COLONIAL BISHOPS BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 19 May 1852 vol 121 cc742-91

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th April], "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Debate resumed.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that after what had been stated that evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), it appeared to him that the House could not come to any decision upon the subject of the Colonial Bishops' Bill that day. He thought it quite right that, after what had occurred, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies should have an opportunity of stating his views in regard to this important subject; but he thought it would be very inconvenient that after that the debate should be allowed to go on without any knowledge on the part of the House whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to proceed with his Bill or not. He hoped, therefore, that at the conclusion of his statement as to the views of Government on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman would propose the further adjournment of the debate, so as not to involve the House in a discussion without any practical result.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

Sir, I appreciate the motives which have induced the noble Lord to mate this observation. I can assure the House that I would gladly have been spared one of the most painful and difficult duties I have ever undertaken; but I think that the House will feel—and I am glad the noble Lord opposite has made the admission—that after the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) has thought it his duty to take, after I had put it to him, this day three weeks, not to proceed with a subject of such extreme importance and difficulty, under circumstances which made it impossible for me to reply to him—I say I think the House will feel that I am acting under an imperative sense of duty in now availing myself of the opportunity afforded by the reading the Order of the Day to state the views which I entertain upon the subject. I hope, Sir, I may he favoured with the attention of the House while I proceed to state my opinion upon the Bill, which, though brief in itself, and at first sight simple in its phraseology and enactments, is, I believe, when closely looked at, the most important Bill upon ecclesiastical matters which has been for years submitted to this House, and which, I believe, if it were to pass into law in its present form, would be the first step towards a change in our ecclesiastical polity, which may indeed he desired by a certain party in this country, but which I believe is one that is decidedly opposed to the opinions of the great body of the people, not only in this country, but in the Colonies not less. I rise, Sir, under the unusual disadvantage of replying to the speech of my right hon. Friend after an interval of three weeks since that speech was delivered; hut I consider the difficulty less—although it cannot fail to be one— than it otherwise would he, inasmuch as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was for the most part addressed to those points in which I am happy to say that I agree with him—namely, to the necessity of affording to the Church in the Co- lonies some greater freedom of action than it now possesses. My speech will be rather addressed to that part of the subject upon which I differ widely from him— namely, the provisions and enactments which are contained in his Bill, which I shall now proceed to notice; but I feel I cannot differ from him in any degree without assuring him—and I do so with the greatest pleasure—that no one is more willing to recognise the great capacity of the right hon. Gentleman, and no one more willing to state his entire belief that the right hon. Gentleman, in taking up this subject, which no man understands better, is actuated by the most pure and conscientious motives. But while I fully and entirely make this admission, I feel at the same time bound to say that I will not yield even to my right hon. Friend in attachment to that Church of which we are both members; neither will I yield to him in the desire to hand down to our descendants within the distant possessions of the British Crown all the blessings of that Church, with her Protestant simplicity and purity, with her toleration and her charity. I distinctly admit it is part of the duty of my office to endeavour to do all I can to accomplish that object. And when I shall look back to the period during which I have held the office which I have now the honour of filling, nothing would give me more satisfaction than to be able to feel that I had contributed in any degree, however small, to bring about the result that our descendants in the most distant lands shall inherit from us, together with our language, our laws, our literature, and our freedom, that blessing which I believe to be the greatest of all, and to be closely associated with our freedom—namely, the blessing we derive from our reformed Christian faith. Approaching the subject with these feelings, I am quite ready to admit to my right hon. Friend that upon certain points the Church in the Colonies suffers under great disadvantages, and I believe that she stands in need of our legislative interference to enable her to make those regulations which are essential to the discharge of her proper functions as a Christian Church. I believe that these disabilities are., chiefly, threefold. They consist, first, in her inability to make regulations for her own discipline; secondly, in the want of greater power of synodical action; and, thirdly, in the want of power to adapt her form and her liturgy to the require- ments of a Missionary Church, which must be considered as one of the most important functions and duties of a Church so situated as the Church in the Colonies. These, I believe, will be the three principal difficulties with which we shall have to contend. But one of the greatest of them is the want of power on the part of the bishops of the Colonial Church to carry out a proper discipline in their respective sees. It is commonly supposed that a bishop in a Colonial diocese wants greater power than he at present possesses. My right hon. Friend pointed out—and I fully agree with him—the fact that the power of the Bishops in the Colonial dioceses is, in effect, greater than it ought to be. It is an autocratic power; and what is really wanted is, the means of bringing offenders under some proper mode of trial. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out two instances that have occurred in the diocese of Tasmania. I was myself told by the Bishop of Cape Town that he was obliged to dismiss two curates, acting thereby under an autocratic power, and that he felt painfully the disadvantage of possessing such power. And, no doubt, where power is carried to this extent, it is sure to cause reaction and jealousy; and however justly it may be exercised, it is always certain to create dissatisfaction. But a late event has brought out this disadvantage, and excited attention to existing deficiencies in more than a usual degree. I allude to the synod, if it may be so called, or meeting of the Australian bishops, held in Sydney in 1850. The right hon. Gentleman has adverted to that meeting. I have now the minutes of their proceedings before me. One of those proceedings arose from the painful differences which agitated this country some two or three years ago, in connexion with what is well known as the "Gorham Case." In consequence of that case, the bishops made a minute — which was certainly dissented from by one of the number then present, namely, the Bishop of Melbourne; the tendency, however, of that minute, if carried out, would be to exclude from the Church of England in the Colonies every clergyman who concurred in the decision of the Privy Council. I am far from saying that it was the intention of any one of those bishops so to exercise the power which he possessed. Feeling, however, that the power rested with the bishop's free and unfettered discretion to grant licences or withhold them—to permit them to remain in the possession of the clergy, or revoke them—feeling that this power existed and might be exercised against clergymen who held different views on the difficult subject of baptism from those which might have been propounded by the bishops, a feeling of panic was created in the minds of a large body of the clergy and laity; a meeting of the laity and clergy was held, and I now hold in my hand an address which was agreed upon to be presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Crown, praying that protection might be afforded to those who dissented from the form of the resolution of the bishops adopted elsewhere. Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that I, for one, will be no party to narrowing the broad and comprehensive basis on which the Church of England now rests; and, seeing the panic which was created in the Australian Colonies by this minute of the bishops, I am prepared to join with my right hon. Friend in the opinion he has expressed, though perhaps we differ in our reasons for such a conclusion, that there ought to be some change made in the law, so as to give these Churches those powers they require, and which can only be conferred on them by the Legislature. We shall thus prevent the bishops retaining a power which I do not say they exercise improperly, but which I think dangerous and invidious in its nature, and which has already in one ease led to a deep and wide-spread feeling of alarm. It is now my duty to state to the House, that, in consequence of these transactions, and of the representations that have been sent home to this country, the attention of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury was directed to the state of these circumstances; and his Grace felt that the time was come when some legislation ought to be adopted which would place the Colonial Churches on a better footing. In consequence of that opinion, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to the Bishop of Sydney, as metropolitan of Australia, for the purpose of consulting him as to what form, in the opinion of the bishops of Australia, our legislation ought to take; and at the same time he expressed his readiness, as head of the Church in this kingdom, to assist in carrying out effective legislation, when he had ascertained their opinions on the subject. His Grace has given me permission to read an extract from a letter which he wrote. The following is such extract:— In consequence of a representation which reached me in July last from the Australian bishops, I wrote to the Bishop of Sydney, as metropolitan, requesting him to send me an outline of the practical difficulties at present existing, and-of the measures by which it appeared to him that they might best be remedied. It seems that some such basis is desirable for any legislative measure which may afterwards be proposed in Parliament; and with that information it will not be difficult to frame a Bill after the example of the Clergy Discipline Act, which may remove the impediments now embarrassing ecclesiastical government in the Colonies. I will not trouble the House with the rest of the letter, which refers, in strong and direct language, to the Bill we are now considering. It was my intention, when this Bill was first under our consideration, strongly to urge upon this House—pending an answer to this letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the metropolitan of Australia, recognising the necessity of legislation, and asking advice as to what shape legislation should assume—that it would not have been right, or, I will even say, decorous, to pursue this Bill. But, since my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford made his statement to the House, the Archbishop of Canterbury has received an answer from the Bishop of Sydney; and I will now read to the House that answer, or at least so much of it as bears upon the Bill now before the House, and the question submitted by the Archbishop to the right rev. Prelate:— The whole subject requires minute and careful discussion both here and at home. With a view to ascertain the state of feeling and opinion here, I purpose, if God be pleased to permit me, to assemble my clergy early in February; and having obtained their preliminary advice, shall seek to collect the suffrages of the laity, by prudent consultation with them and the clergy jointly, in what may, I trust, be deemed a lawful assembly. But it is not apparent how any determinate conclusions can be arrived at without a fresh discussion at home of the opinions offered by the separate dioceses, brought collectively under the review of a competent tribunal to prepare and draw up the terms of a Bill to be submitted to Parliament under the sanction of Her Majesty's Ministers. Then comes another extract from the same letter:— At the close of our deliberations last year it was a subject, not of debate in conference, but of private conversation among my brethren, whether I, as their metropolitan, ought not to be accredited to proceed to England, for the purpose of initiating measures for giving legal effect to our determinations. At that time I certainly gave no encouragement to the suggestion… I am not prepared to say what my determination would be if the call should now be made upon me to undertake a voyage to England. I suspend for the present my judgment as to the most ad- visable course, but on my return to Sydney will do myself the honour of writing again, when it is posible circumstances may enable me to express myself more decidedly. Now, I think the House will feel with me, that after the receipt of such an answer from the Bishop of Sydney, and the expression of his Grace's wish to assist in promoting legislation upon the subject, it would not be proper to proceed further with the present Bill; and I am bound on this occasion to say, that I think pending such a reference between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Australia, this Bill ought to be postponed. But it is impossible for me, after the manner in which my right hon. Friend urged this Bill upon the consideration of the House, and after the statements he has made of its scope and objects, to consent to a simple postponement of the measure-—I feel that I should ill discharge that duty which has devolved upon me, if I did not enter into the merits of this Bill, and I hope the House will indulge me with its attention while I detail to it what I consider to be its real scope, object, and tendency. In the first place, let me say, the Bill is drawn up in terms so indistinct—who drew it for my right hon. Friend, I cannot say—in language so open to doubt, that I very much question, indeed, whether any two lawyers could be found to agree in opinion as to what its real effect would be—I very much doubt whether any colony could venture to adopt it, or whether any Church could venture to regulate its proceedings by it. But one fact strikes me most strongly at the outset. In the preamble of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman says the measure is necessary in regard to the present powers and rights of the Colonial Church. He told us that those doubts vested upon the statutes of Henry VIII. Now, I presume my right hon. Friend refers to the statute passed in the 25th year of Henry VIII., ch. 19, known by the name of the Statute of Submissions, and which restricts the Assembly of Convocation from framing canons without the licence of the Crown. But it will strike every one who looks at this Bill, that although that statute is the foundation of the doubts to which my right hon. Friend adverted, that statute the Bill altogether fails to repeal. Now, nothing would be easier, if my right hon. Friend only wished to set at rest such doubts, than to say that so far as these Colonial Churches are concerned,, that statute should have no effect; but instead of doing so, my right hon. Friend leaves that statute in full operation. The consequence will be evident—that whatever additional power the Colonial Churches would acquire under this Bill, could be only derived from the enactments contained within the four corners of the Bill itself. The disabling statute will remain untouched; and unless this Act sets them free, their