "electoral divisions." Attention had been called lately by the hon. Member for Limerick to the necessity for emigration as a means of relieving Ireland. The only two modes by which the present state of things in Ireland could be improved was by the profitable employment of those who were occupied in cultivating the soil, and by the emigration of the surplus population; and those objects appeared to him to be only attainable by such a reduction of the area of taxation as would make it the individual interest of capitalists to embark their funds in promoting those interests. Again, by that system they would insulate the plague spots of the country, and know where to apply the remedy. He had always beard that the objection of the English people to contribute under present circumstances any larger sums towards Irish destitution was, that it would only prolong the present misery of that country; but if they could show the compassionate people of England that by their contributions the diseased parts of the Irish community could be placed in a healthy condition, they might ask with safety for assistance from the imperial resources when it was clearly established that the local resources were insufficient. It would, perhaps, he said that this was a landlord's question. It was his firm belief that the great fault in the whole of the policy of Parliament was founded on the fallacy that it was in their power to sacrifice the landed proprietors of Ireland without injuring other classes. The results of that fatal policy were meeting them at every turn. When he was told that this was merely a landlord's question, he replied, that they could not injure proprietors without injuring the rest of the community, and that they could not benefit proprietors without benefiting all other classes of society collaterally. The argument as to the inability of one guardian to manage the business of three or four unions, would come strangely from the Government, when they sent vice-guardians to perform similar duties. It might he said that the adoption of a smaller area would cause a great increase in the num ber of evictions. So great was the number at present, that he did not believe that was possible. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had on a former occasion expressed indignation against those landlords who exercised the power of eviction to so great an extent; but perhaps he had not adverted to the fact, that a great number of those lessors were in so humble a condition, and so ground down themselves by the misery of the country, that they were quite below the possibility of being affected by that expression. Under the law as it stood the occupier of a quarter of an acre could not obtain relief without first giving up his occupation. The actual operation of the present law was not only to promote but even to force evictions. The landlords in Ireland were to a great extent very poor lessors; and yet they were compelled to pay the whole of the rates under 4 l . a year. That provision also had the same tendency as the one he had previously noticed. It showed utter ignorance of the circumstances of Ireland to suppose that Irish landlords could remove the present misery. He believed that his own proposal, instead of encouraging evictions, would produce the very opposite result. One of the best authorities on this subject, Mr. Blacker, pointed out before a Committee of the House of Lords, in 1847, that if they depended on cereal crops they must have a large amount of capital to cultivate them, otherwise the land would be reduced to the condition of a caput mortuum It had been said that the evictions would ruin the towns, but he believed that the towns could not suffer more than they did at present. Moreover, it should be remembered that the towns were not rated higher than the rural districts, and that the prosperity of the towns depended in a great degree on the prosperity of the rural districts around them. He believed it was only by raising the standard of property in Ireland, prosperity and progress could spring up again in that country.

thought, as the House had already assented to the principle of a maximum rate, that it was altogether out of place to endeavour to raise that question again. But with regard to the size of the area of taxation, he did not at all undervalue the importance of that subject. Yet, whatever might be the opinion of the Government with respect to the area, he did not believe the Committee would be inclined to adopt the hon. Baronet's proposal, because it would only benefit one class of landlords, without being of any advantage to another. The large landlord, with an estate yielding him 1,000 l . a year, would receive every advantage and encouragement; but the small landowner, with only 100 l or 200 l . a year, who would have no limit laid down for the amount of his liability, would have every disadvantage and discouragement inflicted upon him by the hon. Baronet's proposal. The hon. Baronet proposed, that in his rating districts, in no case should they exceed the valuation of 3,000 l . a year; but in the two unions of the city of Dublin the valuation now was 900,000 l . a year; and let them only conceive such a state of things as having these two unions divided into 300 different rating districts, which would be the result of the hon. Baronet's plan. The House having already affirmed the principle of a maximum rate, let them now confine themselves to the question as to whether the proposal of the Government, or any other proposal, was the one best adapted to carry that principle into effect; but he decidedly objected to go now into the question of the area of taxation, as the proper time for doing that would be on another occasion.

thought it better at once to proceed with the clause before them; but still he trusted that an opportunity would be afforded them of discussing the area of taxation; for, after carefully examining the whole of the evidence, he had come to the deliberate conviction that, unless the areas underwent a greater reduction than was proposed by the Boundary Commissioners, he believed that before long they would have added immensely to the present number of bankrupt unions. But, with regard to what had just been advanced on the subject of the area of taxation, he hoped that that would not tend to prejudice the future discussion of that most important branch of the poor-law.

thought he had sufficiently guarded himself by saying that he did not wish to enter into the question of a larger or a smaller area now; and that he did not wish to prejudice its discussion on the proper occasion.

agreed that the present was a most inconvenient time at which to bring forward this question; but he must repeat his opinion, that pauperism could not be restrained in Ireland except by such regulations as should enable those landed proprietors who employed the people to receive benefit there-from in the reduction of taxation, and this reduction of taxation could only be effected by diminishing the area of taxation.

consented to withdraw his proposition for the present, in deference to the general feeling of the House, and because he did not wish to prejudice the discussion of the question of the area of taxation hereafter. In his own private opinion, however, he must say he did not think this an improper time for considering that subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, that the House having decided in favour of a maximum rate, the question now became—what shall the amount of the maximum be? He had, therefore, now to propose an Amendment, to the effect that the whole maximum of 7 s . should be at once fixed on the electoral divisions, and that no union rate at all should be called in to aid the maximum rate on the electoral division. The difference between his proposal and that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government was, that while the noble Lord wished to impose a maximum of 7 s . altogether, but 5 s . of which was to be levied in the electoral division, and the remaining 2 s . to be taken in aid from the union, he (Mr. Stafford) insisted upon having the 7 s . maximum confined within the narrow limits of the electoral division, instead of being spread over the wider surface of the union. The noble Lord, for reasons best known to himself, had not thought proper to tell them where the deficiency was to be made up from, if his 7 s . maximum was not enough; and, therefore, he (Mr. Stafford) considered, that, as there must be a supplementary fund found somewhere, when the 7 s . proved inadequate, it would be wiser, the moment they passed the limits of the electoral division, to pass over at once to the imperial resources, rather than make an intermediate stop at the union. He should divide the House on the principle embodied in his Amendment.

seconded the Amendment. He considered it most desirable to give the fullest possible encouragement to the farmer in Ireland; to afford him at all events some definite notion of what he had to pay in the shape of rates, so that having paid his 7 s . he should know that the 13 s . would be left to him for the conduct of his operations. If, after the 7 s . were exhausted, more rates were needed, they must be sought elsewhere; most probably from the Consolidated Fund.

said, that those who supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire must certainly all put the same question just suggested by the hon. Seconder, where, after the 7 s . were spent, any rating out of the electoral division must come. The hon. Gentleman pointed to the Consolidated Fund; now the supposition of the Government was, that taking the electoral division rate as proposed, and the union rate together, there would be no need at all of such additional resources. Take the example put on the preceding night by the hon. Member for Cavan, of a union having six electoral divisions, one of which is charged with a rate of 10 s . in the pound. Each electoral division would then be charged, the first, its electoral rate proper, of 5 s ., and its share of the surplus common to the whole union, making, perhaps, 6 s . in the pound; and the other electoral divisions would have to pay, in the whole, 2 s ., 3 s ., 3 s . 6 d ., or 4 s . in the pound, as the case might be; while the entire amount required would thus be provided. But no such source for meeting the deficiency was provided by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. When the charge upon the electoral division would otherwise amount to 10 s ., it would be reduced to 7 s . by this Amendment, and that would be the whole amount to be raised out of local sources. There would then be no other resource but to come to the Consolidated Fund to supply the deficiency, so that this charge of coming to the Imperial Exchequer applied much more to the plan of the hon. Member than to that of the Government. He trusted that the amount required would not exceed 7 s . in any electoral division in the union, and that the Consolidated Fund would not therefore have to meet any deficiency.

opposed the Amendment, because he considered the 5 s . maximum on the electoral division quite high enough, and because he did not think it right that more than 25 per cent of a man's income should be liable to be taken from him in the shape of poor-rates.

said, when proprietors felt that, whatever their exertions might be in their own electoral division, they might be called upon to pay a 2 s . rate for the union, they would have no encouragement to persevere in their exertions. If there must be a maximum rate, let it be upon the electoral division. English Members appeared disposed to follow the Government blindly in supporting this Bill. But let them consider that this Bill was, 80 to speak, the wedge of a principle that had been rejected by the House the other night, and which had been argued against by the hon. and learned Member for Hull in his able eulogy of the system of parochial rating in England, to which he attributed the principle of manly self-reliance and independence which characterised the people of England. He was confirmed in this view of the argument of the hon. and learned Member by a most able article in the Times of the following morning, which had been just handed to him, and in which it was stated, that it was an extraordinary thing that the Chief Poor Law Commissioner, who was himself the representative of a centralising power, should get up and advocate the system of parochial rating, which might be considered as the exactly contrary principle to that of centralisation. Upon the grounds stated by the hon. and learned Member for Hull, the House rejected the principle of a national rate. The hon. and learned Member proved that, from the time of Henry VIII., the system in England had been, that all charges for destitution should be parochial charges. Now, what did these Irish Members who advocated the principle of a small area of taxation ask the House to do? To adopt a principle which it was admitted had, in England, led to self-reliance and independence, and which, in Ireland, would have a tendency to produce the same results.

said, that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member opposite, was to substitute 7 s . for 5 s . and to do away with the second clause of the Bill. The question raised by the article to which the hon. Member referred, and raised also by the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Aylesbury, was not a question between union rating and parochial rating, but between local and national rating. There were, and there must be, many eases in which the rate would reach 5 s . or even 7 s .; and his hon. Friend near him spoke as if he was unwilling too curiously to inquire into the manner in which the deficiency was to be made up. Now, he by no means thought that that was a subject which they ought to avoid investigating; on the contrary, he believed that they should at once look into it; and if they did he felt persuaded that they would not shut their eyes to the inexpediency of deriving the means of making good the deficiency from any other source than a local rate, circumscribed within the limits of the union; and that no deficiency of the kind ought to be made good from the Consolidated Fund. That, he might venture to say, was not a new proposition; on the contrary, it was one which had been developed and clearly maintained in some very able letters which the hon. Member for Northamptonshire addressed to the public papers from Ireland in the course of the last autumn, when he was most worthily employed in practically carrying out and administering the poor-law in that part of the country with which he was more immediately connected. It was quite true that in some cases the union rate in aid might reach the height of 2 s ., but it was not at all likely that that would take place in every instance, and by no means probable that it would so happen in most cases. It had been clearly shown by the able speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cavan, that though the maximum union rate in aid might be fixed at 2 s ., it did not therefore follow that it must always reach that point, for he had shown that in one electoral division, where the rate in aid was required, it still might be a rate not exceeding 1½d. To fix it, then, at 7 s . would, he thought, be not only unnecessary, but injurious; he therefore hoped that the House would not sanction the principle of a union rate on the plan proposed from the other side of the House.

wished to explain that when he recommended a rate in aid from the union, he went upon the assumption that there should first he an estate rating. But the Government did not now propose to reduce the area of taxation in that manner; and, therefore, when the right hon. Baronet wished to quote his (Mr. Stafford's) previous statements against him, he should have the fairness not to give only a partial and one-sided view of what he did state.

said, that it had been understood on all sides that the question of the area of taxation should not be raised during the discussion on the Bill; but, notwithstanding, every hon. Member who had spoken had gone into that subject in all its details. The principle of making the union contribute when the electoral division funds were exhausted, was in itself a good one. Investment of capital in land was the only means of curing the evils of Ireland; by this means alone the industry of the country would be stimulated, and nowhere did such vast resources abound as in Ireland.

did not think it had been supported by argument that the 5 s . and 2 s . rates would induce parties to take land and cultivate it in Ireland. On the contrary, he believed the Government proposal would discourage the capitalist and the cultivator, because they held out a maximum of 5 s . in the electoral division that was entirely fallacious, and would expose the cultivator to a 2 s . rate beyond the 5 s . for the support of the pauperism of another district. They must not look to the landlords for the employment of the people, but to the occupiers of the laud; and the occupier must have a direct interest in the employment of the people before he would Bet them to work. And the only way to encourage the occupier was not by telling him he would have to pay a 2 s . rate for another district after he had paid 5 s . for his own, but by assuring him that he would secure to himself the benefit of any reduction of pauperism that he might effect by employing the labourers. But he objected to the House going into a permanent poor-law at the fag-end of the Session. They should at the most only make this measure temporary and coeval with the Rate in Aid Bill; and then next year they would have time to consider the recommendations of the Committee, and pass a matured and permanent measure.

would support the maximum rate as proposed by the Government, because he believed that if a 5 s . maximum were fixed upon for the electoral divisions, the guardians would generally be found anxious not to allow the rate to exceed 5 s ., so as to prevent a demand upon the union for the additional 2 s .

wished to call attention to one point, which was this. The average number of electoral divisions in the unions of Ireland was eighteen; and it was clear that until the whole eighteen had reached the 7 s . maximum—which he did not believe would ever occur—no additional fund would be required under the plan of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. But if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire were agreed to, and the 7 s . maximum were all imposed upon the electoral divisions exclusively, if that 7 s . should be found insufficient, an auxiliary fund, wherever it was to come from, must at least be found somewhere.

would support the Amendment, because he thought a 2 s . rate on the union would defeat all the objects of a maximum, and would be the first step towards a national rating itself.

would support the Amendment for placing the whole of the maximum upon the electoral division, rather than agree to divide it between the electoral division and the union. The principle on which the proposal of the Government was founded was, that each district was to be responsible for the poor of some other district—not that it should support its own poor, but the poor of its neighbour—not that the person who was responsible should pay, but the person who had no responsibility. That was a principle foreign to the sound English rule, that property should pay for the poor residing upon it; and if that principle would not answer for England even, it was far less applicable to the case of a country like Ireland, where responsibilities were felt but lightly, and required to be driven home to every man's door by every possible means. He found that, in 1817, Mr. Sturges Bourne recommended that the principle of a maximum rate should be adopted in England; but the Legislature refused to assent to his proposition, because they thought it impossible and absurd. A Parliamentary Committee, of which Mr. Sturges Bourne was a member, at that time stated in their report, that by the statute of Elizabeth the parishes of the hundred, and in some cases those of the county, might be rated in aid of particular parishes; but the great difficulty had occurred in carrying that plan into practice, that it offered no sufficient security against the mismanagement of the funds, and that the Committee were not disposed to recommend that any facilities should be afforded for executing these provisions in the law. He (Mr. Sidney Herbert) believed that the general feeling in England so fully coincided with the views expressed by that Committee, that a rate in aid, whether over the whole kingdom or over particular unions, would not be tolerated in this country. He thought that the hon. Member for Cavan had argued the question in a manner which might lead to great errors in legislation. The House should recollect, too, that it was dealing with a country new to the management of a poor-law, and where there existed the greatest possible amount of corruption; and nothing would be easier when the rate was at 4 s . 6 d . than to raise it to 5 s . in the electoral division, so as for that additional 6 d . to secure more than full repayment by getting hold of a large sum of the money of other districts. It had been urged that the amount that would be taken from the other districts to relieve their neighbours would not be large; but they ought to guard scrupulously against punishing those who were not responsible, by showing undue favour to those who had neglected their duties, and laying the burden upon those who had fulfilled theirs; and hon. Members who wished to be the guardians of the Consolidated Fund, should remember that if by this measure they produced a dead level of pauperism throughout the unions, and ultimately throughout Ireland, such a result would cause a more serious call upon the imperial exchequer than could be caused by any other line of policy which they could possibly adopt.

said, he represented a borough crowded with pauperism, and in which there were 3,000 paupers who had been driven there from the agricultural districts; and he thought these agricultural districts ought to be made to pay for this surplus of pauperism. His objection to the plan of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was this—that it would crush the towns of Ireland, for the purpose of exempting the agricultural districts or the country gentlemen from a contingent contribution as an auxiliary fund to relieve the miseries of the towns. The hon. Member for the county of Tipperary had a right to speak on that subject; for there were thirteen large towns in that county, and the rates were very high in these towns. Would they impose 10 s . rather than 5 s ., for instance, upon each of the towns alone, instead of making five electoral divisions in the county pay each a contribution of Is. for the support of the pauperism which they poured in upon the towns? Nothing could be more unjust than to impose the whole burden on the towns, and exempt the country gentlemen from their just share of it. It was a case, in fact, of town against country. ["No, no!"] So, at least, it struck him, and he thought he had had as much acquaintance with country and town as most of the Gentlemen in that House. If he were to speak for hours on the subject, he did not think he could state the case more clearly than he had done; and it was quite manifest, as it appeared to him, that if the Amendment were adopted, the country gentlemen would be exempted from their contribution of 2 s ., while the whole 7 s . would be fixed upon the towns. That, as he conceived, must be its inevitable effect.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was more in the habit of visiting the borough of Dungarvon than he had been, he would probably be better acquainted with the causes of the increase of pauperism in that town. His object was the same as that right hon. Gentleman, however—his object was, to prevent those who were inhuman enough to eject their tenantry, from throwing the weight of their support upon the whole union. He was of opinion that if the electoral-division rate were to be raised to 7 s ., on the whole the system would work much better than any other. But then he was met by Gentlemen from western unions, who said that it was utterly impossible that the districts which they represented could pay a rate of 7 s . in the pound. He (Mr. Monsell) did not believe that they could pay 5 s . in the pound, therefore that argument did not go for much; but he believed that the difficulty might be met by making the rate variable, and allowing the Poor Law Commissioners in certain cases to reduce the maximum rate. That, therefore, was the suggestion which he should venture to make to the noble Lord.

hailed the proposal of the Government as calculated greatly to advantage the country. Hitherto the small tenant-farmers had been rapidly falling into the condition of paupers. But this measure would give confidence to the landed proprietors and farmers, by telling them that there was a maximum rate, beyond which they should not be taxed. The Irish landlords were not all pattern landlords; but he must do his best to undeceive the English people in the belief that the great mass of the landlords of that country were of the despicable class that they were sometimes accused of being.

supported the Amendment on the ground that he opposed all rates in aid, believing that they tended ultimately to the utter confiscation of property. This had been spoken of too much as a landlord's question. It was equally a tenant's question, and as such should be considered. Another objection he had to the measure was, that he looked upon it as a dangerous attempt permanently to fix a maximum rate. Instead of discussing such questions as these, the House should set itself about legislating on the great question of the relation between landlord and tenant.

said, the real question on which the Committee was about to decide was, whether the blank should be filled up with 5 s . or 7 s .; but the question being in such a form, it placed those in a very difficult position who were opposed to a maximum rate altogether. He was of opinion that they had no right to fix a maximum rate; and he asked what were the plans to be adopted by the noble Lord to relieve the poor when he should have exhausted both his 5 s . and his 2 s .? He supposed there would then be what had been termed another "pull at the Exchequer." [Lord J. RUSSELL dissented.] He was glad to see that the noble Lord shook his head; but he asked what then was to be done? for he was quite sure the noble Lord would not allow the people to starve. As between the question of 7 s . and 5 s ., he should vote for the Amendment; but he did so on the principle of fixing the maximum at as high a rate as possible.

protested in the strongest manner possible against the injustice and the impolicy of a union rate, because it would paralyse the exertions, not only of the tenant-farmer, but also of the landlords who were struggling to give employment, and would give the greatest encouragement to absentee proprietors re- siding on the Continent to take the capital out of the country.

Question put, "That the blank be filled up with 'five shillings.'"

The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 48: Majority 77.

House resumed.

Committee report progress; to sit again on Thursday.

in the belief which now prevails, that our system of colonial government is in many respects faulty, and ill-suited to the present state of Great Britain and of the colonies. Therefore, I maintain that it requires revision; and for the purpose of revision I ask that a searching inquiry should be made into the colonial polity of the British empire. With the permission of the House, I will state, as briefly as I can, what, in my opinion, should be the nature of the inquiry, and to what subjects it should be directed. But, first, in order to satisfy the House that there ought to be an inquiry, I will endeavour to show what has produced the general conviction that there are grave errors and defects in our colonial polity.

What I mean by the term "colonial polity of Great Britain" is of recent date, not more than three quarters of a century old. For, when we began to colonise, the Government had little or nothing to do with it, and, strictly speaking, there was no polity. Our first colonies were planted by adventurers, who left this country for various reasons: some in search of the precious metals; others to escape from intolerance at home; and others to enjoy intolerance abroad. They settled on the shores of America with the nominal sanction of the Crown. Fortunately for them, civil conflicts in England, and the weakness of the Executive, left them for many years unmolested in full enjoyment of virtual independence. They flourished; their numbers increased rapidly; they became wealthy and powerful. Meanwhile, the Executive in this country gradually acquired strength; its attention was directed to the prosperity of the colonies; it attempted systematically to interfere in their government; the colonies resisted; some rebelled and became independent; the remainder submitted; and the present system of colonial government was founded upon the ruins of our old colonial empire. By far the greater portion of our modern colonial empire is of recent acquisition; all of it, with the exception of the plantations in the West Indies, and two or three old colonies in North America, has been acquired within the last ninety years, most of it within the last fifty years; for instance, the Canadas in 1759; Trinidad and other West Indian islands, Ceylon, and New South Wales, in the interval between 1763 and 1797; the rest of Australasia, New Zealand, the whole of South Africa, British Guiana, the Mauritius, Malta, the Ionian Islands, Heligoland, Hong-Kong, and Labuan, are not (as the noble Lord the Prime Minister once called them) precious inheritances from our noble ancestors, but have been added to the British dominions since the beginning of this century. These colonies have been acquired for various reasons. Some we conquered because we grudged the possession of them to rival Powers, and fancied that the might of a nation was in proportion to the extent of its territory; others we held as outposts, on the plea of protecting our own trade, and injuring the trade of other countries; and others we occupied as places of punishment for our criminals. Thus our colonial empire consisted chiefly of conquered provinces, garrison towns, and gaols. Their government was entrusted to a central authority in England. The invariable tendency of such an authority is to grasp as much power as possible, and to resist every measure which seems likely either directly or indirectly to diminish that power. In conformity with these tendencies, the colonial polity of Great Britain was framed; and the Colonial Office laid claim to omnipotence and infallibility in all matters concerning the colonies. That claim was long recognised in this country, and scarcely disputed in the colonies. But of late years it has been contested not so much within as without the walls of this House; and every colony has repeatedly and energetically protested against it; and now the conviction is daily gaining ground throughout the empire, that our colonial system is not well suited either to the state of Great Britain or of the colonies.

The conviction that our colonial polity is faulty has acquired strength in this country in proportion as public opinion has been more and more directed to colonial questions, and of late years greater attention has been paid to those questions for various reasons. First, because within the last quarter of a century Great Britain has begun again to colonise, and on a much greater scale than over before. For, during that period at least 2,000,000 of persons have migrated from this country; half of them have gone directly to our independent colonies of the United States; the other half to our dependent colonies, whence a large portion of them have re-emigrated to the United States. This great emigration, though chiefly directed to our independent colonies, has made the subjects of colonisation and colonial government matters of deep and increasing interest to a large portion of the community, especially to the humbler and middling classes: for there is scarcely one amongst them who has not some acquaintance, friend, or relation in one of the colonies, or about to emigrate; and also many of the aristocracy and gentry have friends or kinsmen residing in the colonies as governors, or in other situations of trust and profit. In consequence of this great emigration, the relations between Great Britain and her dependencies have been profoundly changed; and there ought to have been a corresponding change in her colonial polity, which was framed without reference to any emigration except that of convicts.

Secondly, public attention has been very much directed of late years to colonial questions by the writings of distinguished men, who have carefully investigated the economy of new societies, examined into the principles of colonial government, and attentively studied the subjects of colonisation and emigration, with the view of relieving the economical difficulties of the united kingdom, and of planting the uninhabited portions of the globe with communities worthy of the English name. Of these writers, Mr. Wakefield is the most eminent; by his writings he produced a profound impression on the minds of some of the ablest men of our day, as for instance, John Mill, Grote, and others; and there are few persons in this country, who have paid much attention to colonial questions, who will not readily acknowledge, even when they do not adopt all Mr. Wakefield's conclusions, that they are deeply indebted to that gentleman for a considerable portion of their most valuable knowledge of matters relating to the colonies.

Thirdly, public attention has been much directed of late years to colonial questions, in consequence of the discussions which have taken place with regard to free trade and the navigation laws, and which have led to a great change in our commercial polity. For most of the statesmen of this country have maintained that there is an intimate connexion between the colonial and commercial polities of Great Britain. They have generally defended the acquisition of new colonies, on the plea, that such foreign possessions afforded markets for the exclusive benefit of our manufacturers, and produced a trade for the exclusive profit of our merchants and shipowners; and they persuaded the nation that, in return for these privileges, it was worth our while to pay vast sums of money for protecting and governing the colonies. These privileges being abolished, the question seems very naturally to arise, why are we to continue to pay for them? The colonies are free to trade with whom they will, and in what manner they will. Therefore, they will only trade with us and employ our shipping, when it is most profitable to them to do so. Therefore, as far as trade is concerned, they are become virtually independent States. And this revolution in our commercial polity has directed public attention to the question, whether there ought not to be a corresponding change in our colonial polity?

Fourthly, the attention of Parliament and of the country has of late years been constantly occupied with colonial questions, in consequence of a series of remarkable events in the colonies, which have annually occasioned heavy demands to be made on the public purse. In the course of the last fifteen years, the colonies have directly cost Great Britain at least 60,000,000 l . in the shape of military, naval, civil, and extraordinary expenditure, exclusive of the 20,000,000 l . which were paid for the abolition of slavery. Therefore, the total direct cost of the colonies has been at least 80,000,000 l . in the last fifteen years. Now, if hon. Members would merely take the trouble of recalling to their minds the chief events which were taking place in the colonies, whilst this money was expending, they must at once admit, that the result of the expenditure has been far from satisfactory, either to the united kingdom or to the colonies; and I think that they will likewise admit that there must be something essentially faulty in a polity which, at such an enormous cost, produces the results which I will briefly enumerate to the House.

In the first place, in our North American dependencies, within the last fifteen years, there has been a conflict of races, ending in civil war; two rebellions—one in Upper Canada, one in Lower Canada, suppressed at great cost to this country; various constitutions destroyed or suspended; two hostile provinces united by means of intrigue and corruption; and now, it is said, I hope most untruly, that the war of races is about to be renewed; if this should happen, and should lead to civil strife and rebellion, and if Great Britain should, unhappily, attempt to suppress it by force of arms, that attempt, if success- ful, will cost many millions more than the former rebellion; for the rebels will be, not the poor ignorant habitans of Canada, but the fierce and energetic Anglo-Saxon population.

Secondly, in the West Indies, within the last fifteen years, a proposal to lend fifteen millions, was converted into a gift of twenty millions, and followed by the universal ruin of the planters; in one colony (Jamaica) the constitution was proposed to be suspended; in another colony (British Guiana) the supplies were stopped; and now again in British Guiana, and also in Jamaica, the supplies are stopped; in Santa Lucia there are insurrectionary riots; and in all the other sugar plantations there is discontent bordering on despair.

Thirdly, in South Africa, within the last fifteen years, perpetual border feuds with rapacious and warlike savages, whom the Colonial Office, with characteristic ignorance, one time mistook for peaceful and harmless shepherds: with these savages two fierce wars, with lavish expenditure, enormous peculation, and no accountability; three rebellions of the Boers, ever striving in vain to escape from our hatred tyranny, and preferring to dwell amidst wild beasts and wilder men, to the detested dominion of the Colonial Office; and, finally, the acquisition of a huge, worthless, and costly empire, extending over nearly 300,000 square miles, chiefly rugged mountains, arid deserts, and barren plains, without water, without herbage, without navigable rivers, without harbours, in short, without everything except the elements of great and increasing expense to this country.

Fourthly, in Ceylon, abuse of patronage, official inaptitude, and excessive expenditure; ignorance on the part of the Colonial Office augmenting financial embarrassment, and leading to injudicious taxes; riots and martial law; military executions and punishments disgraceful to the British name.

Fifthly, in Australasia, communities, the offspring of convict emigration, more hideously vicious than any recorded in sacred or profane history; that convict emigration one day abolished, to the joy of the colonists of Tasmania, the next day renewed, to their horror and amazement.

Sixthly, in New Zealand, imbecile governors, discreditable functionaries, and unnecessary wars with the natives; unfortunately successful efforts to mar the fairest scheme of colonisation, and to disappoint the hopes of the choicest emigrants; and, finally, a constitution proclaimed one day, and suspended the next.

Seventhly, on the north-west coast of America, Vancouver's Island—but I will not weary the House with more on this subject. I will only beg the House to observe, that all these events, and many more of a similar character, have occurred in the course of the last fifteen years. In that short period of time, Great Britain has paid directly, as I have already said, at least 80,000,000 l . on account of the colonies; a sum of money quite sufficient to have conveyed 4,000,000 emigrants to Australia, or the whole of the Celtic population of Ireland to North America; yet, at the present moment, all our colonial dependencies do not contain more than 1,500,000 persons of British or Irish descent (there are as many persons, by birth British subjects, in the United States at the present moment); and our export trade of produce and manufactures to all our subject colonies (including Gibraltar), does not exceed 9,500,000 l . a year, or about 1,500,000 l . less than our export trade, in 1847, to our independent colonies of the united States, which cost us nothing. Therefore, comparing the result of our colonial system with the cost, it can scarcely be denied, that the result, with regard to trade and emigration, has been paltry and insignificant; and that the most manifest consequences of our colonial polity have been wars, rebellions, recurring distress, general discontent, and enormous expenditure. Therefore, judging of the tree by its fruits, it is not unfair to infer that there are grave errors and defects in the colonial polity of the British empire. To this conclusion all our colonial fellow-subjects have long ago arrived; and a large portion both of the thinking and practical men of this country, are in the act of arriving. Our colonial polity has few defenders out of this House; no defenders in it, except official ones; for, whenever the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies rises, and, with matchless courage and dauntless determination, maintains that nothing can be more perfect than our colonial polity; that nothing can be more judicious than the conduct of the Colonial Secretary; and that nothing can be more praiseworthy than all the appointments made by his noble Friend—a solemn silence reigns around him, scarcely, if ever, interrupted by a faint cheer. For the House, reflecting on the history of the colonies since the year 1846, cannot fail to remember that many of the most important events to which I have just referred as indicating colonial mismanagement, have occurred since the present Secretary of State for the Colonies took office; for instance, the alleged renewal of the war of races in Canada; the stoppage of the supplies in British Guiana and Jamaica; the mismanagement of the Kafir war, with peculation, extravagant expenditure, and no accountability; the rebellion of the Boers, with the foolish extension of our empire in South Africa; the hasty transportation of convicts to the Cape of Good Hope; the strange ignorance of the financial condition of Ceylon, with its lamentable and disgraceful consequences; the abandonment and the renewal of transportation to Van Diemen's Land; the blunders about the constitution of New Zealand; and the transfer of Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company—the honour of all these events belongs to the administration of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies. Therefore public opinion can make no exception in his behalf when it condemns the colonial polity of Great Britain, distrusts the department that conducts that polity, and puts no faith in its recognised organs in either House of Parliament. Whether right or wrong, this notorious state of public opinion is dangerous, and much to be regretted. It forms one of my chief arguments for the inquiry which I propose to the House.

I think the House ought to assent to my Motion, because, in fact, it is the legitimate sequel to various Motions with reference to the colonies, which during this Session have met with the favourable consideration of the House. I refer to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire, with regard to British Guiana and Ceylon; to that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire, with regard to convict emigration to the Cape of Good Hope; and to that of the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, with regard to Vancouver's Island, which would have been carried but for a manœuvre. Each of these Motions implied censure of something which had been lately done in the colonies; each of them met with the general approbation of the House; and each of them raised colonial questions of great importance, well worthy of further consideration and serious inquiry. In addition to these Motions, which were virtually carried, two other Motions con- damnatory of our colonial polity have this Session received the support of considerable minorities; I mean the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire, for a Committee of Inquiry into our colonial system; and the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, for leave to bring in a Bill to amend that system; and also notices have been given of two other Motions impugning portions of our colonial system—one by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, the other by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. These events indicate the state of public opinion with regard to our colonial polity; and that state of opinion existing in this House, throughout the country, and throughout the colonies, together with the events which have lately occurred in the colonies, appear to me to constitute good Parliamentary grounds for the Inquiry which I propose to the consideration of the House.

