said: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that it was with very great regret that I placed upon the Notice-book of this House the Motion which I am about to submit to its consideration. I felt that regret, Sir, not because of any events which have occurred since this question was under discussion last year, or because the papers submitted to this House have in any degree diminished the hostility which I at first entertained with respect to these proceedings; but because I had conceived the hope, after the discussion which took place last year, and after the effect which I think was produced by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, and after certain declarations—I may almost say, after hopes held out by Members of the Government on days following that discussion—I had hoped, I say, that this, as I think, fatal measure as regards the prosperity of a portion of the dominions of Great Britain, might have been revoked. Sir, I do not know that even now, feeling, as I do, strongly, the culpability of this transaction, I should have been inclined to waste the time of the House by a Motion merely of condemnation, for I am conscious that the time of this House may be more usefully employed than by occupying itself with long debates on bygone transactions; but I hope and believe that the means are still left of preventing what in my conscience I believe to be a great national disaster. I hope that there is still room for repentance in the Colonial Office as far as regards the abandonment of this magnificent colony; I hope, also, if the course the Government have taken can be proved to have been informal, that the House will be enabled to induce the Government to revoke what it has done, and to adopt a very different and a much more satisfactory course with respect to the colonisation of this island. Sir, before entering upon this discussion, I think I need hardly disclaim any hostility to the Hudson's Bay Company, although it will be my duty on this occasion to comment, perhaps severely, on some of the transactions connected with that company. Many of the directors of that company are my personal friends—for all of those gentlemen I entertain sincere respect; but I think that neither I nor any other Member should be prevented on that account from discharging what may be a very painful duty. Sir, I am not actuated by feelings of hostility to this company, nor do I think that this company alone is unfit for the work of colonisation. I think I may be enabled to prove that this company is more especially unfitted for the office than any other; but at the same time I start with this broad and general axiom, that colonisation by absentee proprietary companies has, as far as the great experience of this country has gone, been a failure, and that those colonies alone have been prosperous which have originated under different auspices and been governed on a different system. Sir, in considering the question of colonisation by absentee proprietary companies, we naturally recur to the foundation of those colonies which now constitute the United States of America. The attention of the public has been drawn to this subject by the interesting work published by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield; and I have no doubt that many Members of this House have not failed to read an equally interesting history of America, by the present Minister of the United States in this country, Mr. Bancroft. Without now discussing the broad axiom of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that all companies are unfit for the work of colonisation, I, at least, start with this proposition, that absentee proprietary companies are totally disqualified. Sir, I think that very erroneous opinions have existed in this House and in the country with respect to the system of colonisation by companies; and even Members of this House have discussed the question, and have proceeded to argue upon it, as if one uniform system had always prevailed in America. Sir, the first of these colonies established was the colony of Virginia, in 1606. It was founded by a company of noblemen, merchants, and gentlemen resident in London; and I think that those acquainted with the subject will admit, that a fairer example—that an experiment more likely to succeed—could hardly be adduced. The gentlemen composing this company were men of high character, wealth, and intelligence, and were possessed of the means of carrying their objects into effect. But let me read a short extract from Mr. Bancroft's History of America , with respect to this colony of Virginia. After detailing what he conceives to be the iniquity of the system of governing these colonies by a company, and after showing the effects of that system through all its branches, he thus sums up his condemnation of it. He says that the influence of a commercial company was so baneful that not even the influence of the King could counteract it. Now, that is the opinion of Mr. Bancroft, himself an ardent republican. Sir, not to weary the House too long with these topics, I may say that this colony of Virginia, in consequence, presented a series of failures; and it was not until after a change in the system that there was improvement. The next instance of an attempt to colonise by means of a company, was the instance of Massachusetts, in 1629. I will not dwell upon the course of events in this colony, as they are almost a copy of the history of the colony of Virginia. Up to the period when the plan entirely failed, different expedients were adopted. Instead, for instance, of the patent being cancelled, it was transferred from London to America—to companies who became the heads of the colony on the spot, and who migrated bodily from London to America. There is another great example, that of the colony of Carolina, established in 1665. Enormous powers were given by this country to the company, but the system failed, and in 1688 the proprietary were dissolved. Then, to take the case of Pennsylvania. That colony was not governed by a company, but by individuals. Penn in himself constituted what I suppose must be called a corporation sole; but the most disastrous effects were suffered so long as he was an absentee. Then, again, there is the colony of New England, administered under a similar system; and I contend, that from these instances, and others that might be adduced from the history of America, it can be shown that these colonies failed, so long as they were administered by companies living in London, and only began to flourish upon their obtaining free institutions, or upon being colonised by parties who resided on the spot. I say that these colonies only began to flourish when, in consequence of the signal failure of the attempt to govern them by companies, the companies were dissolved. Such companies having invariably failed, I think it is fair to say that they are unfit either to rule over or plant colonies; and it stands patent to the House, that if you are to have any superintending power at all—and to some extent you must have such superintendence over your colonies—that power must rest in the Imperial Government, and not be delegated to the instrumentality of any company whatsoever. Of this principle I think I can claim the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies as a strong supporter; for on the occasion of a Motion last year by the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, and on his asking the Government to point out what colonies founded and managed by companies had failed, and in what cases their prosperity had commenced under the benign influence of Downing-street, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies instanced especially the case of South Australia. The hon. Gentleman then pointed out, that under the system of government in that colony—not a government, however, be it remembered, by a commercial company, but by a statutory commission—the greatest financial embarrassment had ensued, and that prosperity only commenced when that statutory commission came to an end, and the Colonial Office resumed control. [Mr. HAWES: When their debts were paid.] Yes, I dare say, when their debts were paid; but, in a speech of the hon. Gentleman's, which made a great impression at the time, he contrasted the difference between a colony governed by the Colonial Office and by a proprietary company or commission; and he proved, or endeavoured to prove, that this payment of debts was the result of the transfer to which I allude. With regard to the New Zealand Company, I am most ready to admit that a great debt of public gratitude is due to that body for saving that important territory to this country; for if it had not come forward in the way that it had, New Zealand might now have belonged to another Power. But all that may he said to that is, that if there had not been a company, the management of the colony ought to have been conducted under a department of the Government friendly to colonisation, which could give such encouragement and assistance to the colony as a Government alone could afford. Although there can he no doubt that, in a case like New Zealand, the proper treatment of the colonists by a company, would, in the end, he most advantageous both to the company and the colonists, yet a body of proprietors does not take that view of their interests; and on the principle that corporations have no conscience, I am afraid they will invariably be found desirous of securing the greatest possible amount of present dividend on their shares. And when we are told that the transfer of Vancouver's Island to the Hudson's Bay Company will effect a great saving of public funds, let us recall to mind the sums given in the shape of grants and loans to the South Australian Company; and the sum of, I think, 138,000 l . given to New Zealand; and I believe that, although some immediate saving to the treasury might be secured with respect to Vancouver's Island, the great probability is that in future years we shall be called on for large sums. To this point, however, I shall have occasion to recur hereafter. I know we may be told that the great burden of the song of many hon. Gentlemen, who have brought forward Motions on colonial subjects, has been the mischievous interference of the Government in the colonies; and it would appear that Lord Grey has on this principle endeavoured to shift the responsibility of the future welfare or misfortune of Vancouver's Island from the Colonial Office to the Hudson's Bay Company. Now we have heard a great deal about the baneful influence of Downing-street; but I am sure that those whose feelings are strongest on this point, will be prepared to admit that, although the influence of Downing-street is bad, when carried to improper limits, yet the benign influence of Fenchurch-street is by far the worst of the two, and is bad ab initio and entirely. If, then, the American chartered companies, and the statutory commission of South Australia, were bad, and the New Zealand Company, to a certain extent, was bad, I believe I shall be able to show that of all the colonising companies, the Hudson's Bay Company is by far the worst. The very principles of the Hudson's Bay Company are not only like those of most other companies—commercial, but monopolists—not only absentee, as many others were, but despotic, and, what is more, not only despotic, but secret. I think that not only their conduct in the territories committed to their care under their charter, but the very question, which, as is well known, has been mooted for some time past, namely, the validity of their charter itself, ought to have formed good ground for hesitation on the question of extending their territorial rights. For if it should eventually be proved, either by the decision of a court of law, or by some other mode of arbitration, that the original charter of Charles II. was invalid, it is obvious we cannot give them any further grants of territory. When I say the charter may be bad, I do not dispute that the Sovereign has the right to give grants of land to whom She may choose; but I will not now enter further into this part of the question, because, although I am obliged to touch briefly on this part of the subject, in order to make my case complete for the Motion with which I shall conclude, yet I will not treat of the validity of the charter so fully as I might have done, had not my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, this very evening, obtained the priority for an early day in July for a Motion on this very question, regarding the validity of the Hudson's Bay Company's charter. But I said that the point in dispute is not the right of the Crown to confer such a grant, but the extent of the land intended to be conferred by the charter; and it is maintained by many learned lawyers and persons competent to form an opinion on the subject, that the Hudson's Bay Company's claim extends over many hundred thousand miles of land never conferred, or intended to be conferred, by their charter at all. And, further, let it be borne in mind that there were claims of grants on this very territory which, I will not say, were ever fully substantiated; but we have it as an undoubted fact, that the Treaty of Utrecht, to a considerable extent, recognises these claims; and if it can be proved that France had a legal claim to these lands at the time of the original grant to the Hudson's Bay Company, clearly what was not in the possession of the grantor cannot be transferred to the grantee. These questions were raised by an opposing company—the North West Company, and by men who are now mem- bers of the Hudson's Bay Company, who, although they now stoutly maintain the validity of the charter, only a few years ago, and before they had joined the company, declared all the rights and privileges of this company invalid; and why were these questions not decided by law at the time, and why were they compromised? I may mention also that the company's right of exclusive trade is under dispute, it being maintained that Parliament alone, and not the Crown, can confer the exclusive rights of trade; and the Hudson's Bay Company itself had given the strongest confirmation to these doubts by its own conduct. In 1790, and the subsequent year, when it came to Parliament for an Act to confirm it in perpetuity in the privileges originally granted by Charles II., this House, on the third reading, limited the grant to ten years; and the House of Lords, after mature deliberation, reduced it further to seven years. At the expiration of the seven years, the company applied for the renewal of their Act; but the feeling in this House, at the time, was such that the company did not persevere with its application; and from 1797 down to the present time, feeling the doubtful character of its rights, it had never again dared to come before Parliament. I say, then, that of course no lapse of time can make its rights valid now, if they were not valid at their commencement. Having touched but lightly on this part of the question, affecting a vast and important tract of territory, because it will be brought before us on a subsequent occasion, I now come to the conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company, as regards those parts of territory committed to their charge, and with respect to which there is no question as to the validity of their rights and privileges. I mean, of course, the exclusive right to trade possessed by them under two Acts of Parliament, in those districts west of the Rocky Mountains; and I will endeavour to show the impropriety of confiding the colonisation of Vancouver's Island to this company, from its antecedent history, and the probable consequences that are likely to ensue if that island is handed over to such a corporation. I will pass over the non-fulfilment by the company of its duty respecting the discovery of the North-west passage, and also the charge against it for shutting up the fields of colonisation in the territory west of the Rooky Mountains; and I will ask how far is the Hudson's Bay Company qualified by its nature for colonising a dis- trict larger, I believe, than Great Britain? for such is, I apprehend, the extent of Vancouver's Island. When this question was brought before the House last year, many instances of maladministration, as affecting the interests of the natives and colonists in the districts under the company, were stated by my right hon. Friend, many of which were denied, and others declared incapable of substantiation. Although I did not believe any answer that might be made to these charges would lessen my hostility to colonisation under the auspicies of such bodies as the Hudson's Bay Company in the abstract, still I did not feel at liberty to reopen questions affecting the company's past conduct until it had an opportunity of laying its case before the House, and until such answers as could be given to the charges should be printed and circulated. But I am bound to say, having waited for the production of these papers, and read most carefully the whole of those which have been laid on the table in the course of last month, that I do perceive in all the answers attempted to be given a generality and vagueness in the mode of defence that do not by any means carry conviction to my mind as respects many of the charges, although I have the highest respect for Sir John Pelly, the chairman of the company. Some of the grossest of the charges were admitted by the chairman himself; and what principally have the charges been? They were charged to a great extent with having not only entirely neglected the religious instruction of the population under their control, but with having to a certain extent encouraged the sale and consumption of spirituous liquors among the natives; and, further, they were charged with having, by shutting out all other traders and merchants who navigate the seas, not only charged whatever price they pleased for the commodities in which they traded, but with being in the practice of giving a most inadequate and unfair payment to the Indians—far below the value, and far below what was paid where the trade was open and not subject to monopoly—from whom they obtain their articles of commerce. Another, and a very grave charge was, that not only had cases of murder frequently occurred, perpetrated by the servants of the company on the Indians, but that, contrary to law, although, perhaps, with a form of trial, two or three cases of capital executions had taken place within the territory. With regard to the first charge, in the Life of Thomas Simpson , an agent of the company, published in 1845, it is stated that in the establishments on the outskirts of Canada—parts to a great extent where commerce was free, and the Indians were able to meet a fair market for the articles they procured—the permanent prices offered were from two to tenfold greater than where the trade was exclusive. I will not refer at length to the papers, but they do not give a satisfactory answer to this charge. The question as to the sale of spirits affects the moral condition, and indeed the very existence, of the aboriginal population; and this is confessed throughout all the papers by the company, by their attempts to prove that the sale of intoxicating liquors does not exist, and that they have done all in their power to suppress it, and practically that to a material extent it is suppressed. The House will recollect the exertions made by the late Mr. Wilberforce to check the sale of spirits among the aborigines of some of our colonial possessions; and it was found at that time that there was a possibility of checking their sale. We may dismiss from our minds the apprehensions sought to be excited by the Hudson's Bay Company, that it is necessary to maintain their monopoly if we would preserve a control over the introduction of spirits among the natives, and prevent their becoming wholly corrupted and vitiated. With regard to the North West Company, the great exertions promoted by Mr. Wilberforce reduced the consumption from 50,000 to 10,000 gallons annually, within the territories under their control; and will anybody attempt to persuade the House that the Hudson's Bay Company had not the means of checking this evil if they were inclined to do so? The Parliamentary papers, however, show that in 1837 the consumption of spirits in the Hudson's Bay Company's territories very little exceeded 3,000 gallons; and in 1847, only ten years afterwards, with a diminishing population of aborigines, and the number of the company's servants remaining stationary, the consumption in these districts had increased from 3,000 to 9,000 gallons, or three times the former annual consumption. But when the company deny these things, let us call some of their own servants to tell us their experience. They are in the habit of procuring their subordinate officers from the Orkney Islands; and a series of questions on various points connected with the company's transactions were put to five of these men who had left their service and returned home to the Orkney Islands. One of them had been eight, another fifteen, two others eleven, and the fifth six years in the company's service. This, amongst other questions, was put to them—

