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 1435 Church of England. It would strictly and properly be an Episcopal Church not of, but in, South Africa, as it is the Episcopal Church in Scotland but not of Scotland. He strongly recommended that for the sake of uniformity the Church of England should have branches in the Colonies instead of their being separate and independent Churches. It was a mistake to think that the Bishop of Cape Town had been held to have no effective ecclesiastical jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the decision was that he had jurisdiction, but he must administer it in accordance with the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England, and in a manner in accordance with the principles of justice, and that whether or not it were so administered was a question that was to be decided by the civil Courts of the Colonies. He accordingly held that the Bishop of Natal was suffi- ciently a bishop of the Church of England as to be entitled to receive the emoluments of his office. He added, however, that if the bishop had failed to carry out his duties he might have been refused his salary. There was some real inconsistency between this case and that of in re The Lord Bishop of Natal, but in mentioning the case in ex parte Jenkins! the matter was disposed of, when in the case of the Bishop of Newfoundland a question arose with regard to his authority in the Bermudas, by the fact that such authority was conclusively authorized by various Colonial Acts. In Merriman v. Williams? however, the rules of connexion between the churches weremore precisely defined. The Law Officers of the Crown in April 1869 were asked to advise what steps could be taken to try the bishop, assum- ing that he was guilty of an ecclesiastical offence.> They mentioned in their opinion that the Colonial decision in the Bishop of Natal v. Green had shown that there had been some misapprehension in the view of the Privy Council as to the status of the Colony,* and it might be that the letters 12P. C. 258 Cf 3P.C.1,atp. 13. * Above, p. 1433, n. 1. * Forsyth, op. ecit., pp. 60, 61. ' This was probably the case. The Colonial Court (1868 N. L. R. 138, Phillips J. diss.) accepted the view that the letters patent were valid and did confer jurisdiction, when Mr. Green sought to ignore his bishop on the faith of the earlier decisions.

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