FRENCH RIVALRY.
The golden lilies in danger--"To arrest Radisson"--The
land called "Unknown"--A chain of claim--Imaginary
pretensions--Chevalier de Troyes--The brave Lemoynes--Hudson Bay
forts captured--A litigious governor--Laugh at treaties--The glory
of France--Enormous claims--Consequential damages.
The two great nations which were seeking supremacy in North America came
into collision all too soon on the shores of Hudson Bay. Along the shore
of the Atlantic, England claimed New England and much of the coast to
the southward. France was equally bent on holding New France and Acadia.
Now that England had begun to occupy Hudson Bay, France was alarmed, for
the enemy would be on her northern as well as on her southern border. No
doubt, too, France feared that her great rival would soon seek to drive
her golden lilies back to the Old World, for New France would be a wedge
between the northern and southern possessions of England in the New
World.
The movement leading to the first voyage to Hudson Bay by Gillam and his
company was carefully watched by the French Government. In February,
1668, at which time Gillam's expedition had not yet sailed, the Marquis
de Denonville, Governor of Canada, appointed an officer to go in search
of the most advantageous posts and occupy the shores of the Baie du Nord
and the embouchures of the rivers that enter therein. Among other things
the governor gave orders "to arrest especially the said Radisson and his
adherents wherever they may be found."
Intendant Talon, in 1670, sent home word to M. Colbert that ships had
been seen near Hudson Bay, and that it was likely that they were
English, and were "under the guidance of a man des Grozeliers, formerly
an inhabitant of Canada."
The alarm caused the French by the movements of the English adventurers
was no doubt increased by the belief that Hudson Bay was included in
French territory. The question of what constituted ownership or priority
of claim was at this time a very difficult one among the nations.
Whether mere discovery or temporary occupation could give the right of
ownership was much questioned. Colonization would certainly be admitted
to do so, provided there had been founded "certain establishments." But
the claim of France upon Hudson Bay would appear to have been on the
mere ground of the Hudson Bay region being contiguous or neighbouring
territory to that held by the French.
The first claim made by France was under the commission, as Viceroy to
Canada, given in 1540 by the French King to Sieur de Roberval, which no
doubt covered the region about Hudson Bay, though not specifying it. In
1598 Lescarbot states that the commission given to De La Roche contained
the following: "New France has for its boundaries on the west the
Pacific Ocean within the Tropic of Cancer; on the south the islands of
the Atlantic towards Cuba and Hispaniola; on the east, the Northern Sea
which washes its shores, embracing in the north the land called Unknown
toward the Frozen Sea, up to the Arctic Pole."
The sturdy common sense of Anglo-Saxon England refused to be bound by
the contention that a region admittedly "Unknown" could be held on a
mere formal claim.
The English pointed out that one of their expeditions under Henry Hudson
in 1610 had actually discovered the Bay and given it its name; that Sir
Thomas Button immediately thereafter had visited the west side of the
Bay and given it the name of New Wales; that Captain James had, about a
score of years after Hudson, gone to the part of the Bay which continued
to bear his name, and that Captain Fox had in the same year reached
the west side of the Bay. This claim of discovery was opposed to the
fanciful claims made by France. The strength of the English contention,
now enforced by actual occupation and the erection of Charles Fort,
made it necessary to obtain some new basis of objection to the claim of
England.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that a deliberate effort was
made to invent some ground of prior discovery in order to meet the
visible argument of a fort now occupied by the English. M. de la
Potherie, historian of New France, made the assertion that Radisson and
Groseilliers had crossed from Lake Superior to the Baie du Nord (Hudson
Bay). It is true, as we have seen, that Oldmixon, the British writer
of a generation or two later, states the same thing. This claim is,
however, completely met by the statement made by Radisson of his third
voyage that they heard only from the Indians on Lake Superior of the
Northern Bay, but had not crossed to it by land. We have disposed of
the matter of his fourth voyage. The same historian also puts forward
what seems to be pure myth, that one Jean Bourdon, a Frenchman, entered
the Bay in 1656 and engaged in trade. It was stated also that a priest,
William Couture, sent by Governor D'Avaugour of New France, had in
1663 made a missionary establishment on the Bay. These are unconfirmed
statements, having no details, and are suspicious in their time of
origination. The Hudson's Bay Company's answer states that Bourdon's
voyage was to another part of Canada, going only to 53° N., and not
to the Bay at all. Though entirely unsupported, these claims were
reiterated as late as 1857 by Hon. Joseph Cauchon in his case on behalf
of Canada _v._ Hudson's Bay Company. M. Jeremie, who was Governor of the
French forts in Hudson Bay in 1713, makes the statement that Radisson
and Groseilliers had visited the Bay overland, for which there is no
warrant, but the Governor does not speak of Bourdon or Couture. This
contradiction of De la Potherie's claim is surely sufficient proof
that there is no ground for credence of the stories, which are purely
apocryphal. It is but just to state, however, that the original claim of
Roberval and De la Roche had some weight in the negotiations which took
place between the French and English Governments over this matter.
