HC Deb 01 July 1864 vol 176 cc616-28
MR. ARTHUR MILLS

said, he rose to call attention to the present condition of the territories claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and to move an Address for Copies of all Correspondence which had taken place between the Imperial and Canadian Governments respecting the Western Boundaries of Canada, and of any Memorials forwarded to the Colonial Office from the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement. He did not propose to enter into the question of the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, which had so often been the subject of inquiry in Parliament. It was generally admitted, he believed, that the territory claimed by the Company, comprising 1,500,000 square miles, was granted by a charter of Charles II. at a time when it did not belong to the British Crown. It was now admitted that in 1670 the vast territory now claimed by the Company was in the possession of the Crown of France, and was occupied by a French Company under a charter dated thirty or forty years before that of Charles II. It was notorious that by the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1696, it was admitted in the face of Europe that the territory belonged to the Crown of France. By the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, it was admitted that three-fourths of the territory belonged to France. It was not until the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, when Canada was ceded to England, that this territory became the property of the Crown of England. The territory was, therefore, granted by Charles II. to the Hudson's Bay Company 100 years before it became the property of the British Crown. It was also true, by the concurrent testimony of all our eminent legal authorities, from Lord Mansfield to Lord Westbury, that a prescription of 200 years, supported by Acts of Parliament reciting the rights of the Company, cured the defects of the title, however bad and rotten it might have been originally. Therefore, the question was one which was no longer open to dispute; at any rate, it would be unpractical and a mere waste of time to discuss the question now. But there was a question connected with this territory which was not altogether irrelevant at the present time. There was a tract of country containing 60,000 or 70,000 square miles, which—according to the evidence of witnesses examined before the Parliamentary Committee in 1857, including Sir George Simpson, Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, and who had every interest to represent the territory as barren; Captain Palliser, who was officially appointed to inquire into the state of the country; Professor Hinde, also appointed to make the inquiry—comprised some of the most fertile land in the whole continent of North America. That territory was now practically shut up from colonization. It was perfectly true that this fertile territory was separated from Canada by a very barren and inhospitable tract of 500 miles, between Lake Superior and Lake Ontario. It was also true that up to this time no effort had been made to colonise that territory, and that the natural barrier which lay between it and the other possessions of the Crown was an impediment to colonization. The question now was, what openings offered themselves for the settlement of that territory. It was admitted by all that the connection of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by land by a continuous chain of settlements would be of immense advantage both in regard to the territories themselves and to our own interests in North America. The opening of the China trade through British territory would be of vast commercial importance. There was also no doubt whatever of the political importance of doing all in our power to form a bond of union among all our territories in North America. But the serious question was, who was to pay the costs of the operation? He apprehended the House of Commons was not prepared to spend any portion of the public money for founding Colonies in that part of British America; and he also apprehended that they would be very reluctant to give an Imperial guarantee to other parties who might be willing to undertake the task. But it so happened that in this instance the colony of Canada had come forward and expressed its readiness to undertake some share at all events of this large financial responsibility. He would briefly state how the case stood at the present moment. From the correspondence laid on the table it appeared that the colony of Canada was willing to guarantee 4 per cent upon £250,000, to be raised for the purpose of connecting the western frontier of Canada with the Bed River Settlement; but the Colonial Government said they would undertake this obligation only on the condition that the boundaries of Canada should be properly defined. The hindrances to this arrangement were interposed by the Hudson's Bay Company. Last year that Company appeared in a new dress, but it had not lost its ancient character. They refused to go before any tribunal for arbitration—they would not open the question of boundary in any shape or form—but stood upon their ancient rights, which they were prepared to uphold. Thus Canada was baulked in her efforts by obstacles interposed by the Hudson's Bay Company. The question was not whether we were to upset the charter—not whether Great Britain should undertake the expense of founding a Crown colony in Canada, but whether England was prepared to allow an obstruction to intervene between the colonization of that country and a colony which had manifested its readiness to undertake so important a share of the financial burden. In reply to an application from the Canadian Government for co-operation in this matter, Mr. Dallas wrote as follows:— While fully admitting the force of the above arguments, and the immediate necessity of some arrangements being come to, I am reluctantly compelled to admit my inability to meet the Government of Canada in this forward movement, for the following reasons:—The Red River and Saskatchewan valleys, though not in themselves fur-bearing districts, are the sources from whence the main supplies of winter food are procured for