the several Cantons of Indians, call'd by the English the five Nations) who Inhabit the Country on the South Side of the Lakes Ontario, Oneida, and Mohawk's River; and the Said River is mark'd on the same Maps le fleuve des Iroquois and both of them have been Treated from the beginning as well by the French as English as belonging to the Indians of the five Nations, who for a few years past have had a Settlement at Oswegachi on the River Iroquois consisting mostly of Onondagos.

In 1672 Monsr. Courcelles1 then Governour of Canada, by large presents to the Indians and under pretence of building a trading house for their conveniency, but with a design of converting it soon into a Fort in order to bridle them, and keep them from making incursions into Montreal, obtain'd leave of them to Erect a Magazine which they have since Fortify'd and is now call'd Cadarraqui [sic] or Fort Frontenac from the Name of Monsr. Frontenac, Monsr. Courcelles Successor in the Government of Canada, who carried this project into Execution in the same Year.

In 1689 the French After many Hostilities from the Indians and disputes between them (among other things) concerning the former's holding Possession of this Fort destroy'd it and abandon'd the Country on the North side of the Lake Ontario to the Indians.

In 1695 during the War, which preceded the treaty of Reswick the French took the said Country from the Indians, and rebuilt Fort Cadarraqui on the Edge of the Lake, and Continued in Possession of it at the time of Concluding the Treaty of Reswick.

The Author of the Map referr'd to in the Letter Inclosing this,2 hath the following Remark in his Political Essays upon it page 14 Vizt: "The French being in Possession of Fort Frontenac at the peace of Reswick, which they Attain'd during their War with the Confederates, gives them an undoubted Title to the Acquisition of the North West side of

1 Daniel de Rény, Sieur de Courcelle, appointed Lieutenant General of Canada Mar. 23, 1665.

2 Lewis [Louis] Evans, ante, p. 349.

St. Lawrance River, from thence to their Settlement at Montreal; but the Confederates still preserv'd their Rights to the other side, fully to Lake St. Francis, leaving the rest to Montreal as a Boundary."

By the 7th Article of the Treaty of Reswick in 1697, which seems the only Applicable one to the Matter under Consideration, it is Stipulated that the most Christian King shall restore to the said King of Great Britain all Countries Islands, Forts, and Colonies wheresoever situated, which the English did possess before the Declaration of this present War, and in like manner the King of Great Britain shall restore to the most Christian King all Countries, Islands, Forts, and Colonies wheresoever situated, which the French did possess before the said Declaration of War, and this restitution shall be made on both sides, within the space of Six Months, or sooner if it can be done."

The Operation of this Treaty therefore, if it is Applicable to Question, which Crown hath the right to the Possession of Fort Frontenac and the North side of the Lake Ontario, seems to be Expressly Contrary to what the Writer of the above Political Remarks Asserts; For if the French Attained, during their War with the Confederates, that possession which they had at the Peace of Reswick, as they in fact did, after having in 1679, Evacuated it and Abandon'd it [to] the Indians, they ought by Virtue of a Treaty to have restor❜d it to the King of Great Brittain.

The negotiation between Lord Bellomont, Governour of New England and New York, and the Count Frontenac Governour of all New France which pass'd in 1689 soon after the Treaty of Reswick was concluded, May serve to shew the Construction, which both Nations then made of this Treaty with regard to the point in Question; and the Subsequent convention of both Crowns will determine which of them hath the just right to the Possession of Fort Frontenac and the Country on the North side of the Lake Ontario near as far as Montreal.

1A name given to the St. Lawrence where it widens above Montreal.

Lord Bellomont demands of Frontenac all the Indians of the five Nations, who were made Prisoners in New France during the then Late War; Monsr. Frontenac in his Answer to this demand, [refuses ?] to deliver them up, Insisting that the Indians of the Six Nations were Subjects of the French King, as having had Sovereignty over them before the English were Masters of New York, and says in Effect, that the Treaty of Reswick had no Relation to the point in Dispute. Lord Bellomont in his Reply to Monsr. Frontenac insisting upon the Indians ought to be Releas'd, as being Subjects of the King of England, and compriz'd as such, within the said Treaty. In answer to this Monsr. Frontenac acquaints Lord Bellomont "that the Kings their Masters had determined to Name Commissaries on the part of each Crown to Settle the Limits of the Countries, which belong'd to each of them, and that he must wait the decision of those Commissaries."

