§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
§ MR. GLADSTONESir, I will explain to you with great brevity the object of the Motion which I am about to make—
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI have no desire to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but for the sake of regularity I would ask, how this subject comes to be brought on as an Order of the Day, instead of a Motion?
§ MR. GLADSTONEThat is a point of form which perhaps Mr. Bernal will allow me to explain. It was in consequence of a previous Motion in the House that the Committee was made an Order of the Day.
§ MR. BROTHERTONAS this question is likely to lead to considerable discussion, I think it would be for the convenience of the House to proceed with the other Orders first.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThis is, in fact, a Motion, and it will be a deviation from the usual practice, if it be allowed to take precedence of Orders of the Day.
§ MR. GLADSTONEOn the contrary, it is in conformity with the usual practice, and no deviation from it.
MR. BERNALIt appears from the Votes that the Committee upon the subject was fixed for this day; the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) is therefore entitled to proceed.
§ MR. GLADSTONEI believe, Sir, I am correct in saying that the course that has been taken is one of strict regularity. It is the course which I used always to pursue when the Bills which I had to introduce on the part of the Government required a preliminary Committee. I made the Committee an Order of the Day, and gave notice as a Motion of the Resolution 1205 intended to be moved in Committee, and in that way I informed the House fully of the proceeding about to take place.
Sir, the immediate object of this proceeding I stated the other day in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. It is, in point of fact, simply to enable me to do that which, if the Bill which I introduced into this House had been read a second time, I should have been able to do as a matter of form and a matter of course, by the indulgence of the House, namely, to pass that Bill through a Committee of the House pro formâ, in order to introduce certain amendments, so that when it came to be considered definitively and in detail by the House, it might be considered by them in the best form in which I was able to bring it before them. The change of intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government in respect to that Bill altered my position. My intention had been, if the second reading of the Bill had been supported by the Government, to introduce such amendments in it as I might have seen cause to adopt, either from my own consideration of the question, or from the suggestions of others; and having introduced these amendments, then to let the Bill go forth to the Colonies, to be considered there during the recess, so that we might have further light on the subject whenever we might again approach it in another Session of Parliament.
But the second reading of the Bill having been opposed by the right hon. Gentleman, I had to consider the course I ought to take, and I made up my mind that it was not desirable that I should press the Bill to a second reading; and for this reason—I am bound to say, amongst others—that in 1850, when I made a similar proposal for Australia, only under circumstances much more disadvantageous, and with information much less perfect, that proposal of mine was warmly and energetically supported by most of the members of Her Majesty's present Government, and undoubtedly, therefore, I was unwilling to place them in a position in which they would have been obliged either to stultify their former proceedings, or else to dissent from the course that their responsible colleagues recommended. I should also of course say that, in the present condition of the House and of the Parliament, it was impossible practically for me, as an individual Member, to have any hope of carrying or passing the Bill 1206 into a law. For these two reasons principally I determined not to press the second reading of the Bill. That being so, I have to consider the course I ought to pursue.
That Bill, I am glad to hear, has attracted considerable notice. The subject has become one of the greatest and most pressing interest in every Colony which the Bill affects. The Bill will go forth to the Colonies, and be much considered and discussed there during the recess; and I hope it will he the unanimous feeling of the Committee that it should go forth in the best form in which I, as a private Member of the House, am capable of producing it. The Committee will understand that the Bill which I have already introduced has not been rejected by the House, but stands in the condition of having been read a first time, and waiting a second reading. I do not ask the Committee to give any further sanction to the amended form of the Bill, which I must now introduce as a separate Bill, than has already been given to the first Bill. I simply propose that a Resolution should be passed by the Committee, and a Bill introduced on that Resolution; that that Bill may be printed and sent forth to the Colonies; and that those interested in the subject in our different Colonial possessions may in this manner have the opportunity of considering the proposal in its most correct and amended form.
And now, Sir, having said that I ought to explain to the Committee generally the nature of the amendments which I propose to make in the Bill, and the reasons which have led to those amendments, I am very well satisfied upon the whole with the position in which this question stands, because I think that the discussions which have taken place upon it have been the means of propagating a good deal of information both in this House and likewise in the country, and of establishing the main facts, which are now fairly brought home to the mind and conviction of the House—the facts on which the case for legislation rests. It has been admitted on all hands during this Session, without I think a single dissentient voice, certainly without a single distinct expression of dissent, that it has become necessary that we should have some legislation for the purpose of devising a mode for the management of ecclesiastical matters in the Colonies. This was asserted most distinctly and most positively by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, and he pointed 1207 out, as I thought very fairly and very justly, the main reasons why some mode of legislation for the management of such affairs had become necessary. Sir, besides the unequivocal establishment of the necessity for legislation, I must say I think it has become quite clear what is the kind of legislation that we must adopt.
There are two modes, as I have ventured previously to observe to the House, in either of which you might proceed. One of them is to erect, by positive Parliamentary enactment, a working system of ecclesiastical machinery in the Colonies. You might, if you thought fit, erect Ecclesiastical Courts and give power to constitute synods and pass canons in those synods for the regulation of the government of the Church in our Colonies. That is one mode of proceeding. The other mode of proceeding is to remove the doubts and the probable disabilities which at present have the effect of direct restrictions, and involve the whole matter in a mass of confusion, so as to render it impossible for the parties who are interested in it to move to supply their practical necessities. Therefore it is necessary to remove those doubts and disabilities, and leave them to make such provisions as circumstances seem to require. The latter of these modes is the one which I propose to the Committee to pursue, and I am convinced it is the mode in which the House in a future Session, and that a very early Session, will inevitably pursue. And if I advert to the former, it is merely because, in one portion of the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, he used words which to me, I confess, bore an ominous sound. I am not quite sure whether they were his own words, or whether he quoted them from the letter of the Primate of the Church of England; but they were words somewhat to this effect—that after due consideration and correspondence with the Colony, it would not be difficult to frame a measure after the model, or upon the basis of the Church Discipline Act passed for England ten or twelve years ago, which would answer all the proposed objects.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThey were not my words.
