Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Kennedy, Arthur to Cardwell, Edward 4 March 1866, CO 305:28, no. 4662, 198.
Abstract
Kennedy, Arthur to Cardwell, Edward 4 March 1866, CO 305:28, no. 4662, 198.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (26).
No. 16
4th March 1866
Sir,
1. I have the honor to forward a letter addressed to the Right
Honorable Edward Cardwell, Secretary of State for the Colonies with a
Petition to Her Most Gracious Majesty The Queen andnumerous
numerous other
documents sent to me for transmission.
numerous other
documents sent to me for transmission.
2. I shall endeavour to make my comments upon these papers as short
as the nature of the case will permit.
3. Before entering upon it I would draw your attention to the facts
disclosed by my Memorandum (herewith) dated 20th February 1866,
namely, that Dr Dickson's letter to me covering these documents is
dated
"15th February" and the Petition to the Queen is dated"12th
"12th February" though he presented them in person on the 19th February, having doubtless forwarded a duplicate to you
by one of the Mail Steamers which left this [colony] on the
12th and 15th February.
"12th February" though he presented them in person on the 19th February, having doubtless forwarded a duplicate to you
by one of the Mail Steamers which left this [colony] on the
12th and 15th February.
4. You will also observe that he was accompanied, and doubtless
assisted in this compilation, by Mr Leonard McClure—Mr
McClure being already known at the Colonial Office and to the late
Under Secretary of State, Mr Fortescue, I need not remarkupon
upon the
weight properly attaching to his advocacy of any cause he may take in
hand.
upon the
weight properly attaching to his advocacy of any cause he may take in
hand.
5. I apprehend that it will be hardly necessary for me to occupy
your time by any lengthened remarks in explanation of my conduct in
this matter, or to relieve myself from the many unworthy and
untruthful imputations contained in these papers.
6. A narrative of the facts will be the best answer.
7. So
7. So far back as
July 30th 1864 questions arose as to "a Coroners" jurisdiction
in this Colony, and the Attorney General to whom I referred the
matter, doubted "whether it existed at all." His successor, Mr
Wood, under date 10th September 1864 wrote, "I incline to the belief
hinted at in Mr Cary's opinion of July 30th 1864 that the Coroner
has no jurisdiction in this Colony, inasmuch as the Crown having in
England (withspecific
specific exceptions) no right to nominate Coroners, the
Governor of this Colony is equally disabled from doing so."
specific exceptions) no right to nominate Coroners, the
Governor of this Colony is equally disabled from doing so."
8. This reference to the Attorney General arose from the fact of Dr
Dickson having, without consulting me, appointed a Deputy by the
document dated 5th September 1864, of which I enclose a copy—he
(the Deputy) to hold office during his (Dr Dickson's) "pleasure."
9. I was informed at the timethat
that this appointment of a "Deputy"
was a virtual sale of the office by Dr Dickson to another medical
man, a course which is I believe not uncommon in some of the North
American Provinces where Dr Dickson had long resided.
that this appointment of a "Deputy"
was a virtual sale of the office by Dr Dickson to another medical
man, a course which is I believe not uncommon in some of the North
American Provinces where Dr Dickson had long resided.
10. I simply refused to ratify or permit any such arrangement, and
so the matter stood till Dr Dickson procured his return as a Member
of the Legislative Assembly, and immediately introduced theremarkable
remarkable Bill of which he enclosed a copy and by which he sought to
make himself a salaried officer and irremoveable. Vide Sections 2 and
5.
remarkable Bill of which he enclosed a copy and by which he sought to
make himself a salaried officer and irremoveable. Vide Sections 2 and
5.
11. This Bill was objected to by the Attorney General as interfering
with the Royal Prerogative and finally thrown out by the Legislative
Council.
12. While this Bill was pending before the Legislative Council a
Petition of which I enclose a copywas
was presented, signed by the
Mayor, and Councillors of Victoria and 210 others, praying that the
Bill might be rejected as containing "sections obnoxious to the
prerogative of the Executive, to the liberty of the subject, and to
the economical administration" of the law and that the duties
hitherto performed by Dr Dickson should be performed by the
Stipendiary Magistrate at Victoria.
was presented, signed by the
Mayor, and Councillors of Victoria and 210 others, praying that the
Bill might be rejected as containing "sections obnoxious to the
prerogative of the Executive, to the liberty of the subject, and to
the economical administration" of the law and that the duties
hitherto performed by Dr Dickson should be performed by the
Stipendiary Magistrate at Victoria.
13. Thus it will appear that thelegality
legality of Dr Dickson's office
was a subject of consideration
before he was elected as a Member of the House of Assembly, and
it will further be observed that Dr Dickson suppresses all notice of
or reference to this important and most respectably signed Petition.
legality of Dr Dickson's office
was a subject of consideration
before he was elected as a Member of the House of Assembly, and
it will further be observed that Dr Dickson suppresses all notice of
or reference to this important and most respectably signed Petition.
14. The Legislative Assembly having disallowed and reduced the
salaries of various offices and the Stipendiary Magistrate having, by
reason of being relieved of duties he formerly performedin
in
connection with the gaol and Police ample time to hold inquests where
necessary, I submitted the matter to my Executive Council who
unanimously concurred in and recommended the arrangement prayed for
in the Petition, to the Legislative Council, namely, to abolish an
office which had no legal status and direct the Stipendiary
Magistrate to institute inquiries into the cause of death where
necessary—a proceeding which came naturally within his office—and
and
thus guard against miscarriages of justice arising from inquests
illegally held by a man ignorant of the Law.
in
connection with the gaol and Police ample time to hold inquests where
necessary, I submitted the matter to my Executive Council who
unanimously concurred in and recommended the arrangement prayed for
in the Petition, to the Legislative Council, namely, to abolish an
office which had no legal status and direct the Stipendiary
Magistrate to institute inquiries into the cause of death where
necessary—a proceeding which came naturally within his office—and
and
thus guard against miscarriages of justice arising from inquests
illegally held by a man ignorant of the Law.
15. It will be observed from the Colonial Secretary's letter dated
19th July 1865 and Dr Dickson's reply thereto of the 24th July
(marked F in Dr Dickson's compilation) that he (Dr Dickson) refused
to lodge the Depositions with the Colonial Secretary when required to
do so, or to submit them toother
other than "the Judge of Assize", thus
depriving the Executive and the Attorney General of all knowledge of
the testimony upon which the verdicts were arrived at, or the
sufficiency and legality of the evidence on which prisoners were
committed for trial till it was too late to supply a remedy.
other than "the Judge of Assize", thus
depriving the Executive and the Attorney General of all knowledge of
the testimony upon which the verdicts were arrived at, or the
sufficiency and legality of the evidence on which prisoners were
committed for trial till it was too late to supply a remedy.
16. I have marked some statements and passages in the papers
transmitted, alphabetically and will here shortly remark upon them.
17. (a)
17.(a) Dr Dickson has obviously adopted this course with a view to
his complaint being in the hands of the Secretary of State probably a
month before my remarks could be possibly received.
18.(b) My statement at paragraph 7 of this Despatch shows that the
assertion here made by Dr Dickson is at variance with facts and the
inference he desires to be drawn from it is simply groundless.
19.(c) I think the voluminous documents I transmit are sufficientevidence
evidence that Dr Dickson has "harrassed
me and denied my authority," and that he owes it to my
forbearance that he was not "dismissed" at an earlier period.
evidence that Dr Dickson has "harrassed
me and denied my authority," and that he owes it to my
forbearance that he was not "dismissed" at an earlier period.
20.(d) "The Coroner's Bill" is a remarkable document which could
only have passed in a House of Assembly of fifteen Members of whom no
less than five are medical practitioners.
21.(e) The number of unnecessary inquests held by Dr Dickson andthe
the expense for "medical witnesses" summoned by him had become an
expensive "job" which could not be controlled—the expense for
inquests having increased from $155 in 1860 (when there was a much
larger population) to $946 in 1864.
the expense for "medical witnesses" summoned by him had become an
expensive "job" which could not be controlled—the expense for
inquests having increased from $155 in 1860 (when there was a much
larger population) to $946 in 1864.
22.(f) Dr Dickson's services in any capacity whether paid or unpaid
would be of little value from the litigious and untruthful character
which he bears.
23. (g)
23.(g) I have been informed that Dr Dickson
sold this office on leaving Canada.
24.(h) Chief Justice Needham to whom I referred confidentially
informed me that Dr Dickson had no legal status as "Coroner."
