PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
LILLEC.O.8
885
@
seriously and directly affected; nor is it possible to foresee all the legal or ecclesiastical consequences which might ultimately result therefrom.
The Clergy might be legally empowered, by Royal license, to meet in Synod to make rules and canons; but in order to legalize the meeting of a General Assembly of the Clergy and Laity, and to empower such an Assembly to legislate upon the affairs of the Church, an Imperial statute would be
necessary.
That portion of the Address which prays that the Synod may proceed to the election of their own Bishops, might be practically carried into effect, without the authority of Parliament, by Her Majesty issuing letters-patent in favour of those reverend gentlemen exclusively who might be elected by the Synod; but this would be only a practical and indirect, and not a strictly legal method, of accomplishing the object of the Address.
In order effectually to legalize the election of Canadian Bishops, an Imperial statute would be requisite; and considering that both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the officiating Bishops exercise their episcopal functions in every consecration of a Colonial Bishop, not under authority derived from the Legis- lature, but directly and immediately by commission from the Crown, as a portion of the prerogative, the objections to introducing any Bill into the Imperial Legislature to compel the consecration, by other Bishops, of those who may be elected by the proposed Canadian Synod without the Royal authority, appear to us to be almost insuperable.
We consider it our duty to remark that although the Address states that the Provincial Parliament has passed an Act by which it is declared that there shall be an entire separation between Church and State, yet that the Clergy Reserves Act, sent with the Papers, only appears to do this, if at all, by way of recital, and in somewhat vague terms; and that in respect to the nomination and consecration of Bishops and their various officers, and the power and juris- diction conferred upon and exercised by them by patent, the connexion between Church and State cannot be legally said to be entirely separate in Canada.
With reference to what should be the general force and scope of an Act of Parliament to carry into effect the prayer of the Address, we can only say that the force and scope of such an Act, in order to be effective, would necessarily extend far beyond those of any Imperial statute as yet passed. It must authorize the meeting of a General Assembly, confer on it a permanent and corporate existence and constitution, and extensive ecclesiastical and legal power and jurisdiction, together with the means of enforcing its decisions and orders; such an Act must further provide for the election of Canadian Bishops by the Synod, their compulsory consecration by other Bishops, and their investiture thereupon, with all the powers and jurisdiction hitherto conferred by patent.
Herman Merivale, Esq.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c. (Signed)
J. D. HARDING.
A. E. COCKBURN.
R. BETHELL.
New Brunswick.
No. 6.
Copy of a LETTER from the LAW OFFICERS of the CROWN to the Duke of
NEWCASTLE,
Doctors' Commons, June 22, 1853.
No. 6.
Fisheries. For-
feiture of foreign
MY LORD DUKE,
WE are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Mr. Merivale's letter of the 20th of April last, stating that he was directed to transmit to us vessels illegally the copy of the despatch received froin the Lieutenant-Governor of New Bruns- engaged in. wick, with its inclosures; and to request that we would report our opinion what steps, with reference to the questions raised by this correspondence, ought to be taken in New Brunswick as to the seizures of American vessels made by officers of Her Majesty's navy in protection of the Fisheries.
Mr. Merivale also states that he is directed to refer us to an opinion given by the Queen's Advocate, jointly with the then Attorney and Solicitor-General, on December 20th last, as to the distribution of the proceeds of similar seizures in Prince Edward's Island, in case it should appear to us to have any bearing
upon it.
In obedience to your Grace's commands we have taken this matter into consideration, and have the honour to report, that as the 2nd section of the 59 Geo. III, cap. 38, enacts that foreign vessels, fishing in contravention of that Act, may be seized, prosecuted, and condemned by the same means and in the same Courts as vessels forfeited, scized, prosecuted, and condemned for any offence against any laws relating to the revenue of customs or the laws of trade and navigation, under any Act or Acts of Parliament; and the 69th section of the 8th and 9th Vict., cap. 93, provides that all vessels which shall be seized as forfeited in or near any of the British possessions abroad under any Act relating to the customs or to trade or navigation, shall be deemed and taken to be condemned, and may be dealt with in the manner directed by law in respect to vessels seized and condemned for breach of any such Act, unless the person from whom such vessel shall have been seized, or the owner, or some person authorized by him, shall, within one calendar month, give notice in writing that he claims or intends to claim the vessel, we are of opinion that vessels seized under the former Act may be condemned under the latter.
We, however, fully concur with the Queen's Advocate at New Brunswick
as to the expediency of proceeding against foreign vessels seized under the 59th Geo. III, cap. 38, in the Admiralty Court, instead of having recourse to
the summary process provided by the Customs Act of the 8th and 9th Vict.
We have, &c. (Signed) J. D. HARDING.
A. E. COCKBURN. RICHARD BETHELL.
His Grace the Duke of Newcastle,
&c.
&c.
&c.
No. 7.
No. 7.
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
SIR,
Cory of a LETTER from the ATTORNEY and SOLICITOR-GENERAL to
Mr. Secretary LABOUCHERE.
Temple, November 15, 1856.
WE have been favoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Merivale's Passengers Act, letter of the 8th day of August last, in which he states that he was directed by 1852. Construction.
you to request that we would favour you with our opinion on the following
case :---
•
"By Section 49 of the Passengers Act, 1852,' it is provided, that if the passenger of any passenger-ship shall, without any neglect or default of their
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.