CO885-(13-15) — Page 114

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.

885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

time-tables there is a correspondence between the India and China services at Aden, where mails may be transhipped from one steamer to the other, and there is a corre. spondence between the China and Australian services at Colombo, where mails may again be transhipped.

A consequence of the time-tables so arranged is that mails always leave Adelaide on their homeward voyage on a Monday.

In order that the mails from Melbourne and Sydney coming by railway should catch the boat thus leaving Adelaide on a Monday it is necessary that a through train should be run either on a Saturday or a Sunday.

To this obligation the Colonial authorities strongly object, mainly on the ground that for the purposes of general traffic a through train is not required on either of those days, and that in consequence such a train would be unremunerative, and would put the Post Office departments of the Colonies to an expense of some 10,000l. per annum. They also object on the ground that there is a strong feeling in the Colonies against Sunday traffic, and that the running of a through train on Sunday would, therefore, be

an unpopular measure.

On these grounds the Colonial authorities of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, ask that the time-table of the Australian service should be amended so as to secure a different day of departure from Adelaide.

The Peninsular and Oriental Company decline, however, to assent to such an altera- tion on the ground that it would prevent the correspondence with the India and China service at Colombo, unless the time-table of the latter service were also altered, a step to which there are weighty objections.

The legal question which arises under these circumstances appears to be whether under the terms of the contract between the Postmaster-General and the Peninsular and Oriental Company, the Company can be required to run their vessel according to time. tables which would prevent the correspondence between the three services which is referred to in Article 7 of the Australian mail contract.

Upon this point it is to be observed that while the Postmaster-General has a general power of fixing the time-table under Article 3 of the latter contract, this power is to be exercised "subject to the provisions of the Agreement," and that one of those provisions is that the Company shall be at liberty to convey the three sets of mails in one vessel, and to arrange such places of call for the Australian vessels as may ensure a correspon- dence between the Australian mail service and the India and China mail services (see Article 7). From this it would appear that the Company are to be at liberty to work the three mail services in connexion with each other, and this view appears to be strengthened by the qualification of Article 11, which prevents the Postmaster-General from making such an alteration in the time-table as will conflict with the provisions of clause 7.

The Law Officers are requested to advise whether the Postmaster-General can, without requiring a new time-table for the India and China service, require such an alteration of the time-table of the Australian service as will secure a more convenient day of departure from Adelaide, although the effect of this may be to prevent a correspondence between the Australian and India and China service.

Opinion.

We are of opinion that the Postmaster-General is not entitled to require any alteration of the time table of the Australian service which will prevent a correspondence between it and the India and China service,

Royal Courts of Justice,

21st March 1889.

(Signed)

RICHARD E. WEBSTER.

EDWARD CLARKE,

7906.

MY LORD,

No. 149.

(NATAL.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

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

Royal Courts of Justice, April 17, 1889. letter of the 5th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the accompanying copy of papers which had been presented to Parliament relative to Church Affairs in Natal.

+

44

That in the petition to Her Majesty (therein printed) dated 11th December 1886, and purporting to be from the Church Council of the Church of England in the Diocese of Natal, the petitioners prayed "that Your Most Gracious Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause to be issued such Royal Mandate as is required by Law to authorise the consecration of the Reverend Sir George William Cox, Baronet, of Scrayingham Roctory, Yorkshire, Bishop Elect of Natal, to be a Bishop of the Church of England, in order that he may be enabled to enter upon and discharge the duties and functions "of a Bishop of the Church of England in Natal, even although no diocese or sphere of

action be assigne in such Mandate."

LL

That in the case of the Colonial Bishops who had been appointed by Her Majesty's Letters Patent, those Letters Patent had themselves contained Her Majesty's directions to the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate. But that, except in one or two cases

in which the Letters Patent creating the Bishopric were originally valid and had not been revoked. Her Majesty had abstained during the last twenty years from making any appointments to the Colonial Episcopate, and had issued the Licence or Mandate.. required by the consecration service, only upon the application of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in the accompanying form.

That for Her Majesty therofore to issue a Mandate except in such general form and at the request of the Archbishop, would appear to be against the policy which had been deliberately adopted for many years, and, in the case of Natal, against what has been specially laid down by the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

That inquiry having been made of the Archbishop whether he intended to apply for Her Majesty's Mindate for the consecration of Sir G. W. Cox, his firace replied that it was not his intention to do so, and that the petitioners were duly informed through the Governor of Natal.

That in a further petition dated 7th January 1888 (pp. 1–7 of Parliamentary_paper,) the petitions in effect prayed that the Archbishop's rofusal to apply for Her Majesty's Mandate might be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under 25 Henry VIII, chapter 19.

That the matter having been referred to us for report, and having been reported upon by us on the 5th June 1988, Mr. Bramston was to call our attention to the reply returned by your Lordship to the petitioners through the Governor on the 14th June 1888, in accordance with our Report (p. 14 of Parliamentary paper.)

That Mr. Bramston was now to transmit to us a copy of a further petition dated 12th November 1888, praying that that roply might be reconsidered, or that permis- sion might be given to the petitioners to bring their case before Her Majesty in Council. That he was also to transmit to us a copy of the letter from the Petitioners to your Lordship referred to in that Petition, although it did not appear to your Lordship that the questions at issue would be affected by the fullest competency of the Petitioners to represent their co-religionists in Natal.

That your Lordship proposed to reply that the petition had been received, but that he could not advise Her Majesty that the case was one which could properly be referred to the Privy Council. But that Mr. Bramston was to request that we would take the papers transmitted with his letter into our consideration, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion:-

1. Whether the case constituted a lack of justice within the meaning of the Act 25 Henry VII, chapter 19, for which an appeal would lie under that Statute.

A

07:14.-19

28. - 4:85.