]Lost Inheritance: Alienation of Six Nations' Lands in Upper Canada, 1784-1805

E. Reginald Good, Kilcherzer; Ontario'

We thought when the servant of our Fatl~er(Governor Haldimand) gave us in his name the lands upon the Grand Riverthat we sliould be secure. and without interruption en.joy it as our own. In this we have been 1110stegregiously deceived. and to our great surprise and grief, we find ourselves by the contrivance of artful. faithless and wicked men stript of our property."

Most ofthe Six Nations, with the exception oftlie Oneidas, were allied with tlie British during the American Revolution. On 25 October 1784 Frederick Haldiiiiand, governor- general and commander-in-chief of Quebec, granted these allies almost 1,000,000 acres along tlie Grand River in present-day Ontario, as a testimonial oftlieir attachment to the Britisli Goveni~nent,and as "remuneration for the property they had left in tlie United States.'" The British Crown - as represented by colonial policyniakers, colonial administrators and subordinate officers - had agreed to hold these lands in trust "for the use and benefit ofthe Six Nations, and their posterity... f~rever."~ Representatives oftlie Crown, however, "ne- glected or violated" this trust." The argument ofthis paper is that they managed Gra~idRiver land sales aid land sale proceeds in tlie interests of state, ratherthan those ofthe SixNations. By 1848, all that remained ofthe SixNations' Grand River lands was a45,OOO-acre reserve Losl I~rheriln~rce:Alie~mtion of Sir A'nlio~rs' Lnrrrls br Upper C~nrm(la,1784-180: 93 near Brantford, which the Six Nations occupy to this day. Thus, the objects ofthe original grant, so far as the advantage ofthe Indians was concerned, was "frustrated, by the same authority, and almost by the sane individuals that made the grant."' Historians tend to focus on the role of Joseph Brant in alienating the Grand River lands. Brant was a Mohawk Indian who acted as land agent forthe Six Nations. William L. Stone, in abiograpl~yof Bwit published in 1851, portrayed Brant as "a benefactorto his people ...In his dealings and business relations he was prompt, honorable, and expert... a patten] of integ- rity.%.A. Cruikshank, in an a~-&iclepublished in 1927, "The Reserve ofthe Six Nations on the Grand River a11d tlle Mennonite Purchase of BlockNo. 2," called Brant aawily Mohawk" and accused him of selling SixNations land to line his own pockets. Charles Johnston. who published numerous articles and a book-lengt11 history between 1962 and 1994, on " the confused history ofthe alienation ofthe Indian lands on the Grand Rivei;"' suggested that Bw~twas motivated both "by agenuine resolve to remedy the plight of his fellow Indians" and a desire "to make a large personal profit through expediting a lucrative transaction."'" Isabel Kelsay, in a biography of Brant published in 1984. portrayed him as a naive do- gooder: "[Hlis meager education had not fitted him for all the business he had to undertake" on behalf ofthe SixNations. "If Joseph [Brant] was engaged in fraud at his people's es- pense, as it was later charged by some who ge~~erallyhad their own axes to grind. one can only wonder how he managed it. Probably the only fa~~ltthat can be charged to him is that his record-keeping was poor."" Ilis preoccupation with Joseph Brant's role has led historiails to ignore or gloss overthe broader historical context within which the SixNations lost their Grand River lands, as a close exa~iiinationofthe alienation of 60,000 acres in and around present-day ICitcliener- Waterloo, Ontario, reveals. This land was part of BlockNo.2, one ofseveral tracts that Brant surrendered in 1798 for resale by the Crown. It was purchased by a syndicate of Pennsylvania Mennonites in 1805.

