Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Seymour, Governor Frederick to
Carnarvon, Earl 17 April 1867, CO 60:28, no. 5797, 86.
Abstract
Seymour, Governor Frederick to
Carnarvon, Earl 17 April 1867, CO 60:28, no. 5797, 86.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (14), Other documents (1).
Separate
17th April 1867
My Lord,
On my appointment to the Government of the United Colony of
British Columbia Your Lordship was pleased to state that you had
come to the conclusion that the salaryought
ought to stand at five
thousand pounds (£5,000) a year with an allowance not exceeding one
thousand pounds (£1,000) for travelling expenses. Your Lordship
further observed (Letter of 13th August 1866),
it is true that the Revenue is in a deficit and that retrenchments
are necessary to equalize the income and expenditure but I think
that the arrangement which I now propose is on all grounds and for
all parties the fairest.
ought to stand at five
thousand pounds (£5,000) a year with an allowance not exceeding one
thousand pounds (£1,000) for travelling expenses. Your Lordship
further observed (Letter of 13th August 1866),
it is true that the Revenue is in a deficit and that retrenchments
are necessary to equalize the income and expenditure but I think
that the arrangement which I now propose is on all grounds and for
all parties the fairest.
2. On my return to the Colony I found the financialdepression
depression much greater than I had been lead to expect. There
were outstanding debts of considerable magnitude to meet, and
heavy expenses to make in the way of compensation to Public officers
for loss of situations and passages home. There were cases of
great hardship brought under my notice daily and I thought it would
look very badly for me, when bringing
forward the Estimates to move for any increase to my pay. Nor was
there any necessityfor
for my doing so. Four thousand pounds (£4,000) a
year was guaranteed to me by Law and I could of course have, with Your
Lordship's sanction taken one thousand pounds (£1,000), a third
of Governor Kennedy's salary, from the fund from which he drew it,
the Crown Fund of Vancouver Island.
depression much greater than I had been lead to expect. There
were outstanding debts of considerable magnitude to meet, and
heavy expenses to make in the way of compensation to Public officers
for loss of situations and passages home. There were cases of
great hardship brought under my notice daily and I thought it would
look very badly for me, when bringing
forward the Estimates to move for any increase to my pay. Nor was
there any necessityfor
for my doing so. Four thousand pounds (£4,000) a
year was guaranteed to me by Law and I could of course have, with Your
Lordship's sanction taken one thousand pounds (£1,000), a third
of Governor Kennedy's salary, from the fund from which he drew it,
the Crown Fund of Vancouver Island.
3. I have now to apply to Your Lordship for instructions in
the matter. I am ready cheerfully to forego one thousand pounds
(£1,000) a yearshould
should Your Lordship require it not doubting
that the loss will be made up to me in some other way. But I would
beg to receive the titular possession of five thousand pounds (£5,000)
a year in order not to weaken my claims when the time for
applying for a pension shall arrive.
should Your Lordship require it not doubting
that the loss will be made up to me in some other way. But I would
beg to receive the titular possession of five thousand pounds (£5,000)
a year in order not to weaken my claims when the time for
applying for a pension shall arrive.
4. I have already surrendered for this year five hundred pounds
(£500) of my travelling allowance. But this generosity is more apparentthen
than real. I shall not this year undertake the very expensive
journey to Cariboo, but confine myself to visiting all the settlements
of Vancouver Island and making myself as familiarly acquainted
with it as I am with the mainland.
than real. I shall not this year undertake the very expensive
journey to Cariboo, but confine myself to visiting all the settlements
of Vancouver Island and making myself as familiarly acquainted
with it as I am with the mainland.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
The letter of the 13th Aug referred to by Mr Seymour in the margin of the despatch is not on record—& I am
informed
that nothing is known upstairs about his increase of Salary.
The letter of the 13th Aug referred to by Mr Seymour in the margin of the despatch is not on record—& I am
informed
that nothing is known upstairs about his increase of Salary.
CC
17 June
Mr Bryant
Perhaps you would find out from Mr Graham whether any record of a letter from Lord Carnarvon to Governor Seymour dated 13 August 1866.
Perhaps you would find out from Mr Graham whether any record of a letter from Lord Carnarvon to Governor Seymour dated 13 August 1866.
TFE
18/6
Sir F. Rogers
This is a delicate matter, which I can only leave for you to take the duke's directions upon. We have obtained an extract of Lord Carnarvon's private letter referred to. Nothing official was recorded. Govr Seymour treats it as having settled the matter, & it's language is certainly very decided. British Columbia is very embarrassed.
This is a delicate matter, which I can only leave for you to take the duke's directions upon. We have obtained an extract of Lord Carnarvon's private letter referred to. Nothing official was recorded. Govr Seymour treats it as having settled the matter, & it's language is certainly very decided. British Columbia is very embarrassed.
The plan of paying a Salary of £4,000, and calling
it £5,000, appears hardly feasible?
TFE
10 July
Mr Seymour was appointed Govr of B. Columbia in
1863—Van Couver I. was added to his Govt in 1866 and his tenure
of Office will (I presume) expire in 1869.
Lord Carnarvon, acting evidently on representations
of Mr Seymour, has promised, or consented or "proposed"
that his salary shall be enlarged by 1000£ a year for the last
3 years of his Govt. It is question therefore really of 3000£.
Mr Seymour proposes to give this up (in effect) (1) on
a tacit understanding that it shall be "made up to him by a
better appt hereafter" (2) on his being deemed to be in
receipt of £5000 for the purposes of a pension.
of £5000 for the purposes of a pension.
It does not appear to me satisfactory that a Secretary
of State should accept an arrangement of this kind; and I
would tell Mr Seymour so.
I would inform Mr Seymour that although Ld C.'s letter
was doubtless written under a very mistaken impression as to
the resources of B.C. yet that H.G. felt bound to give effect
to the expectations raised by that letter—and authorized him
to take the 1000£ from the Crown Fund of V.C.I. if as he
states the money was available for that purpose. I wd
tell him to inform the Legislature that unless the Revenue
recovers this addition to the Govrs Salary [it] wd not be
continued beyond the expiration of the usual term of the
Govrs Office viz 1869. (Verify.)
Add that the allowance "not exceeding 1000£" wh Ld C.
contemplated for travel will of course not exceed a fair equivalent
for the expenses actually incurred by the Govr in travelling.
What authority was necessary to fix the Salary of the Govr
& to make a charge upon the revenues of the colony for that purpose.
B&C
13/7
Sir F. Rogers
I should say on authority from the Secy of State given with the con
currence of the Treasury to introduce into the Council
an Ordinance fixing the amount of the Salary of the Govr
at the increased rate?
I should say on authority from the Secy of State given with the con
currence of the Treasury to introduce into the Council
an Ordinance fixing the amount of the Salary of the Govr
at the increased rate?
CC
23 July
The salary wd not be effectually fixed I conceive till
either (1) the Ordinance was passed if the salary was to be
charged on the General Revenue, or (2) the Secy of State with
concurrence of the Lds of the Treasury had sanctioned
charging it on the Crown Revenue.
FR
23/7
It shd be made quite certain that the Crown Revenue is still
under the full control of the Crown.
CBA
24/7
But I am informed that while the private letter treating it
as a proper arrangement is dated Aug. 13—in October it
appears that a letter is written with Lord Carnarvon's
concurrence & initial to draft applying for allowance from
Treasury for passage because the Salary is only £4000. Is
this so—and if so what is the explanation.
B&C
24/7
This is quite so—the letter to the Ty which is dated
9th Oct. last says "& consider further that altho'
named to a more extensive & responsible Govt than
before his Salary remains the same, Lord Carnarvon would
strongly recommend that he be allowed to draw the sum of
£400
or half the regulation amount as a contribution towards
the expence of his return to the Colony with his Wife & Suite."
or half the regulation amount as a contribution towards
the expence of his return to the Colony with his Wife & Suite."
B. Columbia not having been under my charge when the
letter to the Treasury was written—nor was I aware of it
until I read your Grace's minute—I am unable to offer any
explanation from my own personal knowledge. But in the
absence of Mr Elliot, by whom the draft was written, I
would say that it is quite clear from his minute (579) that
when he prepared it he was
unaware of the existence of Lord
Carnarvon's private letter to Mr Seymour. And I should
have little doubt that when passing the draft the passage
did not at the moment strike Lord Carnarvon as being
in conflict with his letter—& it will be seen that this
passage was in excess of the minute, approved by Lord Carnarvon,
on which the letter was written.
unaware of the existence of Lord
Carnarvon's private letter to Mr Seymour. And I should
have little doubt that when passing the draft the passage
did not at the moment strike Lord Carnarvon as being
in conflict with his letter—& it will be seen that this
passage was in excess of the minute, approved by Lord Carnarvon,
on which the letter was written.
It no doubt was an unfortunate addition
& really
was not needed, if the other reasons given were not sufficient
in themselves I do not think this additional one would have
justified the allowance.
& really
was not needed, if the other reasons given were not sufficient
in themselves I do not think this additional one would have
justified the allowance.
Memo for the Duke of Buckingham
I have only just observed, on taking up these papers in order to execute Your Grace's Minute, that by accident it has not received the completing words. I therefore send it back for your remaining instructions, and Itrust
trust that Your
Grace may not be put to inconvenience by the few days which
have elapsed before making the discovery.
I have only just observed, on taking up these papers in order to execute Your Grace's Minute, that by accident it has not received the completing words. I therefore send it back for your remaining instructions, and Itrust
trust that Your
Grace may not be put to inconvenience by the few days which
have elapsed before making the discovery.
There appears to be no official record of any increase of
Govrs salary beyond the £4000 per anm.
The private letter from Lord Carnarvon appears to convey
his opinion that the Salary was not high enough and
"ought to stand at £5000 with an allowance not exceeding £1000
for travelling expenses"—Lord C. then refers to the deficit &
retrenchments necessary—and concludes by saying
"I think the arrangement which I now propose is on all grounds
and for all parties the fairest."
This arrangement
however required the sanction
of the Treasury or the passing of an ordinance to give it
effect—and no step was taken to effect this during the 6 or 7
months Lord C. remained in office. And in October Lord C.'s
letter to the Treasury recommends that passage allowance of
£400 should be granted because the Salary is only £4000. And
the passage referred to has an alteration of expression in
the draft all in Lord C.'s own handwriting—& could
not therefore have been passed unnoticed.
however required the sanction
of the Treasury or the passing of an ordinance to give it
effect—and no step was taken to effect this during the 6 or 7
months Lord C. remained in office. And in October Lord C.'s
letter to the Treasury recommends that passage allowance of
£400 should be granted because the Salary is only £4000. And
the passage referred to has an alteration of expression in
the draft all in Lord C.'s own handwriting—& could
not therefore have been passed unnoticed.
Lord Carnarvon's impression therefore as conveyed in his
note of the 18th would appear to be erroneous, and the fact
to be
that the salary was never fixed at £5000 and the allowance
not exceeding £1000 although Lord C. had expressed a very
decided opinion to that effect. The tenour of Govr Seymours
letter also bears out this—as he refers to the circumstances
of the colony & says "it would look very badly for me when
bringing forward the Estimates to move for any increase to"
his pay—and again "£4000 a year was guaranteed to me by law."
that the salary was never fixed at £5000 and the allowance
not exceeding £1000 although Lord C. had expressed a very
decided opinion to that effect. The tenour of Govr Seymours
letter also bears out this—as he refers to the circumstances
of the colony & says "it would look very badly for me when
bringing forward the Estimates to move for any increase to"
his pay—and again "£4000 a year was guaranteed to me by law."
The reply should I think be that the Sec. of State concurs
with Govr Seymour's opinion of the inexpediency under the
circumstances of moving for any increase in his salary beyond
the £4000 a year at which it is now fixed—that the
circumstances of the colony render every
economy necessary
& that "of course the allowance" as minuted by Sir F.R. on 5797.
economy necessary
& that "of course the allowance" as minuted by Sir F.R. on 5797.
B&C
10/9
Other documents included in the file
