Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 20/The British Side of the Restoration of Fort Astoria

by Katharine B. Judson

THE BRITISH SIDE OF THE RESTORATION OF FORT ASTORIA.

Katharine B. Judson, M.A.

The object of history, as the writer understands it, is to teach wisdom for the future from the successes and mistakes of the past. It is to tell the facts of the past so honestly as to do justice to both sides, and in order to do so, it is obvious that the mistakes of one's own country must sometimes be brought to light. Otherwise, one takes the German point of view that whatever one's own country does is morally right.

The restoration of Astoria is a case in point. With an element of the ludicrous in it, in the visit of the Ontario, there is also an exhibition of devious, winding, political manoeuvers by John Quincy Adams which one would rather hide. Writers have heretofore taken the point of view that the restoration was gained by American cleverness as against British intrigue, and therefore Adams is praised.

There is no truth in that point of view. Not one statement could the writer find, even in the private notes of the British Foreign Office officials to each other, that would indicate the slightest intention of outwitting America in the claim for the Northwest Coast and the Columbia River.

From July, 1913, to August, 1914, (being caught in England by the war,) the writer went through some seven hundred volumes in the British Public Record Office, including diplomatic correspondence, Colonial and Foreign Office reports, Admiralty reports, ships logs, and consular reports, from 1790 until 1867, which would have a bearing on Oregon history.

This last date, be it noted, is extraordinary. The usual permission granted to qualified scholars closes with 1837. When the writer made the remark, in a seminar in the University of London, that she intended asking for extended permission for the records until 1846, she was quickly assured by two English college professors of history that such permission was more than doubtful. She made the application. however, through the correct channels, and permission was received "as requested." But on searching the volumes through the 1840s, she found that in the San Juan controversy, many papers belonging to the Treaty of 1846 had been taken out of their proper volumes and used as enclosures in later ones. Many important records were missing upon reaching the end of the 1846 records. She, therefore, in trepidation, asked permission of the official in charge of this special "government room,"—not the usual Round Room—if the permission from the Foreign Office would allow her to look through later volumes for the missing papers of the 1840s. He answered "No," very courteously, but very positively, adding he would look up the permit. With an amazed face he then returned and reported that the Foreign Office had failed to set a date of limitation upon the permit and therefore I was free to search to present date if I chose. He added that it was the first time he had ever known the Foreign Office to make such a mistake—but Oregon history will profit by it.

In addition to these unusual privileges. the writer had the permission of the late Lord Strathcona, Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, to search the archives of the Hudson's Bay Company, and many a day she spent in His Lordship's unoccupied office in Lime Street. searching through the records, journals, reports and correspondence, of the famous old English company. The results given here are rather more as an advance paper upon the history now being written by her, than as a final settlement of the whole question.

It must be remembered, in all Oregon history, that the bitterness of America towards Great Britain was intense. Not only was the Revolution fought on American soil, with suffering unknown to the English people, many of whom did not approve of this war by their foreign king, but the hatred following that had not died out before the War of 1812 was on, and in this war, as in the other, the Indians had joined the more tactful British rather than the aggressive Americans who were taking their lands away from them. The Americans tried, indeed, although almost in vain, to use the Indians against the British; but they did not know how to manage the redskins chiefly because of their own aggressiveness.

And that aggressiveness showed itself continually towards Great Britain. British diplomats wrote home, from Washington, in despairing tones, "The aggressiveness of these Americans!" But the Americans were crying,—and clippings attached to the diplomatic letters prove it,—"The aggressiveness of Great Britain!" "Like father. like son." John Bull and his son Jonathan were so exactly alike they could not possibly understand each other—until each had mellowed, and time and distance had softened bitter feelings.

And though this may seem far afield, in it lies the explanation of much of Oregon's history, and the threat of a third war over the Northwest Coast of America.