the northern posts, from the produce of the buffalo hunts. A chain of settlements through these valleys would not only deprive the Company of the above vital resource, but would indirectly, in many other ways, so interfere with their northern trade, as to render it no longer worth prosecuting on an extended scale. It would necessarily be divided into various channels, possibly to the public benefit, but the Company could no longer exist on its present footing. The Earl of Carnarvon, writing on behalf of the Imperial Government, proposed to the Hudson's Bay Company the policy of acquiescing in the reference desired by the colony of Canada. He said— Before deciding finally upon the course to be pursued, he desires to place once more the question before the Hudson's Bay Company, with a sincere hope that on a fuller consideration they may see the expediency of modifying the determination which your letter announced. Where on all sides interests so great and various are concerned, the wisest and most dignified course will be found, as Sir E. Bulwer Lytton has on previous occasions pointed out, in an appeal to and a decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with the concurrence alike of Canada and of the Hudson's Bay Company. If the adoption of such a procedure be advantageous to the interests of all parties concerned, Sir Edward cannot but think it would be particularly for the interest of the Hudson's Bay Company. It would afford a tribunal pre-eminently fitted for the dispassionate consideration of the questions at issue; it would secure a decision which would probably be rather of the nature of an arbitration than of a judgment; and it would furnish a basis of negotiation on which reciprocal concession and the claims for compensation could be most successfully discussed. The question was, whether the Hudson's Bay Company were to be allowed to stand in the way of the public advantage? He believed that Parliament would not consider it right that the Hudson's Bay Company should stand in the way of establishing settlements, especially when those who were to derive the benefit of them were prepared to bear their full share of the burden involved in making them. He had brought the question before the House in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies would state that no obstruction to the plan would be offered on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He was quite aware that there were good reasons why Great Britain alone should not undertake the responsibility of planting a colony in that quarter. He was fully aware that there were great difficulties yet in store with respect to the boundaries between British North America and the United States—there were questions arising respecting the defence of our colonial possessions—respecting the Red River Settlement—and there was a strong probability that that Settlement would have a large influx of immigrants from the States. It appeared to him that if the opportunity were afforded of helping on the federal union of our North American colonies, enabling the colonists to unite themselves by commercial intercourse with the Atlantic and the Pacific, not only would our trade with China be opened, but a chain of settlements would be formed binding the colonists more closely together. While he believed it would be inexpedient that England herself should undertake a new settlement in North America, he nevertheless thought that a policy which would enable the existing colonies to unite themselves by a chain of settlements between the two oceans, would be wise, dignified, and prudent—regard being had to the time when the vast territory to which he referred would contain self-supporting communities. Although the political difficulties were considerable, he believed that those difficulties might be overcome. The question was one of considerable importance; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would indicate some means by which the differences between Canada and the Hudson's Bay Company might be cleared up by a reference to the Judicial Committee of Council or some other tribunal before which the questions could be tried; because, if they stood over, the time might come when Canada might say, "We offered to bear our part of the cost; impediments were offered; we were not allowed to settle our boundaries, we could not go forward, and were prevented from doing that which we were desirous of accomplishing." There were, moreover, quite enough points of argument between ourselves and our neighbours in North America (such as the San Juan question, and others) standing over for adjudication, without adding to them "Hudson's Bay and Red River questions" for future controversy. On all these grounds he sincerely hoped that the settlement of this vast and fertile territory would not be left to the chances of desultory immigration, and that no hindrance at all events would be offered to those who might be prepared to undertake its colonization on the part of the Imperial Government.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence which has taken place between the Imperial and Canadian Governments respecting the Western Boundaries of Canada, and of any Memorials forwarded to the Colonial Office from the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement,"—(Mr. Arthur Mills,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. WATKIN

said, the few words with which he should trouble the House could be offered rather as evidence in the case than as intended to convey any peculiar views of his own. He had understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Mover of the Resolution, had laid down the proposition, upon what authority he knew not, that Canada was ready to assume the cost and responsibility of founding a new colony in the vast territory belonging to or at least in the possession of the Hudson's Bay Company; a colony, in fact, which would become one of a great chain of communities between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

MR. ARTHUR MILLS

explained that what he had meant was merely that Canada was ready to be responsible for a large proportion of the cost of establishing telegraphic and other communication across the continent.

