VALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 04646 3874 ,;,,,.KI)1X TO THK BKPORT SELECT COMMITTEE BOUNDARIES iKTWKKM THB l^KOVINCE ty'E^: 0]STA.HrO UNORGANIZED TEllBiTORlES OF THE DOMINION. ItiiUcd -bll ©"fsT oji fitrliTTrui. OTTAWA : 11 __i^liMTEI) BY MACMAT^, ROGER & Go., WELLIX^n^OI^ STEl'lRT 1880. Gift of The Canadian Government 193X APPENDIX TO THE RKPORT SELECT COMMITTEE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE ;pRoviNCE oir Ontario ITNORCtANIZEI) TESKITORIES OF THE DOMINION. Irinted bg ®rder oji larliamenL OTTAWA : PEINTBD Bl MACLEAN, EGGKR & Co., WELLINGTON STKEGT. 1880. 184 LTSr OF DOCUMENTS TO THE APPENDIX. 1. DeEeinhard Case, 1818. .2. Case of John Mowat, 1809. 3. Ramsay, T. K., Q.C., Eeport on the Northern and Western Limits of Ontario. 4. MacMahon, Hugh, Q.C., Statement of case for the Dominion, and Supplement. 5. MacMahon, Hugh, Q.O., His argument. 6. Mowat, Hon. O., Attorney General for Ontario, Statement of case for Ontario. 1. Mowat, Hon. 0., His argument before the Arbitrators. 8. Hodgins, Thomas, Q.C., His argument before the Arbitrators. 9. Preliminary Memorandum by the Hon. Wm. McDougall, C.B., for Ontario. 10. Memorandum by Mr. Wra. McD. Dawson on the North-West Territories of Canada, Hudson's Bay, the Indian Territories, and the questions ofBotmdary and Jurisdiction connected therewith 1857. 11. Evidence of Wm. McD. Dawson, from a report of a Committee of the Legislature, 1857. Crown Grant to the Hudson's Bay Company for the exclusive Trade with Indians . 12. Eesolutions moved by Wm, McD. Dawson, Ist Session, 6th Parliament, 2l8t Vict., 1858. 13. Documents and Papers relating to Claims of Hudson's Bay Company. 14. Treaties, Conventions, &c. 15. Act 43rd, Geo. Srd, Chapter 138. 16. Eupert's Land Act, 1868. 17. Proclamation of 1763. 18. North- Western Ontario, its Boundaries, Eesources and Communications. 19. Extracts from Instructions to Lord Dorchester, L2nd Decembei', 1774. 20. Extracts from Twiss' Oregon Question. 21. Letters of the Hon. Wm. McDougall, C.B., and Sir George E. Cartier, Bart., to Colonial Secretary, 16th January, and 8th February 1869. 22. Eeturn of the expenditure on account of the North- WosI ern Boundary of Ontario, from 1867 to 1879. 23. Award of the Arbitrators. GaH 1.50 18^ APPENDIX REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THB BOUlsrDA.RIES. 1.— DB EBINHAED'S CASE, 1818. [Charles De Eeinhard was tried in the District of Quebec, on tho 18th day of May, 1818, before Chief Justice Sewell and Mr. Justice Bowen, under the authority of a Special Commission, issued by the Hon. John C. Sherbrooke, Governor of Lower Canada, dated 29th April, 1818, and authorizing such trial under the Act 43 Geo. IIL, Chap. 138, for murder committed at the Dalles, on the assumption that this place was situate in the Indian territory, or parts of America not within the limits of Upper or Lower Canada, or of any Civil Government ofthe United States of America; and the jurisdiction depended on whether the place where the murder wa,s committed was within Upper Canada. The following evidence on this point was given :] — THE BVIDENCX. William Sax, sworn. — I am a surveyor ; I am acquainted, according to a map which I have here, with the limits of Upper Canada, that is to say, ofthe old Province of Quebec; the western limit, the mouth ofthe Eiver Ohio, is in longitude 88° 50' west from Greenwich, and latitude 37° 10' north. That appears by a map which I have made and have in my hand, to be the latitude and longitude ofthe junction of the Ohio Eiver with the Mississippi. Chief Justice Sewell.— -When you speak of tho junction of the Ohio Eiver with the Mississippi River, do you mean where the Ohio Eiver empties itself into the banks of the Mississippi ? ' Mr. Sax. — That is the understanding, and the Statute provides also — Chief Justice SewoU. — We do not require any information or assistance in the construction of the Statute ; we require it as to the fact. The construction of the Statute, it is our province to decide on. Attorney-General.— Would a line running north frora the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Eivers strike, in its passage to the Hudson's Bay Territory, the great lakes, and where would it strike Lake Superior ? And where would it leave Fort William ? Mr. Sax— Such a line, drawn due north, would strike Lake Superior on .its passage, and at or about a degree east of Fort William, or perhaps three-quarters of a degree ? Attorney-General.— That is to say, the west end of Lake Superior? Mr. Sax. — Yes, nearly so ; wlien I say that such a line would strike east of Fort William, I mean that it would leave Fort William about three-quarters of a degree to the west of it. It is so laid down in all the maps. 1— 12J im- Attorney-General. — Prom your knowledge of maps, will you then explain in French to the jury this line ? Mr. Sax having done so, continued his evidence: — I am acquainted with the Eiver Winnipic by the mapp, and it is between the* SOth and 51st degree of north latitude. The Portage de Eats is in 49|° by this map, or 49° 45', and longitude 94° 6' west frora Greenwich, and the Eiver Winnipic is consequently about 5° west of the line running north from the junction of the Eivers Ohio and Mississippi, and certainly without the old Province of Quebec. Chief Justice Sewell. — What are you speaking of now ? Mr. Sax. — That a line, supposing it ran due north from the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Eivers, would leave the Eiver Winnipic five degrees out of the Province tif Upper Canada, — not a northward line, but a due north line. Attorney-General. — Do you mean to say that a northward line is not a north line? Mr. Sax. — It is not alwaj's ; it may be north by east or north by west, or n(rth north-west, or many other points of the compass. A due north line is one that goes direct to the north pole without any deviation whatever. Attorney-General. — And does not a northward line go to the north pole ? If you had a northward line to run, would you not run it to the north pole ? Mr. Sax. — ^Perhaps I might and perhaps not ; I would certainly run it northerly, though I might not run it due north. Attorney-General. — What is to prevent you taking it due north ? If you had a line to run from a given point til! it struck a river, and thence to continue along the course of that river northward, would you call that drawing a northern line ? Mr. Sax. — Undoubtedly it would be a northern line, but not a due north line. Attorney-General.— Would it not ? Could it be east or west ? Mr. Sax. — It might according to circumstances be a north-eastward or north westwardly line, and yet a northern line — that is a line having a northward course or drawing nearer to the north pole as it progressed, though not an astronomical north line. Attorney-General. — Is not a north line a line northward ? Mr. Sax. — Certainly ; a line running due north is undoubtedly a northward line. Attorney-General. — And a line true north-westward you would call a north-west ward line? Mr. Sax. — Certainly; a line due north-west is a north-westward line, but a line, for instance, that runs towards the north, notwithstanding it may gain in its course more northing than westing or easting, is not therefore necessarily a due north line, btit is a northern or northward line. Chief Justice Sewell. — I really do not comprehend the distinction ; to say that a northward line is not a north line, I confess, appears to me to approach the "reduetio ad Mr. Gale — I do know the Portage des Eats. Attorney-General — What course has the Eiver Winnipic from Portage des Eats to Lake Winnipic ? Mr. Gale — Its course from Portage des Eats to lake Winnipic is the same as before, north of north-west. Chief Justice Sewell — North, tending a little west. Mr. Gale— Yes; nevertheless, less to the west than to the north. Attorney- Gen eral — Then the whole is north, is it not ? Mr. Gale — I should not like to speak positively, but I believe that a line drawn from the source (beginning) ofthe Eiver Winnipic to Lake Winnipic, would be to the north of north-west ; but, as a lawyer, I wpuld not say that such a line was a north line. Chief Justice Sewell — From what we have heard this morning, I should think it would puzzle a dozfen lawyers to describe a litie. , Attorney-General — ^Are you, sir, acquainted with the Hudson's Bay Territory and its line of separation from the Province of Upper Canada, by maps or any other way? Mr. Gale — I have never seen a map in which they were correctly delineated, ac cording to my idea. Attorney General — By the Treaty of Utrecht, was not the boundary estab lished? Mr. Gale — ^I know that by the Treaty of Utrecht no line was given nor any boundary fixed as to the Hudson's Bay Territory south, or on the side of Upper Canada. I have examined that treaty for the purpose of ascertaining. I do not know that any line has been drawn between the territories of Hudson's Bay and Canada in pursuance of the Treaty of Utrecht, and that treaty did not describe a boundary line. Cross- eocamined by Mr. Stuart :— Mr. Stuart — Do you mean, sir, to say positively that no part of the Eiver Win nipic, is in a more southern latitude than Portage des Eats ? Mr. Gale — I, perhaps, do not know precisely where it commences. I considered that I entered it at Portage des Eats, and I do not think that any part is more soutk but it may, perhaps, begin a mife or two before . Mr. Stuart — Will you undertake to say positively one way or the other. Mr. Gale— I should not like to be positive, but I will mention why i think I am correct as to its course, [Intimated to speak French.] I had a small compass before me, and I observed that the general course of the Eiver Wiinipic is, as 1 have said, for a short distance, more north than afterwards. Chief Justice Sewell — For what distance, sir, does its progress preserve the more northerly course? 1—13 194 Mr. Gale— Perhaps about tenor twelve leagues from Portage des Eats. The whole course of the river is certainly not due north, but if a line was drawn from its commencement at the one lake to its discharging itself into the other, tho coarse of the river would certainly lie more north than any other. The Argument. The following was the argument on the point on a subsequent day : — Mr. Stuart — In excepting to the jurisdiction of the Court, I beg leave to remark that the exception is made as an exception by the counsel ofthe prisoner only. Our opposition does not arise from any apprehension as to the verdict of the jury ulti mately being that De Eeinhard is innocent; but we aro counsel for the prisoner, and your Honors know that even of technical objections, where the life of a defendent is at stake, it is the duty of his counsel to avail themselves; and although they enter tain no doubt of the acquittal ofthe prisoner, in the duty which, as his legal advisers, we have to perform, and a trying and distressing duty it is, we feel ourselves com pelled to neglect nothing that, by possibility, can lead to his acquittal; we therefore except to the jurisdiction of the Court ; and aa I ehall have the honor of being followed by a learned friend with me, who has bestowed considerable time and attention to the subject, I shall trouble the Court very shortly in opening, as I shall have an oppor tunity of again addressing the Court in reply to the Crown ofScers. The flrst objec tion I shall have the honor to submit is, that the offence charged in the indictment, if committed at all, was not committed in the Indian Territory, as alleged, but in His Majesty's Province of Upper Canada. Chief Justice Sewell — Will you stay one moment. If I understand you correctly, it is a geographical objection you make. You argue that the spot, " en haut des Dalles," is not in the Indian Territory, but in the Province of Upper Canada ? Mr. Stewart — That is my proposition, and in support of it, I proceed to remark that tho flrst enactment relative to the management of this portion of His Majesty's dominions took place in 1763. It is known to all of us, that the conquest of this portion of North America by the British arms took place in 1759 and 1760, but from that period to 1763, nothing was done to provide a government for, or to regulate this conquered country. In that year (1763) a province called Quebec was created by proclamation. The affairs of this territory, notwithstanding the proclamation of 1763, remained in a very unsettled state till the year 1783, when the whole of the country called Canada was ceded to the English, who have retained possession ever «ince. According to the most respectable historians, we contend that the portion of country thus ceded was exceedingly extensive, going, agreeably to some writers, as far as the Eiver Ohio. The pretensions of the French, as we gather from history, carried them into countries distant, remote, and, in fact, unconnected altogether with the province created in I'i 63. The people of Montreal and Quebec, we shall show, liad long traded in those wilds, which are now fancifully called the Hudson's Bay Territory, and from which, after an uninterrupted enjoyment of traffic for ages by the French traders, it is now sought to exclude enterprise and competition. It must be apparent to every one, that after the conquest, this immense tract of country required a government adapted to the change which had taken place in its circum stances by becoming a province of another nation. Its remote situation from the parent state rendered it impossible as well as unadvisable to legislate hastily for its necessities, but the Parliament proceeded to pi-ovide what it stood most in need of. Accordingly, by the 14th of the King, the Province of Quebec was enlarged, and here let me remark that a great deal of the misapprehension which exists on the subject, arises from confounding the Province of Queoec as thus erected and enlarged, with what, under the French regime, was denominated Canada. This Act merely provided a government for a portion of the conquered country, as will immediately appear on referring to history. Adverting to the i4th ofthe King, the Act of 1774, it will he seen that the country erected and enlarged thereby into the Province of ) tmnsferred 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 determine within a year by Commissaries, to be forthwith nampd by each party, the limits which 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 (1) Talon to the King 2nd Nov., 1671, lb., p. 71. (2) Denonville on the state of Canada, ]2th Nov., 1685. Ib., p. 280. C3) Instructions by Je Denonville, 12lh Feb., 1686, Paris, Doc. V. p. 176, 2 Serie. (4) Denonville to Mini.ster, lOtli Nov., 1686, lb., p. 259." (5) Instructions to de Frontenac, 7th June, 1689, Doc. Hist. 9, p. 422. (6) Garneau 2, p. 51. (7) Garneau 2, p. 137. says the English lost all their forts by the capture of Fort Nelson, 1697 ; but this is an error. See note G. (8) 10-20 Sept., 1697. ,, c (^^ Memorial ot Company, exposing state of their affairs, 19th January, 170J, Pownal papers: M.S. in Pari. Lib. In the Quebec Act, the Company is thus styled : " The 'Merchants Adventurers of Enj!;land, trading into Hudson's Bav." (10) Article 10. 215 done to their colonies, ships, persons, and goods, by the hostile incursions and depre dations of the French in time of peace, an estimate being made thereof by Commis saries to be named at the requisition of each party (1). 18. The stipulation to surrender the posts near Hudson's Bay, in the possession ofthe French at the time' of the Treatywas at once carried out, the forts being delivered up under orders from the King of France in 1714 (2). 19. Commissaries were appointed to define the limits, but they never arrived at any decision (note E) ; 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, was the real boundary between Canada and the Hudson's Bay territory. 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 (3), who gives the limits of Canada, and by Mr. Bouchette, Surveyor- 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 princip'.e that the watershed was the natural limit of an unexplored country was generally acquiesced in. The rivers were the only highways, and the utmost limit ofa possession could hardly be interpreted to extend further than those claiming it could go. 21. Nor is there anything to contradict this view to be found in the voluminous correspondence between the authorities in Canada and the Government of France, from the time ofthe Treaty of Utrecht (note S) till the Treaty of Pjiris, by which England acquired Canada, put an end to the possibility ofa question ar.oing between the two countries as to the boundaries ofthe Hudson's Bay Territories. 22. But whether the conclusion at which we have arrived be lec'ally correct or not, in so far as regards the right of the Hudson's H-Ay (Jompany to tho territory claimed by them, it is clear it was so understood by the Governraent 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. 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 ot 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 Superior. This fact, now perfectly established, reduces to very moderate proportions any claim ithe Province of Ontario could put forward, based on the idea that the western limits pf la Nouvelle France, were also those of the late Province ot Canada. The Treaty of 1783, which fixes the line of division between the British possessions and the tlnitgd States, cuts this height of land, and with it defines the whole boundaries of the PriEssince — ftoj-th, west and south-7-even if the extreme pretension to which allusion hafe just bedn^ma^ were adopted. a1. 24. But lookinfTLTthe question from a strictly legal point of view, this preten sion 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 ofi 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). Thoy might seek to have certain limits (1). Article 11. (2). Jeremie (Noel Jeremie Lamon tagne, see I'Abbe Ferland, 2de partie, p. 279 note) Recueil de Voyages du Nord, vol 5, Amsterdam, 1732. (3). Already quoted, p 8, 216 granted them as a matter of sentiment or convenience (1), but no one has ever pretended that the English Government was obliged to maintain under one govern ment, the whole territory ceded to the Crown of England as Canada ; and, in effect,. no such unity has ever been attempted. The whole territory ceded by Vaudreuil as Canada, and claimed by England as such, has never for a mement been all included' in any Governraent of Canada (note U.). v 25. It is unquestionable law that after the cession of Canada, and umtil a regular- Government was conferred by Statute, the Province remained a Crown Colony, and was subject to be governed under the special ordinances and instructions ofthe King. Hence it is we must turn to the Proclamation of 1763, to ascertaih what was thence forward 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 governments within the countries and islands ceded and confirmed to the Crown in England by the Treaty of Paris (1763). 27. The first of these governments, that of Quebec, was declared to be bounded on the Labrador coast by the Eiver 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 Eiver St. Lawrence and the Lake Champlain in 45 degrees of north latitude, passes along the highlands which divide- the rivers which empty themselves into the said Eiver St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, and also along the north coasts of the Bale des Charleurs, and the coast of the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Eosier, and from thence, crossing- the mouth of the Eiver St. Lawrence by the west end of the Island of Anticosti, terminates at the aforesaid Eiver St. John, (note Y.) A 2. 28. Several maps, published subsequent to the Treaty, give the limits thus described to Canada, (note W.) (2.) 29. The boundary to the south-west remained unchanged till 1774 (3). It included all the settlements of any importance at that time {note X). Burke (4) says " this boundary, fixed for the Government, was so because it was the boundary of the possession, and that the people of Canada acquiesced in it." (5) 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. (6) (note Y.) 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 Missis sippi, or whether the people of Canada acquiesced in the limits given by the King in his letters patent constituting the Government of Quebec or not ; nor indeed does iii signify, for the discussion at present, how far constitutionally the King had a righw. to carve Provinces and Govenments out of the possessions of the Crown, for we aref 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 sli).'all be intersected by the northern boundary granted by the Charter ofthe Provinefe of Pennsylvania, in case the same shall be so intersected ; and from thence alorig the said northern and western boundaries of the said Province, until the said jK^estern boundary strike the ¦"""-— "^ .-»'.* (1). Tbey did by their petition of 1773. Doutre et Lareau Dr. Civil Canad. I, p. 674, (2) Jeffrey's Map, 10th June, 1775. Also map in translation of Charlevoix. Dunn's Map.. 1776, and see notes R and V. (3) Burke, in Cavendish Debates, p. 189. (4) Ibid. (5) Ibid. (6) Doutre & Lareau Droit Civil, Canad. I, p. 674. 217 Ohio ; but in case the said bank of the lake shall not be found to be so intersecte d then following the said bank.until is shall arrive at that point of the said bank which shall be nearest to the north-western angle ofthe said Province of Pennsylvania, and thence by a right line to the said north-western 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 ofthe said i-iver westward to the banks ofthe iMississippi,. 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 con tained relative to the boundary of the Province of Quebec, shall in anywise affect the boundaries 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 heard by petition; and very notably the petition of the Canadians of the previous year had received due attent|ion. The only difficulty which remained was foreseen. The unsurveyed boundary of the Province of Pennsylvania mighti or it might not strike the bank of Lake Bi'ie, and both cases were provided for ; but about the line ofthe 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 ofde Eeinhard at Quebec in 1818 (2), which judicially interprets the Act of 1774 in this sense. Nor can there be any doubt that the effect of these words in the Statute, was matter of law for the court to decide (3). 33. Curious to say, in the new Commission to Sir Guy Carleton, rendered neces sary by the Actof 1774, a somewhat diflerent boundary is described. After following the description of the Statute till tho confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi, the Commission goes on : " and northward along the eastern bank of the said river to tbe 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 they either fell in with, or created the general impres sion that Canada, before the treaty with the United States (1783), extended to the Mississippi. This description also appears in a Commissioa of two years later date to Sir Frederick Haldimand, and very probably in other Commissions between 1774 and 1783 ; but no words in letters patent could alter the express dispositions of an Act of Parliament. The only manner in which the effect of the Act of 1774 could be de stroyed would be by another Act of Parliament. Was there any such ? 34. The Act of 1791 does not deal with the question of the western boundaries of the Province of Quebec. The subject of the precise boundaries of Upper Canada was then of some difficulty, for 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." (4) But whether, owing to the difficulties occasioned by the Treaty of 1783 or not, all description was omitted in the Act, and the King, by his Message ofthe 25th Feb ruary, 1791, announced his intention of 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 (1) Cavendish Debates. (2) Report oi trial, p. 646. m . i /. (3) Attorney General of Upper Canada remarks, acquiesced in by the Court on the Trial of Grant for the irurder of Governor Temple, p 267. (4) Letter from Lord Grenville to Lord Dorchester, 20th October, 1789. Christy's History of Canada, Vol. 6, p. 16. 218 the necessary regulations for the Government of said Provinces. The Act being passed, the King, by proclamation, declared what should be the division line, but he abstained most carefully from entering into any other description of the two Pro vinces, 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 li,ne to the utmost extent ofthe country commonly called or k:iown bythe name of Canada." 35. 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 (1) of the Act of 1774. But evenif the words had another and more ex tended sense, it is further maintained that in so far they would be inoperative. The King's authority to make any proclamation at all to divide the Province depended on tbe implied consent of Parliaraent by the Act of 1791. He could only divide the Province of Quebec — he could not extend it by proclamation . (Note AA.) 36. This view is supported by Chief Justice Sewell in the case of De Eeinhard, already cited. He said : " The intention of the Proclamation and Act of 1791 was to divide the Province, not to add to it." (Note BB.) 37. The Act (2) reuniting the Provinces 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 Pro vince 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 Pro vinces, the two were again reunited; but the limits ofthe whole were not changed in so far as regards the north-western boundaries, until the Act constituting the New Dominion became law. 40. The 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 land 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 boundary of the United States and longitude 89° 9' 27" 16 west of Greenwich to the west. T. K. E. Montreal, March, 1873. Memo. In the report submitted the strictly legal view bas alone been considered, because it alone seemed to be within the scope of my instructions ; but from the course of my investigations I could not fail to see that beyond this there is another consider ation not less important, and that is the equitable side of the question. In creating the Province of Ontario it is not possible to conceive that the Imperi.il 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 1867 the Governraent 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 (1) Supra p. 14. (2) 3 and 4 Vic, c. 36 (Imp. Act), 1840. 219 tho lands in the vicinity of Lakes Superior and Huron, or of such of thera as may be required for mining purposes. The Commissioner executed a treaty by which he obtained a portion of the very territory that would be cut off from the Province of Ontario if the dispositions of the Act of 1774 were literally observed. " From Bat- chewanoning Bay to Pigeon Eiver, at the western extremity of the said Lake (Superior), and inland to that extent to the height of land which separates the terri tory 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 beyond the meridian indicated inthe foregoing report. In the De Eeinhard trial, Mr. Coltman, a magistrate for the Dis trict bf Quebec, and a Commissioner in the Indian territory, in his evidence, said: ' ' II est notoire que les writs des Magistrats du District ouest du Haut Canada sont 6manes pour etre executes a Fort William." It would, therefore, seem that in fair ness to the Province of Ontario the old line of the height of land should be adopted as the western as well as the northern boundary of the Province of Ontaria. T. K. E. Montreal, March, 1873. NOTES. Note A. — " They (France and England) prepared to cut the gordian knot of this long and intricate negotiation with the sword." (" The history of the present war," by Burke, in the first nuniber of the Annual Eegister. Eepublished separat ely 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 territo ries 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 Hudson's Bay Company there could be no contest as to the rights ofthe French. I do not know whether the value of the par ticular words '¦' actually possessed " has ever been commented. They exclude the idea ofa claim of title by siraple discovery or by any naked formality, and there can be no question that in 1670 tho French had no actual possession of any part of the lands round Hudson's Bay. Note C. — The report ofthe Commissioners of Crown Lands in 1857 is incorrect in saying that the commission to Eoberval " included Hudson's Bay, though not then, of course, known by that name." Tho writer would have extended geograph ical knowledge had he told us by what name it Jwas, and by whom known in 1540. It is possible the official writer mistook " The (3^reat Bay," 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 a 1' entree de la baie des Chaleurs." (Denis' Description de I'Amerique Septentrionale, 1672. Tom. I, p. 164, chap. 7.) In the same report it is said that in " 1627 the Quebec Fur (i!ompany was formed under the auspices of Cardinal Eichelieii, and an exclusive charter granted to them for the whole of New France or Canada, described as extending to the Arctic 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 arret of 1627 does not men- 220 tion Hudson's Bay. It gives the Company the whole country from Florida, " en ran- geant les Cotes de I'Amerique iusqu au Cercle Arclique." (Ed. and Ords., Tom. I, p. 7. Quebec, 1854.) . Note D. — In the oft-repeated description by L'Escarbotitissaid that la Nouvelle France is bounded to the north by " cette terre qui est dite inconnue vers la mer glacee jusqu au pole arctique." Thus he does not pretend that la Nouvelle Prance stretches to the Frozen' Ocean (L'Bscarbot, vol. 1, p. 31, ed. 1611), as Mr. Cauchon's Eeport seems to imply, but only to the unknown lands, which, in their turn, extend to the Frozen Ocean. Having quoted the passage of L'Bscarbot referred to, Garneau adds : " Mais ces limites etaient plus imaginaires que reolles, puisque I'on ne connassait pae alors meme la vallee entiere du St. Laurent." Note B. — " II est certain que ce fut Henry Hudson, anglais qui en 1611 donna son nom et a la Baie et au Detroit par oii il entra." (Charlevoix 1, p. 476.) Note F.— Mr. Justice Monk, in the case of Connolly vs. Woolrich, p. 14, says : "From the voyage of Sir Thoraas 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 James. Note G. — Medard Chouard des Grozeliers ("the name is spelled in a variety of ways;" L'Abbe Tanguay writes : " Medard Chouart des Grozelliers,") Pierre Esprit Hayet-Eadisson, and Pierre LeMoyne d'Iberville. ThIse three names are intimately connected with the history of the eariy settlement of Hudson's Bay. Des Grozeliers came from Touraine when very young and beqame a voyageur of some repute. (Ferland, 2nde Pie, p. 80. Jermie Eel. de la Baie d'Hudson, p. 14. Mere de I'ln car nation Lettre d'Aoiit, 1670.) He reported that, being to the north of Lake Superior he met some Indians who led him to James' Bay. Subsequently, he endeavored 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, m 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 Eupert, at the mouth ofthe Nemisco Eiver. On their o^^J^it' ^^'^ Hudson's Bay Company was forraed and obtained a charter, dated 2nd May, 1670.§ Nowhere is any date given to des Grozeliers alleged first jonr- • Jeremie says that he did induce the Merchants in Quebec to fit out a bark with which he went f \'La'^ ^^O "'¦''powered Nelson River ; but the whole of his narrative up to the expedition 1, j' ^? T^"''' ^^ '^'^^ engaged, is totally worthless. He is, however, followed by Murray. WHO adopts the account of a sea voyage by des Groziehers from Canada, and gives other detailsr for all of which he disdains to quote any authority. 2 p. 132. t De la Pothene omits the going to Paris. tOldmixon says 1667; so doesll. de CalHeres in a letter to M. de Seignelay, 25th Pebruary, 1685, ?n ?he pt \\ ^^^¦' ^flrtt^l^ ^^'^^' 2°de pie, p. 80 ; Murtay also says 1668, 2,^,. 132 q rL^[ ¦ '^^'"°'i: 0' the 8thJovember, 1686, the year is given twice as 1662, Doc Hist. 2 'r, 126 Cf f„'7)l W T' rl^^^^^ ^?^' ^' PA,^^^,' ^"•'^ '" 'h'« ^^ '^ followed by Garneau, t'P itlJi, P-n ^^^*^^ Chronologiques Charlevoix says 1668 ; again Dobbes says 1667,. of the CrnlnTf ^'"^™^^f. there trom 1668 to 1673 ; in the descriptioTi of the right Ld title of the Crown of Great Britian to Hudson's Bay, June 2, 1709, Ea-r.MSS vol 1 d 64 it is said that Zachary Gillam went there in 1667, i'n the "Nonsuch,^'"to explore an§" make a settlement in fludson's Bay, and built Charles Fort at Rupert River ^ § Ferland says 1669. He is not the originator of this error. I have seen it elsewhere. It arises Zv ^.,"';r,^^'^t'°l? f *«. ir °f t^^ f >°g:? ^"g"- The Charter is dated the 2nd da" of mi' iLuZv ^°R!^ *\Z%^'^^ ^'""V^ ^Y ¥s ' "-^'g^- Charles the Ist was beheaded the- 30th January, 1648; the 22nd year, therefore, began on the Slst January, 1670. 221 ney overland to James' Bay; indeed it was only formally put forward in 1636 (French Memoir, Sth November, 1686, Doc. Hist. 9) to sustain th© French claim to be 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 1,667 — perhaps only in 1668. It seems more than probable that the story ofthe 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 difficult 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 neighborhood 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 properous ; 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 Missionary. (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, des Grozeliers did go up to Lake Superior,, and passed the winter with the Nation de Boetif, returning the following year to Canada with 300 Outawas and a great quantity of fur. He was at Three Eivers on the 24th August, 1 660. Again we hear of him on 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 tihe Gillam expedition in 1662. It would appear that de 3 Grozeliers was accompanied by Eadisson, to whose sister he was married, and that Eadisson was married to an English woman. (De Frontonac's letter, 2nd Nov., 1681.) This marriage of Eadisson is involved in great confusion. De la Potherie tells us that Lord Preston, who was Ambassador at Paria, promised to make a servant of bis named Godet perpetual Secretary of the Embassy,if he could prevail on Eadisson to goi to England, and that Godet, as an inducement to Eadisson, promised him hisdaugnter in marriage (1,145). Charlevoix says that the negotiation took place through a servant of Lord Preston, called " Gods," (1, p. 481), and that Eadisson was then married to a daughter of Chevalier Kirke ; that he went to London, where he was cordially received by his father-in-law, and that he wasgranted a pension of 12,000 livres ayear. Shea, in a note to his translation of Charlevoix (3,233), 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 Eupert. Murray gives no authority for his version ; but it is possible there may be some truth in all these stories, though certainly not all true. The following dates are correct, and contradict much of them. Des Grozeliers' first expe dition to England must have been prior to the summer of 1668. Ealph Montague was Ambassador at Paris from September, 1668 to 1678. Eadisson was married to an Englishwoman before November, 1681. (De Frontenac's letter, 2nd November, 1681.) Eadisson's second visit to England was in 1684, and then Sir David Kirke had been dead nearly thirty years. He died in 1655 or 1856, (Shea's translation of Charlevoix 3,233^6 & 6, 124.) In 1670,, Eadisson accompanied the new Governor back to Hudson's Bay. We hear of him, and also of des Grozeliers, at Fiart Nelson, in 1673, and at Fort EJipert in 1674. They obtained their pardon in 1676 from the King of France, and returned to Canada. I do not knew when they retiurnedto Canada, nor can thei date given by M. de Ca.llieres iu his letter to M. de Seignelay^ 25th • Under date May, 1662, in the Journal des Jesuites, there is this entry : " Jepartis (fo Quebeek U 3 powr les Trois Riviires, je racordrai de Oroaelliers qui s'en alloit d, la Mer du Nord. II passu la nait devant Quebeek avec 10 hommes et (atant arrivS au Cap Tourmente, il I'eserivit d Mons. le Oom)erneur," p. 308. 222 February, 1685, be relied on, for he goes on to speak of the Canadian Company having been formed in 1676. This is evidently an error, if not an intentional mis statement, for in a memoir of the Compagnie du Nord etablie en Canada, 1698, P. M. S. VIII., 265, it is said : " File (la Gompagnie^ commenca cette enterprise en 1682." Before we have anything more to do with Eadisson 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 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. (M. de Frontenac, 2nd Nov., 1681, Doc. Hist. 9.) In 1682 a company was formed at Quebec to trade to Hudson's Bay. This was the commencement of this enterprise. ' (Memoire de le Cie. du Nord, etablie en Canada, 1698, P. M, S. VIII., p. 265.) There was a complaint by the English Ambassador that in 1682, Eadisson 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. (De la Potherie 1, 143.) 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 Eadisson, 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, Eadisson went to France in 1684. From France he went to London, induced by Lord Preston, as some say, and there he succeeded so well that the same year he sailed for Hudson's Bay with five ships. He captured Fort Nelson by surprise, 16th 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 Grozellters and Eadisson. It would, appear, however, that Eadisson wintered in the Bay in 1685-'6, for the excuse for de Troyes' expedition was the capture of Eadisson. (Instructions of M. de Denonville to de Troyes, 12th February, 1686 ; letter of de Denonville, 10th 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 Eupert, On the 16th July, they took Fort Chechouan or Albany. On the 10th August, 1686, de Troyes started on his return journey to Montreal. (De la Potherie I, p. 147 ; Ferland, 2nde partie, 164.) M. de la Potherie says that six months after, having sent the English prisoners home 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 Bay on the 25th August, 1687. On the 31st October, 1688, M. de Denonville announces the return of d'Iberville, but says he 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, 35 November, 1690.) In 1688 d'Iberville 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'Iberville's 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, 15th November, 1690.) In 1690 d'Iberville returned, intending to take Fort Nelson, but being repulsed he landed and foi-ced the English to abandon Fort Nieu Savftnne. He had gone there with three ships called " La Sainte Anne " JiLes. Armes de la Compagnie," and " Le Saint Fran9ois." In 1693, the English re-took the Forts Chechouan or Albany, Monsippi or Moose Fort, and Eupert. (De la Potherie 1, 165.) No one but de la Potherie mentions the re-taking of Moose Fort and Port Eupert, and in 1700 the Hudson's Bay Company complain of the French 223 encroachments, saying that, owing to them, they have only one settlemeoT remaining out of seven thoy had. It would, therefore, seem that if the English rc-ai.>k Moose and Eupert Forts, they lost them before 1700. In 1694, d'Iberville, 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 expidition, says the two ships were the " Foli " and the " Charente." He is followed in this by I'Abbe Ferland, (2 Pie, p. 278.) P. Marest, who was also in the expedition as " aumonier," says de Serigny commanded the " Salamandre," and his relation is called " voyage du Poll et Sala- mandre." CLettres Ed. Nouv. Ed. vol. VI., p. 4.) In the letter of M. M. de Fronte nac 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 Kifig's Commissioner in the expedition of 1697, say that the ships sent out in 1694 were the " Poll " and " Salamandre " (vol. 1, 1661.) He s%a they sailed from Quebec on the Bth August, de Frontenac et de Champigny says the 9th August, and Jeremie says the 10th August, jour do St. Laurent (p. 17.) M. M. de la Potherie and Jeremie agree that they reached Foi-t Nelson the 24th September; L'Abbe Ferland says the 20th September. The Fort capitulated on the 12th October. D'Iberville 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 G<)vernor and all the Beaver. The capitulation by La Forest of Fort Nelson (alias York, alias Bourbon), is that mentioned in the 8th Article of the Treaty of Eyswick. The capitulation was dated 31st August, 1696, but it is spoken of as the capitulation of the 1st September, and in the Treaty as of the 5th September. In 1697 a fleet of five ships sailed from La Eochelle 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 Commissioner. " 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 " Uering " 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'Iberville attacked Fort Nelson, which he took about the 12th September. D'Iberville 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 " Ainsi le dernier poste que les Anglais avaient dans le baie d'Hudson tomba en " notre pouvoir, et la France resta seule maitresse 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 Chechouan, he mistook for Fort Nelson. At any rate Fort Anne or Chechouan remained in possession of the English from 1693, and they never lost it. It was unsuccessfully attacked by de Menthol 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 yjapers MSS.) Six of the seven only appear to have given rise to any contest ; the seventh Ipresume to be Bast Main. The six others are— 1st. lort Eupert, 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. Eetaken 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. Eetaken in 1693. Srd. Fort Chechouan, 3te. Anne, or Albany, taken by de Troyes and d'Iberville in 1686. Eetaken in 1693. 4th. New Severn, or Nieu Savanne, taken by d'Iberville in 1690.^ 5th. Fort Bourdon, Nelson or York, founded in 1670. Taken by des Grozeliers and Eadisson, acting 'for the French, in 1682;. retaken by Eadisson, acting for the 224 English, in 1684; retaken by d'Iberville 12th October, 1694; retaken bythe English. 1696, and again by the French in 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 memoir of the French right to the Iroquois country and Hudson's Bay of the Sth November, 1686, it is said that in 1656 Jean Bourdon ran along the entire coast of Labi-ador with a vessel of Sfrtons, entered and took possession of the North Bay, and that this is proved by an extract oi the ancient register of the Council of New France of the 26th of August of the said year (1656.) Unfortunately the register in q;iostion 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 1 ( th 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 " Eolations des Jesuites," vol. IIL, 1658-9, we find this entry : " Le 11 (^August) parut la barque de " Monsieur Bourdon, lequel estant descendu sur le grand fleuve du cote 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 les massacrerent et blesserent un Francois de ti'ois coups de "flecheset d'un couple couteau." Note I. — Dablon never reached Hudson's Bay ; the extreme limit of his journey being only 100 leagues from Tadousac. We learn from the " Journal des Jesuites," that he started for " la Mission St. Fr, Xavier aux Keristinons " the llth May, 1661, p. 296. He left Tadousac on the 1st or 2nd June., On the 6th, the Iroquois attacked Tadousac, and drove away all the Canadians. They even came up to the Isle d'Orleans and the Cote Beaupre, and killed several persons. At page 300 of the Journal, there is this entry: " 1661, Juillet le 27, retournerent ceux quiestoient alies ou pretendoient aller " a la mer du Nord ou aux Kiristinons P. Dablon, &c." Inthe " Eelation des Je suites," we have the relation of this voyage, which is called "Journal du premier voyage fait vers la mer du Nord." (12 aoiit 1661.) The account is dated from the highest point they reached, " Nekouba, 100 lieues de Tadousac, 2 Juillet, 1661." See also Journal of Oaunt of Frontenac, 1673, when the importance of making it appear that Dablon had been at Hudson's Bay was fully 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. (Eelation de 1672.) The difficulty to this voyage as giving a title to the King of Prance, 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 sattloment there till 1682. (Ferland, 2nde partie, p. 83.) 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 ; Paris, Doc Ms! V ; same to de Seignelay, 25th August, 1687, Doc. Hist. 9 ; Memorial de la Cie. du Nord, 1698.) This conclusion had Bot been arrived at without an effort to keep up •Besides see letter of M. de Oalli^res to If. d« Seignelay, 26th February, 1086. 225 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 having enco'untered extreme dangers" * * * " It is expected that communication can be had with it overland, as will be seen by the maps 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) lias been published, and that it is not even mentioned by Purchas, who made it his business to collect accounts of all voyages raade at this era." (Vol. 2, p. 56.) In Eose's Bio graphical and Geographical Dictionary, it is said 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 chart, which was also seen by Cham plain, p. 926, ed. 1617. Murray, probably, had only looked at the first edition of Purchas, which was printed 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 Eoe. (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 uot questioned by foreign writers. As an example, see Anec dotes American es, Paris, 1776, by Hornot. It is hardly necessary to answer the doubt thrown out by the French Memoir and by Dobbes on Hudson's voyage. If we have not Hudson's Journal, which, under the circumstances, is not very remarkable, 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 mentions Hudson's discoveries. (Harris' complete collection of Voyages and Travels, 2, p. 244.) Note M. — There is a great uncertainty as to what sort of discovery or occupa tion gives a title. In the report of t|he Commissioner of Crown Lands in 1857, it is maintained, cifing the Oregon dispute as an authority, that a discovery " 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 preten.sions. M. Denonville, in a memoir on the French limits in North America, in 1688, makes the rigbt 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 1671, the French authorities in Canada could not venture to fix a date for the first taking possession of Hudson's Bay. In Tallon's Memoir to the King, 2nd November, 1671, he says : those countries were auciennement .discovered by the French ; (Doc. Hist. vol. 9,) It seems to be only in Pebruary, 1685, that the French 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 thera- ' selves in Hudson's Bay, possession whereof has been taken in my name several years ago." (Doc. Hi.st. 9.) In the Eolations des Jesuites, the narrative of the voyage of P. Dablon i« called "Journal du premier voyage fait vers la mer da Nord." This was in lc6l. In the relation of 1667, they say they know nothing of tho country, but the reports of the Indians. (1667, 23.) On the 18th March, 1688, M, Denon- %ille is instructed to make the strictest search possible for titles. In a letter of 1—15 226 August, 1670, la Mere de I'lncarnation, who knew des Grozeliers well, because he was from Touraine, from which Province she came, mentions the expedition of des Gro; zeiliers in tbe English ship, and speaks of him on that account, as being the dis coverer of the Bay. Note 0. — Commissaries were named under the Treaty of Neutrality, on the part of England. They were the Earl of Sunderland, Lord President of the Council and Principal Secretary of State ; the Earl of Middleton, Principal Secretary of State; and Lord Godolphin, one ofthe Lords Commissioners ofthe Treasury. On the part of' France, the Pr. Barillon, Ambassador, and the Pr. Bonrepaux, Envoy Extra ordinary. They had their first conference 18th May, 1687. (Doc. 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 Commissaries arrived at no conclusion, and in 1687 the English Commissaries report that the Company have full right to the Bay and Straits of Hudson, and to the trade thereof. (1 vol. Trade and Planta tions, MS. p. 89 ; Pownall Papers in Lib. of Pari.") Note P. — They lost all their forts save Nelson in 1686, and Garneau says they lost their last fort in 1697. (Garpeau, vol. 1, p. 137.) But this is an error. (See note G.) On tho 20th, 1701, the Governor and Company of Hudson's Bay petitioned the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations on the subject of their losses in the Bay. In this petition they say they have lost all their settlements but one out of seven, namely, "Albany, vulgarly called Chechouan." Note Q. — The Treaty of Eyswick was not altogether so disastrous to the Hudson's JBay 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 declaratiou ofthe war (1689), and that, on the other hand, the King of England should do like wise for the French possessions. By Article VIII. it was stipulated that Commissionex'S 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 comraissioners, who were also to decide what lands belonged to the French and what to the English. Prom these two articles we deduce, first, the general principle that there should be a mutual restoration of conquests made during the war; second, thatthe 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 cariied out. Commissaries were appointed, but it does not appear that they settled anything. Their dilatoriness caused some comment. (Letter of Frontenac to Bellomont, 21st 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, 1099 ) While the Commissaries negotiated, events in Europe were prepar ing the way for a now war. By his will, Charles II., who died 1st November, 1700 227 bequeathed the Crown of Spain to the grandson of Louis XIV. On the 24th Novem ber 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. France having refused to do this, war was declared by the States General, Sth May, by Great Britain 14th May, and by the Emperor 15th May, 1702. Garden Hist, des Traitea •de paix, Tom. 2, ch. x. Note R — Both the Treaties signed at Utrecht — the Treaty of Coraraerce and the Treaty of Peace — required the appointment of commissaries to regulate certaia questions that conld not be determined summarily. The treaties were signed on the 13th April, 1713, and no great time was lost in appointing commissaries. Those representing the King of France were M. M. AnisonandFenelon, DeputezauConseil ¦de Commerce, whom Lord Bolingbroke had, on a previous occasion, contemptuously styled " Mercantile Politicians," and M. d'Iberville, a diplomatist of some note, who must not be confounded with the Canadian sailor of that name, who died in 1 706 at Havana. (Pownall papers, v. 7.) Messrs. Anison and Fenelon, arrived in London on the 17th February, 1713-4, (Lord Bolingbroke'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 he had an interview with Lord Bolingbroke, to whom he brought a special letter of introduction from M. de Torcy, dated the 14th Decem ber (letter to the Queen 8th December, 1713; Ibid, 17th December, Bolingbroke's correspondence, vol. IV., p. 3S7). The English commissaries were Charles Whit- wQi-th, James Murray, Esq., Sir Joseph Martin, Kt., and Frederick Heme, Esq., (letter to Mr. Whitworth, December 23rd, 1713, correspondence IV., 406). 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 was overcome by the issue of a new commission including M. d'Iberville, of the same date as the other. Another difficulty soon presented itself. The inhabitants of Montserrat had sent a petition to the Queen, and the Hudson's Bay Corapany sent a memoir, setting forth their claims. The petition and memoir were forwarded by Lord Bolingbroke to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations who at the sarae time intimated that tho commissaries " now here" 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 adraitted by the French commissaries who wrote to the King for "more ample powers," (London, ll-l::;th March, 1714; Ibid, p. 22). In May the, Commissioners of Trade and Plantation wrote to Mr. Martin, Secretary to the Eng- lish commissaries, to know whether the French commissaries wore empowered to treat upon the subject matter ofthe memorial and petition pursuant to the 10th, llth and 15th Articles ofthe Treaty of Peace with France (Minutes of the llth May, 1714. Ib). Mr. Martin answered on the 12th, saying, that the French commissaries were not emjjowered to treat about Hudson's Bay and the Island of Montserrat ; but that the Envoy of Prance, M. d'Iberville. had told Mr. Whitworth that a general mention thereof was made in his instructions, and he should receive more jiarticular orders from his Court, whenever demanded. (Minutes of the 13th, Ibid.) The Com missioners of Trade and Plantations immediately resolved that the commissaries of France should be notified that the commissaries should be named to treat of these matters pursuant to the l(>th, llth and 15th 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 commis sion of the French commissaries was there any reference to the Treaty of Peace. It does not appear that more ample powers were ever accorded to those commissaries, 1-15J 228 and on the 9th June, 1714, the English commissaries report the deliberations " at a stand." Thus the first effort to establish the limits of Hudson's Bay failed. The death of tho Queen, and the change of policy which followed on the succession of the House of Hanover, put an end to any immediate- prospect 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 mention of the subject,, I have found, is contained in a despatch to MM. de Vaudreuil and Begon, dated 23rd May, 1719. (Doc. Hist. 9.) In this depatch, the King says he has instructed his Ambassador in England to propose the nomination of commissaries on both sides agreeably to the Treaty of Utrecht, for the settlement of the boundaries of New Prance. With the materials within my reach, I have not been able to trace the steps taken to fix these boundaries ; but having had communication of the notes ot Chief Justice Draper, who went to England in l!-57, to represent the late Province of Canada before a Committee of the House of Commons, I take the liberty of copying from him. The Chief Justice says : " On 3rd September, 1719, instructions were given to Daniel Pulteney and to Martin Bladen, Esqrs., as Commissioners for Great Britain, under several Articles of the Treaty of Utrecht, which, after a special reference to the 10th Article ofthe Treaty, proceeds thus : ' You are to en deavor 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 word ing such articles as shall be agreed on with the commissary or commissaries of His Most Christian Majesty on this head that the said boundaries be understood to regard the trade ofthe Hudson's Bay only; that His Majesty does not thereby recede from his rifi-ht to any lands in America, not comprised within the said boundaries.' " In a letter dated Paris, 7th Nov., (N.S.) 1719, Colonel Bladen writes tothe 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 alrea(iy foresee some difficulty in the execution ofthis affair, there being at least the differ ence of two degrees between the best French maps and that which the Company delivered us." "Again, in Noveraber, 1719, Lord Stair and Colonel Bladen delivered to the Mareschal d'Estrees, one of the French Commissaries, the demand ofthe H. B. Com pany. The other French Commissary, the Abbe Dubois, (afterwards Cardinal), was prevented by indisposition from attending. " On the 3rd January, 17^0, Lord Stair "wrote to Secretary Craggs ; ' J'ay parle " aussi touchant la commission pour les limites son A. E. ma assure qu'on tiendroit " incessament des nouvelles conferances.' " " Similar assurances were transmitted to Lord Stair from the French Eegent in several letters." " On the 29th February, 1720, Lord Stair wrote : ' De la maniere que Mons. le Mareschal d'Estrees, m'a parle aujourdhuy nous seront encore du temps sans voir renuer les conferences sur les limites en Araerique.' " (The French spelling is Lord htairs. I copied from originals. Note by Chief Justice Draper.) " 14th April, 1718, Mr. Secretary Craggs writes to Mr. Pulteney, then at Paris: ' As my Lord Stair is on the point of leaving Paris, H. My. would have you use this occasion, either yourself directly or by His Excellency, as you shall judge proper, to demand some peremptory answer upon the subject of your coramission, and whether the French Court will renew the conferences with you ; which, if you find they will not, H. My. thinks it needless, in that case, for 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 he and Lord Stair made many fruitless attempts to got the French Commissaries to meet them, but though repeated promises were made, there was no meeting after Colonel Bl.nuen had submitted the British proposals and the map." 229 Colonel Bladen was again in Paris in 1722, but his letters made no allusions whatever to the limits in America. They refer to some matters connected with Ste. Lucie, as to which it does not appear whether any arrangeraent was made." " By a letter from Sir Eobert Sutton to Secretary Craggs, dated Paris, 8th Sep tember, 1720, it appears nothing had been done in regard to ' settling the limits in America, beginning with Hudson's Bay.' " I could not trace any further correspondence on this subject in the State Paper •Office until after tho Treaty of Aix la Chapelle (October, 1748.) -But in July, 1750, the H. B. Company were asrain called upon to lay before the Lords of Trade an account of the boundaries granted to them, and they repeat what their former memo rials stated on the negotiations for carrying out the Treaty of Utrecht. They refer to their proposals as what they still desired, and they stated that the Commisioners under that treaty were never able to bring the settlements of those liraits to a final conclusion." " But there is a letter from the Duke of Bedford to the Earl of Albemarle, dated 12th February, 1749-50, stating that the commissaries for settling the limits will be ready to set out for Paris as soon as Governor Shirley has finished some affairs now depending with the Boaid of Trade, and on the 16th April, 1750, the Duke of Bed ford 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 encroachments of the latter in North 4.merica." The French commissaries were M. Silhouette and M. de la Galissonniere. They sailed from Quebec in the " Leopard," on the 24th September, 1749, to return tq France to meet the English commissaries. General Shirley and Mr. Mildmay (Fer land, 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 1st April, 1755 (Doc. Hist. 10), it is stated that comraissaries had been appointed on. ¦both sides, that «hey did meet at Paris to regulate all the disputes concerning tho French and British possessions. Tho King regrets that the .success of the labors of these coinmissaries 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 regards Acadia. It seems they never did enter seriously on the questionof the limits of Canada. Several bulky volumes made known tothe 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 Boscewen captured the " Lys" and the " Aloide." The only tangible proposition I have found in all theee volumes is that the St. Lawrence is to be the centre of Canada. The English com missaries say they do not know what is meant by that ; neither do I. The capture of the " Lys" and the " Alcide" was really the recommencement of hostilities between Prance and England, but the formal declaration of war was not until the 18th May, 1756. There was, however, an end of negotiation until after the taking of Quebec, when negotiation^ were recommenced. They lasted from the 26th March to the 20th September, 1761. (See the "Memoire historique sur les negocia- tions de la France et c'e I'Angleterre," prepared by the King's order by the Due de Choiseul, Paris, 1761.) Those were, I believe, the last negotiations until the Treaty of Paris (17 3.) In the meantime, it would appear, that so far as the Hudson's Bay territory was Concerned the limits were practically settled. In a map by John Senex, F.ES., 1711 (A 3) we find a dotted line indicating a divi.sion between Canada and the Hudson's Bay territories, similar to the one des cribed and claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company. In a map in Carver's travels (1778) thisis carried out to the Atlantic. In Mitchell's map (1755), (A 4), there is a line similar to that on Senex's raap, with the words, " Bounds of Hudson's Bay by the Treaty of Utrecht." Bennett's raap of 1770 coincides with Mitchell's. (Bou-hette's British Dominions, 1, p. 30.) In, a map published from 1754 to 1761, by Johniioque, Topographer to His Britannic Majesty, we have much the same line. 230 called " Southern boundaries of Hudson's Bay territories as settled by the com missaries of the Treaty of Utrecht." In Vaugondy's map (he was son of the- geographer to the King of France), in 1750, we find a similar line, but without any words explaiuing it. (A 5.) Douglas in his summary, published in 1747, says :¦ " By the Treaty of Utrecht the Canada or French line with Hudson's Bay Company or Great Britain was ascertained, viz., from a certain promontory upon the Atlantic- Ocean in lat. n. 56 deg. 30 min., to run s.w. to Lake Mistassin (which communicates by Indian water carriage by P. Eupert's Eiver with Hudson's Bay, and by Saguenay Eiver with St. Lawrence Eiver at the Port of Tadousac, thirty leagues below), and from thence continued s.w. to lat. n. 49 deg., and from thence due west indefinitely." It is not maintained that the lines shown on these different maps are identical. Mr. Bouchette has remarked on the difference between Mitchell's and Bowen's, the latter giving the 49th parallel. But it is evident they were all aiming at the same natural division — the height of land dividing the waters flowing to the north from. those which flow to the south. The subject of maps would not be fully disposed of without some allusion to the- map accompanying tbe Eeport of the Commissioner of Crown Lands in 1857, and which appears at the end of the Hudson's Bay Eeport of the House of Commons of that year. A dotted line enclosing Hudson's Bay is given with the following descrip tion : " Boundary of Hudson's Bay after the Treaty of Utrecht, 1703 (sic), according to maps published at Paris in 1720, 1739 and 177 1 . Another line, giving a little more sjjace to the Hudson's Bay territory, is thus described: "Northern boundary of Canada at the 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 — 1720, Delisle's map of the Western hemisphere ; 1739,. map by the same, published not at Paris, but at Amsterdam ; and Vaugondy's map of" 1771. Neither 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 the Treaty of Paris . Note S. — In the correspondence between Canada and France I have found twO' allusions to Hudson's Bay after 1713. On the Sth October, 17-14 M. de Beauharnois, in writing to Count Maurepa-, says that the King recommended him to neutralize or utterly destroy the English Forts at Hudson's Bay. (Doc. Hist. 9). And the following year (Ifcth June, 1745) M. de Beauharnois explains why he could not carry out the King's orders in this respect. — Ibid. Note T.-r-This did not escape the perspicacity of the author of Crown Lands. Eeport of 1857. He says : " The most direct interest th.it Canada could have in the , matter at the present moment, being responsible for the administration of justice,. would be rather of a moral and political than of an interested or commercial character." Note U. — La Nouvelle France, as understood by the French, has never been under one government. The Province of Quebec was first limited in the east by the Eiver St. Jean, in the west by the line from Lake Nipissing, which struck the St. Lawrence about 15 leagues from Montreal. It was then extended, but the extension did not include the territory ceded by Vaudreuil, and claimed by England as Canada; a part was then ceded to tbe United States by Treaty, 1783). What remained was divided into two Provinces (1791), again reunited into one (1840), and lastly, the remnant is. 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 possessed Canada." It is curious that in Vaugondy's map of 1750 (A 5) a similar line is marked out without anything to show what it was inti^ded 231 to limit, and the paucity of materials prevents our findir^ out the history of this line. Vaugondy's father was historiographer to the King of France. Note W. — By the Act of 1774 all the territories and countries heretofore part of the territory of Canada which are within the limits of some other British Colony, or which have, since the 10th February, 1763, been made part ofthe 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 ofthe 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's.. — ^In 1721 Charlevoix writes: "Jusqu' a present la Colonic Francaise n'allait pas plus loin a I'ouest," than the Lake of the Two Mountains and Isle Perrot. ^ote Y. — ^It is curious how deeply rooted was the desire to have the Mississippi recognized as tho western boundary of Canada . The people of Canada claimed this in 1773, and the King immediately after the Actof 1774 describes the limits of Canadain his Commissions as following the banks ofthe 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 ot England was directly the rever.se; but when the negotiations which led to the Treaty of Paris were being carried on, the in terest changed. Fi-ance sought to circumscribe the limits of the provinces she h^d promised to cede, while England sought to extend them. England, by its answer of Ist September, 1761, to the French ultimatum, claimed "d'un cote le lacs Huron, Michigan ct Superieur et la dite ligne (la ligne de ces limites) tiree depuis le lac Eouge, embrasse par un cours tortueux la riviere Ouabacha jusqu' a sa joaction^avec I'Ohio et de la se prolonge le long de cette derniere riviere inclusivement jusqu' a son confluence dans le Mississippi," being the limits as traced by the Marquis de Vaudreuil in capitulating. The Kirg of France, as he had promised to cede the possession of Canada "dans la forme la plus etendue," says in reply to the English answer to the French ultimatum, " comme cette ligne dcmandee par I'Angleterre est sans doute la plus etendue que I'on puisse donner a la cession le Eoi veut bien I'accorder." (^13th Sep., 1761, Memoiredu Due Choiseul, 1761.) Le Due de Choiseul in his memoir, p. 139, says : " II etait prescrit a M. de Bussy de " con venir des limites du Canada et de la Louisianne d'apres la carte angloise quoique " tres de favorable aux droits et aux possessions do la Franco." Vaudreuil denied having made the tracing in question, and the map has not been found. Was it that mentioned in the French reply as having been pi-esented by Mr. Stanley? On the annexed map A 2, the green line marks the probable "cours tortueux" to the Wabash. Note Z. — In tho original draft of the bill the words were " southward to the banks ofthe Eiver Ohio, westward to the banks of the Mississippi, and northward to the southern boundary." It is therefore probable that the amendment passed unper- ceived by those who drew the new Commissions ; or the Commissions may have been engrossed from drafts made prior to the passing of the Act. In Lord Elgin's Commission, 18i6, there is also a curious raistake. The western boundary of Lower Canada is made to extend to the shore of Hudson's Bay. I call it a mistake, for no account can be given ofit at the Colonial Office; 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 " boundary line." It was not unnatural to say that the " shore-" was the " boundary line " of Hudson's Bay. 232 iVbfe 11.— I did not fail to notice the words " During His Majesty's pleasure" in tho Act of 1774. I take it these words, if more than deferential, cannot be extended, and therefore they would not give the King the power to add to the Pro vince of Qi^iebec. But at all events, he never attempted it, for extending, the authority of the Governor to 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 Eeinhard case, and it may therefore be worth mentioning that Chief Justice Sewell was probably the man at the time in Canada best fitted to preside in suoh 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 boundary of Canada extended beyond the due north line from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Eivers, were Andrew Stuart, the equal, if not superior, of his brother, the well-known Sir Jaraes Stuart, Vallieres de St. Eeal, afterwards Chief Justice ofthe 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 Abbe Verreau, 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 General Haldimand, and which has not yet been found. The letters forming this correspondence were copied by tho Abbe Verreau from the Haldimand papers in the British Museum. The Abbe Verreau gives the following account of the work he has obligingly volunteered to perform : " J'ai tomi a copier cette lettre moi-meme. Je n'ai trouve " que le projet de Haldimand, corrige et rature avec un soin qui montre I'importance *" attachee par lui a ce qu'il ecrivait. C'est ce qui m'a engage a copier les ratures ; " je les ai raises entre parenthese. II y a bien deux parentheses de Haldimand, mais " j'ai indique qu'elles sont do lui." LETTER FROM SIR JEFFREY AMHERST TO GENERAL HALDIMAND. New York, 1st November, 1762. Dear Sir, — I have been twenty times at tho point of writing to you on a subject which, though of no consequence, I should be glad to know the exact transactions that pas.^cd. When I raade a report of Canada to the Secretary of State, I transmitted a copy ofthe part ofthe map where the liraits between Canada and Louisianna were marked, which you delivered to me, and which I acquainted the Secretary of State were done by Monsieur de Vaudreuil. Whether by him, or done in his presence by his direction, comes to the same thing, and the thing itself is of no sort of consequence, as the letter and orders he (Monsieur de Vaudreuil) sent to the officers commanding at Michillimakinach. the Bay, Oocciatanou, Miamis, &c., raark out the boundaries and expressly include those posts in Canada, so that there can be no dispute about it; yet as 1 see some altercation has passed in .England and France about Monsieur de Vaudieuil'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 that was done regarding the whole affair. I am, with great truth, dear Sir, Your most obedient humble servant, JEFF. AMHEEST. 233 " Copio veritable. La paronthe-se est dans I'original. J'ai copie aussi bien que *' possible ce nom sauvage Oocciatonou. H. V. LETTER FROM GENERAL HALDIMAND TO SIR JEFFREY .4MHSRST. " Trois EiviiiRES, le 10 Xbre., 1762, 1 " Fait parti r le 16 do. J " Monsieur, — J'av regu avec plaisir la lettre que V. Excellence me fait I'honneur " de m'eorire du ler Xbre a I'egard de ce qui s'est passe entre Mous. de Vaudreuil et " moi au sujet des Limittes du Canada. Je m'etais propose plusieurs fois de la " prevenir; mais j'ay crii devoir attcndre ces ordres auxquels je vais obeir avec toute " I'exacitude possible. " Environs 5 ou 6 jours appres que je fus entre dans Mt. Eeal, je demanday a M. " de Vaudi euil, s'il n'auroit point quelques Plans, Mcmoires ou Cartes instruetives, " concernant le Canada ; que je le priois de vouloir me les remettre, afin que je pusse " les faire tenir a V. Ex. ; il me repondit qu'iLn'en avait point les ayant toutes perdues " a Quebec (et pour evittor d'entendre I'enumoration qu'il vouloit me faire de ces autres " pertes) ;* je me contentay pour lors de cette reponse ; mais ayant en occasion de " lui en reparler quelques jour apres, il me dit qu'il avait retrouve une Couple " de Cartes, et passant dans une autre Chambre, il fit apporter une grande Carte ^' de I'Amerique Septlle. faitte a la raain et ployee dans le convert d'un atlas " il y avait aussi quelques mauvais plans de forts, dans un rouUeau detache ; ne ^' trouvant rien d'instructif dans cette Carte,et me rappellant que je I'voie vue imprimee " j'appellay le Lt. Herring de Notre Batt. qui etait dans la Salle et je la lui remis avec " les autres papiers qu'il porta chez moi; En fin la matin du jour que Mons. de Vaudreuil " partit,-j- (etant occupe a arranger le reste des papiers que j'avais regus de differentes " personnes) cette Carte me tombant sous la main me rappella les tentatives " inutiles que j'avais faittes aupres de lui et differentes personnes pour connaitre " I'etendue de ce Pays, et me fit naitre I'idee de Texaminer avec M. do Vaudreuil. -" Je me rendis sur le champ chez lui en y faisant porter la carte par I'enseigne " Monin, ayant trouve M. de Vaudreuil dans sons cabinet qui donne sur la rue " avec quelques personnes de sa maison (apres lui avoir fait mo8 compliment) ;j; " je le priay sans autre preatnbule de voulior bien rae montrer quelles etaient 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 apres I'avoir un peu " examinee, je reiteray ma demande; ill me.parut fort surpris; et corae il ne me repondait " point, je pasay le doigt sur la riviere des Illinois en luidisant, Voicy les Illinois, alors " il me repondit que les Illinois avaient ete en contestation entre les deux Gouverneurs, " mais qu'il avoit ete descide,qu'ils dependroient de celui de la Lonisinnna, sur quoy " sortant un crayon de ma poche et m'accoudant sur la Carte, M. de Vaudreuil se tenant "tiebout aupres de moy (je marquay un point a la source des Illinois en lui montrant " le nord, je lui demanday si la ligne passait la et ra'ayant repondu que oui), je lui " demanday en lui montrant le nord du Micessepy si la ligne passait par laet m'ayant " repondu que oui, je maiquay de point depuis la source des Illinois en remontant le " Micessepy, et lui ayant demande encore une foi si je marquois bien, il me repondit " ces propres paroles (lui Monsr. le Marquis de Vaudreuil ayant les yeux fixes sur la " Carte)§ — prenis tout le nord, preni tout le nord, alors je pointay jusques au Lac Eouge " qui me parut la borne la plus naturelle, sans qu'il y cut la raoindre objection de sa " part, ensuitte revenant de I'autre cotte des Illinois ; et ne me figurant pas quoLoio " put seulepient etre misse en conteste, je lui -dis, icy nous prenons sans doutte par " I'ambouchure du Wabacbe, et posant m®n crayon au confluiint do Loio avec le " Micessepy, je tracay une ligne en remontant cette premiere riviere et I'Wabache qui * Cette Parenthfese est de Haldimand. — H V. t qui suit a ete raturfe par Haldimand. H.V. t Kflfac6. H.V. § Parenthese de de Haldimand, H.V. 234 " alloit joindre la point que j'avois (marque) commence a la source des f llinois,_M. de " Vaudreuil toujours a cotte de moy, et regardant sur la carte, sans qu'il fit aucune " objection (de quelle nature que ce puisse etre). Cette ligne par ses differentes contours " ne pouvant se faire a la derobee (come un simple tnait de crayon) lui en donnait " cependant bien le temps ; mais soit que'ocoupe de son depart il cut prononce les oui " indifferement (ou supposant que ce que je faisois ne pouvait etre d'aucune consequence, " il n'y eut pas) et sans y prette tout I'attention qu'il aurait due (et ayant dit les oui " trop a la legere le recit (ou qu'en donnant une approbation tassitte il chercha a " m'induire en erreur, le recit que je viens de vous faire, Mons. n'en et pas moins " (exact) la plus exacie verite. M. de Vaudreuil et tout ce qui restrait de Frangois a " Mont Eeal devant parti ce|(matinj jour la, les Compagnies de milices etant assemblees " pour delivrer leurs armes, et pretter le serment de fidellite, je n'avois pas de temps " a (perdre) donner a I'examen de cette Carte et des que je crus comprendre ce qu'on " entendoit sous le nom de Canada et que la ligne fiit bien marquee, je refermay la " Carte et la renvoyay chez moy par I'enseigne Monin, enfin Mons. vous pouvez etre " pursuade que la Carte que vous avez entre les mains, est la meme que me fut remise " par Mona. de Vaudreuil 8 ou iO jours apres la prise de Mont Eeal, et que Lt. Herring " qui je crois est a N. Yorca (regut de ma main dan son Cabinet pour la porter) porta " chez moi; que c'est cette memo carte qui fut reportee par I'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 ete tracee par moy meme entierement sous les yeux " de M. de Vaudreuil, et qui soul 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 le.s vrayes " Limittes du Canada, et que du moment que je fremay cette Carte dans son Cabinet, " jusques a celui ou je la remis entre vos mains, il n'y a en aucune alteration faitte a " cette ligne de quelle nature que ce puisse etre. Cecy, Mons, est sur ma parole la " pure veritte de cette transaction. " Je dois vous avouer aussi Mons. que rae persuadant que vous deraandiez plus " tot dos intelligences (sur I'etendue d'un Pays, qui je crois n'a jamais eu de Limittes " fixees)* qu'un aote authenthique faite on vertu de la Capitulation ; je ne crus pas " qu'il convint de faire signer la Carte par M. de Vaudreuil, ce qui m'eut ete facille, " de merae que de me faire donner les Limittes du Canada par ecrit, ce qu'il n'aurait " pu me refuser en vortu de la Capitulation et aurait rendu cet acte incontestable, au " lieu que n'ayant point de signature a montrer, il poura toujours faire croire a son " party qu'on a chercbe a le surprendre. " Si j'ai mal compris V. Ex., j'en suis tres fliche et lui en fait mes excuses, et " lorsqu'en vous remettant la Carte je vous dis qui les Limittes etaient tirees par M\ " de Vaudreuil; j'entendois qu'elles avoient ete tirees sous ses propres yeux, et " avoient en son approbation ; ce qui est vray a la lettre. " Je suis au reste bien charme que (ce different) cette vilaine chicane de M. de " Vaudreuil, ne porte aucun prejudice au.K affairs, elie meme 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 Voire Bxrellence, Le tres humble et tres obeissant serviteur, FEED. HALDIMAND. Du lOe Xbre. " Vraie copie faite ot relue par moi. J'ai marque les parentheses faitcs par " Haldimand. Toutes les awtres parentheses indiquent des mots effaces dans- " I'original. H.V." Oette pareQth6se est de Haldimand et n'est pas une i-ature. H.Y. 235 Letter from Sir Jeffry Amherst to General Haldijiand. New York, 25th January, 1763. Dear Sir: * * * "(II parle de la cessation des hostilities et des forges de Ste. Maurice,)" I 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, thero could be none but good proceeding from what you did in that affair, which has my thorough approbation to every part of it. "(Le reste de cette lettre se rapporte d d'autres affairs.)" I am, with great truth, dear Sir, Your most obedient humble servant, JEFF. AMHEEST. From the correspondence it appears clear that the map was transmited by Haldi mand to Amherst, aud that part ofit — the part on which the limits were traced — was by the latter transmitted to the Secretary of State. This tends to support the sug gestion that the map insisted on by Mr. Stanley was the one Gen. Haldimand got from M. de Vaudreuil. The points as marked by Haldimand seem to correspond with the description in the English answer to the French ultimatum, 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 : — " Pere Marest, Lettres Edifiantes vol. 6. Eelation d'un voyage a la Baie d'Hud- " son en 1694, avec M. d'Iberville. "Eeceuil de voyages du Nord, 10 vols., Nelle. Bd. 12 mo. Ce receuil a commence " en 1714 par le Libraire Jean Frederic Bernard et a ete discontinue en 1731. Ams- " terdam 1732. II contient un discours preliminaire tres interessant, Dans le troisieme " volume du receuil se trouve la Eelation de la Baie de Hudson par M. Jeremie dont le " veritable nom est Noel Jeremie Lamontagne. On trouve son ouvrage imprime " ailleurs. " Lettre de la venerable Mere Marie de I'lncarnation, Premiere Superieure des " Ursulines de la Nouvelle France. 4to. Paris, 1681. " Eolations des Jesuites. 3 vols., 8vo. Quebec, 1858. • "Journal des Jesuites. 1 vol., 4to. Quebec. '• Histoire de I'Amerique Septentrionale. Par de Bacqueville de La Potherie. "4 vols., 8vo. Paris, 1722. '¦ Historia Antipodum. Johann Ludwig Gottfriedt. Frankfort, 1655. " Denis, description des costes de I'Amerique Septentrionale. 2 vols. Paris, 167-. " L'Bscarbot, Marc. Histoire de la Nouvelle France. 12mo. Paris, 1609. " Pere Charlevoix Histoire et description de la Nouvelle France. 2 vols., 4to. " Paris, 1744." Shea. John Gilmary, Translation of the above with notes. 6 vols., Svo. New York, 1866-72. " Journal d'un voyage fait par ordre du roi dans I'Amerique Septentrionale, " forme les volumes 5 et 6 de I'histoire de la Nouvelle France. " Bellin, Eemarques sur la Carte de I'Amerique Septentrionale, comprise entre le " 28e et le 72e degre de Latitude, avec une description geographique de ces parties. "4to. Paris 1755." Purchas, Samuel, His Pilgrimage. Folio. London, 1917. Oldmixon, J., The British Empire in America. 2 vols., 8vo. London, 1741. Dobbs, Arthur. ¦ Of Countries adjoining to Hudson's Bay. 4to. London, 1744. Hakluyt Society's Publications. London. Ogilby, John. America: Being the Description of the New World. 2 vols., folio. London, 1671. 236 Carver, Jonathan. Travels through the Interior Parts of North America, in 1766, 1767 and 1768. Illustrated with copper plates, colored. 8vo. London, 1781. Harris' Complete Collection of Voyages and Travels. '' vols., folio. Murray, Hugh. Hi.it orical Account of Discoveries and Travels in North America, including the United States, Canada, the Shores of the Polar Sea, and the Voyage in Search of the North-West Passage, with Observations on Emigration. -2 vols , Svo. London, 1829. Bolingbroke's Letters and Correspondence. 4 vols., Svo. London, 1798. Chalmer's Collection of Treaties. 2 vols. London, 1790. " Garden, M. le Comte de, Histoire Generale des Traites de paix entre les puis- " sanccs de I'Europe. 15 vols., Svo. Paris, 1817-18." Douglas', Dr. W., Summary -Historical and Political — ofthe First Planting, &c.. ofthe British Settlements in America. 2 vols., Svo. 1755. Christie, Eobert, A History of the late Province of Lower Canada. 6 vols., Svo. Quebec, 1849-55. " Ferland, L'Abbe, Cours d'Histoire du Canada, en deux parties. Quebec, 1861-7." Cavendish, Sir Henry, Bt. Debates in the House of Commons in the year 1774, on the Bill for making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec. London, 1839. DocutT.ents relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, procured in Holland, England and France, by John Eomeyn Broadhead, Esq., Agent of the State. Published under an Act of the Legislature and edited byE. B. O'Callaghan, M.D., L.LD., with a second introduction by the Agent. 10 vols., 4to. Albany, 1853-8. 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 1795, they passed into the hands of his son. Sir George Pownall, who was Secretary of the Province of Lower <;)anada until 1805. Sir George presented the volumes to the late Hon. H. W. Eyland, Secretary to the Governor General, who gave them to his son, G. F. Eyland, Esq., from whom they were purchased by the Library of Parliament. 7 vols., M.S. Pow nall Papers. " Manuscrits relatifs a I'Histoire de la Nouvelle France. Trois Series. Idre " Seri "ef " Paric "Paris, M.S. " Doutre, Gonzalve, B.O.L., et Edraond Lareau, L.L.B. Droit Civil Canadien " suivant I'ordre etablie par les Code, precede d'une histoire generale du droit " Canadien. " Garneau, P. X., Histoire du Canada depuis sa decouverte jusqu' a nos jours. " 4 vols., Svo. Quebec, 1815, 1846, 18-18, 1852." Memorandum. Eemarks 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 Eeturn to an Address of the Honorable Letcislative Assembly of Canada. 1857. App. (No. 17) (B). Cited as Mr. Cauchon's Eeport in 1857. Correspondence between the Dominion Government and the Government ofthe Province of Ontario, sent down in Return to an Address of the Legislature of that Province in 1872. Foot notes are indicated thus : (1) (2) (3), &c. Notes at the end of the Eeport are indicated thus : " Note A," &«• The Maps in the Eeport are referred to thus : Al, A2, A3, A4. 237 -STATEMENT OF THE CASE OF THB GOVEENMENT OP THB DOMIN ION OF CANADA EEGAEDING THE BOUNDAEIES OP THB PEO- VINCE OF ONTAEIO. PEBPAEBD BY HUGH MACMAHON, Q.C, COUNSEL FOE THE DOMINION. Abbreviations. Ont. Docts. Statutes, Documents and Papers respecting the Northern and Western Boundaries of Ontario, compiled by direction of the Govern ment of Ontario. Mills. Eevised Eeport for the purpose of the Arbitration between the Dominion of Canada and Province of Ontario, by David Mills, Esq.,. M.P. Papers relating to Papers presented by command of Her Majesty to the House of H. B Oo. presented Qommons in pursuance of an Address respecting the Territory, mons!*"^^ ° °^' Trade, Taxation and Government claimed or exercised by the Hudson's Bay Company. (Ordered by House of Commons to be printed, i2th July, 1850.) statement of the case op the government of the dominion of CANADA regarding the boundaries of the province of ONTARIO. The limits assigned to the Province of Ontario by the British North America Act 1867 Sec. 6, are such part of the Province of Canada as at the passage ofthe Act' formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada. The claim of the Dominion of Canada is, that the moridianal line drawn due north from the junction ofthe Ohio and Mississippi Eivers (ascertained to be 89° 9' 27" west) forms the western boundary of Ontario, and that the land's height of the- northern water-shed of the St. Lawrence is the northern boundary. The Government of Ontario contend that the western limit of that Province is the Eocky Mountains ; that the north-western limitary line lies north of the Saskatch ewan ; and that the north-eastern line lies in the vicinity of Hudson's Bay. (Mills, p. 1.) The claim of Ontario to extend the western limit of the Province to the Eocky Mountains rests, it is assumed, upon the supposed title of France to that country, as having been the first discoverers thereof It was stated by M. de Callieres, when writing to M. de Seiguellay in 1685 (N.Y. His. Doc, Vol. IX., p. 265), that the French were the first to discover Hudson's Bay, and that nation was therefore entitled to the whole country fo the base of the Eocky Mountains ; and the rule of international law on which this is claimed is thus stated by M. de Callieres : " It is a custom established and a right recognized by all Christian nations that the first who discovers an unknown country not inhabited by Europeans, and who plant in it the arms of their prince, secure the property thereof to that prince in whose name they have taken possession of it." -,-,. ^ , ^ •, i- •,. ., L'Escai^bot in 1617, stated that "New France has for its limits on the western side the lands as far as the sea called the Pacific, on this side the Tropic of Cancer ; on the south the islands of the Atlantic Sea, in the direction of Cuba and the Island of Hespaniola ¦ on the east by the Northern Sea, which bathes New France ; and on the north that land called ' Unknown ' towards the icy sea as far as the Arctic Pole." (Ont. Docts., p. 53.) So that the whole of the north-western portion of the continent was claimed as belonging to France- „ , , , It will be necessary briefly to show upon what these claims are founded; and then to consider if they have any value as bearing on the question to be decided by tho arbitrators. , ^ ,. ^t ti i ^ i.- v. In lo2d Louis XIII, granted to the Company of New France a charter which, it is asserted, included the whole of the country about Hudson Bay and west of it. 138 The Indians from the vicinity of Hudson's Bay came to Montreal to trade ; hence it is said there was no necessity for erecting forts and trading posts. ('Mills, p. 1J7.) It is stated that Jean Bourdon, the Attorney-General in 1656, explored tho entire coast of Labrador and entered Hudson's Bay. It appears that in the year 1656 there was an order of the Sovereign Council of Quebec authorizing Sieur Bourdon, its Attorney-General, to make a discovery thereof. There is no record whatever of his having attempted to make the discovery in the same year in which the order was passed by the Council. There is a record, however, of his having made the attempt in the year following (1657), and he may then have designed carrying out the order. He sailed on the 2nd day of May and re turned on llth August, 1657 ; and it is not pretended that he could liave made a voy age to Hudson's Bay and return between these dates. (Journal des Jesuites pp. 209- 218.) As to the extent of this voyage there can be no doubt, as in the Eel. de Jests., Vol. III., Eel. 1658, p. 9, it is thus reported :— " Le 11 (August) parut la barque de Monsieur Bourdon lequel estant descendu " sur le grand fleuve du Coste du Nord voyagea jusques au 55 degre au 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 les massacrerent et blesserent un " Frangois de trois coups de fleches et d'un coup de couteau." The Jesuits would have known if Jean Bdurdon had entered the Straits of Hudson, and would have mentioned it in their Eolations. On the contrary, they never mention it, and it is to be taken from that, that the assertion that he ever entered Hudson's Bay is a myth, because he was ofthe Province of Quebec, and was a man well known and trusted by the Jesuits, and went with Father Jaques ou an embas.sy to Governor Dongan, of New York. It is asserted that Father Dablon and Sieur de Valliere were in 1661 ordered by Sieur d'Argenson, Governor of Canada, to proceed to tbe country about Hudson's Bay, and they went thither accordingly, and the Indians who then came back with them to Quebec declared that they had never seen any Europeans there before. In Shea's Charlevoix, Vol. III., pp. 39 and 40, it is stated that he (Father Dab lon) attempted to penetrate to the Northern Ocean by ascending the Saguenay. Early in July, two months after they set out, they found themselves at the head ofthe Ne- kauba Eiver, 300 miles from Lake St. John. They could not proceed any further, being warned by the approach ofthe Iroquois. Eev. Claude Dablon arrived in Canada in 1655, and was immediately sent mis sionary to Onondaga, where he continued with a brief interval until 1658. In 1661 he set out overland for Hudson's Bay, but succeeded in reaching only the head watei-s of the Nekauba, 300 miles from Lake St. John. (N. V. Hist. Doc, Vol. IX p 97 noie2.~Ed.) ' '^ ' In the Rel de Jisuits, Vol. Ill (1661), p. 13, there is an account of this voyage, which is called " Journal du premier voyoge fait vers la mer du Nord. (12 Aoiit, 1661.)" The account is dated from the highest point they reached, Nekauba, 100 lieues de Tadousac, 2 Juillet, 1661 : " 1661 Juillet le 27 retournerent ceux qui estoient alies ou pretendoient aller a la "mer du Nord au Kiristinons P. Dablon &c." (Journal dj Jesuits, p. 300.) An assertion is made that some Indians came from about Hudson's Bay to Quebec in 1663, and that Sieur la Couture with five men proceeded overland to the Bay pos- sessioris, whereof they took in the King's name. There is no record ofthis voyage. No mention is raade in Charlevoix or in the Eolations of the Jesuits respecting Couture or his expedition. Siour Duquet, King's Attorney f.n- Quebec, and Jean L'Anglois, a Canadian colo nist, are said to have gone to Hudson's Bay in 1663 by order of Sieur D'Argenson and renewed the act of taking possession by setting up the King's arms there a second time. Viscount D'Argenson, who is stated by Mr. Mills at p. 129 of his Eevised Eeport to have given the order to Duquet to proceed to Hudson's Bay, left Canada on ]6th September, 1661, two years prior to the giving of the order, which, it is stated Sieur 239 Duquet received (Shea's Charlevoix. Vol. III., p. 65, note 5 and p. 17. N.Y. His. Doc'ts, Vol. IX., p. 17.) In 1666 or 1667, Eadisson and des Grosellieres were roaming among the Assinni- boines in the region ot Lake Winnipeg, and were conducted by members of that tribe to the shores of Hudson's Bay. (Mills, p. 8 ) Father Albanel and Sieur St. Simon were, in November, 1671, sent by M. Talon to Hudson's Bay, which they reached in 1672. In tho Relations of the Jesuits, Albanel gives an account of his trip, and shows that the English Company were already in possession of Hudson's Bay, having entered there under their charter. It is quite apparent from the Eolations that no one had on behalf of France visited Hudson's Bay prior to his visit in 1672. Father Albanel says : — " Jusques icy on avoit estime ce voyage impossible aux Frangois, qui apres 1' " avoir entrepris deja par trois fois, et n'en ayant pu vaincre les obstacles, s'estoient " veu obligcz de I'abandonner dans le desespoir du succez. Ce qui paroist impossible, *'- se trouve aise quand il plaist a Dieu. La conduite ra'en estoit deue, apres dix-huit " ans de poursuites que j'en avois faite, et j'avois des preuves assez sensibles que Dieu " m'en reservoit I'execution, apres la favour insigne d'une guersion soudaine et " marveilleuse, pour ne point dire miraculeuse, que je receus des que je me fus devoue " a cette mission, a la sollicitation de raon Superieur." (Eel. Jests. 1672, p. 56.) Up to this time (1672^) the Jesuits do not appear to have heard of any prior expedition having reached Hudson's Bay. What is relied upon by the Province of Ontario as furnishing evidence of Father Dablon and Sieur Couture having visited Hudson's Bay is a memoir of M . de Callieres sent to the Marquis de Seignelay in 1684 (N.Y. Hist. Doct., Vol. IX., p. 268), and M. de Denonville, on the 8th Nov., 1686, by a memoir sent to M. de Seignelay, appears to have copied the statement made by M . de Callieres . (See ibid, p. 304.) But in his letter which accompanies the memoir, M. de Denonville says : " I annex to this letter a memoir of our rights to the entire of that country of which our registers ought to be full, but no memorials of them are to be found . " (N . Y. Hist. Doc, Vol. IX., p. 297.) M. de Denonville thereby admits that documentary evidence could not even at that time be adduced in support of these visits having been made to Hudson's Bay . At the time that M. de Callieres and M. de Denonville wrote (in 1684 and 1686) it was most important to show if possible that Dablon and Couture had been at Hud son's Bay. The French, before that time, had driven the English from a number of their forts; and in March, 1686, Canadian troops were sent by Denonville who sur prised and captured Forts Albany, Hayes and Eupert, belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company ; and it therefore became necessary ts show a color of right for these pro ceedings, and these memoii's were prepared with that view. ENGLISH DISCO VEEY. , 1517. Sebastian Cabot, who sailed to Hudson's Bay and Straits under a oommiss ion from Henry VH. of England, entered the Bay, which, in 1610, took the name of Hudson. This is admitted by Mr. Mills, pp. Iii2 and 123. (See Bacon's History of Henry VII. Hakluyt, Vol. Ill, pp. 25, 26 and 27.) 1576, 1577 and 1578. Sir Martin Frobisher, it is said, made three voyages to Hudson's Bay. He entered Hudson's Bay in 1576, and gave the name Frobisher's Straits. (Mills, p. 123. Hakluyt, Vol. IIL, po. 55 to 95. Piukerton's Collection, Vol. XIL, pp. 490- 521.) ^ 1608-1610. According to the narrative ot Prickett (who was with Hudson during the voy- -age), to be found in Harris's Voyages, Vol. II., pp. 243-4, Hudson sailed on 17th 240 April, 1610, reached the Bay now known as " Hudson's" in July of that year, and wintered in tUe Bay, and remained there until late in the summer of 1611. 1611. It was desired to prosecute the discoveries made by Hudson, and in 1611 His Eoyal Highness Henry Prince of Wales was applied to by persons concerned in the project, and he resolved to send Captain Butcon, who penetrated to Hudson's Bay and sailed 200 leagues to the North-West. He wintered there at Nelson Eiver.- (Harris, Vol. II., pp. 245-404.) 1631. It appears that the English nation had been trading with Greenland, and those trading finding that " other nations were interfering with this trade " found them selves under the necessity of having recourse to the Crown for protection and assistance, as well for defending their fisheries as for prosecuting their discoveries, and they accordingly addressed theraselves to King Charles I., who furnished them with a frigate called " The Charles," under command of Captain Luke Fox, who- sailed in the spring of 1631, in order to raake discoveries towards the North- West. ' Captain Pox and Captain James met at Fort Nelson in August, 1631. Capt. Thomas James undertook his voyage in 1631 for the satisfaction of Charles I. at the expense of the merchants of Bristol. The account of the voyage was written by himself and published in 1633. Captain James left England in May and met Captain Luke Pox on 29th August near Port Nelson. He wintered in Hudson's Bay. (Harris's Travels, Vol.- II., pp. 40/, 409 and 413.) 1667 and 1668. Des Grosellieres and Eadisson (who it is supposed were Goureurs des bois) were roaming among the Assinniboines and were conducted by them to Hudson's Bay. Des Grosellieres and Radisson went to Quebec forthe purpose of inducing the merchants there to conduct trading vessels to Hudson's Bay. The proposal wae rejected, as the project was looked upon as chimerical by the Quebec merchants. (Ont. Docts. p. 28t)). (This does not accord with the pretensions ofthe French that Jean Bourdon had made a voyage there in 1656 or 1657). Des Grosellieres was in London in lS'o7, and before going there had been in Boston and Paris in search of persons willing to fit out an expedition to explore Hudson's Bay. He met with a favorable reception, and the London Merchants em ployed Z. Gillam, a person long used to the New England trade, to perfect this discovery. Gillam sailed in the " Nonsuch " in 1667, and ou his arrival built Port Charles, said to have been the first fort erected in the bay, and upon his return those engaged iu the enterprise applied to Charies II. for a patent, which was issued on 2nd May, 1670, to Prince Eupert and others. (Harris's Voyages, Vol. IL, p. 286). 1669. Captain Newland was sent out in 1669 by the same parties who in 1667 sent out Z. Gillam. As far as Hudson's Bay territory is concerned the English were first, both as to discovery and occupation. So long as the English were not there the Indians came to Montreal and Quebec, and the French derived the benefit of the tra(io, which was all that was required, and they could then afford to treat as chimerical the statements of Eadisson and Des Grosellieres that Hudson's 'Bay could be reached with ships. But once the English occupied the territory, erected forts and created settlements, whereby the French fur trade was cut off from the west and north, then it became necessary for them to claim title by discovery. Hence the mem.jir of M. do Calliferes to M. Seignelay, which is shown cannot be relied upon, and which D. Denonville says there are no, memorials to support. If possession is to form a claim to the country, the evidence that tho English first made a settlement and thus took possession is of the clearest character, for it is 241 not seriously pretended that any actual possession was taken nor any settlement made until Gillam went to Hudson's Bay and built Fort Charles in 1667. What, then, did England obtain by taking possession and making a settlement for the purpose of occupancy by building the numerous forts on Hudson's Bay in the year 1667 and during subsequent years? According to Vattel, Book I., Chap. 18., Sect. 207, " Navigators going on voyages of discovery furnished with a commission from their Sovereign, and meeting with islands or other lands in a desert state, have taken possession of them in the name oftheir nation ; and this title has been usually respected, provided it was soon after followed by real possession." " When a nation takes possession of a country, with • a view to settle there, it takes possession of everything included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers, &c." (Ibid, •Chap. 22, Sect. 226.) " In the negotiation between Spain and the United States respecting the western boundary of Louisiana, the latter country laid down with accuracy and clearness certain propositions of law upon this subject, and which fortify the opinion advanced in the foregoing paragraphs. 'The principles (America said unthis occasion) which are applicable to the case are such as are dictated by reason and have been adopted in practice by European powers in the discoveries and acqui-Ditions which they have respectively made in the New World. They are few, simjile, intelligible, and, at the same time, founded in strict justice. The first of these is, that when any European nation takes possession of any extent of sea coast, that possession is under stood as extending into the interior country to the sources of the rivers emptying within that coast, to all their branches, and the country they cover, and to give it a right, in exclusion of all other nations, to the same. (See Memoire de I'Amerique, p. 116.) It is evident that some rule or principle must govern the rights of Europ- pean powers in regard to each other in all such cases ; and it is certain that none can be adopted, in those to which it applies, more reasonable or just than the present one. Many weighty considerations show the propriety of it. Nature seems to have ¦ destined a range of territory so described for the same society to have connected its several parts together by the ties ofa common interest, and to have detached them from others. If this principle is departed from it must be by attaching to such dis covery and possession a more enlarged or contracted scope of acquisition ; but a slight attention to the subject will demonstrate the absurdity of either. The latter would be to restrict the rights of an European power who discovered and took pos session of a new country to the spot on which its troops or settlement rested — a doctrine which has been totally disclaimed by all the powers who raade discoveries and acquired possessions in America.' " (Phillimore's Intl. Law, 2 ed., Vol, I., pp. 277-8-9.) Sir Francis Twiss, in his discussion on the Oregon question, at page 300 states that " Great Britain never con idered her right of occupancy up to the Eocky Moun tains to rest upon the fact of her having established factories on the shores of the Bay of Hudson, i. e., upon her title by mere settlement, but upon her title by dis covery confirmed ly settlements in which the French nation, her only civilized neighbor, acquiesced, and which they subsequently recognized by treaty." covery confirmed by settlements in which the French nation, her only civilized neighbor, acquiesced, and which they subsequently recognized by treaty." The British nation, therefore, acquired, by discovery and by settlements made on Hudson's Bay, the possession of the country extending into the interior to the sources of the rivers emptying within that coast, which would include the Saskat chewan and English Eivers to the west, having their sources at the foot of the Eocky Mountains, and extending south and east to the sources of all the rivers flowing into James' Bay. The law entitling England to this has been stated not only by Vattel, but has been adopted as correct by the United States, and is recognized by the highest authorities on International Law in England— Dr. Twiss and Dr. Phillimore— as being the correct principle to apply in such cases. 1—1^ 242 If England acquired the territory claimed within the limits stated, it may for some purposes be necessary to consider what the Hudson's Bay Company took under their charter. The charter will be found in Ont. Docts. pp. 29-37, and at p. 33 -will be found what the King grants to the Hudson's Bay Company, under the name of "Eupert's Land." First is granted the sole trade and commerce of all those seas, bays, lakes, rivers, creeks, &c. Then the company are created the absolute lords and proprietors of the same territory, limits and places, <&c., &c., in free and common socage," with power to erect colonies and plantations, &c. The charter is very wide ; and, although it appears to have been conceded by the leading counsel in England (Ont. Docts., pp. 193 to 202), whose opinions were obtained that the charter granting a monopoly to the Company to trade may have been void because not sanctioned by Parliament, yet that the territorial grant is valid, and the only difference in the opinions appears to be to the extent of territory covered by tbe grant. In 1849, on an Address of the House of Commons, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct that means be taken to ascertain the legality of the powers in respect to Territory, Trade, Taxation and Government, which are or have been claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, the Directors of the Company were requested to rendei their assistance in complying with the Address of the House of Commons, which they did on the 13th September, 1849, by enclosing to Earl Gray a statement as to their Bights as to Territory, Trade, dec., whioh will be found in full in Ont. Docts., pp. 288-9 and 290. Annexed to this statement was a map showing the territory claimed by the Company as included within their charter ; and a copy of this map was likewise produced in 1857 to the Select Committee of the House of Commons and is attached to the Eeport of that Committee. This map shows that on the south the Company claimed to the land's height, and on the west to the foot of the Eocky Mountains. On Soth Oetober, 1849, Earl Gray enclosed to the then law-officers of the Crown the statement and map furnished by the Company, requesting an opinion as to the rights of the Company. The opinion furnished is as follows : — Copy of a Letter from Sir John Jervis arid Sir John Romilly to Earl Gray. Temple, January, 1850. Mt Lord, — We were honored with Your Lordship's commands, contained in Mr. Hawes' letter of the SOth October last, in which he stated that he was directed by Your Lordship to transmit to us a copy of a Eesolutiou of the House of Commons, that an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that measures may be taken for ascertaining the legality of the powers which are claimed or exercised by the Hudson's Bay Company on the Continent of North America. Mr. Hawes then stated that he was to enclose the copy of a letter from the Chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company, together with a statement and cxai, pre pared under his direction, of the territories claimed by the Company in v^•tue of the charter granted to them by King Charles the Second. Mr. Hawes also sent the copy of a letter dated the SOth September last from Mr. A. K. Isbister, inquiring in what mode Her Majesty's Government intend to give effect to the Eesolution ofthe House of Commons, and whether, in the event of any reference to a judicial tribunal, it will be necessary for the parties interested to appear by counsel or otherwise, or to furnish evidence, and, if so, of what nature, Mr. Hawes concluded by stating that your Lordshfo requested that we would take these pa'pers i ato our early consideration and inform you whether we are of opinion that the rights claimed by the Company do properly belong to them. In the event of our entertaining a doubt on any point raised in these papers,' Mr, Hawes was to request that we would advise your Lordship in what manner the opinion of a competent tribunal can be obtained on the subject. 