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 suoh 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 themeight hon.
gentleman were at all analogous to the pt 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 wouid hon.
gentlemen opposite deprive the Government of this sum
for the good of the country, merely to take a division to-
night, instead of waiting till Monday next? (Hear.)
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 master 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
rice a pce as if it had paid the higher duty,
111 r. 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
250,0001. 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
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 hon. 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 had mentioned that the
standard of sugar should 14 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 inhabi-
tants. He desired to vindicate the right of the people of
this country to a voice in the disposal of the territories
of the Crown. A via 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 1836, and urged that the renunciation was
a breach of engagements, and was in opposition to the
wish of the colonists, and he 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 conrat pur-
sued, and as to the competency of the Crown to perform
a constitutional act, which it had 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 bad made an order in Counpil 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 stronghpld
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 abuntkant—and among
its mineral resources gold had been discovered. lie
(Mr. Peel) could only say that the hon. gentleman had
been greatly indebted 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
had never taken root there. It had 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 had been issued by the
Crown, they did not reach the colony before the late
war broke 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 •
122"nession until nearly the close of the American war,
He ientioned the ease of this island principally because
he had been told that English law had begun td take
effect within it, and was substituted, to a great extent,
for the Spanish
of the country. Well, in 1783,
without any authorityeo of Parliament, the Crown ceded
that island to the
alienation of the Crownverniment of Spain. This power of
of peace.
was exercised only when the
Crown made a treaty
was to pass. an act of 17.rartileaem. enßtuit)rsouhpipboitsiengthßeuhsosuiasne
vessels coming to their ,
make!): .lt.;eants it were known that
Russia would not
of peace with them
unless that prohibition wore removed,y"onld it be con-
sidered that, bepfaoBrseamaking
of aPtarreliaaonit peace, it would
he requisite to
prohibition ? • Certainly not. The Crown to
remove the
portion of its dominions when could alienate
a conquer by
for
arms. The hon. gentleman quoted the authoritye of
Grotius and other jurists as to cession of territoryeH
could not admit the authority of Grotius as regarded thee
constitution of England or the prerogatives of the
Crown. The bon. 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. gentl emnn ref erred 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 board. 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
whonl 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 legisiative povier upon any authorities within
its limits who had not been elected freeholders of the
country. But the constitution which, in 1850, was pro-
vided for the Orange River territory, vested the legisla-
tive authority in pecione Who Were nominated by the

y yeti ..11 400. ... •