Sitting of 20 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Factories.
2o Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Militia Act Continuance; Militia (Servic Abroad) Act. Continuance; Militia Pay; Ecclesiastical Commission.
2o Government of New Caledonia; Chelsea Bridge Act Amendment; Returns to Secretary of State; Law of False Pretences Amendment.

THE CASE OF THE CORMACKS.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to bring up Spillang as a witness on any future occasion.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that no criminal trial was at present pending in which it would be necessary to examine Spillang.

DIVORCE ACT AMENDMENT AND PROBATE ACT AMENDMENT BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he rose to ask the Attorney General when he intended to proceed with the Divorce and Probate Amendment Bills.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had been very anxious to bring the Probate Act Amendment Bill and the Divorce Act Amendment Bill under the consideration of the House on some day during the last three weeks, but the House had been occupied with Bills which it was necessary to send up to the House of Lords. He would endeavour to make an arrangement with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a day to consider the Bills, and he hoped that Thursday or Friday might be secured.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act, which involved considerable novelty, would probably lead to a lengthened discussion. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the new clauses.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it had not occurred to him that any of the clauses of the Divorce Bill were open to the observations just made. If it turned out, however, that any of the clauses note in the Bill, or any of the Amendments of which he had had notice either appeared to introduce any important change in the law or to be likely to give rise to much discussion or opposition, he should be quite
  1786
  ready to postpone the consideration of those clauses or amendments to a future session, merely proceeding with those portions of the measure which related to the procedure of the Court.

THE INDIAN REVOLT.—QUESTION.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he would now beg to inquire of the noble Lord whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, considering the great number of executions that have already taken place and the great slaughter of the enemy in battle, it would not now be desirable to offer a complete amnesty to all who will lay down their arms, unless they can be proved to have been present at the murder of Europeans?
LORD STANLEY: Sir—The observations which the hon. Member has addressed to me is rather in the nature of a suggestion than of an inquiry, and I think I shall best reply to it by reminding the House of the instructions which have actually, within the last few weeks, been sent out from this country to the Governor General in Council. On the 24th of March the Secret Committee—that is to say, my noble Friend Lord Ellenborough—addressed to the Governor General a Despatch, which has been laid before this House, and of which the most important paragraph is as follows:—
"To us it appears that, whenever open resistance shall have ceased, it would be prudent, in awarding punishment, rather to follow the practice which prevails after the conquest of a country which has defended itself to the last by desperate war, than that which may perhaps be lawfully adopted after the suppression of mutiny and rebellion, such acts always being excepted from forgiveness or mitigation of punishment as have exceeded the license of legitimate hostilities."
On the 5th of May the Court of Directors, adverting to the letter from which I have just quoted, addressed the Governor-General in a Despatch which has also been laid before this House. They say:—
"That letter emphatically confirms the principles which you have already adopted, as set forth in your circular of the 31st of July, 1857, by impressing upon you the propriety of pursuing, after the conquest of the revolted provinces, a course of policy distinguished by a wise and discriminating generosity. You are exhorted to temper justice with mercy, and, except in cases of extreme criminality, to grant an amnesty to the vanquished. In the sentiments expressed by the Secret Committee we entirely concur. While there are some crimes which humanity calls upon you to punish with the utmost severity, there are others of a less aggravated character which it would be equally unjust and impolitic not to pardon and to forget."
The Despatch defines the crimes with

1787
which the Governor-General would be called upon to deal in such a manner as to show that what was intended amounted, except in the case of aggravated offences, to an amnesty for political offences, reserving punishment for crimes of personal violence. The Directors go on to say:—
"As soon as you have suppressed the active hostility of the enemy your first care will be the restoration of public confidence. It will be your privilege, when the disorganized provinces shall no longer be convulsed by intestine disorder, to set an example of toleration and forbearance towards the subject people, and to endeavour, by every means consistent with the security of the British Empire in the East, to allay the irritation and suspicion which, if suffered to retain possession of the minds of the native and European inhabitants of the country, will eventually lead to nothing less calamitous than a war of races."
These are the instructions which have been sent out from the Government in this country. If they have not since the date of that Despatch been reiterated it is only because it seemed to us that their simple reiteration was needless, and that the good sense and good feeling of Lord Canning would incline him of his own accord to act upon the policy which is here indicated to him. In saying that I do not speak without evidence, because we have a Despatch,—it has not been officially received, but it has appeared in the newspapers—addressed by the Secretary to the Governor of the North West Provinces to the Commissioner in Rohilcund on the 28th of April. In that Despatch I find the following paragraph:—
"Further, in respect of treason, and defiance of British authority his Lordship desires that criminal proceedings shall be taken only against leaders, and against such persons, whether high or low, as have distinguished themselves by activity or rancour against the Government, or by persistence in opposition to its authority after the advance of troops and the reoccupation of stations. The Governor General will admit to amnesty all other classes, even though they have borne arms on the side of the rebels, provided that they tender an early and complete submission. But continuance in opposition will exclude from pardon."
That is the expressed policy of Lord Canning. What is the policy of the Government in this country I have already stated, and, if we have not sent out positive and peremptory orders that an amnesty shall be declared by a certain day it was simply because we were not willing, having confidence in the judgment of Lord Canning, to tie his hands by imposing upon him an absolute command to do a certain act at a time when we, considering the matter here, could not possibly foretell
1788
what the state of India would be. But as far as the intentions and wishes of the Government are concerned they have been as plainly intimated to Lord Canning as it was possible for them to be.

MILITARY PROMOTIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE-TEMPESTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to state at what period any decorations or promotions intended to be bestowed by Her Majesty on such officers who have been recommended by the General Commanding in India will be made public?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that the names of those officers who had been recommended for distinction would appear in that night's Gazette, and the honours would be conferred as soon as the Warrants were issued.

BURLINGTON HOUSE.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider some plan for removing the wall between Burlington House and Piccadilly, and for giving the public the advantage of the ground in the front and rear of that building.
LORD JOHN MANNERSstated, in reply, that some time ago the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) submitted to him a design which had for its object the removal of the wall in question. Since then the whole subject of the appropriation of Burlington House and the grounds for the public service had been under the consideration of the Government, and until that larger question was settled it was impossible to say what ought to be done with respect to the wall.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

  RESOLUTION.
  Orders of the Day read, and, on Motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, postponed till after the Notices of Motions relative to the Hudson's Bay Company and Bothina.
  MR. ROEBUCKrose to move the Resolutions of which he had given notice respecting the territory and privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that at this late period of the Session, he should feel it an unpardonable act on his part if he sought the attention of the House to anything that was not really important; but, as he believed that our interests as an em-

  1789
  pire were deeply involved in the question which he was about to propound, and as he knew that the Government desired some information as to the opinions of the House, he thought he had sufficient reasons for asking hon. Members to attend to the suggestions which he wished to make. The present state of the North American continent was a matter of great interest to England. That continent, as was well known, was divided among three possessors. The southern and most important portion belonged to the United States of America, which ran up to the northward until they met the dominions of England, which stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific. England possessed the larger part of the continent, and her territory proceeded northward until it reached upon its western frontier the territory belonging to Russia, which formed a small portion in the north-west corner. In former days we planted colonies in that portion of the continent which he had first named. We originally planted thirteen colonies in that country. Those colonies declared their independence, and had since increased to the number of thirty-five or thirty-six independent States. We had created a power there which, if something were not done by England as a counterpoise to the United States of America, would overshadow not only England but the whole earth. He believed that in the northern part of the continent we had the means of establishing the counterpoise which he sought. If England would carry out a systematic plan of colonization upon that portion of the continent which now belonged to her she would enable the world to resist what he believed would otherwise be the predominant power of the Anglo-Saxon race now established in the United States. It was on this ground that he solicited the attention of the House to the few words which he wished to address to them. The English possessed that portion of the American continent which stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific, north of the great lakes. Prince Edward's Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Lower and Upper Canada, were colonies when the English became possessed of the country, and since that time they had not created one new colony there, preferring to leave that portion of the continent, as we found it, in the distribution of the old colonies. In the meantime the Americans had increased from thirteen to thirty-six independent States, and. from 3,000,000 population to
  1790
  very nearly 30,000,000; while all this time the English had remained idle, and though they had seen the Americans become one of the greatest nations, they, notwithstanding that they had the means, had effected nothing as a counterpoise to the Americans. He wished to see this state of things ended; but he was met by a curious observation. Canada—and with Canada he would alone deal—with a strip of land along the shores of the St. Lawrence, and in the reign of Charles II. certain persons asked and obtained from the Crown powers over certain portions of territory which they called the Hudson's Bay territory. At that time Canada belonged to France, and France was supposed to have dominion to the North Pole; but, with that curious habit which then belonged to all the nations of the earth with respect to wild lands, Charles II. dealt with these wild lands as if they belonged to nobody, and gave the Hudson's Bay Company power with respect to that territory and those wild lands. The Hudson's Bay Company applied to Charles II., in 1670, for a charter, and in the very words of the request the King granted their desire "to have the sole trade and commerce of all those rivers, creeks, straits, and sounds lying within the straits called Hudson's Straits, that are not actually possessed by any of our subjects or by the subjects of any other State." After this the history of the Hudson's Bay Company was very curious. For many years they did nothing; but an Act was passed giving them those lands and powers which were granted in the charter, but only for a definite term—thereby clearly imputing that when the Act of Parliament expired all power on the part of the Company over those lands would expire also. When Canada came into the possession of the English the energy of the English race stretched from Montreal, and carried a trade in furs and peltries up the river St. Lawrence to the wild territory west of Canada. This led to great opposition on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company, and great wars actually took place between the two Companies—the Hudson's Bay Company and the North-West Company—which no doubt would have shed glory on the belligerents if they had been known to historians. Then an astute and clear-headed man interfered, the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), and he told the Companies that they were fighting a useless

  1791
  battle, and advised them to unite. They did unite, and by so doing they cheated the public. From that time to the present day they depended on the charter, declaring that they would do all they could to enforce the rights conferred on them. He (Mr. Roebuck) would at once say that he meant to bring no charge against the Hudson's Bay Company. They had done what by their nature, as a Company, they were called on to do; but he asked the House to consider the circumstances under which the Company acted. It was a fur company, and a fur company by its very nature was opposed to colonization. Where wild animals congregated, there man could not live; and the introduction of man as a colonist drove away the fur-bearing animals, and put an end to all fur companies. Therefore the Hudson's Bay Company, following up their own interest, had maintained the territory in its wildest state, and had kept out colonization. In this state of things he appealed to the House of Commons, and said that they had the means in their hands to advance civilization over an uncultivated territory, and to carry there all the arts and happiness and all the improvement in manners, laws, and religion which attend civilization, making the territory, what God intended it to be, a happy home for many millions of people. All this the House of Commons had in their power; but to such a consummation the Hudson's Bay Company, having a narrow interest, was opposed. He was told that the Hudson's Bay Company had certain rights which they derived under the charter granted by Charles II. He maintained that the Company had no such rights, and it was the duty of the Government to determine whether they had or no. If the Company had no such rights, Parliament would know how to deal with them; and if they had, Parliament would also know how to deal with them—by purchasing them out immediately. If they had rights, the Government ought to buy them out immediately, and if they had none, they had been illegally enjoying the territory for many years, and the sooner they were ousted the better. The first Resolution he should move was—
  "That the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company, about to expire, ought not to be renewed."
  He ought to explain to the House that the privileges about to expire were not privileges claimed under the charter of the Company, but belonged to them by a grant
  1792
  from the Crown, which grant expired early next year; and he said to the Ministerial bench that these privileges ought not to be renewed. But, in order that the country might derive all possible benefit from the non-renewal of those privileges, he thought it proper that the rights of the Company under their charter should be ascertained, so that the whole of the land should be converted to the purposes of civilization, and the dominion of England be carried from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Bulwer Lytton) had brought in a Bill in the present Session to enable him to create a colony west of the Rocky Mountains. Perhaps the House were not aware of the fact that goods could be shipped in London, and carried without transshipment to the western shore of Lake Superior. This had been effected by rendering, among other things, the St. Lawrence navigable by great ships, and the English were now further across the great Continent of America than the Americans themselves. Although America had established a State on the Pacific called Oregon, he believed the line of route from Halifax to Lake Superior exceeded in extent any possessed by America. Taking the western side of Lake Superior to the Rocky Mountains, they would cut the new colony which the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies proposed to establish, and he believed plans had been laid before the right hon. Baronet for carrying a railway completely across the continent, so that a direct communication would be established between England and Vancouver's Island, by way of Halifax. This was a magnificent scheme. He believed the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was ambitious of renown; indeed, he had already given to the world pledges of that ambition; and he would tell the right hon. Baronet that the man who carried out this scheme would have achieved greater things than even he (Sir Bulwer Lytton) had done for literature, and his name would be handed down to posterity as a great Colonial Minister. The accomplishment of such a scheme would unite England with Vancouver's Island and with China, and they would be enabled widely to extend the civilization of England. When he referred to the civilization of England, be wished it to be compared with the civilization of America, and he would boldly assert—here, in the House of Commons, where every word that was said travelled round the whole world—that the civiliza-

  1793
  tion of England was far above that of America. Why did he say this? Because the English were a free people; they were not contaminated by the infernal blot of slavery; and they would, as a free people, carry England's name, and England's laws, and England's literature across the whole continent of America. They afforded a refuge to the slave, and they exhibited to the populations they had planted in the more favoured portion of America a most striking example of greatness, goodness, and happiness. He maintained, then, that it was the duty of every man who wished well to mankind to promote to the utmost of his power this great project. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would take immediate steps to ascertain the legal rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, for when those rights were ascertained they would be enabled to compensate the Company. The next measure should be to plant a colony from the western shore of Lake Superior to the Rocky Mountains. And he entreated the right hon. Gentleman to carry out this object without delay. If that were not done, Minnesota would send her cohorts into the territory, and they would have to fight over again a boundary question similar to that which had arisen between this country and America some years ago. He therefore entreated the right hon. Baronet at once to bring in a Bill which would enable the Government to apply to the formation of a colony as much of the land now belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company as was suitable for such a purpose. His belief was, that if this country really fulfilled the great mission intrusted to her, she would establish English nations in Australasia, in South Africa, and over the whole of North America. It was formerly said that the language of Spain was spoken over a greater portion of the world than any other language; but if the scheme he pressed upon the Government were adopted, the English tongue, English laws, the English religion, and English literature would be predominant in the world. He believed this result would lead to the happiness of mankind; for he would venture to say without fear of contradiction that the English nation, as a nation, was the great nation of the earth, and that by spreading their language, their institutions, and their literature over the various countries of the earth, they would render an invaluable benefit to mankind, and would fulfil the purpose for which they had been placed in
  1794
  such a high position. He could not imagine what opposition would be offered to the Resolutions of which he had given notice. He had been told that the "Previous Question" was to be moved, but that was always a cowardly mode of proceeding. It was saying in effect, "We admit the truth of the proposition, but this is not the time for considering it." His first proposition was that the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company ought not to be renewed. Did the Government intend to renew those privileges, which would expire next May? If not, why should not the House of Commons now declare that it was expedient at once to put an end to such privileges? He warned the right hon. Baronet that if he intended to renew the privileges of the Company strong opposition would be offered to the measure; but if he did not entertain such an intention, on what ground could he object to the Motion? If the right hon. Baronet declined to express any opinion on the subject at present, the Hudson's Bay Company would only regard him as a cowardly Minister, who dared not declare what his intentions were. He (Mr. Roebuck) had brought no charge against the Hudson's Bay Company; he did not intend to bring any charge against them; but he believed it would be for the interests of England that the Rosulutions of which he had given notice should be adopted, and he hoped they would receive the assent of the House.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company, about to expire, ought not to be renewed."
  VISCOUNT BURY, in seconding the Resolutions said, this question was one which possessed a double interest, inasmuch as it involved not only the welfare of some of our important colonial possessions, but, to a very great degree, the Imperial interests also. He thought the House ought to be informed what were the intentions of the Government on this subject, because the time was getting very short, as the exclusive license of trade possessed by the Hudson's Bay Company would expire early next year. He could only hope that the opinions of the present Government would not coincide with those of the late Government on this subject. He had in his hand a letter addressed by Mr. Merivale, while Secretary for the Colonies, to Captain Shepherd, which evinced a disposition on the part of the late Government to renew the license of

  1795
  trade upon certain conditions; but Mr. Merivale stated that he did not think it incumbent upon the Government to investigate the legality of the rights claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and that he considered it no part of his duty to moot that point. He said that if persons in Canada wished to contest the legal rights of the Company the Government must leave them to take that course on their own responsibility. Now, he (Viscount Bury) thought that when a question was certain to arise as to whether a large amount of compensation for these rights, or supposed rights, was to be given to the Company, it was a matter which very much concerned both that House and the Government to examine into those rights before they talked about compensation. Then the Government went on to say that, if no such proceedings were taken, they were prepared to propose, as a condition of the renewal of the license, that the Company should surrender such portions of the territory as were required by Canada for the purpose of settlements. Now, this begged the whole question. In the first place, why should all this land be reserved to the Company when neither the Government nor the House knew whether they had any right to it? Again, the question was treated as exclusively one between Canada and the Hudson's Bay Company, though it seemed to him that the matter concerned the whole empire. If Canada were placed in possession of this vast territory to-morrow she would not be able to govern it; she could not colonize it, for the country she already possessed was not filled up. The real point at issue was whether the Company should continue their monopoly, should keep closed doors, should put up a "no thoroughfare" board at every inlet into this country, or whether it should be thrown open to the enterprise of all Her Majesty's subjects. In the same correspondence them followed a letter from Mr. Shepherd, in which he said that the territory mentioned as likely to be taken by Canada was not only of value to the Hudson's Bay Company in connection with the fur trade, but because from it the Company's store of provisions was drawn, and he added that their expenditure would be largely increased if this district were taken away. Here was another assumption on the part of the Company that their rights and claims were quite unapproachable. They chose to assume this, and then assigned as a reason for not throwing open this route to the West—through which he
  1796
  believed our intercourse with India and China would at no distant day be carried on—that they would be at fault for want of pemmican, and would have to go into the United States or Canada to make their markets. In consequence of the statement made that it was not the part of the Government to investigate these claims, the task seemed to devolve upon anybody who had an interest in that portion of Her Majesty's dominions. Connected as he was, therefore, by all sorts of ties with these colonies, he had endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to inquire into the subject for himself, and to ascertain how far the Company's rights were founded on truth and justice. Before, however, stating the result of his investigation, he should like to say a few words upon the nature of the territory claimed by the Company. Out of the House he seldom heard that territory mentioned without being more or less associated with the terms "barren," "sterile," "ice-bound," "unfit for colonization and the support of human beings." But that was an entirely erroneous supposition. It might be true that comparatively only a small portion of this vast territory was fitted for colonization, but it was no less true that that comparatively small portion consisted of something like 500,000 square miles, and would afford occupation and means of subsistence to, he believed, every person of full age in Her Majesty's dominions, both in the Colonies and at home. Eastward from the Rocky Mountains, and as far south as Peace River and Lake Athabasca, the country was barren and unfit for settlement; but southward from that point, as far down as the boundary line, the 49th parallel of latitude, it was magnificent, consisting of the same fine prairie land as that in which the Ohio and Mississippi sprung—well watered, very fertile, stocked with wild animals and fish of every description. Another part of the country consisted of impenetrable forests, the soil of which, like that of the Canadian forests when reclaimed, would be found well suited for agricultural purposes; but the prairie lands were those most susceptible of cultivation, and upon which the development of the country and its future prosperity would chiefly depend. His right hon. and learned Friend had alluded to the possibility of forming a communication by railway from the head of Lake Superior to the Pacific, but he had made no allusion to the water communication which might be opened.

