In the next paragraph they recite again the action of 1682, and they speak truely that the habitants of Canada sent two ships with the said Radisson and Dezgrozilier, but had they any authority or order from France or from ye Governor of Canada? On the contrary were forbid and afterwards prosecuted in France as pirates.* We have often insisted upon this, and we dessire it may be observed that Mr. Radisson will acknowledge that he could not have undertaken that expedition but by the experience he had gott by ye voyages he went in the service of the English many years before from England. Mr. Radisson (as the paper saith) is in London. Lett him give a full narrative of that expedition viva voce or in writeing when the Lords Commissioners shall command it, though we have given a particular account of it in one of our papers lately delivered in. And the French pretensions are very ill grounded, when they are forced to build upon the private undertakeing of a merchant of Canada, who went even against command and order, for lucres' sake, to robb and to plunder those that were in good amity with his prince, and he was accordingly soe treated when he returned back. Mr. Radisson did not goe over in 1684, in the service of the Hudson Bay Company to surprize and plunder Bourbon Fort as this paper saith; but he went by concert of the Ministers of France and by the derections of his Majesty of England, to restore those places he unjustly took from the English and those goods he robbed them of in 1682, under the celebrated expedition of the merchants of Canada which the French make the date of their possession and of their right, and though the French say we make no mention of what passed in 1684 we think they doe not observe that our complaints begun from the injury of that piraticall expedition in 1682, and tho' in some measure we righted ourselves in 1684, yet we had just grounds of continu'd complaints which we prosecuted in the Court of France; and what passed in the yeares 1686 and 1687 when Messrs. De Barillon and Bonrepos were here on behalf of the French is to be found on record, as also what the sence of the then Lords Commissioners was upon the whole matter, and the final resolution of the King. The French reflect upon our surprize in 1684-to recover our right upon their unjust invasions in 1682-as done in a time of peace, and as if their further injury in 1686, when they dispossessed us of the bottom of the Bay, were the consequence of that. We know the French too well not to be aware that they which invaded us so unjustly in 1682, would prosecute their advantage and pursue us with injuries upon injuries. But we admit at their urging that it was a time of peace in 1684. Was it not a time of peace in 1682 ? Were not they the first aggressors? We will put the whole matter upon that issue-who were the first aggressors ? If 1682 be before the years 1684 and 1686, we think it will need noe further examination. Did not they begin a piratical warr in a time of peace between the two Crownes? Is it not lawful in time of peace as well as warr to repell force with force? This seems to be urged only as it were to prevent our agrivating our complaints by such injuries rec'd in a time of peace which nevertheless hath and will be tooke notice of. It may be admired at last to see the French pretend their losses at the retaking of Port Nelson, (which they will still call Fort Bourbon, without any reason) do exceed the losses suffered by the English in their invasion at the bottom of the Bay, not to insist further that their invasion was in a time of peace in 1686 as before noted, and our recovery of Port Nelson was in a time of warr in 1696, besides our damages made out in those years from 1682 to 1687, when the same complaints were under debate. We have now lately exhibited an account * Be this statement of the Company correct or not-and we have found no evidence of its correctness- it must be remembered that the policy of the Canadian Government was to attract the trade of the interior to their inland posts, and to make the St. Lawrence the great highway of commerce; and that the Companies which from time to time received concessions of this trade carried out the same policy, as already shewn, and did not establish posts on the shores of the Bay, till the necessity arose for defending their rights there, after the arrival of the English. (See note to Map No. 1, sec. VIII, ante.) And further, that if (as in the case of the Compagnie des Cents Associes), the limits of those Companies which from time to time carried on the Indian trade, extended to Hudson's Bay, inclusively, any persons-even their own fellow-subjectsinterfering clandestinely with their privileges or trespassing on their limits would be punished by the government, and proper protection afforded the Company. It must not therefore be supposed that punishments and reprimands (if any) inflicted by the French in such cases, were at all so inflicted in the interests of