"Are intoxicating liquors supplied in any part of the country, and where?"

The answers by the five men severally, were—

"1. Intoxicating liquors were supplied to the Indians at all the places where I was. 2. All but the Mandan Indians were desirous to obtain intoxicating liquors, and the company supply them with it freely. 3. At Jack River, I saw spirits given in exchange for furs. 4. At York-factory and at Oxford-house. 5. At Norway-house only. "

Next, with regard to another most important point, they were charged with having, in contravention of the stipulations in their license to trade, omitted to take care of the religious instruction and education of the natives and colonists. I shall confine myself entirely, in any instances that I may quote, to what was charged as having existed within very recent dates; but it must be borne in mind that very grave charges have often been made against the company of habitual neglect of these important duties at all other times than those when they were seeking for fresh powers or new privileges—that the mere semblance was put on of attention to the religious instruction of the population, or to the suppression of the sale of spirits, or to other circumstances—that although to neglect these duties was the general rule, yet, strange to say, the exception to this normal course of neglect was made precisely at those periods when the company had to come either to this House or to the Executive to ask for enlarged powers; and then, on the plea of their attention to these duties, having obtained the renewal or an increase of their powers, they again reverted to their former habits, and neglected their duties. Well, Sir, as regards the neglect of the duties of attending to the religious instruction and education of the natives especially, and of the colonists also, I regret to say I must now reflect in a certain degree on the peculiar line that Sir John Polly has taken in these communications. In one of the papers laid on the table, he distinctly repudiates this as one of the duties of the company. At page 30, he says—

"The Hudson's Bay Company, when they received a license of exclusive trade from Her Majesty's Government, entered into no engagement to convert the heathen. That is the purpose for which missionary societies are established, and it is their peculiar province. All that the company-profess to do—and that is no unimportant service—is to prepare the way for the missionary, and to assist him, as far as their means permit, in the prosecution of his labours; and they flatter themselves they have not been altogether unsuccessful in the attainment of this object."

But this language, repudiating this important duty, is sadly at variance with what he has himself said on former occasions, when there was a question of enlarged powers, and when he was applying for privileges that were subsequently conferred. This is his language at that time (1830) to Lord Glenelg, at page 68:—

"By the report of Mr. Simpson, your Lordship will likewise see what has been done up to the present time, in reference to the native population, in accordance with the benevolent provisions contained in the license of exclusive trade under which the Hudson's Bay Company conduct that part of their business situated beyond the limits of the territories they hold under their charter."

On that occasion, therefore, so far from repudiating the duty, he admits it to he incumbent on the company by the charter it had obtained. And this is not all; for, in a subsequent paper, he also admits this to be an imperative duty. Writing a letter to the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Under Secretary to the Colonies, dated the 24th of October, 1846, he says—[The noble Lord here read the letter in question, which was to the effect that the writer considered it would be a superfluous task to enter into the details that rendered the colonisation of Vancouver's Island a subject of great importance. He would only submit whether that object, embracing, as he trusted it would, the civilisation and conversion to Christianity of the population, might not be best attained through the Hudson's Bay Company. The noble Lord then continued]—So Sir John Pelly submits to Lord Grey whether the christianisation and civilisation of the natives may not be most satisfactorily achieved by that company, with respect to which he elsewhere declares, as the chief representative of that corporation, that these objects form no part of its duties, but belong exclusively to the labours of the missionaries! I now come to the further point, where cases of atrocity are charged against the Hudson Bay Company's servants—where they are accused of having inflicted capital punishment contrary to the law. I find amongst the papers in this book, a letter addressed by the Rev. Mr. Beaver to the Aborigines' Society, about the middle of the summer of 1836. He says—

"About the middle of the summer, 1836, and shortly before my arrival at Fort Vancouver, six Indians were wantonly and gratuitously murdered by a party of trappers and sailors, who landed for the purpose from one of the company's vessels, on the coast somewhere between the mouth of the river Columbia and the confines of California. Having on a former occasion read the particulars of this horrid massacre as I received them from an eye-witness, before a meeting of the Aborigines' Society, I will not repeat them. To my certain knowledge, the circumstance was brought officially before the authorities of Vancouver, by whom no notice was taken of it; and the same party of trappers, with the same leader, one of the most infamous murderers of a murderous fraternity, is annually sent to the same vicinity to perform if they please other equally tragic scenes. God alone knows how many red men's lives have been sacrificed by them since the time of which I have been speaking. He also knows that I speak the conviction of my mind, and may He forgive me if I speak unadvisedly, when I state my firm belief that the life of an Indian was never yet, by a trapper, put in competition with a beaver's skin! The very way in which the aborigines are spoken of by the trappers, and leaders of trapping parties, goes far to prove the correctness of my assertion. 'Those d——d,' 'those rascally,' 'those treacherous Indians,' are the unmerited appellations by which the race is universally designated."

Since writing the above, he adds at the end of his communication—

"I have learned from good authority, that in the month of August, 1840, an Indian was hanged near the mouth of the Columbia river, and several others shot, and their village set on fire by a party in the employment of the Hudson's Bay Company, under the command of Chief-factor M'Laughlin, who led them from Fort Vancouver, thus indiscriminately to revenge the death of a man who lost his life in an affray whilst curing salmon."

I do not know what reason there may be for it, except that they find the testimony is adverse to them; but though the evidence of missionaries and of their own servants is quoted, we find their statements are invariably met by the declaration that they are unworthy of credit. Although some of the persons are actually in their own service at this moment, we find the parties are declared to be unworthy of credit. Perhaps, however, Lieutenant Chappell may be considered an impartial witness. He (Lieutenant Chappell), in his Voyage to Hudson's Bay in Her Majesty's ship Rosamond , makes the following statement with respect to the murder of an Indian:—

"As he became exceedingly troublesome, the settlers held a conference as to the most eligible mode of getting rid of him; and it being deemed good policy to deter the natives from similar of- fences, by making an example, they accordingly shot the poor maniac in cold blood, without having given themselves the trouble to ascertain whether he was really guilty or innocent."

