News

Treaty No. 3 (1792)

Written by on

The Between the Lakes Purchase (1792)
By Dr. Brittany Luby & Dr. Alison Norman with HIST*1050*02 as part of an experiential learning collaboration with The Ontarion

The Between the Lakes Purchase (1792) between the Crown and the Mississauga Nation, was to allow Indigenous and settler populations to co-exist in the region “forever.” This agreement is also known as Treaty No. 3 (1792) and will be hereafter referred to in this article as Treaty Three. Urban centres that now exist on Treaty Three lands include Guelph, Hamilton, Burlington, London, St. Catharines, Woodstock, and Grimsby. The Mississauga Nation continues to thrive with many descendants living at Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

Brittany Luby: How might Loyalist settlement have created a need for treaty in the area that is now known as Guelph?

HIST*1050: There was an influx of Loyalists to what would become the Guelph area following the American Revolutionary War (1775-83). These Loyalists were people living in the Thirteen Colonies who supported the British Crown during the war. After the war ended, tens of thousands of Loyalists were exiled from America and sought refuge in British North America (BNA). In addition to Anglo-American Loyalists, Six Nations allies of the Crown also looked to build a future in BNA. In order to provide areas for settlement for the Loyalists, British colonial agents sought to acquire land from Indigenous peoples. As a result, the Crown entered into treaty negotiations with the Indigenous peoples of this area, the Mississaugas of the Credit River.

BL: Which legal precedent existed for treaty negotiations?  

Randal Bagg: Treaty Three was negotiated and completed under the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which stated that any land not previously ceded by or purchased from First Nations was reserved for First Nations. Therefore, the Crown needed to treat (or negotiate a treaty) for lands in Mississauga territory before Loyalist colonists or Six Nations allies could legally (under colonial law) settle in what would become Ontario.

Yasmine Milardovic: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 stipulates that “the several Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom We are connected… should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.”

Alison Norman: Who represented “Our Sovereign Lord George the Third” during the treaty negotiations?

Megan Bouck: John Graves Simcoe, who was the first governor of Upper Canada, represented the Crown in 1792.

AN: Who represented the “Messisague Indian Nation” in 1792?

BL & AN: The Crown identified Mississauga negotiators Wavakanyne, Nannibosure, Pokquawr, Nanaughkawestrawr, Peapamaw, Tabendau, Sawainchik, Peasanish, Wapamanischigun, Wapeanojhqua by name. It was also noted that “Sachems and War Chiefs and Principal Women” helped to shape the treaty.

AN: What might the presence of “War Chiefs and Principal Women” teach us about the nature and/or importance of these treaty negotiations?

Arjun Playa: The presence of both “War Chiefs” and “Principal Women” suggests that the Mississaugas wanted to represent and to consider the needs of every member of their community.

Tina Michaud: It meant that women had a position in Mississauga society, they had a role to play, and their presence and opinions mattered.

Caroline Bridge: Due to the large bodies of water being dealt with in Treaty Three, we can speculate that input from the Nation’s women was important. Women in Anishinaabe culture, of which the Mississaugas are a part, are considered “Keepers of Water,” meaning that when it came to the usage of water, their word was likely to have been considered invaluable in 1792.

BL: To whom, according to the written terms of the treaty agreement, would the land belong upon the conclusion of negotiations?

Rowan Gladish: The written terms of the treaty agreement as published by Canada state that the British Crown would own the land upon the conclusion of negotiations. The British Crown is referred to as “His Brittanick Majesty, His heirs and successors.”

BL: What did the Crown guarantee to the Mississauga in return for “the woods, ways, paths, waters, watercourses” in the “parcel of land belonging”?

Randal Bagg: The Mississaugas received “the sum of eleven hundred and eighty pound, seven shillings and fourpence of lawful money of Great Britain” for the preliminary Indenture signed in 1784. In 1792, the Mississaugas received “the further consideration of five shillings of lawful money of Great Britain.” The Treaty Three text suggests that these amounts were paid in goods through the “delivering of these presents.”

AN: How long was Treaty Three to last?

Shannon R. Fleming: Treaty Three states that it will last forever. The notion of forever is also indicated by saying that the area covered by Treaty Three will belong to the heirs and successors of “His Brittanick Majesty.”

Allison Williams: It is important to note that many Indigenous peoples view (and viewed) treaties as relationships that need to be maintained. It is unlikely that the Crown’s intentions to seize the land from them once and for all would have been viewed as a final transaction.

BL: Many First Nations argue that treaty was a nation-to-nation agreement, or an agreement between equal parties. Settler-colonists, however, desired a hierarchical relationship. What sort of hierarchy, if any, is coded into Treaty Three?  

Allison Williams: The British often relied on physical written documentation, such as Treaty Three, to officially record an agreement between parties. Indigenous groups often relied on the ceremony to validate new agreements. Oral decisions were considered as important as written terms to Indigenous peoples. The Crown’s reliance on the written form of treaty implies a hierarchical relationship. In short, European legal traditions were favoured over Indigenous legal traditions.

Caroline Bridge: Settler-colonists encoded a hierarchical relationship between themselves and the Mississauga Nation through Treaty Three. This can be observed in the use of language when addressing King George III versus the Chiefs of the Mississauga. Indigenous leaders are named once. They are subsequently referred to as the “Chiefs and principal women.” Conversely, King George III is frequently addressed with his full title, partial titles, and with honors. This subtly places King George III’s participation at a higher level of importance than that of the Mississauga Chiefs and women.

Hayden McDonald: In the text of Treaty Three, Indigenous place names are neglected in favour of their English versions. The British assumed authority by renaming the land.

BL: Which disagreements surrounding the terms of Treaty Three should Guelph residents be aware of?

Randal Bagg: The Crown assumed control over waterways through Treaty Three. The Mississaugas assert that Treaty Three did not cover water and water resources. Indeed, there is ambiguity in the language related to water ownership. The text in one section includes “waters, water courses” in the sale, but a following section says “the navigation of the said rivers and lakes should be open and free for His vessels and those of His subjects.”

AN: Treaty Three, as published by the Crown, suggests that negotiations were facilitated by a translator. How might the presence of a translator help to explain conflicting understandings of Treaty Three?

Tina Michaud: As we know the English language has many words that sound the same with different meanings and possible interpretations, which also might be the same for Indigenous languages. Exact translation is difficult to achieve when we work in approximations.

BL: What can U of G students and Guelph residents do about Treaty Three?

BL & AN: This treaty is still active today. As a beneficiary of this treaty, you have a responsibility to engage with the text to better understand your rights. Read both Crown and Mississauga interpretations of Treaty Three. It was signed by two parties — therefore, we must read and understand documents produced by both nations in forming our perspective.

You can learn about the Crown’s perspective through the website of the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs. You can learn about the Mississauga perspective through the website of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

This content was generated in a Treaty No. 3 (1792) workshop co-hosted by Dr. Brittany Luby of the University of Guelph and Dr. Alison Norman of Trent University. Dr. Luby specializes in Anishinaabe history while Dr. Norman is a historian interested in treaties, Indigenous-Crown relations, and women’s history.

Maps obtained via Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation website
Portraits courtesy of Brittany Luby and Alison Norman
Class photo by Alora Griffiths/The Ontarion