No. 61

1. Continuing the subject of my Despatch No 60 of this day's date
and previous Despatches, I have now the honor to transmit lengthy
Resolutions

*

passed by the Legislative Assembly as a "reply" to my
Message dated 6th July 1866, a copy of which was transmitted in my
Despatch No 50 dated 12th July 1866.

2. The history of these Resolutions, as may be gathered from the
newspaper reports contained in my Despatches named in the margin,

**

may be shortly stated as follows:

3. Various discussions took place in the Assembly with reference to
my Message between the date of the receipt of it (6th July 1866) and
 the 25th July, resulting, on the latter date, in the adoption of
these Resolutions. It appears, however, that on the 27th July 1866
the Assembly agreed to postpone the transmission of these Resolutions
to me, sufficient time, as I understand, not having to that hour
elapsed for their preparation for that purpose. As I am informed
this postponement was resolved upon in the expectation that a
proposition then to be brought forward for the formation of a
"Ministerial Council" would be adopted, and my concurrence or
non-concurrence in that proposition was intended to be made the
condition on which the Resolutions should either be finally withheld
or pressed forward. The Ministerial Council scheme failed to secure
the approbation of a majority of the Assembly, who finally determined
on the 7th August 1866 (more than a month after the receipt of my
Message) that the Resolutions should go forward.

4. These facts will enable you to form a true estimate of the value
of these Resolutions.

5. I will now proceed to make such remarks upon the Resolutions,
paragraph by paragraph, as may appear needful, premising only that I
trust you will acquit me of any intention of imposing upon you
unnecessary trouble in the perusal of a lengthy Despatch.

6. Paragraph 1. You are fully acquainted from previous Despatches
with my opinion of the impracticable nature of the Legislative
machinery of this Colony.

7. Paragraph 3. This paragraph contains a serious misstatement.
The Legislative Council consists (by one half—not the "majority") of
the four Members of the Executive Council, the Chief Justice (who is
not a Member of the Executive Council), and three private
individuals. The allegation, therefore, that in consequence of the
Executive and Legislative Councils being "the same," the Legislative
Council can reject measures, is inaccurate. The Council I presume
would have full power to reject measures whatever might be its
composition.

8. Paragraph 4. The Statement here given of the anomalous relative
position of the three branches of the Local Legislature of this
Colony bears out statements I have frequently made. But I only
attribute the weary waste of time in the protracted sessions of the
Assembly to the true cause, when I assert that it is to be found in
the unfitness and incapacity of the large majority of the Members of
that Body to conduct the affairs even of this small community. The
Executive Government so far from having had the "supreme control" has
been at all times grievously and injuriously harrassed, hampered and
perplexed by the impracticability of the Legislative machine. I
venture to express the belief that the possession of such a "supreme
control" would have enabled me to administer this Government with
more benefit to the Colony, and satisfaction to Her Majesty's
Government and myself than I have unfortuately been enabled to do.

9. Paragraph 5. The "Ministerial Council" herein alluded to would
have formed a
quasi fourth branch of the Legislature and would in my judgment
have been the cause of much greater complications and perplexities
that those I have pointed out. I believe it was intended thereby to
establish responsible Government in a form wholly impracticable and
unsuited to the population and circumstances of the Colony. The
adoption of the recommendations contained in the Despatch of the
Secretary of State No 5 dated 28th February 1856 that the
Legislative Council and Assembly should be resolved into one Body
would I think be a simple and practicable mode of bringing the
Legislature into a shape that might be worked.

10. Paragraph 6. The Assembly would, if permitted, absorb the whole
governing power of the Colony,

***

both Executive and Legislative. I have already stated the real cause
of the protracted sessions of the Legislature.

11. Paragraph 7. I have furnished such full information from time
to time in relation to the proceedings of the Assembly in regard to
the Estimates as renders much comment on this paragraph unnecessary.

****

I will only remind you that the Assembly has recently had under
consideration what is termed in this paragraph "the usual provision"
and "the usual authority" stated to have been "given five months
ago," and that at this moment not only has no Supply Bill been passed
by the Assembly, but I am left in ignorance of that reconsideration,
of the finality of which I could only be satisfied by the passing of
the Supply Bill. I may here mention that the first and principal
Appropriation Act for 1865 received my Assent on the 30th March in
that year—and that the Session of the Legislature in that year was
protracted until the 7th of July. I was informed by the Speaker a
short time ago that it was seriously contemplated by Members of the
Assembly to "tack on" to the Supply Bill other Bills which had been
rejected by the Legislative Council in the hope thereby to coerce the
Council into the acceptance of those measures.

*****

12. Paragraph 8. I think I have sufficiently shown in previous
communications that "Ways and Means" have not been provided. A
statement of the Expenditure of 1866 up to 19th June was furnished
to the Assembly on 4th July 1866.

