void. At every turn, however, some moot point arises. Firstly, it is denied that the territories assigned by Charles the Second were dependencies or possessions of the En Royal prerogative did not clash with the common law in granting such a charter, even if the lands formed part of the Sovereign's dominions. Thirdly, the indefinite character of the grant may be fatal to it. Fourthly, allowing the whole proceedings to have been regular, it is alleged that the existence of the Company is detrimental to the interests of the community, that the monopoly is no longer either justifiable or permissible. The first three of these considerations cannot be determined except in a Court of Law. The last one may be tried at the bar of public opinion. yet celebrated the centenary of their independence; still the English settlers in the United States are the seniors of those who left this country and made Canada their home. For a time the emigrant to the Great Re-glish Crown. Secondly, it is a question if the public had to proceed to the backwoods in order to find the habitation which he desired. Of late years, however, the prairies of the West have been the great attraction to the emigrant. Railways have been constructed with a view to carry him thither, and trans port to a good market the grain which he could gather in with little labor. An acre of prairie which is ready for the plough is worth five acres of wooded land, which must be cleared by the axe before a blade of corn will grow. In Illinois and Minnesotu this desirable laud is to be found in abundance. There it is that the settler loves to pitch his tent, for there he knows that his success is assured. Hitherto Cauada has been able to offer no such inducements to the exile from Europe; but if the North-Western territory be included among the lands which she can offer to the emigrant, then the balance will be redressed, and the young man born in Canada who can find no outlet for his energies equal to that which is afforded him in the United States, as well as the European emigrant who might prefer to keep unsevered the tie which links him with the country of his birth, will gladly proceed to the splendid tract of fertile soil which the authorities of the Hudson's Bay Company have hitherto rendered unattractive to settlers, which can be cultivated with as great ease, and made to yield as luxuriant crops as the most favored spots on the American continent. A year ago the question took a new form. The union of the maritime with the inland provinces necessarily led to a definition of the footing on which the trading company of Hudson's Bay was to stand in relation to the Confederacy. Hence the reconsideration of the claims advanced by that Company became inevitable. If its charter were valid and the possessions secured to it in perpetuity, then its representatives would have had a sure basis on which to take their stand in negotiations with the Dominion of Canada. On the other hand, if the Company had long occupied territory under a baseless title, then no demand could be made by it for more than nominal compensation. We may fairly assume that the powers conferred by the charter are of dubious value. They would hardly have been disputed so frequently had they been clear and definite. If Parliament conferred them, they would be admitted without question. If the terms of the grant had been less vague, few might have laboured to prove that it was wholly We consider that the case has been fairly heard and finally decided. In default of another tribunal, we must regard a Select Committee of the House of Commons to be a representative of the views as well as an exponent of the wishes of the public. Before such a body of intelligent and impartial men, the Hudson's Bay Company was put on its trial in 1857. All that could be said against it was there forcibly stated; everything which could tell in its favour was strenuously lurged. The accusation was, that a systeniatic method of exclusive dealing was followed, that the Indians were demoralized through the operations of the fur-traders, and that the spread of civilization was frustrated owing to the enforcement of the Company's rules. The defence amounted to this, that the Company had not supplied the Indians with whiskey, while it had paid large dividends. Among those who gave special attention to the arguments on both sides, and who estimated the worth of the conflicting evidence with marked dexterity, was Mr. Gladstone. He had made a careful study of the whole subject, had broached it in the House of Commons, and had frequently shown himself to be fully alive to its importance. After the late Mr. Labouchere, the chairman, had produced a report for the Committee's approval, Mr. Gladstone presented another, of a simpler and more straightforward character, of which the first four paragraphs were: "1st, That the country capable of colonization should be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company; 2d, That the country incapable of colonization should remain within their jurisdiction; 2d, That power should be reserved to Her Majesty's