20389.
No. 189.
(ST. HELENA.)
•
*
LONDON: PRINTED FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE BY DARLING & SON, LTD., 1-3, GREAT ST. THOMAS APOSTLE. E.C.
1897
SIR,
LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, 9th September, 1898.
We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. F. Graham's letter of the 31st ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to forward to us two further despatches from the Governor of St. Helena, dated July 9th and 11th respectively, giving particulars of an unfortunate development of the controversy between himself. as Chief Justice of the Island, and the Bishop of the Diocese, as to which our opinion had already been sought.
That the purport of our opinion* was formally communicated to the Governor by despatch dated the 7th June; and that, prior to that date, on 1st June, he was informel by telegraph that we had advised that the Supreme Court of the Colony had no power to interfere with the Bishop's exercise of his own jurisdiction.
That the telegram--which had to be forwarded by mail from Cape Town, arrived in St. Helena on the 16th June, but that the despatch was not received by the Governor until several days afterwards.
That before the telegram rewhed the Island it appeared that the Bishop had determined to drop the proceedings he had proposed to take against Canon Barraclough in regard to the charge of immorality referred to in the case previously submitted to us, but to deprive him of his benefice on the ground that he was incapable of holding it under the provisions of section 1. subsection 1 (e), of the Clergy Discipline Act. 1892, as having been found in a divorce or matrimonial cause to have committed adultery.
That the Bishop informed the Governor of his intention, and discussed the matter with Mr. Homager, the Crown Prosecutor, who was acting as his legal adviser, but that they both advised him that he could not proceed under the Clergy Discipline Act in the way he proposel. That he did not, however, follow their advice, and cited Canon Barraclough to appear before his Consistory Court within 21 days to receive sentence of deprivation. That to that Canon Barraclough replied by applying again to the Supreme Court for a prohibition, and the Chief Justice granted a fresh Rule nisi. the hearing of which was fixed, after friendly consultation with the Bishop, for June 22nd. That, on the arrival of the telegram from the Secretary of State. the Governor somewhat indiscreetly, as he himself admits, communicated its contents both to the Bishop and to Canon Barraclough. That in his letter to the former, dated 17th June. he said, I have informed/Canon Barraclough that the proceedings in the Rule nisi ' are stopped and his case rests in your Lordship's hands for the present.”
That the Bishop did not reply to the Governor's letter, but, not unnaturally. assumed that he was at liberty to act against Canon Barraclough, and at once cited that gentleman to appear before him to receive sentence of deprivation without trial, That Canon Barraclough appealed against any action being taken before the Rule nisi was discharged in Court, and that on the 18th June the Governor wrote again to the Bishop deprecating the course he proposed to pursue, on the ground that the despatel Containing our report had not arrived, and that until it did the Rule could not be formally discharged.
That to that the Bishop answered that he had taken the Governor's previous letter to mean that he was at liberty to proceed, and that he saw no sufficient reason for desisting. That he consequently reiterated his intention of holding his Court on June 24th for the purpose of depriving Canon Barraclough. That the Governor, after some further correspondence which led to no agreement, told the Bishop that he should proceed with the Rule nisi on June 22nd as originally agreed.
That at the hearing of the Rule the Bishop did not appear, and that-after stating his reasons at great length--the Acting Chief Justice made absolute the Rule nisi, and ordered a “mandamus" to issue restraining the Bishop "under pain of penalty' from carrying out the intention of his citation, on the ground that the proceedings were illegal and based upon a misconstruction of the Clergy Discipline Act, removing the
* No. 172.
590-23-99K Wt 21618 D&S 5
PEMULIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O.885
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO