Colonial Despatches

Mr Meade
In re Mr Young.

May I ask you to read the minutes & the despatches herewith.

Read.

Sir F. Sandford
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."

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.

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.

As far as the money goes it is only a question of about £50.

Sir F. Rogers
Will you deal with these despatches?

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.

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.

He has made the difficulty & he shd be left to get out of it.

I agree with FR.

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.

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.

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.