Introduction: Hudson’s Bay Company Profile
The Hudson’s Bay Company presently operates retail stores throughout Canada and although the company is currently American owned, it takes part in a significant portion of Canadian history and has had a paramount role in the establishment of a European presence in North America.
The Hudson’s Bay Company was initially established as a trading company to trade with the indigenous people of North America for furs, specifically beaver furs. The Hudson’s Bay Company managed to set up the initial infrastructure of what eventually became Canada and was, for a time, the sole component in exploring Rupert’s Land and creating many trading forts and routes throughout the wild, unsettled country.
This role of trailblazer that was assumed by the Hudson’s Bay Company involved the creation of new relationships with the Native Indians that called this vast realm home. These unique relationships were forged through a common interest and curiosity that managed to bridge the inevitable gaps in cultural understanding to construct a unique affiliation despite the obvious cultural disparity that existed.
The influence of encroaching European culture, through trade and later settlement, brought with it an irrevocable and inevitable change in the lives of all of the indigenous, aboriginal peoples that inhabited the immense continent. The Hudson’s Bay Company was built and maintained through this precarious relationship of trade with these Native Indians but it was not alone in forming an exchange relationship with them.
The financially viable prospects that accompanied the wide availability of furs in North America led to the Hudson’s Bay Company inexorably facing trading competition in the form of independent traders and eventually rival trading companies. This competition ultimately resulted in a merger with the Northwest Company. The Hudson’s Bay Company eventually ceded all the lands that it claimed to Canada shortly after confederation.
The Hudson’s Bay Company has the honour of being one of the oldest companies in the world that remains active. The long-lived trading company was established and chartered on May 2, 1670 and incorporated by King Charles the Second. The Hudson’s Bay Company had been established with multiple purposes in mind; the opportunity to secure an expansionist foothold in the new world, an attempt to find a route to the fabled Northwest passage, and the understandable monetary interest in trading for furs.1
King Charles the Second sponsored a ship, the Eaglet, to undertake an ultimately unsuccessful Royal Navy voyage in 1667. The ship experienced problems in a storm, suffered damages, and was forced to return to England. Fortunately, a collection of private investors accompanied the Eaglet in another ship called the Nonsuch.
The Nonsuch was successful in arriving in North America, landed on September 29, 1668 at James Bay, and founded Fort Rupert. The following spring, after the break-up of the iced over waterways, the peoples native to the region traversed the Rupert River to trade furs. The crew of the Nonsuch left to return to England with the ship fully loaded with furs once the trading process was completed.
This successful expedition signaled that chartering the Hudson’s Bay Company was a worthwhile Endeavour for Charles the Second. He awarded the charter to his cousin Prince Rupert who had the honor of the region, Rupert’s Land, soon becoming his namesake.2 The charter of the Hudson’s Bay Company granted the exclusive rights to trade in all regions where the waterways flowed into Hudson’s Bay.
This charter deemed that the Hudson’s Bay Company had trading control over one third of the territory that is now Canada. The exact boundaries were never absolutely defined but the broad expectation was that the limits stretched from the Rocky Mountains to Labrador West to East. The Hudson’s Bay Company was allowed to create its own laws and restrictions to maintain order within the boundaries of this territory.3
The Hudson’s Bay Company traded for furs exclusively for two hundred years. Charles Bayley was instated as the first overseas Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company and upon his arrival at Hudson Bay, he confirmed a trading treaty with the native peoples. Over the course of the next few years he had York Factory built becoming the company headquarters, on the Nelson River in present day Manitoba, and through his sound management, the Hudson’s Bay Company demonstrated itself successful.
By the late 1670s through the 1680s, the Hudson’s Bay Company had continued to launch a number of new trading posts around the shores of Hudson Bay and James Bay. It had become a reasonably profitably company and in 1684 the Hudson’s Bay Company pronounced its first dividend. This initial success soon gave way to experience the counterproductive effects of military conflict.
Military encounters with the French were the result of conflicting claims of monopolistic trade rights by the French in Hudson Bay. The French and La Compagnie du Nord challenged the monopoly on the valuable fur trade claimed by the Hudson’s Bay Company. This unwanted competition resulted in war in North America between England and France.
The conflict spanned from March 1686 until 1713, overlapping into the War of the Spanish Succession. The French raided several Hudson’s Bay Company forts taking Moose Factory, Rupert House, and Fort Albany. The Treaty of Utrecht signaled the end of military action between France and England for a period of thirty-one years and resulted in favorable conditions for the Hudson’s Bay Company.
