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

1432 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VII matter of fact, new letters patent in 1856 granted a repre- sentative legislature, and, in the case of the Cape, letters patent of 1850 permitted the existing nominee council to establish a Parliament. The Judicial Committee’s deci- sion, however, might well be regarded as sound, on the ground that in the Cape the Crown had no power of legisla- tion, and the authority of an external bishop in the Cape over a bishop in Natal could thus not legally be constituted, as it could only legally be constituted if there was in both cases a power of legislation by Order in Council. The validity of the judgement, however, in regard to Colonies with represen- tative institutions, is of course unquestionable, and it deter- mined once and for all the status of bishops in the Colonies. The question came up for further decision in the case of the Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, which was decided in 1866 by Lord Romilly, Master of the Rolls. In that case the bishop sued Mr. Gladstone, one of the trustees of the Colonial Bishoprics’ Fund, for arrears of his salary, and it was decided by the Master of the Rolls that he was entitled to his salary. This judgement of the Master of the Rolls is of great impor- tance, because it laid down a clear distinction between two forms which might be adopted by the Church of England in the Colonies. In the one case the members might remain members of the Church of England and be bound among themselves by agreement by the constitution of that Church; if then any disputes as to rights arose amongst such persons they would fall to be determined by the civil Courts (for there was no such thing as an Ecclesiastical Court in the Colonies) according to the law of the Church of England as declared by the English Courts from time to time. Their bishops would be consecrated by the bishops of the Church of England in accordance with the rules for the consecration of bishops. On the other hand, it was possible for a Church to be set up which was in full communion with the Church of England, but which nevertheless by agreement or by Act of the Colonial Legislature would have a completely separate constitution, and that constitution would be a matter to be 13 Eq 1. The decision is not wholly compatible with that of the Privy Council, and so far is of inferior value.

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