EN Ex LIBRIS ! *\ UNIVERSITATIS oy ALBERTENSIS
Ralph B. Young (MBA, 1973) Western Canadian Collection
"To the future students and researchers who share an appreciation for our proud history and heritage”
THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
Louis Rien
THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA A History of the Riel Rebellions
By GEORGE F. G. STANLEY, D.Phil.
With Maps and Illustrations
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. LONDON - NEW YORK + TORONTO
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. LTD. 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, £.C.4 6 OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, CALCUTTA 53 NICOL ROAD, BOMBAY 356A MOUNT ROAD, MADRAS
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO, 114 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 221 EAST 20TH STREET, CHICAGO 88 TREMONT STREET, BOSTON
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 215 VICIORIA STREET, TORONTO
First published June, 1936
Printed in Great Britain
In piam memoriam JOHANNIS HENRICI STANLEY patris mei qui Canadac suae amantissimus ut studio pari annales eius evolverem me stimulavit hunc librum dedico.
PREFACE
THE Riel Rebellions were the most dramatic episodes in the history of Western Canada. Their historical significance has, however, been distorted and even lost sight of in the political, racial and religious controversy which their events engendered. Many writers, steeped in the immediacy of the events, have read into the conflict of the half-breeds and Indians with the Canadians in 1869-70 and 1885, the prejudices of Old Canada; others, developing this theme, have regarded the valleys of the Red and the Saskatchewan rivers as the western battle ground of the traditional hostilities of French Catholic Quebec and English Protestant Ontario. I feel that the significance of those troubles which marked the early history of Western Canada is to be found rather in their connexion with the general history of the frontier than with the ethnic relationships of Quebec and Ontario. Both the Manitoba insurrection and the Saskatchewan rebellion were the manifestation in Western Canada of the problem of the frontier, namely the clash between primitive and civilized peoples. In all parts of the world, in South Africa, New Zealand and North America, the penetration of white settlement into territorics inhabited by native peoples has led to friction and wars ; Canadian expansion into the North-West led to a similar result. Here both the half-breed population and the Indian tribes rose in arms against Canadian intrusion and the imposition of an alien civilization.
Fundamentally there was little difference between the half- breed and the Indian question. Both were aspects of the same general problem. By character and upbringing the half-breeds, no less than the Indians, were unfitted to compete with the whites in the competitive individualism of white civilization, or to share with them the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. They did not want to be civilized ; they only wanted to survive. To the half-breeds and Indians, unable even to maintain the advan- tage of numbers, civilization meant demoralization, decline and
vu
viii PREFACE
ultimate extinction. Bishop Grandin, writing in 1887, placed his finger on the underlying cause of the half-breed rising when he wrote: “ Les métis ... ont grandement souffert des change- ments arrivés dans leur pays. Ils n’étaient pas assez préparés 4 cette civilisation qui tout 4 coup est venue fondre sur cux... Je pourrais dire que c’est 14 toute l’explication de la guerre civile.” And Hayter Reed, Assistant Indian Commissioner, in 1885, “I have now formed, I think, a pretty correct idea as to our rebel Indians, they all look upon the whites as interlopers and would get rid of them if they saw their way clear.”
The dates of the two Riel risings are significant. The first, 1869-70, coincided with the passing of the Hudson’s Bay Com- pany as the governing power of the North-West. The second, 1885, coincided with the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, an event which definitely marked the end of the old order in the North-West. The rebellion of 1885 was the last effort of the primitive peoples in Canada to withstand the in- exorable advance of white civilization. With the suppression of the rebellion white dominance was assured. Henceforth the history of the Canadian West was to be that of the white man, not that of the red man or the bois brul€é.
In writing this volume I have endeavoured to provide a more accurate and fuller history of the birth of Western Canada than has hitherto been written. New details have been added to the history of the transfer of the Hudson’s Bay Company Territories to Canada, the immediate causes which made possible—even inevitable—the insurrection, Riel’s Provisional Government, and the amnesty controversy of the seventies ; also to the Govern- ment’s Indian policy, the grievances of the half-breeds and Indians in 1885, and particularly to the part played by many of the white settlers in the District of Lorne during the Riel agita- tion ; and lastly to the effect of the racial, religious controversy of 1885-6 upon the political life of the Dominion. The book is fully documented. It has been my object to bring the reader into direct contact with the original materials, the letters and records of those who were themselves principals or eye-witnesses, and thus enable him to form his own independent judgment.
I have, therefore, examined the contemporary sources, many of which had not been examined before in this respect, studied both sides of controversies, and endeavoured to eliminate—as
PREFACE ix
far as is possible to the historian relating events, the fire of which has not yet been extinguished by time—all partisan or personal bias. I have also read widely the works of others on the same subject. For any unwitting or unacknowledged appropiation I ask pardon; it is difficult for those who have read and made notes from innumerable sources over a period of years to be at all certain of the originality of their ideas or phrases. In this work I have made a serious effort to reach the truth and feel that the justification of this book lies in its thorough treatment and its contribution of a new interpretation to a story which, however familiar in outline, has not hitherto been the subject of serious research.
During the preparation of this work assistance has been received from many sources. For placing materials at my disposal and assisting my research, I am indebted to the Governor and Committee of the Hudson’s Bay Company, Dr. V. T. Harlow, Keeper of the Rhodes House Library, the Royal Empire Society and the Public Record Office; also to Sir Arthur Doughty and the Public Archives of Canada, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs, and the Librarians of the University of Ottawa and the Biblio- théque St. Sulpice ; also to the officials of the State Department, Washington, D.C. J am under obligation to Miss D. G. Lent for preparing and forwarding me transcripts from the New Nation at Winnipeg. Sir Francis Wylie and J. G. Legge, Esq., kindly read the manuscript, and R. Leveson Gower, Esq., made many important corrections in the proofs. Professor R. Coup- land was a source of constant encouragement. For their very ‘generous assistance in making this publication possible, I am deeply indebted to the Rhodes Trustees, the Beit Trustees and the Committee for Advanced Studies of the University of Oxford. Lastly I wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to my Mother for her patience, interest and helpful criticism during the writing of this book.
G.F.G.S. Keble College, Oxford. April zoth, 1936.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PREFACE BOOK ONE THE RED RIVER REBELLION
. THE OLD OrpberR OF RED RIVER . THe Enp oF Company RuLE . HatF-BrEED Unrest IN THE Rep RIVER
SETTLEMENT
. THe Rep River REeBetLion: Parr I . THe Rep River REBELLION: Part II . THE Manrrosa Act
. THe Mrirrary ExpEDITION 1870
VIII,
THE AMNESTY QUESTION
BOOK TWO THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION
. THE GrRowTH OF SETTLEMENT IN THE NorTH-
WEST
. Tue INDIAN PROBLEM: THE TREATIES . THe INDIAN PROBLEM: THE RESERVES . THE Growru oF PotrricaAL DISCONTENT IN THE
Norru-West TERRITORIES
. THE GrowrH OF DISCONTENT AMONG THE INDIANS . Tue RETuRN oF RIEL AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE AGITATION
. THe Nortu-West REBELLION: Parr I
xi
PAGE
vii
177 194 216
243 269
295 327
xii CONTENTS CHAPTER XVI. THE Norru-West REBELLION: Parr II XVII. THe PourricaL Resutts oF THE NortTH-WEstT REBELLION . BIBLIOGRAPHICAL Nore NoTEs INDEX
PAGE
350
380 408 411 453
ILLUSTRATIONS
FACING PAGE Louis Rieu. . : . Frontispiece
From MacBeth, “ The Romance of Western Canada,” by permission of the Ryerson Press Fort GARRY By permission of the Governor and Committee of the Hudson’ S Bay Company Carroon, A CASE oF Rrex Distress ! From “ Grip,” by permission of Thomas Bengough, Esa.
Carroon, Loyatry IN A QUANDARY From “ Grip,” by permission of Thomas Bengough, Eva.
CrowFOOT
From Maclunes, “ In the Shadow of the Rockies, ” by per mission of Messrs. Rivington and Co., Ltd.
Cartoon, MereLy A Hum-Buc-BEar From “ Grip,” by permission of Thomas Bengough, Eg.
Bic BEAR From Cameron, “ The War Trail of Big Bear,” by permission of Messrs. Gerald Duckworth and Co., Ltd. POUNDMAKER By permission of H. A Kennedy, Esa.
Louis “ Davip ” Rie. By permission of Rev, A. G. Morice, 0. M. 1
SUPERINTENDENT L. N. F. Crozier By permission of Colonel J. W. Spalding, R. C M. P.
xili
72
168
172
230
264
280
284
324
xiv ILLUSTRATIONS
PACING PAGE
IMASEES
From Cameron, “ The War Trail of Big Bear, ” by permission of Messrs. Gerald Duckworth and Co., Ltd.
GasrieL Dumont . From Ouimet, “ La Verité sur la ‘Question Mitisse”
THE SURRENDER OF POUNDMAKER . From a painting of R. W. Rutherford, by permission of the Public Archives of Canada
MAPS
PLAN OF THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT, 1870
PLAN oF BritisH NorrH AMERICA, 1869-70
PLAN OF THE INDIAN TREATIES, 1871-77
Tue NortH SASKATCHEWAN VALLEY, 1885
THe Norru-Westr TErrirorigs, MrLiraAary COLUMNS
338
358
372
BOOK ONE
THE RED RIVER REBELLION
CHAPTER I THE OLD ORDER OF RED RIVER
On May 2nd, 1670, Charles II granted to the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson’s Bay ‘‘ the sole Trade and Commerce of all those Seas, Streightes, Bayes, Rivers, Lakes, Creekes and Soundes in whatsoever Latitude they shall bee, that lie within the entrance of the Streightes, commonly called Hudsons Streightes together with all the Landes and Territoryes upon the Countryes, Coastes and Confynes of the Seas, Bayes, Lakes, Rivers, Creekes and Soundes aforesaid that are not already actually possessed by or granted to any of our Subjectes, or possessed by the Subjectes of any other Christian Prince or State’: and constituted them “ the true and absolute Lordes and Proprietors of the same Territory, lymittes and places.”? Of the extent of this vast territory, henceforth called Rupert’s Land after the cavalier prince, neither the King nor the Company had any conception. Yet an area as large as Europe, bounded on the north by the ‘“* Barren Lands,” on the west by the snow-capped Rockies, and on the south by the arid plains, was transferred by Charles’s sweeping gesture to the overlordship of the Hudson’s Bay Company.
Scattered throughout this area were thousands of aborigines, or Indians, as they had been miscalled by Columbus. It is almost impossible to compute their numbers at this period, but it is possible that the native inhabitants of Rupert’s Land at the beginning of the nineteenth century numbered about 50,000.” These Indians were made up of three great linguistic groups, the Algonkin, the Athapascan and the Siouan. Each group was split up into tribes. The Algonkin included the Crees, Ojibways, Saulteaux, Blackfeet, Bloods and Piegans: the Athapascan included the Sarcees, Beavers, Chipewyans and other northern tribes: the Siouan, predominantly American in habitat, were tepresented in British territory by the Assiniboines or Stonies and a few wandering Sioux. These tribes were again divided
3
4 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
into sub-tribes or bands, and even into families, often dispersed over a wide extent of wilderness.
The aboriginal inhabitants were not left in undisturbed possession of the western plains. Although the Hudson’s Bay Company wasted little time on exploration or “ the discovery of a new Passage into the South Sea,”® several expeditions were despatched inland to draw the remote tribes to the trading posts on the Bay. As early as 1690 Henry Kelsey was sent to visit some of the tribes of the interior. From his Journal* it would appear that he reached the country of the Assiniboines and Crecs in what is now the south-eastern region of the province of Saskatchewan. In 1754-5 Anthony Henday travelled over the prairies and wintered among the Blackfeet in the western foot- hills. Matthew Cocking made a similar journey in 1772.
While the English were thus penetrating Rupert’s Land from Hudson Bay, the French, impelled by a spirit of adventure and a desire for furs, were pushing up the St. Lawrence Valley and the Great Lakes. Dulhut is said to have built a post on the shores of Lake Superior about 1678: ten years later Jacques de Noyon reached the Lake of the Woods: and in 1717 La Noiie followed in his footsteps. But the man who really opened the door to the North-West was Pierre Gaultier, Sieur de la Vérendrye, whose explorations from 1732 to 1743, carried on in the face of extraordinary difficulties, render his name “ one of the most honoured names in Canadian exploration.”® Accompanied by his sons, Vérendrye discovered the Red River of the North and built Fort Rouge on the site of the present city of Winnipeg. Pressing further west in his search for “the western sea” he reached the Saskatchewan River; but, harassed by creditors whose interests were economic rather than scientific, Vérendrye was finally obliged to abandon his explorations. Trade entered the gateway which exploration had opened and by 1757 the French had built a chain of forts from Montreal to the Rockies.
The conquest of Canada by Wolfe and Amherst changed, for a time, the course of events. Within five years of Henday’s journey the French had disappeared from the west. Engaged in a struggle for the defence of Canada, the French withdrew their officers and men from the fur trade with the Indians to combat the English. But within a year of the capitulation of Montreal
THE OLD ORDER OF RED RIVER 5
the fur trade was resumed, and French and English merchants were again sending goods to the western Indians. The evils of unrestricted competition soon urged upon individual traders the advisability of co-operation, and during the winter of 1783~4 competing interests in Canada united to form the North- West Company.
Spurred on by a bitter commercial rivalry the North-West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company pushed further and further into the Indian country, until, within the space of ten years, the whole region from Lake Superior to Lake Athabasca and from Hudson Bay to the Rocky Mountains was dotted with trading posts. By 1800 it is estimated that the rival fur companies must have had from 1,500 to 2,000 white men permanently in the North- West. These men were apprenticed for a definite period to serve in the interior and were known as the “ winterers.” They ranged from the humblest guide to the highest officer, Chicf Factor or Bourgeois. In the English company the apprentice clerk served five years before becoming a clerk; this was followed by a longer period before promotion to the position of Chief Trader and by another period before promotion to the rank of Chief Factor. Each of these was entitled to share in the profits of the company’s trade. In the Canadian company the gradations of rank were similar, the highest being that of Bourgeois or partner. In addition there was an army of guides, labourers, and voyageurs, attached to each company. As a gencral rule the employces of the Hudson’s Bay Company were drawn from Scotland and the Orkney Islands, while those of the North-West Company were Scots and French Canadians.
It was inevitable that these men, living in the midst of a savage society far from their own kind, should unite with the Indian women of the plains. When Henry Kelsey returned to Fort York in 1692, accompanied by an Indian woman, he only began among the Hudson’s Bay Company employees the practice which had been customary among the French traders and coureurs de bois since the early days of Canadian history. The Hudson’s Bay Company at first viewed these unions with dis- pleasure, but eventually favoured them as having a steadying cflect upon the men and establishing useful trading connexions with the Indians. Accordingly, during the next century and a half, there were few employees of either fur company who did not
6 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
contract alliances with the Indian women in the neighbourhood of the Companies’ forts.
Most of these alliances were “ according to the custom of the country.” Daniel Harmon, a Bourgeois of the North-West Company, writing in 1800, described the procedure followed :
“When a person is desirous of taking one of the daughters of the Natives, as a companion, he makes a present to the parents of the damsel, of such articles as he supposes will be most accept- able; and, among them, rum is indispensable ; for of that all the savages are fond, to excess. Should the parents accept the articles offered, the girl remains at the fort with her suitor, and is clothed in the Canadian fashion. The greater part of these women, as I am informed, are better pleased to remain with the white people, than with their own relations. Should the couple, newly joined, not agree, they are at liberty, at any time, to separate ; but no part of the property, given to the patents of the girl, will be refunded.’”®
Many of these marriages were only temporary. When her white consort returned to civilization, the Indian woman, of necessity, rejoined her tribe, to remain in widowhood until she caught the fancy of some other voyageur or trader. Some, however, proved permanent. The Indian women. teadily adapted themselves to the life of the whites and “ the tenderness existing between them and their husbands presents one great reason for that attachment which the respective classes of whites cherish for the Indian countries.”” After many years spent in the free life of the wilds, men found the ways of civilization cramping and preferred to settle down in the country with their native wives. Harmon, in spite of his early scorn for these unions, not only married, but became so attached to his Indian wife that he took her with him when he returned to civilization.
From this intermingling of natives and Europeans developed a race of people known as half-breeds, métis, or bois brulés. In the century following the penctration of the North-West by the fur traders these people increased tapidly in numbers, and, separate alike from whites and Indians, they became the chief actors in the political troubles which mark the history of Western Canada to 1885.
The greater number of these half-breeds, or métis, were of French-Canadian origin, the offspring of the hardy voyageurs
THE OLD ORDER OF RED RIVER 7
who served the North-West Company. Their skin was dark— hence the name brulé—but beyond that they carried few traces of their savage origin. They dressed like the whites in common blue capote, red belt, and corduroy trousers : the belt was the simple badge of distinction, the métis wearing it under and the whites generally over the capote. “ Too many at home,” wrote Southesk in January 1860, “ have formed a false idea of the half- breeds, imagining them to be a race little removed from barbarians in habits and appearance. . . . 1 doubt if a half-breed, dressed and educated like an Englishman, would seem at all remarkable in London society. They build and farm like other people, they go to church and to courts of law, they recognize no chiefs (except when they elect a leader for their great hunting expeditions), and in all respects they are like civilized men, not more uneducated, immoral, or disorderly, than many communities in the Old World.’’
Of the physical characteristics of the métis the same observer wrote :
“ Physically they are a fine race, tall, straight, and well pro- portioned, lightly formed but strong and extremely active and enduring. Their chests, shoulders, and waists are of that symmetrical shape so scldom found among the broad-waisted, short-necked English, or the flat-chested, long-necked Scotch.”®
W.B. Cheadle, on his journey across the North American continent in 1862, found them unequalled as guides and voyageurs :
“* Of more powerful build, as a rule, than the pure Indian, they combine his endurance and readiness of resource with the greater muscular strength and perseverance of the white man. Day after day, with plenty of food, or none at all, whether pack on back, trapping in the woods, treading out a path with snowshoes in the deep snow for the sleigh-dogs, or running after them at a racing pace from morning to night, when there is a well-beaten track, they will travel fifty or sixty miles a day for a week together without showing any sign of fatigue.”!°
The métis were a hospitable people ; all comers and goers were welcome guests at their board."!_ Theft seems to have been uncommon among them. Upon one occasion a gentleman travelling over the plains left at his camping place a box containing gold and notes to the value of £1030. The following evening a French half-breed, camping at the same spot, found the box, and,
8 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
in spite of his own poverty, followed the owner a day’s journey to return it. Alexander Ross, who cannot be suspected of undue sympathy for the métis, nevertheless recorded that “this act might be taken as an index of the integrity of the whole body, generally speaking.” They were, moreover, very religious and devoted to their clergy. The hunter always reserved the best cut of meat for the priest, while the trader kept aside his best piece of cloth for the Church.
At the same time the French half-breeds were indolent, thoughtless and improvident, unrestrained in their desires, restless, clannish and vain. Life held no thought of the morrow. To become the envied possessor of a new suit, rifle, or horse, they would readily deprive themselves and their families of the neces- sities of life. ‘‘ A half-breed able to exhibit a fine horse, and gay cariole,” wrote Ross, “is in his glory; this achievement is at once the height of his ambition, and his ruin. Possessed of these, the thriftless fellow’s habitation goes to ruin ; he is never at home, but driving and caricoling in all places, and every oppor- tunity ; blustering and bantering every one he meets.”43 Another observer gave the following description of their care-free life of pleasure :
“They are a merry, light-hearted, obliging race, recklessly generous, hospitable, and extravagant. Dancing goes on nearly every night throughout the winter, and a wedding, or ‘ noce’ as it is called, is celebrated by keeping open house, and relays of fiddlers are busily employed playing for the dancers all through the night and often far on into the next day. By that time most of the guests are incapacitated from saltatory exercise ; for rum flows freely on these occasions, and when a half-breed drinks he does it, as he says, comme il faut—that is, until he obtains the desired happiness of complete intoxication.’’!4
With few exceptions the French half-breeds were neither extensive nor successful farmers. Brought up in the open prairies they preferred the excitement of the chase to the monotony of cultivating the soil. They might have envied the lot of the more industrious and regretted their own poverty, but so strong was their attachment to the roving life of the hunter that “ the greater part of them depend entirely on the chase for a living, and even the few who attend to farming take a trip to the plains, to feast on buffalo humps and marrow fat.’”!5 These métis were not a savage,
THE OLD ORDER OF RED RIVER 9
vicious, or immoral people, but honest, hospitable and religious, rather improvident and happy-go-lucky, without care and without restraint, true sons of the prairie, as free as the air they breathed and by nature as independent as the land which gave them birth.
As a tule the English-speaking half-breeds formed a contrast to the French. The greater number were of Scotch origin. Many of the officers of the Hudson’s Bay Company came from Scotland and their half-breed children inherited the steadier disposition of their fathers, as the métis inclined to the roving life of the coureurs de bois. ‘They were, for the most part, economical, industrious and prosperous. Cheadle declared that the English and Scotch half-breeds “ form a pleasing contrast to their French neighbours, being thrifty, industrious, and many of them wealthy, in their way ... we met but few who equalled the French half-breeds in idleness and frivolity."2* John McLean in his Notes of a Twenty-five Years’ Service in the Hudson’ s Bay Territory also stated :
“ The English half-breeds, as the mixed progeny of the British are designated, possess many of the characteristics of their fathers; they generally prefer the more certain pursuit of hus- bandry to the chase, and follow close on the heels of the Scotch in the path of industry and moral rectitude. Very few of them resort to the plains, unless for the purpose of trafficking the produce of their farms for the produce of the chase; and it is said that they frequently return home better supplied with meat than the hunters themselves.””!?
