Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Seymour, Governor Frederick to
Cardwell, Edward 28 January 1865, CO 60:21, no. 3692, 11.
Abstract
Seymour, Governor Frederick to
Cardwell, Edward 28 January 1865, CO 60:21, no. 3692, 11.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (4), Other documents (1).
No. 3
28th January 1865
Sir,
With reference to the 5th Paragraph of my despatch
No. 70 of 24th November I have now the honor to report
that having enquired into the circumstances attending Mr
Walter Moberley's bankruptcy, I am satisfiedthat
that they reflect
no discredit upon him. I have therefore, complied with the
wishes of the people of Cariboo West and appointed, subject
to your pleasure, Mr Moberley to be a Member of the Legislative
Council until the first of May 1866.
that they reflect
no discredit upon him. I have therefore, complied with the
wishes of the people of Cariboo West and appointed, subject
to your pleasure, Mr Moberley to be a Member of the Legislative
Council until the first of May 1866.
2. I beg to recommend this appointment for your confirmation.
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
Would it be right to sanction the selection of Mr Moberly to the Legve Council pending the receipt of the Governor's ansr to Mr Cardwell's despatch of 3 March last.
Would it be right to sanction the selection of Mr Moberly to the Legve Council pending the receipt of the Governor's ansr to Mr Cardwell's despatch of 3 March last.
ABd
19 Apl
Sir F. Rogers
The objection was that whereas Sir James Douglas had appointed a Council to last until the 31st of Decr 1864, Govr Seymour dissolved
it previously and named new Councillors.
The objection was that whereas Sir James Douglas had appointed a Council to last until the 31st of Decr 1864, Govr Seymour dissolved
it previously and named new Councillors.
But in the present instance it may be assumed that Mr
Moberly has been appointed within the year 1865. It is
moreover the case, not of a dissolution of a Council, but
of the addition of a member to it, about which I do not
know whether or not the Governor lacks the requisite power.
I would say that Mr C. saw no reason to doubt that Mr
Seymour had acted rightly (or rather more strongly that as
far as Mr C. could judge he was clearly right) in accepting
the election of Mr Moberly as Member of the Council. But
that Mr C. refrained from conveying to him any formal
confirmation of that appointment for the reasons indicated
in the dph. No 13 of 3 March/65.
FR
22/4
