1. We would like to thank Bethany McMillan and Mira Ahmad for their assistance with the research for this article; acknowledge the SSHRC Insight Development Grant program for its financial support of this project; and extend our appreciation to the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their perceptive suggestions about the article.
2. Few studies explore the motivations of the London Committee. When the committee is discussed it is generally argued that the HBC was driven by economic rather than social, political, or cultural goals. See for instance E.E. Rich, The History of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1670–1870, 2 vols. (London: Hudson’s Bay Record Society, 1958); John S. Galbraith, The Hudson’s Bay Company as an Imperial Factor, 1821–1869 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957); Glyndwr Williams, “The Hudson’s Bay Company and the Fur Trade: 1670–1870,” special issue, Beaver 341.2 (1983); Gary Spraakman, Management Accounting at the Hudson’s Bay Company: From Quill Pen to Digitization, Studies in the Development of Accounting Thought, vol. 17 (Bingley: Emerald Group, 2015); Michael Payne, “Fur Trade Historiography: Past Conditions, Present Circumstances and a Hint of Future Prospects,” in From Rupert’s Land to Canada, ed. R.C. Macleod, Gerhard J. Ens, and Theodore Binnema (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2001), 3–22.
3. See for example Michael Wagner, The English Chartered Trading Companies, 1688-1763: Guns, Money and Lawyers (London: Routledge, 2018)
4. Ann M. Carlos and Stephen Nicholas, "Agency Problems in Early Chartered Companies: The Case of the Hudson's Bay Company," Journal of Economic History 50.4 (1990): 853-875.
5. E.E. Rich, The History of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1670–1870, vol. 1 (London: Hudson’s Bay Record Society, 1958), 147, qtd. in Edward Cavanagh, “A Company with Sovereignty and Subjects of Its Own? The Case of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1670–1763,” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26.1 (2011): 27.