try. He wished, however, to guard against | zation of that territory, as well as the the assumption, from anything which fell opening up of lines of communication from him, that this communication could through it. Of course, such a thing could be easily effected. A Company had been never happen in these days. He was inset on foot; but he was afraid that if they clined to believe that the charter was attempted to carry out their present plan, originally illegal; but, no doubt, it would it would lead to disasters. This passage be a serious blow to the rights of property was totally unlike that to which they to meddle with a charter 200 years old, compared it-the route across the Rocky and such a course would not be taken Mountains between the settled part of except under circumstances of unparalleled the United States and California. Some public necessity. He was not prepared to 30,000 persons crossed that country every say that such a necessity might not arise. year, and a most inhospitable country it The colonization of British Columbia must was. But these persons went throughout progress with enormous rapidity, and it in waggons, laying in their own provisions, might happen, in the inevitable course of and relying upon their own resources along events, that Parliament, would be asked to the whole route. On the line he had in- annul even such a charter as this. He was dicated, however, there was a constant justified, however, in not resorting to such change of passage from waggons to steam- an extreme measure as long as it was posers, and therefore much organization was sible to obtain a settlement of any other necessary before the route could be prac. kind. The question was of such paramount ticable and safe. The position of the importance at this moment that no opporHudson's Bay Company created a great tunity of settling it ought to be lost; but difficulty in dealing with all these ques- he could not undertake to offer any such tions. Under their charter the Company sum as that he had mentioned, or, indeed, claimed the right of possession in fee sim- any other large sum; and he thought the ple of the whole of this great country as Company could not expect that any very completely as any property belonging to large sum should be paid to them. It was any of their Lordships. They asserted probable that gold would be found in the their right to all the enormous territory territory bordering upon the Satckachebounded by the Western States of Canada wan; and if such were the case, the Hudand the Rocky Mountains, by the United son's Bay Company would no more be able States territory, and on the north by to prevent men from settling upon that Hudson's Bay-a country so vast that at territory than they would to prevent their the price of one penny per acre it would sailing upon the ocean. It might be decost £700,000 to purchase it. More- sirable for their interests that the country over, before they would surrender their should be maintained as a fur-bearing rights the Company claimed to be reim- country and as nothing else; but when bursed the large amount paid to the late that was no longer possible, it would be to Earl of Selkirk for his possessions there, their advantage to meet the public halfcompensation for improvements, and for way, and make arrangements which should their monopoly of trade. They also said, effect that most important object-the set"If you take the Satckachewan, the pro- tlement of the country. He had had many per thing to do is to buy us out al- interviews with gentlemen connected with together, because in depriving us of this the Hudson's Bay Company, and had you deprive us of our hunting grounds." always found them most courteous and Without pledging himself to the accu- friendly, but he had not been able to come racy of the calculation, he believed that, to any understanding with them. according to their views of their rights, should be happy to lay upon their Lordthey would not be inclined to take less ships' table all the Correspondence which than £1,500,000 for them. Now, it had taken place with reference to the would not be possible to go to Parliament establishment of a line of communication for such a sum for such a purpose; and between Canada and British Columbia, and what, then, was to be done? He had he hoped that when Parliament met next always felt that the charter was a very year he should be able to inform their doubtful one. Taking into account the Lordships that some progress had been circumstances of this magnificent conti- made towards the establishment of postal nent, it seemed monstrous that any body and telegraphic communication between of gentlemen should exercise fee simple Canada on the one side, and New Westrights which precluded the future coloniminster on the other. VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] 2 Z He arrangement which would erect into British settlements or colonies any territories that were bona fide adapted for purposes of settlement. He hoped that they would continue to act in that spirit, and would be prepared to abstain from setting up any extreme claims which might prevent an amicable arrangement between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Government. THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said, he would withdraw the second paragraph of his Motion. Motion for an Address for bia, and the Hudson's Bay Company, respecting the Establishment of a Means of Communication between Canada and British Columbia: 2. Copies or Extracts from any Correspondence between the Government and the Hudson's Bay Company respecting the Withdrawal of the Red River, Satckachewan, and Swan River Territories from under the Control of that Company, directly upon the Crown: and their Erection into a Colony depending -agreed to. LORD TAUNTON said, that he had paid great attention to this subject; and when he held the seals of the Colonial Office, it became necessary to consider the propriety of renewing the exclusive privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company. He moved for a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the whole subject. In the Report of this Committee and the evidence given before it their Lordships would find a full and impartial account of all the circumstances affecting this most important subject. Although the subsequent discovery of gold had somewhat altered the position of affairs, yet he was convinced between the Secretary of State for the Colonies 1. Copies or Extracts from Correspondence that the policy recommended by that Com-the Governments of Canada and British Colummittee was in its main features that which it was the interest of this country to adopt. The Government and people of this country could have no possible interest in the subject different from the colonists of North America. No doubt the charter of the Company was a very extraordinary one; but as the opponents of it had always shrunk from testing its validity by judicial proceedings, he had always declined to take any steps hostile to it. Indeed, he was of opinion that we were indebted to the Hudson's Bay Company for having under most extraordinary circumstances, administered the vast territories which were committed to them, not merely so as to advance their interests as a great furtrading company, but so as to maintain a rough but effective system of law and order, and to protect as far as they could the aborigines, whose interests we were bound to respect. It was therefore in no unfriendly spirit to the Company that he expressed his opinion that they would not be discharging their duty if they stood upon their extreme rights, so as to prevent the attainment of objects which were essential to Imperial or Colonial interests. The Committee of the House of Commons decided that it was upon the whole desirable that the position of the Hudson's Bay Company should be maintained in the districts which were not adapted for settlement; but, at the same time, they recommended that means should be taken without loss of time, either through the instrumentality of Canada or independently of that colony, to give to the settlers on the Red River the advantage of being governed under the British Crown in a regular and orderly manner. The gentlemen connected with the Hudson's Bay Company had always said that they were prepared to act on these principles, and to facilitate any CROWN PRIVATE ESTATES BILL. [BILL NO. 89.] SECOND READING. THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained the nature of the measure. Down to the time of Queen Anne the Sovereign had unlimited power of disposition in reference to Crown lands; but in the first year of that reign an Act passed limiting the power of the Crown to granting leases for thirty years, or three lives. The operation of that statute, however, was confined to England. The 39 & 40 Geo. III., gave full powers to the Crown to deal with estates acquired by means of the private property of the Sovereign. By an Act of the 1st and 2nd of the present reign it was deemed right to extend the restricting provisions of the statute of Anne to estates of the Crown in Scotland and Ireland; but the qualification of that restriction introduced by the 39 & 40 Geo. III. was accidentally omitted from the statue of Victoria. The result, therefore, was that private estates of the Sovereign in Scotland would not come within the provisions of the 39 & 40 Geo. III., but would fall under the restrictions in the statute of Anne, and the Sovereign would be unable to deal with land in Scotland acquired by the pri vate property of the Crown. It was to remedy this state of things that the present Bill had been prepared, the intention being to give to the Crown the same rights over its private estates in Scotland which the Act of George III. gave in reference to those in England; and to provide that any such estates held by the Crown should be possessed in the same way as if they were held by subjects of the Crown. THE MARQUESS OF BATH objected that the provision of the Bill which subjected the private estates of the Crown to all rates and taxes, was unconstitutional. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the of cinders and other matters. What had the promoters done? Seeing that they would have to meet powerful opposition on the part of the proprietors of certain of the tributaries, those streams had been struck out of the Bill. He (Mr. BrownWesthead) had been asked to oppose Bill; but he declined at first to do so, believing it to be merely a sanitary measure. On looking into it, however, he saw that there was nothing in it whatever of that nature, and that the Bill sought to deprive a number of proprietors over an area of 400 square miles of rights which had been enjoyed from time immemorial. The parties opposing the Bill did not object to the fullest inquiry with a view to ascertain in what manner the object which the promoters professed to have in view could be best and most equitably carried out. His own personal interests were favourably affected by the Bill, but he considered it his duty to protect the interests