The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-02


tuted are not in any sense courts; they
derive no authority from the Crown
they have no power of their own to en-
force their sentences; they must apply
for that purpose to the courts establish
ed by law, and such courts will give eff
feet to the decisions of arbitrators, whose
jurisdiction rests entirely upon the
agreement of the parties.
ITO these principles which are founded
in good sense and justice, and establish
ed by the highest authority, we desire
TO adhere. (Vol. H.. PIP. 1881
1.-The privy council having decided that
the metropolitan Bishop of Capetown had
no coercive Jurisdiction over the Bishop
of Natal, and, therefore, that depriva-
ton of that prelate by him was civilly
null and void, another form of the ques-
ton came in the case of The Bishop OF
Natal VS.. Gladstone, in 1866, before the
Master of the Rolls. The facts of this
last case may be stated as follows:
Funds were subscribed and vested in
trustees in England for the creation and
endowment of bishop of the United
Church of England and Ireland in Ma
ta1-a colony having an independent Leg
islature-and the Crown, on the applica-
ton of the trustees, appointed the plain
tiff bishop of the See or Diocese of Ma
tai by letters patent-purporting to give
him coercive jurisdiction over his clergy,
and to make him subject to the Bishop
of Captetown as his metropolitan. The
plaintiff was conSecrated in 1883 suit
was instituted by the plaintiff to obtain
payment of the income of the endow-
ment The trustees alleged by their an
swer that the effect of the judgment OF
the judicial committee in Re Bishop OF
Natal was that, inasmuch as no coercive
jurisdiction could be given to bishop
in a colony possessed of an Independent
Legislature, the letters patent had failed
to create legal see or diocese, and thus
THE object of the subscribers had failed
Upon this state of facts it was, in sub
stance, decided: That the plaintiff re-
tanned his legal status as Bishop of Ma
tai, notwithstanding the said Judgment:
that though the letters patent had failed
! to confer upon him any effective coerciye
Jurisdiction over his clergy, he could
still enforce obedience by having recourse
to the civil courts; and that, as no allie
CATION was raised in the pleadings
against the plaintiffs character or doc
trine. he was entitled to the income OF
the endowment. Vol. II, pp. 1850
Since the decisions In the above cases
of Long VS.. The Bishop of Capetown and
Re Bishop of Natal, the Government has
discontinued the issue of letters patent
to bishops in colonies possessing an inde-
pendent Legislature"
The above is from Phillimore.
k Grips. in referring to colonial bishops,
says
land in colony with an established
Legislature, and where no church is es-
ltabiished by law, is purely that of vol
Iuntary association. The letters patent
creating a colonial diocese and appointing
a bishop thereto are valid for the pur-
pose of comforting upon such bishop non
lcoercive powers, but the Crown, after an
Independent Legislature has been estab-
Ilished in a colony, has no power to con-
fer any Jurisdiction or coercive authority
upon the metropolitan over bishop OF
any other person in a colony. Rules fol
enforcing discipline will be binding OF
those who expressly or implicitly nave
assented to them, and the jurisdiction OF
a bishop rests upon agreement enforce
able through the lay tribunals, from
which an appeal lies. Although letters
patent had failed to confer upon colo
nial bishop any coercive jurisdiction ovel
his clergy without recourse to civi
courts, it was held that the bishop re
tanned his legal status as bishop
Opp. s6.)
The above decisions of the Englisf
courts will make 1t plain that the Blsh
,op of Honolulu or any other bishop un
der similar conditions has not been in
vested by England with any jurisdiction
, Tor coerciye authority over any person II
his diocese; that letters patent of tn
Crown, which alone can confer such au
thority, have not been granted him
| since Phillimore states that the issue 0
f such letters was, in 1864, discontinued I
bishops in countries possessed OF an In
/ dependent Legislature, which this coun
, try is, and Bishop Willis was consecrat
: ed in 1872
J, Then what is the Bishops authority, o
/. has he s4ny? He has evidently receive
none from the English Crown, and tn
: Church OF England could not confer ten
tporal authority in this country; there
fore he can have no delegated authorit
8 at all
y The act of conservation confers upon
bishop the right and power OF exercisin
n certain spiritual functions, such as OF
y ldaining, confirming, ETC., as the grantn
: of diploma to a physician confers o
him the right and power to practice mec
Il icine. Either may lawfully exercise &C
y Iercive authority over their clients VIII
assent to such exercise, but bisho
t may net exercise such power withot
! consent, any more than physician ca
e lcompel patient to take his medicin
i land, in point OF temporal authority ovt
r their fellow countrymen, their powers
n this country, as yet, would appear to
t, equal, and the Bishops authority col
II fined to the exercise of his Episcop
, functions.
d When. in such a diocese as this,
J. bishop, without just cause, refuses II
e, ADMINISTRATIONS of the Church to people d
t, String them, and who assent to his lay
1t flu; authority, it would seem but rig
that such action should at once open Il
j. door Of this diocese to admit some bis