The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-08 00:00:00

The Hudson's Bay Company's Territory.

In further illustration of the momentous qUE3-
tion affecting those regions of British North Ame-
rica—a question discussed to-day in our first leading
article, and referred to elsewhere in a brief commu-
nication addressed to us by an intelligent cone-
spon dent—we are tempted to quote the following
passages from a petition transmitted from the
Liverpool Financial Reform Association, and pre-
sented by that association as far back as 1858:—
TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED

KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, IN PAR•

LIAMENT ASSEMBLED;
Humbly showeth,—That the British possessicns in North
America, entitled the Hudson's Bay and Indian territories,
exceed the whole of Europe in extent—abound in agricul-
tural and mineral wealth, possess facilities for a most com-
plete system of inland water communication, and enjoy
many other natural advantages and sources of commercial
greatness, which render them a most eligible field for
British colonisation.
That the alleged rights of absolute ownership and exclu-
sive trading over the whole of these immense regions,
held by a small number of private individuals, are
contrary to justice and public policy; and that such
rights and privileges have been exercised in a man-
ner most prejudicial to the British colonists
settled therein, to the native races, and to the interests of
the empire at large.
That the possession of such monstrous privileges by a
few persons, to the manifest injury of all the rest of the com-
munity, is directly opposed to the theory of free trade, so
happily inaugurated by your honourable house, and ought,
therefore, to be forthwith abolished.
That your petitioners have learnt with great apprehen-
sion, and even with dismay, that a legislative measure is
about to be submitted to your honourable house continuing
the monopoly of the Hudson's Bay Company, so far as re-
gards the Hudson's Bay and Indian territories,with no other
modification than the cession of certain districts to Canada,
on what are called " equitable principles," by which
phrase your petitioners understand that either Canada or
the mother country is to pay the Hudson's Bay Company
for the ceded districts; and that your honourable house is
to be advised to ratity this arrangement, " whatever may
be the validity or otherwise of the rights claimed by the
Hudson's Bay Company under the charter," and this
mainly on three grounds—lst, the maintenance of law and
order; 2dly, presumed fatal effects to the Indians from
open competition in the fur trade ; and, 3dly, the probable
destruction of the more valuable fur-Learing animals at no
distant period.
That your petitioners believe that the charter granted;by
King Charles the Second to the Hudson's Bay Company
was invalid ab initto, because it conferred powers and privi-
leges contrary to the laws of England, without the sanction
of Parliament ; and that, even if it were legal, the company
has since usurped territories expressly excluded from its ope-
ration, which then belonged to France, and should now form
part of Canada.
That, in the opinion of your petitioners, the legality or
illegality of the charter, and, if it be legal, the limits of the
company's jurisoicion under it, ought to be cleciaed by a
competent judicial tribunal before any question of compen-
sation is entertained, and that to plead for the application
of " equitable principles" in favour of the company, whet ner
its claims be valid or invalid, without reference to any such
principles against the company, involves not simply an in •
consistency but a denial of justice to the people et Grea
Britain and Canada.
That the reasons alleged for treating the validity or non-
validity of the charter as a matter comparatively unimpor-
etaienntt
That your petitioners cannot believe that a system whichare, in the opinion of your petitioners, wholly insuffi-
creates such intense dissatisfaction amongst the one small
body of British settlers under the sway of the Hudson Bay
Company as to induce amongst them a desire to throw ott
their allegiance to the British Crown, and which invites
constant encroachments on British territories, now lying
waste and unoccupied, by citizens of the United States, is
conducive to the maintenance of law and order.
That your petitioners greatly doubt the sincerity of a
sympathy for the Indians, which is coincident with exact-
ing from them profits ranging from 200 to 2,000 per cent. on
every article the company buys or sells, as also with a de-
crease in their numbers, and with little or no progress in
their civilisation, or improvement in their condition.
That your petitioners, believing that the vast regions
which it has been the object of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany to retain, as nearly as possible, in a state of desert na-
ture, for the breeding and hunting of wild beasts, may,
under a proper system of colonisation and government, be •
come covered with populous towns, and flourishing commu-
nities of British subjects, who would otherwise have re-'
sorted to the United States and other foreign countries,
would rejoice in such a consummation, even though it
should be attended with the extinction of all fur-bearing
animals.

That, whether as regards Vancouver's Island, the Hud-
son's Bay territories, or the Indian territories, the great
natural advantages possessed by them all will be best de-
veloped by their severance from a company whose policy
has always been, as it still is, opposed to all development
excepting that of a paltry trade in furs, realising only a few
hundred thousand pounds annually from nearly half the
continent of America, whose imports and exports, under
other auspices, would soon be estimated by millions sterling.

CLEVER SHAVERS !—Talleyrand told Lord Hol-
land, "A king by birth is shaved by another. He who
makes himself king shaves himself." Napoleon, like Wel-
lington, shaved himself.
Mr. BOUCICAULT'S THEATRICAL REFORMS.—
It is well known that Mr. Boucicault had no sooner
realized a fortune at one of our London theatres, than he
made the discovery that our theatre accommodation was ex-
tremely defective, and promised that he would set to work
and amend it. With this view he became the lessee of
Astley's Amphitheatre, and effected certain alterations
which were not generally accepted as improvements. He
also stated that he intended to purchase houses on each
side of the theatre, atd to convert these into waiting saloon=,
corridors, &c., for the comfort and convenience of his visi-
tors. Not content with these promises, he organised a
"Theatre Company," whose management included some
high sounding ar.d influential names—he pitched upon a
site in the Haymarket, opposite Mr. Buckstone's establish-
ment, and somehow or other made the public believe that
preliminaries were satisfactorily settled, and that in a few
dais the builders would commence. But these splendid
projects appear to have been doomed to a hasty and rather
undignified abandonment. The Westminster Theatre has
suddenly closed its doors, and the threatened houses on
either side remain unmolested. With regard to the grander
ecene at the West-end, the proprieter of the coveted site
declared that he had not parted with his property and did
not intend to.
Subsequently, the broker of the Theatre
Company advertised his severance from the project, and
finally, we understand, that the dukes, lords, and so on,
who had been persuaded to lend their names to the specu-
lation, have withdrawn their oupportow-Butklin9 Nam