Despatch to London.
Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Marginalia (2).
Douglas refutes Dallas's argument regarding the cost of Public Offices built by the
HBC in Victoria, and claims that he never intended that the Mother Country
pay for them.
No. 11
16 February 1860
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Grace's Despatch
No 24 of the 1st December last, transmitting Copy of a letter from
the Hudson Bay Company, enclosing one from Mr Dallas their Agent at
this place, upon the subject of the repayment of the outlay I had
incurred in erecting Public Offices in Vancouver's IslandIsland.
2. In reference thereto Your Grace remarks that the circumstances
stated therein agree with the supposition originally formed by Your
Grace that it was in the first instance intended that the cost of the
buildings should be borne by the Mother Country, as coming within the
Kind of expenditure incurred by the Hudson's Bay Company during their
tenure of the Island; and your Grace therefore requires me to furnish
some further explanation of the matter, and that I shall apprize you
of the extent of the land surrendered to the Company's Agent to meet
his advance, and of the modemode in which the price obtained for it was
realized.
3. Having already in my Despatch No 47 of the 12h September 1859,
stated at some length to Your Grace the reasons which compelled me to
institute measures to provide necessary and fitting accommodation for
the transaction of the public business of the Colony, and of my
inability to carry out my original intention of raising the requisite
funds by the Sale of an allotment of Government reserved land, through
my not being qualified to grant a Title; and also of the arrangement
I consequently entered into with the Agent of the Hudsons Bay Company
to surrender the land on condition of his placing at my disposal for
thethe erection of the Buildings the sum of money obtained by the Sale,
I will not again touch upon these points, but will endeavor to lay
before Your Grace such further information as I trust may disabuse
your mind of the idea that I ever contemplated that the cost of these
Buildings was to be ultimately
"repaid" by the Mother Country.
4. Your Grace will not fail to observe that in the letter of Mr
Dallas of the 14h September 1859, no mention whatever is made of the
land surrendered by me, but one would be led to infer that I had
pressed upon him to advance the sum of about Twenty seven Thousand
Dollars from the general funds of the Hudsons Bay Company, without inin
any way making provision for that sum being, almost before it was
required, paid into their hands. Mr Dallas states that he advanced
the money on condition that it should be passed by me "as coming
within the head of sums expended by the Company during the period of
their grant of the island."
If by this Mr Dallas considered that I proposed the entire Advance
should be repaid by the Home Government he was very much mistaken. I
had no objection to the amount being charged under the head of Sums
Expended for Colonial purposes—indeed after the arrangement I had
made to surrender the land, it was most desirable that it should be
so—but it was my full intention that the moneymoney raised by the Sale of the land should be
accounted for, and should appear per contra; and therefore
although the expense of the Buildings was in reality borne by the
Colony—or more properly
the Crown—yet no actual repayment would be required to meet
that expense.
5. I forward herewith a plan of the reserved portion of ground in
question. The whole piece contains an area of 2 Acres, 1 road, and
19 2/10 perches. The part surrendered to the Hudson Bay Company as
before described contains 1 Acre, 3 Roads, and 19 4/10 perches, being
the lots numbered on the plan from 1595 to 1626—except Lots 1603 and
1605 on which at present stand two Government Buildings, one being
the PostPost Office. There now remains of the original allotment about 1
road, and 39 8/10 perches, occupied by the two Buildings just
mentioned, and by the Police Court, Gaol and Yard, as exhibited by
the plan.
6. The site was surveyed under the direction of the Colonial
Surveyor, and sold after due notice at public auction to the highest
bidder, and payment for the same was made into the hands of the
Cashier of the Hudsons Bay Company.
7. I trust that this additional explanation may serve to place Your
Grace in possession of the precise facts of the case, and that it may
be satisfactory to you.
8. Before concluding I would desire to remark that I believe the
correspondencecorrespondence enclosed by Mr Dallas in his letter of the 14h
September and to which Your Grace adverts, in no way bears upon the
case in point. Those applications to Mr Dallas for money were
simply to meet small items of current expense, most of which were
incurred before the 30th May 1859 and which under the state of things
existing, I had no other means of defraying.
I have etc.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
The report of the Governor on the points on which this Office has
called for explanation will not be complete until he shall have ansd
the Duke of Newcastles despatch of the 2 Jany. I should suggest
therefore a short delay in the consideration of the subject.
Duke of Newcastle
Wait, as suggested? I have asked Mr Pemberton, the Colonial
Surveyor (who sold the land in question) about this rather obscure
affair. The fact is, that the H.B.Co. & Mr Dallas considered the
site of the old Govt offices as a portion of the "Fur Trade Reserve,"
of wh. we have heard so much lately, and therefore as their
private property. The Governor on the other hand holds it to
be Govt property,
Private property of the Govt as being a Government Reserve.
and to have been sold by the H.B.Co. in their public capacity.
[But?] only in consequence of a defect in the title.
In the former case, the money produced by the sale wd be an advance
from the Co., for wh. they wd be entitled to repayment. In the
latter case, it would be merely a payment out of Colonial Revenue.
The decision of the Judicial Committee on the question of the Co's
title to their "Fur Trade Reserve" will, I suppose, carry
this question with it.