1748-1760.
Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry Appointed -- Aim of the
Malcontents -- Lord Strange's Report -- Testimony of Witnesses
-- French Competition -- Lords of Plantations desire to
Ascertain Limits of Company's Territory -- Defeat of the
Labrador Company -- Wolfe's Victory -- "Locked up in the Strong
Box" -- Company's Forts -- Clandestine Trade -- Case of Captain
Coats.
[Sidenote: Parliamentary enquiry.]
"Mr. Sharpe, the Company's solicitor," we read in the Company's
minute-books, under date of March 10th, 1748, "attending the Committee
acquainted them that a motion was yesterday made and carried in the
House of Commons to enquire into the state and condition of the
countries and trade of Hudson's Bay, and also the right the Company
pretend to have by charter to the property of the land, and exclusive
trade to those countries, and that a committee was appointed
accordingly."
The Adventurers were not caught entirely unawares. They had expected
some such move on the part of their opponents, and now determined that
since they could not ward off the enquiry, they would take the best
means to present the most favourable statement of the Company's case
to the nation. A ransacking of books and records ensued; and a
rigorous search after facts bearing on the beneficent character of the
Company's rule and policy; and these proofs being at length ready,
were placed by the following December in the form of a memorial in the
hands of every member of the House of Commons.
The enquiry aroused the greatest national interest. It began soon
after Christmas, 1748, and lasted for two months.
[Sidenote: Plea of the malcontents.]
What the malcontents desired is, perhaps, best explained in the words
of their prime mover: "By opening," said he, "the trade in the Bay,
many thousands more would be employed in trade, and a much greater
vent would be opened for our manufactures. Whereas all the gain we
have at present, whilst the trade is confined to the Company, is the
employment of one hundred and twenty men in all their factories, and
two or three ships in that trade, manned with perhaps one hundred and
twenty men in time of war, to enrich nine or ten[62] merchants at
their country's expense; at the same time betraying the nation, by
allowing the French to encroach upon us at the bottom of the Bay,
having given up by that means the greatest part of their trade there
to the French. It is, therefore, humbly submitted to the Government,
whether it is not just, as well as prudent, to open that trade to all
the British merchants, and resume at the same time the charter, so far
as to take from them all those lands they have not reclaimed or
occupied after seventy years possession, leaving them only their
factories, and such lands as they have reclaimed adjoining to them;
and to give grants as usual in other colonies to all who shall go over
to trade and make settlements in the country; for no grants were ever
intended to be made to them, to enable them to prevent other subjects
of Britain from planting colonies in those countries, which they
themselves would not plant or occupy; for such a power, instead of
being beneficial, would be the greatest prejudice to Britain, and is
become a general law in the colonies, that those who take grants of
land and don't plant them in a reasonable, limited time, forfeit their
rights to those lands, and a new grant is made out to such others as
shall plant and improve them; and if this grant be not immediately
resumed so far and the trade laid open, and some force be not sent to
secure our southern possessions in the Bay by the Government in case
there should be a French war, we shall see the French immediately
dispossess the Company of all their factories but Churchill, and all
these countries and that trade will be in the possession of the
French." So ran the argument of the Company's enemies.
On the 24th of April, 1749, Lord Strange presented, on behalf of the
Select Committee, the report to Parliament.
"The Committee," said he, "appointed to enquire into the state and
condition of the countries adjoining to Hudson's Bay and the trade
carried on there; and to consider how those countries may be settled
and improved, and the trade and fisheries there extended and
increased; and also to enquire into the right the Company of
Adventurers trading into Hudson's Bay pretend to have, by charter, to
the property of lands and exclusive trade to those countries; have
pursuant to the order of the House, examined into the several matters
to them referred.
"Your Committee thought proper, in the first place, to enquire into
the nature and extent of the charter granted by King Charles the
Second, to the Company of Adventurers trading into Hudson's Bay; under
which charter the present Company claim as right to lands and an
exclusive trade to those countries; which charter being laid before
your Committee, they thought it necessary for the information of the
House to annex a copy thereof to this report."