§ MR. GLADSTONEWhether they were the words of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Primate, they were words of course to which great importance must be attached. It is on that account that I advert to them, because I wish at the ear- 1208 liest moment to enter my protest against any attempt to pass any such law. I am convinced that no British House of Commons will ever carry into effect any such principles of interference with the domestic legislation of the Colonies as is there suggested. You certainly might proceed in this matter by direct enactments, yet practically that is just as much out of the question as if it did not lie within the limits of the speculative omnipotence of Parliament. No such thing can seriously be entertained as a practical proposal. The question lies between passing a relieving and permissive Bill on the one hand, and doing nothing at all in the matter on the other. I think the sense of this House has been distinctly expressed, as far as it could be gathered from the sentiments of hon. Members, in favour of passing a relieving and permissive Bill, but I think one statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Colonies on the subject of this particular Bill; was so much calculated to raise misapprehension? and misunderstanding that it is necessary that I should briefly advert to it.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman—and he will correct me if I was wrong—to urge this main objection to the Bill. In the first place I understood him to say, that we were not yet in possession of adequate information from the Colonies themselves, and that we could not tell what their wishes distinctly might be on the subject; and especially and specifically the right hon. Gentleman referred to a letter from the Bishop of Sydney, the metropolitan of Australia, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which the Bishop of Sydney, according to the passage quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, appeared to contemplate a series of measures in consultation with the clergy and laity, for the management of the Colonial Church, and the anticipation of at length arriving at some decision on which were to be founded suggestions to Parliament, from which we might understand what the wishes of that portion of the Colonial Church might really be. Now, Sir, as regards that objection, I confess I heard it with surprise, because I had told the right hon. Gentleman long before, that we were in possession of the wishes of the Bishop of Sydney. That I was myself aware of them from private sources, and besides that, that they had been published to the world in Minutes of the Conference of the bishops, held at Sydney, in the year 1850, in which Min- 1209 utes it appears to me their desires were distinctly expressed, so far as they were concerned, that Parliament should enable and authorise them to set about the management of their own concerns. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to be so good as to lay on the table the letter of the Bishop of Sydney; and he, with the kind concurrence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, acceded to my request. I must confess, when I received that letter, it was with some surprise that I found that, in the letter itself, there was a passage which was not quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, and which was distinctly and entirely to the effect of the communication I had made to him, and entirely to a contrary effect from the passage quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, from a subsequent passage of the letter, when taken alone. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman did not perceive this contrariety; but I wish to quote the words because I felt it my duty, in making a proposal of such an important nature, to assure myself that I was in possession of the wishes of the parties principally concerned. The Bishop of Sydney, in the letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated the 1st of December, 1851, says—
I entirely concur with your Grace in thinking that no satisfactory terms of ecclesiastical legislation upon our concerns could be proposed in England without a suggestion derived from ourselves, as to the safest and best means of removing the embarrassments under which we find ourselves labouring. But I had hoped that the minutes of the meeting of the bishops of the province last year, of which your Grace had received a copy, might possibly be regarded as embodying a sufficiently definite expression of our wants and wishes.And then, no doubt, the Bishop of Sydney, having been told from England that it would be necessary to pass something like the Church Discipline Act, goes on to say, with reference to such a proposal, that they must have meetings of the clergy and laity to ascertain in what form it should be passed. But I refer to this letter, for the purpose of showing that when I proposed to the House to legislate, I was not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, or implied, if I understood him rightly, proceeding in the dark as to the wishes of the Bishop of Sydney, or any other bishop, or any of the clergy and laity, but that as far as the Bishop of Sydney and the other bishops were concerned, when they sent home these Minutes, I considered them to embody sufficiently the expression of their wants and wishes.1210 The right hon. Gentleman made three objections to the Bill. He said the Bill was so worded that it was difficult to say what the effect of it would be, but probably its effect would be threefold: first of all, to place the Church of England in a state of dominance; secondly, to break up the Church of England into a number of small separate churches; and, thirdly, to destroy the supremacy of the Crown. And I must say I greatly regretted the exaggerated tone that run through the whole of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman—a tone so exaggerated that it is quite plain that, if it was justified by the enactments of the Bill, every hon. Member would have been entitled to say to him, if the Bill contains these monstrous enactments, how in the world was it possible the Government ever could have given their consent to its second reading.
Now, let us look at these objections one by one. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said, in the first place, the Bill would place the Church of England in a state of dominance. Half an hour afterwards my hon. Friend and Colleague (Sir R. H. Inglis) rose, and, as I thought, with much greater reason, objected to the Bill, because it reduced the Church of England in the Colonies to the legal level of Dissenting denominations. The right hon. Gentleman contradicted himself on this very objection, because, after complaining that the first clause of the Bill, which said it shall be lawful for these parties to regulate their own affairs—after complaining that the clause placed the Church of England in such a state of dominance, when he came to the fourth clause, which provided that the regulations of those bodies should have no other force and effect than the regulations of other religious communions in the Colonies, he said, Why, the effect of this clause, if I understand it rightly, is to neutralise the first, and reduce it to a nullity. Then what becomes of the objection that the Bill would place the Church of England in a state of dominance?
The right hon. Gentleman next says it will break up the Church of England. He says, one thing will be clear—each diocese will become a separate Church, and the separation from the Church of England will be complete. Now, in what singular manner did the right hon. Gentleman prove that this separation would be complete? He proved it in this way: He had before him the Bill, the tendency of which was to 1211 place in the hands of the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Colonial Church, subject to whatever restrictions Parliament might think fit, the management of their own affairs. Says the right hon. Gentleman, "That will lead to the complete separation of the Colonial Church from the Church of England;" and this he proved by quoting the sentiments of bishops, the sentiments of the clergy, and the sentiments of the laity, and showing that these parties, one and all, were eager for the maintenance of the connexion with the Church of England. And so the effect of giving these parties a power over their own Church concerns—these parties being anxious to maintain their connexion with the Church of England—will be to destroy that connexion with the Church of England.
The third great objection was, that it would destroy the supremacy of the Crown. Sir, I am rather unwilling to advert to this subject, but I must complain of the mode of proof adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, stopping in the middle of a sentence. I complain of his omitting to inform the House that the Bill required the subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles by clergymen, and that those Articles contain the most distinct assertion of the prerogative of the Crown. Now, Sir, this is a question of great importance, and one on which I will say a few words. I wish the House, in the first place, to understand that the charge that the Bill destroys the supremacy of the Crown is not only unfounded, but I must say ridiculous; because it is ridiculous to say that a measure which absolutely requires the subscription by all parties to the Thirty-nine Articles—that is to say, a solemn assent to the supremacy of the Crown—it is ridiculous to say that that measure destroys the supremacy of the Crown. But I grant it is quite another question whether I am right in declining to require that the oath of supremacy should be taken, and resting satisfied with the declaration of supremacy as contained in the Thirty-nine Articles.
The right hon. Gentleman found fault with me for not having precisely explained the enactment of the Bill in my opening speech. But the Committee will recollect that it was made under some pressure as to time. I was compelled to occupy a lengthened period in the preliminary points, namely, the present state of the law and the necessity of legislation, and the desire for legislation entertained in the Colonies. I consequently had hardly a moment left to 1212 say a word on the particular provisions of the Bill, and I was the less anxious to explain them in detail, because the essence of the Bill lies in its relieving clauses. The question, what particular restraints you should retain, is a question which I think requires much consideration, which I leave fully and fairly open to the discretion of Parliament. But my belief is—partly founded on what I know of the sentiments of persons in the Colonies, and partly founded on what we have seen taking place in the American Episcopal Church—my belief is that this connexion with the Church of England is in no danger whether your restrictions be many or few. To me it is a question of policy or expediency how numerous or how few should be the restrictions. The will and affection of the parties themselves is the sure foundation on which the connexion with the Church of England will rest. If you are apprehensive of dangers, insert restrictions. I don't object to them. If you are not apprehensive, leave the Bill with as few restrictions as you think fit.
