CO885-(10-11) — Page 260

minimumim

༅། ། ། ། ། ་

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O. 885

Reference :-

*

10

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

unsupported by authority, and it is to be observed that it will have the effect of pre venting Her Majesty from appointing to a Colonial See any bishop consecrated by the Metropolitan of York, of Dublin, or of Armagh, or Canada, or Cape of Good Hope, and as a matter of fact, the last Canadian Bishop was, under the mandate of the Crown, consecrated by the Metropolitan of Canada. The ecclesiastical law of England has always recognised the validity of the episcopal consecrations of other episcopal churches, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, though performed with ceremonies in some respects differing from our own; holy orders conferred by the bishops of these com- munions have always been accepted (on the terms of conformity to the articles and liturgy, and of submission to the discipline of the Church of England by those who have received them) as constituting in the Church of England itself a valid and sufficient title, enabling those who have received them to officiate in our churches without re-ordination. It is true that in some cases the statute law has restrained such clergymen (e.g., those of Scotch ordination) from officiating in the churches of this equntry, excepting under certain special conditions. But those very statutes, both by what they allow, and by what they prohibit (and which would confessedly be legal were it not prohibited) bear testimony to the validity and sufficiency of the orders of such clergymen by the ecclesiastical law of England, and there is in this respect no difference at all between the case of a bishop and that of a priest or deacon.

Those statutes do not extend and have no application to Malta or Gibraltar, or to any other places where the Bishop of Gibraltar has to exercise episcopal functions.

Our conclusion is that there is no illegality at all in what is proposed to be done.

We have, &c.

His Grace the Duke of Newcastle. &c.

&c.

(Signed)

WM. ATHERTON. ROUNDELL PALMER. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

8845.

-

No. 212.

(BAHAMAB.)

QUEEN'S ADVOCATE to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Doctors' Commons, August 31, 1863. MY LORD,

I AM honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 25th August instant, stating that he was directed to transmit to me two Despatches and their enclosures from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, and a correspondence with the Colonial Office on a question raised by the United States gunboat “Rhode Island" having anchored in Mathew Town Roadstead, Bahamas, without any previous communication with the local authorities, and to request that I would take this matter into consideration, and report to your Lordship "my opinion thereupon.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, I have taken these papers into con- sideration, and have the honour to

Report

That the proclamation was in perfect accordance with the right of Her Majesty as an independent Sovereign, and with her obligations as the Queen of a neutral

state.

Indeed, this is a position which does not appear to be controverted by Mr. Seward or the United States Government, and certainly the conduct of the belligerents during this war, both in the waters of Her Majesty's dominions, and of the Crown of Spain and Denmark, has borne ample testimony to the expediency and necessity of such a proclamation.

There appear to be three classes of Bahama Islands which require distinct con- sideration as to the application to them of the law laid down in the proclamation.

1. The Island of Nassau in which the Governor is resident.

2. The "Out Islands," which contain certain officers of the rank and character of revenue collectors and police magistrates.

3. Islands or cays in which there are no such officers.

In terms and in theory the proclamation clearly applies to all the Islands. But I agree with the remarks of Lord Lyons in his Despatch (July 14, 1863) that, practically speaking, the enforcement of the prohibition contained in the proclamation with respect to the third class is impossible, while, nevertheless, any mention of these Islands which might be construed to sanction the use of these ports and roadsteads without the permission of the Governor would be most inexpedient. I think, therefore, that nothing should be at present at least specifically mentioned or published as to this third class. It is with respect to the first and second class that the question of enforcing the injunctions of the proclamation really and practically arises.

By the terms of this proclamation no ship of war or privateer of either belligerent are permitted to enter the ports of the Bahama Islands, "except by special leave of the "Governor of the Bahama Islands, or in case of stress of weather," and there can be no possible doubt that in every case but the excepted one, the obtaining such special leave is a necessary preliminary condition on the part of the belligerent to entering any one of these ports.

I should have thought, but for the letter of the United States Consul, that it could not have been seriously suggested that the necessity of this condition was dispensed with on account of the non-residence of the Governor in the particular island into the port of which the ship of the belligerent desired to anchor.

The delegation of his authority in this respect by the Governor to a subordinate officer resident in the Island is manifestly a grace and favour the belligerent; if he chooses to think that the application to an inferior officer detracts from his dignity he is not obliged to make it, but he cannot on this account have any right whatever to get at nought both Her Majesty's proclamation and his obligations as a belligerent by anchoring in the port without any permission at all. I have the honour to agree with the Duke of Newcastle that, apart from some uncontrollable necessity springing from some sudden emergency, it is difficult to conceive that a belligerent can anchor in the

0 16278.--269. 25.-2/66.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO