Mr Elliot
I thought it advisable to investigate this claim before we
proferred it to the Governor, and Mr Pennell has been so obliging
as to supply me with a memn which I have gone over carefully.
The result is that the claim may be reduced to a small compass.
£155.9.4 of said claim has been paid & the Admy
informed thereof on the 18 Jany last.
£14.13.4 has also been paid by the Crown Agents; but as we have not
formally informed the Admy of this fact it remains that we should do
so: and we can make mention of it in the letter wh. will have to be
written in my division. Further we have told the C. Agents to pay
£69.18.2, & should now desire them to pay the percentage
money—£3.9.8—due on the supply to
the Colony of B.C. together with £1.11.3 for supplies from the Sutlej.
Therefore we have to explain to the Admy where
payments have been made & tell them that the C. Agents
have been directed to pay the residue amounting to
|
3. 9. 8 |
|
1.11 .3 |
| £ |
5. 0.11 |
and instruct the Agents and the
GovrGovernor ac
cy.company
ABd
24 March
Mr Blackwood
This letter from the Admiralty is incorrect and misleading—the facts
of the case are these. On the 4th of July 1865 the Admiralty sent
in a claim for stores supplied to various Colonies amounting to
£243.10.6. This was composed of three sums as under
(1st) |
For |
New Zealand |
£155. 9. 4 |
(2ly) |
|
Hong Kong |
14.13. 4 |
(3ly) |
|
B. Columbia (Bentinck Arm Expn) |
73. 7.10 |
|
|
|
£243.10. 6 |
Items 1 & 2 have actually been paid to the Admiralty, and of the
payment of the larger of these two (£155.9.4) they have been informed.
(See letter to Admty 18 Jany/66 Gov/373/65 New Zealand). The
payment of the Hong Kong item £14.13.4 has I learn from Mr
Sargeaunt been made by the Agents but the Admiralty have not been
informed of it's actual payment by this office—perhaps they should
now be told.
[*](#marg1)
The history of the British Columbia item to which the enclosure
to the present Admiralty letter refers is the claim of £73.7.10 made
as above was supposed here to belong to the Foreign Office, it was
withdrawn by the Admiralty accordingly—and was made on the Foreign
Office—but as a percentage is charged on Colonial Supplies which is
not in regard to those of other Departments—the percentage amounting
to £3.9.8 was deducted when the claim was made on the F.O.—i.e. the
claim made on that Department was £69.18.2. The Foreign Office
repudiated it and it was renewed on this Department but the Admiralty
made an omission in not then adding on the percentage again.
Consequently they made the claim £69.18.2 whereas it ought to have
been renewed as it originally stood £73.7.10.
The Agents have been told to pay £69.18.2 and the Admiralty have
been informed that they have been desired to do so.
[**](#marg2)
It now remains to authorize the Agents to pay for the balance or
percentage
|
73. 7.10 |
|
69.18. 2 |
| £ |
3. 9. 8 |
and the
GovtGovernment to pay
the the Agents.
By the foregoing it will be seen that the Admiralty now make a
claim as outstanding of £243.10.6 which they had made in July
/65—that they have already been informed of the actual payment of
£155.9.4—that £14.13.4 has also actually been paid, and that
instructions have been given of which the Admiralty have been
informed for the payment of the £69.18.2. All that remainsnow now
to be authorized to be paid to them is £3.9.8 on account of the
Bentinck Arm Expedition, together with the fresh claim which they make
for £1.11.3 for supplies from H.M.S. Sutlej in July 1864.
EBP
23/6/66