CO885-(11-13) — Page 296

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

CO.

Reference:

885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

Imperial Statute. It may be remarked, however, that the Supreme Court were not called upon to deal directly with this point, for the Imperial Statutes do not appear to empower the Bishop directly to remove a stipendiary curate. Their direct effect is merely to make the curate's salary depend on the performance of the duties imposed by the Bishop. The Court might, therefore, decide that a curate could not be removed without deciding that a Colonial Act could limit authority given by an Imperial Statute.

(3.) We are inclined to think that the Attorney-General of Jamaica somewhat exaggerates the importance of the judgment, for we do not think it follows that because the Court have decided that a Synod could abrogate the Colonial Act of 28 Vict. c. 43. such a Synod can abrogate any Act relating to the clergy.

(4.) Under all the circumstances of this case we do not think it desirable that the questions involved should be made the subject of further litigation, and we therefore are of opinion that the Privy Council will not, if a petition is presented, allow an appeal..

The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon, &c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.,

(Signed)

}

RICHARD BAGGALLAY. JOHN HOLKER.

12,098.

No. 73.

(GIBRALTAR.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

MY LORD,

Lincoln's Inn, 21st October 1875. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Lister's letter of the 18th September, stating that, with reference to the papers now before us respecting the case of the "Dolores," he was directed by your Lordship to transmit

to us the accompanying letter from the Colonial Office as regards the question of the 9 Sept. 1875. maritime boundaries of British and Spanish jurisdiction in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar, and that he, Mr. Lister, was also to transmit to us certain other documents,

as marked in the margin, bearing upon that question, and to request that we would take those papers into our consideration and favour your Lordship with we might have to offer thereupon.

observations any

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

As follows--

Report

1. That with respect to the points referred to in the letter from the Colonial Office of the 9th September 1875 we see no reason to doubt that dominion may be acquired, by treaty or conquest, over the whole of a bay by a nation possessing only a portion of its shores, provided the State by whom the territory is ceded possessed such dominion prior to the cession.

2. We think that, in the absence of any special rights obtained, the "medium filum aguse" of straits or bays, of which the opposite shores belong to different States, and where the waters are too narrow to admit the application of the three mile rule, would be the proper dividing line.

3. We see, on principle, no objection to the boundary lines as drawn by the Attorney-General for Gibraltar, because the local circumstances make it impossible for Great Britain and Spain each to maintain the three-mile jurisdiction, and the principle drawn from or founded upon the range of guns is for the same local reasons inapplicable.

And, as the Attorney-General was assisted by the Naval authorities and others in preparing the chart annexed to his observations, we apprehend that there is no practical objection to the boundaries which he suggests.

But, as it is not improbable that the Spanish Government might not accede to the proposed arrangements, we submit for your Lordship's consideration that, before any definite offer, binding or committing Her Majesty's Government upon the subject of the suggested compromise, is made to the Spanish Government, the views of that Government should be ascertained. In the meantime, we concur with your Lordship in thinking that there is no reason why Her Majesty's Government should, recede from the position that the territorial waters extend to a distance of three miles round the rock of Gibraltar.

4. With reference to the points arising upon the other papers submitted for our consideration, we may remark that we are unable to agree with the Attorney-General for Gibraltar that in the case of territory acquired by conquest or cession the boundary of maritime jurisdiction is more extended than in other cases, and, as far as we are aware, there is no authority for such a proposition. In other material points we concur in the observations of the Attorney-General. A commission to settle the maritime boundaries would certainly give rise to a great and irreconcilable divergence of opinion, and lead, at the best, to a proposal for arbitration.

We think that your Lordship may properly give your approval to the Governor of Gibraltar in reference to a public advertisement to traders in and from Gibraltar.

The Earl of Derby,

&c.

&c.

(Signed)

We have, &c.,

RICHARD BAGGALLAY. JOHN HOLKER.

J. PARKER DEANE.

▲ 19916-78. 25.-12/84.

#

}

i

11,684.