CO885-(11-13) — Page 532

8892.

سيا

ग्य

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

CO. 885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

No. 254.

(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Herbert's letter

Temple, 18th May 1881. of the 4th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the copy of a despatch from the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, transmitting a letter addressed to your Lordship by Bishop Jones (Cape Town), enclosing a pamphlet by Archdeacon Badnall entitled "Remarks on the Judgment delivered in the Supreme Court in re Bishop Merriman v. Dean Williams, August 26, 1880," and containing a copy

of that judgment.

That Mr. Herbert was also to transmit to us-

(1.) Copy of the Letters Patent purporting to create the original diocese of Capetown,

dated the 25th of June 1847.

(2.) Copy of the Letters Patent of 8th December 1853, reconstituting that diocese on the occasion of the division of the original diocese into those of Capetown, Grahamstown, and Natal.

(3.) Copy of the Letters Patent of the 23rd of November 1853, constituting the

diocese of Grahamstown.

That he (Mr. Herbert) was to add that since the judgments of the Privy Council in the cases of Bishop of Capetown v. Bishop of Natal, and Long v. Bishop of Capetown, referred to at pages 11 to 15 of Archdeacon Badnall's pamphlet, the Crown had abstained from making any fresh appointments to the sees of Capetown and Grahamstown, and that there was now no Bishop appointed by Letters Patent to either see. judgments, in so far as they affected the validity of the Letters Patent creating the That those diocese of Capetown applied equally to the Letters Patent creating the diocese of Grahamstown.

That Bishop Jones inquired—

(1.) Whether, in the absence of a Bishop appointed by Letters Patent to either see,

those sees as created by Letters Patent are vacant, and (2.) Whether the Crown was competent, as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appeared to suggest it was, to make any appointment of a Bishop by Letters Patent to either see, it being admitted that such appointment would not confer any coercive authority upon the Bishop.

That Mr. Herbert was to request that we would take the papers into consideration, and having regard to the judgments of the Privy Council above referred to, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to what answer, if any, should be returned to Bishop Jones.

That Mr. Herbert was also to request that in view of the appeal to the Privy Council from the judgment of the Chief Justice of the Cape of Good Hope, in the case Bishop Merriman v. Dean Williams, we would report whether it would be expedient to express any opinion on the points submitted by Bishop Jones, and whether it would in any case be desirable and practicable to suggest to the Bishop that he should take measures for securing as far as possible an authoritative declaration by the Privy Council on the points which he had raised.

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

Report

That it appears that the appeal to the Privy Council in the case of Bishop Merriman y. Williams involves substantially the questions upon which the Bishop of Capetown asks the opinion of your Lordship, and that such questions are submitted to you in consequence of the judgment in that case having been given.

Under these circumstances we think it inexpedient that your Lordship should express an opinion upon the questions pending the appeal, and that the Bishop of Capetown may properly be so informed.

We have, &c.,

The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,

(Signed)

HENRY JAMES. FARRER HERSCHELL.

&c.

&c.

A 12916.-237. 25.-12/84.

&c.