1626 ADDENDA
by a minister of religion (Canadian Gazette, lviii. 401). This seems
clearly ultra vires ; cf. Debates, pp. 590-2, 737-40, 819-21.
Pace 1426, n. 1. Canada is organized into three ecclesiastical
provinces : that of Canada (an archbishop and nine other bishops),
of Rupert's Land (an archbishop and seven bishops), and of British
Columbia (three independent dioceses), with a Primate of All Canada
(at present the Archbishop of Rupert's Land). New Zealand has
only six dioceses, the Bishop of Dunedin being Primate.
Pace 1436. The South Africa cases were followed in Bishop of
Columbia v. Cridge, 1 B. C. (Irving) 5.
Pace 1457, n. 1. In Ryland v. The Queen? a fiat was granted to
a petition of right in respect of a claim made by an officer of the
Province of Canada : the case was decided on the merits, and the
judges did not decide the objection taken by the Crown that as the
claim was in respect of service under a Colonial Government there
could be no claim on the Crown in England. In West Rand Central
Gold Mining Co. v. The King? a fiat was granted in respect of a claim
against the Crown in respect of the seizure of gold by the Transvaal
Government prior to the outbreak of hostilities in South Africa in
1899. The claim was by consent treated as if founded in contract,
and the Imperial Government was said to be liable as the successor
of the Republican Government, a view rejected by the Court.
It may be added, with regard to the question discussed above
(pp. 142-4) as to the petition of right in Colonies which do not enjoy
English law, that in the case of Trinidad the Supreme Court held
that an action lay against the Crown direct, and though this decision
was appealed against, the Privy Council decided the case on other
grounds. In discussing the case of Ceylon 5 the Judicial Committee
assumed that the petition of right was not available, but the point
was not argued. In the Natal case ¢ the Judicial Committee did not
decide whether a fiat by the Crown would have authorized the
Natal Court to decide a claim against an Imperial officer on a govern-
ment contract, but that it would has been held in Mauritius? In
Quebec the Act of 1883 8 expressly preserves any mode of proceeding
available before it was passed, apparently presuming that some form
of claim against the Crown existed without the passing of an Act, a
+ Times, December 18, 1883, p. 2. The facts will be found in full in Promincial
Legislation, 1867-95, pp. 269-78.
[1905] 2 K. B. 391. ? See Keith, State Succession, pp. 68 seq.
* New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. v. Attorney-General, [1904] A. C. 415, at
pp. 419, 420.
* Hettihewage Siman Appu v. Queen’s Advocate, 9 App. Cas. 571, at p. 587.
* Palmer v. Hutchinson, 6 App. Cas. 619, at p. 623.
! Murray v. Johnstone, 1866 Mauritius Decisions, 21. This is also the view
of the Cape Supreme Court; see Fraser v. Sivewright, 3 8. C. 55; Van Zyl,
Judicial Practice in South Africa, pp. 5, 6. In Mauritius claims against the
Crown in its colonial capacity are regularly brought direct, see Colonsal Govern.
ment v. Laborde, 1902 Mauritius Decisions, 19; Ordinance No. 35 of 1899.
So in the Cape up to 1881 at least without any Act.
® 46 Vict. c. 27, 8, 17. See Code of Civil Procedure, ss. 1011-25.