But this being a question of importance, I wish the Committee to understand the principle on which I proceed, because, in amending the Bill, I propose to leave these provisions as they stood, with the exception of the case of missions in foreign lands, which is a new subject, I propose that the doctrine or principle of supremacy shall be asserted as it stands in the Thirty-nine Articles, and in no other manner. I take that course because we are not now providing a legislative system for the Church in the Colonies—we are not now saying whether the Oath of Supremacy shall be taken in the Colonies or not—we are simply inserting in this Bill a series of disabling provisions. We are saying to each of the Colonies, you may, if you think fit, undertake the management of your own affairs, only there are certain things which you shall not do. Now, the principle which I lay down with regard to these disabling provisions is elementary and plain. It is this, that you should not disable them from doing anything except that which it would be positively mischievous they should do; you must not impose restraints on them unless you show a case of necessity for those restraints. Now, how could you show a case of necessity for their taking the oath of supremacy, when they already make a solemn declaration in favour of supremacy.
The taking the oath of supremacy may 1213 may be a very proper measure, and is a very proper measure so far as England is concerned. Here the question of supremacy has been a great public and national question ever since the date of the Reformation. Nay more, at the period of the Reformation it really was the dividing line. It was the hinge upon which, at the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the whole matter of difference between the reformed and the unreformed religion turned. Historically, the oath of supremacy is a great foundation of the Constitution—and not only that, but it governs the tenor of our laws—and our Church being the Established Church, the doctrine of supremacy applies itself in one form or other to almost every proceeding that takes place by the public authority of the Church. But the question whether the oath of supremacy is the best mode of asserting the supremacy in a colony where we are going to place the Church on the foundation of a voluntary establishment is an entirely different question. What do I propose? Do I say they shall have no oath of supremacy? Certainly not. But I say I will leave it to them whether they will assert the supremacy, as it is contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, or retain the present form, and assert the supremacy likewise in the shape of an oath. I need not go further than to indicate the principle on which I proceed in this matter. It is plainly and distinctly that principle on which I wish to proceed in all Colonial affairs, whether civil or ecclesiastical—that every question in which you cannot show an Imperial interest, shall be left to be dealt with and managed by the Colonies themselves. You may appeal to the passions and prejudices of men; and those who will condescend to drag party feelings, and especially religious party feelings, into a discussion of this kind, can always do so with great facility. But, looking on in calm reason, the question is, can you show a case of Imperial necessity for compelling these parties, after having declared the doctrine of supremacy with the same solemnity as the doctrines of the Christian faith—can you show that it is necessary for them to assert in another form the doctrine of supremacy? It is on the principle that restraints ought to be reduced to the minimum, and that every restraint not absolutely necessary ought to be left to the parties themselves, that I do not wish to insert in the Bill anything which makes it necessary for them to take the oath of su- 1214 premacy, but to be satisfied with the declaration as it is contained in the Thirty-nine Articles.
There is another point connected with supremacy, to which, when the Bill comes under consideration, the attention of the House should be called, although it was noticed in the former discussion by the right hon. Secretary to the Colonies. It is this. The question has been raised, whether the regulation of those bodies which may be constituted, whether meetings, synods, conventions, or what you will, shall be subject in all cases to the veto of the Crown. That is a question which I think the House ought to have clearly before it when we come finally to determine on the precise enactments of this Bill. I have not inserted any such provision in the Bill, and my reason for not inserting it is, that I think the introduction of such a provision would be held in the judgment of the Colonies themselves, first of all to be attended with a good deal of practical inconvenience, like that experienced in the reference home of Civil Acts for the veto of the Crown; and, secondly, it might cause some dissatisfaction in Colonies like Canada, where the principle of religious equality is strongly rooted, because it would seem to give a preference to the relation between the Church of England and the Crown in the Colonies—a certain source of discontent. That is a question which the House ought to take into view when we proceed to regulate the duties of the subject. I have already stated my opinion upon it. I think the Bill would he better without such a provision, especially because it would be in point of fact calling into existence a function on the part of the Crown which does not now exist. On the other hand, I fully admit that such a provision, if it should be thought fit, is perfectly consistent with the principle of the rule I have laid down, and which I have not the least doubt will be fully recognised by the colonists. It appears to me that the real and practical relation between the Crown and the Colonies is a relation of patronage, sometimes through the medium of the Government, but principally through the medium of the Secretary of State in reference to bishops; that the prerogative of the Crown is the real bar. That being so, I propose to preserve to the Crown that real power, and that no Bill shall be held to authorise any such regulation unless with the consent of the Crown.
Now, Sir, the main reason for which I 1215 have been anxious to effect these corrections of the Bill is this: the Amendments which I have made in the Bill are, in my view, undoubtedly verbal amendments, and amendments of detail. There is nothing to be altered in the Bill, in my view of it, that touches its principle. But, on the other hand, I am bound to admit that both the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell), who approached the subject in a spirit of great fairness and candour, do think that the Bill will create a positive legislative power in the hands of the Church in the Colonies. Now that is a question entirely turning on the force and effect of a certain form of words; and my object being to preclude any such effect, I have altered the first clause of the Bill so as to render the object more clear. Instead of saying, as was said in the first print of the Bill—"that it shall be lawful for the bishop, with the clergy and laity," to make such and such regulations, I propose to omit the words "it shall be lawful," and to say that "no statute, law, rule, usage, or other authority of the United Kingdom shall be construed, or shall extend to prevent any such bishop of any diocese in the Colonies enumerated in the Schedule A to this Act annexed," &c, from doing the same things that were contemplated by the former clauses of the Bill. Now, Sir, my object is to make this Bill a relieving and permissive Bill. It was thought that I had made it a relieving and enacting Bill. I am glad to make the change. I must not disguise from others that, although to me this is a verbal change, yet others who thought that a legislative power was conferred under the former words do look on this as an important change in the phraseology of the Bill.
There is another important change with respect to some Colonies, which is a distinct reservation of the power of the Colonial Legislatures. I do feel that such reservation is absolutely necessary, because I think that when you simply say nothing contained in the law of this country shall be held to prevent parties from performing in their private capacity certain acts, you don't raise any presumption that the power of the Colonial Legislature to prevent them is interfered with; but you may prevent doubts, and I therefore propose to end the clause with these words:—"Subject always, as at this time, in common with all other religious communions, to the autho- 1216 rity of the local Legislatures respectively, and to such provisions as they may think proper to enact." I don't think it necessary for me to mention to the House any other of the changes that I propose to introduce into this Bill, because they are strictly verbal changes; except one of some importance, on which I will say a word. The right hon. Gentleman took exception to the words "declared members of the Church of England." We do not know in this country what a "declared member of the Church of England" is. But in many of the Colonies it has an established, fixed, and legal meaning, and is the only word that has such meaning. In Van Diemen's Land, and other of the Colonies, where it is the practice, in taking the census of the Colony, to note down the religious persuasions, each man is called upon to enter his religious persuasion, and that forms both the best legal and practical mode of showing to whom the Bill is intended to be applicable. With respect to the other Colonies, of course the Bill will have no practical effect; and therefore, in order to provide for the case of these Colonies, instead of saying simply "declared members of the Church of England," I propose to say "declared and bonâ fide members of the Church of England." That is the phrase adopted in some of the Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and is perhaps the most fitting phrase that can be now used.
