Archbishop of Canterbury to Cardwell
Addington Park Croyden
Octr. 7. 1864
My dear Sir
I herewith forward to you an application from the Bishop of Columbia, for a division of his vast Diocese. He has explained to me all the circumstances of his case; and I have come to the conclusion that it is very desirable such a measure should be carried out. I trust that you may be able to take the same view with myself; and that you will feel yourself justified in accomplishing this object.
I am told that this is a case in which the Colonial Secretary accepts (unless good case be shewn to the contrary) the recommendation of Canterbury. Should it be so, there is a Clergyman whom I have known for many years as a very devoted man, eminently qualified for the Post,Manuscript image and whom I would strongly recommend to your notice for the Appointment to the new See. I speak of the Revd John Postlethwaite of Trinity College, Cambridge, and at present Incumbent of Coatham in the North Riding of Yorkshire.
Believe me
My dear Sir
Very faithfully Yours
C.T. Cantuar
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Sir F. Rogers
It must, I suppose, be Conceded to the Authorities on whom devolves the duty of attending to the spiritual interests of the Queen's Subjects in the Colonies that they best know whether religion & Xtianity are most promoted by increasing the number of Bishops than by increasing the staff of Clergymen. It is my ignorance on this point which makes me fancy that more advantage wd result from spendingManuscript image the money which has been raised for the endowment of this proposed new Bishopric in adding to the Clergymen than in appointing a second Bishop. But possibly money has been obtained for the support of more Clergymen as well as more Bishops. Politically I can conceive no objection to the proposal. Though the plan of having separate Governors for each Colony can only be regarded as an experiment it will not follow that if V.C.I. and B.C. should be reunited two Bishops, and even more, will not be just as much wanted, as they are said to be at present.
ABd 12 Octr/64
I shd like to see the papers about the creation of the Bishopric of Goalburn.
I have really nothing to add to my own minute upon 9387 N.S. Wales except that I think the D of N. did ultimately require the production of 4000£.
FR 14/10
Manuscript image
Ack. rect.
Inform Archbishop that Mr Cardwell proposed to communicate His Grace's Letter to the Governor of the Colony; that he anticipates no objection to the plan in general; but that it is possible some suggestions may be made with reference to the territorial division, or to other details of the arrangements: & that when the Governors reply is received Mr C will write His Grace.
EC 21 Oct
Archbp of Canterbury's letter on Coll Bprics
Manuscript image
Mr Cardwell
I annex the various opinions recd from the L. Officers on the case of the Bpric of Ruperts Land.
It appears to me that those opinions & particularly that of May 10th are good to the extent of assuring us that in the case of Sees already established by Letters Patent (as was the case with Ruperts Land) the position of Govt will not be prejudiced by the issue to the Abp and upon his request—of a mandate for consecration in the form adopted in the case of Mr Mackroy.
But the case is different when a See has to be carved out of an existing See and a new Bp appointed recalling pro tanto the Lrs Patent of theManuscript image existing Bishop.
In this case I only see two modes of proceeding.
1. That the existing Bp shd under the provisions of his existing L Pt and with concurrence of the Crown take the formal steps necessary for limiting the extent of his Diocese and then that the ground being thus cleared and the new Diocese excluded the Abp shd request & be authorised by Mandate to consecrate a Bishop to exercise his functions within the territory thus left vacant; with no legal power (probably)
I say "probably" because he mt possibly have the benefit of some local Acts.
but with such voluntary authority as members of the Ch. of E. in the proposed diocese may consent to allow him in consequence of such Consecration.
2. That the Abp shd be authd by mandate to consecrate Bp reciting an intention that he shd exercise episcopal functions inManuscript image the diocese (say) of B. Columbia, within such territorial limits as may be assigned to him by the Bp of B.C.
This wd not give him a diocese or diocesan title, but would merely authorise the Abp to qualify him for assisting the Bp of B. Columbia, leaving it to the two Bps to settle betn themselves, in an unauthentative way their respective spheres of action.
But I shd hesitate to advise that either of these courses shd be taken witht the advice of the L. Ors.
FR 3/10/1864
N.B. I am reminded that the Gov. of B. Columbia objects to the particular division of Diocese proposed by the Bishop—which is very material.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Manuscript image
Bishop of Columbia to Archbishop of Canterbury, 6 October 1864, requesting a division of his diocese, with extended explanation and enclosed map and description of the proposed boundary.
Note on microfilm as follows: "Map of British Columbia showing the boundaries of the Dioceses of (1) Columbia and Vancouver (2) New Westminster: 1864, being fo. 297 of C.O. 60/20 has been removed to the Map Room. November 1950, D.B. Wardle."
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Cardwell to Archbishop of Canterbury, 25 October 1864, advising that the governor had been requested to comment on the proposal.
Manuscript image
Draft reply, Cardwell to Seymour, No. 38, 26 October 1864, forwarding Canterbury’s recommendation and asking for Seymour’s opinion.