Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Seymour, Frederick to Grenville, Richard 11 August 1868, CO 60:33, no. 11063, 252.
Abstract
Despatch to London.
Minutes (2), Enclosures (untranscribed) (3), Other documents (1).
Seymour forwards two applications addressed
praying for compensationdue to losses resulting from
permanently removing from New Westminster to Victoria.Seymour describes why each man in the applications has a reason to ask for compensation, but Seymour looks more favourably on the men in the first application than the second. Seymour makes no specific recommendations for providing compensation to the men who made the applications. Robinson’s minute summarizes why each man is making a claim for compensation to the Colonial Office and relates why the Colonial Office probably will not be able to offer any type of compensation. Rogers’s minute discusses how the men who made the application for compensation could receive compensation for their hardships in moving from New Westminster to Victoria.
No. 101
Victoria
11th August 1868
My Lord Duke,
I have the honor to forward two applications addressed to me by
Officers of this Government praying for compensation for the
losses they have sustainedby
by permanently removing from New
Westminster to Victoria.
by permanently removing from New
Westminster to Victoria.
2. The first application is signed by:
Mr Robert Ker, Auditor General.
Mr Charles Good, Assistant Colonial Secretary.
Mr A. Calder, Clerk in the Treasury.
Mr John Graham, Officer in Charge of the Treasury.
Mr John Westgarth, Inspector of Steamers.
3. IMr Robert Ker, Auditor General.
Mr Charles Good, Assistant Colonial Secretary.
Mr A. Calder, Clerk in the Treasury.
Mr John Graham, Officer in Charge of the Treasury.
Mr John Westgarth, Inspector of Steamers.
3. I have but little to add to the perfectly accurate
statements of these Gentlemen. They were forced to proceed to
New Westminster. But the so called New Westminster was at that
time a dense forest out of which each public officer had to hew
a spot for his residence. I fear nearly all of them performed
the operation on borrowed money.
4. After living forsome
some time in a hut, Mr Ker purchased a
very pretty cottage from a Captain of the Royal Engineers. By
dint of labour, he has made his garden one of the prettiest in
the Colony. He has bought and cleared an acre of land
adjoining. All this is for the present valueless.
some time in a hut, Mr Ker purchased a
very pretty cottage from a Captain of the Royal Engineers. By
dint of labour, he has made his garden one of the prettiest in
the Colony. He has bought and cleared an acre of land
adjoining. All this is for the present valueless.
5. Mr Charles Good has built himself a house on the
outskirts of the town and cleared a considerable pieceof
of land
of rock and forest. He could not sell his house nor find a
tenant for it.
of land
of rock and forest. He could not sell his house nor find a
tenant for it.
6. Mr Calder has likewise built a very good house.
7. Mr John Graham purchased a town lot, cleared it and
built a house upon it for a residence. I understand that he has
spent between three and four thousand dollars in this way.
8. Mr Westgarth's case is one of equal hardship. Heformerly
formerly resided in Victoria, but the Legislative Council of
British Columbia passed the Resolution that they would increase
his Salary if he came to reside in New Westminster or refuse to
vote it at all if he remained in Victoria. He came to the
former town, bought a house and now resides in Victoria having
had his Salary abolished and being supported by Fees. The caseof
of these Gentlemen appears to me to be one of extreme hardship.
formerly resided in Victoria, but the Legislative Council of
British Columbia passed the Resolution that they would increase
his Salary if he came to reside in New Westminster or refuse to
vote it at all if he remained in Victoria. He came to the
former town, bought a house and now resides in Victoria having
had his Salary abolished and being supported by Fees. The caseof
of these Gentlemen appears to me to be one of extreme hardship.
8. [sic] I add for Your Grace's consideration the Salaries
drawn respectively by each of these Officers and the length of
their period of Service:
Mr Ker $2,400. May 1859.
Mr Good $2,540. April 1859.
Mr Calder $1,450. February 1860.
Mr Graham $1,700. April 1859.
Mr Westgarth. Fees. January 1864.
9. WithMr Ker $2,400. May 1859.
Mr Good $2,540. April 1859.
Mr Calder $1,450. February 1860.
Mr Graham $1,700. April 1859.
Mr Westgarth. Fees. January 1864.
9. With the exception of the officer whose name appears first
on the list, the signers of the Second petition do not appear to
me to have the same claim to Your Grace's consideration as those
of the first. Mr Crease, however has every claim to any
indulgence which the Government can extend. He too was ordered
to live at New Westminster and hetoo
too built a house, exceeding in
size and comfort that of any other applicant for compensation.
I fear not entirely with cash. He has not the means of even
paying the passages of his wife and large family down to
Victoria. Much less of providing a house for them if they come.
He has now to begin the work again and alone.
too built a house, exceeding in
size and comfort that of any other applicant for compensation.