243 In obedience to your Lordship's command, wo have taken these papers into our consideration, and have the honor to report that, havirig regard to the powers in respect to territory, trade, taxation and government claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company in the statements furnished to your Lordship by the Chairman of that Company, we are of opinion that the rights so claimed by the Company do properly belong to them. Upon this subject we entertain no doubt ; but as it will be more satisfactory to the complainants against the Company, to the promoters of the discussion in the House of Commons, and possibly to the Company themselves, if the questions are publicly argued and solemnly decided, we humbly advise your Lordship to refer these questions to a competent tribunal for consideration and decision, and to inform Mr. Isbister that he may appear as complainant, and the Company that they may be heard as respondents upon the argument. The proper mode of raising the question for discussion will, we' presume, be for Mr. Isbister, or some other person, to embody in a petition to Her Majesty the complaints urged against the Hudson's Bay Com pany ; and such a petition may be referred by Her Majesty either to the Judiciary Committee, under the 4th Section of the Statute 3 and 4, Will. IV., c. 41, or to the Committee of Trade, as involving questions within their jurisdiction. The Judiciail Committee, from its constitution, is the best fitted for the discussion of a case of this description, and we recommend that to that tribunal the proposed petition should be: referred. (Papers relating to Hudson's Bay Company, presented to the House of Com mons, pp. 7-8.) On 6th June, 1850, Earl Grey caused to be sent to Sir John Pelly a letter, from which the following extracts are taken : — Extract of a Letter frosi B. Hawes, Esq., ro Sir John Pbllt, Bart., dated at Downing Street, 6th June, 1850. " With reference to your observation, ' that it would be of the utmost import ance if the decision of the Privy Council on the rights and privileges of the Coni pany were sent to Hudson's Bay by one of the ships appointed to sail on the Sth instant,' I am to remind you that the proceedings for the purpose of giving effect to the resolution of the House of Commons of 5th July, 1849, have not led to any reference to the Pri-^ Council,, and thatthe question raised ia that resolution stands in the following position :^^ " Siteps have been taken, as you are aware, to obtain from the Hudson's Bay' Company a statement of its claims ; that statement was duly submitted to Her Majesty's law advisers, and Her Majesty's Government received from them a report that the claime of the Goiinpany were well founded. It was observed in that report that, with a view to the fuller satisfection of the House of Commons, and the parties; interested, it would bo advisable to refer the enquiry to a competent tribunal, and that the proper mothod of raising a discussion upon it would be for some person to address a petition to Her Majesty, which petition might then be referred either to- ihe Judicial Committee or the Committee of Privy Council for Trado and Plantations. " Such a petition was, therefore, essential to the complete prosecution of the inquiry. Lord Grey accordingly gave to certain parties in this country, who had taken an interest in the condition, of the inhabitants of the Hudson's Bay Company's Territoriesj and had questioned the validity of the Company's charter, an opportunity to prefer the necessary petition if they were so disposed ; but, for reasons which it is unnecessary to repeat, they respectively declined to do so. Lord Grey having, therefore, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, adopted the most effectual means open to him for answering the requirements of the Address, has been obliged, in the absence of any parties prepared to contest tho rights claimed by the Company, to assume the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in their favor to be well founded." 1—1 6J 244 (Papers relating to Hudson's Bay Company, presented to House of Com mons, p. 15.) The law officers of the Crown — Sir Eichard Bethell, Attorney-General, and Sir Henry S. Keating, Solicitor-General — gave an opinion in 1857 (Ont. Docts., pp. 200-1), " That the validity and construction of the Hudson's Bay Company's charter cannot be considered apart from the enjoyment which has been had under it during nearly two centuries, and the recognition made of the rights of the Company in various Acts both of the Government and the Legislature." "We beg leave to state, in answer to the questions submitted to us, that in our opinion the Crown could not now with justice raise the question of the general validity of the charter ; but that, on every legal principle, the Company's territorial owner ship of the lands and the rights necessarily incidental thereto Qas, for example, the right of excluding frora their territory persons acting in violation to their regula tions) ought to be deemed to be valid." "The remaining subject for consideration is the question ofthe geograp'iical extent ofthe territory granted by the charter, and whether its boundaries can in my and what manner be ascertained. In the case of grants of considerable age, su- ag this charter, when the words, as is often the case, are indefinite or ambiguous he rule is that they are construed by usage and enjoyment, including in these 1, tor terms the assertion of ownership ly the Company on important public occasions, sue h as Treaties of Eyswick and Utrecht, and again in 1750." Now, what were the Hudson's Bay Company claiming as their territorial rights at the time ofthe Treaty of Eyswick (1697) and after the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), and also in 1750 ? By the 7th and Sth Articles of the Treaty of Eyswick certain things were to be done — (1) the Treaty was to be ratified, and (2) after the ratification Commissioners were to be appointed who were " to examine and determine the rights and pretentions which either of the said Kings had to the places situate, in Hudson's Bay." (Ont. Docts., pp. 15 and 16.) And although Commissioners were appointed, and although claims were at different times advanced by the Hudson's Bay Company (as will pre sently be stated), nothing was done by the Commissioners to determine such rights and pietensions. " After the Commissioners have determined those differences and disputes, the Articles the said Commissioners shall agree to shall be ratified by both Kings, and shall have the same force and vigor as if they were inserted word for word in the present Treaty." (Treaty of Eyswick, Art. 8, Chalmers' Treaties, Vol. 1, p. 335.) The English and French Governments went on negotiating under the Treaty, until 1702, when the war of succession broke out and all negotiations were at an «nd. It has been stated and urged as a ground against the latter pretensions of the Hudson's Bay Co., that in July, 1700, they were willing to contract their limits. While willing to do this for the purpose of effecting a settlement, and only on con dition oftheir not being able to obtain " the whole Straits and Bay which of right belongs to them." (Ont. Docts., p. 123.) Nothing was done under this, and the Hudson's Bay Co. were again addressed by the Lords of Trade and Plantations in January, 1701, when they again insist on their rights to the whole Bay and Straits, but are willing to forgo their rights to a certain extent if by that means they can secure a settlement. "But should the French refuse the limits now proposed by the Company, the Company think themselves not bound by this, or any former concessions of the like nature, but must, as they have always done, insist upon their prior and undoubted right to the whole Bay and Straits of Hudson which the French never yet would strictly dispute, or suffer to be examined into (as knowing the weakness oftheir claim), though the first step in the said Article of Eyswick directs the doing of it." (Ont. Docts., pp. 124-5). In May, 1709, the Company were requested hy the Lords of Trade and Planta tion to send an account of the encroachments of the French on Her Majesty's'" Dominion in America within the limits of the Company's charter. To which the 245 Company replied, setting forth their right and title, and praying restitution. (Mills, pp. 152-3). A further petition was sent by the Hudson's Bay Company to the Queen in 1771. (Ont. Docts., pp. 126-7.) Nothing was done by the Commissioners towards the determination of the dif ferences and disputes up to the time when Count de Torey, on behalf of France, made a proposition, in April, 1711, with a view of bringing about a general peace between England and France, and while these negotiations were in progress, and on 7th Pebruary, 1712, the Hudson's Bay Co. set forth what they desired should be stipulated for them at the ensuing treaty of peace. (Ont. Docts., pp. 128-9.) Por reasons thought very cogent, it is not supposed the question of post liminiy will require much, if any, consideration ; but as no point should be over looked which ought, or even might, be considered in the case, the subject is, thei'e- fore, shortly considered. Vattel, Book III., Cap, 14, Sec. 20, defines the right of post liminiy to be " that in virtue of which persons and things taken by the enemy are restored to their former estate on coming again into the power of the nation to which they belonged." " The Sovereign is bound to protect the persons and property of his subjects, and to defend them against the enemy. When, therefore, a subject, or any part of his property, has fallen into the enemy's possession, should any fortunate event bring them back again into the Sovereign's power, it is undoubtedly his duty to restore them to their former condition — to re-establish the persons in all their rights and obligations — to give back the effects to the owners — in a word, to replace everything on the same footing on which it stood previous to the enemy's capture. (Ibid, See. 205.) " Provinces, towns and lands, which the enemy restores by the treaty of peace are certainly entitled to the right of post liminium ; for the Sovereign, in whatever manner he recovers them, is bound to restore them to their former condition as soon as he regains possession of them. (Ibid, Sec. 205.) The enemy in giving back a town at the peace renounces the right he had acquired by arms. It is just the same as if he had never taken it ; and the traasaction furnishes no reason which can justify the Sovereign in refusing to reinstate such town in the possession of all her rights, and restore her to her former condition." (Ibid, Sec. 211.) It is submitted, however, that, as betweenthe Dominion and Province of Ontario, the question whether the Hudson's Bay Company were entitled to deraand the right of post liminiwm is of no consequence whatever. The late Chief Justice Draper, when acting as agent for the Province of Canada, delivered to the House of Commons Committee, on the 28th of May, 1857, a paper relative to the boundaries, wherein it is stated, "The Sth Article of the Treaty of Eyswick, shows that the French at that time set up a claim of right to Hudson's Bay, though that claim was abandoned at the peace of Utrecht, and was never set up afterwards." ((>nt. Docts., p. 240.) Lord Dartmouth's letter of the 27th May, 1713 (Ont. Docts., p. 129), enclosing the petition of the Hudson's Bay Company, shows what was the design in not accepting an " Act of Cession " from the French King; and Her Majesty the Queen " insisted only upon an order from the French Court for delivering possession; by this means the title of the Company is acknowledged, and they will come into the immediate enjoyment of their property without further trouble." The Sections of Treaty of Utrecht having any bearing upon the question are the 10th and 15th, to be found in Ont. Docts., pp. 16 and 17. Under Sec. 10 the King of France was "to restore to the Queen of Great Britain, to be possessed in full right forever, the Bay a Straits of Hudson, together with all lands, seas, 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." * * * 246 " The same Commissaries shall also have orders to describe and settle in like manner the boundaries between the other British and French Colonies in those parts." In the wording of the 10th Article a great deal of discussion arose as to whether the word " restore " or the word " cede " should be used. Count de Torey, in January, 1713, says : " The Plenipotentiaries now make no difference between places ' ceded' and places ' restored.' " (Bolingbroke's Correspondence, Vol. III., p. 601,) But in March, 1713, he says that the truth is so evident that the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain at Utrecht always make a distinction between places that should be " ceded" and those that should be "restored." (Bolingbroke's Correspondence, Vol. Ill, p. 605.) Great Britain was contending that as France had dispossessed her of Hudson's Bay Territories the French should " restore " them, while the French desired to use the word " cede," as if the territories had belonged to the French, and they were for the first time ceding them to Great Britain. The word " restore " was used, and it is important to examine the original text of the Treaty, which is in Latin, The words used in that Article, " spectantibus ad eadem," show clearly that France was to restore to England all the lands looking towards the Hudson's Bay : in other words, the whole water-shed of the waters running into the Hudson's Bay. The first part of the 1 10th Section does away with any exception, and left nothiUg for the French to hold possession of in Hudson's Bay. Mr. Mills, at p. 159 of his Eeport, after quoting the portion ofthe 10th Section above referred to, says : " The words of the Treaty just quoted and the attendant cir cumstances show that what was claimed by England and yielded by France was the Bay and the country upon its margin. Nevertheless, the language of the Treaty did not make it impossible for England, if she were so disposed, to insist upon the possession of the whole country to the land's height. France, too, consented with reluctance to the use of the word ' restoration ' instead of ' cession.' " The Treaty not only made it possible for England to insist upon the possession of the whole country to the land's height, but from the very moment Commissaries were appointed as provided by the Treaty she always insisted that she was entitled to the whole country, and it will be apparent that Prance assented to to this conten tion as being the correct interpretation of the Treaty, Although Commissaries were appointed as provided by the Treaty, and notwith standing the Commissaries failed to define the boundaries between the territories of each of the Governments, it was in some manner assumed thatthe boundary had been settled by the 49th parallel; and this was looked upon by the Americans and by the English themselves as being the southern boundary of the Hudson's Bay Company's territory. And we find that in the discussions which took place in regard to the boundary line from the north-west angle of the Lake of the Woods to the Eocky Mountains, the United States asserting on the one hand, and Great Britain not deny ing on the other that the 49th parallel was the boundary between their respective countries, because it was the southem boundary of the Hudson's Bay. " From the coast of Labrador to a certan point north of Lake Superior those limits were fixed according to certain metes and bounds, and from that point the line of demarcation was agreed to extend indefinitely due west along the 19th parallel of north latitude. It was in conformity with that arrangement that the United States did .claim that parallel as the northern boundary of Louisiana." (Greenshaw's Oregon, 2nd ed., p. 460.) Whether a boundary was ever agreed upon, or whether it was merely assumed that the boundary above stated had been assented to, cannot now be of much import ance, as in 1760 the Marquis de Vaudreuil did not pretend that the Canada of the French extended in a north-westerly direction beyond the Eed Lake. On the 4th August, 1714, the Hudson's Bay Company sent a memorandum to the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, accompanied by a map in which they claimed that the eastern boundary should be a line running from Grimington's Island through Lake Wiscosinke or Mistassinnie, and from the said lake by a line run south-westward into 49 degrees north latitude, as by the red line may more par- 247 ticularly appear, and that that latitude be the limit; that the French do not come to the north ot it nor the English to the South of it. (Ont. Docts., pp. 131-2.) When, in 1719, Commissaries were appointed the instructions given to Mr. Pult- ney and Col. Bladen, the British Commissaries, were explicit to claim to the 49th of north latitude where another line was to begin and extend westward upon the 49th parallel, over which said lines the French were to be prohibited from passing. (Ont. Docts., p. o(i2.) In order that there might be no mistaking the full extent of the demand of the British Government, and to show that under the Treaty, England was claiming the whole territory northward to the height of land and westward to the Eocky Moun tains, the English comraissaries in 1719 sent to the French commissaries a memoir on the subject of the boundary, in which they set forth that " the French since the Treaty of Utrecht had made a settlement at the source ofthe Eiver Albany, the Com missaries of His Britannic Majesty insist that the French shall quit the said settle ment, and that the fort, if there be any such building, shall be given up to the company of English merchants trading in Hudson's Bay aforesaid," " The said Commissaries further demand that the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty shall not build forts or found settlements upon any ofthe rivers which empty into Hudson's Bay under any pretext whatsoever, and that the stream and the entire navigation of the said rivers shall be left free to the company of English merchants trading into Hudson's Bay and to such Indians as wish to traffic with them." (Ont. Docts., p. 365.) Sir Travers Twiss says : — " The object ofthe 10th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht was to secure to the Hudson's Bay Company the restoration of the forts and other possessions of which they had been deprived at various times by French expeditions from Canada, and of which some had been yielded to France by the 7th Article of the Treaty of Eyswick. By this latter Treaty Louis XIV. had at last recognized William III. as King of Great Britain and Ireland ; and William, in return, had consented that fhe principle of uti possidetis should be the basis ofthe negotiations between the two Crowns. Bj the 10th Article, however, of the Treaty of Utrecht, the French King agreed to restore to the Queen (Anne) of Great Britain, 'to be possessed in full right forever, 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 thereto ; no tracts of land or sea being excepted which are at present possessed by the subjects of France.'' The only question, therefore, for Commissaries to settle were the limits of the Bay and Straits of Hudson, coastwards, on the side of the French Province of Canada, as all the country drained by streams entering into the Bay and Straits of Hudson were, by the terms of the Treaty, recognized to be part of the possessions of Great Britain." "If the coast boundary, therefore, was once undei-stood by the parties, tho head waters of the streams that empty themselves into the Bay and Straits of Hudson indicate the line which at once satisfied the other conditions of the treaty. Such a line, if commenced at the eastern extremity of the Straits of Hudson, would have swept along through the sources of the streams flowing into the Lake Mistassinnie and Abbitibis, the Eainy Lake, in 48° 30\ which empties itself by the Eainy Eiver into the Lake of the Woods, the Eed Lake and Lake Travers," " This last lake would have been the extreme southern limit in about 45° 40', whence the line would have wound upward to the north-west, pursuing a serpentine course, and resting with its extremity upon the Eocky Mountains, in about the 48th parallel of latitude. Such would have been the boundary line between the French Possessions and the Hudson's Bay district; and so we find that in the limits of Canada, assigned by the Marquis de Vaudreuil himself, when he surrendered the Province to Sir J. Amherst, the Eed Lake is the apex of the Province of Canada, or the point of departure from which, on the one side, the line is drawn to Lake Superior ; on the other, ' follows a serpentine course southward to the Eiver Oubache, or Wabash, and along it to the junction with the Ohio.' This fact was insisted upon by the British Government in their answer to the ultimatum of France, sent in on the Ist of 248 September, 1761, and the map which was presented on that occasion by Mr.i Stanley, the British Minister, embodying those limits, was assented to in the French memorial' of the 9th of September." (Historical Memorial of the Negotiations of France and England from March 26th to Sept. 20th, 1761. Published at Paris by authority.)' (Twiss' Oregan Boundary, pp. 209-211.) " By the Treaty of Utrecht, the British possessions of the north-west of Canada were acknowledged to extend to the head-waters of the rivers emptying themselves into the Bay of Hudson ; by the Treaty of Paris they were united to the British possessions on the Atlantic by the cession of Canada and all her dependencies; and France contracted her dominions within the right bank of the Mississippi. That France did not retain any territory after the Treaty to the north-west of the sources of the Mississippi will be obvious, when it is kept in mind that the sources of the Mississippi are in 4?° 35', whilst the sources of the Eed Eiver, which flows through Lake Winnipeg, and ultimately finds its way by the Nelson Eiver into the Bay of Hudson, are in Lakes Travers, m about 45° 40' " (Twiss' Oregon, p. 226.) It has not been thought necessary to refer to the numerous maps described in the Ontario Documents, as unless a map has been made use of in connection with a treaty, or a boundary has been defined thereon, but little reliance can be placed upon it. Sir Travers Twiss says : "The claim, however, to the westwardly extension of New France to the Pacific Ocean requires some better evidence than the maps of French- geographers. A map can furnish no proof of territorial title : it may illustrate a claim, but it cannot prove it. The proof must be derived from facts which the law of nations recognizes as founding a title to territory. Maps, as such, that is, when they have not had a special character attached to them by treaties, merely represent the opinions of the geographers who have consti'ucted them, which opinions are fre quently founded on fiietitious or erroneous statements : e.g., the map ofthe discoveries of North Araerica by Ph. Buache and J. N. De'Lisle in 1750, in which portions of the west coast of Araerica were delineated in accordance with De Fonte's story, and the maps of North-west America at the end of the seventeenth and beginning ofthe eighteenth centuries, which represent California as lately ascertained to be an island. (Twiss' Oregon, pp. 305-6.) When new Commissaries were appointed in 1750, the Lords of Trade and Plan tations requested the Hudson's Bay Company to furnish a memorandum showing the limits claimed, which was done on the Srd of October in that year, and is substan tially as claimed by them in 1719. (Mills, pp. 176-7.) It were well to consider what territory was comprised within the limifs of Louisiana, as this will prove a help to arriving at a proper conclusion as to what England claimed as being comprised in " Canada," or " New France." According to extracts (Ont. Docts., pp. 41-2) copied from the charter of Louis XIV. to Mr. Crozat, Sept., 1712, it will be seen that Louisiana " was the country watered by Mississippi and its tributary streams from the sea-shore to the Illinois," i. e., the Illinois Eiver was the northern boundary of Louisiana according to this "authoritative document of the French Crown." By the sarae public docuraent all the rost of the French possessions were united under the Government of New France. (Twiss' Oregon, pp. 219-220.) In the course of the negotiations respecting the limits of the Provinces of Canada and Louisiana the Marquis de Vaudreuil, who signed the surrender, published his own, account of what passed between Sir J. Amherst and himself, of which he considered' the English account to be incorrect. " On the officer showing me a map which he had in his hand, I told him the limits were not just, and verbally mentioned others extending Louisiana on one side to the carrying-place of the Miamis, which is the height of the lands whose rivers run into the CEuabache ; and on the other to the .head of the river of the Illinois." (Annual Eegister, 1761, p. 268.) Even thus, then, all to the north of the Illinois was admitted to be Canada." TTwiss' Oreffon, pp. 220-221.) ^ ^ i What took place at the various Conferences respecting the limits of Canada has been procured from the records of the Foreign Office. 249 On the 18th August, 1761, M. de Bussy, the French Minister at London, fur nished to Mr. Pitt a memorandum of the limits of Louisiana, which bore upon the - limits of Canada, and ran thus: " Sur les limites de la Louisiane. Pour fixer les limites de la Louisiane du c6te " des colonies Angloises et du Canada, on tirera une Ligne qui s'etendra depuis Eio " Pereido entre la Baye de la Mobile et celle de Pensacola, en passant par le Fort " Toulouse chez les Aliniabous, et qui, se prolongeant par la point occidentale du Lac " Erie enfermera la Eiviere des Miamis, et par I'extremite orientale du Lao Huron, " ira aboutir a la hauteur des Terres du cote de la Baye d' Hudson vers le Lac de " I'Abitibis, d' oii la Ligne sera continuee de l' B.st a l' Oriest jusques et compris le « Lao Superieur." (Pub. Eec, Off. Vol. 483.) Instructions, however, accompanied by an ultimatum, were transmitted under date ofthe 27th August, 1761, to .Mr. Stanley, in which it was laid down that these limits could not be acceded to ; and Mr. Pitt, in alluding to the conduct of France, stated that among the reasons whereby British confidence had been shaken was " the claiming, as Louisiana, with an effrontery unparalleled, vast regions which the Marquis de Vaudreuil had surrendered to General Amherst as Canada, and defined himself, with his own hand, as coraprehended in the government of that Province where he commanded," and Mr. Pitt gave the following definition of the boundaries of Canada, as set forth by M . de Vaudreuil : — " Le Canada, selon la L'igne de ses limites tracee par le Marquis de Vaudreuil " lui-meme, quand ce Gouverneui'-General a rendu, par capitulation, la dite Province " au General Britannique le Chevalier Amherst, comprend, d'un c6te, les Lacs " Huron, Michigan et Superieur, et la dite Ligne, tiree depuis Lac Eouge embrasse " par un cours tortueux, la Eiviere Ouabache (Wabash) jusqu' a sa jonction avec " rOhio, et de la se prolonge le long de cette derniere Eiviere inclusivement, jusques '" a son confluent dans la Mississippi ; " and On this definition ofthe limits of Canada its cession was claimed — a copy of M. de Vaudreuil's map being sent to Mr. Stanley for reference, together with an extract of a letter from General Amherst, dated 4th October, 1760, bearing upon that subject. (Pub. Eec. Off. Vol, 483.) Annexed will be found a copy of that map of M. de Vaudreuil, to whieh Mr. Pitt referred, which has been raade from the original enclosed by General Amherst in his despatch of the 4th October, 1760, from which documents also the following ex tracts have been taken : — "The Government of Canada includes Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior, as you -will see by the enclosed sketch, the red line being marked by the Marquis de vaudreuil." " The Government of Quebec begins with Troudines on the north-west and de OhaUlon on the south-east, and takes in all the parishes from them down the Eiver St. Lawrence." (Pub. Eec, Off. Vol. 94, Ama. and W. Indies.) It is further recorded on the 2nd September, 1761, the Marquis de Vaudreuil' map was shown to the Duke de Choiseul by Mr. Stanley, and that the bounds o Canada were agreed upon as therein stated. This fact is further substantiated by a passage in Mr. Stanley's despatch of the 4th of that month, which runs as follows : — " The Due de Choiseul complained that the bounds of Canada were laid down very unfavorably for France, in the description which your memorial contains, alleging (sic) that there had been disputes between the Marquis de Vaudreuil and the Governor of Louisiana with regard to the limits oftheir two Provinces, wherein the former, being the more able and the more active, had greatly enlarged his juris diction ; he added, however, that though many suoh objections might be made, it had been the intention of the King, his master, to make the most full and complete cession of Canada, and that he consented in His name to those limits. I then pro duced the map you sent me, and it was agreed that this Province should remain to Great Britain as it is there delineated." (Minutes of a conference at Paris, Sept. 2nd, 1761. Pub. Eec. Off. Vol. 483, France.) The last Memoire of France to England in these negotiations is dated 9th Sept., 1761, and was delivered by M. de Bussy to Mr. Pitt on the 14th. 250 The first article fully confirms the acceptance ofFrance ofthe de Vaudreuil map,* -and states as follows : — u- + " Le Eoi, a dit dans son premier memoire de propositions et dans son ultimatum, " qu'il cederoit ot garantiroit a I'Angleterre la possession du Canada dans la forme la " plus etendue : Sa Majeste persiste dans cette offre ; et sans disenter sur la ligne des " limites, trace dans une carte presentee par M. Stanley, comme cotte ligne demande " par I'Angleterre, est sans doute la forme la plus etendue que Ton puisse donner a la " cession le Eoi veut bien I'accorder." (Memoire Historique sur !a Negotiation le la "France et de I'Angleterre, 1761, p. 52. P. O. Lib. 4to, No. 431.) , . , , Then came the Treaty of Paris, concluded on 10th February, 1763, by which the Canada ofthe French was ceded to Great Britain. By the 7th section of this Treaty, " It is agreed that for the future the confines between the Dominions of His Britannic Majesty and those of His Most Christian Majesty in that part ofthe world shall be fixed irrevocably by a line drawn along the middle of the Eiver Mississippi from its source to the Eiver Iberville, and from thence by a line drawn along the middle of this river and the Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea." (Ont. Doc, pp. 18-19.) As the source of the Eiver Mississippi was Eed Lake, and as it was from that point that the Marquis de Vaudreuil directed the red line to be drawn, there can be no difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to what was included within the bounds of the " Canada " of the French . Now, the proclamation of the King on 7th October, 1763, created four separate Governments, viz. : Quebec, Bast Florida, West Florida and Grenada. All the lands not within the limits of the said Governments, and not -within the limits of the territory granted to the Hudson's Bay, were for the present reserved for the protection and dominion of the Indians . (Ont. Docts., p. 26.] QUEBEC ACT, 1774. When the Quebec Act of 1774 was introduced it was designed to extend the bounds ofthe Province of Quebec far beyond those created by the Proclamation ofthe King, issued in October, 1763. By the Act, as originally introduced, it was evidently intended to include in the Province of Quebec " all the territories, islands and countries heretofore a part ofthe territory of Canada in North America extend ing southward to the banks ofthe Mississippi and northward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the Merchant Adventurers of England trading to Hud son's Bay, and which said territories, islands and countries are not within the limits of the other British Colonies as allowed and confirmed by the Crown, or which have since the 10th Pebruary, 1763, been made a part and parcel ofthe Province of New foundland." (Mills, pp. 77-8.) Now, in the Act as passed the words " heretofore a part of the territory of Canada " are left out, and the Act included " all the territories, islands and countries in North America belonging to the Crown of Great Britain," between certain defined limits along the western boundary of the then Province of Pennsylvania until it strike the Eiver 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 in Hudson's Bay; and all the territories, islands and countries which have since the 10th February, 1763, been made part of the Government of Newfoundland, by, and they are hereby, during His Majesty's pleasure, annexed to and made part and parcel of the Province of Quebec, as created and established by the said Eoyal Proclamation of 7th day of October, 1763. (Ont. Docts., p. 3.) •Yet on the SOth Nov., weeks alter the cessation of these negotiations, M. de Vaudreuil addressed a letter to the Due de Choiseul, whieh was published, as stated in tbe Annual Register of 1761, " to quiet the minds ofthe people," and in which the Marquis stated that what he was charged with by the English as regards the limits of Canada vvas entirely false and groundless and that nothing passed in writing on that head, nor was any line drawn on any map An Reff.j 1161, pp. 26T-8. (See M. de Vaudreuil's letter. Out., Doots., p. 159.) j f •- & 251 On reading this description it will be seen that the east bank of the Mississippi could not have been intended as the western limit. Whenever the bank of a river or lake is created a boundary, the Act expressly states such to be the case, as " the eastern bank of the Eiver Connecticut," " the eastern bank of the Eiver St . Lawrence," "thence along the eastern and south eastern bank of Lake Erie," and " along the bank of the said river (Ohio) until it strikes the Mississippi." Now, when the Eiver Mississippi is reached the descrip- ticn does not proceed " along the bank of said river," as in other descriptions, but describes the remaining limit as '• northward to the southern boundary of the terri tory granted to the Merchants Adventurers of England." It is said that the word " northward " in the Act cannot mean " north," and that, therefore a line drawn north from tho junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Eivers to the southern boundary of the Hudson's Bay Company's lands would not conform to the description in the Act. , The meaning of the expression " northward," as used in this Act, received judicial interpretation in the year 1818, on the occasion of the trial of Charles de Eeinhard for murder committed at the Dalles ; and also during the trial of Archibald McLennan, in the same year, for a like offence. The Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, in Lower Canada, in giving judg ment in these cases (Ont. Docts. pp. 226-7-8), were clearly of opinion that the western limit of Upper Canada was a line drawn due north from the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Eivers. In the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, in 1846, the term " westward " was used, and it was iiiterpreted to mean " due west." (U. S. Treaties and Conventions, p. 375.) Because the Commission which issued to Sir Guy Carleton in 1774 extended the boundary of the Province " along the eastern bank of, the Mississippi river to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company," it is asserted that the Commission should govern. The fact of a Commission having been issued, with this extension not authorized, cannot be made to extend the boundaries created by the Act. These Commissions, being mere instructions to the Governor General, can have no effect in altering terri torial boundaries. The Commission to Governor Andros, of Connecticut, gave him authority to the South Sea. Lord Elgin's Commission as Governor General, issued in 1846, apparently gave him jurisdiction to the shore of Hudson's Bay ; but it never was claimed or pretended that the Commission extended the boundaries of Canada to the shore of that Bay. (For Commission, vide Ont. Docts., pp. 51-52.) 1791. THE CONSTITUTIONAL ACT. What is known as the Constitutional Act of 1791 (31 Geo. Ill,, cap. 31), was passed to repeal certain parts of an Act passed in tbe fourteenth year of His Majesty's reign, entitled " An Act for making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America," and to make further provision for the Government of the said Province. " Whereas, an Act was passed in the fourteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty, entitled ' An Act for making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America ; ' and whereas the said Act is in many respects inapplicable to the present condition and circumstances of the said Province ; and whereas, it is expedient and necessary that further provision should now be made for the good government and prosperity thereof; may it therefore please your most excellent Majesty that it may be enacted ; and be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and 252 Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that so much of the said Act as in any manner relates to the appoint ment of a Council for the affairs of the said Province of Quebec, or to the power given by the said Act to the said Council, or to the major part of them, to make ordinances for the peace, welfare and good government of the said Province, with the consent of His Majesty's Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or Commander-in-chief for, tljB time being, shall be and the same is hereby repealed. " And whereas His Majesty has been pleased to signify, by his message to both Houses of Parliament, his royal intention to divide his Province of Quebec into" two separate Provinces, to be called the Province of Upper Canada and the Province of Lower Canada, &c." (Ont. Dccts., p. 4.) The Proclamation of November, 1791 (Ont. Docts. p. 27), declares that by an Order in Council of August it was ordered that the Province of Quebec should be divided into two distinct Provinces. But it is argued that this Proclamation annexed to Upper Canada territories not included in the Province of Quebec. This argument is based upon the use ofthe word " Canada" at the end ofthe first paragraph ofthe Proclamation. It is stated the 14th Geo. III. " is in many respects inapplicable to the present condition and circumstances of the said Province." To what Province is it applica ble ? Why, to the Provinceof Quebec. The Act says the intention of the King was " to divide his Province of Quebec into two separate Provinces." His Majesty, on the 24th day of August, 1791, " was pleased by and with the advice and consent of his Privy Council to order that the Province of Quebec be divided into two distinct Provinces, to be called the Province of Upper Canada and the Province of Lower Canada, by separating the said two Provinces according to the line of division inserted in the said order." (Out. Docts., p. 389.) The Act of Parliament was that alone upon which the Order in Council conld be based or the Proclamation issued ; and it is quite evident that neither the Order-in- Council nor the Proclamation intended to do more than the Act made provision for, i. e., to divide the Province of Quebec. The construction put upon this Act by the Court of Queen's Bench in Lower Canada, in De Eeinhard's case and in McLennan's case (Ont Docts., pp. 226-7-8), was that " Upper Canada could include only that part ofthe Province so divided as was not contained in Lower Canada, but it could not extend beyond those limits which constituted the Province of Quebec." In the Comraission issued to Lord Dorchester, September 12, 1791, as Captain- General and General-in-Chief of the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada (wherein the Order in Council of 19th August, 1791, is recited), it states the inten tion to divide the Province of Qnebec into two separate Provinces, " the Province of Upper Canada to comprehend all said lands, territories and islands lying westward of the said line of division as were part of our said Province of Quebec." (Ont. Docts., p. 48.) The Commission issued in 1794 to Henry Caldwell, Esquire, Eeceiver-General of the Province of Lower Canada, contains a boundary description of Upper Canada similar to that in the Comraission of Lord Dorchester. (Ont. Docts., pp. 389-390.) The ten Commissions issued to the Governors-General ofthe Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada between December, 1796, and Ist July, 1835, contain boundary- line descriptions similar to that of Lord Dorchester in September, 1791. On 13th December, 1838, a Commission was issued to Sir John Colborne as Gov ernor-in-Chief of the Province of Upper Canada, in which, after describing the other boundaries of the Province, it proceeds : " On the west by the Channel of Detroit, Lake St. Clair, up the Eiver St. Clair, Lake Huron, the west shore of Drummond Island, that of St. Joseph and Sugar Island, thence into Lake Superior." (Ont. Docts., p. 390.) The Commission to the Eight Hon. Sir Charles Paulett Thompson, dated 6th September, 1839, contains boundary discriptions similar to above. (Ibid, p. 390.) 353 29th August, 1840. ' The Act of Union (Impl. Act 3, 4 Vic, cap. 35) was passed to make " provision for the good government of the Province of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, * * * * which, after the passing of this Act, shall form and be one Province under the name of the Province of Canada," (Ont. Docts., p. 10.) After the passing ofthe Union Act, and on the 29 th August, 1840, a Commission was issued to Lord Sydenham as Governor-in Chief of the Province of Ganada. The Commission gives the western boundary of the United Provinces, as in the Commis sion to Sir John Colborne. (Ont. Docts., p. 51.) The Commission to Lord Metcalf in February, 1843, and that to Earl Cathcart in March, 1846, and the one issued to Lord Elgin on 1st October, 1846, contain . boundary line descriptions of Upper Canada similar to that issued to Lord Sydenham in 18 iO. It will be seen that, between December, 1838, when Sir John Colborne was appointed Governor-General, until 1852 or 1853, when Lord Elgin's term as represen tative of Her Majesty expired, the British Government understood and treated the western boundary of Upper Canada as being on the shore of Lake Superior ; and it is fair to infer that the Imperial authorities were not ignorant that a line drawn north from tho junction of the Ohio and Mississippi would strike the shore of Lake Superior, and they no doubt intended that where the line so struck should be the limit of the jurisdiction of the Governors General, and consequently the westerly limit of the Province of Upper Canada. Then, in order to reach offenders for crimes committed in the Indian territory (reserved for the Indians by the Proclamation of October, 1763), the Act of 43 Geo. TIT, cap. 138 (llth August, 1803), was passed. (Ont. Docts., pp. 4-5.) As doubts existed as to whether the provisions of 43 Geo. Ill, cap. 138, extended to the Hudson's Bay Territory, the Acts 1 and 2 Geo. IV., cap. 66 (2nd July, 1821), was passed, including the Eudson's Bay Company's lands and territories heretofore granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, and under the fourteenth section of that Act the. rights and privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company are to remain in full force, virtue and effect, (Ont. Docts , pp. 6, 7, 10.) So that in all these Acts they were making provision for the government, or at least for the judicial control of the large territories claimed as belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, and which were not included in the Province of Upper Canada. The sixth clause of the British North America Act, 1867 (Imperial Act, SOth Vic, cap. 3), is as follows :— " The parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this Act), which formerly constituted respectively the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed to be severed, and shall form two separate Provinces. The part which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall constitute the Province of Ontario; and the part which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall constitute the Province of Quebec." (Ont. Docts., p. 11.) And the 146th section of the same Act under which Eupert's Land and the North-western territory could be admitted into the Union is as follows : — " It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, on Addresses from the Houses of Parliament of Canada and from the Houses of the respective Legislatures of the Colonies or Provinces of New foundland Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces' or any of them, into the Union, and on Address frOm the Houses of Par liament of Canada, to admit Eupert's Land and the North-western territory, or either of them, into the Union on such terms and conditions, in each case, as are in the Addresses expressed, and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the pro- ¦visions of this Act; and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of • Great Britain and Ireland." (Ont. Docts., p. 404.) 254 On the 17th December, 1867* the Sena/fe and Commons of the Dominion of Canada adopted an address to the Queen, praying Her Majesty to unite Eupert's Land and the North-western territory with this Dominion, and to grant to the Par liament of Canada authority to legislate for their future welfare and good govern ment. (Orders in Council, Dom. Stats., 1872, p. Ixvi.) In compliance with the terms of the above Address the Eupert's Land A-ct, 1868 (Imperial Act, 31 and 32 Vic, cap. 105), was passed, and under the second section of that Act the term " Eupert's Land " should include the whole of the lands and terri tories held, or claimed to be held, by the said Govemor and Company. On the 19th November, 1869, the Hudson's Bay Company executed a deed of surrender to Her Majesty of Eupert's Land, which included the whole of the lands and territories held, or claimed to be held, by the Company, excepting the lands mentioned in the second and fifth paragraphs. Under the second paragraph thff Company might within twelve months select a block of land adjoining each of their stations. The schedule of the lands selected is attached to the surrender, and includes about 46,000 acres of land. Under paragraph No. 5 " the Company may within fifty years after the surren der claim in any township or district within the fertile belt, and which land is set out for settlement, grants of land not exceeding one-twentieth part of the land so set out." (6.) " For the purpose of the present agreement the fertile belt is to be bounded as follows : On the south by the United States boundary ; on the west by the Eocky Mountains ; on the north by the northern branch of the Saskatchewan ; on the east by Lake Winnipeg, the Lake ofthe Woods, and the waters connecting them." (Orders in Council, Stats, of Can., 1872, p. Ixxix.) Such surrender was accepted by Her Majesty by an instrument under her sign manual, and signed on 22nd day of June, 1870. On the 23rd June, 1870, Her Majesty, by an Order in Council, ordered that after the 15th July, the said North-western territory in Eupert's Land should be admitted and become a part of the Dominion of Canada, on the Dominion paying to the Company £300,000, when Eupert's Land should be transferred to the Dominion of Canada, which transfer has been made and the consideration money paid. (Ont. Docts., 405-6-7-8.) On the very threshold of Confederation Ontario knew the terms upon which ;Rupert's Land and the North-western territory might bei admitted into tUe Union ; and during the negotiations that were pending between the imperial authorities and the Dominion respecting the surrender by the Hudson's Bay Company of their lands and territories, rights and privileges, the Ontario Government never interfered or claimed that what was about being sun-endered to Her Majesty for the purpose of admission into the Dominion had at a:ny time formed a part of the Province of Upper Canada-^although, Ontario must be assumed to have known that the Hud son's Bay Company was, in 1857, claiming under its charter thatthe southern bound ary of the Company's territory was the height of land dividing the waters whioh flow into the Hudson's Bay from those emptying into the St. Lawrence and the Grea* Lakes,, and that the western boundary was thp base of the Eocky Mountains. In thus lying by while the Dominion was purchasing this territory, and without forbidding the purchase or claiming any interest whatever in the rights and privi leges about being acquired that Province is now estapped from setting up that its western boundary extends beyond the meridian passing through the point of junc tion of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, north of the United States and south of the Hudson's Bay territorios. All the remaining territory was "held, or claimed to be held, by the Governor and Company," and was, as such, paid for by the Dominion (Gregg V. Wells, 10 A. and E., 90.) The acceptance by the Imperial Government of a surrender of what the Hud son's Bay Company claimed as territory belonging to them was an admission that no portions of these territories was ever included in the Province of Upper Canada, The British Government being bound by this admission, surely Ontario must be 255 In 1871 a Commissioner was appointed by each of the Governmcits ofthe Dominion and Province of Ontario for the settlement of the northerly and westerly boundaries of the Province. The instructions given to the Commissioners on behalf of the Dominion were that — 1* The boundary in question is clearly identical with the limits of the PrOtinoe of Quebec, according to the 14th Geo. HI., ch. 83, known as the "Quebec Act," aind is described in the said Act as follows, that is to say : Having set forth the westeriy position of the southern boundary of the Province as extending along the Eiver Ohio "westward to the banks of tho Mississippi" the description continues from thence (i. e., the junction of the two rivers) " and northward to the southern boundary of "the territory granted to the Merchant Adventurers of England trading to the " Hudson's Bay." Having determined the precise longtitude, west of Greenwich, of the extreme point of land making the junction of the north and east banks respectively of the said river, you -will proceed to ascertain and define the corresponding point of lotigitude or intersection of the meridian passing through the said junction with the interna tional boundary between Canada and the United States. Looking, however, to the tracing enclosed, marked A., intending to illustrate these intersections, it is evident that such meridian -would intersect the international boundary in Lake Superior. Presuming this to be the case, you will determine and locate the said ineridians the same being the westerly portion of the boundary in question, at such a point on the northerly shore ofthe said lake as may be nearest to the said interiiational boundary, and from thence survey a line due south to deep water, making the same upon and across any and all points or islands which may intervene, and ftOto. the point on the main shore formed as aforesaid, draw and mark a line due noi'th to the southern boundary of the Hudson's Bay territory before mentioned. This will com plete the survey of the westerly boundary line sought to be established; You will then proceed to trace out, survey and mark, eastwardly, the afore mentioned southern boundary of the territory granted to the Merchants Adventurers of England trading to Hudson's Bay. This is well understood to be the height of land dividing the waters whioh flow into Hudson's Bay from those emptying into the valleys of the Great Lakes, and forming the northern boundary of Ontario ; and the same is to be ti?A'6fed atid sur veyed, following its various windings till you arrive at the angle th^Teiu between the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as the latter is at preseiit boutided, having accomplished which, the same will have been completed. The Privy Council of Ontario on receiving a copy of above instructions Mvise the Dominion that the Province of Ontario claims that the boundary line is very different from the one deflned by said the instructions, and cannot (Aifisent to the pro secution ofthe Commission for the purpose of marking on the ground Hue so defined, tod that the Commissioner appointed by the Government of Ontario should be iUstrUCted to abstain from taking any further action under his Commission. (Out. Docts., pp. 340-1.) ^ , ^ , . The boundaries Ontario was willing to accept are set forth m au Older in Council. (Ont. Doots., p. 243.) dntil the boundaries could be definitely adjusted, provisional boutflari'68 Were agreed upon on the Srd of June, 1874, as follows: On the West, the m'ei'idian line passing through the most easterly pwint of Hunter's Island, run sohth until it meets the boundary line between the United States and Canada, and nortlh Until it ititer- sects the fifty-ifirst parallel of latitude ; and the said fifty-first paraMel df latittfd'e shall be the conventional boundary ofthe Province of Ontario on tha north. (Ont. Docts., p. 347.) 256 SUPPLEMENT TO DOMINION CASE. (Copied from Documents furnished hy the Foreign Office.) M. de Vaudreuil was Governor of La Nouvelle France in 1755. General Wth. Shirley (as Mr. Shirley) was Captain-General and Commander-in- Chief of the Province of Massachussetts' Bay in 1749, and in July of that year it was agreed that Commissaries should be appointed to define, in an amicable spirit, the boundaries between the colonial possessions of Great Britain and France ill North America. There is proof that Mr. Shirley was originally one of these Commissaries, and that Mr. Mildmay was the other, for, on the 21st September, 1750, a memoire, signed " W. Shirley ' and " W. Mildmay " was presented to the French Commissaries, res pecting the boundaries of Nova Scotia or Acadia, under Art. 12 of the Treaty of Utrecht; and on the llth of January, 1751, a second memoire on the same subject was sign'.! by "W, Shirley" and " Wm. Mildmay," as British Commissaries at Paris; but it is ovident that Mr. Shirley had ceased to be a Commissary in April, 1755, for, on the 2;. d January, 1753, a further memoire was presented by the British Commis saries to •.,<.. French Commissaries respecting the same boundary, but instead of its bearing l,.i-: signatures of Mr Shirleyand Mr. Mildmay, it was signed "Mildmay" and '"Eb ^;i y de Cosne." Mr. t^uii-loy had, therefore, no doubt returned to America, and Mr. Euvigny de Cosne, who was British Charge d' Affaires at Paris, in the absence of Barl of Alber- marlo, had succeeded him as one of the British Comraissioners. In May, 1755, the Commission was still sitting at Paris. On the 14th of May of that year a memoire was delivered by the French Ambassador in London, the Duke the Mirepoix, to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which was laid down the following four points of discussion : — 1. Limits of Acadia. 2. Limits of Canada. 3. The course and territory of the Ohio. 4. The islands of St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Dominica and Tobago. With regard to the limits of Canada, the memoire ran as follows : — The Court of France has decisively rejected, and -will always reject, the proposi tion which has been made by England, that the southern bank of the Eiver St. Lawrence and Lakes Ontario and Brie shall serve as boundaries between the two nations. It is necessary to establish as a base of negotiation relative to this Article, that the Eiver St. Lawrence is the centre of Canada, This truth is justified by all titles, by all authors, and by possession. All that France will be able to admit, after having established this principle, which cannot be reasonably contradicted, is to examine, in regard to this object, whether the reciprocal convenience of the two nations can exact some particular arrangement thereto, in order to fix invariably the respective Jboundaries. Tho only pretext the English make use of to color their pretensions is drawn from Article XV. of the Treaty of Utrecht; but in examining attentively all the expressions of that Article, it is evident that nothing is less founded than the induc tions whioh the Court of London actually wishes to draw from it. 1. It is only a question in this Article of the person of the Savages, and not at all of their country, or pretended territory, since they have no determined territory,! and the only knowledge they have of property is the actual use they make of the " land they occupy to-day, and which they shall cease perhaps to occupy to-morrow. 2. It would be absurd to pretend that everywhere where a Savage, a friend or subject of one ofthe two Crowns, should make a passing residence, that country that he had dwelt in should belong to the Crown of which he might be the subject or thft friend. 2.-)7 3. The Savages in question are free and independent, and there are none that eould be called subjects of one or the other Crown ; the enunciation of the Treaty of Utrecht in this respect is incorrect, and cannot change the nature of things ; it is certain that no Englishman would dare, without running the risk of being massacred, tell the Iroquois that they are subjects of England ; these savage nations govern themselves, and are as much, and more, friends and allies of France than of England ; several French families are even affiliated among the Iroquois, and have dwelled with them during the course of the last war, during which the five nations preserved the most exact neutrality. 4. Article XV. ofthe Treaty of Uti'ocht contains the sarae stipulations, as much in favor of the French as in favor of the English, and these stipulations are mutual ; the French could then sustain with a better title than the English pretend about the Iroquois, that the nations Abeaquises and Souriquoises, otherwise Micmacs, Malecites, Cannibas, &c., are subjects of France, and as there are some Souriquois who inhabit the extremity of the peninsula of Cote, Cape Fourcher, and Cape Sable, it would follow that the French could pretend to form settlements there, with as rauch right as the English have formed them at Oswego, or Chouagen, onthe shores of Lake Ontario m 1726 or 1727, and consequently long after the peace of Utrecht; France has not ceased since that time to complain of that enterprise, and she relies upon the Fort of Chouagen being destroyed. 5. The Treaty of Utrecht has been ill interpreted in pretending that it would authorize the French and English to go and trade indistinctly amongst all the savage nations, under pretext of subjection, alliance, or friendship ; this Article well under stood and well expounded, assures only the Uberty of commerce which the savages can make among themselves, or with European nations, and does not at all authorize them to leave the confines of their colonies to go and trade with the Savages 6. Finally, this Article XV conveys that it shall be settled that the American nations shall be reputed subjects or friends of the two Crowns; this stipulation has not been executed, because, in fact, it is scarcely susceptible of execution, since such a savage nation, vrhich tO-day is friendly, to-morrow may become an enemy, and,, consequently, the fixation Which might have been appointed for it, would be contin ually contradicted by fact. All that has just been exposed proves clearly that in discussing concerning the rules of the justice and right of Article XV of the Treaty of Utrecht, it will be easy to destroy the false interpretations that have been given it; it will not be less easy to demonstrate that the English should not be determined by any motive of in terest to put forward the pretensions they have formed ; it is not a question in these vast regions of America, to dispute about a little more or a little less land. The essential interests is confined to two objects, that of security and that of commerce ; and the Court of France will be always disposed to concert, in these two respects, with that of London, equitable and solid arrangements, as well for the present as for the future. On the 7th of June following, the British Government returned a reply to this Memoire, repeating Article by Article, and with reference to the limits of Canada,. said : — It will be difficult to form a precise idea of what is called in the Memorial the centre of Canada, and still less, can it be admitted as a base of negotiation that the Eiver St. Lawrence is the centre of that Province ; this is advanced without proof, and it is impossible that the course of a river of that length can form the centre of any country ; besides. Great Britain cannot grant that the country between the northern coast of the Bay of Fundy and the southern 'bank of the Eiver St. Lawrence, which Great Britain has already offered to leave neutral, and not possessed by either of the two nations, in reserve for the borders that are proposed to be drawn for it, ought to be regarded or has ever been considered as a part of Canada, since the con trary has been demonstrated by authentic proofs. Neither can Great Britain admit that France has right to Lakes Ontario and Erie, and the Niagara Eiver, and to the navigation of these waters exclusively, siuce it is evident, by incontestable facts,. 1—17 • 258 that the subjects of Great Britain and France, as well as the five nations Iroquois, have indiscriminately made use ofthe navigation of these lakes and this river, accor ding as occasions and convenience have required; but as regards a piece of country situated on the south bank of the Eiver St. Lawrence, exclusive of that already pro posed to be left neutral, the boundaries of whicti are in dispute between the two nations or their respective colonies, the Court of Great Britain is ready to enter into a discussion in regard to this, and to fix the liraits of it by an amicable negotiation, but without prejudice, nevertheless, to the rights and possessions of any of these five nations. With regard to the exposition that is made in the French Memorial, of the XV th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, the court of Great Britain does not conceive that it is authorised either by the words or the intention of that Article. 1. The Court of Great Britain cannot admit that this article only has regard to the person of the Savages and not their couutry, the words of that Treaty are clear and precise, viz. : The Five Nations or Cantons Indians are subject to the rule of Great Britain, which, by the accepted exposition of all Treaties, must have reference to the country as well as to the person of the inhabitants ; France has recognized this most solemnly ; she has well weighed the importance of that avowal at the time of the signature of this Treaty, and Great Britain can never depart from it ; the countries possessed by these Indians are very well known, and are not at all as inde terminate as is pretended in the Memorial; they possess and transfer them, as other proprietors do everywhere else. 2. Great Britain''has never pretended that the country in which a Savage should make a passing residence, would belong to the Crown whose subject or friend he might be. 3 . However free and independent the Savages in question may be (which is a point which the Court of Great Britain does not at all wish to discuss) they can only be regarded as subjects of Great Britain, and treated as such by France in parti cular, since she has solemnly engaged herself by the Treaty of Utrecht, renewed and confirraed in the best form by that of Aix-la-Chappelle, to regard them as such ; the nature of things is not changed by the Treaty ot Utrecht, The same people, the same country exist still; but the acknowledgment made by France "of the subjection of the Iroquois to Great Britain, is a perpetual proof of her right in this respect, which can never be disputed with her by France. 4. It is true that the XXth Article of the Treaty of Utrecht contains the same stipulations in favor of the French as in favor ofthe English, with regard to suoh Indian nations as shall be deemed, after the conclusion of thisTreaty,by Commissaries to be subjects of Great Britain or of France; but as to what is mentioned of the Five Nations or Cantons Iroquois, France has distinctly and specifically declared by the said XVth Article that they are subjects of Great Britain " Magnae Brittannix imperio subjecti," and consequently this is a point to be no more disputed about. 5. In whatever manner one interprets the Treaty of Utrecht with respect to the trade which will be permitted the English and French to carry on in discriminately with the savage nations, it is nevertheless very certain that such a general trade is by no means forbidden by this Treaty ; it is an ordinary and natural right to transact business with one's own subjects, allies or friends ; but to come in force into the territories belonging to the subjects or allies of another Crown, to build forts there, to deprive them of their territories and to appropriate them, is not and will not be authorized by any pretention, not even by the most uncertain of all, viz . , convenience : — However, such are the Forts of Frederick, Niagara, Presqu'Isle, -Eiviere-aux-Boaufs, and all those that have been built on the Oyo and in the adjacent countries. Whatever pretext France can allege for regarding these countries as dependencies of Canada, it is certainly true that they have belonged to, and (inasmuch as they have not been ceded or transferred to the English,) belong still to the same Indian nations, that France has agreed, by the XXth Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, not to molest, " nulla in posterum impedimento aut molestia afficiant." 259 6. It has already been proved that France has, by the express words of tha said Treaty, fully and absolutely recognized the Iroquois as subjects of Great Britain, it would not have been as difficult as is pretended in the memorial, to come to aa agreement on the subject of the other Indians, if among the many Commissions which havo emanated to settle this point, there had been a mutual disposition to come to a conclusion ; the acts of these Commissions have sufficiently shown the true reasons which have prevented the execution ofthe XVth Article ofthe Treaty of Utrecht, without recourse to an imaginary supposition, as if the Treaty was not capable of being executed ; a supposition which is evidently destroyed by the Treaty itself with regard to the Iroquois nations. On the 22nd of July, 1755, Monsieur de Mirepoix, the French Ambassador, left England by order of his Court, without taking leave ; consequently on the same day Mr. de Cosne was instructed by His Britannic Majesty's Government to quit Prance immediately, without taking leave, and to repair to England, which he did on the 25th, and arrived in England, with all his public papers, on the Slst of th© same month. Negotiations were accordingly suspended, and on the 17th of May, 1756, war was declared by Great Britain against Prance; followed on the 9th of June by a French ordonnance declaring war against England, No further reports than those above described wouldappear to have been made to the Government by the English Commissaries between the 1st April, 1755, and March, 1756. The following is an account of what passed between the 26th March and 20th September, 1876. On the 26th of March, 1761, the Due de Choiseul, in the name of the King of France, addressed the King of Great Britain, through Mr. Pitt, a letter communicat ing proposals as to the bases of negotiations for a separate peace between England and France, in addition to those pending to secure a general European peace . On the Sth of April the British reply was forwarded to the Duke, containing the views of the Court of St. James as to the proper bases to be established, in which willingness was expressed to receive an Envoy, duly authorized to enter into negotiations ; the result of this was that M. de Bussy was appointed French Minister to London, and Mr. Hans Stanley was sent in a similar capacity from Great Britain to Paris; these diplomatists arriving at their respective posts early in June of the same year. ^ Negotiations were immediately set on foot for the conclusion of peace between France and England ; but the chief difficulty in arriving at an amicable understand ing consisted in the desire of the French to retain the fisheries at and near Cape JBreton. On the question of Canada, under date of the 17th June, the Duke de Choiseul had demanded that the boundary of Canada in that part of the Ohio which is regu lated by the water line, and so clearly defined by the Treaty under discussion, be so established that there may not be any contestation between the two nations as to the said boundary. On the 26th June, the above proposal ofthe Due de Choiseul, as to the fixation of new limits to Canada towards the Ohio, was rejected by Great Britain on the grounds that it was " captious and insidious, thrown out in hopes, if agreed to, to shorten thereby the extent of Canada, and to lengthen the boundaries of Louisiana, and in the view to establish what must not be admitted, namely, that all which was not Canada was Louisiana, whereby all the intermediate nations and countries, tha true barrier to each Province would be given up to France." The intentions of the Court of St. James were further fully set forth, as to Canada, in the following passage of the same letter : — " First, then, the King will never depart from the total and entire cession, oa the part of France, without new limits or any exception whatever, of all Canada ani its dependencies." 1—17^ 260 On the 29th June Mr. Stanley reported that " the southern bounds of Canada- were to be so settled as to give that Province entire and -unmutilated to Great Britain, such as France, in short, held it in all respects; " and on the Ist July he stated that "it was agreed that Canada, as that Province was determined by their (French) geographers and historians, as well as by the respective civil and military departments, should be ceded, undismembered and entire to Great Britain." In his despatch of the 14th July, 1761, Mr. Stanley forwarded a memoire con taining proposals from the Due de Choiseul, Art. 1 of which ran as follows :— " 1. The King cedes and guarantees Canada to the King of England, such as it has been, and in right ought to be possessed by France, without restriction, and without the liberty of returning upon any pretence whatever against this cession or guaranty, and without interrupting the Crown of England in the entire possessiorii of Canada." It must, however, be remembered that other questions of great importance bear ing on European interests, were involved in these negotiations for peace ; and as- difficulties were offered by France to the British proposals, on the 25th July, Mr. Stanley was inistructed to present an ultimatum from Great Britain, the first point of which related to Canada, and declared that His Britannic Majesty would never depart from the total and entire cession on the part of France, without new limits, or any exception whatever, of all Canada and its dependencies." The reply of France to this ultimatum was transmitted home in Mr. Stanley's despatch of 4th August, which contained the following clause with regaid to Canada : " The King consents to cede Canada to England in the most extensive form, aS: specified in the memorial of propositions." Nevertheless, the replies of the French Government to the other demands were- not deemed satisfactory, and Mr. Stanley, assuming that the Treaty had failed, stated , in his despatch of the 6th August, that he was " convinced that the sole cause of the failure was the deterrained resistance of the French as to the entire concession of the fishery." M. de Bussy was, as has been stated, at this time French Minister in London, and on the 18th August, he furnished to Mr. Pitt a memo, upon the limits of Louisi ana, which bore upon the limits of Canada, and ran thus : ' " On the limits of Louisiana. " To fix the limits of Louisiana towards the English colonies and Canada, a line should be drawn which will extend from Eio Pareido, between the Bay of Mobile and that of Pensacola, passing by Fort Toulouse in the Alimabous, and which, being prolonged by the western point of Lake Erie, will enclose the river of the Miamis^ and by the eastern extremity of Lake Huron will go and meet the high lands on the side of Hudson's Bay towards the Lake of Abitibis, from whence the line will be continued from east to west up to and comprising Lake Superior." Instructions, however, accompanied by an ultimatum, were transmitted under date the 27th August, 1761, to Mr. Stanley, in which it was laid down that these limits could not be acceded to, and Mr. Pitt, in alluding to the conduct of France, stated that among the reasons whereby British confidence had been shaken, was " the claiming, as Louisiana, with an effrontery unparalleled, vast regions which the Marquis de Vaudreuil had surrendered to General Amherst, as Canada, and defined himself, with his own hand, as comprehended in the government of that Province where he commanded " : and Mr. Pitt gave the following definition of the boundai'ies of Canada, as set forth by M. de Vaudreuil. " Canada, according to the lino ofits limits traced by the Marquis de Vaudreuil himself, when this Governor General surrendered, by capitulation, the said Province to the British General, Chevalier Amherst, comprises, on one side. Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior, and tho said lino, drawn from Lake Eouge, embraces by a tortuous course, the Eiver Ouabache (Wabash) up to its junction with the Ohio and from there extends the length ofthis river inclusively, until its confluence into the Mississippi " ; and on this definition of the limits ot Canada, its ce-ssion was claimed|! a copy of M. de Vaudreuil's map being sent to Mr. Stanley for reference togetheif 261 with an extract of a letter from General Amherst, dated 4th October, 1760, bearing upon that subject. Annexed hereto will be found a further copy of that raap of M. de Vaudreuil, to which Mr. Pitt referred, which has been made from the original enclosed by General Amherst in his despatch of 4th October, 1760, from which document also the follow ing extracts have been taken : " The Government of Canada includes Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior, as you will see by the enclosed sketch, the red line being marked by the Marquis de Vaudreuil." " The above State is taken only from the part beginning above the Island qf Montreal, with the Cedars and Vaudreuil on the north-west of the Eiver St. Law rence, and Chateau-Gay on tho south-east, and ends with Berthier on the north-west of the river, the Island of Dupas and Sorel on the south-east. " The Government of Trois Eivieres joins that of Montreal, with Maskenongy on the north-west, and Yamaska on the south-east, and ends with Ste. Anne on the north-west, and St. Pierre de Becquit on the south-east of the Eiver St. Lawrence." " The Government of Quebec begins with Grondines on the north-west and de Chaillon on the south-east, and takes in all the parishes from there down the Eiver St. Lawrence." It is further recorded on the 2nd September, the Marquis de Vaudreuil's map was shown to the Due de Choiseul by Mr. Stanley, and that the bounds of Canada were agreed upon as therein stated. This fact is further substantiated by a passage in Mr. Stanley's despatch of the 4th of that month, which runs as follows : — " The Due de Choiseul complained that the bounds of Canada were laid down -very unfavorably to France in the description which your memorial contains, alleging (sic) that there had been disputes between the Marquis de Vaudreuil and the Governor of Louisiana with regard to the limits of their two Provinces, wherein the former, being the more able and the more active, had greatly enlarged his juris diction ; he adde*, however, that though many such objections might be made, it had been the intention of the King, his master, to make the most full and complete ¦cession of Canada, and that he consented in his name to those limits. I then pro duced the map you sent rae, and it was agreed that this Province should remain to Britain as it is there delineated." The last memoire of France to England, in these negotiations, is dated 9th September, and was delivered by M. de Bussy to Mr. Pitt on the llth. The first Article fully confirms the acceptance, by France, of the de Vaudreuil *Map, and states as follows : — " The King has declared in his first memorial of propositions, and in his ultima tum, that he will cede and guarantee to England the possession of Canada, in the most ample manner. His Majesty still persists in that offer, and without discussing the line of its limits marked on a map presented by Mr. Stanley— as that line, on which England rests its deraands, is without doubt the raost extensive bound which can be given to the cession — the King is willing to grant it." On September 15th, in consequence of the non-acceptance by France ofthe terms offered by Great Britain, instructions were sent to the British Minister at Paris to demand his passports, and on the 21st a passport was sent to M. de Bussy, the French Envoy in London. On the 20th, Mr. Stanley received his passport, together with an assurance that the King ofFrance would be found at anytime willing to re-open these negotiations, which were, in effect, resumed the following year, for on the 29th Augiist, 1762, the French King despatched the Due de Nivernois to London to carry over the peace » Yet, on the SOth November, weeks after the cessation of these negotiations, M. de Vaudreuil addressed a letter to the Due de Choipeul, which was published, as stated in the Annual Eegister of 1761, "to quiet the minds ofthe people," and in which the Marquis stated that what he was charged with by the English as regards the hmits of Canada was entirely false and groundless, and that nothing passed in writing on that head, nor was any line drawn on any map.— An. Reg., 1761, pp. 267-268. 262 propositions ; and, as a result, preliminary articles of peace were signed at Fontain- toleau on the Srd November, 1762. From these is given the following extract : — " His Majesty renounces all the i pretensions that he had formerly formed, or could form, for New Scotland, or Acadia, in all its parts, and guarantees it quite entire and with all its dependencies . to the King of Great Britain ;— Besides, His Very Christian Majesty cedes and guarantee*| to His said Britannic Majesty, in all its entirety, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the Island of Cape Breton and all the other islands in the Gulf and River St. Lawrence, without restriction, without His being free to come back upon this cession and guarantee, under any pretext, nor to trouble Great Britain in the afore mentioned possessions. EDWAED HEETSLET. Foreign Office, 27th April, 1878. 5.— AEGUMENT OF HUGH MacMAHON, Q.C. Hugh MacMahon, Esq., Q C, opened the case for the Dominion. He said — A great deal which has been urged upon the other side we have never questioned at all; and a great part of what has been addressed to the Commissioners by my learned friend Mr. Hodgins we agree with entirely. What I projiose doing, in the first place, is to glance cursorily at the evidence in regard to the early settlements, although 1 do not conceive it to have very much bearing on the case ; still, as it has been pressed on the Arbitrators by the Attorney-General so very forcibly, I consider it necessary to view the facts as they appear from the historical dx)cuments. France claimed in 1685, and in 1671 — 1671 to 1685 — that she was entitied to the North-i West, to what is claimed as part of the Hudson Bay Territory ; and that claim waj, eefup first by De Callieres, when writing to the authorities in France in 1685 and afterwards. His meraoir was followed by the Marquis de Denonville, when commu nicating with the sarae Government. Now, it was stated in that memoir just as has been asserted by the Attorney-General, and set forth inthe New York Historical i Documents, vol. 9, page 287, and also at page 304 of the said volurae. But in that I statement of M. de Denonville, he adraits that docuraentary evidence could not even at that time be adduced in support of those visits having been made to Hudson Bay. His words are : " I annex to this letter a memoir of our rights to the entire of that country of which our registers ought to be full, but no memorials of them an io be fouud." When we come to exaraine into the facts of these^ asserted voyages, it will be found that not one of them was made until the voyage of Albanel in 1672. It is asserted that Jean Bourdon, the Attorney-General in 1656, explored the entire coast of Labrador and entered Hudson Bay. Now there is no record whatever of that, nothing whatever to support it. But there is a record in 1655 that Sieur Bourdon, then Attorney-General, was authorized to make a discovery of the Hudson Bay, and it will be seen liereafter what he did in order to comply with that arret of the Sovereign Council. He did make an attempt. He started on his voyage on 2ad May, 1657. The statement is contained on page 3 of the Dominion case. He started on May 2nd and returned on llth August of the same year. My learned friend had to admit that there was no possible chance of his making a voyage to Hudson Bay between those dates. The account of it, as given in the relations of the Jesuits of 1658, page 9, is this : " Tbe llth August there appeared the barque of M. Bourdon, which having descended the Grand Eiver on tho north side, sailed as far as the 55th degree, where it encountered a great bank of ice, which caused it to return, having lost two'Hurons that it had taken as guides. The Esquimaux savages ofthe " north massacred them," and wounded a Frenchman with three arrows and one cut " with a knife." Jean Bourdon was ofthe Province of Quebec, he was well known to the 263 Jesuits, and trusted by them ; and it is stated in the memoir that he went with Father Jaques on an embassy to Governor Dongan, then Governor ofthe Province of New York. The other statement is that Father Dablon with Sieur de Valliere were ordered in 1661 to proceed to the country about Hudson Bay, and they went thither accordingly . Now all the accounts agree in the statement that Dablon never reached Hudson Bay. In Shea's Charlevoix, vol. 3, pages 39, 40, itis stated that Father Dablon attempted to penetrate to the Northern Ocean by ascending the Saguenay. Early in July, two months after they set out, they found themselves at the head of the Nekauba Eiver, 300 miles frora Lake St. John. They could not proceed any further, being warned by the approach ofthe Iroquois. Now, ill the New York Historical Documents, there is a note by ithe editor of these papers on page 97, which gives an account of the Eev. Father Dablon from the time of his arrival in Canada in 1655. He was immediately sent missionary to Onondaga, where he continued with a brief interval until 1658. In 1661 he set out overland for Hudson Bay, but succeeded only x-eaching the head waters of the Nekauba, 300 miles from Lake St. John . An assertion is also raade that some Indians came from about Hudson Bay to Quebec in 1663, and that Sieur La Couture, with five men, proceeded overland to the Bay, possession whereof they thoy took in the King's name. There is no account of this voyage in Charlevoix or in the Eolations of the Jesuits ; and the authority relied upon is the same as my learned friend relies on as being ftu-nished for the Marquis de Denonville, to which I have already referred as being untrustworthy. Now, M. de Callieres, in his memoir, written in 1685, was 21 years after the time of which he writes. It is asserted in the memoir that Couture made that journey to the Hnd.son Bay for the purpose of discovery ; and taking that in connection with the fact that the Governor ofthe Province is compelled to admit that they have no record in any shape to which they could refer, although they ought to have raany, and when we corae to what really took place in I67l, during lalon's administration, we find that it was then that the desire existed that some one connected with the French should go to tbe Eudson Bay and if possible make a discovery of it ; and the design of putting all this forward in 1685 was to make the King of Prance and his Ministm-s believe that this country was then in th-e pos session of the French. For what reason ? Because in 1H82 they h.ad gone to that territory, had' taken possession of the forts built and set up by Gillam and others on behalf of the Hudson Bay Company, and had destroyed property there; therefore it was necessary that they should account in some way for having gone into that territory and taken possession of it. Now, the next voyage claimed after that of Couture is the voyage of Sieur Duquet. Chief Justice Harrison. — Before these periods there can be no doubt that sorae Frenchman had penetrated to Hudson Bay. Mr MacMahon.— Not one; not one. Fort Rupert was established in 1668; that was Gillam's fort. It is admitted on all hands that Gillam built the first fort of any account upon the Hudson Bay or anywhere in connection with it; this is not ques- tioiied by my learned friend. That fort was put up in the interest of Prince Eupert. I arn merely going over the arguments of my learned friend in order to show on what a slight basis the historical statements have been built, and how willing the Province of Ontario has been to seize upon them as authentic documents, in order to prove that this territory was French. In 1663 Sieur .Duquet, the King's Attorney for Quebec, and Jean L'Anglois, a Canadian colonist, are said to have gone to Hudson Bay by order of Sieur D'Argenson, and to have renewed possession by setting up the Kings arms there a second time. By reference to page 129 of Mills' revised report, it will be seen that that order could not have been given by D'Argenson, because he had left Canada on 16th September, 1661, two years before this pretended order was given to Sieur Duquet ; and there is ample authority for that in Shea's Charlevoix, vol. 3, p. 65, note 5 and p. 17. I have given the historical references here in order that if possible my learned friends might meet the statement that is made. Hon. O. Mowat. — Would it not be convenient for ray learned friend to answer the way in which Mills treats these things ? 264 Mr MacMahon. — I do not think it is necessary, because Mills puts it on a ground that could hardly be raaintained. If he were to look at it now, he would admit that there is not so rauch in it as he thought there was at the time. In a note on page 129 Mills saj's, " an attempt has been made, on the strength of certain passages in the Helations des Jesuites, to throw doubt on the authenticity of certain of the occur rences mentioned in the meraoirs of M. de Callieres and the Marquis de Dennonville. It is at all not likely that either of these — the one being Governor of Montreal, and the other Governor General of New France, having access to the official documents, and writing within a short timo of the date of the events narrated — could by possibility be raistaken." Now, de Callieres was writing twenty-one years after the events. Denonville was writing 22 years after them, and relying upon the very identi cal memoir that De Callierie had written and which he said there was not a docu ment to support. If there was not a document upon which they could rely, how is it possible that any reliance could be placed upon their statements just at that par ticular juncture, when it was necessary for them to find some argument upon which: they could defend their having sent the French into Hudson Bay and destroyed these forts ? For in 1686 the Marquis de Denonville had sent two or three com panies of Frenchmen to Hudson Bay, and taken three forts in one year ; and it was necessary that they should account for these transactions to the Government of France. I will show that the Hudson Bay Company were, at that very time, making representations to their Government in regard to the conduct of the French, and to the Grovernors of the French. I think that this is all I need say in regard to Sieur Duquet's voyage. The fact of d Argenson having left Canada two years lefore his order is said to have been given to Duquet, shows that the whole thing was, if not a fabrication, a mistake. I am not going to say that it was a fabrication ; I am not called upon to account for it in any way; I am only called upon to point out that there is no authority for it, and the whole circumstances go to show that it could not have transpired as it is set forth by the Governors at that day. There has been an egregious error committed in some way. That order could never have been given, because we have the most unmistakable evidence that d'Argenson was not in this country then. When we come to the voyage of Albanel and St, Simon in 1671, which we admit was made, we find in a letter of M. Talon to the King, dated Quebec, Nov. 2, 1671, these words : — " Three months ago I despatched with Father Albanel, a Jesuit, Sieur de St. Simon, a young Canadian gentleman recently honored by His Majesty with that title. They are to penetrate as far as Hudson Bay, draw up a memoir of all they will discover, drive a trade in furs with the Indiars, and especi-* ally reconnoitre whether there be any nceans of wintering ships in that quai ter." . That is what they were to do ; so that, if the French Government of the day had, prior to that, caused visits to be made to Hudson Bay, in the way in which they pretend some years after that to state, all that knowledge and information would have been acquired, and there would have been no necessity for sending a priest ; there in order to make that discovery. K those statements of the earlier alleged i voyages had not been made by the duly constituted authorities of the Government of the country, I think this is almost all the answer it would be needful to make. Bat Father Albanel says, at page 56 of the Eolations for 1672 : — " Hitherto this voyage had been considered impossible for Frenchmen, who, after having undertaken it already three times, and not having been able to surmount the obstacles, had seen themselves obliged to abandon it in despair of success. What appears as impossible is found not to be so when it pleases God. Tho conduct of it was reserved for me, after IS years prosecution that I had made, and I have very sensible proof that God reserved the execution of it for me, after the ,signal favor of a sudden and marvellous, not to say miraculous, recovery that I received as soon as I devoted myself to this mission, at the solicitation of my superior ; and, in fact, I have not been deceived in my expectation. I have opened the road in company with two Frenchmen and six savages." This shows that so far as the Jesuits were concerned, the pioneers ofthe country, they had never heard of any one havKig penetrated to Hudson Bay before then. The very letter that Mr. Tallon was writing to the King shows that he had 2«5 never heard of anything of the kind. There is no doubt, therefore, that Albanel's ¦voyage was the first effoi t successfully made to reach Hudson Bay. Hon. O. Mowat — M. Talon says, also, in that letter to the King, that those •countries were originally discovered by the French. Mr. MacMahon.— That is the way in which these accounts were made up ; but it is evident that the French had not been in Hudson Bay, and did not know whether it would winter ships or not. Hon. 0. Mowat. — M. Talon says that he directed St. Simon to take renewed pos session of it. Mr. MacMahon. — It was not necessary to take renewed possession if they were in possession already, as it is now claimed that they were. There is not a recoid in existence which will substantiate the claim then made as to former posses sion. In December, 1711, the Hudson Bay Company presented a petition to Queen Anne, in which they set forth that the French, in time of perfect peace between the two kingdoms, in 1682, arbitrarily invaded the Company's territories at Fort Nelson, burned their houses and seized their effects ; that in the years 1684 and 1685 they con tinued their depredations; that in the year 1686 they forcibly took from the Com pany Albany Port, Eupert, and Moose Eiver Fort, and continued their violent pro ceedings in 1687 and 1688; and the Company lay the damages at £108,511 19s. 8d. (Mills, 153.) It is not my intention to take up the time of the Arbitrators in referring to the English discoveries. A series of them will be found at pages 4 and 5 of the Dominion case. The voyages are those of Sebastian Cabot, in 1517; Sir Martin Frobisher, in 1576, 1577, and 1578; Hudson, IdOS-lO; Button, 1611; Luke Fox and Thomas James, 1631. Then we come to 1667 and 1668, when we find that des Grosellieres and Eaddison (who it is supposed were Coureurs des Bois) were roaming among the Assiniboines, and were conducted by them to Hudson Bay. These two raen went to Quebec after their return for the purpose of inducing the raerchants there to conduct trading ves sels to Hudson Bay. At page 280 of the Ont. Docts. we have the whole transac tions during that period fully set forth by the Hudson Bay Company, just as they transpired. The proposal of des Grosellieres and Eaddison was rejected, as the pro ject was looked upon as chimerical by the Quebec merchants. Now, if Attorney- General Bourdon, the Attorney-General of the Province, had been there 12 or 14 years before, and made known what his discovery was and how he got there and returned from there, it would not have been stated by the merchants of Quebec that the project was chimerical. Hon. O. Mowat— Nor did they state it. The document merely says that their project was rejected. Mr. MacMahon — I will furnish you with the authority for stating that the pro ject was looked upon as chimerical. I think you will find it in Mr. Mills' book. Des Grosellieres was in London in 1667, but before going there he had been in Boston and in Paris, endeavoring to get merchants to assist in reaching Hudson Bay by ships. He wished them to fit out an expedition for that purpose, but they refused to join in the undertaking, and he w;is then referred to the British Ambassador at the Court of Paris who advised him to go to London. He went there, and those who afterwards obtaiAed the patent from Charles II of the Hudson Bay Company, employed des Grosellieres and Eadisson with Gillam, who went there and built Fort Eupert, in 1667 or 1668 Then Captain Newland was sent out in 1669 by the same parties who sent out Gillam. So far as the Hudson Bay Territory is concerned, the English were first, both as to discovery and occupation. It is stated in Mills' book, and not denied, that as long as the English were not there the Indians came to Montreal and Quebec and Three Eivers. The whole of the trade was done between Fort Frontenac (Kingston) and Quebec by the Indians themselves ; and with the exception of the Coureurs des Bois, who went into the country some hundred miles, there was no pretence ofthe French to penetrate into the interior. But as soon as the linghsh com menced occupying the Hudson Bay Territory, as soon as they were intercepting and taking possession of the trade that had formerly belonged to the French mer- 266 chants, then those who were interested took steps to secure at Hudson Bay the trade whioh the English were intercepting. The memoirs are full of state ments as to the venality of those connected with the French Government in Canada. It is stated that the Governors General themselves were in league with certain merchants and traders for the purpose of getting possession of as much ofthe trade as they possibly could, and that none except certain favored indi viduals could get licenses from the Governors. The people stated themselves that they were persecuted by the emissaries of the Government, who sought to prevent them going into the interior ; and thus the Coureurs des Bois were prevented from going into the interior ofthe country, and cutting off the trade which would other- ¦wise have gone to Montreal, and which the officials were bound to participate in if they could . That is the reason why the French Governors here thought it necessary ; to send these memoirs to the Court of France. Now, having found the English f making discoveries, entering into possession, and building forts upon Hudson Bay, the question suggests itself, a question which ought to be determined, what extent of territory the King of England as represented by the Hudson Bay Company, or the discoveries of that Company, what extent of territory the King of England was entitled to by this discovery, possession and occupation ? I do not think there can be a doubt about it. Most of the authorities on the point are referred to on page six of the Dominion case. Itis laid down in Vattel, that " navigators going on voyages of discovery, furnished with a commission from their Sovereign, and meeting with islands or other lands in a desert state, have taken possession of them in the name of their nation ; and this title has been usually respected, provided it was soon after followed by real possession." Here we have these people sent out under the sanction ofthe King and of Prince Eupert, to make a discovery of Hudson Bay. They did make that discovery and entered into possession ; and I am going to show to the Commissioners, no matter what the occupation was, that under the law of nations as interpreted then and since by ihe highest authorities, they were entitled to the whole of the lands watered by the strearas flowing into Hudson Bay and James' Bay; and more than that, it will be apparent that the Hudson Bay Com pany and the English Government were claiming that the whole of these lands belonged to England. Vattel says, also: "When a nation takes possession of a country, with a view to settle there, it takes possession of everything included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers, &c." The next authority I shall quote is Phillimore. He says : " In the negotiations between Spain and the United States respecting the western boundary of Louisiana, the latter country laid down with accuracy and clearness certain propositions of law upon this subject, and which fortify the opinion advanced inthe foregoing paragraphs. 'The principles (America said on this occasion) which are ayiplicable to the case are such as are dictated by reason and have been adopted in practice by European powers in the discoveries and acquisitions- which they have respectively made in the New World. They are few, simple, intel ligible, and, at the same time, founded in strict justice. The first of these is, that when any European nation takes possession of any extent of sea coast, that possession is understood as extending into the interior country to the sources of the rivers emptying within that coast, to all their branches, and the country they cover, and to give it a right, in exclusion of all other nations to the sarae. (Soe Memoire de I'Amerique, p. 116) It is evident that some rule or principle mu.st govern the rights of European Powers in regard to each other in all such cases ; and it is certain that none can be adopted, in those to which it applies, more reasonable or just than the present one. Many weighty considerations show the proprioty of it. Nature seems to have destined a range oiP territory so described for the same society to have connected its several parts together by the ties ofa common interest, and to have detached thera from others. If (Jhis principle is departed from it must be by attaching to such discovery and possession a more enlarged or contracted scone of acquisition ; but a slight attention to the subject will demonstrate the absurdity of either. The latter would be to restrict the rights of an European power who discovered and took possession of a new country to the spot on which its troops or 267 ettlement rested — a doctrine which has been totally disclaimed by all the powers- who made discoveries and acquired possessions in America,' " (Phillimore's Intl. Law, 2 ed.. Vol. I., pp, 277-8-9.) I wish to draw the Arbitrators' particular attention to this expression in regard to restricting the rights of European powers, etc., to the spot on which troops or settlement rested, because in dealing with the Treaty of Eyswick the argument has been advanced that all which was left to the English after that treaty was the settlements in the immediate neighborhood of the fort or two which was then in their possession — ^that is, the territory immediately round about, and nothing more ; although, as I will afterwards show, I do not think that the Treaty of Eyswick has anything to do with the discussion ofthis case. At page 223 in the discussion of the Oregon Question, Dr. Twiss says : " In the negotiations antecedent to the Treaty of Utrecht, it was expressly urged in support of the British title to the territories of Hudson Bay that M. Frontenac, then Governor of Canada, did not coraplain of any pretended injury done to France by the said Company's settling, trading and building forts at the bottom of Hudson Bay, nor made pretentions of any right of France to that Bay till long after that time." (Anderson's History of Comraerce, A.D. 1670, Vol. 3, page 516.) He goes ou to say : " In other words, the title which this charter created was good againt other subjects of the British Crown by virtue of the charter itself" Now, that is what Dr. Twiss lays down as a proposition which he says cannot be controverted. That as regards the title created by the charter, it was good against other subjects ofthe British Crown by virtue of the charter itself; so that in- virtue of what has taken place within the last few years, it raust bo good as against the Province of Ontario. He continues: "But its validity against other nations rested on the principle that the country was discovered by British subjects, and at the time of their settlement was not occupied by the subjects of any other christian Prince or State ; and in respect to any special claim on the part of France, the non interference of the French Governor was successfully urged against that power as conclusive of her acquiescence." Now, that is laid down by Dr. Twiss, and it is a proposition which has been assented to by Phillimore in the quotation just read. The quotation which was made use of by ray learned friend the Attorney-General from Twiss's Oregon, was not attempted to be controverted by the English authori ties at the time of the Oregon difficulty. Now, Mr. Mills, at page 182 "of his report, says . " It can hardly be contended that because the Hudson Bay Company had estab lished certain posts and forts at the mouths of some of the rivers that empty into the Bay, they could rightfully claim all the country drained by those rivers and their tributaries. A pretension ofthis kind was put forward by the United States to the whole of Oregon, because of the discovery of the Columbia Eiver by Capt. Gray, but it was expressly repudiated at the time by Great Britain. No such rule is recognized by writers on international law." Now, the rule of law, as recognized by international writers and Great Britain, was different from that put fwward by Mills. What was stated by Twiss, and what is asserted here, is that it depended upon other considerations. Sir Francis Twiss, in his discussion on the Oregon question, at page 300, states that "Great Britain never considered her right of occupancy up to the Eocky Moun tains to rest upon the fact of her having established factories on the shores of the Bay of Hudson, i.e., upon her titie by mere settlement, but upon her title by discov ery confirmed by settlements in which the French nation, ber only civilized neighbor, acquiesced, and which they subsequently recognized by treaty." That is the ground upon which Dr. Twiss puts it, and it is the groundwork of tho whole international law, as stated by Phillimore in the quotation that I have already read. The principle is stated in Vattel, in the reference I have made, is fully recognized by Great Britain and the United States, and is fully assented to by Iwiss and Phillimore. In reference to the middle distance, ray learned friend quoted from Twiss, page 148. At pages 173 and 177, Twiss treats of this middle distance in regard to this very territory. He says : " Again, in the case of a river, the banks of which are possessed by certain States, since a river is communis juris, 268 the general presumption, &c., &c." (Eeads the extract) . Now, here we have taken possession of the sea coast, so that the question of middle distance, or reaching the territory by another route, cannot come in question at all, becau.se, as contended by the United States and Great Britain in the discussion of this question, they have always claimed, and the Hudson Bay Company have always claimed, that the terri torial rights extended to the height of land on all sides ; and I will point out to the Commissioners that as early as 1709, before the Treaty of Utrecht, the Hudson Bay Company were claiming, on the east and the south, the very line that ran from •Grimington's Island down through Lake Mistassinne. Now, it is necessary to look at the Company's grant in different aspects. It will bo found in Ontario Documents, pages 29, 30. What does the King grant to the Hudson Bay Company under the name of Eupert's Land ? First is granted the sole trade and commerce of all those seas, bays, lakes, rivers, creeks, etc. Then the Corapany are created the absolute lords and proprietors of the same territory, limits and places, etc., etc. in free and common socage, with power to erect colonies and plantations, &c„ so that here was a proprietary government created by the charter. You will see by the charter that they had the power to adjudge, to create colonies — the power to do -everything apparently, which any government ought tobe called upon to do. And I refer to the fact of its being a proprietary government, because it will be necessary to consider that in relation to the bounds which my learned friend the Attorney- General says could be created by the King, notwithstanding that the boundaries might have been liraited by the Act of Parliament. The charter is very wide ; although Sir Vicary Gibbs, who gave an opinion in 1804, thought the charter void because it purports to confer upon the Corapany exclusive privileges of trade. He does not say anything about the proprietary rights; he does not say anything about the right of the King to grant a charter the same as was granted in Pennsylvania; he does not say anything about the right to make a territorial grant ; he merely gives the opinion that the charter is invalid because it grants exclusive privileges of trade, and thereby creates a monopoly, whieh they say the King could not grant without the sanction of Parliament. The next opinion, in point of time, is that of Sir Arthur Pigott, Sergeant Spankie and Lord Brougham, 1816, and the next one is that of Bdward Bearcroft, in 1818. In these two opinions they do not for a moment say that the Charter is invalid, but they say that the Crown had no right and could not of itself create a raonopoly, and, therefore, as to that part ofthe charter it raight be invalid ; but, as to the rest of the charter, they say the only part of it to which a question could be raised was in regard to the extent of territory covered by the charter itself. I think I will be able to show the Commissioners that the charter was always considered by the British Governraent as extending to the full length asserted now by the Dominion, and as was asserted by England shortly after the Treaty of Utrecht. Now, the Attorney-General urged with a great deal of force that the opinions given by the law-officers of the Crown in 1850 and 1857 were given upon stateraents furnished by the Hudson Bay Company, which were ex parte, and that therefore, we are not bound by these opinions. I do not pretend that we are bound by these opinions; that is not asserted by the Dominion ; but it puts the Province of Ontario into a position which I think the Province is not able to get out of, from the very fact of these proceedings having been instituted, and that the law-officers of the Crown stated at that time that the Hudson Bay Company were entitled to everything that they claimed ; and I am going to point out to the Commissioners what the claims were, and upon what these claims were based. The claim as furnished by the Hudson Bay Company will be found in full in Ont. Docts., page 288-90. That claim was founded upon what ? Upon a document prepared by the Crown itself, and furnished to these very people as the title upon which they were to rely ; and the law officers of the Crown, looking at that document, at the charter itself, could see for them selves, and were giving an opinion in regard to a legal document. Now, the Com pany import into their statement a part ofthe charter, and set out by saying in the words ofthe charter what the King has granted them; and then they say that they 269 have "always claimed and exercised dominion as absolute proprietors of the soil in the territories understood to be embraced in the terms of the grant, and which are more particularly defined in the accompanying map," The map is an exact counter part of what was used in 1857, and in that map is sot forth all that they claim. Chief Justice Harrison. — Each time that they were called upon to give their claim they appear to have extended their boundaries. Mr. MacMahon. — They were determined to claim enough ; like my learned friend, who started out with the line of the Eocky Mountains ; they furnished that claim to the grantors under the charter ; they were furnishing that claira to tho Crown, and it was submitted to the Crown officers, who gave an opinion in regard to it, and that opinion I have had copied in the Dominion case, at page 7. It was given by Sir John Jervis and Sir John Eomilly — one Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the other Master of Eolls. In that opinion, which is addressed to Earl Grey, they say, " in obedience to Your Lordship's command, we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honor to report that, having regard to the powers in respect to territory, trade, taxation and Government, claimed by the Hudson Bay Company, in the statements furnished to Your Lordship by the Chair man of that Company, we are of opinion that the rights so claimed by the Company do properly belong to them. Upon this " subject we entertain no doubt." The Commissioners will see that that map is attached to the correspondence and papers j and all these papers were brought down in 1850 to the House of Commons on a Eeturn then ordered ; and it shows the correspondence that look place ¦ between Mr. Isbister, who was representing those who felt themselves aggrieved — I do not know whether representing a Government or private parties. Chief Justice Harrison. — He was not acting for any Government ; he was acting as an individual. Mr. MacMahon. — He was acting for some people who claimed to have rights in the Hudson Bay ; and the correspondence took place in respect to the charter, the extent of territory, and the trade, taxation and Government as claimed by the Hudson Bay Company. Sir Bdward Thornton. — I should suppose that Mr. Isbister represented the people in Assiniboine — the dissatisfied people in the Eed Eiver settlement. i Chief Justice Harrison. — Yes; certainly he did not represent any Government. He was one of the first to rouse public opinion about the monopoly both here and in England. Mr. MacMahon. — I showed the letters and papers attached to the map to the Attorney General, but we concluded that it was not necessary to have thera printed, as part of them appear in the Ontario documents. The letter I will now read is . addressed to Mr. Isbister, dated April 13, 1850, and will be found at pages 12 aud 13 of the Hudson Bay Corapany's documents : — Downing Street, SOth April, 1850. "Sir, — In answer to your letter ofthe 16th ofthis month, I am directed by Barl Grey to state to you, with as much distinctness as possible, since there appears to have been some misunderstanding on tho subject, the course which Her Majesty's - Government have adopted and propose to pursue relative to the charges against the Hudson Bay Carajjany. " 2. In pursuance of the Address of the House of Commons, praying Her Majesty to take such means as might seem most fitting and effectual to ascertain the legality of certain powers claimed by that Company, Lord Grey called on the Company for a statement of those claims, and laid it before the Attorney and Solicitor-General for their opinion. You are acquainted with their opinion, which was to the effect that the rights so claimed by the Company properly belonged to them. "ii. They added a suggestion that yourself or any other party dissatisfied with their opinion might be recommended to prosecute complaints against the Company by means of a petition to the Queen, which might be referred to tne judicial or some other Committee ofthe Privy Council. 