Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch from London
Pelham-Clinton, Henry Pelham Fiennes to Douglas, James 15 June 1860, LAC RG7:G8C/9, 236.
Abstract
Despatch from London.
Enclosures (untranscribed) (2).
Newcastle forwards Douglas a letter and enclosures from the HBC,
in which the HBC complains about customs duties in Vancouver Island and
British Columbia, and smuggling in both colonies. Newcastle offers his insights
on the situation, and warns Douglas to be sure that his proclamations do not exceed his authority.
No. 33
Downing Street
15 June 1860
Sir,
I transmit to you herewith copy of a correspondence between the
Hudsons Bay Company and this office on the subject of the operation of
the Customs Laws for British Columbia.
It is not to be denied that where there is an extensive line of coast or
frontier with an inadequate Customs Establishment
Establishment smuggling may
prevail, and that commerce, carried on in a legitimate manner, will be
proportionally prejudiced. It is however impossible to increase that
Establishment whilst the trade of a Country is undeveloped.
Consequently the only alternative left for the Executive Government is
to fix upon certain ports where duties can be most conveniently
collected. This you would appear to have done by, in the first
instance, naming Victoria and
and afterwards New Westminster as the ports
where vessels might be cleared for British Columbia, and it's
dependencies.
Establishment smuggling may
prevail, and that commerce, carried on in a legitimate manner, will be
proportionally prejudiced. It is however impossible to increase that
Establishment whilst the trade of a Country is undeveloped.
Consequently the only alternative left for the Executive Government is
to fix upon certain ports where duties can be most conveniently
collected. This you would appear to have done by, in the first
instance, naming Victoria and
and afterwards New Westminster as the ports
where vessels might be cleared for British Columbia, and it's
dependencies.
But the Hudsons Bay Company represent in the accompanying letter
that the Proclamations which you have issued imposing duties, and naming
the places where they
should be collected, operate injuriously against
the fair-trader because they are incapable of enforcement against the
smuggler, and because they compel the Company to pay duty on goods not
intended
intended for consumption in British Columbia. With respect to the first
complaint I can only express my hope that you will use all the means in
your power for preventing any illicit trade, which is carried on, though
I am sensible that the difficulty in doing so is great where the
Sea-board and frontier are so extensive, and the assistance of Customs
officers so small. If that difficulty is unsuperable it will furnish a
strong argument for raising the Colonial Revenue by other means than
customs duties
duties which will only fall on them who choose to pay them.
With regard to requiring the Hudsons Bay Company to pay duty on goods
not intended for consumption in British Columbia, the Company seem to me
to have a primâ facie ground of complaint. On this point however I
cannot form any judgment till I receive your statement of the actual
facts of the case. Meanwhile I have pointed out to the Company that the
Proclamation of the 2nd of June 1859 makes it optional on vessels
going to
to places north of Fraser's River to pay duty at Fort Victoria or at New Westminster, which must be intended as a convenience rather than a
restriction.
intended for consumption in British Columbia. With respect to the first
complaint I can only express my hope that you will use all the means in
your power for preventing any illicit trade, which is carried on, though
I am sensible that the difficulty in doing so is great where the
Sea-board and frontier are so extensive, and the assistance of Customs
officers so small. If that difficulty is unsuperable it will furnish a
strong argument for raising the Colonial Revenue by other means than
customs duties
duties which will only fall on them who choose to pay them.
With regard to requiring the Hudsons Bay Company to pay duty on goods
not intended for consumption in British Columbia, the Company seem to me
to have a primâ facie ground of complaint. On this point however I
cannot form any judgment till I receive your statement of the actual
facts of the case. Meanwhile I have pointed out to the Company that the
Proclamation of the 2nd of June 1859 makes it optional on vessels
going to
to places north of Fraser's River to pay duty at Fort Victoria or at New Westminster, which must be intended as a convenience rather than a
restriction.
But there is a further and a very important point of view which is
suggested by these Proclamations. A Law enacted by the Authorities of
British Columbia cannot compel persons to acknowledge the authority of
Customs House officers in Vancouver Island, nor subject them to
penalties for setting it at
at defiance. The authority which you possess
of making laws for British Columbia does not extend beyond the limits of
that Colony and the sea within 3 miles of the coast. Therefore all laws
which you may pass professing to extend beyond that radius will (with
certain exceptions of a somewhat doubtful character) be simply
inoperative.
at defiance. The authority which you possess
of making laws for British Columbia does not extend beyond the limits of
that Colony and the sea within 3 miles of the coast. Therefore all laws
which you may pass professing to extend beyond that radius will (with
certain exceptions of a somewhat doubtful character) be simply
inoperative.
You must therefore take great care that no duties are collected for
British Columbia beyond the limits above described, except
except with
the concurrence or at the request of those who pay them. By any other
course you will run the risk of being called upon
to refund the duties which you may have collected without warrant of the law.
except with
the concurrence or at the request of those who pay them. By any other
course you will run the risk of being called upon
to refund the duties which you may have collected without warrant of the law.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Elliot to Ellice, 13 June 1860, reminding him that the payment of
customs duties in Victoria, on goods destined for British Columbia,
is a convenience and not a requirement.
Ellice to Newcastle, 14 May 1860, complaining that because the
heavy dutiesimposed on goods imported into British Columbia are
next to impossible to collect,the HBC operates at a disadvantage when competing with smugglers. In addition, Ellice complains that Douglas's attempt to combat smuggling by charging duty on goods when they leave the port of Victoria is illegal. He includes an excerpt of a letter from Simpson complaining that the HBC ship Labouchere was charged duty on goods leaving Victoria and bound, not for British Columbia, but for the Territory rented by [the HBC] from the Russian American Fur Company.