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

LAW OF ADULTERY.

Mr. BOWYER gave notice that on an early day
he should move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the
aw of adultery.
COALS FOR RUSSIA.

Captain SCOBELL asked whether, by the recent
Orders in Council, or by any other authority, are coals
prohibited as contraband of war, or'otherwise, from being
conveyed by the vessels of neutral Powers into any port
or place in the dominions of Russia, not being in a state
of blockade ?
Sir J. GRAHAM observed that the question was

one of great importance, and at the same time 'a
very difficult one. Coal was not included in the
terms of the Order in Council, but instructions
had been given to the commander-in-chief of her Ma-
jesty's cruisers that coal was to be treated as an article
of doubtful character, subject to the law of nations, as
declared during the last war. They were to exercise
their discretions in whether it was intended to be con-
sidered merely as an article of commerce or a contra-
band of war, and if there was reason for the latter
presumption, than they were to seize the ships laden
with it.

IRON GUN BOATS.
Mr. KENNEDY wished to inquire of the First Lord
of the Admiralty, whether both the admirals in command
of our fleets had not asked earnestly for gun boats ;
and had not Admiral Napier asked for iron gun boats
to meet those of the Russians, which were made by a

house in Liverpool ; had not Scott Russell offered to
provide in a few weeks the craft wanted ' • and had
not the Admiralty refused to provide iron boats ? and
had it not ordered wooden boats to be built and bought„
which wooden boats would draw twelve feet of water, in-
stea of five, like the iron boats ? Had the Government
ascertained whether any gun-boats had been, or are
being built in the Finland Harbour of the Gulf of
Bothnia, and if so, what number, by the latest accounts I
and had' the Government taken the necessary steps to
efficiently protect the British mercantile flag navigating
the Gulf of Bothnia on the Swedish coast ?
Sir J. GRAHAM really hoped the house would par-
don him if he exercised some discretion and declined to
answer these questions. (Hear.) He did not think it
would be possible to conduct the war in a satisfactory
manner if questions of this sort were to be answered ;
but for the satisfaction of the hon. gentleman he would
admit a-t
once that the gun boat force of the Russians was
of a very formidable character, but, at the same time,
it was only right that he should add that ministers had
taken every precaution to meet this formidable force,
and for the protection of British commerce in the Gulf
of Bothnia.
TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.
Mr. P. TJRQUHART asked the Chief Secretary, for
Ireland, what measure the Government intend to take
with respect to the Tenants' Compensation Bill that
passed the House of Commons last session.
SirJ. YOUNG said there was no doubt that Ireland

looked with the greatest interest to these bills, but it
was perfectly impossible for him to give an answer to
this question, seeing that the bill had been referred by
the Lords to a select committee.
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.

Sir B. HALL said on the 14th- of February, a right
hon. friend of his, who was no longer a member
of the house move for leave to bring in a bill tAbolish
the property'qualification of members. That bill now
stood for second reading to-morrow, and he had been
requested to move that the order should be read for the
purpose of being disehaxged. He therefore made that
motion accordingly.
Mr. HUME observed that the noble lord the member
for the city of London had intimated his intention to
bring. in a bill on this subject, Perhaps the noble lord
would not object to father this bill. (A. laugh.)
Lord J. RUSSELL must decline to do anything of
the sort.

The order of the day for the second reading of the
bill was then read, for the purpose of being discharged.
MALT TAX.
Mr. SANDARS wished to ask the right hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on the subject
of the malt tax. He wished to ask him whether the
duty of 4s. per bushel would include the additional five
per cent. that is now levied with the tax?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER s,
the 4s. per bushel will include the five per cent.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.%
RESOLUTIONS.
On that part of the resolutions relating to the duties on
malt,
11Mirr: B
T. DAuLicLeroosi‘eittoEmorov
Lanto4Unoernddemr.enThe house
agreed yesterday that this report sholild be brought up
to-day, but without discussion.
Mr. E. BALL said be was himself taken by surprise,
as he was sure the house was, at the Chancellor of the
Exchequer announcing that. he purposed raising the ad-
ditional revenue he required by imposin,, an extra duty
of 50 per cent. on the malt tax. This he looked upon
as a re-opening of that party warfare which be
hoped had been buried for ever respecting protection,
and which, he appealed to the other side of the house, if
the gentlemen sitting on his (the Opposition) side had
not done their best to allay, and which it was now the
more necessary to allay when the country was engaged
in a war. He begged to move a negative to the fourth
I resolution of the right hon, gentleman, by omitting the
word " malt " (Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. BENTINCK seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he

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 be
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 tight 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 250,0001. —(hear)—and would 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 pait of the resolutions
to-night.
Mr. GOULMIRN remarked that if this question
were delayed, the maltster 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 rent.
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 ho 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 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 in 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 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 course 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 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 at being ex-
tremely fertile—its produce very abundant—and amonc
its mineral resources gold had been discovered. He
• (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
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,
for the Spanish law
was substituted, to a great extent,
without any authority o f Par
that island to the liament, the Crown ceded
Government of Spain. This power of
alienation of the Crown was exercised only when the
Crown made a treaty of
was to pass an act of ppaerale. But suppose the house
vessels coming to their prohibiting Russian
ports, it were known that
/ Russia would not make a treatypeace with them
unless that prohibition were removed, of
ved,7ould it be
pte it would
to remove con-
sidered
that, before making a treaty
o o
lvi e e n theate
be requisite to pass an act of Parliament
prohibition ? Certainly not. The Crown couldrera a
a portion of its dominions when conquered by force of
arms. The hon. gentleman quoted the authority of
Grotius and other jurists as to cession of territory. He
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. gentleman referrterritoryed to the
opinion of Mr., Porter, who said that t
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
consisting of Lord Campbell and several other
eminent members of that board. And that body
did not agree with Mr. Porter, nor ,001-11(1 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 legisiative power 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 Persons who were nominated by the

Crown. In point of fact, there could be no doubt but
this territory had been acquired by conquest. The hon.
member referred to the precedent of the United States
of America, and maintained that, though. the Crown in
thata free case
aernd independenteeognisedtl rsevtaotlete, dit cdoildonsieos
virtue
eico
as
f
an Act of Parliament. But there were many reasons
in the case of those colonies for rendering the concur-
renceth wasa wellany knownof
its
st
uh
ba
the t
c roofwPa a
itself
ewnats dleessisr adisposed
t
jects to conclude hostilities ; and, unless there was an
express declaration of Parliament on the subject, it was
not likely that the Crown would have suffered hostilities
to be brought to a termination. Another reason why
Parliament authorised the Crown to treat with the
American colonists was, because there had been a long
series of acts prohibiting commerce with the American
colonists, who would not, of course, agree to a peace
until those acts were repealed. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
gentleman referred to the Act of 1836. That act em-
powered the Crown to exercise the jurisdiction of a magi-
strate beyond the limits of the colony. That act laid down
a most important principle as to what ought to be the
policy of this country. The hon, gentleman then read
the section which gave the Crown power to exercise the
jurisdiction of a magistrate beyond the limits of the
Orange River, but said that nothing therein contained
should extend to vest in her Majesty, her heirs or suc-
cessors, any claim of sovereignty over any such terri-
tory, or power to dicate to the tribes, &c., of such out-
lying territory. (Hear.) He wished they had never
crossed the Orange River except with magisterial au-
thority, merely to punish those who offended against the
natives of our own colony. As to what the hon. 'gen-
tleman said of the allegiance of those people, it was
quite true that no British subject could divest himself
of his allegiance except by consent of Parliament. They
had not divested British subjects of their allegiance.
All the Crown did was to relieve the people of this ter-
ritory from their subjugation. It might be asked,
could a man remain a British subject and be also the
subject of another country ? He might answer that
question by asking anothdr. Where was the inconve-
nience resulting from those persons remaining British
subjects ? They would find it no more inconvenient
than millions of British subjects in America who had
emigrated from this country. But if those people really
desired to be relieved from any communication with the
Government of this country or its sovereignty, a bill
might be introduced into Parliament for that purpose.
It might be stipulated that those inhabitants should be
relieved from their allegiance, and at the same time
that they should forfeit all the rights, privileges, and
immunities attaching in a British subject, including
the right of inheritance to their relatives who
might die in the Cape Colony, and who were our sub-
jects. The house had acknowledged that this was en-
tirely a legal question, and one which he could presume
to say little upon. The law officers of the Crown, however,
upon whose advice the Government had acted would no
doubt be prepared to defend their opinions. As to the
question of policy, he would endeavour to state to the
house what were the motives which actuated the Go-
vernment in the line of policy they had pursued. The
hon. gentleman complained that this question was not
referred to the Cape legislature, but he (Mr. Peel)
maintained that the Government was right in viewing
this question as they did, namely as an imperial question
—an essentially imperial question—(hear)—the home
government being much more interested in it than the
local government. He agreed with the hon. gentleman
that where self-government was given to a colony the
colonists ought to bear the expenses of maintaining the
internal and frontier tranquillity. The Government re-
cognised the soundness of that doctrine, and had acted
upon it as far as they were able. The Legislature had
shown a disposition to accommodate itself to the views
of the Government. He must remind the house that it
was not now for the first time this doctrine that the
colonists should pay the expenses of maintaining frontier
tranquillity was laid down by a Secretary of State. The
hon. gentleman then read the instructions of Lord Grey,
at the close of the Kaffir war, which lasted during the
years 1846 and 1847. The opinionrof the Government,
Lord Grey said, was, that though, under the circum-
stances, the late Kaffir war being justifiable, the Go-
vernment was right in recommending a large grant for
the payment of its expenses—that effort on the part of
the mother country could not be repeated in the event
of a similar coitingency. Such were the words of Lord
Grey. But what happened ? A Kaffir war broke out
again in 1851 ; and everybody knew that the whole ex-
penses of that war had been defrayed by this country.
What was happening at this very moment? Why, there
were now 8,000 troops in the Cape colony. The Go-
vernment felt it impossible to withdraw them, much as
they wanted them, knowing that if the force was re-
duced war would break out afresh. And if the local
legislature had been asked to maintain those 8,000 troops,
would they not have complained—have declared the
troops were necessary for the protection of the colony,
the keeping peace on the frontier, and that their means
and resources were utterly inadequate to such a burden.
But if the local legislature would say in time of peace,
what would be the case in the time of war, when the
force would be raised from 8,000 to 10,000, at which it
stood 12 months ago. Why, the colonists would say
they could not pay the expenses, and the result would
be this country would have to pay them as it had to do
before. Therefore, he was justified in saying this was
an essential Imperial question, and the Government
would be wanting in its duty to that house, which
had so liberally supplied its demands at the time of
the Kaffir war, if it did not seek to extricate them from
the source of expenditure and of trouble. This was the
policy which the Government had pursued in British
Kaffraria as well as in the Orange River territory. He
(Mr. Peel) wished we could quit altogether British Kaf-
fraria—he wished they could hold themselves aloof
from the native population of the country, and say to
them, " You must manage your own affairs." But
General Cathcart had advised the Government, that
if they abandoned British Kaffraria, the possession
of that country having been the object of the late
war—the object for which the Kaffirs went to war—
the abandonment would be considered by the Kaffirs
a victory. But, if they could not abandon British
Kaffraria, let the Government at least take advantage of
the lessons of experience. The case of the Orange River
territory was identical with that of British Kaffraria.
In British Kaffraria, there were 60,000 Kaffirs and
1,000 Europeans ; in the Orange River territory,
100,000 Kaffirs, and 10,000 Europeans. There being
this mixture of aborigines and Europeans, and the latter
having possessed themselves of the most fertile parts
of the country, it would be their mutual interest
to maintain tranquillity. There was only one of two
courses for Government to pursue—either to estab-
lish a strong government, supported by a large mili-
tary force, to crush division and uphold the limits of
the territory ; and the other course was that which the
Government now proposed for the acceptance of the
house—namely, the cession of the Orange River terri-
tory. The course which the Government had taken was
supported by great authorities. The Orange River ter-
ritory had been acquired under peculiar circumstances.
When Sir H. Smith went out there in 1847, it was still
a possession beyond the limits of the Queen's dominions.
In one of the despatches, Sir H. Smith compared him-
self to the Governor-General of India. He said that
governor-generals who had been most eminent for their
ability had determined to rest content with the extent
of the dominions which they had found, and yet their
rule was invariably distinguished by the annexation of
new tracts of country. The anticipations of Sir
Harry Smith unfortunately turned out to be delu-
sive, and it was proved by unfortunate events, that, so
far from the majority of the aboriginal inhabitants being
favourably disposed towards British rule, the over-
whelming majority of them were decidedly hostile to it.
Lord Grey, before leaving office, warned by these facts,
had bequeathed it as his opinion to his successors that
the settled policy of this country ought to be to abandon
the Orange settlement. Sir G. Clarke had expressed
similar views, and had spoken of the settlement as one
which was anything but an acquisition in the proper
sense of the word, the territory being one which brought
no strength to Great Britain, and no credit to its cha-
rater, and no lustre to its crown. The Government had
suffered themselves to be guided by these and similar
opinions, and it was satisfactory for them to think that
the course they had adopted was that which was most
acceptable to the natives and the Dutch farmers.

