Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Peel, Frederick to Rogers, Frederic 23 April 1864, CO 60:20, no. 3812, 176.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (8), Enclosures (untranscribed) (3), Other documents (1), Marginalia (2).
Peel submits documents regarding a petition from the Bank of British Columbia. In the petition, the bank requests a supplemental charter to open branches in North
America outside of British Columbia and Vancouver Island. Strachey’s minute provides a lengthy opinion, drawn from Strachey’s interpretation of
the rights of the Hudson's Bay Companyand the HBC’s
conflicting claimswith the bank.
Peel to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)
Treasury Chambers
23rd April 1864
Sir,
I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's
Treasury to transmit herewith a letter from the Board of Trade
and its enclosures being a Petition for the grant of a
Supplemental Charter to the Bank of British Columbia, and I am to
request that My Lords may be favored with Mr Secretary
Cardwell's opinion thereon.
I am to state that under the circumstances set forth
My Lords see no objection to the grant of the proposed
supplemental Charter and they will be prepared with Mr
Cardwell's concurrence to intimate their opinion to that
effect to the Board of Trade.
Mr Cardwell will observe
that the accompanying statement in support of the Petition
of the Bank appears to contemplate the extension of its
business to Canada and other British Colonies generally in
North America. The draft Charter itself, however, would
give the Bank the power of establishing branches only in
places in North America to the westward of 95o longitude
and My Lords understand that the object of the Bank is to
obtain power to extend its business into the territories
of the Hudson's Bay Co and to San Francisco, California;
Their Lordships see no objection to the grant of such power.
Mr Cardwell will observe
that the accompanying statement in support of the Petition
of the Bank appears to contemplate the extension of its
business to Canada and other British Colonies generally in
North America. The draft Charter itself, however, would
give the Bank the power of establishing branches only in
places in North America to the westward of 95o longitude
and My Lords understand that the object of the Bank is to
obtain power to extend its business into the territories
of the Hudson's Bay Co and to San Francisco, California;
Their Lordships see no objection to the grant of such power.
Minutes by CO staff
TFE
25/4
Mr Elliot
I find some difficulty in expressing an opinion on this subject, being but imperfectly informed on the subject of the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, & conflicting claims of these parties, in the vast territory covered by this Supplement Charter. But as I understand the subject, it stands as follows:
I find some difficulty in expressing an opinion on this subject, being but imperfectly informed on the subject of the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, & conflicting claims of these parties, in the vast territory covered by this Supplement Charter. But as I understand the subject, it stands as follows:
The existing Charter of this Bank (which I have procurred from
the Treasury & is annexed), authorises it "to establish
Banks of issue & deposit" & "to carry on the general
business of banking," within the "Colonies of Vancouver's
Island & B. Columbia" & not beyond them. This proposed
Supplemental Charter (see top of page 6) extends these
banking powers to "any city, town, or place in North
America to the westward of 95o W. Longitude, "being
within any of our Colonies possessions or settlements,"
that it is to say it extends them to a large portion
of the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company, & to
various other territories not yet comprised, I believe,
in any Colony, but not to any portion of Canada, (if the
map annexed to the Parliamentary Papers of 1850,
Ho. of Commons Paper No 542 of 1850, herewith, is tolerably correct).
This extension of power, so far as it applies to the Hudsons Bay
Territory is,
I apprehend, at variance with the
exclusive privileges of trade &c conferred by the Charter of
Charles 2nd. This Charter (see House of Commons' Paper No
547 of 1842 herewith) contains an injunction to British Subjects
that none of them directly or indirectly do visit, haunt, frequent or
trade traffic or adventure by way of merchandize into or from any of
the said territories &c &c other than the said Governor & Company &c &c
unless it be by the license & agreement of the said Governor & Company
in writing first had & obtained under their common seal
& the Crown undertakes in the same Charter that
we our heirs & successors will not grant liberty, license
or power to any person, or persons whatever, contrary
to the tenor of these letters patent to trade traffic
or inhabit into or upon any of the territories &c &c without the
consent of the said Governor and Company or the most part of them.
I apprehend, at variance with the
These privileges are declared valid by the Atty
& Sol Genl Jervis & Romilly, PP. 12 July 1850, p. 7—but
are declared invalid by Atty & Sol. Genl
Bethick & Keating, PP. 224-260 of 31 July and 11 Aug 1857.
[FR]
As regards the other territories—I am aware of
no objection to the powers being extended to them, but
it might be
advisable to require the consent of the
Governor, or chief authority of the Colony—if any,
as regards places beyond the Hudson's Bay
Territories; (in case future Colonial Governments may be created).
I do not like a
new requirement. I wd be satisfied with the old one, viz—that
their operation shd be subject to Local Law.