I may here observe, that by a clerical error New Zealand was omitted in the former Bill; but it is inserted in the present Bill, and I also propose to make provision for minor dependencies by inserting the words "together with the dependencies of the said Colonies respectively." I think that I have now stated all that is necessary to render intelligible my object in proposing this Bill. What I wish is, to place it in precisely the same position as the former Bill; that is, to have it laid on the table and printed, and sent out to the Colonies in a correct and not in an incorrect form. Although on some accounts I most deeply regret any delay in legislating on this subject; yet, on the other hand, I admit that it is desirable to proceed cautiously, and with the fullest information, so that when we come to the further consideration of the question in another Session of Parliament, we shall come with more light, and a clearer knowledge of the wishes of the Colonists, and better means of determining on our course than if we had now proceeded 1217 to pass the measure into a law. Sir, I will now move the Resolution of which I have given notice.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to relieve Bishops in the Colonies in communion with the Church of England, and the Clergy and Laity in communion with them, in respect to legal doubts or disabilities affecting the management of their Church affairs.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, in the speech which I thought it my duty to make a few weeks ago on this subject, I stated, with the greatest sincerity, and I repeat it now, that I did not entertain a moment's doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, in bringing forward this Bill, had been actuated by the purest and most conscientious motives; and, Sir, I don't know anything in my public life that has given me more pain than the distressing feeling that in commenting on this Bill, and on the language of the right hon. Gentleman, I have given him any personal offence. I must declare that, in the previous stages of this Bill, I almost exhausted courtesy in my communication with the right hon. Gentleman. Remembering the kindness which has long existed between us, so far was I from feeling any desire to make a public exposure of this Bill, that on three several occasions I communicated with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject; and on the very day on which I made the speech to which he has referred, I wrote to him in the kindest terms expressing the regret which I felt at being compelled to speak freely of his Bill, but stating at the same time that I was compelled to oppose it. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech has spoken of persons who would "stoop and condescend to use religious party cries, to attain an object." Now I wish to know whether those expressions were intended by the right hon. Gentleman to apply to me?
§ MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman has not quoted the expressions I used. I spoke simply of the effect of the introduction of party cries into a debate. I said nothing about the perverse or corrupt introduction of them for the purpose of attaining an object. I spoke of their unnecessary and gratuitous introduction.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThe words of the right hon. Gentleman were, "stoop or condescend to drag religious party cries 1218 into a debate in order to attain an object."
§ MR. GLADSTONENo, not in order to attain an object.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONAll I can say is this, that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to my question has not been very distinct. But this I say, that if he intended to apply those terms to me, there are no terms too strong to express the indignation with which I utterly repudiate them. Now, Sir, I pass to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and I must say that I think the course he has taken has been one of considerable inconvenience and considerable deviation from Parliamentary practice. We have heard of protracted debates, but so protracted a debate as this has hardly ever been known. The right hon. Gentleman moved the second reading of the Bill in the month of April. He did so at a time when I remonstrated against his going on, because I pointed out the extreme importance of the Bill, and the absolute necessity, as a matter of duty on my part, of replying to his speech. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was deaf to that appeal.
§ MR. GLADSTONEYou were going to support the second reading.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONIf the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I had the slightest intention of supporting that Bill, he is utterly mistaken.
§ MR. GLADSTONEThe second reading. The right hon. Gentleman stated so.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI will explain. So strong was my feeling of courtesy towards the right hon. Gentleman, that, knowing his good intentions, I allow I did agree to a certain extent to the principle of the Bill. I was anxious to consider it, and, if I could, to allow the second reading to pass, but it would have been with the most distinct intimation that I could, as a Minister, allow it to go no further; and it was not till after the most careful consideration, and consulting the most eminent legal authorities, that I came to the conclusion that it was inconsistent with my duty to consent to the second reading. In spite of my remonstrance the right hon. Gentleman addressed a speech to the House at a time when it was absolutely impossible for me to reply to him, and that speech must consequently have produced its effect in the Colonies, although entirely unanswered by any Minister of the Crown. When, three weeks afterwards, I was to make my reply, the right hon. 1219 Gentleman came down to the House, and he then said, in consequence of my having told the day before that I should object to his Bill, "No, we will not have the debate now, we will put it off."
§ MR. GLADSTONEI beg to deny that most expressly.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThe right hon Gentleman wrote to me a private letter on the morning that I was to make that speech, to tell me—and I can show him the letter if he wishes it—that as I intended to object to the Bill he should propose to postpone the debate for another fortnight.
§ MR. GLADSTONEI object very much to that statement. The right hon. Gentleman told me that it was his wish to enter on the debate, and I said that I could not make the smallest objection to his taking that course.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThe right hon. Gentleman had no power to object. But I repeat that I got a letter from him on the morning that I was going to object to the Bill, in which he said that as it was my intention to speak against the measure, he should propose to postpone the debate, which had then been an adjourned debate, for another fortnight.
§ Mr. GLADSTONEThat I would postpone the second reading of the Bill, not the debate.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThe result of which would have been that I, on the part of the Government, should have stood before the Colonies, and before Parliament, as objecting to the Bill without having been able to give any public explanation of my reasons for doing so. Of course I could not consent to that arrangement. I therefore intimated to the right hon. Gentleman that I could not consent to that course, and I stated my objections to the Bill. But I did this: I told the right hon. Gentleman that I would conclude with a Motion in order to set him free to reply to anything I might say, so as to enable him to speak again. Now, I think that in so doing I took the most courteous course that could been adopted. Although three weeks had intervened, the right hon. Gentleman, according to the forms of the House, could not speak again on the question. I therefore concluded with a Motion that we should pass to the other Orders of the Day, thereby setting him free to speak again on the subject; but he did not feel himself disposed on that particular occasion to reply to the speech that I had made. He said a few sentences, indeed, showing, I am sorry 1220 to say, a feeling which I had not intended to excite, and making a complaint to which I will hereafter advert; but he did not reply to my speech. Five weeks have since elapsed, and now, after three weeks had intervened between the first and second speech, and five weeks from the latter time until now, the right hon. Gentleman comes forward, for the third time, and makes an elaborate reply to a speech of mine delivered five weeks ago. Why, if I were to follow the course of the right hon. Gentleman, I should give notice that in the next Session of Parliament.—supposing the right hon. Gentleman and myself to have seats—that I should reply to the speech which he has just made. But I shall not take that course, but will make my reply now; and I can assure the House, if they indulge me, that I shall express by no means at length all that it is necessary for me to say in consequence of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman this morning.
