'->.

\ ^. ^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

-^/ A^^^.

1.0

I.I

11.25

121 125

lU ... llHi

lis

140

Inn;

2.0

U IIIIII.6

Photographic

Sdences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716)872-4503

"-4

A^.

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Instituta for Hiatorical Microraproductiont / Institut Canadian da microraproductiona historiquea

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured cavers/
Couvorture da couiaur

Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagie

D
D
D
D

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurAe et/ou pellicul^e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

[~~] Coloured maps/

Cartes giographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrattons en couleur

Bound with other material/
ReliA avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re liure serrie peut causer do I'ombre ou de la
distorsion la long da la marga intirieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte.
mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas it* filmies.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl^mentaires;

L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a it* possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-^tre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m^thodo normale de filmage
sont indiquis ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

□ Pages damaged/
Pages endommagias

p~l Pages restored and/or laminated/

Pages restauries et/ou peliiculies

Pages discoloured, stained or foxji
Pages dAcolories, tacheties ou piquies

Pages detached/
Pages ddtachees

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prir

Quality inigale de I'impression

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire

idition available/
Edition disponible

r~l Pages discoloured, stained or foxjd/

r~| Pages detached/

rjl Showthrough/

r~~] Quality of print varies/

p~| Includes supplementary material/

□ Only edition available/
Seuie

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalemenr ou partiellement
obscurcies par \ix\ feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc.. cnt h\h filmies d nouveau de facon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

'im

Th« copy film«d h«r« has b««n r«produe«d thanks
to tho gonorosity of:

S«minary of Quebec
Library

L'oxompiairo fllm4 fut roproduit grico i la
gAn^rositi da:

SIminaire de Quebec
Biblioth^ue

Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha baat quality
poaaibia eonaidaring tha condition and lagibiiity
of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha
filming contract spacifieationa.

Original copiaa in printad papar covars ara flimad
baginning with tha front covar and andlng on
tha laat paga with a printad or illustratad impraa-
sion. or tha bacic covar whan appropriata. All
othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha
first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa-
aion, and andlng on tha laat paga with a printad
or illustratad impraaaion.

Tha laat racordad frama on aach mieroficha
shall contain tha symbol --^ (moaning "CON-
TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END"),
whichavar appiiaa.

Laa imagaa suivantaa ont 4tA raproduitaa avac la
plua grand soin. eompta tanu da la condition at
do la nattat* da I'axampiaira film*, at on
eonf ormitA avac laa conditiona du contrat da
flimaga.

l.aa anamplairaa originaux dont la eouvartura an
papiar aat imprimAa sont fiimte 9n commandant
par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la
damlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta
d'Impraaaion ou dllluatration, soit par la sacond
plat, salon la eaa. Toua laa autraa axampiairas
originaux sont filmte sn comman9ant par la
pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta
dimpraaaion ou d'lllustration at •n tarminant par
la damiAra paga qui comporta una talla
amprainta.

Un daa symbolaa suivants apparaltra sur la
damlAro imaga da chaqua mieroficha, salon la
caa: la symbola — *> signifia "A SUIVRE", la
symbola ▼ signifia "FIN".

Mapa, piataa, charts, ate., may ba filmad at
diffarant raduction ratloa. Thoaa too larga to ba
antlraly ineludad in ona axpoaura ara filmad
baginning in tha uppar laft hand comar, laft to
right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa
raquirad. Tha following diagrama illuatrata tha
mathod:

Laa cartaa. planehaa. tabiaaux. ate., pauvant itra
fiimte i daa taux da reduction diff Grants.
Loraqua lo documant ast trop grand pour Atra
raproduit an un saul clichA. il aat film* k partir
da I'angla supAriaur gaucha. da gaucha k droita.
at da iMut It baa, an pranant la nombra
dlmagaa nAcassaira. Las diagrammas suivants
illuatrant la mAthoda.

■^^ t

■

BIBLIOTHBQUB

OK--

M. L'Aimfi H. A. VERREAII

Mo >?/^

REPORT

T. K. RAMSAY, ESQ., Q. O,

1**1

orthern mA

lestei'ii Timit^ of |ntari0.

ooismr>BisrTiA.i..

Sib:—

Noi'the

appear
note:) c<
arrived
but in T
voyage!
and ha^
researcl

In
where t
panyin^

To the :

Montr-sal, 18th March, 18t3.
Sie:—

I beg loavo to enclose my Report on the question subinittod to mo as to the
Northern and Wostorn LimitH of'tho Province of Ontario.

I have condensed the Report as much as possible ; but aa my statements may uot
appear altoajether satisfactory, not being always based on preciso^authority, I have added
notes containing proofs and illustrations in support of the conclusions at which I have
arrived. Some of these may perhaps go into greater detail than is absolutely required,
but in ray investigations of the confused and often contradictory narratives of the early
voyages to, and settlements in Hudson's Bjvy, I was obliged to examine all these details,
and having done so, it was scarcely more difficult to reduce the whole result of my
reoearches to writing than to separate the more from the less essential part«.

In the form in which those notes are presented, it is hoped they may interest, even
where they do not instruct, those who may hereafter require to make use of the accom-
panying work.

I have the honor to be, .

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

T. K. RAMSAY.

To the Hon'blo. A. Campbklu, P.M.G., P.O.,
&c., &c., Ac,

Ottawa.

REPORT.

A difficulty havin|^ arisen as to what are the true Northern and Western
boundarieH of tne Province of Ontario and the question having heen referred to
me for^my opinion, I beg leave to report the result of my investigations.

1 The limits of the Province of Ontario are defined in the Brittah North
America Act 1867, as being such part of the Province of Canada, at the
passing of the said Act, as Ibrmerly formed the Province of Upper Tanada.
We have therefore to enquire what were the limits of Upper Canada prior
to the Legislative Union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840.

2. The position taken by the Government of Canada is, that the Northern and
Western boundaries of the Province of Ontario are identical with so much
of those laid down in the Quebec Act (14 Geo. IIL Cap. 88) as being the
limits of the old Province of Quebec, as would not include the former
Province of Lower Canada. That is to say, the Western boundary of Ontario
is the meridian passing through the pomt of junction of the Ohio and
Mississippi rivers (now ascertuned to be 89 ® 9* 27" 16 West) North of the
United States and South of the Hudson's Bay Territories ; and its northern
boundary is the southern boundary of the territory granted to "The Merchant
Adventurers of England trading to Hudson Bay, west of the Hne of division
between the former Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. It is further
contended that the southern boundary of the Hudson s Bay territory, is the
height of land dividing the waters which flow into Hudson's Bay from those
emptying into the Vafley of the St. Lawrence and the great Lake's.

3. The Government of Ontario claims that the boundary is " very different "
from the one set forth by the Government of Canada ; and that the Western
boundary is at least to be determined, (North of the United States and
South of Hudson's Bay territory,) by a line drawn north from the source
of the Mississippi, and that the northern boundary of Ontario is the southern
boundaries of the Hudson's Bay territories, west of the line of division
between the former Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. While agreeing
with the Government of Canada, in general terms, that the southern
boundary of the Hudson's Bay territories is the northern boundary of
Ontario, the Government of that Province does not, however, admit that the
height of land dividing the waters ialling into Hudson's Bay, from the
waters falling into the St. Lawrence and the great Lakes is that boundary.
On the contrary they claim that the boundary is to the North of the
watershed, according to the contentions of all former Governments, and
by the indisputable facts that the Northern boundary lies North of the
watershed of the St. Lawrence system.

I ■ t

The Provincial Government further contends that there are pounds for
maintaining the contention of former Governments of Canada, that the
western boundary is further west than the line drawn due north from the
source oi the Mississippi (1)

4. It is important, before proceeding further, to < 'ear away, as far as possible,
the vagueness created by the reference to the pretensions of former Govern-
ments of Canada. For this purpose, it is necessary to examine what they
contended, in order to know what the Government of Ontario now claims.
Except for the purpose of limiting the indefinite description of the pretensions
of the Ontario Government, the enquiry as to the contentions of former
Governments of Canada, prior to Confederation, will be barren of results.
Former contentions cannot Wnd in any way the Dominion Government, and
this appears from every consideration, (a) Former Governments were not
urging precisely the same question. Incidentally they may have represented
a right to a greater extent of territory than that which they possessed ; but the
actual question formerly was the resistance of the claims of the Hudson's
Bay Company, to the renewal of a Lease held by them of the Indian Terri-
tories. (2) The real question now is, as to what was understood to be the
Hudson's Bay Company's southern boundary, by the authority which fixed
that of Upper Canada, (b) The Dominion Government is not' liable for the
opinions of former Governments ; but only for their debts and liabilities.
(c) The pretensions of the Government of the Province of Canada were not
admitted. On the contrary, the title of the Hudson's Bay Company was
maintained : and the Dominion Government actually paid a large sum of
money lor the expropriation of the Company, besides leaving them a con-
siderable estate. (3)

6. The most extreme pretension of the former Government of a portion of the
now Dominion of Canada, so far as 1 can learn, is that put forth by the
Commissioner of Crown Lands, in 1S67, in a Report which was not con-
sidered conclusive, in spite of its unquestionable ability. It was there inci-
dentally contended that to the North, Canada was either bounded by a few
isolated posts on the shore of Hudson's Bay, or that it had no particular
limit in that direction, that to the West, Canada includes the country about
Bed Biver and Lake Winnipeg. .....

6 The line of argument usually adopted turns on priority of discovery. So
lonj as the contest was carried on between two independent nations, the litle
derived from conquest or discovery, however unsatisfactory, was the only
possible subject of discussion. But when the whole title centres in one
supreme power, the question becomes simplified, and the facts to be con-
sidered acquire a more conclusive character. It is the neglect to observe
this distinction which gives the difficult aspect to the question before us.
The attempt has been to submit to legal appreciation, pretensions, which, after
years of fruitless diplomacy, were only disposed of by force (note A). Were
the question a new one, I should not stop, even for an instant, to enquire
who first discovered and took possession of the lands round Hudson's my,
or how far the French pushed their discoveries in the West; but from the

(I) Corrospondence between the Dominion Government and the Government of the Province o( Ontario. ' .

|2) M. Cauch i>u'8 Report, in 1S57.

(3) In a Treaty between the Government of the late Province of Cimaiitt ami the Indians, "the heiKht of land" 1«
described a.^ that which separates the territory covered by the Oiiirtcr of the llonouralile the Hudson's liiy
Company from the tract over which the Government was to acquire the rights of the Indians,

ounds for
, that the
I from the

5 possible,
jr Govern-
vhat they
w claims,
retensions
of former
of results,
ment, and
I were not
(presented
d; but the
Hudson's
iian Terri-
[ to be *he
hich fixed
t)le for the
liabilities,
were not
pany was
;e sum of
m a con-
ion of the
h by the
8 not con-
here inci-
by a few
)articular
ry about

rery. So
, the title
the only
in one
be con-
observe
)efore us.
lich, after
Were

enquire
on's Bay,
from the

>f Und" in
iluJsoTi'ii H;iy

bent given to the discussion, I cannot wholly ignore the line of argument
involving these matters, although the conclusions at which I arrive will not
be materially influenced by it.

The historical argument of those who seek to give thegreatest extension to the
limits of the former Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada seems to be, that
these Provinces were co-extensive with La Nouvelle France. They say that
the Hudson's Bay charter was, if not wholly bad, at all events liniitod by its
terms, which only grant those territories not already actually possessed by
the subjects of any other Christian Prince or State; {»ote B) that by iherightof
discovery, and as part of La Nouvelle France, all the country up to the
Arctic Circle belonged to France, and that in the west, Canada extended to
the furthermost post everheldby the French, which would include Red Kiver*

It will at once strike those who examine this pretension, that it is one thing
to say that Canada extended to the Arctic. Ocean, and quite another to say
that the territories around Hudson's Bay were first discovered by the French,
independently of any connection with l.a Nouvelle France or Canada. Ol'course
if the discovery of La Nouvelle France gave the King of France a ri^ht to the
whole continent north of the St, Lawrence, it is idle to waste time discussing
the question of particular discoveries on the side of Hudson's Bay. Bui this
pretention is utterly untenable and an after thought. The Commission to
De Lauzon as Governor, 20th March, 1651, gives him authority — " dans toute
V6tendue du dit fituve St. Laurent en la Nouvelle France, Isles et Terns
adjacentes de part et d^autre du dit Jleute et autres Bivih'es qui se dechargent
en icelui jusqu' a Son Embou hure a prendre dix lieves prh de Miscon du
c6t4 du sua et du cote du Nord autant que s'4tendent les terres du dit pays —
De la mime sorte et toute ainsi que I'avoit, tenoit et exer^nit le Sr. d'Aillehout."
A similar commission was also given to de Mezy in 1663. It is therefore
plain that at that time the King of France did not think that La Nouvelle
France extended beyond the water-shed of the St .Lawrence, {note C) Itwould
not be difficult to make numerous extracts from ancient grants in unsettled
countries to show that the ^ant of lands adjacent to a river was understood to
be those drained by such River. A few instances will suffice. In a letter in the
Paris M.S. Vol. 8, p 990, limiting the extent of the Post of I'emiskamingup, we
find " Cen'est point V intention de Sa Majesty d'affenner sous le nom de '/htiis-
kamingue plus de deux cent lieues des pays qui jaisoient ci-devant la majeure
partie du commerce de Montreal, puisque cela lend a la mine de cette ville.
Son intention etait d'affermer le seal po»te de Temiscamingue dans ces limites
qui naturellement dcivent consister dans les terres arros^es de la riviere de ce
nom et des autres qui $e dechargent dans la dite riviere; sans que I'on
puisse y comprendre les terres qui sont au dfssus ni au dessous de la dite
riviere." The grant to the Hudson's Bay Company was of the lands and
territories on the confines of certain Bavs, Lakes, Rivers, Creeks and Soui)ds.
So completely was it understood that the watershed is the limit of a srrant
described by rivers, lakes, or bays, that even the use of the word " high-
lands " in such a grant or in a treaty will be controlled so as to mean such
an elevation as divides the flow of the waters, in the decision of the Kins?

* Ugr. <o M. <lu Chemieati, I5th May, 1078.
Vul. VI, p. 4.

Memoir 8 Nov., 1C86. Doc. Hist. 0, P. re Marest Lettres Ed. Nelle Ed

h i

of the Netherlands upon the disputed points of Boundary under the Fifth
Article ot the Treaty of Ghent, between Great Britain and the United
States of America. H.M. said: '* Selon lesexemples aU4gu48 le terme Highlands
s^applique non seulement a un pays montueux oti 4lev4, matt encore b, un
terrain qui sana 4tre montueux, s4pare des eaux coulnnt dans une direction
diff4rente, et qu' ainsi le caract^re plus ou moina montueux et elej4 da pays dt
travers lesquelles sont tiroes lea deux lignes reapectivement rfclam^es, au nord
etau midi de la Riviere St. John, na aauraitfaire la base d'une option entr' elles."
In M. Doha's (? B0I6) memoir (I) respecting the boundaries, prepared
in 1723, the name of " La Nouvelle France " is given to that vast tract of
country extending from the 30 to the 52 degree of X. Lat. And in 1755
Belhn, who was Inginieur de la marine et du depot des Cartes Plans et
Joumaux et Censeur Royal, says " La bate d'Hudson et les Pays voisins
sont une graride 4tendue de cotes entre le 67 et le 51 degr4 de Latitude Septen-
tionale." (note D.)