A Political TI-ust

Haldimand aid successive colonial adminishators viewed Haldirnand's gmtas a politi- cal trust." one which was to be managed in the interests ofstate. John Graves Simcoe, first lieutena~it-governoroftlie province of Upper Canada, establisl~edin 1791, considered that the interests ofstate were sewed best by "i11creasing & regulating'' the milita~ypotential of the SixNations for possible action against the count~y's"foreign & especially. do177esiic enemies."'Wne ofthe means that Simcoe used to accomplish this goal was to su~~oundthe SixNations with European colonists, protected and controlled by milita~ytroops. On 8 September 1795 Joseph Brant infonned Joseph Chew, secretaly to the Indian Department, that European colonization "all around"t11e Grmd River had depleted the game in SixNations' hu~~tinggrounds.The SixNations could no lo11gersu1-viveon their h-aditional sources offood s~~pply- including hunting, fishing and planting- and their o~ilyrecourse was to sell parts oftheir Grand River lands so that they might raise a capital fund for their sup- port.I4 The threat ofAmerican aggression had dissipated with the ratification ofJay's Treaty by the United States House of Representatives on 29 April 1795. Colonial administrators con- sidered that it was no longer necessary to preserve tlie Six Nations as amilitary force. The interests of state would now best be served by sanctioning European colonization ofthe Grand River lands; this would also advance the prosperity ofthe province and civilizetlie Six Nations." Lord Dorcliester, Haldimand's successor as governor and commander-in-chief of Quebec, offered Iiis personal opinion to Simcoe that "[alll the Lands and advantages given to the Six Nations" by General Haldimand, "ought in equity to be made good," in order to enable them to sell part oftheir lands to European colonist^.^" In tlie first few months of 1796 Brant purported to sell at least three tracts ofthe Six Nations' Grand River lands directly to European land speculators.17However, King George 111's Royal Proclanlation of 1763 prohibited such sales, declaring that if Indians desired to dispose oftlieir lands, "the same shall be purchased only for Us, in OurName, at some publick Meeting or Assembly ofthe said Indians."lH Aftersoniemigling, Simcoe agreed "that ifthe SixNations would surrender all Titleto tlie land they possessed, and were desirous of selling. . . His Majesty would grant tosvcl7 persola 0s t17ey iilozrldrecomme~IdsuchTracts as they were desirous of ~onveying."~'This was where matters stood on 16 June 1796 when Simcoe left for England on leave. Si~ncoe appointed Peter Russell, receiver-general ofthe revenues of Upper Canada, administrator of Upper Canada in his absence.

Confirming Joseph Brant's Land Sales

Russell waited. He did not wish to accept surrenders from the Six Nations, and issue Crown grants to prospective purchasers until he received authorization from tlie colonial secretary, tlie Duke of Portland. However, on I February 1797 Russell learned that Great Britain was at war with Spain. The Spanish colonies on the west bank ofthe Mississippi River now threatened tlie weakened defenses of Upper Canada. Consequently, Robert Liston, the British consul at Philadelphia, recommended that matters be settled to Brant's satisfaction because Brant's "abilities and influence must naturally render him a character of importance in the present circumstances.'"" Robert Prescott, commander-in-chief of British North America, agreed that "His Majesty's I~iterestrequire that the most liberal attention should be shown to tliem [the SixNations] at this crisis." Russell now changed his mind, and concluded that, under certain conditions, confirtning Brant's land sales might "equally. ..promote tlie common Interests" of all parties." Brant requested Russell to prepare mortgages forthe Six Nations, guaranteeing the pay- ment of principal and interest on tlie land sales lie was about to confirm. Brant inquired whether, "agreeable to your Laws," the SixNations could hold these mortgages and, if necessary, foreclose on them." Russell referred Brant's inquiry to the Crown's law officers, John White (Attorney General) and Robert Gray (Solicitor General). They advised against the execution of mortgages to the Six Nations "in their present capa~ity."~Therefore, Brant sugested that David William Smith (acting surveyor-general), Alexander Stewart (attorney) and John Ferguson (spouse of Brant's niece, Magdalene Johnson) be permitted to serve as trustees forthe Six Nations and hold mortgages for tliem. Lost Irrlrerilonce: illierroliorr of Sir Notions' Lorrds irr Upper Cormda, 1784-1805 95

Russell hesitated to accept Brant's suggestions because he wanted all ofthe SixNations' trustees to be officers ofthe Crown.lJ In due course Russell and Brant compromised on replacing Ferguson with William Claus, a high-ranking oflicer in the Indian Department, who held the position ofdeputy superintendent-generalofthe Six Nations. Russell could depend on Claus to function as actingtrustee for the SixNations under the direction of colonial administrators. Claus came from a line of officers in the Indian Department. He strove to emulate the example ofhis grandfather, Sir William Johnson, former superintendent-general ofthe Indian Department, and his father Daniel Claus, deputy superintendent ofthe Indian Department who managed Six Nations affairs in the interests ofthe Crown and in the proc- ess acquired princely fortunes for themselves. Brant offered to surrender six blocks of Six Nations' land, totaling 352,707 acres, to the Crown on 5 February 1798. Russell accepted this surrender and immediately signed Crown grants to the proposed purchasers, with the proviso that the instruments were not to be delivered to the grantees until mortgages had been executed.'j

