mette and myself all needed facilitie. The details of the work done in the Departments will be found in the statement by Mr. Marmette, which forms part of this report.

During the time I was in Paris, I entered upon two special subjects for investigation—one an examination into the method adopted there of preparing catalogues, so as to be most readily avilable for reference; the other, the examination and selection of such works as related directly to the history of Canada. In the selection of historical works, I spared no pains, after a careful examination of several thousand titles and descriptions, to ascertain by a minute and careful scrutiny of the works selected for special examination, that they were complete editions, whether original or reprints, so that no imperfect copies might find their way to the shelves. Many of the works, it is almost unnecessary to say, required only careful collation, their value being well known, but others required a critical examination of their contents, so as to ascertain their value, or otherwise.

An opportunity presented itself, of which I took advantage, to make a collection of maps, illustrating the history of Nouvelle France and of British North America. A few are reprints, but nearly all are originals. In making the selection,I was guided by the desire to secure useful and not merely rare or curious maps, and I took the greatest care to satisfy myself as to the real date of the original issue, so that they might be arranged chronologically. Several, as may be inferred from this statement, are undated, but I think it will be found that the period of their publication, or in the case of reprints, their original publication, is almost positively fixed by direct or collateral evidence. The maps and a suitable collection of charts, I have had bound, in such a manner as to make them easy of access and at the same time to preserve them from injury.

In maps at pages 32, 35 and 37, of volume F, the boundaries of the Hudson's Bay Company's territories are laid down, professedly according to the Treaty of Utrecht. In 32, the line stated to be "the southern boundary of the Hudson's Bay, settled by Commissaries after the Peace of Utrecht," is coincident with 49° north latitude, leaving a portion of the Lake of the Woods to the south of the line which, running due east, takes in Lake and Fort Abitibi. The other maps (35, 37) represent the bounds by an irregular line to the north of 49°, presumedly following the supposed height of land, leaving Lake of the Woods altogether to the south, in a territory between what is represented on the map as the northern boundaries of New England and the southern boundaries of the Hudson's Bay Territories, the one extending to 48° and the other to about 49°. Map 35, professes to give the boundaries of all the grants in America; No. 37 gives only the New England and the Hudson's Bay limits. What authority the compilers of these maps had for fixing the limits, it is not easy to ascertain. Any special investigation into the question of boundaries was beyond the scope of my instructions, although the subject came incidentally under my notice.

Thus, among the Colonial entry books, is a volume numbered 25, with the title "Transactions Betweene England and France, relateing to the Hudsons Bay, 1687." Among the Foreign Office Records, under the title of " France, Miscellaneous Correspondence, 1687," is a duplicate of the same (No. 309) and among the Treaties in the Foreign Office collection, is a Treaty of Neutrality, No. 101 (F.O. 46) in Latin, signed at Whitehall, on the 6th-16th November, and ratified at Versailles on the 29th November, 1685.

The Treaty and the Transactions relate to the same dispute, the Transactions being an account of the proceedings before the Commissioners, appointed by virtue of the Treaty, to agree upon the points to be definitely settled. The two copies, Colonial 25 and Foreign 309, are exactly alike, line for line and page for page, although the entries in the catalogues would lead to the supposition that they are two different documents, and that the Treaty has no reference to either. The following is a synopsis of the Transactions:

Appointment of Commissioners and meeting, 18th May, 1687.

Petition by the Hudson Bay Company and the answer by the French, presented on that day. The first, with a memorial, is signed by Churchill, the Governor; the memorial is signed by E. Dering, the Deputy Governor and seven of the Directors. Memorial by the French, with translation,

Memorial of the Hudson Bay Company.

Reponse, with proofs, produced by the French.

Further memorial en reponse.

Reply to the last.

All claims and counter claims, with the proofs, are adduced on both sides.

An instrument was agreed upon for a cessation of hostilities, and for the determination of the respective limits in America, which is given in Latin and English, and signed on the 1st-11th December, 1687, the instructions to the Governors being appended.

In Charlevoix "Histoire Generale de la Nouvelle France," (Paris 1744), at page 507, vol. 1., is an extract from a letter from the King of France to the Governor General of Canada, desiring him to issue letters to the various Governors, to carry out this Treaty of 1686, literally (que vous teniez éxactement la main à son exécution, sans vous en départir pour quelque raison que ce soit), and to treat as pirates all private adventurers, (armateurs particuliers), who had no legitimate commission, or whose commissions were issued by any Prince, &c., with whom France was at war.

A copy of the Treaty, in French, will be found at page 81, of the "Memoires des Commissaires du Roi, et de ceux de sa Majesté Britannique sur les possessions et les

droits respectifs des deux couronnes en Amérique," (Paris, 1755). The Treaty is there stated to have been concluded at London, on the 16th November, 1686, but no mention is made of the ratification at Versailles. The names attached are those of Barillon d'Amoncourt, Jeffreys, C. Rochester, Sunderland, P. Middleton and Godolphin. In Charlevoix, the extract from the King's letter gives the date of the Treaty as the 13th of September, 1686, but it is not probable that Barillon would have negotiated two Treaties, so near in point of time to each other, with the same object in view. The date of the Treaty, in the Foreign Office, agrees with that given in the Memoirs just quoted.

In the same work, and at page 89, is a "Traité provisionnel concernant l'Amérique entre le Roi de France et le Roi d'Angleterre," signed at Whitehall the 1–11 Dec., 1687, by Barillon d'Amoncourt, Dusson de Bonrepaus, Comes de Sunderland, Comes de Middleton, and Godolphin. It is in French and Latin, and is the instrument agreed upon after the deliberations of the Commissioners acting under the Treaty of 1686.

These Treaties, with extracts of such parts as specially relate to New York, are referred to in the Colonial History of New York, vol. 3., pp. 501 to 510, and will be found summarized in Mr. Charles Lindsey's "Investigation of the Unsettled Boundaries of Ontario" (Toronto, 1873).

I can find no account of any settlement having been arrived at, in accordance with this Treaty. The Transactions contain, however, evidence of the claims set up by the French and by the Hudson's Bay Company, respectively, to the territories in question, according to their views at that period, and will be found published in full, with all the peculiarities of spelling, &c., in note C.

It is not probable that any additional light can be thrown on the results of the Treaty of Utrecht, so far as the determination of boundaries is concerned, than what is already known. The maps in the Public Record Office in London are few in number and unimportant in character, and throw no distinct light upon the subject, so far as I could see. There seem to have been two attempts made to come to a settlement under the Treaty of Utrecht, one which broke off about 1719, the other begun in 1750, chiefly, it would appear, for the purpose of settling the boundaries of Acadia, closed, so far as documents show, about 1756, without any definite result being reached. Of the four volumes, with the proceedings of the French and British Commissioners, referring to the last attempt, the first contains the papers respecting Acadia and the Island of St. Lucia, with a map showing the proposed limits of Acadia. The second volume contains public Acts and Treaties concerning America in general; the third, the papers in support of the claims to St. Lucia, and the fourth the last memoires respecting Acadia, and a memoire of the French Commissioners, concerning the Island of Tobago, with a map showing the British claims up to, but not beyond, 48° north latitude.

It will be noticed in the details of the work done, that nearly all the shipping. returns transmitted from Quebec are missing, the letter of advice being alone inserted, but the returns either lost or placed elsewhere. A barren abstract of the vessels entered is occasionally at the foot of the letter of advico. It is possible that the missing returns may be found by further search amongst the papers of the Loard of Trade, but this is by no means certain. The statistics contained in them would be of great service to the commercial historian, and the importance of these returns is increased by the fact, shown in the Archives Report for 1882, that all the reports relating to Canadian Trade and Customs now in the hands of the Custom House authorities in London, go no further back than 1823. In the Quebec series of the Colonial Office papers, Vol. 56-2, is a paper signed H.T.C., that is Cramahé, dated 10th June, 1765, with an abstract of duties and disbursements in Quebec,from the Conquest, 1759, to October, 1764, with a proposed scale of Provincial duties, but the only complete statement, so far discovered, is that from 1768 to 1783, given in last year's Report.

In the same volume (56-2) are papers by the Baron Masères, who was AttorneyGeneral of the Province of Quebec. Several documents relating to Quebec were published by Masères in 1771, in a volume entitled: "A Collection of several Commissions and other Public Instruments proceeding from His Majesty's Royal Authority, and other papers relating to the State of the Province of Quebec, since the Conquest, in 1760." These reports and commissions do not appear among the Colonial Office papers, with the exception of "A Plan of a Convenient Method of Administering Justice in the Province of Quebec, submitted to Lord Hillsborough, in April, 1770." Of the other two papers in volume 56, one, "Considerations on the Expediency of procuring an Act of Parliament for the settlement of the Province of Quebec," is printed, a few copies having been struck off for the Ministry in 1766; the other, a supplement to the same paper, is in manuscript. Both were published by Masòres in a collection of "Occasional Essays," in 1809.

I have been particular in citing these papers, because none of the official reports of that date appear to be among the Colonial papers; at least, they are not among those I have examined. They were sent to the Colonial Office, beyond a doubt, Morgan, an Under Secretary, having been sent to Quebec by the Colonial Secretary in 1769, to report on the state of the laws, &c. His report does not appear among the Colonial papers, nor does that of Carleton, nor do the three reports by Hey, the Chief Justice, and by Masères, the Attorney General, which were entrusted to Morgan in September, 1769, to be delivered to the Colonial Secretary. Two of the three reports are in the "Collection" by Masères, but Chief Justice Hey's is awanting.

The Canadian documents were submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown in 1771, but their reports are equally missing. There is little doubt that all the documents relating to this subject will be found together, possibly in the Privy Council Office. The report of Marriott, the Advocate-General, dated, "College of Advocates,

Doctors Commons, 1773," was published in 1774, with a letter dated 12th May, 1765, to the Attorney and Solicitor-General (Mr. Norton and Mr. de Grey) as an Appendix respecting the case of the Jesuits in Canada. The Order in Council of the 14th June, 1771, directed the Advocate, Attorney and Solicitor-General, to prepare a general plan of Civil and Criminal Law for the Province of Quebec, but by a subsequent order, of the 31st July, 1772, reciting the former order they were directed to prepare separate reports. As these various reports and other documents relate directly to the Quebec Act of 1774, it is very desirable that they should be all accessible here, together with such other papers as bear upon the same subject.

The documents relating to the United Empire Loyalists are very far from being complete. There are reports and correspondence respecting them in the Haldimand collection. These include the correspondence with Colonel Gugy, relative to their settlement at Machiche; correspondence with Captain Cuyler, respecting the reception of Loyalists and their settlement in Cape Breton; lists (partial) of enrolments into corps; the surveys in Cataraqui &c.; besides a list of settlers in Upper Canada obtained from the Ontario Government and other papers. Among these is a report by Colonel Morse, R. E., giving a detailed return of the disbanded troops and Loyalists settling in Nova Scotia, who were mustered in the summer of 1784. The total number of men, women and children, by this return, was 28,347. Of these, 9,260 settled on the St. John River, and 7,923 at Shelburne, the others being scattered over the Province in small parties. The total population of Nova Scotia (including St. John or Prince Edward Island) was then, according to Col. Morse, 42,747, thus divided.

Indians are not included. Negroes, estimated at about 3,000, were included among the Loyalists. This enumeration differs very materially from that of most authors who have written on the subject.

There is no doubt that papers relating to United Empire Loyalists are to be found scattered throughout the country, of little value as they are, but which would be of essential service as contributions towards a remarkable part of the history of Canada, were they brought together.

In May last, Mr. Jonas Howe, of St. John, New Brunswick, sent me a list of Loyalist regiments, of which he has imperfect muster rolls, from 1776 to 1733, only two or three being complete for that period. The time necessary to have examined the muster rolls of these and other Colonial regiments that might have been found