The Hudson's Bay Company, finding their trade at Churchill and York Factory cut off by the Canadian establishments north of the Saskatchewan, and their trade in the vicinity of James' Bay, damaged by the Canadian trading posts in the vicinity of Lake Nipegon, acted upon the advice of Hearne and established posts in various parts of the north-west territory. This they did not venture upon doing this for more than twenty years after the country ceased to be a possession of France. They left the shores of Hudson's Bay in 1774, and established a trading post on the east bank of Sturgeon Lake, in latitude 53° 56′ north, and longitude 102° 15' west. They followed the North-West Company wherever they made an establishment, but in no instance did the Canada fur traders follow them. The North-West Company soon extended their posts beyond the Rocky Mountains, and upwards of three hundred Canadians were employed in carrying on a traffic over the country between Lower California and Russian America. The Hudson's Bay Company were far less enterprising than their rivals. Until the two Companies were amalgamated they paid their agents fixed salaries, while the agents of the North-West Company were paid a certain percentage of the profits realized from the fur trade. And Mr. Harmon observes there was a marked difference in the industry and enterprise of the agents of the two Companies.*

Although the Hudson's Bay Company followed the Canadian fur traders into the northwest, the traders of the two Companies remained on the most friendly terms. But with the accession of Lord Selkirk to the head of the Hudson's Bay Company's affairs a policy of violence and lawlessness was adopted.t

The period from 1811 to 1820 was one of conflict between the two Companies.

In 1814, a grant was made of a considerable portion of the country in the vicinity of Red River to Lord Selkirk, embracing a large tract of country which had long been a part of Canada under the French, and which had been ceded to Great Britian by the Treaty of Paris in 1763. There were French settlers who had continuously occupied the country since 1731, and the Canadian fur traders had, under British authority, carried on the trade with the Indians since 1765. The Hudson's Bay Company entered the valley of the Red River, for the first time, in 1805, and nine years later they professed to grant to the Earl of Selkirk that country as a part of the territory which they had acquired under the Charter from Charles II., 135 years before they had visited the country, and 93 years before it became a British possession.

Lord Selkirk, acting in the interests of the Hudson's Bay Company, at once set to work to expel the Canadian traders. Many of their trading posts and forts were taken, and some of them were destroyed. Their supplies were seized. Forcible possession was taken of their letters and correspondence. A band of their traders was attacked, in which the people of the Hudson's Bay Company were defeated, and upwards of twenty lives were sacrificed. Representations were made both to the British and Canadian Governments of the actual condition of affairs, in which the conduct of Lord Selkirk and his agents was denounced, and the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company to any exclusive right denied. Fort William was taken in 1816 by Captain D'Orsonnens, at the head of a number of disbanded soldiers, who ostensibly left Montreal for the north-west territory as

* McKenzie; Harmon; Henry, senr.

+ Harmon.

settlers, but whose real design was to forcibly take possession of the property of the NorthWest Company. Captain D'Orsonnens left Montreal in May, 1816, with twenty-four men, eight of whom were formerly in the Regiment of Meuron, and sixteen in Hatteville's. At Kingston they were joined by Captain Matthey, Mr. Graffenreith and Lieutenant Fauche, with fifty or sixty men. Their united force numbered nearly ninety. They proceeded to Fort William, the property of the North-West Company, which they took on the 13th of August. On the 10th of September following, Captain D'Orsonnens set out from Fort William with thirty-five armed men to take possession of Fort Lac la Pluie, which was surrendered to him on the 3rd of October. In this way Lord Selkirk sought to prevent access being had to the north-west country from the settled parts of Canada.

On the 12th of February, 1817, Earl Bathurst addressed a dispatch to the GovernorGeneral, in which he said :-" You will require, under similar penalties, the restitution of all forts, buildings, or trading stations, with the property which they contain, which may have been seized or taken possession of by either party, to the party who originally established or constructed the same, and who were possessed of them previous to the recent disputes between the two Companies.

"You will also require the removal of any blockade, or impediment by which any party may have attempted to prevent, or interrupt, the free passage of traders, or others of His Majesty's subjects, or the natives of the country, with their merchandise, furs, provisions, and other effects throughout the lakes, rivers, roads, and every other usual route or communication heretofore used for the purpose of the fur trade in the interior of North America; and the full and free permission for all persons to pursue their usual and accustomed trade without hindrance or molestation."*

From this dispatch it will be seen that the British Government did not at that time recognize the extraordinary pretensions of the Hudson's Bay Company. Propositions were made by the North-west Company for a union of the two Companies, the Canadians receiving two-thirds and their rivals one-third of the profits, and that each should furnish in that proportion the means and capital; or to give the Hudson's Bay Company twothirds of the trade over which they claimed that their chartered rights extended, upon condition that they refrained from encroaching upon the northern and western slopes of the continent. These offers for an arrangement were declined.