All of the trading posts, forts, and lands taken from the Hudson’s Bay Company by the French were to be returned. The initial loss of the forts and the subsequent disruption to the established trade left the company in debt. The Hudson’s Bay Company was forced to borrow money to pay interest to its creditors.
James Knight was hired as an administrator out of England to recover York Factory from the French. York Factory was in a ruined state when compared to its circumstances prior to its capture some twenty seven years earlier. Knight proceeded to re-establish the monopoly on fur trading that the Hudson’s Bay Company used to enjoy and pushed the company to once again become profitable.4 Economic growth was steady and the company found itself in an increasingly comfortable situation with the absence of direct competition.
The steady profits seen by the Hudson’s Bay Company largely prevented any attempts at expansion further west or inland. The company remained focused on trading for furs from the Hudson Bay Area, with the brief exception of interest in exploration and development of mineral deposits. This interest was, however, brief and futile.
The company remained situated only in and around the Hudson Bay area with little significance placed upon the idea of expansion. This can be attributed to a simple lack of necessity to expand inland as well as the vast majority of Hudson’s Bay Company employees being recruited from the Orkney Islands.
Throughout the eighteenth century, the clear bulk of employees originated from the Orkney Islands. This predominance of Orkney employment meant that Hudson’s Bay Company employees had a clear lack of knowledge of canoe building, which prevented the possibility of moving inland as river transportation was the only realistic method of shipping furs and supplies within Rupert’s Land on a commercial scale.
Furthermore, the Orkney employees had no experience traveling the North American river system. Finally, the company did not have a mobile food supply, which meant that they did not heard animals to feed their employees.5 Although the Hudson’s Bay Company did provide a sense of stability and security for their employees, who at this time were all men.
At last, the Hudson’s Bay Company did not want their employees getting involved with native women nor did they want to be liable for them and their families. However, the role of Native women in the fur trade was critical to the success of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Their knowledge of Native languages, trading routes, customs and culture, and survival made them indispensable to their European trader husbands.
Competition in the Fur Industry
Competitiveness in the business environment is never new and it existed even in the ancient business environment. The business environment is characterized by new entry and exit of firms. However, within an industry, there exist dominant firms that have large capital outlays and enjoy large-scale economies of scale as they produce and sale products in large scale.
The dominant firms also possess large market shares compared to other small and medium companies in the industry. The fur industry in which the Hudson Bay fur company traded is no different to the above descriptions as it had large industry players such as The Hudson Bay Company and other competitors.
Competition within the industry was high as the firm faced increased competition. The major competitor of Hudson Bay Corporation was the North West Company. However, other competitors in the industry included the New Netherland Company, American Fur Company and the Russian-American Company.
The North West Company was competing in the industry as a younger firm when compared to Hudson Bay because it was established later in 1779 as compared to 1670 when Hudson was incorporated. The competition between these two companies was very intense to the extent of realizing in a few skirmishes in which the firms fought over market territories. However, the two companies merged in 1821.
The New Netherlands Company was another competitor in the fur industry in North America. The firm was established by Dutch fur traders in British North America on behalf of the Dutch East India. The traders had been sent on an expedition by the Dutch East India to establish the viability of the region for conducting business.6
On arrival in the region, they wanted to establish the existence of the Northwest Passage for their business. In the course, they wanted to maximize their profits from trade and thereby ended up establishing the New Netherlands Company in 1614 through a charter of trading privileges that was given to them by the Estates General.
The company only operated for a period of three years until 1618 before paving way for the operations of the Dutch west India Corporation in 1621, that operated and provided competition for Hudson’s Bay Corporation in the fur trade.
The American Fur Corporation was incorporated in 1808 to compete in the fur trade. The company offered stiff competition to other competitors in 1830 and it eventually became the dominant firm in the industry. In spite of its successes, the firm faced many challenges and exited the industry in 1842.
The last major competitor was the Russian state firm that was the country has first publicly traded company that was incorporated in 1799. From the above competitors, it is evident that the Hudson Bay Corporation was the oldest and the firm that survived most odds to become the dominant firm in the trade of fur in the British North America.7 Although some of the firm became dominant, their leadership in the industry was short lived and they still left Hudson’s Bay to continue.