I will now state what, in my opinion, should be the chief subjects of inquiry. They may be arranged under the three heads of Colonial Government, Colonial Expenditure, and Emigration or Colonisation.

First: An inquiry should be made into our system of colonial government, with the view of removing the main causes of colonial complaint. Now, the one great cause of colonial complaint is irresponsible government from a distance. The faults inherent in our government of the colonies have been forcibly described in words which I will read to the House, and to which I am sure hon. Gentlemen will listen with attention, in memory of a late distinguished Member of this House. That system

Our colonial system is essentially the same as it was when Mr. Charles Buller wrote the words which I have just read. In reply to this assertion, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies will in all probability boast again, as he has boasted before, that of our forty-three colonies, twenty-seven have had representative institutions conceded to them. But the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that, of these twenty-seven colonies, eight have only had the promise of representative institutions; and that the remaining nineteen had representative institutions long ago, when the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies was an energetic assailer of Colonial Office government. In consequence of those assaults upon our colonial system, it was expected that, as soon as the noble Lord came into office, he would hasten to bestow representative institutions on many colonies which were well deserving of them. But what has he accomplished, in this respect, during the last three years? He has imagined a nondescript constitution for New Zealand, and immediately suspended it; he then sent it to New South Wales for inspection, and New South Wales rejected it: having failed to reform the constitution of New South Wales, he now, at a late period of the Session, introduces a Bill to bestow the unreformed constitution of New South Wales upon the other Australian colonies; and, finally, he has commissioned the renowned Sir Harry Smith, the great Inkosi Inkolu of the Kafirs, to devise a constitution for the Capo of Good Hope. I will not venture to anticipate the results of these measures. I hope and trust they will he productive of benefit to the colonies concerned; but, in order that they may be as beneficial as possible, I maintain that they ought to be accompanied by a thorough revision and reform of our colonial polity.

Under the existing colonial system, in most of our colonies (I may, indeed, say in all of them with the exception of Canada), representative institutions are rather shams than realities, for they seldom lead to the legitimate consequences of representative government, namely, responsible government according to the will of the majority of the representatives of the people. In almost all the representative colonies the Colonial Office generally attempts to carry on the government by means of a minority of the representative assembly, with the assistance of a legislative assembly composed of the nominees of the Colonial Office. The consequence is, a perpetual struggle between the majority of the representative assembly and the party of the Colonial Office—a struggle carried on with an intensity of party hatred and rancour happily unknown to us: each party rejects or disallows the measures of the other party; thus legislation stands still, and enmity increases; after a time the supplies are stopped, and a dead lock ensues; then the Imperial Parliament is called on to take the part of the Colonial Office, and a constitution is sometimes suspended; next, to preserve order or to put down rebellion, the military force is augmented; and, finally, a demand is made upon the purses of the British people, who have invariably to pay the piper at every colonial brawl. Within the last fifteen years events of this kind have taken place in most of our largest colonies; for instance, in both the Canadas, in Nova Scotia, Jamaica and British Guiana; and they seem likely to be repeated in Jamaica and British Guiana. Thus, both in the colonies which have representative assemblies, and in those which have them not, the one great cause of complaint is irresponsible government from a distance; that is, government by rulers who are necessarily ignorant of the state of their sub- jects; who, sometimes with the very best intentions, propose and insist upon the very worst measures. It would be easy to take colony after colony, and show in each a series of lamentable blunders which have been committed by the Colonial Office. For instance, how the war of races was stimulated in Canada; how the ruin of the planters was made inevitable in the West Indies—how a valuable portion of our fellow-subjects in South Africa were driven into the desert and became rebels—how the immorality of Van Diemen's Land was fearfully augmented—how the colonisation of New Zealand was spoilt—how Vancouver's Island was thrown away—all through the ignorance, negligence, and vacillation of the Colonial Office.

Ignorance, negligence, and vacillation are three inseparable accidents of our system of colonial government. Ignorance is the necessary consequence of the distance that intervenes between the rulers and the ruled; negligence is the invariable result of the want of efficient responsibility, and the responsibility of the Colonial Office to Parliament is merely nominal, in consequence of the ignorance of Parliament with regard to colonial affairs. And whenever there is either ignorance or negligence, there vacillation must also exist. To illustrate these positions by events of recent occurrence, I will cite, as a case of negligence, the Act of the 5th and 6th Victoria, c. 76, which was passed in 1842, for the purpose of bestowing a constitution on New South Wales. One of the chief objects of that Act was to create district councils in that colony. Much importance was attached to the establishment of those councils, therefore great care ought to have been taken in framing the clauses with regard to them; on the contrary, there was the greatest negligence: when the Act reached the colony, after a journey of six months, the Governor discovered that the 48th clause, which ought to have contained an important provision with regard to the district councils, was without assignable object or discoverable meaning—in fact, it was utter jargon; the consequence was, that the district councils were still-born. Their premature decease is not to be regretted, for though they were favourite children of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, they were begotten in ignorance of the wants and feelings of the inhabitants of New South Wales.

As an instance of vacillation, I will cite the recent conduct of the Colonial Office with regard to transportation to Van Die-men's Land. The House may remember, that in 1846 it was discovered that a state of almost incredible immorality existed among the convicts of that colony, arising from the negligence and mismanagement of the Colonial Office and the colonial Governor. The Colonial Office, therefore, determined to suspend transportation for two years, and sent a new Governor to the colony, to improve the system of convict discipline prior to the renewal of transportation. A few months afterwards, in February 1847, the Colonial Office changed its mind, and announced to Parliament, that transportation to Van Diemen's Land was not to be renewed. This intelligence was received in the colony with the greatest joy and delight. Unfortunately, however, not long afterwards, in the beginning of 1848, the Colonial Office changed its mind for the second time, and determined upon the renewal of transportation to Van Diemen's Land. The joy of the colonists was converted into sorrow—the more intense, in proportion as their hopes had been unnecessarily excited, and cruelly disappointed, by the vacillation of the Colonial Office.

As a recent instance of ignorance on the part of the Colonial Office, I will remind the House of the case of Ceylon. In 1847, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies appointed a Committee, consisting of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies and other Gentlemen of distinguished abilities, to investigate the financial condition of Ceylon, with the view of proposing measures to promote the economical prosperity of that colony. After much labour, those Gentlemen drew up a report, which received the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Now it has been proved in this House—and no one will venture to contradict my statement—that the chief data furnished by the Colonial Office, upon which that report was founded, were incorrect—that the most important conclusions to which the Committee arrived, were erroneous—that they mistook liabilities for assets, a bankrupt exchequer for a full treasury, and a deficit for a surplus of income over expenditure—that, in consequence of these mistakes, they recommended a reduction of taxation when they should have recommended a reduction of expenditure—that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, not being better informed than his Commit- tee, adopted their recommendations, and instructed the Governor of Ceylon to give effect to those recommendations. These instructions were obeyed by the unlucky Governor—a nobleman who had been appointed on account of his skill in agriculture and in railroad finance, but who was not better acquainted with the affairs of Ceylon than either the Secretary or Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The consequence was—financial embarrassment, which led to the imposition of taxes so injudicious, that, though they were approved of by the Colonial Office, within a year it was necessary to repeal them.

I refer to these cases, not in order to impute blame to individuals, but to illustrate my position, that ignorance, negligence, and vacillation are vices inherent in our system of colonial government, by whomsoever administered. My object is to prove that our colonial polity works ill, and produces discontent and complaint in the colonies, not because it is specially maladministered, but because it is an essentially faulty system, which cannot be well administered. It is difficult to censure a system without appearing to censure the persons connected with it. In order to overcome this difficulty, I declare that my object is not to censure any person. My Motion may be considered to be a vote of censure on our colonial system, but it is not intended to be a vote of censure on the Secretary of State for the Colonies. For, in my judgment, the colonies have not been worse governed by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, than by any one of his predecessors, who have had equal opportunities of so doing. I know that a different opinion on this subject prevails, both in this country and in the colonies; that, in consequence of former speeches made by the present Colonial Minister, very exaggerated expectations were formed of what he would do when in office—that those exaggerated expectations have been disappointed—that that disappointment has been embittered by the injudicious praises of friends and subordinates—and that hence his name is most unpopular. But, in my opinion, it would be a great mistake to suppose that either his removal from office, or any mere change in the staff of the Colonial Office, would be of any real benefit to the colonies. The fault is in the system. The wonder to me is, not that the system works ill, not that it produces discontent and complaint, but that it works no worse than it does. Consider, Sir, for one moment, the nature of its working machinery. To govern our forty-three colonies, scattered over the face of the globe, inhabited by men differing in race, language, and religion, with various institutions, strange laws, and unknown customs, the staff of the Colonial Office consists only of five superior and twenty three inferior functionaries. The superior functionaries are, the Secretary of State, the two Under Secretaries, the Assistant Under Secretary, and the Chief Clerk. The Secretary of State and the Under Secretary leave office with the Government, and rarely retain office for more than two years at a time they are the ostensible heads of our colonial system, and are responsible to Parliament for the government of the colonies. The three other superior functionaries being permanent, are the real heads of our colonial system—they are screened from responsibility by the political functionaries—they are unknown to Parliament, scarcely known to the public by name, but have become celebrated of late years under the witty designation of Mr. Mothercountry, applied to them by Mr. Charles Buller. Subordinate to these gentlemen, there are twenty-three clerks, making, in all, twenty-eight persons for the government of forty-three colonics. Therefore, even with an equal division of labour, there would not be one official for the government of each colony. But no such division of labour is practicable. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is responsible to Parliament for the government of every colony. It is his duty, therefore, to be acquainted with the affairs of each of the forty-three colonies; to read and study every despatch, and to be prepared to answer, either in his own person, or by his Under Secretary, every question which may be put to him, in either House of Parliament, with regard to the colonies. If he could divide his time equally between the colonies, as there are forty-three of them, he could give about a week a year to the affairs of each separate colony; but to no single colony could be, at one time, spare a week of continuous attention; for every colony, more or less, requires his attention simultaneously. At one time he can only give a few hours to one dependency, then a few hours to another, and so on, turn and turn about, traversing and re-traversing, in his imagination, the terraqueous globe—flying from the Arctic to the Antartic pole—hurrying from the snows of North America to the burning regions of the Tropics—rushing across from the fertile islands of the West Indies to the arid deserts of South Africa and Australia—like nothing on earth, or in romance, save the Wandering Jew . For instance, one day the Colonial Secretary is, in Ceylon, a financial and a religious reformer, promoting the interests of the coffee planter, and casting discredit on the tooth and religion of Buddha; the next day he is in the West Indies, teaching the economical manufacture of sugar; or in Van Diemen's Land, striving to reform the fiends whom he has transported to that pandemonium. Now he is in Canada, discussing the Indemnity Bill and the war of races; anon he is at the Cape of Good Hope, dancing a war dance with Sir Harry Smith and his Kafir subjects; or in New Zealand, an unsuccessful Lycurgus, coping with Honi Heki; or at Natal, treating with Panda, king of the Zoolahs; or in Labuan, digging coal and warring with pirates; or in the midst of South Africa, defeating Pretorius and his rebel Boers; or in Vancouver's Island, done by the Hudson's Bay Company; or in Victoria, alias Port Phillip, the chosen representative of the people; or in the Mauritius, building fortifications against a hostile population; or in the fair isles of the Ionian Sea, enjoying, I hope, for the sake of my dear friend Mr. Ward, a life of luxurious ease and perfect tranquillity. Thus the most incongruous events succeed each other, and are jumbled together in the brain of the unfortunate Secretary of State for the Colonies, as in the wild dream of a fevered imagination; and ere the unhappy man has had time to settle one grave colonial question, another of equal importance presses on his wearied and worn-out attention.

I repeat, that the wonder is, not that our system of colonial government works ill; but, that it works no worse than it does. I maintain, therefore, that that system requires revision. To ascertain in what manner it ought to be revised, how the machinery of the Colonial Office can be improved, and whether more local government and more self-government ought to be given to some or all of the colonies, should, in my opinion, be the first great subjects for the inquiry which I propose to the consideration of the House. In pursuing this inquiry, the commission should draw a broad distinction between those colonies which have or ought to have representative institutions, and those of the Crown colonies which are unfit for free institutions. Because the line of inquiry, the questions and the conclusions with regard to the best mode of governing the one class of colonies, will he very different from those with regard to the other class of colonics. In both cases, the more the government is local, the better I believe it will be. It will, therefore, be an important subject for inquiry by the commission, what is the best form of local government for those Crown colonies which are unfit for free institutions.

The second head of inquiry which I propose for the commission, is colonial expenditure. I have calculated that, on the average of the last fifteen years, the direct cost of the colonies to Great Britain, under the four heads of civil, naval, military, and extraordinary expenditure, has amounted to at least 4,000,000 l . a year, exclusive of the sums paid for emancipating our slaves. The civil expenditure has been between 200,000 l . and 300,000 l . a year; the naval expenditure, I believe, I have under-estimated at 1,000,000 l . a year. The military expenditure must have exceeded 2,500,000 l . a year; and at least 200,000 l . a year have been required, on the average of the last fifteen years, to cover the extraordinary expenses of Canadian rebellion, Kafir wars, &c. I believe that, with a reform of our colonial system, and with a searching inquiry into the cost of our colonies, a large reduction could be made in colonial expenditure, especially in military expenditure.

Last year the military force of the colonies consisted of forty-seven regiments of the line, nine colonial corps, one regiment of cavalry, thirty-eight companies of artillery, about 800 sappers and miners, and about 100 engineer officers; in all about 45,000 men of all ranks. The cost of these troops for pay and commissariat expenses alone, has been returned to Parliament, for the five years ending 31st of March, 1847, at 9,742,000 l ., and at the rate of 1,948,000 l . a year, exclusive of ordnance or other expenditure. These troops are scattered about in various stations, over thirty-seven colonies. In the ordnance estimates of this year, reference is made to fifty-four military stations, in which there are either barrack or ordnance establishments, generally both, with barrack-masters, barrack-sergeants, storekeepers, deputy-storekeepers, clerks of the works, &c. This year the sum of 197,000 l . is required for the salaries of the officers and the wages of the workmen belonging to these establishments. The storehouses of these stations contain stores of the estimated value of 2,500,000 l ., a sufficient amount of stores, if they do not perish of themselves, for about twenty years' consumption during peace.

In most of these stations, considerable sums have been annually expended on fortifications and other ordnance works. The sum required for these purposes in the estimates of this year is 216,000 l .; and the total sum expended upon them in the course of the nineteen years from 1829 to 1847 has amounted to 3,500,000 l . For instance, during that period we have expended in North America on ordnance works, at Kingston, 342,000 l .; at Quebec, 330,000 l .; at Montreal, 186,000 l .; at Toronto, 65,000 l .; at the Rideau canal, 67,000 l .; at Halifax, 215,000 l .; in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, &c., about 100,000 l .; making in all about 1,300,000 l . spent or, ordnance works in North America within the last nineteen years. Many of these works are uncompleted, and to complete them large sums of money will still be required; for instance, at Kingston, 140,000 l . Much of this expenditure has, I believe, been unnecessary; some of it absurdly so. For instance, in 1846 an estimate was presented to Parliament by the late Government for certain ordnance works in Canada. Those works were supposed to be wanted, because the dispute with America concerning the Oregon was not settled. However, before the estimate was voted, the late Government left office, and its last act was to announce the settlement of the Oregon question. The present Government adopted the estimates of their predecessors; they never thought of examining those estimates, but passed them in a heap, military works in Canada included. The money being voted was spent; and after it was spent, it was discovered that the works had been commenced after the reason for commencing them had ceased; that is, the works supposed to be required because the Oregon question was not settled, were commenced after the Oregon question was settled. The money so thrown away has amounted, I believe, to about 90,000 l . It is lucky that a larger sum was not expended, for I can discover no existing check upon this expenditure.

In the West Indies 601,000 l . have been expended on ordnance works in the interval between 1829 and 1847. During the same period 313,000 l . have been expended for similar purposes at Malta and Gibraltar, and it was estimated that a further sum of 250,000 l . would be required to complete the ordnance works in progress in these colonies. During the same period we have expended in Bermuda 183,000 l . on ordnance works; to complete them another 100,000 l . will be required. I understand, however, on good authority, that the introduction of steam has made these works of little value for purposes of defence; and to defend those works it is said that a flotilla, composed of small steamers drawing little water will be required.

