Full text of "Lord Selkirk's work in Canada"

See other formats

«C-NRLF

$B ?54 1st

GIFT OF
JANE K.SATHER

HISTORICAL AND

LITERARY STUDIES

VOLUME 7

Oxford University Press

London Edinburgh Glasgow New York

Toronto Melbourne Bombay

Humphrey Milford M.A. Publisher to the University

OXFORD

Historical and Literary

STUDIES

Issued under the direction of C. H. FIRTH

and WALTER RALEIGH Professors of

Modern History and English Literature in

the University of Oxford

VOLUME 7

lord Selkirk's work
in canada

By CHESTER MAT^TIN

OXFORD
At the Clarendon 'Press

7Q 1 6

:J^

Volume I. ELIZABETHAN ROGUES AND VAGA-
BONDS AND THEIR REPRESENTATION IN
CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE. BY FRANK
AYDELOTTE.

Volume II. ANGLO-ROMAN RELATIONS, 1 5 5 8-1 $6$ .
BY C. G. BAYNE, C.S.I.

Volume III. THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN THE REIGN
OF WILLIAM III. BY A. S. TURBERVILLE.

Volume IV. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SAMUEL JOHNSON.
BY W. P. COURTNEY. REVISED AND SEEN
THROUGH THE PRESS BY D. NICHOL SMITH.

Volume V. HENRY TUBBE. SELECTIONS EDITED
FROM THE MSS. BY G. C. MOORE SMITH.

Volume VI. KEIGWIN'S REBELLION (1683-4). AN
EPISODE IN THE HISTORY OF BOMBAY.
BY RAY AND OLIVER STRACHEY.

Volume VII. LORD SELKIRK'S WORK IN CANADA.
BY CHESTER MARTIN.

Volume VIII. WALPOLE BALLADS. EDITED BY
M. PERCIVAL.

PREFACE

Many men of genius less than first-rate have survived only
in a * corner of history '. When the attempt is made to draw
them from respectable obscurity, it is not infrequently found
that investigation leaves them still undistinguished among
those who have been accorded the highest places in the history
of their age. Biography tends to become either an apology
or a dull inquisition into facts that seldom abound in vital
interest. Under such circumstances the tendency to magnify
events and to make up the measure of heroic stature by
unwarranted panegyric is only less than the temptation to
give oneself resignedly to the faithful but depressing pursuit
of commonplaces.

The life of the fifth Earl of Selkirk, however, should be
redeemed from unattractiveness, even though none would claim
for him a place among the first men of his age. Panegyric is
impossible, because his gravest mistakes were palpable and
self-confessed ; while lack of vital interest in the early years
of his life may be said to be counterbalanced by a certain
dramatic intensity at its close. In a very real sense, moreover,
the obscurity to which Selkirk's name has been consigned
was unnatural and unjust. His life came to an end in the
midst of a bitter conflict. His vindication was not attempted
for more than half a century, not because it was uncalled for
or impossible, but because it was inexpedient in the light
of an enforced compromise at Selkirk's death. The discreet
silence after 1821 is the less excusable because it is borne
in upon one that a generous mind had been treated with less
than justice by those to whom he had a right to look for
redress. Another attempt to estimate Selkirk's work anew

6 PREFACE

may come as a measure of tardy appreciation, even though
it may not restore his name to the place which one may
hope it would have occupied had his work and life not been
cut short by a violent and not very scrupulous opposition.

Even at its full value, moreover, Selkirk's work scarcely
lends itself to adequate appreciation. Colonization, however
useful and far-reaching in results, can scarcely fail to prove
prosaic and uninspiring in the details of its development.
Little of the true story of British colonization in the nineteenth
century can be considered to make pleasant reading. Success
is usually achieved in obscurity and silence, while failure
seldom passes without angry comment. The leaders of colon-
izing movements, as a rule, received much reproach from the
thriftless, and no praise from the prosperous settler. The
choice of followers in such enterprises was naturally limited.
Selkirk in particular found it necessary to work with — and also
to contend against — men who fell far below his own level.
Wilberforce, who ■ never . . . had any misgivings ' with regard
to the generosity and integrity of Selkirk's original aims,
deplored such conflict as that with the North-West Company,
where, ' from the nature of the case, we are obliged to avail
ourselves of the services of men whose characters we cannot
scrutinize very nicely'.1 It thus becomes necessary to pick
one's way through details which are often sordid and ignoble,
seldom inspiring, and never far removed, on one side or the
other, from sharp practice. It is no small tribute to the
integrity of Selkirk's ideas upon colonization that though not
undefiled for a time by the ignoble quarrel between two fur-
trading companies, they reappear untarnished and with added
lustre, in almost the last letter he ever wrote.

1 Wilberforce to Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, 6363.

CONTENTS

PAGE

Bibliographical Note 8

Chapter I. Introduction 15

II. Experiments . . . . . . .21

III. Red River Settlement .... 36

IV. 'Artifices and Machinations' ... 53
V. 'The Pemican War' 64

VI. The New Regime . . . . .90

VII. 'The Ancient North-West Spirit' . . 104

VIII. 'The Great Mistake' . . . .115

IX. The Commission 132

X. 'The Mud of the Law' .... 141

XI. The End of the Selkirk Regime . .160

XII. Selkirk's Aims and Influence . . .176

APPENDIXES :

A. The Hudson's Bay Charter, 1670 . . 196

B. The Grant of Assiniboia to Lord Selkirk,

June 12, 1811 201

C. Dispatch from Lord Bathurst to Sir

J. C. Sherbrooke, February ii, 181 7 . 215

D. Grant of exclusive Trade to the Hudson's

Bay Company and others, December 5,
1821 218

E. Transfer of Assiniboia back to the

Hudson's Bay Company, 1834 . . . 223

INDEX 227

MAPS

Prince Edward Island 224

Part of Upper Canada 225

Assiniboia and the Red River Settlement . . 226

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

I. Contemporary Manuscript Materials.

The Selkirk Papers, correspondence, diaries, instructions, accounts,

journals, &c, 1 802-1 860. 79 vols., 20,778 MS. pages. Canadian

Archives.
Correspondence of Dunbar, Earl of Selkirk, and his sons. Thomas, Lord

Daer, Earl of Selkirk, 1771-1820, in the possession of Captain Hope,

St. Mary's Isle, Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland.1
Correspondence, Private, St. Mary's Isle, 1817-63, eight volumes.1
Letters from Jean, Countess of Selkirk, to Lady Katherine Halkett, 1808-

20, St. Mary's Isle.1
Colonial Office Records, Gov. Prevost and Miscellaneous, 18 13, Canada.

Canadian Archives, Q. 123.
Colonial Office Records, Miscellaneous, 18 13, Canada. Canadian Archives,

Q. 124.
Colonial Office Records, Public Offices, 1815, Canada. Canadian Archives,

Q. 134. 2.
Colonial Office Records, Canada. Canadian Archives, Q. 293.
Minutes of Council, Lower Canada, July 12, 1816, to June 29, 1818.

Canadian Archives, State, I.
Minutes of Council, Lower Canada, July 30, 1818, to December 1, 1823.

Canadian Archives, State, J.
Colonial Office Records, Trials between Hudson's Bay Company and

North-West Company. Canadian Archives, Q. 329.
Hudson's Bay Company, Petitions to His Majesty : 168 7-1 778. Canadian

Archives, M. 718.
Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Notes prises a Terrebonne par Frangois-

Hyacinthe Sequin, 1831-33. Canadian Archives, M. 136.
Macdonell Papers, Selkirk Settlement 1811-12 and various, 1763-1825.

Canadian Archives, M. 155.
Minutes of Council of Assiniboia, May 4, 1832, to March 5, 1861. Canadian

Archives.
Journal of John McLeod, Sr., Chief Trader Hudson's Bay Company, 1811-

42. Canadian Archives, M. 201.
Letters, Orders, &c, to the Surveyor-General, Privy Council Papers.

Canadian Archives.
Land Book, F. Upper Canada, April 2, 1804, to Feb. 27, 1806.

Canadian Archives.
Land Book, E. Upper Canada, June 23, 1802, to March 28, 1804.

Canadian Archives.
Secretary's Letter Book, A, Lieut.-Gov. Gore, 1806-11. Canadian

Archives.
Secretary's Letter Book, C, Upper Canada, Nov. 11, 1802, to July 25, 1805.

Canadian Archives.

1 The author begs to acknowledge Captain Hope's very great kindness in allowing
access to these valuable papers.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 9

Land Book, G, Upper Canada, Feb. 28, 1806 to March 29, 1808. Canadian

Archives.
Masson Papers, M. 733-738. Canadian Archives.
Bulger Papers, 7 portfolios, M. 149-152, C. Canadian Archives.
Coltman Papers, 7 portfolios of original MS. relating to the Commissioners,

1816-20. Canadian Archives, M. 778, A-G.
Collection of documents, accounts, orders, memoranda, &c, relating to

the Council of Assiniboia, 1843-69. Manitoba Legislative Library,

Winnipeg.
Census Books, 1832, 1833, 1838, 1840, 1843, 1846, &c. Manitoba Legis-
lative Library, Winnipeg.
'Colony Register A.' Copies by James Taylor. Canadian Archives,

M. 721, B.
Askin Papers. (One portfolio relating to Selkirk.) Canadian Archives.
Census Book, Red River Settlement, &c, 1831, 1834, 1835, 1838, 1840,

1843, J846. Canadian Archives, M. 399.
Journal of R. Campbell, 1808-51. Canadian Archives, M. 722, d.
The Hudson's Bay Company's Minutes of Council, Northern Department

of Rupert's Land, 1830-3, 1835-7, 1839-43. Canadian Archives.
Letters of John Richardson, 1789-99. Copied from the originals in the

possession of H. R. Howland, Buffalo, N.Y. Canadian Archives,

M.852.
Memoirs of Roderic Mackenzie, 1785 to 1820. Canadian Archives, M. 414.
Red River Correspondence, Confidential, 1845-6-7.1

II. Contemporary Printed Materials.2

Papers relating to the Red River Settlement, Printed by order of the
House of Commons, July 12, 1819.

Report from the Committee on the State of the Hudson's Bay Company,
April 24, 1749-

Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson's Ray Company,
together with the Proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evi-
dence, Appendix and Index, July 31 and August 11, 1857.

The Montreal Courant.

The Montreal Herald.

Canadian Archives Report, i8g2, Notes E and F.

Report of Trials in the Courts of Canada relative to the Destruction
of the Earl of Selkirk's Settlement o?i the Red River j with Observa-
tions. A. Amos, Barrister-at-law and Fellow of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. London, 1820.

Sketch of the British Fur Trade in North America; with Ohservatio?is
relative to the North-West Company of Montreal. Earl of Selkirk.
London, 18 16, second edition.

A Letter to the Right Honourable the Earl of Selkirk on his Settlement
at the Red River, near Hudson's Bay. John Strachan, D.D. London,
1816.

1 My acknowledgement is due to C. N. Bell, LL.D., F.R.G.S., Winnipeg, for his
very kind permission to use this interesting letterbook.

2 No attempt is made to carry this list beyond contemporary sources.

io BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

On the Necessity of a more Effectual System of National Defence. Earl
of Selkirk. London, 1808.

A Narrative of Occurrences in the Indian Countries of North America,
since the connexion of the Right Hon. the Earl of Selkirk with the
Hudson's Bay Company, and his Attempt to establish a Colony on the
Red River j with a detailed Account of His Lordships Military
Expedition to, and Subsequent Proceedings at, Fort William, in Upper
Canada. London, 18 17.

Statement respecting the Earl of Selkirk's Settlement of Kildonan, upon
the Red River, in the North America; its Destruction in the Years 18/ j
and 1816 ; and the Massacre of Governor Semple and his Party. Lon-
don, January, 181 7.

Statement respecting the Earl of Selkirk's Settlement in North America.
London, June, 1817.

Travels and Adventures in Canada and the Indian Territories. Alex-
ander Henry, Fur Trader, ed. James Bain. Toronto, 1901.

Les Bourgeois de la Compagnie du Nord-Ouest. Masson, Quebec, 1889.
(These volumes contain Reminiscences of Roderic McKenzie, Auto-
biographical Notes of John McDonald of Garth, Journal of Duncan
Cameron, &c, &c.)

Canadian Archives Report, 1897, Note D.

Narrative of a Voyage to Hudson's Bay in His Majesty's Ship
( Rosamond'. Lieut. Edward Chappell, R.N. London, 1817.

A Voyage to Hudson's Bay during the summer of 1812, Containing
a particular account of the Icebergs and other phenomena which present
themselves in those regions; also a description of the Esquimaux and
North Afnerican Indians; their Manners, Customs, Dress, Language,
&r>c, 6f*c. Thomas McKeevor, M.D. London, 18 19.

Observations on the Present State of the Highlands of Scotland, with a
view of the Causes and Probable Consequences of Emigration, Earl of
Selkirk. London, 1805.

Remarks on the Earl of Selkirk's Observations on the Present State of the
Highlands of Scotland, with a view of the Causes and Probable Conse-
quences of Emigration. (Robert Brown.) Edinburgh, 1806.

New Light on the Early History of the Greater North-West : the Manu-
script Journals of Alexander Henry, Fur Trader of the North- West
Company, and of David Thompson, Official Geographer and Explorer of
the same Company , 1799-1814. Three vols., ed. Elliott Coues. New
York, 1897.

An Account of the Countries adjoining to Hudson's Bay; containing an
Abstract of Capt. Middleton's Journal, and Observations of his behaviour
during his Voyage and since his return. Arthur Dobbs, London,
1744-

An Authentic Narrative of a Voyage Performed by Capt. Cook and Capt.
Clerke in H.M. SS. Resolution and Discovery, during the years 1776-
77-78-79-80 in Search of the North- West Passage Between the Coasts
of Asia and America. W.Ellis. London, 1782.

A Voyage to Hudson's Bay by the Dobbs Galley and California in the
years 1746-7, for Discovering the North- West Passage. Henry Ellis.
London, 1748.

A Journal of Voyages and Travels in the Interior of North America.
Daniel Williams Harmon. Andover, 1820.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE n

A Journey from Prince of Wales Fort in Hudson's Bay to the Northern

Ocean j undertaken by order of the H. B. C.for the Discovery of Copper

Mines, a North- West Passage &*c. in the years 1769-70-71-72. Samuel

Hearne. London, 1795.
The Dangerous Voyage of the Author in his Intended Discovery of a North-
West Passage into the South Sea, Capt. Thomas James. London,

1740.
Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of St. Peter's River, Lake
Winnepeek, Lake of the Woods, &"c. : Performed in the year 1823 by

order of the Hon. J. C. Calhoun. Philadelphia, 1824,
Travels to the Source of the Missouri River and Across the American

Continent to the Pacific Ocean in the years 1804-3-6. Captains Lewis

and Clark. London, 181 5.
Brief Narrative of an Unsuccessful Attempt to Reach Repulse Bay.

Capt. G. F. Lyon, R.N. London, 1825.
Voyages from Montreal on the River St. Lawrence through the Continent

of North America to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans in the years 1780-03,

with a Preliminary Account of the Fur Trade of that Country. Sir

Alexander Mackenzie. London, 1801.
Narrative of Transactions in the Red River Country; from the Com-
mencement of the Operations of the Earl of Selkirk during the Summer

of the year 1816. Alexander McDonell. London, 1819.
Journal of a Voyage for the Discovery of a North-West Passage from

the Atlantic to the Pacific in the Years 1819-20 in H.M.S. Hecla a?id

Gripper. William Edward Parry, R.N., F.R.S. London, 1824.
Voyage of Discovery made under the Orders of the Admiralty in

H.M.S. Isabella and H.M.S. Alexandra for the Purpose of Exploring

Baffin's Bay and of Inquiring into the Probability of a North- West

Passage. John Ross. London, 181 9.
Narrative of a Second Voyage in Search of the North- West Passage, and

of a Residence in the Arctic Regions in the years 1829-30-31-32-33. Sir

John Ross. London, 1836.
An Account of Six Years' Residence in Hudson's Bay from 1733 to 1736,

and fro?n 1744 to 1747. Joseph Robson. London, 1752.
A Letter to the Earl of Liverpool from the Earl of Selkirk, Accompanied

by Correspondence with the Colonial Department in the Years 1817-18-

19, on the Subject of the Red River Settlement in North America.

London, 18 19.
Proceedings between Selkirk and the North- West Company at the Assizes

held at York in Upper Canada, October, 1818. London, 18 19.
Narrative of a Journey Round the World during the years 1841-2. Sir

George Simpson. London, 1847.
The Present State of the Hudson's Bay : Containing a full Description of

that Settlement and the Adjacent Country and Likewise of the Fur

Trade, with hints for its Improvement. Edward Umfreville. London,

1790.
The Substance of a Journal during a Residence at the Red River Colony,

British North A?nerica, in the Years 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823. John

West, M.A. London, 1824.
Observations on a Proposal for forming a Society for the Civilization and

Improvement of the North American Indians within the British

Boundary, (Earl of Selkirk.) London, 1807.

12 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Travels Through the Interior Part of North America, in the Years 1766,
1767, and 1768. Carver, J. Dublin, 1779.

The Geography of Hudson 's Bay : In many Voyages of that Locality from
1727 to 1751. With an Appendix containing Extracts from the Log of
Captain Middle ton on his Voyage for the Discovery of the North- West
Passage in His Majesty's Ship Furnace, 1741-2. Coates, Captain W.
Edited by John Barrow, F.R.S. and F.S.A. London, Hakluyt Society,
1852.

The Hudson Bay Territories and Vancouver Island, with an Exposition
of the Charter Rights, Conduct and Policy of the Hon. Hudson's Bay
Corporation. With Map. Martin, R. M. London, 1849.

The Hudson's Bay Company's Land Tenures and the Occupation of
Assiniboia by Lord Selkirk's Settlers, with a list of Grantees under
the Earl and the Company. Martin, Archer. London, 1898.

The Red River Settlement: Its Rise, Progress and Present State, With
Some Account of the Native Races and its General History to the
Present Day. Ross, Alexander. London, 1856.

History of Manitoba frotn the Earliest Settlement to 1833, by the late
Hon. Donald Gunn ; and from 183J to the Admission of the Province
into the Dominion. Ottawa, 1880.

A True Guide to Prince Edward Island, formerly St. John's, in the Gulph
of St. Lawrence, North America. Liverpool, 1808.

Notice Respecting the Boitndary between His Majesty's Possessions in
North America and the United States; with a Map of America between
Latitudes 400 and 70° north, and Longitudes 80° and 130° west; Ex-
hibiting the Principal Trading Stations of the North- West Company :
and intended to accompany the Narrative of Occurrences in the Indian
Countries of North America, connected with the Earl of Selkirk, the
Hudson's Bay and the North- West Companies. London, 1817.

Facts and Observations respecting Canaiia and the United States of
America; Affording a Comparative View of the Inducements to Emi-
gration presented in those Countries. Grece. London, 18 19.

Information to Emigrants. An Account of the Island of Prince Edward,
with Practical Advice to those Intending to Emigrate : and some obser-
vations on the Cape of Good Hope, New South Wales, Canada, and the
Red River. London, 1820 (?).

A Series of Letters, Descriptive of Prince Edward Island, in the Gulph
of St. Laurence, Addressed to the Rev. John Wightman, Minister of
Kirkmahoe, Dumfries-Shire. By Walter Johnstone, A Native of the
same County. Dumfries, 1822.

Travels in Prince Edward Island, Gulf of St. Lawrence, North America,
in the years 1820-21. By Walter Johnstone. Edinburgh, 1823.

Emigration. Prince Edward Island: a Brief but Faithful Account of
this Fine Colony; showing some of its Advantages as a Place of Settle-
ment. J. L. Lewellin. London, 1833.

A Short Account of Prince Edward Island, designed chiefly for the infor-
mation of the agriculturist and other emigrants of smalt capital. By
the Author of the * Emigrant's Introduction to an Acquaintance with the
British American Colonies, &c.' London, 1839.

Sketches of Highlanders : with An Account of their Early Arrival in
North America. By R. C. Macdonald, Lieutenant-Colonel of the Castle
Tioram Regiment of Highlanders, Prince Edward Island ; Chief of the

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 13

Highland Society of Nova Scotia ; and Paymaster of the 30th Regiment.

St. John, N.B., 1843.
Astoria. Washington Irving. Philadelphia, 1836.
Correspondence Relative to the Recent Disturbances in the Red River

Settlement. Presented to Parliament, 1870.
Relations between the United States and North West British America.

Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, &c. (U.S.A.) 1862.
Notes of a Twenty-five Years1 Service in the Hudson's Bay Territory.

John McLean, 1849.
Red River Settlement. Canadian Archives Bulletin, 1 910.
Hudson's Bay Papers. Return to an Address of the House of Commons,

May 29, 1857.
Hudson *s Bay Papers. Return to an Address of the House of Commons ;

Feb. 19, 1857.
Papers Relating to the Legality of the Powers claimed or exercised by the

Hudson9 s Bay Company. July 12, 1850.
Hudson's Bay Papers. Return to an Address of the House of Commons,

May 26, 1842.
Hudson 'i- Bay Papers. Return to an Address of the House of Commons,

Feb. 9, 1849.
Report of the Trial of Charles de Reinhardfor Murder [committed in the

Indian Territories) at a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at Quebec,

May 1 818; to which is annexed a summary of Archibald McLellaris

Indictment as an Accessory. William S. Simpson. Montreal, 1819.
The Canadian North-West, Its Early Development and Legislative

Records. Ed. Professor E. H. Oliver. Canadian Archives Publication,

1914.

Report of the Trials of Charles de Reinhard a?id Archibald McLellan for
Murder, At a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at Quebec, May 1818.
Montreal, 181 8.

Letter to Simon McGillivray, Esq., in answer to one addressed by him to
the creditors of the firms of McTavish, McGillivrays & Co. and
McGillivray s, Thain & Co., dated London, 26th of February, 1826, by
Henry Mackenzie. Montreal, 1827.

Letter from Simon McGillivray, Esq., to the creditors of the firms of
McTavish, McGillivrays & Co. and McGillivrays, Thain 6° Co., of
Montreal, in the Province of Lower Canada ; dated London, 26th Feb-
ruary, 1827. With an appendix containing statements in explanation
of the circumstances under which the insolvency of these firms was
declared at Montreal on the 27th of December, 1825. London, 1827.

Eight Letters on the subject of the Earl of Selkirk's Pamphlet on Highland
Emigration : as they lately appeared under the signature of l Amicus ' in
one of the Edinburgh Newspapers. Second Edition. Edinburgh, 1806.

An inquiry into the causes and effects of Emigration from the Highlands
and Western Islands of Scotland, with Observations on the means to be
employed for preventing it. Alexander Irvine, Minister of Ranach.
Edinburgh, 1802.

Speech on the Defence of the Country, Earl of Selkirk, 1807.

Letter on the Subject of Parliamentary Reform, Earl of Selkirk, 1809.

Voyages dans VAmerique, Due de Liancourt, Paris, An 7.

Lord Selkirk and the North-west Company, Quarterly Review, Oct., 18 16.

i4 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

III. Cartographical Note.

(No attempt is made to carry this list beyond the maps which illustrate
the history of Baldoon, Prince Edward Island, and the Red River Settle-
ment during the Selkirk period.)

Certified Copy of Original Map of Assiniboia accompanying the Grant to
Selkirk in 1811. Secretary of State Department, Washington. (De-
posited by John Halkett, 1822.)

Photograph of another copy of the same in the original Colony Register A
(now lost). Manitoba Legislative Library.

Map of Assiniboia in the Statement respecting the Earl of Selkirk's Settle-
ment in North America, 181 7.

Three maps in Papers relating to the Red River Settlement, 18 19.

Certified manuscript copies of Maps of the Indian Territories to accompany
the Report of Coltman's Mission. Wm. Sax, D.P. Surveyor, April, 18 1 8.
Canadian Archives, Q.S. 163, 164, 165.

Plan of Land bought by the Earl of Selkirk from Pergius (Peguis) and
other Indians, July 18, 1817. MS. Copy, Canadian Archives, MS. 192.

MS. Map of Pembina. Capt. Matthey. Selkirk Papers, 3983.

Map Exhibiting the Principal Trading Stations of the North- West Com-
pany, in Notice Respecting the Boundary. London, 181 7.

Three maps in the Report from the Select Comtnittee on the Hudson* s Bay
Co?npany, 1857.

MS. Plan of Farm at Baldoon. Selkirk Papers, 14657.

MS. Plan showing levels at Chenal Ecarte*. Smith, Aug. 6, 1804. Selkirk
Papers, 14669.

MS. Sketch of New Baldoon Farm. Mitchell, 1807. Selkirk Papers,
I47I3-

MS. Sketch of the N. Branch of Bear Creek, with Observations. Selkirk
Papers, 14853.

MS. Township of Dover, Surveyed by Wm. Hambly, Dep. Surveyor.
C. B. Wyatt, Surv. Gen. of U.C. Selkirk Papers, 15853.

MS. Map of Shawanee Township, &c. Smith, 1812. Selkirk Papers,
15853.

A Map of the Located Districts in the Province of Upper Canada from the
latest Surveys. Wm. Chewitt. Pub. London, 181 3.

A Plan of the Island of St. John with the Divisions of the Counties,
Parishes, and the Lots as granted by Government. Capt. Holland, 1775.

MS. Plan of Township 62, in P. E. I. Showing the respective locations
thereon. Jos. Ball, Asst. Surv. Gen. Selkirk Papers, 193 1 5.

Prince Edward Island, with a List of the Lots and Original Proprietors.
H. Allard, 1826.

MS. Map of P. E. I. Exhibiting all the New Settlements. Jan. 27th, 1839.
Selkirk Papers, 19339.

Map of Prince Edward Island. Geo. Wright, Surveyor-General. 1 852.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The seat of the Douglas family, with which had been united
the lines of Angus and of Marr, was at St. Mary's Isle, Kirk-
cudbrightshire. Here Thomas Douglas, seventh son of the
fourth Earl of Selkirk, was born in 1771, two years after
Napoleon and Wellington, twelve years after William Pitt
the younger, and seven years before the death of Chatham.
Early boyhood synchronized with the volunteer movement
and the struggle for Grattan's Parliament in Ireland, and with
the War of Independence in America ; early manhood, with
the most brilliant promise of the French Revolution. Douglas
attained his majority in the first year of the Republic, and
succeeded to the earldom in the year which saw Napoleon's
return from Egypt and the coup d'dtat of the 18th Brumaire.
He felt the influence which flowed from the conjunction of
youth and the momentous forces of that revolutionary period.
Even Douglas's father, the fourth Earl of Selkirk, seems to
have viewed the early French Revolution with much sympathy
and hope; though with characteristic caution he sacrificed
something of his liberal principles to the privileges of his
station, and awaited the outcome with a degree of prudent
circumspection. Thomas Douglas, the youngest of seven sons
of the family, was constrained as yet by no personal considera-
tions of rank. He threw himself into the liberal movement
in Edinburgh headed by the most promising young blood of
the University.

Douglas went to Edinburgh at fifteen years of age. His
name appears in the membership of ■ The Club ', which like
'The Apostles' of a later date at Cambridge, and many
another University society of posthumous fame, was found to
comprise many of the most brilliant young Scottish University
men of that generation. Among Douglas's associates were

16 INTRODUCTION chap.

Jeffrey and Clark, Ferguson, Walter Scott and Dugald Stewart.
The subsequent loyalty of these early friends bears positive
testimony to mutual faith and esteem. Adversaries of a later
date could refer to the 'literary judges' of the Edinburgh
reviews as Selkirk's staunchest allies.1 There is little contem-
porary evidence, however, that Thomas Douglas exercised
a commanding influence over 'The Club'. His aim at this
time was the law ;2 and though he seems to have entered with
enthusiasm into the literary and humanitarian spirit of ' The
Club', he was by no means carried away by the deluge of
revolutionary thought. Much, though by no means all, of
this reserve may be attributed to extreme youth and lack
of prospective influence ; much was undoubtedly due to
a certain shyness, an excessive modesty, which can be traced
in many curious ways even down to the period of Selkirk's
greatest activity.

At the close of his University terms in 1792 he made the
grand tour in due form, and wrote with some penetration of
Paris under the Convention. In Italy he spent nearly a year
and a half under the tutelage of Sir William Hamilton. His
sympathy, meanwhile, for the cause of reform in Scotland led
him, like Castlereagh in Ireland, even to espouse the project
of enlisting Scottish volunteers.3 His observations upon the
French Revolution, however, are expressed with remarkable
dispassion. In 179a even Castlereagh was a Whig. One is
struck in Selkirk with the sustained evenness of his political
opinions. He never forsook his pronounced Whig principles,
he never discarded even under the spell of the French Revolu-
tion a certain critical reserve. There are therefore no violent
changes of view to be explained. He was perhaps more truly

1 Narrative of Occurrences in the Indian Countries of North America.
London, 181 7, Preface, v.

2 Cf. Sir J. Hall to Selkirk, May 3, 181 7 : 'I gave him a piece of infor-
mation which came upon him like a flash and at once cleared up many
Points in your history which he had been at a loss to comprehend. I
mean the circumstance of your having been bred a lawyer.' Selkirk
Papers, 6156.

8 ■ I believe if the reformers could bring about anything like the Irish
volunteers everything they ask would be granted at once.' Thomas
Douglas to his father, Nov. 16, 1792: Correspondence of Dunbar, Earl
of Selkirk and his Sons (St. Mary's Isle), p. 8.

i INTRODUCTION 17

liberal in 1802 than he was in 1792. He was scarcely less
conservative in 1792 than he was in 181 2. Much of this
circumspection, as Douglas approached his majority, was due,
one might infer, to his intimate relationship with his father.
The letters from the fourth Earl of Selkirk to his son are
charged with Scottish shrewdness and with a deepening
devotion. The death of son after son of the family added
to the intimacy between the youngest and an indulgent
father. When the sixth son died suddenly in 1797, Thomas
Douglas succeeded to the name of Daer, and embodied for
his father and sisters the last hope of the family. Equanimity
and prudence could scarcely fail to result from this mutual
deference.

Early indications of promise may be the more easily dis-
covered 'after the fact'. The early correspondence of Thomas
Douglas may be laid under tribute for suggestions of some of
his characteristics as fifth Earl of Selkirk. His shyness was
excessive. Sir William Hamilton did not like him the worse
' for being a little reserved ' ; 1 but young Douglas himself
wrote despairingly of his embarrassment in the social life of
Naples. ' I am in company without making one of the com-
pany. . . . Can I hope that time will at last cure me of this
ridiculous timidity ? ' 2 In Switzerland he deplored his ' natural
shyness and cold temper'.3 His father wrote approvingly of
his knowledge of books, and reprovingly of his ' want of know-
ledge of mankind \ • I have known many lads of sixteen,
who, as the vulgar saying is, could have bought and sold you
in a market.' 4

It was in Switzerland in 1794 that acquaintance began with
Count Andreani, the traveller, who was probably the first to
direct Douglas's attention to the promise of the New World.5
There were suggestions of military service in the cause of
Poland, and three years later of an active part in raising
volunteers in Scotland cto engage themselves to assist the
Lieutenancy in case of invasion \ It was only the ' distress of

1 Correspondence of Dunbar, Earl of Selkirk and his Sons, p. 25.

2 Correspondence, p. 71. 8 Correspondence, p. 46.
4 Correspondence, p. 37. 6 Correspondence, p. 85.

1SM.7 B

18 INTRODUCTION chap.

mind ' of his father, in fact, that deterred him from plunging
with enthusiasm into the volunteer movement. His last re-
maining brother, however, had died in July of 1797. His
father's death two years later left him at once master of the
Selkirk estates and free to indulge a well-balanced interest in
projects for defence, emigration, and social reform.

It was with emigration that Selkirk's energies were chiefly
engrossed. Less sustained, but no less public-spirited, interest
in other directions, is to be traced in a strange variety of
activities. He wrote On the State of the Highlands of Scotland,
with a View of the Causes and Probable Consequences of Emigra-
tion} In the House of Lords he proposed a form of com-
pulsory military service ; he wrote On the Necessity of a more
Effective System of National Defence. He deliberated with
Wilberforce upon measures for the improvement of the
North American Indians. He confessed to his 'grief and
mortification ' that his early views on Parliamentary Reform
were not borne out by actual observation of the state of public
life in France and America. There is little, perhaps, with
regard to British political problems, to differentiate Selkirk's
life from that of any other young Scottish peer who married
happily, managed his estates thriftily, and drifted now and
again into the circle of the London season. His pamphlet on
National Defence was found worth republishing as late as the
' sixties' ; his suggested plan for Indian 'reserves' has since
become a commonplace. In lieu of much direct influence in
producing results, academic foresight must at least be taken
for what it is worth. Throughout the decade from 1801, more-
over, there is at once a narrowing of horizon and a correspond-
ing clearness of vision. Selkirk passed from indiscriminate
benevolence to the absorbing pursuit of colonization. Upon
the results and the ultimate significance of Selkirk's work in
Canada may be said to rest whatever claim he has to be
distinguished from the innumerable and shadowy figures that
haunt the by-ways of British and colonial history.

It must be admitted that Selkirk's friends at Downing Street
were not of the circle that was grouped most intimately about

1 London, 1805.

I INTRODUCTION 19

the personality of the younger Pitt. To Pelham and Castle-
reagh and Bathurst the coming generation came to look for
impeccable routine and elaborate commonplace. There was
little promise of encouragement for any project which had
not its warrant in musty files of state papers. Lord Sid-
mouth, who alone, as Lady Selkirk afterwards wrote, 'had
romance enough to believe that a man may have other than
selfish motives',1 was the 'Doctor' about whom Canning
had written,

Pitt is to Addington

As London is to Paddington.

\ These are selfish times indeed/ observed Selkirk's brother-
in-law, in 1816, 'if no man can be admitted to be rational
whose actions are not guided by a calculation of pounds,
shillings and pence.'2 Common views on Roman Catholic
emancipation in Ireland and other liberal movements had
drawn Selkirk for a time into this prosaic official circle. It
was the vexed question of the Irish settlement after the Union
that was responsible for the first of Selkirk's suggestions
bearing upon the subject of emigration.

The Irish Rebellion of 1798 had been put down, and the
Union with Great Britain had followed in 1800 as an inevitable
corollary. Four-fifths of the inhabitants of the island were
Roman Catholic. Prospects of emancipation and tithe-reform
had formed part of the bribe with which the independent
parliament of Ireland had been 'bought and bullied out of
existence '. Promises of the British ministry, however, were
rendered nugatory by the religious scruples of an obstinate
king. Pitt himself was forced into retirement, and sub-
sequently returned to office only by sacrificing the principles
upon which the Union had been carried. The cause of Irish
reform as a government measure sank into desuetude for more
than a generation. Government, meanwhile, professed all sym-
pathy, but alleged utter powerlessness to effect a settlement.
It was at this stage, a few weeks after the Peace of Amiens had

1 Letters from Jean, Countess of Selkirk, to Lady Katherine Halkett -,
1808-20, p. 88.

2 Halkett to Sidmouth, Oct. II, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 6516.

B %

20 INTRODUCTION chap, i

been signed with Napoleon, that Selkirk proposed emigration
as ' a radical cure such as Military coercion cannot effect ' for
the constant harassing cares of Irish disorder. Settlement
in America, full toleration in religion, and ample grants of land
are now commonplaces as measures for the relief of social and
economic pressure in Great Britain. In 1802, however, Pelham
was sceptical, and Hobart, who was in a position to know the
temper of the Irish, was scarcely more sympathetic. Selkirk
addressed a memorial formally to the Secretary of State, and
with genuine enthusiasm offered to undertake the responsibility
for the enterprise.1 ' Deeply impressed with the importance
of these views, the memorialist would not hesitate to devote
his personal exertions and the best years of his life to the
Service of his Country in carrying them into execution.'2
On April 3, 1802, Selkirk first mentioned the significant name
of Lake Winnipeg, and suggested the momentous possibility
that a ■ concurrence of circumstances should lead to the ac-
quisition of territory on the Upper Mississippi.' 3 The peace
with Napoleon, however, was little more than a breathing
space. The permanent Secretary was opposed to ' coloniz-
ing at all en masse \4 The Hudson's Bay trade was to be
left in ( Salutary neglect^ which in such cases beats all the care
in the world '. Hobart in particular suggested that in any case
1 the Settlement should be begun with people more tractable
than the Irish \6 * I entirely acquiesce', wrote Selkirk, ' in the
wisdom of your Lordship's suggestion.' 6 Settlers were to be
, Scottish, the district for settlement, Canada. As early as 1802,
therefore, these two ideas are to be found almost in the form
in which they dominated the rest of Selkirk's life. The period
from 1802 to 181 1 was filled with preliminary experiments in
deflecting the current of Scottish emigration from the Carolinas
to Eastern Canada. The next decade was devoted to the
colonization of a region, the strategic importance of which for
the British possessions in North America was scarcely grasped
for half a century.

1 Colonial Dispatches, Canadian Archives, Q. 293, p. 169.

8 Ibid., p. 176. 8 Ibid., p. 179.

4 Ibid., p. 167. » Ibid., p. 219. • Ibid., p. 221.

CHAPTER II

EXPERIMENTS

The case for emigration, which was not intended to apply
indiscriminately to stable and normally prosperous countries,
applied with peculiar force to the Scottish highlands. Sheep-
farming was displacing agriculture ; migration was a necessity ;
the highland clansman was not fitted for the industrial life of the
lowlands or of England ; emigration to the United States was
already a prevailing tendency ; the encouragement of emigra-
tion to British colonies might involve a greater direct loss to
Great Britain ; but a policy of neglect led to a complete loss
to the Empire of the thriftiest and most enterprising crofters
in the Scottish highlands. 'There are individuals, perhaps,'
wrote Selkirk in the Causes and Probable Consequences of
Emigration, ' who may think it better that a hundred persons
should emigrate to the United States than that a hundred and
one should go to our own colonies.' The most hostile critic,1
however, recognized the ' enthusiasm', the * indisputable truth
upon which his great and leading doctrines are founded', the

* deep conviction which the author has of the justice of the
views he has formed', the * laborious and unwearied exertion',
the novelty of a project actuated apparently by * patriotism
and disinterested benevolence'. On the testimony of Sel-
kirk's opponents, the first of his enterprises towards British
colonization in the New World was generally received with

* marked approbation \

In 1803, eight hundred settlers from Argyle, Ross-shire,

Inverness, and the Isle of Skye were taken to Prince Edward

Island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. ' I had undertaken', wrote

Selkirk, 'to settle these lands with emigrants whose views

were directed towards the United States.' Selkirk's account

1 Remarks on the Earl of Selkirk's Observations on the Present State
of the Highlands of Scotland with a View of the Causes and Probable
Consequences of Emigration, Edinburgh, 1806,

22 EXPERIMENTS chap.

of the expedition, which was perhaps the most immediately
successful of all his enterprises, is marked by the deliberate
repression of unwarranted optimism. Opponents who would
have yielded but reluctant homage to enthusiasm, admitted
' a kind of fascination ' in the obtrusive candour with which are
traced the innumerable difficulties of primitive settlement —
1 the boundless forests', the overwhelming sense of distance,
1 the savage solitude.' ' It is rare that any one does not at
some time in the course of the first two or three years, feel
disheartened and repent of his conduct.' There is a wise
insistence upon the useful and the commonplace. The labour
of clearing the land, of planting the seed in new soil, of reaping
under new climatic conditions, of building without artificers,
filled the 'long and critical period of dependence on extra-
neous and precarious supplies'. 'I will not assert', Selkirk
concluded, ■ that the people I took there have totally escaped
all difficulties and discouragement ; but the arrangements for
their accommodation have had so much success, that few
perhaps in their situation have suffered less or have seen their
difficulties so soon at an end.'

Three ships reached Prince Edward Island on August 7, 9,
and 27, 1803. The district chosen for colonization was the
eastern peninsula of the island, originally occupied by the
scattered, but by this time deserted, French settlements of
the old lie St. Jean. Selkirk himself arrived late in the
evening, to find the settlers in their highland dress, grouped
about camp-fires that lit up the forest for half a mile along the
shore. The subdivision of the land, the building of villages,
the preparations for the winter, were completed with some
emulation and not without disagreement. By spring, the soil
was prepared for the seed. Selkirk left the island in September.
At his return in the autumn of 1804, he found the settlers
gathering their first harvest with the ' prospect of abundance'.
The description closes with confidence and modesty. ' To their
industrious dispositions and persevering energy, the highest
praise is justly due. Without these, indeed, every other
advantage would have been of no avail ; for if the arrange-
ments that have been detailed have any merit, it may all be

II EXPERIMENTS 23

comprised in this, — that by their means . . . the industry of
the individual settlers was allowed full scope to exert itself.
Their future condition must entirely depend on the persever-
ance with which their first exertions are followed up.' *

Months of travel in the United States and Canada during
the years 1803 and 1804, cannot be passed over without
remarking the effect upon Selkirk's interest in emigration and
reform. A view of American politics at close quarters at the
beginning of the nineteenth century was not calculated to
impress the traveller with the blessings of democracy. Selkirk's
observations are important here, not because they show what
American democracy was, but because they show what Sel-
kirk was not. From ' the political application of those princi-
ples from which we expected consequences so beneficial ', he
confessed, ' no such advantages had resulted as formerly I had
been led to anticipate.' The success of Scottish settlement in
South Carolina, in Massachusetts, and in New York, however,
confirmed a conviction that the loss of allegiance to Great
Britain could be remedied only by a frank recognition of the
facts, and by the patient policy of directing to British colonies
a movement which was in itself inevitable. It was during this
generation that United Empire Loyalists were laying, in
privation and hardship, the foundations of the Province of
Upper Canada. The loyalist tradition was making itself
felt in the political life of the British provinces. Selkirk
returned to Canada with the hope of securing co-operation in
a national enterprise. The deflection of British emigration
from the United States was a natural corollary to Canadian
colonization from Scotland.

The settlement at Baldoon, it would seem, was intended to
accomplish in one respect what Prince Edward Island was
designed to effect in the other. Instructions from Hobart to
Lieutenant-Governor Hunter of Upper Canada, had directed
the * Grant of Twelve Hundred Acres in favour of Lord Sel-
kirk in any township not already appropriated',2 with an

1 Observations on the Present State of the Highlands of Scotland, with
a View of the Causes and Probable Consequences of Emigration, p. 207.

* Land E, Upper Canada, Nov. 29, 1803, p. 321. Hobart's dispatch is
dated Feb. 28. Canadian Archives.

»4 EXPERIMENTS chap.

additional grant of 200 acres ' for each family he may induce
to settle there'. Selkirk's first choice of territory was made
with more of good strategy than of sound caution. As early
as August, 1802, he had sent an agent to the Sault Ste. Marie,
the dividing point between Superior, the largest of the Great
Lakes, and the inland navigation of Michigan, Huron, and
Erie.1 The ultimate choice was scarcely less important
strategically ; though even in Baldoon, Selkirk seems to have
been misled by the magnificent but deceptive distances of the
New World. Baldoon was situated in the townships of Dover
and Chatham, in the western peninsula of Upper Canada,
between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. The land was well
wooded and well watered. Roads were cut to neighbouring
townships ; Selkirk, indeed, volunteered to construct a highway
through Upper Canada from York to Amherstburg at an
expense of ^"40,000, and to accept compensation in Upper
Canadian land grants. Settlement, however, proved unre-
munerative ; the close ' Family Compact ' was cautious and
unsympathetic. Less than a score of families seem to have
established themselves in the Dover township2 under the
supervision of Alexander McDonell, a highlander from Glen-
garry. There was an attempt to make it 'an exclusive
National Settlement for people speaking the Gaelic Language ' ;
but it is evident that the ' infant Settlement of Baldoon ' was
established under 'discouraging circumstances'.3 Selkirk's
agent suggested that without assistance and co-operation 4 His
lordship must relinquish the undertaking '. Baldoon struggled
on till it was plundered by the Americans in the war of 181 2 ;
though in the absence of its founder, it scarcely passed beyond
the stage of a straggling pioneer village. It was one of the
first of those costly experiments in isolated colonization by
private enterprise during the early nineteenth century that
were begun in too credulous an optimism and were strangled
because the seed fell among thorns by the wayside.

1 Selkirk to Hon. R. Hamilton, Glasgow, Aug. 18, 1802, Secretary's
Letter Book, U.C. p. 345. Canadian Archives.

9 Land G, Upper Canada, from Feb. 28, 1806, to Mar. 29, 1808, p. 66,
Canadian Archives.

s Land G, Upper Canada, p. 8, Canadian Archives.

II EXPERIMENTS 25

At Montreal the possibilities of the West were again sug-
gested by the social prominence of the fur-trading * nabobs '
of the North-West Company. Sir Alexander Mackenzie's
Voyages had appeared in 1801, and had probably been respon-
sible for the 'Observations' to Pelham in April, 1802.1 It
may appear significant that Montreal in 1804 was in the
throes of rivalry between the old North-West Company and
the X Y Company of which Sir Alexander himself was the
predominant partner. The ' North-westers ' were particularly
lavish in their hospitality. The old Beaver Club was the
social head-quarters of the opulent partners of the company.
Elaborate ceremonial perpetuated the mystery and adventure
of a trade which penetrated, by river, lake, and portage,
3,000 miles into the interior of the continent. Pemmican2 and
beaver for the banquets of the Beaver Club were brought by
canoe by the trading brigades of Athabasca. The i nabobs ',
each of whom had passed an apprenticeship of danger and
hardship in the North-West fur trade, exacted here the
unstinted homage of their subordinates. The good-fellowship
of the Beaver Club reflected the esprit de corps that pervaded
the whole Company. At official functions, songs of the
voyageur were sung, and episodes of the interior passed into
tradition. The iron rule of the partners was concealed
beneath unrestrained festivity. It is mentioned as an en-
couragement to the traders of the winter-posts in their obscure
struggle for promotion, that the be-medalled bourgeois were
accustomed once a year at these elaborate functions to honour
the memory of their youth in the pays en haul by ranging them-
selves in canoe-order upon the carpet for the rites of the grand
voyage.

Selkirk was received by the Beaver Club with ■ the abundant
hospitality for which they were distinguished \ This may be
the place to anticipate a charge that was made no less than
thirteen years after Selkirk's return to England, when his
hosts of 1804 had become the opponents of the most serious

1 Colonial Office Records, Q. 293, p. 178. Canadian Archives.

2 Dried buffalo meat, pounded and mixed with various other ingredients,
and packed in bags of skins which were then filled with boiling fat. The
bag of pemmican usually weighed about 90 lbs.

26 EXPERIMENTS chap.

undertaking of his life. * His enquiries ', reads the North-West
Narrative1 of 1817, 'were readily answered by these gentle-
men, who withheld no information which could gratify the
liberal and useful researches of a noble traveller. They
remarked at the time, that these enquiries were more extended
than usual.' The charge of a suddenly awakened ' self-
interest ', and of abuse of hospitality by a ' commercial rival '
in order to 'effect the ruin of their establishment', is elaborated
with such ingenuity that even Masson 2 accepts the tradition
and even Dr. Bryce 3 is apologetic. It has been noticed that
Selkirk had written to Pelham as early as 1802 of the district
about Lake Winnipeg: 'enquiries . . . more extended than
usual' were not unnatural in 1804. The following five years,
moreover, were devoted to social problems in Great Britain and
to colonization in Upper Canada and Prince Edward Island. It
was only after Selkirk's marriage into an influential Hudson's
Bay family that he seems to have turned his attention again
to settlement in the West at a time when the Hudson's Bay
Company, the rivals of the North-westers of the Beaver Club,
afforded the only avenue through which Assiniboia could be
secured for purposes of colonization. The- account of 181 7, it
appears, was partly compiled by Ellice, who was not in
Montreal at the time, who became, indeed, one of Sir Alexander
Mackenzie's colleagues in the X Y Company, the Canadian
rivals of the North-westers, and who was endeavouring during
the very period that Selkirk spent in Montreal, to buy the
Hudson's Bay Company in order to effect the overthrow of the
North- West Company.4 Before the Select Committee of 1857,
Ellice referred to ' that libel upon the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany ', and suggested that ' parties who are engaged in a violent
contest . . . write a great many things which it would be very
difficult to reduce to proof'.6

1 A Narrative of Occurrences in the Indian Countries of North America
since the connection of the Right Honourable the Earl of Selkirk with the
> Hudson's Bay Company. London, 18 17, p. 2.

* Les Bourgeois de la Compagnie du Nord-Ouest, Quebec, 1889.
- 8 Makers of Canada Series, vol. viii, p. 140.

4 Correspondence at St. Mary's Isle, vol. i, note ; Report from Select
Committee, 1857, pp. 344 and 346.

* Ibid., p. 346.

n EXPERIMENTS 27

The four years that followed Selkirk's return to Great
Britain contain little of vital importance beyond an increasing
interest in emigration and a restless interest in social reform.
The publication of the Observations on the Present State of
the Highlands of Scotland, with a View of the Causes and
Probable Consequences of Emigration strikes the key-note of
this period of experiment ; and there can be little doubt that
1807 marks the point at which the idea of colonizing the
West begins to predominate. His marriage in that year to
Miss Jean Wedderburn-Colvile was a purely personal event
which assumed in time a much wider significance. The position
of the Colviles in the Hudson's Bay Company was only less
important than the capable and tactful co-operation of Lady
Selkirk herself. The poise and sound practical instincts of her
family played a part second only to Selkirk's own influence
in the affairs of the Red River Settlement.

The Hudson's Bay Company in the course of nearly
a century and a half of ' Salutary neglect ' by the Government
and of cautious conservatism on the part of the directorate,
had passed through many vicissitudes. The territorial rights
of the Company granted in the original Charter of 1670, were
successively impugned by the French, made one of the causes
of war by William III, upheld by the Peace of Utrecht, and
recognized directly or indirectly by Act of Parliament during
every reign but three from Charles II to Edward VII.1 There
was scarcely a privilege, however, conferred by the Charter, that
had escaped general condemnation or at least hostile criticism.
Claims of trade monopoly had been assailed by London
merchants as early as 1697,2 and were systematically disre-
garded by Canadian traders. Rights of jurisdiction had never
been formally exercised. An Act, indeed, had been passed in
the reign of George III under which quarrels that arose
in the Indian Territories between rival Canadian companies
were to be brought for trial to Lower Canada.3 Several

1 See The Red River Settlement, its Rise, Progress, and Present State,
Alexander Ross, London, 1856, p. 7.

2 Hudson's Bay Company's Petitions to His Majesty, 168 7-1 778, Cana-
dian Archives, M. 718.

3 The Hudson's Bay Company was never consulted with regard to this Act

38 EXPERIMENTS chap.

expeditions of discovery by Hudson's Bay officials had evinced
a tardy sense of the Company's obligations ; but no permanent
settlement had been established, and even the fur trade had
been prosecuted with incompetency and scanty success. So
long as the Indians hunted during the winter and brought
their furs five hundred miles by canoe to Hudson Bay
during the summer, there was little incentive to push inland,
to establish winter trading-posts, or to take more than a casual
interest in the enormous territory specified by the Charter.
'Till the year 1782,' wrote Sir Alexander Mackenzie, 'the
people of Athabasca sent or carried their furs regularly to
Fort Churchill, Hudson's Bay.'1 Traders were content with
a life of placid indolence. Even the Directors took their
moderate dividends with similar equanimity.

If there was little enterprise in the Company, there were
at least few bad effects upon the Indians. The honesty of
the trappers under the old Hudson's Bay regime was prover-
bial. Alexander Henry, one of the first British traders to
penetrate these regions from Canada, relates how an Indian
had obtained ' credit ' from the Company to the value of 3,000
' plus ', and how. after the trapper's death, his relatives brought
all their season's furs by canoe to Hudson Bay, to discharge
the debt.2 More than one trader ' cached ' the furs obtained
from the winter's trade among the trappers, and found the
store intact on their return.3 It was only after Frobisher,
a Canadian trader, intercepted the Indians on their way to
the Bay in 1775, and secured their furs which had been
intended to discharge debts at Fort Churchill, that the
Hudson's Bay Company found it necessary to push inland
and to qualify their reliance upon the primitive honesty of
the red man.

(43 Geo. III,ch. 138). Selkirk's Sketch of the Fur Trade y MS. of second edi-
tion, p. 107. It seems evident from the documents relating to the Act that
Lieut.-Gov. Milnes was considering the North- West Company and the
XY Company only when the Act was suggested. Dominion Archives,
Report, 1892, Note E, pp. 136-44.

* Voyages to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans, London, 1801, p. xci.

9 Travels and Adventures in Canada and the Indian Territories, ed.
James Bain, Toronto, 1901. Masson, Les Bourgeois de la Compagnie du
Nord-Ouest, Quebec, 1889, p. 7, &c,

8 Masson, p. 8.

II EXPERIMENTS 29

In the competition that ensued, the Hudson's Bay Company
laboured under fatal disadvantages. Their officials were paid
a fixed salary and acted under written orders from Directors
in London who had ' avocations of higher interest ' ; while
the Canadians traded for themselves or for a company
in which promotion depended upon the measure of tangible
success with no nice discrimination as to methods. Too
timid to venture far afield, the Hudson's Bay traders were
systematically brow-beaten and bullied out of their rights
by the well-trained Canadians. Even at Hudson Bay it had
been the custom to trade with the Indians ' through a window
or hole', and to discourage intercourse with the Indians.1
The Canadian trader went fearlessly among them, made
lavish use of rum and spirits, and in 181 1 took out by canoe
to Fort William from the Hudson's Bay territories alone,
more furs than that company shipped from their own ports
on Hudson Bay.2 ' Three years have not elapsed ', Selkirk
wrote in 18 16, 'since the Canadians in the interior were in
the common habit of ridiculing the officers of the Hud-
son's Bay Company as old women who had not courage
even to defend the furs which they had obtained.'3 Selkirk I
found it necessary, it will be seen, to change the 'jog trot
mode ' 4 of a century in order to secure the necessary measure
of co-operation between the original fur- trading interests of
the Company and his own absorbing interests in settlement.

The contrast at this moment with the energy and success
of the North- West Company can scarcely be overdrawn. The
« North-westers ' looked upon their rivals with undisguised
contempt. From the days of Alexander Henry, soon after
the cession of Canada to Great Britain in 1763, to the time of
the McTavishes, the Astors, and the McGillivrays, the fur
trade had attracted many of the shrewdest men in the two
Canadas. Till 1783 trade was carried on chiefly by individual

1 ' The Governor beat one man with his cane for going to light his pipe
in an Indian tent.' Report from the Commission on the State of the
Hudson's Bay Company, Apr. 24, 1749? pp. 216, 221, &c.

• N.-W.C. to H.B.C. Aug. 6, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, 213.

s Sketch of the Fur Trade, MS. Selkirk Papers, IC013.

4 Selkirk to Macdonell, Dec. 23, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, 125.

30 EXPERIMENTS CHAP.

enterprise. In the winter of that year, however, the North -
West Company was formed under the management of the
Frobishers and of Simon McTavish, a shrewd though auto-
cratic highlander, who bore the name of Premier • or * Marquis '
of the Canadian fur trade till his death in 1804. Twice the
supremacy of the North- West Company was challenged. In
1785 a rival company brought about 'the severest struggle
ever known in that part of the world/ * until the competition,
with ruinous losses to both parties, led to union in 1787. The
North-West Company then began its phenomenal growth
which continued for fifteen years without intermission. In
1788 the gross 'annual amount of adventure' did not exceed
£40,000. In eleven years it had increased more than three-
fold, ' surpassing . . . anything known in America.' 2 The
fabulous profits of the Montreal partners, in fact, and the
autocratic rule of ' the Marquis ' led to another disastrous
rivalry. The old North-westers were assailed, on their own
ground and by their own methods, by the X Y Company, as
it was called, under Sir Alexander Mackenzie, the explorer
and author, whose Voyages had already exercised powerful
influence upon the aims of Selkirk. There was practically
open war in the interior. Blood was shed ; violence and
unscrupulousness were the order of the day. Both companies
began to feel the fatal drain of competition. Finally, in 1 805
there was a coalition under the name of the North-West
Company which produced the most powerful combination in
the history of the fur trade.

The ' winter partners ', as they were designated, supervised
the trade in the interior during the winter, and in the spring
brought the season's furs by canoe to Fort William at the
head of Lake Superior. Here they were met by the Montreal
( nabobs ', the controlling partners of the company, with much
display of courtly dress and opulence. The weeks at Fort
William formed the one sustaining vision of the fur-trader's
life. Trade deliberations were held in the council chamber

1 Voyages to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans ', Alexander Mackenzie,
p. xix.
1 Ibid., p. xxiii.

II EXPERIMENTS 31

behind bolted doors ; the nights were given up to feasting and
dancing among the clerks and traders, and to such princely
banquets among the partners as were surpassed in magnificence
only by the elaborate functions of the Beaver Club at head-
quarters. The most successful winter partners received here
their reward in august compliments and promises of promotion.
Those who had failed, received a censure that was not to
be forgotten, either by themselves or by their competitors
in the race for a Montreal partnership. It was the dream
of the clerk to become the master of a trading-post; the
trader aspired to become a winter partner ; the winter partner
braved toil and privation for a decade in the hope of spending
his declining years in ease and luxury as a Montreal bourgeois.
The price of promotion was obedience and success. No
system could have been devised more effectively to stimulate
ambition, to remove inconvenient scruples, to direct the whole
enterprise ' with complete unity of purpose ', to ' infuse activity
into every department ', and to render secret and safe the most
daring measures against a rival company. At Fort William
\ hints and oral instructions ' were intelligible ; in the interior
there was an esprit de corps, combined with a 'convenient
absence of scruple'. For keen, hard, shrewd efficiency the
North- West Company was perhaps the most terribly effective
organization that had ever arisen in the New World.

It is clear that Selkirk miscalculated completely the attitude
and untried resources of the North-westers as well as the
task of reorganizing the Hudson's Bay Company. There is
evidence that to Selkirk himself, though naturally not to the
Colviles, the fur trade was from the first a secondary but,
as it proved, a necessary consideration. It was to be
deplored, as Selkirk found too late, that rivalry in the fur
trade should have involved his scheme of British coloniza-
tion in disastrous conflict with the purely mercantile interests
of a trading company. ' It is a business ', he wrote to Lady
Selkirk, ' which I hate from the bottom of my heart.' ' The
North-westers, however, who had little concern and less
sympathy with colonization, surmised an elaborate scheme to
1 Correspondence at St. Marfs Isle, vol. iii, p. 405.

32 EXPERIMENTS chap.

ruin their trade and to cut them off by means of a settlement
on the Red River from the El Dorado of the fur trade, the
famous beaver areas of Athabasca. Opposition to Selkirk
was at first tentative, because the North-westers were almost
incredulous. It became acute in England only when it was
too late to defeat the project in the stock market or at the
council board. Outwitted at head-quarters, the North-westers
determined to hurl the full weight of their company, un-
surpassed in America for organization and discipline, against
both settlement and Hudson's Bay Company in Assiniboia.
It is this conflict which filled the rest of Selkirk's life, and
determined for more than half a century the future of settle-
ment in the West.

It was in 1808, within a year of his marriage, that Selkirk
began to purchase Hudson's Bay stock with the aim of
securing a position on the directorate. It is singular that
his ally in this enterprise should have been Sir Alexander
Mackenzie,1 whose interests were centred exclusively in the
fur trade, and whose aims, it proved, were to prevent
a recurrence of the trade warfare of 1804 by bringing the
Hudson's Bay Company under the control of the North-
westers.2 It was not the first time that Canadian traders had
proposed a union with the Hudson's Bay Company. In 1804,
during the rivalry between the North-West and the X Y
Companies, Edward Ellice, one of Sir Alexander Mackenzie's
fellow partners, had proposed to the Governor of the Hudson's
Bay Company, the purchase of the entire stock for £103,000,
' for the Canadian companies \3 Sir Alexander Mackenzie's
co-operation in 1808, however, soon came to an end. It

1 Mackenzie to Selkirk, June 22, 1808, Oct. 29, 1808, &c. Selkirk
Papers, 1, 7, &c.

2 'Sir Alexander Mackenzie states that by a verbal understanding with
Mr. McGillivray his purchase of the Hudson's Bay stock belonged to the
North-West Company, and that if Mr. McGillivray himself had been there,
a sum of thirty thousand pounds might have been invested in that stock ;
" all which Lord Selkirk purchased '7 Masson, Les Bourgeois de la Com-
pagnie du Nord-Ouestj Reminiscences of Roderic McKenzie,\o\.\,\).$3.

1 * That transaction only was not carried into effect because part of the
stock was found to be the property of infants, and other persons incapable
of giving a title, or making a transfer, and which would have made it
necessary for the parties to go to the Court of Chancery for powers, and

II EXPERIMENTS $$

became apparent that Selkirk's aims were far more compre-
hensive than a financial speculation in stocks or casual venture
in the lucrative fur trade. There were threats of a suit in
Chancery to secure control of stock already purchased, and
at one time indications that the North-West Company might
be influenced by Mackenzie's shrewd advice to kill competition
in London rather than fight it in Assiniboia. ' He will put
the North- West Company to greater expense', he wrote of
Selkirk, ' than you seem to apprehend, and, had the Company
sacrificed £20,000, which might have secured a preponderance
in the stock of the Hudson's Bay Company, it would have been
money well spent.' l The warning, it seems, proved ineffectual.
North-westers ' thought it prudent to desist from any further
purchases ',2 while Selkirk and his relatives quietly secured a
controlling interest in the Hudson's Bay Company. When the
North-West agents in London realized the gravity of the situa-
tion, it was already too late to offer any effective resistance.

It seems to have been Selkirk's intention to carry the
Company with him in a project of colonization without assum-
ing in person more than the perfunctory offices of a director.
The old officials and directors of the Company, however, were
scarcely to be won to an enthusiastic interest in anything but
their own dividends. The superintendent at York Factory
'wrote letters to his employers calculated to induce them
to abandon' Selkirk's enterprise, and 'entirely neglected the
instructions which had been given him respecting the forma-
tion of a colony at Red River '. ' In these circumstances,'
reads the statement in the Correspondence ', ' Lord Selkirk was
induced to make a proposal which met the views of the
Directors, viz. to take upon himself the charge of forming
the intended settlement on condition of the Company granting
him a sufficient extent of land to afford an indemnification
for the expense.'3 In May 181 1, at a General Court of the

I did not at that time want that this transaction should be published.'
Evidence of Edward Ellice, Report from Select Committee, 1857, p. 344.

1 M asson , Les Bourgeois de la Compagnie du Nord- Ouestj Reminiscences
of Roderic McKenzie, vol. i, p. 53.

2 Sir Alexander Mackenzie to Roderic McKenzie, Apr. 13, 1812. Mas-
son, i, 52.

3 Correspondence, St, Mary's Isle, vol. i, p. 14.

34 EXPERIMENTS chap.

Hudson's Bay Company, the Directors granted to him an area
of 116,000 square miles, now comprising in parts of Manitoba,
North Dakota, and Minnesota, one of the most fertile districts
on the North American continent. Ellice and Inglis of the
North- West Company, who had purchased enough stock to
give them an interest in the Hudson's Bay Company, protested
in vain that the sale should be postponed, that Assiniboia
should be sold at public auction,1 and that Selkirk's whole
scheme was 'dictated by a wild and frantic spirit of projection'.2
By deed of June 12, 1811, Selkirk became the owner in fee
simple of a district five times the size of Scotland, extending
from 5 2° 30' north latitude (passing through Lake Winnipeg)
on the north, to the height of land on the south, between the
northern watershed and that of the Missouri, the Mississippi,
and Lake Superior ; and stretching from Lake Winnipeg and
the Winnipeg River system (from its source near the Lake
Superior watershed) on the east, almost to the source of the
Assiniboine on the west.3

'Rights of property' in Assiniboia, it seems, were more
easily acquired than vindicated. Directly after the meeting of
the General Court which granted to Selkirk 'the legal right
to the soil', there was a meeting of North-westers in
London. Simon McGillivray hastened to convey their 'unani-
mous opinion', with regard to 'opposition' and a 'year of
trial', to the Montreal partners and through them to every
North- West winter partner and trader from Fort William to
the remotest trading-posts of Athabasca.4 Even Sir Alex-
ander ' pledged himself in the most unequivocal and decisive
manner to oppose the establishment of this colony by all
means in his power.' 5 A comprehensive plan of colonization
thus became the pretext for a sordid commercial quarrel.
Peaceful settlement drifted inevitably into partisanship.
The highland settlers suffered most from men of Scottish
blood and their own highland speech. Captain Miles Mac-

1 A Narrative of Occurrences in the Indian Countries of North
America, London, 18 17. Appendix i.

8 Narrative, p. 151. 8 See Appendix B.

4 Simon McGillivray to McTavish, McGillivray & Company, June 1,
181 1. Correspondence, St. Mary's Isle, vol. i, p. 27.

6 Miles Macdonell to Auld, Dec. 25, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, i, 104.

II EXPERIMENTS

donell, a Glengarry Highlander from Upper Canada, was
chosen to lead the expedition to Red River. ■ I have reason
to expect', he wrote to the Superintendent at Hudson Bay,
'that every means the North-West Company can attempt to
thwart it will be resorted to.' l

1 Macdonell to Auld, Dec. 25, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, 104.

Selkirk's motives in the grant of Assiniboia have been impugned for
very divergent reasons. North-westers wrote of 'the paroxysms of his
colonizing disorder', and of their ' conviction . . . that his Lordship as
sincerely as singularly believes in the probability of ultimate success '
{Narrative, p. 59). On the other hand, it was affirmed that his aims
were purely mercenary, that they were 'marked with more than the
precaution of the American land-jobber' (Dr. Strachan's Letter, London,
1816), and again that the grant of Assiniboia was ' only a pretext ... to
carry into effect the Noble Lord's plans of aggression ' in the fur trade
against the North- West Company {Narrative, p. 10).

There is evidence that Selkirk drew his inspiration from Penn and
Baltimore rather than from 'the friends of humanity ', though the promi-
nence of not ungenerous impulses — \ the prospect of doing so much good',
as Selkirk expressed it in an intimate letter to his brother-in-law — is
uniformly borne out by the tone of Selkirk's most confidential corres-
pondence. His proposal to Pelham in 1802 for colonization at Red River
(the H. B. Co. to be 'amply indemnified for . . . abolition' of the Charter)
failed because Government was opposed to ' colonizing at all en masse '.
In Upper Canada, the Family Compact was too strongly entrenched in
the control of public lands to afford scope for proprietary colonization on
a large scale. Under the circumstances, the Hudson's Bay Charter itself
seemed to afford a unique opportunity to one who was 'assured' as
Selkirk claimed to be, ' of reaping the future benefit of his care ' both
in ultimate remuneration and in the association of his name with a move-
ment of vast possibilities ' in a national point of view.'

