This interval was the opportunity of McGillivray and his friends.
In certain quarters, no pains or misrepresentations were spared by persons associated with the North-West Company to prejudice the public mind against it. The newspapers teemed with falsehoods representing the country as cold or barren, as a dreary waste or interminable forest, unfit to be the abode of men and incapable of improvement. Selkirk was accosted in Pall Mall by a friend who remarked: "By God, sir, if you are bent on doing something futile, why do you not sow tares at home in order to reap wheat, or plough the desert of Sahara, which is nearer."
Old servants of the Company came forward to dispel these calumnies, and seeing their first falsehoods destroyed, Selkirk's enemies now proceeded to follow new tactics. They spoke with feigned alarm concerning the hostile disposition of the aborigines; they lamented with affected sympathy and humanity the injuries and slaughters to which the colonists would be exposed from the savages.
At the adjourned meeting the proposition was again discussed amidst the greatest excitement and tumult, and adopted. A memorial or protest was however entered against the measure, bearing the signature of six of the proprietors.
Opposition by agents of the North-West Company.
Of these six signing the protest, three were persons closely connected with and interested in the rival commercial concerns of the North-West Company of Montreal; and two of the three were, at the very moment, avowed London agents of that association. These had become proprietors of Hudson's Bay stock only eight and forty hours before the general meeting. They were not indeed possessed of it long enough to entitle them to vote at the meeting; but their names now being entered in the Company's books, though the ink was scarcely dry with which they were inserted, they felt themselves competent to formally raise their voices in condemnation of those measures which the committee of directors unanimously, and the general court by a great majority, had approved of.
Their design in acquiring the Company's stock was obvious. However circuitous the stratagem might be, it was clear that they had thus become proprietors of one commercial company for the purpose of advancing the fortunes of another, and a rival concern.[92] The stratagem did not altogether fail, for Lord Selkirk's agents were yet to encounter much friction in distant quarters supposed to be friendly, and required to be obedient to the orders of the Company.
When the vote was taken, it was found that for the question there appeared holders of stock valued at £29,937; against it, £14,823. The Earl, himself, voted "for"—£4,087; the principal opponent of the scheme being one William Thwaytes, whose interest was represented at £9,233.
At this meeting a memorial was read violently opposing the scheme, signed by Thwaytes and four or five others. According to them, the main objections were:—(a) Impolitic; (b) Consideration inadequate; (c) Grant asked for very large proportion of Company's holding, viz.: 70,000 square miles, or about 45,000,000 acres; (d) Should be a public sale, if any, not a private contract with a member of the Company; (e) No penalty for failure to find settlers; (f) Colonization unfavourable to the fur-trade; private traffic would be carried on with the United States of America.