The British Side 
 
 of the Restoration of 
 
 Fort Astoria 
 
 Katharine b, Judson, M. A. 
 
 Reprinted from Oregon Historical Quarterly 
 Vol. XX. No9. 3 ar.d 4, 1919 
 
 The Ivy f iv3«3 
 1920 
 
THE BRITISH SIDE OF TliE 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 Ouincy 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 Eng- 
 land by the war,) the writer went through some seven hun- 
 dred volumes in the British Public Record Office, including 
 diplomatic correspondence. Colonial and Foreign Office re- 
 ports, 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 per- 
 mission 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 permis- 
 sion of the official in charge of this special "government 
 room," — not the usual Round Room — if the pennission 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 Hud- 
 son'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 rec- 
 ords, 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 suffer- 
 ing unknown to the English people, many of whom did not 
 
 MR f£ 1820 
 
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 Ameri- 
 cans tried, indeed, although almost in vain, to use the Indians 
 ag;ainst the British ; but they did not know how to manage the 
 redskins chiefly because of their own aggressiveness. 
 
 xA.nd that aggressiveness showed itself continually towards 
 Great Britain. British diplomats wrote home, from Washing- 
 ton, in despairing tones, "The aggressiveness of these Ameri- 
 cans !" But the Americans were crying, — and clippings at- 
 tached to the diplomatic letters prove it, — "The aggressive- 
 ness 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 explana- 
 tion of much of Oreg-on'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 Com- 
 pany wrote to the Colonial Office, expressing their determina- 
 tion to explore the Pacific, and asking that they be given 
 the monopoly of any route found across the Rocky Moun- 
 tains 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 diffi- 
 culties 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 unop- 
 posed. The Indians, so he states,* had gathered around the 
 
 *F. O. 5, Vol. 441. 
 
"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 fur 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 cred- 
 ited 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 set- 
 tled 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' 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' 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 Cohimbia is lost in obscurity," wrote 
 one Foreign Office official to another, in a private memor- 
 andum, — 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 affi- 
 davit 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, pub- 
 lished reports — sanctioned and recognized by the British Gov- 
 ernment. When in 1837 tension had increased, and the Ameri- 
 can 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 com- 
 ment, 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 been 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 the 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 dis- 
 covery, 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^ 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 supple- 
 mentary remarks." In these notes Pitt suggests the desira- 
 bility 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 east 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 restoration of Astoria 
 gave the impetus to the Columbia as a line of demarkation. 
 even by a very recent writer. 2 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 American 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 communica- 
 tion across the continent. That there was one, he seemed not 
 to know. The British fur traders did not always notify their 
 government of all 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 
 
 1 F. O. 5, Vol. 103. 
 
 2 Oreg. Hist. Quar., Dec, 1918, p. 
 
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 un- 
 enlightened British possessions. 
 
 A week later, July 11, 1814. William Pitt sent a second 
 note to Lord Castlereagh on this matter.^ 
 
 The reduction of the army and navy, he Uiought, 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 gen- 
 eral policy of the colony, — married men, he thought, with 
 some property. The colonists were to engage in trade, fish- 
 eries, 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 Miiller's report on the Russian people. The selec- 
 tion 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, well- 
 informed, master of the English language, an Indian, yet 
 warmly attached to Great Britain. Pitt was sure Sir Alex- 
 ander Mackenzie, the North West Company, and the Hud- 
 son'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 col- 
 onists to points in eastern Canada, where safety 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 
 
 3 F. O. 5. Vol. 103. 
 
was not mentioned in the treaty. Shortly after their return 
 from Ghent, Lord Bathurst told Simon McGillivray, that "re- 
 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- 
 potentiaries, 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 be- 
 lieved that they have any claim whatever to territory on the 
 Pacific Ocean. You will, however, be careful, should a defini- 
 tion of the boundary be attempted, not to countenance in any 
 manner, or in any quarter, a pretension in the British Govern- 
 ment to territory south of that line."^^ 
 
 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. "^ 
 
 That same year, 1815, Admiral Porter was urging the ex- 
 ploration of the Pacific. 5 Two frigates, the Guerricre and 
 the Jam, 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 James Madison, then 
 President. The expedition was never sent out ; the idea was 
 revived again in the late 1820s, a commander and ships as- 
 signed, 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 begun 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 Charge d'affaires at Washington, 
 following it up by a letter evidently requested by Baker: 
 [Monroe to Baker] ^ 
 
 3a Bancroft, North West Coast, Vol. 
 4F. O. 5, Vol. 157- 
 
 5 F. O. 5, Vol. 157. 
 
 6 F. O. 5, Vol. 107. 
 
 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 
 estabHshed 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 will 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 :'' 
 
 "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 
 
 7 F. O. 5, Vol. 107, No. 24. 
 
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 Gov- 
 ernment 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 par- 
 ticularly excepted in the treaty as had been the case with 
 the Passamaquoddy Islands, and requested to know whether 
 I agreed in that opinion. 
 
 'T 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 res- 
 toration of the settlement on the Columbia River * * * 
 [Omissions on fisheries.] 
 
 "P. S. Since writing the above, I have received Mr. Mun- 
 roe'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." 
 
 10 
 
Five days later. Baker sent the following answer to Secre- 
 tary Monroe :^ 
 
 "Washing-ton, 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 pur- 
 pose had succeeded in taking- possession of the United States 
 establishments on Columbia River, and claiming its restora- 
 tion 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 pre- 
 vent any difficulty on the subject, that I would furnish a letter 
 to that effect to the British Commander there. As I have re- 
 ceived 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 es- 
 sential remains in great uncertainty, viz : whether any persons 
 whatsoever were left to retain possession of it. My impres- 
 sion 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 infor- 
 mation 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 Man- 
 ley Dixon, in charge of the Pacific ; and another letter went 
 post haste to Sir Gordon Drummond, Governor of Canada, 
 
 8 F. O. 5, Vol. 107. 
 
 11 
 
asking him for information which might be secured from the 
 North West Company. The inquiry went to WiUiam McGil- 
 Hvray, but his brother Simon happened to be in Canada, hav- 
 ing 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 McGillivray, 
 dated March 23rd, 1822, is used. 
 
 The explanatory note is given first, then the report of 1815 :' 
 
 "Appendix 
 
 "The Statement of which the following is a copy was drawn 
 up at Montreal in 1815, at the request of Sir Gordon Drum- 
 mond, who had been applied to by the British Charge 
 d'Aff aires at Washington for information on the subject of 
 the settlement at the Columbia River for it 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 Govern- 
 ment 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 con- 
 siderable part of the Northwest Coast of America was orig- 
 
 9 C. O. 6, Vol. 6. Original was taken from its place and used as an enclosure, 
 found in F. O. 5, Vol. 123. Checked against the duplicate used. 
 
 12 
 
inally founded from rights derived from the Discovery of the 
 Country by Sir Francis Drake who in the reign of Queen 
 EHzabeth visited the Northern part of Cahfornia which coun- 
 try 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 Settlements was always claimed by 
 Great Britain and the claim was tacitly admitted if not pub- 
 lickly recognized. 
 
 "This early right of 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 will 
 be easy to find rights prior to theirs without going back fur- 
 ther than the Reign of his present Majesty. Captain Cooks' 
 repeated visits to that Coast and his taking renewed posses- 
 sion thereof in His Majesty's Name before the Americans 
 became an independent people, is surely a sufficient title 
 against them, and the occurrences at Nootka Sound in 1789 
 and the Armament against Spain in consequence of the ag- 
 gressions committed upon British Subjects on that Coast, af- 
 ford 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.''' 
 