Pennsylvania Mennonites Colonize Blocl

None ofthe first buyers of Six Nations' lands really could pay for their purchases. Richard Beasley, with his nominal partners James Wilson and St. Jean Baptiste Rousseau, was tlie only purchaser who endeavored to provide any security for payment. On 10 May 1798 Beasley, Wilson and Rousseau signed a bond in favour ofthe trustees for 17,774 pounds, guaranteeing the annual payment of 6% interest on tlie purchase price of Block No.2, which contained 94,012 acres. The principal sum of 8,887 pounds was to become due and payable on 1 April 1798.'Wis -cement was intended to provide afixed annuity to the Six Nations for one thousand years, without touchingthe principal. On 18 April 1799 Brant wrote to one ofthe trustees, David Smith, that "Beasley and Co[mpany] . . . have used their utmost endeavors to pay us, and for that purpose are now goingto" subdivide BlockNo.2 into farm lots and sell them "to individuals, to get the means of hlfilling their agreements."" The first prospective purchasers of these farm lots were Mennonite farmers from Pennsylvania who could not afford to purchase farms in their home state." They were attracted to Upper Canadaby the availability ofwell-drained open land for fanning activities and the proximity ofhardwood forests for building and heating prod- ucts. Jacob Bechtel, aMennonite from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, came to Upper Canada on a land-prospecting tour in spring or summer of 1 799. Bechtel travelled as far as the Twenty Mile Creek, near present-day St. Catharines, with a wagon train of Mennonites from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, who had purchased land in that area from Loyalists. "One fault [Bechtel found with the St. Catliarines area] was the lack of spring creeks." So Bechtel looked up an Indian camp and told them what he wanted, a locality where there was good Spring water, as well as good land and good timber. The Indians knew of such a place, so Mr. Bechtel engaged one as aguide . . . The Indian led him to a small creek [in Beasley's BlockNo.2 and said] . . . 'Here is the best spring water in Canada and here is good land and fine Bechtel then approached Richard Beasley at his lionie in Ancaster, near present-day Hamilton. about purchasing this tract. Evidently they reached an agreement, because in the spring of 1 800 Bechtel returned to Upper Canada leading a ca-avan of about ten Mennonite families. On 12 July 1 800 Brant wrote to Claus that tlie Mennonite "[pleople ofwhom I made mention to you when at York [present-day Tomnto] are now come forward witli cash enough to pay the original purchase[r] for about Six thousand Acres of BlockNo. 2 when- ever tlie encumbrance on tlie said land may be removed. I shall conceive niyselfmuch obliged to you ifyou will exert yourself in obviatingtllis difficulty which I have reason to believe may be easily done, As these persons are now waiting here till I receive your answerto this."30 Claus, wlio liad been promoted to the position of deputy superintendent-general ofthe Indian Department on 17 February 1800, forwarded this letter to Peter Hunter, wlio had s~lcceededSimcoe as lieutenant-govemor of Upper Canada. The Duke of Portland, colonial secretaly, liad instructed Hunterthat the interests ofstate were best sewed, at this point, by depriving tlie SixNations ofany benefit arisingfiom their land sales, in orderto undennine Brant's authority as land agent and make the Six Nations accept the Crown's temls for surrendering "further Tracts of Land, as may be necessaly for tlie Public services oftlie Province."" Consequently, on 17 July 1800 Hunter directed Claus to "open the Eyes" oftlie Six Nations to "their real Interests" a~denable then1 "to see through" Brait's self interested motives in selling Six Nations' lands.32Claus then was to wrest control from Brant of all aspects of Six Nations' land sales and land sale proceeds, under tlie guise ofprotecting Six Nations' property. Beasley liad not received a response from Claus before 18 July 1800, when he signed deeds ofbargain and sale fortracts of land in BlocIiN0.2 with both Jacob Bechtel's uncle, George Bechtel, and his brother-in-law, John Bean. George Bechtel purchased 3,150 acres and John Bean purchased 3,600 acres.j7At tlie time, Bechtel and Beang'weretotally igno- rant" ofthe fact that this land was nio~tgaged.~.'They thought tliat because Beasley was "in possession of the Icing's Grant... he was hlly competent to make them a good Title."35 The Six Nations then took tlie "three thousand Dollars" paid by Bechtel and Bean and offered it to Claus on condition that lie provide a partial discharge oftlie mortgage 011 "so ~ii~~clioftlie land [in BIOCI~NO.~]as this sum ofnioney will pay for same." Claus declined to accept "the 3.000 dollars. . . unless it is on account ofthe interest ofthe purchase money due on tlie township." He also refused to "give a quit claini for any tract of land" within Block ~0.2.~~' In February or early March of 1802 Brant visited tlie Mennonite colonists wlio had "paid the money down for tlie lands" in BlockNo.2 and '"as sony to find they were so uneasy respecting theirtitle."" Evidently, by this time the Mennonites liad learned about the mortgage on BlockNo.2. They also knew that Claus was unwilling to provide apartiai discharge ofthe mortgage on tlie lots tliat they had purchased. Brant indicated that lie "would be vety happy to have the business settled as to make them [the Mennonites] secure as they appear to be an honest, industrious people."3x At anieetingwith Claus in May 1802tlie SixNations reviewed the financial transactions that liad taken place between Beasley and Bw~tregarding BlockNo.2. Brant reported that Mennonite colonists had "paid as purchase money the sum ofEl197.15.0" which Beasley liad applied to reduce the principal owing on the mortgage. In addition, Beasley had paid Lost I~rlreritnnce:Alierrafion ojSiv Natiorrs' Larrds in Upper Canada, 1781-1805 97

