CO885(2-3) — Page 280

16

required of him by the Bishop of Cape Town had been obedience to the rules and ordinances required by the Church of England, that obedience would have been enforced by the Judicial Committee. Accordingly they inquired into that subject, and, having done so, held that the obedience required by the Bishop of Cape Town was not in accordance with the rules and ordinances of the Church of England, and that Mr. Long was justified in resisting the summons of the Bishop. This was, in fact, the real issue between the Bishop of Cape Town and Mr. Long, and the point is put distinctly, and, as I apprehend, quite corrdetly, by Mr. Long, who says

in his letters of the 29th of November and 3rd of December, 1860, that a declaration by persons that they are members of the church of the diocese of Cape Town, in union and insfull communion with the United Church of England and Ireland, and belonging to no other body, is, in my opinion, a virtual secession from the Church of England." And in another place Mr. Long states that he is a member of the Church of England, and not a mem- ber of the church in union and in full communion with the Church of England, which are in his opinion, two separate and distinct things. The distinction is plain and obvious. Any church estab- lished by voluntary association may call itself in union and in full communion with any other church. A Lutheran Church established in South Africa might call itself in union and full communion with the Church of England, but the truth of the assertion is a distinct matter. But if certain persons consti- tute themselves a voluntary association in any colouy as members of the Church of England, then, as ! apprehend, they are strictly brethren and members of that church, though severed by a great distance from their native country and their parent church. They are bound by the same doctrines, the same rules, ordinances, and discipline. If any recourse should needs be had to the civil tribunals, the ques- tions at issue must be tried by the same rules of law which would prevail if the question were tried in England; with this exception only, that the tribunal would probably be different, and that, as the statutes which constitute certain ecclesiastical tribunals in England do not extend to the colonies, the question would have to be détermined by the ordinary Civil Courts which administer justice in the colonies.

17

It is on this principle, which I have endeavoured to enunciate, that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council investigated and determined the case of Long v. Bishop of Cape Town. In the care- fully considered Judgment delivered on that occasion, no suggestion is made that the church established at Cape Town, over which Mr. Gray presided as Bishop,

is not a part of the Church of England, nor does any doubt seem to have been entertained by the Court on that point. On the contrary, the whole Judgment proceeds on the assumption, and is based on the foundation, that the church so established is

a portion of the Church of England. That Judg ment states, that the Church of England, în places where there is no church established by law, is in the same situation with any other religious body, thereby affirming that the Church of England may extend to and have branches in places where it is not established by law. The Judgment proceeds to state, that where in such places tribunals are constituted by the members of the church for the purpose of determining whether the members of that church there residing have violated any of its rules, in order to enforce the decisions of such

any tribunals, recourse must be had to the Courts established by law, and such Courts will give effect pronounced

to their decisions when the tribunal which

it has acted" within the scope of its authority, has observed such forms as the rules require, if any forms be prescribed, and if not, has proceeded in a manner consonant to the principles of justice." The Judg- ment then proceeds thus:‡—

"We think that the acts of Mr. Long must be construed with reference to the position in which he stood as a clergyman of the Church of England, towards a lawfully appointed Bishop of that church, and to the authority known to belong to that office

in England; and we are of opinion that, by taking the oath of canonical obedience to his Lordship, and accepting from him a licence to officiate, and have the cure of souls within the parish of Mowbray, subject to revocation for just cause, and by accepting

the appointment to the living of Mowbray under a deed which expressly contemplated, as one means

• 1 Moo. P. C. (N. 8.) 411.

+ 1 Moo. P. C. (N. S.) 481.

1 3oo. P. C. (N. 8.) 462,

F

1.. ..

i

PUBLIC

RECORD OFFICE

TLT

Reference —

C.O.885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

Page 280Page 281