Public Offices document [Sender not known.] to Merivale, Herman 7 May 1859, CO 305:12, no. 4720, 123.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (7), Other documents (2).
Murdoch and Rogers respond to Merivale regarding the Hudson’s Bay Company’s request for reimbursement for expenses incurred
in searching for coal at Fort Rupert, and judge that the request should be denied since the company’s intentions seem
commercial rather than colonial.
The minutes agree to submit this difference to the arbitration of either Lord Wensleydale, Sir John Taylor Coleridge, or Sir J Pattison.
Included in the document is Coleridge to Merivale, 24 June 1859, expressing his willingness to do what he can; and a draft from Fortescue to the HBC, 1 July 1859, stating that while Newcastle cannot concur with their claim, he is willing to submit the question to an impartial advisor.
We have to acknowledge your letter of 28th ultimo, enclosing a further
letter from the Hudson's Bay Company on the subject of their claim to
be reimbursed the expenses incurred in searching for Coal at Fort Rupert in Vancouvers Island.
2. In our Report of 26th March last we pointed out, that this
claim must depend upon the question whether, if this mine had
succeeded, it was the intention of thethe Company to sell or Lease it to
themselves, or in any way to hold or work it for their own
advantage—or whether the proceeds would have been carried to the
public Revenue, the Company receiving no more than the percentage
allowed them by the Grant of 19th January 1849. This question
having been put to the Company they reply, that they cannot bring
evidence of an intention to carry the proceeds of the mine to the
public account because as no proceeds were ever accrued the question
never arose, nor do they explicitly state that any such intention
existed. But they allege that the searchsearch for coal was undertaken as
a means of promoting Colonization—that it had the effect of adding a
number of Miners and other Emigrants to the population—and,
therefore, that if they have no strictly legal right, they have an
equitable claim to the liberal consideration of H.M. Government.
They add that the Coal Mine at Nanaimo has hitherto been
unremunerative.
3. The claim then being abandoned as a matter of right it only
remains to be considered whether there are sufficient grounds in
equity to require or justify its admission.
This as it appears to us, must depend on the question whetherwhether the
Company were bound in their capacity of owners and Governors of the
Colony to find employment for Emigrants after their arrival in the
Colony, and whether it was judicious to send out a class of Laborers
for whom employment at their own occupation could be found only upon
works undertaken by the Company. It appears to us that the answer to
this question must be in the negative. The object of the Crown in
handing over the colonization of Van Couvers Island to the Company
was that it should be settled by a self supporting population, and
the Company acting for the Crown were boundbound to regulate their
selection of immigrants with reference to that object. If, as
appears to have been the case, they introduced immigrants of a
particular class and fitted only for a special description of labor,
which they alone could provide, it must be inferred that they did so
with a view to their operations as a Commerical Company, not to their
obligations as Colonizers and owners of the Island. And considering
that they had already an unremunerative Coal Mine at Nanaimo and that
there was no reasonable prospect of any immediate increase in thethe
demand for Coal we can hardly think that the introduction of so large
a number of Miners was judicious.
4. Upon the whole, therefore, we are compelled to express our
opinion that the Hudsons Bay Company are not entitled in equity to be
repaid the amount claimed on account of the works at Fort Rupert.
Mr Merivale
This paper was kept back whilst you were abroad as I was anxious to
have your opinion before any decision sd be come to on it. Will you
consider it.
Lord Carnarvon
It is rather a nice point in my opinion: if to be decided by us, I
should agree with the Commissioners. The only question which occurs
to me as one of justice is, whether it would not be fair to the
Company to submit this difference (which lies within a very [landed?]
compass) to the arbitration of any man of business who might be fixed
on. I should think that Ld Wensleydale, Sir John Coleridge, or any
other retired judge, would undertake this as a little piece of public
duty.
I quite agree in this suggestion wh considering the present
relations of this Office to the H.B.C. will be I think the most
satisfactory method of dealing with the case as regards all parties.
If necessary I can see Lord Wensleydale—who wd be a very good
arbiter—& propose the task to him. It need not give much trouble.
Ld Carnarvon
The first step I think would be to ascertain whether Ld Wensleydale—Sir J Pattison if in town—or Sir J Coleridge, who is in town—all
excellent arbitrators on such a subject—would have the kindness to
take it in hand: premising
that the public instruments and correspondence
only will be submitted to the arbiter, unless he should call for
more information himself.
If either of them [kindly?] agrees, then write officially to the
H B Co. proposing this solution.
If Ld W. perhaps you will see him or write to him. If Sir J.C.
I would undertake it if you wish.
My own opinion concurs with that of the Emn Comrs but I think Mr
Merivale's suggestion (especially in existing circumstances) a very
fair one and entirely approve of its adoption.
I have left a letter I wrote to you at home. I will only say
now shortly, that if I can be of any use, I shall be very glad to do
what I can—only remember the Sanctity of the Long Vacation & don't
force me up to London lightly during it—especially as when John &
family leave London, I shall have no home to resort to.
I do not think the Judicial Committee can interfere with me in
this matter, as I need not sit if it ever came here.