Lords Sitting of 24 August 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a City of London Sewers; Sheep and Cattle Contagious Disorders Prevention; Millbank Prison; Commons Inclosure Act Amendment.
2a Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers; Wolverhampton Curacy (No. 2); Petty Bag, &c. Office (Court of Chancery); Corrupt Practices at Elections.
Reported.—Commons Inclosure (No. 2); London (City) Small Debts; Fisheries (Ireland); Parochial Debt and Audit.
3a and passed:—Stock in Trade Exemption; Boroughs' Incorporation; Out Pensioners.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Trustees of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, in the County of Galway, against the Reproductive Loan Fund Institution (Ireland) Bill.—From Agriculturists, Merchants, and Others, complaining of the Depressed State of Agriculture and Commerce in the Island of Jamaica.—From the Town of Liverpool, against the present Ecclesiastical Law From the Willeton Board of Guardians, against so much of the Parochial Debt and Audit Bill as deprives them of Administering Relief.—From Merchants, and Others, in the Province of New Brunswick, against any Alteration of the Navigation Laws.—From the Guardians of the Poor of the Lancaster Union, against the Poor Law Union Charges (No. 2) Bill.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.
LORD MONTEAGLE, pursuant to notice, rose to move for certain papers respecting the grant of Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company. The question was one which involved important public interests, both present and reversionary. Those of their Lordships who had taken an interest in the negotiations carried on between this country and the United States of America previous to the completion of what was called the Oregon Treaty, must be familiar with the political and commercial importance attached to the possession of Vancouver's Island, situated as it was between the territories of Russia on the north, and those of the United States on the south. This portion of Her Majesty's dominions was at the present moment a possession of great value, and it might become of almost incalculable importance hereafter. The climate of the island was fine, the soil fertile, its harbours were excellent, and the place was in all respects most favourable for settlement and colonisation; it contained, moreover, extensive mines of coal, invaluable in its future applicability to the steam navigation of the Pacific. He was not aware that from the possessions of Russia to the Isthmus of Panama, there existed any other place near the coast capable of furnishing this important article. When-over a communication should be made, either by railroad or by a canal, across the Isthmus—and that time could not be very distant—the Pacific must become the highway of maritime nations to China and other parts of the Eastern world; and in that event Vancouver's Island would become a position essential to our commercial superiority. The opinions of politicians on subjects of this kind were often exagger-
466
ated; they were liable to be warped by transitory and personal interests—an object which was in contest, whether in war or negotiation, was likewise too often over-appreciated by contending Powers. Scientific authorities on this account were more to be relied on; and he therefore appealed with confidence to the testimony of the eminent geographer, Malte Brun, who seemed to have discovered, almost by intuition, the future destinies of Vancouver's Island. His observations on the subject were as follows:—
"The vegetable earth in some places forms a bed of ten feet in thickness. A traveller is agreeably surprised to find a milder climate here than on the eastern coast of America in the same latitude. In the month of April, Fahrenheit's thermometer was never below 40° during the night, and in the day it rose to 60°. The grass was already a foot in height. The climate is as favourable to the growth of trees as that of the Continent. What negligence on the part of the Spaniards not to have taken possession of this agreeable and fertile country!—a country which being situated in the roar of their country might, in the hands of intelligent masters, become a military and commercial post of the highest importance."
Mr. Pitt and his Government, in 1790, acted on the admission of the same fact. The port of Nootka Sound, situated on the western coast of Vancouver's Island, was considered at that time to be so important as to be worth the risk of a European war. In the debate on the 6th of May, 1790, Mr. Pitt observed—
"If the claims of Spain were given way to, it must deprive the country of the means of extending its navigation and fishery in the southern ocean: it would go far towards excluding His Majesty's subjects from an infant trade, the future extension of which could not but be essentially beneficial to the commercial interests of Great Britain."
Yet the importance of Nootka Sound was nothing as compared with the possession of the entire island, more especially in reference to its coal field. In the Oregon negotiations, the possession of Vancouver's Island was regarded, both by England and by the United States, as a primary object. The Columbia was a barred river, and the passage to Puget's Sound, surrendered to the United States, was held almost at the sufferance of the Power to whom the possession of Vancouver's Island was secured. The most unquestionable evidence that he could refer to in proof of the resources of this possession, was to be found in the correspondence of the Hudson's Bay Company itself:—
"In the neighbourhood of Port Vancouver," writes Captain Pelly, "the Company have large pasture and grain-farms affording most abun-

467
dantly every species of agricultural produce, and maintaining large herds of stock; and it is the intention of the Company, not only to increase them, but to encourage the settlement of their retired servants, and other emigrants under their protection. The soil, climate, and circumstances of the country are as much, if not more, adapted to agricultural pursuits than any other spot in America; and with care and protection the British dominion may not only he preserved in this country, which it has been so much the wish of Russia and America to occupy to the exclusion of British subjects, but British influence may be maintained as paramount in this interesting part of the coast of the Pacific."