Company Growth
Early History
As indicated earlier, Hudson’s Bay Corporation was incorporated in May 1670 under the charter of the King through his cousin Rupert. The charter for the company enabled the firm to trade in fur. However, other subsequent charters altered the initial charter thereby enabling the company to trade in any other type of commerce.8
The firm began as an adventure firm of England trading in Hudson’s Bay with the governor acting as the chair with the people involved in adventures comprising of major stockholders in the firm (proprietors). The firm was established as a joint stock with the trading of the stock of the firm requiring the consent of the governor and the committee.
The struggled with existence and monopoly of the fur trade since its existence as it did not have adequate capital to finance its entire activities. However, the firm sought capital for financing its activities and in 1863, it offered its shares for sale in a public open stock exchange. Therefore, the company had enough capital for financing its activities consequently resulting to its continued market dominance.9
The 1670 charter provided the firm with a full mandate of being the owner and proprietor of Rupert’s land that surrounded the drainage of Hudson Bay. The land was big and large since it comprised more than a third of Canada.
The Monarch gave the land to the firm, as he believed that since no other monarch had claimed the land, it was his mandate to determine the owner. In spite of the benefits that the firm had accrued from the ownership of the land, it gave it back to the crown in 1870 where the land was incorporated back into the new Canadian Dominion.10
The land Exchange
In May of 1859, the real pressure on the Hudson’s Bay Company began when its charter came up for review in the British Parliament. Many companies signed petitions challenging the monopoly of the Hudson’s Bay Company. There was also a threat that without a powerful political foundation, the United States might take claims to the Canadian West.
To deal with these issues, a special British parliament committee was formed to review the case. The committee asked a series of questions and heard testimony from some 25 witnesses, among them was George Simpson. As a result, the committee decided the Hudson’s Bay Company must begin to turn over all the land that could be colonized to Canada. 11
This transfer of land back to the British crown in 1870 was known as the Deed of Surrender, and the development of the Canadian west began. Under this deed, the company was allowed every privilege of a private trading corporation without exceptional taxation. They also received some cash and seven million acres of fertile land that was gradually sold over the next 85 years.
From this point on, the Hudson’s Bay Company began to emerge into its present day form. It marked the end of a great chapter in history for the Hudson’s Bay Company and the beginning of modern day Canada. Because of Canada’s confederation in 1867, the new country was ready to take over the land.
Over the next 30 years, over two million people settled west of the Great Lakes, and never before had such drastic changes been required by an organization. This proved to be a challenge for the 200-year-old company. What had once been a monopoly was now exposed to every form of competition all across the country.
After 1870, the fur trade continued, however new areas of business began to spring up. A wholesale department was created and a series of Hudson’s Bay Company retail stores began to expand across Canada. The man who guided the company through these times was Donald A. Smith, who became the company’s commissioner in 1871. Smith was known for his extreme skill as an international financier, and for his ability to attract investors.12
Trade
By 1749, the Hudson’s Bay Company had only four or five coastal trading posts and about 120 employees. In 1774, a hundred and four years after it was founded, the Hudson’s Bay Company finally established its first inland post named Cumberland House, on Pine Island Lake.
A little more than a decade after this, a string of posts were established along the Saskatchewan River. Trade increased immensely during these years and during the French wars from 1778 to 1783, the company was strong enough to bear a 500,000-pound loss. The original capital of the company was about 110,000 pounds.
The Northwest Company was also a merging company of powerful rivals that were typically Scottish-Canadian traders from Montreal. It was originally formed in 1784 by some Montreal fur trading companies. New trading routes and trading posts were established because of the Northwest Company.
The Northwest Company set up Fort Alexander (near present-day Winnipeg) right beside the Hudson’s Bay Company post of Fort Garry. Alexander Mackenzie was the man in charge and, in defiance of the charter, pushed his crew up to the Northwestern Arctic to the Pacific. However, both companies were growing weary of competing against each other, as it prevented growth in both organizations.
On March 26, 1821, the Hudson’s Bay Company, represented by Edward Ellice, and the Northwest Company, represented by Simon McGillivary, decided to amalgamate.13 The result was the most powerful fur trading company on the continent. The company’s empire spanned across all of modern Canada, with the exception of the Great Lakes basin and the Atlantic Provinces.
Also involved in the merger between the two companies, was the acting Governor-in-Chief of Rupert’s Land, George Simpson. Over the next 40 years, Simpson ruled North America and under his careful eye, the Hudson’s Bay Company was able to achieve its greatest financial success.
Simpson’s first task was reorganizing the Hudson’s Bay Company fur trading operation, and in a short time, order and efficiency was maintained. Posts began to occupy permanent positions along waterways, rather than being constantly relocated, and in places where two posts competed, one was shut down.
