Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Hamilton, George Alexander to Rogers, Baron Blachford Frederic 23 February 1864, CO 60:20, no. 1683, 158.
Abstract
Hamilton, George Alexander to Rogers, Baron Blachford Frederic 23 February 1864, CO 60:20, no. 1683, 158.
Public Offices document.
Minutes (2), Other documents (1), Marginalia (1).
Hamilton to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)
Treasury Chambers
23rd February 1864
Sir
With reference to your letter of the 2nd Instant I am
desired by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury
to state, for the information of the Duke of Newcastle, that
before coming to any decision in regard to the remission of
any portion of the Passage Money to British Columbia of the
Wife & Family of Serjeant McColl—of the Royal Engineers—They
wish to be furnished with further information on the subject
of the payment of the cost of the passages of the wives &
families of the Men who went to British Columbia.It
It appears
that some of the married Men & their families were conveyed
free in the Troop Ship "Thames City," and My Lords assume that
the cost of their Transport was paid by the Admiralty as a
Naval Charge. It further appears that ill health prevented
Mrs McColl & her family availing herself of that opportunity
of proceeding to the Colony, & that the question of providing
them with a passage at the public expense was referred to the
Secretary of State for War, on which subject no opinion is
expressed in these papers;
It appears
that some of the married Men & their families were conveyed
free in the Troop Ship "Thames City," and My Lords assume that
the cost of their Transport was paid by the Admiralty as a
Naval Charge. It further appears that ill health prevented
Mrs McColl & her family availing herself of that opportunity
of proceeding to the Colony, & that the question of providing
them with a passage at the public expense was referred to the
Secretary of State for War, on which subject no opinion is
expressed in these papers;
By your letter of 1 October 1860 My Lords were requested
to give directionsfor
for the payment of the cost of the passage
of the wives & families of certain non-commissioned Officers
& Men as an advance to be repaid by the Colony,
and in November
1861 My Lords issued the sum of £217.11.2 to the Emigration
Commissioners on account of their passages per "Marcella."
It is now stated that the cost of these and other passages
was to be defrayed in the first instance by the Imperial Treasury,
but to be recovered by stoppages from the Men's pay;
for the payment of the cost of the passage
of the wives & families of certain non-commissioned Officers
& Men as an advance to be repaid by the Colony,
The words used but the intention was that the money
should be recovered from the Mens pay vide Moody/5416.
My Lords presume, from this circumstance, that the War
Department did not accede to the grant of a free passage to
Mrs McColl, but that it wasto
to be recovered in common
with the cost of the passages of the other wives & families
sent in the "Marcella;"
to be recovered in common
with the cost of the passages of the other wives & families
sent in the "Marcella;"
My Lords request to be informed whether the sums
advanced have been fully recovered from the Men whose families
were sent in this Vessel, & to what account they have been
credited, which information might be obtained from Colonel
Moody. They also desire to be favored with the opinion of
the Secretary of State for War whether any remission of the
Passage Money of the Wife & family of Serjeant McColl would
be allowed under Military Regulations on the grounds set
forth by that person.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
The Treasury enquire how the passages of the women and children who went out free were paid for. In the case of those who sent out in the "Thames City" it was settled between this office and the Admiralty, after a previous correspondence between this office and the Treasury, that the Admiralty should pay for their passage but the consent of the Admiralty does not appear to have been communicated to the Treasury.
The Treasury enquire how the passages of the women and children who went out free were paid for. In the case of those who sent out in the "Thames City" it was settled between this office and the Admiralty, after a previous correspondence between this office and the Treasury, that the Admiralty should pay for their passage but the consent of the Admiralty does not appear to have been communicated to the Treasury.
Other women and children went out in the "Euphrates"
but the Admiralty does not appear to have presented a claim
for their passages, perhaps in consequence of the decision
arrived at in the case of the "Thames City."
The Treasury further enquire as to the repayment of the
sum of £217.11.2 advanced for the passage
of Mrs McColl,
her children and others. We have Colonel Moodys Statement
that Sergeant McColl has repaid £52.10 out of £105 due from
him. Colonel Moody will also perhaps be able to furnish
information as to the amounts obtained from the other men concerned.
of Mrs McColl,
her children and others. We have Colonel Moodys Statement
that Sergeant McColl has repaid £52.10 out of £105 due from
him. Colonel Moody will also perhaps be able to furnish
information as to the amounts obtained from the other men concerned.
Mrs McColl was to have gone out with her children
in the Thames City in 1858 but she was prevented by illness.
The W.O. objected in 1860 and again now (though I think
exception may be taken to their objection) to allowing them
free conveyance on Military grounds but consider that
it is for the Treasury to decide whether they will remit
under the circumstances of the cases a portion of the money
advanced for their passages to be repaid by Mr McColl.
In 1858 the W.O. was asked to send out 35 women and
their children accommodation for whom was ordered
on board the "Thames City."
(Afterwards in compliance with a request made not
to the W.O. but to the Admiralty 5 more women and their
children were accommodated in the "Euphrates.")
In 1860 and again now the W.O. objected to granting
a free passage to McColls family on the ground that
accommodation was provided as requested for 35 women and
their children and that if Mrs McColl was prevented
by illness from taking advantage of it, yet her place
was supplied by some other woman but I find that in a
list furnished by the Admiralty in 1859 of women and
children on board the "Thames City," 34 women only are
given and claimed for. The inference is that Mrs
McColls place was not supplied and that the objection
of the W.O. may consequently not be valid.
The W.O. certainly remark that 35 were beyond
the regulated number but this fact could hardly be
used as an objection to allowing free conveyance to
McColls family inasmuchas it would apply to each of the
women who went out in the "Euphrates."
Whatever view is taken of this case there would seem
to be fair ground for the remission to Sergeant McColl
of
the whole or portion of the £105, and as the public would
bear the charge and the case must be solitary, circumlocution
would be avoided if the Treasury would bear it.
of
the whole or portion of the £105, and as the public would
bear the charge and the case must be solitary, circumlocution
would be avoided if the Treasury would bear it.
With regard however to Mr McColls statement that
the passages did not cost more by the "Marcella" than
they would have done by the "Thames City."
Those by the "Marcella" were £35 per adult,
and £105 for Mrs McColl & four children (= 3 adults I suppose).
The charges by "Thames City" would have been it appears
Mrs McColl £19.8
4 children at 9.14 each 38.16
58.4
Mrs McColl £19.8
4 children at 9.14 each 38.16
58.4
RE
26/2/64
Mr Ebden
Will you try to answer these numerous & minute questions of the Treasury, as well as you can. We did not view it as a matter of special [funding?]. The question was whether, as a matter of consn for a very deserving Non Cd Officer who has lost all further pay from the public, he might be allowed the remaining part of an indulgence which was originally intended for him of which he was only deprived by a misfortune.
Will you try to answer these numerous & minute questions of the Treasury, as well as you can. We did not view it as a matter of special [funding?]. The question was whether, as a matter of consn for a very deserving Non Cd Officer who has lost all further pay from the public, he might be allowed the remaining part of an indulgence which was originally intended for him of which he was only deprived by a misfortune.
TFE
26/2
Other documents included in the file
Elliot to Hamilton, 2 March 1864, explaining the circumstances
of the case and asking whether an indulgence originally intended
might now be extended to Sergeant McColl.
People in this document
Moody, Colonel Richard Clement