CO885-(13-15) — Page 75

PUBLIC RECORD

OFFICE

Reference :-

T

mmmmm C.O. 885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

the former could properly grant Judgment and execution thereof, notwithstanding that such previous Judgment was obtained against a defendant in default of his appearance, and that such defendant was also absent from Madagascar; and

(3.) With any general observations which we might desire to offer on the case. We were also honoured with Sir J. Pauncefote's note of the 21st April, covering a copy of the Mauritius Order in Council of 1851, and copies of two Ordinances which had been made since that date in the Colony, viz., No. 14 of 1881 and No. 17 of 1884-85.

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

Report

1. That, in our opinion, the Supreme Court of Mauritius has no jurisdiction to order Her Majesty's Consuls in Madagascar to execute the Judgments of the Mauritius Court in actions which originate in the Mauritius Court, but the Judgments of the Mauritius Court may be made the foundation of proceedings in the Madagascar Court.

If Her Majesty's Consul was to decline to entertain such proceedings, his refusal might be made the subject of appeal to the Mauritius Court.

2. If an action he brought in the British Consular Court of Madagascar upon a Judgment of the Mauritius Court, the summons by which the action is commenced must be served upon the defendant in the mauner prescribed, and, unless permitted by the lawful procedure of the Court, such summons cannot be served out of Madagascar. The fact that the defendant did not appear in the Mauritius Court will not of itself prevent the Court of Madagascar from pronouncing a Judgment in favour of the plaintiff. but it may affect the rights of the defendant as to the defence he may be entitled to raise in answer to the action on the Judgment.

We have, &c., (Signed)

List of Papers.

Consul Haggard, No. 136, Africa, October 14, 1887.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.

Madagascar Order in Council, February 4, 1869. Confidential, No. 1624. Rules and Regulations, July 1, 1869. Confidential, No. 1693.

Law Officers' Report (Morocco), January 7, 1886. Confidential, No. 5440, p. 64

11,197.

No. 120.

(NATAL.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE. MY LORD,

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

Royal Courts of Justice, June 5, 1888. letter of the 17th April last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us (1) petitions to the Queen, dated 25th and 27th July 1883, from certain members of the Church of England in Natal and from the Church Council of the Diocese of Natal respectively, both praying for the appointment of a successor to Bishop Colenso in the See of Natal, as created by Her Majesty's Letters Patent dated 23rd November 1853, together with the reply to those petitions dated 3rd April 1884.

(2.) Despatch from the Governor of Natal, dated 12th August 1884, and enclosures, comprising petition and letters from the Church Council to the Archbishop of Canterbury, praying his Grace, in conjunction with the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Exeter, Manchester, Liverpool, and Worcester, to take proceedings for the selection and consecration of a bishop, together with the Earl of Derby's reply, dated 8th October 1884, to the Governor's despatch.

(3.) Petition to the Queen, dated 11th December 1886, and enclosures, purporting to be from the Church Council, and praying Her Majesty to cause Her Royal Mandate to be issued for the consecration of the Reverend Sir George William Cox, Baronet, to be a bishop of the Church of England, with a view to his exercising the episcopal office in Natal.

That Mr. Bramston was to call our attention to the eleventh paragraph of that petition, and that he was to enclose copy of a letter, dated 12th January 1887, from the Archdeacon of Maritzburg denying the competency of the petitioners in the matter, together with copy of a correspondence with the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which his Grace expressed his intention not to apply for Her Majesty's Mandate for the consecration of Sir G. W. Cox, and of the reply, dated 9th February 1887, returned to the petitioners.

be from the Standing

(4.) Petition dated 7th January 1888, purporting to Committee of the Church Council, enclosing Resolution of the Church Council of 4th August 1886, and in effect praying that the Archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to apply for Her Majesty's Mandate for the consecration of Sir G. W. Cox might be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

That Mr. Bramstonas also to enclose a letter, dated 14th February 1888, from the Archdeacon of Maritzburg denying the competency of the petitioners to speak in the name of the Church Council, or of any Standing Committee of it, together with copy of a correspondence with the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which his Grace adhered to his original decision.

That Mr. Bramston was further to enclose copy of a letter from Lord Blachford, who, when permanent Under Secretary, paid special attention to Colonial Church questions, dated 18th September 1883, to Sir Robert Herbert, as to the position of the Colonial Office in relation to the appointment and consecration of bishops in Colonies in which Her Majesty's Letters Patent creating Secs and appointing bishops with episcopal jurisdiction had been “ultra vires" of the Crown, or as to which the Crown had refused to issue any more Episcopal Letters Patent, and also copy of the form of Mandate now issued by Her Majesty.

That Mr. Brainston was to state that your Lordship entirely concurred in the view taken by Lord Blachford, and that accordingly your Lordship proposed to reply to the preseut petitioners that you had laid their petition before the Queen, but that you had been unable to advise Her Majesty to issue her Mandate for the consecration of any particular person to be a bishop with a view to his exercising episcopal functions in. Natal; but that upon the request and application of the Archbishop of Canterbury, your Lordship would be prepared to advise Her Majesty to issue a Mandate in the ordinary form for the consecration of a bishop "to the intent that he should exercise his functions in one of Her Majesty's possessions abroad," and that the case was not one which Her Majesty could be advised to refer to the Judicial Committee of Privy

Council.

A 52950.-21. 25.-6/88.