  1797
  It was only within the last few years that the United States had, by very great exertions, formed a ship-canal to over-come a fall of eighty feet called Sault St. Marie, by which ships were able to pass from Lake Michigan to Lake Superior. He thought that the system adopted by the United States in the formation of a certain ship canal might be very easily applied. In that case 180,000 acres of land were set aside in the State of Michigan, and were given in trust for the persons who made the canal on condition that they finished it; and as it advanced and they wanted money part of the land was sold, and supplied funds for prosecuting the work. It was found that the sale of these lands, made infinitely more valuable by the canal itself, fully remunerated the shareholders for their under-taking; and he thought it would not be at all difficult to set aside reserves of land along the line from Lake Superior to the Pacific, and apply the proceeds of the lands sold to defray the expense of constructing the communication between those two points. With the exception of a single rapid (which might be avoided by a canal) the navigation of the Saskatchewan offered no difficulty. With this one exception you could take a vessel of considerable size up to the foot of the Rocky Mountains; and at this point there was a gap in the mountains which would interpose no great obstacle in the way of a junction between the Columbia and the Saskatchewan, whose sources were but a little distance apart. In fact, there were very great facilities for the completion, not only of a railway, but of a water-communication with the Pacific, and he hoped some day to see this great work accomplished. As regarded the claims of the Company he apprehended it would be conceded that no grant could be valid unless the land were absolutely and de facto in the possession of the grantor at the time the grant was made. Now, he believed it might be proved that this country did not belong to England when Charles II. gave it to the Hudson's Bay Company. For some time prior to the date of the charter it was, he believed, the property of another Christian king, and as such, by the terms of the charter itself, it was expressly excluded from the grant. Further, he thought he could show that, supposing all these difficulties overcome and the charter to have been originally valid, the Treaty of Ryswick at once and for ever upset it, In 1598, many
  1798
  years before the date of the charter, Henry IV. of France made the Sieur de la Roche Lieutenant Governor of lands the boundaries of which were described by the French geographer, L'Escarbot, in his edition of 1611, and which were sufficiently wide to include a large part of the Hudson's Bay territories. Subsequently, in 1627, the Cardinal Richelieu granted to the Compagnie de la Nouvelle France seignorial and territorial rights such as were usually given in feudal times, over a tract of country extending from Labrador to the Pacific. It would, therefore, appear that under the terms of their charter the Hudson's Bay Company were for the second time debarred from setting up any just claims to the territory which had thus been disposed of. In 1629, a few years after Charles I. came to the throne, Quebec, as well as the towns of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were taken by the English, who held possession of them during the war; but when peace was concluded by the Treaty of St. Germains, the whole of Canada was relinquished to France, all the conquered territory was given back to her, and the British forces were withdrawn from the positions which they had taken and occupied. There was, therefore, an international treaty by which the charter of the Company was barred. That charter was granted in 1670, but it was not for some years afterwards that any attempt was made upon the part of the inhabitants of this country to establish themselves in that portion of North America to which the charter related. The cause which led to the granting of the privileges which the Hudson's Bay Company enjoyed were to be found in the fact that two French Canadians, named Grozelier and Radisson, who in 1668 applied to the French Government for powers something similar to those which had been conferred upon the Compagnie de la Nouvelle France, had their application refused, and in consequence came over to this country and gave a most glowing account of those districts which were now under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company. In 1668, they fitted out an expedition to that country, and it was so successful that Charles II. was induced to grant that Charter to the Hudson's Bay Company, of which they now heard so much. The Company proceeded to establish forts and factories on the territory thus ceded to them. Now, for the first time, the British established themselves on the coast

  1799
  of Hudson's Bay; but no sooner had they done so than France took measures to oust them. Those measures, however, were insufficient for the purpose, and the English for a few years held their position, although they lived in a miserable way, on the shores of the country. England and France were then at peace, and if the Hudson's Bay Company had then a right to the territory, the attempts made by France to oust the English might have been treated as a casus belli; and it seemed strange they had not been so treated, unless indeed, it was then tacitly admitted that the rights of the Company were very slender. Then came the Treaty of Ryswick, of 1697, one of the articles of which was, that the forts taken by the English in a time of profound peace should be given up to France. Surely if the Hudson's Bay Company had at that time a leg to stand upon, or if the British had the slightest claim to the shores of Hudson's Bay, they would not have tamely submitted to such a treaty. Through some oversight one of these forts was not given up to France. In 1713 came the Treaty of Utrecht, when England became possessed idisputably, for the first time, of the Hudson's Bay territory, and they returned into the possession of their forts, which they held ever since; but that Treaty conferred nothing on the Hudson's Bay Company which had not been conferred by the Treaty of Ryswick, and the Treaty of Ryswick conferred nothing which they had not had before, and what they had before was absolutely nothing. When Canada was ceded to Great Britain, the Hudson's Bay Company were only in possession of one fort. Canada had been infinitely more successful than their rivals of Hudson's Bay; but as soon as the country came into the possession of Great Britain, the Hudson's Bay Company began to oppose in the interior the French Company of Montreal. Previously that part of the country was in the undisputed possession of the French. Now he came to 1812. At that time the stock of the Company had become greatly depreciated by mismanagement and ill success. But there rose up at this time one who would be a great man in any age, a man of the most iron nerve and determined resolution—Lord Selkirk, who soon acquired a predominant influence in their councils. He saw the French Company trading up Lake Superior, and that they were obliged to carry up supplies a long distance, and that it was impossible they could carry on their trade
  1800
  in Canada in any other way. It was at this time Lord Selkirk formed the Red River Settlement, which had been instanced as a proof of our colonizing power; but it was not owing to our colonizing power, or to the Hudson's Bay Company, or to anything but the adventurous and military spirit of Lord Selkirk. Its object was not colonization, but was due to the prompting of a military and strategic spirit. The object of Lord Selkirk was to cut off the supplies of the French Canadian Company. If the Montreal Company were unable to reach the interior and bring supplies, it was easy to see what would be the result. A few years after this Lord Selkirk went down to Quebec, and soon after became possessed of great power. He became a magistrate of Canada, and was invested with considerable authority. Lord Selkirk enlisted a body of disbanded soldiers, set off and took Fort William, which was not within the bounds of what the Hudson's Bay Company claimed under their charter, but belonged to Canada. Attempts were made to oust him from the fort; the force sent to do so was defeated, and the constables imprisoned; and when the sheriff was sent to levy a fine of £500, he imprisoned the sheriff also. Now Fort William was on the extreme verge of civilization, and tidings such as these were a long time in reaching England. In 1821, however, the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) pointed out that both parties were fighting an up-hill game, that litigation would exhaust their funds, and especially warned the Hudson's Bay Company that their charter would not hold water if contested; but, said that Company, let us trade under your charter and we will hold your monopoly against all the world. The rights claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company were of a twofold nature. One was the monopoly of trade over Rupert's Land, granted by charter, and the other was a license of occupation for twenty-one years, which would expire next year. With respect to the license now on the eve of expiration he had nothing to say, that being strictly within the power of Parliament to grant or withhold as it might think proper; but as to the monopoly of trade over Rupert's Land, even if the charter was valid, there were legal objections to it. He found that Blackstone, in his Commentaries, laid it down that, in a newly-discovered country, having no laws of its own, the laws of England came into force as soon as we took possession of the land,

  1801
  and remained in force until others were made by competent authority. The charter of 1670 declared the Hudson's Bay territory to be one of His Majesty's plantations or colonies of America, and therefore it was liable to the same laws which governed the other dominions of the King of England. One of these laws declared that all monopolies were illegal and bad, and Lord Coke, a contemporary authority, had said that monopolies of traffic were opposed to the liberties of the people. It followed, then, that King Charles, by the charter, granted what he had no power to grant. There was an Act of the reign of James I. which made all monopolies void, and two knights who were found guilty of being concerned in a monopoly of the sale of gold lace were exposed in the pillory and made to ride through the streets with their faces to the horses' tails. He did not advocate such strong measures towards the Hudson's Bay Company, but he thought it time their exclusive privileges should cease. The license of exclusive trade was, in fact, a complete and exclusive power over the lives, the liberties, and the labour of the Indians. If, by the charter, the Indians were compelled to sell to the Hudson's Bay Company alone, at any prices which the Company might choose to give, those Indians were completely at the mercy of the Hudson's Bay Company, through whom alone they could obtain the ammunition that was necessary to enable them to kill those animals from which they derived the means of subsistence. If the prices given by the Hudson's Bay Company were not as high as could be obtained in an open market, then the charter simply granted them a monopoly of power over the lives, the liberties, and the property of a large body of Her Majesty's subjects. Much had been said about the colonizing tendencies of the Hudson's Bay Company; but he would invite the House to consider what was the fact. There was an astronomical boundary, south of which was to be found a teeming population, while north of that line the country was in respect of population a perfect desert. Every year the population of the United States advanced northwards, and very soon would overstep the astronomical boundary which marked the commencement of British territory. When that happened the hard-headed American farmer would not stop to inquire whether he was on British or American soil, but he would miss the protection of American laws, and would
  1802
  demand to be placed under their safeguard. He believed that there was far more danger of difficulty arising from that source than from any Central American question. In conclusion, he would quote the words of a Canadian legislator, one who occupied a prominent position in that country, who declared:—
  "This was the very madness of monopoly. Surely the Hudson's Bay Company could not expect by their effete and stupid charter to shut up for ever the route to the great West?"
  He (Viscount Bury) agreed with that sentiment. It was utterly impossible that this monopoly should be permitted to endure after public attention had been called to the subject, and he trusted the discussion which would take place that evening would open the eyes of the nation to the importance of the matter, and that Her Majesty's Ministers would not be backward in acting upon the suggestions that would be made.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am sure I only express the unanimous feeling of the House when I say that I have listened with great interest to this discussion as far as it has gone. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) is a veteran in these matters. It is a fact upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman has a right to reflect with gratification, that upon this subject and other questions relating to our policy in British North America he has frequently been the expositor of truths at an early date, which although not at once acknowledged have subsequently obtained complete recognition. I believe the exposition he has now made is one in which he is so far fortunate that it is not even now unpopular; and I am convinced that the history he has given us and the opinions he has expressed are so sound and just that they must become the basis of our future policy in respect of that country. Although a veteran in the cause, I am sure my hon. and learned Friend has hailed with joy and satisfaction the accession he has received to-night in the person of one who is a novice indeed in years, but who in knowledge and accomplishments has shown himself a thorough master of the subject. If I do not say more of the speech of the noble Viscount it is because I feel that he has so completely possessed himself of the matter, in all its facts and bearings, that it would be presumptuous in me to comment upon it. As to the question that is immediately before us, my hon. and learned Friend has laid down

  1803
  three propositions. Of these, the first is that that portion of the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company which are now about to expire ought not to be renewed; next, that the legal validity of the exclusive rights of the Company under their charter should be determined by force of law; and, thirdly, that arrangements should be made with the Hudson's Bay Company for extricating from their possession, whether rightly held or not, but upon the mere ground of policy, so much of the territory as might be needed for the purposes of colonization. Of these propositions the most important is the second, and upon that I wish to address a few observations to the House. No one can have listened to the speech of the noble Viscount without being convinced that this is a most serious matter. Here is a large portion of the surface of the earth with regard to the character of which we have been systematically kept in darkness; for those who had information to give have also had an interest directly opposed to their imparting it. I am at liberty to say so because I refer only to public documents; and as an illustration of the truth of what I have said I need only direct attention to the interesting and important work of Governor Simpson, his Voyage Round the World —he will find in that work that Governor Simpson, who, when he had a pen in his hand, was not dreaming of any controversy about the Hudson's Bay Company, giving a glowing description of the agricultural capabilities and fitness for colonization of a very considerable and important portion of the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company. Last year my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Labouchere), moved for, and the House granted a Committee to inquire into the affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company. Before that Committee questions were raised seriously involving all their rights. Governor Simpson was examined before it, and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield and other hon. Gentlemen questioned him upon the agricultural and colonizing capabilities of the territory of the Company. An entire change had come over the spirit of his dream. He represented that these territories were bound up by frost and banked in fog, and that woe would betide any unfortunate individuals who might by a reckless spirit of adventure be so far diverted from the path of prudence as to endeavour to settle in those parts. And, when some Member of
  1804
  the Committee, with inconvenient curiosity, ferreted out the book of Governor Simpson and made quotations from it, the Governor, with all his ingenuity, which is not small, was greatly puzzled, and indeed entirely failed to reconcile the account of the country which he had given as an author, and that which he gave as Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, when the object was to prove to the Committee of the House of Commons, that it was useless to pluck and feather the Company because they had got nothing which was worth having. Now, the truth is beyond question, that a great part of this country is highly valuable for colonizing purposes, and it is impossible to state in too strong, language the proposition, that the Hudson's Bay Company is, by its very existence and its character the enemy of colonization. All its traditions, all its habits, all its establishments—the fruit of generations —all its purposes and arrangements, are not only not directed to colonization, but are directed to purposes the attainment of which requires that colonization should be absolutely excluded. If it be necessary for a gentleman who makes a deer forest in Scotland to remove the sheep and the shepherd's but from its range, still more necessary is it that from the whole of the Hudson's Bay territory which is to be used for the purposes of the fur trade, colonization should be excluded with the utmost and most unyielding rigour. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) has pointed out to the House many of the reasons which lead us to suppose that the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company in that country are extremely doubtful. He has shown that it is very questionable whether the country which was purported to be given did not at that time belong to France. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has pointed out that it is at least very doubtful whether it was not admitted in the reign of William III., in the year 1689, that the validity of the charter hung upon an Act of Parliament which expired seven years afterwards. There is another point which is extremely doubtful, and a most proper subject for legal argument—but which has not been mentioned to-night. The charter, if I recollect rightly, while it purports to give the privilege of exclusive trade—a privilege which it is very questionable whether the Crown could confer, as against British subjects—gives that exclusive trade only with the Indians; but the policy of the Hudson's Bay Company

  1805
  has been to prevent parties carrying on any trade or any enterprise whatever within its territories. Yet, when the charter was granted it was not trade with the Indians alone which was contemplated; on the contrary, those who refer to that charter will see that it was then anticipated that trades of other kinds might be carried on in this territory, and in particular that mining enterprise would there prove highly successful. My noble Friend, if I may call him so, says, taking up the expression, that the Hudson's Bay Company have written up "No thoroughfare." The usual mode of prohibiting entrance is to put up a board bearing the words "No admittance except on business;" but this Company have done worse—they have refused admittance, especially when it is upon business. Admittance for the purpose of carrying on business is what they will on no account permit; and my hon. and learned Friend is right when he says that from the nature of their undertaking it can only be carried on upon the assumption that all human enterprise is to be excluded from the country, which is to be left solely to the Indians and to those agents of the Company who deal with them. This is a most interesting question. Although it concerns a vast tract of country much of which is a hopeless and inhospitable waste, there is a colouring of romance over the whole history of this territory; and although romance and law are not usually associated, yet I will venture to say that, turning from the wild life of these regions and the pursuits of the people connected with the objects of the Company to the legal points concerning its condition and status, there never were presented for the exercise of human ingenuity and intelligence a more interesting or more curious set of questions than are involved in the consideration of this matter. Let me, in showing that there are fair and probable grounds for raising these questions, refer to another point connected with the validity of the Company's charter, and it shall be the last which I will notice. At present the Hudson's Bay Company are in possession, by virtue, as they consider, of their charter, of the whole country reaching from the source of the Saskatchewan, in the Rocky Mountains, for some thousands of miles across the country, to Hudson's Bay. Now, even if you admit the rights of the Crown over this territory—if you admit its right to grant the charter, and to give an exclusive
  1806
  privilege of trading, as against all other British subjects, to these favoured parties, it still remains extremely doubtful, upon the language of the charter, whether it did give, or was ever intended to give, to the Hudson's Bay Company that vast range of territory, and whether the true legal interpretation of it is not that the lands intended to be given were those upon the shores of the Bay, and upon the shores of the lakes and rivers in its immediate neighbourhood. And in conformity with that was the state of facts, because the Company did not at first possess themselves of this vast territory reaching to the Rocky Mountains. On the contrary, for a hundred years and more after the granting of the charter, they departed, but by comparatively small and trifling distances, from the shores of the Bay, and the time at which they extended themselves over this vast range of country was the more recent date at which they formed their fortunate coalition with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. It would, therefore, I think, appear, without endeavouring to make the House responsible for the arguments which have been addressed to it, that there are very serious reasons in law for questioning the powers at present possessed and exercised by the Hudson's Bay Company. I dare say that it is in the knowledge of many hon. Members that there are upon record the opinions of very high legal authorities—counsel not Judges—including Lord Brougham, Mr. Serjeant Spankey, and Sir A. Pigott, which to the full bear out the opinions that have been expressed in the course of this debate. There is, however, an impression that there would be great hardship in raising this question at the present time. It is said that the Company have been in possession for nearly two centuries, and that, even supposing that the grant was originally wrong, yet by some peculiar process that wrong has gradually been enured and hardened into right. Let the House briefly examine that view of the question. In the first place, it is not a view which the House of Commons has ever yet consented to recognize; because in the year 1849 this House unanimously adopted an Address praying that the Crown would be pleased to take legal steps for the purpose of testing and ascertaining the validity of the rights of the Company. I had the honour of moving that Address, and I certainly thought that "legal steps" meant a process in a court of law according to the good old

  1807
  constitutional fashion, dating from 200 and more years back, under which, when powerful companies were found exercising rights which were considered hostile to those of the public, it was usual to try those rights by a suit in a court of law, such companies being perfectly competent to defend themselves, and a legal issue being the fairest mode of ascertaining the rights of all parties. The noble Earl who was then Colonial Secretary (Earl Grey) understood that Address in a different sense, and, instead of causing any judicial decision to be taken, he obtained, I think, from the Company an ex parte statement of their claims, that ex parte statement he submitted to the law officers of the Crown, and upon it obtained their opinion that they saw no reason to question the charter upon the case stated to them. His last step was to inform a young gentleman named Isbister, a most meritorious man but in humble circumstances, who was struggling to pay for his own education at the University of Aberdeen, and assisting in the work of teaching there, that it was open to him as a private individual to try the question on behalf of the public at his own cost and charge. The Company agreed to this, and I must say that they have never in any improper manner endeavoured to shirk the raising of this issue. I only refer to this because it is a proof that the House of Commons has not recognized any principle averse to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but on the contrary has been of opinion that the ascertaining by legal process the rights of the Company was the proper and justifiable course to take. There is also, I think, a great deal of error in the impression that the possession of the Company is consecrated by time. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the flourishing monopoly which we now see is the creation of the charter of Charles II. For 150 years from the date of that charter the Company dragged on a feeble and inert existence, and the present flourishing and powerful monopoly is a child, not of the charter of Charles II., but of somebody who understood his business much better than the drawers of that charter—namely, of the right hon. Member for Coventry, whose absence this evening we most deeply regret, for here he ought to have been to receive the honours due to his industry, sagacity, and skill. At the same time, while we place the saddle upon the right horse, or rather the chaplet upon the right brow, it is not to be denied
  1808
  that in admitting that truth we strip the case of the Company of the character of venerable antiquity which the friends of the Company are rather fond of claiming, and give it, on the contrary, a character of what may be called something like modernism. The possession of the Company as it now stands is recent; but, at the same time, I would be the last person to maintain that any harshness ought to be shown towards the Company on that account. If the Company has rights, then, as my hon. and learned Friend says, the case is clear, it is entitled to the full and absolute enjoyment of them, and cannot be deprived of them except upon that ample compensation which it may claim on the ground of justice. It might, on the other hand, appear that although the Company have not very great rights in law, yet that in point of equity and fairness there are reasons for a liberal entertainment of their claims. That is an intermediate course which it might probably be expedient to pursue. I do not attempt to prejudge the question, but we should not assume that those who think the legal rights of the Company ought to be tested by an investigation are therefore of opinion that the Company should be harshly and severely dealt with. When those who have entered upon such an enterprise have staked their lives, their fortunes, their industry and energy in the undertaking, it cannot be a question that they should be treated by Parliament upon liberal principles. I feel strongly, however, that the British public have rights in this matter as well as the Company. I shall not now enter into the question, which is an important and difficult one, whether the colonization of the territory now possessed by the Company ought to be conducted by a direct agency from hence, or whether it would not be better to leave Canada to undertake the work; but I do say, that the rights of the British public and the necessity of opening new fields for the enterprise of British adventurers impose a duty upon us which we must not neglect. Whatever we may think with regard to the Company, however we may be disposed to deal with them, we ought not to allow this enormous obstruction to cover over a large space of the surface of the earth, with great capabilities for the exercise of human industry and enterprise, until we are certain that strict law and right stand in our way. Justice to the British public demands that steps should

