Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

country for colonization, but also the profits to be gained by trading in furs with its savage inhabitants. Long before Prince Rupert acted as the promoter of the Hudson's Bay Company, a charter had been conferred on Frenchmen by Lewis the Thirteenth, containing terms almost identical with those referred to above. This was the Company of New France, founded on the 29th of April 1627. Its objects were similar to those of the Adventurers trading to Hudson's Bay. At the time, these facts were imperfectly known. For a brief space the Hudson's Bay Company traded on the territory it claimed as its own without provoking remonstrance from the French. Yet both Englishmen and Frenchmen did not long submit to the monopoly of trade and the rights of possession exercised and claimed by the Company. Unable to check these in a way of which the legality would have been undisputed, and doubtful as to the value of a charter which Parliament had not confirmed, application was made in 1690 for an Act confirming to the Company the privileges conferred by its charter.

This endeavour to secure a Parliamentary title was a skilfully planned strategic move ment. A full and trustworthy account of the proceedings has not yet been given to the world. The following sketch, compiled from the Journals of both Houses, contains all the details of importance and value :

[ocr errors]

which the Company has since kept, and settled a trade there; " that they had suffered serious losses at the hands of the French, and had been "disturbed in their trade by divers persons of this nation undertaking interloping voyages." Leave was given to introduce a Bill in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners. It was read twice in due course, and referred to a Committee. Two petitions against the Bill were received, the one from the Committee of Felt-makers, protesting against the monopoly, and praying for a copy of the charter, in order that they might "give further reasons against the Bill;" the other from Robert Bodington, setting forth that his ship "Expectation, with a cargo valued at £2000, had been seized and confiscated by the servants of the Company within Hudson's Straits. However, the Committee reported the Bill without amendments, and the third reading was fixed for the 13th of May. As it then stood, the Bill was a duplicate of the charter. Indeed, a clause set forth that the charter was confirmed as if it had been "word for word recited and set down at large." But immediately before the third reading an incident occurred of which a distinct explanation is not given, but for which we can assign a probable reason. It would appear that some members had become aware for the first time of the true import of the charter, and were opposed to giving in perAfter the Revolution of 1688, the power petuity that which would have been conferof Parliament was alike increased and ac- red had the Bill become a law. Hence the knowledged in new quarters. Those who following rider was moved, carried, and adhad been accustomed to regard the Crown ded to the Bill:-"Provided always, that as the source of privilege, as well as the this Act shall continue and be in force for fountain of honour, became suddenly appre- the time of seven years, and from thence to hensive of the value of grants made by vir- the end of the next session of Parliament, tue of Royal prerogative. Accordingly, ap- and no longer." It had been proposed to plications were frequently made to Parlia- fix the period of duration at seven years, but ment for aid and countenance. In 1690 a motion to this effect was defeated by a ma"Fourteen years many companies petitioned the House of jority of 32. 11 were then Commons to legislate in their favour, by ordered to be inserted, and the Bill passed. securing to them the rights which had been The next entry in the journals is a signifiaccorded under Letters-Patent. The first cant one. It is in these terms:-" Ordered, of these applicants were "The Governor That when any Bill shall be brought into this and Company of White-Paper Makers;" House for confirming of Letters-Patents, "The Royal African Company " next pre- there be a true copy of such Letters-Patents sented a petition; then followed a petition annexed to the Bill; and that this be defrom "The Governor and Company of Mer-clared a standing order of this House for chants of London trading to the East In- the future." dies;" and lastly, on the 7th of April, a petition was read from "The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay," setting forth that they had been incorporated by Letters-Patent as a company to carry on exclusive trade in the Bay, "with its countries, coasts, and confines, and that the same should be reckoned as one of his Majesty's plantations,

This Act was printed for the first time, along, with other papers, by order of the House of Commons in 1849, pp. 95, 96. An explanation of the incident referred to above is there given; but this is inaccurate, differing as it does from the version contained in the Journals of the House of Com

mons.

+Journals of the House of Commons, vol. x. p.. 412.

