by the French, in 1715, of a settlement at the head of Albany River, at the mouth of which the Company's principal post, as they chose to call it, (the old Fort of Chichitouan, or Quichechouanne) was situated. They therefore asked that a boundary line overland might be drawn so as to exclude the French from coming anywhere to the northward of the line 49°, except on the coast of Labrador;" and they added, "unless this be done, the Company's factories at the bottom of Hudson's Bay cannot be secured or their trade preserved." The French Government, by a curious coincidence, brought this question, through its Ambassador at London, before the British Government, and in October the intelligence of the proposal to appoint Commissioners had been received in Canada with great satisfaction,* for the Canadians, on their side, complained of English encroachments on another part of the country. The English Commissioners were instructed to "take special care in wording such articles as shall be agreed upon with the Commissioners of his Most Christian Majesty upon this head, that the said boundaries be understood to regard the trade of Hudson's Bay only." Was this in pursuance of the policy which the Lords of Trade, in 1768, declared to be that by which England regulated its conduct in America? "The policy has been," they said, "to confine the settlements as much as possible to the sea coasts, and not to extend them to places unaccessible to shipping and more out of the reach of commerce." Did England, always ready to struggle with France for the possession of the coasts of Hudson's Bay, practically discourage collision with the French in the interior of the country where her fleets could not reach? Three years after the Hudson's Bay Company had complained of the existence of the French Fort at the head of the Albany river as an encroachment, the French King made known his intention, through Vaudreuil (September 1722), to restrict the post of Temiscamigue within what were called its natural limits; to the lands watered by the River Temiscamigue [the Ottawa river above the Matawan formerly bore this name] and others that * Lettre de MM, de Vaudreuil et Begon, Octobre 26, 1719. discharged therein, without including the lands either above or below that river.* This appears to have led to an adjudication on the subject of the limits of this post; it is certain that there was such an adjudication. A memoir of Begon, October 20, 1725, describes the ancient limits of Temiscamigue to be: "On the front, from and comprising the River du Lievre, which discharges into the Grand River of the Ottawa, on the north side as far as comprising Lake Nipissingue, and in depth to Hudson's Bay, where it is possible to go only by the river Monsipy, which discharges into that sea at the head of the said Bay." The height of land at the Rivers Labrinthe and Tabitibis is stated, in this memoir, to be sixty leagues from Lake Temiscamigue. This is a point which the surveyors who establish the line of boundary between the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec at this point, will soon determine. De l'Isle's map does not make it any such distance, nor does that of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1857. At this time, the most advanced post of the French towards Hudson's Bay was situated on this portage; and there a trade was carried on with the neighbouring Indians and those of Hudson's Bay who descended by the river Monsipy, (marked Monsony or St. Louis on De l'Isle's carte). The English had a fort on the Monsipy, apparently situated on the east side at or near the mouth; and the French did not think it prudent to extend their establishments farther north, lest they should expose themselves to the insults of Indians in the interests of the English. Pour ne pas s'exposer aux insultes des sauvages qui pourraient être gagnés par les Anglais, que sont établis au fond de la mer, ou est un fort nommé Monsipy. It does not appear certain whether the French post, at the head of the Albany river, had been abolished in 1725; but the statement that on the height of land above Temiscamigue was the nearest they had to Hudson's Bay, seems to lead to that conclusion. * Mémoires des representations sur l'adjudication qui vient d'être faite du poste de Temiscamigue. It is to be borne in mind that if these were the ancient limits of the post of Temiscamigue, they seem to have been intended to shew the rights of the person then in possession. And when the King proposed to restrict the limits, three years previously, it does not appear that the proposal had any reference to an international boundary; but that he desired to do so because, prior to the adjudication on its limits, it was thought to encroach on the rights of the holders of other posts. The decision proceeded on the principle that it was necessary to include the River du Lievre, in order to secure certain limits, and because if this river were not included, whoever had the permission of trade there might attract Indians from the post of Temiscamingue; and for the same reason Nipissingue was included in it. Practically, at this point, one of the most accessible, if not the most accessible to Hudson's Bay, the French were confined to the height of land, twelve years after the conclusion of the Treaty of Utrecht, and six years after an abortive attempt had been made to fix in a definite manner the