Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Hammond, Edmund to Merivale, Herman 13 June 1855, CO 305:6, no. 5433, 237.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (10), Enclosures (transcribed) (1), Other documents (1), Marginalia (1).
Hammond writes to Merivale to request, on behalf of Clarendon, that Russell be apprised of the reasons for Vancouver Island’s exclusion from the
Reciprocity Treaty,and to convey that Clarendon will instruct
Her Majesty’s Minister at Washingtonto petition the US government that the treaty incorporate Vancouver Island, provided that Clarendon learn how the HBC’s charter on the Island would affect treaty conditions.
The minutes discuss the HBC’s charter on Vancouver Island, and some confusion around the charter’s terms, which seem to be caused, in part,
by
an oversight of the Board of Trade.
The first of the two documents included in the file is a letter from the Colonial Office to the Board of Trade, which explains the fisheries’ position on the HBC’s charter, and asks that the Reciprocity Treaty incorporate Vancouver Island; the second is a draft letter from Elliot to Hammond, which forwards the Colonial Office’s letter to the Board of Trade.
Hammond to Merivale (Permanent Under-Secretary)
With reference to your Letter of the 9th Instant respecting the
regret felt by the inhabitants of Vancouver's Island at not being
included in the late Reciprocity Treaty with the United States, I am
directed by the Earl of Clarendon to request that you will call Lord
John Russell's attention to the circumstances which led to no mentionbeing
being made of Vancouver's Island in the Treaty.
being made of Vancouver's Island in the Treaty.
The Treaty relates not only to reciprocal commerce, but to
reciprocal rights of Fishery; and as the British Fisheries in the
Pacific could not be comprehended in the Treaty, consistently with the
Charter of the Hudson's Bay Company, no provision could be made for the
interests of the inhabitants of Vancouver's Island in regard to the
other point towhich
which the Treaty applied.
which the Treaty applied.
Lord Clarendon is however prepared to instruct Her Majesty's
Minister at Washington to ascertain whether the Government of the United
States would consent to the Treaty being extended so as to embrace
Vancouver's Island, but His Lordship would wish in the first instance to
be informed in what manner and to what extent the special privilegesof
of
the Hudson's Bay Company under Charter would admit of any Treaty
stipulations being made in favor of Vancouver's Island.
of
the Hudson's Bay Company under Charter would admit of any Treaty
stipulations being made in favor of Vancouver's Island.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Merivale
We must, I presume, either construe the Charter ourselves for the Foreign Office or request the Hudson's Bay Company to furnish us with a legal opinion as to how, under the Charter, Treaty stipulations could be made in favor of VanCouver's Island with the United States.
We must, I presume, either construe the Charter ourselves for the Foreign Office or request the Hudson's Bay Company to furnish us with a legal opinion as to how, under the Charter, Treaty stipulations could be made in favor of VanCouver's Island with the United States.
If the British Govt resumes the Territory, which question is
under considn, the
contraction of a Treaty to include it in the
Reciprocity arrangement would be much facilitated.
contraction of a Treaty to include it in the
Reciprocity arrangement would be much facilitated.
ABd
15 June
There is some mistake here which I cannot explain. Mr Peel in
his minute on 6353 says that "the rights of the HBC stood in the way of our making concessions in respect of the fisheries, &c" but I am quite unaware on what authority Mr Peel says so, or when the question was considered. I cannot see what there is in the rights of the H.B.C. to interfere with the extension of the Reciprocity Treaty to Vancr Id. Their "charter" referred to in this letter does no doubt give them "the fishing of all sorts of fish, whales, sturgeons, & all other royal fishes in the seas" but that is in Hudson's Bay, not the
Pacific. Their "license" of 1837 [1838], which is their authority for
exclusive trade in the Pacific Coast regions, says nothing about
fisheries. Their grant of Vancouver's Island not only omits fisheries,
but these were specially & deliberately omitted, see Report of P.C. of
October/48. I conclude that something passed privately of which I have
not been informed. Perhaps I had better talk to Mr Hammond about
this before taking any other step?