25.(i) In 1864 in view of the doubts existing as to the legality of
the appointment of Coroner, the Attorney General was authorized
unofficially to draft a Bill to provide for the performance of
coroner's duties—the
the Bill so drafted was by the Attorney General
placed in the hands of Dr Dickson and an understanding come to that
he would bring it into the Assembly—he did introduce
a Bill which was passed by the Legislative Assembly—he assured
the Attorney General that the Bill so introduced was unaltered from
the Attorney General's draft, the truth being that Dr Dickson had
extensively altered it and so as to make him irremoveableand
and
irresponsible. The Bill thus introduced by Dr Dickson and passed by
the Assembly was very properly and unanimously rejected by the
Legislative Council who were much fortified in their determination so
to do by the Petition (copy herewith) from the Mayor and Councillors
of Victoria.
the Bill so drafted was by the Attorney General
placed in the hands of Dr Dickson and an understanding come to that
he would bring it into the Assembly—he did introduce
a Bill which was passed by the Legislative Assembly—he assured
the Attorney General that the Bill so introduced was unaltered from
the Attorney General's draft, the truth being that Dr Dickson had
extensively altered it and so as to make him irremoveableand
and
irresponsible. The Bill thus introduced by Dr Dickson and passed by
the Assembly was very properly and unanimously rejected by the
Legislative Council who were much fortified in their determination so
to do by the Petition (copy herewith) from the Mayor and Councillors
of Victoria.
26.(k) I have reason to believe that Dr Dickson did not receive any
such advice. If he did why has he not enclosed copies of theopinions
opinions of the "two leading Counsel?" If he had a legal status why
introduce a Coroner's Bill—and why not establish his right before
the local tribunals?
opinions of the "two leading Counsel?" If he had a legal status why
introduce a Coroner's Bill—and why not establish his right before
the local tribunals?
27.(m) I am constrained to say that this statement is wholly
untrue—Dr Dickson made personal application to me on a special case
in which he alleged he was out of pocket, had to go a long distance,
and lost some private practice (which Idoubt
doubt) and he was on that
occasion allowed to charge $20. He drew this special case into a
precedent, and sent in his charges for $20 in every subsequent case
till his fraud (for such it was) was detected and payment stopped.
doubt) and he was on that
occasion allowed to charge $20. He drew this special case into a
precedent, and sent in his charges for $20 in every subsequent case
till his fraud (for such it was) was detected and payment stopped.
28.(n) The arrangement here noted will cause a saving of probably
$1000 a year to the public, and insure an effective administration of
the law.
29.(o) I am at a loss to find anyreason
reason for thinking that it is
"unconstitutional" for a Stipendiary Magistrate to inquire into cases
of sudden death beyond that furnished by Dr Dickson's friends in the
Assembly "resolving" that it is so.
reason for thinking that it is
"unconstitutional" for a Stipendiary Magistrate to inquire into cases
of sudden death beyond that furnished by Dr Dickson's friends in the
Assembly "resolving" that it is so.
30.(l) and (p) Dr Dickson received $580 for fees in one year,
besides the patronage of "medical witnesses" who sometime charged as much as
$20.
31.(q) The sum of $1000 is thussaved
saved to the public.
saved to the public.
32.(r) Dr Dickson here admits there is no local Statute legalizing
his office which was never reported to or sanctioned by the Crown.
33.(s) I would have had no difficulty in finding other and
sufficient reasons for dispensing with Dr Dickson's services had it
been necessary or expedient so to do.
34.(t) I have had no "controversy" with Dr Dickson and the "action
of the Legislative Assembly" inthis
this case unfortunately means that
only, of a few Members of very questionable qualification to sit
there. The "sympathy and approval of the people through their
representatives" is a delusion. The contrary is the fact.
this case unfortunately means that
only, of a few Members of very questionable qualification to sit
there. The "sympathy and approval of the people through their
representatives" is a delusion. The contrary is the fact.
35. The concluding documents transmitted by Dr Dickson, certified
by the Mayor and attested by the Town Clerk that he is "worthy of all
credence" might under the circumstances bevery
very useful, but in the
present instance Dr Dickson's own writings justify strong
presumption of the contrary being the fact.
very useful, but in the
present instance Dr Dickson's own writings justify strong
presumption of the contrary being the fact.
