Sitting of 5 February 1857

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Kingston-upon-Hull, v. Sir William Henry Watson, Baron of the Court of Exchequer.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Ionian Subjects' Commissions; Norfolk Island (Ecclesiastical Government); Imprisonment for Debt, &c.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND)—

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland at what period of time it was communicated to the Chief Commissioner of the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland that his duties were to cease previous to the 1st day of November last; and to the other Commissioners, that they were to undertake and dispose of all matters hitherto in said Chief Commissioner's Court from the time of his retirement? He would also beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he was prepared to bring in a Bill in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, for improving and altering the business of the Court of Chancery in Ireland?
  MR. FITZGERALDsaid, that with referenee to the first question he could give no reply, as he had not received an answer
  218
  from Ireland to a letter requiring information on the subject. With respect to the second question, it would doubtless be within the recollection of the House that the constitution of the Court of Chancery in Ireland had been subjected to considerable modifications, with the view of making it discharge some of the most important functions of the Incumbered Estates Court. He believed that many of the new powers given to it would be found beneficial. In the meantine, the Incumbered Estates Court would be continued till the 28th of July, 1858, and an opportunity would be thus afforded of testing the manner in which it had discharged its new powers. It was not the intention of the Government, during the present Session, to introduce any measure for improving and altering the business of the Court of Chancery in Ireland.

ENGLISH CAPTIVES IN FORMOSA—

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR SIBTHORPsaid, he would beg to inquire of the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government intended to take any measures for the release of the British Seamen shipwrecked on the coast of Formosa, and now in captivity on that Island.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, orders had been sent out to Sir John Bowring the Governor of Hong Kong to communicate with the admiral on the station, and to desire him to ascertain whether the report was true that British subjects were held in captivity in the Island of Formosa, and, if so, to adopt the best means for obtaining their release.

  THE VACANT JUDGESHIP—QUESTION.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to know whether it was intended to fill up the vacancy in the Court of Exchequer caused by the lamented death of Baron Alderson, or whether it was intended to keep open that vacancy until the Commission recently appointed to inquire into the state of the judicial establishments in Westminster Hall had made their Report?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed it was not intended to keep open the vacancy on the bench of the Court of Exchequer during the prosecution of the inquiries of the Commission. The instructions of that Commission were to inquire whether any changes could be made consistently with economy and the public convenience,

  219
  whereby a reduction in the number of Judges could be made. At the present time he (Sir G. Grey) was informed that to keep open the vacancy caused by the death of Baron Alderson would cause great public inconvenience.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to consider the state of those British Possessions in North America which are under the administration of the Hudson's Bay Company, or over which they possess a licence to trade. In making the Motion it was his duty to state the reasons why Government at this particular time had thought it incumbent on them to call the attention of the House to the vast possessions of the British Crown referred to in the Motion. Those extensive regions, stretching away far beyond the limits of Canada, were for the most part little adapted for industrial pursuits, except in so far as they were connected with the chase of wild animals for the sake of their fur, or with fisheries. Nevertheless there were large districts fitted for the use and enjoyment of civilised men, some of them being rich in soil, some of great mineral wealth, and others, from their situation, of the greatest consequence to the commerce of this country. He believed that he should be able to convince the House, if they were not already convinced, that the question involved considerations of Imperial policy, of justice, and of humanity of no ordinary magnitude. It was not his intention to go into the past history of those regions. Those hon. Members who had attended to the subject were aware that the country was long divided between two hostile companies—the Hudson's Bay and the North-Western Companies; and that collisions occasionally took place between them, fraught not only with injury to our trade, but also productive of disgraceful scenes of confusion and bloodshed. The Companies some years since were amalgamated under the sole control of the Hudson's Bay Company. Under different tenures that Company possessed the exclusive trade and the exclusive administration over that immense tract of country which stretched from the borders of Hudson's Bay to the waters of the Pacific, comprising within its jurisdiction the important adjunct known as Vancouver's Island. It would be necessary that
  220
  he should state, though very briefly, the nature of the tenures under which the Hudson's Bay Company exercised such vast powers. In the first place they possessed a charter granted to them by Charles II. in 1670. Under that charter they claimed rights of the most important description over all that portion of British North America which was known as Rupert's Land, and which had been described as the country which lies on the waters of those rivers that flow into Hudson's Bay. In stating the claims of the Company to this part of their possessions he would refer to the words used by the Company itself. Some years ago a Motion was made in that House for an Address to the Crown to investigate the title of the Hudson's Bay Company to those territories claimed by them. The Colonial Minister of the day (Earl Grey) asked the Company to state their claim, and it was referred to Sir John Jervis and Sir John Romilly, the law officers of the Crown at the time, for their opinion. After defining the country designated as Rupert's Land, the Company stated that they claimed the absolute administration and exclusive trade over all the territory described, and the law officers reported that they were of opinion that the rights so claimed by the Company over the territory in question did properly belong to them. It was thought by Earl Grey that it would have been more satisfactory if those rights and claims had been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for their decision, but that had not been done, and so the matter rested. As, however, that proceeding would involve considerable expense, the persons opposing the Company declined to carry the matter further, and he was, therefore, justified in saying that those rights, having been enjoyed for so great a number of years, and though frequently challenged never disproved, must be regarded, so far as authoritative decisions went, as confirmed to the Company. But the authority and right of exclusive trade of the Hudson's Bay Company extended not only over the regions known as Rupert's Land, but over a far more valuable district to the west of the Rocky Mountains known as British Oregon. Their tenure over that district was the result of a Royal licence, granted some nineteen years ago, under which they enjoyed the exclusive trade with the Indians, and also the fur trade. That licence would expire in 1859, and he had felt it his duty to

  221
  bring the subject before the House, because he had received some weeks ago a communication from the Directors of the Hudson's Bay Company, wishing to know whether the Government intended to renew the licence. As the question involved one of commercial monopoly he had felt it to be his duty to consult the House, and not to pledge the Government upon it until the House had a full opportunity of considering the matter. Although the licence would not expire till the year 1859 the nature of the trade (requiring long preparations) was such as to make it most unfair to leave the Company in ignorance of the intentions of the Government until the last moment. He had, therefore, replied to the Company that he would bring the whole subject before a Committee of the House during the present Session. In justice to the directors, he must say that they had expressed their perfect readiness and willingness for a complete investigation of their claims by a Committee of that House. Looking to the questions of policy and humanity necessarily connected with the inquiry, he was satisfied, if the Committee were appointed, that they would receive from the Hudson's Bay Company every assistance in the prosecution of the inquiry. He had stated the tenure by which the Company held Rupert's Land, and that more valuable territory lying between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific. Another part of their territory he could not pass over without notice—Vancouver's Island. That island was held by the Company under a tenure different from that by which they held their other possessions. The House wuld probably recollect—for the circumstances caused some discussion at the time—that when Lord Grey was Colonial Secretary he thought the best arrangement of the question was to grant a lease of Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company for eleven years. That lease might be terminated by a year's notice at any time, but, necessarily, it expired in 1859; and it obviously would have been the duty of Government seriously to consider the condition of Vancouver's Island before renewing the lease of it. In his opinion it was, therefore, expedient for them to take a general view of the whole subject—to consider the condition of Rupert's Land, and of the territory between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific, held by Royal licence, which expired in 1859; and also whether they would renew the lease of Vancouver's Island, which also
  222
  expired in 1859. He had framed the terms of his Motion in a most general way, because, to take a narrow view of the question to which it related, would, he felt assured, be to deal with it in a very imperfect and unstatesmanlike manner. Looking at the condition of those Indian tribes who inhabited the vast district under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company, the House would find that there were connected with the subject considerations of humanity which, consistently with the proper discharge of their duty, they could not neglect. He did not deem it necessary that he should enter into any detailed statement in reference to the mode in which the Company managed the territories entrusted to their care; but he might observe that the Company was presided over by a gentleman residing in London who possessed the highest character for sagacity; that its agents to the number of 1,200 were scattered throughout those distant tracts of country, and that those agents, being for the most part Scotchmen, conducted the affairs of their employers with a skill and shrewdness worthy of the land which gave them birth. He felt also bound to state that the Company, so far as he was aware, were not neglectful of the duties which they had to perform as persons who were in a certain sense the trustees of the English people. So far as his information went, he was of opinion that upon the whole their rule had been beneficial to the Indian population, and that they were actuated by a sincere desire to treat that population—amounting, as it did, to the number of about 300,000—with due regard to considerations of humanity. There might have been, and, indeed, must have been, occasional scenes and actions extremely to be regretted and deplored; but, on the whole, the principal members of the Company had acted in a considerate and humane spirit to the native tribes who inhabited their territory. The Company's agents were narrowly watched, their promotion depended entirely upon their good conduct—in short, they were subjected to a degree of discipline which the Colonial Office would find it difficult to maintain in those distant regions. He was happy to be able to add that by their exertions the sale of ardent spirits—that bane of the unfortunate Indians—had been to a great extent put a stop to. Of course that restraint became less perfect as the borders of civilisation were approached, but among the more distant

