Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Ellice, Edward to Pelham-Clinton, Henry Pelham Fiennes 14 May 1860, CO 305:15, no. 4963, 474.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (10), Enclosures (untranscribed) (1), Other documents (2), Marginalia (3).
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.
Ellice to Newcastle
14 May 1860
By accounts received from Vancouver's Island I learn that one of the
measures recently adopted by Governor Douglas in his double capacity
of Governor of Vancouver's Island and of British Columbia operated in
a manner so unfavourably and as I think unjustly to the interests of
the Hudson's Bay Company that I feel it my duty to bring the matter
under Your Grace's notice.
Your Grace is no doubt aware that Governor Douglas has of late
imposed heavy duties on all goods imported into British Columbia.
These duties he finds it
it next to impossible to collect within the
Colony of British Columbia, in consequence of the great extent of the
Coast and the paucity of Custom houses, and, in order to meet the
difficulty, he has fallen on the expedient of exacting the duties
payable on goods entering British Columbia, before they leave the
port of Victoria.
In Decbr 1858.
it next to impossible to collect within the
Colony of British Columbia, in consequence of the great extent of the
Coast and the paucity of Custom houses, and, in order to meet the
difficulty, he has fallen on the expedient of exacting the duties
payable on goods entering British Columbia, before they leave the
port of Victoria.
I venture humbly to represent to Your Grace, that in thus collecting
the British Columbia import duties within the separate Colony of
Vancouver's Island Governor Douglas acts illegally, and the Tax,
instead of being an Import duty as respects British Columbia, becomes
a duty on exports from 
Vancouver's Island.
Vancouver's Island.
As respect the interests of this Company, I have already stated that
the measure operates unfavourably and in my opinion unjustly. The
Hudson's Bay Company, as Your Grace is probably aware, has the
principal Depot for its Trade at Victoria, where it is very easy for
the Governor to exact the duties to any extent. But the American
Trader and the Smuggler have no difficulty in evading the duties, for
as they do not enter the port of Victoria, but go to the Coast of
British Columbia direct—where there are no Custom-house Officers
—they escape the duties altogether. And the consequence is that
the Hudson's Bay Company
Company alone is made to pay the duties.
Mr Hamley is Collector of Customs for B. Columbia. He resides at
New Westminster: & arrived in the Colony in April/59. I know of no
establishment of officers under him.
Company alone is made to pay the duties.
Herewith I have the honor of transmitting an Extract of a Letter
addressed by Sir George Simpson to the Secretary of this Company, from which Your Grace will observe that in a recent
trading voyage
of the Hudson's Bay Company's Steamer "Labouchere"
to the North West Coast of North America, the duties levied upon her
Cargo, at Victoria, under the denomination of British Columbia Import
duty amounted to no less a sum than £300. Moreover, the duties were
exacted on the whole of her Cargo, although a portion only was
intended for British Columbia—the remainder being intended for Trade
with the Natives residing in the Territory rented
rented by this Company
from the Russian American Fur Company.
rented by this Company
from the Russian American Fur Company.
I have no hesitation in saying that if this system of levying taxes
be continued; if this Company's goods are to be taxed exclusively,
while other Traders are enabled to Traffic all along the Coast
without paying any duty at all; and if, moreover, the Company are to
be called upon to pay British Columbia import duties for goods sent
to, and to be consumed in, the Russian Territory; the result will be
that we shall be ultimately forced to withdraw from a trade in which
such unfair advantages are given to the Foreign Trader and
Smuggler—or to establish the Depôts
for our Trade within the Russian Territory
Territory where we shall not be
subjected to measures of this character.
Territory where we shall not be
subjected to measures of this character.
I would therefore most respectfully submit to Your Grace that
measures should be adopted to stop such proceedings. I venture to
think that your Grace will at once see the illegality of raising at
Victoria the duties on the importation of goods into British
Columbia. They might with fully as great justice be raised at
Liverpool or London. The Colonies are entirely separate, and under
separate Governments, the only connection between them being that the
same functionary happens to be Governor of both. It will
consequently be evident to Your Grace, that in levying duties at
Victoria the Governor collects an export duty from Vancouver's
Island, (for which
which he has no Warrant) and not an import duty into
British Columbia.
which he has no Warrant) and not an import duty into
British Columbia.
I beg to assure Your Grace that, in venturing to bring this subject
under your notice, it is not the wish of the Directors of this
Company to evade duties legally imposed, and legally levied. All
that we wish is that the British Columbia duties should be levied
within that Colony, so that they may be imposed equally upon all
parties trading with that Coast. If that were done, the duties would
not be imposed on the Hudson's Bay Company alone, while small traders
and smugglers were allowed to escape.
