2
confirmed this inhibition by letter. That copies of the
and letter formed inhibition
part
bias, even Court in 1 it; and, s matters w
•
of the enclosures in Canon Barraclough's letter.
That the Bishop, as would be seen, challenged the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to prohibit him from trying Canon Barraclough, on the ground that his Consistory Court was not "an Inferior Court of Justice" within the meaning of Article 17 of the Order in Council of 13th February, 1839, by which the Supreme Court of St. Helena was constituted. That in this contention he was supported by Mr. Homagee, the Crown Law Officer. That the Bishop had, however, meanwhile obeyed the prohibition of the Supreme Court, while protesting against it.
That the Governor contended that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction as an Ecclesiastical Court for all purposes under Article 20 of the Order in Council of 13th February, 1839. That he further apparently contended that the verdict in the civil action of Barraclough v. A. and E. Duncan bound the Bishop and precluded from trying Canon Barraclough in the Consistory Court on a charge founded on the alleged misconduct which was the subject of the libel on which the civil action was founded.
That extracts from the Letters Patent of 1859, constituting the Bishopric of St. Helena, and from the Letters Patent of 1862, appointing the present occupant of the See, accompanied Mr. Wingfield's letter. That it would be observed that the former contained a clause reserving to the Courts any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction given them by
Charter.
That Ordinance 3 of 1895 provided (S. 23) that, subject to all local Ordinances and Orders in Council in force for the time being, so much of the Law of England for the time being as was applicable to local circumstances was and should be in force in the Island so far as it was suitable and appropriate and subject to such qualifications as local circumstances rendered necessary,
papers
That Mr. Wingfield was to request us to take these into our consideration and to favour you with our opinion on the following points :-
*-
1. Whether the Supreme Court of the Colony has power by prohibition, or mandamus or otherwise to prevent the Bishop from proceeding with his citation under the Ordinance, and if so, whether the ground on which the prohibition has been issued is sufficient.
2. Whether the Bishop has power to enforce his decision or must apply to the Supreme Court to enforce it, and if so, would that Court have jurisdiction to enquire into the case, and decline to enforce the decision if it considered it to be erroneous in point of law or fact.
▼
3. Whether the Supreme Court of St. Helena is an Ecclesiastical Court having jurisdiction in matters of discipline, or whether its jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters is confined to Probate only.
4. Whether the Supreme Court of St. Helena can compel the Bishop to permit Mr. Barraclough to resume his duties, and if so, by what procedure.
5. Whether the Bishop in trying Mr. Barraclough would be bound to accept the verdict of the Supreme Court in the Civil action,
6. And, generally:
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands. have the honour to
Report
1. That the Supreme Court of the Colony would have power to restrain the Bishop by prohibition if he affected to exercise jurisdiction not competent to him. The Supreme Court would also have power to issue a Mandamus to the Bishop to hear a case. But the Supreme Court has no power to interfere either by prohibition or Mandamus or otherwise with the procedure of the Bishop in matters which are within his jurisdiction,
It is clearly within his jurisdiction to hear and determine a charge of immoral conduct preferred against a clergyman in his diocese, and the grounds on which the so-called Mandanus was granted seem to us to be frivolous. There is no allegation that the Bishop was attempting to exceed his jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to enquire as to the age or state of hearing of a Judge of a Court which within its own sphere is quite independent of the Civil Courts, The fact that Mr. Barraclough had difficulty in obtaining legal advice in the Island is no ground for a prohibition.
It is not suggested that the Bishop or either of the Assessors had any interest in the result of the case which disqualified them from acting; and the suggestion of
2. Th consequenc necessary
a sentence for instanc from enter to give its Subject to within its Court to c and seal.
3. Th purpose of
with regar
4. Na 5. Th
verdict of would be form his o
6. Ge.
The Right
2