boundary line between Canada and Hudson's Bay Territory. The French had, in 1703, if De l'Isle's map may be relied on, a post north of the height of land on the river Abitibis, and it is certain that they were not required to vacate this post, as they were that of Bourbon after the Treaty of Utrecht. If the post of Abitibis was held by the French till the peace of 1713 and afterwards abandoned, its abandonment must have been a voluntary act. It was not ceded to the English, for nothing was ceded; it was not included in the restoration, because the English had never before been in possession of it, and there is not the least reason to believe that the Hudson's Bay Company ever established a fort or trading post at that point so long as the French remained masters of Canada. Afterwards that Company appears to have established itself there as it did at many other points, south and west, long after the French and Canadians had shewn it the way. In 1774, the Hudson's Bay Company had a post at some point south of Hudson's Bay in the direction of Temiscaming. This was probably on the site of the old French post of Abitibis. The French at that date, when there was war between the two nations, had a scheme for destroying that post as well as Fort Rupert, and the other English establishments on the north by the aid of the neighbouring Indians.* But the want of supplies prevented the enterprise being attempted. Beauharnois found himself obliged to act strictly on the defensive.† There is what might easily be mistaken for a French admission of the Hudson's Bay Company having pushed some distance inland as early as 1682. M. de la Barre, writing in November of that year, says: "As to what relates to Hudson's Bay, the Company in old England advanced some small houses along a river which leads from Lake Superior. As possession was taken of this country several years ago, we will put an end to this disorder, and report next year the success of the design." The expression here used, "A river which leads from Lake Superior," evidently contains a geographical error. The reply of the French King to the Governor, M. de la Barre, April 10, 1684, mentions the name of the river which Radison and de Groisseliers had taken from the English-an establishment seven leagues up the Nelson River. The English Court instructed its Ambassador at Paris to enquire into the matter, whereupon the French King, taking De la Barre into his confidence, lays before him the policy on which he counts for success. The King of England has authorized his Ambassador to speak to me respecting what occurred in the Nelson River between the English and Radison and de Groisseliers, whereupon I am happy to inform you that as I am unwilling to afford the King of England any cause of complaint, and as I think it important nevertheless to prevent the English establishing themselves on that river, it would be well for you to have a proposal made to the Commandant at Hudson's Bay that neither the French nor the English should have power to make any new establishments; to which I am persuaded he will give his consent, the more readily as he is not in a position to prevent those which my subjects would wish to form on said Nelson river." * M. de Beauharnois to Comte de Maurepas, Oct. 8, 1744. + M. de Beauharnois to Comte de Maurepas, Montreal, June 18, 1745. When the Governor de la Barre mysteriously hinted at some measures that were being taken to drive the English from the river in question, he probably had reference to the expedition of Radison and de Groisseliers from Quebec. The date, 1682, is, I think, sufficient to settle this point. The suggestion of the French King that the traders of both nations should debar themselves from making any establishments in Hudson's Bay, does not appear to have been acted upon. The Marquis de Denonville, October 13 and Nov. 16, 1688, speaks of a convention concluded with England, that the river Bourbon or Port Nelson shall remain in joint occupation of the two Crowns." It would be better, he thought, that the French should exchange Port Nelson for the posts at the head of the Bay." If this arrangement were favourable, he added, "the Indians could thus be intercepted by land; for it would be useless to attempt to become masters of the upper parts of the Rivers Bourbon and Ste. Therese, inasmuch as it would be impossible to prevent the Indians trading with the English." If this is not very intelligible, it is sufficient to show that the English had not occupied the upper parts of these rivers. The weakness of the Canada Company was its want of capital and naval armaments; and it was obliged to beg assistance from the French Court. In 1705, a new appeal to the King was made to send a vessel from France with provisions for the Garrison, which was in danger of perishing if it did not obtain assistance; and the Quebec Company was in no condition to render the necessary aid.* But this maritime weakness necessitated greater exertions by land, which tended to confine the English to the shores of the Bay. In the spring of 1709, a party of Canadians went overland to Hudson's Bay and attacked the English Fort of Kitchichouane, but the enterprise failed, not without some loss to the attacking party. The Ministry blamed M. Vaudreuil for taking part in this expedition out of motives of interest; but he * Lettre de MM. de Vaudreuil et de Beauharnois, 19 Oct. 1705. |