It often happened that, as the Scots and English held the rank of gentlemen in the fur trade, their half-breed sons were given a better start in life and a training which did not oblige them to seek their living with their rifle like the sons of the poor voyageurs. If they indicated any aptitude for learning these sons might be sent to schools in England or Scotland. On their return, some, like Moses Norton, rose in the service of the fur trade, others settled down to farm and to take a leading part in the life of their community. But to say that the English half-breeds cultivated more land, were better educated and possessed more of the world’s goods, is not to speak slightingly of the French, nor to say that they were more honest or loyal. Each possessed distinct characteristics and each played a part in the history of the half-breed race.
10 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
In spite of these differences there was a common bond between the English and the French half-breeds. Both sprang from a common race; both claimed territorial rights to the North-West through their Indian ancestry; both, in a large measure, spoke their mother tongue in addition to French or English. The half-breeds as a race never considered themselves as humble hangers-on to the white population, but were proud of their blood and their deeds. Cut off, as they were, from European expansion by the accident of geography and by the deliberate policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company, they developed a resolute feeling of independence and a keen sense of their own identity which led them to regard themselves as a separate racial and national unit, and which found expression in their name, ‘“‘ The New Nation.’ Louis Riel, the métis leader, gave expression to this national feeling when he wrote :
“ C’est vrai que notre origine sauvage est humble, mais il est juste que nous honorions nos méres aussi bien que nos péres. Pourquoi nous occuperions-nous 4 quel degré de mélange nous possédons le sang européen ect le sang indien? Pour peu que nous ayons de |’un ou de l’autre, Ja reconnaissance et l’amour filial, ne nous font-ils pas une loi de dire: Nous sommes Métis.’718
This consciousness of community and strong racial feeling domin- ated the half-breed “ nation” for almost a century: it was the basic factor in the frontier problem of Western Canadian history.
Colonization naturally followed the opening of Rupert’s Land by the fur trade. In 1812 the first attempt to found a white settlement in the North-West was made under the patronage of Lord Selkirk. Four years previously Selkirk had begun to buy up the stock of the Hudson’s Bay Company in an effort to secure a controlling share, and, although he was unable to interest the Company in his project, he was thus able to secure from them a grant of 116,000 square miles in the Red River valley, covering what is now the southern part of Manitoba and a portion of Minnesota, for the purposes of a colony. In July 1811, the first band of Scottish settlers, led by Miles Mac- donnell, a Canadian highlander, sailed for the New World. They passed the winter at York Factory and in the following spring made their way south to the site of the proposed settlement.
The Hudson’s Bay Company viewed Selkirk’s efforts with
THE OLD ORDER OF RED RIVER II
indifference ; but the North-West Company regarded them with undisguised hostility. Selkirk’s grant of land lay directly across the route from Montreal to the interior of Rupert’s Land and the Nor’ Westers believed its settlement was merely a move upon the part of their rivals to stifle their trade. With their economic interests at stake they set out to destroy the Selkirk colony by fair means or foul. At first an attempt was made to bribe the colonists to abandon the settlement. But sugary promises of free passages and assistance to fertile lands in Upper Canada failed to lure the stubborn Scots from Red River, and so the Nor’ Westers turned to the half-breeds.
At the door of the North-West Company must be laid the responsibility for rousing the racial consciousness of the métis. The Nor’ Westers carefully fostered the idea of half-breed terri- torial rights and informed the credulous métis that the white settlers were interlopers who had come to steal the land from them. The métis were easily convinced. They had already been estranged by two ill-advised acts of Miles Macdonnell—the one a proclamation forbidding the sale of pemmican to the North- West Company, and the other an attempt to prohibit the running of the buffalo on horscback—and readily construed every act of coercion against the fur company as unjustifiable tyranny over their race. Under the leadership of Cuthbert Grant and Peter Pangman, two half-breed employees of the North-West Company, they began to assert their claim to an aboriginal title to the country and to demand compensation from the white settlers.
In 1816 the situation reached a climax. Grant was appointed “ Captain General of all the half-breeds in the country,”’ and in March it was reported that “ the new nation under their leaders are coming forward to clear their native soil of intruders and assassins.”!® In May, Grant and fifty half-breeds surprised the brigade descending the Assiniboine River towards the settlement, confiscated the goods and took several prisoners. Early in June they seized Brandon House and set out to join a party from Fort William for a combined attack on the Red River Settlement. Passing Fort Douglas, the centre of the colony, on the rgth, they were accosted by Robert Semple, the newly-appointed Governor. A gun was fired and in the exchange of shots which followed, Semple and twenty-one of his men were killed, Grant losing only a single follower.
12 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
This massacre of Seven Oaks, or La Grenouillére as it is known to the French half-breeds, is important in the history of the western frontier, not so much in itself, as in its portents. By stirring up the natives of the country, imbuing them with the idea that they were the true owners of the soil and that the whites—“ les jardiniéres ”—were intruders, the North-West Company sowed the seeds of that métis unrest which manifested itself at intervals for the next seventy years. Seven Oaks was only the first of several demonstrations by the half-breeds against the settlement of their country by the whites, and was, in consequence, the fore- runner of the Riel Rebellions of 1869-70 and 1885. On cach of these occasions the underlying cause of trouble was this spirit of half-breed nationalism and the conviction, expressed in the “chanson ”’ of Pierre Falcon, a métis folk-song, that the white strangers had come “ pour piller notre pays.’’2°
Seven Oaks did not mean the end of the Red River Settlement. Lord Selkirk at once sent military assistance, made prisoners of the North-West Company Icaders in their stronghold of Fort William, restored the settlers to their lands and continued the struggle in the courts. In 1820 Lord Selkirk died, discouraged by the failure of his colony and crushed by the persecution of his enemies. His death removed the principal obstacle to a recon- ciliation between the two fur companies whose opposition to colonization was mutual, and in 1821 they were united under the name of the Hudson’s Bay Company. This union was significant. Both companies were convinced of the incompatibility of colon- ization and the successful prosecution of the fur trade, and for the next two generations the interests of the latter predominated in Rupert’s Land. No further attempts at colonization were made and the Red River Settlement entered upon a period of quict and obscure development.
The outstanding feature of this development during the years from 1820 to 1860 was the transformation of the colony from a white settlement into a half-breed settlement. When Miles Macdonnell selected the site on the Red River in 1812, his little band numbered seventy. In 1817, the year after Seven Oaks, the number of the Scottish settlers at Kildonan had increased to 200, while across the river at St. Boniface were a few Canadians and about 100 Swiss mercenaries whom Selkirk had brought to the country during his struggle with the North-West Company.
THE OLD ORDER OF RED RIVER 13
The Swiss, however, had little love for Red River and when that little was devoured by the grasshoppers and washed away by the floods they abandoned the country for the United States. In spite of this defection the colony grew in numbers, not by accessions from Canada or Europe, but by the settlement of the employees, half-breed and white, of the fur companies. It had been a condition of Selkirk’s grant that one-tenth of the area should be set apart ** to the use of such person or persons being or having been in the service or employ of the said Governor and Company for a term not less than three ycars,””? and Red River became the favourite retreat of the Company’s servants with their squaws and half-breed progeny. Moreover, the union of the rival fur concerns in 1821 threw many clerks and voyageurs out of employment, with the result that the numbers of the colony were practically doubled in a few yeats. In 1831 the population numbered 2,417, and nine years later, 4,369.22 Asevidence of the rapid change in the racial composition of the Red River Settlement, H. Y. Hind reported that although the population had increased by 1,232 souls between 1849 and 1856, the number of European and Canadian families had decreased by 102.3 Finally, in 1871, the official census stated that there were in the country 5,720 French-speaking half-breeds, 4,080 English-speaking half-brceds and 1,600 white scttlers."* This transformation is significant, for it explains why Canadian annexation, with its implied white predominance, failed ‘to gain many adherents in the Red River colony.
The economic life of the Settlement was primitive in character. The principal occupation was the buffalo hunt. The following figures indicate its growing importance. In 1820, 540 buffalo carts were sent out from Red River to the western plains; in 1830, 820 carts; and in 1840, 1,210: the total value of the hunt, in the last year amounting to £24,000. Next in importance were freighting and farming. ‘The Hudson’s Bay Company employed a number of half-breeds to transport goods from the posts on Hudson Bay to the valley of Lake Winnipeg. Fifty-five boats, of three to five tons burden, were engaged in this service in 1856." As the western states of America were opened to settlement the occupation of freighting increased in importance and St. Paul, Minnesota, became a distributing point for the Red River Settlement. Donald Gunn wrote in 1857 that there
14 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
were 300 carts with an average load valued at £25 to £30 engaged in the overland transport from St. Paul.?” Beyond these occupa- tions there was no industry or distinct trade in the Settlement. Every man was his own wheelwright, carpenter or mason, as well as hunter, farmer or freighter.
When the Settlement was first established land was sold at five shillings an acre. This price gradually increased until, in 1834, it reached twelve shillings and sixpence.28 The transfer of the territory from Lord Selkirk’s heirs to the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1836, was made without prejudice to those who held good title from the Earl. The price was reduced and the Company resumed the policy of selling land at five shillings or seven and six an acre, generally leasehold for 999 years.?® In return they demanded from the lessee that he should bring at least one-tenth of his land under cultivation within five years, refrain from trading or dealing with the Indians or trafficking in furs and peltries except under licence, obey the Company’s laws, contribute to the public expenses, and neither dispose of nor assign the lease without the Company’s assent.2° The Hudson’s Bay Company, however, made few sales under these terms. In 1857 Sir George Simpson made the statement that not more than £2,000 to £3,000 had been received from the settlers in payment for their lands.*! This may be accounted for by the fact that the majority of the settlers were half-breed squatters, who maintained the view that the land was theirs by natural law and that there was no need to bother about the Company’s title. As the latter never made any effort to disturb them in the peaceful enjoyment of their lands, this lack of title was not a great source of anxiety. Governor Simpson informed the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1857 that the Company’s title was held of little value and that “ nineteen-twentieths of the people have no title *?; while Henry Youle Hind wrote that “in no single instance could I find any half-breed, in possession of a farm, acquainted with its existence. In very many instances the settlers did not know the number of their lots, and had no paper or document of any kind to show that they held possession of their land from the Company, or any other authority.’ This complete absence of a systematic land tenure, although it aroused no apprehensions at that time, was, however, to prove an important cause of unrest among the half-breed squatters
incest etn nc
VNIGW3d
180d ake AAVONNOG
ey Ary ae
Walad 1s 4% ANNY “ais L1 LNAWID ‘1s 6% AHINDV “2S 91
{HIVON) MAYONY “1S 7% (uimos) LYIVYON “IS GI
Siog G8 (ines) MAYGNV “1S 1% (ION) IYAGYON “1S 41 Da ANVd ‘1s OF TVA "1S £4 NYNOGTIN 6) (1sva) JOW4INOS “4S 3) NHOf ‘1s 81 (sam) JDWdINOG “AS 1) SaWY? “ls oO} SITYVHD US 6 ; fy AANINS 107 WIA DNIMOHS ATONIGVIH & G8VD YIAVX SIODNVAd “Is ZL FaaIATy TI ONY It SO Notas ANIOd UV1dOd % CHM) ARIAVX SIOINVAI IS 9 : & dine HOIH ¢ TnWd iS ae ¢ C (OsINtssy BBIW%d WI IDvIeOd TG AN3UNVI ‘Is | q os HSITONG HON3U4 >) <7 or S3HSIaVd xX ee
INAW3S1LISS YSAIY 9a IHL JO NV 1d
Y
ND adINNIM | & VEOLINVW | , Bay
SANT
THE OLD ORDER OF RED RIVER 15
when Rupert’s Land was transferred to the Dominion of Canada.
The system of survey,°4 by which the Settlement was divided, was similar to that adopted in French Canada. The farms were long and narrow and at right angles to the general course of the river. They all had frontage on the water, after the fashion of farms in Quebec—a system which had grown up from the times when rivers were the principal routes of communication. At first the farms ran back ninety to one hundred chains, but subsequently they were extended to two miles. There was no uniformity of width and holdings were divided and sub- divided at will. There was, in addition, a valuable privilege recognized by the Company—and which, apparently, had always been exercised by the owners of these river farms—namely, the exclusive right of cutting hay on the outer two miles immediately in the rear of the river lot. This outer portion came to be known as the “ hay privilege”? and was jealously guarded by local laws, infringements of which were visited with punishment.
For the first few years of its existence the Red River colony was governed directly by a Governor appointed by Lord Selkirk. After the Earl’s death in 1820, the Settlement remained nominally under the care of his executors, but actually was administered through the Hudson’s Bay Company. This anomalous position became each year more evident, and the sixth Earl, lacking his predecessor’s interest in colonization, finally surrendered, in 1836, the territory granted to his father in 1811. From 1836 to 1869 the Company ruled at Red River.
Little change was made in the system of government in the colony. The Hudson’s Bay Company followed the practice of Lord Selkirk and appointed a local Governor and Council to conduct the affairs of Red River, or Assiniboia, as it was known during the Company régime. Although the interests of the Company naturally predominated, nevertheless there was a deliberate attempt to make the Council fairly representative of all the interests in the colony. The clergy, Roman Catholic and Protestant, were represented, as were the half-breeds, French and English. In the first Council, after the reconveyance of the Selkirk grant, sat John Bunn, an English half-breed, and Cuthbert Grant, who had led the métis at Seven Oaks. The representative character of the Council was attested by no less an authority
Cc
16 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
than the Roman Catholic Bishop of St. Boniface, who wrote to Governor Dallas in 1862 :
“Tt is well known that these Nominees are chosen among the most respectable and the most intelligent of the place. Moreover the Company has, even in this choice, evinced generosity, as several of the Members of the Council have personal interests diametrically opposed to the commercial interests of the Company. To my knowledge the Company went so far as to consult those interested, and the greater number of the Councillors have been appointed because such appeared to be the desire of the popula- tion in general.’’55 The Anglican Bishop expressed a similar view, namely, that the members of the Council “have been generally selected on the spot, as those possessing weight and influence, and generally acceptable with the settlement at large. . . . All cannot be Councillors, but I feel confident that the voice of each District would have elected for the most part the very individual recommended for a seat in Council.’’3¢
At first the duties of the Council were largely judicial, but from 1835 they tended to become more and more legislative and executive in character. A great variety of local measures were passed, relating to fires, animals, hay, roads, sale of intoxicating liquors to the Indians, police, debtors, contracts for services, surveys, administration of justice and other matters. To assist in carrying out these regulations the Council organized a Board of Works, a Committee of Economy, legal and judicial machinery, customs and postal facilities, and appointed various public officials. The work of the Council covered the whole life of the colony, from the issue of marriage licences to the encour- agement of local industries.°”
The jurisdiction of the Governor and Council of Assiniboia covered only an area of fifty miles’ radius around the Red River Settlement. For administrative purposes this area was divided into four judicial districts, each under a magistrate or Justice of the Peace competent to try petty cases. In 1837 this judicial machinery was altered. The settlement was divided into three judicial districts, each under two magistrates. Two years later further changes were made. A special officer, the Recorder of Rupert’s Land, was appointed as head of the legal affairs of the
colony, and the number of magistrates over each district was
THE OLD ORDER OF RED RIVER 17
increased to three, one of whom, at least, was to reside in the district, and one, at least, outside it. Owing to the growth of the colony this number was increased again in 1850. These magis- trates held quarterly courts—after 1850, twice monthly—of summary jurisdiction, with final judgment in cases of debt not exceeding forty shillings. Cases of doubt or difficulty were referred to the supreme tribunal, the Quarterly Court of the Governor and Council of Assiniboia.3®
The Canadian courts had concurrent jurisdiction with those of the Company. In 1803 an Act was passed “ for extending the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice in the Provinces of Lower and Upper Canada, to the Trial and Punishment of Persons guilty of Crimes and Offences within certain parts of North America adjoining to the said Provinces.”** This Act, assuming that crimes committed in the Indian territories were not cognizable by any jurisdiction, brought such crimes within the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, and empowered the Governor of Lower Canada to appoint Justices to commit offenders until conveyed to Canada for trial. As doubt arose as to whether this Act extended to the territories of the Hudson’s Bay Company, since crimes committed in them could hardly be said to be “ not cognizable by any Jurisdiction whatever,” another Act was passed in 18214° to clarify the position. After reciting the doubts referred to and the necessity of removing them, this Act declared that the pro- visions of the previous Act should be deemed “ to extend to and over, and to be in full force in and through all the Territories heretobefore granted to the Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson’s Bay.” Nothing in the Act, however, was to be construed to affect the rights, privileges, authority, or jurisdiction of the Company. But, while this concurrent juris- diction was granted to the Canadian courts, there is no record of any persons having been authorized to act as magistrates or Justices of the Peace, nor any courts constituted under either Act.
Such is the picture of the primitive society which existed in the Red River Settlement during the last century. Economic- ally and politically itwas a simple society and filled the needs of a simple people for nearly two generations. Cut off from the outside world by the opposition of the Hudson’s Bay Company to colonization, and by the physical barrier of geography to immi- gration, the half-breeds of Red River “‘ were without the vexation
18 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
and the heart-burning of active politics . . . their simple life. . . had nothing of that fierce element of competition into which the newer civilization was to hurl them.”#! But there could be no place for this almost static society in the competitive civilization of the North American continent. The half-breeds, particularly the hunting class, were doomed to economic absorption. Neither their racial consciousness, nor their primitive economy was strong enough to maintain the separate identity of the half- breed “nation” in the midst of an overwhelming white immi- gtation and a competitive nineteenth-century civilization. Herein lay the basic cause of the half-breed rising in 1869. The meétis leaders and their clergy realized that the rapid influx of settlers, which was bound to follow the transfer of the country to the Dominion of Canada, would lead to the loss of their lands and their livelihood, the breakdown of their society, and the eventual effacement of their race. Resistance was therefore inevitable.
CHAPTER II THE END OF COMPANY RULE
Towarps the middle of the nineteenth century it became in- creasingly evident that the days of Company rule in British North America were numbered. With the ascendancy of the doctrines of economic liberalism the outlook for the great trading and governing monopolies was decidedly unfavourable. It is true that many Englishmen had ceased to believe in the economic advantages of the great chartered monopolies long before the adoption of free trade, but it was not until the ’fifties and ’sixties that the principles of the Manchester School began to dominate British colonial policy. The influence of that school of thought was much greater than its parliamentary voting power. But, although it never became a governing body, its ideas suffused the policies of both the great political parties.
The mid-Victorian attack upon the chartered companies was not confined to their alleged economic fallacies, but was also directed against their political status. In the pursuit of commer- cial advantages these companies had often extended their activities over widespread areas, and in doing so were invariably obliged to assume administrative responsibilities for which their character as trading corporations scarcely fitted them. Adam Smith had emphasized the fundamental contradiction of this position, namely, the clash between the interests of trade and the responsi- bilities of government. “ As sovereigns,” he wrote of the East India Company, their “interest is exactly the same with that of the country which they govern. As merchants, their interest is directly opposite to that interest.”! Even in the case of companies like the Virginia Company, whose first interest was colonization, the necessity of operating at a profit conflicted with the aspirations of the colonists and the needs of administration. This conflict of interests was all the more apparent in the case of those companies which, like the Hudson’s Bay Company and the East India Company, were primarily trading corporations. The great chartered companies of the seventeenth century had been
19
20 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
the pioneers of Britain’s Empire in the East and in the West, but by the nineteenth they were regarded as anachronisms, a mere transitory phase in Imperial expansion.
It cannot be denied that economic rather than political con- siderations dominated the policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company in Red River. Every effort was made to discourage the idea of colonization and Sir George Simpson sought to keep a Chinese Wall around the Company’s fur preserve. Pro Pelle Cutem was the Company’s motto, and the fur trade, not the settlement of their vast territories, was the Company’s object. Old “ Bear” Ellice, who, more than any other man, had been responsible for the union of the North-West and the Hudson’s Bay Company, openly stated that “a fur company have very little to do with colonization . . . the Hudson’s Bay Company would have done much better if they had never had anything to do with coloni- zation.”’? They feared that an inrush of immigrants would drive away the fur-bearing animals—a fear which was fully justified in the light of experience—and that a chain of settlements would not only deprive the Company of their supply of buffalo meat, but would so interfere with their trade as to lead to the inevitable extinction of the Company.
It was impossible, however, for the Company to keep Red River and Rupert’s Land in a state of perpetual isolation. The prejudice of the fur traders, the charter rights of the Company and the rocky barrier of geography were not insuperable obstacles, and from the early part of the nineteenth century to the transfer of the country to Canada, the question of the colonization of the North-West and the extinction of the Company’s territorial rights occupied a position of increasing importance in the politics of both Great Britain and Canada.
The first evidence of official interest in the idea of colonization in the North-West appeared in 1837, when the Hudson’s Bay Company applied to the British Government for a renewal of the licence of exclusive trade granted to the combined companies in 1821. Lord Glenelg was not, apparently, convinced by the Company’s repeated assertions of the sterility of their territories and their unfitness to sustain any considerable population. Instead he was “disposed to regard them with distrust ” and urged upon the Board of Trade that a renewal of the licence should be accompanied by “ such conditions as may enable Her
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 21
Majesty to grant, for the purpose of settlement or colonization, any of the lands comprised in it, and with that view. . .a power should be reserved even of establishing new colonies or provinces within the limits comprised in the Charter.” This amendment was accepted by the Company, and when the licence of exclusive trade was renewed in 1838 for twenty-one years, a special clause was inserted granting the Crown authority to annex any portion of the Company’s chartered territories for the purpose of estab- lishing a Crown colony.
