CO885(2-3) — Page 231

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TTC.O.885

TH

2

appear to demand immediate and serious considera- tion:-

1. What Colonial Dioceses are affected by it?

2. What is its practical effect on these Dioceses?

3. What steps, if any, should be taken to relieve. Coloufal Bishops, clergy, and laity from the embar- rassments to which it must give rise.

1. Annexed is an account of the rise of the Annexure 1. Colonial and Indian Episcopate, viewed in its legal aspect. From that statement it results that,-

(1). The following Bishoprics are probably un- affected by the Judgment, as being founded in Crown Colonies:-

Gibraltar (including Gibraltar, Malta, and

Mediterranean chaplaincies);

Colombo (Ceylon);

Victoria (Hong Kong);

Sierra Leone;

Mauritius;

Labuan;

Perth (Western Australia);

British Columbia (in respect to the Colony of

British Columbia);

St. Helena.

(2). The following Bishoprics are probably un- affected by the Judgment, as being founded or pos- sessing jurisdiction by virtue of Acts of Parliament: —

Calcutta ;

Madras;

Bombay:

Jamaica;

Barbadoes ;

Antigua ;

British Guiana;

Nassau (Bahamas);

Kingston (Jamaica).

The case of Kingston is in some respects peculiar,

but the peculiarities are not such as to require notice here.

(3.) The following Bishoprics were established without Parliamentary authority in Colonies possessed of "independent Legislatures," and, it is believed, have received no subsequent recognition by Imperial

3

or Local Law. Their existence therefore would seem to be denied by the present Judgment.

Newfoundland (Newfoundland and

Edward Island);

New Zealand;

Adelaide (South Australia);

Natal;

Christ Church (New Zealand) ;.

Wellington

Waiapu

Nelson

1

Prince

British Columbia (in respect to Vancouver's

Island).

The insertion of Natal in this list requires expla- nation.

By Letters-Patent which were issued in 1847, and were in force when the Bishopric was founded, but which were revocable at the pleasure of the Crown, and have been since revoked, the Queen established a Legislative Council, composed of the Lieutenant-Governor and three or

more other persons nominated by the Crown, and holding office during the Royal pleasure. This is a common form

of Crown Council; and Natal was supposed, after as before its establishment, to be a Crown Colony.

It has long been held, on the authority of Campbell v. Hall, that by granting representative institutions the Crown parted irrevocably with its prerogative power, if any, of legislation. The present Judgment appears to proceed much further. It contains the following passage :---" With respect to the first question, we apprehend it to be clear, upon principle, that after the establishment of an independent Legislature in the Settlements of the Cape of Good Hope and Natal, there was no power in the Crown by virtue of its prerogative (for these Letters-Patent were not granted under the provisions

of any Statute) to establish a Metropolitan See or Province, or to create an Ecclesiastical Corporation whose status, rights, and authority the Colony would

be required to recognize."

it

This language is not absolutely unequivocal, but

appears clear from the structure of the paragraph

and the nature of the argument, that the Court intended to declare that the Queen having esta- blished an "independent Legislature" in Natal,

3

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

며