M. Colbert, the energetic Prime Minister of France, at any rate made up
his mind that the English must be excluded from Hudson Bay. Furthermore,
the fur trade of Canada was beginning to feel very decidedly the
influence of the English traders in turning the trade to their factories
on Hudson Bay. The French Prime Minister, in 1678, sent word to
Duchesnau, the Intendant of Canada, to dispute the right of the English
to erect factories on Hudson Bay. Radisson and Groseilliers, as we have
seen, had before this time deserted the service of England and returned
to that of France. With the approval of the French Government, these
facile agents sailed to Canada and began the organization, in 1681, of
a new association, to be known as "The Northern Company." Fitted out
with two small barks, _Le St. Pierre_ and _La Ste. Anne_, in 1682, the
adventurers, with their companions, appeared before Charles Fort, which
Groseilliers had helped to build, but do not seem to have made any
hostile demonstration against it. Passing away to the west side of the
Bay, these shrewd explorers entered the River Ste. Therese (the Hayes
River of to-day) and there erected an establishment, which they called
Fort Bourbon.
This was really one of the best trading points on the Bay. Some dispute
as to even the occupancy of this point took place, but it would seem
as if Radisson and Groseilliers had the priority of a few months over
the English party that came to establish a fort at the mouth of the
adjoining River Nelson. The two adventurers, Radisson and Groseilliers,
in the following year came, as we have seen, with their ship-load of
peltries to Canada, and it is charged that they attempted to unload
a part of their cargo of furs before reaching Quebec. This led to a
quarrel between them and the Northern Company, and the adroit fur
traders again left the service of France to find their way back to
England. We have already seen how completely these two Frenchmen, in
the year 1684, took advantage of their own country at Fort Bourbon and
turned over the furs to the Hudson's Bay Company.
The sense of injury produced on the minds of the French by the treachery
of these adventurers stirred the authorities up to attack the posts in
Hudson Bay. Governor Denonville now came heartily to the aid of the
Northern Company, and commissioned Chevalier de Troyes to organize an
overland expedition from Quebec to Hudson Bay. The love of adventure
was strong in the breasts of the young French _noblesse_ in Canada.
Four brothers of the family Le Moyne had become known for their deeds
of valour along the English frontier. Leader among the valorous
French-Canadians was Le Moyne D'Iberville, who, though but twenty-four
years of age, had already performed prodigies of daring. Maricourt, his
brother, was another fiery spirit, who was known to the Iroquois by a
name signifying "the little bird which is always in motion." Another
leader was Ste. Helene. With a party of chosen men these intrepid
spirits left the St. Lawrence in March, 1685, and threaded the streams
of the Laurentian range to the shore of Hudson Bay.
[Illustration: LE MOYNE D'IBERVILLE.]
After nearly three months of the most dangerous and exciting adventures,
the party reached their destination. The officers and men of the
Hudson's Bay Company's service were chiefly civilians unaccustomed
to war, and were greatly surprised by the sudden appearance upon the
Bay of their doughty antagonists. At the mouth of the Moose River one
of the Hudson's Bay Company forts was situated, and here the first
attack was made. It was a fort of considerable importance, having four
bastions, and was manned by fourteen guns. It, however, fell before the
fierce assault of the forest rangers. The chief offence in the eyes of
the French was Charles Fort on the Rupert River, that being the first
constructed by the English Company. This was also captured and its
fortifications thrown down. At the same time that the main body were
attacking Charles Fort, the brothers Le Moyne, with a handful of picked
men, stealthily approached in two canoes one of the Company's vessels in
the Bay and succeeded in taking it.
The largest fort on the Bay was that in the marshy region on Albany
River. It was substantially built with four bastions and was provided
with forty-three guns. The rapidity of movement and military skill of
the French expedition completely paralyzed the Hudson's Bay Company
officials and men. Governor Sargeant, though having in Albany Fort furs
to the value of 50,000 crowns, after a slight resistance surrendered
without the honours of war. The Hudson's Bay Company employés were
given permission to return to England and in the meantime the Governor
and his attendants were taken to Charlton Island and the rest of the
prisoners to Moose Fort. D'Iberville afterwards took the prisoners to
France, whence they came back to England.
A short time after this the Company showed its disapproval of Governor
Sargeant's course in surrendering Fort Albany so readily. Thinking they
could mark their disapprobation more strongly, they brought an action
against Governor Sargeant in the courts to recover 20,000_l._ After
the suit had gone some distance, they agreed to refer the matter to
arbitration, and the case was ended by the Company having to pay to
the Governor 350_l._ The affair, being a family quarrel, caused some
amusement to the public.
The only place of importance now remaining to the English on Hudson Bay
was Port Nelson, which was near the French Fort Bourbon. D'Iberville,
utilizing the vessel he had captured on the Bay, went back to Quebec in
the autumn of 1687 with the rich booty of furs taken at the different
points.
These events having taken place at a time when the two countries, France
and England, were nominally at peace, negotiations took place between
the two Powers.
