No. 3, Legislative
[2905, CO 305/22, p. 14; received 29 March
]
12th February 1864
My Lord Duke,
The Legislative Assembly has, for some days past, been employed on
the Estimates; and as suggested in my report of the 15th January
last, "Separate" has taken exception to the amount required to meet
the Civil list proposed in YourGraces Graces Despatch "Separate" of the
15th day of June 1863, on the ground that it is disproportionate to
the means of the Colony.
That decision was communicated to me in a Resolution received from the
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly with a request that I would
transmit, as I have now the honor of doing, a copy of the same to
Your Grace.
The
2. The Assembly set forth, in this Resolution, as the reasons which
have induced them to decline the proposed Civil List, the inadequacy
of the present Revenue to meet the ordinary expenses of the colony,
and the cost of the various public undertakings essential to its
progress; the smallness of the white population and their inability
to bear a larger measure of taxation for the increase of Revenue; thevery
very moderate sum say £4500 realized in 1863 from the Sale of Crown
Lands, and the probability that in future years the revenue from that
source may be less.
The Assembly moreover declares, as its deliberate opinion, that the
"absolute separation" of the Colonies will be injurious to both; at
the same time, however, it "deems the amalgamation of the Colonies at
the present time "unadvisable"if "if not impossible", and is of opinion
that "an intimate connexion" may be maintained by having one civil
establishment for the two Colonies.
The House, for these reasons, urges that there should be "but one
Civil establishment, as far as practicable, for both Colonies" and
adds that it is prepared in that case, to vote a sum "equal to one
third of the Salary now voted by British Columbia", as a Salary, from
Vancouver Island,for for Officers serving both Colonies.
3. Having thus briefly stated the views entertained by the
Legislative Assembly of Vancouver Island, with respect to the future
Government of the two Colonies as set forth in the Resolution now
forwarded, I will take the liberty of remarking that I fully coincide
with the opinions expressed in this Resolution, both as against the
fusion of thetwo two Governments into one, and the absolute separation
of the two Colonies by the appointment of a Governor for each
Colony.
I also concur in the opinion of the Assembly on another point—that
there should be "but one Civil Establishment as far as practicable",
but I am not disposed to extend that limit beyond the Governorand and
Colonial Secretary; with these exceptions I believe all the other and
subordinate Officers now employed in both Colonies are indispensably
necessary for the proper and efficient discharge of the duties of
Government. These points however virtually embrace the whole
question—for these being conceded, there would be no difficulty in
providing Salaries for all the otherOfficers Officers designated in Your
Graces despatch. This would in substance amount to the continuance
of the present system of Government, which has grown up naturally out
of the existing circumstances and conditions of the Colonies, and may
for that reason, be presumed to be better adapted to their wants than
any untried system that could be devised.
I
4. I would therefore strongly recommend to Her Majesty's Government,
that but one Governor should still continue to represent the Crown in
both Colonies, and that there should be but one Colonial
Secretary—both these Officers to be maintained at the joint cost of
the two Colonies, while all the other public Officers should be at the
exclusive cost of the Colony employing them.That
That the Colonies should each have its own separate Legislature, make
its own Laws; raise and apply its own Revenue, as at present, for its
individual benefit. That the principal Seat of Government should
continue to be at Victoria—as the most convenient and accessible
place for communication with other Countries, and that the services
of the Colonial Secretary who would residethere there, should thus be made
available in administering the Government of Vancouver Island, during
the frequent absence of the Governor in British Columbia.
This plan would involve no violent changes of system, which are
always to be deprecated; would secure an ample Salary, adequate to
the position, for the Governorof of the Colonies; would unite the
utmost practicable economy with efficiency of administration; would
prevent discord and the clashing of local interests, and would I
believe give very general satisfaction to the people in both
Colonies.
I have the honor to be
My Lord Duke
Your Graces most obedient
Humble Servant
James Douglas
Mr Elliot
The contents of this despatch do not at all surprise me. I, for one,
never expected that the Van Couver Island community wdwould relish having
to pay for its civil Establishment. Down to the late period several
of the B. Columbia officials, paid by B.C. used to work for V.C.
Isld without pay from that Isld. It is now to be different.
It seems to me that it wdwould be most advisable to desire GovrGovernor
K[enned]y to favor the S.S. with his views on the subject propounded
in these documents, & then His Grace would consider it. In the
meanwhile I should direct the Governor to help himself to his salary
out of the Crown Revenue, & to divide the rest proportionally amongst
the officials. If the Legislature will not vote the difference, &
the public Officers resign others of a lower grade & at less
salaries would be appointed.
ABd
31 March/64
Mr Fortescue
The refusal to vote the required salaries creates a serious
embarrassment.
As to Union or Separation, there appears to me a great deal to be
said for the scheme which Sir J. Douglas advocates. If the Governor
of Vancouver is to be consulted, Governor Seymour's opinion must
equally be invited. I think that you will probably wish Sir F.
