10291.
No. 92. (CANADA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD DUKE,
Doctors' Commons, November 18, 1861. We are honoured with your 'Grace's commands signified in Sir Frederick Rogers' letter of the 19th August last, stating that he was directed to transmit to na the enclosed copy of a Despatch from the Governor of Canada, forwarding a copy of a letter from the Bishop of Toronto, and requesting that, in conformity with the desire of the bishop, Letters Patent should issue appointing the Rev. J. Travers Lewis, LL.D., as first bishop of the new or eastern see of Ontario, which it is proposed to separate from the see of Toronto under the authority of the Act of the Canadian Legislature 19 & 20 Vict. c. 141., ințituled "An Act to enable the Members of the United Church
bf England and Ireland'in Canada to meet in Synod.”
46
Sir Frederick Rogers was also pleased to state that the enclosed Despatch contains the only intimation which your Grace has received of the proceedings of the synod in
this case.
Sir Frederick Rogers was also pleased to enclose a copy of the deed' of resignation by the Bishop of Toronto of so much of his see as will be included in the new diocese, and to state this resignation will at the proper time be submitted by your Grace to the Queen for Her Majesty's acceptance, and that if the Archbishop of Canterbury's certificate of his consent to the appointment of the new bishop is not couched in the proper language, a fresh form of consent can be obtained in "such' terms as we may suggest.
Bir Frederick Rogers was also pleased to state that it is presumed that the same forms will be adopted on this occasion which were used on the creation of the Bishoprio of Huron under similar circumstances; and to request that we would prepare and transmit to your Grace drafts of Letters Patent to pass the Great Seal for carrying the proposed arrangement into effect.
Sir Frederick Rogers was also pleased to transmit a copy of the Report which we made, enclosing drafts of the Letters Patent which were issued for the erection of the new or western bishopric of Huron, and for the reconstruction of the reduced diocese of Toronto; and to state that our Report called attention to the fact that as the bishop then contemplated the erection of two new sees in addition to that of Toronto, we had in some measure provided for any future sub-divisions or alterations of boundaries, by the introduction of a clause for that purpose into each of the drafts.
Sir Frederick Rogers also stated that the question of forming a second bishopric has not until now been again raised.
Sir Frederick Rogers was also pleased to enclose copies of supplementary Letters Patent, which were issued at the same time, conveying powers to the Bishops of Toronto and Huron to constitute a cathedral, a chapter, and other ecclesiastical officers; and to state that it will naturally be more convenient to embody these powers in the general Letters Patent which are about to be prepared. That the Rev. Ernest Hawkins, the Secretary to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, will no doubt be able to furnish information on many points of detail if we should require such further information.
In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have taken this matter into consideration, and have the honour to
Report
That we have prepared and transmitted herewith-
(1st.) Draft of an instrument of consent by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the alteration of the boundaries of the see of Toronto, his Grace's consent to the appoint- ment of the new Bishop of Ontario, dated August 14th 1861, not being gally sufficient for this purpose. This consent should be executed and dated on some day previous to the date of the "Ontario" Patent
(2nd.) Draft Letters Patent altering the boundaries of the diocese of Toronto by separating therefrom the counties intended to be included in the new diocese of
• 16978.-98. 95.--2/86.
| PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
التلسا
Reference :-
TC.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDONPage 121
PUBLIC
RE
2
Ontario. This instrument should be also sealed and dated on some day previous to the date of the "Ontario" Patent.
(3rd.) Draft Letters Patent erecting the new see of "Ontario," and appointing the Rev. J. Travers Lewis first bishop thereof.
It does not appear to us that the Bishop of Toronto's resignation of the portion of "Ontario" need be accepted by Her Majesty, his his see intended to be included in consent to the alteration being all that is legally requisite.