the English: indeed no instance, it is believed, can be found in which the French in any way admitted the title of the English to Hudson's Bay, or any part of it, except in after times, and as the result of wars which forced France to make sacrifice of her ancient possessions. + See ante, p. 352, note* and the text to which it has reference; see also Oldmixon, pp. 279–80. See note to former memorial of the Company, p. 350 ante. of our losses and damages wherby the truth of this allegation will appear, and we insist upon full satisfaction for the same accordingly; and for the better ilustration of all that we have said in point of fact we have hereto annexed an affidavit of Mr. Radisson,* the person so often mentioned and insisted upon in the French papers for the author of their possession under his conduct in 1682, sworne in 1697, which cannot but be a finale and satisfactory closing of the whole dispute. Wherefore it being obvious that the Hudson Bay Company have clearly made out the right of the Imperial Crowne of England that the said Company have an indefeazable right from the said Crowne which cannot be alienated, that the French have made out no title but in this their pretended answer brought only wronge sugestions and undue inferrances which are here fully replyed to, that there can be no damages given nor restitution of places but what is founded in right, that all the matters in controversie (except what hath fallen out since the late warr) were heard and examined by Commissaries on both sides, whereupon his then Majesty's Commissaries, viz:- the Right Honorable the Earl of Sunderland, the Earl of Midleton, and my Lord Godolphin did, in the year 1687, Report to His Majesty in these words following, viz:-That your Majesty and your subjects have a right to the whole Bay and Straits of Hudson and to the sole trade thereof soe it may be fitt for your Majesty to support the Company of Hudson Bay in the recovery and maintenance of their rights, since otherwise that trade will be totally lost and fall into the hands of the French, if they be permitted to continue in the possession of those forts or any fort or place of trade within the said Bay or Streights; upon which his then Majesty declared, viz:-That he conceived the said Company well founded in their demands and did therefore order the said Commissioner to insist upon his own right and the right of his subjects to the whole Bay and Streights of Hudson, to the sole trade thereof as allso upon ye demand of full satisfaction for the damages they have received and restitution of the 3 forts surprized by the French in the bottom of the Bay. That the warr falling out since cannot alter the merritts of the case, the injuries done the Company being declared one of the causes of the warr. The said Hudson Bay Company doe therefore demand in their own proper right not only to be maintained in the possession of all their places in the bottom of the Bay but also to be restored to their factory of York Fort in Port Nelson, with satisfaction for all our damages and a full recognition of all the said places and territories to the Crowne of England for the future, and the sole trade and saileing to the whole Bay and Streights of Hudson as rightful proprietors of the same.+ MEMORIAL OF THE HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, 1719.‡ To the Right Honourable The Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations. The Memorial of the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England, trading into Hudson's Bay, SHEWETH: That at the Treaty concluded at Utrecht, it was agreed between the Crowns of Great Britain and France that the Straights and Bay of Hudson should be delivered up to the British subjects, and that the limits should be settled between the said Bay of Hudson and the places appertaining to the French, and also that satisfaction should be given to the Company for all depredations committed against them by the French in a time of peace, according to an estimate thereof to be made at the requisition of the several parties. * We have not been able to find this affidavit; Radisson, when he made it, was living in England, a fugitive from the French dominions and a pensioner of the Company. But when the Treaty came to be made, the Company's views of their own rights were not adopted, and they subsequently pathetically complained of their being left "the only mourners by the Peace." From a Copy furnished by the Company to the Dominion Government for the purposes of the present arbitration; from the endorsement it appears that the original was delivered to the Commissioners of Trade, the 13th of August, 1719. Now, may it please your Lordships, The First of these Articles, the surrender of the Straights and Bay aforesaid, has been made according to the tenour of the Treaty, at least in such manner that the Company acquiesce therein, and have nothing to object or desire further on that head. The other two, viz., the running of a line