  223
  tribes the Company had managed to exclude the sale of those ardent spirits which were usually their bane and destruction. There was also another circumstance which he felt bound to bring under the notice of the House, and that was, that while during the last few years internecine wars, with all their frightful scenes of carnage and confusion, had been waged between the white and the red races upon the frontier within the limits of the American possessions, the most complete tranquillity and goodwill had prevailed between those two races throughout the whole of the British possessions. That being the state of things, he should be very slow to believe that the conduct of the Company towards the native Indians, had been of a character so reckless, so regardless of justice, and so inconsistent with humanity as some of their opponents were wont to allege. He should only say in conclusion, that having made up his mind to institute an inquiry into the subject-matter of his Motion, he had communicated his intention to the Governor General of Canada, with a view that the inhabitants of that colony might be afforded an opportunity of putting forward such opinions and furnishing such information as they might deem desirable upon a question in which they very naturally took a deep interest. To that communication he had received a reply from the Governor General which led him to hope that the Select Committee, if appointed, would have the advantage of having the evidence of competent men from Canada to guide them in their labours; and he trusted that those Members of the House most conversant with the subject would not hesitate to lend their assistance to bring those labours to a satisfactory termination. He had borne his testimony to the humanity which was exercised by the Hudson's Bay Company towards the people under their protection; but while he was prepared to accede to them that merit, he must say that he could not accord to them the praise of being disposed to encourage colonisation. Indeed, it was not likely that as a trading corporation they should do so, inasmuch as it would be adverse to their interests to promote any scheme which, by diminishing the number of wild animals, would as a consequence diminish the quantity of the fur which formed the staple of their commercial speculations. That part of the subject would no doubt receive the careful consideration of the Committee. The nature of the country
  224
  itself was such as to make its condition worthy of the serious attention of Parliament. Vancouver's Island, for instance, which formed a portion of the Company's territory, was a place which might become of the highest political importance. It possessed an excellent soil; abounded in minerals; had valuable fisheries around its shores, and occupied a commanding situation in the Pacific. There was also another district known as the "Red River Settlement," where there was to be found from 10,000 or 12,000 half-breeds, which was growing up into importance, and the management of which he believed was productive of serious embarrassment to the Company. How that settlement was to be dealt with—as well as the various other questions to which he had referred—constituted a fit subject for serious inquiry, and therefore it was that he felt it to be his duty to call upon the House to grant the Committee for which he had deemed it to be his duty to move.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he had no intention of opposing the Motion, but bethought the right hon. Gentleman might have taken a shorter course in attaining the end in view. He believed that the general principle with regard to this question might be settled without any specific inquiry. It appeared to him that the Hudson Bay Fur Company was in itself and by constitution opposed to colonisation, for where the axe of the settler rang, there the trapper must certainly disappear. The object of the Company was to keep their territory a solitude where wild animals would always be within their reach; settlers would terrify those animals, and therefore to establish a fur company in the North of Canada was to say, "Here must be the limits of cultivation; beyond that ye shall not go, keep the land a desert, we want to have it so because we are a fur company." Beyond the territory of the fur company, both the Canadas were merely strips of land up to the St. Lawrence, and what he wanted to see was that they should cover the whole, so that British North America might really have the preponderance of territory which it presented on the map. It was true, it was said that a great portion of the Company's territory was unfit for human habitation, but France—that was to say, Gaul—was in the time of the Romans what Canada was at present. Any one who read Gibbon would see that then the Danube and Rhine were frozen over every winter, and that reindeer were common

  225
  over Gaul during nearly the whole of the Roman dominion down to about the time of Julian. The Paris of those days was what travellers describe the Quebec of the present to be, and therefore he said that with the same circumstances that had changed the face of Europe, Canada would be in the same degree ameliorated. Let it be remembered that Canada was south of a great portion of Europe, being about the latitude of Italy; and if we cleared the country and drained the morasses, it might possibly become as flourishing and fertile as the most favoured portion of the Old World. The rivers which ran into Hudson's Bay passed through the most fertile territories belonging to England. He believed that if England did her duty to the Canadian provinces, there would be created in the Hudson's Bay Company's territory the Germany of North America, and therein something to counteract the preponderance of the United States. He did not want to be an alarmist, but he did not like to see a nation growing so great as to become insolent to the rest of the world; and if the United States were permitted to effect the aggrandisement they now contemplated, they would most certainly dominate over the rest of the world. The only way to compete with that tendency successfully was to give Canada the fullest development. Between the St. Lawrence and Hudson's Bay there was a country as large as Europe, and becoming more temperate in climate every day. There were the elements of a great nation, and it was the duty of England to develope them. When he found, then, that such prospects were obstructed by the interests of a small number of men, under the pretext of a charter, he said at once that such interests, or such a pretext, should not be allowed for a moment to stand in the way of the great interests of humanity. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the charter of Charles II. Surely he knew that that charter was contradictory in itself, and also that it was in contravention of the rights of all British subjects, inasmuch as what was given by King Charles to the Hudson's Bay Company was what the king had no right to give. Any one who had ever read the charters of Virginia must know what James I. did. He gave to the colonists all the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific with full sovereignty. He believed that the powers given in this case to the Company were wholly beyond the power of the king to give—he should be
  226
  sorry if they were not, because they were wholly against right and equity, and were in opposition to the interests of humanity. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) said that the Company had taken care of the Red Men. But of that statement he had his doubts. He knew the country, and he knew that war was carried on in it in a way to emulate the barbarous combats of Europe. Even in his time, Lord Selkirk went to oppose the Company at the Red River, and combats occurred which would not have disgraced the regular armies of Europe. The territory was beyond the pale of civilisation and the Colonial Office; the Company did as it pleased, and its pleasure was to slaughter any one that offered opposition. He believed that in this slaughter the Red Men were employed, and they all knew that their doings would he a disgrace to civilised men. It had been stated on different occasions that the Company took care of their peltries. What had they done in Vancouver's Island? To make it fit for themselves they kept it a solitude; they acted as peltry merchants, and fostered foxes, bears, wolves, and martens, instead of men. These facts must have led the right hon. Gentleman to the conclusion that the Company was inimical to colonisation, and that the proper course for Government to pursue would be to take away the powers of the Company. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, pursued a different course, and one that would perhaps be more satisfactory to the House. He (Mr. Roebuck) should say before he entered the Committee, what his purpose was in doing so. His purpose was to civilise that part of the world, and to make it a pleasant home for a happy population. He wanted to found there a great nation as a preponderating power to the United States, and by so doing, to do his duty to the people of England, in opening better prospects and newer fields for thousands of their numbers.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he should have thought that the inquiry proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary might be needless, but some of the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman had convinced him that a Select Committee should be appointed in order to remove any doubt which might remain on the right hon. Gentleman's mind as to the absolute necessity of opening this extensive territory to colonisation. He should have supposed that every one would anticipate with eagerness the expiration of the two

  227
  years which must elapse before the Company's licence expired and the country could be opened for settlement. If England did not allow it to be opened it would open itself by means of squatting immigration and gradual annexation by the United States, and the real question, in his opinion, was whether it should much longer continue to belong to the Queen or become a new territory of that republic. Vancouver's Island, which had been annexed to the Hudson's Bay territory by the greatest blunder ever committed by a Colonial Minister, was not only peculiarly rich in minerals and whale fisheries, but it was upon the line which would connect the Atlantic and the Pacific, and the value of its great harbour, Nootka Sound, had been long ago foreseen by Mr. Pitt, who risked a Spanish war for its sake. It mattered little whether the charter of the Company was valid or not; it could not be maintained in opposition to the rights and the necessities of mankind. The charter, if valid, could only be matter for compensation. There was no precedent in history of an empire which had the power of declaring that a great continent should be locked up and kept as a preserve for wild animals, and produce nothing but fur. For all the important purposes of commerce, traffic, and colonisation, the world was shut out from this enormous territory on behalf of a small trading and exclusive Company, and the territory was consigned to the use and management of a set of absentee proprietors. He did not believe the Company's charter had the slightest validity, but if it had, it was impossible for the Crown of Great Britain to maintain such a claim in the face of the world. By the express letter of their charter the Company were trustees for the colonisation of the country, and were bound to introduce religion among the Indians, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down observed, how was it possible for a Company trading in wild animals to execute such a trust? In order to execute it they must destroy their own trading concern. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) said that the Company had better agents than Government could command for the purpose; but the question was not whether the Colonial Office agents were more or less efficient than the Company's, for no one thought of handing over the colony to the Colonial Office. If the territory should be freed from the grasp of the Hudson's Bay
  228
  Company, it would not be handed over to the Colonial Department, but to Canada, or it would be formed into a colony to be maintained by its own administration. Unless something of this kind were done the inhabitants would again do what they had done before,—they would petition the United States to be annexed, rather than remain under the thraldom of this exclusive trading Company. He would venture to say that when the present Motion appeared on the paper of the House so little was the revival of the Hudson's Bay Company in any man's thoughts that nine-tenths of those hon. Members who read it conceived that there was some intention in the mind of the Colonial Secretary to raise the question whether this territory would be available as a penal settlement or not. He was happy, at all events, to find that there was no such idea in the right hon. Gentleman's mind; and he was perfectly convinced that no such idea would be entertained by any hon. Member who had had an opportunity of considering the question. That was a proposition loosely and unguardedly made by writers who had not taken pains to consider the subject. At all events, one good would arise from the inquiry, for it would show by plain and intelligible evidence that if new penal settlements were to be formed (which he doubted), of all spots in creation, the Hudson's Bay Company's territory was not only the least advisable, but the most impossible to be selected for that purpose.
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)said, that if anything was wanted to convince him of the necessity of the proposed Committee of inquiry it was the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken, exhibiting, as they did, a total ignorance of the manner in which the Hudson's Bay Company had administered its affairs, and of the state of the population in their territory. He was not so much surprised that this should be the case on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley), because his attention perhaps had not before been directed to the subject; but he was astonished at what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), because he naturally supposed that that hon. Member, from his connection with Canada, would have taken the trouble to become acquainted with the real circumstances of the case. He believed it to be well known to all persons who had travelled in Northern Canada that a large portion of that territory

  229
  was so unfavourable to colonisation as to render it extremely improbable that any settlers could be induced to fix their residence there, while to the south, in Canada and the States, lay as good soil with a better climate still unoccupied. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to be astonished that a doubt could be entertained as to the expediency of relieving that part of North America from the government of the Hudson's Bay Company; but had the hon. Gentleman made up his mind as to the form of government which he would give the inhabitants of that country in its stead? Had he considered the nature of the country, or its geographical position? Had he reflected that one of the most difficult questions by which the whole subject was beset, was that which related to the intercourse between the red population and the white? Was he aware of what had become of those red men whose territories had been attached to the United States? Why they had all gradually dwindled away, while upon the territory, presided over by the Hudson's Bay Company east and west of the Rocky Mountains, there were in round numbers 200,000 of those native inhabitants. Before the Hudson's Bay Company had become the compact body that it now was, this country had been one scene of turmoil and of bloodshed. From the years 1815 to 1818, the period which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in connection with the name of Lord Selkirk—massacres the most horrible had taken place. But it should be borne in mind that the Hudson's Bay Company had not at that time a monopoly of the trade of the country, but were exposed to competition upon the part of free traders coming from Canada and the United States, who had introduced ardent spirits among the Indians—a circumstance which had led to the most lamentable results. Since, however, the Company had obtained a monopoly the condition of the Indians had, he should not hesitate to say, been materially improved. The laws were put in force with as uniform justice and impartiality as it was possible to administer through so wide an extent of savage wilderness. Taken as a whole the rule of the Company was a good rule and beneficial to the Indians, and in the proof of this he might state that while the number of the Indians in the United States had been gradually dwindling down, yet in the Company's territory
  230
  the native population—in all except the Red River district, and immediately on the American frontier—was upon the increase. Such increase, he might add, to a great extent depended upon the sufficiency of the means of subsistence provided them. They were themselves careless in those matters, and to procure supplies of necessaries for them from this country constituted one of the chief employments of the agents of the Company. Indeed the exigencies of the case were so great that the Company were under the necessity of laying up at every one of their numerous posts a whole year's provisions in store in advance, in order that they might be prepared for any sudden emergency which might arise. With regard to one important point which had been raised in the course of that discussion, he should at once acknowledge that a trading company was not, except under extraordinary circumstances, the proper medium of colonisation, and that nothing but the necessity of the case could justify a Government in putting any part of its colonies under the superintendence of such a Company. But the country now under discussion was an exceptional case, and even there, under the rule of the Hudson's Bay Company, a colony containing 6,000 or 7,000 inhabitants had sprung up, and enjoyed a certain amount of prosperity, in the Red River territory. The great difficulty which a Government or any other body representing this country must experience, in dealing with such a community, would be to counteract its natural tendency to attach itself to the United States. The Red River territory was not at all united by position to Canada, and it had far less facility for communication with Canada than with the great North American republic. He believed that if the trade which was at present conducted by Hudson's Bay between the Red River colony and London were discontinued, the whole of it would be transferred to the United States. The fact was that the road from the Red River territory to the United States was an easy and a direct one, over hundreds of miles of perfectly level prairie, while the route between the Red River and Canada lay through almost impassable districts of morass. For the greater part of the year no communication whatever could be had with the Red River except through the United States. With regard to the charter of the Company he should observe that he did not think it would be fair to attempt to set aside its validity on the ground of any

