Murdoch to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)

I have to acknowledge your letter of 13th inst, with one from the
Governor of the Hudsons Bay Company, enclosing a Memorandum by Mr
Dallas on the subject of Governor Kennedy's despatch of 2nd Janry
last.

2. Governor Kennedy, in explaining the circumstances which had led
to the enclosure of the public Park in Victoria, and vindicating
himself from the complaints to which it had given rise, coupled the
name of Mr Finlayson an officer of the Hudsons Bay Co with that of
Mr Medana the principal complainant. The object of Mr Dallas'
Memorandum is to repudiate all connection on his own part and that of
Mr Finlayson with Mr Medana. Nothing turns on the question whether
there was any connection between Messrs Finlayson and Medana in this
matter, but I would recommend that a copy of Mr Dallas' Memorandum should
be sent to the Governor.

3. Mr Dallas goes on to state that the whole circumstances
connected with the infringement on the Park were

fully investigated by the Commissioners appointed by the Crown in
1862, and allowance was made for this and all other disputed matters
in the compromize or indenture of Agreement then drawn up.

I cannot acquiesce in this description of what took place on the
occasion referred to. Mr Dallas no doubt mentioned that an error
had been committed in laying down the line of the Park boundary, and
explained that it had been discovered by himself—but we were not in
a position, nor did we attempt, to enter into any investigation of
the subject—nor were we aware at that time that any dispute had
arisen between the Company and the Local Government respecting it.
There was therefore no special "allowance" made on this account in
the Agreement concluded by us—as Mr Dallas appears to
assume—although the object of that Agreement being to confirm all
Acts legally done by the Company in dealing with the land which they
claimed at Victoria, it would determine the boundary of the Park in
accordance with the view of the Hudsons Bay Co, if it could be
shown that the Company were legally entitled to deal with the
portion of Land which had been unintentionally cut off by the error
in drawing the boundary.