The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-19 00:00:00

BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Sir E. GROGAN asked the -Under Secretary of State
for the Colonies whether the Hudson's Bay Company had
any ownership in the soil or any right, except that of taking
wild animals, to the district of country lying between Lake
Superior and British Columbia, comprising the only prairie
and some of the most fertile land in British America ; and,
if the company had no right, whether the said district
should not be opened for a ttlement under the Crown, and
thus invite the emigrants who now leave this country for
the United States to settle in our own colony ?
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that the Hudson Company
claimed territorial right over the district alluded to, which
had been twice assented to by the law officers under two
Governments. As these claims were considered valid 200
years, under these circumstances it was not right to
raise an issue on them. He denied that the tide of
emigration was checked by the Hudson Company, but by
other obstacles which he trut ted would eventually be re
moved.

THE SUEZ CANAL.
Mr. D. GRIFFI I'll asked the First Lord of the Trea-
sury whether the Sultan had authorised the Pacha of
Eg3 pt to submit the questions at issue relative to the Suez
Canal to the arbitration of the Emperor of the French ; and
whether, among such questions considered to be at issue,
the requirement of the supply of forced labour for the exe-
cution of the works of the canal was. presumed to be in-
cluded ?

Lord PALMERSTON said that all he knew on the
subject was derived from the Ifoniteur, which announced
that the Emperor, with the consent of the Pacha of Egypt,
had agreed to arbitrate on the matter.

HOLSTEIN AND SCHLESWIG.
Mr. OSBOR,).TE asked the First Lord of the Treasury,
whether her Majesty's Government had grounds for be-
lieving that the order of succession in Holstein and
Schleswig, which was contemplated by the treaty of Lan-
don, would lbe consented to by the Assemblies of Estates
in those Duchies ?

Lord PALMERSTON said that the question would be
decided by the Assemblies of Estates. The noble lord, in
reply to a subsequent question, denied that the treaty of
1852 had anything to do with this subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
AND MR. SHERIDAN.

Sir JOHN HAY rose to move the following :—" That
this house sees with regret that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer has not considered it his duty, after the expla-
nation given last night, to withdraw the imputations which
he has cast on the hon. member for Dudley." He said that
in this case a question of privilege was involved. The right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last
night that if he had been guilty of what was charged against
him he was bound not only to apologise to the hon. member
for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), but that he was deserving the
censure of the house, and on these issues he challenged the
decision of hon. members.
The SPEAKER interrupted the member on a point of
order, and said that the question of privilege should be de-
cided before the motion was made.
Lord PALMERSTON then moved that the motion of
the hon. baronet should have precedence of the orders of
the day.

After an animated discussion, in which Dir. BOVVERIE,
Mr. ROEBUCK, and other hon. members took part,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entered
into an explanation, wad said that as regarded the society
in question he was prepared to adhere to his statement on
the facts on which it was founded. As regarded the hon.
member for Dudley he said that he had not heard the de-
claration he understood he had made of his not being in any
way responsible for transactions of the society, and if he
made that distinct declaration he (Mr. Sheridan) would be
entirely :freed ,from any adverse presumption, and would
be in the same position as if his (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's) statement had never been made.
(Hear, hear.) On that declaration being made he
would be only happy to supply any deficiency in his state-
ment in regard to the hon. member. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHERIDAN said he had stated most distinctly
last night that he had been an auditor of the society
up to IS-sd, that he knew of nothing censurable in
the transactions of the society, and that in his official ca-
pac:ty he was not responsible for any such transaction.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said that his motion was rendered
unnecessary by the handsome explanation of his right hon,

friend.
The motion was then withdrawn.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER, said he
was misinformed, and understood that the hon. member
had been an auditor of the society.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER repeated
that he had been under the impression that the bon, mem-
ber had been auditor of the society in 1559, and he again
apologised. to the hon. member.
Sir
J. HA then withdrew his motion, and the subject
dropped.

STATE OF RESERVOIRS.
On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON that the house
at its rising do adjourn until Monday, the 4th of April,
Mr. FERRAND drew attention to the state of Doe-park
and other reservoirs belonging to the Bradford Corporation.