270 " 4. This offer was accordingly made to yourself. You now appear to suppose that Hor Majesty's Government, in making the offer, intended to defray, out ofthe public funds, the expense which must attend such an investigation. 5. This, however. Her Majesty's Government cannot consent to do, having beeu advised by their own law officers that the claims of the Company are well founded, they cannot impose on the public t,he expense of proceediBgs which, in the opinion of their own regular advisers, will prove ineffectual. All that is in their power is to recommend that those who are dissatisfied with that opinion should pursue the course pointed out by the law advisers for questioning it, and to assist as far as they may lawfully do in having the question so raised brought to a legal deterriiination. " 6. But the expense of the steps necessary for this purpose must be borne by the parties who undertake them, and if none of those who have brought under the notice of Lord Grey and of Parliament their exceptions to the jurisdiction and power claimed by the Company are willing to incur such expen.ie. Her Majesty's Govern ment must consider that there are no further steps which it is in their power to adopt for the purpose of ascertaining the legal validity of the claims of the Company." Now, here was the British Government beinginformed by their own legal advisers that any steps which they might take in order to test the territorial rights, which I suppose it was designed to test by anything that might go belore the Privy Council, would be ineffectual ; and here, at that early date, Mr. Isbister, who was moving either on behalf of himself or somebody interested was told thatthe Government would not assume any responsibility. And we are told in 1850 that the only way of testing the validity of that charter or the extent to which the rights of the Company might be narrowed down, was by the legal interpretation to be put upon it by the Privy Council Neither then nor in 1857 did Canada think it proper to test in any way, particularly as suggested by the law officers of the Crown on both of these occasions, the validity of that charter. Following that, there was further correspondence, In 1S50, Sir John Pelly, who was then Governor of the Hudson's Bay Co., had written to Lord Grey. 'The following is an extract from his letter, dated at the Hudson Bay House, 3L-t May, 1850 : " Permit me at the same time to state that the Company's ships for Hudson Bay are appointed to sail on the Sth June, and that it would be of the utmost importance if the decision of the Privy Council on the rights and priveleges of the Company were sent out by that opportunity, and the Governraent dh-ected to issue a proclamation agreeable to the tenor of the decision, which would in my opinion greatly tend to allay the excitement in which a portion of the half-breed inhabitants have been kept." Now, there the Governor of the Hudson Bay Company invites Her Majesty's Government to have it decided and to ha've the excitement allayed. The reply of Lord Grey will be found at page 8 ofthe Dominion case. After pointing out what had been done, Mr, Hawes says that a petition to Her Majesty was suggested: and he goes on to say: "Such a Petition was, therefore, essential to the complete prosecution ofthe inquiry; Lord Grey accordingly gave to certain parties in this country, who had taken an interest in the condition of the inhabitants of the Hudson Bay Corapany's Territories, and had questioned the validity of the Corapany's charter, au opportunity to prefer the necessary petition if they were so disposed ; but, for reasons which it is unnecessary to repeat, they respectively declined to do so. Lord Grey having, therefore, on behalf of Her Majesty's Governraent, adopted the most effectual raeans open to him for answering the requirements of the Address, has been obliged, in the absence of any parties prepared to contest the rights claimed by the Company, to assume the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown in their favor to be well founded." Now, Lord Grey at that time was Colonial Minister, and he, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was obliged to assume that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in favor of the Hudson Bay Co., was well founded, and Her Majesty's Government refused to interfere any further with it, as they were perfectly right in doing. Chief .Tustice Harrison. — These questions, however, were all questions as to certain rights, more than questions as to boundary. 271 Mr. MacMahon. — The trade, taxation and territory were all included. Chief Justice Harrison, — But the question as to the boundary really never came up, because the persons who were attacking the Hudson Bay Co. said that the Com pany had no right to any part of the territory. If the question of boundary had come up, they must have looked to the Quebec Act and to these other Acts. It was not a question of boundary at all ; it was a question of whether the Company had any rights. Mr. MacMahon. — They were claiming certain rights, and a certain territory as being covered by those rights. The whole of it went in altogether. Chief Justice Harrison. — There was no opinion from the law officers of the <;3rown as to the boundary. Mr. MacMahon. — They claimed those boundaries ; their own position supplied boundaries. In 1857 the very same question came before Sir Eichard Bethell ; and as reference has been made to the distinguished lawyers who gave opinions on the other side, I may say that I presume Sir Eichard Bethell's opinion as Attorney Ceneral would be authority as high as could be got from any source in regard to what was covered by that charter. Sir Bdward Thornton. — I do not see that there can be the least doubt that the complaints made in 1850 were from Winnipeg, from the same people who were dissatisfied for a great number of years with the Hudson Bay Co. Hon. O. Mowat. — Half-breeds, chiefly. Mr. MacMahon. — Then in this case the question as t© territory, as to that portion •of the territory at least, must have got before the law officers of the Crown in some way. Chief Justice Harrison. — These people at Eed Eiver said the Hudson Bay Co. had no rights in any part of this territory, and the law officers were against them. Mr. MacMahon. — We have not the petition presented to the House of Comraons, But if Mr. Isbister was acting on behalf of those who were known as the Eed Eiver settlers, and if he was their representative, then as far as regards the territory that they were disputing, as being controlled by the Hudson Bay Co. when they had no right to control it at that time, that must have been a question the law officers con sidered and in regard to which they gave an opinion. Chief Justice Harrison. — The Attorney-General for the sake of this argument admits that the Hudson Bay Co. had some rights, but that as a matter of boundary they did not extend to certain points. Mr. MacMahon . — The question of boundary must have been considered in regard to that territory, as to whether the Hudson Bay Company where exercising rights outside of the boundary that they were claiming under the charter. Chief Justice Harrison. — The case was not put on that ground. The higher ground was taken that the Company had no right there at all. Sir Edward Thornton. — If I am not mistaken, the territory of Assiniboia was granted to the Barl of Selkirk ; it is marked upon this map as the territory of Assini boia. Mr. MacMahon. — Yes ; in 1857 the Arbitrators will reraeraber that that was after a lengthened investigation had been gone into by the House of Commons, when Chief Justice Draper was acting as Agent for Canada. Sir Edward Thornton. — That is the first time that Canada as a country appeared in the matter at all ; I mean the late Province of Canada. Mr. MacMahon. — Yes. When Chief Justice Draper went to England as tho Agent of Canada, the whole matter then as to the rights of the Company was- sup posed to have received very close attention by the home authorities, and the strongest possible arguments where adduced by the Agent, of the Province, in order to curtail the rights of the Hudson Bay Company teritorially; and at that time the law officers of the Crown, Sir Eichard Bethell and Silicitoi--General Keating, were asked for an opinion; the whole of which is in Ont. Docts., 200, 201. In that opinion, they say : — " That the validity and construction of the Hudson Bay Company's char ter cannot be considered apart from the enjoyment which has been had under it 272 during nearly two centuries, and the recognition made of the rights of the Company in various acts both of the Government and the Legislature." In their statement of rights the Hudson Bay Corapany say in 1850 : — " It may be right here to mention that although the original title to tho territory and trade in question was derived under the charter above referred to, the rights of the Company have in various instances received the recognition of the Legislatue." Chief Justice Harrison. — Just confirming what I said ; the whole dispute was as to the rights of the Company, not the boundary. Mr. MacMahon. — They also say : — It may be right here to refer to several Acts of the Legislature which have recognized the general rights and privileges clairaed and exercised by the Company: — An Act passed in the sixth year of the reign of Queen Anne, c. 37, intituled, " An Act for the Encouragement of the Trade to America," and this Act contains an express proviso, that " nothing therein contained shall extend or be construed to take away or prejudice any of the estates, rights or privileges of, or belonging to the Governor and Company of Adventurers trading into Hudson's Bay." In like manner, in 1745, when an Act was passed (18 Geo. 2, c. 17) for granting a reward for the discovery of a north-west passage through Hudson Straits, it was expressly provided, that nothing therein contained should extend or be construed to- take away or prejudice any of the estates, rights or privileges of or belonging to the Hudson Baj' Company. One ofthe contentions in regard to the rights and privileges' of the Hudson Bay- Company was that they had not fulfilled the intent of their charter — that they had not been making any endeavors to discover a passage to the North Pole ; that if the charter was ever valid they had forfeited it by not fulfilling certam conditions. I refer to that to show that during all that time their rights and privileges were being expressly accepted and held valid by these Acts of Parliament during the reigns of' Anne and the Georges — so that they were not to be infringed upon in any way — and that they had been recognized up to the very day when Eupert's Land was surrend- dei'ed by the Hudson Bay Company to Her Majesty. At this point the Arbitrators adjourned, at five o'clock, until ten o'clock next- morning. Saturday, Srd August, 1878. Arbitrators and Counsel all pi-esent. Chief Justice Harrison. — Before proceeding with the argument I would state — without having any desire whatever to unduly hurry the arguraent — that if there is any probability ofits being concluded by one o'clock or so, there is a prosjiect of the Arbitrators being able to agree this afternoon. Hugh MacMahoq, Esq., Q.C. — I will shorten my argument very much. Before commencing in the regular course ofthe argument, I wish to refer to that matter of Eadisson and des Grosellieres. In the printed case the word " chimerical " is used to express the way in which the merchants of ^Quebec looked upon the statement of these men. My learned friend the Attorney General said, that that was a statement of Mr. MacMahon. I thought that that statement would be found in Mills' book, but I see that I am mistaken in that ; the statement is to be found in Harris' Travels, p. 286, vol. 2. (Eeads the passage.) So that it was not a statement of my own. Hon. O. Mowat. — The authority is then less than thatof my leai-nod friend would be. Mr, MacMahon. — Not at all. Chief Justice Harrison.— The difference is that Harris is not an advocate. Mr. MacMahon. — Harris is about the best authority that we could get for the statement; his work was published in 1760. I was referring the Arbitrators last evening to the opinion delivered by Sir Eichard Bethell, afterwards Lord Westbury, and Sir Henry S. Keating, delivered iu 1857; Ont, Docts., 20tJ, 201. Itwill be remembered that at that tirae the whole evidence and all tbe correspondence that could bo got together in regard to this question had boon submitted to the Committee 273 of the House of Commons, and, therefore, the law officers of the Crown were fully advised of everything that could be brought to bear upon the subject ; and I may say here, as the matter was referred to by the Hon. Chief Justice yesterday, that although perhaps the question of boundary did not come up as a square issue at that time nor in 1850, still the question of boundary must have arisen incidentally when each of these opinions was given ; so that the law officers of the Crown at that time were dealing incidentally with the question of boundary, and they could not avoid dealing with it in some way. They say: — " We beg leave to state, in answer to the questions submitted to us, that in our opinion the Crown could not now with justice raise the question of the general validity of the charter, but that, on every legal principle, the Company's territorial owner ship of the lands and the rights hecessai-ily incidental thereto (as, for example, the right of excluding from their territory persons acting in violation of their regulations) ought to be deemed to be valid." They likewise say : — " Nothing could be more unjust, or more opposed to the spirit of our law, than to try this charter as a thing of yesterday, upon principles which might bedeemed applicable to it if it had been granted within the last ten or twenty years." In another part of the opinion, they say : — " The remaining subject for con sideration is the question on the geographical extent of the territory granted by the charter, and whether its boundaries can in any and what manner be ascertained." That is the question they were discussing, " In the case of grants of considerable age, such as this charter, when the words, as is often the case, are indefinite or ambiguous, the rule is that they are construed by usage and enjoyment, including in these latter terms the assertion of ownership by the Company on important publio occasions, such as the Treaties of Eyswick and Utrecht, and again in 1750." Now, they point to these thi-ee different periods as points of time in order to ascertain what ought to be the boundaries allowed to the Hudson Bay Co., in 1857, and show that the enjoyments under that charter, the assertion of rights under that charter, and the claims made by virtue of the charter itself, must and ought to be taken into con sideration when dealing with the question ; and the law officers, in gi'ving that opinion, dealt with it in that view. The Treaty of Eyswick I will only refer to very shortly. The Attorney-General, in his argument yesterday, referred to the forts that liad been taken by the French, and to the effect of the Treaty of Eyswick in regard to the possession' of these forts. But although the question is somewhat discussed at page nine ofthe printed case, I do not think it necessary that I should elaborate it at all, because in 1857 Chief Justice Draper, acting as agent on behalf of Canada, stated what was in effect in a very few words his view of the Treaty of Eyswick; and that was this : " The eighth article of the Treaty of Eyswick shows that the French at that time set up a claim of right to Hudson Bay, though that claim was abandoned at the Peace of Uti-ocht, and was never set up afterwards." Ont. Docts,, page 240. So that at the Peace of Utrecht — and this is nearly the last stage in the argument — any rights that the French might or could have had were abandoned in 1713, and at one bound we get to what was the position of the Government of Great Britain and the Hudson Bay Co. at that time. It is stated at a certain time in 1700 that the Company were willing to contract their limits, and the statement is made because that they were precluded at a later date from setting up that they were entitled under the charter to all that the charter could give them. What do they say in 1700 — about the earliest date at which they made a claira after the Treaty of Eyswick ? They say : "We are willing to contract our limits, but although we are willing to do that we are entitled of right to the whole Bay and Straits of Hudson." This is like a man who has a suit of ejectment, who in order to avoid the expense and trouble of a law suit says : " I will be -willing to allow you certain bounds, but if you do not accept that I will insist on getting all my rights and all that I am entitled to." Then there was another statement made at that time to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, in .January, 1701, when the Hudson Bay Company again insist on their rights to the whole Bay and Straits, but are willing to forego their rights to a certain extent if by that means 'they can secure a settlement. " But should the 1—18 274 French refuse the limits now proposed by the Company, the Company think them selves not bound by this, or any fbrmer concessions of the like nature, but must, as they have always done, insist upon their prior and undoubted right to the whole Bay and Straits of Hudson, which the French never yet would strictly dispute, or suffer to be examined into (as knowing the' weakness oftheir claim), though thefirst step in the said article of Eyswick directs the doing ofit." (Ont. Docts., pp. 124-5.) In May, 1709, the Company were requested by the Lords of Trade and Planta tions to send an account of the encroachments of the French on Her Majesty's Domin ion in America within the limits ofthe Company's charter; to which the Corapany replied, setting forth their right and title, and praying restitution. (Mills, pp. 152-3). A further petition was sent by the Hudson Bay Company to the Queen, in 1711. (Ont. Docts., pp. 126-7). On Febi-uary 7th, 1712, the Hudson Bay Company set forth what they desired should be stipulated for them at the ensuing treaty of peace. (Ont. Docts., 128). In this memorandum, the Hudson Bay Company ask " that a line be supposed to pass to the south-westward of Grimington Island, or Cape Perdrix, to the great Lake Miskosinke, at Mistoveny, dividing the same into two parts (as, in the map now delivered), and that the French nor any othprs employed by them shall come to the north or north-westward of the said lake, or supposed line, by land or water." I believe that the plan now produced is marked as having been prepared in 1709. I refer the Arbitrators to it. There is the Island of Grimington, and they ask that a line be drawn thi-ough that lake until it passes south to the 49th parallel ; showing- that at that time, in 1712, when they were presenting their petition to Queen Anne, that is what they were claiming as their rights at that time. I do not intend to refer to the question of post liminiy at all, because the assent of Chief Justice Draper prevents the necessity of our having to discuss that question. Now, Lord Dartmouth's letter after the Treaty of Utrecht, addressed to the Lords of Trade and Plantations on May 27, 1713, will be found in Ont. Docts., 129. He says : — " Mt Lords and Gentlemen, — The Queen has commanded me to transmit to you the enclosed petition ofthe Hudson Bay Company, that you may consider ofit and report your opinion, what orders may properly be given upon the several particulars mentioned. In the meantime I am to acquaint you that the places and countries therein named, belonging of right to British subjects, Her Majesty did not think flt to receive any Act of Cession from the French King, and has therefore insisted only upon an order frora that Court for delivering possession to such persons as should be authorized by Her Majesty to take it ; by this means the title of the Company is acknowledged, and they will come into the immediate enjoyment of their property without further trouble." Now, the object of that will be seen when we consider that the whole course of these negotiations had been impeded by the French Ambassadors claiming that the word "cede" should be used, whilst" the English Ambassadors refused to accept it with the word "cede", used at all; they insisted on the word " restored." They said that the territory wa^ being restored to them ; claiming that the French never were there, never had a right to to be there, and therefore could not cede it, for it was not theirs to cede ; but that having taken possession of ajpart ofit in the time of peace, as claimed by the Hud son Bay Company, the word " restore " was the proper word to use ; and a great deal of correspondence took place between the Ambassadors in regard to it. Under section 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, the King -of France was " to restore to the Queen of Great Britain, to be possessed in full right forever, tho Bay and Straits of Hudson, together with all lands, seas, coasts rivers and places situate in the said Bay and Straits, aud which belong thereunto; no tracts of land or of sea being excepted, which aro at present possessed by tho subjects of France." In refer ence to tho discuss.son just .¦spoken of, Bolingbroke says : in March, 1713, that tho truth is so evident, that the I'lenipotentiarics of Great Britaia at Utrecht, ahv;iys 275 mabe a distinction between places that should be ceded and those that should be restored (Bolingbroke's correspondence, Vol. 3, 601). Then we corae to the question of the extent of country. Mr. Mills, who prepared this case for the Province of Ontario, was compelled to admit that all was claimed for England under the treaty which possibly could be claimed, and that is an admission which my learned friends cannot get over. Mr. Mills, at p. 159 of his report, after quoting the portion of the 10th section above referred to, says : " The words of the treaty just quoted and the attendant circumstances show that what was claimed by England and yielded by France was the Bay and the country upon its margin. Nevertheless, the language ofthe treaty did not make it impossible for England, if she were so disposed, to insist upon the possession of the whole country to the lands height. France, too, consented with reluctance to the use of the word ' restoration ' instead of ' cession.' " Now, what was England doing from the very time of the passing of the treaty, from the very time when Commissioners were' appointed? — I will show that she commenced to claim, and that she did claim in 1730, the restitution of these lands to the Company itself, because Lord Dartmouth says that the order was required so that the company might be placed in possession ; and England went on claiming to the very height of land, and she insisted that France should send her subjects out of that country, or prevent them from building forts or places whereby they could trade in the Hudson Bay Territories. Although it is stated that Commissioners were appoint ed as provided by the treaty, it was in some way assumed that the boundary had been settled at the 49th parallel. Everybody seemed, to be impressed with the idea that the 49th parallel had been settled by the Treaty of Utrecht. In the United States this was urged when the States were settling the parallel as to the northern boundary of Louisiana. It was claimed that the 49th parallel was settled at the Treaty of Utrecht, and that the United States, as the proprietors of Louisiana, were entitled to come up to that parallel as the territory ot Louisiana. And in this country it was assumed, in a letter that will be found fraira the late Archbishop Strachan to Lord Selkirk, it is stated that the 49th parallel had been settled upon. In some way or other that seemed to be understood, and we find that many of the maps of very early date show that, as a reference to the list of the maps in the Ontario documents will show. Many of these maps have the 49th parallel upon them as being the bounds between the English and French possessions under the Treaty of Utrecht. There is no doubt it was assumed at that time that that was the parallel. It was insisted upon by the United States and not denied by Great Britain. The law officers of the Crown in Great Britain at that time seemed to have the idea, whether derived from maps or from what source I do not know, but they appear to have fully believed that the 49th parallel had been settled upon. The reason is, I suppose, because the Hudson Bay Company always assumed that the height of land was their southern boundary; and Mitchell's map will show that the height of land was about the 49th parallel, and, therefore, ft was taken as if the lath parallel was about the proper line to be drawn. Now, whether that was the case or not, whether it was ever agreed upon or not, is of very little importance. Hon. O. Mowat. — You admit that it was not, I suppose. Mr. MacMahon. — Oh, I admit that it was not ; it was never decided upon, and in fact Prance never intended it. It is stated in Anderson's history that France never desired to settle the boundaries at all under the Treaty of Utrecht, and it was only when she was compelled after the war of 1759 that any settlement could be got. But it matters very little just now. If the Commissioners will look at the map attached to the Dominion case, which was furnished at the time of the surrender of Quebec — and that is taken from the map that was sent over by General Amherst to the British Government, furnished to General Haldimand by the Marquis de Vaud- Pueil — ^they will find there what France was claiming. She never claimed anything beyond the Eed Lake. There never was any pretence, as far as France was con cerned, of claiming as Canada anything norih or wc^t of tho Eed L-ilio. That is 276 what the Marquis de Vaudrueil at that time considered was the boundary of Canada upon the north and the west. (Some conversation took place over the maps, in the course of which Chief Justice Harrison pointed out that there were two Eed Lakes.) Hon. O. Mowat. — It is a little south of Turtle Lake. Mr. MacMahon. — Itis hardly south; it is more west than south; but for the purposes of my argument it does not matter, because I am addressing myself to that part ofthe argument ofthe Attorney-General which lays claim to all that north and west country as belonging to the French and being part of New France. The raap shows that there never was any such claim ; and the correspondence whioh took place with regard to the boundaries shows that after that map was delivered in 1761, France was claiming, as being part of Louisiana, a large part of the territory that was ceded as part of Canada — claiming it as being part of the Illinois country. The correspondence shows how anxious the French Government, the French Administra tion of that day, was in regard to acquiring the territory south, or at least retaining the territory south, as part of Louisiana. On the 18th August, 1761, M. de Bussy, the French Minister at London, furnished to Mr. Pitt, a memorandum upon the limits of Louisiana, which bore upon the limits of Canada, and ran thus : — " Sur les limites de la Louisiane. Pour fixer les limites de la Louisiane du cote " des colonies Angloises et du Canada, on tirera une Ligne qui s'etendra depuis Eio " Pereido entre la Baye de la Mobile et celle de Pensacola, en passant par le Fort -" Toulouse chez les Alimabous, et qui, se prolongeant par la pointe occidentale du Lac " Erie enfermera la Eiviere des Miamis, et par I'extremite orientale du Lac Huron, " ira aboutir a la hauteur des Terres du cote de lay Baye d' Hudson vers le Lac de '^ I'Abitibis, d' oil la Linge sera continuee de 1' Oriest jusques et compris le Lac Super- " ieur." (Pub. Eec, Off. Vol. 483.) Now, Mr . Pitt, the Prime Minister of that time, states in an ultimatum which he forwarded to Mr. Stanley at Paris, the following definition of the boundaries of Canada, as set forth by M. de Vaudreuil : " Canada, according to the line ofits limits traced by the Marquis de Vaudreuil himself, when this Governor General surrendered, by capitulation, the said Province to the British General, Chevalier Amherst, com prises on one side. Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior, and the said line drawn from Lac Eouge, erabraces by a tortuous course the Eiver Ouabache (Wabash) up to its junction with the Ohio, and from there extends the length of this river inclusively, until its confluence into the Mississippi." Then on page 8 of the supplement will be found what was stated by the Due de Choiseul when the map was 8h»wn to him by Mr. Stanley. Mr . Stanley's despatch says : — " The Due de Choiseul complained that the bounds of Canada were laid down very unfavorably to France, in the description which your memorial contains, '; alledging (sic) that there had been disputes between the Marquis de Vaudreuil and the ¦Governor of Louisiana with regard to the limits of their two Provinces, wherein the former, being the more able and the more active, had greatly enlarged his jurisdic tion ; he added, however, that though many such objections might be made, it had been the intention of the King, his master, to make the most full and complete j cession of Canada, and that he consented in his name to those limits. I then pro duced the map you sent me, and it was agreed that this Province should remain to Great Britain as it is there delineated." (Minutes of a Conference at Paris, Sept. 2nd, 1761. Pub. Eec, Off. Vol. 483, Prance.) So that was the Province as understood both by the French and English at that time ; and according to the claim made, at that time, it had not any greater limits or any wider extent. In 1714 the Hudson Bay Co. sent a memorandum to the Lords Commissioners of trade and plantations, accompanied by a map in which they claimed that the eastern boundaiy should be a line running from Grimington's Island through Lake Wiscosinke or Mistassinnie, and from the said lake by a line run .south-westwards into 49 degrees north latitude, as by the red line may moi-e particu larly appear, and that that latitude be the limit; that the French do not come to the 277 north of it nor the English to the south of it. (Ont. Docts., 131, 132.) In 1719 Commissioners were appointed, and they set forth that " the French since the Treaty of Utrcht had made a settlement at the source of the Eiver Albany, the Commissaries of His Britannic Majesty insist that the French shall quit the said settlement, and that the fort, if there be any such building, shall be given up to the Company of Bnglish Merchants trading in Hudson's Bay aforesaid." " The said Commissaries further demand that the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty shall not build fbrts or found settlements upon any of the rivers whioh empty into Hudson's Bay under any pretext whatsoever, and that the stream and the entire navigation of the said rivers shall be left free to the Company of Bnglish Merchants trading into Hudson's Bay and to such Indians as wish to traffic with them." (Ont. Docts., p. 365.) The Attorney -General stated that it was merely the freedom of the rivers which was required by the English Commissioners at that time. But Lord Dartmouth, in his letter to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, appeared to be anxious in regard to the property that the Hudson Bay C». had acquired under their charter, and which he wished to be given back to them, in order that they might continue to occupy it. Hon. O. Mowat. — This is not mentioned in the instructions that Lord Dartmouth gave ; it was the motion of the Commissioners themselves. Mr. MacMahon. — The Commissioners, I suppose, were instructed. Hon. O. Mowat. — We have got the instructions. Mr. MacMahon. — This is the demand they were making. They were insisting that the French should not continue there, and that they should give up all their settlements, and not trade or build forts, and that they should cease to occupy this country altogether. (The demand will be found in Ont. Docts., p. 365.) Sir Travers Twiss says in regard to that, — by the 10th Article, however, of the Treaty of Utrecht, the French King agreed to restore to the Queen (Anne) of Great Britain, "to be possessed in full right forever, 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 thereto ; no tracts of land or sea being excepted which are at present possessed by the subjects of Franco. The only question, therefore, for Comraissaries to settle were the limits of the Bay and Straits of Hudson, coastwards, on the side of the French Province of Canada, as all the country drained by streams entering into the Bay and Straits of Hudson were, by the terms of the Treaty, recognized to be part of the possessions of Great Britain." ''If the coast boundary, therefore, was once understood by the parties, the head waters of the strearas that empty themselves into the Bay and Straits of Hudson indicate the line which at once satisfied the other conditions of the treaty. Such a line, if commenced at the eastern extremity of the Straits of Hudson, would have swept along through the sources of the streams flowing into the Lake Mistassinnie and Abitibis, the Eainy Lake, in 48° 31', which empties itself by tho Eainy Eiver into the Lake of the Woods, the Eed Lake, and Lake Travers." These are the bounds that Sir Travers Twiss places on the rights of the Hudson Bay Co., saying that all that extent of country, to 48*^ 30', at which the sources of these rivers commence, of right belonged to the Hudson Bay Co. under the treaty, and that they could claim it and were claiming it under the Treaty of Utrecht. Now, speaking of Lake Travers, he says : — " This last lake would have been the extreme southern limit in about 45 40', whence the line would have wound upward to the north-west, pursuing a serpentine course, and resting with its extremity upon the Eocky Mountains, in about 48th parallel of latitude. Such would have been the boundary line between the French possessions and the Hudson Bay district ; and so we find that the limits of Canada, assigned by the Marquis de Vaudreuil himself, when he surrended the Province to Sir J. Amherst, the Eed Lake is the apex of the Province of Canada, or the point of departure from which, on the one side, the line is drawn to Lake Superior; on the ©ther, ' follows a serpentine course southward to the Eiver Oubache, or Wabash, and along' it to the junction with the Ohio.' This fact was insisted upon by the British 278 Governraent in their answer to the ultimatura of France, sent in on the 1st Septem ber, 1761, and the raap which was presented on that occasion by Mr. Stanley, the British Minister, embodying those limits, was assented to in the French memorial of the 9th of September," (Historical Memorial of the Negotiations of France and England from March 26th to Sept. 20th, 1761. Published at Paris by authority). (Twiss' Oregan boundary, pp. 209-211). " By the Treaty of Utrecht, the British possessions to the north-west of Canada were acknowledged to extend to the head-waters of the rivers emptying themselves into the Bay of Hudson ; by the Treaty of Paris they were united to the British possessions on the Atlantic by the cession of Canada and all her dependencies ; and France contracted her dominions with the right bank of the Mississippi. That France did not retain any territory after the treaty to the north-west of the sources of the Mississippi will be obvious, when it is kept in mind that the sources of the Mississippi are in 47° 35', whilst the sources of the Eed Eiver which flows through- Lake Winnipeg, and ultimately finds its way by the Nelson Eiver into the Bay of Hudson, are in Lake Travers, in about 45° 40'." (Twiss' Oregon, p. 226.) I have not referred to any of the maps, for the reason, as stated by Sir Travers Twiss, that it was an irapossibility at that time to get any correct maps; few or no surveys having been made in 1750, and that date is referred to in the opinion of Sir Eichard Bethell and Sir Henry Keating. In 1750 the Hudson Bay Company were claiming as their bounds just what they were claiming in 1857. The claim of the Company in 1857 will be found in Mills, 179, 177. " The line to begin from the Atlan tic Ocean on the east side of Grimington's Island, otherwise Cape Perdrix, in the latitude of 5SJ on the Labrador Coast, and to be drawn from thence south-westward to the Great Lake Miscosinke, otherwise called Mistoseny, and through the same, dividing that lalco into two parts, down to the 49th degree of north latitude, as des cribed in the said map or plan delivered herewith, and from thence to be continued by a meredian line ofthe said latitude 49 ivestward." So that they have been claim ing that all along ; and as stated by Sir Eichard Bethell and his associaties, that is what ought to be taken into consideration in viewing the question. Now, I think I have gone over the whole of the ground as far as regards the treaties, and I have shown that no part of that territory to the north and the west ever belonged to France, nor was it clairaed by France at the time of the cession of Canada to Great Britain in 1760. In fact, the French wanted to contract the limits and to claim as part of Louisiana that which in 1760 the Marquis de Vaudreuil had marked out as the limits of Canada ; and there was no pretence, no claira of any kind made by France to the northerly and westerly limit when she could have made the claim if it was in her power to do so. The other point to which I am drawn is in reference to the Quebec Act. Sir Francis Hincks.— The learned counsel has been going for a long time upon the respective claims of tho French and English ; but it is an important thing to see what the English Government has done with regard to the boundaries since the whole territory becarae Bnglish. That is what we want to see particularly. Mr. MacMahon.— The proclaraation of 1763 created four separate governments- Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada, and provided that all the lands not within the limits of these governments and not within the limits of the territory granted to the Hudson Bay Company should be received for the present under tho royal protection and dominion for the use of the Indians. Hon. 0. Mowat.— The old Province of Quebec is marked on the map in accord* ance with tho proclamation. Sir Francis Hincks. — Then these boundaries on Devine's map are agreed to aa representing that proclamation ? Mr. MacMahon. — Yes, I consider there is no point which turns on the proclama tion of 1763 : we are both agreed as to the correctness of that. We come now to the Quebec Act of 1774, and that is where the first difficulty occurs ; but I think I will be able to show to the Comraissioners that there is no difficulty in deciding that ques tion. If we look at the circurastances under which the Act was brought in, and take i into consideration the statement, as made by the Attorney-General, of what the ob- 279 Ject of the Act was and what was originally introduced into the House, and how it was amended, we will easily see that the claim of Ontario in regard to that western boundary cannot be supported at all . My learned friend the Attorney-General laughs. Hon. O. Mowat. — I thought that those considerations demonstrated our claim; I am amused that I made such a mistake. Chief Justice Harrison. — It is not the first time I have heard two counsels relying upon the same facts to support their respective cases. Mr. MacMahon. — Assuming that the claim raade by the Province of Ontario is the correct claim, what territory could they possibly acquire by taking the Eed Lake — by running through the Eed Lake which is on the boundary there ? Sir Francis Hincks. — ^I do not think you need trouble yourself about the Eed Lake, that is not the point; it is the boundary to the north and east of Hudson Bay, the question of the boundaiy running to Hudson Bay. Mr. MacMahon. — I will confine myself to that altogether. If the Commissioners will look at page 77 of Mills' book, th^y will find the clause of the Act as originally introduced ; and I would draw special attention to that, in order to show what was the design of the legislature at that time in settling the western boundary of the Province. It reads in this way: "Be it enacted that all the said territories, and islands, and countries heretofore a part of the territory of Canada in North Araerica, extending southward to the banks of the Eiver Ohio, and westward to the banks of the Mississippi." Well, now, the House of Commons, or the Committee of the House of Commons, at that time understood that if the Act read in that way, when once the Eiver Ohio was reached the use of the word westward would make it on a due west course to the Eiver Mississippi. Sir Francis Hincks. — I think you do not appreciate our point. You are still at the westerly boundary ; it is the northerly boundary we want to get at. Mr. MacMahon. — You are not troubled about the westerly boundary. Sir Francis Hincks, — ^Not so much as the northerly. Whatever the westerly boundary may be, there is no doubt that it runs notherly until it reaches the"southerly boundary of the Hudson Bay Company. We want to known what the southerly 'boundary of the Hudson Bay Company is. ' Mr. MacMahon. — In 1703, 1750 and 1857, the Hudson Bay Company were claim- Ting that the height of land was the southern boundary of their territory; they always claimed that. Sir Francis Hincks. — What you have got to deal with is whether any Acts of Parliament, proclamations, or Commissions to Governors, established other bound aries. You are aware ofthe points in that branch of the case. Some of the Com missions, for instance, expressly say " to the shore of Hudson Bay." Mr. MacMahon. — Then, dealing with the question of the Commissions. First we have to look at the constitutional Act of 1791, because it is asserted that the proclamation of 1791 enlarged the boundaries of what was once the Province of •Quebec. The Act of 1791 does not itself give boundaries, but the proclamation follows it and gives boundaries. My learned friend says that it does not raatter whether the boundaries were extended into the Hudson Bay territory or not, that that is not a question for the consideration of the Arbitrators, but I say that it is. The Hudson Bay Company had a Government of their own under the charter as it existed, and the King could not of his own mere motion take from them the proprietary Government, that which had been granted to them by the charter, unless they had, forfeited the charter in some way. Chief Justice Harrison, — That is assuming that the charter gives them definite boundaries. Mr. MacMahon. — What took place by the acquisition of Manitoba, by the Manitoba Act, must define the boundaries as far as Great Britain and as far as the Hudson Bay Company are concerned ; and when we come to look at what was being stipulated for by the Hudson Bay Company under that Act, and the surrender made in consequence of the Act, we shall find exactly what the British Government were dojng and assented to only ten years ago. 280 Chief Justice Harrison, — What are the boundaries in the proclamation under the' Act of 1791 ? Mr. MacMahon. — The boundaries under that Act have received judicial interpre tation. Chief-Justice Harrison. — We want to give them an interpretation. Mr. MacMahon. — The proclamation will be found in the Ont. Doots., 27 ; and I . may say here that the whole trouble results from the use of one word, and it is upon that the Province of Ontario are building their right to go to the west and north of what was the Province of Quebec. The last word in the first clause is " Canada," when it should have been " Quebec." It is altogether in relation to that word ; and before we know anything about what was comprised in Canada we have to ascertain what was comprised in the limits of Quebec — that is, if the Commissioners think it proper that I should discuss what was proposed in the Act of 1774. That is what I was doing when Sir Francis spoke of the boundaries under the Acts of the Govern ment, as by proclamations, commissions, &c. I considered it necessary to argue that point under the Act of 1774, in order to show that the use of that word in the procla mation of 1791 was a mistake. Sir Francis Hincks. — Eefer to that, please. Hon. O. Mowat. — It would be rather a bold thing for the Commissioners to say that the use of the word Canada in that Act was a mistake. Mr. MacMahon. — I say that the Act of 1791, in all its provisions, is merely for the purpose of dividing the Province of Quebec, and that the use ofthe word Canada i was simply a mistake. The Commission to Lord Dorchester is 1791 will be founds on page 48, Ont. Docts. ; that is the first Commission issued after the Act. It is issued certainly before the proclamation ; but the Commission that was issued in 1796 speaks of the Province of Quebec — it does not speak of Canada at all. The third paragraph of Lord Dorchester's Commission is this : — " And whereas, we have thought fit by Our order made in Our Privy Council on the Nineteenth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, to divide our said Province of Quebec into two separate provinces, to be called the Province of Upper Canada and the Province of Lower Canada, by a line to commence at a stone boundiary on the North Bank of the Lake St. Francis, at the Cove west of the Point au Baudot in the limit between the Township of Lancaster and the Seigneurie of New Longueuil, running along the said limit in the direction of north thirty four degrees west to the westernmost angle of the said Seigneurie of New Longueuil ; thence along the north-western boundary of the Seignem-ie of Vaudreuil, running north twenty-five degrees east, until it strikes the Ottowas Eiver, to ascend the said river into the Lake Tommiscanning, and from the head of the said lake by a line drawn due north until it strikes the boundary line of Hudson Bay, the Province of Upper Canada, to comprehend all such lands, territories and islands, lying to the westward ofthe said line of division as were part of our said Province of Quebec;^ and the Province of Lower Canada to comprehend all such lands, territories and islands lying to the eastward of the said line of division as were pai-t of our said Province of Quebec." Now, if we are to consider the Quebec Act and the proclamations under it, it is necessary to understand what was comprised in the Province of Quebec under that Act ; and it was for that purpose I was referring the Commissioners to what took place on the introduction of the Act in 1774. Sir Francis Hincks. — That is very important. Mr. MacMahon.— The Quebec Act, as introduced into the House of Lords, con tained these words : " Be it enacted that all the said territories, islands and countries, heretofore a part of the territory of Canada in North America, extending southwards to the j^anks of the Eiver Ohio, and westwards to the banks of the Eiver Mississippi," etc. I stated that that, as it was, would mean from the point at which the line struck the Ohio, a due west course until it reached the Mississippi. What do we find was done in regard to that ? The Legislature felt that that was the interpretation which would be put on these words, and they made an amendment. The amendment 281 will be found in Cavendish's debates — the Act, as it is, we have. They made this amendment : " Until it strikes the Eiver Ohio, westward to the banks of the Missis sippi," but they inserted after the word Ohio, " and along the banks of the said Eiver," showing that they intended that the bank should be followed. And, if the Commis sioners read the whole of that Act, they will see that in every instance the phrase " along the bank of the river " is used. Hon. O. Mowat. — It only professes to desci-ibe the south line. Mr. MacMahon. — But when it comes to the junction of the Mississippi and Ohio it describes it in another way, showing that the eastern bank of the Mississippi was not intended by the Legislature at that time to be the eastern boundary of the Pro- ¦vince of Quebec. If they had intended that an amendment would have been made as was made in regard to the Ohio, they would have put "westerly (northerly?) along the bank of the Mississippi, ' just as they did " westerly along the bank of the Ohio." But when it came to the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi, they said " westward " (northward ?), and it is alleged that because they used that word " westward " (northward ?) it must mean " westerly" (northerly ?) along the banks of the Mississippi Eiver, because a Commission was issued to one ofthe Governors con taining that clause in it. But, when it comes to the Commission of 1796, which describes what was intended to be contained as the territorial jurisdiction of the Governors, that is not to be taken at all. Now, in looking at DeEeinhard's case, it wiil be found that the whole of that was very elaborately argued. Sir Francis Hincks. — ^Yes ; we understand the whole of that question. You will see that there is a line drawn in this map of Devine's professing to be the boundary according to the Commission of Lord Elgin. Hon. O. Mowat. — That is the last Commission. The other Commissions were substantially in the same terms. One set of Commissions says " shore," and the other set says " boundary line " of Hudson Bay. Sir Francis Hincks. — The proclamation of 1791 says, "until it strikes the boundary line of Hudson Bay." Now, what is the boundary line of Hudson Bay ? Chief Justice Harrison. — Can you strike the boundary line of Hudson Bay with out going to the shore ? Mr. MacMahon. — It is not the Bay which is meant, it is the territory. Chief Justice Harrison. — That is the point we want you to address yourself to ; it is a very important point. Mr. MacMahon. — The Commission to Lord Dorchester in 1791 says, " until it strikes the boundary line of Hudson Bay." (Ont. Docts., page 48.) Sir Edward Thornton.— The proclamation of 1791 follows that very Commission. The wording is the same — " the boundary line of Hudson Bay." u ;-i Ml". MacMahon. — The boundary line of Hudson Bay cannot be anything but the. boundary line of the territory, because the King had no authority, no right, under a proclamation, to enter upon a territory granted to the Hudson Bay Campanyfor the purpose of governing. Chief Justice Harrison — Of course that is all based upon the assumption that it had been granted ; but all these proclamations of course throw light upon the ques tion of whether it had been granted or not. Mr. MacMahon. — They show afterwards how it was dealt with, and I will come to that question now. Sir Francis Hincks.— They repeat the expression in 1796, five years later — " the boundary line of Hudson Bay." Chief Justice Harrison. — All the Commissions follow that, along down to 1838. Mr. Hodgins. — And then, from that down to Lord Elgin's, the language is " strikes the shore." Mr. MacMahon. — Between those dates they understood that there was a difference between the shore and the boundary line. Sir Francis Hincks. — ^You will observe that it still follows the words " due north." In the old Commissions it says " due north to the boundary line of Hudson Bay;" but afterwards they say — "still following the expression "due north" — expressly 282 • " to the shore of Hudson Bay," which rather conveys the idea that they interpreted the boundary line of Hudson Bay and the shore of Hudson Bay to be the same thing. Sir Bdward Thornton. — They improved the English a little in that. Mr. MacMahon. — The proclamation is void to a certain extent ; it has gone too far. I will show the way in which the Government have dealt with the Hudson Bay • Company in regard to this very territory. And I say that where there is a pro prietary Government such as the Hudson Bay Company was admi i ted to be — and the British Government have always dealt with them as such, neither the proclamation nor the Act of Parliament could take away the rights of the Hudson Bay Company in any way; the only way to do so, if the Company had forfeited their charter, would be to bring them into court, and that is the course which in 1850 the law officers of the Crown advised should be pursued if the Company had committed any acts by which their charter ought to be forfeited or abridged in any way. In the case of Campbell vs. Hall, in 1 Cowper, 204, cited in Forsyth's Constitutional Law, 401, it is' l^id down by Lord Mansfield that there cannot exist any power in the King exclusive ¦ of Parliament. Chief Justice Harrison. — That depends entirely upon the territory where the power is exercised; if there is no Parliament there is no power to limit the King's, authority. There was no Parliament in the Hudson Bay Territory. Mr. MacMahon, — I cite also the case of Payne against Lord Baltimore, 1 Vesey, 444, that and the case of Campbell and Hall, together with a case in 12 Peters, the State of Ehode Island against the State of Massachusetts, have decided that where there is a proprietary Government existing there is no authority, unless by proceed ings under a sci.fa. to take away the territory or to assume any Government over it, so that after the grant was made and confirmed by all these Acts of Parliament, the King had no authority or power to take away the rights of the Hudson Bay Company that existed,| Chief Justice Harrison. — Of course that is assuming one ofthe things which ha« been argued before, as to the rights if any of the Hudson Bay Company south of Hudson Bay, and to what extent north. That is one of the points in controversy ; all these documents throw light upon it. Mr. MacMahon. — My learned friends do not claim that they are entitled to any land north of the height of land. Hon. O. Mowat. — I thought I had occupied a good deal of time in showing that I was claiming that. Chief Jusdce JHarrison . — I understood the Attorney-General to claim to the Arctic Ocean. Mr. MacMahon. — I did not know that he meant that. Sir Francis Hincks. — Do I understand that you have no difficulty about the northern boundary. Mr. MacMahon. — The northern boundary is of no great consequence ; the trouble is with the western boundary. Then came the Act of Union in 1840, and we ¦will see what was the boundary under that. The first Commission, to Lord Sydenham, is dated August 29, 1840. After the line reaches Lake Temiscaming, it is due north from the head of the said lake until it reaches the shore of Hudson Bay, and being bounded on the south, beginning at the said stone boundary between Lancaster ana Longueuil, by the Lake Saint Francis, the Eiver St. Lawrence, the Lake of the Thousand Islands, Lake Ontai-io, the Eiver Niagara, which falls into Lake Brie, and along the middle of that lake ; on the west by the Channel of Detroit, Lake Saint Clair, up the Eiver St. Clair, Lake Huron, the west shore of Drummond Island, that of Saint Joseph and Sugar Island ; thence into Lake Superior. I think you stop there ; it just takes you where the lino of 1774 would strike, and shows that Upper Canada is bounded by that northern line running from the junction of the Ohio Eiver to that point in Lake Superior which would be intersected. Hon. O. Mowat.— It does not say that. Mr. MacMahon. — No ; but that is the whole extent of Canada in 1840, and all that was claimed for it by the British Government. 283 Chief Justice Harrison. — Yet that same Commission is the one which draws a dividing line between the two parts of Canada, Upper and Lower — a line running due north from Lake Temiscaming to the shores of Hudson Bay. Mr. MacMahon, — Yes, that is included in that Coramission ; that wrong reading appeai-s to have got into it in some way or other ; but no matter what the Commission was, the King had no right to draw that line as against the Hudson Bay Co., if we satisfy you that the Hudson Bay Company's territory extended south of the Hudson Bay to the height of land. Then the Commission that was issued to Lord Elgin in 1846 is somewhat similar : — " Thence into Lake Superior." Lord Elgin left in 1852 or 1853 ; showing that up to that time the jurisdiction of the Governors General bf Canada ended on the shores of Lake Superior, and must have ended just about at the point where that northerly line strikes ; because the Province of Canada afterwards bought from the Indians the territory between the height of land. I have argued that question about as fully as I can, in regard to the Commissions and in regard to the extent of territory under the jurisdiction of the Governors in 1846, and down to the last Commission issued to Lord Elgin in that year, and up to the time he left in 1852 or 1853. Now, the British Government must have been aware at that time where a line drawn from the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Eivers would strike in Lake Superior, and no doubt they intended Upper Canada to be included in that. We come now to Confederation. The 146th section of the British North America Act is as follows: — " It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, on Addresses from the Houses of Parliament of Canada and from the Houses of the respective Legislatures ofthe Colonies or Provinces of New foundland, Prince Edward Island and British Colurabia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces, or any of them, into the Union, and on Address from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, to admit Eupert's Land and the North- Western Territory, or either of them, into the Union on such terms and conditions, in each case, as are in the Addresses expressed, and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the pro- ¦visions of this Act ; and the provisions of any Order in Council in that behalf shall Jiave effect as if they had been enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." (Ont. Docts., p. 404). Well, after or about that time, the Agents of the Government of Canada went to England, and made representations in regard to the expenditure of some $20,000 which the Government of Canada thought proper to expend on roads in the vicinity of Hudson Bay. In the letter that was addressed to the British Government — by Sir Stafford Northcote, I think, who was then the Governor of the Company — he com plained, on behalf of the Company, of trespasses having been committed by the Canadian authorities; and although the Canadian authorities denied that they were oommitting any trespass whatever in going to the Eed Eiver country, still they stated that the people there were in a starving condition, and that as an act of humanity alone the Government was prompted to make this expenditure, so as to give the people employment. That correspondence shows conclusively what was being asserted on the one hand by the Canadian authorities, and being denied by the Hudson Bay Company on the other hand — denied with all the force which could be given to a denial. The result was that the British Governraent, through whom this charter to the Hudson Bay Company was granted^ or at least confirmed — because they did confirm it in effect if not in express words, by stating in the numerous Acts of Parliament from 6th Anne to 43rd George the Third, that all the rights and privileges of the Hudson Bay Company should be respected — the result was that the Britisli Govesnment took legislative action. What do we find them doing ? We find that an Act known as the Eupert's Land Act was passed in 1868, after the presenta tion of an Address- from the Senate and House of Commons of Canada on December 17th, 1866. (Ont. Docts., 404 to 407). What was the agreement between tho parties to this transaction ? It is necessary to understand what was being surren dered, because the fact of the surrender, and the acceptance of that surrender by Her 284 Majesty, was a confirmation of everything that the Hudson Bay Company had been claiming under their charter ; and that is a point which I am sure the Arbitrators will not lose sight of in dealing with this question. The surrender itself, the Act of Parliament itself, the agreement which was come to, not only betweenthe British Government and the Hudson Bay Company, but between the Canadian authorities ; these all prove the same thing. Under paragraph No. 5 of the Hudson Bay Company's deed of surrender, " the Company may within 50 years after the surrender, claim ia any township or district within the fertile belt in which land is set oat for settlement, grants of land not exceeding one-twentieth part of the land so set out." 6. " For the purpose ot the present agreement the fertile belt is to. be bounded as follows : On the south by tbe United States boundary ; on the west Dy the Eoeky Mountains ; on the north by the northern branch of the Saskatchewan ; on the east by Lake Winnipeg, the Lake of the Woods, and the waters connecting them." Now here are the boundaries of tho fertile belt, and there can be no mistaking them. Under the second section of the Eupert's Land Act, it is declared that the term " Eupert's Land" should include the whole of the lands and territories held, or claimed to be held, by the said Governor and Company ; so that all that land, which in 1719 and 1850 the Company were claiming, the British Government admitted they had a right to ; and the Dominion accepted the surrender of all that, and permitted them under the agreement. — Chief Justice Harrison. — Of course the British Government, when accepting the surrender were willing to accept a surrender not only of all that the Company had, but of all that they claimed to have had. Mr. MacMahon.— They claimed the fertile belt, and were allowed to participate afterwards in its lands as their own ; they were allowed to hold lands there. Mr. Hodgins. — The same as squatters on Crown Lands ? Mr. MacMahon. — They claimed it as lords of the soil, and entitled to the domain. The Commissioners will see from this raap of 1850 what they were claiming. They were claiming down to the 49th parallel, and when thoy came to the height of land again they went north, showing that they were claiming all that extent of territory to the height of land at the very last moment. Ontario, as a part of the Dominion, knew of all that was going on ; knew that the Dominion was entering into these negotiations ; but she sat by and never said a word— never said, " No matter what you do, we are going to claim this land." They said nothing, but agreed that all this should be surrendered. It was surrendered, and paid for by a million and a-half of the Dominion's money, and the surrender was accepted by the Dominion and British authorities as being a part of what was granted to the Hudson Bay Company. It does not matter whether the Company had a right to it or not, they were claiming it, and claiming to be paid for it. And there is where I say that the Province of Ontario can have no right now to claim any portion of that land that was surrendered, to claim it as being p.'irt of the Province. If she had a right to claim it, then was the time to intervene, and say, " this is part of our Province, and if you accept the title to that land you do so at your peril." I need not quote the numerous authorities in support of the proposition as to the Province now being excluded. Hon. O. Mowat. -I would like very much to see them, if there are any. Mr. MacMahon. — I cite Sturey's equity, sec. 546. Chief Justice Harrison, — That is quite clear as between individuals ; can you show us that that is part of the law of nations ? Mr, MacMahon. — I do not think that the Province can possibly stand in a better position than an individual. Chief Justice Harrison. — One nation is not bound by what two other nations do, unless the third nation is a party to what is going on. Mr. MacMahon. — Ontario is a part of the Dominion. Chief Justice Harrison. — It was no party to these negotiations. Mr. MacMahon, — No. Chief Justice Harrison. — Then the arrangement was something that took place -between other parties that were strangers to the Province. 285 Mr. MacMahon. — The Province is part of the Dominion ; and, knowing that the Dominion was acquiring rights from the Hudson Bay Co., if the Province had any claim to that territory they should have made the claim then, when the matter was about being settled. The instructions given to the Commissioners on behalf of the Dominion, when it was proposed that this claim should be settled, will be found on page 20 of the Dominion case, from which I will read an extract : — 1. The boundary in question is clearly identical with the limits of the Province of Quebec, according to the 14th Geo. III., o. 83, known as the " Quebec Act." and is described in the said Act as follows, that is to say : Having set forth the westerly position of the southern boundary of the Province as extending along the Eiver •Ohio " westward to the banks of the Mississippi " the description continues from thence (i. e., the junction of the two rivers) " and northward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the Merchant Adventurers of England trading to the Hudson Bay." Now, what the territoiy of the Merchant Adventurers of England, trading to the Hudson Bay was hac been fully set forth by them, and, although on the side of the Province of Quebec, the line of the Province of Quebec may have struck the shore of Hudson Bay, still that has nothing to do with this western limit. It can have nothing to do with that, because on the western limit there is no line at all. We are bound by that in no way, and they may get as much from the Province of Quebec as they .can ; the Province of Quebec will be glad to dispose of it. My learned friend, Mr. Monk, will follow me, and if there is anything that strikes me after my learned friend, the Attorney-General, has replied, perhaps the Arbitrators will allow me a few words. B. Monk, Esq. — I have great difficulty in adding anything to the able and ex haustive argument of my friend and colleague, Mr. MacMahon. I shall limit myself as briefly as possible to a reference to some of the portions of my learned adversary's case upon certain points which, to say the least, are well open to controversy. I find on the third page of his case — and I know that he laid great stress upon it in address ing the Commissioners — a letter written by Sir George B. Cartier and Mr. Mac- Dougall to Sir F. Eogers. I find on the flfth page the following in reference to this letter: — "Ontario claims that the official views ofthe Government of the Dominion, as thus expressed, should prima facie be carried out as between the Dominion and the Province, unless the Dominion proves that the assertions so made by its Min isters were false or mistaken, and that the claim to which they led was unfounded." The second assertion in this letter is that the charter of the Hudson Bay Company expressly excluded all lands, etc., then possessed by the subjects of any other Chris tian Prince or State ;" and the next paragraph states that " by the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye (1632) the King of England resigned to the King of France the sovereignty of Acadia, New France and Canada generally, and without limits." That, I submit, is unfounded. The Treaty of Eyswick is quite different in its terms. The Word " resigned " or " give up " is not a correct translation tor the French ver sion of it as I find it in the Treaty of St. Germain, at page eleven of the Ont. Docts. The French words inserted between brackets there are " rendre " and " restituer " — to give back or restore — implying unquestionably a previous possession on the part ofFrance of these territories. New France, Acadia and Canada could not have included Hudson Bay. The' Hudson Bay territories were never in the possession of France at that time, and, as Mr. MacMahon has established, were not even known or discov ered in 1632 by the French. The Attorney-General also laid particular stress on this memoir of M. de Callieres, and I may therefore be allowed to refer the Commissioners to a few notes that I have made on the subject. The first French voyage alluded to by Mr. Mills is that of Attorney-General Bourdon, and Mr. Mills makes the statement upon the authority of a memoir from Sieur de Callieres to the. Marquis de Seignelay and another memoir from the Marquis de Denonville. Much astonishment was expressed at the assertions in these memoirs, and a doubt thrown upon their correct ness by the learned counsel for the Province. This memoir says that in 1656 Jean Bourdon, the Attorney-General of Quebec, explored the entire Coast of Labrador and -entered Hudson Bay ; and this, M, de Callieres says, is proved by an extract from 286 the ancient registry of the Council of New France of 1656, Jean Bourdon was a raan thoroughly well known in the Province — better known, no doubt, in that part of the country than would be Attorney-General of the Province to-day, and was a man with whom the Jesuits were on intimate terms, and who is mentioned on almost every page of their Eolations, written at that time. Yet notwithstanding these facts, no mention whatever is made in the " Eolations des Jesuites " — and I have read them over with care — no mention whatever is made of Jean Bourdon's voyage to Hudson Bay. At page 9 of the " Eolations " for 1658 mention is made of an attempted journey which Bourdon made with the intention of reaching Hudson Bay, Under date llth August, wo find an entry in which the Father Jesuit who is reported as keeping the journal at that time says that the barque of M. Bourdon returned. We have in the " Eolations " no particular date of Bourdon's starting on this voy age ; but in the "Journal des Jesuites," pages 209, 218, the Commissioners will find that he left in the middle of May in the same year ; he retumed on llth August ; and, as is not controverted, it would have been perfectly impossible for him to have made the vovage to Hudson Bay in so short a time ; but the learned counsel stated that there was no reason why this particular voyage should have been the one mentioned by de Callieres. This voyage to which I refer was made in 1657. The extract from the register to which de Callieres refers is dated 1656 ; clearly indicating that what de Callieres took as evidence of a voyage having been made was simply an order, an instruction, given by the council to Sieur Bourdon to attempt this voyage. There can be no doubt whatever that the "Eolations des Jesuites," whatever may havebeen said of them since, were the only correct record which was kept of the early doings of the colony ; and there can be no doubt whatever that had Sieur Bourdon in 1656, as is claimed, made a voyage of this kind, a record of it would have been kept, as I propose to show in a moment. The next voyage to which M. de Callieres refers in his memoir is that of Father Dablon, a Jesuit, who in 1661, at Mills states in his report, was ordered by Sieur d'Argenson, Governor of Canada, to proceed to the countiy about Hudson Bay. It is stated that Dablon went there with Sieur de Valliere, and that the Indians who came back with them to Quebec, declared that they had never seen any Europeans there before. Mr. Mills in a note on the next page, 127, explains the Eolations of the Jesuits not mentioning Bourdon's voyage by the assertion that they were naturally anxious that members of their own society should be the pioneers in discovery, and that, therefore, many important discoveries were never brought to light in their " Eolations " because they were not made by Jesuits. Of course an argument of this kind cannot apply to the voyage of Dablon, as he was a Jesuit, a man in whom the interests of the society were cented ; and if a voyage had been made by him, no doubt a great deal of prominence would have been given to it. On the contrary, in the thud volume of the Jesuit Eolations, 1662, we find this Jesuit Father Dablon describing an unsuccessful voyage that he made. There can be no doubt that he attempted! voyage. A portion of this relation is written by hiraself, and he calls it, " Journal da premier voyage fait vers la mer dunord." This first portion of it is most important and conclusive, as showing that de Callieres in his memoir to M. de Seignelay, twenty-one years afterwards, must have been speaking from hearsay and withonl any authentic documents on which to base his assertions. Dablon says that tbe highest point which he did reach was Nekauba, a hundred leagues from Tadousac, and that subsequently he returned ; and thi» is from a report of this journey written by himself. I noticed that the Attorney-General atterapted to raise a doubt as to the identity of the Dablon in de Collieres' raemoir with the Dablon of the " Eelations des Jesuites." I have examined with care, and I find at the end of one of the volumes a complete list of all the Jesuits, pioneers both of the faith and in the way of dis covery, and I find that there is only one Dablon mentioned . Another inaocuraeyl of this memoir ie as to the trip of Duquet, under an order said to have been given by* Sieur d'Argenson. There can be no doubt that at the time this pretended order was given d'Argenson had left Canada. Tho Attorney General must admit now although no attaches so much importance to this memoir, that it is inaccurate in' most im- 2S1 portant particulars; first as to the voyage of Bourdon, which is shown never to have taken place at all ; next as to the voyage of Dablon, which is shown also not to have taken place ; then as to the trip of Duquet, under the special instructions of a superior who had left the country two years before. My learned friend has attached a great deal of importance, apparently, to the fact that in 1627 a charter had been granted by Louis XIIL, to a number of adventurers sent to discover new lands tb the north of the Eiver St. Lawrence. But my learned friends have omitted to verify the fact that in this charter to the French Company, which the Commissioners will find in the first volume of at page 6, the only portions of land granted to the French Company are the lands or portions of lands which had already been occiipied by the Kings of France, and the object of the charter was simply to give them an exclusive right of trade therein . The charter reads as follows, (Eeads an extract in the French language). Thereby clearly indicating that the charter did not go further than the land occupied by the predecessors of Louis XIV. In the case for the Province it is stated at page 3, " La Nouvelle France was then understood to include the whole region of Hudson Bay, as the maps and histories of the time, English and French, abundantly prove-" This is a broad assertion, which is not supported by the early discoverers nOr by the historians of that time. Charlevoix described New France as being an exceedingly limited territory. (Eeads extract from Charlevoix in French.) I find, also, in L'Bscarbot, a description which shows that at that time the whole territory known as New France extended but a few miles on each side of the St. Lawrence ; and Char levoix regrets it, and says that at this time the giving up of this territory did not amount to much, as New France was circumscribed by very narrow limits on either side of the St. Lawrence. My learned friends say that the right ofthe PrenCh to places in Hudson Bay was acknowledged by the Treaty of Eyswick. The Commissioners will see, on reference to this Treaty of Eyswick, that a special provision was made, quite distinct from the provision in the seventh Article of the Treaty. By Article VIII it was specially provided that Commissioners should be appointed with fuir powers to settle the limits of the territories of the conflicting nations around Hudson Bay. The fact of these Commissaries never having met to settle the limits render's, I res pectfully submit, the provisions of the treaty, so far as the territories around Hudson Bay are concerned, a dead letter. Having shown that Sir George E. Cartier and Mr. Macdougall were mistaken in most important points, I think that the pretension of my learned friends that the Dominion should be bound by this letter of its Ministers is unfounded. On referring to a map attached to a report made by Mr. E'arhsay to the Dominion of Canada some time ago, I find a line which corresponds with the one the Chief Justice referred to at the time, where the Eed Lake is shown immediately to the north-west of Lake Superior, at the height of land. I understand that the Commissioners have much less difficulty about the western boundary than the other? Chief Justice Harrison — It is the northern boundary that we want. My learned friend seeraed to lay considerable stress on the Constitutional Act of 1791. The Commissioners were alluding a few minutes ago to the fact that ill the proclamation which followed the Constitutional Act (Ontario Documents, page 27) the words " until it strikes the boundary line of Hudson Bay " are to be found. Now, this proclamation was siraply declaring when the Constitutional Act would come in force, so that if the Commissioners would take communication of the Constitutional Act itself, which is in Ontario Documents, page 4, they will perceive afrequent recur rence of the words " Government of the Province of Quebec." It is to'be found in the second line of the second paragraph, and is continually mentioned, thereby indicating that by that Constitutional Act there was no intention whatever to enlarge or vary in any manner the old limits of the Province of Quebec, as stated in the Quebec Act of 1774. I may be allowed to refer to the remarks of Chief Justice Sewell in the De Eeinhard case, which do not apply to the western boundary, biit show that no increase ofthe limits ofthe Province of Quebec could havo taken place. I am citing from the minutes tiiken in shorthand under the sanction of the co'iirt, printed in a 288 book which I got from the Parliamentary Library, in which the point specially set forth by Mr. Stuart, then representing the prisoner, is fully reported. Hon. O. Mowaf. — I think the case is wrong on that point ; I think they did decide it as lar as they could. Mr. Monk. — The case came up specially on two or three occasions. It came up on a motion for arrest of judgment after the verdict had been rendered. On this ¦question as to whether the Constitutional Act of 1791, owing to the use of this word "Canada," might directly or indirectly be accepted as showing what was the Pre- Tince of Quebec, Chief Justice Sewell was concurred with by Mr. Justice Bowen and Mi\ Justice Perault. I will read from his decision : — Chief Justice Sewell. — The Court are most distinctly of opinion, on referring both to the Act of 1791 and that of 1774, that the argument on the defence must fail. What was the object of each Act ? Amongst others, that of 1774 was to enlarge the Province of Quebec, -which had been created in 1763. That of 1791 was to separate or divide the Province of Quebec into two Provinces, to be denominated Upper and Lower Canada, and make each respectively independent of the other, by giving g Legislature to each respectively, but still retaining between or within the two Pro vinces, the same extent of country, the same space as the one Province contained. What is the Act ? What is its object, its avowed object ? To repeal certain parts of the Act of 1774 ; and what is the part repealed? Itis that part ofit which gives authority to the Council of the Province ©f Quebec ; and what is the reason assigned for so doing ? Why, that His Majesty had signified it to be his royal will and pleasure to divide his Province of Quebec. To assert that he intended- by this that the limits of the Province should be extended by the separation, appears to be repugnent to the plainest principles of common sense, and therefore I cannot assent to it. The short iistory ofthe Act of 1791 is briefly this : The King signifies to Parliament his royal intention ot dividing the Province of Quebec, and he calls on the Legislature to pro vide for this alteration by granting an Act adapted to the change. The Legislature pass an Act providing for the due government of the two Provinces, and under the authority of this Act, and the Eoyal Proclamation, the Province of Quebec was accordingly divided, the Eoyal Proclamation being an exercise of sovereign authority. His Majesty in that Act, by and with the consent of his Privy Council, declared what shall be the line of separation between Upper and Lower Canada, and how much of the former Province of Quebec shall belong to the one, and how much to the other, The object of the Act and the object of the Eoyal Proclamation are so clearly ex pressed that we cannot for a moment doubt upon the subject. What says the Act? " His Majesty having being pleased to signify his royal will and pleasure to sepai-ate and divide the Province of Quebec." What says the Proclamation ? Why, the very same words. To divide the Province of Quebec, not to add to it, any more than to take away from it. Therefore Upper Canada, in the purview, could include only that part ofthe Pro'vince so divided as was not contained in Lower Canada; but it could not extend beyond those limits which constitute the Provinceof Quebec; other wise it would certainly have been an Act to enlarge, rather than an Act to divide. Sir Francis Hincks. — Unfortunately it does not help us one bit, because of the indefinite character of the boundary of Hudson Bay. We want to know the southerni boundary of Hudson Bay. The Act of 1791 does define it to a certain extent, because it refers to a line drawn due north to a certain point, to the boundary of Hudson Bay . . . . , boundary Bay." That is the difficulty with which we have to deal. Chief Justice Harrison. — From that it may be very fairly argued that it was ¦ understood at that time that the south shore of .Hudeon Bay was the southern limit j of the Hudson Bay Company. Sir Francis Hincks.— The Attorney-General has brought forward his argument very strongly on that point, and I do not think you have answered him bv the Act of 1774, because that simply gives an indefinite boundary. 289 Mr. Monk. — If our contention bo correct that it was not intended by the Consti tutional Act to extend in any manner the limits of the Province of Quebec, we have to examine the Quebec Act of 1774, however indefinite it may be, to see what were considered the southern boundaries of Hudson Bay at that time. The Quebec Act of 1774, in defining the northern boundary of tbe extended" Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, says, "northward" — not to Hudson Bay, as the proclamation does, but — " to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the Merchants Adventurers of England to-ading into Hudson Bay." Chief Justice Harrison. — That, of course, was uncertain at that time. There was no natural boundary there. That has been the dispute all along, and it continued "Shifting from time to time. Mr. MacMahon. — And that is what is to be decided by the Commissioners now, incidentally. The Act and the proclamation, I suppose, we will be justified in taking together. Mr. Monk.— This would bring us back to the proclamation of 1763, constituting the four Provinces in the British Dominions, and specifying thus : " and we do further declare it to be our royal will and pleasure for the present, as aforesaid, to receive under our sovereignty, dominion and protection, for the use of the said Indians, all the lands aud territories not included within the limits of our said three new Govern ments, or within the limits ofthe territory granted to the Hudson Bay Company" — not specifying them again, but clearly indicating by inference that the territory to the north of the old Province of Quebec up to the limit, to that northern boundary, had been granted to the Hudson Bay Company, as it was occupied or supposed to be occupied by them. I would refer the Commissioners to the 10th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht (page 16, Ont. Docts,), as follows : — " The said most Christain King shall restore to the Kingdom and Queen of Great Britain, to be possessed in full right for ever, 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 thereto, no tracts of land or of sea being excepted, which are at present possessed by the subjects of France." At that time there were some forts occupied by the French just at the other side of the northern boundary, the height of land. The llth Article •of the Treaty provides that "the most Christian King shall take care that satisfaction be given, according to the rule of justice and equity, to the English Company trading to the Bay of Hudson, for all damages and spoil done to their colonies, ships, persons and goods, bythe hostile incursions and depredations ¦of the French." On reference to this map of Devine's the Commissioners will see that at that time there were French posts just at the other side of the height of land. For instance, there was one on the south-west corner of Lake Mistassinnie ; another just at the other side of the height of land, just above Lake Temiscaming ; another at the source of Moose Eiver ; and another south-east of Lake Joseph, a little above Lake Superior. The stipulation regarding the damages which were tobe paid to the Hudson Bay Company, and the restitution of the forts, constitute, as far as we can judge, an acknowledgment of their rights to that portion of the country. The real question, as I understand it, is to ascertain what was understood by the Hudson Bay Company as their southern boundary by tbe authority that fixed that of Upper Canada. Subsequent to this Treaty of Utrecht, in 1711, Commissioners were appointed ; and although the first Commissioners appointed did not come to any conclusion, owing to the fact of their powers, it would seem, not being sufficiently extensive, other Commissioners were appointed, and the Hudson Bay Company were ordered by the Lords' Commissioners of Trade and Plantations to send in their claim as th<^ understood it. The Hudson Bay Company did send in their claim, and in 1719 instructions were given to Commissioner Bladen regarding the limits of the territory in question, based on the claim of the Hudson Bay Company; and Commissioner Bladen received certain instructions as to the limits which he was to insist upon. His instructions are at page 362, Ontario Documents. This is important as being a recognition on the part of England of the claim of the Hudson Bay Company, such as had been sent in at the time, since they insist upon Commissary Bladen maintain- 1—19 290 ing his position as far as these limits are concerned. The limits as contained in these instructions are a line " drawn from the south-western point of the island of Grimington or Cape Perdrix (so as to include the sarae within the limits of the Bay) to the great Lake Miscosinke, alias Mistoveny, dividing the said lake into parts (as in the map to be deliveied to you). And that where the said line shall cut the 49th degree of northern latitude another line shall begin and be extended westward from the said lake, upon the 49th degree of northern latitude, over which said line, so to be described as above mentioned, the French and all persons by them employed shall be prohibited to pass to the northward of the said 49th degree of latitude." There can be no doubt whatever that at that time the 49th parallel seemed settled npon as corresponding about with the height of land. Further on in the ins-tructions- to the Commissary are these words: " but you are to take especial care in wording such articles as shall be agreed on with the Coramissaryof his most Christian Majesty upon this head, that the said boundaries be understood to regard the trade of the- Hudson Bay Company only," elearly recognizing in these instructions to their Com missary that the charter of the Hudson Bay Company, such as it had been granted to them, according to their interpretation and recognition of the charter, extendedj', down to the 49th degree of latitude. Chief Justice Harrison. — For the purposes of trade only. Mr. Monk. — I would respectfully submit that their charter for the purposes of trade did not extend further than their territorial right went. In 1719 a memoir on the subjects of the limits of the Hudson Bay was sent to the Bnglish Commissioners through Lord Stairs to the Marquis d'Etrees, one of the French Commissaires. It states : — " The Comraissaires named by His Britannic Majesty demand that the said " limits may be defined in the following manner, viz. : thatthe limits shall commence " from the North Cape, in Davis' Bay, in latitude 56 degrees SO minutes, which shall " serve as limits between the Bnglish and the French on the Coast of Labradore." It. then describes the Coast of Labrador and the 49th parallel as being the limits on which the Bnglish Commissaries would insist; and proceeds to state that these limits- were to be insisted on solely as regards trade only, and that His Britannic Majesty did not thereby accede to the right of the French to any lands in America in the said boundaries. I submit that this was an act on the part of His Majesty's Government- clearly showing that in 1719 the interpretation of the Hudson Bay charter and the- limits, as understood then, were the 49th parallel, or what was corresponding to it^ the height of land, as understood at that time. I will not detain the Comraissioners any longer on this portion of the case. If there is any difficulty as to whether this- northward lino should be drawn due north frora the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi, or should follow the course of the Mississippi, I would refer the Commis sioners most particularly to the judgment, a very exhaustive on, which was rendered by Chief Justice Sewell and his colleagues upon the motion on arrest of judgment. It is not reported in full in the Ontario Documents, and is very imperfect as an extract.. The point was a most important one ; the life of a fellow-being depended on ii ; and the gentleraen on the Bench to whora were entrusted the decision were men of the highest reputation and standing in the legal world. Chief Justice Harrison. — Notwithstanding the adjudication, the point supposed to be adjudicated upon was considered so doubtful that the sentence was never acted upon. Mr. Monk. — But the reason I lay some stress upon this is that my learned friend seemed to think that this question at the trial had simply come up incidentally. The fact is that it was argued at great length on the motion for arrest of judgment, and ». decision come to after mature consideration of all the documents and treaties, and after as much historical research as was possible. Chief Justice Sewell says : — " We "have been compelled to give a decision upon the question, not from any -wish on our "part, but because it has been brought belore us and we had no way of evading it. "It is impossible for us to do otherwise; ii is a fixed and certain boundary (speaking, "ofthe due north line from the confluence ofthe Ohio and Mississippi), and accord- " ing to the statute we have, to the best of our knowledge, decided it. In the " decision we have made we are supported by the authority of Lord Hardwicke iu. 291 " the disputes between Penn and Baltimore '' — where a similar difficulty arose. I have the ease at length, but there is no use in detaining the Commissioners any longer upon it, if I may be allowed to leave this book with them. The discussion about this northward line is very amply shown in these notes which I have, much raore so than in the Ont. Docts. I do not know frora what report that extract was taken. The book I have contains every point brought up and adjudicated upon, and every argu ment used in favor of the pretension which my friends are urging, that the Missis sippi should be the boundary line. 6.— A STATEMENT OF THE CASE OF THE PEOVINCE OF ONTAEIO EESPECTING THE WESTEELY AND NOETHBELY BOUNDAEIES OP THE PEOVINCE. Prepared for the Arbitration between the Dominion and the Province, Ontario has the same limits as Upper Canada had ; and the same limits as, west of the division line between Upper and Lower Canada, the Proviuoe of Canada had, and the Dominion of Canada had before its purchase of the rights of the Hudson Bay Company. In the present dispute the claim of Ontario is to the boundaries which were offi cially insisted upon by the Province of Canada before Confederation, and by the Dominion afterwards. It is submitted that the demand so made was just and weU, founded. Thus the Hon. Mr. Cauchon, Coinmissioner of Crown Lands, in an official paper in the year 1857, claimed that the westerly boundary of tho Province extended " as far as British territory, not otherwise organized, would carry it, which would be the Pacific ; or, if limited at all, it would bo by the first waters of the Mississippi, which (a due west line from the Lake of the Woods) intersected, which would be the White Barth Eiver; and this (he showed) would, in fact, correspond with the extent of Canada previously known to the French, * * * * The southerly boun dary of the British dominions, west of Lake Superior, being, therefore, demonstrated as identical with the southerly boundrry of Canada to some point due west of the Lake of the Woods, the only question is as to where that point is to be found. Is it the White Barth Eiver, the first waters of the Mississippi which the due west line intersects ; or is it the summit of the Eocky Mountains, on the same principal that the co-terminms boundary of Louisiana was ultimately so construed ?" With respect to the northerly boundary, the Commissioner pointed out that " the only possible conclusion is that Canada is either bounded in that directionby a few isolated posts on the shore of Hudson Bay, or else that the Comany's territory is * * * * a myth, and consequently, that Canada has no particular limit in that direction." So also, after Confederation, in an official letter of the Canadian Ministers, Sir George' B. Cartier and the Honorable William McDougall, to Sir Frederick Eogers, Bart., Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 16th January, 1S69 ; they pointed out that " the boundaries of Canada on the north and west were declared, under the authority ofthe Constitutional Act of 1791, to include ' all the territory to the westward and southward ' of the ' boundary line of Hudson Bay * * * * to the utmost extent of the country commonly called or known by the name of Canada.' Whatever doubt may exist as to the 'utmost extent' of Old or French Canada* no impartial investigator of the evidence in the case can doubt that it extended to, and included, the country between the Lake of the Woods and Eed Eiver. The Governnient of Canada, therefore, does not adrait, but, on the contrary denies, and has always denied, the pretensions of the Hudson Bay Company to any right of soil beyond that of squatters in the territory" between the Lake of the l-19i 292 Woods and Eed Eiver (that being the territory to which the matter which called forth the letter referred.) In another letter, dated Sth February, 1869, also addressed to Sir Frederick Eogers, the same Ministers mentioned, among other facts and inferences " which cannot (they believe) be disputed," the following : — " 1. The charter of Charles II. (and for the present we raise no question as to its validity) could not, and did not, grant to the Hudson Bay Company any territoiy in America which was not then (1670) subject to the Crown of England. " 2. The charter expressly excluded all lands, &o., then possessed by the subjects of any other Christian Prince or State. " 3. By the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye (1632), the King of England resigned to the King of France the sovereignty of Acadia, New France, and Canada generally, and without limits. " 4. ' La Nouvelle France,' was then understood to include the whole region of Hudson Bay, as the map and histories of the time, Bnglish and French, abundantly prove, " 5. At the Treaty of Eyswick (1697), twenty-seven years after the date of the charter, the right of the French to 'places situated in the Hudson Bay,' was dis tinctly admitted ; and altho' Commissioners were appointed (but never came to an agreement) to ' examine and determine the pretensions which either of the said Kings hath to the places situate in the Hudson Bay,' and with ' authority for settling the limits and confines of the lands to be restored on either side,' the places taken from the Bnglish (i.e., from the Hudson Bay Company) by the French previous to the war, and re-taken by the English during this war, shall be left to the French by -virtue of the foregoing (the 7th) article.' In other words, the forts and factories of the Hudson Bay Company, established in Hudson Bay under pretence oftheir charter, and taken possession of by the French in time of peace, on the gi-ound that they were an invasion of French territory, were restored by the Treaty of Eyswick, to the French, and not to the Company, " 6. By the Treaty of "Dtrecht, 1713, ' the Bay and Strait of Hudson, together with all lands, seas, sea-coasts, rivers and places situate in the Bay and Straits, and which belong thereto,' were finally ceded to Great Britain. " 7. As no definite boundary was ever established between the possessions ofthe French in the interior and the Bnglish at Hudson Bay, down to the Treaty of Paris, 1763, when the whole of Canada was ceded to Great Britain, the extent of the actual possession by the two nations for some period, say from the Treaty of Utrecht to the Treaty of Paris, affords the only rational and true basis for ascertaining that boundary. " 8. The evidence is abundant and conclusive to prove that the Fi-ench traded over and possessed the whole of the country known as the Winnipeg Basin and Fertile Belt from its discovery by Europeans down to the Treaty of Paris, and that the Hudson Bay Company neither traded nor established posts to the south or west of Lake Winnipeg, until many years after the cession ot Canada to England. " 9. No other or subsequent grant to the Company was ever made which could possibly extend their territorial rights under their charter. The license to ti-ade in the Indian Territories, which they obtained in 1821, was revoked in 1858, and has not been renewed. " The country which, in view of these facts, must be excluded from the operation of the charter, includes all the lands fit for cultivation and settlement in that part of British America." ^ Ontario claims that the official views of the Government of the Dominion as tiius expressed, ahould primd facie be carried out as between the Dominion and the Province, unless the Dominion proves that the assertions so made by its Ministers were false or mistaken, and that the claim to which they led was .unfounded. The onus of proof is on the Dominion. The opinion of Chief Justice Draper, as communicated to the Government of the Province of Canada, 12th June, 1857, was that the decision of the Privy Council would give " to Canada a clear right west to the line of the Mississippi and some 293 considerable distance north of what the Hudson Bay Company claim ;" though not any territory " west of the westernmost head of the Mississippi Eiver." But the claim of the Dominion as made in 1872, after having acquired the Company's right, and as made now, proposes to limit the Province on the west to the meridian of the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi, variously stated as 99^ 50', 88° 5a', and 89° 9' 27" ; and to limit the Province on the north (as the Company claimed in 1857) by the height of land which divides the waters that fall into tha Hudson Bay from those that fall into the St. Lawrence and its lakes. In support of the claim which Ontario represents, the Province relies on the arguments of the Ministers of the Province of Canada before Confederation, the arguments of the Ministers of the Dominion, the legal opinion ofthe learned Chief Justiee, and the arguments set forth in Mr. Mill's report, and in the other papers, on the same side, which have been collected and printed for the purpose ofthe present Arbitration. The evidence, obtained during the present year, affords some fresk arguments in favor of the same views. The present statement is a summary of some only of the facts and reasona which support Ontario's claim. In 1763 France ceded to England Canada with " all its dependencies," reserving so much of what had theretofore been known as Canada as lay west of tho Mississippi Eiver ; and the treaty provided that the confines between " France and England in that part of the world shall be fixed irrevocably by a line drawn along the middle of the Eiver Mississippi from its source to the sea." Shortly after the treaty, His Majesty, by Eoyal Proclamation, dated the 7th October, 1763, erected the Province of Quebec, with certain boundaries therein set forth. Afterwai-ds, in 1774, the Quebec Act was passed ; which recited that " by the arrangements made by the said Eoyal Proclamation, a very large extent of ter ritory, within which were several colonies and settlements of the subjects of France, who claimed to remain therein under the faith of the said Treaty, was left without any provision being made for the admidistration of civil government therein." The Act therefore provided, "that all the territories, islands, and countries in North America, belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, bounded on the south by " a lino therein described, from the Bay of Chalours to" the Eiver Ohio, and along the bank ofthe said river westward to the banks ofthe Missis.sippi, and northward to the southern boundry of the territory granted to the Merchants Adventurers of Eng land trading into Hudson's Bay be and they are hereby, during His Majesty's pleasure, annexed to and made part and parcel of the Province of Quebec, as created and established by the said Eoyal Proclamation of the 7th October, 1763." Ontario contends that a true construction of this language requires that the line northerly from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi should follow the Mis- sissinpi Eiver to its source. 