Canada - Red River Settlement

CANADA - RED RIVER SETTLEMENT.
Sir James Montgomery rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had given notice respecting the serious and active
disputes that had taken place in British America between
the North West and the Hudson's - bay company. He felt
himself bound as much by public considerations as by his private
relation to the noble lord immediately interested, to call
the attention of parliament to the transactions which had
taken place in that quarter of the globe. It had occurred to
Lord Selkirk, at an early period of his life, that a plan of
emigration to that quarter might be usefully and beneficially
formed; knowing that its situation afforded many advantages;
and also being aware that there existed in Ireland and
Scotland a discontented population, who would willingly
emigrate to British America. To this project he was known
to have devoted his most zealous efforts and his best days.
A company had been constituted about a century ago, under
the administration of Lord Pelham, called the Hudson's - bay
company. Under the royal charter then granted, a great space
of territory, with more than ordinary powers of jurisdiction,
was vested in the company. To that company Lord Selkirk
applied for a charter or grant, which he obtained, of a
part of their territory called the Red River. He improved
this country at great labour and expense, and formed a
settlement there; but the North-West company disputing the
power of the company of Hudson's bay to make the grant, his
lordship obtained the opinions of some of the most eminent
lawyers in England, amongst whom were the late Sir Samuel
Romilly, the present Mr. Justice Holroyd, Mr. Scarlett, and
Mr. Bell, all of whom concurred in opinion that the company
had the power of making the grant, and that his lordship had,
under the grant, jurisdiction over the settlement of the
Red River. His lordship fully rested his right on those high
legal authorities. His title, too, was recognised and confirmed
by the act of the government of this country, on the breaking
out of the American war in 1813; on that occasion he applied
for protection to the colonial department against the attacks
of the Indians, and a noble lord granted him 200 stand of arms,
and two pieces of artillery. This settlement was viewed with
a jealous eye by the North-West company, and every step was
taken to prevent its advancement. Those steps were not very
alarming at first, as they consisted in sending anonymous
letters, and inserting paragraphs in the newspapers, pointing
out to the highlanders of Scotland the hardships they would
undergo if they emigrated to Lord Selkirks settlement. These,
however, had no effect. The only difficulty Lord Selkirk had,
was in preventing the Highlanders from coming out before
proper provision could be made for them. It was next urged,
that the Indians would massacre the whole settlement, but
those machinations were as futile as the former, as the
Indians were perfectly satisfied with the colony, and lived
on the most friendly terms with them; they even came across
the Red River, and lived close to the English settlement.
The North-West company were still dissatisfied. He had
been informed that several of the Indian chiefs had been
requested to destroy the settlement. Whether this was true
or not he would not then stop to enquire; but he held in
his hand the affidavit of an Indian chief, which stated
that the Indian people were applied on the part of the
North-West company, for the purpose of overturning the
settlement. Certain it was, that treacherous measures
were resorted to. It had been with the greatest pain that
Lord Selkirk discovered, in the year 1815, a design formed
on the part of the North-West company, to invade and
destroy the infant settlement which he was endeavouring to
establish. An attack was made, and the settlement was laid
waste. In the following year a still more serious invasion
took place, and numerous tribes, principally of what are
called half freed - men, who are in the service of the
North-West company, assembled on the banks of the Red
River. The colonists received timely notice, and about 70
of them, headed by a gentleman named Semple, sailed out
and encountered them. They were surrounded, defeated, and
many of them slain. He did not scruple to charge the clerks
and agents of the North-West company with the foul and
premeditated murder of these persons. He was confident that
such would be the inference under any judicial cognizance
of the transaction. It would be impossible for him to lay
a sufficient ground for the production of those papers which
it was the object of his motion to bring before the House,
without characterising as he had done this strange and
hostile proceeding. The mere fact of Mr. Semple's death
would have called for enquiry under any system of civilized
government. When he made these remarks, he could assure the
house that he was not proceeding except for good evidence.
He wished to press the case on its attention, not so much
from his feelings as to what had passed, as from his
apprehension that it might possibly recur. In the year 1812,
the same in which the colony was established, a letter was
written, of which he had a copy in his possession, by Mr.