  1809
  be taken such as those which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield indicates by his Motion. I now come to the last point the course to be taken on the present occasion. The mover and seconder of the Resolutions must be satisfied, from the reception their speeches have met with from the House, that they have greatly advanced by this discussion the general views and principles which they seek to establish. They have no reason, as far as I am aware, to anticipate any hostile feeling on the part of the Government, and I shall not he suspected of any want of sympathy if I venture respectfully to submit to them whether they would not do well to leave the further treatment of the question for the present in the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers. The Government have heard from the mover and seconder of the Resolutions much that will be useful to them, and that will assist them materially in determining their course. Were we to proceed upon the present occasion I know not what might be done by the Government; but I think it probable that any division which might take place would tend to create a false impression out of doors. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield will listen to the statements that will doubtless be made by the Ministers of the Crown, and, unless these statements are of a character entirely hostile in principle to his views, he will then be prepared to leave the subject in the hands of the Executive Government.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the subject before the House was of the highest interest and importance, and one which might fairly be discussed in view of the near approach of the termination of the license enjoyed by the Company. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Gladstone), that the real question was whether the charter of the Company was valid or not. The real question, in his opinion, was whether, while giving up to colonization all those portions of the territory now possessed by the Company which were adapted for it, we should not maintain, for Imperial purposes and the preservation of law and order, the existing monopoly in those immense tracts which were unfitted for colonization. He believed that every Member of the Committee which inquired into this subject a few years ago, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, was of opinion that—setting aside the question of charter or no
  1810
  charter as merely a secondary one—those vast tracts ought not to be left to chance, but should, for Imperial purposes, be intrusted to the care of some body or other, the general feeling being that the preference should be given to the existing Company, which was already in occupation of the territory. If the country to which he had referred were thrown open, without limitation or restriction, to adventurers from all parts of the world, the consequences would be very serious. For a few years there would be a lucrative fur trade carried on; but the fur-bearing animals, as a necessary result of being hunted in and out of season, would soon be destroyed and the Indians would doubtless share the same fate. For this reason, among others, he recommended that, whatever else might be done with that portion of North America which was capable of settlement, that part which was incapable of colonization and settlement should not be thrown open to indiscriminate occupation, but should, for the sake of civilization and humanity itself, be left in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company. If he mistook not, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield himself had expressed such an opinion; but on this occasion he had not told them how he proposed to deal with those portions of the territory which he proposed to take from the Hudson's Bay Company, and how he would prevent the bloodshed and anarchy among the natives which were likely to ensue if they were left to themselves. But he (Mr. Labouchere) thought that was a view of the subject which the House should not lose sight of. With regard to the validity of the charter, he agreed with those who held that it was desirable that its validity should be ascertained by a legal process. He could assure the House that, when he was in office, he looked most anxiously to see if there was any way of having its validity tested. But the question was not new. More than a hundred years ago the Government of that day were anxious to obtain information on the same point, and referred the propriety of raising this question to their law officers, men so eminent in their profession as Lord Mansfield, who was then Attorney General, and Sir Dudley Ryder, who was Solicitor General. Their answer was, that considering how long the Hudson's Bay Company had enjoyed and acted under their charter, without the slightest interruption, they did not think it was advisable that the Government should try the question of its

  1811
  validity in the Courts of law, but should await some implied or express declaration of a Court of law against it. Well, when he was in office he raised the subject again, and referred it to the law officers—Sir Richard Bethell and Sir Henry Keating. Sir Richard Bothell soon afterwards told him, in conversation, that he never could recommend the bringing of a quo warranto against a charter of that description; that he thought it a tyrannical and high handed proceeding which no Government ought to undertake. The two law officers afterwards gave their opinion, in writing, that the Crown ought not, in justice, to raise this question as to the general validity of the charter; but that, on every legal principle, the Company's territorial ownership of the land, and the privileges and rights incidental thereto—as, for example, the right of excluding persons acting in violation of their regulations—ought to be deemed valid. He did not pretend to give any legal opinion of his own; but, from conversations he had held upon this subject with the most eminent lawyers, both of this country and of Canada, he believed what could be affirmed on the matter was, that so far as a right to the territory was concerned the charter was good, but that so far as an exclusive trade was concerned, the Crown had acted ultra vires in granting it. He did not think, however, that much would be gained by the affirmation of that principle, because, if the Company had an undoubted right to the territory, they would be sure to make such use of it as would be most suitable to their own interests, and would prevent any competitors from entering into the market with them as rival traders. This had reference to the territory held under charter; but, with respect to the territory held under license, there the Crown had power to revoke its license at pleasure; and this latter land had a better soil than the other, was nearer to the sea, and was more fitted for the purposes of colonization. The country held under license was never given to the Company, except with the distinct reservation on the part of the Crown of the right to establish colonies. At the present moment the Government might erect in that part of the territory a colony without asking the leave of the Company, and the Bill before the House in reference to New Caledonia was a proof of the correctness of his statement. He was not so sanguine as some other gentlemen appeared to be as to the results
  1812
  of this system of colonization; but he was willing that the experiment should be tried. He was anxious that justice should be done to the Hudson's Bay Company, for it was his duty to declare that in dealing with them he had not found them unwilling to listen to him when he impressed on them the necessity of attending to the general interests of the country, and he had no doubt that the right hon. Baronet opposite had also heard the Company express the same desire to meet the wishes of the Government and the interests of the country as far as they could do consistently with a fair regard to the interests of the members of the Company. With regard to the Indians, he believed that on the whole the Hudson's Bay Company had acted humanely towards that people. This he knew, that they had managed to keep peace between the Indian and the white man in their territory, while across their border there were too often exhibited scenes of anarchy and bloodshed. The other day he read in a book giving an account of four years sojourn in Oregon, written by an American unfriendly to the Company, a statement to the effect that, in respect to the Indians, they had acted not only with more humanity, but with more good sense than the Americans; that they had gone on a policy, perhaps for the first time ever adopted towards the red man—they had employed and paid him; made him useful, and given him a value in his own eyes, while at the same time they attached them to the whites by the tie of a common interest. He (Mr. Labouchere) admitted that there was truth in the assertion that a fur trade company must be essentially adverse to colonization. Let the Government take such portion of the territory as they might for colonization, but let them not throw open the whole of those vast lands without having first secured the means for preserving peace and order. With respect to the Resolutions which had been moved, he could not advise the House to concur in them. It was premature to attempt to cut those knots, which required careful untying, by such Resolutions. As for the first Resolution it was his opinion, that it was for the public interest that the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company should, on proper conditions and with proper arrangements, be renewed; but of this he was sure, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) had entirely failed to tell the House what he would do with the territory if those privileges were not

  1813
  renewed. Lord Grey, when Colonial Minister, referred the question as to the validity of the rights claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company to the law officers of the Crown, who came to the deliberate conclusion—to which he had himself subsequently arrived —that it would not be becoming or consistent with precedent for the Government to institute proceedings with a view to try the validity of a charter granted by the Crown. He should therefore object to the Resolution now proposed in relation to that point; but, if the law advisers of the present Ministry entertained a different opinion from that of their predecessors, and thought that this charter could be fairly discussed, no doubt a great impediment to the final settlement of these questions might thereby be removed. The third Resolution, declaring that such of the lands under the Hudson's Bay Company as were needed for purposes of colonization ought without delay to be resumed by the Crown was a mere truism in which all must concur; and the Company was perfectly willing, upon fair terms, to surrender any part of its land for such an object. Under these circumstances he thought the House had better leave the matter in the hands of the Executive Government, whose views would doubtless be explained by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Bulwer Lytton). An unfavourable contrast bad been drawn by the hon. and learned Member between the Colonies of the United States and our own North American possessions. He must say he was greatly surprised to hear that comparison. He had watched with great interest the progress of that noble colony of Canada, and he believed that in all points of material prosperity, in true freedom, in all that constituted true happiness, the inhabitants of British Canada need not envy their neighbours. The care of the Ministers and of the Parliament of England should be to maintain that feeling in the colony. The true defence of Canada—the link which bound her people to the mother country lay in the fact that they could look across their own frontier and see nothing in the condition of their American neighbours which they had any reason to envy. The colonists of Canada were deeply sensible of this, and fully conscious of the blessings they enjoyed under British sway, and they were as thoroughly loyal and attached to the Crown of England as any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. He trusted, therefore, that nothing would be done which was
  1814
  calculated to offend their just susceptibilities. He had, himself, when in office, intimated to the Government of Canada that the Crown would not drag the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company before a judicial tribunal, although it was open to them or to any other subjects of the Queen to take that course if they thought proper; and that if the people of Canada desired to extend their territory into this region, they would have the assistance of the Home Government in doing so upon an equitable arrangement with the Company. He knew not whether any answer had been received to that proposal, but perhaps the right hon. Baronet opposite could afford the House some information on the subject. He could not agree with those who said that the people of Canada had no other right to any part of this territory except that possessed by all the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, because he regarded the prosperity and the loyalty of Canada as the keystone of the arch which kept together that portion of our colonial empire, and he therefore thought that nothing ought to be done which trenched upon their rights or wounded their just feelings.
  SIR BULWER LYTTON: Sir, it is with some reserve that I approach the great and difficult questions involved in the Resolutions of my hon. and learned Friend. The Government, as yet, are in the condition of negotiators. Certain distinct propositions, as the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last told us, were made to Canada by the late Government with regard to any districts now covered by the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company which she might desire for the purposes of settlement; and, whatever cause there may be to suppose that the Canadian Government will reject those proposals, still every motive of policy as well as of respect to that great colony would make us desire that any scheme for colonization in that region may have her sympathy and concurrence. To those propositions we have had no official answer — still, Sir, I own that the probability that they will not be accepted is so notorious, and the interests involved in this question are so great, that I cannot hesitate to state, at least, the general views by which I venture to think that we ought to be guided. In glancing over the vast regions devoted to the fur trade, which are loosely said to be as large as Europe, the first thought of every intelligent Englishman must be that of humiliation and amaze.

  1815
  Is it possible that so great a segment of the earth, under the English sceptre, can have so long been abandoned as a desolate hunting ground for wandering savages and wild animals? I put aside, for a moment, excuses of soil and climate; it is always presumptuous to decide hastily between man and nature—to say what man may or may not do to conquer those obstacles of soil and climate which nature may raise against him. It is enough for us to cling to the grand principle that civilization should be left to find its own voluntary channels; that we should not force it, but should take care not to obstruct it. No one can deny that a trade which preserves wild animals and has a direct interest in excluding civilized men does obstruct civilization if it claims territorial rights in any district which civilized men are disposed to cultivate and inhabit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) summed up the general evidence before our Committee in the first two of a series of Resolutions which he proposed to that Committee: first, that the country capable of colonization should be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company; secondly, that the country incapable of colonization should be left to that jurisdiction. In the two abstract principles involved in these propositions lies the readiest solution of the gravest difficulties that beset the question; it is the attempt of a practised statesman to effect a compromise by which civilization may gain all it asks at present, and humanity may not only preserve to the savages scattered over frozen deserts, inaccessible to regular government, the trade on which they depend for existence, but guard them from the terrible demoralization produced by rival bribes of ardent spirits, and the strife and bloodshed among themselves, or between themselves and the whites, which might follow if the administrative machinery which it is the interest of a trading company to establish were destroyed before any effective substitute could be found. These are the reasons which will weigh upon the Government in considering the renewal of the license. The Government will certainly not renew the license over any part of the Indian territory which promises early settlement; but they reserve for further deliberation whether they will renew it for a limited period over the more remote and northern regions, taking care that the Crown shall have always the power to withdraw from that li-
  1816
  cense any land that may be required for the uses of civilized life; that it shall retain all the imperial rights to fisheries and mines, and whatever may call forth human industry and enterprise in pursuits more congenial to our age than that gloomy trade in the skins of animals which seems to carry us back to a date before the annals of history. Now, although the renewal of the license may possibly form a part of any fresh negotiations with the Hudson's Bay Company for arrangements respecting the Red River Settlement; yet it ought in principle to be considered apart from such arrangements, and on its own merits—in lands held as yet only by the Indians does the exclusive license, or does it, not work well for the Indians? The license is a question wholly distinct from that of the charter; the license gives none of the territorial rights which the charter assumes—it involves no principle of compensation in case of any lands which colonists may require, and it ought to be regarded simply as an instrument by which the Government can effect that safeguard from broil and disorder which in so vast and profitless a wilderness the Government is not able of itself to establish. But, whatever doubts may be entertained as to the second proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, namely, that land incapable of colonization should be left to the jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company, no one can dispute the soundness of the first proposition, that the country capable of colonization should be withdrawn from that jurisdiction; and turning our eyes from a trade which, unlike all other commerce, rests its profits, not on the redemption, but on the maintenance of the wilderness, it must cheer us to see already, in the great border lands of this hitherto inhospitable region, the opening prospect of civilized life. Already, by the Pacific, Vancouver's Island has been added to the social communities of mankind. Already, in the large territory which extends west of the Rocky Mountains, from the American frontier up to the skirts of the Russian domains, we are laying the foundations of what may become, hereafter, a magnificent abode for the human race; and now, eastward of the Rocky Mountains, we are invited to see, in the settlement of the Red River, the nucleus of a new colony, a rampart against any hostile inroads from the American frontier, and an essential arch, as it were, to that great viaduct by which we hope one day to connect the harbours of Vancouver with the

  1817
  Gulf of St. Lawrence. This is the district offered to Canada, and I think my hon. and learned Friend has good reason to presume that Canada will decline the task of forming it into a colony at her own responsibility and charge. If the answer from Canada be unfavourable, we have two options—either to leave the district, as now, under the jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company, which nothing but absolute necessity would justify, or to take it into our own hands and form a colony, which will, no doubt, one day constitute a confederate part of a great Canadian system, and which might meanwhile, perhaps, be administered by a Government in concurrence with Canada. To this there have been two objections. The first is the presumed expense. This I do not at present anticipate. All heathful colonies should be self-supporting, and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend in the general theory he advances with so much eloquence and wisdom. Colonies will be self-supporting in proportion as you leave them to raise their own revenues under free institutions. The second objection is, that such a colony would not be peopled by Canadians; that, owing to the easier access from the American frontier, the majority of immigrants would be Americans. This objection does not alarm me. In the first place, though the immigrants come from the American territory as the readiest access, it does not follow that they should all be Americans. Probably large numbers of our own countrymen, especially the Scotch, would flock there, as well as Americans; and as for Americans, once settled as British colonists, it is probable that they would soon identify their national feelings and interests with the land in which they lived, and the conditions of the Imperial Government. It has been so already in Canada; it would be so at Red River; because all history tells us how soon men, if at all of kindred race, take, as it were, the stamp and colour of the land in which they settle. We, in this country, are an instance of that truth. No less than sixteen counties in this kingdom were given up to the immigration of the Danes, and probably the great mass of the population in those counties, more particularly in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, and Norfolk, are of Danish origin to this day; yet in a very short time they became as heartily English and as hostile to the Danes of the Baltic as the Anglo-Saxons of Kent. Nay, even the Normans, despite their pride as a con-
  1818
  quering race, despite the difference of language, became in the third generation as intensely English and anti-French in their national feelings as if they had been Saxon Thegns. In short, no matter where men come from, place them in ground covered by the British flag, overshadowed, though at a distance, by the mild British sceptre, and they will soon be British in sentiment and feeling. All that I say on this score is, do not, on account of such jealousies and fears, obstruct civilization. Here is land fit for settlement; if civilized men will settle in it, let them. Never let us mind the difficulties of access, soil, or climate, Leave the difficulties to them. Nature and man will fight their own battle and make their own peace. With regard to the fitness of the place itself for colonization, I an contented to take the opinion of the Hudson's Bay Company themselves; for, in a letter from the Company to Lord Glenelg, February 10th, 1837, when asking for a renewal of the license, I find it said,—
  "The soil and climate of the country of the Red River settlement are favourable to colonization; that it was intended that this settlement should be peopled by emigrants from Britain, and that the Company hoped to establish in time a valuable export trade from thence to the mother country, in wool, flax, tallow, and other agricultural produce."
  Sanguine hopes, not realized since 1837 under the auspices of the Company, but which may be more rapidly fulfilled when the Company withdraws from the place the shadow of its chilling protection. With regard to the safety of a settlement at the Red River from all ordinary attacks that might be made on it from the American quarter, I have a most satisfactory Report from Sir William Eyre, the Lieutenant General commanding the forces in British North America. He states that—
  "The Red River settlement consists of about 8,000 persons, of whom 2,000 are Irish, English, and Scotch; the remaining 6,000 all mostly half-breeds. They are generally good shots, skilled in the use of fire-arms, and good horsemen. A local force or militia, of at least 1,000 men, could be easily organized and embodied. …. The barracks are perfectly habitable, and the post defensible, except against heavy ordnance, which it would be difficult to bring up against it. Norway House is the chief depot of the Company—the position might be made impregnable. All communication between Lake Superior and the Red River is now, according to Sir George Simpson, impracticable for any body of troops. … A few individuals might go, but not any force. There is abundance of provisions in the country; no want need be apprehended; water is good—

