suap. 1] THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS 1437
abroad. They are members of the Church of England proper,
and the Church is a real branch of the Church of England.
On the other hand, there exist large numbers of bishops in
the Colonies who are members of Churches more or less
closely allied to and in communion with the Church of
England in the United Kingdom, but whose Churches are
quite autonomous bodies in no way subject to the control of
she Church of England! and civil questions regarding which
are decided not on the basis of the law of the Church of
England, but on the basis of the contract or legislative
enactment establishing the constitution of the Church in
question.
The number of cases which deal with the various Colonial
Churches is very great.? One of the most recent and in-
teresting is the case of Macqueen v. Frackelton,® which
was decided in the High Court of the Commonwealth of
Australia in 1909. In that case a minister of the Pres-
byterian Church of Queensland had been guilty, in the
opinion of the Presbytery of Brisbane, of unsatisfactory
conduct. The Presbytery recommended to the General
Assembly, which was the Supreme Court of the Church in
Queensland, that that body should dissolve the tie between
the plaintiff and his congregation. The plaintiff and other
members of the Presbytery dissented and gave notice of
appeal to the General Assembly. He also brought an action
against all the members of the Presbytery, except himself,
to restrain any proceeding upon the resolution as being
contrary to the rules prescribed by the constitution of the
‘ This was enunciated clearly in 1873 by the Bishop of Wellington, New
Zealand, at the opening of his diocesan synod; see Guardian, August 11,1875,
p. 1025. Cf. also Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law, II. x, chap. 3. The con-
stitution of the New Zealand Church was in part drafted by Sir G. Grey ;
see Collier, Sir George Grey, p. 88 ; Rusden, ii. 456.
* Cf. Johnston v. Ministers and Trustees of St. Andrew's Church, Montreal,
3 App. Cas. 159; Alexandre v. Brassard, [1895] A. C. 301 ; Polushie v.
Zacklynski, 378. C. R. 177; [1908] A. C. 65; Deeks v. Davidson, 26 Gr. 488;
Brown v. Curé etc., de Montreal, 6 P. C. 157; Murray v. Burgers. 1 P. C.
362.
? (1909) 8 C. L. R. 673. Cf. Tovey v. Houison, 7 C. L. R. 393, at p. 406.
1279-3 -
