PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
Furthermore, we think it highly improbable that (assuming as before no special legislation exists in the Colony) the law of the Colony would provide any remedy against or take notice of the acts of the intruding bishop, so long, at all events, as no rights of property over which the Bishop of Natal has control are interfered with.
It is, however, obvious that without a larger knowledge of the law of the Colony than we pretend to possess we cannot give your Grace certain or safe advice on this question.
We think it right to add that the case referred to of the Bishop of Colombo cannot safely be relied upon as forming a precedent regulating the status or rights of the Bishop of Natal. The patent of the Bishop of Colombo differs widely from that of the Bishop of Natal, and the law of Ceylon differe from that of Natal. But we may state that, as far as we know, the law of Ceylon would not be effectual to prevent a Bishop, or a person calling himself a Bishop, of St. Helena, from entering Ceylon and performing episcopal functions within the diocese of the Bishop of Colombo over persons choosing to submit to his jurisdiction, whether such persons did or did not call themselves members of the Church of England.
We have, &c. (Signed)
His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.
&c.
&c.
&c.
JOHN B. KARSLAKE. WM. BALIOL BRETT. TRAVERS TWISS.
9208.
No. 530.
(GIBRALTAR.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD DUKE,
Temple, August 21, 1868. We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 17th July ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Grace to transmit
1888.
to us copies of a Despatch, with its enclosures, from the Governor of Gibraltar on the No. 93, subject of an information which had been exhibited before one of Her Majesty's 22 June justices of the peace in that garrison, and a summons issued thereupon charging an individual with having committed perjury in an examination taken under a commission from the Court of Common Pleas under the Act 1 Will. 4. c. 22.
That your Grace requested that we would favour you with our opinion whether, looking to the words at the end of section 7 of the Imperial Act, a witness who has been examined at Gibraltar under a commission as stated above, and who has com- mitted perjury, can be tried at Gibraltar, and whether supposing no such trial can take place it would be advisable to submit to Parliament the enclosed draft of a Bill to provide for such trials in Her Majesty's dominions out of England as prepared by the Attorney General of Gibraltar.
In obedience to your Grace's commands we have the honour to
Report
That it appears to us that a witness examined at Gibraltar under a commission issued by virtue of 1 Will. 4. c. 22. cannot properly be tried at Gibraltar for perjury alleged to have been committed in the course of such examination.
We think that there would be considerable difficulty in conducting trials for perjury alleged to have been committed on such examinations under the Bill proposed by the Attorney General of Gibraltar, in consequence of technical rules applicable to such trials, and we think, on the whole, that it would not be expedient to introduce such & Bill.
We have, &c. (Signed) JOHN B. KARSLAKE. WM. BALIOL BRETT.
His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.
• 16978-620. 95.-5/86.
H