MR. WATKIN

Really the hon. Gentleman, before bringing so large a question before the House, ought to have taken more pains to be accurate. All that Canada had proposed to do was to contribute so much a year, about £10,000, in aid of the construction of a telegraph, and towards providing the means of a postal and passenger transit across the continent. And at the instance of the late Colonial Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, a proposition had been made in May, 1863, which, if at once accepted, would have led to the achievement of that great object. The Duke communicated that proposition in a despatch bearing that date, to both Canada and British Columbia; and Canada, after keeping the despatch unanswered from May, 1863, to the end of February, 1864, at last declined to proceed, and on not over creditable grounds. The House might re- member that the late Government of Canada went out of office early in March last, and on the eve of leaving office they drew up the minute refusing their assistance. Possibly they might not have replied at all, but in the month of February the Colonial Office informed them—as the papers now before the House showed—that British Columbia regarded the proposals with deep interest, and only waited for the decision of Canada in order to forward, as was expected, a favourable reply. Knowing, then, that their refusal would throw over the whole project—for, if refused, British Columbia could not comply—the late Government entirely backed out of their own proposal. And on what ground? why, that the Duke's despatch proposed the erection of a telegraph only. Now, a reference to the despatch itself would show that this plea was unfounded; and he might state that personal explanations had been given to the members of this very Government, so that the House could only assume that those who then guided the affairs of Canada did not desire, as represented by the hon. Member, to see so truly Imperial a work carried out with vigour and certainty. In fact, in their hands and by their delays and excuses and unwillingness, Canada, and Canada only, had stood in the way. The blame, therefore, he regretted to say, must, so far, rest with Canada and not with Her Majesty's Colonial Office or with the Hudson's Bay Company, as was, no doubt, upon erroneous information alleged by the hon. Member. The fault, however, attached to the Government and not to the people of Canada. But the question before the House was much larger, and it involved consequences demanding the most serious and anxious consideration of Parliament. The question came to this—Was this vast territory, above four times as large as Great Britain, worth the attention of the Colonial Office and deserving of the care of that House? Was it worth the while of the House and the Government to consider the future settlement and destiny of a vast and fertile region capable of containing from thirty to fifty millions of free people? The time has almost come when the House must decide whether that region should be peopled with British subjects, or become part of the American union. Regarding the question as affecting Imperial interests—and the consideration of those interests only could guide the House—he felt assured that hon. Members would desire to preserve this territory to the British Crown. Let the House bear in mind that it was considering a portion of the earth's surface at least as large as Russia in Europe. Then came the practical question—could this territory be governed and defended by Canada, or ought it to become a separate and distinct colony under the control of the Crown? Now, so far from Canada, as a whole, desiring to hold itself responsible for the establishment and defence of a new colony, the great bulk of Canadian statesmen—especially in the present state of Canadian finance and Canadian defence—would oppose it. Canada could not just now afford the risk, and it must be remembered that the very men who had repudiated the Duke's despatch, and had backed out of the overland communication, had been in all ways backward as regarded the military defence of the colony itself. They, at least, after refusing to provide adequately for the defence of Canada, would not take the new burden of defending an additional border of 1,500 miles alongside the United States. But the House would bear in mind that a question had, with more or less vehemence, agitated