Selkirk's motives at this stage can scarcely be summarized without the
necessary perspective ; though enough evidence may be adduced to make
his plan intelligible. Lady Selkirk wrote jestingly of ' your Kingdom on
Red River' {Correspondence, iii. 390, H.). The motives 'upon which
I have acted1, wrote Selkirk explicitly, 'were based upon the importance
of the Settlement on Red River in a national point of view ' {Selkirk
Papers, 2126), and involved 'the important question whether extensive
and fertile regions in British North America are ever to be inhabited
by civilized society ' {Statement, p. vii). He repelled coalition with the
North- westers down to his death, because he was bent ' upon proving
that it was neither a wild and visionary scheme, nor a trick and a cloak to
cover sordid plans of aggression ' {Correspondence, vi. 966, d). That the
undertaking would prove ultimately remunerative, 'though not imme-
diately profitable ', was avowedly an object of hope and an article of faith;
although, as it happened, the expenses incurred proved ruinous to his
private fortune. (Cf. Selkirk Papers, 5772 ; Correspondence, viii. 1279, A.
&c.) Any estimate, however, which omits either Selkirk's conviction
that the advantages of colonization in the United States could be dupli-
cated within the Empire, or his ambition to identify the traditions of the
Douglas family in national service with this plan of imperial development,
would seem to be less than just to the fundamental aims of Selkirk's work
in Canada.

c a

CHAPTER III
THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT

The first colonizing venture to the Canadian West began
under every unfavourable augury. Unseasonable weather,
lack of organized co-operation between Company and settle-
ment, and insidious opposition from the North-westers had all
to be surmounted. Selkirk's plan for a joint stock company
had been launched in a prospectus which promised for a time
to enlist support in Ireland and the highlands ; } but the
political atmosphere of Europe was unsettled and the investor
proved chary of distant and novel enterprises. The project
failed altogether to find financial support outside the circle of
Selkirk's immediate friends and relatives ; 2 while the pardon-
ably enticing terms of the prospectus — though 'this document
was neither advertised, nor published, nor, in any shape,
publicly circulated \ — were pounced upon at the time and
have been quoted since as a travesty upon truth to lure the
innocent settler to an unknown wilderness.3 A ' Highlander '
interested in the North-West Company denounced the expe-
dition in the Inverness Journal as a ' Utopian project ', 4 and

1 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 4, 1811 ; Macdonell Papers, 253.

a A. Wedderburn-Colvile (whose covert opposition one may infer from
Auld's freedom of address against the settlement, Selkirk Papers, 65),
and Halkett, Selkirk's brothers-in-law, and a few others. In Selkirk
Papers ', 119, Sir Benjamin Hobhouse, William Smith, and Zachary
McAulay appear as trustees of the new townships in Red River.

8 'One of the grossest impositions that ever was attempted on the
British public' (p. 10). 'All the premises urged in the Prospectus to
leave Great Britain are false or delusive' (p. 51). A Letter to the Right
Honourable Earl of Selkirk on his Settlement at the Red River, near Hud-
son's Bay. John Strachan, D.D., London, 1816. Cf. Gunn's History of
Manitoba, &c. See the Statement respecting the Earl 0/ Selkirk* s Settle-
ment in North America (London, June 18 17), p. 118, note.

4 ' Even if they escape from the scalping knife they will be subject to
constant alarm and terror. Their habitations, their crops, their cattle will
be destroyed, and they will find it impossible to exist in the country.' See
Selkirk Papers, 137.

chap, in THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 37

copies of the paper mysteriously found their way wherever
Selkirk's agents were enlisting men for the new enterprise.

The recruiting grounds were remote and by no means very
productive. Men had been hired for the settlement or the
Company, in Glasgow, but only under extravagant and
unwarranted inducements.1 Seventy men had been promised
from Sligo, Killala, and Galway, in Ireland ; but only fifteen
reached Stornoway in July. The difficulty of securing
recruits was followed by such protracted delays in reaching
the rendezvous at Stornoway that the whole expedition was
left belated and disorganized. Macdonell himself was at
Yarmouth on June 27, where he remained storm-bound till
July 4. He was compelled a few days later to put into
Stromness from stress of weather, and did not reach Storno-
way till July 17. More than another week was passed in
embarking and petty wrangling with covert enemies and half-
hearted friends. It was late in July before the Hudson's Bay
ships Prince of Wales, Eddystone, and the transport Edward
and Ann were ready for sea. ' This, my Lord,' wrote Mac-
donell to Selkirk, ' is a most unfortunate business.' 2

The excessive wages offered by the Company's agent to the
Glasgow men occasioned the first disagreement. It was
pointed out that if Macdonell had power to change their
agreements for the worse he could alter them for the better ;
and it required some tact in view of the paucity of numbers to
quiet the clamour for an increase. Hostile interference from
without led to even more unpleasant measures in self-defence.
The Collector of Customs was a Mr. Reid, whose wife, it
seems, was related to Sir Alexander Mackenzie.3 For two
days4 Reid subjected the party to every official formality, and

1 The H.B. Committee 'pointedly refused to sanction the engagement.
... To cover the agent and to prevent any disagreeable consequence, the
Earl of Selkirk instructed me by letter to take these men into his service.'
Macdonell Papers, 281. Meanwhile the H.B. servants promptly placed
the blame upon Macdonell's shoulders. Auld to Wedderburn, Selkirk
Papers, 65. Auld spells the name Captain McDonald. Selkirk's plan
was to send at first a party of servants and labourers to open up the coun-
try for the families of permanent settlers.

2 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 181 1, Macdonell Papers, 262.

* Macdonell Papers, 263. Cf. Journal of John McLeod, Sr., Ch. Trader,
H. B. Co., p. 1. * Mac don 11 Papers, 257.

38 THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT chap.

pointedly assured the servants for the settlement that de-
sertion could be punished only by an action at law for breach
of contract. Meanwhile a certain ■ Captain MacKenzie ',
Reid's son-in-law, visited the Edward a?id Ann with a re-
cruiting party and left several of the king's shillings with the
wavering passengers. Prompt measures were found necessary
to prevent desertion, a party of marines from H. M. S. Con-
way having gone through the ceremony of impressing a few
of the more refractory and hurrying them off to the man-of-
war.1 One party of deserters made off with the ship's boat,
but was overtaken and brought back. Five men escaped
altogether and were not again seen ; one man ' jumpt into the
sea and swam for it'.2 One of the party, Blair by name,
went ashore 'on pretence of some business' and sent Mac-
donell word of his departure by the customs collector ; he left
his luggage on board and took revenge through the North-
westers in London.3 ' The delay ... by the Custom House ',
wrote Macdonell, ' has occasioned all this/ ' All the men that
we shall have are now embarked, but it has been a Herculean
labour.' 4

Early on July 2,6, Captain Hanwell, with sudden ' hurry and
impatience', put to sea, leaving 20 men of the original 126 at
Stornoway. It was a strange company, comprising Hudson's
Bay traders and indentured servants to prepare the way for
permanent settlers and their families who were to reach Red
River only in 181 2. There were Orcadians, Glasgow men,
a few clerks, 'turbulent and dissatisfied', and 'some ancient
servants . . . wholly unfit to earn their salt.' 6 Edwards was
the surgeon ; and the Rev. Charles Bourke, who had left
Killala without the consent of his bishop, displayed a whim-

1 Macdonell Papers, 257.

a There was a North- West version current at Fort William as early as
August of the next year, that those who tried to escape were dragged on
board with boat-hooks. John Macdonell to Miles Macdonell, Aug. 6, 1812,
Macdonell Papers, 157.

3 Macdonell to Selkirk, Oct. 1, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, 40; id. 288.
Blair entered the house of MacTavish and Fraser of London {Macdonell
Papers, 157), and made a deposition for circulation in the highlands. Sel-
kirk to Macdonell, June 20, 18 12, Selkirk Papers, i. 712.

4 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 1811, Macdonell Papers, 257.
• Auld to Wedderburn, Oct. 3, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, 74.

ill THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT

sical unfitness for the priesthood which was not balanced, even
in Macdonell's lenient estimation, by his erratic zeal for the
enterprise. 1 What with bad seamanship, inefficient skippers,
a transport undermanned and ill-fitted,2 and 'an uncommon
share of boisterous, stormy and cold weather', it was Sep-
tember 6 before the land was sighted at Button's Island, and
September 24 before the first ship was signalled at York
Factory. Macdonell had dispelled as far as possible the tedium
of the ocean voyage by teaching the rudiments of military
discipline to men who had probably never in their lives
shouldered a rifle or fired a shot.3 The passage had taken sixty-
one days, ' the longest ever known and the latest to Hudson's
Bay.' It had been the intention to push on at once to Red
River, but with every delay the prospect of a successful
inland voyage receded. The Eddystone, with many of the
Company's servants for Fort Churchill, reached York Factory
too late even to proceed to her destination, and her passengers
swelled the numbers of those who were compelled to face the
uncertainties of a Hudson Bay winter at the mouth of the
Nelson.

The traders made it apparent that York Factory could
afford no accommodations for the newcomers.4 Auld and
Cook, the officers at the Factory, hastened to select a spot for
the encampment.5 On the north bank of the Nelson, twenty-
three miles from York Factory, the men fared as best they
could under wigwams of skins till Macdonell arrived and
directed the building of the loghouses for the winter.
A description was sent home to Selkirk of this first encamp-
ment of men for the Red River.6 An irregular line of huts

1 Macdonell (himself a Roman Catholic) to Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, 49.

2 * The Edward and Ann was very ill fitted out for a Northern voyage —
old sails ropes &c, &c, and very weakly manned. ... I am surprised the
Company would charter and send her off in that state.' Ibid., p. 47.

3 ' There never was a more awkward Squad — Not a man or even officer
of the party knew to put a gun to his eye.' Ibid., p. 48.

4 John McLeod in his Journal, M. 201, p. 1, writes that the settlers re-
ceived a ' cold and haughty reception '. McLeod had engaged as clerk at
Stornoway in 181 1, and had come out in the Edward and Ann.

5 See Macdonell to Selkirk, May 31, 1812, Selkirk Papers, 321 ; also
Macdonell to Selkirk, May 31, 18 12, Selkirk Papers, ii. 355.

8 Selkirk Papers, i. 344. Winter quarters were completed by Oct. 26.

40 THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT chap.

fronted the river on a narrow flat, with a wooded bank rising
130 feet in the rear. The huts were built in the fashion of the
Canadian woodsman ; of rough logs with roof sloping to the
rear and covered over with moss and clay nearly a foot m
thickness. The men were as awkward with the axe as Mac-
donell had found them with the rifle. Fences were built as
drives for deer which never came ; 1 and a party of amateur
huntsmen, with ' every possible exertion ', brought in three
brace of partridges in as many weeks. Constant employment,
however, was next best to a full larder. A month or two
passed as smoothly as could have been expected ; though
Auld lost no opportunity of girding at the Irish, and of chafing
under his new responsibilities.2

It was clearly evident that the servants of the old regime
looked askance both at Selkirk's prompt business-like instinct
in rejuvenating the moribund Company, and at his novel
projects for permanent settlement. As early as October 3rd,
Auld wrote to Wedderburn that the men from Sligo were
4 constantly quarrelling and fighting '. One of the servants
of the Company had given his age at 40 who had previously
entered the service in 1781 at the age of 26.3 Macdonell was
found to be ' all ardour and contempt of obstacles '.* Auld
ventured to suggest to Selkirk himself that he 'had been
imposed on \5 Macdonell, meanwhile, by compliments and
some self-restraint, maintained a conciliatory attitude with
the Hudson's Bay officials ; though his letters to Selkirk were
less delicately worded,6 and Selkirk himself, in Scotland, wrote

1 Twenty-seven were caught in snares during the spring. Macdonell
Papers, 355.

* Selkirk Papers, i. 65.

* Auld to Wedderburn, Oct. 3, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, i. 75. Cf. Mac-
donell to Selkirk, May 29, 1812, 'Eighteen or twenty of the men shipped
from Stromness last year are from age or infirmity unfit for the Co's ser-
vice.' Macdonell Papers, 321. * Ibid., i. 81.

6 Auld to Selkirk, Oct. 181 1, Selkirk Papers, i. 59.

6 See Macdonell to Auld, Dec. 25, 181 1, Macdonell Papers, p. 281.
Ibid., 288, 322; Macdonell to Cook, Jan. 11, 1812, Ibid., 291, &c. Cf.
Macdonell to Selkirk, May, 31, 181 2. Letters to Auld and Cook were
' as moderate as I could possibly word them '. ' They appear to be fond
of long letters and forming systematic arguments. Less writing and more
active operations would in my opinion be preferable and more beneficial
to their employers.' Selkirk Papers, ii. 360.

Ill THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 41

of the ' jog trot mode in which the Company's concerns have
hitherto been carried on \1

Macdonell hastened to gather under his own supervision
the men who were to break first ground in the new settlement.
There were ten or eleven of the Glasgow men, a few high-
landers, Irish and Orkney men, thirty-five in all. Macdonell
had hoped for many recruits from the servants of the Company.
Only one volunteered ; an ' old hand ' versed in ' factory law ',
who proved to be a prolific source of discord, and threatened
in the spring altogether to destroy the enterprise.2 Meanwhile
Auld left for Fort Churchill, and it required some forbearance
to regulate cross purposes between encampment and factory.
There were complaints of arrogance and disorder 3 on the part
of the servants of the Company, and of indifference and insult
on the part of the settlers.4 Even when good fellowship
prevailed, ' the men were tampered with/ wrote Macdonell,
' and always returned with some discouraging story.'5

Macdonell could scarcely have anticipated the hardships
and disagreements of the winter. The horrors of scurvy could
be warded off among his own men by enforced potions of the
white spruce, the sovereign remedy which Cartier had dis-
covered nearly three centuries before from the Indians of
Stadacona.6 The ' old hand ' however, asserted his preference

1 Selkirk to Macdonell, Dec. 23, 1811, Selkirk Papers, i. 125.

2 Cf. Macdonell to Selkirk, May 31, 1812, 'The rascal Finlay has
been the occasion of all this.5 Selkirk Papers, ii. 362.

8 Cook to Macdonell, Dec. 29, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, i. 129.

4 ' One of my officers . . . complains of being left all night in the
common Guard Room among your men, having arrived at the Factory
late at night, frostbit, after wandering all day in the woods without
victuals. He could not possibly go away for that night, and was next day
dragged on a sled, unable to walk. I forbear making any comment ; and
give the matter candidly as stated to me.' Macdonell to Cook, Jan. 9,
1812, Macdonell Papers, 291. Cf. Cook to Macdonell, Dec. 23, 181 1,
1 Your clerk is not so much injured by the frost as was represented — and
his tongue, which is tolerably flippant, has not at all been hurt by the
perils of his journey.' Selkirk Papers, i, 123, 124.

6 Macdonell to Selkirk, May 31, 1812, Selkirk Papers, ii. 352.

• ' This is an approved specific, but it is not an easy matter to get the
Orkney men to drink it, particularly the old hands, whose example has
a bad effect on the others.' Macdonell to Cook, Jan. 26, 1812, Macdonell
Papers, 297. Cartier gives the description of the preparation and effects
of this remedy in his Journal.

43 THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT chap.

for the Hudson's Bay remedies of porter, cranberries, and port
wine ; x in the end he became the ringleader in an open
insurrection. The Governor meanwhile nursed his determina-
tion to send the chief offenders back to England in a body for
trial at Westminster,2 while three or four of the Glasgow
' writers ' at the factory kept the ' insurgents ' well informed
of measures at head-quarters as well as liberally supplied with
arms and ammunition. 4The old hands', wrote Macdonell,
1 have done their utmost to corrupt not only these but all my
people.' 3

The approach of spring, however, brought fresh provisions in
abundance,4 and the prospect of an early voyage to Red River.
Boats for river navigation had been prepared in England, but
the captain of the schooner which was to land them at York
Factory had refused to take orders from the ship's officer
who had brought them out. The dignity of this petty official
was of more importance than the foundation of Manitoba ;
the boats were accordingly taken back to England.5 Three
or four rough Canadian bateaux were built at the factory
during the winter, but only after ' a vast deal of writing and
three trips to the Factory* by Macdonell to overcome the
' blind attachment ' of the Chief Factor to the heavily-built
keeled boats of the old Company. Auld's return at last from
Churchill seems to have brought much salutary discretion.
From the ' insurgents ', the prompt refusal of all provisions or
even shelter at the factory, till their arms and ammunition
had been surrendered, brought a speedy capitulation. The
same result might have been accomplished in February
by a policy of co-operation at the factory. On June 19,
Macdonell wrote that the ' insurgents ' had ' thrown themselves

1 The Hudson's Bay servants, either through ignorance or preference
for other remedies, seem to have made no use of the spruce in cases of
scurvy. Macdonell Papers.

2 Macdonell to Auld, April 18, 1812. Macdonell Papers, 304.

3 Selkirk Papers, ii. 352.

4 ' People may complain of bad living in Hudson Bay but it is certain
that we have all got fatter than when we came to it.' Macdonell to Selkirk,
May 31, 1 812, Selkirk Papers, ii. 356. Cf. Macdonell to Auld, Feb. 9, 181 2,
'rather comfortable than otherwise.' Macdonell Papers, 303.

6 Macdonell to Auld, Dec. 25, 181 1, Macdonell Papers^ 285.

ill THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 43

entirely on the mercy of the Committee ; ' * on the 22nd, he
left at last the winter encampment by boat and reached
York Factory at six o'clock the following morning, after
a night of exposure and danger from the drifting ice in the
river. The whole party was assembled at York Factory on
the 25th. When the inland ^traders came down the river,
Macdonell gathered his party of ' effectives ', now only about
twenty-two in number, and on July 6 moved up the Hayes
River, with the ' inlanders ', towards the first portage.

The ■ winterers ' and the servants for the settlement ascended
the river together as far as Oxford House, where the traders
scattered for their winter posts. Even here, it seems, some
of the men were wavering between the settlement and the
service of the Company. Macdonell's party, at this stage,
comprised twenty-three men, of whom eight were Irish, three
were experienced hands engaged at Oxford House, and one
was an Indian guide. With these he manned one of the
bateaux and two large sail-boats which he had procured at
Oxford House, and sailed up the river (as he wrote to Selkirk)
towards 'the Land of Promise'.2 The expedition reached
' the Forks ' 3 on August 30. On the east side of the Red
River, opposite the North- West Company's trading-post, the
party pitched their camp in company with the Hudson's Bay
traders from Brandon House and the East Winnipeg District,
and began to replenish their scanty stores of provisions with
whitefish from the river.4

The ceremony of legal delivery and seisin of the grant for
the settlement was performed with imposing formality. On
the eastern bank of the river opposite the North- West Com-
pany's post, Macdonell, with a guard of officers under arms
and with colours flying, took seisin from Hillier of the

1 Macdonell to Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, ii. 411. a Ibid., p. 445.

8 Of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers. The N.-W. Co. trading-post had
been built by Wills, or Willis, in 1804, and consisted of a house for the
N.-W. Co. partner, two houses for the men, a store, two hangards or stores,
a blacksmith's shop, a stable, and an ice-house with a watch-house (gue'rite)
over it. Testimony of Jean Batiste Roi, at the trial of Colin Robertson et
al. Report of Trials in the Courts of Canada, A. Amos, London, 1820, p. 3.

4 The Brandon House traders had ' not one bag of Pemican, or any
other article of provision reserved for us \ Selkirk Papers^ iii. 764.

44 THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT chap.

Hudson's Bay Company,1 of a tract of land almost as large
as the United Kingdom, and comprising perhaps the best
wheat land in North America. The n6,ooo square miles,
chiefly of unbroken prairie, were traversed from south to north
by the Red River and from west to east by the Assiniboine. The
river banks were steep and wooded, but the black alluvial soil
of the open plain yielded a prolific harvest in a single season.
The patent was read in the presence of Macdonell's party, a few
Canadian ' freemen ' and Indians, and three of ' the N.-W. Co.
gentlemen,'2 who,however, 'did not allow their people to cross'.
The ' artillery ' was discharged, and after the ceremony was
over, ' the gentlemen,' writes Macdonell, * met at my tent.'
This formal act of delivery and seisin took place on Sep-
tember 4, 1 812. The proceedings were reported by the three
' N.-W. Co. gentlemen' to the partners at Fort William.

Macdonell had no intention of passing the winter at the
Forks. A few of the servants remained to build a storehouse
and to break land for the cultivation of wheat. The main
party ascended the river towards the winter pasture-grounds
of the buffalo. Macdonell himself, after examining the stream
below the Forks for a suitable site for permanent settlement,3
left his boat's crew at work on * the most eligible spot — an
extensive point of land ' near the Forks on the west bank
of the Red River, now Point Douglas within the City of
Winnipeg. He then 'set off on horseback for Pembina'.
Preparations were made for the winter on a point of land to
the south at the junction of the Pembina with the Red

1 Journal of John McLeod, Sr., Ch. Trader, H. B. C, M. 201, p. 2.

8 The three ' N.-W. Co. gentlemen' were John Willis, Alex. Macdonell
(brother-in-law of Miles Macdonell), and Benjamin Frobisher. McLeod's
Journal, M. 201, p. 2.

3 John Macdonell, brother of Miles, had written to him from Bas de la
Riviere House on June 27, 1812, 'The safest places from the incursions
of these barbarians (the Sioux Indians) and the best lands lay between
our post of the Forks or junction of the Red and Assinibouan Rivers and
Lake Winipick, a distance our canoe men reckon twenty leagues.' Mac-
donell Papers, 149. John Macdonell held at this time two shares in the
North-West Company and had been eighteen years in the North-West.
Ibid. When this letter was written he was on his way to Montreal with
the intention of retiring from the fur trade.

Ill THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 45

River.1 Buffaloes were procured in abundance from the plains
and fish from the river, by the ' freemen ' and half-breeds ;
supplies went down by boat to the Forks for a second
party of settlers that had sailed from Stornoway and Sligo
during the summer. Selkirk had been engaged, in the face
of North- West opposition in Great Britain, in sending out
families for permanent settlement, and in maturing plans for
schools and agriculture, for police, and the exercise of the
Company's jurisdiction under the old Charter.

Sir Alexander Mackenzie and the North-westers had amply
fulfilled their promises of opposition.2 ' In the Highlands \
wrote Selkirk, ' we have met with so much obstruction that
I doubt whether it will be effectually overcome unless I go out
myself.' 3 Garbled accounts of the troubles at Stornoway in
181 1 had appeared in the Inverness Journal;* and by the
following summer similar exaggerations had been scattered
broadcast throughout the North- West Company's sphere of
operations, from the opulent partners in London and Montreal
to the reckless winterers in Athabasca. Before the settlers
had left the shores of Hudson Bay, a North-wester who had
wintered at Lesser Slave Lake, 2,500 miles by canoe in the
interior, could discuss familiarly with Macdonell the details
of Blair's desertion, Selkirk's reputation among the North-
westers, the scanty success of Selkirk's previous colonizing en-
terprises in Upper Canada, and the probabilities of failure at
Red River.5 There is evidence that such uniform and ample
information was neither ordinary nor casual.6 The North-

1 Selkirk Papers, iii. 766.

2 See above, p. 34. Macdonell to Auld, Dec. 25, 181 1, Selkirk Papers,
i. 104.

3 * Which I have serious thought of doing next year ; I almost wish
that I could have been ready this season.' Selkirk to Macdonell,
March 24, 181 2, Selkirk Papers, i. 292.

* Deserters from the Edward and Ann, it was said, were * thrust into
the Hold and fed upon Oatmeal and Water '. \ Some . . . pursued from the
ships, overtaken and dragged on board again.' Selkirk Papers, i. 147.

5 John Macdonell to Miles Macdonell, June 27, 1812, Macdonell
Papers, 149.

6 See p. 34. Simon McGillivray to McTavish, McGillivray & Co.,
June 1, 181 1 ; Winter partners, N.-W. Co. to McGillivray, July 17,
181 2, &c, &c, Selkirk Papers, 8630.

46 THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT chap.

westers now admitted the cogency of Sir Alexander's pro-
phecy. At Hudson's Bay head-quarters the old Company
was beginning to show signs of rejuvenation. The 'jog trot
X mode' of a century and a quarter among the traders could not
be changed in a season from Hudson's Bay House in London ;
but the precise and detailed instructions which remain enable
one to trace Selkirk's dominant influence during the ensuing
struggle.

An enterprise under Hillier on the Upper Churchill was the
counterpart in the Company's fur trade of Macdonell's enter-
prise in settlement ; and though Selkirk's directions to meet
the prevailing conditions were not unsound in theory, it is
evident that he underrated most unaccountably the strength
and resources of his opponents. The growth of the North-
West Company had been extraordinary since Selkirk had
dined with the Beaver Club. The partners were not now so
communicative. Even in 1804 indiscriminate good-fellowship
never went beyond the Grand Portage. Selkirk's strategic
victory over Mackenzie may also have led him to underesti-
mate the resourcefulness of the McGillivrays and their partners,
in the shrewdest, hardest, and thriftiest business enterprise in
the two Canadas. Hillier was sent to the Upper Churchill less
to secure immediate returns than to ' overawe any attempt at
violence on the part of the Canadians ' ; x * not so much in the
light of a trader,' wrote Selkirk, ' as of a magistrate.' 2 There
were instructions never to exceed the bounds of moderation,
never to imitate the lawlessness of the Canadians, always to
assume the Charter-rights of the Company ; but the North-
westers, who had been trained under the sagacious manage-
ment of William McGillivray, were scarcely to be prevented by

1 * This expedition must be considered as of peculiar importance, and we
shall be disposed to estimate its success by a very different standard than
a bare comparison of the expense incurred with the value of returns
received. If in this instance the violence of the Can.'s be effectually
repressed, they will learn to respect the H. B. Co., and alter their tone
throughout the whole of their establishments. On the other hand, if they
should succeed in frustrating the object of the expedition you may expect
a double portion of violence whenever you meet them.' H.B. instructions
to Auld, June 1 8th, 181 2, Selkirk Papers, ii. 382.

8 ' And his people as the police officers or posse comitatus called out to
protect a market from rioters.' Selkirk Papers, ii. 385.

Ill THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT

' moderate means ' from cutting down spruce and oak for their
trading-posts ; 1 and few ' magistrates ' in Assiniboia would
have ventured to seize their nets ' as you would in England
those of a Poacher'.2 Selkirk was fully convinced of the
* unimpeachable validity of these rights of property ',3 and he
intended, moreover, to follow the advance-guard in person
with an overwhelming force ; 4 but the instructions to Hillier
occasioned considerable surprise among the dominant partners
of the North- West Company. Even the old servants of the
Hudson's Bay Company looked with amazement upon any-
thing like general aggression against the North-westers, and
hinted at the value of * experience ' and the * aid of the
Legislature to support the Company's property \

With regard to the settlement, Selkirk's influence was
paramount. Success turned upon the struggle for domination
over ' the land ' in Assiniboia. Whatever his concern for the
settlement, Selkirk had seen with precision that everything he
valued was staked upon the stability of the Company. The
grant was founded upon the Charter ; the validity of the
Charter was a matter of law ; and it was Selkirk's judgement
upon this legal problem that decided the whole trend of
operations in both Company and settlement. As early as
1810 it was clear that nothing could be relied upon from
popular or legislative support. In Great Britain there was
a prejudice against monopolies, amounting almost to a passion.
The Hudson's Bay Company in particular was far from
popular, even on the testimony of its most ardent supporters.
In 1740 an attack had been made upon the Charter by Dobbs
and a company of British merchants. Even after sixty years of
silence and cautious activity, the clamour had scarcely been com-

1 Instructions to Hillier, June 18, 1812, Selkirk Papers, ii. 407.

2 Ibid., p. 408.

8 ' We are so fully advised of the unimpeachable validity of these rights
of property, that there can be no scruple in enforcing them wherever you
have the physical means.' Ibid.

4 I have serious thoughts of paying you a visit next year, at the head of
such a body of men as will overawe any attempt to resist the lawful
authority of the Company. For that purpose I must bring out not less
than 4 or 500 men, with whom it will be my object to proceed like
Mr. Kevny {sic) directly to the Settlement.' Instructions to Auld, June 18,
181 2, Selkirk Papers, ii. 401.

48 THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT chap.

posed or forgotten. Opinion against the validity of the Charter
in more than one particular had been expressed with no covert
hesitation. Parliament could scarcely be expected to give the
Company anew what the Company claimed to be their own
already, and loss of which could be charged to nothing but
the Company's own impotence. It would have stultified the
pretensions of a century to seek a right to claim more than
they actually possessed, when such a course would have been
an admission of inability to hold what they claimed already.
Whatever the original validity of the Charter, the most im-
placable enemy of the Company could have desired no stronger
evidence of non user. ■ It is altogether visionary ', Selkirk
wrote bluntly to Auld, 'to look for the aid of the Legislature
to support the Company's property and I am surprised that
after all the explanation which was given you can still harp
on that idea.' l

But if petition to Parliament was rashly impolitic, decision
before a legal tribunal at the direct motion of the Hudson's
Bay Company seemed quite impossible. Breach of territorial
rights was a civil trespass; The Privy Council could take no
cognizance of such an offence in the first instance, and the
courts of common law at Westminster had no jurisdiction
over civil trespass in colonial territory. For the Hudson's Bay
Company, therefore, there seemed to be no appeal except from
their own jurisdiction, and nothing to be obtained by an appeal
except a decision upon the rights of the Charter in the light of
an implied admission that the Company was unable to enforce
the rights they actually claimed to exercise. There was no
choice but to proceed cautiously with their own jurisdiction,
thus affording to a second party the fullest opportunity of
subjecting the whole problem to legal decision by an appeal
to the Privy Council. Such, it is to be noticed, was the
method adopted at a later date by the Colonial Secretary for
the determination of the Company's rights.2 Of this oppor-

1 Instructions to Auld, June 18, 1812, Selkirk Papers, ii. 401.

8 ' Steps having been taken ... to obtain from the Hudson's Bay Company
a statement of its claims, that statement was duly submitted to Her Majesty's
Law Advisers, and Her Majesty's Government received from them a report
that the claims of the Company were well founded. It was observed in

in THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 49

tunity the North-West Company declined from the first to
avail themselves. They held the field by force already. Why
risk a substance in pursuit of a shadow ? Selkirk was avowedly
fearless of legal decision, but conflict seemed inevitable. ' We
have a sufficient basis of unquestionable legal rights,' he wrote,
{if we had physical strength to enforce them for ourselves.'1
Nothing could have been further from Selkirk's own interests
than an appeal to force to establish an artificial fur-trading
monopoly. At the same time nothing was capable of vindi-
cating his ' right to the land ' in Assiniboia but a reserve of
force to maintain what would otherwise be irrevocably lost.
Adequate self-defence was the sine qua non of the Company's
title. So much the more was it 'absolutely necessary' for
his own grant and for the establishment of the settlement.

It was under this necessity that Hillier was directed to
' teach the messieurs voyageurs to keep a respectable distance \2
Macdonell found himself equipped with swivels, small brass
pieces, and small arms for his men.3 There were instructions
for keeping guard on the route to the settlement ; for establish-
ing the forms of a regular garrison when the esprit de corps of
the men could be relied upon ; for ' military evolutions ' and
weekly exercises for firing at a mark.4 It may be imagined

that report that, with a view to the fuller satisfaction of The House of Com-
mons, and the parties interested, it would be advisable to refer the inquiry
to a competent tribunal, and that the proper method of raising a discussion
on it would be for some person to address a Petition to Her Majesty, which
Petition might then be referred either to the Judicial Committee, or the
Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations.

Such a Petition was, therefore, essential to the complete prosecution of
the inquiry ; Lord Grey accordingly gave to certain parties in this country,
who had . . . questioned the validity of the Company's Charter, an oppor-
tunity to prefer the necessary Petition if they were so disposed ; but, for
reasons which it is unnecessary to repeat, they respectively declined to do
so. Lord Grey having, therefore, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government,
adopted the most effectual means open to him . . . has been obliged . . .
to assume the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in their favour to
be well-founded/ B. Hawes to John Pelly, June 6, 1850. Papers Relating
to the Hudson's Bay Company, 1850, p. 15.

1 Selkirk Papers, ii. 401.

2 Instructions to Hillier, June 18, 1812, Selkirk Papers, ii. 407.

3 Instructions to Auld, June 18, 1812, Selkirk Papers, ii. 395. During
the spring of 1813 four brass six-pounders, four three- pounders, and two
hundred muskets were obtained from the Government for the defence of
the settlement. Selkirk Papers, ii. 669. •

4 Instructions to Macdonell, 181 1, Selkirk Papers, i. 169.

1526.7 D

50 THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT chap.

that Macdonell required no encouragement to maintain
a military bearing. Selkirk, in fact, who had detected at the
beginning a strain of the miles gloriosus in his lieutenant,1
emphasized the value of caution. He was the first to deplore
the evidences of ' erroneous impressions ' in Macdonell's treat-
ment of the ' insurgents' during the winter.2 He had even
reproved Macdonell's zeal for the settlement when it showed
signs of proving destructive to the trade of the Company.
Despite discipline and preparations for self-defence the settle-
ment was not to be a barracks nor the ■ Governor ' a military
despot.3 It was a fatal misfortune that colonization, which
depended upon peace and required only peace for its prosperity,
should have been linked to a Company which had no resources
but their own exertions to maintain what they conceived to
be their legitimate rights. Selkirk was feeling his way
cautiously towards the exercise of a jurisdiction free from the
danger of Canadian interference and in direct dependence
upon the courts at Westminster.4

An early requisite, however, was to secure families with
permanent interests in the land. The second party of servants
with a few permanent settlers was recruited chiefly from the
west of Ireland and the Hebrides. Selkirk was in Sligo in
June, 1 812, exercising a personal supervision over the men
chosen for the settlement and drawing up instructions for

1 Selkirk to Macdonell, April 12, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iii. 1044.

2 Selkirk to Colville, June 5, 181 3, Selkirk Papers, ii. 646.

3 Selkirk to Macdonell, June 14, 1813, Selkirk Papers, ii. 682. 'Your
suggestion as to a military Government is liable to difficulties of which you
cannot well be aware.' Selkirk to Macdonell, Selkirk Papers, ii. 670.
Cf. instructions for a Council and trial by jury, ibid., p. 673.

4 Selkirk to Macdonell, June 13, 1813 : ■ The leading and essential point
on which the best opinions seem to be united, is that the grant of Jurisdic-
tion contained in the Charter is valid with only a few points of exception,
and that it is not affected by the Act 43 Geo. III. called the Canada
Act . . . but it is not probable that this can be allowed long to continue
so, unless the Co. proceed to exercise the Jurisdiction legally vested in
them. . . . On the other hand, if they should exercise their jurisdiction in a
violent and invidious manner ... it is probable that these rights would be
directly abrogated by Act of Parliament. On this account particular
caution is requisite. . . . Means will be found of bringing our legal rights
to a fair trial before the supreme Tribunal in England. ... It would not
yet be advisable to attempt forcibly to dispossess the N. W. Company of
the posts which they occupy. The only point at present to be attended to
is that they be not allowed to acquire any prescriptive right.' Selkirk
Papers, 670 et seq.

ill THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 51

those who had already gone. The leader of the expedition
was Owen Keveny, a harsh disciplinarian, but a man of
'steadiness, activity, and integrity'.1 Mr. Holmes, 'an in-
genious young gentleman', made plates to illustrate the
account of the voyage from the pen of the surgeon McKeevor.2
On June 24th, Selkirk dined on shipboard with the officers
of the party, and accompanied the settlers as they sailed out
of Sligo Bay. At six o'clock in the evening the captain put
to sea.

Despite the early departure, the voyage proved to be as
long as the belated passage of the preceding year. Keveny's
iron discipline became a byword among the old servants of
the Company ; but he had no easy task to subdue the ' tur-
bulent and unruly spirit which prevailed among the Irish
servants \3 When the Straits were reached there were days
of casual traffic with the Esquimaux, and of visiting and good-
fellowship among the passengers, while the ships threaded their
way through the ice-floes. McKeevor relates how the ' raw-
boned athletic ' highland piper paced the deck, and how the
pibroch suddenly filled the Scottish settlers with the ' lofty un-
bending pride ' of their race.4 The last days of the voyage were
passed in a furious storm, and it was not till August 26" that
a schooner put out to meet the ships with fresh provisions
from York Factory.5 The passengers for Red River6 left
for the interior on September 7, 8, and 9, in eleven boats and
three canoes. On October 27th they reached the Forks, where
Macdonell had been making preparations to receive them.

Little of vital interest survives from this prosaic work of

1 Selkirk to Macdonell, June 20, 18 12, Selkirk Papers, ii. 713.

2 A Voyage to Hudson 's Bay during the Summer of 18 12, containing a
particular Account of the Icebergs and other Phenomena which Present
themselves in those Regions ; also a Description of the Esquimaux and
North American Indians : their Manners, Customs, Dress, Language, &*c,
dr'c., 6?*c., by Thomas McKeevor, M.D., of the Dublin Lying-in Hospital.
London, 18 19.

3 Selkirk to Keveny, June 15, 1813, Selkirk Papers, ii. 698.

4 A Voyage to Hudson's Bay during the Summer of 18 12, p. 3.

5 Owen Keveny reported to Selkirk that the passage had taken 61
days, reckoning, no doubt, from the morning after Selkirk had dined on
shipboard to the first communication with York Factory. Keveny to
Selkirk, York Fort, Sept. 8, Selkirk Papers, ii. 450.

6 Seventy-one men, women, and children. Keveny's Return, Selkirk
Papers, 560.

D %

$z THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT chap, in

pioneer settlement ; and much of Selkirk's practical wisdom
at this stage of his enterprise is easily overlooked in the stress
of larger issues. It was a wise precaution, for instance, to send
the band of 1811 in his own personal employment to prepare
the way for families of permanent settlers, and to hasten
' that local attachment which the feeling of property will lead
to '} The tentative arrangements for schools and roads and
the introduction of Spanish sheep were lost to sight in the
subsequent conflict with the North-West Company. Hitherto
the settlement had been conducted not without a laudable
respect for the obvious and the commonplace. There were
few delusions about the country except such as arose from
the lugubrious stories circulated by the North-westers. There
was no ' Utopian delirium \ There might have been a different
issue had Selkirk found it possible to accompany the expedition
in person, as he had intended. The weight of his personal
influence might have prevented the petty misunderstandings
that made, for ten years, in the direction of controversy and
disintegration.

1 Selkirk to Macdonell, June 20, 18 1 2, Selkirk Papers, iii. 726.

CHAPTER IV

'ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS'

Fort Daer, as Macdonell called the post which he had
chosen for the winter encampment, was nearer than the Forks
to the pasture-grounds of the buffalo, but it was in dangerous
proximity to the listlessness of the Hudson's Bay post, and
to the veiled hostility of the North-westers ' stationed on the
other side of the river. All three posts were within a radius
of a quarter of a mile. The experience of the preceding winter
proved of much value in the erection of log-houses for the
settlers, and ' hangards ' for the stores ; but the autumn began
under many discouragements. Winter wheat at the Forks
was sown so late in the season that the first harvest proved
a dismal failure. The half-breed hunters were expert in
securing the buffalo on the plains, but the settlers in drawing
the meat to the settlement suffered severely from frost and
from inexperience with snowshoes and sledges.2 One or two
belated parties lost their way on the plains, and were driven
to kill their draught dogs or apply to some passing North-
westers for provisions.3 As the winter wore on, moreover,

1 The N.-W. Co. fort at Pembina 'had been abandoned two years before,'
but ' was re-established/ according to the deposition of John Pritchard, ' for
the pin-pose of opposing the colony in the purchase of provisions.'
Papers Relating to the Red River Settlement, 1 8 19, p. 153.

2 Macdonell's account of the winter in his letter to Selkirk, July 18,
1 81 3, Selkirk Papers, ii. 764-793.

3 From Macdonell's account, it appears that the winter was mild, the
plains had been burnt over by prairie fires, and the herds of buffalo were
even at a greater distance than usual. ' Provisions were therefore unusually
scarce.'

Edwards, the surgeon, wrote to Selkirk, 'It is well known to every
individual who wintered in the Red River in 1812 that the scarcity of pro-
visions was great indeed, some of the men having been obliged to eat dogs'
flesh and others to dispose of their property for food to the servants of the
N.-W. Co.' Edwards, however, was by no means on good terms with
Macdonell ; and the incident of the dog occurred when a party, sent
for provisions, found that the 'carcases' which had been 'staged' for
them by the hunters had been devoured by wolves. Selkirk Papers, ii. 770.

54 'ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS' chap.

relations became strained between Macdonell and his neigh-
bours across the river. From the first season of contact
between the settlement and the North-West Company, evidence
is not far to seek of the acrimony which led finally to open
feud between the two companies.

The chief North-West trader at Pembina was Alexander
Macdonell, cousin and brother-in-law of the ' Governor '. The
kinsmen appear to have begun the winter on good terms, but
before the arrival of spring there were open accusations against
the North-wester of ' insidious and treacherous conduct during
the winter in endeavouring to swerve my people from their
duty'.1 'I have been interfered with', Macdonell wrote
bitterly to Selkirk, ' and opposed on all sides — the N.-W. Co.
tampered with my people . . . even some in the employ of the
H. B. Co. acted with more hostility than friendship. My situa-
tion all last winter was uncomfortable in the extreme.' 2 One
man deserted to the North-West Company, was taken down in
the spring canoes as far as Lake Superior, but was sent back
because the partners at Fort William did not think it prudent
at that time to sanction such proceedings.3 Another made
deposition that Alexander Macdonell had tried to lure him
away from the settlement.4 Nor was the opposition either

In the controversy which arose later, the North-westers did not hesitate
to describe their services during the winter of 1812 in very exaggerated
terms. 'They would have perished for want of food', Wm. McGillivray
wrote to F. P. Robinson, ■ but for the assistance . . . from the North-West
company's trading-posts in their vicinity' {Papers Rel. to R.R.S. p. 24).
Cf. also Simon McGillivray to Bathurst, June 19, 1815, Can. Arch., Q.
134-2, p. 373. It is difficult to say how much was policy, how much
philanthropy, and how much keen business. A bull, cow, and heifer were
procured from the North-westers, at the price of ,£100. Selkirk Papers,
ii. 784.

1 Macdonell to Alex. Macdonell, Apr. 18, 1813, Selkirk Papers, iii. 593.

8 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 17, 1813, Selkirk Papers, iii. 777.

3 Macdonell to Auld, Feb. 4, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iii. 957. Daniel
McKenzie in the letter to Selkirk, a copy of which was proved before
Coltman the Commissioner (Deposition 280), states that ' Mr. William
McGillivray found much fault therewith, on the principle that the colony
ought to be disorganized on a more general scale.' Papers Pel. to
R.R.S., 1 81 9, p. 160.

4 Hector MacDonald, Selkirk Papers, ii. 585. This appears to have been
the first of the countless depositions that were drawn up in the course of
the long quarrel between the Hudson's Bay and the North-West
Companies.

iv 'ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS' 55

personal or local. As early as June 1, 181 1} before the first
expedition had left Stornoway, Simon McGillivray, it will be
remembered, had written to his brother's firm in Montreal of
a meeting with Sir Alexander Mackenzie and Mr. Ellice ;
and of their ' unanimous opinion that you should immediately
on receipt of this dispatch an express to the interior to prepare
your people for a year of trial.' 'We forbear', he added, 'to
suggest the particular details of this opposition.' 1 ' It will
require some time,' he wrote to the winter partners in the
following April, ' and I fear cause much expence to us as well
as to himself, before he is driven to abandon the project ; and
yet he must be driven to abandon it, for his success would
strike at the very existence of our Trade.'2 There can be
little doubt of the attitude of the North-westers from the
beginning.3

In addition to North-West opposition, which was to be
expected, there can be no doubt that Macdonell was being
systematically opposed by many of the most influential
Hudson's Bay traders in the country. Through the treachery
of a clerk, a rough draught of Macdonell's letter to Selkirk, of
July 1 81 2, describing somewhat frankly the conditions of life
at York Factory, had fallen into the hands of the Super-
intendent.4 Auld took an early opportunity of expressing
surprise at Macdonell's ' hurry in showing his authority ', and
refused to take him into his confidence because he professed
to consider him ' too intimate with the Canadians to be trusted
with anything of the sort '.5 Auld's letters to Selkirk and to
Wedderburn took the form of diatribes against Macdonell's

1 June 1, 181 1, Correspondence, vol. i, p. 25.

2 Simon McGillivray to N.-W. partners, Apr. 7, 1812, Selkirk Papers,
9109. 'We are perfectly aware ', they replied, 'of the trouble you have
taken since the commencement of the Earl of Selkirk's connexion with
the Hudson's Bay Company to frustrate his attempts in procuring hands
from the Highlands.' Winter partners, N.-W. Co., to McGillivray, Fort
William, July 17, 1812, Selkirk Papers, 8630.

3 Cf. Selkirk Papers, iii. 771 ; John McLeod to Hillier, Feb. 17, 1813,
Selkirk Papers, ii. 581, &c., &c.

4 Auld to Wedderburn, Sept. 10, 1813, Selkirk Papers, iii. 852. Selkirk
to Macdonell, April 12, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iii. 1047.

5 Auld to Hillier, Jan, 29, 18 13, Selkirk Papers , ii. 576.

56 'ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS' chap.

imprudence and lack of conciliating manners ; there was
enough of truth in the charges to poison a mind less generous
than Selkirk's to the faults of his agent, or less sensible of his
difficulties.1 Even Keveny appeared to Macdonell ' distant
and reserved \2 The general letters to Macdonell which Selkirk
had sent by the Hudson's Bay ships during the summer of
1813, were opened by Auld and his confederates at the coast;
while a private letter which Selkirk had sent with directions
to be returned in case of Macdonell's death, was detained and
sent back to Selkirk ' in consideration of the worse than mortal
incapacity of that person '.3 Selkirk's resentment was speedy
and effective.4 Whatever Macdonell's fault in judgement or
temperament, his position was not an enviable one. Selkirk
gave him all the encouragement and support in his power ; 5
placed him on his guard against the intrigues of the Hudson's
Bay traders, and urged him with all kindness to take ■ suaviter
in modo ' for his motto and to strive towards conciliation. In
the spring, after the departure of one or two of the most dis-
contented spirits, there was more hopefulness and concord in
the settlement. The vegetation along the river bank sprang
into life with wonderful speed and luxuriance. About the

1 * You will find I am little inclined to admire Cn. McD. management.
To me he seems not possessed of those arts of conciliation which his
situation so peculiarly requires. ... He knows not how to attach hired tho'
may command military servants.' Auld to Selkirk, Sept. 12, 18 12,
Selkirk Papers, ii. 499. Cf. Auld to Selkirk, Hillier, Wedderburn and
others : ' shameless misrepresentations ' ; ' foolish and unprincipled manage-
ment ' ; ' imprudence in thus giving vent to such silly feelings ' ; * I assert
without fear of contradiction from a human creature in this country that if
Lord Selkirk had advertised for a fool of the first magnitude he never could
have better succeeded than he has done with the present man ' ; ' standing
alone like the Poison tree, despised and shunned by every creature ' ; * he
is not since his first arrival to the present moment accused of having done
even by mistake one single thing right', &c. Selkirk Papers, ii. 850, 852,
856, &c, &c.

2 Macdonell to Selkirk, July, 17, 1813, Selkirk Papers, iii. 772.

3 Auld's letter, York Factory, Sept. 26, 18 13, Selkirk Papers, iii. 836.

4 ' One of the letters which I had sent to you last autumn was kept back
and returned to me by Mr. Auld for reasons too impertinent and absurd for
the most petulant schoolboy.' Selkirk to Macdonell, April 12, 1814,
Selkirk Papers, iii. 1,057. Auld was promptly dismissed.

5 See Selkirk Papers, ii. 647 : ' You may say " go on as you have done
hitherto" — but there is no such rule for MacDonell, who is in a Situation
altogether new.' Selkirk to 'Andrew' (Colviie), June, 1813.

iv ' ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS' 57

prolific fertility of the country there could be no question.
The settlers returned to the Forks early in May, took up rough
lots of land as much as each could break * and began to sow
their seed. ' The Country ', wrote Macdonell, { exceeds any
idea I had formed of its goodness/ The experience of the
two winters, however, had been far from pleasant. ' It is not
in my power ', he continued, ' to describe to your Lordship all
that I suffered last winter from the mean artifices and machina-
tions of those by whom I was surrounded/ a

Meanwhile a third band of settlers was being brought
together in the highlands. The general introduction of sheep-
farming was leading to the widespread eviction of the smaller
tenantry. In two parishes in Sutherlandshire 3 a single sheep
farm had displaced a hundred agricultural tenants, with all the
distress that had attended the early enclosures in England,
except that European war and inflated prices now mitigated
to some extent the evils of general unemployment and of too
sudden a change. The British Army had long drawn recruits
from Sutherlandshire from among the best of the tenant-
farmers,4 but during 1813 and the spring of 181 3 evictions
became so general that distress was almost everywhere pre-
valent. For a time there was something like a general uprising
and a few serious riots. The Sutherland tenantry sent a depu-
tation to London, to seek from Government some alleviation
from unemployment and destitution. There was no power
in the Home Office against the forces of economic change;
the deputation was about to turn back in despair when
Selkirk took up their case with enthusiasm. ' They determined
on emigrating all in a body/ They were ' a fine race of men *,
Selkirk wrote to Macdonell. ■ I feel quite as much interest in
their success as if they were in my own immediate employ-
ment.'5 Applications came in from 700 souls.6 Word had
come from York Factory, however, of the paucity of boats for

1 Regular lots of 100 acres, with four acre frontage on the river, were laid
out during the summer- Selkirk Papers, ii. 787.

3 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 17, 1813, Selkirk Papers, ii. 771.

3 Clyne and Kildonan. Selkirk to Macdonell, June 12, 18 13, Selkirk
Papers, ii. 650.

4 Selkirk to Macdonell, June 12, 1813, Selkirk Papers, ii. 651.

* Selkirk Papers, ii. 652-653. 6 Selkirk Papers, ii. 661.

58 'ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS' chap.

the inland voyage. Nails were to be made on the spot, ' one
for a penny \ The boatbuilders, wrote Auld, could scarcely
hope to have ten boats ready for the river before the first
frost.1 Less than a hundred settlers could be taken, and
Selkirk was compelled to postpone for yet another season his
project of going to Hudson's Bay in person at the head of
such a body of men as would have established the predomi-
nance of the settlement beyond a question.2

At Stromness were gathered the colonists who had come
by sea from Helmsdale, Hudson's Bay clerks from the
Orkneys, colonists and labourers from Ireland,3 and a few
Moravian missionaries bound for the bleak shores of Labrador.
There was still some unpleasantness with hostile officials that
recalled the unfortunate leave-taking of 1811. The attitude
of the ■ Transport Board ' was far from friendly. In McLean,
the secretary, a Caithness man, Selkirk detected an enemy,
and the cause of most of the mischief.4 Douglas, another
member of the board, was found to be a ' waspish captious '
official who 'delights in doing an ill-natured thing'. The
townsfolk ' laid a heavy hand on our purses ', writes Gunn ;
but ' they repaid us to some extent by many kind words and
friendly attention '.6 The colonists embarked on the Prince of
Wales] the servants of the Company on the Eddy stone.
There was renewed trouble from officials,6 but on June 28, 1 813,
the ships put to sea, under convoy of a sloop-of-war.

The passage proved to be one of the shortest on record.
Traffic began as usual with the Esquimaux when the Eddy-
stone reached the Straits; but when the Prince of Wales
rejoined the other ships after the Atlantic voyage it was found

1 Auld to Selkirk, Sept. 12, 181 2, Selkirk Papers, ii. 488.

2 Selkirk Papers, ii. 650. Probably the best account of the Sutherland
emigration is found in History of Manitoba, by Donald Gunn and
C. R. Tuttle. Winnipeg, 1880. Gunn was one of the Hudson's Bay servants
who came to Red River in 1813.

3 Only eight in number. Selkirk Papers, ii. 659.

4 Selkirk to Andrew (Colvile), Thurso, June 5, 1813, Selkirk Papers, 546.
6 History of Manitoba, Gunn and Tuttle, p. 92.

6 Cf. also Simon McGillivray to N.-W. partners : ■ I have reason to hope
that the " Highlander's " letters will in a great measure prevent him from
getting servants or emigrants from the Highlands of Scotland.' Corre-
spondence, vol. i, p. 28.

iv < ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS' 59

that typhoid fever had broken out among the colonists for the
first time in the history of the Hudson's Bay trade. Idleness,
confinement, and congested quarters proved fatal. The sur-
geon, Laserre, a Guernsey man and a relative of General Brock,1
was among the first to succumb. The disease then spread
rapidly to the passengers and crew. The victims2 were
buried at sea ; and even when the ships came to anchor thirty
of the survivors were ill and helpless. Four of the crew were
dead, eight were disabled. Scarcely less fatal than disease
was the blundering mismanagement of the skipper. The ships
had hardly reached the open waters of Hudson's Bay when
Captain Turner steered westward to Fort Churchill and threw
the colonists and their stores ashore to the mercies of disease
and a Hudson Bay winter. What explanation was given to
the directorate it seems impossible to surmise. Selkirk had
directed the expedition to York Factory; the settlers ex-
pected to receive their goods for the winter from the stores at
Red River; even at York Factory the settlers, wrote Selkirk,
1 have no right to expect any species of supply.' 3 But Fort
Churchill was the nearest post, and Captain Turner's mission
was to return as soon as possible to England. The excuse
was too * frivolous'. 'I hope', wrote Macdonell from York
Factory, ' he will be made to smart severely for his brutal
stubbornness.'4 Auld hastened to Churchill, ordered the
settlers on board again, and bade Turner sail to York Factory,
but the captain ran his ship aground at the harbour mouth.
A storm came up, and though the ship was floated at flood
tide, at Churchill she remained till the voyage southward to
York Factory was no longer possible. Even as late as
September 19, Keveny appeared on the scene after a journey

1 Selkirk to Macdonell, June 12, 181 3, Selkirk Papers, ii. 657.

2 There were twelve casualties by fever on the voyage and at Fort
Churchill. Macdonell to Selkirk, Sept. 9, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1215.

3 Selkirk to Macdonell, June 16, 18 13, Selkirk Papers, ii. 703.

4 Macdonell to Selkirk, Sept. 7, 1813, Selkirk Papers, iii. 823. ' Had
Captain Turner put in here (York Factory) instead of going to Churchill,
the sick should have had immediate relief in abundance of fresh provi-
sions and all of you would have reached in good time the place of your
destination.' Macdonell to Arch. McDonald, Sept. 7, 18 13, copied in
McDonald's letter to Selkirk, May 22, 1 814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1092.

60 ' ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS ' chap.

of the utmost peril from privation and exposure.1 There was
yet time to get the settlers inland as far as ' the Rock ' 2 for
their winter quarters ; but the colonists were worn out with
fever, and Turner was stupid and inexorable. The Hudson's
Bay servants struggled southward to York Factory by land
and water, through marshes and over sandhills, with scanty
provisions and under the leadership of a guide who did not
know the way.3 All the settlers, in sickness and in health
together, made what preparations they could for passing the
winter at Fort Churchill. ' What will become of these miser-
able people and ourselves ', wrote Auld, ' the God in heaven
alone can know/ *

Auld's pity, however, was little better than his piety. One
traces a systematic attempt to isolate Macdonell, to obtain his
recall or to supplant him at Red River, to disparage the
colonists and the colony, and to revert again to the golden age
of licence and ' nest-feathering ' before Selkirk's influence was
felt at the council board.5 Ready instruments were not
wanting. McRae, who had shown Macdonell's letter to Auld,
continued to cause the utmost annoyance to Macdonell during
the winter : Auld complained to Wedderburn that the young
man was 'not even trusted with the stores'.8 Keveny had
been swept into acquiescence in the scheme for sending Mac-
donell's confidential instructions back to Selkirk : 7 Keveny,
wrote Auld, was 'worth as many Arch'd McDonalds as
will stand between here and Cape Horn'.8 Of the colonists,
and their young leader in particular, no description could be
too scathing or too virulent: the settlers were 'civilized

1 Keveny to Macdonell, Sept. 26, 1813, Selkirk Papers, iii. 886.

2 Selkirk had sent instructions for the establishment of a post at * the
Rock ', on the Hill River, about a third of the distance from York Factory
to Lake Winnipeg. Selkirk Papers, iii. 886.

3 Manitoba, Gunn and Tuttle, pp. 97 and 98.

4 Auld to Wedderburn, Sept. 10, 18 13, Selkirk Papers, ii. 848.

8 Selkirk Papers, ii. 576, 512; iii. 850 et seq., &c, &c. Auld speaks of the
surgeon ' having no objection to remain a year or two more if his services
were wanted and Captain Macdonell removed.' Sept. 26, 181 3, Selkirk
Papers, iii. 836. Cf. also the episode of letters from Selkirk in Selkirk
Papers, iii. 836 et seq., 871, &c. See also pp. 56, 75, &c.

6 Auld to Wedderburn, Sept. 10, 1813, Selkirk Papers, ii. 850.

T See p. 56.

8 Auld to Wedderburn, Sept. 10, 18 13, Selkirk Papers, ii. 849.

iv 'ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS' 61

Caffres', 'savages from Scotland', 'miserably ineffective';1
Archibald McDonald was a ' stupid fellow ' of ' pride and
folly ', ■ utterly unfit for managing men ' ; 2 Captain Mac-
donell, was 'a prince of fools', 'a man of foolish and un-
principled management ', who could not be • accused of having
done even by mistake one single thing right'*3 The super-
intendent at Hudson Bay was not in sympathy with Selkirk's
enterprise.

The winter at Fort Churchill was by no means as disastrous
as Auld had pretended to expect, but there was enough of
truth in his invective to give some effect to his malice.
Selkirk had given strict instructions to treat the colonists
with every consideration. Keveny, versed in the manage-
ment of his unruly Irishmen, had little patience with the
sensitive pride and religious scruples of these staid Presby-
terians who refused to work on Sunday. He concluded with
some astonishment that his lordship's methods had changed
since the spring of 181 s.4 Worn out as they were with
fever and with watching, the settlers retreated fifteen miles
up the Churchill to a sheltered well-wooded bank of the river.
Here with axe and spade, rough log-houses were built for the
winter. ' The settlers themselves ', wrote McDonald, 'were by
no means bad hands, and were all willing.' 5 Their quarters
were completed by October 16, but nearly another month
passed before security was felt against disease and privation.
The fever had claimed two victims even after the sailing of the
ships from Fort Churchill ; 6 and Captain Turner's mismanage-
ment had culminated in the swamping of a large boatload of

1 Auld to Macdonell, March 13, 1814; the same to Hillier, Sept. 25,
1813 ; Sept. 26, 1813 ; Selkirk Papers, iii. 975, 876, 837.

2 Selkirk Papers, iii. 847. Cf. iii. 837, 839, 845, &c.

3 Selkirk Papers, iii. 851 ; ii. 512; iii. 856.

4 * Lord S's opinion seems to be much altered with respect to the neces-
sity of strict discipline, and subordination amongst the people.' Keveny
to Macdonell, Sept. 26, 18 13, Selkirk Papers, iii. 891.

5 ' Only the very great aversion they had to work on Sundays.' Selkirk
Papers, iii. 1096.

6 McDonald to Selkirk, May 22, 1 8 14, Selkirk Papers, ii. 1091. Mc-
Donald speaks of a previous letter to Selkirk with full particulars of the
voyage, lists of casualties, &c, but it does not appear among the Selkirk
Papers.

62 ■ ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS ' chap.

stores and provisions which had been consigned by that
dignitary to a drunken cox. Oatmeal and antiscorbutics were
to be secured only by journeys of thirty miles by sledge and
snowshoes to the factory stores. Early in November, how-
ever, partridges appeared in such numbers in the neighbour-
hood that fresh provisions were never again wanting. One or
two unfortunate incidents occurred during the winter, a passing
quarrel between McDonald and the surgeon,1 and the burning
of a factory house at Churchill which the superintendent
promptly attributed to the settlers.2 Auld even suggested
with plausible logic that Selkirk should be debited in the
Company's books for the partridges used by the settlers at
their encampment during the winter; were not a dozen
partridges at Fort Churchill equivalent to a piece of English
beef? 3 Thus the winter passed ; with many discomforts but
no fatal privations. By the end of March a party of settlers
was ready, with sledges, moccasins, and snowshoes, for the
overland journey to York Factory.

On April 6th, twenty-one men and twenty women of the
settlers, with guides from York Factory, and a few hunters,
all on snowshoes, left ' Colony Creek ', drawing stores and
provisions on rough sledges, camping at nightfall and moving
forward with the first dawn of the northern morning. A gun-
shot at three o'clock aroused the camp to breakfast. An hour
later packs had been made and the guide stepped from the
officers' quarters.4 The strongest of the party went ahead with
the sledges to beat the trail for the women. Midway through
the long procession marched the highland piper. One or two
of the sturdiest settlers brought up the rear to prevent
straggling and to assist the weary. McDonald describes how

1 A. Edwards, whom Auld and Keveny had left in charge of the
encampment.

2 Auld writes of the ' carelessness of a party of your settlers at Church-
hill to which is owing the fatal destruction of that Factory on the 25th
November last'. Auld to Macdonell, Selkirk Papers, iii. 975. McDonald
defends the settlers, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1 191. See also Gunn's Manitoba,
p. 102.

8 Auld to Macdonell, May II, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iii. 1080.

4 ' I have to do the whole of the party that justice that I never knew
a single instance of one individual of them keeping behind after the last
gun was put off.' Selkirk Papers, iv. 1 1 10.

IV < ARTIFICES AND MACHINATIONS * 63

one of the settlers was seized with ■ cramp ' from the long
swinging stride on the snowshoes, and how the party paused
to build a fire, brew a concoction of hot spruce and bathe the
limb till the settler could go on.1 By April 15, several others
of the party, from ' cramp ' or weariness, could no longer keep
the pace. The main body moved on, leaving five of the
settlers, a young Indian guide, and an old hunter from Fort
Churchill, with provisions for ten days, to follow when they
could.2 The next day's march brought them to supplies of
partridges ' staged ■ by the York Factory hunters. Relief was
sent back to the party in the rear, while McDonald pushed on
with all speed to the Hayes. Here on the river bank, two miles
from York Factory, the settlers marched into camp in the
same order in which they had left Colony Creek on the
Churchill.

The journey to the settlement when the ice ran out in the
river was accomplished in less than thirty days.3 Those who
had remained at ' Colony Creek ' in April found their way to
York Factory by sea and to the settlement in August. It
was June ai, when McDonald with his party of fifty-one
appeared at the bend of the river below Fort Douglas. ' By
this time ', he writes, ' everything was settled and the N.-W. Co.
Proprietors were just taking their departure.'4 The * Churchill
settlers ' reached the Forks at the close of the first act in what
was to be a long tragedy. During the preceding winter the
settlement on the Red River and the North-West Company
had come for the first time into open conflict. On January 8,
Macdonell had issued his proclamation, asserting Selkirk's
title to the land, and prohibiting, for a twelvemonth, the
export of pemmican5 from the famous hunting-grounds of
Assiniboia.

1 Selkirk Papers, iv. 1108.

2 With Angus MacKayand his wife remained his brother and sister-in-
law, and Charles McBeath, the sufferer from 'cramp' shortly after the
journey began. McDonald to Selkirk, May 22, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv.
1112.

3 The settlers had left York Factory May 23. Selkirk Papers, iv. 1144.

4 McDonald to Selkirk, July 24, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1170.

5 The modern spelling has been used except in cases of quotation.

CHAPTER V

'THE PEMICAN WAR'1

From the standpoint of the Red River Settlement the
quarrel with the North- West Company was founded upon at
least two considerations, both of which involved inevitably
a conflict of principles. Selkirk believed implicitly in his
title to the land. His first step had been to consult some
of the best legal advice in England. ' With respect to our
rights of landed property/ wrote Selkirk, ' these are universally
considered as clear and indisputable.' 2 His correspondence
throughout is charged with evidence of this signal reliance.
He wrote of the 'lawful authority of the Company',3 'the
rights to which they are legally entitled ',4 privileges ■ that
are essential to property in land ',6 ' the intrusive possession
(of the North- West Company) upon my lands ',6 the ' un-
impeachable validity of these rights of property'.7 Never
during his life did Selkirk belie this confidence with doubt or
uncertainty. The whole scheme of colonization, his private
fortune, the closing work of his life, were staked upon the
soundness of this issue. Even Sir Alexander Mackenzie and
the North-westers, who protested at the General Court of
1811, virtually admitted the possible validity of such a grant
when they advocated the sale of Assiniboia by public auction
and credited Selkirk with the selfish motive of acquiring ' an
immensely valuable landed estate ' for his family.8 ' I have

1 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 1814, Selkirk Papers, 1 194.

8 Selkirk to Macdonell, June 5, 1813, Selkirk Papers, ii. 637.

8 Selkirk to Auld, June 18, 18 12, Selkirk Papers, ii. 401.

4 Selkirk to the N.-W. Co., Dec. 23, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, i. 247.

6 Selkirk MS. for a revised edition of the Sketch of the Fur Trade,
Selkirk Papers, 10267.

6 Selkirk to Semple and Robertson, Dec. 18, 181 5, Selkirk Papers >
1895-6.

' Instructions to Hillier, June 18, 1812, Selkirk Papers, ii. 408.

8 A Narrative 0/ Occurrences in the Indian Countries of North America
since the Connexion of the Right Hon. the Earl of Selkirk with the Hud-

chap.v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 6s

taken the opinion of every lawyer \ said Edward Ellice before
the Select Committee of 1857, 'against the company when
I was opposed to them, and for the company since I have
been connected with them. We have the opinions of Lord
Mansfield, Sir Dudley Ryder, Sir Richard Lloyd, Lord Erskine,
Gibbs, Romilly, Cruise, Bell, Scarlett, Holroyd ; . . . I think
the universal opinion, without an exception, of these eminent
lawyers is, that the proprietary rights of the company cannot be
disputed. . . . None of these eminent lawyers, and no lawyer
whose opinion I have ever heard quoted . . . have expressed the
least doubt as to the proprietary rights granted under the
charter.'1 The actual possession in fee simple of Assiniboia
remained in the Selkirk family till 1834 and in the Hudson's Bay
Company till its absorption into the Dominion of Canada in
1870.