Macgillivrae, one of the company's agents, announcing the
delight which he felt in having some annoyance and
obstruction to Lord Selkirk, and stated that it would cause
much trouble and expense to drive Lord Selkirk from his
schemes of colonization, but that he must be driven out,
as his success would strike at the root of the North-West
company. This letter was inserted in the Inverness Journal,
and for the evident purpose of deterring the inhabitants of
the highlands of Scotland from emigrating to the other side
of the Atlantic. In a letter from another agent of the
North-Western company, an agent writing from the scene of
action, it was remarked with expressions of exultation,
that Lord Selkirk's colony had been "knocked on
the head". The letter went on to state, that another
similar establishment was in contemplation, but that
the example of Lord Selkirk's colony would probably
defeat and disappoint the views of its authors;
adding, at the same time, that if necessary, the
company were prepared to use main force in the
prosecution of their objects. He had in his hand
another important document written by Mr. Robert
Henry and dated 3rd June 1816, which stated that a
party of 50 men was about to start against the Red
River settlement, and that it was feared it would
be a serious business; and the writer added, that
some of the party would leave their bones there -
"If I return", said Mr. Henry, "I am determined
to quit the service of this rascally company
altogether". Another letter stated that the party
were too late, as the writer thanked God the
battle was over before they arrived. A letter
from another agent of the North-West company
a (Mr. M'Lelland [McLelland?]) observed, that
if the noble lord (Selkirk) was furious at what
had already taken place, how much more so must he
be to find the colony destroyed. The writer added,
"I believe a strong pull has already been made, and
I do not doubt but if Lord Selkirk continues stubborn,
that a pull altogether would be easily
accomplished". He would appeal to the House
whether after this, he had used too strong a term
in calling the attack of the North-Western
company foul and premeditated murder? It would be
asked what became of the settlers generally. A
great part of them had their lives spared on two
conditions: first, that they should surrender up
their property; and secondly, that they should
promise that they would leave the country, and
never return to it. The petitioner, Pritchard,
was not so fortunate as some of the others; he
was separated from his wife and family, and sent
as a prisoner to Fort William, whither also a
great part of the property taken from the Red
River company was conveyed. When the settlement was
destroyed, Lord Selkirk was at Montreal; and on
hearing that an attack was meditated, he prevailed
on a hundred men Meuron's Canadian regiment which
had been disbanded, to accompany him for the purpose
of protecting the settlers. His intention was, to go
by the nearest road, which would not have brought him
near Fort William, but before he had proceeded half way
he received intelligence that the settlement was
destroyed, that a great part of the property had been
taken to Fort William, and that many of the settlers
were there. He accordingly went thither himself, and
having had a conversation with Mr. Pritchard, and
ascertained that this was a foul conspiracy on the
part of the North-West company, he exercised that
authority with which, as a magistrate, he conceived
he was invested. What Lord Selkirk did 600 miles from
the place, and many months after the time of this
outrage, was an inquiry into which he would not enter
at present, nor would he follow those who might be
disposed to enter into that question. If ever there
was a case that called for strict and prompt inquiry,
this was such a case; and he hoped the secretary for
the colonial department would state why some of the
parties had not been brought to this country for trial.
He did believe, that at one time it was intended to
bring the authors of those atrocities and violence
to England under the statute of Henry 8th. What
prevented it?  If it was too much to expect that
they should be brought over to this country to be
tried, why had not a commission been sent to America
to try them, as had been done before in Scotland?
Why had not a commission of oyer and terminer been
granted, to prevent the case from lingering on in
the manner which was usual in the courts of America,
whose proceedings were certainly not likely to prevent
the recurrence of crimes? The first objection which he
had to the proceedings on this trial was, the great
delay which had taken place. Although all the witnesses
had been brought upwards of 100 miles at Lord Selkirk's
expense, and were supported at his expense, while they
remained at Quebec, yet the trial had been put off
repeatedly from term to term. His next objection to
this case being tried in America was, that all
trials in lower Canada must commence at Quebec, a
small town, the inhabitants of which were under the
influence of government, while in the present case
Montreal, which was very populous, and where impartial
and intelligent juries might be found, was a much
fitter place. Indeed, there never was a case which
demanded more than the trial should take place at
Montreal; for the greater part of the witnesses
speaking the French language only, it was most
desirable that the trial should come on where
that language was generally understood. It might
be said that this difficulty could be obviated
at Quebec by means of interpreters; but every
gentleman experienced in legal proceedings would
admit the inconvenience of that practice. There
was another point which he thought it material
to mention. The counsel for the Crown, according
to the practice of these courts, would not allow
any person, however interested in the trial, to
interfere in any manner; they would not permit
the counsel for Lord Selkirk to put a single
question to the witnesses. What would be the
feeling excited by such proceeding in this
country?  In the case of Lord Selkirk it was
peculiarly hard, he knew that his conduct was
the subject of general remark, and that his
character may be affected by the result of the
trial; but yet he was not allowed, either
directly or by counsel, to put a question to
any of the witnesses. So strongly did he feel
the injustice of this prohibition that he made
an application to the governor - general on the
subject, but to no affect. Sir J. Sherbroke, in
the answer which he returned to this application,
said, that as it was customary for the crown
officers to conduct every trial, they could not
allow Lord Selkirk's counsel to interfere, without
his (Sir J. Sherbroke's) permission, and he did
not think himself called on to allow a deviation
from the usual practice. The result was, as might
have been expected under such a system, that
the greatest of the criminals were acquitted.
Among these was one Cuthbert Grant, the principal
incendiary, and several others, of whose guilt no
man entertained a doubt. These persons then sailed
triumphantly home in the large boats of the
North-West company, for the purpose, no doubt of
giving a colour of truth to that infamous doctrine,
which it was attempted to impress on the natives,
that the North-West company had power to screen
anyone from punishment. George Campbell, another of
them, whose case was so bad that he could not be
bailed, had nevertheless got out of prison on a
certificate of bad health, signed by the gaoler!