An HON. MEMBER moved that the house be
counted.

CAt the time that the motion was made there were
nothing like 40 members present, but when the bell rang
the members flocked in from the coffee-rooms and
smoking-rooms, and soon made a house.]
The SPEAKER counted, and their being 40 members
present, there was, of course, a house.
Mr. F. PEEL continued his address, and gave an his-
torical summary of the circumstances under which the
Dutch farmers who were now invited to undertake the
responsibility of self-government first settled in the
colony. The delegates appointed by those boors had
recently declared their entire willingness to undertake
upon themselves the government of the country, and
Sir G. Clerk had signed a convention with them recog-
nising their country as henceforward independent of
British rule. It could not be denied that the immense
grants of land which had been made to British proprie-
tors had been exceedingly prejudicial to the native chiefs.
The extent to which the British proprietors pushed their
encroachments was sufficiently proved by tho fact that
140 English proprietors, who were absentees, residing
at the Cape Colony, had in their hands no less than two
millions and a half of acres in the sovereignty. The
Government had adopted that course which was mani-
festly most popular with the natives, and they resolved
to discourage further intervention in the quarrels of the
native tribes. He hoped the house would sanction their
policy, and reject the motion.
81r PAKINGTON observed that, during the time h
had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial-office,
his attention had been much directed to South Africa, in-
eluding the
Orange
imraPortant subject of the retention or non-reten.
tion of the O
River territory,. He felt bound to state
his views upon
by those who deemedalways
them. He quite acknowledged the excellent motives of the
introduced subject, but he was sorry
that he could not concur in
the hon. gentleman. The hadsubjectheOpinions expressed by
—one relating to the policy
other as to the la-
the Govegerentizent carried out
hon. gentleman into two headys, been divided by the
could noetirn'B motion,
goaflaitbyanodfotnhiengmthodeesoivnerwehigincht
considered
therefore,e whateveran
to
that object. The terms of ththeehyon.
however, were so general that
to refer directly to either point, and,
might be his (Sir J. Pakington's) ultimate opinion
propriety of the mode of proceeding adopted by the theGo
still, as he differed from his hon. friend as to
tvheopmroepnrtiety of tho abandonment of the territory, it would
be impossible for him to vote for the resolution in its pre-
sent terms. He concurred with the hon. gentleman the
Under Secretary for the Colonies in the wish that we_had
never had the Orange River sovereignty. He very much
regretted the policy adopted by the Government of Lord

