|
| Dec. 4. |
2,087. Deposition of John Outlaw. A repetition of his evidence of 23 November (see No. 2,086). Sworn before Sir Leolin Jenkins. 1 p. [Col. Papers, Vol. LXIV., No. 122.] |
| Dec. 27. |
2,088. Sir James Hayes to Sir John Werden. The memoria which I left in your hands will have told you of the insolent behaviour of the French in Hudson's Bay. I have suspected that[Illegible] they may renew this work on a greater scale next spring, and m[Illegible] fears are realised by report that Radisson, who headed the French[Illegible] attack on the factory, had arrived from Canada in a French man
of-war, and posted straight to Paris, doubtless to represent the value of the Hudson's Bay trade. In my opinion the King should instruct Lord Preston instantly to press the King of France to do exemplary justice on Radisson. If that justice be refused, we shall know the French intentions, and if the Duke of York, our Governor, will shew the King our danger, we may be saved from the jaws of this Leviathan. If they can be kept away from Hudson's Bay next spring, I think we can make ourselves-strong enough to resist future attacks. The concern is national as well as private. Pray move the Duke of York. Signed, Ja. Hayes. 1½ pp. Endorsed. [Col. Papers, Vol. LXIV., No. 123.] |
| [Dec. ?] |
2,089. Memorial for the French Ambassador. The Hudson's Bay Company has complained of an attack by the French from Canada upon their factory at Port Nelson in June last, when the Governor was captured, the factory destroyed, the names of the rivers changed, and the French flag hoisted, etc., as was said, in the name of the French King. They also carried off an English ship, and turned some British sailors adrift in a leaky ship six hundred leagues from any port, with insufficient provisions. They escaped by miracle, but the King is much displeased at this outrage, and desires that orders may be given to the Governor of Canada for reparation, restoration of the usurped territory, and punishment of the offenders. Draft, with corrections. French. 2 pp. [Col. Papers, Vol. LXIV., No. 124.] |
|
2,090. A list of certain laws and orders in Bermuda, from 1668 to 1683. 3 pp. [Col. Papers, Vol. LXIV., No. 125.] |
|
2,091. Memorial for the French Ambassador. The King having considered Governor de la Barre's letter of 11 November 1682, directs that the following answer be given. The complaints in the said letter may be reduced to two. 1. That British subjects furnish the Iroquois, who are old enemies of the French, with arms and ammunition. 2. That M. de la Barre, while attacking the Iroquois, cannot avoid attacking also those who give them arms and protection; and that he therefore desires an order from the Duke of York to forbid the giving of such help to the Iroquois in future from New York. 3. That the Hudson's Bay Company is erecting buildings on French territory, and that M. de la Barre intends to drive them out. To this it is replied as follows:— Manhattan and Orange are part of the Government of New York, and British territory, having been discovered about eighty years ago by the Englishman Hudson. In 1664 the King invested the Duke of York with the property of this province, which, though taken by the Dutch in 1673, was restored by treaty in 1674. The Colony is situated in the centre of the King's dominions in North America. The Iroquois extend northward from the side of Albany in territory which is indisputably English, whatever M. de la Barre may say. The Iroquois are British subjects by their own wish, and as such are reckoned as dependants of the Government of New York. They consist of the Maquas, Oneidas, Onandagas, Cayouges, and Senecas. These tribes have always been on good
terms with the English, but they had quarrels with the French continually until 1668, when the French made peace with them which, with free commerce, has been observed to the present time. In 1675, in consequence of the Indian war against New England the Governor of New York visited the remotest of these tribes, and was received with obedience. The Maquas were the first to help the English in subduing the rebellious Sachem Philip. The tribes are much intermingled with the English settlers, and they are furnished with arms for hunting purposes. Thus it will be seen that M. de la Barre's protest is groundless, for the English cannot refuse to sell arms to subjects who enjoy free trade with them, or[Illegible] deny protection to faithful allies. As to Hudson's Bay, the British since their discovery of the Bay, eighty years ago, have frequented it constantly, but no French sail has ever been seen trading to the Bay. Some of the Hudson's Bay Company made further discoveries fifteen years ago, and one Zachary Gillam, having made a treaty with the Indians, bought of them Rupert's river and the adjacent land, built a fort called Fort Charles, and has carried on traffic with the Indians ever since, without the least interruption from the French or other nations. The Hudson's Bay Company is incorporated by Letters Patent, by which they hold a monopoly [Illegible] that trade. Gillam's treaty has since been renewed by Charles Bayley, and Count Frontenac, when seeking good relations with him in 1673, made no such pretensions as M. de la Barre. The Forts since built by the English are remoter from Canada than[Illegible] Fort Charles, but not from any doubt of right to penetrate further into the territory. It is requested therefore that M. de la Barr? be instructed to leave the English in Hudson's Bay unmolested Draft. French. Pp. 5–15. Annexed to the preceding are the following documents:— |
|
A paper of queries as to the discovery, trade, factories, etc., o Hudson's Bay. P. 17. |
|
A list of the Adventurers of the Hudson's Bay Company 1 November 1675. Printed sheet. P. 19. |
|
Petition of the Governor and Company of Hudson's Bay to th[Illegible] King. Complaining of the entry of Charles Albanel, a Jesuit into their territory, who not only tried to seduce two Frenchmen from the Company's service, but pulled down the royal ensign in Hudson's Bay, and endeavoured, under pretence of preaching the Gospel, to divert Indians from trading with the Company. Th[Illegible] Company's factors arrested him and sent him home, but he was[Illegible] discharged on promising to desist from these practices. Lately[Illegible] the two Frenchmen deserted the Company's service and joined th[Illegible] Jesuit at Paris. Petitioners beg that the French King may be[Illegible] asked to forbid any design that these men may be hatching agains the Company. 1 p. P. 21. |
|
Representation of the Hudson's Bay Company, on the project of the Elector of Brandenburg. The Elector would certainly under take nothing to the prejudice of the English King in Hudson' Bay if he knew the King's rights, (1) by the discoveries of Marti Frobisher in 1576; (2) by the voyages of Davis, 1585–1587; (3) by the voyages of Hudson in 1610; and (4) of James in 1631; (5) by
the incorporation of the Hudson's Bay Company; and (6) by the advances since made by the Company. 1 p. Endorsed. Recd. by order of P. Rupert, 20 Dec. 81. Pp. 25. [Board of Trade. Hudson's Bay I., pp. 17–25.] |