Now, Sir, I admit that those instances of barbarity on the part of the company's servants, happening, as they do, in a large tract of wild country, may occur without blame to the company or to the authorities in that country or here, if there was not an attempt on the part of the company or their officers to deny their existence, and, as far as they can, to shield the culprits. If, instead of denying them, they tried to investigate the truth of the charges, and to punish the guilty, I would say the charges reflected in no way on the Hudson's Bay Company themselves. I should only consider, as in the case of a private individual under similar circumstances, that they laboured under the misfortune of being served by iniquitous servants, and though it brought discredit on them, it could amount to nothing but what they might easily wash out by punishing the culprits; but in the Parliamentary papers, on coming to the statement submitted to the Secretary of State by Sir John Pelly, I find the assertion, not only of the necessity, but also of the right, to execute capital punishment on those who infringe the laws in that district. In page 28 of those papers, I find this statement:—

"The acts described (at page 13) as atrocious murders were merely acts done in self-defence by a party of the company's servants, who were wantonly attacked by the natives. That such was the real character of these acts, Mr. Beaver appears to have had some suspicion, from his having entered a caveat against the plea of self-defence being used to justify the killing of a native."

And then comes what is most Important, and to which I wish to call the attention of the House:—

"The hanging, shooting, and burning so circumstantially described in the concluding paragraph of the letter alluded to, which Mr. Beaver states from good authority took place in 1840, when stripped of exaggeration, amounts to this, that an Indian who had murdered one of the company's servants while asleep, and afterwards robbed him, was given to him by his chief, brought to trial, found guilty, and hanged, after confessing the crime."

If that took place where a proper tribunal existed, there would be a complete defence, and a complete answer to the charge that has been made; but it is not only a great dereliction of duty, but an infringement of the Act of Parliament; and this, let it he borne in mind, admitted by the chairman of the company himself, in a letter to the Secretary of State. In page 33 of those papers, I find this extract, also produced by the chairman of the company in their defence. It is taken from Commodore Wilkes' Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition: —

"The Indians of this region even now make war upon each other on the most trivial occasion, and for the most part to satisfy individual revenge. The Hudson's Bay Company's officers possess and exert a most salutary influence, endeavouring to preserve peace at all hazards. It is now quite safe for a white man to pass in any direction through the part of the country where their posts are; and in case of accident to any white settler, a war party is at once organised, and the offender is hunted up. About a year previous to our arrival, an Indian was executed at Astoria for the murder of a white man, whom he had found asleep, killed, and stolen his property. He was then taken, tried, and found guilty, and executed in the presence of most of the settlers."

I have still further authority on this matter. In a very instructive work, published by the acting governor, I think he is called, of the Hudson's Bay Company, Sir George Simpson, I find this statement:—

"In the absence of any other means of obtaining redress, our people had recourse to the law of Moses, which, after the loss of several lives on the side of the natives, brought the savages to their senses, while the steamer's mysterious and rapid movements speedily completed their subjugation. In fact, whether in matters of life and death or of petty thefts, the rule of retaliation is the only standard of equity which the tribes on this coast are capable of appreciating."

I confess it was with much regret I found such passages in Sir George Simpson's book, justifying to a great extent those charges of the want of morality and feeling that exist amongst the company's servants. If that passage could be gravely penned by Sir George Simpson, I fear we may believe that the company's servants act in the way it is stated. I will now come to the illegality of those proceedings. If those Indians, or any other of the inhabitants, committed the crime of murder, it is perfectly right, if a sufficient tribunal existed there, that they should be tried, and such sentence passed on them as the laws of the country allow. But I find by the provisions of the Statute 1 and 2 George IV., cap. 66, clause 12, that although the power is given to the company's magistrates to adjudicate upon all civil cases under 200 l .; yet that by this clause all civil cases exceeding 200 l ., and all criminal cases whatever, are ordered to be transferred from this territory to the Canadian courts, there to be adjudicated upon; and will it be believed that with this distinct Act of Parliament existing, and which is known to exist—for it has been under the consideration of the Hudson's Bay Company and of the Government, and it is intended to repeal the Act of Parliament, and constitute within the territory sufficient tribunals to deal with those cases as well as others—will it, I say, he believed that with this Act existing, the chairman of the company, addressing the Secretary of State, has endeavoured to justify the acts that have taken place in this district, by stating that those parties have been executed within the territory for the crime of murder? This provision is a most important provision, as affecting the liberties and lives of persons resident within that great and extensive district. It is notorious that this provision in the Act has been set at nought, and that from the passing of the 1 and 2 George IV. to the present time, not one case has been transferred to the Canadian courts. I have referred incidentally to the fact, that it has been promised by the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, that this provision of the Act of Parliament shall be repealed, and that proper tribunals for the due administration of the law will be established in those districts. That pledge having been given, and the hon. Gentleman opposite having, in answer to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, put before Easter, assured us that this Bill would be brought in before Easter, though we have never heard of it since—I trust I may conclude the reason is this, that it is still considered that the question of the colonisation of Vancouver's Island is still open. If my Motion should be defeated, or the result should be to prove the invalidity of the charter now granted, I hope that in either of those cases the Government will fulfil the pledge they have made; and though a Bill has not yet been introduced, the Session will not be allowed to pass without its introduction, and, at the same time, that the House shall have a fair opportunity of discussing such important transactions. There have also been complaints from the colonists, and I doubt if the opinions of the colonists do not bear more strongly on the question before the House, namely, the fitness of the company to colonise Vancouver's Island, though as there are numerous natives in Vancouver's Island, their treatment is also an important consideration. It must be borne in mind, that there are only two settlements in which the inhabitants can be by any means called colonists in this district. One of them is the Red River settlement, which was not formed by the Hudson's Bay Company. On the contrary, it was discountenanced by them in every way, and they have shown little favour to it, either in the way of encouraging fresh emigration to it, or by giving to the persons already established there such rights and privileges as would make them free, independent, and comfortable settlers on the British soil. Very serious charges have been made, proving, if the case be substantiated, that it is perfectly impossible that the colonists in that settlement can live in any degree of security—I mean security as regards their property under such a system. I allude, in the first place, to the charge that is made, that this company, having the exclusive right of trading over this district, and of preventing the influx or efflux of any goods except in their own ships, or, perhaps more correctly speaking, I should say, except in their annual ship, they charge to those colonists such enormous freights that they prevent the possibility of anything like a fair trade being carried on in those colonies, increasing to a frightful extent the evils that are inherent in their system of monopoly. I spoke just now of their annual ship, but I am not sure whether the annual ship has not been multiplied into two ships; but it is only allowed, I believe, to those unhappy colonists to trade once a year, and persons only who are licensed by the Hudson's Bay Company can carry on a trade through the instrumentality of their ships or agents at all. Then there is another most important complaint made by those settlers, and one that has an especial bearing on the colonisation of Vancouver's Island. I regret to see the departure of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, for I saw him take some notes of a part of my statement. He having notes not immediately affecting the legal question, I would be anxious to draw his attention to this particular part of the case. I find in page 45 of the papers—the last papers presented, a copy of the land deed, which every colonist of the Red River is obliged to sign before he can enter into possession. I will not go through the whole of it, bul really I think in these days of enlightenment upon subjects affecting the tenure of land, and the relations of the governors and the governed, I have a right to complain of this iniquitous document. I shall not go through details, but I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to read it over, and I shall be ready to abide by his opinion. If he will show me that this is a document that any person in any country is justified in calling upon a settler to sign for the privilege of holding the land he has bought in the colony, I will at once waive the whole question. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion will be, that this land deed ought to be cancelled at once, and the persons who may be deluded to go to Vancouver's Island should not be bound by such a document. It treats the persons who hold land under the company as mere serfs and slaves, even more so than the unfortunate Indians, who are affected by their regulations as regards trade; and while even this single charge remains unanswered—and answered it cannot be, for here is the document—it is enough to prove that the Hudson's Bay Company, in its essence and by its constitution, is utterly unfitted to be entrusted with any operation of colonisation. Now, with regard to trade, I will revert for one moment to that part of the subject to see how the parties have been treated who dissented from the arbitrary regulations of the company. Unless my memory fails me, my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford on a former occasion read a letter addressed by the agent of the company to Mr. James Simpson. Mr. James Simpson having made use of the unhappy annual ship, complained of the exorbitant demands of the company; and, finding that his complaint and the complaints of his brother settlers were not attended to, he had the boldness to complain to that tribunal to which he thought he had a right to appeal, namely, the Executive of this country. The consequence was, that this respectable gentleman, as I am told he is, received a letter from the agent of the company, informing him in curt and dry terms, that no goods should again be shipped on his account. I ask, will this House tolerate that a system of monopoly should be exercised in such an arbitrary way, utterly destroying the trade and property of those living under this company, or that the fact of making an appeal to the Secretary of State for an inquiry into an accusation made by a settler should be punished in this way? No other reason can be assigned—no other reason has been assigned—for debarring him from the use of the company's ship. There is another com- plaint that comes more home to the feelings of Englishmen. It seems the company claim a right—I will not say a right, for no such right can exist—they claim the privilege of an arbitrary, and, as I maintain, an illegal taxation. Recollect that the state in which the Red River settlers are kept is the state to which you are about to commit those who, if they are so unwise as to go there at all, will be the colonists of Vancouver's Island. I see the right hon. Gentleman opposite shake his head, and probably that has reference to the free constitution granted to them; but can I better show, than by referring to the Red River settlers, what the condition of the settlers of Vancouver's Island is likely to be? And I cannot better show what the condition of the Red River settlers is than by reading a passage from a work published by one of the company's own servants, to whom I have already referred. I have endeavoured to discard all evidence which may be doubted, and to cite as much as possible the evidence of those connected with the company. I take this extract from the life of Mr. Thomas Simpson, and this is a letter addressed to his brother. He says—

"You can have no idea of the curious position the company holds here. The land of the colony and the right of the government is Lord Selkirk's, by grant from the company, and until 1826, the executors of the late Earl had a separate establishment, with a governor of their own; but since then, their affairs have been managed exclusively by the Hudson's Bay Company; the Hudson'a Bay factor has been their governor, and the Hudson's Bay fort their place of business; but they sell the land at 12 s . 6 d . per acre, and pocket the money—a very cheap and convenient method, you will say. It is true they keep about a score of policemen in pay; but this force is a mere nonentity, and the Hudson's Bay Company have virtually to act as judge, jury, and gaoler in his Lordship's colony. The only good thing I see in the matter is, that they give me a salary of 25 l . for keeping their accounts."

