The Deed Poll—A Governor-in-Chief Chosen—A Chaplain Appointed—New License from George IV.—Trade on the Pacific Coast—The Red River Country Claimed by the States—The Company in California—The Oregon Question—Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825—The Dryad Affair—Lieutenant Franklin's two Expeditions—Red River Territory Yielded to Company—Enterprise on the Pacific.

By the terms of the Deed Poll, the immediate control of the Company's affairs in its territory passed from the hands of a committee sitting in London, to a personage known as Governor-in-Chief of Rupert's Land and his council. His commission extended over all the Company's lands and possessions, with an unlimited tenure of office. The council was to be composed of chief factors, and occasionally a few chief traders, who were to meet at some convenient centre for the purposes of consultation, this particular feature being a survival of the rendezvous of Fort William. The chartered territories and circuit of commercial relations were divided into vast sections, known as the Northern, Southern, Montreal and Western Departments. The Northern extended between Hudson's Bay and the Rocky Mountains, the Southern, between James' Bay and Canada, including a part of the eastern shore of Hudson's Bay.

Governor Simpson.

Such a Governor-in-Chief should be a person of energy, shrewdness and ability. Mr. Ellice had been struck by the qualities and special aptitude for this important post of a young Scotchman, named George Simpson. This young man was an illegitimate son of the maternal uncle of Thomas Simpson, the Arctic explorer. While clerk in a London counting-house, George Simpson had attracted the attention of Andrew Colville, Lord Selkirk's brother-in-law, who sent him to Rupert's Land in the service of the Company. The responsibility was a tremendous one, but Simpson did not flinch from accepting it; and the end showed the wisdom of the appointment. For nearly forty years this man stood at the head of the fur-trade: a potentate in the midst of the wilderness, the virtual ruler of almost one-half of a continent. Governor Simpson was a man of small stature, but he had "the self-possession of an emperor."[110] Accompanied by his voyageurs and clerks, he journeyed along the old Ottawa and lake route, through the Grand Portage, or by Fort William and Lake of the Woods, accomplishing this feat at least once a year throughout the entire period of his rule. At the outset of his career he perceived that the management of Red River colony was an extremely difficult task—harder perhaps than the management of the fur-trade. But he attacked both with energy, resolved to serve his employers, and to create, at all hazards, harmony and prosperity in the territories.

Part of the time he spent at Red River, part in Oregon, in Athabasca, and at Hudson's Bay. He crossed the Rocky Mountains at three different latitudes, and journeyed extensively over the vast territory of which he was truly the "commercial sovereign."

The appointment of the Rev. Mr. West as principal chaplain to the Company led to very great improvements in the moral and religious life at the forts. Many of the traders and servants of the Company were soon afterwards induced to marry the women with whom they had lived, a material step towards the amelioration of the condition of the Indian and half-breed females.

Company obtains a new license.

The next step on the part of the Honourable Adventurers was to further safeguard their interests, and supplement their charter by a license from the new king, George IV. This license was for the exclusive privilege of trading with the Indians in such parts of North America as were not part of the territories heretofore granted to the Hudson's Bay Company. This Royal license, dated the 5th of December, 1821, at Carlton House, was expressly issued to prevent the admission of individual or associated bodies into the British North American fur-trade, inasmuch as the competition therein had been found for years to be productive of enormous loss and inconvenience to the Hudson's Bay Company and to trade at large, and also of much injury to the natives and half-breeds.

To anticipate events, it may here be remarked that this license expired in 1842, but prior to its expiration an extension was granted at the close of the first year of the reign of her present Majesty,[111] for a further term of twenty-one years. By virtue of these licenses the Company was granted exclusive trade in the Indian territories west of the Rocky Mountains. It must be borne in mind, and will be pointed out in a subsequent chapter, that it was of the utmost moment for Great Britain to obtain a standing in Oregon and on the Columbia River,[112] and the licenses were framed to this great and desirable end.

