A 355-Year-Old Document That Helped Create Canada May Be Sold Off in Bankruptcy

The Hudson’s Bay Company is 355 years old—older than Canada itself, older than most modern democracies. But as the once-mighty retailer moves to liquidate its remaining assets, history is being priced and prepared for bidding. Among the approximately 4,400 artifacts and artworks HBC has cleared to offload is the original Royal Charter that created the company in 1670. The auction hasn’t been scheduled yet, but the pushback is already underway. Experts, historians, and Indigenous groups argue the item isn’t just surplus inventory but part of the country’s origin story. They are calling for its preservation in Canadian archives. To understand what’s at stake when a private company sells off public memory, I spoke over Zoom with Leslie Weir, the Librarian and Archivist of Canada. What is the Royal Charter? The charter is the royal document issued by King Charles II in 1670. It vested control in the Hudson’s Bay Company over all lands whose rivers emptied into Hudson Bay—about one-third of the continent. And as such, it’s one of the first documents about the country that’s now known as Canada. The charter basically ignored the sovereignty of the peoples already living there. Would you call it one of Canada’s founding documents? I think there are experts who are looking at that. Canada has quite a few founding documents, going back to the British North America Act of 1867, that created the Dominion of Canada. And then, of course, the Proclamation of the Constitution Act of 1982, when we repatriated the constitution. The Royal Charter not only created a corporation—it created a colonial government. In fact, HBC ultimately signed some of the first treaties recognizing rights and title with Indigenous peoples. As such, I think it marked a critical moment in this country’s history. But you’re suggesting that we can draw a straight line from the charter to the creation of Canada? If you take the charter and then look at the Rupert’s Land Act of 1868, in which HBC transferred its territories to Canada, then yes. That was key in allowing the country to expand from the four original provinces into the west—what became Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. So it definitely is part of the story of Canada, or one of the major steps along the way.

• The End of Hudson’s Bay
• Is Simons Canada’s Next Great Department Store?
• How Far Can “Buy Canadian” Really Go?

How does such an important item end up for auction? The charter wasn’t included in the transfer of the company documents that, starting in 1974, began to be housed at the Archives of Manitoba and were donated in 1994. Because the charter was never officially revoked, it was considered an active corporate record and remained with HBC. There are discussions about whether some of the events that followed the charter—such as the Rupert’s Land Act or moving the HBC headquarters from the United Kingdom to Canada in the 1970s—might be counted as revoking acts. But the fact remains the company continued to treat it as a live legal document. You believe it to be a live document? I would suggest it is not a live document and hasn’t been for a period of time. It sounds like there was debate around the charter’s status from the start. Archivists have been aware of it for a very long time. From the inception of the Hudson’s Bay archives in Winnipeg, the charter has been under discussion in the larger community. There’s an extra intensity now because of worry that it might either leave Canada or go into a private collection, where researchers and other Canadians who might have an interest won’t be able to access it. Did the decision to put it for auction surprise you or your colleagues? I don’t know that it was a surprise. There were always ongoing conversations about it between the Archives of Manitoba and HBC, but it’s now a matter for the courts, the lawyers, and the different parties involved. Are there negotiations happening with HBC, or whatever’s left of HBC? None of the players can just talk to HBC. A whole machinery has now kicked in. But I think everyone involved is very aware of the importance of the charter. It goes back 355 years, which is extraordinary longevity when you look at companies around the world. At the same time, it’s a bit more complicated than you might anticipate. HBC is a large landholder and has a lot of different assets. When a company is divesting its assets in liquidation proceedings, there’s a legal framework one works within. Would the charter be protected under Canadian heritage laws? The Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board is supposed to step in when important cultural or historical items are at risk of leaving the country. Their job is basically to try to keep them here. I am not aware of other laws that would influence this process. For me, the interesting question is whether the Crown still has a role to play. It was a signatory, after all. Could it still have some claim to the custody of the charter? What would you say to Canadians who say we’re fighting over a relic? I would say that while the charter may no longer have the power it had when it was signed in the seventeenth century, it is one of the building blocks that brought us our country. And right now, as we talk about Canadian identity, it’s important for people to be able to connect to such documents. In my experience, it’s one thing for people to look at a picture or a digital version—it’s quite another to see the real thing. I think it’s even more important for the First Nations, Inuit, and Metis nations to have access to the charter. It had a huge impact on them. Are you getting concerned emails from colleagues across the world? People in the archival community are following this. We’re not the only country with a colonial history where there might be very early documents that could be viewed as corporate assets rather than historical. So I think people are seeing this as an interesting case study. Are you optimistic? One never knows how these things will unfold. I hope that it does end up in a public institution in Canada. That would be ideal. I think everyone has the best intentions on finding the best way forward. Are you surprised by the media reaction? I’m excited that the media is as interested as it is. Sometimes cultural and historic moments don’t get the attention that we might wish. And I think the discussion is really about bringing the charter to the attention of many average people in Canada who weren’t even aware of it. Is there anything you feel people are missing about this story? We’re focusing on the legal status of the charter but overlooking how it affected Indigenous communities and shaped the development of this country. We’re missing a teaching moment? If you think back to 1670, we were a large geographic mass and were viewed as empty land that could be taken by commercial enterprises. It’s interesting, for example, that when the Rupert’s Land Act was passed, HBC and the Crown didn’t consult with First Nations or the Metis, although they were referenced, because it was considered a business transaction between a company and a recently created country. But HBC also worked with the First Nations and Metis to create our first real transportation and communications network. It was based on canoe and word of mouth and trading posts—human supply chains that took goods from community to community. HBC shaped daily life in profound ways, for better and worse. So, sure, we can talk about the legal status of the charter, but let’s remember what it also was: a document that helped define how this country was imagined and who was left out.The post A 355-Year-Old Document That Helped Create Canada May Be Sold Off in Bankruptcy first appeared on The Walrus.