No. 4
2nd September 1869
My Lord,
In Your Lordship's Despatch Newfoundland No 13 of the 17th June,
Manuscript image
Paper not in the Dept.
acquainting me with my appointment as Governor of this Colony it was stated that the Salary is at present £4,000 a year, and £1,000 for travelling expenses,butManuscript image but that the amount of this Salary was a matter of complaint in the Colony and you would not be prepared to reject any application that it should be reduced to £3,000 a year together with the Governor's actual travelling expenses not exceeding £1,000.
2. On my arrival here IhaveManuscript image have ascertained that my predecessor Mr Seymour received (£5,000) Five Thousand Pounds per annum, besides his travelling expenses, of which the actual amount only was drawn; for in addition to the amount of £4,000 under Act of the local Legislature he drew the sum of £1,000 a yearfromManuscript image from the Crown fund which has never been transferred to the control of the local Legislature.
3. I find that Mr Seymour considered himself authorised to draw this amount by some sanction given by Lord Carnarvon, mentioned in Mr Seymour's Despatch Separate oftheManuscript image the 17th April 1867, but of which I see no other record. I do not, however, regard myself as entitled to do the same without reference to Your Lordship,
Manuscript image
Quite right.
though I should not have troubled you now upon the subject, except that Mr Hankin the Colonial Secretary is in doubt whether he may bepaidManuscript image paid the half of the allowance from the Crown fund at the rate of £1,000 per annum for the period during which he administered the government between the dates of Mr Seymour's death and my arrival. Mr Hankin was presumably entitled to half of theemoluentsManuscript image emoluments of the Officer whom he succeeded for a time,
Manuscript image
and I would recommend that he at all events should be allowed this amount, as it will not add to the expenses of the Colony. As regards my own case, I believe from what I learn that no objection would be taken bytheManuscript image the Community to my receiving the same amount of official emolument that Mr Seymour drew, as I shall probably be the last Governor of the Colony under the existing establishment, for I think there is reason for anticipating that at no distant periodarrangementsManuscript image arrangements may be made for uniting British Columbia with the Dominion. And I would ask for Your Lordship's favorable consideration, upon the ground that I find the expenses of living in this Colony are so much greater than they are in NewfoundlandthatManuscript image that in fact £4,000 is scarcely equal to more than half that amount in my former residence. Servants wages are more than double—for Female Servants three times—the rates in Newfoundland or Halifax; there is some difficulty in procuring Housemaids even at Fifty Pounds SterlingandManuscript image and their board; while almost all other prices and expenses are from fifty to one hundred per cent greater than in the Eastern Provinces, and I have not the advantage of allowances such as for Light and Fuel which was enjoyed at Newfoundland.
5. But, if Your LordshipshouldManuscript image should regard a reduction of the Salary as necessary on any application which might be made, I would respectfully submit that to reduce it to £4,000, of which £1,000 might as heretofore be paid from the Crown fund, would be as great a reduction as could be effected withoutplacingManuscript image placing me at a serious disadvantage compared with the position occupied by my predecessor, or my own in my former Government.
I have the honor to be
My Lord,
Your most obedient
humble Servant
A. Musgrave
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Sir F. Rogers
2 points are raised in this despatch which I confess has caused me great surprise.
1. What is to be the future salary of the Governor.
2. At what rate is Mr Hankin to be paid.
On his appt to B.C. Mr Musgrave was informed that the salary is at "present £4000 a year, and £1000 travelling allowances. But the amount of this salary is a matter of complaint in the Colony & I should not be prepared to reject any application that it should be reduced to £3000 a year together with the Governors actual travelling expenses not exceeding £1000."
Manuscript image
Mr Musgrave in reply whilst deprecating any reduction below £4000, £3000 from Genl Revenue & £1000 from Crown fund, states what was as far as I know never suspected in this Dept viz that Mr Seymour has been drawing £5000 a year in addition to £1000 travelling allowances, on the ground that he was authorized to draw that amount by a communication from Lord Carnarvon.
This matter was fully discussed on Govr 5797, 1867 to which I would refer you. Although in a private letter Ld C expressed an opinion that the Salary ought to be fixed at the higher rate, that rate was never sanctioned & Mr Seymour 6 or 8 months after the date of that private letter was allowed £400 forManuscript image passage because his salary was only £4000. His own words were "£4000 was guaranteed me by Law & I could of course have with your Lordships sanction taken £1000 from the Crown Funds" (5797/Apl 67).
Manuscript image
[Partly off microfilm:]
I do not myself think anything of this. If it proves anything—it proves too much, in that Ld Carnarvon should not [have] half promised 5000£, wh it is quite clear [he] had, though he had not the promise [in] his recollection, when [he] failed to correct the sentence added [by] Mr Elliot [to] his minute [in] ignorance [of] that half promise.
In the face of this it appears from Mr Musgrave's despatch that not only was Mr Seymour actually drawing Salary at that rate in addition to allowances, then, but that he continued to do so after the very unequivocal reply of the D of B[&]C in which he said it was impossible to move for any increase to your Salary beyond the £4000 a year at which it is now fixed.
It is true there was no mention of the V.I. Crown Fund in that replyManuscript image but there was no reason to suppose that Mr Seymour was actually drawing £1000 from that source after having said he could have done so if he had received sanction, and there certainly can be no justification for his having drawn it after the D of Bs answer.
Mr Musgrave does not believe the community would object to his drawing less than Mr Seymour but proposes if a reduction is decided on that he should not receive less than the £3000 from the Coll Revenue £1000 from the Crown Fund & allowances.
This is the amount it was supposed Mr Seymour drew & it was intended that he should draw.
I think there can be noManuscript image doubt that if Mr Seymour had no right to this money that Mr Hankin has no right to half of it & that it could only be allowed to him as a matter of grace as Mr Musgrave suggests.
The Govr speaks confidently of Confederation & thinks he will probably be the last Govr of the Colony under the existing Estabt.
As to resolution of Minority of Council in regard to reduction of Salary to £2500. See 4630/1869.
Manuscript image
It appears to me that the case stands thus.
1. Lord Carnarvon virtually promised Mr Seymour 5000£. But no Treasury authority was obtained for this.
2. He offered to give up the odd 1000£ on terms—observing however that it was not necessary to go to theManuscript image Assembly for it, but that it mt be taken from the Crown Fund.
3.££To this the D of B replied "I concur entirely in the opinion wh you express of the inexpediency or rather impossibility in the present financial condition of B.C. of moving for any increase to your salary beyond the 4000£ a year at which it is now fixed."
4.££This leaves it ambiguous whether the D of B was prepared to recall Lord C's half pledge & reduce or retain Mr S's salary to or at 4000£, or whether he merely recognized the impossibility of "moving" the Assembly, & therefore authorized recourse to the Land Fund.
Manuscript image
5.££It seems to me Mr S. ought to have asked what was meant. Instead of this he noted it his own way & took the £1000 (for about 2 1/2 years, 2500£) from the Crown Fund.
I do not understand (& shd like to know) how this has escaped the Audit office. Perhaps it is after they ceased auditing.
Manuscript image
N.B. Sir F. Sandford should note this, as indicating a "cavendum" [?] in the system of Local Audit.
6.££It is plain that a Governor has no right to help himself to an increased salary on such a private letter as that of Ld Carnarvon & no better support than the equivocal dph of the Duke of Buckm. But it is to be observed that Mr S. treats the 5000£ throughout as his Salary.
7.££I think I shd be disposed to send the matter to the Treasury,Manuscript image stating the facts, very much as I have stated them above, & sending the correspondence.
If the 500£ allce to Mrs Seymour has not been already notified to her, the notification should be stopped.
Manuscript image
Mr Robinson to see to this at once.
But the question is whether anything should be done to get further infn—or to secure that we have all that is to be had from Lord Carnarvon—the D of Buckm or Mr Seymour's representatives (Mr Arthur Loundes I shd think wd be the proper person to apply to).
I should be disposed first to refer Ld C. to his private letter, & the subsequent Treasy letter—(pointing out that the latter was probably an inadvertance)Manuscript image and to ask whether it was his clear intention that Mr S. shd have a salary of 5000£.
And I wd ask the D. of B. whether it was his intention to authorize the continued drawing of 1000£ from the Crown Fund or to require that Mr S. shd be satisfied with the 4000£.
G 9/10
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Rogers to Carnarvon, 20 October 1869, asking for clarification of his intention regarding Seymour's salary.
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Sir F. Rogers
Wait answer before writing to the Duke of Buckingham?
Manuscript image
Mr Cox
Is it the common practice for the Secy of StateManuscript image to write himself or thro the U.S. to a Peer. I think this shd be purely official.
FR 12/10
Manuscript image
Walmer Castle,

Dear Mr Cox
Please send this private letter to Lord Carnarvon together with the official letter about Seymours Salary.
I am yours sincerely
R.M. Meade

Oct 18/69

Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Sent Oct 20th.