Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Childers, Hugh C. E. to Rogers, Baron Blachford Frederic 20 June 1866, CO 60:26, no. 6015, 162.
Abstract
Childers, Hugh C. E. to Rogers, Baron Blachford Frederic 20 June 1866, CO 60:26, no. 6015, 162.
Public Offices document.
Minutes (24), Other documents (4).
Childers to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)
Treasury Chambers
20th June 1866
Sir,
With reference to Mr Elliot's letter of the 6th
instant, transmitting a copy of a despatch from the Acting
Governor of British Columbia, respecting the Ordinance No
3 of 1865, "To amend the Duties of Customs," I am directed
by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to
acquaint you, for the information of Mr Secretary Cardwell,
that My Lords see no reason to modify the opinion expressed
in Their letter of the 31st of October last, that a
regulation under which "ad valorem" duties are calculated
according to the value of the article atthe
the place of
shipment, instead of at the place of entry, in effect,
if not in words, establishes a system of differential duties;
inasmuch as the result must be to subject articles identical
in all respects and of the same price to the consumer to
different rates of duty, according as they may have been
shipped from different countries. They regret to find that
there is a precedent for this legislation in the fiscal
system of the Canadian Provinces; and since Their letter
of the 31st of October last, They have called attention
to similar provisions in Colonial Acts transmitted for
Their opinion beforeconfirmation
confirmation by Her Majesty.
the place of
shipment, instead of at the place of entry, in effect,
if not in words, establishes a system of differential duties;
inasmuch as the result must be to subject articles identical
in all respects and of the same price to the consumer to
different rates of duty, according as they may have been
shipped from different countries. They regret to find that
there is a precedent for this legislation in the fiscal
system of the Canadian Provinces; and since Their letter
of the 31st of October last, They have called attention
to similar provisions in Colonial Acts transmitted for
Their opinion beforeconfirmation
confirmation by Her Majesty.
My Lords have only to suggest that the principle of
this regulation should receive full consideration by the
Secretary of State, and that the views at which Her Majesty's
Government may finally arrive should be communicated to the
Governments of all British Possessions in which "ad valorem"
duties of Customs are collected.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
Send copy to the Acting Governor for his information. Tell him that in consequence of the objections of the Treasury the Ordinance cannot be confirmed, but that as H.M.G. hope that before the time arrives for the Legre to pass a new Tariff, the Imperial Parlt will have passed an Act for the Union of the two Colonies, under the Authority of which there will be only one set of Commercial Laws, HM Govt will not proceed to actual disallowance of the Ordce under present consn. Par: 2 of this Letter requires attention.
Send copy to the Acting Governor for his information. Tell him that in consequence of the objections of the Treasury the Ordinance cannot be confirmed, but that as H.M.G. hope that before the time arrives for the Legre to pass a new Tariff, the Imperial Parlt will have passed an Act for the Union of the two Colonies, under the Authority of which there will be only one set of Commercial Laws, HM Govt will not proceed to actual disallowance of the Ordce under present consn. Par: 2 of this Letter requires attention.
ABd
21 June
Sir F. Rogers
There is a flavour of discontent in this letter from the Treasury, but so far as I know, we have all agreed with them, and have so expressed our official letters, in objecting to the Clause under discussion in the British Columbia Ordinance.
There is a flavour of discontent in this letter from the Treasury, but so far as I know, we have all agreed with them, and have so expressed our official letters, in objecting to the Clause under discussion in the British Columbia Ordinance.
Write to British Columbia to tell the Acting
Governor that we adhere to our objections and do not
consider the precedent which he quotes from Canada a
sufficient reason for an exceptionable practice?
As to Colonies in general you will best know whether
we ought to write a Circular as the Treasury seem to wish.
TFE
22 June
When the particular case is disposed of a circular can
be written to other Colonies. It must be carefully framed.
(I will take it in hand.)
The B.C. Ordce must be disallowed (if at all)
within 2 years of its receipt. And any intimation of a
possibility of disallowce shd be worded with refce to this.
The proposed desp. to B. Columbia may go. But I sd be
glad if Sir F. Rogers wd refer to the last paragraph in the
Treasury letter 20 June recommending a circular to various Colonies.
If there are many instances of Acts levying ad valorem
duties according to the value of the articles at the place
of shipment, such a circular will probably be useful: if
the Canadian Act is the only instance I think it is
questionable whether it is worth taking any notice of the fact.
C
14 July
Circular to depts. I must ask the departments to look
up the most recent Customs Act, in order to see whether
they contain this objectionable provision.
Meantime proceed with the dph to B.C.
FR
16 July
The only Colonies in my Division which impose ad valorem
duties are the
Gambia, Gold Coast & Lagos. At the G. Coast the duty is
calculated on the value of the Articles at the place of shipment—at Lagos at
the value stated in the Invoice. I cannot find what the practice is
at the Gambia.
