Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part VII. The Church in the dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

1424 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VII The history of the question is of interest. The ecclesias- tical law of England is not part of the common law which was introduced by British settlers into settled Colonies. The letters patent creating Colonial bishops have not purported to confer upon such bishops jurisdiction over lay persons such as used regularly to be exercised by the ecclesiastical Courts as, for example, in matrimonial matters, questions of probate, ecclesiastical dues, or cases of brawling, defama- tion of character, and so on. The first Colonial bishopric created was that of Nova Scotia in 1787, where the letters patent conferred upon the bishop full power and authority upon ecclesiastical matters over the ecclesiastics of the Church of England in Nova Scotia, and authorized him not only to visit the various ecclesiastical persons in his diocese, but also to punish and correct them, whether by removal, deprivation, suspension, or other ecclesiastical censure or correction, according to the ecclesiastical law of England, and to inquire into their conduct by witnesses to be duly sworn. Another commission empowered the bishop to exercise like authority and jurisdiction in Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. Reference is made to this bishopric in s. 40 of the Act of 1791, establishing representative institu- tions in the two Canadas. In 1793 the bishopric of Quebec was founded, and the two Canadas were removed from the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia. In 1819 an Imperial Act (c. 60) recognized the episcopal jurisdiction of the Bishops of Quebec and Nova Scotia as existing? In 1839 the diocese of New- foundland was detached from the diocese of Nova Scotia and the diocese of Toronto carved out of that of Quebec, the same power of jurisdiction being given. In 1845 the bishopric of New Brunswick was detached from that of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick having possessed representa- tive institutions from 1784. In 1857 the bishopric of Huron 1 The Governor in the Canadian Provinces had power under his commis- sion and instructions to appoint to benefices, but he was required to allow the bishop to institute (cf. 2 P. C. 258, at pp. 267 seq.) ; it was preserved in the letters patent of Lord Monk in 1861, and repeated for all Canada in 1867 as Governor-General. Hence it was argued that the right of presentation belonged to the Governor-General in New Brunswick in 1869, but local legis- lation settled the doubts, just as in the case of the issue of marriage licences.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation