CHAPTER X

1683-1685

THE ADVENTURERS FURIOUS AT RADISSON, FIND IT CHEAPER TO HAVE HIM AS FRIEND THAN ENEMY AND INVITE HIM BACK—THE REAL REASON WHY RADISSON RETURNED—THE TREACHERY OF STATECRAFT—YOUNG CHOUART OUTRAGED, NURSES HIS WRATH AND THERE GAILY COMES ON THE SCENE MONSIEUR PÉRÉ—SCOUT AND SPY

TheHudson’s Bay Adventurers were dazed by the sudden eruption of Radisson at Port Nelson. Their traders had gone there often enough to have learned that the finest furs came from the farthest North. Here was a region six hundred miles distant from the French bush-lopers, who came overland from the St. Lawrence. Here were the best furs and the most numerous tribes of Indian hunters. Radisson had found Port Nelson for them. Now he had snatched the rich prize from their hands.

Bad news travels fast. Those refugees, who had been shipped by the French to the Company’s posts at the south of the bay, reached the ships’ rendezvousat Charlton Island in time to return to England by the home-bound vessels of 1683. Before Radisson had arrived in France, Outlaw and the other refugees had come to London. The embassies of France and England rang with what was called “the Radisson outrage.” John Outlaw, quondam captain for Ben Gillam, the poacher, took oath in London, on November 23, of all that Radisson had done to injure the English, and he swore that Groseillers had showed a commission from the Government of France for the raid. Calvert, Braddon, Phineas and those seamen, who had gone up Nelson River with Bridgar—gave similar evidence, and when Bridgar, himself, came by way of New England, the clamor rose to such heights it threatened to upset the friendly treaty between England and France. Lord Preston, England’s envoy to Paris, was besieged with memorials against Radisson for the French Government.

“I am confirmed in our worst fears by the news I have lately received,” wrote Sir James Hayes of the Company, “Monsieur Radisson, who was at the head of the action at Port Nelson is arrived in France the 8th of this month (December, 1683) in a man-of-war from Canada and is in all posthaste for Paris to induce the ministry to undermine us on Hudson’s Bay. Nothing can mend at this time butto get His Majesty’s order through my Lord Preston instantly to cause ye French King to have exemplary justice done upon ye said Radisson.”

At the same time, Hayes was urging Preston to bribe Radisson; in fact, to do anything to bring him back to the service of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

Radisson and Groseillers had meanwhile reached Paris only to find that the great statesman, Colbert—on whose protection they had relied—was dead. Fur traders of Quebec had the ear of the court—those monopolists, who had time and again robbed them of their furs under pretense of collections for the revenue. Both Radisson and Groseillers separately petitioned the court for justice. If De la Barre had been right in restoring the pirate vessel to Ben Gillam, what right had he to seize their furs? One fourth for revenue did not mean wholesale confiscation. The French Court retorted that Radisson and Groseillers had gone North without any official commission. “True,” answered Groseillers in his petition, “no more official than a secret verbal commission such as Albanel the Jesuit had, when he came to us years ago, and that is no good reason why we should be condemned for extending French dominion and changing Nelson’s name to Bourbon.” Radisson’spetition openly stated that while they carried no “official commission,” they had gone North by the express order of the King, and that the voyage, itself, was sufficient proof of their zeal for France.

King Louis was in a quandary. He dare not offend the Hudson’s Bay Company, for its chief shareholders were of the English court, and with the English Court, Louis XIV had a secret treaty. To De la Barre he sent a furious reprimand for having released Gillam’s pirate vessel. “It is impossible to imagine what your conduct meant,” ran the reproof, “or what you were about when you gave up the vessel captured by Radisson and Groseillers, which will afford the English proof of possession at Port Nelson. I am unwilling to afford the King of England cause of complaint,” he explained, “but I think it important to prevent the English establishing themselves on Nelson River.” In brief, according to the shifty trickery of a royal code, Radisson was to be reprimanded publicly but encouraged privately. Groseillers dropped out of the contest disgusted. The French court sent for Radisson. He was ordered to prepare to sail again to the bay on April 24, 1684, but this time, Radisson would have no underhand commission which fickle statesmen might repudiate. He demanded restoration of his confiscated furs and a written agreement that he shouldhave equal share in trading profits. The Department of the Marine haggled. Preparations went on apace, but the Hudson’s Bay Company was not idle. Sir James Hayes and Sir William Young and my Lord Preston—English envoy to Paris—urged Radisson to come back to England on one hand, and on the other threatened rupture of the treaty with France if “condign punishment” were not visited on the same men.

