Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Correspondence (private letter)
Longley, Archbishop of Canterbury Charles Thomas to
Cardwell, Edward 7 October 1864, CO 60:20, no. 9283, 288.
Abstract
Longley, Archbishop of Canterbury Charles Thomas to
Cardwell, Edward 7 October 1864, CO 60:20, no. 9283, 288.
Correspondence (private letter).
Minutes (7), Enclosures (untranscribed) (2), Other documents (2), Marginalia (1).
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,
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.
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.
Minutes by CO staff
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 spending
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.
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 spending
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.
Annexed.
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
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
Mr Cardwell
I annex the various opinions recd from the L. Officers on the case of the Bpric of Ruperts Land.
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 the
existing Bishop.
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)
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.
I say "probably" because he mt
possibly have the benefit of some local Acts.
[FR]
2. That the Abp shd be authd by mandate to consecrate
Bp reciting an intention that he shd exercise episcopal
functions in
the diocese (say) of B. Columbia, within such
territorial limits as may be assigned to him by the Bp of B.C.
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)
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
Cardwell to Archbishop of Canterbury, 25 October 1864, advising
that the governor had been requested to comment on the proposal.