Government to make grants within the said territory for the purposes of mines or fisheries, but with due regard to the immunities and trade of the Company; 4th, That such jurisdiction should rest henceforward upon | he must take his share of the blame. Had the basis of statute." When the vote was taken on the question of adopting the report of Mr.Gladstone or that of Mr. Labouchere, the chairman, the numbers were even, but the chairman's casting vote being given in his own favour, his report was accepted. However, on putting the final question whether or not Mr. Labouchere's report should be presented to the House, the motion was carried by a majority of one only. The tact and influence of the friends of the Company thus prevailed, and legislation adverse to their private interests was thereby postponed. " he continued in office, he would have been a consenting party to such legislation, to carry out arrangements made with regard to the Company's affairs, as might have been deemed expedient or imperative. But, as Governor of the Company, he has rejected the proposi tion which as a legislator he might have sanctioned, and which as an ex-minister he must still defend in Parliament. The triangular duel imagined by Captain Marryatt for the confusion of Peter Simple is the only known counterpart to this situation. Sir Stafford is a target for the shots of two par ties, while able to fire only at one. Lord Castlereagh's very mixed metaphor is after all less absurd than has been supposed; for Sir Stafford Northcote does seem to have "turned his back upon himself." As a whole, the problem before the country is not a difficult one. Taking the case as it stands now, and allowing the blunders on the one side to be a set-off against the shortcomings on the other,-looking at the subject not as heated partisans or exacting shareholders, but as those who think the promotion of the common weal to be a higher duty than the satisfaction of personal and selfish interests, the sole question requiring an answer is, Shall the convenience of a trading company, or the good of the com munity, have the first place in our thoughts, and absorb the chief share of our energies? Thus put, the reply is obvious. No one un biassed by individual considerations can in these days maintain that a great landed mo nopoly should be deliberately upheld. What might have been deemed highly laudable in the reign of Charles the Second, has little chance of being regarded in the same light by those who, in the nineteenth century, boast of emancipation from the bondage of tradition. We may assume, then, that should Parliament be called upon to interfere, the Company need not hope to gain its point and maintain its position. Yet, when the subject of uniting the Provinces into a confederacy came before Parliament in 1867, provisions for the future incorporation of the Hudson's Bay territory with the projected Dominion of Canada, were inserted in the Act. During the first session of the first Dominion Parliament, steps were taken in accordance with those provisions to promote the desired issue. The Imperial Legislature moved in the same direction, the result being that last year the Rupert's Land Act, 1868," was passed, with a view to enable the Crown to arrange for the transfer to Canada of the NorthWestern or other territory which the Hudson's Bay Company now occupy. Mr. Disraeli's Administration endeavoured to give immediate effect to the wishes of Parliament. Negotiations were begun, and two members of the Canadian Government, Sir George Cartier, Bart., and the Hon. William McDougall, C. B., visited this country, on the invitation of the Duke of Buckingham, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in order that the claims of Canada might be clearly understood and carefully investigated. Terms were ultimately made. These may be supposed to have partaken of the nature of a compromise. They were embodied in a despatch, which was forwarded to the Company as the ultimatum of the late Government. Before an answer could be returned, the On the present Secretary of State for the Ministry resigned office, Mr. Gladstone taking Colonies now rests the grave responsibility Mr. Disraeli's place, and Earl Granville suc- of dealing with and determining the ques ceeding the Duke of Buckingham. Another tions at issue. Should the terms proposed change directly affecting the Company also by Earl Granville be fair in the main to the took place, for the Earl of Kimberley be- parties immediately concerned, and be re coming Lord Privy Seal, he had to resign garded by the public as reasonable and de his post of Governor. A successor was found cisive, his capacity as an efficient head of the for him in the person of Sir Stafford North- Colonial Office will be placed beyond all cote. Of all the puzzling situations contrived doubt. As a rule, our Secretaries for the by the fertile brain of the sensational novelist Colonies are well-meaning but unpractical or playwright, that in which Sir Stafford is now placed would appear to be the most embarrassing. As a member of the Cabinet in the late