Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:16:46.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Company with Sovereignty and Subjects of Its Own? The Case of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670–1763

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Edward Cavanagh
Edward Cavanagh
Affiliation:
NRF History Workshop, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050,South Africa, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Questions about the ways in which colonial subjects were acquired and maintained, and how it was that multiple and often contradictory sovereignties came to overlap in history, may not be purely academic. We raise them today because they spring from issues that remain unresolved, concerning rights to land, resources, and self-determination. Following recent scholarship on the English East India Company, the author redefines the Hudson's Bay Company, during the period before widespread settler colonialism, as a state (or “company-state”), and in this way argues that the HBC-state possessed its own kind of sovereignty. The article make three main arguments: that it was up to the HBC, not the Crown, to found Rupert's Land, defend its establishments, make alliances with locals, and challenge intruders; that HBC rule extended to cover not only the company's employees but, eventually, an indigenous “home guard” population; and that the HBC welfare regime transformed the relationship between ruler and ruled.

Résumé

Nous nous intéressons aux façons dont les colonies furent acquises et maintenues en sujétion ainsi qu'aux raisons pour lesquelles des souverainetés souvent contradictoires se sont chevauchées au fil du temps. Nous soulevons ces questions, à présent, puisqu'elles abordent des problèmes concrets et irrésolus, à savoir les droits territoriaux, les ressources ainsi que l'autodétermination. Suivant les écrits récents sur la Compagnie anglaise des Indes orientales, je redéfinirai la Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson (CBH), à l'époque qui précède l'établissement répandu de colonies, comme un état (ou Compagnie-état), c'est-à-dire un régime qui possédait une souveraineté particulière. J'avancerai trois points : 1) que c'était à l'état de la Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson, plutôt qu'à la couronne, d'établir la Terre de Rupert, de défendre ses établissements, de s'allier avec les locaux et de se défendre contre les intrus; 2) que les lois de la Compagnie s'appliquaient non seulement aux employés de la CBH mais aussi, éventuellement, à la population autochtone; et 3) que le régime de bien-être social de la CBH a eu pour conséquence de transformer la relation entre maître et sujets.

Keywords

Hudson's Bay CompanyRupert's LandcolonialismsovereigntyjurisdictionlandgovernmentwelfareAboriginal peoplesCompagnie de la Baie d'HudsonTerre de Rupertcolonialismesouverainetéjuridictionterritoiregouvernementbien-êtrepeuples autochtones
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , April 2011 , pp. 25 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., Baker, H. Robert, “Creating Order in the Wilderness: Transplanting the English Law to Rupert's Land, 1835–51,” Law and History Review 17 (1999): 209–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster, Hamar, “Long Distance Justice: The Criminal Jurisdiction of Canadian Courts West of the Canadas,” American Journal of Legal History 34 (1990): 1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Galbraith, John S., “The Hudson's Bay Land Controversy, 1863–1869,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 36 (1949): 457–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Galbraith, John S., The Hudson's Bay Company as an Imperial Factor, 1821–1869 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Gibson, Dale, “Company Justice: Origins of Legal Institutions in Pre-Confederation Manitoba,” Manitoba Law Journal 23 (1995): 247–92Google Scholar; Innis, Harold A., “Interrelations between the Fur Trade of Canada and the United States,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 20 (1933): 321–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Owram, Doug, Promise of Eden: The Canadian Expansionist Movement and the Idea of the West, 1856–1900 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Sprague, D.N., Canada and the Métis, 1869–1885 (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Tough, Frank J., “Aboriginal Rights versus the Deed of Surrender: The Legal Rights of Native Peoples and Canada's Acquisition of the Hudson's Bay Company Territory,” Prairie Forum 17 (1992): 225–50Google Scholar.

2 For “layered” sovereignty see Benton, Lauren, A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), esp. 30–32Google Scholar, in particular n. 88. For an elegant account of how settler governments eradicated the sovereignties of indigenous competitors see Ford, Lisa, Settler Sovereignty: Jurisdiction and Indigenous People in America and Australia, 1788–1836 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010)Google Scholar. See also the sources cited in note 111 below.

3 See Benton, , A Search for SovereigntyCrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ford, , Settler SovereigntyGoogle Scholar. See also Thomson, Janice E., Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns: State-Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Benton, Lauren A., Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar. For the British Empire in particular see Armitage, David, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacMillan, Ken, Sovereignty and Possession in the English New World: The Legal Foundations of Empire, 1576–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

4 Thomson, , Mercenaries, Pirates, and SovereignsCrossRefGoogle Scholar. In Thomson's analysis of extraterritorial violence, mercenaries, privateers, and mercantile companies were the handmaidens of parliaments and monarchs (the true “state-builders”).