£1139.7.6 in interest, but was still in arrears by £900.3" Claus indicated tliat he intended to sue Beasley and his partners to enforce payment of the interest due on the mortgage ofBlockNo.2. Brant politely rehted Claus's argument tliat "the cause of delays in Payments and our not receivingany benefits from our Lands were owing to the unfortunate choice of Purchasers who either wanted ability or inclination to pay according to their agreements, and not to any act of government." He pointed out that Beasley had "done everything in his powerto fulfill his Contract, and...could he have ob- tained separate Mortgages as prayed for. ..we cannot think othe~wisebut that Mr. Beasley would have paid us to the utmost Fraction." Forthis reason, Brant pleaded that Beasley "be allowed some time to pursue other means to comply with his fornler agreement."-"'Claus declined to reconsider this request. Claus, as deputy superintendent-general ofthe Indian Department, appeared to be on the verge ofgaining exclusive conpol over Six Nations land sales and land sales proceeds. Previously, prospective purchasers of Grand River lands Iiad cou~itedon Brant's assistance in "jugling away tlie payment ofthe interest [on their respective purchases] ...till they sl~ould be ableto sell enough [land] to make agood bargain." Claus had subverted these plans by "compelling regular& punctual [interest] payment[sImto thetrustees. He had also threatened that purchasers would not receive credit for payments ~iiadedirectly to Brant. It therefore appeared to be in the purchasers' economic self-interest to negotiate directly with Claus because he seemed to hold the keys of power.41

Pennsylvania Mennonites Purchase 60,000 Acres in Block No.2

Brant hoped that a bulk sale of land in BlockNo.2 to a syndicate of Mennonites, still resident in Pennsylvania, would enable Beasley to pay offhis mortgage and provide a clear title to lands that Mennonite colonists had already purchased fiom him. This prospect inched closer towards reality on 28 November 1803, when Beasley concluded an agreement with Mennonite agents Samuel Bricker and Daniel Erb, subject to the approval of Lieutenant- Governor Hunter. Erb & Bricker promised to pay Beasley, £1 0,000 with 6% interest fioni March 1, 1804 for 60,000 acres in BlockNo.2.'" Alexander Stewart, one of Claus's fellow trustees, described how this came about:

[Tlhree men last month arrived from Pennsylvania possessed of the real cut of monied Dutchmen. who after viewing the land, bargained with Mr. B[easley]. and then had a meeting with Capt[ain]n C[laus] and myself. and upon our assurance tliat the Mortgage [on BlocliN0.21 shall be cancelled when the payment of Principal and Interest was made, they have undertaken to pay thirty thousand dollars [to Claus] previous to the month of May [I 805].43

Hunter aid tlie Executive Council of Upper Canadacould have raised substantive ob- jections to scuttle this agreement, including the fact that Erb and his prospective co-purchas- ers were not British subjects; hence, they could not legally hold title to land in Upper Canada until they were naturalized. However, the interests of state at this point required that the provincial government increase winter wheat production, as an alternative supply of flour for Great Britain, which had been cut offfrom traditional European sources oftrade by wartime ernbargoes imposed by France. Hunter recognized that the growth of Upper Canada's win- ter wheat production depended on colonization by skilled farn~ersfrom the United States. While the governor feared 111ostpotential American colonists as republicans who posed a political threat to the province, Pennsylvania Mennonites were pacifists who favoured the monarchy. Also, Mennonites were willingto help finance the state's military and police forces through their taxes. As Arnold Snyder has written, "what imperialist power would not sin- cerely encourage all of its colonists to believe in passive nonviolence of this kind[?] ... Machiavelli in his wildest dreams could not have devised abetter formula'" The Executive Council of Upper Canada recommended to Hunter that he approve the agreement between Beasley and the Pennsylvania Mennonites:

Mr. Erb on behalf of himself and the other purchasers stated that they were now prepared to pay the su~nof Five-thousand pounds Province Currency in part payment ofTen thousand pounds. 11-hichthey had contracted to give for Sixty thousand Acres of the Block granted to h4r. Beasley and others ...And Mr. Erb also stated. that he and another of the purchasers were ready to give their Bond for the remaining Five Thousand pounds payable with Interest at Six per Cent on the fifteenth of May 1805...[p rovided that they] obtain fro111 the Trustees a Conveyance of Sixty thousand Acres discharged ofthe Mortgage and all other lncu~~lbrancesso far as the Trustees could discharge the same.'"