of hundreds of riparian proprietors higher up the streams, whose ancient prescriptive rights were interfered with in a manner which was never before authorized by private legislation. Under all the circum MERSEY, IRWELL, &c. PROTECTION BILL. stances, he believed he acted perfectly SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." MR. BROWN-WESTHEAD said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. It was with great reluctance he felt himself compelled to take that course. The Bill, however, was of a very exceptional character, and came before the House in a manner that was very unusual. It was, in fact, a public measure introduced in the guise of a private Bill, and it was so designated by the highest authority in the other House of Parliament. In the House of Lords, after the Bill had passed a Committee of five, it was referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and discussed clause by clause, and on that occasion the Lord Chancellor pronounced it an opprobrium on the legislation of the country. He should inform the House that a number of tributaries ran into the River Irwell, and the Irwell Navigation Company-or rather the Earl of Ellesmere, who might be said to be the company-promoted the Bill with a view to remove obstructions caused to the navigation by the lodgment right in opposing the Bill. He did not think the House should receive a Bill which had public objects, but which came on in the guise of a private measure, and which vested in the hands of the principal promoter powers which he did not think Parliament would sanction. The Bill was promoted by a navigation company, who, by adopting the steps they had taken, sought to avoid the Standing Orders which related to public measures, and which railway companies had invariably to be bound by. A great principle was involved in the question, and he trusted, that if the measure was allowed to go further, its provisions would be made so far equitable and fair that the House could approve of it, and that the whole community would be benefited by it. word "now," and at the end of the QuesAmendment proposed, to leave out the upon this day tion to add the words 66 three months." MR. MASSEY said, that no doubt the Bill was of a very extraordinary character. It was hard on a cursory glance to discern any features which could distinguish it from a public measure. It was a very unusual thing to affect by private legis lation the interests of large towns and similarly on the other streams were wrongdoers also. It was competent to the Committee upstairs to restore the Bill to its original form; and if on its return he found that such a course had not been adopted, he reserved to himself the right to move that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, with a view to ascertain whether in their opinion it was a proper measure to pass with its present partial application. MR. J. C. EWART said, he thought that there was a necessity for some such measure, and he hoped it would be referred to a Select Committee. MR. LAIRD said, he considered that the Bill should be made applicable to the entire of the tributaries, and he had not been aware that it was not. That matter, and the other questions referred to, could be dealt with by a Committee upstairs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the Bill appeared to be a very objectionable measure, and it was rendered more objectionable still by the manner in which it was introduced and subsequently dealt with. The riparian proprietors were sought to be made subject to penal provisions for exercising certain rights over their own property. If a nuisance existed, there were other means of remedying the evil. The Bill, if it were allowed to proceed further, should certainly be made universally applicable; but it was highly inconvenient that a measure which was public and penal in its provision and enactments should be introduced as a private Bill. He therefore considered it his duty to oppose the second reading. manufacturing populations. The Bill set out by professing that such was its object; and when its provisions were examined, it would be found that the interest of the great manufacturing places on the rivers Mersey and Irwell were seriously affected. Another peculiarity of the measure was that it did not appear on the face of it by whom it was promoted. The question, then, which the House had decide was, whether it was a public or a private Bill. If it was the former, the Order for its Second Reading should be discharged. If, on the contrary, it was a private measure, cases of individual hardship ought not to be considered in Committee of the Whole House, but were proper matters for investigation and inquiry before a Select Committee. The measure originated in the House of Lords as a private Bill; in that form it underwent a rigid scrutiny there, and as a private Bill it had come down to that House. The Navigation Company, who really promoted the Bill, complained that in consequence of the acts of certain parties, over whom they had no control, the powers conferred on them by the Act of Parliament were seriously interfered with, and the navigation obstructed. On the other hand, it was said that the obstructions referred to were caused in the legitimate exercise of trade by manufacturers, mine owners, and quarry proprietors, who deposited certain materials in the tributaries of the river; and that if they were wrong-doers, they were not wanton wrong-doers. The questions arising out of that state of circumstances were proper subjects