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

could not agree to any single proposition advanced by
either of the hon. gentleman who moved and seconded the
motion. He should at present confine himself to simply
denying that the increased taxation on malt and spirits
would be paid by the landed interest, the fact being that
it would be paid by the community at large. - (Hear,
hear.) He begged leave entirely to decline the discussion
until they arrived at the Stage when the question might
be fairly raised and fully considered. Of course, the
Government must meet the amendment with a negative,
and adhere to the resolution as it stands. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI considered it most impolitic that a
subject which he had thought was set at rest for ever
should have been brought by the Government again on
the carpet of Parliament: He quoted precedents of
former Governments of the postponement such as he
suggested last night of similar resolutions for further
consideration. He must still urge upon the Government
to postpone this resolution. If the Government con-
sented to postpone it till Monday he should support the
Government ; if they did not, he must support his hon.
friend the member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball).
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the house had agreed
last night to receive the report to-night, and take the
whole discussion next Monday; but from that agreement
the right hon. gentleman now seemed to wish to deviate.
He denied that the precedents quoted by the right hon.
gentleman were at all analogous to the present case.
The chairman of the Inland Revenue calculated the loss
to the country of collecting this tax, even for one week,
• would amount to 250,000/. —(hear)—and' would hon.
gentlemen opposite deprive the Government of. thiso osum
&
for the good of the country, merely to take a vi • i to-
night, instead-of waiting till Monday next ? (i ea r.)
Sir J. SHELLEY supported the view taken by the
Government on this question.
Mr. HENLEY begged to give the most positive
denial that there had been any understanding on his side
of the house not to oppose this part of the resolutions
to-night.
• • Mr. GOULBURN remarked that if this question
• were delayed, the maltater would get all the advantage,
• ' for he would take his malt out of bond at the present
duty, and when the duty was raised he would sell it at
• a price as if it had paid the higher duty.
Mr. BARROW denied that there had been any un-
derstanding about agreeing to these resolutions to-night.
If there had been any understanding, it was that the
question should be postponed for discussion until Mon-
day next.
Sir C. WOOD reminded the house that no one would
be pledged by the vote to-night ; and as a question of
250,000/. being saved to the public purse was involved in
. this vote, he put it to the hon. members whether they
would not be acting 'injudiciously if they delayed the
report until Monday next.
The house then divided when there appeared—
For the resolution 224
Against it
Majority —Bl .
The result of the division was loudly cheered by the
supporters of the Government.
THE SUGAR DUTIES.
In answer to Mr. DUNLOP,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, in
the statement he made last night he proposed a scale of
duties on sugars, irrespective of origin, and he likewise
proposed that the scale of duties should take effect im-
mediately, but an objection was taken by the right hon,
member for Huntingdon that there was still a period of
nine weeks to run, during which those persons interested
in the sugar duties had a right to look for a continuation
of the differential duties. The Government were dis-
posed, under all the circumstances, to give way to that
objection, and he• had therefore framed a resolution
which would authorise them to levy 15 per cent, on the
sugar duties as they now existed. The course adopted
by the Government was in accordance with precedent,
for the proper manner of limiting the operation of the
present duties would be by a clause in the act. A clause
would therefore be proposed at the proper time, limiting
the operation of those duties from and after the 15th of
July. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. BAILLIE wished to ask the right lion. gen-
tleman whether he had understood him to say that the
different classes of sugar were to be maintained ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER believed
that on the previous night he kad mentioned that the
standard of sugar should be reconstructed and modified.
The alterations, if the house should adopt the proposals
of the Government, would not be great ; but their ten-
dency would be in favour of the lower qualities. (Hear.)
Leave was then given to bring in a bill founded on the
resolutions.
THE ORANGE RIVER TERRITORY,
Mr. ADDERLEY moved an address, praying that
her Majesty would reconsider the order in council for
the promulgation, on or before the Ist of August next,
of'a proclamation abandoning and renouncing all sove-
reignty over the Orange River territory and its inhabi-
tants. He desired to vindicate the right of the people of
this country to a voice iu the disposal of the territories
of the Crown. A great constitutional question was in-
volved in the consideration he proposed to the House.
He briefly sketched the history of the territory since its
occupation in 1830, and urged that the renunciation was
a breach of engagements, and was in opposition to the
wish of the colonists, and ke dilated at considerable
length upon its illegality and its expediency.
•Mr. G. LIDDELL seconded the motion.
Mr. F. PEEL said his hon. friend had reviewed this
subject to its illegality,. and as to the policy and expe-
diency of the course which the Government had been
pursuing. It was upon the illegality of the course pur-
sued, and as to the competency of the Crown to perform
a constitutional act, which it bad been advised to
execute that he principally laid stress. The expediency
and policy of the measure seemed to be of secondary
importance. The course which the present Government
had taken was that of carrying out the determination
of the late Government, whose policy was to abandon
the Orange territory. Now, what-had the Crown done ?