It is here what historians have called “Radisson’s crowning treachery” takes place. “Prince of liars, traitors, adventurers and bushrangers”—says one writer. “He received the marked displeasure of M. Colbert,” explains another, though Colbert was dead. “He was blamable for deserting the flag of France: the first time we might pardon him, for he was the victim of grave injustice, but no excuse could justify his second desertion. He had none to offer. It was an ineffaceable stain,” asserts yet another critic.

In a word, Radisson suddenly left France secretly and appeared in England, the servant of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Why did he do it? Especially, why did he do it without any business agreement with the Company as to what his rewards were to be? Traitors sell themselves for aquid pro quo, but there was no prospect of gain in Radisson’s case.His own journals give no explanation. I confess I had always thought it was but another example of the hair-brained enthusiast mad to be back in his native element—the wilds—and shutting his eyes to all precautions for the future. It was not till I had examined the state papers that passed between the Hudson’s Bay Company and France that I found the true explanation of Radisson’s erratic conduct. He was sent for by the Department of the Marine, and told that the French had quit all open pretentions to the bay. He was commanded to cross to England at once and restore Port Nelson to the Hudson’s Bay Company.

“Openly?” he might have asked.

Ah, that was different! Not openly, for an open surrender of Port Nelson would forever dispose of French claims to the bay. All Louis XIV now wanted was to pacify the English court and maintain that secret treaty. No, not openly; but he was commanded to go to England and restore Port Nelson as if it were of his own free will. He had captured it without a commission. Let him restore it in the same way. But Radisson had had enough of being a scapegoat for state statecraft and double dealing. He demanded written authority for what he was to do, and the Department of Marine placed this commission in his hands:

“In order to put an end to the Differences wch. exist between the two Nations of the French & English touching the Factory or Settlement made by Messrs. Groseillers and Radisson on Hudson Bay, and to avoid the efusion of blood that may happen between the sd. two nations, for the Preservation of that place, the expedient wch. appeared most reasonable and advantageous for the English company will, that the sd. Messrs. De Groseillers and Radisson return to the sd. Factory or habitation furnished with the passport of the English Company, importing that they shall withdraw the French wch. are in garrison there with all the effects belonging to them in the space of eighteen months to be accounted from the day of their departure by reason they cannot goe and come from the place in one year.... The said gentlemen shall restore to the English Company the Factory or Habitation by them settled in the sd. country to be thenceforward enjoyed by the English company without molestation. As to the indemnity pretended by the English for effects seized and brought to Quebec ... that may be accommodated in bringing back the said inventory & restoring the same effects or their value to the English Proprietors.”

This, then, was the reason for Radisson a second time deserting the French flag. He was compelled by “the statecraft” of Louis XIV, and this reason, as a man of honor, he could not reveal in his journals.

On the 10th of May, 1684, Radisson landed in London. He was welcomed by Sir James Hayes and forthwith carried in honor to Windsor, wherehe took the oath of fidelity as a British subject—a fealty from which he never swerved to the end of his life. In a week, he was ready to leave. Three ships sailed this year,The Happy Return, under Captain Bond;The Success, under Outlaw, who had been with Ben Gillam, and a little sloop calledThe Adventurefor inland waters, under Captain Geyer. Radisson went on boardThe Happy Return. Groseillers had long since left France for Quebec, where he settled at Three Rivers with his family. Favorable winds carried the ships forward without storm or stop, to the straits, which luckily presented open water. Inside the bay, ice and heavy seas separated the vessels. Sixty miles from Port NelsonThe Happy Returnwas caught and held. Fearing that the French at Nelson, under young Chouart Groseillers, might attack the English if the other ships arrived first, Radisson asked permission of Governor Phipps, who had superseded Bridgar, to take seven of the crew and row the sixty miles ashore. It was a daring venture. Ice floes were tossing in a heavy sea, but by rowing might and main, portaging over the ice where the way was blocked, and seeking shelter on the lee side of a floe when the wind became too rough, Radisson and his men came safely to Port Nelson in forty-eight hours, spending only one night in the gig-boat on the sea. Radisson was amazedto find the French fort on Hayes River deserted. Indians presently told him the reason. Barely had he left the bay the year before when the annual frigate of the English company came to port. Young Chouart Groseillers trusted to the loyalty of the Indians as a defense against the English till he learned that the savages had been offered a barrel of gunpowder to massacre the French. Then Chouart hastily withdrew up Hayes River above the first rapids to the camping place of the Assiniboines, whose four hundred warriors were ample protection.