Before I proceed to the Mauritius, I must observe, that, according to the highest authorities, our colonies should be divided into two classes with reference to military works; the one class consisting of colonies conquered from the French, Dutch, and other nations; and the other class consisting of colonies planted by our own people. The latter may at times be very much dissatisfied with Colonial Office government, but being inhabited by Englishmen, they always prefer our dominion to that of a foreign nation. Therefore, in the event of a war, they may be safely intrusted with their own defence. For instance, troops and military works are not required in Australia: it is true that a hostile Power might destroy Sydney, burn Melbourne, and commit other acts of vandalism; but it could never keep permanent possession of New South Wales, or Victoria, against its English inhabitants. On the contrary, in our conquered colonies we cannot trust the population; and in those colonies troops or military works are required more against our own hostile subjects than against foreign enemies. This is said, on high authority, to be the case of the Mauritius. It is said that in the event of a war, if Port Louis were not well fortified, it would be difficult for us to retain possession of it; and if we were to lose it, it would be difficult for us to regain possession of it; in both cases for the same reason, because an influential portion of the population are hostile to us. Now, it is said that the Mauritius is an important military station, that in the last war, before we took possession of it, prizes of the value of 7,000,000 l . were carried into it. Hence the supposed necessity for extensive ordnance works in that island, both on the seaside against foreign enemies, and on the land side against domestic foes. On those works above 200,000 l . have been expended since 1829. To complete the defences on the side of the sea at least 200,000 l . more will be required, exclusive of the cost of the land defences. However, it is proposed to expend only 5,000 l . a year on these works; therefore, at least forty years will elapse before they can be completed! May we be at peace and never require the use of them till they are finished!

In the Ionian Islands nearly half a million has been expended on ordnance works since the peace. The case of the Ionian Islands is a capital instance of the manner in which public money has been thrown away upon worthless colonies, on the absurdest pleas. In 1815 the great Powers of Europe, not knowing what to do with the free and independent States of the Ionian Islands, placed them under the protection of Great Britain. Lord Lansdowne and other distinguished statesmen remonstrated, on the grounds that such possessions would be burdensome, expensive, and of no use; but Lord Bathurst maintained that they would be most valuable; that the country would gain immensely by them; and that they would defray all expenses incurred on their account. On such nonsensical pleas our colonial empire was extended. What, however, have been the facts? Our export trade to the Ionian Islands has not, on the average of the last ten years, exceeded 122,000 l . a year; and the Ionian States have been wholly unable to fulfil their pecuniary engagements to this country. They have cost us 130,000 l . a year on the average, or about 4,500,000 l . since the peace. We have built fortifications at Corfu, the original estimate for which, as sanctioned by the Duke of Wellington in 1824, was 182,000 l .; this estimate was increased in 1831 to 227,000 l .; in 1834 to 240,000; in 1839 to 340,000 l .; that sum having been expended, we voted last year 12,873 l .; we are to vote this year 9,206 l . for these same works; then to complete them at least 50,000 l . more will be required; and when these works, originally esimated to cost 182,000 l ., shall be completed, at a cost of above 400,000 l ., they will be so extensive, that in the event of a serious war it would hardly be expedient to spare forces sufficient to man them; and the wisest plan would be to blow up the fortifications, to abandon the islands, and to concentrate our forces at Malta and Gibraltar. For as long as we retain the supremacy of the ocean, we could always re- conquer them for a trifle, provided there be no fortifications to resist us; and were we to lose the supremacy of the ocean, with the best fortifications, we could only keep possession of them for a few months.

In South Africa we spent, between 1829 and 1847, 271,000 l . on ordnance works. A considerable portion of this sum has been expended on the eastern frontier of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, in bridges over unknown rivers, and various works, offensive and defensive, against the Kafirs. Our ordnance expenditure in South Africa is, however, only commencing. For we have lately advanced our eastern frontier, and taken military possession of a possession of a portion of Kafraria. If, in addition to this, we are to defend the frontier of Natal, against the Kafirs on one side, and the Zoolahs on the other; if military stations are to be established in the interior among the insurgent Boers; if our newly-acquired frontier on the Yellow River is to be guarded against the Bechuana tribes of Central Africa; then, in future years, large sums will be required for ordnance works, our military force must be greatly augmented, and our expenditure on account of South Africa will probably be increased from 300,000 l . a year to twice that sum, or more. The Kafir war, which has just terminated, is a sample of what we may expect frequently to happen in our South African dominions. By the time all the bills are paid, that war will probably have cost us a couple of millions sterling. How has this money been expended? Nobody knows, or rather, nobody seems inclined to tell. A very curious return has been lately presented to the House on this subject. It is an answer from the Commissioners of Audit to a letter from the Treasury, in which the commissioners are directed to report upon the expenditure occasioned by the late Kafir war. In reply, they state that they can do nothing of the kind, for no accounts have been furnished to them. In fact, it appears that no accounts have been kept, and that the persons whose duty it was to keep the accounts neglected their duty, and disregarded the orders both of the Treasury and of the Colonial Office. All that is certain is, that our money has been spent. There can be little doubt that Sir H. Pottinger was right in suspecting the existence of gross peculation. And Sir H. Smith has assured us that many persons have amassed large sums of money by the late war; that there is a redun- dancy of money at the Cape, with general prosperity, and a tendency to over-speculation. In fact, a Kafir war is a godsend to the inhabitants of the Cape; and I believe they pray for it as a means of extracting money out of the pockets of the wise men of England. And if it be our sovereign will and pleasure that Sir Harry Smith shall proclaim himself paramount chief of Kafraria, with strange rites and wonderful discourses; if he is to add desert after desert to our barren empire in South Africa, till it become as large as the whole of the Austrian dominions; if he is to cross the deserts which are the natural boundaries of the colony of the Cape, and to acquire a new frontier as long as from here to Naples, exposed, for many hundred miles, to the ravages of fierce, warlike, and rapacious barbarians; if he is to hunt across the plains of Central Africa, the Boers, ever flying from our hated dominion—why, the people of Great Britain must make up their minds to pay dearly for their whistle; and a more worthless one has never been acquired by force of British arms.

Thus, actuated by an insane desire of worthless empire, into every nook of our colonial universe we thrust an officer with a few soldiers; in every hole and corner we erect a fortification, build a barrack, or cram a storehouse full of perishable stores—and for what purposes? Because the military and naval sages, who are authority in these matters, maintain that we ought to be always prepared for war. In the opinion of those philosophers, the natural state of the civilised man is an universal war of nations; therefore, in anticipation of their coming millennium of perpetual strife, they demand that Great Britain should, regardless of expense, be ready on every point, at every moment, to combat with every one for the whole of her vast colonial domain. It has been said, over and over again, without as well as within this House, by the noble Lord the Prime Minister, and others, that we have inherited from our ancestors numerous colonies, which it is our interest, our duty, and our policy, to maintain and defend; for that Great Britain without her colonies, would in size be but a petty kingdom; but that, with her colonies, she has, in extent of surface, the semblance of an enormous empire. And it is said, that this semblance of enormous empire, arising from a vast colonial domain, overawes foreign nations, impresses them with a pres- tige of our might, causes the name of England to be a real and a mighty Power, converts the mere sound of that name into a force greater than that of numerous fleets and costly armies, and thence it is argued, that colonies are the cheapest and most politic means of maintaining our position amongst the nations of the earth. This argument is well known by the name of the "prestige of might" argument. It has formed the staple of every speech in which the noble Lord the Prime Minister has replied to every proposal for the reduction of our colonial and military expenditure. What is the value of this argument? It reminds me somewhat of the old fable of the animal who clothed himself with the skin of the hon. and fancied that then the rest of the brute creation would mistake him for their natural king. Now, according to the "prestige of might" argument, our colonial empire is our lion's skin. Does it augment our strength for the combat? Certainly not. In the event of a serious struggle with a Power of pearly equal force, our colonies would be a serious incumbrance. To defend them, we should have to scatter our forces over the face of the earth; and, contrary to every sound principle of warfare, we should run the risk of being destroyed in detail. In the event of such a conflict, the wisest plan would be to withdraw our troops, to recall our fleets, and to concentrate our forces; in short, to disencumber ourselves of our lion's skin, to take it up again when the combat is over. But the argument is, that the fear of the sham lion would prevent the combat from ever taking place. So thought the animal in the fable, presuming upon the ignorance of his fellow-beasts, and wofully was he mistaken. Now, does any one fancy that in these days we can impose upon mankind by such a sham; that we can, for instance, persuade the statesmen of Europe that, by acquiring an empire in South Africa as large as the Austrian dominions, we have added the might of old Austria to that of Great Britain? On the contrary, those statesmen will be much more likely to fancy that there are young Hungaries springing up both in Canada and in the land of the Boers. Therefore this "prestige of might" argument should rather be termed the "sham-lion" fallacy. And a dangerous fallacy it has been; for it has many times led us to commit the great and costly mistake of trusting more to military force than to good government, for the maintenance of our colonial empire.

Now, it appears to me, that if the commission which I propose should be appointed, it should inquire to what extent it is necessary or politic for us to keep troops, or build fortifications, in our colonies; whether we ought to do so in any colonies, except in our strictly military stations; what colonies should be considered to be military stations; and what is the best mode of checking and controlling our huge ordnance expenditure in the colonies, which, at the present moment, is without check or control. This inquiry appears to me a very important one; for I feel persuaded that, without a very considerable reduction in the military and naval expenditure on account of the colonies, no considerable reduction can be made" in the cost of the colonies; or, in fact, in the general expenditure of the British empire.

I also think, that if a commission be appointed, in addition to inquiring into the cost of the colonies to Great Britain, it might, with some advantage, inquire into the cost of the colonial government to the colonies themselves. On a former occasion I attempted to prove to the House that in those colonies which have a greater amount of self-government, the rate of expenditure per head of the population is generally less than in those colonies which have a less amount of self-government; and I infer that this difference in the rate of expenditure arose from the difference in the amount of self-government. If this inference be correct, it follows that the best mode of ensuring a wise economy in the colonies, is by giving them greater control over their own finances. Government from a distance is apt, from ignorance, not only to be lavish in expenditure, when it ought to be economical, but also to be niggardly when it ought to be generous. It would not be difficult to adduce various instances of niggardliness, in which the Colonial Office, not understanding the importance of a particular expenditure to a colony, has withheld its sanction to that expenditure to the detriment of the colony. Such cases are, however, rare, as compared to those of lavish expenditure, of which the colonial civil lists have generally been striking instances. As those civil lists have chiefly had reference to functionaries who have been sent out from this country, their salaries have generally been fixed rather with reference to the standard of wealth in this country than in the co- lonies; for instance, the salaries of governors. There are eighteen British colonies which pay for their own governors; their salaries amount in all to 72,000 l . a year; therefore the average is 4,000 l . a year, or nearly nine times the average salary of a governor in the United States. In fact, the total amount of the salaries of the thirty governors of the thirty States of the Union is less by 2,500 l . a year than the total amount of the salaries of the four governors of the British North American provinces of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Therefore, there is a general opinion in the colonies that the salaries fixed by the civil lists are excessive; and those civil lists have been subjects of perpetual dispute between the colonies and the Colonial Office. Now, it appears to me that it would be a question for the consideration of the commission, whether all or some of the colonies, which pay for their governors, should not be permitted to elect their own governors, and to determine the amount of their salaries; or, on the other hand, if it be deemed expedient that all the governors should be appointed by the Imperial Government, whether they ought not to be paid out of imperial funds? In those colonies which have, or ought to have, free institutions, the representatives of the people are the best guardians of the public purse. But in those Crown colonies which are unfit for free constitutions, it would be for the commission to ascertain what checks exist, or ought to exist, against lavish expenditure.

Lastly, I propose that if a commission be appointed, it should inquire into the subject of emigration and colonisation. It would be easy to show that the colonial policy of this country has not directly tended to encourage any emigration except that of convicts, and that by encouraging convict emigration, it has indirectly tended to discourage the best kinds of emigration; for no good and respectable man, especially if he be the father of a family, or intend to be one, would ever think of going to a convict colony, unless he be in complete ignorance of the moral consequences of convict colonisation. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to the colonies that the question should be settled, whether convict emigration is or is not to continue to be a portion of the colonial polity of the British empire. There can be no doubt that convict emigration is a good thing for the people of Great Britain; it saves them much money, much time, and much trouble in punishing over and over again the same criminals. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that it is a bad thing for the people of the colonies; it increases (in some instances it creates) their criminal population, and augments the amount of their penal expenditure; it is offensive to the feelings of the better portion of the colonists, and injurious to the character of all of them; and though some of them may consent to it for the sake of pecuniary gain, yet that consent is a proof of moral degradation, likely to be increased and rendered permanent by contact with criminals. The question, therefore, is, whether the benefit to Great Britain from convict emigration so far exceeds the injury to the colonies, that the empire as a whole is a gainer thereby. Now, the benefit to Great Britain consists primarily in getting rid of its criminals; they are a very great nuisance here; they constitute a dangerous class; in former times they were got rid of by the simple process of hanging; when hanging became disgusting, then transportation was adopted by the humane people of England as the easiest mode of ridding themselves of their criminals, without shocking their sensibilities. It is evident, therefore, that the benefit to Great Britain from convict emigration, is in direct proportion to the number and wickedness of the criminals exported. On the other hand, it is equally evident that the evil to the colonies from convict immigration, is also in direct proportion to the number and wickedness of the criminals imported. Therefore the gain to the one is equivalent in amount to the loss to the other; and the result to the empire as a whole, is an expensive shifting of the burden of crime. Now, if Great Britain be entitled to transfer its criminals to the colonies, if that transfer be for the benefit of the whole empire, then it is evident that every one of the colonies should be required to make the same sacrifice for the public good by receiving convict immigrants. Accordingly a considerable change has been lately proposed and attempted to be made in the distribution of convicts in the colonies. Under the whole system of distribution, the moral filth of Great Britain was accumulated in vast and fermenting masses in the penal colonies, whence moral typhus, plague, pestilence, and all manner of hideous disease; and the British pest-houses of Australia stunk in the nostrils of mankind. Under the present system of distribution, that filth is to be spread out evenly over the surface of the colonies, and the colonists are to be told that it will be a fertilising manure, which will increase their material wealth and prosperity. To the old system it is impossible to return. The new system, I believe, contains within itself the germs of sure and speedy decay. For it was admitted in the case of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope—thanks to the exertions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire—that convicts are not to be sent to any colony which protests with sufficient energy against convict emigration. The example of the Cape of Good Hope is being followed by New Zealand and Van Diemen's Land, and will be followed by all our other colonies; for, in proportion as they acquire wealth and their population increases, they will feel more acutely the stigma which justly attaches to them as convict colonies, and will spare no effort to remove that stigma. Therefore, I believe that convict emigration cannot have a permanent existence as a portion of the colonial polity of Great Britain. May it not continue in existence so long as to engender such feelings of hatred and discontent as might tend to subvert our colonial empire? On a former occasion the noble Lord the Prime Minister thought proper most unjustly to accuse me of a wish to get rid of our colonial empire. He described that empire as a glorious inheritance which we had received from our ancestors, and declared that he was determined, at all risks, to maintain it for ever intact. Now, I ask him, how do we treat that precious inheritance? By transportation we stock it with convicts; we convert it into the moral dungheap of Great Britain; and we tell our colonists that thieves and felons are fit to be their associates. Is this the mode and manner to inspire the inhabitants of our colonies with those feelings of affection and esteem for the mother country, without which our colonial empire must speedily crumble in the dust, notwithstanding our numerous garrisons? Now, if the magniloquent words of the noble Lord were not mere empty vauntings, to raise a cheer and gain a momentary triumph in a debate; if the noble Lord be sincere and earnest, as I am, in the wish to maintain that empire intact, and to hand it down great and prosperous to posterity, he will cordially unite with me in the effort to put an end to convict emigration. I maintain that we have no moral right to relieve ourselves of our criminals at the expense of the colonies, and that the desire to make a scapegoat of our colonies, by whomsoever entertained, whether by Members of this House or by magistrates of quarter-sessions, or by judges on the bench, is a mean and selfish feeling, of which, as citizens of this great empire, we ought to be heartily ashamed.

With reference to free emigration, I do not recommend that the commission, if it be appointed, should inquire into the expediency or practicability of the great schemes of emigration or colonisation which have been lately proposed, with a view of relieving the economical difficulties of the united kingdom. I recommend that the inquiry should be confined to ascertaining the nature of the obstacles which stand in the way of individual enterprise in colonising, and which impede emigration to the colonies. The existence of such obstacles will be acknowledged by every one who is conversant with the history of the attempts which have been made of late years to found colonies in Australia and Now Zealand. Having been concerned in one of those attempts, experience has satisfied me that under our present system of colonial government, no gentleman, no man of birth or education, ought to think of emigrating to any one of the British dependencies. I feel satisfied that if our colonial system continue unreformed, the better class of emigrants who wish to seek their fortunes in a new world, where there is less competition, and a more open field for youthful energy and enterprise, will be more and more apt to direct their stops to the United States of America, where they will enjoy institutions and "elf-government of English origin, and will not be liable to have their prospects marred by the ignorant and capricious interference of distant and irresponsible authorities, or of their ill-selected instruments. Within the last five and twenty years, as I have already said, about two millions of persons have emigrated from this country. One million have gone directly to the United States of America; about 800,000 to our North American colonies; of the latter more than one-half re-emigrated to the United States. Therefore, in all probality, three-fourths of the emigration from this country during the last five and twenty years has been to the United States—in fact, last year three forths of the emigrants from this country, 188,000 out of 248,000, went directly to the United States. It is not improbable, therefore, that the number of persons now living in the United States, who were born British subjects, is as great as the whole number of persons of British and Irish descent in all our dependencies. I ask, why do emigrants prefer the United States to the British colonies? I ask this question not from any feelings of jealousy of the United States. I look upon those States as the greatest, the most glorious, and most useful children of England; for their inhabitants I entertain the strongest regard and affection; I rejoice that we are assisting them in peopling their far west—I rejoice at everything which promotes their interests and redounds to their honour—I believe these feelings are entertained and returned by the instructed and reflecting men of both countries—I believe that trade, emigration, and similarity of institutions are daily strengthening the ties between Great Britain and her independent colonies—thence I augur the happiest consequences to our race. And in the same manner as I might ask why emigrants prefer one British colony to another, so I do ask what turns the tide of emigration from our dependent to our independent colonies? I answer, Colonial Office government, convict emigration, and other causes, which a commission would be able to ascertain and point out to the House.

I have now stated what, in my opinion, should be the three chief heads of inquiry by a commission, namely, colonial government, colonial expenditure, and emigration or colonisation. Under each of these heads, the commission should inquire what questions should be considered as imperial ones, and what questions should be looked upon as local ones. It should attempt to ascertain what powers the Imperial Government ought to reserve for the benefit of the empire at large, and what powers ought to be delegated to the colonial legislatures. It appears to me that it would not be difficult to classify and define the powers which ought to be reserved as imperial ones; and then all other powers not So reserved, should be held to be local powers. The advantages of such a classification, if sanctioned by the Imperial Legislature, are self-evident. It would enable the colonial legislatures to know precisely what they are entitled to do, and what they must abstain from doing. It would thus greatly diminish the chance of hostile collision between those legislatures and the Imperial Government; and last, and not least, it would spare us many a useless debate about colonial questions with which it is impossible for us to be well acquainted.

I have now assigned my chief reasons for the Motion which I have proposed. I have shown that there is a growing conviction in this country, and an intense conviction in the colonies, that there are grave errors and defects in the colonial polity of the British empire. I have thence inferred that that polity requires revision. For the purpose of revision, I have asked that a searching inquiry' should be instituted—first, into our system of colonial government, with the view of removing the causes of colonial discontent and complaint; secondly, into colonial expenditure, with a view of diminishing the cost of the colonies; and, thirdly, into the subjects of emigration and colonisation, with a view of affording free scope for individual enterprise in the business of colonisation, and of removing the obstacles which stand in the way of emigration to our dependencies. If this inquiry be properly conducted, it will furnish the means of settling the great practical questions of colonial government: for instance, what colonies ought to have free institutions; what is the best form of self-government for colonies with representative institutions; what is the best kind of local government for colonies unfit for self-government; what defences are needed for what colonies; what should be the nature and amount of imperial expenditure for the colonies; what would be the best checks both on imperial and local expenditure in the colonies; to what colonies, convict emigration, if not abolished, would be least mischievous; for what colonies free emigration, and of what kind, would be most beneficial; what rules should be adopted for the disposal of colonial lands, and by whom those rules should be framed; and, lastly, with regard to the settlement of all these questions, and of many others of equal importance to the colonies, and with reference to each class of colonies separately, what powers should be reserved to the Imperial Government, and what powers should be delegated to the local authorities? I am convinced that upon the practical settlement of these questions the maintenance of our colonial empire mainly depends. I believe that the stability of that empire is in imminent danger from their non settlement—first, in consequence of the colonial discontent engendered thereby; secondly, in consequence of the opinion, which I am sorry to say is thence gaining ground in this country, that these colonial questions are insoluble; therefore, that good colonial government is impossible; therefore, that colonies are nuisances and burdens; and, therefore, the fewer they are in number, and the sooner they are got rid of, the better. I lament the growth of these opinions. I am satisfied they will spread and acquire strength in proportion as the settlement of the questions to which I have referred is delayed. To settle those questions without inquiry and assistance. Parliament is at present utterly incompetent. The experience of this Session has shown that a debate on a colonial question is confusion worse confounded, wherein scarcely any two speakers agree; the few listeners are puzzled by the conflicting opinions of pretended authorities; and the House, in utter despair of understanding the subject, generally gives a reluctant and distrustful vote of confidence in the Colonial Office. The results of that confidence I have displayed to the House, in the shape of wars, rebellions, recurring distress, perpetual discontent, and enormous expenditure—the necessary consequences of the ignorance, negligence, and vacillation, which I have shown to be inseparable from our system of colonial government. Not as a cure for these evils, but as the necessary preliminary step towards a cure, I ask for the inquiry, the nature of which I have just described.

It is evident that the good to be obtained from an inquiry will depend upon the manner in which it is conducted, and the persons to whom it is entrusted. On a former occasion, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire proposed that a similar inquiry should be conducted by a Committee of this House. Though I voted for his Motion, I was compelled to acknowledge that the inquiry would be too vast and too complicated for a Committee. I voted for his Motion because I felt satisfied that, if a Committee were appointed, it would soon discover its inability to perform its allotted task, and would recommend that the inquiry should be conducted in the manner which I now propose—that is, by a Royal commission. If the House should accede to my Motion, and Her Majesty should be graciously pleased to appoint a commission, I should presume to recommend that it should consist of not more than five persons; that the commission should report from time to time to Her Majesty; that their reports should be laid before Parliament; and, if approved of by Parliament, they should be the bases of colonial legislation, and of a reform of our colonial polity. The task which the commission would have to perform would be an arduous as well as an important one. The question will be asked, to whom should the performance of such a task be entrusted? what should be the qualifications of the members of such a commission? It may, perhaps, be maintained that the inquiry which I propose should be conducted by the department to which the management of our colonial affairs is entrusted. And if the inquiry were to be merely into the details of colonial administration, into the machinery of the Colonial Office, into the number of functionaries which are required in that office, and into the best division of labour between them, I might then admit that such an inquiry might be left to the management of the Colonial Office. But the inquiry which I propose is a much more extensive one, namely, into the whole colonial policy of the British empire. Now, first, the functionaries of the Colonial Office are too much occupied with the daily administration of colonial affairs to be able to spare time for so extensive an inquiry as that which I contemplate. And, secondly, I must say, without any intentional disrespect for those gentlemen, that having been accustomed to the existing system, they would, in my opinion, be apt to look upon that system with too favourable an eye. Therefore I object to entrusting this inquiry to the Colonial Office. To whom then should this inquiry be entrusted? It is evident that it ought not to be conducted in a party spirit; and, in fact, it is not a party question; for each party is equally interested in the good government of the colonies, in the reduction of unnecessary colonial expenditure, in the promotion of colonisation and emigration, and, in short, in everything which can conduce to the prosperity of our colonial empire, and to the happiness of our colonial fellow-subjects. Therefore, if a commission be appointed, I should recommend that it be fairly chosen from the four divisions of this House: for example, one Member should be appointed from the Ministerial benches such a person, for instance, as my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department; one Member from amongst the friends of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth as, for instance, either the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, or the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk; one member from the ranks of the Protectionist party; and one from the section of the House to which I belong. To the four Members so selected, I would recommend that there should be added one of our most distinguished economical and political writers—such, for instance, as Mr. John Stewart Mill. I think a commission so constituted, with full power of inquiry, would deserve and obtain the confidence both of this country and of the colonies, and would lead to the most important results.

I hope that I have succeeded in giving the House a clear notion of what is the object of my Motion, and that I have satisfied the House that I am actuated by the desire of promoting the well-being of the colonial empire. In conclusion, I must beg the House to observe, that by agreeing to my Motion, the House will not pledge itself to any specific principles of colonial polity, or to any positive legislation, but only to the position that there ought to be a searching inquiry into our system of colonial administration. Can any one deny that such an inquiry is desirable, and that it may produce great benefits both to Great Britain and the colonies? Therefore, in the firm conviction that my Motion is both a practical and a useful one, worthy of the consideration and approval of the House, I now beg leave to move the address of which I have given notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed—

, in rising to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Southwark, said, that the hon. Baronet had completely exhausted the subject, and had given every possible reason that could be assigned for acceding to his Motion. He believed that an inquiry, if proposed to the community at large, would be very generally felt to be necessary, for there was not a class in society contented with the manner in which our colonial affairs were managed. There was no one who paid the least attention to our financial affairs who could for a moment doubt that the colonies were a severe drain on the means and resources of the mother country. Doubtless, there were some who thought the question, in all its bearings, too vast for the inquiry of any commission, however great its powers or eminent its qualifications; but he would reply to that by saying, that the greater the magnitude of the interests at stake, the more necessary was it that a close and searching investigation should be instituted. He, for one, was most anxious to see the colonies of Great Britain rendered productive—not rendered productive by yielding to this country additional taxes or revenue, but in relieving England from the expenses which she had hitherto been accustomed to discharge on account of her colonies, and in preventing the necessity of incurring any further expense of that description. The functionaries of the Colonial Office appeared to him most unequal to the discharge of those duties which their office imposed on them. It must evidently stand to common sense that when their time was so divided as it now must be, they could not make anything like a satisfactory attempt to get through their labours. The extent and nature of those duties necessarily left them ignorant of facts and sentiments without the knowledge of which they could not be efficient officers of the Crown in the Colonial Department. In fact, they every day gave proofs of most lamentable ignorance—and, again, of extreme vacillation and inconsistency—for one Minister was frequently found undoing that which his predecessor had with great labour and the exertion of much influence accomplished. For all these reasons, then, he was most anxious to see as many as possible of our colonies put in possession of the means of self-government. Let them appoint a commission such as that suggested by his hon. Friend, and then they might expect to see largo, just, and liberal views taken of the condition of our colonies. In times long since passed away, our best and most valued colonies were those which governed themselves. The authorities in such colonies could at any time do whatever might be best for the well-being of the State, or the advantage of the mother country, without sending home to head-quarters for permission to do good, or to seek at the hands of the Imperial Government a confirmation of all their acts. But, although he said this, he wished it by no means to be understood that he desired to get rid of the colonies, because he should think them no burden if they were properly managed. Why was it that British emigrants going abroad to settle, preferred the United States to any British colonies? Simply because the British colonies were ill managed—were they otherwise, Englishmen would naturally rather go there than to the territories of foreigners. Then there was another great and just source of complaint, namely, the manner in which all colonial appointments were bestowed. People were constantly appointed to colonial offices who knew nothing of the habits, manners, history, or language of the inhabitants; and, though that course of complaint had now reached a great height, yet it was unfortunately no novelty; for very many years ago one colony (Prince Edward's Island, as we understood) offered to pension off all the functionaries in the colony, provided they were allowed in future to nominate their own public officers, whom they should be quite willing to pay. If Parliament would only seriously take up and accomplish the great work of colonial reform, they would find men of all ranks willing to settle in the colonies. Upon the various grounds, then, which his hon. Friend had stated, he begged to protest against the present system. If he looked at the returns moved for by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, he found how the country was drained for money for the colonies, and when he looked at the manner in which that money was afterwards wasted and scattered, he could not help repeating, in the most emphatic manner, his conviction that the Motion before the House ought to be agreed to. In conclusion, then, he hoped that no one would accuse him of wishing that we should part with our colonies; for, in his opinion, it would be quite practicable to make them all pay their own expenses. For these several reasons he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend, and giving it his most cordial support.

said, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, who had brought forward the Motion before the House, had made a speech which might be conveniently divided into two parts, to be dealt with separately. It was not very easy to meet these general and vague statements which were made in reference to colonial questions; and in this instance he was bound to say, that as the hon. Baronet proceeded in his speech, he appeared to take a view of every topic relating to our colonies except the argument relating to the subject immedi- ately before the House. That Motion was one which might he described as perfectly impracticable and illusory, and upon that ground he (Mr. Hawes) should venture to oppose it. The hon. Baronet proposed that a commission should be appointed, consisting of five persons, to inquire into the causes of complaint in our colonies—to inquire into the cost of Government generally, both at home and in the colonies; and he proposed, also, to inquire whether or not greater scope could be given with a view to permit individual emigration to the colonies. It might have been supposed that the hon. Baronet, who had attended so much to this subject, might, at least, have shadowed out some of the causes of colonial complaint; and if he had done so, and done so clearly, he would have found the duty he would impose upon his commissioners to be one not very easily performed. What were the causes of complaint? What was the great cause of complaint at this moment among our West Indian colonies? The great cause of complaint was, that the Legislature had introduced an entirely new system of commercial policy. Was it meant that these commissioners should inquire into that question, and ascertain whether that complaint was well founded, so raising expectations that the recent policy might be changed? If so, he protested against delegating such a power to any body of men. Let hon. Members turn to the petitions from the House of Assembly at Jamaica, and they would find that the petitioners traced all their misfortunes to Mr. Canning's resolutions in 1823: that that led to emancipation, and that emancipation led to their misfortunes and ruin. Was it meant to open the whole question of slavery and the slave trade? If so, he protested against, and, so far as he was concerned, would oppose, a course which gave to any body of men whatever the power of entertaining and investigating these all-important and imperial questions. But was that all? Go into another hemisphere—into New South Wales—and ask what was the great cause of complaint there? The minimum price of land. The hon. Baronet said that that was a case for inquiry. He (Mr. Hawes) did not mean to say that it might not be a fair subject for inquiry. But a large number of the colonists there had bought land under the regulations sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, and the subject required grave consideration. There was another ques- tion—the form of government. These five gentlemen sitting—not, of course, in Downing-street, for that name was odious to the hon. Baronet—[Sir W. MOLES WORTH: Hear, hear!]—these five gentlemen sitting in Whitehall, or wherever else a newly-furnished apartment could be found for them, were to discuss a form of government for every colony complaining of its existing form of government. Was this power one to be delegated to commissioners? These were all great and imperial questions, to be discussed and decided in that House—to be proposed by the Minister on his responsibility, and not to be shirked by the appointment of a commission of five gentlemen. He wanted to know what would be the course taken with respect to any of these colonial grievances or complaints. The hon. Baronet said that it would save debates in that House. But was it certain that these five gentlemen would obtain the confidence of the colonists more fully than the Secretary for the Colonies, or that their proceedings would not provoke debates in that House? But be that as it might, what he (Mr. Hawes) should endeavour to prove was, that his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, within the time he had been in office, was deserving of the confidence of the House; that he had laid down large principles of colonial policy; and that when he had declared the vice of our old colonial system to be the governing colonies at a distance, he was the Minister who had done more to lay the foundation for local self-government, and for colonial independence, than any Colonial Minister who had preceded him. Probably, next year—in the year 1850—the hon. Baronet would say that the Under Secretary had been told to defend Lord Grey and the Colonial Office; but he (Mr. Hawes) was accustomed to these taunts, and while it was his conscientious conviction that he could justly defend his noble Friend, not even the sarcasm of the hon. Baronet should deter him. But suppose the commission affirmed? Who were to be the witnesses before it? Were they to be colonial residents, accidentally in London, or gentlemen of peculiar opinions? Were they to be brought from the colonies, or were the commissioners to go to the colonies? How was the evidence to be obtained? For his own part, he objected to picking up any colonial gentleman who happened to be in London, and consulting him or examining him on forms of government, or the great question of transportation, or on any other great and imperial question. Why, both commissioners and witnesses must be men of tried ability, and great experience and knowledge; or what would their report be worth, or what weight would it have in that House, unless it emanated from such a source? And if the report were without weight in that House, what would be its practical value? and when would such a report be completed? Why, five years hence the report would be asked for in that House. An hon. Gentleman said that reports might be made from time to time; but he assured him the commissioners would not be able to make up their minds so easily. Then, how was the commission to be composed? There was to be a free-trader here, a protectionist there; somebody to represent this, and somebody to represent that; and when this happy family were congregated, each one was to propound his opinions, and when they had joined them all together, in duo time they were to produce their report. He might safely predict that such a report would prove to be one of those admirably-written compositions which meant nothing, or that the result would be, that the evidence alone would be printed, and no report at all would be made. The hon. Baronet had not laid any ground for this Motion, and he (Mr. Hawes) would go over the instances he had adduced of colonial misgovernment, and, taking the chance of having such information with him as would meet some of those cases, show the House the exaggerations of the hon. Baronet, and prove that he had not taken the trouble to examine the subject. He did not expect that the hon. Baronet would have gone at such an easy canter over the important subject he had raised. The time was singularly ill chosen for asking for this commission. He (Mr. Hawes) asserted distinctly, and would maintain the assertion, that the most liberal principles of commercial policy had been propounded to Parliament, and had been adopted and acted upon, and that many most important colonial questions had been settled, and in a large and comprehensive manner, by his noble Friend. The hon. Baronet said that this was not a vote of censure; and he (Mr. Hawes) was bound to accept and adopt those words. The hon. Baronet also said that he attacked no one. But he had attacked Earl Grey, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord Stanley, and the whole colonial system of the country since 1775 or 1776. He (Mr. Hawes) would briefly refer to that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark in which he had described the foundation of the North American colonies, saying that the colonial policy of the country was changed in 1775; and he must recall to the recollection of the hon. Baronet circumstances of that time which he had overlooked. We had acquired these colonies during a war. The parties then in power were not remarkable for their love of free and popular institutions. All the colonies we had obtained in the present century, and in the latter part of the last century, had been governed on a different system. They had, in point of fact, been made Crown colonies, and when an Act of Parliament had been obtained at all, it had rather been with a view to limit than extend their privileges. To show how ill-timed was the Motion, he would here advert to one fact. His noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department had thought he might avail himself of the services of a Committee of Council from time to time in regard to certain important questions which were raised in the Colonial Department. That commission was thus described in a letter from Earl Grey to the Committee of Council for Trade and Plantations, on the 12th April, 1849. The letter stated that in the course and current of colonial business questions arose better adapted for private inquiry than for formal and public investigation: such as cases of personal controversy between the officers of the Crown and others, or cases in which different parties in the colonies invoked the interference of the Department, or constitutional changes, and plans for local improvement. That letter led to the establishment of the Committee of Council, and that Committee had pointed out necessary changes in our colonial policy, as regards one great group of colonies, which had already been introduced into a Bill for the better government of our Australian colonies. [Sir W. MOLESWORTH: The names.] He was not prepared with a list of the names; but the report was drawn up by Sir James Stephen, and was entitled to great weight. He did not think that the views and principles which were proposed in that report would be disputed, or that the conclusions arrived at would be opposed by any one who had read that report; and, as far as he had the honour of knowing Sir James Stephen, a more liberal administrator of colonial affairs was never connected with the Colonial Office. When he used the word liberal, he did not mean it in a party but in its most extensive sense. He wished to call the attention of the House to that report. It stated that the time had come when a change should take place in our system of colonial government. It stated that in the ancient colonial possessions of Her Majesty, such as the American and other colonies, local government had almost invariably been exercised—that they had been governed by a governor, a council appointed by the governor, and a legislative assembly popularly elected; but that in the nineteen colonies which had been acquired during the nineteenth century that form of government had not been established. [Mr. HUME: Read the report.] He had been reading from the report, and he was glad to hear that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had not read that document.

was surprised to hear liberal principles coming from the man whose name had been mentioned.

That report was dated in May, 1849. He said then that the recommendations of that Committee of Council adopted the views and principles which had been adopted by his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department in a large and liberal sense; and the House and the country would see by the Bill which he had lately laid on the table of the House, that it was the desire of the noble Lord to extend local self-government to the colonists. But that was not all which had been done, for at the beginning of the Session he had proposed a Committee with reference to colonial affairs, to which the hon. Baronet had alluded. That inquiry with reference to one of the colonies had taken place, and the report was before the House; and the House would recollect the charges which were made against the Colonial Office when that Committee was appointed. Those charges, however, were not supported by the report which was now before them. The hon. Baronet had alluded to Ceylon, and in reference to this colony, charges had been preferred against the Government; but as these charges were now under inquiry, he would not allude to them. He had used strong language in reference to that subject; but he (Mr. Hawes) did not think it proper to answer it until the inquiry was terminated. When his noble Friend Earl Grey became Colonial Minister, in the whole of the nineteen colonies to which he had alluded there was an absence of popular self-control; and he introduced the Bill which was still before the House for the purpose of giving to the Australian colonies the benefit of local self-government; and that Bill contained powers novel and important, enabling the colonists to alter the mode of self-government provided by the Bill. Then, with regard to the Cape of Good Hope. The hon. Baronet had said that it had been loft to Sir Harry Smith to propound a constitution for that colony, and the House would see, before long, whether that was a correct statement on the part of the hon. Baronet. The question for a constitution for the Cape was not under the consideration of the Governor alone. The most eminent colonial servants had submitted their views to the Home Government, acting in conjunction with the Governor. The colonists of New Zealand had had a constitution given to them, but the hon. Baronet said that it had been taken away by Earl Grey. [Sir W. MOLESWORTH: It has been suspended.] It had been suspended because the Governor had taken exceptions to it, on the ground that the power of returning members to the legislative assembly was confined to a small number of the European population, while the numerous warlike and intelligent native tribes were not represented at all. Many of those tribes were progressing in intelligence, and objected to a small number of Europeans exercising the entire power of electing the representatives. That was the ground on which it was suspended, and because, if it been dogmatically persisted in, it might have had the effect of creating a civil war in the colony. There was another colony in which they had established something like a representation representing public opinion—he meant the colony of British Guiana. He was glad that in the Committee upstairs the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had expressed views favourable to the institution of local self-government; and his views on that subject were adopted by the Committee, and to which he (Mr. Hawes) had readily assented. They would not be without practical results. But the hon. Baronet had charged the Government with neglecting economy in the administration of their colonial affairs. The hon. Baronet had run through several items of colonial expenditure, imputing mismanagement and extravagance to the colonial department, and he said that there had been a considerable increase in the taxation of many of the colonics, while nothing had been done to reduce the Government establishments. And he instanced Ceylon in particular, and said that the Governor of that colony had proceeded with precipitancy and haste in imposing additional taxation without attempting to reduce the expenses of Government. But even with respect to Ceylon there had been a local Committee sitting for the purpose of inquiring into the whole establishments of that colony; and under the administration of Lord Torrington, the expenses of that colony had been reduced prospectively from between 60,000 l . and 70,000 l . per annum; and yet the hon. Baronet had charged the Governor with precipitancy, haste, and incompetency. There were no grounds for making such a charge. The change of the system of taxation which had taken place in that colony, was one which was made for the purpose of reducing the burdens upon industry in the colony—a change for the purpose of introducing direct in lieu of indirect taxation; and he had to complain of the hon. Baronet for the off-hand and flippant manner in which, with respect to that subject, he had endeavoured to raise unjust impressions in the country. Then the hon. Baronet had alluded to the Kafir war. Soon after Earl Grey came into office, he selected Sir Harry Smith, as a person in every way competent to bring that war to a successful conclusion; and by the appointment of that gallant officer the expenditure had been reduced, compared with what it was. When he took the command, it was 70,000 l . per month less. Sir Harry Smith was establishing local corps to prevent the expense and diminish the chances of future war, and he was at that time proposing to the ablest men in the colony to consider of a constitution for the future government of the colony; and some remarkably able documents, to which he had referred, had already been prepared and forwarded to the Colonial Office And yet the hon. Baronet raised without discrimination general objections to the government of that colony. He (Mr. Hawes) agreed with the hon. Baronet that it was not advisable to extend our territories in that part of the world; but he was surprised to hear such language coming from the hon. Baronet. He had from time to time, in his (Mr. Hawes's) hearing, quoted the opinions of Sir B. D'Urban on that subject, and had always expressed his approbation of the policy recommended by Sir B. D'Urban. The hon. Baronet had also charged the Government, and in harsh and unmeasured language, with reducing the West Indies to their present state of distress—he charged the Colonial Office with the ruin of the West Indies. He could well understand the hon Gentleman opposite (the Member for Inverness-shire) if he used such language and adopted such opinions; but how the hon. Baronet, who was a free-trader, and supported free-trade measures—how he who had supported the emancipation of the slaves, and the sugar Act of 1846—how he could bring such a charge against the Government, he (Mr. Hawes) could not understand, unless, indeed, he had changed his mind upon these questions. But he contended that the West Indies had not been reduced to distress by that policy. It was perfectly inevitable that at first free-trade measures should have au injurious effect upon the West Indian colonies. But those were measures which had made strong progress in the public mind, and which no Government could have long resisted. But he (Mr. Hawes) looked to free trade for the salvation of the West Indian colonies, and of that he found remarkable evidence, which would rebut the statement of the hon. Baronet. When he referred to the paper which had recently been laid on the table of the House, on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, of the imports from the British West Indies, Guiana, the Mauritius, and our possessions in the East Indies, he found there evidence of returning prosperity. He found the remarkable fact that the quantity of sugar in 1841, and from time to time from that period up to the present time, was increasing, From the West Indies he found the following was the state of the exports of sugar:—In 1841, it was 2,100,000 cwt.; in 1842, 2,100,000 cwt.; in 1843, 2,400,000 cwt.; in 1844, 2,400,000 cwt.; in 1845, 2,500,000 cwt.; in 1846, 2,800,000 cwt.; in 1847, 3,100,000 cwt.; and in 1848, it was 2,700,000 cwt. And when he included the East Indies with the West, and looked at the whole importations, he found a still greater increase. The quantity of sugar imported from the East and West Indies was, in 1848, 5,000,000 cwt. He would not admit, however, that the Colo- nial Office was solely responsible for this policy; but the returns showed, notwithstanding the effects of the change consequent upon free trade, that there were good grounds to hope that the free-trade policy would lead to a state of more healthy and permanent prosperity. He would now turn to the Australian colonies, and he would ask if any one could doubt that they were prospering? Let them take the population of New South Wales, and they would find an enormous increase. In 1838, the population was 97,000; and in 1847, it had increased to 205,000. In 1838, the exports were 800,000 l .; and in 1847, 1,800,000 l ., and the land in cultivation had increased from 92,000 acres in 1838, to 164,000 acres in 1847. In 1835, the wool exported was 411,600 lbs., and in 1847 it had increased to 22,000,000 lbs. In South Australia, the value of the wool exported amounted, in 1837, to 60,000 l ., and in 1847 it had increased to 110,000 l . These returns showed that there was a great increase of prosperity; and he hoped that free institutions would secure to those colonies still greater advantages. He did not deny that there were other and great matters connected with the colonies which required consideration; but he would ask whether it would be advisable to refer to a commission such as that proposed by the hon. Baronet such questions as those of the slave trade, free trade, and emigration? He believed the proposition of the hon. Baronet to be nothing but a dream and a, delusion. He knew that the hon. Baronet had a sincere desire to promote the prosperity of the colonies; but the proposition before the House emanated from one of those peculiar prepossessions against the Colonial Office, which, having long dwelt in the mind, could not be got rid of in any other way than by an amateur commission. The proposed commission could not inquire into all these subjects within any reasonable time. But they were to inquire, also, into the acts of the Government. Now, that was a subject which deserved attention; and there was a Committee sitting upstairs already, which was considering that subject in reference to two colonies, but which had not concluded their inquiries. A Committee was sitting on the Ordnance Estimates, and was considering the expenditure of that department with reference to the colonies; inquiry was, therefore, going on. Ha thought the hon. Baronet had not looked into the subject with sufficient attention. One great complaint was the military expenditure occasioned by the colonies; but it might well be doubted if it would be found practicable to suddenly reduce that expenditure. He did not mean to say that reductions might not be made; but he thought, on the whole, that no extensive or important alterations could be suddenly effected. He believed a large force was necessary, and that it was generally felt necessary for the protection of the highway of the seas; and that the trade of the country could not be carried on without it. It was, in point of fact, essential for the purposes of trade. There was not one single one of their colonies that was not asking for additional force; and why, he would ask, did they do so? [Mr. HUME: I suppose to spend British money there.] He denied that such alone was the fact. Their great object was to obtain British ships of war to give security to their trade in the surrounding waters, and not for the mere money that might be spent. It was for the great advantages which were secured in these parts of the world by the increased security which the presence of a force gave. The average expenditure for the force afforded for the aid of 31 colonies, as appeared from a return ordered on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, was 760,000 l ., besides 239,000 l . for the commissariat; that was to say, 1,000,000 l . in all for the military force for the colonies. When he looked to Africa, the Mauritius, and New Zealand, and the West Indies, with their vast native population, he would ask them if they could speedily expect to have the force in those colonies reduced? They might be able to do so in the course of time, but it must be done gradually, and would be the work of time. The greater part of the expense was incurred in keeping up their military establishments in Canada, Gibraltar, the Ionian Islands, St. Helena, and Hong-Kong. The expenditure in pay for these establishments was 751,000 l ., and for the commissariat, 92,000 l . The speech of the hon. Baronet that night was, in fact, in favour of abandoning the colonies altogether; but his speeches hitherto had been in support of an opposite policy. The question involved is, whether or not the colonial empire of the country was to be maintained; and he should like to know how that question could be decided by the five gentlemen who were to be made com- missioners for the purpose. He had endeavoured to show to the House that the proposition was impracticable, and he could not help coming to the conclusion that it was a delusion; it was calculated to raise expectations which could not be satisfied; and would, if carried, paralyse a great department of the State, and raise expectations in the colonies which could not be realised. If it were agreed to, every possible grievance between the mother country and the colonies would be laid before the commission, and it would be an act of the greatest possible impolicy to trust to five gentlemen, presided over by the hon. Baronet, questions of such importance; and, if on no other ground, he called upon the House to reject the Motion.

