No. 18
New Westminster
17th March 1868
My Lord Duke,
I have the honor, though somewhat late, to forward the correspondence with Rear Admiral Hastings which should have accompanied my despatch No. 93 of 16thAugustManuscript image August 1867. It is unfortunate that it did not do so as its omission has caused the further correspondence likewise enclosed. I must allow that the distinction made by Admiral Hastings between the physical and moral ability of Captain Porcher to suppress an incipient rebellion 500 miles from the coast appeared to me somewhat unintelligable.
2. Captain Oldfield,H.M.S.Manuscript image H.M.S. "Malacca" and Captain Porcher H.M.S. "Sparrowhawk" had both expressed the wish to accompany me to Cariboo (previous to the resistance to the Law) and it appeared to me that it was for them to apply to their superior officer for leave of absence for the purpose. My Secretary however allowed the Telegram I enclose to be taken to Admiral Hastings.
3. IfManuscript image
3. If either of these Officers accompanied me I thought he might bring his uniform as I paid all the expenses of the freight and conveyance.
I have the honor to be,
My Lord Duke,
Your most obedient
humble Servant.
Frederick Seymour
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Sir F. Rogers
Copies of Governor Seymour's despatches Nos 92 & 93 were sent to the Admiralty. In their answer (10657) they say "with reference to the complaintManuscript image made by the Govr that R. Admiral Hastings had declined to detach any Force from the Ships under his orders"—I do not think those despatches warranted so strong an expression, & certainly would not had the enclosures to 93 been recd.
But the matter may safely be allowed to drop I think.
CC 17 June
Manuscript image
The Admy statement appears to be founded on Mr Seymour's dph No 92, 18 Aug. par. 2—and that on Adml H's mention of "moral" support. TheManuscript image Admy expression is loose—but Mr Seymour's dph tho' not strictly speaking a complaint, is in a tone of asperity, wh an inaccurate or careless writer wd take up as such.
Put by.
FR 17/6
CBA 19/6
Manuscript image
I think this shd be acknowledged with the remarks that there has surely been a misapprehension which the enclosures remove—but have not had time to read myself the whole case.
B&C 19/6
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Manuscript image
Telegram, 29 July 1867, Seymour to D. Maunsell, Private Secretary, expressing a desire to have Oldfield or Porcher accompany him to Cariboo, "with uniforms."
Manuscript image
Rear Admiral G.F. Hastings to Seymour, 30 July 1867, agreeing to send Porcher to accompany him to provide "moral support."
Manuscript image
Seymour to Hastings, 31 July 1867, thanking him for sending Porcher.
Manuscript image
Hastings to Seymour, 8 January 1867, enclosing letters from Admiralty referring to alleged complaint against him for refusing to send a force to Cariboo and asking for an explanation.
Manuscript image
Lord Henry G. Lennox, Admiralty, to Hastings, 28 October 1867, transmitting copy of a letter to Elliot respecting the alleged complaint.
Manuscript image
Lennox to Elliot, 28 October 1867, supporting Hastings' actions in the incident that led to the alleged complaint.
Manuscript image
Seymour to Hastings, 18 January 1868, denying he had lodged a complaint.
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 38, 26 June 1868 acknowledging Seymour’s despatch and noting how the Admiralty misunderstood Seymour’s correspondence as a “complaint” against Hastings.
Seymour, Frederick to Grenville, Richard 17 March 1868, CO 60:32, no. 6290, 123. The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.2, ed. James Hendrickson and the Colonial Despatches project. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. https://bcgenesis.uvic.ca/B68018.html.

Last modified: 2020-12-02 13:40:34 -0800 (Wed, 02 Dec 2020) (SVN revision: 5008)