The Press. — London, England, 1858-07-24 00:00:00

71.2 upon the bill, the clauses of which were agreed to with amendmens. THE JEW BILL. On the order for going into committee upon this bill, Mr. KNIGHTLEY, an opponent of the bill, said he thought that if the Lords intended to admit Jewa to Parliament it would have been wiser to agree to the bill sent np to them by the Commons than to pass this queer measure of an Irish compromise, acoompa• nied by reasons why its provisions ought not to be acted upon by the house. Mr. GILPIN characterized the bill as a miserable subterfuge and only a little better than nothing at all. Mr. BENTINCX declared that by the bill a direct and aggravated insult was offered to the House of Commons and to the Jews themselves. He contended that the house was bound to include Turks, heretics, and infidels in the bill. Mr. SPOONER thought the bill a great disgrace to the other branch of the Legislature, and that it was an insult to this house to ask it to agree to a measure every word of which was reprobated except the object it was to carry out. Lord J. Russo's., at the request of Mr. Spooner, showed that there was nothing unconstitutional in the provisions of the bill. Upon • division, the ayes, for the committee, were 144, and the noes 40. The house then went into committee upon the bill, when Mr. SPooNER moved to add a proviso to the first clause, " That such resolution be not acted on till the oonsent of the Crown be signified to both Houses of _ Parliament." The motion was negatived, and this and the other clauses were agreed to without amendment. The house next went into committee upon the Government of New Caledonia Bill, and afterwards upon the Civil Bills, dm. (Ireland), Act Amendment Bill, the clauses of which were discussed at much length and ultimately agreed to. (Aber bills were forwarded a stage, and, the re maining orders (the aggregate number being forty) having been disposed of, the house adjourned at half past two o'oloak. HOUSE OF LORDS-TCESDAN. SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BELL. On the order of the day for going into committee on this bill, Lord Sr. LEONARDS protested against the farther progress of the measure, severely condemning its object, which is to extend the jurisdiction of the Encumbered Estates court to unencumbered estates, and to give indisputable titles to estates that are not for sale. It would revolutionize the whole law of property- The Loan CHANCELLOR defended the provisions of the act. The operation of the court bad been so beneficial that owners of unencumbered property created burdens on it for the purpose of bringing it within the action of the court. Its powers had therefore been extended by the present act. Lord CRAN'WORTH supported the bill, with the ex ception of the thirty-first clause, which enables pro prieturs of estates who do not intend to sell them to obtain, by application to the court, a certificate of title that cannot afterwards be disputed. For what honest purpose could any one require to bo fur nished with such a title? Against this clause he ... strongly protested. The Earl of WICKLOW expressed the same objec tions to this part of the bill as those pointed out by Lord Cranwortb. In committee a division was taken on this clause, which was agreed to by a majority of 19, the numbers being 29 for the clause and 10 against it. The bill then passed through committee. The Medical Practitioners' Bill went through committee, with some amendments. INDLi. BILL. On bringing up the report of the Government of India Bill, Lord ELLENBoaouolt moved an amend ment which removes any possible doubt that the expenses of the Indian Government are to be de frayed from the revenue of India only. It was agreed to, and after a brief discussion the report was received, and the bill ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. Their lordships then adjourned. ROUSE OF COMMONS—ThEsDAy. INDIA. Lord STANLEY, in reply to Mr. Buxton, said, in the present state of India the intelligence from the disturbed districts was very defective, and neither at the Board of Control nor at the East India House was he able to obtain any information concerning the execution at Jellalahad, by Mr. Money, of the Tehsildar ; and, with reference to another question— Whether, under existing circumstances in India, it • would not be desirable to offer a complete amnesty, with certain exceptions, to all who laid down their arms—he reminded the house of the instructions which bad been sent out to the Governor. General in Council (extract* of which he read), and of the ex. THE PRESS, JULY 24, 1858. pressed policy of Lord Cauniug in the spirit of the suggestion . HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. Mr. ROEBUCK moved the following resolutions : That the privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company, about to expire, ought not to be renewed ; that the legal validity of the exclusive rights claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, under their charter, ought at once to be determined by process of law : and that so much of the territory hitherto held by the Hudson's Bay Company as may be needed for the purpose or colonization ought without delay to be resumed by the Government of this country. He observed that the present state of the North American continent was a matter of very great im• portance to this country, and he urged the policy of extending to the utmost colonization in the British territorities on that continent. He brought no charge against the Hudson's Bay Company; they had only done what their interest as a company dictated ; but, being a fur company, they were opposed to coloni zation, which would accelerate the destruction of the fur-beating animals. Ho called upon the Govern ment to ascertain the legal rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, and, whatever those rights might be, they must, he said, be taken away, granting the company compensation, and colonies planted from the western shore of Lake Superior to the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Ocean, spreading the civilization of England, which he pronounced the greatest country in the world. The motion was seconded by Lord BURY, who gave a clear and an interesting description of the vast territory claimed by the Hudson's Bay Com pany, part of which consisted, he said, of fine prairie land, beautifully watered and very fertile, admirably suited for colonization. After a copious and minute investigation of the history of the company, he reduced their claims to a licence of exclusive traffic, which would expire next year, and the monopoly of trade over Rupert's Land under their charter, to which he suggested legal objections. Mr. GLADSTONE, after bearing testimony to the soundness of Mr. Roebuck's view, and to the mastery of the subject displayed by Lord Bnry, observed that, of the three resolutions, the second was by far the most important. It wai beyond all question, in his opinion, that a large part of the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company was adapted for colonization, and that the company were by their very character inimical to it. Their charter gave them the privilege of exclusive trade only with the Indians, whereas they excluded all parties from carrying on any trade ; and it was a question whether, according to the true interpretation of the charter, the