  1819
  wood abundant. The climate is severe in winter, but healthy at all seasons."
  These few extracts may suffice to show that a settlement once established would be safe from danger from without. As regards the fur trade in this district, I need scarcely say, that if you take the land from the Hudson's Bay Company, the monopoly that goes with the land will expire. To attempt to maintain the monopoly there would be impossible, and only give rise to perpetual feuds. In fact, I must be pardoned if I say that there is good reason to believe that that monopoly has practically, in a great measure, ceased to exist in those parts. Major Setoff reports from Fort Garry itself:—
  "The Hudson's Bay Company have long since abandoned in practice their pretensions to exclusive trade in this district and far beyond it."
  Captain Pallisser writes word:—
  "That monopoly there is unattainable now and for evermore; that the people engaged in the illicit trade are inhabitants of the Indian land, and born on its soil. Most of thorn are half-breeds; they are British subjects; and whatever the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company under the charter, they think it a very hard case that they should be debarred from trading in the land of their birth. There appears to be a shadow of justice in this complaint; but, just or not, the opposition exists, and nothing short of extirpating the people engaged in it can ever stop it."
  Indeed, this Report is so far confirmed by Captain Shepherd himself, on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company, that he states, in a letter to the Colonial Office:—
  "That the diversion of the fur trade is carried on by the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement, who, regardless of the Hudson's Bay Company, conduct an illicit trade in spirituous liquors and furs in various parts of the country."
  I think, therefore, there can be no doubt that, where the Company yields the land, it must resign the monopoly. It will be an after-consideration by what regulations the trade should in that case be carried on, so as to maintain order and peace, and respect that considerate humanity which is due to the Indians. But now comes the difficulty. The land we would thus dispose of for colonization is within the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company, and if that charter be valid, the land belongs to the Company, but not the monopoly of the trade, except as includes the right of ownership to keep others off the land. The law officers of the late Government, men of very high distinction, consider—
  "That the Crown cannot now, with justice,
  1820
  raise the question of the general validity of the charter; but that, on every legal principle, the Company's territorial ownership of the lands granted, and the rights incident thereto—as, for example, the right of excluding from their country persons acting in violation of their regulations—ought to be deemed valid."
  While this opinion of the late law officers remains before us, unexamined by our own law officers, it would be presumptuous in me to express any opinion of mine. It is our intention to submit the question to the most careful and deliberate consideration of our law officers, and ascertain from them whether, in equity and justice, we could advise the Crown, or recommend to Parliament any mode by which to facilitate a judicial decision upon this venerable title-deed. But I am bound, in justice to the Company, to say that, though it might be very desirable to try the validity of the charter, it is not absolutely necessary to do so for any immediate objects of colonization. It is but just to the Company to say that it has not hitherto shown itself stubborn or intractable. It does not say, "You shall not have the land which our charter covers." It says, on the contrary, "Take whatever land you please; Heaven forbid we should stand in the way of civilization. We are not the fit agents to colonize; we have not the means for it; we tried it at Vancouver's, and are glad to get rid of the experiment; take, then, whatever land you desire within the range of the charter. But"—here comes the critical but!—"we rely on your honesty." In other words, "If you take from us that which we actually possess, without proving that we have not the right to possess it—we are human beings, and we expect some kind of compensation." Seeing all the embarrassments of this dilemma, I cannot but admire the skill with which, in pursuance of the report of our Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tannton (Mr. Labouchere), devised a scheme which was intended to unite the objects we have in view with a temperate conciliation towards the claims of the Company. He proposed to cede this territory to Canada if she would agree to open a line of communication to it, and give satisfactory evidence of her intention to take steps for laying out townships and settling and administering the affairs of these districts; and as to the Hudson's Bay Company, he proposed to renew its trading license for twenty-one years over the wilderness not fitted for colonization; and that three Commissioners—one chosen by

  1821
  Canada, one by the Imperial Government, and one by the Company,—should consider and report what, under all the circumstances of the case, might be justly payable to the Company in consequence of such contemplated annexation, and in respect of property which they might be required to surrender. Well, if Canada reject these proposals, our hands are free for fresh negotiations and unfettered action. Meanwhile, to sum up my answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, first, I think the license ought not to be renewed except where civilization has no requirements and law no other machinery but that of the Company. Secondly, with regard to raising the question of the validity of the charter, it will be submitted to our law officers, and we can obviously say nothing one way or the other till their opinion is received. Thirdly, I grant the expediency of strengthening our empire in North America by substituting, and in one connected frontier line, the colonies of Great Britain for the hunting grounds of a trading company. It is my sincere wish and hope that arrangements for that object may be effected in a spirit of reasonable conciliation to all parties concerned, and that we may thus lay the foundation of a civilized community, upon those principles of humanity towards the red man, and of honour and honesty towards the white, which our civilization should carry along with it wherever it extends, as the colonizers of old carried along with them a fragment of their native earth, and a light from the altar of their ancient council hall. The Company have assured us of their desire to meet the necessities of the case in a spirit of concession, and I do hope that early next Session we may propose to Parliament arrangements that will receive its approval. In the object before us we all have a common interest,—to fulfil the mission of the Anglo-Saxon race, in spreading intelligence, freedom, and Christian faith wherever Providence gives us the dominion of the soil, and industry and skill can build up cities in the desert. Sir, hoping that what I have said will satisfy my hon. and learned Friend at least as to the general views of the Government, I have only to thank the House for the indulgence with which it has heard me.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has a difficult task before him, and I am quite
  1822
  sure that this House will be inclined to give him whatever time he may think necessary in order to decide upon the course of policy which may seem most useful to the country and most beneficial to mankind. Having served, however, upon a Committee on this question, and having at various times had my attention called to it, I will venture to state to the House my impressions on the subject as it now stands. It appears to me there is one part of this question which is easy, or apparently easy; but we have no sooner settled that than we find ourselves in almost inextricable difficulties. The part of the question which I say is easy is that on which my right hon. Friends the Members for Oxford and Taunton, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, and the Colonial Secretary, are all perfectly agreed. They say there is a portion of this territory which is fit for colonization, and ought to be so applied. So far we are sailing in smooth water; there are no rocks ahead. But directly we have settled this point, an infinite number of questions arise which cannot be easily settled. One is, how much of this territory is capable of colonization? We have heard a very able speech, and one full of information, from my noble Friend the Member for Norwich (Viscount Bury), but still that is a point which requires to be examined. We have next the question, by whom shall that territory be colonized? Shall it be by Canada? Shall it be from this country? We have then this further question—what are the rights of the Company? Now, coaling to this last point, which I think involves the greatest difficulty of all, it is right we should remember that the Company consider themselves, I believe, entirely mercantile in their constitution and character. You have not to deal with a body like the East India Company, which has a certain pride of dominion and possesses a certain power of patronage which it does riot like to abandon. As far as I have ever heard, the Company look upon theirs as a mercantile speculation which returns a certain amount of profit—a very high amount—on all the capital they advance; and, provided that profit is secured and that capital replaced, they take no further interest in the question than as they are morally bound to consider the state of the Indians with whom they have had to deal. Now, although that appears to make the question more easy of treatment, yet there remains a point which must be solved before we can

  1823
  go far in the projects we are asked to entertain—namely, what are the legal rights of this Company? The Company say— "Take the whole territory if you will; take any part of it you choose; leave us either a small or large portion; only don't let us be unjustly deprived of what we consider our property." Well, but what is their property, and what are their rights? Last year, when the subject was considered in Committee, I was willing to leave it in the hands of the Government of the day, and I confess I was rather sanguine that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) might find means of solving this question with the consent of Canada and of the Hudson's Bay Company. I was strengthened in that belief by a passage in Backstone's Commentaries, in which he says that all questions respecting the boundaries of colonies can be properly adjudicated upon by Her Majesty's Privy Council. But my right hon. Friend has made the attempt; nearly a year ago he forwarded a proposition to Canada, and he now tells us that no answer has been returned, and that therefore no effectual advance has been made. But we cannot wait year after year in this way, for if we do not make some advance towards a solution of the question, we may have disorder; we may have the United States encroaching on our territory; we may have every kind of anarchy prevailing there. Well, then, I confess it appears to me now, that notwithstanding the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, you must have some legal decision on this question. If it should be found that the Hudson's Bay Company possess no right whatever to that of which my hon. and learned Friend near me proposes to deprive them, then they would have no valid claim to compensation; but if, upon the other hand, it should be found that they do possess such a right, and that you think it necessary for Imperial purposes to take away from them privileges which they now enjoy, then, I think they must be held to have a claim to compensation which you cannot resist. But be that as it may, I cannot help feeling that until you have ascertained in what the rights of the Company consist, you will be unable to arrive at any satisfactory solution of the important question under discussion. Mr. Murray, afterwards Lord Mansfield, and Sir Dudley Ryder, who filled the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General in 1749, gave, with respect to this subject, what to me appears to have been a very wise opinion at that day. "Here,"
  1824
  they said, "is a charter granted by the Crown. There are no particular State reasons why that charter should be disturbed. It would, therefore, be an ungracious act upon the part of the Crown to raise the question whether the privileges which it confers are or are not good in law. We, for these reasons, beg to be excused from pronouncing any opinion on the matter." Now that, I repeat, was a very wise mode of dealing with the subject at the period to which I have referred. It was very much in accordance with the maxim of Sir Robert Walpole Quieta non movere, and no doubt answered its purpose very well. But we have fallen upon different times. This question is no longer in a state of quietude. Everything with respect to it, on the contrary, is disturbed and in motion. I, therefore, maintain that you cannot now rest satisfied until you have obtained in reference to it the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. You must at all events have some decision upon which to proceed, whether that decision be obtained through the medium of the Privy Council or in our courts of law by means of a writ of quo warranto.
  But now, to refer more particularly to the Resolutions of my hon. and learned Friend near me, let us see what it is which he proposes. The third of those Resolutions says:—
  "That so much of the territory hitherto held by the Hudson's Bay Company as may be needed for the purposes of colonization ought without delay to be resumed by the Government of this country."
  Well, in asking the House to assent to that Resolution, he does not ask us to pledge ourselves to the opinion that the whole of the territories of the company should be taken out of their possession. He seeks to deprive them only of so much of those territories as is needed for the purposes of colonization. It seems to be admitted that there are certain districts which cannot be employed for that purpose—in which fur-bearing animals and a few scattered Indians are alone to be found, and in which colonization could have no place. What that portion of the territories of the Company is which would be required for the promotion of the objects which my hon. and learned Friend has in view neither he nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford undertakes to state. They have very properly abstained from fixing any particular boundaries.

  1825
  That is a matter with which it is the duty of the Executive Government to deal, and for my own part I have no doubt that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies will enter upon its consideration with an enlarged view of the general interests of the country, and also with that strict regard to justice by which our proceedings should always be characterized. With respect to the first Resolution which has to-night been submitted to our notice by my hon. and learned Friend—namely, "that the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company ought not to be renewed," I can only say that I am perfectly satisfied with the declaration which the right hon. Baronet has made. I think that declaration is quite adequate to all the purposes of the present day. I trust, however, that the right hon. Baronet, in carrying his views into operation, will ask the law officers of the Crown in what manner a judicial decision upon this question is to be arrived at, rather than again submit to them the question whether it is expedient that there should be any such decision at all. It has become a matter of necessity that the question should be decided. The prospect before us is one of immense magnitude. We have to deal with the important subject of the colonization of that country which stretches from Vancouver's Island to the banks of the St. Lawrence. The habitation of that vast territory, its being traversed by railroads and canals, all are questions which depend very much on the decision which within the next twelve months may be arrived at. The subject is one well-worthy of occupying the attention of the right hon. Baronet between this and the next Session of Parliament. For my own part, I believe with the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have in the territory with which we are called upon to deal colonists attached to the institutions of this country—attached even to her name. We shall have there none of those difficulties to encounter which arise from the endeavour to assimilate different races. We shall not be called upon to blend the Norman with the Dane. Those who are destined to be the future occupants of that country will be men speaking our own language, conversant with the language, accustomed to the habits and ways of England. I am, however, disposed to concur with my hon. and learned Friend near me, that in order to accomplish those great results, we should proceed to establish separate colonies rather
  1826
  than attach the whole of this vast territory together. I am also of opinion that those colonies should be established under the protection of this country, inasmuch as neither they themselves nor Canada could be expected to be in a position to bear for some time the expense of maintaining the necessary military force for their defence. With the exception of some outlay at the commencement they would require no further assistance. That I think is a result which it is most desirable to attain, for I have no confidence in those sickly colonies which owe their safety to State support. I believe it is the nature of the people of this country to struggle with difficulties, to fix themselves upon the soil on which they happen to be planted, and to overcome all those difficulties which circumstances may happen to throw in their way. That great empire which now exists upon the other side of the Atlantic—that great American Union—has been created by the force of qualities such as these, and I entertain no doubt that, by the exhibition of similar qualities, those colonies which may hereafter be established upon the American continent will rapidly increase in prosperity and power.
  MR. A. MILLSwas understood to say, that on the more fertile portions of the Hudson's Bay territory, there need be no apprehension of a war of races, for there would be none but the whites in those portions of the Company's territory. But if we withdrew or discontinued the Hudson's Bay Company, we ought to be also prepared to place some power in their stead; for it was impossible to expect that either Canada or the Imperial Government could undertake the administration of a country in which colonization was impossible. He wished some machinery could be devised for protecting the native Indians, who in North America were fast becoming extinct through the rifle and the poisonous stuff they obtained from the whites, and it was the duty of the Imperial Government to delay, if it could not altogether prevent, the extinction of that unfortunate portion of its subjects. He certainly agreed in the spirit of the three Resolutions proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he cordially hoped the day was not far distant when the important question alluded to by the noble Lord would be settled in a manner satisfactory to the people of Great Britain.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he did not think there would be any difficulty in dealing with the

  1827
  Hudson's Bay Company in case their territory should be required for colonization, or that it should be wished to open the fur trade to all the world. The Company were possessed of two functions—as a governing body and as a commercial association. He held that so far as related to the exercise of the delegated functions of Government, conferred upon the Company by Parliament, there could be no claim for compensation in case Parliament should think fit to relieve the Company of those functions; but as a commercial body, he thought, upon the clearest principles of justice and the invariable practice of Parliament, that they were entitled to fair and reasonable compensation if for the public benefit it was found necessary to put an end to their existence. The capital of the Company was only half-a-million, so that there was no enormous amount to deal with, even if that sum should be doubled on account of the high rate of interest which the Company now received. If compensation was given the Government would soon reimburse themselves from the proceeds of sales of land which would take place if emigrants could be induced to settle in these territories. Therefore, he did not see that the Hudson's Bay Company stood in the way of any great object of Imperial policy. There was one course which, notwithstanding the high authority of those who urged it, and the general feeling there seemed to be to support it, he could not look upon with the slightest favour—that was the course of submitting the validity of the existing charter to the judgment of a court of law. If a private person let to another a piece of land which at the time he had not in his possession, and if he subsequently came into possession of that land, the law would not allow him to set up the fact of non-possession at the time of the contract as against the grantee. He put the matter, not as one of legal technicality, but of the first principles of justice. The British Government in the time of Charles II. granted the land in question—whether they then had it or not was no matter—to the Hudson's Bay Company. Since then the land then granted had been acquired, the existence of the charter had been recognized in treaties, Act of Parliament, and other State documents, and he (Mr. Lowe) held that it would be derogatory to the dignity of the Government, derogatory to the dignity and good faith of the House, if they were now to turn round on the Company, and say, "we have
  1828
  permitted you to occupy this territory for 200 years, we have recognized your existence in all kinds of public documents, but now we wish to get rid of you, and we will not even repay you the capital you have invested in posts and buildings for your trading operations; we will raise a question of law, and we will chicane you out of the rights which our own charter gave you." No authority, however high, could induce him to sanction such a step. It would be disreputable in a private individual—it would be disreputable and infamous on the part of a Government. There was no practical difficulty in dealing with the license of the Company. As he understood the matter it was quite indifferent as regarded colonization whether the right hon. Baronet granted or withheld the license, for in that license he believed there was a special exception of land required for colonization. He had been sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Bulwer Lytton) state that, anticipating a refusal from Canada to take the charge of the new territory, he was prepared to take the country at once out of the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company and form a separate colony. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider that determination, for he was thoroughly convinced by the evidence given before the Committee last year that if a separate colony was established it would involve the Government of this country in inextricable difficulty and confusion. This was eminently a practical question, and lie begged to call the attention of the House to the position of the territory they were now considering. He might lay down the proposition that no country would do wisely in forming colonies which they could not defend, which she could only reach through foreign countries in time of peace, and which were practically cut off from all communication with her in time of war. And such be thought would be the position of any colony formed in the territory in question. It would not be consulting the dignity or the safety of this country to place her in the position of deserting those of her subjects who most needed protection. He asked the House to consider what would be the means of access to this new colony, and in recapitulating them he would rely only upon the evidence given before the Committee by witnesses who were most thoroughly and practically acquainted with the subject. Now, how did the goods of the Hudson's Bay Com-

  1829
  pany reach the Red River Settlement, and how were the furs and peltries which they bought sent to England? The trade was carried on through Hudson's Bay. Ships had to sail through the stormy waves of the North Atlantic to beyond 60 degrees North latitude, which was a very severe climate. Hudson's Strait, the opening to the Bay, was only open for about two months in the year, and even then was very much encumbered with ice. The goods, after reaching Yorktown, were sent by portage to Lake Winnipeg, and thence to Red River, a distance of 700 miles, in the course of which there were no less than thirty-four different portages—that was the goods were transferred from canoes and conveyed certain distances upon men's backs no less than thirty-four times. Sir John Richardson stated that a canoe with fourteen men, which could carry sixty pieces of goods of 901bs. each, cost from £300 to £500 for the season. That was the mode of access adopted by the Hudson's Bay Company. There was another way of reaching Red River, starting from Montreal up the valley of the Ottawa, which was almost unexplored, and thence by Lakes Nipissing and Superior, through a country described by Sir John Richardson as a series of hills and valleys, to the Red River. Those were the only practicable routes by which the country could be reached through British territory. The third route, which was through American territory, and would therefore be closed to us by a war, was by the canal Sault St. Marie to the entrance of Lake Superior, and thence to Fort William, between which and the Red River there was a navigation of 700 miles with sixty portages. These were all the routes by which the Red River Settlement could be approached from England without going entirely through American territory. A fourth route, which passed altogether through that territory, but was comparatively easy, was to go from New York to Chicago, from Chicago across to Dubuque, and up the Mississippi to the Falls of St. Anthony; thence to the Red River was a distance of 700 miles, 450 of which were uninhabited; but the road ran over a flat plain, which could in summer time be easily traversed by light waggons. Therefore, in forming a colony upon the Red River, we should be making ourselves responsible for a community which we could not reach in large numbers even in time of peace, without going through four or five States of the Ameri-
  1830
  can Union, all the imports and exports of which must pass through the United States, and from which a war with that country would entirely cut us off. Therefore, if there were no other objection, he should beg the right hon. Baronet well to consider this subject before he sanctioned a scheme which would, when war broke out, give into the hands of the Americans, bound hand and foot, any number of British subjects who might be foolish enough to go to this colony. He would, however, go further. He maintained that before we established a colony we ought to be satisfied that there was some reasonable prospect of success, and that success could only be secured by its being the interest of a number of persons to go and live there. Now, what possible inducement could there be for a bonâfide colonist to go to the Red River? He must either grow corn, or salt beef; he must produce something for exportation, and expect to live comfortably on the imports. How was he to get those imports except through the United States, stricken with the immense duties of their tariff? And how was he to pay for whit he wanted? If he grew wheat, he would have to carry it 700 miles in waggons to the Falls of St. Anthony, there to compete with the wheat of Minnesota, essentially a wheat-producing State, grown upon the spot. How could he live by such a trade as that? But it was said that the climate of the Red River territory was so delightful that it would induce people to settle there. He would not quote the evidence of the Hudson's Bay people, but impartial military men and surveyors said that the ice in Lake Winnipeg did not melt until the 12th of June, and that it gathered again towards the end of October. That was the length of the summer: all the rest of the year was an exceedingly severe winter—it was as cold as the coldest inhabited parts of Siberia. Throughout the greater part of the Hudson's Bay territory the soil was even during the summer frozen to a depth of two to three feet, and the trees were frozen to the hearts, so as to require a particular sort of axe to hew them. This was the sort of country, so accessible, and blessed with such a climate, by opening which to the general resort of mankind we anticipated that we should be doing great things for civilization. Unless we founded a colony, and did not merely announce one—unless we tempted people to resort to it for purposes of colonization, we had much better leave things as they were. Every