No action was, however, taken to implement this provision until 1857. During these years the agitation in the Red River colony against the Company’s fur monopoly and the difficulties in Vancouver Island focused attention upon the position of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and it was generally realized that a state of things in which vast tracts of land were withheld from coloniza- tion in the interest of a trading monopoly could not continue indefinitely. The approaching expiry of the exclusive trade privilege provided the British Government with the opportunity of reviewing the political status of the Company and the question of North-West colonization. Early in 1857, therefore, a Select Committee was appointed “to consider the State of those British Possessions in North America which are under the Administration of the Hudson’s Bay Company, or over which they possess a Licence to Trade.’
From February to July this committee conducted their investi- gations. The whole economy of the Hudson’s Bay Company was thoroughly discussed. Twenty-four witnesses were exam- ined, 6,098 questions were asked, and evidence to the total of over 450 printed folio pages was compiled. The Company was charged with exercising an obnoxious monopoly in a tyrannical manner and with placing every obstacle in the way of colonization and settlement. The Company replied with a denial of the first charge and a justification of the second. Their witnesses declared that the Red River Settlement had been “ an unwise speculation ” and “ had failed.”” According to Sir George Simpson, who had for thirty-seven years been engaged in the fur trade, the North- West was quite unfit for settlement, the soil was poor and beyond a mile from the river even the native grass grew only “ in detached spots.”” When asked whether a colony could be self supporting in what is now Manitoba, he replied, “A population thinly
22 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
scattered along the banks might support themselves, but a dense population could not live in that country, the country would not afford the means of subsistence,” while in some regions there were “ deep morasses which never thaw.” This, oddly enough, was how he described in 1857 the country which, only ten years before, he had compared to the beautiful country in the neigh- bourhood of the Thames at Richmond, and concerning which he had prophesied, “Is it too much for the eye of philanthropy to discern through the vista of futurity this noble stream... with crowded steamboats on its bosom and populous towns on its borders.’
In spite of the labours of the Select Committee and its brilliant personnel® the report was quite colourless. It postponed decision upon the question of the Company’s political status and left the question of the boundary of Rupert’s Land and Canada “to be solved by amicable adjustment.”” Nevertheless it indicated the trend of popular opinion. Gladstone had moved “ that the country capable of colonization should be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Hudson’s Bay Company ” which should thus rest upon a statutory foundation, and his proposal was negatived only by the deciding vote of the chairman. The final report of the Committee conceded the principle by recommending that the Red River and Saskatchewan districts be ceded to Canada “ on equitable principles,” or, if “ Canada should not be willing at a very early period to undertake the government of the Red River District, it may be proper to consider whether some temporary provisions for its administration may not be advisable.”
The recommendation that the colonizable portions of the Company’s territories might be annexed to Canada represented a new departure in British policy. Hitherto the intention had been eventually to erect these districts into Crown Colonies. Sir James Stephen, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, wrote in 1837 that Glenelg was “of opinion that the public interest may not improbably require the erection of some part of the territory comprised in the Company’s Charter into one or more colonies, independent of and distinct from either Upper or Lower Canada.”’ As time went on and the settled provinces of Canada grew in population and importance it became evident that the political status of the Company’s territories could not be settled without reference to Canada’s future relations with the
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 23
North-Western territory. Moreover, British interest in coloniza- tion was on the wane. The adherents of /aissez-aller and the Manchester School regarded with distrust the adoption of further colonial responsibilities by the mother country, and the desire of Canada for westward expansion was a welcome alternative.
Canada did not begin to take an active interest in the North- West until the middle of the century. It is true that prior to 1821 explorers and traders had pushed as far west as the Rocky Mountains and the western fur trade had been an important factor in the economic life of the country, but after the union of the English and Canadian fur companies and the abandonment of the old North-West canoe route, Canadians no longer gazed with adventurous eyes towards the Terra Incognita on the western horizon. For the next three decades their attention and energies were absorbed in the political struggles accompanying the attain- ment of self-government, and it was not until the late "forties that the Globe and the North American, edited respectively by George Brown and William McDougall, began to attack the Hudson’s Bay Company and to urge the acquisition of the North-West by Canada.
At first the G/obe’s campaign met with little public response. The Company’s territories were still looked upon by many as an inaccessible region in the centre of the continent, locked in eternal frost and snow, in which no one could live except the Indians and a few hardy individuals from the north of Scotland who were inured to the cold. The Canadian press deprecated the value of the territory. Even as late as 1855 the Montreal Transcript stated that the climate of the North-West was “ alto- gether unfavourable to the growth of grain ” and that the summer season was too short to “ mature even a small potato or cabbage.’”* The Hudson’s Bay Company assiduously cultivated this erroneous conception, and in a series of letters to the Hamilton Spectator, Edward Ermatinger emphasized the small value of the country, its inhospitable climate, its inaccessibility, and the legal authority by which it was held. Nevertheless, the need for action became increasingly apparent during the ’fifties, and Chief Justice Draper was commissioned by the Canadian Government to watch the investigations of the Select Committee in 1857 and generally to press upon the British Government the rights and interests of Canada relative to the North-West.
24 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
It was the north-westerly movement of the American frontier of settlement that brought home to Canadians the urgency of securing the north-western territories for British rule. In 1849 there had been fewer than 5,000 people in the territory of Minne- sota, south of Assiniboia, but by 1860 there were more than 172,000. St. Paul had become the distributing centre for the Red River Settlement and the overland route via the United States had displaced Hudson Bay as the principal trade route to the interior of the British North-West. The natural direction in which further expansion would take place appeared to be the Red River valley, and it was evident that, unless Rupert’s Land was in the hands of a power stronger than a trading monopoly, American frontiersmen would pay little heed to the existence of an imaginary boundary line. It was not difficult to foresee the serious international complications which might arise from a sudden and unauthorized influx of immigrants from the United States. The Americans were, as a rule, anti-British and strongly biased in favour of republican institutions, and the doctrine of “manifest destiny’ was a powerful force in American politics. Peaceable American penetration had been the preliminary step to the annexation of Oregon and Texas, and it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that Rupert’s Land and the North-West might go the same way.
Great anxiety was, therefore, felt in Canada. Chief Justice Draper said that he was “speaking the sentiments of large numbers of the inhabitants’? when he informed the Select Committee that in Canada there was “a very serious apprehension that if something is not done that territory will in some way or another cease to be British Territory.”® A Minute of Council in January 1857 stated that this was a question of paramount importance :
“The rapid settlement of Minnesota, shortly to be admitted a state of the American Union renders this the more necessary, for as civilization approaches the boundary so will be increased the difficulty of maintaining the distinction between the rights of the two nations on the frontier.””}°
Opinion in Red River was also apprehensive of the danger which threatencd from the south. American agents were already in the country “tampering and meddling with our people ”’ with the result that among many “ everything American
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 25
is praised, everything British dispraised.”** Petitions were sent both to Great Britain and to Canada calling attention to “ the immediate danger which threatens the integrity of the present Imperial rule in British America ” from the “ subtle ingression of a foreign power into its very centre ” ;!# and A. K. Isbister urged before the Select Committee that Great Britain should take over the North-West “ because the United States are fast peopling the territory along the frontier, and they will have that territory from us unless we do people it.””!8
American westward expansion not only emphasized the danger to British interests in the North-West; it also inspired Canadians with the spirit of emulation. Events in the United States are scarcely ever without their reaction in Canada and in this instance American expansion led to the vision of a greater Canada extending “A mari usque ad mare.” Canadian people began to regard the vast unpeopled territories to the west as the natural outlet for their surplus population and as the necessary comple- ment for the full development of their commerce and nationality. “YT hope you will not laugh at me as very visionary,” said Chief Justice Draper to the Select Committee in 1857, “but I hope to see the time, or that my children may live to see the time, when there is a railway going all across that country and ending at the Pacific; and so far as individual opinion goes, I entertain no doubt that the time will arrive when that will be accom- plished.”4
The revival of Canadian interest in the North-West was influenced by economic as well as by political considerations. The idea of linking up the British possessions on the Atlantic with those on the Pacific by a North-West passage by land had long been in the minds of promoters and statesmen.!® As early as 1845, Warre and Vavasour were sent out to report upon the the practicability of sucha project,and in 1851 Allan Macdonnell, of Toronto, sought a charter for the incorporation of the Lake Superior and Pacific Railway Company. Macdonnell’s applica- tion was refused by the Legislature. The railways of Canada were hardly a financial success, and the idea of . constructing a road through an Indian-infested wilderness and over a mountain range to the small settlements on the Pacific coast was not such as would appeal either to the private investor or to the Govern- ment Treasury. Nevertheless the project was not abandoned.
26 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
By 1858 the outlook had undergone a change. Macdonnell was granted a charter for his North-West Transportation, Navigation and Railway Company, to construct railways linking the navigable waterways; Sandford Fleming, later Engineer-in-Chicf of the Canadian Pacific Railway, expressed his belief in the feasibility of a Pacific railway ; and the Canadian Legislature resolved :
“In view of the speedy opening up of the territories now occupied by the Hudson’s Bay Company, and of the development and settlement of the vast regions between Canada and the Pacific Ocean, it is essential to the interests of the Empire at large, that a highway extending from the Atlantic Ocean westward should exist, which should at once place the whole British posses- sions in America within the ready access and easy protection of Great Britain, whilst, by the facilities for internal communication thus afforded, the prosperity of those great dependencies would be promoted, their strength consolidated and added to the strength of the Empire, and their permanent union with the Mother Country secured.’’!¢
There were a few individuals in Canada whose interest in the future of the North-West was inspired by purely selfish motives. Sir George Simpson believed that with many of the leaders of the Canadian annexation movement “ the chief incentive undoubtedly is the desire of participating in the Indian Fur Trade,” and informed the Governor and Committee of the Hudson’s Bay Company that “ several persons who have rendered themselves conspicuous in this movement ... have proceeded from Toronto to Red River Settlement with a view, it is stated, of taking advantage of the present juncture, pending the negotiations for the renewal of the Company’s Licence of trade—to incite the inhabitants to resist the constituted authorities, and to embark in the Indian trade in disregard of the Company’s rights. In these objects they will no doubt receive willing support from the American traders on the frontier, who have a common interest in the matter with the Canadian agitators.’”2? There were, indeed, many who held exaggerated notions as to the profits to be derived from the fur trade, and both John Ross and Chief Justice Draper testified before the Select Committee that there were “certain gentlemenat Toronto very anxious to get up a second North-West Company.”
By 1857 the acquisition of the North-West appears to have been a generally recognized ideal in Canada. In March the
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 27
municipal Council of Lanark and Renfrew petitioned the legis- lature that measures might be adopted to impress upon the British Government the necessity and expediency “ of at once assuming possession of the Hudson’s Bay Territory ... and incorporating it with Canada.’’!® The Toronto Board of Trade, although interested more in the commercial than in the political aspects of Canadian expansion, urged the Legislative Council of Canada to “take into consideration the subject of how far the assumption of power on the part of the Hudson’s Bay Company interferes with Canadian rights, and as to the necessity of more particularly declaring the boundaries of Canada on the westward and on the northward, and of extending throughout the protec- tion of Canadian laws, and the benefits of Canadian institutions.’’?° The Legislature voted £5,000 towards the opening of com- munications with Red River, and parties under Hind, Gladman and Dawson, were sent to explore the southern regions of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s tertitories in order to report upon a feasible route.
The principal obstacle in the way of Canadian westward
expansion was the royal charter granted to the “‘ Adventurers ”’ in 1670. The validity of this charter had been challenged upon several occasions but the law officers of the Crown had always upheld it and the question had never been referred to a legal tribunal. This course was suggested to Isbister and his fellow petitioners in 1849 but they had refused the responsibility. In 1857 the question was taken up by Canada. When asked whether “Canada would be disposed . . . to raise the question of the validity of the charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company, either in whole or in part, before either the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or some other tribunal,’ Chief Justice Draper replied, “‘I can best answer that question by stating that I have express instructions and authority to retain counsel to represent the province, whenever, in my judgment, it is necessary . If Her Majesty’s Government were broadly to say that Canada must appear before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the purpose of determining her boundaries, I apprehend that my instructions go the full length of enabling me to do so.’’!
Canada based her case upon early exploration. Draper was instructed to bring forward “any claims of a legal equitable kind which this province may possess on account of its territorial
28 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
position or its past history,’’? and was provided with an elaborate historical statement®* prepared by the Honourable Joseph Cauchon, Commissioner for Crown Lands. This stated that the territory occupied by the Hudson’s Bay Company had, in 1670, belonged to New France, and was thus specifically excluded from the grant of Charles II by the words “‘ not already actually . . . possessed by the Subjectes of any other Christian Prince or State.” In regard to those regions which were at that time unknown, Cauchon argued that Charles II could not reasonably convey any right to property which might afterwards become his or anothers by the right of prior discovery :
“ The right of discovery is and was so well established, and wherever considered of any importance, has been so jealously watched that volumes of diplomatic controversy have been written on single cases of dispute, that the King of Great Britain could not by his Charter annul the recognized law of nations, or limit in any degree the right of other States to discover and possess countries then unknown.”
The greater part of the territories claimed by the Hudson’s Bay Company had been discovered by those intrepid French Canadians who had travelled overland from New France into the North- West hinterland. Therefore, Cauchon concluded, the utmost to which the Company had a clear title was a strip of territory in the neighbourhood of Hudson Bay ; the vast North-West, including the Red River and Saskatchewan valleys, belonged to New France, and hence to Canada, by right of prior discovery and occupation.
To determine the validity of the charter of Charles II, Henry Labouchere, the Colonial Secretary, referred the question to the law officers, early in June 1857. They replied in July that “ the Crown could not now with justice raise the question of the general validity of the Charter ” which could not “ be considered apart from the enjoyment that has been had under it during nearly two centuries, and the recognition of the rights of the Company in various acts, both of the Government and the Legislature. Nothing could be more unjust, or more opposed to the spirit of our law, than to try this Charter as a thing of yesterday, upon principles which might be deemed applicable to it, if it had been granted within the last ten or twenty years.”’*4 Accordingly Labouchere informed the Canadian Government in January 1858
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 29
that while the question of the boundary between Canada and the Company’s territories might be referred to the Privy Council for decision, he could not challenge the general validity of the charter “ without departing from those principles of equity by which their conduct ought to be guided.”?5 The Colonial Office was, however, anxious to meet any reasonable demands upon the part of Canada. At the same time that he wrote the above to the Governor-General, Labouchere also wrote to the Hudson’s Bay Company urging upon them the necessity of ascertaining the boundary between Canada and Rupert’s Land, or, preferably, of surrendering to the Crown “ such portions of the Territory now claimed ... under the Charter, as may be available to and required by Canada for purposes of settlement,” and suggesting the appointment of a board of three commissioners representing the Imperial and the Canadian Governments and the Hudson’s Bay Company, to consider when the proposed annexation should take place, the amount of compensation to be awarded and other details of the transfer.** The Company replied accepting these proposals, but before further action could be taken, Labouchere surrendered the seals of office.
The change of government was followed by a change in the policy of the Colonial Office. Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, Labouchere’s successor, was not inclined to temporize with the Hudson’s Bay Company. He abandoned Labouchere’s idea of negotiations by means of a commission, and informed Shepherd and Berens, the Company’s representatives, that he intended to take the opinion of the law officers as to the best method of ascertaining the validity of the Company’s charter.2?7 The Canadian Legislature also favoured this mode of procedure. In August they forwarded to the British Government an address praying for “a final decision on the validity of the Charter of the Company, and the boundary of Canada on the north and west.’’6
The Company regarded this address as a direct challenge. They reasserted their right to the privileges granted by the contested charter and informed the Colonial Office that they would refuse to become “a consenting party to any proceeding which is to call in question rights so long established and recog- nized; but ... will... be prepared to protect themselves against any attempt that may be made on the part of the Canadian Authoritics to deprive them, without compensation, of any
30 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
portion of the territory they have so long been in possession of.”’
Lytton did not conceal his “ disappointment and regret”? at this rebuff. He again stressed the necessity of an inquiry before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and threatened to take “ the necessary steps for closing a controversy too long open, and securing a definite decision, which is due to the material development of British North America, and the requirements of an advancing civilization.”°° The Company, however, were not to be intimidated. They expressed their willingness to surrender any of their rights or territory, but refused to consent to an inquiry to call those rights into question. The matter was then referred to the law officers, who replied in December that, under the circumstances, the only course open was for Canada to proceed by a writ of scire facias.31 Lytton hastened to inform the Canadian Government, who, after a delay of several months, refused to avail themselves of this opportunity, and claimed that the respon- sibility of litigation should be assumed by the Imperial rather than by the Colonial Government.” Before any steps could be taken in this respect Lytton was out of office, the net result of his secretaryship being the development of a spirit of acrimony between the Colonial Office and the Hudson’s Bay Company and the expiry, without renewal, of the Company’s licence of exclusive trade.
The Duke of Newcastle reopened negotiations in 1860 with much vigour. He adopted the principle of negotiation expressed in Labouchere’s letter of January 1858, reminded Berens of the Company’s expressed willingness to surrender portions of their territory for settlement, and forwarded him a draft of a * Bill to Facilitate Colonization in parts of the British Territories in North America”? for comment. This Bill called for the surrender of Red River and the Saskatchewan within five years and provided for compensation for loss incurred for immovable improvements, live stock, chattels and loss of profit or monopoly of trade—the amount of compensation to be settled by arbitration. These proposals were a great advance on those of Lytton, the validity of the charter and the principle of compensation, al- though from what source is not evident, being readily admitted. Berens replied at the end of May.*4 He acknowledged Newcastle’s offer but suggested certain modifications, including compensation
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 31
for land held in fee simple and provision for no interference with the Company’s rights until the date of the actual payment. No mutually satisfactory agreement was, however, reached, and the proposed Bill was never introduced into Parliament.
In the meantime public demand in Canada for the opening of overland communication with the colony of British Columbia and for the settlement of the fertile western plains was becoming more insistent, as the knowledge of the interior was increased by the reports of surveyors, scientists and travellers. By 1860 an irregular postal service by canoe, courier and dog-sled, had been inaugurated between Canada and Red River. A steamer was placed on the Great Lakes to ply between Collingwood and Fort William and a group of Toronto men promoted the “ North- West Transit Company’ to carry mails and passengers by steamboat and waggon across British North America. This project did not meet with an immediate response, but in 1861 it received a decided fillip as a result of Edward Watkin’s visit to Canada in connexion with the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial Railways. The capitalists with whom he was associated took up the project and the Duke of Newcastle considered it “a grand conception.”**
The Hudson’s Bay Company regarded the North-West Transit Company without enthusiasm. Berens wrote to the Colonial Secretary that the whole scheme was impracticable, that the land west of Lake Superior was one of rocks and swamps, and that the region west of Red River was “a vast desert.”” The Company refused to risk any capital in what they characterized as ‘‘ a doubt- ful undertaking ” but promised, if the Duke should insist upon making the experiment, to give it all “the moral support” in their power.** The Transit Company was in greater need of practical assistance than of moral support and Newcastle urged the Company to make a grant of land to help the proposed road and telegraph. In response to this demand Berens replied, almost in terror, “‘ What! sequester our very tap-root! Take away the fertile lands where our buffaloes feed! Let in all kinds of people to squat and settle, and frighten away the fur-bearing animals they don’t hunt and kill! Impossible. Destruction— extinction of our time-honoured industry. If these gentlemen ate so patriotic, why don’t they buy us out?” To this outburst the Duke quietly replied, “ What is your price ?”’? Thus pushed
D
32 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
to the wall the Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company answered, “ Well, about a million and a half.’’8?
Watkin appears to have made every effort to persuade the British Government to accept Berens’ price and to purchase the assets of the Hudson’s Bay Company. He assured Newcastle that at the figure named there could be no risk of loss, that the fur trade could be separated from the proprietorship of the soil, that a new company could be formed to take over the old company’s posts and trade, and that it could pay a rental of three and a half per cent on £800,000, leaving only £700,000 as the price of a territory larger than Russia. The Government was, however, opposed to the scheme. As we have observed earlier, the trend of political opinion was against the assumption of further colonial responsibilities by the mother country, and Newcastle could only reply, “ Were I minister of Russia I should buy the land. It is the right thing to do for many, for all reasons; but ministers here must subordinate their views to the Cabinet.”
Accordingly Watkin and his associates came to the conclusion that, if the project was to be carried through, the Hudson’s Bay Company would have to be bought out by private enterprise. The Company’s offer of a mere site for the road and ground for the telegraph was of little value, and finally, after several months of bickering, a satisfactory agreement was reached. Throughout the negotiations the Duke of Newcastle lent his unofficial assist- ance to the promoters of the “ Pacific Scheme.” In March 1863, Berens wrote privatcly to Dallas “‘ there can be no doubt that the Duke of Newcastle is most anxious to get rid of us, and would, I believe, do all he can to further this purpose. He is certainly encouraging other parties to move vigorously in the promotion of his views and no one can foretell what the result may be.’ The result was the purchase, three months later, by the Inter- national Financial Society, of the stock of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and its redistribution among a new body of proprietors who were to carry on the fur trade under the original charter of Charles II, but who would administer the affairs of the re-organ- ized company “‘ on such principles as to allow the gradual settle- ment of such portions of the Territory as admit of it, and facilitate the communication across British North America by telegraph or otherwise.’”4°
The solution of the North-West question now appeared to be
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 33
only a matter of formal negotiation. The proprietors who had been hostile to the idea of colonization had disposed of their interest in the Hudson’s Bay Company and the new pro- prictors were fully alive to the necessity of surrendering the Company’s territorial and governing privileges to promote the settlement of the western plains. Looking forward to this happy state of affairs the new Governor and Committee entered into a lengthy correspondence with the Colonial Office. On August 28th, 1863, a resolution to the effect that “ the time has come when, in the opinion of this Committee, it is expedient that the authority, executive and judicial, over the Red River Settlement and South- Western portion of Rupert’s Land should be vested in officers deriving such authority directly from the Crown and exercising it in the name of Her Majesty,” was forwarded to the Duke of Newcastle.4!