disabilities will remain what they are —that statute would be maintained in full force, though the evident scope and object of the Bill is to countervail that statute. It therefore becomes necessary that we should see what is the great scope and effect of the Bill which is to countervail that statute, and to give these Churches power which they do not at present possess. My right hon Friend said, that his only object was to place the Church of England in the Colonies upon an equality with all other denominations of Christians. I will not pledge myself whether I am prepared to go that length. I cannot doubt that such is the object of my right hon. Friend's measure; but I very much doubt if this Bill is worded in such a manner as to render it easy to ascertain what it really will do. I must, however, deal with this Bill on the assumption that it will be good for what it proposes on the face of it to do. I believe (and it is for that reason I attach so much weight to the Bill) that if this Bill is carried out, the effect will be threefold. In the first place, I think it is very doubtful whether, instead of giving equality, the measure will not place the Church of England in the Colonies in a state of dominance which it has never yet possessed anywhere, and which no other colonial Church possesses. Secondly, I think it will tend to break up the Church of England into a number of small separate Churches; and, thirdly, I am of opinion that it will tend to destroy the supremacy of the Crown. Now I feel that I am dealing with subjects of no ordinary magnitude and difficulty. I can assure the House that I approach them with the most unaffected diffidence. If I exaggerate what the effect of this Bill would be, I beg to tell my right hon. Friend that I will end my observations with such a Motion as will leave him at liberty to speak again. If I am in error let me be corrected. I have no wish to exaggerate anything, but I will state to the House what my belief is, that the clauses of this Bill really contain. The first clause proposes that— The bishop or bishops of any diocese or dioceses in the colonies enumerated in the schedule (A) to this Act annexed, or in any other colony which Her Majesty shall, as hereinafter provided, by Order in Council, have declared to fall within the operation of this Act, together with the clergy and lay persons being declared members of the said Church, or being otherwise in communion with such bishop or bishops respectively," &c. Now, I have consulted several eminent divines, and several eminent lawyers, but I have not met with one lawyer or with one divine who can tell me what is meant by the "declared members of the said Church," or what is meant by "otherwise in communion with the said bishops or bishops." The clause then goes on to say, "to meet together from time to time, and at such meeting, by mutual consent, or by a majority of voices of the said clergy and laity, severally and respectively, with the assent of the said bishop, or of the said bishops, if more than one." Doubts have also been suggested what is meant by "clergy and laity," of what portions of the laity these meetings are to consist, how they are to be convened, whether they are to vote separately or concurrently; and these are matters of detail deriving importance from the fact, that as you have no repeal of the disabling statute, these arrangements ought to be clearly enacted, and, if they are not, you cannot proceed. and the Colonial Church cannot act upon them. But now comes the really important part of the clause—that this synod of clergy and laity—and I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend in his proposition to give concurrent power to the laity in any synod that may be established—this court is to "make such regulations as may be held necessary for the better conduct of their ecclesiastical affairs, and for the holding of meetings for the said purpose thereafter, any statute, law, or usage of the United Kingdom to the contrary notwithstanding." If you take the words at the beginning of this clause, namely, "that any bishop or bishops of any diocese or dioceses,"—that they shall meet, and by mutual consent, or by a majority of voices, shall make all such regulations as they may deem necessary— I say, if these words mean anything— setting aside the indistinctness as to the constitution of the synod—they mean this —that every diocese shall form a separate Church in itself—that in every such diocese regulations which, of course, may include canons, may be made by the consent of the bishops alone, and thereby may set aside the authority of the Crown. Thus, any canons of these. Churches may be carried out under such circumstances. You would then have a separate Church in every separate diocese, and you would, as a natural consequence, have different regulations, different laws, and different canons; and amid all these difficulties, one thing is clear—namely, the separation from the Church of England would he complete, and the authority of the Crown would he superseded. This may be a beneficial change or not; but it is one the magnitude and importance of which cannot be overrated. I submit that if such changes in the Church are to be made, they should be openly stated upon the face of the Bill. My right hon. Friend professes equality; but instead of equality he will give dominance, if this clause means anything. Sir, I speak in the presence of gentlemen learned in the law. I believe, that taking this clause separately, that it would not only create separate churches and set aside the prerogative of the Crown, but it would also override all statutes of the Colonial Legislatures, or even of the Imperial Parliament. I believe that instead of the measure conferring equality upon the Colonial Church, it would give dominance to it. The regulations of the canons in each synod would override the enactments of the Legislature. There are important Acts now in operation in New South Wales, in Van Diemen's Land, and in Canada, regulating the status of the Church in those colonies, all of which would be overridden by this law. The House will perceive that this is a very grave question. Having thus frankly explained my opinions on this part of the Bill, I now pass to the second clause, which, like all the remaining clauses, is of a negative character. Still if it means anything, we must suppose that it will enact what is therein indicated. The second clause is as follows:— But it shall not be lawful to impose by any such regulation any temporal or pecuniary penalty or disability, other than such as may attach to the avoidance of any ecclesiastical office or benefice. I presume that a synod so constituted is to be able to "avoid any ecclesiastical office or benefice:" there is no distinction; consequently bishops may be deposed under this clause. Now I beg leave to call the attention of the House to an Act of the Imperial Parliament in operation in Canada, by which it is declared that their rectors shall possess all those rights, and shall be made subject to all the liabilities of incumbents in England. And here let me explain a mistake into which my right hon. Friend has fallen. My right hon. Friend, referring to an Act of the Canadian Legislature which has been lately sent home to this country, and to which he rightly judged the assent of the Crown |has been given —by that Act, the right hon. Gentleman said, erroneously, these rectories were disendowed. Now, he is mistaken in this opinion. If he will refer to the Act, he will find that it goes no further than to deprive the Crown of the power given by the 31 Geo. III. to constitute further rectories. I have no hesitation in saying that we have advised the consent of the Crown to be given to that statute, because with the recollection that the Clergy Reserves Act of 1840 had taken away the power of endowment, we thought that it was quite useless for the Crown to retain the power of constituting new rectories. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that the Act to which I have been referring, disendows the rectories, for the existing rectories are left altogether untouched by it. Sir, I apprehend that if this Bill becomes the law, these synods will have the power of depriving the Canadian rectors of their livings, as well as bishops of their sees. Upon the 3rd Clause I will not detain the House by making any remarks; but I will proceed at once to the important points involved in the 4th Clause, which runs thus:— And no such Regulation shall in virtue of this Act be held to have any other legal Force or Effect than the Regulations, Laws, or Usages of other Churches or Religious Communions in the said Celonies. If I am to take this clause in the sense which it conveys, these regulations shall not confer more power on the Church than is now possessed, for instance, by Roman Catholics or Wesleyans, quâ religious denominations. It is obvious then, that it may nullify all the former clauses of the! Bill, and reduce it to a mere nothing. But I have the advice of competent lawyers upon this Bill, which goes the length of saying that this clause and the former clauses of the Bill are inconsistent—that nobody can construe them together. The 1st Clause gives enormous power for making arrangements for the guidance of the Church, any statute, law, or usage of the said Church notwithstanding. This 4th Clause, however, withholds any such power. I believe it would be an open question with lawyers which construction the Bill would bear. But there is another important view of this clause to which I beg the special attention of the House. The 4th Clause says— "And no such Regulation shall in virtue of this Act he held to have any other legal Force or Effect than the Regulations, Laws, or Usages of other Churches or Religious Communions in the said Colonies." Now, I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Quebec Statute, the 14th Geo. III., which was passed after the conquest of Canada, by which the Roman Catholic Church was invested with all the rights and powers of a Church, and amongst the rest with the collection of tithes: there you have a law of a church in a Colony. Sir, I think it is fairly open to argument, whether the Church of England in the Colonies may not say, "Here is a law which gives the right of tithes to a Church in Canada, and the question is whether we may not also collect tithes in the colonies in which we are placed. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear!] My right hon. Friend cheers that observation: that may not be his intention, and I suppose it is not; but I am not dealing with his intentions, for I know them not—-I am dealing simply with what is within the four corners of this Bill, and to this I wish particularly to confine myself. The 5th Clause merely restricts the synod from the nomination of bishops; but, in the same breath, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take from the Crown the nomination to archdeaconries and other ecclesiastical dignities. I shall now pass on to the 6th Clause, where the right hon. Gentleman says— And any such regulation touching the existing relation of the said bishops, clergy, and others to the metropolitical see of Canterbury, shall be forthwith transmitted by the presiding bishop or his deputy to the archbishop of the said see, and shall be subject to disallowance by the said archbishop, under his hand and seal, at any time within twelve months from the passing of the said regulation, or within six months from the receipt thereof by the said archbishop, but not afterwards. Now, what I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to this clause is this: I believe that the security he here takes in reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury is worth nothing at all. My right hon. Friend reserves to the bishops the power of transmitting any such regulations to the Archbishop of Canterbury— [Mr. GLADSTONE: It requires them to do it.] Yes, but it requires them to do so on matters touching the existing relations of the said bishops; and it remains for the bishop to decide in each case, at his own discretion, what does or does not touch the existing relations. There is no security whatever for its true meaning. The bishop might say, this does not touch our relations with the see of Canterbury, therefore we are not called upon to send it home. It appears to me that the meaning of this clause is ambiguous, and it will be left to the bishop's own judgment to say whether those regulations are such as it would be necessary for him to send home for the consent of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have founded this clause upon the existing practice with regard to Acts passed by a colonial Legislature, where there is a power given to the Governor to reserve and send home laws which he may think it his duty specially to reserve; but then it makes no difference in fact, if the Governor is not disposed to reserve an Act, for every Act is sent home, and is examined at the Colonial Office, and the pleasure of the Crown taken upon it; and it has no effect for two years, during which period there is a power of disallowance in the Crown. There is a security in the one case, which is wholly wanting in the other. I must now beg the attention of the House to the 7th Clause in the Bill, which I think by far the most important, as going to corroborate and confirm the observations which I made on the 1st Clause. My right hon. Friend here says— And no such regulation shall authorise the bishop of any diocese to confirm or consecrate, or to ordain, or to license or institute any person to any see, or to any pastoral charge, or other episcopal or clerical office, except upon such person having immediately before taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, and having likewise subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles, and having furthermore declared his unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer. I do not know whether the House is aware that the words now used in this clause involve a most important alteration of the Ordination Service. The service of the Church of England requires that no person shall be ordained until he has taken the oath of supremacy. Now there is no such requirement here; the oath of supremacy is altogether dispensed with. The oath of allegiance is substituted for the oath of supremacy. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Not substituted.] At all events the oath of supremacy is dispensed with. Now what is the 36th Canon of our Church? It runs in these words (omitting other words which are irrelevant to my present purpose):— That no person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted to any ecclesiastical functions, except he shall first subscribe a declaration, &c, That the King's Majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his Highness's dominions and countries, as well in spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal. Now, here is a question raised of the greatest magnitude. I am advised that this is the first attempt that has ever been made to enable persons to hold an ecclesiastical office in the Church of England without first taking the oath of supremacy. This clause sets aside that oath, and dispenses with the 36th Canon of our Church. I must ask my right hon. Friend whether this has been done by design or by accident? Does he intend to put an end to the oath of supremacy, and to dispense with the 36th Canon of the Church; or is it merely a blunder on the part of the individual who drew up the Bill? This is a matter which I feel it impossible to pass over, inasmuch as I consider it to be an attempt to do away with the supremacy of the Crown—a supremacy which let not hon. Gentlemen suppose to date from the Reformation, but which dates from much earlier struggles, for centuries—which has been asserted and maintained, which pervades our articles and our canons, and which has been re-enacted in repeated statutes. Is it, again I ask, by accident or design, that this oath is dispensed with? Is it possible for me, as a Minister of the Crown, to consent to a Bill that dispenses with the oath of supremacy, and the 36th Canon of our Church? I may be told—I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to hold that language—that the supremacy of the Crown of England in matters ecclesiastical does not extend to the Colonies of the British Crown. I will not, Sir, detain the House by entering into this matter, or by attempting to prove that which I do not think requires proof, but which must be admitted by every one who has studied either the law or the history of this country. In adverting to this subject, let me only remind the House of the effect of the statutes of Henry VIII. The 1st of Elizabeth also declares, in language as clear and distinct as language can be made, that the supremacy of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical does extend to all the dominions under the Crown. The 1st of Elizabeth uses these remarkable words —"Within this your realm, and throughout your Highness's or any other your Majesty's dominions and countries," speaking on the subject of the supremacy of the Crown. Now can any one contend that those words do not embrace of necessity all the Colonies under the British Crown? What is the language of the Quebec Act, to which I have already adverted, by which great powers are given to the Roman Catholic Church in Canada? The 5th Section of that Act enables the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Quebec to exercise the Romish religion, subject to the King's supremacy, declared by the 1st of Elizabeth over all the dominions and countries which then did or should thereafter belong to the Imperial Crown of this realm. What language can be clearer? I have repeated statutes before me—Acts relating to the East Indies for instance—in which the supremacy is made applicable to the various possessions of the Crown. I pass on, for I do not believe it possible that the right hon. Gentleman can for a moment vindicate this Bill on the ground that the supremacy of the Crown of England does not extend to our Colonial possessions. Sir, it only remains for me to notice one more branch of this subject. My right hon. Friend, in his opening speech on a former occasion, rested his case on the demand made by the Colonies themselves for such a measure as he has brought forward. Now, after what I have said with regard to the provisions of the Bill, I approach this part of the subject with perfect confidence. The right hon. Gentleman adverted to petitions which he had received from the Canadas, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Australian Colonies on the subject. I am not prepared to deny the receipt of these petitions; on the contrary, I fully admit that there is now a great anxiety on the part of the Colonies for increased action in the Church there— from Canada, the Cape of Good Hope, and Australia there have proceeded strong expressions of a desire that legislation should take place in such a way as to enable them to make better regulation for the government of the Church than they were now enabled to effect. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say in his speech that there had been a single application from any one of the Colonies expressing a desire for the Bill as it stands now—much less did he show that any application had been made to him tending to exhibit a desire on the part of the Colonial Church, either to separate from the Church of England, or to affect the supremacy of the British Crown. I am happy to say, on the contrary, and it is in my power to prove, that although the colonists want legislation, as I have said, to enable them to have increased power for self-government in the Church, they at the same time earnestly desire to keep up their connexion with the Church of England. I will first advert to some proceedings which took place at Melbourne, where a large body of the clergy and laity had assembled, and in respect to which my right hon. Friend himself read to the House the first resolution that had been come to there. That resolution was as follows:— We are of opinion that an assembly or diocesan synod shall be constituted, and shall be presided over by the bishop of the diocese, and that such assembly shall consist of all the clergy of the Church within the diocese. There you see the desire expressed for self-government only; but the right hon. Gentleman did not call attention to a further resolution which had been passed at the same meeting, and to which I beg to call attention now. It runs thus:— We are of opinion that no advantage can be gained by the formation of any provincial assemlies whatever, so long as the present close connexion of our Church in the Australasian colonies with the Church in England continues; and we would further state that it appears to us that such assemblies would have a direct tendency to weaken that connexion, and by the assumption of authority which belongs only to the Queen in Council, to interfere with the independence of the individual bishops and their dioceses. We are of opinion that in order to maintain and strengthen our union with the Church of England it would be advisable for each diocese, in the separate and independent colonies of Australasia, in matters of metropolitan jurisdiction, to be subject to that of Canterbury only. They then go on to another resolution, namely— We are of opinion that, in order to strengthen the union with the Church of England, it is advisable in all matters of ecclesiastical importance, the jurisdiction of the colonial Church should be subject to the see of Canterbury. So that their desire is rather to strengthen than to weaken their connexion with the Church of England. I come now to the meeting which has been held of the laity at Adelaide, at which several resolutions were carried, and a memorial agreed to. The seventh resolution I will take leave to read, namely— That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be forwarded by the chairman to the Lord Bishop of Adelaide and to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, our Primate, with an earnest supplication that his Grace will use his authority to protect the Church in South Australia from any episcopal interference with its doctrines and discipline, which has not previously received the direct sanction of his Grace and of Her Majesty, as the su preme head of the Church. Now, this is the clear language of the laity. I beg leave to show next what has been said by the clergy at Adelaide. But, before doing so, I must mention that the clergy at Adelaide express in strong language to their bishop their disapprobation of what I had before adverted to, namely, the declaration with regard to baptism, which had been arrived at in the synod assembled at Sydney. The Bishop in answer to this application, says— I return for publication the resolutions and opinions arrived at by the clergy on the minutes of the conference at Sydney, which on my return I submitted for their consideration. They appear to me to be characterised by a calm and serious spirit, which, under the circumstances of excitement lately prevailing, is peculiarly gratifying. Should Her Gracious Majesty, as supreme head of the Church of England, authorise the clergy and laity of the Australasian dioceses to frame their own ecclesiastical polity, subject to Her approval, and should it be deemed advisable to depart on any point from the existing constitution of the English Church, I trust that the pattern of other reformed Protestant and episcopal churches will be followed, and the relations of the bishops, clergy, and laity, as set forth in the Scriptures, be carefully preserved. This will show, that although the Bishop of Adelaide is one of the authorities upon which the right hon. Gentleman relied for his Bill, the right rev. Prelate has distinctly stated that he disapproved of any measure which would interfere with the supremacy of the Crown. It was only yesterday that I received a letter addressed under mistake to Earl Grey, my predecessor in office, from the Bishop of Adelaide himself, which I beg to read to the House:— I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship a document connected with the future action and development of the Church of England in this diocese. Our subordinate relation to the mother Church, and spirit of obedience to the legal supremacy of the Crown, have, I trust, been duly preserved inviolate during the friendly discussions which have preceded the adoption of this report. I will not trouble the House by reading it further—what I have already read is enough to show the strong feeling that exists in the bishop's mind against any separation from the Church of England. He then forwards to me a report, which purports to be a draft of a constitution for the Colonial Church Society in that discese. It has been drawn up by the clergy themselves, and is as follows:— The clergy being under an obligation implied by their subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, it is not competent in a diocesan assembly to make any alteration in the terms of these Articles. This is enough for my purpose to show-that the clergy themselves are prepared to adhere to the 36th Canon of our Church, which, as I before observed, is dispensed with in the present Bill. It only remains for me now to notice the proceedings of the clergy and laity of Tasmania. The address adopted by the clergy of the northern division of Tasmania is as follows:— We are also opposed, in the strongest manner, to any legislative or other proceedings that will have the effect of taking from the Australian Church, in reference to disputed points of doctrine and discipline, the right of appeal in the last resort to the highest ecclesiastical court in England. It is our pride to look with affectionate regard to the religious and secular institutions of Britain as the worthiest manifestations of her greatness, and we desire to cultivate in the minds, and to transmit to the affections of our children this sentiment in unimpaired freshness. I read with delight these sentiments on the part of a numerous body of the clergy in that district; inasmuch as they express an earnest desire not to separate their Church from the Church of this country, or set aside the supremacy of the Crown. I hold in my hand resolutions of a similar character adopted by the laity of the southern division of Tasmania, assembled at Hobart Town, and also a memorial sent home from the clergy of Tasmania, adopting those sentiments by a large majority. After declaring their anxiety for some effectual legislation upon the subject, they come to this remarkable resolution:— That your memorialists view with much apprehension any measure or act that would have the effect of separating the Australasian branch of the Church of England from all but doctrinal unity with the United Church of England and Ireland, as likely, at no very distant period, to lead to the severing of the only remaining link, and also as tending to dissolve the civil and political bond which keeps Tasmania and the whole Australasian group of Colonies a portion—and a most valuable portion—of the British empire. I will now read the prayer of the memorial, which is as follows:— Your memorialists, therefore, most humbly present this memorial, earnestly praying that your grace and all the archbishops and bishops will be pleased to give it your early and careful consideration, and that you will sanction no Imperial legislation which would involve a change of relation with the mother Church, or fail at least to secure the right of appeal to the highest ecclesiastical authority in England, and fully to establish the rights and liberties of the clergy in the diocese of Tasmania. I have called attention to the memorial of these parties as showing what is the desire of the Australian Colonists. I will now only advert to a petition presented by my right hon. Friend from the Bishop of Cape Town, before he proceeded to move the second reading of this Bill. It will be recollected that in the course of his speech my right hon. Friend adverted to the views entertained by the Bishop of Cape Town; and, as I understood him, he said that the petition of the right rev. Prelate was in support of the Bill, and in favour of it as it now stands. As I have already pointed out that, in my opinion, this Bill would sever the Church of England from the Colonial Church, I thought it somewhat remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should put forward the Bishop of Cape Town as a petitioner in favour of it, particularly as I believed the right rev. Prelate to be one of the most exemplary and admirable of the colonial bishops. I therefore thought it my duty—a duty I owed to the right rev. Prelate—to make certain that there might be no mistake as to what his views really were, and I accordingly spoke to him on the subject. I told him what my opinion was respecting this Bill—an opinion founded on the highest advice I could take—that it was a measure which I thought would break up the Church of England, and cause its separation from the Church in the Colonies. I also told him that I believed it would impugn the supremacy of the Crown; and, therefore, asked him whether he was prepared to petition Parliament, and give his authority in favour of a Bill which would he attended with such results? The right rev. Prelate, in reply, gave me his authority for stating that, in petitioning for the present Bill, he desired no more than greater freedom of action to the Church—that no man would shrink more than he would from impugning the supremacy of the Crown, and that so far from wishing the Church in the Colonies to be separated from the Church in this country, he was anxious to draw tighter the bonds of union between them. With these views, which I have stated as clearly as I can, and at a length which I fear may have wearied the House, it is impossible for me to consent to the further progress of this Bill. I have before said, I consent to the principle of it, in so far as that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that it is desirable that some legislation ought to be adopted to give greater powers of self-government to the Colonial Church; but I cannot consent to an application of that principle which involves the grave considerations to which I have adverted. Whatever my position in life may be—whether Minister of the Crown, or an independent Member of Parliament, or a private citizen of the State, I certainly will be no party to breaking up the Church of England into fragments, or to impugning the supremacy of the Crown, which in my conscience I believe to be one of the surest guarantees for the religious liberties which we enjoy. Under these circumstances I implore the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with the Bill; although I must say I am slow to believe that he really intends to bring about those results which I think this measure would be sure to effect. [Mr, GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I accept that cheer most thankfully; but I still believe that it is a Bill which will bring about these results. I entreat of him not to proceed with it— not even to think of merely putting it off for a fortnight—but I entreat him to withdraw it on the grounds of the negotiations that are now going on between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Metropolitan of Sydney, and which negotiations, I believe, will lead to useful legislation on the subject. Of this I can assure the House, that if I retain my office for another year, it will not be my fault if some legislation on the subject does not take place. I have no hesitation in saying thus much; but I implore of him, seeing the negotiations that are going on, and the great doubts, at least—that I am sure he cannot deny— which surround the enactments of this Bill, I entreat of him to abandon this measure altogether. I have no wish to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. I wish to meet him in the most friendly spirit, and I trust he will not drive me to the alternative of considering whether it will not be my duty, as a Minister of the Crown, to tender my advice to Her Majesty not to give her consent to the further progress of a measure which I believe will be incompatible with her just prerogative, and will invade her undoubted supremacy. Under these circumstances. Sir, I shall move that the House proceed to the other Orders of the Day.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words, "That the," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "other Orders of the Day be now read," instead thereof.