The second consideration is more involved and is to be
sought in the actual course of events. There can be no doubt
that Macdonell was convinced from the first of North-West
opposition to the settlement. Sir Alexander Mackenzie
had declared it openly to him in 1811;2 Simon McGillivray's
advice in June, 18 11, for 'opposition' and 'a year of trial',3
could scarcely have passed for nothing. Good-fellowship with
the North-westers early in the winter of 181 2 had been
followed, it has been seen, by profound distrust and open
charges of treachery.4 Macdonell wrote confidentially to
Selkirk of \ the insidious line of conduct ' of his North-West

son's Bay Company and his Attempt to Establish a Colony in the Red
River. London, 18 17, Appendix i.

1 Report from the Select Committee, 1857, pp. 327-8.

2 He had 'pledged himself in the most unequivocal and decisive manner
to oppose the establishment of this colony by all means in his power '.
' I have reason to expect that every means the N.-W. Co. can attempt to
thwart it will be resorted to.' Macdonell to Auld, Dec. 25, 181 1, Selkirk
Papers, i. 104. Also Macdonell to Agents of N.-W. Co., Mar. 8, 18 14,
Selkirk Papers, iii. 968.

3 See p. 34 ; Simon McGillivray to McTavish, McGillivray & Co.,
June 1, 1811.

4 Macdonell, to Alex, Macdonell, Apr. 18, Selkirk Papers, ii. 593. Two
weeks later Macdonell wrote to his cousin that he had been sent ' solely
to form a Settlement for the purpose of agriculture and civilization of the
natives. ... I had no orders nor was I inclined to give any molestation
to the N.-W. Co. in the prosecution of their ordinary trade in Furs \ Sel-
kirk Papers, ii. 595.

1526.7 E

66 'THE PEMICAN WAR* chap.

brother-in-law. ' I have no further delicacy or hesitation in
taking a decisive part against them.'1 The tension only
served to accentuate one or two obvious facts that were well
known. During the first winter at Red River the settlers,
according to the statements of the North-West Company
and the admission of Macdonell himself, suffered severely from
lack of provisions, while the North-westers, with the half-breeds
organized in their service, carried out enough pemmican from
Selkirk's grant alone to supply all the North-West brigades
to Athabasca. During the winter of 1 8 13 the skilled mounted
North-West hunters continued to 'run' the buffalo and to
prepare pemmican for their trading-posts.2 The settlers, un-
equipped with horses, and relying upon the half-breed hunters
for support, traded for buffalo and eked out an existence by
drawing the meat over the snow to Fort Daer.3 New set-
tlers, moreover, were expected in increasing numbers. There
were nearly a hundred already at Fort Churchill, ready to
ascend to the Forks with the first open water. Selkirk him-
self was expected to arrive during the summer of 18 14
with an unknown number of men and colonists. There
is much cogency in Macdonell's remark: 'The North-West
Company supply their distant trading posts with the provisions
procured in this district, whilst we to whom the soil belongs
are obliged to go to the expence and trouble of importing
I from Britain . . . part of the subsistence of our people.' 4

As early as the summer of 1813 Macdonell had suggested
confidentially to Selkirk the advisability of laying an embargo
upon all provisions obtained by the fur companies in Selkirk's
territory, ' in consideration of the number of people for whom
I have to provide subsistence.' 6 The project had been can-

1 July 17, 1813, Selkirk Papers, ii. 792.

2 ' The N.-W. Co. carried out last summer from Red River a vast quantity
of Pemican the effects of which were sensibly felt in the Colony.' Mac-
donell to Auld, Apr. 12, 1 8 14, Selkirk Papers, iii. 998.

3 It is to be remembered that Macdonell's authority ceased with the
settlement ; he had no further control, technically, over the servants of the
H. B. Co. in the fur trade than over their rivals in the N.-W. Co. In the
actual working out of the* pemmican campaign', it will be seen that Mac-
donell encountered opposition from both. See p. 75.

4 Macdonell to Auld, Apr. 12, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iii, 998.

6 July 17, 1 813, Selkirk Papers, iii. 792. The letter did not reach

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 67

vassed by Macdonell at York Factory during the autumn of

1 813, under the gloom from disease and scarcity of provisions
that followed the arrival of the settlers at Fort Churchill.
Auld had expressed himself ' strongly in favour of it '. ' It
was the decided opinion of every person ... at York Factory
that such a measure would be highly proper.' x

The approach to a final decision may be traced in the
sequel. Macdonell returned from York Factory, leaving, it
will be remembered, Selkirk's confidential instructions enjoin-
ing moderation and delicate management, to be returned,
unopened, to Scotland. One settler remained at the Forks
to look after property left at the settlement.2 The other
colonists went again to Pembina for the winter. Fortunately
there were now no trading-posts in the neighbourhood.
1 Everything goes on smoothly with us this year ', wrote
Macdonell.3 ' The greatest unanimity and cordiality pervaded
all ranks of our little community.'4 In January, for the
first time, he found himself in a position to assert what he
had had the will but not the power to enforce during the
previous summer.6 He determined to act upon Selkirk's full
title to the land. The proclamation bears date January 8.
The first clause affirms the grant to Selkirk and specifies the
boundaries :

1 And whereas ', the document continues, ' the welfare of the
families at present forming settlements on the Red River,
within the said territory, with those on their way to it, passing
the winter at York or Churchill Forts in Hudson's Bay, as
also those who are expected to arrive next autumn, renders it
a necessary and indispensable part of my duty to provide for
their support. In the yet uncultivated state of this country,

Selkirk till the winter of 1813 ; no reply could reach Macdonell till the
following autumn, after the proclamation had been issued.

1 Macdonell to Auld, Apr. 12, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iii. 998.

2 Five or six of the servants hired for the settlement remained to care
for the storehouses.

3 To Auld, Feb. 4, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iii. 955.

4 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1186.

5 See pp. 54, 57, &c. ' I was not then prepared to restrainthe practice,
knowing that an order to that effect would not be quietly submitted to ;
and I had not then the means of enforcing it.' Macdonell to Auld, Apr. 12,

1 814, Selkirk Papers, iii. 998.

E %

68 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

the ordinary resources derived from the Buffaloe, and other
wild animals, hunted within the territory, are not deemed
more than adequate for the requisite supply ; wherefore it is
hereby ordered, that no person trading in furs or provisions
within the territory, for the honourable the Hudson's Bay
company, the North-West company, or any individual, or
unconnected trader or persons whatever, shall take out any
provisions, either of flesh, grain or vegetables, procured or
raised within the said territory, by water or land carriage, for
one twelvemonth from the date hereof; save and except what
may be judged necessary for the trading parties at this present
time within the territory, to carry them to their respective
destinations, and also may on due application to me, obtain
licence for the same. The provisions procured and raised
as above, shall be taken for the use of the colony ; and that
no loss may accrue to the parties concerned, they will be
paid for by British bills at the accustomary rates.'

A list of penalties follows. The proclamation is signed by
Miles Macdonell, Governor, and John Spencer, Secretary.1 It
was the first overt exercise of authority after the ceremony of
seisin in September, 1812.

Hitherto, Macdonell was not without logical justification.
There were less plausible considerations ; one design, at least,
at this distance of time, seems strange and whimsical. When
the Hudson's Bay ships sailed in the summer of 181 2, war
was imminent with the United States. Selkirk wrote seriously
of the possibility of American attack at Red River, and
discussed the feasibility of taking to the plains until he himself
could reach the scene of action with an armed expedition.2
One of the first engagements of the war had taken place as far
west as Michillimackinac. Auld assured Selkirk that if the
Americans came, both the Hudson's Bay Company and the
North-westers would unite under Macdonell ; though the
North- West Company's ■ more fastidious devotion might
desire a more conciliating commander \8 Macdonell actually
called upon the North-westers — with how much gravity it is
difficult to judge — for ' the Co-operation of every good Subject

1 Papers Pel. to RJl.S.y 1 81 9, pp. io-n.
* June 20, 1 8 12, Selkirk Papers, ii. 732.
8 Sept. 12, 1812, Selkirk Papers, ii. 496.

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 69

of His Majesty', and urged the state of war as a further justi-
fication for the embargo.1

The North-westers, naturally, took a different view of the
situation. The actual enforcement of the embargo in the
spring began only after the American victory on Lake Erie
threatened to cut off the Athabasca canoes from all other
sources of supplies. To the North- westers one motive was
palpable. Macdonell had not stayed his hand through fear
of inconvenience to the North- West fur trade. There can be
no doubt that the acquiescence of the Hudson's Bay traders
at York Factory had been given in anticipation of the complete
overthrow of their rivals.2 Macdonell for his part looked for
nothing less than the full vindication of Selkirk's title to
Assiniboia. His estimate of his adversaries' weakness, how-
ever, was most unaccountably overdrawn ; 3 Auld's, in view
of his experience with the North- West fur-traders, seems
almost inscrutable. ' The Bourgeois will bluster and strut
a bit', he wrote, 'and that will be all.'4 Selkirk meanwhile
deplored Macdonell's rashness, though he was forced to admit
that his course was technically defensible.6 The proclamation
produced provisions, but to an opponent it bore all the specious
marks of inequity and partisanship.6 For the establishment of
Selkirk's rights it was worse than useless. Even the Hudson's
Bay traders rebelled against the embargo. Their protest

1 ' These parts are not too remote for them to attempt to carry their arms
to. I consider it therefore to be my indispensable duty to endeavour to
secure to the British Empire this part of the Country. . . . In this view the
propriety of the present Embargo on provisions is sufficiently obvious as
a precautionary measure for the public safety and would justify the enforce-
ment of it more extensively than was at first contemplated for the support
of the Settlers.' Macdonell to Wills, May 22, 1814, Selkirk Papers,
iii. 930.

2 See Macdonell to Auld, Apr. 24, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iii. 987.
Auld to Macdonell, ibid., iv. 1057, &c.

3 ' I look upon the present to be the last struggle of an expiring party ;
and when once foiled in it they can never trouble us more.' Macdonell to
Auld, Apr. 24, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iii. 987.

4 Selkirk Papers, iv. 1057.

5 Selkirk to Macdonell, Dec. 21, 181 4, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1288.

6 James Hughes to J. D. Cameron, Apr. 5, 1815. 'I know, indeed am
certain from good authority, that they are plans (the proclamation of
Jan. 8, &c.) entirely formed in this Country. His Lordship Selkirk never
gave such orders— I am apt to think that that fellow Miles is a mere
Desperado at the head of Banditti.' Selkirk Papers, 8833.

70 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

could be dealt with by Selkirk at head-quarters ; but the
North-westers, who could scarcely be expected to be very
deeply concerned for Macdonell's scarcity of provisions, saw
in the proclamation of January 8 only an unscrupulous
attempt to inflict a mortal blow upon the fur trade of their
company.

Macdonell began by sending the surgeon Holdsworth to
Brandon House, with a copy to be nailed to the door of the
North-West Company's trading-post. Holdsworth used ■ great
propriety and judgement \ but Wills declined to advertise the
measure.1 There were disquieting rumours, however, from the
American war ; Wills himself was in failing health ; his rivals
were full of confidence ; their claims, if legal, were over-
whelming ; 2 to cut off all their supplies from the Athabasca
canoes was a ' piece of inhumanity unheard of'.3 The
1 English ' exulted to find their rivals completely abashed and
disconcerted. Elsewhere, at least, the North-westers were not
so easily daunted. The proclamation was received with in-
credulity and some astonishment. ' Mr. Roseblave writes
me ', said Wills, ' that he cannot believe you to be in earnest.'4
The trading for pemmican went briskly on in ominous silence.
Rumours reached the settlement that there would be a change
when the Athabasca brigades came down the river. There
was little prospect of placid submission. When the North-
westers began to send sledges to bring out the pemmican from
their hunting camps, Macdonell discovered that there would
be a general resistance.

It was inevitable that the first step towards coercion would
bring unfortunate complications. Macdonell had failed to
reckon with the half-breeds. The embargo in fact neutralized
all his endeavours to win them over. He had protected their
hunting bands in the spring against the warlike Sioux,6 and

1 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1188.

2 ' Wills has no great doubts of your right.' Auld to Macdonell, Brandon
House, Apr. 15, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1054.

8 Wills to Macdonell, Jan. 25, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iii. 923.

* . . . . ' and tells me if I should not find myself strong enough to wait
till they came.' Mem. of conference between Macdonell and Wills, May
23, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iii. 931.

5 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 1814, Selkirk Papers^ iv. 1184.

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 71

had gathered a little settlement of them about Fort Daer during
the winter;1 but when Spencer 'the sheriff' found North-
westers drawing away pemmican on sledges from a hunting
camp in the Turtle River plains, and compelled them to replace
it again upon the scaffolding,2 the half-breeds began to throw
in their lot with their employers. They were ' North-West ' in
origin and had dealt in pemmican for North- West stores. They
were not to be won to the colony by summary methods.
Provisions, moreover, in Assiniboia formed the staple of the
North- West trade ; the tradesmen found ready means of
turning their kinsmen and customers into allies, with fatal
results, it will be seen, to the colony.

In the absence of effective resistance, the North-westers
themselves could be relied upon judiciously to construe every
act of coercion into tyranny. ' My good relation at the Forks ',
wrote Macdonell, is 'closeminded, insinuating, and designing.' 3
In May a party of voyageurs was bringing a boatload of
provisions down the Assiniboine when word was sent from
the Forks that preparations were being made to stop them.
The pemmican was 'cached', the boat turned adrift, and 'the
sheriff' found ninety-six bales of pemmican only after some
days of humiliating search.4 The embargo was developing
into a system of general seizure. Early in June it was
apparent that if Macdonell would have pemmican he must take
it. The main supplies were coming down the Souris and
down the Assiniboine from Qu'Appelle. At the junction stood
the North- West fort of La Souris. When the bateaux came
down, the North-westers lodged the provisions safely within
the fort. Macdonell suspected a plan to carry them out by
another route.5 'The sheriff' appeared before the gate, with
Howse, a Hudson's Bay trader, and three men from the settle-
ment, and demanded entrance of John Pritchard the North-

1 ' I expect that in a few years a fine settlement will be made there.'
Macdonell to Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1 187.

2 Papers Pel. to P.P.S., 1819, p. 156.

s To Auld, April 24, 181 4, Selkirk Papers, iii. 985.

4 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1 189; Papers
Pel. to R.R.S., p. 155.

5 Selkirk Papers, iv. 11 89.

72 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

wester in charge.1 Pritchard refused to obey the warrant and
bolted the gate. Spencer cut out three pickets of the stockade
and drew the staples in the hangard doors. More than 400
bags of pemmican were seized ; part was taken across the river
to Brandon House, the Hudson's Bay post, for safe keeping ;
the rest went down the Assiniboine to Fort Douglas, escorted
past Fort Gibraltar by a force from the settlement.2 The
North-westers, wrote Spencer, had ' not met with such a bitter
Pill to swallow for these many years past.' 3

The up-river traders of Athabasca advocated something
more effective than passive resistance. Duncan Cameron,
having got together an armed party by an appeal to interest,
surprised Howse on his way to the settlement, and carried him
to the North- West fort at the Forks, determined to take
him to Montreal ' on a charge of Burglary \4 Macdonell, in
retaliation, erected a battery at Fort Douglas to command the
river, and stopped two ' light ' North- West canoes coming up
from the lake with a North-West clerk, twenty men, and
a chest of arms. The men were liberated on parole ; the arms
were stored at Fort Douglas ' until the present aspect of Hostili-
ties subside \6 The Governor was determined not to ' yield
a peg/ 6 There were a dozen bourgeois, however, and more
than a hundred voyageurs gathering at the Forks ; 7 express
canoes had gone toward Fort William with a purpose ; there

1 Macdonell, it seems, instructed Spencer not to interfere with provisions
from Swan River which had been secured outside Selkirk's grant. Selkirk
Papers, iv. 1165, &c.

* Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1 189 ; Papers
Pel. to R.R.S., 156. Pritchard to McGillivray, July 23, 18 14, Selkirk
Papers, iv. 1165 &c.

■ Spencer to Selkirk, Dec. 8, 181 4, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1 1 36.

4 Proprietors of the N.-W. Co., Forks of the Red River, to Macdonell,
June 16, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iii. 942.

6 Macdonell to Proprietors N.-W. Co., June 15, 1814, Selkirk Papers,
iii. 940.

6 Selkirk Papers, iii. 985. The refusal to apply for ■ the Governor's '
licence, it seems, chiefly aroused MacdonelPs hostility. He had given the
North- westers to expect no very rigorous enforcement of the embargo ; he
had offered, and Wills had accepted, the services of Holdsworth the
colonial surgeon ; he even offered to return the North-westers some of the
provisions which his sheriff had seized on the Assiniboine. Selkirk Papers,
iii. 927, 928, &c.

1 Selkirk Papers, iv. 1191.

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 73

were thinly veiled threats of rousing the natives ; * armed half-
breeds were hovering about Fort Gibraltar ; Howse, a prisoner
within, wrote to Macdonell of ' preventing Bloodshed \2 The
appearance of John McDonald of Garth,3 a veteran of the wild
days of the X Y Company, was a signal for circumspection.
Macdonell found his 88 effective men opposed by 130.4
McDonald suggested compromise. Terms were discussed and
Macdonell sent the stipulations in writing to Fort Gibraltar.
The North-westers agreed ' rather than come to extremities \5
Macdonell was to retain only 300 bags of pemmican. The
North-westers were to send canoes to the Bay for oatmeal and
to supply the settlement with 75 bags of pemmican during the
ensuing winter.6 In return, they were to be allowed, if they
wished, to send to England by way of Hudson's Bay any furs
they could take down by the canoes sent for provisions to
York Factory. How far the rival parties intended to keep
this extraordinary agreement it is difficult to judge. Coltman,
the commissioner, remarks that ' some little deviation from the
original bargain having afterwards taken place, it does not
appear quite clear, what were the exact terms carried into
execution \7 The * little deviation ' consisted in the repudia-
tion by the North-West Company of the entire compact.8

1 ' The Sentiments of the natives, who are not ignorant of the state of
things, will show you if rightly represented how far it is necessary for the
existence of your infant Colony that a perfect understanding and an inter-
course of mutual good offices should exist between us.' Proprietors
N.-W. Co. to Macdonell, Gibraltar, June 18, 18 14, Selkirk Papers,
iii. 946.

2 June 17, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iii. 944.

3 Called ' bras croche' ' from an injured arm. McDonald was brother-in-
law of William McGillivray. He was returning at this time from the
Pacific. See Masson, Bourgeois de la Compagnie du Nord-Ouest, ii. 51
et seq., and Selkirk Papers, iv. 1191.

4 Mem. in Selkirk Papers, iv. 1306.

B * We acknowledge the receipt of your Letter and agree to the contents,'
Proprietors N.-W. Co. to Macdonell, Fort Gibraltar, June 18, 1 8 14,
Selkirk Papers, iii. 948.

6 To be paid for according to the proclamation. Selkirk Papers, iii. 927,
Macdonell to Wills, May 20, 18 14.

7 Papers Pel. to R.R.S., 1819, p. 157.

8 Beyond the concise stipulations with regard to the pemmican, it is diffi-
cult to judge what either party actually expected from the compact.
Word had reached the North- West winterers that permission had been
given by the Imperial authorities to ship furs via Hudson Bay during the

74 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

McDonald of Garth might have surmised how far the temper
of his brother-in-law W. McGillivray would be inclined to
brook the loss of 200 bags of pemmican and much dignity.
Meanwhile the pemmican remained at Fort Douglas, and the
Athabasca brigades went up the Winnipeg towards the summer
rendezvous at Fort William. There would be peace at least
till the winter partners returned in the autumn.

It was at this juncture, it has been seen, that Archibald
McDonald's party arrived to find that * everything was settled '.
With the first lull in hostilities \ the sheriff' had gone to meet
the second party of the Churchill settlers ; the Governor him-
self remained at the Forks till August, oppressed with the
weight of responsibility and beset by insidious opposition on
every side. The result of the proclamation had been altogether
disappointing. The North- West Company had proved to be
by no means { an expiring party '.* The embargo had scotched
the snake, not killed it. The half-breeds had already been
estranged by the proclamation ; scarcely had the winter
partners departed before Macdonell forbade them to ' run ' the
buffalo on horseback. The North-westers concurred with their
usual diplomacy; they were to reap their harvest from
Macdonell's unpopularity with the half-breeds in the autumn.2
Within his own party Macdonell had encountered 'great
reproach ' for not retaining the pemmican once he had seized it,
and for not proceeding to 'drive the North-westers entirely
out of the river'.3 If the Hudson's Bay traders were dis-

war {Selkirk Papers, iii. 945). Macdonell's letter, however, offering to
give passage for furs via York Factory closes with a postscript to the
effect that he had discovered that there was no oatmeal at that post
to occasion the North-West canoes to undertake the journey. Selkirk
Papers, iii. 947. Cf. Selkirk Papers, iv. 1395, Draft letter H. B. Co. to
T. Thomas : ' In consequence of the occupation of Detroit by the
American Army His Majesty's Ministers have applied to us for our
permission to suffer the North-West Co. to send their provisions and
goods for this present year by the way of York Fort.' April, 1814.

1 See p. 69, note 3.

8 ' It was .... with the utmost surprize, that he found the measure
subsequently to the arrival of Mr. Duncan Cameron, the ensuing fall, made a
subject of accusation against himself, and represented to the free Canadians
and half-breeds, as an infringement of their liberty.' Macdonell's de-
position, Papers Pel. to R.R.S., 1819, p. 158.

3 A. McDonald to Selkirk, July 24, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iv. 11 73.

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 75

satisfied with Macdonell's leniency to their rivals, they heard
with some chagrin of his stringency towards themselves. Out
of 300 bags of pemmican, Stett, a Hudson's Bay trader, had
* surrendered ' nearly 300 on the way to York Factory ; Selkirk
was compelled to defend his Governor against both companies.1
Auld who had supported the embargo with adroit enthusiasm
so long as it seemed to promise the overthrow either of the
North-westers or of Macdonell himself,2 had now gathered the
threads of influence into his own hands.3 Macdonell wrote
bitterly to Selkirk that he found himself ' unequal to the task
of reconciling so many different interests';4 assured him that
Auld was ' a man of Strong parts . . . possessed of a vast deal
of policy and intrigue ',5 and begged him to allow no delicacy
to deter him from sending out another Governor for the
settlement.6 When Macdonell went to York Factory in
September, Auld produced the unfortunate letter of 181 2 ;7
he accused some of the settlers of filching his silver, and
roundly charged ' the young man ' Archibald McDonald with
perjury.8 To add to the situation, Selkirk's letters by the
Hudson's Bay ships were at once so generous and so pertinent
with sound advice and considerate reproof that Macdonell was
almost overwhelmed.9 Illness and the insidious influence of

1 Macdonell to Selkirk, July 25, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1 194.
Cf. Selkirk's memorandum on the ' Pemican War \ Selkirk Papers, iv.
1300 et seq.

2 ' I hear that McD. means to come down the Ossinioboia River with the
Batteaux to consult about the Proclamation but I rather think to head
a party to resist Cn. McDonell. Should Montreal be taken his valour
will cool if he should escape cooling in a way he so richly deserves.'
Auld to Hillier, April 8, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iii. 994. Cf. Selkirk
Papers, iv. 1300 et seq.

r * Since coming here I won't hesitate to say that though Capt. McD.
has officers under him they don't consider him their superior officer at all ;
Mr. Auld is the man they look upon, and are sure to communicate to him
from time to time every movement whatever Capt. McD. makes.'
A. McDonald to Selkirk, July 24, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iv. 11 74.

* July 24, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iv. 11 79.

5 Sept. 9, 1 814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 121 7.

8 ' I beg therefore that your Lordship be not prevented from any delicacy
to send a suitable person to take my situation,' July 24, 18 14, Selkirk
Papers, iv. 1179.

7 Selkirk Papers, iv. 1217, &c.

8 Selkirk Papers, iv. 1229 et seq.

9 Macdonell to Selkirk, Sept. 9, Selkirk Papers, iv. 12 18 et seq. Selkirk
had returned the confidential letter which Auld had sent back to Selkirk

76 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

the superintendent wrought upon his health and spirits until
he was about to resign the undertaking in despair. ' You may
be assured', Auld wrote to him with unctuous pity, 'that
I will use my utmost endeavours to satisfy the Noble Earl of
the Propriety and necessity of his accepting cheerfully your
resignation by which you thus give a most feeling mark of
your devotion to his interests while you follow the only road
to your own true happiness.' l ' I feel exceedingly oppressed,'
Macdonell wrote to Selkirk. ' I . . . now think your presence
here indispensably required.' 2

Auld's scheme, it seems, failed of success. Edwards the
surgeon, who records Macdonell's depression with something
like exultation,3 notes with chagrin that with returning health
1 Capt. Macdonell . . . seemed to be in most excellent spirits '.4
Late in September he went up the Hayes towards the settle-
ment with fourteen new settlers who had reached York
Factory by the ships of 1814. The Sutherland settlers at
Red River meanwhile had proved their worth. Even Auld
commented upon the ' spirited people . . . from the Highlands \5
Below the junction of the Red River and the Assiniboine,
along the bank to the left now traversed by Main Street of
the City of Winnipeg, the settlers had built their rough houses
of hewn logs. Macdonell decided to stand his ground. For
the first time he prepared to winter at the Forks.

The stir at Fort William when it was found that Macdonell's
' empty boast ' c had become a startling reality, surpassed
anything since the days of rivalry with the X Y Company.
Alexander Macdonell, ' closeminded . . . and designing,' had

in 181 3, ■ which had I received at the time ', wrote Macdonell, ' would have
been a caution to me in my proceedings since ; and perhaps would have
prevented me from falling so much into errors.'

1 Sept. 1 and 2, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, iv. 121 3. Auld writes of the
'Public concern which you have presided over until yesterday morning,
when you delivered the charge of it to my care and disposal '. Ibid., Iv.
1212.

8 Selkirk Papers, iv. 1225, 1226.

3 Diary by A. Edwards, Aug. 27-Sept. 7, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1207 et
seq.

* Selkirk Papers, iv. 12 10.

6 Auld to Macdonell, April 15, 1814, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1057.

6 Statement by William McGillivray, Aug. 15, 18 15, enclosed in dispatch
from Drummond to Bathurst, Nov. 2, 1815. Papers Pel. to R.P.S., p. 24.

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 77

brought down the tale of plunder by light canoe.1 The
partners from Montreal, keen, uncompromising, and resourceful,
discussed the situation behind bolted doors. William McGilli-
vray of Montreal, Justice of the Peace, Lieutenant- Colonel,
Legislative Councillor of Lower Canada, had known the fur
trade for thirty years. ' It is the first time ', he declared, ' the
North- West company has ever been insulted/2 There were
no judicious compliments over wineglasses to be repeated to
the winterers and clerks of Athabasca and Assiniboia. John
Pritchard, of the episode at Fort la Souris, was told ' he had
acted like a coward '. McDonald of Garth, one of the partners
and McGillivray's own brother-in-law, was censured for having
played the peacemaker.3 Alexander Macdonell complained
of harshness and browbeating,4 and thought it necessary to
defend his reputation by calling out his man in the rough
fashion of the times.5 Archibald Norman McLeod, the North-
West partner, second in importance only to W. McGillivray
at Fort William, wrote to Cameron in July of disgrace, dis-
approval, and reprobation.6 ' Mr. Wills/ he continued, 'escaped
a decided and Public censure by his reported state of health. . . .
I assure you my friend it will take years of Active and per-
severing industry to do away the impression made by the
unfortunate compromise of our honour at Red River.' 7

The result of the gathering might have been foreseen. ' It
was not the value of the pemican/ declared McGillivray, ' but

1 See MacdonelFs journal, sworn before William McGillivray and
A. N. McLeod, Fort William, July 14, 1814. Papers Rel. to R.R.S.,
p. II.

2 Papers Rel. to R.R.S., 18 19, p. 159.

3 John McDonald to Dougal Cameron, July 19, 1814, Selkirk Papers,
9008. ' This year', he continued, 'you must bid all defiance and enforce
everything.'

4 Alex. Macdonell to J. D. Cameron, Fort William, July 23, 1814, Selkirk
Papers, 9006 . . . . ' Tearing people to pieces seems to be the order of the
day ; judge then the situation of the absent when those on the ground
can't escape what is here called censure.'

5 Selkirk Papers, 9006 et seq.

6 J. D. Cameron's name appears with that of John Wills, John McDonald,
and Duncan Cameron as proprietors of the North-West Company in the
correspondence in June, 1814, at Red River, Selkirk Papers, iii. 942, &c.

7 Selkirk Pafiers, 8604. ' The strange and disagreeable events that took
place at the Red River last spring were much spoken of, severely animad-
verted on, and totally disapproved.' Ibid.

78 'THE PEMICAN WAR* chap.

the insult offered to the North- West company.' * The ' com-
promise of . . . honour' was reparable only at Red River.
A plan of redress was devised with the resourcefulness and
sagacity characteristic of the most powerful commercial enter-
prise in British North America. The task was entrusted to
Alexander Macdonell and Duncan Cameron, still smarting
under the most serious punishment known to the North-
West trader, the disapproval of the bourgeois. Few North-
westers would have hesitated to seize such an opportunity of
converting failure into success and degradation into rapid
promotion. Of the general design, it seems, there can be no
doubt. ' All the black sheep', wrote Alexander Macdonell,2
1 were to be turned out, . . . matters to be carried with a high
hand, and the concern to retrieve their honour.' Cameron
was authorized to bring away as many settlers as possible,
passage free, by North-West canoes to Upper Canada.3
Voyageurs were sworn, willy-nilly, to implicit obedience.
Miles Macdonell himself must be brought down a prisoner.
McLeod as Justice of the Peace supplied the winterers with
the necessary warrants. Rumours reached Montreal,4 where
Colin Robertson, formerly a North-wester under McDonald of
Garth, but now deep in Selkirk's enterprise, was biding his
time to organize a force of one hundred French-Canadian
voyageurs to attack the North- westers with their own weapons
in Athabasca. Duncan Cameron, it seems, wrote that he
would appear at Red River in Major McLeod's red coat:
North-westers heard that the letter had been shown to Robert-
son and that Robertson had sent it to Selkirk.6 During the
war the most rigid economy was requisite : the canoes to the
Forks were never freighted with so many ' luxuries '.6 ' They

1 Papers Rel. to R.R.S., 1 8 19, p. 159.

8 To J. D. Cameron, Fort William, July 23, 1814, Selkirk Papers,
9007.

3 See Papers Rel. to R.R.S., 1819, p. 159.

4 Papers Rel. to R.R.S., 18 19, p. 160.

6 John McGillivray to Duncan Cameron, June 17, 1816. Selkirk
Papers, 9153.

8 Pritchard to Selkirk, June 20, 1815, Selkirk Papers, v. 1547. ■ Double
proportion of luxuries. . . . They were extremely lavish of their wines,
frequently gave Balls and other diversions.' . . . Cf. Selkirk Papers, 9148,
John McGillivray to Duncan Cameron, June 17, 1816.

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 79

were extremely lavish of their wines.' John McDonald sug-
gested judicious presents to influential families at the settlement.
There were drawn up no compromising written instructions to
fall into the hands of 'the enemy',1 or to suggest complicity
of the partners at head-quarters ; but one letter written to
McDonald, ' bras croche ', by Alexander Macdonell, fresh from
the midsummer deliberations at Fort William, fell into
unfriendly hands. 'You see myself and our mutual friend
Cameron, so far on our way to commence open hostilities
against the enemy in Red River ; much is expected from us,
if we believe some ; perhaps too much : one thing certain, that
we will do our best to defend what we consider our rights in
the interior. Something serious will undoubtedly take place.
Nothing but the complete downfall of the colony will satisfy
some by fair or foul means. A most desirable object, if it
can be accomplished ; so here is at them with all my heart
and energy.'2 Herein lay the excellence of the North-West
Company. The partners ruled, as McGillivray said, more ' by
policy than authority'.3

The first blow was struck before Macdonell returned from
York Factory.4 On September 5, Duncan Cameron served
Spencer, ' the sheriff', with one of McLeod's warrants and
carried him off by river to Fort Gibraltar in the teeth of
a threatening band of settlers on the beach.5 ' After a little
reflection ', Spencer wrote apologetically to Selkirk, ' I resigned
myself up to their charge.' 6 The prisoner was taken by light
canoe to Lac la Pluie. ' Captain McDonell, on learning the
Fate of his Sheriff,' wrote Cameron, nearly lost ' the use of his
Senses '.7

1 Cf. Kenneth McKenzie to Duncan Cameron, Fort William,
Aug. 27, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 8569: 'You will require to be very care-
ful this year in your actions respecting H. B. people do not for God sake
(sic) commit yourself in either action or writing.'

s Aug. 5, 1 81 4, Papers Pel. to P.P.S., p. 159 ; Selkirk Papers, 1203.

3 William McGillivray's examination at Fort William, Aug. 16, 18 16,
Selkirk Papers, 8926.

4 Macdonell reached Fort Douglas Oct. 19, A Sketch of the Conduct of
the North- West Company towards Red River Settlement, from September
1814 to June 1815 inclusive, Papers Rel. to R.R.S., 1819, p. 28.

6 J. D. Cameron to N.-W. Partners, Jan. 3, 1 81 5, Selkirk Papers, 8748.

6 Dec. 8, 1814, Lac la Pluie, Selkirk Papers, iv. 1133.

7 J. D. Cameron to N.-W. Partners, Jan. 3, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 8745.

8o 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

The most urgent preliminary to the winter's campaign was
to secure the freemen and half-breeds for the North-West
Company. In this at least Alexander Macdonell and
Cameron could scarcely fail of success. The freemen, who
were chiefly voyageurs, permitted on their discharge to settle
in Indian territory, had already been trained to North-West
discipline. Of the half-breeds — m6tis or bois-brul^s, as they
were called — those who gave promise of cleverness or leader-
ship were already North-West clerks or interpreters. Some
had been trained in Montreal counting-houses ; many were
sons of old North-West winterers, who were now the most
influential bourgeois of the company at Montreal and Fort
William ; all were imbued with the ' Ancient North-West
Spirit ' 1 of aggression. The others, illiterate and thriftless,
lived by the buffalo or paddled the North-West canoes in
summer. Even of these the North-West Company had
secured by long traffic in Assiniboia the most aggressive
leaders and the best hunters. The Governor's confidence and
promptness had caused at first some wavering of allegiance,
but the plan devised at Fort William offset the martial
bearing of 'Captain Cartouche'.2 The North-westers went
inland with ' military appointments, swords, and uniforms '.3
Cameron appeared as ' Commanding Officer, R. R.' and ' Cap-
tain in the Voyageur Corps ', which had been disbanded by a
general order of General Prevost in March, 1813. The uniform,
sword, and epaulets, the story ran, had been lent by Major
McLeod, the North-West partner who had issued the warrants
at Fort William.4 Alexander Macdonell, meanwhile, 'with

1 See letter of William McGillivray, Montreal, May 6, 181 5, Selkirk
Papers, v. 1467.

2 Macdonell's nickname among the winter partners. See J. D. Cam-
eron's letter of July 14, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2377 ; Seraphim la Mar to
J. D. Cameron, Mar. 8, 181 5 ; Papers Pel. to R.R.S., p. 161, &c.,&c.

3 Papers Pel. to R.R.S., 1 8 19, p. 29.

4 ' McLeod lent him his red coat,' John Pritchard to Colin Robertson,
Montreal, Oct. II (1815 ?), Selkirk Papers, 1260. See John McGillivray
to Duncan Cameron, June 17, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 91 53. Coltman gives
the following explanation in his report (Papers Pel. to PJ?.S., pp. 160-1) :
' This last measure appears by other evidence to have been adopted under
the sanction of a letter said to have been written by E. Brenton, the civil
secretary, to Sir George Prevost, dated 27th May,l8i4, ordering that military

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 8i

all . . . heart and energy/ 1 had gone up to the head-quarters of
the metis, Qu'Appelle on the Assiniboine. Scarcely had the
winterers returned inland when the bois-briilds pitched a camp
on the Turtle River plains, * ran ' the buffalo in defiance of
Macdonell's injunctions, and began to treat settler and
Hudson's Bay trader with ominous hostility. Cameron made
the most of his rival's unpopularity of July. When the
hunters from the settlement approached the buffalo on foot
over the frozen snow, the bois-brules stampeded the herd on
horseback. John McLeod, sent to the half-breed camp with
a message from the Governor, was detained a prisoner for six
days.2 Even the Governor ' could only get two or three of
the camp men ', he reported, * to come near me.' 3 It was at
this point that Cuthbert Grant, a daring young clerk of
eighteen years, and Peter Pangman,4 both prominent in the
subsequent destruction of the settlement, first took an active
part in the quarrel. Pangman was arrested, and Grant, in
retaliation, seized four Hudson's Bay men under a warrant
signed as usual by A. N. McLeod at Fort William. Such
tactics of thrust and counter-thrust could not go on indefi-
nitely. Macdonell arranged a conference with Grant, at Fort
Daer, and discussed the situation with all forbearance and

rank should be given to any person in the Indian territories whom
Mr. William McGillivray should recommend ; in consequence whereof the
same was confirmed by a garrison order, issued by Colonel McDonnell, the
commandant at Michilimackinack, which was forwarded by the North-
West company into the Indian territory during the course of the winter.'
I have been unable to verify the details. The correspondence of Prevost's
Civil Secretary, Brenton, in G. 412, Canadian Archives, closes with Mar. 26,
1 8 14. The next volume in order begins with Drummond's governorship,
May 7, 181 5. There is no reference to the matter in either of these volumes
or in the letter-book of the Governor's Civil Secretary, L. C, 18 Sept., 181 1,
to 3 April, 1 81 5, G. 439, Canadian Archives. Nor is there any reference to
the Garrison Order in the Military Posts-, 1811-16, Canadian Archives, C.
The commandant at Michillimackinac was Lieut.-Colonel McDouall.

1 See letter of William McGillivray, Montreal, May 6, 181 5, Selkirk
Papers, v. 1467.

* McLeod to Selkirk, Aug. 5, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1593.

3 Macdonell's Sketch, Papers Pel. to R. R.S., 1819, p. 31.

4 Peter Pangman was formerly active in Hudson's Bay service under
Peter Fidler, and seems to have joined the North-westers because Fidler
refused him a promised ' equipment '. * I was extremely sorry ... a few
pounds to give this fellow, who was a very interested servant, would have
prevented many great violences that afterwards took place/ MS. Journal
of J. McLeod, Sr., Ch. Trader, H. B. Co., Canadian Archives, M. 201, p. 4.

1526.7 F

8s 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

conciliation. An exchange of prisoners was agreed upon.
' 1 promised them ', says Macdonell, l that the past should be
forgotten. . . . They parted from me apparently well pleased.' 1
There was to be no peace, however, between bois-brule and
settler while the North-westers remained in force at the Forks.
Macdonell was compelled to admit the ' imprudence ' of the
proclamation of January and the ' bad effect ' of the order of
July.2 Freemen and bois-brules had declared themselves
unmistakably for the North-West Company.

Even upon the settlers at Fort Douglas McLeod's warrants
and Cameron's red coat were not without effect. During the
summer the settlement had progressed smoothly and rapidly ;
'Sheriff' Spencer was popular and genial;3 the highlanders
'never were happier and more contented in Kildonan', wrote
Archibald McDonald, 'than they are here already'.4 But
Cameron's aggressiveness was disconcerting, and Spencer's
arrest disastrous. The settlers themselves were prepared to
break open the hangard doors, seize stands of arms and defend
their ' sheriff'. One or two, however, who had already been
tainted with North- West influence began to deprecate violence.5
The officers were too timid even to supply the settlers with
arms and ammunition.6 The result of Spencer's ' little deli-
beration' has already been noticed. Two North- West canoes
eventually passed Fort Douglas on the way towards Fort
William, with the 'sheriff' a prisoner in full view.7 The
highlanders on the bank of the river looked on in impotence
and began to think ' that they had not law on their side '.8 If

1 Macdonell to Selkirk, Papers Pel. to R.R.S., 18 19, pp. 31, 32.

2 ' My imprudence in the seizure of the provisions has furnished a pretext
for the violence used against us. . . . My endeavouring to restrict the free-
men and half-breeds from running the buffalo on horseback has also had
a very bad effect.' Macdonell to Selkirk, Sept. 19, 18 15, Selkirk Papers,
v. 1698.

3 Selkirk Papers, 2004, 2030, &c.

4 To Selkirk, July 24, 18 14, Selkirk Papers, 11 70.

6 Selkirk Papers, 2004. Cp. Macdonell to Auld, Apr. 24, 1814, Selkirk
Papers, 986.

■ ■ Archibald McDonald refused ammunition and arms. ... All settlers
anxious to defend him— self Hugh Ban'n Wm. Suth'd ready to fire.'
Statement of J. Murray, Selkirk Papers, 2004, &c.

7 J. D. Cameron to N.-W. Partners, Jan. 3, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 8748.

8 Hugh Bannerman's statement, Selkirk Paper sf 2030.

V 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 83

Spencer had not been taken away, declared the settlers, * all
would have been satisfied and remained at Red River '-1

Against the settlement itself Cameron opened a resolute
campaign not of hard blows but of subtle policy. Self-
confidence, good nature, much rough humour and fluency in
Gaelic formed a combination that few of the Kildonan men
could resist.2 The settlement had never known such gaiety.
At Fort Gibraltar the highlanders danced through long winter
nights to the pibroch of the bagpipes. Cameron had a word of
pity for the thriftless, and a word of advice for the thrifty. It
was early in January when opportune activity among the half-
breeds forced Macdonell's absence from the settlement ; the
same day Cameron sent a note to two of the settlers offering
free passage, provisions, and lands in Upper Canada. ' Lord
Selkirk, Dr. Auld, and Miles McDonnell ', he wrote, 'were the
greatest enemies ever you had.' ' I have no interest whatever ',
he added, ' in making you this promise — but what humanity
points out to me.'3 To fellow-partners in the North-West
Company the motive was stated with less philanthropy.4
Prospects were bright for ' the favourable issue of what further
was contemplated \5 Cameron began to apply his North-
West hospitality with a due admixture of stringency and
calculation. Macdonell at Fort Daer heard vague rumours
of c a turbulent state below ', but remained in ignorance

1 John Murray's statement, Selkirk Papers, 2004. Cp. Selkirk Papers,
2006, 2030, &c, &c.

2 The North-westers carefully refer to Cameron in their official statements
as a man of 'irritable temper'. Cameron's correspondence discloses
a man of very high spirits, irrepressible good humour, and general popu-
larity. Cp. Cameron to McKenzie (' Dear Sleepy Head '), Mar. 22, 1815 ;
and to A. N. McLellan, June 15, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 8756, &c, &c.

3 D. Cameron to Donald Livingston and Hector McEachern, Jan. 10,
1815, Selkirk Papers, 8854, 1740. See Selkirk Papers, 1769.

4 ' I hope in spite of every difficulty that is thrown in my way to prevent
it to take all Lord Selkirk's Colony, amounting to about 120 Souls, Men,
Women, and Children, for if they are allowed to remain here as free-booters
we may leave the Country to themselves.' D. Cameron to James Grant,
Mar. 22, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1865.

5 On June 24, 18 15, before the final disruption of the settlement was
known at Fort William, A. N. McLeod wrote to the Proprietors of the
N.-W. Co. : ' From the R.R. the accounts are the most satisfactory, matters
were conducted with energy and ability, and from what was effected, we
anticipate the favourable issue from what further was contemplated.'
Selkirk Papers, 8608.

F 2

84 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

of the mischievous trend of operations till two of the
colonists found a pretext for letting him know.1 He hurried
back to the settlement in April only to find that a few of the
settlers upon whom Cameron could rely had broken open the
storehouses and had taken to Fort Gibraltar the fieldpieces
upon which the Governor had relied for the defence of the
settlement. The conception of using Macdonell's men to
capture Macdonell's artillery was not without a certain grim
humour. ' I have authorized the settlers ', Cameron wrote to
Archibald McDonald, 'to take possession of them, to bring
them over here.' 2 The note was delivered by the ringleader
of defection, George Campbell. A few kindred spirits armed
with bludgeons confined the officers within the mess-room at
Fort Douglas, through a small window of which they could
see the guns drawn on horse-sleds to Fort Gibraltar. Cameron
emerged from the nearest thicket, shook hands with the ring-
leaders, and l gave them a dram all round in his big room '.3

As the time drew near for the final attack upon the Gover-
nor, it was apparent that the highlanders were not all North-
West in sympathy. Cameron began to find the settlement
a * Rascally Republic that neither respects Law nor Rights \4
The flattering promise of February began to fail in May.
Some remained true to Selkirk, despite every influence that
could be brought to bear. When promises of free transporta-
tion and prospects of securing land in Upper Canada failed,
there were covert threats of destitution in the ■ cursed Country',6
and of danger from Saulteaux and Sioux.6 Cameron addressed

1 Macdonell's Sketch, Papers ReL to R.R.S., 1819, p. 32. See Mac-
donell's account of the winter in Selkirk Papers, 1773.

a 'Not with a view to make any hostile use of them, but merely to put
them out of harm's way ; therefore I expect that you will not be so want-
ing to yourself as to attempt any useless resistance, as no one wishes you
or any of your people any harm.' Papers ReL to R. R. S., 181 9, p. 46.

8 Alexander Bannerman's statement, Selkirk Papers, 2029, &c.

* i And will stand at nothing that they can effect against us.' D. Cameron
to James Grant, Mar. 22, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1866.

* D. Cameron to Mrs. McLean (copy of extract), Selkirk Papers, 8709:
' Those that wilfully abandon us and reject our assistance and protection
when we offer it, lose an opportunity that they will never have again of
leaving this cursed Country.'

6 D. Cameron to Donald Livingston and Hector McEachern, Mar. 10,
181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1744 . . . * Delivering so many people from bondage.

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 85

the Hudson's Bay servants as ' my lads ', and advised them to ' pay
due respect, submission, and obedience to the Laws of our blessed
constitution \* The main object of the North-westers was now
no longer concealed. Macdonell must be taken at any cost.
1 This Spring ', wrote John Siveright from Portage la Prairie,
' must decide the entire ruin of the colony — or the expulsion
of the N.-W. Co. from Red River/2 'He must be taken,'
wrote Alexander Macdonell, c otherwise we never shall have
peace — now or never, Cameron.' 3 A North-wester with another
of A. N. McLeod's warrants appeared at Fort Douglas, touched
the Governor on the shoulder and declared him his prisoner.
Macdonell's first impulse was to confine ' the fellow ' for a few
hours and to release him to carry back defiance to Fort
Gibraltar.

It was evident, however, that the Governor and the faithful
few were on the losing side. The North-westers formed a camp
at the Frog Plain below the settlement. Bands of half-breeds
passed Fort Douglas ' night and day, singing Indian war
songs '.4 A few of the most recent settlers had deserted to the
half-breed camp at Turtle River.5 The contracts of many of
the Irish servants were to expire in June. On the 5th ' the
greater part of them ' went over in a body to the North-westers.6
Alexander Macdonell had come down in force from Qu'Ap-
pelle. At the head of the mounted half-breeds appeared
Cuthbert Grant and Peter Pangman, ' Bostonois '. The bois-
brules began for the first time to claim a right to the soil and
to demand compensation from the colonists for the land at the
Forks.7 Shots were fired in the thickets at night. ' The fact

. . . Not only that but even to save your lives . . . every day in danger
from Soteuse (sic} and Scioux.'

1 D. Cameron to H. B. Co., June 7, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 1534.

2 Mar. 16, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 1867.
s Mar. 1, 18 1 5, Selkirk Papers, 9028.

* Macdonell's Sketch, Papers Pel. to P.P.S., 18 19, p. 33. 'Always
shouting and Singing War songs as they passed our place,' Macdonell to
Selkirk, Sept. 19, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 1703. Cp. Alex. Macdonell to
Duncan Cameron, June 22, 1815 (Papers Pel. to R.R.S., p. 172): ' The
half-breeds are going down for the last time to hurry them off.'

5 Papers Pel. to P. P. S., 1819, p. 32. * Ibid., p. 34.

7 ' Bostonois who first spoke of it to him, said it had been mentioned by
persons better informed than either of themselves.' Papers Pel. to P. P. S.,
1819, p. 172.

86 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

that certain individual partners endeavoured to induce the
Indians to accompany them in the spring of 1 8 15 ', says Colt-
man in his report, ' is established beyond a doubt.' 1 Seraphim
Lamar, a North- West clerk at Qu'Appelle and ensign under
the captaincy of Cameron in the defunct Voyageur Corps,
wrote in March of thirty or forty men, ' tant Cris qu 'Assini-
boines qui seront entierement a l'ordre et a la volonte de Mr.
McD.' ' Ce nombre ', he continued, ■ sur quoi on peut compter,
est plus que suffisant pour diperruquier Cartouche, et chasser
toute la canaille de la Baye d'Hudson de la Riviere Rouge.' 2
John McDonald wrote of a ' decisive blow ', reprobated ' half
measures ', and ' hoped to be able to raise (from) thirty Indians,
more or less, to accompany me and my people '.3 The Indians
failed to respond, but horses were shot with arrows and
the deed attributed to a few harmless Crees.4 The rest of the
horses belonging to the colony were taken by the half-breeds;
settlers were disarmed ; a house here and there was plundered.
Alexander Macdonell erected a battery against Fort Dou-
glas. A canoe arrived with a handbill from Fort William an-
nouncing ' peace with all the world except in Red River '. On
the morning of June 11 there was a fusillade from bois-bmles in
hiding ; a small fieldpiece at Fort Douglas, fired to clear the
thicket, exploded with almost fatal results. Many of those
who had not already decided to go down in the North- West
canoes were overawed by Cameron's resolution and energy.
Women and children were terrified. Macdonell's surrender
was a sine qua non. ' No terms would be made with me.'
The Governor tried in vain to persuade the settlers that his
own surrender would be but the prelude to the utter destruc-

1 Papers Rel. to R. R. S., 1819, p. 161. 8 Ibid.

8 Ibid. ' This, with what can be recruited elsewhere, I think will decide
the contest.' The letter was written by 'Fort Dauphin ' McDonald, not
McDonald of Garth.

4 Cp. also ibid., pp. 33, 161, &c. Macdonell in his Sketch says : ' I defied
Cameron and all the North- West Company to turn the Indians against
the colony. Altho' no art that malice could invent to work upon their
feelings was left untried to make them hostile to us, which was begun with
our arrival in the country, there is not a solitary instance of the least
violence being offered from an Indian towards the colonists.' Cp.
D. Cameron to James Grant, Mar. 22, 1815, ' The cowardly Indians here-
abouts can't be depended upon for any assistance.* Selkirk Papers, 1866.

v 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 87

tion of the colony; but desertions continued, and Macdonell
saw that resistance was useless. On June 16, Charles McKenzie,
another North- West partner, arrived with further reinforce-
ments. Macdonell decided to give himself up f for the safety
of the colony '.* The North-westers were exultant : ' We have
got the damned robber at last ! ' 2 Cameron took his prisoner
to Fort William, while Alexander Macdonell was left in com-
mand at the Forks.

Captain Macdonell's predictions were verified. Crops were
trampled down; Fort Douglas, the colony mill, stables, and
barns were burnt to the ground. Those who had agreed to
go to Upper Canada sold to the North-wester the farm-
implements they had used at the settlement, and embarked
in the North- West canoes.3 The others were curtly told to be
gone. Unflinching, though desperate, thirteen families found
their way by Lake Winnipeg to Jack River.

There was satisfaction at Fort William when the result of
'the campaign' was known. Cameron was the man of the
hour. ' I am happy to inform you ', wrote Simon McGillivray,
1 that the colony has been all knocked in the head by the N.-W.
Co.' 4 ' I hope that things will go on better now,' said Charles
McKenzie, ' since the Colony is gone to the Devil.' 5 Wine
and compliments were indications that the 'insult' of 18 14
had been avenged. Several of the partners applauded the
end openly, but ventured in private to express compunction

1 'Miles McDonell (with the advice of Messrs. McDonald, White,
Fidler and James Sutherland, his appointed council) determined to
surrender himself, in hopes that the safety of the rest of the Colony might
thereby be ensured.' Papers Rel. to R. R. S., 18 19, p. 171.

2 Ibid., p. 35-

3 In the Red River and Colonial Register, a book of memoranda and
accounts drawn up by N.-W. Co. partners or agents, lists of settlers are
given with entries varying in amount from 4s, 6d. to ^16 2s. iod., credited to
each for spades, hammers, &c, &c. The various amounts are marked ' Pd ',
' Settled ', ' Pd ', &c. The writing was identified as that of various partners
of the North-West Company. One entry relating to George Campbell bore
Duncan Cameron's signature. See infra, note, and Papers Rel. to R. R. S.,
1819, p. 174. For Red River and Colonial Register, see Selkirk Papers,
9732-9744, &c.

4 To Archibald McGillivray, July 2, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1868.

5 To John Siveright, July 15, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 8534. 'I am
happy to see that the N.-W. have so far accomplished their ends.' Ibid.,
8531.

88 'THE PEMICAN WAR' chap.

about the means.1 ' Every neutral person ', wrote J. D.
Cameron, 'thinks we are in the wrong by bringing out the
Colonists and destroying their houses/ 2 At the conference at
Fort William, however, the proceedings were regarded as the
most signal victory in the history of the North-West Com-
pany. A. N. McLeod was present to commend ' energy and
ability'3 in company with Simon McGillivray, the North-
West partner, who had sounded from London the first note of
alarm in 1811, and had played the ' Highlander' in the Inver-
ness Journal.* McGillivray's brother, it will be seen, was
engaged in directing North-West diplomacy with Governor
Drummond at head-quarters. The half-breeds who had shared
in the ' satisfactory' work at Red River were feasted, thanked
in public, and openly rewarded.6 Peter Pangman was given the
sword of an officer. The settlers and colony servants ' received
marked attention '. Arrangements were made for the most
prominent of them to ' cross the lake in a vessel like Gentlemen
and Ladies.' 6 Presents were judiciously bestowed upon the
women,7 and liberal rewards were paid to the ringleaders of
defection. One was recommended in a signed statement by
Duncan Cameron for ^100, as ■ a very decent Man and a great
Partisan who often exposed his life for the N.-W. Co.', one who
had been ' of very Essential service in the transactions of Red
River.'8 Another was to receive £16 2s. lod. for articles sold
to the North-westers at Fort Gibraltar, and £20 as 'a true

1 'I could not help thinking that had I been in our good Captain's
place I would have left their miserable huts standing.' James Hughes to
John MacLaughlin, Jan. 24, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 8739.

2 July 14, 18 16, Selkirk Papers, 8765.

8 A. N. McLeod to Prop, of N.-W. Co., June 24, 1815, Selkirk Papers,
8608.

4 See p. 55, note 2.

5 Papers Pel. lo R.R.S., 1 8 19, p. 173.

6 J. 1). Cameron to Duncan Cameron, Aug. 21, 1815, Selkirk Papers,
1464.

7 ' Every one of the women got a present from your namesake.' Donald
McKinnon to Hector McDonald, Fort William, Aug. 21, 181 5, Selkirk
Papers, 1630.

■ Red River and Colonial Register, Selkirk Papers, 9736 : ■ Rather than
that his merit and Services would go unrewarded I would rather give him
a Hundred pounds myself; altho' I have already been a great deal out of
pocket by my campaign to Red River.'

V 'THE PEMICAN WAR' 89

Partisan, Steady, brave, and resolute ', and ' something of a
leading Character'.1 The chief offenders never found their
way again to Red River. Thus ended ' the Pemican War \
'Captain Cartouche' was a prisoner. 'The Sheriff ' was on
his way ostensibly for trial at Montreal. The North- West
Company had contrived ' to retrieve their honour \2

To the deluded settlers Cameron's motives appeared in
a different light at Fort William. Such rejoicing and self-
congratulation could scarcely spring from ebullient phil-
anthropy. Those who had yielded to compulsion were openly
dissatisfied. A few of the others began to complain of par-
tiality and to demand a higher price.8 Even a few of the
North-West partners were not confident of the results.4 At
the Forks young John McLeod and three men stored what
property remained in one log-house that had escaped destruc-
tion by special agreement with the half-breeds, and cared for
the crops till reinforcements could arrive from Hudson Bay.5

1 Red River and Colonial Register, Selkirk Papers, 9744. More-
over, he had forfeited his wages from Lord Selkirk by deserting before his
contract expired.

2 Alex. Macdonell to J. D. Cameron, July 23, 1814, Selkirk Papers, 9007.
8 * They arrived here quite a different people to whatever you saw of

them, entirely displeased with the payment they got for their things, mad
with rage at seeing people who had been more against us than for us cross
the lake in a vessel like Gentlemen and Ladies, while they who had always
been ready to sacrifice their lives for us came all round the lake pulling
at the oar like Slaves.' J. D. Cameron to Duncan Cameron, Sault Ste.
Marie, Aug. 21, 181 5. Selkirk Papers, 1464.

4 J. D. Cameron, July 14, 1816. Selkirk Papers, 8765.

8 The names are : Archibald Currie, Hugh McLean, and James Mcintosh.
Journal of John McLeod, Sr., Ch. Trader, H. B.Co. John McLeod to
Sir George Simpson, Dec. 1842. Canadian Archives, M. 201.

CHAPTER VI

THE NEW REGIME

In Great Britain the affairs of the Hudson's Bay Company
had responded steadily to enterprising management. From
the sailing of the first transport in 1811, the settlement had
become a paramount issue. Selkirk's energies were gradually
involved, at the expense of local activity in Scotland, possi-
bilities of political life at Westminster, the resources of his
private fortune, and even the tranquillity of domestic life.
Health, never too robust, seemed at first to improve under the
stimulus. Lady Selkirk wrote to her sister-in-law of Sel-
kirk's visits to Ireland, of her own travels with him in the
highlands, of his improving health at Blackheath, and his long
daily sessions from 10 to 6 at Hudson's Bay House.1 During
the seasons of 181 1 and 18 13, there are sketches here and
there of life in London ; a bon mot of Sir Walter Scott,
a glimpse of Lord Byron, a story of the Duke of Clarence,
and a few suggestions of an inclination towards politics.
Selkirk spoke in the House of Lords and discussed with
Sidmouth the claims of the Roman Catholics, the regulations
of tithe in Ireland, and the campaign in Portugal.2 The
Perceval administration was in power, the king was mad,
and the Regent had friends among the Whigs. There are
indications that Selkirk was nearly caught in the vortex of

1 Letters from Jean, Countess of Selkirk, to Lady Katherine Halkett.

3 'On the subject of the Catholics Lord Selkirk has had repeated con-
versations with Lord Sidmouth, plainly telling him that he differed from him
on that question and must vote in favour of the Catholic claims. . . .
Lord Selkirk has great hopes of getting something done about the regula-
tion of the tithe in Ireland, which he thinks of nearly as much importance
to the peace of the country as yielding the emancipation. ... On all other
subjects I believe they agree, particularly on the campaign in Portugal,
which Lord Selkirk reckons of more immediate importance to our exis-
tence as a nation than even the questions relating to Ireland. . . . You
will probably think from all this that I am dazzled by the possibility of his
coming into office.' Countess of Selkirk to Lady Katherine Douglas,
Mar. 25, "18 1 2.

chap. VI THE NEW REGIME

political life.1 * I must tell you ', Lady Selkirk wrote, how-
ever, 'that I do not see at present the least probability of
Lord Selkirk taking office; he seems too much wrapt up in
his Transatlantic schemes to give in to any such idea/ 2 Auld,
who returned to England in the ships of 18 14, found ' the Earl
of Selkirk's influence . . . quite paramount. . . . Nothing is too
minute for his inspection or too trifling for his employment '.3
The process of formulating the claims of the Company to
its jurisdiction and property, was conducted with all Scottish
caution. The chief considerations have already been noticed.
Among the Selkirk Papers is a portfolio of legal opinions and
advice upon topics ranging from Selkirk's claims in Assiniboia
to the details of Lower Canadian law.4 The prospect of
a decision, however, before a legal tribunal seemed more
distant than ever. 'The North- West Company', declared
one of the partners, 'will seek no redress from the law, for
they are determined to redress all grievances they may suffer
themselves.' 6 Already they had every advantage. They had
a practical monopoly, based on a popular theory of open
competition. The Hudson's Bay Company had an unpopular
theoretical monopoly, which actually resulted in the keenest
competition and yielded them scarcely a possibility of
success. The North- West Company would still be compelled
to rely upon force and enterprise even if the field were
declared open : clearly nothing was to be gained by risking
a process which might close the field altogether. The North-
West Company, therefore, would not force a legal decision ;
the Hudson's Bay Company, it has been seen, could not.6
Selkirk was compelled reluctantly to depend, as best he could,
upon the rights conferred by the Charter. In March 1815 he
wrote of the 4 judicial instructions' as 'nearly ready'. They

1 ' He said something very like apology, but more of regret on his own
account, to Lord Selkirk that he had it not in his power to offer him a seat
in the Cabinet.' Countess of Selkirk to Lady Katherine Douglas,
Mar. 25, 1812.

2 Lady Selkirk to Lady Katherine Douglas, Mar. 25, 1812.

3 Auld to Thomas, London, Mar. 29, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1509.

4 Selkirk Papers, vol. 44, 12004-12 133.

6 James Hughes, Papers Pel. to P.P.S., 18 19, p. 163.
6 See p. 48.

9* THE NEW REGIME chap.

were presented for the approval of the Colonial Office in June,
only, however, to be consigned to the limbo of undecided
causes, whence Selkirk and the Company, it will be seen,
were powerless to effect deliverance.1

As the project developed, indications were not wanting that
the North-West Company had influence in official circles
in Great Britain as well as political and social predominance
in the two Canadas. ' Lord Sidmouth ', wrote Lady Selkirk,2
1 has romance enough to believe that a man may have other
than selfish motives for his actions.' Bathurst, however, did
not scruple to pronounce the whole project * wild and un-
promising \3 The Government had granted a limited supply
of arms for the defence of the settlement, but the affairs of
the Company seem to have been relegated to the management
of the Under-Secretary, Goulburn ; and Goulburn in some
mysterious but unmistakable way was in cordial touch with
Ellice and the North- westers, while his correspondence with
Hudson's Bay House seems to verge upon open hostility.4
In 1 814 Colin Robertson had written vehemently from
Montreal of North- West counsels at Fort William. Selkirk
hastened to apply to the Colonial Office for some ' measure
not of vindictive justice but of precaution and police'.6 He
interviewed Bathurst in person. Bathurst, too impatient to
master the details of what seemed to be a sordid commercial
quarrel,6 yielded to importunity if to nothing else. Instruc-
tions were sent authorizing the Governor of Lower Canada
to * furnish such protection and assistance as can be afforded
without detriment to His Majesty's service'.7

Lack of decision, however, was evident. As late as April 17,

1 See pp. 99-100, and Selkirk's Letter to Lord Liverpool, London,
March 19, 181 9, pp. 14-16.

2 To Lady Katherine Douglas, Mar. 25, 1812.

8 Interview with General Dunlop, Halkett to Selkirk, April 17, 1816,
Selkirk Papers, 2197.

4 Selkirk Papers, 6513, 1 81 5, 1840, &c.

6 Selkirk to Bathurst, Mar. 3, 1 81 5, Selkirk Papers, 1476.

6 ' The general conduct of the two Companies is not (as your lordship
has been led to believe) alike on both sides and on both a tissue of illegal
violence.' Selkirk to Bathurst, Mar. 3, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1476.

7 Bathurst to Drummond, Mar. 18, 1815. Papers Pel. to P.P.S..
1819, p. 1. Bathurst wrote to Selkirk, Mar. 11, 1815, 'instructions have

VI THE NEW REGIME

1816, Selkirk's brother-in-law wrote of an interview with the
Colonial Secretary in which Bathurst, unfamiliar with the legal
aspect of the case, stated that 4 Government was now desirous
that the parties should bring the matter before some of the
Law Courts in this country '. At the same time, it seems,
Goulburn stated at another interview, that the question must
be dealt with in Parliament : i that Government did not want
any Court of Law to agitate the question of the Crown
Rights/1 There was even more pronounced discrepancy
between the Colonial Office and the methods of Acting-
Governor Drummond. Bathurst's instructions for protection
and assistance were sent on March 18, 18 15. In December,
Goulburn excused the inactivity of the Colonial Office on the
ground that any definite step would ' prejudge the whole
question at issue'.2 As early as July of the same year,
Drummond, with less reserve, had already informed the
Hudson's Bay representatives in Montreal that * if the lives
and property of the Earl of Selkirk's settlers are or may be here-
after endangered, that danger will arise principally from the
conduct of Mr. Miles McDonnell '. ' He has assumed powers ',
the letter curtly continued, 'which cannot possibly, in his
Excellency's opinion, have been vested in him, or any agent
private or public of any individual or of any chartered body.' 3
In Montreal, Colin Robertson dined with the Acting-Governor
and related to Selkirk how Drummond discussed Macdonell
and the settlement familiarly with William McGillivray over
their wine.4 McGillivray, who had presided over the
meeting at Fort William when 'the campaign' of 18 15 was
organized, was now a Legislative Councillor. Colin Robertson

been given to the Governor of Canada to give such protection to the
Settlers at Red River as can be afforded without detriment to His Majesty's
Service in other quarters.' Selkirk Papers, 1487. Bathurst's 'instruc-
tions ', as a matter of fact, consisted in sending a representation submitted
by the H. B. Co. * I am induced to transmit it to you, in order that you
may make the necessary inquiries as to the grounds of the fears expressed
by them on this point ; and in the event of your considering them to be
founded, furnish such protection,' &c.

