4
which arises is whether, in default of fresh Colonial or Imperial legislation, the Judgment does not extinguish a large part of the Colonial Episcopate, by making the creation of fresh Dioceses universally, and the appointment of fresh Bishops very generally impossible, except in Canada, in Crown Colonies, and the West Indies.
If this were so, a recourse to Parliamentary legislation would be plainly inevitable.
For
But the present Law Officers consider that it is not. They hold that English or Irish Bishops, with a licence from the Crown, or that Colonial Bishops without such licence, may consecrate a Bishop to minister out of the United Kingdom, leaving him to acquire his intended Diocesan position as best he may by voluntary consent of his Clergy and Laity.
Such a consecration by English Bishops has already taken place, and the persons consecrated have gone out to receive a Diocesan character by voluntary consent. This alone would hardly be enough. unless the opinion of the Law Officers were fully carried out, and Colonial Bishops placed at liberty to consecrate for themselves, the continuance and development of the Colonial Episcopate, which no longer receives either money or jurisdiction, or even "a sphere of action" from the Crown, would remain dependent on the movements of the Colonial Office and Crown Lawyers, which have given rise to much occasional complaint on account of their delay, and on the Government of the day, whose friendly dispo- sition is uncertain.
This general plea, therefore, for legislation is not fairly removed until the doctrine is promulgated by authority that Colonial Bishops may consecrate for themselves without Royal licence.
When this is done the future propagation of the Colonial Church will be secured so far as the appointment of the Bishops is concerned, but subject still to the further question (of which hereafter), what is the status of clergy ordained by them.
There remain, however, serious difficulties in regard to Bishoprics already established, which will
be best exhibited in a particular case.
In 1847 certain persons gave money for the endow- ment of a Bishopric in South Australia, then possess- ing an independent Legislature. On occasion of this
endowment, Letters Patent were issued constituting
17.
5
the Diocese of Adelaide, and appointing Dr. Short to be Bishop of that Diocese. By these Letters Patent he and his successors were constituted a
body corporate. No express provision was made for the appointment of these successors, which, however, is in practice effected by Letters Patent.
Dr. Short when consecrated held, in his diocesan character, various meetings, the result of which was that the whole of the clergy and certain of the laity of the Anglican Communion have become parties to
consensual contract
"" (as it is called), intended
1s
a
to regulate the affairs of that Communion. That contract assumes throughout the existence of a Diocesan Bishop; it provides for certain represen- tative meetings, whose acts require the concurrence
on the
of the Diocesan to render them binding members of the society,-in virtue of the contract, certain trusts are organized, in which the Diocesani is an essential element; and, subject to certain con- ditions, the Diocesan is invested with the power of appointing and removing clergy from positions of emolument.
It now appears that Dr. Short's Letters Patent are, for the most part, ineffectual. Dr. Short is possibly a lay corporation, under the title of the "Bishop of Adelaide," but without a "sphere of action" or "ecclesiastical status," i.e., he is not a Diocesan Bishop in the eye of the law.
of the money
What becomes therefore,
hitherto supposed to be payable (and, in fact, accord-
ingly paid) to him in that capacity.
2. Of funds held in trust by him in that capacity.
3. Of appointments made by him in that capacity.
4. Of payments of money authorized by him (under the rules of the Society) in that capacity.
5. Of the Consensual Contract which presupposes the existence of a Diocesan Bishop.
6. Of the various Regulations respecting disci- pline, appointments, administration of ecclesiastical funds, &c., to which by the rules of the Society Diocesan sanction was necessary.
It may possibly be said, that though the Crown cannot assign a "sphere of action" to a Bishop, it may yet affix a designation, and that the possession of that designation, aided by the voluntary adhe-
C
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
C.O.885
3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO