The Sun.
London, England, 1866-11-06 00:00:00

IHE SUN, LONE ON, TEJESOA V EVENING, NOVEMBER ,6, 1866.

THE CASE OF BISHOP COLENSO.

County Wexford Election.

ROLLS COURT—THIS DAY.
(Before. the Master of the Rolls.)
COLENSO V. GLADSTONE AND OTHERS

In this case Dr, Colenso had filed a bill against
Mr. Gladstone, M.P., Mr. Hubbard, M.P., Vice-
Chancellor Wood, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and others, trustees of the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund,
calling upon them to set aside a sum of £lO,OOO out
of the fund for the purpose of securing the income
of the Bishop of Natal, and calling upon them also
to pay him (Dr. Colenso) his salary, which they had
withheld since 1864 on account of a deprivation
from his office by Bishop Gray, Metropolitan of
South Africa, which the judgment of the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council had since declared to
be illegal. The defendants contended that accord-
ing to that judgment Dr. Colenso had never been a
bishop at all within the meaning of the original
founders of the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund, who con-
tended that the Bishop of Natal should be subject to
the Metropolitan. The trustees did not feel them-
selves justified in paying over their funds to a
bishop of that class.
The court was densely crowded by persons inte-
rested in the decision, which was held to be of vital
importance to the whole of the Colonial Church.
Lord ' Romilly, in delivering judgment, briefly
stated the above circumstances. He proceeded to
say that the defendants did not deny that Dr.
Colenso was in some sense Bishop of Natal, although
they contended that his jurisdiction was merely
nominal. It would be his duty in the first place to
consider what were the duties of a Bishop of the
Church, to consider what was the real condition of
the colonial churches, how theletters patent granted
by the Crown affected the status of the bishop, and,
how the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund, on which Dr.
Colenso made a claim, ought to be 'dispensed. The
learned lord, by way of introduction to a considera-
tion of these questions, explainod the circumstances
under which the Bishopric of Natal was founded,
in consequence of the action taken by the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. In September, 1847, the
Cape of Good Hope was erected into a bishopric ;
and in 1853 it was considered desirable to erect two
new bishoprics for the Cape colony—one for Gra-
ham's Town and Natal. Letters patent were issued,
declaring the See of Cape Town vacant by the re-
signation of Dr. Gray, with a view to the formation
of the two new bishoprics, and the plaintiff was
declared Bishop of Natal. The letters patent also
declared that the Bishop of Natal should be sub-
ject to the Bishop of Cape Town (re-appointed),
and that within six months of his consecration he
should take an oath of canonical obedience to the
Metropolitan. Full power was given to the Bishop
of Natal to give restitution, licenses, orders, and to
hold visitations, and to exercise functions usually
pertaining to the office of a bishop. In pursuance
of an arrangement, £660 a-year had been paid to
the Bishop of Natal until 1864, when the trustees of
the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund resolved to carry the
amount to a separate account in consequence of a
sentence of deposition passed upon him by the
Bishop of Cape Town. The Judicial Committee
had declared that sentence of deposition to be null
and void, whereupon the plaintiff applied for the
arrears of his salary, but the trustees still refused
on the grounds set out on their defence. He (the
learned lord) considered that he had nothing to do
with doctrine or the alleged heretical tendency of his
writings. That question might have been raised,
but it had not been, and he was not to consider any
question of morals or religion. Neither had he to
consider whether the letters-patent were absolutely
null and void. That was a question which might be
tried by another tribunal. All he had to do
in this matter was to consider the effect of the letters-
patent as between Bishop Colenso and the trustees
of the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund, the defendants.
The letters patent directed the Archbishop of Can-
terbury to consecrate the Bishop of Natal. He had
done so, and there could be no doubt that Dr. Co-
lenso had become a bishop, with episcopal powers,
so far as they did not include a coercive jardisdic-
tion over a flock. He would then have power to
confer ordination, to consecrate churches, and to
hold confirmations. These powers were not con-
fined to any particular spot, but were universal ;
but this, it was said, only gave him a claim to be
considered a titular bishop. Unconnected with the
State all bishops were alike, but for the conveni-
ence of the Catholic Church (he used that term in
its proper, comprehensive, and classical sense), ter-
ritorial districts had been assigned to them, and
powers over those districts conferred upon them.
Referring to the circumstances under which the
constitution of Natal was given, the question arose,
how far the powers of the Bishop of Natal were
affected, because as to his position as a bishop of
the Church of England there could be no' doubt.