9. The question of priority of discovery of the Hudson's Bay, and of the
territories ou the confines of the rivers and bays connected with Hudson's Bay,
does not appear to be in favor cf French pretensions. If discovery alone
is to convey a title to either nation, the French pretensions must fail'

10. It is not denied (note'E) that Hudson discovered the Bay which bears bis name,
(2) and that he wintered there in 1610-11. In the following year, Button,
following in the path already traced by Hudson, discovered Nelson river,
which he named after his pilot, who died during the expedition, and he
passed the winter of 1612-13 in the bay. It would seem the failure of these
discoverers, in their main object, to hud a north-west passage, discouraged
further enterprise in this direction, and (3) " the business slept from 1616 to
1631," while their attenton was turned towards the South. In 1631 Luke
Fox went and wintered at Nelson river. James wintered in the Bay in 1631-
32 {note F.) In 1667 or 1 668, Gillam, with DesGrozeliersand Radisson, {note G)
went to Hudson's Bay and established himself at Rupert's river. On his
return to England a Company was formed which, under J^^he name of " The
Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's
Bay," obtained from Charles II the famous Charter bearing date the 2nd
iMay, 1670.

In the same year the Company sent out an expedition to make a perma-
nent establishment, with Mr. Bailey as Governor, and Fort Nelson was
founded as the principal post.

11. The French meet this, without denying the early discoveries uf Hi 'son.
Button, Fox and James, fey saying (4j that possession of unknown cou. ries
must be taken by some formal act, such as planting the arms of the King
who claims a title to it ; that those travellers have left no account of their
discoveries, and consequently it is not established that they ever took

(1) Doc. Hist. 9., p. 913.

(2) Map in r.ottfriedt lUi&. Charlevoix 1, |\. 476, Uarnesu 1. p. 130.

(3) Ogilby'H America, ptibliBhed 1671. French and English discoveries in America, Doc. UUt. 0, p, 1 Suppoeed to be

written by Champlain, Am. Ed. note.

(4) See Memoir of M. de Callloi'ea to M. de '^oiimolay, 'iOth Kebniarv, les.'i, 1'. M. S. MI, p. 1, and memoir of i:th

Nov. 1686, Is it by de Dononville? Sec note signed L lu's and Ijwer down Colbert, Doc. Hist. 9, 30S.

der the Fifth
the United
ne Highlands
encore h un
une direction
)4 du pays d
'1,468, au nord
on entr' elles."
es, prepared
vast tract of
Lnd in 1755
rtes Plana et
Pays voisins
titude Septen-

and of the
udson's Bay,
loverv alone
t fair

irs bis name,
ear, Button,
elson river,
ion, and he
ilure of these
discouraged
from 1616 to
1631 Luke
Bay in 1631-
sson, (note G)
^er. On his
ne of " The
to Hudson's
ate the 2nd

:e a perma-
Nelson was

of Hi son,
^n cou, ries
f the King
mt of their
ever took

Suppo«ed to be

ui memoir of ttli
t. 9, 308.

possession of the countries, they are said to have visited, in the name oi
their Sovereign. They further pretend that in 1666 Jean Bourdon sailed
from Quebec and took possession of the Baie du Nord and that this is proved
by the register of the Council of New France of the •26th August, 1066.
Tnat in 1661 the Indians of the North Bay came expressly to confirm the
good understanding between them and the French and asking for a
Missionary, and that Father Dablon went there in the same year. That
there were expeditions of Couture and Duquet in 1663 ; and that the
expedition of Gillam was led there by rebellious subjects, who could convey
no title, and that the very fact of Des Grozeliers and Badisson bein^ able to
lead the English Captain Gillam there, shows that they had themselves been
there before, and consequently had acquired the territory for the King.
The French then proceed to relate the voyage of de Lauson to Sault Ste.
Marie in 1671, and his formal taking possession in the name of the King of
France with the consent of seventeen nations, among whom were the Indians
from Hudson's Bay. They also insist on the voyage of P. Albanel and St.
Simon in 1671-72. .

12. This is an unfortunate answer. It either goes too far or not far enough.
To get over Hudson's and Button's discoveries, it cuts oft the expeditions of
Couture and Duquet, of which there are no formal records. The same may
be said of the overland expedition of Des Grozeliers and Radisson. Prior to
the voyage of Gillam in company with them, there is no record whatever of
Des Grozeliers and Radisson ever having been at Hudson's Bay, nor is it
even now said in what year they were there. It is a mere rumour, in no
way proved by their conducting Gillam to Hudson's Bay. The experience
derived from an overland journey, even if it had taken place, could not have
aided them in a voyage by sea. Again if anything were to be drawn from
the quality of these two adventurers as Frenchmen, by parity of reasoning,
we should have to deprive Spain of the results of Columbus' discoveries.
The presence of a foreigner, even were he the leader of the expedition,
would not alter its national character. However no mystery attends the
history of Jean Bourdon's voyage in 1666, (note H^ or that of Pere Dablon in
1661. '{vote I) The evidence is complete that neither ever reached Hudson's
Bay. Albanel's (note J) journey, again, is too late to affect the question, and
trading with the Indians (note &) from other countries in Canada cannot give
a title to their country.

13 The answer of the French to the early discoveries of Hudson, Button, (noteL)
Fox, and James, is unfounded. In the work attributed to Champlain, already
quoted, { 1 ) the map published by " the English Captain " of his discover-
ies in 1612 is referred to in 1632. Purchas also saw this map, and Jeremie
(2 ) speaks of the taking possession of Bourbon river by Nelson and says that he
planted a post on which he exposed the arms of England, and a great board
on which a ship was drawn. He also left some trifling articles of which
the Indians profited in the Spring. Jer»^mie says, also, that the English
returned the following year ; but it is more probable that they wintered at
the Bay, for there it is said Nelson died, and Button gave his name to the
river they discovered. Again Fox, when he went there in 1631, saw
" quelques petits monumens du sejour que Thomas Button ('/) avait autrefois.' (3)

I) p. 8, note (3)

^2) Recueil de Voyagos du Nord, n. 320.

';!) DiBcours pre), au Voyages du Nord, Vol. 1 [>. xixy.

1<^

In 1635 Luke Fox published " The North West," with a map ; and in 1633
James had already published his adventures with a map. James' work was
re-published in 1740.

14. "We have, therefore two English voyages of discovery (those of Hudson and
Button) well authenticated, more than forty jrears before the voyage of
Bourdon, of which there is no authentic mention till 1686, and then the
account is evidently incorrect and written with a purpose. Fox and James'
voyages to Hudson's Bay were both in 1661, the year of the pretended
journey of Dablon, and two years previous to the" totally authenticated
journies of Couture and Duquet. Again the English Company was estab-
lished and had built forts in 1670, whereas the Canadian Company did not
begin its operations till 1682, and was not chartered till 1685. Whether
then we consider priority of discovery, or discovery backed by actual acts of

Eossession, the English claim to the country round Hudson's Bay seems to
e superior to that of the French, (note M)

15. But it is still more worthy of note that the activity displayed by the French
in the direction of Hudson's Bay dates from the time they heard that ships
had been seen in the neighbourhood of the Bay. {note N) They learned this
from some Algonquins, ( 1 ) and they immediately became alarmed. The next
year, 1671, Father JLlbanel was despatched wiln St. Simon to take possession
of the country anew. (2) It was only, however, in 1685 that the Canadian
Company do la Baie d\\ Nord was formed, (3) and the following year the
Governor of Canada sent de Troyes and d'lberville to attack the English
posts in Hudson's Bay. (4^ These attempts to recover lost time were such
flagrant violations of International law, that the Governor was obliged to
disavow the object he really had in view, and to pretext the desire to capture
Radisson. (5) The excuse was a bad one, even if it had been true, and it would
have been more to the purpose if he had said that the Treaty of Neutrality
was not signed till the 16th November, 1686, and that his commission to
de Troyes was dated the r2th February, 1686.

16. The effect of the Treaty of Neutrality {note 0) was not, however, much felt
in these out-of-the-way places, and the war between the English and French
companies progressed while the Commissaries hunted up titles and
exchanged statements of pretensions. Reciprocal complaints having been
made, the French and English Commissaries met in London, but not being
able to agree as to the facts, they adjourned until the first of January, 1689.
(6) In the meantime the revolution took place, and William, profiting by
the invasion of the Caribee Islands of the State of New York, and of the
territories of Hudson's Bay, declared war on the 8th May, 1 689. On the 7th
June, the King of France, presuming that owing to " the present trouble-
some conjuncture," in England, the Endish would not have adopted " great
precautions in those parts" (Hudson's Bay), desired de Frontenac to afford

thd
ex]

(1) Talon to Colbert 10 Nov. 1(170, Doc. Hist. 9, p. 07.

(2) Taluii t« the King 2nd Nov. 1071, lb., I>. 71.

is) Denonville un the state of Canada, 12th Nov. 1086, lb., p. 280.

(4) In»tr\ieUons bv ile Denonville, 12 Feb lOsO, Paris, Doc. V, p. 170, 2 Serie,

(6) Denonville to Minister, 10 Not. 1080, lb., p. 259.

(ti) Invtruttions to il« Front«uac, 7 June, 1089, Doc Hiat. 9, p. 422.

and in 1633
38' work was

Hudson and
e voyage of
nd then the
c and James'
e pretended
uthenticated
Y was estab-
>anydid not
>. Whether
ictual acts of
•ay seems to

' the French
d that ships
learned this
L The next
:e possession,
le Canadian
ing year the
the Enghsh
; were such
s obliged to
re to capture
md it would
f Neutrality
umission to

much felt
and French

titles and
laving been
it not being
luary, 1689.
)rofiting by
, and of the

On the 7th
mt trouble-
Jted " great
ac to afford

the Canadian Company the protection it might need " as well for the
expulsion of the English from the posts they occupy at Hudson's Bay as for
the continuation of trade." ( 1 ) On the 25th June the French declared war. (2)

17. Hostilities which had been carried on at Hudson's Bay in spite of the
Treaty of Neutrality, sanctioned by the Declaration of "War, continued with
all the force the rival Companies could command. The dashing courage of
d'Iberville turned the scale in favour of the French, and the English
Company loudlv complained of their losses, (note P) In Europe William's
appeal to arms had not produced all the results he desired, and the treaty of
Ryswick, (3) by which his title to the English throne was acknowledged, was
concluded with a total disregard of the rights and interests of "The Merchants
Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay." Most dolefully did they
complain that in the general rejoicings at the peace, they alone were left
to grieve. (4) Nevertheless, it would seem that their sufferings were not
altogether insupportable, for the Commissaries named never reported, {note Q)
and things went on at Hudson's Bay pretty much as they had doiie before,
until the Treaty of Utrecht (5) transferred to the English the " Bay and
Straits of Hudson, together with all lands, seas, sea-coasts, rivers and places
situate in the said Bay and Straits, and which belong thereunto, no tracts of
land or of sea being excepted which are at present possessed by the subjects
of France." But it is agreed on both sides to determijie within a year by
Commissaries to be forthwith named by each party 'the limits whicn are to
be fixed between the said Bay of Hudson and the places appertaining to the
French. And " the above mentioned most Christian King" undertook that
satisfaction should be given according to the rule of justice and equity, to
the English Company trading to the Bay of Hudson, for all damage and
spoil done to their colonies, ships, persons, and goods, by the hostile
incursions and depredations of the French in time of peace, an estimate being
made thereof by Commissaries to be named at the requisition of each party.

18. The stipulation to surrender the posts near Hudson's Bay, in the possession
of the French at the time of the Treaty, was at once carried out, the forts
being delivered up under orders from the King of France in 17 14. (7)

1 9. Commissaries were appointed to define the limits, but they never arrived at
any decision ; (note K) but both countries seem to have acquiesced in the
idea that the watershed or the height of land dividing the waters which flow
north from those which flow south, v/as the real boundary between Canada
and the Hudson's Bay territory. '

(1) Oanieau2, p. 61.

(2) Oarneau 2. p. 137, says the English lost all their forts by the Ciipture of Fort Nelson, l(ii)7 ; but this is an error.

See note O.

(») 10-20 Sept. IflfiT.

(4) Memorial of Company, exposing state of (hair affairs, 10th .lanuury, 170.J

the Qiicbce Act, the Company is thus styled

(.')) Article 10.

(0) Article 11.

(7) .loroniie (Noel Jeremie Lamonlagno, soo I'Abb
vol. 5. Amsterdam, 1732.

Pownall papers : M. S. in Pari Lib. In
Tlie Merchants Ail\enturers of England, trading into Hudson's Bay."

Ferland, 2de partle, p. 279 note) Rccuoil de Voyages du Nord-

20. This conclusion, with only slight variation, is supported by numerous maps,
both French and English, by Douglas, who gives the whole line from the Atlantic
Coast, by Bellin (1) who gives the limits of Canada, and by Mr. Bouchette, Sur-
veyor-General of Canada. In the map published by the Government of Quebec
in 1870, the same line of highlands is unhesitatingly adopted. As it has been
already shown, the principle that the watershed was the natural limit of aii un-
explored country was generally acquiesced in. The rivers were the only high-
ways, and the utmost limit of a possession could hardly be interpreted to extend
further than those claiming it could go.

25.

21. Nor is there anything to contradict this view to be found in the voluminous cor-
respondence between the authorities in Canada and the Government of France,
from the time of the Treaty of Utrecht (note S.) till the Treaty of Paris, by
which Enorland acquired Canada, put an end to the possibility of a question
arising between the two countries as to tlie boundaries of the Hudson's Bay
territories.

26.

22. But whether the conclusion at which we have arrived be legally correct or not, in
so far as regards the right of the Hudson's Bay Company to the territory claimed
by them, it is clear it was so understood by the Government in England ; and,
being so understood, a description in a document by competent authority, giving
the Hudson's Bay territory as the northern limit of Canada, would limit Canada
to the line understood to be the southern boundary of the Hudson's Bay territory.
In other words, if the Hudson's Bay claim had been proved to be wholly unfounded,
this would not of itself have extended the limits of Canada.

27.

23. By laying down the height of land or watershed as the general rule by which the
territory of Canada was to be distinguished from that of Hudson's Bay, results
more important than any contemplated at that time were attained. The actual
flow of the river was not then known, and it could not readily be imagined that
the height of land which forms the watershed of the system of the St. Lawrence
and the great Lakes, should hem in as closely as it does the waters of Lake Supe-
rior. This fact, now perfectly established, reduces to very moderate proportions
any claim the Province of Ontario could put forward, based on the idea that the
western limits of La Nouvelle France, were also those of the late Province of
Canada. The Treaty of 1783, which fixes the line of division between the Brit-
ish possessions and the United States, cuts this height of land, and with it defines
the whole boundaries of the Province — north, west and south, even if the extreme
pretention to which allusion has just been made were adopted. a1.

28.

29.

