No. 159
10th December 1867
My Lord Duke,
I have had the honor to receive Your Grace's despatch No. 63 of the 17th of September on the subject of Mr James Cooper's application for removal to another Colony.
2.Manuscript image
2. Your Grace observes that I expressed my belief that the statements contained in Mr Cooper's Memorial as to the circumstances attending his appointment were correct. But Your Grace is at a loss to conceive any means by which I can have knowledge of expectations supposed to have been held out by Lord Lytton to Mr Cooper, nine years ago, when I was in the Colony of Honduras.
3. InManuscript image
3. In explanation of my expression of belief I have the honor to forward the enclosed copy of a confidential depatch, addressed by Lord Lytton to Sir James Douglas on the 24th of March 1859.
I have the honor to be,
My Lord Duke,
Your most obedient
humble Servant.
Frederick Seymour
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Mr Elliot
As the despatch to Gov. Seymour was founded on your minute I pass this thro' you instead of direct to Sir F. Rogers.
I send you the original draft of this Confidential desp: founded on a minute of Lord Lyttons. See Vol. 1858 No 1. Also Sir J. Douglas' answer 2 June 1859—Vol. 1859 No 2. Mr Cooper's present salary is $1940 = £400 which is all he was intended to have. But his case is disposed of, & it has only to be considered what answer shall be given to the personal mention as regards Gov. Seymour with reference to the Duke of Buckingham's despatch now acknd.
CC 5/2
Manuscript image
See separate minute.
TFE 30/3
Manuscript image
I minuted Governor Seymour's former despatch, but I am in no way responsible for the draft which did not pass through my hands.
The present despatch shows that Governor Seymour was perfectly well founded in the knowledge which he intimated, although it was natural that some surprise should be felt at it in the absence of an explanation from him of it's source.
I think that it only remains to acknowledge this despatch and to state to Governor Seymour that his explanation shows that he was quite justified in the knowledgewhichManuscript image which he expressed of Lord Lytton's original arrangement with Mr Cooper, when he went out to British Columbia.
TFE 30 March
CBA 31/3
Manuscript image
But how is it this was not known in the Colonial Office when the matter was brought forward?
B&C 31/3
Manuscript image
I hope to satisfy your Grace from accident not from negligence.
B. Columbia had only been recently made over to the Eastern Dt when Governor Seymour's despatch arrived—& there was no Gentlemen in the Dt conversant with Columbia correspondence.
But inquiry & search wasManuscript image made & in the B. Columbia Entry Volume was found the despatch notifying Mr Cooper's appt & the conditions on which it was made & no other—nor indeed was there anything to lead to an idea that [there] could be anything further. The reason the Confidential despatch was not found arose from its being entered in a different Vol: namely the Vancouver Entry Book. Hence when Mr Elliot's minute with your Grace's sanction came back to the Dt there was no known reason why it should not be acted on.
CC 2/4
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Manuscript image
Lytton to Douglas, Confidential, 24 March 1859, chastizing the governor for failing to appoint Cooper to a position, with explanation.
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 21, 5 April 1868 stating that Seymour was “justified in the Knowledge…expressed of Lord Lytton’s original arrangement with Mr. Cooper.”
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Sir F. Rogers
I have answered His Grace's Enquiry at the end of the Minute.
I think Clause 120 of the Regulations applies to Govr Seymours despatch of 2 Septt—at all events in spirit—he ought to have stated what he referred to.