  1831
  one agreed, and this Motion itself did not dispute, that it would be advisable to leave all the districts which could not be used for colonization in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company, because if you introduced competition into the fur trade it would lead to the introduction of spirits, the demoralization of the Indians, and the indiscriminate slaughter of the fur-bearing animals at all seasons of the year. Therefore, it was quite clear that it would not be desirable to open that trade to competition. He thought that it was equally clear that you would not, in the present state of things, get a bonâ fide colony on the Red River. You might induce people to go there, nominally for purposes of legitimate colonization, but really to engage in the fur trade; but that would be all that you could accomplish. The reason why his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) proposed to annex this territory to Canada was, that if Canada would accept it she could also make a road to it through British territory, carrying forward settlements on each side, and thus making herself a connecting link between this country and the Red River. Canada was accessible from England, and the Red River settlement would be accessible from Canada. Such a colony we might hope to defend; but instead of making it a colony by itself, we had better, if they would be kind enough to take it, hand it over to the United States. A colony English in name, but consisting chiefly of Americans, would be the most fruitful source of differences between the two Governments which could possibly exist. As he had expressed opinions which were probably held by himself alone, he would conclude by thanking the House for the patience with which he had been heard.
  MR. CHRISTYsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken sounded very much like that of an advocate for the Company, and was founded upon the evidence taken before the Committee of last year, which was most favourable to them, and would have been received with much more favour ten years ago when the public were thoroughly impressed with the barrenness and inhospitable character of the country and the impossibility of raising any valuable produce from it. But it was now known that this was a magnificent territory, which ought no longer to remain shut up. He would beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was already a flourishing colony at the Red River, which was founded by Lord Selkirk,
  1832
  and which had reached a population of 8,000, notwithstanding the difficulties they had had to contend with under the sway of the Hudson's Bay Company. He believed that the access to it was easy—not by the old roundabout route by Hudson's Bay, but by the route annually taken by the Governor himself. The inquiries of the Committee of last year ended in the difficulty of attaining a solution of what has been so much questioned—the legality of the Company's rights. He had himself contended in that Committee that, unless the Hudson's Bay Company made large concessions steps should be taken to ascertain their rights. If the Company had no right in law, and it was so decided, it was a very simple question, and one merely of policy as to what should be done with this vast territory. The circumstance that an ex parte statement had been made by the law officers of the Crown, and that the Government had come thence to the conclusion not to try the question, might fairly be set against other opinions, including those of the late Attorney and Solicitor Generals, which had been given against the validity of the Hudson's Bay charter. But be that as it might, that need not prevent the House taking the course of giving over to the Hudson's Bay Company, for a limited period, that portion of the territory not suitable for colonization. Even if it was decided that the charter was not valid, provision might be made to enable them to carry on their traffic in furs in the northern and more inhospitable portions of their territory. The right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) had, before the Committee of last year, stated that even if the fur trade were thrown open the Company could prevent any other person trading with the Indians, on account of their long relations with those tribes and by means of posts now in possession of the Company. He believed that the Company could very much exclude other persons from a share in the fur trade even if this commerce was thrown open. But it was said that if the trade was thrown open it would lead to war, either with the Indians or even with the United States. He did not believe that there was any such danger. He had presented a petition from the Red River Settlement, in which it was stated that the apprehended danger to the Indians, from the abolition of the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company, was entirely illusory, for that body had never laid down any regulations for their government, and

  1833
  that there was no reason why commerce should be carried on through the medium of spirits. He saw no reason why the legal rights of the Hudson's Bay Company should not be settled by a friendly suit, the crown paying the costs of both sides. He thought that the intention of the hon. Baronet at the head of the Colonial Department to consider whether it would not be desirable to found a new colony in the Hudson's Bay territory, governed under the mild auspices of the country, instead of under the rigorous rule of the Company, was a very valuable idea, and he hoped the Government would resolve to carry it out.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that after the very full and satisfactory discussion of the subject which had taken place, he would not have intruded on the attention of the House, but with the object of alluding to a feature of the subject which had not as yet been much alluded to, and yet which he thought one of the most important features of the whole question. He alluded to the interests of the Indian inhabitants of the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company. He had paid great attention to the monopoly of the Hudson's Bay Company long before he had the honour of a seat in that House,—less, he must confess, as affecting the interests of that Company, or even the interests of the English colonist, than as involving the welfare of the natives of the soil, the protection of whom was put forward, somewhat ostentatiously, as one claim of the Company to the consideration of the House. For himself, he might acknowledge that if that claim could be substantiated, if the Hudson's Bay Company were indeed the protectors of the red man, he should find in this fact the strongest reason he had yet heard against the spirit of the Resolutions of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, which went to deprive them of their charter. He had intended to allude to the constitution of the Committee, whose Report had been so often quoted that evening to the House, to the fact that such Report had only been carried by six Members to five, showing the amount of difference of opinion existing in the Committee; but at that hour of the evening he would content himself with saying, that he regarded the recommendations of the Committee as wholly opposed to public, imperial, and colonial interests. If he sought for the basis of those recommendations, he found them in the following considerations:—
  1834
  "1st. The great importance to the more peopled portions of British North America that law and order should, as far as possible, be maintained in these territories, 2nd. The fatal effects which they believe would infalliby result to the Indian population from a system of open competition in the fur trade, and the consequent introduction of spirits in a far greater degree than is the case at present. 3rd. The probability of the indiscriminate destruction of the more valuable furbearing animals in the course of a few years."
  First, as to "law and order." He believed that law and order would be better promoted by a well-ordered colony of British subjects than under the present system. He now came to the second consideration, which involved the claim of the Hudson's Bay Company to be considered the protectors of the Indians within their territory; and without desiring to import into the discussion any such element, he must say that such assumption savoured of hypocrisy, in the face of facts which could not be controverted, connected with the history of the Company. How had the Company treated the natives? How had they treated them commercially? He would only trouble the House with one extract on this point from a document he held in his band, issued under the high sanction of Mr. Robertson Gladstone, of Liverpool:—
  "The Company's mode of dealing with the native hunters can scarcely be characterized as honest. It always keeps the Indians in debt. All the articles furnished to them are charged at most extortionate rates. Lieutenant Chapped estimates the profits of the Company in some instances as high as 2,000 per cont.—Voyage to Hudson's Bay, London, 1817, p. 221.
  The Rev. C. G. Nicholay says that—
  "A fourpenny comb will barter for a bear's skin worth £2."—The Oregon Territory, London, 1846, p. 162.
  Dr. King says that—
  "A coarse knife, worth, all expenses included, no more than sixpence, is bartered for three marten skins, worth in London five guineas; and that for the skin of the Black sea otter, worth fifty guineas, the natives obtain, in exchange only goods to the value of two shillings." — King's Narrative, vol. ii. p. 53.
  Where there is competition with the Americans or Canadians, the Indians obtain better value for the spoils of the chase, and are in a far less degraded condition than where the Company bears absolute sway. He would now quote an extract or two which would, he thought, in the judgment of the House, justify, and more than justify the position he had taken as to the humanity of the Company's treatment of the natives. Here is a specimen of atrocity

  1835
  not exceeded in the annals of the most savage of bucaneers — Spanish or English:—
  "In that winter (1836–7) a party of men, led by two clerks, was sent to look for some horses that were grazing at a considerable distance from the post. As they approached the spot they perceived a band of Assineboine Indians, eight in number (if I remember rightly) on an adjacent hill, who immediately joined them, and, delivering up their arms, encamped with them for the night. Next morning a court-martial was held by the two clerks, and some of the men, to determine the punishment due to the Indians for having been found near the Company's horses, with the supposed intention of carrying them off. What was the decision of this mock court-martial? I shudder to relate that the whole band, after having given up their arms, and partaken of their hospitality, were condemned to death, and the sentence carried into execution on the spot; all were butchered in cold blood." — M'Lean's Notes, vol. xi. pp. 222–3.
  It does not appear that these ruffians were ever brought to justice. Once more, what had the Company done for the Indians?— When the "merchant adventurers" took possession of the red man's land, there were upwards of fifty powerful races of Indians inhabiting their own vast hunting grounds, many of the tribes numbering 10,000 souls each, even at the beginning of the present century. They were free, prosperous, and happy, according to their wants and knowledge; savages and heathens, indeed, and ignorant of all that the white man calls civilization, but also endowed with all the virtues of the savage, and untainted with the white man's vices. Heathens and savages, for the most part, they still remain, but they are also vitiated and degraded slaves, and but a miserable and scattered remnant of what they were. Entire races of them have been swept away by drunkenness, by diseases introduced from Europe, and by sheer starvation. Cannibalism, which was unknown amongst them until they made the white man's acquaintance, has been a thing of common occurrence. Having lost the use of their native weapons, the bow and spear, they are entirely dependant on the Company for those by which they have been superseded. Guns and ammunition are supplied to them at exorbitant rates of profit; and when withheld, as they are when the hunters become old or otherwise unfit for profitable employment, the Indians are reduced to a state of helpless destitution, and often left to perish of want, or to cat each other. This state of things, in a country possessed and ruled by people who pretend to be Christians, seems too horrible for belief;
  1836
  but the fact is stated on unquestionable authority. Dr. King says—
  "When they (the Indians) become advanced in life, and no longer able to hunt, they are refused a supply of ammunition, which has become essential to their very existence, and they die consequently from absolute starvation. …. They have become cannibals by necessity; and scarcely a month passes but some horrible tale of cannibalism is brought to the different establishments."— King's Narrative, vol. ii. p. 52.
  As to the light in which Indians are regarded by the Company's servants, the Rev. Mr. Beaver, once the Company's chaplain on the Columbia River, makes this declaration—
  "God knows that I speak the conviction of my mind, and may He forgive me if I speak unadvisedly, when I state my belief that the life of an Indian was never yet by a trapper put in competition with a beaver skin"—Parliamentary Paper, 227, Sess. 1849, p. 14.
  He thought these extracts (which he might have multiplied but for fear of wearying the House) would justify the position he took, that no claims of the Company on the ground of alleged humanity to the natives, of their vast territories, could be successfully pleaded as a reason for the continuance of their charter. As to the anticipated destruction of fur-bearing animals, which seemed to be regarded with such serious apprehensions by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, he confessed he had small misgivings on the subject: could it be shown that the interests of humanity required the opening of these vast countries to the energies and industry of mankind, he should not regard it as a very serious consequence if ladies had to exchange the skins of fur-bearing animals for the fine woollen manufactures in which our own countrymen excelled. He now came to the question of the charter itself, and without claiming to be a legal authority he thought he could interpret it on the principles of practical common sense. What was the charter? It was granted by Charles II., in 1680, to Prince Rupert and others:
  "Never was such a gift as that made by King Charles to Prince Rupert and Co., and to their successors to the end of time. The charter confers upon them 'the sole trade and commerce of all those seas, straits, bays, rivers, lakes, creeks, and sounds, in whatsoever latitude they shall be, that lie within the entrance of the Straits, commonly called Hudson's Straits, together with all the lands and territories, coasts, and confines of the seas, bays, lakes, rivers, creeks, and sounds aforesaid, that are not already actually possessed by or granted to any of our subjects, or possessed by the subjects of any other Christian Prince or State.' This description seems vague and comprehensive enough, especially as its interpretation

  1837
  appears to have been left to the grantees, though there is one important exception, of which more anon. It did not, however, sufficiently correspond with his Majesty's magnificent spirit of generosity towards these highly favoured men, for in a subsequent part of the charter, the grant is ex- tended to 'all havens, bays, creeks, rivers, lakes, and seas, into which they (the Company) shall find entrance or passage, by water or land, out of the territories, limits, or places aforesaid,' which, taken literally, may mean not only the whole continent of America, but the whole world, or at least, such portions of both as were not 'possessed by the subjects of any other Christian Prince or State.' All the earth was clearly accessible by land or water, from Hudson's Bay. Coupled with the grant, there was the reservation that the territories thus handed over to private individuals, should 'be from henceforth reckoned and reputed as one of our plantations or colonies in America, called Rupert's Land;' but the Governor and Company for the time being, and in all time, were declared to be 'true and absolute lords and proprietors of the same territory,' holding it as of the 'manor of East Greenwich,' and paying for it yearly two elks and two black beavers, whensoever and as often as we, our heirs and successors, shall happen to enter' into the said countries, territories and regions hereby granted."
  He disputed altogether the validity of the charter. It was easy to say that this or that high legal authority had expressed an opinion that the charter should not be questioned, but he knew enough of the opinions of legal authorities to require to see the case submitted before he was guided by the opinion. Lord Brougham, Serjeant Spankie, and Sir A. Pigott, have given a most decided and conclusive opinion that the charter was illegal in its origin, and even that, if it had been legal, it had been voided by the violation of all its conditions. The King did not give, and could not give, and did not intend to give, the powers assumed by this Company. These powers were contrary to public policy and the express laws of England. The Company had assumed the power of taxing, of making laws, of imprisoning British subjects, and even of life and death. The inhabitants of those territories which England called her Colonies should be recognized and treated as British subjects, and not handed over to their responsible control and government of a Company like this. He thought that the question of the charter and its validity must be thoroughly investigated in the first instance. If, indeed, the Hudson's Bay Company were really as anxious for simple justice as they were represented to be by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster, the question would be materially simplified. In common, he believed, with every Member of the House, he only asked for justice
  1838
  —justice to the natives, justice to the colonists, and justice to the Company. But when the Company came to speak of compensation, let him quote the case of Vancouver's Island as an illustration of what sort of compensation would be, or ought to be, required. This island was rather larger than Scotland. [The hon. Gentleman here quoted several extracts from the blue-book, showing the climate and fertility of the island, and its suitability for producing all the necessaries of life.] Now, Earl Grey had actually transferred this island to the Hudson's Bay Company, for ten years, for 5s. per annum. An island the size of Scotland, with one of the most magnificent harbours in the Pacific. Well, setting aside improvements, let them take this rent at twenty-five or thirty years' purchase, and the strictest economist would scarcely object to the compensation. A petition had been sent ten years since from 1,000 British subjects in the Red River Settlement, containing the gravest charges against the Company—charging it with one continued policy of the grossest injustice and oppression to the British subjects generally, and to the natives, But Earl Grey had decided that there was no ground for requiring a stronger decision. He regarded this question as a question between England and the Colonies on the one hand, and the Company on the other. Europe's teeming millions seek an outlet for their energies, their industry, their subsistence. This Company held the key of a country which would provide food for the hungry and clothing for the naked, but they turn the lock against the world's wants, and a deaf ear to the necessities of millions. He had endeavoured to show that the original grant was that it was opposed to sound policy and public interest; and he earnestly hoped that the House would take its stand on the ground of simple justice, would abrogate unrighteous assumptions, and by the adoption of these Resolutions of his learned Friend the Member for Sheffield would declare to the world its determination to uphold against all selfish, private, and illegal claims, the interests of commerce, the extension of civilization, and above all, the rights of humanity.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, as a Member of the Committee, that if the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had studied with more attention the evidence given before the Committee, so often referred to, he would have come to quite a different conclusion. There was much force in the

  1839
  observations of the right hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe). The attempt to foster colonization unnaturally at the expense of the mother country was neither wise nor prudent; and in time of war it was almost impossible for her to defend the settlements thus created. Still he hoped that every facility would be given for the advantages of the Red River settlement, and he argued the best results from the foundation of New Caledonia. The evidence taken before the Committee negatived the charges of cruelty towards the natives which had been made against the Hudson's Bay Company. It was the obvious interest of the Company to promote the well-being of the Indians, on whom the success of their trade in furs so much depended, and the condition of the natives under their jurisdiction would bear favourable comparison with that of the native tribes under the authority of the United States. A number of red Indians had been settled under the auspices of the Hudson's Bay Company, and were carrying on farming operations very successfully. He must, however, express his concurrence in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that it was most desirable that the question, as to the validity of the Company's charter, should be determined.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Gilpin) was evidently the representative of the Aborigines' Protection Society, and he had been astonished at the course which the hon. Gentleman, as the professed friend of the Indian population of North America, had pursued. He must say he thought that course was not very likely to effect the object which the hon. Gentleman was desirous of attaining. It was clear, from the evidence given before the Committee, that, whatever might have been the effect of the Hudson's Bay Company's administration in other respects, they had at least carefully protected the interests of the native population. He did not mean to say that the native population of North America were now in a happier condition than before the white man reached their shores, but he would venture to assert that in no instance had the two races been brought into contact with less injurious results to the inferior and savage race. He thought it was proved to demonstration that not only was it the interest of the Company to promote the welfare of the natives, but, upon the evidence
  1840
  of parties entirely unconnected with the Company, it was shown that the Indians received the most kind and considerate treatment from their servants. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield bad treated the subject as an abstract question, without reference to climate, rivers, or other natural obstacles to civilization, and had maintained that monoply must be as great an evil within the Arctic Circle as it was in other regions. He (Mr. Fortescue) believed it was a most fortunate circumstance that there had existed in the distant and inhospitable territory under the control of the Hudson's Bay Company such a power as they had exercised, and he was satisfied that if their authority were destroyed the country would become absolutely valueless, and that it would be impossible to establish an efficient government in its place. He admitted that the time might arrive when certain portions of that territory might become settled and civilized, but he believed that until more desirable and valuable tracts of land had been occupied such a result could not be anticipated. He (Mr. Fortescue) agreed generally in the views which had been expressed by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London and by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe). In his opinion it would be an extremely rash measure on the part of Her Majesty's Government to undertake the establishment of a colony in the Red River district, in default of the action of Canada; for, if such a settlement could be successfully founded, it must certainly be the interest of Canada to undertake the task. He trusted the House would not forget the facts of the case, would not sacrifice the interests of justice, and would not allow themselves to be carried away by the abstract proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which would be committing an act of pedantry instead of an act of statesmanship.
  MR. C. W. FITZWILLIAMwas understood to say that the Hudson's Bay Company did not manage their territory so well as their Friends asserted, and that the opening up of the district would be a change considerably for the better.
  MR. WYLDsaid, that this discussion had been forced on the House by the circumstances of the times and the state of things which existed in connection with the frontier trade. The fact was that the system of emigration which was now going on to North America would virtually abrogate the exclusive trading rights of the