As soon as the Bill had been read a first time in the House of Lords, a petition was presented from merchants trading to New York, praying that they might "be heard before the passing of the Bill." This was agreed to, and they were represented by counsel before the Committee to which it was referred. On the 15th of May, Earl Rochester reported, as chairman of the Committee, that the Bill had been amended. This consisted in substituting "seven" for "fourteen " years. Thus amended, it was sent down to the Commons, who assented to the alteration. It received the Royal assent on the 21st of May 1690.

rights based, not on the solid foundation of a constitutional Act, but on the dangerous quicksand of Royal prerogative.

The first legislative inquiry instituted into the Company's affairs was set on foot in 1749. A Committee of the House of Commons then examined witnesses with a view to elicit the truth as to how the adventurers had conducted their operations. This Blue book is a curious as well as little known work, differing as it does in nearly every par ticular from the Blue-books with which we are now overburdened. Instead of entering into a detailed analysis of the evidence, let us merely indicate its scope. All those examined concurred in admitting that the Com pany had confied its trade to the shores of Hudson's Bay; that its servants never ad vanced farther than 100 miles into the inte rior; that settlers were discountenanced, and the tilling of the soil and working of the mines systematically discouraged. We con sider it proved that no claim had been advanced in 1749 over the country which, at a later period, the Company alleged to have been included in the grant, and occupied ac cordingly. In one respect the Parliamen tary investigation of 1749 proved highly fa vorable to the Company's servants. They had been charged with neglecting to prose cute one of the designs which the charter was originally intended to promote, and with having contributed nothing towards the discovery of a passage to the South Sea

In answer to this it was shown that between the years 1719 and 1737 nine vessels had been fitted out and dispatched in quest of a North-West passage. Out of these, two never returned, while the remainder wholly failed in their mission.

By those who have treated this important episode in the Company's career it has been supposed that no steps were taken to obtain a renewal of the Act. On the contrary, however, a vigorous effort was made to get the Act continued. A petition was presented to the House of Commons on the 3d of March 1697, and leave was given to Mr. Edward Harley to frame and bring in a Bill in the terms of the prayer. The words of this petition were not entered in the journals. Some days afterwards, "The Mer chants of London trading to New England, New York, etc.," prayed to be heard against the Bill. A petition was also sent by Cap. tain Lucas, complaining of the capture of his ship by the Company's servants in 1683. On the 6th of April, the Bill was reported from the Committee, with "several amendments." It was then referred back to a Committee of the whole House. Moreover, it was "Ordered, That the Hudson's Bay Company do lay their charter before the House." This was done on the 9th of April, when it was resolved "that the said charter be referred to the Committee of the whole Long before this Committee sat, the Com House, to whom the Bill for confirming to pany had been engaged in disputes with the the Hudson's Bay Company their privileges French as to the respective boundaries of and charter is committed." On the 7th of their territory and that of Canada. An arti May the House went into Committee, and, cle in the treaty of Utrecht related to this after considering the measure, asked leave to point. Negotiations were entered into by sit again. Subsequently there were one or the representatives of England and France two adjournments, but no decision was ar- in accordance with the terms of that treaty; rived at. Probably the Bill was withdrawn. but these led to no result, because neither It is noteworthy that the obstacles to its side would recede from the position taken progress proved insurmountable after the up. It is noteworthy, however, that the charter had been laid before the House. claim of the Company in 1713 and at a later The conclusion is unavoidable that either the date was of a very limited nature. No pre House had proposed to impose onerous terms tensions were then put forth for such an inon the Company, or else that the Company, definite boundary as should give to the "Ad finding it vain to press a measure which venturers" a huge section of the American there was no hope of passing, preferred a continent. If a settlement had been then discreet withdrawal to an open and damag made on the basis of the Company's propo ing defeat. Yet the Company, though foil-sals, we should have heard nothing at a later ed in Parliament, did not give up the game. It has been bold enough to continue for upwards of a century and a half to exercise

period of the Company's rights to a larger area. When Canada was ceded to England in 1763, all the soil over which France had

