Carnarvon to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)
24 Dec: 1869
I have now made a complete search amongst my private papers and unfortunately I can find nothing relative to the late Govr Seymour's salary which it would be worth sending to Lord Granville. That a mem: did exist on the subject I am confident, but for the moment I am unable to find it.
After however refreshing my recollections of this subject I may certainlyManuscript image state that the salary which I originally offered to Mr Seymour was £5000—of which £4000 was to be drawn from B. Columbia & £1000 from the Crown fund of the Colony of V. Couver—that the salary was accepted by Mr Seymour but that having regard to the financial difficulties of the Colony he volunteered to sacrifice £1000 for the time.
I intimated indeed to him aManuscript image doubt whether such a personal sacrifice ought to be accepted from him and whether the necessary reductions ought not to be sought for in some different manner. But for the time the matter remained in suspense and before circumstances allowed of it being brought to a distinct conclusion, I had given up the seals of the Colonial Office.
I find indeed in one of Mr Seymour's private letters to me dated 19 Dec 1866 the following paragraph:
Manuscript image
I am making sweeping reductions in order to restore public confidence and I cannot conscientiously—for the present at all events—draw the extra £1000 a year salary sanctioned by your Lordship.
I have nothing later or more explanatory than this, & in the following March I ceased to be in Office.
I remain Sir
Yr Obdt Servt

Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Sir F. Rogers
The next step is to ask the D of Buckingham whether he intended Mr Seymour to draw the £1000 a year from the Crown Fund. See your Minute on 11115.
CC 27/12
Manuscript image
I do not, on second thoughts, see that the Duke of Buckms intention is material. The question is what Mr Seymour was entitled to expect or justified in understanding from the correspondence taken as a whole.
It is quite clear that Lord Carnarvon awarded to Govr Seymour 5000£ a year, leaving it to himManuscript image to determine whether he should or should not receive more than £4000. Mr Seymour was entitled to suppose that this was done with proper authy.
2. Governor Seymour wrote a despatch, assuming himself to be entitled to 5000£ admitting that the S. of S's sanction was requisite in order to take the 1000£ in the only way in which it could be got—from the Crown Fund and expressing his readiness to give up the 1000£ on certain terms and asking for instructions.
He received an answer which gave no instructions, but merely expressed concurrence in the opinion that the money cd not be got from the general Revenue.
Therefore he seems to have helped himself from the Crown Reve.
Manuscript image
This was evidently irregular. He had no right to [forestal?] the formal authority of the S. of State, which also should not have been given witht consulting the Treasury.
If Mr Seymour had lived it would have been a question what notice ought to have been taken of this irregularity as a matter of official discipline.
But assuming that the Treasury concurrence wd have been given if applied for by Ld Carnarvon to the proposed rate of Salary, the transaction was not in substance an improper one. The sum appropriated by Mr Seymour, was not greater than that wh was pledged to him—subject only to the possibility that he mt himselfManuscript image not chose to exact it.
I therefore should not require his representatives—probably his widow, to refund it.
But it is a different case with Mr Hankin. To him no expectation has been held forth and he is merely entitled to one half of the legal Salary of the Governor—i.e. 4000£ a year.
I would therefore write to Mr Musgrave that Mr Seymour had never received any official authority to draw the 1000£ from the Crown Fund, nor had that step been submitted either officially or unofficially to the Lords of the Treasury whose concurrence was requisite for it.Manuscript image That under these circumstances and in the existing state of the finances of B.C. that Lord G cannot sanction the payment of Salary at any greater rate than 2000£ per ann, to Mr Hankin, and 4000£ to Musgrave—but that he is of opinion that any motion for reduction below that sum may be met, by pointing out to the Council that the reduction has practically been effected by discontinuing the payment of 1000£ hitherto made to Mr Seymour from the Crown Fund.
Request to be informed what amount has been drawn from the Crown Fund on this acctManuscript image and up to what period the accounts of that Fund have been sent home for audit.
I would send the correspondence to the Treasury, with a statement of the reasons which led Ld G. to consider that the money should not be reclaimed from Mrs Seymour and stating that, witht anticipating their Lps decision on the subject—wh mt be delayed till Mr M's reply was receivedManuscript image Lord G. wd be glad to know whether their Lps considered it requisite at the present moment to make any communication to Mr Seymour's represve.
If there is any serious intention of reclaiming the money, this shd be done at once.
FR 30/12
G 1/1
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Draft reply, Granville to Musgrave, No. 1, 10 January 1870.
Manuscript image
Rogers to Secretary to the Treasury, 12 January 1870, forwarding correspondence on the subject, with explanation, and asking whether they concur in the opinion that the money should not be reclaimed from Seymour's representative.