J. Russell in acceding to the wishes of Sir Harry Smith,
that the Orange River territory should be added to the
dominions of the Crown in South Africa. Earl Grey, then
the Colonial Minister, at first expressed a very strong dis-
inclination to increase the territories of the Crown, hut
nevertheless he relied on the representations of Sir H.
Smith, and accepted the sovereignty. A very short time,
however, elapsed before Lord Grey was desirous of re-
versing his policy, and when h© (Sir J. Pakington) suc-
ceeded in 1852 to the office of Colonial Secretary,
he found that Lord Grey had actually sent out directions
for steps to be taken to abandon the sovereignty. Lord
Grey had also sent out a commission, consisting of Major
Hogg and Mr. Owen two gentlemen who performed their
duties with great ability, and the country had to 'egret the
premature death of Major Hogg, a man esteemed and
valued by all who knew him. During the time he (Sir J.
Pakington) was in office he took no active steps as to the
Orange River Territory, being in hopes of receiving the re-
port of the two commissioners. He had no hesitation, how-
ever, in saying that his own individual opinion was in ac-
cordance with that of the hon. gentleman the Under-Secre-
tary for the Colonies, and of the Duke of Newcastle, in
favour of the reversal of what he considered a ruinous step.
As he had said, while waiting for a report from the com-
missioners, he had taken no active steps beyond consulting
the law advisers of the department as to the proper mode of
proceeding to effect a step which he thought sound policy
required to be taken. He need not detail the reasons
which inducedhim to come to the resolution which he had
adopted, for in the speech of the hon. member for North
Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) he had heard no very strong
reason against that course. He doubted whether the
country, or even that house, was fully aware of the gigan-
tic extent of our possessions in South Africa. Most persons
regarded the colony of the Cape of Good Hope as limited to
th town and harbour, and some circumadjacent lands, and
few were aware of the enormous extent of the territory,
which, even without Natal and the Orange River territory,
was not less,than 600 or 700 miles in length and 300 in
,breadth. The population, especially of Europeans, was not
adequate for the necessities of that immense district. Upon
the eastern confines of that enormous territory was a dis-
trict not hitherto attached to the British Crown. and then
came the colony of Natal, to which possessions, already too
large, were then added the Orange River territory. He be-
lieved he did not at all overstate the facts when ho said that
between the Orange River and the Vaar was comprised no
less than2so,ooo square miles, with a population of 100,000
Kafirs, fully 60,000 of whom constituted the pseudo tribe ac-
knowledging allegiance to the chief Moshesh, and were among
the most intelligent of the Kaffir tribes. Sir G. Cathcart
had attempted to settle the question; but a struggle en-
sued of a more formidable character than any in which we
had ever before been engaged in South Africa. The Euro-
pean population in that country did not exceed, he believed,
10,000, of whom not 1 in 20 were British subjects. The re-
mainder were of Dutch origin, a large portion of whom had
migrated to that territory in order to escape British sove-
reignty. (Hear.) Those persons did not concur in any wish
that the British Crown should retain the sovereignty, and
he believed that that desire was confined to the handful of
British subjects who had speculated in land there. Au
argument had been used, dwelling upon the danger and in-
convenience of allowing an independent republic to esta-
blish itself upon our northern frontier. How could that
be prevented, when it already existed? _He could not
agree that, wherever those migratory boors—those flying
Dutchmen, as he might call them—chose to wander we
were bound to follow, and assert a sovereignty in order to
avoid the phantom danger of an independent republic in
our vicinity. (Hear.) That republic existed now, but it
was surrounded on nearly all sides by British territory, and
was 400 miles from any seaport, so that little danger could
be apprehended from its existence. There was another
point worthy of consideration—what would be the expense
of maintaining possession of this. territory? He was ad-
vised that we could not keep the sovereignty without an
army of 2,000 men, of whom 500 must be cavalry ; and,
with our already overgrown possessions in South Africa,
it could not be worth while to maintain such a force for
the sake of a handful of Europeans. Was there any object
of imperial policy requiring such a step ? He could see
none. It was true that he had seen it stated in the news-
papers that gold had been found, but he believed the
Government had no authentic information on that point,
and he must say that his impression remained the same as
as to the propriety of retaining the territory. He found
by the last despatches that, so far from reversing the opi-
nions he had held when in office, they went very strongly
to corroborate them. Sir George Clerk had sent home
some very strong despatches describing the state of the
country in the most discouraging terms, and Sir Geo. Cath-
cart, than whom there could be no higher authority, had
also written home, evidently sharing the opinion that, after
the struggles we had had in South Africa, and looking to
the amount of European population and other circum-
stances, it would be more advisable to abandon the colony.
Mr. V. SMITH said the main argument of the hon.
member for North Staffordshire was, that the sovereignty
of the colony ought to be abandoned by act of Parliament,
and not by the will of the Queen. He (Mr. S.) did not,
however, think that the hon. gentleman had advanced his
arguments by the speech he had made. As a layman, ha
thought that, if the Crown had the power of making bar-
gains and ceding territories, it ought also to have the power
of abandoning them. It had never, however, been the
policy of this country to abandon an inch of territory. On
the contrary, our policy had always been to claim every
rock upon which a head of cattle could be found, and an-
nex it to the sovereignty of England. He believed the
opinions of Major Hogg, Mr. Owen, Sir George Clerk, and
of all persons conversant with the Cape colony, were in
favour of its abandonment, as a costly and unprofitable
appanage of the Crown. It was, he thought, absurd to say
that an extensive and barbarous colony in South Africa
should be maintained at enormous cost, in order that it
might enjoy a free constitution ! It was equally absurd to
contend that the cost of abandoning the colony would be
as great as retaining it, after the experience we had had of
three Kaffir wars. If the hon. gentleman proceeded to a
division, he would cordially vote against the motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would confine, himself
strictly to the legal part of the question, and he must 'say
the hon. member for North Staffordshire had hardly acted
fairly towards the house, or, at all events, towards the