The right hon. Gentleman first stated his reasons for not proceeding with the second reading of his Bill. One of these was his extreme anxiety that the Government, on their part, should not stultify themselves by opposing the Bill. To which of my Colleagues the remark of the right hon. Gentleman is intended to apply, I do not know. I can only say that I am extremely sensible of the tenderness evinced in that observation towards any Member of the Government to whom it may apply. But I certainly feel, if there were any Member of Her Majesty's Government who years ago voted for certain clauses moved by the right hon. Gentleman to be inserted in the Australian Government Bill, that they should not now be prevented in consequence of this from exercising their discretion in regard to a measure open to those grave and serious objections which on a former day it was my duty to point out. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to refer to the interest which was felt in the Colonies on this subject, and here there is no difference between us, for since the last debate I have had further proofs of the fact by the reports of proceedings in the Colonies. Then the right hon. Gentleman commented, in a manner on which I must make some remarks, upon the opinion which I expressed that we ought to postpone legislation on this subject pending the reference made by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Bishop of Sydney. I then thought, and I still think, that to proceed in this House upon such a subject, 1221 pending a reference between such parties, would be neither more nor less than indecorous and improper. I think it would be a most precipitate proceeding, and on that ground alone I could not—occupying the position in which I stand—make myself a party in offering what I think would be a great mark of disrespect to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Bishop of Sydney. And when the right hon. Gentleman tells me that there is a great discrepancy between the first part of the Bishop of Sydney's letter and the part which I recited, I altogether repudiate the charge. I deny the discrepancy. It is perfectly true that in the early part of that letter the Bishop of Sydney expresses a hope he entertained that the minutes of the conference of the bishops sent back to this country might have been held to be a sufficient indication of their wishes. But there are very good grounds for concluding that, for purposes of legislation, those minutes would not have been sufficient. They do show, I grant you, the wishes of those bishops for a certain mode of acting in the Colonies, but they form no groundwork for legislation in this country. Besides which, I pointed out on a former occasion that the proceedings of that very synod or assembly of bishops had excited great alarm and uneasiness both amongst the clergy and laity in several Colonies. I think, therefore, it would be a great mistake to accept that expression of opinion on the part of the bishops as a sufficient basis for legislation. I think, on the contrary, both from the Bishop of Sydney's letter and from what is now taking place in Tasmania since the receipt of the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter, that we shall reap the full benefit of delay, and when the right hon. Gentleman tells me that he is acquainted with the wishes of the Bishop of Sydney from private sources—
§ MR. GLADSTONEAnd from public.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI should like to know whether I could have ventured, from the right hon. Gentleman's private correspondence with Australia, to recommend in a matter of this importance and interest, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury was seeking information from the highest authorities in Australia, that a measure should be passed founded on such private information. The House will see that it would be entirely out of the question. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to notice the three objections which he said I made to the Bill, and he stated that they 1222 were very exaggerated objections, and that this measure was not open to what he called—for I took down his words—the preposterous tendencies and monstrous enactments which I had imputed to it. Now, I am sorry to say that, upon listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, after the intervening time which he has had for reflection, I can recede from none of my grave objections to that Bill, and I have elicited no reply from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the three objectionable tendencies which I then pointed out. One of those objections was founded on the tendency of the Bill to break up the Church of England into what I called separate fragments. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech this morning stated that I had attempted to prove this objection by quoting from certain letters and addresses of the bishops and other parties in Australia. But the right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in this statement, and he must have entirely forgotten the mode in which I argued. I did advert to those letters and addresses; but I did so for this reason, in order to show that the right hon. Gentleman, in breaking up the Church of England into fragments, and in omitting the Oath of Supremacy, was not consulting the wishes or the views of those parties in Australia; but when he says that I founded my argument with regard to the effects of the Bill, and its tendency to break up the Church of England into fragments, on those addresses from Australia—[Mr. GLADSTONE: I never said so.] The right hon. Gentleman then must have entirely forgotten the line of argument that I used. I founded that part of my case, not on representations of parties in Australia who never saw the Bill, but on arguments which were drawn entirely from the language of the clauses themselves. Sir, I told the House then with what diffidence and hesitation I, being myself a civilian, approached a question of this important nature. I did not, however, shrink from the duty which I thought was imposed upon me; I exposed the injurious tendencies of the Bill; and what followed? Was I the only speaker in that debate? No; I was followed by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; next by the hon, and learned Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell); and, thirdly, by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford (Sir W. P. Wood); and, on a question of law, I think we need not turn to three 1223 higher authorities. With regard to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, perhaps the House may say that he is a Colleague of mine, and therefore would he slow to expose any erroneous view that I might take on a question of law. But this objection will not apply to the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury; and least of all will it apply to the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford, whose private wishes and leanings, if I am not mistaken, would be rather towards the legislation of the right hon Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) than against it. But my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General confirmed the view which I had taken; the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury did me the honour to say that he need not enter into the law of the case, for that I had so clearly expressed what would be the legal effect of the Bill, that if he entered into it, it would be only to repeat what I had said; and the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford, beginning his speech with an admission, which I confess gave me great pleasure after what fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone)—namely, that the course which I had taken was perfectly courteous to the right hon. Gentleman—beginning his speech with this admission, he did not say a word—and I watched what he said with great anxiety—to invalidate the view of the law which I had taken. I said I thought that that was one of the objectionable tendencies of the Bill. The remaining point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the argument into which he entered with regard to the Oath of Supremacy. He complained that in my speech, when dealing with the clause, I had left out the fact that although the Oath of Supremacy was dispensed with, a clergyman on being ordained should still subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles—
§ MR. GLADSTONEThe obligation of subscribing to the supremacy of the Crown is not dispensed with.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI do not think it wise to enter upon that point at present. I had no idea that it would be made a subject of complaint; and as it has been made a subject of complaint, I am extremely sorry that I did not mention the fact. But it is unimportant to the argument which I used, for this reason: although it is true that the 37th Article asserts the supremacy of the Crown, I could never have supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would have dispensed with sub- 1224 scription to the Thirty-nine Articles, because one of them asserted the principle of the supremacy of the Crown. I did not suppose that any of the Articles were to be dispensed with; and no one could have anticipated the introduction of a question which would be totally inadmissible on an admission of the kind. I was merely discussing the principles of the Bill which was before me, and I commented on the remarkable fact, which remains a fact, and cannot be denied, that under the clause to which I adverted, it would have been for the first time possible for a clergyman to be ordained without taking the Oath of Supremacy, by simply subscribing to the Oath of Allegiance. Now, I argued that, taking that clause in connexion with the power given by the first clause, of making-regulations and canons without the authority or the consent of the Crown, the supremacy of the Crown, long asserted, long maintained, and undoubtedly existing, would have been in this case dispensed with. That was the argument I used, and I must say that the right hon. Gentleman has not said anything this morning to weaken it. I shall no longer dwell on that part of his speech, and it must be left to the House and country to attach that weight to it which they may think it fairly entitled to; but for my own part, I do not think that it touches the argument that I formerly used in support of the opinion which I then expressed. I am not aware that I need detain the House any longer. I have not the least wish to impede the right hon. Gentleman's desire to reintroduce this Bill, but I must point out this difficulty on a matter of form. The right hon. Gentleman has now moved for leave to bring in this Bill in precisely the same form, word for word, in which he introduced it before.