He (Lord Romilly) could not see that the judgment
of the Judicial Committee deprived the bishop of
power to appoint officers, to collate persons to bene-
fices, &c. The letters patent gave the Bishop of Na-
tal these powers, but they did not give him power to
enforce obedience to his orders without having re-
course to the civil powers. He was a titular
bishop all the world over, and a territorial bishop within
the diocese of Natal, and this had been the idea of a bishop
ever since the establishment of Christianity. Through the
civil tribunal there was an appeal to the Sovereign. And'
this led him to consider what was the real condition
of the Church of England in those colonies. Referring at
length to the case of the " Bishop of Cape Town v. Long,"
he found that in that judgment there was no suggestion
that the church over which Bishop Gray presided was not
a branch of the Church of England. On the contrary, it
was all along assumed that it was ; and not that it was
merely in communion with the Church of England, and
that Mr. Long had so far submitted himself to the Bishop
as to justify his deprivation for sufficient cause. But the
Judicial Committee, after considering whether Mr. Long
had done sufficient to justify the bishop in suspending him,
came to the conclusion that he had not ; that Dr. Gray
had established a synod which claimed powers which only
the Legislature could possess. What the Judicial Com-
mittee decided was, not that the bishop had not any
authority, but that he was a forum domesticum,
and not, as had been supposed, a State tribunal.
It seemed to him that while the letters patent could not
establish any new ecclesiastical tribunals in the colonies,
they did establish all 'questions affecting the Colonial
Church on the ordinary principles of the Church at home,
but without any of the powers given to a territorial bishop
in the Church of England. The inhabitants of South
Africa might agree to form an ecclesiastical association, to
elect a bishop, and agree to abide by his decisions. In that
case the civil power might enforce them, but then it would
be simply the Church in South Africa, just as the Episcopal
Church was the Church in Scotland, of which the Queen
would not be at the head. The defendants had argued that
to such a bishop they could not give their funds without a
breach of trust, inasmuch as the original founders of the
See never contemplated the appointment of an independent
bishop. (The learned lord read a letter from Miss Burdett
Coutts, who provided the bulk of the funds for the endow-
ment of the Bishopric of Natal, in which she stated that
she would not have guaranteed the funds unless she had
understood that the legal status of the Church of England
in all its integrity should be formed in the colony, and that
the bishop should have effective ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion.) That letter he thought was written under a
misapprehension of the judgment of the Judicial Committee
of Privy Council, which never said that the bishop had no
ecclesiastical jurisdiction on the principles he had stated.
He could not think that the promoters of these bishoprics
ever contemplated the establishment of episcopal power
above the Crown. It was a trite maxim of law that igno-
rance did not excuse, and the contributors on that principle
ought to have been acquainted with the fact that the bishop
could not act without reference to the civil tribunals. He
must then come to the conclusion that the original inten-
tions of the founders could not be called in aid of the re-
fusal to pay Bishop Colenso his salary. It could not be
said that the Bishop of Natal had no effective jurisdiction,
because he was liable to have his decisions reversed by the
civil power. This was the case with all colonies where
there was a legislature and no Established Church. It cer-
tainly might be a question whether the state should exer-
cise authority over the church on matters eccle-
siastical, but that was a matter which it was not
for him to decide. If the defendants were right
in their views what was to become of the colonial
bishops similarly situated? Were congregations to be de-
prived of episcopal supervision—were the funds to be con-
stantly accumulating—were they to bo returned to the sub-
scribers? No one could maintain either of these proposi-
tions for an instant. The Archbishop of Canterbury was
directed to consecrate a Bishop of Natal. He did so, and
thus gave Dr. Colenso full power as an English bishop.
He (Lord Rom Ely) did not mean to say that Bishop Colenso
could not be removed from the bishopric on account of im-
morality or of abandonment of the Christian faith, but such
a matter had not been raised. If it bad, he might have
been compelled to decide it. As the case had been placed
before him he must decide that the prayer of the plaintiff's
bill must be granted, and the defendants must pay the
costs. At the same time he thought the trustees had acted
properly, and Dr. Colenso must pay the costs of the
Attorney-General and the personal costs of the trustees.
Judgment accordingly.

MR. POPE HENNESSY'S ANSWER TO MR. BRIGHT.
On Mr. Hennessy's return to Wexford from the northern
district of the county, a meeting of his central committee
was summoned on Thursday evening, at eight o'clock; Mr.
Alderman Walsh in the chair.
Mr. Pope Hennessy said—Gentlemen, you are probably
aware that a very deliberate attack has been made upon your
candidate by a distinguished gentleman, who, being the guest
at a public dinner in Dublin, went a little out of his way to
give me an electioneering blow, and by boldly asserting that
which was not true doing his best to keep me out of the
House of Commons. A correspondent from Dublin, who was
present at the banquet, tells us that Mr. Bright's attack was
felt to be in very bad taste, and was very badly received
even by many who differ with me in politics. (Cheers.)