When this question was under discussion before, and when in the course of last Session I asked a question of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I was told that, as regards the charges made against the company, the whole investigation of them had been referred to my noble Friend the Governor General of Canada; and it was subsequently stated by the hon. Gentleman, I believe in his speech in August last, that a further reference had been made to the deputy governor of the company at the Red River settlement. Well, Sir, that reference was made to Lord Elgin; and I must say that Lord Elgin having, as he was sure to do, devoted as much attention as he could to the subject, has given, as he was also sure to do, a very fair and impartial statement of the impressions he has received from those with whom he conversed. In order not to be quoting unfairly, with the permission of the House, I will quote, in the first instance, those passages of Lord Elgin's reply, in which he exculpates the Hudson's Bay Company:—

"I have had the honour to receive your despatch of the 30th March, covering the copy of a further letter from Mr. Isbister, on the subject of certain allegations of hardship and maladministration preferred against the Hudson's Bay Company, and referring me to your despatch, No. 79, of June, 1847, in which you instructed me to adopt such measures as might be practicable for instituting an examination into these charges. The subject of these communications has not failed to engage my attention; but the territory in question is so distant, so little intercourse takes place between it and Canada, and the jurisdiction of the company is so peculiar, that it is by no means easy for me to obtain so perfect a knowledge of their proceedings as would enable me to furnish such a report as your Lordship requires. 2. I am bound, however, to state that the result of the inquiries which I have hitherto made is highly favourable to the company, and that it has left on my mind the impression that the authority which they exercise over the vast and inhospitable region subject to their jurisdiction is, on the whole, very advantageous to the Indians. From Colonel Crofton [I beg to call attention to this name, for I shall have to comment upon Colonel Crofton's statement presently], who resided for a considerable period at Red River, in command of a detachment of troops, I derived much valuable information with respect to their system of administration. More especially, it would appear to be a settled principle of their policy to discountenance the use of ardent spirits. It is, indeed, possible that the progress of the Indians towards civilisation may not correspond with the expectations of some of those who are interested in their welfare. But disappointments of this nature are experienced, I fear, in other quarters as well as in the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company; and persons to whom the trading privileges of the company are obnoxious may be tempted to ascribe to their rule the existence of evils which it is altogether beyond their power to remedy. There is too much reason to fear, that if the trade were thrown open, and the Indians left to the mercy of the adventurers who might chance to engage in it, their condition would be greatly deteriorated. 3. At the same time I think it is to be regretted that a jurisdiction so extensive and peculiar, exercised by British subjects at such a distance, and so far beyond the control of public opinion, should be so entirely removed from the surveillance of Her Majesty's Government. The evil arising from this state of things is forcibly illustrated in the present instance by the difficulty which I experience in obtaining materials for a full and satisfactory report on the charges which your Lordship has referred to me. It were very desirable, if abuses do exist, that Government possessed the means of probing them to the bottom; and, on the other hand, it seems to be hard on the company, if the imputations cast upon them be unfounded, that Government, which undertakes the investigation, should not have the power of acquitting them on testimony more unexceptionable than any which is at present procurable."

Now, I think, Sir, as regards the answer of Lord Elgin, I may fairly say that every accusation made against the Hudson's Bay Company stands now in reality as it stood before, with this additional circumstance, that the result of Lord Elgin's inquiry, and his own observation in a contiguous country, has been this conclusion, that unlimited and arbitrary power is mischievous, and that it would be desirable that the Government and Legislature of this country should have a more wholesome control over it, and, above all, that the check of public opinion should be introduced—a check which at present is totally excluded by the Hudson's Bay Company. Another officer, to whose opinion reference is made, is Major Caldwell. I am not going to complain, under the circumstances represented by Lord Elgin, as to the extreme difficulty of obtaining information, that he resorted to Major Caldwell or the other parties to whom he had referred—they were perhaps the most impartial persons to whom he could refer without issuing a commission; but at the same time it should be borne in mind that Major Caldwell is an officer of the company, and holds an important situation under them. However, as regards him, we stand in this peculiar position at the present moment. It was stated by the hon. Gentleman last year, that reference was made to Major Caldwell; but Major Caldwell's report does not appear on the table. On the contrary, Lord Grey says he does not think it necessary to wait for the answer of Major Caldwell. I regret that has been his determination; but at the same time I feel that, placed in the particular situation Major Caldwell was, it may be fairer to him, as an individual, that no such report should be demanded of him, or that no such report implicating his employers should be made by him. Lord Grey had determined not to wait for Major Caldwell's report; but application had been also made to two military officers who were quartered with a small body of troops at the Red River settlement, under the arrangements made when the Oregon treaty was under discussion. The officers are Major Griffiths and Colonel Crofton, and I can have no objec- tion to urge against those gallant gentlemen. They are British officers, and are, no doubt, honourable men; and I will not follow the example of the Hudson's Bay Company, and impute interested motives to every witness whose testimony does not tally with my own opinions. I will not refer to the circumstances in which those gallant gentlemen were placed, because I do not think they tend to impugn their testimony beyond showing that they had not the means of giving accurate information. I understand that one of them is a member of the council under the Hudson's Bay Company, and the other is said to have aspired to a more intimate connexion with the company; but I am ready to take their reports precisely as they are presented. I will gladly take their evidence—I mean their personal testimony; but as to their hearsay evidence, it is of no more importance coming from them than if it came from the the hon. Gentleman opposite, or any other Gentleman. Be it always borne in mind what were the means of forming an opinion which those gentlemen had. They were quartered on the mere outskirts of this vast territory, consisting of 4,000,000 square miles—larger than the whole of Europe; and will any one pretend to say that a military officer quartered for a short time on the outskirts of this enormous continent, could be able to form an accurate opinion with regard to charges which extend not only over the whole territorial possessions of the Hudson's Bay Company, but over those districts westward of the Rocky Mountains in which they have the exclusive privilege of trade. In page 102, I find that Colonel Crofton says—

"I can most distinctly pronounce this charge to be utterly false [that is, the charge of giving spirits]. Spirits have not, for some years, been sold or given to Indians, and very heavy fines are inflicted even for the very slightest deviation from the rigid regulations of the Hudson's Bay Company forbidding spirits in any form and any pretence, to be sold or given to Indians. Indeed, the more certainly to secure the observance of these regulations in distant districts, the Hudson's Bay Company deny their officers, and all under them, a supply of spirits for their own use, and even the Scotch settlers at Red River are prohibited from distilling or importing spirits; and the issue of spirits from the Hudson's Bay Company's stores is restricted to a very small quantity annually at Christmas, or on the occasion of marriages, issued as 'regal,'"

This is Major Griffiths' answer with respect to the same charge. Major Griffiths says—

"The company had, in a very liberal, but although perhaps mistaken spirit, permitted some of those very grumblers to import spirits into the colony from America, a system which had a most pernicious effect during the stay of Her Majesty's troops at the station, and which I assisted in getting repealed, in my place in council, previous to our departure."

Both these gentlemen, attempting to defend the company, contradict each other; and both of them, to a material extent, prove the charges which they were mutually attempting to deny. Now, having shown how much these gentlemen are at variance with each other, let me show how much they are at variance with the company itself. At page 24, I find this statement made on behalf of the company:—

"At a few of the company's posts near Red River, small quantities of spirits are occasionally given as presents to the natives who frequent those posts."

Major Griffiths having expressly said that they forbade the use of spirits altogether, the company, on the other hand, stating that they gave them as presents. They go on to say—

"The company have been compelled to adopt this expedient in self-defence, there being no alternative but to surrender the trade in that quarter entirely to American interlopers and their confederates—the leaders of the half-breeds at Red River settlement, who barter spirits for furs in their clandestine dealings with the natives. This is an example of the effects of competition, and it may serve to convey an idea, though a very imperfect one, of what would result were the whole of the company's territories equally accessible to adventurers of every description, having no stake in the country, and outbidding one another in the scramble for furs. Rum would become the universal medium of exchange with the natives, and the most liberal distributor would carry off the prize."

Another grave charge which has been made against the Hudson's Bay Company is, that from circumstances more or less under the control of that company, the aboriginal population had greatly decreased. This charge is contained in a statement made by one of the American missionaries, W. Parker, whose name is well known to persons who have taken any interest in this subject. He states that he had found the Indian population in the lower countries to be much less than he expected to have found them; and he states that in his opinion the decrease of the population is mainly to be attributed to the excessive use of ardent spirits. Major Griffiths, in dealing with this subject, says:—

"So far from extermination of the Indians going on, I am able to state that the contrary is the truth. I saw at Red River a census of the Indian tribes, taken at several periods, for the sole purpose of regulating the supply of goods for their use from England, and I noticed that the tribes have gradually been increasing since the union of the North-West with the Hudson's Bay Company, and since the rigid prohibition placed on the sale or barter of spirits."

But here is a proof of the utter valueless-ness of the testimony of this gentleman. He has evidently written, in this instance, of what he knew nothing about. He has argued from certain statistical tables shown him at the Red River settlement, and he has endeavoured to prove that because the census seen by him at that settlement of the population, as shown upon the trading lists of the Hudson's Bay Company, showed a greater number of individuals with whom the company traded than before the union of the North-western province, therefore the population has increased. I admit that primâ facie there is some ground for such a conclusion. But what are the real facts of the case? Since the union of the North-west province, the dormant energies of vast masses of the people have been awakened, new districts have been opened up, and whole tribes, whose names were not even known before, have been brought into contact with the company, and are placed upon their trading list. In some papers laid upon the table of this House, from the Colonial Office, at the beginning of the present Session, there would be found a list of native tribes, one-half at least of the population of which was utterly unknown to the Hudson's Bay Company at the time to which Colonel Crofton referred. I am also prepared to show from the document from which that gentleman took his argument, that the number of tribes with whom trade is carried on, has been at least doubled since the union of the Northwestern province. Another charge which has been made against the company is the great want of the means of religious instruction afforded by the company to the inhabitants of their territory. How does Colonel Crofton deal with that part of the case? He makes a bold statement, like some others contained in his replies. He says—

"The fullest refutation of this charge is to be found in the fact, which I here attest, that in Red River Colony there is a large and most flourishing settlement of Protestant converted Indians, and very many converts also to the Roman Catholic Church at Red River Colony, at While Horse Plains, and at the Wabasinung missions. I would refer to the published visit of the Bishop of Montreal, which was printed in 1846, for ample testi- mony to the exertions of the Hudson's Bay Company for the christianisation of the Indians. The missions at Red River, Norway House, Beaver Creek, Brandon House, Cumberland, &c., afford proof that the Hudson's Bay Company is not inattentive to the religious wants of the territory."