Young Groseillers’ anger at the turn of affairs knew no bounds. In his fort were twelve thousand beaver skins and eight thousand other pelts of the same value as beaver. To the expedition the year before, he had contributed £500 of his own money, and the cargo of that voyage had been confiscated at Quebec. Now, he had rich store of pelts to compensate for the two years’ toil, and by the order of the French Government—a secret back-stairs, treacherous order which could not stand daylight and would brand him as a renegade—he was to turn these furs over to the enemy. The young man was furious, and surrendered his charge with an ill grace. Radisson had been commissioned to offer the Frenchmen employment in the English Company at £100 a year for Chouart, £50 for Durvall, Lamotte, Greymaireand the rest. They heard his offer in sullen silence, for it meant they must forswear allegiance to France. They preferred to remain free-lances and take chances of crossing overland to Quebec two thousand miles through the wilderness.

Then came what was truly the crowning treachery. A square deal is safest in the long run. The man of double dealing forgets that he often compels men, who would otherwise deal squarely, to meet him on his own ground—double dealing; to stoop to the trickery that his dishonesty has taught.

Radisson had been assured that the Frenchmen left in Hudson Bay should be free to do as they wished, or if they joined the English they should be well treated; but when they evinced no haste to become English subjects, Governor Phipps took his own counsel. By September, a new fort had been built on Hayes River five miles from the mouth. The Indians had come down stream with an enormous trade and Radisson had made a treaty of peace between them and the English, which has lasted to this day. Finally, the cargo of beaver was on boardThe Happy Return. Sailors were chanting their sing-song as they ran round the capstan bars heaving up anchor on September the 4th, when Governor Phipps suddenly summoned a final council on board the decks ofThe Happy Return. To this councilcame the unsuspecting Frenchmen from the shore. Three—as it happened—had gone to the woods, but young Groseillers and the rest clambered up the accommodation ladder for last orders. No sooner were they on board, than sails were run out.The Happy Returnspread her wings to the wind and was off for England carrying the unwilling Frenchmen passengers.

In a trice, hands were on pistols and swords out, but Radisson besought the outraged Frenchmen to restrain their anger. What was their strength against an armed crew of ruffians only too glad of a scuffle to put them all to the sword? It was a sullen, sad home-coming for the adventurer. Uncle and nephew were scarcely on speaking terms, and the trick of Governor Phipps must have opened Radisson’s eyes to the treatment he might expect now that he was completely in the power of the English. The boat reached Portsmouth on October 23. Not waiting for coach, Radisson took horse and rode fast and furious to London. He was at once taken before the Company. He was publicly thanked for his services, presented with a set of silver and given a present of a hundred guineas. He became the lion of the hour. Nor did he forget his French confrères. The committee at once voted each of the Frenchmen twenty shillings a week forpocket money and ordered their board paid. Later, Mr. Radisson is authorized to offer them salaries ranging from £100 a year to £50 if they will join the Company. But they are in no haste to join the Company, and strangely, when they evince intentions of going across to France—a thousand obstructions arise as out of the ground. They are watched—even threatened; politely, of course, but threatened with arrest. Some suave-tongued gentleman points out an advantageous marriage that young Chouart might make with some well-dowered English belle, like his Uncle Radisson, who had married Mary Kirke. Monsieur Chouart shrugs his shoulders. He hasn’t a very high opinion of the way Radisson has managed his marriage affairs.

