RANK OF CHURCH DIGNITARIES IN THE COLONIES. (Hansard, 25 March 1851)

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
rose, pursuant to notice, to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether any answer had been returned to the despatch (with an inclosure) addressed by his Excellency, Sir Charles FitzRoy, on the 30th July, 1850, to her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies (endorsed as received in Downing-street on the 4th January, 1851), and if no answer shall have been sent, to explain the cause of the delay; and also to call his attention to certain inaccuracies in the printed copy of the said communication, as laid before this House, in answer to their address of the 24th February, 1851, and ordered to be printed (No. 105) March 10, 1851. A few, words of explanation were requisite to place the matter clearly before the House, and he hoped therefore 512 the House would allow him to make a few-observations. Some three or four years ago, in consequence of a whisper or private note from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—for he (Sir R. Inglis) could find no public document of the kind—the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies had sent out a despatch, containing instructions to the Governors of Colonies that Roman Catholic bishops there should be treated with the same distinction and honour as bishops of the Established Church appointed by Her Majesty to episcopal sees within those Colonies. In consequence of that despatch conveying such instructions from the Secretary of State, the Governor General of Australia (Sir C. FitzRoy) had received a communication from the right rev. the Bishop of Sydney, deprecating the course of proceeding recommended in the matter by the Government. In consequence of that representation, another communication was despatched from the Secretary of State, modifying the original instructions, and giving to the bishop as an individual the precedency which was denied to his see, it being held that he was not only Bishop of Sydney, but also Metropolitan. In reference to this arrangement, the bishop replied that, however gratifying it might be to himself personally, it left untouched the main question, namely, of the right of another potentate, not the Sovereign of this country, to give by his authority a situation to which precedence was attached in Her Majesty's dominions. [Cries of "Question!"] He had asked the indulgence of the House, as the House might not understand his question without some preface.

§ MR. HUME
said, that reflections had already been thrown out on certain parties, and he objected to such statements being made, as they could not then be answered, and therefore went forth unanswered.

§ SIR R. INGLIS
apprehended that he had not violated the rules of the House; he had not asked for more than the courtesy the House usually gave. The despatch to which he was about to refer contained an enclosure, dated Sydney, 29th of May, 1850, and it did not appear that any answer had yet been returned to it by the Secretary of State. His first question therefore was, "whether any answer had been returned to the despatch (with an enclosure) addressed by his Excellency Sir Charles FitzRoy on the 30th of July, 1850, to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies (en- 513 dorsed as received in Downing-street on the 4th of January, 1851); and, if no answer should have been sent, to explain the cause of the delay." But there was another question—and here, also, he thought that even the intuitive sagacity of the hon. Member for Montrose would not understand it without a little previous explanation. In the despatch, of which he held a copy in his hand, there were two or three most remarkable inaccuracies. In the last paragraph of the Bishop of Sydney's letter, to which he had already referred, the following passage occurred:— The present occupants of all sees, and then-successors therein, hold, and will hold, the precedence which their only lawful Sovereign has as-signed to them, [not] subject to abatement at the will of a foreign Prelate, whenever and as often as it may please him to constitute within any of these dioceses a Metropolitan, and, therefore, in accordance with Earl Grey's directions a superior in acknowledged rank in virtue of his ecclesiastical office.

§ MR. J. O'CONNELL
rose to order. The hon. Baronet was raising questions to which there was no doubt another side, which there could be no opportunity of presenting to the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the lion. Gentleman was in order. He was only stating facts, and not giving opinions.

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
said, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated from the Chair exactly the course which he (Sir R. H. Inglis) considered he was adopting. In the copy of the document which the Secretary of State had laid on the table, the word "not" was inserted in the passage he had cited, thus altering the whole character of the sentence. He wished to know from the hon. Under Secretary whether in the original the word "not" were inserted before the word "subject?" The first paragraph of the same letter of the Bishop of Sydney was as follows:— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the letter addressed to me by the hon. the Colonial Secretary, by direction of your Excellency (29th June, 1849, 49–48), inclosing a copy of the despatch received from the right hon. the Earl Grey, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, wherein his Lordship desires, that according to the true construction of the directions respecting the precedence of Roman Catholic prelates conveyed in the despatch of the 20th November, 1847, the Bishop of the Church of England in New South Wales ought to have precedence of the Roman Catholic Archbishop.' He also wished to know whether the word "desires" were in the original, or whether it were not the word "observes" which was 514 in the passage, and whether the marks of a quotation were omitted or not?

§ MR. HAWES
said, that the despatch was received on the 4th of January, 1851, and no answer had yet been returned to it. When an answer was sent, it would be laid on the table of the House. With regard to the paragraphs pointed out by the hon. Baronet, he had to say that the copy of the letter laid before the House had been printed from the copy of the Bishop's letter transmitted by the Governor General of Australia, and the words to which he I had referred were not printed as a quotation. With regard to the word "not," in the last paragraph, it was a typographi cal error on the part of the printer, and I which arose in this way: the copy sent to the Government had a marginal note with the word "not" inserted, and a mark of doubt along with it, but it was printed with it. The document had not come under his (Mr. Hawes's) notice, and he was not aware of the circumstance until the hon. Baronet had pointed it out to him. On being made acquainted with the error, he had immediately ordered a corrected copy to be laid on the table. If there was any variance between the copy sent and the original document, he of course could give no account of that; all the Government could do was to lay on the table of the House that which was sent to them.