Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Birch, Arthur Nonus to Carnarvon, Earl 12 October 1866, CO 60:25, no. 12132, 150.
Abstract
Birch, Arthur Nonus to Carnarvon, Earl 12 October 1866, CO 60:25, no. 12132, 150.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (10), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Other documents (1).
No. 65
12th October 1866
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr Secretary
Cardwell's despatch No. 24 of the 1st May, directing me to take
steps for assessing the amount of Compensationthat
that may be considered
fairly payable to Messrs Clark and Skinner on account of the
premature termination of their contract for the supply of the
Troops in British Columbia.
that may be considered
fairly payable to Messrs Clark and Skinner on account of the
premature termination of their contract for the supply of the
Troops in British Columbia.
2. In obedience to these Instructions I have now the honor
to enclose a copy of a Report furnished by Mr Trutch, the Chief
Commissioner of Lands and Works, after a perusal of the correspondence
and documents relating to Messrs Clark & Skinners Claim.
3. Mr
3. Mr Trutch's long experience as a Public Contractor and his
personal knowledge of the circumstances connected with Messrs
Clark & Skinner's contract peculiarly qualify him to give an opinion
on this subject.
4. I consider the basis taken by Mr Trutch for assessing the
amount of Messrs Clark & Skinner's claim more simple and fair
than that proposed by Major General Moody in the correspondence
which accompanied MrCardwell's
Cardwell's despatch. I would therefore beg
leave to suggest that Mr Trutch's recommendation be adopted.
Cardwell's despatch. I would therefore beg
leave to suggest that Mr Trutch's recommendation be adopted.
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
This is a claim to compensation for loss sustained by Messrs Skinner in consequence of the abrupt termination of their contract to supply the force of Engineers with provisions. Colonel Moody, to whom the matter was referred by the W.O., admitted the
hardship of the case, but denied
that the Messrs Skinner had any ground for asserting a
right. The War Office (4022) are of opinion that the
compensation, if granted, should not be charged on Army
Funds—while Mr Seymour (4118) thinks that the Colonial
Treasury should not be called upon to make provision for
it. The two points now to be decided are 1st whether the claim
is a just one, and, if so, 2nd from what source it is to be paid.
This is a claim to compensation for loss sustained by Messrs Skinner in consequence of the abrupt termination of their contract to supply the force of Engineers with provisions. Colonel Moody, to whom the matter was referred by the W.O., admitted the
hardship of the case, but denied
that the Messrs Skinner had any ground for asserting a
right. The War Office (4022) are of opinion that the
compensation, if granted, should not be charged on Army
Funds—while Mr Seymour (4118) thinks that the Colonial
Treasury should not be called upon to make provision for
it. The two points now to be decided are 1st whether the claim
is a just one, and, if so, 2nd from what source it is to be paid.
VJ
26 Decr
This is an unpleasant case. On the 1st of April
1863 General Moody commanding the Troops in British Columbia
(consisting of a party of Royal Engineers) made a contract
for their supplies for 12 months. But at the end of 8 months
the Troops were suddenly removed. The contractors had in
the meanwhile erected large Butchers' shops and stalls, and
represented that they suffered heavy losses, estimated by
them at £1000.
The justice of their claim to some compensation has been
admitted by all the Authorities who have considered the case—by
the Colonial Attorney General, by General Moody who commanded
the Troops, and by Mr Seymour, the Governor of the Colony.
With regard to amount, Acting Governor Birch recommends
an estimate formed by Mr Trutch, the Chief Commissioner of
Lands, on the following basis: he dismisses all question of
losses incurred by sudden changes in the course of trade,
and by Customs duties in the U. States, but taking the
profits made by the Contractors on 8 months, he awards to them
the profits which they would have made at the same rate on the remaining
months, i.e. it is presumed the difference between the prices
payable by the Govt & the cost of the articles to the
Contractors. On this principle his estimate amounts to about
£568, taking the value of the dollar at 4s/2d.
If the claim be just, the next question is the source
of payment. The War Office decline, because they never had
anything to do with providing from Army Estimates the supplies
or the Colonial Pay of the Troops inBritish
British Columbia. The
whole of these charges were defrayed either out of Colonial
funds or special grants of Parliament for the Colony. This
reasoning seems valid. As regards Colonial funds, Mr Seymour
has submitted that since the withdrawal of the Troops was an
act of the Imperial Govt, the Colony ought not to pay for
the consequent loss on the contract for provisions. This is
to be weighed, but the choice will lie between either paying
the sum out of Colonial funds or else submitting a special
estimate for it to Parliament.
British Columbia. The
whole of these charges were defrayed either out of Colonial
funds or special grants of Parliament for the Colony. This
reasoning seems valid. As regards Colonial funds, Mr Seymour
has submitted that since the withdrawal of the Troops was an
act of the Imperial Govt, the Colony ought not to pay for
the consequent loss on the contract for provisions. This is
to be weighed, but the choice will lie between either paying
the sum out of Colonial funds or else submitting a special
estimate for it to Parliament.
TFE
25 Jany
Ld Carnarvon
Whatever Departt or Treasury paid the contract on the 8 months, ought to pay the forfeit on the remaining 4.
Whatever Departt or Treasury paid the contract on the 8 months, ought to pay the forfeit on the remaining 4.
CBA
26/1
Lord Carnarvon saw me this week, & decided that this should
lie over for his successor.
TFE
8 March
I do not see the original contract on which claim is supposed
to arise.
B&C
9/3/67
Annexed.
TFE
9/3
The contract was absolute for 1 year. It was made by an
imperial officer on behalf of "Her Majesty's Government."
The troops were removed by Imperial govnt & not upon any
application of Colonial government.
The groundation for the claim therefore rests on Acts of
Imperial Officers—and the circs appear to give a good ground
for some compensation. I see no reason to question the amount
recommended by Mr Birch & Mr Trutch—this amt of £568
shd be paid therefore from Imp. funds & the Treasury may
probably think the best mode will be to take a special vote for
the amt as supplemental to the vote for B. Columbia. Consult
Treasury thereon.
B&C
12/3
Mr Elliot
It was decided by a Despatch from Sir E. Lytton in Sept 1858 that "it wod be impossible to impose on this Country the charge for the R. Engineers," & that the first charge on the Land Sales must be that of re-imbursing the Imperial Treasury for
all expenses incurred in the expedition.
It was decided by a Despatch from Sir E. Lytton in Sept 1858 that "it wod be impossible to impose on this Country the charge for the R. Engineers," & that the first charge on the Land Sales must be that of re-imbursing the Imperial Treasury for
all expenses incurred in the expedition.
Such were the conditions but the Colony found itself
unable to repay, & the rule had to be relaxed in practice,
the burden falling upon this Country.
No exact time was specified for them to remain but
in 1863 the War
Office inquired whether their services were still required, & the Duke
of Newcastle decided that they might be withdrawn.
in 1863 the War
Office inquired whether their services were still required, & the Duke
of Newcastle decided that they might be withdrawn.
FWF
1 Feb
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Copy, J.W. Trutch to Officer Administering the Government, 16 October
1866, advising that the claim appeared a just one and recommending the
sum of £568 in total settlement, with explanation.
Other documents included in the file
Elliot to G.A. Hamilton, Treasury, 18 March 1867, forwarding
correspondence on the subject with recommendation that parliament be
asked to grant the money in a supplementary colonial estimate.