Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Trevelyan, Sir Charles Edward to Merivale, Herman 13 January 1859, CO 60:6, no. 472, 95.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (6), Other documents (1).
Trevelyan proposes to the CO, on behalf of the Treasury, a mechanism in the “Draft Charter
for the Bank of British
Columbia” that would allow officials to revoke the charter “in case of breach of its provisions.”
The minutes protest that it is “objectionable” that the Treasury “should be empowered
to address the Crown independently” of the CO on matters concerning a colony and the
revocation of a charter. They find precedent to have this clause omitted.
Enclosed is a draft from Merivale to Hamilton further discussing possible alterations to the draft charter of the Bank of British
Columbia with reference to previous colonial banking charters.
Trevelyan to Merivale (Permanent Under-Secretary)
Treasury Chambers
13 January 1859
Sir,
Having laid before the Lords Commissioners of Her
Majesty's Treasury your Letter of the 28th ultimo proposing
certain amendments of the "Draft Charter for the Bank of British
Columbia," I am commanded by My Lords to state for the information
of Secretary Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, that They can hardly think
that the full impact of the provisions regarding the
the revocation
of the Charter were brought under his notice when he proposed
that the issue of a Warrant of this Board for the purpose should
be made legally subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of
State for the Colonies.
the revocation
of the Charter were brought under his notice when he proposed
that the issue of a Warrant of this Board for the purpose should
be made legally subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of
State for the Colonies.
I am to state that, in framing the Drafts of Charters for
Colonial Banks, it was considered desirable by the counsel of
this Board that some summary course should be provided for the 
revocation of the Grant, in case of breach of its provisions,
in order to avoid the delay and expense of proceedings in
Chancery; and that, for this object a power should be reserved
to the Crown to revoke the Charter on proof of violation of its
conditions, which power should be set in motion by a formal
representation to the Queen by some Department of Her Majesty's
Government.
revocation of the Grant, in case of breach of its provisions,
in order to avoid the delay and expense of proceedings in
Chancery; and that, for this object a power should be reserved
to the Crown to revoke the Charter on proof of violation of its
conditions, which power should be set in motion by a formal
representation to the Queen by some Department of Her Majesty's
Government.
It appeared to be obvious that this Board, as the
Depart=
Department charged with financial business was the proper
authority to be entrusted with the function, and the clause
which is now proposed to be altered has been inserted in all
the Colonial Bank Charters of recent years. The power conferred
by it is not of an arbitrary nature. That power could only be
exercised on proof that the corporation had so conducted its
operations as to entail legal forfeiture of its privileges
privileges;
and it is not to be supposed that so serious a step as the
revocation of a Charter would be taken except after mature
consideration of all the facts of the case of which the Secretary
of State for the Colonies would necessarily be cognisant, and under
the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown.
Department charged with financial business was the proper
authority to be entrusted with the function, and the clause
which is now proposed to be altered has been inserted in all
the Colonial Bank Charters of recent years. The power conferred
by it is not of an arbitrary nature. That power could only be
exercised on proof that the corporation had so conducted its
operations as to entail legal forfeiture of its privileges
privileges;
and it is not to be supposed that so serious a step as the
revocation of a Charter would be taken except after mature
consideration of all the facts of the case of which the Secretary
of State for the Colonies would necessarily be cognisant, and under
the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown.
My Lords are aware of no reasons which can be urged against
the ministerial Act provided for being vested in
in this Board; but
if Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton is prepared to state any grounds why the
course hitherto observed in the matter should be altered, My
Lords will be ready to consider such suggestions as he may wish
to offer on the subject, but They cannot consent that, under any
circumstances, the ministerial duty of submitting Their Warrant to
Her Majesty should be made
made legally subject to the previous
approval of a Secretary of State.
in this Board; but
if Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton is prepared to state any grounds why the
course hitherto observed in the matter should be altered, My
Lords will be ready to consider such suggestions as he may wish
to offer on the subject, but They cannot consent that, under any
circumstances, the ministerial duty of submitting Their Warrant to
Her Majesty should be made
made legally subject to the previous
approval of a Secretary of State.