Sir, I look to this question, not so much with reference to the precise terms in which it is worded, as to its general scope and object. With reference to the precise words, it might be supposed that this commission was to institute a minute inquiry into our colonial administration, and into any abuse or grievance which any of our colonies might complain of—in short, to institute a minute inquiry into the whole conduct of the Colonial Department. And the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has taken advantage of this construction of the Motion. I think with him that if such were the object of the commission, the House would commit a great error if it was to address Her Majesty on the subject. But, if I understand the question aright, the object of the hon. Baronet is not to fasten charges on those who administer the colonies here or elsewhere, but its object is to come to some rule and principle as to the future administration of our colonial empire. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies has, in a great degree no general objections to urge against such an inquiry, but he has rested his opposition to the Motion on what the present Colonial Minister has done for the Colonies. The hon. Gentleman has said on this point that Earl Grey has done more than any of his predecessors in extending institutions to the colonies, and that he has settled many questions which were of great importance on principles of local self-government. I am not going to enter into a consideration of Earl Grey's Government, upon many points of which there is a great difference of opinion: but I think that upon many points Earl Grey is equal to any, and on some points superior to many of his predecessors. I admit his unwearied industry, and the activity and watchfulness and general fitness of the agents whom he has selected to carry out his views and policy; yet I cannot hesitate to express my opinion that he has been led, in certain cases, into serious errors, which have greatly aggravated the difficulties of the question; and this House should take some means to prevent their recurrence. Now, Sir, it appears to me that, instead of resting satisfied, as is commonly the case, with leaving the question in the hands of the Government, we ought to consider whether we should not call in some other mode of inquiring into colonial matters, in order to endeavour to perfect our principles and policy. I think the time has arrived when such an inquiry ought to be instituted; and, looking to the scope of the Motion of the hon. Baronet rather than to the particular words of it, I must say I think the time has arrived when we should make such attempt. In the first place, we must consider the immense mass of business which the Colonial Secretary must look to in detail, and which cannot, like some of the business of other departments, be laid aside; and this vast mass of business must be looked to in detail at a great distance from the spot, and must depend upon partial information; and, from the frequent changes of Ministry which take place under our constitutional system, before a despatch is answered, a change of Ministry may take place. The Colonial Department has the conduct of correspondence with countries situated in every quarter of the globe, and I remember an instance in which, before the return of the post which conveyed a despatch, I was out of office. But, besides this, there is this farther difficulty with which the Colonial Minister has to contend in a greater degree than any other department—that in nine cases out of ten, it is impossible for him to draw the attention of Parliament to colonial questions. I say nine out of ten cases, because in the tenth the attention of Parliament is obtained, on account of party spirit, to certain colonial questions; but in that case the consideration of the question is embittered by British party spirit. If there were the same facility for drawing the attention of the House to colonial business, which there is with reference to matters connected with the Home Department of the Board of Trade, then things would be different; and it is this consideration which has brought me to the conclusion that, upon the whole, it is my duty, although I know how objectionable commissions generally are, to support the Motion. It would be, I think, the duty of the Government, if a commission of this kind' were appointed, not to hold themselves to the very terms of the Motion of the hon. Baronet, verbum in verbo , but to issue instructions that would limit the operations of the commission, and mark and define its powers. The commission should be so appointed, with such a description of its ends and objects, and its reports should be presented within a reasonable time. There is an objection to such a commission, that it would diminish the responsibility of the Minister; but if the business of the Minister is too great, and being too great the responsibility is too large, and being removed from the common view, his responsibility in fact becomes no responsibility at all, for in the great majority of questions he cannot get the means to consider the question until the evil is gone by, or interfere until the proper time for interference is passed, the argument with respect to the diminution of responsibility loses a great deal of its force. I may here call attention to the significant fact, that the Government have themselves already made an arrangement that involves the objection to this commission. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinsale objects to the commission on the ground that it would receive from the Secretary for the Colonies, or from the Under Secretary for the Colonies, the weight of Parliamentary responsibility; but the same objection applies to the Committee of Council. Even though that Committee of Council were composed entirely of Members of the Administration, the objection would still apply in a considerable degree; but when that is not the case, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the objection he now takes to the appointment of five gentlemen, whose images he sees in the distant prospective, does not apply to the Committee of Council which has been the object of his praise? Sir James Stephens is a member of that Council, but he is not a political officer. I believe there are other gentlemen members of it who are not political officers; and in the same category' would be the five gentlemen who would compose the commission, in pursuance of the Motion of the hon. Baronet. The essence, therefore, of the objection of the hon. Gentleman is equally applicable to the Committee of Council. But I do not make that as a charge against the Committee of Council; I do not want to blame him for appointing the Committee of Council; but I do think there is a primâ facie objection to it, because there is a frank confession on the part of the Government that the Minister wanted extraneous aid to discharge his duty; and the principle being admitted, the question is as to the best mode and form of giving that extraneous aid. I will not say that extraneous aid should be given with respect to all the duties of the office of Colonial Secretary, but there are a great number of questions in which that aid might be given by a commission appointed by the Executive Government, and acting in harmony with it, and having its duties so distributed that we might be assured that the results of its labours would be presented in reasonable succession, and within reasonable times. I think I am bound to point out that these are fit subjects for the inquiries of this commission—subjects for the consideration of which some of the most able men should be chosen, who would deal with them irrespective of all party consideration, and by that means we might obtain results that would afford us great assistance, and be a guide to us in our deliberations. Although it is our general rule to transact business without the aid of a commission, yet cases have happened where we have recognised it as a sound principle, that when the business of a particular department is too large to be coped with by that department, we should call in the aid of a commission. The poor-law difficulty was not dealt with by the Secretary of State, but by a commission. When you had your plan of church reform, you appointed an ecclesiastical commission to inquire into the reforms that ought to be made, and Parliament acted upon its views. I think the appointment of commissions for extraordinary purposes, under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, is a reasonable plan, and one that has abundant sanction from former precedent. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies has made reference to two reports of Committees, one with respect to Ceylon, and the other with regard to Guiana. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose has promised us a separate discussion on the affairs of Guiana, I will not go into that case; but I must say, referring to the report of that Committee, that the course recommended by the Committee is materially different from the course taken by Earl Grey. There is a difference between them with respect to the reduction of the salary of the Governor; and the result of the labours of the Committee would be to modify materially the policy of the Colonial Office, in regard to British Guiana. That, I think, is another argument in favour of the institution of this Committee. The hon. Gentleman has certainly shown that there are some questions which are not subjects of inquiry by this commission. He referred to the discontent in the West Indies, and he asked, will you propose that the commission shall inquire into the cause of discontent in the West Indies—he said that discontent has its foundation in the policy of free trade; and I ask, will you allow that policy to be considered by the hon. Gentlemen forming this commission; and the hon. Gentleman said he protested against that. I agree with him, and I think the hon. Gentleman behind me will agree with him, that the policy of free trade ought not to be considered by any five gentlemen who sit on a commission of this kind. I at once concede that there are many questions connected with the colonies, particularly where questions of imperial policy are involved, that ought to be sedulously excluded from this commission. I consider that we ought to have the power of limiting the inquiries of the commission, and that it should not be a general commission for the examination of all sorts of complaints, because such complaints exist. It is my duty, and the duty of those who are prepared to support the Motion, to show there are cases where the labours of such a commission might be of service. In the first place, it would be most useful that a body of well-selected gentlemen should consider what are the general rules that should be followed in the establishment of new colonies. There is no remission from the pressure of constant business on the Colonial Minister, and when such a proposition comes before him, he must view it with its entire details. I will give you an instance of the difficulty that may arise in such a case. When Lord Stanley was in office, that noble Lord, in conjunction with the right hon. Member for Ripen, proposed to establish a new settlement in the north part of Australia, and the public were put to an expense of 4,000 l . or 15,000 l .; but when Earl Grey came into office, he was of opinion that it was not expedient to go on with the settlement, and it consequently was abandoned. There should be some change adopted for binding a decision when come to, and that would give Parliament a voice in the question. Then there was another case, the case of the Auckland Islands, in which several successive Secretaries were of opinion that it was not necessary to sanction the establishment of a new settlement; hut Earl Grey thought differently, and gave his sanction to it. I don't know that such a question as that is one that can he well referred to the discretion of Parliament, but I think it would be possible to lay down general principles applicable to such cases, which would assist the Colonial Minister when right, and keep him within bounds when he was wrong. There is another case that was the subject of a lengthened discussion last year, and I am sorry it must be the subject of another lengthened discussion this year—I mean the case of Vancouver's Island. That case, taken alone, is quite enough to show it is absolutely necessary that some measure should be taken for the purpose of checking the arbitrary will of Colonial Ministers with respect to unoccupied territories. I think it is too much to say that the fate of a large portion of the surface of the earth, which, according to the view of several Members of this House, should be considered of great value with respect to their prospective social capabilities, should depend upon the will of any man who may condemn them to perpetual sterility, or within one degree of it. There is also the case of Jamaica, which should undergo the review of able and impartial men appointed for the purpose. [Mr. HAWES: Of the Committee of Council.] The hon. Gentleman says, "Of the Committee of Council;" therefore he agrees with me as to the necessity of such an inquiry. I am glad to find the question between us is not the broad question of principle, but merely the question of detail as to whether the best mode of settling the question is by a Committee of Council or by a commission. Then there is the New Zealand question, with respect to which it would be most valuable to have such a body of rules prepared as the ability of the gentlemen composing the commission would enable them to lay down. It is not with out some pain I refer to the history of these transactions, and to the position in which the Government and Parliament are placed in reference to the granting of free institutions to New Zealand. At the end of the Session of 1846, a Bill was passed with great precipitancy to enable the Queen to grant a representative constitution to New Zealand; but it was so framed that the very first step of Parliament in the ensuing Session was to retrace its own steps, and cancel its own doings by suspending for a number of years the constitution they granted, and, for all practical intents and purposes, to delegate to one man—a man, I admit, worthy of all respect—the whole authority of Parliament. The result of that, I am afraid, is very great discontent amongst the settlers of a portion of New Zealand. I heard with great pain a petition presented to-day on this subject. It is a marvel and mystery to me why the people of Wellington and that portion of New Zealand should not have been presented long ago with free institutions. If they were ready for them before, they cannot have absolutely retrograded; and yet their allegation is, that not only have no free institutions been granted to them, but there is only a hope held out that in the course of four years they may be granted to them. Now, in considering this question, we should not consider the concession of free institutions as some very great gift from us to them, but we should consider that when we are giving them free institutions, we are doing the greatest grace and favour to ourselves, not only on account of considerations of public economy in this country, which is closely connected with the improvement of our colonial system, but because it is our interest to give them strong and healthy powers of self-development; and where we wish to have it, we can only bring it out by enabling the people to learn by practice the management of their own affairs. With respect to the case of New Zealand, we should never have permitted those zigzag proceedings—this rapid advance, followed by as rapid a retreat—this stultification of ourselves; and the Secretary of State, instead of being at liberty to concoct a system of colonial philosophy for himself, should have been able to refer for information to a body of men chosen by the Executive Government—information which I am sure they would be able to furnish to him. I do not know whether my feelings may be shared by Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House; but next to my desire to see the powers of the colonists enlarged where it may not be impolitic, is my anxiety to see them restrained from managing affairs not their own. I want to have a sound definition of those questions that are imperial questions, and careful provisions laid down for the purpose of reserving those questions for our discretion. I am now referring to what has occurred in Canada; and I regret there was not such a distinction laid down there in reference to imperial and colonial questions. My doctrine is, that such questions should be inquired into and clearly defined. I don't say that human foresight would be able to cover every imaginable case that might arise; but with respect to colonial and imperial questions I would define the exact line. That is done in America by the line that is drawn between the federal and the general government. We should consider this question in connexion with the financial condition of the country. How often does it happen that the desires of the people, however widely extended, for the reduction of taxation, are of necessity met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer assuring us with all sincerity and gravity that the necessities of the public service absolutely demand such and such expenditure, and prevent him from making the required reductions. I think it is material, though I don't hold it out as the first object of our policy, that we should consider whether the system of military defence carried on in the colonies is not needlessly expensive; and I don't see why great good might not be done by a commission on that point. There is the case of the Cape of Good Hope and the Kafir war, where a million and a half of money was virtually spent, or the obligation to pay it contracted, before Parliament heard a word on the subject. I don't say a commission would meet all the difficulties; but a commission would do this—it would materially assist us in laying down sound rules and principles for the defence of the colonies. I am sorry to hear the hon. Under Secretary of State speak with so much disparagement of the former colonial system before the independence of the United States; for such was the spirit of freedom in that colony, and such was the colonists' sense of competency not only to govern but to defend themselves, that they were not, as the hon. Gentleman says the colonists are now, perpetually besieging us with demands for more troops and ships of war, and with complaints when the troops and ships of war are withdrawn; but with them it was a question of jealousy to have to provide for the permanent maintenance of British troops within the colony, because they held they were able to protect themselves. This subject is worthy of inquiry, and of much more inquiry than the Secretary of State can give it. I will refer now to another case which appears to me to be a proper case for the examination of a commission—that is, the relation between our colonists and the aborigines with respect to their boundaries; and without imputing any fault to the Colonial Office, for I do not think the root of the evil is in the Colonial Office, but outside of it, there have been in some cases instances of vacillation and change, of capricious change, having no reference to reason, but merely to accidental circumstances, which are most discreditable. I take the case of the Cape, and see what have been the changes of policy with respect to the Cape. Some years ago, a coercive policy was enforced, and it was resolved to effect the repression of the Kafir tribes with a strong hand. In the year 1835, philanthropy was at high-water mark, and the Colonial Office was obliged to give in to those who wished to go the greatest length in favour of the aborigines. The consequence was, that the stringent system was given up, and a great portion of territory was abandoned. And what is now the case? For some years philanthropy, instead of being at high-water mark, has been at low-water mark, and has not interfered inconveniently; and philanthropy being, it is said, at a discount, very short work has been made with the Kafirs; the policy of territorial aggrandisement has been pursued to an extent exceeding all example; and we have not only undone all we did when we gave up the ceded territory, but likewise we have made enormous additions to it. Now, that case might be inquired into by such a commission as that proposed. I will not pass by the relations we have with the aborigines without adverting to another most singular case. In, the year 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi was entered into without a dissentient voice. It recognised the rights of the aborigines, and even went something beyond what sound reason might suggest; but that Treaty of Waitangi has since been disparaged in public despatches. I do not ask the House to decide whether the Treaty of Waitangi was right, or whether the principles laid down by Earl Grey, in 1846, were right, but I say both were not right; they are in diametrical opposition to each other, and it is not for the honour of the country, when dealing particularly with aboriginal tribes, that their policy should be marked with such vacillation, for it leads to imputations of bad faith; but if we had the assistance of such rules as a well chosen commission would lay down, we could never get into such difficulties, because a uniform course would be pursued by the Government from the first to the last moment of the transaction. I am now speaking of the relations of the aborigines with respect to land; but there is another question to which I must request the attention of the House, and that is, the management of the land after it has been acquired by the Crown, and regularly constituted colonies have been established. In the year 1842 the Land Sales Act was passed, and that Act has been the cause of discontent in New South Wales. It passed through the House of Commons without attracting the attention that such a measure deserved. That was no fault of the House of Commons, for it was occupied at the time by other matters which were more imperative; but it was a great misfortune that such a question should be dealt with in such an off-hand manner, because we are at present entirely at sea with respect to that Act. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of the Colonies approves of that Act, and from his speeches I think he would wish that Act was at the bottom of the sea. We are at a loss to know who should have the control of that wild land. We are in uncertainty about it, and the consequence is, inequality in our dealings and the appearance of injustice. New South Wales, though not so populous as Canada, contains about 200,000 of our fellow-subjects, men of the same race and blood as ourselves, and they are under the absolute and unmitigated control of this Act of Parliament, though they believe almost without a dissentient voice that the impolicy of that Act is actually ruinous to them. We might come down here, and say they are all wrong and we are right; but do we hold that doctrine? Are there five men amongst those who hear me who have a fixed conviction that the price of wild land in New South Wales ought not to be less than 20 s . an acre? The Act is entirely a dead letter so far as we are concerned; but although it is a dead letter to us, it is as a yoke of iron to them, restraining their freedom of action in matters in which they feel deeply interested. There is another question upon which a commission such as that proposed by the hon. Baronet would perhaps render some assistance to the Colo- nial Office; that is, the question of transportation. I know not what we are to do with that question in connexion with the existence of free institutions in our colonies. I hope, however, to hear the deliberate opinion of the Government upon that subject when we come to discuss the Australian Bill. It is a problem which perhaps nobody will be able completely to solve. While I think that the labours of the commission would not perhaps give entire satisfaction to all parties, still I cannot help thinking that the labours of a commission judiciously applied to the question of transportation, would have saved us from a great deal of that vacillation which has aggravated considerably the difficulties of dealing with the subject by successive Secretaries for the Colonies. I do not blame any individual for this. I think that it is the result of the system of a sort of hand-to-mouth legislation, which has for so long a period existed with respect to the colonies. I do not think it would be possible for a commission to deal simultaneously with the whole of these objects; but I think that its labours might be devoted to some of the questions which press most heavily upon the colonists. Upon the whole, I am satisfied that such a commission, appointed with the care which you would exercise in its appointment, would be a most material aid and assistance in the discharge of the duties of the government of the colonies. Such being my opinion, I cannot hesitate in giving my support to the Motion of the hon. Baronet. I hope that we have all the same end in view. What we have to look at is the good of the country and of the colonies. If we direct our minds steadily to the promotion of the good of the colonies and of the people of the country in relation to them, we need not fear our connexion with the colonies. Upon the contrary, I believe that would be the way to maintain our connexion with them, and to maintain that which I believe is even more important than the mere political connexion between the colonies and this country—namely, the love of the colonies for this country, and a desire to imitate the laws and institutions of the great country from which they spring.

