8 APRIL 1843, Page 1

NEWS OF THE WEEK.

Ma. enemas BULLER brought the subject of Systematic ColoNii- zation before the House of Commons on Thursday, in what may be termed the speech of the session. So complete an exposition of the causes of the peculiar condition of England—of our permanent excess of capital and people in a limited field of employment for both, and of the way in which temporary causes operate on this ordinary state so as to aggravate its evils—has never been laid be- fore the public. In the second branch of his inquiry, Mr. BULLER explained with singular force and clearness how colonies enlarge, both at home and abroad, the field of employment for capital and labour; and established that extensive colonization is one appro- priate remedy for the ills of our social state, and a remedy which tends to promote ana give efficacy to every other remedy. He then developed the curious power-of those principles of coloniza- tion which the British Government has of late years .applied, though very imperfectly, to its waste territory; showing from what- has been, how much more might have been done ; and concluded by urging the Government to ascertain, by St- rious and efficient investigation, how, to correct the errors and supply the deficiencies of the past—by what means the maximum of good might be obtained from the new system. The characteristics of the whole speech are completeness, mastery of every part of the subject, harmony, coherence, moderation of view and tone, and a statesmanlike gravity, which induced Sir ROBERT INGLIS to remark, that " his honourable and learned friend had been most impressive because he had been most serious." This speech took the House by surprise. With the exception of Lord HOW1CK, who under- stands the subject, and Mr. GALLY KNIGHT, who called on Lord STANLEY to refrain from opposing the motion, no speaker was pre- pared to continue the debate in a manner suitable to its commence- ment. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD dwelt on other matters. Sir ROBERT bolas and Lord FaitEcis EGERTON paid, indeed, high compliments to Mr. BULLER and tendered him their support, but only glanced at one branch, however important, of any good sys- tem of colonization—namely, the necessity of taking care that the colonists should carry out with them the civil and religious institu- tions of their fatherland. Mr. Hume took fire at this, and uttered though very imperfectly, to its waste territory; showing from what- has been, how much more might have been done ; and concluded by urging the Government to ascertain, by St- rious and efficient investigation, how, to correct the errors and supply the deficiencies of the past—by what means the maximum of good might be obtained from the new system. The characteristics of the whole speech are completeness, mastery of every part of the subject, harmony, coherence, moderation of view and tone, and a statesmanlike gravity, which induced Sir ROBERT INGLIS to remark, that " his honourable and learned friend had been most impressive because he had been most serious." This speech took the House by surprise. With the exception of Lord HOW1CK, who under- stands the subject, and Mr. GALLY KNIGHT, who called on Lord STANLEY to refrain from opposing the motion, no speaker was pre- pared to continue the debate in a manner suitable to its commence- ment. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD dwelt on other matters. Sir ROBERT bolas and Lord FaitEcis EGERTON paid, indeed, high compliments to Mr. BULLER and tendered him their support, but only glanced at one branch, however important, of any good sys- tem of colonization—namely, the necessity of taking care that the colonists should carry out with them the civil and religious institu- tions of their fatherland. Mr. Hume took fire at this, and uttered 41. • first tolerable joke by saying, that " the founders of New England way from the Bishops." Perhaps so ; but then, other people see erences of time and circumstances; - and there can be no doubt that the appointment of an able and accomplished gentleman as Bishop of the new colony of New Zealand has conduced not a little to that emigration of the richer and more refined class, which Mr. Duman% showed to be an essential means of completing society in a distant settlement. Mr. STUART WORTLEY talked about mere emi- gration, and Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS about himself. Sir ROBERT PEEL, whom the City memorialists had addressed as " the head of the Government," spoke not at all. It seems probable, from the silence of the Premier, and from the selection of Lord STANLEY to oppose Mr. BULLER, that the Government had resolved to treat the sub- ject as one of little moment except to the Colonies. Nay, judging from Lord STANLEY'S speech, one might suppose that he thought the Colonial Office alone concerned in the matter. With respect to Mr. BuLLEa's comprehensive and masterly view of the state of this country, Lord STANLEY said nothing : he appears to have expected only the proposal ofsome crude or wild scheme of mere emigration by means of a grant of public money, and was therefore totally unpre- pared to deal with the great topic really before the House. And so far as he may be said to have at all answered Mr. BULLER, his speech was little better than a puff of the present management of emigration by his Office. But Lord STANLEY must " pitch into" somebody : finding nothing to attack in Mr. BeLLEE's views, he fastened upon Mr. J. S. BUCKINGHAM' and effectually demolished a monstrous plan of emigration which that gentleman had inno- cently sent to him in the morning. The puff of the Office was less successful. Though Mr. BULLEE had obviously endeavoured to guard against controversy, by abstaining from all reproach against the Government, it would have become Lord STANLEY to explain how it has happened that the system of colonization which he praised

so much is no longer in operation—that it has stopped working

since Lord STANLEY came into office—that the land-funds of the Australias and New Zealand are exhausted—that no emigration is now going on to those colonies by means which, in a few years

before the last, had paid for the passage of 80,000 emigrants. However, all this could not have been explained, nor could Lord

STANLEY have told us how he means to revive the efficacy of the land-fund, without laying ground for the very inquiry which Mr. BULLER proposed.

