The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-04-15 00:00:00

by a var

the whc

H. SMith, and his complete ignorance of the state of affairs in
the eastern frontier of the colony.—Mr. URQUHART seconded
the motion.—Mr. HAwEs believed that the policy advocated
by Sir W. Molesworth, which was based entirely upon pecu-
niary considerations, would be deeply injurious to the colonies,
and would injure the best interests of the empire. Moreover,
ild find it very difficult to distinguish
lonies proper" and colonies which were
. He would not, however, deny that
lining the present military establish-
s were capable of being reduced; but the

the ex 6(
me

n the col

Sir W. Molesworth's plan ii'ould be to
e of our colonial possessions ; and then, having

abandoned them, other countries would be invited to come
forward and bid for them. lie did not believe that our states-
men or merchants were prepared to take any such course, nor

were such views entertained in the colonic; themselves. He
should, therefore, oppose the motion, not on account of the
money, but of the principle. Defending the conduct of those
who had entered into the Caffre war, which he asserted was
necessary. to protect our frontier, he proceeded to deny that
the colonists could take care of themselves without the inter-
vention of the mother country. lie repudiated the notion that
there was any connection between the necessity or utility of
local self-government, and the maintenance of an army and
navy for the purposes of imperial control. Ile went on to say
that Sir W. Molesworth's plan would reduce our trade with the
colonies, and increase that of the United States by 25 per cent.
Good faith with our emigrants demanded that we should keep
possession of territories to which they had gone out on the

faith that Government would secure their lives and property.
He defended the conduct of Lord Grey, who had, he said, used
dne diligence in dealing with the South African difficulty ; and
he stated that the Government had been gradually reducing,
the estimates for the colonies from £220,000 to £lBO,OOO annu-
ally. He concluded by moving the previous question.—Mr.
ADDaRLEY thought that the Cape question might be reserved
for the present, but remarked that Sir W. Molesworth's plan
contemplated doing no more with the colonies generally than
Lord Grey himself proposed to do with Canada. He advocated
the necessity of retrenchment, but said that it could not be
hoped for while the colonial expenditure was caused by a de-
partment not under the control of the house. He supported
the motion.—Mr. E. H. STANLEY opposed it, in a speech of
considerable length, concluding by declaring that the adoption
cff the plan would be the abandonment of our colonial empire.
—Mr. COBDEN remarked that Sir NV. Molesworth bad been
charged with arguing upon pecuniary considerations, but the
fact was, there never was a period in history when the state of
parties depended more upon pounds, shillings, and pence. He
.conceived this a fair opportunity (not afforded by the Manches-
ter school) for a fair vot

Lord-JOHN RI
tant one, for it

the reduction of expenditure.—
Lt. said that the question was a most impor-
, not a question of saving money, but of the

ce or des

He denied that the

ttached to the mother country
is for their defence should be

when our r

withdrawn. T

the arms of other countries,

and then, when we en
hostile stations. (He

'ed in war, these colonies would become
hear.) For there was no denying that

although we might t

ated by the most benevolent feel

jugs to-wards foi:eign nations, our great place was an object of
envy to many other states, who would he only too ready to
.attack us if they saw us disposed to shrink from the assertion
of our empire. And setting even this aside, the honour and
reputation of the country would grievously suffer when we came
to hear of the butchery and destruction flour fellow-ccuntrymen
where we bad settled them. Contending that the difference of
races in most of our colonies would make it impossible to grant
them the constitutions desired by Sir W. Molesworth, he said
that great reductions had been made in our colonial expendi-
ture, and that more might follow, but he should feel it his duty
-to resist the motion.—The debate was adjourned till Tuesday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

The reports of the committee on the Apprentices and Ser-
vants' Bill was brought up, and an amendment, moved by
Earl REDESDALE, extending the protection of the law to all
servants, without any limitation as to age, was agreed to. The
Patent Law Amendment Bill, numbers 1 and 2, were read a
second time and referred to a select committee.—Lord
BROUG H A M moved the second reading of the Law of Evidence
Amendment Bill, which was designed to remedy the inconve-
niences resulting from the present state of the law, by which
parties concerned in the issue of a cause cannot he compelled
to give evidence. The noble lord argued in support of the bill,
and in reply to various observations, at considerable length,
contending that the instances in which the proposed altera-
tions would further the ends of justice would far more than
counterbalance the opportunities it might afford for perjury
and fraud.—The LORD CHANCELLOR stated his reasons for
believing that the bill would not be found to be as beneficial in
practice as it seemed in theory ; and criticised unfavourably the
clauses relating to husbands and wives. After some observa-
tions from Lords Campbell and Cranworth, who concurred in
its general principles, the bill was read a second time.