If the conduct of the crown officers towards the
North-West company was culpable, still more
unjustifiable was the manner in which they acted
against the settlers. They included the petitioner,
Pritchard in the indictment, for no other purpose,
he firmly believed, than to prevent him from
appearing as a witness on the trial. He was put on
his trial, on two different occasions, for the alleged
murder of one of the half - Bred men who was killed
in the attack on the settlement at the Red River.
There was one part of the conduct of the attorney
- general for the colonial government which
particularly demanded investigation. When the
indictment was brought before the grand jury, he
insisted that he should remain with them during
the examination of the witnesses; and he actually
was closeted with the grand jury during three days.
The law of Canada was the same as the law of
England, and if the attorney - general there had
legally this power, the attorney - general in this
country must have the same. He now asked, had the
attorney - general in this country such power; did
he ever attempt to exercise it? It should also
be recollected, that at the time the attorney -
general of Canada did this, he was retained as
counsel for the North West company. Though witnesses
were brought a distance of three thousand miles at
the noble lord's sole expense, not one fourth of the
persons, against whom bills of indictment were found,
were yet tried.  What inference was to be drawn from
such conduct, but that the counsel for the crown were
hostile to Lord Selkirk's plan of colonization? He
would ask the secretary for the colonies, whether, in
all these proceedings, the crown officers in America
had acted agreeably to the instructions sent from
this country. Indeed he could not suppose that they would
presume to deviate from their instructions. On one of the
trials, a number of papers were handed to Lord Selkirk,
one of which was a copy of a dispatch from the colonial
office, dated February, 1817, directing a trial to be
instituted against Lord Selkirk immediately; not leaving
the conduct of the trial to the discretion of the crown
officers in America, but containing peremptory orders
as the manner in which his lordship was to be apprehended;
and the trial conducted, and above all, enjoining them not
to allow the prisoner to escape. It was a question, whether
the office was authorized to send such an order; in his
opinion it was not; and it seemed the jury thought so too,
for twice they acquitted Lord Selkirk. He should, however,
take another opportunity of ascertaining whether or not
the order was right. Application had been made to the
colonial department, so far back as the 1st of March, 1816,
by the agents of the Hudson's Bay company, to
define its limits, with the view of preventing those acts
of depredation, with which, from the beginning, that company
were threatened. - Had the colonial department performed
their duty, the massacre which was so much to be deplored,
and which did not take place for fourteen weeks subsequent
to that application, might have been prevented. He thought
he had made out of a case that would warrant him to move
for copies of the dispatches from the provincial government
in Canada to the government in this country; but he should
not press that motion at present: he should satisfy himself
with moving an address to his royal highness the Prince
Regent for copies of all official communications between
the secretary of state for the colonial department and the
provincial government of Upper and Lower Canada, respecting
the destruction of the settlement on Red River, and respecting
any legal proceedings thereon in the courts of Upper and Lower
Canada.  Mr. Ellice seconded the motion. He could assure the
hon. baronet that no one lamented more than he did the
atrocities which had taken place in North America, and
which were now the subject of discussion.  He had to regret
that the hon. baronet had not, with the candour which,
characterized other parts of his statement, averted to
the causes of those unfortunate transactions. The
hon. baronet had stated the proceedings of Lord Selkirk,
from the time at which he first went to America up to the
present time. Before the noble lord had entered on his plan
of colonization, he (Mr. Ellice) had the honour of being
acquainted with his views; and although he was aware that
colonization was his lordship's primary and principal
object, yet he must be pardoned for saying that it had
afterwards become connected with purposes of trade. The
noble lord was a considerable proprietor in the Hudson's
Bay company, and he could not help thinking, that if his
lordship's only object was colonization, he should not
have embarked on trade.  He had differed at first, as he
did still, from those who thought that great advantage
would result from this plan; but it was unnecessary for
him to trouble the House at present with the reason which
induced him to do so. He was a shareholder in the
Hudson's Bay company, as well as the hon. baronet
opposite; and when the plan of colonization was first
proposed he at a meeting of the proprietors entered his
protest against it. The hon. baronet had quoted the
opinions of eminent lawyers in favour of the right
which the company had, to make the grant of land to
Lord Selkirk; and he must say, that he also had taken
the best opinions that he could obtain: he had consulted
and applied to all the eminent lawyers, who had not been
consulted by the opposite party, and their opinion was
directly opposite to that which the advisors of the
hon. baronet had given. The opinion of the late attorney
general, now chief baron of exchequer in Scotland, was
that the company had no right to grant it to Lord Selkirk.
