BISHOPRIC OF CHRISTCHURCH (NEW ZEALAND) BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE. (Hansard, 3 June 1852)

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, that he was ready to make an omission in the Bill that would remove all the objections urged against it by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey). The object of the Bill was simply to render valid the resignation of the Bishop of New Zealand of a portion of his diocese, out of which a new See was to be formed. The hon. and learned Gentleman objected that the terms of the Bill went beyond that intention, and would enable the Crown by Act of Parliament to make a new colonial bishop. He (Mr. Adderley) believed that some of the words might be made to bear that construction, and therefore he would be ready in Committee to omit them, so as to obviate the hon. and learned Member's objections.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, that the alterations he desired were very material, and before he could consent to the second reading he must see the precise Amendment which the hon. Gentleman was willing to make. The Crown had now no ecclesiastical supremacy over the Colony; but the wording of this Bill would have the effect of indirectly establishing the supremacy.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was perfectly willing that the Bill should only render valid the resignation. He would not go beyond that resignation, and would not touch the constitution of the new diocese. He would leave it to the Crown to 1434 constitute the See by Letters Patent at its pleasure.

§ MR. KEOGH
said, he must remind the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had promised that no business would be proceeded with at that late hour (quarter past one).

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that this was not a Government measure, and he had no control over it.

§ MR. SADLEIR
said, he should move that the debate be adjourned.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, that he was willing wholly to carry out the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey), and to remove the objections that he had stated to the Bill. But the proper time for doing so would be when the Bill got into Committee.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, he would make this proposal. Let the Bill be postponed till to-morrow, and in the meantime the hon. Gentleman could consider the Amendments which he (Mr. C. Anstey) had put into his hands. He denied that, legally, there was any power in the Crown to make any See of New Zealand at all. The words "any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding" should be struck out.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the House might either pass the second reading at once, and leave this question to he dealt with in Committee, or might let the matter stand over, and then see whether the Amendments were necessary or not.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
was ready to arrange the alterations in the Bill with the hon. and learned Member in private, so that it might now be read a second time.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he could not consent to that arrangement after the principle stated by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey), after the denial he had most distinctly made of the right of the Crown to appoint any bishops at all. [Mr. C. ANSTEY denied that he did so.] He could not accede to what he understood now to be the proposition of the hon. and learned Member, which would virtually amount to that denial, whatever the hon. and learned Mem- 1435 ber's opinion might be on the subject, and although he was fully aware of the importance of having this Bill passed, and of the absolute necessity of creating this new bishopric, he should feel it inconsistent with his duty, whatever might be the feeling of his hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) behind him, if he were to consent to the alterations proposed, which would virtually be maintaining opinions to which he could not agree, and which he would not submit to or acknowledge. He should be willing to consent to certain alterations in the Bill that would obviate any fair objections to it, but he would not allow any alteration in regard to the principle of the Bill.

§ MR. S. CARTER
said, he hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would find equal firmness on that (the Opposition side of the House. He, for one, was totally opposed to multiplying the number of bishops. As one opposed to an Established Church paid out of the revenues of the country, he should most 1436 strongly resist the extension to the Colonies of a system which he trusted to live to see abolished in this country.

§ MR. KEOGH
said, after the hon. and learned Attorney General's speech and the constant use of the expression, "I will not allow," it was quite clear that this was a Government Bill. He was anxious not to inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he would, therefore, not press his Motion for the adjournment of the House.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
begged to explain. This was not the Bill of Her Majesty's Government at all, but of a private Member. When he stated that there were principles either to be abandoned or maintained, to which he could not give his assent, he said that, not as a member of the Government, but as an individual Member of the House.