For many years, the Hudson’s Bay Company enjoyed the stability of its monopoly. The company made huge strides in expanding its territory, under strict rules of George Simpson. In 1826, Simpson was appointed the Governor for the northern and southern departments of Rupert’s Land.14
In 1841, Queen Victoria knighted George Simpson because of his outstanding achievements, and after receiving his knighthood, Sir Simpson took an overland trip around the world traveling across British North America, Asia, Russia, and Europe. Those who worked for him spoke of his efficiency and ambition. He continued to work for the company until his death in 1860; however, he influenced the operations of the Hudson’s Bay Company for decades after his death.15
The Mergers
Various stages of production and operation that an organization undergoes do exist. The life cycle of an organization also begins with its incorporation, growth, maturity and decline. Many organizations grow at a different speeds and using different strategies. Mergers and acquisitions are some of the strategies that an organization could use to grow and expand its business operations.
Moreover, the strategies could be used to venture into new markets as well as increasing the presence of the existing organization in the market.16 Through mergers and acquisitions, a firm is able to increase its dominance and market share and it grow and expands it operations and activities through a vast target market. In the course of growth and expansion, HBC too underwent various mergers and acquisitions.
The company had to undertake such measures in order to increase its market share and competitiveness in the fur industry in which it faced stiff competition from its competitors such as the North West Company and the Russian-American Corporation.17
The region of operation of HBC that comprised mainly of Rupert’s land had been penetrated by many merchants doing similar business to that of HBC, trading in fur. Radisson and Groseilliers were part of a large group of merchants that had visited the region for trade in fur. However, they found the region very good for trade but they wondered how they could establish a monopoly in the region for trade in fur.
They staked their claims in the interior of Hudson’s Bay and thereafter led to the establishment Hudson’s Bay Company that began by small centers of fortes along the bay as it waited each annual season in which natives brought fur for sale.18
HBC continued its dominance in trade in fur in the Rupert’s land for long (century) until 1774 when the firm realized the need t protect its interests within the region. In a move to protect its fur business interests, it sends Samuel Hearne to establish centers in the interior especially in places such as Cumberland House that was located near Fort Pasquia. In the interior, peddlers were interrupting the supply of fur to the fortes of the company situated along the bay.19
The first effect of a competitor in the fur industry was felt by HBC in 1784 when the North West Company aggressively increased its presence in the region. The North West Company was made up of 9 major groups trading in fur in the North American region. The company soon became the major competitor of HBC as far as fur was concerned.
NWC was founded in 1779 when Britain had enacted a ban for export of goods, guns and other ammunition/goods to any of the American rebel groups. The governor of Quebec who had denied licenses to trade for any traders in Montreal initiated the move by Britain. By establishing the firm, the different groups of merchants aimed at obtaining clout in fur business as they could pull together all of their resources, reduce the risks they encountered while doing business and they would maximize their revenue.20
Although the NWC existed as a group of individuals in its initial years, the members were very hard working and the firm posed a major threat to the existence of HBC in 1783. The firm developed a good organizational and functional structure that enabled it to become efficient in its operations.
The difference between HBC and NWC is that the merchants of NWC were constantly on the move and were building the fortes of the firm right behind the fortes developed by HBC thereby creating a very high competition for HBC.
A good example for such fortes was Edmonton in which the forte of NWC was next to that of HBC. Another difference between HBC and NWC was that while HBC was made up of merchants who did not have the company’s interests at heart since they were not owners; NWC was comprised of hardworking merchants who were also the owners of the firm.
The merchants and owners of NWC were mainly Scots and were bound by national ties thereby worked very hard for the success of the company. On the contrary, HBC directors were mainly noblemen from England and hand kinship ties with the interest in business being financial.
In spite of the advantages that NWC had over HBC, HBC had a competitive advantage of proximity to the Hudson’s bay as it could easily access it through the sea. Through this competitive advantage, HBC could benefit from the fur business in a short business cycle compared to NWC. On the contrary, the business cycle of NWC took longer thereby increasing the costs of doing business in the region.21
Competition in the fur industry was very stiff as discussed above with every firm counting on its competitive advantages. However, stakes that an organization had in the business was also important as it determined continued participation in business operations. In 1811, HBC sold a section of its land to some of its investors for resettlement of displaced highlanders. Some of the investors that bought the land were Thomas Douglas and Lord Selkirk.22
The land sale caused immediate friction between the two dominant competitors in the fur industry as the two began fighting over the land. These evolving activities badly hurt NWC as the company directors agreed to let go the settlement. However, war resulted in 1816 in which 21 people were killed. Both firms were worn out by the turn of events and frequent fights as they had spent much efforts fighting rather than establishing business strategy.
