The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-10 00:00:00

Smith afterwards, by treaty with Adam Cock, while re-
citing the previous treaties, plainly recognised the sove-
reignty of the Chief Moshesh ; also in another treaty,
strongly approved of the desirableness of maintaining tran-
quility with the Queen of Great Britain, and strict alliance
with her, thereby distinctly recognising his independence.
But Sir H. Smith issued a new proclamation in 1848, de=
claring that the chiefs had aCknowledged the power of her
Majesty in all disputes tending to disturb the peace of
South Africa, but adding that no power was sought or
assumed over the subjects of any of the chiefs. Sir H.
Smith could not have acquired for the Crown a sove-
reignty over these tribes by proclamation unless they had
consented to the change. The position, then, of the British
power in that country was similar to that of the consular
power in the Levant, extending only to British subjects,
and no further, and affecting none of the territory. Lord
Grey was of opinion that that proclamation made an im-
proper distinction between British subjects and natives,
holding all to be subjects who were within the territory
over which the British power extended. A year after that
despatch of Lord Grey's, another proclamation of Sir
H. Smith's declared that it should not apply to the
subjects of the chiefs within the territory, thereby
making a distinction between British subjects and the
native tribes. In March, 1851, letters patent passed the
Great Seal, erecting the district into what was called the
Orange River Sovereignty; but these letters, though sent
out, were kept private, and did not see the light till Sir
George Cathcart went out in 1852. He would not enter
into the question of the expediency of abandonment, for
that point had already been completely settled by the
speeches of the Under Secretary for the Colonies and his
right lion. friend the member for Droitwich. The letters
patent of 1851 were, he believed, never published. The
sovereignty might be abandoned without the consent of the
Legislature ; but he had come, by a afferent process, to
the same conclusion which had been stated by his hon. and
learned friend the Attorney-General. He would not offer
any opinion on the general and important question, how
far it was competent for the Crown to dispossess itself of
any portion of its dominions without the assent of the Le-
gislature. The question was one of great difficulty, for
Lord Loughborough had expressed an opinion one way and
Lord Thurlow another. According to his (Sir F. Thesi-
ger's) view, it was unnecessary to enter into that, for
there was no conquest, and he could not conceive that
there was anything more than an abstract sovereignty
to be exercised over British subjects, which could be
relinquished without the interference of the Legis-
lature. He admitted that the Crown could not give
up the allegiance of its subjects; but nothing of ' the
kind had occurred in this case. These people, born in the
Cape colony, had wandered into this territory, which must
be considered and treated as a foreign country, and their
allegiance had travelled withthem. They were now replaced
in the position in which they originally stood when they
left the British territory, and they could not divest them-
selves of their allegiance, neither could the Crown discharge
them from it. Upon the whole, he thought that it would
have been more satisfactory if the Government had applied
to the Legislature before the abandonment was resolved
upon; but such application was not essential, and no ground
therefore, he thought, had been stated for agreeing to the
motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Adderley.)
Mr. J. G. PHIL LIMORE said that the opinion expres-
sed by Lord Loughborough was that of a warm partisan,
an. I that it was at once contradicted by Lord Thurlow. The
question now before the house was in fact, whether we lived
under a monarchy or a republic ? Mr. Justice Blackstone
laid down very distinctly the law on the point, namAy, that
the power of alienating territory by treaty was vested by
the constitution in the Sovereign, subject, of course to the
responsibility of the Ministers who gave their advice, and
the rule, he thought, could not be disputed. (Hear.)
Mr. ADDERL EY replied. He would not press his indi-
vidual opinion against such high legal authority as had been
expressedin favour of the power of the Crown, without the
interposition of the Legislature, to abandon this territory
He would merely add that the proclamation expressly re-
leased these persons from their allegiance. He was satis-
fied with having raised this discussion on behalf of those
who were more interested in it than himself ; and, under
the circumstances, he would not press his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn.
THE WORKING CLASSES.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE postponed until this day fortnight
his motion respecting the complaints of the working and
industrial classes of Preston.

THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.

Mr. BELL moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend
the rights enjoyed by the graduates of the universities of
Qxford anti Cambridge, in respect to the practice of
medicine, to the graduates of the London University.
Leave was then given.
CHURCH RATES.

Mr. PACKE moved for leave to bring in a bill to relieve
Dissenters from the payment of church rates in certain
cases, and otherwise to amend the law respecting the
making, asssessing, and collecting of church rates in Eng-
land and Wales. His object was to relieve Dissenters from
the payment of these rates, and, at the same time, to pro-
vide sufficient means for the maintenance of the fabric of
the different churches. _

Mr. HADFIELD opposed the motion, having no ade-
quate explanation from the hon. gentleman of the objects
of his bill, but which he believed was a side-wind against
Dissenters.

Sir. W. CLAY advisied his hon. friend (Mr. Hadfield)
not to oppose the introduction of the bill, as they should
be enabled to examine its details.

Lord PALMERSTON said ho was not disposed to object
to the bill being brought in, reserving to her Majesty's
Government perfect freedom of dealing with it when it
was brought in.
After a few words from Mr. L. HEY WORTH in favour
o f bringing in the bill,
Mr. HADFIELD withdrew his amendment ; and
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
PROPERTY OF BRITISFI SUBJECTS CONFIS-
CATED IN THE LATE WAR.
Mr. BOWYER, who had a notice on the paper for a se-
lect committee to inquire into the claims of Mr. Edwardes
(as representative of William Sturgeon), on the funds
allotted by the French Government at the peace, to com-
pensate for confiscation of the property of British subjects,
said he had been requested, on the part of her Majesty's
Government, to postpone his motion ; but he should bring
it on next Wednesday week. _