The Peers who had listened to the noble Earl (Earl Grey's) argument on colonisation a few nights back, could not but remember the point on which the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had mainly relied, as characteristic of a sound policy in colonisation—namely, the abolition of land grants, and the substitution of a system of sale. After this declaration, it would hardly be believed that the noble Earl had been himself the party to propose, by a charter to the Hudson's Bay Company, not a lease of Vancouver's Island, but a grant, the most lavish, the most inconsiderate, and, he must add, the most reprehensible ever before made by any Colonial Minister. The much-condemned grants of Prince Edward's Island were infinitely less liable to censure. The noble Earl seemed originally to have proposed making this grant without condition, safeguard, or reserve; he proposed to make it gratuitously to the Hudson's Bay Company. The noble Lord would say, that the grant was "made to the intent that the Company should establish upon the island a settlement or settlements of emigrants from Great Britain;" and that the express meaning of the condition was, that if the Company should not, within five] years, have established "a settlement," the grant might be revoked. This condition was, however, without value from its indistinctness. Who was to define "a settlement?" It was not said, of how many families the settlement should consist; any "settlement" would satisfy the provisions of the charter, however insignificant the settlement might be Then, in regard to the reserved power of resumption by purchase, it was not a power of purchase at the improved value of the property; but on repaying the amount expended by the Company. What court of equity was to determine this amount? In fact, the proposed charter might be held to transfer the island with-
468
out rent or other consideration to a trading company for ever. And this grant was made of an island, the very key of our position in North Western America, the very island for which we had run the risk of two wars. But he had a further complaint to make. He asked the noble Lord how it could enter his mind to grant this charter, and to part with this territory, without providing in the very charter itself some stipulation for the future government of the island? After the charter had been approved of, indeed, there was a letter from the Under Secretary of State, containing some vague propositions for the government of the island. This was evidently an afterthought. The question of the future government of the island had been till then altogether overlooked. This reminded him of the blunder of a countryman of his own, who, after completing the building of his house, discovered, when about to enter into possession, that he had forgotten the staircase. A right thing was sometimes marred by being done in a wrong manner; but in the case of the grant of Vancouver's Island the engagement entered into was most unwise, and the mode of executing it had rendered it still worse. If such a grant were expedient, he contended that at a time when Parliament was sitting it should not have been made by the mere prerogative of the Crown, and without a previous legislative sanction. He (Lord Monteagle) had acted on this principle; and in 1834, before founding the now flourishing colony of South Australia, he had introduced a Bill which led to discussion and examination, particularly on the part of his late noble Friend Lord Ashburton. It was still more necessary to have applied the same principle in the present instance. This island, so valuable both on commercial and political grounds, ought never to have been parted with, and never parted with by the mere fiat of a Secretary of State, without any communication to Parliament. But there were other causes of complaint, when the grant was viewed in relation to the character of the grantee. He maintained, that no trading company was a fitting depository for the functions of emigration or colonisation: he knew of no example to the contrary. Even the East India Company, the greatest corporation of the kind in the world, had not exhibited any great aptitude for colonisation. But the East India Company was not a company of hunters. If any trading company were to be en-

469
trusted with, uncontrolled dominion, and were selected as the guides and governors of future bands of emigrants—a body like the Hudson's Bay Company, founded, not for the purpose of occupying land for agriculture or settlement, but for the sake of procuring the fur of wild animals, was the least likely, of all others, to exercise such functions properly. Another matter was deserving of special note. He alluded to the free gift of the coal mines without any reserve, either of rent or royalty, or any stipulated obligation assumed by the Hudson's Bay Company even to work the mines. This was the more surprising from reference to the official correspondence. It would appear that the Colonial Office had at first neglected the subject altogether, or perhaps were not aware of the existence of this valuable property. It was only on the 25th of February, 1848, the negotiations having been in progress from 7th September, 1846, that Mr. Hawes refers for the first time to the "value of the coal" as "necessarily forming a material consideration," and transmits a copy of the agreement made with Mr. Wyse at Labuan as "a guide for any proposal the Company may make for working the coal at Vancouver's Island." But no sooner was this hint given, than on the 4th of March, Captain Felly, in the frankest and most explicit manner, states, "that if the grant is to be clogged with any payment to the mother country, the Company will be under the necessity of declining it." In this declaration the Colonial Office seems to have very graciously acquiesced, although at the time the proposed establishment of American steamers in the Pacific gave to the coal a peculiar value. If the question of the constitution of the island had been forgotten from September 1846 to July 1848, and if the question of the coal was noticed only to be abandoned, the principle under which the Company should be required to alienate their lands to colonists and emigrants, seems to have been neglected to the present hour. It should have been known to the Secretary of State, that if the same slavish conditions were to be attached to the future land contracts in Vancouver's Island which were enforced on the main land, it would be impossible that any independent settlement could ever take place. A monopoly of trade, an exclusive command of freight at their own prices capriciously, or perhaps partially, granted or conceded, would wholly defeat the ostensible object sought for by his noble Friend.
