The Press.
London, England, 1854-05-13 00:00:00

HUSTINGS EXPENSES.

Mr. WINE on Wednesday moved the second read-
ing of his Hustings Expenses Bill. The precise
fund from which the expenses of the hustings at elec-
tions should be defrayed might, he urged, be deter-
mined in committee. At present he asked the house
only to affirm the principle that the charges in
question should not fall upon the candidates.
The bill was opposed by Mr. Packe, Mr. Deedes,
Mr. Miles, Sir G. Heathcote, and Mr. Henley, chiefly
on the ground that it would encourage sham con-
tests.
Lord PALMERSTON confessed that he was not very
much disposed to support the bill, which would go a
very little way to establish the principle. The ex-
penses from which Mr. Hume proposed to relieve
candidates were either small, in which case he did
not carry out his principles; or they were large,
which it would be unfair to cast upon counties and
boroughs. Mr. Hnme, he thought, would do best to
withdraw this bill, and if, upon reconsideration,
he could introduce provisions free from objection,
the house would, no doubt, give them its best atten-
tion.

Sir G. GREY dissented from the principle of a bill
which would transfer these expenses from members
to their constituents.
On a division the bill was thrown out by a majority
of 154 to 57-97.
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' BILL.

The motion for going into committee on this bill
was on Wednesday opposed by Mr. CRAUFURD, who
moved as an amendment that the bill should be com-
mitted that day six months.
In the course of a brief discussion on this amend-
ment Lord PALMERSTON observed,
" that the effect of this bill would be to give, as it were, a
parliamentary sanction to a number of persons not suffi-
ciently qualified. He believed that the medical profession
required legislative interference, and although, owing to
antagonistic views, little assistance could be obtained from
the medical body, some general leading principles might
afford a guide to improvements. What was wanted was a
uniform system of education and a uniform test of qualifi-
cation, twenty-two different bodies having at present the
power of giving diplomas, some of them running a race of
competition against each other. A near approach to im-
provement might be made by a system of registration; but
this bill put the cart before the horse."
The house divided, and the bill was lost by a ma-
jority of 118 votes to 69-40.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' BILL.

The committal of this bill having been moved on
Wednesday,
Mr. T. DIJNCOMBE suggested that the measure
should be referred to a select committee.
Mr. BRIGHT moved an amendment to that effect,
recognising the conciliatory spirit in which the ques-
tion had been treated by the framer of the bill (Mr.
Sotheron), but declaring his conviction that, if passed
in its present shape, it would create much dissatisfac
tion among the operative classes in the manufacturing
districts.
A somewhat prolonged discussion ensued, in the
course of which a great number of members spoke
briefly, the majority supporting the amendment.
Mr. SOTHERON consented to refer his bill as pro-
posed. His object was to encourage the formation of
friendly societies, and he trusted thatwhen under the
consideration of the select committee the law might
be placed upon a satisfactory footing. As showing
the importance of the subject, he stated that at the
present moment there were 20,000 registered friendly
societies and 10,000 unregistered, averaging from
100 to 2(X) members apiece.
The bill was then committed pro formd, and or-
dered to be referred to a select committee.
THE ORANGE RIVER TERRITORY.
An address to the Crown was on Tuesday moved
by Mr. ADDERLEY, praying for a reconsideration of
the late order in council ordering the abandonment
of the Orange River territory at the Cape. His ob-
ject was to assert the right of the people of England
to have a voice in the disposal of the territories of
the Crown, instead of leaving the question altogether
to the discretion of the Colonial-office. In a speech
of considerable length the hon. member questioned
both the legality and the expediency of the proposed
step. The Government, he contended, had entered
into engagements with the inhabitants of the terri-
tory on one side and the people of England on the
other, which they would violate if the country were
now given up. The Crown had no right to assert a
sovereignty and afterwards renounce it at will. What
was given up was a very different thing from that
which had been assumed. Possession was taken,
but allegiance renounced—the Crown claimed a
right, but repudiated a contract. To a great empire
like ours, he argued, all abandonment of terri-
tory and reduction of limits was fraught with peril,
endangering the loss of a prestige which shielded it
from assault. The territory in question was also
valuable on its own account, and promised, according
to recent discoveries, to become auriferous.
The motion was seconded by Mr. LIDDELL.

THE PRESS.

Mr. F. (PEEL contended that there was nothing
in the British tenure of the Orange sovereignty which
forbade its abandonment. It was a conquered terri-
tory, and had been always administered as such, the
inhabitants being left under the government of their
own laws. He proceeded to vindicate the policy of
the step, which had been taken with the view of
saving troops and expenditure, by rendering the
frontier of the Cape colony better defined and more
easily defensible.

Sir J. PAKINGTON could not concur in the motion.
He believed that the original occupation of the
Orange River territory was inexpedient, and, when
himself holding office as Colonial Secretary, had in-
tended to take measures for its abandonment.

Mr. VERNON SMITH also opposed the motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL discussed the legal ques-
tion which had been opened by Mr.Adderley. Colo
nies were of two classes—those acquired by occu-
pancy, and those gained by conquest. In the former
the dwellers might claim the rights and privileges of
subjects, and could demand protection, a constitu-
tional organisation, and other benefits from the
mother country, which the central Government were
not entitled to withdraw except under mutual con-
sent, and by an act of the Legislature. Over con-
quered colonies, on the other hand, the Crown held
an absolute sovereignty, so far as to be able to re-
tain or resign possession at its discretion, and by a
simple exercise of the royal prerogative. This, he
contended, was the case with the territory now
under question.
Sir F. THESIGER conducted a legal argument in
great measure to the same fesult, but believed that
the English Crown had never possessed a sovereignty,
properly so called, over the Orange River territory.
There was nothing beyond an independent treaty
contracted with the native chiefs. Still he thought
that it would be better to sanction the abandonment
of the district by an act of Parliament, for the sake
of removing any doubts on the subject.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIHORE having spoken against the
motion,
Mr. ADDERLEY, yielding to the array of authorities
who had pronounced against his resolution, de-
clined to press it, and the motion was, by leave,
withdrawn.