completed, and it had not been thought desirable to
remove this, but orders had been given for discontinuing
all further decoration.—The CHANCELLOR OF THE
EXCHEQUER said that he had been much surprised at
finding that Mr. Barry had been ornamenting the house,
which it had been intended should be perfectly plain;
and he added that he had given positive orders on the
subject the very day he ascertained the fact.—Sir D.
NORREYS defended Mr. Barry, remarking upon the
absurdity of preventing his affixing such ornaments as
were required by the medieval style of the building.—
Colonel RAWDON read a statement from Mr. Barry,
denying that he had knowingly acted in opposition to
the wishes of the house, but insisting that all the
decorations he had desired to add were absolutely
necesary to the architectural character of the edifice.
The gallant Colonel protested against the imputations
against the professional character of Mr. Barry contained
in the notice of Sir De Lacy Evans.—Various other
members addressed the house upon the subject, which
then dropped.

The house then went into committee of supply
upon the Army Estimates, and the various votes for
the "non-effective" services were taken.

On Tuesday, April 15th, Mr. ADDERLEY moved an
address to her Majesty, praying the appointment of a
Commission with instructions to proceed to South
Africa, to inquire and report as to the best mode of adjusting
the Relations between this Country and the Kaffir
tribes. He observed that for the last two years, there
had been no regular government at the Cape of Good
Hope, and that the governor there had exerted an
entirely despotic power. Our attempt at the administration
of the colony had utterly failed. He entered
into an examination of the conduct of Sir Harry Smith,
glancing at the recent rebellion, and the undignified
escape of Sir Harry from the rebels, describing him as
just as much a prisoner as ever, with the important
difference that he was now shut up with 5000 men.
Describing this Kaffir war as different from any previous
one, inasmuch as it was a war, not for plunder, but for
the recovery of territory, he said that the fault of our
method of dealing with the Kaffir tribes was that it was
neither the coercive policy which should restrain them,
nor the civilising policy which should conciliate them,
but an unfortunate mixture of the two systems. It was
difficult to say which system should be adopted, but
there could be no doubt that a policy partaking of both
must fail, and there could be also no doubt that such
mingled policy was at present that of Earl Grey. In
advocating his proposal, he said that he strenuously
opposed that of Lord John Russell, on account of the
delay it would cause, adding that, though Sir W.
Molesworth's plan was very simple, it would occasion injustice
towards many individuals whose interests were
bound up with our present system. He concluded by
moving the above-mentioned address.—Lord J. RUSSELL
referred to the various important periods in the history
of the Cape colony to show that the policy we had
adopted towards the Kaffirs had been the necessary
result of the principle of self-preservation. Paying a
tribute to the military and general talents of Sir Harry
Smith, his lordship said that he, like his predecessors,
had been sedulously endeavouring to find a remedy
against the mischievous incursions of the frontier tribes.
The misplaced boundary of the colony had been one
great reason why these incursions had been often too
successful; but the Dutch, the original proprietors, had
established an organised system of defence, which,
however, had been too indiscriminate in its severity against
the natives. This system had been disallowed by the
government of Lord Stanley, but on that occasion the
colonists had urged that if that system were to be
abolished they should be permitted to frame another, or
else that the imperial government should itself defend
them from savage incursions. He referred to the
sanguinary incidents of the administration of Sir B. d'Urban
as a proof that what had recently taken place was neither
novel, nor could be legitimately brought forward as a
charge against the government, and added that Sir B.
d'Urban had advised the extension of the frontier. He
traced the steps which had been taken in regard to an
abandonment of the new frontier, and to treaties with
the native chiefs, under the administration of Lord
Glenelg, and adverted to the troubles which had been
the almost continuous consequence, alluding to the
vigorous measures which Sir Peregrine Maitland had
found it necessary to adopt. Sir H. Pottinger had
pursued the same policy, but, like Sir H. Smith, he had
endeavoured to govern the Kaffirs through their chiefs.
He followed up the argument that Sir. H. Smith had
only trodden in the steps of his predecessors; he
commented upon the different alternations of policy which
had been suggested to government; and defended the
course which had been adopted as that which offered
the greatest possibility of security combined with
humanity. But the circumstances which had occurred
fully justified his intended recommendation that a
committee be appointed to inquire into the question. He
conceived that there were numerous persons in England
qualified to give the necessary information. The
committee might suggest a commission to the colony, as
proposed by Mr. Adderley, but he thought it would be
premature to propose such a commission in the present
stage. He therefore moved, as an amendment to Mr.
Adderley's motion, that a select committee be appointed
to inquire into the relations between this country and
the Kaffir and other tribes on our South African frontier.
—Mr. V. SMITH objected to both motions, conceiving
the subject to be entirely one for the consideration of
the executive government. At the same time he
contended that our system must be changed, for we had
made no progress whatever in civilising or conciliating
the natives.—Mr. F. SCOTT supported Lord John
Russell's amendment. He condemned the "Bombastes
Furioso policy" of Sir H. Smith, and said he
considered Lord John Russell's amendment as amounting
to a censure upon the colonial policy we had hitherto
pursued.—Mr. MACKINNON defended Sir H. Smith,
and dwelt upon the difficulties of his position between
barbarism and civilisation.—Mr. GLADSTONE said that
such difficulties were great, no doubt, but might be
successfully dealt with. One of his objections to the
appointment of a committee upon such a subject as this,
was, that it removed responsibility from the shoulders
of the executive, upon which it ought to rest. Besides
this objection, there was that of the delay which would
be caused by referring the matter to a committee, by
which means it would be kept in suspense for a couple
of years, only to be the subject of debate at last.
Experience did not testify in favour of select committees
as a machinery for bringing colonies into a desirable
condition, and he should regard such a step in the
present case as a step in the wrong direction. Such
questions as those which recent events had raised
should be discussed in the localities in which they had
originated. The most scandalous corruption prevailed
in the management of the Cape war, which was a
fruitful source of demoralisation; and the responsibility
of such wars should lie with the parties interested in
them. Appeals might be made, on the ground of
humanity, against the proposed policy; but he had yet
to learn that the colonists were not perfectly well able
to defend themselves. If they should prove to be
unable, this country would gladly help them. The only
rational plan for making a colony vigorous and self-
relying was the founding it in freedom, and the giving
its government into its own hands. He thought the
bribe of a military expenditure a miserable resource
upon which to rely for securing the attachment of
colonists, and for preventing the apprehended dismemberment
of the empire.—Lord MANDEVILLE supported
Lord J. Russell's amendment, thinking inquiry might
be advantageous.—Colonel THOMPSON expressed his
opinion that we had ill-treated the African semi-
barbarians.—Sir E. N. BUXTON objected to the
withdrawal of imperial interference from the colony, as the
result would be that the Kaffirs would be "eaten up."
He regretted that Lord Glenelg's policy of justice and
conciliation had not been adhered to, and believed that, by
leaving the Boers to deal with the natives, expense would
not be lightened, and cruelty would be greatly increased.
—Mr. ROEBUCK ridiculed the arguments of Sir E.
Buxton, and declared, unhesitatingly, that wherever
the Anglo-Saxon came, an inferior man must and ought
to vanish from before him, for that he came to plant a