occupation in that part of the Bay in which they were established, and why was it provided that the right of navigation was not to be interfered with? Individuals and companies composed of the subjects of either nation, who owned vessels, were forbidden to do any injury to the subjects of the other on pain of being held liable for all damages so done, of having their property seized and their persons imprisoned. This prohibition included both the Compagnie du Nord and the Hudson's Bay Company. The captains of war vessels armed at the expense of private persons were to give bonds to make good damages which they might cause in contravention of the Treaty. The subjects of either king taking a commission in the army of any sovereign at war with the other was made an act of piracy. Disputes arising between the subjects of the two crowns, in the colonies, were not to be allowed to interrupt the peace, but were to be settled by those in authority on the spot; and in case they could not decide, the differences were to be remitted at once to the two sovereigns for settlement. If war were to break out between the two crowns in Europe, it was not to interrupt the peace between their subjects in America. "But there shall always be a veritable and firm peace and neutrality between the said peoples of France and Great Britain, all the same as if the said rupture had not happened in Europe." Next year commissioners were appointed to execute the above Treaty and to "regulate and terminate all the contestations and differences which have arisen or may arise between the subjects of the two crowns in America, as well as to fix the bounds or limits of the colonies, isles, lands and countries under the dominion of the two kings in America, governed by their commanders, or which are among their dependencies." M. Paul Barillon, councillor of State and French Ambassador, and M. François Dusson de Bonrepaus, were the commissioners for France; and Earls Sunderland and Middleton and Sidney Lord Godolphin on behalf of Great Britain. They concluded a provisional Treaty in the name of their sovereigns, by which it was forbidden that till the 11th January, 1689, N. S., and afterwards until the two sovereigns should give new and express orders in writing, "to all persons and to commanders or governors of the colonies, isles, lands and countries under the dominion of the two kings in America, to exercise any act of hostility against the subjects of one of the said kings, or to attack them, and the commandants or governors shall not allow, under any pretext whatever, that any violence shall be done them; and in case of contravention on the part of the said governors, they shall be punished and obliged in their own private names to make reparation for the damages that shall have been caused by such contravention." But the limits of the territories were not settled, and the peace of neutrality did not prove durable. On the 28th March, 1693, we find the French King, in a despatch sent to Canada, announcing his intention to send at once Iberville, with his vessel, the Poli, and one belonging to the Compagnie du Nord, to Hudson's Bay, to attack Fort Nelson.* A similar enterprise had been set on foot two years earlier-only five years after the famous Treaty of Neutrality-but M. de Tas, who was to have had charge of it, only arrived in Quebec on the 1st July, when the season was too far advanced. Next year, 1692, Iberville, with the king's vessel, the Poli, was to have gone with a fleet of trading vessels to the Bay; but he did not arrive at Quebec till the 18th August, when it was too late to proceed. Under these circumstances, the members of the Compagnie du Nord called on the King to give them sufficient aid to render them masters of Fort Nelson, which the English had taken from them. It was represented as the only post left to the English on the Bay; and it was said that on its possession the whole question of the trade of the Bay turned.t This year the Compagnie du Nord sent another letter to the same address, in which they stated they were ruined; having suffered greatly by the necessity of carrying on the war against the English Company, by whom Port Nelson had been taken from them, in a time of peace, with 400,000 livres of effects. It *Lettre de M. de Frontenac et Champigny, August 7, 1693. † Lettre de la Compagnie du Nord du Canada a Monseigneur de Pontchartrain. . appears by this letter that the Compagnie du Nord had sent a vessel off Fort Neuve Savanne, Hudson's Bay, in 1690, which Fort was burnt by its English owners, with everything therein, rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the French; a fact which shows that the Treaty of Neutrality broke down on the occurrence of a rupture between the two nations in Europe, though its special object had been to keep the American colonies free from European entanglements. Fort Neuve Savanne, thus burnt, according to orders given in anticipation of the appearance of the French, was rebuilt the next year; the Quebec Company not being in a condition to prevent the restoration, or to occupy the post on its temporary abandonment by the English. This letter ended with the same declaration as the preceding, by saying that everything now depended on driving the English from Fort Nelson; and an appeal was made to France to render the necessary assistance. The French sent four vessels of war to Hudson's Bay, and the first of them, the Pelican, arrived in view