The war was referred to as the battle of Oaks and it resulted in a new relationship between the two companies NWC and HBC as the management teams of the two firms realized that they had to change strategy and focus on long-term business endeavors. The firms began cooperating and courting a merger.
The merger strategy was welcome as the British government was also t of tired of frequent fights. In March 1821, an agreement was signed between HBC and NWC with both companies accepting a merger as the only way forward for doing business in the region.23
The agreement for the merger provided that the two firms pool together all their resources including an estimated amount of £200,000 each in order to begin new business activities as one corporation. HBC emerged the winner as the emergent firm operated under the name of HBC.24
The company that resulted after the merger of HBC and NWC was the largest and most powerful global fur-trading corporation of the time as the firm operated in many regions that spanned across different continents. HBC benefited from the best resources of NWC that included the best merchants, voyagers and regions that NWC had control such as the Rockies and the far north. Therefore, the merger between these two firms marked the end of NWC and the beginning of the largest fur-trading corporation.
The Role of Hudson’s Bay Company in the Fur Trade
The fur trade that was a major undertaking of HBC was very important at that time. HBC brought about increased trade in fur and other retail products. Its merchants could go far places to find fur for sale. In the course of commerce, the firm encouraged rearing of fur-producing animals such as sheep. In addition, the barter trade that was involved encouraged exchange of a variety of goods in the market that was the Rupert’s land owned by the company.
For instance, the inner sections of America connected all posts of the firm that were involved in the trading of fur.25 The merchants of the firm travelled on horsebacks, on foot with snowshoes and led by dogs in search of fur while at the same time delivering other important goods that were used in fur trade.26
HBC voyage ships that it not only used to transport fur, but also people from one region to another. The maritime ships could sail from Cape Horn in North America’s west coast to the arctic region in Canada and the Far East in Russian. These maritime voyages were mainly in the 1900s in which the firm acted as a means of transportation for different people across the world.
Communication is an important aspect of trade and existence of people in the world.27 The travel and voyage activities of HBC enhanced exchange of important information in addition to goods and services as people from one regions could exchange information across all places that voyage services of the company were provided.
Moreover, the First World War saw HBC acquire another role in its fur trade where the firm acted as the main firm that purchased and shipped products used in war for the French government and other allied forces that transported merchant fleet in large scale. The realm of fur trade was elevated by some of the merchants of HBC that travelled to other European territories through well-established courses by aboriginals.
According to Ibister, HBC played an important role in establishing settlements in its large owned land.28 For instance, the company provided a large estate for the settlement of people in the Assiniboine basin. The land was given to one of its major investor, the Earl of Selkirk. The investor was a nobleman that had a wish of settling many people that had been displaced.
He settled the highlanders on fertile land that surrounded the Red and Assiniboine basin, which was acquired from HBC. In spite of the resettlement, the firm continued its control of the land stretching from Selkirk’s estate since 1836 to 1870 when land was given back to the Canadian Dominion.29
HBC’s fur trade played an important role in the development of major cities and towns in the region it controlled. Most of the fur posts were situated in different location for the collection of fur. In 1870 when mush of the Rupert’s land that the firm owned was given back to the Canadian dominion, the firm retained 20% of the land that was mainly in most of the fur posts. Some of the posts that belonged to the company developed into major cities. Some of such cities include Victoria, Edmonton and Winnipeg among others. From the fertile land that the firm was given by the Canadian dominion, the firm began farming activities to supplement its fur production and purchase as it grew crops that could be used in exchange of fur.30
As noted by George, commerce and trade activities are accompanied y economic benefits of a given region or country. A region that is involved in many business activities is bound to grow economically as the residents are able to increase their wealth.31 This follows the availability supply and demand forces controlling the equilibrium in the market.
All those parties involved in business increase their well-being and wealth thereby improving their living standards. The involvement of HBC in fur trade in the North America resulted in high economic conditions for the regions. The good economic conditions of the region could be indicated by the high living conditions and the emergence of towns and trading centers.
As noted by Ibister, establishment of centers is usually encouraged by the services that the place provides and the ease of accessing the central location.32 With easy transportation, other social amenities follow with residents beginning to put up structures around the place. These are some of the factors that contributed to the economic well being that resulted from the economic activities of HBC in Rupert’s land.