 "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 pos- 
 
 10 [Note by McGillivray] : Reference may be particularly had to the negotia- 
 tion upon that subject with the court of Madrid in the year 1790 and the con- 
 vention of 28th October of that year, which was the result of these negotiations 
 and of the armament referred to. 
 
 13 
 
session of the Country in the name of his Sovereign, and pre- 
 viously, in 1791 [1792], Captain Vancouver had surveyed the 
 Coast and the River Cohmibia from its mouth to the fahs, 
 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 posses- 
 sion 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^ ^ 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 Mississippi ; but upon mak- 
 ing the purchase of the Province of Louisiana and finding 
 that its Geographical Boundaries to the Northward and West- 
 ward had never been expressly limited or defined, they im- 
 mediately took advantage of this circumstance to claim Bound- 
 aries as extensive and indefinite as possible ; and 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 posses- 
 sion to maintain it whether right or wrong. With a view, 
 therefore, to extend their territorial claims across the Conti- 
 nent 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. 
 
 II Throughout this diplomaic corresjjondence, pretensions is used with the 
 meaning of claim, not with the more sinister meaning now more usually attached 
 to it. 
 
 14 
 
"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, for- 
 getting 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 Govern- 
 ment, 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 Ameri- 
 can 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 Com- 
 pany's representatives in London. Upon this subject they 
 have had the honor of conferring with several of His Majesty's 
 Ministers^^ 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 
 
 12 [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. 
 
 15 
 
to the possession of it, but still no measures were for 5'ome 
 time adopted by Government to interfere with their then new 
 Establishment at the Columbia River, and this forbearance 
 may be imputed to the following causes, viz. viz. 1st. The 
 object was remote and possibly considered of less importance 
 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 quarreling with America or adding to the 
 causes of quarrel already existing. 
 
 "The North West Company had in the meantime extended 
 their Trading Posts across the 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 Coun- 
 try to be thus supplied, and to the Ejast India Company for 
 permission to carry its produce to China, and thus Two Years 
 were occupied by these applications and preparatory arrange- 
 ments. 
 
 "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- 
 land which was fitted out in the fall of 1812, and which must 
 have proceeded on her destination even without the protection 
 which Government afterwards granted but ultimately the pro- 
 tection sought was obtained. 
 
 "The Phoebe 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 
 to take possession of the Country as British Territory. From 
 the detention which had occurred in the sailing of this Expedi- 
 
 16 
 
tion from Eng^land, their arrival at the Columbia was much 
 later 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 
 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 
 Country. Many of these though Partners or Servants of the 
 Pacific Fur Company were British subjects and would not 
 fight against their Country, and learning of the American War 
 inclined them to change sides. The Americans were not suf- 
 ficiently strong to defend their Fort in the event of this defec- 
 tion taking place, and they were under apprehensions from 
 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 called the principal 
 post Fort George, under which name it is 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 Govern- 
 ment are entitled to claim under the 1st Article of the late 
 Treaty, nor could it have been so considered by the framers 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 
 
 17 
 
his Lordship declared decidedly that the Country in cjuestion 
 was not considered as to 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, re- 
 quiring from the Americans any recognition or guarantee of 
 His Majesty's rights thereto might tend to cast a 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. 
 
 18 
 
II. 
 
 Meanwhile, the Nor'westers had been very uncertain as 
 to their rights and standing on the North West Coast, not 
 only as indicated by McGillivray's interview with Lord 
 Bathurst, but by the letters of Inglis, Ellis & Co., to Henry 
 Gouldburn. 
 
 In one, dated London, July 25th, 181 5, ^^ they stated they 
 had fitted out for the River Columbia quantities of manufac- 
 tured goods, solely for Indian trade, but "We have been very 
 much alarmed by reports circulated of other stipulations made 
 in a commercial treaty subsequent to that of Ghent, by which 
 all intercourse of trade is said to be interdicted between His 
 Majesty's subjects and the Indian tribes residing within the 
 territories of the United States." They ask for information, 
 and whether the British Government will protect them, espe- 
 cially on the Columbia, and on the coast north of it, should they 
 "be molested by American citizens or the American govern- 
 ment." "We are perfectly aware," they add, "that our own 
 interests m this trade must be sacrificed by necessity to views 
 of public policy." They insist, however, they must have the 
 actual situation before investing more money in the Columbia. 
 
 Three days later, ^"^ the firm again wrote tO' Henry Gould- 
 burn, 28th July, 1815, "to ascertain whether we may rely on 
 the protection of His Majesty's Government in our arduous 
 undertaking of establishing a colony, (to carry on the fur 
 trade between China and the Columbia River) on the shores 
 of the Pacific, which was first discovered and taken possession 
 of by British subjects. . . . 
 
 "We certainly would prefer prosecuting the trade as British 
 
 13 C. O. 42. Vol. 164. 
 
 14 C. O. 42, Vol. 164. 
 
 19 
 
subjects, unconnected with citizens of any other state, but 
 still from circumstances which have come to our knowledge, 
 it may become absolutely necessary, either to combine our 
 interests in the trade with those of American merchants, or to 
 abandon it entirely, without we have some assurance of protec- 
 tion on the part of our government." 
 
 Again on 2nd August, 181 5, ^^ in a third letter to Gouldburn, 
 Inglis, Ellis & Co. write : "We have established a colony of 
 British subjects on the Columbia River, for the purpose of 
 carrying on the fur trade wath China." 
 
 Three vessels in two years, they stated, had been sent with 
 Indians goods, "for that trade [Columbia] in which we have 
 involved property exceeding one hundred and fifty thousand 
 pounds sterling. 
 
 "We are now assured that that property is subjected to 
 the risk of forcible seizure by American citizens or the Ameri- 
 can government, on the plea that as British subjects we have 
 no right to carry on trade with Indians within the territories 
 of the United States, which are now said to extend to the 
 shores of the Pacific." 
 
 The Nor'westers again demand assurance of safety in car- 
 rying on their trade from the mouth of the Columbia to Rus- 
 sian settlements, and from the Rocky Mountains to the sea. 
 If the colony on the Columbia river was on British soil, they 
 could advance trade ; otherwise they must abandon it. 
 
 The other side of this correspondence will never be known, 
 until the long-lost North West Company documents are discov- 
 ered, — unless burned, or destroyed, — which will probably be in 
 some cellar or attic in Montreal. They are not in London, 
 nor have they ever been in the possession of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, as stated by Edward Ellice to that Company 
 in a letter of 1825, after the two companies had merged and 
 the English company made inquiry regarding the papers of 
 the Nor'westers. 
 
 The year 1815 was a busy one for the Americans, as the 
 
 IS C. O. 42, Vol. 164. 
 
 20 
 
British saw it.^^ Aside from the economic problems involved 
 by the great European wars, a rumor was out that Spain had 
 again ceded the Floridas to Great Britain in payment for 
 money loaned during the war in the Peninsula. Secretary 
 Monroe was very anxious about it. That year, also, there 
 was the war with the Dey of Algiers. The Indians were also 
 on the rampage, on the northern and western frontiers, and in 
 the Floridas. The British noted it. And the determination 
 seems to have become stronger at Washington to have the 
 future of the United States troubled with as few neighbors 
 as possible, — and that meant controlling a larger section of 
 the North American continent. War had broken out also in 
 South America, where Spain was fighting her badly-treated 
 colonists. 
 
