On this page
-
Text (1)
-
702 THE. LEADE R. [No. 435, Jxtlt 24, 18...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Imperial Parliament. Monday, July 19th. ...
aon ' sBey Company , which nothing but absolute necessity could justify , or they must take it into their own lands to form a separate colony , which might hereafter heoomo a part of the ^ reat Canadian system . With regard to the Bed "River settlement , that part of the territory came under the charter of the Company , and not the license ; but it was not necessary to try the validity of the charter in order to obtain what they immediately required- The Company did not resist the object -which they had in view , but offered any portion of the lands held by them for colonization . It had been proposed that Canada should take charge of this territory under
certain arrangements , which it was not expected Canada would accede to ; and in this case the Government would next session be in a position to propose to Parliament that some conciliatory arrangement should be entered into with the Company . With respect to the charter , the Government proposed to submit the whole question to the consideration of the law officers of the Crown ; and , in regard to colonization , which was the immediate object of his hon . and learned friend , he granted the experKfinoy of strengthening our empire in British North America by establishing a direct line of colony as far as they could along the frontier from Vancouver ' s Island to the banks of the St . Lawrence .
Lord John Russell observed that , until it was decided what the rights of the Hudson ' s Bay Company are , it would be impossible to deal satisfactorily with the case . Some legal authority—the Privy Council or a court of law- —must determine this point in the first instance . —Mr . A .. Mills concurred in the spirit of the resolutions . —Mr . Lowe contended that , as a commercial body alone , the Company is entitled to a fair and rea-Bonable compensation . He should be sorry to see Adopted the course that had been suggested of submitting the question of the validity of their charter , -which had long been -virtually recognized , to the decision of a court of law . The territory of the Red River would be very difficult of colonization . It is almost
inaccessible , except through the United States , and it would not be easy to defend it . —Mr . Chkistie agreed with , the remarks of the Colonial Secretary . —Mr . Gilpin inveighed against the rule and policy of the Hudson ' s Say Company , and read accounts of the cruel dealings of their servants with the Indians . —Mr . Kiunaird took , a different view of the conduct of the Company . The evidence before the committee of last year negatived the conclusions of Mr . Gil pin . —Mr . Chichester Fortescuje likewise spoke in vindication of the Company . —Mr . T ' jtzwtlxjam remarked that it was generally thought that the wars that took place were between the traders and the Indians ; but the fact was , that the wars were between the Indians and the emigrants , because they could not understand each other . —Mr . Wyld said that ,
in consequence of the emigration taking place it was necessary tbat some arrangement should be made to guard the frontier , and to establish proper fiscal arrangements . —Mr . J- D . Fitzgejram ) thought it essential that the legal rights of the Company should be determined . They bad never been submitted to invest igation , because the opinions of the law officers on cases submitted to them -were , on questions of this kind , utterly valueless . It should be ascertained whether the charter gave , to the Company exclusive rights of trading , and what were the territorial rights it vested in them . He stated -without fear of contradiction , in the , presence of the Colonial Secretary , that , beyond any matter of doubt , no length of time or of possession could give validity or sanction to what the law condemns . Mr . Roebuck , being satisfied with the effect piodaced , withdrew his motion . . DESTRUCTION OP BRITISH PROPERTY IN THE GULF OJ BOTHNIA . Mr . Cbawford moved an address to her Majesty , praying that she -would be pleased to appoint a Ilojal Commission to inquire into the complaints , made by certain of her subjects of tho destruction of their property by her Majesty ' s forces at Uleaborg , in the Gulf of Bothnia , during the recent war with Russia , as were particularly Bet forth in certain memorials addressed to the Lords of the Treasury . The property of the merchants at Uleaborg during the war had been destxoyed as contraband of war , though a proclamation had been issued to the effect that private property would not be injured . A flag of truce was sent to the Admiral , with the explanation that this property was destined for exportation to England ; but the reply of
the Admiral was , that it was his duty to destroy it , and the owners must apply to the British Government for compensation , if they considered the destruction unjustifiable . He ( jvir . Crawford ) argued that this property waB not to bo considered contraband of war , and bnsod this claim for compensation upou tlio words of the Admiral to the fiutf of truce . —Mr . Adams Bccondcd the motion . —Sir John Pakington said that tho Glove rnmout had submitted tho ease to the law officers of tho Crown , whoRO opinion was decidedly ngainst tho claim for compensation . It wuh not tho fact that tho timber which bad beun destroyed , together with a largo quantity of pitch and tur , by Admiral I'lumridge , wns private proport } 1 : it wjih contraband of war , tho timber being fit fur tlio coiiMtriiction of vosaola . Besides , no proof h-ad been offered to tlio Admiral that any part of tho prcporty belonged to English , merchants . —Mr .