He had no doubt, that had the same information been laid
before the learned gentlemen whom, the hon. baronet had
consulted, their opinion would have been the same as Sir
S. Shepherd's. At an interview with Lord Selkirk, he
denied his right of possession in that country, and
give him notice that he would not respect those rights,
until a decision of a court of law was pronounced in
their support. Surely those considerations ought to have
induced the noble Lord to hesitate before, on a disputed
point, he hurried on proceedings which led to such a
lamentable result. If Lord Selkirk's claim was so well
founded as the hon. baronet supposed, why had not Lord
Selkirk appealed to a court of law? He had now only
stated the objections which he had urged against the
grant to Lord Selkirk long before any of the transactions
in question had taken place. It was not possible to suppose
human nature capable of such actions as the hon. baronet
had described, unless there had been great previous
provocations. The hon. baronet had read several letters
written by agents of the North-West company; he regretted
that those letters had been brought forward, and particularly
one of the letters of an hon. gentleman; but he would read,
in reply, a letter written by the noble earl, much earlier
than those transactions to a person going to establish a
trading post on the Red River. From the statement of the
hon. baronet, one might have supposed that the noble Lord
had not at all been connected with the proceedings; but his
lordship thus wrote-" You must give them (the Canadians)
solemn warning that the country belongs to the Hudson's Bay
company, and you will, as far as you have physical means,
prevent them from cutting timber or fishing, and treat all
who fish with nets as poachers; if they resist, they must
bear the consequences; but you are safe while you act in a
reasonable and proper manner ". The House would attend to
the recommendation to prevent these things, " so far as
physical means permitted ". It would be seen how far these
instructions were acted upon. In 1812, the colony was for
the first time established. In the next season they opposed
various obstructions to the fur trade. Mr. Cameron, the
North-West company's agent, found it necessary to use
the best means of self-defence in his power. He would hear
mention a particular act of Mr. Miles Macdonell, the
governor of the colony. He wrote to Mr. Cameron in these
terms :- " Take notice, I hereby give warning in the name
of the right hon. Thomas Earl of Selkirk that no provisions
are to be carried out of the territory of the colony ".
A proclomation was then sent forth by Mr. Miles M'Donnell
[McDonnell?], commanding the individuals, at one of the
settlements of the North-West company to depart from
thence, as Lord Selkirk claimed the territory, under a
grant from the Hudson's Bay company. This proclamation
was distributed over the whole country; and thus
individuals, who had been peacefully enjoying the
immunities which they derived under the Canadian
government, were directed to abandon their right.
The next extraordinary step taken by Mr. M'Donnell,
[McDonnell?] was as he had not, from particular
circumstances, the means of supporting the persons
of the Red River settlement, to order that the
provisions laid up in the settlement of the
North-West company, should be surrendered, on the
ground that they were the produce of the soil
belonging to Lord Selkirk. If the Canadians could
not carry provisions with them, they could neither
carry on trade that year, nor bring in the supplies
of next year. The first act of hostility, and which
took place in 1814 or 1815, was the seizure of
one of the posts of the North-West company, with 500
bags of wheat, weighing 1 cwt. each, by a body of
armed men sent for that purpose by governor Macdonell.
The winter of 1814, or spring of 1815, Mr. Macdonell
sent a company who actually seized 500 bags of wheat
weighing 1 cwt. each. In that post, the petitioner,
Pritchard, was the clerk, and basely allowed the
provisions to be seized. The hon. member would, if he
had been there and had had arms, have defended
himself to the utmost. Let the House see to what
those proceedings led. This was the first step of
violence, and hence all the succeeding steps could be
traced. Arrangements were made by the North-West
company to convey some provisions up the river. It
became evident, that if Lord Selkirk adopted such
regulations as had been stated, and could enforce them,
their trade was at an end. During the two succeeding
winters various conflicts took place.  Much violence
and much injury were committed. They were crimes, he
admitted; but the country was actually in a state of
civil war, and the house must, when they viewed the
actions, look to the feelings of irritation, which had
been mutually excited. He now came to that unfortunate
conflict in which governor Semple, who was, he believed,
an amiable man, and 17 associates, lost their lives.
Such an outrage could not have been permitted unless it
had been preceded by a very difficult train of circumstances
from what the hon. baronet had described. He would now state
some of the preceding occurrences. On the 17th March, 1817,
at night, the operations of the Hudson's Bay company for
obstructing the trade of the North-West company began.
He said the Hudson's bay company, for when the views and
interests of the company and of the noble earl were almost
joined, he could make no distinction between them. Mr. Cameron
was taken prisoner, and sent down to the bay. A regular
plan was formed, according to which a gun-boat was sent to
intercept the canoes carrying provisions. There were two
posts at the mouth of the Red River, on which the Canadians
depended in carrying on their trade. On the seventeenth of
March one of these posts was attacked; all persons found
in it were made prisoners, and the provisions
were seized. On the 20th the other post was taken, the
persons made prisoners, and the provisions seized. Both
posts were burnt and razed to the ground. Lieutenant Holt,
who conducted this affair wrote an account of his success
to Lord Selkirk, of the 14th of April, and proceeded towards
the only other post belonging to the North-West company on
the Red River. Mr. Alexander MacDonell, who commanded,
refused to surrender it. To prove that the country was in a
state of war, it was sufficient to state, that, in this case,
there was a regular capitulation. The country being thus at
open war, the aggressors being always the Hudson' bay
company and Lord Selkirk, it became necessary for the North
- West company to take measures to protect themselves from
entire destruction. Those measures had been disingenuously
described as having been adopted for the purpose of destroying
the Hudson's bay colony, and murdering major Semple. Never
was there a more foul and gross and malicious calumny. They
had no such object. Their sole purpose was self-defence.