'That this is not only the just construction of the language employed, but was also the real intention of Parliament, is shown further by the history and the known objects of the Bill, by the proceedings thereon in the House of Commons, and by the letter of the Eight Honorable Edmund Burke, dated 2nd August, 1774, to his consti tuents of the Province of New York, whose agent he was at the timo. So, the Eoyal Commission which was issued immediately afterwards (viz : 27th December, 1774), to Sir Guy Carleton, as Captain General and Governor-in-Chief of the Province, expressly describes the line from the coufluence of the Ohib'and Mis sissippi as "northward along the eastern bank ot the said rivor [Mississippi] to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the " Hudson Bay Company. Sir Frederick Haldimand succeeded Sir Guy Carleton. His Commission is dated 18th September, 17T7, and assigned to the Province the same boundary lines as the previous Commission had done. These two Commissions remove all reasonable doubt as to the line northward being along the banks of the Mississippi to its source on two grounds :— (1.) On the ground that these Commissions show the contemporaneous exposi tion of the intention of the Act by the Ministers of the day and by their, disting- 294 uished law advisers. Lord Camden was Lord Chancellor, Mr. Thurlow was Attorney- C-eneral, and Mr. Wedderburn was Solicitor-General, each of whom afterwards became-. Lord Chancellor. (2.) On the ground that the Crown had an undoubted right to add to the boun daries of the Province, and that if the boundaries given to it by the Commissions are not the identical boundaries which the Statute provided for, and which were thereby to continue during His Majesty's pleasure, and if the Commissions assigned to the Province a larger area than the Statute had described, the Crown had the right to make and did make the addition. By the Treaty of Paris between Great Britain and the United States, in 1783, it was agreed that the boundary between the two countries should be a line, therein particularly described, from the north-western angle of Nova Scotia, through Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, Superior, Long Lake, &c., to the Lake of the Woods, " thence through the said Lake [of the Woods] to the most north-western point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the Eiver Mississippi, &c." The Commission to Sir Guy Carleton after this Treaty, (dated 22nd April, 1786), followed this description in giving the boundaries of the Province, and assigned as its southerly boundary a line " to the said lake to the most north-western point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the Eiver Mississippi; and north ward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the " Hudson Bay Company. A due west line from the point indicated would not intersect what is now known as the Mississippi, and therefore what was then known as the Mississippi, or the first tributary so intersected, the waters of which flow into the Mississippi, may be taken as intended. This question is very fully discussed in Mr. Dawson's paper. If that view should not be sustained, the alternative is the course taken under the treaties with the United States, of 1794, 1814, IS 18 and 1842. The Constitutional Act, 1791, the Act providing for the division of the Province of Quebec, recited that " His Majesty had been pleased to signify, by His Message to both Houses of Parliament, His Eoyal intention to divide His Province of Quebec into two separate Provinces, to be called the Province of Upper Canada and the Province of Lower Canada," and the Act made provision for the Government of each Province after the division should take place. A paper had been presented to Par liament previous to the passing ofthis Act, describing the line proposed to be drawn for dividing the Province of Quebec into two Provinces. This paper traced the line of division into Lake Temiscaming, " and from the head ofthe said lake by a line drawn due north until its strikes the boundary line of Hudson Bay; including all the territory to the westward aud southward ofthe said line, to the utmost extent of the country commonly called or known by the name of Canada." On the 24th August, 1791, an Order-in-Council was passed, reciting among other things that this Paper had been presented to Parliament previous to the passing of the Act ; and dividing the Province into two, according to the line of division men tioned in the paper. On the ISth November, 1791, General Alured Clarke, Lieutenant-Governor and Comraander-in-Chief of the Province of Quebec, issued a proclamation, in His Majesty's narae, in pursuance of his instructions and of a provision for this purpose in the statute, declaring when the division should take effect (26th December, 1791). This proclamation recited as follows : — f Whereas we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, by our Order-in-Council, dated in the month of August last, to' order that our Province of Quebec should be divided into two distinct Provinces, to be called the Province of Upper Canada and the Province of .Lower Canada, by separating the said two Pro vinces according to the following line of division, viz. : — 'To commence at a stone boundary, [&c.,] running north twenty-five degrees east until it strikes the Ottawas Eiver, to ascend the said river into the Lake Temiscaming, and from the head of the said lake by a line drawn duo north until it strikes the boundary line of Hudson Bay, including 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.' " 295 That the country then commonly called or known by the name of Canada, com prised the whole of the territory formerly claimed against the Hudson Bay Com pany, and now claimed by Ontario, is established by abundant testimony. On the 12th September, 1791, a Commission issued to Lord Dorchester, this being the second Commission issued after the Treaty of 1783. It recited the Com mission of 22nd April, 1786, to the same Governor-General (as Sir Guy Carleton), the Order in Council of 19th August, 1791, dividing " the said Province of Quebec" into two separate Provinces by a line therein specified : " the Province of Upper Canada to comprehend all such lands, territories and islands lying to the westward ofthe said line of division as were part of our sai^ Province of Quebec." This form of expression shows that Quebec was supposed and intended to include all the terri tory belonging to England, and formerly known as Canada ; for it is not to be sup posed that there was an intention so soon to give to the Province narrower bounds than were indicated by the paper presented to Parliament, adopted afterwards by the King in Council and declared by the Proclamation of Governor Clarke . The change of expression was probably suggested by taking note of the language of the Treaty of 1763, by which, while Prance ceded to England " Canada and all its depen- deucies," the cession was subject to a limitation. The watershed of the Mississippi and Missouri had been the boundary line between Canada and Louisiana, and that part of Canada which was west of the Mississippi was reserved to France . So, by the Treaty of 1783 a further part of Canada was ceded by England to the United States. A description, therefore, in 1791, of the Province of Quebec, or of Upper Canada, which would purport to give to the Province all "the country commonly called or known by the name of Canada," would not have been correct. A form of expression was therefore substituted which was free from this difficulty. The subsequent Commissions to the Governors General of Canada, up to and including that of Lord Gosford, in 1835, and the Imperial Commission to Mr. Cald well as Eeceiver General of Lower Canada, assigned the sarae line of division between Upper and Lower Canada. i In the seven subsequent Commissions, from the Commission to the Barl of Durham, SOth March, 1S38, to the Commission to Lord Elgin, 1st October, 1846, inclusive, and also in the two Commissions to Sir John Colborne and the Eight Honorable Charles Poulett Thomson, as Captains General and Governors-in-Chief of Upper Canada, dated the 13th December, 1838, and 6th September, 1839, respect ively, the line of division between Upper and Lower Canada is stated to read the shore of Hudson Bay, " by a line drawn due north from the head of said Lake [Temiscaming], until it strikes the shore of Hudson Bay." The expression "shore of Hudson Bay " obviously has the same signification as " boundary line of Hudson Bay," but if the latter expression could be supposed to refer to some line south of the shore, the subsequent Commissions must be taken as having extended the boundary to the shore. These two Commissions trace the western boundary into Lake Superior and no further, saying nothing of the line thence westerly or northerly; but of course nobody has ever supposed that the southerly boundary of the Province terminated as soon as Lake Superior was reached. [The Commissions subsequent to Lord Elgin's contain no boundary line des criptions . The other Commissions to the Lieutenant-Governors of Upper Canada, which have been exftmined, either do not give the boundaries of Upper Canada or give them partially only, and in such a manner as throws no light on the present question. So also the Commissions after the Union do not give the western bound ary of the Province of Canada. The Act of Union, 1840, does nol specify the boundaries of the Province of Canada thereby created, but describes the new Pro vince of Canada as constituted of the former Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada . ] Now the Province of Upper Canada, from a period long antecedent to its Union with Lower Canada, and the Province of Canada afterwards, acted, whenever there 296 was occasion, on the assumption that the boundaries of the Province wore those , assigned by Eoyal Commissions, thus : . . f 1.) The Province of Upper Canada is known to have been in the habit, since, at all events, 1818, of issuing writs into the territory west of the line of 89"^ 9 J . (2.) In 1850, the Province of Canada, with the sanction of the Imperial author ities, entered into a treaty with the Indians, and procured from them the surrender of the rights ofthe Indians in the territory as far west as Pigeon Eiver. This terri tory, it may be obseiwed, is south of the height of land, and was never claimed by , the Hudson Bay Company, though it is now claimed on behalf of the Dominion. (3.) From the year 1853, the* Province of Canada, continuously, and without objection from any quarter, made grants of lands, in the Queen's name, in this terri tory, and west of the proposed line of the Dominion, Between 1853 and Confederation no less a quantity than 35,059 acres had thus been granted west of that line. Numerous mining licenses in the same territory were granted in like manner, com mencing with the year 1854, the territory embraced in them extending to Pigeon Eiver. (4.) In 1S6S the Government of the Dominion appropriated $20,000 towards the construction of a road from the Lake of the Woods to Fort Garry on Eed River ; and the money was spent accordingly. So far as relates to Ontario's western boundary, it is unnecessary to consider for the present purpose the argument as to the Hudson Bay Company owning this territory; because the extension to the southerly boundary to the west is not, either by the statute or by the subsequent Acts of the Crown, made to depend on the Company's having or not having the territory to which the western extension of the southerly boundary- would bring us ; and the Crown of course had the power to include part of the terri tory of the Company, if such was the Eoyal will. But the fact that this western territory had been discovered, explored, traded with, occupied and taken possession of hy the French before the Treaty of Cession adds strength to Ontario's claim, even in respect of the western boundary. The decisions of a Lower Canadian Court, in 1818, in the case of de Eeinhard and 'McLellan have been cited in favor of the line drawn due north from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi, and stated in the evidence in that case to be 88° 50' or 88°' 58'. The principal evidence, however, on which a different conclusion is based was not before the court or referred to in those cases ; and it is said also thatthe prisoner, de Eeinhard, was pardoned (though clearly guilty of murder), and that the reason of his pardon was, that (notwithstanding the supposed decision of the court to the con trary) the place of committing the murder was within Upper Ganada, and, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the court under the statute 43, Geo. III., c. 138, on the authority of which the court was acting. In view of all these considerations, it is apparent that if there is any difficulty on the westerly side of the Province, it is as respects the territory west of Lake of the Woods. Is the western line further west than this lake? Is the point of com mencement the point on the first tributary of the Mississippi which a line due west from the most north-western point of the Lake of the Woods strikes ? Or does the western limit extend to the Eocky Mountains ? Then as to the northern boundary. It has been already stated that the Quebec Aet, aud such of the Eoyal Commis sions to the Governors, previous to 1838, as mention the northern boundary, specify for that purpose the southerly boundary of the tei-ritory granted to the Hudson Bay Company, and the principal difficulty here is that the southerly boundary of this territory has always been an unascertained line. The claim of the Dominion is that the boundary is the height of land already described. It is submitted for the following among our reasons, that the height of land is not our northern boundary : (1.) Because the easterly and westerly lines assigned to the Province, by the Eoyal Commission, cut through and go north to the height of land ; and the Commis sion issued in 1791, and such of the subsequent Commissions as mention the northerly 297 boundary, thereby declared in effect, that the southerly boundary of the Company's !! w Z "^^^ I 80uth of those points, viz. : the south shore of Hudson Bay (then Iii nitJf!?-*W'-*!!^ ^?f "'i'^* north-western point of the Lake ofthe Woods; and was north of the height of land. • (2.) Because the height of land was not claimed or suggested by the Company as being the intention of the charter, or as being the measure of the Company's just rights, until neariy a century and a half after the date of the charter. This fact is a, practical contemporaneous exposition of the stdtute by the Company themselves against their recent claim, and having been continued for 150 years is, without other evidence, conclusive. (3.) Because the alleged rule that the discovery and possession of the shore of anew country gives a right to the rivers and the land adjoining the same, if a recog nized rule now, was not such at the time of this charter being granted, and ought not to govern its interpretation. The rule is said to be founded on reason and necessity, but there is no just reason or necessity for applying such a rule in the case of a river neariy 3,000 miles long. ifje, (4.) Because the French trom the beginning of the seventeenth century were in possession of the territory to the south ofthe lands watered by the rivers flowing into^ Hudson Bay, and were extending their explorations and settlements to the head waters of the rivers flowing into Hudson Bay and to the interior of the country, there is no sound reason to sustain a rule for giving to the discoverers of the Bay into which these rivers flow, a right to stop such explorations and settle ments m favor of discoverers (if the English were such), who did not choose to occupy the interior of the country. The rule as to rights to unoccupied contiguous territory is in snch case more than sufficient to outweigh the supposed rule as to tho height of land. (5.) Because the grouud of the recent claim is that the English were the flrst, discoverers, and that their discoveries were followed by such possession of the tem tory in question as the laws of nations recognize as giving a title to the territory up to to the height of land ; while the fact is that it is impossible to say with certainty who were the first discoverers, nor was the alleged discovery by the English followed by possession. The voyage of Cabot, when he entered the Bay, is said to have been in 151T, and no sort of possession of any part of the Bay by the Knglish before 1667 is pretended, being an intorva;! of 150 years. Gillam is said to have built, in 1667, Port Charies (Eupert), which was on the east side of the Bay. In the meantime the Bay had become known to the world; persons acting under the authority of the French Govemment had repeatedly visited it, had taken possession in the French King's name, and set up the Eoyal arms there ; the French had established posts at convenient points for trade with the Indians, and had secured and were engaging the whole trade with the Indians around the Bay. In 1627 the King gave to the Company of New France the right of trade to an extensive territory, including Hudson Bay, both along the coasts and into the interior. Under such circumstances the rule invoked by the Dominion has no application. What then is to be regarded as the southerly boundary of the territory of tho Company ? The language of the charter, by reason of its ambiguity, affords no assistance in this enquiry. The validity of the charter has always been questioned on the ground of its ambiguity as well as for other reasons. Some legal opinions have^ indeed, been given in favor of the validity of the charter as respects the whole terri tory to the height of land claimed in recent times by the Company, but these opinions were based upon the Company's statement that they had " always claimed and exer cised dominion as absolute proprietors of the soil, in the territory understood to be embraced by the terms of the grant," (1.) Assuming, however, that the northern boundary is on one side the shore of Hudson Bay, say between 51° and 52° of latitude, and on the other at least as far north as the most north-western point of the Lb,ke of the Woods, say latitud e 49° 23' 55" : if these points were in the Hudson Bay territory, the northern bound- 298 ary would be a line drawn from one of these points to the other. We claim that our boundary is further north than this, but it cannot be south of it. Are these points in what was the territory of the Company ? And is the provin cial boundary therefore no further north ? (2.) If by reason of the charter being so old, and having been acted upon in some sort, ahd of its validity to some extent being implied in certain statutory refersjij encesto the Company, the instrument cannot be treated as absolutely void; it must, as regards its construction and operation, on well known and well settled principles; be interpreted most strongly against the Corapany, and in favor of the Crown ; the object of giving the charter was to encourage discoveries by the Company ; and the Talidity or operation of the instruraent is to the extent only of giving to the Com pany whatever ofthe unknown territory the Company, within a moderate and rea sonable time, should occupy; and all that the Company could be entitled to was what the Company had, in this manner, acquired for themselves and for the Crown, previ ous to the cession of Canada in 1763 by France to England ; or whatever,^ previous to that time, the Company had been in possession or engagement of as their own with the concurrence of the Crown . (3 . ) The Company were certainly not entitled to any of the territory which France owned at thetime of the cession, and ceded to England; for it is preposterous to suppose that the charter intended to grant, and did effectually grant, to the Com pany, as against the world, all the territory southerly and westerly ofthe Bay to the then unknown height of land (unknown to the Crown and to the Company), though such territory should be, as it was, to the extent of unknown hundreds of thousands of square miles — a third of the continent ; that the charter was intended to give, and did give, to the Company, the right to shut up this enormous territory from the Crown and from all British subjects, and from other nations also, for all time ; that if the Company should do nothing to discover, settle or acquire it for a hundred years or more, nobody else could : and that any portion of it which England should, a hundred years afterwards, acquire by war with another nation, and by em ployraent ofthe resources ofthe whole Empire, in Europe as well as America — axi^ -crued when so acquired and was intended to accrue to the Company for their own private benefit. (4.) It is clear, and indeed has been repeatedly admitted by the Company them selves, that until long after the date of the cession, the Company had no possession of any part of the interior of the country, and that their possession was confined to •certain forts on the Bay and two factories not very distant. (5 . ) On the other hand, the Dominion Ministers truly affirmed in 1869, that " the evidence is abundant and conclusive to prove that the French traded over and "possessed the whole of the country known as the Winnipeg Basin and Fertile Belt, " from its discovery by Europeans down to the Treaty of Paris, and that the Hudson's " Bay Company neither traded nor est£.,blished posts to the south »v west of Lake "Winnipeg until many years after the cession of Canada to England." In fact, tho Company's first post, viz. : Cumberland House, on Sturgeon Lake, in the vicinity ef the region in question, was not built until 1774, and they did not establish any post within this tract of country before 1790. (6.) The following facts (amongst others) were judicially found by Judge Monk, ^ in Connolly vs. Woolrich, with respect to the proceedings of the French, before the' Hudsm Bay Company's charter was granted. He showed that as early as 1605( Quebec had been established and had become au important settlement; that before 1630 the Beaver and several other companies had been organized at Quebec for carry ing on the Fur Trade in the west, near and around the Great Lakes and in the North- West Territory ; that the enterprise and trading operations of these French Com panies, and of the French Colonists generally, extended over vast regions of the northern and north-western portions ofthe continent; that they entered into Treaties with the Indian tribes and nations, and carried on a lucrative and extensive fur trade with the natives; that in tho prosecution of their trade and other enterprises these adventurers evinced great energy, courage and perseverance ; that they had extended 299 their hunting and trading operations to the Athabasca country (say 58° north latitude and 111° west longitude), that some portions of the Athabasca country had before 1640 been visited and traded in, and to some extent occupied by the French traders in Canada, and their Beaver Company (which had been founded iu 1629) ; that from 1640 to 1670 these discoveries and trading settlements had considerably increased in number and importance ; that Athabasca and other regions bordering upon it, be longed to the Crown of France, at that time, to the same extent, and by the same means as the countries around Hudson's Bay belonged to England, viz . : by discovery and by trading and hunting. (7.) It may be added, that if the Athabasca country thus belonged to France at so eariy a period, so would the whole intermediate country between Athabasca and Hudson Bay on the west, and between the Athabasca country and the St. Lawrence on the' south. (8.) Between 1670 (the last date named by Judge Monk) and 1763, the French established posts or forts in that North-West Territory which they had previously ex plored, and hunted over and traded with ; namely, on Eainy Lake, the Lake of the Woods, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, on the Winnipeg Eiver, the Eed Eiver, the Assiniboine Eiver, the Eiver aux Biches, and the Saskatchewan, and so weat to the Eocky Mountains. Where Port la Jonguiere was established by St. Pierre in 1752. All the lakes and rivers mentioned are connected by the Nelson Eiver with Hudson Bay, and are in the territory which, in the following century, the Hudson Bay Com pany claimed under their charter ; but confessedly they had constructed in it no post or settlement of any kind until long after 1763. Their first post away from the Bay (other than the two factories already mentioned) having been established in 1774, it was not until 1790 that they had any post in the Winnipeg Basin ; and they did not «nter the Valley of the Bed Eiver until long afterwards. (9.) France had also, on the northerly side of the dividing line, Fort Abbitibi, which was north of the Height of Land, and was built in 1686. It was situate at a considerable distance north of the height of land, and upon the lake of the same name, from which the Eiver Monsippy flows into Hudson Bay. The French had also Fort St. Germain, on the Albany, which was built in 1684; and still higher up, on the same river. Fort La Mane, established about the same period ; and, to the east. Fort Nemiscan, on the lake of that name, situate on the Eiver Eupert, midway between Lake Mistassin and the Bay — this fort was built before 1695. Of none of these did the English Government or the Company ever complain . The French had also another fort on the Albany, being that mentioned in one of the memorials of the Company as having been built in 1715. (10.) The Company furnished certain maps for the purpose ofthe present arbi tration, two of which only seera of iraportance on either side. One of these two bears the Eoyal Arras and those ofthe Company; is of tho date of 1748, and seems to have been prepared by the Company in view ofthe parliaraentary enquiry of that year, and for the purpose of showing the limits which the Company then claimed. The line which this map gives as the Company's southern boundary is considerably north of the height of land, even as shown on this map; for the line is therein made to cut Frenchman's Eiver, a river not named on this map, but corresponding with the Abbitibi Eiver, and several other rivers shown on the map as flowing into Hudson Bay. The line runs to Lake Winnipeg (which is misplaced, being repre sented as due north of Nepigon, its southern point in the latitude of Fort Wilson), thence northerly along the easterly shore of Winnipeg, and thence northerly to Sir Thomas Smith's Sound, in Baffin's Bay, The map thus demonstrates that the Com pany, at the time of its preparation, did not claim to the height of land, even as the same was then supposed to be situated, and did not claim Lake Winnipeg. The other of the two maps is Mitchell's engraved map, described as published by the author, Pebruary, 1755. This copy appears to have been much used and worn. There is on it an irregular line, marked, "Bounds of Hudson Bay by the Treaty of Utrecht ;" and this line may therefore be taken as showing the extent of the Company's claim in 1755, and long after. The line is about one-third of a degree 300 north ofthe Lake ofthe Woods, and extends to the limit of the map in that direc tion, being about 98° of longitude. The territory south of this line is differently colored from the territory north of it. It is evident that the Company have in their possession no maps which purport to give to thom a larger territory than these maps do. Their claim to the height of land as the true intention of the charter and the true measure of their rights, so far from having been always made, was not thought of by the Company until more than' half a century later, and was in effect negatived by the Crown in numerous com missions to the Governors ofthe country. >, The maps produced show the extent of territory which the Company claimed, prior to the cession of 1763. It may be observed that on the occasions of the Treaties of Eyswick and Utrecht^ the Company's clairas were expressed either in the terms of the charter, or were simply to " the whole Bay and Straits of Hudson, and to the sole trade thereof." It sufficiently appears from the early documents which emanated from the Company, that this general claim to the whole Bay and Straits was a claim to the waters and shores only, and to the exclusion ofthe French therefrom — the French having been ' in possession of forts on the Bay until after the Treaty of Utrecht, and the Treaty of Eyswick having, in effect, given them possession of all places on the bay, except, it may be. Fort Bourbon; and that the Company's object was the trade of the Bay, and not the occupation or settlement of the country away from the shores of the Bay. Indeed, in 1700, the Company, notwithstanding this claim, were willing to accept the Albany Eiver as their southern boundary on the west side, and Eupert Eiver as their southern boundary on the east side ofthe Bay. In 1701-2 they were content even with East Main Eiver, and proposed it as a boundary ; but both pro- ; posals were rejected by the French as being far more than the Company had any right to demand. In 1711-12, the Company proposed a line to run from the Island of Grimington or Cape Perdrix, on the Labrador coast, south-westerly to and through Lake Mis tassin. This line did not extend beyond the south-west shore of the lake; and though the Company made a demand for the surrender of the foi-ts on the shores of the Bay, yet they do not appear to have made at that time any proposal as to a line on the west or south side of the bay. Thus the only claims and contests of the Company at this period were about the margin ofthe Bay. After the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), which gave to the British all lands, &o., " on the Bay and Straits, and which belong thereto," the Company, on the 4th August, 1714, proposed, for the first time, that the Mistassin line should go south westerly to 49° "north latitude, * * * and that latitude be the limit;" but as to how far to the west this line of 49° was to be followed, nothing is said. In 1719 and 1750 the Corapany proposed the line of 49°, but both times the proposition was rejected by the French. This line would have given to the Com pany a boundary greatly more limited than the boundary of the height of land, which began to be claimed three-quarters of a century later. It has already been said that the Company could not take advantage of their charter for the purpose of making any addition to their territory by exploration or settlement after tho cession of 1763 ; but the practical result would be nearly the same if this right should be deemed to have ceased at a somewhat later date, viz., the date ofthe passing of the Quebec Act, 1774, or even the date of the Treaty of 1783. The Company made no further settlement between 1763 and 1783, except' Cumberland House ; and it is doubtful whether its locality belongs to the Winnipegl or the Churchill system. Both the Act and the Treaty obviously require that the' southern boundary should be deemed a fixed line, not liable to variation by the mere act of the Company. These considerations are submitted as showing that the strict legal rights ofthe Company did not extend beyond their forts on the shores or in the neighborhood of 301 the Bay, and such adjacent territory as these forts may have commanded ; and that Ontario is entitled to have its northerly boundary line drawn accordingly. Or, if the Company's territory is to be considered as extending beyond tho forts on the bay and the immediately adjacent territory, their , territory is not to be deemed south of the northern extremity of the dividing line between Upper and Lower Canada, or to exceed otherwise what England herself was entitled to under the Treaty of Utrecht, viz. :— the middle line between the forts and settiements of the Bnglish and Pi-ench; and, further, is not to include a greater area than is shown on the maps furnished by the Company, in case the middle line would give them a larger territory than these maps claimed for the Company ; for the reference in the Statute of 17T4 to the territory granted to the Hudson Bay Company cannot, in any view, be construed as referring to a more southerly line than the Company had theretofore claimed for themselves. Or, if there is too much doubt as to the southern boundary of the Company's territory to determine, with precision, where such boundary was, a northern boun dary should be assigned to the Province which would give to the Province the full territory which the Commissions to the Governors definitely provided for, and, in addition, such further territory to the north as may be just and reasonable. 0. MOWAT, Attorney-General of Ontario. 7.— EEPOET OP PEOCEEDINGS BBFOEE THE AEBITEATOES IN THE MATTEE OF THB BOUNDAEIES OF THE PEOVINCE OF ONTAEIO, AT OTTAWA, 1st, 2nd, 3rd AUGUST, 1878. Arbitrators i The Eight Honorable Sir Edward Thornton, The Honorable Sir Francis Hincks, and The Honorable the Chief Justice of Ontario. Counsel for Ontario : The Hon. Oliver Mowat, A.G., Ont., and Mr. Thomas Hodgins, Q.C. Counsel for the Dominion: Mr. Hugh MacMahon, Q.C, and Mr. B. C. Monk, Ottawa, Thursday, August 1st, 1878. The Arbitrators met at noon, but in consequence of the absence of Sir Francis Hincks, the transaction of business was postponed until the following day. Friday, August 2nd, 1878. Arbitrators and Counsel all present. The Hon. Oliver Mowat, Attorney-General of Ontario, opened the case for Ontario. He said : — „ , ^ r ^, -r, • c I have embodied in the printed " Statement of the Case of the Province ot ¦" Ontario," the substance of the principal grounds on, which I think that the Pro- 302 vince is entitled to the bounds northerly and westerly which we claim. I have also^ for facility of reference, had printed in a book, of which the Arbitrators have copies, the statutes, documents and other matter which seemed to bear on the subject, whether favorably or unfavorably to our claim. I do not raean to attempt now an exhaustive statement of all that is material, but purpose confining myself to stating some grounds which seem to me to be quite sufficient, and more than sufficient; to sustain our claim, although there are others of perhaps not less importance, that might be dwelt upon. I do not mean even to answer at present all the points which have been set forth in the case for the Dominion ; some of them I shall refer to, and if any of those not referred to seem to make any impression upon the Arbitrators, I shall have an opportunity in my reply to remark upon these. The 6th section of the British North America Act provides, that that part of the Province of Canada " whioh formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada, " shall constitute the Province of Ontario ;" the Province of Canada was by the Union Act of 1840 constituted of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. The line of division between these Provinces had been settled in 1791 by an Order in Council, and extended in manner therein described to the " boundary line " of Hudson's Bay. By the same Order in Council, Upper Canada was 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." All of the Province of Canada which lies west pf the line of division belongs to Upper Canada, as all which lies east ofthe same division line belongs to the Province of Quebec. Ontario has the same limits as Upper Canada had, and the same limits as west of the division line the Province of Canada had, and as the Dominion of Canada had before its pur chase ofthe rights of the Hudson Bay Company. In 1870 the Dominion acquired^ these rights, as also the " North- Western Territory," in addition to the territoryl which tho Province of Upper Canada and the Province of Canada had had. The question for the Arbitrators is as to the westerly and northerly boundaries of the Province of Ontario, or of the Province of Upper Canada. It will be convenient, before enteriiag upon the argument, to point out upon the produced map by Mr . Devine the principal points which come in question in the discussion. This map has been prepared to assist the Arbitrators in following the arguments addressed to them. It is in the main correct, although I have discovered two or three unimportant inaccuracies. On this map is marked the Une of division between Upper and LowerCanada, which line runs northerly into Lake Temiscaming,__ and thence due north to the boundary line or shore of Hudson Bay. In regard to that line I suppose there will be no dispute. The westerly boundary of the Province, according to the present claim of the Dominion, has also been marked upon the map ; it is a line drawn due north from the confluence of the Ohio and the Mississippi, and in longitude about 89° 9^'. The provisional line of 1 874 is the next on the map westward, but is not of any import ance for our present purpose; it was found necessary, until the right boundary should be decided, that a line should be agreed upon provisionally, to the east of which the Province should make its grants of land, and to the west of which grants- ; by the Dominion might be made. (Book of Documents, p. 347,) The next line westwardly is that running to the most north-western angle of the Lake of the Woods, near the Province of Manitoba ; that point is very nearly in the meridian of Turtle Lake and of Lake Itasca, both of which lakes have been regarded as sources ofthe Mississippi, and are very nearly in the same longitude. Ontario claims that it is clear that its western boundary line is no farther east than the meridian of the most north-western angle of the Lake of the Woods, and that the only question on the western side of the Province is as to how much (if any) territory we are entitled to west of that meridian. With regard to the northern boundary, we claira it to be certain that it is not south of tho shore of Jaraes' Bay, or of the most north-westerly point ofthe Lake of the Woods ; as to the exact extent of the Province to the north of those points there may be more difficulty. The Statute of 1774, usually called the " Quebec Act " added *' 303 a considerable territory to the Province of Quebec, and purported to give as the northern boundary of that Province, the territory granted to the Hudson Bay Company; how far that territory extended has never been definitely ascertained. We have examined whatever documentary evidence there is which raight throw light on this question, and we have also had a pretty exhaustive examination made- ot the various maps published before the present century. An analysis of the maps has been printed at p. 135 and on subsequent pages of the Book of Documents ; and the produced map by Mr. Devine shows the principal lines. The most northerly is one I which, in 1701, the Hudson Bay Corapany unsuccessfully clairaed for its southern boundary ; and the next is the line they had asked for without success in the previous year, 17*0. All of the other northerly lines marked on this map are at the westerly side placed to the north of the Lake of the Woods ; most of them are several hundred miles to the north of that lake ; while on the east they are south of James' Bay and ofthe point to which the Koyal Commissions bring us there. None of these northerly lines has the authority of a treaty, or a statute, or an agreement. One line is marked on certain maps as " bounds of Hudson Bay by the Treaty of " Utrecht;" but that was a mistake of the geographers ; it must be admitted thatthe bounds were not settled by the Treaty of Utrecht. 1 The claim of Ontario is precisely the same as had always been made for the Province before the Dominion of Canada purchased the rights of the Hudson Bay Company. Controversies on the subject took place between the Hudson Bay Com pany and the Province of Canada, and afterwards between that Company and the Dominion of Canada. During these controversies able papers were written, wherein the claims of Canada were set forth ; and I rely upon the arguments contained in these papers, though not now repeating them all. Opinions of some learned lawyers having been given in favor of the claim of the Hudson Bay Company, these were controverted in the official papers on behalf of Canada ; those opinions were given on inaccurate and partial representations of the facts ; new evidence in favor of our claim has been obtained since ; but upon the evidence collected before 1856, we have on our side the opinions of other eminent la-wyers, and the opinion ofthe late Chief Justice Draper. The opinion of the Chief Justice was formed and communicated when he was in his prime ; he was one of the ablest judges in Canada, and had given great attention to this subject. He was sent to England by the Canadian Government to watch over the interests of the Province ; he had access to private sources of information, some of which wo have been able to reproduce now ; and the opinion that he formed was arrived at upon a fuller know ledge of the facts than had existed on the part of any court or counsei who had theretofore given attention to the matter, and whose opinions we are in possession of. The opinion was communicated to the Government here, not expressed in con troversy with any adversary ; and it is very cautiously expressed ; it does not go as far as the Province was claiming ; he did not think the evidence sufficient to give a line to the Eocky Mountains (as the Province claimed), but expressed the opinion — his " confident hope "—that a decision by the Privy Council would give " to Canada a clear right west to the line ofthe Mississippi, and some considerable distance north of what the Hudson Bay Company claim, though not any territory west of the westernmost head of the Mississippi Eiver," which is very near the Eocky Moun tains. The opinion will be found at page 391 of our Book of Documents. Sir Edward Thornton.— The law officers of the Crown in England strongly recommended an appeal to the Privy Council, but that was not done. The writer of this extract seems to have expected that there would be a decision of the Privy Council, and I would like to know why the case was not referred. Chief Justice Harrison.— It was probably delayed by negotiations. The Attorney General. — There were constant negotiations going on from that time, and the matter was one which, however clear the right might he thought to be, it was considered desirable to settle by compromise. Sir Bdward Thornton ,-^But it was not compromised. 304 The Attorney General. — It was compromised twelve years afterwards. My learned friend, Mr. Hodgins, reminds me that one thing which prevented the refer- •ence was that the Government here thought the question ought to be referred by the British Government — that the Province ought not to have the responsibility of itj at all events, the delay was only twelve years from this time — not a great while to be negotiating about a continent of territory. Mr. MaeMahon. — I can answer further in regard to that. The Province of Canada refused to submit anything but the validity of the Charter of the Hudson Bay Company to the Council ; they refused to submit the question of the boundaries. The Attorney -Gen eral. — The adverse opinions were founded upon the Company's ex parte stateraents of the facts, and one of the allegations was that the Hudson Bay Company had been always in possession of the territory. Now, it is a familiar principle with regard to old statutes or charters, that the interpretation of them is governed by the contemporaneous exposition they received, and by the acts of the parties under them. If the fact was that, from 1670 to the time when these opinions were called for, there had been an actual possession by tho Hudson Bay Company of the whole territory which they clairaed, there could be little question of their right to such territory. It would be absurd to suppose that, as a matter of law and legal construction, the Company could be deprived of property which they had for nearly two centuries "clairaed and exercised dominion over" under their grants, aa absolute ana undisputed proprietors of the soil. But we deny that there was any such claim, dominion or possession bythe Company of the territory now in question for more than a century after 1670 ; the principal ground upon which the opinions referred to must have proceeded was not in accordance with the facts. We have incur book the Company's statement. I refer to page 288 : " Under this grant the Company have always claimed and exercised dominion as absolute proprietors of the soil in the territories understood to be embraced by the terms of the grant, and which are more particularly defined in the accompanying map ; and they have also claimed and enjoyed the exclusive right of trading in those territories." The map referred;' to claims up to the height of land. No lawyer, upon that statement, could come to any other conclusion than did the law-officers. In some of the earlier as well as the more recent of the legal opinions, express reference was made to the importance of knowing how much of this territory had been in possession of the Hudson Bay Company, and it was stated inthem that an old charter of this kind, especially an ambiguous one, should nut be interpreted without reference to that fact. No adverse legal opinions has been given on the facts that are now before the Arbitrators. On the other hand, we have the opinion of a very distinguished Judge, who was aware of all the material facts in favor of the Company's contention— although not of all the facts in favor of the Province — and who gave that opinion after having been exclusively occupied several months with the subject. However, the Arbitrators are not bound by that opinion. They will give whatever weight they may consider due to it ; but they will consider for themselves whether the opinion was right or wrong. On entering now upon some discussion of the evidence, I submit that, inasmuch as the Province of Ontario is now claiming what had always been claimed loefore by the Province of Caaada and bythe Dorainion of Canada likewise, I am entitled to ask the Arbitrators to take that claim as prima facie correct aud well-founded. The Dominion is one of the two parties to this controversy, and we put in evidence the official statements of the representatives ofthe Dominion repeatedly made; we show what position they took in regard to this question, what assertions they made, and what they claimed, up to the very last moment before becoming purchasers of the Hudson Bay Company's rights. 1 do not say that this is conclusive, that it estops the Dominion from saying that their contention had been wrong, false or mistaken, but I do say that their demands before buying out the Company throw the burden on the Dominion of showing that in all these antecedent discussions and statements they had been wrong. 1 start with the strongest presumption in my favor when I show that before they made that purchase the Dominion of Canada had taken the positioa 305 which I now take, had made the assertions which I now make, had used many ofthe arguments which I now use, and had considered that those arguments wore incapable of being answered. To take a single example, what did the Dominion Ministers say in their letter to the Colonial Minister on the i6th January, 1869 ? (Book of Docu ments p. 324.) They expressly claimed " that the boundaries of Upper Canada on the north and west," included "all the territory to the westward and southward of the boundary line of Hudson Bay to the utmost extent of tho country comraonly called or known by the name of Canada," and that " whatever doubt may exist as to the utmost extent of old or French Canada, no impartial investigator ofthe evidence in the case can doubt that it extended to and incluted the country between tbe Lake of the Woods and Eed Eiver," But I shall show that, if I had no presumption in my favor, the conclusions which I desire the Arbitratoi-s to arrive at are the conclusions which they cannot but arrive at in view of all the facts.^ In 1763 France ceded to England '' Canada with all its dependencies," reserving only such part of what had been known as Canada as lay west of the Mississippi. The treaty will be found at page 18 of our Book of Documents. The watershed between the Missouri and the Mississippi Eivers had been the boundary between Canada and Louisiana when both were owned by France, and by the treaty of 176.i the Eiver Mississippi was agreed to as the future boundary between the English and French possessions in that quarter ; the language of the treaty being, "thatthe confines between (France and England) in that part of the worid shall be fixed irrevocably by a line drawn along the middle ofthe Eiver Mississippi from its source (etc.), to the sea." Very soon after this treaty, viz, on the 7th October, 1763, the Province of Quebec was erected by Eoyal Proclamation, but the Province as then constituted, took in very little of what was afterwards Upper Canada and what is now Ontario ; the most north north-westerly point was Lake Nipissing ; the whole of the territory adjacent to the great lakes was excluded. In 1774 the boundaries of Quebec were enlarged by the Quebec Act. That Act recited that " by the arrangements made by the said Eoyal Proclamation, a very large extent of territory, within which were several colonies and settlements of subjects ofFrance, who claimed to remain therein under the faith of the said treaty, was left without any provision being made for the administration of civil government therein." Tbe Act therefore provided that "all the territories, islands and countries in North America belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, bounded on the south by a line" therein described from the Bay of Chaleurs to the Eiver Ohio, and along the bank of the said river westward to to the banks of the Mississippi, and northward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the Merchant Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay," etc., "be, and they are hereby, during His Majesty's pleasure, annexed to and made part and parcel of the Province of Quebec as created and established by the said Eoyal Proclamation of the 7th October, 1763." What territory was embraced in this description ? The Dominion contends now that the expression " northward to the southern boundary" of the Hudson Bay Territory, meant a line drawn from the confluence of the two rivers due north, which would be in longitude about 89 deg. 9J min. west, that the old Province of Quebec contained no territory west of that line, and that the Province of Upper Canada or the Province Canada contained none. The only pretense for this argument is the word "northward" in this Statute. Seasons as strong and indisputable as possible in favor ofa moro westerly boundary are afforded by the other language of the Statute, by the surrounding cii-Lumstances, and by subsequent transactions. Look first at the Statute itself It will be found at page three of the book. The enactment is as f dlows : — " That all the territories, islands and countries in North America, belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, bounded on the south by a line from the Bay of Chaleurs," etc., "until it strikes the Eiver Ohio; and along the bank ofthe said river, westward, to the banks of the Mississipiii, and nortbwiird to the southein boundary of the territory granted to the Merchants Advcntuiers of England, trading to Hudson Bay ; and also all such territories, islands aud countries 1—20 306 which have, since the 10th day of February, 1763, been made part of the Govern nient of Newfoiindlarid — be, and they are hereby, during His Majesty's pileasui-e, iihnexed to and raade part and parcel ofthe Province of Quebec as created and estab lished by the said Eoyal Proclamiition ofthe 7 th day of October, 1763." Now, in the first place, the word "northward" d6es not necessarily mean due' north. In desciiplions in the ordinary deeds and dbctiments with which we sire famiiliar, the word " northward" is constantly used ashieartin^any northerly direction — either due north, or towards the north-west or the north-east. Then, in another part of tlie description a corresponding word is used in the sense in which I say this word " north ward" should be used, fpr after the description brings the line to the Eiver Ohio, it goes on thus: " along the river westward to the banks of the Mississippi." Herei the word " westward " is used, not in the sense of due west, but of a line following the sihiiosities ofthe Eiver Ohio. Further, we have in the sarne description the expres-' sion " directly west." We have thus a word corresponding to " northward " — ^¦ namely, " westward " — meaning not due west, but in a westerly direction ; ahd we have the words " due west " and " right line " when ParUament meant due west and in a straight line. These considerations remove any presuraption that Parliament, when saying northward, must necessarily be taken to have meant due north. All the territories, islands and countries in North America belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, which were assigned in 1774 to the Province of Quebec, are bounded on the south by the line described to the banks of the Mississippi ; and what we say is'that " northwards " meant the whole territory northward from the south line so described. The south line is given, and the statute describes what territory that south line is intended to include — all the territories belonging to Great Britain north- wiard to the Hudson Bay Company's territory. The surrounding facts bearing on the question place the intention beyond doubt. First, observe that the recital declares the object of the Act to be, to give to the Province more extensive boundaries than it had by the Proclamation: "Whereas by the arrangements made by the said Eoyal Proclamation, a very large extent of territory, within which were several colonies and settleraents of the subjects of France who claimed to remain therein under the faith of the said Treaty, was left without any provision being made for the administration of civil government therein," Where were these colonies and settlements? There is no room for question that if ybu take the due north line as the westerly boundary you do not include in the Pro vince many of these French colonies and settlements. A large number of them, con taining a large population, are given in Mr. Mill's book; and by looking at the pro duced map by Mr. Devine, the Arbitrators will see the number of forts which, with the populations in their neighborhood, would be excluded. It is thus an historical fact, utterly beyond controversy, that a line due north from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi, would leave between that line and the Mississippi northward, a large number of the colonies and settlements for which it was intended by thfe statute to provide civil government. Assume that the word northward is ambiguous] as certainly it does not necessarily mean due north, we remove all doubt by showing ; from the statute what the intention was, and by showing that that intention woulu : not be carried out by a due north line. • ; Further, if I had not the recital in the statute ; if I did not know from history that there were colonies and settlements there, which the recital shows that it wste intended to include ; if all I knew was that we had this ambiguous word, and thtft the British possessions at the time of the passing of the Abt extended along the banks of the Mississippi to its source, that fact would afford sufficient ground fdr presuming that the word "northward" was intended to include whatever British pbssessions there were there. ' " In the interpretation of statutes, the interpreter must, in order to understand the subject matter, and the scope and object of the enactment, call to his aid all those external and historical facts which are necessary for the purpose." (Maxwell on Statutes, pp. 20-21.) It is presumed that the circumstances which led to the Act, the Bill introduced, and the proceedings of Parliathent thereon, can be looked 307 # for the purpose ot the present controversy, as the discussions on the negotiations for a treaty are looked at to remove any doubt to whioh the language of the treaty might give rise. The proceedings in Pariiament are printed at page 299 ot the Book of Docuraents; and the debate on the Bill shows that, as a matter of fact, the intention ofthe measure was understood on both sides of the House to be that the l^ississippi, and no due north line, should be the western boundary. The Bill origi nated in the Lords, and the Bill as it ceme down frora that House, was clear as to the Mississippi being the western boundary. The Bill described the Province as " all th,e territories, etc., heretofore forming a part of the territory of Canada iu North Araerica, extending southward to the banks of the river Ohio, westward to the banks of the Mississippi, and northward ^o the southern boundary of the territory granted to the" Hudson Bay Company. (Page 302.) Under that description the present question would not be arguable. There is no reference there tp a due north line from the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi, and it will not b^ argued that any territory there, belonging to Great Britain, was to be left without any government or without any provision made by the statute for its government. The description was altered in the Commons. Why was it altered ? Was it in order that the banks of the Mississippi should not be the western boundary ? By np means ; no member objected to that boundary. It appears beyond question from the debate, that all parties, those in favor- of and those opposed to the Bill, concurred in regarding the western boundary as being properly the Missitsippi Eiver to its source ment in the memoir of Sieur de Callieres, that Father Dablon and Sieur Couture visited Hudson Bay in 1661 and 1663, M. de Callieres is spoken of as a man of high character, and this memoir was not written for tho purpose of coptrovprsy, bat was a confidential communication to the Minister in France, who was the official superior of the writer. M. de Callieres was Governor of Montreal and afterwards of Canada. I apprehend it will be assumed at this late day that his statements were correct. He says : — " As regards Hudson Bay, the French settled there in 1656, by virtue of ai) arrit of the Sovereign Council of Quebec, aathorizing Sieur Bourdon, its Attprney; General, to make the discovery thereof, who went north to the said Bay and too^ possession thereof in His Majesty's name. In 1661, Father Dablon, a Jesuit, was ordered by Sieur d'Argenson, at the time Governor of Canada, to proceed to said country. He went thither, accordingly, and the Indians, who then came from thenpe to Quebec, declared they had never seen any European there. In 1663, Sieur d'Avangour, Governor of Canada, sent Sieure Couture, Seneschal of the Cote de Beaupre, to the north of the said Hudson Bay, in company with a number of thg Indians of that country, with whom he went to take possession thereof, and he set up the King's Arms there. In the same year, 1663, Sieur Duquet, King's Attorney to the Frevdt6 of Quebec, and Jean I'Anglois, a Canadian colonist, went thither again by order ofthe said Sieur d'Ai'geuson, and renewed the act of taking possession by setting up His Majesty's Arms there a second time. This is proved by the arret of the said Sovereign Council of Quebec, and by the orders in writing of said Sieur? d'Argenson and d'Avangour." There is a detailed account of which the Governor of the Province is sending a confidential communication. I refer also to tbe stateraents of M. de Denonville, Governor-General of Canada, to the Foreign Minister. They will be found at page 111 of the Book of Documents. M. de Denonville says : — " On the 29th of April, 1627, a new (company) was organized, to which the King (Louis XIII) conceded the entire country of New France, called Canada, in latitude from Florida, which Hi^ Majesty's Eoyal predecessors had had settled, keeping along the sea, coasts as far as the Arctic Circle, and in longitude from the Island of Newfoundland westward to th^ great lake called the Fresh Sea, and beyond, both along the coasts and into the interior. Since that time, the French have continued their commerce within the countries of the said grant. In 1656, Jean Bourdon ran along the entire coast of Labrador with a vessel of thirty tons, entered and took possession of the North Bay. This is proved by an extract of the ancient register of the Council of New France on the 26th of August of the said year. In 1661, the Indians ofthe said North Bay came expressly to Quebec to confirm the good understanding that existed with th? French, and to ask for a missionary. Father Dablon went overland thither with Sieur de La Valliere and others. Father Dablon has given his certificate of the fac^. In 1663 those Indians returned to Quebec to demand other Frenchmen. Sieur d'Avaugonr, then Governor, sent Sieur Couture thither with five others. Said Sieiir Couture took possession anew of the head (fonds) of said Bay, whither he went over land, and there set up tbe King's Arms engraved on copper. This is proved by Sieur d'Avangour's order of May 20th, 1663, and the certificates of those who were sent there." These also are statements made confidentially by a man of high char acter, who ought to know, to his official superior in France. I find the following on this subject at page 3 of the Dominion Case: "J* appears that in the year 1656 there was an order of the Sovereign Council of Quebec authorizing Sieur Bourdon, its Attorney-General, to make a discovery thereof. There is no record whatever of his having attempted to make the discovery in the same year in which the order was passed by the Council. There is a record however of 319 his having made the attempt in the year following (1657), and he may then have designed carrying out the order. He sailed on the 2nd day of May, and returned on nth August, 165/; and it is not pretended that he could have made a voyage to Hud.son Bay and return between these dates. (Journal des Jesuites, pp. 209 218)," Of course he could not ; but then a man may make voyages in different years, "It is not to be assumed that he did not make a voyage the year before because he made a partial voyage in this year, since we have positive testimony that ho had also made that previous voyage. If these Governors were making false statements to their ahperiors in France, they would have referred to 1657 ; but they referred to 1656, showing that the reference was to a different transaction altogether. It is true there is no entry in the Jesuits' book of this voyage of 1656, but that bopk is silent in regard to many things which no doubt did Occur; and the mere fact of its not men- tieining a voyage is no sort of evidence that the voyage did not take place. The printed case for the Dominion comments also on what is said in reference to Father Dablon. It does not appear whether there were two priests of that name or only one. At all events, the mere fact that the journeys which we prove to have been made by a priest of that name were not recorded by the Jesuits is no evidence against the direct authority that we have for the fact. On the whole, there seems to ¦to be no reason which would justify us in now doubting that persons acting under the authority of the French Government had repeatedly visited Hudson Bay in and before 1663, had taken possession in the French King's name, and set up the Eoyal Arms there. And, however that may be, the French had certainly before that date estab lished posts at convenient points for trade with the Indiana, and had secured the whole trade with the Indians around the Bay. In 1627, long before the date of the Hudson Bay charter, the King of France gave to the Conipany ot New France the right of trade to an extensive territory — including Hudson Bay — both along the coasts and into the interior; those words being inserted in the charter. The French were enjoying the whole trade with the Indians around the Bay at the tirae the charter to the Hudson Bay Company was given. It is said in the books that for the purpose of giving property in a country, the possession needed is a possession having relation to the nature of the country. This was not an agricultural country ; settlement for the purpose of agriculture was not expected ; all that either party wanted was the trade with the Indians ; the French had secured that, and had been in the enjoyment ofit long before the Hudson Bay Company obtained their charter, and this was sufficient to prevent their rights from being interfered with by the sub sequent possession of the coast by the English, after they had allowed one hundred and fifty years to pass without acting on the discovery which they are said to have made. In the Dominion case, stress is laid on the fact that, by the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) the whole Bay and Straits were ceded or restored to England by France. • But it was never intended by either party that so extensive a claim as is now made should be made under any language eraployed in that treaty. In the raeraorial con certed with the Marquis de Torcy, January 19th, 1713, and forwarded to Lord Bolingbroke by the Duke of Shrewsbury (Book of Documents, p. 153), it is stated :— •"The inhabitants of Hudson Bay, subjects ofthe Queen of Great Britain, who have been dispossessed oftheir lands by France, in time of peace, shall be, entirely and immbdiately after the ratification of the treaty, restored to the possession of their said lands ; and such proprietors shall also have a just and reasonable satisfaction for the losses they have suffered, with respect to their goods, movables and effects ; which losses shall be settled by the judgment of Commissaries, to be named for this pur pose, and sworn to do justice to the parties interested." And Mr. Prior writes to Lord Bolingbroke on January Sth ofthe same year (Book of Documents, p. 153) :-- " As to the limits of Hudson Bay, and what the Ministry here seem to apprehendj at least in virtue ofthe general expression, tout ce que I'Angleterre a jamais possedS de ce coti la, (which they assort to be wholly new, and which I think is really so, since our plenipotentiaries make no mention of it), may give us occasion to encroach at any time upon their dominions in Canada, I have answered, that sinoe, according to 320 the carte which came from our plenipotentiaries, marked with the extent of what was thought our dominion, and returned by the French with what they judged the extent of theirs, there was no very great difference, and that the parties who deter mine that difference must be guided by the same carte, I thought the article would admit no dispute. In case it be either determined imraediately by the plenipoten tiaries or referred to Commissioners, I take leave to add to your Lordship that those- limitations are not otherwise advantageous or prejudicial to Great Bi'itain than as we are better or worse with the native Indians, and that the whole is a matter rather of industry than dorainion. If there be any real difference between restitution and cession, queriturf" It is plain, therefore, that the treaty was not intended to authorize so large a claira by England against France as the Dominion case contends. We know protty well what, for the sake of peace, the French were willing to give up — namely, tlie- territory to one or the other of the lines marked on DeLisle's maps, and marked as such on our map — and what I have just read shows that there was not a great differ ence between what England demanded and what France was willing to give ; and it is manifest that would not have been the case if there was anything like what is now demanded. The testimony, therefore, appears to be abundant that the height of land bound ary was what the English had no right to claim. Assuming that to be so. the ques tion is — What line north of the height of land is to be regarded as the Company's- •outhern boundary 7 The langnage of the charter, by reason of its ambiguity, affords no assistance in this inquiry. The validity of the charter has always been questioned on the ground^ of its ambiguity, as well as for other reasons. Assuming that the northern boundary is on one side the shore of Hudson Bay, say between 51° and 52° of latitude, and on the other, at least as far north as the most north-western point of the Lake of the Woods, say latitude 49° 23' 55" ; if these points were clearly in the Hudson Bay territory, the northern boundary would perhaps be a line drawn from one of these points to the other. We claim that our boundary is farther north than this, but cannot be south ofit. Are these points in what was the territory of the Company?* And is the Provincial boundary no farther north ? If by reason ofthe charter being so old, and having been acted upon in some sort, and of its validity to sorae extent being implied in certain statutory references to tho Company, the instrument cannot be treated as absolutely void, it must, as regards its construction and operation, on ¦well-known and well-settled principles, be interpreted most strongly against the Company and in favor of the Crown. The object of giving the charter, as the charter itself declares, was to encourage discoveries by the Corapany; and the validity or operation ofthe instrument is to the extent only of giving (so far as the Crown could give) to the Company whatever of unknown territoiy tbe Company,. within a moderate and reasonable time, should occupy; and all that the Company could be entitled to was what the Company had, in this manner, acquired for themselves and for the Crown previous to the cession of Canada in 1763 by France to England ; or what previous to that time, the Company had been in possession or enjoyment of as their own with the concurrence of the Crown, It is a familiar rule that Crown Grants aro construed most favorably to the Crown the grantor. The rule is thus stated in Chitty on Prero., page 391 : " In ordinary oases between subject and subject, tbe principle is that the grant shall bo construed. if the meaning be doubtful, most strongly against the grantor, who is presumed to use the most cautious words for his own advantage and security. But in the case of the King, whose grants chiefly flow from his royal bounty and grace, the rule is otherwise ; and Crown grants have at all tiraes been construed most favorably for the King where a fair doubt exists as to the real meaning of the instrument, as well in the instance of grants from His Majesty as in the case of transfers to him." The rule is uot new; but was in existence at tho timo of thia charter and before, and was, perhaps, more stringently acted upon then than it is in the case of modern deeds. Independently of this consideration, legal opinions are uniform, that, in the 321 (.•aso of an old and ambiguous charter like this, the instrument operates as far as possession and enjoyment have been had under it, and no further. I may cite some decided cases bearing on this point. Blankley vs. Winstanly, 3 Term Ecports, 288, is one of them. In that case it was observed by one ofthe learned Judges, as follows : — " With regaid to the usage : usage consistent with the meaning of tho charter has prevailed for 190 years past, and if the words of the charter were more disputable than they are, I think that ought to govern this case. There are cases in which this court has held that a settled usage would go a great way to control the words of a charter. Such was the case of Gape vs. Handley, in which the court went rauch further thau is necessary in the present case; and it is for the sake of quieting cor porations that this court has always uphold long usage where it was poi-sible, though recent usage would not perhaps have much weight." So in Wadley v^. Bayliss, 5 Taunt, 75,3, the case of an award under the Inclosure Acts, it was laid down that " the language of the award being ambiguous, it was competent lo go into evidence ofthe enjoyment had, in order to see what was the meaning of those who worded: it." The rule is thus applied by Sir Arthur Pigott, Mr. Spankee and Mr. Brougham; in the opinion printed at p. 193 of the Book of Documents : — " In snch a long track of time as nearly one hundred and fifty years, now elapsed, since the grant of tho charter, it raust now be, and raust indeed long since have beeu, fully asceitained by the actual occupation of the Hudson Bay Corapany, what portion or portions of lands and territories in the vicinity, and on the coasts and confines of the waters mentioned and described as within the Straits, they have found necessary for their -purposes, and for forts, factories, towns, villages, settleraents or such oth-ir establish ments in such vicinity, and on such coasts and confines as pertain and belong to a •Corapany instituted for the purposes mentioned in their charter ; and necessary, ^useful, or convenient to them within the prescribed limits for tho prosecution of those purposes." In 1357 the Crown lawyers pointed out (page 202) that the question of the validity and construction of the Company's charter cannot be considered apart fi-ora the enjoy ment that had been had under it.' " Nothing could be more unjust than to treat this charter as a thing of yesterday, and upon principles, which raight be deemed applicable to it if it had been granted within the last ten or twenty years." They likewise say: — "The remaining subject for consideration is the question of the geographical extent ofthe territory granted by the charter, and whether its bound aries can in any and what manner. be ascertained. In the case of grants of consider able age,' such as this charter, where the words, as is often the case, aro indefinite or ambiguous, the rule is, that they are construed by usage and enjoyment," There is no authority or opinion against that. Again, the Company were certainly not entitled to any ofthe territory which France owned at the tirae of the cession, and ceded to England; it is pre posterous to suppose that th« charter intended to grant, and did effictually grant to the Company, as against the world, all the territory southerly and westerly of the Bay to the then unknown height of land (un known to the Crown and to the Company), though such territory should be, as it was, to the extent of unknown hundreds of thousands ot square miles— a third of the continent ; that the charter was intended to give, and did give, to the Company, the right to shut up this enormous territory from tho Crown and from all British subjects— 'and from other nations also — for ali timo; that if the Company should do noihing to discover, settie or acquire it for a hundred years or more, nobody else could , and that any- por tion ofit which England should, a hundred years afterwards, acquire by war with another nation, and by the employment of the resource'* of the whole Empire, in Europe as well as Amei ioa— accrued when so acquired and was intended to accrue, to tho Company, for their own private benefit. Such a claim cannot be in aecoraance with a sound interpretation of any authorities which can be found. Il is clear, and, indeed, has been repeatedly admitted by the Company them selves that until long after the date ofthe cession, the Company had no possession of 'l~21 322 any part of the interior of the country, and that their possession was confined to cer- tain forts on the Bay and two factories not very distant. Henley House was one of these factories, on the Albany, erected in 1744'; and France had, at the same timo, forts on the sarae river. At all events, with these exceptions, no possession of any part of the territory away from the shore was had by the Company until long after the cession. I have said that the Company have admitted that to be so. A Committee ofthe British House of Commons was appointed in 1749 to ipquire into the state and con dition of the countries adjoining Hudson Bay, and of the trade carried on there; and evidence was given before this Committee that at that time the only forts and settle ments of the Company were on the Bay. (Book of Documents, Si 5.) Those opposed to the Company at that time were complaining of this, and urging that the Company had not attempted te settle the country. Again in a statement of the Hudson Bay Corapany, the material part of which is printed in the Book of Documents, page 402, there is this admission : " As long as Canada was held by the French, the opposition of wandering traders (Goureurs des Bois) was insufficient to induce the Company to give up their usual method of trading. Their servants waited at the forts built on the coasts of the Bay, and there bought by barter the furs which the Indians brought from the interior. But after the cession of Canada to Great Britain, in 1763, British traders, following in the track of the French, penetrated into the countries lying to the north-west of the Company's territories, and by their building factories, brought the market for furs nearer to the Indian seller," That means British traders unconnected with the Company. " The Company, find ing their trade seriously affected, extended the field of their operations, and sent parties to establish themselves in the interior." I need for my purpose nothing more than this statement by the Company themselves. It is an express admission thatthe French did settle in the territories referred to, that the Hudson Bay Company con tined themselves to the forts on the Bay, and that after the Treaty of 1763, British traders unconnected with the Company commenced to move ; that they were first to move ; and that it was not until the Compafiy found their trade seriously affected by the acts oj these other traders that the Company extended their operations. Then at page 412, Book of Documents, there is a letter from Mr. Goschen, then Chairman of the Company, telling the result of his researches into the books and papers of the Company. Amongst other things, he says : " At the time of the passing of the Quebec Act, 1774, tho Company had not extended their posts and operations far firom the shores of Hudson Bay. Journals of the following trading stations have been preserved bearing that date, nameiy, Albany, Henley, Moose, East Main, York, Severn and Churchill." The Solicitors employed by the Dominion to search the records of tbe Hudson Bay Company, wrote as follows (see page 414, Book of .Docu ments): — From a perusal of the Company's Journals, we find " that it was not the practice of the Company's servants to go up country to purchase peltry from the Indians ; but the Indians came down to York and other forts on the Bay and there exchanged their furs, etc., for the Company's merchandise." So that the Company not only did not establish stations, but did not go up the country. "It appears thatthe peddlers (French traders — Goureurs des Bois, as they were called), from Quebec, had, for some time prior to the year 1873, gone up into the Eed Eiver district, and by so doing had cut of the Indians and bought their furs.'' Sir John Eose s.'ij's (his stntement is at page 414 of the same book) : " I may mention that I do uot think that any further research would have thrown more light on the matter than the Ontario Government is already in possession of I eraployed a gentleman for several weeks to search at the Colonial Office and Foreign Office, as well as the Eolls' Office and tho Hudson Bay Archives, and every scrap of inforraation bearing on it was, I think, sent out either to Mr. Carapbell or to Mr, Scott [Dominion Ministers] some mouths ago. 1 believe that any further search would be attended with no result." Thus, during the whole period, from 16-.0 to the passing ofthe Quebec Act, the Hudson Bay Company had been in no sort of possession of more than their ^ forts aud factories on and iu the immediate neighborhood of the Bay. . ¦ 323 The Dominion Ministers truly affirraed, in 1869, that " the evidence is abundant and conclusive to prove that the French traded over and possessed the whole of the country known as the Winnipeg Basin and ' Fertile Belt,' from its discovery by Europeans down to the Treaty ot Paris, and that the Hudson Bay Corapany neither ti'aded nor established posts to the south or west of Lake Winnipeg, until many years after the cession of Canada to England." The Company's first post — viz , Cumber iand House, on Sturgeon Lake — in the vicinity of the region in question, was not built until 1774, and they did not establish any post within this tract of country before 1790. There has been printed in the Book of Documents, 230, the judsjraent of the Hon. Mr. Justice Monk, of Lower Canada, in a case of Connolly vs. Woolrich, and the substance of it is this : — he shows, in regard to the French, that as early as 1605, Quebec had been established and had become an important settlement; that before 1630 the Beaver and several other companies had been organized at Quebec for carrying on tbe fur trade in the west, near and around the great lakes and in the North-West Territory; thatthe enterprise and trading operations of these French companies, and of the French colonists generally, extended over vast regions ofthe northern and north-western portions of the continent ; thatthey entered into treaties with the Indian tribes and nations, and carried on a lucrative and extensive fur trade with the natives ; that in the prosecution of their trade and other enterprises these adventurers evinced great energy, courage and perseverence ; that they had extended their hunting and trading operations to the Athabasca country (say 58° north latitude and 111° west longitude) ; that some portions ofthe Athabasca country had before 1640 been visited and traded in, and to some extent occupied, by the French traders in Canada and their Beaver Corapany (which had been founded in lo29) ; that from 1640 to 1670 theso discoveries and trading settlements had consider ably increased in number and importance ; that Athabasca and other regions bordering upon it, belonged to the Crown of France at that tirae, to the same extent, and by the same means, as the country around Hudson Bay belonged to England, viz., by discovery, and by trading and hunting. Judge Monk mentions i670 because it was the date of the charter of the Hudson Bay Company, These were the conclusions to which Judge Monk came judicially. It may bo added, that, if the Athabasca country belonged to France at so early a period, so would the whole intermediate country between Athabasca and Hudson Bay on the.east, and between the Athabasca country and the St. Lawrence on the south, because with these parts the French were more familiar, and traded to a much larger extent, than further north. Between 1670 (the last date named by Judge Monk) and 17t>'3, the French established posts or forts in that North-West Territory which they had previously explored, and hunted over, and traded with, namely, on Eainy Lake, the L-ake ofthe Woods, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, on the Winnipeg Eiver, the Eed Eiver, the Assi niboine Eiver, the Eiver au Biches,and the Saskatchewan, and so west to the Eocky Mountains, where Fort la Jonquiere was established by St. Pierre in i752. All these lakes and rivers are connected by the Nelson Eivor with Hudson Bay, and are in the territory which, in the following century, the Hudson Bay Corapany claimed under their charter; but confessedly they had constructed in it no post or 'settiement of any kind until long after 1763. The subjects of France hod also, on the northerly side of the dividing line, Abbittibi, which was north of the height of land, and was built in 16»6. It situate at a considerable distance north of the height of land, and upon the lake of the sarae narae, from which the Eiver Monsippy flows into Uud,son Bay The 1 rench had also Fort St. Gerraain, on the Albany, which was built in 1684; and still higher up on the same I'iver Fort La Maune, established about the same period ; and, to tho east Fort Nemiscau, on the lake of that nurae, situate on the Eiver Rupert, midway between Lake Mistassin and tho Bay; this fort was built before 16.^5. Of none of these did the English Government or the Company ever complain. Tbe French had also another Fort on the Albany, being that mentioned in one of the memorials of the ( ornpany as having been built in 1715. The facts enumerated form another Fort 324 conclusive ground against such a claim as is now set up by the Dominion as pur-j chasers frora the Corapany. The raatter is made clear in another way ; that is, by the maps which the Com pany has furnished for the purposes of the present arbitration We applied to them for what maps they had, and they furnished seven, only two of which seem to be of im portance. One of the two, dated 1748, bears the Eoyal Arms and the Arms of the Corapany, and seems to have been prepared by tbe Company in view of tlie Parl^^ raentary inquiry of that period, and for the purpose of showing the limits which tlje Corapany then clairaed. The line which this map gives as the Company's southern boundary is considerably north ofthe height of land, even as shown on this map; for the line is therein made to cut Frenchman's Eiver, and several other rivers shown on the map as fiowing in Hudson Bay. The Corapany does not, by the map, cla.im to the height of land, even so far as these comparatively small rivers are concerned. Their southerly line on the map runs to the eastern shore of a lake culled Nimigon, thence to and northerly along the easterly shore of Winnipeg, and thence northerly to Sir Thomas Sraith's Sound, in Baffin's Bay. I am entitled to say that this map demonstrates that the Company, in 1748, did not claim to the height of land even as she height of land was then supposed to be situated, and did not claira Lake Winnipeg. The other of the two raaps is Mitchell's engraved map, described as published by the author, February, 1755. This copy appears to have been much used and worn ; I si^ppose, therefore, that it is the map to which the Company chiefly refer red to when they had occasion to examine any raap oftheir tendtory. There is on it an irregular line raarked " bounds of Hudson Bay by the Treaty of Utrecht," and the coloring on the two sides of that line is different. This line may therefore betaken as showing the extent ofthe Company's claira in 1755 and long after. Can there be any doubt that this is a fair conclusion to draw ? On what principle can it be said that this raap, which has been in the possession of the Company for over a century,, should not be taken as showing, not what the bounds were, but what the Company regarded as their bounds ? The line is about one-third of a degree north of the Lake of the Woods, and extends to the limit of the raap in that direction, being in about the 98th degree of longitude. Chief Justice Harrison — The height of land does not appear to have been known at the time the first of these two maps was prepared. The Attorney-General — But these rivers are marked oo the raap, and the terri tory marked as the Company's does not extend to the sourees of them. Chief Justice Harrison — Those rivers are undoubtedly to the north of the heiight of land. The Attorney-General — In regard to the territory which the Company knew when these maps were prepared, they did not claim to the height of land. Ou this raap of Mitchell's the Company claimed a more southerly boundary than in the other map, i but even in this map the line they clairaed cut some rivers which flow into Hudson Bay, instead of extending to their sources. The claim to go to the sources of the rivers is inconsistent with both maps, although the Company claimed larger bounds by the one than by the other. The Lake ofthe Woods is marked, and the line they claim by the map is north of the Lake of the Woods. Chief Justice Harrison — There does not appear to be an interval of more th^" seven years between these two maps. The height of land is marked in some places upon Mitchell's map. The Attorney-General— Yes; but the map throughout negatives the idea that the Company then claimed to the height of land. After tho Treaty of Utrecht (1713), whioh gave to tho British, all lands, etc, "on the Bay and Straits, and which belong thereto," the Company, on the 4th August, 1714, proposed for the first lime, that th* Mistassin line should go as far south-westerly to 49° " north lutiiudo * * and that that latitude be ibe limit;" as to how far to the west this line of ,9° wasto bo followed nothing was then said. In 1719 and 1750 tiie Company proposed the line 49° generally, but both times the proposition was rejected by tho Fienoh. Thi» 325 line would have given to the Company a boundary greatly more limited than the boundary of the height of land, which began to be claimed nearly three-quarters of a century later. Ithas already been said that tho Company could not take advantage of their charter for the purpose of making any addition to their territory by exploration or settlement after the cession of 1763. The practical result would be nearly the siirae if this right should have been deemed to have ceased at a somewhat later date, viz. : the date of the passing of the Quebec Act, If 74, or even the date of the Treaty of 1783, for the Company made no further settlement between 1763 and 1783, except •Cumberland House;, and it is doubtful whether its locality belongs to the Winnipeg or the Churchill System. B^h the Actof 1774 and the Treaty of 1733 obviously require that the Company's southern boundary should be deemed a fixed line, not liable to extension by the raere act of the Company. These considerations are submitted as showing that the legal rights of the Com pany did not extend beyond their forts on the shore or in the neighborhood of Hud son Bay, and such adjacent territory as these forts, may under the circumstances, have given them a right to; and that Ontario is entitied to have its northern bound- ¦ary line drawn accordingly. If the evidence fVtils to satisfy the Arbitrators of the right of Ontario to this extent of territory, I refer them to the possible alternative lines mentioned at page 423 and following pages of the Book of Documents ; and I tvill not detain the Arbi trators now by the stateraent and discussion of these other lines. If there should seem to the Arbitrators to be too much doubt on the subject to ¦enable them to determine with absolute precision the northern boundary of the Pro vince, a boundary should be assigned which would give to the Province the full ter ritory which tho Commiasions to the Governors definitely provided for, and such further territory to the north as raay be just and reasonable in view of the whole case* «.- THOMAS HODGINS, Q.C.-AEGUM ENT BEFOEB THB AEBITEATOES. Mr. Thomas Hodgins,' Q.C, forthe Provinceof Ontario, next addressed the Arbi trators. He said: In the printed documents submitted by the Government of Ontario, three territories aro mentioned, the localities and limits of which must in some measure be ascertained in order to arrive at a proper solution of the question where the boundaries of Ontario should be traced. These territories are,— (1) the Indian Territories ; (2) the Territories claimed by the Hudson Bay Company, and (3 ) the Territories known as Canada or New France. The Indian Territories may be shortly described as those extensive tracts of land lying to the westward and northward of Canada and the Hudson Bay Com pany's Territory, not actually taken possession of by any civilized government prior to 1763. These Indian Territories are, as we contend, the lands described by -Sir Alexander Mackenzie in his " Travels in North America, published during the early part of the present century, and appear on the map as the Arthabascan and ¦Chippewayan Territories. These territories were specially reserved under the sovereignty of the Crown for the use of the Indians, by the King s Proclamation of 4he 7th October, 1763, which established the Provinces of Quebec, East and West Florida and Grenada, "within the countries and islands ceded to the Crown by the Treaty of Paris, of the 10th February, 1763. That Proclamation describes them as "the lauds lying to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and northwest," and as " such parts of our dominions and terri tories as, not having beeu ceded to us, are reserved to the Indians, or of them any, as their hunting grounds;" and again, as " lands which not having been ceded to or pur chased by ust are «till reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid." (a) They are also (a) Book of Dooumente, p. 26 326 described in the first section of the Act of 1803, which extended tbe jurisdiction! of the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over crimes and offences committed ¦«dthin certain parts of North America, in the following words : — " Indian Territories or other parts of America, not within the limits ofthe Provinces of Lower or Upper Canada, or either of them, or of the jurisdiction ofthe Courts established in those Provinces, or within the limits of any civil government of the United States of America."(a). No more clearly defined locality is given to these territories in any ofthe State Papers relating to North America; but Lord Selkirk, in his Sketch of the British Fur Trade in North America, published in 1816, refers to them thus :— "This vague term, 'Indian Territories,' has been used without any definition to point out the particular territories to which the Act is meant to apply." " There are, how ever, extensive tracts of country to which the provisions of the Act unquestionably do apply, viz : — those which lie to the north and west of the Hudson Bay Territories, and which are known in Canada by the general name of ' Arthabasca.' It was here that the violences which gave occasion to the Act were committed ; and these arp the only districts in which a total defect of jurisdiction described in the prearable of the Act was to be found. "(6). Tbe other territories are those which, prior to the cession of Canada, in 1763, formed the possessions of the King of England, and are claimed as the " Hudson, Bay Company's Territory," and the possessions of the King of France, known as " Canada or New France." That portion of this latter territory lying west of tha Ottawa and Lake Temiscaming, and of " a line drawn due north to the boundary line " or " shore " "of Hudson Bay " — excepting the portion south of the great lakes, and west of the Mississippi, ceded to tbe United States in 1783 — now forms the terri tory of the Province of Ontario. The diplomatic correspo.idence and State Papers, printed in the Book of Documents, show that for a series of years, prior to 1763, the territory about the shores of Hudson Bay was a chronic subject of dispute, of dip lomatic negotiation, and of treaties, between the Bnglish and French Governments. From 1668 to 1755, the chief subject of discussion between the French Ministers and their Governors in Canada, and the English Ministers and the French Plenipoten tiaries, was — what were the territorial liraits or boundaries of the two Sovereigns about Hudson .Bay. Taking first the question — to which Sovereign the southern liraits of Hudson Bay belonged, it will be found that after the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, the English Ministers asserted, that the whole of Hudson Bay, including, of course, the southern shore inland to line 49, belonged to Great Britain. On the other hand, the represen tatives of the Crown ofFrance contended that their earlier discoveries, their prior possession, and their settlements had made that southern shore part of the territory of Canada. Certainly up to 17U0, the Hudson Bay Company conceded to the French the sovereignty of the southern jiortion of James' Baj"-, south of the Albany Eiver, on the west — or line 53° north latitude.(c). But subsequently, a gradual advance was made in the territorial claims ofthe Hudson Bay Company, as follows r; To the Canute or Hudson Eiver in 52° nortii latitude (d) ; to Lake Miskosinke, or Mistoveny, in 51J° north latitude (fl) ; although no new possessory rights were acquired by Great Britain or the Company in the disputed territory, between 1700 and 1713. After the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, the claira presented bythe Company to the English Government advanced the boundary to line 49° north latitude.(^). That Treaty restored — not surrendered — to England "the Bay and Strai's of Hudson,, together with all lands, seas, sea coasts, rivers and places situate in the said Bay and Straits which belong thereto," all of which, with tho fortresses there erected^. "either before or since the French seized the same," were to be given up within six nionths from the ratification of the Treaty. It further provided that the con terminous limits of the territories of the two nations at Hudson Bay should (a) Book of Dooumente, page 5. (i) Earl Selkirk, Sketch of the Far Trade, pp. 85-6. (c) Book ot Documents, page 12;5, (d) Ibid, page 124. ( e) Ibid, page 129. (/) Ibi'l, page 132. 327 be determined within a year by Comraissioners to be named by each Govern ment ; so as to fix " tbe limits between the said Bay of Hudson and the placc.-j appertaining to the French — which limits both the British and French subjects shall be wholly forbidden to pass over or thereby to go to each other by sea or land." This Treaty, notwithstanding the exclusion, gave to the French a right to use the shores of the Bay, whatever meaning may be attached to the following words: "It i?, however, provided that it may be entirely free for the Company of Quebec, and all other the subjects of the Most Christian King whatsoever, to go by land, or by soa, whithersoever they please, out of the lands of the said Bay, together with all their goods, merchandises, arms, and eft'ects of what nature or condition soever," except munitions of war. (a) The Commissioners were appointed, but never deter mined the question of boundary. Tho British Commissioners, inspired by the Hudson Bay Company, claimed for tho first time as the boundary, the line 49° north latitude, (b) This the Commissioners of the French King resi.sted, contending that the territory claimed was part of Canada. Now, at that time, the Hudson Bay Corapany had not any territorial occupation beyond a few small posts or a widely scattered fringe of settlements, about three or four, on the shores of the Bay, and from which their trade with the Indians was car ried on. This fact appears in the evidence taken by a Committee of the House of Commons in 1749. Historically, the same fact is stated by writers and officers of the Company who dealt with the question from personal knowledge. In Eobson's Arcount of Hudson Bay, T^nhliiiheA \n llb'S, it is stated:— "The Company have, for sixty years, slept at the edge of a frozen sea. They have shown no curiosity to ])ene- trate turther theraselves, and have exerted all their art and power to crush the spirit in others." (p. 6.) Further on, in speaking of the Indians, he shows how the French had gone inland, and had— unmolested by the Company — e,5'ablished forts and ti-iiding settlements with the Indians, and whieh, according tothe acknowledged rules of international law, had given the Fiench King proprietary and sovereign rights over the territory thus occupied by his subjects, " The French," he says, " live and trade with the Indians within the country at the heads of the rivers that run down to the English factories." " in consequence of this narrow spirit of self-interest in the Compjiny, the French have been encouraged to travel raany hundred miles overland from Canada, and up raany rivers that have great waterfalls, in order to make trading settlements ; and there they carry on a friendly intercourse with the natives at the head of most of the rivers westward of tbe Bay, even as far as the Churchill Eiver, and intercept the Company's trade." "There are fine improvable lands up the rivers of the Bay, and no British settlements or colonies are made or attempted to be made there." p. 7. Bowen's Gography published in 1747, says :— " The bottom of the Bay is by the French pretended to be part of New France ; and infercised in such a way as would best maintain the public right of the people to whose allegiance he had succeeded. The claim to the territories about Hud.son Bay had not been a contest between the King of France and the Hudson Bay Company. It now became a question of terri torial right between the King of England, as representing the possessory rights and sovereignty of the King of Franco, on the one side, and the Hudson Bay Company on tbe other. Succeeding therefore to the French sovereignity over this territory and people, tbe Crown of England had the right to claim as against the Hudson Bay Company, and all others, the French sovereignity, as if the French authority had not been suppressed, and as if the French authority was itself seeking to enforce its terri torial claims. Viewed in the light of this claim of the double sovereignty which it thus had, the subsequent proceedings of the Crown of England in regard to the boun daries of Upper Canada, should weigh with the Arbitrators in determining what efiect and what interpretation should be given to these subsequent proceedings as political acts of state. The interpretation, I take it, of this double sovereignty, must be that which was the largest and most advantageous for the public rights of the Sovereign and people. This doctrine of succession to sovereign rights has received judicial in- , terpretation in regard to tbe property and territory, and sovereign rights, ofa dis placed power. And the judicial interpretation which I shall quote is cited with ap- jiroval in the last edition of Wheaton on Internalional Law, as being a fair and proper exposition of public law on that question. In the case of the United States vs. McRae (a), Vice-Chancellor (now Lord Justice) James, says : " I apprehend itto be the clear, iniblic, universal law. that any Governnient which de facto succeeds to any other Gov. ernment, whether by revolution or restoration, conquest or re-conquost, succeeds to ail the public property, to everything in the nature of public proportv, and to all rights in respect of the public property of the displaced power, — Whatever maybe the natuie or origin of the title of such displaced power." "But this right is tho right of succession, is the right of representation ; it is a right not paramount but derived, I will not say under, but through the suppressed and displaced authority, and can only be enforced in tbe same way, and to the same extent, and subject to the sarae correlative obligations and rights, as if that authority had not been suppressed and displaced, and was itself seeking to enforce it." The same doctrine h;ul been previ ously recognized in England, in the case of the King of the Two SiciUes vs. Wilcox, (b) United States vs. Prioleau, (c) and in Canada in the case of United States vs. Boyd (d) 'The Supreme Court of the United States has iu v.irious cases affirmed the saino doc trine : that the new government takes the place of that which has passed away, and succeeds to all tho rights and property ofthe original Sovereign, (a) Law Reports, 8 Equity, 75. (6) 1 Simons N. S., 301. (c) 2 HemminK & Miller. 563. ('i) 15 Grant'K Chaicery, 138. 331 • Now, with reference to the alleged clairas of the Hudson Bay Company to the lands south of Hudson Bay, to line 49°, it may reasonably be argued that there could be no estoppel between the Crown of England, clothed with the double sovereignty of the French and English Crowns, over this disputed territory, and the Hudson Bay Company. Whatever representations and clairas the Hudson Bay Company may have induced the English Government to make prior to the cession of the terri tory, would not estop the Crown of England, having acquired the sovereignty which France had held, in any contention between it and the Hudson Bay Company. Chief Justice Harrison.— I fancy that Great Britain could not have conferred on- the Hudson's Bay Company any greater rights than Great Britain at the time of the grant possessed. Mr. Hodgins.