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

1430 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VII metropolitan and suffragan. They also held that so much of the letters patent as attempted to confer any coercive legal jurisdiction was in violation of the law 16 Car. I. c. 11, which had repealed the power given in s. 18 of 1 Eliz. c. 1, to appoint persons to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realms of England and Ireland, or any other the dominions and countries of the Crown. By 13 Car. IL c. 12 the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction and authority as it existed before 1639 was restored, but the Act of 16 Car. 1 was repealed only with a proviso that s. 18 of the Act of Elizabeth should remain repealed. There was therefore no power in the Crown to create any new or additional ecclesiastical tribunal or jurisdiction, and the clauses which purported to do so contained in the letters patent to the appellant and respondent were simply void in law. No metropolitan or bishop in any Colony having legislative institutions could, by virtue of the Crown’s letters patent alone (unless granted under an Act of Parlia- ment or confirmed bya Colonial statute), exercise any coercive jurisdiction, or hold any court or tribunal for that purpose. Pastoral or spiritual authority might be incidental to the office of bishop, but all jurisdiction in the Church, where it could be lawfully conferred, must proceed from the Crown, and be exercised as the law directed, and suspension or privation of office was matter of coercive legal jurisdiction and not of mere spiritual authority. They proceeded to consider the question whether there was any contractual basis, and they replied that not only was there no trace of an agreement to confer jurisdiction, but it was not legally competent to the Bishop of Natal to give, or to the Bishop of Cape Town to accept or exercise, any such juris- diction. They also pointed out that the reference to them was perfectly proper, as it was a reference to the Sovereign as head of the Established Church and depositary of the ultimate appellate jurisdiction. Before the Reformation, in a dispute of this nature between two independent prelates, an appeal would have lain to the Pope, but all appellate authority of the Pope over members of the Established Church was by statute vested in the Crown. Moreover, by the Act 25

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