MR. ADDERLEY

moved the postponement of the debate to that day fortnight.

MR. SPEAKER

informed the hon. Gentleman that it was out of order to move an Amendment upon an Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he did not intend to reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, for the reasons he had already given, namely, that it would be better to make his reply when he was prepared to declare the course he intended to take with regard to this Bill. However, he was called upon to perform a very painful duty, namely, to point out the very gross misrepresentations to which he had been subjected by the right hon. Gentleman—whom, however, he discharged of any wilful intention in the matter. He had, however, been subjected to the grossest misrepresentations, and of this he complained. He was in the recollection of the House so freshly, that he need not repeat what he had already said—-the House would perfectly comprehend the point to which he referred. His right hon. Friend dwelt much on what he said would be the effect of this measure on the supremacy of the Crown; and he said that he was slow to believe that he] (Mr. Gladstone) had intended to take away j or impugn that supremacy. The right hon. Gentleman read a clause in the Bill, which required all persons before they could be confirmed, ordained, consecrated, or instituted into any see or pastoral charge, previously to take the oath of allegiance; and he said that by this clause the oath of supremacy was abolished, and the conditions required by the 36th Canon were also dispensed with. He then referred to the oath of supremacy, which declares that the Pope has no jurisdiction in England, and went on to read the 36th Canon of the Church, which directed that no person should be received into the ministry, nor admitted to any ecclesiastical functions, who did not first subscribe a declaration that the Queen's Majesty under God is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all Her Highness's dominions, as well in things spiritual as in things temporal. The right hon. Gentleman then said—and on his own showing, very justly—amid the responsive cheers of his friends, most of whom probably had never read the Bill— that this was a very grave matter for consideration. Here, says the right hon. Gentleman, is the first attempt ever made to impugn the supremacy of the Crown. He then quotes the opinions of the different prelates and clergy in the Colonies, and says that they do not desire to separate their connexion with the Church of England, and that they shrink from impugning the supremacy of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman charged him with impugning the one, and taking away the security of the other. That was the charge which he stood up to stigmatise as the grossest misrepresentation of his measure and his argument. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the 7th Clause; hut he stopped in the middle of a sentence—he never told the House what was the remainder of the sentence. The clause was not that it should he unlawful to ordain except such person shall have taken the oath of allegiance; hut upon such person having taken the oath of allegiance, and having likewise subscrihed to the Thirty-nine Articles, and having furthermore declared his unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer. Did not, then, these Thirty-nine Articles include the oath of supremacy as well as the 36th Canon? Yet the right hon. Gentleman founded the greater part of his speech against the Bill upon their supposed omission. What said the thirty-seventh of the Thirty-nine Articles? Had it escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention?" The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other Her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they he ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to he subject to any foreign jurisdiction;" and, further, "the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England." The conditions of the 37th Article were quite equivalent to the declaration that the Pope of Rome had no jurisdiction in this realm, contained in the oath of supremacy. The 37th Article was quite as wide as the 36th Canon. He was very sorry to point out this misrepresentation, which undouhtedly was innocent; but it was remarkable that his right hon. Friend should have kept back the fact, that not only was the oath of allegiance required, but also subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, and unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer. His right hon. Friend would, however, see, by a reference to the clause, that it would be unlawful under this Bill to ordain or institute any person without subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, and that in one of their number was contained, on the subject of the supremacy of the Crown, all that was contained in the oath of supremacy, and all that was contained in the 36th Canon. There was one other point which called for notice, because it was connected with the same subject. It was perfectly true that by this Bill it would be open for parties in the Colonies to make regulations for self-government, without those regulations being subject to the veto of the Crown, unless, indeed, they touched upon the prerogative of the Crown on the subject of the appointment of bishops. His reason for not including in this Bill a veto for the Crown—to which he had no objection— was, that if the regulations and the laws of England were thus placed in immediate connexion with the Crown, and the authority of the Crown attached to them, it would be impossible to convince the colonists that religious equality was the object of the Bill. It was a matter for the House to consider whether a veto should be inserted in the Bill or not. If it were thought that the veto should be maintained, he had no objection. In the mean time he hoped that he had shown to his right hon. Friend that by the subscription required to the Thirty-nine Articles, the supremacy of the Crown was declared; because the oath of supremacy and the 36th Canon are contained in the Thirty-nine Articles. He did not know whether he agreed with him or not; but when an oath was entirely unnecessary, being already contained in another, he thought it was a great public advantage to get rid of it. However, if the House thought fit to require the oath, he had no objection to make, but on the contrary would he happy to agree to it.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that after the serious charge which had been brought against him, he had no doubt the House would hear with him for a moment. He certainly regretted, that after the construction put upon what he had said by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford he had not read the remainder of the second clause to the House; but he submitted to the House with perfect confidence that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman did not impugn his argument. He had said that the clause dispensed with the oath of supremacy, and that it also dispensed with the 36th Canon, and that it was the first attempt which was ever known to ordain persons to ecclesiastical office being British subjects without the oath of supremacy being required. It was no answer to tell him that among the Thirty-nine Articles there was one which embraced the oath of supremacy. Looking at that omission conjointly with the powers bestowed upon the bishops in the first Clause, he said that he was advised and believed that the effect of the Bill would be to do away with the supremacy of the Crown.

