PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
기자의 이익
mmimmimC.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
2
within the Spanish fiscal zone, which from the evidence in other cases appears to It is not stated in the extend to a distance of six miles from the Spanish coast. depositions at what time the "Fanny" was boarded for the third time, but it is stated that, after the third visit of the revenue boat, she returned to Gibraltar and anchored there at 7.30 p.m. There would thus be altogether an interval of eight hours and a half, during which, although the "Fanny" had a fair wind for Oran, she was at no time further distant from Europa Point or Gibraltar than four miles.
After the third visit the revenue boat is stated to have steered for Ceuta with oars and sail. Nevertheless, the captain states that he returned to Gibraltar after rather a formal leave taking on the part of the officer of the revenue boat "fearing that he should be captured.”
on shore.
His Excellency the Governor of Algeciras, in his letter to his Excellency the Governor of Gibraltar, states that the crew of the schooner, the whole of them being Spaniards as well as the captain, are known by the Spanish revenue authorities to be engaged in the smuggling trade, and that it is imputed to them that, although they were provided with papers for Oran, their real intention was to land their cargo on the Spanish coast, or to tranship it into small boats to be smuggled
Fanny continuing to hover off I cannot but think that the circumstance of the “ the Spanish coast, after the officer of the Spanish revenue boat had visited her, not merely once, but a second time, remains without any sufficient explanation, and that his Grace the Duke of Buckingham may properly direct the attention of his Excellency the Governor of Gibraltar to the silence of the master and crew upon this subject as well as to the conflict between the evidence of the master and mate, and to the unsatisfactory reasons alleged for the vessel not proceeding on her course to Oran after the officer of the revenue boat had finally taken leave of her on seeing the English steamer.
The Right Hon. Lord Stanley, M.P. &c.
&c.
&c.
I have, &c.
(Signed) TRAVERS TWISS.
9142.
No. 529.
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
J
t, -
J
Temple, August (20), 1868.
MY LORD DUKE,
We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 11th instant, stating that he was directed by your Grace to acknowledge the receipt of the Report of the 3rd instant, addressed to your Grace by us relating to the question of the proposed mandate for the consecration of a bishop in South
Africa.
;"
Sir Frederic. Rogers was further pleased to state that, your Grace directed him to point out that the question placed before us by your direction in his letter of the 14th July on this question was, in fact, divisible into two, which it might be convenient to put more specifically: 1. Whether, in the absence of any special Colonial Legisla- tion there is any legal method by which the bishop of a legally constituted Colonial diocese can prevent any other person consecrated as bishop (or indeed any person whatever, whether so consecrated or not) from entering his diocese and exercising there the functions and authority of an anglican bishop in respect to such persons as choose to accept those functions and authority, e.g., whether (assuming the absence of Colonial legislation) the Bishop of Colombo can by any legal process prevent the Bishop, or any person calling himself Bishop of St. Helena or Galle, from entering Ceylon and pro- ceeding to ordain, to confirm, and consecrate places of worship, and appoint ministers to them, and to exercise episcopal jurisdiction over all those clergy and laity who choose to submit to him, whether those persons choose or whether they do not choose to call themselves members of the Church of England?
The second question is, what is the state of the law in the above respects in a reputed" diocese like that of Adelaide or Grafton, and Armadale, which stands purely on the consent of the persons composing it without any legal constitution?
Sir Frederic Rogers was further pleased to state that the latter question is alone answered in our report of 3rd August, but the former is the question to which your Grace is most desirous to obtain an answer, as he considers that Her Majesty's Govern- ment are bound for the present to treat the diocese of Natal (in respect of which the supposed intrusion is contemplated) as a legally constituted diocese, and not merely a reputed one.
That although in Natal the English Church is not established, but is like other denominations a voluntary religious body, on the same footing as other denominations, except that the Crown has assigned to it a bishop; and although the law of that Colony is founded on that of Holland, your Grace does not feel at liberty to infer, without advice of the Law Officers, that a bishop legally constituted by the Crown in that Colony for the performance of episcopal functions in connexion with the Church of England has no legal process open to him by which he can prevent any intruding bishop professing communion with the Church of England from assuming to exercise within the limits of his diocese episcopal functions and authorities over those who choose to adhere to him.
In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have taken this matter into our con- sideration, and have the honour to
Report
That, assuming that the diocese of Natal is to be treated as the legally constituted diocese of the Bishop of Natal, and assuming that no special legislation of the Colony exists applicable to the case, we cannot advise your Grace that a bishop legally constituted by the Crown in Natal has any legal process open to him by which he can prevent any intruding bishop professing communion with the Church of England from assuming to exercise within the limits of his diocese episcopal functions authority over those who choose to adhere to him.
As regards the Bishop of Natal himself, it appears to us clear that he has no court in which he could compel an intruding bishop to appear, and no coercive jurisdiction by which he could punish him for exercising such episcopal functions within the diocese.
16278.--359.
95.-.5/86.
No. 523.