He admitted that for that purpose they collected the half
breeds of Indians. The posts belonging to the North-West
company, by which their canoes had been furnished, with
provisions having been destroyed, it became necessary to
supply them by carts, and a party of half breed Indians
were sent under Mr. MacDonell for that purpose, with strict
orders to keep as much out of the Hudson's bay company's
fort as they could. Governor Semple, however, naturally
anxious for the fate of the colony, was on the look out,
and seeing those half breed Indians, and thinking probably
that their intention was to attack him, sailed out with
armed men in pursuit. In the irritated state of the parties
the result was not surprising; but he repeated that it was
in nowise an act  of premeditation. That distinct feelings
of hostility existed, in consequence of the steps that had
been taken, the hon. member avowed. When it was considered
that the party on the one side were Indians, and half breed
Indians, whom it was necessary to employ, it would be
understood that it was impossible to restrain them by any
ordinary discipline. He lamented the result. He admitted
that Indians were introduced into Fort William at the same
time, but this was in consequence of the destruction of the
posts. That this was no unnecessary precaution was evident,
since the noble Lord afterwards made no scruple of seizing
at Fort William 70,000L. or 80,000L. of property. He stated
these facts to show that it had not been a wanton and
unprovoked attack. Those whom the Indians met on their way
they made prisoners, to prevent them carrying distorted
reports; an instance of which had occurred in the case of
a half breed, who said, that they had knocked the colony
on the head. Lord Selkirk had himself instructed Mr. Henry
to bring Indians to prevent the North-West company from
trading from Montreal. He mentioned this in the very mode
of which he complained. The hon. member recollected to
have heard the petitioner asked, who had fired the first
shot, and his answer was, "I don't know". Lord Selkirk was,
therefore, not the injured party; on the contrary, he had
been uniformly the aggressor, and, wherever he was
personally concerned, the aggressor to an extent
unprecedented in the history of the country.
Lord Selkirk, at the time of governor Semple's death, was
at St. Mary's. He immediately proceeded thence to Fort
William, with 200 soldiers, and arrested all whom he
chose. He ought to have gone to York, which was not far
from St. Mary's, and obtained regular officers suppress
this "nest of murderers", as he termed them; but no, he
went himself, acting as a magistrate! he arrested all
present, many of whom he knew to be innocent, and sent
them away to Montreal, a distance of 1,500 miles: among
them he sent Mr. William MacGillivray, as respectable a
gentleman as any in that House, and one who had nothing
whatever to do with the transaction complained of. What
was the course then taken? Against Mr. William
MacGillivray a bill was never filed. But the noble earl
not only arrested those persons-he seized their property,
a part of which he applied to his own use. His agents
(for he could not believe it possible that the noble earl
himself would be guilty of such practices) kept a person
addicted to drinking in a state of perpetual intoxication,
until they practised upon and induced him to make a
fraudulent transfer of the property that had been seized.
The whole of the noble earl's proceedings had been most
unwarrantable. After having gained possession of Fort
William, he sent to the next post, which he compelled to
capitulate. He (Mr. E) had had a good deal of experience
in the colony, and he had no hesitation in saying, that
the complaint of the hon. baronet against the legal
authorities was the first that had been made. He allowed
that on the Ex Parte statements of the hon. baronet, and
unless satisfactory documents in contradiction of those
statements could be produced, the conduct of the two
judges in releasing Mr. Campbell was unaccountable;
although there appeared to be no ground for charging
them with intentional misconduct. With respect to the
attorney general of Upper Canada, it was but justice
to him to state, that as soon as he landed in
Canada, he returned retainers which had been given
him by the North-West company, as he found that they
would interfere with his duty in the extensive legal
proceedings which were on the point of being carried
on. All the persons, however, sent up by the Hudson's
bay company - all the justices, sheriffs and juries
were interested parties. Major Semple was the only
individual not in that condition. Mr. Macdonald was
appointed chief judge. When he (Mr. E.) heard that,
he predicted that the country would be the
scene of contests, although he certainly did not
anticipate the melancholy event that had occurred. He
would not trespass longer on the House. What he had
stated he had been at great pains to extract from
evidence on all sides; although he had not had the
advantage of which the noble earl had put himself in
possession, by seizing at Fort William, all the private
letters and papers, and by bribing a clerk to furnish
copies of others. It was impossible that things could
be allowed to get on in their present course. If Lord
Selkirk had a right to the property which he claimed,
in God's name let him have it; if he had not let it be
taken from him. He (Mr. E.) had been anxious to bring
the matter into a court of law. He could proceed only by
a scire facias or a quo warranto; but he understood
there was an objection on the part of the legal advisors
of the crown to submit the rights of the Crown to the
decision of a court of common law. Since the noble earl
had returned to England, he (Mr. E.) had had commenced
proceedings in Westminster Hall, but he was apprehensive
that he could not bring the rights in question to a
decision. Some mode of ascertaining them must, however,
be resorted to. The country was much indebted to
government for the appointment of the special commission
to inquire into the real situation of things. When that
report came to be presented, it would be seen if he had
overstated or misrepresented the facts, and he trusted
that it would be presented as soon as possible, that the
existing calumnies and misrepresentations might be
effectually removed.
