<persName ref="prs:kennedy_a"><surname>Kennedy</surname>, <forename>Arthur</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:cardwell"><surname>Cardwell</surname>, <forename>Edward</forename></persName> 8 September 1866, CO 305:29, no. 10231, 277. Kennedy addressee Cardwell

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Kennedy, Arthur to Cardwell, Edward 8 September 1866, CO 305:29, no. 10231, 277.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/V66073.html. CO 305:29 CO 305 29 10231 277 73 Financial V.I. 1866 received 29 October co_305_29_00278r.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.

Kennedy, Arthur to Cardwell, Edward 8 September 1866, CO 305:29, no. 10231, 277.

Despatch to London. Minutes (9), Enclosures (untranscribed) (7), Other documents (1), Marginalia (2).

 Kennedy, Arthur Cardwell, Edward Inserted revisionDesc.
No. 73, Financial 10231, CO 305/29, p. 277; received 29 October 8th September 1866 Sir,

1. In continuation of the subject of my Despatch No 62 dated 17th August 1866, I have now the honor to enclose for your information a copy of the Supply Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly, newspaper reports of and comments upon the proceedingsin in the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly in relation thereto, and extracts from the Minutes of the Legislative Council.

2. These documents will inform you that the anticipation expressed in my Despatch above referred to that the Supply Bill would not be passed has been realized, and will at the same time enable you to judge of the causes which led to the failure on the part of the Legislature to pass this important Bill.

3. A

3. A comparison of the Supply Bill passed by the Assembly with the copy of the Estimates amended by the Assembly (transmitted in my Despatch No 9 dated 8th February 1866) * will show the results of the reconsideration of the Estimates referred to in my Despatch named in the margin. **

4. It will also be seen that in the Schedule to the Supply Bill as passed by the Assembly are interpolated among the various items of supply, no less thantwenty twenty five distinct Resolutions—indicating in all but name the officers who are to perform certain duties, amalgamating and abolishing offices, increasing salaries, initiating votes, and involving a pledge to repeal the Real Estate Tax, a Bill for which purpose had been previously and in the same Session passed by the Assembly and rejected by the Council.

5. I can entertain no doubt that in making these extraordinary additions to the Supply Bill the Assembly desired either to compelthe the enactment of these Resolutions by including them in a Bill which they supposed the Council would not venture to reject in toto, or, believing that the Council would neither accept such "tacks" nor amend the Bill, to leave the Executive Government without the usual legislative authority for the expenditure of public moneys conferred by a Supply Bill. This latter assumption is confirmed by the Resolution of the Assembly dated 28th August and receivedby by me on 1st September when the House had virtually ceased to exist.

6. I cannot but regard the Assembly as being solely responsible for the state of discredit and difficulty into which the Colony is thus thrown for want of a law on which public credit should be based—and I can only lament that a representative Body should have thus further exemplified its unfitness for the performance of its important functions.

7. It

7. It will of course be necessary at a future time to legalize the expenditure of the current year.

8. I propose in a separate Despatch to address you on the subject of the finances of the Colony generally and of the course I propose to adopt to meet the unusual want of a Supply Bill.

I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most obedient Servant A.E. Kennedy Governor
Sir F. Rogers In Par 8 the GovrGovernor says that he intends sending a separate desphdespatch on the finances of the Colony in which will be explained the means by wh: the inconvenience arising from the want of a supply bill will be got over. This means will probably be by reducing or stopping the public officers Salaries, and consequently the transaction of public business. For this the Governor is not to blame. Wait for the further report. ABd 30 Oct
Since writing the preceding minute I have met with the promised further report, see No 74 of the 11 Sepr. I think there is nothing else to do now than express regret at this unsatisfactory conclusion of the deliberations of the Assy. ABd 30 Oct
I do not see what more could be done. The Governor shdshould have used his influence to persuade the Lege Council to pass the Supply Bill, if that supply bill had been such as could reasonably have been passed—but looking to the nature of the Resolutions embodied in its Schedule I hardly see how it could have been passed. It is such an absurdly composed affair that it is impossible to say what effect it wdwould have. We must wait & see how GovrGovernor K. gets out of the difficulty. I am not sure that the "dead lock" may not favour Union and Mr Seymour who will appear as "Deus ex Machin[unknown_accent]a."