In 1804—the writer cannot locate the citation at the moment, amongst a mass of papers,—the North West Company wrote to the Colonial Office, expressing their determination to explore to the Pacific, and asking that they be given the monopoly of any route found across the Rocky Mountains and to the western ocean. Such a monopoly was refused. In that same year, be it noted, Lewis and Clark started across the continent, through old-time Louisiana, and the southern border of the Oregon Country which lay beyond.

In 1807, David Thompson, long hammering at the difficulties of the Canadian Rockies, unsupported by his Indian-fearing voyageurs, and actively opposed by surrounding tribes who feared their enemies west of the Rockies would thereby gain trading goods and guns, suddenly found his way unopposed. The Indians, so he states,^[1] had gathered around the "headwaters of the Mississourie," expecting the return of the white men that year. Had Lewis and Clark returned, or other white men appeared, doubtless there would have been a battle, or many gifts to avert one. So Thompson crossed the Rockies and made his way that year, and for several following, around the headwaters and upper reaches of the Columbia, arriving at the mouth of the Columbia in July, 1811, a few months after the arrival of Astor's men.

It is clear, in studying for trade history in its entirety, that Astor's plan of an overland route, with posts on the Columbia or the Pacific, was not so new or so brilliant as usually credited to "a German person, named Oster," as he is described in a letter of the time. Nor was his outlay of money more daring than that of the North West Company. Nor was his plan of operation very different in idea, though with better financial backing, than the plan of Captain John Meares, half-fraud though Meares was. The laudation of Astor has always seemed exaggerated to the writer.

The British, meanwhile, had in their own eyes a clear case to the ownership, or possession, of the North West Coast. They, aside from the Spanish, were the first to explore, as well as to discover; and the first to trade. America followed more than a boat's length behind; and American traders had been on the coast only a year when Spanish claims were settled so far as Great Britain was concerned, without protest or question by America, in the Nootka Sound Convention. As to the actual discovery of the river, Meares's record was confusing: on approaching the "bay," he says he "steered in,"—meaning "steered in towards." And upon beating a retreat, he says he "steered out,"—he did, but without steering in. Broughton, representing an official exploring party, in his chagrin and attempt to rob Gray of the credit due to the first crossing of that bar, claimed that he was the first to explore the "river," and that added to the confusion. If the exploration of fur traders could count for national claims, then the British were first through Meares's claim of having "steered in,"—three years ahead of Gray. But if fur traders did not count, then Vancouver's expedition was the first, and here again was Broughton's claim.

"The discovery of the Columbia is lost in obscurity," wrote one Foreign Office official to another, in a private memorandum,—and it was. Gray's fur-trading log was not located by the Government until 1817,—the summer the Ontario sailed. When it was looked up through the ship's owners, an affidavit was made only of that fortnight of entering and trading in the river, and the exit. The Government did not even claim the log,—a mistake as against Vancouver's official, published reports, sanctioned and recognized by the British Government. When in 1837 tension had increased, and the American Government searched for Gray's log again, both he and his wife were dead, and the niece to whom he had left the treasure had used the log for wrapping paper! So far as Government records went, there was plenty of obscurity, and the configuration of the coast, the shape of that large bay-like mouth of the river, and the bars, seem not to have been comprehended by either government to any degree.

The sale of Fort Astoria is too well known to need comment, aside from the fact that almost invariably there is omitted the statement, as given by Alexander Henry, (in his Journals, ed. by Coues), that Wilson Price Hunt, after an investigation of the prices at which the fort and furs were sold, assented to them and thus sanctioned the sale. Without his approval the arrangements made by McDougall for the sale could not have held; so the charge of treachery seems quite unfounded for this, as well as for other reasons.

But with the war on, the North West Company's nudging of the British Government, asking for a warship to capture this post, brought the matter to the attention of Colonial officials and other British statesmen. The Americans were mere squatters on the Columbia from the British point of view, and hardly was the fort sold, on the Columbia itself, and Captain Black's reports sent in cipher overland to Canada, and to London—this being the quickest route,—than plans were being made to colonize the North West Coast. By discovery, exploration, trade and contiguity to Canada, the British considered it theirs. It only remained to make America see reason. Spain's claim had been practically settled.