 A bill appeared again in 1816; but the public were paying 
 little attention to the Columbia, at that moment. 
 
 By 1817, decisions seemed to have been reached, as shown 
 in a letter from Sir James Lucas Yeo, written from H. M. S. 
 Inconstant, Spithead, 30th August, 1817, to John Wilson 
 Croker, Secretary of the Admiralty, London.^^ 
 
 The sympathies of the United States were with the Spanish 
 insurgents, he wrote, especially in Florida, trade was at a 
 standstill, and Americans said to be in close touch with the 
 Spanish insurgents on the Pacific. The United States were 
 "indefatigable in training the militia and have removed every 
 foreigner from their army." Large orders had recently been 
 given to the cannon factory, and everything "portends a rest- 
 less and hostile spirit towards this country." Meanwhile, in 
 the same letter. Sir James also noted that the Ontaria, a U. S. 
 sloop of war, was sailing around the Horn with three com- 
 missioners and two secretaries "to obtain possession of some 
 island or territory in that quarter, preparatory to their estab- 
 lishing a very extensive commerce in those seas." 
 
 To omit the Ontario for a moment, a better view is gained 
 
 i6F. O. s, Vol. io6. Baker to Foreign Office. 
 17F. O. s, Vol. 128. 
 
 31 
 
of the United States as a whole, by continuing the British 
 comments on the general trend of things. On April 16th, 
 1818, James Buchanan (a relative of the President of the 
 same name), then British Consul at New York, wrote to 
 Lord Castlereagh :^s 
 
 The acquisition of Louisiana, the claims founded thereon, 
 the seizure of and means used to obtain the Floridas, the 
 energetic increase of the navy, the determination to rival the 
 naval and maritime power of Great Britain, the commercial 
 warfare the United States are now carrying on towards Eng- 
 land, the avowed aim to possess Cuba and His Majesty's 
 possession in North America, which pervades all classes, sanc- 
 tioned by the measures of the executive . . . — well, it 
 made America a rather difficult country for Great Britain to 
 deal with. And it explains John Ouincy Adams and the seind- 
 ing of the Ontario. 
 
 On November 7th, 1817, Charles Bagot wrote to Lord Cas- 
 tlereagh, from his post at Washington i^^ 
 
 "A report has been in circulation here that the United States 
 sloop of war Ontario who has lately sailed from New York, 
 and which is believed to be destined to the South Pacific, has 
 received instructions to proceed also to the mouth of the 
 Columbia river, I cannot hope to ascertain positively whether 
 this report is well founded or not, but I thought it right to com- 
 municate it privately to Sir John Sherbrooke, in order that 
 he may, if he thinks proper, put the North West Company 
 upon their guard against any design which may possibly be 
 in contemplation of the American government to re-establish 
 the settlement which they formerly attempted to make at the 
 mouth of that river, and of which your Lordship will see by 
 a reference to Mr. Baker's despatch No. 24, of the year 1815,2° 
 that soon after the peace they endeavored to claim the restitu- 
 tion under the 1st article of the Treaty of Ghent . . ." 
 
 But Simon McGillivrarv, down in New York City, had also 
 
 i8 F. O. 5, Vol. 135. 
 iQ F. O. 5, Vol. 123. 
 20 Quoted above. 
 
 22 
 
heard rumors, and he took prompt means to communicate 
 with the British representative at Washington, as below :^^ 
 
 "New York, November 15th, 1817. 
 "To his Excellency, 
 
 the British Ambassador. 
 "Sir, 
 
 "I am induced to take the liberty of addressing this letter to 
 your excellency, in consequence of information which I have 
 obtained, relative to the destination of the United States ship 
 Ontario, which sailed about six weeks ago for South America, 
 and which, according to newspaper report, is likely to have 
 gone to the Pacific Ocean. 
 
 "I am not at liberty to mention the channel through which 
 I have received the information in question, but it comes from 
 a source which in my opinion entitles it to attention. Other- 
 wise, I certainly should not have presumed to make this appli- 
 cation to your Excellency upon the subject. 
 
 "My information is that the Captain of the Ontario has 
 instructions to proceed ultimately to the Columbia River, and 
 to seize or destroy the establishment and trade of the North 
 West Company upon that Coast, — what pretext may hereafter 
 be set up to justify this attack I really cannot imagine unless it 
 should be the recent act of Congress prohibiting foreigners 
 from any trade or intercourse with the Indians within the 
 territories of the United States, and the assumption that the 
 country bordering upon the Columbia River form a part of 
 their territories. This assumption, destitute of foundation as 
 it can easily be shown to be, is one which the American gov- 
 ernment has aimed at setting up ever since the purchase of 
 Louisiana, and the attention which they have always directed 
 towards that object affords in my opinion a strong corrobora- 
 tion of the story relative to the Ontario. 
 
 "In the month of July, 1815, Mr. Baker, who was then 
 Charge d'Affaires at Washington, applied to Sir Gordon 
 Drummond, who at that time administered the Government of 
 
 21 F. O. s. Vol. 123. 
 
 23 
 
Canada, for some information relative to the actual situation 
 of the country in question, and Sir Gordon Drummond conse- 
 quently applied to my brother, who, as the principal director of 
 the North West Company, was of course the person most 
 competent to speak to the facts. I happened at the time to 
 be in Canada, having recently arrived from England, where I 
 usually reside, and where I had the honor of seeing and con- 
 versing with my Lord Bathurst upon this very subject, subse- 
 quent to the ratification of the Treat of Ghent. Having also 
 been the person chiefly engaged in planning and fitting out the 
 North West Company's adventures to the Columbia River, 
 from the first suggestion of that undertaking, I necessarily had 
 an intimate knowledge of the particulars which appeared 
 requisite to answer Mr. Baker's enquiries, and after due con- 
 sideration and comparison of the information thus possessed 
 by different individuals a statement was drawn up^^ and sent 
 to Sir Gordon Drummond, who transmitted it to Mr. Baker, 
 and that gentleman, whom I had the honor of seeing at Wash- 
 ington afterwards, but before your Excellency's arrival, ac- 
 knowledged having received the statement, but discouraged 
 any discussion relative to it which I attempted to introduce. 
 "I heard no more upon the subject until now, on my way 
 from Canada to England, that the information reached me 
 which has caused this letter, and having among my papers a 
 copy of the statement in question, I take the liberty to enclose 
 it, in case it may be found to contain any thing worthy of your 
 Excellency's consideration. The state of the country in ques- 
 tion still remains nearly the same as at the time this paper 
 was written. Fort George and various trading stations in 
 the interior are held by the North West Company, who have 
 about three hundred persons permanently employed in the 
 trade of the country between the Rocky Mountains and the 
 Pacifick Ocean. We have one vessel now on that coast and 
 another sailed from England with supplies for our people in 
 September last. 
 
 22 S€e McGillivray statement above. 
 
 24 
 
"I cannot presume to suggest to your excellency any course 
 to be adopted on this occasion but it appears to me that the 
 question might be put whether the Ontario had any instruc- 
 tions to act [with] hostiUty towards the British traders on the 
 North-West Coast, and the Cokimbia River, This, however, 
 I merely venture to submit to your Excellency's judgment, and 
 have the honor to be, &c., &c. 
 
