FILT
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference *--
C.O.885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
28
Bishops who exercise the office of Bishop in such Colonies by virtue of Her Majesty's Letters-Patent. This is expressed in the statute of 1852,* and in the Act I have last-mentioned is repeated by refer- ring to the Bishops mentioned in the previous stature. Throughout all these statutes it is pointed out by irresistible inference that no Bishop of the Church of England can be created without the authority of the Crown; and also that the authority of Parlia- ment is required to make the ordinations and acts of Bishops in Her Majesty's foreign possessions effectual within the United Kingdom. All these statutes, therefore, appear, both directly and indirectly, to confirm the view I have taken of this part of this
case.
To sum up the conclusions shortly, in my opinion the case stands thus:-
may
The Members of the Church in South Africa: create an ecclesiastical tribunal to try ecclesiastical matters between themselves, and may agree that the decisions of such a tribunal shall be final, whatever may be their nature or effect. Upon this being proved the civil tribunal would enforce such decisions against all the persons who had agreed to be members of such an association-that is, against all the persons who had agreed to be bound by these decisions, and it would do so without inquiring into the propriety of such decisions. But such an association would be distinct from, and form no part of, the Church of England, whether it did or did not call itself in union and full communion with the Church of England. It would strictly and properly be an Episcopal Church, not of, but in South Africa, as it is the Episcopal Church in Scotland, but not of Scotland. But if the Episcopal Church in South Africa chose to remain part of the United Church. of England and Ireland, then no such irresponsible tribunals could exist, and when recourse is had to the civil tribunal to enforce obedience to these decisions, they must be subject to revision to the extent I have already pointed out as laid down by
the Judgment in the case of Long r. Bishop of Cape Town. In one case it is one Church in all the Colonies, each association being part of the Parent Church of the United Kingdom of England
* 15 & 16 Vict., c. 52,
+ I Moo. P. C. (N. S.) 411.
•
29
and Ireland; in the other case they are separate and distinct Episcopal Churches, each existing separate in each Colony, and distinct from every other Church, bound by their own canons only, and no more bound by the canons of any other Church than they would be. by the canons of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, according to their final settle- ment by the last syuod held in Edinburgh in 1860 for that purpose, and all of them rejecting, as the Church in Scotland is compelled to do, the thirty- seventh of the Articles of the English Church, which puts the Sovereign at the head of the Church.
I have gone so fully into this subject, because the full comprehension of what is the actual position of the Church founded and endowed in these Colonies by members of the Church of England is of the highest importance, for the purpose both of deter- mining what the statys of the Plaintiff is, and also of disposing of the remaining point I have to con- sider, which was strongly urged upon me-viz., how far the objects and intention of the persons who contributed the funds for founding the Bishopric of Natal have been fulfilled. It was urged that to continue the payment of the stipend to the Plaintiff, having regard to his actual legal status, would be in the nature of a breach of trust. Except in the case of one contributor, I have not before me any distinct evidence of what were the objects of the persons generally who advanced the funds, further than this, that they desired to found a bishopric in the Colony of Natal.
But this one, who is said to be the principal con- tributor, is a lady, who, with her constant bound- less charity, has supplied very large funds for the purpose of endowing Colonial Bishoprics, and who has addressed a letter on the subject to the Arch- bishop of Canterbury, which has been produced in evidence, and has been brought prominently forward in the discussion of this question. The letter itself
is carefully written, and has, I assume, undergone final revision and approval from the advisers of this lady before it was published.
In this letter are the following passages, which contain the substance of the argument addressed to
me on the subject :—
I had always supposed that in undertaking to
J