chosen for the bishop
of Toronto, an application for a royal mandate produced the reply
from the colonial secretary that "it was not the part of the crown
to interfere in the creation of a new bishop or bishopric, and not
consistent with the dignity of the crown that he should advise Her
Majesty to issue a mandate which would not be worth the paper on which
it was written, and which, having been sent out to Canada, might be
disregarded in the most complete manner." And at the present day the
colonial churches are entirely free in this matter. This, however,
is not the case with the church in India. Here the bishops of sees
founded down to 1879 receive a stipend from the revenue (with the
exception of the bishop of Ceylon, who no longer does so). They are
not only nominated by the crown and consecrated under letters
patent, but the appointment is expressly subjected "to such power of
revocation and recall as is by law vested" in the crown; and where
additional oversight was necessary for the church in Tinnevelly, it
could only be secured by the consecration of two assistant bishops,
who worked under a commission for the archbishop of Canterbury which
was to expire on the death of the bishop of Madras. Since then,
however, new sees have been founded which are under no such
restrictions: by the creation of dioceses either in native states
(Travancore and Cochin), or out of the existing dioceses (Chota
Nagpur, Lucknow, &c.). In the latter case there is no _legal_
subdivision of the older diocese, the new bishop administering
such districts as belonged to it under commission from its bishop,
provision being made, however, that in all matters ecclesiastical
there shall be no appeal but to the metropolitan of India.

_Spiritual autonomy._

(3) By degrees, also, the relations of colonial churches to the
archbishop of Canterbury have changed. Until 1855 no colonial bishop
was consecrated outside the British Isles, the first instance being
Dr. MacDougall of Labuan, consecrated in India under a commission
from the archbishop of Canterbury; and until 1874 it was held to be
unlawful for a bishop to be consecrated in England without taking the
suffragan's oath of due obedience. This necessity was removed by
the Colonial Clergy Act of 1874, which permits the archbishop at his
discretion to dispense with the oath. This, however, has not been done
in all cases; and as late as 1890 it was taken by the metropolitan of
Sydney at his