On July 4th, 1814, William Pitt sent some notes to Lord Castlereagh^[2] which he called: "Observations on a pamphlet entitled, 'A Compressed View of the Points to Be Discussed in Treating with the United States of America,' with supplementary remarks." In these notes Pitt suggests the desirability of a treaty with Russia, giving her all north of 58°, (the entrance to Cross Sound), and perhaps Cross Sound to the Frozen Sea, or a line cast to Mackenzie River from its mouth, Slave Lake, Slave Lake to Athabasca Lake, and due west to Cross Sound. In this way, he thought, Russia's territory would be convenient to her Asiatic possessions, and the most advantageous part of the Coast would be secured to Great Britain from 58 to the Columbia at 46 degrees.

It has usually been thought that the restoration of Astoria gave the impetus to the Columbia as a line of demarkation, even by a very recent writer.^[3] But it is clear that Pitt, if he regarded Great Britain as having full claim to the Californian line, did not intend to exclude the Americans entirely from the Pacific coast line.

Pitt's plan covered the following points For protection and the advancement of commerce, and especially the fur trade, he thought there should be a line of internal communication across the continent. That there was one, he seemed not to know. The British fur traders did not always notify their government of exploration made by them. At Nootka Sound, Pitt would plant a colony of "useful and industrious British subjects," with a governor, supplying them from the Sandwich Islands, China, and New South Wales. These colonists were to form a Provincial Corporation, with a small naval force to check piracy. Clergymen were to be sent there for the settlers and missionaries for the Indians. He refers to Vancouver's recommendations in Book 4, Chap. 9. The advantages would be British commerce, the propagation of Christianity, and the general civilization of extensive and unenlightened British possessions.

A week later, July 11, 1814, William Pitt sent a second note to Lord Castlereagh on this matter.^[4]

The reduction of the navy and army, he thought, would give good selections for colonists. These should be young men of the best character, soldiers and sailors, married, with not more than two children to a family. Each should be skilled in some trade or calling useful to a colony. Care must be taken in the selection of officers for defence, and for general policy of the colony,-married men, he thought, with some property. The colonists were to engage in trade, fisheries, and commerce, as well as to explore the country and its resources. The precedent for such action had been set by Russia, after the death of Peter the Great, in ascertaining the resources of the country and the people. Many hints, Pitt thought, could be obtained from the Lewis and Clark reports, and from Müller's report on the Russian people. The selection of colonists should include some men of science, skilled in natural history, mineralogy, etc. He suggested as a leader a Mohawk chief, educated in Scotland, of high character, we informed, master of the English language, an Indian, yet warmly attached to Great Britain. Pitt was sure Sir Alexander Mackenzie, the North West Company, and the Hudson's Bay Company, would all aid in such a scheme.

There was great overcrowding in England at that time, and economic suffering was great. This may have been at the bottom of Pitt's plan; but nothing seems to have come of it It is likely that the Government felt more inclined to aid colonists to points in eastern Canada, where safcty was greater and expense much less.

The Treaty of Ghent was signed Christmas Eve, 1814, at the little Flemish town of that name. The Columbia River was not mentioned in the treaty. Shortly after their return from Ghent, Lord Bathurst told Simon McGllivray, that quiring from the Americans any recognition or guarantee of His Majesty's rights thereto, might tend to cast doubt upon a title which was already sufficiently clear and incontestable." [See entire letter below.]

