« PreviousContinue »
established by 1 Eliz. c. 1, which last statute considered the King's supremacy as essentially opposed to the exercise of any authority by the Pope in any parts of the dominions belonging to the Imperial Crown of this realm. The Governor appears to recommend that the late coadjutor, who has been already consecrated, may be appointed Bishop of Quebec by letters patent issued under the provincial seal. The appointment of a bishop is a very high act of the royal prerogative, and has never yet been exercised, so far as I know, in any other manner, in the colonies, than by letters patent under the Great Seal. Whether that form of appointment could now be used of a Catholic Bishop, is a question on which I cannot presume to advise, and it will be proper that it should be referred to the Attorney and Solicitor General. If the appointment can be made under the provincial seal, it must be, I presume, on special instructions or warrant from his Majesty. The questions to be referred should, I humbly submit, embrace all these points—whether the appointment of a Catholic Bishop in Canada can legally be made by his Majesty, by letters patent under the Great Seal, or under the provincial seal, under special instructions or warrant from his Majesty? Earl Bathurst, &c. Christopher Robinson.
(9.) Joint Opinion of the King's Advocate, Sir John Dodson, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir John Campbell and Sir R. M. Rolfe, on the appointment of a Suffragan Bishop of Montreal.
Doctors' Commons, February 3, 1836. My Lord,—We have received your Lordship's letter of the 2nd instant, relative to the appointment of a suffragan Bishop of Montreal, and desiring us to report our opinion, whether under the statute of 26 Hen. 8, respecting Suffragan Bishops, or for any other reason, there exists any objection in point of law to the instrument of appointment, a copy of which your Lordship has sent to us? We beg leave in answer to state to your Lordship that we have taken the subject into consideration, and we do not see any objection in point of law, under the statute of Hen. 8, or otherwise, to the pro. posed instrument. J. Dodson.
The Lord Glenelg, J- Campbell.
&c. &c. &c. R. M. Rolfe.
(10.) Joint Opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir John Campbell and Sir R. M. Rolfe, on the incorporation of a Roman Catholic College in Prince Edward's Island.
Temple, May 31, 1838. My Lord,—We have to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 1Gth ultimo, referring us to an Act passed by the Legislature of Prince Edward's Island (No. 448), entitled " An Act to incorporate the Trustees of St. Andrew's College, and to repeal a certain Act therein mentioned," and requesting that we would state our joint opinion whether there is any reason deducible from the Act of Supremacy of Queen Elizabeth, or from any other statute or law, which should prevent the confirmation of this law by Her Majesty? We beg leave to state to your Lordship, that, in our opinion, there is nothing in the Act of Supremacy, taken in conjunction with the subsequent statutes relative to Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, which should prevent the confirmation of this law by Her Majesty in Council. J. Campbell.
The Lord Glenelg, R. M. Rolfe.
&c. &c. &c.
(11.) Joint Opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir William Webb Follett, on the Authority of the Crown to interfere with and make Regulations respecting the appointment of Roman Catholic Bishops in Canada. Temple, April 11, 1842.
Sir,—We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 1Gth of October last, stating that the Reverend M. Power having been deputed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal to submit for the approval of Her Majesty's Government a proposition for dividing the diocese of Kingston into two distinct sees, and for " the formation of an ecclesiastical province to be composed of all the British North American provinces under one Archbishop or one Metropolitan See;" and further stating, that you had received Lord Stanley's directions to state that, as preliminary to advising Her Majesty as to the course which it might be expedient to take in respect to this application, his Lordship would wish us to report to him, our opinion, whether, adverting to the Act of Supremacy, and any other Acts of Parliament relating to the exercise within the Queen's dominions of the religion of the Church of Rome, and also adverting to the terms of the capitulation of Quebec and Montreal, in 1759 and 1760, and to the statutes 14 Geo. 3, c. 83, 31 Geo. 3, c. 31, and 3 & 4 Vict, c. 35, any authority is vested in the Queen to regulate, or in any manner interfere with, the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops or archbishops in Canada, or to determine what the number or what the character of the ecclesiastical functionaries of the Roman Catholic Church in that province shall be?