It is impossible to imagine anything more convenient than his appearance, with absolute power in his hand.

FR 1/11
The views of the Home GovtGovernment in this case shdshould be carefully compared (when expressed) with the views of the Home GovtGovernment approved by the H. of C. on the [one or two words partly off microfilm]. FR
May be put by till further [off microfilm] together with [off microfilm] Seymour all have as difficult [off microfilm] to drive as [illegible] Governor [off microfilm] borders of a Republic [off microfilm] of her subjects [off microfilm] or annexation. CBA
Dft as proposed. I do not wish in this or in the answer to the other accompanying despatches to endorse GovrGovernor Kennedy's accusation of the Assembly. It has been everything that an Assembly sd not be but there is no need at present for the expression of my opinion. C 12 Nov
Mr Jadis draws attention to a despatch No 74 which Lord Carnarvon has not yet seen. I will acknowledge that the subject is obscure to me.

All I know is that there are certain revenues at the disposal of the Crown in Vancouver Island, and that Governor Kennedy was instructed some considerable time ago that he was to use that revenue as far as it would go for the most urgent public purposes, but of course he was not meant to go further or to use funds which are not under his control. I do not gather from the two presentdespatches despatches Nos 73 and 74 that he has made use of any such funds. But certain expenditure has been incurred for which funds do not seem to be forthcoming, and for which, so far as appears, there was no previous sanction of the Legislature. I am inclined to think that the best way will be to acknowledge together both despatches and then either to conclude, as in the present draft, with a general expression of regret, or else if Lord Carnarvon deems some further notice of the matter necessary, to say that if any expenditure has beenincurred incurred which was not lawfully sanctioned, it will be necessary to apply to the United Legislature of the two Colonies to remedy the defect.

TFE 14 Novr
Lord Carnarvon Will it not be better now to acknowledge both Despatches informing you of the failure of the Supply the unauthorized expenditure waiting legalization, & reduction of expenditure & express both regret over such proceedings & desire that the irregularity may be immediately covered. CBA 15/11
One more cause of difficulty and confusion added to a subject already difficult & confused enough. Both despatches may be acknowledged together: but a distinct notice of this most irregular proceeding is I think necessary. It sd be stated that I do not fully understand from the communications before me the precise nature & extent & circumstances under which it wdwould appear that public money has been anticipated without the proper legislative sanction. That if this be so a great irregularity has been committed & that I wish for information on the subject without delay.

This to be drafted at once for tomorrows mail.

C 16 Nov
R.W. Torrens, Clerk of the House, to President of the Council, 16 August 1866, forwarding copy of the supply bill for 1866 as passed by the legislative assembly.
Copy of the bill as noted above, with schedules appended (fifteen pages).
Newspaper clippings, Colonist and Chronicle, 29 and 30 August and 1, 3, 4 and 6 September 1866, and Evening Telegraph, 29 August and 2, 4 and 7 September 1866, reporting on various aspects of the supply bill as noted above.
Resolution passed by the Legislative Council, 30 August 1866, agreeing to the sum of money voted in the bill but declining to accept the accompanying schedule "inasmuch as that Schedule Contained numerous tacks or Clauses wholly foreign to the principle and purpose of the Bill to which it was attached."
"Extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Colony of Vancouver Island of the 1st September 1866," discussing the supply bill as submitted by the assembly.
Resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly, 28 August 1866, advising that "the Expenditure of any money by the executive except that Expenditure [which] has been previously sanctioned by the Legislature will not meet with the approval of this House."
Newspaper clipping, Colonist and Chronicle, 30 August 1866, reporting the debate on the resolution as noted above.
Draft reply, Carnarvon to Kennedy, No. 21, 16 November 1866.
Not returned to Dep, endeavour to recover No 9. ABd
No 61, 8th August 1866, paragraph 11.