In reply Newcastle signified his readiness to consider any proposal made by the Company. Whereupon the Company made what they considered “a fair and advantageous offer,” offering to surrender all the land south of the Saskatchewan River and east of the Rockies for a money compensation for the value of the territory and the Company’s charter interest in all gold and silver found therein, or, alternatively, for the ownership in fee simple of half the lands surrendered, one-third royalty for mineral rights, and the sole right to erect and operate a telegraph under Government guarantee.“? The Duke was unable to consent to these demands, but, desirous of keeping the negotiations alive, he submitted counter proposals, offering the Company one shilling for every acre of the surrendered lands sold by the Crown but limited to £150,000 in all, and to fifty years in duration, one- fourth of any revenue from gold or silver, but limited to £100,000, and fifty years, and one square mile of adjacent land for every lineal mile of road and telegraph constructed to British Columbia.‘ These proposals were carefully considered by the Committee of the Hudson’s Bay Company who accepted the principle but not the details of the offer. They demanded, instead, that either the payments should not be limited to fifty years or should total one million sterling, and that the land to be granted to the Company should amount to five thousand acres for every fifty thousand sold.4# In the meantime, however, Newcastle had been obliged to relinquish his position at the Colonial Office by
34 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
the illness which resulted in his death. Edward Cardwell, his successor, was not disposed to accept the Company’s terms “‘ without considerable modifications,’’45 and for several months no further correspondence took place on this question.
The change in the directorate of the Hudson’s Bay Company did not alter the attitude of the Canadian Government. They were suspicious of any corporation which succeeded to the territorial rights granted by the charter and put little faith in the Company’s professed interest in colonization and their plan to construct a transcontinental telegraph. Watkin’s “ heads of proposals ”’ sub- mitted to the Canadian Government on behalf of the “ Atlantic and Pacific Transit and Telegraph Company ” were rcjected, and Canada revived her claim to the North-West territory by virtue of French discovery. This meant the virtual end of the road and telegraph project. The Hudson’s Bay Company refused to build it without substantial assistance and a guaranteed profit of not less than four per cent, and countered the Canadian historical claim with the venerable charter of Charles II. In words that might have come from Shepherd or Berens, Sir Edmund Head informed the Colonial Office that “it is not precisely as a boon to themselves ” that the Hudson’s Bay Company had encouraged the surrender of their territories, that “‘ their commercial interest would be equally served if things remained as they are,”** and that the Company would never institute proceedings against their charter but would defend it to the utmost.4”
In 1865 the first real progress was made towards breaking the deadlock between Canada and the Company. The Hudson’s Bay authorities had always expressed their willingness to sur- render their territorial claims for equitable compensation, and every Colonial Secretary since 1857, with the possible exception of Lytton, had endeavoured to reach an agreement on that principle. Accordingly, when John A. Macdonald, George Cartier, George Brown and Alexander Galt visited England in the spring of 1865, to confer on matters relating to Canada, Mr. Edward Cardwell urged upon them the advisability of a modification in the Canadian attitude. He pointed out the vital necessity of opening the North-West to Canadian enterprise and emigration, and the risk that recent gold discoveries on the eastern slopes of the Rockies might attract to the country large numbers of settlers unaccustomed to British institutions. In the end the Canadian
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 35
delegates concluded that “‘ the quickest solution of the question would be the best,” and proposed that the whole of Rupert’s Land should be annexed to Canada, “ subject to such rights as the Hudson’s Bay Company might be able to establish ; and that the compensation to that Company (if any were found to be due) should be met by a loan guaranteed by Great Britain.”48 Cardwell at once informed the Hudson’s Bay authorities that Canada would undertake negotiations with them. A settlement of the North-West question was now in sight. Canada having accepted —although in ungracious terms—the principle of compensation, subsequent negotiations should only have been a matter of agreeing upon the amount.
Canada did not, however, undertake immediate negotiations with the Hudson’s Bay Company. The task of Confederation occupied the attention and energies of Canadian statesmen during the next two years, and it was not until December 1867 that the legislature of the newly constituted Dominion picked up the threads of negotiation where the provincial legislature of Canada had dropped them.
In the meantime the position of British rule in the North-West was growing ever more precarious. The political leaders of the frontier states openly encouraged American expansion into British territory, and there is strong evidence that this movement was tolerated if not directly encouraged by Washington. One reason suggested for the abrogation of Reciprocity was the hope that Canada’s economic life being so bound up with that of the United States, the colony would be forced to seek admission into the American union.” In July 1866 a Bill, providing for “the admission of the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East and Canada West, and for the organization of the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan and Columbia,”’ was intro- duced into the House of Representatives at Washington.®? Seward’s covetous interest in British Columbia and his purchase of Alaska in 1867 were acclaimed and defended as a brilliant stroke of policy shutting off the new Dominion from the Pacific. “It was, in short,” wrote the New York Tribune of April 1st,51 ‘a flank movement”? upon Canada; soon the world would see in the north-west of the continent “a hostile cockney with a watch- ful Yankee on each side of him” and John Bull would be made to understand that his only course would be the disposal of his
36 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
North American interests to Brother Jonathan. Typical of the American jingoism of this period was the expressed wish of Ignatius Donnelly that American territories “abut only on the everlasting seas,” and the fears of Mr. Shellabarger, that the United States might become so large “ that we could only love half at a time.’’5?
The north-western states were those directly interested in the annexation of the Hudson’s Bay Company territory. As early as 1859, J. W. Taylor, later consul at Winnipeg, whose life-long ambition was to bring about the peaceful annexation of British territory to the United States, had been sent to report on the route from Pembina, via Red River and the Saskatchewan, to the Fraser river gold-ficlds—a question which Governor Ramsey of Minnesota declared concerned “in a great degree the future growth and development of our State.”53 Public opinion was strongly in favour of the acquisition of the British North-West. The newspapers were full of blustering patriotism concerning “ the integrity of American territory between St. Paul and Sitka.” The St. Paul Daily Press urged that a protest should be sent to Washington against the proposed transfer of that region to Canada and stated ‘‘ We trust that Mr. Seward and Congress will not be slow in giving the London Cabinet a gentle hint that the course talked of over there is not at all compatible with the common understanding of good neighbourhood.”’*4 In March 1868, the Minnesota Legislature—at Taylor’s instigation®>— followed this advice. It protested against the transfer of the Hudson’s Bay Company Territories to Canada without a vote of the settlers, and passed a resolution to the effect that it “ would rejoice to be assured that the cession of North-West British America to the United States ’’ was “ regarded by Great Britain and Canada as satisfactory provisions of a treaty which shall remove all grounds of controversy between the respective countries.””**
The absence in the colony of any defensive force constituted a potential danger. In 1861 the Royal Canadian Regiment, then stationed at Fort Garry in the Red River Settlement, was withdrawn in spite of the Company’s protests, just at a time when the increased knowledge of the territory, the rumours of the discovery of gold on the Saskatchewan and the news of the negotiations for the transfer of the country to Canada,
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 37
would attract crowds of adventurers and settlers to a colony which had no force save moral suasion to back its authority. With a sufficient number of troops the Company might have held their rights secure, but they were like a king without an army, helpless in the face of defiant opposition. The Americans were fully aware of this weakness and Taylor reported to the Secretary of the Treasury that “in case of a collision with England, Minnesota is competent to ‘ hold, occupy, and possess ’ the valley of Red River to Lake Winnipeg.’’5”
There is no doubt that the United States would have welcomed overtures from the Hudson’s Bay Company. The presumptuous Bill of 1866 contained the following clause :
“ Article XI. The United States will pay ten millions of dollars
to the Hudson’s Bay Company in full discharge of all claims to territory or jurisdiction in North America, whether founded on the charter of the Company, or any treaty, law or usage.” In the same year a group of Anglo-American capitalists offered to purchase the Company’s territories in order to “ colonize the same on a system similar to that in operation in the United States in respect to the organization of territories and states ” ;5§ while in 1869 Taylor wrote to the Company’s agent at St. Paul :
“T know that President Grant is anxious for a treaty with England which shall transfer the country between Minnesota and Alaska in settlement of the A/abama controversy, and as a con- sideration for the establishment of complete reciprocal trade with Canada. I have no doubt that a clause would be inserted in such a treaty giving $5,000,000 to the Hudson’s Bay Company in satisfaction of the title to one-twentieth of the land in central British America.”5® This “awful swallow for territory,” together with the bellicose attitude of the United States, their ill-concealed hostility towards Great Britain as a result of the A/abama affair, the danger of inter- national complications arising out of the Indian troubles south of the frontier, and the weakness of the colony from a military standpoint, rendered the political future of the North-West uncertain.
The federation of the four British provinces in North America concluded in 1867, negotiations for the acquisition of the North- West were resumed. The British North America Act had made special provision for the admission of Rupert’s Land and the
38 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
North-Western Territories into the federal union, and on December 4th, William McDougall, one of the foremost apostles of national expansion, introduced into the Canadian House of Commons a series of resolutions which formed the basis of an Address to the Crown praying for the transfer of the Hudson’s Bay Company territories to Canada. This address did not, however, follow the course urged by Cardwell in 1865. Instead it requested that the transfer should precede the settlement of the Company’s claims which might then be submitted for adjudication to the Canadian courts.
The Hudson’s Bay Company had ample reason to protest against this course. In 1865 the Canadian delegates had under- taken to negotiate with the Company and the fact of this under- taking was recited by the Colonial Office as a reason why the Company should not consider proposals from other sources. Now, after the conclusion of Confederation, the Canadian Government suggested a mode of proceeding entirely contrary ‘to the expectations raised by the acts of their delegates and the communications which had passed between the Colonial Office and the Company. It had always been understood that the negotiations should precede and not follow the transfer of the territory. If the latter course were adopted the Company could only rely upon the honesty and considerate disinterestedness of the Canadian Parliament and the impartiality and competence of Canadian courts—a doubtful support in view of the long expressed hostility to the Hudson’s Bay Company in Parliament and press. That this was fully realized is shown by a passage in a speech by the Honourable Mr. Holton and by John A. Macdonald himself, who admitted that the procedure advocated in the address would render the Company’s title practically worthless.”
The Colonial Office were unwilling to accept the Canadian suggestion. The law officers had assured the Duke of Buck- ingham and Chandos, the latest Colonial Secretary, that the Crown could not, in view of the charter, transfer Rupert’s Land to Canada without the consent of the Company, and the Duke informed Sir Curtis Lampson, the Deputy Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company, that he favoured direct negotiations for an arrangement to be confirmed by Parliament.** The Newcastle negotiations were advanced as a possible basis for discussion, with the difference that the whole of Rupert’s Land, rather than certain
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 39
specified areas, should be the object of surrender. On May 13th, 1868, the Governor outlined the Company’s terms.°? They demanded one shilling per acre for every acre sold, leased or granted by the Government, and one-fourth of any export duty on gold or silver, the total to be fixed at £1,000,000 ; a land grant on the basis of 5,000 acres for every 50,000 disposed of by the Government ; 6,000 acres around each Company post except at Red River ; Canada to take over the telegraph materials at cost plus interest ; the Company to be exempt taxes on undeveloped land and to be free to carry on trade.
The Duke of Buckingham could hardly accede to these de- mands. The Colonial Office considered them unreasonable and in a draft reply the Duke wrote :
“If... the Company adhere to the terms indicated in their letter, Her Majesty’s Government must be understood distinctly to decline to assent to those terms, which they conceive it would be inexpedient for the Crown to concede in the event of retaining the territory as a Crown Colony, and which they would not therefore suggest for the concurrence of the Canadian Govern- ment.,’’83 Nevertheless he went ahead with arrangements for the eventual transfer. In July, an Act, known as the Rupert’s Land Act, was passed by the Imperial Parliament to enable the Crown to accept, upon terms, a surrender of the lands and privileges of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and, within a month of this acceptance, to transfer them to Canada.** During the next few months private discussions took place between the representatives of the Colonial Office and those of the Company. Buckingham suggested several modifications, such as the reduction of the land reserves around the posts, and land grants of five lots, of not less than 200 acres, in each township. No definite answer was made to these counter proposals until January 13th, 1869, when Sir Stafford Northcote, the new Governor of the Company, without accepting Buckingham’s suggestions, offered certain amendments of his own.**
In the meantime the Canadian Government had intimated their desire to have some voice in the settlement of the North-West question, and requested that the negotiations then in progress be suspended until the arrival of a Canadian delegation. In October Sir George Cartier and William McDougall sailed for
40 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
England. On their arrival they were invited by the Duke to Stowe “for the purpose of discussing freely and fully the numerous and difficult questions involved in the transfer of these great territories to Canada.” It was Buckingham’s object to arrange a compromise to which both parties would consent and he impressed upon the Canadian delegates the determination of the British Government to treat with the Company as “ lords proprietors,” not as a body with a defective title. Before he was able to accomplish his aim, however, the Duke quitted office on the fall of the Derby-Disraeli administration in December.
Lord Granville, the Duke’s successor, abandoned the policy of direct negotiation between the Colonial Office and the Hudson’s Bay Company. He regarded the Company’s letter of January 13th, 1869, as a definite rejection of Buckingham’s proposals and considered the matter as closed. He insisted that further negotiations ‘‘ for the purchase ” were a matter for “ the seller and the buyer, the Company and the Colony.” He refused to frame or suggest further terms of accommodation, but offered to act “as a channel of communication between these two real parties to the transaction, using its best endeavours to remove any difficulties not inherent in the nature of the case.”’°* Accordingly he forwarded Northcote’s letter of January to Cartier and McDougall for comment. On February 8th the Canadian dele- gates returned their answer. It displayed® a sharpness of tone and an unwillingness to treat with the Company in a spirit of compromise. The delegates reiterated their challenge to the Company’s chartered rights ; declared that they had been hitherto merely “ spectators of a negotiation begun and carried on upon principles and under conditions to which we are strangers, rather than that of assenting principals, responsible for its initiation and bound by its results’; offered £106,431 as the highest amount which could be properly demanded by the Company; and concluded with a request that, as no money offer deemed reason- able by Canada would be accepted by the Company, Great Britain should authorize a transfer of the North-West to Canada without further loss of time !
The Hudson’s Bay Company felt that the uncompromising atti- tude taken in this letter left little hope for a satisfactory settlement, but the Colonial Office were, nevertheless, determined to carry matters through to a conclusion. The negotiations were con-
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 4!
tinued, Granville using his position as go-between to exert pressure upon both parties. Interviews were held with the Canadian delegates and with the representatives of the Company and finally, on March goth, Granville presented his ultimatum with the remark :
“If the proposal is really an impartial one, Lord Granville cannot expect that it will be otherwise than unacceptable to both of the parties concerned. But he is not without hope that both may find, on consideration, that if it does not give them all that they conceive to be their due, it secures to them what is politically or commercially necessary, and places them at once in a position of greater advantage with respect to their peculiar objects than that which they at present occupy.’’7°
The main provisions were: the surrender by the Hudson’s Bay Company of all its rights and privileges in Rupert’s Land; the payment by Canada to the Company of £300,000 ; a land grant of one-twentieth of the land within the Fertile Belt, and certain blocks of land in the vicinity of the Company’s trading posts totalling 50,o00 acres; the right of the Company to continue its trade without hindrance or “exceptional ” taxation ; and the purchase by Canada of the materials for the neglected telegraph.
The Company were in a difficult position. Events at Red River had made it apparent that they could not much longer carry on the civil government in the absence of a military force, and Lord Granville had coupled his offer with a shadowy threat :
“ At present the very foundations of the Company’s title are not undisputed. The boundaries of its territory are open to questions of which it is impossible to ignore the importance. Its legal rights, whatever these may be, are liable to be invaded without law by a mass of Canadian and American settlers, whose occupation of the country on any terms they will be little able to resist ; while it can hardly be alleged that either the terms of the charter, or their internal constitution, are such as qualify them under all these disadvantages for maintaining order and perform- ing the internal and external duties of government.”
A final effort was made to secure more favourable terms, the Company offering to accept Granville’s proposals with certain modifications. But Cartier and McDougall were determined to make no concession. They replied to Northcote that they had accepted Granville’s terms “‘ pure et simple ” and would go no
42 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
further.”* The Company had, therefore, no alternative save to accept. In April the terms were submitted to a General Court of the Proprietors. Northcote moved their acceptance, but a considerable body of proprietors opposed them ‘as obviously involving too great a sacrifice of their interests.’’?? The meeting was a stormy one, but, after a long discussion, the motion was carried by ashow ofhands. The minority shareholders protested to the Committee and even to the Colonial Office that Northcote’s motion had not been carried constitutionally, but the deal was closed and the date for the surrender fixed.
The terms of the transfer were, perhaps, the best that the Company could have obtained at the time, although there is evidence to show that the Canadian delegates might have paid the million pounds specified in Buckingham’s proposals.’4 The cession was, in any event, inevitable, and time was on the side of the Canadian Government. There is no doubt that the Company always believed that a Crown Colony would be the best solution, but with the spirit of expansion dominant in Canada and J/aissez-aller in England, this was never seriously considered by the Colonial Office. Nevertheless, in view of the recognition of the validity of the Company’s charter and the territorial jurisdiction granted by it, for two hundred years, the extent and value of the rights surrendered, and the beneficial tule of the Company over the Indians, the price paid was not over-generous.
The terms agreed upon at London were ratified by the Canadian Parliament and the date of the transfer was fixed for October 1st, 1869.75 This date was, however, altered to December 1st, owing to a delay in making the necessary financial arrangements. In the meantime the Canadian Government, in anticipation of the transfer, passed “ An Act for the Temporary Government of Rupert’s Land,”’* which provided for the administration by a Lieutenant-Governor and Council not exceeding fifteen and not less than seven persons, and the retention of all the laws then in force in the territory not inconsistent with the British North America Act or the terms of the transfer. The choice for the position of Lieutenant-Governor fell upon the Honourable William McDougall. It was regarded by many as a fitting reward for his public services in bringing about the acquisition of the North-West—although his enemies suggested that the
car a
L and 1° s
WLOSSNNIW
ViLO3S WAON : SA
O48) WOVNVD OL ° Kar .
ANVdWO? = AVEPS = SNOSGNH even
2 z L % 3%
: tLe) sword “FSOL ; WQYNNS OL % VISWNtoD
a WY 5 HS1LIUG a
NoOSOnH
OL~ 6981 — WOIWIWVY HIYON HS1L1N9 Zz. hak iin fui eh 4O NV 1d XE ‘ 4 > : VuSW1
THE END OF COMPANY RULE 43
Government were anxious to disembarrass themselves of an unpopular colleague.
In order to be present at Red River when the long-negotiated transfer should finally take place, the Governor-designate, accompanied by his prospective Provincial Secretary, his Attorney General, his Collector of Customs and his Chief of Police, set out, by way of the United States, for the seat of his prairie govern- ment. Towards the end of October he arrived at the frontier village of Pembina where he was greeted, not by the expected address of welcome, but by
* A Monsieur McDougall.
“ Monsieur—Le Comité National des Métis de la Riviére Rouge intime a4 Monsieur McDougall l’ordre de ne pas entrer sur le Territoire du Nord-Ouest sans une permission spéciale de ce Comité.
Par ordre du président. Joun Bruce Louis Rrgx, Secrétaire. Daté a St. Norbert, Riviére Rouge, ce 21€ jour d’octobre, 1869.”
CHAPTER It HALF-BREED UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT
IN outlining the history of the transfer of Rupert’s Land to the Dominion of Canada we have travelled ahead and must now return to examine the events which led to the erection of the barricade at St. Norbert in 1869. During the years between 1830 and 1870 there were two distinct and separate periods of unrest in Red River, each marked by an agitation on the part of the half- breed inhabitants of the colony. The one, covering the years to 1850, was economic in origin; the other, racial and political. The first was a movement against the Hudson’s Bay Company for commercial freedom; the second, a movement against the Dominion of Canada for national and economic security. This distinction is important, for, while the first movement led to the breakdown of the Hudson’s Bay Company monopoly of the fur trade, the second led to the insurrection, alliteratively called the Red River Rebellion.
By 1837 the walls of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s monopoly, buttressed though they were by a parliamentary licence of exclu- sive trade, were beginning to crumble. The settlers were restless. The fur-trading restrictions were resented by the free spirits of the colony, brulé and white, and a mischievous adventurer named Dickson, who styled himself ‘‘ Liberator of the Indian Race,” endeavoured to take advantage of this resentment by inciting the half-breeds and Indians to seize the trading posts and depots and to take possession of the fur trade and the country. Dickson’s efforts were unsuccessful, and the Company, taking time by the forelock, secured from the British Government a renewal, for twenty-one years, of their trade licence. Thus assured of their legal position the Hudson’s Bay Company authorities deter- mined to take active measures to suppress the illicit trade in furs which had by this time developed between the Red River Settlement and the American State of Minnesota. In 1840 the officers of the Company at Fort Garry, armed with muskets and bayonets, broke open a half-breed cabin and confiscated all the furs that it contained. This punitive measure failed to deter
44
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 4;
the offenders and in 1844 Governor Christie took the drastic step of ordering all letters sent by importers to their agents in England via the Company’s ships, to be sent to Fort Garry open for perusal by the officials of the Hudson’s Bay Company ; exemption from this regulation was only to be granted to those willing to sign a declaration that they had not engaged in the fur trade. This regulation. was much resented by the inhabitants of the Settlement, most of whom were not averse to making a few pounds by quietly trading in furs when the opportunity presented itself. Leading settlers, like James Sinclair and Andrew McDermott, unhesitatingly avowed their intention of carrying on their illicit trade without regard for the Company’s chartered privileges. “Over and above the direct results of their own operations,” wrote Sir George Simpson, ‘“‘the example of these two persons has proved to be peculiarly pernicious, inasmuch as their superior standing and comparative intelligence gave considerable weight to their opinions.’