Nevertheless, the words of so great a man carry undoubted
weight, and it is my duty to take the earliest opportunity
of vindicating myself, and also of endeavouring to give
him as fair a hit as I can, in return for the heavy blow ho
aimed at me. (Cheers.) The words ho is reported to have
used are —" There is a gentleman now a candidate for an
Irish county, who is very great upon the wrongs of Poland;
but I have found trim always in the House of Commons
taking sides with that great party which has systemati-
cally supported the wrongs of Ireland." (Cries of" Shame,
shame.") Indeed, I should not be surprised to hear that
some one who was very close to Mr. Bright called out
as you have done, "shame, shame," for by a strange coin-
cidence the high-bred gentleman who occupied the chair,
The D'Donoghue, had, at the close of the late parliament,
written 0 me during the King's county contest in these
words :—"My dear Pope Hennessy,—l earnestly hope you
are succeeding in your election, for I found in the House of
Commons that you always acted as a true Irishman should
act.—Alway s sincerely yohrs, O'Donoghue." (Loud cheers.)
What a curious coincidence it is that the same universal
and sweeping language that Mr. Bright used in asserting
one proposition should have been used by The O'Donoghue
in asserting exactly the opposite proposition. Mr. Bright
says—" I ale ays found him against Ireland ;" "The O'Do-
noghue says —" I always found him for Ireland." Now, you
know very well which of these contradictory Propositions
is the false one ; but still, as it May bo a useful lesson to
teach Mr. Bright, I will take the trouble of justifying the
good opinion The O'Donoghue expressed of me, and ex-
pose in detail the sweeping and audacious assertion of Mr.
Bright. (Cheers.) Let us take the subject of tenant-right.
During the six years of the late Parliament the only tenant
right bill introduced by a private member was the bill
placed in my hands by the Westmeath Farmers' Club. The
essence of the bill was that any tenant who made improve-
ments that increased the letting value of farms should be
entitled to receive compensation if the farm was taken from
him, or if he gave it up. The introduction of the bill was
opposed, but I carried it after a division, and it was subse-
quently defeated on the second reading. Where was Mr.
Bright during the division and the two debates ? Nowhere.
(Cheers.) Subsequently Mr. Cardwell brought in a most
wretched measure, the principle of which was that no com-
pensation should be given unless the landlord had consented
to the improvement. A few of us opposed this, but we were
defeated in the division lobby. Where was Mr. Bright when
the interests of the Irish tenant were again at stake ? No-
where. We never saw him when an Irish question was
discussed in these days. Again, you may recollect a care-
fully-packed committee was nominated in 1865 on tenant-
right—l say, a carefully packed committee —for out of the
seventeen members there was a clear majority of seven
against the tenant—and when Mr. Blake, Mr. M'Mahon,
and I exposed the constitution of the committee and tried
to improve it, did we get any aid from Mr. Bright ? No,
indeed ; he, as usual, was nowhere. (Cheers.) When
the miserable report of that committee was presented to
the house on the 23d of June, it was I who led
the attack upon it. I was ably seconded by Mr.
M'Mahon—and our conduct on that occasion was highly
commended by the real friends of tenant-right—but where
was Mr. Bright ? Of course he was anywhere but in the
house—we never saw him, he never gave us the smallest
assistance. (Cheers.) Again, on the 26th of June I re-
turned to the subject, and showed that the report of the
committee was most unfair to the Irish tenant, but Mr.
Bright was not to be seen. (Cheers.) In a word, I can
safely affirm that during my Parliamentary life I never lost
the opportunity of advocating a practical measure of tenant
right and exposing the illusory proposals of the Govern-
ment, whereas, during all that time, the friends of the Irish
tenant never received the assistance or even the counte-
nance of Mr. Bright. (Cheers.) So far on that subject, per-
haps, I may venture to say I have disposed of his flippant
slanders. (Loud cheers.) But Mr. Bright gave us in the
same speech what was perhaps the explanation of his studied
absence from the House of Commons in the late Parliament
whenever the tenant-right question was at stake. He has
discovered a more permanent and far-reaching remedy for
the evils of Ireland. How the old veterans of the tenant
league must laugh or weep when they read his improvement
on tenant right, namely, the abolition of the law of primo-
geniture, and breaking the system of entails and settle-
ments ! Why, that is the very thing we do not want to do.
(Cheers.) To increase the number of tenant farmers and
render them happier is our object ; to increase the number
of landlords and to reduce them to that most grinding and
obnoxious class of landlords—the middlemen—is his
avowed object. I say it is his avowed object, for surely
the abolition of primogeniture would' inevitably lead to
that. (Cheers.) Instead of the eldest son getting the
estate it would have to be split up between half a dozen
sons ; and then each sixth part of the estate would, in the
course of a generation, be again broken up, and so on the
disintegrating process would proceed, each group of small
landlords being poorer and more needy, and harder upon
the farmers than the preceding group. Why, if ever the
modern school of British economists should offer a reward
for the carrying out of their great scheme for depopulating
Ireland, they need not go beyond Mr. Bright'splan. Small
comfort to the tenant farmers to know that what de-
strayed them had destroyed the landlords also. (Cheers.)
