<persName ref="prs:birch"><surname>Birch</surname>, <forename>Arthur</forename> <forename>Nonus</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:cardwell"><surname>Cardwell</surname>, <forename>Edward</forename></persName> 21 June 1866, CO 60:24, no. 7796, 309. Birch addressee Cardwell

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Birch, Arthur Nonus to Cardwell, Edward 21 June 1866, CO 60:24, no. 7796, 309.The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.6, ed. James Hendrickson and the Colonial Despatches project. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. https://bcgenesis.uvic.ca/B66047.html. CO 60:24 CO 60 24 7796 309 47 B.C. 1866 received 13 August co_60_24_00309r.jpg Transcribed from microfilm archives, marked up in Waterloo Script, then transformed into TEI P5 XML.

The project glossary items have xml:id attributes beginning with trm_, and we use a trm: prefix to refer to them when linking from term elements.

We link to orgs in orgs/organizations.xml using the org: prefix.

We link to places in places.xml using the plc: prefix.

We link to people in bios/*.xml using the prs: prefix.

We link to vessels in vessels/*.xml using the vsl: prefix.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

The cdt (ColDesp Document Type) prefix used on catRef/target points to a central taxonomy in the includes file.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

Birch, Arthur Nonus to Cardwell, Edward 21 June 1866, CO 60:24, no. 7796, 309.

Despatch to London. Minutes (4), Enclosures (untranscribed) (2), Other documents (2).

 Birch, Arthur Nonus Cardwell, Edward Inserted revisionDesc.
No. 47 7796, CO 60/24, p. 309; received 13 August 21st June 1866 Sir,

I have the honor to forward an Authenticated and two plain Copies of an Ordinance of the recent Session of the Legislature of this Colony, entitled; No. 14. An Ordinance amending the procedure of theCounty County Courts of the Colony of British Columbia.

2. It is not for me to question the many Legal objections raised by the Attorney General in the lengthy Report which I enclose. Some of the statements however require explanation.

3. The necessity for an alteration in the Ordinance relating to the County Courts of this Colony has often been represented by the Judge of the Supreme Court andby by every Magistrate resident in the Country districts. The present Ordinance was framed and introduced in the Legislative Council by Mr Elliot, a Barrister of Lincoln's Inn and Magistrate of the Lillooet District. I am not aware that the Bill received less consideration at the Council Board than any other enactment of the Session. Nine Members of Council supported and five opposed the measure, this can hardly be termed in the words of the Attorney General a "verysmall small majority."

4. I may state in reply to the remarks of the Attorney General in Paragraph 27 of his Report, that while there has been no external agitation on the subject, the feeling of the Public is very generally expressed and is referred to in every Grand Jury Report which I receive from Mr Justice Begbie during the present circuit of the Supreme Court. I enclose an extract from the Presentmentof of the Grand Jury at Yale.

5. The Attorney General in Paragraph 34 more clearly, I consider, defines the objections which he and no doubt the majority of the Legal Profession naturally raise to this Ordinance as likely to interfere with their practise. It does not appear to me that the members of the Bar will be placed in a more anomalous position when pleading before the several Magistrates as County Courts Judges than when pleading,as as is the constant practice, before the same Gentlemen in the Gold Commissioners' Courts.

6. Should Her Majesty's Government decide upon Union of Vancouver Island with British Columbia without further delay, the consequent amalgamation of the Courts of the two Colonies would to a great extent obviate the necessity at present existing for an alteration in the Law. On the other hand, if British Columbia is to continue separatethe the appointment of a second Judge, entailing an additional expenditure the Colony can ill afford, or the increased powers proposed under this Ordinance to be vested in the district Magistrates will be found expedient.

The several Magistrates have held commissions as County Court Judges since the Proclamation of 1859. I have seldom heard a complaint of the decisions given and should not hesitate, with the experience alreadygained, gained, to increase their jurisdiction as now proposed.

7. The Legislature, at my suggestion, inserted a clause suspending the operation of the Ordinance until I have received your instructions. I may add that Mr Justice Begbie is strongly in favor of the proposed alterations in the Law.

I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant Arthur N. Birch
Register the Ordinance. [ABd]
Mr Elliot Reserve for Sir F. Rogers, or refer, pending Sir Frederick's return, to Mr Seymour for any observations. ABd Augt 14
I dare say the Orde is open to technical objections whwhich may embarrass its working but the principle (of furnishing speedy justice even though liable to occasional error) is to my mind a very good one and I always distrust an accumulation of minute objections against a thing useful at bottom. As far as I can judge there does not seem to be much in them. I wdwould answer conveying HM's allowance of this Ord to be published in the Colony in the usual &c manner, and would add that if the objections suggested by the AttyAttorney GenlGeneral are found productive of practical inconvenience, Mr C. does not doubt that the Legre will take the necessary steps for their removal. FR 4/10 CBA 5/10 C 8 Oct
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Officer Administering the Government, 18 June 1866, reporting on the ordinance as per despatch.
Extract from the presentment made by the grand jury at Yale, 4 May 1866, promoting the extension of the jurisdiction of county courts to at least $500.
Birch to Rogers, 26 June 1866, expressing opinion that much of Crease's objection was based on his ill feeling towards Begbie, and advising that the Fenians had caused great excitement in the colony.
Mr Macdonald Please to place this with the despatch on the Ordinances, when it reaches you—for Sir F. Rogers's eye. TFE 13 August
*
Draft reply, Carnarvon to Seymour, No. 13, 11 October 1866.