24. But looking at the question from a strictly legal ,point of view, this pretension
cannot be maintained. The terms of the Treaty of Paris, conveying certain
territory to the Crown of England, could not possibly convey to the people of Canada,
much less to any portion of them, any absolute territorial right to any particular
extent of territory further than what they actually occupied, or what was
afterwards conferred by competent authority, (note T.) They might seek
to have certain limits granted them as a matter of sentiment or convenience, (2)

(1) Already quoted, p. 8.

(2) They did by their petition of 1773.

Doutre et Larenu Dr. Civil Cauad. I, p. 674.

merouB maps,
m the Atlantic
ouchette, Sur-
jnt of Quebec
As it has been
mit of an un-
the only high-
ited to extend

luminous cor>
snt of France,
of Paris, by
>f a question
ludson's Bay

•ect or not, in
itory claimed
ngland; and,
lority, giving
limit Canada
Bay territory,
y unfounded.

by which the
I Bay, results
The actual
magined that
3t. Lawrence
f Lake Supe-
e proportions
idea that the
Province of
een the Brit-
ith it defines
i" the extreme

is pretension
ying certain
>le of Canada,
y particular
r what was
might seek
enience, (2)

but no one has ever pretended that the English Government was obliged to
maintain under one government the whole territory ceded to the Crown of
England as Canada ; and, in efTect, no such unity has ever been attempted.
The whole territory ceded by Yandreuil as Canaaa, and claimed by England
as such, has never for a moment been all included in any Government of
Canada, {note U.)

26. It is unquestionable law that afler the cession of Canada, and until a regular
Government was conferred by Statute, the Province remained a Crown
Colony, aud was subject to be governed under the special ordinances and
instructions of the Kmg. Hence it is we must turn to the Proclamation of
1763 to ascertain what was thenceforward to be considered as the Province
of Quebec or Canada.

26. That Proclamation sets forth that the King, with the advice of his Privy
Council, had granted letters patent, creating four distinct and separate gov-
ernments within the countries and islands ceded and confirmed to the
Crown of England by the Treaty of Paris (1763.)

27. The first of these goverhments, that of Quebec, was declared to be bounded
on the Labrador coast by the River St. John, and from thence by a line
drawn from the head of that river through the Lake St. John to the
south end of the Lake Nipissing, from whence the said line, crossing the River
St. Lawrence and the Lake Champlain in 4.5 degrees of north lattitnde, passes
along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the
said River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and also along
the north coasts of the Bale des Chaleurs, and the coast of the Gulf of
St. Lawrence to Cape Rosier, and from thence, crossing the mouth of the
River St. Lawrence by the west end of the Island of Anticosti, terminates at
the aforesaid River St. John, (note V.) a2.

28. Several maps, published subsequent to the Treaty, give the limits thus
described to Canada, (note W.) (1.)

29. The boundary to the southwest remained unchanged till 1 774, (2). It included
all the settlements of any importance at that time, {note X) Burke (3) says
" This boundary, fixed for the Government, was so because it was the boun-
dary of the possession, and that the people of Canada acquiesced in it." (4)
But on this point, perhaps, Burke was not a totally impartial witness, and he
probably expressed the extreme pretensions of the Government he represented.
At any rate the people of Canada did not approve of the limitation, and by
their petition in 1773, they prayed that as under the French Government,
their boundaries might be extended to the Mississippi. (5) {note Y.)

■ (1) Jeffrey's Map, 10th June, 1776. Also map In translation of Charlevoix.

(2) Burl(c, in Cavendish Debates, p. 189.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid.

(r>) Djutre V Lareau Droit Civil, Canad, I, p. 074.

Dunn's Map, 1770, and sec notes R and V.

■)\i

88. (

30. It seems, however, of very little importance in a legal point of view, whether
the old Government of Canada as a French Province, really extended to the
Mississippi, or whether the people of Canada acquiesced in the limits given
by the Knig in his letters patent constituting the Government of Quebec or
not; nor indeed does it signify, for the discussion at present, how far consti-
tutionally the King had a right to carve Provinces and Governments out of
the possessioris of the Crown, for we are now arrived at the time when the
limits of Canada were determined by Act of Parliament.

31. The 14 Geo. Ill, C. 83, (1774,) called the Quebec Act, after setting up the
eastern boundaries, continues, and " thence along by the eastern and south-
eastern bank of Lake Erie, following the said bank until the same shall be
intersected by the northern boundary granted by the Charter of the Province
of Pennsylvania, in case the same shall be so intersected ; and from thence
along the said northern and western boundaries of the said Province until
the said western boundary strike the Ohio; but in case the said bank
of the Lake shall not be found to be so intersected, then following the
said bank until it shall arrive at that point of the said bank which shall
be nearest to the northwestern angle of the said Province of Pennsylvania,
and thence by a right line to the said northwestern angle of the said Province,
and thence along the western boundary of the said Province (Pennsylvania)
until it strike the Ohio ; and along the bank of the said river westward to
the banks of the Mississippi, and northward to the southern boundary of the
territory granted to " The Merchants Adventurers of England trading to
Hudson's Bay." Section 2 of this Act contains the only limitation to this
description : " Provided always, that nothing herein contained relative to
the boundary of the Province of Quebec shall in anywise affect the bound-
aries of any other Colony."

32. The boundaries laid down by the Act were deliberately adopted after much
discussion (1) All the parties were either represented directly in the house or
were h >ard by petition ; and very notably the petition of the Canadians of
the previous year had received due attention. The only difficulty which
remained was foreseen. The unsurveyed boundary of the Province of
Pennsylvania might, or it might not strike the bank of Lake Erie, and both
cases were provided for ; but about the line of the Ohio there could be no
doubt. From the point at which it cut the western line of the Province of
Pennsylvania, it constituted the boundary of Canada until its confluence
with the Mississippi. From that point the line was clearly defined; it was a
due north line, for that is the only interpretation which can be given to the
words " northward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to
• Merchants Adventurers of England trading to Hudson's Bay.' " (note Z.)

This opinion, which indeed recommends itself naturally, is supported by
the decision of Chief Justice Sewell in the trial ol de Keinhard at Quebec ift
1818 (2), which judicially interprets tho Act of 1774 in this sense. Nor can
there be any doubt that the efl'ect of these words in the Statute was matter
of law for the Court to decide. (3).

84. [

36.

(1) Cavuiiilisli DclMtea.

(2) Ueport i>f trial, p. tiW.

i,.i) Attiirii^.v (KiLui'iil lit I'piinr CiiiaiJa rviuaiks, uu (uioioed in hy Ihu Court uii the I'rial of Uraiit (or the murder of
Uuvuniur Temple, p. Ui)". •

1.^

88. Curious to say in the new Commission to Sir Guy Carleton, rendered
necessary by tne Act of 1774, a somewhat different boundary is de8cril)ed.
After following the description of the Statute till the confluence of the Ohio
and MissiBsippi, the Commission goes on : " and northward along the eastern
bank of the said river to the southern boundary of the territory granted to
' The Merchants Adventurers of England trading to Hudson's Bay.' " The
words in italics are an evident and very material addition to the Statute;
and thev either fell in with, or created the general impression that Canada,
before the treaty with the United States ( l783), extended to the Mississippi.
This desrription also appears in a Commission of two years later date to Sir
Frederick Haldimand, and very probably in other Commissions between
1774 and 1788; but no words in letters patent could alter the express dis-
positions of an Act of Parliament. The only manner in which the effect of
the Act of 1774 could be destroyed would be by another Act of Parliament.
"Was there any such ?

84. The Act of 1791 does not deal with the question of the western boundaries

of the ProWnce of Quebec. The subject of the precise boundaries of Upper

Canada was then of some difficulty, lor the Treaty of 1783 had not made

clear the line which was to divide the British possessions .from the United

States. In this dilemma it was thought advisable to describe " the Upper

district by some general words." (1) But whether, owing to the difficulties

occasioned by the Treaty of 1783 or not, all description was omitted in the

Act, and the Kinnr, by his message of the 25th February, 1791, announced his

intention ot dividing " the Province of Quebec into two Provinces to be

called the Province of Upper Canada and the Province of Lower Canada,"

whenever His Majesty shall .be enabled by Act of Parliament to establish

the necessary regulations for the Government of said Provinces. The

Act being passed, the King:, by proclamation, declared what should be the

division fine; but he abstained most carefully from entering into any other

description of the two Provinces, and as Lord Grenville had suggested, used.

"some general words." Having established " the boundary line of Hudson's

Bay" as the northern limit, the Upper Province is said to include "all the

territory to the westward and southward of the said line to the utmost extent

of the country commonly called or known by the name of Canada."

36. It is maintained that what is called or known by the name of "Canada"
must be taken to mean what was then known by law (i. e., by the Act of
1774) as Canada, less the reductions under the Treaty of 1783, which are
provided for by Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1774. But even if the words had
another and more extended sense, it is further maintained that in so far they
would be in-operative. The King's authority to make any proclamation at
all to divide the Province depended on the implied consent of Parliament
by the Act of 1 791. He could only divide the Province of Quebec — he could
not extend it by proclamation, {note A A.)

36. This view is supported by Chief Justice Sewell in the case of de lleiuhard,
already cited. He said : " The intention of the Proclamation and Act of 1 791
was to divide the Province, not to add to it. " {note BB.)

the murdor of

(1) Letter from Lord Qrenvilte to Lord Dorcheiter, 20th October, 1789. Christy's History ot Canada, Vol. 6, p. 16.
(i) bupra p. 14.

37. The Act* reuniting the PDvinces of Upper and Lower Canada simply declared
"that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty with the advice of Her Privy Council, to
declare or to authorize the Governor General of the said two Provinces of Upper
and Lower Canada to declare, by Proclamation, that the said Provinces, upon,
from and after a certain day, in such Proclamation to be appointed, which day
shall be within fifteen calendar months next after the passing of this Act, shall
form and be one Province, under the name of " the Province of Canada."

38. The British North America Act, 1867, is equally unambitious. The Province of
Canada was divided by it, and the part which formerly constituted the Province of
Upper Canada was declared to constitute the Province of Ontario.

39. Canada, then, as it stood after the Act of 1774, was divided into two Provincei;
the two were again re-united : but the limits of the whole were not changed in so
far as regards the northwestern boundaries, until the Act constituting the New
Dominion became law.

40. Th3 limits of Ontario are, therefore, to the east, the Province of Quebec; to the
north, the southern boundary of the Hudson's Bay territory (shown to be the
height of iai^d dividing the waters which fall into Hudson's Bay from those which
fall into the St. Lawrence and the great Lakes); to the south, the northern boun-
dary of the United States and longitude 89° 9' 27" 16 west of Greenwich to the
west.

< T. K.R.

Montreal, March, 1873.

«■'■• i.T

' 3 and 4 Vlo. c. 36 (Imp. Avt) 1840.

iply declared
y Council, to
ces of Upper
vinces, upon,
j, which day
lis Act, shall
tada."

Province of
e Province of

'0 Province!;
;hanffed in so
ng the New

lebec; to the
ivn to be the
those which
rthein boun-
nwich to the

T. K. R.

•■<'^'

MiMO.

In the Report submitted the strictly le^al view has alone been considered, beoaose
it alone seemea to be within the scope of my instructions ; but fVom the course of my
investigations I could not fail to see that beyond this there is another consideration
not less important, and that is the oauitablo side of the question. In creating the
Province of Ontario it is not possible to conceive that the Imperial Legislature
intended to convey to that Province and to the Province of Quebec less territory than
the late Province of Canada actually enjoyed. Now it is incontestable that up to 186*7
the Government of Canada de facto extended to the height of land which forms the
watershed of the water system of the St. Lawrence and the great Lakes. This is made
apparent by the registers of the Executive Council, by which we find that a
Commissioner was appointed to obtain the surrender of the claims of the Indians to the
lands in the vicinity of Lakes Superior and Huron, or of snch of them as may bo
required for mining purposes. The Commissioner executed a treaty by which he
obtained a portion of the very territory that would be cut ofl' from the Province of
Oiitario if the dispositions of the Act of 1774 were literally observed. " From Batche-
wanoning Bay to Pigeon River at the Western extremity of the said Lake (Superior),
and inland through that extent to the height of land which separates the territory
covered by the Charter of the Honorable the Hudson's Bay Company from the said
tract and also the Islands in the said Lake within the boundaries of the British
possessions therein."

There are doubtless other acts of authority bevond the meridian indicated in the
foregoing report. In the De Reinhard trial, Mr. Coltman, a Magistrate for the District
of Quebec, and a Commissioner in the Indian ten'itory, in his evidence said : "Best
notoire que hs writs des Magistrats du District ouest du Haut Canada sont imarUs pour
etre exicutis d Fort William." It would therefore seem that in fairness to the Province
of Ontario the old line of the height of land should be adopted as Uie western as well
as the northern boundary of the Province of Ontario.

T. K. R.

Montreal, March, 1873 *

NOTES.

Note A. — " Thtiy (France and England) prepared to cut the gordian knot of
thiB long and intricate negotiation with the swora." T" The history of the present
war," by fiurkc, in the first number of the Annual Register. Republished separately
in 1774.)

Note B. — It is quite unnecessary now to discuss the validity of the Charter.
It should, however, be remarked that the words " limiting the grant to such terri-
tories as are not already actually possessed by the subjects of any other Christian
Prince of State," ceased to have any legal value after the Treaty of Utrecht. As
between the King of England and the H. B. Company there could be no contest
as to the rights of the French. I do not know whether the value of the particular
words " actually possessed " ha3 ever been commented. They exclude the idea of
a claim of title by simple discovery or by any naked formality, and there can be no
question that in 1670 the French had no actual possution of any part of the lands
round Hudson's Bay.

Note C. — The report of the Commissioners of Crown Lands in 1857 is incorrect
in saying that the Commission to Roberval " included Hudson's Bay, though not
then, of^ course, known by that name." The writer would have extended geo-
graphical knowledge had he told us by what name it was, and by whom knovon
m 1540. Is it possible the official writer mistook " The Great Ba^," which is
mentioned by Jeffrey (from whom he quotes), as the name by which Hudson's
Bay was known in 1540 ? Then, and long after, " La grande bale" was the name
given to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, from " le cap de St. Louis h F entree de la bate
des Chaleurs." {Denis' Description de tAmerique Septentrionale, 1672, Tom. I, p.
164, chap. 7.

In the same report it is said that in " 1627 the Quebec Fur Company was
formed under the auspices of Cardinal Richelieu, and an exclusive Charter granted
to them for the whole of New France, or Canada, described as extending to the
Aictic Circle!" This is incorrect. At the time it is not unlikely that the French
Government knew little or nothing of the two early English voyages of discovery
to Hudson's Bay, and they could not have known anything of these parts from their
own voyages, for no French expedition had ever then been there. But the arrSt of
1627 does not mention Hudson's Bay. It gives the Company the whole country from
Florida " en rangeant les C6t48 de FAmerique jusqu au Cercle Ardiqxte." (Ed. and
Ords., Tom. I, p. 7. Quebec, 1854.