Truly, it has been said over and over again by every
, honest champion of tenant-right in Ireland that the in-
terests of the landlord and the tenant are identical, and, that
a sound measure of tenant-right in securing the property
created by the labour of the tenant would inevitably in-
crease also the wealth and happiness of the landlord ; but
how fatal to all our hopes, to the slightest prospect of re-
lief, would be the interminable conflict between class and
class—a conflict leading to mere destruction, involved in
this startling project, for which, forsooth, wo must give up
tenant-right, because Mr. Bright thinks his scheme " a
more permanent and far-reaching remedy." (Cheers.) I
should like to remind Mr. Bright of the case of the Derry-
veagh evictions. A new man, and a leading Liberal too,
purchased a property in Donegal, and for some reason or
another swept away the people and blotted out of the map
of Ireland the little village of Derryveagh. The member
for the county of Cork, Mr. Scully, proposed on June 24,
1861, an inquiry into the case. I seconded his motion.
(Cheers.) A very interesting debate took place, but the
Government opposed us, and we were beaten. Where was
Mr. Bright ? Nowhere. (Cheers.) If he had paid a little
attention to real Irish questions and had even condescended
to listen to that debate he would have heard enough about
the effects of these new purchases to understand why the
Irish people regard any man as their enemy who en-
courages them. (Cheers.) But it is not merely that Mr.
Bright absented himself from these debates in which I en-
deavoured to take, as well as I could, a useful part, and I
venture to say a thoroughly Irish part—(cheers)—but I
invariably found him wanting also, when, in other sessions,
I drew the attention of Parliament to the severe distress
which was becoming evident in the west of Ireland. You
may remember how the people suffered in the neighbour-
hood of Belmullet and the coast of Mayo year after year.
The parish priest sent me the facts and implored me to bring
them before the House of Commons. I did so three times.
I submitted motions to the house. The O'Donoghue
seconded me, and we, at all events, succeeded in eliciting
sympathy, and securing some little measure of relief for the
people. (Cheers.) But where was mylrish censor, Mr. Bright
all this time ? Nowhere. (Great cheers and laughter.)
There never was a member who, when anything practical
relating to Ireland was being discussed was so often "no-
where" as Mr. Bright. (Laughter.) And yet no man gives
us such soft words. No wonder that O'Connell, who was
a shrewd judge of character, should have avoided him.
(Cheers.) But lam anxious to keep to his false charge,
that I " was always to be found in the House of Commons
with the enemies of Ireland." Let me remind you that
there were other questions of deep interest to Ireland be-
side the tenant-right and the distress in the West. The
decline of capital, the falling away of our exports—above
all, the drain of the population from the soil, formed the
grounds of a resolution which I submitted to Parliament
on the 21st June, 1864. My motion was, " That this house
observes with regret that the agricultural population of
Ireland are rapidly leavingthe country. That her Majesty's
Government should direct their attention to the subject,
with a view of devising means by which the Irish popula-
tion may be induced to devote their capital and labour to
reproductive employment at home." Four weeks' notice
had been given of the motion, and it excited a good deal of
interest in the house. It was opposed by Sir Robt. Peel,
Lord Athlumney, Lord Palmerston, and Sir George Grey.
It was supported by Mr. Maguire, Mr. Monsell, Sir P.
O'Brien, Mr. M'Mahon, the present Lord Chief Justice
Whiteside, Mr. Blake, Mr. P. Urquhart, and Sir F. Hey-
gate. On a division the Government defeated me, though
not by a very large majority. Where was Mr. Bright? 01
course, nowhere. (Cheers.) Last year I made a similar
motion on the 24th February. The debate was adjourned,
Lord Palmerston giving a Government night for itsTrhee-
sumption, and the division took place on the 27th.
house
only man of any mark who appeared to avoid the
during the debate was Mr. Bright. lie esvaenr sßi wive
azleyds
(Cheers.) Of course, the Baxters, and Sta,nfeld
—Mr. Bright's lieutenants—were there, and voted
htetdaiss, theyh
usually do, against Ireland. A few months af te
it
May, a most important motion was made bywould have been
Ur. Henley to
abolish the law of settlement ; if carried, in England, who, on
an immense boon to the Irish poor
account of the law of settlement, are driven about from
place to place, and sometimes sent back
in great suffering to
Ireland. Almost to a man the Irishlb tmr. members were again
Bright was
united. The The house was very ful , u
sent, and his tail of Leathams, Lawsons, Stansfelds, and
Bainosos Yotod iLt a body against ixvlanti And defeated us