470
The whole history of the Company, and its conduct from its origin, 180 years back, was condemnatory of the grant. The original charter of 1670 partook of the lofty claims of prerogative of the Stuarts. It gave exclusive rights of trading to Prince Rupert and the newly-constituted corporation in all the lands in North America, which could be approached by land or by water from Hudson's Bay, and which lands were not in the possession of any other Christian Power. This grant extended over more than 2,500 square miles. It was not wonderful that the validity of this charter should have been doubted. Accordingly, in 1690, a Bill was introduced into Parliament confirming the charter. The history of these proceedings was curious. The Act as originally applied for was perpetual; but on the third reading, a clause was introduced limiting its duration to ten years. The House of Commons, which evidently appears to have felt itself aggrieved, passed a Standing Order contemporaneously, prohibiting, in future, the reception of any Bill confirming a charter, unless the charter itself were specifically recited in the Bill, But the House of Lords was even more scrupulous than the Commons. The duration of the Bill was still farther limited; it was reduced from ten years to seven, and in that form was passed. A subsequent application was made to Parliament for a renewal of this Act, but without success, and the Act had never since been renewed. Was it not evident from these facts that the Company themselves acknowledged the invalidity of their charter without the confirmatory Act, and that after the expiry of that Act the charter must be considered invalid? Subsequently in the year 1749, the complaints addressed to Parliament against the Company were almost universal. Petitions were presented from Chester, Newcastle, Hull, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Lancaster, Kendal, Whitehaven, Bristol, Carlisle, Wakefield, and other commercial towns. They prayed for freedom of trade within the jurisdiction of the Company. They impugned the charter. They complained that—
"An important trade was locked up in the hands of a few to the detriment of the many; that the Company only employed a few ships, to the detriment of the nation; and that the Company had made but few settlements, and those mainly of their own hired servants, every public benefit being neglected."
A Select Committee was appointed, and

471
reported facts fully confirming these complaints, which were all couched in language applicable to the present state of things. But the matter was dropped. Financial embarrassments were not peculiar to the present times. It was felt that a supercession of the charter would have cast on the public the duty and the expense of governing the country. England was not rich enough to do what was right and just, and the matter was allowed to drop. He must also remind the House of the violence, lawlessness, and bloodshed which were proved before Parliament in 1819 to have taken place in the case of the Red River settlement. These facts were proved in official documents laid before Parliament, on which occasion Mr. Edward Ellice, though stating himself to be a large shareholder in the Company, gave evidence to their unfitness to undertake colonisation. His words were remarkable, and were applicable and conclusive at the present time:—
"Though Lord Selkirk's primary and principal object was colonisation, yet he must he pardoned for saying that it had afterwards become connected with purposes of trade. The noble Lord was a considerable proprietor in the Hudson's Bay Company; and he could not help thinking that if his Lordship's only object was colonisation, he should not have embarked in trade. He (Mr. Ellice) was a considerable proprietor in the Hudson's Bay Company; and when the plan of colonisation was first proposed, ho, at a meeting of the shareholders, entered his protest against it. The opinion of the late Attorney General, now Chief Baron of Scotland, was, that the Crown had no right to grant the land to the Hudson's Bay Company."
At that time an opinion was given by lawyers of the very highest eminence, who agreed in questioning the validity of the charter. That opinion was signed by Sir Arthur Pigot, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Spankie, and it contains the following passage:—
"By the temporary Act of 2nd William and Mary, for confirming to the Governor and Company their privilege and trade, the duration of that confirmation is expressly limited to seven years, and to the end of the next Session of Parliament, and no longer. Part of the preamble to the Act is, in fact, a legislative declaration of the insufficiency of the charter for the purposes professed in it, without the authority of the Legislature, and which authority ceased entirely soon after the expiration of the seven years after that passed.
"There are various clauses in the charter—particularly those empowering the Company to impose fines and penalties, to seize and confiscate goods and ships, and seize by arrest the persons of interlopers, and compel them to give security in 1,000 l.—which are altogether illegal, and were always so admitted."
472
On these grounds he contended that the Company was altogether unfit to be trusted with the duties of government, and contended that the Parliamentary inquiries of 1749 and 1819 had proved that, whatever might be the professions of this Company, they had exhibited a total forgetfulness of those moral obligations which were connected with the functions of a Government. Nor did he believe them to have advanced the progress of religion or civilisation within their territories; what had been done was, he believed, mainly attributable to the religious societies of this country; and the conduct of the Company towards the Indians was alleged to have been oppressive. Memorials setting forth these facts were now lying in the Colonial Office. Such were the circumstances which had induced him to bring the matter under the consideration of the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"For Copies of the Correspondence between the Government and the Hudson's Bay Company, and for other Papers relating to the Grant of Vancouver's Island to that Association."
