Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Hammond, Edmund to Adderley, Charles Bowyer 11 March 1867, CO 60:30, no. 2464, 118.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (11), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Other documents (2).
Hammond relates Stanley’s thoughts on Seymour’s actions regarding Britain and America’s joint occupation of San Juan Island and Stanley’s plans to move forward with a settlement with the United States. Minutes from Elliot, Adderley, Rogers, and Buckingham discuss how Hammond’s phrase,
that the demand made by the Commander of that Force on the Commander of the American Force for the surrender of the man was most injudicious,are to be interpreted. Buckingham minutes approval of Seymour’s actions and instructs that letters and despatches regarding Bazalgette be transmitted to the Admiralty. Included documents describe the situation on San Juan Island and the actions of Bazalgette regarding the deserter.
Hammond to Under-Secretary of State
I have laid before Lord Stanley Your Letter and it's
enclosure of the 5th Instant respecting certain occurences at
the Island of San Juan, and I am to request that you will state to
the Duke of Buckingham that it appears to Lord Stanley that Governor
Seymour has taken the best course both as regards the American
Tariff andas
as regards the Deserter from the Marine Force in the Island;
but that the demand made by the Commander of that Force on the
Commander of the American Force for the surrender of the man
was most injudicious, and wholly unwarranted.
as regards the Deserter from the Marine Force in the Island;
but that the demand made by the Commander of that Force on the
Commander of the American Force for the surrender of the man
was most injudicious, and wholly unwarranted.
As regards the question of a settlement with the United States
of the pending question respecting the possession of the Island,
I am to state for His Grace's information that the manner of
dealing withthis
this question involves much difficulty, as he will
see by the perusal of the Memoranda of which I enclose copies.
this question involves much difficulty, as he will
see by the perusal of the Memoranda of which I enclose copies.
Sir Frederick Bruce will however be instructed again to
bring before the American Goverment the proposal of January 25 1861,
if he sees no objection to doing so at the present time, and Her
Majesty's Government will be able from his report to judge what
course should be taken, supposing the American Government are still
unwilling to agree to arbitration onthe
the basis stated in that proposal.
the basis stated in that proposal.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
Inform, I presume, Govr Seymour that H.M. Govt approve the course pursued by him in regard to the question of duties, & to the Deserter—& add that they consider the conduct of the Marine Officer at San Juan was most injudicious & wholly unwarranted.
Inform, I presume, Govr Seymour that H.M. Govt approve the course pursued by him in regard to the question of duties, & to the Deserter—& add that they consider the conduct of the Marine Officer at San Juan was most injudicious & wholly unwarranted.
I conclude that Govr Seymour may further be informed that
this question of boundary is now under the consn of H.M.G.
ABd
14/3
No doubt Governor Seymour will be approved, and will also
be informed that H.M.'s Govt will not lose sight of the
desirableness of inducing the Government of the United States to
agree upon some method of settling the right to the Island of San Juan.
But with regard to the Marine Officer, I think that some care
should be used in framing our letters. The Foreign Office write to
us with the freedom of one Department of State writing to another;
but I am not at all sure that their very words are the best to use
in any communication which may eventually be made to the Officer
concerned.He
He doubtless acted to the best of his judgement, and the
enclosures of 1992 show that the position of affairs was really very
difficult, and also that he had no wish to give offence to his
American neighbour.
He doubtless acted to the best of his judgement, and the
enclosures of 1992 show that the position of affairs was really very
difficult, and also that he had no wish to give offence to his
American neighbour.
What I suppose the Foreign Office to mean is that the demand
for the deserter was not warranted by the Law of Nations, and
that the act of the Officer was not judicious. But their actual
phrase seems to make both epithets equally applicable to the
Officer himself.
I should therefore prefer saying that a demand for the
deserter was not warranted by the Law of Nations, and that the
application made for himby
by the Officer of Marines was injudicious.
It seems to me also that before sending this out to the Governor,
the Admiralty ought to be made aware of the case. I would suggest
that we send them a copy of the Governor's despatch 1992; that we
should say (if His Grace approves it) that the Duke of Buckingham
recognizes the prudence and desire for conciliation exhibited in
Captn Oldfield's letters, but that with regard to the demand for
the deserter made by the Officer of Marines in command at San Juan,
His Grace gathers from a letter from the Foreign Office that it was
not warranted by the Law of Nations, and that he regrets that he
cannot considerit
it as otherwise than an injudicious act, although
doubtless prompted by good motives.
by the Officer of Marines was injudicious.
It seems to me also that before sending this out to the Governor,
the Admiralty ought to be made aware of the case. I would suggest
that we send them a copy of the Governor's despatch 1992; that we
should say (if His Grace approves it) that the Duke of Buckingham
recognizes the prudence and desire for conciliation exhibited in
Captn Oldfield's letters, but that with regard to the demand for
the deserter made by the Officer of Marines in command at San Juan,
His Grace gathers from a letter from the Foreign Office that it was
not warranted by the Law of Nations, and that he regrets that he
cannot considerit
it as otherwise than an injudicious act, although
doubtless prompted by good motives.
TFE
15 March
Duke of Buckingham
Is there any use in referring to the Admiralty? & is it not enough simply to approve of Govr Seymour's conduct in both cases & inform him of the question of boundary being again under consideration.
Is there any use in referring to the Admiralty? & is it not enough simply to approve of Govr Seymour's conduct in both cases & inform him of the question of boundary being again under consideration.
The demand for the Deserter was not against the
Law of Nations, but outside of our Extradition law—& the
understanding or Acts of the U. States—& we only got the opinion of
the F.O. not a decision or information from them.
Cap Bazalgette acted only injudiciously & without any
proof of the man being the Deserter supposed.
CBA
15/3
Gov. Seymours conduct to be approved. Inform him that the
boundary question is under consideration—express regret that the
officer in command of H.B.Ms troops shd have made the demand for
surrender of the deserter which was not warranted by the subsisting
engagement with the U.S. that that proceeding was injudicious and
the form in which the demand was made was such that no foreign
power however well disposed toward us could be expected to comply
with. Communicate to Admiralty.
B&C
12/3
Mr Adderley
I think Captain Bazalgette's letter so injudicious & so calculated to lead to ill feeling, if not to collision, that it ought not to be passed over, especially as the demand made by him is one which he could not have acceded to if made to himself.
I think Captain Bazalgette's letter so injudicious & so calculated to lead to ill feeling, if not to collision, that it ought not to be passed over, especially as the demand made by him is one which he could not have acceded to if made to himself.
Captain B. states that a certain Hughes deserted from his camp
in May 1861—5 1/2 years previously, that it has "come to his
knowledge" that this man
"is now serving as an enlisted soldier" in
the U.S. army.
"is now serving as an enlisted soldier" in
the U.S. army.
On this allegation, without even tendering any proof of the
identity or of the desertion Capt. B. peremptorily demands—not
inquiry or investigation which would have enabled him to send
home a full report for consideration by H.M. Government, but the
surrender, indeed the delivery as a prisoner of a soldier of the
U.S. Army.
It is very probable that with the mutual good feeling
which appears fortunately to have hitherto characterized the joint
occupation of San Juan, the officers on either side may have handed
back to each other stragglers from their respective camps found on
the island & attempting to desert, or possibly even persons who under
those circumstances have offered themselves for enlistment. But the
delivery to a Foreign Power of a regularly enrolled soldier of several
years service is a very different matter, and one which Captain B.
must have well known, he could not according to the practice—or under
any regulation of the British Service have acceded to in the case
of a similar demand made to himself.
occupation of San Juan, the officers on either side may have handed
back to each other stragglers from their respective camps found on
the island & attempting to desert, or possibly even persons who under
those circumstances have offered themselves for enlistment. But the
delivery to a Foreign Power of a regularly enrolled soldier of several
years service is a very different matter, and one which Captain B.
must have well known, he could not according to the practice—or under
any regulation of the British Service have acceded to in the case
of a similar demand made to himself.
Immediate
Write to Admiralty, transmitting copies of so much of Govrs despatch & enclosures and letter from F.O. as relates to the conduct of Capt. Bazalgette & conveying the within written opinion as to it.
Write to Admiralty, transmitting copies of so much of Govrs despatch & enclosures and letter from F.O. as relates to the conduct of Capt. Bazalgette & conveying the within written opinion as to it.
B&C
20/3
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Memoranda, 2 February 1864 and 31 July 1866, concerning settlement
of the San Juan Island dispute, prepared by Foreign Office staff (28
pages).
Other documents included in the file
Colonial Office to Secretary to the Admiralty,
22 March 1867, forwarding copy of correspondence concerning the
actions of Bazalgette for consideration, with ending extensively edited.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
The Duke desires that so much of the despatch as relates to Capt Bazalgette's conduct shd be sent to the Admiralty—but the whole of it relates to the desertion case—& I therefore suppose that a Copy of the whole should go.
The Duke desires that so much of the despatch as relates to Capt Bazalgette's conduct shd be sent to the Admiralty—but the whole of it relates to the desertion case—& I therefore suppose that a Copy of the whole should go.