for investigation by a Committee upstairs. He considered that a clause should be added to the Bill, if it were allowed to proceed further, providing that nothing contained in it should exempt it from the provisions of any future Act relating to the navigation of MR. JACKSON said, that several Bills rivers. Technically, the Bill might be of a similar nature had been considered considered a private Bill, and should private Bills. The general commerce of therefore be referred to a Committee the country required that the navigation upstairs; but there was one grave ob- of the river Mersey should be kept open jection to the measure, which he should and unobstructed. He hoped the House refer to. It was this:-In the original would agree to send the Bill to a Select draught of the Bill all the tributaries of Committee; and if on its return it was the Mersey and the Irwell were included found that the proprietors on all the tribuin the operation of the Act. In conse-tary streams were not included in its proquence of the opposition of certain parties, some of those tributaries had been omitted. But if the proprietors on any of the tributaries were wrong-doers, those who acted VISCOUNT NEWPORT said, he also should oppose the second reading. He considered it highly objectionable and unjust that parties who were in a similar position to those against whom the measure was aimed should be excluded from its operation. visions, he would support a Motion to add clauses which would have the effect of extending its operation to them. MR. BARNES said, it would be most unfair to deprive the proprietors of their preventing and remedying the evils arising rights without compensation. He thought from such pollution and obstruction. a Committee ought to be appointed to investigate the whole question, and should vote against the second reading if his hon. Friend pressed his Amendment. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, it must be admitted that there was a very considerable evil for which a remedy ought to be applied. The evil, however, was not general, but only affected a particular locality. Nevertheless, when an opportunity was presented to them of putting an end to the inconvenience, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Massey) that it would be unwise not to avail themselves of it. MR. J. B. SMITH said, that every mill that was erected increased the evil, by silting up the river. He therefore hoped the House would read the Bill a second time. MR. ROEBUCK said, the question was who should provide the funds for effecting a public benefit. The measure was an attempt of parties to guard their interests at the public expense. MR. MILNER GIBSON said, he could not agree with the argument that they ought to reject the Bill because it invaded private rights. All private Bills did that. He thought there was no more competent tribunal to inquire into questions of the kind than a Select Committee. Although he entertained grave objections to the Bill, he did not think these would warrant him in refusing to send a Bill to a Select Committee. MR. FRANK CROSSLEY said, he was of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough. He hoped to see it restored to the shape in which it was originally introduced, so that its operation would extend to all the tributaries referred to. Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to. Main Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 97; Noes 48: Majority 49. Bill read 2o. Motion made, and Question proposed, That Standing Order, No. 8, be suspended in the case of the said Bill." COLONEL WILSON PATTEN said, that if a Committee of fifteen was appointed, his constituents would not have an opportunity of being heard in opposition to certain of the provisions of the Bill to which they objected. MR. MASSEY said, the Motion was, in effect, to reverse the order of proceeding with regard to private Bills, inasmuch as the House had specially appointed Committees for entertaining questions of the kind. MR. BROWN-WESTHEAD observed, that he was anxious that all parties should be heard before the Committee; and he wished to ask the Speaker whether that course could not be adopted if his Motion was carried. MR. SPEAKER replied, that it would be necessary to obtain the permission of the House for the purpose contemplated by the hon. Member. MR. ROEBUCK said, that recent experience-he alluded to the Thames Embankment Committee-afforded no recommendation to the House to alter their usual course. MR. BROWN-WESTHEAD said, he would withdraw his Motion, as it was his belief that everything would be done to obtain a competent Select Committee of five to consider the provisions of the Bill. Motion, by leave, withdrawn; Bill committed. MERCHANDIZE MARKS, &c. BILL. Clause 1 postponed. Clause 7 (Penalties). MR. M'MAHON said, that a person who placed false representations on his goods. did so with intent to defraud, and he apMR. BROWN-WESTHEAD said, he prehended that he would be punishable would then move that Standing Order, at common law for a misdemeanour. The No. 8, be suspended, and that the Bill be Bill proposed to reduce an offence of that referred to a Select Committee of fifteen serious nature to an offence of a milder Members, with power to inquire into the form, and directed that the party comcauses of the pollution and obstruction of mitting such an offence should only be the rivers Mersey and Irwell and their subjected to certain penalties. Those petributaries, and into the best means of nalties, namely, a fine of 108., and for |