The report ofthe committee. drafted by ChiefJustice Henry Allcock, recommended to Hunter that the agreement be ratified, subject to a number of conditions. First, all legal and other costs incutred in implementing the agreement were to be paid by Beasley and Erb. The "[tlrust Money is not to be loaded with any Expence wl~ate\ler."Secondly, the capital "should be invested in the purchase ofThree percent Consolidated Bank Annuities in theNames of Trustees forthe benefit ofthe FiveNations." And thirdly, "the Deputy-Superintendent Gen- eral for the Indian Depat-tn~entfor the time being, should in the presence of such Military Officer or Officers as Your Excellency sl~ouldbe pleased to direct, annually distribute the Dividends anlong the Five Nations, in such manner as sl~allbe found equitable ...."J6 Hunter approved the Executive Council's recon~mendationson 20 May 1804. Over the course ofthe following three days Claus met with 'The Pensilvania~~s''to explain the terms ~lnder\vhich the Exec~~tiveCouncil had ratified their agreement with Beasley, to give them a receipt for their first installment, and to take their bond for the remainder. Evidently Bricker and Erb were disappointed at CoI[onel] Claus's insistence that the terms for the final pay- ment n~ouldbe extended for only one year plus one week. After the atrangenlents were concluded Claus reported that in "our presence there was the cause of Several disappoint- ments, my determination was known consequently, none presumed to Make any proposals, but I heard (side ways) of Several that were intended." On finishing the business, Claus said that Briclier and Erb "appeared pel-fectly satisfied with all that was done.'"' However, the resh-ictionoftime forced them to come up with the necessary funds within one year. Bricker and Erb had to return to Pennsylvania and convince their co-religionists to raise enough money to complete the purchase. "Eventually the remainder of the money was wised, through Lost I1111eritn1rce:,Alierrotio~i of Sir n'rrlio~is'Lrr~rrls bi Upper Cnrtnda, 1784-180: 99 an appeal to religious sentiment as well as econolnic ad~antage.".'~ When Pennsylvania Mennonite agents Daniel Erb and Jacob Erb returned to Upper Canada in the spring of 1805,they remitted their final payment for BlockNo.2 direct!y to William Claus. Claus then arranged forthe Pennsylvania Mennonite syndicate to receive clear title to their purchase on 29 June 1805. He also distributed £5 13 "to the Chiefs ofthe Six Nations" on 18 September 1805, "being so much Interest in hand on the Sale of Block No.2 on the Gm~dRiver commonly known by the name of Beasley's Townsl~ip.".'"Finally, lie siphoned ofT&1,998.14.2in expenses from tile principal anount, in violation of Executive Council instructions that "the trust money is not to be loaded wit11 any Expence [sic] what- ever," and personally accompanied the retnainder to England where he was supposed to purchase "Three per cent Consolidated Bank Annuities.""' The Crown managed this, and subsequent SisNations's land sale proceeds, in the inter- ests of state, not in the interests ofthe Indians." It exploited the revenue potential of Indian land sales to offset the costs ofcolonial administration. The Crown ii~aintainedthat the management of Six Nations' lands and land sale pro- ceeds was a political trust for which it need not account. Not until 1984 did the Supreme Court of Canada hold tliat the Crown is legally accountable for how it manages assets of Indian nations." In 1995the Six Nations launched a court action seeking a11 accounting fktn the Crown - in right of Canada and in right of the Province ofOntario - oftheir land sales proceeds, including lands purcliased by Mennonites in Block NO.^.-'^ As of the date ofthis writing, Canada and Ontario have failed to provide the requested accounting

Conclusion

In 1784 Governor-General Frederick Halditnand granted the Six Nations almost a mil- lion acres of lands alongthe Grand River in present-day Ontario, which they and their de- scendants were to enjoy forever. Halditnand and successive colonial administrators viewed the grant as a political trust which was to be managed in the interests of state. So long as colonial administrators viewed the SixNations as valuable n~ilitalyallies, they protected the SixNations' land base. After the ratification ofJay's Treaty on 29 April 1795, they no longer tl~oughtit necessary to preserve the Six Nations as amilitary force. The interests ofstate were now best served by sanctioning European colonization ofthe SixNations' Gland River lands, for the purpose of advancing the prosperity of the province ands civilizing the Six Nations. On 5 February 1798 Peter Russell, administrator of Upper Canada, agreed to confirn~tl~e sale of several tracts within Haldimand's grant. Pennsylvania Mennonites ob- tained aCrown grant for 60,000 acres in this BlockNo.2 on 29 June 1805. The money that they paid for this Crown grant was supposed to have been held in trust forthe use and benefit ofthe SixNations. But it was not. The SixNations currently areseeking an account- ing from the Crown oftheir land sales proceeds, including lands purchased by Mennonites in BlockNo.2. To date, Canadaand Ontario have failed to provide this accounting. Notes

This Article is copyrighted O by E. Reginald Good.