To counter this move by the settlers and “‘to the utmost extent of our means, to avert the blow thus aimed at the very vitals of the Company’s trade and power,’’s the Council of Rupert’s Land endeavoured to exert financial pressure upon the traders of the colony. A special duty of twenty per cent was placed upon maritime importations, but, as before, the Governor of Assiniboia was authorized to exempt from payment all those who did not traffic in furs. The result was a storm of indignation. In August 1845, a number of half-breeds led by James Sinclair, who, as early as 1837, had been a leader of the free trade in furs move- ment, presented an address to the Governor of Assiniboia, asking for a statement of their position and that of the Com- pany. The Governor replied, a week later, that the half-breeds possessed no rights superior to those of other British subjects, and that they had ample opportunity of knowing the law of the land as laid down in the charter and in the enactments of the Council of Rupert’s Land. This answer was hardly satisfactory and the agitation continued.
It is interesting to note that Sir George Simpson believed that American influence was to a large extent responsible for the unrest prevalent in Red River over the question of the fur trade. In a letter to the Governor-General of Canada, dated November 1845, he wrote:
E
46 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
“ The half-breeds, who, from their volatile character, are ever fascinated by novelty, seem. . . elated by the advantages they are led to believe would be derived from a more intimate connexion with the United States ; and when the canoe came away, a petition was being sent round among the settlers for signature, praying Congress to assist and protect them in the formation of a settle- ment at Pembina, The petition appears to have been drawn up by one McLaughlin, a British subject, who last year went to the Settlement from St. Louis . . . and who, together with a relative of his (named McDermott) who has for many years been settled at Red River, and a partner of McDermott’s named Sinclair, I have no doubt, have been employed by some of the United States authorities, as secret emissaries among our half-breed settlers and the neighbouring Indians, with a view of sowing the seeds of dis- affection, as a preliminary measure to the overtures that have now been made, in which they appear to have been very successful, if 1am at liberty to judge from the tone of discontent towards the Mother Country which has recently obtained among those people. McLaughlin, I understand, has been entrusted with this petition, which has been signed by 1,250 half-breed and Canadian settlers, and is now on his way to Washington for the purpose of laying it before the authorities there.’
The prompter behind the scenes of this foreign interference appears in a subsequent letter of Simpson’s, in which he encloses a letter from the agent of Messrs. P. Chouteau, Jr. and Company of New York, a large American fur company, to McDermott and McLaughlin, promising to take all the furs they could supply, and arranging for the establishment of the American company’s trading posts on the boundary.®
In 1847 the unrest in the Red River Settlement was brought to the attention of the British Government by the Memorial and Petition against the Hudson’s Bay Company, presented by A. K. Isbister to the Colonial Secretary on February 17th.?7 There was also a petition drawn up by a committee of French métis bearing 977 signatures. This petition, among other things, demanded that:
* Comme sujets Britanniques, nous désirons ardemment étre gouvernés d’aprés les principes de cette constitution qui rend heureux tous les nombreux sujets de notre auguste Souveraine.”
This was the only demand on the part of the settlers for a system of representative or responsible government. Neither the Memorial nor the instructions to the delegates in England
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 47
made any mention of a desire for representative institutions ; nor was it likely that the French half-breeds who signed the petition had the slightest conception of the political implica- tions of their demand. The real issue was not one of self government, but of freedom of trade in furs. Isbister’s mission was not a success. His refusal to contest the validity of the chatter, coupled with the favourable reports of Colonel Crofton and Lord Elgin on the government of the Hudson’s Bay Com- pany, persuaded the British Government to drop the matter. But the handwriting was on the wall and the destruction of the monopoly was close at hand.
The whole question was brought to a head in 1849, when Guillaume Sayer and three others were arrested and imprisoned for trafficking in furs. Although convicted by a jury of his own selection, Sayer was merely dismissed with an admonition, in view of the hostile manifestations of the métis, three hundred of whom, led by the fiery “ miller of the Seine,” Louis Riel pére, and armed with rifles and buffalo guns, surrounded the Court House. The métis hailed the decision as a virtual victory for their cause and greeted the break up of the court with a few de joie and shouts of “ Le commerce est libre, le commerce est libre, vive la liberté.’”® The Council of Assiniboia discussed the half-breed demands a few days later, but the control of events had been taken from their hands, and henceforth the fur trade was carried on openly, and in increasing amount by private parties.
The release of Sayer marked the end of the first period of unrest and the Red River Settlement quickly settled down to its early state of Arcadian simplicity. For the next ten years there was little or no discontent manifest in the colony. The “ smooth- ing ” influence of Sir George Simpson, and the tacit concession of free trade in furs resulted in a period of amity and tranquillity. The half-breeds gradually acquired an increasing voice in the government by the admission of leading half-breeds to the Council of Assiniboia. In spite of the complete absence of any military force to enforce the law, crimes were “ perhaps, less frequent in proportion than in any other community, while the more atrocious offences are altogether unknown ; and as to the general condition of the people, there is not . .. any country where industry is more independent of the accidents of fortune or where idleness is less likely to lead to want or to prompt to dishonesty.’ According
48 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
to R. G. MacBeth, the settlers, half-breed and white, lived in harmony together “contented and happy under the régime of the Hudson’s Bay Company, especially as that company did not latterly insist on monopoly in trade.’2° Riel told the Council of Assiniboia in October 1869 “that his party were perfectly satisfied with the present Government, and wanted no other.”™ But this happy state of affairs was not to last. In less than two decades the ‘ invidious bar ’’ of isolation was broken down, and the simple, peaceful, contented community of Red River was thrown into political and racial strife.
The second period of unrest in the Red River valley began with the westward advance of Canadian expansion. Following the awakening in Canada of an interest in the political future of the Hudson’s Bay Company territory, adventurers and settlers began to follow the historic advice of Horace Greeley “ go west, young man.” With them they carried their national prejudices, their ideas of political liberty, and their printing press, and like their American prototype in Texas, they soon began to agitate and to advocate annexation to the land from which they had come. Although this “ Canadian Party,” as they were known in the Settlement, were few in number, they made up in vigour and vocality what they lacked in numerical strength. Of all the anti- Hudson’s Bay Company and pro-Canadian element, the most prominent was Dr. John Christian Schultz, a young physician from Kingston, whose interests turned more to politics than to the practice of his profession. He it was who led the small band of storm troops who, from 1860, constantly assailed the crumbling political breastworks of the great corporation.
The native population viewed this development with growing concern. Much of what has been attributed, on the one hand, to the unsatisfactory government of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and on the other to a traditional Franco-English hostility brought to Red River from the banks of the St. Lawrence, was, in reality, a social and economic antagonism to the advancing army of white immigrants and settlers. There was in the half-breed mentality an inherent opposition to any political or economic change in Rupert’s Land. The half-breeds had been the first inhabitants of the country, and, unreasonable as the claim may appear in view of their small numbers, they felt that the country was theirs. This feeling of ownership and nationality had been
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 49
fostered by the North-West Company and had manifested itself against the Selkirk colony in 1816. This same feeling of owner- ship and nationality was the underlying cause of the half-breed opposition to Canadian expansion in Red River. It must be remembered that at no time had there ever existed any patti- cular attachment on the part of the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement for Canada. Their racial origin was different from that of the Canadians, their historical life was distinct from that of Canada, and all intercourse, social or economic, between the two peoples had been prevented by natural obstacles. It was only natural, thereforc, that the half-breeds should view with alarm the expansion of what was to them almost a foreign country —particularly when this expansion meant the disorganization of their economic existence. With the advent of the Canadians in Red River the day of the buffalo hunter and the small freighter was at anend. A primitive people, the half-breeds were bound to give way before the march of a more progressive people. It was the recognition of this fact and the gradual realization of their inability to adjust themselves to the new order that kindled the spark of half-breed resentment which unfortunate circumstances fanned into the flame of insurrection. Louis Riel stated the basic cause of the Red River Rebellion when he told the Council of Assiniboia in 1869 that the half-breeds “‘ were uneducated, and only half civilized, and felt, if a large immigration were to take place, they would probably be crowded out of a country which they claimed as their own.’’!? Their fears were justified. In spite of their victory in the rising of 1869-70, the half-breeds were soon forced back by the advancing frontier of civilization into the valley of the Saskatchewan, where, fifteen years later, they made their last stand.
Under these circumstances it 1s not surprising that the agitation of the Canadian party made little headway among the half-breed settlers. There developed, instead, a feeling of distrust regarding the motives of the agitators. In 1863 and 1866 efforts were made by the Canadians to secure popular approval to petitions favouring annexation to Canada, but they met with little success. On the first occasion a memorial, praying for the establishment of means of communication between Canada and British Columbia via Red River and the Saskatchewan, was drawn up and sent to Sandford Fleming, a civil engineer in Canada, who, although he
50 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
had never visited the colony, had been for some time the warm advocate of the construction of a railway across British North America. This petition was forwarded by Fleming to the Canadian Government and later to the Colonial Office, but no action was taken cither at Ottawa or London. It is interesting to note that, according to the Governor of Rupert’s Land, the otigin of Fleming’s petition lay, notin the grievances of the settlers, but in the desire of that gentleman to win public notice. “In the course of last winter (1862-63),”’ wrote Dallas to the London Committee, “‘ we were rather surprised to observe in the columns of our only paper, the Nor Wester, an announcement that at large and influential public meetings Mr. Sandford Fleming had been appointed Delegate to represent the wishes and opinions of the people of the Red River Settlement in Canada and England. As no such meetings had been held, we were rather at a loss to make out the precise object of the Editor of the paper, and by a curious coincidence (the paper having now changed hands) I have ascertained that the whole affair originated in a douceur of one hundred dollars paid by Mr. Fleming to the Editor to secure his appointment as Delegate, Mr. Fleming’s object being I believe solely to bring himself into notice. If opportunity offers it may be well to make the Duke of Newcastle aware of the imposi- tion which has been practised upon him. Mr. Fleming virtually appointed himself to represent a country and a people whom he had never seen. Many of the statements of his memorial are incorrect, and the views and opinions set forth, open to much question and of no value whatever.’!3 In 1866 a meeting was called by Thomas Spence, a Canadian newly arrived in the Settlement, at which a series of resolutions were drawn up amidst uproarious expression of enthusiasm by five people !!4 while a petition, drawn up by Dr. Schultz, demanding an entire change of government, not only “ met with no support” but “in con- sequenice of its appearance a counter petition to the Governor and Committee has been got up.’ This lack of support was probably due, as the Governor of Assiniboia wrote, to the fact that ‘ there is a pretty general suspicion among the people that their foreign Friends are simply following the course that they think will best serve their own interests.””**
In spite of the fact that the native population held aloof from the Canadian party, the Government of the colony was, how-
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 51
ever, quite incapable of coping either with the agitation or with the agitators. The Company lacked an adequate force to back its administration of the law and depended greatly upon the peaceful, law-abiding and contented nature of the Settlement for a strict observance of law and order. After 1860 the Company experienced increasing difficulty in enforcing respect for its authority, largely because of the aggressive attitude of the immi- grants from Canada. In 1863 its authority was openly flouted when the Rev. James Corbett, who had been imprisoned for a serious offence, was released from the little prison outside the walls of Fort Garry, by a small but determined band of men. ‘The leader himself was imprisoned for this breach of the law, but was forcibly released by his friends.’? A few ycars later there was a recurrence of jail-breaking. This time Dr. Schultz was the central figure. Imprisoned for assault in resisting a seizure for debt, he was freed by a band of fifteen or cighteen men led by his fearless wife, who overpowered the constables on duty and broke open the prison door.’ As a result of this episode the Council of Assiniboia proposed to enlist the services of one hundred special constables, but the proposal was, for some reason or another, never carricd into effect.
The principal weapon of the Canadian Party was the press. In December 1859 the Nor’ Wester was founded at Winnipeg by two Canadian journalists, William Coldwell and William Buckingham. The avowed purpose of the paper was to attack the Company tule and to further the cause of Canadian annexation. At first the tone of the paper was relatively mild, but from 1865, when it became the sole property of Dr. Schultz, it became more fiery and abusive. Its articles were reprinted in the Canadian press and the impression was conveyed to the people of Canada that the North- West was groaning under the yoke of an obnoxious tyranny and pleading to the outside world for assistance. The refusal of the Council of Assiniboia to appoint Dr. Schultz to that body as representative of the Canadians in Red River was the object of a special outburst. The colony was represented as standing alone on the face of the British globe in being denied the rights of representative government, and vague threats were made that some of the people were ‘‘ openly discussing the propriety of taking the Government from its present hands into that of their own,73°
52 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
To the native inhabitants the political agitation of the Nor’ Wester was decidedly disturbing. The first copy contained the significant remark that “such a colony cannot now remain unpeopled ” and in 1860 the paper began to predict ominous changes : ‘‘ The wise and prudent will be prepared to receive and to benefit by them ; whilst the indolent and the careless, like the native tribes of the country, will fall back before the march of a superior intelligence.”° This was exactly what the French half- breeds feared, and during the ten years prior to the Red River Insurrection these fears were sufficiently justified to produce a deep unrest. Many of the white people living in the Settlement also resented the lawlessness of the Canadian Party and the mis- representations and threats which marked the columns of their paper. A. G. B. Bannatyne, one of the most substantial of the English-speaking settlers, wrote a friend :
* Old Red River is going to the devil faster than ever, and God
only knows what is to become of us if the English Government or some other friendly soul does not take us by the hand. Between James Ross and Corbitt they have managed to make the place too hot to live in.” Finally, after the Schultz jail-breaking of 1868, there was an outburst of feeling against the Canadians and the Nor’ Wester. A petition was drawn up and signed by some eight hundred people protesting against the unlawful liberation of Dr. Schultz and misstatements concerning it in the little newspaper.??
Had the Nor’ Wester been less violent and more truthful it might have exercised a salutary influence on public affairs in Red River, but instead it only served to discredit the Canadian Party and the country they claimed to represent. Writing after the outbreak of insurrection, J. J. Hargrave, secretary to the Governor of Assiniboia, said:
“The way was prepared for these disorders by a party in the colony, the representative of which was the Nor’Wester news- paper. It was simply a disreputable clique which has in many ways for a long time past excited sedition against existing authority under pretence of loyalty to Canada.’”?8 Whether or not we accept this—not wholly unbiased—descrip- tion of the Canadian Party, the fact remains clear that their con- tinued war upon the Hudson’s Bay Company government in Red River contributed in no small measure to the unrest which
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 33
finally broke out in insurrection. Illustrative of the unsettled feeling in the colony is the following quotation from a contem- porary source :
“Dans Ia colonie elle-méme il régne une certaine agitation et inquiétude au sujet de son avenir. Les uns, en trés petit nombre, qui espérent gagner par un changement quelconque, le demand- ent 4 grands cris ; d’autres considérant plus les systémes que leur application voudraient pouvoir tenter un changement, ne se doutant pas qu’on ne revient plus 4 l’état primitif d’du ils veulent s’écarter ; le plus grand nombre, la majorité redoute ce change- ment.’?*4
To add to the troubles of Red River, the whole country was visited in the autumn of 1867 by a horde of locusts. These deposited their eggs and in the spring the young insects devoured everything that was green in the Settlement. The colony was at once faced with starvation. Taché wrote to the Nor’ Wester that “within the whole colony not one bushel will be harvested... . Moreover the buffalo hunters instead of furnishing their large share of provisions . . . arrived starving from their usual hunting grounds.’’*5 The distress was appalling. The Rev. George Young wrote to a friend, “I heard of one family last week who had killed and eaten their house cat, and others in the distance have eaten their horses.” The Council of Assiniboia immediately voted £1,600 for provisions and seed wheat. Lord Kimberley’s letter to The Times?’ brought a generous response, while the Hudson’s Bay Company, the Dominion of Canada and the United States all contributed generously.
At this crucial moment there arrived in the colony a party of Canadian Government employees under J. A. Snow, for the purpose of building a road from the Lake of the Woods to the Red River Settlement. This action on the part of Canada, was somewhat premature in view of the fact that negotiations with the Hudson’s Bay Company had not yet been concluded. The Company authorities in London protested against this trespass, but offered to grant permission for the work to proceed.2® The Canadian delegates in England replied that the Canadian Govern- ment intended it as a relief work, thus providing the indigent settlers with employment and provisions.2® The Canadian Government were committing no injustice in demanding work in return for supplies and Snow’s party was at first welcomed in the
$4 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
colony. Unfortunately, however, subsequent events made it appear as if Canada had merely taken advantage of the distress in Red River to gain a foothold in the country. Moreover, Snow and his party were guilty of sharp practice in the matter of provisions. The men were engaged at the rate of £3 a month in provisions, but were charged a higher rate than that prevailing in the Settlement. The men were charged £3 12s. od. for a barrel of flour that could be purchased elsewhere in the colony for £3.3° This naturally aroused resentment, which was increased by paying the wages in orders on Schultz’s store, a procedure particularly offensive to the French half-breeds.
This association of the Canadian Government employces with John Schultz and his unpopular companions was a serious blunder. On many occasions hostilities between the half-breeds and Schultz’s clique had been prevented only through the personal influence of Governor Mactavish and Bishop Taché. The English-speaking community too, according to Hargrave, “fully understood the character of these people; but the Canadians, belonging to the surveying and road-making partics lately arrived, lived among them, and to the scandal of the well- disposed, appeared to support them in their disorders. The result has been that Canadians have made no progress in gaining the goodwill of the people.’”’8! Mactavish considered this one of the principal causes of the troubles which followed :
“ The chief cause of hostility on the part of the half-breeds appears to be that they thought every Canadian official as he arrived was too intimate with Doctor Schultz and his party, and they suspected were acting under the Doctor’s influence, which they suppose would not be in their favour.”’3?
With Snow came Charles Mair, who succeeded in making himself and other Canadians extremely unpopular in Red River. Mair wrote to his friends in Ontario a series of letters which contained, in rather ungracious terms, his opinions of the people of the North-West. These letters were, unfortunately, published in the Toronto G/obe®* and other newspapers in castern Canada, and in the colony they aroused considerable resentment. ‘‘ The indignation against Mr. Mair is going on furiously,”’ wrote a friend to Hargrave.** The female part of the population, about whom Mair had made many uncomplimentary remarks, was particularly angry. One pulled his nose, another his cars, while
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 55
a third, the wife of a leading citizen of the Settlement, drove him from the Post Office with a horse whip !85 The indignation was so great that Mair was ordered to leave the Settlement and was only allowed to return upon the personal intervention of Governor Mactavish and on apologizing to the people concerned.**
To this growing resentment against the Canadians upon the part of the half-breeds was added the fear, dormant since the tumultuous days of Cuthbert Grant, Bostonnais Pangman and the North-West Company, that the whites had come “ pour piller notre pays.” The majority of the population, it will be remembered, were only squatters who had cultivated for years lands to which they held no title. Moreover, lands had passed from hand to hand and little account had ever been kept of the transactions. Governor Mactavish had forescen trouble in this regard. As carly as 1860 he wrote, “‘ The land business here is anything but in a satisfactory state.”*’ The news of the negotiations with Canada aroused feelings of apprehension as regards the land question, feelings which were aggravated by the thoughtless threats of the Canadian Party as to what would happen to the country when it belonged to Canada. The fears of the half-breeds seemed justified when it was learned that certain of the Canadian Government employees had been purchasing from the Indians—who had no right to sell—land in the neigh- bourhood of the métis settlement at Oak Point. Snow himself was fined {10 in the Petty Court for supplying liquor to the Indians in connexion with these questionable land deals.® Moreover, the rumour was spread about that these lands were actually those belonging to the métis. Colonel Dennis swore on oath, in 1874, that Dr. Schultz had told him that he and Snow had staked off and bought from the Indians lands near Oak Point to which the French half-breeds had laid claim, and asked Dennis if he thought that the Canadian Government would recognize his right to them.?® But, whether these lands were métis lands or not, the effect of the news was electric, and the men in charge of the road operations at that point were compelled by the incensed inhabitants to quit the neighbourhood forthwith.
