No. 110
[9891, CO 60/40, p. 2; received 13 September
]
August 12th 1870
My Lord,
In compliance with the instruction contained in Your Lordship's
Despatch No. 45 of the 12th May, I have the honor to forward
for final Audit, duplicate Cash Books, Journals, and Abstracts,
together with the Vouchers in support of theEntries Entries therein
contained, of the Crown Fund Account of Vancouver Island from
the date of Union to the 31st Decr 1869.
I have the honor to be,
My Lord,
Your most obedient
humble Servant
A. Musgrave
Mr Herbert
Crown Fund.
You will remember that it was found that Mr Seymour the late
Governor of B.C. had been paying himself from the Crown Fund a
sum of £1000 in addition to his other Salary of £4000. And the
present Governor was requested to state what amount Mr Seymour
had so drawn, & at the same time to report up to what date the
accounts had been sent home for Audit.
The GovrGovernor reported that the sum drawn was $12421 & that no
Accounts had been sent home since the Union. He was therefore
told to send them & he now does so.
The question is what should be done with them. Should they
undergo any regular process of Audit & if so by whom.
I have looked thro' those of 1869—of course only cursorily—& I
should say that the various items have been expended on the
authority of the local GovtGovernment, & so far as I gather not
improperly. In one account appears the payments to Mr Seymour
from 26 Nov 1866 to 11 June 1869, per an $4,850—total of
$12421 as already shewn. $7679 apparently paid to Mr
Seymour, $4742 to his Executor. There are various sums paid
into the Treasury—meaning I believe money lost to the Colony.
But as you are also aware it is still an open question whether
Mr Seymour's Representatives should be called upon to refund
the monies drawn from this Fund for Salary; & the Treasury in
4646 state "that they await a further communication from the
Colonial Office after the receipt of the Accounts of that Fund
since the Union."
The Colony has not yet taken over the Crown Fund on our
conditions—& possibly they will not do so pending the
consideration of the Federation question.
CC
15 Sept
Lord Kimberley
Accounts very bulky, so not sent herewith.
Transmit the accounts (very bulky so not sent herewith)
to Treasury with reference to their
letter in 4646 & other previous correspondence, saying that Lord
Kimberley presumes that they will cause the Crown Fund accounts
to be audited in the Exchequer & audit office.
Lord Granville (see his minute in 3411) seemed to think that it
was as well not to stir up the Treasury on the subject of Mrs
Seymour's possible liability to refund the money drawn by her
husband. I do not think we need refer to the matter.
RGWH
Sep 16/70
As the Treasury's attention was drawn to the circumstance of
GovrGovernor Seymour having drawn for
£1000 without due authority in the letter of Jan 12 it is only
necessary now to transmit to Treasury the accounts to be audited
with reference to previous correspondence.
K
Sept 17/70
Sir F. Rogers
Having looked through these papers in accordance with your wish, I
would now offer the following remarks on them:
The Accounts sent by the Governor have reference to the Crown
Fund "from the date of Union to the 31st December 1869."
I think it may safely be considered that the Accounts have been
formally rendered, and have undergone a careful audit in the Colony;
for although the first of them, which covers only the last 5 or 6
weeks of the year 1866, bears no certificate from the Treasurer or
Auditor,each each of these three Accounts for the years 1867-8-9 has been
declared to by the Treasurer in the form given in the margin [see
following],
I, John Graham, do solemnly & sincerely declare that this Account is
just and true according to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I
make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be
true.
John Graham
Officer in Charge of the Treasury
and has been certified by the Auditor, with slight variations of
language, in the following form—
I, Robert Ker, Auditor, do certify that I have examined the several
entries appearing both on the Debit and credit sides of the foregoing
Account, and having compared the same with the original Accounts of
the several Public Departments as audited in my Office, have found
them to agree; and I further certify that proper Accounts of
particulars, authorities and Vouchers in conformity to the existing
Regulations of Government, as far as it is possible to obtain them,
have been exhibited to me in support of the several articles of
charge and discharge therein contained.
Robert Ker
Auditor General
I
I have read in detail the Dr and Cr side Entries in the Cash
Books. No Abstract is given for the short Account of November and
December 1866, but I have prepared one. As regards the later years,
Abstracts have been given. I have checked them in a few cases, so as
to satisfy myself that the Accounts are in proper form, and the
following table, which has been framed almost entirely from the
annual Accounts, may I think be safely taken as correctly
representing the sources and amounts of the Revenue, and the general
heads of the Expenditure from November 1866 to 31 December 1869.
I have omitted from it sums paid into or drawn out of the Bank
in the Colony, and also sums lent to the General Revenue or repaid.
In regard, however, to the latterI I may mention that the sums lent to
the General Revenue in the period of these Accounts was $2100, and
the sum replaced by the General Revenue was $5301.05. The debt from
the General Revenue (the amount of which I have not learned from
these Accounts) was therefore reduced between November 1866 and
December 1869 by $3208.05.
[This is followed by several account sheets bearing reference to
the Vancouver Island Crown Account, November 1866 to 31 December 1869,
prepared in the colonial office.]
JSL
5/10/70
Mr Herbert
Perhaps you may care to see Sir F. Rogers' decision as to the
Audit of Vancouver Crown Fund.
RSM
18/10/70
Lord Kimberley
I do not pass on the bulky Crown accounts of the last few years
but only Mr Lewes' memo on them.
I think the minutes have gone a little astray here.
The Treasury will have nothing to say to the audit of B.
Columbia Crown Funds—those funds being, though under the
control of the Crown, as completely Colonial Revenue, as the
General Revenue.
Nor do I see that now, after their abdication of Financial
authority over Colonies, they have anything to do with Mr
Seymour's case.
As to the Crown Fund, I think a comparison of the items
brot together by Mr Lewes in the annexed memo does not look
well for its administration. (As to the question how are
the accounts to be audited vide that memo.)
It is eaten at by fixed Salaries, whwhich if fair
ought to be charged on the General
Revenue—and the expenses of keeping up Government House.
But as it seems to be been efficiently audited in the Colony we
have offered on terms, to give it up, and as the Colony will in
all probability be soon part of Canada, I think it wdwould hardly be
worth while raising any questions.
As to Mr Seymour—I have nothing to add to my minute on 14206
B. Columbia.
The sum of that is that what Mr Seymour took, tho' in a lawless
kind of way, he was reasonably entitled to consider due to him
(vide particularly Lord Carnarvons Note 14206 B.
Cola), & that the SecycompanySecretary of State wdwould have been bound in honour
to support his claim with the Treasury, who however wdwould have
been at liberty if they chose, to put the S. of S. in a
difficulty by refusing to allow it.
The Treasury authority being abandoned, I think if Mr Seymour
were still in the GovtGovernment Service he should have been not muleted
but rebuked for helping himself. But there is no use in
rebuking his wife and Executors; so I wdwould say no more about the
matter, & put by all these papers.
FR
6/10