  231
  original informality in the manner or the terms in which it had been granted, after it had been allowed to pass unchallenged for nearly two centuries; at the same time he believed that, if tried, its validity would be fully established as regarded the principal rights claimed by the Company. Looking to the fact that this vast continent had been governed by the Hudson's Bay Company for so many years, without expense or trouble to the mother country—probably the only British dependency of which the same could be said—he thought the Company was entitled to the favourable consideration of the Government and of Parliament, on the ground that their authority had, on the whole, been efficiently and usefully exercised. A reference had been made in the course of the discussion to the cession of Vancouver's Island to the Company, and upon that point he would only say that he believed there would be no difficulty in effecting some satisfactory arrangement between the Company and the Government. The appointment of the proposed Committee met with the approval of the Company, who wished to afford every facility in their power for ensuring the best possible settlement of the questions which that Committee would have to consider.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is one of the misfortunes arising out of the vast extent of this empire, and the multiplicity of its relations, that there is a class of subjects of the utmost importance and the deepest interest to which, under all ordinary circumstances, it is impossible to draw the attention of this House and of the country. Such a subject is the one now before us. But I hope that, as it has at length come under our consideration, it will be possible to obtain for it some portion, at least, of the attention which it deserves; and I feel bound to return my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, who has been the first among the administrators of that department to take a step which promises to bring this question effectually under the consideration of the House. I concur generally in the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley); but I cannot agree in the opinion which his language seems to me to have implied, that my right hon. Friend committed an error in referring this subject to a Committee, because although I think that a Minister may, upon his own knowledge and from the means of information at his disposal, adopt a plan and recommend
  232
  it to Parliament, yet, considering the peculiarity and the strangeness of this question, I think that if my right hon. Friend had taken that course he would probably have found himself under the disadvantage of addressing unprepared minds; and in my opinion he did well to make a proposal in the first instance which will associate the House with his labours, and which gives us a guarantee that whenever any positive and definite plan is submitted to Parliament, it will be a plan for the reception and the discussion of which many Members at least of this House will be prepared. I therefore thank my right hon. Friend for the proposition which he has made, and turning to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. E. Ellice), I am bound to say that although I do not join with him in the sweeping censure which he pronounced on the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Roebuck), and of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Adderley), I feel bound to thank him also for the disposition he has shown on the part of the Company to throw open the merits of the whole of this very considerable question, and to become himself a partner with the Government in enabling Parliament to discharge this, as I must call it, long-neglected portion of its duties. Having now said thus much with respect to the manner in which the question comes before us, and fully granting, as I do, that we cannot blame the Hudson's Bay Company for having taken advantage of the powers which we had been imprudent enough to leave in their hands, I must add that I do feel that it has been not only an error, but that it has been almost a scandal to this great assembly, that we never have considered with the seriousness which the case deserves, the condition and the fortunes of that large portion of the surface of the globe which is, or purports to be, under the jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company. And I hope my right hon. Friend has fully measured the great scope of the subject he is about to submit to the proposed Committee: that Committee will, no doubt, have to inquire whether the measures of the Company, in the government of their territories, have been on the whole, and more especially in recent times, liberal and wise. Upon that portion of the subject I have not the slightest desire to anticipate a judgment unfavourable to the Company. That inquiry will, no doubt, be conducted with that justice which characterises every inquiry

  233
  adopted under the sanction of this House. And, further, I have no doubt that if the Committee should come to the conclusion—a conclusion which, I think, not improbable—that it would he well to have the relations of the Company with this vast territory circumspectly and gradually wound up, a temperate course will be adopted by Government and by Parliament, and any claims which the Hudson's Bay Company may deem itself entitled to prefer will be fairly considered. There will remain two questions, besides that to which I have already referred, which the Committee will have to consider, and which they must not refuse to look fairly in the face. One is the legality of the title of the Company, and the other, the expediency and the prudence of continuing to that Company the government of this vast territory. With regard to the legality of the Company's title, I may observe that I myself about seven years ago succeeded to a certain degree in drawing the attention of the House to that subject. But I regret to say that the measure to which the House and the Government of that day agreed was entirely frustrated and made utterly barren of effect by the course which was adopted by the then Colonial Minister. Here is a case in which there is a charter of Charles II., which purports to grant to a certain Company of adventurers powers of government that may be called pretty nearly absolute, and powers of trading which are rigidly excluclusive. Now, Sir, it is material—material not only to pecuniary interests, but material, I will say, to constitutional principles and personal liberties—that it should be known whether a charter so granted by the Crown is or is not valid. And here I cannot quite subscribe to the doctrine of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. The charter was never, I believe, brought under judicial consideration, but it appears to me, as well as I recollect—I speak with less confidence upon the point, as some years have elapsed since I was led carefully to inquire into the subject—it appears that the records and the history of the case, and the important documents bearing upon it, so far as they go, are not favourable to the legality of the charter. The charter was granted in the year 1670. An essential object of that concession was, that the Hudson's Bay Company should expend their energies and their resources in the discovery of a "new passage to the South Sea." All those voyages of northwestern
  234
  discovery which have been made by the adventurous navigators of England in the course of the 19th century, at an enormous cost to the country, ought, by right, therefore, to have been paid for out of the revenues of the Hudson's Bay Company. The moving consideration which induced Charles II. and his Government to grant those privileges to the Hudson's Bay Company was, that they would thereby be enabled to prosecute the discovery of a "new passage to the South Sea." But the Company, after they had obtained the privileges, entirely forgot that object, and left to other hands the duty of conducting that search, and to other purses the duty of paying for it. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Ellice) is not right when he speaks of this title as a title that has endured for ages, and passed unquestioned from generation to generation. The charter was granted in the year 1670, and in the year 1690 the Act of Parliament was passed. And now, Sir, I ask the House to observe the terms of that Act of Parliament, because I believe that from those terms there arises a strong presumption of the invalidity and the illegality of the charter. It is called "An Act for confirming the Governor and Company trading to Hudson's Bay their privileges and trade." The preamble of that Act recites pretty nearly the terms of the charter, and then proceeds to state that the Governor and Company have gone to great expense in the prosecution of the objects of the charter. The Act then provides, that the powers conferred by that document shall be valid, and that the Company shall be a body corporate; and then we find in it a phrase which indicates the suspicion of its powers that the charter was not at that time worth the paper or the parchment on which it was written. In that phrase it is stated that the "franchises, immunities, &c., shall be made good which were thereby given, granted, and demitted, or mentioned to be given, granted, or demitted to the said Company." But you will say that the Act made the Company at any rate a body corporate and settled the whole question. Far from it, however, for the last words of the Act are—"Provided always, that this Act shall continue and be in force for the period of seven years, and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament, and no longer." I think I have stated enough to show my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's and the House, that my hon.

  235
  Friend the Member for Sheffield and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, when they ventured to cast a doubt on the validity of the Company's title, were not liable to a charge of gross ignorance such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's hastily, as I think, threw upon them. The subject undoubtedly is one which it is impossible to discuss with advantage at the present moment. But at the same time I wish to show that the question of the legality of the charter is a matter which the Committee must take into their consideration. It may be said that that legality was never questioned during the whole of the last century. But I must remind the House that, during the whole of the last century, the affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company were a perfect bagatelle. The spirit of monopoly operated upon that Company with its usual effect, and reduced them to a state of lethargy and torpor. They never extended their settlements, except to short distances, and along a narrow line from Hudson's Bay. I have not seen the books of the Company, but my hon. Friend (Mr. Ellice) has the means of examining them, and I have no doubt he will find that the transactions of the Company at that period were extremely limited. They had not the enterprise to face a wintry sea, a hungry soil, and a most rigorous climate. They had not found their way into the heart of the country, nor began to eat—in the sense they now eat—of the fat of the land in the shape of large dividends and a vast accumulation of capital. The history of the country under their jurisdiction is a curious one. While the Hudson's Bay Company, paralysed by monopoly, were conducting their operations in the spirit in which the snail conducts his march, an opposite spirit—a somewhat bucaneering spirit, but also a free-trade spirit—sprung up among certain persons in Canada, who, without the assistance of the legislature, organised a company, to which they gave the name of the North-West Company. This latter body moved vigorously onwards, and founded almost all those stations at which the Hudson's Bay Company have for the last thirty or forty years been conducting so profitable a trade. Then came that state of lawlessness which overspread the territory, when bloody battles—for one ought to give them their right name—were fought for the valuable trade which had been established by the energy of the North-West Company, at that time it
  236
  became worth while to inquire into the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company. If you ask why the question of the validity of the title of the Hudson's Bay Company was not raised in the earlier portion of the last century, my answer is, because the interest in the question was in the main a public interest, and it was not worth the while of anybody to incur the costs and anxieties of going into a court of law to raise against a comparatively powerful body a question in the issue of which he had no more interest than had the whole trading community. But when the North-West Company had commenced their operations the case was very different. That company, under the direction of its able and energetic managers, and with the assistance of its good advisers in this country, of whom my hon. Friend knows something, took opinions upon the legality of the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company. There was a long purse to pay for these opinions, and those of very eminent counsel were obtained, and some of the lawyers consulted—among whom, if my memory does not deceive me, were Lord Brougham and Mr. Serjeant Spankie—gave opinions extremely unfavourable to the validity of that charter. There stood, then, upon the one side the Hudson's Bay Company with its charter and its quasi legality, and on the other the North-West Company, with its energy, its developed trade, and its stations, but with no legal privileges. Under those circumstances that happened which commonly happens at the present day, when two railway companies, after having first quarrelled, lay their heads together. The North-West Company made over to the Hudson's Bay Company its stations and its energy, and the Hudson's Bay Company gave the North-West Company a share in its privileges; and upon that footing they have since carried on a flourishing trade, much to their mutual satisfaction. This is a brief, but I believe it is also a correct, sketch of those transactions. It will, undoubtedly, be the duty of the Committee to take measures for the purpose of ascertaining the real state of a question so interesting to the personal rights of Englishmen, and especially of Englishmen engaged in trade, as the extent of the power of the Crown to grant these exclusive privileges—privileges claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company. With respect to the prudence or the imprudence of entrusting to that Company, or to any Company whatever, the exclusive