lands intended to be given them were the shores of the bay and of the lake and rivers in the imme diate neighbourhood of the bay. The company, however, ought not to be harshly or severely dealt with. If they were entitled to rights, the company could not be deprived of them without full and ample compensation ; but it might appear that, although not valid in law, in point of equity there were grounds for a liberal entertainment of their claims. He felt, at the same time, that the British public had rights in this matter ; but, upon the whole, he suggested whether it would not be better to leave the question now in the hands of her Majesty's Goverment. Mr. LABOUCTISAE observed that the question upon which the policy of the Government should turn was, after all those parts of the territory adapted for colonization had been given up, what should be the course pursued with regard to those immense tracts which were totally unfit for colonization, but where it was of the utmost importance to maintain law and order. The question was one of a very peculiar character. H 3 agreed that it was desirable that the rights of the oompany should be ascertained ; that the charter should be done away with, and a licence substituted; but he protested against vast tracts of country being thrown open indiscriminately to all corners without provisions to preserve order there. Upon the whole he concurred with Mr. Glad stone, that it would be batter to leave this matter to the Government. Sir E. B. Lrrrom stated his general views of the question. He admitted that it was an important object to extend civilization in the tetritory in ques tion, and that parts of it were of the character de scribed by Lord Bury ; but, on the other hand, large portions of the region no civilized man could inhabit. He then proceeded to explain in detail the intentions of the Government on the expiration of the com pany's licence, and the difficulties which surrounded the general question of their rights under the charter. All he could say was, that the whole sub ject should be submitted to the careful consideration of the law officers of the present Government ; and he was bound to say that the company were far from l'showing themselves stubborn or impracticable, and next session he hoped to lay before Parliament a scheme that would meet its approbation. Meanwhile it was not intended to renew the company's licence of exclusive trade over those parts vi the territory which ware adapted for colonization. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that one part of this questiou was apparently easy ; but the rights of th e Hudson's Bay Company presented an insup era b le difficulty, and, until it was decided what those rights were, there was no cleating satisfactorily with the question. Some legal authority—the Privy Council or a court of law—must determine this point in the first instance. Mr. A. MILLS concurred in theispirit of the reso- lutions. Mr. LOWE said if it were desired to take sw ay from the Hudson's Bay Company . any part of their land for the purpose of colonization, the comp any would not stand much in the way. As a commer cial body alone they were entitled to a fair and ree. sonable compensation. He should, however, be sorry to see the course adopted of submitting the question of the validity of their charter, which had been so long virtually recognised, to the aecision of a court of law. He insisted upon the obstacles to the establishment and government by this country of a colony in a territory like the Red River, almost inaccessible except through the United States, and which it would be difficult to defend. After some remarks brMr. CHRISTY, Mr. GLLPIN inveighed in strong terms against the rule and policy of the Hudson's Bay Company, read. ing accounts of the unjust and cruel dealings of their servants with the Indigos. Mr. KINNAIED took a different view of the conduct of the company. The evidence before the committee of last year, he said, negatived the conclusions of Mr. Gilpin. Mr. C. FORTESCUE likewise spoke in vindication of the company. The discussion was continued by Mr. C. Fitz william, Mr. Wyld, and Mr. J. Fitzgerald, and after a short reply, Mr. ROEBUCK withdrew his motion. 51r. CRAWFORD moved an address to her Majesty, praying that she would he pleased to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the complaints made by certain of her subjects of the destruction of their pro- Deny by her Majesty's forces at Uleaborg, in the Gulf of Bothnia, during the recent war with Russia, as more particularly set forth in certain memorials addressed to the Lords of the Treasury. Premising that the matter imolved not only the interests of individuals but the fair fame. of this country as a belligerent, he proceeded to state the circumstances of one of the cases, in which a quantity of timber, only calculated for building purposes, and not there fore contraband of war, and which was private and partly British property, had been destoyed iu 1854 by Admiral Plumridge. He characterized tbe trans action as wanton and barbarous, without the slightest justification, end in the teeth of the declared policy of our Government and of a proclamation issued by Admiral Plumridge himself, the place being quite defenceless. The motion was seconded by Mr. ADAMS, who contended, citing authorities, that private or neutral property in an enemy's country, by international law, was exempt from reprisals by a belligerent. Sir J. PAXINOTON hoped to satisfy the house that there were two sides to the question. The Govern tnent, be said, might have rested their opposition to the motion on the ground that repeated applications had been made upon the subject and rejected. The Government had referred the question to the law officers of the Crown, who had given a decided opi nion against the claim for compensation. He denied that the timber, which had been destroyed along with a large quantity of pitch and tar by Admiral Plumridge, was of a private nature. It was contra brand of war, the timber being fit for the construction of vessels, and no proof had been offered to the admiral that any part of the property belonged to British merchants. Mr. M. GIBSON said he aid not mean to argue that these parties had a legal title to indemnity, but he contended that they had a moral, just, and equi table claim upon the British Government for the loss. It was well known that the affair was a mistake. Sir C. NAPIER sad that Admiral Plumridge had been perfectly right in the service he performed. It bad been stated upon authority that twelve gunboats had been built at Uleaborg, and he thought it was unfair that this matter should be brought before the house four years after the occurrence. Mr. WEGUELIN observed, that the question turned upon this point—whether the articles were or were not contraband of war, and all Mr. Crawford asked was a commission to inquire into the circumstances of the destruction of the property, and of what it con sisted. The Soricrron•Gaasau. remarked, that no claim had been made in either of the cases till 1856, and in one ease not till the present year ; and he asked whether it was right to listen to applications for compensation so long after the transaction, and when it was su difficult to arrive at the truth. lie dts putt d the claims, however, on their merits, main tsining that the articles destroyed were contraband LI war.