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

1436 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VII patent granted were really valid, which no doubt was the case. The Archbishop of Canterbury had no jurisdiction, in their opinion, to inquire into the doctrines of the bishop, and the Crown had no power to appoint commissioners, or the Privy Council to hear the action, for though the Crown was supreme over all causes ecclesiastical, it was so in no other sense and to no greater extent than in causes temporal, that is, by law and by means of the established Courts. The High Commission Court was illegal, and to refer the matter to the Privy Council under the Act of 1832 would be to re-establish the High Commission Court. A scire facias to revoke the letters patent would only apply to an improvident grant, and very possibly the letters patent were valid. There was, therefore, no Court which they considered capable of deciding the question of his holding or not holding heretical opinions. It is clear, however, from the remarks of the Master of the Rolls in the case of the Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone that the matter could have been settled by the trustees refusing to pay the bishop on the ground of his heretical opinions, when the matter would have been decided by the Court of Chancery and, on appeal, by the House of Lords. The decision of these cases once and for all made clear the position of Churches in the Colonies. It is still possible for a bishop to be consecrated by an archbishop of the English Church with the permission of the Crown for service in some place either in or without His Majesty’s dominions! but such consecration carries with it no grant of jurisdiction.’ The members of the Church of England in the place in question would be assumed to assent to the doctrines of the Church of England, and questions of civil right, depending on questions of doctrine would be decided by the principles of the Church of England. Such bishops are from time to time consecrated for service in the Crown Colonies and 1 Cf. Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, IL ii, 247-9. * Nor is any special diocese assigned ; this was asked for by the Bishop of Sydney in 1872, but Lord Kimberley declined to change the practice ; see New Zealand Parl. Pap., 1872, A. 1a, p. 31. Cf. Hansard, ser. 3, clxxxvii, 256, 762; Adderley, Coloniul Policy, pp. 395 seq. ; Parl. Pap., H. C. 259 IL, p. 50. The title Lord Bishop is now incorrect, Parl. Pap. {. 3184. n. 7: Richt Rev. is used officially.

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