The Great Company Part 37

Repeatedly had the Grand Juries of Quebec and Montreal called attention to this want of jurisdiction. In one report the number of people from the Canadas, chiefly from Lower Canada, was urged as one reason for establis.h.i.+ng in the Indian country a court of competent jurisdiction for the trial of offences committed in these territories, including Hudson's Bay.

[Sidenote: Plea for establishment of jurisdiction.]

"The very heavy expense," observes the report, "incident to the conveyance of offenders from the Territory of Hudson's Bay to England, with the necessary witnesses on both sides, and the cost of prosecution and defence, must generally operate, either to prevent recourse to a tribunal across the ocean, and thereby stimulate to private retaliation and revenge, or where such course can or shall be had, the guilty may escape punishment, and the innocent be sacrificed from the distance of time and place of trial, the death or absence of witnesses, or other causes; and the mind cannot contemplate without horror the possible abuses to which such circ.u.mstances might give rise; as in the instance of a prosecutor coming from and at a remote day, when the accused may be dest.i.tute of pecuniary means, and the exculpatory evidence may either be dead, removed, or be otherwise beyond his reach, who at all events (however innocent he may finally be found) will have undergone a long and painful confinement, far removed from his family and connections, and perhaps ruinous to every prospect he had in life."

Sir Robert Milnes strongly supported the representation of the Grand Jury, and added that "Under such circ.u.mstances every species of offence is to be apprehended, from Trespa.s.ses to Murder," and also that "the national character of the English will be debased among the Indians, and the numerous tribes of those people will in consequence thereof be more easily wrought upon by foreign emissaries employed by the Enemies of Great Britain."[88]

In consequence of these representations Lord Hobart promised that immediate steps should be taken to remedy the existing state of affairs. But Milnes became impatient for a decision, and writing in September, 1803, to the Under-Secretary, he reminded him of the promise, the great increase and extent of the fur-trade rendering such an Act daily more necessary. The Act to give jurisdiction to the Courts of Upper and Lower Canada had, however, been a.s.sented to on the 11th of the preceding month.

[Ill.u.s.tration: VOYAGEURS TRACKING CANOES UP A RAPID.]

[Sidenote: Canada Jurisdiction Act.]

The first case brought to trial under the Act became celebrated. In the autumn of 1809 William Corrigal was the trader at a Company's post near Eagle Lake. On the 15th of September a party of North-Westers established an encampment about forty yards from the Company's post, under one of their clerks, Aeneas MacDonnell. In the evening an Indian arrived in his canoe to trade with Corrigal and to pay a debt which he owed him. As he was not able to defray the whole amount, Corrigal accepted the canoe in part payment. The Indian requested that it might be lent to him for a few days, which was agreed to; and the Indian spent the night at the post with his canoe. In the morning he received in advance some more merchandise, such as clothing for his family and ammunition for his winter hunt. When he finally departed, three of the Company's servants were sent down to the wharf with the canoe and the goods. On their way they were observed by a number of Northmen, including MacDonnell, who went immediately down to the lake, armed with a sword and accompanied by a voyageur named Adhemer, armed with a brace of pistols. Upon pretence that the unhappy Red man was indebted to the North-West company, they proceeded to seize and drag away the canoe and the merchandise to their own wharf. Corrigal observing this, commanded two of his men, James Tate and John Corrigal, to go into the water and prevent the seizure, and as they approached on this mission MacDonnell drew his sword and struck two blows at Tate's head. The latter was unarmed, and warded the blows with his wrist, which was severely gashed. He then received another deep wound in the neck, which felled him to the ground. In the meantime Adhemer had seized John Corrigal (who was also unarmed) and presenting a c.o.c.ked pistol at his head, swore that if he went near the canoe he would blow out his brains.

Several of the Company's servants who were near the spot, perceiving what was going on, and observing that the rest of MacDonnell's men were collecting with arms, ran up to their own house, which was only about forty or fifty yards from the lake, for weapons of defence.

