Kitabı oku: «The Remarkable History of the Hudson's Bay Company», sayfa 19
The action of the North-West Company may be judged from the following extracts from a letter of the Hon. John Richardson, one of the partners, and likewise a member of the executive council of Lower Canada, addressed to Governor Sherbrooke. He says on August 17th, 1816: "It is with much concern that I have to mention that blood has been shed at the Red River to an extent greatly to be deplored; but it is consolatory to those interested in the North-West Company to find that none of their traders or people were concerned, or at the time within a hundred miles of the scene of contest." What a commentary on such a statement are the stories of Pambrun and Huerter, given in a previous chapter! What a cold-blooded statement after all the plottings and schemes of the whole winter before the attack! What a heartless falsehood as regards the Indians, who, under so great temptations, refused to be partners in so bloody an enterprise!
The resolution of Lord Selkirk to go to Fort William in the capacity of a magistrate was one involving, as he well knew, many perils. He was not, however, the man to shrink from a daring enterprise having once undertaken it.
To Fort William, then, with the prospect of meeting several hundreds of the desperate men of the North-West Company, Lord Selkirk made his way. So confident was he in the rectitude of his purpose and in the justice of his cause, that he pushed forward, and without the slightest hesitation encamped upon the Kaministiquia, on the south side of the river, in sight of Fort William. The expedition arrived on August 12th. A demand was at once made on the officers of the North-West Company for the release of a number of persons who had been captured at Red River after the destruction of the colony and been brought to Fort William. The Nor'-Westers denied having arrested these persons, and to give colour to this assertion immediately sent them over to Lord Selkirk's encampment.
On the 13th and following days of the month of August, the depositions of a number of persons were taken before his Lordship as a justice of the peace. The depositions related to the guilt of the several Nor'-Wester partners, their destroying the settlement, entering and removing property from Fort Douglas, and the like; and were made by Pambrun, Lavigne, Nolin, Blondeau, Brisbois, and others. It was made so clear to Lord Selkirk that the partners were guilty of inciting the attacks on the colony and of approving the outrages committed, that he determined to arrest a number of the leaders. This was done by regular process – by warrants served on Mr. McGillivray, Kenneth McKenzie, Simon Fraser, and others, but these prisoners were allowed to remain in Fort William.
In one case, that of a partner named John McDonald, resistance having been offered, the constables called for the aid of a party of the De Meurons, who had crossed over from the encampment with them in their boats. The leaving of the prisoners with their liberty in Fort William, however, gave the opportunity for conspiracy; and it was represented to Lord Selkirk that Fort William would be used for the purposes of resistance, and that the prisoners arrested would be released. The facts leading to this belief were that a canoe, laden with arms, had left the fort at night; that eight barrels of gunpowder had been secreted in a thicket, and that these had been taken from the magazine; while some forty stand of arms, fresh-loaded, had been found in a barn among some hay. These indications proved that an attempt was about to be made to resist the execution of the law, and accordingly the prisoners were placed in one building and closely guarded, while Lord Selkirk's encampment was removed across the river and pitched in front of the fort to prevent any surprise.
A further examination of the prisoners took place, and their criminality being so evident, they were sent to York, Upper Canada. Three canoes, well manned and containing the prisoners, left the fort on August 18th, under the charge of Lieutenant Fauche, one of the De Meuron officers. The journey down the lakes was marred by a most unfortunate accident. One of the canoes was upset some fifteen miles from Sault Ste. Marie. This was caused by the sudden rise in the wind. The affair was purely accidental, and there were drowned one of the prisoners, named McKenzie, a sergeant and a man of the De Meurons, and six Indians. The prisoners were taken to Montreal and admitted to bail. The course taken by Lord Selkirk at Fort William has been severely criticized, and became, indeed, the subject of subsequent legal proceedings. One of the Nor'-Wester apologists stated to Governor Sherbrooke "that the mode of proceeding under Lord Selkirk's orders resembled nothing British, and exceeded even the military despotism of the French in Holland."