EARL GREY: I am very much indebted to my noble Friend for bringing this question before the House, because I find, from my noble Friend's speech, that he is entirely ignorant of the nature of the arrangement with the Hudson's Bay Company, and the grounds on which that arrangement was contemplated. I presume that my noble Friend, with all his acute-ness and with all his research, has failed in acquiring a correct knowledge of the question. I am very glad to have this opportunity of explaining what really is intended to be done, and what are the intentions of the Government. In the outset of his speech, my noble Friend entered into the natural adantages of Vancouver's Island. I have no reason to controvert anything which he said upon that part of the case. On the contrary, it is because I believe that it is a most valuable possession, and that it is an island which it is of the utmost importance for the interests of this country to secure, that I venture to ask this House to approve what we have done. It is true, by right of treaty this country has been settled upon us; it is equally true that if this right were not acted upon, the practical right of the territory would become lost to us. It is abundantly evident from the symptoms which exist, that the land would become occupied with squatters, whom neither the Americans nor ourselves would be able to restrain, and in the course

473
of a few years the practical possession of the island would become lost to the English nation. I have lately been informed that there are a certain sect called Mormonites, who, having been forced to quit the United States, are thinking of moving in a body, and setting themselves up in Vancouver's Island. It is obvious, when an eligible territory is left to lie waste, unsubdued to the use of man, it is impossible to prevent persons from taking irregular possession of the land. We have found it impossible in all our dominions to restrain such persons. The Government of the United States will equally be unable to prevent such an occurrence, and unless the island is regularly settled and regularly colonised, it is quite certain that it will be irregularly colonised by squatters. This being the state of the case, how is Vancouver's Island to be settled? If this country had a very largo surplus revenue free to be engaged in expensive undertakings, it might have been very advantageous to have asked Parliament for a grant of 50,000 l., to be followed up by succeeding grants of 20,000 l. or 30,000 l. for several years to come; and without such a demand being assented to by Parliament, it would have been utterly impossible to have colonised the island. I believe no fact is better established than that a large expenditure is necessary to colonise a territory with any advantage. It is quite obvious under present circumstances it would be utterly unjustifiable to propose any such expenditure; therefore, cither Vancouver's Island must have been left a barren waste, without any measures being taken to colonise it, or else some means must be found independent of Parliamentary assistance to make a settlement upon the island. How was this to be accomplished? I believe the only possible way was by entering into an arrangement with the Hudson's Pay Company. They undertake, in consideration of a grant of the land, to settle and colonise the island. I have no hesitation in saying I think that this is a very advantageous arrangement. My noble Friend says that it is a very reckless one, and he alluded to a speech of mine made some two years ago, where I expressed myself in favour of the principle of disposing of the land by sale and not by grant. There is no inconsistency between that statement and the present policy of the Government. If the Government was going to meet the expense, and had disposed of the land to settlers, undoubtedly
474
the sale of the land would have been the proper course. But if we do not choose to undertake that expense, the only course that remains open to us is, to place some other authority over the territory, to make them the trustees of the duties of the Government, and to make them a grant of the land. I am persuaded that if this enterprise be well managed by the Hudson's Bay Company, it will only give them a fair return for the outlay of their capital. That it can do more is hardly possible. The land at present is entirely valueless. No matter how fine the soil, or however great the natural advantages, when it lies unused or unoccupied by man, land is perfectly valueless. It is only by being settled that land becomes of value; and I am perfectly persuaded that if this territory is ever so well managed by the Hudson's Bay Company, that they cannot realise more than a moderate remuneration upon their outlay. The principle upon which they will proceed will be this, they will sell the land in retail—in small portions to settlers, and the money thus obtained must be devoted to the purposes of colonisation. This was the course pursued towards the New Zealand Company. They obtained a grant of 1,000,000 of acres which they disposed of to the settlers, applying the money so received to the expenses of colonisation. This is precisely the arrangement which is made with the Hudson's Bay Company. They have received a grant of land which is at present utterly valueless. The noble Lord drew a distinction between the manner in which the grant of Labuan had been made to the Eastern Archipelago Company, and the manner in which this grant had been made of Vancouver's Island. In Labuan the Company had been made a present of a large tract of coal. The cases were different. Labuan was a settlement surrounded by fully colonised districts, where labour could be obtained in any quantity. I had only two days ago an account from Sir James Brooke that the contract for building the Government house only amounted to 650 l. Everybody will agree that it is the cheapest Government house that ever was built; and it is a very excellent house into the bargain. Labuan possesses the advantages of being surrounded by colonised districts—it has the advantage of being in the vicinity of Singapore. Parliamentary arrangements were made, and Her Majesty's Government had asked Parliament for pecuniary assistance. When the colo-

475
