<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> 26 August 1868, CO 60:33, no. 11069, 354. Seymour addressee Buckingham

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Seymour, Frederick to Grenville, Richard 26 August 1868, CO 60:33, no. 11069, 354.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/B68107.html. CO 60:33 CO 60 33 11069 354 107 B.C. 1868 received 10 October co_60_33_00354r.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) (3), Other documents (1).

Seymour describes how British Columbia’s Legislative Council responded to the Colonial Office’s draft ordinance regarding solving British Columbia’s unique issue of having two supreme courts and two chief justices. Seymour forwards the Legislative Council’s proposed bill for solving British Columbia’s judicial problem and Crease’s report on the bill. Robinson’s minute summarizes British Columbia’s Legislative Council’s bill and notes that the Colonial Office’s Sketch of an Ordinance respg the Supreme Court…was rejected after 2 days debate. Rogers’s minute discusses the conditions that would allow Buckingham to submit the bill for the Queen’s approval, particularly focusing on the circumstances of Needham and Begbie. Minutes by Adderley and Buckingham discuss the difficulty of finding a new position for chief justice.

Seymour, Frederick
New Westminster
Grenville, Richard Added summary of draft reply. Added abstract. Inserted revisionDesc.
No. 107 11069, CO 60/33, p. 354; received 10 October
New Westminster
26th August 1868 My Lord Duke,

I have had the honor to receive Your Grace's despatch No. 40 of the 26th June, on the subject of the opposition exhibitedby by the Legislative Council to the Draft Ordinance which was transmitted to me in Your Grace's despatch No. 81 of 13th Novr 1867.

2. Though I anticipated, as now informed by Your Grace, that the Draft was sent for our assistance and that it was not Your desire to preclude the Government and Legislature from adopting any other mode of dealing with existing anomalies yetI I caused it to be introduced to the Council as a Government measure. Most of the Public Officers requested me to command them to vote for it, if it was to be carried, and unofficial members begged me not to enforce the Bill. As stated in the Minute I enclose, by the Acting Colonial Secretary, I might possibly have got the Bill through by force, but I anticipated Your Grace'swishes wishes and did not exert a pressure which would virtually have changed the Legislative Constitution of the Colony. I consented to amendments and, yielding by degrees, finally allowed the Bill to be defeated, and another Bill passed. That one I have now the honor to forward. It will receive Your Grace's consideration as solving (in local belief) in a manner, the difficulty now existing.

3. It will be satisfactoryto to Your Grace to hear that during the summer, when Mr Chief Justice Begbie is on circuit in the Interior, there is not much inconvenience in the present state of things. Early in the winter I shall call the Legislature together and finally settle the matter, if it be not finally settled in the mean time by Your Grace's approval of the Bill I enclose.

4. The Extreme illness of the Attorney General mustbe be my excuse for the delay which has occurred in transmitting this Bill. He has resumed his official duties this week.

5. I enclose copy of the Bill adopted by the Council and of the Attorney General's Report upon it. I confess it does not entirely satisfy me. It seems to invade the perogative of the Governor and to Legislate in more detail than is required.

6. I need not say that whatever Your Grace's wishesmay may be they shall be carried out in the next Session of the Council.

I have the honor to be, My Lord Duke, Your Grace's most obedient, humble Servant. Frederick Seymour
Sir F. Rogers See 11070 & 11071.

The Sketch of an Ordinance respg the Supreme Court which was sent from home was rejected after 2 days debate.

This Ordinance provides for a Supreme Court, only one Chief Justice, & one or more Puisne Judges, &c &c.

WR 13 Oct
This Act simply establishes a Supreme Court with a Chief & Puisne Judge as if Mr Needham & Mr Begbie did not exist. And this they do on the expectation that the Home GovtGovernment from its "wide spread patronage" will provide for one of the Judges.

Of course if the Duke of Buckingham can & will provide for one of their Judges in a manner with whwhich that Judge will be satisfied, the Act whwhich seems a perfectly good one abstractedly—may be assented to by the Queen—subject at least to a reference to the Council Office as to the appeal to Privy Council, & to the observation that Rules of Court need not be sent home for the approval of the Crown in this country (SS XI).

But if HG has not the means of removing Mr Needham or Mr Begbie, then I think the proper answer is that H.G. has perused this Ordinance, but that it is impossible for him to submit it for HM's approval inasmuch as it contemplates a Supreme Court comprised of a Chief Justice & Puisne Judge & is therefore inapplicable to the existing state of things in B. Columbia in which unfortunately there exist at present two Chief Justices.

As to their arguments—the state of things is of course inconvenient. But if they had any disposition to make the best of it, there could not have been any real difficulty in accepting the sketch ordinance making additional provisions when their local knowledge disclosed a defect & in particular providing that the authority of each Court (the writs &c) shdshould run throughout the whole Colony—whwhich ought, I agree, to have been explicitly laid down in the sketch.

But the fact is they want to force the Home GovtGovernment to remove the evil by refusing any proposal for its effectual mitigation.

They are obliged however by mere force of inconvenience to pass Act No. 3 (11070 herewith).

FR 16/10
The rejection of this Ordce shows very imperfect Crown Governt. Probably the removal of one CJ, even by promotion, would be difficult. I fear Sir F's 2nd Draft ansr is the only one. CBA 19/10
The question of removal of the judge to another appointment rests much with the judge himself. I offered Mr Needham a transfer which his [peers?] in England thought he should accept but on telegraphing to him he declined to accept, although complaining much of his position & irregular & uncertain salary. B&C 22/10
Copy of Supreme Courts Ordinance 1868 not on microfilm.
W.A.G. Young, Colonial Secretary, to Seymour, 31 July 1868, regarding Council's opposition to Buckingham's sketch ordinance.
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Seymour, 25 August 1868, explaining why Council had rejected the sketch ordinance.
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 94, 26 October 1868 rejecting the proposed ordinance “entitled An Ordinance "to establish a Supreme Court of Justice in the Colony of British Columbia,"” which contemplated “a Supreme Court composed of a Chief Justice and [a] Puisne Judge."