No doubt it would have been better had Lord Selkirk obtained other magistrates to take part in the proceedings at Fort William, but we have seen he did try this and failed. Had it been possible to have had the arrests effected without the appearance of force made by the De Meurons, it would have been more agreeable to our ideas of ordinary legal proceedings; but it must be remembered he was dealing with those called by a high authority "a banditti." Could Fort William have been left in the hands of its possessors, it would have been better; but then there was clear evidence that the Nor'-Westers intended violence. To have left Fort William in their possession would have been suicidal. It would probably have been better that Lord Selkirk should not have stopped the canoes going into the interior with North-West merchandise, but to have allowed them to proceed was only to have assisted his enemies – the enemies, moreover, of law and order. Thousands of pounds' worth of his property stolen from Fort Douglas by the agents of the North-West Company, and the fullest evidence in the depositions made before him that this was in pursuance of a plan devised by the Company and deliberately carried out! Several hundreds of lawless voyageurs and unscrupulous partners ready to use violence in the wild region of Lake Superior, where, during fifty years preceding, they had committed numerous acts of bloodshed, and had never been called to account! The worrying reflection that homeless settlers and helpless women and children were crying, in some region then unknown to him, for his assistance, after their wanton dispersion by their enemies from their homes on the banks of Red River! All these things were sufficient to nerve to action one of far less generous impulses than Lord Selkirk.
Is it at all surprising that his Lordship did not act with all the calmness and scrupulous care of a judge on the bench, who, under favourable circumstances, feels himself strong in his consciousness of safety, supported by the myriad officers of the law, and surrounded by the insignia of Justice? The justification of his course, even if it be interpreted adversely, is, that in a state of violence, to preserve the person is a preliminary to the settlement of other questions of personal right. One thing at least is to Lord Selkirk's credit, that, as soon as possible, he handed over the law-breakers to be dealt with by the Canadian Courts, where, however, unfortunately, another divinity presided than the blind goddess of Justice.
Let us now see where we are in our story. Lord Selkirk is at Fort William. The Nor'-Wester partners have been sent to the East. It is near the end of August, and the state of affairs at Fort William does not allow the founder to pass on to his colony for the winter. He is surrounded by his De Meuron settlers. During the months of autumn the expedition is engaged in laying in supplies for the approaching winter, and opening up roads toward the Red River country. The season was spent in the usual manner of the Lake Superior country, shut out from the rest of the world. The winter over, Lord Selkirk started on May 1st, 1817, for Red River, accompanied by his body-guard. The De Meurons had preceded him in the month of March, and, reaching the interior, restored order.
The colonizer arrived at his colony in the last week of June, and saw, for the first time, the land of his dreams for the preceding fifteen years. In order to restore peace, he endeavoured to carry out the terms of the proclamation issued by the Government of Canada, that all property taken during the troubles should be restored to its original owners. This restitution was made to a certain extent, though much that had been taken from Fort Douglas was never recovered. The settlers were brought back from their refuge at Norway House, and the settlement was again organized. The colonists long after related, with great satisfaction, how Lord Selkirk cheered them by his presence. After their return to their despoiled homesteads a gathering of the settlers took place, and a full consideration of all their affairs was had in their patron's presence.
This gathering was at the spot where the church and burying-ground of St. John's are now found. "Here," said his Lordship, pointing to lot number four, on which they stood, "here you shall build your church; and that lot," said he, pointing to lot number three across the little stream called Parsonage Creek, "is for the school." The people then reminded his Lordship that he had promised them a minister, who should follow them to their adopted country. This he at once acknowledged, saying, "Selkirk never forfeited his word;" while he promised to give the matter attention as soon as practicable. In addition, Lord Selkirk gave a document stating that, "in consideration of the hardships which the settlers had suffered, in consequence of the lawless conduct of the North-West Company, his intention was to grant gratuitously the twenty-four lots which had been occupied to those of the settlers who had made improvements on their lands before they were driven away from them in the previous year."
Before the dispersion of this public gathering of the people, the founder gave the name, at the request of the colonists, to their settlement. The name given by him to this first parish in Rupert's Land was that of Kildonan, from their old home in the valley of Helmsdale, in Sutherlandshire, Scotland. In more fully organizing the colony, his Lordship ordered a complete survey to be made of the land, and steps to be taken towards laying out roads, building bridges, erecting mills, &c.
It will be remembered, as already stated, that at the inception of the colony scheme, in 1811, the Nor'-Westers had threatened the hostility of the Indians. It may be mentioned as a strange fact that, to this day, it is a trick of the Bois Brûlés, taking their cue from the Nor'-Westers, when making any demand, to threaten the Government with the wrath of the Indians, over whom they profess to exercise a control. We have already seen that the Nor'-Westers' boast as to their influence over the Indians was empty. In the publications of the Nor'-Westers of 1816-20 a speech is sometimes set forth of an Indian chief, "Grandes Oreilles," breathing forth threatenings against the infant settlement. It is worthy of notice that even this resource is swept away by the author of the speech, a Nor'-Wester trader, confessing that he had manufactured the speech and "Grandes Oreilles" had never spoken it.
Within three weeks of his arrival at Red River Lord Selkirk carried out his promise of making a treaty with the Indians. All the Indians were most willing to do this, as on many occasions during the troubles they had, by giving early information as to the movements of the Nor'-Westers, and by other means, shown their sympathy and feeling toward the settlers. The object of the treaty was simply to do what has since been done all over the north-west territories – to extinguish the Indian title. The treaty is signed alike by Ojibway, Cree, and Assiniboine chiefs, the last mentioned being a tribe generally considered to belong to the Sioux stock. Lord Selkirk afterwards made a treaty, on leaving the Red River, with the other Sioux nations inhabiting his territory. The chiefs were met at Red River by his Lordship, and those whose names are attached to the treaty are, giving their French names in some cases as shorter than the Indian, Le Sonent, Robe Noire, Peguis, L'Homme Noir, and Grandes Oreilles. His Lordship seems to have had a most conciliatory and attractive manner. It is worth while closing this chapter by giving extracts from the speeches of these Indian chiefs, taken down at the grand council at which Lord Selkirk smoked the pipe of peace with the assembled warriors.
Peguis, the Saulteaux chief, always the fast friend of the colonists, said, "When the English settlers first came here we received them with joy. It was not our fault if even the stumps of the brushwood were too rough for their feet; but misfortunes have since overtaken them. Evil-disposed men came here, calling themselves great chiefs, sent from our Great Father across the big lake, but we believe they were only traders, pretending to be great chiefs on purpose to deceive us. They misled the young men who are near us (a small party of Bois Brûlés encamped in the neighbourhood), and employed them to shed the blood of your children and to drive away the settlers from this river. We do not acknowledge these men as an independent tribe. They have sprung up here and there like mushrooms and we know them not.
"At the first arrival of the settlers we were frequently solicited by the North-West Company to frighten them away; but we were pleased to see that our Great Father had sent some of his white children to live among us, and we refused to do or say anything against them. The traders even demanded our calumets, and desired to commit our sentiments to paper, that they might send to our Great Father; but we refused to acknowledge the speeches which they wished to put into our mouths. We are informed that they have told a tale that it was the Indians who drove away and murdered the children of our Great Father, but it is a falsehood.
"As soon as I saw the mischief that happened I went to Lake Winnipeg with a few friends to wait for news from the English, but I could meet none. We have reasons to be friends of the colony. When there were only traders here we could not get a blanket, or a piece of cloth, without furs to give in exchange. Our country is now almost destitute of furs, so that we were often in want; from the people of the colony we get blankets and cloth for the meat we procure them. The country abounds with meat, which we can obtain, but to obtain furs is difficult."
Next, L'Homme Noir, a chief of the Assiniboines, who had come from a long distance, addressing Lord Selkirk, particularly declares, "we were often harassed with solicitations to assist the Bois Brûlés in what they have done against your children, but we always refused. We are sure you must have had much trouble to come here. We have often been told you were our enemy; but we have to-day the happiness to hear from your own mouth the words of a true friend. We receive the present you give us with great pleasure and thankfulness."
After this, Robe Noire, an Ojibway chief, spoke in like terms; when the veritable Grandes Oreilles, to whose spurious war speech we have already referred, said as follows: —
"I am happy to see here our own father. Clouds have overwhelmed me. I was a long time in doubt and difficulty, but now I begin to see clearly.
"We have reason to be happy this day. We know the dangers you must have encountered to come so far. The truth you have spoken pleases us. We thank you for the present you give us. There seems an end to our distress, and it is you who have relieved us.
"When our young men are drunk they are mad; they know not what they say or what they do; but this must not be attended to; they mean no harm."
Long after, Selkirk was remembered and beloved by these Indian tribes, who spoke of him as the "Silver Chief."
So much for the founder's work in his colony in 1817. His affairs urgently required attention elsewhere. In the language of a writer of the period, "having thus restored order, infused confidence in the people, and given a certain aid to their activity, Lord Selkirk took his final leave of the colony." With a guide and a few attendants he journeyed southward, passing through the country of the warlike Sioux, with whom he made peace.
The writer had at one time in his possession a note-book with, in Lord Selkirk's writing, an itinerary of his journey from Red River Colony, in which familiar names, such as Rivière Sale, Rivière Aux Gratias, Pembina, and the like, appear with their distances in leagues. Among other memoranda is one, "lost on the Prairie," and the distance in leagues estimated as lost by the misadventure. Every traveller over the Manitoba prairie will take a feeling interest in that entry.
Passing through the Mississippi country, he seems to have proceeded eastward to Washington; he next appears in Albany, and hastens back to Upper Canada, without even visiting his family in Montreal, though he had been absent from them for upwards of a year. In Upper Canada his presence was urgently needed to meet the artful machinations of his enemies.
CHAPTER XXVII
THE BLUE-BOOK OF 1819 AND THE NORTH-WEST TRIALS
British law disgraced – Governor Sherbrooke's distress – A Commission decided on – Few unbiassed Canadians – Colonel Coltman chosen – Over ice and snow – Alarming rumours – The Prince Regent's order – Coltman at Red River – The Earl submissive – The Commissioner's report admirable – The celebrated Reinhart case – Disturbing lawsuits – Justice perverted – A store-house of facts – Sympathy of Sir Walter Scott – Lord Selkirk's death – Tomb at Orthes, in France.
The state of things in Rupert's Land in 1816 was a disgrace to British institutions. That subjects of the realm, divided into two parties, should be virtually carrying on war against each other on British soil, was simply intolerable. Not only was force being used, but warrants were being issued and the forms of law employed on both sides to carry out the selfish ends of each party. An impartial historian cannot but say that both parties were chargeable with grievous wrong.
Sir John Coape Sherbrooke, Governor-General of Canada, felt very keenly the shameful situation, and yet the difficulties of transport and the remote distance of the interior where the conflict was taking place made interference almost impossible. He was in constant communication with Lord Bathurst, the Imperial Colonial Secretary.
Governor Sherbrooke's difficulties were, however, more than those of distance. The influence of the North-West Company in Canada was supreme, and public sentiment simply reflected the views of the traders. The plan of sending a commission to the interior to stop hostilities and examine the conflicting statements which were constantly coming to the Governor, seemed the most feasible; but with his sense of British fair-play, Governor Sherbrooke knew he could find no one suitable to recommend.
At last, driven to take some action, Sir John named Mr. W. B. Coltman, a merchant of Quebec and a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Militia, a man accustomed to Government matters, and one who bore a good reputation for fairness and justice. With this Commissioner, who did not enter on his task with much alacrity, was associated Major Fletcher, a man of good legal qualifications.
The Commissioners were instructed to proceed immediately to the North-West. They were invested with the power of magistrates, and were authorized to make a thorough investigation into the troubles which were disturbing the country. "You are particularly," say the instructions, "to apply yourselves to mediate between the contending parties in the aforesaid territories; to remove, as far as possible, all causes of dissension between them; to take all legal measures to prevent the recurrence of those violences which have already so unhappily disturbed the public peace; and generally to enforce and establish, within the territory where you shall be, the influence and authority of the laws."
Various accidents prevented the Commissioners from leaving for the Indian country as soon as had been expected. They did not reach York (Toronto) till November 23rd, and on their arriving on the shores of Lake Huron they found the lake frozen over and impassable. They could do nothing themselves other than return to York, but they succeeded in fitting out an expedition under North-Western auspices to find its way over the ice and snow to Fort William, carrying the revocation of all the commissions of magistrates west of Sault Ste. Marie and the news of the new appointments in their stead. Reports during the winter continued to be of a disquieting kind, and as the spring drew nigh, preparations were made for sending up the Commissioners with a small armed force.
