Douglas to Cardwell
[6267, CO 60/20, p. 307; received 5 July
]
London
2d July 1864
Sir
It is with extreme reluctance that I venture to trespass
upon your time with a matter of personal concern; as it is one,
however, which involves a question of right, I think it only
proper, that I should bring the subject fairly and frankly under
your notice.
The matter I allude to is connected with the appointment
which I lately had the honour of holding as Governor of British
Columbia. When theoffer offer of that appointment was made to me by
the right HonbleHonourable Sir Edward Lytton in his Despatch No 3 of
the 16th July 1858 it was accompanied by one imperative
stipulation—which was, that I should relinquish the whole of
my interests in the Hudsons Bay and Puget Sound Companies, and
subject to that condition I was assured of the appointment, and
that I should hold the office for "6 years at least," provided always,
that my administration of the office continued to meet the approvalof
of Her Majesty's Government.
On these terms, involving I would observe, the sacrifice of
many personal interests, I agreed to accept the appointment and,
on my part, I have carefully, complied, in every particular, with
the terms of that agreement.
Her Majestys commission containing my appointment as Governor
of British Columbia is dated, if my memory be not in fault, on
the 2d day of September 1858, and, strictly speaking is not
terminable before the 2d day of Septmember 1864.
In
In consequence however of the appointment of my successor at
an earlier date, I ceased, altogether, to draw my salary as Governor
of the Colony, from the 12th day of April 1864.
After the honours that Her Majesty has been pleased to confer
upon me and the many kind and gratifying marks of approval which
I have, from time to time, received from Her Majesty's Government,
I cannot suppose that my premature removal from the office arose
outof of any feeling of dissatisfaction with my public administration,
and I would appeal to the several Memorials, forwarded, since the
middle of last year, through me, to His Grace the Duke of Newcastle,
as a proof that there exists a very general impression, both among
the people of Vancouver Island, and British Columbia, that my
administration has been entirely successful, in maintaining the
honour and dignity, of the Crown, and in furthering the best
interests of these important Colonies.
The Claim
The Claim which I now
submit, is simply what the justice of the case appears to call for,
that is to say, that an allowance may be made to me equal to the sum
that would accrue from my official salary, of £3000 per anm,
for the interval (about 4 2/3 months) extending from the 12th
April, to the 2d of September 1864; being the unexpired term of
the six years, for which I was originally appointed.
I may add as a reason for pressing this claim that I have
incurred very heavy expenses throughmy my official position, and, the
very unusual circumstance of my holding Her Majesty's Commission for
two separate and distinct Governments, and having necessarily to
entertain in two Colonies instead of one—expenses, I may observe,
which are greatly in excess of my official Income.
I have the honour
to be
Your most Obt Servt
James Douglas
To the Right HonbleHonourable
E. Cardwell
&c &c &c
Her Majesty's Principal
Secretary of State
for the Colonies
Mr Elliot
This is an unexpected claim. The S.S. despatch of the
16 July/58 (drafted by Mr Merivale) says "And it is the
desire of H.Ms GovtGovernment to appoint you at once to that
Office on the usual terms of a Governor's appointment, namely,
for 6 yrs at least, your Administration of that Office
continuing to merit the approval of H.M. GovtGovernment."
This desphdespatch construes wrongly our usual reading of the
tenure by a GovrGovernor of his Office. I have always considered that
though the appointment of a Governor was limited to 6 years
it was not meant that the S.S. was precluded from removing him
before the 6 years were over.
I fear that the precise terms of the S. States desphdespatch
leaves us no escape: nor wdwould special pleading be very
creditable to us, if employed against a man who has been Governor
for 13 years of the Colonies of V. Couver Isld & B. Columbia.
If the claim must be paid the money will have to come from B. Columbia.
ABd
6 July/64
Sir F. Rogers
See separate Minute.
Sir F. Rogers
I cannot help observing that this claim of Sir J. Douglas's appears
to me highly discreditable to him, and such a one as could hardly be
expected from a gentleman who has just been selected for the rank of
Knight Commander of the Honorable Order of the Bath.
No doubt Mr Merivale's draft was incautiously worded: the
meaning was that the ordinary term of a Governor's service is six
years; but that a man retiring with honors within a few months of
completing that period should spring a sudden pecuniary claim on the
Government
under the letter of the bond, and should demand to be paid
salary for a period during which he renders no service, is really
astonishing. It is like a sharp Attorney's taking advantage of a
flaw in a deed.
Annexed
Annexed is a useful Memo: in which Mr Ebden has collected for
me all the leading particulars that our records will supply.
I would advise that in the first instance a letter be written to
Sir James Douglas, pointing out to him that the real meaning of the
despatch was that six years was the ordinary term of employment, but
that it never could have been intended to imply that whether or not
he were rendering any service to the Public, he was equally to draw
salary for his private benefit, and that any such demand from a
Governor is wholly unprecedented; and I should request to be informed
whether under these circumstances, he still desires to urge the claim
which he has submitted.
If
If he should answer in the affirmative, I should then proceed to
construe in the strictest manner a claim which is founded on the
letter and not on the spirit of his engagement. In the first place I
would observe that the despatch on which he relies only announced to
him a salary of "at least" £1000 a year, and therefore if he really
must be allowed to put into his pocket unearned money as the penalty
of not having sufficiently fenced that particular despatch, I should
certainly not permit him to reckon the salary at any other higher
rate than the one which it expressly named.
In the next place he seems to have drawn at the rate of £1800
from the beginning of his service. I should look to the despatch
cited by Mr Ebden(Parl (Parly Paper, Part 2, page 73,) and unless
that were most distinctly retrospective, I should surcharge him with
the excess in the rate of salary which he had drawn in the interval
from his first appointment to that date.
In short where a claim is next thing to dishonest, I think that
it would be our duty to take on behalf of the Public, the benefit of
the letter of the documents just as the claimant rests upon the
letter and upon that alone.
TFE
19 July
N.B. Private letter to Mr Engleheart July 27 adds infn as
to date & manner of supersession.
[FR]
I have thought it best to obtain from Mr Engleheart copies of
the correspondence betn the D. of N. & Sir J.D. whwhich resulted in
his premature relief. It will be seen that on 16 March H.G. informed
Sir J. (then Mr) Douglas that the Colonies of V.C.I. & B.C. must
be divided—that he could not conveniently be left a Governor of one,
& that he must therefore be relieved of both.
Mr Douglas replies on the 13h of May not by stating that
his office, or at least its emoluments were guaranteed to him for 6
years but that he did not see how his
"premature removal from office one year previous to the term for whwhich
I was originally appointed can be managed witht leaving an
impression derogatory to the character of my administration. It was
my intention" he added
"to apply for relief at the close of the present year 1863" (in fact
he continued in office till 12h of April 1864). "…I
however leave the matter entirely in YG's hands. I only ask
to be permitted to retire with honour, & that the officers" who had
acted under him shdshould be suitably rewarded.
On the 31st July 1863 the Duke answered this letter informing
him of his KCB.
On 8 Dec Sir J.D. offers his "sincere & hearty thanks for the
extreme kindness of your private letter of 31 July" & particularly
for the K.C.B.
I think I should answer as follows. First (as stated by Mr
Elliot) that Mr Cardwell apprehends the dph of [blank] to have
been intended to treat Sir J.D. on the same footing as other
Governors that is to say to offer him a tenure of at least six years
subject to removal not only for absolute misconduct, but in case of
any politicial necessity like that whwhich actually arose—that it must
be admitted that it was not unnatural for a person not conversant
with the practise of the Public Service to place a stricter
construction on the words actually used and to infer that a
six years' tenure of office was guaranteed to him subject only to
removal for misbehavior or incapacity. But that the proper occasion
for alleging this guarantee was when on the 16 March 1863 the D of N
Acting upon his own construction of the dph of [blank] announced his
intentions to relieve Sir J.D. before the expiration of his six
years. If the guarantee had been so alleged it wdwould have been for
H.G. to consider what course should be taken respecting it. But far
from putting forward any such claim for pecuniary compensation Sir
J.D. replied on 31 July ascertaining incidently that it had been his
intention to apply for relief at the close of the then current year
(3 1/4 months before the period at whwhich Sir JD was actually
relieved) adverting indeed to his premature removal, but leaving the
matter entirely in the D of N's hands and only asking to be permitted
to retire with honour.
That to this letter the D. of N replied by informing him that he
had been recommended for &c (K.C.B.). I trust he added that you will
consider &c…as "approval."
That with this announcement Sir JD manifested no
dissatisfaction but on the contrary offered his services & hearty
thanks for its extreme kindness.
That it is only in July 1864 [blank] months after the D of N's
relinquishment of office that he advances this unexpected claim.
State that as the claim to compensation was not advanced by him
but on the contrary appears implicitly waived in the correspondence
between himself & the D of N and as his removal did not in fact take
place till after the period at whwhich he states in that correspondence
he had himself intended to apply for it Mr Cardwell wdwould not feel
justified in applying either to Parlt or to the Legre of B.C.
to grant Sir JD salary as Governor for 4 1/2 months after he ceased
to perform the duties of that office.
[FR]
EC
3
Mr Elliot
I think the facts, respecting the Salary of Governor Douglas are now
fully collected.
He was offered the govtGovernment of B. Columbia "to be held for the
present in conjunction with that of Vancouver I" on the 16th of
July 1858 with a salary of at least £1000 a year from Home (PP Part I
p. 43) in respect of B Columbia.
He accepted the office but objected to the salary, which was
changed for £1800 a year from home for
B. Columbia and Vancouver I (PP Part II p. 73).
He did not draw any salary before 1860 when he drew for £2395 or
at the rate of £1800 a year from the 2nd of Septr 1858 the date of
his commission to the 31st of Decr/59. The Bill was accepted
(3210/1860).
In the meantime he had represented his salary as still too
small. Its insufficiency was acknowledged and he was permitted to
draw £1200 additional from B Columbia provided the revenue reached
£50000 (PP Part II p. 92).
He objected to this proviso (12573/1860) and he was specially
authorised to draw £1200 for the year 1859 in which the Revenue was
less than £50000. Since 1859 the revenue has exceeded £50000 (See
Blue Books).
With respect to the £800 voted by Vancouver I we have returns
only from 1 January 1862 to 30 June 1863 during which period he did
not draw any of it. There is no entry of the recall of Governor Douglas or of the appointment of his successor but inasmuch as the
result was known in the Colony before the 18th of September, it
must have been sent not later than the 1st of August 1863.
RE
P.S. £1800 a year for Governor Douglas was not provided in the
Parliamentary Estimates up to the 31st of March 1863. He does not
however appear to have drawn upon it after the 31st of December
1862. In fact In the Colonial (B.C.) Estimates for the year
ending 31 December
1863, £3000 (viz £1800 + 1200) was inserted for the Governors
Salary.