The charter, published now for the first time, was deemed to be valid.
[Sidenote: Witnesses called by the committee.]
The Committee had examined the witnesses in the case. These witnesses
were: Joseph Robson, who had been employed in the Bay for six years as
a stonemason; Richard White, who had been a clerk at Albany Fort and
elsewhere; Matthew Sargeant, who had been employed in the Company's
service and "understood the Indian language"; John Hayter, who had
been house carpenter to the Company for six years at Moose River;
Matthew Gwynne, who had been twice at Hudson's Bay; Edward Thompson,
who had been three years at Moose River as surgeon; Enoch Alsop, who
had been armourer to the Company at Moose River; Christopher
Bannister, who had been armourer and gunsmith, and had resided in the
Bay for twenty-two years; Robert Griffin, silversmith, who had been
five years in the Company's service; Thomas Barnet Smith, who went
over to Albany in 1741; Alexander Brown, who had been six years at
Hudson's Bay as surgeon; Captain Thomas Mitchell, who had commanded a
sloop of the Company.
Besides the above witnesses there was, of course, Dobbs himself, who
was "examined as to the information he had received from a
French-Canadese Indian (since deceased) who was maintained at the
expense of the Admiralty, on the prospect of his being of service on
the discovery of a north-west passage." Dobbs "informed your Committee
that the whole of that discourse is contained in part of a book
printed for the witness in 1744, to which he desired leave to
refer."[63] There also appeared Captain William Moor, who had been
employed in Hudson's Bay from a boy; Henry Spurling, merchant, who had
traded in furs for twenty-eight years past, during which time he had
dealt with the Hudson's Bay Company; Captain Carruthers, who had been
in the Company's service thirty-five years ago; and Arthur Slater, who
had been employed by the Company on the East Main.
The opposition endeavoured to show that one object aimed at in
granting a charter to the Hudson's Bay Company was to further the
discovery of the north-west passage. This of course was absurd. It was
charged that they had done almost nothing in this direction, which the
Adventurers on their part rebutted by furnishing Parliament with a
list of the ships they had fitted out for such a discovery.
In the evidence before the Committee, it became clear that the
witnesses were not unanimous, especially concerning the probability of
finding a north-west passage.
[Sidenote: Evidence as to a north-west passage.]
The evidence of Edward Thompson, the ship surgeon on the _Furnace_,
for example, states that he has the "greatest reason to believe there
is one, from the winds, tides and black whales; and he thinks the
place to be at Chesterfield Inlet; that the reason of their coming
back was they met the other boat which had been five leagues farther,
and the crew told them the water was much fresher and shallower
there, but where he was the water was fifty fathoms deep, and the tide
very strong; the ebb six hours and the flood two, to the best of his
remembrance; that it is not common for the tide to flow only two
hours." He imagined it to be obstructed by another tide from the
westward. The rapidity of the tide upwards was so great that the spray
of the water flew over the bow of the schooner, and was "so salt that
it candied on the men's shoes, but the tide did not run in so rapid a
manner the other way." Captain William Moor, being asked if he
believed there was a north-west passage to the South Seas, said he
believed there was a communication, but "whether navigable or not he
cannot say; that if there is any such communication, 'tis farther
northward than he expected; that if it is but short, as 'tis but
probable to conclude from the height of the tides, 'tis possible it
might be navigable. It was the opinion of all the persons sent on that
discovery that a north-west wind made the highest tides." According to
Captain Carruthers, "he don't apprehend there is any such passage; but
if there is, he thinks it impracticable to navigate it on account of
the ice; that he would rather choose to go round by Cape Horn; and
that it will be impossible to go and return through such passage in
one year; and he thinks 'tis the general opinion of seamen, that there
is no such passage." In which opinion the seamen were in the right,
although Dobbs and his friends were long to hold the contrary.
