THE BLUE-BOOK OF 1819 AND THE NORTH-WEST TRIALS.
British law disgraced--Governor Sherbrooke's distress--A
Commission decided on--Few unbiassed Canadians--Colonel Coltman
chosen--Over ice and snow--Alarming rumours--The Prince
Regent's order--Coltman at Red River--The Earl submissive--The
Commissioner's report admirable--The celebrated Reinhart
case--Disturbing lawsuits--Justice perverted--A store-house of
facts--Sympathy of Sir Walter Scott--Lord Selkirk's death--Tomb at
Orthes, in France.
The state of things in Rupert's Land in 1816 was a disgrace to British
institutions. That subjects of the realm, divided into two parties,
should be virtually carrying on war against each other on British soil,
was simply intolerable. Not only was force being used, but warrants were
being issued and the forms of law employed on both sides to carry out
the selfish ends of each party. An impartial historian cannot but say
that both parties were chargeable with grievous wrong.
Sir John Coape Sherbrooke, Governor-General of Canada, felt very keenly
the shameful situation, and yet the difficulties of transport and the
remote distance of the interior where the conflict was taking place made
interference almost impossible. He was in constant communication with
Lord Bathurst, the Imperial Colonial Secretary.
Governor Sherbrooke's difficulties were, however, more than those of
distance. The influence of the North-West Company in Canada was supreme,
and public sentiment simply reflected the views of the traders. The plan
of sending a commission to the interior to stop hostilities and examine
the conflicting statements which were constantly coming to the Governor,
seemed the most feasible; but with his sense of British fair-play,
Governor Sherbrooke knew he could find no one suitable to recommend.
At last, driven to take some action, Sir John named Mr. W. B. Coltman,
a merchant of Quebec and a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Militia, a man
accustomed to Government matters, and one who bore a good reputation for
fairness and justice. With this Commissioner, who did not enter on his
task with much alacrity, was associated Major Fletcher, a man of good
legal qualifications.
The Commissioners were instructed to proceed immediately to the
North-West. They were invested with the power of magistrates, and were
authorized to make a thorough investigation into the troubles which were
disturbing the country. "You are particularly," say the instructions,
"to apply yourselves to mediate between the contending parties in the
aforesaid territories; to remove, as far as possible, all causes of
dissension between them; to take all legal measures to prevent the
recurrence of those violences which have already so unhappily disturbed
the public peace; and generally to enforce and establish, within the
territory where you shall be, the influence and authority of the laws."
Various accidents prevented the Commissioners from leaving for the
Indian country as soon as had been expected. They did not reach York
(Toronto) till November 23rd, and on their arriving on the shores of
Lake Huron they found the lake frozen over and impassable. They could
do nothing themselves other than return to York, but they succeeded in
fitting out an expedition under North-Western auspices to find its way
over the ice and snow to Fort William, carrying the revocation of all
the commissions of magistrates west of Sault Ste. Marie and the news of
the new appointments in their stead. Reports during the winter continued
to be of a disquieting kind, and as the spring drew nigh, preparations
were made for sending up the Commissioners with a small armed force.
The gravity of the situation may be judged from the steps taken
by the Imperial Government and the instructions sent out by the
authority of George, the Prince Regent, to Governor Sherbrooke to
issue a proclamation in his name calling on all parties to desist from
hostilities, and requiring all military officers or men employed by any
of the parties to immediately retire from such service. All property,
including forts or trading stations, was to be immediately restored to
the rightful owners, and any impediment or blockade preventing transport
to be at once removed.
It is worthy of note that the proclamation and instructions given had
the desired effect. Coltman and his fellow Commissioner left in May for
the field of their operations, accompanied by forty men of the 37th
Regiment as a body-guard. On arriving at Sault Ste. Marie, Commissioner
Coltman, after waiting two or three weeks, hastened on to Fort William,
leaving Fletcher and the troops to follow him. On July 2nd he wrote from
the mouth of the River Winnipeg, stating that his presence had no doubt
tended to preserve peace in the North-West, and that in two days he
would see Lord Selkirk in his own Fort Douglas at Red River.
Three days after the despatch of this letter, Commissioner Coltman
arrived at Red River. He immediately grappled with the difficulties and
met them with much success. The news of Lord Selkirk's actions had all
arrived at Montreal through the North-West sources, so that both in
Quebec and London a strong prejudice had sprung up against his Lordship.