claimed or exercised dominion became part | This much is certain, that in 1811 a grant and parcel of British territory. Not even of territory extending over the enormous then was a distinct boundary line drawn be- area of 16,000 square miles was made to him tween the possessions of the Company aud by the Hudson's Bay Company. In the the dependency of the Crown. That any following year a number of hardy Scotchmen, difficulty on this score would afterwards arise with their wives and families, left their was not foreseen, otherwise provision would homes at the instance of Lord Selkirk, and assuredly have been made to meet it. In- took up their abode on the banks of the Red deed, the general opinion was that the vast River. They arrived at an unpropitious extent of territory over which the Iludson's season. The warfare between the rival Bay Company neither claimed nor exercised traders was at his height. In one pitched jurisdiction might be turned to profitable battle twenty-two persons were slain. To account by others. Accordingly, in the year the traders of the North-West Company the 1783, a number of Canadians became associ- new settlers were specially obnoxious. ated for trading purposes, under the name of Again and again the infant colony was disthe North-West Fur Company, and began persed by armed and desperate marauders, to carry on trade in the territory which and driven to seck safety in flight. Inexpestretches from the head of Lake Superior to rienced as farmers and untrained as hunters, the base of the Rocky Mountains; some- the settlers were often driven to great shifts times, indeed, crossing these mountains, and in order to preserve life. But they persevered, extending their operations to the shores of for they believed that in a country so the Pacific. More than one company had rich as that wherein they had chosen to done this before more than one did so af dwell, the reward of perseverance would be ter 1783. For the sake of clearness, how- splendid, even if long delayed. In 1821 ever, we will speak of the North-West Com- they considered that the days of their tribupany as if it were the sole competitor with lation were over, and that the era of prospethe Company chartered by Charles the Sec- rity had begun. Then it was that, exhausted ond. by their barbarous rivalries, the two companies resolved to forget ancient feuds, and form a new association in which both might prosecute the desired ends for their mutual advantage. The North-West Fur Company was merged into that formed in 1670.

The success of the North-West Company was as gratifying to its promoters as it was galling to its rival. The latter had prospered exceedingly. It has been officially admitted that between 1690 and 1800 the profits on the original capital were from 60 to 70 per cent. Rejoicing in dividends like these, the shareholders were ill-disposed to brook any interference which might blast their prospects. The whole resources of the Company were put forth to compel the North-West traders to abandon their project and retire from the contest. Bloody combats ensued. The country was the theatre of scenes of brutal violence on the part of white men, which matched, if they did not surpass in atrocity and ruthlessness, the horrid scenes of slaughter in which the Indians gloried. While this sanguinary struggle was in progress, the Red River Settlement was found ed.

From this period dates the extraordinary claims made by the Hudson's Bay Company to exclusive rights to trade in, and to absolute possession of, the territories which are unwatered by rivers flowing into the Bay. In these pretensions their former enemies supported them with a vigour worthy of a more honourable cause. Among those who had attacked the Hudson's Bay Company with relentless energy, who had actively aided its rival, and who, when the ruin of both seemed impending on account of the exhaustion caused by merciless and costly hostilities, chiefly contributed to bring about an amalgamation, the late Right Hon. Edward Ellice was foremost. He had denouncLord Selkirk, a Scottish peer, whose pri- ed the charter as illegal. He had denied vate fortune was nobly employed in further the right of the Company to make a grant ing the philanthropic schemes of a mind of territory to Lord Selkirk, maintaining bent upon ameliorating the condition of his that he ought to be ejected from lands destitute fellow-countrymen, devised a com- wrongfully occupied by him, and really beprehensive scheme for their emigration to a longing to the Crown. At his instigation land where they might easily gain a liveli- the opinion of counsel was taken in 1816 as hood, and would probably rise to a state of to the validity of the Company's charter. affluence. He was a proprietor of the Hud- Three of the most eminent English counsel son's Bay stock. It is said that the number of that day gave an elaborate review of the of shares he held sufficed to give him a mawhole case. Sir Arthur Pigott and Serjeant jority of votes, and that accordingly he Spankic, two out of the three counsel emcould influence the Company at his pleasure.ployed, were men whose legal attainments

