<persName ref="prs:birch"><surname>Birch</surname>, <forename>Arthur</forename> <forename>Nonus</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:cardwell"><surname>Cardwell</surname>, <forename>Edward</forename></persName> 14 July 1866, CO 60:25, no. 8290, 49. Birch addressee Cardwell

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Birch, Arthur Nonus to Cardwell, Edward 14 July 1866, CO 60:25, no. 8290, 49.The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.6, ed. James Hendrickson and the Colonial Despatches project. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. https://bcgenesis.uvic.ca/B66056.html. CO 60:25 CO 60 25 8290 49 56 B.C. 1866 received 27 August co_60_25_00050r.jpg Transcribed from microfilm archives, marked up in Waterloo Script, then transformed into TEI P5 XML.

The project glossary items have xml:id attributes beginning with trm_, and we use a trm: prefix to refer to them when linking from term elements.

We link to orgs in orgs/organizations.xml using the org: prefix.

We link to places in places.xml using the plc: prefix.

We link to people in bios/*.xml using the prs: prefix.

We link to vessels in vessels/*.xml using the vsl: prefix.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

The cdt (ColDesp Document Type) prefix used on catRef/target points to a central taxonomy in the includes file.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

Birch, Arthur Nonus to Cardwell, Edward 14 July 1866, CO 60:25, no. 8290, 49.

Despatch to London. Minutes (5), Other documents (4).

 Birch, Arthur Nonus
Colonial Office
Cardwell, Edward Inserted revisionDesc.
No. 56 8290, CO 60/25, p. 49; received 27 August 14th July 1866 Sir,

Your despatch No. 23 of the 30th April directs me to reduce the expenditure of the present year to such an amount as may be covered by a Revenue calculated on the actual average Receipts of the lasttwo two years. I have in my despatch No. 50 explained the causes of the heavy expenditure of the past, I have also informed you that the outlay on public works during the present Year has been reduced to the lowest limit. The only manner in which I could carry out the instructions I have received would be in the reduction of the Civil List.

2. During the past nine months I have made reductionsunder under this head amounting to nearly £8,000 and I am of opinion that considerable reductions may still be made without impairing the efficiency of the Public Service, but before doing so I should wish to receive instructions as the Chief Appointments I propose to abolish are held by Gentlemen appointed by the Secretary of State. I mean the Treasurer, the Post Master General and the Harbour Master.

3. I

3. I propose to abolish the Treasury Department, increasing the Staff of the Collector of Customs by one Clerk and entailing upon the Head of that Department the light duties now performed by the Treasurer.

The Postal Service of the Colony in no way justifies the appointment of a Post Master General. The Registrar General is perfectly capable of undertaking the supervisionof of the Postal Department without any extra assistance or remuneration. The appointment of a Harbour Master for British Columbia is one that could hardly have been suggested by any one conversant with the Colony. The duties—if any—should be performed by the Chief Revenue Officer.

4. I may add that should you direct me to make these reductions there is no possible opening forthe the employment of these gentlemen in this Colony.

I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant Arthur N. Birch
Lord Carnarvon I do not know that I can bring the question better before you than by annexing a copy of a private letter from me to Sir F. Rogers and of his answer.

As Mr Seymour is going back immediately, you will probably think it better to reserve the reductions for him as Sir F. Rogers suggests.

The Rule of the Treasury at home in cases of abolition is very simple. If a man has served 10 years he has earned a pension. If he has served less they give him a gratuity equal to one month for each year of service.

I am not in the least surprised to hear that both Governor Seymour and Mr Birch should wish to be rid of Mr Franks. He gave some proofs of intolerable presumption when he went out, and I have never heard a good word of him from any one really in contact with him. But like most undeserving people, he is precisely the man who would pour in the greatest number of letters in his favor from persons in too high station really to know him.

Shall we send a copy of this despatch to Mr Seymour officially and tell him that he is fully authorized when he returns to the Colony to make any reductions which appear to be demanded by the financial state of the Colony and consistent with the efficiency of the public service?

TFE 3 Septr
As regards Mr Franks who seems to be a ceaseless cause of annoyance to every stage of B. Columbian Affairs I do not now anticipate much difficulty. Mr Seymour is going out prepared to deal with the case & I have distinctly said to him that it must not be treated so as to give Mr Franks a title to further Colonial Employment, to whwhich from all I have heard I do not think he has any claim.

I think that Mr Seymour understands that he has virtually all or nearly all the power proposed to be given to him by Mr Elliot, but it will be well to put it in writing as suggested.

Let me see the dft.

C 3 Sep
Mr Blackwood Draft may be prepared in terms of concluding part of my Minute, as a despatch for Ld Carnarvon's signature. Please send me the draft this afternoon. TFE 3/9
Lord Carnarvon Governor Seymour starts on Monday. He has been with me today and says that the enclosed letter will hardly give so much support as he had hoped for in making his reductions. Instead of being authorized to "propose the reductions for sanction" he wishes to be authorized to "effect the reductions subject to sanction." I own that I think that this would be preferable, if you should see no objection.

But I remember while I am writing that there will not be time to let Mr Seymour have the altered letter, in case you approve it, unless we send you a copy for signature today. I therefore annex one, and if you should not approve, we can send him back the one already signed by you.

TFE 13 Septr
I agree. C 14 Sep
Colonial Office
30 Augt 1866 My dear Rogers,

British Columbia finance is embarrassed. We have enjoined the Governor to practise every economy. He here distinctly reports that three Offices are superfluous, and I believe him to be right.

The public interest therefore requires that these Offices should be abolished. Do you think that the personal interest of the holders of them ought to constitute a sufficient objection, and that the Offices should be maintained for the interest of their holders and against that of the public? As the present case would be one of rather a general nature, I trouble you with the question. I am too much pressed to put it otherwise than in plain terms.

Believe me Ever sincerely yours T. Frederick Elliot
Sept 1/66 My dear Elliot

Is not the real answer to 8290 B.C. that questions of administrative reform must wait the arrival of Seymour, & the annexation of V.C. Island.

I know that before Seymour's departure he & Blackwood settled an establishment together in whwhich Seymour took credit for providing for everybody except Franks.

I do not myself remember any case when Officers, in Crown Colonies, have been simply turned adrift, on an abolition of Office—but then my remembrance does not embrace much.

I imagine that a case of abolition (barring special circumstances whwhich constituted notice of impermanency) wdwould be dealt with much as in England. Could not the Treasury help as to a principle when the question really arises.

I feel a suspicion of this scheme from the fact that Seymour &Birch both hate Franks (I dare say with reason) & wdwould gladly throw him back in our hands here. I think they shdshould caution rather to make him resign—or dismiss him regularly pro criminilus or give him quite a bonus by way of compensation for loss of office as shdshould furnish us with an answer to any claim for reemployment.

Seymour (I hear) declares that Franks has been three times horsewhipped.

Ever yrs Frederic Rogers
Carnarvon to Seymour, 14 September 1866, forwarding copy of the despatch and conveying authority to carry out the necessary reductions in the public service upon his return to the colony, subject to imperial sanction.
Statement showing the proposed three reductions in the civil service, listing present salary, date of appointment and who made the appointment, prepared by colonial office staff.