[Equte?] to Under-Secretary of State
[9055, CO 305/30, p. 114; received 21 September
]
Foreign Office
September 20 1866
Sir,
I have laid before Lord Stanley your letter of the 15th instant on
the subject of a salute fired by direction of the American Consul
in Vancouver's Island on the anniversary of the independence of the
United States; and I am directed to state to you, in reply, for the
information of the Earl of Carnarvon, that Lord Stanley does not
see why the Agents of the United States should notbe be entitled to
celebrate the anniversary of the birth of their country as an
independent nation in the same manner as The Queen's birthday is
celebrated by the Agents of Great Britain.
Independence Day is kept all over the United States and Lord Stanley thinks that after ninety years have elapsed since the
events which led to its institution took place, it would be
unreasonable to regard its celebration as offensive to this country.
I am,
Sir,
Your most obedient
humble Servant
[E.C. Equie?]
Mr Elliot
Inform the GovrGovernor of the views of H.M. GovtGovernment on this point. (I
conclude that Lord Stanley's opinion shdshould be accepted as that of
H.M. GovtGovernment.) A communication shdshould be addressed to Hong Kong if
not to all Governors.
ABd
21 Sep
Forwarded for consideration.
TFE
21/9
Ld Carnarvon
I have no doubt you will accept Ld Stanley's opinion & ansr both
Govrs "not considered case for interference."
The persistence of the US Consul at VCI after Kennedy's refusal
of leave asked for, would be graver, but the Consul seems of no
character—& Kennedy is leaving.
CBA
22/9
This letter from the F.O. is singularly inaccurate in it's
references to the case and the questions contained in ours of the
15th. The offence of the U.S. Consul was not [that] he
celebrated the National Anniversary—for this cd be no cause of
annoyance to us as the writer of the F.O. letter seems to
imagine—but that he celebrated it 1st by the discharge of
artillery, whwhich I believe is
not "the manner in which the Queen's birthday is celebrated by
the Queen's Agents:" 2nd that he did so in direct violation of the
Govrs authority. It is not to the point that Independance day is
kept all over the U.S. by such discharges of artillery, for the
essence of this transaction is that it occurred in the Colony
within 1/2 mile of the Public Offices.
This must be pointed out to the F.O. stating at the same time that
in my opinion the Consuls act was a breach of courtesy and good
taste rather [than] any serious cause for complaints, that though
thinking it right to give Ld Stanley the opportunity of expressing
any opn on the issue of any instructions to Col. Govrs I am quite
content to leave the matter as it stands.
In replying it sd be borne in mind that no objection of course
exists to the celebration of a national anniversary by the
discharge of guns from a
GovtGovernment ship: but this was done by private & unauthorised
persons on board a private boat.
The dft will require care.
C
25 Sep
Mr Graham has put in my hands 9055 V.C.I.
[FR]
Lord Carnarvon
I should think the Consul's case wdwould be this. He would say
I never heard that there was any law in V.C. Island (nor does the
GovrGovernor positively state that there is one) whwhich prevents any man
from firing any number of guns he likes on his own property or from a
vessel belonging to or hired by him.
I had the intention of firing these guns from some spot, a boat, a
ship whwhich I could procure for the occasion, but shdshould have preferred
Beacon hill (I suppose public property) if the GovrGovernor wdwould have let
me have it for the purpose. But the GovrGovernor wdwould not let me have it
and therefore I recurred to my original intention of firing from
a hired vessel. I was not called to take any notice of his refusal
to give "an official sanction" (whwhich refusal was no doubt very
natural) to a proceeding with which he had no power to interfere
"officially" in one way or the other. In fact his refusal to give
an "official sanction" almost implied that personally he had no
objection.
I do not see how this could be answered on the papers as they
stand.
I shdshould be inclined to instruct the GovrGovernor that there is no objection
to the Celebration of the American anniversary by any means in
themselves harmless. And that the GovrGovernor may properly give a
countenance or facility
to such celebrations as he wdwould be justified in giving
to the celebration of the Birthday of any Foreign Soveriegn by the
subjects of that Sovereign. That if the means adopted by Americans
are contrary to law, as he supposes, he shdshould after due notice
impose the law for their prevention—if they are not contrary to
law but are so calculated to cause danger or inconvenience as to
justify Legislative prohibition he shdshould procure the passing of a
Law prohibiting the inconvenient or dangerous practices not of
course with reference to the U.S. but generally as matter of
municipal regulation. If the mode of celebration, though
objectionable & inconvenient is yet not
illegal nor so inconvenient as to justify legislative interference
he shdshould use his influence with the U.S. Consul in order to
discountenance such practices, and in case his remonstrances, are
unheeded shdshould report what had passed to the S. of State.
But if the mode of celebration whether by firing guns or
otherwise is not inconvenient dangerous or illegal, but only is
viewed with dislike by certain British subjects, he wdwould act most
prudently in refusing to interfere with the American mode of
celebrating their holiday, and taking any opportunity whwhich may occur
to him to discountenance any hostile feeling to that demonstration
on the part of the English Colonists.
I shdshould be inclined to draft an instruction somewhat in this sense &
send it for concurrence to the F.O.
FR
26/9
It appears to me that while it is desirable not to encourage
"Americanizing" practices in our Colonies, it is quite as desirable
to prevent an antagonistic policy betn British & Americans whwhich
will prevent the American from amalgamating & becoming what I fancy
they tend to become—good average subjects.
[FR]
There is gt force in Sir F. Rogers' remarks, especially in his
concluding paragraph.
1st therefore dft a desp: to the GovrGovernor in the sense
of the min.
2. dft a letter to the F.O. forwarding to them for their
information the desp: to the GovrGovernor.
The letter to the F.O. may begin by expressing my concurrence in
Ld Stanley's opn that every facility sd be given to American
citizens to celebrate their national Anniversary & the same
latitude as is accorded to the "Queen's Agents" elsewhere. But
that such celebration sd be in accordance with the laws of the
Colony & the usages elsewhere recognised and that the alleged
offence of the Consul consists not in the celebration of such
anniversary but in the unauthorised discharge of artillery from a
private vessel, by private persons in a part of the Colony whwhich is
said to be inconvenienced.
That it is of course quite competent for the Americans to keep
Independence day by salvos of artillery all over the U.S. but that
the gist of the alleged offence on the part of the Consul is that it
occurred in the Colony, within 1/2 mile of the Public Offices.
That the act of the Consul was in my opinion a breach of good taste
rather than a cause of serious complaint & that I propose to write
the enclosed desp. to the GovrGovernor on the subject.
Then add a sentence on the general importance of maintaining
harmony & good will between H.M. subjects & any Americans resident
in the Colony much in the sense of Sir F. Rogers' min.
C
27 Sep