The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-19 00:00:00

but this inquiry—which iu the first place ought not tp have
been referred to the governor of the Red River settlement,
although he were, at the same time, an officer in our uavy—
had not, in his opinion, produced any satisfactory result.
The Hon. Gentleman spoke as though the sole complainant
of the company was a Mr. Isbister, whereas, Mr. Isbister was
the agent of 1,000 other persons, members, for the most
part, of Indian and half-breed families, Christian converts,
who all, through Mr. Isbister, grievously complained of the
Hudson's Bay Company, and; among other things, com-
plained that, so late as 1845, the company was in the
habit of inflicting corporeal punishment upon its ser-
vants, of its own absolute authority, without trial. What
did the Hon. Member say of capital punishment without
even the form of a trial? ..Was that to be investigated?
Such a charge had been made by Mr. T. Simpson, one of the
servants of the company, and they were not likely to
bear witness against their employers. The regulations of
the company and their directions to their agents authorised
them to kill those Indians who raised their arms against
Europeans in their employ. The company also levied taxes
of their own authority. Was that to be endured? Angels
and archangels alone could be safely entrusted with such
powers. They were far too large to be entrusted to a trad-
ing company. The servants of the- company also were said
to be paid in notes of hand only to be cashed in London.
The scarcity of food was such in the Hudson Bay territory,
that the Indians were driven to resort to cannibalism, not as
a matter of taste or preference, but of dire necessity. Was it
not a monstrous hardship to compel barbarians to bring most
valuable commodities for sale, and to confine them to one
single customer, with whom alone it rested to make the
return of value for his commodities ? And what proportion
did that return bear to the value of the article? He referred
to the Hudson Bay territory Indians alone, and not to. the
frontier Indians of Canada. It was stated by Mr. Robson
last century, that 2,000 per cent. was the gain of the com-
pany. Mr. Umiraville stated in 1796 that a gallon of spirits
bought a skin worth 61. A bearskin worth 21. was ex-
changed against a comb worth about 4d. A gun costing
225. was given for 20 beaver skins, worth 321. 104.,i dozen
brass buttons, worth Nide bought a beaver skin worth
325. 6d. Was this a fair trafilc? Was it fair to compel
the Indians to deal with one customer making such
profits like 'this; and, if so, was it not just to com-
pel the company to provide against starvation ? lie did
not believe in the assertion that the fur trade required a
monopoly, and could only be carried on in that manner.
As for the opinion of Lord Elgin on _the quiiasion of the
Hudson's Bay Company, great as was Lie respestt for that
nobleman, his authority on this point was noryoworth more
than that of any Member of the House. The- jeprease of
spirits, from 3,000 to 9,000 gallons within the laist few
years in the Hudson's Bay territory, was anoilier ugly . fact
that demanded inquiry. Then, again, as to settlers, it was
most necessary to be choice- in their selection. If a good
selection of Settlers was made the best results might be at-
tained. But what were the facts, as they had been repre-
sented to him? The system of the company with respect to
settlers was most objectionable. That of remitting the
duties en certain commodities imported afforded a proof of
this; for that practice gave the company a power which
they often exercised to the great detriment of the settle-
ment. Mr. Sinclair had suffered very greatly by this
system. He had been refused the privilege of importing
any manufactures in the company's ships by a formal letter
from Mr. Secretary Alexander Christie. These allegations
were so serious that they ought to put to flight all the in-
tentions on the part of the Government to grant any addi-
tional powers to the company until they had been investi-
gated. No one who read the evidence, eve, the most
friendly towards the company, that of Mr. Simpson, the
Arctic discoverer, for example, but must come to the conclu-
sion that their settlement was not conducted upon proper
Principles. The lion. Member then quoted a part of Mr.
