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

Lord J. RUSSELL observed that one part of this
questiou was apparently easy ; but the rights of the
Hudson's Bay Company presented an insuperable
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 sway
from the Hudson's Bay Company
.any part of their
land for the purpose of colonization, the company
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.