The gravity of the situation may be judged from the steps taken by the Imperial Government and the instructions sent out by the authority of George, the Prince Regent, to Governor Sherbrooke to issue a proclamation in his name calling on all parties to desist from hostilities, and requiring all military officers or men employed by any of the parties to immediately retire from such service. All property, including forts or trading stations, was to be immediately restored to the rightful owners, and any impediment or blockade preventing transport to be at once removed.
It is worthy of note that the proclamation and instructions given had the desired effect. Coltman and his fellow Commissioner left in May for the field of their operations, accompanied by forty men of the 37th Regiment as a body-guard. On arriving at Sault Ste. Marie, Commissioner Coltman, after waiting two or three weeks, hastened on to Fort William, leaving Fletcher and the troops to follow him. On July 2nd he wrote from the mouth of the River Winnipeg, stating that his presence had no doubt tended to preserve peace in the North-West, and that in two days he would see Lord Selkirk in his own Fort Douglas at Red River.
Three days after the despatch of this letter, Commissioner Coltman arrived at Red River. He immediately grappled with the difficulties and met them with much success. The news of Lord Selkirk's actions had all arrived at Montreal through the North-West sources, so that both in Quebec and London a strong prejudice had sprung up against his Lordship. Colonel Coltman found, however, that Lord Selkirk had been much misrepresented. The illegal seizures he had made at Fort William were dictated only by prudence in dealing with what he considered a daring and treacherous enemy. He had submitted to the ordinance recalling magistrates' commissions immediately on receiving it. Colonel Coltman was so impressed with Lord Selkirk's reasonableness and good faith that he recommended that the legal charges made against him should not be proceeded with.
Colonel Coltman then started on his return journey, and wrote that he had stopped at the mouth of the Winnipeg River for the purpose of investigating the conspiracy, in which he states he fears the North-West Company had been implicated, to destroy the Selkirk settlement. The energetic Commissioner returned to Quebec in November of that year. Governor Sherbrooke had the satisfaction of reporting to Lord Bathurst the return of Mr. Coltman from his mission to the Indian territories, and "that the general result of his exertions had been so far successful, that he had restored a degree of tranquillity there which promises to continue during the winter."
Colonel Coltman's report, of about one hundred folio pages, is an admirable one. His summary of the causes and events of the great struggle between the Companies is well arranged and clearly stated. The writer, in an earlier work, strongly took up Lord Selkirk's view of the case, and criticised Coltman. Subsequent investigations and calmer reflection have led him to the conclusion that while Lord Selkirk was in the right and exhibited a high and noble character, yet the provoking circumstances came from both directions, and Colonel Coltman's account seems fairly impartial.
The cessation of hostilities brought about by the influence of Colonel Coltman did not, however, bring a state of peace. The conflict was transferred to the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada, these having been given power some time before by the Imperial Parliament to deal with cases in the Indian territories.
A cause célèbre was that of the trial of Charles Reinhart, an employé of the North-West Company, who had been a sergeant in the disbanded De Meuron Regiment. Having gone to the North-West, he was during the troubles given charge of a Hudson's Bay Company official named Owen Keveny, against whom it was urged that he had maltreated a servant of the North-West Company. In bringing Keveny down from Lake Winnipeg to Rat Portage, it was brought against Reinhart that at a place called the Falls of the River Winnipeg, he had brutally killed the prisoner under his charge. While Lord Selkirk was at Fort William, Reinhart arrived at that point and made a voluntary confession before his Lordship as a magistrate. This case was afterwards tried at Quebec and gave rise to an argument as to the jurisdiction of the Court, viz. whether the point where the murder occurred on the River Winnipeg was in Upper Canada, Lower Canada, or the Indian territories. Though Reinhart was found guilty, sentence was not carried out, probably on account of the uncertainty of jurisdiction. The Reinhart case became an important precedent in settling the boundary line of Upper Canada, and also in dealing with the troubles arising out of the Riel rebellion of 1869.