Why, it had made an order in Council by which it autho-
rised a commissioner of the Orange territory to issue, on a
specified day, an order by which the Crown abandoned
its sovereignty over a certain district, and he thereupon
declared that thenceforward. the Crown would not hold
itself responsible to give protection to British subjects
who chose to permanently reside beyond the limits of
the Orange River; He certainly considered that the
Crown was perfectly competent to take that course
without its being necessary for the Government to have
recourse to an Act of Parliament. The case of this ter-
ritory was this :—lt was a country which had not been
acquired by colonisation, and it was not a country
which was the fruit of settlement by British subjects,
but it was a country which had been acquired by
conquest, The honourable member had considered that
the case of this territory was like that of Gibraltar, and
he had had the boldness to compare that stronghold
which this country had held for a century and a half
with a country the possession of which they had had
for only five or six years. The hon. member compared
Gibraltar—the key of the Mediterranean—with a terri-
tory which was valueless as an 'acquisition, and an un-
inhabited desert in the midst of Central Africa. The
hon. member had described the territory as being ex-
tremely fertile—its produce very abundeint—and among
its mineral resources gold had been discovered. He
(Mr. Peel) could only say that the hon. gentleman had
been greatly indelited to his imagination for his descrip-
tion of the country and its contents. There were other
peculiarities connected with the territory. It had never
been a colony—never raised into the condition of a
colony ; but it remained now as it first was when it
• came under the dominion of England. English law
bad never taken'root there. Itlad never been planted,
because the proclamation of Sir Harry Smith was not
made previous to the late war. The law in force was
the Roman Dutch law. It was country for which the
Crown had never granted any regular constitution,
and, although letters patent bad been issued by the
Crown, they did not reach the' colony before the late
war balite out, and Sir Harry Smith postponed the
promulgation of them. As to the question whether
the Crown could alienate a portion of its dominions,
there were at least two precedents, and these two were
Tobago and Minorca. With regard to the former, it
was ceded to this country by the Treaty of Paris in
1763, and it remained in the possession of England for
20 years. It was not conquered by their enemies dur-
ing the American war, but it remained in their posses-
sion during the whole of the war, and yet at the treaty
of 1783, the Crown, without the authority of Parlia-
ment, either-precedent or following, ceded that island to
the Government of France, and made no provision for
British subjects, except that the French King should
respect their property.- With regard to Minorca, it was
a still stronger case. The island was in the possession
of this country for nearly 70 years. It was ceded by
the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, and it remained in their
possession until nearly the close of the American war.
He mentioned the
case of this island principally because
he had been told that English law had begun to take
effect within it, and
was substituted, to a great extent,
for the Spanish
law off the country. Well, in 1783,
without any authority o t Parliament, the Crown ceded
that island to the Government of Spain. This power of
alienation of the Crowonf.
peace,
exercised only when the
Crown made a treaty
But suppose the house
was to pass an act of Parham. easnt
.prohibiting Russian
vessels coming to their ports, itf.vsere known that
Russia would not make a treat pea.ce with them
unless that prohibitions were renelved,oiwould it be con-
pfeoace, it would
Sidered that, before making a treaty
remove the
be requisite to pass an act of Parliament
prohibition ? Certainly not. The Crown coulalienate
a portion of its dominions when conqueree,a
-y force of
arms. The hon. gentleman quoted the authority
of
Grotius and other jurists as to cession of territory,
could not admit the authority of Grotius as regarded the
constitution of England or the prerogatives of the
Crown. The hon. gentleman said, the power used Was
only exercised when a treaty of peace was made. But
he ought to recollect that this territory was that of a
conquered country. The hon. gentlemnn referred to the
opinion of Mr. Porter,
,who said that the territory
became ours by occupation, and that it had been ac-
quired by cession. But the most authoritative decla-
ration as to the nature of the title which we acquired
was to be found in the reports of the Privy Council,
consisting of Lord Campbell and several other
eminent members of that hoard. And that body'
did not agree, with Mr. Porter, nor could they con-
cur in his conclusions. They were of opinion that
the original sovereignty of conquest attached to it—that
it had been taken by her Majesty's army—that in im-
parting to such a territory a local government there was
only liberty to depart from the model of our own so far
as the welfare of the colonists justified. If the hon.
gentleman admitted that conquests might be 'ceded to
the enemy, it was quite competent to cede to those from
whom we conquered the territory, namely, its own in-
habitants. If this territory had been acquired by occu-
pation, It was well known that the Crown could not
confer any legislative power upon any authorities within
its limits who had no% been elected freeholders of the
waxy..
_But. the conatitatiou Aviriahrin 1850, was pro-
vided for the Orange River territory, vested the legisla-
ass authority ip persons who we nominated by the