John Tomlinson, a London merchant, testified that he was a subscriber
to "the undertaking for finding a north-west passage, which
undertaking was dropped for want of money; that he should not choose
to subscribe again on the same terms; that he can not pretend to say
whether there is such a passage or not, or whether, if found, it could
ever be rendered useful to navigation."
It was only to be expected that the merchants, having no share in the
Company's profits, should be, to a man, in favour of throwing open the
trade of Hudson's Bay. Tomlinson, for example, gave it out as his
opinion that if the charter were revoked more ships would be sent and
more Indians brought down to trade. "This is confirmed," said he, "by
the experience of the Guinea trade, which, when confined to a company,
employed not above ten ships, and now employs one hundred and fifty."
He moreover asserted that "the case of the Guinea trade was exactly
similar, where the ships are near one another, and each endeavours to
get the trade; and the more ships lie there the higher the prices of
negroes."
[Sidenote: The Company's profits.]
The Company was obliged, in the course of this enquiry, to divulge a
number of facts relating to its trade, which had until then remained
secret. Parliament was informed that the trade between London and
Hudson's Bay was carried on in 1748, and for some years previous, by
means of four ships; that the cost of the exports was in that year
£5,012 12s. 3d.; that the value of the sales of furs and other imports
amounted to £30,160 5s. 11d. As for the "charge attending the carrying
on of the Hudson's Bay trade, and maintaining their factories," it
was, in 1748, £17,352 4s. 10d. Thus a trade which involved only £5,000
a year in exports brought back a return of £30,000. Even when the
outlay for working and maintenance of forts and establishments was
considered, there was, in dull times, a profit of forty per cent on
actual paid-up capital.
With regard to French competition, many of the witnesses were most
emphatic. Robson, for instance, "thought that the beavers which are
brought down to the Company are refused by the French from their being
a heavy commodity; for the natives who come to trade with the Company
dispose of their small, valuable furs to the French, and bring down
their heavy goods to the Company in summer when the rivers are open,
which they sell, and supply the French with European goods purchased
from the Company."
"The French," said Richard White, another witness, "intercept the
Indians coming down with their trade," he having seen them with guns
and clothing of French manufacture; and further an Indian had told him
that there was a French settlement up Moose River, something to the
southward of the west, at the distance, as the witness apprehended,
of about fifty miles. "The French deal in light furs, and take all of
that sort they can get, and the Indians bring the heavy to us.
Sometimes the Indians bring down martens' skins, but that is when they
don't meet with the French; but never knew any Indians who had met the
French bring down light furs. The French settlement on Moose River is
at Abbitibi Lake. The trade," concluded the witness, "might be further
extended by sending up Europeans to winter amongst the natives, which,
though the Company have not lately attempted, the French actually do."
"The French," said another, "intercept the trade; to prevent which the
Company some time ago built Henley House,[64] which did, in some
measure, answer the purpose: but if they would build farther in the
country it would have a better effect. The French went there first,
and are better beloved; but if we would go up into the country the
French Indians would trade with us."
[Sidenote: French encroachment on trade.]
Another of the witnesses testified that he "has been informed by the
Indians that the French-Canadese Indians come within six score miles
of the English factories. The French Indians come to Albany to trade
for their heavy goods." He said he had heard Governor Norton say that
the "French ran away with our trade." "If," continued this witness,
Alexander Brown, "the trade was opened, the French would not intercept
the Indians, since in that case the separate traders must have
out-factories in the same manner the French have, which the Company
have not." Upon being asked by Lord Strange if "in case those
out-settlements were erected, whether the same trade could be carried
on at the present settlements?" the witness replied that "it would be
impossible, but that the trade would be extended, and by that means
they would take it from the French. That if these settlements were
near the French, they must have garrisons to secure them against the
French, and the Indians who trade with and are in friendship with
them (whom he distinguished by the name of French Indians)."