 Simon McGillivray." 
 
 On November 21st, 1817, Sir Charles Bagot received this 
 notice from Simon McGillivray, that the Ontario was "to seize 
 or destroy the establishments and trade of the North West 
 Company" on the Columbia. In a report to Lord Castlereagh, 
 he wrote :^^ 
 
 "Upon receipt of this letter, I thought it my duty to lose 
 no time in endeavouring to ascertain distinctly, from the Amer- 
 ican government, whether such a measure really was in con- 
 templation ; and I accordingly asked for a conference with 
 Mr. Adams, at which I communicated to him the information 
 I received, and requested him to acquaint me whether it had 
 any foundation. 
 
 "Mr. Adams appeared to me to be considerably embarrassed 
 by my question, but after a short silence, he said that the 
 Ontario had certainly gone to the North West Coast of Amer- 
 ica, but that she had not received any orders either to destroy 
 or disturb the trade of the North West Company. 
 
 "He then said that I must be aware that the United States 
 had long possessed a settlement upon the Columbia River 
 which had been captured during the late war, and that upon 
 the peace, application had been made to Mr. Baker for its 
 restoration, to which Mr. Adams alleged that Mr. Baker merely 
 replied that the fort had been destroyed, and that he believed 
 that no persons would be found there who could make restitu- 
 tion, and that the object of the voyage was to re-establish 
 
 23 F. O. 5, Vol. 123. 
 
 35 
 
this settlement; which, he rather seemed to imply, was already 
 in the possession of the United States. 
 
 "Having ascertained the fact of which I desired to be 
 assured, I made very little observations upon Mr. Adams' 
 remarks ; but in the short conversation which followed, he stated 
 that the Columbia had been first discovered by an American 
 ship which sailed from Boston between the years 1780 and 
 1790. To this I immediately replied that the coast had been 
 uniformly claimed by Great Britain, as might be seen by refer- 
 ence to the discussions which had formerly taken place with 
 the Spanish government, the only government with whom any 
 discussion upon that subject could arise." 
 
 Further than that, Mr. Adams then "only observed that, 
 in his opinion, it would be hardly worth the while of Great 
 Britain to have any differences with the United States on 
 account of the occupation of any part of so remote a territory." 
 
 But Sir Charles thought that a ship of war sent to a country 
 claimed by Great Britain was "a serious matter." He had sent 
 an express to Sir John Sherbrooke, asking if they could warn 
 the North West Company through an express sent by their 
 interior posts, overland. The Ontario, so Sir Charles noted in 
 a closing sentence, had on board a Mr. Tyler for Peru. 
 
 But Sir John's answer24 was that it was too late for an 
 express overland. The North West Company would send a 
 memorial, to be used as a basis of representations to "the 
 United States cabinet." 
 
 On December 23, 1817,^5 the North West Company did 
 present a petition to Sir John C. Sherbrooke, Governor of 
 Upper and Lower Canada, and Vice Admiral, asserting their 
 rights to the North West Coast, stating that the Ontario "is 
 bound for the North West Coast of America, with intentions 
 hostile to the trade and establishments of the North West 
 Company in that quarter." She was going to Fort George, 
 yet that was a "place not having been taken possession of by 
 
 24 F. O. S, Vol. 130. 
 
 25 F. O. 5. Vol. 131. 
 
 26 
 
right of conquest but by a right founded on the just claims of 
 discovery and previous possession of the country by His 
 Majesty's subjects." 
 
 On November 24th, Sir Charles wrote to Lord Castlereagh, 
 in cipher :^^ 
 
 "My Lord, 
 
 "I have been this day informed by Mr. Adams, in answer 
 to an inquiry which I thought it my duty to make upon the 
 subject of the destination of the United States sloop Ontario, 
 commanded by Captain Biddle, and rated at eighteen guns 
 which sailed from New York the 4th of last month [October] 
 that that vessel had been ordered to proceed to the mouth of the 
 Columbia River, for the purpose of establishing the settlement 
 of which the United States were dispossessed during the late 
 war. 
 
 "I have thought it proper to lose no time in giving Your 
 Lordship this information. 
 
 "I shall write more fully by the packet which will sail in 
 a few days. 
 
 "I have the honour to be with great truth and respect, 
 
 "Your Lordship's most humble, obedient servant, 
 
 Charles Bagot." 
 
 Two days later, November 26th, 1817,27 Sir Charles wrote 
 John Ouincy Adams that the post was not captured, but aban- 
 doned by agreement, and "as it thus appears that no claim for 
 the restitution of the post can be grounded upon the 1st article 
 of the Treaty of Ghent, and as the territory itself was early 
 taken possession of in His Majesty's name, and has been since 
 considered as forming a part of His Majesty's dominions, I 
 have to request that you will do me the honour to furnish 
 me with such explanation as you may judge proper of the 
 object of the voyage of the Ontario, so far as it may relate 
 
 26 F. O. 5. Vol. 123. 
 
 27 F. O. 5, Vol. 123. 
 
 27 
 
to establishments upon the territory to which I refer, in order 
 that I may be enabled to represent to His Majesty's govern- 
 ment ... a measure in which His Majesty's rights and 
 interests appear to be so materially involved." 
 
 On December 1st, Sir Charles wrote to Lord Castlereagh,28 
 as follows: 
 
 "Washington, December 1, 1817. 
 "Sir: 
 
 "In my private letter of the 3rd of last month, I had the 
 honour to acquaint your Excellency with a report which has 
 been in circulation here respecting the destination of the United 
 States sloop-of-war Ontario. I have since had an opportunity 
 of ascertaining that this report is well founded. 
 
 "At an interview which I had a few days ago with the 
 Secretary of State, I communicated to him the information 
 which I had received upon this subject, and I requested that 
 he would inform me whether orders had been given to the 
 Ontario, to proceed to the Columbia River, for the purpose of 
 making establishments in its vicinity, or of disturbing in any 
 way the trade of the North West Company. 
 
 "Mr. Adams stated to me in reply, that the Ontario had 
 certainly been directed to proceed to the North West Coast 
 of America, and that she had been instructed to establish a 
 settlement, which the United States had formerly possessed, 
 at the mouth of the Columbia River, and which has not been 
 restored since its capture in the late war, but that she has not 
 received any orders to disturb or interrupt the trade of the 
 North West Company. 
 
 "It is not necessary for me to trouble your Excellency, at 
 present, with any examination of the arguments which the 
 American government may design to urge, in support of this 
 measure which they have thought proper to adopt, but a refer- 
 ence to Sir Gordon Drummond's despatches to Mr. Baker of 
 the 14th and 31st of August, 1815, will prove to your Excel- 
 
 28 F. O. s. Vol. 123. 
 
 28 
 
lency that the settlement to which Mr. Adams adverted was 
 not captured during the war, consequently that its restitution 
 cannot be claimed under the 1st article of the Treaty of Peace. 
 
 "The enclosed copy of a note which I have addressed to 
 the American government, will sufficiently explain to your 
 Excellency the course which I have thought it my duty to take 
 in this business, until I can receive an answer to the despatches 
 which I have forwarded by this mail to His Majesty's govern- 
 ment. 
 
 "I have not yet received an answer to this note, nor is it 
 necessary for the immediate purposes of this letter, that I 
 should. 
 