Note D. — In the oft-ropoated description by L'Escaibot it is said that la

Nouvelle France is bounded to the north by " cette terre qui est dite inconnue
vers la mer glac^e jtuqu au pole arciiqxie!' Thus he does not pretend that la
Nouvelle France stretches to the Frozen Ocean (L'Escarbot, vol. 1, p. 31 ed. 1611),
as Mr. Cauchon's Report seems to imply, but only to the unknown lands, which, in
thoir turn, extend to the frozen ocean. Having quoted the passage of L'Escarbot
referred to, Gaineau adds: " Mais ces Hmites etaient plus imaginairea que relies, puisque
fon ne connaamit pas alors metne la valine entire du St. Laurent.'^

Note E. — •' 11 est certain que ce fut Henry Hudson, anglais qui en 1611 donna son
nom ei a la Baie et au Detroit par oii il entra. (Charlevoix 1, p. 476.)

Note F. — Mr. Justice Monk, in the case of Connolly «. Woolrich, p. ,14, says r
" From the voyage of Sir Thomas Button in 1611 till the year 1667, it (Hudson's
Bay) appears to have been wholly neglected by the English Government and Nation."'
There is, however, no doubt about the voyages of Fox and Ja^nes.

Note Q-. — Mddard Chouard des Grozeliers (" the name is spelled in a variety of
ways;" L'Abb^ Tanguay writes " Medard Chouart des Grozelliers"), Pierre Esprit
Hayet-Radisson, and Pierre Le Moyne d'lberville. These three names are intimately
connected with the history of the early settlement of Hudson's Bay. Des Grozeliers
came from Touraine when very young and became a voyageur of some repute.
(Perland, 2nde Pie p. SO. Jeremie Rel. de la Baie d'Hudson, p. 14. Mbre de Vlncar-
nation Lettre d'AoUt, 1670.) fie reported that, being to the north of Lake Superior,
he met some Indians who led him to James' Bay. Subsequently he endeavoured to
induce the principal merchants in Quebec to fit out an expedition to visit the North
Sea ; but failing in this,* he went to Boston, and from thence to Paris,! and finally to
London, in search of persons sufficiently adventurous to carry out his scheme. In
London his representations were favorably listened to, and a New England captain,
Zacariah Gillam, was sent off with des Grozeliers in 1667 or 1668. J They built a fort
which they called Charles or Rupert, at the mouth of the Nemisco River. On their
return, the Hudson's Bay Company was formed and obtained a Charter, dated
2nd, May, 1670.§ Nowhere is any date given to des Grozeliers alleged first jour-
ney overland to James' Bay; indeed it was only formally put forward in 1686
^French Memoir, 8th November, 1686, Doc. Hist. 9) to sustain the French claim to be

'Jeremie says that he did induee the Merchants in Quebec to fit out a bark with which he went to the Bay and dis-
covered Nelson River; but the whole of hig Darrative up to the expeditiun of 1604, in which he wati eni^aged,
is totally worthlsiw. Ue is, however, followed by Murray, who adopts the account of a sea voyage by des
Grozeliers from Canada, and gives other details ; for all of woiuh ht disdains to quote any authority. 2 p. 132.

tDe 'a Potherie omits the going to Paris.

tOldmixon says 1667 ; so does M. de Calliires in a letter to M. de SeiRnelay •26lh February, 1085, The. Hist. 9, p. 797 ; Fer"
land says l(J<i8, 2nde pie, p 80 ; Murray also says IttCS, 2, p. 132. In the l-'rench Memoir of the 8th November, 1(18«-
the year is given twice as 18<!2, Doc. Hist. 9, Charlevoix gives the year as 1603, vol. 1, p. 47ti ; and In this he is fol-
lowed by Qameau, 2, p. 120 ; but in the Fantes Chronologiques Cliarlcvuix says 1008 ; again Dobbes says 1007, but
later he says Qillam was there from 1008 to 1073; in the description of the ngbt and Utie of the Crown of Oreat
Britain to Hudson's Bay, June 2. 1700, Eng. HSS. vol. 1, P. 04, it Is said that iStclwry Oillam went there in 1067, in
the " Nonsuch," to explore and make a settlement In Hudson's Bay, and built Charles Fjrt at Rujiert River.

JFerlund says 1660. He is not the originatorof this error. I have seen It elsewhere. It arlies from a miscalculation of
the year of the King's reign. The Charter is dated the 2nd day of May, in the two and twentieth year of the King'g
reign. Charles Ist was beheaded the 30th January, 1048 ; the 22nd y^!ar, therefore began on the 31it January, 1070.

dite inconnue

retend that la

•31 ed. 1611),

and?, which, in

e of L'Escarbot

te relies, puisgue

611 donna son

)

3h, p. 14, says:
7, it (Hudson's
»t and Nation."

n a rariety of
, Pierre Esprit
are intimately
Des Grozelierfr
f some repute.
Qre de Flncar-
Lake Superior,
ndeavoured to
isit the North
and finally to
3 scheme. In
^land captain,
ey built a fort
i^er. On their
)harter, dated
jed first jour-
vard in 1686
ch claim to be

to the Bay and dig-
eh be wan eiii^aged,

sea voyBjfe by dp«
Ihorlty. 2 p. 132.

Hist. 9, p. 797 ; Per-
th November, Kiso-
md In thig he is fol-
bbes says 1(107, but
ihe Crown of Great
iiit there in 1667, in
lupert River.

a mi8calcu!atloii of
lyearof theKiiig'B
31st January, 1U70.

the first discoverers of the Bay. But, curious to say, in the French Memoir, the year
of the Gillam Expedition is stated to be 1662. It is, however, perfectly certain that
he did not go to the North in 1662, and that the Gillam Expedition did not start before
1667 — perhaps only in 1668. It seems more than probable that the story of the over-
land journey to James' Bay was an invention of des Grozeliers in order to draw the
Quebec merchants into his scheme. Probably he had heard of Hudson's Bay from the
Indians he met in the North West; for difiicult and tedious as was the overland jour-
ney, it was not impossible; and occasionally there was some intercourse between those
living in Canada and Indians from the neighbourhood of the Bay. Thus, in 1657,
eight Canadians went up the Batiscan with twenty canoes of Algonquins. The voyage
was rough, long and dangerous, though prosperous; and they met with the Kiristinons
^^qui sont proche de la mer du Nord." (Journal des Jesuites, p. 217 ) Again, in 1664,
it is said 80 Kiristinons came as far as Montreal to look for a ^Iis8ionary. (Ibid.)
But it seems very odd if he had really made any such Journey that the records of the
Jesuits should be silent on the subject. From their Journal, we learn that, in 1659,
dea Grozeliers did go up to Lake Superior, and passed the winter with the Nation de
Boeuf, returning the following year to Canada with 300 Outawas and a great quantity
of fur. He was at Three Rivers on the 24th August, 1660. Again we hear of him
on the 3rd May, 1662, and he then said he was going to La^.Mer du Nord. He passed
the night at Quebec, and he wrote to the Governor from Cap Tourmente.* We know
nothing positive of his subsequent movements for some time; but it is not unlikely
that after leaving Quebec, he passed the years from 1662 to 1667 advocating his pro-
ject of a voyage to Hudson's Bay. This conjecture would also account for the error of
the French Memoir in placing the date of the Gilkm Kxpedition in 1662. It would
appear that des Grozeliers was accompanied by Radisson, to whose sister he was married,
and that Radisson was married to an English woman. (De Frontenac's letter, 2nd Nov.,
1681.) This marriage of Radisson is involved in great confusion. De la Potherie tells
us that Lord Preston, wlio was ambassador at Paris, promised to make a servant of his,
named Godet, perpetual Secretary of the Embassy, if he could prevail on Radisson to go
to England, and that Godet, as an inducement to Radisson, promised him his daughter
in marriage (1,145). Charlevoix says that the negotiation took place through a servant
of Lord Preston, called " Gods," (1. p 481), and that Radisson was then married to a
daughter of Chevalier Kirke; that he went to Iiondon, where he was cordially received
by his father-in-law, and that he was granted api'nsion of 12,000 livrcs a year. Shea,
in a note to his translation of Charlevoix (8,233), says that it was Sir David Kirke's
daughter he married. Another account (Murray 2, 131) is that des Grozeliers was
induced to go to England by Mr. Montague, the English Ambassador, who gave him
a letter to Prince Rupert. Murray gives no authority for his version; but it is possible
there may be some truth in all these stones, though certainly not all trwe. The
following dates are correct, and contradict much of them. Des Grozeliers' fii'st expe-
dition to England must have been prior to the summer of 1668. Ralph Montague
was Ambassador at Paris from September, 1668 to 1678. Radisson was married to
an Englishwoman before November, 1681. (De Frontenac's letter, 2nd November,
1681.) Radisson's second visit to Enf^land was in 1684, and then Sir David Kiike
had been dead nearly thirty years. He died in 1655 or 1656. (*»hea's translation of
Charlevoix 3, 232 — 6 & 6, 124.) In 1670, Radisson accompanied the new Governor back
to Hudson's Bay. We hear of him, and also of des Grozeliers, at Fort Nelson, in 1673,

•Under date Mny, 1062, in the .lournal des Jesuites, there is this entry ; "Je partis de Quebeck le Spour les Troig
Rifii'nn, je reanitiai de Gro^llierg (fid h'cii alliiitii tu Mer du Xnrd. itpaana ta ,iuit dtvant Qtiebeck avec 10
hvmmea et Mantarriu au Cap Tourmente, il I'etcrii'it A Mont. U Oouveriteur, p. 808,

and at Fort Rupert in 1674. They obtained their pardon in 1676 from the King of
France, and returned to Canada. I do not know when they returned to Canada, nor
can the date given by M. de Calli^res in his letter to M. de Seignelay, 25th
February, 1685, be relied on, for he goes on to speak of the Canadian Company
having been formed in 1676. This is evidently an err^r, if not an intentional mis-
statement, for in a memoir of the Compagnic du Nord <^tablie en Canada, 1698,
P. M. S. VIII, 265, it is said: '^EUe {la Compagnie) commenca cette enterprise en
1682." Before we have anything more to do with Radisson in Hudson's Bay, he
served under Marshal d'Estrees in the West Indies, and obtained permission from him
to go in a vessel belonging to S. de la Chesnay (" Aubert de la Chenaye " is one of
the signatures to the Memoire de la Compagnie du Nord, 15 November, 1690, Paris,
M. S. V. p. 156,) to make settlements along the coast leading to Hudson's Bay. This
was prior to November, 1681. CM. de Frontenac 2nd Nov., 1681, Doc. Hist. 9.)
In 1682 a Cojnpany was formed at Quebec to trade to Hudson's Bay. This was
the commencement of this enterprise. (Memoire de la Cie. du Nord, etablie en
Canada, 1698, P. M. S. VIII. p 265.) There was a complaint by the English
Ambassador that in 1682, Radisson and other Frenchmen had gone with two barks,
called the " St. Pierre " and the " Ste. Anne," to Fort Nelson, and seized the fort and
the property found there. (The King to M. de la Barre, 10th April, 1684.) They
also took Benjamin Gillam, son of their old captain, prisoner. They also captured a
Boston ship, and took it to Quebec. (Do la Potherie 1, 14.3.) M. de la Barre caused
the ship to be restored to the owners, for which he was severely reprimanded by the
Minister (10th April, 1684).

Des Grozeliers and Radisson, from some cause or other, became dissatisfied with
their partners in the Hudson's Bay trade. It is not unlikely they were not over-pleased
with the restitution of their capture. At all events, Radisson went to France in 1684.
From France he went to London, induced by Lord Preston, as some say, and there he
i icceeded so well that the same year he sailed for Hudson's Bay with five ships He
captured Fort Nelson by surprise, I6th August, 1684, — (Instructions from M. de
Denonville, 12th February, 1686), took prisoner his own nephew, together with all the
Frenchmen he found there, and carried them to London. He also carried off an im-
mense quantity of furs, and did the Canadian Company ^400,000 worth of damage.
De la Potherie says 300,000 livres, which is more credible. After this, we hear very
little of M. M. Des Grozeliers and Radisson. It would appear, however, that Radisson
wintered in the Bay in 1685-'6, for the excuse for de Troyes' expedition was the
capture of Radisson. (Instructions of M. de Denonville to de Troyes, 12th February,
1686; letter of de Denonville, lOtli November, 1686.) In 1685, the Canadian Com-
pany obtained a Charter (20th May). In 1686, de Troyes and d' Iberville went
overland to Hudson's Bay. They first attacked Fort Monsippi or Moose Fort, which
they took. They next surprised Fort Rupert. On the I6tn July, tlicy took Fort
Chechouan or Albany. On the 10th August, 1680, de Troyes started on his return
journey to Montreal. (De la Potherie, 1, p. 147; Ferland, 2n(le partie, 164.) M. de
la Potherie says, that six months after, having sent the English prisoners homo,
d'Iberville went to Quebec; but it would appear, from a letter from M. de Denonville
to M. de Seignelay, he was still supposed to be in command of the forts at Hudson's
Bjy on the 25th August, 1687. Oa the ."Jlst October, 1688, M. do Denonville
announce."^ the return of d'Iberville, but says ho was to return to the Bay. In
1688, it would seem, the English built Fort Churchill, towards the end of the
year, (Memoire de la Cie du Nord, 15 November, 1690.J In 1688 d'lbervillo

took two English ships. (See the account given of it in the letter of the Sr.
Patu de Quebek, 14th November, 1689, and in d'lberville'e letter of the 17th,
in which he promised to go back next year and take Fort Nelson, if he could
obtain the assistance he required.) Fort Churchill was captured by the French
in 1689 (Memoire de la Cie du Nord, 16th November, 1690.) In 1690 d'Ibcrville
returned, intending to take Fort Nelson, but being repulsed he landed and forced
the English to abandon Fort Nieu Savanne. He had gone there with three
ships called " La Sainte Anne," " Les Armes de la Compagnie," and •' Le Saint
Fran9ois." In 1693, the English re-took the Forts Chechouan or Albany, Mon-
sippi or Moose Fort, and Rupert. (De la Potherie I, 165.) No one but de la
Potherie mentions the re-taking of Moose Fort and Fort Rupert, and in 1700
the Hudson's Bay Company complain of the French encroachments, saying that,
owing to them, they have only one settlement remaining out of seven they had.
It would therefore seem that if the English re-took Moose and Rupert Forts, they
lost them before 1700. In 1694, d'lberville, in command of two of the King's
ships, which were lent to the Company, sailed for Hudson's Bay to retake Fort
Nelson. Jeremie, who was in the expedition, says the two ships were the " Poll "
and the "Charente." He is followed in this by rAbbcj Ferland, (2 Pie, p. 278.)
?. Marest, who was also in the expedition as aumonier, says de Serigny com-
manded the " Salamandre," and his relation is called voyage du Poll et Salamandre
(Lettres Ed. Nouv. Ed. vol. VI., p. 4.) In the letter of M. M. de Frontenac
et de Champigny to the Minister, 5th Nov., 1694, it is said that de Serigny
commanded the Salamandre. De Bacqueville de la Potherie, who was the King's
Commissioner in the expedition of 1697, says that the ships sent out in 1694
the "Poli"and "Salamandre" (vol. 1, 1661.) He says they sailed from

were

Quebec on the 8th August, de Frontenac et de Champigny say the 9th August, and
Jeremie says the 10th August, jour de St. Laurent (p. 17.) M. M. de la Potherie
and Jeremie agree that they reached Fort Nelson the 24th September; L'Abb6
Ferland says tlie 20th September. The Fort capitulated on tne 12th October.
D'lberville remained at Fort Nelson fifteen months. He then returned to Canada,
leaving La Forest as Governor. In 1696 the English returned, recaptured Fort
Nelson, and carried off the Governor and all the beaver. The capitulation by
La Forest of Fort Nelson (alias York, alias Bourbon), is that mentioned in the 8tn
Article of the Treaty of Ryswick. The capitulation was dated 31st August, 1696,
but it is spoken of as the capitulation of the 1st J-'eptember, and in the Treaty as
of the 5th September. In 1697 a fleet of five ships sailed from La Rochclle to
retake Fort Nelson, namely, " Le Profond,'' " Le Palmier," " Le Weesph," " Le
Pelican," and " Le Violent." M. de la Potherie went as the King's Commis-
sioner. " Le Violent" was crushed in the ice. Action between the "Pelican," the
" Hampshire," the " Dering " and the " Hudson's Bay," 3rd September. The
" Hampshire " was sunk by the French ships; the "Hudson's Bay "was captured,
and the " Dering " escaped. " Le Pelican " was very much shattered in the action
with the English ships, and went ashore next day in a storm and was lost. The other
three French ships coming up, d'lberville attacked Fort Nelson, which he took about
the 12th September. D'lberville left his brother, de Serigny, in command of the
Fort, and sailed on his return voyage on the 24th September, (de la Potherie, 1,
p. 183; Jeremie, who was also in this expedition, and who remained with de
Serigny at the Fort). At this point M. Garneau exclaims ** Aimi le dernier paste
que lea Anglais avaient dans le baie d' Hudson tomba en notre pouvoir, et la France vesta
seule maiiresse de cette region,'' (2 p. 137). M. Garneau totally overlooked the three
forts in James' Bay retaken by the English in 1693, and one of which, Fort Anne or