legal advisers of the Government, in the manner in which
he had framed his resolutions, as he (the Attorney-General)
and his hon. and learned colleague, the Solicitor-General,
were not aware until that evening that his motion would
involve any question of the legal rights of the Crown. Ho
would very briefly state the grounds on which he was pre-
p...ea to justify tho eonrse whirl, the aoyernmeut bed
pursued. Colonies might oe divided into three classes--
such as were acquired by occupancy on the one hand, and
such as were acquired by conquest or cession on the other.
As regarded colonies gained by occupancy, there was no
doubt that a British subject who went forth and occupied
a territory hitherto unoccupied, carried with him all the
rights and privileges of his birth—the laws, in other words,
of England, in so far as they were applicable to his condi-
tion. On the other hand, where colonies were acquired by
conquest or by cession, the Crown gained the absolute so-
vereignty, and no person settling or born there had any
right to the laws or institutions of this country. As to
colonies acquired by occupancy, considerable doubt existed
whether the Crown had'any right to quit the territory with-
out the sanction of the Legislature, and much could be said
upon the subject; but as the present case appeared to him to
rest ona different footing, because he did not think the terri-
tory in question had been gained by occupancy, but by con-
quest, he should confine himself to it. The Cape of Good
Hope, the principal colony of South Africa, was acquired
by conquest The boors, who were subject to the Crown
at that period, thought proper at a subsequent time to
quit the territory and to establish themselves in the dis-
trict of the Orange River. They did that for the express
purpose of escaping the dominion of the British Crown,
and of establishing their independence ; they were pur-
sued by Sir H. Smith, who proclaimed the power of the
British Crown over them as subjects, but they resisted with
arms the forces of Great Britain, they were overcome, and
compelled to acknowledge the power which they had at-
tempted to resist. The territory occupied by those in the
position which he had described was gained not by occu-
pancy_but by conquest, and therefore he said, as the terri-
tory had been gained without the intervention of Parlia-
ment, without that intervention it might be abandoned
again by the Crown. The hon. gentleman, indeed, ad-
mitted the power of the Crown, which he (the Attorney-
General) contended for, because he referred to the aban-
dement of Calais and Dunk:rk, and Gibraltar ; but he
made a distinction between such places as these and what
be called large tracts of territory, as to which he denied the
power of the Crown so to abandon them. But ho (the
Attorney-General) would like to know on what principle
he made the distinction. Why give up Calais, Dunkirk,
or Gibraltar, each containing a large number of inhabi-
tants ? For if the Crown could give up these, what differ-
ence was there between them and this territory ? He must
protest that he saw none, for the difference established was
not between town and territory, but on the modes of ac-
quisition, whether by occupancy or conquest. Why, we had
already dealt so with some of our colonies; Curacoa, he
believed, was an instance. Indeed, the honourable
gentleman, who was so well acquainted with the history
of the Cape, must know that, when it was first acquired,
we acquired it by conquest, but that we after that
gave it up by the prerogative of the Crown without the
intervention of Parliament. Therefore, it appeared to him
that the course pursued in this case was the proper course
in the circumstances. But, then, he was told that his pre-
decessors had come to a different opinion. He did not
know the reasons which had led them to such a result, but
he must admit that nothing would make him so diffident
of his opinion as to hear that his two learned friends, two
so eminent men as his predecessors were, entertained a dif-
ferent opinion. But he could well understand that those
gentlemen might have thought, and that it might still be
expedient, that an act of Parliament should be passed to
relieve the persons in that territory altogether from all
claims which the Crown might have over them. But as
far as the mere question went, whether the Crown, having
acquired dominion by conquest, could abandon it without
Parliament, he must still maintain that the means resorted
were the right means for the purpose.
Sir F. THESIGER said, as he had been so pointedly
alluded to, he was desirous of explaining his views, which
were not so different from the Attorney-General's in the
result as in the way by which that result had been arrived
at. For although he did think it better there should be an
act of Parliament to meet the difficulties of the case ; yet
that an act was essential, he never did at all entertain such
an opinion. But he did not agree in thinking that this ter-
ritory was gained by conquest ; there was no annexation of
territory whatever to the British Crown in this instance, and
if any sovereignty existed at all, it must have been of the
most peculiar description. The boors, farmers, at an early
period began to wander beyond the Cape colony to find
their sheep and to return afterwards, thus going and return-
ing at intervals; but in 1836 they fixed for themselves a more
permanent abode beyond the colony, began to assume inde-
pendence, and to exercise dominion over the natives of the
district. That led to abuses which called for the inter-
vention of the British power, and an Act of Parliament
was passed giving the Cape Colony power over the vicinity
to 25 degrees of north latitude. He maintained, against
the opinion of some, that we did not by that act claim
dominion over the territory, but only over our own Bri-
tish subjects the same force as was given to the Acts of
Parliament a few years ago which declared it to be felony
for a British subject to hold slaves. The natives and
people of the district remained as before under their own
governors; among whom there were two more distinguished
than the rest, namely, Adam Cock and iNloshcsh. Sir
Peregrine Maitland, in a treaty which he concluded with
Adam Cock, distinctly recognised his sovereignty, and
that, too, as late as the year 18-16, long after the establish-
ment of these boors and their claim of an independent ju-
risdiction. Mr. Porter, the Attorney-General at the Cape,
it appeared, entertained the opinion that this territory was
acquired by occupancy, but the counsel came to a different
conclusion, for they thought it had been an acquisition by
contest, and recommended that an Act of Parliament
should be introduced, reciting that doubts had been enter-
tained how the territory had been gained, and whether it
could bo abandoned by the mere authority of the
Crown, then to proceed to allay those doubts by
enactments proper to the case. Therefore, he thought
he was entitled to say that, up to that time, it was
established opinion that there had been an acquisition '
by cc)acPle,t. in the Orange River territory. Sir Barry

