The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-12 00:00:00

RED RIVER SETTLEMENT.

On the motion for adjournment,
Mr. LABOUCHERE, in answer to Viscount BURY,
said he had received no official report of the meeting-at
the Red River Settlement. He believed Mr. BaHat:l6lle,
the gentleman referred to, had been illegally arrested, but
a misapprehension existed with reference to his having
been haneed over to the Rifles to conduct him out of the
settlement. Mr. Banautili() had since appealed to the
Hudson's Bay Company in this country.
HUDSON'S BAY.
In answer to a question from Mr. ROBBUCK,
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that it was the intention
of her Majesty's Government to take possession of the
Hudson's BayfCompany's territories, but they were
willing to renew the license to the Company under
certain conditions, giving the Government exclusive
power of colonization, &c. The question of boundary
between Canada and Rupert's Land were to be sub-
jected to a discussion of the Committee of Privy
Council by mutual consent.
CANTILLON'S LEGACY.

Mr. STIRLING asked the First Lord of the Treasury
if it were true, or if he would obtain information from

authentic sources as to the fact—that the legacy of
10,000 francs, bequeathed to the sub-officer Cantillon
who attempted to assassinate the late Duke of Welling'
ton, by the late Napoleon Bonaparte, in a codicil of his
will, approving and justifying the attempt, had, since
Dec. 2, 1851, been paid, with interest up to the date of
payment, by the Emperor of the French. The doc-
trine of assassination was by that codicil preached
and upheld by the first Emperor, and what he wanted
to know was whether this mischievous doctrine had
been endorsed by the fortunate successor to his fortunes,
To Cantillon the wages of assasination had been duly
paid, and his name was to be found in a list of other
in the MoniteUr, left legacies by the Emperor and paid;
but it was stated that, whilst all the others were not
paid in full, Cantillon was paid in full with interest.
When he addressed this country by the pen of his Mi-

nister, and the act of the noble lord, he charged us with
assassination, we had a right to ask him who was
the party that had openly avowed the doc-
trine of assassination in the columns of the Moniteur.
Lord PALMERSTON said he thought the hon. gen-
tleman would have- ehown more good taste—(cheers,

and cries of " No")—and displayed more candour, if,
instead of assuming an answer, he had asked what were
the real facts. (Hear, hear.) The assumption that the
money bad been absolutely paid by the Emperor of the
French was false, and in a matter of so much delicacy with
regard to private relation, it would have been better if he
had made i,iqutries and ascertaine i the facts before
he brought the matter forward. It was then that
Napoleon left Cantellon ten thousand francs, and
the executors, M. Bertrand and Monthellon, between
1823 and 1826, advanced certain payments to
him. When the Emperor of France issued a commission
with reference to the payment of the legacies, Cantil-
lon's widow applied for the balance (1,200 fr.) she con-
sidered due to her late husband. The commission,
however, refused to sanction its payment, in the belief
that the first Napoleon was labouring under an abbera-
tion of mind when he made the bequest. (Cheers.)
Mr. STIRLING rose t) address the House in reply
but he was loudly called to order on the ground that he
could not be beard a second time. The hon. gentleman
then explained, denying the assertion of the noble lord
that be (Mr. Stirling) had assumed the legacy was paid
by the Emperor of the French. He was rejoiced at the
answer that had been given to his question. (Hear.)
The subject then dropped.
COUNT WALEWSKI'S DESPATCH.
_ _

Lord ELCHO asked if the Goverament had sent a
despatch in answer to that of Count Walewski's, and
when it would be laid on the table of the house !
_ _ MINISTER OF JUSTICE.

Mr. W. EWART pnta question to the First Lord of
the Treasury, for explanation on the subject of the
appointment of a Department or Minister of Justice.

CANTILLON'S LEGACY.
Mr. BOWYER rose to enter on the question of Can-
tillon's legacy, and was called to order. He said the
hon, member for Sheffield had asserted that the Em-
peror of the French had paid the legacy, and he wished
to know his authority for that statement.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he could not answer the ques-
tion.

CHINA,
Lord J. RUSSELL inquired of the First Lord of the
Treasury, whether he had any 'objection to lay before
the house instructions given to Lord Elgin on his depar-
ture for China, and the terms which were offered and
rejected at Canton previously to the late bombardment.
Sir C. WOOD said it was unusual to communicate to
the house the instructions given to ministers, plenipo-
tentiaries, &c. No communications bad bee❑ received
from China that could be laid on the table of the house.
In answer to a question from Lord J. MANNERS,
Lerd PALMERSTON said the Government had
received from Lord Elgin a copy of the communioation
he addressed to Yoh, who had given an answer to it, but
there was not time to translate it to be sent home by
the last mail, but its substance had been communicated
to the Government.