1 Halkett to Selkirk, April 17, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2197-8.

2 Goulburn to Gov. H. B. Co., Dec. 29, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1840.

3 Col. Harvey (Drummond's Secretary) to Maitland, Auldjo & Co.,
July 18, 18 15, Papers Pel. to R. R. S., 1819, p. 15.

4 Nov. 18, Selkirk Papers, 1796.

94 THE NEW REGIME

CHAP.

wrote of management 'by the intrigue of a certain Com-
pany '-1 When the 'instructions' arrived from Bathurst, Drum-
mond, with a simplicity as ingenuous as it was obvious,
consulted confidentially with his North-West councillor. The
singularity of this remarkable document may justify quota-
tion at some length. ' Sir Gordon Drummond \ wrote the
Governor's secretary,2 ' feels that he cannot more strongly
evince the high respect which he entertains for the heads of
that most respectable body, and his perfect confidence in their
candour and liberality of sentiment, than by the course he has
not hesitated to adopt, in applying himself to them for the
information which they assuredly possess the best means of
affording, and which his Excellency is equally assured they
are too honourable and conscientious to withhold.' McGil-
livray hastened to reassure His Excellency. ' I cannot but
express ', he wrote, * the feelings of indignation to which this
calumny gives rise. I deny, in the most solemn manner, the
allegations whereon this shameful accusation is founded.'
* Under the guise and cloak of colonization ', he wrote of
Selkirk, ' he is aiming at and maturing an exterminating blow
against their trade. Insinuations of alarm and false accu-
sations form part of the system, and his agents and servants
are probably instructed to bring them artfully forward, to
raise prejudices against us.' 'Surely', the writer concluded,
'interested representation from such a quarter should be
received with caution.'3 While these avowals were being
made by McGillivray in Montreal, the agents of the North-

1 To Selkirk, Oct. 29, 1814, Selkirk Papers, 1253.

9 J.Harvey, to William McGillivray, June 8, 1815, Papers Rel. to
R.R.S., 1 819, p. 6.

8 W. McGillivray to Lieut.-Col. Harvey, June 24, 1815, Papers Rel. to
R.R.S., 1819, 7-9. Colin Robertson's warning had been founded on the
hostility of the N .-W. Co., bat the H. B. Co. in representations to Bathurst
had evidently confused the half-breeds with the native Indians. Bathurst's
letter to Drummond therefore speaks of 'an attack from the Indian
nations' (Papers Pel. to R.R.S., 1819, p. 1). One cannot admire the
quibble, but McGillivray's statement with regard to 'the Indian nations'
was, of course, technically true. Cf. however, Selkirk Papers, 1866, D.
Cameron to James Grant, Mar. 22, 1815 : 'The cowardly Indians here-
abouts can't be depended upon for any assistance.' That the winter
partners tried to raise the Indians, Coltman (vide p. 86) says is 'estab-
lished beyond a doubt' (Report, p. 161).

THE NEW REGIME 95

westers at Red River were completing the devastation of the
farm-houses of the settlement ; and while Selkirk was seeking
protection against the North-West Company, the North-
westers in London were assuring Goulburn that * the motives
imputed to them by Lord Selkirk are utterly unfounded ', and
that ' the members of that Company stationed in the interior
of the North American Continent feel too much for the
miseries already inflicted upon their unfortunate countrymen,
the victims of his lordship's visionary speculations, to add by
any action of theirs to the risks which those deluded emi-
grants undoubtedly run from the disputes which must arise
between them and the Indians '}

Drummond hastened to inform Bathurst that protection to
the Earl of Selkirk's settlement was ' decidedly impractic-
able '. The expense, he wrote, would be * enormous '. ' The
first and unavoidable effect of this interference ', he concluded,
1 would, I conceive, be to involve us in an Indian war.' 2 One
is at a loss to trace reasons for this unqualified conclusion, or
to find for it a reasonable basis in actual fact. When the
disastrous events of 1815 became finally known to the Hudson's
Bay Company, Goulburn was already in possession of informa-
tion of another colour and from other sources.3 The settlers
had reached Upper Canada, he was informed, 'in a state of
great distress \ That they had suffered wrongs from the North-
westers, there is no evidence that Goulburn entertained any
misgivings. The letter to the Hudson's Bay Company closed
with the curt information : ' That part of your Letter which
relates to the Arms stated to have been seized by the Agents
of the North- West Company will be transmitted to the
Governor of Canada in order that the arms may be recovered
for the public Service '.4

1 North-West Narrative of Events, Appendix 59, McTavish, Fraser
& Co., Inglis, Ellice & Co., to Goulburn, Mar. 18, 181 5.

2 Papers Rel. to R.R. S., 18 1 9, p. 4.

8 In a letter to the Gov. of the H. B. Co., Oct. 14, 18 15, Goulburn speaks
of information from Drummond ' of the total dispersion of the settlement \
Selkirk Papers, 181 5. Drummond's first intimation of the matter, in an
official dispatch at least, was sent in a letter dated Quebec, Nov. 2, more
than three weeks after Goulburn's letter was written. Blue Book, p. 22.

4 Goulburn to Gov. H.B. Co., Oct. 14, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 1815.

96 THE NEW REGIME chap.

Isolation and disaster might have proved fatal had not the
reinforcements which Selkirk had already organized reached
the settlement through two different channels in time to
counteract failure. A Governor of Rupert's Land, accom-
panied by another party of settlers from Sutherlandshire,
was to reach the settlement by way of Hudson Bay ; while
the trade of the Company was to be organized at Montreal
with Canadian traders and French-Canadian battailleurs, to
cope with the North-West Company, from their own head-
quarters, in their own territory, and by their own methods.

The expedition of 1815 proved to be in many ways the most
fortunate of the Red River migrations. Robert Semple, the
new Governor, was cultured, humane, something of a philo-
sopher and litterateur, and a contributor to the Edinburgh
reviews.1 Of his fitness to rule in the lawless North-West,
however, Selkirk could have had little opportunity of judging.
Uneven judgement, coupled with over-confidence, might have
passed untested in time of peace ; but Semple took control at
the most critical period in the history of the settlement. The
1 expulsion ' of the colony proved to be but the prelude ; there
was ' a storm . . . gathering to the Northward '.2

The voyage of 1815 proved to be the shortest, the most
orderly, and the most promising hitherto undertaken to Hud-
son Bay. The settlers,3 chiefly from Sutherlandshire, were
of the race that had attracted Selkirk by their thrift and
astonished Keveny by their unbending Presbyterian observance
of Sunday. The utmost good-fellowship prevailed among the
passengers throughout the voyage.4 ' Perhaps the same number
of people under the same circumstances never landed on
a foreign shore in higher health and spirits.' 5 Semple arrived
at York Factory on August 27, only to learn of the complete
overthrow of the settlement at Red River. A little daunted
by the * lawless ferocity • of the North-westers, the Governor

1 * In many respects, a man of talents, and, from the attachment of his
people, of an amiable disposition.' Coltman's Report, p. 191.

2 Alex. Macdonell to Cameron, Mar. 13, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 9061.

8 The names to be found in Selkirk Papers, 1659. See Canadian
Archives Bulletin, The Selkirk Settlement, 1909.
4 ' A single quarrel never occurred among them.' Selkirk Papers, 1664.
6 Selkirk Papers, 1665.

VI THE NEW REGIME 97

thought discretion the better part of valour, and decided that
redress was now to be sought from the British Government.1

Meanwhile the second expedition had been organized at
Montreal. Colin Robertson had many of the qualifications for
North-West leadership that Semple signally lacked. Despite
the ' natural impetuosity of his mind \2 he knew the North-
westers and North-West methods. His apprenticeship had
been passed with John McDonald of Garth, the ' bras croche '
of * the Pemican War '. A quarrel had thrown him into the
arms of the Hudson's Bay Company, and since 18 13 he had
been urging upon the directorate the necessity of fighting fire
with fire. Robertson spent the winter of 18 14 in Montreal,
supplying Selkirk with information from Canadian head-
quarters and organizing an expedition for 1 the blow to be
struck in the Athapasca ' in the spring. One hundred Cana-
dian traders and voyageurs were to carry the trade-war into
the enemy's territory. Athabasca was the El Dorado of the
North-West fur trade. It was for the Athabasca trade that
the bois-brules prepared pemmican in Assiniboia, and that
intermediate traders kept the water-route open through Sel-
kirk's grant. The supremacy of the North-West Company
had hitherto been undisputed. From this source was derived
probably one-half of the entire profits of that company. The
Hudson's Bay Company had been content hitherto to trade
leisurely within the boundaries fixed by the Charter.3 The
directorate now resolved not only to exclude the North-westers
from the bounds of Selkirk's grant, but to compete with their
rivals on neutral territory for the richest spoils of the North
American fur trade. Auld had by this time been superseded
by Superintendent Thomas. John Clarke was to lead the
Athabasca brigade. In the spring Colin Robertson, with an
advance-guard of twenty men, left Montreal in express canoes.
At Red River there was desolation on every side, except
where John McLeod and the three men who had volunteered
to remain with him had guarded the stores and wheat that had

1 Semple to Selkirk, Sept. 20, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 1446.

2 Selkirk to Semple, April 26, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2213.
8 See Selkirk Papers, 212, 245, &c.

98 THE NEW REGIME

CHAP.

escaped the North-westers at ' the expulsion ', and had engaged
a few freemen to begin the work of building a new Fort
Douglas at a bend of the river a few hundred yards below the
Forks.

Robertson pushed on at once to Jack River, where the
fugitive settlers who had opposed the North-West Company in
the spring were awaiting reinforcements from the Bay. They
agreed to return to Red River, to start again from the ashes
of their ruined farm-houses. Semple himself was quick to
detect the response to a policy of confidence and energy. It
was then remembered that the settlers, 'ready to fire'1 in
defence of 'Sheriff ' Spencer, were restrained by the timidity,
' not to say cowardice ', of their officers. ' The people believed
that they had not law on their side.' 2 Semple, adopting this
opinion, wrote to Selkirk of ' grossest mismanagement ' with
\ no pretensions to firmness \3 ' Colin Robertson with a few
men changed the whole complexion of the business.' The
settlers returned to the Forks. McLeod's fort was nearly
completed, wheat was harvested, and preparations made for
the party from the' Bay. Early in the morning of Novem-
ber 3, Governor Semple and his party appeared at the bend
of the river and put ashore at Fort Douglas. Despite the
misfortunes of three winters and 'the expulsion' of 1815, the
settlement had probably never known such a day of rejoicing.
A prolific harvest of wheat dispelled all danger of privation
for the ensuing winter. Buffaloes were never so plentiful.
'The Colours were hoisted,' wrote Semple, 'the guns were
fired, at night we laughed and drank and danced, and now the
serious Calculations of the Colony commence.' 4

There was corresponding enthusiasm in the fur trade of the
Company. The Hudson's Bay brigade under John Clarke
left for Athabasca with imposing display and every confidence
of success. Semple, forming his estimate of North-West
enterprise from the ! miserable opponents ' in the immediate

1 Selkirk Papers, 2034. * Ibid., 2030.

3 * His own personal bravery was thus completely neutralized by the
timidity, to give it the mildest term, of those admitted to his council.'
Semple to Selkirk, Fort Douglas, Dec. 20, 18 15, Selkirk Papers, 2724.

4 Semple to Selkirk, Dec. 20, 1815, Selkirk Papers^ 2721.

VI THE NEW REGIME

neighbourhood, wrote to Selkirk that he * really did too much
honour to this Crew in supposing them to be so formidable \}
Colin Robertson, who knew the temper of North-westers more
intimately, had less confidence that the Governor's * name
and . . . presence would do everything \2 Auld, moreover,
still intent upon ' feathering his own nest \3 was now in touch
with Ellice and the North-West Company.4 ' I really believe,
my Lord ', wrote Robertson, ' that Auld has been one of the
greatest enemies your Lordship ever had ; I will not even
except Strachan 5 and the N.-W. Co.' 6 Selkirk himself began
to find at every point an insistent North -West influence
which demanded all his energy, and drew heavily upon the
resources of his private fortune.

Before Bathurst's reluctant consent to * protection and assis-
tance ' for the settlement had been neutralized by Drummond's
faith in the North-West Company, elaborate ordinances for the
government of the Hudson's Bay territories were referred by
the directors to the Colonial Office, with the request that they
'should be submitted to the consideration of His Majesty's
Attorney and Solicitor-General for their opinion *J The lack
of anything like decision, or even adequate consideration, on
the part of the Colonial Office has already been suggested.
The opinion of His Majesty's law officers was never ascer-
tained. It may not be out of place in following the course of
events in Canada to keep in view the impotence of the Hudson's
Bay Company consequent upon this fatal neglect. Six months
after the ordinances were submitted another application was
made to the Colonial Office, to which no reply was made for
three months, and even then no decision was announced because
the law officers of the Crown had not yet presented their report.
Another year was allowed to pass, and the Hudson's Bay
Company applied for information for the third time. They

1 Selkirk Papers, 2723.

2 Robertson to Selkirk, Nov. 12, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 3033.

3 Selkirk Papers, 1829. 4 Ibid., 3033.

6 See p. 37. Bishop Strachan's Letter to the Right Hon. Earl of Selkirk
on his Settlement at the Red River near Hudson's Bay. London, 18 16.

• Robertson to Selkirk, Jan. 1, 18 17, Selkirk Papers, 3037.

7 May and June, 181 5 ; see Letter to the Earl of Liverpool. London,
Mar. 19, 18 19, p. 14.

G %

ioo THE NEW REGIME chap.

were informed that the crimes which had been committed in
the meantime would come to trial in due course, and the
whole problem would 'in all probability come under the
cognizance of the Courts before whom the trials take place '-1
'No precaution was to be taken to prevent future outrages',
wrote Selkirk, ' till after it had been ascertained who were
really guilty of the Past.' 2 ■ The trials ', it will be seen,
included those for the death of Governor Semple and twenty
men of the settlement that had taken place in the interval ;
and the 'Courts' included the King's Bench in Lower Canada,
of which two of the judges were connected with the North-
West Company.

During the establishment of the new regime, Selkirk had
never relinquished his purpose of visiting Assiniboia in person.
He had few staunch allies, however, in the Hudson's Bay
Company, upon whom he could rely for delicate negotiations
with the Colonial Office and for incessant vigilance against
Ellice and the North-westers.3 It was known in the summer
of 1 8 15 that Selkirk would be in Montreal during the follow-
ing winter, and would take the route by the way of the Great
Lakes for Red River in the following spring.4 Selkirk himself,
Lady Selkirk, now thoroughly in touch with the Red River
enterprise, and their two children, left Liverpool in September
and reached New York only to hear of the dispersion of the
settlement. The seriousness of the situation became apparent
at Montreal. The firm 5 which had been engaged to represent
the Hudson's Bay Company experienced something like
a social boycott through North-West influence.6 Selkirk found
McGillivray's ' arrogance and violence ' 7 and Drummond's
' unaccountable prepossession ' in favour of the North-westers

1 Goulburn to H.B. Co., Jan. 16, 18 17.

2 Letter to the Earl of Liverpool, p. 17.

3 'I was very much annoyed at Sir James Montgomery not going
to the meeting. When a man's friends express themselves as he does on
that subject, it is no wonder that strangers like Lord Bathurst should
consider the scheme wild and romantic' Letters from Jean, Countess
of Selkirk, to Lady Katherine Halkett, June 29, 18 19, p. 175.

4 Selkirk to Macdonell, Mar. 23, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 1501.

5 Maitland and Auldjo.

6 Colin Robertson to Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, 1797.

7 Selkirk to Berens, Nov. 18, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 1939.

VI THE NEW REGIME v io,

in evidence at every turn; he wrote bitterly to * Kerens' of
Goulburn's fatal influence at the Colonial Office. ' Among all
the Gentlemen who are connected with the H. B, Co.', he
wrote, * there must surely be enough of weight to prevent an
under Secretary from throwing aside our representations as
waste paper/ It was only through the mediation of John
Richardson that Selkirk found an opportunity of negotiating
with the North-West Company.1 His other mission in Canada,
the adequate protection of the settlement pursuant to Bathurst's
instructions, failed altogether, it will be seen, through Drum-
mond's opposition.

Selkirk quickly found that the negotiations with the North-
West Company were far from seasonable, and were from the
first doomed to failure. The Hudson's Bay Company was
willing to submit matters in dispute to arbitration, but with
never a thought of relinquishing the rights of their Charter.
A coalition might have proved possible ; a division of terri-
tory, as suggested by the North-westers, on a basis of com^
petition and equal rights, 'had never presented itself', even
as a possible solution of the difficulty.* The North-West
Company pointed out, on the other hand, that if by arbitra-
tion the Hudson's Bay rights were upheld, the North-West
Company would be driven from the field ; if destroyed, the
Hudson's Bay Company 'would still as British subjects
remain entitled to equal rights with the other Company.
Thus, under the specious exterior of an arbitration, the North-
West Company would be risking a substance in pursuit of
a shadow.' 3 There is a frank statement that the North-West
Company held the field and ' will not depart unless by legal
compulsion '.4 ' I cannot speak with gravity ', replied Selkirk,
'of the notion which seems still to be entertained of the
importance of a recognition of this Charter. Really, the

1 Selkirk had been given full powers by the Hudson's Bay Company to
enter into negotiations for a union, or at least an arbitration, with the
North-westers.

2 Selkirk Papers, 217.

3 N.-W. Co. to Selkirk, Dec. 27, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, i. 254. 'The
same agreement (sic) is applicable to a Judicial investigation before
a Court of Law.' Ibid.

4 Selkirk Papers, i. 255.

103 THE NEW REGIME chap.

N.-W. Co. might as well expect a valuable consideration for
recognizing the title of the House of Brunswick. Their
consent is of as little moment in one case as in the other.' *
Nothing remained but * to abandon further negotiations ... as
hopeless \a

Selkirk found the opposition no less uncompromising to the
protection of the settlement by the Canadian Government.
Drummond had already expressed his opinion to the Colonial
Office : any aid to the Red River settlement was ' decidedly
impracticable ', could be afforded only at ' enormous expense \
and 'would . . . involve us in an Indian war'.3 Selkirk,
excluded from the inner counsels of the Government, urged
Bathurst's instructions in vain. The truth was that both to
Bathurst and to Drummond the acquisition and title of the
West was of trifling importance. Colin Robertson's enthusiasm
was almost unintelligible* Semple took occasion to ' repeat
most strongly ' the ■ political advantages of a really important
territory'.4 Colonel McDouall, commanding at Michilli-
mackinac, had noticed the importance of the settlement on
Red River ' in a national point of view ' — ' an opinion ', added
Selkirk, ' which exactly coincides with the views upon which
I acted \6 ' It is a very moderate calculation ', writes Selkirk
in his Sketch of the Fur Trade, * to say that if these regions
were occupied by an industrious population they might afford
ample means of subsistence to more than thirty millions of
British subjects.' 6 The North-westers took a different view.
They referred jocularly to the ' Bible Peer ' as being ' governed
by the Moon '. McGillivray referred contemptuously to
poverty-stricken settlers in a wilderness, and Goulbum sug-
gested derisively the folly of sending troops to protect a few
hundred settlers 'so remote from His Majesty's other posses-

1 Selkirk to Mure, May I, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2227.

2 Selkirk Papers, i. 256.

3 Papers Pel. to R. P. S., p. 4.

4 Semple to Selkirk, Dec. 20, 181 5, Selkirk Papers, 2729.

6 Selkirk to McDouall, Mar. 30, 18 16, Selkirk Papers, 2126. Cf. also
Selkirk to Sherbrooke, Selkirk Papers, 2346.

6 Sketch of the British Fur Trade in North America ; with Observations
relative to the North- West Company of Montreal. London, 1816, second
ed., p. 124.

VI THE NEW REGIME

103

sions '-1 Selkirk had much difficulty in obtaining permission
to take a personal guard of fifteen men at his own private
expense, under strictest orders to act only for his own
protection against assassination and robbery.2 'I beg to
apprise your Lordship', added Drummond, 'that with the
view of removing any alarm which the measure may excite
in the Gentlemen of the North- West Company at Montreal,
I shall feel it incumbent on me to explain to them my motives
in detaching even this small party.'3 Selkirk hastened to
give the 'fullest assurance * and the North- West Company,
true to traditions of policy and influence, hastened to file
a demand for a similar military escort ' against robbers and
assassins'. A month later Selkirk was summarily informed
that the Meuron regiment, from which his guard was to
be taken, had been disbanded, and ' His Excellency regrets
that he has not the means of relieving them by a similar party
from any other corps \4 Thus ended for the time the agita-
tion to procure protection from the Government. The new
regime had resulted in enthusiasm at Red River, in every
prospect for the material prosperity of the settlement, but in
complete failure to procure from Government either a prac-
tical decision upon the scope of the Charter, or such protection
meanwhile for the settlers as would have avoided collision and
bloodshed during the following spring.

1 ' Which there is some reason to believe may be even yet less populous.'
Goulburn to H.B. Co., Dec. 29, 18 15, Selkirk Papers, 1840.

2 * On no account to be left in the Upper Country beyond the period of
your own continuance there, or to be employed in any other way than in
the Protection of Your Lordship's Person and Personal Property against
Assassins or Robbers.' Drummond to Selkirk, Mar. 15, 1816, Selkirk
Papers, 2085.

3 Mar. 15, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2086.

4 J. Harvey to Selkirk, May 14, 18 16, Selkirk Papers, 2249. The
1 Regiment de Meuron ' was so called after its commanding officer during
the War of 1812.

CHAPTER VII

'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT'

A FEW of the wiser partners in the North- West Company
had the foresight to know that the dispersion of the colony
in the spring of 1815 was not to be the end. Rumours of
reinforcements under Semple and the approaching visit of
Selkirk himself had been circulated from Montreal to Qu'Ap-
pelle. There had been misgivings even at the regular sum-
mer conference at Fort William. None saw more clearly
than Alex. Macdonell and Duncan Cameron themselves the
incompleteness of their work. Already in October, Mac-
donell found the spirits of the North-westers ' entirely low '.
Robertson at the Forks was aggressive and confident. ' Free-
men and all look upon them as entire conquerors.' *

The North- West ' campaign ', as might have been expected,
began with a systematic attempt to arouse the half-breeds. It
will not be necessary to trace this hazardous enterprise in
detail. The evidence appears to be overwhelming. When
Alexander Macdonell arrived at Qu'Appelle in the autumn he
already had more than forty Canadian freemen and half-breeds
under control. Macdonell led one detachment with colours
flying 5 Cuthbert Grant, who led the other, had been 'appointed
Captain-General of all the Half-Breeds in the Country '.2 The
freemen, however, were ' sharks \ and ' very unreasonable \3

1 Alex. Macdonell to Duncan Cameron, Oct. 23, 1815, Selkirk Papers,
1883.

2 James Sutherland's Narrative, 181 5-16, Selkirk Papers, 1947. Mac-
donell in his letter to Duncan Cameron, Oct. 23, 18 15, mentions 'the
young De Champs ' as newly won adherents from the H. B. C. Sutherland
states especially that threats of the North-westers ('would all join Grant
early in the spring to sweep R. R., of all the English') 'so frightened
Francois De Champs, a half-breed that had been with us all winter, ....
that he deserted to the N.-W. House'. The Deschamps distinguished
themselves by their ferocity at Seven Oaks.

3 Hugh McGillis to N.-W. Agents, Selkirk Papers, 1870. Letters
seized by Colin Robertson at the Forks, Mar. 19, 18 16.

chap, vii 'ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' 105

That it required much concerted action on the part of North-
West partisans and much stimulus to arouse the courage of
the * New Nation ' to the sticking-point, seems to be established
beyond reasonable doubt. ' The Freemen are all . , . Rascals/
wrote Macdonell in March, 'and a few of the half-breeds
little better.'1 The half-breed flag was first displayed, it
seems, on the arrival of Alex. Macdonell from the Forks.
Agents were soundly berated in the spring for lack of success
as North-west recruiting officers.2 By March, however, the
half-breeds were thoroughly under North-West control.
1 1 am happy to inform you ', wrote Cuthbert Grant, ' that they
are all united and staunch and ready to obey our commands/ 3
The actual muster for the 1816 'campaign' will be noticed
with the events of the following June. The North-West
Company had evidently more than held their own during the
winter.

From the standpoint of the fur trade, the Hudson's Bay
Company had fared disastrously. The chief superintendent
had expressed some doubts of Clarke's fitness for command.
Even North-westers were amazed that a trader should leave
Lake Athabasca with a brigade of eight canoes, fifty men, and
six clerks, ' without a mouthful of provisions . . . except what
a Muskegon Indian they brought with them could procure
them'.4 In ordinary seasons, game was to be obtained in
abundance. The winter of 1815, however, was a disastrous
exception — ' a circumstance hitherto unknown \ Even the
North-westers had difficulty in eking out an existence. ' We
would have starved most completely,' wrote the North-wester

1 Selkirk Papers, 1864. It is to be remembered that the utmost
secrecy and circumspection had been enjoined upon the winter partners. ' Do
not for God sake commit yourself in either action or writing.' — Kenneth
McKenzie to Duncan Cameron, Aug. 27, 1815. 'You will require to be
very careful this year in your actions respecting H.B. People.' The in-
criminating letters were unceremoniously captured by Colin Robertson
in March, but Selkirk, while perfectly convinced of the motives of the
N.-W. Co., probably considered it unwise to advertise the way in which
his information was acquired.

2 Selkirk Papers, 8890, 8942, &c.

3 Cuthbert Grant to J. D. Cameron, River Qu'Appelle, Mar. 13, 1816,
Selkirk Papers, 8898.

4 John McGillivray to Wm. McGillivray, Jan. 17, 1816, Selkirk Papers,
9145.

106 'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' chap.

John McGillivray, ' were it not for the Dried provisions col-
lected in the Summer.' 1 There were many instances of
improvidence among the Hudson's Bay traders, and one or
two of customary timidity.2 On the whole, the North-westers,
long since accustomed as they had been by daring and good
management to carry supremacy in trade with a high hand,
were astonished to find such ' perseverance ' and ' fidelity ' in
their rivals as they had never encountered in the fur trade.

The winter of 1 815-16 proved to be one of the most disas-
trous probably in the history of the Hudson's Bay Company.
The North-westers, as usual, were first in the field. The
Indians were lured or sent away, all provisions were bought
up, and the winter's campaign was planned with all the
strategy that had been a tradition in the Canadian fur trade
since the days of rivalry with the X Y Company. William
McGillivray in Montreal had summoned the winter partners
to their utmost exertions. ' The H. B. Company, you see,'
he wrote to Duncan Cameron,3 ■ intend to oppose us seriously
in our own way. I hope the ancient North- West spirit will
rouse with indignation? The result was a tribute to McGil-
livray 's generalship. At Chippewyan Hudson's Bay traders
contrived to subsist. At fie a la Crosse they secured food
but no trade. At Great Slave Lake they obtained provisions
from the North-westers only by the surrender of all their stores
for a year.4 On the Peace River fourteen men, one boy, and
one woman perished from hunger. With the approach of
spring the North-westers had completely re-established them-
selves in the esteem of the natives, and could turn their atten-
tion to the affairs of the settlement.

The winter at the Forks had been passed in strange contrast

to that of the preceding year. Duncan Cameron was no

longer master of the situation. Colin Robertson had begun,

even before Semple's arrival, by arresting Cameron and

making every preparation as though to send him to the Bay

for transportation to England. The canoe, according to

1 Selkirk Papers, 9146. 8 Ibid., 8641.

s May 6, 18 15, Selkirk Papers, 9170.

4 Bird to Selkirk, North H. B. District, Aug. 12, 1816, Selkirk Papers,
2532.

vii 'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' 107

Cameron's story, was actually passing Fort Douglas on the
way to York Factory when the prisoner was released and
allowed to resume command at Fort Gibraltar.1 The incident
may have had a salutary effect. Cameron was advised by the
winter partners 'to be very careful . . . respecting H. B. people' ;
he might be ' taken to York to be tried by a Jury of Nor-
wegians and Laplanders \2 Robertson carried affairs at the
Forks with a high hand. His diary for the winter3 shows
a curious mixture of resolution, adroitness, ruthlessness, and
self-reliance. On March 3i,Semple came down from Pembina
and measures were concerted for the spring.

There is evidence that Semple and Robertson were finding
it difficult to co-operate. It was common knowledge in the
colony that they ' were not upon terms of intimacy '.* In April,
disagreement became more acute, for events which had taken
place in March now forced them to decide anew what should
be their policy for the summer. On the evening of March 19,
Colin Robertson with fourteen men had marched to Fort
Gibraltar, arrested Duncan Cameron for the second time, and
carried him off to Fort Douglas. On the table was found
a letter to James Grant that foreshadowed the gravest danger
for the settlement. ' I wish ', Cameron had written, ' that
some of your Pilleurs who are fond of mischief and plunder
would come and pay a hostile visit to these Sons of Gun-
powder and riot, they might make a very good booty if they
went cunningly to work.' 5 Suspecting the worst, Robertson
now stopped the winter Northern Express of the North-
West Company and without ceremony made himself master
of the contents. * Such was not known till the days of
Robertson ', wrote one of the North- West partners.6 Robert-
son found his worst suspicions confirmed. The nature and
magnitude of the North-West campaign was established

1 Selkirk Papers, 8861.

2 James Hughes to D. Cameron, Jan. 1816, Selkirk Papers, 8831.

3 Selkirk Papers, 171 1 et seq.

4 Alex. McDonell to Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, 2737. See p. in, note I.

5 Selkirk Papers, 8774.

6 See ' Extracts from letters found in Winter's Northern Express ',
Selkirk Papers, 1870 ; Laughlin McLean to Robt. McRobb, June 1, 1 816,
Selkirk Papers, 8583, &c.

108 'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' CHAP.

beyond a doubt. 'A more complete disclosure of plans of
deliberate Villainy', wrote Semple, 'has never yet met my
eye.' 1 With full faith in Selkirk's title to the land and ■ all
its concomitant rights ',2 the Governor refused to recognize the
North-westers as equals or even as legitimate rivals. Colin
Robertson was still more radical. He advocated sending
Cameron immediately a prisoner to the Bay, the demolition of
one of the two forts at the Forks, and the gathering of the
settlers in the other for mutual protection. Semple, never-
theless, still clung blindly to half-measures, and the coolness
between the two deepened into an open quarrel. The
Governor, apprised of the preparations against the settle-
ment, yielded a point. Fort Gibraltar was demolished, the
stockades were drawn up to be taken in rafts down to Fort
Douglas, and what remained was burnt to the ground.
The same day, June n, 'Lord Chesterfield', as Robertson
was popularly known among the North-westers, left the
settlement at open variance with Semple, and took his
prisoner down the river towards York Factory.3 ' I had no
participation ', Robertson afterwards wrote, ' in suggesting
or approving those incautious measures, which had a great
tendency to produce the second destruction of the Colony.' 4

Semple had not mistaken the nature of the blow to be
struck against the settlement. ' The new nation under their
leaders ', wrote Alexander Macdonell, ' are coming forward to
clear their native soil of intruders and assassins.' 6 At Moose
Lake the half-breeds were urged to 'join in extirpating those
Miscreants out of the Country'.6 At Qu'Appelle, Shaw was

1 April 12, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 2180.

2 Selkirk to Robertson, Selkirk Papers, 1286. . . . ' In the same manner
as proprietors of land in any other part of the British Dominions.'

8 Selkirk himself wrote from Montreal in Dec. 181 5, ' I have to entreat
your most particular attention to secure the persons of D. Cameron and
Alex. Macdonell.' Selkirk Papers, 1895.

4 Selkirk Papers, 4339. Semple apparently considered it impossible
to defend both forts, and disastrous to allow the North-westers to fortify
themselves at Fort Gibraltar in full command of the river communications.
See Fidler's Narrative, Selkirk Papers, 2523.

6 Ibid., 1468.

6 J. D. Campbell to Edw. Harrison, Cumberland House, Selkirk Papers,
8782.

VII 'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' 109

1 collecting all the half-breeds in the surrounding Departments,
and . . . ordered his friends ... to prepare for the field \1
'Little do they know', wrote Alexander Macdonell, 'their
situation last year was but a joke.'2 'You will see some
sport in Red River before the month of June is over.' 3 ' It
must end ', said Laughlin McLean, ' in some sickly work
at the long run.' 4 It will not be necessary to trace further
the mobilization of the half-breed forces. As early as March,
it has been noticed, Grant considered his men ' all united and
staunch '.5 ' It is hoped ', he told Cameron at Qu'Appelle,
1 that we shall come off with flying colours and never see any
of them again in a Colonizing way in Red River.' 6 There
can be no doubt that Semple expected the most violent
measures and took his precautions accordingly.

Early in May, Cuthbert Grant, with about fifty half-breeds,
began by surprising a brigade of six bateaux descending the
Assiniboine from Qu'Appelle towards Fort Douglas, laden
with furs and provisions. The half-breeds lay in ambush at
the end of a portage, carried off one or two of the Hudson's
Bay men as prisoners, and used the pemmican as provisions for
the expedition against the settlement.7 On June 1, a party
of forty-eight half-breeds, ' singing and dancing ', with drums
and war-paint, marched to Brandon House. Doors were
broken open, windows were cut out, stores were seized and
carried away, ' in great triumph'. The half-breeds took ' even
the Grind stone '.8 At Portage la Prairie reinforcements came
in from outlying posts, and the expedition began to move
down the river towards the settlement.

The actual events at the Forks must be sifted from a mass
of conflicting evidence. The object of the expedition, however,

1 ' God only knows the result.' A. Macdonell to J. D. Cameron,
Selkirk Papers, 1864.

2 Selkirk Papers, 1468. ' I remark with pleasure the hostile proceed-
ings of our neighbours : I say pleasure, because the more they do the more
justice we will have on our side.'

3 Selkirk Papers, 1864.

4 June 1, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 8585. Cf. also John McTavish to
Archibald McLellan, Montreal, May 29, 18 16, Selkirk Papers, 8587, &c.

5 Selkirk Papers, 8896. 6 Ibid., 8898.

7 James Sutherland's Narrative, Selkirk Papers, 1951.

8 See Fidler's Narrative , Selkirk Papers, 2521.

no 'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' chap.

seems to admit of no question. ■ After various consultations,'
wrote A. N. McLeod, Robert Henry, and John McLaughlin,
winter partners, from Fort William, to Grant and Morrison in
the interior, ■ we have come to the resolution of forwarding an
express to you to request you will as soon as possible assemble
as many of the Indians as you can by any means induce to
go to the Red River to meet us there.1 . . . Possibly and most
probably their appearance may suffice, but in any case they
shall be well and fully recompensed for their trouble. . . . We
shall be in Red River about the 17th of June.' Letters from
Robert Henry are even more conclusive. ' I would not be sur-
prised ', he wrote to his uncle,2 ' if some of us should leave our
Bones there. If it comes to a Battle many lives must be lost/
The Fort William expedition, as it happened, was delayed, and
reached the Forks only on June 1%, ' three days after the Battle.'
' I thank Providence ', wrote Henry, l that the Battle was over
before we got there, as it was our intention to storm the Fort.' 3

The plan of operations was evidently concerted in some
detail. Cuthbert Grant's purpose was to pass the fort, cut
off stragglers, effect a junction with the North-West forces
ascending the river under McLeod, and act under his orders
against Fort Douglas. No other plan of campaign seems to
explain at once the actual movements of the half-breeds in
leaving the river banks and the determination of Semple to
stop their progress, when it seemed possible for the time to
avoid conflict by remaining within the fort.

On June 19 the half-breeds reached Catfish Creek on the
north bank of the Assiniboine, four miles above Fort Douglas.
Early in the evening, after a council of war, they left the river
bank, taking a line of march over the plain about two miles
from the Forks. About 6 o'clock, the party, ' painted and
disguised', was sighted by a boy on the watch-tower of Fort
Douglas. After some confusion and a hurried consultation,

1 ' We also mean to take a few of the Lac la Pluie Indians with us : we
shall and will be guarded and prudent, we shall commit no extravagancies
but we must not suffer ourselves to be imposed upon.' . . . Selkirk Papers,
8612.

a Alex. Henry, June 13, 18 16, Selkirk Papers, 8727.

8 'Our party consisted of about 100 men, 70 fire arms, and 2 field
pieces.' Selkirk Papers, 8729.

VII 'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' in

Semple left Alexander McDonell * in charge of the fort and
marched out with about thirty men along the colony road, near
Main Street of the city of Winnipeg, almost parallel to Grant's
line of march, and between the half-breeds and the river.

About one-half mile from the fort Semple saw the for-
midable numbers and attitude of his opponents. He sent one
of the colonists back to McDonell for a fieldpiece and rein-
forcements, but pushed on without awaiting their return. On
the way a few panic-stricken settlers were met in flight to
Fort Douglas, and may have confirmed the idea that the half-
breeds were about to seize the settlers in their fields and
demolish ' the settlement '.2 When Semple's party came into
view, Grant turned and led his men obliquely towards the
colonists and the river to the left, while another detachment
rode directly towards the river to outflank the settlers on the
right. Semple soon found himself surrounded ' in the shape
of a half-moon or half circle '. Both parties, however, were
still moving away from Fort Douglas when a Frenchman,
Boucher by name, rode out from the half-breed ranks, ' waving
his hand and calling out in broken English'. There was an
effort on the part of the settlers to deploy into the open plain,
but the half-breeds by this time had turned and were quickly
driving the settlers back upon the open river. The Governor
and Boucher were soon at close quarters engaged in an angry
discussion. Semple, with amazing rashness, seized his oppo-
nent's rifle. Boucher quickly dismounted. There was a shot
and then a general fusillade. The first to fall was Lieutenant
Holte of the colony, but ' in a few minutes ', says Pritchard,
1 almost all our people were either killed or wounded.' Many
of the wounded were shot dead and many of the dead were
mutilated with knives. Semple's thigh was broken early in
the skirmish. Grant spared his life, and left him in charge of

1 ■ Sheriff' after Spencer's arrest ; to be distinguished from the North-
wester of the same name.

2 Pritchard notes that most of the settlers slept within the stockade
of Fort Douglas. Several had already been taken prisoners on their
farms before the skirmish at Seven Oaks. According to McPherson's
Narrative, one of the half-breeds stated that their orders were ' to surprise
and take prisoners as many of the settlers as they could find upon their
fields so as to reduce the force of the Governor.' Selkirk Papers> 2673.

113 'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' chap.

a French-Canadian ; but an Indian, seeing the Governor down,
'shot him in the breast and killed him on the spot'. Only
one of Grant's men fell in the engagement. Of the settlers no
less than twenty-one were killed, the rest were taken prisoners
or escaped by concealment after nightfall or by swimming the
river.1 Many of the bodies were stripped ; some were bar-
barously mutilated ; the half-breeds carried off as plunder
even the blood-stained clothing.
As darkness fell, Grant pitched his camp at the Frog Plains

1 There is the usual conflict of evidence regarding the first shot and
the responsibility for the whole engagement. The North-westers to a man
blamed Semple, justly it would seem, for precipitating the 'battle ' ; and
there seems to be little doubt that the first shot was fired, perhaps acci-
dentally, by one of the settlers, who was ' checked for his carelessness by
the Governor ', some time before the parties came to close quarters. The
first to fall in the actual engagement was Lieutenant Holte of the settlement.

The chief depositions relating to the engagement and subsequent events
at Seven Oaks are those mentioned in the Hudson's Bay Blue Book,
1 819 ; Pritchard's Narrative, Selkirk Papers, 2597 ; Donald McPherson's
Narrative, substantially the same as Pritchard's, Selkirk Papers, 25 12, &c.
Evidence and cross-examination was amassed in endless detail during
the subsequent trials at York. See Amos's Report of Trials in the
Courts of Canada, London, 1820. A letter from Simpson (afterwards
Sir George Simpson) to Colvile, six years after ' Seven Oaks ', throws an
interesting light upon the skirmish itself and upon the character of Cuth-
bert Grant. ■ There I met the celebrated Cuthbert Grant. . . . This Young
Man I met as if a stranger to his character, and had occasion to see a good
deal of him. ... In the course of our Journey, Grant opened his situation
to me, but no fresh light could be thrown upon the unfortunate affair
of 19th June ; he denies in the most solemn manner any previous inten-
tion of Collission {sic) and assured me that the melancholy catastrophe
was entirely the result of the imprudent attack made upon them by
Mr. Semple's party, and once the Indian blood was raised his utmost
efforts could not arrest the Savage Revenge of his associates. . . . From
his feeling to the McGillivrays I am satisfied he would come out with all
he knew if he had anything of importance to say. . . . Grant is now about
25 Years of Age, an active clean made fellow, possessing strong natural
parts and a great deal of cool determination ; his manners are mild and
rather pleasing than otherways. He admits that he was made a tool of by
A. McDonell and being a very young man at the time thought it his duty to
execute or even anticipate the wishes of his Superior whether right or
wrong. . . . The half-breeds and Indians of this part of the Country look
up to him with great respect, indeed there is not a man in the Country
possesses half the influence over them. ... I am therefore of opinion that
it might be policy to overlook the past and if you did not object to it he
might be smuggled quietly into the Service again.' Simpson to Colvile,
Fort Garry, May 20, 1822, Selkirk Papers, 7587 et seq.

The signatures of Cuthbert Grant and John Pritchard appear together
on the same page in the Minutes of the Council of Assiniboia, Canadian
Archives.

VII 'THE ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' 113

below the settlement and lost no time in pursuing his advan-
tage. Pritchard, who had been taken prisoner by Grant,
' entreated him to take compassion ' on the women and
children in Fort Douglas. Grant replied that 'the attack
would be made upon it that night, and, if a single shot were
fired that would be a signal for the indiscriminate destruction
of every soul \ Pritchard, thoroughly alarmed by the ferocity
of this barbarous warfare, carried Grant's message to the Fort.
McDonell at first refused to surrender, but the settlers thought
of their defenceless families, and McDonell went to the Frog
Plains to arrange terms, leaving his subordinate to draw up
a full inventory of property at Fort Douglas. 'The fort',
says Pritchard, ' was delivered over to Cuthbert Grant, who
gave receipts on each sheet of the Inventory, signed Cuthbert
Grant, clerk of the North- West Company, acting for the North -
West Company. I remained at Fort Douglas till the evening
of the twenty-second, when we proceeded down the river, on
our way to Hudson's Bay.'1 Alexander Macdonell, the
North- West partner who had organized this ■ storm to the
Northward ', was awaiting results at Portage la Prairie. He
received the news with almost incredible exultation. 'The
gentlemen present all shouted with joy.' 2 Macdonell rode to
the Forks and took command at Fort Douglas.

McLeod, Henry, and McLaughlin, it has been noticed, were
judiciously late for the junction with the Assiniboia brigade
on the 1 7th. The Fort William expedition reached the Red
River on June 32, ' three days after the Battle '. On the way
up the Red River they met the settlers descending towards
Lake Winnipeg, in bereavement and despair. McLeod stopped
the colonial boats and enforced his instructions to Grant and
Morrison 3 by searching for papers and rifling the boxes of the

1 Report of the Proceedings connected with the Disputes between the
Earl of Selkirk and the North- West Company at the Assizes held at York
in Upper Canada, October 1818, London, 1 8 19, pp. 122-3.

2 Pambrun's testimony in Amos's Trials, pp. 73.

3 • La Gimonier is again to pass thro' your Department on his way with
letters to the Red River. As a precautionary measure he must absolutely
be prevented proceeding or forwarding any letters, he and the men along
with him and an Indian guide he has must be sent with their budget to this

1M«*7 H

ii4 * ANCIENT NORTH-WEST SPIRIT' chap.vii

late Governor.1 The settlers were at length re-embarked and
sent down the river towards Hudson Bay, in such despair
as they had never known, and in terror of even more inhuman
treatment. The North-westers ascended the river to Fort
Douglas, where McLeod took command to the salute of small
arms and fieldpieces. The bois-brutes were 'well and fully
recompensed ! in the spirit of McLeod's promise.2 At Fort
William were found the lists of half-breeds to whom ' habilli-
ments ' 8 were issued at Red River in June. Old Deschamps
was praised for his valour with knife and rifle at Seven Oaks.
Festivities were held in the Governor's quarters. McLeod
made complimentary speeches to the * New Nation \ The
Athabasca brigade went down the river again towards Grand
Rapids with enthusiasm after the summer's campaign. The
story of ' Seven Oaks ' appeared in rude verse that was sung
by the voyageur chantant long after * the coalition ' had put an
end to the rivalry between the two companies.

place here to await the result of future proceedings.' McLeod to Grant
and Morrison, June 2, 1816. Selkirk Papers, 8610.

1 Papers Pel. to P.P. S., 1819, p. 199 ; Selkirk Papers, 3327, &c.

8 Ibid., 8612.

8 Rewards of special services as distinct from equipments as regular
employees.

CHAPTER VIII
' THE GREAT MISTAKE'

Sir Gordon Drummond's tenure of office expired in May
1816, and Selkirk looked not in vain to his successor Sir John
Sherbrooke for signs of less ingenuous intimacy with the
North-West Company. Lady Selkirk, clever, energetic, and
capable, quickly created a powerful social circle in opposition
to the North-West bureaucracy. At Montreal, Selkirk and
the Hudson's Bay Company enjoyed an unexpected popu-
larity. At Quebec, Lady Selkirk became a favoured guest at
the Castle of St. Louis, and directed the affairs of the settle-
ment so effectively in Selkirk's absence that McGillivray found
the tables completely turned.1 Even in details of policy and
management it is not difficult to trace the growing reliance
which Selkirk placed upon the clear-headedness and sound
judgement of his wife. Their correspondence affords a pleas-
ing relief from the gloom of an unequal struggle. Early in
June, Selkirk prepared to leave for Red River, Lady Selkirk
remaining in Montreal, probably the most sagacious exponent
the Hudson's Bay Company had at Canadian head-quarters.

The disbanding of the Meuron regiment, the ostensible
occasion for the refusal of a military escort, seemed at the
time a fatal misfortune. 'We have now fully ascertained',
wrote A. N. McLeod, on his way to meet the bois-briiles at
Red River, * that he has no more the support or protection of
the Government than we have.'2 Selkirk, forced at last to
rely upon his own resources, devised in return an effective

1 'What an unfortunate trade we have got into, hemmed in ... by
a set of unprincipled Agents of a Government on one side and by a specu-
lating Nobleman on the other— Equally as it appears bent on the same
object— to exclude Canada and Canadian subjects from this too famous
trade.' W. McGillivray to John Johnson, July 18, 1816, Selkirk Papers,
2454.

2 McLeod to Grant and Morrison, June 2, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 8610.

H %

n6 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' chap.

plan to afford both protection and reinforcements for the
settlement ; he induced a few of the ablest officers and about
a hundred men of the two disbanded regiments to settle
at Red River. Steps were taken to secure arms across
the border and to convey them quietly into Upper Canada
without arousing the suspicions of the North-westers. Early
in May, MileV Macdonell, now liberated from custody,1 was
sent in advance, in command of three or four canoes, with
instructions to proceed with every precaution in order to
avoid the North-westers, and to act as second in command
to Colin Robertson at the settlement till Selkirk's arrival.2
Captain Matthey, with a detachment of seventy men, left
Lachine early in June. By the 17th, Selkirk himself was
ready to embark. It seemed that the winter's work would
not be fruitless. Selkirk was made a Justice of the Peace for
the Indian Territories. He even procured from Sherbrooke
a General Order for a personal escort of seven regulars from
Drummond's Island.3 At Montreal the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany were never so enthusiastic. At Fort William the North-
westers were never so dispirited. * I really wish I was
decently out of it,' William McGillivray wrote of the Canadian
fur trade, ' although I shall never submit to be kicked out of it
by any Lord or Commoner in the King's Dominions.' 4 There
were ' high words ' at Fort William between McGillivray
and some of the winter partners. A challenge passed, and it
was with difficulty that bloodshed was avoided. McGillivray
began to find that 'policy' was a much more dangerous
expedient than * authority '. ' Every neutral person ', wrote
J. D. Cameron, l thinks we are in the wrong.' 5 Selkirk, still
ignorant of the disaster of June 19, was hopeful and energetic.
Early news from the settlement had reached him by the
Canadian runner Lagimoniere, who had evaded the most careful
measures of the North-westers to intercept his dispatches.

1 An account of the litigation between the two companies will be found
in Chapter X.

a Selkirk Papers, 1 894.

* May 29, 1 816, Selkirk Papers, 2313.

4 McGillivray to Johnson, July 18, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2454.

5 Selkirk Papers, 2377, July 14, 18 16.

viii 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' 117

Selkirk had ' reason to expect every obstruction ' from the
North-West Company between Lake Superior and Red
River,1 and every hope of evading the North-westers by
a route through Fond du Lac, River St. Louis, and Red
Lake.2 Once he reached Red River, the future of the
settlement seemed assured.

It was at the Sault Ste. Marie that the news of * Seven Oaks '
shattered these ' pleasing visions ' of a future province.3 Miles
Macdonell had received word only at Lake Winnipeg that the
North- westers were in possession at the Forks. He returned
with all haste, to apprise Selkirk that speed and secrecy
would be unavailing. Of Selkirk's original intentions there
can be no doubt. As early as April 25 he had informed
Colin Robertson of his decision 'to take some other road
rather than the ordinary one which they frequent and by
which they expect me to pass.' ' I had no idea ', he wrote to
Colonel Miller at Michillimackinac, ' of tarrying at any inter-
mediate station.' 4 After ' Seven Oaks ', however, there would
be no supplies awaiting his expedition at Red Lake and no
resources for his support at Red River.5 Selkirk threw caution
aside and sailed straight for North- West head-quarters.

The proceedings at Fort William have been passed over as
discreetly as possible by Selkirk's supporters and condemned
unsparingly by his opponents. It may not be out of place to
suggest from his standpoint a few of his motives. The long
and unavailing negotiations with the Colonial Office left no
hope of the intervention of Government on his behalf. One
hundred men under his command within striking distance
of Fort William would leave the North-westers no choice but
to take the whole controversy before Imperial authorities.
There was, moreover, a certainty of obtaining ' very important
discoveries ' that might otherwise be destroyed beyond hope
of recovery.6 Selkirk knew also that Pritchard, Pambrun,

1 Selkirk to Robertson, Apr. 25, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2207.

2 Selkirk to Lieut.-Gov. Gore, Aug. 21, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2567.

3 Lady Selkirk to Selkirk, Montreal, 18 16, Correspondence at St, Mary 's
Isle, vol. iii, 390 F.

4 Marked ' not sent'. Feb. 22. 181 7, Selkirk Papers, 3178.

* Selkirk to Lieut.-Gov. Gore, Aug. 21, 18 16, Selkirk Papers, 2567.
6 Selkirk Papers, 2567.

n8 'THE GREAT MISTAKE* CHAP.

and several of the Hudson's Bay men were prisoners at Fort
William. The barbarous massacre of June 19, it has been
seen, had come with appalling suddenness, and left Selkirk
with the conviction that his measures were * Acts of Public
justice'.1 Lagimoniere's dispatches had given him every
reason to believe that the bois-brule's were acting altogether
at the instigation of the North-West Company. Selkirk's
conviction is expressed repeatedly to most intimate friends
that under the guise of respectability at Montreal the North-
westers were pursuing from Fort William an elaborate system
of inhuman outrage against their own countrymen at Red
River. After the seizure of Fort William he wrote to the
Attorney- General of Upper Canada of 'the most detestable
system of villainy that ever was allowed to prevail in the
British Dominions \2 There can be no doubt that up to this
point Selkirk considered himself the injured party, the real
builder of British influence and expansion in the West, and an
instrument for breaking the ' Iron age of oppression which has
so long prevailed in the interior of British North America '.3
In his success or failure was involved ' the question whether
extensive and fertile regions in British North America are
ever to be inhabited by civilized society'.4 In the light
of subsequent developments it seems probable that nothing
could have prevented the North-West Company from bank-
ruptcy had Selkirk been able to re-establish himself at Red
River and convince the world of the complicity of the North-
West Company in the massacre of Seven Oaks. The massacre
itself, however, precluded the one possibility; the necessary
evidence would probably never have been forthcoming for
the other had not Selkirk taken justice into his own hands.
After sober reflection, none deplored 'the great mistake' more

1 Selkirk to Attorney-Gen. Boulton, Aug. 1 7, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2 550.

2 Selkirk Papers, 2550. Selkirk wrote of enlisting Wilberforce against
the ' N.-W. Co. who with the exception of the Slave traders are perhaps
the most unprincipled men who ever had to boast of support and
countenance from the British Government'. Ibid., 2340.

8 Statement respecting the Earl of Selkirk's Settlement of Kildonan.
London, Jan. 1817.

4 Statement respecting the Earl of Selkirk's Settlement in North
America. London, June 1817. Cf. Selkirk Papers, 2346.

vni 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' 119

bitterly than Selkirk himself. It was the misfortune of his
life that the pacific interests of settlement should have
become involved with a determination to exact vengeance for
Semple and to uproot the North- West Company.

Macdonell and his express canoes reached Sault Ste. Marie
on the evening of July 24, after Matthey's brigade had left by
the south shore of Lake Superior, and after Selkirk, fatigued
with letters and business, had retired for a few hours of rest
before following the ' de Meurons ' to Fond du Lac. The news
from the Forks was broken by Allen, the physician, in the
morning. Selkirk formed at once the resolve to liberate the
prisoners at Fort William and to arrest the North- West ring-
leaders in full summer conference. Efforts were made to induce
Askin and Ermatinger to make the arrests as Justices of the
Peace for Upper Canada. It required more than ordinary
courage, however, for an Upper Canadian to brave McGillivray,
Kenneth McKenzie, and the 'nabobs' of Montreal in their
own council chamber at Fort William. Both Askin and
Ermatinger declined the office.1 Time was short. It was
necessary to overtake Matthey's brigade before it reached
Fond du Lac. Selkirk determined on August % to act for
himself in the capacity of a magistrate in the Indian Terri-
tories. ' In the delicate position in which I stand as a party
interested ', he wrote to Governor Sherbrooke from Sault Ste.
Marie, ' I could have wished that some other Magistrate should
have undertaken the investigation.' 2 The ' de Meurons ' were
summoned to Thunder Bay. On August 12, the expedition
of twelve bateaux put ashore near Fort William and pitched
their tents about a mile above the North-West fort.3

Selkirk demanded at once the liberation of Hudson's Bay
men, and on the morning of the 13th sent two constables with
warrants against William McGillivray. McGillivray 'acted

1 Selkirk to Lieut.-Gov. Gore, August 21, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2568.

2 July 29, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 1592.

3 The North-West Company's side of the story is found in masses of
depositions and evidence during the subsequent trials, and in the Narra-
tive of Occurrences in the Indian Countries of North America, since the
Connexion of the Right Hon, the Earl of Selkirk with the Hudson 's Bay
Company, and his Attempt to Establish a Colony on the Red River j with

t H4

iao 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' chap.

as a gentleman ', says McNab, ' read the Warrant and im-
mediately prepared for accompanying us '.* John McLaughlin
and Kenneth McKenzie offered themselves as bail ; but
Selkirk was not to be outwitted or appeased with half-
measures. He wrote to Boulton of sending to Upper Canada
a ' Cargo of Criminals of a larger Calibre than usually came
before the Courts at York '.2 With McGillivray once secured,
there was less prospect of resistance. Selkirk's men returned
and began to read warrants for the arrest of the other partners.
For a time the North-westers followed McGillivray's diplomacy ;
but at the third warrant there was a show of resistance,
a demand for the liberation of McGillivray, and an attempt to
close the gates. Captain D'Orsonnens, however, with a few
of his men quickly entered the stockade. A signal was given
for reinforcements from the Meuron camp. Two small field-
pieces within the fort were seized and the resistance was at an
end. The North- West partners were arrested and liberated
on parole. Warrants were issued ' to search for and secure
the papers of the persons arrested '. McGillivray's dignified
submission, it will be seen, was the wisest and most far-sighted
measure that could have been adopted ; but the Indians and
the two hundred North-westers within the fort looked on
in amazement to see McGillivray himself a prisoner, and
Selkirk's men coming and going on official duty within the
walls of Fort William.

More drastic measures were taken during the following day.
Early in the morning, it seems, there was information of
1 clandestine preparations of Hostility '.3 Warrants were issued

detailed Account of His Lordship'' s Military Expedition to, and subsequent
Proceedings at Fort William in Upper Canada. London, 1817.

1 Selkirk Papers, 2540.

2 Selkirk to Attorney-Gen. Boulton, Aug. 17, 18 16, Selkirk Papers, 2550.
8 On Selkirk's side there is no dearth of material bearing upon the

events at Fort William. McNab, who was one of the constables for arresting
the N.-W. partners, gives a very full account in Selkirk Papers, 2540 et
seq. In the correspondence and evidence at subsequent trials there are
statements from almost every class of men in Selkirk's party, from Pam-
brun, Pritchard, D'Orsonnens, and Miles Macdonell to Selkirk himself.
Dr. Allen, Selkirk's physician, has left probably the most comprehensive
and lucid account in Selkirk Papers, 4596 et seq. The North-West
Account of Occurrences is necessarily incomplete. No North-West part-

viii 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' 121

for search of arms, and about seventy stand of small arms,
many of them loaded and primed, were found in a hay-loft
where they had been concealed, it was said, during the pre-
ceding night. Eight barrels of gunpowder were discovered in
a neighbouring swamp, among burnt willows and recently
trodden grass. There was a protest that the prisoners 'had
broke their parole ' ; guards were placed within the fort and
the partners were strictly confined within their own apart-
ments. In the Council Chamber were found letters and
warrants from Selkirk of which Lagimoniere had been robbed
in his attempt to return to Red River. The seals had been
broken; evidence was forthcoming, bearing upon the means
taken to carry out McLeod's instructions.1 Search-warrants
revealed more than thirty bales of Hudson's Bay furs from
the Qu'Appelle. At the time of search all papers within the
fort were to be sealed jointly by Selkirk and the North-westers
for future examination ; many of these sealed bundles were
afterwards broken open and the contents burnt in the kitchen
fire. And, finally, there was found the list of half-breeds at
1 Seven Oaks '. All the names but thirteen had been marked
off ' as having received habilliments '. Within the fort were
found twenty bales of ' habilliments ' with an invoice and ' the
names of those for whom they were intended marked upon
them '. The names were thirteen in number, ' exactly corre-
sponding to the names of the individuals not ticked off in the
foregoing list'.2 Selkirk now felt certain of his ground. It
was at this point, declares Dr. Allen, that he resolved to winter
at Fort William. 3 He determined to ' cut up by the root ', as he
expressed it to the Chief Justice of Common Pleas at West-

ners were present at the later transactions, and even Vandersluy's state-
ment is scarcely representative of unbiassed North-West opinion.

1 See McLeod to Grant and Morrison, June 2, 1S16, Selkirk Papers, 8610.
' The intention of this express is to tell you that La Gimonier is again to
pass thro' your Department on his way with letters to the Red River. As
a precautionary measure he must absolutely be prevented proceeding or
forwarding any letters, he and the men along with him and an Indian
guide he has must all be sent with their budget to this place. ... It was
matter of astonishment to many how he could have made his way last
Fall through Fond du Lac Department.'

2 Deposition of Dr. Allen, Selkirk Papers, 4596 et seq.
8 Selkirk Papersy 4610.

\ii 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' chap.

minster, ' one of the most abominable combinations that ever
was suffered to exist in the British Dominions '. x

Scarcely had the canoes bearing the North-West partners
under arrest left Fort William when Selkirk was brought to
confront prospects of straitened supplies. There was never
an attempt to deny the irregularity of subsequent proceedings
with Daniel McKenzie, though it ought perhaps to be added
that what Selkirk considered to be the necessities of the case
could not well be urged in his defence at the bar of public
opinion. There were a hundred of the *de Meurons', with
crews of Canadian canoemen, to be maintained upon a stock
of provisions intended to support the expedition only as far as
Red Lake. All the colonial stores were in the hands of the
North-westers after an episode of unparalleled violence. Even
the provisions at Michillimackinac had all been bought up by
the North- westers with full knowledge of the state of affairs in
the interior. To push on to Red River would have invited
disaster for the winter. To return to Montreal after ' Seven
Oaks' would have stultified the whole expedition. Selkirk
saw what in some way had to be done, and accepted with
uneasy compunction, it must be admitted, the first avenue of
escape that suggested itself. ' I do not know ', he wrote to
Ellenborough, ' how far the step that I have ventured upon is
out of the common path.'2 That it was 'unusual' Selkirk
was the first to admit.3

One of the North-West partners at Fort William was Daniel
McKenzie, the 'old Sleepy Head ' of Duncan Cameron's familiar
pleasantry, whose health and self-control had been completely
broken by the hardships and licence of a long life in the North-
West fur trade. It had long been an open secret even to the
Hudson's Bay Company that Daniel KcKenzie was ' of
doubtful attachment to the Company'.4 As early as 1809
he had written of ' Froth, Pomp and Ostentation ' in the North-
West Company, and had applied to the hardships of the
winter partners and the affluence of the Montreal ' nabobs1

1 Selkirk Papers, 2806. • Ibid., 2805.

3 Selkirk to Gibbs, Oct. 10, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2806,

4 Selkirk Papers, 186.

VIII 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' 123

Swift's aphorism that party work was the madness of many
for the gain of a few.1 It was McKenzie, it seems, who had
bought up all available supplies at Michillimackinac for the
North- West Company for more than £1,200; he now sold
them to Selkirk,2 and agreed on behalf of the North-West
Company to submit all disputes to arbitration on a basis
already submitted by Selkirk to North-westers in Montreal.
The arbitrators were to be appointed by the Lords Chief
Justices of King's Bench and Common Pleas at Westminster.3
Selkirk was to execute a conveyance of £3,000 a year to be
held in trust by the arbitrators till the final award was made ;
McKenzie was to consign to the arbitrators all the furs ' in the
stores of the said Company at Fort William '.4

Beneath the specious equity of these arrangements, how-
ever, there were circumstances which extreme exasperation
and the conviction that his opponents were criminally
unscrupulous must have led Selkirk to disregard. McKenzie
had been kept a prisoner for two days, even though this was
several days before the sale was proposed 6 — ' long before the
transaction was entered into — before even the slightest hint of
it was dropped '.6 Both Stuart and Gale, Selkirk's counsel at
Montreal, hastened to advise him that the sale could not ' be

1 * I owe them no obligations, on the Contrary they have done all in
their power to injure me. Henceforth I shall think for myself. . . . Had
we thought and acted for ourselves we should now be both Rich and re-
spected and we should not have an addition to our Title of u McGillivray's
Geese".' McKenzie to Cameron, Jan. 14, 1809, Selkirk Papers, 8536.

2 Dr. Allen, who as Selkirk's physician probably knew much more than
any other except Selkirk himself of the real course of events at Fort
William, states McKenzie's motives in making the sale. He had bought
the supplies for the North- West Company at Michillimackinac, and if the
transactions were repudiated by the North- West Company on account of
McKenzie's information to Selkirk, the merchants at Michillimackinac
would hold him individually responsible. He therefore wished to dispose
of the supplies to Selkirk. Allen states specifically that the advances
came from McKenzie, and that Selkirk then proposed the transfer of Fort
William, to which McKenzie refused to agree. Selkirk Papers, 4620 &c.

3 Selkirk Papers, 2756 ; to Ellenborough, 2805 ; to Gibbs, 2806. Lord
Chief Justice Gibbs, it seems, had been counsel for the N.-W. Co. (or
X Y Co.) in 1804. Narrative of Occurrences, Appendix 12.

4 Contract, Selkirk Papers, 281 1.

5 'He proposed the Sale to which I agreed on condition of the arbitra-
tion.' Selkirk Papers, 3482.

6 Selkirk to Governor Sherbrooke (private), Nov. 12, 1816, Selkirk
Papers, 2920.

124 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' chap.

maintained in a Court of Justice \l and that the submission to
arbitration was ' invalid both under the English and under the
Canadian Laws'.2 McKenzie had recently been considered
capable of transacting important business for the North-West
Company, but his usual state of maudlin inebriety at Fort
William had been notorious. It was not wise altogether to
disregard ' appearances \3 To a casual observer the articles of
the transaction seemed fair, but even this plausible equity
disappeared on closer inspection. The prospective £3,000 in
rent from the tenantry of Kirkcudbrightshire had not a value to
Selkirk at Fort William in the autumn of 181 6 to be compared
with the vital value of the furs at that moment to the North-
westers. There can be no doubt that the retention of the
season's output of furs was intended to ruin the North-West
Company. Gale informed Selkirk, some time, it is true, after
the contract was made, that 'the consequences . . . will be
irretrievable to the North-West Company '. Selkirk himself
was the first to admit that the arbitration had an ulterior
motive. ' I do not pretend to deny ', he wrote to Governor
Sherbrooke, * that I was glad to have it so framed as to keep
a part of the Capital of the North-West Company in a state
of inaction till the question between us should be decided, so
as to limit in some degree their resources for carrying on
a system of lawless violence against me.' 4 A little reflection,
however, convinced him of the imprudence of the whole
transaction. There was an undertone of diffidence even in
the November correspondence with Sherbrooke.6 ' I have
been guilty of great imprudence', he wrote to Stuart.6 If

1 Selkirk Papers, 3049-50. ' The sale of Goods by Mr. McKenzie has
been made to your Lordship under such circumstances as must, I presume,
make it necessary for your Lordship to insist on its validity, even though
there should be reason to entertain a different opinion of it.' Stuart to
Selkirk, Jan. 20, 181 7.

2 Selkirk Papers, 3048. 3 See Selkirk Papers, 4621.

4 Selkirk to Sherbrooke (private), Nov. 12, 1816, Selkirk Papers,
2920-1.

8 ' Nothing would be more distressing to me than the idea that I could
be justly accused of having taken an undue advantage of my situation and
if in any point Yr. Ex'y should be of opinion that I have gone too far
I shall be ready to make any reparation that is in my power.' Selkirk
Papers, 2922.

• Selkirk Papers, 3385.

viil 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' 125

self-reproach can in any degree atone for a mistake, there is
expiation in Selkirk's unreserved correspondence with Lady
Selkirk in the spring. 'The consequences', he wrote, 'so
naturally and justly arising from my wretchedly ill-judged
conduct in September, give room for bitter enough reflec-
tions.'1 North-westers assumed a tone of fine contempt.
Old Daniel McKenzie was turned out of the North-West
house at the Sault ; he was assured by North-westers ' that he
would rot in Gaol ' and that Selkirk himself would soon be
prisoner. ' The poor man's mind ', wrote Pritchard, ' has been
so much worked upon by his companions and the various
reports he everywhere met with that he was much to be
pityed.' 2 He even attempted suicide by drowning.3 Finally,
at Drummond's Island he was induced to sign a 'protest'
that he had been 'detained a Prisoner' from August 13 to
October 11, 'during all which time' he was in a 'state of
inebriety and actual derangement of mind ' ; and that all
papers to which his signature had been affixed at Fort
William had been ' dictated by his Lordship and his Agents \4
The ' protest ' was scattered broadcast. Burdened with vexa-
tious details and oppressed by his single-handed responsibility,
Selkirk found the moral effects of his victory altogether
illusory. Lady Selkirk, knowing his self-reproach, marvelled
at his silent industry and patience, and threw her influence
with loyalty and headlong energy against the reproaches of
half-hearted friends at home.

