། ?| ༄། །
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference -
C.O.885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
8
originally assigned to a Bishop was not, as I
appre- hend, because his functions or duties were confined to that space, but because, as the superintendence of the Bishop was found to be more effectual when exercised principally over a limited extent, a terri- torial district, termed a diocese, was assigned to him as the limits within which he should principally exercise his authority. Thus it is that England has been parcelled out into particular special dioceses— not that each Bishop could not exercise his authority universally, but because it was justly considered to be more beneficial to the cause of religion and morality that his superintendence and labours should be principally confined to a separate district, and that he should not actively interfere with those members of the Church who were not within its limits. The Bishops of the English Church have equal and universal powers in this respect; but the ordination of deacons and priests, the consecration and dedication of churches, and the confirmation of young persons is (unless in exceptional cases) con- fined to the Bishop of the diocese within which the exercise of the episcopal function is locally required.
Thus it is that titular Bishops have become terri- torial Bishops, not because there was, or is really, when unconnected with the State, any distinction between the two, but because it was found conducive to the good of the Catholic Church (using that word as I do throughout in its proper comprehensive classical meaning) that the duties of the Bishop should be limited practically to such a space as lie could usefully superintend.
In addition to the power of orders above men- tioned, the Letters-Patent purported to confer on the Bishop of Natal and his successors the episcopal power jurisdictionis—that is, the power and authority over all rectors, curates, ministers, chaplains, priests, and deacons, within the diocese of Natal; and the Letters-Patent direct that, if any person should con- ceive himself aggrieved by any judgment, decree, or sentence pronounced by the Bishop of Natal or his successors, he shall have an appeal to the Bishop of Cape Town, who should finally decide and determine the appeal. Beyond this, in the Letters-Patent con- stituting the see of Cape Town, a like right of appeal is professed to be given from the decision of the Bishop of Cape Town to the Archbishop of
ས་
9
Canterbury, who is finally to decide and determine
the appeal. It is on this passage in the Letters- Patent that the question has arisen. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have determined in the two cases, viz. Long e. Bishop of Cape Town* and In re Bishop of Natal,f that," although in
a Crown colony, properly so called, or in cases where the Letters-Patent are made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, a bishopric may be constituted and ecclesiastical jurisdiction conferred by the sole authority of the Crown, yet that the Letters-Patent of the Crown will not have any such effect or operation in a colony or settlement which is pos- sessed of an independent Legislature."
In 1845 an independent Legislature was created in the Colony of Cape Town, and, accordingly, the authority professed to be exercised by the Bishop of Cape Town over Mr. Long, and also over the Bishop of Natal, was declared to be of no avail, and the sentences of deprivation were declared to be merely null and void.
In 1847 an independent Legislature was created
in the Colony of Natal, and, consequently, by the decision of the Judicial Committee, no coercive jurisdiction, such as that professed to be given by the Letters-Patent to the Bishop of Natal, can, it is said, legally be exercised by him.
Assuming this to be so, the question I have, therefore, to consider is, how far this declaration of the law affects the status and position of the Plaintiff as a Bishop of Natal. I use the word “ Natal " pur- posely, because it is obvious that it does not in the slightest degree affect his status and position as Bishop of the Church of England generally, not being the Bishop of any territorial see or diocese. It does not, therefore, the least degree affect the first class of his powers, namely, that of orders: he can as lawfully and as conclusively ordain, con- firm, and consecrate, as if the coercive jurisdiction could have been exercised by him.
But then I come to inquire what are the other functions conferred upon him by the Letters-Patent which he cannot exercise? The words of the Letters-Patent on this subject are as follows:-
"And We do further, by these presents, expressly
• Mou. P. C. (N. 8.) 411
+ Mon. P C. (N. §.) 113, 151.
D