Colonel Coltman found, however, that Lord Selkirk had been much
misrepresented. The illegal seizures he had made at Fort William were
dictated only by prudence in dealing with what he considered a daring
and treacherous enemy. He had submitted to the ordinance recalling
magistrates' commissions immediately on receiving it. Colonel Coltman
was so impressed with Lord Selkirk's reasonableness and good faith that
he recommended that the legal charges made against him should not be
proceeded with.
Colonel Coltman then started on his return journey, and wrote that
he had stopped at the mouth of the Winnipeg River for the purpose of
investigating the conspiracy, in which he states he fears the North-West
Company had been implicated, to destroy the Selkirk settlement. The
energetic Commissioner returned to Quebec in November of that year.
Governor Sherbrooke had the satisfaction of reporting to Lord Bathurst
the return of Mr. Coltman from his mission to the Indian territories,
and "that the general result of his exertions had been so far
successful, that he had restored a degree of tranquillity there which
promises to continue during the winter."
Colonel Coltman's report, of about one hundred folio pages, is an
admirable one. His summary of the causes and events of the great
struggle between the Companies is well arranged and clearly stated. The
writer, in an earlier work, strongly took up Lord Selkirk's view of
the case, and criticised Coltman. Subsequent investigations and calmer
reflection have led him to the conclusion that while Lord Selkirk was in
the right and exhibited a high and noble character, yet the provoking
circumstances came from both directions, and Colonel Coltman's account
seems fairly impartial.
The cessation of hostilities brought about by the influence of Colonel
Coltman did not, however, bring a state of peace. The conflict was
transferred to the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada, these having been
given power some time before by the Imperial Parliament to deal with
cases in the Indian territories.
A _cause célèbre_ was that of the trial of Charles Reinhart, an employé
of the North-West Company, who had been a sergeant in the disbanded
De Meuron Regiment. Having gone to the North-West, he was during the
troubles given charge of a Hudson's Bay Company official named Owen
Keveny, against whom it was urged that he had maltreated a servant of
the North-West Company. In bringing Keveny down from Lake Winnipeg to
Rat Portage, it was brought against Reinhart that at a place called the
Falls of the River Winnipeg, he had brutally killed the prisoner under
his charge. While Lord Selkirk was at Fort William, Reinhart arrived
at that point and made a voluntary confession before his Lordship as
a magistrate. This case was afterwards tried at Quebec and gave rise
to an argument as to the jurisdiction of the Court, viz. whether the
point where the murder occurred on the River Winnipeg was in Upper
Canada, Lower Canada, or the Indian territories. Though Reinhart was
found guilty, sentence was not carried out, probably on account of the
uncertainty of jurisdiction. The Reinhart case became an important
precedent in settling the boundary line of Upper Canada, and also in
dealing with the troubles arising out of the Riel rebellion of 1869.
In the year after Colonel Coltman's return, numerous cases were referred
to the Courts, all these arising out of the violence at Red River.
Colonel Coltman had bound Lord Selkirk, though only accused of an
offence amounting to a misdemeanour, in the large sum of 6,000_l._ and
under two sureties of 3,000_l._ each--in all 12,000_l._ Mr. Gale, Lord
Selkirk's legal adviser, called attention to the illegality of this
proceeding, but all to no effect.
After Lord Selkirk had settled up his affairs with his colonists, he
journeyed south from the Red River to St. Louis in the Western States,
and then went eastward to Albany in New York, whence he appeared in
Sandwich in Upper Canada, the circuit town where information had been
laid. Here he found four accusations made against him by the North-West
Company. These were: (1) Having stolen eighty-three muskets at Fort
William; (2) Having riotously entered Fort William, August 13th; (3)
Assault and false imprisonment of Deputy-Sheriff Smith; (4) Resistance
to legal warrant.
On these matters being taken up, the first charge was so contradictory
that the magistrates dismissed it; but the other three could not be
dealt with on account of the absence of witnesses, and so bail was
accepted from Lord Selkirk of 350_l._ for his appearance. When Lord
Selkirk presented himself at Montreal to answer to the charges for which
Colonel Coltman's heavy bail had bound him, the Court admitted it had no
jurisdiction, but with singular high-handedness bound Lord Selkirk to
appear in Upper Canada under the same bail.
In Montreal in May, 1818, an action was brought before Chief Justice
Monk and Justice Bowen against Colin Robertson and four others, charging
them with riotously destroying Fort Gibraltar, the Nor'-Wester fort.
