THE PUGET'S SOUND AGRICULTURAL COMPANY ON VANCOUVER ISLAND: 1847 - 1857 by Brian Charles Sayle B.A., Villanova University, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History @) Brian Charles Coyle 1977 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY :'fovember 1977 All rights reserved. This thesis may not he reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. - APPROVAL Name: Brian Charles Coyle Degree: Master of Arts (History) Title of Thesis: The Puget's Sound Agricultural Company on Vancouver Island: 1847 1857 Examining Committee: Chairperson: J.P. S angnolo R. Fisher Senior Supervisor J.M. Bumsted H .. J. Johnston W.R. Sampson External Examiner Assistant Professor University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Date Approved:_). -'-'t,..;--, ,,___1_c__,_7 l· 7_·- ii PAR'J7AL COPYRTC11T UCENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis or dissertation (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Lihrary, and to make partial or single ct,pies only for ·such users or ir: re ;ponse to a request from the library of any other university, or other,, !ucational institution, on its ·own behalf or for one of its users. I :.urtLer agree that permission for multiple copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studier;. It 1 s understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Title of Thesis/Dissertation: PROBLEMS OF THE PUGET'S SOUND AGRICULTURAL COMPANY ON VANCOUVER ISLAND 1847-1857 . .., . \L~"'~ (_ ,_._,,, (~ Author: r_-·); 1 (signature) (name) (date) ABSTRACT In the mid-nineteenth century, the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, a subsidiary of the Hudson's Bay Company, undertook to develop several large farms on Vancouver Island. There were several reasons for this deci­ sion. The Hudson's Bay Company was retreating from the Oregon country, recently conceded to the United States, and Vancouver Island was the clo­ sest British-held region from which the Company could continue to carry on its various operations. The desirability of establishing farms had been made evident to the London directors by the profitable results of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company's farms at Cowlitz and Nisqually in what is now the state of Washington. The advent of the gold rush to California heightened the expectations of profit as the directors anticipated a rise in the demand for food. Finally, the directors believed that they could fulfill the terms of the grant of 1849 which gave the Hudson's Bay Com­ pany control over Vancouver Island. These terms obligated the Company to promote systematic settlement of the island. None of these hopes for the farms were realized. Colllllercially they were a disaster, running ever more deeply into debt until the Hudson's Bay Company, the major creditor of the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, had to assume all of the subsidiary firlll's assets. While conditions along the west coast were not particularly favorable to large-scale farming, because of high wages and a shortage of labour, the thesis addresses itself :ma.inly to the internal causes of failure which were numerous. Although the same men were directing the affairs of both the pa.rent Hudson's Bay Company and the Puget's Sound Agricultural Company, the administration of the latter left a great deal to be desired. The entire venture on Vancouver Island was ill-conceived and badly executed. The iii directors exhibited a nonchalant attitude which originated from an un­ founded optimism about the agricultural potential of the island. Why they entertained such a view remains a mystery, because they were given several negative reports of the island and were counselled on many occasions not to attempt large-scale farming there. The directors' optimism was matched by a negligence which resulted in a contradictory and self-defeating system of administration. The administrative structure created numerous problems for the bailiffs who managed the farms, as well as for the agent who was supposed to co-ordinate their activities. Progress was impeded by the conflicts which arose between the agent and the bailiffs, conflicts which were built into the structure itself. Moreover, the directors had a knack of appointing men unsuited to the task of managing the farms, and the antagonisms that arose were intensi­ fied by the personal clashes between the principal characters. The end result was near-chaos. The labour problems which the Company encountered can also be laid at the directors' door. Although they were forewarned about the critical labour shortage prevalent along the west coast, a consequence of the gold rush, and about the astronomical rise in wages, the directors failed to adjust the Company's wage scale to meet that of the free labourers. It did not take long for the Company's workers to appraise the situation and to act accordingly, The Company was quickly placed in a dilemma because if the directors were to raise the wage scale, profits would be sharply reduced. But to refuse to do so would encourage desertions and thus threaten to undermine the entire venture. Basically, then, the Company was the author of its own misfortunes. iv p To my wife, Sheilah, who encouraged m.e throughout my endeavors. V p ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The research for this thesis was made possible through the generous and timely assistance of Shirlee Smith, Hudson's Bay Company Archivist. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ABSTRACT •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iii INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 CHAPTER ONE: PREPARING THE GROUNDWORK ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 CHAPTER TWO: THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FARMS ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 CHAPTER THREE: THE NEW AGENT AND THE BAILIFFS •••••••••••••••••••••••• 40 CHAPTER FOUR: KENNETH MCKENZIE AND THE COLONIAL OFFICIALS •••••••••••• 58 CHAPTER FIVE: LABOUR PROBLEMS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND •••••••••••••••••••• 79 CONCLUSION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 101 LIST OF REFERENCES INTRCDUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 104 CHAPTER ONE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 105 CHA.PTER 'I"rlO • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 107 CHAPTER TliR.EE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •113 • • CHAPTER FOUR ••••• o ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 118 CHAPNR FI VE ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 12.3 APP"E:N'DIX I •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 )2 APPENDIX II ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 138 APPEN'DIX III •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1lf.O BIBLIOGRAPHY •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14-1 vii p 1 INTRODUCTION From its establishment in 18J8 the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com­ pany was intimately connected with the Hudson's Bay Company. One of the manifestations of this close relationship was the manner of raising capi­ tal for the agricultural firm. Only the stockholders and officers of the Hudson's Bay Company were permitted to buy stock in the new company, and the amount each person could own was directly proportionate to the amount of fur trade stock he possessed. Additional factors which accounted for the slow sale of stock were the cost of share lots, £100, and the lack of knowledge about the country where the Puget's Sound Agricultural Com- 1 pany's farms were to be established. At the end of 1853 there were still 2 866 of the original 2000 shares unsold. The ambitions of the Hudson's Bay Company with respect to the Oregon Country were responsible for the formation of the Puget's Sound Agricul­ tural Company. Hoping to preserve a buffer territory between the fur­ bearing lands of New Caledonia and the southern portion of Oregon, the Hudson's Bay Company expended a considerable amount of time and energy in promoting the Columbia River as the boundary between the American and British claims in the region. Almost until the end of the 1820s the Com­ pany argued its proposal on the bases that its employees were the only white inhabitants in the entire Oregon country, and that the Columbia River was essential to the fur trade of the lands west of the Rocky Mountains. When boundary discussions between Great Britain and the United States broke down in 1827, the Company made a feeble attempt to extend its presence south of the Columbia in the expectation that actual occupancy would establish a claim to the land, and that the claim could then be used as a bargaining lever at any future negotiations. But the Company's p 2 most successful tactic was the one used in other parts of North America wherever the Company had encountered threats to its monopolistic influence and control over the fur trade. The tactic was the exclusion of all com­ petitors through rendering the fur trade unprofitable to them. The Gover­ nor and Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company assumed that American set­ tlers would follow close behind American fur traders. By keeping out the rival traders, they reasoned, American settlement of Oregon would be de­ layed. By the mid-183Os there were increasing signs that the Governor and Committee were mistaken. They revised their Oregon policy; the only way to impede the American occupation of Oregon was to counteract it with