9fc

; I

Chechouan, he mistook for Fort Nelson. At any rate Fort Anne or Chechouan r^
mained in possession of the English from 1693, and they never lost it. It was
unsuccessfully attacked by de Menthel in 1709. (Paris M. S. 11, p. 123; Letter of
de Vaudreuil to the Minister 25th October, 1710, p. 139.)

To avoid confusion, it may be well to enumerate the Forts, and to give their
different names. In 1700, the Company said that they had had seven Forts,
and that by the encroachments of the French there remained to them only one.
(Pownall papers MSS.) Six of the seven only appear to have given rise to any con-
test; the seventh I presume to be East Main. The six others are —

1st. Fort Rupert, called by the French St. Jacques, founded in 1667 or 1668 by
Gillam. Taken by the French under de Troyes and d' Iberville July, 1686. Retaken
by the English in 1693.

2nd. Fort Monsippi, Monsonis, St. Louis, or Moose Fort, taken by de Troyes
and d'Iberville about the 20th June, 1686. Retaken in 1693.

3rd. Fort Chechouan, Ste. Anne, or Albany, taken by de Troyes and d'Iberville
in 1686. Retaken in 1693.

4th. New Severn, or Nieu Savanne, taken by d'Iberville in 1690.

5th. Fort Bourbon, Nelson or York, founded in 1670. Taken by Des Grozeliers
and Radisson, acting for the French, in 1682 ; retaken by Radisson, acting for the
English, in 1684; retaken by d'Iberville 12th October, 1694; retaken by the English
1696, and again by the French 1697. It remained in the possession of the French
until 1714, when it was given up under the Treaty of Utrecht.

6th. Fort Churchill, built 1688, and taken by the French in 1689.

Note H. — In the memoJr of the French right to the Iroquois country and
Hudson's Bay of the 8th November, 1686, it is said thnt in 1656 Jean Bourdon ran
along the entire coast of Labrador with a vessel of 30 tons, entered and took possession
of the North Bay, and that this is proved by an extract of the ancient register of the
Council of New France of the 26th of August of the said year (1656.) Unfortu-
nately the register in question is not now in existence; but if it were, it could not
prove what the writer of this memoir pretends. At most it was but an authorization*
to Jean Bourdon to undertake the voyage to the coast of Labrador, and not a recital
of what he actually did, for Bourdon's voyage was in 1657 and not in 1656. He
sailed from Quebec on the 2nd May, 1657, and returned on the llth August of the
same year at ten at night. ("Journal des Jesuites pp. 209-218.) But we are not left
in any doubt as to the extent of Bourdon's voyage. On reference to the " Relations
des Jesuites," vol. III., 1658-9, we find this entry: " Z« 11 (August) farut la barque
de Monsieur Bourdon, lequel estant descendu sur le grand Jleuve du ci)tA du Nord,
voyagea jusques au 55 degre, ou il rencontra un grand banc de glace, qui le fit remonter,
aiant perdu deux Hurons qu il avait pris pour guides. Les Esquimaux sauvages du
Nord Us massacrhrent et btesserent un Frangois de trots coups de filches et d'un coup de
couteau.

Note I. — Dablon never reached Hudson's Bay ; the extreme limit of his, journey
being only 100 leagues from Tadousac. We learn fi-om the "Journal des Jesuites," that
he started for " la Mission St. Fr Xavier aux Keristinona" the llth May, 1661, p. 296.

'BcsiUcii see letter of M. deCallieres to M du Seiifnelay, aitb February, 1(W5.

hechouan re-

' it. It WM

3; Letter of

to give their
leven Ports,
m only one.
I to any Con-
or 1668 by
6. Retaken

y de Troyes
i d' Iberville

8 Grozeliers
ing for the
the English
the French

H« left Tadousac on the Ist or 2nd June. On the 6th, the Iroquois attacked Tadousac,
and drove away all the Canadians. Thoy even came up to the Isle d'Orloans and the
Cote Beaupr^, and killed several persons. At page 300 of the Journal, there is this
entry : " 1661, Juillet le 27, retournerent ceux qui istoient cUlis ou pretendount alter a la
mp" du Notd ou aux KirUtinons P. Dablon, due. In the " Illations des Jesuites," we have
the relation of this voyage, which is called " Journal du premier voyage fait vera la mer
du Nord." (12 aoflt 1661.) The account is dated from the highest point they reached,
"Nekouba 100 lieues, de Tadousac, 2 Juillet, 1661." See also Journal of Count de
Prontenao, 1673, when the importance of making it appear that Dablon had been at
Hudson's Bay was fally understood. (Doc. Hist., vol. 9.)

Note J. — The voyage of Albanel and St. Simon is not open to the same objections
as that of Dablon. It would appear that they performed the whole journey from
Canada to Hudson's Bay, and that they took formal possession in the King's name.
(Relation de 1672.) The difficulty to this voyage as giving a title to the King of
France, is that it came too late (1671-'2), and after the English were in possession of
Hudson's Bay. Besides, it was only a formality, for the French took no steps towards
making a settlement there till«1682. (Ferland, 2nde partie, p. 83.)

>untry and
ourdon ran
c possession
ster of the
Unfortu-

could not
liorization*
3t a recital
1656. He
rust of the
re not left
' Relations
■ la barque
du Nord,

remonter,
uvages du
n coup de

Note K. — The dealings with the Indians from Hudson's Bay cannot be relied on as
a title. Besides, we have the repeated assurance that trade with Hudson's Bay could
only be carried on by sea. (Denonville on State of Canada, 12th Nov., 1685, Doc. Hist.
9 ; Letter from Denonville au Ministre, 10th Nov., 1686 ; Pai-is, Doc. MS. V ; same to de
Seignelay, 25th August, 1687, Doc. Hist. 9 ; Memorial de la Cie. du Nord, 1698.) This
conclusion had not been arrived at without an effort to keep up communication by'
land. M. de la Barre, on the 9th November, 1683, writes : "The people who have been
at Hudson's Bay have returned after hiving encountered extreme dangers." * * *
" It is expected that communication can be had with it overland, as will be seen by the
map he sends."

Note L. — Dobbes says that Hudson's and Button's Journals are not to be found.
Murray says : " It is remarkable that no original of this voyage (Button's) has been
published, and that it is not even mentioned by Purchas, who made it his business to
collect accounts of all voyages made at this era," (Vol. 2, p. 56.) In Rose's Biographi-
cal and Geographical Dictionary, it is said that there is an extract of Button's Journal
in Purchas. Both the Biographical Dictionary and Mr. Murray are in error. There is
no extract of the Journal in Purchas. On the contrary, Purchas says he had not seen
the Journal, but he had seen the ehart, which was also seen by Champlain, p. 926, ed,
1617. , Murray, probably, bad only looked at the first edition of Purchas, which was
printetl in 1613, so that it was hardly possible for it to contain any mention of Button's
voyage, which only terminated that year. Although not in Purchas, a fragment of
Button's Journal was communicated to Fox by Sir Thomas Roe. (Hakluyt Society
Papers. See also Appendix.) Even in the absence of any mention of Button's Journal
in Purchas, there is no doubt of the voyage having taken place. It is not questioned by
foreign writers. As an example, see Anecdotes Americanes, Paris, 1776, by Hornot.

It is hardlv necessary to answer the doubt thrown out by the French Memoir and by
Dobbes on Hucfson's voyage. If we have not Hudson's Journal, which, under the cir-
cumstances, is not very remaricabie, we have, at all events, the account of Pricket, who,
in his own justification, wrote an account of the mutiny ; and, in doing so, he m ations
Hudson's discoveries. (Harris' complete collection of Voyages and Travels, 2, p. 244.)

Note M. — There is a groat uncertainty as to what sort of discovery or occupation
gives a title.

In the report of the Commissioner of Crown Lands in 1857, it is maintained, citing
the Oregon dispute as an authority, that a disciivery " not made known to the world
either by the discoverer himself or by his Government, has no value." This would
destroy one of the Commissioner's own pretensions.

M. de Denonville, in a memoir on the French limits in North America, in 1688,
makes the right depend on discovery, and " planting the arms of the King or Prince."
But the French officials urged claims, owing to voyages where no such formality was or
could be complied with.

Note N. — In 16tl, the French authorities in Canada could not venture to fix a date
for the first taking possession of Hudson's Bay. In Talon's Memoir to the King, 2nd
November, 1671, he says: "those countries were andennement discovered by the
French;" (Doc. Hist. vol. 9). It seems to bo only in February, 1685, that the Fi'ench
detailed their pretensions. The 15th May, 1678, the French Minister, writing to M. du
Chesneau, takes exception to what du Chesneau had written about giving passes to private
persons, and remarks : " It is of advantage to the King's service to go towards that
Bay, in order to be able to contest the title thereto of the English, who pretend," etc.
On the 15th August, 1683, the King, writing to M. de la Barre, recommends him " to
prevent as much as possible the English establishing themselvns in Hudson's Bay,
possession whereof has been iaken in my name several ycirs ngn." (Doc. Hist, 9.) In
the Relations des Jesuites, the narrative of the voyage of P. I)d.blon is called " Journal
du premier voyage fait vers la mer du Nord." This was in 1661. In the relation of
1667, they say they know nothing of the country, but the reports of the Indians. (1667,
23.) On the 18th March, 1688, M. de Denonville is instructed to make the strictest
search possible for titles. In a letter of August, 1670, la Mere de 1' Incarnation, who
knew des Grozoliers well, because he was from Touraine, from which Province she
came, mentions the expedition of des Grozeliors in the English ship, and speaks of him
on that account, as being the disco veijer of the Bay.

Note O. — Commissaries were named under the Treaty of Neutrality, on the
part of England. They were the Earl of Sunderland, Lord President of 'l"^
Council and Principal Secretary of State; the Earl of Middleton, Prl-fipui
Secretary of State ; and Lord Godolphin, one of the Lords C/ommissioners of the
Treasury. On the part of Franco, the Pr. Barilloii, Ambassador, and the Pr.
Bonrepaux, Envoy Extr.ioniinary. They had their rtrst conference 18th May,
1687. (DoQ. Hist. 3, p. 506.) In 1687, complaints were made of the injuries done
by the French. (Collection of Treaties, 1648 to 1710.) It would seem the Commis-
saries arrived at no conclusion, and i» 1687 the English Commissaries report that the
Company have full right to the Bay and Straits of llmlson, and to the trade thereof.
(1 vol, Trade and Plantations, MS. p. 89; Pownall Papers in Lib. of Pari.)

noir and by
ler the cir-
'Jcket, who,
e m itions
2, p. 244.)

Note P. — They lost all their fort« save NelHon in 1686 ; and Gomoau Bays they lost
their last Fort in 169'7. (Garneaa, vol. 1, p. 137) But this is an error. (See note G.)
On the 20th, 1701, the Governor and Company of Hudson's Bay petitioned the Lords
CommissionerH of Trade and Plantations on the subject of their losses in the Bay. In
this petition they say they have lost all their settlentents but one out of seven, namely,
" Albany, vulgarly called Chechouan."

occupation

led.

citing

the world
his would

in 1688,

Prince."

ty was or

^ote Q. — The Treaty of Ryswick was not altogether so disastrous to the Hudson's
Bay Company as it is represented. In order fully to understand its operations, its
terms must be brought into relation with the position of the contending parties
there.

Article VII. stipulated that within six months, or sooner if it could be done, the
King of France should restore to the King of England all countries, islands, forts and
colonies wheresoever situated, which the English possessed before the declaration
of the war (1689), and that, on the other hand, the King of England should do likewise
for the French possessions.

X a dato

>ng, 2nd

by the

3 French

to M. du

private
irds that
nd," etc.
bim "to
n's Bay,

9.) fn'
Journal
ation of
. (1667,
strictest
>n, who
nee she

1 of him

By Article VIII. it was stipulated that CoinjaiilHsioners should be appointed to
examine and determine the rights and pretensions which either of the said Kings had
to the places situated in Hudson's Bay. But the places taken by the French during
the peace preceding the present war, and retaken by the English during the war,
should be left to the French. The capitulation of the 5th September, 1696, was to
be carried out, the Governor then taken released, and the merchandize to be valued by
commissioners, who were also to decide what lands belonged to the French and what to
the English.

From these two articles we deduce, first, the general principle that there should be
a mutual restoration of conquests made during the war ; second, that the affairs of
Hudson's Bay gave rise to a question, to be settled by a joint commission, which might
make it an exception to the general principle in so far as regards English conquests
during the war ; third, that until the Commissioners should decide as to the merits of
this question, English conquests during the war should follow the general principle ;
fourth, that the capitulation of the 5th September, 1696 (during the war) should be
carried out.

>n the
:>{ ll'/>
'"■fi?>ui
of the
le Pr.
May,
done
m mis-
It the
eroof.

