PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
TH
Reference :-
C.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
2
12th. That it was contended on behalf of the fund and of the Church that the Govern- ment was bound in equity, if not in law, to pay up the balances due to the fund and not recoverable from incumbents, without depriving the Church of property which, in so far as it was otherwise paid for, would have been paid for out of the incomes of the clergy. It was also contended that conveyance of the parsonages to Government could not be required as a condition of Government paying up the balances due to the fund, inasmuch as the parsonages were not mortgaged to the fund, whose security was the stipends.
13th. That the value of the property which could possibly come in dispute does not appear to be great, but the bishop stated that the advantage of possessing it was not to be measured by its pecuniary value.
14th. That it would appear from the bishop's letter that titles to parsonages for the purchase of which advances had been made from the Island Curates Fund under 11 Vict. cap. 16. had not been taken as required by section 4 of that Act. But adverting to the amounts of the advances, there appeared to be only four ouracies, viz., St. Faith's, St. Peter's, Clarendon, and Highgate, which had certainly received advances under sections 4 and 7. The advances made to the other curacies might, for anything that was shown to the contrary, have been made under section 8, and in respect of advances under section 8, there was no requirement as to titles, unless (which does not seem reasonable) it was held to be implied in section 9.
15th. That he was to request that we would report-
1. What in our opinion would be the obligations of the Government of Jamaica to the Island Curates Fund in respect of these advances if Law No. 21 of 1869 had not been passed.
2. Whether Law No. 21 of 1869 is sufficient for the purposes for which it was
enacted?
3. Whether in our opinion Law 21 of 1869 is an equitable proceeding on the part
of the Government and Legislature of Jamaica ?
In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have taken the questions submitted to us into our consideration, and have the honour to
Report
1. That in answering this question we assume that the stipends to the island curates have ceased and determined upon the expiration of the Jamaica Clergy Act (22 Vict. cap. 23.), under which they were payable. On this assumption there will be no stipends out of which the Receiver General can from time to time retain, pursuant to 11 Vict. cap. 16. s. 5, the instalments of any debt still due to the Island Curates Fund, and carry them to the account of that fund. Under these circumstances, we think there could be no legal obligation on the Jamaica Government, in the absence of Law No. 21 of 1869, to reimburse the undischarged debt.
2. That we do not think that the Law No. 21 of 1869 is sufficient for the purposes for which it was enacted, if those purposes were to secure the discharge of the outstanding debt in each case, as it will be optional for the trustees of the Island Curates Fund to move in the matter, and they will have no power, however much they may be so disposed, to constrain the trustees of the curates' houses to convey the premises for the public
use.
3. That we do not consider the Law No. 21 to be an equitable arrangement, as it provides, as a condition of the reimbursement of the debt due to the Island Curates Fund, that the trustees of the curates' houses shall convey to the Colonial Secretary for the public use property the value of which will in each case exceed the outstanding amount of the debt.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
R. P. COLLIER.
J. D. COLERIDGE. TRAVERS TWISS.
8201.
No. 654.
(GENERAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Temple, July 28, 1870. We are honoured by your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 27th instant, stating that he was directed to transmit to us the accompany. ing letter from the Privy Council Office, and its enclosures from the Board of Trade and Trinity House on the subject of the employment of pilots by the ships of war of either of the belligerents, and that he was to request that we would take these papers into our immediate consideration, and favour your Lordship with our opinion as to the propriety of the reply of the Board of Trade to the Trinity House communication, and also of the circular referred to in Mr. Farrer's letter.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the papers into our consideration, and have the honour to
Report
That the Trinity House have sanctioned, subject to the opinion of the Board of Trade, the employment of pilots in "English waters," which we understand to mean "British waters." The reply of the Board of Trade authorises their employment in "neutral waters," an expression which would apply to all waters other than French or Prussian, and would include (among others) Danish waters. We are clearly of opinion that the sanction should be confined to "British waters," and that in the strict sense of English ports and sea within three miles of the shore, not in the wider sense in which the term is sometimes used. But having reference to the Foreign Enlistment Act now before Parliament, and which may be passed in a few days, we think that no sanction can be safely given to pilots to do more than to navigate French vessels in or out of British ports or roadsteads when they are not at the time engaged in any hostile operations. We use the qualification "hostile" to exclude the case of a French ship of war being navigated into a British port in order to lie in wait for Prussian merchantmen, or out of a British port to capture them, or such use as French ships might make of our waters at Heligoland. We think it at the least questionable whether a pilot who enables a French ship of war to shorten her way to the Baltic by passing through our roadsteads instead of going by the open sea does not contravene the provisions of the 2nd section of the Foreign Enlistment Act. think it clear that he does contravene the provisions of the new Foreign Enlistment Bill as it is now drafted.
We have, &c. (Signed)
I
R. P. COLLIER. J. D. COLERIDGE.
We
agree with the Attorney General and Solicitor General in their opinion that the sanction should be confined to "British waters." I am not sufficiently informed as to the Foreign Enlistment Bill before Parliament to form an opinion whether, if it becomes law, the sanction must be further limited as suggested by them.
Earl Granville,
&c.
&c.
(Signed) TRAVERS TWISS.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,
&c.
&c.
&c.
0 16276.-150.
25.--5/86.
1