[The Colenso Case: the richest woman in Victorian England gives her view: Angela Burdett-Coutts, philanthropist.] Autograph Letter Signed (‘A B Coutts’), setting out her position on ‘this unhappy Cape and Natal Bishoprick controversy’.

The significance of the present item with regard to the Colenso Case - a turning point in the history of Victorian theology and ideas - is explained by the Baroness’s entry in the Oxford DNB: ‘Angela Burdett-Coutts's deep religious beliefs informed her early interest in colonial expansion. In 1847 she endowed the bishoprics of Cape Town, South Africa, and Adelaide, South Australia, both of which were strictly modelled on the English diocesan system. [...] She intended that her colonial bishoprics should remain dependent on the Anglican church in England. In 1866, however, Robert Gray, bishop of Cape Town, in the course of his dispute with Bishop Colenso of Natal, declared his see to be an independent South African church. Angela Burdett-Coutts petitioned Queen Victoria to maintain the existing link, but to no avail, and the colonial bishoprics became independent.’ For a good account of the controversy (Matthew Arnold mocked Colenso as ‘that favourite pontiff of the Philistines’), see Colenso’s entry in the Oxford DNB. This letter is 8pp, 16mo; on two bifoliums, each with tape from mount along one edge. In good condition, lightly aged. Folded twice. The recipient, who is not named, is addressed as ‘My dear Sir’. She begins by explaining that as she was ‘going out of Town for a day or so’ she was not able to attend the ‘Meeting’ (presumably of the Church Missionary Society). She continues: ‘I am glad you concur in the views expressed in the letters I gave you to read - and I seriously hope that a resolution (such as you shewed to me) which would commit the Society to such a false position may not have been acceded’. She finds it hard to express ‘what great concern I perceive that the impatient and rash line of action which has been followed out in this unhappy Cape and Natal Bishoprick controversy, [which?] strengthens Dr Colenso, and places him in a position in which for the present Church of England people must acquiesce’. She blames ‘the Crown Officers’, and considers that ‘If the Society had wished to support Dr Gray it should petition the Queen to retrieve Her Metropolitan from the difficulties & troubles.’ In her view ‘Every step tending to separate authority which the Bishop of C. T. takes [cements?] himself as Metropolitan releases Dr Colenso & leaves him a Church of England Bishop & sinks Cape T. into a single South African Bishoprick without moral or legal authority either over Natal or any other Bishoprick’. She continues with a view to the broader question: ‘suppose the whole body of Clergy in each Bishoprick consents to be no longer bona fide Members of the Church of England and form themselves into a new & voluntary [?] the Emoluments given to the Church of England - Would the Society follow them - In New Zealand some systematic organization seems to have been formed - but in a few years where will all this end & how can the Society give these new fangled Bishops money from the Society’s funds raised for the Church of England Missions?’ The subject is one which the Society will have to consider ‘if the Colonial Church ceases to be an organic part of the Home Church in certain Colonies and to have a different ecclesiastical Govt to ours’.