nists got their coals, the royalties would be paid, and cheap coals would thus be obtained for the service of Her Majesty's mails. In Vancouver's Island they intended to let the mines be worked by other parties, who would pay the Hudson's Bay Company for the privilege. This being the general design of the grant, I think that it is a very reasonable design, when the Government would not take the expense of a settlement upon its own responsibility. The Government, therefore, provided that the settlement should be placed in the hands of a Company, who were to act as trustees. But then my noble Friend says, in making this arrangement the government of this future colony has been quite forgotten. I thought that my noble Friend had too much acquaintance with the manner in which business is transacted, to have fallen into this error. It is perfectly true that in these documents only final results have been stated. This is the course which has been always adopted in transactions of this nature; but from the very earliest communication which has taken place between myself and my right hon. Friend Sir G. Grey, this subject has not been lost sight of. As long as these subjects are matters of discussion, investigation, and of private conversation between the parties concerned, it is far better that they should not be adverted to, until they can be placed before Parliament in a proper shape. The government of the colony must be provided for in the only way in which it can be done without appealing to Parliament. It will be done in the way which has heretofore been pursued: the issue of the authority of the Crown to a governor to act as such, the legislative power being entrusted to an assembly elected by the settlers, and a council to assist the governor being nominated by the Crown. This is the constitution of almost all our colonies. With regard to conquered colonies, the Crown has power to legislate by an Order in Council; but Lord Mansfield has laid down the doctrine that the Crown has not that right in unconquered colonies, but that they are entitled to a representative assembly to legislate according to their own views. So late as 1832, when I held a different situation in the department which I now occupy, Lord Ripon issued a commission to the Governor of Newfoundland, by which an elective assembly was created. So much with regard to the form of government which is to be adopted in this colony; and this at once
476
disposes of all those visions of my noble Friend which he has had upon exclusive trade. But although these colonists may not have the right of trading with any of those districts where the Hudson's Bay Company possess an exclusive privilege, yet they will have the unlimited right of trading with all the rest of the world, subject only to those laws already enforced by previous Acts of Parliament. The land is only given to the Company as trustees to act for the public for the purpose of colonisation. My noble Friend says that we have taken a very inadequate security from the Company. I think that we have taken ample security. At the end of five years the grant is resumable, if settlements are not formed. But the real security is the power of resumption altogether at the end of eleven years, when also the exclusive privilege of trade will cease. At that time it is proposed that the Crown shall have the power of resuming the land, merely paying the Hudson's Bay Company the value of their buildings and settlements. I do not know what more can be desired. If the Company form private settlements in the colony, at a very moderate outlay, we shall regain possession of the land. My noble Friend says, that the appointment of the Governor by the Company is not consistent with the rights of the Crown.
LORD MONTEAGLE: Is not consistent with the claims of the Crown.
EARL GREY: There is no dispute upon this point. The Company are willing to vest the appointment of the Governor in the hands of the Crown. There are two reasons which both appear to me conclusive for making this arrangement with the Hudson's Bay Company. No parties came forward with anything like the capital necessary for the undertaking. My noble Friend said, that other parties offered themselves. It is perfectly true that such is the case. But it is equally true that I was quite ready to receive any offers from anybody who proposed. Two or three proposals were made, but they fell to the ground because the parties did not possess a tithe of the means necessary. On the other hand, the Hudson's Bay Company can undertake the task at a very much less expense than any other persons. The Hudson's Bay Company have also settlements in Vancouver's Island. I hold in my hand extracts from despatches of the Board of Management, dated the 15th of March, 1847, and the 6th of November,

477
1847, pointing out that the Hudson's Bay Company possess very considerable establishments, and have 350 acres of land under cultivation in the island. The Hudson's Bay Company, therefore, possess facilities for carrying on this plan which no other parties possess. The exclusive rights of trade which they possess for eleven years longer, would have been the greatest possible difficulty in the way of any other company undertaking the colonisation of Vancouver's Island. It is true that Government have the power of giving an exclusive right over property in the colonies; but it is clear, in common justice, that these exclusive rights could not be resumed by the Crown without giving rise to a claim for compensation to a very large amount. In common justice the Company would have a right to have paid to them the value of their rights. I must further observe, that if there did exist persons anxious to undertake some great scheme of cultivation, possessing any capital, there is no particular reason for choosing Vancouver's Island. The dominions of the British Crown are quite largo enough, and there is every disposition on the part of Government to render these dominions available. The dominions are quite large enough to afford ample scope for colonisation for the people of the united kingdom. In New Zealand, the Cape, and Australia, there is almost an unlimited field for colonisation; and if there are parties having the means of embarking in such undertaking, so long as I hold my present office, if they will come to the Colonial Office they shall have every possible support and assistance in my power. My noble Friend has said, that the Hudson's Bay Company are utterly unfit to be entrusted with this duty because they proceed on a system opposed to colonisation—that they have established great fur preserves—and that persons whose object was the procuring of fur ought least of all to be entrusted with colonisation. It is quite true that the Hudson's Bay Company carry on the fur trade to a large extent on the continent of America; but I am not aware that there are any fur animals of consequence to be found on Vancouver's Island; and I believe that the fur establishments of the Company on the continent would be found of great advantage to the settlers on Vancouver's Island, inasmuch as it would give them the advantage of supplying provisions and stores to those settlements. To say that because they carry on the fur trade, they are un-