  237
  government of this vast territory, I confess that is a question on which I entertain the strongest convictions. It appears to me that there is an abnegation and a renunciation by England of no inconsiderable portion of her duty and of her inheritance when she consents to lock up from her children a vast territory like this—a territory which, in spite of all that we have heard of the rigours of its climate, and without allowing for the changes which, as the hon. Member for Sheffield justly says, might occur to the climate and soil with the progress of civilisation, offers, I believe, a very considerable scope for the commercial spirit of Englishmen. The question of the legality of the charter will, I trust, be sifted, and sifted to the bottom, by the Committee, but I also trust that it will be sifted by means into which partiality cannot enter. The true mode of deciding that question is, as I think, the mode adopted by our ancestors, and not the mode adopted in the year 1849, when the course taken was to receive an ex parte statement from the Hudson's Bay Company, and then to submit that statement to the law officers of the Crown, in order that they might give upon it their opinion. That can hardly be considered anything better than a mere childish proceeding. I apprehend that the proper course to pursue upon such a question is that which used to be taken 200 years ago. Even in the arbitrary days of the Stuarts, of James I., of Charles I., and of Charles II., when a charter was granted by the Crown in abrogation of the rights of the subject, means were taken to raise the issue fairly before the judicial tribunals of the kingdom, and if those tribunals found that the Crown had exceeded it powers, the charter was quashed, and the subject was relieved from the damage which the Crown would have inflicted on him. Some such proceeding might, I believe, be adopted with perfect justice to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to the great satisfaction of the country, for the purpose of ascertaining the legality of that Company's charter. I beg pardon of the House for having addressed them at such length upon this occasion; but with the feeling which I entertain of the importance of the question, and the recollection I still preserve of the extreme interest—the almost romantic interest—of the history of the struggle that had been carried on for the possession of this territory, I could not refrain from submitting these observations to the House, and expressing
  238
  my opinion as to the extent and scope of the inquiry into which it will be the duty of the proposed Committee to enter.
  MR. HENLEY: Sir, I cannot help entertaining some apprehension that evidence of a one-sided character only may be brought before the proposed Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies has told us that he has communicated to the Governor General of Canada his intention of moving for a parliamentary inquiry in this case; but he has not told us that he has made that intention known to the people of Canada, so that they might have been able to prepare any evidence they might think it desirable to bring forward. The right hon. Gentleman has made a strong—and as I think a rather ominous—statement with respect to the manner in which the Hudson's Bay Company has been able to preserve order within, the territory under their jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman would almost lead us to the conclusion that in his opinion it would have been impossible to promote the interests of the inhabitants of that territory without having given to the Company a trading monopoly; and what I fear is that the Government are actuated by a foregone conclusion in entering upon it. I also apprehend that, though in these times intelligence is quickly communicated from one part of the world to another, considering the distance of the territory from this country, evidence may be brought before the Committee very much of a one-sided character, and therefore that there may not be a fair and dispassionate inquiry into the subject. I hope, however, that our apprehensions are groundless in this respect. It is quite clear, with regard to two portions of the territory, that they were open to be dealt with in any way that Parliament may see fit; but as to that portion held under the charter, I agree that the charter, which hitherto has received no judicial confirmation whatever, ought to be submitted to a tribunal properly invested with the power to decide the question of validity If the charter is valid and good it ought to be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner; but if it is not, the question stands in an entirely different position, and I hope it will be thoroughly investigated by the Committee. Unless it came out in the inquiry that the people could not, if otherwise circumstanced, have a better chance of spreading themselves and improving their condition, I do not think it desirable,

  239
  or even possible, that they should be left in the hands, for good or bad, of a Company who, after all, must manage the territory with a view to their pecuniary advantage. They are a trading Company, and though I cannot doubt that they treat the people subject to them with a due regard to justice and humanity, still it is their main object to carry on their enterprise with a view to their own interests. I am glad this question is no longer to be kept in the background, and I trust it will be submitted to a fair and impartial investigation.
  MR. LAINGsaid: If I understood the Secretary for the Colonies rightly, the right hon. Gentleman pronounced the greater portion of the territory to be absolutely uninhabited. I wish to correct what appears to me to be a little misapprehension on that point—for I believe that the territory under the jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company is more valuable than many persons imagine. That territory may be divided into three parts:—First there is the portion to the north of Canada; there is next the portion to the west of Canada; and finally, there is the portion to the west of the Rocky Mountains. With respect to the portion to the north of Canada, I believe that if it is not absolutely uninhabitable, it presents a very unfavourable field for the industry of man. The portion lying to the west of the Rocky Mountains, as I have understood from the accounts of travellers, is a much more favourable soil and climate; while, with respect to the remaining part, lying to the west of Canada, I am enabled to state, from personal communications I have had with gentlemen from Canada and with servants of the Hudson's Bay Company, that the climate of that district is not excessively severe, and that it is possessed of a rich prairie soil. It is situated in the neighbourhood of the great western lakes of North America, and the climate round those lakes is always found to be of a much milder character than that of other districts in the same latitude. It would seem as if Providence, which had placed that immense water-power at the disposal of man, had also provided that it should bring with it a climate in which he could avail himself of its advantages. It should, on the other hand, be remembered that the tide of emigration in the United States is setting now most strongly in the direction of the adjoining territory of Minnesota. Besides, of all the railroads in the north part of the
  240
  United States there are none paying so well as those of the State of Wisconsin pointing towards the territory of the dudson's Bay Company, and if any attempt is to be made to shut out colonisation, the result will be that the border population of the United States will go over in spite of such attempt, and serious difficulties may arise with the United States. I consider the best course will be to make the territory a part of Canada, as I know a strong feeling upon the subject exists in that colony. I hope that in the Committee full opportunity will be given to members of the Canadian Legislature who felt great interest in this matter to explain their views, as well as to the Hudson's Bay Company, who, being on the spot, may be presumed to have some little advantage over them.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid: Sir, I beg leave to suggest that, in order to ascertain the legality or illegality of the Hudson's Bay Company's charter, of which a preconceived idea appeared to exist, a Committee of this House is not the best tribunal that can be selected. I think it would have been better had the Government ascertained the opinions of the highest legal authorities upon the point, and there can be no doubt of the competence of a Committee to deal with the other branches of the subject. It was, in my opinion, a great mistake to have placed Vancouver's Island under the authority of the Hudson's Bay Company, which had had the effect of frustrating all attempts at colonisation upon that island, notwithstanding its vast natural resources.
  MR. G. M. BUTTsaid: Sir, I desire to call attention to the powers which it is proposed to confer upon the Committee. In common with many other Members, I am anxious that the question of the legality of the Hudson's Bay Company should be brought under the consideration of the Committee—I mean the validity of the original grant; and also whether that grant, even if originally valid, has not been forfeited by an entire disregard to the considerations upon which it was made. The terms of the Motion seem to assume the validity of the charter, and I wish to point out that circumstance to the right hon. Gentleman in order that he may vary the terms of the reference to the Committee, if he should think it necessary, so that the whole question of the validity of the charter may be ascertained.
  MR. LABOUCHERE, in reply, said:

  241
  Sir, I do not think the terms of my Motion are open to the construction which the hon. and learned Gentleman has placed upon them. I do not believe them to imply any opinion as to the legality or illegality of the Hudson's Bay Company's charter, and certainly I did not intend to convey any such impression. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) that the Committee itself would be a very improper tribunal to decide upon a legal question; but, if the Committee requires a decision upon that point, it will possess the power of sending it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Some hon. Members appear to think that I have arrived at a foregone conclusion upon the subject; but I beg to assure them that my only desire has been to lay the matter fairly and impartially before the House, It has also been supposed that I said the government of the Hudson's Bay Company was essential to the administration of justice to the Indians; but I only said that, in the performance of that most important part of their functions, the Company have ever acted with the greatest humanity; and I expressed a hope that, in considering the subject the Committee would not confine itself to a commercial view, but would also consider the interests of those Indian tribes whose interest it is our duty to protect. Some hon. Gentlemen have argued as though the whole of the territories in question are of the same character; but it is not so, and, without throwing any impediment in the way of colonisation, it may be possible to continue the fur trade in those districts which are at present unsuited for the location of settlers. I only desire that this important and complicated question shall be fairly brought before the Committee, and I am glad to find that the course which the Government have adopted is one which has received the general approval of the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to consider the state of those British Possessions in North America which are under the administration of the Hudson's Bay Company, or over which they possess a licence to trade."

IONIAN SUBJECTS' COMMISSIONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking leave to introduce a Bill to enable subjects of the Ionian State
  242
  to hold commissions in Her Majesty's naval and military services. The inhabitants of the Ionian Islands were at present placed in an anomalous position, being in, a certain sense British subjects, while they were debarred from enjoying all the rights and privileges in which other of Her Majesty's subjects participated. One of the disabilities under which they laboured was, that no native of the Ionian Islands could hold a commission under the Crown, and the object of the Bill which he asked leave to introduce was to get rid of that disability. The matter had been brought to his notice by the circumstance of a young man of good family and character, a native of these islands, wishing to enter the military service of this country. The Commander in Chief was willing to grant him a commission, but the law officers of the Crown, upon being consulted, were of opinion that it would be illegal in the present state of the law. He found that several of the Lord High Commissioners of the Ionian Islands had expressed opinions in favour of the removal of this disability, and Sir John Young, the present Lord High Commissioner, had stated that he regarded such a step as most desirable.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that some years ago the Maltese were in the same condition, but by an Act of Parliament they had been regularly constituted British subjects. He wished to know whether the Ionian Islands were to be considered as a separate State, for if so, young men wishing to enter Her Majesty's service could only do it by letters of naturalization. He believed that great discontent was occasioned by thus closing two professions, for at present the study of medicine and the law were the only means by which the youth of those States could distinguish themselves.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Bill would only place the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands in the same position as the inhabitants of any of our Colonies, and would not otherwise affect their status.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. LABOUCHERE and Mr. JOHN BALL.
  Bill read 1°.

