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).