The Hudson's Bay Company, through Lord Selkirk, submitted a counter-proposition, in which they stated "that they would not interfere with the Athabaska posts if the Canadians would give up all trade in the countries through which any waters passed, flowing towards the Hudson's Bay;" that in the event of the North-west Company acceding to this stipulation, they would be permitted to retain some of their own posts along the line to the Athabaska country, if they would agree to leave the question of right to arbitration, which, if decided in favour of the Hudson's Bay Company, then the North-west Company should pay an adequate rent to their rivals as landlords. This counter-proposal the North-west Company declined to entertain.

In 1816 the Governor-General appointed a Mr. Coltman a Commissioner to enquire

* Trial of de Reinhard and McLellan; Trials at York, in 1818; Harmon's Journal; Narrative of Occurrences, 1817.

Mr.

into and report upon the causes and extent of the disturbances in the North-West. Coltman made his report, in which he recommended a union of the interests of the various fur traders in that country. Both Companies had sustained heavy losses. The stock of the Hudson's Bay Company fell during the contest from 230 to 50 per cent. "In this state of things," says the R't Hon. Edward Ellice, "I think about 1819 or 1820, Lord Bathurst, then Secretary of State for the colonies, sent for me to consult me whether it was possible to do anything towards promoting a union between the Companies. I undertook that matter, not only at his request, but from obvious considerations of interest, having become under considerable engagements for one of the Companies; and after a very difficult negotiation, I succeeded in uniting the interests of the various parties, and inducing them to agree to carry on the trade after that agreement under the Charter of the Hudson's Bay Company. At the same time, I suggested to Lord Bathurst to propose a Bill to Parliament which should enable the Crown to grant a license of exclusive trade, (saving the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company over their territory) as well over the country to the east, as over that beyond the Rocky Mountains, and extending to the Pacific Ocean, so that any competition which was likely to be injurious to the peace of the country should be thereafter prevented. From these different arrangements sprung the present Hudson's Bay Company, which is more in fact a Canadian Company than an English Company in its origin. The Act then passed, under which the Company have since carried on the trade throughout the Indian territories beyond their boundaries, exclusively by virtue of the license."*

An Act was then passed by the Imperial Parliament for regulating the fur trade; and a Royal license, granting to the Company the privilege of trading with the Indians to the exclusion of other parties, was obtained.

An Act was passed in 1821, for regulating the fur trade and for establishing a Criminal and Civil jurisdiction within certain parts of North America. Under the authority of this Act the King granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to "certain associations of persons trading under the name of the North-West Company of Montreal," a Royal license granting the exclusive privilege of trading with the Indians in all such parts of North America to the northward of the lands and territories belonging to the United States of America "as shall not form part of any of our Provinces in North America," or of any lands or territories belonging to any foreign State. The license granted was for twenty-one years. West of the Rocky Mountains, it was not exclusive of citizens of the United States. This license did not apply, as will be seen from its terms, to the unsettled parts of Upper Canada. As a matter of fact many of their establishments were within the limits of the Province, but they were held simply because they were distant and difficult of access, and the Government of Canada did not take the trouble to assert what I think must be regarded as an undoubted right, to the country.

From what has been so far stated, it will be seen, that as early as 1656, the French visited the western part of Lake Superior, and traded with the Indians who resided some distance to the westward; that Du Lhut, with his engagés, explored the country westward'

Right Hon. Edward Ellice before Committee of the House of Commons on Hudson Bay Company's Possessions; answer to Q. 5784.