It does not Appear that any Decision of this Affair was made untill the Treaty of Utrecht concluded in 1713 by the 15th Article of which the Indians of the five Nations are declar'd to be Subjects to the Dominion of Great Britain; consequently their Lands to be under the Protection of that Crown.

This being the highest Decision of the point that could be made, Settles it to the Year 1713, and seems to put the Immediate possession, which the French had of Fort Frontenac, and the Country in dispute from the time of the Treaty of Reswick to that of Utrecht out of the Question.

The French still continued in possession of the aforesaid Fort from the time of the last mention'd Treaty [to that?] of Aix la Chapelle in the Year [1748]. By that the Treaty of Utrecht is renewed and confirmed, and it is stipulated that the Dominions of the contracting parties shall be put in the same condition with regard to the Possession of them by the severall Princes and States concern'd, which they ought of right to have been in before the Late War immediately preceding that Treaty; and for this purpose Commissaries were Appointed by his Majesty and the French King to meet at 1 The date of the treaty is omitted in the text of the original.

Paris in order to settle and adjust, on the part of each, the Limits of the Controverted Countries in North America. Those Commissaries accordingly met and Enter'd upon their Negotiation, which Continued until it was broke off by the French Kings Seizing upon Several parts of Nova Scotia or Accadie, the Limits of which were referr'd to the Decision of the Commissaries.

It seems plain that his Majesty's Right to the Possession of the North side of the Lake so far as the Limits of the Country of the five Nations extend is not precluded by the Continued possession of the French ever since the Treaty of Utrecht, at which it was first formerly settled for if that is a good plea for the French in this case they might plead their possession of the Several Incroachments they have made in Nova Scotia, at Crown point, and Niagara, which have all of them been of a Considerable Continuance, some ever since the Treaty of Utrecht and others before the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle.

Upon the whole his Majesty's right to remove the French from the North side of Lake Ontario and take the Lands there under his protection seems full as Clear and Indubitable as his right to remove them from their Incroachments at Niagara etca. and to take possession of that Country; his right both to the one and the other standing upon the same foundation, Vizt: the Treaty of Utrecht, and Especially as the Indians of the five Nations have a right to the Country about Niagara by Conquest only, but an aboriginal one to the Country on the North side of the Lake Ontario.

Endorsed:

Claim of the English and

French to the Possession

of Fort Frontenac stated

and examined.

in Govr. Shirley's of the 19th. Decr. 1755.

WILLIAM SHIRLEY TO SIR THOMAS ROBINSON 1

SIR,

[Duplicate]

New York, Decembr. 20th, 1755.

I am now to lay before you an Account of what I have done in obedience to his Majestys 8th Instruction Relative to the Indians, a Copy of which is Inclos'd.2

Upon my Arrival at Albany I engag'd the Chief Men of a Tribe of Indians call'd the Stockbridge or River Indians and about 30 of their Warriors to proceed with me to Oswego upon the Expedition against Niagara.

In my passage thro' the Mohawks Country I visited their two Castles, at both which I had a Conferrence with their Chief Sachems, particularly Hendrick and all their Warriors and Young Men, who were not then gone to join Major General Johnson in his Majesty's Service against Crown point, and Engag'd about 18 of those in both the Castles,

1 P. R. O., C. O. 5, 46. A transcript is in the Library of Congress.

2 The following "copy of his Majesty's Eighth Instruction to the Late Major General Braddock" was inclosed by Shirley in this letter to Sir Thomas Robinson. It is attested by William Alexander.

You will not only Cultivate the Best Harmony and Friendship possible with the Several Governours of our Colonies and Provinces but likewise with the Chiefs of the Indian Tribes, and for the better improvement of our good Correspondence with the said Indian Tribes you will find out some fit and proper person agreable to the Southern Indians, to be sent to them for this purpose in like Manner as we have Ordered Colonel Johnson to repair to the Northern Indians as the person thought to be the Most Acceptable to them, endeavour to engage them to take part and Act with our Forces in such Operations as you shall think Most Expedient. P. R. O., C. O. 5, 46. A transcript is in the Library of Congress. Compare with Instructions to Braddock, Nov. 25, 1754.

See Information from Daniel Claus to Johnson (Johnson Manuscripts, 3, 17), where Shirley's agents, John Henry Lydius and John Fisher, are represented as working against Johnson, and Hendrick acts to defeat their purpose.