were acknowledged by contemporaries to be
very high. The third, who was less known
then, has since acquired a fame which is
universal. It is enough to say that the
name of Henry Brougham is appended to
this document, to satisfy thousands as to the
weight of the opinion as a whole. In know
ledge of pure law Brougham had many supe
riors; in the technicalities of English law he
was comparatively unversed; but few men
of his own or any day were better qualified
for giving a sound judgment on questions
in which serious constitutional maxims were
to be as carefully considered as the precise
legal bearing of Statutes. As the junior
counsel, it naturally devolved on Brougham
to write this opinion. A cursory perusal
would convince those ignorant of this custom,
that no pen but his had produced the para-
graphs to which his seniors gave their appro-
val and subscribed their names. We cannot
quote this opinion in full without unduly en-
croaching on our space. Suffice it, then, to
give the gist of it. This is contained in the
following passage, wherein the extravagant
claims of the Company are conclusively re-
futed. It was contended that all lands within
the Hudson's Straits meant the land stretch-
ing back from the coast into the heart of
the continent. To this the reply is:
"Within the Straits must mean such a prox-
imity to the Straits as would give the lands
spoken of a sort of affinity or relation to
Hudson's Straits, and not to lands com-
mencing at the distance of 900 miles, and
extending 2000 miles therefrom; that is to
of the coasts and confines of the seas,
etc., within the Straits; such a boundary
must be implied as is consistent with that
view, and with the professed objects of a
trading company intended not to found king-
doms and establish states, but to carry on
fisheries in those waters, and to traffic for the
requisition of furs and other articles mention-
ed in the charter." Nearly every law offi-
cer of the Crown, and every distinguished
member of the bar, during the last century
and a half, has been called upon for his opi-
nion on this matter. It would not be diffi-
cult to show that those which appear the
most favourable to the Hudson's Bay Com-
pany are in reality, and on the most impor-
tant points, framed in the spirit of that just
quoted. Should the subject ever be brought
before a court of judicature, there is little
doubt that the views so clearly and forcibly
enunciated by Brougham would in the end
prevail.

say,

After the amalgamation of the rival companies, Mr. Ellice, who had proved so vigorous and indefatigable an opponent of the Hudson's Bay monopoly, became its most

conspicuous and ingenious defender. He was a member of the Committee of the House of Commons appointed in 1857 to investigate the whole subject, and suggest à mode of adjusting antagonistic claims while doing justice to individual interests. No member of that Committee worked more as siduously than he in defence of the Compa ny, then called upon to demonstrate its title to consideration by exbibiting the advanta ges which had flowed from its existence. Having tendered himself as a witness, he fur nished the Committee with the results of his experience. He passed through the ordeal of an examination with a success which would have been complete, had he not failed to explain satisfactorily why his opinions underwent a change equivalent to a revolution. When confronted with statements made by him when the brilliant advocate of the NorthWest Company, he was forced to make the humiliating avowal that at one time he had written with violence against its English competitor, and that, like other writers sit uated as he had been, he asserted many things which it would be difficult to substan tiate. But neither his skill in fence nor his ingenuity in suggestion could remove the impression that after the amalgamation of the Companies both parties had agreed to sink all legal questions in the assertion of boundless claims; that the power of the uni ted disputants had proved sufficient to baffle those who, in the name of law and equity, contended for the subordination of private interests to the public good.

In 1821 the two companies became united. Fifteen years afterwards the Earl of Selkirk died. During his lifetime he had given expression to the hope that thirty millions of happy and prosperous settlers would make the territory in which he had founded a col ony the hive of industry and the granary from which the hungry at home might be fed. His anticipations seemed doomed to disap pointment at the hour of his decease. That they were too high-flown we do not think; that they are still dreams of a happier future is due to the action of the Company which purchased from his heirs the territory in question. Eighty-four thousand pounds were given by the Hudson's Bay Company for the grant of land freely made twenty-five years previously to Lord Selkirk. Thus the Red River Settlement, which the Company had not the merit of founding, passed under its control, to be misgoverned, as all settlements are misgoverned by private associations hav ing trading objects in view, and bound above all things, to provide large dividends for ex acting shareholders.