5 Stern, Philip J., “‘A Politie of Civill & Military Power’: Political Thought and the Late Seventeenth-Century Foundations of the East India Company-State,” Journal of British Studies 47 (2008): 253–83, 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar [emphasis added]. See also Stern, Philip J., “Politics and Ideology in the Early East India Company-State: The Case of St Helena, 1673–1709,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 35, 1 (2007): 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sen, Sudipta, Distant Sovereignty: National Imperialism and the Origins of British India (New York: Routledge, 2002), esp. 7–11Google Scholar.

6 Stern, Philip J., “British Asia and British Atlantic: Comparisons and Connections,” William and Mary Quarterly 63 (2006), 702Google Scholar.

7 Brown, Jennifer S.H., Strangers in Blood: Fur Trade Company Families in Indian Country (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1980), xvi–xxii, 32–35Google Scholar; Smandych, Russell and Linden, Rick, “Administering Justice without the State: A Study of the Private Justice System of the Hudson's Bay Company to 1800,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 11 (1996): 29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burley, Edith, Servants of the Honourable Company: Work, Discipline, and Conflict in the Hudson's Bay Company (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1997), 1–2Google Scholar; Driscoll, Heather Rollason, “‘A Most Important Chain of Connection’: Marriage in the HBC,” in From Rupert's Land to Canada, ed. Binemma, Theodore et al. (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2001), 83Google Scholar; Nigol, Paul, “Discipline and Discretion in the Mid-Eighteenth-Century Hudson's Bay Company Private Justice System,” in Law and Societies in the Canadian Prairie West, 1670–1840, ed. Knafla, Louis and Swainger, Jonathan (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005), 154–5Google Scholar; Baker, H. Robert, “Law Transplanted, Justice Invented: Sources of Law for the Hudson's Bay Company in Rupert's Land, 1670–1870” (master's thesis, University of Manitoba, 1996), 46, 59Google Scholar; Cavanagh, Edward, “Fur Trade Colonialism: Traders and Cree at Hudson Bay,” Australasian Canadian Studies 27, 1/2 (2009): 85–95Google Scholar.

8 Rich, E.E., Hudson's Bay Company, 1670–1870, vol. 1, 1670–1763 (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 147Google Scholar.

9 Smandych, and Linden, , “Administering Justice without the State,” 26Google Scholar. See also Smandych, Russell and Sacca, Karina, “The Development of Criminal Law Courts in Pre-1870 Manitoba,” Manitoba Law Journal 24 (1996): 201–57Google Scholar. That Foucault was a philosopher concerned above all with a European modernity has not stopped many colonial/postcolonial historians from experimenting with his theories. See also note 107 below.

10 “Governor” in this article refers to the position variously known as “post factor,” “chief factor,” and “Governor” in HBC discourse, to avoid any confusion. Similarly, “settlement” is used here for the immediate acreage surrounding the posts, a term used interchangeably with “plantation” in HBC discourse. It should not be taken to signify a settler colonial situation, which was properly introduced into Rupert's Land by Lord Selkirk in 1811.

11 This was equally the case in North America as in South Asia. MacMillan, , Sovereignty and Possession, ch. 3 and 4Google Scholar; Chaudhuri, K.N., The Trading World of Asia in the English East India Company, 1660–1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 109–20, 125–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watson, I. Bruce, “Fortifications and the ‘Idea’ of Force in Early English East India Company Relations with India,” Past and Present 88 (1980): 70–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 While very similar in content, the HBC's charter did not have the same footing in English law as the EIC's charter did: the HBC Charter was null and void from 1697, and was lucky to escape scrutiny in a London courtroom, whereas the EIC Charter was renewed in 1708, 1712, 1730, 1744, 1766, 1780, and 1793. Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 659Google Scholar; Bowen, H.V., “‘No Longer Mere Traders’: Continuities and Change in the Metropolitan Development of the East India Company, 1600–1834,” in The Worlds of the East India Company, ed. Bowen, H.V. et al. (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2002), 26Google Scholar.

13 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: R. Causton & Son, 1816), 17Google Scholar.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid., 16–17.

