No. 16

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 and 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 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 remark 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 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 (with 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 time 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 the
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 copy 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 the 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 performed 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
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 to 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) 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 sufficient
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 and
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) 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 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 irremoveable 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 the
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 I 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 any 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 thus 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" in 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 be 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 Dickson 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.