Therefore, it can be concluded that HBC played a vital role in the continued existence of the fur trade as it encouraged its production and sale. In addition, its fur trade activities resulted in voyages in which people could travel form one region to another. Lastly, cities and other towns emerged from its fur posts.33
The relationship between HBC and its employees
Employees are important resources of an organization and should be treated well in order to perform well. Like any other organization, there is need for employees to be highly motivated so that they can improve their performance and the performance of the corporation. The moral of employees could be improved in various ways.34
To begin with, an organization needs to offer satisfactory compensation of employees for their efforts. Secondly, employees need too made to feel to belong to the organization. This involves motivating them through such programs as advanced education and training and career development. Moreover, an organization needs to be involved in social issues affecting employees in order to help feel that their employer is concerned about their well-being.35
Hudson’s Bay Company is an organization like any other and needs to establish a good relationship with its employee in order to flourish and maintain its competitive advantage. The company has been dominant in the fur industry for long. The employees of HBC were ordinary employees that did not have any investment shares in the firm. Therefore, they did not share any portion of the profits of the firm.36
This is contrary to the employees of NWC that were mainly shareholders of the firm and shared the profits of the firm. This unique feature of HBC employees could explain the aggressiveness with which they approached fur merchandise in North American region. The employees were less motivated as their compensation was not very high compared to the compensation of NWC.
However, the relationship between the firm and the employees changed after the merger since the merchants of the NWC who were also the owners were awarded shares in the new firm thereby continuing with their hard work.37
Relationship between HBC and the Indians it traded with
HBC traded in fur that was produced by the Indians. The company maintained a good relationship with its suppliers and consumers of fur. The Indians were suppliers of fur as they were trappers. They occupied lands on which they reared fur-producing animals. Just like any other producers, the Indians were responsive to the price of fur.
Any increase in the price could result in increased fur production while any decrease in fur prices could result in decreased fur production. During the period that HBC operated in the region, there were hostilities between the whites and the Indians. However, the firm maintained a relationship that necessitated conducting of fur business between the firm and the Indians. Moreover, the firm avoided warfare with Indians and allowed the Indians to carry on with their cultural way of life.
Conclusion
HBC is an old company that dealt with the commerce of fur in the British North America. The company began its operations in 1670 after being incorporated by King Charles’ II charter. The charter gave the firm ownership to large trunks of land that were called Rupert’s land. In spite of prolonged ownership of the land, the land was given back to the Canadian Dominion in 1870 in exchange for money and a substantial arable land.
The fur business was not competitive at the initial period, as the firm remained the monopoly. However, the establishment of the North West Company by some interested merchants that wanted to increase their monopoly in the regions led to the emergence of the first powerful competitors. The NWC merchants were hardworking, were motivated by the fact that they were company’s shareholders, and could therefore share the profits realized by the company.
The rivalry between HBC and NWC grew from 1783 and became violent in the 1810s. However, it ended with a merger between the two firms. In the course of its operations, HBC maintained a good relationship with its employees and suppliers, the Indians. However, the employees were not as highly motivated as those of NWC’s who were the company’s directors.
Bibliography
Bailey Co. The Hudson’s Bay Company: What is It? London: A.H Bailey, 1864.
Archer, Martin. The Hudson’s Bay Company’s land tenures and the occupation of Assiniboia by Lord Selkirk’s settlers: with a list of grantees under the Earl and the company. London: W. Clowes, 1941.
Balantyne, R.M. Hudson’s Bay, or, Every-day life in the wilds of North America during six years’ residence in the territories of the honourable Hudson’s Bay Company. Edinburgh: Blackwook, 1848.
Barclay, Crista. “Slaves in a Savage Land. History of Scotland.” Scottish Memories, 2011, www.historyscotland.com .
Bryce, George. The remarkable history of the Hudson’s Bay Company including that of the French traders of North-Western Canada and of the North-West, XY, and Astor fur Companies. Toronto: W. Briggs, 1900.
Carlos, Ann and Lewis, Frank. “Indians, the Beaver, and the Bay: The Economics of Depletion in the Lands of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1700-1763.” The Journal of Economic History 53, no. 3 (1993): 467-494.
Causton, R. The royal charter for incorporating the Hudson’s Bay Company granted by His Majesty King Charles the Second, in the twenty-second year of his reign, A.D. 1670. London: Causton and Son, 1816.