16 MacMillan, , Sovereignty and Possession, ch. 4Google Scholar.

17 Bacon, Francis, “Of Plantations,” in The Essays (1601; reprint, London: E. Holt, 1701), 93–94Google Scholar.

18 Mancke, Elizabeth, “Chartered Enterprises and the Evolution of the British Atlantic World,” in The Creation of the British Atlantic World, ed. Mancke, Elizabeth and Shammas, Carole (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 244–46, 250, 254–57Google Scholar. See also Haffenden, Philip S., “The Crown and the Colonial Charters, 1675–1688,” William and Mary Quarterly 15 (1958): 297–311, 452–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Mancke, , “Chartered Enterprises,” 257Google Scholar.

20 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 116–68, 175–249, 301–6, 327–92, 402–26Google Scholar.

21 Rich, E.E., ed., Copy-Book of Letters Outward &c: begins 29th May, 1680 ends 5 July, 1687 (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1948), 36Google Scholar; Rich, E.E., ed., Hudson's Bay Copy Booke of Letters Commissions Instructions Outward, 1688–1696 (London: Hudson Bay Record Society, 1957), 15, 51, 63Google Scholar.

22 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Copy Booke, 7, 19, 62Google Scholar.

23 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 481–532, 587–647Google Scholar.

24 Chaudhuri, , Trading World of Asia, 109–20Google Scholar.

25 The quoted passage is from Francis, Daniel and Morantz, Toby, Partners in Furs: A History of the Fur Trade in Eastern James Bay, 1600–1870 (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1983), 98Google Scholar.

26 The quoted passage is from the Royal Charter, 10. For an overview of native geopolitics see Friesen, Gerald, The Canadian Prairies: A History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), 22–44Google Scholar. Greater detail can be found in separate studies, including Dickason, Olive P., “A Historical Reconstruction for the Northwest Plains,” Prairie Forum 5, 1 (1980): 19–37Google Scholar; Ray, Arthur J., Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660–1870 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974), 3–26Google Scholar; Lewis, Oscar, The Effects of White Contact upon Blackfoot Culture with Special Reference to the Role of the Fur Trade (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

27 Rich, , Copy-Book of Letters Outward, 79Google Scholar.

28 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 493Google Scholar.

29 Rich, , Copy-Book of Letters Outward, 36, 46, 79Google Scholar.

30 Promislow, Janna, “One Chief, Two Chiefs, Red Chiefs, Blue Chiefs: Newcomer Perspectives on Indigenous Leadership in Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories,” in The Grand Experiment: Law and Legal Culture in British Settler Societies, ed. Foster, Hamar et al. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008), 60–68Google Scholar.

31 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Copy Booke, 142Google Scholar.

32 Ibid., 53, 63. See also Morantz, Toby, “An Ethnohistoric Study of Eastern James Bay Cree Social Organisation, 1700–1850” (Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 88, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, 1983), 41–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Williams, Glyndwr, ed., Andrew Graham's Observations on Hudson's Bay, 1767–1791 (London: Hudson's Bay Record Society, 1969), 192Google Scholar. See also Brown, , Strangers in Blood, 19Google Scholar.

34 Morantz, , “Ethnohistoric Study,” 41Google Scholar.

35 Callahan, Raymond, The East India Company and Army Reform, 1783–1798 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), 1–15Google Scholar; Gilbert, Arthur N., “Recruitment and Reform in the East India Company Army, 1760–1800,” Journal of British Studies 15 (1975): 89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 The Royal Charter, 13–14.

37 Rich, , Copy-Book of Letters Outward, 36Google Scholar.

38 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 104, 149–50, 261–62Google Scholar.

39 Ibid., 236–38, 241.

40 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 648Google Scholar.

41 Ibid., 146–47; Rich, , Copy-Book of Letters Outward, 93–95, 99–102Google Scholar.

42 This is precisely what the “non-official” English population of India was doing in the same period. See Klosky, Elizabeth, Colonial Justice in British India: White Violence and the Rule of Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 27–68Google Scholar.

43 Stern, , “A Politie of Civill & Military Power,” 268Google Scholar.

44 Williams, Glyndwr, The British Search for the Northwest Passage in the Eighteenth Century (London: Longmans, 1962), 31–121Google Scholar. See also Dobbs, Arthur, An Account of the Countries Adjoining to Hudson's Bay, in the North-west Part of America (London: J. Robinson, 1744)Google Scholar.

45 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 564–66Google Scholar. See also Thomson, , Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns, 66Google Scholar.