  1841
  Hudson's Bay Company over a large portion of its territory, and the few armed men at the disposal of the Company were quite inadequate to enforce proper police regulations. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies had prepared a satisfactory solution of the question; but he suggested, in the event of the arrangement with the Hudson's Bay Company being carried out, that the right of inland navigation should also be preserved. He believed that the proposed compromise would prove agreeable both to the Canadians and the people of this country.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that in the few observations which he wished to address to the House he would confine himself to the second Resolution of his hon. and learned Friend—namely,
  "That the validity of the exclusive rights claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company under their charter ought at once to be determined by process of law."
  The noble Lord the Member for the City of London had impressed upon the House and the Government, not the necessity of obtaining the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon this point, but of a judicial decision upon the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company. But he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) thought it must be obvious that that was the very difficulty which met them on the threshold, and that they could not see their way until those rights had been ascertained. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) said that he thought it would be infamous and disgraceful if proceedings were instituted by the Government to ascertain what the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company were. In this he entirely differed with the right hon. Gentleman; for, assuming that he and other hon. Members only desired that the Hudson's Bay Company should be treated with justice and liberality, he could not for his own part see how it was possible to proceed to deal with them in that spirit until their rights had been ascertained. Those rights, he contended, had never been properly decided upon, for he regarded the opinions given by the law officers of the Crown upon former occasions on the cases submitted to them as entirely valueless upon this important point. The charter of Charles II. to the Company granted them, in consideration of their endeavouring to find the longsought passage to the Indian Ocean, exclusive rights of trading over certain large dis-
  1842
  tricts, together with territorial dominion of an undefined and enormous extent. But he questioned, in the first place, whether that grant of exclusive rights of trading was not a direct infringement of the statutes previously passed condemning all monopolies; and if that were so, he need hardly add that the length of time during which it had been exercised could not sanction or remove its original invalidity. With regard to the territorial rights, he submitted that the opinion given in 1748 was not given upon a case submitted on the part of the public, but was called forth by the claims of rival adventurers. As regarded the colonizing powers of the Company, he reminded the House that Chief Justice Draper had stated, on evidence before the Committee, that for a period of forty years—from 1812 to 1852—the population of the district under the control of the Company had not increased by one individual, although in a neighbouring district a population of no less than 70,000 souls had been created in that time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would feel it necessary, in accordance with the expressed wish of the majority of Members who had spoken, to put the matter in a train for discussion.
  MR. ROEBUCK, in reply said, that the interest which had been manifested by the House in the subject under discussion afforded a sufficient justification for his having introduced it to their notice, and he was happy to be able to add that in consequence of the frank and liberal spirit in which his Motion had been met by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies he should not trouble the House by pressing his Motion to a division. His first proposition was, that the privileges which had hitherto been enjoyed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and which were about to expire, ought not to be renewed. By that he intended to signify that they ought not to be renewed over such portions of the territory as were applicable to colonization; and in that proposition, as far as he could judge, the right hon. Baronet concurred. His third proposition was, that all the land which was applicable to colonization ought to be immediately resumed by the Government; and that proposition too received the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman. But the second proposition he believed the right hon. Gentleman did not quite agree with, which was that the rights of the Company ought to be at once ascertained by legal process. The right hon. Baronet said that he

  1843
  thought the rights ought to be determined, and that he would apply his mind to the consideration of the best mode of determining them; but he did not say that he would do so by means of a legal process. He came, however, so near to his proposition, that he (Mr. Roebuck) felt that he had better leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Baronet to be dealt with as he might deem best. He might, however, before he sat down be permitted to advert to the objections which had been raised against the adoption of the course which he proposed. The ball had been led off by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster, in opposition to his Resolutions, who had expressed the fears which he entertained of our being led into a war with America should they be adopted; who also objected to them upon the score that the territory in question was not worth being colonized; and upon the ground that the difficulties of reaching it for want of a road would be very considerable. Now, so far as the first objection was concerned, he would only say that he thought that there was much greater danger that such a calamity would arise from our quarrelling about the population which would cross the boundary from America than if we were to colonize from our own side down to the United States. Neither could he concur in the justice of the objection that the territory was not worth being colonized, and in support of his views upon that point he might refer to the authority of Governor Simpson before he had become Sir George Simpson, and had no interest in not telling the truth. Now he was, he must confess, very much surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's geography. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the only mode of reaching the Red River settlement would be by going up the Ottawa; but he must bear in mind that the line dividing the American from the British territories ran through Lakes Erie, Huron, and Superior, and that we might proceed altogether upon the waters of Great Britain upon the north side of Lake Superior. [Mr. LOWE: No!] The right hon. Gentleman might say "No," but he should answer him by saying "Yes." In reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) who had made an appeal to the House in favour of the native Indian population, he could only say that, whatever abstract notions of humanity might be involved in the
  1844
  question, it was an undoubted fact that where the white man appeared there the red man faded away. That such was the case was the result of the operation of Nature herself. There was in the Negro a buoyancy of nature which did not render association with the white man intolerable to him; but the red man was a being of a melancholy, a proud, and to a certain degree a noble nature, and it was that very nobility of nature which rendered the mental and physical superiority of the white race unendurable. He therefore disappeared before that superior race, and the only question to be considered was whether it was better for the interests of society and of the world that the red man should be allowed to wander uncontrolled, or that the civilization of the white man should be extended. That was a question with respect to which he thought no difference of opinion could prevail. Having made these observations he should, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BOTHNIA—CLAIMS OF BRITISH MERCHANTS.

  COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
  MR. CRAWFORDrose, according to notice, to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Complaints made by certain of Her Subjects of the destruction of their property by Her Majesty's Forces at Uleaborg, in the Gulf of Bothnia, during the recent war with the Emperor of Russia, as more particularly set forth in Memorials addressed by Messrs. Mathiesen and Ritter, and Messrs. Henry Dresser and Co., to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. The hon. Member said he had hoped that the necessity for bringing this case under the notice of the House would have been obviated by the Government recognizing the claims of these parties, but as he had been disappointed in that hope he had no alternative, but to ask the House to express its judgment on the subject. The question was an important one, not only as regarded the commercial interests of the country, but as affecting in some degree the reputation of the country as one of the great belligerent powers of Europe, which, in all proceedings in war, and especially in maritime war, should show an example of humanity to other

  1845
  nations. He had no personal interest in the matter, for his business did not at all connect him with Russia or the Baltic; but he brought forward the Motion in deference to the wishes of his constituents and in justice to the parties whose claims were involved. He wished it also to be understood that he imputed no blame to those gallant officers and men by whom the property in question had been destroyed; they had merely obeyed orders:—no doubt every man, from the admiral, to whose conduct he should have more particularly to allude, down to the common seaman, had behaved as gallantly and honourably as if they had been under the guns of Sweaborg or Cronstadt, but he could not approve of their destruction of the property of peaceable, harmless, unprotected people. The circumstances to which he wished to draw their attention were these: From the papers before the House it would be seen that there were three parties in this case—Messrs. Mathiesen and Ritter, and Messrs. Dresser and Co., of London, and Messrs. Lewin of Boston. He had to deal only with the claims of the two first-named firms; Messrs. Lewin, who belonged to Boston, left their case in the able hands of the hon. and learned Member who represented that town (Mr. W. H. Adams). He might, however, mention that the aggregate claims of all those gentlemen only amounted to £5,446, so that hon. Gentlemen need not fear that by agreeing to this Motion they would impose any serious burden upon the tax-payer. It would be sufficient for him to state the circumstances of the case of Messrs. Mathiesen and Ritter, the other being nearly similar. Messrs. Mathiesen and Ritter were largely engaged in the Baltic trade, trading more especially to the Gulf of Bothnia. In 1853 they purchased a quantity of deals and house timber, which, having resold to a party, he believed, at Hull, they chartered two vessels to bring away from Uleaborg. One of these vessels, the John, reached Uleaborg before the winter set in, but not in time to clear out before becoming ice-bound, and in the spring shared in the conflagration at that port. The ether was more fortunate—she did not reach Uleaborg, and, consequently, escaped the fate of her consort. The war broke out in March, 1854. It would not be necessary to trouble the House with ninny details; but he must mention this fact—that by Orders in Council, for the first time, the principle was introduced in
  1846
  time of war of the immunity of enemy's property in neutral vessels, always excepting articles contraband of war; and war was waged, not against the property of individuals, but against the public property of the State with which we were engaged in hostilities. Russia presented to a maritime enemy three sea-boards for attack. One, Old Russia in the Baltic; another, the White Sea, including the port of Archangel; and a third, the Black Sea, including Odessa, Kertch, &c. Referring first to the White Sea, it would be found that the Orders in Council for the blockade of that sea stated that in the event of any ports not being blockaded neutral vessels might be allowed to trade. The White Sea was not blockaded, and trade was allowed to be carried on by British ships till the 15th of May, and by neutrals till September, when a proclamation placed the ports of the White Sea in a state of blockade. In the Black Sea the same course was pursued. In so doing he thought our Government had taked a wise and proper course. In the Baltic the blockade was established by the gallant Admiral near him (Sir Charles Napier) on the 28th of March. The Orders in Council regulated the time at which British ships should be allowed to clear out from Russian ports, and it was limited to the 15th of May. At that date in the case of the upper ports of the Baltic the sea was frozen, and there was no opportunity afforded to merchants to take away their goods up to the 15th of May. In one case, that of Messrs. Lewin, of Boston, who had a considerable property in those ports on the breaking out of hostilities, they advised the Government of their property being there, and asked leave to remove it, but were refused. He would show the course adopted by Her Majesty's ships in the various Russian seas. The first hostilities of any consequence took place at Odessa, where, a flag of truce having been fired upon, a partial bombardment of the city took place. Questions were put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), and to Lord Clarendon on the subject, who said that the greatest caution had been used not to injure private property; and the Duke of Newcastle subsequently said that it was the desire of the Government that during the war private property should be spared as much as possible. No doubt those directions were loyally fulfilled by the officers in

  1847
  command of vessels, and he knew of no case in which they had been disgregarded in the White or Black Seas. The case, however, was different in the Baltic. He must now refer to the operations of the squadron under Admiral Plumridge which had been detached from the fleet of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier). This squadron, as soon as the ice allowed, began its operations in the Gulf of Bothnia. It arrived before the Port of Brahestad, situated near the town of Uleaborg, which was the chief town of the province of the same name, and the most northern town in the Gulf. In the Gulf of Bothnia the population had been most friendly towards this country for centuries, and carried on a large trade with us, and we had their sympathies in the war against Russia, until the occasion on which the circumstance occurred which he would now relate. He held in his hand a protest drawn up and signed by six merchants of that locality, which contained a historical narrative of the proceedings of that squadron, by which it appeared that on the 30th May, at three o'clock, a thick smoke was seen rising from Brahestad, and it was found that the squadron under Admiral Plumridge had set fire to the pitch, the yards, and the vessels in the port. The town of Uleaborg, fearing that it would be attacked in turn, sent a flag of truce, demanding what the Admiral meant to do with respect to an unprotected town. In answer to that a proclamation was sent in five languages, to the effect that the English Admiral did not intend to molest or injure private persons or property, that he would only destroy the castles, fortresses, shipping, and property of the Emperor of Russia; that so long as the inhabitants remained in their houses they would be protected, but if they made any attempt at resistance they would be treated as enemies; and the Admiral recommended that all women and children should be sent out of the town. The bearer of the flag stated that there were no Russian imperial property, no Russian troops in the town, nor were there any fortifications. The Admiral said he should examine the ships to ascertain if they contained any articles contraband of war, and that he should destroy the timber in the yard. To this it was replied that the timber was private property, was not fitted or intended to be used for purposes of war, but for export to England; and that much of it belonged to Englishmen who had paid for it. The Admiral said he
  1848
  was sorry for it, but he must fulfil his duty, and if any of the property of his countrymen was destroyed, they must look to their country for compensation. It was in consequence of that declaration that he (Mr. Crawford) now asked for compensation for losses sustained on that occasion. The Admiral went on to say that in ten minutes his operations would begin, that he had plenty of boats, as they would find out in a short time. It was important that the House should understand that the property destroyed was piled up on an island near Uleaborg; none of it was such as, under any circumstances, could be considered contraband of war, but consisted of pine timber which was to be sent to England in the spring. The Admiral sent seventeen boats on shore, and burnt the whole of the property. The question the House had to determine was whether the goods so destroyed were contraband of war, and such as the Admiral was justified in destroying. With respect to articles contraband of war, he held in his hand a convention entered into in 1801 between His Britannic Majesty and the Emperor of Russia, and which still regulated the subject, which was to the effect that in order to avoid misunderstanding as to what was to be considered contraband of war, it was agreed that only such articles as were enumerated, and which would be considered as useful for purposes of war, should be so treated, and a long list of cannons, guns, swords, pistols, &c., was given; amongst those articles timber or wood of any description was not to be found. The clause went on to say that all other articles not mentioned in the list were not to be considered contraband of war. It might be asked if there was any justification for the destruction of this property irrespective of contraband of war? It appeared from this paper, which was printed by Her Majesty's printer, that timber was not an article contraband of war. Moreover, the timber in question had been sold to merchants in Hull for building purposes, and was useless for ship and boat building, and the sellers were obliged to pay compensation to the merchants of Hull for its non-delivery. He was told that there was one ground on which the destruction of this property would be justified by the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier), and that was that he had information that at Uleaborg certain gunboats were being constructed by the Russian Government, and that at that place gunboats were constantly built. He (Mr.

  1849
  Crawford) had before him the despatches of the different officers employed, describing the operations on which they were engaged, in which they state that there had been destroyed in timber, building-yards, and so on, property which the gallant Admiral had in his despatch stated to be of the value of £300,000, but not a single gunboat was mentioned. Some of the inhabitants of Uleaborg declared on oath that there had not been any gunboats or vessels built there for the Russian Government, that the Russian Government had no troops in the town, that there was no Government property there, and that all the property that was destroyed had been sold to Englishmen, and actually paid for; and with regard to gunboats it was especially declared that none had been built there for forty years. It would be seen so far that there was no justification for the attack on Uleaborg. He was unable to comprehend on what grounds any justification of this barbarous proceeding could be based. It could not be said that it had been done to impress the Russians with an idea of our prowess, as it was simply the destruction of undefended property, and it was impossible to have conveyed any part of the stores in question to the Russian fleet, neither could the Russian Government suffer any damage or inconvenience by this disgraceful proceeding. We had only destroyed the property of our fellow subjects, and the effect was to raise the price of the produce in question in this country. This question might be treated on broad and general grounds. In the year subsequent to this occurrence Finland was visited by a famine. He did not mean to connect it with these operations, but he could only say that in Uleaborg not only was merchandise and timber burnt, but a great quantity of salt fish and other provisions. A subscription was raised for the relief of the Finlanders in this country, and £10,000 was conveyed thither by a deputation of gentlemen, members of the Society of Friends, and they stated that instead of the friendship which had existed towards this country on the part of the Fins, there was now an intense feeling of animosity, which was caused wholly by these operations. His (Mr. Crawford's) object in making this Motion was not so much to arrest the sympathy of the House in favour of the inhabitants of Uleaborg as to show that there existed on the part of the owners of the property destroyed a claim on the House of Commons. That property
  1850
  was destroyed without justification, in the teeth of the proclamation of Admiral Plumridge himself; it was not contraband of war; its destruction did no good to us and no damage to the Russian Government. It was a wanton action, which he trusted would not be allowed to pass without reparation. The aggregate amount of the claims was £5,446; having, stated the grounds on which he considered the parties entitled to compensation, he would conclude with his Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the complaints made by certain of Her subjects of the destruction of their property by Her Majesty's Forces at Uleaborg, in the Gulf of Bothnia, during the recent War with the Emperor of Russia, as more particularly set forth in Memorials addressed by Messrs. Matthiesen and Ritter, and Messrs. Henry Dresser and Co., to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury."
  MR. ADAMS, in seconding the Motion, expressed his regret that Her Majesty's Government had decided on opposing it. He could not help thinking that both the late and the present Government laboured under some misapprehension of the facts of the case. Last Session the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) in answer to a question which he put to him, likened the case to that of a bombardment, and said the destruction of the property might be justified on the ground that it was property lying in an enemy's country, and he had compared the case to the bombardment of Grey Town. He hoped to be able to satisfy the House that this general proposition was not a correct one, but must be taken with very considerable qualification. During a bombardment it was impossible to discriminate; all property must suffer alike, and therefore neither neutrals nor our own countrymen could snake claim to compensation; but that was not an accurate description of what took place in the instance before them. The defence of the proceedings at Uleaborg, founded on the circumstance that the timber lay in an enemy's country, and therefore might be destroyed, was a fallacy which pervaded the whole of the correspondence of the Government, being laid down as a broad principle without any qualification. The timber trade was a peculiar one. The payment for timber to be imported into this country was made by British merchants long before the

  1851
  timber was shipped—sometimes two or three years, for it was allowed to lie till a ship could be chartered and sent out for it—in fact, nearly the whole of the timber trade of the Gulf of Finland was carried on with British capital; and therefore it was that this property had remained on the wharves after it had been purchased and paid for. The timber being the property of British subjects, if it had been the interest of any parties to destroy it the Russians might have done so, because it belonged to an enemy; they, however, suffered it to remain. He was better acquainted with the case of Messrs. Lewin, who were his constituents, than with those of the other parties, and a letter from those gentlemen which he now held in his hand, and the reply of the Government, would show that it was no after-thought to represent this property as English property. It was written by Messrs. Lewin as soon as they heard that Admiral Plumridge was about to visit the Gulf of Bothnia, and was dated the 18th May, 1854. In it Messrs. Lewin say:—
  "Having in the year 1852 purchased two cargoes of timber lying at Uleaborg, in Russia, and for which, in 1853, I could not obtain vessels to bring the same from there to here, but was in the usual course of business compelled to pay for the same, I shall feel obliged by your informing me if I charter neutral vessels for these cargoes—if such cargoes are allowed to be shipped from Finland—whether such vessels and cargoes will be allowed to be brought here without detention by the Fleet or Government."
  The reply they received was that the Lords of the Council, having considered their application, had sent them copies of the Orders in Council, notifications of blockades, and Her Majesty's Proclamation of war, and had to acquaint them that they must be guided by the opinion of their legal adviser. This was all the information and assistance they were able to obtain from the Government of their own country. It was well known that Uleaborg was shut up by ice during a great part of the year; so that even if the Proclamation of war had been known then it would have been impossible to take out a cargo within the time specified. Archangel, Odessa, and other ports were more favoured than Uleaborg, for there cargoes were allowed to be removed till September, while the destruction of property at Uleaborg took place as early as June. It was a great misapprehension to suppose that gunboats or contraband of war lay at Uleaborg. There
  1852
  was nothing of the kind. There were the declarations of the merchants of the place, which they were desirous of verifying before a commission, that the supposition was totally unfounded. Had there been either gunboats or contraband of war, he would admit that they might have been very properly destroyed; but that would have been no justification for destroying timber belonging to British subjects, and adapted only for domestic uses. Supposing, as he believed was the case, there were no gunboats at the place, nor anything contraband of war, then there was the additional circumstance that Uleaborg was a completely defenceless place. In order to justify the proceedings of the Admiral it must be shown that the property destroyed was either the property of the Emperor of Russia or contraband of war. The international law upon the subject was clearly laid down by all the most eminent authorities, as he would prove by quotations from their works. He had of course the highest respect for the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, and should not for a moment presume to set up his opinion in opposition to theirs; but when, on such a question as that under discussion, he found the law officers of the Crown on the one side, and all the great writers on international law, including Grotius, Vattel, Heineccius, and Wildman on the other, he had no difficulty as to the conclusion at which, as a lawyer, he ought, to arrive.
  Vattel laid down the rule as follows;—
  "All damage done to the enemy unnecessarily, every act of hostility which does not tend to procure victory and bring the war to a conclusion, is a licentiousness condemned by the law of nature." —VATTEL, Book 3, chap. ix., sec. 171.
  Wildman, a great authority on such subjects, and whose valuable work on International Law was by far the best treatise on that subject which had appeared in modern days, said:—
  "By the usage of nations, whether derived from civil or from international law, certain persons and property in the offending state are exempt from reprisals: for example, the property of persons whose residence is merely transitory. The same exemption attaches to property which is under the protection of the public faith."
  The Emperor of Russia had certainly recognized that exemption, for the property of British subjects at Uleaborg had not been injured by his acts or those of his subjects. Vattel added,
  "And with respect to things, the case is the same as with respct to persons:—things belonging to the enemy continue such wherever they are. But we are not else to conclude, any more than in

