Emigration Office
26 March 1859
We have to acknowledge your letter of
5th instant, enclosing a
further communication from the Hudsons Bay Company, on the subject
of their claim to be indemnified to the extent of £12.469.5.7
for expenses incurred in searching for Coal at
Fort Rupert in
Vancouvers Island.
2. In our Report of
26th Novr last we pointed out that a claim on
account of another Coal mine
atat
Nanaimo which had been originally put
forward by the Company had been subsequently withdrawn, and we
expressed an opinion that the Coal Mine at
Fort Rupert must stand on
the same footing, and that if the Company were to receive the Profits
where the working had been successful, they must also accept the loss
where it had been unsuccessful. To this the Company answer that the
Coal Mine at
Nanaimo was on Land purchased by the Hudsons Bay Company
while the works at
Fort Rupert were on Government land, that the
Royalty on the working
ofof Coal was calculated upon as a source of
Revenue—and that if the
Fort Rupert workings had been successful it
would have had a material influence on the prosperity of the Colony.
The Directors consider that under these circumstances the Company
have a claim to be reimbursed by the Government the expense incurred
in the exploration of this land.
3. To this it is obvious to answer, that if the working of Coal
Mines fell legitimately within the duties of the Company by reason of
their Territorial
possessionpossession and ownership of
Vancouvers Island and
if the Company are prepared to say that had the Mine been successful
the whole profits derived from the sale, lease, or working of it
(less the 10 per Cent allowed them under the grant of
19th January
1849) would have been carried to the credit of the Colonial Revenue,
then the Company are entitled to claim from H.M. Government a
reimbursement of the expenses of searching for this Coal. But if the
mine supposing it to have been successful would have been purchased
by the Company, as
theythey purchased that at
Nanaimo, or if the Company
would have derived any direct pecuniary advantage from it, then the
expenses incurred must be looked upon as part of a commercial
speculation which has failed, and must be borne by those who
undertook it. The terms in which the letter of the Company is
expressed and their allusion to the "Royalty" on the Coal would lead
us rather to the latter conclusion. At the same time we feel the
difficulty of coming to any confident conclusion on a point which
must be decided
principallyprincipally with reference to the intentions of third
parties which intentions are to be inferred from circumstances many
of which are unknown to us.
4. On the whole we see no other course than to call on the Hudsons
Bay Company to state whether it was their intention, if the search at
Fort Rupert had been successful, to sell or Lease the Mine to
themselves, or in any way to hold or work it with a view to their own
advantage. Considering the high character of the Directors of
thatthat
Company we think Her Majesty's Government may safely rely on any
assurance which may be given by them on this point.
Minutes by CO staff
With all confidence in the well-earned character of the Directors, I
own I should hardly like to put such a question as this to them, or
any Corporation. It seems to me a better way of ariving at the same
result would be, to put to them the objection so clearly stated by
the Commissioners, & to say that HM's
Govt are not prepared to allow
for the loss on the
Fort Rupert Mine
unless the Directors can give evidence that it was intended to
carry the proceeds (had it succeeded) to the public account.
Mr M. has put it rightly & soundly. So write.
Other documents included in the file
Draft,
Merivale to
H.H. Berens, Hudson's Bay Company,
12 April
1859, stating the government was not prepared to reimburse the
company for expenses in respect of the
Fort Rupert mine, unless the
company could prove that it had been their intent to carry the
profits from the mine to the public account.