<persName ref="prs:seymour_f"><surname>Seymour</surname>, <forename>Frederick</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:grenville_r"><surname>Grenville</surname>, <forename>Richard</forename></persName> 5 February 1868, CO 60:32, no. 4509, 40. Seymour addressee Buckingham

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Seymour, Frederick to Grenville, Richard 5 February 1868, CO 60:32, no. 4509, 40.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/B68006.html. CO 60:32 CO 60 32 4509 40 6 B.C. 1868 received 2 May co_60_32_00041r.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.

Despatch to London. Minutes (4), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Marginalia (1).

Seymour sends a precis of all the documents on [Watson’s claim for loss of employment,] which can be found in Birch’s former office as Birch was the primary negotiator with Watson. Seymour discusses his involvement with Watson and informs the Colonial Office that Watson has returned to British Columbia as Inspector of the Bank of British Columbia. Cox’s minute discusses the limitation of Watson’s claim and suggests letting the matter drop as Watson has found employment. Rogers’s minute relates why there is a disagreement over Watson’s claim for loss of employment. Blake’s minute suggests seeing subsequent No 3110 Jan 14-69.

Seymour, Frederick
New Westminster
Grenville, Richard Added abstract. Inserted revisionDesc.
No. 6 4509, CO 60/32, p. 40; received 2 May
New Westminster
5th February 1868 My Lord Duke,

I have had the honor to receive Your Grace's despatch No. 66 of the 28th September 1867, enclosing a letter from Mr Watson on the subject of the loss ofhis his Office of Treasurer of Vancouver Island on the Union of the two Western Colonies. Your Grace observes that some of Mr Watson's statements are in contradiction with those furnished in my despatch No. 58 of the 6th of April 1867, and desires me to send a further report.

2. The greater part of the negotiations with Mr Watson were carried on verbally by Mr Birch, the ColonialSecretary Secretary. I now send a precis of all the documents on the subject which can be found in the Colonial Secretary's Office. I do not see that Mr Watson's statements and my own offer any material difference. He was to have six months leave of Absence on full salary and a free passage Home for himself and family. I likewise promised to bring under your notice Mr Watson's desire forfurther further employment. I did so in my despatch above referred to. Of Course I could not think of asserting that Your Grace would bestow another Office upon him. Having stated all I could in Mr Watson's favour I considered my promises fulfilled.

3. He has however now returned to the Colony as Inspector of the Bank of British Columbia and I suppose therefore that thematter matter will be allowed by him to drop.

I have the honor to be, My Lord Duke, Your most obedient, humble Servant. Frederick Seymour
Sir F. Rogers See Mr Elliot's minute on a letter from Mr Watson 11037/67.

His Salary must be taken at the amount that was noted, namely £400 a year.

Will it be safe to let the matter drop—he might urge his claim hereafter.

CC 4 May
The discrepancy or misunderstanding or alleged misunderstanding appears to be of this kind. Mr W. had 1. 600£ salary in V.C.I. He was transferred, under difficulties to an office of 2. 400£—then he is offered another appointment at 3. 400£, whwhich he refuses. Then Mr S. regrets that he shdshould have refused an office (No 3) of equal value to that recently held by him (No 2). Mr W. replies that it is not of equal value to the office recently held by him (No 1). And the practical issue is that he has claimed half years "full salary" at 600£ per ann. having received it at the rate of only 400£ per ann.

I think that if he is disposed to press his claim to 100£ he may press it * on the GovtGovernment of B.C. where he now is & that this may be put by.

FR 4/5 CBA 7/5
I do not think he has a good claim even in B. Col. Put by. B&C 11/5
See subsequent No 3110 Jan 14-69. [EB]
Precis of correspondence relating to Alexander Watson, prepared by the Colonial Secretary, no date.
Vide Mr Elliot's Minute on 11037/1867 B.C. [FR]