Melner Gibson said he did not mean to argue that these parties had a legal title to indemnity ; but he contended that they had a moral , just , and equitable claim upon the Government for the loss . It was -well known that the affair was a mistake . —Sir Charx . es Kafuer said that Admiral Plumridge -was perfectly right in the service he performed . It had been stated upon authority that twelve gunboats had been built at Uleaborg , and he thought it was unfair that this matter should be brought before the House four years after the occurrence . —Mr . Weguelin observed that the question turned upon this point—whether the articles were or were not contraband of war ; and all Mr . Crawford asked was a commission to inquire into the
circumstances of the destruction of the property , and of what it consisted . —The Solicitok-Genebai . remarked that no claim had been made in either of the cases till 1856 , and in one case not till the present year ; and he asked whether it was right to listen to applications for compensation so long after the transaction , when it was difficult to arrive at the truth . He disputed the claims , however , upon their merits , maintaining that the articles destroyed were contraband of war . —Mr- Clay avowed that he had advised the delay of the claims until after the termination of the war . —The motion was supported by Mr . Maliks and Mr . Price . — -Mr . Cka ;\ v tord made a brief reply , and , upon a division , the motion was negatived by 105 to 65 .
The Government of New Caledonia Bujl , was read a third time , and passed ; the third reading of the Jews Bill was postponed to the following day ; and the House adjourned at a quarter past t-wo o ' clock .
Wednesday , July 21 s ( . The Lores sat for a short time on Wednesday morning , in order to forward several bills . The third reading of the India Bill was postponed till Friday ; and , after some matters of a purely routine character had been got through , the House adjourned .
THE NATIONAL . GALXiERT . ' . In the House of Commons , in answer to Mr . Ddxcombe , the Chanceixor of the Exchequer said he thought it desirable that the National Gallery should be opened during Saturday afternoon . He would give his attention to the subject , and would see if any arrangement could be made .
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS . "Viscount . Goperich complained of the course adopted by Sir DeLacy Evans towards himself ( Lord Goderich ) , and other gentlemen who acted with Sir De Lacy Evans , on the committee appointed last February , to inquire respecting the way in -which reinforcements were sent to India last year , and to report upon the best mode of sending them in future . Of that committee Sir De Lacy Evans was chairman , and prepared a draft report , against which , seven members of the committee voted , and in reference to those gentlemen the lion , and gallant gentleman had circulated ; a paper , of which he ( Lord Goderich ) complained . That paper was headed Parliamentary Proceedings , and therefore . had the appearance of receiving the sanction of some
Parliamentary authority . Copies of that paper were not sent to him ( Lord Goderich ) or to" other members of the committee affected by it , and therefore the hon . and gallant member was wanting in the fairness which one man should display towards another . The paper consisted of the draft report of the hon . and gallant General , preceded by a preface containing a severe criticism , on those who differed from him , and severe assertions respecting the proceedings of the committee itself . The charge insinuated in the paper was that the seven or eight gentlemen who voted against taking into consideration the report of the hdn . and gallant General were actuated , not by a sense of public duty in accordance with the evidence , but by a desire to screen the members of the late Administration from the censure
which they deserved . ( Jlear . ) On the part of . himself and of those who acted with him on the committee , he ( Lord Godorich ) gave to that charge the most distinct and positive denial he could . Tho course adopted was an . imusual one , and he would move the adjournment of the House , to enable Sir De Lacy JBvana to explain his views on the subject . "Sir De Lacy Evans said there had been no secrecy in the circulation of the document ; but , if ho had transgressed any forms , ho was sorry for having done so . Ho did not m « an to impute any unworthy motives to Lord Goderich and his colleagues ; but ho must admit that be did ascribo to them an amiable and a generous desire to assist their friends .
discussion in which Mr . "Warren , Mr . Roebuck Mi-Spoonek , Mr . Duncojibe , and Mr . Newdeqate we £ the chief speakers . —Mr . Waruen moved to defer the third reading for three months , and observed that " the bill , if it became the law of the land , would undoubtedly lead to a separation of Church and State . He belonced to a party called Conservative ; and , if the principles that party had contended for year by year were sacri need , there was hardly anything else left worth fightinc for . ( A laugh . ) The passing of such a bill as the present with the sanction of the Government inflicted a deep wound on the members of tbe Conservative partv and he should not be surprised if unlooked-for results ' were to flow from the measure before the House . It might lead to new political combinations , effecting not merely temporary but permanent changes in the
relations of parties . The hon . and learned member then read from a manuscript , by way of protest , an epitome of his reasons for objecting to the bill Mr . Koebitck made some biting remarks on the strange conduct of the House of Lords in sending down a bill for emancipating the Jews , and at tbe same time framing certain reasons against such a measure . However , he congratulated the country upon having obtained a right even from the folly of the House of Lords . —Mr . Spooner denied that his voting for the bill on Monday night was accidental . " If the question had been that the House should resolve itself into committee on that day three mouths , he would have unhesitatingly supported such a motion ; but what was the fact ? Every hon . member who had spoken against the bill in the course of the debate
recommended that no division should take place , and he concurred in that opinion . A division , however , -was suddenly challenged by some two or three hon . gentlemen who sat behind him , and who did not assign any reasons for the course they adopted . The effect of negativing the motion before the House would simply have been to occasion great inconvenience , to hon . members , because the Speaker could not have left the chair . The only result would have been the loss of a day ; and , at such an advanced period of the session , he , for one , was not prepared to make such a sacrifice . ( CAeers . ) He wished it to be understood , therefore , that he had neither given his vote by mistake , nor changed hia opinions " - —The general opinion appeared to be that the Lords had stultified themselves ; but , after much discus * sion , the third reading was affirmed by 129 to 55 .