between the English and French Territories, and the making reparations to the Company for their losses and damages, yet remains to be done. Whereupon the Governor and Company most humbly present to your Lordships that they conceive it absolutely necessary that the limits between the two nations be settled without delay, for that the French have, since the conclusion of peace, viz., in 1715, made a settlement at the head of Albany River, upon which very river our principal factory is settled, whereby they intercept the Indian trade from coming to the Company's factories, and will, in time, utterly ruin the trade if not prevented. It is, therefore, proposed and desired that a boundary or dividend may be drawn, so as to exclude the French from coming anywhere to the northward of the latitude of 49, except on the coast of Labradore; unless this be done the Company's factories at the bottom of Hudson's Bay cannot be secure nor their trade preserved. As to the article of the Company's losses, it will appear by a true and exact estimate to this memorial annexed that the French took from the Company in full peace, viz., between the years '82 and '88, seven ships with their cargoes, and six forts and factories, in which they had carried away great stores of goods, laid up for trading with the Indians, the whole amount to £38,332 15s. principal money, and £62,210 18s. 9d. interest, computed to the year 1713, which two sums being added together make the total amount £100,543 13s. 9d. The Company, humbly referring your Lordships to the estimate itself for particulars, crave leave to make two remarks upon it. 1st. That the loss of the forts is not charged therein, nor are the damages valued which the Company suffered by the depredations of the French, which must be very great considering how long they held possession of our forts, and enjoyed the trade depending thereon; particularly they held Albany Fort and all the places of trade in the bottom of the Bay for six years. The bare interest only is charged, which is always supposed necessarily to grow out of the principal and to be inseparable from it. 2nd. That the proofs and vouchers which support the account are such as the reason and nature of the thing will admit of, especially considering the distance of time and place where the injuries complained of were committed. The seizure of the several forts, and capture of the respective ships, being acts of a notorious and public nature, it is presumed they will not be denied; besides that there are living witnesses here to some of them. The cost of the ships and goods are extracted out of the Company's books, where every article was fairly entered when there could be no foresight of their misfortunes which afterwards happened; the tradesmen's several bills are likewise ready to be produced to confirm the account. Wherefore, the Governor and Company most humbly pray that your Lordships will be pleased to espouse their just cause, and so recommend it to His Majesty that they may have full reparation made, as 'twas agreed and promised by the late King of France, at the Treaty of Utrecht. EXTRACTS FROM PAPERS RELATING TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENGLISH AND FRENCH COMMISSARIES, UNDER THE TREATY OF PEACE OF UTRECHT, 1719-20. (Copies obtained by the Government of Ontario from the Public Records Office, London. THE COMMISSARIES. [The English Commissaries were Daniel Pulteney and Martin Bladen, Esquires. PARKER, C. ARGYLE AND GREENWICH. BERKELEY; and by J. CRAGGS. The French Commissaries were the Marechal Comte d'Etrées, and the Sr Abbé Par le Roy, le Duc D'ORLEANS, REGENT, present: LOUIS. LE BLANC. (The English Commissaries, under the Treaty of Commerce of 1713, were Charles Whitworth, James Murray, Joseph Martin and Frederick Herne: their commission being dated 13th December, 1713.-The French commissaries, under the same treaty, were the Srs Anisson and Fenelon: they were commissioned 10th February, 1714.)] MR. BLADEN TO MR. DELAFAYE, SECRETARY OF THE LORDS JUSTICES. LONDON, July the 3rd, 1719. SIR,-Since you was pleased to do me the honour to propose, in behalf of theyr Excellencys, the Lords Justices of Great Britain, that I should go to France in order to Treat there with such persons as shall be appointed by His Most Christian Majesty, concerning the several matters left undecided by the late Treaty of Peace, concluded at Utrecht, and referred to Commissarys to be hereafter named for that purpose, I take the liberty to acquaint you, that I have perused the said Treaty and do find that ...the twelfth article provides for the surrender of the Island of St. Christopher and of Nova Scotia, in its fullest extent, to the Crown of Great Britain. But, as there have lately happened some disputes between the subjects of the two Crowns upon the interpretation of the thirteenth Article of the said Treaty, relating to the boundarys of Nova Scotia (the French Article upon this Head being worded very different