Mr. Davies, who is professor of history at the University of Bristol, England, has been the editor of the Hudson's Bay Record Society since I960. His publications include Peter Skene Ogden's Snake Countiy Journal, 1826-27 (1961); Northern Quebec and Labrador Journals and Correspondence, 1819-35 (1963); and Letters from Hudson Bay, 1703-40 (1965). From COMPETITION to UNION K. G. DAVIES THE STRUGGLE between the North West contrast of style is not devoid of substance. and Hudson's Bay companies from 1800 to North West panache was real enough, 1821 can be seen as a clash of styles. On one and North West extravagance more than a side were tbe North Westers, the Cavaliers myth. Selkirk, who did as much as anyone to of the fur trade, flamboyant, extravagant, impair it, acknowledged their esprit de preoccupied with the "honor of the con­ corps.^ But tbe "North West spirit" throve on cern," dashing but defeated. On the other success and withered on humiliation. Lady side stood the Pludson's Bay Company, the Selkirk may have put her finger on the Roundheads: sober, persistent, concerned enemy's weak spot when she wrote to her above all with their own rigbtness and win­ husband after tbe capture of Fort Wilham: ning the charge at tbe end of the day. "Everything in your expedition turns out for Any such stark antithesis demands quali­ the best, and last of all tbe great armada, fication. The Roundheads beat the Cavaliers, with all the warrants and constables, part­ not by being right but with better cavalry; ners, clerks, Iroquois and guns and Congreve and as tbe competition for the fur trade rockets, melts away and disappears, and a proceeded to climax, the Hudson's Bay little canoe comes dropping in now and Company threw some of its traditions over­ then, and one after another of the partners board and fought the North Westers with return to Montreal looking very foohsh, their own weapons. From 1814 to 1820, tbe while all tbe world are laughing at them." ^ company recruited men, spent money, and The contrast of style, among other things, is incurred losses with uncharacteristic profu­ between a company which, in Arthur S. sion; it gave Colin Robertson and Governor Morton's words, "went down to defeat, and William Williams elbow room to show the again to defeat," and yet survived; and a North Westers that tbe drawback to North company that cracked under the pressure of West methods was that both sides could use counterattack.^ them; and Thomas Douglas, Earl of Selkirk, leading his private army to the capture of ^ Selkirk, Sketch of the British Fur Trade in North Fort William, struck a blow at tbe North America, 16 (London, 1816). - Quoted in John Morgan Gray, Lord Selkirk of West Company more outrageous, more Red River, 193 (London, 1963). "cavalier," than any suffered by his own side. 'Arthur S. Morton, A History of the Canadian West to 1870-71, 613 (London and New York, Nevertheless, blurred as it became, the 1939). 166 MINNESOTA History The stamina of the Hudson's Bay Com­ Canadians,'' and of course most of the rank- pany owed something to the conviction of and-file in tbe North West Company were the men who directed its campaigns that French Canadians or half-breeds. The North they were in the right. This had not always Westers liked to see themselves as successors been so. Before 1810 the governor and the to the coureurs de bois who had challenged committee doubted, questioned, hesitated; the English in earlier times.® Must we, then, after 1810 self-righteous indignation pre­ endorse William McGiUivray's lament upon vailed. Selkirk, friend of William Wilber- the coalition of 1821: "Thus the Fur trade is force, was perhaps more fully convinced of forever lost to Canada!" and the verdict of his own correctness than were his fellow a recent historian that in 1821 "Canada's first shareholders. But no one, reading the cor­ major industry had been stricken desper­ respondence between the Hudson's Bay ately if not mortally"? ^ Company and Earl Bathurst, the colonial There is evidence to uphold this view. In secretary, from 1814 to 1820 can fail to notice 1850, to select a random date long after the the conviction of perfect propriety on the contest was over, ownership of the issued company's side and the resolution to oppose stock of the Hudson's Bay Company was al­ any hint that the troubles in the Indian terri­ most exclusively in the British Isles. Of 232 tories might be the responsibility of both shareholders, only four had Canadian ad­ parties.* dresses.'