In the year after Colonel Coltman's return, numerous cases were referred to the Courts, all these arising out of the violence at Red River. Colonel Coltman had bound Lord Selkirk, though only accused of an offence amounting to a misdemeanour, in the large sum of 6,000l. and under two sureties of 3,000l. each – in all 12,000l. Mr. Gale, Lord Selkirk's legal adviser, called attention to the illegality of this proceeding, but all to no effect.
After Lord Selkirk had settled up his affairs with his colonists, he journeyed south from the Red River to St. Louis in the Western States, and then went eastward to Albany in New York, whence he appeared in Sandwich in Upper Canada, the circuit town where information had been laid. Here he found four accusations made against him by the North-West Company. These were: (1) Having stolen eighty-three muskets at Fort William; (2) Having riotously entered Fort William, August 13th; (3) Assault and false imprisonment of Deputy-Sheriff Smith; (4) Resistance to legal warrant.
On these matters being taken up, the first charge was so contradictory that the magistrates dismissed it; but the other three could not be dealt with on account of the absence of witnesses, and so bail was accepted from Lord Selkirk of 350l. for his appearance. When Lord Selkirk presented himself at Montreal to answer to the charges for which Colonel Coltman's heavy bail had bound him, the Court admitted it had no jurisdiction, but with singular high-handedness bound Lord Selkirk to appear in Upper Canada under the same bail.
In Montreal in May, 1818, an action was brought before Chief Justice Monk and Justice Bowen against Colin Robertson and four others, charging them with riotously destroying Fort Gibraltar, the Nor'-Wester fort. A number of witnesses were called, including Miles Macdonell, John Pritchard, Auguste Cadot, and others. A verdict of not guilty was rendered.
In September of the same year a charge was laid against Lord Selkirk and others of a conspiracy to ruin the trade of the North-West Company. This was before the celebrated Chief Justice Powell. The grand jury refused to give the Chief Justice an answer in the case. The Court was summarily adjourned, and legislation was introduced at the next meeting of the Legislature of Upper Canada to remedy defects in the Act in order that the case might be tried. Afterward the cases were taken up in York, and Deputy-Sheriff Smith was given a verdict against Lord Selkirk for 500l., and McKenzie, a North-West partner, a verdict of 1,500l. for false imprisonment at Fort William. The general impression has always prevailed there that the whole procedure in these cases against Lord Selkirk was high-handed and unjust, though it is quite possible that Lord Selkirk had exceeded his powers in the troubled state of affairs at Fort William.
On his Lordship's side charges were also brought in October, 1818. In the full Court Chief Justice Powell and Justices Campbell and Boulter presided. The most notable of these cases was against Cuthbert Grant, Boucher, and sixteen others as either principals or accessories in the murder of Robert Semple on June 19th, 1816. A few days later, in the same month, a slightly different charge was brought against six of the North-West partners in connection with the murder of Governor Semple. Upwards of three hundred pages of evidence gave a minute and complete account of the affair of Seven Oaks and of the whole conflict as found in a volume of Canadian trials. In these two cases a verdict of not guilty was also rendered.
Two other trials, one by Lord Selkirk's party against Paul Brown for robbery of a blanket and a gun, and the other against John Cooper and Hugh Bannerman for stealing a cannon in a dwelling-house of Lord Selkirk, were also carried through, with in both cases a verdict of not guilty. The evidence in these cases was printed by both parties, with foot-notes, giving a colour to each side concerned of a more favourable kind.
So much for this most disheartening controversy. It would be idle to say that Lord Selkirk was faultless; but as we dispassionately read the accounts of the trials, and consider that while Lord Selkirk was friendless in Canada, the North-West Company had enormous influence, we cannot resist the conclusion that advantage was taken of his Lordship, and that justice was not done. It is true that, in the majority of cases, the conclusion was reached that it was impossible to precisely place the blame on either side; but we cannot be surprised that Lord Selkirk, harassed and discouraged by the difficulties of his colony and his treatment in the courts of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, should write as he did in October, 1818, to the Duke of Richmond, the new Governor-General of Canada: —
