Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Seymour, Frederick to Grenville, Richard 12 September 1867, CO 60:29, no. 10819, 86.
Abstract
Despatch to London.
Minutes (6), 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.
Seymour forwards
No 28. An Ordinance to assimilate and amend the law prohibiting the Sale or Gift of Intoxicating liquors to Indiansand the corresponding
Attorney General's report.Holland’s minute summaries ordinance 28, describes the effect of the ordinance, and discusses the unintended consequences of sections 10, 11, and 12. Minutes by Rogers and Buckingham advises sending the despatch to the Board of Trade. Minutes by Holland and Rogers discuss in what state the despatch should be sent to the Board of Trade.
No. 109
12th September 1867
My Lord Duke,
I have the honor to forward an authenticated and two plain
copies of an Ordinance of the late Session of the Legislature
of this Colony entitled;No 28.
No 28. An Ordinance to assimilate and amend the law
prohibiting the Sale or Gift of Intoxicating liquors to Indians.
No 28. An Ordinance to assimilate and amend the law
prohibiting the Sale or Gift of Intoxicating liquors to Indians.
2. The want of such a measure in Vancouver Island has long
been felt and I need hardly say that I recommend the allowance of
the measure.
3. The Attorney General's report is enclosed.
I
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
Sale of Liquor to Indians. The B Columbian Ordinance of 1865 No 16 is extended to the whole Colony. I have no objections to raise to the first 9 sections, or to sections 13-16. But there are new powers of search given by sect. 10; & a declaration by the Master of any Ship, Canoe &c is required by sec. 11 before any ship &c can leave any port in B. Columbia, for any port in Russian America or Northwards with spirits on board.
Sale of Liquor to Indians. The B Columbian Ordinance of 1865 No 16 is extended to the whole Colony. I have no objections to raise to the first 9 sections, or to sections 13-16. But there are new powers of search given by sect. 10; & a declaration by the Master of any Ship, Canoe &c is required by sec. 11 before any ship &c can leave any port in B. Columbia, for any port in Russian America or Northwards with spirits on board.
These provisions may well be calculated to stop the trade of selling
intoxicating liquor to the Indians; but it seems to me that the
power given by sect 10 would include any French or other foreign
Ship, & even though that Ship may not have docked at any port in
B. Columbia. I do not think that section can be allowed in its
present shape.
The power in sect 11 is also very large, as it would include the
case of a French or American vessel which was carrying spirits from
San Francisco to Russian America, but which was forced by [one word
off microfilm] of weather
to go into Victoria. It is true that the Governor has a
power to exempt, and this may justify the allowance of this section
as he would exercise such power in any such case. But should not
the section be confined to cases where spirits are shipped at any port
or place in B. Columbia upon any vessel leaving for Russian America or Northward?
HTH
6/11
I wd put these questions to the B. of T.
Of course SS 10 only applies to B. Columbia waters.
FR
6/11
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Seymour, 19 July 1867,
reporting on the ordinance as per despatch.
Other documents included in the file
Colonial Office to
T.H. Farrer, Board of Trade, 16 November 1867, forwarding copy of the
ordinance and calling attention to several sections for consideration.
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F Rogers
I have stated somewhat fully the objections to the Ordinance. But (?) is a simple reference to the sections without comment more usual.
I have stated somewhat fully the objections to the Ordinance. But (?) is a simple reference to the sections without comment more usual.
HTH
12/11
It seems to me clearly necessary to state the objections.
Else the B of T mt not see what we are at. My
own
impression is that the clauses may pass.
own
impression is that the clauses may pass.
FR
12/11