Late in the year 1686 a treaty of neutrality was signed, and it was
hoped that peace would ensue on Hudson Bay. This does not seem to have
been the case, however, and both parties blame each other for not
observing the terms of the Act of Pacification. D'Iberville defended
Albany Fort from a British attack in 1689, departed in that year for
Quebec with a ship-load of furs, and returned to Hudson Bay in the
following year. During the war which grew out of the Revolution, Albany
Fort changed hands again to the English, and was afterwards retaken
by the French, after which a strong English force (1692) repossessed
themselves of it. For some time English supremacy was maintained on the
Bay, but the French merely waited their time to attack Fort Bourbon,
which they regarded as in a special sense their own. In 1694 D'Iberville
visited the Bay, besieged and took Fort Bourbon, and reduced the place
with his two frigates. His brother De Chateauguay was killed during the
siege.
In 1697 the Bay again fell into English hands, and D'Iberville was
put in command of a squadron sent out for him from France, and with
this he sailed for Hudson Bay. The expedition brought unending glory to
France and the young commander. Though one of his warships was crushed
in the ice in the Hudson Straits and his remaining vessels could nowhere
be seen when he reached the open waters of the Bay, yet he bravely
sailed to Port Nelson, purposing to invest it in his one ship, the
_Pelican_. Arrived at his station, he observed that he was shut in on
the rear by three English men-of-war. His condition was desperate; he
had not his full complement of men, and some of those on board were
sick. His vessel had but fifty guns; the English vessels carried among
them 124. The English vessels, the _Hampshire_, the _Dering_, and the
_Hudson's Bay_, all opened fire upon him. During a hot engagement, a
well-aimed broadside from the _Pelican_ sank the _Hampshire_ with all
her sails flying, and everything on board was lost; the _Hudson's Bay_
surrendered unconditionally, and the _Dering_ succeeded in making her
escape. After this naval duel D'Iberville's missing vessels appeared,
and the commander, landing a sufficient number of men, invested and took
Port Nelson. The whole of the Hudson Bay territory thus came into the
possession of the French. The matter has always, however, been looked at
in the light of the brilliant achievement of this scion of the Le Moynes.
Few careers have had the uninterrupted success of that of Pierre Le
Moyne D'Iberville, although this fortune reached its climax in the
exploit in Hudson Bay. Nine years afterwards the brilliant soldier
died of yellow fever at Havana, after he had done his best in a
colonization enterprise to the mouth of the Mississippi which was
none too successful. Though the treaty of Ryswick, negotiated in this
year of D'Iberville's triumphs, brought for the time the cessation of
hostilities, yet nearly fifteen years of rivalry, and for much of the
time active warfare, left their serious traces on Hudson's Bay Company
affairs. A perusal of the minutes of the Hudson's Bay Company during
this period gives occasional glimpses of the state of war prevailing,
although it must be admitted not so vivid a picture as might have been
expected. As was quite natural, the details of attacks, defences,
surrenders, and parleys come to us from French sources rather than
from the Company's books. That the French accounts are correct is fully
substantiated by the memorials presented by the Company to the British
Government, asking for recompense for losses sustained.
In 1687 a petition was prepared by the Hudson's Bay Company, and a copy
of it is found in one of the letter-books of the Company. This deals
to some extent with the contention of the French king, which had been
lodged with the British Government, claiming priority of ownership of
the regions about Hudson Bay. The arguments advanced are chiefly those
to which we have already referred. The claim for compensation made upon
the British Government by the Company is a revelation of how seriously
the French rivalry had interfered with the progress of the fur trade.
After still more serious conflict had taken place in the Bay, and the
Company had come to be apprehensive for its very existence, another
petition was laid before His Majesty William III., in 1694. This
petition, which also contained the main facts of the claim of 1687, is
so important that we give some of the details of it. It is proper to
state, however, that a part of the demand is made up of what has since
been known as "consequential damages," and that in consequence the
matter lingered on for at least two decades.
The damages claimed were:--
1682. Captain Gillam and cargo on _Prince Rupert_. £ _s._ _d._
(Captain and a number of men, cargo, and
ship all lost in hostilities.) Governor
Bridgar and men seized and carried to
Quebec Moderate damages 25,000 0 0
September, 1684. French with two ships built a
small house and interrupted Indian trade
Damages 10,000 0 0
1685. French took _Perpetuana_ and cargo to Quebec.
Damages 5,000 0 0
For ship, master, and men Damages 1,255 16 3
1686. French destroyed three of Company's ships at
bottom of Bay, and also three ships' stores,
etc., and took 50,000 beaver skins, and
turned out to sea a number of His Majesty's
subjects 50,000 0 0
1682-6. Five years' losses about Forts (10,000
beaver skins yearly) 20,000 0 0
1688. Company's ships _Churchill_ and _Young_
seized by French 10,000 0 0
1692. Company sent out expedition to retake Forts,
which cost them 20,000 0 0
1686-93. French possessed bottom of the Bay for
seven years. Loss, 10,000_l._ a year 70,000 0 0
Damages 20,000 0 0
----------------
Total damages claimed £211,255 16 3
================