THE COLENSO CASE.

Evening Post, Issue 95, 30 May 1865, Page 2

THE COLENSO CASE.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have given judgment in this case. The lords present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsdown, Lord Cran worth, the Master of the Rolls, and Dr. Lushington The facts of this case have been already published. It appears that the Bishop ol Natal had been summoned to nppear before the Bishop of Cape Town, as metropolitan of the church in Africa, to answer charges of heresy. He protested and did not appear. The tribunal, however, found him guilty, and sentenced him to be deprived of hia see. He appealed to the Privy Council, on the ground that the Bishop of Cape Town had no authority to deal with his case. The Bishop of Cape Town, on the other hand, urged that if there was any power, of appeal it was not to the Privy Council, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Lord Chancellor has now delivered the judgment of the Council. It is wholly in favour of Bishop Colenso, and is shortly to this effect, that, although the Bishop of Cape Town had no authority at all over the Bishop of Natal, yet, on the same principle, neither the Bishop of Natal nor any other colonial bishop not created under special legislative provision has any authority over any one else. They are bishops, and nothing more : they are not bishops of any place, or over anybody in. particular. If their ordination of itself conveys the capacity of exercising spiritual functions, such as Confirmation and Ordination, they of course possess that capacity; but they have no authority to exercise it. They are, in short, in. very much the same position as any clergyman of the Church of England who is not appointed to a definite cure. He is a priest or a deacor, but he holds no local office and has no authority over anyone. They are, in fact, as much* bishops in theFeegee Islands as in their nominal diocesses, and, on the other hand, they are to no greater extent bishops in their diocesses than they would be ia the Feegee Islands. The principles from which these sweeping results follow are very clear and simple. It is laid down as " clear upon principle," that a'tor the establishment of an independent legislature in any colony or settlement, there is no power in the Crown to create of its mere prerogative "any ecclesiastical corporation whose status, rights, and authority the colony should be required to recognise," still less to establish a metropolitan see, with jurisdiction over the sees of other independent settlements. Now, the letters patent both of Dr. Gray and of Dr. Colenso were issued after distinct legislative powers had been granted both to the settlement of the Cape of G-ood Hope and to the colony of Natal. The clauses, therefore, in the letters patent of these two bishops, and of all [other colonial bishops iti a similar position, which seem to have such an effect, are simply null and void. It was not even legally competent for the Bishop of Natal voluntarily to give, or for the Bishop of Cape Town to receive, any -such ecclesiastical jurisdiction. — Home Mews.