12218.
No. 172.
(SAINT HELENA.)
SIR,
LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
the
Royal Courts of Justice, May 28, 1898. We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 20th instant, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us accompanying confidential despatch and enclosures dated 12th April from the Governor of St. Helena, together with two letters, dated respectively the 9th and 14th April, addressed to the Colonial Office by the Bishop of St. Helena, and the Reverend Canon Barraclough, Vicar of St. Paul's Church in that Colony, with reference to a charge of immorality made against Canon Barraclough, and sundry proceedings arising therefrom, which had resulted in a conflict of jurisdiction between the Supreme Court of the Colony and the Bishop as Diocesan.
That in October, 1897, while Canon Barraclough was absent in England on leave, certain charges of immoral conduct, alleged to have occurred in October, 1895, were brought against him by Mr. Allan Duncan, one of the Churchwardens of the St. Paul's District, and his daughter. Elizabeth Duncan, the nature of which was apparent from the report of the Supreme Court proceedings in the case of Barraclough v. A. and E. Duncan, to be found among the enclosures in the Bishop's letter. That those charges having come to the knowledge of the Bishop, he wrote to Canon Barraclough advising him to resign his benefice. That Canon Barraclough thereupon immediately returned to the Colony to defend himself, and that on the 10th March, 1898, he was served with a citation to appear before the Bishop's Court on the 25th March.
That the jurisdiction of the Bishop of St. Helena in Ecclesiastical matters of discipline, in virtue of which the citation was issued, was derived from an Ordinance of the Colony (No. 2 of 1867) entitled "An Ordinance to provide for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Diocese of St. Helena," a copy of which was sent by Mr. Wingfield, together with a Report of the Queen's Advocate, by whom the Ordinance was drafted, to the Colonial Office with reference to the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Island. That the powers of a Colonial Bishop in matters of discipline were discussed in the case of the Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, L.R., 3 Eg., page 33,
That Canon Barraclough on his arrival at once took legal proceedings by way of Petition in the Supreme Court against Allan and Elizabeth Duncan for defamation of character. That he further applied ex parte to the Supreme Court for a rule nisi for a Mandamus (so-called) to stay the proceedings in the Bishop's Court upon the grounds set out in paragraph 4 of the Governor's despatch, the purport of which were (1) that the Bishop, by reason of his age and an infirmity of deafness, was unfit to adjudicate upon the case, (2) that the only legal adviser in the Island, Mr. J. Homagee, the Crown Law Officer, had been retained by the Bishop, and (3) that the Bishop and one of the Assessors were biassed.
That on reading Canon Barraclough's affidavit dated 21st March, 1898, a copy of which was among the enclosures in the Bishop's letter, the Supreme Court on the same day granted a rule nisi calling upon the Bishop to show cause why he should not be restrained from holding an Ecclesiastical Court to try Canon Barraclough, and meanwhile stayed all further proceedlings.
That on the 23rd March, after hearing the Bishop's protest, the Supreme Court made absolute the rule nisi for three months (which would expire on the 23rd June next), on the ground "that there might be a possible miscarriage of justice in the case wing to the infirmity of hearing of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop, who, in accordance with Ordinance No. 2 of 1867, is the sole judge in the Ecclesiastical Court."
That on the 28th March, the case of Barraclough v.. A. and E. Duncan came on for hearing before the Acting Chief Justice with two Assessors, and without a jury, when the Petitioner obtained a verdict with costs.
That the day before the trial (27th March) the Bishop inhibited Canon Barraclough from holding service, and from performing any ministerial duties in the Diocese pending the holding of the Inquiry in the Consistory Court; and that on the 1st April he
16895-25-6,98 W 21618 D&S 5
کیا
mimim C.O.
885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE |COPTRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
דון
C.O.
Reference :-
885
COPYRIGHT
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No. 172.
(SAINT HELENA.)
OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, May 28, 1898.
1 with your commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter g that he was directed by you to transmit to
us the spatch and enclosures dated 12th April from the Giovernor h two letters, dated respectively the 9th and 14th April, ice by the Bishop of St. Helena, and the Reverend Canon ul's Church in that Colony, with reference to a charge of on Barraclough, and sundry proceedings arising therefrom, ict of jurisdiction between the Supreme Court of the Colony while Canon Barraclough was absent in England on leave, conduct, alleged to have occurred in October, 1895, were Allan Duncan, one of the Churchwardens of the St. Paul's lizabeth Duncan, the nature of which was apparent from the proceedings in the case of Barraclough v. A. and E. Duncan, sures in the Bishop's letter. That those charges having Bishop, he wrote to Canon Barraclough advising him to anon Barraclough thereupon immediately returned to the nd that on the 10th March, 1898, he was served with a Bishop's Court on the 25th March.
f the Bishop of St. Helena in Ecclesiastical matters of the citation was issued, was derived from an Ordinance of
) entitled "An Ordinance to provide for the exercise of é Diocese of St. Helena," a copy of which was sent by Mr. eport of the Queen's Advocate, by whom the Ordinance was with reference to the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction wers of a Colonial Bishop in matters of discipline were ishop of Natal v. Gladstone, L.R.. 3 Eg., page 33.
on his arrival at once took legal proceedings by way of rt against. Allan and Elizabeth Duncan for defamation of
pplied es parte to the Supreme Court for a rule nisi for a the proceedings in the Bishop's Court upon the grounds Governor's despatch, the purport of which were (1) that age and an infirmity of deafness, was unfit to adjudicate dly legal adviser in the Island, Mr. J. Homagee, the Crown
by the Bishop, and (3) that the Bishop and one of the
Barraclough's affidavit dated 21st March, 1898; a copy of res in the Bishop's letter, the Supreme Court on the same upon the Bishop to show cause why he should not be clesiastical Court to try Canon Barraclough, and meanwhile
J
after hearing the Bishop's protest, the Supreme Court
for three months (which would expire on the 23rd June ere might be a possible miscarriage of justice in the case aring of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop, who, in No. 2 of 1867, is the sole judge in the Ecclesiastical
:
the case of Barraclough v. A. and E. Duncan came on for f Justice with two Assessors, and without a jury, when et with costs.
rial (27th March) the Bishop inhibited Canon Barraclough performing any ministerial duties in the Diocese pending
in the Consistory Court; and that on the 1st April he
5