36. I requested Dr Dickson to supply duplicate copies of the
documents transmitted and enclose a copy of his reply.
37. In conclusion I have only to express my regret that these
remarks should have extended to such a length, and to assure you that
in deciding that Dr Dicksonshould
should cease to perform the duties of a
legally non-existent office I have exercised my best judgment in the
interest of the public service and have acted throughout with the
advice and unanimous concurrence of my Executive Council.
should cease to perform the duties of a
legally non-existent office I have exercised my best judgment in the
interest of the public service and have acted throughout with the
advice and unanimous concurrence of my Executive Council.
Minutes by CO staff
See 3768 [and] 4780.
Mr Elliot
The Governor, who has a bad opinion of Dr Dickson, has removed him from the Office of Coroner on the ground of retrenchment. Dr Dickson protests against this proceeding, alleging that it is not competent in Law for the Governor to remove him at all. Dr Dickson was appointed by Sir Jas Douglas—then Governor. He is removed by the same Authority—viz the present Govr. There is no Law on Coroners in V.C.I. but the common Law of England on that subject is said to rule in the Colony.
The Governor, who has a bad opinion of Dr Dickson, has removed him from the Office of Coroner on the ground of retrenchment. Dr Dickson protests against this proceeding, alleging that it is not competent in Law for the Governor to remove him at all. Dr Dickson was appointed by Sir Jas Douglas—then Governor. He is removed by the same Authority—viz the present Govr. There is no Law on Coroners in V.C.I. but the common Law of England on that subject is said to rule in the Colony.
ABd
16 May
Sir F. Rogers
This question is necessarily one for your consideration. I hardly know at present the view taken of the position of Colonial officers. But if they are as irremovable as Judges, and can never be deprived of their places—(even for want of funds)—unless upon conviction of some offence or specific fault, it seems to me that the public interests will be greatly injured.
This question is necessarily one for your consideration. I hardly know at present the view taken of the position of Colonial officers. But if they are as irremovable as Judges, and can never be deprived of their places—(even for want of funds)—unless upon conviction of some offence or specific fault, it seems to me that the public interests will be greatly injured.
TFE
17 May
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Dickson to W.A.G. Young, Colonial Secretary, 15 February 1866,
enclosing a petition addressed to the Queen and various other
correspondence which had been previously forwarded to England.
Dickson to Cardwell, 15 February 1866, forwarding a petition to
the Queen appealing his recent dismissal as coroner in Vancouver
Island and providing a detailed background to his appointment and
subsequent loss of office.
Petition, Dickson to Queen Victoria, 12 February 1866,
explaining his dismissal from office and asking for redress,
with enclosures.
Handwritten copy of notice from the Colonial Secretary's office
inserted in the
Government Gazette, 9 January 1860, advising of the appointment
of Dickson as coroner.
Printed copy of a bill entitled "An Act relating to the office
of a Coroner," introduced by Dickson into the Legislative Assembly.
Resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly, 7 June 1865,
requiring the governor to submit certain returns relative to the
services of the coroner and the fees paid to him, signed by R.W. Torrens,
Clerk of the House.
Kennedy to Legislative Assembly, 21 June 1865, advising that he
was not in a position to supply the requested information and
submitting that there was "no 'Coroner' in this Colony, having
jurisdiction and that there is no authority vested in the Government
to appoint one."
Copy of Instrument of Revocation, 1 February 1866, certified by
Young.
Resolution passed by Legislative Assembly, 9 February 1866,
against the amalgamation of the offices of coroner and stipendiary
magistrate and advising that "the House does not recognise the right of
His Excellency to remove the Coroner other than by the usual process
required by English Law," signed by Torrens.
J.S. Helmcken, Speaker, to Kennedy, 2 February 1866, forwarding
copy of a resolution "passed this day."
Certificate of Lumley Franklin, Mayor of Victoria, 15 February
1866, testifying to the respectability of Dickson and certifying that
the enclosures to his petition are all correct copies.
Petition to the President and Members of the Legislative Council
from "the Mayor, Councillors and other inhabitants of the City
of Victoria," no date, asking that the duties of coroner be
carried out by the Stipendiary Magistrate for Victoria, with
explanation, signed by Thomas Harris, Mayor, five councillors and
"210 others."
