§ VISCOUNT MILTONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Act of the 2nd William and Mary, "for confirming to the Hudson's Bay Company their Privileges and Trades," was not limited to a period of seven years, long since expired; whether the Letters Patent of Charles the Second, as originally granted to Prince Rupert and other Adventurers, did not expire on the death of that King, and were only conditional on such Adventurers expending a sum of £10,000 in fitting out an expedition for the discovery of a north-west passage, which enterprize was never undertaken by them, such patent becoming thereby absolutely void; whether the statute of the 4th William and Mary, chapter 15, by which this Company of Adventurers undertook to pay £5 per share annually to the Crown as an acknowledgment of such trading (not territorial) privileges, 328 has not been treated as a nullity, notwithstanding the very large profits that have accrued under the previous private Act of the 2nd of William and Mary; whether the Statute of Mortmain is not an effectual barrier to the acquisition of sovereign rights and territory by an English Company of Traders without the express authority of Parliament; whether the Limited Liability Companies Act under which form the present Hudson's Bay Association (Limited) are now trading, is not strictly confined to the United Kingdom, extending neither to Prince Rupert's Land nor yet to British North America in its operations, and which limited Company has not as yet received any Charter from the Crown which could be surrendered to the Canadian Dominion; when the Copy of all Papers ordered by this House on the Motion of Sir Harry Verney, in the last Session—namely, on the 1st day of June, will be laid upon the Table; whether a Copy of the private Act of the 2nd William and Mary, chapter 10 (not as yet printed), will be included in such Return; and, whether Parliament has not refused to confirm or renew the Letters Patent of Charles the Second, but on the other hand by the public Act of the 4th of William and Mary, chapter 15, before referred to, positively declared the trading privileges of the said Hudson's Bay Company to be at an end, unless £5 per share per annum should be paid to the Crown, such so-called Charter otherwise to be void; and when and under what circumstances such annual payments ceased to be made; and whether with the concurrence of Parliament or not?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the noble Lord, in about the longest Question that had ever been addressed by one Member of Parliament to another, had asked for information upon a number of interesting historical questions, and for opinions on various questions of law. He had seen the Question only an hour before, and would give him the best answer he could.
§ VISCOUNT MILTONoffered to put the Question again on Monday. ["No!"]
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the noble Lord asked whether the Act of the 2nd William and Mary, "for confirming to the Hudson's Bay Company their Privileges and Trades," was not limited to a period of seven years, long since expired. To that he replied 329 that the Act was so limited, and the noble Lord was quite right in supposing the seven years had long since expired. The noble Lord next asked whether
The Letters Patent of Charles II., as originally granted to Prince Rupert and other Adventurers, did not expire on the death of that King, and were only conditional on such Adventurers expending a sum of £10,000 in fitting out an expedition for the discovery of a north-west passage, which enterprize was never undertaken by them, such patent becoming thereby absolutely void?Upon that Question he was of opinion that the patent had not become void, and he quoted the opinion of Lord Mansfield, Sir Dudley Ryder; Sir John Jervis, Sir John Romilly, Sir Richard Bethell, and Sir John Keating to the same effect. The noble Lord further asked whetherThe statute of the 4th William and Mary, chapter 15, by which this Company of Adventurers undertook to pay £5 per share annually to the Crown as an acknowledgment of such trading (not territorial) privileges, has not been treated as a nullity, notwithstanding the very large profits that have accrued under the previous private Act of the 2nd William and Mary?He believed the statute had not been acted upon, at all events in recent times. To the next question he replied that the Statute of Mortmain did not prevent the settlement of a British Colony abroad, and the best authorities had treated the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company as a settled Colony in America. In the original Letters of Charles II. it was spoken of as "a Colony or plantation." The next question was—Whether the Limited Liability Companies Act, under which form the present Hudson's Bay Association (Limited) are now trading, was not strictly confined to the United Kingdom, extending neither to Prince Rupert's Land nor yet to British North America in its operations, and which limited Company has not, as yet, received any Charter from the Crown which could be surrendered to the Canadian Dominion?Undoubtedly the Limited Liability Companies Act was confined to this kingdom; but because a company having possessions abroad chose to register themselves under that Act in this country, they did not therefore lose any possessions or rights which they had abroad, and the registration of the Hudson's Bay Company in this country did not affect their charter or their right to surrender it to the Dominion. The noble Lord's next Question was—When the Copy of all Papers ordered by this House on the Motion of Sir Harry Verney, in the last Session—namely, on the 1st day of June— 330 will be laid upon the Table; whether a Copy of the private Act of the 2nd William and Mary, chapter 10 (not as yet printed), will be included in such Return?In reply to that he said those Papers had been laid on the Table on the 2nd of August, 1865, and the noble Lord could find them in Parliamentary Paper No. 390. If he had taken the trouble to make inquiries in the Library, he would have found this out before. He now came to the last Question asked by the noble Lord, which was—Whether Parliament has not refused to confirm or renew the Letters Patent of Charles II., but, on the other hand, by the public Act of the 4th of William and Mary, chapter 15, before referred to, positively declared the trading privileges of the said Hudson's Bay Company to be at an end unless £5 per share per annum should be paid to the Crown, such so-called Charter otherwise to be void; and when and under what circumstances such annual payments ceased to be made; and whether with the concurrence of Parliament or not?To that he could only say that the statute did require such payment to be made. He did not know under what circumstances they were discontinued; but as a large number of subsequent statutes had recognized this company, the forfeiture, if any had occurred, had boon repeatedly waived.