 "Whatever may be the grounds which the American govern- 
 ment may assign for the step which they have taken, it appears 
 to me to me to be in the highest degree important, that the 
 Ontario should if possible, find upon her arrival at the Columbia 
 River, that the Territory is in the actual possession of His 
 Majesty's subjects. For this purpose I am anxious to submit 
 to your Excellency's consideration, whether it might not be 
 still practicable, through the means of the interior posts of the 
 North West Company, to convey to such of its traders, as may 
 happen to be upon that Coast, intelligence of the destination 
 and object of the Ontario, which may reach them before her 
 arrival. 
 
 "The Ontario sailed from New York on the 4th of October, 
 but as she has been directed to take out Mr. Tyler, who has 
 been charged with some business on the part of the American 
 government in Peru, she will probably be detained some time 
 upon the South West Coast of South America. 
 
 "I am fully aware that it will be a matter of great difficulty 
 to make this communication, but it will also be a matter of 
 great delicacy; for it appears to me that unless Your Excel- 
 lency can entirely rely upon the intelligence of the North 
 West Company traders in that quarter, clearly to understand, 
 that it is only in the event of their being upon the spot pre- 
 viously to any attempt being made by citizens of the United 
 
 29 
 
States to establish settlements, that they are to take into their 
 own hands the assertion of the territory, they may perhaps be 
 induced to dispossess by force American settlers whom they 
 may find there, and by so doing greatly embarrass any negotia- 
 tion which may hereafter take place upon the subject, if they 
 do not occasion yet more serious consequences. 
 "I have the honour to be, &c., &c., &c., 
 
 Charles Bagot." 
 
 The next day, Sir Charles wrote again to Lord Castlereagh.^^ 
 The letter is somewhat confused. The three commissioners 
 he had mentioned as in the Ontario, were he said, presumably 
 Mr. Graham, late the chief clerk in the Department of State, 
 Mr. Rodney, and Walter Jones, District Attorney of the United 
 States in the District of Columbia. The Ontario, he said, 
 was originally destined to sail in the summer of 1817 [ which 
 explains the letter of Sir James Lucas Yeo, given above] but 
 was delayed for unknown reasons. So that the three com- 
 missioners, so far as Sir Charles could make out — and he 
 seemed to have difficulty in getting exact information on this 
 mysterious Ontario — did not sail on the Ontario, but went on 
 the frigate Chesapeake to South America, in a diplomatic 
 capacity. 
 
 On January 6th, 1818,^° Sir Charles reported to Lord Castle- 
 reagh that he had received no answer from Secretary Adams 
 to his note of November 26th regarding the sailing of the 
 Ontario. 
 
 On January 26th, 1818, Lord Castlereagh notified Lord 
 Bathurst as follows, the draft of the letter only being foimd 
 in the Records :^^ 
 
 "Draft "Foreign Office, 
 
 Jan. 26, 1818. 
 "I have this dav addressed to the Lord Comnirs. of the 
 
 29 F. O. 5, Vol. 123. 
 
 30 F. O. 5, Vol. 130. 
 
 31 F. O. 5. Vol. 139. 
 
 30 
 
Admiralty, acquainting- their Ldps [Lordships] that Mr. Bagot, 
 His Ms Minister in y\merica, having- transmitted intelligence 
 that the U. S. sloop of war Ontario has been sent by the 
 Amn Govt to reestablish a Settlement on the Columbia River, 
 held by that state on the breaking out of the war, it is H R H's 
 pleasure that in pursuance of the 1st Article of the Treaty of 
 Ghent (without, however, admitting the right of that Govt 
 to the Possession in question), due Facility should be given to 
 the Reoccupation of the said Settlement by the officers of the 
 United States, and I am to request that Your Lp will be pleased 
 to take such steps in furtherance of that object, as you may 
 judge expedient." 
 
 [Signed] Castlereagh. 
 
 That same January Simon McGillivray sent to Henry Gould- 
 burn the letter in which he states that he had instructed Mr. 
 Keith, in charge of Fort George, to obey any instructions given 
 him with regard to giving up Fort George.^^ 
 
 On February 4th, 1818, Lord Castlereagh wrote to Sir 
 Charles Bagot as follows :^^ 
 
 "Foreign Office, 
 
 Febr. 4, 1818. 
 
 "You will observe, however, that whilst this Government is 
 not disposed to contest with the American gov't the point of 
 possession as it stood in the Columbia River at the moment 
 of the rupture, they are not prepared to admit the validity of 
 the title of the Govt of the United States to this Settlement. 
 In signifying therefore to Mr. Adams the full acquiesence of 
 your govt in the re-occupation of the limited Position which 
 the U. States held in that River at the breaking out of the war, 
 you will at the same time assert in suitable terms the Claim 
 of Great Britain to that Territory upon which the American 
 Settlement must be considered as an encroachment. You 
 will at the same time acquaint that Minister, that whilst your 
 Govt could not but view with some surprise and regret the 
 
 32 F. O. s. Vol. 139. (Enclosure by Gouldburn, Feb. 2, 1818.) 
 
 33 F. O. 5, Vol. 129. 
 
 31 
 
departure of the Ontario for the purpose of re-occupying the 
 Port in question, without any previous concert with yourself, 
 for the regular and amicable transfer of this possession, that 
 your Court have nevertheless lost no time, as will appear by 
 the enclosed instructions, in taking such steps as depended on 
 them, in order to obviate any unpleasant collision. 
 
 "It appears from your Despatch that Mr. Adams, in con- 
 versation, attempted to account for this on grounds of a former 
 reference to Mr. Baker, but upon turning to the correspond- 
 ence which then took place, it does not appear to this Govt 
 that anything which then passed would justify the Govt of 
 the U. States in taking such a step without at least some pre- 
 vious communication with you. 
 
 "In adverting to this point with the American Secretary of 
 State, which brings pointedly into view the unsettled nature 
 of the pretensions of the two govts in the whole extent of their 
 Frontier to the Westward, from the Lake of the Woods to the 
 Pacific Ocean, adverting also to the omission in the Treaty of 
 Ghent of any provision for the demarcation of Limits beyond 
 the point above referred to, it has appeared to the Prince 
 Regent's Govt insistent with the friendly Spirit of our exist- 
 ing relations, to take measures for settling our Boundaries 
 with the U. States throughout the whole of this line." 
 
 It was easier. Lord Castlereagh stated, — and this was always 
 the position taken by the British Government, right up to the 
 Treaty of 1846 — to settle the boundary before the country 
 was settled and while it was little known, because there were 
 fewer difficulties, one way and another, with settlers. A new 
 motive now was the treaty of America with Spain, giving the 
 Americans the old Spanish rights, such as they were, and 
 Bagot was therefore ordered to try to settle the boundary ques- 
 tion if he could. 
 
 The easiest way to do this, Castlereagh thought, was by a 
 supplement to the Treaty of Ghent, or by additional articles, 
 and the United States was to be requested to give its Minister 
 in London power to sign such article. And he thought it 
 well to begin on the Coast. 
 
 32 
 
Meanwhile the Ontario reached Valparaiso, then blockaded, 
 between January 19th and February 1st, 1818. Commander 
 Bowles,^'* under date of February 18th, 1818, reported: 
 
 "The arrival of the Ontario at Valparaiso caused much specu- 
 lation. She carried out a Mr. Prevost who was said to be high 
 in the confidence of the present President [of the U. S.]. He 
 (Prevost) went immediately to Santiago, visiting General 
 San Martin's quarters on his way." 
 