Major Griffiths is still more bold in his statement. He says—

"This charge is most unfounded. The company have religious establishments. Catholic as well as Protestant, presided over by bishops and other clergymen, in every part of their vast territories."

Why, really one would believe, from the statements of these gentlemen, that there were wealthy church establishments existing throughout the whole of the territory of the company, and that we found there numerous ministers of all denominations, Protestants, Catholics, and Dissenters. The monstrous absurdity of such a statement was sufficient to refute itself. Colonel Crofton said he would refer to the published visit of the Bishop of Montreal. I will do so too. I find, then, in the Bishop of Montreal's charge, at page 163, this statement:—

"I am as much convinced that it is the duty of the English Government to plant and perpetuate the Church, according to her full organisation, and to provide standing institutions for training a local body of clergy in the distant dominions of the empire, as that it is the duty of a father to see to the religious interests of his family; and whatever may be the issue of the Oregon boundary question, there is a large accountability of this kind in the region for which I am pleading. There is not one clergyman of the Church of England on the further side of the Rocky Mountains."

[Mr. HAWES: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies cheers too soon. He seems to imagine that because there are none on the other side of the Rocky Mountains, that there may be some scattered over the other portions of the territory of the company. He will see that he is mistaken in that supposition. That is a district over which the company have exclusive rights of trade, but no territorial rights of possession. We now come to the district over which they have territorial possession. I still quote from the Bishop of Montreal's journal:—

"The Hudson's Bay Company did at one time maintain a chaplain at Fort Vancouver; they have ceased to do so. Within their own proper territories they have one, namely, at the Red River, so that in Hudson's Bay itself there is none."

That is the statement of the Bishop of Montreal on the subject, and that is the statement which Colonel Crofton quoted in his answer to this complaint made against the company, as giving ample testimony to the exertions of the Hudson's Bay Company for the christianisation of the Indians. It may, perhaps, he said that religious instruction is not necessarily and solely confined to the Established Church. I regret that the Church of England has not had facilities given to it by the company for affording religious instruction to the natives; but I should still rejoice to hear that, in default of their exertions, the Wesleyans or any other religious body had been enabled to afford religious instruction to the natives. But such is not the case. What is the statement of that exemplary body—the Wesleyans—who send their missionaries to every part of the world, and who are not easily deterred by the hardships or opposition which any body of men may place in their way? How many Wesleyan missionaries are there in the whole of this company's territories? In the year 1843 there were six Wesleyan missionaries in the whole of the territory of the company; from 1844 to 1846 the number had been reduced to five; in 1847 there were four; in 1848 only three; and at the present moment they were reduced to two; and one of these is an Indian assistant missionary. So that there is only, in fact, one regular Wesleyan missionary in the whole of the territory of the company. There is one clergyman of the Church of England, and one Wesleyan missionary throughout the whole of this enormous continent! With regard to the state of education, I will quote a work of the acting governor of the colony. Sir George Simpson's account of his Journey round the World . At page 54 of that work, I find these words:—

"The charges of religion are defrayed partly by the Hudson's Bay Company and partly by the Church Missionary Society, the flocks neither paying their tithes nor wholly maintaining the sacred fabrics. As to the charges of education, four-fifths of them fall on the pious and charitable associations, while the remaining fifth is borne "—

by whom?—not by the Hudson's Bay Company, but—

"by such individual parents as are able and willing to spare 15 s . a year for the moral and intellectual culture of a child."

So that in the whole of the Hudson's Bay territory I have the evidence, from the mouths of the most unexceptionable witnesses, that there is one Church and one Wesleyan missionary; and with respect to education, not one farthing is paid by the company, as I have shown from the testimony of Sir George Simpson. Another charge which has been made against the company is the unjust forfeiture of the natives' property. At page 102, I find Colonel Crofton makes this statement upon that subject:—

"I have known occasional instances of Indians and half-breeds who have smuggled furs procured in the Hudson's Bay Company's territory across the frontier line, and bartered them with Americans for goods conveyed from the United States. These men, when detected, are deprived of the furs, which are forfeited, and in some instances of half-breeds at Red River, have been fined for breach of the laws. All are fully aware that they become delinquents by selling furs to the Americans, and therefore never dream of seeking protection from law for acts which they all know to be contrary to law."

Major Griffiths says, at page 110, in answer to this charge—

"I am unaware what the exact rights of the company are in this respect,"

This is the only charge which, from the position of these gentlemen, they were in a position correctly to answer. Yet Major Griffiths, in answer to the charge, says—

"that the natives having attempted to trade on their own account, their goods have been seized by the company's agents under colour of the provisions of the charter, and that the natives have been unable to obtain redress from the local courts."

I am unable to concur with the statement made by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, by the direction of Earl Grey, and which was addressed to the hon. Member opposite, in which he says—

"The only trustworthy information Lord Grey has been able to obtain tends completely to negative all that has been alleged against that body on those points to which this information applies, leaving unrefuted no other charges but those as to which the persons from whom information has been sought, have been unable to afford it, and which have been met by a direct denial by the company, while at the same time they are in a great measure deprived of weight by the contradiction given to the parties from whom they proceed, on the points on which their assertions admitted of being tested by an appeal to impartial evidence."

On the contrary, I must say, that a great many of the charges have been—some by the company itself, and from some of the extracts which I have read to the House—entirely confirmed; and I do not know a single instance throughout the whole of this case in which any charges have been completely and effectually disproved. I am ready to admit that some of the charges, the answers to which at present remain in darkness, might be proved to be unfounded, if a competent tribunal were established for inquiry into those charges. All I can say is, that at present these charges are not disproved, and that many of them have been, on the other hand, clearly substantiated. What I want to make out is this, that in the teeth of so many charges, some admitted, some proved, and upon investigation none disproved, it has not been a fulfilment of the duty of the Government to transfer to such a body the colonisation of another and a most important territory; that, upon the contrary, they should gravely consider how, in justice to the inhabitants of that vast and enormous territory, natives of it as they are, and moreover British subjects like ourselves, how their condition could be improved, and how they could in future be secured from the recurrence of such transactions as have been already detected and made known. I have shown, I think fully, the anti-colonising spirit of the Hudson's Bay Company; and I think, in doing so, I have shown to the House that it is its bounden duty even at this, the eleventh hour, to interpose and prevent the colonisation of Vancouver's Island being handed to this company. I hope that the House will so far indulge me as to allow me to read a letter from Mr. Isbister, dated March 22, 1848, as showing the injurious effects resulting from the course pursued by the Hudson's Bay Company:—

"The chief evil arising out of the present system of administration, and which I would most respectfully urge upon your Lordship's consideration, is the anti-colonising spirit manifested by the Hudson's Bay Company. Were their monopoly simply confined, as it should be, to the fur trade, and were they themselves the active agents in procuring the commodities they bring to market, its injurious operation would be less felt. Not satisfied, however, with this important and lucrative privilege, they lay claim equally to all the productions of the country, exercise a species of property in the natives, and an absolute right in the soil, of which they will neither make any beneficial use themselves, nor suffer others. For a period of nearly two centuries, during which they have held possession, an immense territory, equal in extent to all Europe, and embracing every variety of climate, soil, and natural production, has been suffered to remain in the condition of a wilderness, and its capabilities and resources been studiously concealed or misrepresented, for the selfish purpose of retaining it as an immense park for wild beasts, equally unprofitable to the nation and to its own inhabitants. The settlement on the Red River may possibly be considered an exception to this statement; but it should be borne in mind, that it was not established by the Hudson's Bay Company, but by the late Earl Selkirk, from whose heirs it passed into the Company's possession shortly before their ap- plying for a renewal of their last license, in 1838. Under the impolitic system which was thenceforward adopted, not an European emigrant, scarcely even a visitor, has been permitted to approach the colony; the settlers have found themselves subjected to the same jealous and illiberal policy which characterises the operations of the fur trade; their energies paralysed by inquisitorial and vexatious restrictions, and they themselves cut off from all communication with their fellow-subjects of Great Britain, and exposed to the contamination of the worst class 'of the citizens of a neighbouring State, those who, everywhere infesting the outskirts of civilisation, are emancipated from all law and restraint themselves, and are the bane of all public order and tranquillity among those with whom they come in contact. Thus, while it is the true policy of this country to promote emigration, at least along the frontier, in order to counteract the effects of the rapid extension of the American settlements in this direction, the only British colony between Lake Superior and the Pacific Ocean is that established on the Red River."

