2
Report
That we are not sufficiently acquainted with the whole body of Colonial Legislature to be able to say whether there is any precedent for such extensive privileges being granted to members of a Legislature as those proposed to be conferred by this Act. No such precedent has, however, come to our knowledge, and Imperial legislation does not furnish any such precedent.
2. The preamble of the Act states the grounds upon which it was deemed to be necessary, and, no doubt, much inconvenience, both personal and public, might be occasioned by compelling members to be absent from Parliament when it is sitting, or when it is about to sit, in order to attend courts at a great distance from the place at which Parliament assembles.
The privileges granted to members are, no doubt, very extensive, but it is, we think, impossible to say that some such privileges, or some analogous privileges, are not necessary and proper.
1
We think, however, that unless some cogent reason can be alleged for continuing the Act in its present form, the fifth section might be amended by empowering the court or judge on any such application as there mentioned to make the requisite order for discharging for the time to be mentioned in the order the member or officer from attendance, &c. if it shall appear to the court or judge that such order may be made without defeating or injuriously delaying publio justice or the administration of justice between individuals, and empowering the court or judge in such order to fix a time not exceeding the expiration of 10 days from the termination of the session during which the member or officer shall be discharged from such attendance.
A knowledge of the distances of the courts from the seat of Government and of the means of transit appears necessary to enable any more definite opinion to be expressed upon the subject.
Corresponding alterations might be made in the tenth section.
3. We have no doubt that the exercise of such privileges, even without the limits above suggested, might injuriously affect the rights of creditors in certain cases.
4. And that their exercise might also injuriously affect the rights of prisoners and But the risk of such injury would depend in a con- prosecutors in criminal cases. siderable degree on the usual length of the sessions.
We have, &c. (Signed)
JOHN ROLT.
His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.
JOHN B. KARSLAKE.
6498.
No. 467.
(GENERAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Lincoln's Inn, June 5, 1867. Mr LORD DUKE,
We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 31st ultimo, stating that he was desired to enclose the draft of a Bill which your Grace proposes to bring before Parliament; and further stating that the necessity of some measure of that kind had arisen, as we were aware, from the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of the Bishop of Natal, affecting, as that decision did, a large number of Colonial dioceses, and from the doubts created by that decision as to what becomes of money hitherto supposed to be payable (and, in fact, accordingly paid) to such Colonial bishops in that capacity, and of funds held in trust by them in that capacity, and of payments of money authorised by them in that capacity; and further stating that the proposed Bill was framed upon the assumption that the Colonial Episcopate would be left on the voluntary basis on which the judgment had now placed it, and that the object of it was twofold. First, to confirm existing dioceses in their present rights of property by validating all acts and engagements of the Colonial bishops in respect of such property; and, secondly, to provide for the future disposal of all property in which the Colonial bishops had any legal or equitable interests in their episcopal character, after the death, resignation, or removal of such bishops.
Sir Frederic also stated that he was desired to request that we would report to your Grace whether, in our opinion, the draft clauses are sufficient to effect the desired object as above pointed out, and that we would suggest any additions or amendments which, in our judgment, might seem requisite or desirable.
In obedience to your Grace's commands we have the honour to
Report
That we think the provisions of the Bill are right and proper for the purposes stated in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 31st ultimo.
We have, however, made some slight alterations, which we think might be usefully introduced.
The Act as drawn will include in its terms property, however specifically appro- priated and devoted by individuals or otherwise, for the benefit of any Colonial bishop, and we presume it is not desired to have any exception of any such property from the operation of the Bill. It may be assumed that the consents required by Clause II., controlled by the Crown, will be a sufficient guarantee against anything like en improper diversion of any such trust fund.
We have, &c. (Signed) JOHN ROLT.
J. B. KARSLAKE. R. PHILLIMORE.
His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos,
&c.
&c.
&c.
16278.-149.
95.-5/86.
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
LIIK
C.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NÖT TO |
}