— The cession ofthe disputed territory would not accrue to tho Hudson Bay Companj-. Chief Justice Harrison. — Not in the absence of an express grant. Mr. Hodgins. — We say that this territory about the south shore of Hudson Bay had been surrendered by Indian treaty to the Crown of France prior to the Hud son Bay Corapany's claim of title, and had been occupied and thenceforward claimed as French territory up to a period after the Treaty of Utrecht, and therefore could not have been granted to the Hudson Bay Company. And that there would be no estoppel operating in favor of the Hudson Bay Company by reason of tho subsequent acquirement of that territory by the Crown of England, io 17,63, We come next to the King's Proclaraation of the 7th October, 1763, under which the Provinces of Quebec, East and West Florida, and Grenada, were established. In that Proclaraation there seeras to be an express reservation. Tho Proclamation is not printed in full in Book of Documents, but it will be found in a work which I obtained frora the Ed'ication Departraent ot Ontario, in which the terms of Capitu lation, the Treaty of Peace, and the Proclamations in regard to the earlier establish ment of Quebec and the other Provinces, are collected. That Proclamation reserves out of the extensive and valuable acquisitions in America secured to the Crown by the Treaty of Paris, other territories than those placed uuder the four governments. then constituted, viz., a territory not yet ceded to the Crown, which, I assume, included the Indian territories befo.''e referred to, and a territory beyond the sources ofthe rivers which fall into the Atlantic. It was assumed at that tirae, and some of the- maps confirmed the assumption, that Lake Winnipeg was connected with Pigeon Eiver, and so through the great lakes with the St. Lawrence. The Crown therefore reserved for future disposition the territories referred to, and expressly limited the jurisdiction of the Governors in the new Provinces in a way markedly difi'erent from the Com missions which issued suhsequently under tbe Quebec Act: " That no Governor or Commander-in-Chief do presume, upon any pretence whatever, to grant warrants of survey, or pass any patents for lands beyond the bounds of their respective govern ments, or for lands beyond the heads or sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, frora the west or the north-west, or any lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by us, are reserved to tbe Indians." The next document in point of time is the Quebec Act of 1774. The Attorney- General has left me little to add in construing that Act, aod he has shown that the- words " during His Majesty's pleasure," jireserved the future exercise of tbe Eoyal Prerogative, The Dominion contends for the raost limited construction which cnn be placed upon the term "northward" in that Act — that it means "due north." The rule is otherwise stated by the Suprerae Court of tho United States : " In great questions which concern the boundaries of States — when great natural boundaries are established in general terms with a view to public convenience and the avoidance of controversy — the great object, where it can be distinctly perceived, ought not to be defeated by those technical perplexities which may soraetimes influence contracts between individuals." (a) ' But apart frora the construction placed by the Crown upon that word " northward," iraraediately after the passing of the Act, we find in (a) Handley's Lessee v. Anthony, 5, Wheaton, 574. 332 the preamble of the Act, and on the ground within the d'sputed territory — that is, between the line drawn " due north "from the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi, and tho line ofthe ' banks oi the Mississippi Eiver," irresistible arguments against the contention of the Dominion. Now, within that disputed territory between the lines referred to, there were, at the time, several well-known settlements and trading foits of the French, as shown on the maps: Forts Kaministiquia, St. Pierre, St. Charles, La Pointe or Chacouamicon, St. Croix, Bonseoour, St. Nicholas, Crevecceur, St. Louis, De Chartres, and the settlements on Lake Superior, west of this " due north " line. The preamble of the Act shows that the intention of Parliament was to extend civil government over French settlements left out of governmenial control; for after reciting the Proclamation of 1763, it says : " Whereas by the arrangements made by the said Eoyal Proclamation, a very large extent of country, within which there were several colonies aod settlements of the subjects of France who claimed to remain therein under the faith of the said Treaty, was left without any provision being made for the administration of civil government therein." Now, if the object of the Act, as stated in the preamble, was to extend civil govern ment over the colonies and settlements not theretofore within the liraits of any of the Provinces, can any reasonable argument be advanced for excluding from the benefits of that Act a long and narrow strip of territory containing the settlements and forts named, l3'ing between this " due north " line and the eastern banks -of she Mississippi ? England, at the surrender of Canada, claimed to the line of the Mississippi, and the map produced bythe Dominion as the one containing the line traced between General Amherst and the Marquis de Vaudreuil, shows thatthe line started from Eed Lake, one ofthe sources ofthe Mississippi. And, as if to place the boundary beyimd question, the Treaty declares that the limits between the British -and French Territories shall " be fixed irrevocably by a line drawn along the middle -of the Eiver Mississippi, from its source, to the Eiver Iberville," etc. But, — still keeping in view the object of the Quebec Act as set forth in the pre amble, and remembering that the Crown in its negotiations with France had persever ingly insisted upon the line of the Mississippi as the western boundary of Canada, and had obtained that boundary, — there is a further point which I Would press upon the Arbitrators. Tho first docuraent promulga,ted by the Crown iraraediately after the passing of the Act, was a Comraission to Sir Guy Carleton, in Deceraber, 1774, as Covernor General of the new Province of Quebec, and it gives an authoritative inter pretation by the Crown of the indefinite word " northward," used in the Act of Par liaraent, and which was peculiarly within the power and prerogative of the Crown to interpret. That Commission gives the boundaries mentioned in the Quebec Act until it comes to the words " Westward to the banks of the Mississippi and northward," not ;" due north," but "northward along the eastern bank of thesaid river (Mississippi)." This description must be taken to be the Crown's interpretation of the boundaries which the Act of Parliament had established for the Province of Quebec, and was a political act of state within tbe prerogative right of the Crown — to fix the boundaries where they were uncertain, and even to extend them if necessary ; and such act of the Crown is binding upon the Arbitrators and cannot now be questioned. That Governor General, as well as his successor, had thus from the Crown complete juris diction over the territory to the lino of the banks of tho Mississippi. But when the southern portion ofthe Province of Quebec was ceded to the United States, by the Treaty of 1783, the Crown had again to interpret tho Quebec Act as to the reraaining territory; and in the Commission issued by the Crown in 1786, appointing Sir Guy Carleton Governor General over what remained of the Province of Quebec, the Crown defined that Province as extending in the west to the Lake of the Woods and the Mississippi Eivor. (a) These Commissions to the Governors wore political acts of state or of sovereign power over the territory in question, and broughttheterritory within the jurisdiction of the civil govornraent of Quebec delegated to the Governors. Tho courts of the (a) Book of Documents, pages 47-48. 333 United States have been called upon to determine questions of boundaries similar to that now before the Arbitrators; and by a consensus of decisions from 1818 to tho pre-sciit, thoir courts say that in all those questions affecting boundaries the act is a political act. We call it a prerogative act. They hold that where the political act has been recognized either by the Executive or by Congress, either officially or in legislative documents, or in diplomatic controversies with foreign nations, that the interpretation put upon the boundaries of territories, and the limitation of such boundaries, uud the claim in regard to such boundaries, shall govern the civil courts. Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court on the ques tion of the bounaries of Louisiana and West Florida, in the case of Foster v. Neilson,. («) says: "After these acts of sovereign power over the territory in dispute, to maintain the opposite construction would certainly be an anomaly in the history and practice of nations. If the Government have unequivocally assorted its right of dominion over a country of which it is in possession, and which it claims under a treaty, if the legislature has acted on the construction thus asserted, it is not in its own courts that this construction is to be denied. A question like this, respecting boundaries of nations, is more a political than a legal question, and in its discussion the courts of every country raust respect the pronounced will of the Government. To do otherwise would be to subvert those principles which govern the relations between the legislative and judicial departments, and mark the limits of each," This judgraent has been cited with approval, and has been followed in all subsequent cases of d'sputed boundaries of states or territories. But we are not limited to these unquestioned and unquestionable prerogative acts of the Crown in interpreting the statute. We come next to the division of the Pro vince of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada ; and if words mean what they express, then the words uaod in the Order in Council (b), in the paper presented to the Houses of Parliaraent, previous to the passing ofthe Act of 1791 (c), in the Proclamation of General Clarke (d), and in the Commissions which were subsequently issued to the Governors under that Act (e), shew conclusively the intention of the Crown as to the boundaries of the new Province of Upper Canada, whether as dividing the old Province of Quebec, or as settling the uncertain course of the " northward " line of the Quebec Act. The Order of the King in Council and the Proclamation issued imme diately after the passing of the Act, were also " acts of sovereign power over the territory " in question, and are, we contend, as binding on the Arbitrators as they would be on a court of justice. If these acts ofthe Crown were more than a division of the Province of Quebec ; if they were also an extension of the boundaries of the old Privince of Quebec, they are equally acts of the prerogative, done with the con currence ofthe other estates ofthe realm, and are binding upon this arbitration as a court of justice. Therefore, in whatever light the Order in Council of 1791, and the Proclamation under it, are viewed, that Proslamation — giving the boundaries described in the paper presented to the Parliaraent, and sanctioned by the Order in (Council — is the document which determines what are the boundaries of the Province of Ontario. It determined what were the boundaries ofthe Province of Upper Canada. The Statute of 1841 united the Province of Upper Canada with the Province of Lower Canada, but did not alter the boundaries of either. The Confederation Actof 18i7 declares that the boundaries ofthe former Province of Upper Canada shall be the boundaries ofthe Province of Ontario. Thus, we are brought back to the Order in Council and Proclamation of 1791, as to what are the true boundaries of Ontario. The paper submitted to Parliament, and the Proclamation, give two limits. First. — That the boundary shall commence at the St.Lawrence at Longueuil, thence to the Ottawa Eiver, thence up the Ottawa to the head of Lake Temiscaming, and thence in a line "due north until it strikes the boundary line of Hudson B.iy" — not, ofthe Hudson Bay Company's territory. And we have ia the Commissions to the Governors-General, as the Attorney-General has stated, a further interpretation of (a) 2 Peters, U.S., 254, (6) Books and Documents, p. 388. ,(») Ibid, p. 411. (d) Ibid, p. 27. (e) Ibid, pagts 48-53. 334 the word "boundary" — the use ofthe word " shore." From 1791 to 1846 every ¦comraission issued by the Crown, contains the expressions, " strikes the boundary line," or "strikes" or "reaches" the "shore of Hudson Bay." No less than eighteen Commissions issued by the Crown of England to the Governors between those dates use the terms " strikes " or " roaches " the boundary line or the shore of Hudson B:iy. Therefore we contend that the Crown of England, having what may ' be called the double sovereignty ofthe French and English Crowns in regard to that disputed southern shore of Hudson Bay — whether the former sovereignty had been admitted or denied — intended that this new Province of Upper Canada should extend to the southern shore of Hudson Bay. Second. — The Parliamentary paper and the Proclamation say, " westward to the utmost extent of the country commonly called or known by the name of Canada," Now, the Crown here uses a word which the Crown had knowledge of. In the nego tiations with the French King, the Crown had been contending for the cession of the country called or known by the name of " Canada." It had obtained, first by con quest, and then by treaty, the territory or country called or known by the name of " Canada." Now, the limits of CaUada were known either from description in State documents, or from a known extent of territory — known to the Crown and tothe officers of the Crown — or known by localities which had certain names admitted to be within the territory or country called or known by the narae of '' Canada." To aid us in finding the extent of Canada, we may refer to maps published in England and France prior to and at the tirae of this Proclamation. We may also refer to the prior admissions or reports by the officers of the Bnglish and French Governraents ; to the works of historians and geographers, and the knowledge acquired by the actual experience of travellers; and from all these we can obtain with tolerable cer tainty a knowledge of the extent of the territory called or known by the name of " Canada." Now, it is not necessary, so far as this arbitration is concerned, to consider that portion south of the present boundary between the United States and ourselves, or to determine whether it was partof Canada or not, I have argued that it was ; and the United States Courts in dealing with questions of titles there have held thatthe territory lying to the east of the Mississippi waa formerly Canada, and, that the United States had succeeded to the title of the King ofFrance in that partof Canada which he had prior to the conquest by Great Britain in 1759, and which was ceded to England by the Treaty of 1763(a). So far, therefore, as that territory is con cerned, had it remained the property of England it would have become part of the new Province under the term " Canada," us^ in the proclamation of 1791. North of the line of the Mississippi, and north of what is now the international boundary, there vvere French forts or trading posts. These French forts — Port Bourbon, Fort Dauphin, Fort La Eeine, Fort Eouge, Port St. Charles, Fort Maurepas, Fort St. Pierre and Fort Kaministiquia — appear on both French and English maps published prior and subsequent to the surrender of Canada. Now, to what sovereign did these forts belong? Did they belong to the Sovereign of Bngland or of France? Were they occupied by Bnglish or by French subjects? Every record we have, whether taken from Bnglish or French sources, adnjits that these forts were French, that all through that interior western country the French had established their posts, had carried on trade with the Indians, and wore moro adventurous than the Bnglish. The Eno-lish had simply occupied a scattered fringe of posts on the shores of Hudson Bay, -while the French had gone into the interior of the country, had established these trading posts, and by virtue oftheir establishment bad occupied the territory with tho know ledge and tacit acquiescence of the English— if the Bnglish had been entitled by the posse^sion of the coasts to that interior country, — had occupied the interior portions of;^ the country, and raade settleraents, and had therefore acquired for the King of France tho dorainion and sovereignty of that territory. That interior territory, therefore, as part of the territory of Canada, was surrendered under the Treaty of 1763. I think that this is put beyond question by tiie articles of capitu- (a) Duited States vs. Repetmgy, 5 Wallace, U.S., '211. lation between the Marquis de Vaudreuil and General Amher.it. Article 3 mentions the posts situated on the frontiers— Detroit, Miohilmackinac, and other posts. Article 25 provides for the affairs of tho trading company known as the Indian or Quebec ¦Company, referred to in the Treaty of Utrecht. ' Article 37 provides that the Cana dians and French " settied or trading in the whole extent of the Colony of Canada," ehall preserve peaceable possession of their goods, both movable and unmovable ; they shall also retain the furs in the " posts above " which belong to them, and those which may be on their way to Montreal ; and they shall have leave to send eanoes to fetch furs which shall have remained in tho posts. Theso particular references to the settiements and posts in the countries above, clearly point to the French trading posts on Lake Superior and in the country west of that Lake. Then, we huve the map which is printed in the Dominion case, which shows that whatever may have been the dispute between the Marquis de Vaudreuil and General Amherst as to tho Mississippi, the Marquis admitted that the jvestern boundary of Canada extended to Eed Lake— a lake immediately south of the Lake of the Wood.s. Thoy did not dis pute as to the territories north of |,that lake; and the terms of the capitulation covered the posts and forts in the countries above, which posts and forts were those I have mentioned, some of which were in what has since been known as the Ked Eivor Temtory. After these admissions by the Marquis de Vaudreuil on behalf of the King of France, respecting " the posts and countries above," could the French be heard con tending that the country within which these posts and settlements were to be found, was not a portion of Canada ? French officers had established posts there for the benefit of the Government of Canada. A trade was carried on between those posts and Montreal, and by distinct references, in the terms of the cajjitulation, provision was made respecting the French subjects and their property and furs therein, which would have been improper unless as referring to the territory of Canada then surren dered to the British Crown, The only dispute between the British and French was whether the south-westerly boundary should be along the Eiver Ohio or along the Eiver Mississippi. Then, if those western posts and seltlements formed part of the country eommonly called or known by the narae of " Canada," clearly they were included in the boundaries of Upper Canada, by the Procla mation of 1791. Fort Nepigon, Fort Karainistiquia — tracing them westward, Ports St. Pierre, St. Charles, La Eeine, Maurepas, Dauphin, Bourbon, — some of thera on Lake Superior, others on Pigeon Eiver and the Lake of the Woods, Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba. The evidence that these forts did exist is found not only in the documents furnished to the Arbittetors, but sorae of them are referred to in Sir Alexander Mackenzie's travels. The preface to his work contains the fol lowing statement at page Ixv. : " Fort Dauphin, which was established by the French before the conquest ; " and again, at page Ixxiii. : " It may be ^jroper to observe that the French had two settlements upon the Saskatchiwine long before and at the con- -quest of Canada, tbe first at the Pasquia, near Carrot Eiver, and the other at Nepawi, where they had agricultural instruraents aud wheel carriages, markrf of both being- found about those establishments, whore the soil is excellent." The Nepawi settle ment mentioned by Mackenzie ia Fort St. Louis, or Nipeween, on the Saskatchewan. He also refers to Fort Kaministiquia as having been under the French Goverument -of Canada, Now, the Dorainion case a8.serts a general principle of international law, which, if there was no countervailing doctrine or fact against it, would be held to be clearly applicable to cases where there was only the simple fact of possession. " When a nation takes possession of a country with a view to settle there, it takes possession of everything included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers, etc." That is true to a limited ¦extent; but this other doctrine is also true: that where the subjects of another Crown take possession of the same territory — cither close to the settleraents origin ally made by tho first di,scoverers, or get by sorao raeans into the interior of that territor3', to the head waters of the rivers which flow down through the territory first settled — the subjects of the other Crown become entitled to that possession and 336 territory if they are allowed to remain undisturbed, and their Sovereign becomes 1 entitled to the dorainion over that territory. I quote first from Twiss on the Law of Nations in Time of Peace, page 166 : " When discovery has not been immediately followed by settlement, but the fact of discovery has been notified, other nations by courtesy pay respect to the notiticaiion ; and the usage of nations has been to pre- .sume that settlement will take place within a reasonable time; but unless discovery has been followed, within a reasonable time, by some sort of settlement, the pre sumption arising out of notification is rebutted by non-user, and lapse of time gives rise to the opposite presumption of abandonment " He then quotes tiie argument of the Bnglish Plenipotentiaries at the conference between Great Britain and the United States, in 18:^6, that it is only in proportion as first discovery is followed by exploration; by formally taking possession in the name of the discovei er's Sovereign ;, by occupation and settlement more or less permanent; by purchase of the territory on receiving tbe sovereignty from the nation, or sorae of these acts, that the title is. strengthened and confirmed. The rule is further stated in Vattel's Law of Nations, page 170 : " If, at the same tirae, two or more nations discover and take possession of an island or other desert land without an owner, they ought to agree between theraselves and raake an equitable partition; but if they cannot agree, each will have the right of empire and' domain in the parts in which they have first settled." Apnly this to the case of the- Bnglish and Fiench struggling for the right of possession and soverignty over this northern continent. Admit that the English did make discoveries and settlements on the shoies of Hudson Bay. The .P'rench, prior to that, had made settlements along the St. Lawrence and up towards Hudson Bay, and subsequently within the' interior of the country where tbe rivers flowing into Hudson Bay took their rise.' The two nations should agree as to their limits; but if they do not or cannot agree,' each nation has the right of empire in the part respectively fir.st settled by it«- subjects. The Bnglish will thus be entitled lo so much of the shores of the Bay and of the interior country as will not interfere with the possessory rights of the French at the Bay and in the west. The French will have the right to the territoi-y they had settled npon, and up to such a line, as the Chief Justice relerred to when he Suggested the illustration of a line along the middle of a river; so that it ranst he between the English settlements on the Bay and the French settlements on the Bay and in the interior that the line should be drawn. The Bnglish, after making a few sraall settlements on the shores of the Bay, rested there for" years, and neglected to take possession of the interior. The French then took possession ; and the eff'ect of those acts of the two nations is governed by the rule- thus stated by Vattel, at page 171: "It may happen that a nation is contented with possessing only certain places, or appropriating to itself certain rights in a country which has not an owner, without being solicitous to take possession of the wholo country. In this case another nation raay take possession of what the first has neglected; but this cannot he done without allowing all the rights acquired by the first to subsist in their fulland absolute independence ;" that is, to the extent of the territory thoy have acquired, or to the middle line between the two territories. And it is interesting to find the opinion of an English Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, affirm ing a principle which has since been recognized as the correct one by writers on international law.— In Twiss on the Law of Nations, at page 173, we find the follow ing: Wheu Mendoza, the Spanish Ambassado-, remonstrated against the expedition of Drake, Queen Elizabeth replied that she " knew no right that the Spaniards had to any places, otber than those they were in actual possession of. Forthat they having touched' only here and there upon a coast, and given names to a few rivers and capes,,! were such insignificent things as could in no wise entitle to a propriety, iurthor than'j in parts where they actually settled and continued to inhabit." Again Twi.ss says, at-: pagel7o: " Settlement, when it has supervened on di.scovery, consitules a perfect titie; but a title by settlement, when not combined with a tiUe by discovery, is in itself iraperfect, and its immediate validity will depend upon one or other condition: thatthe right of discovery hasbeen waved, rfey«/-« by no«-Mser, or that the right of 337 occupamy has been renounced de facto, by the abandonment of the territory," "Again tbe presumption of law will always be in favor of a title by settlement.'* "Where a title by settlement is opposed to a title by discovery, although no conven tion can be appealed to in proof of the discovery having been waived, still a tacit acquiesi'cnce on the part ofthe nation that asserts the discovery, during a reasonable lap.se of time since the settleraent has tiken place, will bar its claim to disturb the settlement." Wheaton, referring to this rule, says on page 220: "This rule is founded upon the supposition, confirmed by constant experience, that every persou will naturally seek to enjoy that which belongs to him ; and the inference — fairly to he drawn from his silence and neglect — of an original defect in his title or his inten tion to relinquish it." Thus tbe Arbitrators will see that international law has incorporated the same doct'ine of pescription as that which prevails in the municipal courts of every civilized community. Assuming that the Hudson Bay Company bad the right under their charter to go up those rivers which flowed into Hudson Bay, and settle the country, did they exercise that right or did they acquiesce in another nation taking that right from thera ? Clearly, they did so acquiesce. They knew that the French had gone inland to the heads ofthe rivers flowing into Hudson Bay, and were trad ing with the Indians there ; tbey knew that the French had established their forts and posi s there ; and they knew that theso forts and posts indicated an occupation and sottlement of the territory ; and they knew all the legal results flowing frora that occupation and settleraent, which gave the French King proprietary and sovereign righis there; and they acquiesced in thati occupation from the time the French settlements wore made, and bad aequiesced in it, up to the time of the cession of Canadain i763 ; and the Hudson Bay Company, and those, who now claim under them, cannot be heard asserting to-day that thera was no acquiescence, and that there was uo rum.-user of the right which the charter gave them, of going into the interior and i)i-i-up\ ing this territory as their own. The Hudson's Bay Company, and the Dominion as claiming under them, assert title to the height of land or watershed line, on the ground that having taken possession ofthe mouths of certain rivers at Hud son Bay, they wore entitled to ail tbe lands watered by the rivers flowing into the Bay. A similar ground was taken bj' the United States in 1827, but Twiss (p. 174) combats it, and shows it to be irreconcilable with other rules of international law to which all nations agree. And referring to the arguraent founded upon the grants in such charters as that to the Hudson Bay Company, he says (p. 173): "Those charters had no valid force or effect against the subjects of otber Sovereigns, but could only bind and restrain, vigore suo, those who were within the jurisdiction of the grantor ofthe charters ; and that although they might confer upon the grantees an exclusive title against the subjects of the sarae Sovereign power, they could only affect tbe subjects of o her sovereign powers so far as the latter raight be bound, by the coraraon law of nations, to respect acts of discovery and occupation effected by members of other indepen.lent political communities." Apply these doctrines to the case of the Province, and the result is clear. We have established the fact of the early surrender of the Indian title to the territory around the southern shores ot Hudson or Janaes' Bay tothe French King; the tact of the actual sotilement and occupation of these interior posts by the French, and which, according to the rules of international law, had made that territory part of Canada or New blance. We stand on the territorial righis which the French King had thus acquired ; which the French King, in 1763, ceded to the English Crown as Canada, with all its dependencies and its settlements and. posts in the »vho!e extentof the Colony of Canada ; which by the (inebec Act and Comini -sions to Governors, became the north-western jiart ofthe P ovince ot (iuebec ; whieh, by tho O.der in Council and Proclamation ot 1791, and the Commissions to Governors, becarae the former Province ot Upper Canad.-i, and which, by the Briti-h North America Act,. has now become tho territorial extent of the Province of Ontario. 1- 22 338 9.— PEELIMINAEY MEMOEANDUM BY THE HONORABLE WM, MCDOUGALL, O.B., FOR THE INFORMATION OP HIS EXCELLENCY THE i.IEUTENANT-QOVERNOR OF ONTARIO, ON THE SUBJECT OP THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OP THE PROVINCE. The undersigned, appointed a Commissioner for .the Provinceof Ontario to act in oonjunction with a Coraraissioner on behalf of the Dominion " in the matter of the settlement of the boundary line between Ontario and the North-West Territories,,"! has the honor, in compliance with the request of the Provincial Secretary, communi cated to hira by letter bearing date the 5tb March, 1872, to subrait the following memorandum upon the subject ofthe " North-West Boundary." As the undersigned has not yet been put in communication with the Commissioner ? on behalf of the Dominion, he is unable to subrait a report in conjunction with that officer. A preliminary statement of his own views as to the true position of the western boundary line of the Province, and a brief reference to the authorities and proofs which he has thus far been able to collect in support of the conclusions at which he has arrived, will probably meet the wishes of the Government as expressed in the letter of the 5th inst. It will be convenient to consider, in the first place, the western boundary as dis tinguished from the north-western or northern boundary of the Province. There are four possible lines, any of which, it raay be contended with more or less plausibility, is the western boundary of Ontario. 1. The meridian of 88° 50" west from London, or a line due north from the mouth of the Ohio Eiver ; , 2. A line commencing at the height of land, west of Lake Superior, at the inter national boundary, and following the water-shed of that lake, in a north-easterly •direction, to the southern limit of Eupert's Land wherever that may be found; 3. A line from "the moat north-western point ofthe Lake ofthe Woods," north ward to the southern lirait of Eupert's Land." 4. A line northward from the source of the Mississippi Eiver to the southern lirait of Eupert's Land. There is at least a difference of six degrees of longitude between thefii-st or most eastern, and the last, or raost western, of these lines. In other words, the adoption of the last raentioned line would give to the Province three hundred miles of territory on the west, which would be cut off by the adoption of the first line, including Thunder Bay, and nearly all the mineral lands which have been aurveyed or sold in that neighborhood. (1.) It is contended by some that the first, or Ohio Eiver meridian, is the true legal boundary of Ontario on the west, because the Imperial Act of 1774, known as the Quebec Act, defined the boundary of Canada after it reached the north-west angle ofthe Province of Pennsylvania, as follows : — " And thence along the western boundary of the said Province (of Pennsylvania) until it strikes the Eiver Ohio, and along the bank of the said river westward to the banlcs of the Mississippi, and northward to the southern boundary of the territory, granted to the Merchant Adventurers trading to Hudson Bay." If by the word ''northward" the Imperial Parliament meant north or due north,] ,{as the Court of King's Bench for Lower Canada, held in the trial of de Eeinhard in' 1818), then the meridian of 80° 50" (or whatever the meridian of the right bank of. Ohio at ils junction with the Mississippi may be ascertained to bo), wilfbe tho line which, in 1774, forraed the western boundary of Canada. In the opinion of the undersigned, the "word " northward " in the Act of 1774, Eiver Mississippi, and north- ¦ ward to the southern boundary ofthe territory granted to the Merchant Adventurers' of England trading to Hudson Bay. (See copy among the Chisholm Papers, Parlia mentary I;ibrary, Ottawa.) It will be seen that this definition of boundary would carry the liraitary line ou the wesf to the sarae point (on the parallel of latitude which cuts the most north-! western point of the Lake of the Woods) at which the Act of 1774 intended to place it, naraely the Mississippi Eiver, But it was afterwards discovered that the Mis^ sissippi Eiver had its source two degrees to the south ofthis parallel. In the Treaty of Amity, &c., between Great Britain and the United States, of 1794, an article (4) was inserted, admitting a doubt on this point, and providing for a joint survey of the Mississippi, and " if it should appear that the said river would not bo intersected by such a line (due west from the north-west point of Lake of the Woods) the two parties will, thereupon, proceed, by amicable negotiation, to regulate the boundary line in that quarter, as well as all other points to be adjusted between the said parties according to justice and rautual convenience, and in conforraity to the intent of the said treaty." The question was not settled till 1818, By the treatj' of that year. Great Britain surrendered to the United States all the country west of the Mississippi and south of the 49th parallel, " to the Stony Mountains." The line from Lake Superior to the most north western point of the Lake of the Woods and the 49th parallel, have since formed the international boundary in that quarter. But the western- boundary of the Province of Quebec, or, since its division into Upper and Lower Canada, of the Province of Upper Canada, was not affected by that surrender of territory. The Treaty of 1783 had given up all the country east of the Mississippi and south of the present International Line. The question, then, seems to be reduced to a single point. Must we stop in our progress westward at the most north-western point of the Jjake of the Woods, because that is tho last point or distance that can be ascertained on the ground either under the Treaty of 1783, or the Eoyal Commis sion of 1786, or raay we continue on our due west course, not to the Mississippi, but to the meridian of 95 degrees, which, according to one of the alternatives under the Act of 1794, takes the place of that river ? In tho first case, the western boundary line of Ontario will start from tho " most north-western point of the Lake of the Woods," and run northwards (which, in the absence of any natural or geographical line, must be interpreted to mean north), to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the Hudson Bay Company The "north-west angle " of the Lake of the Woods, as determined by the Com missioners appointed under the Convention of 1818, is not the most north-western point of that lake, according to Mr. Dawson and other later observers; but an official determination of the point under treaty with a foreign power will probably be deemed binding on all subordinate authorities. In the second case, the meridian of 95 degrees, or a due north line from the source of the Mississippi, will, according e 343 to the most authentic raaps, place our western boundary a few miles further west. It IS to be observed that this last mentioned line was the boundary of the Provinceof Quebec, under the Act of 1774. Was the line intended in the Treaty of 1783, and ill the Commission to the Governor, Sir Guy Carleton, in 1786. It is the western limitary hne ofthe "Canada" of official designation and legal jurisdiction, and it remains unchanged to this day by any Act of Parliaraent or exercise of " the plea sure " of the Crown. In conclusion, the undersigned would observe that the elaborate Eeport of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, in 1857 ; the instructions to Chief Justice Draper, the Agent of Canada in England; and the Minute of Council, apijroved by thi Governor, Sir Edmund Head, ahow that the Government of Canada of that day con tended for a atiU more western line. Tbe approved "Minute" clairas that "the western boundary of Canada extends to the Pacific Ocean." The " Canada " referred to in the Minute and in Mr. Cauchon's Eeport was, however, the Ganada of the French, Nouvelle France ; but the Canada whose boundaries we have now to deterraine is the Ganada of the British, after the whole country east of the Mississippi had becorae British by the Treaty of 1:6 i. It is the Canada whose limits were declared by Statute, by Proclamations, Comraisslons and other " acts of sovereign authority," hetween that date (176.^) and the passing of the British North Araerica Act of 1867. Many additional facts raight be adduced and statutes and docuraents cited, to support the position that the western boundary cf Ontario ia at leaat as far west as the raost north-western point of the Lake of the Woods; but the course of its pro longation northwards is a question of legal inference. Its distance from tbe Inter nationa,] boundary to the southern boundary of Eupert's Land will depend on the determination of a rauch more difficult question, viz. : Where is the southern boundary of Eupert's Land. A satisfactory answer to this question will, probablj^, never be given ; but before it can even be suggested, with any approach to historical or legal certainty, an examination of the map,s, records and docuraents in the custody of the Hudson Bay Company will be necessary. As the Company have no longer an interest in main taining the extravagant territorial claim put forward by them in recent tiraes, such an examination would, no doubt, be readily perraitted to any representative of the Province or the Dorainion. 10.— MBMOEANDU M. BY WM. MCD. DAWSON, SUPERINTENDENT OP WOODS AND FORESTS, TORONTO, 1857. The Commiaaioner of Crown Landa subraits the following remarks on the JNorth- West Territories of Canada, Hudson Bay, the Indian Territories and the Ques tions of Boundary and Jurisdiction connected therewith to accompany the other Documents : Tbe question now under special consideration has more p ,. t -p particular reference to the subject of the renewal of a lease Na™!? 0^1842^^''^ ^^^'^ V t^e Hudson Bay Company for the "Indian Territories," which are not considered to be within the boundaries of Canada, though subject to Canadian jurisdiction. But the Hudson Bay Company's " Map and Statement of Eights," under their original charter, as submitted to the Imper- Pariiamen tary Papers jai Government in 1850 by Sir J. H. Pelly, the Chairraan of the No. 542 of 1850. Company, has also, however, to be considered in connection with it. It becomes necessary therefore to expose the fallacies of the " Stateraent of Eights and Map " referred to, in order that the rights of the Province may not be misunderstood or the pretentions of the Company taken for granted. 344 The rights of the Hudson Bay Company and the effect of their operations upon tho interests of Canada will best be considered under the following separate heads, ¦ viz. : First.— With respect to their operations under the original charter on the terri tories affected thereby. Second,— With respect to their operations within the boundaries of this Pro vince. Third. — With respect to their operations on what has been termed the Indian Territories, now under lease to them. Fourth. — Arisino out of the foregoing, the more important question of the boundaries of the above territorial divisions ; and Fifth. — With respect to jurisdiction as exercised and as sanctioned by law. OPSIRATIO.VS OP THE COMPANY ON THEIR OWN TERRITORIES. On the first head, as legards their operations under their charter on the terri tories which, if valid, it would cover, it is a raatter of very secondary importance to Canada. The territories of tho Hudson Bay Company, taken at the largest extent which any sound con=itruction of their charter in connection with international rights would warrant, if not in point of distance so very remote, are nevertheless so situated, that it can only be when all the localities to the south and west, raore avail able for purposes of agriculture and settlement, have been filled „ „ to overflowing, that settlers may be gradually forced into that eo. . r ap. . yjQJjjj^y from the superabundant population of raore favored countries. The most direct interest that Canada could have in the matter at the present moment, being responsible for the administration of justice there, would be rather of a moral and political than of an interested or commercial character. But as the necessities of the Corapany, in whose hands a raonopoly of the _, _, trade has practically existed since the Treaty of Utrecht, to- - eo. , ap. . gg^ijgj, yf\i]^ (hg powers which they profess to derive from their charter, has induced thera to establish a jurisdiction which, for the moment, seems to have been successful in raaintaining tranquility and order, ¦Canada has had no special reason to intervene, though if any complaints had been miide on this score she would of course have felt called upon to exercise the powers vested in her by Imperial Statutes. It is not indeed to be denied that tho freedom of the trade, consisting of furs aud fisheries, would bo of advantage to this country; but as this involves a question of the validity of the charter, and whether or not, if valid in respect of the territory really aff'ected by it, it would also affect the open sea ofthe Bay, and seeing that the question is not row raised of any further legislation to give effect to the powers it jjrofesses to confer, the consideration of this point is immaterial at the present moment compared with the moro important subjects that have to be treated of. OPERAl'IONS OF THE COMPANY ON CANADIAN TERRITORIES. The second point to be taken into consideration, and which is of a more impor tant nature, is that which affects tho operations ofthe Company within the bound aries of Canada, and on this head i^t must be admitted that they have had every facility they could possibly enjoy in tho'r own territories, if such exist : whether on the coasts of Labrador, Lakes Huron, Superior or Winnipeg; whether on the Saguanay, the St. Maurice, the Ottawa, the Red Eiver, tho Assiniboine or tho Saskatchewan, wherever they have operated within the boundaries of Canada, they have had pre-^l cisely the same scope as within their own territories on the shores of Hudson Bay;| 3U- organization, with which no rival traders were able to compete, unless indeed to a very limited extent in the iraraediate vicinity of the settiements. There are indeed parts of the Province so remote from established settle ments and having so little direct intercourse with them, that in former years it might have been to some extent a tax upon the country to have established tribunals sufficient to enforce the laws over regions inhabited only, with one exception, by the servants of the Company and the Indians, though it raay now be reasonably questioned whether corresponding benefits would not have accrued frora such a course, while it must be adraitted that the Company have, at all events, reaped a profit, taking together the costs they havo been put to frora the want of legal tri bunals and the monopoly of the trade which the non-organization of such tribunals has practically been the means of enabling them to enjoy. Tbe exception referred to, where a considerable settlement exists, besides the employees of the Company and the Indians, is the Eed Eiver country. But the time has passed when any considerations of expense or temporary incon venience, even if proved to exist, can be allowed to stand in the way of opening up those territories, when indeed the necessity for expansion compels the Provincial Government to create further facilities for it; and as an additional reason why the Government should no longer permit the present state of things to continue, it must ho added that rumors have been gaining ground of late years, with a force and clear ness which almost corapel conviction, that the jurisdiction actually exercised in those reraote localities has been as contrary to the wishes of the people^as it has been manifestly without the sanction of law, all which has created a necessity for early investigation and action on the part of the Canadian Government, With this view, preparations were made in the Crown Lands Department last summer, for a preliminary survey from the head of Lake Superior westward, prepara tory to the opening of free grant roads, which have been so successful in other parts •of the country, for the purpose of forming the nucleus of a settlement which would gradually penetrate to the valUsy of the Eed Eiver and the prairies beyond. Besides which a first-class thoroughfare would be necessary to aftbrd easier means of com munication with the navigable waters flowing to tbe west, &c., to facilitafe the admin istration of justice in the distant settlements and the necessary intercourse generally between those parts and the raore populous districts of the country, and which would, at the sarae time, throw open to emigration, agriculture and commerce a far larger area, with, at kast, an equal average mildness of climate, and susceptible of more rapid' development (a known characteristic of prairie countries), than all other parts of the Pnjvince heretofore rendered available for settlement. The question of the renewal of the license of exclusive trade on the Indian Ter ritories does not, of course, affect the country above referred to, any more than it does the lands, whatever they be, for they have never boen defined upjii author ity, which tbe original charter of the Hudson Bay Company may, ujjon investigation, be construed to cover. OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY ON THE INDIAN TERRITORIES, The third point is, for the moment, of loss iraportance than the last, though within the period of another such lease as the Act 1 and 2 Geo. 4, cap. 66, authorizes, itwould be impossible to calculate the immense influence it must have upon the future of this couiitrj', and the British institutions which have taken root so deeply and thrive so nobly on its soil. The present operations of the Hudson Bay Company on these "Indian Territories" are conducted on the same principle precisely as within the boundaries of Canada, the jurisdiction they exercise having heretofore had the excuse of necessity, if not the sanction of law, as so far and it can be shown to have been exercised to the benefit of those countries, the Company inight fairly claim indemnity for the consequences, should that becorae necessary, and there is no reason to doubt either the generosity or the justice of the Legislature if called upon to ratify such a measure. 346 It now becomes necessary, under the fourth head, to treat the questions of boundary arising out of the three foregoing ; and these questions have heretofore, been so little understood, that it will be necessary to enter into the subject at some length. The difficulty of describing definite boundaries in countries, which, at the time, were but very imperfectly or partially known, has always been a raatter of serious embarrassrnent. In the present instance, however, the difficulties can only be in natters of detail, and it raay be safely assuraed that they will be still further leaaened, by the fact, that wherever uncertainty can he aupposed to prevail in any point of real iraportance, it can only be betweenthe Province of Canada, on the one hand, and tho " Indian Territories," on the other (not between Canada and the Territories of the Hudson Bay Corapany, unless at a point of comparatively little consequence) ; and it would be difficult to conceive that it could be adverse to the interests of the Crown or the comraunity if the principal question of boundary were sunk altogether, and tho whole of the "Indian Territories" incorporated with this Province. BOUNDARY OF THE COMPANY'S TERRITORIES UNDER CHARTER OF 1670. In the first place, then, with respect to the territory affected by tho charter of the Hudson Bay Company, it may be admitted that it would not only be difficult, but absolutely impossible, to define it; it is, therefore, fortunate that its liraited extent renders the question of little importance, further than that it becomes necessary to consider and rebut the very large pretensions of the Company, The extent of the territory affected by the charter is subject to two distinct con ditions : First. — It is confined to all such territory as was then the property of the donor. Second. — It is confined to all such unknown territories as by the discoveries of the Company, his subjects, might become his property. These distinctions, though not directly expressed, are, nevertheless, conditions resulting from the circurastances and necessary to a proper understanding of the case. With respect to the first, viz. : the territory which was the property of the donor, it is necessarily limited by usage and by comraon sense to what was known or dis covered, for the unknown and undiscovered could not be his property, and raight never becorae his property, that being dependant upon circumstances then in the future; is further limited by specific condition, expressed in the charter itself, to such portions of what was then known as did not belong to any other Christian Prince, which condition, it must be admitted, was an acknowledgment on the part of the donor, that some part of the territory he was describing was not hia, and of doubt as to what did; or did not belong to him. With respect to the extent of territory that might have been affected by the second condition above stated (that is as regards exclusive trade, the grant of soil being less extensive and raore arabiguous) it has no particular limit, for it embraces all countries which could be reached either by " water or land " through Hudson Straits, and toJimit or extend it raerely to the sources of rivers discharging into Hudson Baj', would be a construction which the charter will in no sense admit of. But while it extends to all unknown countries, or infidel nations, which the Corapany could reach through Hudson Straits or Bay, it is at the same time inforentially and necessarily restricted from extending to any of these unknown parts which raight be first discovered and possessed by the subjects of any otber Christian Prince or State. This is not, indeed, expressed in the charter in relation to undiscovered territories; but it ia emphatically so as regards the then state of the rights and possessions of christian powers. While the King, therefore, is ao careful, at least in tbe wording of the docuraent, not to infringe upon the rights of others already acquired, it can scarcely be supposed that he meant to infringe upon the rights of others to acquire what then belonged to none. The inference is altogether against the supposition that King Charles meant by his charter to deny the right of any other civilized nation to make 347 further discoveries and appropriate the countries discoverd, and, even if he had so intended it, he had not the power to alter the law of nations in this respect. Besides, the charter ia one of discovery as well as trade, &c. ; the advantages granted to tho " adventurers " are incidental and subordinate to that greater object, but there could be no discovery on their part wherever they were preceded by prior discovery and possession on the part ofthe subjects of any other Christian Prince. The right of dis covery is and waa ao well established, and wherever considered of any iraportance, has been so jealously watched that volumes of diplomatic controversy have been written on single cases of dispute, and the King of Great Britain could not, by his charter, annul the recognized law of nations, or limit in any degree the right of other states to discover and posaess countriea then unknown. It may be even considered extravagant to affirm -that he could convey a right of property to territories not then but which raight afterwards become his or his successors' by the prior discovery and possession of the Company theraselves, his subjects: were it necessary to dwell upon this point it could easily be shown that most ofthe territories now claimed under the charter, which were not discovered at that date, the Company were not afterwards the first, nor were any other British subjects the discoverers of; that, in fact, except the Coppermine Eiver, the Corapany never discovered anything or penetrated beyond the coasts and confines of the Bay (to which perhaps they at that tirae justly considered their rights restricted) for upwards of a hundred years after the date of their charter, and that wheu they did so penetrate, the only discovery they made was that the whole country in the interior had been long in the peaceful possession of the subjects of another Christian Prince. But the position, as regards discovery after the date of the charter, it is unneces sary to dwell upon, particularly as an adverse title can be proved prior to to the date ofthe charter, and that, too, sanctioned by. treaty. The early discovery and occupation of the country in and about Hudson Bay are, as in many other cases, shrouded in a good deal of obscurity. The British claim as the first discoverers of the whole coast of this part of North America,^ 1497. in the persons of John and Sebastian Cabot, about the year 1497, but it ia contended, on the other hand, that their diacoveries did not extend to the north of Newfoundland, which still retains the name they gave it and, which they supposed to forra part ofthe mainland. It is said, indeed, that the Cabots pene trated to a very high latitude far to the north ofthe straits now bearing the narae of Hudson ; but it must be remarked that there apj^ear to be no authentic records of the two voyages ofthe Cabots, their journals or observations. There appears to be only hearsay evidence of what they did, or where they went, told afterwards at second hand to third parties. The voyages of the Cabots, therefore, although they are matters of history not admitting of any reasonable doubt in a general way, aa to their hav ing reached the coast of America, lose much of their force as the bases of specific territorial claims, from the want of any record of their proceedings. Did they ever land ? If so, where ? What observations did they make ? Did they take forraal possession ? &c. The French claim through fishermen of Brittany who established 1504. fisheries on the coast as early as 1504, and through a map published by 1506 Jean Deny, of Hon fleur, in 1506. The map would be valuable if any authentic copy of it be extant. There does not apjiear to be any such record of the operations of the Breton fisherraen as would fix precisely the spot where their trade was carried on, though a British geographical Ogilby, London, 1671. work, published in 1671, with a raap attached, fixes it at Hud eon Straits, naming the country after them, on the south side- of the Straits and within the Bay. The next navigator through whom the French claim is maintained is John Verezzani, who visited the country by order of Francis tbe First of France, in 152H-4. 1523-4. This is the first voyage in behalf of either France or England, of which any authentic and circumstantial record exists, as written by the navigator himself, who gave the coun- 348 , ..J . try the name of New France. In 1 534, Jacques Cartier's discoveries com- ' menced, and these are so well known that is it unnecessary to sa,y more of them. Thus, then, it appears that tho Cabot's voyages, unsustained by any authentic record, atfording no means of basing even a probable surmise as to whether so much iis a landing was effected, formal possession taken, or any act done to constitute the assumption of sovereignty or territorial dominion, comprise the only grounds on which England can base a claira to the country north, of Newfoundland, prior to the voj'age of Jacques Cartier. Apart, therefore, from the question of " beneficial interests " (to use the Oregon Negooiations. expression of a British diplomatist) which were acquired by France, commencing with tho discoveries of Cartier, the prepon derance of admissible evidence is altogether in favor of French discovery of that part of tbe continent between Newfoundland and Hudson Bay. But, even if the question rested altogether between the unauthenticated discoveries ofthe Cabots and the coraraencement of settlement by Cartier, it would not be inap propriate to assume the British view of a similar question as maintained in the Oregon dispute, in ttie following words: " In the next place, it is a circumstance not to be lost sight of, that it (the dis- " covery by Gray) was not for several j-ears followed up by any act which could give ¦' it value in a national point of view ; it was not in truth made known to the world " either by the discoverer himself or by his Government." The next English atterapts at discovery coramenced in 1553, when 1553. Willoughby penetrated to the north of Hudson Bay, which, however, he did not discover or enter. This was nineteen years after Jacques Cartier's first voyage, and was followed by various other attempts at finding a north-west passage, all apparently directed to tbe north of Hudson Straits until 1610, the period of Hudson's voyage, in which he perished after wintering in the bay which 1610. bears his name ; but by this time, it must be observed that Canada was colonized by the French. In 1540, De Eoberval was made Viceroy of Canada, the de- 1540 JetTerv's 98 ^C'ptioti of which as given in his Commission included Hudson P ¦ Bay, though not then of course known by that name. 1 in 1.^^^^-;^ L'Escarbot gives a full description of Canada at that period of Vol l'' ^"^aj^' ^' ^e la Eoehe's appointment in 159S, as follows : "Ainsi notre Nouvelle France a pour limites du cote d'ouest les terres jusqu'a Ma mer ditePacitiquo audega du tropique du cancer; au midi les isles de la mer i! , i'"*''^"® '^'^ '^¦o'e de Cuba et I'lsle Espagnole au levant la mer du nord, qui baigne " la Nouvelle France ; et au Scptentrion cette terre, qui est dite inconnue, vers la " mer glacee jusqu'a u Pole Arctique."* Notwithstanding failures and difficulties, France continued the effort to colonize l^anada, and in 1598 De la Eoche was appointed Governor of tho whole of Canada as above described. In 1603 or 1604 the first exclusive charter was granted 160.3-4. forthe fur trade of Canada up to the 54th degree of north latitude. In 1608 Champlain founded the City of Quebec, and in 1613 ho accompanied 1608 W^ Indian allies, to the number of between two or three thousand, up the Ottawa and by Lake Nippissing and the French Eiver, to war with a hostile nution at Sault Ste. Marie. It raust now be observed that the 1613. great incentive to the colonization of Canada was the enormous profits of the fur trade, without which it is scarcely likely that s'u^h persevering •efforts would havo boon made forthat purpose while so many countries with more genial climates remained in a raanner unappropriated. ? Therefore, New Prance has for Boundaries on the west the Pacific Ocean within the Tropic- of Cancer; on the south Ihe islands of the Atlantic towards Cuba and the Spanish Island or Hie- pamola ; on the ea«t the Northern Sea which washes its shores, embracing on the north the lands called unknown, towards the Frozen Sea, up to the Arctic Pole 349 Tadousac, at the mouth of the Sagueney Eiver, was the first iraportant post established by the French on the St. Lawrence; it was the entrepot ofthe fur trade before Quebec was founded, and continued to be so afterwards. Thia will not be deeraed extraordinary when it is considered thatthe Saugenay Eiver afforded the best means of access into the interior, and was the best inland route, in fact, ia tbe best canoe route yet to the great bay now bearing the name of Hudson. There ia indeed no authentic lecord of any ofthe French having made an overland journey to the Bay at so early a period, but when it is considered at what an early date the Cowyeur rfe 5ofs traversed the whole country in search of peltries, how readily thoy araalgamated with the India:!8, who in that locality were in friendly alliance with them, and when it is also considered what extraordinary journeys the Indians under took, as instanced by the war carried into the enemy's country at ihe Sault Ste. Marie, already referred to, tbe presumption is that the fur traders of Tadousac not only enjoyed the trade ofthe great Bay, but raust also have penetrated very far in that direction, if not to the Bay itself, a journey at the most of loss distance and not greater difficulty than that which Champlain successfully accomplished with an army, while it had the stiong incentive of profit to stimulate it. It is not necessary, how ever, to prove that every corner of the country known to the world as New France or Canada had been first visited by the actual possessors of the region so known However strong the probabilities, therefore, of the Goureur des Bois having been in communioation with the great northern bay before the visit of Hudson, in 1610-1612. 1610, or of Button, who succeeded him, in 1612, it is not necessary to base any argument thereon ; nor is it necessary to dwell on the reputed 1545. voyage of Jean Alphonse, of Saintongo, in 1545, which, although quoted by French historians, does not appear to be sufficiently authenticated For, granting that the rights accruing from discovery resulted frora the voyages of Hudson and Button, these discoveries were practically abandoned, in fact, were never dreamt of being followed up by way of occupation, the finding of a north-west passage having been their sole object; but, waiving even this point, it will be found that the rights of France were made good by internalional treaty long belore tho charter of Charles the Second was granted. It will be seen from L'Bscarbot's description, and those contained in the Com missions of the Governors already referred to, that France claimed tbe whole countiy extending to the north of Hudson Bay, her title resting, in the first instance, upon the diacoveries already mentioned, ofwhich those of Verezzani, Cartier and Cham plain are of unquestioned authenticity, to which they had a ided, when L'Escarbot wrote in, 1611, the title resulting from actual possession in tbe shape of permanent settlement. England, on the other hand, claiming under Cabot's discovery, denied the right of France generally to the whole and practically to the raore southerly parts where she endeavored to plant settleraents of ber own, in which she was success ful at a period somewhat later than the French. The fact ia, each was trying to grasp more than they could take actual possession of; and if mere discovery of parts of a continent without actual possession or settleraent were made the basis of perman ent lights, neither ofthe contending parties would, perhaps, have had any right at all. Gradually, the state of the actual possessions of tbe two powers settled down into a sort of intelligible shape, though without any very distinct boundaries, the raost northerly ofthe Bnglish possessions being known as New England, and all tbe country to the north thereof being known as New France or Canada, where tbe French only were in pobsoasion, there being no possession or settlement of any kind to the north of thom. Still, had England colonized Hudson Bay at that period and been successful in keeping actual possession ofit, she would just have had the same right to do so that she had to cidonize New England, TbatEngland persevered with extraordinary energy in trying to tind a north-wcst pas.sage tbore c-in oe no doubt, nor lioes it appear that France, though publicly cl.iiining the country, made any objection, but neither country made the most distant aitempt at settlement or actual occupation of those remote and inhospitable regions at that period. 350 1615. In 1615 another expedition was made into Hudson Bay, in 1627. search of a north-west passage by Baffin and Bylot. In 1627, the the Quebec Pur Company was forraed under the auspices of Cardinal Eichelieu and an exclusive charter granted to thera for the whole of New Prance or Canada, described as extending to the Arctic Circle. In 1629, Que- 1629. bee was taken by the British, as were also raost of the principal towns founded by the French in Acadia and Nurerabega (now Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), which were then Provinces of New France, the two nations being then at war. In 1631 Fox and James, on two different expeditions, pro- 1631. secuted a further search for a north-west passage in Hudaon Bay, and from the latter of these navigators the southerly part of the Bay, takes its name. At this period the authenticated voyages of the English into Hudson Bay were Hudson in 1610, Button in 1612, Bylot and Baffin in 1615, and Fox and Jaraes in 1631; the numerous other expeditions having been all apparently directed to the north of Hudson Straits . At the sarae tirae, the extent of New France or Canada, as clairaed by the French, was publicly known throughout the civilized nations of Europe. It is not necessary to say that that claira was admitted by Great Britain; it is sufficient that it was known, British authorities even of a later period, it must be observed, have contended that the French were intruders in America altogether in violation of the title accrued through the discoveries of the Cabots, and had no right whatever to any part of it until acquired by treaty. It therefore becomes im material whether the claims ofthe French were disputed or not so far as they were afterwards confirmed or a title created by Treaty. 1,632. In 1632, peace was c6ncluded, and by the Treaty of St. Germain en Laye, Canada or New France was relinquished to the French without any particular designation of its limits, and the British forces were to be withdrawn from the places they had taken, which, being the most important, including the seat of governraent, raight almost be said to have amounted to the conquest ofthe whole country. Admitting, then, that but a disputed title of discovery had previously existed on either part, nay, admitting more, that the right vested by prior discovery was in England, this treaty sets the matter at rest as regards all that waa at that time called by the namo of New France, or Canada. There is, indeed, no getting behind this treaty, of which the charter afterwards granted by Charles the Second was, in fact, but for the saving clause it contains, a violation, and Canada might well be contented to rest her case here as against a charter which, reierring to a country previously guar anteed by the treaty to a foreign power is expressly conditioned (as a charter of dis covery) not to interfere with what belonged to that other power. If, as is -asserted by soraj Bnglish writers, France had no rights in Araerica but such as she acquired . by Treaty, what, it may be asked, were the liraits of the territory she acquired by the Treaty of St. Germains en Laye, if not all that she claimed under the name of New France ? It must be observed, too, that Champlain, the Viceroy of Canada, was made prisoner when Quebec, was taken in 1629, and carried to England, where he remained for some time, and that tho very year in which the treaty was entered into he published a work containing a map of New France, by which Hudson Bay was included in the country so called. Can it then for a moment be supposed, with Champlain, the Viceroy of New Prance, a prisoner in their hands, and their flag floating in triuraph frora the battlements of its capital, that the British Government and the diplomatists who negotiated the treaty were ignorant of the meaning attached to the terms " Canada " or " New France," or could attach anv other meaning to those terms than that which Champlain's published maps ofa previous date indi cated, and with which the descriptions of other French writers whose works were known throughout Europe coincided ? Can it be supposed that in the negotiations preceding the treaty, Champlain's views of the extent or boundaries of his Vice- royalty were wholly unknown, or that the British diplomatists raeant soinething less by the appellation than what was known to be understood by France ? If, in- 351 ¦deed, something less than the known extent of country called New France had been agreed upon, some explanation would undoubtedly have been contained in the treaty, or, if there had boen any misunderstanding on the subject, the map which issued the same year, in Champlain's work of 1632, would at once have been made a cause of reraonstrance, for coming from the Chief Officer of the colony, who was reappointed to or continued in his office after the peace, and published in Paris under the auspices ¦of the King, it could not be otherwise looked upon than as an official declaration of the sense in which France regarded the treaty. Even, then, if the rights of France were wholly dependant upon international treaties, her right became as good by the Treaty of St. Germains en Laye to the shores ot Hudson Bay as to the shores" of the St. Lawrence. If she had rights before, the treaiy confirmed them, and if she had no rights before, the treaty created them ; and, in either case, the effect was as great in the one locality as the other. Every further step, however, in the history ofthe country will only tend to show that even if there had been no such treaty as that of St. Germains en Laye the charter could not be sustained in opposition to the rights of France. 1632. The provisions ofthe Treaty of 163i, seem to have been respected 1668. for a period of 36 years, when, in 166S, the next .English expedition entered the Bay, which was the first trading voyage ever made l>y British subjects to the Bay, and which resulted in the formation of the Hudson Bay Cora pany and the grant of the charter two years after. In saying that this was the first purely coraraercial enterprise ofthe British in Hudson Bay,' it ia Bot raeant to be iraplied that no trade was had with the Indians by those engaged on the former expeditions, but that such enterprises were undertaken with the definite object of reaching the Pacific, and without the least idea of any practical occupation of, or trade with the country. The British having ceased any atterapt upon Hudson Bay frora the time of Fox and Jaraes' voyages and the Treaty of St. Gerraains en Laye, for a period of 36 years, it now remains to be seen what the character ofthis their next attempt was, and what had been the circumstance of the country in the interim. That the name of Canada or New France continued to attach to the whole ¦country during that period ia indisputable ; the French published maps of these times, leave no doubt upon the subject, and when we find the French not only desig- •nating the country by these names in their maps published by royal authority, but also entering upon the practical occupation ofthe since disputed parts of the country so designated, the carrying on of the trade with it both by sea and land, and the establishing of missions, all within the period intervening between the Treaty of St. •Germains en Laye and the granting of the charter, or the voyage which preceded the charter, and all without interference on the part of Great Britain, we must con clude that the rights of the .French were incontestable, and that if ever an adverse elaim had been preferred it was considered to have beeu abrogated by the treaty. In 1656 the first exclusively commercial sea voyage was made into 1656. Hudson Bay by Jean Bourdon, who found the trade in furs so profitable that others immediately followed. The first missionary establishment 1663. ^^8 made there in 1663 by La Couture, who went overland by direction of D'Avaugonr, Governor of Canada, who had been twice solicited by -deputations of Indians from the Baj"^ to send them missionaries, and now the French being fully established in the trade and in the occupation of the country both by sea and land, of the coast and of the interior, the Bnglish " Adventurers " first appear upon the scene, in a busineaa way, under the countenance of two Canadians, DeGrozelier and Eadisson, who having been already engaged in the trade of the Bay, -and having failed in procuring certain privileges they desired from their own Government, went to England and induced some Englishmen to join them 1668. jn a trading voyage in 166S, which was so successful that, as already stated, it resulted in the formation ofa Company and the grant, in 1670, Xg7() of one of those extraordinary charters which were so much in vogue in those days that the whole ofthe Continent of America north of the Gulf 352 of Mexico, known and unknown, may be said to have been covered by them, and some ofit doubly so if the vague and ambiguous descriptions, ofwhich this was the most vague, could be said to mean anything. This was the origin of the Hudson B.iy Company, and they immediately com menced to build forts and establish themselves in tbe trade, but no sooner was this known in France than orders were given to expel them. Accordingly, a desultory warfare was kept up for a number of years between the Canadian traders and the Company, in which the latter were nearly expelled, but again recovered themselves and strengthened their position, when it became necessary to take more effective means for their expulsion. Troops were accordingly dispatched from Quebec over land for that purpose under the Chevalier De Troyes, who commenced his work very effectually by taking the principal forts of tbe Company. It must be 1686. observed that thia was in 1686, in time of peace between Great Britain and France, and yet these proceedings were not made a cause of war, which in itself would strongly imply an admitted right on the part of France to ex tirpate the Corapany as trespassers upon her territory. -. j War having afterwards broken out, the forts on Hudson Bay were successively- 11 taken and retaken, 'till the peace of Eyswick, in 1697, put a atop to hos- 1697. tilities, at which time the British appear to have been jiossessed of Fort Albany only, the Canadians having possession of all the other establish ments and the trade of the Bay. ' By the Treaty of Eyswick, Great Britain and France were respectively to deliver up to each other generally Treaty of Ryswiok,Jih and ^j^atever possessions either held before the outbreak of the war, and it was specially provided that this should be ap plicable to the places in Hudson Bay taken by the French during the peace which preceded tho war, which, though retaken by the British during the war, were to be given up to the French. There could scarcely be a stronger acknowledgment ofthe right ofFrance to expel the Company as trespassers upon her soil, for it is irapossible to construe the treaty in this particular otherwise than as a justification of the act. Moreover, Coraraissioners were to be appointed, in pursuance of the treaty, to deterraine the rights and pretensions which either nation had to the places in Hud son Bay. Had these Commissioners ever met, of which there apjiears to be no record, there raight have been a decision that would have set the question at rest as to which were " n^Ate " and which were "pretensions." The Commissionera must, however, have been bound by the text of the treaty wherever it was explicit. They might have decided that France had a right to the whole, but they could tiot have decided that Great Britain had a right to x the whole. They would have been com pelled to raake over to France all the places she took during the peace which pre ceded the war, for in that the treaty left thera no discretion. The following are the words of the treaty : " But the posseaaion of those places which were taken by the Fiench during the peace that preceded this present war, and were retaken by the English during the war, shall be left to the French by virtue of the foregoing article." Thus the Treaty of Eyswick recognised and confirraed the right of Frfinco to certain places in Hudson Bay, distinctly and definitely, but it recognized no right at all on the part of Great Britain ; it raerely provided a tribunal to try whether she had any or not. So strongly has the Treaty of Eyswick been interpreted in favor of France in this particular that sorae historians merely state the fact, that by it she retained all Hudson Bay and the places of which she was in possession at the beginning of the war. The Commissioners haying apparently never met to try the question of right, .| ,; things remained m s'a^u 5'MO, and the most reliable accounts show that the Hudson J J Bay Company retained possession of Fort Albany only from th.it time up * ' IVI.3. to tho Treaiy of Utrecht, in 1713. Now, whatever the Commis-.ioner8 might havo done, had thoy ever passed udgment on the cause the treaty 353 provided they should try, they could not have given Fort Albany to the Briti.sh, for itwas one ofthe places taken by the French during the preceding peace iind r. taken by the British during the war, and therefore adjudged in direct terms of the treaty itself to belong to France. Thus, then, it will be seen that the only possession held by tho Hudson Bay Company during the sixteen years that intervened between the Treaty of Eyawick and the Treaty of Utrecht waa one to which they had no right, and which the obli gations of the treaty required should be given up to Fiance. Here, therefore, for the second time, an international treaty interposes a barrier against the pretentions of the Corapany. 1713. By the Treaty of Utrecht in. 1713, the whole of Hudson Bay was ceeded to Great Britain without any distinct definition of boundaries, for the determining ofwhich Commissioners were Treaty of Utrecht, to bo appointed. No official titutement of the action of snch Commissioners is at present available foi- reference, bui. it is stated that no such action threw any additional light ujrjn the subject. Indeed, no such Commissions ever have done much to determined bound aries in unexplored countries, as witness, for instance, the dispute so long pending on what was called the north eastern boundary question between Great Britain and the United States, which was finally compromised by the Treaty of Washington, con cluded by Lord Ashburton ; and again, the difficulties arising out of tho same ambigu ous description, and which so many Coraraissions endeavored in vain to settle between the Provinces of Canada and New Brunswick. There is no denying the fact that the ancient boundariea of Canada or New Prance were circumscribed by the Treaty of Utrecht, and it is difficult to determine precisely the new boundaries assigned to it. The general interpretation adopted by the British geographers, as the country gradually became better known from that time up to the final cession of Canada, was that the boundary ran along the high lands separating the waters that discharge into the St. Lawrence froni those that dis charge into Hudson Bay to the sources of Nipigon Eiver, and thence along the northerly division ofthe same range of high lands dividing tbe waters flowing direct to Hudson Bay frora those flowing into Lake Winnipeg and crossing the Nelson, or rather (as it was then known) the Bourbon Eiver, about midway between the said lake and bay, thence passing to the west and north by the sources of Churchill River, &c., no westerly boundary being anywhere assigned to Canada. It may, indeed, be held doubtful whether the terms in which Hudson Bay was ceded could pos.sibly be intei-preted to mean more than the Bay and its immediate environs, but whatever the legitimate interpretation ofthe treaty, the actual acceptation ot it gave to Prance at least all to the south of the dividing high lands above described, for she remained in undisputed possession thereof until the final cession of Canada, in 1763 ; while, on the other hand, the acceptation of it on the part of Great Britain, as proved by the sarae test of occupation, confined her at least to the north of tho said high lands, if not to the very shore of the Bay, beyond which her actual possession never extended. It must here be observed, however, that the Treaty of Utrecht confeiTed nothing upon the Hicdson Bay Company. It gave them nothing that wasnot theirs at the Iteaty of Eyswick, and the Treaty of Eyswick gave them nothing that was not theirs before. The charter obtained from King Charles the Second, may have granted 1670. all that was his (if anything) to grant in 1670, but it would have required a new charter to have granted what Franco ceded to Great 1713. Britain, forty-three years afterwards. No (Joubt tho Tieaty of Utrecht had this important bearing upon the country that, although it conferred no territorial rights upon them, the territory it conferred on Great Britain was then inaccessible to British subjects by any other route than through the Bay and Straits of Hudson, over which (if over anything) the Company's charter gave exclusive control, and over which, whether rightfully or wrongfully, they have exercised such control. 1—23 354 Matters continued in this state as regards the territorial rights of Groat Britain ; and France for 5 J years more, when Canada was ceded to Great Britain ; 1763, by the Treaty of Paris in 1763. During this period the Hudson Bay (.lompuny occupied tho posts on tbe coasts of the B-J.y, and these only, Treaty of Paria. having made no attempt to penetrate into tbe interior or occupy even what the British geographers ofthe time construed the Treaty of Utrecht as conferring, not upon the Corapany, but upon Great Britain; while, on tho other hand, the French had covered that part of New France which still remained to thera (according to the British authorities), with posts or forts from tbe Lake ofthe Woods to tho lower end of Lake Winnijieg, and remained in peaceable possession thereof, and in the most active prosecution ot the trade, until the whole country was given up to the British by the Peace of Paris, in 1763; by which, however, nothing was conferred upon the Hudson Bay Corapany any more than thcio had been by the Treaty of Utrecht, the rights acquired by these treaties being simply in comraon with other British subjects. For a few years, about the time of the transfer of Canada from French to British dominion, the trade ofthe western territories languished, from a very natural want of confidence on the part of the Canadians by whom it had, up to that tirae, been carried on, and who now owed a new allegiance and had to seek a new market for fhe produce of their industry; but a fresh impulse was soon given to it, first by sepa-ate individuals, theu by small companies, and finally, by the great North-West Com]>any of Montreal, who not only spread their operations over all the territories formerly possessed by tho French, but explored new countries to the north and west, while the Hudson's Bay Company had not yet made a single establishment beyond the immediate confines of the sea coast. The tempoiary depression of the fur trade at the period of the transfer of Canada to British dominion was of course advantageous to the Hudson Bay Company, lor the Indians inhabiting those parts of Canada where the French posts wei'o mta'olished around Lake Winnipeg and its tributaries, would naturally seek a marlvot in Hudson Bay during the-comparative cessation of demand at the establishments in their midst. But whe;i confidence was restored, and a now impulse Was given lo the trade in tho north-west of Canada, the supply was again cut off from Hudson Biy, and now tbe Company. for thefirst time entered into competi tion with the Canadian traders in the interior, where their fir,5t establish- 1774. ment was made, in 1774. And why, it may be asked, did not the Hudson Bay Corapany oppose the French Canadians in the interior a few years earlier, as well as they opposed thera (principally the same people) now thatthey i had become British subjects ? The answer is very simple. During French dominion they could not do it because the country belonged to France, but by the cession of the country to Great Britain, the Company had acquired the same right as any other ,, British subjects to trade in it, and they availed themselves of that right accordingly. Fiom this period an active competition was carried on between these companies, but tho Canadian North-West Company were everywhere in advance of their rivals; they were tbe first to spread themselves, beyond the limits of the French, over the prairies of the Saskatchewan ; they were the first to discover the great river of the north, now bearing the narae of McKenzie, and pursue its course to its discharge in the Frozen Ocean, They were the first to penetrate the passes of tho northern Cordilleras and plant their posts on the shores ofthe Pacific; and with such indom itable energy did they carry on their business that at the period of Lord Selkirk's interference, they had upwards of 300 Canadians, " Voyageurs," employed in carry ing on their trade to the west ofthe Eocky Mountains. It would be a useles-^. task now to enter into a detail ofthe attempt made by the Eari of Selkirk, as a pan ner ofthe Hud.son Bay Compaiiy, to ruin their opponents. Itisonly necessary to refer to it here as the first endeavor raade to exercise the liriviloges contended for under the charter over those territories which had not been acquired by Great Britain till tho conque-it or co'^siou of Canada. Lord Selkirk having become the principal partner and acquired a predominant iuflaeuco in tho 355 affairs of the Hudaon B:iy Company, it was determined to assert the assumed privi leges of tho Company to an extent never before attempted, and for thia purpose a grant of the country on the Eed Eiver was made to His Lordship, who 1811, commenced in ISlll'i to plant a colony there.* A Governor was rppointed, the colonists and the servants of the Company were arnied 1814. and drilled, and in 1814 the clairas of the Corapany to soil, jurisdiction and exclusive trade were openly asserted, and for the first timo attempted to be enforced by the actual expulsion of tho North- West Com- "W. Semple, 2nd appointed pany, several of whose forts were surprised and talsen, their to that UHice. people being raade prisoners, thoir goods seized and the channel oftheir trade obstructed by the interception of their supplies. Overawed somewhat for the moment by this bold assuraption of authority, the Canadian Company appear to have avoided the contest, but wheti, forced into it they proved the stronger ; the Governor waa killed in leading an attack upon a party of the North-West Company who turned and gave battle, and the colony was 1816. dispersed. This final catastrophe occurred in the spring of 1S16, while in the raeantirae Lord Selkirk was organizing a more formidable force than bad hitherto taken the field. Having procured a commission of the peace from the Government of Canada he engaged a large force of the disbanded DoMeuron soldiers, equipped them in railitary style, procured arms, ammunition, artillery even, and started for the interior. It must be allowed that it was a somewhat anomalous course for the Govern ment of Canada to h.ave pursued to permit such a force to be organized ; but when it is considered that great ignorance prevailed as to the state of those remo'te localities, that it was known that there had been disturbances and bloodshed the previous year, when also Lord Selkirk's position is considered, and that he wont as a pacificator profeasedly to maintain peace, it may not be deemed so extraordinary that so much confidence should have been placed in him, for he was even granted a sergeant's guard of regular troops. It is not the object here, however, to enter into a discussion of the unfortunate occurrences of that period, or the particular action of the Provin cial Government, and the circumstances are only referred to, to show that Canada actually exercised the jurisdiction, that Lord Selkirk's destination was the Eed Eiver colony, and that he deeraed it necessary to fortify himself doubly with commissions as a Canadian Magistrate, first for Canadian territory, and second (under 43 Geo. Srd) for the " Indian Territoriea," so that those who resisted his authority ou the ground that they were in Canada, he could judge under the one commission, and those who resisted on the ground that they were in the Indian Territories, he could judge under the other, while the judicial and governmental attributes clairaed for the Company would have served as a third basis of operations ; and thus, with the actual force at his disposal, there was a pretty fair prospect of the Hudson Bay Company being made tho absolute masters ofthe North- West country. At the Sault St. Marie, however, Lord Selkirk met intelligence of the death of Oovernor Semple and the dispersion of his colony ; nevertheless, he still proceeded with his force aa far as Fort William, on Lake Superior, whore he arrived 1816. about the llth August, 1S16, and soon after arrested the partners of the North-West Comipany, who were there at the time, and took possession of tlie whole establishment including the merchandise and stores of the Company. Tfie course pursued on this occasion, as appears by documents published at the time, shows the character ofthe pretensions set up at that period — pretensions which were then and not till then presumed upon. ' " Who- have been the aggjcessors in their diff'erent quarrels, I am not. able to, determine ; h6wever, previous to 18ll, at which time Lord Selkirk became connected with the Company tradia,L' to Hudson Bay, and sent settlers from Europe to that country, no great ditFerencea •existe ! between the servants of that Company and the 'fur traders of Canada. There might be diiflciihies between different posts, but seldom attended with serious consequences." Despatch ofLieutenant Governor Gore to Barl Bathurst, 9th September, 1816. 1— 23J 356 It will be observed that Fort William was the principal depot of the- Canadian merchants, through which all their supplies lor and pcltries- from the North-West had to pass. By seizing on this point, therefore. Lord Selkirk had possession of the key of their whole trade, and waa enabled to permit or refuse the transit of their goods, as he saw fit. For whatever pur pose, therefore, he obtained his two commissions of the peace in Canada,. the expedition simply resolved itself into a continuation of the attempt to destroy the North-West Company of Canada, the rivals in trade of the Hudson Bay Com pany, for, however desirable it raight be to arrest and bring to trial all parties Implicated on either side in the death of Governor Semple, there could be no excuse for seizing the persons of those gentlemen who were known not to have been at the time within hundreds of miles of the scene of that catastrophe, merely because they were partners in the North-West Company, nor, even if there were cause for their arrest, did that justify the taking possession of their property without the sanction or the form of law.* The object of entering upon this brief recoid is, to point out that all this occurred at Fort William, on the shores of Lake Superior, within what the Hudson Bay Company, by their map and statement of " right?," now admit to be within the boundaries of Canada. And thus it will be seen that, while the pretension of extending the privileges of the charter beyond the " coasts and confines " of the Bay to the western territories of Canada, was a mere invention of that period, to further their own ends and to destroy the rival company of Canada, they were as ready to employ force at Fort William as in the Valley of the Eed Eiver. In further proof that the transactiona at Fort William were openly done iu violation of Canadian law and in defiance of Canadian authority, it is only neossary ', to add that when Lord Selkirk's proceedings became known, warrants were issued for his apprehension and a party of constables sent to arrest him, and that refusing obedience to the laws of this country and presuming npon the force for the moment at hia coraraand in that reraote locality Deputy Sheriff obtained (^'^'^o''® ^^^^ ^s reghrds the time it took to reach it, though at •verdict lor £500 dam- oir doors to day) he caused the constables to be taken ages. prisoners theraselves, and treated the Deputy Sheriff of the western district, who afterwards raade the atterapt in like manner. This war between the Companies, though injurious to both, failed to exterminate either, and the final result was a compromise by which they entered iato partner ship; and thus the trade has been carried on since, under the name indeed of tha Hudson Bay Company, but expressly in conjunction with the North-West Company of Canada, so that Canada can at no time be said to have been out of possession of her western territories within the limits occupied by the French at the time of the conquest, nor out of possession of the " Indian Territories beyond, which, after the conquest, were first discovered by the Canadian traders, and ibr which the license of exclusive trade was granted to the partners of the North-West Company of Canada, as such, in conjunction with the Hudson Bay Company, It is true that after the amalgamation of the Companies and the 1821. license of exclusive trade granted in 1821, corapetition became iZ^e^aiin the "Indian Tvvritories," beyond the boundaries Of Canada, as indeed it had always proved impracticable on the part of minor traders either within or beyond the remote parts of the Province, small traders being altogether unable to cope with the two great Companies. It is true also that after they, the two great Companies, had been for some time united, and when by the policy pursued by them the trade • « Prom these documents it appears, that the Barl of Selkirk, acting in hie own cause, aided by an arraed force, has not only made the partners of the North-West Company prisoners^ but has also seized their papers and property." Lieut.-Gov. Gore to Earl Bathurst, 9lh Sept. 1816. 357 had ceased to be beneficial to, and had been lost sight of in Canada, an arrangement was effected between the two sections of the united Company by which the name of North-West Company was dropped entirely, the lease relinquished, and 1838. anew one obtained in whieh the name of the Hudson Bay Company alone appeared ; but it must be observed that this new arrangement was accepted and entered into by the British Government by consent ot the partners representing tho original Canadian Company, for although this leaso or license only affects the Indian Territories beyond the actual boundaries of Canada, it can scarcely bo supposed that the government would have agreed to give it, had Canadian traders still remained in the field. The policy of the Companies, when joined, has however been so far successfal that they have managed heretofore to secure themsolvea against opposition, many no doubt being imposed upon by the pretentious but erroneous construction put upon, their charter, and the public in general kept in the dark respecting a trade which, though partly carried on in the very centre of Canada and ¦within range of steam navigation, is so managed as to pass by a circuitous route, by means of the primitive canoe and over portages on raen's backs, away hundreds of miles into the interior and round by Hudson Bay. But the time has come when Canada must assert her rights, not only from that necessity for expansion which her growing population and trade require, but also because if she does not now begin to provide for the future by opening up her remote territories to colonization, and securing the loyalty and attachment of the people by •extending to them the rights and privileges of her laws and institutions, there is a moral certainty that a power far more formidable than the Hudson Bay Company must in a very short period acquire the actual possession of those countries. This brief chronological sketch of the history of the Corapany and of the cir cumstances connected therewith, must sufficiently show that they have acquired no territorial grant whatever under either of the two conditions stated to which their charter was subject: first, as regards the countries then known upon the " coast* and confines " of Hudson Bay, because they were already in possession of the subjects of another Christian Prince, and were therefore excluded from the grant in terms of the charter itself ; and second, aa regarda diacoverioe, because when they first penetrated into the interior, 104 years after the date of their charter, 1774. they found the country and a long Established trade in the hands of others, unless indeed as regards some discoveries to the north which are of no special importance to Canada, such as the Copper Mine Eiver, discovered by Hearne 1772. under the auspices of the Corapany. , Under the first head, the raost sanguine advocate of the Company, upon a full investigation of all the circurastances, could only urge on their behalf a claim to certain points or stations ou the sea coasts of the Bay, and even to these a doubtful and dispute! title. ' , ,. ^ ~ , The high legal authorities that may be quoted in favor of the Parliamentary Paper, claims of the Company cannot be held as of weight against the No. 542 of 1830. conclusions inevitably resulting from a fuller investigation of the subject, inasmuch as they are merely opinions upon, the casxs submitted. The latest opinion given upon the subject is that of Sir John Jervis and Sir John Eomilly in their letter to Eari Grey, of January, 1850, in which they give it as their opinion, "That the rights claimed by the .Company do properly belong to thera." Before arriving at this conclusion, however, those learned u^'.-nUemen are careful to specify precisely what papers they h:. 1 thou under I'-on-^idiM-atioi, and to which alone they refer as the basis of theiropinio ,. Theso papers were, siraply the "Statement of Rights and the Map" submitted by the Ch:iii',ian ot (ho 0...mpany, Sir J. H. Peily. . . , ,. , rr- This opinion, therefore, can only be taken as alttrnKUivc ot the poworot the Hmg to grant such rights and privilege^ as the charter sjiecilie-', and that the charter wouldcover all the territory claimed, but the question of whether th;it territory belonged to the King to grant was not before thom. With rc-ipoct to ihe terr,tory which the wording of the charier would cover, il would be dilficult to say what it 358 would note-over; and with respect to tho validity of the grant of snch powers, it ia to be remarked that very high authorities have given a directly opposite opinion ; and it may be asked why, if the charter was valid, did the Comparfy 1690. procure an Act of Parliament to confirm it in 1090, and why, when that Act expired, which was limited to seven years, did they again ask for an Act to continue it ? It is worthy of notice, too, that the seven years Act was passed during war with France, when it appears that Parliament did not scruple to grant or confirm a charter for countries to which Great Britain had, at best, but a disputed title, based only upon a very partial, and, even during peace, a very precariovis pos session ; nor is it lees worthy of remark, that, when Parliament refused to re-grant or continue the charter the Tieaty of Eyswick had intervened, by which the rights of France were recognised, and those of Great Britain left, at most, in doubt, and when, therefore, any such Act would have been a direct violation of an international treaty. Another opinion appears to have been obtained by the Hudson Bay Company at an earlier period, from Eomilly, Holroyd, Cruise, Scarlett and Bell, equally upon the case drawn and without reference to the real points at issue, merely aflSrming that the grant of the soil contained in the charter is good, and that it will include all the countries the waters ofwhich flow into Hudson Bay. This opinion is, therefore, like the other, of no weight on questions which were no't before the learned gentlemen who gave it. Opposite opinions were obtained at an earlier period by the North-West Com pany, viz: in 1804, from Sir V. Gibbs and Mr. Bearcroft. These opinions, however,' although Ihey touched the fundamental principles of tbe charter, had no reference to the interior countries on the Eed Eiver, Lake Winnipeg, the Saskatcl ewan, &o., for the simple reason that no opinion was asked on a cate which only aiose six or seven years later, wheu Lord Selkirk came on the field. The position ofthe question at this period was that the North-West Corapany, being in possession not only of all the country formerly possessed by the Canadian' French in that direction, but slso of the countiy first discovered by themselves, to the north-west ofthe Churchill Eiver, came to the conclusion that their trade could be more conveniently carried on with theso more remote parts through Hudson Bay than through Canada. The question they submitted, therefore, was solely in regard to the validity of the charter in respect of the navigation, trade and fisheries ofthe Bay itself. The Norih-West Company as little dreampt of asking an opinion respecting the legality of their trade in the interior as the Hudson Bay Company thought, at that period, of attempting its forcible restraint. In the case put it is to be remarked that no lefeicnce is raude to the early possessions of the French on the coasts of the Bay, and consequent possession ofthe Bay itself in communicating therewith, and yet, even without this, thete opinions are entirely adverse to the exclusive privileges claimed under the charter. After the difficulties occasioned by the more i ecent assumption of power in virtue ofthe charter to expel the North-West Company from the Eed Eiver country^ under the auspices of Lord Sclkirk,had become serious, another opinion was obtained by that Company, in 1S16, from Sir Arthur Pigott, Sergeant Spankie and Lord Brougham. This opinion must be held to be more valuable than those obtained by the Hudson Bay Company, inasmuch as it enters more into tho merits of tho cas6, and is therefore more explicit as to the real views ofthe learned counsel on tbe sub-' ject submitted to them, whereas the opposite opinions are such as thegcntlcmen who- gave them would be at liberty to ignore upon a fuller submission of the case, without incurring a charge of inconsisienoj'. The opinion under consideration is very decided on the point that the Eed EiVer and Saskatchewan countries aie not ^^ilhin the limits of tho charter, even upon the merits of desciipiion contained in the charter itself, apart from the question of prior. possession by another State. Tho question of prior occupation of those localities by the French is indeed lif>htly touched upon, though tho opinion, as above, isdoHnitely given without it; but the rigbi-^ of Canada now lor the first timo fully discussed,. 359 based on the prior discovery, at least of the wholo of the interior, prior occupation on the shores of the Bay itself, and international trealica do not appear lo have ever been pronounced upon by any (>f those high legal authorities wbo have heretofore been consulted, Iccnuse no such ca.-e has ever been sulmitted; an-ed upon the history and facts, it may be taken to supersede all necessity for raising any ques tion ns to fhe extent ofthe royal prerogative in giving validity to such a charter. Had the Hudson Bay Company indeed deemed their position good in law, as against the North-West Company, in respect ofthe Eed Eiver counti'_\, it can scarcely bo suppoi-cd that they would have resorted to force at such a lavish expense (and it raust be added, involving no small amount of bloodshed) when the Siestion could have been so easily determined by the legal tribunals, at an expense together inconsiderable as compared with the actual losses and costs incurrred. They have, indeed, attempted to show that they had not an equal chance with their rivals in tho courts of this Province; but uot lo speak of the injustice of such an insinuation in itself, the objection is untenable while they had the right of appeal, and to suppose that thoy wore deterred from tid?ing such a course from any difiSculty attending the proceeding would be simply absurd, when vve find them oi'ganizing nn array to defend their claims in those i emote localities, and thus volun tarily removing the venue from the courts of law, by a far raore difficult and expen sive process, to the arbitrament of force, where the interference of law could not be io readily invoked to check their proceedings. And if any justification of this course could be based on the supposed validity of thoir charter, and on the ground that it could be construed to cover that locality, why, when tbey failed to maintain thoir position by force, when the North-West Company, even after the temporr.ry interruption of their traile through the seizure of Port William by Lord Selkirk, still continued in the a-^iondiint, why did they not then re>ort to a trial at law. which, if it had rosulied in thoir favor, would at once have secured a power exactly commensurate with tho emergency to maintain their rights; for then, if tho civil power had proved insuffloient, tho wholo powor of the Empire would have been available as fur as necessary. But, iiihteail of trying the issue in a court of law, they finally amalgamated with their rivals, aft'ording thereby a clear proof that they had no hope of being able to treiit theni otherwise than as possessing equal righis. thus consenting to their opponents sharing with them what they had previously contended to be their private propertj-. To conclude tbe question of tho Hudson Bay Company'.s territorios under their chai'ter, tberefoio, it is difficult to arrive at the result that thoy havo any territorial rights at all; fur, in tbe first place, tho country was praolioally occupied by the French before tho date of tbe charter, and consequently excluded from it; .