Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Seymour, Frederick to Grenville, Richard 12 December 1868, CO 60:33, no. 803, 639.
Abstract
Despatch to London.
Minutes (7), Other documents (1).
Seymour enquires from which funding source should Hankin’s salary should be drawn from while travelling to British Columbia. Minutes by Cox and Rogers discuss Hankin’s appointment as British Columbia’s colonial secretary and how to respond to Seymour’s question regarding funds for Hankin’s and Young’s salaries.
No. 131
Victoria
12th December 1868
My Lord Duke,
In Your Grace's despatch, No. 85, of the 6th October,
announcing the appointment of Mr Philip Hankinto
to the Office
of the Colonial Secretary, I am informed that that Gentleman
will be entitled to half Salary from the date of his embarcation
for the Colony.
to the Office
of the Colonial Secretary, I am informed that that Gentleman
will be entitled to half Salary from the date of his embarcation
for the Colony.
2. Might I venture to inquire from what fund this allowance is
to be made. Mr Young has been drawing the full salary of
this office.
I
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Sandford
I am afraid there may be some little difficulty about this Salary.
I am afraid there may be some little difficulty about this Salary.
When the office of Colonial Secretary became vacant & Mr
Young was acting the Govr was informed by the Duke of
Buckingham "if after receiving that Report I shd confirm
Mr Young in the acting appt, which he now
holds he
will be entitled to full Salary from the date up to which
Mr Birch received it."
holds he
will be entitled to full Salary from the date up to which
Mr Birch received it."
On the 11 Dec 1867 the Govr was informed that until the
Capital question was decided Mr Young might have as the
Govr recommended at the rate of £600 when serving in
Victoria & £800 when serving at New Westminster.
Mr Young has all along been drawing full
Salary, in
accordance, I should suppose, with what Govr Seymour
understood the D. of B. to sanction. It is rather doubtful
whether he ought to have allowed this in the face of the
previous despatch tho' I think I should have done so myself.
Salary, in
accordance, I should suppose, with what Govr Seymour
understood the D. of B. to sanction. It is rather doubtful
whether he ought to have allowed this in the face of the
previous despatch tho' I think I should have done so myself.
On the 6 Oct. last Govr Seymour was informed that Lt.
Hankin the new appointed Colonial Secy would be entitled to
1/2 Salary from his date of embarkation.
I think on the receipt of that despatch (which was 21
Novr, Lt H. started the 4th) Gov. Seymour ought
at all events to have stopped full Salary to Mr Young, tho
he might have done so under protest—that is pending a reference home.
It is however almost, if not quite, impossible to make Mr
Young refund any surplus of Salary he may have recd—& I
should be
afraid that it would produce much ill feeling in the
Council, & perhaps refusal, to endeavour to procure a vote
to cover this double payment.
afraid that it would produce much ill feeling in the
Council, & perhaps refusal, to endeavour to procure a vote
to cover this double payment.
As far as the money goes it is only a question of about £50.
CC
30/1
I should reply that this case is one to wh the usual rule
will apply. That is to say that
so soon as the Govr had
reason to suppose that an officer had been appointed in England
it was his duty to take care that Mr Y. did not receive such
a rate of Salary as to run the risk of a double issue—and
that this should now be recovered from Mr Y.
so soon as the Govr had
reason to suppose that an officer had been appointed in England
it was his duty to take care that Mr Y. did not receive such
a rate of Salary as to run the risk of a double issue—and
that this should now be recovered from Mr Y.
But that Lord G. came to this conclusion with regret and
wd be glad to hear that the Legre had sanctioned the
continued receipt by Mr Y. of his full salary up to the arrival
of Mr Hankin.
But at any rate the fact that the Govr had sanctioned an
improper
payment to one man furnished no reason for witholding
his due from another.
payment to one man furnished no reason for witholding
his due from another.
He has made the difficulty & he shd be left to get out of it.
FR
2/2
My minute was written not observing that Lt H. would have
left England before the news of his apptmt reached B.C. The
minute therefore requires qualificn. It is not quite a
satisfactory case but the sum at issue must be very slight.
I would write that under the circumstances it appeared to Ld
G. that under the terms of Mr Young's appointment he was
entitled to expect that he shd continue to receive full
pay until the Govr of Columbia recd
notice that another
arrangement was to be made—that is to say in the present
instance till 21st Nov—that he wd be entitled to
half pay from that period till Mr H's arrival and Mr H.
to the other half, and that Mr H. wd of course be entitled
to half pay from the 21t Novr and to full pay from his arrival.
notice that another
arrangement was to be made—that is to say in the present
instance till 21st Nov—that he wd be entitled to
half pay from that period till Mr H's arrival and Mr H.
to the other half, and that Mr H. wd of course be entitled
to half pay from the 21t Novr and to full pay from his arrival.
The result will be that Lt Hankin will get some 25£ less
than he wd "as a general rule" (reg. 104) be entitled
to receive.
Draft at once for consn.
FR
13/2
Other documents included in the file
Draft reply, Granville to Seymour, No. 15, 17 February 1869 discussing Young’s and Hankin’s salaries as acting colonial secretary and colonial secretary for British Columbia.