<persName ref="prs:hamilton_ga"><surname>Hamilton</surname>, <forename>George</forename> <forename>Alexander</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:rogers_f"><surname>Rogers</surname>, <forename>Frederic</forename></persName> 20 February 1861, CO 60:12, no. 1675, 199. Hamilton addressee Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Hamilton, George Alexander to Rogers, Frederic 20 February 1861, CO 60:12, no. 1675, 199.The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.6, ed. James Hendrickson and the Colonial Despatches project. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. https://bcgenesis.uvic.ca/B615TE05.html. CO 60:12 CO 60 12 1675 199 B.C. 1861 received 20 February co_60_12_00195r.jpg Transcribed from microfilm archives, marked up in Waterloo Script, then transformed into TEI P5 XML.

The project glossary items have xml:id attributes beginning with trm_, and we use a trm: prefix to refer to them when linking from term elements.

We link to orgs in orgs/organizations.xml using the org: prefix.

We link to places in places.xml using the plc: prefix.

We link to people in bios/*.xml using the prs: prefix.

We link to vessels in vessels/*.xml using the vsl: prefix.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

The cdt (ColDesp Document Type) prefix used on catRef/target points to a central taxonomy in the includes file.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

Public Offices document. Minutes (5), Other documents (1).

Hamilton writes Rogers to inform Newcastle that the Treasury does not wish to be involved in negotiations between the government and the HBC regarding the company's land claims on Vancouver Island unless the HBC is offered a financial settlement. The minutes show that the negotiating path the Colonial Office intended to follow was to have the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council address the question of title only, and then have negotiations with the HBC to settle the question of the amount of indemnity.

Hamilton, George Alexander
Treasury Chambers
Rogers, Frederic Inserted revisionDesc with @status="unproofed". Changed idno @type="received" into a date element. Gave existing date an @type="sent" and reordered bibl contents. added, edited, or reviewed abstract
Hamilton to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary) 1675, CO 60/12, p. 199; received 20 February
Treasury Chambers
20 February 1861

With reference to Mr Elliot's letter of 15th inst, respecting the title of The Hudson's Bay Company to certain tracts of land in Vancouver's Island, and British Columbia; I am directed by The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to request, that you will state to The Duke of Newcastle, that, if the proposed Reference to The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council comprehends merely the question of Title to the Lands in question, My Lordsare are of opinion that They are not called upon to become Parties to the Reference; but if any question relating to Compensation, to be awarded to the Hudson's Bay Company, in respect of such lands, is involved in the Reference; then, before My Lords can give Their consent to the proposed proceeding, They request to be furnished with the precise claim of The Company, and the actual reply, which The Secretary of State has directed to be made to it, as well as the grounds, on which it is proposed to oppose the claims of the Company before The Privy Council.

I am etc. Geo. A. Hamilton
Mr Elliot Mr Murdoch. ABd 20/Feb
Perhaps Mr Murdoch will supply a Memo for Mr Fortescue's use on this letter. TFE 20/2
Mr Elliot Some confusion and misapprehension appears to have arisen on this subject. When Mr Reeves' letter of 9 July was received, pointing out that the H.B.Co's petitions raised the question of pecuniary indemnity & therefore that the concurrence of the Treasury in the reference to the Judicial Committee was necessary, I saw Mr Reeves, by Mr Fortescue's desire—and explained to him that the intention of the Coll Office had been to refer to the Judicial Commee the question of title only—leaving the question of the amount of indemnity to be afterwards settled between the GovtGovernment & the Co. He recommended that a letter to that effect should be written and I understood that if that was done the Order of reference to the Judicial Committee would be so limited. Accordingly the letter of 31 July was written. It seems to me that that letter states with sufficient clearness the proposed limitation of the reference—but if not, I can only suggest that Mr Reeves should be requested to point out what further communication would be necessary for the purpose, and to suggest the terms in which the limitation should be expressed. Is it possible that he may have altogether overlooked the letter of 31 July?

I assume that the intention to limit the reference to the question of title is still adhered to. I do not see how the Judicial Committee could enter on the question of the amount of indemnity. To assess it elsewhere than on the spot would involve the expense & delay of bringing witnesses from the Colony to this Country—and even then with an unsatisfactory result. The Treasury were, I think, right in considering that the letter to them of 31 July was not intended to elicit an answer.

TWCM 21 Feby 1861
Duke of Newcastle Refer Mr Reeve to my letter of the 31st July 1860—and send him copy of the present letter from the Treasury, & enquire whether any further definition of the reference is required by the Judicial Committee. CF 23 N 24
Fortescue to H. Reeve, Privy Council, 6 March 1861, forwarding a copy of a Treasury letter that advises the Judicial Committee to consider the question of HBC land-title only.
Mr Fortescue This question is of a legal character. I did not like to pass it witht looking into it pretty carefully & this has led me to delay it a few days. FR