Commissaries were appointed, but it does not appear that they settled anything.
Their dilatoriness caused some comment. (Letter of Frontenac to Bellomont, 2l8t
September, 1698; Lords of Trade to Bellomont, 5th January, 1698-9, the King to
Frontenac 25th March, 1699 ; Letter from de Callieres to Governor Nanfan 6th August,
1699.) While the Commissaries negotiated, events in Europe were preparing the way
for a new war. By his will, Charles II., who died Ist November, 1870, nequeathed the
Crown of Spain to the grandson of Louis XIV. On the 24th November the King of
France accepted the succession for his nephew. This led, early in 1701, to the
negotiations for the Grande Alliance, which was signed 7th September, 1701. On the
16th September James II. died, and Louis XIV. recognized his son as King of Great
Britain, in violation of the Treaty of Eyswick. This caused the Emperor to add
another article, to the effect, that he would not treat of peace with France until she had
offered England reparation for this affront. Finance having refused to do this, war was
declared by the States General 8th May, \y\ Great Britain 14th May, and by the
Emperor 15th May, 1702. Garden Hist, des Traites de paix, Tom. 2, ch. x.

NoU R. — Both the treaties fiigiiod at Utrecht — the Treaty of Commorco and the
Treaty of Peace — required the appointment of coinmiNsarios to regulate certain
questions that could not be determined summarily. The treaties were signed on th.'^
13th April, 1713, and no great time was lost in appointing commissaries. Those repios-
onting the King of France were M. M. Anison and Penelon, Dcputez au Consoil de
Commerce, whom Lord BolingbroUe hiui, on a previous occasion, contemptuously styled
"Mercantile Politicians," and M. d'Iberville, a diplomatist of some note, who must not
bo confounded with the Canadian sailor of that name, who died in 1706 at Havana.
(Pownall Papers, v. 7). Messrs. Anison and Fenelon arrived in London on the 17th
February, 1713-4, (Lord Bolingbroko's letter of the 19th, Pownall papers v., p. 19).
M. d'Iberville who had preceded them, arrived before the 17th December, 1713, on
which day ho had an interview with Lord Bolingbroko, to whom he brought a special
letter of mtroduction from M. de Torcy dated the 14th December, (letter to the Queen
8th December, 1713; Ibid, 17th December, Bolingbroko's Correspondence, vol. IV, p.
387.) The English commissaries were Charles Whitworth, James Murray, Esq., Sir
Joseph Martin, Kt., and Frederick Herne, Esq., (letter to Mr. Whitworth, Dec. 231^1, 1713,
correspondence IV, 408). There was no mention of M. d'Iberville in the commission of
the King of France, dated Versailles, 10th February, 1714; but he desired to take part
in the discussions under his private instructions. It appears that this difficulty wjw
overcome by the i.ssue of a new commission including M. d'Iberville, of the same date
as the other. Another difficulty soon presented itself. The inhabitants of Montsorrat
had sent a petition to the Queen, .»pd the Hudson's Bay Company sent a memoir, setting
forth their claims. The petition'^id memoir were forwarded bj' Lord Bolingbroke to
the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations who at the same time intimated that
the commissaries "nowhere" have not "any powers to treat upon the said matters,"
(Pownall papers V, p. 35). It would seem that the difficulty as to powers had been
already raised, and been admitted by the French commissaries who wrote to the King
for "more ample powers," (London, ll-12th March, 1714; Ibid, p. 22). In May the
Commissioners of Trade and Plantation wrote to Mr. Martin, Seci-etary to the English
commissaries, to know whether the French commissaries were empowered to treat upon
the subject matter of the memorial and petition pursuant to the 10th, 11th and I5th
Articles of the Treaty of peace with France (Minutes of the 11th May, 1714. lb). Mr.
Martin answered on the 12th, saying, that the French commissaries were not empower-
ed to treat about Hudson's Bay and the Island of Montserrat ; but that the Envoy of
France, M. d'Iberville hatl told Mr. Whitworth that a general mention thereof was made
in his instructions, and he should receive more particular orders from his Court, when-
ever demanded. (Minutes of the 13th, Ibid). The Commissioners of Trade and
Plantations immediately resolved that the commissaries of France should bo notified
that Commissaries should be named to treat of these matters pursuant to the 10th, 11th
and 13th Articles of the Treaty of Peace.

It is somewhat odd that there should have been any question on this point, for
neither in the Queen's instructions to the English Commissaries, nor in the Commission
of the French Commissaries was there any reference to the Treaty of Peace. It does
not appear that morp ample powers were ever accorded to those ('ommissaries, and on
the 9th June, 1714, the English Commissaries report the deliberations " at a stand."
Thus the tirst effort to establish the limits of Hudson's Bay lailed.

The death of tlie Queen, and the change of policy which followed on the succession
of the IIou.sc of Hanover, put an end to any immediate pro.spoct of settling these delicate
questions as to boundaries. The Treaty of Utrecht was no longer popular, and nothing
seems to have been done in the matter for some years. The next metition of the
fiubject, I have found, is contained in a despatch to MM. de VauiLreuil and Begon, dated

23rd May, 1719. (Doo. HUt, 9.) In this despatch, tho King aayn he has insti 'ed
his AmbaHHador in England to propose the nomination of CommisHarios on both es
agreeably to tho Treaty of Utrecht, for the suttleraentof the boundaries of New France.
With the materials witiiin my reach, I have not been able to trace the stops taken to
lix these boundaries ; but having had communication of the notes of (/hief Justice
Drai)er, who went to England, in 1857, to represent the late Province of Canada before
a Committee of the House of Commonis, I take the liberty of copying from him. The
Chief Justice says: "On 3rd September, 1719, instructions were given tr) Daniel
Pulteney and to Martin Bladen, Esqrs., &s Commissioners for Great Britain, under
several Articles of the Treaty of Utrecht, which, after a special reference to the 10th
Article of the Treaty, proceeds thus : ' You are to endeavour to get the said limit ,
settled in the following manner, that is to say,' giving a particular description and then
adding : ' But you are to take especial care in wording such articles as shall be agreed
on with the Commissary or Commissaries of His Most Christian Majesty on this nead,
that the said boundaries be understood to regard the tratle of tho Iludson's Bay only j
that His Majesty does not thereby recede from his right to any lands in America, not
comprised within the said boundaries.' " In a letter, dated Pari", 7th Nov., (N.S.)
1719, Colonel Bladen writer to tho Lords of Trade : "And this day we shall deliver in
the Company's demand upon that subject (the boundary of Hudson's Bay) in the terms
of our instructions, although I already foresee some difficulty in the execution of this
affair, there being at least the dirt'orence of two degrees between the best French maps
and that which the Company delivered us."

"Again, in November, 1719, Lord Stair and Colonel Blaiien delivered to the
Maro.schal d'Estreos, one of the F'rench Commissaries, the demand of the H. B. Company.
The other French Commissary, the Abbe Dubois (afterwards Cardinal), was prevented
by indisposition from attending.

"On 3rd January, 1720, Lord Stair wrote to Secretary Craggs; ^Jay parli aussi
tuuchant la commission pour les limites son A. B. ma assure qu'on tietidroit incessainment
des nouvelles conferances.' "

" Similar assurances woi'o transmitted to Lord Stair from tho French Regent in
several letters." ,, ,, ,. ,

On tho 29th February, 1720, Lord Stair wrote: 'Be la maniere que Mons. le
Mareschal d-Estrees, in a parli aujourdhuy nous seront encore du temps sans voir renuer
les conferences sur les limites en Amerique.' "

(The French spelling is Lord Stairs.
Justice Draper.)

I copied from originals. Note by Chief

" 14th April, 1870, Mr. Secretary Craggs writes to Mr. Pulteney, then at Paris ;
' As my Lord Stair is on tho point of leaving Paris, H. My. would have you use this
occasion, either yourself directly or by His E.Kcellency, as you shall judge proper, to
demand some peremptory answer upon the subject of your commission, and whether
the French Court will renew the conferences with you; which, if you dnd they will
not, H. My. thinks it needless, in that case, f»r you to make any longer stay at Paris,
and would have you say you are to come away, but not come away until such time as
you shall have further orders from hence.' "

" Mr. Pulteney's letters, which I have examined, showed that ho and Lord Stair
made many fruitless attempts to get tho French Commissaries to meet them, but though
repeated promises were made, there was no raeetiag after Colonel Bladen haid submitted
the British proposals and the map."

"Colonel Bladon was again in Paris in 1722, but his letters made no allusions
whatovor to the limitH in America. They refer to Home matten* connected with Ste.
Lucie, as to which it does not appear whether any arrangement was ma<le."

" By a letter from Sir Robert Sutton to Secretary Craggs, dated Paris, 8th Septem-
ber, 1720, it appears nothing had been done in regam to 'settling the limits in America,
beginning witn Hudson's Bay.' "

" I could not trace any Airther correspondence on this subject in the State Paper
OflBce until after the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle (October, 1748). But in July, 1760,
the H. B. Company were again called upon to lay before the Lords of Trade an account
of the boundaries granted to them, and they repeat what their former memorials stated
on the negotiations for carrying out the Treaty of Utrecht. They refer to their pro-
posals as what they still desired, and they stated that the Commissioners under that
treaty were never able to bring the settlements of those limits to a final conclusion."

"But there is a letter from the Duke of Bedford to the Earl of Albemarle, dt.iad
12th February, 1749-'50, stating that the Commissaries for settling the limits will '»e
ready to act out for Paris as soon as Governor Shirley has finished some affair., now
depending with the Board of Trade, and on the 16th April, 1750, the Duke of Bedford
writes to the Earl of Albemarle to the effect that Mr. Shirley and Mr. Mildmay, or one
of them, will be in Paris 'as soon as this letter," to act as Commissioners there to settle
the difference between England and France as to the encroachments of the latter in
North America."

The French Commissaries were M. Silhouette and M. de la Gaiistionnifere. They
sailed from Quebec in the " Leopard," on the 24th September, 1749, h. .otiirn to France
where they were to meet the English Commissaries, General Shirley and Mr. Mildmay
(Ferland, 2nde Pie, p. 495). These Commissaries had no greater success than those who
preceded them. In the private instructions from the King to M. de Vaudreuil, of the
Ist April, 1755 (Doc. Hist. 10), it is stated that Commissaries had been appointed on
both sides, that they did meet at Paris to regulate all the disputes concerning the
French and British possessions. The King regrets that the success of the labours of
these Commissaries to the present time did not correspond to the hopes he had enter-
tained, and that as yet the Commissaries had not entered on the limits of Canada
further than what regai-ds Acadia, It seems they never did enter seriously on the
question of the limits of Canada. Several bulky volumes made known to the world
what they did. The first of the papers exchanged is dated September, 1750, and the
last the 7th June, 1755 ; by a strange coincidence, the very day Boscawen captured
the " Lys " and the " Alcide." The only tangible proposition I have found in all these
volumes is that the St. Lawrence is to be the centre of Canada. The English Commis-
saries say they do not know what is meant by that; neither do L

The capture of the "Lys" and the " Alcide " was really the recommencement of
hostilities between France and England, but the formal declaration of war was not
until the 18th of May, 175(5. There was, however, an end of negotiation until after
the taking of (Quebec, when negotiations were recommenced. They lasted from the
26th March to the 2()th September, 1761. (iSV ihf " Mf moire, hiMnrique fur fes ne-
(f>ci'finiis 'hf I F'rinfe e' ffe I' Aigfpferre," prepare! l)y the King's order by the Due de
Choiseul, Paris, 1761.) Those were. I believe, the last negotiations until'the Treaty of
Paris (1763.)

In the meantime, it would appear, that so far as the Hudson's Bay territory was
concerned the limitu were practically settled.

In a
diviiion b
and clain
carried ou
that on
Utrecht."
Dominion
grapher
boundarie
of Utrech
Prance),
Douglas i
Canada or
viz., from
to run s.
Rupert's
the Port (
49 deg., a

It is
Mr. Bone
latter gi\
natural
those whi

The

map acco
which an
year. A
" Bounda;
maps pul
space to
Canada a
than to ni
French n
map by t
1771. N
Vaugond;
of Paris.

Note
allusions
in writin
or utterl
followin
out the

Not
Report
matter i
would t
characte

In a map by John Senex, F.R8., 1711 (A 3) we And a dotted line indicating a
division between Canada and the Kiidiion'H Bay Territories, Himilar to the unedeMcribed
and claimed by the Hudson'^ Bay O/O. In a map in Carver'^ travels (1*778) this is
carried out to tlio Atlantic. In Mitcholl'H map (1755), (A 4), there in a line Himilar to
that on Senex'd map, with the wonU, " Bounds of HudHon's Bay by the Treaty of
Utrecht." Iknnott'H map of 1770 coincides with Mitchell's. (Bouchette's British
Dominions, 1, p. 30.) In a map publiwhwl from 1754 to 1761, by John lioque, Topo-
ffrapher to His Britannic Majesty, we have much the same lino, called ''Southern
boundaries of Hudson's Bay Territories as settled by the Oommisharios after the Treaty
of Utrecht." In Vaiij^ondy's map (ho was son of the geographer to the King of
Franco), in 1750, wo tind a similar line, but without any words explaining it. (A 6.)
Douglas in his summary, published in 1747, saj's : " By the Treaty of Utrecht the
Canada or French lino with Hudson's Bay Company or Great Britain was ascertained,
viz., from a certain promontory upon tho Atlantic Ocean in lat. n. 56 deg. 30 min.,
to run 8. w. to Lake Mistussin (which communicates by Indian water carriage by P.
Rupert's river with Hudson's Bay, and by Saguenay river with St. Lawrence river at
tho Port of Tadousao, thirty leagues below), and from thenco continued h. w. to lat. n.
49 dog., and from thence due west indefinitely. "

It is not maintained that the linos shown on these different maps are identical.
Mr. Bouchetto has remarked on the differoiice between Mitchell's and Bowon's, the
latter giving the 49th parallel. But it is evident they were all aiming at the same
natural division — tho height of land dividing the waters flowing to the north from
those which flow to the south.

Tho bubject of maps would not be fully dispo8e<l of without some allusion to the
map accompanying the Report oi' iho Commissioner of Crown Lands in 1857, and
which appears at tho end of the Hudson's Bay Report of the House of Commons of that
year. A dotted line enclosing Hudson's Bay is given with tho following description :
•' Boundary of Hudson's Bay after the Treaty of Utrecht, 1703 (sic), according to
maps published at Paris in 1720, 1739, and 1771." Another line, giving a little more
space to the Hudson's Bay territory, is thus described : " Northern boundary of
Canada at tho conquest, according to British Geographers." Nothing is more easy
than to manufacture history thus. Who are the British Geographers? I presume the
French maps alluded to are— 1730, Dolisle's map of tho Western homispnore; 1739,
map by tho same, published not at Paris, but at Amsterdam ; and Vaugondy's map of
1771. Neitln.;' of the two first give any boundaries to Hudson's Bay Territory.
Vaugondy's map of 1771 is, of course, no authority, for it comes after tho Treaty
of Paris.

Note S. — In the correspondence between Canaiia and Franco I have found two
allusions to Hudson's Bay after 1713. On the 8th October, 1744, M. do Beauharnois,
in writing to Count Mauropas, says that tho King had recommended him to neutralize
or utterly destroy tho English Forts at Hudsons Bay. (Doc. Hist. 9). And the
following year (18th June, 1745) M. do Beauharnois explains why he could not carry
out tho King's orders in this respect. — Ibid.

Note T. — This did not escape the perspicacity of the author of the Crown Lands
Report of 1857. He says : "The most direct interest that Canada could have in the
matter at the present moment, being responsible for tho atlministration of justice,
would be rather of a moral and political than of an interested or commercial
character."

NoU U. — La Nonvolle PrRnoo, iw understood by the French, hiw never tn'on nnder
one govornmont. The Province of Qiielwc wa* first lir ilted in the ea«t by the Iliver
St. JoRn, in the west by the line from L»ko Nlpissing, which struck the St. Ijiiwronce
about 15 leagues from Montreul. It wan then extended, but the extenhion did not
include the territory cwleiJ by Vuudreuil, and claimed by England us Canada; a part
was then ceded to the United HtateH by Treaty (1783). What remained w»h divided
into two Provinces (17U1), «»gain reunited into one (1840), and lastly, Uie remnant ih
joined at once or prospectively to the whole of B, N. A. (1867.)

Note v.— In Dunn's map, 1776, this boundary is given as the " Old Boundary by
which the French poHHCHsed Canada." It is curious tnat in Vaugondy's map of 1750
(A 6) a similar line is marked out without anything to show what it was intended to
limit, and the paucity of materials prevents our finding out the history of this line.
Vaugondy's father was histcriographer to the King of Jrance.

Note W. — By the Act of 1774 all the territories and countries heretofore part of
the territory of Canada which are not within the limits of some other British Colony,
or which have, since the 10th of February, 1763, been made part of the Government of
Newfoundland, during His Majesty's pleasure, are annexed to and made part of the
Government of Canada. In conformity with this disposition, so much of the Commis-
sion of the Governor of Newfoundland was revoked "as related to the Coast of
Labrador, including the Island of Anticosti, with any other of the said small islands on
the said Coast of Labrador."

Note X. — In 1721 Charlevoix writes : " Jusau a prisent la Colonie Francaise
n'allait pas plus loin d I'ouest, than the Lake of the Two Mountains and Isle Perrot.

Note Y. — It is curious how deeply rooted was the desire to have the Mississippi
recognized as the western boundary of Canada. The people of Canada claimed this in
1773, and the King immediately after the Act of 1774 describes the limits of Canada in
his Commissions as following the banks of the Mississippi. Mr. Bouchette, however,
did not fall into this error, and in his later and more important work he quotes and
comments a document which negatives this pretension in the most formal manner. Up
to the time of ceding Canada to England it was the interest of France to make its limits
as extensive as possible, while the interest of England was directly the reverse ; but
when the negotiations which led to the Treaty of Paris were being carried on, the
interest changed. Franco sought to circumscribe the limits of the provinces she had
promised to cede, while England sought to extend them. England, by its answer of Ist
September, 1761, to the French ultirnatum, claimed "d'un coti les lacs Huron, Michigan
and Superieur et la dite ligne (la ligne de ces limit es) tirie depuis le lac Rouge, embrasse
par un coxirs tortueux la riviere Ouahache jxisqn a sa jonction avec I'Ohio et de Id se pro-
longe le long de cette dernicre riviere inclusi cement jusqu' a son confluence dans le Mississipi,''
being the limits as traced by the Marquis de Vaudreuil in capitulating. The King of
France, as he had promised to cede the possession of Canada '^dans la forme la plus
itendue," says in reply to the English answer to the French ultimatum, "comme cette
ligne demandie par I'Angleterre est sans doute la plus itendueque Von puisse donner a la
cession le Hoi veut bien Vaccorder." (13th Sep., 1761, Memoire du Due Choiseul 1761.)

not

Lo Due do Choinoul, in hin inomoir, p. 139, Hnyn: "II itait pre$rrit a Af. de Buasy de
convenir dea limitea thi Canada et de la Louisianne d'avrea la carte angloiae quoique tret
de favorable aux droita et aux poaaeasiona de la t^rance. ' V»udrouil doniod liavinK mnda
the tracing in quontion, and tho map has not been found. Was it that inontionou in the
French reply wa having h«en prottented by Mr. Stanley? On the annexodMap A 2, tho
green line marka the proba' le cuura tortueux to the Wabash.

Note Z. — Id tho original drutl of the bill the wordH were "southward to the banks
of the rivor Ohio, westward to the banks of tho Mississippi, and northward to the south-
ern boundary." It is therefore probable that tho umundment passed nnporcoivod by
those who drew the now Commissions ; or the Comnussions may have been engrossed
fVom drafts made prior to the passing of the Act, In Lord Elgin's Commission, 1846,
there is also a curious mistake. The Western boundary of I^wor Canada is made to
extend to the shore of Hudson's Bay. I call it a mistake, for no account can bo given
of it at tho Colonial OfHce ; and by comparing it with the Proclamation of 1791, it will
be observed that the alteration consists in using the word "shore" for the words "bound-
ary line." It wa« not unnatural to say that the shore was the boundary line of Hudson's
Bay.

Note AA. — I did not foil to notice the words " During His Majesty's pleasure" in
the Act of 1774. I take it these words, ifmoro than deibrontinl, cannot t)o extcTiilod,
and therefore they would not give the King the power to add to tlje Province of (im>bec.
But at all events he never attempted it, for extending the authority of tho Governer o
the Mississippi, cannot be converted into an extension of the province to that line.
Otherwise Lord Elgin's commission would have extended Canada to the shore of
Hudson's Bay.

Note BB. — It has been attempted to throw some ridicule on the decision in the de
Beinhard case, and it may therefore be worth mentioning that Chief Justice Sowell wa«
probably the man at the time in Canada best fitted to preside in such a case, and that the
Bar of Lower Canada could not then, or indeed at any other time, have been more
brilliantly represented. The prisoner's Counsel, who desired to have the western bound-
ary of Canada extended beyond the due north line fVom the confluence of tho Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers, were Andrew Stuart, the equal, if not superior, of his brother, the
well-known Sir James Stuart, Vallieres de St. R^al, afterwards Chief Justice of tho
Queen's Bench, Montreal, and Vanfelson, one of the first-named Judges of the Superior
Court, after its organization in 1849.

ADDITION TO NOTE Y.

Since my Report was sent in, I have received a letter from the Abb6 Verroau, now
in London prosecuting historical investigations on behalf of the Government, enclosing
a correspondence between General Haldimand and Sir Jeffrey Amherst, with respect to
the limits of Canada alleged to have been traced by Mr de Vaudreuil on a map which
he gave to Gen. Haldimand, and which has not yet been found. The letters ibrming
this correspondence were copied by the Abbi Yerreau from the Haldimand papers in
the British Museum.

t J

The Aobi Verroau gives the following account of tho work he has obligingly
volunteered to perform : " J'ai tenu ii copier cette lottre moi-mdme. Je n'ai trouv^ que
le projot de Ilaldimand, corrige et ratur^ avoc un soin qui montre I'importnnce attach^e
par lui h. ce qu'il ^crivait. C'est ce qui m'a < igag^ il copier los ratures ; je les ai inisea
entre parenthese. II y a bien deux parentheses de Ilaldimand, mais j'ai indiqu^
qu'elles sont de lui."

LETTER FROM SIR JEFFUEV AMHERST TO GENERAL HALDIMAND.

New York, let November, 1762.

Dear Sir : I have been twenty times at the point of writing to you on a subject
which, though of no consequence, I should be glad to know the exact transactions that
passed. Wlien I made a report of Canada to the Secretary of Stale, I transmitted a
copy of the part of the Map where the limits between Canada and Louisianna were
marked, which you delivered to me, and which I acquainted the Secrotaiy of State
were done by Monsieur de "Vujdreuil. Whether by him, or done in his presence by his
direction, comes to the same thing, and the thing itself is of ijo sort of consequence, as
the Letter and orders he (Monsieur de Vaudreuil) sent to the officers commanding at
Michillimakinach, the bay, Oocciatanou, Miamis, &c., mark out the Boundaries and
expressly include those Posts in Canada, so that there can be no dispute about it ; yet
as I see some altercation has passed in England and France about Monsieur de Vau-
dreuil's giving the Boundaries, I should be glad to know of you whether he marked
the map himself, or whether it was done in his presence, and what passed on that
subject, that I may hereafter be able to say all tliat was done regarding the whole
affair.

I am, with great truth, dear Sir,

Your most obedient humble servant,

JEFF. AMHEEST.

Copie veritable. La parentheso est dans I'original.
possible ce nom sauvagc Oocciatonou. H. V.

J'ai copie aussi bien que

LETTER FROM GENERAL HALDIMAND TO SIR JEFFREY AMHERST.

Trois lliviERES, le 10 Xbre., 1762, j
Fait partir le 16 do. )

Monsieur : J'ay regu avec plaisir la lettre que V. Excellence me fait I'honneur do
m'^crire du ler Xbre h I'egard de ce qui s'est passe entre Mons. de Vaudreuil et moi au
sujet des Limittes du Canada. Je m'etais propose plusieurs fois de la pr^venir ; mais
j'ay cru devoir attendre ces ordres auxquels je vais obeir avec toute I'exactitudo
possible.

Environs 5 ou 6 jours appres que je fus entrd dans Mt. Eeal, je demanday h. M.
de Vaudreuil, s'il n'auroit point quolques Plans, Memoires ou Cai'tes instructives,
concernant le Canada; que je le priois de vouloir mo les remettre, atin que je pusse
les faire tenir a V. Ex. ; il me repondit qu'il n'en avait point les a3'ant toutes perdues
a Quebec (et pour evitter d'entendre I'enumeration qu'il vouloit me faire de ces aufros
pcrtos) ;* jc me contentay pour lors de cett« r^ponse ; mais ayant on occasion do
lui en reparler quelques jour apr^s, il me dit qu'il avait rotrouv^ une Couple
<le Cartes, et passant dans une autre Chambre, il tit apporter une grande Carte
de I'Americjue Septlle. faitto h la main et ploy^o dans le convert dun atlas,
il y avait aussi quelques manvais plans de forts, dans un rouUeau detache; ne

•Cette I'arciitlKsc est do Haldin'-aivl.— H. V.

■quo

Jisos

M a

trouvant rien d'instructif dans cette Carte, et me rappellant que je I'avois vue imprim^e,
j'appellay le Lt. Herring de Notre Batt, qui fetait dauw la Salle et je la lui remis avec les
autres papiers qu'il porta chez moi ; Enfin le matin du jour que Mons. do Vaudreuil
partit,* (^tant occupe h arranger le reste des papiers que j'avais regus de diffi^rentes
personnos) cett© Carte me tombant sous la main mo rappella les tentatives
inutiles que j'avais faittos aupres de lui et diffiSrentes personnes pour connaitre
IT'tendue de ce Pays, et me tit naitre I'id^e de I'examiner avec M. de Vaudreuil.
Je me rendis sur le champ chez Iiii en y faisant porter la carte par I'enseigne
Monin, avant trouve M. de Vaudreuil dans son cabinet qui donne sur la rue
avec quelquea personnes de sa maison (apres lui avoir fait raon compliment), f
je le priay sans autre preambule de vouloir bien me montrer queliefs ^taient les
Limittes (qui s^paraient le) du Canada (de la Louisianne) et le conduisant vers
la table qui etait au fond du Cabinet, j'ouvris la Carte et apr^s I'avoir un peu
examinee, je r^it^ray ma demande ; il me parut fort surpris; et come il ne me r^pondait
point, je pasay le doigt sur la riviere des Illinois en lui disant, Voicy les Illinois, alors il
me repondit que les Illinois avaienc ete en contestation entre les deux Gouverneurs,
mais qu'il avoit ^te desQJd^ qu'ils depondroient de celui de la Louisianne, sur quoy sortant
un crayon de ma poche et m'accoudant sur la Carte, M. de Vaudreuil se tenant debout
auprfes de moy (je marquay un point a la source des Illinois en lui montrant le nord, je
lui demanday si la ligne paasait Ih, et m'ayant repondu que oui), je lui demanday en lui
montrant le nord du Micess^py si la ligne passait par Ih, et m'ayant repondu quo oui, je
marquay de points depuis la source des Illinois en remontant le Micessepy, et lui ayant
demande encore uno foi si je marquois bien, il me repondit ces propres p&roles, (lui
Monsr. le Marquis de Vaudreuil ayant les yeux fixes sur la Carte)J — prenis tout
le nord, prenis tout le nord, allors je pointay jusques au Lac Rouge qui me parut
la borne la plus naturelle, sans qu'il y eut la moindre objection de sa part, ensuitte
revenant de Vautre cotte des Illinois ; et ne me tigurant pas que Loio put seulement
etre mise en conteste, je lui dis, icy nous prenons sans doutte par I'ambouchure
du Wabache, et posant mon crayon au confluant de Loio avec le Mic^ss^py, je tracay une
ligne en remontant cette premiere riviere et I'Wabacho qui alloit joinure la pointe que
j'avois (marque) commence ^ la source des Illinois, M. de Vaudreuil toujours h. cott^
de moy, et regardant sur la carte, sans qu'il lit aucune objection (de quelle nature que
ce puisse etre). Cette ligne par ses differentes contoui-s ne pouvant se faire k la
d^rob^e (come un simple trait de crayon) lui en donnait cependant bien le temps ; mais
Boit que'occupe do son depart il eut prononc^ les oui inditter^ment (ou supjiosant que ce
que je faisois ne pouvait etre d'aucune consequence, il n'y eut pas) et sans y prette toute
I'attention qu'il aurait due (et ayant dit les oui trop h la legert?, le recit) ou qu'en
donnant une approbation tassitte il chercha Ji m'induire en erreur, le r^cit que je viens
de vouB faire, Mons. n'en est pas moins (exact) la plus exacte v^rit^. M. de Vaudreuil
et tout ce qui restait de Fi-anQois h, Mont Real devant parti ce (matin) jour IJl, les
Compagnies de milices ^tant assemblees pour delivrer leurs armes, et pretter le serment
de fidellit^, je n'avois pas de temps h (perdre) donner k I'examen de cette Carte et d^s
que je crus comprendre ce qu'on entendoit sous le nom de Canada et que la ligne fut
bien marquee, je refermay la Carte et la renvoyay chez moy par I'enseigne Monin, enfin
Mons. vous pouvez etre persuade que la Carte que vous avez entre les mains, est la
mfime qui me fut remise par Mons. de Vaudreuil 8 ou 10 jours apres la prise de Mont
E^al, et que Lt. Herring qui je crois est 2i N. Yorck (regut de ma main dan son Cabinet
pour la porter) porta chez moi ; que c'est cette meme carte qui fut report^e par
t'Enseigne Monin chez M. de Vaudreuil le matin de son depart ; que lorsque je I'ouvris
dans son Cabinet il n'y avoit ny lignes, ny points, ou rien qui put designer des Limittes ;
que la ligne qui les marque aujourd'hui a et4 tracee par moy merae enti^rement sous

'Ce qui Buit a m raturt par Haldimand. H. V.

tEfftttt'. H. V.

il'ai'i'nthi>!ie ile Haldiinanii. H. V.