Government, he was responsible for its policy. Should its acts be now impeached, men. When colonies were small and subservient dependencies, the difficulty of mal aging them was slight. The will of the Sec retary of State was law to them. Their complaints were disregarded. If they be came unusually troublesome, coercion was employed to silence discontent. A rude shock was given to this system of administration when, towards the middle of the last century, a few colonists challenged the right of the Home Government to act in an arbitrary way, vindicated by force of arms their title to respect, and compelled the recognition of their independence. But the establishment of the Republic of the United States did not instantly transform the policy of the Colonial Office from one of "meddling and muddling" into a policy of dignified for bearance when to interfere would have been dangerous, and of judicious furtherance of the true welfare of the colonists when action was desirable. It would be easy to adduce illustrations of this drawn from the past history of Upper and Lower Canada. Instead of doing this, however, let us again cite Mr. Ellice, who, speaking as one well versed in the subject, made this statement before the Committee of 1857, when referring to the manner in which Vancouver's Island had been treated by the Company and the Colonial Office: acre. "At the time when the monopoly of the land was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, in the terms of the grant, certain restrictions were imposed with respect to the price of the land, and certain other conditions with respect to the future government of the country, which insured from the beginning an absolute failure of the whole scheme. Lord Grey [then Secretary for the Colonies] insisted that the Company should not sell land under a pound an I believe that if one could recount to this Committee all the misery and mischief which has been done to our colonies by jealous and capricious restrictions imposed by the Colonial Office upon the dealings in land in our Colonies, they would be astonished. These restrictions were idle. Any person accustomed to the settlement of land must know that if you take £1 from a man who comes to settle in a wild country, you take from him all the little capital which he wants to establish him on the land. The land is of no value to anybody until it is culti vated." 11* system of land tenures, they endeavor to extend the same arrangements to entirely dissimilar cases. The propriety of making free grants of land they are generally unable to appreciate, and as little can they understand that an acre burdened with a prospective payment, however small, loses half its value in the eyes of the emigrant. Leaving a country where to be a landed proprietor is a social distinction, the settler in Canada or Australia desires to become at once the absolute proprietor of a plot of ground. In the scheme proposed by Mr. Disraeli's Administration for making terms between the Hudson's Bay Company and Canada, this consideration being lost sight of, a tax was imposed on the land, the sum thereby raised being handed over to the Company by way of compensation. It is improbable that Earl Granville will approve of, or that Mr. Gladstone will sanction, any such arrangement. The shortest, simplest, and most rational plan is to extinguish the claims of the Company by an immediate payment in cash. This proposition has already found favour in the eyes of several shareholders, one of them having advocated it in a pamphlet* which, notwithstanding many erroneous inferences and doubtful facts, is an able statement of the case from the point of view of an oversanguine investor. We forbear entering into the details of this branch of the subject. What we have to do with is the principle involved. Once that is agreed to, a settlement might easily be brought about. Nor in arranging that settlement need the Company be dissolved, There are still plenty of furs in which it might trade. Indeed, centuries may elapse before the fur-bearing animals are exterminated from the inhospitable think the Canadian Government would rearegions around Hudson's Bay. We should dily afford the Company every facility for pursuing its business, provided that the Com pany retired from the territory it is now desired to colonize. Carrying on its operations by virtue of a Statute instead of under cover of an Extraordinary Charter," the Hudson's Bay Company may have before it in the future a career of usefulness which no evenomed disputes will frustrate nor dangerous rivalry impede. Hitherto we have considered the subject as if it were one in which a trading company and a North American State were alone concerned. But important as the acquisition of the North-Western territory is to the Dominion of Canada, and unwise as the existing monopoly of the Company undoubted * The Hudson's Bay Company, its Position and Prospects. By James Dodds. 