
Randy from Tulsa, Oklahoma asks:
Has the Hudson's
Bay Company always been financially stable? Was there ever a time that
the government subsidized the company to keep it operating?
Bob
Bothwell responds:
The company's profits
were at the mercy of three main factors, fashion, weather and war. Especially
in time of war, the return on investment was often zero and they stayed
in business only on a very low level. In the 1690-1713 period the company
was almost driven out of its posts by the French, and in 1782 La Perouse
demolished its very expensive fort at York Factory.
This suggests what
I think was usually the case down to the end of the Napoleonic Wars,
that the company subsidized the British government more than it the
government subsidized the company. After all, the company administered
a very large chunk of the British Empire out of general revenues --
including justice and frequently defense.
Things began to
change in the post-1815 period. While overall I would still say that
the company on balance cost the British government nothing, governments
were expanding and growing more expensive, and interfering -- often
for good reason, of course. The company did not have the option of raising
a private army and it really did not have the finances. So it made much
more sense to face the future and capitalize on the company's assets
(a third of North America, after all), which is what the company did
under its "new" post-1863 management -- men who were more interested
in dollars than in imperial glory. It was the deal struck with the Canadian
government (and facilitated by the
British government)
that turned the company into a recognizably modern business enterprise.
|