Berens to
Newcastle
[11771, CO 305/15, p. 504; received 20 December
]
Hudson's Bay House
18 December 1860
I have the honour to transmit a Copy of a letter which I have
addressed to the Right Honble the Secretary of State for Foreign
affairs on the subject of the establishment which the Hudson's Bay
Company possess on the Island of San Juan, in the Straits of Arro.
Your Grace is no doubt aware that the establishment in question was
formed by this Company, not with a view to advantage or profit to
themselves, but at the instigation of Her Majesty's Government, and
for the purpose of securing the Island of San Juan to the Crown, by
the formation of a permanentpermanent establishment thereon belonging to
British subjects.
It is unnecessary that I should on this occasion trouble your Grace
by entering, in detail, into a history of the formation of this
establishment, as the circumstances have on several occasions been
communicated to Her Majesty's Government, but as I learn on
application at the Foreign Office that the question is one which
ought to be referred to the Colonial Department, I venture
respectfully to request your Grace to inform me what Her Majesty's
Government consider that the Hudson's Bay Company ought to do. Are
they to continue to hold the Island for the benefit of, and at the
expense of Her Majesty's Government, or are the Government disposed
to seesee the Island abandoned by the only British subjects established
there?
Your Grace will permit me to add that it is of great importance that
a decision should be come to on the subject with the least possible
delay as, in common with my fellow Directors, I feel that in justice
to the Hudson's Bay Company, we cannot continue to maintain the
establishment if our doing so is to be at the expense of the
Proprietors of the Company.
I have etc.
H.H. Berens
GovrGovernor
Mr Elliot
We shall probably hear from the Foreign Office on the subject of this
letter, but in the mean time it may [be] of use to endeavor to
ascertain from our own Records how far the assertion made by the
Company that they formed a permanent establishment on San Juan
not with a view to any advantage to themselves but at the
instigation of the Imperial GovtGovernment is borne out by facts.
In Decr 1852 GovrGovernor Douglas first announced the claim set up by the
Americans to the Island in the Canal de Arro. In the month of Novr
1853 he reported that he had asserted the Sovereignty of the Queen to
all the Islands—and he adds the Islands are "unoccupied by any
settlement whatever except a fishing Station established some yearsyears ago by the H.B. Company on the Island of San Juan."
It thus appears that the Company had a certain interest in the Island
before any difficulty with the Americans arose.
But it further appears from the Extract of a letter from GovrGovernor
Douglas to the Company dated 26 May 1854 (only five months later than
the date of the Desp. above quoted) "that there was a flourishing fur
trade settlement on San Juan in charge of Mr Griffen" (an Agent of
the Company) and also sheep numbering about 1644. "These
proceedings, the GovrGovernor adds, have caused the jealousy of our
Neighbours & we have been repeatedly threatened but as yet we hold
our ground."
There is nothing in our Records so far as I can discern to shew that
the settlement was formed at the instance of the GovtGovernment and it is
somewhat remarkable that in a letter addressed to the Company on the
subject of this Settlement (see 1962) the following phrase is used,
"correspondence relating to the occupation
for the benefit of the Company of the Island of San Juan". It
may therefore be fairly inferred that this Department at least did
not at that date admit that the settlement was formed & the Island
occupied by the Company "solely to secure its possession to the
British Crown". On this ground the Company now prefer a claim to
compensation for losses alleged to have been sustained by them.
VJ
21 Dec
Mr Fortescue
I forward this important letter for your consideration, with Mr
Jadis's useful Memorandum of such facts, bearing on the subject, as
appear on record here.
TFE
21 Decr
Duke of Newcastle
When are claims on the part of the H.B.Co. to cease? Here is a new &
startling one sprung upon us, of the grounds of wh. you could not
possibly have been aware, altho' Mr Berens assumes that you must be
so. It is difficult however to make out what the claim is—whether
re-imbursement of
past expenditure upon the Sheep-farm on St. Juan, or a promise
of contribution towards it in future, (if it sh. be retained for
public purposes), or
both. The letter to us, tho' ambiguous, may refer only to the
future—that to the F.O. includes the "past."
You will see by the Papers that the occupation by the Co. of San Juan
took place after a very singular correspondence with the F.O. and
that the C.O. knew nothing of it until afterwards. We do not appear
to possess that correspondence, and cannot give a decided answer to
the present letter until we know exactly what passed at that time, &
how far the Sec. of State for Foreign Affairs may have committed
himself to the Co. It is not likely however that the Co. have
anything more to show for their claim than we have before us, which
amounts, I think, to very little. The occupation of San Juan was no
doubt of importance for the purpose of securing it to the Crown, but
it was also of great importance to the Co. for the purpose of
securing it as a portion of what were then their dominions, and of
keeping off American squatters & Traders whose presence at such a
place, at the door of their great Trading-post, Fort Victoria, wd.
have been extremely inconvenient & injurious to them. It wd. seem
that the Co. occupied the Id with the permission, perhaps with the
encouragement of the F.O., but
not, as Mr Berens says, at its "instigation." Nor does there
seem any reason to think that the Sheep-Farm on San Juan was regarded
in any other light than as "a
Fur-trade Settlement", as GovrGovernor Douglas calls it.
If it had been regarded by the Co.
not as a portion of their private trading property, but as
coming under the head of property held or outlay incurred on acct. of
the Government &c of V. Id, it
ought to have been included in their accounts sent in to H.M.'s
GovtGovernment. It
must be one thing or the other.
Again, the settlement has been a
loss to the Co. in consequence perhaps of American interference.
But wd. they have shared the
profit
with the Govt, had there been one? Was it in any sense a GovtGovernment
establishment? It seems to me that the claim cannot be entertained
as to the
past. As to the future occupation, the question is a different
one, on wh. you will no doubt consult the F.O.
CF
[date cut off file]
The cool presumption upon our credulity
with which the H.B.C. now assure us upon every occasion that each of
their trading enterprizes which they find either failing or
inconvenient to themselves were "undertaken with no view to advantage
or profit to themselves" but either at the instigation of or to
further the objects of the GovtGovernment is only surpassed by their
marvellous ingenuity in finding fresh claims for large compensation
out of the public purse in such rapid succession that they seem
likely before long to absorb the "Chinese Indemnity" if they are
not carefully watched.
This appears to me of all their claims the most monstrous, and Mr
Jadis' Minute read by the light of former papers and a Minute of Mr
Merivale of March 1856 hardly leaves room for the charitable
supposition that it is made in good faith.
I doubt whether the F.O. will write to us on the subject, Mr Berens
letter to Ld J. Russell having been written on the 20th Novr,
and I think we must communicate with them before any answer is given to
the H.B.C.
The question as to the
future
must depend upon whether Ld J.R. thinks it necessary or desirable to
pay the Co for holding on till the difference with the U.S. is
settled. I am disposed to think not, & the answer should be in
effect—"mind your own business and we will mind ours, go or stay as
suits your own trading objects," but as to the
past I have no doubt whatever. They have no claim to any
reimbursement, and I entirely agree in Mr Fortescues remarks.
Everything shews that the whole thing is either an afterthought or
was purposely held back when the first statement of their claims was
sent in.
N
26