Now, Sir, there is but one remaining attribute which I took the liberty to apply to the Hudson's Bay Company, which was "secrecy." I will not, however, dwell at any length upon that point. I believe that my hon. Friend opposite, who is connected with the company, will not deny that secrecy exists to a very great extent in the proceedings of the company. To such an extent is that principle carried, such is the desire of the company for secrecy, such their determination to maintain it, that the precaution is adopted of even insisting that the journals kept in that country should be burned before a party leaves the district, and that they even prohibit their servants from writing any account of what passes in the country. Now, really I can hardly believe this statement to be true, though it is stated in page 58 of these returns. I can hardly believe that such a tyranny is exercised in any country in the world. Still less can I believe that Mr. Dunn, the gentleman to whom I am alluding, was compelled to burn his journal at Fort Vancouver, before he could leave the country. I have stated simply the charge that secrecy is carried to this extent, for the purpose of allowing any hon. Member to contradict the charge on the part of the company. I must again apologise to the House for not having arrived at the conclusion of my statement. I have felt it necessary, in order to lay the ground for my Motion, in the first place, to prove, as far as I could, that this is not a colonisation company, and is unfit to be entrusted with the important functions about to be given to it. I think that sufficient grounds were stated, in the course of last Session, to call for some inquiry into the subject. We have now the evidence of the facts then referred to, and the whole of the case before us; and I think, judging from them, that grounds do exist why Parliament ought to meet any such proposition as that of the cession of Vancouver's Island to this company with a positive refusal. At any rate, I rejoice that the discussion took place last year upon this subject; for if the House, and those hon. Members who took part in that discussion, were unable to obtain the whole of their wish—namely, the cancelling of the charter—they have, at any rate, enforced such alteration in it as may, if any colonists should ever be found willing to go to that unfortunate island, mitigate, in some degree, the mischiefs which would have been entailed upon them by the charter as presented to the House upon that occasion. Considerable alterations have been made in that charter since the debate of last year, under the auspices of the President of the Board of Trade, and the other Members of the Committee of Privy Council, to whom, according to the promise of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, this question was submitted after the discussion of last year. By the draft of the charter as then proposed, the whole of the fisheries in the neighbourhood of Vancouver's Island would have been exclusively confined to the company. It was perfectly monstrous that the Colonial Office should for a moment have entertained such a demand, and still more so that Earl Grey should have approved of such a proposition. We have before us a copy of his letter approving of this monstrous monopoly. Why, it was a wonder that they did not call upon the Government for powers to exclude the colonists from the very air they breathed. This provision has now been altered, and the fisheries are left as free as is the air. Another alteration has been promised with respect to the administration of justice—namely, the repeal of the Act to which I have already alluded, 1 and 2 Geo. IV., and the institution of judicial tribunals. Another very important alteration has been made with respect to the sale of the land. By the charter, as laid before the House last year, the company were actually to be in possession as proprietors. The whole of the land was to be given to them, and they were to be empowered to sell it for such sum as they could obtain for it, and to be allowed to pocket the whole of the proceeds. I rejoice to find, however, that, from the publicity which has been given to this transaction, and the discussion which has taken place upon the subject, this further infraction upon the rights and liberties of Englishmen has been prevented, and that the company are now bound by the charter, as at present published, to apply 90 per cent—I do not see why they should not be compelled to apply the whole sum—for the purposes of the colony, and only to appropriate 10 per cent of the proceeds among themselves. Although I admit that this charter is very much improved, still I can by no means assert that all the objections to it have been removed. On the contrary, I think that, judging from the experience we have had of the conduct of the company, the whole affair remains, in its main features, almost as unjust and as flagrant as ever. What can be the object in granting this island to the company at all? What does the company want with more territory than they already possess? The company do not wish to found a colony there. On the contrary, I believe that the sole object of the company in obtaining possession of the island, is to keep others out of it. It is simply because a monopoly of the fur trade could not be maintained if a great, free, and independent colony were established in Vancouver's Island. If a model of Great Britain were established in that island, the people would not submit to such acts as the colonists of the Red River have been compelled to submit to under the arbitrary conduct of the Hudson's Bay Company. The monopoly of the company would be ultimately done away with under such circumstances; and it was solely to preserve that monopoly that the Hudson's Bay Company were striving to obtain possession of this island. It might, perhaps, be asked, what object is there to gain by the country opposing this grant? What other plan can be proposed? There is one point which has been put forward in answer to that inquiry, by Earl Grey, I think, which was, that no private party was likely to be forthcoming having sufficient capital to undertake so large a concern. I think I could show that that is not a valid objection. How does the present company stand? Can any portion of the capital of the Hudson's Bay Company be applied to colonisation purposes, in the strict and legitimate sense of the word "colonisation?" What is the capital of the Hudson's Bay Company? They call it 400,000 l ., but I need hardly tell the House what I believe is so perfectly well known, that this 400,000 l . is in reality only 93,000 l . It was originally only 40,000?., but having since been doubled, it amounts now, together with sums raised upon different terms, to the sum of 93,000?., which is the whole amount of the paid-up capital of the company. But assuming the capital to be 400,000 l ., the whole of the capital is at present invested in the fur trade. Has the company a right to transfer any portion of this lucrative investment, known to be so, and which is said by many to be enormously lucrative, although I do not believe that at present the company divide very enormous profits; but, at any rate, there is no doubt a very fair profit is derived from the capital so invested. Is it to be believed, then, that any portion of this 400,000 l . could be withdrawn from so good an investment, in order to colonise an island which can return, for some years at all events, only a very small dividend upon the capital invested? It manifestly cannot be their intention to apply any portion of the funds now employed in the prosecution of the fur trade, for the purpose of colonising Vancouver's Island. I say, therefore, that any objection of this kind falls to the ground. Many of the members of the Hudson's Bay Company are, no doubt, wealthy men, and may invest capital in colonisation, but they will not do so as members of the Hudson's Bay Company. The fact of their being possessed of private means does not affect the question in the least, and the capital of the Hudson's Bay Company is at present so profitably employed that it cannot be considered as available for the purpose of colonisation. I now come to a point of much importance, and that is the free constitution of the colony of Vancouver's Island. The governor is to be appointed by the Crown, but is to be selected by the Hudson's Bay Company. Now, at page 18 of the papers presented to Parliament this Session, I find that Lord Grey, having intimated to Sir John Pelly that he was ready to receive recommendations from the company on the subject of a governor, the company has recommended Chief Factor Douglas to be the first governor, and fourteen gentlemen to be magistrates, who are all traders connected with the company. Is not this really a mere respectable sham, when appointments of this kind are made by a body whose interests must necessarily be interfered with if the colony succeeds? Is it possible to devise a scheme by which the means of founding a successful colony may be more effectually counteracted? I beg, also, to remind the House that we have not yet seen the documents by which this free constitution is given to Vancouver's Island. It may turn out that though the constitution be in appearance and even in terms free, it may be clogged with so many restrictions, and fettered with so many disabilities, that it may be useless for practical purposes. The hon. Gentleman opposite smiles—and perhaps it may be really a free and working constitution, but at least there is some ground for supposing otherwise, when we find the first announcement of it in the advertisement which the company itself has put forth, for the first time, in all the London newspapers this morning. I, for one, am prepared to attach the greatest primary importance to free institutions, without which no colony is likely to succeed. Free institutions ought, therefore, to be given; but I do not believe that in order to success, free institutions alone are necessary, and nothing else is required. Though freedom is an element of success, I cannot admit that it is the only element. In the course of the debate on a former occasion, it was asserted that the island was given over to the Hudson's Bay Company because it was doubted whether Vancouver's Island was capable of advantageous colonisation. I am anxious to spare the time of the House, and therefore I will not at this hour do more than assert, that that fact has been clearly substantiated. From the first discovery of the island—from the accounts of Vancouver himself, and all impartial observers—more especially by recent reports—it has been completely established that the island is extremely fertile, that it is rich in mines of coal and other minerals, that its timber is fine, that its ports are good, and that its climate is in many respects superior to that of England, and singularly suited to the constitution of those who go out from this country. These great facts, I think, have been made out; and so far as the official reports now before us go, they corroborate all these statements. I have in my hand also a copy of a portion of a private letter from a gentleman in Her Majesty's service, who visited that island, giving an account of its physical and political importance:—

"Vancouver, from its climate, soil, timber, harbours, fisheries, game, and, above all, its position, is one of the most valuable islands belonging to Britain, and it is only necessary to glance your eye over the map of the north-west coast of America to be convinced that it is so.

"In a military point of view, it is to Oregon and California what Bermuda is to the eastern seaboard of the United States, its splendid harbours and fine timber affording shelter and supplies for fifty fleets, while in a commercial point of view, it ought to be the great depot for supplying Oregon and California with British manufactures; not to mention the Russian settlements, from which it is only ten days' sail, and China and Japan, from which it is not more than eighteen or twenty days. If ever Minister deserved to be impeached. Lord Grey does, for thus wantonly sacrificing the country's interests."

I do not go the extreme length of the opinion expressed in the last sentence of the letter; but if Lord Grey does really believe that the advantages of this colony are not sufficiently clearly made out, and that therefore he handed it over to the Hudson's Bay Company, I still say that before he did so he ought to have made a careful and accurate survey of the island. What is the course which the United States of America take in all their undertakings of this kind? Do they allow their territories to be squatted on, or do they make over their broad lands in the far west to the guardianship of a company in New York? No; they take the preliminary step of having an accurate survey of the territory made, and they lay down the limits within which they wish the colony to be founded. Lord Grey ought to have caused a survey to be made, and until by means of a survey he had satisfied the public of the qualities and resources of the island, he ought not to have prevented the natives of this country from going, as I contend they have a right to do, to place themselves in an independent position as colonists. There is evidence to show that the Admiralty contemplated a survey of the seas all round the island, and communicated that intention to the Colonial Office, so that the Colonial Office might have the interior of the island, if it thought proper, surveyed at the same time. That step, however, was not taken, and till it be taken, Lord Grey cannot say that voluntary efforts would not have been made to colonise the island. I speak on this subject from circumstances which came to my own knowledge a year and a half ago, and I know that numerous parties were then anxious to have gone out to Vancouver's Island, if they had known the terms on which they could have gone; and, as far as capital was concerned, numerous applications would have been made for the purchase of land two years ago. So far, then, am I from believing that this island has no advantages and no capabilities, that I believe, if there is a spot in the world which, so far as we can read its future destinies, is intended for mighty purposes, that spot is the western coast of America. Everything that has been going on there for some time past indicates that it will be an enormous civilised portion of the world; the southern part of this coast being secured to the United States, the northern to us. From the mouth of the Columbia river down to California the whole country belongs to the United States; and I think it of the greatest importance, looking to the circumstances which are likely to arise, that a free and independent colony should be established in Vancouver's Island. I think it no vain dream to anticipate that the day will come, when not only the commerce of the Pacific, hut of the coast of Asia, will in all probability flow into the ports of that island. South of Vancouver's Island, till you come to San Francisco, there is not a single available spot where a ship can take shelter. Under these circumstances, I must say it is no answer to tell us of the distance of Vancouver's Island from Great Britain. The efforts which are now making for the colonisation of neighbouring districts make it certain that some means of overland communication will before long he discovered. Before many years are over, this question of distance will be entirely obviated. But we are told that there is no trade in the harbours of the island, and that there is no demand for the coal and minerals which it contains. Of course there is not at present, but there will be when the island is colonised. I think, therefore, that whether viewed as regards the present position of Vancouver's Island and North America, or still more prospectively, this arrangement made by the Government is most impolitic, improvident, and unwise. Three years ago, such was the importance of the island, that we heard of wars and rumours of wars to maintain our rights there. This country was then ready to go to war to support its claim to Oregon. Well, we have obtained the most important portion of that district, and we hand it over to the cruel care of an anti-colonising company. I believe that the present opportunity of extending our colonial empire in that direction has been thrown away, and that as long as the company keeps its grasp upon the island no colonist will go there, or, going there, will not thrive. I believe, therefore, that in the course of a few years the Government will he obliged to exercise those reserved rights which I will now only touch upon, and emancipate the colonists at the cost of a large grant of money. The grant of the island to the company was made in the teeth of remonstrances from all quarters, and in the teeth of a division in this House, in which the Government escaped defeat by a narrow majority. It was also opposed by the press with singular unanimity. I do not believe that there is one daily or weekly journal published in this city which has not discussed the question, and every one of them in one and the same single spirit. There was also a remonstrance of a similar kind addressed to the Government in October last, and that was a memorial from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to the Privy Council. It is too long to read at length to the House, but I have made an abstract of its principal heads. It pronounces all charters for exclusive trading mischievous; expresses astonishment that so valuable a possession as Vancouver's Island should be handed over for a rental of 7 s . per annum, to so inert a body as the Hudson's Bay Company; expresses belief that, abounding in coal and timber, it presents a cheerful prospect for the free emigrant; refers to settlements rapidly increasing on Columbia river, and first-class American steamers established between that river and Panama; calls the island the key of the whole coast, and depot for refitting and supplying ships; says that all hope of a free and self-supporting colony is crushed by this unfortunate transference; complains of the grasping propensities of this secret and greedy company; refers to wise provisions in Lord Glenelg's license of trade, in 1838, for resumption of privileges by Crown where any colony should be formed; prays that charter may not be granted. Now, if we examine any of the details connected with this question, we shall find equally strong objections to the grant of a charter to the Hudson's Bay Company. I have alluded to the importance of the coal and minerals found in that island. The importance of these minerals for national objects did not escape the notice of a body more vigilant than, I am sorry to say, the Colonial Office is. On the 5th of February, 1848, Mr. Ward, then Secretary to the Admiralty, addressed this letter to Rear Admiral Sir George Seymour:—

