The Great Company : $b being a history of the honourable company of merchants-adventurers trading into Hudson's BayWillson, Beckles
History
The Great Company : $b being a history of the honourable company of merchants-adventurers trading into Hudson's Bay
Willson, Beckles
Fur trade -- Canada; Hudson's Bay Company; Northwest, Canadian -- History
Now, at the very moment this treaty was signed, the French, by the
victory of Troyes, were in possession of Fort Albany and the English
still held Port Nelson. As the liberty of navigation was not disturbed
by the Treaty it would appear that the French retained the right to
sail in the Bay.
Commissioners were appointed to consider the carrying out of the
treaty, the Sieurs Barillon and Bonrepas acting on behalf of France,
and Lords Sutherland, Middleton and Godolphin for James. To these
commissioners the Company presented a further memorial, which dwelt
upon their grievances "for five years past, in a time of peace and
good correspondence between the two crowns."
[Sidenote: Impracticability of the Treaty.]
These commissioners appear to have done their best to arrange matters
satisfactorily; but such a result was impossible under the conditions.
They were privately instructed by their respective masters to agree to
hold the trade of Port Nelson in common. Such a proposal was extremely
impracticable, as that well-informed subject, Denonville, made haste
to inform his royal master. The proximity of the English, he declared,
in such a remote part would be a certain source of hostility on both
sides, and a dangerous temptation for numbers of "libertines," whom
the least dissatisfaction would induce to take refuge at Port Nelson.
The "libertines" he thus alluded to were the bushrangers, who were
already giving the French great trouble and uneasiness through their
wild, undisciplined habits and their freedom from restraint.
Denonville added that the Hudson's Bay Company, paying higher prices
for beaver than the French could do, would always have a preference,
and consequently would almost monopolize the trade. It was therefore
better, in his opinion, to effect a compromise in the Bay, restoring
the three forts Troyes had taken in exchange for Port Nelson, which,
so he stated, was worth more than the other three together for trading
purposes. Besides, on the first rupture, it would be very easy to
retake them by an overland march, as Troyes had done.
But such proposals on the part of the French were indignantly rejected
by the English Company. There was, therefore, nothing for it but a
_modus vivendi_, under which no further encroachments in the Bay were
to be made by either party.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account