478
fit to colonise Vancouver's Island, is the same as saying that because a noble Peer possesses a deer forest in a part of Scotland, he is totally unfit to be a good landlord, and improve the value of his estate. I believe that the establishments for the fur trade will give additional value to the establishments for the purpose of colonisation in Vancouver's Island. I must defend the Hudson's Bay Company against the charge which has been brought against them of maladministration of the territory which they possess in North America. It is difficult to pass a competent opinion on matters on which information is extremely defective, namely, as to the state of the enormous territory over which the Indians run who procure furs for the Hudson's Bay Company; but, so far as my information extends, I believe the Hudson's Bay Company exercise their powers with great benefit to the Indians, and great advantage to the cause of civilisation and humanity. They have exerted themselves to prevent the introduction of spirits into those vast regions over which they possess exclusive rights. The Hudson's Bay Company assure me that they are doing all that lies in them to promote civilisation and improvement. If we contrast the condition of the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company over which they possess exclusive rights, with the condition of that territory in which the traders of the United States are allowed, without check or control, to compete with each other, there is no question of the superiority. They have established a strict and severe police, and I do not suppose that if the power of the Hudson's Bay Company were withdrawn, it would be possible for Government to supply their places. The expense of attempting to maintain a police force over those regions would be utterly impracticable; and I believe that unless the Hudson's Bay Company were acting under the spur of self-interest, and managing their great concerns in an able and efficient manner, they would not be able to maintain the system. Under that system the Indians are improving—many agricultural settlements have been established, particularly on the Red River. I hold in my hand extracts from letters from Lord Elgin and Mr. Croft, an officer of the Hudson's Bay Company, and against this testimony I cannot set up the petition of the noble Lord, which comes only with the single testimony of the individual who presents it. I justify the grant to the Hudson's Bay Company as

479
trustees to the public for the colonisation of the island, upon the ground that unless they had undertaken the task, it would not have been undertaken at all; and that Vancouver's Island would, in the course of a few years, have passed from the dominion of the British Crown. The grant to the Hudson's Bay Company is not finally passed; but in the course of a few weeks, I trust it will pass. I have no intention of suspending it; but it is intended that, before any grant shall finally issue, this subject shall be further considered by the Committee of the Privy Council of Trade and Plantations; and if any further conditions appear to be expedient to be introduced, to insure the due performance by the Hudson's Bay Company of the duty which they distinctly consider imposed on them by this grant, they will be introduced. On referring to the correspondence, they say that they look to no pecuniary profit beyond fair interest on their capital; and if conditions are introduced to secure more completely the due performance of the intentions of this agreement, those conditions will be cheerfully and readily assented to by the Hudson's Bay Company.
LORD MONTEAGLE, in reply, said, he had heard with much satisfaction some part of his noble Friend's explanation, though he could not flatter him by saying that he had justified his proposed grant to the Hudson's Bay Company. It appeared that the whole question of the grant and its conditions would be subject to reexamination before the Privy Council. He trusted that the grant of the coal mines, and the principles on which the land was to be hereafter alienated by the Company, whether by sale or lease, would be carefully attended to. His noble Friend bad stated that he had not contemplated charging either rent or royalty for these mines, and that Mr. Hawes's reference to the contract at Labuan only related to possible contracts between the Company and their future lessees. It was evident that such was not the interpretation put upon the proposal, at the time, either by Mr. Hawes or Captain Pelly. If it had been so understood, why should the latter have rejected it "as clogging the grant with a payment to the mother country?" Why should Mr. Hawes have referred to the conditions imposed at Labuan as "a guide to the proposals of the Hudson's Bay Company?" Two statements of the noble Lord were deserving of special no-
480
tice. The one, his admission that the grant was made to the Company as trustees for the people of England. He (Lord Monteagle) wished that the terms of this trust should be clearly laid down and defined, and some mode of enforcing them provided. The other explanation was the important admission that no monopoly, or exclusive right of trade possessed or claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company on the continent, should be, directly or indirectly, exercised within the island. The settlers were to be free from all monopoly and restraints, beyond those of trading with the natives in the territories on the continent within which the privileges of the Company were stated to exist. These explanations so given by the Colonial Minister, were a justification and a reward to him, for having brought the matter forward, and would be some small return to their Lordships for the encroachment on their time and attention, of which he had been guilty.