At Fort William Selkirk still retained at least the fruits of
his premature success. In Montreal the outlook for the
Hudson's Bay Company was never so encouraging. ' Comfort
yourself,' wrote Lady Selkirk ; ' I have found a friend to my
heart's content.'5 There were prospects at last of enlisting
the scrutiny of Government into the affairs of Red River. At
the first news of 'Seven Oaks' Selkirk had urged upon
Sherbrooke the advisability of appointing commissioners.

1 Correspondence at St. Mary's Isle, vol. iii, 399 E.

* Pritchard to Selkirk, Jan. 21, 1817, Selkirk Papers, 3077.

8 Ibid.

4 Drummond's Island, Nov. 11, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2914.

6 Lady Selkirk to Selkirk, Oct. 9, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 4125.

126 'THE GREAT MISTAKE1 chap/

Lady Selkirk in Montreal took up the project with enthu-
siasm. An interview with Sherbrooke at Quebec proved for
the time unavailing;1 but Lady Selkirk continued to solicit
the intervention of Government, and when at last commis-
sioners were appointed in October, Selkirk welcomed the step
with genuine enthusiasm. ' The benefits to be expected from
this interference of Government', wrote Selkirk to Miles
Macdonell, ' are so great that nothing ought to be wanting on
our part to give effect to the acts of the Commissioners/ 2

The men selected by Sherbrooke were two in number.
Coltman was a Legislative Councillor of Lower Canada, genial,
fair-minded, and conciliating. Fletcher was a Police Magis-
trate of Quebec.3 The work of the Commission will call for
more extended notice elsewhere. The appointment was made
too late in the season to permit of action before the following
spring. Coltman left Montreal in November, passed the winter
in Upper Canada, and reached Red River only in July, 1817.
Selkirk remained in undisputed possession of North-West
head-quarters. There were vague rumours from Montreal
that North- West canoes were setting out, two or three at
a time, to rendezvous at Sault Ste. Marie and to recover Fort
William ' either by stratagem or by force, by legal pretexts or
open violence'.4 News arrived, however, of confusion in
Upper Canada and of shipwreck on Lake Superior. Lady
Selkirk, usually dispassionate and self-possessed, was carried
away for a moment by the suddenness of success. ■ The great
armada,' she wrote to Selkirk, 'with all the warrants and
constables, partners, clerks, Iroquois, and guns and Congreve
rockets, melts away and disappears, and a little canoe comes
dropping in now and then, and one after another of the
partners return to Montreal looking very foolish while all
the world are laughing at them.' 6

Successes at Montreal and at Fort William found their

1 Selkirk Papers, 2558. 2 Ibid., 3296. s Ibid., 2885.

4 Selkirk to Lieut.-Gov. Gore, Nov. 12, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2915.
Cf. Lady Selkirk to Selkirk, Oct. 9, 1816, &c.

6 ' They were to march you down on snowshoes, they were to bring
you prisoner with a rope around your neck.' Montreal, 18 16, Corre-
spondence at St. Mary's Isle, vol. iii, 390 C.

vin 'THE GREAT MISTAKE* 137

counterpart even at Red River after one of the most daring
exploits of the long contest in Assiniboia. Despite the
disasters of the preceding winter the Hudson's Bay traders
returned to their posts in high spirits.1 Fort Douglas, how-
ever, still remained in the hands of McLellan and the North-
westers. Early in November, Miles Macdonell was at Rainy
Lake with Captain D'Orsonnens and a party of ' de Meurons ',
waiting for a snow-fall to aid them on the way to Red River.
On December 10, twenty-eight men with two small guns
mounted upon sledges, began their march by snowshoes to
Pembina and Red River. On the last day of the year the
fieldpieces were trained upon Fort Daer from the opposite
bank. Macdonell crossed the river with his party, now sixty
in number, and took possession almost without a struggle.

In the face of a biting wind and heavy frost the expedition
moved on against Fort Douglas. Camping in a dense wood
about ten miles from the Forks, a night attack was planned,
which Macdonell described in detail to Selkirk with an excess
of military phraseology. The cold was moderate, ' the morn-
ing fine with moonlight \ Rough ladders were made, the fort
was ■ immediately invested and carried by escalade. . . . All
was quiet in our possession before daylight, when the Com-
pany's flag was hoisted on the staff'.2 McLellan and fifteen
men were taken prisoners. Macdonell was free to reap the
fruits of his victory, and to re-establish, by means not delicately
scrupulous, the authority of Selkirk and the Hudson's Bay
Company in Assiniboia.

It remains briefly to notice a diplomatic victory of the
North- West Company which in the end outweighed Selkirk's
success at Montreal, Fort William, and Red River. The
North-westers lost Fort William by force. They won the
Colonial Office by diplomatic resignation to law. McGillivray's
dignified surrender to Selkirk's warrant was staged with full
dramatic effect. For the North-westers, nothing could have
been more fortunate than the failure of their 'armada'. The

1 See Bird to Selkirk, Aug. 12, 1816, Selkirk Papers, 2532.

2 Macdonell to Selkirk, Mar. 6, 181 7, Selkirk Papers, 3233 ; Capt.
D'Orsonnens to Selkirk, Jan. 25, 181 7, &c.

128 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' chap.

part of it which eventually reached Fort William served the
purpose in the end more effectively than canoes of North-
West partners and armed voyageurs. At the first prospect of
impending defeat by Selkirk and the ' de Meurons ', an express
canoe had been sent off to procure warrants for Selkirk's
arrest. It would seem that some difficulty was encountered
in the quest of a compliant Justice of the Peace.1 A warrant
was finally secured from Dr. Mitchell of Drummond's Island.
A constable was procured to serve it upon Selkirk at Fort
William. Early in Novenber a single express canoe was
observed crossing the bay. Dispatches were expected from
Montreal, and it was not until the constable had actually
entered the room where Selkirk was writing that the nature
of his errand was known. It would seem from Selkirk's most
intimate correspondence with men of his own party that he
had no doubt the warrant was spurious. He wrote of the
incident immediately to Lieutenant-Governor Gore. The
warrant was dated at Drummond's Island, yet no instructions
had come for the military guard which had been dispatched
from the same place. There were no letters or credentials of
any kind. The men were utter strangers. Dr. Mitchell was
said to be ' an old man in his dotage, . . . never by any chance
sober after mid-day '.2 The warrant was written in ' a fair
Clerk-like hand ' ; the signature was irregular and not im-
probably 'obtained surreptitiously'.3 A journey by canoe
over 500 miles of fresh water in winter suggested a zeal for
justice that did not accord with Selkirk's experience of Upper
Canadian magistrates. It must be admitted also that Selkirk
had before him a startling instance of blind compliance with
North-West warrants. Information had just reached him
that Keveny, the leader of the second party for the settlement

1 According to Stuart, Selkirk's counsel, 'The application for a warrant
against your Lordship, it is well understood, was made in the first instance
to Mr. Campbell one of the Judges in Upper Canada, who deeming in-
sufficient (as may readily be supposed) the grounds on which it was required
refused to grant it and the Chief Justice (Mr. Powell) who was afterwards
applied to concurred in opinion with Mr. Campbell'. Stuart to Selkirk,
Jan 20, 1 8 17, Selkirk Papers, 3051.

3 Selkirk to D'Orsonnens, Dec. 2, 1 8 16, Selkirk Papers, 2939.

* Selkirk to Lieut.-Gov. Gore, Nov 12, 18 16, Selkirk Papers, 2914.

vni 'THE GREAT MISTAKE ' 129

in 1812, had surrendered to a warrant signed by a North-
West partner, and had been most brutally murdered by
Charles Reinhard, who afterwards confessed the crime, was
tried and convicted at Quebec, and was sentenced to be
hanged.1 There were reasons, moreover, to believe that the
appointment of a commission by Governor Sherbrooke had
already taken place, as indeed it actually had. ' Some indul-
gence may be felt', wrote Selkirk to the Commissioners in
the spring, 'for persons who had the fate of Mr. Keveney
before their eyes, when required to put ourselves into the
power of an officer ... in the pay of the same association by
whom Charles Reinhard had been employed/2 Selkirk ordered
inquiry to be made at Drummond's Island, and classed the
constable's errand meanwhile with other evidences of ' true
North-West ingenuity '. ' These circumstances ', he assured
D'Orsonnens, 'could leave us no doubt of the propriety of
treating the Warrant as a trick and the pretended constable as
an impostor.'3 The contrast to McGillivray's quiet sub-
mission was complete.

It would be difficult to estimate the indirect results of this
astute measure of retaliation on the part of the North-
West Company. The information was conveyed with all
speed to the Colonial Office that Selkirk had resisted arrest.
On February 11, 1817, Bathurst's ill-starred dispatch was
written to Governor Sherbrooke. The bearing and influence
of this document will be seen in another connexion, but it
may not be out of place to suggest here the inevitable effects
upon colonial courts, colonial lawyers, colonial commissioners
and minor colonial officials, of instructions which bore all the
weight of indictment, verdict, and sentence combined. * By
resisting the execution of the Warrant issued against him ',
reads the dispatch of February 11, ' Lord Selkirk has rendered
himself doubly amenable to the Laws. . . . You will therefore
without delay on the receipt of this instruction take care
that an indictment be preferred against his Lordship for the

1 See Selkirk Papers, 2585 et seq., 5033 et seq., 5037, &c.

2 Selkirk to the Commissioners, Apr. 28, 18 17, Selkirk Papers, 3368-9.

3 Selkirk Papers, 2940.

1526.7 I

130 'THE GREAT MISTAKE' chap.

rescue of himself detailed in the affidavit of Robert MacRobb,
and upon a true Bill being found against him you will take
the necessary and usual measures in such cases for arresting
his Lordship and bringing him before the Court from which
the process issued. Surrounded as Lord Selkirk appears
to be with a Military Force which has once already been
employed to defeat the execution of legal process, it is
almost 1 impossible to hope 2 that he will quietly submit to the
execution of any warrant against himself so long as an opening
is left for effectual resistance. It is therefore necessary that
the Officer to whom its execution is entrusted should be
accompanied by such a Civil (or if the necessities of the case
should require it, by such a Military) force as may prevent the
possibility of resistance.'

In case Selkirk could not be secured Sherbrooke is directed
to communicate the result, ' in order that I may in so extra-
ordinary a Contingency submit to the consideration of Parlia-
ment whether the urgency of the case does not require the
adoption of some special measure of severity with respect to
his Lordship'.3

It was more than twelve months, it will be seen, before
Selkirk discovered 4 — and even then purely by accident — that
he had been practically condemned unheard and his case
overwhelmed from the Colonial Office by official directions
of which copies had found their way mysteriously amongst
the executive and judiciary of Upper and Lower Canada. In
the light of the actual justification in fact at Fort William
for these criminating instructions it is not difficult to trace
what representations must have been made to Sherbrooke and
believed at Downing Street. The Commissioners, who had
been appointed to report upon the whole question at issue,
took the affidavit of a North-wester, Robert McRobb, at York

1 This word in the original is inserted with a caret mark after the
dispatch had been written.

2 ' suppose ', the word originally written, was incompletely erased in
the original.

3 Bathurst to Sherbrooke, Feb. II, 1817. Original Dispatches from
Colonial Office, Lower Canada, G. 19, p. 62 et seq. Canadian Archives.

* March 18 18, Selkirk Papers, 5776.

vin 'THE GREAT MISTAKE ' 131

on December 17. Before Selkirk had been given an oppor-
tunity of stating his case, before a single deposition was taken
on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company, Sherbrooke was
informed that ' the Earl of Selkirk has resisted the execution
of a legal process of arrest . . . and that under colour of an
unauthorized transfer which he had obtained of the property
of the North-West company at Fort William, from a retired
partner, whom he had kept in state of coercion and inebriety,
he was taking measures for removing the whole of that
property to the territories of the Hudson's Bay company'.
'The commissioners express an apprehension', continued
Sherbrooke, as he was about to forward McRobb's affidavit
and Daniel McKenzie's ' protest ' to Bathurst, i that the North-
West company may be driven to call in the aid of the Indians,
to prevent the measure/ 1

One may anticipate the trials of the next two years, so far
as to notice that Selkirk was charged at Sandwich, Upper
Canada, pursuant to the concise directions from the Colonial
Office, with resisting legal processes in the case of Mitchell's
warrant. For the crime which occasioned this special con-
demnation of the Colonial Office, the bench of magistrates
bound him in recognizance for the sum of £50, and the indict-
ment was unceremoniously thrown out by the Grand Jury.2

1 Can. Arch., Colonial Office Records, 1817, Lower Canada, Q. 143;
Papers Pel. to P. P. S., 181 9, p. 65.

2 See the Attorney-General's Report, Canadian Archives, Q. 325-1,
Upper Canada, p. 43.

The results of the dispatch of Feb. 11, 181 7, were not less unfortunate
for being unforeseen. In fairness to Bathurst it should be noticed that
Sherbrooke had requested 'to be favoured with your particular instructions
for my further conduct in this affair' [Jan. 1 , 1817, Papers Red. to P. P. S.,
p. 65], and that accompanying the dispatch of Feb. II was a private note
from Bathurst ' recommending that you should, if possible, warn Lord
Selkirk of the danger to which he will expose himself, if he should
persist in resisting the execution of the laws ', without however abating
in any way the determination to direct against him the ' power of the
law '. Papers Pel. to P. P. S., p. 73.

I 2

CHAPTER IX
THE COMMISSION.

Selkirk received word of the appointment of the Commis-
sion with unfeigned enthusiasm.1 ' I am greatly rejoiced that
it is determined upon.' 2 Though the sacrifice of the principles
for which he had been contending — ' the lawful authority of
the Company ', ' the unimpeachable validity of these rights
of property ' — was not made without a reservation, there was
to be * Voluntary acquiescence ' and therefore no ' dereliction
of their rights of Jurisdiction \3 Selkirk enjoined upon the
officials of the settlement the most implicit obedience to the
Prince Regent's proclamation. North-West forts were to be
restored, hostilities were everywhere to cease. ' Truth must
prevail in the end ', wrote Selkirk to his counsel, Gale, of
Montreal; 'and in the confidence that justice will ultimately
be done to me, I put little importance on any wound which
may be aimed at my personal feelings.' 4 ' I should feel
myself wanting in justice', wrote the Chief Commissioner
later in the summer, ' did I not bear testimony to your Lord-
ship's prompt and universal obedience to the Prince Regent's
Proclamation/ 5

Selkirk left Fort William for the interior on May I. The
North-westers quickly took possession, with something more
than casual appropriation. Lac la Pluie was promptly retaken
with the same haste, ' by the strong hand, with open violence \6
At Red River, however, Selkirk appeared for the first time

1 ' The benefits to be expected from this interference of Government are
so great that nothing ought to be wanting on our part to give effect to acts
of the Commissioners'. Selkirk to Macdonell, Mar. 20, 1817, Selkirk
Papers, 3296.

i Selkirk to Vincent, H. B. Co. Superintendent, Mar. 21, 1817, Selkirk
Papers, 3301.

3 Selkirk Papers, 3297.

4 July 3> 181 7, Selkirk Papers, 3652. 6 Selkirk Papers t 3991.
6 Selkirk to Coltman, July 7, 18 17, Selkirk Papers, 3674.

chap, ix THE COMMISSION 133

in the role which may be taken to typify his plans of coloniza-
tion. His activity and practical knowledge of agriculture
upon his own estates in Kirkcudbrightshire are to be traced in
voluminous correspondence which has no interest here but to
suggest a warning against overlooking the practical wisdom
of an experienced agriculturist in attempting to estimate
the methods and national aims of the colonizer. Selkirk's
generous and wise supervision at the Red River Settlement
created an impression in less than four months that still
survives in narrative and tradition. Sites were selected for
school and church. Arrangements were made for an ex-
perimental farm on a lavish scale. * Public roads, by-roads,
bridges, mill-seats and other important points were settled.'
' So correct and unerring was his judgement that nothing he
planned at this early date could in after years be altered to
advantage/ l Despite overwhelming financial losses,2 pay-
ment by the settlers for their land was relinquished. The
first treaties were made with the Indians. Selkirk was known
to them as the Silver Chief. Nothing was ever more un-
warranted than the unctuous fear of North-westers in London
that the settlers would scarcely * escape from the scalping
knife \3 ■ It appears to me ', wrote Coltman, ' that the Indians
wish the settlement for their own advantage.' 4 There is a sense
in which these obscure months must be considered the practical
consummation of an active life. Seldom has immediate re-
ward been so paltry, outlay so enormous, and ultimate vindica-
tion of practical foresight at once so tardy and so complete.

Even at Red River the relationship between Selkirk and
the Commissioner was not promising for the future, though
for the time at least every appearance of resentment was
scrupulously avoided. Of Coltman's benevolent intentions
there can be no doubt ; but the instructions from the Colonial

1 The Red River Settlement : Its Rise, Progress, and Present State,
Alexander Ross, London, 1856.

2 The Selkirk estates, it was found in 1820, were encumbered with debt
to the sum of ;£ 160,000 {Correspondence, volume v). Selkirk's account
was overdrawn at this time with his financial agents at Montreal alone
by more than .£10,000.

3 Inverness Journal, July 21, 1S12.

4 Coltman to Selkirk, July 17, 1817, Selkirk Papers, 3813. Cf. p. 86, n. 4.

134 THE COMMISSION chap.

Office made the outcome almost inevitable. Suggestions of
coalition were already being made at Downing Street. There
were 'hopes of an approach towards an amiable accommodation
between the parties'.1 North-westers openly advocated the
1 idea of uniting the Companies '.2 Neither party could hope
for a complete victory. If credit can be given to the con-
fidential dispatches of Samuel Gale, Selkirk's shrewd and
able counsel from Montreal, both Coltman and the law officers
of Upper and Lower Canada recognized the political require-
ments of the situation from the first.3 The tendency towards
'splitting the difference', 'consulting the wishes of Government',
regarding ' all ... as culpable and the outrages as mutual ',
must have been obvious. Gale, who seldom wrote optimistically,
it is true, described sarcastically to Lady Selkirk how Coltman
had refused to issue warrants against the North- West Com-
pany for ' conspiracy to expel His Majesty's Colony '. He had
'softened down the offence into a "levying of private War" '.
4 •' Private War " ', he continued, ' is not within the limits of
my Law.' The Commissioner, suggested the Attorney-Gen-
eral of Upper Canada, was a ' good-natured Laugh and Grow
fat sort of person who had no wish but to conciliate and
tranquillize all parties '.4 Coltman was not likely to effect the
summary justice which Selkirk was more than willing to
solicit.

Concerning the other Commissioner, the opinion of Hudson's
Bay officials at least was not so lenient. Fletcher had been
a police magistrate in Quebec, but his ambition essayed the
camp rather than the forum. His name does not appear in
the voluminous report of 1819, and surviving evidence in the
Selkirk Papers is not flattering. Gale in his amusing accounts

1 Goulburn to Berens, Feb. 13, Selkirk Papers, 4502.

2 Gale to Lady Selkirk, Oct. 23, 1817, Selkirk Papers, 4152.

3 Coltman ' took it for granted that Government looked upon all parties
in almost the same light . . . and like a good subject he has laboured to
fulfil what he conceived to be the wishes of Government. ... He is so
anxious to show that both parties have alike been criminal. ... He has
declared to me (in private1) that he considered the Government as having
taken a part and given a decided opinion on the subject . . . the govern-
ment was very tenacious in preserving the ground it had taken ', &c. — Gale
to Lady Selkirk, Oct. 23, 181 7, Selkirk Papers, 4146-7.

* Quoted in Allen to Lady Selkirk, Feb. 18, 1818, Selkirk Papers, 4564.

ix THE COMMISSION 135

of the ' Farces and Follies ' in the interior, suggests that what
with continuous tippling and magnifying his office ' the Major
is generally believed to be very nearly if not quite non
compos '. ' It appears to me ', he wrote from Sault Ste Marie,
'that every person of whatever description capacity or pro-
fession loses his senses the moment he arrives here.' 1 Fletcher
stopped the Hudson's Bay expedition of ' de Meuron ' soldiers
at Sault Ste Marie, arrested their leader with all military
formality, and finally allowed the party to proceed without
issuing a warrant or asking a question.2 £ The Major in Red ',
it would seem, was a ' military maniac '. ■ Military fame he is
determined to acquire/3 He managed his escort with the
punctilious discipline of a drill sergeant, 'the men having
always a broad grin upon their faces \4 ' No representations
of farce or folly ', wrote Gale, ' that was ever " enacted " on
any stage, could come near to the real life that is exhibited
here.' 5 Selkirk seems to have given up hope of a satisfactory
investigation long before the Commissioners returned to
Lower Canada. With regard to Fletcher, especially, the
implicit and carefully concealed information of Selkirk's
advisers leaves an unmistakable impression from the first,
of Fletcher's hostility towards the Hudson's Bay Company.6

1 Rain and the Commissioners ', wrote Selkirk to Lady
Selkirk from Red River, 'were the subjects of our daily
prayers and on the 5th they came both together.' 7 Coltman
arrived in a guise that alarmed the Hudson's Bay interests,
in company with four North- West canoes. The party passed
Fort Douglas without noticing the Hudson's Bay salute, and
went to dine at the North- West camp above the Forks.

1 Gale to Lady Selkirk, June 23, 1817, Selkirk Papers, 3550.

2 Selkirk Papers, 3540-43.

3 Gale to Lady Selkirk, June 23, 1817, Selkirk Papers, 3598. Cf. also
the quarrel with Captain Bruce with regard to command, Selkirk Papers,
3560; also the account in Gale to Lady Selkirk, July 6, 1817, Selkirk
Papers, 3681-95.

4 Selkirk Papers, 3693. 5 Ibid., 3683.

6 Cf. also Sherbrooke to Bathurst, July 19, 1817, Papers Pel. to R. R. S.,
p. 97. For internal evidence of partiality see Papers Pel. to R. R. S.,
pp. 101, 108, &c. Fletcher's connexion even with the Commission closed
in an acrimonious correspondence. Can. Arch., M. 778 — C.

7 Correspondence, July 7, 1817, vol. iii, p. 501.

135 . THE COMMISSION chap.

Selkirk hastened to show, however, that he attributed to the
Commissioner all kindly intentions — though it would not be
easy for him to * shake of? the burrs ' of intimacy with the
North-westers. Courteous, patient, affable, and untiringly
industrious, Coltman pitched his camp half-way between the
rival posts and spent twelve hours daily amassing evidence
and taking depositions that defy co-ordination. His aim was
clearly a benevolent impartiality, with perhaps the necessity
of some plan of ultimate compromise vaguely but persistently
in the background. He found the claims of the North-westers
with regard to pickets and fixtures at Fort Douglas 'vexatious
and unreasonable '. Smith, a North- West constable, endea-
voured to enforce at Red River a warrant from Sandwich
which had failed at Fort William in the spring. Coltman
put an end to the farce with something like contempt, and
hastened to assure Selkirk of his protection against chicanery
and violence.1 It was inevitable, however, that even the
bonhomie of the Commissioner would be open to miscon-
struction. Coltman's scrupulous regard for fabricated claims
of the North- West Company began to destroy the confidence
of the settlers in their titles to their land. If North-westers
owned hay-meadows, what of Selkirk's ' rights of Property ' ?
On the main point of ownership Selkirk was powerless to
effect a decided recognition of his claims, and wrote bitterly
of the Government's policy of inflexible opposition and pro-
crastination.2 'Under all the circumstances of the case',
he wrote at last to Coltman, ' it may perhaps be the most
prudent course to allow these people to seek an asylum within

1 ' He (Smith) insisted on the indorsation of his warrant from Sand-
wich or that one should be granted him for an escape to neither of which
I conceived him legally entitled, and if otherwise I should have felt much
hesitation in putting in the hands of a man apparently so violent the un-
controlled authority conveyed by the issue of a warrant if not bailable.'
Coltman to Selkirk, July 29, 18 17, Selkirk Papers, 3870.

2 ' If the genuine interpretation of the proclamation requires such a con-
cession (a recognition of ownership by the N.-W. Co., of a meadow where
the settlers had lots and had cut hay) there seems to be no alternative but
that the settlers should remove to some situation out of reach of the
N.-W. Co. — It would be very much against my wishes and I presume also
inconsistent with the views of Government (unless their predilection for
the N.-W. Co. may incline them to deviate from their general policy).'
Selkirk to Coltman, Aug. 23, 181 7, Selkirk Papers , 3974.

ix THE COMMISSION 137

the American lines, where at least they will not have to
apprehend hostility from the subjects of the same Government
and where if they be liable to be attacked it will not be
considered as an offence to be prepared for resistance.' 1

From this point Selkirk seems to have given up hope of
justification at the hands of the Commission. As early as
July 4, Gale with extraordinary astuteness had suggested an
explanation that in several respects was remarkably near the
truth. ■ Does it not seem probable ', he wrote to Lady Selkirk,
' that orders have been received from England for something
like a hunt against the Earl of Selkirk thro' the influence of
the under friends of the North-westers at home ?' 2 It seemed
that Coltman was to drift back insensibly into the North-
West party with Drummond, Dr. John Strachan, and the
Lower Canadian fur-trading interests. Tentative protests be-
came bolder as the hopelessness of the situation began to be
apparent. The charges against Coltman were kept for
the time discreetly veiled, but many of them even at this
date seem difficult to refute. A. N. McLeod and Alex-
ander Macdonell seem to have been met by the Commis-
sioner, who was urged by the Hudson's Bay Company to
take the depositions that would warrant their arrest.3 The
deposition was taken eventually, but two months afterwards,
when the men chiefly concerned 'had been seen at a great
distance on the way towards the Rocky Mountains '.4 Governor
Semple and more than twenty colonists had been massacred
at Seven Oaks and not one of the known instigators of the
North- West ' campaign ' was ever brought to justice. Selkirk,
with Dr. Allen and two others of his party, on the other
hand, was bound over for trial at the Quarter Sessions at
Montreal, in pursuance, it afterwards appeared, of the specific

< ' Selkirk Papers, 3974. Cf. Gale to Lady Selkirk, June 3, 181 7, ' I am
sick really of everything I learn and see.' Selkirk Papers, 3507.

2 Selkirk Papers, 3667. The obvious allusion is to Goulburn.

3 Depositions of Dr. Allen, Selkirk Papers, 4621.

4 Cf. Coltman's Report, in Papers Pel. to R. P. S., p. 197 : * the warrant
I issued against McDonnell, could not be executed owing to his . . . un-
expected escape into the interior.' The tardy warrant against McLeod
was ■ sent to Mr. Fletcher ... but this also failed to be executed '.
McLeod, in fact, had already 'proceeded to England \

138 THE COMMISSION chap.

instructions from the Colonial Office.1 Gale, unaware as yet
of these definite measures, was frankly bewildered, and pointed
out the absurdity of the proceedings with his usual caustic
humour. A magistrate for the Indian Territories took bail
for offences said to have been committed in the Western
District of Upper Canada, and bound over the parties for trial
in Montreal in the Province of Lower Canada. ' Some Irish
magistrate might as well require bail for the appearance at
Washington of persons charged with crime at St. Petersburg.' 2
And finally, the bail exacted was beyond all precedent.
Selkirk was bound over for £6,000 and the others £1,500
each3 — 'a greater sum', wrote *A Subscriber' for the Montreal
Courant, ' for an alledged misdemeanor than the total amount
of recognizances taken by the justices of the same court4 from
all the partners and servants of the North- West Company
who were sent down eighteen months ago', charged, in some
cases, with complicity in the death of Governor Semple and
the settlers at Seven Oaks.5 This irregularity in judicial pro-
cedure was speedily noticed in the London papers, and the
public rated Selkirk's 4 enormous crimes ' accordingly.6

With regard to the Commission, Selkirk was driven finally
into an attitude of compliance tempered by passive resistance.
Charges which it would have been futile to express at the time
were reserved for another occasion : 7 it was not wise to risk
an attack upon a Commissioner whose finding was acceptable
to Government and was at least a conscientious attempt to pave
the way for a practical settlement. Coltman's final report was
not published until the struggle had been transferred to the law
courts and a direct attack upon the Colonial Office ; but John

1 Selkirk Papers, 4092. Coltman suggested also to Selkirk that it
was necessary for form's sake to take recognizance for Selkirk's appear-
ance at Sandwich. Coltman to Selkirk, Aug. 2, 18 17, Selkirk Papers,
3888.

2 Gale to Lady Selkirk, Sept. 181 7, Selkirk Papers, 4092.

3 According to Gale, Selkirk Papers, 4092 ; elsewhere (ibid., 4697 and
5795) the figures are stated as ^6,000 for Selkirk and ^3,000 each for
the others.

* The same bail was confirmed by the King's Bench at Montreal. Selkirk
Papers, 5795.

• Selkirk Papers, 4697. 6 Ibid., 4639.

7 A Letter to the Earl of Liverpool, London, Mar. 19, 1819, pp. 25-35.

ix THE COMMISSION 139

Beverley Robinson, Attorney-General, could not fail to rely
upon Coltman's industry and integrity for guidance in the
legal proceedings in Upper Canada,1 and suggested that ' there
must be something rotten in the cause which has so many
enemies. ... It is wrong to fall so heavy upon poor unof-
fending Coltman.' 2

On September 9, Selkirk left Red River for Montreal.
Coltman, relying still upon fair play from the North-westers,
drew ' the inevitable comparison between his Lordship's case
and Mr. McGillivray's ',3 and urged Selkirk to return by the
regular route.4 It was an open secret, however, that a North-
wester with an appropriate warrant was awaiting him at Fort
William.5 Selkirk determined to travel by way of the United
States, to make arrangements for the disposal of his territory
which had fallen within the United States by the Treaty of
Ghent, and to arrange for the departure of some of the {de
Meurons ' for Switzerland by way of the Mississippi. Coltman
left the settlement two days later; Gale on September 12.
The significance, for the Red River Settlement, of Selkirk's
departure could scarcely have been realized at the time, for
the events of the following three years were to remove the
settlement for nearly half a century out of the range of the
development which Selkirk had designed for it. As though
to presage the future, a heavy frost the night after Selkirk's
departure destroyed the root-crops of the settlement, and

1 ' The Royal Commissioners sent into the Indian Territory had col-
lected an immense mass of evidence and made a report which furnished
the foundation of my proceedings.' Memorandum in Life of Sir Beverley
Robinson, Bart., by Major-General C. W. Robinson, C.B. Morang & Co.,
1904.

2 Conversation quoted in Allen to Lady Selkirk, Feb. 18, 1818, Selkirk
Papers, 4564.

3 ' The ready submission on the one side, for as far as he was personally
concerned, it was so, and the resistance and ultimate departure from the
country on the other — from whatever circumstances they might arise— are
facts which cannot be denied.' Coltman to Gale, Sept. 7, 18 17, Selkirk
Papers, 4047.

4 Selkirk Papers, 4041.

5 ' The object of the N.-W. was only to have an opportunity of insulting
him by causing him to be taken into Campbell's custody, the moment he
reached Fort William, which Coltman could not and would not have pre-
vented.' Note by Gale in pencil on the margin of Coltman's letter,
Sept. 6, 1 8 17, Selkirk Papers, 4046.

140 THE COMMISSION chap, ix

a violent hurricane on the fourteenth nearly ruined the grain.
It was necessary again ' to rely upon the buffalo *.1

Selkirk travelled speedily on horseback to Pembina, by
river-boat down the Mississippi to St. Louis, by land to the
Ohio and thence to Lexington, Kentucky, Washington, Phila-
delphia, New York, and Albany. It was January 10 before
he reached York, in Upper Canada, to learn explicitly that
the Attorney-General had received 'orders . . . from Lord
Bathurst to prosecute . . . criminally for the " escape " (as it
was called) from Dr. Mitchell's Warrant '.2 Meanwhile the news
was scattered broadcast in Lower Canada that Selkirk had left
the Commissioner by stealth and had escaped to the United
States. Wagers were boastfully laid in Montreal that he
would never appear to answer the charges against him. Lady
Selkirk, oppressed with gloomy forebodings but by no means
disconcerted by the over-confidence of the North-westers,
plunged at once into the maze of litigation that formed the
next phase of the conflict with the North-West Company.

1 Selkirk Papers, 4152.

2 Selkirk to Lady Selkirk, York, Jan, 10, 18 18, Correspondence at
St. Mary's Isle}, vol. v, p. 646.

CHAPTER X
'THE MUD OF THE LAW

Selkirk turned to the law for redress as energetically as he
had welcomed the appointment of the Commissioners in the
preceding spring. The inevitable laxity even of criminal
judicature in a sparsely populated province in 1818 must have
been apparent through the desultory proceedings at Montreal
with regard to Miles Macdonell and 'the sheriff'; but
Selkirk's movements in Canada seem to have been influenced
by a kind of recurring and fatal enthusiasm. If deliverance by
the Commissioners of Special Inquiry was illusory, recourse to
litigation was nothing less than fatal. In both cases Selkirk
was in strange ignorance of hidden obstacles; but the two
chief misfortunes which thwarted his appeal to law could
scarcely have been foreseen. Criminal proceedings against the
North- West Company, it was found, could be instituted and
conducted exclusively by the regular officials of Government
who were on terms of intimacy with the North-westers. Even
the courts were involved ; two members had refused to sit as
early as September because, it was stated, 'they could not
consistently with their conscience sit in judgement upon these
matters ' on account of their connexion with the North- West
Company.1 The other misfortune, the fact that the Colonial
Office had instigated the personal proceedings against Selkirk
by minute directions from Downing Street, was not definitely
known till Selkirk's appearance at York, and not known in its
precision and finality till there was no possibility of drawing
back. Meanwhile Selkirk's early report to the Committee of
the Hudson's Bay Company points to an almost complete
ignorance of these forces against him. ' The time is at hand ',

1 Justice Reid was brother-in-law of William McGillivray. Ogden's
son was a ' winterer' of the N.-W. Co. H. B. Co. to Bathurst, Feb. 4, 1818,
Selkirk Papers, 4476.

142 'THE MUD OF THE LAW chap.

he wrote in February, ' when the true character of that
association must be completely exposed to the public view, and
it is impossible so far to doubt the justice of the British
Government as to suppose that such a system can be much
longer tolerated.'1

The litigation which filled the following year and which was
left still suspended when failing health compelled Selkirk to
return to England, falls into three main divisions. The first, in
point both of priority and of importance, comprised the pro-
ceedings against Selkirk and his associates which had been
specifically directed by the Colonial Office ; the second com-
prised the proceedings against the North-West Company
mainly through Selkirk's instigation ; and finally, there were
the charges brought against the officials at the Red River
Settlement at the instigation of the North- West Company.

The importance attached to the proceedings against Sel-
kirk for resistance to arrest appeared to be unaccountably
magnified in comparison with the seriousness of the accusa-
tions brought at the same time against the North-westers on
almost every charge from misdemeanour to murder. The
dispatch of February n, 1817, had not yet come to light,
and Selkirk's counsel were bewildered by the distorted energy
of the Crown officials. A perusal of the full document2
suggests unmistakably the nature of the elusive but unac-
countably hostile influence against which Selkirk felt himself
to be contending. He was bound over by Coltman to appear
in Montreal in March. A bill of indictment was preferred
against him in Upper Canada also, and he was held to bail
on the same charge to appear at the Quarter Sessions at
Sandwich in April.3 The enormous bail fixed by Coltman
becomes intelligible in the light of the observation that ■ it is
almost impossible to hope that he will quietly submit to the
execution of any warrant against himself so long as an opening
is left for effectual resistance'.4 The injunctions for 'such
a Civil (or if the necessity of the case should require it . . .

1 Selkirk Papers, 4536. ■ See Appendix C.

8 Selkirk Papers, 4347.

4 Bathurst to Sherbrooke, Canadian Archives, G. 19, p. 65.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW 143

such a Military) force as may prevent the possibility of resist-
ance V would explain Fletcher's activity on the Commission,
in the otherwise meaningless spirit of force and bombast : ' he
only wanted "opposition"'.2 At Selkirk's first appearance
at York, the Chief Justice, according to corroborated evidence,
suggested that ' the charge of resistance to legal process was
of a peculiar nature ; that the law with respect to it was par-
ticularly severe ; and that the offence was not bailable \3 The
Solicitor-General intimated that 'Instructions from the Sec-
retary of State had been communicated to him containing
directions to institute criminal proceedings against Lord
Selkirk'.4 In Lower Canada the King's Bench confirmed the
excessive recognizance fixed by Coltman ; Selkirk's Canadian
counsel were filled with perplexity and astonishment.5 Sher-
brooke himself, the day after the dispatch of February 1 1 was
received, wrote vaguely to Selkirk of his 'determination to
carry my orders strictly and fully into effect, however painful
that duty may be \6 Thus the thread may be followed until
Selkirk's suspicion became a certainty, and was at last con-
firmed by the discovery of the dispatch itself.

Selkirk's voluntary appearance in Upper Canada, five
hundred miles out of his course, to answer the charge against
him, was an effective reply to the taunts of North-westers at
Montreal. At Sandwich the Quarter Sessions had just closed,
but a special session was called to try the charge of felony for
the seizure of guns and fusils at Fort William. It was notorious
that Selkirk as Justice of the Peace had issued a search warrant
for the seizure of the arms ; and one of the deponents at whose

1 Bathurst to Sherbrooke, Canadian Archives, G. 19, p. 66.

2 Gale to Lady Selkirk, June 3, 1817, Selkirk Papers, 3505.

3 Halkett to Bathurst, Jan. 30, 1819, Selkirk Papers, 5783. Cf. alsoSelkirk
Papers, 4347, Correspondence, vol. iv, p. 646, &c.

4 Selkirk Papers, 5784.

5 ' I think that Coltman explained his conduct to the judges and re-
quested their sanction to confirm what he had done— and I think that one
of the Judges to injure Lord Selkirk, one of them to screen Coltman and
both of them to please the powers that be and to secure also the protection
of those powers if their decisions should be wrong gave the order against
Lord Selkirk.' Gale to Lady Selkirk, Mar. 24, 18 18, Selkirk Papers, 4706.
See p. 145.

6 Sherbrooke to Selkirk, May 3, 1817, Selkirk Papers, 3406. The
dispatch of Feb. 11 was received on May 2. See Appendix C.

144 'THE MUD OF THE LAW chap.

instigation the warrant against Selkirk was issued, had already
sworn that Fort William had been seized with everything in
it the day before the arms were * feloniously ' taken. The case
was dismissed, although ' the Magistrate by whom that warrant
had been granted and also the two others who had acted with
him in taking the information upon which it was grounded,
were among those present on the Bench \l

On the main charge of resistance to arrest, however, which
the Solicitor-General frankly admitted he was officially in-
structed to bring, Selkirk was bound over to appear at the
next assizes. The amount of his recognizance, on the same
charge upon which the Commissioner had exacted bail of
;£6,oco, was fixed at ^50. Dr. Allen was held on recognizance
of £25. Hudson's Bay partisans claimed that the case would
have been dismissed altogether had there been witnesses avail-
able to corroborate the defendant's own evidence.

A third charge of 'assault and false imprisonment' was
then brought against Selkirk and Allen, by Smith, the con-
stable who had failed to seize Selkirk at Fort William on
a warrant from Sandwich in the spring, and whose violence,
it has been seen, had been thwarted by the Commissioner at
Red River.2 A true bill was found and both bound over to
appear at the next Quarter Sessions. Allen appeared and
was acquitted, as he expressed it, ' by acclamation ', in the
' first trial . . . concluded on either side'.3 Selkirk, fully occu-
pied with the cases in Lower Canada, found it impossible to
attend, but appeared at the Assizes of the Supreme Court in
September. No steps, however, were taken to remove the
case from the Quarter Sessions, and Selkirk was compelled to
leave his witnesses at Sandwich and to notify the Attorney-
General that he would appear by attorney at the next Quarter
Sessions. On September 21st, a few days before the Quarter
Sessions opened, the Attorney-General directed the indict-
ment to be quashed and the case was postponed from Session
to Session until Selkirk had left Canada and his witnesses had
long since dispersed.

1 Selkirk Papers, 5784. 2 See p. 136, note I.

8 Allen to Lady Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, 4841.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW 145

With regard to the main charge, Selkirk had already ap-
peared in March before the King's Bench in Montreal, 'in
pursuance of recognizance exacted from him by Mr. Coltman '
at Red River. The Attorney-General was unable to prosecute
in Lower Canada for these offences, said to have been commit-
ted in Upper Canada, on recognizance exacted in the Indian
Territories. He moved before the Court of King's Bench in
Montreal for new recognizances for the same amount on the
same charge, to be tried before a special Court of Oyer and
Terminer in Upper Canada. Gale, perplexed by this new
legal irregularity, and still ignorant of the dispatch of Febru-
ary nth, which formed, as it afterwards appeared, the official
chart of the Crown lawyers,1 sought in vain for an explanation,
and reached the conclusion that Coltman had ' explained his
conduct to the judges'; that he had 'requested their sanc-
tions ', and that the bench had acquiesced — • one of the Judges
to injure Lord Selkirk, one of them to screen Coltman, and
both of them to please the powers that be '.2 Selkirk objected
in vain that one court had no authority to issue compulsory
proceedings beyond the limits of its regular jurisdiction ; that
the whole transaction was ' vexatious, oppressive and unneces-
sary ', because he was already under bail to appear in Upper
Canada on the same charge ; and that one of the judges who
granted the renewal of Coltman's bail ' rose and retired from
the bench ' during the proceedings of the previous September,
on account of his connexions with the North-West Company.3
The measure was executed, and there was no redress but to
appear again at the Quarter Sessions at Sandwich in Sep-
tember. Here at length the Attorney-General presented
a Bill of Indictment for the resistance to Dr. Mitchell's
warrant. Selkirk's version of the incident, however, had by
this time become generally known. Public opinion in Upper
Canada was beginning to turn in Selkirk's favour.4 The
notorious Gourlay in the Niagara Spectator was glad to
support any ally against the Family Compact, and saddled

1 Selkirk Papers ; 5776. See p. 162.

2 Gale to Lady Selkirk, Mar. 24, 1818, Selkirk Papers, 4706.
8 Selkirk Papers, 5796. 4 Ibid., 4847.

1526.7 K

146 'THE MUD OF THE LAW chap.

Dr. Strachan with responsibility for the massacre of June 19th,
on account of his 'Scandalous Letter to the Earl'.1 The
Radicals were delighted at the prospect of a libel suit against
the 'cleric'.2 John Beverley Robinson, the new Attorney-
General, a young man rising rapidly in general esteem both
in Great Britain and in Upper Canada, felt keenly that the
responsibility of effecting the will of the Colonial Office had
at last devolved upon his shoulders. The trial took place
with the result already suggested.3 The case never reached even
the petit jury. ' It was this case', wrote Halkett to Bathurst,
' which had been so particularly pointed out by the Dispatch
of the nth of Februaiy . . . The Bill was thrown out by the
Grand Jury and at length met the fate which it deserved.' *

Before the prosecution against Selkirk was altogether relin-
quished, the Attorney-General determined to group all charges
under the head of 'conspiracy' against the North-West
Company.5 Three days were spent in the examination of
witnesses, and two in deliberation by the Grand Jury, during
which, it seems, the Attorney-General had access to them to
interpret the evidence. On Saturday there was an adjournment ;
on Monday the Chief Justice, without sending for the Grand
Jury, adjourned the court sine die ' and immediately left the
Bench'.6 The Chief Justice suggested that undue influence
was exerted upon the jury by Selkirk in person. The Attorney-
General in his report to Sir Peregrine Maitland, commented
upon the case of Daniel McKenzie, and pointed to the claim
by the North-westers that Selkirk intended from the first to
attack Fort William.7 Halkett, with much cogency, wrote
that the Chief Justice had merely saved the Attorney-General
from another defeat.8

1 A letter to The Right Honourable Earl of Selkirk on his Settlement at
Red River. London, 1816. Selkirk Papers, 4715, Mar. 12, 1818.

2 Selkirk to Washburn, April 16, 18 18, Selkirk Papers, 4800; see also
4750, &c.

3 See p. 131. 4 Selkirk Papers, 5798.

5 Account of Judicial Proceedings. By J. B.Robinson. York, Dec. 29, 18 19.
Colonial Office Records, Canadian Archives, Q 329, p. 35.

6 Selkirk Papers, 5803.

7 Report of Trials, Canadian Archives, Q 329. Papers Rel. to R. R. S.,
1 8 19, pp. 262 et seq.

.* Selkirk Papers, 5803.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW 147

The mutual litigation between Selkirk and the North- West
Company is even more bewildering and infinitely more difficult
to follow. The very number of the charges preferred makes
it impossible here to trace proceedings in detail. There was
drawn up for the Montreal Courant a comparative list of the
accusations made by the opposing parties.1 Against the
Settlement and the Hudson's Bay Company were five charges
of robbery, six for grand larceny, nine for stealing in dwelling-
houses, five for riot and pulling down houses, three for false
imprisonment and one for assault and battery. Against the
North-West Company were forty-two charges of murder or
complicity in murder, eighteen of arson, nine of burglary,
sixteen of robbery, nine for stealing in boats on navigable river,
nine for grand larceny, and seven for malicious shooting.
With regard to results, this formidable array of charge and
counter-charge resulted in one single conviction, for murder ;
nor perhaps are charge and verdict in themselves of much
importance here except as a commentary upon the animosity
of the parties and the operation of the law. Here at least the
results are far-reaching. The bitterness of the rival factions
seems almost to have dominated the whole administration of
justice in both provinces. It would be difficult to reproduce
from the voluminous and confusing evidence on the subject,
more than an outline of the kind of administration upon which
Selkirk found it necessary to rely.2

In the proceedings directed by the Colonial Office, Selkirk
had at least the privilege of employing his own counsel in his
defence. When he took the offensive against the North-West
Company he found himself crippled by the pointed refusal of
the Crown lawyers to allow his own counsel any adequate share
in the proceedings. In vain he pointed out to Sherbrooke,

1 Selkirk Papers, 4689.

2 In addition to Amos's Report of Trials in the Courts of Canada
(London, 1820), and the North-West versions contained in the detailed
Report of Trials (Montreal, 1818), the Report of Proceedings (London,
1 81 9), and elsewhere, the chief sources of information are found in the Trials
between the Hudson's Bay and North-West Companies, Colonial Office
Records, Canadian Archives, Q 329 ; in the voluminous correspondence
upon the subject between Selkirk, Allen, Gale and others in the Selkirk
Papers\ and finally, in Halkett's letter to Bathurst of Jan. 30, 1819.

K %

148 'THE MUD OF THE LAW CHAP.

during the trial for the murder of Keveny, that the Attorney
and Solicitor-General were hopelessly unacquainted with the
intricacies of the quarrel ; that ' within twenty-four hours of
the time when the trial was to be opened, they had not seen
some of the most material witnesses ', and that ' neither of them
is very ready in the use of the French language', or con-
versant with the peculiar phrases and idioms of the fur-traders'
patois. English law afforded to private prosecutors the right
of employing their own counsel in the name of the Crown.
Sherbrooke wrote concisely to Selkirk in March that the
Crown officers declined to allow private counsel ' to take a part
in conducting the prosecutions, or in examination of wit-
nesses V1 A Committee of the Executive Council considered
the question and were 'humbly of opinion that it will be
inexpedient to give any directions whatever to the Attorney-
General or to the Solicitor-General as to the mode of conduct-
ing the proceedings in any case in which the Earl of Selkirk
or any other individual may be the ostensible prosecutor'.2
The Crown officials were left, in Selkirk's blunt statement ot
the case, with the full power of affording impunity to any
offender whom they might choose to favour.3

The true Bills of Indictment found against the North- West
Company before the Court of King's Bench in Montreal in
March 1818, and before Commissions of Oyer and Terminer
in February and May of the same year, were no less than
eighteen in number,4 on charges ranging from murder to
conspiracy. There were no fewer than thirty-five charges
against North- West partners (William and Simon McGillivray
among the number), many of whom were Justices of the Peace
of the districts in which the crimes were committed ; and no
fewer than one hundred and thirty-five charges against clerks
and minor employees of the North- West Company.5 Four
other bills were ready for the King's Bench in September,
when the trials, together with the cases already mentioned

1 Mar. 30, 18 18, Selkirk Papers, 4727.

2 Minutes of Executive Council, Lower Canada, May 2, 181 8. Canadian
Archives, State I, p. 306.

3 Selkirk to Sherbrooke, Selkirk Papers, 4733.

4 Selkirk Papers, 5803. 6 Ibid., 5803 et seq.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW 149

against Selkirk, were summarily removed in toto to Upper
Canada, and the enormous expense of bringing witnesses to
Montreal, and maintaining them there, was added to the ruinous
losses already incurred in connexion with the settlement.
Stuart, Selkirk's ablest counsel in Montreal, had written frankly
to Sherbrooke that the transfer was 'calculated to entail an
enormous expense on the Earl of Selkirk and interpose im-
pediments, I fear insuperable, to the attainment of Justice '„*
Sherbrooke replied that instruments had ' already passed the
great seal ' and the measure was • in execution '.2

It would be little to the purpose perhaps to reproduce here
more than two or three of the numerous charges of laxity
against the officials of Lower Canada. There is a natural
lack of mutually corroborative evidence from hostile sources,
but the very abundance of evidence and comment enables
one roughly to reach the results even if the details bear marks
of partisanship and exaggeration. George Campbell, in one
instance, was the arch-conspirator for the North- West Com-
pany during the destruction of the settlement in 1815 — the
* very decent Man ' and ' great Partisan ' who had ' often
exposed his life for the North- West Company'; who had
been 'of very Essential service in the transactions of Red
River ', and deserved ' at least One Hundred Pounds'.3 Camp-
bell, according to statements that were submitted to Bathurst
and to Liverpool himself, was taken ill in jail in Montreal.
He was visited by a physician, while the regular medical
attendant of the prison remained unconsulted. Two judges
of the King's Bench — one of whom had declined to sit on
cases between the rival companies — 'signed a warrant of
discharge to the Gaoler for Campbell's liberation.' Campbell

1 Selkirk Papers, 4215.

2 Ibid. The original recommendation for the transfer came from the
Executive Council, Aug. 30, 1817, Minutes of Executive Council, Lower
Canada, Canadian Archives, State I, p. 157. In reply to Stuart's protest
the Committee of the Council declined to withdraw their recommendation
and pointed out that in addition to their original reasons two of the judges
declined to act and Justice Foucher had been suspended. The King's
Bench was ' incompetent to their trials \ ' This removal at this Moment is
not only a Measure of Expediency but of absolute necessity.' Minutes,
State I, p. 292.

3 Red River and Colonial Register, Selkirk Papers, 9736.

150 'THE MUD OF THE LAW chap.

was taken to the hospital 'wrapped up in a blanket', and
escaped across the American border.1

True bills were found against Cuthbert Grant at Montreal —
two for murder, two for larceny, and no less than nine others
on various other charges. He was admitted to bail on a
trifling recognizance, and took his departure at once for the
interior. Peter Pangman, Lamar, Perrault, and several others
who had taken a prominent part in the events of 1 8 15-16 at the
Settlement, were also liberated on bail, escaped to the interior,
and were never tried. The recognizances were forfeited,2
but Grant's appearance at Red River was interpreted as
a demonstration of the power of the North- West partners to
protect even the most recklessly daring of their supporters.3

Charges of laxity were by no means confined to Selkirk's
party. North-westers protested vigorously against ' incon-
veniences and expense ' ; but even the Attorney-General of
Lower Canada replied in a tone of disdainful moderation.
' The partners of the North- West company have no well-
founded cause of complaint. They must be sensible that
ample justice has been done them, as far as the proceedings in
the Indian Territory have been investigated.' 4 For Selkirk,
even the trial for the murder of Keveny, the one case in
which a conviction was secured, was only half a victory.
Selkirk, in order to safeguard the Charter, had suggested to
Sherbrooke that the trials be removed to England, little
thinking that the same suggestion had come from Downing
Street as early as January 17, 1817, and that the Executive
Council of Lower Canada had recommended the Governor to
suspend action because 33 and 35 Henry VIII, c. 2, pro-
viding for trial in England, was ■ entitled to a liberal Construc-

1 Selkirk to Liverpool, March 25, 1819, Selkirk Papers, 6012 ; Halkett to
Bathurst, Jan. 30, 18 19, Selkirk Papers, 5810 ; Amos's Trials, XIX, &c.
Correspondence, vol. vii, p. 1065.

a ' Grant's Recognizance was forfeited this morning.' Allen to Gale,
Quebec, June 16, 1818, Selkirk Papers, 5035.

3 Selkirk Papers, 5810, &c. Colin Robertson wrote of Pangman,
Demarais, Severight and others 'sporting their persons both at Michip-
coton and the Sault, smiling at our feeble efforts to bring (them) to justice.'
Robertson to Selkirk, June II, 1818, Selkirk Papers, 501 1.

* Papers Pel. to R. R. S., pp. 149 et seq.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW' 151

tion '.* Reinhard accordingly was tried in Canada, found guilty,
and condemned to be hanged ; but McLellan, the North-West
partner who had Keveny in charge at the time of the murder,
was admitted to bail at Quebec on the same charge,2 after the
same applications had been refused at Montreal, and after
true bills had been found against him both at Montreal and
at Quebec. The trial took place after many delays at Quebec.
The case illustrates a few of the difficulties and anomalies of
litigation in 18 18. The voluminous evidence and cross-
examination was reported in detail by the only available
stenographer left unemployed by the North- West Company
at a cost to Selkirk of five guineas per day and *]\d. per
hundred words.3 Jurors petitioned the Executive Council
for payment for their services,4 and the Chief Justice ruled \ in
a very decided manner ' that Fort William was not in Upper
Canada.5 The official case against Selkirk from the Colonial
Office was thus reduced to an absurdity — a charge of resisting
in the Indian Territories a warrant issued in the Western
District of Upper Canada. \ The resistance to Legal Warrants
becomes a mere hoax.'6 McLellan was finally acquitted.
Even Dr. Allen, who considered that the crown officers really
did ' their poor utmost ',7 and thought Selkirk's ' opinion of
the Attorney General rather too severe ',8 wrote from Quebec
that ' every one admits McLellan's guilt, even his own friends'.9

1 Minutes of Executive Council, L.C., Can. Archives, State I, p. 90.

2 ' The Attorney and Solicitor General have liberated McLellan, Grant
and Cadotte on bail — a proceeding so grossly improper that I conceive it
must ultimately lead to their cashiering. . . . The responsibility of an in-
dividual like Uniacke is but a poor compensation for the deadly mischief
that his blunders may produce.' Selkirk to Lady Sherbrooke, April 3,1818,
Selkirk Papers, 4757. The ' responsibility ', it would seem, rested origin-
ally with the Executive Council. See Minutes of Exec. Council, L.C.,
Dec. 9, 1 8 17, Canadian Archives, State I, p. 289, recommending that
Mr. Pyke (Deputy Attorney-General) should give legal advice to Coltman
in Montreal. ' The Committee are also of opinion that Mr. Pyke should
be authorized to consent to the bailing of any of the Persons now in con-
finement or under Accusation.' (The Keveny case was intended to be
an exception. Ibid.)

3 Selkirk Papers, 4962, &c.

4 Minutes of Exec. Council, L.C., Canadian Archives, State I, p. 343.

5 Selkirk to Robinson, June 4, 1818, Selkirk Papers, 4972.

6 ' How will Lord Bathurst like this ? ' Allen to Selkirk, May 30, 1818,
Selkirk Papers, 4953.

7 Selkirk Papers, 501 1. 8 Ibid., 4975. 9 Ibid., 5037.

J5Z 'THE MUD OF THE LAW chap.

' I had no right to expect such want of integrity/ ■ From the
evidence, the verdict might well seem inexplicable.2 Lady
Selkirk interpreted the result as the death-knell of vindication
by the law.3 'It is, in my humble opinion/ wrote Allen,
4 needless to send any warrants into the interior. For what
purpose give these vagabonds another party of pleasure to
Montreal, to be again set at liberty ? ' 4 It was at this stage
that Selkirk's health began to give way 5 and the futility of
further proceedings began to be apparent.

Determined opposition was still offered to the transfer
of the remaining cases to Upper Canada ; but here again
circumstances decided in favour of Selkirk's opponents. Two
of the judges, Reid and Ogden, refused to sit ; a third, Judge
Foucher, was suspended pending a process of impeachment.
North-westers could not be convicted because the King's
Bench was ' incompetent to their trials \6 Selkirk asked
bitterly of Sherbrooke if the judges were to be allowed to try
the opponents of the North-westers 7 and to decline to sit at
the trial of their own associates: 'to withdraw from the
Bench, or to resume their seats just as it may suit the purposes
of their friends.' 8 Sherbrooke wrote that ' it was entirely out
of his power to afford any remedy \ Witnesses at Montreal
began to disperse or were removed to Upper Canada and
kept there at ruinous expense.9 Upper Canadian barristers
declined to allow those of Lower Canada to practise before
Upper Canadian courts. Stuart and Gale were now power-
less further to guard their clients' interests. Selkirk himself
was too ill to direct proceedings ; and North-westers, wrote
Gale, had ' retained every lawyer of influence or talent in
Upper Canada'.10 Even John Beverley Robinson, the Attorney -

1 Allen to Gale, June 16, 1818, Selkirk Papers, 5035.

2 Selkirk Papers ; 5626, 565 1 et seq. Cf. Report of Trials, Montreal, 1 8 1 8.
8 See Selkirk Papers, 5069.

4 Allen to Lady Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, 5079.
6 Ibid., and Selkirk Papers, 4998, 5069, 5176, &c.

6 Minutes of Executive Council, L.C., Canadian Archives, State I, p. 291 ;
Selkirk Papers 4537, &c.

7 See Selkirk Papers, 4790, &c.

8 April 13, 181 8, Selkirk Papers, 4793.
0 Cf. Selkirk Papers, 4215.

10 Gale to Lady Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, 4205.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW 153

General, had originally been retained by the North- West
Company,1 though he subsequently returned his retaining
fee and endeavoured to stand aloof from both parties. Selkirk's
interests were entrusted to Rideout, 'young and inexperienced',2
and to Woods, whom Dr. Allen pronounced ' an impenetrable
Dunce'.3 Rideout and Woods were scarcely allowed to
assist the Crown officials. ' Such a proceeding ', said the
Attorney- General, * would be inconsistent with the established
practice of Upper Canada.'4 As late as August, 1818, indeed,
according to the Minutes of the Executive Council of Lower
Canada, the courts of Upper Canada had 'not yet decided
whether they can or cannot take Cognizance in Cases of
Indictment found in this Province'.5 Most far-reaching of
all were the technicalities involved in the extraordinaiy pro-
cedure of transferring the cases from the one jurisdiction to
the other. The instruments of transfer were considered
sufficiently formal by the Lower Canadian authorities if the
person were described and the general charge indicated ;
Upper Canadian courts demanded a full specification of the
offence. Cases involving those against whom true bills had
been found in Lower Canada for ' conspiracy ' were dropped
altogether, because, as Gale expressed it, the instruments failed
to say whether it was conspiracy against the Red River
Settlement or 'the Emperor of Morocco or the Cham of
Tartary'.6 The Upper Canadian courts 'could not take
cognizance of general charges ' ; the officials of Lower Canada

1 ' Soon after his arrival in Canada, in a letter, dated November 16, 1817,
addressed to a mercantile house in Montreal, (who acted as agents to the
Earl of Selkirk) he expresses himself as follows : " I was retained by the
North- West Company, before I left England, as their Counsel in all matters
between them and Lord Selkirk, except in those cases in which I may be
officially employed as Crown officer." ' Amos's Report of Trials, p. xi.

2 Selkirk Papers, 5772. 3 Ibid., 5720.

4 Amos's Report of Trials, p. xiii. Cf. also, p. 140, Life of Sir John
Beverley Robinson, Bart., by Major-General C. W. Robinson, C.B., Morang
& Co., 1904 : ' Lord Selkirk had been, in his youth, brought up to the
legal profession ; and he assumed very much to control the conduct
of such criminal proceedings as he desired should be instituted in his

behalf against the agents and servants of the North-West Company

I declined to allow any further interference with my discretion and duties
as public prosecutor than appeared to me to belong properly to his position
as a complainant.*

5 Canadian Archives, State J, p. 6. 6 Selkirk Papers, 5490.

154 'THE MUD OF THE LAW chap.

stood on their dignity and would no longer try cases that
had once been assigned for trial to Upper Canada. The
charge of ' conspiracy ' was ' stifled ' ; it was ■ neither to be
tried in the one Province nor the other'.1 The ringleaders,
declared Amos,2 were ' altogether screened even from the
forms of judicial inquiry \

When the time arrived for the actual transfer of prisoners
it was found that, with few exceptions, the defendants in the
numerous charges against the North-West Company had
retired out of reach of the law. Even after the transfer had
been decided upon, the Deputy Attorney-General was actually
instructed by advice of a Committee of the Executive Council
to admit all North-westers to bail except those implicated
in the case of Keveny.3 ' The persons so liberated, with
hardly an exception, made their escape into the Indian coun-
tries.' 4 Even these exceptions were insignificant subordinates
who could be reached in any case only through their superiors.
The persons indicted for the murder of Semple, for instance,
were Cuthbert Grant, Perrault, Paul Brown, and Francois
Firmin Boucher.5 Grant and Perrault, it will be remembered,
had escaped to the interior. For the trial of Brown and
Boucher important witnesses were absent; in the case of
Brown, one of the North-westers swore a complete alibi?
Scattered and confusing evidence of four or five years was
worse confused by prejudice and ignorance. The full reports
of the trial 7 warrant Gale's remark that the case was * utterly
confused and unintelligible'. 'All becomes a perfect chaos.'8
The prisoners were acquitted, and one of them acquitted also
on a further charge of robbery. To make the confusion
complete, six North-westers were tried as accessories to the

1 Selkirk Papers, 5824.

8 Report of Trials, p. xvii. Andrew Amos was a Fellow of Trinity,
Cambridge, and a barrister in London, who prepared the elaborate reports
of trials in Canada for publication. For a life of him see D. N. B. i. 366.

3 Minutes of Exec. Council, L.C., Canadian Archives, State I, p. 288.

4 Amos's Report of Trials, p. xviii. 5 Ibid., p. 31.

6 Ibid., p. 147. 7 Ibid., pp. 31-147 ; Report of Proceedings, &c.

8 Gale to Lady Selkirk, Oct. 30, 1818, Selkirk Papers, 5501. Gale was
present at the trial, and had been of course conversant with the facts of the
case from the first.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW' 155

murder of Semple before the principals were convicted and
when it was well known that Cuthbert Grant, Perrault, Peter
Pangman, and Demarais had escaped to the Hudson's Bay
Territories.1 The defendants were acquitted. Two others
were acquitted on the charge of stealing in a dwelling-house
during the destruction of the Settlement in 18 15. The result
of the litigation against the North- West Company was worse
than useless. Of more than one hundred and fifty charges,
covering the expulsion of the settlers, in 1815, tne murder of
Keveny while under arrest and in charge of a North- West
rJartner, the death of Semple and twenty of the colonists, the
subsequent destruction of the Settlement and the various
other acts of violence of which partisans on both sides must
have been fully cognizant, only one seems to have resulted in
the verdict demanded by the law. Even that was the case
of a self-confessed murderer who never paid the death penalty.
The North- West partners seem to have inspired their subordi-
nates with unlimited confidence in their power over the law.2
Owing to the dispute with regard to boundaries, Reinhard's
sentence was referred to the Prince Regent in Council, deferred
for final settlement, and never executed. * The result of these
proceedings', reads a North West publication,3 'constitutes
a Triumphant vindication of the parties accused, and a con-
clusive demonstration, not only of the obvious motives in
which these frivolous and vexatious charges originated, but
also of the iniquity of the means employed in bolstering them
up, by every insidious art to prejudice the public opinion/

The proceedings brought against the officials at the Settle-
ment followed the same tedious and ineffectual course. It was
possible, as Halkett pointed out to the Colonial Office, for the
North- West Company to take the whole controversy to the
Prince Regent in Council ;4 but for an obvious and logical

1 Report of Trials, pp. 189-321.

2 ' Before the North- westers left Quebec a grand dinner was given in
the gaol at which Reinhart of course was one.' Allen to Selkirk, June 19,
1818, Selkirk Papers, 5059. Cf. also Selkirk to Sherbrooke, Feb. 7, 1818 :
N.-W. prisoners were ' all maintained by the Company in a Style of luxury
to which they had previously been quite unaccustomed \

3 Quoted in Trials in the Courts of Canada, p. ix.
* Selkirk Papers, 5824.

156 'THE MUD OF THE LAW chap.

reason, it has been seen, they declined to risk ■ a substance in
pursuit of a shadow '-1 They held the field already, and were
' determined to redress all grievances they may suffer, them-
selves \2 ' Sheriff' Spencer was arrested in the autumn of
1814, kept in private custody of the North-West Company
during the winter, spring, and summer, and reached Montreal
in the autumn of 1815 with Miles Macdonell, who had been
taken in the preceding June on a charge of breach of the
peace. At Montreal, a new warrant was issued for felony.
North-westers were advised in England that it would be
impossible to proceed further.3 The case was not dropped,
however, by the Montreal partners ; and the trials involving
Macdonell, Spencer, and Robertson were postponed from
session to session and from year to year, in September 18 16,
September 181 7, February, March and May 181 8, in endless
confusion, and in alternation, as Selkirk wrote, between King's
Bench and Oyer and Terminer, ' alias Interminable \4 Mean-
while it was necessary to appoint a new Governor at Red River
while Macdonell and Spencer were supported at Selkirk's
expense at Montreal or in England. Finally, in May 181 8,
when Spencer and Robertson were arrested under a new
warrant and were required to give bail for their appearance
in September, they ' peremptorily refused ' and ' declared that
they would go to prison and remain there till the Attorney-
General thought fit to try them, rather than continue thus to
give Bail from March to September and September to March'.5
A nolle prosequi was entered for all but Colin Robertson and
four others, who were tried in May 181 8 for a riot in the events
at Red River in June 18 16, and were acquitted by the jury
' after a few minutes consideration \6 This, it is claimed, was

1 N.-W. Co. to H.B. Co., Dec. 27, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 254.

2 James Hughes, a North-West partner, in Papers Pel. to R. R. S.,
1819, p. 163.

3 ' It now appears . . . from the best Legal Opinions in this Country, it
will be impossible to proceed further, as the Defendants evidently acted
under a misapprehension of authority, and no sufficient proof can be ad-
duced of a felonious intent.' Inglis, Ellice & Co. to Goulburn, Feb. 1, 1816,
Narrative of Occurrences, p. 67.

