Statement respecting the Earl of Selkirk's Settlement of Kildonan ...

Hi)^at Fort William, as well as at Moiilrcai, to satisfythe reader, that tlic persons \vho instigated andeffected the destruction of the Red River settlementin 1815, were the same who destroyed it inthe following jear, and massacred those whowislicd to defend it.It appears necessary, however, to recal thereader's attention to that division of the colonists,who, refusing to be taken down to Canada, in thesummer of 1815, had proceeded, under the friendlyescort of the Indians, as far as Lake \V inipic^fromwhence they went to the other end of the lake, andestabhshed themselves for a short time at Jackinconsistent with law, justice, or propriety. It \\'o\ild appearhowever, that if he had not remained in occupation ofFort WiHiam, he, and his people, must probably havehad to spend a Canadian winter withiiut cover; for his enemieshad taken s]jecial care that he should not be allowed tofind shelter for theni at his settlement in the interior, Withrespect to the ^tier charge (of feloniously seizing- the North-West Company's furs) it appears pretty clear that the depotat Fort William contained, besides the Company's furs, noinconsiderable quantity of property that was stolen.How fara magistrate is authorised to detain, for subsequent legalinTestigation, the whole of a deposit, part of which is composedof pillaged property, I know not ; but the matter, I presume,will be duly investigated by a competent judicial tribunal.—.See Appendix, [ V. ]page xlviii. and [ Z. ] Not only wasproperty, plundered from the Hudson's Bay Company, foundin Fort William, but also property taken from the Red Riversettlement, which belonged to the Earl of Selkirk.