Minutes by CO staff
[The following minute to Blackwood has been crossed out:]
Mr Blackwood
The Despatch referred to is with the Printers: but I expect it back hourly.
The Despatch referred to is with the Printers: but I expect it back hourly.
SidyJoseph
16 May
Mr Elliot
The Proclamation which is impugned is doubtless No 3—dated 2 June/59. You will find it with 10782/59—which is annexed. The proviso of the 4 Sect. is what the H.B.Co complain of.
The Proclamation which is impugned is doubtless No 3—dated 2 June/59. You will find it with 10782/59—which is annexed. The proviso of the 4 Sect. is what the H.B.Co complain of.
I think we can scarcely move in this case without a report from the
Govr.
ABd
24/5/60
Sir F. Rogers
This you will see is a question on a customs law. For Frasers River there is now a local port in British Columbia. For places North of Fraser's River, Vessels are still to call and to pay their duties at Victoria in Vancouver Island. I believe that in all Customs arrangements, the principle of Vessels being obliged to call at some convenient Port of Entry instead of at every place on the coast they may desire to visit is recognized from the necessity of the case. But certainly to require payment in one colony of duties of Import for another Colony appears a strong measure. And independently of this the grievance assigned of having to pay on the whole cargo, when only part is intended for the Colony is primâ facie a just ground of complaint.
This you will see is a question on a customs law. For Frasers River there is now a local port in British Columbia. For places North of Fraser's River, Vessels are still to call and to pay their duties at Victoria in Vancouver Island. I believe that in all Customs arrangements, the principle of Vessels being obliged to call at some convenient Port of Entry instead of at every place on the coast they may desire to visit is recognized from the necessity of the case. But certainly to require payment in one colony of duties of Import for another Colony appears a strong measure. And independently of this the grievance assigned of having to pay on the whole cargo, when only part is intended for the Colony is primâ facie a just ground of complaint.
P.S. But then since I wrote this, Mr Irving has pointed out that
the calling at Fort Victoria for places North of Fraser River is only
optional: this makes a great
difference; it renders it an
accommodation afforded to shipping, instead of a burthen.
Whether lawful to tax one Colony for another is a different
question.
TFE
25 May
It would not, I apprehend be positively illegal for the Legre of
Vancouvers Island to impose an export duty on goods exported to B.
Columbia on the understanding that the proceeds of that duty shd be
paid over to the Govt of B. Columbia. The arguments of the H.B.C.
agst the policy & fairness of such a law appear very strong but
they would have to obey it.
But the law actually passed, as far as I see, they could not have
been compelled to obey, if they had chosen to resist it. Certainly a
law passed by the Legre of B.C. (i.e. the Governor) could not compel
any one to ackne the authority of Custom H. Offrs in Vancouvers
Island—or, (except by a circuitous process wh has not been
adopted)—subject them to penalties for setting it at defiance.
I should hope however that those who have over paid in V.C.I. duties
wh, though exacted without any [real?] authority [there?],
really became due when the goods on which they were paid were
landed in B.C. wd not be at liberty to reclaim the money thus paid.
The H.B.C. do not make any such claim.
I should think it wd be prudent to inform the Govr of B.C. 
that the
authy wh he possesses of making laws for B.C. does not extend
beyond the limits of that Colony and the sea within 3 miles of these
limits—that all laws which he may pass professing to extend beyond
these limits will be simply inoperative—(except perhaps in certain
doubtful cases wh it is unnecesary to refer to)—& therefore that he
must make provision for collecting within the
own limits all duties payable to the Govt of B. Columbia.
that the
authy wh he possesses of making laws for B.C. does not extend
beyond the limits of that Colony and the sea within 3 miles of these
limits—that all laws which he may pass professing to extend beyond
these limits will be simply inoperative—(except perhaps in certain
doubtful cases wh it is unnecesary to refer to)—& therefore that he
must make provision for collecting within the
its?
This as Mr Elliot remarks is already done with regard to Frasers
river. Procln No 3 of 1850 [1859], section 4.
But it is not done as to ports N. of Fraser's river; and I rather
doubt whether, practically, the claim gives the option which by its
language it seems to do. Vessels it says "may" clear at Fort Victoria for
those ports; but if they do clear,
must "pay…full duties" &c.