NORFOLK ISLAND ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the existing provisions relating to the ecclesiastical government of Norfolk

  243
  Island, he had to state that it was intended to rectify an omission in the arrangement made two years ago. The House was probably aware that the destination of Norfolk Island was changed, and, instead of being associated with the worst of our criminals, would, in future, be inhabited by the natives of Pitcairn's Island. Those persons, whose virtues and good conduct had excited so much interest in this country, found Pitcairn's Island too small, and, on their own application, were transferred to Norfolk Island, after the latter had been purged of its convict population. In reference to the change, it was thought best to transfer the civil government from Tasmania to New South Wales; but the transfer of the ecclesiastical government was omitted. The consequence was that, while Norfolk Island was under the civil jurisdiction of the Governor of New South Wales, it was under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Tasmania. Such a state of things was obviously inconvenient, and the proposed measure was for transferring the ecclesiastical government from the Bishop of Tasmania to the Bishop of Sydney.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would beg to ask whether the Bishop of Tasmania assented to the Bill, and whether the change ought not to be made by an Order in Council.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the power of changing the ecclesiastical jurisdiction rested with Parliament. He did not know whether the Bishop of Tasmania had been informed of the intention to introduce the Bill, but he could not imagine that the right rev. Prelate would raise the least difficulty in such a matter.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was reported that twelve convicts had been left on Norfolk Island. He wished to know whether that was true; and, if so, whether their being left was intentional or accidental?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, no convict had been left behind. The Pitcairn people had petitioned to have one old man, who was well acquainted with the soil of the island, left to teach them agriculture, but the Governor, after some deliberation, thought it most expedient that the request should not be granted, and the man was removed with the other convicts.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill, to amend so much of an Act, intituled, "An Act to repeal the Acts of Parliament now in force respecting the
  244
  disposal of the Waste Lands of the Crown in Her Majesty's Australian Colonies, and to make other provision in lieu thereof," as relates to the Ecclesiastical Government of Norfolk Island, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LABOUCHERE and Mr. JOHN BALL.
  Bill read 1°.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

  RESOLUTION MOVED.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved a Resolution, that in future notices of Motion on going into Committee of Supply on the Estimates, should have precedence only on alternate days. He complained very much of the abuse which had lately crept in, and had, in his opinion, arrived at a very serious head, of Members delaying the Committees of Supply in order that they might bring a vast number of subjects before the House which it was inconvenient for them to introduce in the form of Resolutions, or in any other manner allowed by the rules of the House. The practical working of this pernicious system was to prevent the Estimates from being discussed in consequence of the lateness of the hour at which they were brought on. Hon. Members made long speeches on their particular hobbies, and knowing that no result could be obtained, went calmly away to dinner, having effected their purpose, and thus the public time was wasted very much to the injury of the country. Private Members had Tuesdays and Thursdays for Motions, and Wednesdays for Orders. The Government had only Mondays and Fridays for all their business, and he thought it would not be too much to limit the right of private Members to interpose with a Motion before going into Committee of Supply to one evening of the week. He pointed out the inconvenience of this practice upon the general business of the House, and especially as preventing the Government from giving explanations which might be required, simply from the reason that when the patience of the House had been exhausted by a long and purposeless conversation, and it at length got into Committee, about twelve o'clock at night, hon. Members were so weary that they passed the Estimates without the slightest examination. Nobody, he thought, could deny the importance of discussing the Estimates, considering the enormous amount of money involved, and the fact that, once passed, there was no control whatever upon the expenditure of the money. If his Motion were carried, hon.

  245
  Members would still have every other day on which to bring forward their grievances. There could be no doubt that it would lead to a great saving of time, and, as he contended, would in its practical effect prove highly advantageous to the country. The Government were not averse, as he understood, to this Motion. ["Hear, hear!"] He perfectly well understood what that Cheer meant. No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite found their account in protracting such useless Motions in order to harass the Government; but he considered that the absence of objection from the Treasury bench was a proof of the desire of the Government to have the various Estimates thoroughly investigated, and, therefore, highly creditable to it.
  MR. WISEseconded the Motion, although he should have preferred the appointment of a Committee to inquire. At present it was almost impossible to know when the Estimates were coming on.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Notices of Motions on going into Committee of Supply on the Estimates shall have precedence only on alternate days."
  SIR GEORGE GREYdid not know upon what authority the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) spoke; but in his (Sir G. Grey's) opinion the privilege accorded to Members of making Motions previous to going into Committee of Supply was one of the most important and valuable they possessed. He had had no communication with his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury upon the subject of the Motion, of which he believed notice was only given yesterday; but he was quite sure that that noble Lord would not be prepared to give his consent to it. Neither, if the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were agreed to, would it effect his purpose; nor would it do so unless he intended to preclude all discussion before the Speaker left the chair which would deprive hon. Members of the constitutional privilege of calling attention to the grievances of the people before the House voted the public money. He only hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would himself set a good example in respect to this description of Amendments, and that that example would be followed by other hon. Gentlemen. They all had a duty to perform, and, although, wherever it was practicable, it would be desirable to get into Committee as soon as possible, hon. Members ought not to be deprived of the privilege
  246
  of introducing discussions, often of a very important character, before going into Committee. He should vote against the Resolution.
  MR. FRENCHsaid, he was glad to find that the hon. Member had failed to represent the Government in this Motion, and it was his opinion that he had equally failed in representing the feelings of his Lambeth constituents. He was perfectly surprised to hear such a Resolution emanate from that quarter. He always thought that the principles professed by that section to which the hon. Gentleman was attached were repugnant to placing too much power in the hands of Government. It was true enough that two days a week were allowed to private Members to make Motions, but that was only provided they were not counted out, and his impression was that the only way of compelling Ministers to make a House for them was to threaten to bring the Motion they had in hand before the House previous to its going into Committee of Supply. He gave the present Resolution his strongest opposition.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH SUPPLY.
  LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH considered, according to Order.
  Moved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
  Committee thereupon To-morrow.
  The House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock.

MINUTE.
Took the Oaths.—The Earl of Belmore.

THE ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD(Earl Spencer) reported HER MAJESTY'S most gracious Answer to the Address, as follows:—
"MY LORDS,
"I THANK you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
"I RELY with Confidence on your Co-operation in maintaining the Honour of the Country, and in advancing the Welfare and Happiness of My People."

THE WARS WITH CHINA AND PERSIA—

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the deposition made by Thomas Kennedy, who is stated to have been the master of the lorcha seized by the Chinese authorities, and to have been on board at the time of that seizure, would be included in the other papers with respect to China,

  197
  which were promised to be laid before the House? And further, whether the noble Earl could lay on the table any despatch, if such existed, from Her Majesty's Government at home to Sir John Bowring, authorizing him to take the opportunity, if any favourable opportunity should arise, to urge upon the authorities of Canton the necessity of observing the treaty entered into between the two countries under which Englishmen were to be admitted into Canton?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON, in answer to the first question of the noble Earl, said the depositions of Thomas Kennedy, the master of the lorcha, was included in the papers which he laid on the table the night before last. On inquiry he had ascertained that the delay which had arisen in distributing these papers among their Lordships was owing to its being found desirable to have a map of the river of Canton, which gave a complete view of all the operations there. That map had been prepared; and in the course of the evening, he believed, the papers would be in their hands, and they would include the deposition referred to by the noble Earl. With respect to the other question, he had to state that no specific instructions had been given to Sir John Bowring by Her Majesty's Government respecting the admission of British subjects to Canton; but in the general instructions with which he was furnished when he left this country he was told to bear in mind the desirableness of obtaining that free access to Chinese ports which were mentioned in the treaty, and more particularly as regarded Canton. When Sir John Bowring arrived at his post, he communicated his arrival to the Imperial Commissioner, and requested an interview with him, in order that he might communicate with him upon various matters. That interview was refused, and the only despatch addressed to Sir John Bowring on the subject was one in which the Government communicated their approval of the measures he had taken on that occasion. No instruction had been sent to him since, although Sir John Bowring has constantly represented the inconvenience arising from a want of direct communication with the Chinese authorities.
  THE EARL OF DERBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in how short a time the papers relating to Persia, which he had promised, would be laid on the table?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, it
  198
  had been his intention to lay them on the table in a very few days; and the only reason he was not now able to specify a particular time for doing so (although they were quite ready), had reference to the negotiations which were likely to be entered into with the Persian Government through its representative in Paris.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not think the reason given by the noble Earl afforded any sufficient reason for delay in the production of these papers. He did not ask for any papers affecting negotiations which might be now pending, but he did ask for papers illustrative of the motives which led the Government to enter into the war, and of the manner in which that war was proclaimed. He must say he was very much struck with the powerful statement made by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey), on a former evening, and though he (the Earl of Derby) did not vote in favour of his Amendment, yet in the general principle which the noble Earl laid down he was disposed to concur. He did not think that the mode in which the war was commenced and proclaimed was consistent with the constitutional practice of this country.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHinquired if there were any papers illustrative of the measures—whatever they might have been—which had been taken by the Government of India on their receiving information that the Persians were moving hostilely towards Herat?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, he would give an answer to the question on another occasion.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, a very different policy appeared to have been adopted on the present occasion with respect to China, from that followed by the Government of the Earl of Derby, and the Government which preceded his, relative to that country; and that the former policy had been changed by Sir John Bowring. If his memory did not fail him, he (the Earl of Malmesbury), when he held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir John Bowring, during the leave of absence given to Sir George Bonham, constantly urged upon the Government the necessity of insisting upon the fulfilment of that particular part of the treaty which gave us the right to enter Canton. Now, nobody ever doubted our right on this point; but there was a great difference of opinion as to the advisability of insisting upon such right. If he remembered correctly, Sir

  199
  George Bonham—than whom there was not a more prudent or more experienced man—was of opinion that it would not be beneficial, but rather the reverse, to insist upon our right—that trade could be carried on quite as well, and perhaps better, at the factories without the English entering Canton, which would only expose them to the insults of a barbarous population, and would be likely to lead to difficulties between the two countries. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) therefore hoped that if the Government wished the public to understand the whole question, they would go back a little further, and, among the papers which they were about to lay before the House, would give them some of the despatches sent home in 1852 and 1853, on the point to which he had referred; and particularly any—if there were any—in which Sir George Bonham, whose opinion was worth listening to on such a question, expressed his belief that it would be inexpedient to press for an entry into Canton. Such despatches would serve as antidotes to those of Sir John Bowring, who recommended a course exactly the reverse of this.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, the object of the Government was to furnish every information illustrative of the policy pursued by the Government. The despatches alluded to by the noble Earl would not be included in the papers which it was intended to lay before the House, but he apprehended there would be no objection whatever to give them if their Lordships thought it was desirable to have them. If he remembered rightly, the noble Earl in his despatches to Sir John Bowring, during the absence of Sir George Bonham in England, gave no decided opinion on the subject, but requested Sir John Bowring to confine himself strictly to keeping the status quo. Sir John Bowring was acting as English Plenipotentiary during the absence of Sir George Bonham in England, and the noble Earl's instructions to him were not to meddle with anything which Sir George had done.
  EARL GREYsaid, he was exceedingly glad that there was no objection on the part of the Government to lay these despatches before the House. It was quite essential to a right comprehension of this important question, that the House should be in possession of a selection of the more important despatches relating to it from the date of the treaty with China—for this was no new controversy, but was one which had been going on for a considerable
  200
  time. He entreated the noble Earl to have the goodness to produce also the despatch which he (Earl Grey) wrote in November, 1847, strictly prohibiting all offensive operations on the part of the local authorities, without reference being made to the Government at home. That was a despatch written by him after communicating with the Duke of Wellington, who entertained the strongest opinion as to the absolute necessity of peace being maintained; and it received the entire assent of the Cabinet of that year.