Although, as has been shown, the North-West partners had made great efforts and borne great sacrifices, to maintain the trade on the Pacific, they were contending against great odds. The Russian establishments at Norfolk Sound, and at other places on the coast, even so far south as California, came to share in a virtual monopoly with the Americans, who, after the Treaty of Ghent, began to send ships from Boston to New York. The amalgamation of 1821 came about, and the Hudson's Bay Company, invigorated by the infusion of new blood, believed it their duty to seek to regain the trade. They therefore set to work to re-establish British influence on the Pacific.

It was no easy task. The Russians had gained a firm foothold, and the Americans paused at no form of competition, nor any method by which they might secure their ends. The natives had already become debauched and now their debauchery spread from tribe to tribe, rendering dealings with them difficult and formidable. Serious losses, both of lives and property, were sustained through their savage attacks on the Company's agents and trading posts. But the work was in the hands of strong, able, and temperate men, who knew what the situation required of them and did not shrink from meeting it fully and fearlessly. By tact and vigorous measures the natives were restrained; at great expenditure of money and patience, order was restored; and in ten years time the Company occupied the whole country between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific. It maintained six permanent establishments on the coasts, sixteen in the interior, and several movable posts and migratory brigades. By 1835 it had a fleet of six armed vessels, one of them propelled by steam, on the Pacific. Fort Vancouver, its principal entrepÔt on the Columbia River, was surrounded by large pasture and grain farms, maintaining large herds of horses and cattle, and was a profitable and growing establishment.

It was a long time since the Company had cut any considerable figure in international politics, but with the extraordinary growth of the American States and the increase of the fur traffic of the Russians, contemporary European publicists came again to speak of the prospect of trouble over the Company's rights and boundaries.

Claim of the United States to Red River.

Before this time there had arisen a cry, sedulously seconded by the Company's enemies, that the Red River region belonged to the United States. Nothing can be clearer than that it was never for a moment contemplated either by the British or American Government, that any of the Hudson's Bay lands, or any of the waters running into Hudson's Bay, would be included in the lines assigned as the boundaries between the possessions of Great Britain and those of the States. It is sufficiently demonstrated by the treaty concluded with America in 1794 that such an idea never existed in the minds of the negotiators. By the third article of that treaty, which permits the most perfect freedom of communication and intercourse between the subjects of both nations throughout their respective dominions, an exception is made of the country within the limits of the Hudson's Bay Company, to be ascertained, of course, in conformity to their charter from which the Americans are expressly excluded. The terms of the treaty concluded in 1783 with the United States show the express intentions of both nations to have been that the northern boundary of the United States should not, in any part, extend farther north than the River St. Lawrence, or the lakes and streams which feed or fall into it.

The unhappy feature of the matter was that a great part of the second article of the treaty of 1783 was drawn up in complete ignorance of the geography of the country. It is so full of contradictions that it became impossible afterwards to lay down a line which should follow that article literally. In this dilemma the only fair method of solving the difficulty was to return to the principles which governed the framing of the article.

The Treaty of 1783.

At the close of the Revolution the chief aim of the American negotiators, as is evinced throughout their correspondence, was to obtain a recognition of the right of their country to the western territory as far as the St. Lawrence on the north, and the Mississippi on the west. When the British Government acceded to this proposition it was regarded by the Americans as an important concession, and their plenipotentiaries proceeded upon that concession as the principle on which their boundary towards Canada, after it had struck the St. Lawrence, was to be defined. They brought the line from Nova Scotia to the St. Lawrence, and then followed up the main stream of the river to what they believed to be its principal source, and what was supposed to approach the nearest to the source of the Mississippi. In fanciful conformity to this intention, the second article of the treaty of 1783, after having carried the line to Lake Superior, stipulates that it shall be continued onwards through the middle of certain water communications to the north-west point of the Lake of the Woods, and thence due west to the Mississippi. The fact, however, is that the waters of the Lake of the Woods feed streams which fall into Hudson's Bay, but have no communication with any waters which fall into Lake Superior. It is also a fact that a line drawn due west from the Lake of the Woods would never reach the Mississippi, which lies far to the south of such a line.

