the Island were conceded to her, and it might be well to see now upon what terms this could be done, because it seems that if it be not done at the expiration of the Lease of the "Indian Territories," it could not be done afterwards, unless indeed the Company have failed to fulfil the conditions required within the first five years. Twelve years ago the United States had no communication with their territories on the Pacific except by sea, and during the Oregon negociations, when proposing strenuous measures upon the subject, the President in his message to Congress, 2nd December, 1845, says: "An overland mail is believed to be entirely practicable; and the importance of establishing such a mail at least once a month is submitted to the favourable consideration of Congress." How different the circumstances now, and how "entirely practicable" it has proved, need not be dwelt upon, but it must be remarked that at no other point, north of the Gulf of Mexico, are the facilities for communication across the continent anything like equal to what they are through Canada, there being good navigation three-fourths, if not more, of the whole distance; first to the head of Lake Superior, from whence the navigation is broken to Lake Winnipeg (though about 150 miles of this distance is navigable), then through that Lake to the Saskatchewan, on which there are obstructions, in the lower part near the Lake, from whence the navigation is impeded to the very base of the Rocky Mountains. It would be very desirable, therefore, and quite practicable, if the British Government will consent to annex the Indian Territories, extending to the Pacific and Vancouver's Island, to Canada, to establish during summer a monthly communication across the continent. It is of incalculable importance that these measures should be most forcibly impressed upon the Imperial Government at the present juncture, for on their solution depends the question of whether this country shall ultimately become a Petty State, or one of the Great Powers of the earth; and not only that, but whether or not there shall be a counterpoise favourable to British interests and modelled upon British institutions to counteract the preponderating influence-if not the absolute dominion-to which our great neighbour, the United States, must otherwise attain upon this continent. No reference has been here made to the controversy between the Company and those who accuse them of exercising a pernicious influence over the Indian population, nor is it necessary to enter into the subject further than to point out the erroneous impression the Company strive to inculcate, to the effect that they are necessary to the Indians. It may well be that the state of things is better under them than it was when the two powerful Companies were in hostile array against each other; and it may be that their affairs are as well conducted, with reference to their effect upon the native population, as could well be expected of a Commercial Company, having the primary question of profit and loss as the object of their association. But the question really comes to be, whether those countries shall be kept in statu quo till the tide of population bursts in upon them, over an imaginary line, from a country where it has been the rule that the Indian must be driven from the lands the white man covets; or be opened up under the influence of the Canadian Government, which has always evinced the greatest sympathy towards the Indian race, and has protected them in the enjoyment of their rights and properties, not only in their remote hunting grounds, but in the midst of thickly-peopled districts of the country. JOSEPH CAUCHON, CROWN LANDS DEPARTMENT, Commissioner of Crown Lands. No 1. MR. BEARCROFT'S OPINION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE CHARTER OF THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY. Q. 1st. Whether the King,without the co-operation of the other Legislative powers, can grant to any company an exclusive trade for ever, together with a right of seizing the person and goods of a fellow-subject, without legal process; and if not, whether his having illegally granted such advantages and power, does not annul the charter? A. I am of opinion that the King, without the assent of Parliament, cannot legally grant to any company, or to any individual, an exclusive trade for ever, together with a right to seize the person and goods of subjects, without process of law; and that such a grant, if made, is illegal, void, and without effect. Q. 2nd. If this Charter is not valid upon the principle above stated, whether it is not voidable by the Company's neglecting to fulfil the views the King had when he granted it? A. If such a Charter could be considered legal and valid in its commencement, yet it will be voidable by Sci. Fa. if the grantees neglect to endeavour, by reasonable and adequate means, to carry the purpose of it into effect. Q. 3rd. Whether the grant to them, of the right of fishing, is exclusive, or whether the Greenland fishermen, who have a right to fish at Greenland and the seas adjacent, have not a right to fish at Hudson's Bay? A. The Charter in question, as to so much of it as affects to grant an exclusive trade and inflict penalties and forfeitures, being, as I conceive, illegal and void, I am of opinion that the Greenland fishermen, who have a right to fish there, have also a right to fish in Hudson's Bay. Q. 4th. If an individual invades the Charter, by fishing or trad BB *OXFORD < ing in any of the places granted to the Company, and they seize his people, ship or goods, whether they have any and what remedy? A. If the Hudson's Bay Company, or those acting under their authority, shall venture to seize the person, ship, or goods of a British subject fishing there, the action is by action of trespass against the Company, or against the persons who do the act complained of, which action may be brought in any of the courts of Westminster Hall. Q. 5th. If you should be of opinion that the Charter is in its present form illegal, which is the best way of attacking it—by invading the patent, and permitting them to seize or bring an action, and complaining or defending, according to the circumstances, or by applying to Parliament ? A. It is obvious that the safest way of attacking the Charter is by applying to Parliament or by Sci. Fa., though in case of seizure, I cannot help thinking an action of trespass by the party injured would be successful. Q. 6th. And generally to advise the parties proposing the present case, who wish to fish and trade in and near Hudson's Bay (and have sent out a ship which means to winter there, unless cut off by the Company's engines, and only wait for your opinion whether to send several more), for the best? A. Upon the whole of this case, I am strongly inclined to think that the parties interested, if it is an object of importance to them, may venture to carry on the proposed trade immediately. The case of the East India Company and Sandys, determined at such a time, and by such Judges as it was, I cannot take to be law; and as to the length the said Charter has been granted and enjoyed, it is a clear and a well-known maxim of law, that which is not valid in the beginning cannot become so by lapse of time. APPENDIX. 403 No. 2. MR. GIBBS' OPINION. 1st. Such a Charter may certainly be good in some cases, but I am of opinion that the Charter in question was originally void, because it purports to confer on the Company exclusive privileges of trading which, I think, the Crown could not grant without the authority of Parliament. In Sandys against the East India Company, Skinn. 132, 165, 197, 223, the arguments used against their Charter, which was not then confirmed by Act of Parliament, appear to me decisive upon the subject; and although both J. Jefferies and the other Judges of the King's Bench decided in favour of the Charter, I have understood that their judgment was afterwards reversed in Parliament. Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, treats it as an admitted point, that the Charter granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, and others of the like sort, not being confirmed by Parliament, are void, which I mention, not as a legal authority, but only to shew how the question has been generally understood. 2nd. A Charter may be forfeited on this ground. 3rd. I should doubt whether they had by this acquiescence forfeited their exclusive privilege, if it ever existed; but this question is immaterial after my answer to the first. 4th. If the former were legal, this would be so likewise. I think them both legal, on the ground of my answer to the first query. 5th. Probably they might prosecute the captain; but if this question were material, it would be necessary that I should see a copy or abstract of the Charter before I could answer it. 6th. He might, if there were any legal cause of prosecution. 7th. I hardly think that they would be held to fall within this Act, nor does it signify whether they do or not. If my opinion is well founded, the North-West Company may |