the minds of the Canadian people, namely, that of "Representation by Population." When the union of Lower and Upper Canada was declared, the population of Lower Canada much exceeded that of Upper Canada. Now, however, the population of Upper Canada exceeded that of Lower Canada by some 300,000; and a party in Upper Canada asked for a proportionate representation. Such a measure would of course enable Upper Canada to rule over and destroy the individualization of Lower Canada. Therefore, all French-speaking Canadians, and a large number of the most loyal people in both sections of the province, opposed a change leading inevitably to universal suffrage and the extinction of the political influence of an educated minority. Now, if the Hudson's Bay territory were added to Upper Canada, that portion of the province would overbear the remainder, and all the old contests of race and language would be revived, even perhaps to the end of civil war. He entirely forebore to speak about title, that would settle itself; it was a purely legal question. The question before the House was one of Government. The hon. Gentleman talked of the rights of Canada—meaning, he supposed, that Canada could and would govern, and, if govern, defend. Now Canada was a coun- try 1,500 miles long and 500 to 600 miles broad. It had a population strewn over this area of only 3,000,000—or less than the population of London. Yet, forsooth, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to charge this small population with the defence and Government of a new country nearly twice as big as its own, notwithstanding that Fort Garry—the chief settlement of the Hudson's Bay territory—was 1,000 miles from the nearest place at present deserving the name of a settlement belonging to Canada. But while the hon. Gentleman advocated a chain of settlements, forming ultimately one continuous British population between the two oceans, he deprecated any Imperial expenditure on account of such an Imperial purpose. His proposal on behalf of Canada was unauthorized and must break down. It was imperative that any new colony must be founded upon the prestige of the British Empire and its flag. No other foundation would preserve British influence. Either that must happen or a rapid process of Americanization would go on. Already the country was being squatted over by American citizens and soldiers, while the Colonial Office did nothing. But the hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of founding new colonies. Now, the people of the United States founded new communities, and organized their Government, without saddling the Union itself with any permanent expense whatever; they derived their resources from the sale of lands and the taxation of the settlers. And in so fine a region as this, if the British Government could not found a new colony without coming to the Imperial Exchequer except for temporary advances or assistance, the fault must be attributed to mismanagement and incapacity at the Colonial Office. As regarded the alleged impediments to the settlement of the Hudson's Bay territory, he must repeat that the late Canadian, and not the Imperial Government, was responsible. The monied and commercial classes here in England were ready to co-operate liberally; but the confidence in the bona fides of Canada must be first restored. Was it not extraordinary that in the year 1864 a private company of fur traders should rule and govern about a fourth of the whole North American continent, and that a charter of Charles II. should permit such a private company in London to levy war with Indian tribes, to build fortifications, and to have, in fact, if they thought fit, an army of defence? Unless Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take more immediate and practical action, nothing could prevent the alienation of this territory, which ought to become in every sense an integral part of the Empire. The House had had to listen to much discussion for years past; the time for action had arrived. Was the House prepared longer to allow the matter to drift its own way; to permit American squatters to secure the most valuable lands, and American influence to predominate, when by hoisting the British flag and giving to the people of Red River the moral influence of the British Crown, they could render this territory one of the most valuble and hopeful of all the British dependencies?