46 Foster, Hamar, “Law and Necessity in Western Rupert's Land and Beyond, 1670–1870,” in Law and Societies in the Prairie West, ed. Knafla, Louis and Swainger, Jonathan, 57–91 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Foster, “Long Distance Justice”; Smandych and Linden, “Administering Justice without the State”; Baker, “Law Transplanted”; Nigol, “Discipline and Descretion.”

47 The Royal Charter, 11.

48 Baker, , “Law Transplanted,” 43–52, 44Google Scholar. Eventually, these substantial legislative powers led to the framing of the HBC's Standing Orders and Regulations, along with a number of smaller legislative safety checks, which were intended to shape intra-company operations. These typically concerned master/servant relationships and labour regulations. For a good study of the HBC's labour system in a later period see Burley, Servants of the Honourable Company.

49 Rich, , Copy-Book of Letters Outward, 80Google Scholar; different versions of this oath appear in Rich, E.E., ed., Minutes of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1679–1684, pts. 1 and 2 (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1945, 1946)Google Scholar. See also Smandych, and Linden, , “Administering Justice without the State,” 33–34Google Scholar.

50 Nigol, , “Discipline and Discretion,” 158Google Scholar. For the EIC's maintenance of “moral order” on St. Helena, see Stern, , “Politics and Ideology,” 10–14Google Scholar.

51 Rich, , Copy-Book of Letters Outward, 36–37Google Scholar.

52 Ibid., 80.

53 Nigol, “Discipline and Discretion”; Smandych and Linden, “Administering Justice without the State”; Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 496–97Google Scholar. See also Robson, Joseph, An Account of Six Years Residence in Hudson's Bay from 1733 to 1736 and 1744 to 1747 (London: J. Payne & J. Bouquet, 1752), 17Google Scholar.

54 Nigol, , “Discipline and Discretion,” 158–64Google Scholar.

55 Robson, , Account, 17Google Scholar.

56 Rich, , Copy-Book of Letters Outward, 40–41Google Scholar.

57 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 496Google Scholar; Brown, , Strangers in Blood, 13Google Scholar; Van Kirk, Sylvia, “Many Tender Ties”: Women in Fur Trade Society, 1670–1870 (Winnipeg: Watson & Dwyer, 1980), 85Google Scholar.

58 Nigol, , “Discipline and Discretion,” 165–67, 168–71Google Scholar.

59 Francis, and Morantz, , Partners in Furs, 91Google Scholar; see also Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 492–96Google Scholar.

60 Davies, K.G., ed., Letters from Hudson's Bay, 1703–40 (London: Hudson's Bay Record Society, 1965), 98Google Scholar. See also Robson, , Account, 76Google Scholar. On the idea of a “civilizing mission,” compare Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 493Google Scholar.

61 Report from the Select Committee into the Hudson's Bay and of the Trade carried on there (London, 1749), 219Google Scholar.

62 Robson, , Account, 76, 82–83Google Scholar. See also Dobbs, Account of the Countries; Umfreville, Edward, The Present State of Hudson's Bay (1790; reprint, Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1954), 33–36, 108Google Scholar.

63 On this topic, refer to the essays in Fischer-Tiné, Harald and Mann, Michael, eds., Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India (London: Anthem Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

64 The Royal Charter, 16.

65 For early EIC law see SirFawcett, Charles, The First Century of British Justice in India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934)Google Scholar; Mittal, J.K., Indian Legal History, 5th ed. (Allahabad: Central Law Agency, 1974), 14–38Google Scholar; Singha, Radhika, A Despotism of Law: Crime and Justice in Early Colonial India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), 1–35Google Scholar.

66 Leue, H.J., “Legal Expansion in the Age of Companies: Aspects of the Administration of Justice in the English and Dutch Settlements of Maritime Asia, c. 1600–1750,” in European Expansion and Law: The Encounter of European and Indigenous Law in 19th-and 20th-Century Africa and Asia, ed. Mommsen, W.J. and de Moor, J.A. (Oxford: Berg, 1992), 148Google Scholar.

67 Baker, , “Law Transplanted,” 52–55Google Scholar; Smandych, and Linden, , “Administering Justice without the State,” 39–44Google Scholar.

68 Baker, , “Law Transplanted,” 52Google Scholar.

69 HBC Archives, B.3/z/2, cited in Baker, , “Law Transplanted,” 52Google Scholar.

70 Baker, , “Law Transplanted,” 55–57Google Scholar; Smandych, and Linden, , “Administering Justice without the State,” 44–46Google Scholar.