"Sir,—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit to you, for your information and guidance, the enclosed copy of a letter from Mr. Ounard, recommending on grants of land being made on Vancouver's Island, that the coal-mines should be reserved for the use of the Crown."

The enclosed letter ran as follows:—

"1, Hyde-park Place West, Jan. 3, 1848.

"Sir—Observing in the public papers that coal is to be had at Vancouver's Ishand, I hope I may not be considered as intruding by bringing the subject under the notice of the Lords of the Admiralty. Individuals in the Oregon territory will be alive to the advantages resulting from the possession of this valuable article, and will endeavour to obtain the best situations, or acquire any right the natives may have, or suppose they may have.

"It may therefore be well, in granting lands on this island, to reserve the mines for the use of the Crown, and to take such measures as may prevent the natives or others from acquiring or ceding rights to these mines.

"The subject will not long escape the vigilance of the Americans in that neighbourhood.—I have, &c.

(Signed) "S. GUNARD.

"H. G. Ward, Esq., M.F., &c."

Mr. Ward also wrote the following letter to Mr. Hawes:—

"Admiralty, Feb. 6, 1848.

"Sir—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit to you, for the information of Earl Grey, the enclosed copy of a letter from Mr. Cunard, suggesting that on land being granted on Vancouver's Island, the coal-mines there should be reserved for the use of the Crown.—I have, &c .

(Signed) "H. G. WARD.

"B. Hawes, Esq., Colonial Office."

This was the answer returned by Mr. Merivale. Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the Secretary of the Admiralty:—

"Downing-street, Feb. 18, 1848."

Sir—I have laid your letter of the 5th instant, and its enclosure before Earl Grey, and I am directed by his Lordship to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, that the suggestion made by Mr. Cunard, that it would be advisable to reserve the coal at Vancouver's Island for the use of the Crown, will be borne in mind whenever an opportunity arises for the disposal of land in that portion of the British possessions.—I am, &.c.

(Signed) "HERMAN MERIVALE."

Whether that suggestion was borne in mind or not when the charter was granted, I am unable to say; but in the charter laid before the House not only is the land made over to the Hudson's Bay Company, but the coal and all other minerals also. I cannot but think that this is a great and grievous mistake. What are the arrangements which the company has since made, as appears by their advertisements? They propose to sell the land in fee-simple, but to reserve the whole of the minerals throughout the island, with the exception of coal, which they allow the owner of the land to work "for his own benefit"—words which are susceptible of a very limited interpretation indeed. The company reserves to itself the right of working coal throughout the island, compensating the owner of the soil for surface damage, but in certain cases it may be worked by the owner of the soil himself, on his paying a royalty of 2 s . 6 d . per ton. Now, I must say that, considering the circumstances, this royalty is enormous, for the best Staffordshire coal hardly in any case fetches a royalty of 2 s . 6 d . per ton, but varies from 1 s . to 1 s . 6 d . per ton. So much for the pecuniary part of the arrangement. It is provided, however, that the royalties received shall be applied to the same purposes as the price of land, that is to say, 90 per cent is to go to the uses of the colony, and 10 per cent to the company. As I read the charter, however, no sums of money will be applied to the purposes of the colony from this source, if the coal be worked by the company itself. My hon. Friend shakes his head, which shows me that there is at least an ambiguity in this respect; but as I read the charter, when the company work the coal themselves, the whole proceeds of the sale of the coal would go into their own coffers. That only corroborates the statements which have been made as to the impolicy and want of thrift of the Colonial Office. Now, I am told that a contract is either made, or is about to be made, by which the Hudson's Bay Company engage to supply coal from Vancouver's Island at 50 s . per ton. If this be the case, and my construction of the charter be correct, it is obvious that the company will work the whole of the coal themselves. Coal may be raised in Vancouver's Island, according to the testimony of Captain Gordon, at an expense of 4 s . per ton, and allowing the expense to increase as they work deeper, the cost of working the coal will be at the outside from 8 s . to 10 s . per ton. Now, as to the price of land, I will not discuss the questions which have been raised with respect to a uniform price of land. I know there are different opinions on that subject, and I do not wish even to mention my own. When, however, we come to the probable prospect of a colony being founded, we must look at the price of land as an important element for consideration. A price of 1 l . per acre may be very well in Australia, but in the case of Vancouver's Island you demand 1 l . per acre, coupled with the condition that for every larger amount of land than twenty acres purchased, the purchaser shall take out labourers in the proportion of five single men, or two married couples for every one hundred acres. Look at the enormous additional expense entailed by this provision. I am not saying that, eventually, this may not be a proper arrangement to make, but I look at it as bearing upon the question whether it is intended by the company to form a colony in the island. Look at the American districts just contiguous, and reflect that by the conditions imposed by the Hudson's Bay Company you are raising the price of land in Vancouver's Island to 2 l . 10 s . per acre. A few miles off, land may be purchased, on the American Continent, for a dollar and a quarter, that is, for 5 s . 3 d . English per acre. With land at that price, would the advantage of living under the Hudson's Bay Company be considered so great as to induce anybody to go to the enormous expense of 2 l . 10 s . per acre before he could put a spade in the ground, or exercise any right of ownership? I hold in my hand the advertisement which was put forth this morning by the Hudson's Bay Company, and a very pretty and plausible scheme it is—put forth not without an eye, I fancy, to the discussion which was to come on here a few hours afterwards. I have referred to two of the points embraced in that advertisement, that relating to the land sales, and that regarding the coals and minerals. There is another point alluded to in the advertisement, which is one of great importance. The company quote certain provisions of the commission and instructions given to the Governor. These look very pretty on paper; but I must tell the hon. Gentleman opposite that he has hardly dealt fairly by the House, considering the importance of this question, in leaving us so entirely without information, that until to-day we did not know whether any commission had been issued, or any instructions given to the Governor. What this commission is, or these instructions are, I do not know, except so far as the Hudson's Bay Company has been pleased to tell me, althongh it is impossible to doubt that they must have an important future bearing on the interests of the colony. The advertisement tells us, that for any one who may wish to go to Vancouver's Island there will he a ship provided in July, to he followed by another in the course of September. I suppose these are the ships of which we have heard so frequently before, and that they are not ships chartered by the Hudson's Bay Company to carry out the numerous emigrants whom they expect to attract by their advertisement. I should hope that they have not gone to that expense, for they will certainly be disappointed in any such expectation, if indeed they entertain it. The advertisement says that the ports and harbours shall be free, not only to the settlers who go there, but to ships from all parts of the world who go there for the purposes of trade. I sincerely hope that this is a bonâ fide declaration on the part of the company. Does the commission of the Governor prohibit the Hudson's Bay Company from imposing any restriction in the way of a tariff? If they have the power of imposing a tariff, this freedom of ports may really mean nothing. If they have not such a power, why have they not inserted in their charter that wise provision which was inserted in the exclusive license to trade conferred by Lord Glenelg, namely, that whenever the Crown should think fit to establish a colony in the island, exclusive right to trade should be withdrawn? But, Sir, I shall be told, no doubt, that there are two great securities now inserted in the charter, which will prevent the national evils which I and others contemplate will arise in this direction. I shall be told that there is a provision for forfeiture at the end of five years, if no colony is founded by the Hudson's Bay Company. Well, Sir, but no provision is made as to the way in which they shall found a colony. It may be, and I fear it will be, that a simple colony will be established by a transfer from Puget's Sound, which is, in fact, the Hudson's Bay Company under another name—not a colony in the ordinary sense of the word, but a mere factory—an agricultural factory, if I may use the expression, established by that company. Will that be held to be a fulfilment on their part of the provision for founding a colony in Vancouver's Island? I am bound to say, as I read this charter, that I do think it will. Therefore that provision is no security at all; and when we arrive at the end of the period, we may find ourselves very much in the same position, as regards British colonists in the island, as that in which the island stands at the present moment. But, supposing that such should not take place—supposing that this colony is founded, and there is no right at the end of five years for this country to step in to deprive the company of the charter, a second security has been inserted in the charter, namely, that in the year 1859—that is to say, on the expiration of the license for exclusive trading—the Government will be enabled to purchase up the right of the Hudson's Bay Company, conferred upon them by this charter, if they shall so think fit. Well, Sir, there is certainly here a most extraordinary laxity of wording, even if there is not something more. I am no lawyer, but as a plain man, reading this sentence, I maintain that by this charter, as at present worded, the Hudson's Bay Company will have a right to claim to be repaid—not merely the ten per cent, which they have appropriated to themselves, but the whole of the sum of ninety per cent, inclusive of what they have held in trust for public purposes, and have expended in colonisation. Sir, as I said before, I am most anxious to hear a legal opinion upon that point, but I cannot help thinking that what I have stated is the effect of the provision. It provides the repayment of any "sum or sums of money thereafter laid out and expended by them in and upon the said island and territory." There is no provision for a valuation, no provision for the arrangement being carried out in any other way than the simple payment to the company of such sums of money as shall have been expended by them, including the land sales. That is to say, the funds derived from the sales themselves, which, by the provisions of the charter, are to be appropriated to public purposes, will become a remuneration and pecuniary advantage to themselves. Well, then. Sir, I say, so far from this provision being any security, even if the colony be founded, it will be a kind of premium upon bad administration to be paid by the Government, and an encouragement to the wildest speculation. Looking at the manner in which the Hudson's Bay Company has proceeded, the Government will find that it will become their bounden duty, if not in justice to the natives, then in justice to their own subjects established in that island, to pay a large sum of money for the purpose of emancipating the island. The settlers—to use the words of a friend of mine the other day—will become hostages for the money that Parliament will eventually have to find to buy up the Hudson's Bay Company. I have now only to explain the Motion with which I am about to conclude. At the commencement of my observations I stated that I was not inclined to waste the time of the House by a mere Motion of crimination of the Government. However I may condemn—however I may deeply regret the course they have taken—however I may believe it will eventually entail upon us national loss and national calamity, I do not think I ought to propose a mere vote of censure on a question of this magnitude. But I do intend to carry out what I hope will be a practical Motion. I have brought forward this question, not as a vote of censure, but more in the hope that there is an accidental circumstance, a loop-hole, if I may use the term, by which the calamity I fear may be stayed. I believe that there is that accident, and that the charter now granted will be proved to have been faulty. And if faulty, I think, then, it becomes the bounden duty of this House again to address Her Majesty for the purpose of praying Her Majesty not to grant to the Hudson's Bay Company, or any other association, the rights of this most important island. Sir, I allude, of course, to the doubt which existed evidently in the mind of Earl Grey himself at the commencement of this transaction. A letter, addressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, under the direction of Lord Grey, dated the 3rd of October, 1846, is as follows:—