The temper of the native population, now thoroughly aroused, was scarcely improved by the tactless decision upon the part of the Minister of Public Works to begin at once the survey of the territory which was to be transferred to Canada in accordance
56 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
with the agreement with the Hudson’s Bay Company. In July 1869, Colonel Stoughton Dennis was sent to superintend the new surveys at Oak Point and Red River. Although the London Office of the Company granted permission for this undertaking to proceed, the local Governor, William Mactavish, considered the move ill-advised. ‘It is unfortunate,’’ he wrote, “ that any survey should be commenced till the Canadian Government was in authority here, as the whole land question is fruitful of future trouble which it will take much time and great labour to settle. T expect that as soon as the survey commences the half-breeds and Indians will at once come forward and assert their right to the land and possibly stop the work till their claim is satisfied.”’4° The most serious blunder, however, was the system of survey adopted by the Department of Public Works. It was suggested to Dennis that the American system, with certain modifications, was best suited to the country. This system divided the country into square townships of sixty-four sections of eight hundred acres cach, and cut across the long ribbon-like farms which bordered on the river. The result would have been chaotic ; not a half-breed farm would have fitted into the proposed system. Dennis soon learned that these surveys were not regarded with any degree of goodwill by the inhabitants. He accordingly wrote to the Minister, the Honourable William McDougall, that great skill would be required in reconciling the proposed system with the prevailing irregularity and confusion; and “that a considerable degree of irritation exists among the native popula- tion in view of surveys and settlements being made,” particularly among the French half-breeds, who “have gone so far as to threaten violence should the surveys be attempted to be made.’ A few days later Dennis wrote again to McDougall that he hesitated to proceed with the surveys in view of “the present temper of the half-breeds ”’ and stated, “I have again to remark the uneasy feeling which exists in the half-breeds and Indian element with regard to what they conceive to be premature action taken by the Government in proceeding to effect a survey without having first extinguished the Indian title.”4* Dennis’ warnings were, however, dismissed with the curt order to ** proceed with the surveys on the plan proposed.” The result was, a few days later, that Mr. Webb, who had charge of the surveys in the neighbourhood of the French half-breed settlement
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 57
of St. Vital, on the Red River, was ordered to desist by a party of métis who claimed the region “‘as the property of the French half-breeds, and which they would not allow to be surveyed by the Canadian Government.’44 The surveyors were withdrawn from that district, but the temper and irritation of the people was such that Dennis did not consider it advisable to take any measures against the offenders.
Under these circumstances it was regrettable that the Dominion Government completely ignored the people of Assiniboia in the negotiations with the Hudson’s Bay Company. Many of the difficulties consequent upon the transfer might have been obviated by consulting the wishes of the inhabitants and guaranteeing legislative security for their national preservation. As early as 1857 the Canadian explorer, Hind, had penned the warning that “ There is a strong and growing feeling among the few who have turned their attention to such matters, that in the event of an organic change occurring in the Government of the country, the ‘native’ or half-breed population should not be neglected, or thrust on one side.”45 Moreover, the expericnce of Nova Scotia was fresh in the memory of the Government. But at the very time when the Federal Government were legislating away two million dollars as a douceur to reconcile that refractory province to Confederation, they were legislating to annex the North-West without consulting the inhabitants in any way. Even the authorities at Red River were kept in complete ignorance of the proposed arrangements. As late as November 1869, Governor Mactavish declared that he was still without any official instruc- tion, either from Canada or from England, of the fact, conditions or date of the proposed transfer. It is not surprising, therefore, that the half-breeds, feeling that they had been sold “like dumb driven cattle,” determined to dictate their own terms to the Dominion of Canada. Writing after the stopping of the sur- veyors the Governor of Assiniboia placed his finger on the direct cause of the outbreak :
“The men who have thus interfered say they know the survey could proceed without injury to anyone, but that stopping it is always a beginning ; and they are desirous to let the Canadian Government know that it is not wanted by them; that they consider, if the Canadians wished to come here, the terms on which they were to enter should have been arranged with the local
58 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
government here, as it is acknowledged by the people in the country.’’46
To secure their own terms and thus erect a barrier around their racial and religious privileges became the motive force behind the half-breed rising in 1869.
Foreign influences were also at work upon the native popu- lation of Red River. With the opening of the western states of America and the linking of the economic interests of the colony of Assiniboia with those of the State of Minnesota, a small, but aggressive, American element grew up in the Settlement. ‘“ Some of those gentlemen,”’ says Garrioch, “ took a lively interest in the Transfer, and were outspoken enough to try and persuade the people that Garry, as they called it, was the lawful and natural prey of the American eagle.”*7 The New York Times stated after the outbreak of the insurrection that “ A mistake will be committed if, in considering the causes and scope of the insurrec- tion, some allowance be not made for the variety and strength of the American influences which have long been in operation in the Red River region,” and hinted that the insurgents might be able to “ draw aid and comfort of a very practical kind from the bold adventurous element which forms so large a proportion of our frontier population.”’4* Bryce, in his Remarkable History of the Hadson’s Bay Company, wrote that he had it “‘ on the information of a man high in the service of Canada ” that “ there was a large sum of money, of which an amount was named as high as one million dollars, which was available in St. Paul for the purpose of securing a hold by the Americans on the fertile plains of Rupert’s Land’; while Bishop Taché wrote to the Governor-General during the course of the troubles that “‘ des sommes 4 un montant de plus de quatre millions de dollars, des hommes et des armes ”’ had been offered by interested American parties to the half-breed leaders.6° Corroborative evidence of this offer was given by the Archbishop of St. Paul. Speaking before the Catholic Club of Winnipeg in 1908 he said, “‘ Ce que je vous dis la n’est pas une légende ni une rumeur vague. .. . J’étais alors en relation directe avec quelques uns des hommes qui firent cette offre, et c’est d’eux que je tiens le fait.’
More important, however, than the actions of adventurers of the stamp of Enos Stuttsman, J. Rolette and Major H. N. Robinson, was the active interest displayed by the American
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 59
Government in the events at Red River. We have already ob- served the expansionist sympathies of Seward and Ramsey and the provocative resolutions of 1866 and 1868, and there can be little doubt that a certain amount of underhand work for American annexation was countenanced if not directly encouraged by official circles at Washington and St. Paul during the half-breed rising of 1869-70. From 1867, J. W. Taylor, who had inspired the resolutions, acted as special agent for the United States at Red River, and worked actively in the cause of voluntary union. In June 1869 Taylor learned of the terms of the transfer and the details of the proposed government for the colony, and, feeling certain that they would prove unsatisfactory to the inhabitants, he requested the Governor of Minnesota to obtain for him a com- mission from the State Department, in which his services might be used in connexion with the impending trouble. The State Department were watching development in the Hudson’s Bay Company territorics with keen interest. As early as September 11th they had been informed by the American consul at Winnipeg that “the mass of settlers are strongly inclined . . . to get up a riot to expel the new Governor on his arrival here about October 15th,” and that “in case of insurrection . . . if the settlers... should raise from among themselves a small regularly armed force of say 1,000 troops, it would form a nucleus around which volun- teers from the North Western States might collect.’ In November the consul again reported, “ Should this revolution be successful it may, I think, be safely predicted that in less than two years’ time all the British colonies on this continent will apply for admission into the Union.”’®? As a result of this encouraging information the State Department appointed Taylor, United States Secret Agent, with instructions to investigate and report upon the following subjects :
“1, Full details of the revolt by the inhabitants of Selkirk Settlement against the Canadian Confederation and the expulsion of Honorable William McDougall on his way to assume the office of Governor.
“2, The geographical features and commercial affinities of the Selkirk, Saskatchewan and Columbia districts.
“3, The character and disposition of the population.
“4. Existing routes of communication from Canada and the United States and what changes or improvements in this respect are proposed.
Go THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
‘5. The political relations of the several British possessions between Minnesota and Alaska.
“6, The general question of commercial and political relations between the United States and Canada.
“7, The political relations between the Dominion of Canada and the several states and provinces composing it.’’54
The United States were thus kept fully informed as to the march of events. On December 8th the American Senate passed a resolu- tion requesting the president to communicate to them information “ relating to the presence of the Honorable William McDougall at Pembina in Dakota Territory, and the opposition by the inhabit- ants of Selkirk Settlement to his assumption of the office of Governor of the North-West Territory.”5> These papers were not brought down until several years after the insurrection, but the resolution and the actions of the American authorities at this time were significant of the attitude of mind at Washington. The French half-breeds could never have carried out their successful resistance had they not had the advice and tacit support of their clergy. The part played by the Roman Catholic clergy in the Red River Rebellion has often been misunderstood and some- times misrepresented. Dr. George Bryce, with an obvious bias, speaks of them as “ecclesiastics from old France,” with “no love for Canada, no love for any country, no love for society, no love for peace! ’°* To understand the rdle that they played in the rising, we have only to turn to the history of Canada. From the fall of Quebec to the present day, the French Canadian, with the assistance of his curé, has clung strenuously to his laws, his language, his religion and his institutions. Cut off from France, the French Canadians have, nevertheless, maintained inviolate their separate identity ; wherever we may go in Canada we find communities of French Canadians maintaining the nationality of their fathers, true to the watchword of old Quebec, ** Je me Souviens.”” Anyone who is acquainted with the French Canadian in Western Canada is struck by the tenacity with which he holds to his language and his nationality in the face of over- whelming odds and difficulties. One of the greatest forces which has assisted this tenacious survival has been the influence exercised by the Roman Catholic Church. From the time of the Conquest it has been the curé who has held the citadel of French Canadian nationalism against the assaults of the Anglo-Saxon.
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 61
The Church realized that the French Canadian who lost his language might also lose his faith. It was the strong organization of the Catholic parish which saved the French Canadian as such after 1670, and which maintains him to this day in the midst of the English-speaking provinces of Canada.
This same influence was exercised by the Church in Red River. The Roman Catholic clergy saw that unless some definite guar- antee was secured from the Canadian Government, unless some breakwater could be raised against the tide of Protestant English immigration, the French Catholic métis would suffer the same fate as the French Catholic Louisianian. Bishop Taché had returned from Canada in 1857 full of apprehension for the future of his race and his religion in the North-West, and expressed his fear in a letter to Sir George Cartier :
** J’ai toujours redouté l’entrée du Nord-Ouest dans la Con- fédération parceque j’ai toujours cru que I’élément frangais catholique serait sacrifié . . . Le nouveau systéme me semble de nature 4 amener la ruine de ce qui nous a cofté si cher.’’5? Accordingly, certain members of the French Canadian Catholic clergy, particularly the Abbé Ritchot, identifying the cause of the métis with that of the French Canadian, threw the weight of their influence on the side of the half-breeds rather than upon that of Canada. Thus the Red River Rebellion, which was fundamentally the revolt of a semi-primitive society against the imposition of a more progressive, alien culture, assumed a religious and racial aspect which was to have unfortunate repercussions in Eastern Canada.
The situation in Red River in the autumn of 1869 was critical. Constituted authority had been weakened by the actions of the turbulent element, and the continued attacks of the Nor’ Wester; while the half-breeds, who otherwise would have been its strongest adherents, unaware of the Company’s helplessness in the matter, felt that in selling Rupert’s Land to Canada the Company had abandoned them, and thus forfeited its claim to their allegiance. The métis, forming the largest and most homogeneous section of the population were strongly suspicious by nature of a change, exasperated by the actions of an aggressive Canadian minority, and left in complete uncertainty as to the future of their nationality and their livelihood. This feeling was naturally strongest among the French half-breeds. Their social and economic interests were more affected by
F
62 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
Canadian expansion than those of their English-speaking kindred. Not only were the latter English speaking and Protestant, but they were, as we have observed in Chapter One, for the most part agriculturists, not hunters, and, therefore, less likely to suffer from the economic dislocation which was bound to follow any rapid influx of white settlers. Nevertheless, the Scotch and English half-breeds expressed anxiety regarding their rights, and Thomas Bunn, a prominent English half-breed member of the Council of Assiniboia, declared that, had the surveys taken place among the English half-breeds instead of among the French, they would have acted as the French had done.
The attitude of the white inhabitants of Red River—with the exception of the aggressive Canadians and the interested Americans—was one of complete indifference to the proposed transfer. The Hudson’s Bay Company employees, like the meétis, were hardly enthusiastic for the change. The sale of the Company in 1863 had aroused considerable feeling among the “ wintering partners ” who felt that they were entitled to receive some share of the purchase money. There is little doubt that the transaction of 1869 was viewed in the same light. ‘‘ The younger men in the service never disguised their indignation and disgust,” and Dr. Cowan, the Chief Factor at Fort Garry, complained bitterly to Mair that the Company in England had ignored their interests. If anything, these men preferred a crown colony to political connexion with Canada. The Selkirk settlers and their descend- ants were also little inclined to look with favour upon the transfer of Red River to the Canadian Confederation® and were, as a result, branded as ‘“‘ cowards, one and all of them.”** Although they “‘ never entertained a doubt that in due time everything that would be advantageous for the country would be granted by Canada,’’®? the English-speaking population felt that they had been treated discourteously by the Canadian Government, and informed Dennis that “‘ when you present to us the issue of a conflict with the French party, with whom we have hitherto lived in friendship, . .. we feel disinclined to enter upon it, and think that the Dominion should assume the responsibility of establishing amongst us what it, and it alone, has decided upon.” It was largely owing to this passive sympathy on the part of the English-speaking population, and to the active co-operation of certain of the Scotch and English half-breeds, that the French
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 63
métis, “ united and effective . . . obedient to daring leaders of their own race. . . proved capable of dominating for ten months a community in which, in moral and social influence, they were perhaps the least considerable element.”®
Joseph Pope, in his biography of Sir John Macdonald says :
“it does not appear that the Hudson’s Bay Company took any steps to prepare the settlers for the change of government. Nor did they give any hint to the Dominion authorities of the state of feeling afterwards known to have prevailed at the time, among the half-breeds of the Red River.’ It was true that the Company did not officially warn Canada of the impending politicalstorm; nevertheless, the Dominion authori- ties were scarcely ignorant of the unsettled state of affairs in the Red River colony. In 1868, Machray, the Anglican Bishop of Rupert’s Land, in interviews with leading Canadian statesmen, told them of the state of the colony and offered his services in arranging a harmonious settlement. Although they listened to him with courtesy, the Government took advantage neither of his information, nor of his offer. Later Machray wrote to Buckingham and Chandos that there was “imminent risk any day of some outbreak leading to the utter prostration of law and order,””®* and urged that some military force should be sent, and liberal provisions should be made for the securing to the settlers of titles to the lands which they had acquired from the Hudson’s Bay Company or by squatters’ rights. But this letter, like so many others, was merely acknowledged, pigeon-holed, and in all probability forgotten. Another warning was given by Mactavish, the Governor of Assiniboia. Thinking that the prospective rulers of Rupert’s Land might wish to consult him, he visited Ottawa on his return from London in 1869. Mactavish’s account of his reception indicates the complacency of the Canadian politicians. He was “left waiting for an interview for some days ” and when it was obtained his “ advice was not asked for as to the mode in which the government should be assumed or carried on.” The Governor was usually “ cautious and dip- lomatic,” but on this occasion he plainly intimated “ that they would not find it child's play to rule the North-West. It had been in the past no easy place to govern, and under new rulers he thought the difficulties would increase.”*’ Speaking to Bishop Taché, Mactavish described his rebuff :
64 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
“*T have just returned from Ottawa, and although I have been for forty years in the country, and Governor for fifteen years, I have not been able to cause any of my recommendations to be accepted by the Government. Those gentlemen are of opinion that they know a great deal more about this country than we do.”’®8
Still a third and more important warning was given to the Canadian authorities by Bishop Taché. On his way to the Oecumenical Council at Rome, Taché warned Sir George Cartier that there was considerable unrest in the North-West over the proposed transfer. Cartier, however, replied that “ he knew it all a great deal better than I did, and did not want any information.’’6° In spite of this snub, Taché repeated his warning, but no notice was apparently taken of it, save to despatch a few rifles and rounds of ammunition to the North-West with Lieutenant-Governor McDougall |
There seems to be very little excuse, in the light of these repeated warnings, for the conduct of the Canadian Government. Had some effort been made to use these men who had great influence in the colony to reassure the inhabitants as to the policy that Canada intended to follow, and to guarantee the tenure of their lands and the protection of the half-breed element, the insurrection, with its bloodshed, might have been averted. It is true that Joseph Howe, as Secretary of State for the Provinces, paid a flying visit to the colony and wrote to Macdonald that his visit had been opportune in removing a number of “ absurd rumouts”’ and much “ strong prejudice.”’?® Mactavish wrote hopefully of Howe: “a shrewd clear headed man—he very soon made out his whereabouts and steadily avoided Dr. Schultz’s offers of accommodation. He told me to-day that he was perfectly astonished to find the state of matters here and that without any means it was most wonderful how things had been kept together. . .. I have no doubt from his observations he will be able to set some of his colleagues right in their ideas about Red River.””?! Others, however, expressed the opinion that Howe’s journey did more harm than good. McDougall, in a masterpiece of invective, accused Howe of being “‘ the chief abettor, if not the chief instigator’ of the Red River insurrection ;72 while the Globe, rejoicing in an opportunity to belabour the Government, stated that Howe had urged the settlers to follow the example of Nova Scotia and fight for ‘‘ better terms.”’”’ There is no authority
UNREST IN THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT 65
for these statements which were the result of personal vindic- tiveness and political partisanship. If any encouragement was given to the Red River population, it was probably due to the fact that Howe did not identity himself with the objectionable Canadian Party, and that his successful opposition to Confedera- tion was not unknown in the colony. Beyond Howe’s short and unofficial visit, no person of any official position was sent to the colony to prepare the way for the new government, and even in November Mactavish declared “ up to this moment we have no official intimation from England, or the Dominion of Canada, of the fact of the transfer, or of its conditions, or of the date at which they were to take practical effect upon the Government of this Country.’74
The final blunder of this chapter of blunders was the form of government devised, temporary though it was meant to be, and the selection of William McDougall as the first Lieutenant- Governor. The white settlers, at least, had hoped for some representative form of government and feared that the continua- tion of the nominated council would lead to the appointment of those who professed to be the friends of Canada. The G/obe, in a rare prophetic moment, stated :
“If Wm. McDougall is sent up to Fort Garry with a ready- made council composed of men utterly ignorant of the country and the people, the strongest feelings of discontent will be aroused,”’75
Although McDougall intended to include some of the more prominent inhabitants in his council, the appointment of A. N. Richards and J. A. N. Provencher to the leading positions, and the presence of Cameron, Wallace, Begg and others in the Governor’s suite, appeared to the people of Red River as “a whole govern- ment appointed and despatched to their destination before the people at Ottawa had taken the first steps to obtain legislation for their guidance, and before the necessary measures had been taken to get possession.”’”*
The choice of Licutenant-Governor was most unfortunate. Had Canada desired to stir up trouble in the North-West she could not have chosen a more suitable man. Cold and in- tractable in his dealings with his colleagues, McDougall was not the man to handle a difficult situation with patience and under- standing. He did not know the half-breeds at all, but they knew
66 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
him only too well : McDougall, more than anyone else, had been the consistent advocate of Canadian expansion and the implacable enemy of the Hudson’s Bay Company. He was, moreover, the Minister of Public Works who was held responsible for the conduct of the road workers and the surveyors at Red River. It was believed by some that many of the difficulties consequent upon McDougall’s appointment might have been precluded by the appointment of Governor Mactavish as his own successor. This course was suggested both by Bishop Taché” and Sir Alexander Galt,”* but was ignored; and William McDougall, C.B., was appointed to usher in the new order at Red River.
CHAPTER IV THE RED RIVER REBELLION. PART ONE
Ir was in the latter part of the summer of 1869 that the first steps were taken by the half-breeds to organize their opposition to the transfer of Red River to the Dominion of Canada. In 1868 Louis Schmidt found “un grand changement parmi le peuple. On commengait 4 parler politique, méme parmi nos gens” ;! but after the return of Louis Riel to the colony events moved rapidly. An ardent patriot of his people, Riel was destined to become one of the stormy characters upon the Western Canadian scene. Upon two occasions, in 1869 and in 1885, he led the half-breeds in a futile protest against the inevitability of their national extinction, and perished upon the scaffold for unfurling the standard of armed rebellion.
Louis Riel was born at St. Boniface in the district of Assiniboia, on October 22nd, 1844. His mother, Julie Lagimodiére, was the daughter of the first white woman in the North-West, and his father, one of the leaders of the free trade in furs movement of the *forties, was a French Canadian with a dash of Indian blood in his veins. Bishop Taché, early impressed by Riel’s success in the school at St. Boniface, arranged for his education in Eastern Canada; and for several years Ricl attended the College of Montreal. In 1866 he completed his classical education and spent the following year with an uncle, John Lee, near Montreal. In 1867 financial reasons compelled him to return to the West where he secured employment in St. Paul. A year later he returned to Red River, where he was joined by Louis Schmidt, both “ bien résolus toutefois de nous occuper des affaires publiques quand le moment en sera venu.””?
Louis Riel did not stir up the métis to the insurrection which occurred in 1869; he only assumed the leadership of the dis- content, which we have observed in the previous chapter, and guided it according to his judgment or his impulse. His educa- tion, his eloquence in both French and English, and his ability marked him at once as the natural leader of the half-breed
67
68 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
malcontents ; but his lack of experience, and inability to brook opposition, unfitted him for the responsibilities of leadership. Even as a youth he was unable to tolerate criticism. ‘“‘ Pas trop de contradictions avec le jeune Louis qui aimait bien 4 discuter pourvu qu’il gagnat toujours son point de discussion :’’ wrote a contemporary, “ lui offrir une opinion contraire 4 sienne c’était Pirriter ; il ne comprenait pas qu’on ne put partager son opinion tant qu’il croyait 4 son infaillibilité personelle.”? Nevertheless, it is only fair to state, that in spite of his quick temper and his love of popular adulation, Riel was inspired by feelings of racial patriotism and a genuine belicf in the justice of the half-breed cause.
