+ fee Artilet
Sir J. Rogen
see no reason the
Other Ate in Comment 1' why
11
Von May 1849) (ut 1040 on stated in the papers) should
I think
10
noth altered, and thend on a
coder in Council for
coin duration
draft f
A hu
But would not the Letters Patent of the Bishop Victoria require some alteration?
By the Letters Patent of May 1849 creating the Bishopric of Victoria Hong Kong, after a recital
Ethe
Onder un
the Bishopric was proven jurisdication
Council July 1849, the Bishopric Council
wer
A.G
S.G.
Q.A.
ail" is the diocese of Victoria " 't the places aforesaid " is the diocese
of Victoria the Emperor of China - All the protection given & then taken patent
the firm Ap the subsequent letters patent of 14 Jan 1867 17 Nov question burner the nonlinfortant,
at
it would
lean the doubtful whether the Bishopric of Victoria appion Adderley
Etter proposed plain.
Ch. Mip: Joe!
5842 Akong
Antered
June
17.
18
Would it and the well body the cars began the Law de Buckingham
19
fficers andork.
Whether it is necessary
to revoke in part the Letters
Patent of the Bishopric of Victoria
Whether the draft Order in Council is sufficient in
form..?
Inform Chichester that the matter
consideration
19TH 1876
Se sulagunt
Bishop of Victoria
10502
I love see
Witter sh? la sent to
Chichester informary
Lived-
that the Walter is att
Mrecai tf. carefule
Cauiteration bes
WTH
Ance? 8455 Any. 4/68-
fred word
WITH
2.
A
I
124
Gheel 25 June 1868.
are directed & the
Like Buckingham and
Chandos to transmit to
copy 2
Jou
a memorandum of the
5. April pupand the Reel. 44 Veum & laid upon tG.
expecting
tü
appointment of
missionary Bishop for the
natin Christian Church in
Norte Zaria.
I ove directed by parkin
the transmit to
que for
the purposes of reference
copy of the Order in Council
May 1849 (infund to in
the memorandum an
Itu Order
1876
in Council of cell any 1540)