I fear not entirely with cash. He has not the means of even
paying the passages of his wife and large family down to
Victoria. Much less of providing a house for them if they come.
He has now to begin the work again and alone.
10. The case of Mr HamleyI
I do not think can be very widely
separated from the General question of compensation to the
proprietors in New Westminster for the losses they have
sustained by the withdrawal of the Public Officers and the
almost total ruin of their town. Mr Hamley had quarters
provided for him in the Custom House and having no reason to
suppose that he would everbe
be removed invested considerably in
land in the town, cleared it at a large expense and it is now
almost valueless. Yet Mr Hamley was specially sent from
England to reside at New Westminster and it was not at his own
choice that he was moved.
I do not think can be very widely
separated from the General question of compensation to the
proprietors in New Westminster for the losses they have
sustained by the withdrawal of the Public Officers and the
almost total ruin of their town. Mr Hamley had quarters
provided for him in the Custom House and having no reason to
suppose that he would everbe
be removed invested considerably in
land in the town, cleared it at a large expense and it is now
almost valueless. Yet Mr Hamley was specially sent from
England to reside at New Westminster and it was not at his own
choice that he was moved.
11. Mr Bushby has not been brought down from New
Westminster, nor his position changed. There his land is much
deteriorated invalue
value by the late great change, but he cannot be
separated from the general claim of all householders. I do not
ask for Your Grace's special consideration for him.
value by the late great change, but he cannot be
separated from the general claim of all householders. I do not
ask for Your Grace's special consideration for him.
12. Mr McCrea has bought land and built a house on the
faith of his permanent appointment to New Westminster.
13. Mr Fry [Frye] the same.
14. Mr Brew has unquestionably been a loser by the changein
in the Seat of Government. At the same time it has always been
held that the Magistrates are liable to be removed from one
Station to another. His house and land have undoubtedly lost a
considerable amount of their value by the removal of the Capital
from New Westminster.
in the Seat of Government. At the same time it has always been
held that the Magistrates are liable to be removed from one
Station to another. His house and land have undoubtedly lost a
considerable amount of their value by the removal of the Capital
from New Westminster.
15. I hardly know what specific recommendations to make to Your
Grace inthis
this matter. There can be no doubt that most of the
petitioners, all those who signed the first petition and Mr
Crease, have suffered very great losses from no fault of their own.
this matter. There can be no doubt that most of the
petitioners, all those who signed the first petition and Mr
Crease, have suffered very great losses from no fault of their own.
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
The principal officers under the Govt of B. Columbia ask for compensation for the losses occasioned to them by the change of their residences to the new Capital of the Colony.
The principal officers under the Govt of B. Columbia ask for compensation for the losses occasioned to them by the change of their residences to the new Capital of the Colony.
Nine years ago they were desired by the S of S to remove from
Victoria to N Westminster or to resign if they declined to do so.
Their
case is doubtless of considerable hardship but I really do
not see how it can be ameliorated though the circumstances of
the Colony are so peculiar that a compliance with their
application would hardly form a precedent.
case is doubtless of considerable hardship but I really do
not see how it can be ameliorated though the circumstances of
the Colony are so peculiar that a compliance with their
application would hardly form a precedent.
Mr Seymour makes no recommendation either in favour of
compensation by a grant of money or of land, neither is there
any estimate of the individual loss.
WR
14 Oct 68
These are certainly very lamentable cases: and any of H.G's
patronage wh may be available wd be well bestowed
in lightening the loss of some of these gentlemen. But I am not
aware that Imperial funds can be applied [to?] relieve them and
it is for the Govr rather than for H.G. to suggest how
Colonial funds can be obtained or made applicable to that
object. I should answer that H.G.
sincerely lamented the losses
to which these gentlemen had been subjected by the consolidation
of the two Colonies and would gladly learn that the Colonial
Legislature had voted them in land or money some compensation
for those losses. But that it was for the Col Govt &
Legislature to consider how & to what extent this could be done,
as it was not in HG's power to recommend that any indemnity
shd be given them from Imperial Funds.
sincerely lamented the losses
to which these gentlemen had been subjected by the consolidation
of the two Colonies and would gladly learn that the Colonial
Legislature had voted them in land or money some compensation
for those losses. But that it was for the Col Govt &
Legislature to consider how & to what extent this could be done,
as it was not in HG's power to recommend that any indemnity
shd be given them from Imperial Funds.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Petition from Crease, Hamley, Brew, Bushby, McCrea and Frye to
Seymour, 14 July 1868,
seeking compensation for personal losses resulting from the
removal of the capital from New Westminster, and including
papers submitted by Crease to show that residence on the
mainland had been a condition of his appointment.
Other documents included in the file
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 91, 24 October 1868 lamenting the losses officers established in New Westminster suffered from having to move to Victoria and informing Seymour that the Government and Legislature of British Columbia have the power to provide compensation to the officers, not the Colonial Office.