of Fort Nelson on the 3rd September, 1697, and was followed by the Palmier, the Weesph, and the Profound. Fort Nelson, after a bombardment, fell into the hands of the French. During the war the English took some places from the French, on the Bay. In the same year, the Treaty of Ryswick restored whatever had been taken by either nation from the other during the war; and it provided for the appointment of commissioners on both sides, “to examine and determine the rights and pretensions which either of the said kings hath to the places situated in Hudson's Bay; but the possession of those places which were taken by the French during the peace that preceded the present war, and were retaken by the English during this present war, shall be left to the French by virtue of the foregoing article." The terms of the capitulation of Fort Nelson were to be observed, the merchandize restored, and the prisoners set at liberty; the value of the goods lost was to be adjudicated and determined. The commissioners were to be invested with sufficient authority for settling the limits *Voyage de l'Amerique, par la Potherie, an eye-witness. and confines of the lands restored on either side.* The French claims under this Treaty were put in this shape: "Reciprocal pretensions of the French and the English over the Colonies. Countries taken by the English in the time of peace: Fort Bourbon on Hudson's Bay; the French drove the English out in 1685; the English retook it in 1690. The Fort to be given up by the English. Taken by the French in the time of peace: the two Forts on the south part of Hudson's Bay, of which the English were remitted the possession during the war."+ This ignores the retaking by the French of Fort Nelson in 1697. If, as by these accounts appear, this Fort was three times taken during the war, the duty of restitution would surely lie with the nation that took it first, if it remained in possession; if it did not, there would be nothing to restore. If the above assumptions were allowed, France would win in any case. The limits were not settled; and the Lords of Trade interpreted the Treaty against the French, in 1700, as not implying "any extent of territory more than the places so taken and possessed." This Treaty, so far as it has any bearing on the subject, may be appealed to in the present question of the northern boundary of Ontario; for it is among those restored and confirmed by the Treaty of 1763. Though there is no longer a question of determining rival pretensions on Hudson's Bay, the restrictions as to space which the restorations of places conveyed, in the opinion of the Lords of Trade, may fairly be appealed to. Of the other. treaties similarly restored and confirmed, the Treaty of Utrecht is one which has a most direct bearing on this question; and on it the whole question of our northern boundary seems to turn. It is, therefore, important to follow every step in the negotiations preceding the peace of 1713. From first to last, England insisted on the restoration of the Bay and Straits of Hudson; not that France should renounce the right for ever of discovering or occupying lands hundreds of miles in the interior. * See the Treaty of Ryswick, printed by authority in England, 1697. The particular demands of Great Britain were formed into eight articles, which M. Mesnager transmitted to his Court, and received thence new powers, by which he was enabled to give the king's consent by way of answers, which were to be binding only after a general peace. The eighth article, relating to Hudson Bay, was in these terms: Newfoundland and the Bay and Straits of Hudson shall be entirely restored to the English; and Great Britain and France shall respectively keep whatever dominions in North America each of them shall be in possession of when the ratification of this Treaty shall be published in those parts of the world." The demands, with the answers of the French King, were drawn up and signed by M. Mesnager and the Queen's two principal Secretaries of State. In the preamble the French King sets forth: "That being particularly informed, by the last memorial which the British Ministers presented to M. Mesnager, of the dispositions of this crown to facilitaté a general peace to the satisfaction of the several parties concerned; and his Majesty finding in effect, as the said memorial declares, that he runs no hazard by engaging himself in the manner there expressed, and the preliminary articles will be of no force until the signing of the general peace; and being sincerely desirous to advance to the utmost of his power the repose of Europe, especially by a way so agreeable as the interposition of a princess whom so many ties of blood ought to unite to him, and whose sentiments for the public tranquillity cannot be doubted; his Majesty, moved by these considerations, has ordered M. Mesnager, knight, etc., to give the following answers in writing to the articles in the memorial transmitted to him, entitled "Preliminary Demands for Great Britain." The French King consented to allow the articles relating to Hudson's Bay to be referred to the general conferences of the peace; but attached to it a condition respecting the fisheries of Newfoundland. "The discussion of this article," the answer ran, "shall be referred to the general conferences of the peace, provided the liberty of fishing and drying cod fish upon the Isle of Newfoundland be reserved to the French." Petitot and Monmerique |