^ Under the successive deed polls regulating the company's structure, a sub­ HOW FAR does this contrast in styles reflect stantial share of the profits was reserved for a contrast between a Canadian company and commissioned officers in the field, the suc­ a British? It is tempting to see the contest cessors of the wintering partners; but in in these terms, and it is not wholly wrong 1850 a clear majority of those officers were to do so. The North West interest was plainly from the British Isles, not from Canada. Of more "Canadian" (whatever we take that eighteen chief factors, no more than three to mean) than the still merely British Hud­ had been born outside the United King­ son's Bay Company. Hudson's Bay men in dom.^ Rather more of the thirty-four chief the field support this identification by gen­ traders originated in Canada or the United erally referring to the opposition as "The States; still, twice as many were British born.^ In 1850 management remained under *This correspondence is in file A.8/1, Hudson's London's control despite the setting up of Bay Company Archives, at Beaver House, Great local councils in the company's departments, Trinity Lane, London, England. largely because promotion to commissioned ° [Simon McGillivray?], A Narrative of Occur­ rences in the Indian Countries of North America, rank (and therefore to membership of these 10 (London, 1817). councils) was ultimately decided in London. " McGiUivray's comment is in W. Stewart Wal­ lace, ed.. Documents Relating to the North West If the stock of the company that ran the Company, 328 (Toronto, 1934); Marjorie Wilkins fur trade in 1850 was in British hands, if Campbell, The North West Company, 276 (Toron­ the men who commanded in the field were to, 1957). 'File A.42/6, Hudson's Bay Company Archives, British born, if the last word in management lists shareholders who received the dividend of lay with London, it might seem indeed that 1850. See also A.10/8 and A.40/8. the coalition and the Act of 1821 were a tri­ " P. S. Ogden and J. Rowand, born in Canada; W. Sinclair, born at Hudson Bay. umph for the United Kingdom and a defeat " Chief traders born in the United Kingdom were: for Canada. But to prove this, we need to D. McTavish, E. Hopkins, J. McKenzie, J. Ander­ show that before 1821 tbe North West Com­ son (A), J. Anderson (B), J. Tod, R. Hardisty, W. Nourse, "T. Corcoran, P. McKenzie, W. F. Tolmie, pany was itself a predominantly Canadian R. Finlayson, D. Manson, J. Bell, A. McKinlay, J. institution to which the interests of Canada Kennedy, J. Black, R. Clouston. F. Ermatinger was could have been safely committed in the born in Lisbon, A. C. Pelly in Pernambuco, and A. C. Anderson in India. nineteenth century. This is not so easy. Winter 1966 167 One of the most important problems, how than the national identity of the companies much of the working capital of the North that successively dominated the fur trade. West Company came from Canada and how Before we conclude that the eclipse of the much from England, cannot for lack of evi­ North West Company in 1821 was an un­ dence be discussed.^" What we do know is mitigated defeat for Canada and that the the origins of the North Westers themselves: opposite result would have been an unmiti­ most, unlike their canoemen, were Scots,^^ gated blessing, even a conference of his­ That they were known collectively as "The torians of the fur trade must face Selkirk's Canadians" of itself is no more significant embarrassing question: "And what is this than the fact that the Hudson's Bay Com­ Fur Trade . ? A trade of which the gross pany was known as "The English Company"; returns never exceeded £300,000, and often both are misnomers in organizations that re­ not £200,000. A branch of commerce which cruited so many Scotsmen. Lady Selkirk, gives occasion to the exportation of 40 or though she put it rudely, was right to insist 50,000£ of British manufactures! A trade on "the distinction between the Canadians in which three ships are employed! This is and the Scotch renegades." ^^ Even in Mon­ the mighty object, for which not only the treal, despite the glittering social life of the rights of property are to be invaded, but a Beaver Club, the North West Company was territory of immense extent, possessing the not Canada. Why, otherwise, did the North greatest natural advantages, is to be con­ Westers find it almost as hard to get favor­ demned to perpetual sterility." ^* This is not able verdicts in the Canadian courts as the the whole story; without the fur trade, these Hudson's Bay Company? How, otherwise, sterile territories would have been unknown. could Robertson and Selkirk have recruited But Selkirk deserves credit as well as blame men in Montreal itself to oppose the North for answering his own question twenty or West Company? thirty years too soon.