Smith afterwards, by treaty with Adam Cock, while re-
citing the previous treaties, plainly recognised the Bove-
also in another treaty,
rstetyligonngly
oafoptrhoevetClhoifetfliselC)lnsiersalibleness of maintaining tran-
quility with the Queen of a-At 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 hon. friend the member for Droitwich. The letters
patent of 1851 were, he believed, never published. The
sovereignty might bo abandoned without the consent of the
Legislature ; but ho had come, 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 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 with them. 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,
and that it was at once contradicted by Lord Thurlow. The
question now bbfore 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, ho 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 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
Oxford and 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. HEYWORTH in favour
o f 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
into the mode in which medical relief is now administered
in 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. RUSSELL 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
eHeourage 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. DIGBY 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 discountinr,
matters by making it a felony. It is perfectly disgraceful.°
It would be a most beneficial act if any gentleman would
and bring in a. bill making such a
hand,
is no less than stealing a man's
m
act of Parliament were passed,-the good
ioannhcyaeulable, and the parties would be at
effectedt
transactionaok ne
e tyh.
lofsuch
would
lad subject a
bef c in l
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
who called themselves bill discounters, but who were, in
fact, bill stealers ; and any remedy
for this evil, likely to
carry out the views of the learned judge to whom the hon.
and learned gentleman had referred, would be entitled to
the consideration of the house. The hon. and learned
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 be
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. HUTCHINS was accidentally shut out of the division
and prevented from voting in favour of the increase of the
malt-tax.

REPRESENTATION Or CAMBRIDGE.— 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
A.dair. 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.—On 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, and 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 once 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
Press.