<name>[Sender not known.]</name> to <persName ref="prs:elliot_tf"><surname>Elliot</surname>, <forename>Thomas</forename> <forename>Frederick</forename></persName> 26 November 1858, CO 305:9, no. 12126, 345. Murdoch and Rogers addressee Elliot (Assistant Under-Secretary)

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

[Sender not known.] to Elliot, Thomas Frederick 26 November 1858, CO 305:9, no. 12126, 345.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/V585LN04.html. CO 305:09 CO 305 9 12126 345 V.I. 1858 received 27 November co_305_09_00345r.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 (3), Marginalia (2).

Murdoch and Rogers offer their opinions on the negotiations between the HBC and the Crown concerning the takeover of land and property by the Colonial government. They suggest that before further steps are made, the HBC is asked to draw a distinction between their property at a coal mine in Fort Rupert and property on the rest of Vancouver Island.

The minutes adopt Murdoch and Rogers’ last suggestion and propose it to the HBC.

 [Sender not known.]
Emigration Office
Elliot, Thomas Frederick Deleted name elements which were wrapping identical name element children. Inserted revisionDesc with @status="unproofed". Changed idno @type="received" into a date element. Gave existing date an @type="sent" and reordered bibl contents.
Murdoch and Rogers to Elliot (Assistant Under-Secretary) 12126, CO 305/9, p. 345; received 27 November
Emigration Office
26th November 1858 Sir

We have to acknowledge your letter of 6th instant, enclosing the further statement sent in by the Hudsons Bay Company of their claim against the Crown on the resumption of Van Couvers Island.

2. In March last the Company sent in Accounts showing a claim against the Crown for the whole of themoney money expended by them in Van Couvers Island and for the value of their property and establishments amounting altogether to £225,699.9.11. On a reference to the Law Officers they gave it as their opinion that the Crown was only bound to compensate the Company for the sums laid out by them on the Island as owners, and for the value of their Establishments, property and effects thereon connected with such ownership—whichwere were substantially the establishments and property got together in consequence of their Territorial possession of the Soil and to facilitate the settlement and Government of the Island. In the principle thus laid down the Company expressed their acquiescence and the account enclosed in your letter of 6th instant professes to be framed upon it.

3. That Account comprizes only three items—vizt

1. Balance due on 31st Janry last on account of expend==iture =iture on public Works and Establishments £8.505.6.11.

2. Cost of sending out and maintaining Settlers £25,550.

3. Loss on searching for Coal at Fort Rupert &c £12.469.5.7.

4. To the first two items we see no objection in principle. The items will of course hereafter be verified by the Treasury and such vouchers as circumstances may admit be obtained. But the charges appear to fall fairly within the description of charges incurredby by reason of the Company's territorial possession & ownership of the Island.

5. But in regard to the third item, vizt the loss on searching for Coal at Fort Rupert, we entertain great doubt. The Coal Mine at Fort Rupert appears to us to stand upon precisely the same footing as the Farms and Mills, and the Coal Mine at Nanaimo, inserted in the first account, and withdrawn from the present. That the expenditure has resulted in a Loss does not make anydif difference. The Crown is bound to take over the whole of the Company's property or none. There is no reason why the property which has resulted in a loss should be considered as attaching to the ownership of the Company more than that which has resulted in a profit. The same principle must we conceive attach to both and if the Company is to retain possession of its valuable property it must also sustain the burthen of that which is of no value.

We

6. We would suggest that before any further step is taken the Company should be requested to state on what ground they draw a distinction between their property in the Coal Mine at Fort Rupert and their other property on the Island.

We have honor to be Sir Your Obedient Humble Servants T.W.C. Murdoch Frederic Rogers T.F. Elliot Esq.&c &c &c
Mr Elliot I presume the Commrs suggestion at the close of their Report may be adopted? VJ 27 N
Mr Murdoch Perhaps you wdwould be good enough to draft a letter to the H.B.C. as proposed in this report whwhich has stood over longer than was quite desirable. C Feby 11

EBL F. 11

HBC, 11257
Law Officers 6012/58