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
it was apprehended that that power was confined to the then existing dioceses of Jamaica and Barbados and the Leeward Islands, and, moreover, could only be exercised for the purpose of creating fresh dioceses out of the existing dioceses, and that the power given to the Crown under that Act would not enable Her Majesty to deal with the Letters Patent issued under that Act, by which the respective dioceses of Jamaica, Barbados, Antigua, British Guiana, and Nassau were established, unless, perhaps, it were exercised for the purpose of creating new dioceses out of those established under the Act.
9. Mr. Holland further stated that he was to request that we would take this case into consideration and favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the following questions:-
1. Whether, looking to the possibility of inconveniences and doubts arising from the continuance of Letters Patent, even though not acted upon, it is desirable that such Letters Patent should be revoked in cases where it is not intended to fill up vacant, dioceses by the appointment of a fresh bishop by Letters Patent?
2. Whether, in the case of Crown Colonies, where Letters Patent establishing a diocese have been issued by the authority of the Crown alone without the inter- vention of Parliament, such Letters Patent can be revoked by an Order in Council or Letters Patent, or whether Imperial legislation would be necessary to effect such revocation?
3. Whether, in the case of constitutionally governed Colonies, Letters Patent issued under authority of an Act of Parliament can be revoked without the aid of Parliament ?
4. Whether, in the case of such Colonies, Letters Patent issued by authority of the Crown alone, but subsequently recognised by local legislation, can be revoked without the authority of Parliament?
5. Whether, if it should be found desirable, power can be given to Her Majesty to repeal part of such Letters Patent, so as to limit or alter, without putting an end to, an existing diocese; whether, for example, in the case of the diocese of Barbados, constituted under 5 Vict. sec. 2, cap. 4, and comprising the islands of Barbados, Trinidad, Grenada, Tobago, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia, power can be given to Her Majesty to repeal the Letters Patent so far as regards Trinidad or Grenada, keeping alive the Letters Patent in respect to the other islands?
6. Whether, if the authority of Parliament be required, the Draft Bill which Mr. Holland annexed for our consideration will be sufficient, or whether any, and if any, what modifications should be made in such Draft?
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report
That the questions possible to arise upon the Patents and position of Colonial bishops are by no means all exhausted by the judgments already pronounced in the Judicial Committee, nor are those judgments themselves, written as they were by different persons and expressing the minds of different sets of judges, easy to be reconciled in spirit, or even in letter. The question, therefore, of the repeal of the Letters Patent granted at various times and under various states of legal circum- stances to various Colonial bishops is one peculiarly fitted to be dealt with by an Act of Parliament. We entertain no doubt of the propriety of the course contemplated by your Lordship, and we are of opinion that the Draft Bill sent to us with Mr. Hol- land's letter is drawn in terms which will effect its object.
It might, perhaps, be unnecessary to say more in answer to Mr. Holland's letter, but as your Lordship may desire to have the questions therein put to us specifically answered, we answer them as follows:-
1. We think it is desirable.
2. We think such Letters Patent as are indicated in this question could be revoked by the authority of the Crown alone, either by way of Letters Patent or of Order in Council; but we think that, though Imperial legislation would not be necessary to effect such revocation, it would be far better if there is to be an Act of Parliament to proceed under the authority of the Act.
3. The answer to this question must depend upon the particular terms of the Act. but, speaking generally, we think they cannot.
3
4. The answer to this question must also depend to some extent on the constitution of the particular Colony, but, as a general rule, we think they can.
5. We think such powers can be given.
6. We have already answered this question in our preliminary remarks.
We have, &c. (Signed) J. D. COLERIDGE.
G. JESSEL.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,
&c.
&c.
&c.
1