4 Selkirk Papers, 5830 et seq. ; Selkirk to Lady Selkirk, April 1st, 181 8,
Selkirk Papers, 4742. B Selkirk Papers, 5836.

* Amos's Report of Trials, pp. 1-27.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW 157

the only case which the North-westers had brought to trial
against persons connected with the Settlement.1 Even Colin
Robertson, it was expressly stated, was not officially ' connected
with the Settlement \2 Amos, whose legal attainments and
constitutional learning give weight to his verdict, sums up the
four years of litigation in words that are not complimentary
to the Canadian judicature.3 The conclusion was inspired
perhaps by Selkirk himself. The evidence adduced showed
' a state of Society of which no British colony has hitherto
afforded a parallel: — Private vengeance arrogating the functions
of public law ; — Murder justified in a British Court of Judica-
ture, on the plea of exasperation commencing years before
the sanguinary act ; — the spirit of monopoly raging in all the
terrors of power, in all the force of organization, in all the in-
solence of impunity'. The prosecution of criminal offences
depended upon the ■ disposition, the abilities, and the leisure of
the Crown officers '.

It would not be difficult to suggest qualifications to be
made in this dismal picture. Lady Selkirk, less frequently
perhaps than Selkirk himself mistaken in the estimation of
character, has a good word to say for Coltman4 and for John
Beverley Robinson.5 Selkirk, it must be affirmed, was not
frankly communicative ; and an unsuccessful litigant, however
deep the injustice, is seldom nice either in language or in
judgement. For primary lack of success, in Selkirk's own
estimation, it was not necessary to look so far afield as the
Canadian Bench. Halkett, it will be seen, placed the responsi-
bility on more exalted shoulders.6 Meanwhile the effect upon
Selkirk himself was most injurious. His opponents saw
little but the ' Stubborn patience ' 7 and * Lord Selkirk's in-
domitable perseverance ' ; but the correspondence with inti-
mate friends in England, and above all Lady Selkirk's letters

1 Amos, Report of Trials, xxiv. 2 Ibid.

3 Report of Trials, xxiii-xxiv.

4 ' Such is the man's bonhommie and good nature that none of us can
quite attribute bad intentions to him either/ Lady Selkirk to Lady
Katherine Halkett, Dec. 30, 1817, Letters, p. 214.

6 Selkirk Papers, 5080. 6 See, however, p. 131, note 2.

7 Selkirk Papers, 4742.

158 'THE MUD OF THE LAW chap.

to her sister-in-law, reveal something of the poignancy of the
disappointment. Selkirk wrote of the * perplexities of the
law aggravated by every circumstance that could well be
added to render them more irksome and vexatious'.1 His
health, also, had begun finally to give way under the strain.
* The sedentary life of Montreal/ he wrote in August, ■ with
the concomitants I have alluded to, has been undermining
me.' The fatigue and privations of the long journey to Red
River had been stimulating by comparison. ' Willingly ', he
wrote, ' would I undergo ten times as much to be out of the
pettifogging atmosphere of this Province.'8

It was nearly three months before he was forced at last
to admit that he could no longer sustain the burden. Never
perhaps did Lady Selkirk's courage show to better advantage
than during this period of failure and discouragement. She
discussed with Gale the perplexities of Canadian law ; she
stood between Selkirk and the impatient advice of unsym-
pathetic friends at home. 'I am placed as it were in the
focus ', she wrote, ■ to receive shots in every direction, and I
suffer twice what all the rest of the party undergo once.'3
She responded to Halkett's exertions on her husband's behalf
with the tribute of profound but undemonstrative gratitude.
Her own exertions touch upon a remarkable variety of tem-
perament: determination, pleasantry, consolation, solicitude,
loyal vindication, and at the last almost tragic resignation to
the inevitable. ' I think we are all agreed ', she wrote evenly
to Halkett, c that although we must weigh well whether the
gain is worth the expense, yet if we are to be poor for three
generations we must absolutely fight this out.' 4 ' We are all
very cool and candid ', she wrote in defence of Selkirk,
' when not attacked, but no temper but his own could have
stood the repeated fire.'6 When it became apparent that

1 Selkirk to James Stewart, Aug. 14, 18 18, Selkirk Papers, 5273.

2 Ibid.

3 Lady Selkirk to Halkett, Letters, p. 210.

4 Letters, p. 194.

5 ' After the evil was done he got a series of letters that must have
vexed and annoyed him to the greatest degree . . . He is far too unsus-
picious, and with the worst opinion possible of them in the lump these
wretches deceived him in detail.' Letters, p. 206.

x 'THE MUD OF THE LAW 159

Selkirk's return to England was absolutely necessary, she
wrote of the failing health, the feverish nervous sensitiveness,
1 the bitter reflections '. ' He is vexed enough at what is past.
Were his strength of mind and body now to fail, where are
we?'1 She determined to await Selkirk's return in Montreal.
1 My remaining leads every one to expect him back in the
spring, and his going home only gives courage and spirits to
our friends.' 2 Selkirk's lungs had given way, however, and he
was not to return. A fortnight was spent in New York in ex-
haustion of body and anxiety of mind. He sailed for England
in November and Lady Selkirk in the following March.
Thenceforth the controversy took an even more depressing
tone. The rest of his life was spent in an unavailing conflict
against the Colonial Office and a lingering but fatal disease.

Two months after Selkirk's departure from Canada, the
case of Smith the constable was revived at York, and Daniel
McKenzie3 was induced to bring a similar suit against Selkirk
for false imprisonment. Selkirk's attorney was Rideout, 'young
and inexperienced '. Woods, Selkirk's other counsel in Upper
Canada, had written in October that the burden was * too great
for an individual to support'.4 Selkirk's witnesses had long
since dispersed ; Dr. Allen's was the only evidence available
for the defence.5 A verdict was returned for ^"1,500 in
McKenzie's case and £500 in that of the deputy sheriff.
North- westers were elated. Accounts of the case appeared
in the Montreal Herald, and were copied into the London
papers to confront Selkirk even in England with ghosts of
unburied causes in Canada.

1 Letters, 232. 2 Ibid., 224.

3 Cf. Letters, p. 200, June 12, 1817 : ' Poor Dan Mackenzie is on the
high road to unsay all he has sworn and go back to what he said to Lord
Selkirk . . . He is sending me the most tender messages, by every person
he thinks will have a chance to send them round to me, assuring me that
Lord Selkirk will be quite safe with his people, that Lord Selkirk is the
first of human beings, that all the North-West have made him say is
false, no ill usage, no compulsion, no unfair transactions, that he wishes
his Tongue had been cut out before he said anything against Lord Sel-
kirk, &c, &c.' Lady Selkirk to Halkett.

4 Woods to Allen, Sandwich, Oct. 181 8, Selkirk Papers, 5432.

5 Selkirk Papers, 5772. In McKenzie's case ' the defendant's counsel
limited themselves to cross-examination of the witnesses '. Papers Pel. to
R. P. S., p. 286. For Smith's case, see above, pp. 136 and 144.

CHAPTER XI

THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME

The return to England, as Lady Selkirk had foreseen, was
the signal for organized co-operation among Selkirk's friends
to ensure at least an adequate consideration of the question
by the British Cabinet. There were suggestions of activity in
the House of Commons in the form of 'an attack upon Lord
Bathurst ' ; 1 but the services of an opposition party were not
calculated to elicit a favourable response from the Ministry.
Brougham was not discriminating in his use of private
grievance as a convenient weapon against the Government.
The agitation was personal, not political ; Selkirk's ' under-
taking, ... in a manner the object of his whole life ', was not
to degenerate into an incidental party quarrel. He was
surprised, indeed, to find that the Cabinet had never been
consulted with regard to the dispatch of February II, 1817.
The attitude taken by Goulburn remained quite unknown to
Selkirk's friends in the Cabinet, Sidmouth and Melville, till
Selkirk himseif placed the information before them in person.2
It is to be noticed in the original dispatch of February 11,
that the words ' His Majesty's Government * are carefully but
not completely erased and the pronoun ■ I ' substituted for
them.3 Even the Colonial Secretary could scarcely have
given the matter his fullest consideration. Selkirk's friends
at least were no longer to be 'withheld by delicacy from
pushing their way direct to Lord Bathurst'.4 It was Feb-

1 Selkirk Papers, 6156.

2 ■ I must own that I thought it could bear but one interpretation and that
I was to find a decided enemy, not in Lord Bathurst only, but in every
member of the Cabinet. It was with very great surprise, that on seeing Lord
Melville and Lord Sidmouth within these two days, both of them assured
me that they had never till now been informed of the orders sent out by
Lord Bathurst on the nth February 1817.' Selkirk to Lord Hopetown,
Feb . 2 , 1 8 1 9 , Selkirk Papers, 5861.

8 Canadian Archives, G. 19, p. 63. See Appendix C.
4 Selkirk Papers, 6513.

chap, xi THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME 161

ruary 19, 181 8, it would seem, before replies to the dispatches
to Bathurst from the Hudson's Bay Company received the
signature of the Colonial Secretary.1 Berens had written in
April 1 816 that 'the neutrality of Lord Bathurst' at that date
left ' Ellice exceedingly angry '.2 The share of Ellice and of
Ellice's friend Goulburn in shaping the plastic opinion of the
Colonial Office is scarcely to be overlooked.3 ' Such is the
strange ascendancy ', Selkirk had written bluntly,4 ' which
the North- West Company have obtained over the mind of
Lord Bathurst or (perhaps I should rather say) of Mr. Goul-
burn that I have great doubts whether the papers will receive
so much as a deliberate perusal.'

Delay proved most unfortunate. Nearly two years after
the original ordinances of the Hudson's Bay Company had
been submitted to the Colonial Office for a definite under-
standing upon their rights, Goulburn replied in January 181 7
that no opinion could be expressed pending the results of
trials in Canada for crimes which had occurred in the mean-
time :6 'no precaution ', as Selkirk wrote in protest, ' was to
be taken to prevent future outrages till after it had been
ascertained who were really guilty of the Past \6 and the
decision upon the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company was
to be left to a colonial court. ■ Nothing short of a fatal
encouragement ', wrote Berens, ' has been thereby held out to
the North-West Company.'7 The Hudson's Bay Company
had begged for protection for the settlers through the
Canadian Government : ' the request was not granted '. They
had applied for similar protection at the expense of the
Hudson's Bay Company by way of Hudson Bay: 'it was
refused'. They had intimated their intention of taking
necessary measures consistent with the rights of the Charter :
they ' were warned against adopting this measure '. They
had asked therefore to have the matter officially submitted to

1 Selkirk Papers, 4469, 6713, &c. 2 Ibid., 2169.

3 Selkirk Papers, 6513, &c. Report from Sel. Comm., 1857, p. 346.

4 To Berens. The letter is marked ' Not sent'. See p. 101 and Selkirk
Papers, 1939. 6 See p. 99.

6 Letter to the Earl of Liverpool, p. 16.

7 H. B. Co. to Bathurst, Feb. 4, 1818, Selkirk Papers, 4478.

1 6a THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME chap.

the law officers of the Crown. ' The result of this reference
was promised to be communicated but we have never been
able to obtain it.' In the meantime the rights of the Charter
had been infringed, lives had been sacrificed, property de-
stroyed, and the Company subjected to financial losses of more
than ^"40,000.

The case of Selkirk himself was stated even more forcibly.
Halkett's letter to Bathurst, perhaps the most trenchant and
detailed document in the Selkirk Papers, was written in the
heat of resentment when Selkirk for the first time, after more
than a year of mystery, discovered by accident the source of
hidden influence against him. Among papers submitted to
him in March 181 8 by the Attorney-General of Lower
Canada there appeared by mistake a copy of the full instruc-
tions of Bathurst with regard to legal proceedings against
Selkirk.1 When the mistake was discovered, personal appli-
cation to Selkirk to refrain from using the document was
made in a way which left no doubt in his mind of the part it
had played during the preceding year of inquiry and litiga-
tion. With great skill and effectiveness Halkett traced the
conspicuous lack of zeal among the officers of the Crown, the
refusal to allow Selkirk the British right of employing private
counsel to support the regular officials,2 the 'general con-
spiracy which seems to have existed ' among those to whom
an injured man naturally looked for redress, the ' marked
stigma ' fixed upon Selkirk * without the slightest opportunity
having been afforded him of being heard in his defence';3
the injustice of branding the character of a man of Selkirk's
station upon the authority of a single affidavit, and that too of
the man in whose handwriting was drawn up part of the
notorious Red River and Colonial Register of bribes and
rewards for wavering colonists in 18 15; the injustice of

1 Instructions other than purely legal had been omitted ; for instance,
the passage relating to ' military force ' and the ■ special measure of severity'
in case of resistance. Canadian Archives, G. 19, pp. 65, 68, &c, Selkirk
Papers, 5779, &c.

* ' Right of a private Prosecutor in this Country to employ his own
Counsel was I presume never disputed.' Selkirk Papers, 5841.

8 Selkirk Papers, 5843.

xi THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME 163

issuing official instructions to arrest, indict, and prosecute
a man who was guilty of a misdemeanour at most, and whose
trial on that very charge had resulted in an unqualified
acquittal ; the extraordinary minuteness with which the
Colonial Office in this particular case had issued instructions
to meet every contingency — how the Act of Parliament was
to be interpreted, how magistrates were to grant warrants,
how process of court was issuable, how returnable ; ' in short
how constables might catch and Attornies-General indict him.'
For the facts, which Halkett claims to have stated ■ faithfully
and without exaggeration *, Selkirk pledged himself ' to pro-
duce unquestionable proof. 'It is evident', wrote Halkett,
1 that he has been treated with marked and signal injustice.' 1

Goulburn's reply2 is important here only so far as it
illustrated the hopelessness of obtaining redress by polemics
against the Colonial Office. Information, Halkett had stated,
upon which the official dispatch of February 11 was founded,
had been derived without scrutiny from the unverified
evidence of an unscrupulous partisan; Goulburn replied to
Halkett that Bathurst did not 'think it necessary to enter
into fuller explanations of the Paper, more particularly con-
sidering the manner in which Lord Selkirk had obtained
possession of it'. Halkett's detailed statement is dismissed
with the remark that the quotations from the dispatch of
February 1 1 were ' very inaccurate '. The ' inaccuracies '
consist of scarcely twenty variations, of which twelve are in
the use of capital letters, two are already corrected tentatively
in the margin of Halkett's letter, two are in the spelling of
proper names, and the others are without any significance
whatsoever in the purport and application of the document.

The case against Bathurst was followed by an attempt to
reach Liverpool himself and the Privy Council. Selkirk's
letter to the First Lord of the Treasury was only less

1 ' It cannot be expected that a man who has been so injured is to sit
tamely down and have his rights of Property trampled upon, and what is
of more importance, his Character wantonly traduced.' Selkirk Papers ;
5853. See however p. 131, note 2.

2 Selkirk Papers, 5854-5.

L 2

1 64 THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME chap.

trenchant than Halkett's.1 Liverpool replied 2 with all
courtesy, and promised at least \ a careful consideration of the
Documents'. An attitude of prudent circumspection, at least,
among other members of the Cabinet was reassuring. The
matter could no longer be disposed of by an under-Secretary.
There was a motion for papers in Parliament and encouraging
evidence elsewhere that opinion was turning in Selkirk's
favour. Zachary Macaulay assured him of his co-operation.
Wilberforce wrote of 'some opportunity of doing justice to
your Lordship', under the conviction that the plans for
colonization 'had been undertaken with a view to the im-
provement and benefit of your fellow creatures. ... I never have
had any misgivings on that head \3 In March Selkirk ' had
hopes of a good conclusion \ ' I have of late had the satis-
faction \ he wrote in August, ' of finding the public beginning
to be sensible of the infamy of the proceedings in Canada . . .
and I believe truth and justice will prevail at last.'4 The
prospective victory, however, was again illusory. Selkirk's
health had hopelessly given way, and irresistible influences
were already at work to bury the blunders of all parties
concerned by an agreement between the contending com-
panies.

Selkirk's health had never recovered from the unfortunate
winter in Montreal. Periods of extreme physical exhaustion
became increasingly frequent. Short periods of recovery
were followed by the recurrence of haemorrhage and relapse.
For a time it seemed that the stimulus of excitement and
prospective success was restoring the characteristic vitality;
but vindication was too long deferred. Wilberforce deplored
with unaffected anxiety the effects of mental vexation.5

1 Published April, 1819. * Selkirk Papers, 6132.

3 * Yet I know ', he added frankly, ' that in the prosecution of a favourite
object, men are sometimes led into the use of means which they may after-
wards see reason to disapprove. And this especially happens, when from
the nature of the case, we are obliged to avail ourselves of the services
of men, whose character we cannot scrutinize very nicely. Excuse me, if
I say that I conceived such might be your situation.' Selkirk Papers,
6213, 6363, &c. 4 Selkirk Papers, 6433.

5 \ And now my dear Lord, let me complain of you for not satisfying the
unaffected solicitude I feel about the state of your health.' Selkirk Papers,
6363.

xi THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME 165

1 1 wish the Body may not receive some serious injury from
the Mind. I fear the sword may wear and damage the
Scabbard.' It was when Selkirk felt that the situation was
most critical that he was thrust ■ head and shoulders out of
town', as he wrote with forced pleasantry to his counsel,
* with orders not to meddle with business \1 There can be no
doubt that the mental strain was responsible for the rapid
decline during the closing months of his life. Lady Katherine
Halkett mentions the fatal effects of a paragraph in the
London papers inspired by the North-westers, * insidiously
alluding* to the McKenzie trial in Canada. Selkirk was
preparing to institute an action for libel when another haemor-
rhage took place, and ' from that time forward ', wrote Lady
Katherine Halkett, 'we had nothing but anxiety, sorrow,
labour of body, and heart break '.2

Selkirk decided to spend the winter at Pau in France, in
the vain hope of recovering his health in time to renew the
conflict in the spring. The forces towards compromise, how-
ever, were beginning to be felt. Selkirk himself began to see
that there was no place for him in the exigencies of a practical
settlement. Even the persistent devotion to what had been
the chief object of his life was not sufficient, it will be seen, to
counteract the necessity of terminating the feud between the
companies. As strength declined, the hopelessness of the
struggle became more apparent. Nothing was forthcoming to
relieve the gloom which must have clouded Selkirk's mind
when first he realized that he could not hope to live. From
that point he sank rapidly. Lady Selkirk, with resignation
broken by unwonted emotion, describes to Lady Katherine
Halkett the exhaustion of body, the decline sudden and rapid,
the perfect tranquillity of mind at the last, the inexhaustible
patience. ' Everything like disturbance of mind had passed
away, no bitter feeling seemed to remain.'3 The end came
swiftly but not unexpectedly, at Pau on April 8, 1820. He
lies buried in the Protestant cemetery.

1 Selkirk Papers, 6198.

2 Letters from the Countess of Selkirk to Lady Katherine Halkett, p. 242.-

3 Correspondence, vol. vi, p. 1005.

i66 THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME chap.

It remains briefly to trace the close of the ■ Selkirk Regime '
in the history of the Hudson's Bay Company and the Red
River Settlement. Since 1812, probably, Selkirk's influence
alone had saved the Hudson's Bay Company from being
uprooted by the North-westers at Montreal. None now
questioned the wisdom of Sir Alexander Mackenzie's advice
in 1811; and with the exception of Selkirk himself there
were few in the Hudson's Bay Company, even when the
conflict was at its height, whose partisanship was founded
upon principle or whose interests could not be satisfied by
large dividends. The influence at this critical stage of Selkirk,
and particularly of Lady Selkirk, has already been outlined.
The North-West partners of Montreal foresaw nothing but
disaster for the Canadian fur trade. William McGillivray wished
himself ' decently out of it '.l Even the North- West litigation
in Canada was a Fabian policy which yielded no positive
results.2 As the time approached for the dissolution of the
North-West partnership,3 the prospects became still more
gloomy for the Montreal partners. The ' winterers ' were
discontented with their share of the profits and discouraged
by their share of the hardships of the enterprise. A few of
them were making overtures to Selkirk through Gale and the
Montreal agents.4 Colvile, for the Hudson's Bay Company,
had agreed as early as December, 18 19, to grant them a
'joint share of the management and arrangement of the
business with the present servants of the Company '.6 They
were held in check, however, ' being unable to get what is due
to them from the Montreal houses ' ; 6 but there can be no
doubt that the discontent explains much of the insistence of
the North-West partners at Montreal and in London upon an
amnesty and a speedy compromise.

Overtures towards settlement seem first to have come from
Ellice, who for obvious reasons was at this time the most

1 Selkirk Papers, 2454. See p. 116. * Ibid., 4464.

5 The contract between Montreal and winter partners expired or was to
expire in 1822,

* Gale to Lady Selkirk, Selkirk Papers, 6493, &c.

6 Colvile to Gale, Dec. 24, 18 19, Selkirk Papers, 661 1.

6 Gale to Lady Selkirk, Sept. 18 19, Selkirk Papers, 6501.

xi THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME 167

powerful North-West partisan in London.1 He wrote re-
peatedly in confidence to Colvile, discussing the possibilities
of purchasing a controlling interest in the Hudson's Bay-
Company at their own valuation, stipulating the dropping of
all legal proceedings, and pledging himself to ' agree to such
conditions as A. Colvile may think necessary or expedient, to
assure to such Settlers as have been sent into the Red River
by Lord Selkirk, if they should be disposed to remain in that
Country, the same support which Lord Selkirk . . . has pro-
mised to them \ Failing this, the North-West Company would
send them to Upper Canada or to the United States ' without
expense to the Colonists \2 The proposals were submitted to
Selkirk, who replied scathingly that he was at a loss to see
' how any security which they have the means of giving'
would justify him in placing either his property or 'the people
who have settled upon his lands and under his protection . . .
completely at the mercy of that association'.3 'The choice
between the adoption and rejection of Ellice's proposal',
declared Lady Selkirk, ' is merely a question between money
and principle.' 4 Ellice wrote again, however, of ' losses and
ultimate ruin ' ; and finally Goulburn threw in his influence in
no uncertain manner. ' He urged the expediency of a com-
promise', wrote Sir James Montgomery,5 'without obliging
the Council to decide, because he thought the decision might
be unfavourable to both and added that Government might
be disposed to go into and confirm any arrangement the
Parties might make between themselves.'6 Selkirk realized
at last that the forces against him were overwhelming. His
financial losses were ruinous. His relatives were chafing
under such enormous sacrifices for so remote an enterprise.
Failing in health and almost single-handed, it was impossible
for him to continue the conflict. Something must be done;

1 In 1820 Ellice was Member of Parliament for Coventry. Corre-
spondence, vol. v, p. ii.

2 Ellice to Colvile, Dec. 2, 1819, Selkirk Papers, 6622, &c.
s Selkirk Papers, 6628.

4 Selkirk to Colvile, Jan. 8, 1820. Correspondence, vol. vi, p. 973a.

5 Who had moved in the House for papers on June 15, Selkirk Papers,
6267.

6 Selkirk Papers, 5966.

i68 THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME chap.

and even in the defiant refusal of Ellice's proposals, against
which Selkirk bent every impulse of his remaining strength,
there is a note of impending necessity. ' It is only the
impossibility of holding out against the Colonial Department
and the North-West Company together that can justify it.' 1
1 Our affairs are desperate/ wrote Halkett ; ' Necessity has no
law.' 2

It was in keeping with Selkirk's resolute attitude from
the first, that he did not live to see the surrender of his
' principle '. More than a year passed after his death before
1 the coalition ' was finally consummated.3 The terms of the
agreement were scarcely such as Gale and the Hudson's Bay
agents in America felt justified in expecting ; and certainly
not what Selkirk would have exacted had health been spared
to him.4 There were ' well-grounded complaints ' among the
winter partners, who had a right to expect more generous
treatment ; there was much rejoicing among ' the McGil-
livrays ', who had apparently secured terms ■ excessively and
unreasonably favourable to the North-West Company \6 On
the whole, there was much satisfaction to the Hudson's Bay
Company, who by retaining the real management of the trade
by way of Hudson's Bay deliberately starved the Montreal
houses, and within a few years had re-established their ascen-
dancy as it had never existed before.6 Many of the chief
actors disappear from the stage. ' What say you ', wrote
Halkett to Lady Selkirk, 'to going out next summer to

1 Selkirk to Colvile, Pau, Dec. 1 1, 1819 ; Correspondence, vol. vi, p. 966b.

2 Correspondence \ vol. vi, p. 1023.

3 Colvile wrote, Feb. 24, 1821, of ' the arrangement which is nearly com-
pleted with the N.-W. Co., which will secure the peace of the whole
country as the whole trade is to be conducted by the H. B. Co. the Part-
ners of the N.-W. Co. receiving a certain share of the concern. The
agreement is not yet signed but the heads are agreed to and the lawyers are
preparing the papers.' Selkirk Papers, 7093.

4 Profits were to be divided in the proportion of 55 to the North-westers
and winter partners and 45 to the H.B. Co. Of the 55 per cent, the
agents at Montreal received 30 and the winter partners 25. The former
ratio between agents and winterers in the N.-W. Co. had been 23 and 37.
Gale to Colvile, June 30, 1821. Selkirk Papers, 7315 et seq.

6 Selkirk Papers, 7315.

6 Correspondence, vol. viii, 1260 : ■ Simpson's plan of turning everything
into the Bay.' Lord Selkirk to Lady Selkirk, Sept. 5, 1836.

xi THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME 169

Montreal to see them all put together into this whitewashing
tub and purified ? ' * Simon McGillivray quickly lost his
preponderating influence.2 Shortly after the coalition the
firm of McGillivray, Thain & Company in Lower Canada
failed, and William McGillivray died in Great Britain. The
firm of Inglis & Ellice failed in London.3 * I do not know
whether you were wicked enough to wish to be revenged \
wrote young Lord Selkirk from Canada in 1836; 'if you
ever did I can assure you it has been done to the full/ 4 In
the interior the picturesque customs of the fur trade were
combined with shrewdness and economy. Correspondence
relapses into inventories and the minutiae of a hard but
lucrative system. The Old Company resumed again its placid
and mysterious existence.

For the settlement, the Selkirk regime lingered on for
nearly fifteen years after the death of its founder. One clearly
marked phase, at least, comes abruptly to an end at the
coalition. The quiet resumption of the normal tendencies of
the Hudson's Bay Company indicated the passing of the
influence which had forced the settlement for ten years into
unwonted prominence. The conflict between the aims of
colonization and the interests of the fur trade is to be traced
almost continuously from the beginning of Selkirk's influence
in the Hudson's Bay Company to the termination of the
long ' fight for free trade ' in furs at the Red River Settlement,
by the Sayer trial in 1849. During the period preceding
the grant of Assiniboia in 181 1, Selkirk's indifferent success
in inducing the Company to adopt a systematic scheme of
colonization, was accompanied, it has been pointed out,5 by
the studied neglect of the officials at Hudson Bay to carry
out the ' instructions which had been given . . . respecting
the formation of a colony'. The grant of Assiniboia to
Selkirk in person to enable him ' to take upon himself the

1 Jan. 20, 1821, Correspondence^ vol. vi, p. 1022.

2 Selkirk Papers, 7374, &c.

3 Correspondence, vol. viii, p. 1266.

4 Ibid., vol. viii, p. 1260.

5 See p. 33.

170 THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME chap.

charge of forming the intended settlement ' 1 may be taken as
a welcome release to the Company from the official adoption
of projects which Selkirk had been advocating for ten years.
The old directorate thus escaped the responsibility : the
officials at Hudson Bay discovered with dismay that Selkirk's
influence was paramount, and that neither covert opposition
to the settlers nor direct protest to Selkirk in person could
stay the attempt to establish a colony in the West. The
implied antagonism, however, between settlement and fur
trade is stereotyped rather than terminated. The grant
involved the stipulation that neither Selkirk nor his settlers
should ■ carry on or establish or attempt to carry on or
establish . . . any Trade or Traffick in or relating to any kind
of Furs or Peltry \2 The settlement, it may be said, remained
under Selkirk the paramount issue, but it would be possible
to trace in abundant detail from the Selkirk Papers the
covert opposition of the Company's officials and the veiled
indifference of the directorate.

Even the main current of opposition to settlement originated
perhaps near the same source, though it came, of course,
through quite another channel. North-westers were convinced
that colonization was incompatible with the fur trade — that it
was ' in its essence . . . injurious to our trading interests ' ; 3
and having convinced themselves in addition that ' this pre-
tended scheme of a colony was no other than a cloak thrown
over the avaricious designs of the Earl of Selkirk to become
a monopolizer of the fur trade *,4 opposition to settlement was
avowed by the North- West Company as almost a corollary of
self-preservation. In the course of that opposition is almost
to be traced the measure of Selkirk's immediate success or
failure. The ultimate results of Selkirk's work are to be
estimated by another standard ; but while he lived the one

1 Correspondence ', vol. i, p. 14.

2 From An Abstract of the several conditions expressed in a certain
conveyance from the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England
Trading into Hudson Bay, to the Right Honourable Thomas, Earl of
Selkirk, of part of Rupert's Land.

8 William McGillivray to Coltman, Mar. 14, 1818, Papers Rel. toR. R. S.,
1819, p. 135. ■ Ibid., p. 136.

XI THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME 171

implacable force against him was the inveterate hostility of
the North- West Company, founded upon the conviction that
Selkirk's rights of property, claimed and eventually vindicated
in Assiniboia, would ' strike at the very existence of our
trade '-1

Herein lay the grave significance of the coalition for the
Red River Settlement. The interests of the fur trade once
more predominated. The indifference of the old Hudson's
Bay directorate was no longer concealed ; North-westers con-
tinued ' the most rancorous hostility to the settlement \2
Colonization at Red River was left for two generations
stranded above the current upon which Selkirk had hoped to
launch it. * Every Gentleman in the Service both Hudson's
Bay and North- West', wrote George Simpson, the coming
Governor of Rupert's Land, was ' unfriendly to the Colony.' 3
One of the chief directors heartily wished the Red River affairs
* had been in the Red Sea twenty years ago '.4 The chief diffi-
culties, indeed, had at last been surmounted. The vexed question
of jurisdiction was decided in accord with Selkirk's contention
from the first, ' the right of the Governors and their Councils
under the Charter to administer Justice according to the Laws
of England having received the Sanction of the Secretary of
State'.5 The right of self-defence, upon which Selkirk had
insisted, was also recognized, ' the Secretary of State having
also given his approbation of the plan of enrolling a Militia '.6
For several years, however, the Directors looked askance upon
the settlement. Simpson wrote that it would 'ultimately

1 ' The Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company is at present a mere
machine in the hands of Lord Selkirk, who appears to be so much wedded
to his schemes of Colonization in the interior of North America, that it will
require some time, and I fear cause much expence to us as well as to
himself, before he is driven to abandon the project ; and yet he must be
driven to abandon it, for his success would strike at the very existence of
our Trade.' Simon McGillivray to N.-W. Co. Partners, April 7, 18 12.
Selkirk P afters, 9109.

2 Simpson to Colvile, Sept. 8, 1821, Selkirk Papers, 7397.

3 Simpson to Colvile, May 20, 1822, Selkirk Papers, 7623. It is
necessary to distinguish between the Governor of the Company in London,
the Governor of Rupert's Land presiding over the fur trade in America,
and the Governor of Assiniboia at the Red River Settlement.

4 Correspondence, vol. v, p. 1028.

6 Colvile to Simpson, Selkirk Papers, 8145. 6 Ibid.

172 THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME chap.

ruin the Trade ' if more drastic management were not adopted.1
The Governor and Committee were quite 'convinced that
a well managed and governed settlement will be of service,'
wrote Colvile, 'and if ill managed it will be an injury to the
trade \2 Even Selkirk's executors took up the burden of the
settlement reluctantly and made it clear that Selkirk's mantle
had not fallen to another. ' The subject of consideration ', it
was stated quite frankly, ' is not how to form a settlement
upon the most solid and enlightened System and government ;
but how to form the best Settlement and give it the best
government that the means and funds which the Executors
can properly appropriate to this object, and other circum-
stances relating to the nature and situation of the property,
will permit.' 3

The stage therefore from the coalition in 1 8a i to the transfer
of the Settlement from the Selkirk family back to the Company
in 1834 may be said to be marked by the desire to ' make the
best of a bad bargain'. In this attitude of opposition to
settlement in general, it would be less than just to charge
either Selkirk's executors or the Hudson's Bay officials with
deliberate hostility to the Red River Settlement in particular.
Despite the justifiable impatience with the blundering mis-
management of petty officials, there is an attempt to be just
to the settlers and scrupulously exacting from the fur trade.
Colvile wrote frankly to the Governor of Rupert's Land that
the Governor and Committee of the Company in London
would ' not suffer the fur trade to oppose or oppress the
Settlement, and if it be attempted, the expence of redressing
the evil must and will fall on the fur trade as in Justice it
ought '.4 Even at Red River, the attitude of the Company's
officials was supercilious rather than hostile. Governor
Simpson wrote humorously of the council meetings of
1 grumbling senators ' at the Colony Fort — opening usually
'with the Bottle' and concluding with a boxing match
between the Colonial Governor and a burly settler, while the

1 Simpson to Colvile, May 20, 1822, Selkirk Papers, 7600.

8 Selkirk Papers, 7829. ' 8 Memorandum, Selkirk Papers, 7533.

* March 10, 1824, Selkirk Papers, 8148.

xi THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME 173

' sage councillors . . . stood by and saw fair play \1 The
account closes with a suggestive proposal for a regular council,
to include the Company's Chief Factor for the district and
the Roman Catholic bishop.

The material development of the Settlement during the
closing years of the Selkirk regime was attended by a strange
variety of calamities, both natural and artificial. In 181 8,
locusts swarmed upon the fields to the depth of several inches,
and formed for three years a 'sickening and destructive
plague \ Seed wheat after the plague was procured by way
of the Mississippi at a cost of ;£i5ooo to the Selkirk estate.
Selkirk's executors, indeed, can scarcely be charged with
parsimony. The experiments that filled the years after
Selkirk's death seem to have exhausted the range of the
country's resources. Hayfield experimental farm, one of
Selkirk's favourite projects, resulted in little but ' mismanage-
ment, disappointment and ruin'. Some of the buildings were
burnt to the ground ; when the undertaking was abandoned
in 1822 the loss to the Selkirk estate was estimated at ^"2,000.
A Buffalo Wool Company was organized ' with as much con-
fidence ', says Ross, % as if the mines of Potosi had been at
their doors '.2 Lady Selkirk herself sought to interest British
weavers in the possibilities of the buffalo shawl as an article
of fashion. Reckless prices were paid for buffalo hides ; the
farmer ' threw aside the hoe and spade to join the plain-
rangers '. The cost of producing cloth which sold for 4^. 6d.
per yard was found to be two guineas. The collapse of the
company in 1 825 was followed by a series of hapless ventures
with flax, and wool, and tallow, and finally with another
experimental farm which entailed further losses of ^2,500
before it was finally abandoned. Governor Simpson wrote of
the ' strange fatality attending this unfortunate Colony '. It
seemed that sound economic thrift was impossible in an
atmosphere of pampered dependence.

Natural reverses culminated in the disastrous flood of 1826.
During the preceding winter a phenomenally heavy fall of

1 Selkirk Papers, 8031. 3 Ross's Red River Settlement

174 THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME chap.

snow drove the buffalo from the vicinity ; more than thirty of
the plain-rangers perished on the prairies from exposure or
starvation. In the spring, the river, swollen by the melting
snow, rose nine feet in a single day. A few days later the
stream swept over the river banks and buried the Settlement
beneath several feet of icy water. The flood of 1826 was
considered ' an extinguisher to the hope of Red River ever
retaining the name of a Settlement'.1 When the water sub-
sided there was a migration to the United States of the
1 de Meurons ' and a party of Swiss who had been induced
in 1821 to settle in Assiniboia. For the third time within
eleven years the Scottish settlers resolved to begin anew at
Red River.

The flood of 1826 proved to be at last the turn of fortune.
A series of prolific harvests re-established the Settlement
in the good graces of the Company. ' This settlement ', wrote
Governor Simpson in 1829, ' is in the most perfect state ot
tranquillity, " peace and plenty M may be said to be its motto.' 2
The enthusiasm of the Hudson's Bay officials becomes, in fact,
so pronounced that the sudden contrast suggests a degree of
calculation. There were obvious reasons for concentrating
control as far as possible in the hands of the Company. As
early as 1822 private traders had appeared on the American
border ; the Company was finding it necessary to safeguard
with increasing vigour their cherished monopoly of the fur
trade. The vindication of the right of the settlers under
Captain Bulger,3 to trade with the Indians for provisions,
leather and horses, was followed by the establishment of
a strong police force, as the instructions to Captain Pelly 4
state, i for the protection of the settlers and the Stability of
the Colony \5 The process of ■ smoothing ' — to use the ex-

1 Simpson to Colvile, June 14, 1826, Selkirk Papers, 8434.

a Selkirk Papers, 8473.

8 Governor of the Colony in 1822. Bulger introduced much ' system
and regularity' into the Settlement after the gross mismanagement of
Alexander McDonell — ' the Grasshopper Governor ', more destructive
than the plague. See p. Ill, note, and Selkirk Papers, 7380, &c.

4 Bulger left the Settlement in August, 1823, and Pelly arrived as
Governor in September.

6 Selkirk Papers, 7791.

xi THE END OF THE SELKIRK REGIME 175

pressive phrase of that time — the signs of discontent by-
adroit management and appeals to private interest, could not
always be relied upon to stop the stealthy traffic in furs at the
American outposts. The sixth Earl of Selkirk came of age
in 1830; it seems more than a coincidence that Donald
Mackenzie, the shrewd and capable Governor of the Settle-
ment at that time, should have supplemented Governor
Simpson's account in 1829, by pastorals of unwonted enthu-
siasm— the corn ' rich and flourishing', 'the boundless prairie '
with cattle like ' herds of Buffalo brousing', the groups of hay-
makers ' healthy and blooming', the ' community of sentiments',
the 'stacks and laden carts straining the eye in countless
succession', the 'ensemble of landscape perhaps nowhere to
be equalled '. ' I beg to congratulate you and all my employers ',
he wrote to Colvile, ' on the prosperous state of the Colony.' 1
Prosperity paved the way for the transfer of the settlement
from the Selkirk family back to the Hudson's Bay Company.
The shrewd officials in Rupert's Land could be relied upon to
endorse the measure from the standpoint of the fur trade. In
1834, the sixth Earl of Selkirk acceded to the 'desire expressed
by the Committee to have re-conveyed ' the grant of Assiniboia
for ,£15,000 of the Hudson's Bay stock.2 The Council of
Assiniboia, now controlled directly by the Company and
under the presidency of the Governor of Rupert's Land, was
convened in 1 835. With singular appropriateness the signatures
of Governor Simpson, John Pritchard, Cuthbert Grant, and
many friends and enemies of the Selkirk regime, appear
together in the minute books. The settlement entered upon
a period of obscure and prosaic development under the
Company. For nearly a generation the prevailing tone was
one of general contentment and much primitive comfort, until
Rupert's Land was transferred by purchase to Canada. The
Red River district, after an inglorious insurrection in 1869,
entered the Canadian Confederation in 1870 as the Province
of Manitoba.

1 August 1, 1829. Selkirk Papers, 8477.

2 Minutes of Committee, Hudson's Bay Company, June 6, 1834, Corre-
spondence, vol. viii, p. 1226. See Appendix E.

CHAPTER XII

SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE

If Selkirk's work is to be estimated by the measure of
immediate and visible success, none would venture to claim
for him a very profound influence upon the material develop-
ment of Canada. His colonizing enterprises in Prince Edward
Island and in Upper Canada passed quietly and not without
disappointment through the prosaic stages of all pioneer
history. With respect to Baldoon especially, Selkirk de-
spaired of the immediate development which he had been led
to expect. * The necessity of making an extensive drainage ' 1
was only one of the contributing causes. Fever, with a score
of fatalities, broke out among the settlers. Elaborate instruc-
tions and prodigal expense were so ill followed and ill directed
as to occasion one of the few instances of pointed censure
ever passed by Selkirk upon his agents. The • benevolent and
patriotic intentions of forming a Settlement in this Province \
wrote Alexander McDonell,2 ' have hitherto been attended
with an expence more than commensurate with ten times the
number of Acres prayed for'. In 1809 there were scarcely
eighty inhabitants in the settlement.3 Baldoon struggled on
till the War of 18 12, when it was pillaged by the Americans,4
and Selkirk's agent was taken prisoner.5 During the pro-
tracted litigation at Sandwich, Selkirk's own farm of 950 acres

1 Memorial from Alexander McDonell, Land G, Upper Canada, March 5,
1806, Canadian Archives.

2 Land G, Canadian Archives, p. 215. It is necessary to distinguish
between Alex. McDonell, agent at Baldoon, Alex. Macdonell, the North-
wester at Qu'Appelle, and Alex. Macdonell the sheriff under Semple and
the ' Grasshopper Governor ' of a later date. The first named was for
a time Speaker of the Assembly of Upper Canada.

8 Selkirk Papers, 14592.

4 For an account of property destroyed by the Americans, see Selkirk
Papers, 14601.

5 At Fort George. Selkirk Papers, 14528.

xii SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 177

at Baldoon was ' sold to a Mr. McNabb \1 A district of more
than 30,500 acres in the Niagara peninsula near the mouth of
the Grand River had been purchased through Alexander
McDonell in 1807, to be called the township of Wedderburn
in honour of Lady Selkirk. After a • total loss of . . . about
£3,000 ', it was eventually sold at auction to Smith to meet
the judgement of the lawsuit in his favour.2 By 1821 less
than 3,000 acres remained to Selkirk's executors. All hope
of colonization had been abandoned, and almost all trace of
Selkirk's work was swallowed up in subsequent immigration.

In Prince Edward Island the immediate results were felt
by Selkirk himself to be similarly disappointing ; but there,
at least, the ultimate results of his work are now seen to have
been far-reaching and of exceptional merit in the unpleasant
story of proprietary ownership of land in that island. Even
in 1804 the clamour for the escheat of proprietary holdings —
many of them held directly through original grants from
Lord William Campbell in 1768-9 — was a force to be con-
sidered. Selkirk's interests, however, had been secured exclu-
sively through purchase by lease and release, from individual
holders.3 Of 114,000 acres it was estimated in 1842 that
62,000 had been disposed of to small holders by sale or lease
of 99 or 999 years.4 The fifth Earl of Selkirk was assured in

1 Selkirk Papers, 6918. Baldoon farm was situated on the eastern
side of the Chenal Ecarte, at the junction of Big Bear Creek in the town-
ship of Dover, and not far from River and Lake St. Clair. See map by
Smith in Selkirk Papers, 14853.

8 Selkirk Papers, 14424, 6917 et seq., 6981. The Letters Patent of
this purchase (from Indian Reserves through Joseph Brant) are dated
Nov. 18, 1807 (Can. Arch.). A district higher up the Grand River seems
to have belonged to Selkirk as early as April, 1807. See Selkirk Papers,
14448, and map in Selkirk Papers, 20604.

3 Selkirk's holdings comprised townships 10, 31, 57, 58, 60, 62, one-
half of 12, one-third of 53, and one-third of 59, in the official survey map
of Capt. Holland, 1775. Of these, townships 57, 58, 60, and 62 formed
the south-eastern part of Queen's County and comprised the Belfast
district — abandoned by the original French colonists — where Selkirk's
first settlements were made in 1803. Lot 31 was in Hillsboro' Parish,
Queen's County, near Charlottetown. Townships 53 and 59 were in
King's County in the east, and townships 10 and 12 were in Prince's
County in the west. For summaries of Selkirk's titles see Selkirk
Papers, 1 93 15 et seq.

4 Colvile to Lord Stanley, Selkirk Papers, 20338.

1526.7 M

178 SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

1818 that his colonists formed ' by far the most independent
Settlement in this Island - ; 1 but the affairs of the Red River
Settlement had completely engrossed his attention. He was
prepared to dispose of his ' property there on almost any
terms \2

This, it may be said, is the burden of the Selkirk corre-
spondence throughout the agitation of the next generation,
which swept away the landed proprietors and gave the land
to the smaller holders. Selkirk's interests seem to have
survived ; largely because his name was dissociated from the
unpopular- proprietors, and undoubtedly also because the dis-
posal of his property was difficult in an atmosphere of agita-
tion and uncertainty. More than once the young Earl of
Selkirk seems to have declined to identify himself with the
other proprietors in petitions to the Colonial Office against
the popular movement for small holdings.3 At the height
of the agitation Sir Charles FitzRoy, the Governor, hastened
to assure Selkirk that his hostility to the proprietors ■ does
not apply to your Lordship's measures towards your Tenantry
here. I am happy to say they are as thriving and contented
as you could wish — and if your Lordship's example were
followed . . . there would be a very speedy end to all dis-
content and excitement.'4 The multitudinous detail of the
fifth Earl of Selkirk's diaries and correspondence upon every
aspect of settlement gave way very largely to the supervision
of refractory agents ; but the Selkirk tradition remained until
the interests of the family in Prince Edward Island came to
an end by sale to the Government in i860.5 Questioned upon
the general attitude of Selkirk's tenantry during the agitation
for a general escheat, the Presbyterian clergyman at Pinnette

1 Selkirk Papers, 6458. 2 Selkirk Papers, 5274.

3 See Selkirk Papers, 19180, 2031 1, &c, with regard to the Fisheries
Reserves and the Road Compensation Bill of the P.E.I. Legislature: 'my
property ... is held under circumstances rather different from that of
most of the other proprietors so that I think it will not be expedient for me
to sign the memorial.' According to the estimate of Jan. 17, 1839, Selkirk
was the second largest proprietor in Prince Edward Island, with 87,150
acres.

4 Oct. 3, 1837, Selkirk Papers, 19079.

* For about ,£7,000. Selkirk Papers, 20366 et seq.

xii SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 179

replied to the Governor's Secretary that the rents ' were by no
means so heavy as those imposed in many other parts of the
Island ... I can safely say that many of them, especially
of the old settlers, retained too lively a sense of gratitude and
respect for the memory of the late Earl of Selkirk for the
many acts of generous kindness which they received at his
hands, to cherish any feelings which might be hurtful in the
smallest degree' to the interests of his son.1 The present
position of Prince Edward Island among the provinces of the
Canadian Confederation has been attained only after the ob-
scure and thrifty growth of a century. Selkirk's work is thus
prospective rather than immediately productive. His fore-
sight was justified by the event, but the event was brought to
pass by the unnoticed toil of the pioneer settler.

Selkirk's name in Canada, however, is inseparably connected
with the West. The Red River Settlement, it has been seen,
relapsed for half a century into an obscure frontier colony,
at once thrifty, primitive, and self-reliant. Probably no part
of the British self-governing dominions has had a stranger
history : founded by an individual proprietor, twice destroyed
by men of kindred race, overwhelmed during its early years
by almost unparalleled disaster, developed for two decades
under the protection of a private family, relapsing into the
ownership of a monopolistic trading company which was
accused by its enemies, justly or unjustly, of having ' locked
the door upon the settlement and put the key in its pocket' ;
and finally, after an ignoble insurrection in 1869, taking its
place as one of the most promising provinces of the Dominion.
It was half a century after Selkirk's death before the British
Government began to see promise in the West or the Canadian
provinces were convinced of the necessity of extending the
boundaries of the Dominion to the Pacific. Before the
British public, therefore, Selkirk's name was not prominently
identified with colonial expansion. The Red River Settle-
ment never compared during Selkirk's lifetime with Pennsyl-
vania, the prototype of Assiniboia in Selkirk's mind. It

1 Rev. Mr. McLennan to Collins, Selkirk Papers, 19274 et seq.

M 0,

180 SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

seemed as though the tangible result of his work was
a secluded settlement of a few hundred highlanders and
Swiss in the heart of an unknown wilderness.

There is one sense, however, in which Selkirk's work has
almost an imperial significance. Had colonization not been
adopted by \ the Old Company ' at the vitally critical period
in the early part of the nineteenth century, there seemed no
other promise that the north-western part of the continent
would have been safeguarded for the British crown. The
Colonial Secretary, it has been seen, considered the project of
developing the West ' wild and unpromising '. There is some-
thing like tolerant contempt in Goulburn's reference to the
' Nature and distance of the Settlement ', * so remote from His
Majesty's other possessions ' ; the paucity of numbers in the
colony, l which there is some reason to believe may be even
yet less populous and in which the inhabitants themselves
have frequently been exposed during the Winter to great
danger of famine'.1 Canadian opinion was even more in-
tolerant. Dr. Strachan wrote of ' the miseries of the polar
regions ', the ' dreary wilderness ' at Red River, the * strongest
probability that the first colonists will be massacred by the
Indians \ Selkirk's promises were ' false or delusive '. His
attempt to settle the West was 'one of the grossest impo-
sitions that ever was attempted on the British public'.2 It
would be unnecessary to repeat the current North-West re-
ferences to Selkirk's ' visionary speculations ', to the ' cursed
Country', to the 'colonists enlisted or crimped in Scotland',
4 the dupes of Land-jobbing Speculators . . . of whom Lord Sel-
kirk . . . may be styled the Chief ; 'the restless and rapacious
projects of a person whose fortune and influence, instead of
being applied to the benefit and advantage of his country . . .
have been wasted and misapplied in undertakings ruinous to
himself, destructive to others, and disgraceful to his character
and station.'3 In 1817, Livius Sherwood, during the trial

1 Goulburnto H.B. Co., Dec. 29, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 1840.

2 Letter to the Right Hon. Earl of Selkirk on His Settlement at the
Red River, near Hudson's Bay. London, 18 16.

s Selkirk Papers, 8709; Narrative of Occurrences, London, 18 16, &c.

xii SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 181

of Brown and Boucher for the murder of Semple,1 played
skilfully upon the current Canadian opinion of this western
' wilderness '. • Grain ! ' he exclaimed ; ' what sort of grain
ever was raised ? ' ' Do you mean to swear that they (wheat
and barley) ripened ? ' 2 Before the Select Committee of the
British House of Commons in 1857, Governor Simpson as-
serted with all gravity that there was no future in agriculture
before the Canadian West.

Nothing could be more striking even in Selkirk's day than
the contrast with opinion in the United States. Selkirk wrote
enthusiastically of the extreme cordiality of American support
to the Settlement ; of ' facilities ■ for development by way of
the Mississippi ; of prospects that the settlement would ' turn
out much beyond any view that I ever entertained of it'.3
Here at least there was no difficulty in securing unequivocal
opinion upon the * right to the soil*. Coxe, one of the most
prominent of American lawyers, was of opinion that Selkirk's
grant resembled that made ' to some of the Colonies upon this
continent by the British Crown', and as such conferred
a 'proprietary interest in the soil'. It must be noted that
Daniel Webster was found to ' entertain no doubt ' of the
'vested proprietary interest in these lands';4 that a large
tract of Selkirk's grant was thrown within the American
boundaries by the Treaty of Ghent,5 and that Selkirk and his
executors were compelled to negotiate for the disposal of
their property to citizens of the United States.6 It would
perhaps be idle to surmise how far the story of Oregon
would have been repeated — or anticipated— at Red River had
the Indian trade been left in ' Salutary neglect ' and had these
4 rights of property ' not been vindicated by Selkirk at a time

1 York, Oct. 19, 1817.

a Amos's Report of Trials, p. 56. The output of grain from the Canadian
West in 191 5 is estimated at more than 500,000,000 bushels.

3 Selkirk to Colvile, New York, Dec. 28, 181 7, Correspondence, vol. iv,
p. 638. Cf. Zehulon Pike : Account of Expeditions to the Sources of the
Mississippi, Philadelphia, 18 10.

4 Quoted in Ross's Red River Settlement. London, 1856, p. 3.

6 Selkirk to Macdonell, March 23, 1815, Selkirk Papers, 1498, &c.
6 Cf. Halkett's memoranda in Selkirk Papers, 7860 et seq. : ' As to
the validity of the Title the Lawyers entertained no doubt whatever.'

18a SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

when the Hudson's Bay Company was in danger of bank-
ruptcy. There can be little doubt, however, that the absence
of Selkirk's influence would have left the North-West Company
paramount to the Pacific, and would have left no interests ot
British colonization west of Lake Huron. The West would
have remained what even the Hudson's Bay Company after
the coalition was content to make it, the No-man's Land of
civilized Canada, and a preserve for a mysterious and lucrative
trade.

Meanwhile, American development up the Mississippi and
westward to the Rockies, was perhaps the most phenomenal
movement of the nineteenth century. The access to the Red
River district by way of the Mississippi had been foreseen by
Selkirk as early as 1 817, and was used almost continuously by
American traders from 1822.1 In 1844 an influential party
of American traders 2 visited the Red River Settlement itself,
' to spy out the land '. It required all the influence and
adroitness of the Company's management to prolong even for
five years the jealously guarded monopoly in furs. In 1857
it was stated that no fewer than 1,200 Red River carts plied
between the Settlement and the American border.3 Minnesota
increased in population in a decade from less than ten to two
hundred thousand ; Iowa by more than a quarter of a million ;
Wisconsin by over 300,000 ; Illinois by nearly half a million.
A memorial of the legislature of Minnesota, urging the
annexation of the Red River district, passed at the Settlement
for ' the highest tribute yet paid to this country '.4 ' One thing
is very apparent,' wrote a confidential American agent to the
Secretary of the Treasury ; 6 ' unless the English Government
shall very promptly respond to the manifest destiny of the
great interior of British America — the speedy Americanization
of the fertile district is inevitable.' As late as 1869, Governor
Mactavish, of the Hudson's Bay Company, wrote of annexation

1 Simpson to Colvile, May 20, 1822, Selkirk Papers, 7587.

2 Red River Correspondence ; Confidential, 1845-6-7.
8 Report from Select Committeet 1857, p. 388.

4 Nor^Wester, March 5, 1862.

5 Relations between the United States and North West British America^
1862.

xii SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 183

to the United States as unavoidable. ' I doubt not this will
be its ultimate destiny.'1 Throughout this movement the
Red River Settlement formed the anchor of British rule in
the West, the one vested interest which kept intact the
territory north of the forty-ninth degree of latitude until the
preservation of the West for the British Empire appeared
among the avowed policies of the Canadian Confederation.
Thus far at least Selkirk's work in Canada has a significance
beyond the range of immediate success, and largely unaffected
by its apparent material failure. It decided for generations
to come, as the Statement had expressed it,2 the 'question
whether extensive and fertile regions in British North
America are ... to be inhabited by civilized society'.
More than that, perhaps, it decided indirectly the question
whether these regions should ever form part of a trans-
continental and British Dominion. The Red River Settlement
concentrated, at a critical period, the reluctant attention of the
British Government and the sluggish political sense of the
Canadian upon a district of which the possibilities were
appreciated only by the enterprising and expanding neighbour
to the south.

It may be said with a measure of truth that Selkirk in' this
respect builded better than he knew ; but it would be less
than just to overlook a certain gift of foresight, an aptitude
for grasping discerningly the important point in almost every
issue upon which he expressed an opinion. It may be noticed
in passing that his attitude in British politics was one which
commends itself to this generation, though it conformed neither
to official policy nor to popular opinion in his own. On the
question of Roman Catholic emancipation he remained at
uncompromising variance with his friends in the Cabinet. On
at least one other issue, his opinion was as advanced as it was
afterwards found to be genuinely sound. ' The campaign in
Portugal ', wrote Lady Selkirk to her sister-in-law, ' Lord
Selkirk reckons of more immediate importance to our existence

1 Dec. 25, 1869, Recent Disturbances in the Red River Settlement, p. 201.

2 Statement respecting the Earl of Selkirk** Settlement in North
America. London, June, 18 17.

184 SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

as a nation than even the questions relating to Ireland.' l
Similarly also, with regard to national defence and emigration,
something remains to be said of Selkirk's work in his native
country. In Canada, however, the touch of strategy which
passed in Great Britain for little more than coincidence is
seen to have resulted in designs of no small moment, as
Selkirk himself avowed, ' in a national point of view \2 So
obviously is the choice of districts for settlement influenced
by geographical considerations of national strategy that Sel-
kirk stands open to the charge of planting colonies with an
eye to the map rather than to markets for colonial produce.
The tentative suggestion of the Red River district in 1802
could scarcely have been founded upon a less fanciful basis
than the accounts of Sir Alexander Mackenzie, whose Voyages
is said to have held a similar attractiveness for Napoleon.
The district of Sault Ste. Marie, at the junction of the three
largest lakes in the St. Lawrence system, was abandoned only
after careful investigation revealed the lack o,f agricultural
promise. The third choice, Prince Edward Island, lay in
the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the chief inland waterway on the
Atlantic seaboard. Baldoon, the fourth choice, in the peninsula
between Lake Huron ancl Lake Erie, corresponded to Sault
Ste. Marie between Lake Superior and Lake Huron. The
verdict of this century seems to be that the ultimate choice of
the Red River district was perhaps the most momentous
of all. In 1877 Lord DurTerin referred to the strategic
importance of Manitoba as the * keystone to that . . . arch of
sister provinces which spans the continent'. Even at that date
the Governor-General could discuss the growth of American
influence with hopefulness, though not altogether without mis-
givings. The future importance of the province, like its past,
can scarcely fail to be determined by its geographical situation.
Its central position and its chief resources — the wealth of
water-power, the fertility of soil, the maritime possibilities on
Hudson Bay — give promise of uniting the interests of the
factory, the prairie, and the sea, at a point where mediation

1 Letters, p. 88. . 8 Selkirk Papers, 2126.

XII SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 185

between the more distinctive interests of East and West may
be expected to be most effective. So much may fairly be
urged, if present results can be said to justify the hopes of
a century ago. The ' polar regions ' now produce 500,000,000
bushels of grain. Manitoban wheat is graded by British millers
the highest in North America. Selkirk's estimate in his
Sketch of the Fur Trade would seem to be one of the most
remarkable prophecies of the century : ■ It is a very moderate
calculation to say that if these regions were occupied by an
industrious population, they might afford ample means of
subsistence for thirty millions of British subjects.'

In Great Britain Selkirk's influence would be more difficult
to estimate. Despite his cordial relationship with Wilber-
force and Zachary Macaulay, his deep general interest in
philanthropy was quite eclipsed by the uncompromising
struggle in Canada. It is doubtful indeed, even had he spent
his restless energy in Great Britain alone, whether he would
ever have taken a prominent part in the extraordinary move-
ment of the next decade. It would be difficult to imagine
Selkirk as a benevolent ' friend of humanity ', or Lady Selkirk
presiding over 'missionary tea-fights'. There is present,
nevertheless, a certain breadth of view, a certain liberality of
thought, which is not always to be found among his con-
temporaries.1 His advocacy of Roman Catholic emancipation
meant more than mere toleration. In his projects of settlement
the principle of religious liberty found its way into fearless
practice. The first plan for colonization in 1803 was designed
for Irish Roman Catholics, under the conviction that religious
liberty and some deliberate ' plan of conciliation ' after the
Union would produce a ' radical cure such as Military coercion
cannot effect \a Settlement at Sault Ste. Marie was advocated
in co-operation with the Bishop of Dromore and the Roman
Catholic clergy of Sligo. He sought to reinforce the settle-
ment at Baldoon with Roman Catholic Glengarry highlanders.

1 Cf. Selkirk's Letter addressed to John Cartwright on the Subject of
Parliamentary Reform, London, 1809.

2 Selkirk's Memorial to Pelham, March 31, 1802. Colonial Office
Records, Canadian Archives, O. 293, p. 172.

1 86 SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

The first Governor of the Red River Settlement was a Roman
Catholic.1 The first clergyman to reach the shores of Hudson
Bay was the Rev. Charles Bourke, a Roman Catholic priest
from Killala. When Macdonell urged upon Bishop Plessis
of Quebec the urgent need of a mission among the freemen
and M^tis of Assiniboia, Selkirk pledged himself to ' co-operate
to the utmost of my power in so good a work \2 The object
may well have been more specific than a demonstration of
broad-mindedness : there is evidence that Selkirk was * fully
persuaded of the infinite good which might be effected ' by
self-sacrifice and devotion in a region where ' the sense ot
religion is almost entirely lost'.3 In any case his freedom
from religious and social prejudice is altogether refreshing.
His life in this respect may be said to represent a consistent
liberal principle, logically and fearlessly pursued. There is
reason to believe that his activities in Great Britain were, and
would have remained had he lived, similarly generous and
broad-minded. The tradition which survived in Prince Edward
Island regarded Selkirk as ' amiable and philanthropic \4
' Whatever may be thought of his undertakings in point of
worldly prudence,' wrote Halkett to Sidmouth in 1816, 'his
character for disinterested benevolence has been hitherto un-
impeached and unimpeachable.' 5

In the field which he made his own — 'in a manner the
object of his whole life ' — his contribution was important and
far-reaching. When the pamphlet on Emigration was written
there was scarcely an indication that the idea had presented
itself to the Ministry as a practical expedient for the remedy
of social evils. Selkirk himself lived to see emigration
adopted as a definite policy by the very Government which
had dwarfed his own efforts by a half-hearted and scarcely
tolerant support. In 1819, £50,000 was voted by the House

1 There are indications that Miles MacdonelFs trouble with the ' insur-
gents' in 181 1 -1 2 originated in religious disagreement. Selkirk Papers, 499.

■ Quoted in the interesting History of the Catholic Church in Western
Canada by the Rev. A. G. Morice, O.M.I. , Toronto, 1910, vol. i, p. 90.

3 Ibid.

4 Stewart to Selkirk (the sixth Earl), Sept. 20, 1831, Selkirk Papers ,
203 11. 8 Selkirk Papers, 65 16.

xii SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 187

of Commons, and in 1820, 5,000 Scottish emigrants were
chosen from the striking number of 90,000 applicants for
settlement in South Africa. The highland proprietors were
* now, when too late, as eager for the people emigrating as
they were formerly to throw obstacles in their way'.1 The
social unrest at the close of the Napoleonic Wars was an
obvious incentive to the movement ; but the range of Selkirk's
continuous correspondence on the subject had extended mean-
while to Hobart, to Auckland, to Pitt himself ; to Sidmouth,
to Lord Holland, to Vansittart, to Camden, to Melville, to
Bathurst, and to Liverpool. There was probably no man
in Great Britain during the preceding fifteen years who
had devoted his energies so insistently by practice and by
precept to the adoption of emigration as a doubly remedial
imperial policy, to relieve the pressure of industrial change
at home and to develop the colonies as British dominions
under British influence.

Circumstances in themselves have done much to distort the
contribution made by Selkirk both to practical imperial
development and indirectly to imperial thought. The best
of his ideas have been worked out by others under more
auspicious circumstances. He was prevented by a stormy
career from appealing convincingly to the British public
as a practical colonizer. He has scarcely a place, it would
seem, even in the literature of his chosen field. He lived in
an age of ' much glory without, and utter darkness within ',
when to be a reformer or a theorist was to be out of touch
with the influences which presided over the deepest social
gloom of two centuries. Opponents could have devised no
more opportune and effective criticism than to condemn as
'visionary and selfish' a project which threatened their
methods in the interior. The years of calamity at the begin-
ning, and of obscurity that followed, served to conceal even
those advantages which, under normal conditions, the Red
River district might have enjoyed in Selkirk's own day.
Compared with many of the loyalist settlements in eastern

1 Selkirk Papers^ 6009.

188 SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

Canada, Assiniboia was supplied by nature in unusual abun-
dance with many of the necessities for human existence. In
1 813, more than thirty-five tons of pemmican were prepared
for the North- West and Hudson's Bay fur trade. The buffalo
furnished for half a century a staple article of food at the
Red River Settlement. For many years the fisheries of the
titameg or whitefish afforded a supply of provisions second
only to the proceeds of the buffalo hunt. No fewer than
14,000 whitefish were taken by the settlers upon the retreat
to Jack River after the disaster of Seven Oaks in 1816.1 The
prolific harvests of the prairie were not subject to the task of
forest-clearing which filled the early settlement of Nova Scotia
or Ontario with unrecorded toil and privation. Had Selkirk
been able to supervise in person the introduction of efficient
agriculture at Red River, even the remoteness from commercial
intercourse might have been counterbalanced by an unfailing
and friendly market in the service of the Hudson's Bay fur
trade.2 Such were the plausible considerations upon which
Selkirk founded hopes of prosperity. It was nearly a genera-
tion after his death before the primitive simplicity of life at
Red River — the ' peace and plenty', the ingenuous hospitality,
the ' undifferentiated comfort ' — passed into the tradition which
is still cherished by those who remember the Red River
Settlement.

It would be a mistake, therefore, to rate Selkirk's work as
theoretical, visionary, and irresponsible, rather than as an
orderly attempt to achieve a practical end. Nothing is more
noticeable than his extraordinary attention to practical detail
in every enterprise he undertook. At the age of twenty-two
he wrote with discrimination of Italian agriculture. His super-
vision of his estate in Kirkcudbrightshire was thrifty and
remarkably successful. His voluminous letters and diaries are
full of detail, almost cumbersome in its thoroughness : how
sheep were to be transported and cared for; how mills and
roads, bridges and fireplaces were built ; how the highlander
compared with the New Englander as a settler ; how grain

1 Selkirk Papers, 3228. a Cf. Selkirk Papers, 1038, &c.

xii SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 189

was to be stored and prizes to be given for the best results.
He urged, not without justification, upon the Colonial Office
at the beginning, 'the attention I have paid to Agricul-
ture for a considerable number of years and the particular
Opportunities I have had of studying it as practised with
singular success on a scale of uncommon extent'.1 Almost
the last letter dictated to Lady Selkirk before his death is
full of minute instructions with regard to the experimental
farm at the Settlement. It seems possible indeed to trace
even the 'visionary undertakings' to a source in this dominant
interest in the practical and the useful. His pamphlet on
Defence arose from his own personal interest in the organiza-
tion of the volunteers in Scotland. His first interest in
emigration arose from the political problems of Ireland and
the prospect of relieving the evils of tithe, race, and religion
after the Union. From a modest practical enterprise came
a far-reaching national design. He proposed emigration from
Ireland on a generous impulse ; he promoted emigration from
Scotland as a work of practical utility and of engrossing
promise. He was swept into conflict with the North-West
Company as a protest against a blind and exclusive system.
His work, begun in practical utility, has been almost forgotten ;
his scheme of expansion, dismissed at the time with opportune
contempt, either as a shrewd * speculation ' based upon * selfish-
ness ', or as the project of ' an enthusiast and a maniac ', may
now be said to form, after almost a century of scarcely
tolerant neglect, a reasonable prophecy of Western Canadian
development.