And James Monroe, for America, had written to the pleni potentaries, under date of 22nd March, 1814, "On no pretext can the British Government set up a claim to territory south of the northern boundary of the United States. It is not believed that they have any claim whatever to territory on the Pacific Ocean. You w, however, be careful, should a definition of the boundary be attempted, not to countenance in any manner, or in any quarter, a pretension in the British Government to territory south of that line."^[5]

So the road to difficulties lay wide open. Hardly was the ink dry on that Treaty of Ghent than John Floyd of Virginia brought in, 1815, the first of his annual bills for the occupation of the Columbia. The bill did not reach a third reading.^[6]

That same year, 1815, Admiral Porter was urging the exploration of the Pacific.^[7] Two frigates, the Guerrière and the Java were to have been placed under Porter to explore the Pacific and the North West Coast. This was Admiral Porter's own idea, outlined in a letter written to John Madison, then President. The expedition was never sent out; the idea was revived again in the late 1820s, a commander and ships assigned, but actually the scheme was carried out only in 1840 by Commander Charles Wilkes

But the race for the possession of the North West Coast had begu under governmental sanction. No longer was it merely a question of the fur trade.

On July 18th, James Monroe sent a message to Anthony St. John Baker, then British Chargé d'affaires at Washington, following it up by a letter evidently requested by Baker: [Monroe to Baker]^[8]

"Department of State,

"July 18th, 1815.

"Sir,

"It is represented that an expedition which had been sent by your government against the post of the United States established on Columbia River had succeeded in taking pos- session of it. By the first article of the Treaty of peace, it is stipulated that all territory, places, and possessions whatso- ever taken by either party from the other during the war, shall be restored without delay, with the exception only of the islands on Passamaquoddy Bay, which should remain in the possession of the party in whose occupation they then were, subject to the decision provided for in the 4th article. As the post on the Columbia river was taken during the war, and is not within the exception stipulated, the United States are of course entitled to its restitution; measures il therefore be taken to occupy it without delay. It is probable that your Government may have given orders for its restitution; to prevent, however, any difficulty on the subject, I have to re quest that you will have the goodness to furnish me with a letter to the British Commander there to that effect.

"I have the honor to be

&c., &c., &c,

James Monroe

"To Anthony St. John Baker, Esq.,

&c., &c., &c.

The next day Baker addressed the following letter to Lord Castlereagh.^[9]

"Washington, July 19, 1815.

"My Lord-

"Mr. Munroe having requested an interview with me at the Department of State, I accordingly waited upon him at the time appointed.

"He stated he was desirous of speaking to me upon one or two points, the first of which related to the establishment which the United States had possessed before the war on the Pacific ocean at the mouth of the Columbia River, but which had been broken up by a naval force, sent by the British government for that purpose. He conceived that it fell within the meaning of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent, and ought to be restored, for otherwise it would have been particularly excepted in the treaty as had been the case with the Passamaquoddy Islands, and requested to know whether I agreed in that opinion.

"I replied that I had not considered the subject which was unexpected by me; that in fact, I did not immediately call to mind what was the result of the expedition to which he alluded, and was not aware that any persons whatsoever had been left upon the spot who could affect the restoration required, should the case be thought to come under the treaty, but that I was ignorant of any transaction between the two Governments which recognized the claim of the United States to any part of the coast of the Pacific ocean.

"He did not state the foundation on which the claim to this territory rested insisting merely upon the fact of its having been captured from the United States during the war which brought it within the Treaty * * * "[Omission on the fishery question.]

"Mr. Munroe * * * led me to expect that he would make a written communication * * * relative to the restoration of the settlement on the Columbia River * * * [Omissions on fisheries.]

---

"P. S. Since writing the above, I have received Mr. Munroe's letter relative to the restoration of the settlement on Columbia River, a copy of which I beg leave to enclose. It is my intention in my reply to refer him to Rear Admiral Dixon, who commands in those seas.

A. B."

Five days later, Baker sent the following answer to Secretary Munroe:^[10]

"Washington, July 23, 1815.

