Coutts to Granville
Â
My Dear Lord Granville
I have been for some time considering whether it was not my duty
to forward you the enclosed copy of a letter received by my
Solicitors from the Gentlemen, acting as Solicitors to the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and I presume also for
The Trustees to the Colonial Bishopricks Fund. It struck me
as a most singular, not to say unparalled suggestion that a
Crown Dependency Would probably & that shortly "select a
Sovereign power for itself," and that any deed which a
British Subject may be called upon to execute,
Should be
framed with a consideration to such a contingency; most
certainly it is a position totally alien to any I contemplated
when I provided Emoluments in English Colonies to which
arrangement the whole of the Archbishops & Bishops of the
Church were parties and which was satisfied by the Crown.
In consequence of the illness of the
Archbishop of Canterbury
I have been unable to communicate with him and I
am therefore unaware whether the letter from the
Solicitors of the Society at 77 Pall Mall has come under His
Graces
Notice. I however thought it possible that they might be
aware of some intention on the part of the Government to give
up
British Columbia.
The recent debate in Parliament and the answer
given by the Home
Secretary to a Deputation, which visited upon him upon the
subject of Emigration seems to negative such a supposition, and
I think it therefore right to place the subjoined copy of the
letter in your hands. The actual subject under discussion
relates to the establishment of the Archdeacouries
of
British Columbia and the question is, with whom the
the reversionary interest should
rest.
Whether with me and my heirs or with the Socty for the
Propagation of the Gospel, Should the object Fail, which I
had in view when I provided the Emoluments, which object was
set forward in the Declaration of Lambeth in 1843 by the
Archbishop & Bishops and subsequently received the approbation
of the Queen in Council—but it is not to discussions on account
of this, that I am induced to place this letter in Your
Lordships hands, but that I have been so much impressed with the
very unusual contingency set before me, by persons representing
Individuals holding high State offices that it has scarcely
seemed to me right not to communicate its contents to you.
I am My dear Lord Granville
Sincerely Yours
A.G. Burdett Coutts
[Ehunbury?] Hall
Torquay
Feby 23d 1870
Minutes by CO staff
A puzzling kind of letter. In
substance I suppose the answer is that
Ld G seriously desires
that
B. Columbia may long remain a British Colony, but that seeing
what opinions are current and what possibilities are imaginable, he
cannot blame any lawyer who being employed as laywers are to
provide for all imaginable contingencies, provides among the rest
for that of Separation.
Put by.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Nicholl Burnett &
Newman, Lawyers for The Society for
Propagation of the Gospel and The Archdeacouries of
Columbia &
Vancouver, to Messrs.
Farrer Amory & Co.,
Lawyers for
Miss Burdett Coutts,
28 December 1869,
detailing the position of the society in relation to policy
and deeds of trust and explaining why suggested amendments
to the rules should not be allowed to stand.