2
Mr. Green from the office of Colonial Chaplain if otherwise qualified to perform that office, because of any quarrel between him and the bishop. Her Majesty's Government is not called upon to mix itself up with the internal contentions of any religious denomination in the Colony of Natal. We do not understand that the civil court of the Colony has sustained the bishop on that part of his sentence against Mr. Green, which would have made him incapable of performing the duties of a clergyman. Ou the contrary, they have expressly refused to do so, and have confined themselves to excluding him from three particular churches and from the deanery.
2nd. We do not concur in the assumption on which this question is framed, but if we did, we think the present exceedingly anomalous condition of affairs furnishes strong grounds for inaction on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The Privy Council and the Master of the Rolls apparently, and to some extent really, conflict in their judgments, the Privy Council and the civil court in the Colony certainly conflict directly; and we think the Government in this state of things may well decline to pronounce an opinion (as by acting in the manner suggested they practically would) on the disputed and difficult questions raised by the proceedings of the Bishop of Natal and the Bishop of Cape Town.
The Right Hon. Earl Granville, K.G.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c. (Signed)
R. P. COLLIER.
J. D. COLERIDGE,
I concur in the above opinion, that Her Majesty's Government is not bound to dismiss Mr. Green from his office of Colonial Chaplain, and that it is not advisable under the apparent conflict of judicial authority, for Her Majesty's Government to take any steps for his removal from that office.
I have, &c. (Signed) TRAVERS TWISS.
6530.
No. 570.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Temple, June 10, 1869. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 7th June instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us copies of a Despatch of the 12th April from the Governor of the Straits Settlements, and of local Ordinance, No. 11 of 1868, which is referred to in that Despatch, and to request that we would take the same into consideration and favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the following questions which are raised upon that Despatch. First, whether in case the Chief Justice names in any sentence a place of confinement the effect is to render the sentence incorrect and bad, especially if the place of confinement named is one which could not legally be used, or whether the naming a place of confinement may be treated as mere surplusage? And secondly, whether if a place of confinement is mentioned in the sentence other than that appointed by the Governor under the powers vested in him by Ordinance No. 11 the Governor may notwithstanding legally direct the sentence to be carried out in a prison appointed by him under that Ordinance.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the matter into considera- tion, and have the honour to
Report
That a sentence would be good which names no place of confinement, or which names a place of confinement which could be legally used but in our opinion the sentences of the Chief Justice in which he names a place of confinement which could not be legally used are incorrect and bad. We think that the place of confinement mentioned in the sentences cannot be treated as mere surplusage. The sentence is entire, and the intention and effect of the sentence may be altogether different according to the places mentioned as the places where it is to be undergone.
2. We think that the Governor cannot legally order the sentence to be undergone in a place other than that mentioned in the sentence itself. The sentence as we have pointed out above would not justify this, and it might be a ground for the release of the prisoner. We observe in the interpretation clause of the Ordinance that prison shall mean gaol, house of correction, &c. in this Ordinance, but if this was present to the mind of the Chief Justice (which is mere conjecture) it could not at all justify what he has done, for there is no provision that gaol shall mean house of correction, and the enactment is confined to words in the Ordinance itself, and could not extend to a sentence.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
R. P. COLLIER.
The
Right
&c.
Hon. the Earl Granville, K.G.
&c.
&c.
16278.-794.
25.-5/66.
J. D. COLERIDGE.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
mmmmmm.C.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO