2768.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
EPEREC.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No. 748.
(NATAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE
MY LORD,
We are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Holland's
Temple, March 14, 1872. letter of the 6th March instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to trans- mit to us the copy of a Bill passed by the Legislative Council of Natal but reserved by the Lieutenant Governor, for transferring certain lands held by the former Bishop of Cape Town and his successors to the Bishop of Natal and his successors in trust for the English Church; and also copies of the Despatch of the Lieutenant Governor transmitting that Bill and some of the enclosures thereto.
Mr. Holland also transmitted to us the copy of a letter from the Bishop of London, 1st December 1870, objecting to the Bill, which was first introduced into the Colonial Legislature, a copy of which was annexed for reference, and also the copy of a letter from the Bishop of Cape Town of December 14th, 1871, protesting against the reserved Bill.
3. That the enclosures to the Lieutenant Governor's Despatch, which, as would be Been, included the report of the Attorney General upon the Bill, the objections raised by Bishop Macrorie and other petitioners, and the report of the minutes and evidence taken before a Select Committee of the Legislative Council, contain all the information which your Lordship is able to furnish us with upon this question.
4. That, with reference to the status of the Bishop of Natal, his position in relation to the Bishop of Cape Town, and the extent of his powers and rights in Natal, it was unnecessary to do more than refer us to the cases of In Re Lord Bishop of Natal 3 Moore, P.C. (N. 1) 115, Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, L.R. 3., Eq. Cas. 1, and Bishop of Cape Town v. Bishop of Natal, L.R. 3., P.C.C. 1.
5. Mr. Holland was pleased to say that he was to request that we would take the papers into consideration and favour your Lordship with our opinion--
1st. Whether the property dealt with by the 1st section of this reserved Bill is vested in the Bishop of Natal, and whether he can legally enter upon the duties of trustee of the said property as successor of the former Bishop of Cape Town.
2. Whether this Bill may properly receive Her Majesty's sanction.
3. Whether if this law is not such as, in our opinion, should receive that sanction, the
Bill proposed in lieu thereof (Appendix B. to Bishop Macrorie's letter) might, with or without any modifications, be properly recommended to the Colonial Legislature for adoption.
4. If neither the reserved Bill nor the alternative one proposed by Bishop Macrorie, meet with the requirements of the case what form of Ordinance might be recommended to the Colonial Legislature.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we consideration and have the honour to
Report
have taken the papers into
That the status of the Church of England in the Colony of Natal is not now the same as it was when the property dealt with in the first section of the Bill submitted to us was originally vested in the Bishop of Cape Town.
Nor is the Bishop of Natal in the sense in which the Bill assumes him to be the successor of the Bishop of Cape Town. In advising your Lordship we do not at all take into consideration the opinions, whether right or wrong, of the Bishop of Natal. But as a matter of fact the religious body to which he belongs, and which is now a volun- tary body, is divided in opinion as to his position, and we think, therefore, that the Bishop of Natal cannot without legislative interference enter upon the duties of trustee of the property as successor to the former Bishop of Cape Town.
2 and 3. In our opinion it follows that it would be unjust and inexpedient to interfere by Act of State to alter the status quo of parties in this religious body.
0 16278.--891.
25.-5/86.