Pages might be filled with the complaints

Yet

which is named as York Factory, and there
they must pay a customs duty of five per
cent." Mr. M Laughlin stated that procla-
mations had been issued ordering that all
letters sent by post should have the writers'
names written outside the covers, and that
those who have not signed declarations
against trafficking in furs were to send their
letters unsealed to the office, in order that
the contents might be read. All traffic with
other places was forbidden as contrary to
"the fundamental laws of Rupert's Land."
These proclamations remained in force for
several years. They were said to have been
disallowed by the authorities at home.
this mattered little; for, as the same witness
remarked, "there is quite a difference between
the Hudson's Bay Company in London, and
the Hudson's Bay Company in Hudson's
Bay." The last assertion was confirmed by
the Rev. Mr. Corbett, who, after adducing
similar evidence, complained of the impedi-
ments thrown in the way of sending letters,
and who, when pressed to give names, de-
clined, because to do this would draw down
the Company's wrath on the complainants.
One settler, he said, wished to entrust him
with a letter to England representing his
case, but refrained from sending it, assigning
these reasons, "If I allow you to take that
letter, I shall not be able to sell my bushels
of wheat, and I shall not be able to get cloth-
ing for my poor children."* Nor was this
settler the victim to a baseless fear. The
monopoly of trade being in the Company's
hands, the market for produce as well as the
shops for purchase might be closed against
those who had become obnoxious to the au-
thorities. Instances were given in evidence
of the exercise of this tyrannical control to
the ruin of the persons whose conduct was
disapproved by the Company. Hence, when
the floods inundate the plains, or the blight
commits havoc among the crops, the settlers
are necessarily reduced to a miserable state
of helplessness. They are virtually prohibi-
ted from providing for contingencies. They
live, as it were, from hand to mouth, having
no facilities for turning themselves to another
pursuit when the fruit of their ordinary labor
fails. Thus the bad harvest of a year ago
was to them a sore trial. Sufficient help
from the Company they had no reason to ex-
pect. But England and Canada stepped for-
ward at this juncture, and enabled them to
tide over the worst. The necessity for this
interference need not have arisen had the
settlers been free to act in accordance with
their natural requirements, and to employ

which the Settlement has made against the Company. Examples abound of the exercise by the latter of a despotic authority over the settlers which free men will not brook, and under which slaves cannot thrive. These complaints are written in Parliamentary papers, and have been substantiated in evidence before Parliamentary committees. In the Blue-book published in 1857, to which reference has already been made, it is shown how the regulations enforced by the Company interfered with the ordinary avocations of the settlers, and how justice was outraged by the decisions of incompetent and partial tribunals. Repeated endeavors were made to enlist the sympathies of others on behalf of the aggrieved. In 1849, a petition was sent to the Home Government, praying for a redress of the grievances detailed at length and supported by proofs. Earl Grey, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, refused to interfere, on the ground that the complaints were baseless. He formed this opinion after receiving an explanation from the Company; in other words, he believed the version of the accused to be more correct than the statements made by those whom the accused had wronged. In 1857 an earnest appeal was made to the Canadian Legislature. If but a tithe of the grievances recited by the petitioners were well founded, their condition must have been deplorable and heart-rending. The substance of the charges made by them is that the conditions under which they were induced to settle had been violated; that they had no security for their lives and properties; that freedom of trade did not exist; that they were denied the right to govern themselves, and were forced to pay taxes in the imposition of which they had no voice; that, loving the British constitution, they longed to enjoy the benefits conferred by it on all British subjects, but that, having failed in evoking the assistance of the Imperial Government, they prayed the Canadians to extend protection to them, and secure for them the unfettered exercise of the liberties and the privileges which they claimed as their birthright. That these allegations were not made without reason was proved by witnesses before the House of Commons Committee which sat in 1857. Mr. Isbister testified that those holding land at the Red River Settlement, are not allowed to import goods into Red River from any port but the port of London, nor from any part in that port of London but from warehouses belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, nor in any other vessel or ship than the Company's ship. They are not allowed to introduce these imports into any *Report from the Select Committee on the Hudport but one in Hudson's Bay, Port Nelson, I son's Bay Company, 1857, pp. 135, 149, 265, 266.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »