Reeve to
Fortescue (Parliamentary Under-Secretary)
[6822, CO 60/9, p. 39; received 10 July
]
Council Office
Whitehall
9 July 1860
Sir,
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of the 4th instant stating for the information of the Lord
President of the Council that His Grace the Duke of Newcastle
concurs in the reference of the petitions of the Hudson's Bay
Company to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In
In the petition having reference to the large tract of land
in the neighbourhood of Fort Victoria, Vancouver's Island, of
which the Hudson's Bay Company claimed to be true and lawful
Owners in fee simple, a distinct claim is raised by the
Petitioners for payment for the value of the said tract of land.
In the petition having reference to the annexation to the Colony
of British Columbia of certain lands alleged to have been in
possession of the Company, the
petitioners
petitioners pray that the justice
or injustice of such dispossession and the correctness or
incorrectness of their claims may be considered by the Judicial
Committee and that their Lordships may determine thereon and
advise Her Majesty what and how great relief the Petitioners
may have in the premises.
As these petitions, therefore, raise a question of
pecuniary indemnity—in the event of the legal claims of the
company being established, in the opinion
and
and judgement of
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Lord
President is of opinion that before the Order of Reference
is made by Her Majesty, the Lords Commissioners of Her
Majesty's Treasury should be informed that the Duke of
Newcastle concurs in such reference, and that the assent of
the Lords of the Treasury should likewise be obtained to the same.
I am therefore commanded by the Lord President to
request that you will have the goodness
to
to communicate with
the Lords of the Treasury in order to ascertain whether
their Lordships would be prepared to take the measures
necessary to give effect to the recommendation of the
Lords of the Judicial Committee if that recommendation should
award any pecuniary indemnity to the Petitioners.
I have etc.
Henry Reeve
Reg. P.C.
Mr Elliot
On the 28 ulto this Office announced the proposed Suit to
the Treasury. The Treasury have not directly ansd our
Letter, but on the 4th inst their Solicitor wrote here for
instructions for his guidance. The Council Office now say
that the matter in debate involving a money question must
have the expressed concurrence of the Treasury before the
Judicial Committee can entertain the subject. I presume
we must accycompany write to the Treasury in the sense pointed
out in this Letter; but to enable the Treasury to judge
fully the point submitted to their consideration I think we
must borrow from the Council Office the Petitions lodged
there by the Hudsons's Bay Co, in elucidation of their
claims & send them to the T-y.
d
10 July
Mr Fortescue
I should doubt whether it is necessary for us to obtain
copies of the Hudson Bay Company's Petitions for the purpose
of sending them to the Treasury, inasmuch as their substance
is stated in the present letter. What is wanted seems to me
something more material and more difficult to supply. The
Council desire to be informed whether the Treasury will be
ready to give effect to any recommendations of the Judicial
Committee for a pecuniary indemnity from the Government. In
order to enable the Treasury to determine that point it would
seem as if they would be entitled to expect from us some
statement of the nature of the questions at issue with the
Company, and of the kind and possible extent, so far as can
now be perceived, of the pecuniary claims that might be
established against the Government if the Company's views
prevail. This would entail the preparation of a well drawn
and careful letter from this Office to the Treasury.
Mr Murdoch
Will you let me have your opinion upon this, as soon as
possible. As I understand the matter, no pecuniary
question is raised by the reference to the Judicial
Committee, but only one of title.
CF
18
Mr Fortescue
I apprehend that a pecuniary question, as well as
a question of title is raised by the reference of the
H.B. Cos claim to the Judl Comme. By GovrGovernor
Douglas' Despatch of 31 May 1859 No 161 you will see
that a considerable portion of the Land claimed by
the H.B.Co had been sold to settlers in B. Columbia,
and more had been promised.
If therefore the Co make
out their title to more Land, they must be indemnified
or the purchasers ousted. I apprehend that the latter
will be impossible.
I am afraid it will be very difficult to give the
Treasury even an approximate Estimate of the amount of
indemnity that might be required. But possibly Mr
Pemberton the Surveyor GenlGeneral if still
in this Country
might help you.
TWCM
18 July
Mr Robinson
Sir F. Rogers should see this.
AN Birch
For Mr Murdoch
CF
21 July
Mr Fortescue
I send you Drafts of letters to the Council Office &
Treasury. I see on reading the Petitions of the H.B.Co.
parts of which only Mr Reeve read to me the other day—that
they do not raise the question of the repurchase of
Vancouvers Island, as I had supposed. I enclose the Copies
of the Petitions, as they may probably be useful at the
Coll Office.
TWCM
24 July
Memorandum
Mr Fortescue
I was unable to see Mr Reeve today till after you had
gone to the House of Commons.
He pointed out that the Petitions of the Hudson's Bay Co
raise not only the question of Title but the question of
their claim to pecuniary indemnity in Vancouver Island
for their general expenditure and in British Columbia
for their Land sold by the Governor—that the letter
from the Colonial Office of 4th July being in general
terms involved the reference of the whole of these questions
to the Judicial Committee—but that the Secretary of State
may limit that reference to the single question of Title, if
he desires to do so. The best course would probably be to
explain, in answer to the letter of 9th instant, that it
was not the intention of the Duke of Newcastle to refer to
the Judicial Committee any question as to the amount of
compensation to be awarded under certain circumstances to
the Hudsons Bay Company, but only the question whether the
Company could make out such a Title to be considered
the owners of the Lands which they claim—as would entitle
them either to be left in possession of those Lands or, if
dispossessed, to be indemnified for the loss. I understood
Mr Reeve that the Judicial Committee would willingly
avoid any question of compensation.
But as the decision of Title if adverse to the Crown
would necessarily involve the question of compensation
Mr Reeve suggested that a Communication on the subject
should be made to the Treasury. This I suppose there
would be no difficulty in doing, although the amount of
possible compensation cannot be precisely stated.
Mr Reeve further said that the case cannot be heard
before the Judicial Committee till December at the earliest
but that it would be desirable to have the reference made
at the Council to be held before the Queen goes to Scotland.
He is to send me copies of the Company's Petitions and if
it would be a convenience to you I would, as I am probably
more familiar with the case than anyone in the North
American Department, draft the letters for your consideration.
I may observe in conclusion that the petition
respecting Van
Couvers Island reopens the whole question of
the amount to be repaid on the repurchase of the Island by
the Crown, which the Colonial Office refused last year to
refer to Sir J. Coleridge. I suppose no part of the
compensation the Company had agreed to accept has been paid
to them, & hence the question reappears in a new form.
TWCM
20 July/60
Mr Murdoch
On the contrary (as to your last sentence) £25000 has just
been paid to the H.B.Co. on account of the repurchase of V.
Id. I had not seen the Petition & had no idea of that
question being re-opened, wh. was never intended.
I shall be much obliged, if you will draft the letters, as you
propose.
CF
21