-md in the second place, because the whole country, including Hudaon Bay, was known as New France or Canada, as por maps and desoriiitions publicly known throughout Europe previous to that date; and, therefore, if not so before, became the ],'r.)perty of Fi-ance by the Treaty of St, (Tormains en Laye, in 1632, and as Hiioh neces sarily could nol be and expressly was not granted by their oharter; and in the thiixl place, because by the Troaty of Eyswick, the right of France to expel thom as tres- Bissors 01, hor soil was manifestly admitted. And finally, even a,ssumiiig that Gieat ritain originally had acquired a divided right with France, oacb to tho extent of the establishments which Iheir subjects respectively were tho first to forra, the Hud son Bay Cimpany would only have a right under their charter to tho- previously unoccupied, for the Treaty of livhwick conferred nothing upon thera (if it oven per mitted thom to retain anything^ whioh ia doubtful), tho 'rreaty of Utrecht, although it gave Ilud-^on Day to the Bntish, conferred nothing upon the Company apart from other British subjects; aud tho Troaty of Paris (although it gave Canada to Great Britain) oonloriod nothing upon them, except righis in cotumon with otl :¦ British MUbjects ; while, until eleven years nflor tho last-named treaty thoy never occupied anything beyond their original establishments on the coast, and those (also on the 360 coast) conquered from or ceded by France at tho Treaty of Utrecht, but whiih could not, by such subsequent conquest or cession, be raade subject to their charter. BOUNDARIES OF CANADA. Having thus dinposed of the boundaries of the Hudson Bay Company's Terri tories — if such can be said to exist — the boundaries of Canada next come to be con sidered, and a diviaion of the subject will naturally suggeat itself into two heads. First, the original boundaries of Canada under the French, and second, tho boundaries of Canada aa acquired by Great Britain, in, 1763. The southerly boundariea, when not affecting the preaent question, need not, of course, be particularly referred to. It will not be necessary to enter at length into the question of the original boundaries under the French, as they have already been sufficiently indicated. They claimed all to tbe north of the St. Lawrence, and were the first to occupy Hudson Bay. If the British, besides their visits in search of a north-west passage, had seen fit to occupy the country for any practical purpose and been the first to do so, they might, no doubt, have claimed it for their own. Had any such actual occupation' followed the voyages of Hudson and Button, notwithstanding the French footing on ' and claira to the whole continent north ofthe St. Lawrence, it must be admitted that a valid title would have been created. But when snch occupation was only first attempted some fifty or sixty years later, in support of a commercial project of two Frenchmen, who had been already engaged in the trade, and when France was in formal and actual possession, it cannot be denied that the French title was the prefer able one. Of the original territoriea of Canada, Great Britain, therefore, acquired a part by tho Treaty of Utrecht, the residue remaining to France for fifty years later. On this head there aeeraa to be no dispute, for Britiah authoritiea deaignate a part of what they claira to have been acquired by that treaty aa Canada. It now remaina to he conaidered what were the boundaries ofthe country finally acquired by the Treaty of 1763, which, according to French and other authorities, was much larger than according to Britiah authorities ; but it will, perhaps, be most satisfactory for the present to adopt the latter. One of the most circumstantial British accounts of the westerly possessions of the French ia to be found in a geographical and historical work published 1760. by Thos. Jefferys, in 1760. After giving the French account of Canada, he proceeds to give the English version of its boundaries in the following words :— " Canada, according to the English account, is bounded ou the north by the high lands which separate it from the country about Hudson Bay, Labrador or New Briton, and the country of the Bsqimeaux and the Christeneaux ; on the east by the Eiver St. Lawrence, and on the south bythe Outawais Eiver, the country of the Six Nations and Lousiana, its liraits towards the west extending over countries and nations hitherto undiscovered." The high lands referred to in the above are diatinctiy dilineated on the maps published with the work as the northerly ^ection of the range which, dividing to the north-west of Lake Superior, sejiaratea tho waters flowing direct to Hudson's Bay from those flowing into Lake Winnipeg, crossing the Nelson Eiver at Split Lake or Lao des Ports, etc. Describing the country from Lake Superior westward, the > author goes on, at page 19, as follows : — •' At the raouth of Les Trois Eivieres, or the Three Eivers, is a little French fort called Camenistagouia; and twenty-five leagues to the west of thesaid fort, the land begina to wlope, and the river to run towards the weat. "At ninety-five leagues frora this greatest height lies the second establishment of the French that way, called Fort St. Pierre, in tho Lake dos Pluies. The third is Fort St. Charios eighty leagues farther on tbe Lake des Bois. The fourth ia Fort Maurepas, a hundred leagues distant frora the last, near the head of the Lake of Ouinipigon. Fort La Eeine, which is tho fifth, lies a hundred leagues further onthe Eiver of the Assiniboels. Another fort had been built ou the Eiver Eouge, but wa» 361 deserted on account ofits vicinity to the two last. The sixth. Fort Dauphin, stands on the west side of Lac dea Prairies, or of the Meadows, and the seventh, which is -called Fort Bourbon, stands on the shore of the Great Lake Bourbon. The chain ends with Port Poskoyac, at the bottom of a river of that name, which falls into Lake Bourbon, The Eiver Poskoyac is made by Delisle and Buache to rise within twenty- five leagues of their west sea, which, they say, communicates with the Pacific Ocean. All these Forts are under the Govemor of Canada." The above, it will be observed, is the English account of what waa atill French Canada, in 1760, just after the taking of Quebec and before the final conquest and cession of the country. The .Eiver Poskoj'ac is that which now bears the name of the Saskatchewan, upon which Sir Alexander Mackenzie states that the French had another fort higher up than Fort Poskoyac* yy,- .The same author, Jefferys, in his description of Louisiana, says: " It is bounded on the north by Canada ; on the east by the British Colonies of New York, Ponsyl- vania, Maryland, "Virginia, &c., &c." The map accompanying this description claims the British Colonies, Virginia, &c., as coming up to the east bank of the Mississippi, and therefore it is Louisiana west of the Mississippi that he refers to as bounded by Canada on the noith ; that is to say, from the sources of the Mississippi westward. The same year in which thia work was published, all Canada was surrendered to the British, though not finally ceded till three years after. In surrendering the country to the British the Marquis de Vaudreuil submitted articles of capitulation which were marked " granted," or " refused, etc." according as they were finally agreed to by General Amherst, In guarding the interests of the Cansr dian colonists iu every part of the country surrendered, the localities above described by Bnglish authority as being under the " Governor of Canada," are designated as " th£ countries above," and the 46th article of the capitulation is as follows : " The inhabitants and merchants shall enjoy all the privileges of trade under the same favors and conditions granted to the subjects of His Britannic Majesty as well in the 'countries above' as in the interior of the colony. — Granted." By which these countries were manifestly suri'cndered along with the rest of Canada, and the future rights of the Canadians guaranteed thereto by the provision that no British aubjecta should ever .enjoy any privileges of trade there in which they did not share ; not, indeed, that this guarantee, although it would decidedly have that effect, could have been foreseen as a safeguard against the Hudson Bay Corapany, who had never at that peri'^d penetrated into the country, it being simply intended to prevent any cause whatever from depriving the French colonists of tbe benefits of a trade which had always been one of tho most important in the country. In the negociationa for peace that followed, in 1761, which were directed on the one part by Mr. Pitt, and by tbe Duke de Choiseul on tbe other, and which ended, its source downwards, the boundary between the Britishand French possessions, the boundary from tbe source of the Mississippi westward' being left undetermined, a question which had ultimately to be settled with the United States instead of with 1846. ¦ Tho systera adopted and industriously followed up by the two rival Com panies after their union had indeed so disserainated an erroneous appellation, that the country north and north-west of the Missis- Oregon negoaiations. sippi had come to be commonly called the Hudson Bay Com pany's Territoriea ; but when diplomatists and statesmen came * " It may be proper to observe that the French had two settlemepts upon the Saskatchiwine, long before, and at the conquest of Canada ; the first at the Pasqdia, near Carrot River, and the otber at Nipawi, wherethey had agricultural in^^trumenls and wheel cariiages, marks of both being found about those establislimeiits, where the soil ia exeellent." Note to general history of the Pur Trade, p, Ixxiii. See Mackenzie's Voyages, London, 1801. 362 to study the subject, tracing up from history and fact their respective clainr.s, as bearing upon the Oregon question, Ihey did not stultify themselves by the use of such an erroneous term ; accordingly, we find Mr. Buchanan, now President elect of the United States, using the following language, in concluding a- proposition made by him on 1st July, I816 : "Tho line proposed will carry out tho principle of continuity equally for both parties, by extending the limits both of ancient Louisiana and Canada to the Pacific along the same parallel of latitude which divide them east of the Eocky Mountains." The same line of argument sustains the British plenipotentiary when, in arguing the pretensions of his government to Oregon, he traces the progress of the Canadians westward across the Eocky Mountains to the Pacific. The next step in the natural progress of events is the description of Canada under British sway. The first step alter the Treaty of Paris was tp provide for the government of the settled parts of the country, for which purpose the Governraent ot Quebec waa organized, comprising, however, a very limited portflon of Canada, as per proclamation of 7th Cctober, 1763, the rest of the country being thereby reserved- from survey or settlement, for the moment, for the protection of the Indians. The descriptions of Canada, however, of that period took in the country to the westward of Pennsj'lvania, by the Ohio Eiver, to the Mississippi. And the Imperial Statute of 1774, coramonly called the " Quebec Act," describes the Province as extending " northward to the southern boundary of tlie territory granted to the Merchant Adventurers of England trading to Eudson Bay," but dees not specify what their boundaries are, and it will be seen, by what follows, that the construction put upon this Act, by the British Govemment, Independence of United nine years later, was adverse to the present pretensions ofthe Stales ; boundary of Can- Company. The Treaty of Independence of the United States ada then adopted. provided a new southerly boundary for Canada, a part of what had formerly gone under that name having been ceded to tho United States ; and by the Commission issued to Lord Dorchester — the first after this treaty — the same words are used in describing the boundaries of Canada, as in the treaty, viz. : — " Through Lake Superior northwards of the Isles Eoyal and Pbilipeaux to the Long Lake; thence, through the middle of the said Long Lake and the water coraraunication between it Lord Dorcheeter's Com- ^""^ **^® ^^^^ °^ *^ Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods ; raission. thence, through the said lake to the most north-western point thereof, and from thence, in a due west course, to the River Mississippi, and northward to the southern boundary ofthe ter ritoriea granted to the Merchants Adventurers of England trading to Hudson Bay," This description, it will be seen, leaves the boundariea beyond the aources of the Mis-issippi indeterminate. On the supposition that a line due west from the li-jko of the Woods would intersect the Mississippi, the King was obliged to lirait the extentof Canada, on such line to the Mississippi proper, because by the Treaty of Paris, France retained the whole country to the west of the Mississippi frora its source downwards. Had the King's Coramission said from the intersection of the due west line with the Mississippi " due north," it might have been argued that it pro vided a westei ly boundary, but it simply says "northerly" because although it was necessary to limit it to the Mis.-issippi, where Louisiana coraraenced, there was no need fcr being specific beyond the sources of that river where the westerly boundary of Canada waa yet unknown. Of tho extent of Canada to the north by thia descrip tion, it ia enough to say that it was the same aa by tho Act of 1774, and required the boun larics of the territory granted to the Hudaon Bay Company, to be defined first, and if that failed it had no other limit, short of its original extent under the French, At the " definitive Treaty of Peace " with the United States their territory did not extend at any point to the west of the Mississippi, until they acquired Louisiana in 1,8,(J3. It will bo reraerabered that Mr, Pitt objected to tho northerly boundary of 363 Louiaiana coming so far north as the southerly boundary of Canada, in 1761 ; th*t novertheleaa it waa ao settled in 1763 that the Mississippi should be the boundary to its source. This result seems to have been a compromise by which Louisiana waS: confined almost entirely to the -west of the Mississippi, Great Britain thus gaining her point on the east, which came more nearly in contact with her old possessions,. and giving to France entire scope on the west to the very sources of the Mississippi,' the boundarj' fiom thence westward being left undetermined. This point had accord-, ingly to be afterwards settled with the United States, who had in the meantime acquired the rights of France. Thia settleraent ultimately admitted the 49th parallel of latitude as the northerly boundary of Louiaiana, and aa such necessarily the southerly boundary of Canada from the Lake of the Woods due west to the Eocky Mountains, passing north of the source of the Mississippi proper, though intersecting some ofits tributary streams, the only error in which was that the line should not have been north of the source ofthe Mississippi, an error resulting from a previous treaty with the United States, at a time when it was supposed that the parallel of latitude agreed upon east of the Mississippi would intersect that river. Were the King's letters patent to Lord Dorchester indeed taken literally at the present day in regard to the southerly boundary of Canada, the due west lino of the description, not intersecting the Mississippi, would go on as far as British territory,- not otherwise organized, would carry it, which would be to the Pacific; or if limited at all, it would be by the first waters ofthe Mississippi whioh it did intersect, which would be the White Earth Eiver, and this would, in fact, correspond with the extent of Canada previously known to the French, taking in all the old forts already men tioned and leaving out the " countries and nations hitherto undiscovered," that is at the time ofthe conquest, though at the period when that description was made the North-West Company were carrying on an active trade much farther to the west : nor is it clear that this would be adverse to the intention ofthe description, for some of the raaps of that period represent the Mississippi as west of the Eed Eiver. The southerly boundary of the British dorainions west of Lake Superior being therefore demonstrated as identical with the southerly boundary of Canada to some point due west of the Lake ofthe Wooda, the only question is as to where that point is to be found ; ia it the White Barth Eiver, the tirat watera of the Mississippi with which the due west li^e intersects? or is it the summit of the Eocky Mountains, on the same principle that the co-tei-minous boundary of Louisiana was ultimately so con strued ? The next point to be deterrained is the northerly extension of Canada frora its southerly boundary. The official description, corresponding with the Act of 1774, carries it to the boundary of the Hud.son Bay Company's Territories, but the sarae official description ignores the boundaries thoj' claira (thus proving so far the construc tion then put upon the Act of 1774), for it carries the southerly boundary of Canada down the watershed of Hudson Bay from two to three hundred railes to the Lake of the Woods, and thence due west, thus raaking tho starting point far within what the Hudson Bay Company claim, and thus, /rom a point within what they claim as their territory, it is to extend northerly to their territories. If, theu, the " rights " of the Hudson Bay Company were even far leas equivocal than they are, their southerly boundary, as pretended by themselves, is entirely demoliahed, and tlie question arises where is the boundary of their territories so described as the^ northerly limit of Canada T The question of territorial rights has already been so fully discuased that it is unne cessary to repeat the arguraents. The only possible conclusion is, that Canada is either bounded in that direction by a few isolated poats on the shore of Hudson Bay, or elae that the Company'a territory is— like the intersection of the due west line with the Mississippi — a myth, and consequently that Canada has no particular limit in that direction. The accompanying map illustrates the northerly boundar^j- of Canada, according to British authorities as ceded by the French in 1763, there being no westerly boun dary then known or since provided. This is perhaps all that could in the first instance be absolutely clairaed aa under the Government of Canada, were it not that,^ 364 since the final determination of the southerly boundary, the Imperial Government merely described the authority of this Govemment as extending over all the countries theretofore known as Ganada, which might fairly be taken to cover the territory acquired by the Treaty of Utrecht, aa well as that acquired by the Treaty of Paris. BOUNDARIES OF THE INDIAN TERRITORIES. The boundaries of the Indian Territories need little consideration or explanation, as they siraply include all that belongs to Great Britain in North America to the north and west of Canada, excepting the territory (if any) which the Hudson Bay Company may of right claim. It must not be lost sight of, however, that the great bulk ofthis territory has been acquired by the Crown of Great Britain through discoveries of its Canadian subjects, beyond whatever may be determined to be the westerly boundary of Canada, across the Eocky Mountains to the shores of the Pacific, and by the McKenzie Eiver to the Frozen Ocean. The importance of these discoveries in tho negotiations pending the Troaty of Oregon, cannot be forgotten, for it is in virtue of Canadian discovery and Canadian settlement that the British negotiator was enabled to maintain his position in the controversy, and aecure a foot ing for his country on the Pacific. And when, it may be asked, did ever the Hudson Bay Corapany afford such an iraportant advantage to British intreata? Sir Alexander McKenzie's journey in 1793 across the Eooky Mountains (the first ever perforraed north of Mexico) is thus referred to by the British Plenipotentiary, in negotiating the Treaty of Oregon : " While Vancouver was prosecuting discovery and explor- " ation by sea, Sir Alexander McKenzie, a partner in the " Norih- West Company, crossed the Eocky Mountains, discov- " ered the head waters of the river since called Frazer's Eiver, " and following for sorae time the course of that river, effected a Oregon Negotiations. " passage to the aea, being the first civilized man who traversed "the Continent of Araerica from sea to sea in these latitudes. " On the I'eturn of McKenzie to Canada the North-West Com- " pany established trading posts in the country to the westward " of the Eocky Mountains." » This was the British title to that part of the country, and but for this journey and the establishing of these trading posts, by which were acquired what the same diplomatist says " may be called beneficial interests in those regions by commercial "intercourse," the probability is that Great Britain would now hold no continuous possessions across this continent, if she even held any isolated localities onthe Pacific in virtue of her discoveries by sea. Lewis and Clark, Americans, descended the southerly branch of the Columbia Eiver, 1808, and in 1811, Mr. Thompson, of the North-West Company, came down the main branch from the north, whose discovery is thus referred to by the British Plenipotentiary : " In the year 1811, Thorapson, the Astronomer of the North- West Company, "discovered the northern head waters of the Columbia, and following its course till "joined bj' the rivers previously discovered by Lewis and Clark, he continued his "journey to the Pacific." And again : "Thompson, ofthe North-West Company, was tbe first civilized person who "navigated the northern, in realily the main branch, ofthe Columbia, or traversed " any part of the country drained by it." This is the title by which (?reat Britain has been enabled to retain the main branch of the Columbia to its intersection with tbe 49th parallel of north latitude, and the free navigation for her subjects of the whole river from that point to its dis charge in the Pacific Ocean, as secured by the Treaty of Oregon, 1843. With rosppct to McKenzie's discoveries to the north, no diplomatic reference thereto can be quoted, inasmuch as there has boen no disputed title on the part of any foreign powor to give rise to any controversy upon tho subject. 365 It may be fairly urged, therefore, that these "Indian Territories," originally tho fruits of Canadian enterprise, perseverance and industry, should no longer be shut out from the Canadian people, but should in fact be united to Canada as a part of the British Dominions, which Canadian subjects have had the merit of acquiring and retaining for the British Crown. JUEISDIOTION. The question of jurisdiction next comes under consideration, and in this, as regards the Hudson Bay Company, it is apprehended that the actual exercise of it is widely different from what existing laws would sanction. The mystery with which this Company have managed to shroud their operations in the interior renders it difficult to say what they do or what they do not do, but it is generally understood that they actually exercise unlimited jurisdiction in every respect, civil,' criminal and governmental, and that not only in what has been con sidered their own territories, but also in the Indian Territories and those parts of Canada not immediately contiguous to settlement, all which existing law positively forbids them to do, it need not be said in Canada, but either in their own territoriea or in the Indian Territories. By the Imperial Statute, 43 George IIL, chapter 138, the jurisdiction over the Indian Territories and all "parts of America not within the limits of the Provinces "of Upper or Lower Canada, or either of them, or within any civil government of " the United States of America," is vested in the said Provinces. It is a curious cir cumstance that the very words of this Act which seem to have been intended to deny all claira to any jurisdiction on the part of the Hudson Bay Company, should have been taken hold of as the raeans of questioning its reference to them. The preamble of the Act in giving the reason for the enactraent states that, offences not committed within the liraits of the Canadas or the United States, as above, " are therefore not cognizable by any jurisdiction whatever." This the Company argued could not mean their territories beca-use jurisdiction did exist there. The Act, they said, could not mean all British America not within the limits ofthe Canadas, for the assertion that no jurisdiction existed was not true of Nova Scotia or N^w Brunswick, and therefore might not be true of Hudson Bay. Thus, in fact, it appears that the framers of the Act having their minds directed to the North-Weat, where the offencea referred to had occurred, forgot to exclude the provinces lying on the opposite side of Canada, on the Atlantic Coast, from its operation ; and this omission, when the war was carried on between the two Companies in the interior. Lord Selkirk turned to account to throw doubt on the applicabilty of the Act to the Company's territories. But the assumption that this Act does not affect their pretensions is doubly futile ; for, when more closely considered, it either brings their territories within Canadian jurisdiction or it ignores them altogether, and in either case it contracts the limits they claim. If they make good their assertion that it does not affect their territories, then it deatroya their claim to have their limita extended to the boundaries of Canada. The territories referred to in the preamble of the Act are those not within the limits of either Lower or Up per Canada, the two provinces being treated distinctly as regards the territories not within their limits . Now, taking Lower Canada, in the first instance, it is bounded by the Ottawa, and a line due north from the head of Lake Temiscamingue, and the places outside its limits on which the Act would have effect, if not the Company's territories must certainly be something between those limits and their territories.- But the question is more inlportant as regards the places outside of Upper Canada. If the maps accompanying the " Statement of Eights " submitted by Sir J. H. Pelly be correct, then the territory effected by the Act is about 1,500 miles distant in its nearest part from the most reraote point in Canada. In other words, Canada ends at the source of Pigeon Eiver, and the Indian Territories begin at the top of the Eocky Mountains, and we are required therefore to assume that the Imperial Legislature meant to commit the absurdity of giving jurisdiction to the courts of Canada over a territory ^beginning at a distance of sorae fifteen hundred miles from her frontier^. 366 while a different British jurisdiction (that ofthe Corapany) prevailed in the inter vening space. But assuming lor fact, the Company's view of the case that it did not affect iheir teri'itories, we find the very purpose for which the Act was paaaed as expressed in the title tobe to provide a jurisdiction for " certain parts of North Araerica adjoining to the said provinces " of Lower and Upper Canada. Consequently, if the territory affected by the Act only commences at the summit of the Eocky Mountains, aa repreaented by the map submitted by Sir J. H. Pelly, then as it adjoins thia province, Canada must extend to the summit ofthe Eocky Mountain.?, so that on their own showing the jurisdiction they exercise in the intervening space, at Eed Eiver for instance, is out of their own territories, and therefore not only without the sanction of law but in violation of a positive enactment. They must thus either ignore their own pretensions to the territory between what they call the westerly boundary of Canada, and easterly boundary of the " Indian Territoriea," or they jnust admit that the Act under consideration (which is still unrepealed) applies to their territories, in which case their jurisdiction in every part would be in violation ofthe statute. But if there was any doubt on the subject before it was fully removed by the Act 1 and ¦/, Geo. 4, Cap. 66, which was passed after all the strife and bloodshed in the north-west, and which after reciting the doubt raised respecting the former Act being applicable to the Hudaon Bay Company's Territories, declares at section 5 in the strongest and raost coraprehenaive manner, that the said Act and all ia olausea shall be construed to apply to their territories, anything in " any grant or charter to the Company to the contrary notwithstanding . " This Act, 1 and 2, Geo. 4, Cap. 66, givea jurisdiction as full and coraplete aa lan guage can raake it over all the Indian and Hudaon Bay Company's Territories to the courts of Canada, and it provides for the appointraent of Justices of the Peace by the Crown (both of the Indian Territories and Hudson Bay Corapany's Territories) to whom the Canadian Courts are empowered to issue Coraraissions "to take evidence in any cause or suit, and "return the sarao, or try such issue, and for that purpose to hold courts, &c." These courts are most distinctly made subordinate to the courts of Canada, &c . , and can in fact be created by, and exist through them only. By the llth and l:ith clauses, however, the Crown is empowered to create Courts of Eecord, without the intervention of the Canadian courts (but without limiting the power to bo exercised thro' them), for the trial of sraall causes and petty offences the former being limited to civil cases not effecting a larger araount than £200 and the latter to cases in which the offence does not subject the person committing the same to capital punishment or transportation. By thia Act, it is repeatedly declared and enacted in the moat emphatic manner, that its enactmenta shall have effect " notwithstanding anything contained in any charter granted to the governor and Corapany of Adventures of England tradins-to Hudson Bay," t, s It ie true the last clause of the Act reserves to the Corapany in the most araple manner all rights and privileges they " are by law entitled to claim and exercise under their charter." 'This it will be observed is wh.it the "Statement of Eights" refers to when claiming a " concurrent jurisdiction " with the Canadian courts. Now, when it ia observed that the legislature has refrained from expressing any opinion as to what the rights or privileges ofthe Company really are, and cautiously abstained frora recogniaing any but what they already had " by law," it is difficult to suppose that it was the intention of the Act to recognise in thera tliose very powers which it was making the most ample provision for the exercise of by a totally different authority in strong and repeatedly expressed abnegation of their pretensions. It is also to be observed'that the previous Act, 43 Geo. 3, which denies their juris diction, is still in force, unrestricted in every particular, and not deriving its force from the subsequent statute, which is merely declaratory in that particular of its proper construction. ' The question of whether the Company can exercise any legal jurisdiction within their own territories,— limited to their just extent,— loses its importance, however, in 367 face of the raore serious question of its actual exorcise both in Canada and Indian Teri'itories, and that even to the oxlent of life and death, while the intention of the Imperial Legislature in creating ajurisdiction for those territories, reserved all impor tant cases, either civil or criminal, for trial by the regularly con-ttiliitod legal tribunals of an organized comraunitj-, where the charter of British rights would be held as sacred as the interest of the commercial Company who as.^umo to be them selves the Judges where (without any reflection upon them collectively or individu ally) cases must, in the very nature of things, arise in which they ought to be the judged. It therefore becomes of very great moment to ascertain the truth of certain statements that have been made to the effect that their principal otfioors at Eed Eiver hold their coraraissions from the Crown, and if so, under what forra, for what extent of territory, and how described. Such coraraissions might no doubt havebeen issued under the statute 1 and 2, Geo. 4, for the Hudson Bay Company's Territories and for the Indian Territories, for the trial of small causes and offences of a minor nature, aa already described, without in the lea-it infringing upon or limitiu''' the right of Canada to intervene ; but if tho British Government has expressly included the Eed Eiver country in any such commiasions, it can only have boen through a misapprehension of boundaries, which is not to be wondered at from the policy pur sued sinco the union of the Companies, and the erroneous view of the case they have so constantly disseminated, and no doubt any such powers, if they havo been granted, would be withdrawn as soon aa the case has been fully under the consideration of the imperial authoritiea. In concluding the question of jurisdiction it is necessary to observe that the imperial Statutes, herein quoted, which vest the jurisdiction in Canada to the shores of the Pacific, havo been re- Vancouver's Island, pealed in so far as they relate to Vancouver's Island by tbe Act 12 and 13 Vic, Cap. 48, which re-invests tbe jurisdiction of Van couver's Island in the Imperial Government until the establish ment of a local legislature, which the Act contemplates. At the same tirae a charter waa granted to the Hudson Bay Company for the colonization of the Island, conveying a grant of the soil. Neither the Act nor the charter, however, confers any jurisdiction upon the Company. The Company were required by the terms of the grant to colonize the Island within five years, failing which the grant waa to become void. It was also stipulated that the grant might be recalled at the time of the expiration of their lease for the Indian Territories upon payment to the Corapany of the expenses they might have incurred, the value of their establishments, &c. GENERAL REMARKS. Before concluding this report it is desirable to offer a few general remarks upon the subject, which the policy of the Corapany has kept out of view, and which con sequently ia not generally well understood. Tbe Hudson Bay Company claira under three separate titles, the first of which is the charter of Charles II, granted in 1670, for ever. The second, is the lease, originally granted, in 1821 to them in conjunction with the North-West Corapany of Canada for the Indian Territories. The third, is their title to Vancouver's Island, as explained. Under the first they base their claira to government, jurisdiction and right of soil over the whole country watered by rivers falling into Hudson Bay, — at least, such is the theory, although they have abandoned it south of the present southerly boundary of Canada at Eainy Lake, the Lake of the Woods and along the 49th parallel, to the south of which those rivers take their rise. Under the second, they claim exclusive trade froni the Eocky Mountains, -west to tlie Pacific, and from the sources of the McKenzie Eiver to the Frozen Ocean. Their is no dispute about their titie on this head, hut their lease expires in two years, and it is tho renewal of ihis lease for a further period of 21 yeai's which they now seek to obtain. 368 It will be seen by the question of boundary already treated, that the country about Eed liiver and Lf.ke Winnipeg, etc., which they claim under their charter, abi-olutely belongs to Canada ; and it will be observed that the abstract right, not the value of the territoiy, has been dwelt upon, but unfortunately the latter has beeu as little generally underf-tood asthe foimer, the result of the means the Company have taken to conceal it, for seldom if ever has the wisdom and foresight of man de- vitcd a policy better calculated to the end for which it was intended than that adopt ed since the union of the Companies, in 1821. Bcti'ie that union the Canadian fur trade gave employment to some thousands of men as meie carriers, or " Voyageurs," as they were termed. In eiideavoring to depreciate the national services rendered by the North-West Compary during the war of 1812, at the capture of Michilimacin, &c.. Lord Selkirk alludes to this body of men as forming tho " Voyageurs Corps," but denies credit to the Company for their impoitant services which he admita "in a great measure secured Canada, because they were not constantly Selkirk's Pamrhlet, employed by the Company, and effected this service at a season. p. 27 to 35. of the year when the Company did not require them. Assuming this to be the fact, however, had there been then, as now, no such Company and no such trade, there would havebeen no such body^ of men ready for action in the hour of danger. Had the circumstances of the trade continued the same to the present day, settlement must have followed the route of such a line of traffic, and the continual intercourse between thia country and the fertile plains ofthe "Far West" would have placed us as far in advance of our Araerican neighbors in the colonization of those countries, as we are now behind thera. But the policy of the united Corapanies has been so admirably carried out in all its details, that an erroneous impression respecting the country and everything con nected with it had gradually got possession of the public mind, and it is wonderful with what tact such impreasions raay aoraetimea be conveyed without any statement being made contrary to truth. The very appellation of "Hudson Bay Territory," as applied for instance to the Eed Eiver country, carries a false impression with it, for the waters of the Mississippi and the Eed Eiver, the Assiniboine and the Missouri, interlace with each other there, and therefore, the designation of " Gulf of Mexico Ter ritoiy " would just be as correct. But what adiffereut impression it would convey as regards climate ? Again, almost every mention of the available parts of the West ern Territories, which are well known to possess a soil and climate adapted in thfr highest degree for successful settlement, is interwoven with some reference to ice in some shape or other, which no doubt the Company truly encounter in carrying the trade some eight hundred miles due north through Hudson Bay. An admirable speciraen of this kind of policy, by which erroneous impressions may bo conveyed, is to be found in Sir J. H. Polly's letter to Lord Glenelg. of 10th February, 1837 : " For many years prior to the conquest of Canada, French subjects had penetrated by the St. Lawrence to the frontiers of Parliamentary Papers, Rupert's Land ; but no competition had occurred between the Ko. 647 ot 184^. traders of the two countries within the territories of the Hudson Bay Company previous to the cession of Canada to Great Britain. " Subsequent to that period, the greater capital and activity of British subjects led to a competition, first on the frontier parts, then in the interior, and at last to the formation of a Company, combining all the individuals at that time engaged in the trade, to countries bordering on and west of Lake Superior, under the firm of the North-AVost Company of Montreal. This, when dissected, is a significent paragraph. Where are " tJie frontiers cf Eupert's land," if the French, whose forts were all around Lake Winnipeg had not reached them before the cession of Canada to Great Britain? This is an important corroboration of the views of the boundary question explained in the present report.. 369 That " no competition had occurred within the Territories of the Hudson Bay Company " up to that time may be very tiue, because the Company had never come up fr6m the shores of the Bay, and the French had not gone down— from their places on Lake Winnipeg— to the Bay, The second paragraph, above quoted, may also be substantially true, but yet it is so framed aa to convey to the general reader that the competition arose from the inhabitanta of Canada advancing beyond where they had been before; whereas it was the Hudson Bay Company who then carae up, for the first time, frora the shores of the Bay, which led to the corapetition, " first on the frontier parts'" of Eupert's land, "then in the interior," on Lake Winnipeg, the Saskatchewan, &c , where the Canadians had long enjoyed the trade without competition. *¦ Snch is the system and policy pursued by the Company to exclude from view and create erroneous impressions respecting the western portions of this Province, than which there is perhaps no finer country in North America. The sarae course marks their proceedings at the present moment, for no intimation has been given iu this country of their intention to apply for a renewal of the lease of the Indian Territories, though, exercising the privileges they do in countries subject to the Canadian Government, it would not have been unreasonable to expect a different course. Neither does it appear that they have taken any means to inform the inhabitants of those countries, -whose rights and interests are most deeply affected by the action to be taken, that they were to raake this early application for renewal of their lease. Had it been effected in the quiet manner tbey seem to have desired, — a consummation which the thanks of the country are due to the Imperial Govern ment for having refused to sanction — they only would have been heard in their own case, and the result would have been, alike to the people here and in the more remote territories, a surprise. Canada has no quarrel with "the Hudson Bay Company, and desires no harsh measures towards them. It would be alike ruinous to them and injurious to the countries over which they hold either legal or illegal sway to put a sudden stop to their operations, but it ia an error to suppose that the governing of those countries is a task of uncommon difficulty. The state of anarchy which prevailed in those countries during the warfare of the Corapanies was tho result of the strife between them, where there was no sort of authority, except what they seemed equally to yield, and not arising from any turbulent or ungovernable spirit on the part of the native population. On the contrary, the moment a recognized authority stepped in to control both Companies, implicit obedience was at once yielded to it throughout those vast territories, and either party would have found itself powerless to command followers for an\- purpose of further aggression. This was upon the occasion of the withdrawal ol' all commissions of the peace, previously granted to the leading people of the two Companies, the appointment of two special commis sioners (one of them a member of the Executive Council of Lovver Canada), and the issuing of a proclaraation in the name of the Prince Eegent by authority of a despatch from Barl Bathurst, of 6th February, 1817, I'cquiring the mutual restitution of all the places and property captured during the strife, to the party who had originally possessed the isame, and the entire freedom ofthe trade to each party, until further adjudiea'cd upon. Galling as this restitution must have been in numer ous instances where party leeling, embittered by the loss of many lives, had reached the highest pitch of excitement, it was immediately complied with. The proper course to pursue, therefore, would , be to lay before tho Imperial Government the expediency of annexing the Indian Territories to CanaJa, showing that by this means only can those countries be retained long in the possession of Great Britain. For colonized they must and will be; it is only a question of who shall do it. If we do not, the Americans will, and'that in spite of anything the Company can do to prevent it. That these territoriea are fit fields for settlement it is uscleaa to dispute, for' one physical fact upsets all the theories to contrary. Where a country ia "found to austain animal life to auch an extent that hundreds of thousands of wild cattle find subsistence there both in summer and winter, there mau 1—24 370 can also find a home and plenty. Nor is the country possessing this characteristic confined to a narrow strip along the frontier, but continuing to widen to the westward it is found that tho climate, even on the east side of the Eocky Mountains and at a depth of seven degrees north of tbe American boundary, is milder than the average of the settled parts of Upper Canada. On the west side of the Eocky Mountains the climate is mild to a still higher latitude, but Vancouver's Island, together with the contiguous main land, is perhaps one of the finest countries in the world for colonization. The only drawback is the difficulty of access, a difficulty which the present system will never remove, for it looms larger now than it did forty or fifty years ago, when the North-West Company ot Canada poured a continuous streara of traffic across the continent. This Island cannot now of course be annexed to Canada on the same terms aa the other Indian Territories, aa the existing charter under which the Island is held (a different and distinct thing, be it reraerabered, frora either the old charter or the expiring lease) entitles the Hudson Bay Company to payraent of the value of their establishments if the grant be rescinded, which Canada would naturally be expected to pay, if the Island were conceded to her, and it might be well to see no\Y upon what terms this could be done, because it seems if it be not done at the expiration of the lease of the " Indian Territories," it could not be done afterwards, unless indeed the Company have failed to fulfil tbe conditions required within the first five years. Twelve years ago the United States had no communication with thnir territories on the Pacific except by sea, and during the Oregon negotiations, when proposing strenuous measures upon the subject, the President in his Message to Congress, 2nd Deceraber, 1845, says : " An overland mail is believed to be entirely practicable ; and the importance of establishing such a mail at least once a month is submitted to the favorable consideration of Congress." How different the circumstances now, and how " entirely practicable " it has proved need not he dwelt upon, but it raust be remarked that at no other point north ofthe Gulf of Mexico are the facilities for communication across the continent anything like equal to what they are through Canada, there being good navigation three-fourths, if not more, of the whole distance ; first to the head of Ijake Superior, frora whence the navigation is broken to Lake Winnipeg (though about 150 railes of ^ this distance is navigable), then through that lake to the Saskatchewan, on which there are obstructions in the lower part, near the lake, from whence the navigation is unimpeded to the very base ofthe Eocky Mountains. It would be very desirable, therefore, and quite practicable, if the British Govern ment will consent, to annex the Indian Territories, extending to the Pacific and Vancouver's Island, to Canada, to establish, during sumraer, a monthly communica tion across the continent. It is of incalculable importance that these mea-iires should be most forcibly pressed upon the Imperial Governraent at the present junc ture, for on their solution depends the question of whether this country shall' ulti mately becorae a potty state or one of the great powers ofthe earth; and noi only that, but whether or not there shall be a counterpoise favorable to British in! crests and modelled upon British institutions to counteract the preponderating infim-iice if not the absolute dom nion — to which our great neighbor, the United States, must otherwise attain upon Ibis continent. No reference has beer, here made to the controversy between the Company and those who accuse them of c.xnrciBing a pernicious influence over the Indian popula tion, nor is it necessary to enter into the subject farther than to point out the erro neous irapressiou the Company strive to inculcate, to the effect that they are necessary to the Indians. It raay well be that the state of things ia better, under them, than it was when the two powerful companiea were in hostile array against each other ; and it nr, y be that thcir affairs are as well conducted, with reference to their effect upon the native poinilation, as could well be expected of a commercial company, having the primary question of profit and loss as the object ot their .-issoci- ation. But the question really comes to be, whether those countries shall be kept in 371 statu quo till the tide of population bursts in upon thera, over an iuLiginary line, from a country where it has been the rule that the Indian raust be driven frora the lands the white raan covots ; or be opened up under the influence of the Canadian Government, which has idways evinced tho greatest syrapathy towards the Indian race, and has protected them in the enjoj-ment of their rights and properties, not only in thoir remote hunting-grounds, but in the midst of thickly -peopled diatricta of the country. Crown Land Department, Toronto, 1857. 11.— EVIDENCE OF Wm. MoD, DAWSON.- FEOM THE EEPOET OF A COM MITTEE— THEEE WEEE TWO OTHEE WITNESSES BXAxMINED— ALLAN MoDONELL AND GEO. GLADMAN— HUEEIEDLT GOT UP AT CLOSE OF SESSION, 1857. Monday, Sth June, 1857. Mr. William McD. Dawson called in and examined. I am head of the Woods and Forests Branch of the Crown Land Department, and reside in Toronto. I have never had any difficulty or quarrel with any one connected with the Hudson Bay Company. Have you particularly studied the titles under which the Hudson Bay Corapany claim certain rights of soil, jurisdiction and trade on this continent? I have made this subject a particular object of study for many years, and have omitted no opportunity of acquiring information upon it, and although with more tirae than I could lievote to it, and a more extended research, much additional infor mation could be obtained, I believe that it would only tend to fill up details, and strengthen and confirm the results of the investigation I have already made. Will you state to the Coraraittee the result of your investigation ? The result of ray investigation has been to deraonstrate that in the Eed Eiver and Saskatchewan countries, the Hudson Bay Company have no right or title what ever, except what they have in common with other British subjects. Wherever they have any possession or occupancy there they are simply squatters, the same as they are at Fort William, La Cloche, Lake Nippissing, or any of their other posts in Canada. The Governmental attributes they claim in that country are a fiction, and their exercise a palpable infraction of law. I am no enemy to the Hudson Bay Corapany, nor to any individual connected with it, and I think that there are, at the present day, extenuating circumstances to justify a great degree of forbearance towards them, when their position coraes to be dealt with either judicially or legislatively. Illegal as it undoubtedly is, their present position is a sort of moral necessity with them. The first attempt of the Company, under Lord Selkirk's regime, to assume that position, was no doubt a monstrous usurpation, but it was defeated, though not till it had caused much bloodshed. The Hudson Bay Company and the Canadian traders (North-West Company) afterwards amalgamated, and then, in pursuance of a policy, most dexterously planned and executed, carried the trade away back into the interior, from the very shores of the lakes and rivers adjoining the settlements of Canada, and took it round hy Hudson Bay to keep it out of view, to lessen the chances of a new opposition springing up. They also gave out that it was their country — a fiction which the license of ex clusive trade for the Indian territories helped to maintain— and they industriously 1— 24J 372 published and circulated maps of it aa such, which, being copied into other maps and - geographical works strengthened the delusion, till it became very general indeed. When, therefore, by this means they had been lelt alone in these remote territories, without any intercourse with the organized tribunals or legitimate Government of the country — an intercourse which their raonetary interests forbade' thera to seek — it became a sort of necessity for them to establish a jurisdiction of' their own. It is true that they have gone to an extreme in this matter which it would be, difficult to excuse ; but in such a case it is hard to take the first step and be able to stop afterwards, more particularly when it consists in a total antagonism to existing law, or rather in assuming to theraselves the functions ef constituted authorities where they legally possess only the rights of subjects and traders, in common with the rest of the community. But having once assumed and exercised such powers, and thereby made thera selves amenable to the laws of the country, it is not to be wondered at that they have sought to justify it on the pretence that they possess those powers of Govern ment which (doubtful at best, even in those localities where they have some show of title) are without the least foundation on the banks of the Saskatchewan or Eed Eivers. In thus palliating the tenacity with which the Hudson Bay Company cling to their fictitious title, 1 raay be accused of being their apologist, but I ara^ so only to the extent that, at the present day their position has become a necessity, for, in so far as they have affected the rights of others, they have rendered themselves liable to the most serious consequences, should any party agrieved see fit to appeal to the. legal tribunals of the country, and it is ,but natural to suppose that they will endea vor to maintain the fiction long enough to enable thera to effect a compromise. Any nuraber of individuals might associate themselves together for mining, hunting or agriculture, say at Lake Nipissing or on Anticosti, and finding no legal tribunals there, or within their reach, they might establish a jurisdiction of their own and execute their judgments. Circurastances may be imagined in which such a course, if resulting from the necessity of their position, might be morally right though legally wrong, but nothing short of an act of indemnity could save them from the consequences if pursued at law, by those whose rights they had affected. Such is exactly the position of the Hudson Bay Corapany at the Eed Eiver, and for the judgraents they have rendered there they are undoubtedly amenable to be judged by the legally constituted tribunals of this country; and those whora they have conderaned or punished, or whose rights or interests they have adjudicated upon can certainly obtain redress. And to this extent I would be their advocate, that in so far as their assuraption of jurisdiction has been, in a raanner, a necessity resulting from the acts of former years, the Legislature should pass an Act of indemnity to shield them from the consequences— the circumstances to be first investigated, how ever, by a ccmmission appointed by the Government for that purpose. It may seem presuraptuous in rae to put the case so strongly in opposition to tbe general piew of their territorial rights, but it ia not a matter of opinion, it ia a matter ' of fact. I could have no hesitation to state as a fact, that the County of York and''i the District of Montreal are not portions of the Company's territory, but the fact that the Eed Eiver and Saskatchewan are not in their territory is just as sti-ong and absolute, and the circumstance that the one happens to be better known than the other , does not alter the fact in the one case more than the other'. But the generally received view of the subject is but of recent date and simply the result of the circumstance, that no one in particular has taken any interest iu denying it. It is only since the union of tho companies in 1821 that there has been ¦ no obstacle to the continuous iraposition of tho Company's views upon the public till ' they ultiraately became rather unopposed than accepted; and in denying their titie now (on the Saskatchewan and Eed Eiver) I ara simply in accord with the highest authorities whose province it has been to treat the question judicially. 373 It must be remembered that the Company did not atterapt to even cnlci- upon these countries until 104 years after the date of their charter, viz. : in 177 i, and that they then did ao, not as taking possession under their charter, but only lo participate in a traffic then in the hands of Britiah subjecta trading Ironi Canada in virtue ot the conqueat or cession of the country, through which, and not in virtue of their charter, the Company also had, of course, a right to trade as Britsh subjects. A rivalry having been kept up for many years in tbe trade, and the absurd construction of the charter now contended for having been invented, the attempt to exercise the powers claimed was made by the Company through Lord Selkirk, first theoretically about the years 1811-12 and practically about 1811, by warning off the North-West Corapany and obstructing the channel of their trade, and the re.sult waa a great deal of strife and bloodshed. In the course of this strife various appeals were made to the Provincial and Imperial Governments and to the legal tribunals, and in everj' instance the decisions were directly or constructively adverse to the pretensions of the Hudson Bay Corapany. In a despatch to the Governor General frora Earl Bathurat, by order of His Eoyal Highness the Prince Eegent, under date Olh February, 1817, 1 find the follow ing insti'uctions in relation to these events : "You will also require, under similar penalties, the restitution of all forts, buildings, or trading stations, with the property which they contain, which may have been seized or taken possession of by either part}^, to the party who originally established or constructed the same, and who were possessed of them previous to the recent disputes between the two Companies. ''You will also require the reraoval of any blockade or impediment by which any party may have attempted to prevent or interrupt the free passage of traders or others of His Majesty's subjects or the natives of the (iountry with their merchandize, furs, provisions, -and Other effects, throughout the lakes, rivers, roads aod every other usual route or coraraunication heretofore used for the purposes of the fur trade in the interior of North America, and the full and free perraission for all persons to pursue their usual and accustomed trade without hindrance or molestation." And in conclusion this object is again peremptorily insisted on, viz.: "the mutual restoration of all properly captured during these disputes, and the freedom of trade and intercourse with the Indians, until the trials now pending can be brought to a judicial decision and the great question at issue with respect to the rights of the two Companies shall bo dctinitely settled." The trials then pending to which the above allusion has reference were those institned by Lord Selkirk against the partners and employees of the North-West Company, who had resisted the pretensions of the Hudson Bay Company, and in consequence of which a battie was fought on the Frog Plains, at the Eed Eivor, in which sorae 20 of the Hudson Bay people were killed, including the " Govei-nor," as they styled their chief officer. These trials were for murder (some of the parties as principals and some aa aecessoriea), for arson, robbery (stealing cannou),_ and other high misdemeanors, and were held in thi,s city, then the Town of York, in October, lbl8, and resulted in tbe acquittal of all the parties on all the charges, though itwas not denied that some of them had boen in the battle, in which, however, they con tended that they were in the defence of their just rights. The.se trials were held under the Canada jurisdiction Act (43 Geo. Ill, cap. 138), by authority of a commission from Lower Ci\nada, but the jurisdiction under that Act being questioned on the ground that the Frog Plains were in Upijer Canada and therefore not in the territoriea affected by that Act,, the court was so doubtful on the question of boundary that the charge to the jury directed that in case of finding the prisoners guilty, they should return a special verdict, setting forth that " they could not see from any evidence before them, what were tho limits of Report from minutes Upper Canada." The Attorney General was unable to define taken in court, page ^j^jgag limits, but appealed to the court to decide, as they 2^^- -svere "deducible from Treaties, Acts of Pa;-liament, and Procla- 374 mations, &c.," and the judgraent of the court was as above stated ; the following passage occurring in the charge of the Chief Justice : " Mr. Attorney General has put in evidence the latitude and Eeport from 'longitude of the Frog Plains, but he does not put in evidence whether minutes taken in ^j^^^ latitude and longitude be without or within the boundai'ies of OcY^'iBlf.^ Upper Canada, and / do not know whether from 90° to 100° or 150° '' ' form the western limit of Upper Garwida." In other words, the court could not affirm that Upper Canada had any western limit on this side of the Pacific ; and the court was right, its westerly limit never had been assigned, aud absolute evidence, of the very nature which the Attorney General (now Chief Justice, Sir J. B. Eobinson) admitted would be Description in proof upon the subject, existed, so far aa to prove that the Province Commissions, to extended beyond the Lake of the Woods, without determining how Governors. far beyond, but it was hot his duty to quote it as he was prosecuting for a conviction as directed by a special commission from Lower Canada under a particular Act. An acquittal, however, rendered any special verdict unnecessary, and the question was not, therefore, further tried on these cases. I rauat reraark, however, that the question raised was solely whether the scene ofthe outrage at Eed Eiver was in Canada or the Indian Territory, not whether it was in Canada or the Hudson Bay Company's Territory ; tbe latter alternative was not even entertained, having been almost entirely ignored on the trials as too mani festly absurd to make any legal fight upon at all. In short, the case for the defence was ba-icd on a justification of resistance to the assumed authority of the Company, whose preposterous pretensions on the Eed Eiver with " Governors, Sheriffs, &c.," were treated with ridicule; without, however, detracting from the individuals, " Governor " Semple, who was killed, or his predecessor, McDonell, who were worthy of the highest respect, though, like many others, imposed upon in the first instance by the specious pretences of the Company and Lord Selkirk. Other actions and trials took place in Upper Ganada, all of which, so far as I have been able to trace them, Avere adverse to the Hud --on Bay Company. In February, 1819, in this city, William Sraith, Under Sheriff of the then VVestern District, obtained £50i) damages airainst Lord Selkirk, then at the head of a large armed force, for resisting him in the execution ofa writ of restitution founded upon a verdict obtained at Sandwich in 1816, and resistance, also, to a warrant for his LordKhip's arrest. At the same timo Daniel McKenzie obtained £1,500 damages for forcible deten tion, &c., by Lord Seli^irk. Criminal proceedings were also instituted and a bill of indictment found against Lord Selkirk himself and the leaders of his parly, for their illegal transactions in the western teri'itories ; but I have not yet been able to trace up the result of this case, and no doubt much valuable inforraation could bo obtained by some one having more time than I have had to hunt up the records of these proceedings. The latter trials, I believe, wore in the ordinary course of procedure of Upper Canada, and not under the Special Act for the Indian Territories, &c., and the pro ceedings taken extended to transactions which occurred far within the territories drained by waters discharging into Lake Winnipeg, Having shown the views ofthe judicial authorities of Upper Canada, I would! advert for a moment to thofo of Lower Canada, ' In May, 1818, Charles De Eeinhard was tried at (Jueboc for inurder committed in 1816 on the Eiver Winnipeg, under the Canada Jurisdiction Act, Exception was taken to the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the locality was not ia tho Indian Territory, but within the limits of Upper Canada. The court over ruled the objection and decided that the westerly boundary of Upper Canada was a line on the meridian of 88"^ 50' west longitude from London. 1 hardly think that any surveyor, geographer or delineator of boundariea of any experience or scientific attainments would concur in that decision. 375 The question would be too long, however, to discuss now, and I shall only say that it was based on the assumption that, of the territory previously belonging to and acquired from France in 1763, only a part was organized as the Province of Quebec, and that the two Provinces of Canada, after the division, were confined to the same limits provided for the former by the Act of 1774. The court, the Attorney General and the counsel for the prisoner, alike concurred in the fact that the Eiver Winnipeg was a part of the country previously belonging to France, and ceded by the Treaty of Parii, in 1763, and at no atage ofthe proceedings was the question of its being a part of the Hudson Bay Company's Territories for one moment enter tained. De Eeinhard was found guilty and sentenced to death, but although the court refused to re-consider its decision, yet the reasoning of Messrs. Stewart and Valliere was so clear that the judges deemed it expedient that the execution should be delayed till the decision of the Imperial Governraent could bo had upon the question of jurisdiction. The actual reasona given by the Imperial Government I have not been able to get at ; but I know that when the decision was given tbe prisoner was released, and that the question submitted was that of jurisdiction, aa above atated. I must here remark, however, that notwithatanding the able and convincing arguments of Mesara. Stewart and Valliere, they omitted one point which the court would have been obliged, by its own admissions, to have accepted as conclusive against the judgment it gave. The decision given was based upon the technical construction put by the court upon the actual wording of an Act o!' Parliament, bat it was admitted (^by the court) that the country to the west only " came into the posssession of the British Crown at the Treaty of Paris, in 1763 ;" and it was also admitted that the King could, by "an Act of Sovirdga Aiiili-yrity," ha,co placed that country under the Government of Canada. It was merely denied that ho did so, not asserted that he could not. The counsel for the prisoner did not chance to come upon the Commissions of the Governors, or they would have found Lord Dorchester's that there had been such an " Act of Sovereign Authority," distinctly Commission, 1783. describing that country to the west of the Lake of the Woods as attached to the Government of Canada, and the court, by its own admiaaion, must have been bound by it. I may also reraark that the decision of the Court at Quebec would have raade the westerly lirait of Upper Canada a long way east of the United States boundary at Lake Superior, leaving out the shores of the lake (where we are now selling mining lands) and its westerly tributaries, and has therefore nothing in comraon with the boundary designated for us by the Hudson Bay Company, viz. : — the water-shed of the St. Lawrence, and for which there is no earthly authority except themselves. On this head I must advert to one other authority which is of the highest importance at this moment, when troops are about to be sent to the Eed Eiver, and who, if they carry with them the erroneous views whieh, of late years, have been with some success imposed upon the public by the aasiduous promulgation of the Company, may unfortunately be placed in a position of antagonism to the civil power. There were, indeed, some troops there not very many years ago, and no such evils, as might be apprehended now, resulted ; but the circumstances are changed ; the scenes of an earlier period may corae back if the attempt be made wholly unsustained by law, to repress a legal right. If such should be the case, it would be uniortunate if Her Majesty's soldiers were found ou the wrong side, acting against law, for the subject is now being so well discussed that the people will know their rights, and will appeal to the legal tribunals and the civil powers of the State to sustain them. Better that railitary rule prevailed entirely, for then the officers would know their duties and their responsibilities. If they go under the impression that they are to be subject to the supposed civil officers of a self-consti tuted government which has no legal existence, they may find theraselves called upon to enforce behests which are not law, which are infractions of law ; they may 376 be called upon to subdue resistance to illegal acts to which resistance is a duty and a right; and if, for actinff on these behests, they are ultiraately brought before the courts of justice, they will find that they have acted under those whose powers will be treated as a nullity, whose civil offices will be held a mockery. Thia has beeUiSO before; it may be so again, if due precaution be not observed; and I state it thjis strongly now because the raore it is known, the less will be the chance of its recur rence. If proper civil officers, raagistrates, &c., were appointed by His Excellency the Governor General, for the Eed Eiver country, to whora alone the troops could look in case of eraergemty, as vested with authority, the difficulty and danger would be obviated; for without this there is no authority in that country, by, through or in any person connected with the Hudson Bay Company, as such, to which any officer or soldier in Her Majesty's service would be justified in yielding obedience. To revert lo the authority upon this subject, I was about to quote; it will be remembered that during the troubles which formerly took place, upon special repre sentations made by Lord Selkirk, that he was not safe in proceeding to the Eed Eiver settlement, some troops were sent with hira, and the instructions given to them by order of His Excellency Sir Gordon Druraraond, are so clear and decisive that|no one can mistake their purport. Thoy were as follows : — Adjutant-General's Office, Quebec, 17th April, 1816. Sir,— The Earl of Selkirk having represented to the Administrator-in-Chief, and Commanding General of the Forces that he has reason 'to apprehend that attempts may be made upon bis life in the course of the journey through the Indian country which he is about to undertake. His Excellency has in censequenoe been pleased to grant his Lordship a military guard for his personal protection against assassination. This party which is to consist of two Serjeants and twelve rank and file of the regi me t de Meuron, is placed under your coraraand, and I am coraraanded to convey to you the positive prohibition of His Excellency the Lieutenant-General coraraanding the Forces, against the eraployraent ofthis force for any other purpose than the per sonal protection ofthe Earl op Selkirk. You are particularly ordered not to engage in yourself, or the party under your command, in any disputes which raay occur betwixt the Earl of Selkirk and his engages and eraployes, and those of the North- West Company, or to lake any part or share in any affray which may arise out of such disputes. By such an interference on your part, you would not only be disobeying yoor instructions, but acting in direct opposition to the wishes and intentions of the Govem ment to the Countenance, Support and Protection of which each Party has an equal claim. The Barl of Selkirk has engaged to furnish the party under your command with provisions during the time of your absence; you are on no occasion to separate from your parly, but lo return with his Lordship, and on no account to suffer yourself or any of your detachraent to be left at any settlement or post in the Indian country, These instructions are to be clearly explained to the non-commissioned officers and men in your party. I have tho honor to be. Sir, Your raost obedient, humble servant, (Signed) J. HAEVBY, Lt.-Col., D.A.G. Lieuleu! nt Graffenried, ) De Me iron's Eegiment. j [The italics and capitals are the same as in the original.] This is another emphatic declaration that the Government held the Hudson Bayi^ Corapany and tho Canadian trr.'Lcn .-;,- -):>-^-i.-:<<,yi n,> ,,vial ri'-l".':,?. und that IDs' 371 ¦ Majesty's troops at least were not to be used against the one to sustain the rediculous pretensions of the other. Notwithstanding the stringency of these instructions, however. Lord Selkirk haviug a number of the disbanded De Meuron soldiers in his pay, it was difficult for I the regulars to resist being led along with thera, to enter upon the North-West Com pany's property, &c., and which involved thera in legal difficulties, after their return, from which it was not easy to extricate them. 1 have confined rayself in the foregoing remarks to the Eed Eiver and Saskatche- .wan countries, which were the principal scenes of the disputes which have heretofore called for action, and it will be seen that the imperial authorities, the military authorities, and the courts of justice have all ignored ihe pretensions of the Hudson Bay Company as regards those countries. The great danger in renewing the Corapany's lease of the Indian Territories, however, would be that they might drop the pretence that the Eed Eivei', &c., is covered by their charter, and claira it as part of the Indian Territories, a plci.which, though erroneous, raight be raore easily sustained by technicalities, inasmuch as some ofthe remote parts of Canada, perfectly understood to be such, havo neverthe less sometimes been designated as the " Indian countries " in official documents, I have not referred to the validity of the Corapany's charter, either to deny or admit it; I merely deny -that it has effect on the countries I have spoken of. In support of this I have quoted raore recent authorities, but for a more par ticular investigation of their title, its extent and origin, I beg to refer to a report which I wrote for the Commissioner of Crown Lands, sorae months a,go, the substance ofwhich appears in the shape of a memorandum in the Eeturn to an Address of the Honorable Legislative Assembly, dated 15th March, 1857, for certain papers con nected with the Hudson Bay question. It embodies the views I have entertained for ;many years, and is the result of rauch careful s^udy. Have you raade the early and present boundaries of Canada a particular subject of study ; if so, state the result ? The early boundaries of Canada or New France included, I think, tho whole of" Hudson Bay, for I find all that part ofthe country granted to a trading Company by the King ofFrance, in a charter somewhdt similar, but forty-three years earlier, than the charter of the Hudson Bay Company, I tind the country also confirmed by Treaty to France, at St. Germain's en Laye, thirty-eight years before the last named charter, but the investigation of this part of the subject is fully stated in tho raemor- andura referred to. I find that frora the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, to the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, the boundaries between tbe French possessions in Canada and tho British possessions in Hudson Bay were not defined. The fines claimed by both parties are distinctly laid down on the raap lately prepared by Mr. Devine in the Crown Land Departraent. Both, it will be seen, give the Eed Eiver and the Saskatchewan to France, and the line laid down from British authorities is from those least favorable to French pre tensions of that period. All the country south of that line is of course what was ceded by France, as Canada, in 176 i, and was in her undisputed possession up to that time. There was never any westerly limit assigned to Canada either before or since the Treaty of Paris. The French claimed to the Pacific though they never explored the whole way acroas, which, however, the Canadians (British and French) were the first to effect after the treaty. Some British authorities of a more recent date clairaed under tho Treaty of Utrecht from Hudson's Bay to latitude 49° as having been so determined by Com missioners ; but no such decision was ever given. I have searched every book I could ;find upon the aubject, and have coraraunicated with those who have searched the best libraries of France and England with the same |object, but no authority can be found for such authority. What do you know of the soil and climate of the British territories north and west of Lake Supor,iOr to the Pacific ? m I know the country in these respects in a general way, as well as I can know any country that I have never personally visited. A great deal of it is of the finest character, both with respect to soil and climate, but in such an extent there are of course some sterile, rocky and barren tracts. The immediate shores of Lake Superior are for the most part rock-bound, but a conviction I have long entertained, deduced frora certain premises, has been sustained by recent proof, th;ii an extensive table land or flat country exists in the interior to the north. To thi- .vest, after crowning the height of land near the lake, there is a great (leal of flat country. Frora the raost westerly British point on Lake Superior to the Eed Eiver Settleraent, the dis tance in an air line is 350 miles, and there is no reason to apprehend that the average difficulties of making a road the whole way are greater than are ordinarily met with in the interior of Canada. Much of the distance, however, is navigable. From the lower end of the Lake of the Woods to the foot of Eainy Lake is navigable in one reach of 156 miles; thence through Eainy Lake, &c., there ia a navigable reach of 77 miles (although some say there is a break, making 44 and 33 railes), thence there are 28 railes, mak ing fine navigable reaches, tho Winnipeg Eiver being nearly as large aa the Ottawa. Prom the last 28 miles the distance ia about 115 miles to Lake Superior. If the road were made through this tract, the whole country would be easily accessible. There are navigable waters, however, a great part of the last-named distance, though in smaller reaches ; I have only given those on which steamers could be used whenever desirable. From the Lake of the Woods to Eed Eiver in a direct line, without going round by Lake Winnipeg, is said to be a very fine country, but it is not thoroughly explored. The route above sketched is the nearest and the easiest to be made available for sumraer travel. It has an immense advantage in distance over the Minnesota route. Taking Detour on Lake Huron as a starting point common to both routes, we find the direct distance to be, from Detour to Pigeon Bay, 300, and from Pigeon Bay to to Eed Eiver, say 356 miles, in all say 656 miles. By way of Minnesota the distances are. Detour to Chicago, 350 miles; Chicago to St. Paul's, 340 miles, and from St. Paul's to Fort Garry, 380 miles, making in all 1,070 miles, making a difference of 414 miles in favor of the Lake Superior route through our own territory. The above distances are given in air lines, and would, of course, be considerably increased in actual travel, but there is not the least reason to suppose that they would be more increased by the one route than by the other. Pigeon Bay, on Lake Superior, is equally accessible and rather less distant from Lake Huron than Chicago is ; but, allowing these two points to be equally accessible from the east, wheu we turn to the west Fort Garry is 356 miles distant from our own port, and 720 miles distant, vid St. Paul's, frora the American. In other words, starting from Port Garry it is about 30 miles farther to St. Paul's than to Pigeon Bay, and when you have got to St. Paul's you are about as fiir from Chicago as you were from Pigeon Bay before yon started from the Eed Eiver. To make an excellent waggon road, therefore, clear through from a British port on Lake Superior to Port Garry, on Eed Eiver, allowance for curvatures bringing the distance up lo about 400 miles, would take say £95,000. Such a road, at a cost of £210 per mile, would immediately transfer the trade from St. Paul's to Lake Superior, would speedily pour a large population into the country, and would likewise become settled throughout its entire length, with such occaaional exceptions, no doubt, as usually occur on the average of road lines in the interior of Canada, This result is worth millions of money to the people aud the trade of this country, and the outlay IS comparatively insignificant. But it is not necessary to make even this outiay to attain the end desired. I have already shown 260 railes navigable on the route, in three or at raost m four, separate reaches, the data for which I have taksn from the actual survey made m 1826 under the Treaty of Ghent. The navigable parts are not, ol course, m a straight line, but they lie very closely in tho general direction of the route, and from £25,000 to £30,0U0 expended on the 115 miles frora Lake -Superior lo the first navigable reach referred to might at once be said to open up the 379 territory. Gradual access might of course be had, at a still less cost, by commencing settlement with the ordinary class of free grant roads. The whole route might indeed be made accessible at once at the coat of a few thousand pounds, by clearing out the portages (over which artillery and military stores have been taken ere now) which have fallen into disuse, and even this would be beneficial, as it would create trade and travel enough to induce a more general knowledge of the capabilities of the country. I need only add on thia head that my viewa of this country are derived personally from some who have seen it, and from the writings of others, and have recentiy been confirmed by the evidence of Sir George Simpson and Dr, Eea, who, while manifesting a strong desire to condemn, have afforded the most convincing proofs of the practicability of rendering this route available. They both admit that from the high landa near Lake Superior westward to .Lake Winnipeg, the country generally is of a flat character. The next point is, that from the impracticable nature of the north shore of Lake Superior, it can only be a summer route, and that it is not therefore desirable to have a British population in these countriea to which access could only be had, dur ing winter, through the United States. I admit the inconvenience, but what becomes of Canada altogetUer in winter? The entire intercourse between it and England is through the States at that season. But, it may be said, there is another route possible from Halifax to Quebec. Is there, then, no other route possible to Eed Eiver ? For tunately, Dr. Eae has recently thrown some very valuable light upon the subject. He says that in the interior, behind the rock-bound shores of the upper part of Lake Superior, the country is low and swarapy, having found it rough and broken when ever he got nearer the lake. " Swampy," it raust be observed, as used in Canada, conveys an erroneous impression to Bnglish readers, who do not know that what is called a " swamp" in Canada is a level tract, with a thicket growing upon it, which keeps the ground damp by keeping out the sun's rays ; that there is generally from six to eighteen inches of rich vegetable mould on the surface, with a pretty stiff clay bottora ; that, in short, a Canadian swamp is about the best ground that nature ever made for a railway track. Dr. Ea:e has not been far enough back at the lower end of Lake Superior to reach such a country, but We have the explorations of gentlemen connected with the lumber trade, a considerable distance i(jto the interior westward from Lake Temiscamingue, where a very fine, level hardwood country is found ; and from other good authorities I have learned that the country continues of a flat character westward to the localities described as such by Dr. "tae, and that ftie snow does not lie quite so deep as in Lower Canada. I shall not assert anything positive of a route which has not been sufficiently explored or reported upon, but from all that is known there is no rational ground for supposing that the route would be in the least more difficult in its natural features than between Quebec and the Lower Provinces. Such a route is of no immediate necessity, however, until a con.siderable population shall have grown up to the west. Having dealt thus fully with the question of the accessibility of the country, I shall be brief in relation to its soil and climate, which are so generally known as to render a refutation of the erroneous statements still sometimes made by interested parties, or those who are swayed by thera, a superfluity. I have had some communicatioujwith parties in England who take a deep interest in the subject, and have seen a great part of the evidence taken by the Committee of the House of Coraraons, before which it has lately been undergoing investigation. The evidence given on that occasion, on behalf of the Hudson Bay Corapany, raust ultiraately becorae a subject of deep regret to those whose names are associated with it, because ofits entire want of truthfulness. The evidence before the Committee of the Commons was not coraplete at this tirae, but I was in communication with parties who kept me informed. But it will soon, I presume, become public, and I need not now anticipate the reception it must then meet with. I will only advert to a few points, to elucidate my remarks upon the soil and climate of the country. Sir George Simpson admits — what everybody knows — that the climate on the same p.arallel of latitude, improves to the west. I am aware that 380 wheat grown in eastern Canada, north of the 48th parallel of latitude, obtained hon orable mention, as ranking next after the prize wheat, at the world's exhibition in Paris. The Eainy L ike Eiver is also between the 48ih and 49th parallels of latitude, but there, Sir George tells the Committee, that the ground, behind the iraraediate bank of the river, ia permanently frozen. 'Ihus between the sarae parallels of latitude we find one point on the east at which we know that the best of wheat can be grown, .and another point, thirteen miles due west of it, where, while he says the climate improves by westing. Sir George informs the Committee that we have reached the regions of perpetual frost. Coloi el Lefroy also says that the climate ameliorates to the westward, but and that in the country from Lake Superior west to the Eocky Mountains, both soil yet, climate are adverse to settlement. His proofs are curious, however; he says: wheat has been raised with success at Fort Cumberland. Now, Fort Cumberland is upwards of three hundred miles due north of tbe boundary. Following the same 'raeredian due south, therefore, there raust be one of the finest wheat-growing countries imagin able; at least a due north and south line of upwards of three hundred railes, in this pan ofthe world, would reach from a very fine to a very indifferent wheat-growing country. He says also that horses live out and find their own food all winter, ou the north branch of the Saskatchewan, and that the buffaloes get very fat in winter. He says that barley is the only cereal tbat can be grown with success at Fort Simpson ; but this being about 62° north latitude (he raistakes in culling it 58°), the climate on the same raeridian at 49° raust be magnificent. The fact is, that those who have given evidene for the Corapany, speak of the territories frora Lake Superior to the Eocky Mountains, and from latitude 49° to the Polar regions, as a whole, and thus it ia that Fort Simpson is dragged in to prove tho unfitness of the country generally for agriculture; whereas the fact that nothing better than barley can be grown at Archangel raight as well be adduced to prove that wheat would not succeed in Poland, or the farthest portions of Germany; or the inhospitable climate of Lnpland made an argument against the cultivation of the British Islands. Colonel Lefroy indeed condemns both soil and climate, and attributes the success of agricul ture at Fort Simpson to the fact of the farm being on an island forraed by an alluvial deposit. If th^en the accident of an island of alluvial soil in latitude 62° found a cliraate genial enough to raake " farming unusually successful" with " very fine timber," though " the largest trees seldom exceed three feet in diameter," no language of mine could convey a stronger disproof of the evidence given by the same gentleman against the climate as a whole, including 13 degrees further south, and the same proximity to the Pacific as Port Sirapson. Eespecting ray own opinions upon the subject, from having read what has been written by indifferent parties upon it, I think the nature of the climate is just as well established as that of the climate of Europe and Asia is. It is affected by the sarae causes precisely, varied in a greater or Jess degree^ in diff'erent localities by circum stances peculiar to ea^.-h. The west side of tho Continent of Europe and Asia is warmer on the same parallel of latitude thau the east side, because the west has an ocean to the windward ofit, the prevailing winds being westerly. The cause and effect are precisely the same on the Continent of America, only they operate in a somewhat greater degree from its having a larger and warmer ocean lo the windward ofit, and colder sea to chill ils eastern shores. The greater coldness of the North Atlantic, on the eastern shores of America, is caused by the mass of ice that annually drives southward through Davis' Straits. I believe there aro no such icebergs reach the sarae latitudes in the Pacific. The isotherraal lines of equal temperature run farther north therefore on the west coast of America on the Pacific, than on the west coast of Europe on the Athuitic. The observations upon which this fiict is based, are concurred in by all disin terested authorities ; against such testimony the evidence of the few interested in the Hudson Bay Company, or thoir friends, is entirely valueless. 381 Assuming, however, that equal latitude gives only the same mean temperature on the west coast of America, as on the west coast of Europe, we find that some of tho finest countries in the world lie between the 49th and 60th parallels, including the wholo of the British Islands. The 60th parallel of north latitude passes through Christiania, in Norway, a little north of Stockholm, tho capital ot Sweeden, and through St. Petersburgh; but in following 'the' same parallel through Ectrope and Asia we come out in the most northerly parts of Kamtachatka, which cannot be said to be habitable in the ordinary sense. There is no barrier in climate, therefore, to a St. Petersburgh''being at latitude 60° north, on the' west coast of America, any more than on an inlet of the west coast of Europe, although on following the same parallel eastward across the continent to the shores of Hudson Bay, or the Confluence of Hudson and Davis Straits, we come to countries whose sterile shores and wintry skies forbid the hope oftheir ever becom ing tho homes'ot civilized men, except as hunters and fishers. The 49th parallel of north latitude passes nearly a degree south of' the southern most point of England, through the environs of P^ris, through the southern Provinces of Germany, and less than a degree north of Vienna, There is no reason therefore, as regards climate, why the lower course of the Fraser Eiver, or the upper course of tho Columbia, in British territory, and in the same latitudes, should not rival the banks of the Ehine, the Mouse, or the Moselle; there is no such reason why the valleys of tho Unjiga, the Elk, the Saskatchewan, the Eed Eiver and the Assiniboine should not yield their golden harvests as rich as those of the Weser, the Elbe, the Odor or the Vistula. The geographical affinities between these localities, in relation to those influ ences by which cliraate is, affected, are indeed such that it would require some very strong tacts, sustained by a concurrence of all the raost credible testimony, to prove that the above comparison is too favorable to the places I have named on this con tinent. The facts established, however, by all disinterested authorities, prove the reverse. What, then, is this immense region, equal in area and climate to raany of the most powerful kingdoms of tbe Old World, composed of? Bare rock, snow-clad mountains, and sandy plains or swaraps and morasses, are what the friend,-* of the Hudson Bay Company would have us believe. 'VVe find, however, that the construc tion ofthis part of tbe globe is very much like the rest of the world, varying from the primitive to the secondary and tertiary formations, with liraestone, coal, &c., in abundlince; and to assert that a country of such formation, and with such a climate, is unfit for the abode of man, is simply to- assert that the laws of nature are reversed in regard to it. ftie Company and their friends, however, try to prove too rauch ; according to Sir- George Simpson, immediately to the south of the 49th parallel on the Pacific coast, there is a beautiful country— that being 'United States territory — and immediately to the north of that parallel the country is all rock and moun tain, " quite unfit for colonization," — that being British territory. Indeed, accord ing to him, the 49th parallel forms a sort of natural wall across the continent; that is, not quite across it, for a peculiar feature in his evdence is that the regions of permanent frost get down south of it at one point, and not the least strange part of this phenomenon is that it just occurs at that point where the parallel of 49° ceases to be the boundary, and the British territory also gets to the south of it, viz : at Eainy Lake. , , ^ , ,. ,, „ ,, Animal life, however, abounds in the country; the^buffalo, literally "swarm, even according to the evidence submitted by the Company. TheEocky Mountains have also been referred, to as affecting the climate injur iously by the influence of the perpetual snow upon their summits. But the fact that the snow-clad mountains of other countries do not prevent the valleys from being habitable is a sufficient argument against thia ; indeed it is questionable whether the increased reflection of the sun's rays, concentrating in the valleys below, does not 382 more than compensate for the cold communicated from the snow upon their sum mits. I may remark, in conclusion, that the Lake Superior route to the Eed Eiver, was not always such a solitude as it is now. The strife between the Companies was deplorable, in many respects, but the disorder and anarchy could easily have been subdued-- indeed was subdued — and could have been so still more readily, had the facilities for access been as great then as now. But it must be remembered that canoe navigation at that time comraenced at Lachine, and yet even then, there was a great highway, for there was money to be made, and a land worth fighting for lay in the distance. The following extract from a work, published by a gentleman who had come across from the Pacific, represents the scene on his arrival at Port William, on August 16th, 1817 : " On enquiry, I ascertained that the aggmo-.^.te number of those persons in and about the establishraent, was composed of natives ofthe following countries, viz : England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, United States of America, the Gold Coast of Africa, the Sandwich Islands, Bengal, Canada, with various tribes of Indians, and a mixed progeny of Creoles or half-breeds. What a strange medley I Here were assembled on the shores of this inland sea. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Sun-worshippers, men from all parts of the world, and whose creeds were " wide as the poles asunder," united in one common object, and bowing down before the same idol." Eoss Cox, Loudon, 1831. These were the features of an embryo city — ^in strange contrast with tho deso late and decaying loneliness which the blight of an illegal monopoly has thrown over it to-day — the entrepot of the trade of half a continent which, but for that blight would, at this day, have helped to enrich the Canadian people, to fill their canals, and to swell the traffic on their railroads, and it depends upon the action to be taken now how long the incubus is to last. If I have said anything which may seem harsh or uncalled for of any one con nected with the Hudson Bay Company, I regret it. I have given my answers hur riedly, and may have used expressions I would recall, as I have had no motive but to show tho truth, though I have desired to speak it strongly for the good of my country, and in the interest of humanity. Crown Grant to the Hudson Bay Company of the exclusive trade with the Indians in certain parts of North Araerica, for a further term of twenty-one years, and upon the surrender ofa former grant. Victoria E. (l, s.) Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. To all whom these Presents shall come, greeting. Whereas by an Act passed in tho Session of Parliament holden in the first and second year of' the reign of his late Ma)esty King George the Fourth, intituled " An " Act for regulating the Fur Trade, and establishing a Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction " within certain parts of North America," it was amongst other things enacted, that frora and after the passing of the said Act, it should be lawful for His said Majesty, his heirs or successors, to make granta, or give His or their Eoyal License, under the hand and seal of one of His or their Principal Secretaries of State, to any body cor porate or company, or person or persons, of or for the exclusive privilege of trading 383 with the Indians in all such parts of North America as should be specifiei! in any such grants or licenses respectively, not being part ofthe lands and terrif oi i • - there tofore granted tothe Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading to Eulson Bay, and not being part of any of our Provinces in North America, or of any lands or territories belonging to the United States of Araerica, and that all such grants and licenses should be good, valid and effectual for the purpose of securing to all such bodies corporate, or companies or persons, the sole and exclusive privilege of trading With the Indians in all such parts of North America (except as thereinafter excepted) as should be specified in such grants or licenses, anything contained in any Act or Acts of Parliament, or any law to the contrary notwithstanding ; and it was further enacted, that no such grant or license made or given by His said Majesty, His heirs or successors, of any such exclusive privileges of trading with the Indians in such parts of North America as aforesaid, should be made or given for any longer period than ul years, and that no rent should be required or demanded for or in respect of any such grant or license, or any privileges given thereby under the pro visions of the said Act for the first period of 21 years; and it was further enacted, that from and after the passing of the said Act, the Governor and Corapany of Adventurers trading to Hudson Bay, and every body corporate and company and person to whom any such grant or license should be made or given as aforesaid, should respectively keep accurate registers of all peraons in their employ in any parts of North America, and should once in each year return to the Principal Secre taries of State accurate duplicates of such registers, and should also enter into such security as should be required for the due execution of all processes criminal and civil, aa well within the territoriea included within any such grant, as within those granted by charter to the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading to Hudson Bay, and for the producing or delivering into safe custody, for the pur pose of trial, all persons in their employ or acting under their authority, who should be charged with any crirainal offence, and also for the due and faithful observance of all such rules, regulations and stipulations as should be contained in any such grant or license, either for gradually dirainishing and ultimately preventing tho sale or dis- ti'ibution of spirituous liquors to the Indians,or for promoting their moral and religious improvement, or for any other object which might be deemed necessary for the remedy or prevention of any other evils which had hitherto been found to exist : And whereas it was in the said Act recited, that by a convention entered into between His said late Majesty and the United States of Araerica, it was stipulated and agreed, that every country on the north-west coasts of Araerica to the westward of the Stoney Mountains should be free and open to the citizens and subjects of the two powers for the term of ten years from the date ofthe signature of that convention ; and it waa therefore enacted, that nothing in the aaid Act contained should be deemed or construed to authorize any body corporate, company or person to whom His said Majesty might, under the provisions of the said Act, make or grant or give a license of exclusive trade with the Indians in such parts of North Araerica as aforesaid, to claim or exerciae any such exclusive trade, within the limits specified in the said article,to the prejudice or exclusion of any citizens ofthe said United States of America who raight be engaged in the said trade; with a proviso, that no British subject should trade with the Indians within such limits without such grant or license as was hy the said Act required. And whereas by an instrument under the hand and seal of the Eight Honorable" Earl Bathurst, then one of His said late Majesty's Secretaries of State, and dated the 6th day of December, 1821, after reciting therein, as or to the effect afoi-es;iid, and also reciting that the said Governor and Corapany of Adventurers of England trad ing to Hudson Bay, and certain associations of persons trading under the name of " The North- West Company of Montreal," had respectively extended the fur trade over many parts of North America which had not been before explored, and that the competition in the said trade had been found, for some years then past, to be productive of great inconvenience and loss, not only to the said Com pany and associations, but to the said trade in general, and also of groat injury to 384 the native In lians and of other persons. His said Majesty's ^ subjects ; and thatthe''-' said Governor aid Company of Adventurers trading' to Hudson Bay; and William- M'Gillivrr.y, of Montreal, in the Province of Lower Canada, Esquire; Simonii M'Gillivray, of Suffolk-lane, in the City of London, raerchant ; and Edward Ellice, of Spring-L;arden8, ill the County of Middlesex, Esquire; had represented to His said Majesty that tbey had entered into an agreeraent, on the 26th' day of March last, for putting au end to the said competition, and carrying on the said trade for twenty-i ' one )ears, commencing with the outfit of 1831, and ending with the' returns of the oiiidt of 1841, to be carried on in the narae of the said Governor's and Company oxclusively, and that the said Governor and Company, and Williaiu M'Gillivray, Siinon M'Gillivray and Bdward Ellice had humbly besought His said late'' Majesty to make a grant and give His Eoyal License to them jointly of and for the'' e.\ciusive privilege of trading with the Indians in North Araerica, under the restric- ' lions and upon the terms and conditions specified in the aaid recited Act: His said"' 1 ite Majesty, being desirous of encouraging the said trade, and remedying the evils' which had aiisen frora the competition which had theretofore existed therein, did • ,i;ive and gr^nt his Eoyal Liccii^e, under the hand and seal of one ot his Principal Secretaries of State, to the said Governor and Comj>any, and William .M'Gillivray, .Simon M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice, for the exclusive privilege of trad ing. with I he Indians in all such parts of North America to the northward and to the westward of the said I. nds and territories belonging to the United States of America, as should not form pai i of any of His said 'dajesty's Provinces in North America, or of any lands- or territorios belonging to the said United States of America, or to any European G-iv- ernment, slalo or power ; and His said late Majesty did also e;ive and grant and secure to'the said Governor and Company, and William M'Gillivray, Simon M'Gillivray and Bdward Ellice, the sole and exclusive privilege, for the full period of 21 years, from the date of that grant, of trading -vrith the Indians in all such parts of North America .