But there was a reason for such egregious blundering. The country had never been surveyed by men of science. Its physical features had been derived from the vague and inaccurate accounts of ignorant traders and bushrangers, which had formed the basis for the current maps. These laid down a large river running from the Lake of the Woods and falling into Lake Superior. If there had been such a river in existence, there can be no doubt, from the body of waters contained in the Lake of the Woods, that it would have been a much larger stream than any of the feeders of Lake Superior. It was therefore most natural that the negotiators should suppose the Lake of the Woods to be the main source of the St. Lawrence. At the same time this must have appeared to them the point at which the waters of the St. Lawrence approached the nearest to the source of the Mississippi, because in the maps of the bushrangers the Mississippi is laid down as rising four or five degrees of latitude farther north than it does in fact, and as coming within a short distance of the Lake of the Woods on the west.

As the negotiators in Paris in 1783 reposed the greatest confidence in these crude productions of the cartographer, is it surprising that the second article of the treaty should be full of inconsistencies? On any other supposition the intention of the negotiators would be fatuous and incomprehensible.

Examination of American claims.

This brings us to the whole point involved in the American contention, which deprived Great Britain and the Company of a vast territory to which the United States possessed no shadow of right. Where the limits of a country have never been ascertained the conquest of the contiguous and encroaching territory may be justly considered as establishing the bounds originally claimed by the victorious nation; and this was the case with regard to Canada and the territory of the Company. But where between two powers there have been no defined limits, and no conquests have determined the claims of either, the pretensions of both might be fairly adjusted by laying down as a rule that "the priority of right should be considered as vested in each, to the respective countries, which each have either principally or exclusively frequented."

The Spaniards west of the Mississippi never extended their establishments nearly so far north as latitude 42, while the Hudson's Bay limits were long frequented by the English. On what ground, therefore, could the Americans, the successors merely to the rights derived from the Spaniards, claim all the country of the Sioux, the Mandans and many other tribes on the upper branches of the Missouri?

Nevertheless the States, after their purchase of Louisiana, continued to put in claims for a more northerly and westerly boundary, with what ultimate result we shall see. It is only pertinent to remark here, that nothing could be more absurd than the idea that Spain ever contemplated the cession of any territory on the Pacific Ocean, under the name of Louisiana.

The interior river waters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin had attracted the attention of the Company even before the American trappers had reached them, and traders remained there in unmolested possession long after the Russians had left the country. The feeble frontier guard could do nothing but protest, and ultimately when the trappers had nearly exhausted the outlying districts and desired to penetrate into the centre of the State, the American Government admitted them under an agreement with the Hudson's Bay Company, whereby a tax of fifty cents was to be paid for each beaver skin.

A year before the amalgamation the north-west coast for the first time engaged the attention of the American Government,[113] and what came to be known as the Oregon Question had its birth. The States possessed no title to the country, but a strong party believed that they had a right to found by occupation a legitimate title to a large portion of the territory in question. The matter was brought up at several sessions of Congress, and the utmost was done by such legislators as Floyd and Benton to flog it into an active issue. It was claimed that "the United States, through Spain, France and her own establishments, had the undisputed sovereignty of the coast from latitude 60° down to 36°." A bill was introduced for the occupation of the Columbia, grants of lands to settlers, and regulation of Indian affairs. But the Government was by no means so sure of the wisdom of such a proceeding; the bill was repeatedly shelved. The restoration of Fort George (Astoria) by the British was one of the strong arguments used.

In the meanwhile Russia had declared that the north Pacific coast down to latitude 51° belonged to her exclusively. All foreign vessels were prohibited from approaching within a hundred Italian miles of any part of the coast. America protested, and between 1821 and 1824 negotiations were carried on between the two powers.

Russian claims.

Russia flatly asserted that the boundary question was one between herself and Great Britain, with which the Americans had no legitimate concern; and offered proofs that the treaty with Spain gave the United States a right only to territory south of 42°. A conclusion was, however, reached in the Treaty of 1824, by which the boundary was fixed at 54° 40', beyond which neither nation was to found any establishment, or to resort, without permission; while for a period of ten years both nations were to have free access for trade and fishery to each other's territory.