Riel found the people ready for the kind of leadership which he was able to give and his fiery speeches fell upon inflammatory material. Louis Schmidt, the companion of his boyhood years and Jater secretary of the insurgent government, remarked in his reminiscences upon “ l’effet qu’il faisait sur ces natures simples et honnétes comme /’étaient les métis, lorsqu’il leur démontrait leurs droits les plus sacrés foulés aux pieds par l’envahissement de leur pays par le Canada.’* Thoroughly aroused to a realiza- tion of the danger which they believed to threaten them, the half- breeds began to hold secret gatherings among themselves to discuss the political situation. These small gatherings soon developed into large assemblies, and it was resolved in August, or eatly in September 1869, that every means should be taken to oppose the entry of the Canadian Governor until adequate guarantees had been given for the safeguarding of half-breed rights.5
The first actual resistance to the new order occurred on October 11th, when Captain Webb began to run his survey lines across the “ hay privilege ” of André Nault, about two and a half miles from Red River. Nault protested, but as the surveyors did not understand French, he was obliged to seek the aid of his cousin, Louis Riel. Riel and a band of some eightcen men accordingly informed Webb that the country south of the Assini- boine belonged to the French half-breeds, and that they would allow no survey to be made. No arms were seen with the party. They merely stood upon the chain but made it clear that if the surveys were persisted in trouble would ensue. Colonel Dennis complained to Dr. Cowan, the magistrate at Fort Garry, but
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 69
neither his efforts nor those of Roger Goulet’ or Governor Mactavish were able to extract anything from Riel save the deter- mined statement that “ the Canadian Government had no right to make surveys in the Territory without the express permission of the people of the Settlement.”’® Application was made to Father Lestanc, administrator of the Diocese of St. Boniface during the absence of Bishop Taché at Rome, but the Reverend Father, fearing that once the métis began to believe “ that the Church also was in sympathy with the Government ”’ of Canada, it “ might lead to weakening their influence over the people in a religious point of view,’”* refused to do anything, adding “ let the Canadian Government convince them that their rights shall not be inter- fered with and the métis will of themselves go for Mr. McDougall and triumphantly bring him here.”
The news of McDougall’s approach with his ready-made government and his cases of rifles accelerated events. On October 16th a meeting of the French half-breeds was held at the house of Abbé Ritchot at St. Norbert. What passed at this gathering is not known, but the métis apparently determined to organize the entire French-speaking population on the semi- military lines of the buffalo hunt. John Bruce was chosen as president and Louis Riel as secretary. Bruce was, however, president in name only"; the real leaders were Louis Riel and the curé of St. Norbert.1* Steps to prevent McDougall’s entry into the Red River Settlement were undertaken at once. On the day following the organization of the “ Comité National des Métis’? some forty horsemen assembled at St. Norbert and erected a barricade across the road, a short distance from the point where it crosses la Riviére Sale ; and, on October 21st, a warning was despatched to the prospective Lieutenant-Governor, not to attempt to enter the country without the permission of the National Committce.
Learning of these summary proceedings the Council of Assiniboia met on the 25th to consider the situation. The Council unanimously expressed “ their indignant reprobation of the outrageous proceedings . . . but, feeling strongly impressed with the idea that the partics concerned in them must be acting in utter forgetfulness, . . . of the very serious consequences,”’ it was thought that “ by calm reasoning and advice they might be induced to abandon their dangerous schemes.”!? With this
7oO THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
object in view, Riel and Bruce were invited to present themselves at the Council board. Riel expressed his satisfaction with the Hudson’s Bay Government, but stated that the métis ‘“ objected to any Governor coming from Canada without their being consulted in the matter; that they would never admit any Governor. . . unless delegates were previously sent, with whom they might negotiate as to the terms and conditions under which they would acknowledge him . . . that they consider that they are acting not only for their own good, but for the good of the whole Settlement, that they did not feel that they were breaking any law, but were simply acting in defence of their own liberty and that they were determined to prevent Mr. McDougall from coming into the Settlement at all hazards.” The Council failed to convince Riel that his views were erroneous and at length decided to send two influential French half-breeds to procure the peaceable dispersion of the party intending to intercept McDougall. Owing to Ritchot’s determined attitude this mission was a failure, and all that could be reported to the Council was that the assembly of malcontents “ appeared to be even more fully bent on their purpose.” The Council, lacking any police or military force to prevent a breach of the peace, were unable to do anything more save to advise McDougall, in view of the temper of the people, to remain at Pembina.'® McDougall, however, pushed on to the Hudson’s Bay Company post on the Canadian side of the border. Several days later he was obliged to return to the United States by a body of armed half-breeds.
The thoroughness with which Riel carried out his organization of the French métis is astonishing. The number of his men increased rapidly. On November 1st “the muster roll... was answered by 4oz men, all bearing arms,” later ‘“ about 100 more came into camp.’6 Strict discipline was main- tained. The men were obliged to take an oath against drinking intoxicating liquors and seem to have kept it. Scouts were posted on the prairie and along the road to cut McDougall off from his adherents in Red River, and all parties and mails entering the colony were subject to examination by the métis at the barricade.
The half-breed movement, which had begun as a riotous assembly, assumed the serious proportions of an insurrection when, on November 2nd, Louis Riel, accompanied by some
Ae A AU ORS
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 71
hundred or more of his followers, entered Fort Garry and informed Dr. Cowan, the Company officer in charge, that they had come to guard the Fort from an impending danger.’” It was not without difficulty that Riel persuaded his followers to carry out this daring act, but the move was decisive. Situated at the junction of the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers, about a mile from the village of Winnipeg, provisioned with stores of food and munitions, and defended by high stone walls and cannon, Fort Garry was the geographical and strategical centre of the Red River Settlement. The party that controlled the Fort controlled the colony. The Canadian sympathizers were not unaware of this fact, an old pensioner having offered to raise a force ‘‘ which... could hold the Fort against all the Rebels who would be likely to attack it.”’7® This was precisely what Riel feared, and, realizing that if the Canadians took possession of Fort Garry the movement of the métis would be completely paralysed and their position rendered untenable, he decided to forestall his adversaries, and “to keep Mr. McDougall at a distance, in order that his party, which were so hostile to our interests, might not, under such circumstances, get possession of the Government of our native country.”
Now in possession of Fort Garry, Riel turned his attention to the English-speaking settlers, half-breed and white, who had so far taken no part in the insurrection. His aim was not to fight Canada, but, with the whole body of settlers, French and English, behind him, to force the Canadian Government to negotiate with the half-breeds the terms of their entry into Confederation. This was Riel’s constant objective from the beginning to the conclusion of the insurrection. Their own terms, embodied ina Canadian statute and confirmed by the Imperial Parliament, were regarded by the half-breed leaders as the only safeguard for the interests of a people soon to find themselves on the defensive. Prior to the capture of Fort Garry Bruce had informed Provencher that “‘ if the Canadian Government was willing to do it, they were ready to open negotiations with them, or any person vested with full powers, in view of settling the terms of their coming into the Dominion of Canada.”® Such a concession by Canada was not, however, likely as long as the half-breeds failed to present a united front. Accordingly, on November 6th, Riel issued a “ Public Notice to the Inhabitants of Rupert’s Land ”# inviting
72 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
the English-speaking people of the colony to “ send twelve repre- sentatives . . . in order to form one body,” with the French Council, ‘‘ to consider the present political state of this country, and to adopt such measures as may be deemcd best for the future welfare of the same.” The delegates were to meet in convention “in the Court House at Fort Garry, on Tuesday, November 16th.”
The English half-breeds and the whites, not understanding Riel’s motives, were inclined to regard his overtures with sus- picion. It was the universal opinion that the métis had over- stepped the mark. The stoppage of the mails, the retention of private goods in transit, and the seizure of the public books “were acts uncalled for in their cause, and have raised a great deal of indignation against them; but as yet it will be only an act of extraordinary provocation or the spilling of blood that will raise a fight among the settlers.” Desiring, however, to co- operate in finding a peaceful solution of the difficulties which had arisen, the English parishes, notwithstanding the assurances of Snow and others to the contrary, decided to elect representatives to meet the French in council.
The Convention opened on a discordant note The English demanded the election of a new president and secretary, a demand to which the French refused to accede until there was evidence of agreement among the delegates upon a common course of action. The English then voiced their opposition to the occupation of the Fort and to the ejection of McDougall from British soil. Despite this they were impressed—at least so Riel wrote—by the métis protestations of loyalty to the Crown and by the plea for the protection of their common rights and liberties from the ingress of a “foreign power.”’ Atthis moment, Hargrave, secretary to Governor Mactavish, presented to the Convention a Proclamation by the Governor which protested against the unlawful actions of the French party. Whereupon James Ross, the leader of the English-speaking delegates, declared that the métis must now evacuate the Fort or be considered guilty of rebellion. Riel protested. “Si nous rebellons contre la Compagnie qui nous vend et veut nous livrer, et contre le Canada qui veut nous acheter,” he declared, “nous ne nous rebellons pas contre la suprématie anglaise, qui n’a pas encore donnée son approbation pout le transfert définitif de ce pays . . . de plus nous sommes fidéles a notre patrie. . .. Nous voulons que le peuple de
AUUVE) LOS
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 73
la Riviére Rouge soit un peuple libre. Aidons-nous les uns les autres. Nous sommes tous fréres et des parents, dit Monsieur Ross, et c’est vrai. Ne nous séparons pas. Voyez ce que Monsieur Mactavish dit. II dit que de cette assemblée peut venir un bien incalculable. Unissons-nous, le mal qu’il a redouté n’aura pas lieu.”
In spite of the fact that the Convention was entirely unofficial in character, it continued to sit with the tacit approval of Governor Mactavish. Its labours, however, did not result in that unanimity of opinion for which Riel had hoped. The English, with a greater knowledge of constitutional procedure, stubbornly contended that the proper course was to permit McDougall to enter the territory and for the settlers to place their grievances before him ; while the French obdurately declared that McDougall could only be brought in over their dead bodies. The Convention, there- fore, remained at a deadlock, and Mactavish wrote on November 23rd that he believed that the French would consent to nothing short of the establishment of a Provisional Government.*4
Riel had already satisfied himself that this step was not only necessary, but was, under the circumstances, justifiable. Finding that the English and Scotch colonists would not go as far as he desired, Riel decided that, if the métis were not to lose all the advantage they had gained, he must consolidate their position and form a Provisional Government which could treat with Canada on equal terms. Accordingly, at the risk of alienating all the English speaking and moderate opinion, he forced the Hudson’s Bay Company accountant to surrender the public accounts, carefully assuring Governor Mactavish “ that there was not only no desire to meddle with private funds, but every desire to respect them.” ‘“ How far this resolution will be carried out,” wrote the Governor, “it is very difficult to say, though at the time it was made I have no doubt it was sincere.” In the Convention Riel argued that the formation of a Provisional Government was indispensable on the grounds that the Council of Assiniboia “a vraiment montré une faiblesse extréme dans ces derniers jours . . . Qu’en conséquence il est temps que les habitants de la colonie songent a Ja formation d’un gouvernement provisoire pour une protection et pout traiter avec le Canada et forcer celui-ci a nous donner un mode de gouvernement responsable.” This suggestion was even less acceptable to the English, who hinted
74 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
that Canada was mote likely to send troops than delegates. The meeting thus concluded, as Riel noted, with “‘ pas d’entente, peu despoir d’entente.”
Fundamentally a conservative people, the French half-breeds, like their English-speaking kindred, were reluctant to go the full distance proposed by Riel, and it was not without some difficulty that he finally carried his point. The night of November 23rd was spent by the French party in heated debate on this question. Riel, himself, is said to have argued for seven hours to bring the faltering ‘‘ National Committee ” to agree to his plan of proce- dure. ‘‘ Que de craintes et d’hésitations 4 vaincre,”’ he wrote, “c’est incroyable les répugnances que j’ai eu a leur faire sur- monter.” The métis objected to the Provisional Government as constituting an act of rebellion against the British Crown, and it was only as a result of Riel’s repeated declarations of loyalty and his arguments “que le gouvernement d’Assiniboia en se vendant s’est tellement affaibli . . . que s’il lui reste encore quelque chose d’un gouvernement c’est le nom... que si Ja Reine savait ce que nous voulons, elle nous écouterait ” that they accepted his proposal.
On November 24th the Convention sat again. The proposal to form a Provisional Government was once more put before the delegates, this time backed by the unanimous voice of the French. The English regarded this proposal as beyond the scope of their authority and declared that they would be obliged to consult their constituents before taking such a radical step. The unfortunate result was that nothing was accomplished, and the Convention adjourned until December 1st, the date on which Canada had provisionally agreed to accept the transfer of the North-West to the Dominion.
McDougall’s instructions had requested him to proceed with all convenient speed to Fort Garry, and there to make the necessary preliminary arrangements for the completion of the transfer. En route he passed Joseph Howe, returning from his flying visit to Red River, but ‘‘ as the weather was stormy ” they “had only a very short interview.”** Howe promised to advise McDougall by post of the situation in the colony, but “ apparently did not anticipate, that there was any danger of an armed insur- rection before my arrival at Fort Garry.” The promised letter, with the salutary advice that “it would be a great mistake to
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 75
patronize a little clique of persons at war with the more influential elements of society ” which was “ sufficiently mixed and hetero- geneous to require delicate handling,”®’ did not reach McDougall until after he had met with his rebuff at the hands of the militant French half-breeds. He was not, however, totally unaware of the dissatisfaction which prevailed in Red River, but confidently anticipated that, with the aid of J. A. N. Provencher, a nephew of the late Bishop of the North-West, he would be able to pacify the malcontents. Arriving at Pembina McDougall was surprised at the extent of the métis opposition, but hoping to assure the insurgents that the Government would “ deal justly with all classes . . . without reference to race or religion,”’?* he sent his prospective provincial secretary to interview the métis at the barricade. At the same time, Captain Cameron, the dashing prospective Chief of Police, in spite of McDougall’s expressed wishes, determined to proceed to Fort Garry on his own respon- sibility. But neither the persuasion of Provencher’s name, nor the command of Cameron to “remove that blasted fence ” accomplished anything. Both were escorted back to Pembina and McDougall suffered the humiliation of being expelled from the territory which he had expected to govern. The American press were jubilant at his discomfiture ; a newspaper of St. Paul wrote :
“A King without a Kingdom is said to be poorer than a peasant. And I can assure you that a live Governor with a full complement of officials and menials from Attorney-General down to cooks and scullions without one poor foot of territory is a spectacle sufficiently sad to move the hardest heart.”’2®
Confident that an exposition of his designs would induce a reaction in his favour, McDougall wrote to Mactavish asking him to issue a Proclamation explaining the nature of the proposed transfer and warning the malcontents of the serious nature of their actions.*° Mactavish consulted the Council of Assiniboia and replied that in view of the fact that no official word had yet come to the colony of the fact or date of the transfer, they doubted the value of the suggested Proclamation, and advised McDougall, in the interests of “ the peace of the country ” and * the establishment in the future of the Canadian Government,” to return to Canada.*!_ ‘This would probably have been the wisest course, as McDougall’s presence on the frontier was a constant
76 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
provocation to the French half-breeds, while the English-speaking settlers were obviously not prepared to support him. Unfortu- nately he preferred to listen to the more congenial, but misleading advice of the Canadian Party, with whom, in spite of Riel’s pre- cautions, he was in secret communication. Snow advised “ Issue Proclamation, and then you may come fearlessly down. Hudson’s Bay Company evidently shaking. By no means leave Pembina.”*? Mair, even more blindly optimistic, declared that the only reason the English had not yet risen was because they had not been called upon to do so. “Issue your Proclamation,” he wrote, “and it will be responded to by five hundred men.”3? Although Mactavish’s intervention had been unable to induce the English- speaking half-breeds and Selkirk settlers to adopt the Canadian cause, McDougall, encouraged by the false reports of his adherents in the colony, determined to issue, on December ist, a proclamation in the Queen’s name, announcing the transfer of the North-West territory to Canada and his appointment as Lieutenant-Governor.
The proclamation of December 1st was a very serious blunder from the Canadian standpoint. McDougall’s commission appointed him Lieutenant-Governor only “ from and after the day to be named by Us for the admission of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory into the Union or Dominion of Canada.” That McDougall was fully cognizant of his position is apparent from his correspondence. Shortly after his arrival at Pembina he had written to Mactavish :
“As you are aware, the transfer of the Territory and the powers of government entrusted to you, is to take effect on a day to be named in Her Majesty’s Royal Proclamation, until that day arrives (which I am informed will be about the 1st day of December next), you are the legal ruler of the country, and responsible for the preservation of the public peace. My commission authorizes and commands me to assume and exercise the powers of government from and after that day.”
On November 7th he wrote again :
“T shall remain here until I hear officially of the transfer of authority, and shall then be guided by circumstances as to what I shall say and do,”’35 Again on the 14th, referring to Snow’s suggestion to issue a proclamation, McDougall wrote to Howe:
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 77
“ The recommendation that I should issue a Proclamation at once, is not made for the first time, but I have uniformly replied that until the transfer of the Territory has taken place, and I am notified of the fact I shall not assume any of the responsibilities of Government.”
but, he added:
“TI expected to hear, by this time, that the ‘ transfer’ had been agreed to, and the Imperial Order in Council passed. IfI do not receive notice of this ‘ Order’ in a few days, I shall be much embarrassed in my plans, and the leaders of the insurrection will be emboldened and strengthened. They understand perfectly that I have no legal authority to act, or to command obedience,
till the Queen’s Proclamation is issued.’’3¢
On November 25th he complained that he was “ still without any official notice of the Imperial Order in Council, and must act, if at all, upon the information contained in the private letters from Sir Curtis Lampson, which announces the date of the transfer agreed to by the Imperial Government to be December tst next.”*” Notwithstanding the fact that he had received no official confirmation of the transfer which he knew he must await, McDougall informed the Canadian Government, on the 29th, that he had “ prepared a Proclamation to be issued the first day of December . . . stating . . . the fact of surrender by the Hudson’s Bay Company, acceptance by Her Majesty, and transfer to Canada, from and after December ist, A.D. 1869. These facts I gather from the newspapers, from a private letter to me of the Deputy Governor of the Company, and my own knowledge before I left Ottawa, that December 1st had been agreed upon as the date of the transfer.”** McDougall realized the weakness of his position. Writing after the issuance of the questionable proclamation he said :
“T hope I am right in using the name of Her Majesty as prominently as I have done.’’??
This action was all the more regrettable as, on December 6th, McDougall received a despatch from Howe, dated November 19th, reminding him that “as matters stand, you can claim or assert no authority in the Hudson’s Bay Territory, until the Qucen’s Proclamation, annexing the country to Canada, reaches you through this office.”*° At the same time a private letter from the Prime Minister warned him :
G
78 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
“ Never forget . . . that you are now approaching a foreign country, under the government of the Hudson’s Bay Company. . . . You cannot force your way in.”4!
And another a few days later :
“* A Proclamation such as you suggest. . . would be very well if it were sure to be obeyed. If, however, it were disobeyed, your weakness and inability to enforce the authority of the Dominion would be painfully exhibited, not only to the people of Red River, but to the people and Government of the United States.’”4?
This letter concluded with the startling information that the Canadian Government had refused to complete the transfer :
“We have thrown the responsibility on the Imperial Government.”
The decision to withhold the acceptance of the territory was made by the Dominion Government following the receipt of McDougall’s letters reporting the active opposition of the French half-breeds and his expulsion from the Red River Settle- ment. On November 25th, Sir John Rose, the confidential agent of the Canadian Government at London, was instructed to refrain from paying over the £300,000 to the Hudson’s Bay Company, and on the 26th the Governor-General telegraphed to Lord Granville that “the responsibility of administration of affairs ” would “ rest on Imperial Government ” if the surrender were accepted by Great Britain as “‘ Canada cannot accept transfer unless quiet possession can be given.”43 The Colonial Office were, to say the least, annoyed. Granville’s comment on receiving this news was:
“ T see no grounds for the Dominion to repudiate the agreement which has been formally made. They had no business to send a Governor-designate to Red River unless they considered the agreement as substantially concluded. Delay, moreover, will now be most inconvenient and injurious to all parties.”
He accordingly replied to Young’s telegram that the transfer must follow the surrender to the Imperial Government in order to make the latter legal as the Rupert’s Land Act required the act of transfer to follow the surrender within one month; otherwise the territory would remain under the jurisdiction of the Hudson’s Bay Company “‘ liable to all the disorders which are to be expected when the prestige of a Government long known to be inadequate,
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 79
is shaken by the knowledge that it is also expiring, and by the appearance, however well intended, of its successor.’
There can be no doubt that Canada was under a legal obligation to complete the transfer once the Deed of Surrender, which had already been prepared by the Hudson’s Bay Company, was accepted by the British Government. Such was the opinion of the law officers to whom Granville referred the question.
“We are of opinion that if the surrender is accepted by the Crown and the proposed Order in Council is passed within a month of that acceptance, Canada is bound to accept the territory, to pay the price of it as specified in the Second Address, and to provide for its government. . . . The Executive Government of Canada have, in our views, no power to invalidate a proceeding of the Canadian Legislature which has been acted upon by the Hudson’s Bay Company and by the Crown in pursuance of powers conferred by the Imperial Legislature.”4¢
Nevertheless, there was a certain political justification for the action of the Canadian Government. As a minute of the Cabinet pointed out:
“ Any hasty attempt by the Canadian Government to force their rule upon the Insurgents would probably result in armed resistance and bloodshed. Every other course should be tried before resort is had to force. If life were once lost in an encounter between a Canadian force and the inhabitants, the seeds of hostility to Canada and Canadian rule would be sown, and might create an ineradicable hatred to the union of the Countries, and thus mar the future prosperity of British America. If anything like hostilities should commence, the temptation to the wild Indian tribes, and to the restless adventurers, who abound in the United States (many of them with military experience gained in the late Civil War) to join the Insurgents, would be almost irre- sistible. .. . No one can see the end of the complications that might thus be occasioned, not only as between Canada and the North-West, but between the United States and England. From a sincere conviction of the gravity of the situation, and not from any desire to repudiate or postpone the performance of any of their engagements, the Canadian Government have urged a temporary delay of the transfer.’’4?