§ MR. GLADSTONENo. It is reprinted, and the title is amended.
§ SIR J. PAKINGTONWell, I merely alluded to it as a point of form; but, so far from having any wish to impede the right hon. Gentleman from bringing in an amended Bill, I give my hearty consent to it, and I can only express my hope that the second edition of the measure may be free from those grave objections which, in my opinion, attached to the first. I must further express my intention of reserving to myself the right of taking whatever course I may think proper in the exercise of a full and unfettered discretion in a future Session of Parliament. After what has pass- 1225 ed, of course I shall not consider myself in any degree exonerated from the intentions which in my former speech I expressed, namely, that if this question, on which such earnest expectations and desires are entertained on all sides by our fellow churchmen in the Colonies, were not dealt with satisfactorily by some other person, and unless there should be some legislation upon it in which I could concur, I should certainly consider it my duty to move in the matter myself. On the other hand, while I readily consent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman for the reintroduction of his Bill, I must say, with equal distinctness, that if that Bill should be free from those objections to which the first was open—if, after the communications from the Colonies which we are expecting, I should believe the Bill to be well calculated to meet the wishes of the Colonists, to remedy deficiencies, and to bring about that amended state of things on this important subject which we all desire to see, there will be no Member of this House, whether in office or out of it, more ready than I will be to support the right hon. Gentleman.
The CHAIRMANsaid, he must beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) if he would have the kindness to point out for the opinion of the Committee in what respect the Resolution which he now proposed differed from that which he before submitted to the Committee—not any alteration as to more additional words, but in point of spirit. If it wore not found to be so altered in its spirit, and if the change were only a verbal one, then this was only reiterating a discussion which had, in fact, dropped, and endeavouring to pass another preliminary Resolution exactly like that which the right hon. Gentleman formerly proposed.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had understood that the course which he had pursued with respect to the reintroduction of a Bill which had not passed the second reading was perfectly regular. He had always understood that the course for any hon. Member to take who had not obtained a second reading for a Bill which he wished to amend, was to withdraw it, and move another Resolution.
The CHAIRMANsaid, that he had felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the Committee to the fact, but that the question was one which ought to be decided by the House and by Mr. Speaker. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman ad moved— 1226
That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to relieve Bishops in the Colonies in communion with the Church of England, and the Clergy and Laity in communion with them, in respect to legal doubts or disabilities affecting the management of their Church affairs.The present Resolution was to the same effect, with the exception of the words "clergy and laity."
The CHAIRMANsaid, that he did not remember an instance, but he could not take upon himself to decide the point.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he apprehended there could he no doubt that the same Bill might be introduced twice in the same Session. This course had in fact been taken in the case of the Australian Government Colonies Bill in 1850.
The CHAIRMANhoped the right hon. Member did not suppose he was acting factiously in the objection he had taken. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] He did not remember any previous instance of this kind, and therefore thought it his duty to communicate to the Committee the doubt which he entertained on the subject, and to point it out for their consideration and judgment.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwas sure that no hon. Gentleman wished to obstruct the introduction of the Bill. The better course would be to consult Mr. Speaker.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, he must object to any postponement of the debate for the purpose of ascertaining what was the rule of the House.
§ [After a short delay,]
Sir FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that he had taken means to ascertain the opinion of Mr. Speaker, and he had authority to state that it would be necessary to make some change in the form of the Resolution. It was not considered proper to pass a Resolution precisely the same as one that had been agreed to before, and it was therefore advisable that some alteration should be made.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would now move—
That the Chairman be directed to move the House to give leave to bring in a Bill to explain and amend the laws relating to the Church in the Colonies.
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, he never remembered that House having been placed in such a position as that in which the right 1227 hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had put it. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he wished the debate to go out to the Colonies, as he had received the unanimous opinion of the House that legislation upon the subject of the Colonial Church was necessary, and could be no longer delayed. He (Mr. Horsman) believed that the first step towards legislation was to obtain the confidence of the colonies as to the mode in which Parliament intended to deal with the question. He must say that he did not think the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was as straightforward and open as that of the Government. That House had received the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Colonial Office that the Government were prepared to bring in a measure with regard to the Church in the Colonies next Session. What good end could then be obtained by the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone)? The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had gone forth to the colonies and to the public, when the Government had not any possibility of making a reply for many weeks. The principle of the Bill as represented by the right hon. Gentleman, was perfect religious equality for all denominations, and as such it had gone forth. The right hon. Gentleman had diligently canvassed hon. Gentlemen at his (Mr. Horsman's) side of the House for their support, and the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Montrose (Mr. Hume) and Manchester (Mr. Bright) had been especially solicited to assist it; but when the Bill was printed and understood, it was at once ascertained to be a measure to establish ecclesiastical tyranny, and then it was seen that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a delusion and a share. The fact was this question was brought forward by an active, encroaching, and not very scrupulous party in the Church, that required to be watched as much as it was distrusted. As soon as it was discovered that the lamb turned out to be a wolf, the right hon. Gentleman begged to be allowed to withdraw the Bill quietly, expressing at the same time a hope that no religious discord would be engendered by it. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had very properly refused to permit this course, as the speech to which no answer had been given was to make a Church revolution, and to overthrow a long established Church and to erect a new one 1228 in the Colonies. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had exposed the Bill, it was found that, instead of being a measure to secure religious freedom and equality, it was found to be a measure the object of which was to establish a religious and ecclesiastical despotism of the most odious and tyrannical character. The right hon. Gentleman was so entirely confounded by the exposure of the latent object of his Bill, that he could not answer the indictment, and let judgment go against him by default. He now came forward, after a lapse of several weeks and at the close of the Session, and asked leave to withdraw the Bill, and to propose another, which could not be followed by any practical result whatever. The fact was, that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to have his principles conveyed to the Colonies. If this was really his desire, why did he not, as the organ of a peculiar Church party, come forward and boldly and frankly tell the Committee what his principles were? The assumed principles of the right hon. Gentleman had obtained little favour in Parliament or in the country, and therefore he wished to make an attempt to found his Church system in the Colonies, where there was a wider field for experiment. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman at once declare that his only object was to relieve the Colonial Church from certain disabilities under which it laboured, and to confer upon it certain advantages which the Church at home enjoyed? This, however, was not the object of the right hon. Gentleman. His object was to undermine and destroy the primitive purity of the Church as established at the Reformation, and to raise in its stead a newfangled edifice, which would be nothing but prostrative of every purpose and faculty, and the establishment of episcopal tyranny and priestly domination. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce synodical action, now to be established for the first time under the authority of Parliament. He declared that his purpose was not to establish the old, unpopular synod, in which the ecclesiastical element was so predominant, but that, in his synod, he would diminish the power of the bishops, which many thought too large, and increase the power of the laity, which many thought too small. It was impossible for him to introduce a synod of this sort in the first clause of the Bill; but, fortunately, the true object of the right hon. Gentleman was explained in his correspon- 1229 dence. The letter which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had written to Dr. Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen, on this subject, might be considered to be the last edition of his opinions as to Church legislation in the Colonies. In that letter the right hon. Gentleman said he proposed to emancipate the Church in the Colonies by giving to her synodical action. If, said he, the Colonies were emancipated, they must begin by digging at the foundations, for the purpose of laying with elaborate care every stone in the new building; and when they got into the building, the bishops, said the right hon. Gentleman, must be made responsible for the decision of doctrine; and the initiation of all Church legislation, he said, should rest exclusively and solely with the bishops. That was the relation in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the clergy and laity in the Colonies should stand to each other; so that instead of the laity having powers of legislation equal to and co-ordinate with those of the clergy, as first proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, his object now was to make the bishop a spiritual autocrat, whom the laity were to approach in suppliant tones, with bended knees, and in a state of abject degradation and humiliation. That was the sort of spiritual bondage which the right hon. Gentleman, under the pretence of liberality, proposed to bring upon the laity in the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman again came forward with a Bill to remove legal doubts and disabilities; and yet, on this second occasion, as on the first, he avoided all mention whatever of the nature of those doubts and disabilities. The right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee a general—and he (Mr. Horsman) must say not a well-founded—statement that the colonial bishops were anxious to meet in synod for the management of ecclesiastical affairs, but were prevented from so doing by fear of thereby incurring penal consequences. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman must believe that that statement was true, or he would not have made it in that House; but he (Mr. Horsman) must take the liberty of saying, that the people of the colonies had no faith in that statement. The colonial bishops had met in synod, as the right hon. Gentleman well knew, and some of their proceedings in synod were very remarkable. It was notorious that they met in synod whenever and wherever they pleased. And who was to prosecute them for so doing? For what 1230 purposes, or under what law, could they be prosecuted? There was not a man in the colonies who did not know that the fear of prosecution on the part of the colonial bishops for meeting in synod was entirely ridiculous. Whoever in this country might be imposed upon by such a statement, the people in the Colonies knew this, that the fear of prosecution was a fabrication and a sham. The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the main features in his Bill was the security which it would give to the Colonies, that all religious denominations there should enjoy religious equality. Why, the Church of England in the Colonies, as it was most improperly and incorrectly termed, was the favoured Church. That Church had received large grants of the public money. Her bishops had been selected by the Crown, and paid by the State. They had rank, dignity, and territorial authority; and, in some colonies, as members of the Legislative Council, they exercised legislative functions. And how did the right hon. Gentleman set about the establishment of religious equality in the Church? Did he propose that the Church should give up any of her emoluments, that the bishops should concede any of their privileges? In fact, did there appear in any part of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman any intention to relinquish those rights, the relinquishment of which alone had given freedom to the Dissenters in the Colonies? The Dissenters, said the right hon. Gentleman, could meet in synod in the Colonics, and why cannot the Church of England? Because she had not put herself on an equality with them—because, in fact, she had not abandoned her connexion with the State. He (Mr. Horsman) protested against the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to give to the favoured and State-supported Church privileges similar to those enjoyed by the religious bodies who, in order to be permitted to exercise those privileges, had consented to receive no support from the State. He protested against this attempt, under the pretence of doing nothing of importance, to give to the Church in the Colonies powers which had been wisely withheld from the Church at home. If the Church in the Colonies wanted emancipation, let her purchase it at the price which had been paid by the Dissenters for their freedom—let her relinquish the support of the State. He firmly believed that the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward fictitious grievances; and he entreated the Committee to 1231 legislate for the Church in the Colonies as they legislated for the Church at home.
§ SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODsaid, he rose for the purpose, in the first instance, of noticing some observations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) which he thought might he supposed to hold out that he (Sir W. P. Wood) acquiesced in the legal views of the right hon. Baronet on this subject. On a former occasion only two main legal objections were offered to the plan of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). One was made by the hon. and learned Attorney General, to the effect that the proposed Bill was unnecessary, because the Act of Henry VIII. had no application to the Colonies, and would not prevent parties from assembling in ecclesiastical synod. His hon. and blearned Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell) on that occasion made a speech, in which he in some degree acquiesced in the views taken by the hon. and learned Attorney General; hut on his (Sir W. P. Wood's) having expressed his surprise at his hon. and learned Friend acquiescing in such views, he (Mr. Bethell) emphatically disclaimed them. The other legal point was this—that the proposed Bill would give to the Church in the Colonies a permanent and dominant authority—that it would give to the Church exclusively the power of meeting in synod. In order to meet that objection, an alteration had been introduced into the Bill, with the view of providing that nothing in any Act or law of the United Kingdom contained, should prevent members of the Church in the Colonies from meeting in synod, in a manner similar to that in which the members of other religious bodies might meet. He was glad that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) concluded his speech with an expression of his willingness to consent to the reprinting of the Bill of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford. He was much surprised at the attack which the hon. Member for Cockermonth (Mr. Horsman) had made upon his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) as to the honesty of his motives in this matter. It was only the other day that the hon. Member had been pleased to charge him (Sir W. P. Wood) with being influenced by sinister motives, because he had expressed opinions favourable to the Bill of his right hon. Friend. That was the first time that his (Sir W. P. Wood's) honesty had been called in question in that House. His right hon. Friend, 1232 in bringing forward his second Bill that day had stated very plainly what were his objects; but the hon. Member for Cockermouth would not believe him, and insisted that his objects were deep and occult. The hon. Member charged his right hon. Friend with being the instrument of that party in the Church that was anxious to subvert everything, and to establish ecclesiastical despotism in the Colonies. Now, certainly, if such was the object of his right hon. Friend, he had most adroitly concealed it, for never did he see any Bill that had on its face less appearance of ecclesiastical despotism than this, which purported to give to the laity of the Church of England in the Colonies an authority and an influence which he admitted was wholly unparalleled in this country. Now, how the proposal to give to the laity an authority and power which they did not at present possess, could be said to he an attempt to establish ecclesiastical despotism, was more than he could conceive. He had always admired the manner in which the hon. Member for Cockermouth was able to fix his mind wholly upon one subject, and the ability with which he laid such subject before the House. But, at the same time, he thought that these abilities of the hon. Gentleman were attended with this inconvenience, that having so fixed his mind wholly upon one object, and having arrived at a settled view upon it before he undertook to explain it to the House, it was apparently impossible for him not to impeach the honesty of any hon. Gentleman who might happen to entertain with respect to it views different from himself. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had simply claimed for the Church in the Colonies such rights as were exercised without hindrance by the Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, Independents, and every other sect. He stated that he should be quite ready to give his best consideration to any improvement on his Bill which in the course of the discussion on it might be suggested by any hon. Member. He stated that if any hon. Member could point any clause which militated against that view, he would listen to him with pleasure, and receive with thankfulness any alteration that might be suggested. Now, after that, he (Sir W. P. Wood) thought it was a little too much for the hon. Member for Cockermouth to tell them that his right hon. Friend had had private conversations with the hon. Members for Manchester and Montrose, and with other hon. Members, on the subject 1233 of his Bill. It was not usual in that House to allude to such conversations, and to tell them that he had reason to believe that his right hon Friend had some concealed motive in bringing forward this Bill. The hon. Member for Cockermouth had told the House that a pamphlet which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had published on this subject, was intended to be taken as a schedule to the Bill. Now, he (Sir W. P. Wood) must confess he had not paid to his right hon. Friend the compliment of reading that pamphlet; but he thought it was a little too hard to impute to him (Sir W. P. Wood), or to any other hon. Member who might be in favour of the Bill, that he had subscribed ex animo to all the contents of that pamphlet, and approved of its being taken as a schedule to the Bill. The hon. Member for Cocker-mouth had stated that many of the bishops in the Colonies had already done very great mischief. [Mr. HORSMAN: Some of them.] Well, be it so; but in making such a statement, would it have been anything more than simple justice to have admitted the benefits which had been conferred by those bishops upon the Colonies? Before these bishops left this country, many of our Colonies were in a state of heathendom; there were no very-long time since no clergy in that great colony of New South Wales, to which we sent all the refuse population of the United Kingdom. That population had not then even a single chaplain from whom they might derive spiritual consolation and benefit. But by the exertions of religious societies that state of things had been remedied. In one case an energetic indivividual, by her munificence, had endowed two Colonial bishoprics. We had now a numerous body of bishops established in the Colonies. Five years ago there was beheld the solemnity of the consecration of five of these bishops for the Colonies; and what had been the result? The clergy during that period had been multiplied threefold. In one diocese the clergy had become six times as numerous as they were five years ago. The exemplary Bishop of New Zealand had not only discharged the duties of his diocese, but had explored other heathen lands, for the purpose of giving the inhabitants the consolations of our religion; and it was but the other day that he (Sir W. P. Wood) received a letter from a bishop who had accompanied Dr. Selwyn in his last excursion for that purpose, and that 300l., which would have been the sum demanded by a captain for 1234 navigating the vessel, had been saved by the bishop, who himself navigated the vessel, in order that the sum thereby saved might be devoted to the Christianisation of the heathen. He instanced this noble conduct of Bishop Selwyn, for the purpose of showing what force, energy, and vitality our Church would display in the Colonies, if she were duly organised. If justice were done to her, she had a power which would compete with the powers of any other Church on the surface of the globe. But when his right hon. Friend came forward with a proposition to enable the Church in the Colonies to put forth all her strength, the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth rose and said that the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had party objects in view, and insinuated very broadly that the Bill manifested a desire, on the part of his (Sir W. P. Wood's) right hon. Friend, to run towards the Roman Catholics. But lot the House bear this in mind—there was already an organised form of Chuch polity in the Colonies, and that was the organisation of what was said to be the most formidable opponent of our Church—he meant the Roman Catholic Church, Let them, however, give the Church of England fair play, and they might depend upon it, that there would he very little doubt as to the impression which those two Churches would make upon the Christian world, when brought face to face and front to front with each other. We need have little doubt as to the triumph of our own Church, if her energies were permitted to have free scope. But if they crippled her; if they said that she should have no power to regulate her own affairs; if they said that she should have no powers to frame such enactments as she might deem necessary, they would render her too weak to enter into a successful contest with her most formidable opponent. The hon. Member for Cockermouth said that the Church would be divided and weakened, instead of being consolidated and strengthened, by the proposed combined action of laity and clergy in synod. But had such been the result in America, where the laity were permitted to sit in synod with theclergy? There was no Church in the world more harmonious and united in action than the American Church. Differences of opinion were, no doubt, expressed in her united assemblies; but was it possible, in any human ecclesiastical or political assembly, to avoid the expression of difference of sentiments. Those differ- 1235 ences, however, had never yet occasioned discord in the action of the American Church. The Church of England in the United States, at the time of their separation from us, was without bishops, and consequently weak. Now, the number of bishops was thirty-two, and of clergy 1,500; while in 1835 there had been but twelve bishops and 500 clergy. All these bishops were in union with our Church. It was said this Bill would create division in the Church. In answer to this he would point to the state of the American Church; they had ever acted as one United whole. And when he remembered the great ecclesiastical assemblage which took place not long ago in the venerable edifice adjoining (Westminster Abbey), on the occasion or consecrating bishops for our Colonies, he could not help feeling that our Church in the Colonies might call the laity to her councils with as much advantage as had attended that course in America. He looked upon that great Christian assemblage as a guarantee that our Church in the Colonies might, without any danger to her harmonious action, be permitted to exercise the rights claimed for her by his right hon. Friend. And he would take that opportunity of suggesting to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth that if he would display a little more Christian charity, he would do more to diffuse true Christian religion than he had hitherto done by his speeches in that House. Let that hon. Gentleman do his best to unite instead of disuniting and dissevering those who had, after all, at heart the glory of one Head and one Master. By conciliation he would promote that free action of the Church in various parts of the globe which had produced the most splendid results—to which results he (Sir W. P. Wood) felt convinced this Bill would, by the blessing of God, give still greater splendour and duration.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, that if this debate only elicited the speech to which they had just listened, it would rejoice every friend of the Church. But he thought that the weighty objections offered to this Bill by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) still remained unanswered and unanswerable. The Bill went far beyond giving the Colonial Church the powers of organisation which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir W. P. Wood) had described. The Bill, as originally laid on the table, would have enabled the Colonial Churches to alter the liturgy, and impose any doc- 1236 trine they pleased as the test of Church communion. The effect of that would be plainly to break up the unity of the Church, as every separate diocese might adopt a totally different system of doctrine, practice, and discipline from all the rest. To that he could never assent; but preferred the Church as it was. Such powers would not be entrusted to the diocese of London, and therefore he could not understand why they should be entrusted to any diocese in the colonies.
§ MR. GLADSTONESir, I have only one word to offer on a personal matter between the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) and myself. I must confess that for the first time during twenty years of public life, during which I have had to conduct various measures through this House, I did feel very greatly aggrieved by the tone which the right hon. Gentleman adopted—as I thought—in his speech on a former occasion. The language which he has used to-day, however, convinces me that I was mistaken, and that I ought entirely to waive that feeling. His motives I have never doubted or questioned; and I confess that I ought to regard his language as lying within the fair latitude and license of debate. That being so, and not being fond of quarrel, either in this House or elsewhere, I wish spontaneously to say, that I entirely withdraw any words that I may have used that were in any degree painful to the right hon. Gentleman. I regret having used them, and I trust that in discussing either this or any other measure in this House, I may never give cause of offence to any hon. Member.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONI can only say that I most readily accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
§
Resolved—
That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to explain and amend the Laws relating to the Church in the Colonies.
§ Resolution reported.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bernal, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Page Wood, and Mr. Oswald.