32
TUTTI
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference
C.O. 885
3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
Letters-Patent, which purports to effect this, or which ought to have induced the subscribers to expect that such a result would be obtained. And it is further to be observed that such a result would have involved a principle which would have been wholly repugnant to the foundation on which the discipline of the Church of England rests, which makes the Sovereign the supreme head of the church in all her dominions, a principle which is expounded and enforced in the thirty-seventh of the Articles of Religion of the English Church. I cannot, there- fore, from this letter, or from any other document before me, come to the conclusion that the object of the persons who contributed to form a fund to endow Bishoprics in the colonies dependent upon England was to elevate the church over the throne, or to depose the Sovereign from being the head of the Church of England in the colonies dependent on her.
But even if this were the case, and that the object of the persons who contributed the funds for endowing the Bishopric of Natal has failed, this would not dispose of the questiou.
This was a contract entered into by three parties to it-the Crown, the Trustees of the Fund, on behalf of the contributors, and the Plaintiff, and although it is true that this Court will occasionally refuse specifically to enforce a contract where one of the parties who entered into it did so by mistake, and while ignorant of the real state of the case, yet where the contract has not only been entered into, but has also been acted upon, and where it is impos- sible to restore all the parties to it to the same position which they were in before the contract was made, the Court of Chancery never annuls the con- tract. Who now can restore the Plaintiff to his former position in 1853? Assume that the contri- butors can truly say "We subscribed this fund to make the Plaintiff a Bishop, with coercive powers, inherent in his own Episcopal jurisdiction. We find that the Plaintiff, as Bishop, must have recourse to a Court of law for that purpose, and therefore we annul the engagement "-could any Court listen to such arguments, or could such a doctrine be admitted to annul the contract? All persons are bound to know the law. Ignorance of the law, according to
the hackneyed but most necessary maxim' in our
33
jurisprudence, and, indeed, in every jurisprudence, excuses no one. The contributors, therefore, must be treated as knowing, or as being bound to know, that to enforce the decision of the Bishop he must have recourse to a Court of civil jurisdiction, and that the Court so resorted to would sit in judgment upon and review the correctness of the decision to this extent that the Court would ascertain whether the Bishop had acted within the scope of his authority, and had proceeded in a manner consonant with the principles of justice, and the Plaintiff might justly say to the contributors :-" You cannot now recede from your engagement, because that is made manifest to you which, from the first, you must or ought to have been well acquainted with."
These last observations would, unquestionably, not apply to the next person who might be appointed Bishop of Natal, if a vacancy should occur. With the successor a fresh contract would have to be made, the terms of which, expressed or implied, would bind the parties to it, but that has nothing to with the Plaintiff.
I am, therefore, of opinion that the views and objects of the persons who contributed the fund, whatever effect it may have with respect to any future appointment, cannot be called in aid for the purpose of depriving the Plaintiff of his salary as Bishop of Natal. I must also say, that the more I consider this part of the case, the more strongly 1
am impressed with the belief that the real state of the case, and the real effect of the decisions of the Privy Council, have not been present to the minds
of the persons who, having subscribed the funds for the endowment of the Bishopric, now object to the application of them for payment of the income of the Plaintiff
The practical effect of the decision is simply this, that an appeal, to the extent I have stated, lies from the decisions of the Bishop in the Colonies to the Courts of Law in those Colonies, and from thence to the Privy Council. Is it really believed by any large number of the contributors to these funds that this is an order of things il calculated to secure "that the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, by law established, should be maintained
in their completeness amongst the congregations of our own communion in these Colonies ?" Can it be
K