The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-19 00:00:00

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.

The Earl of LINCOLN rose to move 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 pre-
sented 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 :super-
intending 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 inconsistent with their Charter of Incorpora-
tion" 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. He said
he hoped he should be able to induce the House
and the Government to adopt a very different and much
more satisfactory course than had yet been adopted with
respect to Vancouver's Island. He had no hostility
towards the late company, but he felt it his duty, however

painful the topic might be, to expose certain acts
to which it had been a party. Colonization by absentee
proprietary companies, so fur as the experience of the
House had gone, bad invariably failed. The case of
the colony of Virginia was another instance of failure by
a company. After great labour on the part of the com-
pany, and an expenditure of 12,0001., there were no more
than 600 persons in the colony; while, within twelve
months, after a change in the system, the population
increased to 1,260 persons. The same might be said
again of the case of Massachusetts which was granted to
a company in 1635, but the non-resident proprietorship
system failed in establishing either that colony or that
of Carolina, which was granted to a company in 1665
and abandoned by them in 1668. Pennsylvania was
colonized by Mr. Penn, who represented a company
in Great Britain, but even there the non-resident
system produced disastrous results upon the colony,
and he believed its merits were ultimately estab-
lished by the adoption of the representative prin-
ciple. It was quite clear, therefore, that colo-
nies depended in a great measure for their suc-
cess upon the existence of resident proprietors,
and he was prepared to insist that in the
case of a colony like the present the Imperial
Government ought to keep the matter in its own
bands, and not delegate its powers and autho-
rity to a company of individuals. (Hear, hear.)
The House must bear in mind the expense which our colo-
nies had involved us in ; let them bear in mind the cost of
South Australia, and the 138,0001. which New Zealand
had cost this country. Though the Treasury might, at the
present moment, be glad to get rid of the responsibility of
Vancouver's Island by an arrangement with the Hud-
son's Bay Company they would find in future years they
would be called upon to provide large sums for its main-
a bad
main-
tenance. The condition of South Australia and New
; but the condition
u
under the govern-
ment Bay Company, would
Zfeal a Zealand
Vancouver's wasth edoubtless
H Hudson's
nnd
u
become worse than all. His words might appear harsh,
but he was prepared to show that the constitution of the
country was despotic. What was in dispute in this
case? Not the right of the Crown to part with land,
but the extent of the land conveyed by that grant.
There could be no doubt that the claim of the Hudson's
Bay Company over hundreds and thousands of acres
of territory were totally unfounded, having never been
granted to them by the charter at all. The treaty of
Utrecht, though it clearly defined the right of Great
Britain to the land, had never granted it to such an extent
as was now claimed of this country; and he contended,
therefore, that it was impossible for the grantor to grant
to the Hudson's Bay Company that which he did
not in fact possess. Questions had been raised on this
subject which had not been decided by law, but only by
compromise. He was justified in saying that the Hud-
son's Bay Company had raised the greatest
doubts in the year 1645, with respect to the
validity of their charter, when they came to that House
for a Bill upon the subject. The House of Com-
mons of that day thought the Bill ought to be
limited to ten years, and on the Bill going
up to the House of Lords, they reduced
the number of years to seven. The result was the Bill
was not persevered in, and the company from that time
had never dared to come to Parliament for an Act to
lay down these rights. Having slightly glanced at
this part of the subject, he would now come to the other
portion of the case, namely, the conduct of the Hudson's
Bay Company with respect to that part of
the country as to which there could be no
doubt the company had a right. In referring
to that part of the subject, he would not say
anything of their non-fulfilment of their du-
ties in endeavouring to eff,'ct a north-west passage.
He did not think it was necessary to renew the question
affecting the past conduct of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany until they had the opportunity of laying their case
before the House. The reasons for conferring those ex-
tensive priviliges on the Hudson's Bay Company were
that the moral and religious improvement of the
Indians might be promoted.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hudson's Bay Company, he contended, had neglected
the fulfilment of those conditions of their monopoly;
they bad in a great degree neglected the religious and
moral improvement of the people; and they had also to
a certain extent encouraged the sale of ardent spirits.
There was another charge made against the company
with which he should deal presently, namely, that not
only had cases of murder been frequently perpe-
trated by the company's servants and agents, but that,
after some form of trial, capital executions had taken
place within the territory on two or three occasions,
on persons after having been capitally convicted
contrary to the statute to which he should
by and by call the attention of the House.
There was another topic to which he wished to allude,
the sale of intoxicating liquors by the company, which
had greatly affected the moral condition of the people,
and been the cause of much distress and misery among
them. If some steps were not taken to prevent the
introduction of spirits into the country, the whole popu-
lation would be vitiated or destroyed. It appeared
by a Parliamentary return that, in 1837, 3,000 gallons
were consumed, and that in 1847, ten years after-
wards, that quantity bad increased to 9,000 gallons,
with, he was sorry to say, a diminishing popula-
tion, and without any increase in the number of
colonists. The company could not deny this, for it
appeared that they were in the habit of exchanging
spirits for furs and other articles. He had also to allude
to another topic—that the company had emitted
to take care of the religious instruction and
education of the natives and the colonists.
The Noble -Lord continued to read extracts setting
forth the cruelty with which the territory was managed.
One instance was the shooting of a maniac
without any steps being taken to ascertain
whether he was or was not guilty. He did
not wish to press harshly upon those entrusted with the
government of this immense wild territory; but the
acts of violence and brutality which had
taken place ought not longer to be tolerated.
Added to the complaints he had alluded to, there had
been complaints of the colonists themselves of the pre-
vention of emigration by the Hudson's Bay Company,
and the exclusion of trade except in ships belonging to
themselves and those only going to and fro, he believed,
once a year.