Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Berens, Henry Hulse to Pelham-Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle Henry Pelham Fiennes 2 April 1861, CO 60:12, no. 3014, 137.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (5), Enclosures (untranscribed) (3).
Berens writes to Newcastle, in reference to an earlier letter from Fortescue, on the subject of Douglas and Dallas's ongoing conflict over HBC land-claims in British Columbia. Berens forwards an extract of a letter from Dallas, which apparently provides “fresh proofs” against Douglas's position.
In the minutes, among other points, Elliot asks Murdoch to comment on the issue of HBC land-claims, to which Murdoch ultimately asserts that the Company can have no claim at Yale, as the claim in question “has not been continuously occupied,” as admitted earlier
by Dallas.
The first of the three documents included in the file is an extract of Dallas's letter to Fraser, regarding HBC land claims; the second is a signed testament, by McGhie, for leased land in the “District of the Frasers River;” the third is a memorandum of deeds granted at Yale.
Berens to Newcastle
Hudson's Bay House
2 April 1861
With reference to Mr Fortescue's letter of the 15th
February on the subject of the encroachments of Governor Douglas on the property of the Hudson's Bay Company in British Columbia, and the reply which I had the honour of addressing to
your Grace on the 1st March, I beg now to transmit an Extract
of a letter from Mr Dallas to the Secretary of this Company which has since been received, and in which he adducedfresh
fresh proofs in opposition to Governor Douglas's assertion that "no just and efficient grounds exist for the complaints made by
Mr Dallas."
fresh proofs in opposition to Governor Douglas's assertion that "no just and efficient grounds exist for the complaints made by
Mr Dallas."
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
I think it wd be the select plan to let Mr Murdoch see this further Letter of the H.B.C. before we execute the directions on 2760.
I think it wd be the select plan to let Mr Murdoch see this further Letter of the H.B.C. before we execute the directions on 2760.
ABd
5 Apl
Mr Blackwood
The Minutes may therefore now be executed.
The Minutes may therefore now be executed.
TFE
16 April
Mr Murdoch
With reference to Mr Blackwood's Minute, perhaps you will have the kindness to look at this letter, and to let us know if it modifies your previous suggestions.
With reference to Mr Blackwood's Minute, perhaps you will have the kindness to look at this letter, and to let us know if it modifies your previous suggestions.
Should you find that it will be more convenient to elicit
your opinion in a report, let us know and we will send it to you
officially.
TFE
5 April
Mr Elliot
I do not think this additional letter requires any modification of my previous report. Mr Dallas alleged that the whole of the Co's property at Yale, except one lot, had been sold to squatters—the
the Govr answered that the Cos
property had been marked on the map as a "Reserve" & had been
respected—to which Mr Dallas rejoined that the "Reserve"
was of no value—& that the Cos land had not been respected.
It is clear that Mr Dallas' view of the Cos claim is
much more extensive than the Govrs and I have no doubt that
the Govr wd answer Mr Dallas' rejoinder & his
present letter by saying that the land he claims for the Co
was never theirs at all. In point of fact the matter is
of no importance. The Co can have no claim to any land in
B. Columbia which has not been continuously occupied—and
the land in question by Mr Dallas' own acknowledgement had
been long abandoned, until the Gold discoveries induced the
Co to return to it. If a title could be made out on such
grounds as these, there would be no limit to the claims which
the Co might put forward.
I do not think this additional letter requires any modification of my previous report. Mr Dallas alleged that the whole of the Co's property at Yale, except one lot, had been sold to squatters—the
the Govr answered that the Cos
property had been marked on the map as a "Reserve" & had been
respected—to which Mr Dallas rejoined that the "Reserve"
was of no value—& that the Cos land had not been respected.
It is clear that Mr Dallas' view of the Cos claim is
much more extensive than the Govrs and I have no doubt that
the Govr wd answer Mr Dallas' rejoinder & his
present letter by saying that the land he claims for the Co
was never theirs at all. In point of fact the matter is
of no importance. The Co can have no claim to any land in
B. Columbia which has not been continuously occupied—and
the land in question by Mr Dallas' own acknowledgement had
been long abandoned, until the Gold discoveries induced the
Co to return to it. If a title could be made out on such
grounds as these, there would be no limit to the claims which
the Co might put forward.
TWCM
6/4/61
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Extract, A.G. Dallas to Thomas Fraser, 26 January 1861,
concerning the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company.
William McGhie, 1 December 1858, a signed testament that he had taken and leased Lot 8, Block x in the "District of Frasers River."
Memorandum of deeds granted at Fort Yale, three entries.