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’s petition 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 should have 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 a quid 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.”