Murdoch to Elliot (Assistant Under-Secretary)

I have to acknowledge your letter of 7th inst enclosing two letters
from the Hudson's Bay Co on the subject of the appropriation to
Ecclesiastical purposes connected with the Church of England of
a certain portion of the Land in the Town of Victoria which the
Company claim as their private property.

2. It appears that in 1854 the Hudsons Bay Co made an Agreement with
Mr E. Cridge to proceed to Vancouvers Island as Chaplain and one
part of the inducement held out to him was the grant of a Parsonage
and Glebe. At the same time the Company undertook the erection of a
Church and the Establishment of a Cemetery. The Land appropriated to
these several purposes appears to be known as the "Church Reserve".

3. Mr Cridge's engagement with the Company was for 5 years, and
expired, therefore, in 1859—and the Local Legislature have declined
to renew the salary granted to him by the Company. He now applies to
the Company to carry out their original intention by granting a
conveyance of the Land on which the Church is built and the Cemetery
established, that they may be consecrated—and of that set apart for
his parsonage and glebe, that he may be able to derive some income
from letting the latter. The Company express their willingness to
comply with this application but desire before doing so to obtain the
sanction of H.M. Government. And in submitting the question to the
Duke of Newcastle Mr Berens points out the difficulty which might be
created by conveying to the Church of England exclusively the
cemetery which has hitherto been used indifferently by all
Communities of Christians.

4. In respect to the site on which the Church has been built there could
I think be no question of the propriety of granting a formal
conveyance of it to Trustees so as to allow of its being properly
consecrated. Such a grant ought to create no jealousy in other
religious denominations, as the Government would of course be equally
ready to grant Land for the erection of their places of worship also,
whenever applied to for the purpose. As regards the Cemetery on the
other hand it would certainly be unadvisable to make such a
conveyance of it as would imply its exclusive appropriation to the
Church of England. It ought of course to be set apart in perpetuity
for the purpose to which it is now devoted and with that view it
should be conveyed to Trustees. But those Trustees should not be, as
in the case of the Church Site, exclusively connected with the Church
of England, nor should anything be done which would have the
appearance of excluding persons of other communities from the use of
it. Whether under such an arrangement the Bishop might be expected
to consecrate the ground, or that portion of it set apart for Members
of the Church of England, I am not sufficiently acquainted with such
matters to know. The interment of persons of different Churches and
with different rites in the same Cemeteries in this country is not
uncommon. Upon this point, however, the Duke of Newcastle will
probably think it desirable to consult some Eccliastical

authority.

5. The question in respect to the Parsonage and Glebe is more open
to doubt. If it were now raised for the first time it would perhaps
be inexpedient to take any step which would have the appearance of
granting an endowment to the Church of England which is not granted
to other Churches, or of connecting the Government of the Colony with
any particular Community. But as the Land had been originally set
aside by the Company for the Church of England, and as Mr Cridge had
been induced to go out partly on the promise of obtaining the
advantage of it, I should not hesitate under ordinary circum=circumstances=stancescircumstances
to recommend that Her Majesty's Government should authorize the
Company to carry into effect their original intention in the matter.
But I observe that in his despatch of 7th May last No 34 Governor Douglas advises Her Majesty's Government "not to move in the question
at present, because their interference could not forward the object
in view and would give rise to dissatisfaction whatever course may be
taken." In the face of this decided opposition from the person most
capable of forming a correct judgment it would not be advisable to
take any immediate action in the matter, and I can only, therefore,
suggest that the letter from the Governor of the Hudsons Bay Co
should be communicated to Governor Douglas, with a request that he
will report more fully on the question. It would perhaps assist the
Governor in framing his report if he were informed generally of the
view which may be taken by the Duke of Newcastle, and of the points
to which consequently His Grace would desire to direct his special
attention.

6. The question of the Trustees to whom the several plots of Land
should respectively be conveyed may properly be left for the decision
of the Governor in consultation with the Bishop—but of course in
whatever is done care should be taken not to prejudice the legal
title of the Crown to the Land in question, as part of the Land now
in dispute between the Crown and the Hudsons Bay Company.