MR. CARDWELL

said, he would offer no objection to the production of any papers that remained of the copious Correspondence already presented on the subject. He trusted, however, under these circumstances, that his hon. Friend would not expect him to enter at length into the question she had raised; for if he were to go through the whole history of the matter, he would enter a territory as vast as that of the Hudson's Bay Company. In 1857 a Committee of that House, which had been appointed to inquire into the subject, recommended that Canada should be permitted, if she thought proper, to annex the territories in question, so that they might thereafter form a part of the Canadian possessions; and acting on that suggestion the Colonial Secretary submitted certain propositions to Canada and to the Hudson's Bay Company. The Government, acting under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, felt it was impossible to dispute the validity of a charter which had existed for two centuries; but they made the very suggestion alluded to by his hon. Friend—that the question of the western boundaries of Canada should be referred to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Hudson's Bay Company assented; but Canada demanded that the Privy Council should consider, not merely the question of boundaries, but the whole validity of the charter. To this proposition the Company naturally would not consent. The noble Lord who was then Colonial Secretary was succeeded by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton) who, under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, informed the Canadian Government that if they wished to challenge the charter of the Company they must do so by a scire facias in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Canadian Government, however, refused to take any steps to settle the question. The right hon. Gentleman gave full notice that in that case he should feel at liberty to endeavour to settle the question by negotiation. In 1862 negotiations were commenced with his noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle by a company who proposed to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by means of telegraphic and postal communication. Ultimately the Hudson's Bay Company became united in interest with the persons who promoted that scheme, and the negotiations were carried to this point—that it was agreed the Hudson's Bay Company should be compensated for their interest in the territory out of the proceeds of the sale of portions of the land. The principle was adopted, but the details were not settled. At that stage of the matter he (Mr. Card-well) succeeded to the office he had now the honour to occupy. He had anticipated the desire expressed by the hon. Gentleman, that every facility should be afforded to Canada to take part in the negotiations on this subject. He had informed the Company that if any colony was to be founded in that territory provision for the settlement and good government of the new colony must be made by themselves, by the Canadian Government, or by the Crown; and he renewed the offer made on the recommendation of the Committee of 1857. At the same time he had called on the Canadian Government, if they were not disposed to take upon themselves the responsibility, to state distinctly what were their views on the boundary question, in order that negotiations might be set on foot for the amicable settlement of the dispute. This question involved points of very great difficulty. It was connected with chartered rights of great antiquity. The matter before the House was also connected with the position of the intercolonial railway, which still remained in suspense in Canada, and it was connected, moreover, with the proposal that Canada should maintain at her own expense communication by telegraph and post road with the point at which the telegraph of the Hudson's Bay Company should join the Canadian system. Canada had not yet given her adhesion to that proposal; and the question of the Canadian guarantee of half the cost of the telegraph was also still in abeyance, which was likewise the case with the proposal that the other half should be guaranteed by Vancouver's Island and British Columbia. It also remained undecided whether, if a new settlement were to be established, it should be founded at the expense of the present Hudson's Bay Company, of Canada, or of the Imperial Exchequer. Canada would shortly receive from him an offer based on the recommendations of the Committee of 1857. But the matter was one of great importance, and would have to be maturely considered. With the view of bringing the whole affair to a satisfactory result, he had written to his noble Friend the Governor General of Canada a despatch which, as an answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Arthur Mills) he would be glad to lay on the table. He invited the Canadian Government to state whether they were prepared to accept the conditions recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons; and, if not, to intimate what their views were respecting the question of the western boundary? That difficult question it would be his endeavour to bring to a satisfactory conclusion; but all he would say at present was that no pledge would be given on his part without the previous knowledge and consent of the House,

MR. LYALL

said, it was not true that the Hudson's Bay Company had sent out telegraphic wires for the purpose of connecting Minnesota with the Red River Settlement, and thereby increasing the influence of the United States in the Hudson's Bay territory. The Directors who came into office a year ago took into consideration the subject of communication between Columbia and Canada in association with the question of communication with China, and they had sent out wires for that purpose. But certainly if Canada were not prepared to do her part in overcoming the natural difficulties of the country between her and the Red River Settlement, it would be necessary for the Company to connect their telegraph with Minnesota, from which they were only distant about fifty miles. With respect to the new government of the Company, they were by no means disposed to retard colonization; they waited, however, for roads and other communications; and it was felt, moreover, that greater powers than were given by their proprietary charter must be obtained by the Company in order to establish good order in the settlement. The whole subject was under the consideration of the Colonial Office, and he trusted that an extended colonization of a great territory would be promoted.

COLONEL SYKES

urged the great importance of communication with British Columbia. We could not get there at all except by Panama and Cape Horn. So that Columbia were connected with Canada, what mattered whether the communication were effected by the colony of Canada or by an independent Company? The result would be that a direct communication with China would be established. The undertaking was one of great importance; and if it could be effected by a little pressure upon the Hudson's Bay Company it would be politic for the Government to exercise it. The hon. Gentleman who brought the question forward was entitled to the thanks of the House for so doing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to