We have endeavoured to comply with your Grace's instructions contained in Sir F. Rogers' letter of August 19th in preparing these instruments; but we must observe that we do not find in the papers any very specific “instructions" (in the sense in which the word is professionally used) for their preparation, or for carrying out the contemplated arrangement in connexion with the Canadian Colonial Church Act, 19 & 20 Vict. o. 41., and we do not find any precise description of the boundaries of the proposed see which we have taken from the deed of consent and resignation of the Bishop of Toronto, dated 6th June last.
The Queen's Advocate wrote (as suggested by your Grace) to the Rev. E. Hawkins, Secretary to the Society for the propogation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, on this subject, and was by him referred to the Rev. Dr. Gassett (Chaplain to the Bishop of Toronto), whose note in reply is appended.
We invite particular attention to the necessity of securing accuracy as to definition of the boundaries before the instruments are executed.
We would also point out the importance, when documents of this kind are to be prepared, of full information being given to the law officers of all the proceedings, Acts, and resolutions which have been passed in any provincial or diocesan synoda in Canada under the Colonial Aot above cited, by which the ecclesiastical laws and constitutions previously in force in Canada may have been altered; because it might happen that provisoes or clauses now and hereafter legal on general principles might be rendered illegal in Canada by such synodical Acts, or at all events various doubts and difficulties may arise in connexion with the subject.
Having regard to the questions which have arisen relating to certain proposed amendments in the Patent appointing a metropolitan in Canada (adverted to in Sir F. Roger's letter of the 31st October ultimo now before us), the expediency of not proceeding with the particular matter of the new see of "Ontario "until the whole question has been finally considered by Her Majesty's Government will obviously suggest itself.
We have, &c.
To the Right Hon. the Duke of Newcastle, &c.
&c.
&o.
(Signed)
J. D. HARDING.
WM. ATHERTON. ROUNDELL PALMER.
1369.
1.:
MY LORD,
No. 93.
(BRITISH GULANA.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Doctors' Commons, November 19, 1861. WB are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 5th November instant, stating that the Ordinance passed by the Legis- lature of British Guians for the extradition of criminals convicted of certain crimes who may escape from Cayenne into that Colony, which formed the subject of our report of the 22nd May last, having been confirmed by the Queen, your Lordship instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris to communicate it to the French Government, with a request that they would cause reciprocal arrangements to be made in their Colony. That your Lordship has received from his Excellency a Despatch in reply, in which he encloses a copy of a note from the French Minister for Foreign Affairs submitting for the approval of Her Majesty's Government a draft of convention between the Queen and the Emperor of the French for the mutual extradition of convicts escaping from their Colonies in Guiana,
Mr. Hammond was also pleased to transmit to us Earl Cowley's Despatch and the No. 1248. correspondence which has taken place on this subject since our report, and to request we would state to your Lordship our opinion as to the answer which should be returned to the proposal of the French Government.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken this matter into considera- tion, and have the honour to
Report
That throughout the former correspondence on this subject, the Law Officers' Reports, and the Colonial Ordinance, 18th February 1861, the passing of a similar French Colonial Ordinance, and not the negotiation of an international convention has been contemplated and provided for as the best mode of securing the common object (see section 7 of the above Ordinance) for whieb no convention appears to us to be necessary or expedient.
On the passing of a Colonial Law in French Guiana such as is contemplated by that section, the British Colonial Ordinance will at once come into operation and effect the object in view, and no convention will dispense with the necessity for such a law.
We must observe, moreover, that Article 4 of the "Projet de Convention" is not in conformity with section 2 of the Ordinance under which the conviction of a named individual can alone be proved by the production of a document (namely, a certified copy of the "Arrêt de Condamnation ").
The other requisite facts, such as the identity of the person charged before the magistrate with the person named in the “Arrêt de Condamnation," and the fact of his escape from French Guiana after conviction, must be proved by extrinsic evidence.
We would suggest that an explanatory statement to this effect should be returned to the proposal of the French Government.
The Earl Russell,
&c.
&c.
We are, &c. (Signed)
J. D. HARDING.
WM. ATHERTON. ROUNDELL PALMER.
0 16278.-188. 25.-2/86,