Engelbert, Robert. “Diverging Identities and Converging Interests: Corporate Competition, desertion, and Voyageur Agency, 1815-1818.” Manitoba History 55 (2007): 18.
Fuchs, Denise. “Embattled Notions: Constructions of Rupert’s Land’s Native Sons, 1760 to 1860.” Manitoba History 44 (2002): 10.
Gale, Samuel. Notices of the claims of the Hudson’s Bay Company and the conduct of its adversaries. Montreal: William Gray, 1817.
HBCa. Evidence for the United States in the matter of the claim of the Hudson’s Bay Company pending before the British and American Joint Commission for the Settlement of the Claims of the Hudson’s Bay and Puget’s Sound Agricultural Companies. Washington: M’Gill & Witherow, 1857.
HBCb. Report of Proceedings at a meeting of the Hudson’s Bay Company held at the company’s house in Fenchurch Street, on Wednesday, March 24th, 1869; the Right Honourable Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, bart., M.P., in the chair. London: J. Causton, 1857.
HBCc. The Hudson Bay Company, A million: shall we take it? Addressed to the shareholders of the company by one of themselves. London: A.H. Baily, 1866.
HBCd. The Hudson’s-Bay Company, Canada West, and the Indian tribes. SL. London: J. Causton, 1857.
Heilbroner, Robert. “The socialization of the individual in Adam Smith.” History of Political Economy 14, no. 3 (1982): 427-437.
Ibister, Kennedy. A Few Words on the Hudson’s Bay Company With A Statement Of The Grievances Of The Native And Half-Caste Indians, Addressed To The British Government Through their Delegates Now in London. London: C. Gilpin, 1846.
Montes, Leonidas. “Dasad Am Smith Problem: Its Origins, The Stages Of The Current Debate, And One Implication For Our Understanding Of Sympathy.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25, no. 1 (2003): 64-87.
Piderit, Sandy. “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change.” Academy of Management Review 25, no. 4 (2000): 783-794.
Revilak, Alfredo et al. Knowledge Management and Innovation: An Analysis of Knowledge Factors Controlled by Governments and Their Impact On Patent Creation. Washington: George Washington University, 2007.
Steven, Scott. Covenant Servants: Contract, Negotiation, and Accommodation in Hudson Bay, 1670–1782. Winnipeg: Parks Canada, 2009.
Footnotes
1George Bryce, The remarkable history of the Hudson’s Bay Company including that of the French traders of North-Western Canada and of the North-West, XY, and Astor fur Companies (Toronto: W. Briggs, 1900), 61.
2 Causton, The royal charter for incorporating the Hudson’s Bay Company granted by His Majesty King Charles the Second, in the twenty-second year of his reign, A.D. 1670 (London: Causton and Son, 1816), 10.
3 Archer Martin, The Hudson’s Bay Company’s land tenures and the occupation of Assiniboia by Lord Selkirk’s settlers: with a list of grantees under the Earl and the company (London: W. Clowes, 1941), 2.
4 George Bryce, The remarkable history of the Hudson’s Bay Company including that of the French traders of North-Western Canada and of the North-West, XY, and Astor fur Companies (Toronto: W. Briggs, 1900), 56.
5 Crista Barclay, “Slaves in a Savage Land. History of Scotland.” Scottish Memories, 2011. Web.
6 Sandy Piderit, “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change,” Academy of Management Review 25.4 (2000): 786.
7 Yang Dicson et al., “Developing a decision model for business process outsourcing,” Computers & Operations Research 34.12 (2007): 3773.
8 Alfred Revilak et al., Knowledge Management and Innovation: An Analysis of Knowledge Factors Controlled by Governments and Their Impact On Patent Creation (Washington: George Washington University. 2007), 49.
9 Crista Barclay, Slaves in a Savage Land. History of Scotland. 2011. Web.
10 Martin Archer, The Hudson’s Bay Company’s land tenures and the occupation of Assiniboia by Lord Selkirk’s settlers with a list of grantees under the Earl and the company (London: W. Clowes, 1941), 74.
11 HBCd, Report of proceedings at a meeting of the Hudson’s Bay Company held at the company’s house in Fenchurch Street, on Wednesday, March 24th, 1869; the Right Honourable Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, bart., M.P., in the chair (London: J. Causton, 1857), 5.
12 Leonidas Montes, “Dasad Am Smith Problem: Its Origins, The Stages Of The Current Debate, And One Implication For Our Understanding Of Sympathy,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25.1 (2003): 66-68.