Mr. Scarlett defended the conduct of Lord Selkirk from
the charge of violence, observing, that he was not in the
country at the time the act was committed by Mr. Macdonald;
and that as Mr. Macdonald himself had acted through
mistake, he ought not to have been indicted for a felony.
He then took a review of the Charter granted to the
Hudson's bay company, and contended for the validity of
that charter, according to the opinion he had originally
given when consulted as counsel on the subject. The colony
on the Red River was to have a certain jurisdiction - and,
if the proper boundary had been overstepped, it was
evidently through mistake. The grant to Lord Selkirk gave
him jurisdiction over certain territories, which were
enumerated, and concluded with the words, "et cetera";
which were very important in this case. He observed that
the great objection to the settlement of Lord Selkirk
seemed to be, that it was governed by laws, and had the
advantage of magistrates, instead of being in a condition,
perfectly lawless and ungovernable. As the intention
imputed to the noble lord, of making trade the object of
his establishment in that quarter, those who were
acquainted with his almost romantic views could easily
acquit him of such a design. Nor could the charge of
resisting the legal authorities be made out against him
- he had only acted in self-defence when he retired from
violence threatening even his life, against which, if he
had submitted, he could obtain no protection.
Mr. W. Smith said, that Lord Selkirk had he firmly believed
entered on this project with no other view but that of
establishing a colony, without intending to interfere
with any set of men. He apprised his majesty's government
- he apprised the colonial department - of his intention.
He heard no kind of objection from them; but from that hour
to the present, he was not informed by them of their
opinion, as to the legality and validity of the proceeding,
on which the prosperity of the speculation and the success
of the enterprise altogether depended. Lord Selkirk, from
a laudable purpose of establishing a colony in those parts,
and of protecting it, had suffered more in health, in
property, and even in character than any man alive who had
undertaken to execute a great enterprise. His sole object
was colonization, in the first instance, and not trade.
This was not a question between Lord Selkirk and any set
of individuals. The question was this, whether Canada, a
country much larger than England, and the soil of part of
which was equally fertile with that of England, should
remain an uncultivated waste, inhabited by savages and
half breeds, or be advantageously employed by industrious
men? The question was, whether opposition  should be
manifested against those who wished to dispossess the
animals of the chase, and to introduce a spirit of
civilization where savage life at present prevailed? Sir
A. MacKenzie, who had resided in Canada, who might be
considered the second founder of the North-West company,
in his work on the fur trade had described the situation
of those who applied themselves entirely to such a traffic.
He observed that it was less difficult to bring men back
from civilization to a state of savage life, than to
introduce the blessings of civilization amongst savages.
This fact he proved by a recurrence to the situation of the
half breed Indians, who followed the fur trade. The moment
their traffic was at an end, they spent the produce of it,
and then returned to the barbarous employments of the chase.
The same author gave a succinct account of the establishment
of the North-West company - in the course of which, it
appeared, considerable violence was made use of. It had been
asserted that no complaints had been made respecting the
administration of justice in Canada, but to his own knowledge
he could assert, that not three years had passed for the last
twenty years in which some complaint of that nature had not
been made. The violent character and conduct of the North-West
company were exemplified by a circumstance narrated
by Lieut. Hall, in his amusing travels in Canada, respecting
an attack made by their agents upon a party of honest
fishermen, who in no respect merited this outrage and who in
no degree interfered with those "unchartered monopolists".
He argued from various documents, that the grant made to
the earl of Selkirk could in no degree interfere with
the claims of the company, and that even this impression
was originally entertained by the agents of the company
themselves. Lord Selkirk was accused of having constituted
himself judge in his own cause; but let the conduct of a
man, named Norman McCleod, be examined, who acted in every
respect a magistrate, committing persons to prison, and
performing other acts of power, and then signed himself
"Agent to the North-West Company". Was such a conduct
to be permitted in him, and should Lord Selkirk, so much
above him in rank, and far above him, as far as the
suspicion of performing an illegal act was considered, be
charged with an improper exercise of authority, if he
subsequently seized upon persons who had been guilty of
the most atrocious proceedings? It appeared to him that
the neglect of the colonial department to all the
representations which had been made on behalf of either
party, was the cause of all the misfortunes that had
occurred.  Mr. Bennet called upon the hon. gentleman
opposite to give an answer to the speech of the hon.
baronet, which was one of the most able and argumentative
that had ever been delivered within the walls of the
parliament. The hon. member expressed his surprise at some
of the arguments of his hon. friend (Mr. Ellice), and defended
Mr. Pritchard, the petitioner, whom he described as one of the
most honest and honourable men that breathed. The question was
of great importance - whether we were to have peace in our
settlement, or such scenes of fraud and violence? He called
upon the hon. gentleman opposite to refute the serious charge
made against the law officers of Upper Canada, and he particularly
alluded to the trial of Mr. Macdonald, in 1816, in which the
conduct of these officers had been represented as extremely
culpable. If all the statements on this subject were true,
he was satisfied that impartial justice could not have been
administered. The hon. member who opened the debate had
asserted, that the governor in the Upper Province (Sir
Peregrine Maitland) had been guilty of a dereliction of his
duty. Of the facts of the case he (Mr. Bennet) knew but
little; but this he would say, that there did not exist on
the face of the earth, a more honest, virtuous, and amiable
character than this gentleman, whose life had been spent in
the sacrifice of his own personal comforts, for the indulgence
of all but himself. For no man was there so general an esteem,
and no man ever enjoyed the confidence of all classes more
than he did. He was possessed of a sound head and an excellent
heart, and would do his duty with the utmost scrupulousness.