Brown quoted Norton as saying, in the year 1739, "that the French had
a settlement at about the distance of one hundred or six score miles
from Churchill, which had been built about a year, and contained sixty
men with small arms."
The result of the deliberations of the Committee of Enquiry was, on
the whole, favourable to the Company. The charter was pronounced
unassailable, and the Company had made out a good case against its
enemies. It had certainly permitted the encroachments of the French.
But the English Government of the day foresaw that French possession
of Canada was doomed, and the Company could make ample amends when the
British flag was unfurled at Quebec and at Montreal.
The Company having come out of the ordeal unharmed,[65] the Lords of
Trade and Plantations thought it might as well settle in its own mind
the precise territory claimed by the Company under its charter. The
Company, on its part, was not forgetful that the French Government had
not yet paid its little bill, which having been running for over sixty
years, had now assumed comparatively gigantic proportions.
[Sidenote: The Government asks the Company to define its territory.]
Accordingly the Lords of Trade and Plantations, on the 25th of July,
1750, addressed a letter to the Company, representing that "as it was
for the benefit of the plantations that the limits or boundaries of
the British Colonies on the Continent of America should be distinctly
known, more particularly as they border on the settlements made by the
French, or any foreign nation in America, their Lordships desired as
exact an account as possible of the limits and boundaries of the
territory granted to the Company, together with a chart or map
thereof, and all the best accounts and vouchers they can obtain to
support the same, and particularly, if any, or what settlements have
been made by the English on the frontiers towards the lakes, and if
any, or what encroachments have been made, and at what period, and to
be exact in stating every particular in the history of whatever
encroachments have been made, which may serve to place the proceedings
in a true light, and confute any right which may at any time be
founded upon them."
[Sidenote: Company's reply.]
The Company replied, among other things, that the said Straits and
Bays "are now so well known, that it is apprehended they stand in no
need of any particular description than by the chart or map herewith
delivered; and the limits or boundaries of the lands and countries
lying round the same, comprised, as your memorialists conceive, in the
same grant, are as follows, that is to say: all the lands lying on the
east side or coast of the said Bay, and extending from the Bay
eastward to the Atlantic Ocean and Davis' Strait, and the line
hereafter mentioned as the east and south-eastern boundaries of the
said Company's territories; and towards the north, all the lands that
lie at the north end, or on the north side or coast of the said Bay,
and extending from the Bay northwards to the utmost limits of the
lands; then towards the North Pole; but where or how these lands
terminate is hitherto unknown. And towards the west, all the lands
that lie on the west side or coast of the said Bay, and extending from
the said Bay westward to the utmost limits of those lands; but where
or how these lands terminate to the westward is also unknown, though
probably it will be found they terminate on the Great South Sea, and
towards the south," they propose the line already set out by them,
before and soon after the Treaty of Utrecht, stating that the
Commissioners under that treaty were never able to bring the
settlement of the said limits to a final conclusion; but they urged
that the limits of the territories granted to them, and of the places
appertaining to the French, should be settled upon the footing above
mentioned.
The Treaty of Utrecht stipulated that the French King should restore
to Great Britain in full right forever, Hudson's Bay, the Straits, and
all lands, rivers, coasts, etc., there situate. Further, that the
Hudson's Bay Company be repaid their losses by French hostile
incursions and depredations in time of peace.
The Hudson's Bay Company now went farther and asked the Government to
insist that no French vessel should be allowed to pass to the north or
north-west of a line drawn from Grimington's Island and Cape Perdrix.
One of the most feasible plans of the Company's foes seemed to be to
get hold of some adjacent territory, and from that vantage ground
gradually encroach on the chartered preserves. Such seems to have been
the scheme in July, 1752, when a petition was presented to the Lords
of Trade and Plantations, from "several London Merchants," who sought
a grant of "all that part of America lying on the Atlantic Ocean on
the east part, extending south and north from 52° north latitude from
the equinoctial line to 60° of the same north latitude, called
Labradore or New Britain, not at this time possessed by any of his
Majesty's subjects or the subjects of any Christian prince or state."