from the Latin one), I presume their Excellencies, the Lords Justices, will be of opinion it may be for His Majesty's Service that the said boundarys should be settled, as soon as may be, by Commissarys in behalfe of Great Britain and France, but previous thereunto, it will certainly be necessary that the true sence and meaning of the Treaty of Utrecht upon this subject should be so fully explained that the said Commissarys may have a certain rule to walk by.......... It will be proper that the person, who shall have the honour to be charged with their Excellency's Commands concerning them, should be fully apprized of the demands which the Hudson's Bay Company and His Majesty's subjects of the Island of Montserat, have to make upon those of France, and this will be best done by their Excellency's Orders to the Board of Trade to examine the same, who may likewise, if their Excellencys please, be directed to make a collection of all such papers and memorials now remaining in the Plantation Office, as may serve to fix the Boundarys of Nova Scotia and of Hudson Bay... If it should be my lot to go upon this Commission, [I shall only ask,] that one of my instructions may be to communicate and consult upon all occasions with the Earle of Stairs, His Majesty's Embassador at Paris, that the said Earle may be empowered, if he pleases, to be present and assist at all the conferences, that shall be held upon the subject matter of my Commission. REPRESENTATION OF THE LORDS OF TRADE RESPECTING THE POWERS AND INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ENGLISH COMMISSARIES, 26 AUG., 1719. To their Excellencies, the Lords Justices: May it please Your Excellencies In obedience to Your Excellencies Commands signify'd to us by Mr. Delafaye, in his letter of the 16th of July, 1719, we have prepar'd the inclos'd commission and instructions for Mr. Bladen, to treat as his Majesty's Commissary or Deputy with the Commissary or Commissaries to be appointed on the part of France, concerning several matters left undetermin'd by the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th articles of the Treaty of Peace concluded at Utrecht, the 31 day of March, 1713, between her late Majesty and the late French King, Louis the 14th. April It was not in our power to give more dispatch to this matter, by reason of the multiplicity of books and papers which were necessary to be read and well consider'd upon this subject, besides that we were oblig'd to consult with several persons and to wait for such lights as the company of British merchants trading to Hudson's Bay, the African Company, 7 and several other parties concern'd in the success of this negotiation cou'd give us, touching their respective interests and demands, for which we have made the most effectual provision we cou'd think of, in Mr. Bladen's instructions. We have perus'd and consider'd the several Charters granted by his Majesty's royal predecessors to the respective British Colonies on the Continent of America, from Hudson's Bay and Nova Scotia, as far as the Bay of Mexico, of which many are very extensive, stretching from sea to sea; but as the French wou'd not perhaps be determin'd by these authorities only, and since we have not hitherto been able to get such maps of the said plantations as may be depended on, or to obtain such further informations as might be requir'd to support the right and title of his Majesty or any of his subjects have, to places which the French possess or pretend to, either on the back of the British plantations or westward from New England down to the Gulf of Mexico; we thought it proper to leave out of Mr. Bladen's full powers that part of the Tenth Article which relates to a general settlement of the boundaries between the colonies of the two nations in America, and to restrain his commission to the boundaries of Hudson's Bay and Nova Scotia only, where we have proofs and authorities against which we think no exception can reasonably be made. In all other matters, Mr. Bladen's commission and instructions are made agreeable to the several articles of the Treaty of Utrecht above mention'd, comprehending the mutual pretensions of both nations then left undetermin'd; and we hope, may prove to Your Excellencies' satisfaction. Upon this occasion, we beg leave to represent to Your Excellencies that, considering the several accounts we have receiv'd from the Governors of his Majesty's plantations as well as from persons with whom we have discours'd concerning the progress of the French settlements from the mouth of the River St. Lawrence northward, to that of the Mississippi southward, in the Bay of Mexico, and the daily increase of their power in those parts, we cannot but be something alarm'd at a scheme that seems one day to threaten the destruction of all the British Colonies in America, for which reason, we have prepar'd an instruction for Mr. Bladen, directing him to get the best information he can, of the state of the French colonies |