1866, jurisdiction should rest henceforward upon | he must take his share of the blame. Had the basis of statute." When the vote was taken on the question of adopting the report of Mr.Gladstone or that of Mr. Labouchere, the chairman, the numbers were even, but the chairman's casting vote being given in his own favour, his report was accepted. However, on putting the final question whether or not Mr. Labouchere's report should be presented to the House, the motion was carried by a majority of one only. The tact and influence of the friends of the Company thus prevailed, and legislation adverse to their private interests was thereby postponed. he continued in office, he would have been a consenting party to such legislation, to carry out arrangements made with regard to the Company's affairs, as might have been deemed expedient or imperative. But, as Governor of the Company, he has rejected the proposition which as a legislator he might have sanctioned, and which as an ex-minister he must still defend in Parliament. The triangular duel imagined by Captain Marryatt for the confusion of Peter Simple is the only known counterpart to this situation. Sir Stafford is a target for the shots of two parties, while able to fire only at one. Lord Castlereagh's very mixed metaphor is after all less absurd than has been supposed; for Sir Stafford Northcote does seem to have "turned his back upon himself." shareholders, but as those who think the promotion of the common weal to be a higher duty than the satisfaction of personal and selfish interests, the sole question requiring an answer is, Shall the convenience of a trading company, or the good of the community, have the first place in our thoughts, and absorb the chief share of our energies? Thus put, the reply is obvious. No one unbiassed by individual considerations can in these days maintain that a great landed monopoly should be deliberately upheld. What might have been deemed highly laudable in the reign of Charles the Second, has little chance of being regarded in the same light by those who, in the nineteenth century, boast of emancipation from the bondage of tradition. We may assume, then, that should Parliament be called upon to interfere, the Company need not hope to gain its point and maintain its position. Yet, when the subject of uniting the Provinces into a confederacy eame before Parliament in 1867, provisions for the future incorporation of the Hudson's Bay territory with the projected Dominion of Canada, As a whole, the problem before the counwere inserted in the Act. During the first try is not a difficult one. Taking the case as session of the first Dominion Parliament, it stands now, and allowing the blunders on steps were taken in accordance with those the one side to be a set-off against the shortprovisions to promote the desired issue. The comings on the other,-looking at the subImperial Legislature moved in the same di-ject not as heated partisans or exacting rection, the result being that last year the "Rupert's Land Act, 1868," was passed, with a view to enable the Crown to arrange for the transfer to Canada of the NorthWestern or other territory which the Hudson's Bay Company now occupy. Mr. Disraeli's Administration endeavoured to give immediate effect to the wishes of Parliament. Negotiations were begun, and two members of the Canadian Government, Sir George Cartier, Bart., and the Hon. William McDougall, C. B., visited this country, on the invitation of the Duke of Buckingham, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in order that the claims of Canada might be clearly understood and carefully investigated. Terms were ultimately made. These may be supposed to have partaken of the nature of a compromise. They were embodied in a despatch, which was forwarded to the Company as the ultimatum of the late Government. Before an answer could be returned, the Ministry resigned office, Mr. Gladstone taking Mr. Disraeli's place, and Earl Granville succeeding the Duke of Buckingham. Another change directly affecting the Company also took place, for the Earl of Kimberley becoming Lord Privy Seal, he had to resign his post of Governor. A successor was found for him in the person of Sir Stafford Northcote. Of all the puzzling situations contrived by the fertile brain of the sensational novelist or playwright, that in which Sir Stafford is now placed would appear to be the most embarrassing. As a member of the Cabinet in the late Government, he was responsible for its policy. Should its acts be now impeached, On the present Secretary of State for the Colonies now rests the grave responsibility of dealing with and determining the ques tions at issue. Should the terms proposed by Earl Granville be fair in the main to the parties immediately concerned, and be regarded by the public as reasonable and decisive, his capacity as an efficient head of the Colonial Office will be placed beyond all doubt. As a rule, our Secretaries for the Colonies are well-meaning but unpractical men. When colonies were small and subservient dependencies, the difficulty of managing them was slight. The will of the Secretary of State was law to them. Their complaints were disregarded. If they be came unusually troublesome, coercion was employed to silence