Untitled - Electric Scotland

394 UFE OF ARCHBISHOP TAIT [CH. xiv.
invalidity of the trial, I entertain grave doubts whether, in con
ducting the proceedings, Bishop Gray did not, in several import
ant points, so far depart from the principles recognised in English
Courts of Justice as to make it highly probable that, if the trial
had been valid, and had become the subject of appeal on the
merits of the case to any well-constituted Court Ecclesiastical, the
sentence would have been set aside. These difficulties have all
along made me feel that the case of Bishop Colenso cannot be
satisfactorily disposed of without fresh proceedings,
those which I understand to have entirely failed."
In his speech upon the subject he said :
in lieu of
"The report is valuable, inasmuch as it states all the
difficulties of the case, and the three different opinions that
have been expressed upon it the opinion, first, of those who
thought the trial was canonical ; secondly, of those who think it
was not canonical ; and, lastly, of myself, who think the trial
might have been canonical or not,
if it had not been of a
character which was totally illegal. . . . One word as to the
conclusion arrived at in the report, that *
substantial justice was
done to the accused. A man is tried for an offence, and he is
either guilty or not, the trial is either valid or not. But, though
you may say in conversation that the accused richly deserves
the sentence, which I take to be the meaning of the phrase
that substantial justice has been done, I do not think
a grave body like Convocation should record its opinion in
this way. The trial failed, according to the opinion of one large
section, because it was not canonical. It failed, in my opinion,
because it was null and void in law. . . . The Committee
believes that nothing more can be done than to declare we
think Bishop Colenso has acted very wrongly, in order to satisfy
the minds of our brethren that we have no sympathy with his
writings. Any declaration by which that can be made apparent
seems to have been made over and over again already, but I
have no objection to our repeating it now. If it will be any
consolation to anybody, by all means let it be done. I do not
think it can be said that this report declares in any way that the
Bishop of Capetown has conducted himself properly in all
respects. It is obvious that, according to the views of those who
signed half the report, he did not. So far as our sympathies are