It was inevitable at the coalition that Selkirk's aims in the
founding of the Red River Settlement should be left, while
his memory lasted, without a vindication. Even a generation
later, North-westers, now the staunchest Hudson's Bay men,
'shrewd old gentlemen interested in furs', spoke half-apolo-
getically, half in self-justification, of the early l libel upon the
Hudson's Bay Company';2 but the abuse of that day was

1 Selkirk to Pelham, April 4, 1802, Canadian Archives, Q. 293, p. 170.
* Correspondence, p. 1266.

iqo SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

left to stain a generous career, and has not yet perhaps
been removed from public opinion. The picture of 1816 was
1 a British Peer turned a land speculator, at a moment when
his country was in imminent danger, and instead of flying to
her assistance and disdaining to survive her fall, anticipating
that melancholy event, by anxiously preparing an asylum in
a distant corner of the earth'.1 North-westers called the
project 'visionary'; Doctor Strachan suggested that it was
1 one of the grossest ' of ' impositions',' marked with more than
the precaution of an American land-jobber'.2

Without a doubt, Selkirk felt justified in advocating his
scheme among his relatives as an ultimately remunerative
investment. On no other grounds could he have carried
with him the reluctant support of the Wedderburn-Colviles,
Sir James Hall, and Sir James Montgomery. The promise
of development by way of the Mississippi, for instance, was
advocated as an inducement to Colvile's reluctant support in
1817.3 Selkirk would have been the last to affirm, or even to
admit, that his projects for proprietary colonization were
economically unsound ; but to seek Selkirk's dominant motive
in the hope of ultimate personal gain would be not only to
leave unexplained the rest of his life but to overlook the
circumstances, already outlined, under which settlement in
Hudson's Bay territory had actually come to pass. ' I never
knew in my life', said Sir Walter Scott, 'a man of more
generous and disinterested disposition.'4 Colonization, more-
over, had been adopted by the Hudson's Bay Company as
soon as Selkirk's influence began to be felt and before the
grant of Assiniboia was made to Selkirk in person. It was
after the Superintendent at Hudson Bay had 'entirely
neglected the instructions respecting the formation of a colony
at Red River ', and had written ' letters to his employers
calculated to induce them to abandon any such intention',
that Selkirk engaged to ' take upon himself the charge of
forming the intended settlement on condition of the Company
granting him a sufficient extent of land to afford an indemni-

1 Strachan's Letter ■, p. 9. 2 Ibid., p. 10.

3 Correspondence, p. 638. 4 Lockhart's Life of Scott.

XII SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 191

fication for the expense \1 The magnitude of the actual
' indemnification ' impresses the mind at the present day ; but
it is estimated that the settlements in America cost Selkirk or
his family from 18 15 to 1823 nearly ^"i 14,00c2 The present
valuation of a few blocks in the City of Winnipeg is higher
than the price paid by Canada as late as 1870 3 for the whole
of the Hudson's Bay territory.

Despite the ruinous expense and apart from nice calculations
of financial loss and gain, the integrity of Selkirk's views upon
colonization may be said to have remained from the first
unwavering and unchanged, and to have taken priority over
the interests both of the fur trade of the Company and even
of his own private fortune. ■ Till that can be fairly out of
danger ', he wrote of the Red River Settlement to his brother-
in-law, ' expences must be incurred, which it is utterly im-
possible to avoid and to which it does not depend on me to
put a limit.' 4 When Commissioner Coltman, as early as
1 81 8, advocated compromise in order to put an end to the
ruinous losses to the fur companies, Selkirk replied pointedly
that he was under the impression that the chief sufferers
to be considered were the unfortunate settlers, and that to
compromise at such a stage was to compound felonies.
f Mr. Coltman must be too well informed ', he continued,
1 to suppose that Lord Selkirk has individually any concern
in the Trade of Athabasca or any other branch of the
Fur Trade.' 5 * To hand over to them the sovereignty, as it
may be called, of an extensive country/ he wrote to Colvile
just before his final relapse, ' where we had the prospect of
doing so much good, is a transaction to which I cannot easily
reconcile myself, and I would reckon it immoral as well as
disgraceful, if it were done from any views of pecuniary
advantage. . . . With respect to giving up the settlement or sell-
ing it to the North-West, that is entirely out of the question.

1 Correspondence, pp. 13-14. 2 Ibid., 1279, A.

3 ;£3°o,°°o- 4 Selkirk to Wedderburn, Selkirk Papers, 5772.

5 Selkirk's ' Observations on the Memorandum of Terms which it
appears to Mr. Coltman might be agreed upon between the Earl of
Selkirk and the North-West Company.' Coltman Papers, Canadian
Archives, M. 778-C.

192 SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

... I know of no consideration that would induce me to aban-
don it. I ground this resolution not only on the principle of
supporting the settlers whom I have already sent to the place,
but also because I consider my character at stake upon the
success of the undertaking, and upon proving that it was
neither a wild and visionary scheme nor a trick and a cloak to
cover sordid plans of aggression, . . . charges which would be
left in too ambiguous a state if I were to abandon the settle-
ment at its present stage and above all if I were to sell it to
its enemies.' 1

The chief reasons for Selkirk's immediate failure are to be
sought in the extraordinary events and unforeseen forces
against which he found it necessary to contend. It must be
admitted in addition, however, that his choice of men to
advance his enterprise was not happy. * I think that Miles
McDonell', wrote Gale, 'is Lord Selkirk's evil genius.'2
D'Orsonnens, Selkirk's choice of the ' de Meuron ' officers,
was scarcely more circumspect. ' In spite of my own vexation
and gravity ', wrote Gale again during Reinhard's trial, ' it was
impossible to see and hear D'Orsonnens and keep my counte-
nance/ 3 Even Semple and Colin Robertson can scarcely be
acquitted of having contributed to the general disaster.4
Much of Selkirk's indifferent success in dealing with men may
perhaps be traced to the ' natural shyness and cold temper '
of which he had written from Switzerland. It will be remem-
bered that his father had detected as early as 1793, his ■ want
of knowledge of mankind '. * I have known many lads of

1 Correspondence, 966 a.

2 Selkirk Papers, 4931. 'His stupidity arrogance and selr-conceit
render any attempts to give him advice useless. ... I really shall be pleased
if the time shall ever arrive when Lord Selkirk shall have got rid both of
McDonell and Robertson.' Cf., however, Lieut. -Gov. Hunter's opinion
of Macdonell in 1804 : * Expressed doubts of his ability, feared obstinacy
and unaccommodating temper — acknowledged integrity — industry — said
on whole perhaps no one with more good points/ Selkirk's Diary,
Selkirk Papers, 19940. For Selkirk's defence of Macdonell see Selkirk
Papers, 647, 1302, &c.

* Selkirk Papers, 4934.

4 Cf. Lady Selkirk to Halkett, Nov. 2, 18 17. ' Robertson will never do
as second to anybody, unless they have the patience of Job, and were as
much above him as I am over the children.' Letters, p. 209. Cf. Simpson
to Colvile, Sept. 8, 1821, Selkirk Papers, 7397.

xii SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 193

sixteen, who, as the vulgar saying" is, could have bought and
sold you in a market.' * There is evidence that this conscious
shyness and lack of assertive shrewdness remained a besetting
fault ; and it was doubly operative because his consciousness
of it impelled him to overcome it, while his efforts to overcome
it lured him in turn to extremes which a man of more even
and instinctive shrewdness would have avoided. Thus Lady
Selkirk, no mean judge of character, wrote to Halkett of
Selkirk's letters en route to the Red River Settlement : ( they
were so very sanguine, every difficulty seemed to vanish
before him. . . . There was so little mark of caution or
prudence.' 2 \ He is far too unsuspicious, and with the worst
opinion possible of them in the lump these wretches deceived
him in detail.' 3 At times, on the other hand, a determination
to exact the uttermost farthing ' o'erleaps itself and falls on
the other '. After the ' great mistake ' — ' after the evil was
done' — Lady Selkirk described loyally her husband's self-
control under vexation and annoyance during the summer of
1817. 'The whole mischief, she wrote, 'was done in the
course of the first six weeks at Fort William.' 4

At the same time there was a degree of cool determination
in the pursuit of large issues which remained while Selkirk
lived one of his chief characteristics. There may perhaps be
distinguished a type of mind that derives a secret fortitude
rather from reflection and retirement than from the exercise
or open play of direct influence. The loyalty and co-operation
between Selkirk and his wife is perhaps the most pleasant
thing in the course of the long conflict for Assiniboia ; but
even Lady Selkirk in 181 2 was 'conscious of . . . inability to
alter in any degree the direction of his mind ... far less the
course of events'.5 In 1 818, in the midst of her husband's
feverish anxiety and broken health, there was a discernment

x July 14, 1793, Correspondence of Dunbar, Earl of Selkirk, and his
Sons, p. 37.

2 February 19, 1 817. Letters, p. 185.

3 Lady Selkirk to Halkett, Oct. 25, 1817, Letters, 205-6.

4 Letters, p. 196.

8 Lady Selkirk to Lady Katherine Douglas, March 25, 1812, Letters,
p. 88.

152C7 N

i94 SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE chap.

of what this hidden fire meant to the cause of the Red River
Settlement. ' Were his strength of mind and body now to fail,
where are we?'1 ■ No temper but his own could have stood the
repeated fire.' 2 Where this intimacy was lacking, especially,
Selkirk seems to have appeared cold and distant. A certain
reserve and lack of indiscriminate frankness is apparent even
with his own friends. Gale suggested more than once that
he could defend his client better if he knew more.3 c The
Earl of Selkirk ', wrote John Beverley Robinson in his official
report, ' is not usually communicative of his measures or inten-
tions.'4 It may be urged in Selkirk's defence that no man
ever had a more perplexing variety of friends and enemies
than Colvile, Sherbrooke, Gale, Macdonell, Colin Robertson,
D'Orsonnens, Rideout, and Woods on the one side, and William
McGillivray, Goulburn, Doctor Strachan, Duncan Cameron,
Edward Ellice, Simon McGillivray, and Daniel McKenzie on
the other. There is little ground for surprise if he decided
to keep his own counsels. Lady Selkirk alone probably could
be reckoned an unflinching ally. ' For my own part,' wrote
Selkirk to Wilberforce, ' I have perhaps undertaken a task of
too great magnitude for an individual in embarking in these
affairs.'5 One looks almost in vain among the partisans on
either side for a man who fully shared or adequately under-
stood the object of Selkirk's sacrifice. Perhaps no nearer
approach to this assured faith is to be found than in Semple's
account of the disasters at the Red River Settlement :

' Per tantos casus, per tot discrimina rerum
Tendimus in Latium.

Such I doubt not is your Lordship's motto in this pursuit.' 6

Selkirk's work is thus illumined by few dramatic incidents
such as appeal to the imagination. It became a continuous
struggle against circumstances, ill health, hidden influence,
and volumes of abuse such as few men even of Selkirk's
day were called upon to encounter. It was seen at last that
he had been contending from the first against overwhelming

1 Letters, p. 232. See p. 158, &c. * Ibid., p. 205.

8 Correspondence, vol. iv, p. 618. 4 Canadian Archives, Q. 329, p. 15.

6 Selkirk Papers, 6342. • Dec. 10, 181 5, Selkirk Papers 186 15.

XII SELKIRK'S AIMS AND INFLUENCE 195

odds. He was misunderstood by many who were disinclined
to believe that a man could have other than selfish aims. He
was opposed by men whose private interests demanded his
destruction, and whose inquiry into motives could scarcely be
expected to be conscientiously scrupulous. The coincidence
of vengeance for the death of his colonists and a determina-
tion to break ' the iron age of oppression ' of the North- West
Company, alienated many from a discerning plan of expansion
in the West which has meant not a little for the preservation
of British influence. He encountered the hostility of vested
interests in Canada, the hatred of opponents in years of pro-
tracted litigation, the condemnation of faint praise from Com-
missioners whose verdict had been almost dictated from the
Colonial Office. It was a discouraging up-hill fight, and he
was beaten in the end. It was generally conceded by those
who knew him best in Great Britain that a brilliant mind had
been wasted in a barren conflict for a lost cause. Even the
lingering death was embittered by the impending success of
his opponents. His name and his work were then swept aside
to hasten the decent burial of unsavoury political and judicial
blunders. After the coalition took place, Selkirk's name was
dropped by tacit consent, or was spoken with bated breath in
the Council Chamber where his influence had been paramount.
His reputation was left without a vindication in the interests
of a not very creditable political expediency. So much per-
haps may be said without sacrificing history to hagiology ;
and if settlement at Red River, despite early disasters and
seeming failure, survived to serve at last a far-reaching
national purpose, Selkirk's work may well be associated with
the patient toil of the early settlers, whose unrecorded forti-
tude passed silently out of history into the web of a nation's
progress.

N %

APPENDIX A

THE HUDSON'S BAY CHARTER,1 1670.

The Royal Charter for incorporating the Hudson's Bay
COMPANY, granted by his Majesty King CHARLES the
Second, in the 226. year of his reign, A.D. 1670.
Preamble. CHARLES THE SECOND, by the grace of God King of
England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith,
&c, To ALL to whom these presents shall come, greeting:
WHEREAS our dear and entirely beloved Cousin, Prince
Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria and
Cumberland, &c. ; Christopher Duke of Albemarle, William
Earl of Craven, Henry Lord Arlington, Anthony Lord Ashley,
Sir John Robinson, and Sir Robert Vyner, Knights and
Baronets ; Sir Peter Colleton, Baronet ; Sir Edward Hunger-
ford, Knight of the Bath ; Sir Paul Neele, Knight ; Sir John
Griffith and Sir Philip Carteret, Knights ; James Hayes, John
Kirke, Francis Millington, William Prettyman, John Fenn,
Esquires ; and John Portman, Citizen and Goldsmith of
London; have, at their own great cost and charges, under-
taken an expedition for Hudson's Bay, in the north-west part
of America, for the discovery of a new passage into the South
Sea, and for the finding some trade for furs, minerals and
other considerable commodities, and by such their undertaking
have already made such discoveries as do encourage them to
proceed further in pursuance of their said design, by means
whereof there may probably arise very great advantage to us
and our kingdom : And WHEREAS the said Undertakers, for
their further encouragement in the said design, have humbly
besought us to incorporate them, and grantninto them and
their successors the sole trade and commerce of all those seas,
straits, bays, rivers, lakes, creeks and sounds, in whatsoever
latitude they shall be, that lie within the entrance of the
straits, commonly called Hudson's Straits, together with all
the lands, countries and territories upon the coasts and confines
of the seas, straits, baysj lakes, rivers, creeks and sounds
aforesaid, which are not now actually possessed by any of our
subjects, or by the subjects of any other Christian Prince or
State :' Now KNOW YE, that we, being desirous to promote all

1 Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson's Bay Company -,
1857, p. 408.

Grant of
incorpora
tion.

APPENDIX A 197

endeavours tending to the public good of our people, and
to encourage the said undertaking, HAVE, of our especial
grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, given, granted,
ratified and confirmed, and by these presents, for us, our heirs
and successors, DO give, grant, ratify and confirm, unto our said
Cousin, Prince Rupert, Christopher Duke of Albemarle, William Names of
Earl of Craven, Henry Lord Arlington, Anthony Lord Ashley, original
Sir John Robinson, Sir Robert Vyner, Sir Peter Colleton, Sir £rantees-
Edward Hungerford, Sir Paul Neele, Sir John Griffith and
Sir Philip Carteret, James Hayes, John Kirke, Francis Mill-
ington, William Pretty man, John Fenn and John Portman,
that they, and such others as shall be admitted into the said
society as is hereafter expressed, shall be one body corporate Body
and politic, in deed and in name, by the name of ' The corporate
Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading ! The^7 6
into Hudson's Bay ', and them by the name of ' The Governor Governor
and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's and Com-
Bay ', one body corporate and politic, in deed and in name, Adv^n-
really and fully for ever, for us, our heirs and successors, WE DO turers of
make, ordain, constitute, establish, confirm and declare by these England
presents, and that by the same name of Governor and Com- -™Qing
pany of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay, Hudson's
they shall have perpetual succession, and that they and their Bay \
successors, by the name of ' The Governor and Company of
Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay ', be, and at
all times hereafter shall be, personable and capable in law to
have, purchase, receive, possess, enjoy and retain lands, rents, Rights
privileges, liberties, jurisdictions, franchises and hereditaments, andprivi-
of what kind, nature or quality soever they be, to them and their oefgt^ c '
successors ; and also to give, grant, demise, alien, assign and Governor
dispose lands, tenements and hereditaments, and to do and and Com-
execute all and singular other things by the same name that to pany'
them shall or may appertain to do ; and that they and their
successors, by the name of * The Governor and Company of
Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay ', may plead
and be impleaded, answer and be answered, defend and be
defended, in whatsoever courts and places, before whatsoever
judges and justices, and other persons and officers, in all and
singular actions, pleas, suits, quarrels, causes and demands
whatsoever, of whatsoever kind, nature or sort, in such manner
and form as any other our liege people of this our realm of
England, being persons able and capable in law, may or can
have, purchase, receive, possess, enjoy, retain, give, grant, demise,
alien, assign, dispose, plead, defend and be defended, do, permit
and execute ; and that the said Governor and Company of

198 APPENDIX A

Grant of a Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay, and their

common successors, may have a common seal to serve for all the causes

and businesses of them and their successors, and that it shall

and may be lawful to the said Governor and Company, and

their successors, the same seal, from time to time, at their will

and pleasure, to break, change, and to make anew or alter, as

The to them shall seem expedient : . . . . And FURTHER, WE DO

territory fay these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, make,

reckoned create and constitute the said Governor and Company for

one of his the time being, and their successors, the true and absolute

Majesty's lords and proprietors of the same territory, limits and places

orIacSo-°nS aforesaid, and of all other the premises, SAVING ALWAYS the

nies in faith, allegiance and sovereign dominion due to us, our heirs

America, and successors, for the same, TO HAVE, HOLD, possess and

Rupert's* enJ°y tne said territory, limits and places, and all and singular

Land; other the premises hereby granted as aforesaid, with their and

and the every of their rights, members, jurisdictions, prerogatives,

and Com- royalties and appurtenances whatsoever, to them the said

pany to be Governor and Company, and their successors for ever, TO BE

the Lords HOLDEN of us, our heirs and successors, as of our manor of

Tfr?heiet°rS East Greenwich, in our county of Kent, in free and common

same for soccage, and not in capite or by Knight's service ; YIELDING

ever. AND PAYING yearly to us, our heirs and successors, for the

same, two elks and two black beavers, whensoever and as often

as we, our heirs and successors, shall happen to enter into the

Governor said countries, territories and regions hereby granted : And

and Com- FURTHER, our will and pleasure is, and by these presents, for

assemble7 us» our ^elrs anc* successors, WE DO grant unto the said

and make Governor and Company, and to their successors, that it shall

laws, ordi- and may be lawful to and for the said Governor and Company,

for^the &C anc* tne*r successors, from time to time, to assemble themselves,

good for or about any the matters, causes, affairs or businesses of

govern- the said trade, in any place or places for the same convenient,

their terri- witmn our dominions or elsewhere, and there to hold court for

toryand the said Company, and the affairs thereof; and that, also,

the ad- it shall and may be lawful to and for them, and the greater

of'their^ Part °*" tnem> being so assembled, and that shall then and

trade; there be present, in any such place or places, whereof the

Governor or his Deputy for the time being to be one, to make,

ordain and constitute such and so many reasonable laws,

constitutions, orders and ordinances as to them, or the

greater part of them, being then and there present, shall seem

necessary and convenient for the good government of the said

Company, and of all governors of colonies, forts and plantations,

factors, masters, mariners and other officers employed or to be

APPENDIX A 199

employed in any of the territories and lands aforesaid, and in
any of their voyages ; and for the better advancement and
continuance of the said trade or traffic and plantations, and
the same laws, constitutions, orders and ordinances so made,
to put in, use and execute accordingly, and at their pleasure
to revoke and alter the same or any of them, as the occasion
shall require : And that the said Governor and Company, so
often as they shall make, ordain or establish any such laws,
constitutions, orders and ordinances, in such form as aforesaid,
shall and may lawfully impose, ordain, limit and provide such and may
pains, penalties and punishments upon all offenders, contrary imPose.
to such laws, constitutions, orders and ordinances, or any of andpnn-
them, as to the said Governor and Company for the time being, ishments,
or the greater part of them, then and there being present, the Provided
said Governor or his Deputy being always one, shall seem arl H^on.
necessary, requisite or convenient for the observation of the able, and
same laws, constitutions, orders and ordinances ; and the same not rePng-
fines and amerciaments shall and may, by their officers and thelaws of
servants from time to time to be appointed for that purpose, England.
levy, take and have, to the use of the said Governor and Com-
pany, and their successors, without the impediment of us, our
heirs or successors, or of any the officers or ministers of us,
our heirs or successors, and without any account therefore to
us, our heirs or successors, to be made: All and singular
which laws, constitutions, orders and ordinances, so as aforesaid
to be made, WE WILL to be duly observed and kept under
the pains and penalties therein to be contained ; so always
as the said laws, constitutions, orders and ordinances, fines
and amerciaments, be reasonable, and not contrary or repug-
nant, but as near as may be agreeable to the laws, statutes All lands,

or customs of this our realm : . . . . And FURTHER, of our &^a/°£~

. , • t 1 1 1 • sal°- to be

especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, WE DO, under the

for us, our heirs and successors, grant to and with the said govem-

Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading ^J^r f

into Hudson's Bay, that all lands, islands, territories, plan- pany) wno

tations, forts, fortifications, factories or colonies, where the may ap-

said Company's factories and trade are or shall be, within ££)£*

any the ports or places afore limited, shall be immediately and other

and from henceforth under the power and command of the officers to

said Governor and Company, their successors and assigns ; P^de

SAVING the faith and allegiance due to be performed to us, their terri-

our heirs and successors as aforesaid ; and that the said tones, and

Governor and Company shall have liberty, full power andJ"dgein

3.11 CS.11SPQ

authority to appoint and establish Governors and all other Civii and '
officers to govern them, and that the Governor and his criminal,

200

APPENDIX A

according
to the
laws of
England ;

or crimi-
nals may
be sent to
England
for trial.

The

Governor
and Com-
pany may
employ,
for the
protection
of their
trade and
territory,
armed
force, ap-
point com-
manders,
erect forts,
&c.

Council of the several and respective places where the said
Company shall have plantations, forts, factories, colonies or
places of trade within any the countries, lands or territories
hereby granted, may have power to judge all persons belong-
ing to the said Governor and Company, or that shall live under
them, in all causes, whether civil or criminal, according to the
laws of this kingdom, and to execute justice accordingly ; and
in case any crime or misdemeanor shall be committed in any of
the said Company's plantations, forts, factories or places of trade
within the limits aforesaid, where judicature cannot be executed
for want of a Governor and Council there, then in such case it
shall and may be lawful for the chief Factor of that place and
his Council to transmit the party, together with the offence, to
such other plantation, factory or fort where there shall be
a Governor and Council, where justice may be executed, or
into this kingdom of England, as shall be thought most con-
venient, there to receive such punishment as the nature of his
offence shall deserve : And MOREOVER, our will and pleasure
is, and by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, WE
DO GIVE and grant unto the said Governor and Company, and
their successors, free liberty and license, in case they conceive
it necessary, to send either ships of war, men or ammunition,
unto any their plantations, forts, factories or places of trade
aforesaid, for the security and defence of the same, and to
choose commanders and officers over them, and to give them
power and authority, by commission under their common seal,
or otherwise, to continue or make peace or war with any prince
or people whatsoever, that are not Christians, in any places
where the said Company shall have any plantations, forts or
factories, or adjacent thereunto, as shall be most for the
advantage and benefit of the said Governor and Company, and
of their trade ; and also to right and recompense themselves
upon the goods, estates or people of those parts, by whom the
said Governor and Company shall sustain any injury, loss or
damage, or upon any other people whatsoever, that shall any
way, contrary to the intent of these presents, interrupt, wrong or
injure them in their said trade, within the said places, territories
and limits granted by this Charter : And that it shall and may
be lawful to and for the said Governor and Company, and
their successors, from time to time, and at all times from
henceforth, to erect and build such castles, fortifications, forts,
garrisons, colonies or plantations, towns or villages, in any
parts or places within the limits and bounds granted before in
these presents unto the said Governor and Company, as they
in their discretion shall think fit and requisite, and for the

APPENDIX A 201

supply of such as shall be needful and convenient, to keep and
be in the same, to send out of this kingdom, to the said castles,
forts, fortifications, garrisons, colonies, plantations, towns or
villages, all kinds of clothing, provision of victuals, ammunition
and implements necessary for such purpose, paying the duties
and customs for the same, as also to transport and carry over
such number of men, being willing thereunto, or not prohibited,
as they shall think fit, and also to govern them in such legal
and reasonable manner as the said Governor and Company
shall think best, and to inflict punishment for misdemeanors,
or impose such fines upon them for breach of their orders, as
in these presents are formerly expressed : . . . . And WE DO All Ad-
hereby straightly charge and command all and singular our mirals and
Admirals, Vice-Admirals, Justices, Mayors, Sheriffs, Constables, Majesty's5
Bailiffs, and all and singular other our officers, ministers, liege officers and
men and subjects whatsoever, to be aiding, favouring, helping subjects, to
and assisting to the said Governor and Company, and to their and^assist-
successors, and to their deputies, officers, factors, servants, ing in the
assigns and ministers, and every of them, in executing and execution
enjoying the premises, as well on land as on sea, from time to powers
time, when any of you shall thereunto be required ; ANY &c.
Statute, act, ordinance, proviso, proclamation or restraint £ran*?d
heretofore had, made, set forth, ordained or provided, or any charter.
other matter, cause or thing whatsoever to the contrary in
anywise notwithstanding. In Witness whereof we have
caused these our Letters to be made Patent. WITNESS OUR-
SELF at Westminster, the second day of May, in the two-and-
twentieth year of our reign.

By Writ of Privy Seal.

PlGOTT.

APPENDIX B

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, JUNE 12, 1811.1

This Indenture made the twelfth day of June in the
fifty first year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the
third by .the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland King Defender of the Faith And in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eleven

1 From the certified notarial copy deposited with Secretary of State
Adams, Washington, in 1822, by John Halkett, Selkirk's brother-in-law
and one of his executors. A photographic copy was obtained through

%oi APPENDIX B

Between The Governor and Company of Adventurers of
England trading into Hudson's Bay of the one part and The
Right Honorable Thomas Earl of Selkirk of the other part
Whereas the said Governor and Company are seised to them
and their Successors in fee Simple as absolute Lords and
Proprietors of all the Lands and Territories situate upon
the Coasts and Confines of the Seas Streights Bays Lakes
Rivers Creeks and Sounds within the entrance of the Streights
commonly called Hudson's Streights in the North West parts
of America and which Lands and Territories are reputed as
one of the Plantations or Colonies belonging or annexed to
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and are
called Ruperts Land And whereas the said Governor and
Company have for divers good and valuable causes and con-
siderations them thereunto moving agreed to convey and
assure a certain Tract or parcel of the said Lands and Terri-
tories hereinafter described unto and to the use of the said
Earl of Selkirk his Heirs and Assigns under and subject to
certain conditions hereinafter expressed and contained Now
therefore this Indenture witnesseth that in pursuance of such
Agreement and in consideration of the sum of ten shillings
of lawful money of Great Britain to the said Governor and
Company well and truly paid by the said Earl of Selkirk at
or before the execution of these presents (the receipt whereof
is hereby acknowledged) and for divers good and other valu-
able causes and considerations them the said Governor and
Company hereunto moving The said Governor and Company1
Have given granted aliened enfeoffed and confirmed And by
these presents Do give grant alien enfeoff and confirm unto
the said Earl of Selkirk his Heirs and Assigns All that Tract
of Land or Territory being within and formerly 2 part of the
aforesaid Lands and Territories of the said Governor and
Company bounded by an imaginary line running as follows

the prompt courtesy of the British Charge* d'Affaires at Washington and
of the Department of State.

No official copy, it seems, was ever published (see Report from Select
Committee, 1857, p. 323). Between other copies— in Colony Register A
(a copy from the old land register, now lost, of the Red River Settlement),
in Transactions of the Man. Hist, and Scientific Soc, 1889 (James
Taylor), in Martin's Hudson's Bay Land Tenures, followed by Professor
Oliver in The Canadian North- West, published by the Canadian Archives,
1914 — there are discrepancies too numerous to annotate. There are more
than 975 variations between the first mentioned and the last two, and
many hundreds between the Washington copy and Colony Register A.
Only a few of these can here be noticed.

1 * hereunto . . . Company ' omitted in The Canadian North- West,

2 ' forming ' in Colony Register A.

APPENDIX B 203

that is to say beginning on the western shore of the Lake
Winipic 1 otherwise Winnipeg at a point in fifty two degrees
and thirty Minutes north latitude and thence running due
West to the Lake Winipigoos otherwise called Little Winnipeg
then in a Southerly direction through the said Lake so as to
strike its western shore in latitude fifty two Degrees then
due west to the place where the parallel of fifty two de-
grees North Latitude intersects the western branch of Red
River otherwise called Assiniboyne River then due South
from that point of intersection to the height of land which
separates the waters running into Hudson's Bay from those
of the Missouri and Mississipi then in an Easterly direction
along the said height of land to the source of the River
Winipic or Winnipeg (meaning by such last mentioned
River the principal branch of the waters which unite in Lake
Saginagas) thence along the main stream of these waters and
the middle of the several Lakes through which they flow to
the mouth of the Winipic River and thence in a Northerly
direction through the middle of Lake Winipic to the place
of beginning as the said Tract or parcel of Land hereby
granted or intended so to be is more particularly described
and distinguished and the boundary thereof marked out in
the Map or plan annexed to these presents in which plan the
Lands hereby intended to be granted are coloured red Together
with all mines minerals and metals and delfs and quarries of
stone and lime already discovered or hereafter to be discovered
within the limits of the land hereby granted and enfeoffed or
otherwise assured or expressed and intended so to be And
also all and singular houses edifices buildings forests woods
springs woodlands and underwoods and the ground and Soil
thereof respectively trees timber and timberlike trees quays
wharfs landings and landing places lakes ponds rivers pools
dams and streams of water fishings and fishing places and
rights of fishery moats moors marshes wastes waste grounds
commons common of pasture and common of turbary furzes
heaths mounds hedges fences ditches roads fens fen grounds 2
ways paths passages easements waters watercourses and alb
and singular other the rights franchises liberties customs
profits commodities emoluments benefits advantages members
hereditaments and appurtenances whatsoever to all and singular
the said Land and premises hereby granted and enfeoffed or
otherwise assured or expressed or intended so to be or any

1 ' Winnipie,' in Colony Register A and The Canadian North- West.

2 Sic Colony Register A. Perhaps 'feus, feu grounds' as in The
Canadian North-West, p. 156.

204 APPENDIX B

part or parcel thereof belonging or in any wise appertaining
or to or with the same held used possessed or enjoyed or
accepted reputed adjudged esteemed deemed taken or known
as part parcel or member thereof or of any part thereof or as
appurtenant thereunto And the Reversion and Reversions
remainder and remainders yearly and other profits of the said
Land hereditaments and premises hereby granted and enfeoffed
or otherwise assured or expressed and intended so to be or
any part or parcel thereof And all the Estate right title
interest use trust inheritance property possession benefit claim
and demand whatsoever at Law and in Equity or otherwise
howsoever of them the said Governor and Company of in to
or out of the lands hereditaments and premises hereby granted
and enfeoffed or otherwise assured or expressed and intended
so to be and every part and parcel of the same saving and
reserving nevertheless to the said Governor and Company
and their Successors all rights of Jurisdiction whatsoever
granted to the said Company by their Charter To have and
to hold the Land and Hereditaments and all and singular
other the premises hereby granted and enfeoffed or otherwise
assured or expressed and intended so to be and every part
and parcel of the same unto the said Earl of Selkirk his Heirs
and assigns for ever as to for and concerning such an extent
or quantity or such separate extents or quantities of the Tract
or Territory of Land hereby granted and enfeoffed as shall
in the whole amount be equal to one tenth part of the said
Tract or Territory And which one tenth shall be set out by
the said Earl of Selkirk his Heirs or assigns before or within
the space of three years after the said Governor and Company
or their Successors shall by some writing under the hand of
the Governor of the said Company for the time being require
the said Earl of Selkirk his Heirs or assigns to make such
division or setting out To the use of such person or persons
being or having been in the service or employ of the said
Governor and Company for a term not less than three years
immediately preceding the date and execution of any direc-
tion or appointment to be made by the said Governor and
Company and their successors under this present power in
such parts shares and proportions and for such Estates and
interests of1 the said Governor and Company and their succes-
sors shall from time to time by any writing to be sealed with
the Common Seal of the said Company direct or appoint
Nevertheless so that no Person taking under any such direc-
tion or appointment and being under the rank or degree of

1 Perhaps a mistake for ' as '

APPENDIX B 205

Master of a Trading Post shall be or become entitled to any-
greater part share or proportion than two hundred acres nor
any person of the rank or degree of Master of a Trading Post
any greater part share or proportion than one thousand acres
And also so that every use estate or interest -which shall be
created under or by virtue of any direction or appointment
to be made by the said Governor and Company and their
Successors in pursuance of the aforesaid power be made and
rendered subject to a condition to be void if the person or
persons or his her or their assigns shall not be or become
a Settler or Settlers upon the Land thereby directed or
appointed or if he she or they or his her or their assigns shall
neglect or fail to cultivate and continue the cultivation of the
same Land and in the mean time and until such direction
or appointment shall be made and so far as any such direc-
tion or appointment shall not extend To the use of the said
Earl of Selkirk his Heirs and assigns for ever and to and for
no other use intent or purpose whatsoever And as to all the
remaining part or parts or portion or portions of the said
Tract or Territory To the use of the said Earl of Selkirk
his Heirs and assigns for ever Nevertheless upon under and
subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned expressed
and declared of and concerning the same And to the Intent
that these presents may be rendered a complete and effectual
assurance The said Governor and Company Have made
ordained constituted and appointed And by this present Deed
or Instrument under their Common Seal Do make ordain
constitute and appoint William Auld Thomas Thomas Wil-
liam Sinclair William Hillier James Swain Thomas Swain 1
Donald Sutherland Hugh Heney John Stitt John McKay
and Archibald Mason all Servants of the said Governor and
Company jointly and each and every of them separately their
true and lawful attornies and attorney for them the said
Governor and Company and in their name place and stead
to enter into and upon the Land Hereditaments and premises
hereby granted and enfeoffed or otherwise assured or ex-
pressed and intended so to be or into and upon any part or
parcel of the same in the name of the whole wholly and quiet
and peaceable possession and seisin of the said Land Here-
ditaments and premises and of every or any part thereof in
the name of the whole for and in the name of the said Governor
and Company to have and take and after such entry made
and possession and seisin so had and taken as aforesaid to
deliver quiet and peaceable possession and seizin thereof and
1 Omitted in The Canadian North-West, p. 158.

206 APPENDIX B

of every part thereof unto Miles McDonell 1 Esquire 2

Kelly Clerk, Abel Edwards Surgeon, Kenneth McRae and
William Tomison Gentlemen whom the said Earl of Selkirk
hath made ordained constituted and appointed And by these
presents Doth make ordain constitute and appoint jointly
and separately his true and lawful attornies and attorney for
and in his name place and stead to take and receive the same
to be had and held according to the tenor form and effect
of these presents And the said Governor and Company and
the said Earl of Selkirk do hereby respectively ratify confirm
and allow to be sufficiently available all and whatsoever their
said attornies respectively shall lawfully do in the premises
by virtue of these presents Provided always and it is hereby
agreed and declared between and by the parties hereto and
these presents are upon this express Condition That if the
said Thomas Earl of Selkirk his Heirs or assigns shall not
within the space of ten years to be computed from the date
of these presents settle or establish upon the Tract of Ground
hereby expressed to be granted one thousand Families each
of them consisting of one married Couple at the least accord-
ing to the true intent and meaning of these presents And if
the said Governor and Company shall by notice in writing
to be given to the said Thomas Earl of Selkirk his Heirs or
assigns or left at his or their dwelling or usual place of abode
require him or them to establish and settle such a number
of families on the premises as will make up one thousand
families on the same and the said Thomas Earl of Selkirk
his Heirs or assigns shall during the space of three years
next after such notice shall be given or left as aforesaid neglect
to settle or make up the said number of Families Then and
in that case it shall be lawful for the said Governor and Com-
pany by Deed under their Common Seal to revoke the Grant
hereinbefore expressed and contained and to enter upon the
premises hereby granted as of his or their former Estate but
subject and without prejudice to such Grant as shall have
been previously made by the said Earl his heirs or assigns
to or in favour of any person or persons so as upon the Land
comprised in any such grant there be actual Settlers to the
amount of one Family for every five thousand acres And also
upon this further express Condition that the said Earl of
Selkirk his Heirs or assigns or any other person or persons
deriving Title by from through or under him them or any

1 * McDonald » in The Canadian North- West, p. 158.

2 This space left in the original copy, probably for the Christian name
omitted.

APPENDIX B 207

of them shall not nor will at any time or times hereafter in
or by any direct or indirect mediate or immediate manner
ways or means infringe or violate or set about or attempt
to infringe or violate or aid assist or abet or set about or
attempt to aid assist or abet or supply with Spirituous
Liquors Trading Goods provisions or other necessaries any
person or persons whomsoever Corporate or Incorporate or
any Prince Power Potentate or State whatsoever who shall
infringe or violate or who shall set about or attempt to
infringe or violate the exclusive rights powers privileges
and immunities of Commerce Trade and Traffic or all or
any other of the exclusive rights powers privileges and im-
munities of or belonging or in any wise appertaining to or
held used or enjoyed by the said Governor and Company
and their Successors and particularly such rights powers
privileges and immunities as they are entitled to under or by
virtue of or which were given and granted or intended to be
given and granted to them and their Successors by the Charter
of his late Majesty King Charles the second bearing date on
or about the second day of May in the year one thousand
six hundred and sixty nine save and except such rights
powers privileges immunities and franchises as are incident
to the Land Hereditaments and premises hereby granted and
enfeoffed or otherwise assured or expressed and intended so
to be or any part or parcel of the same and which are hereby
intended to pass by and with the same) 1 without the licence
or consent in writing of the Governor of the said Company
and their Successors for the time being for that purpose first
had and obtained And also that he the said Earl of Selkirk
his heirs or assigns or any person deriving Title by from
thro' or under him them or any of them shall not in any
manner without such licence or consent as aforesaid carry
on or establish or attempt to carry on or establish in any
Ports 2 of North America any trade or traffic in or relating
to any kind of Furs or Peltry or in any manner directly or
indirectly aid or abet any person or persons in carrying on
such trade or traffic or in any manner otherwise than as here-
inafter mentioned navigate or traffic or assist in navigating
or trafficing upon or within any of the Seas or waters within
Hudson's Streights aforesaid or unlawfully enter into or tres-
pass upon any part of the Land or Territories belonging to
the said Governor and Company and their Successors in or
at Ruperts Land aforesaid not hereby granted and enfeoffed

1 Other bracket omitted.

2 Sic also Colony Register A ; ' posts ' in The Canadian North- West.

208 APPENDIX B

or otherwise assured or expressed and intended so to be
Nevertheless it is agreed that no act of entry shall be deemed
construed or taken to be an act of Trespass within the mean-
ing of this Condition unless committed after some special
Notice or prohibition in writing shall be or have been given
by the said Governor and Company or their Successors or
some person or persons duly authorized by them unto the
person or persons who from time to time shall be or be
alledged to be guilty of such Trespass Provided also and it
is hereby further declared and agreed by and between the
Parties hereto and these presents are upon this further Con-
dition that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said
Governor and Company and their successors at any time or
times except in respect to such of the Land hereby granted
and feoffed 01 otherwise assured or expressed and intended
so to be as shall have been put by the said Earl his Heirs
or assigns into a state of actual cultivation or settlement to
form or make within the said tract of Land hereby granted
any post or place posts or places of establishment or com-
munication for traffic trade or commerce with the Native
Indians and for such purpose to and for the said Governor
and Company and their Successors to use occupy and enjoy1
such post or place posts or places and in like manner to use
occupy and enjoy All and every post and place or posts and
places already formed or made with free liberty of ingress
egress and regress to and for the said Governor and Company
and their Successors and their servants or agents with or
without Horses Carts Carriages Boats vessels and other usual
or customary Vehicles of Conveyance to go to and from the
said Posts and places in over or upon all and every or any of
the Roads ways rivers and Canals which now do or which
shall or may from time to time lead to or from the said posts
or places doing as little damage as may be to the other part
of the Land 2 hereby granted and enfeoffed and allowing
reasonable compensation for the damage which shall be so
done Provided also and it is hereby further declared and agreed
between and by the parties to these presents that the several
Conditions hereinbefore contained shall not be construed and
taken to be entire conditions so that a dispensation or waver
of any part branch or member either pro-tempore or other-
wise shall operate as a waver or dispensation of every part
of such Condition It being the true intent and meaning of
the said parties to these presents that the same Conditions

1 * employ ' in Colony Register A.
* * Line ■ in Colony Register A.

APPENDIX B 209

may be dispensed with in part either pro-tempore or other-
wise and yet continue in force and being as to every other
part branch or member thereof not within the express letter
of such dispensation any rule of Law to the contrary in any
wise notwithstanding And it is also declared and agreed
between and by the parties to these presents and the said
Governor and Company for themselves and their Successors
hereby grant that in case the said Earl of Selkirk his Heirs
or assigns shall alien or otherwise dispose of the Land Here-
ditaments and premises hereby granted and enfeoffed or
otherwise assured or expressed and intended so to be in
separate parcels or divisions such division or parcel shall so
far as concerns any Condition herein contained be and shall
be deemed construed and taken to be held distinct separate
and apart from the other or others of the said divisions or
parcels and the estate and interest of the owner and Proprietor
Owners and Proprietors of any one or more division or parcel
divisions or parcels shall not be or be liable to be defeated
or destroyed by any act of forfeiture or breach of Condition
which shall be made done or committed by the owner or
proprietor Owners or proprietors of any other Division or
parcel Divisions or parcels but shall and may notwithstanding
such act of forfeiture or breach of Condition continue and be
in full force and effect in like manner as though the several
conditions herein contained had been annexed to the Estate
and interest of such last mentioned owner Proprietor or Pro-
prietors only and not to the estate or interest of any other
Owner or Proprietor Owners or Proprietors Provided also
and it is hereby further declared and agreed between and by
the parties to these presents that in all and every or any case
of forfeiture or breach of the Conditions herein contained the
said Governor and Company and their Successors shall take
advantage and avail themselves of the same by entry within
five years from the day or time on or upon which any act
of forfeiture or breach of condition shall be or have been made
done or committed or be for ever barred and foreclosed from
taking advantage of the same it being intended and hereby
agreed that such omission on the part of the said Governor
and Company and their successors whether arising from want
of knowledge or from any other cause shall be construed to
be and shall operate as a dispensation or waver of such forfei-
ture Provided also and it is hereby further agreed and declared
between and by the parties to these presents and the said
Governor and Company do hereby for themselves and their
Successors give and Grant unto the said Earl of Selkirk his

aio APPENDIX B

Heirs and assigns and all and every the person and persons
whomsoever claiming or deriving title by from through or
under him them or any of them as Lessee or Lessees or
otherwise free liberty and licence to convey any produce
of Ruperts Land aforesaid save and except the Furs or Skins
of Beavers and other animals of a wild and untame Nature
to Port Nelson in Hudson's Bay and to commit send and
consign the same to the Port of London to be there deposited
and lodged in the Warehouses belonging to or to be from
time to time appointed by the said Governor and Company,,
and their Successors and in like manner to import bring and*
convey into the said Land and Territories called Rupert's1
Land any Goods Wares Merchandizes or Commodities of
any kind nature or description whatsoever as well manufac-
tured as unmanufactured 2 for the use convenience and con-
sumption of the Persons being or residing within the limits
of the land hereby granted and expressed3 or otherwise
assured or expressed and intended so to be and to sell barter
and exchange or otherwise dispose of the same at his and
their will and pleasure Nevertheless it is further agreed that
the said produce goods wares Merchandizes and commodities
shall be conveyed to and from Port Nelson in Ships or Vessels
to be from time to time provided by the said Governor and
Company and their Successors in pursuance of the Covenant
or agreement in that behalf hereinafter contained And also
that the said Governor and Company and their Successors
shall and may claim and shall be paid and allowed by the
owner or Proprietor Owners or Proprietors of the said pro-
duce goods wares merchandizes and commodities all charges
as and for and in the nature of quayage wharfage warehouse
room and Commission for Sale which shall be or constitute
the average or ordinary price or prices in similar cases
together with such charge for freightage as shall at the time
or respective times be paid or payable for vessels navigating
between the Ports of London and Quebec or at or for such
rates of freight as vessels can or may be chartered between
London and Hudson's Bay and the said Governor and Com-
pany shall and may also charge and shall be paid and allowed
for the licence hereby given and granted to and for the pur-
poses hereinafter mentioned as and in the nature of a custom
or duty any sum not exceeding five pounds for and upon
every one hundred pounds in value or amount of the produce

1 Elsewhere in the grant the apostrophe is omitted.
8 'as unmanufactured ' omitted in Colony Register A and The Canadian
North- West.

8 ' enfeoffed ' in Colony Register A and The Canadian North- West,

APPENDIX B an

goods wares merchandizes and commodities which shall or
may be conveyed to or from Port Nelson aforesaid and so in
proportion for a less quantity in value or amount than one
hundred pounds unless the same kind of produce goods wares
Merchandizes and commodities shall be subject to a higher
rate of duty on importation at Quebec and then in cases of
importation the said Governor and Company and their suc-
cessors shall and may charge and shall be paid and allowed at
and after the same rate as shall be paid or payable at Quebec
such value or amount to be from time to time fixed and
ascertained in all cases of imports by and upon the actual
and bona fide invoice prices and in all cases of exports by
the net proceeds of sales at London And the said Governor
and Company do hereby for themselves in their Corporate
and not individual Capacity and for their Successors Covenant
promise and agree to and with the said Earl of Selkirk his
Heirs and assigns in manner following that is to say That
notwithstanding any act deed matter or thing whatsoever
made done committed permitted or suffered to the contrary
by them the said Governor and Company or by any person
or persons claiming or to claim by from through under or in
trust for them they the said Governor and Company now
have in themselves good right full power and lawful and
absolute authority by these presents to convey and assure
the Land Hereditaments and Premises hereby granted and
enfeoffed or otherwise assured or expressed and intended so
to be and every part and parcel of the same unto and to the
use of the said Earl of Selkirk his Heirs and assigns accord-
ing to the true intent and meaning of these presents and also
that notwithstanding any such act deed matter or thing as
aforesaid it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Earl
of Selkirk his Heirs and assigns immediately after livery of
Seizin made and executed in pursuance of these presents and
from time to time and at all times thereafter peaceably and
quietly to have hold use occupy possess and enjoy the Land
Hereditaments and premises hereby granted and enfeoffed
or otherwise assured or expressed and intended so to be and
every part and parcel of the same and the rents issues and
profits thereof to have receive and take for his and their
own use and benefit without any let suit trouble eviction
molestation ejection expulsion interruption hindrance or denial
of from or by the said Governor and Company or their
Successors or any other person or persons lawfully or equit-
ably claiming or to claim any Estate right title trust or
interest at Law or in Equity of in to out of or upon the said

O 2

aia APPENDIX B

Land Hereditaments and premises or any part or parts of the
same by from through under or in trust for them And that
free and clear and freely and clearly and absolutely acquitted
exonerated released and discharged or otherwise by the said
Governor and Company and their Successors at their own
costs and charges well and sufficiently protected defended
saved harmless and kept indemnified of from and against all
former and other Gifts Grants Bargains Sales Leases Mortgages
Jointures uses trusts will intails Annuities legacies rent charge
rent seek rent service and all arrears of rent and also of from
and against all and all manner of Fines issues seizures amer-
ciaments statutes recognizances Judgments executions extents
suits decrees debts of record debts to the King's Majesty or
any one of his predecessors sequestrations debts titles troubles
liens charges and incumbrances at any time or times here-
tofore and to be at any time or times and from time to time
hereafter made done or committed occasioned permitted or
suffered by the said Governor and Company or their Succes-
sors or any other person or persons rightfully claiming or to
claim by from thro' under or in trust for them or by their
acts means default consent privity or procurement And more-
over that they the said Governor and Company and their
Successors and all persons whomsoever lawfully or equitably
claiming or to claim by from through under or in trust for
them any estate right title trust charge or interest of in to
or out of the land hereditaments and premises hereby en-
feoffed or otherwise assured or expressed and intended so
to be or any part or parcel of the same shall and will from
time to time and at all times hereafter upon every reasonable
request and at the Costs and Charges in all things of the said
Earl of Selkirk his Heirs and assigns make do acknowledge
suffer execute and perfect or cause and procure to be made
done acknowledged suffered executed or perfected all such
further and other lawful and reasonable acts Deeds devices
conveyances and assurances in the Law whatsoever either by
common Recovery or Recoveries deed or deeds enrolled or
not enrolled release confirmation or assurance whatsoever for
the further better more perfectly and absolutely and satis-
factorily conveying or assuring the said Land hereditaments
and premises and every part and parcel thereof unto and to
the use of the said Earl of Selkirk his Heirs and assigns
subject to the power of appointment on the part of the said
Company and to the Conditions and provisoes hereinbefore
contained according to the true intent and meaning of these
presents as by the said Earl of Selkirk his heirs or assigns

APPENDIX B 313

or his or their Counsel in the Law shall be reasonably devised
or advised and required so as such further assurances or any
of them shall not contain or imply any other or more general
Covenants or warranty on the part of the said Governor and
Company than as for or against them and their Successors
in their Corporate and not individual Capacity and on the
part of any other person or persons who shall be required
to make and execute the same than for the acts deeds and
defaults of himself or themselves respectively and his her
and their heirs Executors and Administrators and so as the
person or persons who shall be required to make or execute
such further assurances be not compelled or compellable for
the making or doing thereof to go or travel above ten miles
from his her or their dwellings or places of abode And further
that the said Governor and Company and their Successors
shall and will from time to time and all times hereafter find
and provide the said Earl of Selkirk his Heirs and assigns
and all and every other person or persons whomsoever deriv-
ing title by from through or under him them or any of them
either as Lessee or Lessees or otherwise and who shall be or
become a settler or settlers upon or at Ruperts Land aforesaid
with good suitable and convenient Ships or Vessels in order
and to the intent that he she or they may in pursuance and
under or by virtue of the licence hereinbefore given and granted
convey such produce goods wares merchandizes and commo-
dities as aforesaid to anci from Port Nelson aforesaid And
also shall and will find and provide proper and suitable
warehouses wharfs quays and other places for housing and
landing the same before lading or after unlading thereof on
being paid and allowed such price or rate of freightage and
duty and such quayage wharfage and warehouse room as
aforesaid and in case the said Governor and Company and
their Successors shall neglect or fail to provide such Ships or
vessels warehouse wharfs quays and other places as aforesaid
contrary to the true intent spirit and meaning of the Covenant
or agreement last aforesaid then and in such case it shall and
may be lawful to and for such Settler or Settlers to convey
such produce goods wares merchandizes and commodities to
and from Port Nelson aforesaid in Ships or Vessels belonging
to them the said Settler or Settlers or any other person or
persons whomsoever (x subject nevertheless to the payment
of such customs or duties as aforesaid and after and not
before such Settler or Settlers shall have bound himself her-
self or themselves and his her and their heirs Executors and
1 Other bracket missing.

3i4 APPENDIX B

administrators in a sufficient penalty not to break bulk between
the Port of Lading and the Port of Discharge and he she
or they shall not thereby be or be deemed or taken to have
infringed or violated any right power privilege immunity or
franchise whatsoever belonging or appertaining to the said
Governor and Company or their Successors within the intent
and meaning of any Condition herein contained And also that
they the said Governor and Company and their Successors
shall and will stand possessed of and interested in all and
singular the monies to be collected and raised for or in the
nature of customs or duties under or by virtue of these pre-
sents upon the trusts and to and for the intents and purposes
hereinafter mentioned (that is to say) In Trust that they the
said Governor and Company and their Successors do and shall
from time to time and at all times hereafter pay and apply
the same for and towards improving the communication by
Land or Water from Port Nelson to Lake Winnipeg regulat-
ing and sustaining the Police and Civil Government of the
Settlements or Plantations within their own Territories making
and erecting Public Courts Offices places and Buildings and
for and towards all or any such other purposes as they the
said Governor and Company and their Successors shall or
may think meet and proper and conducive to the well being
of their said Settlements and Establishments in or at Ruperts
Land aforesaid or of the persons being settling and residing
in or within the same and they the said Governor and Com-
pany and their Successors shall and will from time to time
account for such monies accordingly it being the true intent
and meaning of the said parties hereto that the said Company
shall have the absolute controul and expenditure of all and
singular the monies arising as aforesaid but that the same
shall be considered as a fund to be employed for purposes
of general benefit and improvement to their Establishments
and possessions in America and not to be divided as an account
of profit to the general proprietors of their Stock In witness
whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto set
their hands and Seals the day and year first above written.
Alexr. (L. S) Lean— Sec^ (L. S.) Selkirk.

Sealed under the Common Seal of the within mentioned
Governor and Company and signed and Delivered by Alex-
ander Lean their Secretary pursuant to their order and appoint-
ment and signed sealed and Delivered by the within mentioned
Thomas Earl of Selkirk (being first duly Stamped) in the
presence of, Alex: Mundell Parliament Street Westminster
Edwd. Roberts — Hudson's Bay House.

APPENDIX B 215

District of Columbia Washington County, to wit, I Henry
Whetcroft a Notary Public for the County aforesaid, duly
commissioned and sworn, and dwelling in the City of Wash-
ington, Do hereby Certify and make known unto all Persons
to whom these Presents shall come or may concern, that the
foregoing is a true copy taken from the Original, the same
having been carefully compared with the said Original, and
found to agree Word for Word.

In Testimony whereof I have hereunto
set my hand and affixed my Notarial
seal of Office the 2nd day of March 1822.
Heny. Whetcroft

NotY. Pubc.

APPENDIX C

Prom the Earl Bathurst acknowledging dispatches from
No. 67 to 72 inclusive. Indictment for rescue to be
preferred against Lord Selkirk and Captn. Matthey. Com-
missioners to proceed to Fort William in the Spring. Their
powers as Magistrates extend to the Hudson's Bay terri-
tory.1

Downing Street,

11 Feby. 181 7.

Sir

I have had the honor of receiving your dispatches from
N°. 67 to N°. 72 inclusive which have been duly laid before
The Prince Regent.

I learnt with very great regret that the Commissioners of
special enquiry, to the result of whose labours I looked for
some more precise information as to the actual state of the
Indian Country and the means by which tranquillity might
be restored, had been under the necessity of abandoning the
object of their mission and of returning to York. Under the
untoward circumstances which prevented them from reaching
the point of their ultimate destination I have entirely to
approve the measure which they adopted for making known
the powers with which they were themselves invested and for
superceding those of the Magistrates of the Indian Country
and I trust that when the road to Fort William is practicable,
they will, if circumstances should in your opinion continue to

1 Colonial Office Records, 181 7, Lower Canada, G. 19, pp. 62-70.

216 APPENDIX C

require their presence, proceed to the execution of the im-
portant charge which has been confided to them.

I am 1 fully sensible of the danger which may in the interim
result to the commercial and political interests of Great
Britain from the opening which the conduct of Lord Selkirk
appears calculated to give to the admission of Foreign in-
fluence over the Indian Nations to the exclusion of that
heretofore exercised by the Subjects of Great Britain, and
I 2 feel the necessity of putting an end to a system of lawless
violence which has already too long prevailed in the Indian
Territory and the more distant parts of Upper Canada. By
resisting the execution of the Warrant issued against him
Lord Selkirk has rendered himself doubly amenable to the
Laws ; and it is necessary, both for the sake of general principe
for the remedy of existing as well as for the prevention of
further evils, that the determination of the Government to
enforce the law with respect to all and more particularly with
respect to Lord Selkirk should be effectually and speedily
evinced. You will therefore without delay on the receipt cf
this instruction take care that an indictment be preferred
against his Lordship for the rescue of himself detailed in
the affidavit of Robert MacRobb, and upon a true Bill
being found against him you will take the necessary and
usual measures in such cases for arresting his Lordship and
bringing him before the Court from which the process issued.
Surrounded as Lord Selkirk appears to be with a Military
Force which has once already been employed to defeat the
execution of legal process, it is almost3 impossible to hope4
that he will quietly submit to the execution of any warrant
against himself, so long as an opening is left for effectual
resistance. It is therefore necessary that the Officer to whom
its execution is entrusted should be accompanied by such
a Civil, (or if the necessity of the case should require it by
such a Military,) force as may prevent the possibility of resist-
ance. The Officer however must be cautioned that the Force
entrusted to him is not to be employed in the first instance,
but is only to be resorted to in aid of the Civil Authority in case
of any opposition being made to the execution of his warrant
in the ordinary manner.

As it appears not improbable that Lord Selkirk may

1 * His Majesty's Government are ' is incompletely erased from the
original draft. 2 Originally ■ they '.

8 Inserted with caret mark in the original document.

4 ' Suppose ', the original word, is incompletely erased from the original
draft.

APPENDIX C 2,17

previous to the issue of Process against him have removed
from Upper Canada into the Territories claimed by the
Hudson's Bay Company it will be necessary, in order in such
a case to give validity to the Warrant against him, that it
should be issued or backed by some Magistrate appointed
under the Act of the 43d of the King to act both for Upper
Canada and for the Indian Territory. By this means the
Warrant will have under the Provisions of the Act of Parlia-
ment a legal operation not only in Upper Canada but in any
Indian Territories or in any other parts of America (without
excepting the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company) which
are not within the limits of either of the Provinces of Canada
or of any civil Government of the United States and you will
see the importance of not permitting its execution to be
defeated by any irregularity in the warrant itself, or by any
change of place on the part of Lord Selkirk.

As Captain Mathey appears to have been equally concerned
in the rescue of Lord Selkirk you will take with respect to
him the same measures which you are hereby instructed to
adopt with respect to Lord Selkirk.

If however either from a resistance on the part of Lord
Selkirk to the execution of the Warrant or from any other
cause the appearance of his Lordship before the Court should
not be secured, the Court will proceed to adopt with respect
to his Lordship such measures as would be taken by them
against any other person similarly circumstanced who after
the issue of such process should decline or omit to appear.
You will not fail to communicate to me the result of these
measures in order that I may in so extraordinary a Contin-
gency submit to the consideration of Parliament whether the
urgency of the case does not require the adoption of some
special measure of severity with respect to his Lojdship.

You will not consider this instruction as in any degree
superceding that which I had the honor of conveying to you
on the 6th instant. You will equally call upon the Military
Force employed by Lord Selkirk to abandon the Service in
which they are at present engaged and you will acquaint them
further that if they permit themselves to be employed in
resisting the execution of legal process they will be exposed
to and prosecuted with the utmost severity of the Law and
you will equally enforce the mutual restitution of Places
captured and the freedom of Trade throughout the Indian
Territory.

I have only further to add in reply to the enquiry contained
in your dispatch N°. 70 that if the Commissioners are ap-

218 APPENDIX C

pointed Magistrates of the Indian Country in the terms of the
43d Geo. 3d to which I have already referred and to the
terms of which it is important to adhere in their Commission,
their Powers extend over Upper Canada and all those Indian
Countries without distinction even within the limits of the
Territory claimed or possessed by the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany.

I have the Honor to be
Sir,

Your most obedient Humble Servant

Bathurst.
Lt.-General

Sir J. C. Sherbrooke G.C.B.

APPENDIX D

GRANT MADE TO THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY,
DECEMBER 5, 1821.1

GEORGE R.
(L. S.)
GEORGE the Fourth, by the Grace of God of the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of

the Faith.

To all to whom these Presents shall come, greeting :
Whereas an Act passed in the second year of our reign,
intituled, ' An Act for regulating the Fur Trade, and for
establishing a Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction within certain
parts of North America;'2 wherein it is amongst other things
enacted, that from and after the passing of the said Act, it

1 Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson's Bay Company,

1857, P- 425.

2 I and 2 Geo. iv, 1 821, Statutes at Large, lxi, pp. 225-230. See the
evidence of Ellice in the Report from Select Comtnittee, 1857 (p. 338):
'That only gave to the Crown and the Canadian authorities power to
appoint justices to bring parties within the jurisdiction of the courts in
England or Canada, which power they never have exercised by the appoint-
ment of any justice. I put in those clauses myself, in order that the Crown
or Canada might have the power of appointing justices under it ; but it
has never appointed any, therefore the clause is inoperative.'

Cp. also p. 328 : ■ The country has been governed, so far as the Hudson's
Bay Company's territories are concerned, under those rights (" given by
the charter ) ; there has never been any other authority for the govern-
ment of the country or for the administration of justice ; it being always
understood that the Crown took the power, if it should see right, in the Act

APPENDIX D 219

should be lawful for us, our heirs or successors, to make Grants
or give our Royal License, under the hand and seal of one of
our Principal Secretaries of State, to any body corporate or
company, or person or persons, of or for the exclusive privilege
of trading with the Indians in all such parts of North America
as should be specified in any such Grants or Licenses respec-
tively, not being part of the lands or territories heretofore
granted to the Governor and Company of Adventurers of
England trading to Hudson's Bay, and not being part of any
of our provinces in North America, or of any lands or
territories belonging to the United States of America, and
that all such Grants and Licenses should be good, valid and
effectual, for the purpose of securing to all such bodies
corporate, or companies, or persons, the sole and exclusive
privilege of trading with the Indians, in all such parts of North
America (except as thereinafter excepted) as should be
specified in such Grants or Licenses, any thing contained in
any Act or Acts of Parliament, or any law to the contrary
notwithstanding ; and it was in the said Act further enacted,
that no such Grant or License made or given by us, our heirs
or successors, of any such exclusive privileges of trading with
the Indians in such parts of North America as aforesaid
should be made or given for any longer period than 21 years,
and that no rent should be required or demanded for or in
respect of any such Grant or License, or any privileges given
thereby, under the provisions of the said Act, for the first
period of 21 years ; and it was further enacted, that from and
after the passing of the said Act, the Governor and Company
of Adventurers of England trading to Hudson's Bay, and
every body corporate and company and person, to whom
every such Grant or License should be made or given as
aforesaid, should respectively keep accurate registers of all
persons in their employ, in any parts of North America, and

enabling it to grant the licence, to constitute an independent magisterial
power, which it has never exercised.' Also p. 338 : * In order that I may
be perfectly correct, I wish to state that the Crown has appointed justices,
at the recommendation of the Hudson's Bay Company, in the parts of the
country under the licence which are without the territories of the Hudson's
Bay Company, but it never has granted a commission within the territories
of the Hudson's Bay Company.'

See also p. 348 : ' May 1 ask upon what authority the Company hold
courts of record at the Red River Settlement ? — Under the powers granted
by their charter.

... He (Sir John Pelly) alludes .... to the courts of record under the
Great Seal ? — Yes.

... Is the Great Seal the seal of the Company ? — The Seal of the
Company.'

220 APPENDIX D

should once in each year return to our Principal Secretaries of
State accurate duplicates of such registers, and should also
enter into such security as should be required by us for
the due execution of all criminal processes, and of any
civil process in any suit where the matter in dispute shall
exceed 200/., and as well within the territories included
in any such Grant as within those granted by Charter to the
Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading
to Hudson's Bay, and for the producing and delivering into
safe custody, for the purpose of trial, all persons in their
employ, or acting under their authority, who should be
charged with any criminal offence, and also for the due and
faithful observance of all such rules, regulations and stipu-
lations as should be contained in any such Grant or License,
either for gradually diminishing and ultimately preventing
the sale or distribution of spirituous liquors to the Indians, or
for promoting their moral and religious improvement ; or for
any other object which we might deem necessary for the
remedy or prevention of any other evils which have been
hitherto found to exist : And whereas it was also in the said
Act recited, that by a Convention entered into between his
late Majesty and the United States of America, it was stipu-
lated and agreed, that every country on the North-west coast
of America to the westward of the Stony Mountains should be
free and open to the citizens and subjects of the two powers for
the term of ten years from the date of the signature of that
Convention ; and it was therefore enacted, that nothing in the
said Act contained should be deemed or construed to authorise
any body corporate, company or person, to whom his Majesty
might, under the provisions of the said Act, make or grant, or
give a license of exclusive trade with the Indians in such parts
of North America as aforesaid, to claim or exercise any such
exclusive trade within the limits specified in the said article,
to the prejudice or exclusion of any citizens of the said United
States of America who might be engaged in the said trade :
Provided always, that no British subject should trade with the
Indians within such limits without such Grant or License as
was by the said Act required.