THE OATHS BILL . On the order for the consideration of the Lords' reasons for insisting " on their amendments to this bill , Lord John Kussell moved tlie following resolution : — " That this House does not consider it necessary to examine the reasons offered by the Lords for insisting' upon the exclusion of Jews from Parliament , as , by a bill of the present session , their Lordships have provided for the admission of persona professing the Jewish , religion to seats in the Legislature . " —Exceptions were taken to the wording of the resolution ; but the only alteration
adopted was the insertion , at the suggestion of Sir Jamks Graham , of the word " means , " after " provided . "—Mr . Spooner moved to add , at the end of the resolution , " The bill being in direct contravention to the clear and cogent reasons assigned by their Lordships against the enactments of such bill . "— -This amendment was . negatived , and the resolution was agreed to . — Lord John Russell then moved afurther resolution : — " That this House cloth not insist upon their disagreement with the Lords in their amendments to the saitl bill . " — The resolution was agreed to without oppositiuu ,
A SCANDAL AT SHEKRNESS . Mr . Staplkton inquired of the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to n statement in the public papers , to the effect that a corpse had been for several days moored to a stake in the water in the immediate neighbourhood of Shecrncss , and whether he intended to take any stops to compel tho proper local authorities , to put nil cjid to the scandal . —Mr . W . u . i'OLE said he hud no information beyond tho newspaper reports ; but hu hud been informed that it was a conflict of local authoiities which hud occasioned tins scandal 1 I « would inako further inquiries , and let the hon . member know the result . The House adjourned at four o ' clock .
Thursday , ¦ '«» , ' / 22 «« . T 1 IK SliTS FUO . U 1 N 1 JIA AND CI 1 IXA . In ( hi ; Ilorsi ; op L iijj ) s , Lord MAL . Mitsnrnv . nftct reading the tdo ^ ruphic news which had just arrival from India mill China , sniil : —¦ " 1 think the country will feel frrntt'ful for the ability and gallantry with wIih'J Sir Hiitfli Un . so has , conducted these operations . " At tins there wrro loud cheer ; -.
Tho CiiANciiLLOK ok THK Exoiekqueu observed that Sir Do Lacy had committed nil « ct winch was not only very irregular , but highly improper . However , ho had expressed his regret ; Lord ( Jodoiich had fully and completely vindicated hiniMill' and his eolleMgiuvj ; and ho ( Mr . Disraeli ) therefore ho ^ d that tlio . convolution would not be prolonged . —Lord ( Jonuiticu ani « l that , utter what hud taken place , he would -withdraw tho motion for adjournment . Tho SMoitis Nuisances Aiiatkmf . nx OIktuovoi . is ) Bill , tho Mkmiikkh' Fiuckdom rno . u AkukstUiix , und thu Cuun . cu lU'i'KS Commutation Him ., were
with-TII 1-: INDIA V . U . X .. In reply to the Duke of Nkwca . vju :, tin- I -nil <> J Pkuhv p ; iid thut . siniiu alterations agrci-d upon in vunoii . s cl , iu .-. i'tf of the India Bill hIiomIiUjo attended to in du * - ' time . TIIIItl > UICAl'HKG-. Tin' following hills wens then rend a third ( inn - » J 'fisn'd : — Till ! I'AVI . KSIANTICAL J UUISIHl T 1 ON (/' dVI ' l-NliAMi : ) Mil , i . ; ilnj < . ' iiAirn \ vi ; l . K Tui' :-. T . s Aits (<' o . vn-NCA . wi > Jin . I , ; tin ) Trn . Ni-iKK Ti ; t : sTn AnuANiii- 'Mi - NT !) Mill ; ( Ik ; ( , '< h > viiom > am > K . n < ] . o . si ; ni' ; ( ommis-iuN * , & . V ., illl . l . ; till ! lNIIKMNI'l'Y lill . l , ; tllO AlMllNl .-TISA'l'K * of Datum ijy Commutes Hill , ; tho Ausix Sjsijvicu
drawn . JKW 8 lilUIi . This bill was read « thud time , and passed , after a
702 The. Leade R. [No. 435, Jxtlt 24, 18...
702 THE . LEADE R . [ No . 435 , Jxtlt 24 , 1858 ,
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 24, 1858, page 6, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_24071858/page/6/
-