But when they find that they can gain their liberty in no other way, these young French knights of the wilderness, they accept service in the English company to be sent to the bay forthwith, and take out “papers of denizenation,” which can be broken with less damage to conscience than an oath of fealty and the forswearing of France. And all the while, they are burning with rage that bodes ill for Governor Phipps’ trick on the deck ofThe Happy Return. Letters came from France to Chouart, letters from one Duluth, who is pushing north from Lake Superior; letters from one Comporté, who has offered to gooverland and “wipe the English from the bay”; messages from a bush-loper, one Péré, who is useful to the king of France as a spy. To Comporté, Chouart writes: “I am not at liberty to do as I wish. All the advantages offered do not for a moment cause me to waver. I shall be happy to meet you by the route you travel. I will perish or be at the place you desire me to go. It is saying enough. I will keep my word.” To his mother at Three Rivers, the young Frenchman confesses: “Orders have been given to arrest me if I try to leave. I will cause it to be known in France that I never wished to follow the English. I will abandon this nation. I have been forced here by my Uncle’s subterfuges. See M. Duluth in my behalf and M. Péré and all our good friends.” “All our good friends,” are the bushrangers who are working overland north from the St. Lawrence to intercept the trade of Hudson Bay—especially “Mons. Péré.”

And the same French Government that has compelled Radisson to go back to England, issues orders to the Governor of New France—M. de Denonville, “to arrest Radisson wherever he may be found,” “to reward young Groseillers if he will desert from Hudson’s Bay,” and “to pay fifty pistolles” to any man who seizes Radisson. And the reason for this duplicity of statecraft? Plain enough. The Stuartthrone is tottering in England. When it falls, there falls also the secret treaty with France. His Most Christian Majesty does not wish to relinquish claim to one foot of ground in the North, and well might he not—it was an empire as large as half Europe.

Meantime, the Company was proceeding on the even tenor of its ways. Dividends of 50 per cent. were paid in ’83, the same in ’84, despite interception of furs by the French overlanders. In the suit for loss by the owners of Ben Gillam’s ship, the Company had emerged triumphant—its monopoly vindicated, and in 1684, Captain Walker of the south coast coming out of the bay onThe Diligence, captured another pirate ship,The Expectation, whose owners again tested the Company’s claim to exclusive trade on the bay, by a lawsuit; and again the Company came out a victor—its monopoly justified by the courts. Three of the ships—Happy Return, Captain Bond;Owners’ Good Will, Captain Lucas, andSuccess, Captain Outlaw—were yearly chartered from Sir Stephen Evance, a rich goldsmith, who had become a heavy shareholder in the Company. Besides these, there wereThe Perpetuana Merchant, Captain Hume, with Smithsend as mate;The Diligence, Captain Walker; the sloopAdventure, Captain Geyer, and one frigate; in all a fleet of seven vessels,each carrying from twelve to twenty men plying to and from the bay. It was in 1686 that the sloop was sent north of Nelson to Churchill River, named after the great General—to open trade on the river where Munck’s Danes had suffered such frightful disaster. About this time, too, poor London boys began to go out as apprentices—scullions, valets, general knockabouts—among whom was one Henry Kelsey engaged at £8 a year, and his keep for Port Nelson. When James, Duke of York, became king, the position of governor of the Company was vacated, and Sir James Hayes, who seems always to have been the Company’s emissary in all court matters, is directed by the governing committee “to bespeak the Lord John Churchill to dynner at ye Rummor Tavernne in Queen’s Street” on business for the company’s very great interests. What that business was became evident at the General Court of the Adventurers called on April 2, 1685, when my Lord Churchill is elected governor by unanimous ballot. Phipps remains at Nelson as local governor, Sargeant at Albany, Nixon at Moose. Bridgar has been transferred to Rupert River, not important now, because the French are luring the Indians away, and Radisson is general superintendent of all trade, spending the winters in London to arrange the furs for sale and to choose the out-going cargoes,going each summer to the bay to barter with the Indians.