 Prevost was to remain in Chili a month or six weeks at 
 least, while the Ontario was to go to the Columbia. She sailed 
 immediately after the Battle of Maypie ; had returned in late 
 June. 
 
 Orders from the British Government to the North West 
 Company were received by Commander Bowles, at Rio Janeiro 
 on April 19th, 1818, enclosed from London in a letter of Janu- 
 ary 27th. The Blossom was to be sent to the Columbia. The 
 Blossom reached Valparaiso on 16th of May. On June 1st, 
 Earl Bathurst's orders were sent to Captain Sheriff, the Blos- 
 som to be detached immediately for service to the Columbia. 
 The Blossom sailed July 12th, under Captain Hickey, some 
 two or three weeks after the Ontario had returned tO' Val- 
 paraiso. Prevost was fully empowered to receive possession. 
 
 Meanwhile on June 2nd, Sir Charles Bagot wrote to Lord 
 Castlereagh as follows :-^^ 
 
 Washington, June 2, 1818. 
 "My Lord : 
 
 "Upon receipt of your Lordship's despatch No, 7, of the 
 4th of February last, I immediately communicated to Mr. 
 Adams the acquiesence of Flis Majesty's Government in the 
 re-occupation, by the United .States, of the position held by 
 them upon the Columbia River prior to the late war. I stated 
 to him that His Majesty's Government entertained no doubt 
 of the United States being entitled under the provisions of the 
 1st Article of the Treaty to resume possession of whatever was 
 held by them at the moment of rupture which was not subject 
 
 34 Admiralty i, Vol. 23. 
 
 35 F. O. s, Vol. 132. 
 
 33 
 
to the exceptions made by the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th articles ; 
 and I acquainted him with the orders which were given to 
 prevent any interruption being offered to the re-estabHsh- 
 ment of the Post in question. In conformity, however, to 
 Your Lordship's instructions, I did not disguise from him 
 that His Majesty's Government had seen with some regret 
 the irregular mode in which the United States had seen fit to 
 resume possession of the settlement; and I took the oppor- 
 tunity of laying a general claim, on the part of the British 
 Crown, to the territory upon which it had been made. 
 
 "Mr. Adams appeared to receive what I said in good part. 
 He stated that in fact the American government put very 
 little value upon the post of Astoria. That the Ontario had 
 received her orders before he had entered upon the duties of 
 his office, but that he could assure me that she had been in- 
 structed not to commit any act of hostility or force whatever 
 and that with regard to her having been despatched without 
 previous concert with me, he could take it upon himself to 
 say that it was entirely owing to the belief founded upon a 
 statement formerly made by Mr. Baker, that there was no 
 person upon the spot by whom a formal surrender could be 
 made." 
 
 Sir Charles urged upon Secretary Adams the settlement of 
 the whole question of contiguous boundaries. And Secretary 
 Adams agreed, adding other points, such as the fisheries ques- 
 tion, slaves, colonial trade, etc. The letter continues : 
 
 "Mr. Adams infomied me that he had been directed by the 
 President to assure me that the circumstances of the Ontario 
 having been despatched to the Columbia River without any 
 intimation being given to me of her destination, was entirely 
 incidental ; that she had received her instructions whilst he 
 was at New York on his tour to the northern frontier, and that 
 in the pressure of business there, he had omitted to direct the 
 proper communication to be made tO' me upon the subject." . . . 
 
 But if the Ontario was originally destined to sail in August, 
 one wonders whether this excuse was entirely truthful. 
 
 34 
 
Meanwhile, in iVugust, the Ontario arrived at the Columbia; 
 and we have reason to think from other reports that it 
 was one of the soft summer days at the mouth of the river, 
 when the river flowed swift and wide and blue as it does today, 
 on a sunny August day, under a blue sky, though lashed to 
 gleaming" whiteness in the crashing breakers on the bar. James 
 Keith tells the story, two months later, in October, and a 
 ludicrous yarn it is, to any one with a sense of humor ; though 
 Keith had no intention of being humorous. 
 
 Captain Frederick Hickey of the Blossom, sent in his formal 
 request to the fur trader -.^^ 
 
 H. M. S. Ship Blossom, 
 Columbia River, 
 Oct. 4, 1818. 
 To James Keith, Esq., 
 Fort George. 
 Sir : Upon the restitution of the post and settlement of 
 Fort George to the American Government, I request that you 
 will have the goodness to furnish me with an exact account 
 of its state and condition, and with such other information as 
 you may deem of importance should be communicated to His 
 Majesty's Ministers. 
 
 I have the honor to be, &c., &c. 
 
 Frederick Hickey. 
 
 And the fur trader promptly replied, with full details, and 
 then gave the story of the Ontario. Part of this is published 
 in the U. S. Government documents, but not the Ontario 
 episode. -^^ 
 
 36 F. O. 5. Vol. 147- 
 
 37 F. O. 5, Vol. 147. 
 
 35 
 
"Fort George, Columbia River, 
 7th October, 1818. 
 
 "To Captain Frederick Hickey, 
 
 H. M. Ship Blossom. 
 "Sir: 
 
 "In compliance with your request conveyed to me in your 
 communication of the 4th instant, of being furnished with an 
 exact account of the state and condition of this settlement on 
 its restitution, together with such further information as I 
 might deem of importance to be communicated to His Majesty's 
 Ministers, I shall first advert to the number of its inhabitants 
 who (myself excepted) were and still are, under either written 
 or verbal agreements, as servants of the North- West Company ; 
 consisting of two gentlemen clerks, and one surgeon of Scotch 
 parents, one overseer, seventeen engagees, including mechanics, 
 and mostly Canadians ; twenty-six natives of Owhyhee, and 
 one Indian boy (native of the soil) who added to two Owhy- 
 hees absent, and sixteen trappers, Canadians and Iroquois 
 employed by the Company among the surrounding tribes to 
 hunt skins, form a grand total of sixty-six persons, exclusive 
 of women and children who' may properly be said to belong 
 to the settlement ; and with regard to the minor establish- 
 ments in the interior of this River, supplied from and dependent 
 hereon, the number of people employed, the extent of our 
 trade, annual produce, prospects, and mode of conducting it, 
 it would too far exceed my intended limits to detail, and other- 
 wise I presume is not altogether unknown to Government. 
 
 "As to the progressive improvements and material changes 
 the settlement has undergone subsequent to our purchasing 
 it from the American Company in October, 1813, and which 
 have been extended with immense labour and heavy expenses, 
 you will be enabled to form an imperfect idea from the extent 
 it occupied under that concern, the nature and properties of 
 buildings raised with precipitancy to protect persons and prop- 
 erties from the injuries of the weather, as well as the attacks 
 of the Natives, and the prospects which a five years quiet 
 
 36 
 
possession now open to view, and which joined to your own 
 observation, the minute sketch of one of your officers I trust 
 will sufficiently demonstrate.-^^ 
 
 "With regard to the transfer, it ought to have been con- 
 sidered by the party benefited thereby, as one of those fortunate 
 contingencies seldom to be met with; what the said party 
 upwards of three months antecedent to such transfer had 
 otherwise fully resolved to abandon by the dissolution of their 
 concern, as expressed at full length in the preamble [of the 
 bill of sale of Astoria]. But to return to my subject; the 
 principal arms and ammunition we now possess consist of two 
 long 18-pounders mounted in the square of the buildings, six 
 6-pounders, and four 4-pounders. Guns ; two 6-pounder co- 
 horns and seven swivels stationed in the block houses and on 
 the platforms, besides blunderbusses, muskets, and fusils ; there 
 are upwards of eight hundred round and cannister shot for 
 the cartridge guns, principally 18 and 6-pounders, together 
 with a certain proportion of powder, ball, etc., part of which 
 is indispensable for the trade, etc., and the gross amount of 
 property (buildings excluded) on a rough estimate, cannot, I 
 conceive be over rated at about £30,000. The Natives are 
 very numerous and much addicted to theft, lying, and plunder, 
 and though with few exceptions we have hitherto kept smooth 
 with them without which we must long ere now have ceased 
 to be a trading establishment, we require to be vigilant, cir- 
 cumspect, and much on our guard. These I conceive consti- 
 tute the leading points which your communication embraces. 
 
