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

1442 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VII been in the slightest degree fulfilled. He was then of opinion that the future would see the development of the Church of England by branches which were real branches of the English Church governed by the principles and rites of the English Church. This has not been the case. The natural and local desire for autonomy in civil matters has extended to religious questions, and throughout the Dominions the Churches which have been established have made themselves independent Churches in union and communion with the English Church, but in no sense portions of that Church. They are autono- mous communities, and their government differs considerably from the Church of England proper. Unquestionably this has all been for the good, inasmuch as the local freedom of the Church has stimulated its exertions and prevented it acquiring the unpopularity which would certainly have been the fate of bodies controlled from home. Moreover, it has been the definite policy of the Archbishops of Canterbury to encourage full local autonomy. This is shown by their attitude towards those in Natal who desired to maintain the position adopted by Bishop Colenso, and to preserve in Natal a Church which should be a true branch of the English Church and not a branch of the English Church in South Africa, a Church in communion and union with the English Church, but not a branch of the English Church proper. Petition after petition has failed to induce the archbishops to consecrate a bishop of the English Church to minister in Natal, with the result that the Church must die out for lack of ordained clergymen to maintain its ministrations.! The provisions of the Colonial Clergy Act of 1874 are briefly * Parl. Pap., C. 5489, 1888. There was no proper successor to the Bishop in Natal, and the property of the see was vested in curators. A Bishop of Natal exists, but he is subject to the South African Church; he was conse- crated in 1893 under a royal mandate by the Archbishop of Canterbury. There has been much litigation: see e.g. Board of Curators of Church of England v. Durban Corporation and H. H. Colensy, (1900) 21 N. L. R. 22; Moses Sibisi v. Curators of Church of England, ibid., 90. See also Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain, ii. 418 seq. Act No. 9 of 1910 decides the ownership of the properties, but it maintains in part the distinction of the Churches (sec. 3. ¢ and d).

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