Motion was agreed to.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, called their Lordships' attention to what were the objects of the Bill, and what were the remedies it proposed. In the first place, it was merely a provision for inquiry; it affected no interest; it interfered with no rights; it proposed only a machinery by which investigation might take place in matters which their Lordships would not hesitate for one moment to say required investigation, namely, corrupt practices at the election of Members of the House of Commons. If such corruption existed, it was most important to ascertain to what extent it existed, in order that Parliament might apply a remedy to so great a grievance. If there was an interference with the rights of voters, their Lordships would not let it rest without exhausting all the means in their power to prevent the grievances arising from such an evil. He would call their attention to the evidence as it stood—as it had been ascertained in the course of the present Session. After the last general election many matters came under the consideration of the House of Commons in the shape of petitions, questioning the return of certain Members. In the course of the investigation many-seats were questioned on the ground of corrupt practices having taken place at the election; but as soon as the Committee had

481
ascertained the fact one way or the other, that there had been corrupt practices, then the functions of the Committee were at an end; they had no jurisdiction vested in them to pursue the inquiry, to ascertain to what extent these practices might have been adopted; but their jurisdiction terminated with the inquiry as to the validity of the return, and the title of the Member to retain his seat. Again, this constantly occurred. When it became evident that there was every probability of the disclosure of corrupt practices, it became the interest of both parties to keep this abuse out of sight, and, by some arrangement amongst themselves, to prevent the Committee further investigating a matter which was thought to be inconsistent with the interests of either party. In either of these cases, the functions of the Committee were paralysed. There had been evidence sufficient, although obtained incidentally only, to show that, to a great extent, and in a great variety of boroughs, corrupt practices had existed. In all the boroughs contained in the schedule, there was a report verifying the fact of corrupt practices; and as to many the Committee made special reports that such corrupt practices had been carried into effect to a very considerable extent. What, then, became the duty of Parliament? Was it to do nothing, and to allow such acts to be repeated on some other occasion? Was Parliament so indifferent as to the means of correcting such abuses, that it would not entertain the question, and endeavour to put an end to a system which every man would reprobate as productive of much evil, as demoralising especially the places in which such practices prevailed? The House of Commons had, therefore, sent to their Lordships a Bill merely arranging the machinery for the purpose of investigating these practices; not for the purpose of interfering with the existing rights and privileges of any person, but merely for the purpose of endeavouring to ascertain to what extent the practice had prevailed, for the purpose that, when the inquiry was concluded, and Parliament was in possession of the facts, some provision might be made with the view of checking the evil. That was the principle of the proposed measure—it was suggested from the beginning of the Bill to the end; and to show that that was the object, and that it had no other object but to ascertain future legislation, he would call their Lordships' attention to a particular clause which
482
they might be surprised to find, but which was perfectly consistent with the other provisions of the Bill. It provided that a witness who might have been examined, and might have given evidence before either the Committee of the House of Commons appointed for the purpose of investigation, or before Commissioners appointed under the provisions of this Act, should not be a witness in any action or prosecution which might be instituted relative to the transaction to which the witness might have deposed. It was provided that the witness himself should be protected against any consequences personal to himself; but then it was suggested, and he thought rightly suggested, consistently with the principle on which the Bill proceeded, that, although a particular witness might be protected, his evidence might give rise to proceedings against others; and, as the object was that no man should suffer, but that the investigation should be solely for the purpose of informing Parliament, the Act protected not only the witness himself, but others, from the consequences of his evidence. With the facts that had been disclosed, with the knowledge which every individual possessed in a greater or less degree of the practices to which he had alluded, would this House refuse to co-operate with the House of Commons in passing a Bill the object of which was, if possible, to enable Parliament hereafter, by some legislative measure, to prevent a repetition of the offences? He could not believe that any of their Lordships would refuse co-operation with the House of Commons. That being the object of the Bill, he would state what was the plan of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord having described the mode in which the Commissioners were to be appointed, and the manner of conducting their inquiries, proceeded to say, that upon the principle of this measure there could be no difference of opinion. He asked their Lordships, then, to sanction the principle, seeing that it had received the assent of the House of Commons, and there would be other opportunities of considering the details. The object was neither more nor less than to investigate, not alleged but proved malpractices in the several boroughs named in the schedule, and into those of other boroughs should any hereafter occur. Surely their Lordships would not refuse their assent to an inquiry which the House of Commons deemed essential to the purity

483
of the representation. But it was objected that it was too late in the Session to proceed with the measure. He could understand the force of such an objection if the measure proposed to interfere with the rights and interests of Parliament; but that was not its intention; and the only question for their Lordships was, whether they would consent to the machinery for investigation. If they acquiesced in the necessity for a remedy, why should they hesitate to approve of inquiry, in order to ascertain what remedy should he applied hereafter? He repeated, that this Bill had been much discussed in the House of Commons; and if their Lordships now refused to sanction it, and corrupt practices should be repeated, no very long time would elapse before another measure would be brought in. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving that the Bill be read the second time.