his minute on 6353 says that "the rights of the HBC stood in the way of our making concessions in respect of the fisheries, &c" but I am quite unaware on what authority Mr Peel says so, or when the question was considered. I cannot see what there is in the rights of the H.B.C. to interfere with the extension of the Reciprocity Treaty to Vancr Id. Their "charter" referred to in this letter does no doubt give them "the fishing of all sorts of fish, whales, sturgeons, & all other royal fishes in the seas" but that is in Hudson's Bay, not the
Pacific. Their "license" of 1837 [1838], which is their authority for
exclusive trade in the Pacific Coast regions, says nothing about
fisheries. Their grant of Vancouver's Island not only omits fisheries,
but these were specially & deliberately omitted, see Report of P.C. of
October/48. I conclude that something passed privately of which I have
not been informed. Perhaps I had better talk to Mr Hammond about
this before taking any other step?
HM
June 15
JB
9 Jy
Yes, but Mr Merivale should also see the Governor of the
Hudsons Bay Company as to their construction of their own privileges.
Hudsons Bay Company as to their construction of their own privileges.
JR
10
Mr Ball
Mr Hammond has made it clear to me that the mistake arose from an oversight of the Board of Trade in quoting the grant of Vancr Id which oversight passed unnoticed by us. See papers annexed. I think it will be almost necessary to write to the Bd of Trade about it? and annex draft accordingly.
Mr Hammond has made it clear to me that the mistake arose from an oversight of the Board of Trade in quoting the grant of Vancr Id which oversight passed unnoticed by us. See papers annexed. I think it will be almost necessary to write to the Bd of Trade about it? and annex draft accordingly.
HM
Augt 8
I suppose that the reply when received shd go [to] the Foreign
Office with a strong recommendation of the extension of the reciprocity Treaty.
Office with a strong recommendation of the extension of the reciprocity Treaty.
Yes. I think so.
WM
A 9
Documents enclosed with the main document (transcribed)
Draft, Colonial Office to James Booth, Board of Trade, 10 August 1855, explaining the position of the fisheries with regard to the Hudson's Bay Company's grant, and asking that steps be taken to extend the reciprocity treaty to include Vancouver Island.
10th August 1855
Sir,
Sir,
On the 23rd November 1853 this Department received from the
Foreign Office copy of a letter from yourself (on the subject of a
counter proposition of Mr Marcy respecting the Reciprocity Treaty
then pending between the United States and this country) in which the
following passage occurs
My Lords see great difficulty in acceding to the
proposal of Mr Marcy
to include the coast of the Pacific as well as that of the Atlantic in
any arrangement for mutual admission to the Fisheries of both, the Crown
having already by Royal Charter conveyed to the Hudson's Bay Company the
Colony of Vancouver's Island, together with the fisheries in the seas,
bays, inlets, and rivers within or surrounding that Settlement as well
as
all Royalties of the seas and coast within the limits of their grant.
proposal of Mr Marcy
to include the coast of the Pacific as well as that of the Atlantic in
any arrangement for mutual admission to the Fisheries of both, the Crown
having already by Royal Charter conveyed to the Hudson's Bay Company the
Colony of Vancouver's Island, together with the fisheries in the seas,
bays, inlets, and rivers within or surrounding that Settlement as well
as
all Royalties of the seas and coast within the limits of their grant.
For this reason (as well as others it is believed) no steps have
hitherto been taken to include Vancouver's Island within the Reciprocity
Treaty.
On reference, however, to the Charter of Grant, here referred to
(as printed in Parliamentary Papers 7th March 1849) nothing therein
appears to be said about "Fisheries": the only words bearing on such
supposed privilege are "together
with all Royalties of the "seas."
with all Royalties of the "seas."
The inhabitants of Vancouver's Island are very anxious for the
extension of the advantages of the Treaty to their Coast if possible:
and I am directed to request that you will ask their Lordships, whether
on reconsideration they think that the rights of the Company present any
obstacle to such inclusion, any more than the rights of any
individual
landowners of the shores of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick to the Treaty
lately concluded.
individual
landowners of the shores of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick to the Treaty
lately concluded.
[No signature]
Other documents included in the file
Draft, Elliot to Hammond, 30 August 1855, forwarding copy of
Colonial Office to Booth, 10 August 1855.