"Sir:

"I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 18th instant acquainting me that it had been represented to the American government that a British force sent for that purpose had succeeded in taking possession of the United States establishments on Columbia River, and claiming its restoration under the words of the 1st article of the Treaty, upon the ground of its having been captured during the War; stat ing likewise that His Majesty's Government may have given orders for its restitution, but requesting with a view to prevent any difficulty on the subject, that I would furnish a letter to that effect to the British Commander there. As I have received no communication on the subject of these orders from His Majesty's Government, you will readily, I am convinced, perceive the unpracticability of my forwarding a letter of this nature; and although it is believed that the post in question has been captured (of which, however, the American Government does not appear to have any certain information on which to ground the claim of restitution) yet another point equally essential remains in great uncertainty, viz: whether any persons whatsoever were left to retain possession of it. My impression is that the establishment was broken up, and the persons found there brought away. Vice Admiral Dixon, however, the Commander in Chief of His Majesty's Naval Forces on the Brazil Station, within whose command the Pacific Ocean is included, is no doubt in possession of every necessary information in relation to this post, and will be able to communicate on the subject with any authorized agent on the behalf of the United States * * * [Omissions on other subjects.]

Baker also wrote, on July 24th, 1815, to Vice-Admiral Manley Dixon, in charge of the Pacific; and another letter went post haste to Sir Gordon Drummond, Governor of Canada, asking him for information which might be secured from the North West Company. The inquiry went to William McGillivray, but his brother Simon happened to be in Canada, having just arrived from England (see letter below, dated New York, November 15, 1817,) and together the Nor'westers made their answer. A copy (checked against the dateless original) with a subsequent note from Simon McGilivray, dated March 23rd, 1822, is used.

The explanatory note is given first, then the report of 1815:^[11]

"Appendix

"The Statement of which the following is a Copy was drawn up at Montreal in 1815, at the request of Sir Gordon Drummond, who had been applied to by the British Chargé d'Affaires at Washington for information on the subject of the settlement at the Colubia River for t seems that even at that early period the American Government took a very different view of the case from that which has been expressed by Lord Bathurst and from the ulterior measures of Government it is evident that they (the Americans) have carried their point as far as the restitution of Fort George.

"The opinion given by Lord Bathurst and by Mr. Gouldburn after the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent are perfectly in my recollection, but it is of little use now to refer to them further than to show how the American Government succeeds in establishing points and obtaining concessions.

(Signed) Simon McGillivray."

London, 23rd March, 1822."

"Appendix

"Statement relative to the Columbia River and adjoining Territory on the Western Coast of the Continent of North America. [1815]

"The claim of Great Britain to the Sovereignty of a considerable part of the Northwest Coast of America was originally founded from rights derived from the Discovery of the Country by Sir Francis Drake who in the reign of Queen Elizabeth visited the Northern part of California which country he called New Albion, and of which he took possession in the name of his Sovereign. Since that time the claim has never been relinquished although the Spaniards have been allowed to encroach upon the country in question, by extending their settlements to the Northward of the place whereof Drake had taken possession, yet still the Country situated to the Northward of the Spanish Setlements was always claimed by Great Britain and the claim was tacitly admitted not publickly recognized.

This early right oi discovery is, however, important only in a discussion of claims with Spain; for as to any claim which may be set up by the United States of America, it wil be easy to find rights prior to theirs without going back further than the Reign of his present Majesty. Captain Cook's repeated visits to that Coast and his taking renewed possession thereof in His Majesty's Name before the Americans became an independent people, s sureiy a sufficient title against them, and the occurrences at Nootka Sound in 1789 and the Armament against Spain in consequence of the aggressions committed upon British Subjects on that Coast, afford ample proof that the possession thus taken was not meant to be merely a nominal possession but it was considered by the Government of that day a matter of such importance as to afford a sufficient cause for going to war with Spain.^[12]

"Subsequent rights of Discovery, also prior to any that can be claimed by the United States may be adduced as a further confirmation, if any were wanting, of the Title of Great Britain to the Territory in question. In the year 1792 Sir Alexander McKenzie, then a Partner of the North West Company, ex plored the Country beyond the Rocky Mountains and was the first who penetrated to the Pacific Ocean. He also took session of the Country in the name of his Sovereign, and previously, in 1791 [1792], Captain Vancouver had surveyed the Coast and the River Columbia from its mouth to the falls, which are 200 Miles from the Sea. Soon after Sir Alexander McKenzie's Voyages, the North West Company established Trading posts in the Country beyond the Rocky Mountains and upon the head Waters of the Columbia River. So that besides the repeated Acts of taking formal possession, British Subjects have for above Twenty Years been in actual possession of the Interior of the Country in question and have maintained the same uninterruptedly.

"It was only about two years ago that the Government of the United States began to set up pretensions^[13] to the North West Coast; for until after their purchase of Louisiana from Bonaparte they had never possessed or had even claimed any Territory to the Westward of the Missisippi; but upon making the purchase of the Province of Louisiana and finding that its Geographical Boundaries to the Northward and Westward had never been expressly limited or defined, they immediately took advantage of this circumstance to claim Boundaries as extensive and indefinite as possible ad without waiting to have the matter of right investigated or ascertained they hastened to take possession of the Country so claimed by them, intending doubtless when they once had taken possession to maintain it whether right or wrong. With a view, therefore, to extend their territorial claims across the Continent to the Pacific Ocean and establish a communication therewith through the Rivers Mississourie and Columbia, the American Government in the year 1806 [1803] fitted out an expedition to explore the Country under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clarke, who proceeded to the head of the River Mississourie thence across the Rocky Mountains to the River Columbia and so down to the mouth of that River from whence they returned [1806] by the same route.

"In order to give the Expedition as much as possible the Air of a Voyage of Discovery, and to make it appear as if they were exploring and taking possession of an unknown Country, though in fact the Country in the Interior was well known to the Traders from Canada, the Americans as they went along, bestowed new Names on Rivers, Mountains, &c., such as Jefferson's River, Madison's River, and so forth, forgetting or affecting to forget that the Columbia River had already been surveyed by Captain Vancouver and that a route across the Continent to the Pacific Ocean had already been traversed by Sir Alexander McKenzie, both of whom as well as Captain Cook, had taken possession of the Country in the name of His Majesty as hereinbefore mentioned.

"Uniting this project of the extension of Territory, with another favorite object, the obtaining possession of the Fur Trade, and detaching the Indian Nations from their partiality to the British and Canadian Traders, the American Government, soon after the return of Captains Lewis and Clarke, established a Chartered Company at New York to prosecute the Fur Trade of this New Country under the name of the Pacific Fur Company at the head of which was Mr. John Jacob Astor of New York and this Pacific Fur Company commenced their operations in the Summer of 1810, when Ships were sent to the Coast, a Fort Built at the mouth of the Columbia River, the Country taken possession of as American Territory, and named Astoria and the rights of Great Britain disregarded.

"Representations upon this subject were from time to time made to His Majesty's Government by the North West Company's representatives in London. Upon this subject they have had the honor of conferring with several of His Majesty's Ministers^[14] at different times and they all expressed their opinion that the country in question belongs of right to Great Britain and that the United States had no just claim whatever KATHARINE

258

to the possession of

it,

but

B. JUDSON

still

no measures were for some

time adopted by Government to interfere with their then new Establishment at the Columbia River, and this forbearance to the following causes, viz. viz. 1st. The and possibly considered of less importance remote was object than it would have been under different circumstances. The Country was engaged in War with numerous and powerful Enemies and Government was doubtless unwilling to add to their number by quarrelling with America or adding to the

may be imputed

causes of quarrel already existing.

"The North West Company had their

Trading Posts

across

the

in the meantime extended Mountains to the Pacific

Ocean, and it became necessary to send their people Supplies by Sea from England, but they had previously applied to Government for a Charter or Grant of the Trade of the Counfor try to be thus supplied, and to the East India Company Years and thus Two to its China, produce permission to carry

were occupied by these applications and preparatory arrangements.

"This was the state of matters at the commencement of the late War with the United States, when at length Government resolved to interfere in the matter.

The American Company

was in possession of a Fort or Trading Post at the mouth of the Columbia river and also of some Posts in the Interior.