MacDonnell next attacked John Corrigal, who to escape him ran into the lake. Finding the water too deep, however, he was soon obliged to make a turn towards the sh.o.r.e. His pursuer wading after him, aimed a blow at him with his sword, cut his arm above the elbow and laid the bone bare. He followed this up with a tremendous blow at his head, which Robert Leask, one of the Company's servants, fortunately warded off with the paddle of his canoe, which was cut in two by the blow. The North-West leader in a fury now attacked another servant named Essen, aimed a blow at him with his sword, which, however, only struck his hat off. But in making his escape Essen fell into the water. Before he could recover himself another Canadian aimed a blow at his head with a heavy axe, which missed its aim, but dislocated his shoulder, so that he could make no use of his arm for over two months after this affray.

[Sidenote: Killing of MacDonnell.]

MacDonnell and Adhemer, the one with a drawn sword and the other with a c.o.c.ked pistol, continued to pursue several other of the Company's servants towards the fort, when one of them, named John Mowat, whom MacDonnell had previously struck with his sword, and was preparing to strike again, shot MacDonnell on the spot.

[Sidenote: Trial of Mowat.]

MacDonnell's body was carried away, and the parties separated, Corrigal fearing a further attack. On the 24th, a partner of the North-West Company, named Haldane, arrived in a canoe with ten men, and on the following day another partner, McLellan, also arrived. They came to the gates of the stockades, behind which Corrigal and his men had barricaded themselves, and demanded the man who had shot MacDonnell. They declared that if the person was not immediately given up they would either shoot every one of the Company's men, or get the Indians to kill them, were it even to cost them a keg of brandy for each of their heads! Mowat now stepped forward and acknowledged that he was the man, and that he would shoot MacDonnell again in the same circ.u.mstances. Much to his surprise the North-Westers announced their intention of taking him and two witnesses down to Montreal for trial.

Mowat was thereupon put in irons. From the 2nd of October, when they arrived at Rainy Lake, the unhappy man was generally kept in irons from six in the morning till eight in the evening, and during the night until the 14th of December. During the whole winter he was kept in close confinement, and the two witnesses, Tate and Leask, who had voluntarily accompanied him, were themselves subjected to much insult and indignity, and were obliged to submit to every species of drudgery and labour in order to obtain a bare subsistence. In June the whole party, including Corrigal, arrived at Fort William, the chief trading-post rendezvous of the North-Westers. Here Mowat was imprisoned in a close and miserable dungeon, about six feet square, without any window or light of any kind whatsoever, and when he finally reached Montreal he was in a most pitiable condition. The witnesses were seized on a charge of aiding and abetting the murder of MacDonnell, and this upon the oath of one of the North-West half-breeds. The Hudson's Bay Company had at this time no agent or correspondent at Montreal or any place in Canada, and it was not until the end of November that the Honourable Adventurers heard of the prosecution being carried on against their servants. Immediate steps were taken for their protection, and counsel engaged for the defence.

Mowat and his witnesses were indicted for murder. The grand jury found a true bill against Mowat, but not against the others, and Tate and Leask were accordingly discharged.[89]

In spite of the evidence, the jury brought in a verdict of manslaughter. The judge, however, had charged them to find it murder.

Mowat was sentenced to be imprisoned six months and branded on the hand with a hot iron. After his discharge, two years from the time he was first put in irons at Eagle Lake, Mowat proceeded from Canada to the United States in order to return to England, but was never heard of again. He is supposed to have been drowned by the breaking of the ice in one of the rivers he had to cross on his way.

[Sidenote: The Earl of Selkirk.]

Such was the situation in the early years of the century. At this time there rose a name destined to be of more than local fame, that of Thomas Douglas, fifth Earl of Selkirk, a young man of benevolent character, whose feelings had been deeply moved by the sufferings of his countrymen in the Scottish Highlands. Nor was the n.o.bleman's compa.s.sion excited without cause. A compulsory exodus of the inhabitants of the mountainous regions in the county of Sutherland was in progress. The tale of expulsion of a vast number of poor tenantry from the estates of the d.u.c.h.ess of Sutherland, which they and their ancestors had looked upon as their own without the necessity of rent and taxes, may be heard to-day from some white-haired old grandfather, who had it from the lips of his sire, in the far north of Scotland.

