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

cmap. 1] THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS 1427 witnesses on oath, though not to summon them. In South Australia no legislation was passed, but the bishops and slergy bound themselves in 1855 by what was called a ‘ consensual compact ’, establishing a synod and binding the slergy to obey its regulations. In the case of South Africa a bishopric of Cape Town was established in 1847 with power of visitation only, the Cape being then a Crown Colony and the Tasmanian question of jurisdiction having been determined. In 1850 to 1853 a representative Parliament was instituted in the Cape. Then letters patent were issued in 1853 after the constitu- tion of the Parliament reconstructing the bishopric, while a bishopric of Natal was created and the bishopric of Graham's Town was carved out of Cape Town, with powers of visitation. This was the state of affairs prevailing when three most important cases were decided which finally determined the position of the ecclesiastical law in the Colonies. In the case of Long v. The Bishop of Cape Town,* decided by the Privy Council, Mr. Long, the appellant, who was an incum- bent of a parish in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, refused to obey certain orders given by the bishop of the diocese in the exercise of his episcopal authority, and for such disobedience he was first suspended and then deprived. It was held by the Judicial Committee that, after the grant of a constitutional government in the Cape, the letters patent were invalid for the purpose of conferring either ecclesiastical or civil jurisdiction. They then considered whether there could be set up a contract between Mr. Long and the bishop: They held that Mr. Long, by taking the oath of obedience to the bishop, and by accepting a licence to officiate, and the appointment to the living, under a deed which contem- plated the removal of the incumbent for any lawful cause, did voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the bishop to such an extent as to enable the bishop to deprive him of his benefice, this being decided on the basis of contract. But they decided that Mr. Long had not been guilty of any such t 1 Moo. P. C. (N. 8.) 411. Cf. ex parte King, 2 Legge, 1307 ; Blachford, Legal Development of the Colonial Episcopate ; Adderley, Colonial Policy, pp. 395-404; Forsyth, Cases and Opinions in Constitutional Law, chap. ii.

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