CO885-(2-3) — Page 344

PUBLI

T༴། 「 T

RECORD OFFICE

חוז

Reference --

C.O.885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

CAPE OF

24

CORRESPONDENCE RELATIVE TO

·

I

"if they so pleased, might, though holding the doctrines of the Church of England, reject, either in whole GOOD HOPE.« or in part, the discipline and government of the Church though they preserved still the creed, faith, and ⚫ parcel "doctrines of the Church of England, is unquestionable. Such an association might * " out the districts into parishes, and appoint a minister to officiate in each parish; all this they night "do, and all this would be perfectly legal, and all this would be binding on the members of the associa- "tion who assented to it, &c." "But this association would not be a branch of the Church of Eng- "land." And again, "They" (fembers of the Church of England in the colonies) "are bound by the "same rulos, ordinances, and discipline as the Church in England. If any recourse should needs be had to the civil tribunals, the questions at issue must be tried by the same rules of law which would "prevail if the question was tried in England." Now, as to the practical operations of this theory I "shall speak presently; but I would first call your attention to one or two points, which may lead us to doubt whether this theory is so demonstrably truo as it is here assumed to be. You will observe, first, that it all depends on a certain view of the Royal supremacy being accepted by the Church of England. It is maintained that this extreme view is the true interpretation of the 37th Article of our Church. And it would follow from this, and Lord Romilly saw clearly that it must follow, that if this were the meaning of the Article, no Church, whose bishops were not appointed by the Crown, and which is not governed by the ecclesiastical laws of the Sovereign, could accept that Article. Now, in my charge delivered here in 1864, I had used the argument that the 37th Article was accepted by the Scotch Episcopal Church, and therefore does not mean what some persons imagine. I was therefore somewhat startled on finding that Lord Romilly had said that all Churches, in the position of the Scotch Episcopal Church, reject, as the Church in Scotland is "compelled to do, the 37th of the Articles of the English Church, which puts the Sovereign at the "head of that Church." But, whatever it may be that Lord Romilly refers to, it is certain that the Scotch Episcopal Church, by its canons of 1863, does require all its clergy to subscribe a declaration that "all and every the Articles, being in number thirty-nine, are agreeable to the Word of God." find, also, on referring to earlier canons, that this cannot be regarded as a mere misapprehension of that Church as to the meaning of the 37th Article: because it appears that this was the condition, enforced on that Church, of the relief afforded to its clergy in George III.'s reign; that these clergy should sign these Articles. That is, that though remaining a free and independent Church they should yet acknow- ledge the principle of the Royal supremacy, which, therefore, according to the law, did not compel them them to receive their bishops from the Sovereign, or to have their internal eronomy governed by the Sovereign. However, there are other yet more substantial difficulties in the way of this high pre- rogative theory. In 1856, an Act affecting the members of the Church of England in the colonies was passed by the Canadian Parliament. It stated in its preamble: "That whereas doubts exist whether "members of the Church of England in this province have the power of regulating the affairs of their "Church in matters relating to discipline, and necessarily to order and good government, and it is just "that such doubts should be removed, in order that they may be permitted to exercise the same rights "of self-government that are enjoyed by other religious communities," therefore, it is enacted that "the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of England and Ireland in this province may meet in "their several dioceses,

and in such manner and by such proceedings as they shall adopt, "frame constitutions, and make regulations for enforcing discipline in the Church for the appointment "deposition, deprivation, or removal of any person bearing office therein, of whatever order or degree, "any rights of the Crown to the contrary notwithstanding, &c.," and similar permission is given to the General Assembly or Provincial Synod. Now, it is evident, if Lord Romilly's theory be true, that such an Act would separate the Canadian Church from the Church of England, that they could not remain members of the Church of England, and yet possess these rights. And auch was the view taken by the law officers of the Crown, who considered that the consent of Her Majesty the Judicial could not be legally given to this Act. But the question was then referred to Committee of the Privy Council, and they were of a contrary opinion, and the Canadian Act was confirmed, Surely this proves conclusively that it is not essential by law, to our being members of the Church of England, that we should be debarred from possessing in However, the colonies the same rights of self-government as belong to other religious bodies. this is by no means the only instance of this. I will refer to the case of Melbourne, because much has been said in this colony as to the action lately taken in Melbourne. If we had the same privileges which the Church of England in Melbourne enjoys, the case would be different. But what is the case in Melbourne? I will quote the language of their own petition, published in the Argus, which I have received to day. They say: "That your petitioners have always claimed to belong to the United "Church of England and Ireland, and that their position, as an integral part of the said Church, has "always been recognized by Acts of the Legislature of Victoria, more especiaily by the Act, &c., "intituled: An Act to enable the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the United Church of England and "Ireland in Victoria to provide for the regulations of the affairs of the said Church,' which Act received your Majesty's assent on the 25th February 1856. That the recognition has never been "held to confer any special advantage upon your petitioners over other of your Majesty's subjects who "claim to belong, and are regarded as belonging, to other religious communities; but that it is looked upon as leaving them in a position neither better nor worse than that of other religious denominations, by according to them, in common with others, full religious liberty in managing their own affairs." But this, observe, is exactly what Lord Romilly declares none possess without separating themselves from the Church of England. It is all we claim, that remaining members of that Church, we may enjoy, as others do, religious liberty in managing our own affairs (applause). Thus much for the theory: We are told that we let us now examine a little how it will work practically amongst ourselves. cannot make rules for ourselves; that we must take the English ecclesiastical law-with the exception of statutes limited to England and Ireland-so far as applicable, and that the civil courts must decide for us what is applicable. 1 do not dwell now on the extreme hardship of our being all compelled to accept as law just so much as the courts-composed of eminent judges often quite unacquainted with our wants and condition-may from time to time consider applicable. I would simply ask you to consider what would be our state in this colony, if in temporal matters we were debarred from making

แ

• •

COLONIAL BISHOPRICS.

25

CAPE OF

any rules for ourselves, but were obliged to accept the laws made in England for England, without modification, just so far as courts of law might deem them applicable. But I will go further than GOOD HOPE. this: I say it is a monstrous infringement of our liberties as churchmen, and as British subjects, that we should be compelled to adhere to English laws in these matters, and not to be at liberty to refuse some portions of them, if we do not consider them suitable to us. I will take two instances, both of which I think you will appreciate, and they will show you that the laity are as much interested as the clergy in resisting such interference, and maintaining our independence. I refer, first, to the law as to patronago. We all know that in England, by law, advowsons are bought and sold; we know also how much scandal is caused thereby. We do not wish in the least to condemn our mother church, or to say that such a law may not be expedient in England; but this we say, we do not wish to allow any such law amongst ourselves. We con- sidered the question, you will remember, in our Diocesan Synod, and were unanimous in deciding that whatever other part of the English law of patronage was accepted, this should not be. I maintain wo have a perfect right to make this rule; and yet, should any question as to this subject come before civil courts, it is clear that, on Lord Romilly's principles, we should be told that such a rule was illegal, and could not be enforced. Again, there was another question, one of much delicacy, decided by our Synod. You will remember that at the time of our first Synod, there had been in England disturbances in England in consequence of clergymen introduring into their churches decorations offensive to their parishioners. This, by English law, they have the power to do. We felt, however, when the question was raised in Synod, that without at all judging as to the expediency of the English law in England yet that in our position in the colonies, and with the peculiar nature of colonial life, it would be far better to prevent anything of the kind, by a rule to which we all assented--that "no alteration what- "ever in the fabric, furniture, or decoration of the church shall be made in opposition to the declared "will of the restry." Have we not the liberty to make such a rule? Imaintain we cannot bo deprived of this liberty without a tyrannical interference with our rights in this colony, where English law is not the law of the land (cheers). I say, I refer to these as instances that the laity are as much concerned as the clergy in this question. I must protest against this great question being treated, as I think it has been regarded in some places, as one between clergy and laity, as one whether ecclesiastics are to rule the Church, or whether the laity are to have their due influence. It is nothing of the kind; it is the question whether the clergy and laity together are to have any voice in the management of our own affairs. We surely show, in our Synod, that we have no wish to exclude the laity from the management of Church affairs (hear, hear). There is not a single rule for the Church in this diocese that can be accepted without the consent of the lay representatives. The tribunal for discipline, constituted by our Synod, has a lay assessor, and it is more liberal than that fornied by the Church Discipline Act in England, and no tribunal can be formed without the consent of the laity in Synod. It is a mistake from beginning to end to treat this as any other question than that of the rights of those who, receiving no powers from the state, ought to have liberty to act for themselves. Ilowever, I must proceed a step further still. I think those who clamour for English ecclesiastical law, and nothing else, hardly know what they are asking for. Does any one in this country know what English ecclesiastical law is? The Bishop of Cape Town has well shown, in his able remarks on Lord Romilly's judgment, what a burden it would impose. But I Would ask, as a practical question, how in the world are we to guide ourselves if this is to be our standard? A bishop in England, and a clergyman there, if he is in doubt as to the ecclesiastical law can go to lawyers conversant with that law and trained in ecclesiastical courts, and from them he can obtain some opinion for his guidance. But what can a bishop do here? He cannot make himself master of this subject, and there is not a single lawyer in the colony to whom he can apply on such questions. It is not the law of the colony as it is the law of England, and hence it is no business of lawyers to be acquainted with it and with the various precedents which would guide English courts. And what is an unfortunate clergyman to do? Ilow is he to avoid all the traps and snares of ecclesiastical law, being, as he is, without the power of obtaining any advice on which dependence can be placed? And, let me ask, are the courts in this colony, and the distinguished judges in theso courts, familiar with the ecclesiastical law of England? No one supposes that they are; at all events, we know that the only judgment in such a matter given by the supreme court of this colony was reversed on appeal to England. Is it not then a very serious grievance that we should be tied to this law, with no power of altering it, and compelled to accept the decisions respecting it, of a court appointed to administer a totally different system of laws, whilst we have no means of informing ourselves thoroughly as to the nature of the law to which we are thus bound? What confusion, what causes for contention and interminable litigation, will arise from such a condition of things? Not only are we in a more unfavourable position than other religious bodies: not only have we none of the liberty they possess of managing their own affairs; but we are fettered and bound, and then thrown into a system complicated and wholly unsuited for us, from which we must not make any attempt to extricate ourselves. On one point I would briefly touch in conclusion. This theory will necessarily throw us all back on the prerogative method of Church government instead of the constitutional. I have endeavoured during my episcopate to substi- tute the constitutional for the autocratical principles of Church government. I'am pledged, at all events morally, perhaps legally, to the constitutional principle. By instituting the clergy and by our synodical action, I have surrendered a certain portion of the authority which, according to English law, a bishop would possess. But now it seems the conditions under which this constitutional system was introduced are declared to be illegal; we are thrown bark on a system of a totally different kind. I have thus bound myself, but my successor will not be bound legally or morally, and I am persuaded that if Lord Romilly's views become law, no bishop in future would be justified in making the attempt to introduce such cinstitutional government. He must use the power he possesses under the English law, and not be any party to the formation of benefices or other such cures, or to the institution of incumbents. He must give revocable licenses, which he can cancel without showing cause, in accordance with the law of England, and must not, by any pledge to synodical rules, bind himself to principles which cannot be legally carried into effect with fairness to all concerned. I say, for myself, I ain both unable and unwilling to govern the disse on the preregative system, but others may be able, and it would D