  1853
  the case of persons, that we everywhere possess a right to treat those things as things belonging to the enemy. Since it is not the place where a thing is, but the character of the person to whom it belongs—things belonging to neutral persons, which happen to be in an enemy's country, or on board an enemy's ships—are to be distinguished from those which belong to the enemy. But it is the owner's business to adduce evident proof that they are his property; for, in default of such proof, a thing is naturally presumed to belong to the nation in whose possession it is found."— VATTEL, chap. 5, sec. 73.
  In the case which he (Mr. Adams) mentioned, the agent of the owners had offered to prove the ownership of the property, but in vain. Grotius, too, took the same view of the rights of innocent parties. He said,
  "This is also plain, that before the right of war can entitle us to anything taken, it is requisite that our enemy had first the true propriety of it; for what things may be within the enemy's towns, or other places whereof he is master, the owners thereof being neither subjects to our enemy, nor animated with the same spirit as he against us, cannot be acquired by the right of war. Indeed, there is no reason that authorises us to take the goods of those who are not of our enemy's party, under the pretence that they are found in his country."—GROTIUS, Book 3, chap. 6, sec. 5.
  And altogether the opinions of the writers upon the law of nations were strongly in favour of those who now asked for an opportunity of proving their statements. He ventured to think that in this case the parties who were asking for satisfaction at the hands of the Crown and the Government had made out a case as far as a statement could go, and if they had not supported that statement by evidence, it was no fault of theirs, because no tribunal had been offered to them for the purpose.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was extremely sorry that he was unable to fulfil the expectation which the lion. Member said he entertained of the support of the Government to the Motion. Without occupying the House for any length of time, he hoped he should be able to show that there were two sides of the question. He admitted the perfect fairness with which the hon. Member opposite and the hon. and learned Member behind him had stated the case, and he hoped that the House would agree that the Government had met the question with equal fairness. The hon. Gentleman had complained of delay, but he hoped that the hon. Gentleman was aware that the delay was not the fault of the Government. He thought the hon. Gentleman would admit that the Government might fairly rest its opposition to the claims of these merchants for compensation
  1854
  on the fact that within the last two years no less than four applications had been made to the Government on the subject—two to the Treasury, two to the Admiralty, and, he believed, one also to the Foreign Office. In all these cases the answer was, that the property destroyed was property open to destruction by the law of war, being found in an enemy's country, and that consequently no claim for compensation could exist. Government might have rested their opposition upon their answer; but, looking to the interests involved in the question, they desired to meet the case as fairly as possible. They had accordingly referred the question to the law officers of the Crown, and it was his duty to inform the House that they had given a decided opinion against the claim of these parties. As to the facts of the case there was no dispute. On the 1st of June, 1854, Admiral Plumridge sailed up the Gulf of Bothnia, and sent boats on shore at Uleaborg, and destroyed by fire a large quantity of pitch, tar, timber of various kinds, and other articles used for the purposes of ship building. The merchants represented by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Adams), said this was British property, that it ought not to have been destroyed, and therefore that they had a claim on the British Parliament for compensation. The first ground on which they rested their claim was, that this property was altogether of a private nature, and therefore ought to have been respected. Ms (Sir J. Pakington's) answer was, that the property was not of a private nature; that, on the contrary, it was property contraband of war; and he joined issue with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Adams) and would tell him that the quotations he had read to the House did not apply to the case under consideration. His hon. and learned Friend used the expression that this was property solely used for domestic purposes. The description given of the timber in question proved that it was fit for domestic purposes, no doubt, but fit also for the planking and decking of vessels. Admiral Plumridge stated, that three-inch deals were most applicable for the decks and bulwarks of gun-boats. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted Vattel; and he (Sir J. Pakington) would appeal to the same authority, and would tell him that Vattel included timber and naval stores among the articles which were particularly useful fur purposes of war, and therefore were liable to be seized as contraband of war. Having shown what the

  1855
  law of nations was as adopted in England, he would now show what the law of nations was as adopted in France. By a treaty of commerce concluded between Denmark and France in 1842, pitch and tar were also declared to be contraband, together with resin, sailcloth, hemp, cordage, masts, and timber. According to Wheaton's work on the Elements of International Law—according to Kent, whose authority was adopted in America—the same proposition was distinctly laid down; and it was also declared that in a naval war, ships and materials for ships, became contraband. Nobody would deny that the materials destroyed were materials for ships. With regard to the gunboats, it seemed to be disputed that there were any; but, according to Admiral Plumridge, it appeared that the timber was available for building the next batch of gunboats; that twelve gunboats had been built at Uleaborg, and that they were built of materials precisely similar in character to the material that was destroyed. Not only did he (Sir J. Pakington) find among the papers at the Foreign Office that gunboats were built, but lie also found, from a letter from Mr. Grey, our chargé d'affaires at Stockholm, what had become of them. Mr. Grey, in a letter to Admiral Plumridge, stated that he had received intelligence from a source on which they could rely that twelve gunboats were launched at Uleaborg in May, shortly before the approach of Her Majesty's squadron. They were afterwards removed inland up the river, and sunk in shallow water for concealment. They were then got up again and fully armed; so that at the very time that Admiral Plumridge approached Uleaborg and destroyed this timber, these very gunboats were sunk in the river for the purposes of concealment; they were then raised again and fully armed for the purpose of carrying on war with England. This, he trusted, would dispel the idea that this timber was not fit for the construction of vessels of war, and was not in any sense contraband of war. Then came the question was there anything in the language of Admiral Plumridge to make an exception to the rule, and to render it improper on his part to destroy these materials. Now, the Royal Proclamation, it appeared to him, justified what Admiral Plumridge did. Stress had been laid on the words not to molest private persons, or the property of private persons, but only the property of the Emperor of Russia. A depu-
  1856
  tation of the inhabitants of Uleaborg came out to the Admiral, and in reply to the appeal made to him that this property might be spared, told them that it was his intention to destroy all articles that by the law of nations were contraband of war. Again, it was said that the Admiral ought to have respected the property as being that of English merchants; but he (Sir J. Pakington) maintained that the Admiral had no proof whatever of that, and the passage quoted from Vattel on that subject told equally well in favour of the other view of the question. What proof had Admiral Plumridge that it was the property of English merchants? There was no representative of their firms at Uleaborg. [Mr. CRAWFORD: Mathiesen and Ritter had an agent on the spot.] That was not stated. They never made that known to Her Majesty's Government. It did not appear in the papers; it only appeared that a deputation came out and said so and so, and Admiral Plumridge had a right to assume it was an artifice. There was a mass of property there, all of which was contraband of war, and it was impossible to draw a distinction between property on one side of the yard belonging to English merchants, and property on the other side that did not. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown distinctly stated that this property was strictly contraband of war, and thus completely destroyed the case sought to be set up by the memorialists; and however sorry Her Majesty's Government might be for the loss these gentlemen had sustained, and however reluctant they might be to resist the Motion, he could not see that either on the ground of the law of nations, or upon the just view of the case, Her Majesty's Government could come to the conclusion that these gentlemen had either a legal or equitable claim upon Parliament in the shape of compensation for the loss they had sustained.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had made many inquiries into the subject, but had never heard that the twelve gunboats were built in May, 1854, sunk in the ice, and afterwards fished up and used in the war by the Russians. He did not believe this story; on the contrary, he fancied there had been a great mistake in the matter; for he could not conceive it possible that a British subject living in Russia would be guilty of such a fabrication. Nor did he think that if it had been true these British

  1857
  merchants would have denied it. He did not wish to say a word on the subject of international law, or to contend that these gentlemen had a legal claim; but he thought they had a strong moral claim. When we made war with Russia we proclaimed that Englishmen and neutrals should be at liberty to remove their goods and merchandise from any of the Baltic ports at the opening of the ice. The 15th of May was fixed as the day on which ships could leave the ports of the Baltic. That date was fixed because it was supposed that at that time the ice would have broken up. As it turned out that was too early a date—the ice at Uleaborg did not break up so early: and that was the sole reason why this property was not removed. If Admiral Plumridge had destroyed property at Uleaborg a day or two earlier than the 15th of May, the British Government must have made good the loss. Why, then, should they not make compensation when the merchants of Uleaborg, were unable to remove their goods by reason of the ice not breaking up so soon as was expected? Moreover, the merchants in the White Sea had their property protected as late as August and September, and why should not the same indulgence have been given to merchants at Uleaborg? He contended that this was a pure question of equity, and that it was in the last degree unfair too meet the case by old musty pleas based upon international law. The whole course of proceedings in this matter showed that the property of Russian subjects had been more respected than that of Englishmen. Had the British merchants of Uleaborg known that Admiral Plumridge was coming to destroy their property, they would either have removed it themselves, or placed it under the care of the Russian Government, who could have protected it. It was singular that property placed under the protection of the Russian Government had been reclaimed and recovered at the conclusion of the war; and thus the only enemies from whom the British merchants suffered were their own countrymen. He did not wish to find fault with Admiral Plumridge or Sir Charles Napier; but those officers were like other men, not infallible, and were therefore liable, like other persons, to make mistakes. The whole thing, in fact, was a mistake, and as he believed the property of these British merchants had been destroyed in mistake, he considered the owners were entitled to compensation. He should therefore give
  1858
  his cordial assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for London.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he did not intend to enter into the question whether or not the Government ought to give reparation to these merchants; but he maintained that Admiral Plumridge, having received from Mr. Grey, Her Majesty's Minister at Stockholm, a letter, stating that twelve gunboats had been built at Uleaborg, sunk, and afterwards recovered and fitted out, would not have discharged his duty if he had not taken the step which he did. Until the commencement of the last war he never heard the doctrine that pitch, tar, planking, and timber, were not contraband of war, and no British officer would ever have hesitated to destroy such stores. If you did not do that, how could you distress your enemy and bring him to make peace? If Admiral Plumridge had not destroyed the stores at Uleaborg, he (Sir Charles Napier) would have brought him to a court martial. It was not correct to say that the blockade was declared on the 24th of March. It was declared on the 15th of May; but time was allowed for vessels to escape, and not a single ship was touched till after that period. The British Government was not asked to pay for the property destroyed at Beyrout in the Syrian war, and he did not think that a better claim for compensation could be advanced in the present instance. He denied that any salt fish was destroyed at Uleaborg; Admiral Plumridge touched nothing but what was contraband of war. That was "according to Hoyle." The Admiralty had expressed their entire approval of his conduct, and it was too bad, after the lapse of four or five years, to attempt to question the propriety of his proceedings. Let the present Motion be adopted, and there was no saying what serious charge would be brought against Admiral Dundas for firing shells into Sweaborg. Admiral Plumridge was one of the most gallant officers in the naval service, and the accusation which the hon. Member for London had brought against him was entirely destitute of foundation.
  MR. WEGUELINsaid, that no charge had been brought against Admiral Plumridge. The question at issue turned upon whether the articles destroyed at Uleaborg were contraband of war. That was a fair subject for inquiry, and the hon. Member for London asked no more than that a Commission should be issued to investigate the whole ease. It had been said that the

  1859
  property destroyed consisted of timber and scantling which might be employed in the construction of vessels of war. That was denied in the most emphatic manner, and, for his own part, he did not believe—he suspected that the Government themselves did not believe—that any portion of the property in question was intended for warlike purposes. With reference to what had been said about gunboats, he was convinced that no gunboats had ever been built at Uleaborg. A fairer claim for compensation had never been made out; and, considering that there were plenty of precedents for the course suggested by the hon. Member for London—as, for example, in the case of the bombardment of Copenhagen, as well as in that of Antwerp, when the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), who was then Foreign Secretary, and afterwards the Earl of Aberdeen, pressed the claim on the Dutch Government, and after fourteen or fifteen years obtained the compensation required—he trusted that the Motion would be agreed to. He thought that fair ground had been made out for the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into the circumstances of the case.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must contend that the various grounds on which the claim for compensation had been sought to be founded entirely failed, Messrs. Mathiesen never made a claim until April, 1856; the first trace of an application from Messrs. Lewin was in November, 1856, and no application was made from Messrs. Dresser until June in the present year, being four years after the transactions took place. Would it be right, then, or convenient, to entertain applications on the subject of compensation made so long after the occurrence took place, and at a time when, if inquiry were granted it would be impossible satisfactorily to arrive at the truth. The Proclamation stated that any Russian vessel which, prior to the 15th May, 1854, sailed from any port of Russia, situated either in or upon the shores or coast of the Black Sea or of the White Sea, bound for any port or place in Her Majesty's dominions, should be permitted to enter such port and dischargo her cargo. That was a great relaxation of the rules of war; and as these applicants did not come within the terms of the Proclamation, they had no right to appeal to Parliament for compensation, The words used by Admiral Plumridge to the deputation of Finland merchants, who told him that the mer-
  1860
  chandise in the port was private property, and in great measure belonged to English merchants, had been referred to. Now, all that Admiral Plumridge said was that his instructions were to spare private property, but to destroy all materials of war, and, if British merchants suffered from it, they would have to ask their Government for compensation. Admiral Plumridge did not say they would get it, but that, if they wanted compensation, they must apply to the Government. Yet these Gentlemen remained quiescent for two and four years, and now the difficulty must be intense to trace out the real facts of the case. He did not impute any design to them, but it was incumbent on them to apply at the earliest moment, when the matter could have been properly investigated, and it was not competent for them to make these allegations now, when the matter could not be properly inquired into. The Admiralty considered the claim in 1856, and refused to entertain it. The Treasury afterwards was obliged to refuse it, and then the parties applied to Lord Clarendon, who, acting upon the advice of the Queen's advocate, also refused tire application. Another point was whether the articles destroyed were contraband of war or not, but he thought after the discussion which had taken place that point must be abandoned by the advocates of the Motion; for there could be no doubt that they were contraband of war, and were not entitled to protection under the head of private property. He believed the Government were in every respect in the right, and he trusted the House would adhere to the determination come to, after grave deliberation, by the late Government.
  MR. CLAYsaid, the delay in bringing forward these claims was in great measure attributable to him; the subject having been brought under his notice early in 1855, but he advised that the claim should not be pressed until the war was over; first on account of the difficulty of obtaining evidence on the spot, and, secondly, because whilst the war continued there would be an unwillingness to do anything to damp the ardour of the naval officers. It was for the House to judge bow far his advice was correct, but he hoped the claimants would not be prejudiced by having followed it. He contended that there was no necessity whatever for Admiral Plumridge to have been so precipitate in destroying this property. He insisted that it was private property, and that it was impossible that it

  1861
  could have been used for the construction of gunboats. He thought Mr. Grey had been deceived by a cock-and-bull story.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that the Solicitor General had stated that a strong circumstance against listening to this claim was that it was not made till 1856; but he had a long correspondence in his hand asking for compensation, beginning in June, 1854, one month after the destruction of the articles. That correspondence continued during the whole of 1854, and the gentlemen with whom it originated were requested to state the particulars of their claims in order that they might be submitted to the Government. This correspondence disposed of the argument against this claim, founded on the alleged delay which had occurred in bringing it forward. The claimants were British merchants who were carrying on their lawful calling when they suddenly found that their Government had declared war against the country with which they were conducting their transactions. Under those circumstances they were surely entitled to every protection from their Government. It was admitted that on Admiral Plumridge going to Uleaborg the representatives of the merchants came out and assured him that there was nothing but private property there which was not contraband of war, and that they also claimed his protection for this property. No doubt that gallant Admiral had done nothing but his duty; but as the parties were perfectly innocent, and their property had been destroyed for the public good, compensation could not now in fairness be refused to them. He could hardly believe that the Solicitor General was in earnest in laying down the extraordinary proposition that if they conceded this demand on the part of British subjects they must be prepared to act on the same principle towards the subjects of Russia and every other foreign Power. To that proposition of his hon. and learned Friend lie could not at all assent—there was a broad distinction between enemy's property and English property which had been destroyed for the benefit of England. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to consider whether, following the example of the late Administration, they had not taken too strict and technical a view of this subject? The question was whether, on the broad principle of justice which the British Government was bound to act upon with reference to its subjects, the memorialists had not a clear and intelligible claim to ample com-
  1862
  pensation for the destruction of their property.
  MR. PRICEassured the First Lord of the Admiralty that the timber in respect of which compensation was claimed could not be regarded by any practical man as ship-building timber. It was, in fact, essentially house building timber, and was scarcely ever used for ship-building. At the time of the war representations were made to the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, and to Lord Clarendon, in consequence of which instructions were sent out to the naval commanders to protect British property at Riga, St. Petersburgh, Cronstadt, and other ports, and not a particle of British property was destroyed at any of those places; and as, by some misconception on the part of Admiral Plumridge, the property of British subjects had been destroyed at Uleaborg, he thought the Government ought to regard themselves as responsible for the acts of their officers. In his opinion this was a case in which the memorialists were fairly entitled to compensation, and he appealed to Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision, and to grant a Committee.
  MR. CRAWFORD,in reply, with reference to an observation of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier), denied that he had used any language which could be construed as imputing to Admiral Plumridge that he had conducted himself in a brutal manner.
  Question put.
  The House divided—Ayes 65; Noes 105: Majority 40.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that if the present system of appropriating without the sanction of Parliament the balances of Votes for particular objects to totally different purposes were pursued, the power of the House over the distribution of the public income would be frittered away. No less that £516,000 of the £4,977,000 granted by the House for the transport of troops to the Crimea had been added, without the sanction of Parliament, to the Vote of £3,900,000 for naval stores for the year 1856–7. With the view of a remedy, he suggested that a clause should be inserted in this Bill requiring a supplementary Estitimate to be laid before Parliament of the

  1863
  mode in which the Government intended to appropriate the balances, or within one month after its meeting, if Parliament were not then sitting.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped to be able to show the hon. Baronet, when the Bill went into Committee, that there was nothing unconstitutional in the present practice, and that there had been no abuse of the powers intrusted to the Government.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday at Twelve o'clock.

CHELSEA BRIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Third Reading read, and discharged.
  Order for re-committal read.
  House in Committee.
  MAJOR SIBTHORP MAJOR SIBTHORP moved, that the bridge should be free to foot passengers on Easter Monday and Whit Monday, as well as on Sundays.
  MR. INGHAM MR. INGHAM moved, that Christmas Day should also be a toll-free day.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that he bad no objection, although he was not aware that Christmas Day was much devoted to out-of-door amusement.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, considered, read 3o, and passed.