»«S8 yeuK de M. de Vaudreuil, h, qui eeul je me suis addresse, et que par tout ce qu'il
m'a dit je n'ay jamais pu doutter un instant, qu'il ne me donnat cette ligne pour lo8
vrayos Limittos du Canada, et quo da m nent que je fermay cette Carte dans son
Cabinet, jusques h. celui ou je la remis entre vos mains, il n'y a en aueune alteration
faitte h cette ligne de quelle nature que ce puisse etre. Cecy, Mons, est sur ma parole
la pure v^ritt^ de cette transaction.

Je dois vous avouer aussi Mons. que me persuadant que vous demandiez plus tdt
des intelligences (sur I'etendue d'un Pays, qui je crois n'a jamais eu de Limittes fix^es)*
qii'un actc authenthique faite en ve 'tu de la Capitulation ; je ne crus pas qu'il convint
de faire signer la Carte par M. de Vaudreuil, ce qui m'eut'^t^ facille, de meme que de
mo faire donner los Limittes du Canada par ^crit, ce qu'il n'aurait pu mo refuser en
vertu de la Capitulation et aurait rendu cet acte incontestable, au lieu que n'ayant
point de signature h montror, il poura toujoura faire croire it son party qu'on a cherch6
^ lo surprendre.

Si j'ai mal compris V. Ex., j'en suis tr^s fftch^ et lui en fait mes excuses, et
lorsqu'en vous remettant la Carte je vous dis que les Limittes etaient tiroes par M. de
Vaudreuil ; j'entendois qu'elles avoient ^t^ tirees sous ses propres yeux, et avoient eu
son approbation ; ce qui est vray h la lettre.

Je suis au reste bien charme que (ce different) cette vilaine chicane de M. de Vau-
dreuil, ne porte aucun prejudice aux attaires, elle memo servira d'une bonne logon dont
je me souviendray si j'ay le bonheur de pouvoir la mettre un jour en pratique.

J'ay I'honneur d'etre avec un profond respect, ^ .

Monsieur, De Votre Excellence,

Le tres humble et tr^s obeissant serviteur, ^^ • • >.

Du lOe Xbre.

FEED. HALDIMAND.

Vraio copie faite et relue par moi. J'ai marqu^ les parentheses faites par Haldi-
mand. Toutes les autres parentheses indiquent des mots effaces dans I'original. H. V.

Letter from Sir Jeffry Amherst to General Haldimand.

Dear Sir:

New York, 25th January, 1763.

* * * * (II parle de la cessation des hostilities et des forges de Ste. Maurice.)

I am much obliged to you for the particular and exact detail you have sent

to me of what passed between yourself and Monsieur de Vaudreuil. It is almost

precisely as I imagined. It is of no consequence whatever ; but if it was, there

could be none but good proceeding from what you did in that affair, which has my

thorough approbation to every part of it. . •

(Le resto de cette lettre so rapporte Jl d'autres afllaires.)

I am, with great truth, dear Sir,

Your most obedient humble servant,

JEFF. AMHERST.

From tho correspondence it appears clear that the map was transmitted by Haldi-
raan J to Amherst, and that part of it — the part on which the limits were traced — wa«

'OotUi puroiithigti est il« Haldimand et n'mt \mi une rature. H. V.

by the latt

festion thati
[. de Vaudif
description
be found in
A 1, in gree

List of

Pfere Mi
1694, avec

Beceuill
en 1714 par|
dam 1732.
volume du
veritable no

Lettre
Ursulines d<

Belatioi

Journal

Histoin
vols., 8vo.

HistoriJ

Denis, c

L'Bscar

Piire Cb
1744.

Shea.
York, 1866-

Journal
les volumes

Bellin,
28o ot le 72<
Paris, 1756.

Purcha

Oldmi:

Dobbs,

r Haklu;

Ogilby
London, 16

Carvei

1767 and 1

Harris

Murra
including t
Search of
London, li

Bolinj

Chain

by the latter transmitted to the Secretary of State. This tends to support the sug-

festion that the map insisted on by Mr. Stanley was the one Gen. Haldimand got from
[. de Yaudreuil. The points as marked by Haldimand seem to correspond with the
description in the English answer to the French altimatam, an extract of which will
be found in note F, and the probable line of which I have suggested on the annexed map
A 1, in green.

[

List of books and papers quoted and abbreviations used in referring to them : —

F6re Marest, Lettres Edifiantes vol. 6. Belation d'nn voyage a la Baie d'Hudson en
1694, avec M. d'Iberville.

Beceuil de voyages du Nord, 10 vols., Nelle. Bd. 12mo. Ce recenil a commence
en 1714 par le Libraire Jean Frederic Bernard et a ^t^ discontinue en 1731. Amster-
dam 1732. II contient un discours preliminaire trds int4ressant. Dans le troisi^me
volume du receuil se trouve la Belation de la Baie de Hudson par M. J^r4mie dont le
veritable nom est Noel Jeremie Lamontagne. On trouve son ouvrage imprim^ ailleurs.

Lettre de la v^n^rable M^re Marie de I'lncarnation, Premiere Superieure des
Ursulines de la Nouvelle France. 4to. Paris, 1681.

Eelations des Jeauites. 3 vols., 8vo. Quebec, 1868.

Journal des Jesuites. 1 vol., 4to. Quebec.

Histoire de rAm^rique Septentrionale. Par de Bacqueville de Ija Potherie. 4
vols., 8vo. Paris, 1722.

Historia Antipodum. Johann Ludwig Gottfriedt. Frankfort, 1655.

Denis, description des costes de TAm^rique Septentrionale. 2 vols. Paris, 1672.

L'Bscarbot, Marc. Histoire de la Nouvelle France. 12mo. Paris, 1609.

Pfere Charlevoix Histoire et description de la Nouvelle France. 2 vols., 4to. Paris,
1744.

Shea. John Gilmary, Translation of the above with notes. 6 vols., 8vo. New
York, 1866-72.

Journal d'un voyage fait par ordre du roi dans I'Am^rique Septentrionale, forme
les volumes 5 & 6 de I'histoire de la Nouvelle Prance.

Bellin, Bemarques sur la Carte de I'Amdrique Septentrionale, comprise entre I©
28o et le 72e degr^ de Latitude, avec une description geographique de cos parties. 4to.
Paris, 1755.

Purchas, Samuel, His Pilgrimage. Folio. London, 1617.

Oldmixon, J., The British Empire in America. 2 vols., 8vo. London, 1741.

Dobbs, Arthur. Of Countries adjoining to Hudson's Bay. 4to. London, 1744.

f Hakluyt Society's Publications. London.

Ogilby, .Tohn. America : Being the Description of the New World. 2 vols., folio.
London, 1671.

Carver, Jonathan. . Travels through the Interior Parts of North America, in 1766,
1767 and 1768. Illustrated with copper plates, coloured. 8vo. London, 1781.

Harris' Complete Collection of Voyages and Travels. 2 vols., folio.

Murray, Hugh. Historical Account of Discoveries and Travels in North America,
including the United States, Canada, the Shored of the Polar Sea, and the Voyage ia
Search of the North-West Passage, with Observations on Emigration. 2 vols., 8vo.
London, 1829.

BoUngbroke's Letters and Correspondence. 4 vols., 8vo. London, 1798.

Chalmer's Collection of Treaties. 2 voUj. London, 1790.

Garden, M. le Cbmte cTe, Histoire G^n^rale des Tfait^fo de paix entre les puisBancea
de I'Europe. 16 vols., 8vo. Paris, 1817-'8.

Douglas', Dr. W., Summary — Historical and Political — of the First Planting, Ac.,
of the Bntiah Settlements in America. 2 vols., Bvo. 1*756.

Christie, Robert, A History of the late Province of Lower Canada. 6 vols., 8vo.
Qnebec, 1849-'65.

Ferland, L'Abb^, Cours d'Histoire du Canada, en deux parties. Quebec, 1861-'7.

Cavendish, Sir Henry, Bt. Debates in the House of Commons in the year 1*7*74, on
the bill for making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of
Quebec. London, 1639.

Documents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York procured in
Holland, England and Franee, by John Bomeyn Broadhead, Esq., Agent of the State.
Published under an Act of the Legislature and edited by B. B. O'Callaghan, M.D.;
LL.D., with a second introduction by the Agent; 10 vols., 4to. Albany, 1863-8.
Doc. Hist.

Historical Documents relating to Canada and the English Colonies in America,
from the London Archives. 6 vols. M.S. Eng. M.S.

Papers the property of John Pownall, Esq. (brother of Governor Pownall), when
Secretary of the Board of Trade. After his death, in 1*796, they passed into the hands
of his son, Sir George Pownall, who was Secretary of the Province of Lower Canada
until 1806. Sir George presented the volumes to the late Hon. H. W. Ryland, Secre-
tary to the Governor-General, who gave them to his son, G. P. Ryland, Esq., from whom
they were purchased by the Library of Parliament. 7 vols. M.S. Pownall Papers.

Manuscrits relatifs h. I'Histoire de la Nouvelle Prance. Trois Series. Ifere Serie 1*7
vols., in folio, se trouve depos^e k la Biblioth^qne de la Soci<5t6 Litt^raire et Historique
de Quebec. 2i^me Scrie, 11 volumes, depOs^e dans la Biblioth^ue du Parlement.
3i^me Serie, 12 vols., depos^e dans la Biblioth^que du Parlement. Paris, M. S.

Doutre, Gonzalve, B.C.L., et Edmond Lareau, L.L.B. Droit Civil Canadien
suivant I'ordre ^tablie par les Code, prec^e d'une histoire g^nerale du droit Canadien.

Gameau, F. X. Histoire du Canada depuis sa decouverte jusqu' h nos jours. 4
vols., 8vo. Quebec, 1846, 1846 1848, 1862.

Memorandum. Remarks submitted by the Commissioner of Crown Lands on the
North West Territories of Canada, Hudson's Bay, the Indian Territories, and the
questions of Boundary and Jurisdiction connected therewith, to accompany certain
other documents in return to an address of the Honorable Legislative Assembly of
Canada. 1857. App. (No. 17) (B). Cited as Mr. Cauchon's report in 1857.

Correspondence between the Dominion Government and the Government of the
Province of Ontario, sent down in return to an address of the Legislature of that
Province in 1872. . . •( « iit^' ■ > .. 'i •. :

Foot notes are indicated thus: (1) (2) (3), &c.

Notes at the end of the Report are indicated thus: "Note A," &c.

The Maps in the Report are referred to thus : Al, A2, A3, A4.

INDEX.

LETTER TO HON. A. CAMPBELL, ENCLOSING
REPORT

MEMORANDUM

NOTES .. .. ,

ADDITION TO NOTE Y

LIST OF BOOKS QUOTED AND ABBREVIATIONS
ARE INDICATED .. ^^iiUiNS

MAPS.

REPORT . .

Paok.
3

■ . fr-16

■*•'■- * •

■■ •• •'

. 19—33

* • • • «

BY WHICH THEY

Al
A2
A3
*A4
A5

5 ,

\ I

^^^^pPSMBiPPffl^W^®!^"' ■

t 1

•Bo.

,^e

Bi<

Pembina

Itiifr

iHutCi'rr.t/ii^ff

IL DESBOIS

mur

AVt

rAH

rtiej^

%''''" ^" ^^

U)KK

^>^^

Si IJ P K.H XV>

hipicolon
rt.

MMJm

OF PART QP

BYFROCLAMATION OF

/hf Dei/inn>h Hif}o£raf'hir aM fhtblishinij ('ompany litfi. ^ontreit/.

:-'>'

■■<-'^^

•'/r\\

■y.

■'/^

':i'h

■'^

.^^^V

:/y

.y^:'-^

rV^

t>'

ill

l^^

y/:.

^'-v/

6-U

-V^.

^y:-

:^^i.^:%

^S/<4<"

>:'-:::<;

:.^.:

:v\

W^.i'

,.A

>Vo«Ul

I'i urn
' I m
mm

Ml i

I /

Ui\

,^'ii/:.;i
^

r r

■»^tiP«.

-■^'»*«'^SfH5ESS'S;i5*»;.

BCEk'.'i'..---. ■ jhii6> ai a ^M ii ti i i i W f *^

■miismsmMmy

^rrninJUoiiiAimii-t^it

V-r • .'*••-»•• I*

• -«-r^efiTK«««>«k« >- \ j«i««4«

li
t

MM I I1 li |Mpm"il

i*"-'fc»H,-«t*fcai

■•«-*»«**«-.■■,

_^^. .ft.

'»HCrvAMU4itnV:<riwfl»fcr<«»«t^*r«c-.«itfi^:vi,-

«ti?«n>MlMta«MVi< flf.v

-yjliyw y MW^yw

f i

Wl fBi . ! J ■^ ' . t U ' i l t' r - t 'LM t

101 100

toe

TO*

103

>0g

z:zv.

{^lieflucecl Copy]

o;r

■■^o

PmUSMEW II7SS.

NOTE
hi \he original map this corner is
occupied ri/ a map oj Hudson's Bay.

BORLAND, LAFRICAIN iC UTH.

4-7

-h

The liead ofiha .l^lissisipi is nol i/Jt know^

It is supposJd to arise i^h/ui the SO ^.''degi'ee

of Latitude und the Western Bound^ofihisMan.

«/

44.

9Q_ 9L

^^^■;y;Jpioux or tssutis.

TW*-

^^j^.-:jj^^ Lake of me

^^>

> r

JkeaiJkaniouen .

Litke
issknifjouah

•I-

8if

■ihi

•.'.'•;>■. x«

Luke q/'Uit

Lake \} Ijm^lemipUjion. \"y* j^^

?/1

lieamauioaen.

>f^^^

rtfir^

|!ffl

urn

\^'\

¥/ // . '% r I

^'*:i

-— "-"~"'

■vx i.

1
86

U I

mmmm^.

■PPl^i^P

^v^^^.

V ^ J^>

^^^0%^.

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

1.25

2.0

III

1.8

U IIIIII.6

J5''.

Hiotographic

Sdences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716)872-4503

o- .^ 4"^^

^^ ^'

A^*

A^.

This is a tracing of part oj^

a map published ly JoHX Senex,

FM.S.in t7//.TheUne enchsing-)

CANADA is much the same as

thai wejlnd after the treaty

ofUtrechi.

^^.

ltiii4iiiiit,l.iil>'U'niii<14"'.M<Hili-cMiI

-55.

A, 3.

T».

^ r-

¥' *• ': ) *^

'^ llpaj f - < :^% * SLi3J I ^ \ iXS ;iS.M-.J3See!S

Miaipa

— — Ti.

' ''-it

■m

T.'i

■Ml

AS.

I\ncin4f »f^o6ert de Vutufitndf^
Map ofJJ.io copied with fAevicrr'^}^'
offihowln^. \\\

P^UMett fine sinitlar to thai adqptMi

I'd by-thcAoclauuaijotv <fp€Lrls. //yj/^
2tlMltted liiie similar t4fOu*tgiv^/,[
in several Encfl,i8h Map$*ut thit^^
aflludsoib^ lUar.ii^r theT^eaiyrS^^
oflitivcM.

rntm^Hm

.JCiL iMiiwiUivaJ'i

!,,l*>>-. ■.*!**? WflW^'Ji, if; -I- '.■■^•»N^.4!W

.A.,,„..