Granville too recognized the force of this argument and did not push legality to the limit. “‘ We have two objects,” he wrote in an office minute, “ First, in common with Canada, and, if they
80 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
are wise, the Hudson’s Bay Company, to give Canada the time really necessary for getting peaceably into the saddle. Second, in common with the Hudson’s Bay Company, and, if they are honest, the Canadian Government, to prevent any waste of time in so doing. ... For the moment we ought all to agree to a moderate delay.”** But this “ moderate delay,” whether judici- ous or not, cut the ground from under McDougall’s feet, and rendered his proclamation not only worthless but illegal.
Both Howe and Macdonald condemned McDougall’s ill- considered, hasty action. Howe reminded McDougall that he had used the Queen’s name without Her authority, and had attri- buted to Her Majesty acts which she had not yet performed.” McDougall, obstinately optimistic, declared that results would justify his policy. ‘I feel very confident,” he wrote, “ that this prompt display of vigour, and the determination to assert, and maintain by force, if need be, the authority of the new Govern- ment, from the day and hour of its expected birth, will inspire all the inhabitants of the Territory with respect for your Repre- sentative, and compel the traitors and conspirators to cry ‘God Save the Queen ’ or beat a hasty retreat.””°°
Events in the Settlement, however, showed no indication of bearing out McDougall’s view. The French were frankly sceptical of the authenticity of the Queen’s Proclamation ; the English accepted it without enthusiasm ; only the Canadians were jubilant. At this moment the French party brought forward a “ Bill of Rights” embodying their demands. The Bill was discussed by the Convention, and the English, finding nothing unreasonable in the demands of their French-speaking compatriots, agreed to its adoption by the Convention. It was then proposed that delegates, two French and two English, should be sent to McDougall to learn if he was empowered, by virtue of his com- mission, either to accept this “ Bill of Rights ” or to guarantee its acceptance by the Canadian Parliament. The English, believing in the validity of McDougall’s Proclamation, considered a dele- gation useless on the terms suggested, and the Convention came to an indecisive conclusion. At the close of the sitting Riel addressed the English-speaking delegation in scathing terms :
** Allez, retournez-vous en paisiblement sur vos fermes. Restez dans les bras de vos femmes. Donnez cet exemple 4 vos enfants. Mais regardez-nous agir. Nous allons travailler et
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 81
obtenir la garantie de nos droits et des vétres. Vous viendrez a la fin partager.”
The Convention had accomplished little in the way of promoting English and French co-operation, but that little had been sufficient to persuade the English-speaking inhabitants that the French demands were both reasonable and justifiable, and to cool any ardour that might have developed for the Canadian cause.
During his sojourn at Pembina McDougall was responsible for several blunders, but the most serious in its consequences was the determination, expressed in his letter to Howe “ to assert and maintain by force . . . the authority of the new government.” On December 1st, McDougall issued to Colonel Dennis a com- mission as ‘‘ Lieutenant and Conservator of the Peace ” authoriz- ing him, in the Queen’s name, to “ raise, organize, arm, equip and provision, a sufficient force ” to “ attack, arrest, disarm, or disperse the . . . armed men so unlawfully assembled and dis- turbing the public peace ; and for that purpose, and with the force aforesaid, to assault, fire upon, pull down, or break into any fort, house, stronghold, or other place in which the said armed men may be found.”5! Armed with this redoubtable commission and with the illegal proclamation referred to earlier, Dennis cluded the vigilance of the métis guards and made his way into the Settle- ment. At Winnipeg he discussed the situation with two repre- sentative leaders of the party opposed to Riel and then proceeded to the Stone Fort, twenty miles below Fort Garry, which he made the headquarters of the counter-insurrectionary movement. He then divided the colony into company districts, appointed volunteer drill instructors for each, and entrusted Major Boulton, a former member of his surveying party, with the task of enrolling volunteers.
The response fell far short of what Dennis or McDougall had hoped. Although Henry Prince and the Saulteaux Indians in the neighbourhood of the Stone Fort turned out in full war paint, eager to fight the métis or anyone else, the white and half-breed settlers held back. “ You speak of enthusiasm,” Dennis complained to Dr. Schultz, “I have not seen it yet with anybody but ‘ Prince’s’ men.”5? Boulton, while attempting to enlist recruits at the Scotch settlement of Kildonan, found that even they were beginning to question the validity of McDougall’s proclamation; and one disgusted “loyalist”? wrote to the
82 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
expectant Lieutenant-Governor that ‘even among our English- speaking population, we have to contend with worse characters than the French half-breeds . . . The Scotch Settlement won’t join us or any other Parish of the Protestant population, so that it would be the height of folly for us to take any aggressive steps.” As a last resort Dennis issued a “‘ call ” by virtue of his commis- sion, to “all loyal men of the North-West Territories to assist me, by every means in their power... and thereby restore public peace and order, and uphold the supremacy of the Queen in this part of Her Majesty’s Dominions.”*4 This, however, proved of little value, and the next day Dennis was forced to admit that he had not sufficient men to relieve a small band of Canadians who had succeeded in precipitating hostilities with the métis at Winnipeg.
McDougall’s appeal for armed support had been doomed to failure. The English-speaking inhabitants, as we have seen, had little in common with the Canadians, and both Dennis and Wallace had previously reported that they were opposed to the idea of a conflict with “ those who have been born and brought up among us, ate with us, slept with us, hunted with us, traded with us, and are our own flesh and blood.’’5> Moreover, the discord which had becn apparent at the proceedings of the Convention became less pronounced, a fact which Dennis in- formed McDougall, “‘ might probably be accounted for by the distribution through the parishes . . . of the French ‘ List of Rights.’ It was stated, that, up to the time of the dissemination of this document, no one but themselves knew what the demands of the malcontents were ; and now that they had been published, some of them proving reasonable in their character. . . it might easily be conceived that the effect upon the rest of the people would be to make them less jealous of French domination, and more hopeful of secing peace brought about by other means than by a resort to arms.”°* Hence, after a letter from Bishop Machray deprecating the use of force, Dennis issued a proclama- tion on December 9th, calling upon “ the loyal party in the North- West Territory, to cease further action under the appeal to arms made by me,””” and rejoined McDougall at Pembina. Howe was genuinely alarmed at the report of Colonel Dennis’ actions. He wrote to McDougall, ‘‘the proceedings of Colonel Dennis, as reported by himself, are so reckless and extraordinary, that there
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 83
can be no relief from solicitude here while an officer so imprudent is acting under your authority.”°* Although Dennis acted in perfect sincerity that his commission was legal, his actions were both illegal and unwise; illegal, because he had no lawful authority to resort to force, and unwise, because the only consequence of his attempt was the imprisonment in Fort Garry of a number of Canadians.
Dennis had found the Canadians, at least, eager to enlist. After enrolling at the Stone Fort they were sent back to Winnipeg, where the majority of them were living, with orders to remain quietly in their usual lodgings until further orders. “ Their presence there in that way, having fully instructed them to avoid being any cause of offence to the French,” wrote Dennis, “‘ seemed to me could be no cause of irritation, and the knowledge that they were there, might tend to prevent any outrage on person or property of loyal people in the town.”*? Unfortunately these orders were not strictly obeyed. Instead of remaining at their lodgings, the Canadians at Winnipeg assembled at the storehouse of Dr. Schultz, where a considerable quantity of Canadian Government provisions, intended for the use of the road and survey parties, was stored. Officers was elected, sentries posted, and all preparations made to withstand an attack.*° This move was ostensibly to protect the provisions and prevent them from falling into the hands of the insurgents; but it appeared to the half-breeds as the spearhead of attack against Riel when the occasion should be deemed opportune. As soon as he learned of these hostile manifestations, Colonel Dennis wrote both to Boulton and to Schultz that the Canadians were to avoid any conflict with the métis and should retire to Kildonan. They refused. Boulton boldly replied to Dennis that “under the circumstances (that we have seventy men and sixty-five good arms on the premises), we have a strong position, and could resist successfully a strong attack.’’**
Under the circumstances this attitude was one of sheer bravado and absolute foolhardiness. Fearing a sudden assault by the assembled Canadians, the French half-breeds poured ‘into Fort Garry. Bishop Machray assured Dennis on December Gth that Riel had “ over six hundred men... in arms and... well armed.”’** At the same time Riel appropriated provisions, guns and ball from the Hudson’s Bay Company and “ cleared all the
84 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
Stores of the merchants in the village of Winnipeg of all their guns and ammunition.”** Realizing the danger in which the small band of Canadians stood, far more than they apparently did themselves, Dennis wrote to Boulton repeating his orders of December 4th. Riel, however, had posted his men about the warehouse and retreat was impossible. The following day Snow went to Fort Garry on behalf of the besieged party and informed Riel that they had assembled only to protect themselves and their property and would retire quietly to their homes if allowed to do so. A. G. B. Bannatyne and the Reverend George Young likewise tried to dissuade Riel from any act that might lcad to bloodshed. But Riel’s men were impatient with keeping guard during the cold winter days and urged that the Canadians should be taken prisoners and confined in the Fort.“* Riel therefore demanded an unconditional surrender within fifteen minutes, offering only to secure their lives if they would comply.® There was no alternative save to fight, and Riel had posted two hundred men with cannon around the house. Preferring to live to fight another day the Canadians accepted Riel’s terms, and forty-five prisoners were marched between the files of Riel’s nondescript soldiers to the cells of Fort Garry.
The next day, December 8th, Riel issued a grandiloquent ‘Declaration of the People of Rupert’s Land and the North- West,”®* declaring “that a people, when it has no Government, is free to adopt one form of Government, in preference to another, to give or to refuse allegiance to that which is proposed.” It continued further that the Hudson’s Bay Company having abandoned the people, without their consent, to a “ foreign power,” the people were free to establish a Provisional Govern- ment “and hold it to be the only and lawful authority now in existence in Rupert’s Land and the North-West, which claims the obedience and respect of the people”; but, nevertheless, expressed the readiness of the new government “ to enter into such negotiations with the Canadian Government as may be favourable for the good government and prosperity of this people.” Macdonald had feared that this would be the outcome when writing to McDougall on November 27th :*”
* An assumption of the Government by you, of course, puts an end to that of the Hudson’s Bay Company authorities... . There would then be, if you were not admitted into the country,
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 85
no legal Government existing and anarchy must follow. In sucha case. . . itis quite open by the Law of Nations for the inhabitants to forma Government ex necessitate for the protection of life and property, and such a Government has certain sovereign rights by the jus gentium which might be very convenient for the United States but exceedingly inconvenient for you. The temptation to an acknowledgment of such a Government by the United States, would be very great and ought not to be lightly risked.”
Again, in a minute of the Privy Council,® he wrote :
“ While the issue of the Proclamation would put an end to the Government of the Hudson’s Bay Company, it would not sub- stitute the Government by Canada, therefore such a Government is physically impossible until the armed resistance is ended ; and thus a state of anarchy and confusion would ensue, and a legal status might be given to any Government de facto formed by the inhabitants for the protection of their lives and property.”
Although the law officers in Great Britain expressed the opinion “ that the apprehensions of the Canadian Government are unfounded, and the insurgents or rioters (by which term they may be properly designated) will not be improved or strengthened by the transference of the territory from the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Canadian Government,” nevertheless it must be admitted that McDougall’s ill-advised act in ending the Hudson’s Bay Company government without being able to impose his own, gave a colour of justification, if not legality, to Riel’s Provisional Government.
To celebrate the proclamation of the new government Riel hoisted, on December roth, the flag of the Provisional Govern- ment, a fleur de lys and shamrock on a white back, and allowed his men for the first time “ de trinquer en ’honneur du nouveau drapeau.”””® At the same time the Nor’ Wester and its embryo successor, the Red River Pioneer, were suppressed, reappearing in January under the significant title of Te New Nation, as the organ of the Provisional Government. On the 13th McDougall sent a letter to Riel suggesting an interview, but receiving no reply, he wrote once more to Mactavish informing him that “ if, in consequence of the action of the Dominion Government, the surrender and transfer of the country did not take place on the first day of December, as previously agreed upon, then you are the Chief Executive officer as before, and responsible for the preservation of the Peace and enforcement of the Law. If,
86 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
on the other hand, the Transfer did take place on the first day of December, then, I take it, my Commission came into force, and the notice, in the form of a Proclamation, issued by my authority on that day, correctly recited the facts, and disclosed the legal status of the respective parties.””* On December 18th McDougall quitted the inhospitable village of Pembina and proceeded with his party to St. Paul. In the Settlement Riel took the final steps to power. On the 22nd he confiscated the money in possession of the Hudson’s Bay Company at Fort Garry,”* and five days later was elected to succeed John Bruce, who had resigned, as president.”*
Thus, by the close of the year 1869, Louis Riel and the métis were, without striking a blow or shedding one drop of blood, complete masters of the Red River Settlement. The Fort, with large supplies of ammunition, stores and money, was in their hands ; the English half-breeds were either indifferent or mildly sympathetic ; the Canadian appeal to arms had failed ; sixty-five political prisoners were in close confinement ; the Provisional Government had been proclaimed; and the disappointed Lieutenant-Governor with his discomfited “ Conservator of the Peace ” was returning over the snows to Canada.
CHAPTER V THE RED RIVER REBELLION, PART TWO
Hap the Imperial Government or the Dominion Government imitated the rash and reckless conduct of those claiming to represent the Queen’s authority in Rupert’s Land, civil war and bloodshed might have followed, and the Settlement would have become the prey of the warlike Indian tribes of the North-West. Fortunately calmer counsels prevailed both in London and in Ottawa. On learning by telegram of the fact of the outbreak, Lord Granville hastened to send the following reply to the Governor-General of Canada : “25 November 1869.
““ Make what use you think best of the following :
** The Queen has heard with surprise and regret that certain misguided persons have banded together to oppose by force the entry of the future Lieutenant-Governor into Her Majesty’s settlements on the Red River.
“Her Majesty does not distrust the loyalty of Her subjects in these settlements, and can only ascribe to misunderstanding or misrepresentation their opposition to a change which is plainly for their advantage.
“She relies on your Government for using every effort to explain whatever is misunderstood, to ascertain the wants and to conciliate the good will of the Red River settlers. But meantime She authorizes you to signify to them the sorrow and dis- pleasure with which she views their unreasonable and lawless proceedings, and her expectation that if any parties have desires to express, or complaints to make respecting their condition and prospects, they will address themselves to the Governor-General of the Dominion of Canada.
“The Queen expects from Her Representative that as he will always be ready to receive well founded grievances so he will exercise all the power and authority with which She has entrusted him, in the support of order and for the suppression of unlawful disturbance,””!
This telegram was the basis of a Proclamation issued by Sir John Young on December 6th, which concluded with the words, “ I 87
88 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
do lastly inform you, that in case of your immediate and peaceable obedience and dispersion, I shall order that no legal proceedings be taken against any parties implicated in these unfortunate breaches of the law.’’?
As soon as the Canadian Government was informed of the resistance to the entry of the Honourable William McDougall, the Cabinet, “as a preliminary, decided upon sending up emissaries well known to, and personally liked by these French half-brecds, to confer with them, and, if possible, disabuse their minds of the efroneous impressions that have been made upon them,” Accordingly the Very Reverend Grand Vicar Thibault and Colonel de Salaberry were instructed to proceed to Red River with the Governor-General’s Proclamation, to explain to the people the liberal intentions of the Canadian Government, and to remove the existing apprehensions of danger consequent upon the transition of the little colony into the Canadian Confederation. The choice of emissaries was one calculated to bring to a success- ful conclusion this “ mission of peace and conciliation.” The Grand Vicar had lived and laboured amongst the people of the North-West for more than thirty-six years. “ He has much influence,” wrote Young, “ being greatly beloved, and holding a high position in the Roman Catholic Church.”* Colonel de Salaberry was the son of the distinguished French Canadian officer who had repelled the American invaders at Chateauguay in 1813. He also had passed several years in the North-West Territory and was looked up to as a leader and a friend by the French half-breeds.
Unfortunately, the real nature of the trouble in Red River was misunderstood by the Canadian authorities. The half-breed rising was not merely a French ebullition, to be calmed by the presence and promises of two prominent French Canadians ; it was the rising of a small, primitive, native community against economic and racial absorption by an unfamiliar, aggressive civilization. The mission of peace was thus handicapped from the beginning. No authority was given the Commissioners to conclude any definite arrangements with the insurgents, conceding them the guarantees they demanded ; they were authorized merely to use their influence to persuade the métis to lay down arms. Yet Riel and his adherents were determined to accept no settlement which was not based upon negotiations and guaranteed by Par-
THE RED RIVER REBELLION 89
liament. It was unlikely, therefore, that success would attend the efforts of Thibault and de Salaberry.
At the same time a third Commissioner was chosen to follow the two French Canadians who had departed for the North-West. On November 24th, Donald A. Smith, the chief representative of the Hudson’s Bay Company in Canada, offered to the Canadian Government, the loyal co-operation of all the officers of the service “ to restore and maintain order throughout the territory.’”5 At the request of George Stephen, afterwards Lord Mount Stephen, Sir John A. Macdonald consulted Smith, who sug- gested that a “ Protestant, unconnected with office, and known to be an independent man of business, might be exceedingly useful ” and intimated that Stephen might prove a suitable appointment as Commissioner. Stephen, however, refused and Smith himself finally accepted Macdonald’s offer to undertake the diffi- cult mission to the North-West. Colonel Wolseley, then Deputy Quartermastcr-General in Canada, expressed a desire to accom- pany Smith,’ but Macdonald wisely saw that there was no place in a mission of peace for a military officer like Wolseley. ‘ Smith goes to carry the olive branch,” he wrote to his intimate friend Stephen, “‘and were it known at Red River that he was accom- panied by an officer high in rank in military service, he would be looked upon as having the olive branch in one hand and a revolver in the other.”® On December roth the Secretary of State for the Provinces officially informed Smith that the Governor-General had been pleased to appoint him a “ Special Commissioner, to inquire into and report upon the causes and extent of the armed obstruction offered at the Red River. . . to the peaceful ingress of the Hon. Wm. McDougall,” and to “explain to the inhabitants the principles on which the Govern- ment of Canada intends to govern the country and to remove any misapprchensions that may exist on the subject. And also to take such steps, in concert with Mr. McDougall and Governor Mactavish, as may seem most proper for effecting the peaceable transfer of the country and the Government, from the Hudson’s Bay authorities to the Government of the Dominion.”*® This commission, like that issued to Thibault and de Salaberry, did not give Smith authority to negotiate or to come to terms with the insurgents ; it only authorized him to probe the causes of the trouble, to explain away misapprehensions and to report upon the
90 THE BIRTH OF WESTERN CANADA
best mode of effecting the speedy transfer of the North-West to Canada.
The selection of Donald A. Smith as Commissioner was opportune. He was a man of personality, ability, and resource. Entering the service of the Hudson’s Bay Company as a boy of seventeen he had made rapid strides, until, in 1868, he attained the position of the Company’s Resident Governor in Montreal. This, however, was only the beginning of his career. Knighted in 1886 and elevated to the peerage in 1897, he was, from 1870, one of the most important figures in the public life of the Dominion of Canada. One biographer’ has stated—albeit in prejudice—that so great was Smith’s influence that Parliament, upon many occasions, without being aware of the fact, simply registered his decrees | This was the man, with whose personality, courage, tact, and “invaluable knack of turning everything to account ”’ Louis Riel, the métis leader, was to contend.
On December 24th, Thibault and de Salaberry arrived at Pembina, the border village lately quitted by the frustrated McDougall. Here they found the people full of distrust against all persons coming irom Canada, “in fact, even against us,” wrote Thibault, “ notwithstanding that they had been for a long time aware of our entire devotion to the interests of the country.” At Fort Garry the hostility was so great that Mactavish doubted whether Thibault would be able to win any support among the métis. “I believe Bishop Taché alone has influence sufficient to detach the men from their present leaders,” he wrote to the London Office, “and even he might fail.”!? In view of this fact, and acting upon the advice of Cameron and Provencher, it was decided that de Salaberry should remain at Pembina with the official papers while Father Thibault alone proceeded to the Settlement. Thibault was not, however, permitted to carry out his political mission in Red River, but was kept a virtual prisoner in the Bishop’s house. As a result of the intervention of Dr. Tupper, who had gone to Fort Garry to escort his daughter back to Canada, Thibault was given his liberty, and he and Colonel de Salaberry were given an opportunity to represent the views of the Canadian Government to the disaffected leaders.18 This inter- view took place on January 6th. A few days later Riel informed the Commissioners that “he was sorry to see that our papers gave us no authority to treat with them,” but he appeared to hold
THE RED RIVER REBELLION g1
out hopes of a satisfactory settlement.‘ Nevertheless the two Commissioners were not allowed to move freely among the people, nor were their official papers, including the Governor-General’s Proclamation of December 6th, which had been entrusted to Riel, ever made public.
On December 27th, Donald A. Smith arrived by sleigh at Fort Garry. He was immediately taken before Riel and the insurgent Council who demanded the purport of his visit. Smith replied that he was connected with the Hudson’s Bay Company, but mentioned also that he held a commission from the Canadian Government. He was then requested to take an oath to do nothing to undermine the “ Government, legally established.” This Smith peremptorily declined to do, but gave his word to do nothing to upset the Government “ legal or illegal, as it might be,” without first announcing his intention of so doing.!5 This was interpreted by some of the half-breeds as an official recogni- tion by the Canadian Government, through their Commissioner, of the Provisional Government; but Smith’s letter, written to Macdonald immediately after the event,’® and his subsequent correspondence, leaves no doubt that he scrupulously avoided doing anything that might constitute a recognition of the legality of the insurgent government.
Once established in the colony, Smith turned his attention to the task of “effecting the peaceable transfer of the