<persName ref="prs:romaine_wg"><surname>Romaine</surname>, <forename>William</forename> <forename>Govett</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:rogers_f"><surname>Rogers</surname>, <forename>Frederic</forename></persName> 29 March 1865, CO 305:27, no. 3004, 27. Romaine addressee Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Romaine, William Govett to Rogers, Frederic 29 March 1865, CO 305:27, no. 3004, 27.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/V655AD04.html. CO 305:27 CO 305 27 3004 27 V.I. 1865 received 30 March co_305_27_00028r.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 (4), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Other documents (1).

This document contains mentions of Indigenous Peoples. The authors of these documents often perpetuate a negative perspective of Indigenous Peoples and it is important to look critically at these mentions. They sometimes use terminology that is now considered hurtful and offensive. To learn more about modern terminology pertaining to Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous ways of knowing, and decolonization, please refer to the Glossary of terms.

Romaine forwards a letter from Rear Admiral Denman recommending that a powerful Vessel of War should be employed for the protection of Esquimalt. Blackwood minutes his concern that a vessel controlled by the colonies would inevitably embarrass the Imperial [Government] in its foreign relations, but Fortescue minutes his opinion that such a vessel would be the very best, most effective & most economical mode of keeping the Indians in order.

 Romaine, William Govett
Admiralty
Rogers, Frederic Inserted revisionDesc. Added abstract. Written by Josiah Snell.
Romaine to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary) 3004, CO 305/27, p. 27; received 30 March
Admiralty
29 March 1865 Sir,

I am commanded by My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to send you herewith, for the information of Mr Secretary Cardwell, a Duplicate Letter from Rear Admiral Denman, No 34, dated the 19th October last, representing the necessity for an increase to the Pacific Squadron, owingto to the addition contemplated by the United States Government to their Naval Forces in consequence of the large French Force on the Coast of Mexico; and recommending that a powerful Vessel of War should be employed for the protection of Esquimalt, and for the prevention of aggressions by Native Tribes, upon British Traders.

In

In forwarding Admiral Denman's remarks relating to the employment of Colonial Steamers, My Lords desire me to observe that the question is applicable not only to Vancouver's Island, and British Columbia, but to all other Colonies which are similarly situated.

I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant W.G. Romaine
Mr Elliot I have never known an instance of a Colonial vessel—kept for Colonial uses & paid and Officered by a Colony which did not continue to embarrass the Imperial GovtGovernment in its foreign relations. Hence I am of opinion that if a vessel is required by V.C. Island & B. Columbia to preserve order on the Coasts & prevent illicit trading with the Indians she should be under the direct orders of the Admiralty & the Admiral on the Station. But we cannot act without knowing 1st whether these Colonies want such a vessel, and 2y whether they are prepared to pay for and maintain her. My persuasion is that V.C.I. will reject the offer if made to her. B. Columbia may accept. But the practical step to take is to ask these Colonies what they wish. And with that view I should send them a copy of Adml Denman's Letter, at least of Sections 5 and 6, & call on the Governors to report explaining that in the event of a colonial vessel being established she wdwould be paid by them & in all probability officered and manned by the Admy.

The question raised by Admiral Denman as to increasing the Naval Force in the Pacific on account of the augmented strength put on by France and the United States is one which the Admiralty should propose to the Foreign Office, & not to this Office.

ABd 31 March
Mr Fortescue I should ask the Governors' opinion on having a Colonial vessel—but I should be against any proviso about her being manned or officered by the Admy, or being under the orders of the Admiralty. I would have either a Colonial Vessel or none. TFE 31/3
An armed vessel at the disposal of the Govts of B.C. and V. Id. is probably the very best, most effective & most economical mode of keeping the Indians in order; and I think there wd. be good grounds even for applying to Parlnt for a vote to enable the two Colonies to procure and maintain such a vessel—seeing that we afford them no military aid and that the vessel proposed would apparently save the expense of several gunboats now employed virtually for the same purposes. But if the Colonies can & will pay, so much the better. Refer to the two Governors accordingly? CF 1 April
Send out Copies of the Colonial Naval Reform Bill, with Extracts from Adml Denman's Letter: & suggest to the Governors the advantages which they may derive from availing themselves of such arrangements as are contemplated by the Bill. EC 3 April
Denman to Secretary of the Admiralty, 19 October 1864, "representing the necessity for an Increase to the Pacific Squadron," as per despatch.
Draft reply, Cardwell to Kennedy, No. 20, and Seymour, No. 17, 11 April 1865.