On the receipt of this petition by the Government, the Hudson's Bay
Company was called upon to say whether it laid claim to this tract. In
their reply the Honourable Adventurers referred to the grant of
Charles II. of all rights to trade and commerce of those seas, etc.,
within entrance of Hudson's Straits, and of all lands on the coasts
and confines thereof; Labrador throughout its whole extent, from 60°
north latitude to 52°, was therefore alleged to be within their
limits.
The Company was already settled there, and had spent £10,000 on it.
Moreover, declared the Company, it was a barren land, with few beavers
or other furs of value.
The Company suggested that the "London Merchants'" aim was to gain a
footing and draw off the Hudson's Bay Company's trade, which it hoped
would not be permitted. This hope of the Adventurers was realized, for
the petition of the London Merchants was not allowed.[66]
France's fatal hour with respect to her sovereignty over Canada
rapidly approached. In December, 1759, the Company wrote as follows to
the Lords of Plantations:--
In prospect of an approaching Treaty of Peace between this
nation and France, and in the hope that the great success his
Majesty's arms have been blessed with, and the many
acquisitions that have been thereby gained from the enemy, will
enable his Majesty to secure to your memorialists satisfaction
for the injuries and depredations they have long since suffered
from the French, which stands acknowledged by treaty and are
stipulated to be made satisfaction for, but through the perfidy
of the enemy, and in disregard of the treaty have hitherto
remained unsatisfy'd; in which the honour of the nation as well
as justice to the individuals, loudly call for redress.
Halifax and Soame Jenyns thereupon wrote to Pitt in these words:
Sir,--The Governor and Company of Merchants trading to Hudson's
Bay having presented a memorial to us, stating their claims
with respect to limits and other matters provided for by the
Treaty of Utrecht, and praying that in case of a peace with
France, his Majesty would be graciously pleased to cause
satisfaction to be made to them with respect to such claims,
pursuant to the stipulations of the tenth and eleventh articles
of the said treaty; we beg leave to transmit to you the
enclosed copy of the said memorial for his Majesty's directions
thereupon.
[Sidenote: Conquest of Canada.]
While England went mad with joy over Wolfe's victory at Quebec, the
Company thought the time had, at last, come when the indemnity it
claimed so long should be exacted in the treaty of peace which could
not be long delayed. But its sanguine expectations were not destined
to be realized. In vain did the Governor wait at the door of Mr.
Secretary Pitts; in vain did Lord Halifax assure the Company's
secretary that he would make it his own personal business to have the
affair attended to. It was too late in the day.[67] With reason might
the Company's zealous secretary trace in the minutes: "Locked up this
day (November 22nd, 1759), in the Great Iron Chest, a Book containing
estimates of the Company's losses sustained from the French, from 1682
to 1688."
The "Great Iron Chest" was to hold the book for many a day, and though
the Company evinced a never-failing alacrity to produce it, yet never
was there to be inscribed the words "settled with thanks," at the foot
of this "little bill against the French."
We have already been made familiar with the character of the Company's
forts in the Bay so late as the reign of Queen Anne. There had been
almost from the beginning a party amongst the Honourable Adventurers
favourable to the erection of strong forts, not built of logs with
bastions of stone, but of stone throughout, from the designs of
competent engineers.
A few years after the Company had regained possession of York Factory,
it built (1718) a wooden fort at Churchill River, to which was given
the name of Prince of Wales. In 1730 it constructed another at Moose
River; and about the same time a small post, capable of containing
eight or ten men at Slude River, on the East Main. In 1720 Henley
House, one hundred and fifty miles up Albany River, was built to
contain a garrison of eight men, as a check to the Indians who carried
on a trade with the French.
[Sidenote: Building of stone forts.]