Bimpson's biography, showing that no steps had been taken
to erect a place of worship throughout their territory, a fact
which was conclusive against them. The work of Chris-
tianity had been effected in the Hudson Bay Company's
territory by the Church Missionary Society, and even that
was confined to very few spots in that vast range. The
Bishop of Montreal stated that there was no chaplain at Fort
Vancouver, and that there was only one clergyman at the
Red River settlement. But it might be said, that if there
were not Church of England clergymen, there were ministers
of other denominations That was not the case, as Mr. Simp-
son's evidence showed. Whilst referring to these statements lie
did not mean to say they were conclusive against the company,
but their general bearing was such as to demand investiga-
tion. The company lied also undertaken formally to locate
the Indians on a part of their territory, but they never made
the attempt, after 150 years' possession, until the year 1832.
He had endeavoured to argue in a manner to bring out the
facts, and in so doing he thought he had successfully shown
the Hudson's Bay Company to be the very worst medium of
colonization that could be instituted. The ~Colonial-office
had not done its duty in this respect. for no notice had ever
been publicly given that land would be granted at Vancou-
ver's Island ; and when it was recollected that the Americans
were about to establish a line of steamers in that direction,
it was obvious there existed in that circumstance a great
stimulus to colonization, for coals must be had at Tancouvers
Island, and they must either be sent out from England or
procured on the spot, for which there were great tocilities,
as coal abounded there. The Government was deviating in
the present case from the course pursued by former Minis-
ters in granting a prospective right to the land which might
hereafter become the British territory in that part of
America. The license of trade of the company of 1838 was
limited, and expressly declared that in the event of a new
settlAint being formed within the company's territory, their
privies at once ceased at that settlement. But, if the
thing was to be done, it ought to have been done in a differ-
ent form. The maxim of Lord Grey was, that it was neces-
sary to provide the, elements of a tree government, but the
maxim, Quid leges sine moribus, then came in view. What
was the use of laws without the means of using them? The
kripptic power of the Hudson's Bay Company had extin-
guished all the means of exercising the powers of a free go-
vernment amongst those under their rule. With all these
allegations staring the Government in the face, was it not
their duty to pause before they granted an extension of the
already overgrown power of the company ? The present
question was a small beginning to a great subject, but it was
the business of statesmen to watch things in their beginning.
In an island like Vancouver's Island there were the rude ma-
terials out of which the fabric of a civilised state were to be
hewn. One of the greatest of the poets of England (Mr.
Wordsworth) wrote—
" The boy is father of the man."
So it was with nations. Infant settlements were the fathers
of great nations. The means of a healthy development ought,
therefore, to be afforded them; for sickly, stunted, mutilated
creatures were likely to spring up beneath the poisoned shade
of monopoly and despotism.—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion,
the Hudson's Bay Company had overshot its mark. He
thought they had taken a step which would effectually
draw the attention of Parliament to the whole of this
important subject important as connected with the
charter of the company—important in its commercial aspect
as respected the resources of North America—in its political
aspect as respected the rights of Englishmen—and in its
religious aspect as respected the civilization and conver-
sion of the Indians. He hoped they would show themselves
worthy the character of Englishmen by not giving too ready
an ear to the difficulties that might beset their path. Let
the experiment be tried—let the House express its opinion
in favour of colonizing Vancouver's Island—let at .least a
reasonable time elapse before giving way to despair ; but do
not let them choose an anti-colonizing company like the
Hudson's Bay Company to rear that against the
existence, the very life of which it is opposed. Let them not
' choose a company to whom monopoly and despotism were as
vital air, for the colonization of an island in which, if jus-
tice were done, a society of Englishmen might be planted,
and who might bear to a remote region, if not an exact
image of the Constitution of this country, yet that truth
and that independence of national character which at this
moment constituted the honour and glory of our nation.
(The Right Hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud
cheers from all parts of the House.)
Mr. C. BITLI,ER, after having heard the speech of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, could not help asking the House,
however proper it might be that this subject should be
brought under their consideration, whether it was worth
while to stop the Committee of upply for the purpose of
discussing the particular question introduced by the Right
Hon. Gentleman? It appeared to him that another oppor-
tunity might have been taken for that purpose ; and he there-
fore objected to the period at which the discussion had taken
place, as well as to the mode in which it had been brought
forward, seeing that no opportunity was given of testing
the sense of the House upon it.—( Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman had very inadequately treated the
question of Vancouver's Island ; indeed, he might say he
had almost put it out of sight, and that the greater part ot
his speech related to anything but to the case of that island.
sta Ther t
egdr ewa ta
sqeune
es t
of
ofnw iethh nwe ht cehr
tthhoeh Rightose
tHh
eo n.