Notes on Chapter X.—With the exception of the two petitions filed by Radisson and Groseillers in France, and of young Groseillers’ letters—all the contents of this chapter are drawn from the official records of the Hudson’s Bay House. Young Groseillers, by the way, is usually called Jean Baptiste, but as he signs himself Chouart I have referred to him by that name.The real reason why Radisson came back to England is so new to history that I have given the instructions of the French Government in full. Radisson refers to these instructions in his affidavit of 1697, a document—which for State reasons—has never been given to the public till now. The State reasons will become plainer as the record goes on. Both governments were lying to sustain fictitious claims for damages. Herewith in part, is Radisson’s affidavit, taken before Sir Robert Jeffery, Aug. 23, 1697, left with the English commissioners of claims against France the 5th of June, 1699:“Peter Esprit Radisson of the Parish of St. James in the County of Middlesex Esqr. aged sixty-one years or thereabouts maketh oath that he came into England in the year 1665 And in the year 1672 married one of the Daughters of Sir John Kirke. And in the year 1667 this deponent with his Brother in law Medard Chouart De Groseilier were designed for a voyage in the service of the English to Hudson Bay, which they undertook, this deponent going on board the shipEaglethen commanded by one Captain Wm. Stanard was hindered being disabled at sea by bad weather, soe could not compleate the sd. intended Voyage, But the sd. Grosilier proceeded in another English ship called theNonsuchand arrived in the Bottom of Hudson’s Bay on a certaine River then which Capt. Zachary Gillam commander of the sd. ship ... then named Rupert River in Honor of His Highness Prince Rupert who was chiefly interested in that expedition.... And this deponent alsoe saith that in the year 1668 He went from England ... to another voyage to Port Nelson on an English ship called theWaverobut was also obstructed ... and at his returne found the sd. Grossilier safely arrived ... and in the year 1669 this deponent went on the sd. ship theWaverocommanded by Captain Newland & arrived at Port Nelson ... and in the year 1670 the sd. Grosilier was sent in an English Barke to Port Nelson ... and in the year 1673 there arising some difference between the Hudson’s Bay Company of England & this deponent, this deponent went unto France... and in the year 1682 there were two Barkes fitted out at Canada ... sailed to Hudson’s Bay and arrived on Hayes River ... and took Port Nelson and an English vessel which came from New England commanded by one Benj. Gillam ... and gave the name of Bourbon to the said Port Nelson ... and in the year 1683 he came from Canada to Paris by order of Monsr. Colbert, who soone after dyed. And this deponent being at Paris was there informed that the Lord Preston, Ambassador of the King of England had given in a Memoriall ... against this Deponent And after this deponent had been several times with the Marquis de Seignlay & Monsr. Calliere (one of the Plenipotentiaries at the Treaty of Peace) this Deponent found that the French had quitted all pretences to Hudson Bay, And thereupon in the year 1684 in the month of Aprill, this deponent by the special direction of the sd. Monsr. Calliere did write the papers hereunto annexed ... ” (there follow the instructions to return to England as given in the text) ... “which the sd. Monsr. Calliere dictated ... and the sd. Monsr. Calliere acted in the sd. affaire by the directions of the Superintendent of Marine affairs in France.... And the deponent was commanded by the sd. Monsr. Calliere ... to goe to Port Nelson to withdraw the French from thence, And to restore the same to the English who—he sd.—should be satisfied for the wrong & damages done them by this deponent ... and this deponent went in one of the Hudson’s Bay Company ships to Port Nelson and withdrew the French that were there from that Place, and the sd. Place was then put into possession of the English ... and the French that withdrew were brought unto England....(Signed) Pierre Esprit Radisson London.”August 1697.Those who wish a more detailed account of Radisson will find it inPathfinders of the West. Chouart’s letter will be found in the appendix of the same volume.Documents Relatifs a la Nouvelle France, Tome I (1492-1712), contains the petitions filed by Radisson and Groseillers in France.It has been almost a stock criticism of the shallow nowadays to say that an author has rejected original authorities, if the author refers to printed records, or to charge that the author has ignored secondary authorities, if the writer refers only to original documents. I may say that I have not depended on secondary authorities in the case of Radisson, because to refer to them would be to point out inaccuracies in every second line—an ungrateful tack. But I have consulted andpossess in my own library every book that has ever been printed on the early history of the Northwest. As for original documents, I spent six months in London on records whose dust had not been disturbed since they were written in the sixteen-hundreds. The herculean nature of this laborious task can best be understood when it is realized that these records are not open to the public and it is impossible to have an assistant do the copying. The transcripts had to be done by myself, and revised by an assistant at night.