 "One circumstance, however, I had almost omitted. I allude 
 to the manner of Captain Biddle's last visit. By the Levant, 
 a Boston vessel, freighted with part of our annual supplies, 
 and from on board of which were landed 80 to 90 bags of 
 Spanish flour belonging to the Ontario we were informed by 
 verbal authority, founded on conjectures, that the latter was 
 destined hither for the purpose of taking possession either of 
 the settlement, or of the country, but having entertained similar 
 
 38 Ore. Hist. Quarterly, V. XIX, pp. 276-82; V. XX, p. 30, T. C. Elliott. 
 
 37 
 
suspicions the preceding summer and moreover conceiving it 
 a mere piece of formality which I had every reason to think 
 the British Government could not consistently wink at, I felt 
 perfectly easy and secure until the Ontario arrived off Cape 
 Disappointment, on the morning of the 19th of August, fol- 
 lowed by Captain Biddle's appearance about 3 p. m. Accom- 
 panied by a strong party, including officers, in three boats, 
 apparently well armed, only Captain Biddle and his Surgeon 
 landed at the settlement, the others being immediately ordered 
 off, conducted by one of my men to Point George, to cut spars, 
 "Exceedingly social and polite, but not the most distant 
 intimation of the object of this visit of which, as if studious of 
 exciting the least suspicion, he glossed over the circumstances 
 of the arms, etc., from his apprehensions of the Natives. With 
 much reluctance (from our having a superabundance) and not 
 till after repeated solicitation, I gave him bills on Canada for 
 the flour, and towards 5 p. m. accompanied by another of my 
 men in an Indian canoe rowed by the natives, Captain Biddle 
 and surgeon set off to join their party, giving to understand 
 they would proceed on board ; however, learning that they had 
 encamped where my people left them, I next morning de- 
 spatched the same two men with some fresh supplies, who 
 soon after returning with accounts of their departure, re- 
 ported having seen a board unusually painted and nailed upon a 
 tree in a rather secluded and unfrequented place on Point 
 George about one-half mile hence, whereon we found in- 
 scribed in large characters : 
 
 Taken possession of in the name and on 
 
 the behalf of the 
 
 United States 
 
 By Captain James Biddle, commanding the 
 
 United States Sloop of War, Ontario 
 
 Columbia River, August 1818 
 
 "Such mysterious and unaccountable proceedings, of which 
 the subsequent reports of the Natives, joined to the gloomy, 
 
 38 
 
desponding conjectures of my own people rather aggravated 
 the unfortunate impression, excited the most anxious and pain- 
 ful sensations at what would probably be the next step and so 
 far operated to redouble our vigilance that on your arrival with 
 J. B. Prevost, Esqr., every gun was shotted and small arms 
 ready for all hands. The agreeable contrast since experienced 
 it would be deemed flattery in me to dwell upon. Justice, 
 however, demands that I should bear testimony to the hand- 
 some, unassuming, yet dignified manner in which Mr. Prevost 
 comported himself, during the late changes and though much 
 disappointed in my expectations relative to the pledges of 
 security and publick faith, without which no commercial body 
 can promote their own, much less contribute to the national 
 prosperity, I attribute the cause solely to his circumscribed 
 powers and must act accordingly. There is nothing of a 
 public or private matter connected with the late change, of 
 which you have not official documents, or are perhaps ac- 
 quainted with, excepting my communication with Mr. Prevost 
 together with his replies, ^^ copies of which I herewith transmit 
 you, and as your short stay precludes the possibility of my 
 completing the various papers I intended forwarding for Lon- 
 don, as well as Canada, I request that you will be pleased to 
 hand the present for the perusal of Mr. Prevost to enable him 
 to extract such materials for the information of the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, as he may think proper to lay 
 before them. 
 
 I have the honor to be, sir, your obedt & humble servant, 
 
 James Keith. 
 "To Frederick Hickey, Esq., 
 
 Captain H. M. S. Blossom, 
 Bakers Bay." 
 
 Meanwhile, on the other side of the continent, British com- 
 missioners and John Quincy Adams were debating a treaty 
 which should settle the boundary of the North- West Coast of 
 America. In orders to F. Robinson and Henry Gouldburn 
 
 39 F. O. 5, Vol. 147; also V. 2, Miscellaneous American State Papers. 
 
 39 
 
from Lord Castlereagh, dated London, August 24th, 1818, he 
 gave as a fifth point to be considered in the commercial treaty 
 under consideration -^^ 
 
 "5th. The position on the Columbia River occupied by the 
 Americans, and now ordered to be restored to them in pur- 
 suance of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent, but under a 
 protest as to their right to the same." 
 
 If actual doubt existed as to sovereignty, the commissioners 
 were to consider a species of stipulation which would serve 
 the rights of all states from being prejudiced by a transaction 
 to which the British government were then parties — so read 
 Castlereagh's instructions. He urged them to adopt some prin- 
 ciple of demarkation, such as a parallel, to save delay and 
 expense of survey. The question was to be settled if possible 
 by amicable discussion, or referred for adjudication similar to 
 the 4th, 5th and 6th articles of the Treaty of Ghent. 
 
 During the discussion on the North-West Coast of America, 
 incident to the joint-occupancy treaty, three subjects: the 
 Columbia River, the North-West boundary, and the problem 
 of captured negroes, the United States refused to submit to 
 arbitration, because (1), of the difficulty of an impartial arbi- 
 tration, and (2), because the United States preferred to keep 
 its own affairs to itself. So wrote Henry Gouldburn to Lord 
 Castlereagh, August 29th, 1818.^1 
 
 A month later, September 26th, 1818, Gouldburn wrote to 
 Lord Castlereagh with regard to the American claims on the 
 North-West Coast of America, and one can fairly feel the gasp 
 of amazement in his letter. The words in italics were under- 
 scored by him. He wrote -^^^ 
 
 The "article for settling the boundary to the westward of 
 the Rocky Mountains, claimed on the part of the United States, 
 an extent of territory beyond what had ever been contemplated 
 as belonging to them. 
 
 "They stated it generally to rest on the right of prior dis- 
 covery and occupation, but in the statements which they sub- 
 
 40 F. O. 5, Vol. 138. 
 
 41 F. O. 5, Vol. 138. 
 41a F. O. s, Vol. 138. 
 
 40 
 
sequently made, they appeared ratlier to address agreements 
 in support of their claim to the mouth of the Columbia River, 
 than to the whole of the interior territory which the terms of 
 their article conveyed to them." 
 