13. Paragraph 9. I have already informed you of the passing of the
Loan Bill in my Despatch named in the margin.

******

The doubt I therein expressed of the possibility of raising
the loan in the Colony was but too well founded. Not one cent has
been offered. Detailed accounts of Expenditure for the whole of 1865
were furnished to the Assembly as soon as the audit was complete—a
sufficiently detailed account of that Expenditure to the 15th of
December 1865 prepared by the Treasurer was presented to the Assembly
with the Estimates on 20th December 1865. I am credibly
informed and believe that the real aim of the Assembly was to obtain
even the vouchers of expenditure in the hope by a re-audit of the
accounts to discover some serious irregularity on the part of the
Executive Government in the disbursement of public moneys.

14. Paragraph 10. This paragraph bears out my remarks on paragraph
7. The Supply Bill for 1865 was passed more than three months before
the end of the Session. The argument in paragraph 10 would lead to
the conclusion that supplies for any given year ought not to be voted
until the end of the year when the actual receipt of Revenue had been
ascertained, and that financial legislation should therefore be
retrospective, and the authority for expenditure
ex post facto. I am prepared to give sufficient reasons why
"the House was not dissolved" if required to do so.

15. Paragraph 11. The Address of the House herein referred to was
transmitted in my Despatch No 48, 26th June 1866.

16. Paragraph 12. I have already placed before you the "demands
made by the Executive" and have shown that the Assembly actually
voted sums in excess of those demands.

17. Paragraph 13. This subject has I think been treated of
sufficiently in previous Despatches. The complaint of the Assembly
that that Body had no voice in the
preparation of the Estimates is a remarkable illustration of its
desire to usurp Executive functions.

18. Paragraph 14. This paragraph commences in effect by a
condemnation of the proceedings of the Assembly in voting more than
the amount proposed to them in the Estimates. Had the Executive
Government greater influence or authority in the financial affairs of
the Colony I have no doubt that a saving might be effected in various
ways and at the same time larger sums applicable to works of public
utility might be raised without unduly pressing upon any portion of
the population. I am aware of the election of only
three Members "during the last three months" and not "four" as
here stated. Of those three one has invariably supported these
Resolutions, the second has as invariably opposed them, and the third
I believe to have given them but a partial and uncertain support.
The statement that "the House admits that in many instances the
salaries allowed are small," which I presume refers to the salaries
of public officers, coming from the Assembly I think I am entitled to
regard the strongest confirmation of remarks I have made on this
subject in previous Despatches.

19. Paragraph 15. It is physically impossible for the Governor of
this Colony to perform the duty of his Private Secretary.

20. Paragraph 16. The statement here made that the Legislative
Council sits much less frequently than the Assembly I think may be
accepted as proof that the latter Body is the cause of the protracted
Sessions of the Legislature. In this paragraph the Assembly again
evinces impatience at the wholesome, though unfortunately often
unavailing, restraint imposed upon it by the existence of another
Body clothed with equal and concurrent Legislative authority.

21. Paragraph 17. I believe the reduction of the Treasurer's salary
to be in effect a gross breach of public faith. It is without doubt
the duty and at the same time the necessity of the Colony to pay the
cost of receiving and disbursing moneys on behalf of the public.

22. Paragraph 18. The same need would exist for cleansing &c the
public offices, whether detached or concentrated in one building—the
latter arrangement would be convenient in other respects if practicable.

23. Paragraph 19. The Assembly here merely assert their right to
refuse to provide suitable remuneration for the Attorney General, but
fail to offer any defence for such a proceeding.

24. Paragraph 20. However greatly the consummation of the union of
these Colonies may be desired, the prospect of it has afforded no
adequate ground for refusing to render efficient so important a
branch of the Public Service as the Post Office.

25. Paragraph 21. I have discussed this subject in previous
Despatches. The accounts which are examined by the Auditor are those
of the Treasurer and other accountant officers, of whom the Colonial
Secretary is not one.

26. Paragraph 22. The statement that the Registrar General and
Assessor "are not appointed
under local Statutes" appears to be directly contrary to the
fact. The two offices were created by local Statutes, and by those
Statutes salaries were in terms fixed for those officers, the
incumbents of which were appointed in pursuance of the provisions of
those Statutes. Under these circumstances the services of those
officers have not been dispensed with.

27. Paragraph 23. The Assembly do not meet the statement in my
Message that the amount proposed by the House "for the
carrying on of the whole of the public business of the
District" (of Nanaimo) "is the very inadequate sum of $800 for
'Postmaster, Harbour Master, and Collector of Dues.'" I have
elsewhere dealt with the subject of supplying intoxicating liquors to
the Indians.

28. Paragraph 24. The Assembly affects to be unable to perceive
that the effect of refusing to pay any officer to supervise the
Lighthouses (one distant four and the other thirteen miles from
Victoria) will be that the necessary superintendence of them must
cease, and that in such an event irregularities perilous to shipping
may naturally be expected.