JEWS' BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of the Bill.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. NEWDEGATE MR. NEWDEGATE moved the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that there had been an understanding that the Bill would not be brought on at so late an hour, owing to which many Members had gone away.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he should be glad to postpone the third reading, if it were put down first on the Orders for to-morrow.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the first Order for to-morrow was the Freedom from Arrest Bill, and, as there were great objections to the Bill, and it had very little chance of passing this Session, probably the hon. Member
  1864
  for Northamptonshire might be induced to withdraw it, when the Jews Bill might be taken first.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLdid not think it at all likely that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire would withdraw his Bill.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 86: Majority 48.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  COLONEL NORTH COLONEL NORTH moved the adjournment of the House.
  MR. WARRENagain appealed to the noble Lord the Member for London to postpone the Bill.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he saw no reason why the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst should not, if he were anxious to do so, proceed to address the House. Though the hour was late (a quarter to two o'clock), hon. Members must be prepared to submit, at the present period of the Session, to the inconvenience of sitting somewhat beyond the usual hour.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he saw no reason why the House should not at once be favoured with the additional enlightenment which the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst might be prepared to throw upon the question.
  MR. SPOONERprotested against proceeding with the Bill, on the ground that many hon. Members had left the House under the belief that the third reading would not be pressed forward at so late an hour.
  MR. WALPOLEdid not think that much was to be gained by persevering in such Motions as that for the adjournment of the debate and of the House. For his own part he could not vote for the Motion for the adjournment of the House, as he was anxious that the other Orders on the paper should be proceeded with.
  MR. NEWDEGATEcontended that it was unfair to press on the Bill under the circumstances.
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 99: Majority 77.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. W. N. HODGSON MR. W. N. HODGSON moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought, that as there was a large number of hon.

  1865
  Members who were opposed to the Bill, and as there was no absolute necessity for proceeding with it at once, it would be but doing an act of courtesy to afford those hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinions with respect to the measure.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL, not wishing to inconvenience the House, consented to postpone the Bill until this day, although the sense of the House had been shown by the last division.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Railway Cheap Trains, &c.; Inclosure of Lands; Legitimacy Declaration; Sheep, &c., Contagious Diseases Prevention; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Public Health; Vaccination (Ireland); County Property Conveyance.
2a Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Indemnity; Administration of Oaths by Committees; Army Service.
3a Copyright of Designs; Militia Ballots Suspension.

SALE AND TRANSFER OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that before the House went into Committee, he
1774
wished to address a few words to their Lordships. As they were all aware, this Court was originally established at a time when Ireland was in great distress, and that that country had experienced the greatest benefit from a tribunal which had enabled the owners of incumbered estates to give such a title as rendered them marketable. It was now by this Bill proposed to extend the powers of the Court to estates that were not incumbered. He protested against the establishment of any such principle. But whether it were right that the State should enable a vendor to give an unimpeachable title to a purchaser or not, certainly a court of this kind ought to maintain itself, for it was not a court for the administration of justice, but whose object was to furnish good titles to land. He wished to ask, whether under the present Bill it was proposed that the Judges should themselves investigate the titles, whereby, as regarded the professional investigation of titles, the whole bar of Ireland would be thrown over, or that they should merely superintend the matter, and that a conveyancer should be resorted to, to say whether there was a good title or not? By the present Bill, a person was empowered to go into Court and demand that his title should be investigated. Such a system was very different from the principle of the laws of England and of Ireland—a great object of both laws being to take care that a man's estate should not be taken away from him behind his back. When he, for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of land, asked their Lordships this Session to shorten the period of limitation with regard to titles generally to thirty years, they were perfectly shocked at the proposal to bar all adverse claims to an estate on the expiration of so short a period. But what would become of the existing salutary limitation when this Bill passed? The statute that gave that limitation would become mere waste paper, and might be thrown into the fire. Under this Bill a man would go to the Court and ask for a title. He would pay the duty, and obtain a certificate which gave him a good title; but having got it, instead of selling, he kept the estate. Some time afterwards a claimant turned up whose title was clear and unquestionable beyond all doubt. If this Bill became law, however, his claim would be barred in five minutes, for the other person would produce his certificate, which would be a good title as against all comers. He must say, that such a provision would revolutionize

1775
the whole law of property, and, although he had no doubt that the Bill would pass, he solemnly protested against the interference with private rights which it would sanction, without the slightest necessity being shown for the measure. He much regretted that Ireland was always made the subject of exceptional legislation. The same laws which obtained in this country with respect to property ought, in his opinion, to prevail in Ireland also; for so long as the practice of exempting Ireland from general legislation was persisted in, so long would she continue to stand in an isolated position with regard to the laws of property, which if they were good for England were, as a general rule, good for Ireland also. Objecting, as he did, most conscientiously to this measure, and regarding it as a mischievous attempt to subvert all the rights of property, he should take no part in any endeavour to improve it in Committee, but should content himself with this simple protest against the further progress of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was sorry he had not been fortunate enough to hear all that had fallen from his noble and learned Friend, inasmuch as on a subject of this kind his noble and learned Friend's advice would be invaluable. He would, however, take this opportunity of explaining to their Lordships the nature of the Bill. It might be described generally as a Bill to facilitate the transfer of land, and to simplify the title to land in Ireland. For many years past there had existed the greatest desire to discover some plan by which land might be transferred without the necessity of going through the long and tedious process of reinvestigating the title from a very early period—some mode by which "a Parliamentary title," as it was termed, might be conferred upon the purchaser, which might serve as a kind of terminus from which only it would be necessary to proceed in any future investigation of the title. Various schemes had been devised for this purpose; but ultimately a state of things arose which made it imperative that some proposal should be brought into practical operation. In the year 1849 a large amount of land in Ireland bad become so deeply incumbered that it was quite impossible for the owners to deal with it at all, or to perform those duties which ought to be discharged by the owners of property. In this state of things the Legislature took a bold and decided step, and they passed a Bill establishing a Court for
1776
the sale of Incumbered estates. It was apprehended that by forcing on the market a great quantity of land the value of land would be depreciated, and in order to counteract that and to hold out a bounty to purchasers, a Parliamentary title was conferred upon the purchaser, beyond which it would be unnecessary to go in dealing with the property at any future time. The wisdom of the measure was proved by experience, for it was found that, in consequence of the Parliamentary title that was obtained, four years' additional value on the average was obtained for the land sold under the Act. Property to the amount of millions had passed through the Court, and he believed that only one complaint had been made of any improper dealings with the title, or of any acts prejudicial to the rightful owner. In many instances the owners of unincumbered estates created incumbrances in order to obtain a sale through the medium of the Court. The working of the Court had been subjected to the ordeal of a Royal Commission and of a Select Committee of the other House, both of whom recommended that its powers should be extended, and that instead of dealing with incumbered estates only, it should have the like power of dealing with unincumbered property, and giving a Parliamentary title. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) acting upon the recommendation of the Committee of the House of Commons, introduced a measure during the present Session, which received the sanction of their Lordship' House, and was sent down to the House of Commons. The object of that Bill was the same as the present — there was a difference only in the machinery — his noble and learned Friend proposing to give the business to the Court of Chancery while the present Bill proposed to establish a new court on the model of the Incumbered Estates Court to deal with the subject. Their Lordship might be said to have given their sanction to the principle of the measure — the giving a Parliamentary title to the sale of unincumbered estates, and therefore he anticipated the support of his noble and learned Friend to this Bill. There was a portion of the Bill, however, which went further than the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, as to which it would be necessary for him to say a few words. An inquiry was instituted in the year 1857 into the question of registration of title. The Commissioners who reported on this question recommended that there should

1777
be established a judicial investigation of title, giving to the owners of unincumbered estates the same advantages as were possessed by the owners of incumbered estates. This would complete the measure and put both the two classes of owners on the same footing; for, as he had already stated, the advantages of a Parliamentary title were equivalent to four years' purchase; unless a similar provision were made the owners of unincumbered estates would be under this disadvantage, that if they wished to sell their land they went into the market with their estate depreciated in value as compared with the owners of incumbered property. Ireland possessed very great advantages and facilities for the investigation of titles, which were not possessed to the same extent by this country. There were Registration Acts in Ireland, under which every deed must be registered, whether it were of a sale, a transfer, or an incumbrance. These registers enabled any one to see what was the course of the title. But it might be said, perhaps, that a fraudulent owner might obtain an unjust judicial decision in his own favour, by concealing a deed which would be evidence against the party entering into such investigation, but against no one else. Fraud would continue, if possible, to evade or overcome every contrivance that the wit of man could devise; but there would certainly be this security, that however easily perpetrated in the case of a private sale, there was less danger of it in the case of the publicity which attended the proceedings of this Court, where there must be notices, advertisements, and every precaution which human ingenuity could devise against its perpetration. He asked why should this advantage be given to a purchaser and not to proprietors of land? It might be said what would prevent an owner of land from making a sale to a trustee in order to obtain the value of a Parliamentary title. But why should the owner of land be put to this circuitous mode of obtaining this advantage? What danger could there be in allowing a judicial investigation of unincumbered estates of the same description as that which had taken place with regard to incumbered estates? He understood his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), the whole of whose argument he (the Lord Chancellor) was unfortunately unable to hear where he sat, to object altogether to that part of the Bill which related to unincumbered estates,
1778
and, as he presumed, to that which related to a judicial title. He understood his noble and learned Friend also to object to the arrangement which had been proposed for defraying the expenses of the Court; but it must be remembered that the calculations upon which it was hoped the Court would be self-supporting were founded upon this part of the business of the Court; and if this class of business were removed from the proceedings that source of emolument must fail. The only objections, as far as he understood, were on the 51st clause of the Bill—a clause which had been inserted on the recommendation of the Commission, and which appeared to him to be a necessary completion and complement to the measure he was then proposing to their Lordships. He had considered the measure very carefully since he had learned the nature of his noble and learned Friend's objections, and he felt perfectly satisfied that it was a measure which it was very desirable for their Lordships to adopt, and therefore he should take his stand upon the clause which he supposed would be the battle-field between his noble and learned Friend and himself.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he believed it to be unnecessary to assure their Lordships that the Bill with some Amendments would have his most cordial support, since it was substantially the same in principle as the measure which he had the honour to lay before their Lordships early in the present Session, and which passed their House by a majority of one. No doubt there were objections in theory to the original constitution of the Incumbered Estates Court. It might be said that in selling an estate under the supervision of a tribunal they were running the risk of overlooking the right of some one not in possession, who, when the estate was sold and the money paid away, might be deprived of the rights which the law ought to have protected. This was the objection in theory to an Incumbered Estates Act, but it was entitled to very little weight. The fact was that a great deal of land in Ireland was held under such enormous and complicated incumbrances that the owners never had the means of performing the duties of proprietors. After the Incumbered Estates Act had been in operation with the most beneficial results, it was found that estates with a Parliamentary title sold for so much more than others, that the more prudent

1779
portion of the landed proprietors of Ireland, who had managed their estates well, had to sell them at a disadvantage, because they could not give a Parliamentary title. This state of things was pressed upon him in the first year of his acceptance of the Great Seal, and with the consent of his colleagues he issued a Royal Commission. The late Lord Chancellor of Ireland was at its head, and amongst its members were Lord Justice Blackburne, Chief Justice Monaghan, the Master of the Rolls for England, Sir Richard Bethell, the present Solicitor General, and Mr. Commissioner Longfield. They found that in principle there was no season why unincumbered estates should not be as safely sold with a Parliamentary title as incumbered estates. They therefore recommended that the distinction between them should cease, and that the tribunal should have the same power of giving an unimpeachable title to incumbered and unincumbered estates. The only question was as to the machinery by which the recommendations of the Commissioners should be carried out. For his own part, he preferred the machinery of the Court of Chancery, and thought that if they constituted a new Vice Chancellor's Court for this class of cases it would act with all the weight of the Court of Chancery, and do away with the necessity for the reference to that Court which now existed; and this proposal of his was strictly in accordance with the views of the Commissioners. When, however, he looked to the provisions of the 51st clause, he must say he considered the measure was so far one of unmixed mischief. He could scarcely hope to change the opinion of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), but he felt bound to express his opinion. The proposed power of giving an owner a right to apply for a declaration that his title was indefeasible, could have no other effect than to defeat the rights of third parties; for what honest purpose could a man who intended to retain possession of his estate ask any tribunal to say that he had a title which nobody could touch? Whenever he wanted to sell, the Court, would have power to give a Parliamentary title to purchasers, and that was all that was required to make his land fetch its highest value in the market. If he intended to retain the possession, his only object in asking for a declaration of title must be to defeat dormant rights. In the Bill which he (Lord Cranworth) had introduced, he proposed that the money
1780
should be distributed by the Court; and if any portion of it was paid over in fraud of a third person, the party receiving it should be held to be a trustee for the person rightfully entitled. He believed the new power given by the 51st clause wag calculated to produce evil without any corresponding advantage, and so that it was calculated to damage the Bill and affect its popularity. That was, however, the only portion of the measure to the principle of which he objected, although he disapproved of some minor details. He should, of course, not object to going into Committee, but he feared there would be little use in his dividing against the 51st clause.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, it appeared to him that this Bill differed very materially from the Incumbered Estates Act, inasmuch as that Act only gave power to sell one particular kind of estate; but this Bill enabled proprietors to dispose of unincumbered estates, and also enabled them to do so without having any intention of selling, but for the purpose of obtaining a Parliamentary title. The Bill went beyond the Incumbered Estates Act, and, so far, he disapproved of it. There was to be a charge of £1 per cent payable to the Court on the value of an estate before a Parliamentary title could be obtained, and he asked how was that value to be ascertained, as the value of land varied in Ireland from five to ten years' additional purchase according to the county in which it was situate. He confessed he thought it would be far better to leave the 51st clause out altogether.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, he did not think a landed proprietor, animated by the natural desire to hold that which he was justly and legally entitled to, could be fairly chargeable with the design of injuring the right of any other person by going to the Court for a Parliamentary title under the provisions of this Bill. In another view of the case, it was important that facilities should be given to persons in possession for raising money for the improvement of their estates; but, as the law now stood, parties declined to come forward and lend money for that purpose in cases where the title was in the least disputable. He had formerly been opposed to the facilities being increased for the transfer of land from hand to hand; but he had of late years witnessed so much of the good effects arising from estates in the west of Ireland

1781
changing hands that his opinions in that respect had been considerably modified. Where such changes had taken place they had generally been from hands which were utterly incapable of improving the land to those under which it had become fertile, and now afforded an example of the progress of agriculture in Ireland. He was happy to hear that the general tenor of the Bill had been approved by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cranworth), and he looked forward to the great advantages which would result from its passing into a law.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clauses 1 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51.
On Question, whether the said clause shall stand part of the Bill?
The Committee divided:—Contents 29; Not-Contents 10: Majority 19.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Clauses 52 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved an Amendment, relative to the appointment of rent over the land, or charging the whole or any part thereof; and making such appointment binding on the Crown and every corporation or person.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89, which empowered the Lords of the Treasury to invest from time to time unproductive cash, being the proceeds of sales lodged in the Bank of Ireland under the provisions of the Act.
LORD MONTEAGLEinquired why this power should be voted in the Lords of the Treasury, instead of being exercised by the heads of the Court in the same way as similar funds were dealt with in other cases?
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that in the first instance all the expenses of the Act were charged upon the Consolidated Fund; but, on the other hand, all the receipts arising out of the Act were to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund in diminution of the original outlay. The unproductive balances lying in the Bank of Ireland were sometimes very large, amounting occasionally to as much as £1,000,000, and it was the duty of the Treasury, as the guardians of the Consolidated Fund, to see that those balances should be properly invested.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that it was probably too much to expect that this Bill would please everybody; but almost all the leading medical corporate bodies in the kingdom were, with very little difference, agreed in its favour, with the exception, he was sorry to say, of the College of Physicians. The state of things which it was the intention of the Bill to remedy was very anomalous. They had a variety of medical interests existing throughout the country, each, mutatis mutandis, with a separate and distinct jurisdiction. The College of Physicians claimed an exclusive privilege seven miles round London, and the College of Surgeons and Apothecaries' Hall claimed similar privileges with regard to conferring power on practitioners; and they existed together with similar institutions in Scotland and Ireland without any reciprocity whatever. The most eminent Scotch physician had no right to practise in London; the most eminent physician had no right to practise in Scotland, and the same question arose regarding Irish practitioners. The Bill before their Lordships would tend to remove those complications and anomalies that had grown up in the course of centuries. The Bill was no destructive Bill, because, while it remedied existing anomalies and evils, it kept alive the twenty-two corporate bodies that now existed in this country. Its further object was to improve the position of the medical profession, to infuse fresh life into these institutions, and to preserve them in their efficiency, besides instituting a complete reciprocity between them. To effect this it proposed to establish one General Council of Supervision for the kingdom, with branch Councils and Subordinate Committees. The Council would have the power of investigating and determining as to the standard of examination. The Council would have the controlling and regulating power over the working of the system, and there would be a virtual power of suspension by appeal to the Privy Council. The Bill contained an important provision relative to the much-desired power of registration, for which at present there was no

  1783
  official means of reference. The Bill, he thought, would be productive of great benefit both to the medical profession and to the public.
  LORD EBURYsaid, the ostensible object of the Bill was to remedy the anomalies that at present existed in the medical profession of this country; but the real effect of it would be to secure a monopoly to these various associations. The only petitions in favour of the Bill had come from the medical bodies themselves, and not from the qualified practitioners. It was, in point of fact, a doctors' Bill. He should object to clauses in Committee. What, he would ask, was the state of the practice of medicine in this country? They were going by this Bill to confer a monopoly in the practice of medicine in this country upon persons who themselves said that they had no confidence whatever in that practice. What said Dr. Bailey just before he died—"He feared that he had done more harm than good." What said Dr. Chalmers in his funeral oration over Dr. Williams? Why, that he had no confidence in medicine. What said Dr. Forbes? Why, that the present practice of medicine was so entirely unsatisfactory that he hoped some new school would be set on foot. In the Bill before the House they were going to confer a monopoly of the medical practice of this country on a set of men who declared they had no confidence in the system.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Amendment moved, and negatived.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

  AMENDMENTS REPORTED.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH moved, that the word "alone" should be inserted in the second clause after the words "government of India," so that it should be made evident that the expenses of the government of India were paid out of the revenues of India alone.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, a proposal had been made in Committee that the Governor General of India ought to have the appointment of his own Council. He had promised to consider the question, and had now to state that, after consultation with those best qualified to judge, he found they
  1784
  were unanimously of opinion that the Governor General should not have the nomination of his own Council. He would, therefore, leave the Bill as it now stood in this respect, and he only mentioned the matter now in order that the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) or any other noble Lord might, if they thought proper to do so, re-open it on the third reading.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH moved, to insert words in Clause 52, empowering the Auditor specially to note in his audit from time to time any case, if any such there should be, in which it might appear to him that any money arising out of the revenues of India had been appropriated to other purposes than those of the government of India.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 66, which provides that all contracts, covenants, liabilities, and engagements of the Company made and incurred before the commencement of this Act, may be enforced by and against the Secretary of State in Council, in like manner as they might have been by and against the Company if the Act had not passed.
  THE EARL OF DERBYproposed to include the word "treaties," which the terms "contracts, covenants, liabilities, and engagements" might not be thought to cover. He took that opportunity of stating, that at the commencement of those discussions, questions bad been raised as to whether the saving clauses introduced into the Bill with regard to the East India Company were sufficient. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) had since stated, that he had examined those clauses and thought they were calculated to secure all the rights and privileges of the Company. He ought, however, to mention that, within the last few days he had had placed in his hands some clauses which had been prepared on behalf of the East India Company, which he proposed to examine, and if he should find that any further provisions were required for the protection of the Company, he should be happy to move their insertion on the third reading of the Bill. But he apprehended, with his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle), that the saving clauses already embodied in the Bill would be found sufficient for the purpose.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.