Government,Gentleman
the propriety or impropriety of
nor the public, had received any notice.anlctodnivdeneostlrselalantde
ttoo
the Hudson's Bay
ral administration o
f
Company,rtietrubsutgtli:t:loilnitChhe bqaudesbtieoenn fc
ot al 1 fie dgeedn to
that company by the countbry.
ugNhot wfemthaartdqinueastdioisntiwncats
and
which ought to have been
separate shape, seeing it involved the grave and important
question whether the Hudson's Bay Company were entitled
to exercise power, not in Vancouver's Island only, but every-
where else. He confessed he was a little surprised that if the
administration of the Hudson's Bay Company had been so
unsuccessful as the Right Hon. Gentleman had described it,
if for a period of 150 years it had done so little good, and had
actively exerted itself only for evil ; hanging without trial,
taxing people without right, and robbing and fleecing them
in every possible way; and when a charge ivas brought for-
ward directly impugning the Government of this country
for intrusting its territories to that company, he was
surprised that the Right Honourable Gentleman should
have adopted the method he had done for bringing
the matter under the notice of the House; and he must
add that he thought it would only have been faie.ete
give that company an opportunity of defending itself.
He thought the charges were such that a Committee might
well have been asked for and appointed to investigate their
truth ; for certainly nothing could be more satisfactory than
that a statement, implying great and grave charges against
a public company, everywhere and all times, should be
brought forward
panw3:ithout seeing in the vista either a proposal
for the abrogation of the powers of the company, or the ap-
pointment of a Committee.—(Hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE had said it was a subject for inquiry.
Mr. BLTLLER—If the Right Hon. Gentleman thought the
conduct of the company a fair subject of inquiry, then why
did he not bring before the House a proposal far entering
upon that inquiry ? The House must see at once that the
administration of the lludson's Bay Company was a question
by far too large to enter upon on such an occasion as the
present. Bat they could limit their inquiries to the one
which
company,r deenredtßhmieimognehp.ootrupodoliplieytorineonotfushrteoar
fact, whether there was anything in the constitution
grofantthemaeodien
ptoantyhe
em a
n thath a dgr inveighedan grant was made.ag e
against
s t The Sight aloneich
tl
pos-
sessed by the company, but he was himself some years
ago at the head of the Board of Trade, and was after-
wards in the Colonial-office, yet he never uttered one word
then as to the monopoly of the
Hudson's Bay Company,
though he, and the Government with which he was con-
nected, were dealingwithblaisidePweecracie
almost every other monopoly that
existed.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that this mono-
poly of the fur trade by the Hudson's Bay Company was as
much opposed to free trade, of which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman and his colleagues were the successful advocates, as
was the monopoly of sugar in the West Indies, or any other
article to which they directed their attention ; yet they
never extended their views to this abominable monopoly of
the fur trade when in power.—(Hear, hear.) He did not
defend monopolies anywhere; nor did he mean to make any
impromptu defence of this particular monopoly on the present
occasion ; but with as little reason was the Right. Hon.
Gentleman entitled to inveigh against it. He was no ad-
vocate for absolute government in our colonies. Ile had
constantly maintained that ground in the House ; and, as it
was a long time since he had taken any part in debates on
colonization, he must beg the House to understand that not
one -single opinion which he had ever advanced on that
question had been shaken by experience or any other cir-
cumstance. He still believed a great and extensive system
of colonization to be a source of comfort and well-being to
all classes of the people of this Co-entry, as well as a means
of increasing the prosperity and extent of our empire ; and
he must reiterate now the opinion he had often expressed
in former times, that he saw nothing in the circa mAanceS of
our empire that should prevent the Government from or-