discontent. A rude shock was given to this system of administration when, towards the middle of the last century, a few colonists challenged the right of the Home Government to act in an arbitrary way, vindicated by force of arms their title to respect, and compelled the recognition of their independence. But the establishment of the Republic of the United States did not instantly transform the policy of the Colonial Office from one of "meddling and muddling" into a policy of dignified for bearance when to interfere would have been dangerous, and of judicious furtherance of the true welfare of the colonists when action was desirable. It would be easy to adduce illustrations of this drawn from the past history of Upper and Lower Canada. Instead of doing this, however, let us again cite Mr. Ellice, who, speaking as one well versed in the subject, made this statement before the Committee of 1857, when referring to the manner in which Vancouver's Island had been treated by the Company and the Colonial Office: "At the time when the monopoly of the land was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, in the terms of the grant, certain restrictions were imposed with respect to the price of the land, and certain other conditions with respect to the future government of the country, which insured from the beginning an absolute failure of the whole scheme. Lord Grey [then Secretary for the Colonies] insisted that the Company should not sell land under a pound an acre. I believe that if one could recount to this Committee all the misery and mischief which has been done to our colonies by jealous and capricious restrictions imposed by the Colonial Office upon the dealings in land in our Colonies, they would be astonished. These restrictions were idle. Any person accustomed to the settlement of land must know that if you take £1 from a man who comes to settle in a wild country, you take from him all the little capital which he wants to establish him on the land. The land is of no value to anybody until it is cultivated."* The words printed in italics condense the experience of a man well qualified to form an opinion, yet indisposed to say too hard things of any department of the Government. The concluding sentence is especially noteworthy; for it forms the key to many puzzles which successive Colonial Secretaries have had to abandon in despair. They set out with the notion that what is good for England must always answer in a colony. In consequence of their belief that the perfection of human wisdom is displayed in our system of land tenures, they endeavor to extend the same arrangements to entirely dissimilar cases. The propriety of making free grants of land they are generally unable to appreciate, and as little can they understand that an acre burdened with a prospective payment, however small, loses half its value in the eyes of the emigrant. Leaving a country where to be a landed proprietor is a social distinction, the settler in Canada or Australia desires to become at once the absolute proprietor of a plot of ground. In the scheme proposed by Mr. Disraeli's Administration for making terms between the Hudson's Bay Company and Canada, this consideration being lost sight of, a tax was imposed on the land, the sum thereby raised being handed over to the Company by way of compensation. It is improbable that Earl Granville will approve of, or that Mr. Gladstone will sanction, any such arrangement. The shortest, simplest, and most rational plan is to extinguish the claims of the Company by an immediate payment in cash. This proposition has already found favour in the eyes of several shareholders, one of them having advocated it in a pamphlet* which, notwithstanding many erroneous inferences and doubtful facts, is an able statement of the case from the point of view of an oversanguine investor. We forbear entering into the details of this branch of the subject. What we have to do with is the principle involved. Once that is agreed to, a settlement might easily be brought about. Nor in arranging that settlement need the Company be dissolved, There are still plenty of furs in which it might trade. Indeed, centuries may elapse before the fur-bearing animals are exterminated from the inhospitable think the Canadian Government would rearegions around Hudson's Bay. We should dily afford the Company every facility for pursuing its business, provided that the Com. pany retired from the territory it is now desired to colonize. Carrying on its operations by virtue of a Statute instead of under cover of an "Extraordinary Charter," the Hudson's Bay Company may have before it in the future a career of usefulness which evenomed disputes will frustrate nor dangerous rivalry impede, no Hitherto we have considered the subject as if it were one in which a trading company and a North American State were alone concerned. But important as the acquisition of the North-Western territory is to the Dominion of Canada, and unwise as the existing monopoly of the Company undoubted *The Hudson's Bay Company, its Position and Prospects. By James Dodds. 1866, |