71 HBC Archives, B.239/a/2, qtd. in Baker, , “Law Transplanted,” 55–56Google Scholar.

72 Smandych, and Linden, , “Administering Justice without the State,” 45Google Scholar.

73 Baker, , “Law Transplanted,” 65Google Scholar.

74 Williams, , Graham's Observations, 261Google Scholar.

75 Foster, , “Law and Necessity,” 71Google Scholar.

76 Slattery, Brian, The Land Rights of Indigenous Canadian Peoples as Affected by the Crown's Acquisition of their Territories (DPhil diss., Oxford University, 1979; repr., Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan, 1979), 159Google Scholar; see also Gibson, , “Company Justice,” 253Google Scholar n. 15.

77 For two complementary and detailed studies of the captaincy systems and home-guard society see Morantz, “Ethnohistoric Study,” and Promislow, “One Chief, Two Chiefs, Red Chiefs, Blue Chiefs,” 68–77.

78 Morantz, , “Ethnohistoric Study,” 40–42, 52–54, 85Google Scholar.

79 HBC Archives, B.135/a/11, qtd. in Judd, Carol M., “Sakie, Esquawenoe, and the Foundation of a Dual-Native Tradition at Moose Factory,” in The Subarctic Fur Trade: Native Social and Economic Adaptations, ed. Krech, Shepard III (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1984), 87Google Scholar.

80 Stern, Philip J., “From the Fringes of History: Tracing the Roots of the English East India Company-State,” in Fringes of Empire, ed. Agha, Sameetan and Klosky, Elizabeth (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009), 25Google Scholar.

81 Bayly, C.A., Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 7–79Google Scholar (the quoted passage is on p. 48).

82 For the argument that this system did not damage “the political institutions of [the Bayside Cree],” see Promislow, , “One Chief, Two Chiefs, Red Chiefs, Blue Chiefs,” 77Google Scholar. Both this claim and the elucidative contrast Promislow draws out between HBC diplomacy and later Canadian diplomacy appear compatible with the argument presented here.

83 Bishop, Charles A., “The Henley House Massacres,” The Beaver (Autumn 1976): 36–41Google Scholar.

84 Nigol, Paul, “Discipline and Discretion,” 176–78Google Scholar.

85 HBC Archives, B.135/a/31, qtd. in Judd, , “Sakie, Esquawenoe,” 93–94Google Scholar.

86 Ibid., 94.

87 Ray, Arthur J., “Periodic Shortages, Native Welfare, and the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670–1930,” in The Subarctic Fur Trade: Native Social and Economic Adaptations, ed. Krech, Shepard III (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1984), 16Google Scholar. I am also indebted to James Muir for his suggestions relating to this idea.

88 Ray, , “Periodic Shortages,” 7–8Google Scholar.

89 Van Kirk, , “Many Tender Ties,” 3Google Scholar; Francis, and Morantz, , Partners in Furs, 25Google Scholar.

90 Rich, E.E., ed., James Isham's Observations on Hudson's Bay, 1743, and Notes and Observations on a Book entitled A Voyage to Hudson Bay in the Dobbs Galley, 1749 (London: Hudson's Bay Record Society, 1949), 78Google Scholar.

91 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 496Google Scholar; Brown, , Strangers in Blood, 19Google Scholar; Williams, , Graham's Observations, 191–92Google Scholar.

92 Rich, , Isham's Observations, 79Google Scholar.

93 Bishop, Charles A., “The First Century: Adaptive Changes among the Western James Bay Cree between the Early Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries,” in The Subarctic Fur Trade: Native Social and Economic Adaptations, ed. Krech, Shepard III, 21–54 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1984), 41Google Scholar.

94 Rich, , Copy-Book of Letters Outward, 124Google Scholar.

95 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 153Google Scholar.

96 Ibid., 494.

97 HBC Archives, B.3/a/9, qtd. in Bishop, , “First Century,” 45Google Scholar.

98 Davies, , Letters from Hudson's Bay, 1703–40, 72Google Scholar. By the 1730s, Eastmain was said to be accommodating about sixty “either Starved or lazy Indians”: 276 n. 2.

99 Krieger, Leonard, “The Idea of the Welfare State in Europe and the United States,” Journal of the History of Ideas 24 (1963), 557CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 Biersteker, Thomas J. and Weber, Cynthia, eds., State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101 Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A., Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York: Pantheon, 1971)Google Scholar.