I am to observe that My Lords will consider the other
suggestion contained in your Letter.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Merivale
I have been unable to find copies of any very recent Charters in the office, & am therefore unable to say how far the present statement of the Treasury is correct that the provision objected to by this dept by the letter of Oct 28/58 objected to by this dt by the letter of Oct 28/58 "has been inserted in all the Colonial Bank Charters of recent years." You will see that it was not inserted in the annexed printed Charter of the Bank of Australia which simply vests a power of revocation in the Crown, without the questionable addition practically placing the power in the hands of 2 Lords of the Treasury. I understand the Secy of State might claim the right of advising the Crown—or at least of jointly advising. I think the answer to this letter might be that Sir E.B. Lytton still thinks it objectionable in point of principle that the Lords of the Treasury should be empowered to address the Crown independently of this department, in a matter of such great importance to a Colony, as the revocation of a Charter, but as their Lordships object to an express provision for the concurrence
concurrence of the Secy of State Sir
E.B. Lytton wd suggest that the form of provision as to
revocation, in the annexed Charter of the Bank of Australia,
should be reverted to, under which the power of revocation
should be simply vested in the Sovereign without any
mention of a representation from 2 Lords of the Treasury.
I have been unable to find copies of any very recent Charters in the office, & am therefore unable to say how far the present statement of the Treasury is correct that the provision objected to by this dept by the letter of Oct 28/58 objected to by this dt by the letter of Oct 28/58 "has been inserted in all the Colonial Bank Charters of recent years." You will see that it was not inserted in the annexed printed Charter of the Bank of Australia which simply vests a power of revocation in the Crown, without the questionable addition practically placing the power in the hands of 2 Lords of the Treasury. I understand the Secy of State might claim the right of advising the Crown—or at least of jointly advising. I think the answer to this letter might be that Sir E.B. Lytton still thinks it objectionable in point of principle that the Lords of the Treasury should be empowered to address the Crown independently of this department, in a matter of such great importance to a Colony, as the revocation of a Charter, but as their Lordships object to an express provision for the concurrence
concurrence of the Secy of State Sir
E.B. Lytton wd suggest that the form of provision as to
revocation, in the annexed Charter of the Bank of Australia,
should be reverted to, under which the power of revocation
should be simply vested in the Sovereign without any
mention of a representation from 2 Lords of the Treasury.
On a recent occasion—vizt in the case of the Oriental
Bank, the Treasury acting on a similar Charter power vested in
2 Lords of the Treasury—gave the Bank authority to issue
notes in Mauritius with the concurrence of the Governor,
in the month of June or July, and did not inform the Secretary
of State that they had done so till September. There have
been other instances in which the 
Treasury have caused us much
perplexity
from not acquainting us sufficiently with
their proceedings in regard to Colonial matters. It
is certainly undesirable to raise a controversy between the
departments and therefore if any allusion is made to our
past experience of the use by the Treasury of powers vested
in them independently of this department, it should be of a
general & inoffensive character.
Treasury have caused us much
perplexity
from not acquainting us sufficiently with
their proceedings in regard to Colonial matters. It
is certainly undesirable to raise a controversy between the
departments and therefore if any allusion is made to our
past experience of the use by the Treasury of powers vested
in them independently of this department, it should be of a
general & inoffensive character.
WS
Jany 31/59
HM
Jan 31
I know nothing of this case.
C
Feby 1
As Mr S advises.
EBL
Feb 3
Other documents included in the file
Draft, Merivale to G.A. Hamilton, Treasury,
14 February 1859, further discussing possible alterations to the
draft charter of the Bank of British Columbia with reference to
previous colonial banking charters.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Merivale
Having now obtained a series of Charters from the Board of Trade—I find that 2 Charters of 1855 & 1856 omit the clause objected to by this dt. I have noticed them in this draft.
Having now obtained a series of Charters from the Board of Trade—I find that 2 Charters of 1855 & 1856 omit the clause objected to by this dt. I have noticed them in this draft.