Despatch to London.
Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (6), Other documents (1), Marginalia (1).
This document contains mentions of Indigenous Peoples. The authors of these documents
often perpetuate a negative perspective of Indigenous Peoples and it is important
to look critically at these mentions. They sometimes use terminology that is now considered
hurtful and offensive. To learn more about modern terminology pertaining to Indigenous
Peoples, Indigenous ways of knowing, and decolonization, please refer to the Glossary of terms.
Seymour responds to the proposed division of the Bishopric of British Columbia, arguing that no division of the Diocese can be satisfactorily made which does not recognise and
adhere to the existing territorial limits of the two Colonies.Seymour transmits letters from members of the Executive Council in which they also argue
against the division, along with an an extract from the Columbia Mission Report for 1864 in which the Bishop acknowledged that placing the episcopal seat in either of the
colonies would result in an alienation of feeling in the other.
No. 38
2nd May 1865
Sir,
I have had the honor to receive your despatch No. 38 of
the 26th October 1864, on the subject of a proposal made
for the Division of the Diocese of British Columbia.
2. I
2. I should long ago have furnished you with my opinion
upon the project but that I knew the Bishop would soon return
to the Colony. When I saw his Lordship I promised him, as we
did not quite agree, that I would consider the matter further
for at least a fortnight before finally communicating my views to you.
3. Previous howeverto to the Bishop's return, I had devoted
an anxious consideration to the whole question. I called for
the assistance of such members of the Executive Council as are
now in the Colony. Their opinions I have the honor to forward.
I am so reluctant to oppose arrangements already approved of by
the Church in England that I particularly call your attention
to the unanimous condemnation by my constituted advisersof of the
proposal made by the Bishop of British Columbia. Their opinion,
if promulgated, would have the concurrence I believe of every
inhabitant of the Colony.
4. Acknowledging at once the advantage which would accrue
from a division of this Diocese and the appointment of an
additional Bishop, I regret to say that I think more harm than
good would be doneby by carrying out the division in the manner proposed.
5. You are but too well aware of the jealousy existing
between the two Colonies on this side of the Rocky Mountains.
The Merchants and owners of Town-lots in Victoria, in the
Comparatively unimportant Colony of Vancouver, have drawn
nearly all the share of the profits of the Gold discoveries
in this Colony, which have not been absorbedin in California.
British Columbia, the source of wealth, has remained poor and
imagines itself neglected in every way. Its name was used as
an attraction for Capital, which was invested beyond its limits;
its gold created a demand for a Bank whose head quarters are
in another Colony, for a Diocese whose See is in the rival
Island. Its treasure poured forth without leaving a deposit
here, and a territory of the greatestMineral Mineral wealth ran the
risk of utter abandonment.
6. The feeling of injustice suffered is diminished here,
since the separation of the two Colonies, yet Victoria still
irritates the local jealousy by affecting, though contributing
nothing to the Revenue, to be the Capital of British Columbia.
The project of Bishop Hills by which it is proposed thatthe the seat of
the Episcopate of British Columbia should be on Vancouver Island,
This is surely a mistake of Mr Seymour. I do not find that the
Bishop has proposed any such thing.
with just enough of this territory annexed to justify the
retention of the title, would, I feel convinced, create an
amount of hostility in this Colony, that would greatly impede
the progress of the Church.
7. Bishop Hills himself appears to have recently held the
opinion I now express. I enclose an extract from theColumbiaColumbia
Mission Report for 1864, His Lordship acknowledges the "rivalry"
of the two Colonies and says, "in whichever of the two is
fixed the Episcopal Seat an alienation of feeling in the other
will be the consequence. The best interests of religion, as
well as good policy, will be served by yielding to the Colonial
feeling, and by gathering up all sympathies in a division of
the diocese."But But I enclose a portion of the Bishop's Minute.
8. Until Vancouver Island is politicallly incorporated
with British Columbia no division of the Diocese can be
satisfactorily made which does not recognise and adhere to the
existing territorial limits of the two Colonies.
9. I will not allow myself to follow up the subjects
mooted by some of the ExecutiveCouncillors Councillors. Unquestionably
as stated, the religious destitution of the Colony is considerable,
and the spirit of rivalry already alluded to leads people to
count the respective number of the clergy on the Mainland and
on the outlying island. I must in all justice however, with
the Colonial Secretary, bear testimony to the noble results of
the labours carried on, in a spirit of humility and self denial,
by the RomanCatholic Catholic Missionaries among the Indians. The
Reverend Fathers however devote their lives to the civilization and
salvation of the Native races and do not come across the miners' path.
10. New Westminster though it may possibly feel that the
Episcopal Seat of the Diocese of British Columbia should not be
in another, and not over friendly Colony, haslittle little to complain
of as regards the attention bestowed on it by the Church of
England. The Clergy and laity have worked energetically
together and as high a sense of honor and morality, as sound a
tone, exists in this young town as in any with which I am acquainted.
11. But in Cariboo, the source of wealth, the centre of
life of the two Colonies, the
real British Columbia,this this
winter has seen a great festival. The three towns on Williams
Creek were dressed in flags and the population turned out into
the Streets for it was announced that several sleighs loaded
with squaws were on the road.
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient
humble Servant Frederick Seymour
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
The answers to the references made to the Governors of
V.C. Island, and B.C. are now complete. See 1983/65V.C.I.
The objections raised by B.C. have reference to the proposed
boundary of the New See, and to Miss Burdett Coutts' endowment
which was intended for the service of the whole of the Bishopric.
If the Bishopric is divided B. Columbia means to claim half
the endowment I suppose.
Letter to Archbishop of Canterbury that the Governor of B.C.
has reported that objections are entertained by his Govt to
the mode, in which it is proposed to divide the Bishoprick:
and that as I have reason to believe that the Governor is
about immediately to visit England, I think it will be
desirable to wait for his arrival.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
A.N. Birch, Colonial Secretary, 5 January 1865, expressing
aversion to the method of division proposed by Bishop Hills, with
explanation.
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, 3 January 1865, expressing
opinion as noted above.
C.W. Franks, Treasurer, 3 January 1865, expressing opinion as
noted above.
W. Hamley, Collector of Customs, 3 January 1865, expressing
opinion as noted above.
Printed copy of Seymour's opinion on the division.
Printed copy of "Ministerial Life at the Gold Fields. Columbia.
Difficulties and Encouragements" (partial entry only).
Other documents included in the file
Cardwell to Archbishop of Canterbury, 22 July 1865, advising that
the subject would be held over for discussion with the governor upon
his arrival in England.