A number of witnesses were called, including Miles Macdonell, John
Pritchard, Auguste Cadot, and others. A verdict of not guilty was
rendered.
In September of the same year a charge was laid against Lord Selkirk
and others of a conspiracy to ruin the trade of the North-West Company.
This was before the celebrated Chief Justice Powell. The grand jury
refused to give the Chief Justice an answer in the case. The Court was
summarily adjourned, and legislation was introduced at the next meeting
of the Legislature of Upper Canada to remedy defects in the Act in order
that the case might be tried. Afterward the cases were taken up in York,
and Deputy-Sheriff Smith was given a verdict against Lord Selkirk for
500_l._, and McKenzie, a North-West partner, a verdict of 1,500_l._ for
false imprisonment at Fort William. The general impression has always
prevailed there that the whole procedure in these cases against Lord
Selkirk was high-handed and unjust, though it is quite possible that
Lord Selkirk had exceeded his powers in the troubled state of affairs at
Fort William.
On his Lordship's side charges were also brought in October, 1818. In
the full Court Chief Justice Powell and Justices Campbell and Boulter
presided. The most notable of these cases was against Cuthbert Grant,
Boucher, and sixteen others as either principals or accessories in the
murder of Robert Semple on June 19th, 1816. A few days later, in the
same month, a slightly different charge was brought against six of the
North-West partners in connection with the murder of Governor Semple.
Upwards of three hundred pages of evidence gave a minute and complete
account of the affair of Seven Oaks and of the whole conflict as found
in a volume of Canadian trials. In these two cases a verdict of not
guilty was also rendered.
Two other trials, one by Lord Selkirk's party against Paul Brown for
robbery of a blanket and a gun, and the other against John Cooper
and Hugh Bannerman for stealing a cannon in a dwelling-house of Lord
Selkirk, were also carried through, with in both cases a verdict of not
guilty. The evidence in these cases was printed by both parties, with
foot-notes, giving a colour to each side concerned of a more favourable
kind.
So much for this most disheartening controversy. It would be idle to
say that Lord Selkirk was faultless; but as we dispassionately read
the accounts of the trials, and consider that while Lord Selkirk was
friendless in Canada, the North-West Company had enormous influence, we
cannot resist the conclusion that advantage was taken of his Lordship,
and that justice was not done. It is true that, in the majority of
cases, the conclusion was reached that it was impossible to precisely
place the blame on either side; but we cannot be surprised that Lord
Selkirk, harassed and discouraged by the difficulties of his colony and
his treatment in the courts of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, should
write as he did in October, 1818, to the Duke of Richmond, the new
Governor-General of Canada:--
"To contend alone and unsupported, not only against a powerful
association of individuals, but also against all those whose official
duty it should have been to arrest them in the prosecution of their
crimes, was at the best an arduous task; and, however confident one
might be of the intrinsic strength of his cause, it was impossible to
feel a very sanguine expectation that this alone would be sufficient to
bear him up against the swollen tide of corruption which threatened to
overwhelm him. He knew that in persevering under existing circumstances
he must necessarily submit to a heavy sacrifice of personal comfort,
incur an expense of ruinous amount, and possibly render himself the
object of harassing and relentless persecution."
Though Lord Selkirk crossed the Atlantic in 1818, yet the sounds of the
judicial battle through which he had passed were still in his ears. In
June his friend, Sir James Montgomery, brought the matter before the
British House of Commons, moving for all the official papers in the
case. The motion was carried, and the Blue Book containing this matter
is a store-house where we may find the chief facts of this long and
heart-breaking struggle recorded.
In June, 1818, we find in a copy of a letter in the possession of the
writer, written by Sir Walter Scott, a reference to the very poor health
of his Lordship. Worn out and heart-broken by his trials, Lord Selkirk
did not rally, but in the course of a few months died at Pau, in the
South of France, April, 1820. His Countess and daughters had accompanied
him to Montreal on his Canadian visit, and they were now with him to
soothe his dying hours and to see him laid to rest in the Protestant
cemetery of Orthes.
Though he was engaged in a difficult undertaking in seeking so early
in the century to establish a colony on the Red River, and though it
has been common to represent him as being half a century before his
time, yet we cannot resist the conclusion that he was an honourable,
patriotic, and far-seeing man, and that the burden of right in this
grand conflict was on his side.