GB
20 July
Mr Blackwood
There is a Treasury letter come in 5517 Gambia wh supplies a conclusive reason agst our writing out to B. Columbia & other Colonies in the manner proposed by the Treasury in respect to the mode of fixing ad valorem duties. I think
you had better arrest any dph or dphes
wh are going out upon this subject. Possibly the papers are
travelling thro' the departments with a view to a proposed circular.
There is a Treasury letter come in 5517 Gambia wh supplies a conclusive reason agst our writing out to B. Columbia & other Colonies in the manner proposed by the Treasury in respect to the mode of fixing ad valorem duties. I think
you had better arrest any dph or dphes
wh are going out upon this subject. Possibly the papers are
travelling thro' the departments with a view to a proposed circular.
FR
31/7
Mr Blackwood
The despatch to the Govr of B.C. went by the last mail. See desp of 16/6. Papers annexed.
The despatch to the Govr of B.C. went by the last mail. See desp of 16/6. Papers annexed.
RSM
1 Aug
Sir F. Rogers
Now that B.C. and V.C.I. are united their tariff policy will be the same. So that it has become very immaterial, except as a
principle,
whether this B. Columbia Ordinance—directed exclusively against the
Victorians—be disallowed or not.
Now that B.C. and V.C.I. are united their tariff policy will be the same. So that it has become very immaterial, except as a
principle,
whether this B. Columbia Ordinance—directed exclusively against the
Victorians—be disallowed or not.
ABd
1 Augt
Mr Wedgewood
When 5517 Treas. Gambia (diffl duties) returns from circn, let me have it. I have the previous papers.
When 5517 Treas. Gambia (diffl duties) returns from circn, let me have it. I have the previous papers.
RSM
3 Aug
Not in Dept.
EHW
8 Aug
6015 B Columbia confer 5517 Gambia
This is a question whether we should send a circular to various
Colonies telling them (what is true) that to levy ad valorem duties
calculated on the cost of production in the country of production is
in effect to levy a differential duty in favour of countries where
production is cheap—wh is a thing not to be done.
This the Treasury wish us to announce generally. Vide 6015 B.C.
But contra (vide 5517 Gambia) the Custom H. Authorities declare
that this mode of levying a
d valorem duties is the established mode
of levying them—& probably on the whole the best that can be
adopted. Hence the Gambia Ordce wh adopts this method is not
to be objected to.
d valorem duties is the established mode
of levying them—& probably on the whole the best that can be
adopted. Hence the Gambia Ordce wh adopts this method is not
to be objected to.
I think in acknowledging the Treasy letter on the Gambia
Orde we shd add, that under the circumstances Ld C. does not
propose to send out the Circular suggested by the concluding parag of
the Treay letter of 20 June (6015 B. Cola).
[FR]
Let this lie by till 5517 Gambia returns from circulation. Then
let me see 5517 Gambia and 6015 B.C. again.
4650 & 6015 British Columbia
The Ordinance No 3 of 1865 was received here on the 29th June 1865. By the 12th clause of the Order in Council of the 11
June 1863 H.M. may by Order in Council
or through a Secretary of State disallow any Law in British Columbia at any time within 2 years after such Law has been received
by the Secy of State.
If this ordinance is to be disallowed, it must therefore be
disallowed before the 29th of this month.
The question is whether under the circumstances it should be
disallowed or left alone. The state of the case is shortly this.
1;6174 B. Columbia
1;6174 B. Columbia
The Ordinance No 3 was passed 15th Feby 1865 & was sent
here under covering Despatch 18 March/65. The ordinance was
submitted to the Board of Trade & the Treasury.
1;6015 B. Columbia
1;6015 B. Columbia
The Treasury objected to it on the ground that in effect it
imposed differential duties
A regulation under which ad valorem duties are calculated according
to the value of the article at the place of shipment, instead of at
the place of entry, establishes a system of differential duties
inasmuch as the result must be to
subject articles identical in all
respects & of the same price to the consumer, to different rates of
duty according as they may have been shipped from different countries.
1;4650 B. Columbia Letter 3d March
subject articles identical in all
respects & of the same price to the consumer, to different rates of
duty according as they may have been shipped from different countries.
1;4650 B. Columbia Letter 3d March
In answer to their objection it was pointed out by the officer
administering the governmt of B. Columbia that there was a
precedent for such legislation in Canada.
1;Vide 5517 Gambia & Sir F. Rogers minute on 6015 B. Columbia
1;Vide 5517 Gambia & Sir F. Rogers minute on 6015 B. Columbia
It appears also that the English Custom House Authorities declare
that this mode of levying ad valorem duties is the established &
proper mode of levying them, and a Gambia Ordinance which adopted
this mode was not objected to.
Under these circumstances it was determined not to send out a
Circular against this mode of levying duties, as suggested by the
Treasury.