If I am right in the above; the Treasury might
be informed (as there appears no question of the
propriety of the other provisions of the Supplementary
Charter) that Mr Cardwell is prepared to concur
in the Draft, if amended by the insertion of clauses
at page 6, to make the operations of the Bank in the new territory
subject to its obtaining the consent in writing of
the Governor or chief authority of any Colony,
within which such city, town or place may be
situated, and subject also to its obtaining any
consent
or license required by the rights and
privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company.
or license required by the rights and
privileges of the Hudson's Bay Company.
I presume Sir F. Rogers, who is familiar with the
question of rights in these territories, should be asked
to say whether I am right or wrong in the above view.
WS
May 5
Sir F. Rogers
This requires your inspection. I confess that at first sight this Banking Company appears to be rather stealing a march. I can hardly think that the Govt is called upon to give Banking powers over districts in which there exists no Colony or settled form of Government, and it's doing so might lead to inconveniences which cannot be foreseen. As to San Francisco, California, I do not properly understand how the British Govt is to be concerned in conferring powers of trading and banking in a foreign Country.
This requires your inspection. I confess that at first sight this Banking Company appears to be rather stealing a march. I can hardly think that the Govt is called upon to give Banking powers over districts in which there exists no Colony or settled form of Government, and it's doing so might lead to inconveniences which cannot be foreseen. As to San Francisco, California, I do not properly understand how the British Govt is to be concerned in conferring powers of trading and banking in a foreign Country.
TFE
6 May
CF
10
Mr Fortescue
I approach the question from rather a different point of view from Mr Elliot. I should be disposed to assume that the existence of a Bank in a new country was prima facie an advantage—and that if the Bank of B.C. was prepared to extend their operations to the center of N America (under what the Try consider proper precautions) it was true wisdom to meet them halfway. It seems to me (prima facie) that the extension of their business is a natural consequence of success, wh success is (prima facie) evidence that their operations are of public benefit.
I approach the question from rather a different point of view from Mr Elliot. I should be disposed to assume that the existence of a Bank in a new country was prima facie an advantage—and that if the Bank of B.C. was prepared to extend their operations to the center of N America (under what the Try consider proper precautions) it was true wisdom to meet them halfway. It seems to me (prima facie) that the extension of their business is a natural consequence of success, wh success is (prima facie) evidence that their operations are of public benefit.
I should be disposed to ansr that Mr C saw no reason
for objecting to the proposed Charter but 1. that it
shd be clearly laid down that their banking privileges
in any present or future British Colony within the
extended limits (as e.g. in Red River) included in the
Supplemental Charter shd be subject to Colonial
Legislation as provided in page 5 of the original Charter, and
2. after referring to the clauses in the H.B.C.
Charter quoted by Mr Strachey—that
without pronouncing on the
validity of these provisions which validity had been
admitted and denied by successive Law Officers of the Crown,
it would be undesirable to assume the power of granting to
the British Columbia Bank any powers which would involve
Her Majesty's Government in the Charge, even though
unfounded, of infringing the privileges already granted
to the Hudson's Bay Company.
without pronouncing on the
validity of these provisions which validity had been
admitted and denied by successive Law Officers of the Crown,
it would be undesirable to assume the power of granting to
the British Columbia Bank any powers which would involve
Her Majesty's Government in the Charge, even though
unfounded, of infringing the privileges already granted
to the Hudson's Bay Company.
That it might therefore be advisable either to require
the Bank to produce the written consent of the Governor
and Company to the establishment of a Bank within the
Hudsons Bay Territory, or to provide that
the privileges
granted to them are subject to the necessity of obtaining that consent.
the privileges
granted to them are subject to the necessity of obtaining that consent.
The boundary of the 95th meridian would include a trifling
corner of country which it might hereafter be convenient
to include in Canada—but the tract is so small and the
chance so problematical that it is scarcely worth considering.
Would not the reference to Local Laws [cure?]
this? Practically no doubt it wd—but I am not
quite sure how far it has been the practice of the
Home Govt to grant Banking privileges exercisable in Canada,
even subject to Local Laws?
FR
21/5/64
Recd.
WS
May 23
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Copy, James Booth, Board of Trade,
to Secretary to the Treasury, 16 April 1864, transmitting
petition for the granting of a Supplemental Charter to the
Bank of British Columbia.
Copy, Petition by the Bank of British Columbia, as noted above,
31 May 1862.
Copy, Statement of the Bank of British Columbia in
support of their application for a Supplemental Charter.
Other documents included in the file
Colonial Office to Hamilton, 27 May 1864,
discussing the ramifications of the proposed supplemental charter.