  THE EARL OF CARDIGAN—MAJOR CALTHORPE—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARDIGANsaid, he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity in the present Session of putting a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War—a question which, though he regretted to say it related particularly to himself, he believed was not altogether unconnected with the general interests and welfare of the army. The question was upon the subject of defamation of character by officers holding commissions in the army. But before he put it he would remind the House how entirely the circumstances had changed with regard to the means a man had of defending his character by the change of opinion which had taken place with regard to the laws of honour. Their Lordships would remember that that most distinguished man the great Duke of Wellington, when he considered he had during any great political contest been unjustly commented upon, had recourse to the remedy provided by the laws of honour. A similar course had previously been adopted by Pitt, by Fox, by Castlereagh, by Canning, and by Sir Robert Peel; and, indeed, by almost all the great and distinguished men of the past and present century. But he (the Earl of Cardigan) was much more unfortunate; because, in following their example, he had had the misfortune to be placed at their Lordships' bar and tried as a felon, at the imminent risk of losing, not only his personal property, but his personal liberty. Since then, the law with regard to duelling had gradually become more stringent, and only one personal conflict had subsequently taken place between any two gentlemen; and on that occasion one of the parties, who held a commission in the service, lost his commission, and was imprisoned. The Mutiny Act and the Articles of War had also been altered, and made

  201
  more stringent and severe. Now, it was upon the Articles of War that he would found the question he was about to put to the noble Lord, and in obedience to the Articles of War he asked the protection of the highest military authority. The facts were these:—His character had been maligned, his military reputation had been defamed, in a most extraordinary and uncalled-for manner by an officer holding a commission in the service; and that officer, although he had published his statement—his unfounded statement—under the name of "A Staff Officer," was in reality Major the Hon. Somerset Calthorpe, who, he regretted to say, was a near connection of a Member of their Lordships' House. First of all, it might be necessary for him to say that, barring one statement relating to a circumstance touching a certain number of horses, there was not a single statement made respecting him which was not utterly devoid of the slightest truth. In the difficult position in which he was placed by the publication of Major Calthorpe's book, the course he thought proper to adopt was the following:— Soon after he became acquainted with this publication, he applied to the Commander in Chief of the army to bring Major Calthorpe before a general court-martial for "conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, in disgracefully maligning his character." His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief refused to accede to his request, on the ground that to do so would be productive of inconvenience to the general interests of the army. The next step he (the Earl of Cardigan) took was to request a friend—a brother staff officer of cavalry, who on several occasions had attended him when he was employed on different expeditions and services with the cavalry by Lord Raglan's orders, and who was utterly unacquainted with, and never had heard of any of these gross fabrications—to go to Major Calthorpe and point out to him how entirely unfounded in fact every one of his statements were, to calmly ask him to reconsider them, and to withdraw them on any ground he thought proper, provided he stated they were misrepresentations, and were unjustified by facts. The answer he received was to this effect—Major Calthorpe admitted that two out of three of the allegations he had made against him were totally devoid of truth; and the other he explained in so flippant and offensive a manner as to be entirely unsatisfactory to him (the Earl of Cardigan); and he concluded by refusing to withdraw these statements
  202
  from his work, on the plea that it would be inconvenient to himself and his publisher. He (the Earl of Cardigan) was aware that many people would say, and had said to him—and perhaps the majority of persons were of the same opinion—"Why care about this attack upon you; why trouble yourself to take any notice of it; why not let it pass?" He could not agree to accept such advice. He thought when a man's character was openly attacked, he was bound to defend himself in one way or another. If he had been alluded to in the general terms in which a gallant Admiral had been, he perhaps would not have taken any notice of the attacks, believing that opinions so expressed were ridiculous and absurd, and even contemptible; but when an officer like Major Calthorpe came forward, and stated that on particular occasions he had done certain things, which, if he had done, would have been highly discreditable, but which he never did do—such statements being preposterous fabrications—it was impossible he could pass the matter over in silence. Under different circumstances, considering the insignificance of this officer, and if it had been merely a question of the present moment, he might have allowed his accusations to pass unnoticed; but published in a book, they became, if uncontradicted, matter of history; and somebody taking up this work twenty-five years hence might be led to believe that it showed the real tenor of his conduct as a general officer while serving in the Crimea. It was most unfair and unjust that such should be the case. He must appeal, therefore, to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, and the question he wished to put to him was this—Whether, after having received a letter from Lord Raglan, which he had now in his possession, thanking him for the manner in which he had conducted the cavalry reconnaissance in the Dobrudscha and to Trajan's Wall, and for having obtained the information which he (Lord Raglan required; whether, after his name had been mentioned in the despatch after the battle of the Alma in a way highly satisfactory to his feelings, with regard to the operation of a part of the cavalry on the night preceding the battle; whether, when he was subsequently mentioned in the despatch after the battle of Balaklava in terms well known to their Lordships; and when he had the further honour conferred upon him of having his name included in the list of those general officers who had the high honour of receiving the

  203
  thanks of their Lordships' House—he asked whether, considering all these facts, it was right or fair that a junior officer, holding a staff appointment in the army, should be permitted, long after the events about which he spoke had taken place, to malign him and injure his professional character? Whether an officer who had disgraced himself by propagating and publishing statements which were devoid of every vestige of truth should continue to receive even half-pay from the public purse? and, further, whether an officer having so disgraced himself was to be permitted to retain an honourable post on the staff of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
  LORD PANMUREsaid, that owing to the general terms of the notice which had been given by the noble Earl who had just sat down, he was unable to do more than to guess at the nature of the question which he was about to put to him; and he must be permitted, now that he had heard it, to express his regret at the practice which appeared to be growing up of making either House of Parliament a court of appeal upon points which respected the discipline and administration of the army. He could not, however, find fault with the noble Earl for availing himself of his privilege as a Peer of Parliament to refute in this public manner the accusations which he (Lord Panmure) could not but say had been most wantonly brought against his military character; but he thought that while he was conscious of being in possession of the approval of Lord Raglan for his distinguished and gallant conduct in the Crimea, the noble Earl might well have afforded to pass by in silence the remarks of one so inferior in rank and judgment to the gallant officer under whom the noble Earl had served. More especially might he have done so, when he considered that he was armed also with a document which showed that he had received the thanks of this and the other House of Parliament for his conduct in the field. With regard to the question of proceedings against the officer who wrote the book to which the noble Earl had referred, let him remind him that though the noble Earl charged a particular officer with being the author of that book, that as far as the authorities of the Horse Guards were cognizant of the facts, that book was written under an anonymous signature. The Commander in Chief (who would have been present in his place to-day had he not been in attendance on Her Majesty), upon receiving an application from the noble Earl
  204
  to redress through the means of a court-martial the injury which he had sustained from that book, stated that he did not conceive that it was his province to take notice of anonymous military publications, because such a precedent once established would lead to inevitable confusion in the administration of the discipline of the army; and that moreover it appeared to him, as it appeared also to himself (Lord Panmure), that the noble Earl had a recourse open to him by an appeal to the civil courts of the country, whereby he might have obtained reparation for the defamation of his character. The noble Earl had stated the reasons why he did not adopt another course in vindication of his honour, and why he did not appeal to what ho called the "law of honour." He (Lord Panmure) thought that he was perfectly right in making no such appeal, and he was sure that the sooner such a law was abrogated entirely, the better it would be for the profession and for society at large. He thought, under all the circumstances, that the only answer he could give the noble Earl was to say that it was not the intention of the Commander in Chief to bring the officer who was supposed to be the author of the work in question to a court-martial; and he would strongly recommend the noble Earl to rest upon the high testimonials which he had in his possession to refute the injustice to which he had been subjected.