I Tlie material presented is based on chapter five of the author's P1i.D. dissertation, "Crown- Directed Colonization of Six Nations and Metis Land Reserves In Canada" (University of Saskatch- ewan. 1994). The author would like to thank Donald Smith, Kathleen Lickers and Karl I-tele for their helpful comments on earlier drafts oftliis article. He would also like to acknowledge the valuable help of Patricia Kennedy of the National Archives ofcanada. E. Reginald Good is a consultant living in Kitcliener, Ontario. I-te has published the following articles on tlie history of Native-newco~iierrelations: "Mississauga-Mennonite Relations in the Upper Grand River Valley," O17turioI-listoiy. 87 (1995). pp. 155-72: and "Colonizing a People: Mennonite Settle- ment in Waterloo Townsliip," in David T. Mcnab, ed., Earrl7, 1,lbter; .4irar7d Fire: Siltdies ir7 Car7adiar7 Ethr7ohisto1y(Mraterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press. 1998). pp. 145-80. ' National Archives ofCanada RGI 0, Vo1.27. pp. 16288-9 1. Six Nations ~iiinutes.18 April 181 1 .'National ArcliivesofCznada RGI 0. Vo1.787. pp.14111, William Claus to George I-tillier. 16Noveni- her 1818.

j A photograpliic reproduction of l-laldimand's Proclamation is reproduced in F. Douglas Reville. Histor).ofthe Collr7@of Brar7t (Brantford: TIie Hurley Printing Company, 1920). plate opposite p.34. TC.Lucas. ed., Lord D~rrl1ar17S Report or7 tl7e ;lJfuirs ofBritish Nor111America (Osford: Oxford University Press. 19 12) 3 Vols., 357-58. ' C.P. Lucas. ed., Lord D1wllurr7 S Report or7 //re ASJairs ofBritish Nor111ilmerica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912)3 Vols.. 357-58. ' William L. Stone, L!fi ofJoseph Bra17/-T/~ayer7cla,7ega(New Yorli: Alexander V. Blake, I 838), 2 Vols..2:195-96.

" Cliarles Jolinston. The 1 allej~of tl7e Six Natiorw: A Collection of DOCZIII~EI~~S017 tl~e117Cliu17 Larlds of tlle Grar~rlRiver (Toronto: TIie Cliamplai~iSociety for the Government ofontario. 1964): p.xix.

I" Charles Jolinston, ".losepIi Brant. the Gmnd River Lands and the Northwest Crisis." 017tarro Hrstory55 (1 963). pp.267-82 at p.270. " Isabel Kelsay, Josepl~Bra/?/. 17-/3-1807 :Aln17 of 77180 ll'orlds (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1984), pp.588-89. A trust is where one person (tlie trustee) holds a confidence, in relation to any right in property. for the henefit of another person (tlie beneficiary). In most trusts. tlie beneficiary can enforce the terms oftlie trust in the courts. I-lo\vever. in a political trust tlie government is tlie trustee and the beneficiary cannot enforce tlie ternis of tlie trust in the courts. As Mr. Justice Tascliereau held in St. Cutl1eri17eS A,lilli17g R. Lurnber Co. I! Tile Qlreer7 (1887). 13 SCR 577, apolitical trust is "asacred political obligation, in the execution ofwliicli the State must be free from judicial control." " E.A. Cruiksliank. ed.. The Correspor7clE17ce of Lielrt. Goi~err7orJOIIII Graves Sirr~coe.5 Vols. (Toronto: Ontario Historical Society. 1973), 299-1 0 1. J.G. Sinicoe to I-lenry Dundas, 10 November 1793; E.A. Cr~~ikslianli,ed., The Corresponde17ceof Peter Rzrssell, 3 Vols. (Toronto: Ontario I-listorical Society. 1932). 1274-75. J.G. Sinicoe to John King. 7 September 1797.

I.' National Archives ofca~iada,RGIO, Vo1.9. pp.8996-9005, Six Nations minutes. 8 September 1795: National Archives of Canada, RG8; Vo1.248. p.46, Sosepli Brant to Joseph Clie\v. 5 March 1795: E.A. Cruiksliank. ed., Tlle Correspor7der1ceof Peter Rl~ssell,3 Vols. (Toronto: Ontario Historical Society. 1932). 1 :9 1-97. Speech ofSoseph Brant. 24 November 1796.

'j E.A. Cruiksliank, ed., TIE Corresj~~~~der~ceof Lie~rt. Go1~err7or John Graves Sirllcoe. 5 Vols. (Toronto: Ontario I-listorical Society. 1923), 23-5, Duke of Portland to Peter Russell, 4 November 1797. Portland used the word "civilisation" to refer to integration of Indians into Upper Canada's deferential Lost Irrlreritnrrce: Alierrotiorr of Siv A1ntions' Lnrrrls irr Upper Cnrruda, 1784-1805 101 society, wherein they would be taught to accept an inferior or follower role. See J.G.A. Pocock's "The Classical Theory of Deference," il1lrerica17Historical Reviellp8 1 (June 1976j3.5 16-23. for a description of tlie type of society tliat Portland envisaged for Upper Canada. '".A. Cruikshank, ed., The Cowesponder~ceof Lierrt. Goi>errior.lo1711 Grui~es Sirrrcoe. 5 Vols. (Toronto: Ontario Historical Society. 1926). 4.1 82-83, Lord Dorcliester to J.G. Simcoe. 25 January 1796.

l7 The earliest evidence of these collective sales is a power of attorney from tlie Six Nations to Joseph Brant. dated 17 May 1796. authorizing Brant to accept hni Philip Stedriian Jr., Richard Beasley and William Wallace tlie purchase money on Block No. I, Block No.2 and Block No.3, respectively: National Archives of Canada. William Wallace accession, power of attorney to .losepli Brant. 17 May 1796.

IH National Arcliives of Canada, MG 19; F2, Vol.2. Royal Proclamation. 7 October 1763. " E.A. Cruikshank, ed., The Correspo17der7ceof Peter Rrrssell, 3 Vols. (Toronto: Ontario I-listorical Society: 1932). 1:46. John Wliite to Peter Russell.26 September 1796. "' E.A. Cruiksliank. ed., The Corresporider7ce ofPeter R~rssell.3 Vols. (Toronto: Ontario I-listorical Society. 1932)$1 :I 57-58, Robert Liston to David Shank. 28 March 1797.

'I E.A. Cruikshank. ed., Tire Correspo/7der7ceof Peter Rztssell. 3 Vols. (Toronto: Ontario I-listorical Society. l932), 1296-97. Peter Russell to tlie Duke of Portland. 7 October 1797. " Public Records Office. C042. Vol.?83.1F.2? 1-32, Sis Nations minutes. 24-26 July 1797. " Provincial Archives of Ontario. Microfilm of Peter Russell's Copybool; of Indian Correspond- ence. John White and Robert Gray to Peter Russcll. 17 August 1797. " Provincial Arcliives ofontario. microfilm of Peter Russell's copybook oflndian correspondence. Pcter Russell to Joseph Brant, 4 October 1797. " National Archives ofCanada. RG I. E3. Vo1.7. pp.9a-9c. Minutes ofthe Esecutive Council of-Upper Canada 5 February 1798. '"National Arcliives ofCanada. RG 10, Vo1.26. pp. 15202-03. bond signed by Richard Beasley. Jaliics Wilson and J.B. Rousseau. 10 May 1798. "Toronto Public Librag: D.W. Smith Papers. Joseph Brant to D.W. Smith. 18 April 1799. '":or adescription oftlie historical coi~testwithin which Mennonites emi~ratedfrom Pennsyl\,ania to Upper Canada. see E. Reginald Good, Frorltier Cor17117rrr7i/~'/oUrhart Cor7gregatio17:His/oryo"Firs/ Aler711017iteChrrmI~. Kit~17e~~e~; 18/3-1993 (Kitcliener: First Mennonite Cliurcli, 1988). pp. 1-21. '"[Joseph Meper Sclineider]. Harmes Scl717eidcrand His I,l,!fi, Cc~tl~m.irleHa~rs Scllr7eidcr: Their Descer7du17/sa17dfi~r~es, 153-/-1939 (Kitcliener. Ontario: Miriam I-lelen Snyder. 1937). p. 10. Jacob Beclitel subsequently establislicd tlie first distillery in Block No.2. A descendant ~gliorecorded this information recalled tliat ~glienhis grandniotlier (Jacob Bechtel-s daughter) related tliis infornialion. "lhtlicr \\,as displeased at lier nientioning it" and she "never referred to it again:" A.R. Slierl.;. letter Lo W.V. Uttlcy. n.d.> reprinted in [Joseph Meyer Sclineider]. IfartrtesScl7rteidera17dHis H/[fi. Catlrurir~eHulls Schrlei- der: Tl7eir Descer7dcrr71sar7d Ti171cs,/53-/-1939 (Kitchener. Ontario: Mirialii I-lelen Snyder. 1937). p.28. "' State I-listorical Society of Wisconsin. Draper Collection. Brant Manuscripts. VoI.:!I. Filelo. .losepli Brant to William Claus, 12 Suly 1800. ''Public Records Office, C042, Vo1.324.11'.64-72. tlie Duke ofPortland to Peter I-lunkr. I 1 June 1799. "National Archives ofCanada, RG8. Vo1.208. p.289. I-lunter's secretary. James Green. to M'illiam Cla~~s,17.luIy 1800. :' University of Waterloo. Special Collections, Copybook #65 for Waterloo County. " Public Records Office. C042. Vo1.342. IT.126-31. Henry Allcock to George Shec. 13 March 1806.

