all existing evils, which their bill for nearly doubling
the site of Smithfield, and for re-organising its plan,
will introduce; and, on the other hand, they insisted
that the government scheme is in principle highly
injurious to enormous existing interests, and is, so far as
practical formation goes, up to this time totally in the
clouds—for not the least intimation is given, on the
contrary every intimation is withheld, of the site on which
the proposed roving commission may ultimately rest
their feet. Alderman SIDNEY complained that the
government influence was so fully exercised against the
bill promoted by the corporation; and pointedly told
Lord John Russell, that he cannot serve two masters,
and as he had served others at the expense of his
constituents, he must expect that his constituents would,
at a fitting opportunity, visit him with an expression of
their displeasure.—The bill was likewise supported by
Mr. Stuart Wortley, the Recorder of London, and
by several agricultural members, Sir C. Knightley
Mr. Stafford, and Sir H. Halford.—Mr. CHRISTOPHER,
in moving an amendment, that the bill be read
that day six months, showed that no central site can
be made a sufficient one to exhibit in a manner, that
consults the interests of the seller, even a portion of
the number of animals that would be brought to a
metropolitan market; he moved that the bill be read a
second time that day six months.—Mr. FITZROY seconded
the amendment; and showed how the petition in
favour of the city plan had been manufactured.—Mr.
W. WILLIAMS spoke against retaining Smithfield, and
advocated a suburban market on each side of the
Thames; but he was ready to give to the City measure
the fair privilege of reference to the same select
committee to which the government measure is referred.
Mr. W. Miles, Mr. Mackinnon, and Mr. Mowatt,
opposed the measure before the house; intending to
support the government bill. The government
opposition to the corporation measure was embodied by
Mr. Cornewall Lewis and Sir George Grey. Mr.
LEWIS put the issue pending distinctly before the house;
if the City bill were carried, the government bill would
necessarily fall to the ground; if, on the other hand,
the government bill were approved, the city bill must
necessarily be abandoned. With respect to tolls, the
City bill enormously increased them—raises them to
rates varying from threefold to sevenfold the existing
rates; while the government bill maintained the
present rates. With respect to a new site instead of the
present central one, government had not come to any
decision; the question was left quite at large, for the
determination of the commission to be appointed under
the bill.—Lord John RUSSELL said that he had not
resolved precipitately, and he will not now hesitate
about his duty, but will prefer the general interests of
the community to the partial interests of the citizens
of London.—The house divided on the amendment,
which was carried by 246 to 124; majority for the
removal of Smithfield Market, 122.

The second reading of the government measure, the
Smithfield Market Removal Bill, was then moved by
Mr. CORNEWALL LEWIS, and carried, after a slight
discussion, by 230 to 65. On the motion for its being
committed, Mr. HUME protested against the measure, which
he said was equivalent to declaring the city of London
unfit to manage its own affairs. Lord John Russell had
better have deprived it of its charter at once.—Lord
John RUSSELL said, that Smithfield market might be
quite large enough for the city, but the metropolis
consisted of a large and densely populated extent of ground
in addition to the city, and it was designed to legislate
for the benefit of the whole metropolis—an object for
which the City had refused to co-operate with government.
—Sir J. DUKE said, that the Corporation of London
did not complain that government proposed to
establish a new market, if it were deemed necessary,
but that it was proposed to abolish the old one.—Mr.
STAFFORD predicted that this bill would be thrown out
by the House of Lords, on the ground of its violating
ancient charters. The motion, referring the bill to a
select committee to be nominated, and five members to
be chosen by the committee of selection, was then
agreed to.

On Thursday, April 10, Sir W. MOLESWORTH moved
resolutions to the effect that steps should be taken to
relieve this country from its present Civil and Military
Expenditure on account of the Colonies; and that it is
expedient to give to the inhabitants of the colonies,
which are neither military stations nor convict settlements,
ample powers for their local self-government.
He began by stating the amount of the expenditure
incurred by the United Kingdom on account of the
colonies. According to the last return for 1846-7, this
amount was £3,500,000: the civil expenditure being
£500,000, the military £3,000,000. This charge had
rapidly increased from £1,800,000, in 1832; and the
sum of £3,000,000 did not cover the whole of the military
expenditure; to this sum, which represented the actual
disbursements in the colonies, must be added those at
home for the non-effective services, or a proportion of
the dead weight, which he took at five-elevenths of the
effective charge, or £1,000,000; which made a total of
£4,000,000. The whole question as to the reduction of
this expenditure resolved itself into the necessity of
maintaining 44,000 or 45,000 men in the colonies. He
contended that it was only necessary to garrison eight
military stations with 17,000 men, which would cost
£850,000, not much exceeding the charge for the Cape
of Good Hope alone, with a Kaffir war. The colonies,
properly so called, in North America, the West Indies,
Australasia, and South Africa, took 26,000 men, at the
cost to this country of £2,600,000 a year, about 8s. 6d.
in the pound of our exports to the colonies, and nearly
equal to their local revenue. If these colonies were
governed as they ought to be, he contended that no
troops would be required there at the expense of the
imperial treasury, except for military stations and
convict settlements. A military force demanded for colonial
purposes should be paid by the colony; if for imperial
objects, by the mother-country. Sir William distinguished
the several objects, and then examined the circumstances
of each colony, and the reductions of imperial expenditure
which might be effected in each. In the North
American colonies the military expenditure for imperial
purposes, he thought, could be diminished by £400,000
a-year. In the West India plantations there might be
reductions to the extent of £250,00. From the Australian
colonies nearly all the troops could be withdrawn.
In approaching the case of the South African colonies, he
took occasion to view the whole subject of the Kaffir
war, inquiring, first, who was to pay the cost; secondly,
the causes which had led to the war; thirdly, what
steps should be taken to protect the mother-country
against the expense of future frontier wars? He
assigned reasons why the whole burden of the present
conflict in British Caffraria could not be thrown upon
the colonists. His inquiry into its causes embraced a
comprehensive survey of the policy pursued by the
local government towards the native tribes, and a
criticism on the proceedings of Sir H. Smith, who, with
Lord Grey, he alleged, was responsible for this war.
Among other particulars connected with this subject,
Sir W. Molesworth noticed the deposition by Sir
H. Smith of the Kaffir Chief Sandilli, which led to the
present war, and quoted Sir Harry's own account of
the strange ceremonies he went through, on that
occasion. "The Kaffirs being arranged into a circle, I rode
into the midst of them, bearing in my right hand a
serjeant's halbert, well sharpened, the emblem of war;
in my left hand a magic wand, my baton of peace and
authority, surmounted with a brass knob. I directed
each chief to come forward, and touch whichever he
pleased—it was immaterial to me. They all touched
the symbol of peace; then each chief kissed my foot,
exclaiming 'Inkosi Inkulu.' I then shook hands with
each, never having done so before. Three cheers were
given; and thus commenced the foundation of their
social condition." At another meeting (said Sir W.
Molesworth) he treated the Kaffirs to a little conjuring.
"He had a waggon stationed on an eminence at a
considerable distance, with no one whatsoever near it.
'Now,' said Sir Harry to the Kaffirs—I quote his own
words—'you dare to make war! you dare to attack
our waggons! see what I will do if you ever dare to
touch a waggon or the oxen belonging to it! Do you
see that waggon, I say? Now hear my word—Fire!
(The waggon is blown up.) Ah! do you see the