LORD REDESDALEwished to observe the greatest possible courtesy towards the other House of Parliament; but in agreeing to the Motion for the second reading of this Bill, he must guard himself against sanctioning the principles it involved, more than the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack seemed to think necessary. He desired it to be distinctly understood, then, that the sole principle in the Bill to which he consented was this, that it was expedient to inquire into corrupt practices at elections. As to the details of the measure, he was not competent to form a judgment upon them, as the print of it had only been delivered that morning. He might, however, say that he considered the proposal of sending a Commissioner to make inquiries upon the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, most objectionable. Never, since the days of the Star Chamber, had such arbitrary powers been possessed by any individual. The Commissioner, it appeared, was to report, not to the House of Commons, but to Her Majesty, and then his report was to be presented to both Houses. The inquiry was then to be accepted by both Houses—a proposal of which he did not approve. As he had stated, he should offer no opposition to the second reading, but he hoped it would not be further pressed; and he would then move a resolution to the effect that the Bill contained principles of too great importance to be adopted by that House without ample time for discussion; that it was not expedient to deliberate upon those principles at this late
484
period of the Session; but that the House acknowledged the great importance of the subject, and would be prepared to give its attention to any Bill for the prevention of corrupt practices that might be brought in during the next or any subsequent Session. Under these circumstances, he trusted it would not be said that any want of respect was shown to the wishes of the other House with regard to the practices of which they had a just right to complain.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that whilst he gave the noble Lord credit for correct views as to the propriety of not proceeding with the Bill at this period of the Session, he felt a considerable degree of embarrassment as to the course to be pursued. After all, that House had as great an interest in the purity of election, and in all the circumstances which tended to the purity of election being correctly provided for by law, as the other House. Nevertheless, considering the importance attached by the other House to the question which had resulted in this measure, the number of investigations that had taken place, from which it appeared that corruption to a large extent prevailed, so as to make it necessary to suspend the writs, or in other words to suspend the constitution so far as concerned those particular boroughs, there appeared to be no prospect of amending such a state of things but by a measure of this description. He, therefore, felt very great difficulty, even at this late period of the Session, in abandoning the hope that an effectual remedy might be adopted, because it was most material it should not go forth that there existed, upon the part of cither that House or the other, any sort of disinclination or hesitation to prevent corrupt practices at elections. At the same time, he was willing to attend to any suggestions that might have the effect of convincing the public and the House of Commons that that House was not indifferent to the matter. But in order that they might provide the remedy which was most desirable, particularly where differences of opinion existed, as he knew they did exist, among persons of the highest authority, with regard to the principle of the Bill, he was most desirous, if it could be done consistently with the respect due to the opinions to which he alluded, that more ample time should be afforded for consideration. He therefore readily acceded to the suggestion of the noble Lord; and he was convinced that if his noble and learned Friend now pressed

485
the second reading, it would be only with the view of affirming the principle in the limited sense, that it was expedient to provide more effectual remedies than now existed to prevent corrupt practices at elections.
LORD DENMANhad felt it his duty to come down to the House for the sole purpose of opposing this measure. In his opinion, it was liable to objections of every description, both as to the powers it gave, and as to the lateness of the period for entering upon a discussion of them. He entirely approved, however, of the principle of the Bill, if that principle was understood to be the correction and punishment of corrupt practices at elections.
The DUKE of ARGYLL, after a most careful examination of the provisions of the Bill, was opposed to its further progress during the present Session. The noble and learned Lord upon the woolsack said, that although the Bill was introduced at a late period of the Session, it was not too late to pass a measure of the utility of which there could be no doubt; but if the noble and learned Lord would refer to the history of the Bill, he would see there was considerable doubt respecting its utility. Under all the circumstances, he rejoiced that the noble Marquess had consented to postpone the further progress of the measure.
Bill read 2a.
Then it was moved to resolve—
"That this Bill, creating a new Jurisdiction for the Investigation of corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament, contains Principles and Provisions of too great Importance to be adopted and passed by this House without ample Time being allowed for their being fully discussed and deliberately considered; and it is therefore inexpedient that the same should be proceeded with at this late period of the Session:
"That this House acknowledges the great Importance of the subject, and will be prepared to give its most earnest Attention to any Bill for the effectual Investigation and Correction of the said corrupt Practices which may be brought to them, cither early in the ensuing Session, or at any subsequent Period, when due Time can be allowed for the proper Consideration of the same."
On question, agreed to.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion of the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, the House went into Committee.
LORD MONTEAGLEearnestly trusted that the Bill would be postponed, and that it would not be pressed forward at that late period of the Session. Many other
486
measures of greater importance had been postponed; and by bringing this Bill forward next Session, it could, if thought advisable, come into operation in July, 1849. He believed that the Bill would be unpopular among all parties in Ireland, and that it was opposed to the opinions of the Commissioners of Fisheries in that country.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEdefended the Bill. He knew that his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant, who took a deep interest in the subject of the Irish fisheries, was most anxious to see such a measure promptly carried into effect. There had been only one petition presented against the Bill, and that was signed by only two proprietors, Lord Stuart do Decies, and Sir Richard Musgrave, to whom a portion of the Blackwater fishery belonged; but since the Bill had been last before the House, he had received several communications from parties interested in the subject, all approving of the measure. The noble Marquess read some extracts from letters expressing approbation of the Bill, and concluded by stating that the object of the measure was to promote the interests of the poorer classes in Ireland.
After a few words from the Earl of GLENGALL in support of the measure,
Bill reported.
House adjourned.