THE NEW FOREST—

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,in moving for certain returns relative to the New Forest, Hampshire, asked the indulgence of the House for trespassing upon their time with a matter which was so far personal to himself that he might be said to be one of those who were to some extent upon their trial before the Commissioners of the New Forest. He should first be obliged to trouble their Lordships with a summary of the circumstances connected with the appointment and the proceedings of the Commission. In 1851 an Act was passed for the purpose of putting an end to the deer, which contained a clause enabling the Crown to appropriate and plant 10,000 acres, in addition to the 6,000 acres already possessed by it in the New Forest; the commoners also were called upon by that Act to prove their rights before the County Court Judge at Southampton, and power was given to sell waste lands to the extent of £2,000 to

  205
  defray the expenses of carrying out the Act. That sum was found to be far too small for the purpose, and in 1854 another Act was passed appointing three barristers to adjudge on the claims of the commoners, and giving them power to sell any quantity of waste land in the forest, in addition to the £2,000 sanctioned by the Act of 1851 in order to defray the expenses. These Commissioners had been engaged ever since November, 1854; and he begged to remind their Lordships that many of the commoners were very poor persons, who had no original title, but who had a right of user of upwards of two centuries, and who felt this investigation to be of the very greatest importance, regarding it almost as a struggle between the Sovereign and themselves. It was of the highest importance that the Commissioners should proceed with the adjudication as rapidly as possible, because the witnesses were necessarily very aged and could not be expected to live much longer. The incendiary fires which took place in the New Forest a few years ago originated in the feeling which prevailed among the people against the Commission; and he had no hesitation in saying that the Commissioners could not evince too great a spirit of conciliation. Such a spirit had not been displayed. The population affected by the Commissioners covered about 60,000 acres, and the places at which the Commissioners held their sittings were at so great a distance from the residences of the parties whose claims they were called upon to decide, that in many instances the poorer commoners could not afford to pay the expense of conveying their witnesses. Only the other day several parties were obliged to attend the Commissioners at a distance of from ten to twenty miles from their residences. Again, it was matter of complaint that the Commissioners had sat only two years, and that during the first they had succeeded in disposing of no more than half-a-dozen claims, while during the second, 1856, they bad confined their sittings to forty days. He had been told by an ingenious lawyer, and he had every reason to believe the statement to be true, that every sitting of the Commissioners cost four acres of the forest. In November last, hearing that a court was to be held at Christchurch, and finding that his claims and those of his neighbours were not to be taken at that sitting, he ventured to address a communication to the Commissioners, against whom he entertained no sort of prejudice, explaining
  206
  his views on the subject. That letter was worded in what he believed to be a proper manner; but, in order that their Lordships might judge for themselves, he would take the liberty of reading it:—
  "Heron Court, December 17, 1856.
  "Gentlemen,—Having lately returned from abroad, I have only just learnt from Mr. Druitt, at Christchurch, that you are about to hold a Court upon Forest Claims at that place; but that mine, although my property is actually adjoining, are not to be investigated, but are deferred to a more, distant period and locality. I therefore beg leave I to ask you upon what grounds my interests are treated differently from the majority of cases belonging to this parish? If it be so, I am exposed to a great increase of expense in sending my witnesses (necessarily extremely aged persons) a long day's journey, instead of a short walk to the court, while the poorer claimants, whose witnesses would be nearly the same as mine and those of the large proprietors, are deprived of the advantage of saving their expenses altogether by calling them simultaneously with ours. As I consider it a case of great and apparently useless injustice and inconvenience to myself and others, I have taken the liberty to press upon you my view of it, in the hope that you may think fit to take the whole of this parish at the same time and place.
  "I remain, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
  "MALMESBURY.
  "The Hon. the Commissioners for Forest Claims."
  On the 1st of January—a fortnight after the date of his communication—he received the following answer:—
  "Christchurch, January 1.
  "My Lord,—I have laid your Lordship's letter before the New Forest Commissioners on the first occasion of their meeting since the receipt of it. I am directed by the Commissioners to acknowledge it, and to inform your Lordship that they cannot take any notice of the questions and arguments therein contained, as they do not recognise in any man the right to address them in the manner your Lordship has thought fit to assume.
  "The usual public notice will be given of the time and place at which the Commissioners will hear and determine on your claim.
  "I am your Lordship's very obedient servant,
  "W. STEAD.
  "Clerk to the Commissioners.
  "To the Right Hon. the Earl of Malmesbury."
  When he received that letter, signed by the clerk to the Commissioners, he thought it was the ebullition of some prancing attorney, not conceiving it possible, having no intention of offending the Commissioners, that they had authorised the transmission of so discourteous a communication. But he had since ascertained that the Commissioners themselves, and not their clerk, were responsible for it. He rejoined in the following terms:—
  Heron Court, January 3.
  "Sir,—I beg to acknowledge your note of the 1st inst.

  207
  "Having been in the habit of corresponding officially with every class of public servants, both abroad and at home, and having myself had the honour to hold a high responsible appointment under the Crown, it would be truly unpardonable were I to deserve the charge of showing a want of courtesy and respect to persons delegated by Her Majesty for any particular service.
  "With this feeling in my mind I have carefully read the copy of my letter of the 17th of December to the New Forest Commissioners, without being able to discover the unintentional offence which, as you state, 'the manner I have thought fit to assume' has caused. I could have had no motive in offering such to the public position of these gentlemen, and still less to them personally, because I am at this moment unacquainted even with their names.
  "Had I found in my letter any expression which could be construed into a solecism in private or official correspondence, I would gladly offer them an apology. As it is, I cannot do so; but, on the contrary, must affirm that, in applying for an explanation of certain orders which appeared to subject myself and my poorer neighbours to unnecessary and therefore unfair expense, and in 'taking the liberty to press upon the Commissioners my views, in the hope that they might think fit,' &c., I was exercising the undoubted privilege of self-defence, and supporting it in the language of a gentleman. I knew that we had no appeal from the judicial decisions of the Court, but I believed that we might without presumption observe upon its preparatory acts, and, like other defendants in other courts, plead for speedy justice or a change of venue.
  "But, as the Commissioners 'do not recognise in any man this right,' it only remains to me to ask in Parliament for a public explanation of the course of justice to which I (as a party concerned) object, and, if possible, also to ascertain in what more fitting form of diction than that which I have used, the New Forest Commissioners expect to be addressed by Her Majesty's subjects.
  "I remain your obedient servant,
  "MALMESBURY.
  "The Clerk to the Commissioners for the New Forest Claims."
  If he had received from the Commissioners a letter of explanation, which, however, he did not say they were bound to give; if they had simply stated, in official language, that they could not comply with his request, he should not have troubled their Lordships with the subject; but he had read the correspondence to show the animus of the Commissioners and the absence of that delicacy of management which, desirable in all cases, was especially required in a Commission necessarily offensive to the people. After the correspondence had taken place, a memorial was addressed to the Commissioners by the magistrates and gentlemen residing in his neighbourhood, which had the effect of causing the Commissioners to announce their intention of holding their meeting in March at Christ-church, instead of at Southampton, The
  208
  following was an extract from a letter which he received from the oldest magistrate who attended the meeting where that memorial was agreed to:—
  "Dear Lord Malmesbury—We did not ask you to sign our memorial, feeling that after the treatment you had experienced you ought not to be exposed to the chance of a repetition of it."
  What he wished to impress upon the Government was the cruelty of compelling persons to wait a long period for the settlement of their cases, imposing upon them the risk of losing their witnesses through advanced age, and also the necessity of modifying some of the terms which had been laid down by the Commissioners. There was one point to which he hoped the attention of the Government would be directed. When the deer were in the forest the month of June was kept as a fence-month, and the commoners were not allowed to put their cattle in. But in the Act of Parliament this circumstance was ignored altogether, and although there were now neither deer nor fawns in the forest, the fence-month was enforced more strictly than ever. Before concluding, he would refer to the case of Brecknock Forest, which was enclosed some years ago. They began with selling one-fifth of the forest, and at the end of seven year's the lawyers' bill had swelled to so. large an extent that it required the sale of two-fifths of the land to liquidate it. What became of the other two-fifths he supposed no one knew. With that precedent before them he thought they could not act with too much caution. He asked the noble Earl opposite whether the Government approved the letter which the Commissioners wrote to him in answer to the one he had sent them. The noble Earl then moved for the Returns.
  EARL GRANVILLEhad on former occasions been warned of the extreme difficulties which he would have to encounter in answering in an efficient way questions relating to those departments of the Government not represented in that House, and the discussion now raised had afforded some proof of the wisdom of that warning. He was happy, however, to say that the responsibility did not in this particular case rest on him as a Minister of the Crown, for the Commission whose conduct had been impugned was responsible, and that to Parliament alone, having been constituted by an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, like the noble Earl, was a commoner in the New

  209
  Forest, and a defendant in this very suit; but there was this difference between them, that, while the noble Earl complained of the delay which had taken place, the noble Viscount was not very well pleased that his claim had been so speedily disposed of, and that in a manner not at all satisfactory to himself. Having received from the noble Earl opposite timely notice of his intention to move for these Returns, he had written to the Commissioners on the subject, and they had sent to him copies of a statement which they had transmitted to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, not in his capacity of adviser to the Crown, but as the head of the profession to which they belonged. He would, therefore, ask permission to leave the matter in the hands of his noble and learned Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was quite true that the papers referred to by his noble Friend had been put into his hand, and he would therefore make a few observations on the subject, especially as on one or two points, the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had a little misunderstood the position of the Commissioners. The Act of Parliament passed in 1854 appointed the Judge of the County Court of the district to be the head of the Commission, and authorised the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench to select two other barristers to constitute the Commission, which was to be a Court for the purpose of hearing claims and adjudicating upon them. The gentlemen selected were Mr. Barstow and Mr. Coleridge, and it was due to them to say that two more honourable men did not exist. They proceeded to the district and entered upon the duty of hearing the claims of the commoners. The noble Earl seemed to suppose that a rule was laid down which required persons to prove an user from 1800. That was a mistake. All they did was to satisfy themselves that the commoners had acquired a legal right to their land. The Act of Parliament said that if any one could prove that he had been in possession from 1800, it was to be held sufficient; but such cases were exceptional, and in most instances the Commissioners had been satisfied with proof of twenty years' possession. In the discharge of their duties the Commissioners had to fix times and places to hear claims. This was a legitimate exercise of the powers conferred upon them, and they had stated to him that they were anxious to have the manner in which this duty was discharged examined
  210
  and sifted in the most searching manner. No persons could be more desirous than they were to conclude their duties. They had no interest, in point of remuneration, in delaying the adjudication of the claims, because, as he understood, the sale of the forest lands was to pay the expense of the Commission. He would now repeat to their Lordships what he had already told the Commissioners, that he thought they had misconstrued the letter of the noble Earl altogether. He said he did not think that letter called for the reply they had given to it, and they expressed their extreme regret that they should have so misunderstood it. But what they felt was that they were there, not so much as Commissioners of the Crown to contest with the commoners, as persons who were appointed to do impartial justice to all parties. When the noble Earl's letter came to hand the question was under consideration whether they should sit at Christchurch or some other place; and, in conformity with the oath they had taken, they felt that they were bound to decide this and every question judicially, and in accordance with the interests of the commoners. While this matter was under consideration the Commissioners received from the noble Earl a letter, in which it was stated that the course they were pursuing "would be attended with injustice."
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: With "apparent injustice."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, even if the expression had been "injustice" he did not think it would have justified the reply of the Commissioners. Indeed, in his opinion, there was nothing in the noble Earl's letter that called for an angry answer. He believed that the Commissioners had discharged their duties with the utmost zeal, and if there was any ground for complaint it was not that their proceedings had been too slow, but that they had been too hasty. He could only say, on the part of the Commissioners, that the returns which had been moved for would be prepared with the utmost care, and that they were anxious that their proceedings should be subjected to the most strict investigation. He would venture to say that the character and conduct of the Commissioners were unassailable, and that they had endeavoured to discharge their duties in a satisfactory manner. At the time they received the noble Earl's letter they were considering