-IS aforesaid (except as thereinatter excepted), and did thereby declare that no rent should be required or demanded for or in respect of that grant and license, or any privileges given thereby for said period of 21 years, but that the said Governor and Company of Adventurers trading to Hudson Bay, and the said William M'Gillivray, .Simon M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice, should, during tho period of that grant and Jicense, keep accurate registers of all persons in their employ in any parts of North America, and should once in each year return to His said Majesty's Secretary of State accurate duplicates of such registers, and enter into and give security to His said Ma jesty, his heirs and successors, in the penal sum of £5,000 for ensuring, as far as in them might lay, or as they could by their authority over the servants and persons in their eraploy, the due execution ot all criminal processes, and of every civil process in any suit where 1 he matter in dispute shall exceed £200, by the officers and persons legally empowered lo execute such processes within all the territoriea included in that grant, and for the producing or delivering into custody for purposes of trial all persons in their employ or acting under their authority within the said territories, who should be charged with any criminal oftence ; and Hia said Majesty did thereby require that the said Governor and Company, and William M'Gillivray, Simon M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice, si, .aid, as soon as the same could be convenientiy done, make and submit for Hia said Majesty's consideration and approval, such rules and regulations for the management and carrying on ofthe said tur trade with the Indians, and the conduct of the persons employed by them therein, as might appear to His said Majesty to be effectual for diminishing or preventing the sale or distribution of .spirituous liquors to the Indians, and for promoting their moral and religious ira- provemorii ; and His said Majesty did thereby declare, that nothing in that grant contain(Ml ,¦^hould be deemed or construed to authorize the said Governor and Com pany, an 'J William M'Gillivray, Simon M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice, or any persons in their employ, to claira or exorcise any trade with tho Indians on tho norih-west coast of America, to the wcr,l\vard of the Stony Mountains, to tho prejudico or exclusionofany citizens ofthe United States of America who raiirht bo engaged in the said trade; and providing also by the now reciting grant, that no British subjects 38S other than and except tho said Governor and Corapany, and the said Williara M'Gillivray, Simon M'Gillivray and Bdward Ellice, anf the per.sons authorize 1 to carry on exclusive trade by thom on grant, should trade with the Indians within such limits during the period of tbat grant : And whereas the said Governor and Corapany have acquired to themselves all the rights and interests of the said William M'Gillivray, Simon M'Gillivray and Edward Ellice, under the said recited grant, and the said Governor and Company having humbly besought us to accept a surrender of the said grant, and in considera tion thereof to make a grant to thera, and give to thom our Eoyal License and authority of, and for the like exclusive privilege of trading with the Indians in North America, for the like period, and upon sirailar terms and conditions to those specified and referred to in the said recited grant. Now, know ye, that in consideration ofthe surrender made to us ofthe said recited grant, and being desirous of encouraging the said trade, and of preventing as rauch as possible a recurrence of the evils mentioned or referred to in the said recited grant; as also in consideration of the yearly rent hereinafter reserved to us : We do hereby gram and give our licca.^e, under the hand and seal of one of our principal Secretaries of Siato, to the said Gov ernor and Company, and their successors, for the exclusive privilege of trading with the Indians in all such parts of North America, to the northward and to the west ward of the lands and territories belonging to the United States of Araerica, as shall not form part of any of our provinces in North America, or of any lands or territories belonging to the said United States of America, or to any European gov ernment, slate or power, but subject nevertheless as hereinafter mentioned : And we do by these presents give, grant and secure to the said Governor and Company, and their successors, the sole and exclusive privilege, for the full period of 21 years from the date of this our grant, of trading with the Indians in all such parts of Nor'i,h America, as aforesaid (except as hereinafter mentioned) : And we do hereby declare, that no rent shall be required or demanded for or in respect of this our grant and license, or any privileges given thereby, for the first four years, of tbe said term of 21 years; and we do hereby reserve to ouraelvea, our heira and successors, forthe remainder ofthe said term of 21 years, the yearly rent or sura of 5s. to be paid by the said Governor and Company, or their successors, on the first day of June in every year, into our Exchequer, on the account of us, our heirs aud successors ; and we do hereby declare, that the said Governor and Company, and their successors, shall, during the period of this our grant and license, keep accurate registers of all persons in their eraploy in any parts of North America, and shall once in each year return to our Seci'etary or State accurate duplicates of such registers; and shall also enter into and give security to us, our heirs and successors, in the penal sura of 5,000Z., for ensuring, as far as in them may lie, or as they can by their authority over the servants and persons in their employ, the due execution of all criminal and civil processes by the officers and persons legally empowered to execute such processes within all the territories included in this our grant, and for the producing or delivering into custody for the purposes of trial all persons in their employ or acting under their authority within the aaid territories who shall be charged with any criminal offence ; and we do also hereby require, that the said Governor and Company, and their successors, shall, aa soon as the same can be conveniently done, make and submit for our consideration and approval such rules and regulations for the management and carrying on the said fur trade with the Indians, and the conduct of the peraons employed by them therein, as may appear to us to be effectual for diminiahing or preventing the sale or diatribution of spirituouB liquora to the Indiana, and for promoting their moral and religioua improve ment; but we do hereby declare, that nothing in this, our grant, contained, shall be deemed or construed to authorize the said Governor and Company, or their successors, or any persons in their employ, to claim or exercise any trade with the Indians on the North-weat coast of America to the westward of the Stony Mountains, to the pre judice or exclusion of any of the subjects of any foreign states, who, under or by jbrce of any convention for the time being between us and such foreign states, res- 1—25 386 pectively, may be entitled to, and shall be engaged in tho sarae trade ; provided ^ nevertheless, and we do hereby declare our pleasure to be, that nothing herein con tained shall extend or be construed to prevent the establishment by us, our heirs or successors, within the territories aforesaid, or any of them, of any colony or colon ies, province or provinces, or for annexing any part of the aforesaid territories to any existing colony or colonies to us, in right of our Imperial Crown, belonging, or for constituting any such form of civil government as to us may seem meet, within any such colony or colonies, province or provinces : And we do hereby reserve to us, our heirs and successors, full power and autho rity to revoke these presents, or any part thereof, in so far as the same may embrace or extend to any of the lerritories aforesaid, which may hereafter be comprised within any colony or colonies, province or provinces aa aforeaaid: It being, neverthelesa, hereby declared, that no Britiah subject?, other than, and except the said Governor and Corapany, and their successors, and the persons autho rized to carry on exclusive trade by them, shall trade with the Indians during the period of this our grant within the limits aforesaid, or within that part thereof which shall no', be comprised within any such colony or province aforesaid. Given at our Court at Buckingham Palace, SOth day of May, 1838. By Her Majesty's command. [L. S.] (Signed) GLENELG. •Covenant by the Hudson Bay Company for performance of Conditions aud Eeserva- tions contained in the Crown Grant of even date. — (Dated 30th May, 1838.) Whereas, Her Majesty hath, by an instrument under the hand and seal of the Secretary of Slate, the Eight Honorable Charles Lord Glenelg, bearing even date herewith, granted and given Her Eoyal License to us, the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England, trading into Hudaon Bay, and our successors, the exclusive privilege of trading with the Indians in all such parts of North Araerica to the north ward and to the westward of the lands and territories belonging to the United States of America as shall not form part of any of Her Majesty's provinces in North America, or of any lantls or territories belonging to the United States of America, or to any European government, state or power, and hath secured to us, the said Grov- ernor and Company, and our successors, the sole and exclusive privilege for the full period of 21 years from tho date of the said grant, of trading with the Indians in all such parts of North America as aforesaid (except and with such restrictions as there inafter excepted), and hath thereby declared that no rent shall be required or demanded for or in respect of the said grant or license, or any privileges given thereby, for the first four years of the said term of 21 years, and hath thereby reserved to Her Majesty, her her heirs and successors, for the remainder of the said period of 21 years the yearly rent of 5s., to be paid by us, the said Governor and Company, and our successors, on the 1st day of June in every year, into Hor Majesty's Exche quer, on account of Her Majesty, her heira and successors : We, therefore, the said Governor and Corapany of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay do hereby covenant and bind ourselves and our suocessora, that we and they shall yearly and every year, and on every 1st day of June, from and after the expiration of the first four years ofthe said term of 21 years, and thenceforth during the continuance of the said grant and license, pay or cause to be paid the said yearly rent of 5s. into Her Majesty's Exchequer, and on account of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, and that we and our successors shall, during the period of the said grant and license keep accurate registers fif all persons employed by us or our successors in any parts of North America, and shall once in each year return to Her Majesty's Secretary of State accurate duplicates of such registers ; and we, the said Governor and Company, do hereby bind ourselves and our successors in the penal sum of 5,0ti0Z. that we will, as far as in us may lie, ensure the due execution of all criminal and civil pro- 387 -cesses by the officers and persons legally empowered to execute such process within all the territories, for the time being, included in the said grant, and for the produc ing or delivering into safe custody for the purpose of trial of any person in our employ or acting under our authority within the said territories who may be charged with any criminal offence; and we do also hereby covenant that we will, as soon as the same can be conveniently done, make and submit to the consideration and approval of Her Majesty such rules and regulations for the management and car rying on the said fur trade, and the conduct of the persons eraployed by us therein, as have appeared or may appear to us to be most effectual for gradually diminishing and ultimately preventing the sale or distribution of spirituous liquors to the Indians, and for promoting their moral and religious improvement. Witness the seal of the said Company, the 30th day of May, 1838." By Order of the Governor and Committee. [L. S.] (Signed) W. G. SMITH, Assistant-Secretary. Sealed under the common seal of the within-mentioned Governor and Company, ane delivered by William Gregory Smith, their Assistant-Secretary, purauant to their order and appointment, being first duly stamped in the presence of (Signed) THOMAS CEOSSE, Threadneedle Street, Solicitor. 12.— EESOLUTIONS To be moved by Mr. Dawson for an Address to Her Majesty, on the subject of the North- Western parts of this Province, the Indian Territories and the Hudson Bay Company. That it be Resolved: — 1. That Canada, or New France, as originally known and recognized by European nations had no lirait towards the north, except the Frozen Sea, and no limit towards the west except the Pacific Ocean. 2. That a charter was granted by King Charles the Second, of England in 1670, to certain parties as " The Merchants, Adventurers of England, trading to Hudson Bay " which — although neither the grantor, nor the British people, knew anything, at that time, of the interior of the country about Hudson Bay — nevertheless, pre cluded the Company from entering upon the possessions of France ; the charter thus bearing upon its face a doubt of the extent, or indeed the existence of the title it professed to convey, and a knowledge of the fact that the right to the country even on the shores of Hudson Bay (which only was then known to England) was, in whole or in part, vested in France. 3, That from the first moment the intrusion of the Hudson Bay Company became known to France, or to the Canadian authorities of that day, it was forcibly, and for the most part successfully resisted, though in a time of peace between Great Britain an France. 4. That by the Treaty of Peace concluded at Eyswick, in 1697, between Great Britain and France, most of the places situate on Hudson Bay were recognized as belonging to France, while the claims of the two nations to the remaining places were to be determined by Commissioners respectively appointed for that purpose, ¦who however, never met for the object contemplated. 5. That by the Treaty of Peace concluded at Utrecht, in 1713, the whole of Hudson Bay (saving the rights of the French occupants down to that period) was ceded by France to Great Britain, but without defined limits, which were also to be determined by Commissioners, who, however, in like manner, never met for the purpose. 1— 25J 388 6. That the extent of the actual possesaion by each of the two nations affords^ therefore, for the next fifty years, tbe true basis of their respective rights ; unaffected by the various propositions, not baaed upon the treat}', but conventionally raade or rejected by the one or the other. 7. That during the said period tbe possession of Great Britain, through the mediura of the Hudson Bay Company, was confined to the shores of Hudson Bay, or extended a very short distance inland, while France was in posaeasion of the interior countries to the south and west, inluding the Eed Eiver, Lake Winnipeg, the Saskatchewan, &c. 8. That by the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, Canada was ceded by France, as then possessed by her, to Great Britain, reserving to the French inhabitants all the rights and privileges of Britith sudjects,-— a provision made specially applicable to the Western Territories (then the great seat of tbe fur trade) by the capitulation of Montreal. 9. That Canadians, alike of British and French origin, continued the fur trade on a large and increasing scale, frora 1763 to 1821. by the Ottawa, Lake Superior, the Saskatchewan, &c,, west to tho Pacific Ocean, and by tho McKenzie Eiver north to the North Sea. iO. That, in 1774, the Hudson Bay Company, exercising the undoubted right of British subjects, also entered upon the Saskatchewan and other p.irts of the Canadian territory, ceded by the Treaty of Paris, and carried on the fur trade there, though on a lesser scale than the North-West Company of Canada. 11. That, about the year 1812, the Hudson Bay Company, under the auspices of the Earl of Selkirk, set up the pretence that the countries on the Eed Eiver, the the Saskatchewan, &c., and the jurisdiction thereof, belonged to them in virtue of their charter of 1670, and attempted practically to enforce this view bythe expul sion of the North-West Company, which, however, they failed to effect, and in the attempt to do which the decisions ofthe Imperial and Canadian authorities were uniformly adverse to their pretensions 12. That after a protracted struggle between the two Companies, they united, in 1821, and obtained a joint lease from the Imperial Governraent of the " Indian Territories." 13. That under this lease the two Companies — uniting upon the policy of the Hudson Bay Company — have since carried their trade through Hudson Bay, allowing the cheaper and more advantageous route by the St. L iwrence to fall into disuse, to the serious detriment of the resources of Canada, to which the fur trade had always been a source of great wealth. 14. That the said "Indian Territories" being Twitb out any specific territorial designation, tbe Company have taken advantage of ttiis circumstance to disseminate such views as were most suitable to their own objects, — publishing maps, and creating territorial divisions, upon paper, alike inconslatent with all authority, contrary to historical facts, adverse to geographical association, and even in direct contradiction to the terms of the Statute under which their lease is held ; and by these means they have succeeded in imposing upon the people of Canada so as to exclude them from a lucrative trade which, in fact, there is no lease, charter or law to prevent them from prosecuting. 15. That, therefore, the Hudson Bay Company under their charter (in itself held by eminent jurists to be invalid and unconstitutional — void, also, as this House believes it to be, on the ground that the countries it professes to grant, belonged, at that period to France—) cannot, by virtue thereof, in any event, claim the interior countries on Lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan ; and under their lease of the Indian Territorios can claim the exclusive trade of such countries only as they may prove to be no part of Canada. 16. That this House maintains the right of the people of this -Province to enter upon and freely to trade in that part of Canada, or Nouvelle Prance as originallf known, on Hudson Bay, ceded by France to Great Britain, in 1713 ; and independ-' «utly of the oxvnerehip thereof having been in France previous to 1670, denies the 389 existence of any constitutional restriction to preclude thera from enjoying the rights of British subjects in that or any other British territory 17. That, by the Treaty of Paris, the Mississippi necessarily became the westerly boundary of the the then southerly part of Canada (now part of the United States), because France retained the west bank of that river from its source downwards ; but the territory lying north of the source of the Mississippi — thence west, forming tho northerly boundary of Louisianna — previously possessed by France, and so ceded by the said treaty, this House claims (save in so far as it has since been relinquished to the United States) as an integral part of Canada, without any westerljr lirait except the Pacific Ocean. That a Joint Address of the two Houses of Parliaraent be presented to Her Majesty, founded upon the above Eesolutions, and praying that in consideration of the injurious consequences to the trade and general interests of this Province resulting from the indefinable nature of the " Indian Territories," under cover of which the Lessees have been enabled to create a monopoly in localities not legally affected by their lease of the said territories. Her Majesty raay be graciously pleased to refuse any renewal of suah lease to the Hudaon Bay Company: And further, that Her Majesty may be pleased to sanction no Act by which the existing territorial rightg or jmusdiction of this Province would be affected. 13.— DOCUMENTS AND PAPBES EBLATING TO THE CLAIMS OF THB HUDSON BAY COMPANY. To the Bight Honorable the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations. The Memorandum of the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay. That for avoiding all disputes and differences that may in time to come arise between the said Company and French, settled in Canada, they humbly represent and conceive it necessary : That no wood-runners, either French or Indians, or any other person whatsoever, be permitted to travel, or seek for trade, beyond the limita hereinafter mentioned. That the said limits begin from the island called Griraington's Island, or Cape Perdix, in the latitude of 58| north, which they desire may be the boundary betweea the English and French, on the Coast of Labrador, towards Eupert's Land, on tha east main, and Nova Britannia on the French side, and that no French ship, barque, boat, or vessel whatsoever, shall pass to the northward at Cape Perdrix, or Griming ton's Island, toward or into the Straits or Bay of Hudson, on any pretence whatever. That a line be supposed to pass to the south-westward of the said Island of Grimi ngton, or Cape Perdrix, to the great Lake Miskosinke, alias Mistoveny, dividing the same into two parts (as in the raap now delivered), and that the French, norany others employed by them, shall come to the north or north-westward ofthe said lake, or aupposed line, by land ot water, on or through any rivers, lakes, or countries, to trade, or erect any forts or settlements whatsoever; and the English, on tho contrary, not to pass the said supposed line either to the southward or eastward. That the French be likewise obliged to quit, surrender, and deliver up to the Bnglish, upon demand, York Fort (by them called Bourbon), undemolished ; together with all forts, factories, settlements, and buildings whatsoever, taken from th© English, or since erected, or built by the French, witn all the artillery aud ammuni tion, in the condition they are now in ; together with all other places tbey are pos sessed of within the limits aforesaid, or within tbe Bay and Straits of Hudson. These limits being first settled and adjusted, tbe Company are willing to refer their loaaes and damages formerly sustained by the French in time of peace to the consideration of Commissioners to be appointed for that purpose. By order of the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading iuto Hudson Bay. Hudson Bay House, 7th February, 17||-. 390 Xot.b;. — The said Company are by their charter constituted Lords Proprietors of all those land-j, territories, seas, straits, bays, river.-, lakes, and soundings, within the entrance of the straits, to hold the same, as of Her Majesty's Manor of Bast Greenwich, in the County of Kent. The Company's Claims after the Treatt of Utrecht. To the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations. Mt Lords and Gentlemen, — The Queen has commanded me to transmit to yoti the enclosed Petition of the Hudson Bay Company, that you may consider of it and report your opinion, what orders may properly be given upon the several particulars mentioned, in the meantime I am to acquaint you that the places and countries therein named, belonging of right to British subjects, Her Majesty did not think fit to receive any Act of Cession from the French King, and has therefore insisted onljr upon an order from that court for delivering possession to such persons as should be authorized by Her Majesty to take it ; by this means the title of the Company is acknowledged, and they will come into fhe immediate enjoyment of their property without further trouble. I am, my Lords and Gentlemen, your most obedient servant," DAETMOUTH. Whitehall, May 27th, 1713, To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. The hurable petition ofthe Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading in the Hudson Bay, Sheweth : That your petitioners, being informed thatthe Act of Cession is come over, where by (among other raatters thereby concerted), the Frenoh King obliges himself to restore! to Your Majesty (or to whom Your Majesty shall appoint to take possession thereof)' the Bay and Straits of Hudson, together with all the lands, seas, sea-coasts, rivers and places situate in the said Bay and Straits, as also all forts and edifices whatsoever, entire and not demoiisbed, together with guns, shot, powder and other warlike pro- •visiona (as raentioned in the 10th article of the present treaty of peace, within six months after the ratification thereof, or sooner, if possible it may be done. Your petitioners do raost hurably pray Your M.ijosty will be graciously pleased to direct the said Act of Cession raay be transraitted to your petitioners, as also Your Majesty's commission to Captain Jaraes Knight and Mr. Henry Kelsey, gentleraan, to authorize thera, or either of thera, to take possession of the premises above mentioned, and to constitute Captain James Knight to be Governor of the fortress called Port* Nelson, and all other forts and edifices, lands, seas, rivers and places aforesaid ; and the better to enable your petitioners to recover the same, they humbly pray Your Majesty to give orders that they may have a small man-of-war to depart with theii* ships, by the 12th day of June next ensuing, which ship may in all probability return! in the month of October. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray. By order of the Company. per WM. POTTEE, Secretary. To the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations. Mt Lords,— I send Your Lordships enclosed, by the Queen's command, a memo randum of the Governor and Corapany of Hudson Bay, ana a petition of several persons on behalf of themselves and the inhabitants of Mountserrat. It is Her Majesty's pleasure that Your Lordships should consider the said memorandum and petition, as likewise the several matters which are referred to the Commissaries by the tenth, eleventh, and fifteenth articles of the late treaty of peace'with the Most 391 Christian King, and upon tho whole make your representation, to be laid before Her Majesty, for her further pleat-iire therein. * * * * I am, my Lords, your most humble servant, BOLINGBEOKE. Whitehall, April, 13th, 1714. To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. The humble memorial ofthe Governor and Company of A,dventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay. That the said Company do, with the utmost gratitude, return Your Majesty tlieir most hurable and hearty thanks for the great care Your Majesty has taken for them by the Treaty of Utrecht, whereby the French are obliged to restore the whole Bay of Hudson and Straits, being the undoubted right of the Crown of Groat Britain. And whereas, by the Uth Article ofthe said treaty, satisfaction is to be made to the said Company for all damages sustained from the French in times of peace, for which Commissaries are to be named on both sides to adjust the same ; tho said Com pany humbly presume to acquaint Your Majesty that whenever Your Majesty in Your great wisdom shall think fit to name Commissaries for that purpose, they are ready to make out their demand of damages sustained from the French, according to the said llth article. All of which they nevertheless submit to Your Majesty's wisdom and goodness. The Hudson Bay Company, WM. POTTEE, Secretary. To Wm. Popple, Esq. SiK,— I, being one of the Commissioners for the Hudson Bay Company, give me leave to take this opportunity to inform you we are sending a gentleraan to take possession of our country very speedily. If the Lords have any commands touching the memorial lately presented to Her Majesty by us, relating to tho damages the French did us in times of peace, this gentleman, whowas in Hudson Bay at that time, can give their Lordships aome information in that matter. I ara, your very hurable servant JNO. PEEY. June Srd, 1714. To the Right Honorable the Lord Viscount Bolingbroke. Mt Lord,— In obedience to Her Majesty's coraraands, signified to us by Your Lordship's letter of the 13th of the last month, we have conaidered the memorial of the Governor of the Company of Hudson Bay, and the petition relating to Mount- •errat and thereuoon take leave to offer, tbat Her Majesty be pleased to signify to the Court of France, the necessity of appointing Comraissaries to treat the several matters pursuant to the 10th, llth and 15th articles of the Treaty of Peace with Prance we being inforraed that the French Comraissaries who are hero have not full powers' to treat on those raatters ; and as soon as we have their answer we shall lay it before Your Lordship. My Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient and raost humble servants, GUILDFORD,E. MONCKPON, AETHUE MOOEB, JOHN COTTON, JOHN SHAEPE, SAMUEL PYTTS, THOS. VEENON. 18th June. 392 To the Honorable the Lords GomMissioners of Trade and Plantations. The hurable repre entations ofthe Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay, Sheweth : That pursuant to the 10th article of the Treaty ()f Utrecht they did, the begin ning of June last, send a ship for Hudson Bay, and therein a Governor, one Captain Knight, and his Deputy, one Mr. Kelsey, to take possession of the wholo Bay and Straits of Hudson, together with all other places relating thereto, as mentioned in the said articles, they having not only Her late Majesty (of blessed raeraory) Her commission for the same purpose, together with one from the Company, but likewise the most Christian King's order, under his hand and seal, with a power from th« Canada Company to deliver up the same according to the said treaty, which ship, at the request of the said Canada Company, is not only to bring away the French settled in Hudson Bay, but likewise their effects, pursuant to the aforesaid treaty, they paying freight for the same, which ship may be expected the latter end of September or the beginning of October next. They further represent to Your Lordships that, according to a memorial formerly delivered this honorable Board, relating to the limits or boundaries to be settled by Commissaries 'twixt the English and French in those parts, they humbly prayed, that for avoiding all disputes and differences tiiat may in time arise between th« Company and the French settled in Canada, that no wood-runners, either French or Indians or any other person whatsoever, be permitted to travel or seek for trad* beyond the limits thereafter raentioned. That the said liraits, beginning from the island called Grimington Island, |or Cape Perdrix, in the latitude of 58J north, may be the boundary between tho Enghsh and French, on the coast of Labrador towards Eupert's Land on the east main, and Nova Britannia on the French side. That no French ship, barque, boat or vessel whatsoever, shall pass to the north westward of Cape Perdrix, or Grimington's Island, towards or into the Straits or Bay of Hudson on any pretence whatsoever. That a line suppofsed to p.-iss to the south-westward from the said Island of Grimington or Cape Perdrix, to the great Lake Miscosinke, alias Mistoveny, dividing the same into two parts i^m in the map now delivered), and from the said lake, a lin» to run south-westward into 49 degrees north latitude, as by the red line may mor« particularly appear, and that that latitude be the limit ; that the French do not com* to the north of it nor tho Bnglish to the south of it. That the French, nov any others eraployed by thera, shall come to the north or north-westward of the said lake, or supposed line, by land or water, on or through any rivers, lakes, or countries, to trade or erect any forts or settlements whatsoever; and the Bnglish, on the contrary, not to pass the said aupposed line, either to th« southward or eastward. The said Company having already delivered to Your Lordships an abstract of the damages sustained by the French in tiraes of peace, amounting to £100,543 13s. 9d. according to the direction of the llth article of the aforesaid treaty, whieh they humbly entreat Your Lordships to take care of, to the relief of the great hardahipi they have so long labored under. By order of the Governor and Company of Adventures of England trading iat» Hudson Bay. WM. POTTEE, Secretary. Hudson Bay House, 4th August, 1714. To the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of Trade, dec. My Lords, — The Lords Justices desire to have an account forthwith laid befor« thera of what has been done since the peace, relating to Hudson Bay, Nova Scotia^ and St. Christopher's. Some things have passed in my office, others I believe in th« 393 treasury, and a cousidorable deal I doubt not has beeu done by Your Lordships ; wherefore if Your Lordships be pleased to collect a perfect state of the whole, I will furnish you with what you may want front me. I am likewise on this occassion to put Your Lordships in mind of the point re ferred by the Treaty of Peace with France to the discussion of Commissaries that their Eseellencies may bo acquainted with the ordera given to the Commissaries of commerce in these matters, and their proceedings thereupon. Your letter of tho 30th July, relating to Captain Van Bstegle, has been laid be fore the Lords Justices, and the orders their Excellencies have been pleased to give thereupon, havo been sent to the treasury and adrairalty. It is likewise thought fit that Your Lordships, in your station, should advertise the governors and other officers in the plantations, oftheir duty in the particulars mentioned in your letter, both with respect to the trading to the French settlement, and to the illegal landing ot goods from thence. I am, my Lords, Your Lordships' most humble servant, BOLINGBEOKE. Whitehall, August 12th, 1714. To the Viscount Bolingbroke. Mt Lord, — In obedience to their Excellencies the Lords Justices' commands, signified to us by Your Lordship's letter of the 12th inst., requiring to know what has been done since the jieace relating to Hudson Bay, Nova Scotia, and St. Christo pher's, we take leave to represent : That upon Your Lordship's letter of the 22nd July, requiring us to prepare proper instructions for the British Commissaries who are appointed to treat with those of France npon the 10th, llth, and 15th articles of the Treaty of Peace, we wrote letters to several persons concerned in the Leeward Islands, and several parts of the continent, for what they might have to offer to such parts of the said articles a» did relate to them respectively, and have received answers from some of them. We pray Your Lordship will please lay the enclosed copies thereof before their Excel lencies, the Lords Justices, as follows : Copy of a memorial from the Hudson Bay Company, describing the limits which they desire may be fixed between them and the French in those parts, as also an abstract of the damages they have sustained by the French in times of peace. In relation to St. Christopher's, we further take leave to represent that upon several references from Her late Majesty in Council, from the Lord High Treasurer, and from the Secretary of State, we prepared a representation relating to the settle ment of the French part of that Island, aa aUo a letter to the late Lord I'loisurer upon the sarae subject, copies whereof are here enclose^, which your Lordship will please also lay before their Excellencies the Lords Justices. Since which time we have received some other petitions from French refugees, also referred to us, of tbe same nature as those mentioned in our above said repre sentations, which we have not yet been able to consider so as to be able to make a report thereon. We shall take care by the first opportunity to send directions to the Governors and other officers in the plantations, in relation to the illegal trade between the said plantations and the said French seltlemonts. We are, my Lord, your^most obelienfservants, PH. MEADOWS, AETUUK MOOEE, JNO. SHAEPE, SAMUEL PYTTS, THOS. VEENON. Whitehall,^Aug._14th, 1714. 394 14.— TEBATIES, CONVENTIONS, &c. TEEATY OF ST. GEEMAIN, 1632. Trhatt between Louis XIIL, Kin« of France, and Charles I., King oi" England, MADE AT St. Germain-en-Latb, the 29th of March, 1632. (Extract.) III. On the part ofthe King of Great Britain, tho said Ambassador, in virtue of the powers with which he is vested, and which shall be inserted at the end of these presents, has promised and promises in the name of Hia said Majesty, to give up and restore (rendre et restituer) all the places occupied in New France, Acadia and Canada by the subjects of the King of Great Britain, by whom these places shall be restored ; and to this end the said Ambassador shall deliver at the time of the signature of these presents to the Commissioners of His Most Christian Majesty, in due form, the authority which he received from the King of Great Britain for the restitution of the aaid places, together with the orders of His said Majesty to all those who had com mand in Fort Eoyal, the Fort of Quebec and Cape Breton, for the restoration of the said places and forts to be given up into the hands of those whora it raay please His Most Christian Majesty to appoint, eight days after these orders shall have been notified to those who command or may then coraraand ; the said tirae of eight days being given to thera to reraove frora those places and forts their arms, baggage, merchandise or money, utensils, and generally everything that belongs to them ; to -whom and to all who are in the said places, the term of three weeks, after the expi ration of the eight days, is given, that they may during that time, or sooner if pos sible, retire to their vessels with their arms, munitions, baggage or money, utensils, merchandise, furs, and generally everything that belongs to them, for the purpose of going thence to England without remaining longer in the said countries. And as it is necessary for the English to send to those places to fetch their people and take them back to England, it is agreed that General de Caen shall pay the necessary expenses of equipping a vessel of two hundred tons, or two hundred and fifty tons burthen, which the English shall send to those places ; that is to say, the cost of chartering a vessel for the passage to and fro, the provisions of the sailors who work the vessel aa well as of those who being on land are to be taken away, the wages of the men, and generally all that is necessary for the equipage of a vessel of the said tonnage for such a voyage, according to the usages and customs of England ; and besides, for tbe raerchandize reraaining unsold in the hands of the Bnglish, satisfac tion shall be given, according to the cost in England, with thirty per cent, of profit, in consideration of the risk of the sea and port charges. TEEATY OF BEEDA, 1667. (Extract.) Art. X. The before-mentioned Seigneur, King of Great Britain, shall restore and give up to the above-named Seigneur, the Most Christian King, or lo those who shall be charged and authorized on his part, sealed in proper form with the Great Seal of France, the country called Acadia, situated in North America, of which the Most Christian King was previously in enjoyment. TEEATY OF NIMEGUEN, 1678. Articles of Peace between the Emperor and the French King, Concluded AND Signed at Nimeguen, the 3rd of December, 1678. (Extract.) Their Imperial and Most Christian Majesties, retaining a grateful sense of tho offices and continual endeavors the Most Serene King of Great Britain hath used to 395 restore a general peace and public tranquility, it is rautually agreed between tho parties that he with his kingdom be included 'in this treaty, after the best and most effectual manner that may be. Art. I. That there be a Christian, universal, true and sincere peace and friend. ahip between their Imperial and Most Christian Majesties, their heirs and successors, kingdoms and provinces, as also between all and every the confederates of his said Imperial Majesty, more particularly the electors, princes and states of the empire, comprehended in this peace, their heirs and successors on the oue part, and all and eveiy of the confederates of his said Most Christian Majesty, comprehended in this peace, their heirs and successors, on the other; which said peace and friendship shall be so sincerely observed and improved that each party shall promote the honor, advantageand interest ofthe other. And there shall be so perpetual an oblivion and amnesty of all hostilities committed on each side since the beginning of tho present troubles, that neither party shall, upon that or any otber account or pre tence, give or cause to be given hereafter to the other any trouble, directiy or in directly, under color of law or way of fact, within or without the empire, any formal agreement to the contrary notwithstanding ; but all and every the injuries, violences, hostilities, damages and charges sustained on each side by words, writing or deeds, shall, without respect of persons or things, be so entirely abolished that whatsoever may upon that accouct be pretended against the other, shall be buried in perpetual oblivion. TEKATY OF NEUTEALITY, 1686. Between Louis XIV., King of France, and James II., King of England. (Con cluded AT London, the 16th November, 1686.) (Extract.) It has been concluded and agreed that from the day ofthe present treaty there •hall be between the English and French nations a firm peace, union, concord, and good correspondence as well by sea as land in North and South America, and in the i.sles, colonies, forts and towns, without exception, in tbe territories of His Most Christian Majesty, and of His Britannic Majesty, and governed by thecommandroents ©f their said Majesties respectively. II. That no vessel or boat, large or small, belonging to His Most Christian- Majesty shall be equipped or employed in the said isles, colonies, fortresses, towns and governments of flis said Majesty, for the purpose of attacking the subjects of His Brittannic Majesty, in the isles, colonies, fortresses, towns and governments of His said Majesty, or doing there any harm or damage. And in this manner, likewise, that no vessel or boat, great or small, belonging to the subjects of His Britannic Majesty shall be equipped or employed in the isles, colonies, fortresses, towns and governments of His said Majesty, for the purpose of attacking the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty in the isles, colonies, fortresses, towns and governraents of His said Majesty, or to do them any injury or damage. III. That no soldiers, or men-at-arms, or any other persons whatsoever, residing ©r living in the said isles, towns or governments of His Most Christian Majesty, or come there from Europe in garrison, shall exercise any act of hostility, or do any injury or damage directly or indirectly, to the subjects of His Britannic Majesty i n the said isles, colonies, fortresses, towns and governmenta of Hia said Mnjesty ; or len dor give any aid or assistance in raen or provisions to savagea againat whom Hia Brilan nic Majeaty shall be at war. And, in like raanner, no aoldicra, or men-at-arraa, or any other persona whatsoever, residing or being in the said isles, colonies, fortresses, towns and governments of His said Britannic Majesty, or corae there frora Europe in garrison, shall exercise any act of hostility or do any injury or daraage to subjects of His Most Christian Majesty in the said isles, colonies, fortresses, towns and govern ments of His Majesty; or lend or give any aid or assistance in men or provisions, to- ¦avages with whom His Most Christian Majesty shall be at war. 396 IV. It has been agreed that each of the said Kings shall have and hold tho domains, rights and preeminences in the seas, straits, and other waters of America, and in the same extent which of rigbt belongs to them, and in the same way they enjoy them at present. V. And therefore the subjects, inhabitants, merchants, commanders of ships, masters and mariners ofthe kingdoms, provinces and dorainions of each King respec tively shall abstain aud forbear to trade and fish in all the places possessed or which shall be possessed by one or the other party in America, viz. : the King of Great Britain's subjects shall not drive their trade and commerce, nor fish in the harbors, bays, creeks, roads, shoals, or places which the Most Chri>tian King holds or shall hereafter hold in America: And, in like manner, the Most Christian King's subjects shall not drive their commerce and trade, nor fish in the waters, bays, creeks, roads, shoals or places which the King of Great Britain possesses or shall hereafter posssess in America. And if any ship or vessel shall be fouud trading or fishing contrary to the tenor of this treaty, the said ship or vessel, with its lading, proof being given thereof, shall be confiscated; nevertheless, the party who shall find himself aggrieved by such sentence or confiscation, shall have liberty to apply himself to the Privy Council of the King, by whose governors or judges the sentence has been given again-it him. But it is always to be understood that the liberty of navigation ought in no manner to be disturbed, where nothing is committed again,st the genuine sense of this treaty. -1= * * XI. The coraraandants, officers, subjects of either of the two Kings, shall not molest the subjects of the other King in tho establishment of their colonies reapec- tivoly, or in their commerce and navigation. XIL For the greater aecurity ofthe subjects of His Most Christian Majesty a» well as those of His Britannic Majesty, and to prevent vessels of war, or other vessels -owned by private persons, doing injury or damage, all captains of vessels, as well of his Most Christian Majesty as those ot His Britannic Majesty, anl all thoir subjecti who equip vessels at their own expense, also persons in the enjoyment of privileges, and companies, shall be forbidden to do any injury or damage to those of the other nation, on pain of being punished in ease of contravention, and be liable for all dam ages, either by tho seizure oftheir goods or the imprisonment oftheir persons. ^-Ji [^y ¦^''l- Xllf. all captains of war vessels, armed at the expense of private per sons, were hereafter to give bonds in the sum of £1,000 stg , or 13,00.) livres, and when the nurabor of raen is more than loO, in £2,000 stg., or 26,000 livres, that they would raake good all damages which they or their officers might cause in the course of their navigation against the present treaty.] [£y Art. XIV tbe governors and officers of the two Kings were to discountenance all pirates ; not giving them any aid nor allowing thera to take shelter in their ports respectively ; " and that the said governors and officers should bo expressly ordered to punish as pirates all those who might be found to have armed one or more vosseli sailing without commission or legitimate authority."] [^Art. XV raade the taking by the subject of either King, of any commission in the army of a Sovereign at war with the other, piracy.] \_Art.XYIL If disputes arise between the subjects of tho two Crowns in th« isles, coloniea, ports, towns and governments under their dominion, they aro not to bo allowed to interrupt the peace, but aro to be decided by those having authority on the spot, and in case they cannot decide them, they are" to remit them at once to tho two Crowns to be settled by their Majesties.] XVIII. Further, it has boen concluded and agreed that if ever, which God forbid, any rupture should take place in Europe between the said Crowns, the garri sons, armed forces, or subjects of whatever condition of His Most Christian Majosty, being in the isles, colonies, forts, towns and governments which are at present, or may hereafter be, under the dominion of Hia said Majesty in America, shall not exercise any act of hostility by aea or land against the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, inhabitants of any of these colonies of America. And, in like manner, ia •case of a rupture in 'Europe, the garrisons, armed forces, and subjecta of whatever 397 condition of His Britannic Majesty, being in the isles, colonies, forts, twns and gov ernments which are at present, or majj^ hereafter bo, under the dominion of Hi» Britannic Majesty in America, shall not exercise any act of hostility, either by sea or land, against the subjects of His Most Christian Majesty inhabiting any colony what ever in America. But there shall always bo a firm peace and neutrality between the said peoples of France and Great Britain, just as if no such rupture had taken place. ]X1X. This treaty not to derogate from the Treaty of Breda, July, 1667, all the articles ofwhich are to remain in force and vigor to be observed.] PEO VISIONAL .TEEATY CONCEENING AMBEICA, 1687. Between Louis XIV., King of France, and James II., King of Bnhland. (Con cluded AT Whitehall, II'th December, 1687.) [M. Paul Barillon, Councillor of State and French Ambassador, M. Frangois Dusson de Bonrepans, were the Commissioners for France, and Counts Sunderland and Middleton, and Lord of Godolphin, were appointed on behalf of Great Britain, " to execute the treaty concluded on the 6-16 November, 1686, to settle and terminate aU the differences which had arisen between the subjects of tho two Crowns, in America, as well as to fix the bounds and limits of the colonies, islea, islands, lands and countries under the dorainion of the two Kings, in America, and governed by their Commanaanta, or which are oftheir dependencies."] We, the undernamed Commissioners, in virtue of the powers which we have received from the said Kings, our Masters, promise, agree and stipulate in their name, by the present treaty, that, up to the llth January of the year 1689, new style, and after that time until the said Most Serene Kings give some new and express order in writing, all persons and Governors and Commandants of the colonies, isles, lands and countries whatsoever under the dominion of the two Kings, in America, are absolutely forbidden to commit any act of hostility against the subjectsof either of the said Kings,, or to attack them ; and the Governors and Coraraandants are not to suffer, under any pretext whatever, that they shall do any violence; and in case of contravention ou the part of the said Governors, they shall be punished, and obliged, in their own. private names, to make restitution for the damage which may have been done by such contravention ; and the sarae shall be done in the case of all other contreveur tions ; and the present convention shall have full and entire effect in the best manner possible. We have, besides, agreed that the said Most Serene Kings shall, as soon as possible, send the necessary orders to their Coraraandants in Araerica, and that each shall send to the other authentic copies ofthe sarae. (Signed), BAEILLON D'AMONCOUET, DUSSON DB BONEEPANS, SUNDEELAND, MIDDLETON, GODOLPHIN. THE TEEATY OF EYSWICK, 1697. (Extracts.) VIL The Most Christian King shall restore to the said King of Great Britain all countries, islands, forts and colonies, wheresoever situated, which the English did possess before the declaration of this preaent war. And, in like manner, the King of Great Britain shall restore to the Most Christian King, all countries, islands, fortet: and colonies, wheresoever situated, which the French did possess before the declara tion of war; and this restitution shall be made on both sides within the space of six months, or sooner if it can be done. And to that end, immediately after the ratifi- 398 cation of this treaty, each of the said Kings shall deliver or cau.ie to be delivered to the other, or to Commissioners authorized in his name for that purpose, all acts of concession, instruments and necessary orders, duly made and in proper form, so that they raay have their effect. VIII. Commissioners shall be appointed on both sides to examine and deter mine tbe rights and pretensions which either of the said Kings hath to the places situated in Hudson Bay; but the posession of those places which were taken by the French, during the peace that preceded this present war, and were retaken by the Bnglish during this war, shall be left to the French by virtue of the foregoing articles. The capitulation made by the, Bnglish on the 5th September, 1695, shall be observed according toits form and tenor; the merchandizes therein men tioned shall be restored ; the Governor at the fort taken there shall be set at liberty, if it be not already done ; the differences which have arisen concerning the execution of the said capitulation and the value ofthe goods there lost, shall be adjudicated and determined by thesaid Comraissioners; who, imraediately after the ratification of the present treaty, shall be invested with sufficient authorty for the settling of the limits and confines of the lands to be restored on either side by virtue of the forego ing article, and likewise for exchanging of lands, as may conduce to the mutual interest and advantage of both Kings. TEEATY OF UTEECHT, 1713. (Extracts . ) X. The said Most Chriatian King shall restore to the Kingdom and Queen of ^reat Britain, to be possessed in full right forever, 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. All which, as well as any build ings there made in the condition they now are, and likewise all fortresses there erected either before or since the French seized the same, shall, within six months from the ratification of the present treaty, or sooner, if possible, be well and truly delivered to the British subjects having coramission from the Queen of Great Britain to demand and receive the same, entire and undemolished, together with all the cannon and cannon-ball which are therein, as also with a quantity of powder if it be there found, in proportion to the cannon-ball, and with the other provision of war usually belonging to cannon. It is, however, provided, that it may be entirely free for the Company of Quebec, and all other the subjects of the Most Christian King whatsoever, to go by land or by sea, whithersoever they please, out of the lands of the said Bay, together with all their goods, merchandizes, arms and effects of what nature or condition soever, except such things as are above referred in this article. But it is agreed on both sides, to determine within a year by Commissaries to be forthwith named by each party, tho limits which are to be fixed between the said Bay of Hudson and the places appertaining to the French; which limits both the British and French subjects shall be wholly forbid to pass over, or thereby to go to each other by sea or by land . The same Commissioners shall also have orders to describe and settle, in like manner, the boundaries between the other British and French colonies in those parts. XI. The above mentioned Most Christian King shall take cai-e that satisfaction be given, according to the rule of justice and equity, to the English Company trading to the Bay of Hudson, for all damages and spoil done to their colonies, ships, persons and goods by the hostile incursions aud depredations of the French, in time of peace, an estimate being made thereof by Commissioners to be naraed at the requisiton of each party. The said Coraraissioners shall raoreover inquire as well into the com plaints ofthe British subjects concerning ships taken bythe French in time of peace, as also concerning the daraage sustained last year in the island called Montserrat 399 and others, as into those things of which tho French subjects complain, relating to the capitulation in the Island of Nevis, and Castle of Gambia, also to French ships, if perchance any such have been taken by Britiah subjects in time of peace ; and in like manner into all disputes of this kind which shall be found to have arisen between both nations, .nnd which are not yet ended ; and due justice shall be done on both sides without delay. XII. The Most Christian King shall take care to have delivered to the Queen of Great Britain, on the same day that the ratification ofthis treaty shall be exchanged solemn and authentic letters, or instruments, by virtue whereof it shall appear, that the Island of St. Christopher is to be possessed alone hereafter by British subjects, likewise all Nova Scotia or Acadia, with its ancient boundaries, as also the City of Port Eoyal, now called Annapolis Eoyal, and all other things in those parts which depend on the said lands and islands, together with the'dominion, propriety, and possession ofthe said islands, lands, and places, and all right whatsoever, by treaties, or by any other way obtained, which the Most Chriatian King, the Crown ofFrance, or any the subjects thereof, have hitherto had to the said islands, lands and places, and the inhabitants of the same, are yielded and raade over to the Queen of Great Britain, and to Her Crown forever, as the Most Christian King doth at present yield and make over all the particulars above said, and that in such ample manner and form, that the subjects of the Most Christian King shall hereafter be excluded fiom all kind of fishing in the said seas, bays and other places on the coasts of Nova Scotia, that is to say, on those which lie towards the east within .thirty leagues, beginning from the island commonly called Sable, inclusively, and thence stretching along towards the south-west. XIII. The island called Newfoundland; with the adjacent islands, shall from this time forward belong of right wholly to Britain ; and to that ond the Town and Fortress of Placentia, and whatever other places in the said island are in the possession ofthe French shall be yielded and given up, within seven months from the exchange ofthe ratification > ofthis treaty, or sooner, if possible, by the Most Christian King, to those who have a commission from the Queen of Great Britain for that purpose. Nor shall the Most Christian King, his heirs and successors, or any of their subjects, at any time hereafter lay claim to any right to the said island or islands, or to any part of it or thera. Moreover, it shall not be lawful for the subjects ofFrance to fortify any place in the said island of Newfoundladd, or to erect any buildings there, besides stages made of boards, and huts necessary and usual for drying of fish; or to resort to the said island beyond the time necessary for fishing and drying of fish. But it shall be allowed to the subjects of France to catch fish and to dry thom on land in that part only, and in no other besides that, of the said Island of Newfoundland, which stretches from the place called Cape Bonavista to the northern point of the said island, and from thence running down by the wertern side, reaches as far as the place called Point Eiche. But the Island called Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the mouth of the Eiver St. Lawrence and in the Gulf of the sarae name, shall hereafter belong of right to the French, and the Most Christian King shall have all manner of liberty to fortify any place or places there. XIV. It is expressly provided that in all the said places and colonies to be yielded and restored by the Most Christian King, in pursuance of this treaty, the subjects of the said King may have liberty to remove themselves within a year to any other place as they shall think fit, together with all their movable effects. But those who are willing to remain there, and to be subjects of the Kingdora of Great Britain, are to enjoy the free exercise of their religion according to the usage of the Church of Eome, as far as the laws of Great Britain do allow the same. XV. The subjects ofFrance inhabiting Canada, and others, shall hereafter give no hindrance or molestation to the five nations or cantons of Indians subject to the dominion of Great Britain, nor to the other natives of Araerica who are friends to the same. In like manner, the subjects'of Great Britain shall behave themselves peaceably towards the Americans who are subjects or friends ofFrance ; and on both aides they shall enjoy full liberty of going or coming on account of trade. As also 400 the natives of those countries shall with the sarne liberty, resort, as they please, to the British and French Colonies, for promoting trade on one side and theotlier, with out any molestation or hindrance, either on the part of the British subjects or ofthe French. But itis to be exactly and distinctly settled by Com missioners, who are, and who ought to be, accounted the subjects and friends of Britain or of France. THE TEEATY OF AIX-LA-CHAPBLLE, 1748. (Spain) (Extract.) Art. V. All the conquests that have been made since the commencement of the present war, or which, since the conclusion of the preliminary articles, signed the 30th April last, may have been or shall be raade, either in Europe or the East and West Indies, or in any part of the world whatsoever,, being to be restored without exception in conformity to what was stipulated by thesaid preliminary articles, and by the declarations since signed, the high contracting parties agree to give orders immediately for proceeding to the restitution, as well as to the putting the Most Serene Infant Don Philip in possession of the states which are to be yielded to him by virtue ofthe said preliminaries, the said party solemnly renouncing, as well for themselves as their heirs and successors, all rights and claims, by what title or pretence soever, to all the states, countries, and places that they respectively engage to re,-t Honorable Privy Council, ou Address from the Houses •f the Parliament of Canada, to admit Eupert's Land and the North-Western Terri tory, or either of them, into the Union on such terms and conditions as are in the Address expressed, and as Her Majosty thinks fit to approve, subject tothe provisions of the said Act : And, whereas, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the said British North America Act, 1867, and of admitting Eupert's Land iuto the said Do minion as aforesaid, upon such terms as Her Majesty thinks fit to approve, it is expedient that the said lands, territories, rights, privileges, liberties, franchises, powers and authorities, so far as the same have been lawfully granted to the said Company, should be surrended to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by and between Her Majesty and tho •aid Governor and Company as hereinafter mentioned. Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Comraons, in this pre- ient Parliament assembled, by the authority of the same, as follows : — 1. This Act may be cited as " Eupert's Land Act, 1868." 2. For the purpose of this Act, the term " Eupert'a Land " shall include the whole of the lands and territories held or claimed to be held by the said Governor «nd Company.3. It shall be competent for the said Governor and Company to surrender to Her Majesty, and for Her Majesty, by any instrument under sign manual and signet, to accept a surrender of all or any of the lands, territories, rights, privileges, liberties, franchises, powers and authorities whatsover, granted or purported to be granted by the said letters patent to the said Governor and Company, within Eupert's .Land, upon such terms and conditions as shall be agreed upon, by and between Her Majesty and the said Governor and Company : Provided, however, that such surrender sh^U not be accepted by Her Majesty until the terms and conditions upon which Eupert's Land shall be admitted into the said Dominion of Canada shall have been approved of by Her Majesty, and embodied in an Address to Her Majesty from both the Houses ofthe Pariiament of Canada, in pursuance ofthe one hundred and forty-sixth •ection ofthe British North America Act, 1867; and that the said surrender and acceptance thereof shall be null and void, unless within a month from the date of ouch acceptance Her Majesty does, by Order in Council, under the provisions of the said last recited Act, admit Eupert's Land into the said Dominion : Provided further that no charge shall be imposed by such terms upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. 4, Upon the acceptance by Her Majesty of such surrender, all rights of govern ment and proprietary rights, and all other privileges, liberties, franchises, powers and authorities whatsoever granted, or purported to be granted, by the said letters patent to the said Governor and Company, within Eupert's Land, and which shall have been iO surrended shall be absolutely extinguished : Provided that nothing herein con tained shall prevent the said Governor and Company from continuing to carry on in Eupert's Land or elsewhere trade and commerce. 5. It shall be competent to Her Majesty, by any such Order or Orders in Coun- •il as aforesaid, on Address from tbe Houses of the Parliament of Canada, to declare that Eupert's Land shall, from a date to be therein mentioned, be adraitted into and become part of the Dominion of Canada ; and thereupon it shall be lawful for tho Parliament of Canada, from the date aforesaid, to make, ordain and establish within the land and territory so admitted as aforesaid, all auch laws, institutions and ordi nances, and to constitute such courts and officers, as may he necessary for the peace, order and good government of Her Majesty's subjects and others therein : Provided that until otherwise enacted by the said Parliament of Canada, all the powers, autho rities, and jurisdictionof the several courts of justice now established in Eupert's Land, and of the several officers thereof, and of all magistrat;e8 and justices now act ing within the said limits, shall continue in fall force and effect therein. 408 17.— PEOCLA.MATION OF 7rH OCTOBER, 1763. (Extracts.) And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our interest, and the security of our colonies,, that the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom wo are connected, and who live under o'ar protection, should not be molested or dis turbed in the poaisession of such parts ofour Dominion and territories as, uot having been ceded to us, are reserved to thera, or any of them, as their hunting grounds; wo do therefore, with the advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our royal will and, pleasure, that no Governor or Commander-in-Chief in any of our colonies of Quebec, . East Florida or West Florida do presume, upon any pretence whatever, to grant warrants of survey, or pass any patents for land, beyond the bounds of their respective , Governments, as described in their Commisssions ; as also that no Governor or Com mander-in-Chief of onr other colonies or plantations in America do presume, for the present, and until our further pleasure be known, to grant warrants of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads or sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north-west, or upon any lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by us as aforesaid, are reserved to thov said Indians, or any of them. And we do further declare it to be our royal will and pleasure, for the preseut, as aforesaid, to reserve under our sovereignty, protection, and dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the land and territories not included within the limits of our said three now Governments, or within the limits of the territory granted to the Hudson Bay Company ; as also all the lands and territories lying to the westward cf tho- rivers which fall into the sea from tho west and north-west as aforesaid ; and wo do hereby strictly forbid, on pain of our displeasure, all our loving subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatsoever, or taking possession of any of the lands above reserved, without our especial leave and license for that purpose first obtained. And we do further strictly enjoin and require all persons whatsoever, who havo either willingly, or inadvertently, seated themselves upon any lands within tho countries above described, or upon any other lands which, not having been ceded to, or purchased by us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to reraove themselves from such settlements. , And whereas great frauds and abuses have been committed in the purchasing lands ofthe Indians, to the great prejudice of our interests, and to the great dissatis faction ofthe said Indians; in order therefore to prevent such irregularities for tho future, and to the end that tho Indians raay be convinced of our justice and deter mined resolution to remove all reasonable cause of discontent, wo do, with the advice . of our Privy Council, strictly enjoin and require, that no private person do presume to make any purchase frora the said Indians, of any lands reserved to thesaid Indians^ . within those parts of our colonies where we have thought proper to allow settlement; but if at any timo any of the said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said lands, the same shall be purchased oiily for us, in our name, in some public meetings or asserably ofthe said Indians, to be held for that purpose, by the Governor or Com mander-in-Chief of our colony respectively, within which they shall lie; and in case,- they shall bo within the limits of anj^ proprietaries, conformable to such directions and instructions as we or they shall think proper to give for that purpose. And we do, by tho advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our subjects whatever; provided that every person who may— incline to trade with the said Indians do take out a license for carry ing on such trade from the Governor or Commander-in-Chief of any ofour colonies respectively where such person shall reside, and also give security to observe such; regulations as we shall, at any time think fit, by ourselves or Commissaries to be ap pointed for this purpose, to direct and appoint for tho bonofit of the said trade : and; we do hereby authorize, enjoin, and require the Governors and Commanders-in-Chief of all our colonies respectively, as well as those under our immediate government, a» 409 those under the government and direction of proprietaries, to grant those licenses 'without fee or reward, taking especial care to insert therein a condition that such license ahall bo void, and the aecurity forfeited iu case the persou to whom tho sarae is granted shall refuse or neglect to obaervo such regulations as we shall think proper to prescribe, as aforesaid . And we do further expressly enjoin and require all officers whatever, as well mili tary as those eraployed in the management and direction of the Indian affairs, within the territories reserved, as aforesaid, for the use of the said Indians, to seize and appre hend all persons whatever, who, standing charged with treason of treason, mui'der, or other felonies or miade meanors, shall fly from justice and take refuge in the said territory, and to send them under a proper guard to tho colony where tho crime was committed of which they shall stand accused, in order to take their trial for the same. Given at our Court at St. James, the 7th day of October, 1763, in the third year of Our reign. God Save the King. 18— NOBTH-WESTBEN ONTAEIO, ITS BOUNDAEIES, EBS0UECE3 AND COMMUNICATIONS. Prepared under Instructions from the Ontario Government. By th© award of the arbitrators, to whom was referred the duty of determining ' the northern and western boundaries of the Province of Ontario,* a vast and .magni ficent territory has been declared to be within the jurisdiction of the Ontario ¦Government and Legislature. Thia fine region containa within ita limits, timber lands of great value, rich and varied mineral deposits, rivers and lakes of noble proportions, — abounding in fish, and opening up remote diatricts to travel and com merce — and touches at once the head waters of the St. Lawrence navigation and the shores of the great northern sea, the treasures of which, when sought with the ardour and appliances of raodern enterprise, raay yield a return not even dre.imed ot by those old explorers and navigators who were most sanguine of its resources. The possession of such a country necessarily entails upon its rulers some burdens and many responsibilities. To preserve peace and order, to administer justice, to maintain civil rights, to encourage settlement, to iraprove existing raeans of com munication, to proraote education, are duties coraing, under tbe law, within the functions of Provincial authority. It is therefore important to ascertain the advan tages likely to accrue to tho people of Ont'ario from the a.S8umption of the new or additional obligations incidental to the possession of this extensive domain. the boundaries. Tho question of boundary sot at rest by the award, had been the subject of much. laborious investigation.f The Dominion Government contended that the northern. boundary of Ontario was the height of land forming the watershed of the St. Law rence and great lakes, and skirting, at distances varying frora fifteen t) fifty miles,.. the northern shores of Lakes Superior and Nepigon. The western boundary, it waa contended, was to be ascertained by a line drawn due north from the confluence ofi the Ohio and Missisaippi Eiver^ and which waa f mnd to be in longitude SO'' 9' 27" west. Such a line would have intersected Thunder Bay, divided the existing settle ments on its shores, alienated from Ontario alarge di8trict--including the ViUage of, * Con. Statutes (Ont.) cap. iv. The arbitrators were. Chief Justice Harrison, Sir Prancia Hmcks, and Sir Edward Thornton, the British Minister at Washington. t See Report on the Boundaries of Ontario, by David Mills, 1873 ; also, an In vestiga.ti(^n of ' the unsettled boundariee of Ontario, by Charles Lindsey, 1873. 410 Prince Arthur's Landing, the population gathering round Fort William, the site of the projected terminus of the Canadian Pacific Eailway, and the Townships of Blake, Crooks, Pardee, Poiponge, Oliver, Neebing and Mclntyre, already under Ontario jurisdiction, — and left within the Province, only a narrow strip north of the lakes and south of the height of land. Opinions were divided as to the rights of tho Province beyond the boundaries contended for in behalf of the Dominion, but it will probably be found that the decision of the arbitrators is, on the whole, consistent with equity, convenience, and public policy. The award declares that the following aro and shall be the boundaries of the Province of Ontario, namely: — " Commencing at a point on the southern shore of Hudson Bay, commonly called James' Bay, where a line produced due north from the head of Lake Temiscamingue would strike the said Bouth shore, thence along the said south shore westerly to the mouth of the Albany Kiver, thence up the middle of the said Albany Eiver and of the lakes thereon to tho source of the said river, at the head of Lake St. Joseph, thence by the nearest line to the easterly end of Lac Seul, being the head waters of the English Eiver, thence westerly through the middle of Lac Seul and the said English Eiver to a point where the same will be intersected by a true meridional line drawn northerly from the inteinational monument placed to mark the most north-westerly angle of the Lako of the Woods by the recent Boundary Commission, and thence due south following the said meridional line to the said international monument, thence southerly and easterly following upon the international boundary line between the British posses- •ions and the United States of America into Lake Superior. But, if a true merid ional line drawn northerly from the said international boundary at the said most north-westerly angle of the Lake of the Woods shall be found to pass to the west of •where the English Eiver empties into the Winnipeg Eiver, then and in such case the northerly boundary of Ontario shall continue down the middle ofthe said Eng lish Eiver to where the same empties into the Winnipeg Eiver, and shall continue thence in a line drawn due west from the confluence of the said English Eiver with the said Winnipeg Eiver until the same will intersect the meridian above described, aud thence due south following the said meridional line to the said international nionument, thence southerly and easterly following upon the international boundary line between the British possessions and the' United States of America into Lako Superior." AREA. The district included within these boundaries is of equal if not of greater area than the whole of the rest of Ontario, exclusive of the Lakes Ontai-io, Superior, Huion and Erie. Omitting those lakes, the Province, within the limits embraced in the proposition of the Dominion, contained about 64,000,000 acres, or 100,000 square' miles ot territory. From the Quebec boundary line — from Lake Temiscamingue to James' Bay — to the Lake of the Woods, the distance cannot be much less than seven kundred miles; while, measured from north to south, the new territory covers a kreadth of country varying from over three hundred to one hundred miles. Tho Province of Ontario will consequently, in future, possess an area of fully 200,000 Bquare miles. This is 80,000 square miles greater than the area of the United King dom; only 12,000 square miles less than the whole German Empire; only 2,000 oquare miles less than France ; and equal to the combined areas of Holland, Portugal, United Italy, Switzerland and Belgium. The awarded territory, alone, possesses an area greater by 20,000 square miles than the group of countries just named, except- Bg Italy.* population. The present population of the territory is chiefly confined to the settleraents on «h« north or north-west shore of Lake Superior, and in the valley of the Kaminis- - Mr. Devine, Deputy Surveyor-General of Ontario, gives 97,000 square miles m a rough •pproximate eBtimate of the area of the awarded territory. Other authorities, however, consider JiOjOOO to 140,000 square miles to be its probable extent. 411 tiquia, to the colony at lort Frances, on Eainy Eiver, to a few settlers and Hudson Bay officials at Moose and Albany, on James' Bay, and to the Indians, who are to be- found mostly at Eainy Eiver, the Lake of the Woods, Lac Seul, and Pigeon Eiver. A few Half-breeds and christianized Indians are also settled at Islington, on the Winnipeg Eiver, and around some of the Hudson Bay Company's factories. The total population, including, of course, the Thunder Bay settleraents, is probably under 10,000, half of whom are Indians and Half-breeds. LAKES AND RIVERS. In the more southerly portion of the territory lies the chain of rivers and lakes forming what has been popularly known as the Dawson Eoute from Thunder Bay to Fort Garry. The western central portion is intersected by the Canadian Pacific Eailway from Fort William to Eat Portage. The principal rivers of the territory are : — The Albany, flowing north-eastward to James' Bay from Lake St. Joseph, which lies on the nothern boundary line, about midway between the Bay and Winni peg Eiver ; English Eiver, which, leaving Lac Seul, alter throwing off a branch to the southward, finds its way to the Winnipeg ; the Seine, a fine stream, that, coming from the north-east, is finally lost in Eainy Lake ; the Manitou, flowing due south , from the lake of that name to Eainy Lake ; the Kaministiquia and its confluent, the Matawin, falling into Thunder Bay; the Moose Eiver, emptying itself into Jaraes"^ Bay, and which divides into three large branches, known as the Missinibi, flowing . northward from Lake Missinibi, just north of the height of land that divides that lake from the head waters of the Michipicoton Eiver ; the Mattagami, or south branch of the Moose ; and the Abbitibbe, which runs from Lake Abbitibbe, lying upon, but chiefly to the westward of the Quebec and Ontario boundary line, — until it joins the main streara to the south of Moose Factory. Should the difficulties attending the passage of Hudson Straits prove to be a more serious hindrance to their navigation than modern appliances can successfully overcome, the tendency would be to give to Ontario the. benefit of any traffic that might be generated in Hud.'^on Bay, or on its coasts, and which would seek an outlet by way of the Mooso •r Albany Eivers, or by other means of communication with the great lakes. AGRICULTURAL CAPACITY. The value of the territory in an agricultural sense will have to be largely deter mined by the facilities afforded for the development of other industries. Should its fisheries, its forests, and its mines yield a return at all proportionate to present indications, the agriculturist will find an ample demand for the produce of large sections of country which will well repay cultivation. In noticing the features and resources of the territory more in detail it will be most convenient roughly to divide it into two sections ; one that may be generally described as lying between Lake Superior and Lake of the Woods, the other between Lake Superior and James' Bay.. WESTEEN DIVISION. Lake Superior to Lake op the Woods. From Fort William, at Thunder Bay, to the Lake of the Woods, according to the course taken by the Canadian Pacific Eailway, which crosses the waters of the latter at Eat Portage, its northern extremity, the distance is 298 miles.* Ibe Uaw- •on route, which, following the navigable waters, curves to the southward until it reaches the International Boundary line, which it follows until the north-west angle is reached— involves a journey of 357 miles.f The latter may, in fact, be described - Beport Canadian Pacific Railway, 1877, Report Public Works. Sess. Papers (Canada), 1875. 412 as the arc ofa circle of which the railway line is the chord. South of the railway, and connecting it at various points with the water route, are inumerable lakes and streams, some navigable for large boats, others with occasional portages for canoes, so that it has been said an Indian in his canoe may traverse the whole region with little irapediment or difficulty. THE DAWSON ROUTE. The Dawson Eoute waa originally designed to form a means of communication, through Canadian territory with the Eed River Settlements. The partial construc tion, however, ofthe Canadian Pacific Eailway, and the corapletion of railway com munication between Duluth and Eed Eiver, have supplanted the older route, which must henceforth be regarded raainly in connection with local colonization and indus tries. To this object the fine road from Thunder Bay to Lake Shebandowan, the FortiFrances Lock on Eainy Eiver, and numerous improvements on the intermediate waters and portages may all be made largely subservient. A brief description ofthe route itself will give a very fair idea ofthe peculiar characteristics ot the region it traverses.* From Thunder Bay to Lake Shebandowan by road, the distance is 46 miles. The remainder of the route is represented as follows: — Miles. Uilea. Lake Shebandowan , 18"00 Portage , 0-75 Lake Kashebowie , . 9*00 Height of Land Portage 1"00 Lac des Mille Lacs 18-50 Baril Portage 0-25 Lake Baril 8-00 Brule Portage 0-25 Lake Windegoostegan , 12 00 French Portage 1-75 Lake Kaogassikok 15-00 Pine Portage 0-38 Lac duox Eivieres 1-22 Duex Eivieres Portage 0-40 Lake Sturgeon... 16-00 Maligne Portage (lift) Eiver Maligne ,.,.. 10-00 Island Portage 0-06 Lake Nequaquon 17-00 Nequaquon Portage 3-25 I^ake Numeukan., 15-00 Kettie Falls Portage 0-12 Eainy Lake , 44-00 Fort Frances Portage (now avoided by the Lock) ... 0-12 Eainy Eiver and Lake ofthe Woods, to north-west angle. 120-00 8-33 303-72 To Eat Portage is 35 miles further We shall notice presently the method by which it is suggested the necessity for transhipraent at the portages raay be overcome, and a journey along the whole route be performed with coraparative ease. Meantirae, it is worthy of notice that the settlers along a line of country, over 300 railes in extent, may secure communication by the cheap and ready means afforded by a series of splendid water stretches, vary ing frora one to one hundred and twenty miles in length, and interrupted by only * Report Public Works. Sess. Papers (Canada), 1875. 413 eleven portages, eight ofwhich are less than a mile, and two under two miles, while only one exceeds three miles in length. The facilities for communication are not, however, actually confined to the waters on the line ofthe Dawson Eoute. South of the Thunder Bay and Shebandowan Eoad, are the Kaministiquia and Matawin Eivers, both fine and navigable streams, and, along the international boundary line, are Pigeon Eiver, Lake Sageniga and Basswood Lake, connected with Nequaquon Lake, already mentioned as a link in the chain of the Dawson Eoute. From the north east, navigable by boats for 30 miles from its mouth, and for over 100 miles for the passage of timber, the Seine empties itself into Eainy Lake at Sturgeon Falls, while the Manitou — also a fine river— approaches the same lake from a more northerly source. TEE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY. The Canadian Pacific Eailway has, meantime, become a raost important factor in connection with the colonization of the region under consideration. It was originally intended that the line, after leaving Fort William, should deflect to the' southward, in order to touch the water route at Sturgeon Falls, at the bead of a navigable arm of Eainy Lake. By the construction of the Lock at Fort Frances and the removal ofa few obstructions in the Eainy Eiver, an unbroken line of seme 200 miles of regular communication would have been established between Sturgeon Falls and the crossing of the Lake of the Woods, at any spot determined upon, whence another section of the railway would have been constructed to Eed Eiver. But, for engineering reasons, the railway, has been carried farther north, and now first touches fhe navigable waters at Port Savanne, situated at the northern extreiiiity of Lac de Mille Lacs, 71 miles from Thunder Bay. IMPaOVEMENTS OP THE LAKE ROUTE. The best- mode by which traffic may be raaintained between Lao de Mille 'Lacs and Lake of the Woods, haa been the subject Of investigation before a Com mittee of the House of Commons.* At Lac des Mille Lacs, tbe'height of land is reached separating the waters that flow into the Lake of the Woods from those ' that find Iheir outlet in Lake Superior. Frora Port Savanne to the' head of Eainy Lake, the distance is about 112 miles, with 6| rhiles of portaging. ^Idopting the - .suggestions of Mr. Hugh Sutherland, Superintendent of Public Works in the North- West, the Commons Committee, in their report, advised the construction' of tram ways upon the portages between Port Savanne and Kettle Falls, to be worked With light narrow-gauge ears- drawn by horses, the cars being run on the barges, and thus tranferred with their freight, without breaking bulk or requiring tranship ment. Mr. Sutherland was of opinion that these works could be executed for a sum of $150,000 in one season, and 'that they would lead to the colonization of cliltivable tracts along Eainy Eiver and other ports of the' Dawson Eoute, and also furnish the Province of Manitoba with increased facilities for obtaining lumber at a much cheaper rate than at present." What this would do for the lumberers of Ontario will be ¦ noticed further on . To complete the infortnation respecting the accessibility ofthis portion of the territory it is only needful to add, that the Canadian Pacific Eailway is being rapidly completed to Bnglish Eiver, 113 miles west froih Thunder Bay, and thatthe link between' Eat Portage and Selkirk, on Eed Eiver, 23 rhiles north of Winnipeg, with which it is connected by railway, is also under construction. The country lying directly west of the north-west angle of the Lake of the Woods was long since rendered accessible by a good road from the angle to Fort Garry. INDUCEMENTS TO SETTLEMENT. Having noticed the raeans of access to and internal communications of the west ern portions ofthe territory; it becomes necessary to consider what attractions it may 1878. Report Se!?ct Standing Committfc'e on Immigration, and Colonization,' House of Commons,,. 414 possess in itself to the settler or speculator. The exhaustive explorations of Canadian Pacific surveyors and their associates have done most towards affording information on this head. KAMINISTIQUIA VALLEY. Profesror Macoun,* in his report to the Dominion Government, after repelling the current opinion that the western shores of Lake Superior are unfit for settlement on account of the severity of the climate, and remarking that " the vegetation around Lake Superior is noted for its luxuriance," thus describes the aspect of the country in the vicinity of the Kaministiquia ; — "As the traveller proceeds up tho river, roses (Rosa blanda) begin to appear. By the time two miles are passed, black-ash (Fraxinus sambucifolia) shows on the banks, and the undergrowth becomes almost identical with that of the rear of Hastings and Frontenac, on the shore of Lake Ontario . A few miles further, and forms peculiar to a dry soil begin to take the place of those seen further down, while the alluvial flats along the river support a most luxuriant growth of just such plants as would be seen on any river bottom in Eastern or Central Canada. Thickets of wild plums (Prunus Americana'), three or four :* y^^ j^ay also take into consider ation the fact that the land on the opposite side ofthe river is quite as good as our own, and that the American Governraent will doubtless soon place it in the market. Our canal will shortly be completed, and through its gates the large lumbering trade (soon to be created) in the neighboring State, Minnesota, must pass. This will add much to the trade and commerce of Eainy Eiver." A later issue ofthe same paper speaks of the favorable crops of the present year, the busy demand upon the new grist-mill, the establishment of a Hudson Bay Company's post at Siur^eon Falls, the summer-like weather prevailing in the fall, the construction of another .^leamer for the Eainy Eiver and Lake of the Woods navigation, the arrivals of several new settlers, and other signs of a healthy, growing and prosperous coramunity. 4DJA0ENT TERRITORY IN MINNESOTA. As well remarkfd in the newspaper we have already quoted, it is not f -mu the territory within Cau;i>iian jurisdiction alone that the Eainy Eiver settlemc.ts are likely to derive advan i,:iLre. While, frora a distance of fully one hundred miles lo the northward, tho strearas flow iuto Eainy Lake or Eivor, and are thus made tributary to the trade and coraraerce of the settler in that district, the large area lying be tween the height of land in Minnesota to the southward and Eainy Eivor, is also capable of being renderetl a prolific source of wealth. The height of land which divides the source of the Misfissippi frora the waters that ultimately find their course to Hudson Bay, lies nearly parallel to and sorae 60 to 70 miles south of Eainy Eiver, aboil : midway between that river and the Northern Pacific Eailway frora Duluth to the vvest. Tho country is said to bo well timbered, to yield large quantities of pine, mineral deposits, ''. ^ _ „,,,„„ Eainy Eiver, and the Vermillion Eiver, falling into Nameukan Lake, vaay all be ies of pine, aud to contain, in the neighborhood of Lake Vermillion, rich mineral deposits, Tho Big Fork and Littie Fork Eivers, emptying themsel .-es into 419 utilized for conveying the timber and other products of Minnesota to a comraon focus at Fort Frances. That the settlers on the American side are alive to the advantages of traffic with Canada is shown by the following, clipped frora the Star of October 29th: — "One ofthe settlers from the Minnesota aide of Eainy Eiver ehipped a cargo of oOO bushels of potatoes to Eat Portage a short time ago, which he got sale for, as soon as landed, at prices ranging from seventy-five centos to one dollar per bushel. The aame party haa started with the aecond lot, which he has already disposed of, on his arrival at the Portage, to the railroad people." PORT FRANCES LOCK. The works at Port Frances consist of a canal 800 feet in length, cut through the solid rock, about forty feet wide, with one lift of 24 feet 8 inches. The chamber of the lock is 200 feet long and 38 feet wide in the clear. The lowest depth of water on the sills will be 5 feet 6 inches, but it is rarely if ever known to be so low as that, and is ordinarily from 8 to 10 feet. The cost of the works to the Dominion Govern ment has been $250,000. THE INDIANS. The relations of the Government and white populatioa of th^ territory to the Indian tribes must, necessarily, be an object of considerable interest and iraportance. The Indians of the country lying between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Wooda are Saulteux of the Ojibway nation. They derive their narae from Sault Ste. Marie, from the neighborhood of which they originally iraraigrated. In the aouthern divi sion of the new territory they probably do not nuraber over from 3,500 to 4,000 souls, nearly one-half of whom are settled in the vicinity of the Lake of the Woods and Eainy Eiver. NUMBER THREE TREATY. These Indians, as well as some of the same tribe, settled on Lac Seul, are those embraced in what is known as Treaty Nomber 3, negotiated at the north west angle of the Lake of the Woods, in 1873, by Lieut.-Governor Morris, with Messrs. S. J. Dawson and J. A. N. Provencher as joint Commissioners. This treaty settled any troubles or difficulties that had arisen out of the encroachments of Cana dian settlers or surveyors on what the Saulteux had regarded as their landa. The negotiations afforded, too, a very excellent opportunity for testing the intelligence and general character of the tribe as there represented. Archbiahop Tache, in his work,* deplores the persistency with whieh the Saulteux cling to their p-agan faith, and the habits and customs incidental to their unconverted condition. But although so hostile to christianizing influences, the Saulteux ofthis region are not deficient in many of the qualities that coraraand respect. They are brave, high-spirited, and among themselves, very capable of self-government. The bands at Eainy Eiver and Lake of the Woods meet frequently in Council, discuss their affairs very intelli gently, and enforce sternly the rules and regulations considered necessary for the, common welfare. While raostly retaining the primitive wigwam, and practising pagan rites, they are far more thrifty, prudent and industrious than many of their race. In addition to the products ofthe shore, the lakes yield them an unlimited supply of fish, principally white fish and sturgeon — the extensive marshes produce immense quantities of wild rice, which the Indians collect on a systematic plan enjoined by their self-imposed laws, and the same plant attracts vast numbers of wild ducks of every description which divide with the Indians the collection and con sumption of the rice, with, however, this advantage on the side of the Indian, that, while the ducks can only eat the rice, the Indian, in addition to the rice, can also eat the ducks. When flrst visited by missionaries, these Indians were already culti- ' Sketch of the North-West of America, p. 120. 1— 27J 420 ^ating maize, which they still raise on their clearings, a proof, at once, of their partial civilization, and the favorable nature of the soil and climate of the district. The main body of the Saulteux refuse to hold comraunication with the small band of Pigeon Eiver, whora they regard as an inferior class, and look with suprerae con tempt on the little settlement at Islington, where, under missionary guidance, a christianized population, fifty or more in nuraber, have made good progress in the arts of civilized life, especially agriculture. The Saulteux are keen at bargains, and managed to make a very good one under the Treaty of 1873. Lieut.-Governor Morris gives an amusing account ofthe negotiations.* For four daj's they held aloof from meeting the Commissioners altogether. On the fifth, they attended in response to a pereraptory suraraons. It then appeared that jealousies araong theraselves weie the chief cause of delay, and that, so fearful were they lest one chief or band should obtain an undue advantage over others by privately coraraunicating with the Com missioners, that they had set a guard over the Lieut.-Governor's house and Mr. Dawson's tent. Several days were consumed in listening to and refusing exorbitant demands, until raatters at last came to a dead lock, and the Commissioners declared they would leave unless the Indians came to terms. " This," says the narrator, " brought raatters to a crisis . The chief of the Lac Seul band carae forward to speak. The others tried to prevent hira, but he was secured a hearing. He stated that he represented four hundred people in the north ; that they wished a treaty ; that they wanted a schoolraaster to be sent them to teach their children the knowledge of the white man ; that they had begun to cultivate the soil, and were growing potatoes and Indian corn, but wished other grains for seed and some agricultural implements and cattle." " This chief," says Mr. Morris, " spoke under evident apprehension as to the course he was taking in resisting the other Indians, and displayed much good sense and moral courage." He was supported, however, by Chief Blackstone, whose residence is at Pine Portage, and, the ice once broken, the business of the meeting went forward. But after some progress had been made, the spokesman of the Indians presented, with new demands, a request that fifty dollars annually should be paid to each chief, and a new suit of clothing for every member ofthe band, was capped by the still cooler proposal that they should all have free passes forever ov&r the Canadian Pacific Railway. It will hardly be alleged, after this, that the Saulteux of north: western Ontario have not made exceedingly good progress in the manners and customs of their white exemplars. TERMS OP THE TREATT. The treaty provides for the cession of all the lands within the following bound aries :t " Commencing at a point on the Pigeon Eiver route where the internationial boundary line between the territories of Great Britain and the United States intersects the height of land separating the waters running to Lake Superior from those ' flowing to Lake Winnipeg; thence northerly, westerly and easterly, along the height of land aforesaid, following its sinuosities whatever their course may be, to the point at which the said height of land meets the summit of the watershed from whence the streams flow to to Lake Nepigon ; thence northerly and westerly, or what ever may be its course, along the ridge separating the waters of the Nepigon and the Winnipeg to the height of land dividing the waters of the Albany and the Winnipeg ; thence westerly and north-westerly, along the height of land dividing the waters flow ing to Hudson Bay by the Albany or other rivers from those running to English Eiver and the Winnipeg, to a point in the said height of land beai'ing north forty- five degrees east frora Port Alexander at the mouth of the Winnipeg ; thence south forty-five degrees west to Port Alexander at the mouth of the Winni peg ; thence south erly along the eastern bank of the Winnipeg to the mouth of the White Mouth Eiver ; thence southerly by the line described as in that part forming the eastern boundary of tbe tract surrendered by the Chippawa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indiana to Her t Sessional Papers (Canada), 1875,' No. 8, p. 15. • Sessional Papers (Canada), 1875, No. 8, p. 19. 421 Majeaty, on the Srd of August, 1871, namely, by White Mouth Eiver to Whilo .Mouth Lake, and thence, in a line having the general bearing of White Mouth Eiver. to the forty-uinth parallel of north latitude, to the Lake of the Woods, and from thence by the international boundary line to the place of beginning," A reference to the map* will show that this treaty, consequently, covers three- fourths of that portion of Ontario we have been describing as the western division of the territory embraced by the late arbitration. It extends, however, considerably beyond the boundaries of Ontario as assigned by the award, probably a little over one-third of tbe whole being north of the waters of Lac Seul and English Eivor, or west of the Lake of the Woods. The area, by tho cession, of which Ontario is directly benefitted, is bounded by Lac Seul and English Eiver on the north ; by the Winnipeg Eiver, Lake of the Woods, and international boundary line on the west ; by the international boundary line on the south ; and by the height of land which first separates the waters of Lac Seul frora those of Lake St. Joseph (the head of the Albany Eiver), and then those flowing eastward into Lake Superior, from those flowing to Lake of the Woods and forming the Dawson Eoute. The whole area ceded is stated to be 55,000 square railes. j" and of this we raay rightly estiraate 35,000 as coming within Ontario jurisdiction. From this have to be taken the Indian Eeserves, the allotments of lands for that purpose not to exceed one square mile for each family of five persons. The right of hunting is to be continued to the Indians, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, or to the limita tions imposed by settlement. SUBSIDIES AND PRESENTS. The payments, in money or kind, made by way of purchase or presents, once for all, in return for the cession, were as follows : — JTwelve dollars per head for every man, woraan, or child belonging to the lands there represented ; for every band who were then cultivating, or should hereafter cultivate the soil, two hoes for every faraily actually cultivating; also one spade per faraily as afore said ; one plough for every family as aforesaid; one sythe for every faraily as aforesaid; and also one axe and one cross-cut saw and handsaw, one pit saw, the necessary files, one grindstone, one augur for each baud; and also for each chief, for the use of hia band, one chest of carpenters' tools; also for each band, enough of wheat, barley, potatoes and oats, to plant the land actually broken np for cultivation by each band ; also for each band, one yoke of oxen one bull and four cows. In addition to these gratuities, the sura of fifteen hundred dollars is to be spent annually in the purchase of ammunition and nets for the Indians ; a sum of five dol lars per head is to be paid to each Indian also, annually ; each duly recognized chief is to receive a salary of twenty-five dollars per annum, and each subordinate officer — not exceeding three for each band— fifteen dollars per annum. Each chief and subordinate ofiicer is also to be be provided with a suit of clothing once in every three years. Finally, in recognition of tbe closing of the treaty, each chief received a flag and medal. Schools for instructions were also to be established wherever the Indians desired it, and all intoxicating liquora weie to be excluded from the reserves.§ In connection with the granting ofthe raedala, an incident occurred during the con ference, certainly creditable to the astuteness of the Saulteux, if not to their know ledge of the precious metals. Mawedopinias, the chief who acted as principal spokes man, who had obtained a medal given to one of the Eed Eirer chiefs, declared it was not silver, as it turned black, and, contemptuously striking it with his knife, pro tested he and his friends would be ashamed to wear it. * Map of North-West Territory, &c., exhibiting tracts ceded by Indian Treaties, accompanying ¦Beport of Minister of Interior, 1876. tLieutenant-CJovernor Morris's Report, Sessional Papers (Canada), 1875, JSo. 8, p. 18. i Sess. Papers (Canada), 1875, No. 8, p. 20-21. § Lt-Gov. Morris's Report, Sess. Papers (Canada), 1875, No. 8, p. 17. 422 PROGRESS IN CIVILIZATION. In the report of the Minister of the Interior, for 1877, the following passage occurs :— * '' The Indians who reside about eighty miles west of Eat Portage, within the limits of Treaty No. 3, are represented to be making satisfactory advancement in the arts of civilization, and stock-raising to some extent is ventured on ; and alto gether a commendable spirit of enterprise has developed itself among thera. _ At Lac Seul, also the progress of the Indians is said to be quite marked." The Indians west of Eat Portage are, of course, beyond the Ontario western boundary. NUMBERS INCLUDED IN TREATY NO. 3. The accounts of the Indian Department, for 1877, show that the Indians receiv ing annuities under Treaty No. 3 numbered 2,890, classified as fijUows: — 9 Chiefs, 26 Headmen, 2,855 Indians. The annuities paid in 1877 aniountedto $14,890; vthe total sum placed to the credit of the bands being $17,440. fhe tribe in thisregion counted not many years since 20,000 souls. Small-pox has reduced them to their present numbers. GEOLOGICAL FEATURES. The reports of the Crown Lands Department of Ontario refer to the numerous min ing locations granted within the area bounded on tho west and north of Lake Superior by the height of land, and the whole of the interior region weat of Lake Su perior has been tho subject of geologicial surveys, very full accounts ofwhich have appeared in the reports ofthe Geological Branch ofthe Department ofthe Interior.f That the geological conditions are indicative of valuable mineral deposits, there can be no doubt. A band of rocks running south-west from Lake Shebandowan — in the neighborhood of which gold has been found in considerable quantities — to the inter national boundary, and thence to Lake Vermillion in Minnesota, is rich in auriferous deposits. Around Jackfish Lake they .'ire probably most marked, but specimens of gold and gold ore are found along the whole line of country above indicated. The entire region, also, of the Eainy^Eiver invites further explorations. Mr. Dawson in his report (1874)| says : — " The Indians, both of Eainy Lake and Lake ofthe Woods, have araong thera specimens of native gold and sih'or ore, which they affirm is to be found in places known to them in abundance, and the rock formation is such as to corroborate their statement, iron ore is plentiful in raany sections, and charcoal for smelting easily obtainable. Granite, which leport says is equal in texture and fitness to the best imported specimens, is to be found at tbe Lake of the Woods, and the steatite, of which the Indians make pipes, a very valuable article forthe construction of furnaces, is quite abundant at E:iiny Lake and Sabaskin." It was stated in evi dence before the Committee on Iramigration and Colonization, at Ottawa, last year,§ that coal had been discovered in the vicinity of Eainy Eiver, There does not appear to be any reason, on scientific grounds, for doubting the existence of coal in that region, but its quality or the extent of the deposits, if they exist, are subjects for further inquiry before much reliance can be placed on the value of tho alleged discovery. The mineral resources of the district intervening between the height of land and Lake of the Woods rauat be mainly predicated upon the investigations of the geolo gist, and the information he supplies, Profes.sor Eobert Boll in a series of notes on the geological formation of tho country on the line of the Dawson Eoute, writes as follows: II — " Laurentian gneiss, running in a west south-westerly direction, extends from a point on the south shore of Lac des Mille Lacs, about four miles east of Baril * Sessional Papers (Canada), 1875, No. 10. Report Deputy-Superintendent General, p. 15. t Reports Geological Surveys (Canada), lS7'2-3, 187:i-4, by Professor Bell. t Public Works Report, 1875, Appendix '23. § Report of Committee, page VS9. 1 1 Geological Survey, 1873-4, page 87. 