<persName ref="prs:seymour_f"><surname>Seymour</surname>, <forename>Frederick</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:grenville_r"><surname>Grenville</surname>, <forename>Richard</forename></persName> 30 November 1867, CO 60:29, no. 1214, 543. Seymour addressee Buckingham

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Seymour, Frederick to Grenville, Richard 30 November 1867, CO 60:29, no. 1214, 543.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/B67157SP.html. CO 60:29 CO 60 29 1214 543 Separate B.C. 1867received 3 February 1868 co_60_29_00545r.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.

Despatch to London. Minutes (4), Enclosures (untranscribed) (6), Other documents (1).

Seymour forwards a letter from the attorney general asking for Buckingham’s thoughts on how the Act of Union effects the Legislative Constitution British Columbia. Seymour discusses his views on how the union of Vancouver Island and British Columbia affects the legislative constitution and how Seymour reached these views considering the Intentions of Forster and Reilly. Holland’s minute suggests forwarding the despatch to the law officers and comments on the issue of allotting a particular number of seats to Vancouver Island. Minutes by Rogers and Adderley disagree with concerning the law officers and state why Rogers and Adderley have this view. Included documents discuss how the legislature should be composed and describe the union of Vancouver Island and British Columbia.

Seymour, Frederick Grenville, Richard Added summary of draft reply. Added abstract. Inserted revisionDesc.
Separate 1214, CO 60/29, p. 543; received 3 February 1868 30th November 1867 My Lord Duke,

I have the honor to forward a letter from the Attorney General requesting an opinion as to the effect of the Act of Union upon the LegislativeConstitution Constitution of this Colony. My own opinion is most decidedly that there is nothing in the Act 29 & 30 Victoria, Cap. 67 "An Act for the Union of the Colony of Vancouver Island with the Colony of British Columbia" which makes it imperative on the Governor to allot a certain number of seats at the Council table to Vancouver Island, and a certain number to the Mainland.

2. My conviction on this point has been mainly brought about by my knowledgeof of the Intentions of Mr Forster, late Under Secretary of State, and of Mr Reilly who drew the Bill.

I have the honor to be, My Lord Duke, Your most obedient, humble Servant. Frederick Seymour
Mr Holland CC 5/2
Sir F. Rogers As the opinion of the Law Officers is requested I presume that copies of this despatch & its enclosures should be sent to them, & their opinion asked upon the 2 questions raised in the first page of the Attorney General's memorandum.

I think the points very clear, & that it is not imperative on the Governor to allot a certain number of seats to V. Island.

HTH 5/2
I very much incline not to take this opinion. It does not appear who raises the question, & I am wholly unable to conceive how any person capable of understanding the meaning of words can raise such a question. Nothing can be plainer than the word of the Act—nothing more reasonable than the meaning resulting from those words, and nothing I think more certain than that the framers of the Act did in fact mean neither more nor less than they said. When matters are really not capable of question I do not think that the Law office shdshould be worried with questions about them to satisfy what is mere idle cavilling. I shdshould be disposed to write a very decided answer—treating the matter as much too clear, to render it proper that the Law Offrs shdshould be troubled with it. The word "maximum" if nothing else is conclusive against these loose inferences. FR 5/1
I agree & should say that the GovrGovernor & Att.Attorney Gen. version is so clearly the right one & it is so impossible that the supposed construction should be so set up as to invalidate the acts of the Council that it is thought neither necessary nor advisable to take the L.O. opinion. CBA 10/2 B&C 13/2
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Seymour, 27 November 1867, requesting opinion of Law Officers on the effect of the act of union upon the constitution, with explanation.
Extract, Cardwell to Seymour, 7 October 1865, stating the Order in Council constituting a legislature in British Columbia did not intend such legislature to be representative.
Printed copy of Order in Council, 11 June 1863, establishing a legislature in British Columbia.
Newspaper clipping, Government Gazette, no date, containing printed notification of the passing of the Order in Council as noted above, and letter from W.A.G. Young advising of the composition of the newly constituted legislative council.
Newspaper clipping, Government Gazette Extraordinary, 19 November 1866, containing proclamation of union.
Newspaper clipping, Government Gazette, 5 January 1867, reporting the composition of the newly constituted legislative council of the united colony.
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 13, 15 February 1868 confirming Seymour’s view regarding “the effect of the Act of Union upon the Legislative Constitution of the Colony.”