felt satisfied that upon the grounds put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, who brought forward this Motion, it would be impossible for the right hon. Member for the university of Oxford to concur in the Motion. The hon. Baronet who opened the debate allowed that his Motion was nothing less than a vote of censure upon the whole colonial policy of the British empire. He thought that nothing could be more impolitic than the expression of such an opinion by the House of Commons. Nothing could be more unjust than that sweeping censure, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not declare that he supported the Motion on that ground. It was impossible to deny that grave errors had at various times characterised our colonial policy, but he, denied that the system on which our colonies were founded was tinctured with ignorance and malevolence. Looking to the happiness which prevailed in most of our colonies, there was no reason to regret the manner in which they had been founded and sustained. The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark proposed to refer all the most important points of colonial policy to a commission, to be composed of one Member from each quarter of the House, with Mr. John Stewart Mill as arbiter. But, if the commission was to represent Parliament, why had not the House of Lords a representative in it? He objected to the delegation of such important functions to a commission, on the ground that it was unconstitutional in principle. The great questions which it was proposed to refer to the commission, ought to be solved by the Ministers of the Crown, who were responsible for the advice they gave. If the Colonial Secretary were desirous of shirking responsibility and saving himself trouble, he could desire nothing better than the appointment of the commission. He could not understand from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, whether he wished the commission to be a standing one to which all cases should be referred as they arose, or whether he desired a commission to be appointed for special purposes. If the latter, the proposition would not be liable to much objection, for there were some questions, such as the management of wild lands and the relations between colonists and aborigines, which might advantageously be referred to a commission. The important question of the institutions to be given to Australia, and also, he believed, that of the institutions proposed to be given to the Cape of Good Hope, were referred to the Council of Trade and Plantations. All those questions could be con- sidered with advantage by a body of that description, and useful assistance might be thereby given to the Secretary of State; but that was altogether different from a body of commissioners, independent of the Government, to whom such questions should be referred. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought it would be desirable if the commissioners had to decide upon what questions were imperial and what belonged to the local responsible government; and that if such a rule had been laid down, there never would have been any dispute with respect to the question that had lately been discussed as to Canada. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman could not have quoted a stronger argument to show how impossible it would have been for the commissioners to decide any questions of that kind. He thought the Executive Government might, and were bound in extreme cases, to interfere as to the limit of imperial or local authority; but to lay down general rules to define questions of that kind, was utterly impossible; and no better illustration of that could be given than the case of Canada, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, where the rules which would have done for Upper Canada, would not have been applicable to Lower Canada. Objecting as he did to this Motion, he hoped he should not be understood as saying that he did not believe great improvement was not required, and might not be effected in our system of colonial government. He believed that we were fast coming to the conclusion that the only real and solid ties between the mother country and the colonies must be mutual affection, interest, and good government, and, as far as possible, freedom. He was satisfied that his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department was most anxious to act upon those principles as rapidly as he could; but, considering how our colonies were scattered over the whole world, it was impossible to lay down general, abstract, and inflexible rules for all. The Motion of the hon. Baronet would, he was sure, if agreed to, end in disappointment, proposing as it did the establishment of a body half executive and half legislative, and from the deliberations of which no good could follow to the country, and the effect of which would be to suspend all improvement in the condition of the colonies while the inquiry was being proceeded with.

said, in explanation, that he did not contemplate a standing commission, but merely one of inquiry.

expressed a hope that the hon. Baronet who had brought forward the present Motion, would be more successful in it than he had been in a similar Motion last Session. The grounds upon which legislation was proceeded with, appeared to be such as were not distinctly understood or stated. He contended that the Executive Government was responsible for the government of the colonies. All the circumstances connected with the passing of Acts relating to the colonies, proved what he had stated, that the Executive Government of this country was responsible for their management. As to the allusion made by the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies to the policy of Sir Benjamin D'Urban, he believed that Sir Benjamin D'Urban's policy was not one for an extension of territory, but was rather directed to the preservation of those territories which they had already possessed, and to the encouragement and extension of their trade. For the reasons he had stated, he would support the proposition of the hon. Baronet.

did not think that the answer given by the hon. Under Secretary to the Colonies to the speech made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark was such as to give much satisfaction. He was of opinion that the success of the theories of the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies was not such as to encourage him to persevere in the course that he had heretofore pursued. The objections that had been made to the proposed commission, were such as would hold equally good against a commission on the subject of the poor-laws, or any other subject of an extensive character. A commission was only called in upon an extraordinary emergency like this, when it had to deal with large principles and great measures. In opposing the simple proposition of the hon. Baronet, the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had offered no alternative. The subject here was highly important, and he could see no reason for refusing the commission asked for. The importance of the subject was beyond all dispute, and the demands of the colonies were so loud and so general that it was impossible but something of the kind proposed by his hon. Friend must soon be adopted. The English having been always accustomed to self administration, would always look to it as their birthright, and would never be satisfied without it. He thought that there could be no doubt but they had been proceeding upon a wrong principle with their colonies, and they would be soon compelled to alter it. They were nationally interested in proceeding upon a wide field for emigration. This inquiry was, therefore, immediately necessary, and he was most willing to accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet.

said, that the hon. Baronet who had proposed the Motion had proposed it in terms which might induce many Members in that House, of various opinions, to join in asking for the appointment of a commission, because it was to be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the administration of Her Majesty's colonial possessions, with a view of removing the causes of colonial discontent, diminishing the cost of colonial government, and giving a scope to individual enterprise in the matter of emigration. It was evident that there were causes for colonial complaint, and also that every hon. Member who thought that there was a particular complaint or cause of complaint with respect to the treatment of any colony, would desire to have those causes inquired into—to diminish the cost of colonial government, which had always been a popular subject with Gentlemen sitting near the hon. Mover—and to give a scope to individual enterprise in the business of colonisation. The hon. Baronet had therefore framed his Motion with the view of obtaining considerable support in that House. But when he (Lord J. Russell) endeavoured, in the progress of the debate, to catch some definite object which this commission was to attain, he confessed he found himself at a loss. Commissions had been appointed for special objects—to inquire, for example, into the abuses of the poor-law, and suggest a remedy—to inquire into matters connected with the Church, and suggest alterations. Commissions had been appointed on various other subjects, in order that upon the whole scope of their examination into them, they might suggest such measures as might be available to remove the cause of complaint. But a commission which was to investigate the proceedings in all our colonies, with their various constitutions and customs, and various races of inhabitants—to inquire into the causes of complaint in each—to proceed after that inquiry to settle what would be the best means of defence of each of our military and other colonies—to lay down plans of colonisation—that appeared to him to be an inquiry so vast, and leading into such a multitude of details, that he could not imagine any commission would have the power of entering upon it. As regarded the point whether this was to be a standing commission, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford said that that was not his intention; but considering the subjects for inquiry, the probability was not very apparent that even in the lifetime of the youngest Member of that House, the commission would terminate its labours. The hon. Member for Southwark declared that if the House agreed to the commission, they would pass a vote of censure upon the colonial policy of this country for the last three-quarters of a century. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, however, did not seem to entertain that idea with respect to the general colonial policy, but appeared to think, nevertheless, that great errors had been committed; and he also appeared to hold an opinion which could have been scarcely expected to be found in one conversant with the business of that House, namely, that if five persons were collected from different sides of the House, with one to superintend and arbitrate among them, some certain and infallible rule of wisdom in colonial matters would be obtained. That seemed, however, to be somewhat of an Utopian attempt. The hon. Baronet said that there was another object in the appointment of commissioners—that they might define what colonies were, what was the meaning of the word colony, and what object a country ought to have in founding a colony. This, again, was a question of an entirely abstract nature, for which it was hardly necessary to appoint a commission. But that which appeared to be entirely fatal to the proposed commission was, that there was such a multiplicity of subjects to inquire into, that it would be impossible to come to any rational conclusion upon any of them. And if the commissioners were to attempt to carry on the ordinary business of administering the government of our colonies, then there must at once be an interference with the Executive Government of the country. The hon. Baronet enlarged upon the fairness with which the commission was to be composed, stating that there was to be the Under Secretary for the Colonies in the first place; that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, or the right hon. Gen- tleman the Member for the University of Oxford, or the noble Earl the Member for Falkirk, should be the second Member; that some Gentleman belonging to the protectionist party should be the third; that one of his own friends should be the fourth; and that some learned author, such as Mr. John S. Mills, should be the fifth. Those were to be the members of a commission which was to give an opinion upon all subjects of colonial government, colonial grievances, and colonial policy. As his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had said with respect to the causes of the complaint which had been heard during the last two years, if not longer, those causes of complaint were diverse. The cause of complaint in the West Indian colonies was, that the system of protection, which alone had enabled them to flourish, had been taken away, and that they had thus been deprived of the means of cultivating their estates, and obtaining a profit from their capital. Then that would be one of the first subjects for the commission to inquire into; and here he feared the protectionist member of the commission would find four to one against him, and so there would be an end for ever of that loudest of the outcries on the subject of colonial government. Let the House consider what was this system, as it was called, of colonial government which the hon. Baronet thought so vicious and so mischievous that it was necessary to have a decision of the House upon it, not as regarded the administration of that system by the present Government, but upon the whole of the policy of many successive Governments. If he took instances of the growth of only one or two of these colonies, he found, by a late publication, that in Lower Canada the population, which in 1825 was only 423,000, bad increased in 1848 to 756,000; that in Upper Canada, the population, which in 1824 was 151,000, had increased in 1848 to 723,000: so that the two provinces now united, which in 1824 contained about 570,000 persons, now contained about a million and a half of inhabitants. Was that a proof of the misgovernment, or of the slow growth of the colony, that it should have increased so much in population in the course of these twenty-four years? He would next advert to one of the Australian colonies. Take the population of New South Wales, including Port Phillip. In 1837 the total population was 85,000, but in 1846, nine years after, it had increased to 196,000; and he believed that by the latest accounts it had been found to exceed 200,000 persons. If he looked into other details, he found similar indications of increase. The imports of New South Wales had increased from 1,300,000 l . in 1837, to 1,600,000 l . in 1846; while the exports had increased from 760,000 l . in 1837, to 1,481,000 l . in 1846. Here was an increase in the population and wealth of two colonies only to which a parallel could scarcely be found in the history of colonisation. He asserted, then, that there was some presumption in favour of that system which the House was now called upon to condemn. Let the House observe in what way this commission was to proceed, and what was the position of our colonies. The hon. Baronet, in the indulgence of his imagination, was pleased to suppose Her Majesty's Government, or the majority in this House, or somebody or other in this country, to be unfavourable to the extension of freedom in our colonies. There was no such hostility as the hon. Gentleman supposed. Regard the actual condition of the colonies. The North American colonies had free institutions; and the Government were told the other day that they had done wrong in agreeing to a law which had passed through the Legislature of one of those colonies, and that they ought by the imperial authority to have interfered. Therefore, there was no complaint against the Government that they did not allow full freedom to Canada. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Jamaica and the older West Indian colonies, had the same free constitution, and it was now proposed to introduce still further freedom. What, then, was this commission to inquire into? If it proposed to limit the freedom of the colonies, they would resent the interference, and any attempt to restrict colonial liberty must necessarily lead to fresh complaints from those colonies. With respect, then, to one of the points which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford considered one of the main subjects for inquiry, the commission was stopped at once in inquiry by the fact of these colonies having already liberties which could not be amended, and which the commissioners would not attempt to prevent. But upon the general principle, he should belittle disposed to recommend to the adoption of the House the appointment of any commission whatsoever which was to lay down rules for the limitation of the imperial authority on the one hand, or of colo- nial liberty on the other. The best way to preserve those limits was to use forbearance on either side—to consider each question that arose upon its own proper merits—so that, on the side of the colony, there should be no desire to put forward unreasonable demands; and, on the part of the Imperial Government, no wish to restrain any freedom the exercise of which was beneficial to the colonies. If this disposition were preserved, no question could arise calculated to excite bitterness and hostility. But if rigid and fixed rules were to be laid down, the very interpretation of those rules must lead to disputes; bitter feelings would be excited; and, so far from putting an end to the difficulties, that very provision for so doing would increase them. If this commission was to exist for only a short time, it could not lay down rules which would be of any value. By the rules of the ancient constitution of this country, and by opinions held so far back as the reign of Charles H., if there were freedom at all in a colony, it ought to have its council and its representative assembly, and a governor representing the Crown. That was the constitution, generally speaking, for the colonies; and if they had that, all other rules would follow from such a constitution. But if he found that in Australia, for instance, an opinion prevailed for an assembly, partly composed of the nominees of the Crown, and partly of the popular representatives, he would rather see that form working harmoniously and with the consent of the people, than enforce one upon them which was repugnant to their feelings. His belief was, that all questions of administration were to be decided in the first place by having certain fixed principles; but, in the next place, by not using those principles as invariable rules, but by adapting them to the circumstances of the country in which those principles were to be applied. No man who had considered politics had come to a different conclusion. The man who perhaps had written with the most force, with almost mathematical precision, and with the greatest beauty of language, on questions of politics, declared at the end of his life, that politics, after all, was but the science of circumstances and modifications; and that the particular questions to which rules were to be applied, and the particular countries in which laws were to be introduced, were to be considered by the statesman, and not solely according to any abstract theory. If he was right in this, there would be little use in appointing this commission for the purpose of laying down abstract rules for colonial government. Abstract rules, moreover, laid down for some thirty or forty colonies, inhabited by different people, and acting according to different customs, must fait of their intended effect. He could not conceive how the House would obtain any satisfaction, or that responsibility to which they were entitled, if they were to have a commission appointed to give an opinion on these multifarious questions. If the Secretary of State differed from these five gentlemen, they would have no responsibility, and the Government would have none, and all responsibility would vanish between them. There being so many difficulties in colonial government, and so many questions upon it having arisen of late years, he could not wonder that the present Motion should have found favour in that House. It would, however, have been a different matter if a commission had been proposed to inquire into some particular question, such as, for example, that of the waste lands. Questions of this nature were fit for a commission, and upon such he should not interpose any opposition; but with regard to the general colonial government, in his opinion, it was better to leave it to be dealt with by the responsible Ministers of the Crown, subject afterwards to the control and supervision of Parliament. That was the free constitution of this country. Then he was told it was inconconvenient to have changes of policy. That was true. There was no chance more inconvenient than a change in our foreign policy. A change in the opinion of that House, which made it necessary for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to resign, brought another Minister into that department, though there was no part of our policy in which it was more important to have a steady political bearing. The Emperor of Russia had a great advantage in this respect, because, from the year 1815 to 1849, he had but one Foreign Minister, who had held continually the same language, followed the same policy, and treated all foreign Powers according to that invariable and unchangeable policy. He had thus a great advantage over us in this. The case was similar with regard to our colonial policy. And if it were the case with regard to our colonial and foreign policy, so it was with many other departments of the Government of this country. But if we meant to have a free and not a despotic Government, we must be content to pay this price for the advantage. We must not think, by setting up four gentlemen of different politics, perhaps, and one learned umpire, who had possibly written upon political science, to ensure that stability and that unchangeableness of character which did not belong to the character of our institutions, but which were properly applicable to arbitrary and despotic governments, and which, moreover, we could not attain without sacrificing that which we prized more dearly than the advantage now sought for. He said, then, that the best thing the House could do with regard to colonial policy—having in a great degree departed in the last few years from the ancient colonial policy of the country—was to enlarge the freedom of the colonies, and to give them greater powers for governing themselves. It was not to be supposed either, that a Colonial Secretary, or a commission sitting in some other street than Downing street, could, at such a distance of place, govern in a manner the most satisfactory to the colonies. It was to the operation of the principle of self-government that he trusted for the future prosperity of the colonies. By so doing, no new principle would be introduced. No principle would be introduced at variance with our free constitution. There would be nothing to lead to discord in the Executive Government; but we should be resting upon the ancient principles of colonisation which our forefathers adopted, and be acting in conformity with the constitution that we prized in this country, and which attached our colonies to this country as an example of freedom.

, in reply, said, he did not insist upon the exact terms of his Motion. If they were too comprehensive, he was willing to modify them, so that the object would be more clearly defined. He really believed that such a commission would be a public advantage both to the colonies and the mother country.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 163: Majority 74.

The House adjourned at One o'clock.