?' Public Records Oflice, C042, Vo1.342. fi: 126-3 1. I-lcnry Allcock to Georze Shee. 14 March 1806. '"State I-listorical Society of Wisconsin. Drapercollection. Brant Manuscripts, Vo1.2 I. Filc 68-7 I, SixNations minutes, 120-21 July 18001. '' Toronto Public Library. D.W. Smilli Papers. .losepli Brant to D.M1. Smith. 6 March 1802. 'Toronto Public Library, D.W. Smith Papers, Joseph Brant to D.W. Smith, 6 March 1802. "Toronto Public Librar): D.M! Smith Papers. Joseph Brant to D.W. Smith, 17 July 1802.

J1'National Archives of Canada, RG 10, Vo1.789: pp.6883-94, Six Nations minutes, 15-1 7 August, 1803. .'! Patrick C.T. White. ed., Lord Selkirk b Diary 1803-180-1: A Jolrr~~alof His l?ai~els ill Brifisll North Artterica arid the Norfl1easter.11UriitedSfates (Toronto: University of Toronto, 19563, pp. 148-49. -" National Archives of Canada, RGIO, Vo1.26, pp. 155 15-16. agreement between Richard Beasley. Daniel Erb and Samuel Briclcer, signed by Beasley, Erb & Bricker in presence of Robert Addison & Isaac Swayze.

43 Toronto Public Library, D.W. Smith Papers, Alexander Stewart to D. W. Sniitli. 14 December 1803.

-'.' C. Arnold Snyder. The Releva~lceof Ariabapfisf Norilriolerice for Nicaragua Today (Akron, Pennsylvania: Mennonite Central Committee, [I 9841). p. 12.

4jNational Arcliives of Canada, RG 1, E3, Vo1.7, pp.49-64, "Report of a Committee ofthe Executive Council [of Upper Canada] on Beasley's Mortgage," I8 May 1804. -"'National Archives of Canada, RG 1, E3, Vo1.7, pp.49-64, "Report of a Committee of tlie Esecutive Council [of Upper Canada] on Beasley's Mortgage," 18 Map 1804. National Archives ofcanada, RG10, Vo1.26, 15524-25, William Claus to Henry Allcock. 29 May 1801. John English and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kifclterier: .41i 111,rsrrafed Hisior-~~(Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier, 1983). p.6. For a description of the beginnings of Mennonite church life in the present-day Kitchener-Waterloo area, see E. Reginald Good, Frotitier Corilrnlrrti@fo Urbari Corigregatiotl: his tor^^ qfFirsf Alerir~oriiteCltlrrch, Kitcl~elter;18/3-1998 (I(itc1iener: First Mennonite Cliurch, 1988). pp.22- 35. "'National Archives ofcanada, RGIO. Vol.1, pp.465-66. receipt for currency paid to William Claus for distribution, 18 September 1805. jl'National Arcliives ofCanada Claus Papers. Vol. 16. pp. 143-44. "Sir John Johnson Bart. in acc[oun]t with William Claus Esq. for monies received for the use ofthe Six Nations Indians,"20 September 1806; National Arcliives ofcanada. RGI. E3. Vo1.7,49-64, "Report of a Committee ofthe Executive Council on Beasley's Mortgage," 18 May 1804.

j' Six Nations' "funds, lands and nat~iralresources'' were appropriated, for example. to build the Grand River Navization Company: Bruce Hill. in "The Grand River Navigation Company and the Six Nations Indians." OrifarioHisto1)~63(1971)1, pp.31-40. at p.40.

j' Glrerb~I! R. [I9841 2 S.C.R. 335.

j' "Amended Statement ofclaim, between tlie Six Nations ofthe Grand River Band of Indians and the Attorney General of Canada and I-ler Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario," Ontario Court of Justice. General Division. Brantford, Ontario, file no. 406195.26 April 1995.