1;4650 B. Columbia
1;4650 B. Columbia
But before this was known, & decided upon a despatch of the
16th July had been sent out to British Columbia in which it was
stated that the Canadian precedent was not thought sufficient to
justify
an exceptional practice in the case of British Columbia, &
that the law would be disallowed unless amendments were made to meet
the views of HM's Governmt before the expiration of 2 years from
the 29th June 1865.
1;5072 B. Columbia
an exceptional practice in the case of British Columbia, &
that the law would be disallowed unless amendments were made to meet
the views of HM's Governmt before the expiration of 2 years from
the 29th June 1865.
1;5072 B. Columbia
The Governor of British Columbia now writes word (Despatch of 18
March 1867)
that a bill is before the Council repealing the clause objected to;
but that had it not been made a Governmt question of the
withdrawal of the provision which in the opinion of the Lords of the
Treasury imposed differential duties, he should be outvoted by a
large majority.
I may observe here that in 1865 Vancouver's Island had not been
united to B. Columbia, & there can be no doubt that the Ordinance was
framed in a hostile spirit to Vancouvers Island, & objected to by Sir
J. Douglas on that account.
This objection is now removed by the Union of Vancouvers Island
& B. Columbia in 1866.
Under the circumstances the question is
whether to adhere to the despatch of July/66 & disallow the
Ordinance, or to leave it alone.
Under the circumstances the question is
whether to adhere to the despatch of July/66 & disallow the
Ordinance, or to leave it alone.
I confess I incline to the latter course. When that despatch
was sent off,
the real facts were not known, viz that this was a usual &
proper course adopted for levying ad valorem duties. Again, though
the amending Ordinance has not yet been received & indeed may not
have passed, it is probable that it has passed by this time; and
according to Govr Seymours last Despatch of the 18th March the
Ordinance has worked well. The union of Vancouver's Island & B. Columbia has removed the objection that it was framed in a hostile
spirit to V. Island, and, in truth, that objection has not been put
forward by this Department.
I have framed & send on 2 draft Despatches—one, on the
assumption that His Grace will not think it necessary under the
circumstances to advise a disallowance; the other on the assumption
that His Grace will think it necessary to enforce the views of the
Treasury, & to adhere to the tenor of the July Despatch.
HTH
17/6 [1867]
It will be for the Duke todecide
decide between the two
alternative drafts. I own that my leaning is in favor
of the one marked A, which disallows the law, chiefly
for the two following reasons—1st whatever may be
the general practise on the subject, the B. Columbia
law was evidently a manoeuver against Vancouver and
therefore one that deserved a mark of disapproval. 2nd the
Governor and his supporters will probably have made it one of their
arguments for the new Act that the previous one was sure to be
disallowed by HM's Government.
decide between the two
alternative drafts. I own that my leaning is in favor
of the one marked A, which disallows the law, chiefly
for the two following reasons—1st whatever may be
the general practise on the subject, the B. Columbia
law was evidently a manoeuver against Vancouver and
therefore one that deserved a mark of disapproval. 2nd the
Governor and his supporters will probably have made it one of their
arguments for the new Act that the previous one was sure to be
disallowed by HM's Government.
TFE
17 June
I prefer leaving the matter alone to take its course
wt disallowance. If so, is any Desp. necessary?
CBA
17/6
I do not see how consistently with the decision of
July/66 any other course than disallowance can be
adopted. In that despatch after the arguments of the
Colony had been considered and the Union of the 2 Colonies decided
upon, 2 Secretaries of State in fact have written that the Act
would be disallowed unless certain
things were done. Those things have not been done &
it seems to me that I must either disallow in accordance with
that despatch or condemn the decision
of my 2 predecessors—although
I think their policy may be questioned. Yet
that policy having been adopted I can not find sufficient
grounds for now condemning & reversing it and therefore
disallow. The disallowance shd be deferred to the
last moment if there is a possibility of and the mail
being received before the 29th.
of my 2 predecessors—although
I think their policy may be questioned. Yet
that policy having been adopted I can not find sufficient
grounds for now condemning & reversing it and therefore
disallow. The disallowance shd be deferred to the
last moment if there is a possibility of and the mail
being received before the 29th.
B&C
17/6
Other documents included in the file
Draft reply, Cardwell to Officer Administering the Government,
No. 1, 16 July 1866.
Minutes by CO staff
When this draft has been settled, the Papers are to go back to Sir
Frederic Rogers for the preparation of a Circular instruction to the
Governors of Colonies.
The Treasury also will have to be informed, after that Circular
is settled, of what we have done both upon this B. Columbia case, and
generally.
TFE
26/6
Shd be seen by my successor.
EC
28 June
Other documents included in the file
*
Other documents included in the file
*
Minutes by CO staff
Other documents included in the file
*