The real reason why Radisson came back to England is so new to history that I have given the instructions of the French Government in full. Radisson refers to these instructions in his affidavit of 1697, a document—which for State reasons—has never been given to the public till now. The State reasons will become plainer as the record goes on. Both governments were lying to sustain fictitious claims for damages. Herewith in part, is Radisson’s affidavit, taken before Sir Robert Jeffery, Aug. 23, 1697, left with the English commissioners of claims against France the 5th of June, 1699:

“Peter Esprit Radisson of the Parish of St. James in the County of Middlesex Esqr. aged sixty-one years or thereabouts maketh oath that he came into England in the year 1665 And in the year 1672 married one of the Daughters of Sir John Kirke. And in the year 1667 this deponent with his Brother in law Medard Chouart De Groseilier were designed for a voyage in the service of the English to Hudson Bay, which they undertook, this deponent going on board the shipEaglethen commanded by one Captain Wm. Stanard was hindered being disabled at sea by bad weather, soe could not compleate the sd. intended Voyage, But the sd. Grosilier proceeded in another English ship called theNonsuchand arrived in the Bottom of Hudson’s Bay on a certaine River then which Capt. Zachary Gillam commander of the sd. ship ... then named Rupert River in Honor of His Highness Prince Rupert who was chiefly interested in that expedition.... And this deponent alsoe saith that in the year 1668 He went from England ... to another voyage to Port Nelson on an English ship called theWaverobut was also obstructed ... and at his returne found the sd. Grossilier safely arrived ... and in the year 1669 this deponent went on the sd. ship theWaverocommanded by Captain Newland & arrived at Port Nelson ... and in the year 1670 the sd. Grosilier was sent in an English Barke to Port Nelson ... and in the year 1673 there arising some difference between the Hudson’s Bay Company of England & this deponent, this deponent went unto France... and in the year 1682 there were two Barkes fitted out at Canada ... sailed to Hudson’s Bay and arrived on Hayes River ... and took Port Nelson and an English vessel which came from New England commanded by one Benj. Gillam ... and gave the name of Bourbon to the said Port Nelson ... and in the year 1683 he came from Canada to Paris by order of Monsr. Colbert, who soone after dyed. And this deponent being at Paris was there informed that the Lord Preston, Ambassador of the King of England had given in a Memoriall ... against this Deponent And after this deponent had been several times with the Marquis de Seignlay & Monsr. Calliere (one of the Plenipotentiaries at the Treaty of Peace) this Deponent found that the French had quitted all pretences to Hudson Bay, And thereupon in the year 1684 in the month of Aprill, this deponent by the special direction of the sd. Monsr. Calliere did write the papers hereunto annexed ... ” (there follow the instructions to return to England as given in the text) ... “which the sd. Monsr. Calliere dictated ... and the sd. Monsr. Calliere acted in the sd. affaire by the directions of the Superintendent of Marine affairs in France.... And the deponent was commanded by the sd. Monsr. Calliere ... to goe to Port Nelson to withdraw the French from thence, And to restore the same to the English who—he sd.—should be satisfied for the wrong & damages done them by this deponent ... and this deponent went in one of the Hudson’s Bay Company ships to Port Nelson and withdrew the French that were there from that Place, and the sd. Place was then put into possession of the English ... and the French that withdrew were brought unto England....

(Signed) Pierre Esprit Radisson London.”

August 1697.

Those who wish a more detailed account of Radisson will find it inPathfinders of the West. Chouart’s letter will be found in the appendix of the same volume.Documents Relatifs a la Nouvelle France, Tome I (1492-1712), contains the petitions filed by Radisson and Groseillers in France.

It has been almost a stock criticism of the shallow nowadays to say that an author has rejected original authorities, if the author refers to printed records, or to charge that the author has ignored secondary authorities, if the writer refers only to original documents. I may say that I have not depended on secondary authorities in the case of Radisson, because to refer to them would be to point out inaccuracies in every second line—an ungrateful tack. But I have consulted andpossess in my own library every book that has ever been printed on the early history of the Northwest. As for original documents, I spent six months in London on records whose dust had not been disturbed since they were written in the sixteen-hundreds. The herculean nature of this laborious task can best be understood when it is realized that these records are not open to the public and it is impossible to have an assistant do the copying. The transcripts had to be done by myself, and revised by an assistant at night.

Back to Index Next