 The Treaty of 1818, with one paragraph making the Oregon 
 country a joint-occupancy country was the result. But the 
 restoration of Astoria, as a post, had been secured — a private 
 fur company's post, claimed after its sale, by the American 
 government, as a national possession. 
 
 Under the circumstances one is hardly surprised at what 
 happened a few years later. 
 
 Something of the British view again, is shown in a letter 
 from Lord Castlereagh to Stratford Canning, then British 
 Minister at Washington, under date of August 7th, 1820, in 
 response to a worried letter from Canning. It was marked 
 "Confidential" -.42 
 
 "The tendency of the American government is rather to 
 contentious discussion. The ancient relations of the British 
 and American nations, and the jealousies as yet imperfectly 
 allayed, incline the Govt of the United States to maintain their 
 pretensions in discussions with us, perhaps in deference to 
 those prejudices, in a tone of greater harshness than towards 
 any other Government whatever. The American people are 
 more easily excited against us, and more disposed to strengthen 
 the hands of their Ministers against this than against any other 
 state. Time has done a good deal to soften these dispositions, 
 and the more we can permit them to subside by avoiding angry 
 discussions, the less will the American Govt be capable of 
 contesting unreasonably those various points which the recipro- 
 cal interests of the two countries may from time to time be 
 expected to present themselves for adjustment." 
 
 Castlereagh continued that he looked for an "abatement of 
 that most unbecoming acrimony which has generally been 
 prevalent between these two nations since the period of their 
 separation." 
 
 Six months later came an example of this. On January 28th, 
 
 42 F. O. 5. Vol. 150. 
 
 41 
 
1821, Stratford Canning wrote an eighteen-page letter, on 
 heavy plate paper, in "fair round hand," to Lord Castlereagh ; 
 but it was the letter of a startled statesman.'*^ Having heard 
 much about the occupation of the Columbia — Floyd's annual 
 bills had been appearing regularly — he went to Mr. Adams 
 about it. The reduction of the army was under debate 
 in Congress, when a member asked if this was prudent when 
 the United States were planning a settlement on the Columbia. 
 The bill to occupy the Columbia had been read twice. The 
 bill began that "The President of the United States be, and 
 he is hereby authorized and required to occupy that portion 
 of territory of the United States on the waters of the Columbia 
 River . . . " It gave lands to settlers and prescribed a gov- 
 ernment. It was H. R. 222, of January 25th, 1821. It was read 
 twice and was to come before the Committee of the Whole 
 the day after Canning's letter, that is, January 29th. He 
 enclosed a copy, with a newspaper letter from Mr. Robinson, 
 author of a book on Mexico. 
 
 Canning therefore called upon Mr. Adams, though knowing 
 the "peculiarities of Mr. Adams' character," but with con- 
 fidence, since their relations had been "satisfactory and con- 
 fidential heretofore." 
 
 "Mr. Adams replied in the most determined and acrimonious 
 tones, that the United States did probably mean to make a 
 new settlement on the Columbia, and that they had a perfect 
 right to do so, the territory being their own." 
 
 Being asked if this answer could be said to come from the 
 Government, "he replied, with increased asperity, in the af- 
 firmative. He seemed determined to consider my interfer- 
 ence respecting the Columbia as offensive and unwarranted." 
 In the course of further conversation, he expressed "an em- 
 phatic repetition of the right — ^the undisputed, indisputable 
 right — of the United States to the territory of the Columbia 
 and an utter denial of any right on my part, as British Minister, 
 to interfere with their eventual arrangements on that head." 
 
 Canning quoted Lord Castlereagh's remark, in a letter of 
 
 43 F. O. S, Vol. IS7. 
 
 42 
 
February 4th, 1818, to his predecessor, Sir Charles Bagot, thai 
 "It is always more easy to come to an arrangement on such 
 subjects where the territory in discussion is httle known, or 
 little cultivated, than where enterprise and industry have led 
 to settlements which cannot be abandoned without loss, and 
 cannot be ceded without the ahenation of subjects owing al- 
 legiance to one or another state." 
 
 Mr. Adams promptly replied regarding Great Britain's posi- 
 tion in 1818, 
 
 "That he considered the claim then put forward as a mere 
 chicaine of the moment. What more, he exclaimed, would 
 England grasp at ? Could it be worth while to make a serious 
 question of an object so trifling as the possession of the 
 Columbia? What would be thought in England if Mr. Rush 
 were to address the Secretary of State on the occasion of a 
 regiment being- destined for New South Wales, or the Shet- 
 land Islands? The United States had an undoubted right to 
 settle wherever they pleased on the shores of the Pacific with- 
 out being molested by the English Government and he really 
 thought they were at least to be left unmolested on their own 
 continent of North America." 
 
 Those eighteen pages are rather interesting reading. 
 
 But Lord Castlereagh, determined to keep peaceful rela- 
 tions between the two countries, wrote to Canning, on April 
 1st, 1821, '*'* directing him not to renew the discussion of the 
 Oregon question without special instructions from the king. 
 He reminded him that by article 3 of the treaty of 1818, "The 
 rights of both parties were saved for subsequent adjustment, 
 but no attempt was made either to determine those rights, to 
 define what might be regarded as the existing state of occupa- 
 tion, or to preclude either party from forming new settlements 
 within the disputed territory during the period, viz., ten years 
 . together with the reservation of any right which the 
 formation of such settlement might either appear to impeach 
 or establish. Whatever therefore may be the pretensions of 
 Great Britain upon the Columbia River, they must be urged 
 
 44 F. o. s, Vol. 156. 
 
 43 
 
on antecedent grounds of right. . . . But it is not His 
 Majesty's intention under present circumstances to provoke 
 any discussion with the American Govt on the final adjustment 
 of these claims." 
 
 On April 27th, 1821, Minister Canning reported to Lord 
 Castlereagh, after another interview with Adams.'*^ 
 
 "Mr. Adams went on to say that he hoped nothing would 
 occur for a long time to weaken those mutual dispositions" 
 to good will between the two nations. 
 
 A little aside from the above, and yet in close connection 
 with it, is a letter from Sir Charles Bagot to Lord Castle- 
 reigh, dated Washington, March 6th, 1819:^6 
 
 "... A small expedition is preparing by the Government, 
 under the command of Major Biddle of the United States 
 army, for the purpose of ascending to the source of the Mis- 
 souri River. This expedition, which is entirely unconnected 
 with that of the Yellowstone River, is to be performed by means 
 of a steam boat which is to draw eighteen inches of water only. 
 Upon reaching the source of the Missouri, Major Biddle hopes 
 to be able to carry the steam machinery of the boat to the other 
 side of the Rocky Mountains, where he proposes to build 
 another vessel, in which he will descend the Columbia River 
 to its mouth, where he may expect to meet with the Ontario, 
 sloop-of-war, commanded by his brother. Major Biddle ap- 
 pears to be of the opinion that this expedition will occupy 
 about two years. There can, I think, be little doubt that it 
 is connected with some proposed establishment at the mouth 
 of the Columbia which has for its object the double purpose 
 of securing the fur trade, and promoting the American whale 
 fishery in the South Seas." 
 
 45 F. O. s. Vol. is8. 
 
 46 F. O. s. Vol. 142. 
 
 The End. 
 
 44 
 

 lin;.n;,y)'.-.,r.^'*-;j-1.;)J.!l|;i:l<--.;!;:r'