to the Mississippi, and northward to the head waters of Lake Nepigon; that Grosseliers went westward by the way of Pigeon River, to the Red River district, as early as 1666, and from thence explored the Nelson River to its mouth; that in the year 1717 Lieutenant La Noüe built a fort in the vicinity of Rainy Lake; that in 1728-32 Verendrye and his party erected forts upon Lake of the Woods, Lake Winnipeg and the River Assiniboine, that they continued to explore the country and to establish new trading posts until 1750; that after the death of the elder Verendrye, Captain Le Gardeur de Saint Pierre, and subsequently Captain La Corne, occupied the country as explorers until 1757, and that it was occupied by numerous bands of French traders and wood-runners at the time it came into the possession of the English; that in 1765, English traders from Albany and Montreal entered the Red River country; that one of them, Thomas Curry, accompanied by guides and interpreters, in 1766, went as far as Fort Bourbon, and the Saskatchewan; that before 1771, they had established a settlement within the Athapascow country; that a few years later they were followed to this district by the Hudson's Bay Company who did not enter the Red River district for three-quarters of a century after the French had been in possession of the north-west country. We have seen that from 1811 to 1820 the Hudson's Bay Company claimed the north-west country as a part of their grant; that during the nine years of hostilities beween themselves and the Canadian traders, their pretensions were energetically resisted. Then came a union of the rival Companies, and the grant of an exclusive license from the Crown to trade with the Indians in the country beyond the limits of Upper Canada, since which no steps have been taken to determine where those limits are. We shall endeavour to show that the Hudson's Bay Company had no valid claim to the country; that it was not covered by their charter, and that if it had been, it could not have been held upon any principle of public law, against the explorations and settlement by the subjects of another State. Lord Selkirk and his friends, with a view of giving colour to the violent and unjust usurpations of himself and the Company, sought to leave the impression that the French half breeds who resided in the north-west-the descendants of the wood-runners and traders who had accompanied Verendrye and his successors into that country,-were only known there since the establishment of the North-West Company; but the fact is that when the traders first penetrated into that country, after the conquest of Canada, they found it overrun with persons of this description, "some of whom were then the chief leaders of the different tribes of Indians in the plains, and inherited the names of their fathers, who had been the principal French commandants and traders of the district.

"A gentleman who was formerly engaged in the Indian trade, and who was lately in London, informed the author that when he first visited the Red River, in the year 1784, he was stopped near the forks by some of these half-breeds, or Brulée Chiefs, who told him that he could only trade in that country by their permission; and, as the price of such permission, they exacted from him goods to the value of above £400. This gentleman found, at the Upper Red River, Mr. Grant, the father of the half-breed Grant mentioned in the narrative, who had paid a similar tribute for permission to trade."*

Upon what ground can a valid claim to that country be set up in favour of the

* Occurrences in North America, 1817, p. 150.

"Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay?" To say that the Company's charter is valid, is beside the question. The charter, in one respect, must be regarded as a commission to make discoveries, and to take possession of unknown regions on behalf of the English Crown. A few English navigators had before visited the Bay, but it can be shown that, until the charter was applied for, the Crown set up no claim to Hudson's Bay and the adjacent country. But if we suppose the contrary were true-that the British Government had, at the time the charter was granted, an undoubted right to the whole coast, how could that give to the King the right to convey lands a thousand miles away from its shores which had already been claimed by the King of France, had been visited by some of his subjects for the purpose of trafficking with the Indians, and over which he exercised jurisdiction for nearly a century before it was ever visited by those who professed to hold it from the King of England? The grant of the territories named in the Charter of the Hudson's Bay Company was not a grant of lands in the actual possession of the Crown. The King of France claimed the shores of Hudson's Bay as a part of Canada. The Treaty of St. Germain-enLaye makes no reservation of any lands north of Canada as the possession of England. The Charter of the Hudson's Bay Company was a prospective conveyance of a country to be acquired by the discoveries and settlements to be made by those to whom the conveyance was made. The Crown had it not. The King wished to extend his dominions; his subjects wished to possess the country. He granted to them right of property, so far as it was in his power to do so, in order that they might acquire for him the rights of sovereignty, according to the recognised principals of Public Law. The Sovereigns of England and of France granted many charters in North America, conveying immense tracts of country-some of them stretching across the continent from sea to sea, between certain parallels of latitude, yet they never were regarded as furnishing conclusive evidence of sovereignty. Differences arose between England and France, and also between England and Holland, as to the limits of their respective possessions in North America, but in no instance did any one Government accept a charter granted by another to its own subjects as proof of its superior claim to the territory in dispute. When the French Government referred to the charter granted in 1628 to the Company settled in New France, and asserted that all the Bay of the North was comprehended in the grant, the Hudson's Bay Company replied that when they grant places unknown to them, "nobody is so weak as to think that anything passeth by those grants but what the King is rightfully and truly possessed of or entitled to, for nemo dat quod non habet is a maxim understood of all; but the French would have no bounds to Canada to the northward, nor, indeed, to any parts of their dominions in the world, if they could."

It is true that the charter granted by Charles II. to the "Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay," does not profess to grant territory in the possession of the subjects of another Christian Prince, but what is contended is, that he did claim to grant an extensive region not in the possession of himself or his subjects, and that by such a grant he could not bar the subjects of France from acquiring

1 "A charter without possession can never be allowed by the Law of Nations to change the property of the soil."-Lords of Trade to the King, 8th Sept., 1721.