The system of rents and land-management as it prevails to-day all over the Highlands had only then been put in force, and the squatters were driven to seek their homes as best they might in the remote and sequestered places of the earth. Selkirk encouraged this emigration as the only remedy; and having endeavoured in vain to secure the active co-operation of the Government, resolved to settle a colony on waste lands granted him in Prince Edward Island. The better to ensure success, he went in person to oversee the whole enterprise. Gathering together about eight hundred of these poor people, who bade a melancholy farewell to their heather-robed hills, they arrived at their future home early in September, 1803.

[Ill.u.s.tration: LORD SELKIRK.]

Selkirk visited Montreal in this and also in the following year on matters connected with his philanthropic undertaking, and on both occasions evinced the heartiest interest in the great territory to the north-west which formed the theatre of action for the two rival fur-trading companies.

The Prince Edward Island colony continuing to prosper, Lord Selkirk now conceived the plan of forming a colony on the banks of the Red River, in Rupert's Land.[90] In order to execute his project with a greater a.s.surance of success, he again, in 1805, addressed the British Government and nation, pointing out the successful issue of his colony as an example of the excellent results which would attend a further exodus of the superfluous population.

Time went on and the execution of the plan being still in abeyance, the great decline in Hudson's Bay stock suggested an idea to Selkirk.

He submitted the charter to several of the highest legal authorities in England, and got from them the following:

"We are of the opinion that the grant of the said contained charter is good, and that it will include all the country, the waters of which run into Hudson's Bay, as ascertained by geographical observations.

[Sidenote: Legal opinion on the Company's charter.]

"We are of opinion that an individual holding from the Hudson's Bay Company a lease or grant in fee simple of any part of their territory, will be ent.i.tled to all the ordinary rights of landed property in England, and will be ent.i.tled to prevent other persons from occupying any part of the lands; from cutting down timber and fis.h.i.+ng in the adjoining waters (being such as a private right of fis.h.i.+ng may subsist in), and may (if he can peaceably or otherwise in due course of law) dispossess them of any buildings which they have recently erected within the limits of their property.

"We are of opinion that the grant of the civil and criminal jurisdiction is valid, though it is not granted to the Company, but to the Governor and Council at their respective establishments. We cannot recommend, however, it to be exercised so as to affect the lives or limbs of criminals. It is to be exercised by the Governor and Council as judges, who are to proceed according to the laws of England.

"The Company may appoint a sheriff to execute judgments and do his duty as in England.

"We are of opinion that the sheriff, in case of resistance to his authority, may collect the population to his a.s.sistance, and put arms into the hands of his servants for defence against attack, and to a.s.sist in enforcing the judgments of the courts; but such powers cannot be exercised with too much circ.u.mspection.

"We are of opinion that all persons will be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, who reside or are found within the territories over which it extends.

"We do not think the Canada Jurisdiction Act (43 George III.) gives jurisdiction within the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company, the same being within the jurisdiction of their own governors and council.[91]

"We are of opinion that the Governor (in Hudson's) might under the authority of the Company, appoint constables and other officers for the preservation of the peace and that the officers so appointed would have the same duties and privileges as the same officers in England, so far as these duties and privileges may be applicable to their situation in the territories of the Company." This was signed by Sir Samuel Ronully, Mr. Justice Holroyd, W. M. Cruise, J. Scarlett and John Bell. There could be thus no question of Selkirk's right. The Company's charter, amongst other provisions, expressly forbids all English subjects from entering, without license or authority, upon the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company. The Governor and Company only are empowered to grant such authority and on them also is conferred the right of establis.h.i.+ng castles, fortifications, forts, garrisons, colonies, plantations, towns and villages, in any parts or places within the limits of their territory. They had also the right of sending s.h.i.+ps of war, men or ammunition, to their colonies, fortifications or plantations, and of appointing governors, commanders and officers over them.

Selkirk began by purchasing several thousand pounds worth of shares in the Company.

Late in 1810 he made a formal proposition to the Company, a proposition previously made and rejected, for a settlement to be made within its territory. This time some of the Honourable Adventurers began to see that the scheme might be fraught with salvation for themselves.

Lord Selkirk was asked to lay before the committee the terms on which he would accept a grant of land within the Hudson's Bay territories, "specifying what restrictions he would be prepared to consent to be imposed on the settlers." Also what security he would offer to the Company against any injury to its trade or to its rights and privileges.

Lord Selkirk responded to this, and his proposals were agreed to, subject to final approbation of a general court of all the Adventurers.

[Sidenote: Selkirk's project.]

It now dawned upon the wiser spirits that here was being offered them the means for the Company's salvation. Nevertheless, the traditional opposition of the Company to any project of the kind still lingered, and was not easily disposed of. For weeks the meetings in committee resounded with appeals to "traditional policy," to "loyalty to the n.o.ble, the ancient founders," to "a spirit of reverence for the history of our Company," but all to no purpose. Selkirk was to carry the day. A general court was convened, by public notice, in May 1811, when the stockholders were informed that the Governor and Committee considered it beneficial to their general interests to grant Lord Selkirk 116,000 square miles of their territory, on condition that he should establish a colony and furnish, on certain terms, from amongst the settlers, such labourers as would be required by the Company in their trade.

In order to give the partners a further opportunity of making themselves fully informed of the nature of the proposed measure, an adjournment of the court took place. In the meanwhile notice was given to all the stockholders that the terms of the proposed grant were left at the secretary's office for their inspection.

This interval was the opportunity of McGillivray and his friends.

In certain quarters, no pains or misrepresentations were spared by persons a.s.sociated with the North-West Company to prejudice the public mind against it. The newspapers teemed with falsehoods representing the country as cold or barren, as a dreary waste or interminable forest, unfit to be the abode of men and incapable of improvement.

Selkirk was accosted in Pall Mall by a friend who remarked: "By G.o.d, sir, if you are bent on doing something futile, why do you not sow tares at home in order to reap wheat, or plough the desert of Sahara, which is nearer."

Old servants of the Company came forward to dispel these calumnies, and seeing their first falsehoods destroyed, Selkirk's enemies now proceeded to follow new tactics. They spoke with feigned alarm concerning the hostile disposition of the aborigines; they lamented with affected sympathy and humanity the injuries and slaughters to which the colonists would be exposed from the savages.

At the adjourned meeting the proposition was again discussed amidst the greatest excitement and tumult, and adopted. A memorial or protest was however entered against the measure, bearing the signature of six of the proprietors.

[Sidenote: Opposition by agents of the North-West Company.]

Of these six signing the protest, three were persons closely connected with and interested in the rival commercial concerns of the North-West Company of Montreal; and two of the three were, at the very moment, avowed London agents of that a.s.sociation. These had become proprietors of Hudson's Bay stock only eight and forty hours before the general meeting. They were not indeed possessed of it long enough to ent.i.tle them to vote at the meeting; but their names now being entered in the Company's books, though the ink was scarcely dry with which they were inserted, they felt themselves competent to formally raise their voices in condemnation of those measures which the committee of directors unanimously, and the general court by a great majority, had approved of.

Their design in acquiring the Company's stock was obvious. However circuitous the stratagem might be, it was clear that they had thus become proprietors of one commercial company for the purpose of advancing the fortunes of another, and a rival concern.[92] The stratagem did not altogether fail, for Lord Selkirk's agents were yet to encounter much friction in distant quarters supposed to be friendly, and required to be obedient to the orders of the Company.

When the vote was taken, it was found that for the question there appeared holders of stock valued at 29,937; against it, 14,823. The Earl, himself, voted "for"--4,087; the princ.i.p.al opponent of the scheme being one William Thwaytes, whose interest was represented at 9,233.

At this meeting a memorial was read violently opposing the scheme, signed by Thwaytes and four or five others. According to them, the main objections were:--(_a_) Impolitic; (_b_) Consideration inadequate; (_c_) Grant asked for very large proportion of Company's holding, viz.: 70,000 square miles, or about 45,000,000 acres; (_d_) Should be a public sale, if any, not a private contract with a member of the Company; (_e_) No penalty for failure to find settlers; (_f_) Colonization unfavourable to the fur-trade; private traffic would be carried on with the United States of America.

The Earl proposed to find a number of effective men as servants to the Hudson's Bay Company in return for a grant of land, viz., two hundred men for ten years, from 1812, who would every year be ready to embark between May 1st and July 1st at an appointed place in Scotland.

The Company were to pay wages to each man not exceeding 20. Should the Earl fail, he agreed to forfeit 10 per man short of two hundred.