  211
  whether it would be for the interest of the suitors that they should sit at Christchurch or not, and as they thought it would be advantageous to the suitors they determined to sit at that place
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the Motion of the noble Earl was far from being an improper one, for it was desirable that Parliament should have information as to the proceedings of all courts. He (Lord Campbell) took some interest in the conduct of these Commissioners, because, although he would gladly have been spared the duty of making the choice, he had been called upon by Parliament to appoint two of them. There were three Commissioners, one of whom—the County Court Judge—was named in the Act of Parliament, and in selecting the other two Commissioners he had acted upon the maxim, detur digniori, and had endeavoured to select the most competent men from the Western Circuit. He could not name a leader or a silk gown, who might not, perhaps, be able to afford time; but as many very difficult questions of law, involving a large amount of property, might arise, it was necessary to select men of some experience. He had named Mr. Barstow, with whom he had little personal acquaintance, but had long known as an eminent lawyer and most honourable man, and Mr. Coleridge, a member of a family highly distinguished for their ability, and himself one of the most rising men in Westminster-hall, and a man of spotless character. He thought that the reply of the Commissioners was hasty and to be regretted, and had since pointed out to them that the letter of the noble Earl was a most courteous one, containing nothing to excite the jealousy or offend the dignity of any public officer. The Commissioners doubtless looked upon the noble Earl's letter as an interference on the part of a suitor with the discharge of their functions; but he (Lord Campbell) thought there was no ground for such an opinion. He believed that when the returns for which the noble Earl had moved were produced it would be found that the Commissioners had discharged their duty ably, industriously, and with perfect fairness. He thought the noble Earl had somewhat prematurely censured the Commissioners in the letter he had addressed to The Times newspaper, and that he ought first to have moved for the returns and have reserved his censure until he found that it was justified by the facts.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEconsidered that his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) had rendered a public service by bringing this subject under their Lordships' attention, for he thought the conduct of the Commissioners ought to be carefully watched by Parliament. He believed there was no tribunal which was so satisfactory to the Commissioners and so unsatisfactory to landowners as an enclosure commission, for he had known cases where Commissioners luxuriated in turtle and champagne, and discharged their public duties in the most leisurely manner. The Lord Chancellor had said those Commissioners had been too hasty in their decisions, and he (the Earl of Hardwicke) thought they could not have paid very diligent attention to their duties, as they had only sat for forty days since their appointment. The letter of the Commissioners to his noble Friend was couched in such terms as he had never seen addressed by public officers to any gentleman in the land, and he had certainly expected that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack—although he said he had no power to censure the Commissioners—would have expressed his strong disapprobation of the conduct of members of the Bar who had been parties to such a communication.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to say that he did not complain that the judicial decisions of the Commissioners had been unfair, or even mistaken. He complained of their arrangements, which he thought were most objectionable. He had been under the mark in stating that the Commissioners had only sat four hours a day at Christchurch, for taking the average of a fortnight they had only sat three hours and a half a day.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was clear that the Act of Parliament had not contemplated a continuous sitting, for it had appointed the County Court Judge of the district one of the Commissioners, and he was always employed in his duties some days in each month.
  EARL GRANVILLEreminded the noble Earl that the concluding paragraph of his letter to the Commissioners ran in these terms:—"As I consider it a case of great and apparently useless injustice and inconvenience upon myself and others, I have taken the liberty to press upon you my view of it, in the hope that you may think fit to take the whole of this parish at the same time and place." The Commissioners

  213
  might very well have regarded this as impugning their conduct, and that therefore they felt some irritation on the subject.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he did not think it could be taken in that sense; and he must say that he was sorry to find that his noble Friend had not had either the courage or the friendly courtesy which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) might perhaps have expected from him more than from any other Member of their Lordships' House, of saying that which the noble and learned Lord had so fairly and generously said as to that letter. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) preserved absolute silence when asked if he approved of the letter, and not until the debate was closed did he endeavour to show that there was any reason for the answer he had received.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought there was no ground whatever for this attack upon him by the noble Earl. The noble Earl having brought his Motion and applied to him (Earl Granville), as the representative of the Government in that House, to give his opinion with regard to the course which had been taken by the Commissioners; and when he rose he stated, he thought, in a manner not in the slightest degree discourteous, the reasons why, as a Minister of the Crown, it would not only be unnecessary, but in some degree improper, for him to speak in reference to a case in which the Crown was a suitor. Further, he conceived that it would have been manifestly unjust if, in the absence of the Commissioners themselves, and upon a single point on which he believed them to have acted without sufficient consideration, he had condemned them before hearing the defence which his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had been able to make for them. He should have thought his noble Friend would have been grateful to him for correcting an unintentional statement on his part, instead of exhibiting what he could not help as regarding as some degree of anger and want of courtesy.
  Motion agreed to.

THE TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM—

  MOTION FOR RETURN.
  LORD BERNERS LORD BERNERS moved, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Return of the number of Tickets of Leave issued to convicts in each year since the commencement of that practice, showing the minimum periods of sentence at which such licences have been granted,
  214
  and the number of licence-holders re-apprehended, with the result of the proceedings against them. In proposing the Motion, the noble Lord said, that when he placed this notice on the paper, he was not aware that a noble Lord, whom he did not then see in his place, had given notice of a Motion of a more general character on the subject. Under these circumstances he should avoid entering upon a discussion of the larger question, but confine himself to the subject of his Motion. There was no doubt that the public mind had been very greatly agitated in reference to the ticket-of-leave system, and that the opinion was almost universally entertained, as appeared by the remarks of learned Judges, including the noble and learned Lord the Chief Justice of England himself, the Lord Mayor and magistrates of the metropolis, the recorders of different boroughs, grand juries and courts of quarter-sessions in various counties, that the system was a complete failure. All testimony upon the subject went to prove that the most mischievous results had arisen from letting loose, with tickets of leave, a large number of men, many of whom were the most hardened criminals, who had been frequently convicted, and in fact had made crime their profession. This being so it struck him that correct information should now be laid before the House and the public, not only of the number of tickets of leave that had been granted, but also of the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. He held in his hand the report of the Inspectors of the prisons at Pentonville, Parkhurst, Millbank, Portland, Portsmouth, Dartmoor, Brixton, and the hulks; also an extract from the table of the criminal offenders in the year 1855. By these documents he observed, that although the number of offenders in the aggregate was less in that year than during some previous years, yet that where an increase had taken place in certain descriptions of crime, that increase had arisen concurrently with the adoption of the ticket-of-leave system. In addition to this, he had before him the copy of a memorial to the Home Secretary from the magistrates of the county of Leicester, in quarter-sessions assembled, representing what his (Lord Berners') experience entirely confirmed, that there had been an increase of crime in that county, which was clearly attributable to the system. The noble Lord then moved for the returns.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government

  215
  were perfectly willing to comply with the Motion, and he quite concurred with the noble Mover that discussion upon the general question at that moment was altogether unnecessary. Notice had been given in the other House of the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill upon the subject of secondary punishments; and in moving for leave to introduce that Bill, the Home Secretary would state at length what were the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this most important question.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsuggested that the return moved for by the noble Lord should not be confined merely to those holders of tickets of leave who had been reconvicted for some specific offence, but should be made also to include, in an additional column, those ticket-of-leave men who had been reapprehended without the commission of any distinct crime. Their Lordships were aware that the tickets of leave were granted upon certain conditions, and that they were revocable not simply on the repetition of acts of violence, but also at the pleasure of the Home Secretary, provided that Minister was satisfied that the holder was leading a suspicious life. The object of this latter provision obviously was to prevent the men from returning to their old associates and to habits of idleness; and, were it wise or were it inexpedient in itself, there was little doubt that it was an important feature of the system. In order, therefore, fairly to test the working of the entire system, it was desirable to ascertain how many of the men had been reapprehended under the category just mentioned, as well as under the other categories enumerated in the proposed return.
  LORD CAMPBELL,while agreeing that this was not a favourable opportunity for entertaining the subject of secondary punishments, yet believed it to be most important that their Lordships should know at the earliest possible moment what was the real question they had to consider in the present emergency. That question was not whether they should, or should not, continue the issue of tickets of leave, but whether they should, or should not, return to the practice of transportation. The granting of tickets of leave was not a substantive, but merely a collateral measure, contingent upon the suspension of transportation, and while the system of transportation continued in abeyance the evil now so loudly complained of must go
  216
  on. The Government must take into their serious consideration the absolute necessity of returning to transportation, if security was to be extended to Her Majesty's peaceable subjects; and nothing but the assurance given by the noble Earl that a measure on this subject was in contemplation, and about to be introduced into the other House, could at all quiet the alarm now so justly felt by the public. Had it not been for that promise on the part of the Government, he should have deemed it his duty immediately to bring the question under their Lordships' notice.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought it of the utmost importance that every possible information upon the subject should be laid upon their Lordships' table. He concurred with Lord Berners in one fact especially, and that was, that since the ticket-of-leave system had been in operation, crime in the rural districts had been on the increase. Crimes had been committed there which, before that period, had scarcely ever been heard of, and general alarm pervaded the mind of the country. It was quite obvious that if a man were sent back with a ticket of leave to the place which had been the scene of his crimes, it would be next to impossible for him to obtain employment, and that consequently he must either return to his old practices, or be content to live in a condition of absolute want and starvation. In fact, it was placing him in circumstances of temptation which it would be impossible for him to resist or to endure. During the recess he (Viscount Dungannon) was in Ireland, where he had an opportunity of visiting the convict establishment at Spike Island, and making inquiries as to the character of the ticket-of-leave system there. He learned that the course pursued was this—when a man's conduct in confinement appeared to entitle him to receive a ticket of leave, inquiries were made with the view of procuring him employment in the event of his being discharged, and when that was obtainable, further inquiries were made as to the character of the proposed employer, his habits, and associations. These inquiries were usually conducted by the police authorities of the district in which the employer resided, and upon the result of those inquiries depended whether the convict should be admitted to the privilege of having a ticket of leave or not. Now, it appeared to him that that was a cautious and admirable course of proceeding, and a very great improvement upon the system which existed here. He was convinced

  217
  that the time had arrived when a revision of the system in this country should take place, because, as the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) had justly observed, the public at large entertained very great and serious apprehension upon the subject. Circumstances which had occurred during the recess had greatly augmented that alarm, and he hoped the Session would not be allowed to pass away without the adoption of some decided legislative measure on the subject, for he was convinced, that so long as the present system continued, crime must continue to increase. He felt much indebted to the noble Lord (Lord Berners) for having on so early a day brought the question under the notice of their Lordships.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that there would be no objection to produce the additional information required by the Earl of Carnarvon.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned till To-morrow.