423 Portage, all along the chain of lakes which this route follows as far as Sturgeon Lake, Mica schist begins near the inlet of Sturgeon Lake, and continues along the route as far as Cross Lake. The Maligne and Island Portages occur in this interval. The tnica schist appears to be all of the sarae character. It is raoderatoly coarse grained, and has a white shining appearance with black specks on fresh fracture, and often holds small hard patches of pebbles of a granular quartzose character like sandstone. At Cross Lake the mica schist becomes much mixed with reddish granite in the form of veins and intruded masses, the proportion of granite increasing in approaching Nequaquon Portage, at the western extreraity of the lake, In the western part of Cross Lake nearly all the points and islands are formed of granite. At Nequaquon Portage the rock consists of a dark grey mica schist, interstratified With gneiss, the latter prevailing towards the west end bf the portage where it has entirely replaced the former. * * * The rocks along the route from Nequaquon Portage towards Kettie Falls consist partly of gneiss and partly of a dark, coarse, splintery, shining mica schist, to a pbint on Nemakon Lake, abo'ut six miles west of the narrows by which we entered it. Along the east side of NeqUaquon Lake, and approaching the main body of gneiss in the western part of Nemakon Lake, the gneiss and mica schist are interstratified with each other, while between the two latter the rock consists of mica schist alone, with some veins and masses of granite. Proceeding westward from Kettle Falls through Eainy Lake, gneiss continues to preva,il for about twenty miles. The gneiss at that locality holds micaceous bands and intruded waves of coarse reddish-grey granite. * * * A broad band of schist covers the central part of Eainy Lake, This appears to be t he same band which follows the Seine Eiver, and is probably identical with the on ¦, which covers Bush Creek. The Indians at Fort Frances manufacture pipes from a grey slate which occurs on the long point between the mouths of the Manitou and Seine Eivers. Mr. Eobert Pither, the Indian Agent at fort Frauoes, ohowed me speciiuens of light colored granular iron pyrites, which, he informed me, were taken from a thick band in the same locality as the pipe-stone. I was shown a speciraen of coarse silvery .quartzose mica schist, which is said to occur, in situ, in the above neighborhood. Mr. Pither likewise exhibited me a sample of copper pyrites in quartz from a vein on Eainy Lake, but he was not certain of the exact locality at which it occurs. He pear8 to have been a very intelligent person, says : jl "The soil about York Fort is much better than at Churchill. Most kinds of garuon stuff grow here to perfection, particularly peas and beans. I have seen a sraall pea grow ing without any culture; and ara of opinion that barley would flourish here. Goose berries and black currants are found in the woods, growing upon such bu>hos as in Eng land. Up the river are patches of very good ground ; and battones under ban ks so defen ded from the north-west winds that there is a fine thaw below when the topis freezing; here, whole families might procure a comfortable subsistence, if they were as indua- " Report of Hudsu:i Bay Committee, 1857, p. 31. t Report of Commi,iee of Hudson Bay Company, 1857, p. 46. J Hudson Bay Committee, 1857, p. 136. 5 Hudson Bay Committee, 1857. II Six years' residence, p. 43. 451 trious as they are in their own country. Upon Hayes Eiver, fifteen miles from the fort, is suoh a bank as I have just raentioned, near whioh I pitched ray tent. After paling in some ground for a coney-warren, and for oxen, sheep, goats, &c., I should expect by no more labor than would be proper for ray health, to procure a desirable livelihood; not at all doubting of ray being able to raise peas and beans, barley and, probably, other kinds of grain. The island on which York Factory stands is more capable of improvement than can be imagined in such a latitude, and so near the Bay. It is narrow, twenty miles up from the Bay, so that drains might be cut to very useful purpose. I cut a drain near the fort, to dry a piece of ground for a bat tery of four cannon, which afterwards wore quite a new face ; the snow did not lie upon it so long as before, and grain flourished with new vigor. I observed also, that before the snow was thoroughly thawed, several vegetables were springing up beneath it ; and by the time it had left only a very thin shell of ice, these vegetables were grown up three or four inches." Some other experiraents by Mr. Eobson con firmed his opinion that, with draining, a good soil for garden cultivation could be obtained and a considerable quantity of produce raised. As Professor Hind reminded the Committee at Ottawa last Session,* in all these northern latitudes the duration of light as well as the intensity of the sun's rays must be taken into account as a com pensating influence in relation to vegetable growtii. He submitted to the Committee the following table giving the relative intensity of the sun and the length of day in latitudes 40°, 50° and 60° respectively, and, therefore, oiub-.u-iiig the whole area of territory referred to in this paper.f Table Showing the Sun's Eelative Intensity, and the Length of the Day in Latitude 40°, 50° and 60°, Latitude 40°. Latitude 50°. Latitude 60°. Sun's Intensity. Length Day. Sun's Intensity. Length of Day. Sun's Intensity. Length of Day. May 1 80858890 908784 797265 H.H. 13,46 14.16 14,3814.5014.46 14.34 14.08 13.36 13 02 12.22 T7 8387 89 89 86 81 H.M. 14.30 15.1615.50 16,0816.04 15.4215,04 7079 858888 84 77 6^57 46 36 H.M. 15.44 do 16 16 56 do 31 17.56 18,28 July 1 18.18 do 16 17.42 do 31 16 38 Aug. 15 74 1 14.18 15.24 do 30 655847 13.2812,32 11.36 1408 Sept 14 .'. 12.46 do 28 57 1 11.44 11.26 - Commenting on this table the Professor says; " It will be seen that in latitude 40=' the sun's intensity is represented by 88 on May Slst, the day being 14 hours 38 minutes long. In latitude 50° the sun's relative intensity of light and heat on the same day is 87, but the day is 15 hours and 50 minutes long. In latitude 60°, which is some deo'rees north of the Peace Eiver, (and nearly three degrees north of York Factory) the sun's intenaity on the Slst May is represented by 85, but the day is It hours 56 minutes long. During the fortnight from June 15th to July 1st the sun's ¦intensity closely approximates in latitudes 40°, 50° and 60° ; but the- day ia widely • Report of I. & 0, Coramittee, p. 152. t Report of I. & C Committee, p. 153. l-29i 452 different jn length, and the heat and light have a greater time to act on vegetation under the more northern meridians. Thus, from June 15th to July Ist the sun's intensity diminishes from 90 to 88 between latitude 40° and latitude 60° ; the day, however, on July 1st, is, 14 hours hours 46 minutes long in lat, 40°; 16 hours 4 min utes long in latitude 50° ; and 18 hours 18 minutes long in latitude 60°." The Hudson Bay Post at the mouth of the Churchill Eiver, 59° is subject sub stantially to the conditions of light, heat and length of day, described in the last column of the foregoing table. It is spoken of by old travellers as being more favor ably situated than the other factories for trade, in consequence of its greater distance from the French (in Canada), who interfered greatly with the operations of the incorporated monopolists ofthe fur trade. The Churchill is described by Hobbs as " a noble river, navigable for 150 leagues, and, after passing the falls navigable to far distant countries." Its sources are near the height of land in long. 110° W., whence by a very devious route it winds its way east and north-east to Hudson Bay, at one point approaching very near to the confluents ofthe Nelson, and the waters of Lake "Winnipeg. The climate at the fort is not by any means intolerable. Captain Mid dleton wintered there with his ship in 1741. His diary* shows that snow fell first on the Ist of September, after which ' the weather was unsettled, the river being frozen over so as to adrait of crossing upon the ice on the 9th of October. On the 1st of June the ice gave way in the channel and drove down to sea, but was still fast on the flats. Partridges in large nurabers were killed during the whole winter, wolves, foxes and other animals also being seen near the fort. At Churchill, as well as at York and the more southern posts, the wild goose is one of the most regular sources of subsistence, thousands of these birds being killed and preserved for winter food. All kinds of wild fowl abound in these latitudes to quite as great an extent as at Moose or Albany. There is a good supply of wood in the vicinity of Churchill, and, as at other points, any quantity of hay growing in the marshes, and furnishing food for cattle. Seal Eiver lies still further to the northward than Churchill, and, according to Hobbs, the musk-ox is or was, in his time, met with between the two rivers. NAVIGATION OF HUDSON BAY. In regard to the navigation of Hudson Bay, Mr. "Walter Dickson, the corres pondent of the Toronto Globe, previously mentioned, expresses himself inthe follow ing terms: — "This inland sea of Hudson Bay — which might well be termed the Mediterranean of Canada — is upwards of twelve hundred miles in length (including, of course, James' Bay) with a width varying from ninety to three (five) hundred miles and upwards, with several hundreds of islands studded over its surface, some of them of such extent as to have large lakes and rivers on them, giving altogether a sea-board of upwards of two thousand miles (more than that of the United King dom of Great Britain), and so easy of access that an ordinary screw steamer might start from Quebec and reach any point on its coast in considerably less than two weeks. That so little information concerning this great inland sea ofthe Dominion has been given tn the world, is simply owing to the fact that, for upwards of two centuries, this sea and the land surrounding were virtually the property of the great monopoly, the Hudson Bay Company, who made it their study, as it was to their interest to keep Hudson Bay, like all the rest of the territory over which they held sway, as completely unknown to the outer world as possible * * * * r^Y^Q gea of Hudson Bay itself is so little known that there are no charts of it in existence excepting those made by the Hudson Bay Company, and they are only useful as guides to the depots at certain points on the east and west coasts of the Bay." Professor Hind statesf that " the raost recent admiralty map of Hudson Straits exhibits a want a full information regarding the coast lines on both sides of Ihe Straits." A chart published in 1853, and corrected up to 1872, retains errors per- • Hobbs, p. 14. t Report £. and C. Committee, 1878, p. 136. 453 ceivable in those constructed iu Queen Elizabeth's reign. Tbe practical tc^.ts of the navigation of the Bay have been confined to slow sailing merchant ships sometimes convoyed by men-of-war, not less worthy the appellation of tubs, as compared with the -yessela of the present tirae, aent out on any service supposed to require special qualifications in the direction of speed, strength and security. Yet, it is alleged, that, since their original occupation ofthe coasts of the Bay two centuries ago only two of the Hudson Bay Company's own ships have been lost, and that through culpable recklessness. It ia quite probable, however, that the navigation of Hudson Bay will soon be robbed of some of its terrors, and that what has been regarded as hazardous or impossible will be found, by the aid of the new and powerful agencies modem discovery has provided, both safe and practicable. The contrast in other respects between the experience of twenty years since and that of to-day is rather amus ingly exemplified by a perusal of the evidence of Captain Herd, one of the wit nesses before the coraraittee of 1857.* " I do not think," said the worthy captain, " that a steamer would do at all among ice, to force a passage. * * * If I were asked my experience I would prefer a sailing ship among ice to a steamer." He would have been loth to believe th.tt, in a very few years, the whole conditions of the great sealing industry would be changed by the adoption of ateamera in place of sailing vessels, and that the hardy seal hunters, so far from avoiding, would actually seek the very ice that ho was wont to encounter in his sailing ship, and enter it as fearlessly as he steered his craft in open water. With stout screw steamers, pro tected as are these used in the Newfoundland seal fisheries, and furnished with the magneto-electric light, there is very little loose ice that need preclude a passage where an end is to be gained by attempting it. HUDSON STRAITS. Hudson Straits, the only outlet of tho Bay, are at its north-eastern extremity. They are about 500 miles in length, and vary in width frora 45 railes at the entrance between Eesolution Island, on the north, and Britton Islands, on the south shore, to three tiraes that extent iu other places. The Strait, like the Bay, contains numerous islands affording excellent shelter and harlorage. The Hudson Bay ships, according to a table corapiled by Lieut. Chappell, E.N., in 1814, f had usually arrived abreast of Charles Island, on the south side and near the western entrance of the Strait-, at periods varying from the last week in July to the beginning of September. Captain Herd, before the coramittee in 1857, stated that he usually arrived at York Factory about the lOih or 15th of August, and left again frora the 15th to the 25th of Sep tember.! The tirae occupied in going through the Straits on the westward trip, in July, and returning in August or September, in sailing vessels, differs greatly, vary ing from three weeks to a month in the former case, aud from three to five days in the latter, the Straits in August or September being free ot ice. Professor Hind's theory§ is that Hudson Straits are never frozen over, and that the ice brought down in July is not even frora Hudson Bay, but frora a more northerly region, whence it reaches Hudaon Straita through Fox Channel. The heavy tides in the Straits are strongly against the notion of solid ice being formed there. There ia very good authority for believing that the ice forraed in Hud -on Bay does not leave the Bay at all, but that its dissolution takes nlace in the Bay itself. In the southern parts of Hudson Bay, and in Jaraes' Bay, nearly the whole surface may be frozen over ; but the water there is shallow, and, in James' Bay, from causes already staled, contains very little salt. On the contrary, in the upper portions of Hudson Bay, the main body of the water, it is believed, does not freeze at all. Hearne, referring to a fact in ornithology, mentioned by Pennant,|| alludes quite incidentally to the ice being * Report Hudson Bay Committee, 1857, p. 256. t Narrative ofa voyage to Hudson Bay, 1817. t Report Hudson Bay Committee, 1857, p. 255. § Report of I. and 0 Committee, 1878. II Jourue; to the Nortliern Ocean, p. 429. 454 frozen "several miles from the shore, the implication being that the ice was limited in its extent to a distance from the shore which the term "several miles" would be popularly supposed to represent. Another fact, too, confirmatory of the belief that Hudson Bay is not the source of the ice-pack that crushes through Hudaon Straita, ia that, after passing Charles Island, near the western entrance of the Straits,. ice is seldom seen, except it is met with floating in the centre of the Bay. The proposi tion, however, that the passage of the Straits cannot be safely raade before the middle of July has been very generally endorsed by navigators of great experience, includ ing Sir Bdward Parry. But the view held to-day by Professor Hind and other more recent authorities, namely, that an entrance could be effected and the Bay reached in June, is not a new one. Eobson, in his book already frequently referred to,* and which was published in 1752, advocated the passage being attempted in June. He says : " At York Fort and Churchill Eiver I have observed that the ice did not break off close at the shore, but gradually ; the first field leaving the shore-ice two or three miles broad, the second less, and so on until it was cleared away. These several fields of ice drive through the Straits ; but as they go off at intervals, one field may be driven through before the next enters from the Bay ; consequently the Strait is sometimes pretty clear of ice. As the Straits, then, are never frozen over, nor always unnavigable, even when there is rauch ice in the Bay, I imagine that a safe passage may often he made about the beginning of June; for, as tho ice enters the Straits at intervals, according as it breaks off, and as the wind and currents drive it out of the Bay, so the wind may keep the ice back at this season, as at any other. Besides, the ice at the bottom {southern end) ofthe Bay, and the north and west ice, will not have had time to reach the Straits, but after June all the Bay ice commonly reaches it. The begin ning of June, therefore, seems to be the likeliest time in which to expect a free pas sage." Eobson's idea as to the iee being from the Bay was probably incorrect, but his information as to the ice-movements in the Straits may nevertheless have been perfectly sound. Lieut. Chappell, E.N.,f was also of opinion that the Straits might be entered in June. The danger, if any exists, would be rather in the entrance of the Straits than in their subsequent navigation. The ice at the mouth of the Straits is exposed to all the force ofthe Atlantic ; but, once in the Straits, a vessel, if warned by signals of danger, could easily take refuge in one of the numerous places of shelter on the coast or one of the islands in tho Straits. Professor Hind J suggests the establishment of signal stations, from which raariners could be advised as to the drift of the ice as affected by the winds, and thus usually secure a raore or less open channel. In fact, if the iron-protected screw stearaer, thus aided and guided, did not always succeed in overcoming the obstructions arising from this flow-ice in the Straits, the dilHculties it presents would be reduced to their smallest proportions. It is understood that Professor Hind's theory has the full endorsation -of Professor Bell, whose next issued report of his raost recent explorations will be looked for witb great interest. HUDSON BAY FISHERIES, MINERALS AND COMMERCE. Calculations as to permanent trade and intercourse cannot, of course, be based on exceptional experiences. It is, however, a fact attested to by recent visitors to the coasts of Hudson Bay and James' Bay, that for the past two seasons there has been little or no ice in either, while Hudson Straits have also been very clear, and navigation quite unimpeded. To what this state of things raay be attributable it is difficult to say, and how long it may continue, is, of course, quite uncertain. But it is interesting as affording one more proof that Hudson Bay is not the ice bound sea it was once endeavored to make tho world believe. * Six Years' Residence in Hudson Bay, p. 58. t Narrative ofa voyage to Hudson Bay. X Report of Immigration and Colonization Committee, 1878. 455 The accessibility or otherwise of Hudaon Bay and Straits for several months in the year will have an important influence on the development of its fisheries, which have yet received but little attention. Ungarva Bay, just within the eastern entrance of Hudson Straits, has already an excellent reputation as the field of an extensive seal and whale fishery. In an interesting little brochure recently issued by Lieut- Colonel Dennis, Deputy-Minister of the Interior,* a table is given from American official sources, showing the returns of American whaling vessels fishing in Hudson Bay from the year 1861 to 1876. The favorite resort of these vessels is Marble Island, in the north-west part of Hudson Bay. Their numbers varied from one to fifteen in a season, the total number in the fifteen years being forty-nine. Another return of the value of the catch for the eleven years — 1861 to 1874, omitting 1869 and 1871— was $1,371,023. Seals and porpoises, among the larger denizens of the ocean, are also to be found in the waters of the Bay or Straits . On the north western shore of the Bay is a very prolific salmon fishery, capable, appareiitly, of forming a most importaat local industry. Although there is no evidence published of cod being captured alive, their remains having been frequently found on the shore, and the resort to the Bay of enormous shoals of caplin — the chief food ot the cod — is regarded as one of the best proofs that the cod are not far behind them. "With the fur trade, which still finds, at the mouths of the great rivers that fall into Hudson Bay, its principal depots ; with the mineral wealth that will inevitably, at no distant day, be extracted from the coasts of these hitherto alraost unexplored waters ; from the fisheries that may be stimulated as the facilities for navigation become better understood, and from the fertile soil on the banks ofthe ;jreat western rivers, may accrue results most important to tbe people of Canada, ai.d in these itis desirable that the Province of Ontario, lacking, as it does, to this vast northern sea as one of its boundaries, should as early as pos'^iblo pfiTti'Mpalc. The question of establishing improved communications betweenthe more populoussectioiis of Ontario and its north-western territory, especially with the settlements on Lake Superior, will undoubtedly ere long engage fuller attention. The practicability of constructing a railway from Sault Ste. Marie from the most advanced point of existing railway communications has long since been demonstrated. The late Mr. Herrick, and other surveyors, have furnished information pointing to the comparative ease by which connections in winter, by means of a stage road, might be maintained with Thunder Bay, the inhabitants of which region are now practically isolated for six months in the year. Lake Superior, on the other hand, never freezes over, nor is it a stormy water, and even Thunder Bay is open till so late a period that, with vessels properly protected in the bows, it would be possible to maintain traffic, via the Sault, for nine months out of the twelve. The Sault, certainly appears to be the point to which railway enterprise will have to be directed as providing a way to intercourse with north-western Ontario and the vast territories lying both to the north and west of the boundaries of this Province. 19— BXTEACTS FEOM INSTEUCTIONS TO LOED DOECHESTEE, 22nd DECBMBEE, 1774. The following extract from the Eoyal Instructions bearing date of 22nd Decem ber 1774, will show that the Governors of Quebec had authority over countries beyond tlie limits of the Province, and that for those outside territories and interior countries they had to provide the means of Governraent. PUBLIC EBOORD — OFPIOE COPY. State Papers, Golonial Series Board of Trade, Ganada, Entry Book B., Quebec, No. 16. Quebec. 1774. Page 207. — Instructions to Our Trusty and well-beloved Guy Carleton, Dec. 22nd. Esquire, Our Captain General and Governor-in-Chief, in, and over Our ' Navigation ol Hudson Bay, Ottawa, 1878. 456 Province of Quebec, in America, and of all Our Territories dependent thereupon, Given : First. — "With these Our Instructions you will receive Our Commission under Our Great Seal of Great Britain, constituting you Our Captain-General and Governor- in-Chief, in America, and in all Our Territories thereunto belonging, as the said Pro vince and Territories are bounded and described in and by the said Commission ; you are therefore to take upon you the execution of the Office and Trust We have reposed in you, and the administration of the Government, and to do and execute all things in due manner that shall belong to Your Coraraand, according to the several powers and authorities of Our said Commission, under Our Great Seal of Great Britain and these Our Instructions to you, or according to siich further powers and instructions as shall at any time hereafter be granted or appointed under Our Signet and Sign Manual, or by Our Order in Our Privy Council. ******** 14. With regard to the nature and number of the Courts of Justice which it may be proper to establish, either for the whole Province at large, or separately, for its dependencies, and the times and places for holding the said Courts, no certain rule can be laid down in a case in which the judgraent must, in many respects at least, be altogether guided by circumstances of local convenience and consideration. ***¥*¥** 31. * * * But it will be highly proper that the liraits of each of those posts and of every other in the interior country should be fixed and ascertained, and that no settleraent be allowed beyond those limits, seeing that such settlements must have the consequence to disgust the savages, to excite their enmity, and at length totally to destroy the Peltry Trade, which ought to be cherished and encouraged by every means in your power. 32. It is Our Eoyal intention that the Peltry Trade of the interior eountry should be free and open to all Our Subjects, inhabitants of any of Our Colonies, who shall, pursuant to what was directed by Our Eoyal Proclaraation of 1763 (vide Gazette of 7th October, 1763) obtain license frora the Governors of any of Onr said Colonies for that purpose, under penalties to observe such regulations as shall be made by Our .Legislature of Quebec for that purpose. These regulations, therefore, when established must be made public throughout all Our American possessions and they must have for their object the giving every possible facility to that trade which the nature of it will adrait, and as raay consist with fair and just dealing towards the savages with whora it is carried on. The fixing stated tiraes and places for carrying on the trade and adjusting modes of settling tariffs of the prices of goods and furs, and above all the restraining the sale of spirituous liquors to the Indians will be the most probable and effectual raeans of answering the ends proposed. These and a variety of other regulations, incident to the nature and purpose ot the Peltry Trade, in the interior country are fully stated in a plan proposed by Our Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, in 1761, a copy ofwhich is hereunto annexed, and which will seiwe as a guide in a variety of cases in which it raay be necessary to make pro vision by law for that important branch of tho American commerce. 33. The fisheries on the Coast of Labrador and the islands adjacent that are objects of the greatest importance, not only on account of the commodities they produce, but also as nurseries of seamen upon whom the strength and security of Our Kingdom depend. 34. Justice and legality demand that the real and actual property and posses sions of the Canadian subjects on that coast should be preserved entirely, and that they should not be molested or hindered in the exercise of any sedentary fisheries they may have established there. 35. Their clairas, however, extend to but a sraall district of the coast, on the greatest part of which district a cod fishery is stated to be irapractioable. 36. On all such parts of the co-a,Bt where there are no Canadian possessions, aud more especially where a valuaple cod fishery may be carried on, it will be your duty 457 to niake the interests of Our British subjects going out to fish there in ships fitted out from Great Britain the first object of your care, and as far as circumstances will J^^^ u° °^*^^'^®'^ °° ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ regulations in favor of British fi.'hing ships which ha-pe been so wisely adopted by the Act of Pariiament passed in the reign of King William the Third for the encouragement of the Newfoundland fishery, and you are on no account to allow any possession to be taken, or sedentary fisheries to be established on any parts of the coast that are not already private property by any persons whatever, except only such as shall produce annually a certificate of their having fitted out from some port in Great Britain. 37. We have mentioned to you the fisheries upon the Coast of Labrador as the main object of your attention, but the commerce carried on by the savages of that coast and the state and condition of those savages deserve some regard. The Society of Unitas Fratrum, urged by a laudable zeal for promoting Christi anity, has already under. Our protection, andwith Our perraission, forraed establish ments in the northern parts of that coast, for the purpose of civilizing the natives^ and converting thera to the Christian Eeligion ; and it is Our express will and pleasure that you do give them every countenance and encouragement in your power, and that you do not allow any establishment to be made but with their consent within the limits oftheir possessions. 20. -BXTEACTS FEOM SIE TRA.VEES TWISS' WOEK ON" THB " OEEGON QUESTION." Page 207. — Mr. Greenhow (p. 281), in alluding to the negotiations antecedent to this convention, states that Mr. Munroe, on the part ofthe United States, proposed to Lord Harrowby the 49th parallel of latitude, upon the grounds that this parallel had been adopted and definitely settled by Commissaries appointed agreeably to tbe tenth article ofthe treaty concluded at Utrecht in 1713, as the dividing line between the French possession of western Canada and Louisiana, on the south, and the British territories of Hud.son Bay, on the north; and that this treaty, having been specially confirmed in the Treaty of 1763, by which Canada and the part of Louisiana east of the Mississippi and Iberville were ceded to Great Britain, the reinainder of Louisiana continued as before, bounded on the north by the 49th parallel. The same fact was alleged by the Coraraissioners of the United States, in their negotiationa with Spain in 1805, rospeeting the western boundary of Louisiana (British and Foreign State Papers, 1817-18, p. 322), Page 209. — Mr. Anderson, in his History of Commerce, published in 1801, "Yol. in. p, 50, observes under the events of the year 1713 : — " Although the French King yielded to the Queen of Great Britain, to be possessed by her in full right forever, the Bay and Straits of Hudson, and all parts thereof, and within the same, then possessed by France; yet the leaving the boundaries between Hudson Bay and tlie north parts of Canada, belonging to France, to be determined by Commissaries within a year, was, in effect, the same thing as giving up the point altogether, it being well known to all Europe that France never permits her Commissaries to determine matters referred to such, unless it can be done with great advantage to her. Those boundaries there- foi'e have never yet been settled, although both British aad French subjects are by that article expressly debarred from passing over the same, or merely to go to each other by sea or land." The object of the tenth article ot the Treaty of Utrecht was to secure to the Hud son Bay Company the restoration of the forts and other possessions of which they had been deprived at Various times by French expeditions frora Canada, and ofwhich sorae had been yielded to France by the seventh article of the Treaty of Eyswick. By this latter treaty Louis XI"V. had at last recognized William III. as King of Great Britain and Ireland, and William, in return, had consented that the principle of uti possidetis should be the basis ofthe negotiations between the two Crowns. By the 453 tenth article, however, of the Treaty of Utrecht, tho French King agreed to restore to the Queen (Anne) of Great Britain, " to be possessed in full right forever, 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 thereto, no tracts of land or sea being excepted, which are at present possessed by the subjects of France. The only question therefore for Commissaries to settle, were the limir: of the Bay and Straits of Hudson, coastwards, on the side of the French Province ¦ ¦ t' Canada, as all the country drained by strearas entering into the Bay and Straits (jf Hudson were by the terras of the treaty recognized to be part of the possessions of Great Britain, If the coast boundary, therefore, was once understood by the parties, the head waters of the streams that empty themselves into the Bay and Straits of Hudson, indicate the line which at once satisfied the other conditions of the treaty. Such a line, if commenced at the eastern extremity of the Straits of Hudson, would have swept along through the sources of the streams flowing into the Lake Mistaasinnie and Abbitibia, the Eainy Lake, in 48° 30', which empties itself by the Eainy Eiver into the Lake ofthe Woods, the Eed Lake and Lake Traverse. This last lake would have been the extreme southern limit, in about' 45° 40', whence the line would have wound upward to the north-west, pursuing a serpentine course, and resting with its «xtreraity upon the Eocky Mountains, at the southern most source of the Saskatch- •ewan Eiver in about the 48th parallel of latitude. Such would have been the boundary line between the French possessions and the Hudson Bay district ; and so we find that, in the limits of Canada, assigned by the Marquis de Vaudreuil him self, when he suriendered the Province to Sir J. Araherst, the Eed Lake is the apex of the Province of Canada, or the point of departure frora which, on the one side, the line is drawn to Lake Superior; on the other, "follows a serpentine course southward to the River Oubache, or Wabash, and along it to the junction with the ¦Ohio." This fact was insisted upon by the British Governraent in their answer to the ultimatum ofFrance, sent in on the 1st of September, 1761; and the map, which was presented on that occasion by Mr. Stanley, the British iViinister, embodying those limits, was assented to in the French Memorial of the 9th September. {His torical Memorial of the negotiations of France and England from March 26th to September 20th, 1761, published at Paris, by authority.) By the fourth article, however, of the Treaty of 1763, Canada was ceded in full, with its dependencies, including the Illinois ; and the future line of demarcation between the territories of their Britannic and Christian Majesties, on the continent of America, was, by the seventh article, irrevocably fixed to be drawn through the middle of the Eiver Mississippi, from its source to the Eiver Iberville, and thence along the middle of the latter river and the Lake Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea. Thenceforward the French territory in North America was confined to the western bank of the Missis sippi, and this was the Louisiana which was ceded by France to Spain in 1769, by virtue of the treaty secretly concluded in 1762, but not promulgated till 1765. There would have been no raistake as to the boundaries of Louisiana, Canada and the Hudson Bay territories, as long as they were defined to be the aggregate of the valleys watered by the rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of St. Law rence and the Bay of Hudson, respectively. The relative positions of the X/ake of the Woods, the Eed Lake, and the northern most source ofthe Mississippi, were evidently not understood by the parlies to the second article of the Treaty of 1783, when it was proposed to continue a line from the north-western point of Lako Superior through the Long Lake, and thence lo the Lake of the Woods, and due west to the Mississippi. In order to hit off the seurces of the Mississippi, which was the undoubted purport of the treaty, tbe line should have been drawn from the westernmost point of Lake Superior up the Eiver St. Louis, and thence it might havo been carried due westward to the source of the Mississippi, in 47° 38'. No definite substitute was proposed in the Treaty of 1794, which admitted the uncertain character of the proposed frontier ; for even then the country had not been surveyed, and as neither of the Conventions of 1803 or 1806 was ratified by the United States, nor could the respective plenipotentiaries come to 459 any agreement on the subject at the negotiation of the Peace of Ghent, the question remained unsettled, until it was at last arranged by the provisions of the 2nd article ofthe Cnnvention of 1818, that the boundary line agreed upon in 1806 should be the frontier westward as far as the Eocky Mountains. If this view be correct of the boundary line of the Hudson Bay Territory, as settled by the Treaty of Utrecht, and of the western limit of Canada, as expressed upon its surrender to Great Britain, it will be conclusive against the opinion that the iS-ench possessions ever extended indefinitely north-westward along the Continent of North America. It should be kept iu mind that the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in the interval between the grant to Crozat, in 1712 and the charter of Law's Mississippi Company, in 1717. By the former grant, Louisiana had been definitely limited to the head- ¦waters of the Mississippi and the Missouri, and before the subseqent annexation of the Illinois to the Province of Louisiana in 1717, all the territory watered by the streams emptying themselves into the Bay of Hudson had been acknowledged by France to be part ofthe possessions ofthe Crown of England. ' As, then, the Hudson Bay Territories were implied by that treaty to extend up ¦to the Eed Lake and Lake Travers, this would definitely bar the French title further north ; but the declaration of the French authorities themselves, on the surrender of Canada, that its boundary rested upon tho Eed Lake, will still more decisively nega tive the assertion that Louisiana, after 1717, extended " to the most northern limit of the French possessions in North Araerica, and thereby west of Canada and New France," unless it can be shown that the Illinois country extended to the west ofthe Eed Lake, which was not the fact. This queation, however, will be more fully discussed in the next chapter. Page 223. — The charter given by Charles II. to the Hudson Bay Company, granted to them, by virtue of the discoveries made in those parts, all tho lands, &c., within the en trance of the straits comraonly called Hudson Straits, " which are not now actually posessed by any of our subjects, or by the subjects of any other christian prince or state ;" and thus we find in the negotiatioiis antecedent to the Treaty of Utrecht, it was expressly urged in support of the British title to the territories of Hudson Bay, " that Mons. Frontenac, then Governor of Canada, did not complain of any pretended injury done to Prance by tbe said Company'a settling a trade and building of forts at the bottora of Hudson Bay, nor made pretensions to any right of France to that Bay, till long after that tirae." (Anderson's History of Commerce, A.D. 1670, Vol. ii., p. 516). In other words, the title which this charter created was good against other subjecta of the Britiah Crown, by virtue of the charter itself; but its validity against other nations rested on the principle that the country was discovered by British subjects, and, at the tirae of their settleraent, was not occupied by the subjects of any other Christian Prince or State ; and in respect to any special claim on the part of France, the non-inlerforence of the Fr':;nch Governor was successfully urged against that power as conclusive of her acquiescence. That the Province of Louisiana did not' at any time extend further north than the source of the Mississippi, either if we regard the evidence of public instruments in the form of charters and treaties, or of historical facts, is most assuredly beyond the reach of argument. What, however, were the western limits of the Province has not been so authoritatively determined. Mr. Greenhow (p. 283), after examining thia queation, concludes thus: — " In the abaence ol more- direct ligut on the subject from history, we are forced to regard the boundaries indicated by nature— namely, the highlands separating tho waters of tho Mississippi from those flowing into the Pacific or Californian Gulf— as the true western boundaries of the Louisiana ceded by France to Spain in 1762, and retroceded to France in 1800, and transferred to the United States by France in 1803 ; but then it must also be admitted, for the same as well aa for another and atronger reason, that the British possessions further north were bounded on the coast by the same chain of highlands; for the charter of the Hudson Bay Company, on which the right to those possessions was founded and 460 maintained, expressly included only the countries traversed bythe streams emptying themselves into Hudson Bay," Charters raay certainly be appealed to as evidence against the parties which have granted that, on their own admission, they do not extend their claim beyond the limits of them, and Mr, Greenhow is perfectly justified in confining the limits of Eupert's Land, for such seema to have been the uame recognized in the charter, to the plantation in Hudaon Bay, and the countries traversed by the streams emptying themselves into the Bay ; but the right to those possessions, as against France, was not founded upon the charter, but generally upon recognized principles of inter national law, and especially upon the Treaty of Utrecht. So, in respect to the northern limit of Louisiana, Crozat's grant, or the grant to Law's Mississippi Com pany, might be alleged against France, to show that its limits did not extend further north, on the left bank of the Mississippi, than the Illinois. On the other hand, the Treaty of Paris might be appealed to, in order to show against Great Britain, that it did extend on the left bank of the Mississippi as far north as the sources of that river. Again, in respect to the western boundary of Louisiana, Crozat's grant raight be cited against France, to show thattheProvinceof Louisiana did not extend further westward than the confines of New Mexico. What, however, was the boundary of New Mexico does not seem to have been determined by any treaty between France and Spain, France seeras, indeed, frora the words of Crozat's grant, to have considered herself exclusively entitled to the Missouri Eiver on the right bank, and to the Ohio on the left. The claims, however, of Great Britain clashed- with her on the banks ofthe Ohio, as remarked by Mr. Calhoun, in his letter to Mr, Pakenhara, of Sept. 3rd, 1844. In an analogous manner the Spanish title con flicted with the French title on the banks of the Missouri ; for we find that, in the negotiations antecedent to the Treaty of Washington, in 1819, the Spanish Commis sioner raaintained that, after Santa F^, the Capital of New Mexico was built, Spain considered all tho territory lying to the east and north of New Mexico, so far as the Mississippi and Missouri, to be her property. (British and Foreign State Papers 1817-18, p. 438.) The United States, indeed, on succeeding to the French title, declined to adrait that the Spanish frontier ever extended so far to the north-east as was alleged ; on the other hand, the letter of President Jefferson, of August, 1803, shows that they con sidered their own clairas to be limited by " the high lands on the western side of the Mississippi, enclosing all its waters (the Missouri, of course.") By the Treaty of Utrecht, the British possessions to the north-west of Canada were acknowledged to extend to the head-waters of the rivers emptying themselves into the Bay of Hudson ; by the Treaty of Paris, they were united to the British possessions on the Atlantic by the cession of Canada and all her dependencies ; and France contracted her dominions within the right bank of the Mississippi. That France did not retain any territory after this treaty to the north-west ofthe sources ofthe Mississippi will be obvious -when it is kept in raind that the sources of the Mississippi are in 47'-' 35', whilst the sources of the Eed Eiver, which flows through Lake Winnipeg, and ultiraately finds its way by the Nelson River into the Bay of Hudson, are in Lake Traverse, in about 45° 40'. Page 246. — Vattel, v., i, §26(5, writes: "When a nation takes possession ofa coun try, with a view to settle there, it takes possession of everything included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers. &c." It is universally adraitted, that when a nation takes possesion ofa country, she is considered to appropriate to herself all its natural appendages, such as lakes, rivers, &c., and it is perfectly intelligible why the practice of European nations has sanctioned the exclusive title ofthe first settlers on any extent of sea-ooast to the interior country within the liraits of the coast which they have occupied, because their settiements bar the approach to the interior country, and other nations can have no right of way across the settleraents of independent nations. In roferenee, how ever, to the extent of coast, which a nation may have presumed to have taken possession of by making a settlement in a vacant country, the well known rule of terroi dominium finitur, ubi finitur armorum vis, might on tbe first thought suggest 461 itself; but it has not been hitherto held that there is any analogy between jurisdic tion over territory and jurisdiction over adjoining seas ; on the contrary, it was ruled in the CirniiU, f!niii-t, nfNTow Vr„.V ./ o ; jt in the Circuit Court of New York, ^1.— COEEESPONDENCB BETWEEN DOMINION MINISTEES AND THB COLONIAL OFFICE, EESPECTING THB SUEEBNDBE OF THB HUD SON BAY COMPANY'S TEEEITOEIAL CLAIMS, 1869, sm GEORGE E. CARTIER AND HON. WM. MCDOUGALL TO SIR P. ROGERS. Westminster Palace Hotel, London, January 16, 1869. Sir, — We have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 30th nit. (with its enclosures), stating that you were directed by Earl Granville to trans mit to us a copy ofa letter which his Lordship had received from the Deputy-Chair- Eoan of the Hudson Bay Company, relating to some steps which have been taken under the authority of the Canadian Government, and from which the Company apprehend some invasion of their territorial rights. _ You inform us that his Lordship will be glad to receive from us any explanation which we may be able to furnish him of the steps taken by the Canadian Goverment. We have read the letter ofthe Deputy-Chairman, and extracts from the letters of Governor McTavish, and have rauch pleasure in being able to furnish his Lordship with what we hope will prove satisfactory information on the subject of the Hudson Bay Company's complaint. 1. In the month of September last, very precise information reached the Cana dian Government that, in consequence of the coraplete destruction of their crops by locusts, the people of the Eed Eiver settlement, numbering probably from 12,000 to 15,000 souls, were in eminent danger of starvation during the winter about to set in. 2. Nuraerous and earnest appeals for aid had already been raade to the Canadian public by writers in the newspapers, and byclergyraen and othera acquainted with the country. The Eight Eeverend Eobert Machray, Lord Bishop of Eupert'a Land, a member of the Council of Assiniboia, and so far a representative of the Company, visited Ottawa, and urged upon merabers of the Canadian Government the duty of prompt assistance to avert the threatened calamity. 3. No steps had been taken (so far as the Government could learn) by the Hud aon Bay Company to provide supplies, and, aware that a few days' delay at that season might render it impossible to get provisions to Eed Eiver in time to afford relief, the Canadian Government appropriated the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) towards the construction ofa road from Lake ofthe Woods to Fort Garry. The Minister of Public Works (one ofthe undersigned) was directed to expend the principal part ofthis sura in the purchase of provisions, which were to be forwarded with all poaaible despatch to the Eed Eiver settleraent, and offered to the settlers, not as alms, but in exchange for their labor on a public work in their own vicinity, and of the highest utility to their settlement. 4. A confidential and experienced agent proceeded at once to St. Paul's, Minne sota, and succeeded in forwarding a considerable supply of provisions before the close of navigation. A further quantity had reached Fort Abercrombie, an American post in Dakota Territory, from which point it can be sent to the settlement early in the spring. 5. Information has reached the undersigned since their arrival in England, that the Government Agent had, in accordance with his instructions, conferred with the local authorities on his arrival at Fort Garry ; that he had received their approval and promise of assistance ; that his timely aid was a cause of much joy and thank fulness in the settlement ; and that he had proceeded with a large force of laborers to the lirait ofthe prairie country, sorae thirty miles from Fort Garry, t/jwards Lako of the Woods, and had there commenced the construction of the road. 462 6. The immediate object of the Canadian Government in taking the steps com plained of, was to supply food to a starving comraunity about to be imprisoned for six months in the heart ofa great wilderness, without roads or means of communi- catio,n with their fellow subjects, and to supply it in the way most acceptable to a high-spirited people, viz., in exchange for their labor. It was thought that even the Hudson Bay Company might look with favor upon a public work which, when com pleted, will prove a valuable protection to those under their government against similar dangers in the future. On behalf ofthe Canadian Government, we deny that a " trespass " has been coraraitted, or that our action in this matter was intended to forestall or embarrass negotiations, which the Imperial Parliament has directed to be undertaken for the transfer of the North-Western Territories and Eupert's Land to the Dominion of Canada. The foregoing explanation may perhaps be deemed sufficient to enable the Barl Granville to answer the complaint of the Hudson Bay Company against the Canadian Government ; but the undersigned beg leave to add one or two observations which, in their opinion, this extraordinary demand for the " intervention of Her Majesty's Government," both invites and justifies. If the Hudson Bay Company, who claim the right to hold and govern the territory in which the alleged " trespass " has taken place, had performed the first duty of a government towards its people, by providing them with easy means of comraunication with the outer world, or if they had shown themselves either able or willing to meet the threatened calamity by a prompt effort to forward sufficient supplies to the settlement before the close of navigation, the Canadian Government would have rested happy in the belief that neither humanity nor public policy required or justified their interference. Tbe assertion of the Deputy-Governor of the Hudson Bay Company, that the country between Lake of the Woods and Eed Eiver is " the freehold territory of the Company," and that the so-called " trespass " of the Canadian Government in send ing provisions to the starving settlers, and assisting them to raake a road for their own convenience and safety hereafter, is " an actual encroachment on the soil ofthe Company," might, if unnoticed by us, be claimed as another proof or admission of the rights of the Company in that part of the continent. We, therefore, beg to remind His Lordship that the boundaries of Upper Canada on the north and west were declared, under the authority of the Constitutional Act of 1791, to include " all the territory to the westward and southward " of the " boundary line of Hudson Bay, to the utmost extent of the country comraonly called or known by the name of Canada." Whatever doubt may exist as to the " utmost extent " of old, or French Canada, no irapartial investigator of the evidence in the case can doubt that it extended to, and included, the country between Lake of the Woods and Eed Eiver. The Governraent of Canada, therefore, does not admit, but, on the contrary, denies, and has always denied, the pretentions of the Hudson Bay Company to auy right of soil beyond that of squatters, in the territory through which the road com plained of is being constructed. We have, &c., G. E. CAETIBE, WM. McDOUGALL. Sir Frederick Eogers, Bart., &c.. Colonial Office. sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE TO SIR FREDERIC ROGERS,. BART. Hudson Bat House, London, February 2nd, 1869. Sir,— I have the honor to acknowledge your letter ofthe 28th January, addressed to Deputy-Governor ofthis Corapany, enclosing a communication from Sir G. Cartier and Mr. McDougall, on the subject ol the recent proceedings of tho Canadian Govern- 463 ment in the matter of the construction ofa road through the Company's territory between Fort Garry and the Lake of the Woods. After the distinct statement contained in Sir Curtis Lampson's letter ol' the 22nd December, thatthe Company, while proteating againat a trespass on their land, were prepared favorably to entertain any application for perraission to raake such a road, either on the part of the Imperial or of the Canadian Government, the Committee think it unnecessary to discuss the greater portion of the letter of the Canadian Ministers. Their objection is not to the road being made, but toits being undertaken by the Canadian Governmont as a matter of right, as though the territory through which it is to pass were Canadian, Such a step, taken at a moment when negotia tions are in progress for the transfer of the Company's possessions to Canada, and taken by a Governraent which openly disputes their title to this portion of them, could not have been allowed to pass unchallenged without derogating from the Com pany's rights. The Canadian Government theraselves seera to have been alive to this. Mr. McTavish states that the agent of that Governraent (Mr, Snow), on arriv ing at the Eed Eiver, coraraunicated to him his instructions from the Commissioner of Public Works in Canada, containing the expression of " a hope on the part of the Commissioner, that the Company's Agent here would offer no opposition to Mr. Snow's operations, but would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Imperial Govern ment." Governor McTavish, upon this, very properly allowed Mr. Snow to comraence his operations; and so far a3 this Company is concerned, no impediment has been, or will be, offered to the prosecution of the work. If it were worth while to discuss that part of the letter ofthe Canadian Ministers which refers to the circurastances under which the construction of the road was ordered, the Committee would be able to show that the Company had in no way failed in their duty to the Colony; but that they had promptly taken measures for the relief of its inhabitants, and had supplied large sums, both by direct grants and by subscriptions raised under their auspices for that purpose, at a period anterior to the appropriation of the Canadian road grant. They would also be able to point oUt how the delay which has occurred in opening up comraunications, and otherwise develop ing the resources of Eed Eiver Settiement, is due to the restraint which has been imposed upon them by Her Majesty's Government, at the request of Canada, and not to any negligence or indifference of their own. But the Coramittee desire to avoid tho raising of a false issue, and they accord ingly instruct me to re-state to Barl Granville the precise coraplaint which they have to raake. It is this : that while negotiations are going on for the acquisition oftheir territory by Canada, tho Canadian Government are endeavoring to exercise rights of ownership over a portion of that territory, to the exclusion of the Corajiany, and to the prejudice oftheir title. This they are doing by virtue of an old claim which they have repeatedly advanced, which the Company have invariably disputed, and have declared themselves ready to contest before a court of law, and which Her Majesty's Government, acting under the advice of various Law Officers of theCroWn, have declined to endorse. The Canadian Government have hitherto shown no inclination to bring their claims to the test of a judicial decision, and in the absence of any such decision, the Coraraittee consider it not unreasonable to ask that due respect should be paid to the Corapany's uninterrupted possession of the territory for two centuries, and to the nuraerous and weighty legal opinions which have frora tirae to time be'6il given in their favor. In appealing to Barl Granville for support in this matter, instead of entering into a controversy with Canada, or taking legal steps to enforce the Company's rights, the Coramittee have been actuated by a desire to proceed as far as possible in accord ance with the views and wishes of Her Majesty's Government, as thej^ have endeavoured to do throughout the pending negotiations for the establishment of a settled form of Governraent at the Eed Eiver. They desire now respectfully, but confidently, to claim the support and protection of the Colonial Minister against any 464 invasion of the Company's rights which may have been prompted or facilitated by the policy which they have adopted in order to meet the wishes ofthe Colonial Office. I have, &c., STAFFOED H. NOETHCOTE. Sir Frederick Eogers, Bart. sir S. northcote to sir p. ROGERS. Hudson Bat House, London, 13th January, 1869. Sir, — I have the honor to acquaint you, for the information of Barl Granville, that I was electoo by the shareholders of this Company, on Tuesday, the 5th instant, to the office of Governor, vacant by the resignation of the Barl of Kimberly. It now becomes my duty to address you in reply to Mr. Adderly's letter, dated the 1st December, 1868, which was received by my predecessor on the eve of his resig nation, and to which, in consequence of tjiat event, the Committee have not been able to send an earlier answer. Before making any observations upon the particular topics discussed in Mr. Adderly's letter, I am desired by the Company to assure Lord Granville that they continue sincciely anxious to promote the object with a view to which this Company was reconstruoted flve and a half years ago, viz., the gradual settleraent of such 'por tions of their territory as adrait of colonization; that they adhere to the opinion expressed in their resolution ofthe 28th August, 1863, viz., that the time has corae when it is expedient that the authority, executive and judicial, over the Eed Eiver Settlement, and the south- western portion of Eupert's Land, should be vested in officers deriving such authority directly from the Crown; and that they cheerfully accept the decision of Her Majesty's Government, communicated to them in Mr. Adderly's letter of the 23rd April, 1868, viz., that the whole ofthe Company's terri tory shjuld, under proper conditions, be united with the Dominion of Canada, and placed under the authority of the Canadian Parliament. Acting in accordance with the wish of Her Majesty's Government as conveyed to them in Mr. Elliott's letter of the 23rd January, 1867, the Committee have de clined to encourage overtures which have been made to them by private persons for the purchase of portions of the Company's territory with a view to their colonization and have kept the whole question in abeyance during the tirae that the negotiations which have led to the confederation of the British Provinces constituting the Domin ion ot Canada, were proceeding. In the whole of that time they have taken no step •which could give rise to fresh complications, or could place any new difficulty in the way of the admission of their territory into the confederation when tho proper moment should arrive; and when thoy were informed by Mr. Adderley'a letter of the 23rd of April, that the Parliaraent of Canada had addressed Her Majesty upon this subject, we were requested to state the terras which the Corapany would be prepared to accept, proceeding on the principle adopted in the interrupted negotiations of 1864, they unhesitatingly complied with the desire of the Government. Itis therefore \\ith surprise, as well as with regret, that they have learnt from the letter now undo,' reply that the terms proposed by them, even when moststrictiy m conformity with ihe principlea adopted in 1864, are conaidered by Her Mojeaty's Government to be, inadmissible, and not to afford rauch prospect of an arrangement being come fo. They find, for instance, that the stipulation that the Corapany should receiveone shilling per acre on lands hereafter sold, which was originally .suggested to the Committee by His Grace the late .Duke ofNewcastie in Mr Fortescue'.s letter of March llth, 1864, and which has never hitherto been called in question, is the first point to which exception is now taken. Objections are also raised agaiii>t several other proposals which have been long before the Government while no noi ice at all is taken of some which have been made for the first time with a view to llio protection ofthe Company's trade, and with regard to M-hich the Com mittee are lult in ignorance whether they are considered admisiblo or not 465 The Committee, although somewhat embarrassed by this apparent change in tho ^irit of the correspondence, desire me, however, to make the following observations upon some ofthe remarks contained in Mr. Adderley's letter, in order that there may be no misapprehension as to the bearing of their proposals : The Committee are aware that, as stated in Mr. Adderley's letter, in order to prepare the country for settlement, very considerable annual outlay will have to be incurred, and that for this charge the produce of the early sales of lands is the natural resource, but they are at a loss to understand upon what grounds it is alleged that their proposals would deprive the future Government ofthe ceded territory of" any prospect," for a long time at least, of " receiving any income." The only part of the territory in which it is probable that an early or extensive settlement will take place, is the part known as the Fertile Belt, It ,has been confi dently asserted by independent persons who have travelled through the country, that a great part of the land is not inferior in quality, or in advantages of climate, to tbe adjoining United States Territory now forming the State of Minnesota, and it has been justly pointed out that, being prairie land, it does not require much labor to render it fit for cultivation. But the price of land in Minnesota ranges, as the Commitfeo are informed, from five shillings to one pound per acre. The Committer think, there fore, that the fixed payment of one shilling per acre, proposed by the Duke of New castle, and accepted by them as a basis of compensation, cannot be depmed to bo unreasonable is so fiar as related to land sold within the limits set forth in Sir Edmund Head's letter of the llth November, 1863. As regards any portions of land lying outside these limits, which may possibly be sold, the Committee think it very improbable that such sale will take place e;sqept for mining purposes, in which case the payment of a shilling per, acre could hafdly be deemed excessive. In order to save trouble and obviate disputes, therefore,' the Committee proposed the fixed payment of one shilling per acre in respect of all sales wherever they may take place, and they believe that the arrangement would have been, on the whole, more favorable to Canada than that suggested by Mr. Adderley. Mr. Adderley proceeds to remark with reference to Lord Kimberley's proposal, that the Company should retain certain reserves around their posts ; that the reser vations would amount to upwards of 500,000 acres. It was, however, stated by Lord Kimberley and the Deputy-Governor, at an interview with the Duke of Buckingham upon this subject, that the Committee were willing to confine their claira for reserves to the limits defined by Sir Edmund Head's letter of the llth November, 1863 ; that they were prepared to- agree that such reservations should be measured by the import ance of the posts to which they were to be attached, and should in no case exceed 3 000 acres. The total quantity of land to be retained by the Company under this arrangement would not exceed 50,000 acres. The Committee cannot agree tc? the absolute exclusion of these reserves from all frontage to " rivers or tracks, roads or portages," which would render them entirely valueless, although they would have been ready to consider any reasonable limitation of these special advantages. As regards the right of selecting lands from the Company in proportion to, the quantities sold from time to time by the Government, the Committee desire, to call Lord Granville's attention to the reasons given in Sir B. Head's letter of the 13th April 1864 for adopting this mode of reservation in preference to that of " setting •apart'beforehsnd a number of isolated tracts of wild land, dotted over the surface of the colony and calculated to impede the free flow of settlement in the territory." Their proposal was framed with reference to sales in the Fertile Belt only, and it never entered into their minds to contemplate such contingencies as those suggested by Mr. Adderley's letter In order, however, to obviate all cavil.ppon this point, they would have been quite willing to limit the Company's right of.iseloctionto the case of lands sold or alienated within Sir B. Head's limits, provided ;that it were agreed that n_o alienations should take place beyond those limits, except either for distinctly! public- "DurDOses or for the bond fide carrying on of agricultural or mining operations. As- regards Mr. Adderiey's proposal that the right of selection should be confined to five 1-30 466 lots of 200 acres each, in each township as it is set set out, the Committee can only remark that the character of this proposal must depend upon the size of the town ship, of which no indication has been given. The Coramittee still adhere to the opinion that, under the peculiar circumstances of tbe proposed transfer of their territory, it would be reasonable that their wild lands should, for a liraited tirae, be exempt from taxation, in order to allow them a fair opportunity of bringing them into profitable cultivation. They observe that Mr. Adderley makes no reference to the tenth stipulation contained in Lord Kimberley's letter of the 13th May, viz., that until the stipu lated sum of £l,000,OUO sterling has been paid to the Company, no export duties shall be levied by Canada upon furs exported by the Company, nor any import duties on articles imported by them, into the North-Western Territory, and into that part of Eupert's Land which is not included within the geographical limits laid down in Sir Edmund Head's letter of November lltb, 1863. This is a point to which the Committee attached very great importance. If it had been proposed by the Cana dian Government to raake a direct purchase of the Corapany's territory, and to pay the price for it at once, the Company would, of course, have accepted their fair share of the burdens which annexation raight be expected to involve. But if the purchase money is to be withheld until the Canadian Government have sold off 20,000,000 acres of the land, or have realized a considerable sum by the produce of mining operations, it is reasonable that the pressure of the fiscal burdens, which would fall almost ex clusively upon the Company's trade, should be suspended also. Otherwise it might happen that, in consequence of the neglect or inability of the Canadian Government to proceed with thg settlement of the territory, the Company would be subjected to very heavy contributions to the colonial treasury without receiving the smallest beneflt in return. As an illustration of the extent to which they might thus be injured, were uo limitation placed upon the colonial power of taxation, I may observe that, according to the present Canadian tariff, the duty upon the value of the Com pany's imports alone would araount to about £20,000 a year, while any export duty that might be laid npon their furs would operate still further to their disadvantage. The Committee feel confident that Lord Granville will acknowledge the reasonable ness of their taking precautions against such a contingency. The Coraraittee have desired rae to offer to Lord Granville these explanations of their proposals, in order to show that they have done_ their best to corap'y with the desire of Her Majesty's Governraent, that they should submit a scheme founded on the principles of tho negotiations of 1864. They have not, however, failed to perceive frora an early peariod of the lengthened correspondence which has taken place between them and the Governraent, that those principles necessarily gave rise to many difficulties ; and thoy have felt this the more sti'ongly since the negotiations originally commenced between the Company and Her Majesty's Government have virtually become negotiations between the Company and the Government of Canada. They cannot disguise frora themselves the danger which exists that arrangements so complicated, and involving so many topics for future discussion, are likely to lead to the Company's being placed in a position of antagonism to the Government of Canada, and to the creation of a state of things injurious not only to their own interests but to the welfare of the country itself. They are sincerely anxious to co-operate with the Canandian Government in the settlement, development and im provement of the territories with which they have been so long connected, and they believe that, if the arrangement between thera can be placed on a satisfactory foot ing, it will be in their power to render raaterial assistance to the colonial authorities in this respect. They believe that, if a simpler arrangement than that which has recently been under discussion could be adopted, and if the Canadian Government were prepared to comiilete the purchase of the territory at once, by the payment of a sum of money or by Ihc delivery of bonds, it would conduce to a more satisfactory result than the prolongation of a controversy as to the minute points of such a scheme as has been under consideration. 467 Should Lord Granville be of this opinion, and should his Lordship think it desir able to recommend any proposal of tho kind to the Canadian delegates, this Com mittee will gladly place themselves in full communication with him on this subject, I have, &c., STAFFOED H, NOETHCOTE, Govemor. Sir Freddric Eogers, Bart. SIR p. ROGERS T0]sIR G. CARTIER AND HON. WM, MCDOUGALL. Downing Street, 13th January 1369. _ Gentlemen, — ^I am directed by Barl Granville to transmit to you, for any obser vations which you may wish to offer upon it, the enclosed copy of a letter from the Hudson Bay Company in answer to the proposals made to thera by the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos in the letter from this Department of the 1st of December last, with respect to the proposed cession to the Crown of the Company's territorial rights in British North Araerica. I ara. Gentlemen, your obedient servant, FEEDBEICK EOGBES. Sir G. B. Cartier, Bart., W. McDougall, Esq., CB. SIR GEO. E. CARTIER AND HON, WM. m'DOUGALL TO SIR P. ROGERS. Westminster Palace Hotel, London, February 8th, 1869. Sir, — we have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th ultimo, enclosing a copy of Sir Stafford Northcote's letter of the 13th ultimo, in reply to proposals made to the Hudson Bay Company for the cession to the Crown of their territorial rights in British America, by His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, in the letter of Mr. Adderley, of 1st December last. You state that Earl Granville directed you to transmit this docuraent to us for any observations which we may wish to offer upon it. His Lordship's courtesy and consideration in sending us a copy of Sir Stafford Northcote's letter and inviting us to express our views upon it are gratefully acknowledged, but upon reflection wa thought it would be expedient to refrain frora any formal expression of our opinion on new and indefinite propositions uutil we had received sorae intimation of the view which his Lordship was likely himself to take of them, or of the policy in respect to the general question which Her Majesty's present advisers intend to adopt. At an interview with which we were favored by Barl Granville, on the 26th. ultimo, he expressed his preference for a less complicated mode of dealing with tho Hudson Bay question than that proposed by the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos ; and requested us to communicate to him our observations on the reply of Sir Stafford Northcote, and especially on the proposition with which his letter concludes, viz., that the Canadian Government should " complete the purchase of the territory ab once, by a payment of a sum of money or by the delivery of bonds." As we have had but few opportunities to confer with his Lordship since his accession to office, it may be proper, before considering Sir Stafford Northcote's letter, to state the position of the Canadian Government as we apprehend it, in this nego tiation. The British North America Act of 1867 affirmed the policy uniting under one government all the provinces, colonies and territories of British North America. Three provinces were united at once, and provision was made by the 146th section for the admission into the "Union of the remaining colonies, on Address to Her Majesty by their respective Legislatures and the Parliament of Canada. 1—30^ 468 The North-West Territories and Eupert's Land, or either of them, are to be- admitted on the Address of the Parliament of Canada alone, and on such terms and conditions as the Canadian Parliament may, in its Address express, and Her Majissty approve. In pursuance of the policy of the Iraperial Parliaraent, thus distinctly affirjpaed, the Canadian Parliament at its first session under the new constitution, adopted an Address to Her Majesty for the incorporation of the North-West Territory and Eupert's Land with the Dominion of Canada. The terms and conditions expressed in the Address were : — 1st. That Canada should undertake the duties and obligations of Government and legislation in respect of those territories. 2nd, That the legal rights of any corporation, company or individual within the territory should bo respected, and that provisions should be made for th^t purpose by placing those rights under the protection of courts of competent jurisdiction. 3rd. That the claims of the Indian tribes to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement should be considered and settled, in conformi,ty with the equitable principles which have uniformly governed the British Crown in its dealings with the aborigines. The above were the only terms and conditions which, in the opinion of the- Canadian Parliament, it was expedient to insert inthe Order in Council authorized by the 146th section. His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, on receiving the Address of the Canadian Parliament, consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised,. amongst other things, " that there would be much difficulty created by the existence ofthe Chartier " of the Hudson Bay Company, to " putting into execution the powers of the 140th (146th) section of the British A,merica Act, 1867, assuming that th* Hudson Bay Company were adverse to the Union." A bill was thereupon caiTied through, thp Imperial Parliament, apparently to remove the " difficulties ", ¦which the law officers had discovered. It reverses the order of procedure contemplated by thp Act of 18,67, , aind observed by the Canadian Parliament in its Address, and makes the assent of the Corapany a condition pre cedent to the transfer. The Canadian Government were' not^ consulted as to ^he terms of this Act ; they could not understand why it was necessary, and greatly doubted the expediency of passing it. , , , , , The Duke of Bupkingha,m and CJiandos, having .opened negotiations with thie Hudson Bay Company under, |the authority . of, the. Act last meutioned, invited a delegation from the Cana^iian Go|vernment to confer with him in this couutry. The undersigned, duly commissioned for th?,! purpose,^ repaired to London in October last, and had frequent interviews with His Grace before his retirement from office. : , , The proposals submitte,d to, the Company by the, late Government in the letter of Mr. Adderley of the Ist] December last, were npt made at our suggestion, although w© were disposed to think (and so infqrmed His Crrace) that , if. the Company accepted them, the Canadian Parliament might be persuaded to undertake the duties of legislation and Government in the territories pn fhe conditipns specified. The Company, through Sir, Stafford i^ortjico^e, have declined tp accept either the principle or the mode pf settlement pifpposed by the, late Governnient, but suggest a new and summary method of closing the negotiations, by demapding that the Cana dian Government should, by a paymeptin pa^h or bpnds, " complete the purchase of the territory at once." No sum is mentioned, and no data given from which it ijan be inferred.' Under these pircumstances, we are asked, , as representatives of, the Canadian Governmept, tP communicate to Barl Granville any'oDserv'ations we may wish to offer on .this, reply, and prpposition, of the Copipany. His Lordship will readily perceive from the foregoing recital, that as represen tatives of the Canadian , Government, -^e are in.tbe position of spectators of a, negotiation, begun and carried on upon principles and under conditions to which we 469 are strangers, rather than that of assenting principals, responsible for its initiation ^nd bound by its results. Without undertaking, therefore, that our views on every point will be approved by tbe Canadian Government, we proceed most respectfully to offer a few observa tions on Sir Stafford JJforthcote's rPply to the recent proposals of the Imperial Gov ernment. It will be observed that two things are assumed in these proposals to the Com pany, which the Canadian Government have always disputed : " 1st. That the Charter of Charles II. is still valid, and grants the right of soil, or freehold, of Eupert's Land to the Company. Snd. That Eupert's Land includes the so-called "Fertile Belt," extending from the Lake of the Woods to the Eocky Mountains. The Law Officers ofthe Crown in England have, on two or three occasions, given their opinion in favor of the flrst as8umptipri,bnt never, so far as we are aware, in favor pf the second. The report of the Law Otfcers, in 1857, admits that the geographical extentof the territory granted must be determined by excludiligthe country that "could have been rightfully claimed by the Fi-onch as falling within the boundaries of Canada," (which the Charter itself excludes by express words), and States that " the assertion of ownership on important occasions, as at the treaties of Eyswick and Utrecht," should be considered ; and also " the effect ofthe Acts of 1774 and 1791." The most recent opinion of the law officers of the Crown which we haye seen (January 6th, 1868), as to the rights of tbie Hudson Bay Company, does hot even by implicatibn support their present claim to the fee simple of nearly one-third of the American Continent. On the contrary. Sir John Karslake and his colleagues conclude their report with the emphatic statement that it is "very necessary, before any union of Eupert's Land with Canada is effected, that the true liihits of the territory and possessions held under the charter should be accurately defined." An ^ssumpfibn, therefore, which covers so much ground, and is unsupported by any competent legial authority ; which ignores the repeated protests and claims of Canada, and seeks to supply a basis upon which a surrender for valuable cotisideration may be miade, is, to say the least, a most favorable assumption for the Conipany. We notice these points in Mr. Adderley's letter before remarking on Sir Stafford Northcote's reply, to prevent the possible inference that we have acquiesced in them. ' '^' Sir Stafford Northcote assures Lord Granville that the Company " continues sin cerely anxious to promote the object with a view to which the Coinpany was re-coh- fitructed five and a-half years ago, viz., the gradual settlement of such jiortions 6f their territory as admit of colonization." It would be tedious to quote the numerous and positive averments by members and governors of the Hudson Bay Company, in the course of official inquiries, during the last fifty years, that their territories (in •fl^hich they included the Eed Eiver and the Saskatchewan diatricts) are totally unfit for colonization. The evidence of Sir George Simpson before the House of Commons Committee of 1857 is a fair saraple of the views heretofore entertained and avowed by the representatives of the Company. (Vide Commons Eeport, 1857; QdeStiohs ,716, 717, 718, 719, &c.) Mr. Ellice, for many years the ruling spirit of the Corapany, declared before the same Committee that the Eed Eiver settlement was an " unwise speculation," and " had failed ; " that " the climate is not favorable ; " that the .Saskatchewan is a country capable of settlement only when " the population pf America becomes so dense that they are forced into situations less fit for settlement than those they occupy now;" that the winters are "rigorous," and the country " badly off for fuel," &c. (Questions 5,840 and 5,847.) With such views ofthe unfitness of the country for settlement, and avowing their belief that colonization and the fur trade could not e.fist together, it is not surprising •speculation." It is true that the Company promises of a new policy. A great road across the continent was to be raade, a tele graph line was to be put up, and emigration and colonization developed on a largo 470 scale. The Duke of Newcastle, then Secretary of State for tbe Colonies, was so mueb impressed by the zeal and public spirit of the gentlemen who effected the re-con struction, that he wrote despatches to the Canadian Government on their behalf, and evidently believed that a new era was about to open in the North-West, and the wild animals and fur tradeia retreat before the march of " European " settlers. The stock ofthe old Company, worth in the market about £1,000,000, was bought up, and by some process which we are unable to describe, became £2,000,000. A show of anxiety to open postal and telegraphic communication was made, and "heads of pro posals " were submitted to the Governments of Canada and British Columbia, which,. on examination, were found to embrace a line ot telegraph only, with tbe modest suggestion that the two Governments should guarantee the Company a profit of not lees than 4 per cent, on Iheir expenditure ! A proposal so absurd could only have been made to be rejected, and it was rejected accordingly. The surplus capital of the re-constructed Company, which was called up lor the avowed purpose of opening their territories to " European colonization, under a liberal and systematic scheme of lard settlement," has never been applied to that purpose, Five ard a-half years have passed since the grand scheme was announced fo the world, but no European' emigrants have been sent out, no attempts to colonize have been made. Sir Stafford Northcote was not probably aware, when he vouched for the JOTa_/?rfes ofthe Hudson Bay Company as promoters of colonization, that a solemn vote of the shareholders was taken in the month of November, 1866, which condemned and rejected the policy of colonization, absolutely and definitely. While unable, for the reasons stated, to concur in Sir Stafford Northcote's assur ance that the Hudson Bay Company are anxious to promote colonization, we are- gratified to learn that Ihey " adhere " to the resolution of 2Sth August, 1863 ; that the time has come when it is expedient that " the authority, executive and judicial,. over the Eed Eiver Settlement ard the south-western portion of Eupert's Land, should be vested in officers deriving such authority di) ectly from the Crown." The first remark we have to make upon this reference to the resolution of 1863 is, that it admits the continued incapacity ot the Company as a governing power ; the- second, that if this was true in 1863, — if at that tirae it becarae expedient to substi tute the authority ofthe Crcwnfor that of the Company, — it is much more expedient, if not absolutely necessary, now ; and third, that if the Company are to be relieved of the duty and cost of government which their charter imposes, and which they admit they do not and cannot properly discharge, compensation should be made, not to the Company, as is claimed, but by the Company to those who take the burden offi their shoulders. We confess we have fiailed to discover any evidence, and therefore cannot be lieve that the Company have " cheerfully " accepted the decision of Her Majesty's Government, " that the whole ofthe Company's territory should, under proper con ditions, be united with Canada." A brief notice of the acts in contrast with the jprofessions of the Company will, wo think, account lor the ill success of our re searches, and justify our incredulity. The representatives ofthe Company, while declaring before the House of Com mons Committee, in 1857 (as we have already shown), that their territories were "unfit for settlement," pi ofessed their readiness to surrender any portion of them^ that might be desired by the Imperial or Canadian Government lor that puipose. Mr. Ellico declared in the most unqualified terms, not only that the Company was willirg to surrender, but it was the duty of the Government to see that no mere trading corporation obstructed " for one moment, ' nor to the extent of" one acre of land fit for stttlement," the •' dominion of the actual settlers." (Commons Eeport, 1857 ; questions 5,859, 5,gti0 and 5,933.) The Governor of the Company informed the Colonial Secretary, (18th July,. 1857,) that any inquiry into the " geographical extent of the territory granted by their Charter," vs hich the law cfficeia had recommended, was ot little importance,, because, if the object of the ii.quiiy was "to obtain lor Canada land fit lor cultiva tion, and the establishment of agricultural settlers, the Directors are already pre- 471 pared to recomraend to the shnreholders of the Company to cede any lands which may be required for that purpose. The terms of such cession," he assured Mr. Labouchere, " would be a matter of no difficulty between Her Majesty's Government and the Company." Mr. Ellice had previously told the House of Commons Committee, that the ques tion of boundary was " of no importance at all," because " if the Province of Canada requires any part of the territory, or the whole of it, for purposes of settlement, it ought not to be permitted for one moment to remain in the bands ofthe Hudson Bay Company." He added that, "less money than would be spent on a litigation upon the subject would be sufficient to indemnify the Hudson Bay Company for any claim which they could have on giving up any disputed part of their territory." These assurances induced the Coraraittee to negative propositions for ascertain ing by a judicial inquiry the validity of the Charter, or the position of boundaries, and to report in favor of annexing to Canada " such portion ot the land in her neigh borhood as may be available to her for the purposes of settlement, with which she is willing to open and maintain communication, and for which she will provide the means of local administration," The Committee " trusted that there would be no difficulty in effecting arrangements as between Her Majesty's Government and the Hudson Bay Company for ceding the territory on equitable principles." It may be proper to remind Earl Granville, that leading members of the Com mittee of 1857, taking the offers of the Company on the subject of colonization to mean what the language of the representatives imported, strongly opposed the recom mendation to leave the question open for " amicable adjustment " upon " equitable principles," with the certainty of protracted negotiations and a chance of ultimate disagreement, Mr. Gladstone accordingly aubraitted reaolutions for a prompt and definite settlement ofthe whole question. He proposed — Ist. " That the country capable of colonization should be withdrawn frora the jurisdiction of the Hudson Bay Company." 2nd. " That the country incapable of colonization should remain within their jurisdiction." He proposed that, in the country remaining within their jurisdiction, power should be reserved to Her Majesty's Government to make grants " for the purposes of mines and fisheries, but with due regard to the iinrannities and trade of the Com pany." No " imraunities " were even suggested with respect to the country which was to be withdrawn for colonization. He proposed to ignore the charter, by declar ing that the jurisdiction of the Corapany "should rest henceforth upon the basis of statute." He quoted the Governor's letter above referred to, "as an expression of the willingness of the Company to accept in principle the arrangement " he pro posed, and ended with the suggestion that, " as the Company had tendered conces sions which may prove sufficient to meet the case," no decision seemed necessary as to the question of raising a "judicial issue with the view of ascertaining the legal rights ofthe Company." The propositions of Mr. Gladstone were only lost in the Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman. Twelve years have passed since these offers were raade by the Company and accepted by a Committee of Parliament. Every Colonial Secretary, frora 1858 to the present moment, has attempted to carry out the recommendation of the Com mittee, with the assent of the Company, but without 8ucce-« W°°d,«^ ^^^^^^^^ ceded or annexed to Canada, in which case nothing would be payable to the Company ^" "^h";"srvriinTash of such an offer, subject to the conditions and contfn^ gencies specified, would be very difficult to ascertain. The revenue from export fnS on gold, aSk for licenses wluld probably be nil. The revenue from land sales if he colts, surveys, management, and necessary roads were deducted, would be mj alo It is very doubtful Ihether, if these deductions Remade, he revenue fiom land sales in the Provinces of Canada, from the cession, in 1763, to the present time,. would show a surplus. 47,6 Sir Stafford Northcote, quotes the price of land in Minnesota, and thence infers i-tbe value of lands in the Eed Eiver and Saskatchewan districts, which lie from five to ten degrees further north, and are still in possession of the wild Indians of the plain. But we think it will be found that the lands in Minnesota, which sell for " one pound per acre," are either private lands in the neighborhood of towns, or the pro perty of railway companies, on or near whioh millions of dollars have been expended to make them saleable. They are certainly not public lands unimproved by public expenditure. Sir Stafford ought to have mentioned at the same time a fact which, we believe, is known to every emigrant who leaves the British Isles for America, that in the Western States of the Uuion, and in the Province of Canada, wild lands are now given to settlers as " free grants," and we may add, this policy is more likely to be extended than reversed. To talk of the value of public lands as a source ¦of revenue, distant from one to two thousand miles from available markets, auA without roads or navigable waters by which to apprpach them, is to contradict all experience, or to assume that the cost of surveys and management, and of canals, ro^ds, or other improvements for their development and settlement, will be supplied by those who do not own them, for the benefit of those who do. But in order to arrive at some result that can be expressed in figures, we will assume that the sum ascertained by the Duke of Newcastle to be a sufficient " com pensation," would, under his proposition, have been paid within fifty years, and at an average rate per annum. We thus give the Company the benefit of all the doubts . in the case, and reduce the question to a simple problem in arithmetic: What is the present value of an annuity of £5,000 per annum for fifty years? That value, we submit, is the highest aniount in cash which can be claimed as an equivalent for the offer made to the Company, in 1864, by his Grace the Duke of Newcastle. The next offer of the Imperial Government which mentions a specific sum, ia ; that made by his Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, pn the 1st December last. It differs from the previous offer in several important particulars : 1. It embraces the whole of the territory claimed by the Company. 2. It proposes to allow the Company to retain their " posts " and certain allot ments of lands iu their vicinity, with a small reservation in each township as it is surveyed. 3. It purposes to allow the Company one-quarter of the receipts from land (free grants being treated as sales at Is. per acre), and one quarter of the sum received by Government as an export duty for gold and silver. 4. It limits the amount to be received under these heads conjointly, at £1,000,QOO sterling. The other stipulations are unimportant for the purpose of ascertaining the cash equivalent of the proposition. It is evident that the " unknown quantities " in this question are as difficult to find as in the first. We know the total sum to be paid, and tho proportion ofthe receipts from lands and mines applicable for its payment ; but we do not know the average annual sum likely to be realized from their salo. The minimum price ia fixed at Is. Eer acre, and it is doubtful if, under the proposed arrangement, the price would ever e found to exceed that sum. There is one term still to be ascertained — the average number ot acres per annum likely to be sold and granted. A crude guess is all tha|i the case admits of. If we take Upper Canada, p^-jsessing many advantages for early and rapid settlement, of which, unfortunately, the rem ite territories of the North- West are deprived, we find that from its erection into a se.iarate Province, dovya to 1863, about 22 millions of acres had been dispose! of by sale and grant, or au aver age of about 286,000 acres per annum. Assuming that the said rate of salo, &c., is mtiutaiuel in the N'orth^West Terri tories (which all the old Hulson Biy authorities who know the contry would pro nounce a bold asaumptlou), we havo reduced the question to a simple refereaoe to the annuity tables as before, viz: What is the preaent value of an annuity of £1,575 iper annum for 280 years ? 477 We havo omitted from the last term the one-fourth of the Government receipts from gold and silver, for two reasons, 1st. It has not be shown that there are gold or silver mines in the territory that will pay for working. 2nd. All the attempts heretofore made to obtain a revenue from such sources in Canada have failed, and public opinion has forced the local Governments to adopt the policy of what may be called "free mining," or cheap lands for the miners, and abolition of royalties and imposts, except to meet the cost of preserving the peace, and of surveys and neces sary supervision. There is another proposition on the Government side, which bears on the ques tion of " compensation." It results from the agreeraent between the representatives of the Government of Canada and Her Majesty's Government, in 1865, and, contain ing fewer elements of uncertainty than propositions Which involve questions of Gov ernment policy, emigration, land' sales, &c., it can be reduced to a cash value with greater exactitude. Mr. Cardwell describes the agreement as follows : — " On the fourth point, the subject of the North-Western Territory, the Canadian Ministers desired that that territory should be made over to Canada, and undertook to negotiate with the Hud son Bay Company for the terminiation of their rights on condition that the indemnity, if any, should be paid by a loan to be raised by Canada under the Imperial guarantee. "With the sanction of the Cabinet, we assented to this proposal — undertaking, that if tho negotiations should be successful, we, on the part of the Crown, being satisfied that the amount of the indemnity was reasonable, and the security sufficient, would apply to the Imperial Parliament to sanction the agreement, and to guarantee the araount." The Canadian delegates reported on the subject with a little raore detail : — " We accordingly proposed to the Imperial Ministers that the whole British territory east of the Eocky Mountains, and north of the American or Canadian lines, should be made over to Canada, subject to such rights as the Hudson Bay Company might be able to establish, and that the compensation to that Company (if any were found to due) should be met by a loan guaranteed by Great Britain. The Imperial Govern ment consented to this, and a careful investigation satisfies us that the compensation tQ the Hudson Bay Company cannot, under any circumstances, be onerous. It is but two years since the present Hudson Bay Company purchased the entire property of the old Company; they paid £1,500,000 for the entire property and assets, in which were included a large sum of cash on hand, large landed properties in Britiah Columbia and elsewhere, not included in our arrangement, a very large claim against the United States Government, under the Oregon Treaty ; and ships, goods, pelts and business premises in England and Canada, valued at £1,023,569. The value of" the territorial rights of the Company,, therefore, in the estimation of the Company itself, will be easily arrived at." The principle which this agreement between the two Governments recognises as applicable to the case, appears to be — compensation in money for the ascertained rights of the Company, after deducting the value of the property detained by them. The words " if any," and "if any were found to be due," import that, in the opinion of both parties, it was possible, if not probable, that after making the deductions, no compensation would be " due." The basis of the calculation which seems to have been made, or agreed upon, is veiy simple. Tho old Hudson Bay Company had recently sold all the rights and property of the Company of every description, for the sum of £1,500,000. An inventory agreed to by both sellers and purchases, set down the assets, exclusive of " territorial rights," as follows: — " 1. The assets (exclusive of Nos. 2 and 3)6f the Hud son Bay Corapany, recently and specially valued by competent valuers , £1,023,569 " 2. ,The landed territory (not valued). "3. A cash balance of 370,000 " £1,393,569 " 478 On the face of their own stateraent, £1,500,000 less the above sum, or £106,431, was the amount which the new purchasers actually paid for the " Landed Terri tory." Under the agreement of 1865, this seems to be the highest sura which Mr. Cardwell and the representatives of the Canadian Governraent thought could in any event be deraanded by the Corapany as inderanity or compensation for the surrender of the rights they " would be able to establish." We have thus atterapted to convert into their equivalents in cash, the two offers made to the Corapany since 1857 by the Imperial Government, and to ascertain the araount of the inderanity contemplated by Mr. Cardwell and the Canadian delegates in the arrangements of 1865. To arrive at any result, we have had to assume figures which, according to our experience, the facts ofa new country will be more likely to reduce than to increase. We have also ommitted conditions either implied or ex pressed in the proposals of 1864 and 1868, which, we believe, would have imposed considerable expense upon the Corapany. There is another mode of estimating the amount to be paid, on the principle of compensating for actual loss only, which remains to be considered. The stock of the Corapany has for some time be quoted at an average of 13J. The capital is, nominally, £2,000,000, and the shares £20 — ^the value of the stock, therefore, in cash, assuming that the whole of it could be sold at the market rate, is £1,350,000, or £43,569 less that the value, according to their own estimate, in 1863, of the Company's assets, exclusive of the " landed territory." The money obtained from the public for shares, beyond the £1,500,000 paid to the old shareholders, will no doubt be amply sufficient to raake good any deficiency in the valuation of 1863. From a consideration of these data, we subrait that, if the validity of the charter is not now to be questioned; if the territorial extent of the country affected by it is not to be defined ; if the claim of Canada to include within her boundaries a large portion, if not the whole, of the country occupied by the French at the time of the cession, in 1763, is not to be inrestigated, and finally determined ; if the admitted in capacity and the notorious neglect of the Company to perform the duties of govern ment (which were part of the consideration for the rights conceded by the charter), are not to be taken as sufficient on public grounds to justify cancellation, and re-entry by the Crown — then the very highest indemnity which ought to be paid, in cash, for a surrender of the territorial claims of the Company, with the reservations and other privileges offered by His Grace the Duke of .Buckingham and Chandos, is the sum indicated by the foregoing computations. We must, in conclusion, express to Barl Granville our strong conviction that no money offer, which either the Imperial or the Canadian Government would deem reasonable, will be accepted by the Commny,.and that to delay the organization of constitutional government in the North-West Territory until the Hudson Bay Com pany consent to reasonable terms of surrender, is to hinder the success of Confedera tion in British America, and to imperil the interests and authority of the British Crown in the territories now occupied by the Company. We therefore respffbtfully submit for Barl Granville's consideration, whether it is not expedient that the Address of the Canadian Parliaraent be at once acted upon, under the authority of the Iraperial Act of 1867. But, if his Lordship should see any sufficient legal or other objection to that course, then we ask, on behalf of the Dominion Governmont, for the immediate trans fer to that Governraent of the " North-West Territory," or all that part of British North America, from Canada on the east, to British Colurabia, Alaska, and the Arctic Ocean, on tho west and north, not hitherto validly granted to and now held by " Tho Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay," by virtue of a charter of King Charles the Second, issued about the year 1670. We have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servants, GEO. BT. CAETIEE, WM. McDOUGALL. Sir Fredhbiok Eogers, Bart., &c.. Colonial Office. 479 22.-EBTUEN To an Addreaa to His Honor the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, praying His -ttonor to cause to be laid before the House, a Statement showing, in detail, the ilixpenditure each year since 1867 on account ofthe Settleraent ofthe Northerly and Westerly Boundaries of the Province and the Arbitration in reference there to; with the Names of the Persons, to whora and what account the payments were raade, and the date of such payments. By Command, AETHUE S. HAEDY, Provincial Secretary's Office, ^ ''^ ^'^* Toronto, Uth February, 1879. Toronto, 13th February, 1879. Statement showing the amounts paid on account of North-Western Boundary between 1867 and 1879, $ cts. 1872 — Hon. Wm, McDougall, services 907 00 Hon. D. Mills do 350 20 1873 — Charles Lindsay do 600 00 Hon. D. Mills, expenaes and services 1,060 00 Hunter, Eose & Co., printing 2,264 61 1874 — Charles Lindsay, services 536 00 1875— Hon. D. Mills do 300 00 1876— do do 1,700 00 Thos. Bengough do 83 33 C. Panet do 10 00 I. P. Macdonald do 83 33 Hunter, Eose & Co., printing 455 23 Express Company's charges 4 60 Hon. O. Mowat, travelling expenses 60 00 1877— Hunter, Eose & Co., printing, 419 58 Copp, Clark & Co., engraving maps 350 00 State Librarian, Albany, map 5 00 Express Corapany's charges 3 30 Dominion Telegraph Co., telegrams 18 00 I. P. Macdonald, services as Clerk and expenses... 909 00 T. Bengough do do ... 11111 E. S. Thaynes, services 9 00 J. G. Sraith do 4 00 L. J. Burpee do 3 00 T. C. Scoble,travelling expenses to London and Paris 600 00 •1878 — Welling & "Williamson, stationery, 6 75 T. C. Scoble, on account of services 771 17 C. B. Janrin, services 10 00 H. A. Semple do 3 78 Express Company's charges 11 95 I. P. Macdonald, services 390 00 Hunter, Eose & Co., printing 928 25 M. Donnelly, cab-hire 1 00 Telegraph Co., telegrams 1 10 G. "V"erral, cab-hire .' 3 50 Sir John Eose, advance to T, C. Scoble 585 28 A. H. Sydere, services 100 00 J. M. Delamere do 50 Oft 480 Statement showing the amounts paid on account of North-West Boundary between 1867 and 1879 — Concluded. $ cts.- ISISr^Ottawa Free Press, printing 98 55 Hon. S. C. Wood, to pay expenses re preparation of report on lands awarded Ontario 200 00 H. MacMahon, payment of Ontario share of short hand writers' account 57 13 Hon. E. A. Harrison, services as Arbitrator 1,000 00 1879 — Hon. O. Mowat, expenses of himself and clerk at Ottawa 56 90 Thos. Hodgins, travelling expenses as Counsel 31 00 $15,152 65 Certified, W. E. HAEEIS, Assisstant- Treasurer. 23.— AWAED of THB AEBITEATOES. To all to whom these presents shall come : The undersigned having been appointed by the Governments of Canada and Ontario as Arbitrators to Determine the Northerly and Westerly Boundaries of the- Province of Ontario, do hereby Determine and Decide the following are and shall be such Boundaries ; that is to say : — Commencing at a point on the southern shore of Hudson Bay, commonly called James' Bay, where a line produced due north from the head of Lake Temiscaming, would strike the said south shore ; thence along the said south shore westerly to the mouth of the Albany Eiver ; thence up the middle of the said Albany Eiver, and of the lakes thereon, to the source of the said river at the head of Lake St. Joseph; thence by the nearest line to the easterly end of Lac Seul, being the head waters of the Bnglish Eiver ; thence westerly through the middle of Lac Seul and the said English Eiver to a point where the same will be intersected by a true meridianal line drawn northerly from the International Monument placed to mark the most north-westerly angle of the Lake of the Woods by the recent Boundary Commis sion ; and thence due south, following the said meridianal line to the said Interna tional Monument; thence southerly and easteriy, following upon the International Boundary Line, between the British P.osses-sions and the United States of America, into Lake Superior. But if a true meridianal line drawn northerly from the said International Boundary at the said most north-westerly angle of the Lake ofthe Woods, shall be found to pass to the west of where the English Eiver empties into the Winnipeg Eiver, then, and in such case, the northerly boundary of Ontario shall continue down the middle of the said Bnglish Eiver to where the same empties into the Winnipeg Eivor, and shall continue thence on a line drawn due west from the con fluence ofthe said English Eiver with the said Winnipeg Eiver, until the same will intersect the meridian above described, and thence due south, following the said meridianal line to the said International Monument ; thence southerly and easterly, following upon the International Boundary Line, between the British Possessions and the United States of America, into Lake Superior. Given under our hands, atXDttawa, in the Province of Ontario, this Third day of August, Eighteen Hundred and Seventy-eight. (Signed) EOBT, A. HAEEISON. fiigned and published in the presence of (Signed) B. C. Monk, » Thomas HoDoiNBt BDWD. THOENTON, P. HINCKS.