In the year 1789 the North-west Company having received information from an Indian, that there was at no great distance from Montreal, to the northward, a river which ran into the sea, Mr. M’Kenzie, one of the partners of that company, resolved to ascertain the truth of this report, by going himself on an expedition for that purpose. He set out, attended by a few Indians; and after traversing the desert and inhospitable country in which the posts of the company are established, he reached a river which ran to the north. He followed the course of this river till he arrived at what he conceived to be the Frozen Ocean, were he saw some small whales among the ice, and determined the rise and fall of the tide. This river was called after him, Mackenzie’s River, and to the island he gave the name of Whale Island. This island is in latitude 69 deg. 14’.
In 1793 Mr. M’Kenzie again set out on an inland voyage of geographical and commercial discovery, taking with him the requisite astronomical instruments and a chronometer. His course he directed to the west. After travelling one hundred miles on foot, he and his companions embarked on a river, running westward, which conveyed them to an inlet of the Pacific Ocean. Here he observed the rise and fall of the tide, and saw porpoises and sea otters. The claim of the discovery of the Frozen Ocean by a north-west route, to which Mr. M’Kenzie lays claim, has been questioned, as well as Mr. Hearne’s claim. It has been remarked, that he might have ascertained beyond a doubt whether he had actually reached the sea, by simply dipping his finger into the water, and ascertaining whether it was salt or not. The account he gives of the rise of the tides at the mouth of Mackenzie River serves also to render it very doubtful whether he had reached the ocean; this rise he does not estimate greater than sixteen or eighteen inches. On the whole, we may conclude, that if Mr. Hearne actually traced the Coppermine River to its entrance into the sea, or Mr. M’Kenzie the river that bears his name, they have not been sufficiently explicit in their proofs that such was really the case.