And whereas the said Governor and Company of Adventurers
of England trading into Hudson's Bay, and certain Asso-
ciations of persons trading under the name of the ' North-west
Company of Montreal/ have respectively extended the fur
trade over many parts of North America which had not been
before explored : And whereas the competition in the said
trade has been found for some years past to be productive of

APPENDIX D 221

great inconvenience and loss, not only to the said Company
and Associations, but to the said trade in general, and also of
great injury to the native Indians, and of other persons our
subjects: And whereas the said Governor and Company of
Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay, and
William M'Gillivray, of Montreal, in the Province of Lower
Canada, esquire, Simon M'Gillivray, of Suffolk-lane, in the
City of London, merchant, and Edward Ellice, of Spring-
gardens, in the county of Middlesex, esquire, have represented
to us, that they have entered into an agreement, on the 26th.
day of March last, for putting an end to the said competition,
and carrying on the said trade for 21 years, commencing with
the outfit of 1 82 1, and ending with the returns of 1841, to be
carried on in the name of the said Governor and Company
exclusively :

And whereas the said Governor and Company, and William
M'Gillivray, Simon M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice, have
humbly besought us to make a Grant, and give our Royal
License to them jointly, of and for the exclusive privilege of
trading with the Indians in North America, under the restric-
tions and upon the terms and conditions specified in the
said recited Act : Now KNOW« YE, That we, being desirous of
encouraging the said trade and remedying the evils which
have arisen from the competition which has heretofore existed
therein, do grant and give our Royal License, under the hand
and seal of one of our Principal Secretaries, of State, to the
said Governor and Company, and William M'Gillivray, Simon
M'Crillivray and Edward Ellice,1 for the exclusive privilege of
trading with the Indians in all such parts of North America
to the northward and the westward 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 the said United States of America,
or to any European government, state or power ; and we do
by these presents give, grant and secure to the said Governor
and Company, and William M'Gillivray, Simon M'Gillivray
and Edward Ellice jointly, the sole and exclusive privilege,
for the full period of 21 years from the date of this our Grant,
of trading with the Indians in all such parts of North America
as aforesaid (except as thereinafter excepted) ; and we do
hereby declare that no rent shall be required or demanded

1 'These gentlemen subsequently surrendered their interest to the
Hudson's Bay Company, to whom her Majesty was pleased to make the
Grant of 1838.' Pelly to Lord Stanley, June 8, 1842, Report from the
Select Committee, 1857, p. 408.

222 APPENDIX D

for or in respect of this our Grant and License, or any privileges
given thereby, for the said period of 21 years, but that the
said Governor and Company, and the said William M'Gillivray,
Simon M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice shall, during the period
of this our Grant and License, keep accurate registers of all
persons in their employ in any parts of North America, and
shall once in each year return to our Secretary of State
accurate duplicates of such registers, and shall also enter into
and give security to us, our heirs and successors, in the penal
sum of 5,000/. for ensuring, as far as in them may lie, the due
execution of all criminal processes, and of any civil process in
any suit where the matter in dispute shall exceed 200/., by
the officers and persons legally empowered to execute such
processes within all the territories included in this our Grant,
and for the producing and delivering into safe custody, for
purposes of trial, any persons in their employ, or acting under
their authority within the said territories, who may be charged
with any criminal offence.

And we do also hereby require, that the said Governor and
Company, and William M'Gillivray, Simon M'Gillivray and
Edward Ellice shall, as soon as the same can be conveniently
done, make and submit for our consideration and approval
such rules and regulations for the management and carrying
on the said fur trade with the Indians, and the conduct of the
persons employed by them therein, as may appear to us to be
effectual for gradually diminishing or ultimately preventing
the sale or distribution of spirituous liquors to the Indians,
and for promoting their moral and religious improvement.

And we do hereby declare, that nothing in this our Grant
contained shall be deemed or construed to authorise the said
Governor and Company, or William M'Gillivrav, Simon
M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice, or any person in their employ,
to claim or exercise any trade with the Indians on the north-
west coast of America to the westward of the Stony Mountains,
to the prejudice or exclusion of any citizens of the United States
of America who may be engaged in the said trade : Provided
always, that no British subjects other than and except the said
Governor and Company, and the said William M'Gillivray,
Simon M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice, and the persons
authorised to carry on exclusive trade by them on Grant, shall
trade with the Indians within such limits during the period of
this our Grant.

Given at our Court at Carlton-house the 5th day of De-
cember 1821, in the second year of our reign.
By His Majesty's command.

(L. S.) Bathurst.

APPENDIX E 223

The Transfer of Assiniboia back to the Hudson's
Bay Company, 1834.

(i) Copy of Minutes of Committee held June 6, 1834.1

1 Lord Selkirk having intimated to the Committee that he
was willing to carry into effect the object contemplated by the
Company, of converting his five shares of profit 2 into stock, and
that he was ready to accede to the desire expressed by the
Committee to have re-conveyed to the Company that portion
of the grant made to the late Earl of Selkirk in 181 1 which
by the treaty with the United States in 1818, remains within
the British Boundary. It was resolved to offer him .£15,000
Hudson's Bay Stock, for the same, the Company to become
possessed of the shares of profit for the outfit of 183 1 to 1842,
inclusive, and of the land as on the 1st of June instant, and
Lord Selkirk when the conveyance shall be completed, to be
entitled to the Hudson's Bay Stock, as on the 1st of June 1834,
with the dividends which may accrue, and be paid thereon
after that date.' (True copy. W. Smith, Secretary.)

(ii) Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee
ofi the Hudson's Bay Company: The Right Hon. E. Ellice,
June 23, 1857.3

' 5985. In the same statement which has been laid before
this Committee, I observe an item of 84,111/. paid to Lord
Selkirk for the Red River Settlement? — That is the money
actually paid to Lord Selkirk, with interest added to it. The
Honourable Gentleman is aware that when merchants make
a purchase they open an account, and they debit to that
account the money which the estate cost them, and they add
the interest, and deduct any revenue or receipt which they
have had from it since ; and the 84,000/. is the balance of such
an account.

5986. In 1836, as you have already stated to the Com-
mittee ? — Yes.

5987. Chairman] Deducting your profits ? — Yes, I am
afraid there are no profits ; it is the accumulation of interest.

5988. Mr. Christy] The 84,000/. is a monied sum due to
Lord Selkirk ? — It is that money, and interest outstanding upon
their books/

1 Correspondence, vol. viii, p. 1226. Lord Selkirk's acceptance is dated
the same day. Ibid.

2 The 'five shares' dated from 1820 before the coalition. Ibid.

3 Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson's Bay Company,
1857, P- 345-

1526.7

11*}

INDEX

Adams, Mr., secretary of state (Washing-
ton), 20 1.

Addington, Henry, see Sidmouth.

Agriculture in Scotland, 21 ; in Cana-
dian West, 173, 175, 181, 188; Sel-
kirk's interest in, 133, 173, 188-9.

Albany, 140.

Allen (Allan), Dr. John, 119, 120, 121,

123, i37~8» J44> i^S, 159-

American democracy, 23.

American traders at Red River Settle-
ment (1844), 182.

Amherstburg, 24.

Amiens, Peace of, 19.

Amos, Andrew, 43, 112, 113, 147, 153 ;
account of, 154 ; his summing up of
the Selkirk litigation, 157.

Andreani, Count, 17.

Antiscorbutics, 62.

1 Apostles, the', 15.

Argyle, emigrants from, 21.

Arms, 49, 82 ; seized by North-West
Company, 84, 95 ; conveyed into
Upper Canada, 116.

Askin, Mr., 119.

Assiniboia, map, 226 ; 34, 65 ; see also
under Selkirk (4).

Assiniboine, river, 34, 43, 44, 75, 109 ;
seizure of pemmican on, 71, 72.

Astors, the, 29.

Athabasca, 28, 34, 45, 72 ; pemmican
from, 25 ; El Dorado of fur-trade, 32,
97 ; John Clarke's expedition to, 97,
98, 105-6.

Athabasca brigades, 70, 74, 97, 98,
105, 114.

Auckland, George Eden, first earl of,
187.

Auld, William, superintendent at York
Factory, 36, 60, 69, 99 ; attorney for
the Company, 205 ; opposes settle-
ment and neglects instructions, 33,
40-2 ; hostile to Macdonell and the
settlers, 55-6, 58-62, 75-6 ; Selkirk's
resentment and Auld's resignation,
56; in touch with the N.-W. Co., 99.
See also under Hudson's Bay Com-
pany, Miles Macdonell, and Selkirk
(4).

Baldoon, settlement at, 23-4, 176-7,
184-5 ; maP> "5-

Baltimore, George Calvert, first baron,

35-

Bannerman, Alexander, 84.

Bannerman, Hugh, 82.

Bas de la Riviere House, 44.

Bathurst, Henry, third earl Bathurst, 19,
54, 76, 92, 160-1, 187; his dispatch
directing the arrest of Lord Selkirk,
129-31, 138, 142-3, 145-6, 162-3,
2 15-1 8. See also under Selkirk.

Beaver Club, the, 25, 26, 31, 46.

Belfast, Canada, 177.

Bell, John, 65.

Berens, Joseph, 101, 161.

* Bible Peer' (Lord Selkirk), 102.

Big Bear Creek, 177, 225.

Bird, James, 106, 127.

Blackheath, 90.

Blair, Moncrief, 38, 45.

Bois-brfile, see under Half-breed.

Bostonois, see Pangman.

Boucher, Francis Firmin, in, 154,
181.

Boulton, Justice, Attorney-General, 118,
120.

Bourke, Rev. Charles, 38, 39, 186.

Brandon House, 43, 70, 72, 109.

Brant, Joseph, 177.

Brenton, E., 80-1.

Brock, General, 59.

Brougham, Henry Peter, baron Brou-
gham and Vaux, 160.

Brown, Paul, 154, 181.

Bruce, Capt., 135.

Bryce, Dr., 26.

Buckinghamshire, Robert Hobart, fourth
earl of, 20, 23, 187.

Buffaloes, 44, 45, 53, 74, 80-1, 98,
140, 174, 188. See also under Pem-
mican.

Buffalo Wool Company, 173.

Bulger, Capt., 174.

Buonaparte, Napoleon, 20, 184.

Button's Island, 39.

Byron, Lord, 90.

Cadotte, Joseph, 151.

Caithness, 58.

Calvert, George, first baron Baltimore,

35-
Camden, 187.
Cameron, Dougal, 77.

P %

sw8

INDEX

Cameron, Duncan (agent for North-
West Company), 72, 74, 77-89, 104 ;
character, 83 ; twice arrested, 106-7.
See also under Colin Robertson.

Cameron, J. D., 69, 77, 88, 116.

Campbell, Judge, 128.

Campbell, George, 84, 87-8, 149-50.

Campbell, J. D., 108.

Campbell, Lord William, 177.

Canning, George, 19.

Cartier, Jacques, 41.

' Cartouche, Captain ' (Miles Mac-
donell), 80, 80.

Castlereagh, Robert Stewart, Viscount,
16, 19.

Catfish Creek, no, 226.

Catholics, see Roman Catholics.

Charles II, King, 27, 196.

Charlotte- town, 177, 224.

Chatham, Upper Canada, 24.

Chenal Ecart6, 177, 225.

' Chesterfield, Lord ' (Colin Robertson),
108.

Chippewyan, 106.

Churchill, river, 61 ; upper, 46-7.

Clarence, Duke of (afterwards Wil-
liam IV), 90.

Clark, Sir James, 16.

Clarke, John, 97, 98, 105.

'Club, the', 15, 16.

Clyne, Sutherlandshire, 57.

Colonial Office, 92, 93, 99, 101, 134,
141,161,163. See also under Hobart,
Bathurst, and Goulburn.

Colonization, 6, 102 ; Selkirk's motives,
35, 192 ; early attempts of Hudson's
Bay Company at, 190 ; colonization
and the fur- trade, 169-71. See also
under Selkirk.

Colony Creek, departure of settlers
from, 62-3, 226.

Coltman, W. B., commissioner, 54, 73,
80, 86, 137-9, I42S> J9T J selected
as commissioner, 1 26 ; intentions and
character, 133-4; Lady Selkirk on,
157 ; see also under Selkirk (5).

Colvile family, 27.

Colvile, Andrew, 36, 37, 56, 166-7,
168, 1 7 1-2, 1 90-1 ; see also under
Wedderburn-Colvile.

Commission, the, see Selkirk (5).
Conway, H.M.S., 38.

Cook, W. H., 39.

Coxe, Mr., on ' right to the soil ', 181.

Cree Indians, 86.

Cruise, William, 65.
Currie, Archibald, 89.

Daer, Selkirk succeeds to name of, 1 7.
Demarais, Jean Baptiste, 150, 155.

de Meuron regiment, 103, 127; dis-
banding of, 1 15-16; summoned to
Thunder Bay, 119; at Fort William,
120, 122 ; arrangements for departure
to Switzerland, 1 39 ; migration to
U.S.A., 174.

Deschamps family, 104, 114.

Deserters, treatment of, 38, 45^ from
the Settlement, 54, 84, 85.

Detroit, 74.

Directors of Hudson's Bay Company,
lack of enterprise, 28 ; Selkirk as one
OI> 33» escape responsibility for
colonization, 170; indifference to
colonization, 170-1 ; not deliberately
hostile to Red River Settlement, 172.

Dobbs, Arthur, 47.

D'Orsonnens, Capt., 120, 127, 129, 192.

Douglas family, seat of, 15.

Douglas (member of Transport Board),
58.

Douglas, Dunbar, see Selkirk, fourth
earl of.

Douglas, Dunbar James, see Selkirk,
sixth earl of.

Douglas, Lady Katherine, 90-2, 165,
193 ; (m. John Halkett, 181 5).

Douglas, Thomas, see Selkirk, fifth earl
of.

Dover, Upper Canada, 24, 177.

Dromore, Bp. of, 185.

Drummond, Sir Gordon, acting gover-
nor of Canada, 88, 1 37 ; on the Red
River Settlement and protection of
the settlers, &c, 92-5, 101-3 ; unac-
countable prepossession in favour of
the North-westers, 100 ; his tenure of
office expires, 115.

Drummond's Island, 116, 125, 128, 129.

Dufferin, Lord, on the strategic impor-
tance of Manitoba, 184.

Dunlop, General, 92.

Eddystone, the, 37, 58 ; arrival at York
Factory, 39.

Eden, George, first earl of Auckland,
187.

Edinburgh, 15-16.

Edward VII, King, 27.

Edward and Anne, the, 37-9, 45.

Edwards, A., surgeon, 38, 53, 62, 76,
206.

Ellice, Edward, the elder, 26, 32, 33,
55, 100, 167, 169, 218 ; on the sale of
Assiniboia, 34, 65 ; Ellice and Goul-
burn, 92 ; andAuld,Q9; influence on
policy of Colonial Office, 161 ; over-
tures towards peace between Hudson's
Bay and North-West Companies,
166-7 5 &rant of l8ar> 221-2.

INDEX

i2g

Emigration, 18, 20, at, 23, 186-7, I^9-
Erie, lake, 24, 69, 184.
Ermatinger, Chas. O., 119.
Erskine, Lord, 65.
Esquimaux, the, 51.

'Family Compact', the, 24, 35, 145.

Farms, experimental, 173.

Ferguson, Sir Adam, 16.

Fidler, Peter, 81, 87, 108, 109.

Finlay, Wm., 41-3.

Fire-arms, see Arms.

FitzRoy, Sir Charles, 178.

Flax, 173.

Fletcher, J., commissioner, 126, 134-5,
143.

Flood of 1826, the, 173-4.

Fond du Lac, 117, 119.

Forks, the, 43-5, 51, 57, 63, 66-7, 74,
76, 87, 98, 106, 107.

Fort Churchill, 28, 39, 41-2, 59-62, 66.

Fort Daer, 53, 66, 71, 81, 83, 127.

Fort Douglas, 63, 72, 74, 82, 84, 85, 86,
87, 98, 107, 113, 127, 136.

Fort George, 176.

Fort Gibraltar, 72, 73, 79, 83, 84, 107,
108 ; built in 1804, 43-

Fort la Souris, 71, 77.

Fort William, 29, 30, 34, 44, 54, 72,
74, 76-7> 92, io4> "8, 119, 121, 126,
128, 132, 139, 143-4, 193.

Foucher, Judge, 152.

Freemen, 80, 82, 104 ; ' all rascals', 105.

French Revolution, 15, 16.

Frobisher, Benjamin, 44.

Frobishers, the, 28, 30.

Frog Plain, 85, 112.

Fur and the fur trade, 35, 55, 65, 73,
74, 94, 96-8, 116, 121, 166-71, 174,
191 ; conflicts with colonization, 31,
35, 55> 60, 169-71, 190-1. Of the
Hudson's Bay Company: indolence
of traders, 28 ; good results with
Indians, 28 ; disadvantage as com-
pared with the North-West Company,
29; 'jog trot mode', 29 ; reorganiza-
tion of, 46-7 ; enthusiasm in 1 8 1 5, 98 ;
disaster to, in spite of ' perseverance '
and ' fidelity ', 105-6 ; retention of furs
at Fort William, 123-4; ascendancy
re-established at the coalition, 168.
Of the North-West Company: tra-
ditions of the Beaver Club, 25; early
British-Canadian trade, 28 ; successful
competition with the Hudson's Bay
Company, 29; organization of, 30;
Canadian competition, 30; methods
of trade, 30-1 ; attempts to control
Hudson's Bay Company, 32 ; ascen-
dancy over their rivals, 105-6;

ascendancy lost at coalition, 168-9.
Grant of 182 1 regulating, 218-22.

Gale, Samuel, Selkirk's counsel, 123,
132, 138, 139, H5, J52. *58 ; on Colt-
man and Fletcher and law officers of
Upper Canada, 134-5; on the m"
fluence of the under friends of the
North-westers, 137 ; on Miles Mac-
donell, D'Oisonnens, and Robertson,
192 ; on Selkirk, 194.

Galway, 37.

George III, King, 27.

Ghent, Treaty ot, 139, 181.

Gibbs, Lord Chief Justice, 65, 123.

Glasgow, 37.

Glengarry, 24.

Gore, Lieut.-Gov., 117, 119, 128.

Goulburn, Henry, under-secretary for
the Colonial Office, 137, 160, 180;
his hostility to the Company, 92 ;
excuses inactivity of Colonial Office,
93 ; letter referring to arms seized by
North-West Company, 95 ; influence
at Colonial Office, 101, 137, 161 ; on
'folly of sending troops to protect
a few hundred settlers', 102-3 \ nrges
compromise between Hudson's Bay
and North-West Companies, 167.

Gourlay, Robert, 145.

Grand Rapids, 1 14.

Grand River, 177.

Grant, Cuthbert, 81, 85, 109, 112, 113,
I5°, x54, J75J 'appointed Captain-
General of all the Half-Breeds',
104-5.

Grant, James, 107.

Great Slave Lake, 106.

Grey, Charles, second earl Grey, vis-
count Howick and baron Grey, 49.

Gunn, Donald, 36, 58, 60.

Habiliments, 121.

Half-breeds, account of, 80 ; called also
bois-brules or Metis, 80 ; hostility
to the settlers and to Hudson's Bay
traders, 70, 71, 73, 74, 81, 82, 83,
85-6, 97, 108-12, 118; recompensed
by North-West Company, 88, 114,
121 ; confused with Indians by Hud-
son's Bay Company, 94 ; attempt of
North-West Company to arouse
them, 104-5, 'little better than
rascals', 105.

Halkett, John, 36, 92-3, 146, 155, 158,
162-3, 168, 186, 201 ; (m. Lady
Katherine Douglas, 1815).

Hall, Sir J., 16, 190.

Hamilton, Sir William, 16, 17.

Hanwell, Capt., 38.

*3°

INDEX

Harrison, Edward, 108.

Harvey, Lieut.-Col., 93, 94, 103.

Hawes, B., 49.

Hayes River, 43, 63, 76.

Hebrides, the, 50.

Helmsdale, 58.

Henry, Alexander, 28, 29.

Henry, Alexander, no.

Henry, Robert, no, 113.

Hill River, 60.

Hillier, William, 43, 44, 46-7, 49, 55.

Hillsboro' parish, 177.

Hobart, Robert, see Buckinghamshire.

Hobhouse, Sir Benjamin, 36.

Holdsworth, George, surgeon, 70, 72.

Holland, Capt., 177.

Holland, Lord, 187.

Holmes, Mr., 51.

Holroyd, Sir G. S., 65.

Holte, Lieut., m-12.

Hopetown (Hopetoun), Lord, 160.

Horses, 174.

Howse, Joseph, Hudson's Bay trader,

7i-3.

Hudson Bay, 20, 28, 29, 45, 61, 67, 89,
169 ; early trade on, 28-9 ; arrival of
first party at, 39 ; second party, 5 1 ;
third party, 59 ; fourth party, 76 ;
fifth party, 96 ; permission to North-
West Company to ship furs by way of,
73 ; reinforcements by way of, 96 ;
application for protection by way of,
161 ; trade after coalition deflected
to, 168.

Hudson's Bay Company, account of,
27-9 ; Charter of Incorporation
(1670), 196-201 ; references to, 35,
50, 91, 92, 97, 101, 103 ; attacks on
validity of, 47-9; steps taken to
obtain statement of Company's claims,
48-9 ; disadvantages when in com-
petition with other traders, 29 ; their
'jog trot mode', 41, 46; not popular
in Great Britain, 47 ; results of not
obtaining opinion of His Majesty's
Law Officers, 99-100; ascendancy
re-established, 168; Fletcher's hosti-
lity* J35; failure in fur trade, 105;
half-breeds confused with Indians, 94 ;
improvidence among traders, 106 ;
instructions to Auld, 46-9 ; to Mac-
donell, 49 ; Macdonell's conciliatory
attitude with officials, 40 ; ordinances,
99, 100, 161 ; popularity of the Com-
pany at Montreal, 1 1 5, 1 25 ; prisoners
at Fort William, 118; the Company
and colonization, 26, 190 ; and Mac-
donell's proclamation, 69 ; and North-
West Company, 29, 31, 32, 95, 97;
and Red River Settlement, 55-6, 106,

116, 161 ; and Selkirk, 31-4, 90;
the Grant of Assiniboia to Selkirk,
201-15 ; the Grant of 1821, 218-22 ;
retransfer of Assiniboia, 2 23. See also
under Selkirk, Fur and the fur trade,
and Directors.

Hughes, James, 69, 88, 107, 156.

Hunter, Lieut.-Gov., 23, 192.

Huron, lake, 24, 182, 184.

lie a la Crosse, 106.

tie St. Jean, 22.

Illinois, 182.

Indian territories, 27, 116, 138, 145, 151.

Indians, 86, 94, 106, 133, 174.

Inglis, John, 34.

Inglis & Ellice, Messrs., failure of, 169.

Inverness, emigrants from, 21.

Inverness Journal, 36-7, 45, 88, 133.

Iowa, 182.

Ireland, 16, 19, 50, 58, 90, 184, 189.

Irish disorder, emigration as a cure for,

20.
Irish rebellion, 19.
Irish reform, 19.
Irish volunteers, 16.
Italian agriculture, 188.

Jack River, 87, 98, 188.
Jeffrey, Francis Jeffrey, lord, 16.
Jenkinson, Robert Banks, see Liverpool.
Johnson, John, 115.

Kentucky, 140.

Keveny, Owen, leader of the second
expedition to the Red River Settle-
ment, 47, 51, 56, 59, 148, 150-2, 155 ;
Auld's opinion of him, 60 ; his lack of
patience with the religious scruples
of the settlers, 61 ; Presbyterian ob-
servance, 96 ; his arrest and murder,
129.

Kildonan, Sutherlandshire, 57.

Killala, 37, 38, 186.

King's county, 177.

Labrador, 58.
Lachine, 116.
Lac la Pluie (Rainy Lake), 79, no, 127,

132.
Lagimoniere (La Gimonier, Lagimmo-

niere), Jean Baptiste, 113, 116, 118,

121.
Lamar, Seraphim, 80, 86, 150.
Laserre, Mr. P., surgeon, 59.
Leather, 174.
Lesser Slave Lake, 45.
Lexington, Kentucky, 140.
Litigation, see Selkirk (6).
Liverpool, Robert Banks Jenkinson,

second earl of, 92, 100, 149, 163, 187.

INDEX

331

Livingstone, Donald, 83.
Lloyd, Sir Richard, 65.
Locusts, 173.
Log-houses, 39, 53.

London, Selkirk in, 90-1, 165 ; North-
westers in, 34, 45, 55, 92, 167, 169.
Loyalists, see United Empire.

McAulay, Zachary, 36, 164, 185.

McBeath, Charles, 63.

McDonald, Capt., .W Macdonell, Miles.

MacDonald, Archibald, 59-63, 75, 82,
87 ; arrival at Fort Douglas, 63, 74 ;
refuses ammunition and arms to the
settlers, 82.

MacDonald, Hector, 54, 88.

McDonald, John, of Fort Dauphin,
86.

McDonald, John, of Garth, 73, 74, 77,
86, 97.

Macdonell, Alexander, Selkirk's agent
at Baldoon, 24, 176.

Macdonell, Alexander, sheriff under
Semple, 1 11, 113; the Grasshopper
governor, 174, 176.

Macdonell, Alexander, the North-
wester, 44, 54, 65, 71, 76-7, 104,
108-9, IT3> x37> J76 5 and the pem-
mican war, 78-89; on freemen and
half-breeds, 105.

Macdonell, John, 38, 44.

Macdonell, Capt. Miles, governor of
Assiniboia, a Roman Catholic, 39,
185-6; chosen to lead the expedi-
tion to Red River, 35 ; at Yarmouth
and Stromness, 37 ; his name spelt
McDonald by Auld, 37 ; teaches rudi-
ments of military discipline to the
emigrants and directs the building of
log-houses, 39 ; contempt of obstacles,
40 ; maintains a conciliatory attitude
towards Hudson's Bay officials, 40;
his contempt for the long letters of
Auld and Cook, 40; supervises the
men employed for the new settlement,
41 ; reaches ' the Forks ', 43 ; finds
a suitable spot for permanent settle-
ment, 44 ; rides to Pembina, 45 ;
instructions to him, 49 ; too much in-
clined to military government, 50 ;
opposition : of Auld, 54-6, 60, 75,
of Hudson's Bay Company, 54-6, of
North -westers, 54-6, of McRae, 60;
limit of Macdonell's authority, 66 ;
false estimate of his adversaries' weak-
ness, 69; his failure to reckon with
the half-breeds, 70-1 ; he begs to
resign his governorship on account of
illness and despair, 75-6; return to
health, 76; decides to winter at the

Forks, 76 ; nicknamed ' Captain Car-
touche', 80, 86; on the pemmican
proclamation, 82 ; his arrest, 87; Mac-
donell discussed by Drummond and
William McGillivray, 93 ; sent to the
Red River Settlement in 18 16, 116;
at Sault Ste. Marie, 117, 119; at
Rainy Lake, 127 ; takes possession of
Fort Daer and Fort Douglas, 127 ; in
Montreal, 156; Samuel Gale and
Lieut.-Gov. Hunter on, 192 ; Selkirk
on, 50, 56, 69, 75 ; Selkirk's attorney
for Assiniboia, 44, 206.

McDouall, Lieut. -Col., 81, 102.

McEachern, Hector, 83, 84.

McGillis, Hugh, 104.

McGillivray, John, 105-6.

McGillivray, Simon, 32, 34, 45, 54, 55,
65, 87, 88, 148, 169, 171, 221-2.

McGillivray, William, effect of his
training on the North-westers, 46, 79 ;
the winter of 181 2, 54; McGillivray
and the pemmican war, 74, 77 ; legis-
lative councillor, 93 ; discusses Miles
McDonell with Drummond, 93 ; in-
dignation at Bathurst's imputation
against the North-West Company,
94 ; writes to Drummond against
Selkirk, 94 ; his arrogance and vio-
lence, 100 ; on ' settlers in a wilder-
ness ', 102 ; calls on the ' ancient
Nort k- West spirit \ 106; on effect of
Lady Selkirk's influence, 115 ; wishes
himself out of the Canadian fur trade,
116, 166; high words with winter
partners, 116; his arrest by Selkirk
and his quiet submission (1816), 119,
120, 127, 139; charged in Montreal in
1 818, 148; his death, 169; opposed
to colonization, 170; the grant of
1821, 221-2 ; related to Justice Reid,
141.

McGillivray, Thain & Co., failure of,
169.

McGillivrays, the, 29, 168.

McGillivray's Geese, 123.

Mcintosh, James, 89.

MacKay, Angus, 63.

McKeevor, Dr., Thomas, 51.

MacKenzie, Capt., 38.

Mackenzie, Sir Alexander, in XY Com-
pany, 25,26, 30, 33 ; on Athabasca fur
trade, 28 ; aims to bring the Hudson's
Bay Company under control of the
North-West Company, 32 ; his op-
position to Selkirk, 34,45-6, 55, 64-5,
166.

McKenzie, Charles, 87.

McKenzie, Daniel, 54; and Selkirk,
122-5, 131, 146, 159, 165.

2$Z

INDEX

Mackenzie, Donald, 175.

McKenzie, Kenneth, 79, 105, 120.

McKinnon, Donald, 88.

MacLaughlin, John, 88, no, 113, iao.

McLean, Mr., secretary of the Trans-
port Board, 58.

McLean, Mrs., 84.

McLean, Hugh, 89.

McLean, Laughlin, 107, 109.

McLellan, Archibald, 109, 127, 151.

McLennan, Rev. Mr., 179.

McLeod, Archibald Norman, on the
pemmican war, 77 ; supplies war-
rants, 78 ; his uniform lent to Cameron,
79, 80 ; on attack on Red River Settle-
ment (1816), no; arrival at Fort
Douglas, 1 1 3-14; on lack of govern-
ment support for Selkirk, 115; in-
structions for detaining Lagimoniere,
121 ; McLeod and Coltman, 137.

McLeod, John, 39, 81, 89, 97-8. See
also under Colin Robertson.

McNab, John, 120.

McNabb, Mr., Selkirk's farm at Baldoon
sold to, 177.

McRae, Kenneth, 60; betrays Mac-
donell's letter to Auld, 55 ; one of
Selkirk's attorneys for seisin and
delivery of Assiniboia, 206.

McRobb, Robert, 107, 130-1, 162, 216.

McTavish, Gov., 182.

McTavish, Simon (' Premier ' or ' Mar-
quis'), 30.

McTavish and Fraser, Messrs., 38.

McTavish, McGillivray & Co., Messrs.,

45-
McTavishes, the, 29.
Maitland, Sir Peregrine, 146.
Maitland, Auldjo & Co., Messrs., 93,

100; Selkirk's account overdrawn

with, 133.
Manitoba, 34, 42, 175, 185; strategic

importance of, 184.
Mansfield, Lord, 65.
1 Marquis' (Simon McTavish), 30.
Massachusetts, 23.
Matthey, Col., 116, 119.
Melville, Lord, 160, 187.
M&is, see tinder Half-breed and Bois-

brule\
Michigan, lake, 24.

Michillimackinac, 68,81, 117, 122, 123.
Michipcoton, 150.
Military service, 18, 49, 171.
Miller, Col., 117.
Milnes, Lieut. -Gov., 28.
Minnesota, 34, 182.
Mississippi, river, 20, 34, 139, 140;

American development of, 181, 182.
Missouri, river, 34.

Mitchell, Dr. , his warrant for Selkirk's

arrest, 128, 145.
Montgomery, Sir James, 100, 167, 190.
Montreal, 25, 26, 44, 45, 55, 75, 77, 92,

93, 94, 96> 97, IO°, io4. Io6» "5» J l6,
118, 123, 125-6, 128, 134, 137, 139,
140, 145, 148-152, 156, 158-9, 164,
166, 168-9.

Montreal C our ant 1 138, 147.

Montreal Herald, 159.

Moose Lake, 108.

Moravian missionaries, 58.

Murray, John, 82, 83.

'Nabobs', the, of the North- West
Company, 25, 30, 119, 122.

Nelson, river, 39.

New York, 23, 100, 140.

Niagara peninsula, 177.

Niagara Spectator, 145.

North Dakota, 34.

North-West Company, the, 28; account
of, 25; formation and growth, 30,
46 ; and Hudson's Bay Company, 29,
32, 95 ; influence in official circles in
Great Britain, 92 ; instructions to
Hillier, 47 ; fort at Pembina re-
established, 53 ; prisoners maintained
in luxury, 155 ; post on Red RiveT,
43; privations of winter of 1815,
105 ; meetings of winter partners,
30-1 ; andXY Company, 25, 30. See
also under Selkirk, Fur and the fur
trade, and Winter partners.

Nova Scotia, forest clearing in, 188.

Oak, 47.

Oatmeal, 62, 73, 74.

Ogden, J., Justice, 141, 152.

Ohio, river, 140.

Ontario, 188.

Oregon, 181.

Orkneys, the, 38, 41, 58.

Oxford House, 43, 226.

Pambrun, Pierre Chrysologue, 113, 117.
Pangman, Peter (Bostonois), 81, 85, 88,

150, *55-
Partridges, 62.
Pau, Selkirk's death at, 165.
Peace River, 106.
Pelham, Thomas, 19, 20, 25, 26, 35,

185.
Pelly, Gov., 174.
Pelly, Sir John, 49, 221.
Pembina, 44-5, 67, 107, 127, 140;

North-West Company's fort at, 53,

54. See also under Fort Daer.
Pembina, river, 44.
Pemmican, 25, 43, 188.

INDEX

*33

Pemmican War, see under Selkirk (4) e.

Penn, William, 35.

Pennsylvania, 179.

Perceval administration, 90.

Perrault, L., 150, 154, 155.

Philadelphia, 140.

Pinnette, 178, 179, 224.

Pitt, William, the yonnger, 19, 187.

Plessis, Bp., of Quebec, 186.

Point Douglas, 44.

Poland, 17.

Portage la Prairie, 85, 109, 113.

Portugal, 90 ; Selkirk on the campaign

in, 183-4.
Powell, Chief Justice, 128, 146.
'Premier' (Simon McTavish), 30.
Presbyterians, 61.
Prevost, Sir George, 79, 80.
Prince county, 177.
Prince Edward Island, 21-3, 26, 176,

177-9, l84 >' map, 224.
Prince of PVales, the, 37, 58.
Prince Regent, the, 90, 132, 155.
Pritchard, John, 53, 71, 72, 77, 78, 80,

111,112,117,125,175; taken prisoner,

»3-
'Private War', 134.
Privy Council, 48, 155, 163.
Pyke, George, Advocate-General, 151.

Qu'Appelle, 71, 81, 85, 104, 108.
Quarrels in Indian Territories, act re-
ferred to, 27-8.
Queen's county, 177.

Rainy Lake,* see Lac la Pluie.

Red River, 32, 39, 43, 44, 45, 63, 72,
79, 82, 98, no, in, 113; flood of
1826, 174. See also under Selkirk (4).

Red River Settlement, see under Selkirk

(4).
Reform in Ireland, 16; in Scotland, 16.
Reid, Mr., collector of customs, 37.
Reid, Justice, 141, 152.
Reinhard, Charles, murderer of Keveny,

129; condemned to be hanged, 151 ;

sentence never executed, 155.
Religious disagreement, 186.
Richardson, John, 10 1.
Rideout, Mr., Selkirk's counsel, 153,

Robertson, Colin, 78, 92, 93, 104 ; on
the intrigue of a certain company, 94 ;
his character, 97, 192 ; connexion
with John McDonald of Garth, 97 ;
organizes expedition to Athabasca,
97 ; at Jack River, 98 ; on Auld, 99 ;
disagreement with Semple, 107-8 ;
left Fort Douglas following his
prisoner Cameron who had been sent

to Hudson Bay, May 18, under John
McLeod, 108; known as 'Lord
Chesterfield ', 108 ; on Pangman and
others, 1 50 ; his arrest, and trial men-
tioned, 156-7 ; Lady Selkirk on, 192.
See also under Selkirk.

Robinson, Maj.-Gen. C. W., 139.

Robinson, F. P., 54.

Robinson, John Beverley, 139, 146,

i52-3, 157, J94-
Rock House (or The Rock), 60.
Rocky Mountains, the, 137, 182.
Roi, Jean Baptiste, 43.
Roman Catholics, 19, 90, 183, 185-6.
Romilly, Sir Samuel, 65.
' Roseblave ' (Rochblave), Pierre, 70.
Ross-shire, emigrants from, 21.
Ryder, Sir Dudley, 65.

St. Clair, lake, 177.

St. Clair, river, 177.

St. Lawrence, gulf of, 21, 184.

St. Louis, 140; castle of, 115; river,
117.

Sandwich, 131, 136, 143, 145, 159.

Sault Ste. Marie, 24, 117, 119, 135,
150, 184, 185.

Saulteaux, 84.

Sayer trial, 169.

Scarlett, J., 65.

Scotland, cause of reform in, 16 ; agri-
culture in, 21 ; sheep-farming in, 57 ;
emigration from, 189.

Scott, Sir Walter, 16, 90, 190.

Scottish settlement in United States,
success of, 23.

Scottish settlers in Canada, 20.

Scottish volunteers, 16, 17.

Scurvy, remedies for, 41, 42.

Selkirk, Dunbar Douglas, fourth earl of,

i5~l8> J93.
Selkirk, Dunbar James Douglas, sixth

earl of, 169, 175; transfers Assiniboia

to Hudson's Bay Company, 223 ;

declines to identify himself with

petitions against small holdings in

Prince Edward Island, 178.
Selkirk, Thomas Douglas, Fifth

Earl of : —

(1) 1771-1802. Early life, 15-18.
His birth, 15 ; Selkirk at Edinburgh,
15-16 ; he makes the grand tour, 16 ;
succeeds to the name of Daer, 1 7 ; in
Switzerland, 17; his energies en-
grossed in emigration, 18 ; proposes
a form of compulsory military service,
18.

(2) 1802-n. Experiments in
colonization, 20-35, 90, 176-7, 184-6,
1 90. Selkirk proposes emigration as

»34

INDEX

a cure for Irish disorder, 20 ; his
account of the expedition to Prince
Edward Island in 1803, 21-3 ; his
travels in the United States and
Canada, 23; his belief in policy of
deflecting British emigration from the
United States, 23 ; the settlement at
Baldoon, 23-4, 176-7, 184-5 ; strate-
gic importance of Selkirk's first choice
of territory, 24; he volunteers to
construct a highway through Upper
Canada, 24 ; his return to Great
Britain, 27 ; he miscalculates the
resources of the North-West Com-
pany and the task of reorganizing the
Hudson's Bay Company, 31 ; regards
fur trade as a secondary consideration,
31 ; begins to purchase Hudson's Bay
stock and obtains a controlling inter-
est in the Company, 32-3 ; his energies
gradually involved in the Company's
affairs, 90; end of Sir Alexander
Mackenzie's co-operation, 32 ; Selkirk
undertakes settlement on condition
of sufficient grant of land, 35, 190;
his motives, 35 ; first plan for coloni-
zation designed for Irish Roman
Catholics, 185-6.

(3} 1 807 . Selkirk's Marriage ', 2 7 .
(4) 1811-17. Assiniboia and the
Red River Settlement :

a. General. Land granted by the
Hudson's Bay Company, 34 ; reasons
for the grant, 169-70; the Grant,
201-15 ; opposition of the North -
West Company, 31, 32, 34-6, 45,
1 70-1 ; neglect of the Red River
Colony by the Hudson's Bay Company,
33 ; North-West Company protests
against the private sale of Assiniboia
to Selkirk, 34, 64 ; the Company un-
able to invoke law, 49, 91 ; Selkirk's
implicit belief in, and the conflict of
opinion respecting, his title to Assini-
boia, 64-5 ; proprietary rights of the
Hudson's Bay Company in Assiniboia,
65 ; North-westers will not depart from
Assiniboia unless by legal compul-
sion, 10 1 ; Selkirk interviews Bath-
urst, 92 ; applies to Colonial Office
for protection against the North-
West Company, 92 ; McGillivray's
letter to Drummond against Selkirk,
94 ; insistent demands of the North- j
West influence, 99 ; Selkirk on the |
Hudson's Bay Company's Charter, |
101-2 ; negotiations with the North- 1
West Company doomed to failure, ,
101-2 ; covert opposition of the Hud-
son's Bay Company's officials, 1 70-1 ; I

Pennsylvania the prototype of Assini-
boia, 179; outline of the history of
the Red River Settlement, 179; Cana-
dian and American opinion contrasted,
1 8 1-3 ; American traders at the Red
River Settlement in 1844, 182; the
first governor of the Red River Settle-
ment a Roman Catholic, 185 ; Assi-
niboia rich in human necessities, 188.

b. First Red River Settlement.
Lack of financial support, 36 ; the
settlement begun under every un-
favourable augury, 36 ; opposition in
the Inverness Journal, 36-7, 45, 88,
133; embarkation of first settlers
from Stornoway , and their late arrival,
38-9 ; the first party of 181 1 made up
of indentured servants to prepare the
way for permanent settlers, 38 ; re-
ception at York Factory, 39 ; Auld and
Cook select a spot for encampment,
39 ; Macdonell directs the building of
log-houses for the winter, 39 ; descrip-
tion of the first encampment sent to
Selkirk, 39-40 ; the settlers' lack of
knowledge of shooting, &c, 39-40 ;
Auld girds at the Irish, chafes under
his new responsibilities, and suggests
that Selkirk has been imposed upon,
40 ; unfitness of some of the men, 40 ;
antagonism of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany's servants, 40-1 ; winter hard-
ships, 41, 66 ; Auld at Fort Churchill,
41-2 ; insurrection of the settlers led
by Finlay, 41-3 ; settlers leave their
winter quarters, sail up the Hayes
River, and reach the Forks, 43 ; they
pitch their camp on the east side of
Red River, 43 ; legal delivery of the
Settlement, 43-4 ; Assiniboia almost
as large as the United Kingdom, 44 ;
first party ascends Red River to Pem-
bina to prepare winter quarters, 44 ;
a few left to prepare permanent site
at Point Douglas, 44 ; arrival at the
Forks of second party under Owen
Keveny, 51 : sec also under (4) t ;
supplies sent down to meet them, 45.

c. Second Red River Settlement.
Suitable site found for permanent
settlement, 44 ; supplies sent for a
second party of settlers expected at the
Forks, 45 ; Selkirk sends out families
for permanent settlement in Canada,
and matures plans for schools, &c,
45 » opposition of Mackenzie and the
North- westers, 45 ; Selkirk's thoughts
of going out to Canada and of visiting
the Red River Settlement, 45, 47 ; he-
underrates the strength of his op-

INDEX

*35

ponents, 46 ; his influence paramount,
47 ; necessity for adequate self-defence,
49; instructions for 'military evolu-
tions', 49; Selkirk in Sligo (1812),
50; he dines with officers of the
second party of settlers, 5 1 ; early
departure of the second party of
servants and permanent settlers from
the Hebrides and Ireland, 50-1 ; sail
from Sligo, June 24, and arrive at
the Forks, August 27, 1812, 51;
the second expedition led by Owen
Keveny, 51 ; Selkirk postpones his
project of going to Hudson Bay in
person, 52, 58 ; wise precaution to
send band of 181 1 in his own personal
employment to prepare the way for
permanent settlers, 52; Fort Daer
becomes the winter encampment of
the settlers, 53 ; failure of the first
wheat harvest, 53; scarcity of pro-
visions in the winter of 181 2, 53-4;
opposition of the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany and the North-westers, 54-6, 63,
89; Auld's hostility to Macdonell,
55-6, 60-1, 75; Auld is dismissed,
56 ; more hopefulness among the
settlers in the spring, 56 ; they return
to the Forks, 57 ; land divided in
regular lots of 100 acres, 57 ; Mac-
donell discouraged by ' mean artifices '
of North-westers but encouraged by
Selkirk and placed on his guard
against intrigues of Hudson's Bay
officials, 56-7.

d. Third Red River Settlement.
A third band of settlers collected to-
gether, 57 ; highlanders evicted in
Sutherlandshire, 57 ; Selkirk's interest
in them, 57 ; accommodation for less
than 100 settlers from 700 applicants,
57-8 ; embarked on the Prince of
Wales, 58 ; they make the shortest
passage on record, 58 ; outbreak of
typhoid fever, 59; Auld at Fort
Churchill, 59-60; his opinion of
Keveny and opposition to Macdonell,
60-1 ; mismanagement of Capt.
Turner, 59-62 ; burning of a house
at Fort Churchill attributed to the
settlers, 62 ; overland journey to York
Factory, 62, 63 ; arrival at the Forks,
63, 74 ; departure of North- West
Company proprietors from the Forks,
63; Auld on Selkirk (1814), 91.

e. MacdonclVs Proclamation, the
Arrival of the Fourth Party for the
Red River Settlement, and the Pem-
mican War. The Proclamation, 63,
66-8; Selkirk deplores Macdonell's

rashness in making the proclamation,
69 ; pemmican seized on the Assini-
boine and at Fort la Souris, 71, 72;
seizure taken to Brandon House and
Fort Douglas, 72, 74; armed resist-
ance of the Athabasca traders, 72 ;
effect of John McDonald of Garth on
the Pemmican War, 73 ; compromise
with the North-westers, 73 ; com-
promise repudiated, 73 ; disappointing
results of the proclamation, 74;
Auld's change of front, 75 ; he charges
MacDonald with perjury, 75 ; Selkirk
defends Macdonell against the Hud-
son's Bay and North-West Companies,
75 ; Auld's pity for Macdonell and
attempt to supplant him, 76 ; fourth
party of settlers reach York Factory
by the ships of 1814, 76; are con-
ducted to the Settlement by Miles
Macdonell, 76 ; censure of the North-
West Company's partners as a result
of the compromise, 76-9 ; stir at Fort
William, 76-7 ; North-westers' cam-
paign to avenge their honour, 78-89 ;
hostility of the half-breeds towards the
settlers, 81, 83 ; Cuthbert Grant takes
part in the War, 81 ; final hostilities
and disruption of the settlement, 83-9 ;
Cameron removes Macdonell's field-
pieces to Fort Gibraltar, 84 ; arrest
of Miles Macdonell, 87 ; Alexander
Macdonell left in charge at the Forks,
87 ; Fort Douglas burnt to the ground
by the North-westers, 87; satisfaction
of the North- West Company at the
conclusion of the Pemmican War, 88 ;
limited supply of arms granted for the
defence of the Red River Settlement
by the government, 92 ; North- West
counsels at Fort William, 92; danger
to life and property of the settlers said
to be due to Miles Macdonell, 93 ;
devastation of farm houses by the
North-westers, 95 ; Selkirk's imputa-
tions against the North- West Com-
pany declared to be unfounded, 95 ;
disastrous events of 181 5, 95 ; Auld
superseded by Thomas, 97 ; Semple
would seek redress from British gov-
ernment for the overthrow of the Red
River Settlement, 97.

/. Bathursfs Instructions for the
Protection of the Red River Settle-
ment. Bathurst interviewed by Sel-
kirk, 92 ; his reluctant consent to
affording protection, 99; he orders
protection and assistance to be given,
92, 93; his Instructions, 94; Selkirk
leaves England for Montreal, 100 ;

2$6

INDEX

opposition to the protection, 95,
101-2 ; Selkirk fails to obtain the
protection, 102-3 » n*s private guard,
J 03.

g. Fifth Party for the Red River
Settlement. Reinforcements for the
trade from Canada and for the Settle-
ment by way of Hudson Bay, 96,
104 ; the most fortunate of the ex-
peditions, 96 ; arrival of Semple at
York Factory, 96 ; expedition organ-
ized at Montreal, 97 ; the desolation
at the Settlement, 97 ; rebuilding of
the Fort begun, 98 ; Semple lands at
Fort Douglas, 98 ; cowardice of the
officers, 98 ; Semple's false estimate of
the strength of the North-West op-
position, 98-99 ; Auld in touch with
Ellice and the North-westers, 99 ;
Colin Robertson on Auld, 99 ; Selkirk
arrives at New York and hears of the
dispersion of the Settlement, 100;
reaches Montreal en route for the Red
River Settlement, 100; his negotia-
tions with the North- West Company
doomed to failure, 101-2.

h. North- West Campaign. North-
west Company apply for a military
escort, 103 ; Colin Robertson aggres-
sive and confident, 104; North- West
Company attempt to arouse the half-
breeds, 104-5 ; astonished at per-
severance and fidelity in their rivals,
106 ; re-established in the esteem of the
natives, 106 ; Colin Robertson arrests
Duncan Cameron, 106-7 '» ne carries
affairs with a high hand and stops the
Northern Express of the North- West
Company, 107 ; arrival of Semple at
the Forks, 107 ; his disagreements
with Robertson, 107-8 ; magnitude
of the North- West Campaign estab-
lished, 108; Semple refuses to recog-
nize the North-westers as equals or
legitimate rivals, 108 ; Robertson ad-
vocates sending Cameron to the Bay,
108; Fort Gibraltar destroyed, 108;
Colin Robertson leaves the Settle-
ment at open variance with Semple,
108; attack of the North-westers
on the Red River Settlement (1816),
108-13; half-breed attack on Bran-
don House, 109 ; Semple prepares
for violent measures, 109 ; winter
partners of the North-West Company
on the attack, 1 10 ; the battle of Seven
Oaks, 104, in, 112, 114, 118, 137,
188 ; Semple wounded and shot, 11 1-
1T2; blamed for precipitating the
battle of Seven Oaks, 112; end of the

North-West attack, 114; half-breeds
at Seven Oaks praised and many of
them rewarded, 114; rewards arranged
for the rest of the party, 114, 121 ;
Hudson's Bay Company's prisoners
at Fort William, 118; none of the
known instigators of the North-West
campaign ever brought to justice, 1 37.
i. The Great Mistake. Selkirk pre-
pares to go to Red River, 115; forced
to rely upon his own resources, 115;
A. N. McLeod on the lack of govern-
ment support, 115 ; Miles Macdonell
sent to act as second in command to
Colin Robertson, 116; North-West
Company dispirited over Selkirk's visit
to the Red River Settlement, 116; Sel-
kirk made a Justice of the Peace for
the Indian Territories, 116; Selkirk
ready to embark, 116; he procures
a general order for a personal escort,
and induces members of the dis-
banded *de Meuron' regiments to
settle at Red River, 116; he expects
obstruction from the North-West
Company, 117 ; receives news of
Seven Oaks at Sault Ste. Marie, 117;
sails straight for the North-West
headquarters, 117; his motives, 1 1 7-
18 ; believes that the half-breeds are
acting altogether at the instigation of
the North-West Company, 118; con-
viction that the North-West Company
were pursuing a system of outrage, 1 1 8 ;
he considers himself the injured party,
118 ; North-West Company compared
with slave-traders, 118; Selkirk bit-
terly regrets the 'great mistake ', 1 19 ;
Selkirk at Fort William, 119; he
resolves to arrest the North-West
Company's ringleaders, 119; diffi-
culty of obtaining justices to make
the arrests, 119; determines to act
for himself as a magistrate, 119 ;
William McGillivray's arrest and quiet
submission, 119-20, 127, 139; Selkirk
demands liberation of Hudson's Bay
Company's men, 119; resistance of the
North-West Company, 120; other
arrests, 120-1 ; search for arms, 121 ;
proof of complicity of the North-
West Company at Seven Oaks, 121 ;
Selkirk resolves to winter at Fort
William, 1 2 [ ; straitened supplies,
122-3; tne negotiations with Daniel
McKenzie, 122-5, 131, 146, 159,
165; Selkirk realizes his imprudence,
124-5; tne opinion of Lady Selkirk,
193 ; prospects of enlisting scrutiny
of government into the affairs of

INDEX

*37

Red River Settlement, 125: Selkirk
urges upon Sherbrooke advisability
of appointing commissioners, 125 ;
Selkirk remains at Fort William,
126; rumours of North- West Com-
pany's attempts to recover Fort
William, 126; 'armada' of North-
WTest Company and its failure, 1 26-7 ;
counterbalanced by diplomatic vic-
tory, 127-51; Fort Douglas still in
the hands of the North-westers, 127 ;
Miles Macdonell takes possession of
Fort Daer and Fort Douglas, 127 ;
Macdonell at Rainy Lake, 127;
authority of Selkirk and the Hudson's
Bay Company re-established in As-
siniboia, 127; warrant procured for
Selkirk's arrest and served (by William
Robinson) at Fort William, 128;
Bathurst's dispatch directing the arrest
of Selkirk, 129-31, i37"8> *4P»*4*-&*
145-6, 151, 215-18 ; accidentally dis-
covered by Selkirk, 162 ; Selkirk's
resistance to the warrant for his arrest
and its effect on his position, 129-31 ;
he is charged at Sandwich, 131 ;
Selkirk's self-control in 1817, 193.

(5) 1817. The Commission. Work
of the Commission, 126; Commis-
sioners appointed, 126, 129, 132;
affidavit of Robert MacRobb taken,
1 30- 1 ; Selkirk's enthusiasm at the
appointment, 132 ; he enjoins implicit
obedience to the Prince Regent's pro-
clamation, 132 ; leaves Fort William,
132; relationship between Selkirk
and the commissioners at Red River,
133 ; Coltmanand Fletcher the com-
missioners, 126, 133-9* J43> J57;
Fletcher's hostility to the Hudson's
Bay Company, 1 35 ; Coltman's arrival
with North-westers alarms Hudson's
Bay Company's interest, 135; Sel-
kirk gives up hope of satisfactory
investigation, 135-7; Smith en-
deavours to enforce at Red River a
warrant from Sandwich, 1 36 ; claims
of the North- West Company with re-
gard to pickets and fixtures at Fort
Douglas ' vexatious and unreason-
able', 136; predilection of govern-
ment for North- West Company against
Selkirk and Hudson's Bay Company,
1 36-7 ; charges against Coltman dis-
creetly veiled, 137 ; Coltman urged
by Hudson's Bay Company to bring
about arrest of McLeod and Alexander
Macdonell, 137; Selkirk and Dr.
Allen and two others of his party
bound over in pursuance of instruc-

tions from the Colonial Office, 137-8 ;
Gale on the absurdity of these pro-
ceedings, 138 ; Selkirk driven to com-
pliance tempered by passive resistance,
138 ; Coltman's Report not published
till 1819, 138; effect on the Red
River Settlement of Selkirk's de-
parture, 139; Coltman and Gale
leave Red River Settlement, 139 ;
North-westers known to be waiting
at Fort William with a warrant for
Selkirk's arrest, 139 ; Selkirk deter-
mines to travel by way of the United
States, 139 ; Coltman draws com-
parison between Selkirk's case and the
case of McGillivray , and urges Selkirk
to return by the regular route, 139 ;
Selkirk leaves Red River for Montreal,
139; said to have escaped from the
commissioners by stealth, 140; travels
via Pembina, &c, to York, 140.

(6) 181 8. Litigation. Lady Sel-
kirk plunges into litigation, 140 ;
Selkirk's enthusiasm, 141 ; his ignor-
ance of the two chief forces against
him, 141-2 ; Halkett's letter on the
accidental discovery of Bathurst's In-
structions for Selkirk's arrest, 162-3 ;
Fabian policy of the North- West
Company's litigation, 166; litigation
falls into three main divisions, 142 ;
proceedings against Selkirk, 142-6,
147, 151, 159; case of Smith, 136,
144, 159 ; see also under Daniel
McKenzie, Colin Robertson, and Dr.
Allen ; proceedings against the North-
West Company, 142, 147-55 ; charge
of conspiracy against North- West
partners 'stifled', 153-4; see also
under Archibald McLellan,Reinhard,
Perrault, Boucher, Cuthbert Grant,
George Campbell, A. N. McLeod,
and Alexander Macdonell ; proceed-
ings against Red River Settlement
officials, 142, 155-7 ; charges against
officials of the Settlement neither
dropped nor pressed, 156; see also
under Miles Macdonell and John
Spencer; effect of litigation on Sel-
kirk, 157-9, l62> l65-

(7) 1820-34. Death of Selkirk;
End of his Rigime ; Coalition of the
Hudson's Bay Company and North-
West Company; Transfer of the
Settlement to the Hudson* s Bay Com-
pany. Selkirk's return to England,
159; declining health, 158, 159,
164-5, 167, 194; his death, 165;
suggestions of coalition, 134 ; attempt
by his friends to secure adequate

238

INDEX

consideration of Selkirk's affairs by
the British government, 160-4; un"
fortunate delay, 16 1-2 ; overtures
towards peace by Ellice and Colvile,
166-7 '■> Goulburn urges a compromise,
167 ; Selkirk's refusal of proposal for
coalition, 167-8; Halkett on final
necessity for coalition, 168 ; power
of Selkirk's influence on the Hudson's
Bay Company, 166; influences at
work to force an agreement between
the contending parties, 164-6 ;
favourableness of terms for the North-
West Company, 168 ; coalition ',
consummated, 168 ; Grant made to
Hudson's Bay Company after coali- !
lion with North-West Company j
(182 1), 218-22 ; ascendancy of the j
Hudson's Bay Company eventually
re-established, 168; Selkirk regime 1
lingers on for nearly fifteen years, |
169 ; continuous conflict during the |
Selkirk regime between the interests
of trade and of colonization, 169-71 ;
grave significance of coalition for
the Red River Settlement, 171 ;
jurisdiction of Hudson's Bay Com-
pany in Assiniboia, 171; right
of self-defence for Red River Settle-
ment, 171 ; hostility of Hudson's j
Bay Company and North- West Com- I
pany to settlement in North America j
after the death of Selkirk, 171-2; 1
transfer mentioned, 172; reluctance
of Selkirk's executors to take up the 1
burden of the Red River Settlement,
172 ; Simpson on council meetings at \
the Red River Settlement fort, 172-3 ; !
natural and artificial calamities attend-
ing the Settlement, 173-4; the flood
of 1826, 1 73-4 ; change of tone of the
Hudson's Bay Company towards the !
Red River Settlement, 1 74-5 ; the j
sixth earl agrees to retransfer grant of
Assiniboia, 1 75 ; prosperity paved the J
way for the transfer, 175; the Red
River Settlement becomes the province
of Manitoba, 1 75 ; Minutes of the
Hudson's Bay Committee of 1 834 and ,
of the Parliamentary Select Com- ;
mittee on the Hudson's Bay Company
1857 referring to the transfer of j
Assiniboia to the Hudson's Bay
Company, 223.

(8) Selkirk's Aims and Influence,
5-6, 35, i3a-3> I76-95- plans of
colonization and their lasting impres-
sion, 132-3; Selkirk engrossed by the
affairs of the Red River Settlement,
1 78 ; Selkirk's work prospective rather

than immediately productive, 179;
imperial significance of his work,
1 80-3 ; ultimate effect of Settlement
in preventing annexation of Red River
district by U.S.A. and Minnesota,
j 82-3 ; his attitude in British politics,
1 83 ; choice of districts for settlement
influenced by geographical considera-
tions, 184 ; his influence in England,
185 sqq. ; best of his ideas worked
out by others, 187 ; plausible con-
siderations upon which Selkirk fou nded
hopes of prosperity, 188 ; his work
not to be rated as visionary and irre-
sponsible, 188 ; his extraordinary
attention to practical detail, 188-9;
contemporary abuse, 1 89-90 ; aims
at coalition left without vindication,
1 89 ; Selkirk's disinterested motives,
190-2 ; chief reasons for his failure,
192-5.

(9) Other and General References.
1 Bred a lawyer ', 16 ; the evenness of
his political opinions, 16-17; charac-
ter, 5-6, 17, 35, 125, 157-8, 163, 179,
185, 186, 189-90, 191, 192-4; views
on democracy, 23 ; charged with self-
interest in 1 81 7, 26; nearly enters
political life, 90-1 ; life in London,
90-1 ; views of colonization, 102 ;
'Bible Peer', 102; known to the
Indians as Silver Chief, 133 ; estates
encumbered and Montreal account
overdrawn, 133 ; Selkirk and his
executors compelled to negotiate for
disposal of their property to U.S.A.
citizens, 181 ; Selkirk on Roman
Catholic emancipation and the cam-
paign in Portugal, 183-5 5 on Italian
agriculture, 1 88 ; his voluminous
letters and diaries, 188; on emigra-
tion from Ireland and Scotland, 189 ;
cost of settlements to Selkirk and his
family, 191 ; On the State of the
Highlands of Scotland, with a Viciu
of the Causes and Probable Coti-
sequetiees of Emigration, and On the
Necessity of a more effective System of
National Defence, 18; publication of
On the Present State, &c, 27 ; An
Abstract of the several conditiotts ex-
pressed in a certain conveyance from
the Governor and Company, Sec, 1 70 ;
A Letter to the Earl of Liverpool, 1 64 ;
Letter on the Subject of Parliamen-
tary Reform, 185 ; Sketch of the
Fur Trade, 185; Emigration, 186;
pamphlet on Defence, 1 89 ; Observa-
tions on the Memorandum, &c,
191.

INDEX

^ 239

Selkirk, Jean, Countess of, 19, 26, 31,
35, 90-1, 100, 125-6, 156, 157-9,
167, 168, 169, 185, 192-4; her
marriage, 27 ; influence in Montreal,
115; Selkirk's reliance upon, 115;
his unreserved correspondence with,
125 ; her defence of Selkirk after ' the
great mistake', 125; advocates a com-
mission, 126 ; usually dispassionate
and self-possessed but elated by
success, 126; correspondence with
Gale, 134, 135, i37> 138, 143, 145.
152, 154, 166 ; correspondence with
Lady Katherine (Douglas) Halkett,
90, 91, 92, 157-8, 165, 193, 194;
plunges into maze of litigation, 140;
despairs of vindication by the law,
152 ; judge of character, 157 ; on
Coltman and Robinson, 157 ; on
Colin Robertson, 192 ; on Selkirk,
35, 9°> 91, I][7» J58-9> l65, .183,
193-4 ; her courage and versatility,
158; her vindication of Selkirk in
1818, 158-9; remains in Montreal,
159; returns to England, 159; her
description of Selkirk's final relapse,
165 ; opposed to coalition, 167 ; aids
Buffalo Wool Company, 173 ; an
unflinching ally, 194.

Semple, Robert, governor of Rupert's
Land (1815), 97-9, 107-9; nis
character, 95-7, 192 ; his death, 100,
111-12, 137, 154-5; motto referring
to Red River Settlement, 194. See
also under Selkirk.

Seven Oaks, battle of, 104, hi, 112,
114, 117, 118, 137, 188.

Shaw, William, 108.

Sheep, 52.

Sheep-farming in Scotland, 21, 57.

Sherbrooke, Sir John Coape, successor
to Sir Gordon Drummond as gover-
nor-general of Canada, 115, 125, 129,
143; grants a general order for a
personal escort for Selkirk, 116.

Sherbrooke, Lady, 151.

Sherwood, Livius, 180-1.

Sidmouth, Henry Addington, viscount,
19, 90, 92, 160, 187.

Silver Chief, Indian name for Selkirk,

133.
Simpson, Sir George, 89, 112, 168, 171,

I73, 173,174,175, 181.
Sioux Indians, 44, 70, 84.
Siveright, John, 85, 87, 150.
Skye, Isle of, emigrants from, 21.
Slave traders, 118.
Sligo, 37, 4°, 45, 50, 185.
Sligo Bay, 51.
Small holdings, 178.

Smith, William, Secretary of the Hud-
son's Bay Committee, 1834, 3^, 223.
Smith, William, constable, 136, 144,

159, 177-
Sour is, river, 71.
South Africa, settlement in, 187.
South Carolina, 23.
Spanish sheep, 52.
Spencer, John ('Sheriff'), 68, 71, 72,

79, 82, 89, 98, 156.
Spruce, 41, 47.
Stadacona, 41.
Stett (Stitt), John, Hudson's Bay trader,

75, 205.
Stewart, Dugald, 16.
Stewart, Robert, viscount Castlereagh,

16, 19.
Stornoway, 37, 38, 45, 55.
Strachan, Rev. Dr., 36, 137, 146, 180;

his Letter, 35 et passim.
Stromness, 37, 58.

Stuart, Mr., Selkirk's counsel in Mon-
treal, 123, 128, 149, 152.
Superior, lake, 24, 30, 34, 54, 89, 117,

119, 126, 128, 184.
Sutherland, James, 87, 104.
Sutherland, William, 82.
Sutherlandshire, 57, 58, 76, 96.
Swan River, 72.
Switzerland, 17.

Tallow, 173.

Thomas, Thomas, 74, 91, 97, 205.

Thunder Bay, 119.

Titameg or Wrhitefish, 188.

Trading companies, see Hudson's Bay

Company, North -West Company,

and XY Company.
Transport Board, the, 58.
Trappers, their proverbial honesty, 28.
Turner, Capt., 59-62.
Turtle River, 71, 85.
Turtle River plain, 81.
Tuttle, C. R., see Gunn, Donald.
Typhoid fever, 59-60.

Uniacke, N. F., Attorney-General of

L.C., 151.
United Empire Loyalists, 23, 187.
United States of America, 21, 23,68,

139, 140, 150, 167, 174, 181, 182-3.
Utrecht, Peace of, 27.

Vandersluys, Jasper, 121.

Vansittart, Nicholas, Lord Bexley, 187.

Volunteers, 16, 17, 189.

Washington, 140.
Webster, Daniel, 18 r.

24°

INDEX

Wedderburn, township of, 177.

Wedderburn-Colvile {also Colvile and
Wedderburn), Andrew, 36, 37, 40,
55, 60, 168 ; see also under Colvile.

Wedderburn-Colvile, Jean, afterwards
Lady Selkirk, q. v.

Wedderburn-Colviles, the, and Selkirk's
schemes, 27, 167, 190.

White, J., 87.

Whitefish, see Titameg.

White spruce, 41.

Wilberforce, William, 6, 18, 118, 164-5,
185, 194.

William III, King, 27.

William IV, King, see Clarence, Duke of.

Willis, or Wills, John, 43, 44, 70, 77.

Winnipeg, 44, 76, 191 ; east, 43.

Winnipeg, lake, 20, 26, 34, 44, 72, 87,
117.

Winter partners of the North- West Com-
pany, 30-1 ; their traditions, 25 ; cor-
respondence with Simon McGillivray
in opposition to the Settlement, 55 ;
Auld's opinion of bourgeois, 69 ;
the bourgeois and the Proclamation,

72 ; at Fort William, 18 14, 77 ;
Cameron's correspondence with, 83 ;
try to arouse the Indians, 86 ; at Fort
William in 1815, 87 ; not confident
of results, 89 ; defended by London
partners, 95 ; charges against, 148 ;
power over the law, 155; discontent
of, 166 ; overtures to Hudson's Bay
Company, 166; held in check by
' what is due to them from the Mon-
treal houses', 166; 'well-grounded
complaints ' at coalition, 168.

Wisconsin, 182.

Woods,James,Selkirk'scounsel,i53,i59.

Wool, 173.

XY Company, the, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32,
73, 76, 106.

Yarmouth, 37.

York, Upper Canada, 24, 120, 140-1,

143, 159-
York Factory, 33, 39, 42, 43, 51, 55,

57, 59, 6°, <>2» 63, 67, 69, 73, 75, 7<5,

79, 96-

Printed in England at the Oxford University Press

14 DAY USE

RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED

LOAN DEPT.

This book is due on the last date stamped below or

on the date to which renewed.

Renewed books are subject to immediate recall

19 19RR ^

»-

**>
dPftPfe 'GG 3fl en

■J

LD21A 60»i 10/65 General Library
(F7788sl0)476B University of California

Berkeley

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Lord Selkirk's work in Canada"

See other formats