FR
28/5
I may perhaps be allowed to point out 
that the Proclamation in wh
this provision occurs is of a class wh is referred as a matter of
course & without comment by this Office to the Bd of Trade &
Treasy, on whose examination of them the C.O. relies.
that the Proclamation in wh
this provision occurs is of a class wh is referred as a matter of
course & without comment by this Office to the Bd of Trade &
Treasy, on whose examination of them the C.O. relies.
Sir F. Rogers
(Perhaps you wd. be good enough to look at this again.)
(Perhaps you wd. be good enough to look at this again.)
The case seems to stand in this way. By Proclamation of Decber 3
1858, Customs Duties were imposed on goods imported into B. Columbia,
which were to be "ascertained, raised, levied, paid & recovered
at Victoria". (B.C. Parly Papers Part 2. p. 42, 43). This
Proclamation was approved of by Sir E.B. Lytton by desp. of March 19,
1859 (Parl. Papers p. 82), and continued in force (in this respect)
until the 15th June 1859, when it was modified by Proclamation No. 3
of 2nd June 1859, acc. to
which Queensborough (New Westminster) became the Port of entry for
Fraser River & "the ports of B. Columbia adjacent to Fraser
River"—and it was made
optional, and wd. appear to me, for vessels proceeding to any
"other ports of B. Columbia", or "any port in B. Columbia 
north
of Fraser River" (wh. expressions must necessarily mean the same
thing), to clear either at New Westminster
or Victoria—the latter provision seeming to be intended rather as a
convenience than a restriction. It is strange that neither we nor
the H.B.Co. have discovered the illegality of these Proclamations
until now—when for nearly a year that illegality has, at all events,
been reduced to a much smaller compass than that of the original
Proclamation of Decber/58. (It will be observed that the
"Labouchere" was proceeding to ports
north of Fraser River.)
north
of Fraser River" (wh. expressions must necessarily mean the same
thing), to clear either at New Westminster
or Victoria—the latter provision seeming to be intended rather as a
convenience than a restriction. It is strange that neither we nor
the H.B.Co. have discovered the illegality of these Proclamations
until now—when for nearly a year that illegality has, at all events,
been reduced to a much smaller compass than that of the original
Proclamation of Decber/58. (It will be observed that the
"Labouchere" was proceeding to ports
north of Fraser River.)
I sh. be disposed to answer by stating to the Co the nature of these
Proclamations, admitting that their illegal character had escaped the
notice of this Office, as well as that of the Treasury & Bd. of Trade,
but drawing attention particularly to the 4th clause of the
Proclamation of June/59, by wh. the payment of B. Columbia duties at
Victoria wd. seem to be optional, saying at the same time, that the
Govr wd. be called on for a Report, & instructed as proposed by Sir F. Rogers.
CF
29
Mr Fortescue
I can hardly account for my own oversight in reading the 4th clause of the Proclamation No 3. I had overlooked the second sentence in it.
I can hardly account for my own oversight in reading the 4th clause of the Proclamation No 3. I had overlooked the second sentence in it.
It is consequently clear that the power of clearing at Victoria
is optional and this is very material.
I should be inclined to answer the H.B.C. somewhat more shortly than
you propose—stating that their letter would be communicated to the
Govr with special reference to their allegation that they were
compelled to pay duty on goods not imported for Consumption in B.
Columbia and drawing their attention to the 4th clause of the
Procln No 3 by which the payment of duties at Fort Victoria had been
discontinued as to one class of shipping & made optional as to the rest.
And to write to the Governor drawing his attention to the alleged
effect of the Proclamation
1st in as much as it is said to be injurious to the honest trade
because it is incapable of being enforced agst the smuggler—& 2nd
because it is said to compel the H.B.C. to pay 
duty on goods not
intended for consumption in B. Columbia.
duty on goods not
intended for consumption in B. Columbia.
And pointing out clearly to him the limits of his legislative power
as Govr of B. Columbia.
Write as above. This is a curious series of over-sights by so many
Departments. I suspect however the grievance is more theoretic than
practical.
N
31
Other documents included in the file
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
As these drafts relate to a construction of Laws, and to the limits of the Governor's Jurisdiction I apprehend I am right in sending them at once to you.
As these drafts relate to a construction of Laws, and to the limits of the Governor's Jurisdiction I apprehend I am right in sending them at once to you.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Extract, Sir George Simpson, Governor-in-Chief of Rupert's Land,
to Thomas Fraser, 2 March 1860, reporting the amount of duty paid on
the cargo of the
Labouchere on her last trip to the coast.