Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Hamilton, George Alexander to Rogers, Frederic 20 February 1861, CO 60:12, no. 1675, 199.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (5), Other documents (1).
Hamilton writes Rogers to inform Newcastle that the
Treasury does not wish to be involved in negotiations between the government and the HBC regarding the
company's land claims on Vancouver Island unless the HBC
is offered a financial settlement. The minutes show that the negotiating path the
Colonial Office intended to follow was to
have the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council address
the question of title only,and then have negotiations with the HBC to settle
the question of the amount of indemnity.
Hamilton to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)
Treasury Chambers
20 February 1861
With reference to Mr Elliot's letter of 15th
inst, respecting the title of The Hudson's Bay Company to
certain tracts of land in Vancouver's Island, and British Columbia; I am directed by The Lords Commissioners of Her
Majesty's Treasury to request, that you will state to The
Duke of Newcastle, that, if the proposed Reference to The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council comprehends
merely
the question of Title to the Lands in question, My Lordsare
are of opinion that They are not called upon to become Parties
to the Reference; but if any question relating to Compensation,
to be awarded to the Hudson's Bay Company, in respect of such
lands, is involved in the Reference; then, before My Lords can
give Their consent to the proposed proceeding, They request
to be furnished with the precise claim of The Company, and the
actual reply, which The Secretary of State has directed to be
made to it, as well as the grounds, on which it is proposed to
oppose the claims of the Company before The Privy Council.
are of opinion that They are not called upon to become Parties
to the Reference; but if any question relating to Compensation,
to be awarded to the Hudson's Bay Company, in respect of such
lands, is involved in the Reference; then, before My Lords can
give Their consent to the proposed proceeding, They request
to be furnished with the precise claim of The Company, and the
actual reply, which The Secretary of State has directed to be
made to it, as well as the grounds, on which it is proposed to
oppose the claims of the Company before The Privy Council.
Minutes by CO staff
Perhaps Mr Murdoch will supply a Memo for Mr
Fortescue's use on this letter.
TFE
20/2
Mr Elliot
Some confusion and misapprehension appears to have arisen on this subject. When Mr Reeves' letter of 9 July was received, pointing out that the H.B.Co's petitions raised the question of pecuniary indemnity & therefore that the concurrence of the Treasury in the reference to the Judicial Committee was necessary, I saw Mr Reeves, by Mr Fortescue's desire—and explained to him that the intention of the Coll Office had been to refer to the Judicial Commee the question of title only—leaving the question of the amount of indemnity to be afterwards settled between the Govt & the Co. He recommended that a letter to that effect should be written and I understood that if that was done the
Order of reference to the Judicial Committee would be
so limited. Accordingly the letter of 31 July was written.
It seems to me that that letter states with sufficient
clearness the proposed limitation of the reference—but if
not, I can only suggest that Mr Reeves should be requested
to point out what further communication would be necessary
for the purpose, and to suggest the terms in which the limitation
should be expressed. Is it possible that he may have altogether
overlooked the letter of 31 July?
Some confusion and misapprehension appears to have arisen on this subject. When Mr Reeves' letter of 9 July was received, pointing out that the H.B.Co's petitions raised the question of pecuniary indemnity & therefore that the concurrence of the Treasury in the reference to the Judicial Committee was necessary, I saw Mr Reeves, by Mr Fortescue's desire—and explained to him that the intention of the Coll Office had been to refer to the Judicial Commee the question of title only—leaving the question of the amount of indemnity to be afterwards settled between the Govt & the Co. He recommended that a letter to that effect should be written and I understood that if that was done the
Order of reference to the Judicial Committee would be
so limited. Accordingly the letter of 31 July was written.
It seems to me that that letter states with sufficient
clearness the proposed limitation of the reference—but if
not, I can only suggest that Mr Reeves should be requested
to point out what further communication would be necessary
for the purpose, and to suggest the terms in which the limitation
should be expressed. Is it possible that he may have altogether
overlooked the letter of 31 July?
I assume that the intention to limit the reference to the
question of title is still adhered to. I do not see how the
Judicial Committee could enter on the question of the amount of
indemnity. To assess it elsewhere than on the spot would
involve the expense & delay of bringing witnesses from
the
Colony to this Country—and even then with an unsatisfactory
result. The Treasury were, I think, right in considering that
the letter to them of 31 July was not intended to elicit an answer.
the
Colony to this Country—and even then with an unsatisfactory
result. The Treasury were, I think, right in considering that
the letter to them of 31 July was not intended to elicit an answer.
TWCM
21 Feby 1861
Duke of Newcastle
Refer Mr Reeve to my letter of the 31st July 1860—and send him copy of the present letter from the Treasury, & enquire whether any further definition of the reference is required by the Judicial Committee.
Refer Mr Reeve to my letter of the 31st July 1860—and send him copy of the present letter from the Treasury, & enquire whether any further definition of the reference is required by the Judicial Committee.
Other documents included in the file
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Fortescue
This question is of a legal character. I did not like to pass it witht looking into it pretty carefully & this has led me to delay it a few days.
This question is of a legal character. I did not like to pass it witht looking into it pretty carefully & this has led me to delay it a few days.