102 Paine, Robert, The White Arctic: Anthropological Essays on Tutelage and Ethnicity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 7–28Google Scholar. See also Coates, Kenneth S. and Morrison, William R., “In Whose Best Interest? The Federal Government and the Native People of Yukon, 1964–1991,” in Rebirth: Political, Economic, and Social Development in First Nations, ed. Mawhiney, Anne-Marie, 19–33 (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Beckett, Jeremy, “Aboriginality, Citizenship and Nation State,” Social Analysis 24 (1988): 3–18Google Scholar; Cronin, Darryl, “Welfare Dependency and Mutual Obligation: Negating Indigenous Sovereignty,” in Sovereign Subjects: Indigenous Sovereignty Matters, ed. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin) 179–200Google Scholar.

103 Rich, , Isham's Observations, 91–92 [emphasis addedGoogle Scholar.

104 Williams, , Graham's Observations, 191–92Google Scholar [emphasis added].

105 At the completion of its successful military campaigns in the greater Oudh and Bengal regions in the early 1760s, the EIC was granted the right to diwani–a comprehensive sovereign right to collect territorial and customs revenue. For wider legal and political ramifications of diwani see Bowen, Huw V., “A Question of Sovereignty? The Bengal Land Revenue Issue, 1765–67,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 16 (1988): 155–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Chatterji, Nandalal, Bengal under the Diwani Administration, 1765–1772 (Allahabad: Indian Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Sur, Nikhil, “The Bihar Famine of 1770,” Indian Economic Social History Review 13 (1976): 525–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

107 An interesting parallel might be drawn to Michel Foucault's concept of “pastoral power,” which he considered an extra-sovereign “prelude” to modern governmentality and state formations. For a useful analysis of the concept see Golder, Ben, “Foucault and the Genealogy of Pastoral Power,” Radical Philosophy Review 10 (2007): 157–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For its application to a later British Columbia context see Lynn Blake, A., “Pastoral Power, Governmentality and Cultures of Order in Nineteenth-Century British Columbia,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24 (1999): 79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Rich, , Hudson's Bay Company, vol. 1, 496Google Scholar.

109 Mancke, , “Chartered Enterprises,” 261Google Scholar.

110 Rich, Compare E.E., The Fur Trade and the Northwest to 1867 (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1967), 107Google Scholar. For the Royal Proclamation of 1763 see Kenneth Narvey, M., “The Royal Proclamation of 7 October 1763: The Common Law, and Native Rights to Land within the Territory Granted to the Hudson's Bay Company,” Saskatchewan Law Review 38 (1974): 123–233Google Scholar; Banner, Stuart, How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), ch. 3Google Scholar; Slattery, Land Rights; Foster, “Long Distance Justice.”

111 This process began with restrictions on native property rights (among them the right to Crown “pre-emption,” secured in 1763), followed by the triumph of settler jurisdictions and the extinguishment of indigenous legal systems in the nineteenth century, and finally climaxed with syndicated treaties and policies of land alienation and reservation during the period 1860–1930. A number of works explore this process with their own important insights. See in particular Harring, Sidney L., White Man's Law: Native People in Nineteenth-Century Canadian Jurisprudence (Toronto: Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, 1998)Google Scholar; Weaver, John C., The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern World, 1650–1900 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land; Ford, Settler Sovereignty.

112 For an introduction to this debate see McHugh, P.G., “The Common-Law Status of Colonies and Aboriginal ‘Rights’: How Lawyers and Historians Treat the Past,” Saskatchewan Law Review 61 (1998): 393–429Google Scholar.

113 Intriguingly, elements of pre-1774 EIC legal history recently arose in Boumediene v Bush, a case relating to habeas corpus in the sovereign black hole of Guantánamo Bay. For a discussion see “Habeas History: GTMO is the British East India Company,” Daily Kos (27 Feb 2007)Google Scholar, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/27/17488/5246; Stern, Philip J., “History and Historiography of the East India Company: Past, Present, and Future!” History Compass 7 (2009), 1162 n. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

114 Byers, Michael, Who Owns the Arctic? Understanding Sovereignty Disputes in the North (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2009)Google Scholar. Byers' eye-opening account of this drama is one that casts, in his words, “non-state actors rather than other nation-states” (19).

115 Rahn, Richard W., “Authority, Responsibility and Accountability” (Cato Institute, June 8, 2010), http://www.cato.org/pub-display.php?pub_id=11879Google Scholar.

116 For the current difficulties associated with regulating transnational “non-governmental” entities see Jackson, Kevin T., “Global Corporate Governance: Soft Law and Reputational Accountability,” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 35, 1 (2010): 41–106Google Scholar.