Romaine to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)
12 April 1862
With reference to your letter of the 28th Ulto requesting certain information on the subject of 20 Tons of Hay &c which had been embarked in the "Thames City" for conveyance to Vancouver's Island, but were removed from that Vessel at Gravesend previous to her departure; I am commandedbyManuscript image by My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit herewith, for the information of His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, a copy of a Report from the Comptroller of Transports on the above subject, together with a copy of a letter from Mr King Inspector of Shipping at the Tower reporting on the claims of the owners of the "Thames City" to Freight under the circumstances of the case.
I am
Your most humble servant
W.G. Romaine
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Mr Elliot
I think the Admiralty might have furnished us with this explanation at the same time that they made upon us the Authoritative demand for payment of Hay &c which was not conveyed to its destination.
The claim must, I presume, be satisfied. See War Office Letter 3608/62.
ABd 14 Apl
Mr Fortescue
There is no end of claims about the unfortunate British Columbia. Colonel Moody seems to have landed 20 Tons of hay at Gravesend at the last moment, and thus £90 has to be paid for the conveyance of goods which never were conveyed to the Colony. But the shipowner would not let them be landed unless he was guaranteed the freight he had been promised for them.
This belongs to the services for which the Government at home undertook to provide on the Estimates. There is nothing for it but to send copies of all these letters to the Treasury and request that they will pay the Admiralty, providing for the amount in such manner as their Lordships may determine to provide for other particulars in which the Estimates originally submitted to Parliament for the conveyance of the Engineers & their stores have fallen short of the actual expenditure.
These papers afford no hint what may have become of the hay after it was landed. I think that Colonel Moody should be called upon, through the Governor, to give any information in his power on that point. I believe that there was a good deal of confusion and many changes of purpose when the Royal Engineers started, but it was before I had any knowledge of Columbia services.
TFE 14 April
I agree.
CF 14
N 19
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Draft, Elliot to G.A. Hamilton, Treasury, 25 April 1862, forwarding copy of correspondence between Admiralty and War Office and requesting that the account be paid.
Manuscript image
Draft reply, Newcastle to Douglas, No. 117, 23 April 1862, asking Douglas to ask Moody for more information regarding the shipment.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Manuscript image
Charles Richards, Comptroller of Transport Service, Admiralty, to Secretary of the Admiralty, 11 April 1862, concerning the claim for £98.10.0.
Manuscript image
E.C. King to H. Tatum, Superintendent of Stores, Tower, 7 August 1861, reporting the circumstances under which 20 Tons of hay and oats were landed from the Thames City.
Documents enclosed with the main document (transcribed)
Manuscript image
I3606& # 1 6 0 ;12

2 copies

In compliance with their Lordships minute on the enclosed letter, dated 28th Ultimo, from the Colonial Office, on the subject of a claim on that Department for the sum of £98.10.0 being dead freight on 20 tons of hay, &c, removed from the "Thames City" at Gravesend, previously to her departure for Vancouver's Island.
I beg to repeat that the ship-
The Secretary
Of the Admiralty
&c& # 1 6 0 ;&c& # 1 6 0 ;&c
Manuscript imageship- Brother's claim for the above named sum was in the first instance disallowed on the ground that, although the stores in question were originally shipped in the Thames City, they were not conveyed to their destination.
The brokers, however, appealed against this disallowance, urging "that these goods were "shipped in regular form "in the docks, & were discharged "at Gravesend, for the "public convenience, by the "orders of Colonel Moody, "& in the presence of Mr "King, Inspector of Shipping "at the Tower; that the ownerManuscript image"owner at the time stated "that, as the room was "not refilled, & as he was "able & willing & able to "carry the oats & hay, he "should consider himself "entitled to the freight; "that he was assured most "distinctly that he would "receive the freight;" and that "Mr King could no "doubt testify that the "stores were landed soley "for the public convenience" Mr King, before mentioned, having been called upon through the War Office for a report of the circumstances ofManuscript imageof the case, a copy of his statement was received in War Office letter of 13thAgust August 1861, in which letter an opinion was expressed that the brokers appeared to be entitled to payment on account of the space left by the removal of the stores for the better accomodation of the Royal engineers on board; and this view appearing to be justified by the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Broker's claim was allowed to be paid.
I may observe that paymentsManuscript imagepayments for what is termed "dead freight" have always been allowed when stores, for which conveyance has been engaged, have been subsequently withdrawn, or not shipped, for reasons beyond the control of the ship-owners.
I beg further to add that it is not known in this Department to whom the Stores landed at Gravesend were delivered, but, having been removed from the ship by order of Colonel Moody, it is presumed that that officer hasManuscript imagehas accounted for them to the War Office.
The payment of ₤98.10.0 to the brokers of the "Thames City" was made in the usual way by the Accountant General of the Navy.
(signed) Chas Richards
Comptroller of Transport Service