He trusted that the stigma which had been thrown upon the law
officers of the Crown, in the colony in question, could be
satisfactorily refuted.
Mr. Goulburn said, he felt himself called upon to address a
few observations to the House in exculpation of the conduct
of government during the whole of this transaction. He had
reserved himself until that moment, because he wished to have
the advantage of hearing the sentiments of those hon. members
who felt an interest in the cause of Lord Selkirk on the one
hand and, the North-West company on the other. He was glad
that he had been induced to take this course, because he felt
himself now relieved from making any particular references to
the unfortunate disputes which had occurred between the two
contending parties, further than they appear to have influenced
the conduct of government. It was not for him to decide at the
present moment, whether the North-West company or the Hudson's
bay company had shown the greater degree of violence in these
transactions; nor was it his duty now to inquire, whether the
fur trade was a beneficial branch of commerce, or one which
ought to have been sacrificed to other interests. As to the
first point, the reports which would be laid before the House
would give ample information; and with respect to the latter,
any one who had read these reports attentively would be able
to determine the question. The principal charges which had been
made against his majesty's government were, either that it had
been evinced an undue partiality to one of the parties
concerned, or that it had been guilty of the crime (which in
his opinion, was of a much more aggravated nature) of not having
used every means in his power to prevent these outrages; and
after the disturbances had arisen, of not having done all in his
power to suppress them. For these accusations he believed he
should be able to satisfy the House that there was not the
slightest foundation; and in answer to the latter, he would
briefly state to the House the nature of the transaction. It
was unnecessary for him, for his present purposes, to detail
the motives by which Lord Selkirk was actuated in the first
scheme of his emigration; but he would take up the subject at
the time his lordship first made known to the colonial
department his intention of going to North America, and of
founding a settlement there. It had been very truly stated,
that his lordships intentions were communicated to the
department, but there was contained in that communication
no intimation whatever that the foundation of that settlement
rested on grounds which were calculated to excite alarm in the
minds of those who were already settled there. There was no
conception at that time that this scheme could in any manner
interfere with the then existing establishments, or that it
could tend to disturb the general tranquillity or happiness
of the natives of the country. In giving the encouragement which
the noble lord then received from government, it was offered
under the idea that Lord Selkirk would adopt the same course
that had been pursued with respect to emigration to the Gulf
of St. Lawrence. The noble lord in the year 1815 had
represented the necessity of planting a military force on
the settlement for the preservation of order and general
tranquillity. He (Mr. Goulburn) had no difficulty in saying,
that if a military force had been sent according to his
recommendation, at that time, and could have been there
maintained, there was every reason to believe that the
disturbances and disasters which were now so deeply lamented
would never have occurred. It was well known to hon.
gentlemen who had taken a part in this discussion that there
was no unwillingness on the part of government to furnish that
military aid. An instruction was immediately given to the
governor of Canada, to detach from the force under his command
a certain number of men for this purpose, provided it did not
interfere with other important arrangements. The reply made by
Sir Gordon Drummond on that occasion, at the end of the year
1815, stated the utter impossibility of fulfilling the
commands of government. The governor was then perfectly aware
of the state of parties in the settlement, and was satisfied
that a military force being placed there would have been of
great advantage, but it was found to be impracticable, and the
idea was of course abandoned. It had been made a ground of
complaint against the governor, that he had communicated his
sentiments on this point to the North-West company. It was
true that he had done so, But Sir Gordon Drummond felt the
necessity of apprising the company of the situation in which
it was placed, and he looked to it as a means of preventing
the impending disturbances. But in order to show the light
in which the conduct of the governor was at that time viewed,
he would read a letter written by the agents of Lord Selkirk.