It is remarkable that Mr. BULLER'S proposal seemed more agreeable to the Conservative side of the House than to his own.

If the supposition may be ventured, that some of the Whigs would ill like to see the Government reap the popularity of a serious in- vestigation of this subject with a view to practical results, then

Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S support of Lord STANLEY is not inexplicable ; though it will certainly not have the effect of increasing that "co- lonial reputation, confined to no party," which Mr. BULLER said that Lord JOHN had acquired before he was succeeded by Lord STANLEY.

Lord ASHLEY has been less successful in his endeavour to enlist the Commons in a crusade against the opium-trade, than he was when be forced them to attend to the evil con- dition of women and children in mines and to the brutish ignorance of large masses of the people. Several obvious reasons strike one why it should be so : the primary evils in the opium case are remote from us; they are not compulso- rily inflicted on the actual sufferers, but voluntarily incurred ; and the terms of the motion embraced questions which do not properly go together, so that assent did not follow as of course. LOId ASHLEY'S speech did not help his resolution to success : it was a repetition of extracts, the materials for a speech, with little of that kind of original matter which is his forte ; and it did not apply to the resolution with which it concluded. The resolution, in substance, recommended the abolition of the East India Company's monopoly of opium, and the discontinuance of the trade as destructive of amity with China and incon- sistent with the duties of a Christian Government : but the speech impaired the effect of the resolution by making it appear that it ought to have gone further—to the actual prohibition of the opium-cultivation. Taking the speech and resolution as a whole, these were the main positions : the use of opium is destruc- tive of health ; the Chinese Government is unable to exclude it ; the contest between the forcible attempts by the smugglers to in- troduce and by the officials to exclude, impede our more legitimate commerce ; the purchase of opium leads the Chinese to waste money which otherwise would purchase British manufactures; the discredit attaching to the trade impairs the influence of mission- aries engaged in promoting Christianity ; by means of the mono- poly, the East India Company are able to force the trade on the Chinese market ; and therefore the monopoly ought to be abo- lished and the cultivation prohibited. On the other hand it is contended, that the monopoly tends not to increase but to check consumption ; while it produces a large portion of revenue which otherwise would be a burden on the indigent agricultural population of India. Setting those facts apart, the resolution was tantamount to asking the House to improve the internal police of China, to supply the defects of its preventive service, to direct by the voice of Parliament the individual expenditure of Chinese subjects, and to shape trade according to the plans of missionary societies for the furtherance of their objects. Had Lord ASHLEY confined himself to the question of policy, or to the expediency of our Government washing its hands of all interference in a discreditable traffic, he might have had more effect ; but to have affirmed his resolution, read by the light of his speech, would have been to lose sight of the means in the contemplation of objects beyond the jurisdiction of the British Parliament. Besides, the statement that Sir HENRI. POTTINGER is actually negotiating for an effectual stop to the worst evils which concern us, by procuring the trade to be legalized by the Chinese Government, made it impossible for the House, un- der existing usage, to affirm a vague resolution suggesting a totally different course.

A clause in the new Registration of Voters Bill gave rise to a de- bate on the question of a suitable court to hear appeals from the Revising Barristers. The bill sends appeals to the Court of Common Pleas : to which many Members objected, that it increases the burden of business, which already overtasks the Judges; that it virtually surrenders the definition of the franchise to the Judges ; that it subjects the privileges of the House to the Judges ; and that it gives room for conflicting decisions between the Judges and Committees of the House. The Judges, however, are only to de- cide what is or is not the law ; and if the Honourable House will but do its work properly and make very clear laws, there will be no

difficulty to the Judges in saying what is law. The objection to increasing the business of the Law Courts might be got over by adopting Mr. ROEBUCK'S suggestion and appointing a Judge spe- cially to hear appeals ; a plan which would also save the other Judges from the anticipated contamination of more active inter- ference in political disputes. But the real root of amendment lies in this direction—make the laws so clear, that to misinterpret them would subject the Judge to inevitable removal ; extend the right of voting, so as to deprive it of its factitious value as a privilege and make the personal right less a matter of litigation.