In the following year was concluded a treaty between Russia and Great Britain,[114] by which the former again relinquished her claim not only to the region below latitude 54° 40', but to the vast interior occupied by the Company up to the Frozen Ocean. No objection to this was urged by America, although some of her statesmen sought to take a hand in the matter, and proposed a joint conference. Great Britain's reply to this proposition was to decline to recognize the right of the United States to any interest in the territory in question. The recent promulgation of the Monroe doctrine had given offence not only to her, but to Russia as well, and both were prepared to combat American pretensions.

Although his Majesty's ministers had refused to treat for a joint convention, yet in 1824 negotiations were begun in London, between Great Britain and America, for the ownership of the northern Pacific coast. The British commissioners showed clearly that the Americans had no valid claim to the territory occupied by the Company.

Temporary arrangement between England and the States.

The mere entrance of a private individual, such as Captain Gray, into a river could not give the States a claim up and down the coast to regions which had been previously explored by officially despatched British expeditions like that of Cook. It was emphatically denied that the restoration of Fort Astoria, under the Treaty of Ghent, had any bearing on the title. Nevertheless, Great Britain was willing to accept as a boundary the forty-ninth parallel from the mountains to the Columbia (then known as McGillivray River), and down that river to the sea. But the Americans were obdurate; a deadlock ensued and the convention of 1818 remained in force. The Company repeatedly urged the Government not to abandon one inch of territory rightfully under the Crown, to the United States. Nevertheless, a settlement of the Oregon Question was highly desirable. If in spite of the treaty of 1818 the States should attempt to occupy the territory, war would be inevitable. If on the other hand the treaty should expire without any attempt at American occupation, Great Britain would be, by the law of nations, the party rightfully in possession. A new conference was held in London, in 1827; but it was impossible to agree on a boundary, and the only thing possible was a compromise to the effect that the treaty of joint occupation should be indefinitely renewed subject to abrogation at any time by either party on twelve months' notice. Thus the statu quo was maintained, and the Hudson's Bay Company remained in actual possession of the profits of the fur-trade for many years to come.

In 1828 Governor Simpson believed it advisable to make a general survey of the western posts, with the object of impressing peace and good-will upon the natives, and also to acquire a further knowledge of the needs and abilities of the Company's officers and servants in that quarter. This journey of the Governor, undertaken in considerable state, was from York Factory to the Pacific. He was accompanied by a chief factor, Archibald Macdonald, and a surgeon named Hamlyn. Fourteen commissioned gentlemen, as the chief factors and chief traders were called, and as many clerks, accompanied the party to the canoes, and amidst great cheering and a salute of seven guns, bade them God-speed. Simpson entered Peace River on the 15th of August, and reached Fort Vermilion in due course, three hundred and twenty miles from the mouth, which was then in charge of Paul Fraser. From here he proceeded to Fort St. James, the capital of Western Caledonia, and the chief depot for all the region north of the Fraser Forks to the Russian boundary, including the Babine country. Forts Alexandria, Kamloops and Vancouver were visited in due order, and in the following year Simpson returned east by way of the Columbia.

In an attempt to enter the Columbia River in 1829, the Company's ship from London, William and Ann, was wrecked on Land Island. Several of the crew escaped and landed on Clatsop Point, where they were immediately murdered by the natives, in order that the plunder of the vessel might be accomplished without interruption. News of the disaster was carried to Fort Vancouver, where the officer in charge, McLaughlin, sent messengers demanding a restoration of the stolen cargo. In response to this request, an old broom was despatched to the fort, with the intelligence that this was all the restitution the Clatsops contemplated. The schooner Colbore was therefore sent on a punitive expedition. Several of the tribe were wounded and a chief shot, after which the Clatsops entered into a better frame of mind, and expressed contrition for their behaviour.

Under the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, the Company possessed the free navigation of streams which, having their rise in British territory, crossed Russian territory in their course to the sea. The Company were not long in availing themselves of this privilege. Posts were successively erected, as far as the Stickeen River; but seven years afterwards there was yet no permanent post on that stream. It was, therefore, decided to establish one, and a brig, the Dryad, was accordingly fitted out and despatched from Fort Vancouver. But in that year, 1833, the Russian Government had received the petition of its subjects to rescind the proviso in the treaty favourable to the British. The Company's enterprise in thus encroaching on Russian territory had alarmed Wrangel, who was then in charge of the Russian establishment[115] at Sitka, and he wrote to his superiors urging them to memorialize the Emperor. He alleged that the Hudson's Bay Company had violated its agreement to refrain from selling fire-arms or spirituous liquors to the natives—an allegation which was not founded on fact.

The Dryad appears.

Believing that the situation called for instant action, Wrangel did not wait to learn what course his Government would take in the matter, but at once despatched two armed vessels to the entrance of Stickeen River. A fort was hastily built on the site of an Indian village, guns were mounted, and the Company's expedition awaited. All unconscious the Dryad force approached. Suddenly a puff of smoke and a loud report arrested them, and several shots came from two vessels hitherto concealed in the offing. While the astonished captain and crew put the brig about, with a design to anchor out of range, a boat reached them from the shore, bearing an officer in Russian uniform. He protested in the name of the Emperor and the Governor of the Russian-American possessions, against the entrance of a British vessel into a river appertaining to those powers. The Company's agent attempted to argue the matter, but his representations went unheeded. The Russian was obdurate; they were all threatened with peril to their lives, and their vessel, if the Dryad did not immediately weigh anchor. There was consequently nothing to do but to return.

The Company was indignant at this outrage. The forts it had already built, together with the cost of fitting out the Dryad and other vessels, besides a vast quantity of provisions and perishable merchandise sent into that country, had amounted to £20,000 sterling. The Emperor had granted the petition of the Russian Company; and both the British and the American Governments received notification that the clause in the treaty would terminate at twelve months' notice. But the Dryad affair took place before this decision was made public. The British Government very properly demanded immediate satisfaction, and for a time public interest was keenly aroused. The Russian Government merely consented to disavow the act of its officer; and issued instructions prohibiting further hindrance to the trading limits previously agreed upon.

The matter did not, however, receive settlement until 1839, in which year a convention was held in London to arrange the points long in dispute between the two companies. The matter was settled with despatch. The Hudson's Bay Company's claim for compensation was waived in return for a lease from the Russian Company of all their territory on the mainland lying between Cape Spencer and latitude 54° 40'. For this lease the Company agreed to pay an annual rental of two thousand land-otter skins, and also to supply the Russians with provisions at moderate rates.

In the last chapter, the expedition in 1819-20 of Lieutenant (afterwards Sir John) Franklin, was alluded to.

Franklin and his party reached Fort Chippewyan on the 26th March, after having travelled on foot eight hundred and fifty-six miles, with the weather so intensely cold that the mercury continually froze in the bulb. In July, 1820, they journeyed five hundred miles more to Fort Enterprise, where the party wintered, Back returning to Fort Chippewyan to procure supplies for the next season's operations. He was eagerly awaited, and when he arrived, in March, 1821, he had a tale of great hardship to relate. He had travelled over one thousand one hundred miles, sometimes going two or three days without food, with no covering at night but a blanket and deerskins to protect him from the fearful rigours of fifty-seven degrees below zero. In June the party started out from the Coppermine to reach the sea, which they did in eighteen days. Their subsequent sufferings were of the most dreadful description. When the survivors returned to York Factory, they had travelled five thousand five hundred and fifty miles by land and water; but their object was still unaccomplished.[116]

In 1825, Franklin entered upon a second journey to the shores of the Polar Sea, again accompanied by Lieutenant Back and Peter Dease, one of the Company's chief traders.

"The Governor and Committee took," says Franklin, "a most lively interest in the objects of the expedition, promised their utmost support to it, and forthwith sent injunctions to their officers in the fur countries to provide the necessary depots of provisions at the places which I pointed out, and to give every other aid in their power."

Franklin descended the Mackenzie and traced the coast line through thirty-seven degrees of longitude from the mouth of the Coppermine River, where his former survey began, to near the one hundred and fiftieth meridian, and coming within one hundred and sixty miles of the most easterly point reached by Captain Beechy, who was exploring from Bering's Strait.

Sir George Back, R.N.