But the wooden fort Prince of Wales did not remain long. The
remembrance of their former posts destroyed by fire, and Iberville's
cannon, caused the Company at length to undertake the fortification on
a splendid scale of its best harbour, to safeguard what it designed to
be its principal _entrepôt_ from the French, as well as from the
Indians. Opposition was cried down, and the "fortification party," as
it was called, carried the day. A massive thirty-feet wide foundation
was begun at Churchill, from the plans of military engineers who had
served under Marlborough, and, after many vicissitudes, in 1734 Fort
Prince of Wales, one of the strongest forts on the continent, was
reared at the mouth of Churchill River.
[Illustration: FORT PRINCE OF WALES.]
It was the original intention to have the walls forty-two feet thick
at their foundation, but on account of the Governor's interference the
dimensions were reduced to twenty-five. It was afterwards found,
however, that there was a tendency to sink when cannon were fired
frequently from the walls, so one section was forthwith pulled down
and rebuilt according to original plans. Three of the bastions had
arches for storehouses, forty feet three inches by ten feet, and in
the fourth was built a stone magazine twenty-four feet long and ten
feet wide in the clear, with a passage to it through the gorge of the
bastion twenty-four feet long and four feet wide.
The parapets were originally constructed of wood, supplied by denuding
the old fort, situated five miles up the Churchill River, the site of
which was first occupied in 1688; but in 1746 the Company began
erecting a stone parapet. Robson's plan shows that two houses, a
dwelling and office building, were erected inside the fort, and
incidentally he describes one of the two as being one hundred and
eighty-one feet six inches by thirty-three feet, with side walls
seventeen feet high and the roof covered with lead.
In 1730 Moose, a new fort, was erected on the site of Moose Factory.
About the same time Richmond Fort was built on Whale River, but it did
not continue a great many years. I find, under date of 21st December,
1758, that "the Governor represented to the Committee that Richmond
Fort did not give a sufficient return to pay the most moderate charge
of supporting it," and it was "resolved that the Company's servants
and effects be withdrawn from there as soon as conveniently may be and
replaced at such of the Company's other factories as shall be found
needful." Further, it was "resolved that a factory with accommodation
for twelve men, with all convenience for trading goods stores, and
provisions, be built as early as possible in the year 1760, in the
most convenient place for that purpose on the north side of Severn
River and as high up as may be."
At the same time it was ordered that the number of men for York Fort
and the new settlement to be made on the Severn River should be
forty-eight men.
[Sidenote: Clandestine trade.]
Clandestine trade was a constantly recurring feature of eighteenth
century life in the Bay. Charges were repeatedly preferred against the
Company's servants, and altogether scores were dismissed as a
punishment for this offence. It must be confessed that there was often
a temptation difficult to resist. Nothing seemed more natural for the
poor apprentice to trade his jack-knife, Jew's-harp or silk kerchief
with an Indian or Esquimau for a peltry; and the only reason, perhaps,
why private bartering was not indulged in more generally was the
certainty of detection. But with the Governors and traders and ship
captains, risk was reduced to a minimum.
One of the most unfortunate examples was the case of Captain Coats.
This able mariner had been in the employ of the Company for a period
of many years. None was superior to him in knowledge of the Bay and
straits. Captain Coats had been twice shipwrecked, once in 1727, "when
near the meridian of Cape Farewell, when running through the ice with
a small sail, when two pieces of ice shutt upon us and sank our ship";
and again in 1736, when he was entangled in the ice off Cape
Resolution, when his ship had her sides crushed in and sank in twenty
minutes. Coats drew up a journal for the use of his sons, containing
an elaborate description of the Bay and its approaches, together with
a great deal of relative matter; and this journal, which has received
the honour of publication by the Hakluyt Society, concludes by saying
that if these sons are neglected by the Hudson's Bay Company they are
at liberty, and "it is his will and command that every part be made
publick, for the use and benefit of mankind."