In that letter was contained the following paragraph :- "We
think it a plan which can not be carried into effect, and we
see no other course to be pursued, than that so judiciously
adopted by Sir Gordon Drummond". About this time, or shortly
after, the news arrived that a great portion of the settlement
on the Red River had come down to the province: the reason
assigned for this step was, that the unfortunate individuals
were exposed to the dreadful peril of starvation. The course
then pursued by government was, that these persons, who had
travelled so large a tract of country, should be allowed to
remain where they were, to obtain that subsistence, which
elsewhere they were unable to procure. He now came to the
disastrous year of 1816, a year pregnant with events the most
distressing in their nature: it was marked by the storming of
forts, and battles succeeded by an open civil war throughout
the whole of the country in which the influence of these two
contending parties extended. The period at which these
transactions became known, was more distant than was generally
supposed. However upon the knowledge of these proceedings, the
governor-general of Canada saw that the state of affairs was
one of considerable alarm; but the military operations were
not the only evils with which government had to contend. The
individuals who conducted the war on the part of these two
establishments, held the office of civil magistrates, and
alternately laid down the sabre to fill the magisterial chair,
and to arrest one another. The course which government
pursued was, to revoke every commission of all justices of
the peace, and two well qualified gentlemen were appointed to
proceed into that part of the country, where these disputes
had arisen, and to collect all the evidence that could be
found regarding these disturbances. These gentlemen set out
in 1816, at a time when, inordinary cases, persons would be
unwilling to make excursions into these frozen regions; and
this was an answer to one charge which had been made - that
these commissioners would not wait for the evidence of Mr.
Pritchard, at Montreal. If they had not proceeded on the
journey, they would have been unable to accomplish the
purpose for which they set out; and as it was, they did not
gain their object. From Lake Superior, they returned into
the province, the work being only half completed. In the
ensuing year the commissioners again proceeded in the task,
and went into detailed examination of the whole question.
When the House had an opportunity of pursuing this detailed
report, it would be seen that it was executed with the
utmost impartiality. The report had been only received in
this country at the close of the last year, and the House
would therefore understand the reason why the measures of
government to remedy these evils had not been sooner
undertaken. To have proceeded to legislate, or to decide
without the report, would have been an act of absurdity,
and even of madness. It had been also a subject of
complaint, that government had taken measures against Lord
Selkirk personally, and had selected him as a victim. This
he could explain most satisfactorily. It was in the
beginning of the year 1817 that a warrant was issued against
his lordship. He resisted the warrant; and not content with
that, he imprisoned the officers who brought it. There was
therefore, but one course to pursue, viz. to put Lord
Selkirk upon his trial for this offence, and proceedings
were accordingly instituted. Immediately after the affair
of the Red River, to which he had referred, a party of the
North-West company were taken up, and an order was issued,
that these parties might be brought to England to be tried.
This, however, was not complied with, on account of the
inconvenience of transporting the witnesses across the
Atlantic, and the prisoners were accordingly ordered to be
tried at Montreal. Much delay arose in consequence of
various alterations made in the indictment, by the advice
of Lord Selkirk's counsel,and the attorney-general
found that there was such a temper and spirit existing
between the two parties, that it was impossible to
proceed to trial. Instead of releasing the prisoners, new
indictments were preferred, and at Quebec the trials came
on. It was but a few days since, that the report of these
trials had been received; and he was satisfied that when
hon. members had seen it, they would acquit all the law
officers of partiality, and it would be seen that they
acted in a manner strictly consistent with their judicial
characters. The result was, that many prisoners were
convicted, but the principal part were acquitted. The
hon. member next alluded to a document which had been
drawn up by Sir Peregrine Maitland being a refutation
of the charges made against him, and to a letter of
Lord Selkirk respecting this affair, expressive of his
approbation of the conduct of the commissioners
appointed by the governor of Canada. He was fully
satisfied, that a perusal of these documents would
satisfy the House of the injustice of these gross and
calumnious charges. As to the opinions of the law officers
of the Crown here not having been taken, he should observe,
that they could be of no avail, as the cause upon which
they might have been taken was pending in a court of
justice. With Lord Selkirk they could be of no value;
for he might have said, if they were against his
proceedings, that he had legal opinions of equally high
authority. It was a decision by one of the law courts,
either in this country or in Canada, which alone could
have settled the point of dispute. As to any decision
being come to by the privy council here, it was impossible
that such a decision could be made until all the evidence
upon the subject had reached this country. The act of the
House of Representatives of Canada had been mentioned;
and it seemed that blame was attached to Sir Peregrine
Maitland for his conduct with respect to it. He could
assure the House, that the conduct of that governor had
been most strictly just and impartial. The act was in the
House the year before it was passed, and it was only
prevented from being carried into a law by the hasty
prorogation of the assembly. It could not, therefore,
be called a party measure, when passed early in the next
session. The act had only arrived in this country within
the last week, and might be put into the hands of any
member who thought fit; but he submitted whether, until
it had been laid before the King in council, who had yet
to decide whether it should be law or not, whether it
could properly be brought under the discussion of
Parliament. On these grounds he should oppose the motion
for the production of the opinions of the law officers,
and for the act passed in Canada. On the two other
motions he should propose amendments, founded on the view
which he had taken of those motions. The hon. member
concluded by moving to leave out from the word "Copies"
to the end of the question, order to add the words, "or
Extracts of the Official Communications which may have
taken place between the Secretary of State and the
Provincial Government of Upper or Lower Canada, relative
to the destruction of the settlement on the Red River,
to any legal proceedings thereon in the courts of Upper
or Lower Canada, or to any complaints made of those
proceedings by Lord Selkirk, or the agents of the
Hudson's bay or the North-West companies", instead
thereof.
After a short reply from Sir J. Montgomery, the motion,
as amended, was agreed to.