"Sir—In reference to your letter of the 7th ultimo, respecting the colonisation of the British territories in North America, situate to the westward of the Rocky Mountains, and to the northward of the 49th degree of north latitude, and in reference to what passed at the interview which took place with you on that subject at this office on the 23rd of September, I have received the directions of Earl Grey to request that you would move the directors of the Hudson's Bay Company to apprise his Lordship, with as much exactness as may be possible, what is the extent, and what are the natural or other limits of the territory in the possession of which they desire to be confirmed, pointing out what may he known regarding the soil, harbour, and navigable streams comprised within it. I am further to signify to you Lord Grey's wish to be informed by the company whether they are advised that their right is clear in point of law to receive and hold in their corporate capacity any lands within the dominions of the British Crown west-Ward of the Rocky Mountains."

And again this difficulty, referred to subsequently in a letter dated the 14th December, 1846, as follows:—

"I am directed by Earl Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th of October last, and to return to you the following answer to it. Lord Grey is unable to announce to you any decision of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the colonisation of the Oregon territory. His Lordship will be happy to receive, and will consider with every disposition to accede to it, any specific proposal for that purpose which may be suggested to him either by the Hudson's Bay Company, or by any other person interested in the subject. Lord Grey further directs me to state that he is prepared to assent, on Her Majesty's behalf, to your proposal, that certain lands in Vancouver's Island, or in other parts of the Oregon territory, should be granted to the Hudson's Bay Company; but before making that grant his Lordship would require the production, by the company, of an opinion from Her Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General, to the effect that the acceptance by the company of such a grant would be consistent with their charter of incorporation."

This is the answer of Sir John Pelly:—

"Hudson's Bay House, Jan. 22, 1847."

My Lord—Mr. Under Secretary Hawes, in the letter which, by your Lordship's direction, he did me the honour to address to me on the 14th ultimo, stated that you were prepared to assent, on Her Majesty's behalf, to my proposal that certain Lands in Vancouver's Island, or in other parts of the Oregon territory, should be granted to the Hudson's Bay Company; but that before making that grant you would require the production by the company of an opinion from Her Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General, to the effect that the acceptance by the company of such a grant would be consistent with the charter of incorporation. On receiving this intimation, I directed a case to be drawn up for the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, which case, with their own opinion thereon, I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship herewith. Your Lordship will perceive that the question raised in the case is confined to the single point on which you expressed a wish to receive information, namely, whether the Hudson's Bay Company have power under their charter to hold lands within Her Majesty's dominions westward of the Rocky Mountains."

Well, Sir, I confess that I, for one, am not satisfied with the course which has been taken by Lord Grey to satisfy his own mind as to the doubt which I have twice shown to have existed—a doubt as to the power of the Hudson's Bay Company to receive a charter of land westward of the Rocky Mountains. I say, the regular and official course has not been taken in this instance. There can be no doubt that it was the duty of the Colonial Office to satisfy its doubts by having a case prepared. I believe there are doubts as to the legality of this charter—not, let me say, as regards the power of the Crown to confer, but as regards the Hudson's Bay Company to receive; and when such doubts exist, be they great or be they small, it is the duty of the Colonial Office, not to direct the com- pany to prepare a case, but to have prepared a case themselves. I will ask any learned Gentleman in this House whether it is not a well-known axiom, "If you will give me the party who prepares the case, I will tell you the answer that will be given?" Believing this grant to be impolitic and unjust, I am justified in availing myself of any mode of escape that may yet be left, to endeavour, as far as possible, consistent with honour, to save the country from the bargain—the unfortunate bargain—which has been made by the Government. Therefore, after the first resolution, which details succinctly (what I have already stated at such length) my reasons for believing the Hudson's Bay Company to be an improper body to conduct a free colony, I go on to state that I believe that the course taken by the Colonial Office to satisfy the doubts which existed previously to the issuing of this charter is insufficient, and therefore I conclude by praying Her Majesty that She will cause such measures to be taken as will ascertain in a regular and proper manner the validity of this charter without any possible doubt; and if that report should be unfavourable, I shall go on to propose that the grant be abandoned. I have to apologise for the time I have taken up in bringing this subject before the House; and I can assure the House that I have been actuated by those feelings which led me in the first instance to put the question to the noble Lord in the course of the last Session of Parliament—a thorough and mature conviction that this arrangement is most impolitic and unwise—that you have sacrificed by this transfer to the company, not merely the individual interests of those who may be induced under any circumstances to go to that island under the auspices of the company, but you have entailed a very material and grievous loss upon this country, both as regards the trade of the Pacific, and the political bearing on the mighty interests that are rising in that quarter of the world: and let me add, a heavy blow has been struck against the great and growing interests of free colonisation. The noble Lord concluded by moving—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, setting forth that this House has taken into its consideration the Papers which Her Majesty has graciously commanded to be presented to it with regard to the grant of Vancouver's Island by Royal Charter to the Hudson's Bay Company, and is of opinion that it is ill adapted for superintending the establishment of any Colony founded upon principles of political or commercial freedom:

"That it also appears from the Papers before mentioned, that the means adopted by the Secretary of State to ascertain 'that the acceptance by the Company of such a grant would be consistent with their Charter of Incorporation,' were insufficient:

"That this House accordingly prays Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to direct that such measures as shall appear to Her Majesty most suitable may be adopted to ascertain whether, by the Charter in question, a grant in all respects valid has been made of the powers which it purports to convey."

, although he seconded the Motion, must say, that the noble Earl had not made the case sufficiently strong. It appeared to him that the conduct of the Colonial Office had been most shameful, and every step of their proceedings had been irregular. He did not think the Hudson's Bay Company were to be at all blamed in the matter: their object was to drive a trade in skins and furs; and nothing could be more desirable to them than to obtain possession of Vancouver's Island, and prevent its colonisation. The Colonial Office had, however, acted most irregularly and improperly in allowing the transfer of the island, under such circumstances, to a body whose principles for 200 years past had been those of monopoly and restriction. No doubt they looked upon this as a most advantageous proceeding. It would be to their interest to prevent colonisation. Every one of the conditions attached to the grant to the company was at variance with those which any wise man wishing to encourage a colony would impose. Probably there was no spot on the face of the globe more advantageous for the promotion of commerce and trade than this island. The natives, with their wooden implements alone, could now produce coals at 4 s . a ton; and, therefore, there could be no doubt that, with the necessary improvement, coals could be obtained for 2 s . a ton. Prince Edward's Island was originally granted to twenty-eight individuals, and not two of them ever intended to go there. It appeared to him to be one of the most unfortunate occurrences connected with colonisation that had occurred since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. The noble Earl had referred to the Motion which he had made for the production of papers connected with that subject, and had approved of the refusal of the Government to produce them. The production might have been inconvenient; but where great national advantages were to be obtained, he did not see why they should keep secret what affected the interests of the community at large. It was a most irregular mode of doing business to allow a party to make out his own case. He thought he was justified in saying that the interests of the country ought not to be sacrificed to ignorance or interest. He considered that the Minister of the Crown should not have power to grant or give away any portion of the British territory until the opinion of the House had been taken upon the matter. The time was, he thought, coming, when the House would have a right to interfere, and inquire into bargains of that nature, to prevent the public interests being sacrificed in that way. He was sorry Her Majesty had been advised to confirm the grant, and he thought the House was in a position to come to a direct vote of censure upon the conduct of the Government. He knew no single publication, he knew no one man, who would attempt to defend these proceedings on the part of the Colonial Office. Upon all the grounds which he had stated, he thought it a most unfortunate circumstance that this island should have been handed over to the Hudson's Bay Company, instead of establishing a British colony under the protection of the Crown. In that case the island would have enabled us to prevent that interference which we might expect hereafter on the part of the United States. If Vancouver's Island were not colonised, there would not he another port of that extensive coast where English ships could resort. It was, indeed, matter of regret that the Admiralty should not have pressed upon the Government the necessity of having this island as a place of resort for our ships. It was impossible to believe for one moment that this colony would ever be made useful to us. He was sorry that the Motion of the noble Earl did not convey a stronger condemnation of the policy of the Colonial Office. In that condemnation, he believed, if he were to poll the country through, nine-tenths of the people would go with him.

The Question having been put,

rose to reply, when Notice taken that forty Members were not present.

House counted; and forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at half-after Eight o'clock.