8539.
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
wwwimmim.C.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No. 527.
(BARBADOS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD Duke,
Temple, August 7, 1868. We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 30th June 1868, stating that he was directed by your Grace to inform us that owing to the great age and impaired health of the Bishop of Barbados, it is pro- posed to appoint a Suffragan Bishop, who is to receive under a private arrangement made by the Bishop of Barbados a part of the salary of 2,500l. which the Bishop of Barbados now receives by virtue of Letters Patent of the 21st August 1842 made under the Imperial Act of 5 Vict. c. 4.
Sir Frederic Rogers was desired to transmit to us Draft Letters Patent for appoint- ing the Venerable H. H. Parry, Archdeacon of Barbados, to be a suffragan bishop under the title of Bishop of Bridgtown, and to say that these Letters Patent are substantially the same as Letters Patent in 1856 creating the present Bishop of Kingston coadjutor to the present Bishop of Jamaica.
That it will be observed that neither those Letters Patent nor the draft now sub- mitted assume to be issued in virtue of the powers vested in Her Majesty by the Imperial Act of 5 Vict. c. 4., and it is therefore to be presumed that they were issued in virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative.
That as, however, when those Letters Patent were issued it was supposed that the Crown had a power of erecting bishoprics by prerogative in Colonies having represen- tative institutions, which is denied by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of the Bishop of Natal, it seems doubtful whether the precedent of Kingston can now be safely followed, and whether as all that can be done is to give a license to consecrate, the proper course would not be now to advise Her Majesty (as has been recently done in several cases) to issue a mandate under Her Sign Manual and Signet authorising the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate.
Sir Frederic Rogers was further pleased to state that he was directed to transmit to us a Draft Mandate for this purpose, and to request that we would favour your Grace with our opinion,
1. Whether the proper course is to proceed by Letters Patent or Mandate.
2. Whether the enclosed Draft Letters Patent or Mandate, as the case may be, are
legally sufficient to carry out the desired purpose.
In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have taken this matter into our con- sideration, and have the honour to
Report
That we think that in this case Her Majesty might issue a Mandate or Warrant to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate the Archdeacon of Barbados a bishop, and that the reasons and object of his consecration may be properly recited in the preamble of the warrant. We do not, however, consider that the enclosed draft warrant would, in its present form, be appropriate for the purpose, for we consider that the appointment of the bishop to assist the Bishop of Barbados in the discharge of his episcopal duties should be by way of commission from the bishop himself, and not from the Crown.
the
We have on a previous occasion stated to your Grace our opinion that Her Majesty ought not to command the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate a bishop without
In the present a see by a title which might be assumed to be that of a see. title suggested happens to be that of the city which the Crown by Letters Patent has already appointed to be the see of the Bishop of Barbados, and in which the church of St. Michael has been constituted his cathedral.
We think that there should be no Letters Patent, and that Her Majesty has no power to assign any portion of the emoluments of the see to the assistant bishop, and that no mention of this arrangement need be made. We have altered the Draft Man- date or Warrant so as to adapt it for the purpose required. We would remark that
o 16278-402. 235/86.