In obedience to his Lordship's commands, we have considered the subject referred to us with great care, and beg leave humbly to report that we think, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris of 1793, and of the stat. 14 Geo. 3, c. 53, s, 5, and with reference to the provisions of the statute of 1 Eliz., Her Majesty has an authority vested in her to interfere with, and to make regulations respecting, the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops in Canada; and with respect to the particular proposal which is mentioned in the letter, we think that the consent of the Crown is properly asked for, and that it may be lawfully given to, the division of the diocese of Kingston into two sees, if Her Majesty, in her discretion, shall think fit to do so.
But, as regards that part of the proposal which relates to the formation of an ecclesiastical province to be composed of all the British provinces in North America, and which would extend therefore over provinces not conquered, and in which there are no stipulations respecting the maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion, either by treaty or Act of Parliament: we think that the Crown cannot be properly called upon to give its sanction, and that it has
no legal power to do so. TM „
6 r I Rederick Pollock.
G. W. Hope, Esq. W. W. Follett.
(12.) Joint Opinion of the Queen's Advocate, Sir John Dodson, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir FreDerick Thesiger and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, on the status of Clergymen of the Church of England, and the jurisdiction of the Bishop, in Van Biemens Land.
Doctors' Commons, December 27, 1845. My Lord,—In compliance with the request contained in the letter of Mr. Under-Secretory Stephen of the 18th of October last, we have referred to the letter of Mr. Under -Secretary Hope of the 28th of August last, and to the several Acts of the Legislature of Van Diemen's Land now laid before us; and with reference to the questions submitted to us touching the proceedings adopted against certain clergymen in that colony, and the status of clergymen there, we have the honour to report to your Lordship, that having also considered the points suggested by Archdeacon Marriott, we are of opinion: that upon the appointment of a chaplain to officiate in Van Diemen's Land, whether by the Government here or in the colony, he cannot lawfully act without being licensed by the Bishop of Tasmania.
That, upon refusal by the Bishop to license, an appeal lies to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to him only: that a license may be revoked by the Bishop. That upon the revocation of a license no formal trial is necessary: that the Bishop, however, should not act but upon what he deems sufficient cause, or without giving the party accused an opportunity of answering the charge against him.
That there is no form of institution or induction, or analogous to either, in Van Diemen's Land; the appointment and the license are all that can take place: that the Bishop may try, convict, and punish for ecclesiastical offences, without the aid of any new Court to be created by the local legislature or otherwise; but he must proceed judicially, with the assistance of such officers as are created by the letters patent, and decide according to the best of his judgment; there must be a distinct charge, the accused must have due notice, and a fair opportunity of answering and defending himself, and of examining his witnesses, and cross-examining the witnesses against bim: that the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86 does not extend to the colonies; that, therefore, if either of the clergymen in question was unlicensed, he could not legally officiate at all, and that if any license had been granted, the revocation of it by the Bishop was valid.
The Eight Hon. the Lord Stanley, Frederick Thesiger. &c. &c. &c. Fitzkoy Kelly.
(13.) Joint Opinion of the Queen's Advocate, Sir J. D. Harding, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir FreDerick Thesiger and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, on the patronage of Benefices and the appointment of Missionaries in Prince Edward'8 Island.
Doctors' Commons, August 24, 1852. Sir,—We were favoured with a letter from Mr. Elliot on the 12th instant, in which he stated that he was directed by you to request that we would intimate our opinion on the following point:—
There appeared to be in Prince Edward's Island two classes of ministers of the Church of England: some commonly designated as rectors, who enjoy, as sucb, certain lands attached to parish churches; others who are merely stationed at places in the island, and employed as missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
Mr. Elliot also stated that he was directed to request that we would take into consideration the Local Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 6, the annexed extracts from the commission, and instructions from the Governor of Prince Edward's Island, and the inclosed correspondence, and report to you our opinion—
What are the respective rights of the Governor, the parishioners, and the Bishop, in respect to the institution, presentation, and collation or induction of rectors?
Has the Governor any, and what, rights or duties in respect of the appointment of missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel to minister in the island?
In obedience to your commands, we have perused the several documents accompanying Mr. Elliot's letter, and have the honour to report that, by the Colonial Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 6, the patronage of all benefices is vested in the parishioners, who are entitled to present to them whenever vacancies occur. The Lieutenant-Governor, upon such a presentation, is required to induct. The clerk so presented must, however, produce a license from the Bishop of London, or from the Bishop of Nova Scotia, and he must also have publicly declared his assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer, and must have subscribed to be conformable to the Orders and Constitution of the Church of England, and the laws there