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 cif 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 IL Smith issued a neW proclamation in 1848, de-
claring that ,the chiefs hail 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. l'he 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 hon. 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 collie, by a different 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 tho 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 ho 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 pdople, 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 witlithein. 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. PHILLIMORE said that the opinion expres-
sed by Lord Loughborough was that of a warm partisan,
an l that it was at once contradicted by Lord Thrirlow. 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, namely, 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. ADDERLEY replied. He would not press his indi-
vidual opinion against such high legal authority as had been
expressedin favour of the power of the Orown, without the
interposition of the Legislature, to abandon this territory.
Ho 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
Oxford and Cambridge, in respect to the practice of
medicine, to the graduates of tho 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
snaking, 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. HA.DFIELD 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 he 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. HEYWORTH ih favour
of bringing in the bill, •
Mr. HADFIELD withdrew his amendment ; and
Leave was given to bring in the bill. , ,
PROPERTY OF BRITISH 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.
MEDICAL POOR RELIEF.

Mr. PIGOTT moved for a select committee to inquire
nto the mode in which medical relief is now administered
n the different unions in England and Wales, and to as-
certain whether any additional facilities might be afforded
the poor in obtaining medical aid.
Lord J. RUSSEL', said that, no doubt, the medical re-
lief of the poor formed a very important branch of the
general poor relief of the country, and therefore he should
be very sorry to advance any objection to the committee
moved for. At the same time, it would not be right to
encourage an expectation of any great benefit to be derived
from separating medical relief from the general poor-law
relief. If public relief, paid out of the rates, was given to
the labourer, whether as a pauper or without the name of
a pauper, it was not a matter of any difference. On the
part of the Government, he should not object to the ap-
pointment.
The motion was agreed to.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
Mr. DIGB'Y SEYMOUR, in moving for leave to bring in
a bill to make fraudulent dealings with regard, to bills of
exchange felonious in certain cases, said that it was unne-
cessary for him at any length to state the grounds on which
he asked leave to introduce the present bill, as the house,
from its experience' of .the number of cases that had been
brought before the law courts of late years, from the case
of Capt. Scott to that of Sherwood v. Meiklam, was aware
of the mode in which sharpers were accustomed, in these
bill transactions, to impose on young men. At the conclu-
sion of the case of Sherwood v. Meiklam, Baron Alderson
said, "I think I could cure this system in bill discounting
matters by making it a felony. It is perfectly disgraceful..
It would be a most beneficial act if any gentleman would
take the subject in hand, and bring in a bill making such a
transaction a felony. It is no less than stealing a man's
money. If such an act of Parliament were passed, the good
effected would be incalculable, and the parties would be at
the bar of the Old Bailey." He was certain, after this opi-
nion of the learned judge, if the house, without doing any
violence to existing statutes, would allow him (Mr. S.) to
deal with these fraudulent practices by an act of Parlia-
ment, it would be conferring an important benefit on the
young men who were the victims of such transactions. He
submitted to the house that it was competent, by a sim-
ple piece of legislation, to deal with the evils that now
existed. He proposed, therefore, to bring in a bill for that
object, his sole desire being to remove what he believed to
be a stigma upon the criminal jurisprudence of the country.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, there could be no
doubt that a most nefarious system of imposition and
wrong was practised by the unwary by a class of persons
fact,who
bill called
stealers
e alers ; themselvesan(t
abni lyl
rdeins ceoduyn tfenrrs , t bhut
st
ewv ht
lwi
ke
erley,
thei
carry out the views of the learned judge to whom the hon.
tahn led
e eoanrsni
de de
rgeat
inntnl e mn
fa nt
hhea. had
er eufseei:re dT,
hweo uhl
°an b. ea
ne udtitled
learnedt
gentleman had'not explained the nature of the measure he
meant to introduce ; but he was sure that any plan which
proposed to carry out the object he had in view would bo
received with indulgence by the house. (Hear, hear.)
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
The Militia Bill was read a third time. and passed.

NEW WRIT. • -
A new writ was ordered to be issued for Hertfordshire
in the room of Mr. Halsey, deceased.
The house adjourned at half-past 11 o'clock.

Mr. DENT paired, in favour of Ministers, with Sir T.
HERBERT against.
Mr. IluTcHINs was accidentally shut out of the division
and prevented from voting in favour of the increase of the
malt-tax.

REPRESgNTATION OF CA3IBRIDGE.— On Thursday
evening, according to previous notice, a meeting of the
Liberal electors was holden at the Town-hall, in order
to decide upon which of the acknowledged three, out of
the four candidates for their suffrages, they would select
to go to the poll. The existence of the Hon. Mr.
Campbell, as a candidate, appears to be ignored alto-
gether on the part of the Whigs ; but that gentleman
sent a note refusing to recognise the proceedings of the
meeting as in anywise affecting his position. The chair-
man (Mr. Alderman C. F. Foster) briefly stated the
course to be adopted. .At seven o'clock the doors were
locked, and the audience passing out received cards in-
scribed respectively, "Adair," "Mowatt," "James ; "
two of these were deposited in a box in the ante-room
by the voter, and the numbers were declared on Friday
morning as follows ::—Mowatt, 236 ; Adair, 167 ; James,
49. A bill was forthwith issued, declaring that the
choice of the meeting had fallen on Messrs. Mowatt and
Adair. Each candidate at the last meeting pledged him-
self to abide by the result of the ballot. The number of
Liberals polled at the last election was 737. Mr. Camp-
bell has trown himself into the arms of the Conserva-
tives who will support him in default of more congenial
candidates.

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE.-011 Friday; the
21st ult., as Mr. Haughton Grubb, in company with
some friends, was hunting rabbits on the lands
of Caher Abbey, two of his dogs (terrier bitches),
having got into a burrow, were unable to return, and
after waiting for some time in expectation of their escap•
ing, Mr. Grubb procured some labourers, and proceeded
to try and dig them out. Upwards of one hundred bur-
rows were opened, akqd still no trace could be found of
the missing animals. However, on Wednesday last, a
boy imagined he, heard them in a particular spot, and
proceeded to clear away the earth, when both dogs
crawled forth, having been immured without food in their
subterranean quarters for eleven days and twelve nights.
They were at'ence taken care of, and are now fast re-
covering► from the effects of their lengthened confinement.
This instance of endurance in the dog is remarkable in-
deed, and deserves to be recorded.—Tipperary Free
Frees,