29. Paragraph 25. This statement will not meet the case I put
before the Assembly.

30. Paragraph 26. The mode here indicated of providing policemen at
Esquimalt, Nanaimo and other places, would have been practicable if
the Assembly had voted the payment of a sufficient number. As it is,
the numbers provided for by the Assembly are not nearly enough for
the town of Victoria alone. I need not again enter into the subject
of the management of the Police and Gaol Departments.

*******

31. Paragraph 27. This paragraph may be thus elucidated. The
Estimates for 1866 were, in December 1865, laid before the Assembly
 who, early in the year 1866, reduced the proposed vote for stationery
&c, and have since protracted the consideration of the Estimates for
so long a period that in answer to an intimation conveyed to them on
the 6th July 1866, they were able on the 8th August 1866 to inform
me that "a further sum has been placed on the Estimates."

32. Paragraph 28. This is made up of a series of Resolutions
condemning at first the proceedings of the Governor of this Colony
and afterwards both the Governor and his advisers. Entertaining a
sincere belief that the information I have from time to time and, at
great length furnished to the Secretary of State will have led him to
conclusions in reference to myself differing widely from those of the
Assembly, I trust I shall not be thought wanting in respect in
abstaining from commenting in detail upon these allegations.

33. In order to render intelligible the complaint of the Assembly
that the Governor "refuses to permit public officers to appear before
a Select Committee of the Assembly," I will state shortly the facts
of the case upon which I presume that Complaint is founded. A few
weeks since one of the Members of the Assembly, Mr McClure,
(who has taken an active part in the preparation and passing of these
Resolutions), procured the appointment of himself and two other
Members as a Committee to inquire into the management of the Police
Department. No complaint of irregularity or mismanagement was made
either in or out of the Assembly, nor had any application been made
to me for information, and when a summons addressed to the
Superintendent of Police and two subordinate members of the force to
attend and give evidence before the Committee was submitted to me I
declined to authorize their attendance. This Committee summoned
before it several discharged policemen whom it examined on oath—a
proceeding wholly unauthorized either by law or custom. I am not
aware that the Committee has been productive of any practical result,
no report from it having been made public. I think nothing more
demoralizing or injurious to the public service can be conceived than
an inquiry into the conduct of any public Department without cause of
complaint alleged or necessity for investigation shown. Moreover, I
knew, as I have stated on a recent occasion, that the condition and
efficiency of the Police Force had been remarkably improved under the
management of the present Superintendent with very limited means at
his disposal.

34. The Secretary of State is in a better position to judge of the
nature of the Statements which the Governor has laid before Her
Majestys Government with reference to the Assembly than that Body can
possibly be. The Assembly judged by its proceedings alone cannot
appear in a dignified light.

35. I forbear to make any comment upon the general tone of the
Resolutions now transmitted or upon the language in which they are
couched.

36. These Resolutions appear to have been originated by Dr Dickson,
and to have been strenuously supported in the Assembly by that
Gentleman, by Mr McClure, and by Mr C.B. Young. Dr Dickson
has for a considerable time assumed an attitude hostile to my
administration, and his removal from the office of coroner is
believed to have influenced him very unfavourabley. Mr McClure
was lately the editor of the "British Colonist" newspaper, and is at
present proprietor and editor of the "Evening Telegraph" newspaper. I
am informed that since the establishment of the latter paper he has
declared his readiness to expend $1000 in "writing down the
Governor." With reference to Mr C.B. Young I may inform you that in
1865 there were voted $4000 (£824) to be given as a premium to any
person who should discover a cod fishery on the coasts of this
Island. Mr Young was concerned in sending a small vessel out to
discover such a fishery, which succeeded in discovering cod banks not
on the coasts of Vancouver Island, but on those of Kamschatka many
hundreds of miles distant. Mr Young applied for the payment of the
premium to himself. A compliance with his application would have
been a palpable misappropriation of public money and it was
accordingly refused—hence his hostility to my Government.

37. The only portion of these Resolutions which has been published
is the series of allegations under paragraph 28.

38. In conclusion I would draw your attention to the fact that the
most prominent movers and abettors of these Resolutions now openly
advocate that which I believe they have long desired, the annexation
of this Island to the neighbouring territory of the United States.

*******

These gentlemen unfortunately form the majority in the present House
of Assembly and the possession of their "confidence" can hardly be
expected by any one who represents Her Majesty in this Colony.

39. It would be difficult to define the nationality of some of those
Gentlemen and were it within the province of my duty to lay their
antecedents before you I feel sure you would not attach much
importance to their want of confidence in any person who is
reasonably honest. Not content with the real difficulties incidental
to all new Colonies, this "majority" of the Assembly (seldom
more than three on a division and often one only) have created others
still more formidable, by obstructing and interfering with the proper
functions of the Executive.

40. If half of that which these Gentlemen have
publicly alleged of each other be true, it is matter of but
little importance what they think or say of any one else.

41. Having libelled, insulted, and even cudgelled each other, they
have within a few days of the expiry of the Assembly by efflux of
time, passed a vote of want of confidence in the Governor of the
Colony by 7 to 5—a proceeding to which I trust you will attach as
little importance as I do.