13 Bailey Co, The Hudson’s Bay Company: What is It? (London: A.H Bailey, 1864), 29.
14 Fuchs Denise, “Embattled Notions: Constructions of Rupert’s Land’s Native Sons, 1760 to 1860,” Manitoba History 44.10 (2002): 10.
15 Robert Engelbert, “Diverging Identities and Converging Interests: Corporate Competition, desertion, and Voyageur Agency, 1815-1818,” Manitoba History 55 (2007): 18.
16 Martin Archer, The Hudson’s Bay Company’s land tenures and the occupation of Assiniboia by Lord Selkirk’s settlers with a list of grantees under the Earl and the company (London: W. Clowes, 1941), 304.
17 HBCc, The Hudson’s-Bay Company, Canada West, and the Indian tribes (SL. 1857), 23.
18 HBCa, Evidence for the United States in the matter of the claim of the Hudson’s Bay Company pending before the British and American Joint Commission for the Settlement of the Claims of the Hudson’s Bay and Puget’ s Sound Agricultural Companies (Washington: M’Gill & Witherow, 1857), 32.
19 Ibid, 45.
20 HBCb, Evidence for the United States in the matter of the claim of the Hudson’s Bay Company pending before the British and American Joint Commission for the Settlement of the Claims of the Hudson’s Bay and Puget’ s Sound Agricultural Companies. Washington: M’Gill & Witherow
21 Balantyne, Hudson’s Bay, or, Every-day life in the wilds of North America during six years’ residence in the territories of the honourable Hudson’s Bay Company (Edinburgh: Blackwook), 1848.
22 Engelbert Robert, Diverging Identities and Converging Interests: Corporate Competition, desertion, and Voyageur Agency, 1815-1818. Manitoba History 55 (2007): 18.
23 HBCd, The Hudson Bay Company, “A million:” shall we take it? addressed to the shareholders of the company by one of themselves (London: A.H. Baily), 1866.
24 HBCa, Report of proceedings at a meeting of the Hudson’s Bay Company held at the company’s house in Fenchurch Street, on Wednesday, March 24th, 1869; the Right Honourable Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, bart., M.P., in the chair (London: J. Causton), 64.
25 HBCd, The Hudson Bay Company, “A million:” shall we take it? addressed to the shareholders of the company by one of themselves (London: A.H. Baily), 1866.
26 Robert Engelbert, Diverging Identities and Converging Interests: Corporate Competition, desertion, and Voyageur Agency, 1815-1818, Manitoba History 55 (2007):18.
27 Ann Carlos and Frank Lewis, Indians, the Beaver, and the Bay: The Economics of Depletion in the Lands of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1700-1763. The Journal of Economic History 53.3 (1993): 467-494.
28 Kennedy Ibister, A few words on the Hudson’s Bay Company with a statement of the grievances of the native and half-caste Indians, addressed to the British government through their delegates now in London (London: C. Gilpin), 1846.
29 Causton, The royal charter for incorporating the Hudson’s Bay Company granted by His Majesty King Charles the Second, in the twenty-second year of his reign, A.D. 1670 (London: Causton and Son, 1816), 75
30 Scott Steven, Covenant Servants: Contract, Negotiation, and Accommodation in Hudson Bay, 1670–1782 (Winnipeg: Parks Canada), 15.
31 George Bryce, The remarkable history of the Hudson’s Bay Company including that of the French traders of North-Western Canada and of the North-West, XY, and Astor fur Companies (Toronto: W. Briggs. 1900), 35.
32 Kennedy Ibister, A few words on the Hudson’s Bay Company with a statement of the grievances of the native and half-caste Indians, addressed to the British government through their delegates now in London (London: C. Gilpin. 1846), 6.
33 Martin Archer, The Hudson’s Bay Company’s land tenures and the occupation of Assiniboia by Lord Selkirk’s settlers with a list of grantees under the Earl and the company. London: W. Clowes.
34 HBCc The Hudson Bay Company, “A million:” shall we take it? addressed to the shareholders of the company by one of themselves (London: A.H. Baily), 1866.
35 Scott Steven, Covenant Servants: Contract, Negotiation, and Accommodation in Hudson Bay, 1670–1782. Winnipeg: Parks Canada.
36 Ibid. 1674
37 George Bryce, The remarkable history of the Hudson’s Bay Company including that of the French traders of North-Western Canada and of the North-West, XY, and Astor fur Companies. Toronto: W. Briggs. 1900.