CO885-(10-11) — Page 654

7202.

།།།།།།

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

ˇ | | | | | | | | | | || | || / |||

Reference :-

C.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

Bishop, namely, that he is to exercise episcopal functions within the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope and elsewhere in South Africa, are objectionable, as they might be held to assign a sphere of action to the Bishop.

We consider a person so consecrated would be legally entitled to the designation of Bishop of A.

The question whether A.B. can divest himself, or be divested, of the title of Bishop of A. involves novel considerations of law, inasmuch as the proposal to consecrate A.B. a Bishop without a see under a particular title is in itself without precedent.

In our opinion, however, he could not be divested of the title except upon degrada tion from his orders under the authority of the Crown. We think it right to call your Grace's attention to the fact that in the previous warrant, as approved by our predecessors in 1866, the Archbishop of Canterbury was authorised to consecrate the respective Bishops to be "Bishops of the United Church of England and Ireland,” which words are, we observe, omitted from the draft now before us.

We think that such Bishop as above-mentioned could not properly assume any other title in lieu of or in addition to the title of Bishop of A., except by authority of the Crown.

On the propriety of granting such a license or warrant as this, and conferring the right on the new Bishop of exercising episcopal functions within the constituted dioceses of South Africa, it would be beyond our province to express any opinion.

We should have been glad to have given further consideration to and written more fully upon the novel and important questions submitted to us by your Grace had time allowed; but we believe the answers we have given to those questions to be correct.

We have, &o.

(Signed)

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos,

&c. &c. &c.

JOHN B. KARSLAKE. WM. BALIOL BRETT. TRAVERS TWISS.

เ

No. 518.

(JAMAICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD DUKE,

Temple, July 8, 1868. We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 25th of June ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Grace to desire that we would favour you with our opinion upon the following case:

1. By the third section of an Imperial Act 17 & 18 Victoria, o. 54, intituled " An "Act to guarantee the liquidation of a loan or loans for the service of the Colony of Jamaica," it was provided that no Act passed by the Legislature of Jamaica repealing

or reducing the duties enumerated in Schedule C. of a Local Act, 17 Victoria, c. 29, intituled "An Act for the better government of this Island, and for raising a revenue in support thereof," should be valid unless such Act contained a suspending clause and should have been confirmed by Her Majesty with the advice of Her Privy Council, and such confirmation should have been proclaimed by the Governor.

A copy of the Colonial Act was annexed for reference.

2. That it will be seen that this prohibition is to continue so long as the Imperial guarantee remains in force, and Sir F Rogers further stated that that guarantee is still in force and binding on the Imperial Government.

3. That higher duties have been since the passing of the Imperial Act imposed by subsequent local Acts and levied upon most of the articles mentioned in Schedule C. of 17 Vict. c. 29, but in 1865 by a Local Act of 28 Vict. c. 10. (a copy of which was annexed), goats, sheep, and swine were made free, and carriages not used for agricul- tural purposes, were not included as in Schedule C. But though the Act thus repealed certain duties imposed in Schedule C., it had no suspending clause.

4. That the Act of 28 Vict. c. 10. was continued by 29 Vict. c. 21, which again had

no suspending clause, and recently by Law No. 11 of 1867 (a copy of which was

annexed), in addition to the fact that asses, goats, sheep, swine, bucks, &c., which paid duty under 17 Vict. c. 29, are made free, it will be seen that horses which paid 17.

a

per head now only pay 108. per head, and that several articles which under 17 Vict. c. 29, were included in the general mass, paying 2 per cent. ad valorem duty, are now free; for example, marble, machines, wire. That this law, however, had no suspending clause.

5. That the different duties imposed by these Acts, which it will be seen were in many cases higher than those in Schedule C. of 17 Vict. c. 29, have been levied and paid, but the question has arisen whether such duties have not been wrongfully imposed. and whether persons who have, in pursuance of those Acts, paid duties in excess of those in Schedule C. might not recover such excess from the Colonial Government.

6. Under these circumstances Sir Frederic Rogers was to desire that we would favour your Grace with our opinion upon the following questions:-

1st. Whether the Colonial Acts referred to are void in toto or only so far as they repealed or reduced the duties enumerated in Schedule C. of 17 Vict. c. 29. ?

2nd. If they are invalid in toto, whether the defect could be cured by local legis. lation or whether Imperial legislation is required? and

3rd. Whether it would not be desirable to repeal a provision which invalidates a whole Act on account of an accidental omission of form, which is only too likely to recur, substituting at most a provision that any Act reducing or repealing the duties imposed by Schedule C. should be void in respect of such reduction or repeal unless passed with a suspending clause?

Sir Frederic Rogers was also directed to state that an answer at our early con- venience was requested, as it would be desirable, should an Act of Parliament be required. to introduce one as soon as possible.

In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have taken this matter into our eope sideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we think that Acts of the Colonial Legislature reducing or abolishing some of the duties charged in Schedule C., and imposing higher rates on certain articles were void in toto, and that higher duties levied under such Acts were wrongfully levied.

0 16275,-863.

95.-5/86.