142 GEORGE BEYCE ON THE 



meut it was iu its time ; its name was uudoubtedly a misnomer so far as strength was 

 concorued: yet it points to its origination in troublons times. 



FoET Douglas. — "We have said that the Hvidson's Bay Company claim to have built 

 a fort on Red River in 1^99. No trace of it can be distinctly made out, though there seems 

 to be a lloatiug- tradition that there was a Hudson's Bay Company fort somewhere near 

 the site of Fort Gibraltar or, possibly, further down the bank towards the colonists' estab- 

 lishment. In 1812 and the subsequent years, however, their interests seem all to have been 

 included in the Colony Fort. "Whether the fur-trade interests were absorbed in Fort 

 Douglas or not, the chief reason for strengthening the colony establishment was the pro- 

 tection of the settlers. From a mere scattered gathering of buildings, it was, by extensive 

 buildings and repairs iu the autumn of 1815, that it gained the name Fort Douglas, being 

 so called after Lord Selkirk's family name. Probably one of the reasons for destroying- 

 Fort Gibraltar, was to provide material for the enlargement of Fort Douglas. "We find that, 

 during the same year, orders were given to bring down portions of the North- West Fort, 

 which had been at Pembina, for the same purpose. It was stated that when Fort Gibraltar 

 was destroyed, haste was made, lest the destruction should be interrupted by the arrival of 

 the threatened Bois-brùlé invaders from Qu'Appelle. That iuA^asion did take place, and 

 we shall see that Fort Douglas, too, has its well-marked history. 



Not more than three weeks had elapsed after the last beam of Fort Gibraltar had been 

 removed, when, from the vratch-tower of Fort Douglas, the alarm was given that the half- 

 breeds were coming. This was about six o'clock in the evening of June 19th, 1816. The 

 Governor immediately ordered a party to prepare to meet the intruders, who seemed to be 

 avoiding the fort, and to be directing their movements against the settlers down the river. 

 The Governor seemed to have intended to hold a parley with the apjiroaching force. On 

 perceiving, as he rode forward, that the party was larger than he had supposed, he sent 

 back to the fort for a stronger force, and for a piece of artillery to be brought. He then 

 proceeded some two miles down the river from the fort to a point since celebrated as the 

 scene of the conflict of Seven Oaks. The half-breeds who were mounted now approached 

 the Governor's party in the form of a half-moon, giving the war-whoop. One of their 

 leaders named Firmin Boucher advanced towards the Whites, with the insolent cry, 

 " What do you want ? " The Governor replied " What do you want ? " The answer to this 

 was, "We want our fort," — no doubt referring to the destroyed Fort Gibraltar. The 

 Governor replied harshly, " Well, go to your fort ! " A hurried rejoinder of an insulting 

 kind being made to the Governor, he rashly seized Boucher's horse by the bridle, seem- 

 ingly with the idea of making him a prisoner. As Boucher slid from his horse, a shot was 

 fired from the Bois-brûlés' ranks, and one of the Governor's body-guard fell. The firing 

 became general. The Governor fell by the second shot, wounded in the shoulder. Lying 

 helpless, the Governor was given in charge of a French Canadian to assist him to the fort, 

 when a worthless Indian along with the party, running up, shot him iu the breast and 

 killed him. 



Completely destroyed, scattered, or terrified, there was no force of settlers or Hudson's 

 Bay Company men sufficient to defend Fort Douglas. John Pritchard, afterwards a confi- 

 dential agent of Lord Selkirk, conducted negotiations between some forty settlers at the fort 

 and the half-breeds. The settlers at first proposed to defend the fort, but a wiser deter- 



