Committee. The Court, however (possibly from a sense of the importance of the subject) went farther than the issue in Mr. Long's case absolutely required. They recited the conclusion of the Court below, that under the circumstances of the case the Bishop possessed no jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or civil, by virtue of his letters patent: and declared that in this conclusion they agreed. How far this strong declaration of opinion may be ultimately regarded as conclusive, time will show; but it derives much additional force from the eminence of the names attached to the judgment in question. Lord Kingsdown, Dr. Lushington, and Sir John Coleridge, who heard the case and concurred in the judgment, are beyond doubt the three judges best qualified to decide such a question in its relations to equity, to the law of the Church, and to the common law. The result is the reinstatement of Mr. Long in his cure: a result against which it appears the Bishop protests as an invasion of his spiritual rights. For in the singularly ill-judged paper which Dr. Gray has addressed to the churchwardens of St. Peter's, Mowbray, since the judgment of the Privy Council reached the Cape of Good Hope, he treats the case throughout as if it were an appeal from his ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Queen in Council, whereas the judgment under review was the judgment of the Supreme Court-a purely civil tribunal—and the question really was whether the Bishop had any authority in dealing with his clergy to override the law of the land. It is important that it should be understood by such bishops as Dr. Gray, that they have no authority whatever but what the law gives them, and that the appellate jurisdiction of the Queen, which condemned him, was not ecclesiastical, but simply a review of the decision of a colonial Civil Court, to which as a resident at the Cape of Good Hope he was subject. Such appear to be the legal disabilities, or difficulties, which at present impede the free action of the Church of England in the greater part of the dominions of the Crown. We have no wish to exaggerate them. If that Church has real vitality—if she possesses those qualities of the higher order which fit her to go forth conquering and to conquer it is not by the fetters of mere chicanery that her triumphant progress will be impeded. But regarded from a lower point of view, the perplexity is considerable, and the way to escape from it not easily to be conjectured. If, indeed, the doctrine of consent, on which the Supreme Court of the Cape relied, and which the Judicial Committee regarded with no disfavour, may be considered as established, it would appear at first sight that the most pressing part of the difficulty was overcome. If the colonial clergy, by merely taking the oath of canonical obedience to a bishop, have in fact subjected themselves to the entire body of ecclesiastical law, then it can no longer be said that the condition of the Church is one of anarchy. The bishop must then be taken to be vested with episcopal authority in spiritual matters, to which authority all the clergy who acknowledge obedience to him are canonically bound to submit, as long as such authority is lawfully exercised. But this definition of his powers evidently leaves a wide margin for discussion, and for the ultimate intervention of the Civil Courts; and every one knows, in practice, how impossible it is to rest so enormous a superstructure on so narrow a basis. The attempt would only produce more litigation than it would extinguish. And, even if this were otherwise, the establishment of ecclesiastical law is not what is wanted, but the power to form a government and a legislature which shall suit themselves to the altered wants of our times. This, it seems, can hardly be done except by calling in the aid of the law in the shape of some enactment, either colonial or parliamentary. It may be the due Nemesis for past centuries of oppression, but we confess there is to us something of humiliation in the spectacle now too often witnessed of whole communities of our brethren, members of the Church of England in the colonies, vainly besieging the doors of local legislatures, composed of men of other persuasions, and either indifferent or actuated by the lingering spirit of ancient hostility, not to ask for exclusive rights or privileges, but merely for power to govern themselves. And even if this road to justice were less obstructed, it behoves us as churchmen to have our eyes open to another danger. If the Church of England, in every colony, is to have her synodical government constituted according to the will of the legislature of that colony, uniformity of government will be difficult to maintain, and yet on this uniformity of doctrine and discipline will be found mainly to depend. Far better would it be for the Church-far better, in truth, for all parties concerned-if Parliament would do what it was invited to do in 1854, and pass, once for all, an organic law, enabling the Anglicans of every colony to frame for themselves the polity under which their church is to subsist. Whether the governing body so to be constituted should, or should not, have power to alter the fundamental laws of our Church as established by the Act of Uniformity-should have power, in other words, to break off communion with the Church at home if it pleased-is a serious question, on which we will not now enter. Not the slightest encroachment on the independence of the colonial legislatures need be effected by such enactment, for it should be carefully provided that every such legislature should have the amplest power to alter, or, if necessary, to repeal, the enactment itself. No one wishes to force the consent of those local legislatures. All that is desired is, to set the machine in motion. But we fear that all such suggestions are in truth unavailing. The broad maxim, that Parliament is not to legislate for the colonies, will override all exceptional projects, however reasonable in themselves. It will override them, partly through a righteous deference to constitutional principles, much more because no British Government, constituted as governments now are, will dare to confront possible enmities for the sake of so remote and unpractical an interest as that of ecclesiastical administration. Meanwhile the episcopal authorities can but struggle on to the best of their ability, substituting the machinery of persuasion and consent for that of established jurisdiction. And if it is abundantly necessary that they should remember how unfitting arrogant pretensions or rash attempts to extend their sphere of action are in the case of functionaries so slenderly armed with power as themselves, much more should their subordinates be on their guard against allowing the spirit of opposition, or the pride of independence, or self-will in things indifferent, to set them in hostility to rulers who so peculiarly stand in need of affectionate support and encouragement. No. CCXLIII. will be published in January, 1864. INDEX. Α Antiquity of Man, 254. See Lyell. Architecture, Modern Styles of, 71-Mr. Fergusson's history, 71. B Blanc, M. L., Histoire de la Révolution Française, reviewed, 101. C - Chinchona, Cultivation of, in India, 507-Peruvian bark, 509- Claverhouse, Memorials of, 1-Sharpe's, Mr., 3-Claverhouse's first D Druids and Bards, 40-Druidical hierarchy, 45-Higgins' specula- E Episcopate, Colonial, the, 552-question of Episcopacy, 553- F Fergusson, James, his Modern Styles of Architecture, reviewed, 71— |