There is herein, it is almost needless to say, no mention of the
captain's clandestine trading operations, which extended over a long
series of years, and which might never have been made known to the
Company had it not been for the sudden death of Pilgrim, who was
formerly governor at Prince of Wales and Moose Fort. A number of
private letters and papers reached England, incriminating Coats, but
they never reached the public; nor in 1752, were the Hakluyt Society
cognisant of the fate which overtook their author. "Of the writer,"
remarks Sir John Barrow, who edited the volume, "the editor can learn
but little; nothing, in fact, is now known of Captain Coats, except
that he was in the Company's service as commander of one or other of
their ships from 1727 to 1751." He added that the memorial was
believed to exist in the Company's archives.
Under date of November 28th, 1751, I find the following: "The Governor
having acquainted the Committee of this affair, and laid the letters
and papers before them, they were fully examined and the contents
thereof considered." Coats was then called in and told of the
information they had received, and the cause they had to suspect that
he had defrauded the Company by carrying on a clandestine trade
greatly to their prejudice and contrary to the fidelity he owed the
Company.
[Sidenote: Case of Capt. Coats.]
Coats at first endeavoured to excuse himself, but finding the proofs
contained in the letter papers (many of which were in his own
handwriting and signature) so strong in evidence against him, at last
owned he was guilty of the offence he was accused of and submitted
himself to the Company, and he was ordered to withdraw while his case
was considered. At the expiration of two hours the culprit was called
in and acquainted with his sentence, which was dismissal from the
service. He was ordered to deliver up the keys of the _King George_,
of which he was commander, together with the stores and the keys of
such stores in the warehouse in his custody belonging to the Company.
The disgraced captain went home, and after a miserable existence of
some weeks, ended his life by his own hand. On the 20th of February,
there is a letter to the Company from his widow, Mary Coats, which was
read out to the Adventurers assembled. It prayed that the Committee
would "indulge her so far as to order the balance that shall appear
upon her late husband's account to be paid, and to permit her to have
the stores brought home, still remaining in the _King George_; the
profit of these, urged the widow, had always been enjoyed by every
master in the Company's services." Moved by the appeal, Widow Coats
was called in and informed that provided she delivered up to the
Company all the books, papers, charts or drafts belonging to her late
husband and now in her custody, she might expect to meet with the
favour of the Company. "For which she returned thanks and promised to
comply therewith." But the Hakluyt Society's publication of Coats'
journal is sufficient to show that his widow did not keep to the
strict letter of her word.
FOOTNOTES:
[62] The number of the Adventurers was, before the enquiry of 1749, a
mystery. By many it was charged that they were not above a dozen or
fifteen.
[63] Dobbs's "Hudson's Bay," a hysterical work, which was throughout
an attack on Captain Christopher Middleton.
[64] 1720
[65] On June 28th, 1749, at a Company's meeting, an account was made
of the cost of defending the Company's charter, upon the motion made
in the House of Commons. It amounted in the whole to only £755 5s.
10d., exclusive of Sharpe, the Company solicitor's services.
[66] In refusing to advise the granting of a charter to the Company's
enemies, the Attorney-General, Sir Dudley Ryder, and the
Solicitor-General, Sir William Murray--afterwards Lord Mansfield--drew
up a lengthy and important paper, reviewing the charges against the
Company. Their conclusion was that either the charges were "not
sufficiently supported in point of fact, or were in great measure
accounted for from the nature and circumstances of the case." They
deemed the charter valid for all practical purposes.
[67] "The Company being apprehensive that Mr. Secretary Pitts'
indisposition should deprive them of an opportunity of conferring with
him in due time, with respect to the Company's claim on the French
nation for depredations in times of peace before the Treaty of
Utrecht, resolved that a petition should be drawn up to his Majesty,
humbly representing such losses and damages, reciting the tenth and
eleventh article of the said treaty, and praying that his Majesty will
give his plenipotentiaries at the approaching congress for a treaty of
peace, such directions as will suffice for justice being done to the
Company by compensation for such losses. Also that the boundaries of
Hudson's Bay may be settled."--_Minute Book_, May 20th, 1761.