The North West Company had

established several Posts in

the Interior, and had sent a party to proceed to the Coast in the summer of 1813, to meet a Ship with Supplies from Eng-

of 1812, and which must have proceeded on her destination even without the protection which Government afterwards granted but ultimately the proland which was fitted out in the

fall

was obtained. frigate and the Cherub and Raccoon Sloops of War were sent around Cape Horn and the Raccoon was sent to the Columbia, to destroy the American Establishment and tection sought

"The Phoebe

to take possession of the Country as British Territory. From the detention which had occurred in the sailing of this ExpediRESTORATION OF ASTORIA

259

from England, their arrival at the Columbia was much than had been contemplated, and [than] arranged with the North West Company's people who had proceeded to meet them from the Interior and who reached the Sea in August, 1913, while the Raccoon did not make her appearance until the month of December following, and the North West Company's ship the Isaac Todd not until April, 1814. The People from the Interior therefore despairing of tion

later

the arrival of their expected Supplies and Support by Sea, found it necessary to make the best arrangement in their power with the people whom they found in possession of the

of these though Partners or Servants of the British subjects and would not fight against their Country, and learning of the American War inclined them to change sides. The Americans were not sufficiently strong to defend their Fort in the event of this defecCountry. Pacific

Many

Fur Company were

and they were under apprehensions from

tion taking place,

the expected arrival of the Men of War. The result was an arrangement by which the Americans agreed to retire from the Country and to sell the Goods which they had at their Fort

which the North West Company's people purchased, and thus when the Raccoon appeared in December, 1813, she found the place in possession of Friends and her Officers were not a

little disappointed in their hopes of prize Money. Captain Black of the Raccoon once more took formal possession of

the Country in His Majesty's

name and

post Fort George, under which name

called the principal

now held by the North West Company. "It is evident from this statement that Fort George is not a Conquest the restoration of which the American Government are entitled to claim under the 1st Article of the late Treaty, nor could

it

it

is

have been so considered by the f ramers of

that Treaty for one of the representatives of the North West Company had the honor of .an interview with Lord Bathurst

on the subject after the ratification of the Treaty was known and not long after Mr. Gouldburn's return from Ghent when

his

Lordship declared decidedly that the Country

in question was not considered as a Conquest to be restored under the Treaty, but as a British Territory to which the Americans had no just claim, and the reason which his Lordship assigned for this country not being mentioned in the Treaty was, that, requiring from the Americans any recognition or guarantee of His Majesty's rights thereto might tend to cast doubt upon a Title which was already sufficiently clear and incontestable."

The many mistakes in the above report, both as to facts and dates, are no greater, if as great, as those made in speeches in the American congress. On both sides they indicate the lack of knowledge prevailing and the resulting confusion.

1. F. O. 5, Vol. 441.
2. F. 0. 5. Vol. 103.
3. Oreg, Hist. Quar., Dec., 1918, p, 277.
4. F. 0. 5, Vol. 103.
5. Bancroft., North West Coast, Vol. 2, pp. 294-5.
6. F. O. 5, Vol. 157.
7. F. O. 5, Vol. 157.
8. F. O. 5, Vol. 107.
9. F. O. 5, Vol. 107, No. 24
10. F. O. 5, Vol. 107.
11. C. O. 6, Vol. 6. Original was taken from its place and used as an enclosure, found in F. 0. 5, Vol. 123. Checked against the duplicate used.
12. [Note by McGillivrayl: Reference may be particularly had to the negotiation upon that subject with the court of Madrid in the year 1790 and the convention of 28th October of that year, which was the result of these negotiations and of the armament referred to.
13. Throughout this diplomatic correspondence, pretensions is used with the meaning of claim, not with the more sinister meaning now more usually attached to it.
14. [Note by McGillivray]: The ministers particularly alluded to as having given decided opinions on the subject are the Earl of Harrowly, the Marquis of Wellesley, Lord Viscount Castlereagh, Earl Bathurst, Mr. George Rose, etc., etc., etc.