Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Selwyn, C. J. and Kaulabe, John B. to Grenville, Richard 31 December 1867, CO 60:30, no. 42, 281.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (8), Other documents (3), Marginalia (2).
Kaulabe and Selwyn report on section 5 of British Columbia’s ordinance
entitledand find that Seymour and the government of British Columbia do not have the authorityAn Ordinance respecting Harbour and Tonnage dues and to regulate the Licenses on the Vessels engaged in the Coasting and Inland Navigation Trade
to admit by local Ordinance foreign bottoms to the Colonial Coasting Trade.Holland’s minute summarizes the report from Kaulabe and Selwyn and provides recommendations for rectifying British Columbia’s law to conform with imperial law. Minutes by Rogers and Buckingham agree with Holland, with particular conditions. Holland’s later minute discusses the views of the Board of Trade regarding colonies controlling policy related to foreign vessels entering colonial waters. Included documents discuss the report of the law officers with the Board of Trade and Seymour.
Selwyn and [Kaulabe?] to Buckingham
Temple
December 31st 1867
Lord Duke,
We are honored with Your Grace's Commands signified in Sir Frederic
Rogers's letter of the 22d day of November ultimo, stating that
he was directed by Your Grace, to transmit to us a Copy of an
Ordinance passed by the Legislature of British Columbia entitled
"An Ordinance respecting Harbour and Tonnage dues and to regulate the
Licenses on the Vessels engaged in
the Coasting and Inland Navigation Trade" and to call attention to
the provisions of Sectn 5 by which the Governor in Council is
authorized under special circumstances to license foreign bottoms
for the coasting Trade of British Columbia.
And that he was also directed to call our attention to Sectns
163, 190 and 320of
of the Customs Consolidated Act 16 & 17 Victa
C. 107 and also to Sectn 15 of 20 & 21 Victa c 62, and to
request that we would favour Your Grace with our opinion whether the
Colonial Legislature have power, under Sectn 15 of the last
mentioned Act to admit by local Ordinance foreign bottoms to the
Coasting Trade, or whether it is necessary for them to proceed in
the manner pointed out by Sectn 328 of the former Act and whether
this part of the Ordinance is or is not repugnant to the imperial Act.
of the Customs Consolidated Act 16 & 17 Victa
C. 107 and also to Sectn 15 of 20 & 21 Victa c 62, and to
request that we would favour Your Grace with our opinion whether the
Colonial Legislature have power, under Sectn 15 of the last
mentioned Act to admit by local Ordinance foreign bottoms to the
Coasting Trade, or whether it is necessary for them to proceed in
the manner pointed out by Sectn 328 of the former Act and whether
this part of the Ordinance is or is not repugnant to the imperial Act.
Sir Frederic Rogers was pleased further to state that the Ordinance
had been under the consideration of the Board of Trade and that it
would be seen from the Letter, of which a Copy was enclosed, that they
entertain considerable doubts as to the legal effect of those several
Clauses.
Sir Frederic Rogers was also pleased to transmit to us the Copy of
another letter lately received from the
Board of Trade, and to
request that we would inform Your Grace whether we perceive any
objection to the proposed repeal of the 163rd and 328 Clauses of
16 and 17 Victoria C 107.
Board of Trade, and to
request that we would inform Your Grace whether we perceive any
objection to the proposed repeal of the 163rd and 328 Clauses of
16 and 17 Victoria C 107.
In Obedience to Your Grace's Commands we have considered the
questions submitted to us and have the honour to Report
That in our opinion the Colonial Legislature have not power
under Sectn 15 of the 20 and 21 Victoria c 62 to admit by local
Ordinance foreign bottoms to the Colonial Coasting Trade, and that
this part of the Ordinance is repugnant to the Imperial Act. We
think that the Colonial Legislature should proceed in the manner
pointed out by Sectn 328 of the Imperial Act—Sec 15 is no doubt
extremely ambiguous, but we think having regard to the preamble and
apparent object of the Sectn, that the interpretationwe
we have
put upon it, is the correct one.
we have
put upon it, is the correct one.
There appears to be grounds of policy rendering it expedient
to repeal Sections 163 and 328 of the Act 16 & 17 Victa cap 107
and we see no objection in point of law to such repeal.
We have the honor to be
My Lord Duke
Your Grace's
most obedt Hble Servts
John B. [Kaulabe?]
C.J. Selwyn
My Lord Duke
Your Grace's
most obedt Hble Servts
John B. [Kaulabe?]
C.J. Selwyn
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
The L Officers report that sect. 5 of this Ordinance is repugnant to Imperial Legislation.
The L Officers report that sect. 5 of this Ordinance is repugnant to Imperial Legislation.
Inform the Govr that HG is advised
that sect 5 is repugnant to the Imperial Act 16 & 17 Vict C 107, and
that the Colonial Legislature have not power under sect. 15 of 20
& 21 Vict c 62 to admit foreign bottoms to the Colonial Coasting
Trade; but that proceedings must be taken under sect. 328 of the
former Act. That this 5th section of the Ordinance though
unobjectionable in point of policy (vide B of T letter)
must
therefore be repealed before HG can advise HM to confirm the Ordinance.
must
therefore be repealed before HG can advise HM to confirm the Ordinance.
The Governor might also be informed that it is probable that
measures will be taken in the next session of Parliament to repeal the
163rd & 328th sections of the Imperial Act 16 & 17 Vict c 107, & to
dispense with the formalities required by that Act and authorize the
Legislatures of B. possessions to regulate the Coasting Trade of such
possessions respectively by local Act or ordinance.
Also send a copy of the L. Officers opinion to the B. of Trade
with reference to their 2 letters of the 13 November & inform the
Board that HG sees no objection to the repeal of the 163rd &
328th sections of 16 & 17 V. c. 107, but that he thinks it
unnecessary, (since the necessity of sanctioning acts by Orders in
Council, except in certain cases, has been done away with),
that local acts or ordinances, relating to the coasting trade should
(as suggested) be subject to the approval of the Queen in Council.
I wd omit this. The reason wd only apply to
Acts, whereas the conclusion has to be applied to Ordces.,
and as the premiss does not cover the conclusion I wd let it alone.
HTH
2/1/68
So long as they remain subject to disallowance by HM in the
ordinary way.
I agree subject to the margl notes.
I approve generally but on second point unless we are prepared to
compel the Colonies to open coasting & internal trade I do not see
any object to be gained by repealing the 2 clauses in question—as
the law stands if the colony wishes it, it can be done.
B&C
9/1
Other documents included in the file
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 7, 5 January 1868 informing Seymour of the law officer’s decision regarding British Columbia’s ordinance related to admitting foreign vessels into colonial waters and that the
ordinance is suspended until further correspondence from Seymour.
Rogers to Louis Mallet, Board of Trade, 15 January 1866,
forwarding report of the Law Officers, with explanation.
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
I understand from HG's minutes that though he does not entirely agree with the view of the B of Trade, yet that he assents generally to it.
I understand from HG's minutes that though he does not entirely agree with the view of the B of Trade, yet that he assents generally to it.
It is, in truth, a B of Trade question & as the restriction
was one imposed in deference to the then existing Imperial Policy, now
that that policy has changed, the B of Trade naturally desire to
give facilities to the Colonies to carry out a like policy.
Why blot B.C. Legn to correspond with a blot left
in ours—& then obliterate ours? & would not repealing our Sections
at once allow theirs to remain.