Rogers to see this, but in his absence, I send on the despatch at
once for your persual.
TFE
31 March
Sir F. Rogers
I pass this unexpected and embarrassing desp. through you. The
strongest part of it is the strong expression by Sir Jas. Douglas of
an opinion, wh. he ought to have conveyed to the Sec. of State long
ago. The system in favour of which he declares so decidedly
(i.e. the system wh. has existed until now) would evidently be the
most acceptable one to Vancouver Id. He says it wdwould give
satisfaction to
both Colonies. We know that it created much dissatisfaction in
B. Columbia. It is possible, however, that the grant of Executive &
Legislative Councils, and the removal of a Governor, who, rightly or
wrongly, was suspected by the B. Columbians of favouring the sister
colony unduly, from personal interest, might have been enough to
satisfy them. I must say that, in view of the insignificance of the
population and revenue (7500, and £35,000) of Vancouver Id, I have
some misgiving as to the necessity of sending them one of our best
Governors. The Duke of Newcastle, however has instructed both Mr
Kennedy & Mr Seymour to endeavour to effect a union of the two
Colonies, as soon as possible. Meantime, what is to be done at once?
Nothing, I suppose, until we shall have heard from the two new
Governors on the subject. It will then have to be decided, whether a
complete union can be effected now, or whether the connection under
one GovrGovernor must be renewed. For the present year, probably, the
salaries of GovrGovernor Kennedy, and Mr Young can be paid out of the Crown
Fund.
CF
1 April
Mr Blackwood
I think on occasion of writing
these dphes you furnished me with some financial statements
calculated to shew that the Crown Revenue was such as would enable
the GovtGovernment to meet its obligations to its appointees.
I should like to see a short statement shewing how matters stand
in this respect.
What are the present salaries & how paid?
What are the increased salaries and how paid?
What has been the actual & is likely to be the future net Crown
Revenue?
Under what authority are the present Salaries paid? Under a
temporary or permanent Law? [Marginal note: annual. ABd]
FR
8/4
Sir F. Rogers
I annex a memorandum which I prepared on this subject in May last,
and which was submitted to you when you wrote the despatch of the 15
June explaining the new form of GovtGovernment in B. Columbia. I think the
information it contains will tell you pretty nearly all you wish to
know.
You will observe from this memorm what slender knowledge we
possessed at the moment respecting the value of the Crown Revenue of
V.C. Island, and I might add on every matter of a financial
description having reference to that colony. It was on that account
that I suggested at P. 11 that we should not come to any settlement
as to the surrender of the Crown Revenues in exchange for a Civil
List until after a report had been recdreceived from a new Governor. That
suggestion seems to have been overruled, and the scale of salaries at
once declared by despatch.
I quite endorse Mr Fortescue's remark that Sir J. Douglas ought to
have expressed the opinions he now declares at a much earlier period.
The question of separating the Govts of V.C.I. & B. Columbia has
been long in agitation; & he has had abundant opportunity to form and
express the opinions he now announces.
The present salaries are as follows £
Governor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Besides this sum he had £1800
a year as GovrGovernor of B. Columbia.
Col. Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Chief Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808
Attorney GenlGeneral . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Surveyor General . . . . . . . . . . . . 404
£3333
The Salaries proposed by D. of Newcastle desphdespatch
GovrGovernor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3000
Col. SecycompanySecretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
Chief Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800
to be increased to £1200 when a
Lawyer is appointed.
Attorney GenlGeneral with practice . . . . . . 300
Treasurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
Surveyor GenlGeneral . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
£5800
The augmentation we propose is, consequently £2467 over & above
the sum now voted by the Legislature.
The sources whence the Legislature derives its supplies are,
according to an abstract of the probable Revenue of the Colony for
1863—which is to be found as an enclosure to the Governor's desphdespatch
4166 of 1863, as follows
dollars
Harbor dues 19 400
Real Estate tax 48 500
Trade Licences 21 825
Land sales (Crown property) 24 250
Liquor Licenses 19 400
Fines, forfeitures, fees 8 730
Postage dues 2 037
Fees of Office 3 201
Miscellaneous 1 455
Rent 485
Stamp tax 2 425
151,708‹=‹£31,380
This Abstract I laid before you last year, previously to yr
writing the despatch.
You will observe from it that the Crown
Land fund was estimated to amount to 24250 dollars—in sterling
say £5000, but we know from the enclosure to this despatch that the
Revenue fell short by £500. It amounted, however, to £4500 leaving
only £1300 for the Colony to provide to make up the sum of £5800
which we have asked for. I really cannot think this difference is
excessive. The Colony has great prospects, and though its
expenditure may increase, I shall be much mistaken if its revenues do
not increase in a much larger proportion.
ABd
11 April/64
Mr Fortescue
I think as you suggest that we can only wait. But you will see that
the Crown Fund appears sufficient to enable us to keep faith with
recent appointees.
FR
11/4