NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 592, 21 August 1909, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

We cannot allow to pass without, notice / the very important announcement received by cable; and printed yestef'dayi jthat the British Finance; Bill been amended by; allowing,an appeal ,'to the High Court from the deoislons : ; of. ,re-.i ferees on certain points' of valuation for taxation purposes.. The decision of ./the''! Governinent is"obviouely'due ■torthe/pro■test of the Lord-:Chief justice: against, 'the usurpation :by/tb.e.Executive .of p'ow-' ers which, in the interests ■ pi *.. popular, liberty, snould be leftV 'intacii:; in the hands of,.'the; ordinary. tribuAalß , ,of kWi' We discussed Lord•. ApvEEsfoNß's:' protest in our issue .pi/' August,. 4v last,: iand pointed out the extent to which the New Zealand. Government has,,restricted liberties of the 'ipeoplei'-; The 'Attorney-. General, it : will be reinembered. Used, ah astounding avgUment to defend' that) clause of the Income Tax Assessment Act of lW: which prohibits any appeal ,to the Courts, of, the land from the decision of a Government official in respect to certain- exemptions, from the graduated tax On land. This argument was that, if appeal to a Judge were allowed, the Judge) ; "trammelled": by legal principles, ; might'fescue the, appellant from the Government's, .clutches. This outrageous doctrine it was which, being preached in 1 Britain inithe.shapo of clauses of Acts Vesting a judicial au- ; thority in a State official Called, forth; the protest. of the Lord 'Chief ■ Justice. The basic principle of British law is well stated by PeopessOE; Dicey.; in his Xol», of the Constitution: <\ ':, '; :: : ,;■ ■

"When say that tfio supremacy or the rule of law !is a characteristic of the Engr jish' Constitution we mean : in to nfst;pl&ee that no .man is punishable or can bo lawfully made to suffer, in body or'goods except for a distinct breach of -.law , established in the ordinary legal manner before .''.'.the; ordinary Courts of the land, and, ; sedondly, we moan not only .that, with us no maft is above the law but (what is a different .thing) that hero every .matt, whatever bo his rank or condition,' is subject ■•■to (the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the ;juri6diction dfithe ordinary v tribunalsi"-;-; ; ,r ' .; The British Government; as. ; we 'have said, has recognised. the validity of the Chief Justice's protest.. Dr. Findlay possibly is quite prepared to demonstrate the stupidity of Lord 'AxVer'StONe, -who, of course, has not had the Doctor's opportunities, and \?e. would suggest that he might \ discuss the question in his next lecture. '~.■.. '■,■•.'■..',;.■•. : '.' , ;i'■'■:.! •■■.:.".".'.' ,'•

A cmilegbam which we publish in another column announcing Tihat the Anglican Archbishop-elect of Sydney is to be '■ consecrated on Tuesday next .in St. Paul's Cathedral, London.' gives an intorosting illustration of the, variety ; of procedure in certain niatters in different branches of the Anglican Communion. The law of the Church of the Province of Now Zealand provides that all > its bishops must bo consocrated in this Do* minion. The last Now Zealand Bishop to bo consecrated in England was the late BISHOI' Cowie, of Aucklandj the ceremony taking place in Westminster Abbey on- June 29, 1869., The New Zealand Church took an important step in the abortion of its, autonomy in 'i6nhection with tho consecration of ' Bishop Haofleld to the Se6 of Wellington -on Juno 1,, 1870. In hie address at tho following .General Synod tho Bishop > rcr ferred to this ceremony in the following words:—"l haye.',laid upon .tho table 'copies of tho mandate issued by myself for the consecration; and of the declara-

tion niado by the bishop-elect, and df the docuraont certifying to his consecration, Aβ theso wero used for the first timo on this, occasion, and, in the. case. of the two formor,' are deviations from the form of ordering and consecrating bishops as givon in the Ordinal, it is due to the representative body of the Church that thoy should bo brought to notice. A very important step has been taken thereby in the New Zealand Church, and what has been done in this matter concerns, not only tho Church of thin day, but the Church of the future also." In thio and in other ways the Church of New Zealand has emphasised the fact that it is distinct front • though in communion with, tho Mother Church, and in pur-suance-of this'principle a canon was formulated directing tnft omission of tho parts of the consecration service that related to the Royal Mandate. It was necessary to do this because by accepting tho Prayer.Book the Chui.h, in New Zealand bad adopted tho rubric stating that the Archbishop shall "demand the KiKts's Mandate for the consecration and cause it to bo read." '