MR. OSWALD

had not had any intention of addressing the House, though his name was on the back of the Bill; but the Secretary for the Colonies had come down to the House as a Minister of the Crown to speak on a subject touching the vital interests of the colonial Churches, and yet that right hon. Gentleman was so ignorant of the Book of Common Prayer, so ignorant of the subject on which he had addressed the House, that he did not know that in the service for "the ordination of Deacons" the oath of supremacy occurred as follows:— I, A. B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, within this realm. So help me, God! The right hon. Secretary for the Colonies must have forgotten that oath when he made his speech. He (Mr. Oswald) was totally at a loss, from the right hon. Gentleman's concluding sentence, to discover whether he objected to the principle of the Bill or wished for delay. But it was to be supposed that the right hon. Gentleman was like the rest of the Members of the Government. They did not know their own minds on any one subject touching the policy of the country, whether ecclesiastical or civil.

MR. ADDBRLEY

did not suppose this question was anything other than an open one with the Government; if it was not, he regretted being compelled to place himself in opposition to their views. But, being alive to the urgency of the subject, and being aware of the views entertained by the colonists, he could not submit to deal with a measure of such importance upon grounds so wholly futile as those advanced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. Every argument he adduced went on simple assumption. The right hon. Gentleman argued, not against the Bill, but against the principle of intolerance; but in such an argument he was begging the question, for it might be asked, was the Bill based on the principle of intolerance? Again, the right hon. Gentleman said the colonists did not wish the separation of their Churches from the Mother Church. But the question was, would this Bill separate them? He maintained that it would not—in fact, that it would most powerfully have a contrary effect. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman alleged that the Bill did away with the supremacy of the Crown; and on that point, also, the question arose whether the Bill did so. It clearly provided for a subscription of the Articles which maintained the supremacy. If he (Mr. Adderley) were able to grant the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions, he should go along with him in objecting to the Bill on the three grounds indicated; but when it appeared that the Bill did not proceed on principles of intolerance, nor separate the Colonial Churches from the Mother Church, nor interfere with the supremacy of the Crown, but went far to obviate a tendency which did exist in the present state of things towards these three things, he felt that the measure called for consideration. The Secretary for the Colonies acknowledged the importance of the measure. Nobody differed upon that point. The Colonial Church was in an anomalous position: it was a corporation unable to settle its own affairs, unable to regulate its own discipline, or even to adapt its ceremonies to the habits of the people by which it was surrounded. The eminent Colonial Bishop now in England complained that he could not adapt the Church services to native recent converts. That was allowed to be a position in which the Colonial Church ought not to be allowed to remain. And what was the consequence? They had not a tolerant Church, for they handed over the discipline of the Church to the ipse dixit of a bishop. To urge that there was no immediate need of legislation, was simply to say that the Colonial Church did not require what the Mother Church did. Did they not require continual legislation in Church matters in this country? What were the Clergy Discipline Acts, and many others—all found to be essential here? Were no such provisions needed there? The House ought to bear in mind that there were two alternatives: either to pass this measure, or to leave themselves to the chance of some similar measure at some future time; for the right hon. Gentleman held out to them some distant hope that there was a possibility of such an event, to be founded on a correspondence which was now going on with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Metropolitan at Sydney. He did not pretend to be in a position to offer any very weighty arguments in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. He had not even the advantage of his attention. But at the same time, as he was rather exigeant of attention himself, he claimed his notice when he asked him whether the proposition which he asked the House to entertain in lieu of the present plan, did not involve the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, which he opposed? The right hon. Gentleman thought that the bishops could meet and call the clergy and laity together, and make some arrangement which would he satisfactory. If he thought that possible, he begged leave to tell him that he destroyed nine-tenths of his own argument against the Bill, for the Bill proposed precisely the same process. They were, therefore, to choose between this measure, or the same measure after an interminable delay which threatened them. What were the objections of the right hon. Gentleman to the detail of the present measure? First, as to the preamble, by which it is declared that doubts connected with the right of the Colonial Churches to meet in order to arrange their affairs, were to be removed. These doubts, it should be remembered, commenced with the statute of Henry VIII., which rendered it impossible for the Church to meet together without the licence of the Crown, under heavy penalties. There were other obstructive Acts in the following reigns. The right hon. Gentleman insinuated that it would be better to repeal those Acts at once, than to meet the difficulty by a measure like this; but that would be to do the very thing which the right hon. Gentleman so strongly deprecated, namely, to create fresh uncertainty in the attempt to remove existing doubts; for who could give security that in repealing any number of Acts, the whole that bore upon the subject would be included? The positive mode of legislation proposed by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford would be more satisfactory than the negative mode of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies. Next, it was objected, that the persons to be affected by this legislation were vaguely described as "declared members of the Church of England?" But the right hon. Colonial Secretary's proposition to wait for the Metropolitan of Sydney's consultation with his diocese, was open to the same objection. How would he consult? How was the Bishop of Sydney to call his clergy together? What portion of the laity was he to call together for the purpose of discussing the subject? With respect to the objection that each colony would form itself into a separate Church, having separate canons and regulations from the Church of England, and that settlements under the same metropolitan would also form themselves into separate Churches, the right hon. Baronet had overlooked several provisions in the 6th and 7th Clauses of the Bill, which rendered that fear nugatory. The substitution of the Thirty-nine Articles for the oath of supremacy was a point of minor importance. There was not one Member of the House who differed from the right hon. Baronet in his declarations in favour of maintaining the supremacy of the Crown. However, his right hon. Friend was willing to insert the oath as well as the subscription in the Bill, should the House desire it. It was, no doubt, the province of a Minister to be zealous in maintaining the prerogatives of the Crown; but let them not so maintain the prerogative of the Crown as to make the very head of the Church an obstruction to the Church's life and action—as to make it maintain its headship merely for the purpose of destroying the action of the Church. When the right hon. Baronet spoke of wishing to hand down to future generations, as an heirloom, the Church of the Reformation, he might be asked whether the most vital branch of the Church of England was not the Church in America? Was the Church in America, or that in the Colonies, a fairer representation of the Church of the Reformation? Why, it was upon the model of that American Church that this Bill was drawn, and it would be difficult to show that a better adaptation of the Church's organisation to its necessarily free position in colonial localities could be arrived at. A total separation of the Church from the State in the Colonies would be preferable to a pseudo connexion, which paralysed the Church, and which had no analogy to the connexion of the Church of England with the State. The right hon. Baronet would do well to bear in mind the model of the American Church when he came to deal with the subject; he could not place the Church in the Colonies on the same footing in relation to the State as that of the Church of England. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as a prominent Member of the House, as one who had attended to the interests of the colonies, and to whom especially the colonists looked up, must bear in mind the responsibility which attached to him if he as- seated to delay on the hopes held out by the vague proposition of the Secretary for the Colonies, the only result of which would be, after all, the very measure proposed in the Bill, only indefinitely postponed at a time when Australia was in a dangerous state of social revolution, and when Canada and Cape Town were pressing for a similar measure; to whom it would be a poor answer to say we were waiting for the Bishop of Sydney's opinion. That very day a petition from one of our North American colonies, with 200,000 signatures, had been presented, praying for exactly the very measure proposed. At the present moment the Bishop of Cape Town also was in this country urging and pressing some such measure as this. And if some such measure as this was not passed, he declares that he will be obliged to act as the Bill proposes, without authority, at the risk of coming within the penalty of the law. It was impossible for them to go on patching up the present anomalous state of the law.

SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS

reprehended the expression which had fallen from the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Oswald), that the indecision of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject was only like that which characterised all their proceedings upon every political, ecclesiastical, or civil question. The observation was utterly irrespective of the point at issue, and was one of a wholly party character. The question was not a party one on either side of the House; and he hoped to guard himself from saying anything which would make it such. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that the arguments of the Secretary for the Colonies were futile; but the hon. Gentleman had not proved that assertion: he had simply hazarded it as his own opinion. The hon. Gentleman referred to appeals made for such a measure as the present from Canada and Cape Town, and seemed to signify that it would he dangerous to deny their demands. In consequence of a Motion he (Sir R. H. Inglis) made some two months ago, Her Majesty's Government had last night laid upon the table of the House a collection of papers connected with Colonial Church legislation, and—although he had had no opportunity of examining them except by a glance— his impression was that there was not, among those papers, a single application for a measure like that which his right ton. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Glad- stone) had introduced. The great argument for this Bill, when it was brought forward three weeks ago, was that it would place the Church of England in at least as good a position as the other religious bodies in the Colonies: it was said that all those other bodies had advantages which were denied to the Church of England. That argument had been repeated by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley); but he (Sir R. H. Inglis) denied that fundamental principle on which his right hon. Friend and Colleague had based his proposition. The Church of Rome, for instance, did not admit any local jurisdiction whatever of an independent character with respect to any matter at issue between the bishop and clergy, or laity, in any colony in the world: from the remotest parts of the earth appeals were made to the Pope of Rome. The unity of that Church was not hazarded by conflicting judgments in various parts of the globe. The judgment delivered at New Zealand was not left to be confronted by a second judgment at Australia, and a third judgment at the Cape of Good Hope. Unity of action in the Church of Rome was sustained by one tribunal, to whom all appeals were carried, and by whom all questions were decided. But it might be said the Church of Rome was infallible, and, therefore, that peculiarity constituted the essence of their privilege, and did not apply to any other Church in the world. Without entering into that question, it was sufficient for him to assert that, the same principle of unity of action prevailed in very different bodies. The Church of Scotland had churches in different parts of the world. In India the presbyteries elected representatives to the General Assembly; and the General Assembly had the decision of every matter in dispute between the members of that Church, one with the other. It was not only so with the Church of Rome or the Church of Scotland, it was the same with the Wes-leyan body. The Wesleyans had congregations in almost every part of Christendom —in almost every part of the world; and wherever they were established, whether in Australia, in New Zealand, or in the Pacific, if disputes arose, those disputes were brought by appeal to the central authority at home. With such precedents in existence, without referring to the Church of Rome, he saw no reason why, for the sake of putting the Church of England in the Colonies on the footing of other Churches there, as was alleged, they should subvert that which had hitherto been regarded as a fundamental principle—that the ultimate and extreme appeal should be left to the Mother Church at home. His hon. Friend said one object was, that the Church of the Colonies might adapt its liturgy to its peculiar circumstances. If a discretion were granted to alter the liturgy of the Church of England, they would have a synod omitting one portion in one colony, and another in another; and they would destroy entirely that great unity of worship by which the Church of England recommended itself. The Bishops of Australia, in synod, even if they had not altered a portion of the liturgy, had, reverting to an older practice in England, subdivided into three portions the present one—the service of the Church of England. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not object to it; he only stated the fact. But, whether right or wrong, if a synod without the consent of the Crown could make that alteration in one diocese, it could make another and greater alteration in another diocese; and, therefore, what the Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated with so much force was irrefragable, that, without giving an opinion on those alterations, they would constitute so many distinct Churches, and dioceses, and synods, under the proposed Bill; and there would be no security whatever that any one colony would retain the liturgy, the rubric, or the articles of the Church of England unaltered when once they had the power of making such alterations. He confessed that he felt a difficulty in understanding what was meant by "declared members of the Church of England." His view of a member of the Church of England was a person in full communion with that Church, not in occasional conformity, declaring himself one day a member of the Church of England, and another day a Wesleyan, or a member of any body of Dissenters. No Church could be safe if its internal legislation were not confided to those, not "declared members," but members in full communion. What security, under the Bill, had they that the Scotch Episcopalians, for instance, would not attempt to introduce that alteration in the Church communion service which at present constituted the great difference between them and the Church of England? He gave no opinion upon the expediency of the measure, he merely called attention to the fact that this was a provision by which men, not members in communion with the Church of England, might overpower, by a majority, those who were in communion with her, and make alterations which practically and essentially would render the liturgy different from the established liturgy of the Church of England. The Secretary of State had said that this Bill might have three possible consequences; and one was to make the Church of England dominant in such colonies in which Church legislation might take effect. He was one of those who, having always held that the Government of England ought to send forth with every colony a Church establishment, would not regret if such a result followed from the proposition of his right hon. Friend. But with all his (Sir R. H. Inglis's) wishes to see the Church of England placed in that position which, as the Church of the Imperial Crown, he thought she was entitled to hold, he did not think such a result would flow from the Bill of his right hon. Friend. By this Bill declared members of the Church might make regulations of all kinds, and alterations in the liturgy and services, without, as he understood the case, being bound to submit such alterations to the see of Canterbury; at all events, it practically gave a great increase of power to the local authorities, and thus would, therefore, deprive their brethren in a colonial dependency of that personal security for their rights and privileges to which an appeal to the authorities at home at present entitled parties. He was not prepared to give to local authorities the power which it was proposed to give. His right hon. Friend said bishops in the colonies had too much power. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not enter on that subject; but he was sure the instances of Mr. Wigmore and of Mr. Bateman were not sufficient to prove the power of the bishops in the Colonies excessive. The Secretary of State admitted that there was a necessity for legiskition. Upon that question he would not enter: it was sufficient for him to object to the present measure. Again, it had been suggested that a Royal Commission should issue to inquire into the facts of the case. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) firmly believed that no such statement of facts as was anticipated by the friends of the proposed Bill would be furnished by any such commission. But, without referring to the possible results of any new inquiry, it was, at all events, necessary to wait for the negotiations between the Metropolitan of all England and the Metropo- litan of Sydney. If their minds could be collected from memorials, his right hon. Friend might or might not have sufficient grounds to proceed upon without further inquiry; but, not having actual materials for a decision before the House, he agreed with the Secretary for the Colonies that it would he better to proceed to the other Orders of the Day. He looked upon the measure as the first of a series of measures tending to separate the Colonies from the mother country, and the Church of the Colonies from the Church of the Parent State, and leading far towards the conclusion that the functions of the Church and State in the mother country ought also to be severed. That he considered was the scope of this measure. It was one to which no man could look with confident hope—one which he regarded with the greatest aversion and distrust—and one which he trusted the House would be very indisposed to sanction.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

I confess, at first sight, I feel some embarrassment how I shall proceed to support the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), when, on the one hand, I see the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir J. Pakington) impugning it, because it is an arrogant and tyrannical measure, intended to place the Church of England in a position of supremacy, tyranny, and domination, utterly intolerable to the Colonies; and, on the other side, I see the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) lamenting that it does not put the Church of England in that position of dominancy and supremacy in the Colonies which she is so naturally and so justly entitled to occupy. At first sight there seems to he some difficulty; but on looking at the matter a second time, and a little deeper, I think this the very best and surest proof of the excellence, temper, and moderation of the Bill—that two hon. Gentlemen, both very sincerely, no doubt, and very ably—should be impugning it, each upon his own principles, which are of a very different and totally dissonant character. The fact is, the Bill does not do either the one thing or the other. If the Bill were intended to place the Church of England in the Colonies either in a position of supremacy or degradation, we should be doing that which we have no right to do, and that which the Colonies would tell us, very quickly and very unmistakeably, we have neither the right nor the power to do. The Bill does not do either one thing or the other. It simply clears the field for a settlement of differences between the Church in the Colonies and the Colonial Legislatures; so that the efficiency of the Church and the sovereign rights of the Legislatures may equally be preserved and maintained, and a proper balance struck between the two. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies has, with great pains and at considerable length, impugned the measure on account of its vagueness, in language the vagueness of which seemed inspired by the discussion. This vagueness is, I contend, the very merit of the Bill. How can we now, at this distance of space from the Colonies—how can we dare to make the first step other than a vague one—how can we dare to bring in a measure of legislation which shall be final, supreme, and complete, regulating their ecclesiastical status for all time to come, subject to no permutation or interference at home or abroad? Such maybe the intention, such may be the animus, of the scheme brought before us by the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies—a Church Discipline Bill, which shall stereotype for distant dependencies of the Crown, where the Church is not even established, a system of Church government, which the Established Church of England herself, no later than the present Session of Parliament, in the person of the Prelate of the city in which we are now assembled, has been compelled to withdraw. With this example before us—with this monition to teach us— what hon. or even most rev. Gentleman can conceive the possibility, by a little correspondence, one letter on each side, every six months—with a Prelate across the ocean not understanding, and not being understood—after a few blue books, and a few reports of the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland—of enacting a Clergy Discipline Act for the Colonies, without the presence of a single representative of those Colonies, whether Churchmen or Dissenter? Now, this is the panacea brought before us from the Treasury bench; and I confess it strikes me—with the specimen of a succedaneum—I ought at least to plead before this House to give a second reading to the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford. But, as I have already said, this Bill is not open to any of those imputations. This Bill is not a Bill of constitution; it is merely a Bill of exemption from certain liabilities, presumed or existing, in the Colonies, which stand in the way of the Colonies, forecasting their own constitution, and coming before the Legislature at home with a scheme which must come before the Church at home, before even, in its most rudimental form, it can assume the shape of a Church constitution. I must give my hon. Friend (Sir R. H. Inglis) credit for his excessive ingenuity; for the first argument he has brought forward to induce the House not to give this Bill a second reading is, that while introduced for the purpose of giving religious equality, it allows us to do what the Church of Rome cannot do. But this is not the point. We claim an equal right with the Church of Rome to be allowed to carry out our own constitution, doctrine, and discipline without interference from the civil power. The constitution of the Church of Rome, it is true, ignores such assemblies as those which the present Bill recognises. But were she to revolutionise herself, and to admit such assemblies, there would be no obstacle from the State to her adopting them. And this is what we desire for our own Church. The Church of Rome has full swing in the Colonies to follow out its own dictates; and the same power to follow out its own nature and its own character we now claim for the Church of England. My hon. Friend has raised a point upon the meaning of the words "declared members of the Church;" and I cannot help agreeing with him that the word "declared" is very vague, and very unsatisfactory; but it has a legal value and significance in those Australian Colonies, which are the main and principal subject of the Bill before us; and I am sure my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) was not wrong in stating a phrase which he found in existence in those Colonies about which he Was mainly legislating. As to the observation of the hon. Gentleman (Sir R. H. Inglis) upon the signification of the words "in full communion," I regard full communion as the power of worshipping and being received in communion in the churches of the Church of England here or abroad; not as implying a perfect and full identity in every detail of ritual and service—such makes identity— but full communion does not necessitate such identity. Another point which he has raised, which I cannot pass by without notice, is, that this Bill would afford opportunities for revolutionists to make changes in the Liturgy and discipline of the Church. Has he looked at this 7th Clause, upon which so much discussion has been raised during this debate?— And no such regulation shall authorise the bishop of any diocese to confirm or consecrate, or to ordain, or to license or institute any person to any see, or to any pastoral charge or other episcopal or clerical office, except upon such person's having immediately before taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, and having likewise subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles, and having furthermore declared his unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer. These are the terms upon which alone a bishop can license or institute—obtaining the full assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer from the person so licensed or instituted. Now, interpreting that with the 6th Clause, touching the relations with the see of Canterbury, does it not stand as clearly to reason as any thing can do, that any alteration in the Liturgy or usages of the Church, inconsistent with the Book of Common Prayer, being inconsistent with the relations of the see of Canterbury, on which alone these Colonial bishops license or institute, comes under the operation of the 6th Clause, and is especially one of those cases reserved for the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury before it can become Church law, or be acted upon? All these are mere details. The broad question before us is this: Here, in these wide colonies of our empire, is our beloved Church, striking her roots, spreading her branches, extending her plantations in all directions— in North America, in Australia, and everywhere. But with these material advantages is a fatal deficiency of order, and organisation, and status, which meets her at every turn, and thwarts every effort to propagate herself; and all she claims is liberty, not supremacy, not domination, but simply liberty; and all my right hon. Friend seeks by the Bill is no more than liberty for the Church of England to organise herself in each colony as, knowing her condition, she herself best can do. This claim of the Church in the Colonies for civil liberty is met by special pleadings about the oaths of supremacy—oaths embodied in the Thirty-nine Articles, which every one must subscribe to who subscribes to those Articles— by offers of a Church Discipline Bill, a Bill which the Church of England, in her actual condition, cannot, and will not, accept—by talking of correspondence with the Colonies; and meanwhile disorganisation and disaffection are to be allowed to make head. These are the arguments urged for deferring the whole question, until some time when the Parliament of Great Britain can model a Clergy Discipline Bill, which must be accepted permanently by the Legislature and by Colonial Churchmen and Colonial Dissenters, none of whom can have the least knowledge of, or the smallest share in its compilation. I trust the House will not thus postpone an important means of augmenting the efficiency of our Church in the Colonies, but agree to the second reading of the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) that the Established Church in the Australian Colonies was in a most disadvantageous position, and that the colonists were deprived of those privileges and of that freedom of action which were possessed by other colonies and by the Mother Church in this country. This arose from the circumstance of those colonies not enjoying the benefit of the ecclesiastical law which existed in this country, and more especially of the right of jurisdiction in spiritual courts. The House was probably aware that an attempt had been made to obviate this inconvenience by introducing into the patents of the bishops of Australia a power to exercise spiritual jurisdiction, and to establish for that purpose ecclesiastical courts, with an appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the attention of the Government having, in 1847, been turned to that subject, the law officers of the Crown were of opinion that the power so conferred by the patent was unlawful, and that the Crown had no power to establish by patent ecclesiastical courts in the Colonies. The consequence, of course, was, that no efficient ecclesiastical jurisdiction could possibly be exercised; because, without the power which was conferred upon the ecclesiastical courts to summon persons before them and to administer oaths, it was impossible that justice could be administered. An illustration of this difficulty had been stated in the cases of Mr. Bateman and Mr. Wigmore, which had been alluded to by his right hon. Friend. The licenses of both those persons were withdrawn by the bishop—with respect to one, on account of some misconduct which was alleged against him; and with respect to the other, on account of his insolvency. But the stipends possessed by those persons were given to them by Government; and they being chaplains, and not holding rectories or curacies, the bishop could exercise over them no power at all. All the effect of withdrawing their licences was to produce an ecclesiastical disability, but it accomplished no secular deprivation. Mr. Wig-more came to England to appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it was found that no appeal would lie; so that, in fact, the bishops in those colonies had an irresponsible and arbitrary power, against which there was no appeal to any superior | tribunal. He would now call attention to a clause in the Bill which seemed to say a great deal, but which really, under existing circumstances, could have no operation at all. By Clause 6, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to provide that "any regulation touching the existing relation of the bishops, clergy, and others, to the metropolitan see of Canterbury, should be forthwith transmitted by the presiding bishop or his deputy to the archbishop of the said see, and should be subject to disallowance by the said archbishop." Now, what were the existing relations between the bishops and clergy of the colonies and the metropolitan see? They were absolutely nothing at all. There being no power of appeal, there was necessarily no power of correction by the archbishop; no relation therefore could exist to which this clause could possibly apply. There was another point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. It was supposed that the bishops and clergy in the Colonies were prevented from meeting together and making regulations for their own internal discipline by reason of the operation of the 25th of Henry VIII. He wished particularly to call the attention of his hon. and learned Friends in the House to the provisions of that Act, for it appeared to him that it did not apply to the Colonies at all; and that if that Act were out of the question there was nothing whatever to interfere with the rights of the bishops and clergy in the Colonies to assemble and make those regulations which were intended to be provided for by the present Bill. The Act of the 25th of Henry VIII., called the Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals Act, provided that— By authority of this present Parliament, according to the said submission and petition of the said clergy, that they, nor any of them, from henceforth shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in use any constitutions or ordinances, provincial or synodal, or any other canons; nor shall enact, promulge, or execute any such canons, constitutions, or ordinances provincial, by whatsoever name or names they may be called, in their convocations in time coming (which alway shall be assembled by authority of the King's writ), unless the same clergy may have the King's most Royal assent and license to make, promulge, and execute such canons, constitutions, and ordinances provincial or synodal, upon pain of every one of the said clergy doing contrary to this Act, and, being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment, and to make fine at the King's will. Now, as he read that Act, it could only apply to this country, and could not apply to the Colonies at all, because it referred to those canons and ordinances which were made in convocation, and which convocation was to be assembled by the King's writ. Now, that state of things did not exist in the Colonies; therefore, although all the laws of this country, capable of application, were applicable to the Colonies, and would be good in those Colonies, yet there was nothing whatever to make this provision apply to the Colonies, or, so far as the Act of Henry VIII. was concerned, render it necessary that there should be a legislative power given to the colonial clergy and laity to assemble together for the purpose of making rules and regulations for the internal discipline of their Church. There was no necessity for supposing, in the first place, that the object of the Bill was other than was stated by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), namely, to permit the clergy and laity of the colonies to assemble together, voluntarily, not by compulsion, and make regulations for their internal government; and if he (the Attorney General) were right, there was no prohibitory Act of Parliament—nothing, as far as he could discover, in the existing law—to prevent their assembling of their own will and pleasure, supposing they should consider it important to do so, to make those regulations. If that were so, there must be something more which his right hon. Friend proposed to obtain by this Bill. He could not understand that hi3 right hon. Friend really asked to give the colonists power to do that which they had the power to do already. His right hon. Friend must propose by the Bill to give the sanction of the law to something not already sanctioned by the law, and to have provisions introduced by the Legislature which would have a much more powerful effect than that which had been suggested. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had gone very carefully through the provisions of the Bill, and had pointed out in clear and distinct terms what would be the effect of it, and had ventured to suggest to the House that it would be quite impossible to carry out these provisions, unless that end were accomplished, which would be, not to say the intended but the necessary effect of these provisions, namely, the separation of the Church from the State, and the constituting in the Colonies a free and independent Church Establishment. That being so, his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) had necessarily had his attention very anxiously called to the clauses of this Bill, and the terms in which they were couched; and he was struck, as everybody must be struck who paid attention to the provisions of the Bill, with the terms of the seventh clause, which provided that the persons who were to be ordained, or licensed, or instituted to any see or to any pastoral charge, or other episcopal or clerical office, should take the oath of allegiance, and subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles; and, furthermore, declare their assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had stated that the Secretary for the Colonies was under a gross but unintentional misapprehension with regard to the effect of this clause; but he (the Attorney General) thought he could satisfactorily show that his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) had put a perfectly correct construction upon the proviso, notwithstanding the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Oswald). It naturally occurred to Her Majesty's Government that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) meant that the oath of supremacy or something equivalent should be taken, he would have expressly declared that intention upon the face of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman meant it, why not express it? We ought not to leave the matter in a state of doubt and ambiguity, especially in a Bill of this kind, which certainly did give rise to very considerable apprehensions. The hon. Member for Ayrshire had said that the Secretary for the Colonies had shown an utter ignorance upon the subject, because, if that right hon. Gentleman would only turn to his Prayer-book, he would see in the Service for the Ordination of Deacons that the oath of supremacy was a part of that service; but the hon. Gentleman had forgotten to observe that this clause did not refer merely to persons who were to be ordained priests or deacons, but to other persons—persons ordained "to any pastoral charge, or other episcopal or clerical office." Now, he could very well understand that persons who had been ordained, or who had taken the oath of supremacy, as priests or deacons, might afterwards, when required, under circumstances that might exist in England, to take that oath again, not be disposed to do so. It would be found that, by this clause, those persons who were to be instituted to any see, or any pastoral charge, or other episcopal or clerical office, were not required to take the oath again; so that a person consecrated to be a bishop under the powers given by this Act (apart from the power of the Crown) could not be required to take the oath of supremacy. But there was another ground on which he rested his opposition to this measure. When a person was ordained a deacon or a priest in this country, he was not only required to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, but he was also required to subscribe to three other Articles of very great importance contained in the Thirty-sixth Canon. The Thirty-sixth Canon directed— That no person shall be received into the ministry, nor admitted to any ecclesiastical function, except he shall first subscribe a declaration, &c., that the King's Majesty under God is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other His Highness's dominions and countries, as well in spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal.' Now, his hon. Friend (Mr. Oswald) would observe the important, strong, and cogent language contained in that article; very different indeed from the negative words contained in the oath of supremacy, and very different indeed from the terms of the Thirty-nine Articles, which the person was required by the Bill to subscribe. He confessed it would be much safer and better that the oath should be taken which had received a judicial interpretation, and that it would he more binding on every one's conscience than if it were merely required that the party should subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, which they knew by experience might he interpreted in a manner to take away their whole force, and in a non-natural sense. [Mr. GLADSTONE made an observation, which was inaudible.] He (the Attorney General) was very much astonished at what his right hon. Friend had stated, intending, as he said he did, that the oath of supremacy should have a binding force. [Mr. GLADSTONE: NO!] Then his right hon. Friend did not mean that it should have a binding force? Now, he (the Attorney General) did mean that it should. This certainly created in his mind considerable apprehension with regard to the object of this Bill. His right hon. Friend said that he meant that the parties should acknowledge the doctrine of supremacy by subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles; but he had not adverted to those other articles to which subscription was required from the clergy of the Church of England, and which were infinitely more stringent. He thought it most desirable in cases of this kind, if an oath were required to give sanction and force to the doctrine of Supremacy, that it should be administered to the clergy in the Colonies as well as to those in England. He had been anxious to make these few observations; but he thought that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had put the matter so strongly and clearly before the House that if he (the Attorney General) were to speak at any greater length, all that he could do would be to follow in the steps of his right hon. Friend, at the risk of effacing the impression which he had made.

MR. OSWALD

begged to say, in explanation, that though he was certainly wrong in the point relating to the omission which had been adverted to, his argument, he thought, remained the same.

MR. BETHELL

was understood to say, that he entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General with respect to the construction of the statute of Henry VIII.; but he did not think that it would he competent for the clergy and laity in the Colonies to adopt anything like a synodical form of action, because he apprehended that it would be an attempt to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. With respect to the Bill before the House, the objections to it had been stated so forcibly by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that as a lawyer he need do little more than give his assent to them. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill (Mr. Gladstone) represented that he desired to relieve the Church of England—or rather, the bishops, clergy, and laity in the Colonies, being members of Churches in communion with the Church of England—from a disability affecting them, and not affecting any other religious community; and the right hon. Gentleman assumed that it was competent to any other religious community to form rules and regulations capable of being personally enforced, but that the members of the Church of England could not do so. Now, a mistake had been here committed respecting the laws which affected dissenting communities. It should be understood by the House that it was not competent to any sect of dissenters to form any laws, rules, or regulations, capable of being enforced personally, otherwise than in the character of trustees in the execution of trusts affecting property. In the trust-deeds by which the chapels of Dissenters are held, the property is secured to those who adhere to the religious tenets and observances of the body at large; next, regulations are made respecting the minister; and then such ordinances for ecclesiastical objects are laid down as are suited to the views of the parties declaring the trust. Among the Methodists, in particular, there were certain model deeds, which were incorporated in every instrument by which a chapel was vested in trustees; and the only way of enforcing the observance of these trusts was by an appeal to one of the temporal courts. These were the only powers which dissenters of any denomination possessed; and if that were so, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill would see the truth of the remark which fell from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies, who observed that the fourth clause would nullify the whole of the Bill. The clause enacted—"And no such regulation shall in virtue of this Act be held to have any other legal force or effect than the regulations, laws, or usages of other Churches or religious communions in the said Colonies." If, then, the interpretation which he had given of the present state of the law respecting other religious communities were correct, this clause would make all the ordinances passed by the bishop, clergy, and laity ineffectual; because other religious communities could only deal with their members personally when they violated the trusts on which their places of worship were held; but this would not be applicable to members of the Church of England in the Colonies, on whom it was intended that the ordinances should operate personally. There was no law against members of the Church of England meeting together and declaring a trust with respect to any property given to a Colonial Church by such members; and then their rules and regulations might be carried into effect in the same way as any rules and regulations that had been made with respect to the property of Dissenters, without the necessity of an Act of Parliament. He would now take the liberty of pointing- out to the House the manner in which this Bill, if it should pass into a law, would violate the supremacy of the Crown. It was apparent that the scope of the Bill was to empower the bishop, clergy, and laity, to make any regulations which they might deem necessary for the better conduct of their ecclesiastical affairs; and although the seventh clause provided that no such regulation should authorise the bishop to institute a party to any clerical office, except upon such person having immediately before taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, and having likewise subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles, and having furthermore declared his unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer; —yet he wished to point out to the House that the power to make such regulations must carry with it the power of enforcing them; and, therefore, it would involve the erection of some tribunal and some authority to which all branches of such regulations should be referred, and by which every question of doubt would have to be decided. And he begged to ask the hon. Gentleman, who had accused the right-hon. Baronet the Secretary of State, of misrepresentation, how he could say that an ecclesiastical and spiritual court, arising out of ordinances made by mutual consent, but deriving their force and binding power from an Act of the Imperial Parliament, was not an infringement of the supremacy of the Crown? He thought that the hon. Gentleman would, upon consideration, shrink from creating a tribunal from which there could be no appeal, and whose sentence must be irreversible. It would be a mere mockery to give a stipendiary curate an appeal from the bishop to Her Majesty in Council. If, therefore, this Bill would alter the constitution of the Church of England in the Colonies, he considered that the House might well hesitate before they assented to it; and with regard to the Bill placing the Church of England on the same footing as other religious bodies, he would only make this further observation, which he thought of great importance — that by force of this clause, wherever in the Colonies churches in communion with the See of Home had absolute powers, in such Colonies the Church of England would also have an absolute authority over its members. Believing the right hon. Gentleman's intention to be what he had stated it was, he was sure he (Mr. Gladstone) would shrink from creating such a power; and he trusted he would withdraw the Bill, in order to introduce a measure hereafter more in conformity with his real object, and more consistent with the rights and authority of the Crown.

SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOOD

deprecated any further discussion after the courteous course taken by the Secretary for the Colonies, which gave to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) the opportunity of considering what steps he would take on a future occasion respecting the introduction of a new measure. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford would have no reason to regret this discussion, because the House had heard from the Secretary of State for the Colonies three important statements on the subject of this Bill. He said, in the first place, that he did not consider the state of the Church in the Colonies satisfactory. He said also that there were objections to the colonial clergy being placed solely under the despotic control of the bishop; and he had further stated that the members of the Church in the Colonies were impeded in the consideration of their own affairs by the difficulty they found in meeting for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman added that there was great need for the exertions of a missionary church. Now, after all this, he thought the House could hardly feel that there was no necessity for legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself said, that legislation would be necessary in a future Session of Parliament; and but for what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell), he (Sir W. P. Wood) would not have addressed any observations to the House. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General said that there was no need for legislation whatever, and that no embarrassment was occasioned by the Act 25 Henry VIII. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury said the same. [Mr. BETHELL here dissented.] He believed, however, that no lawyer would tell the House that the question was clear either in one way or the other. It was for the purpose of relieving these doubts that there was a necessity for the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend said that no convocation had been held by the Queen's writ in the Colonies, and therefore the Act 25 Henry VIII. did not apply to the Colonies. But his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had forgotten that the parenthesis in the Act gave it its chief force and efficiency; and if the Act applied, as it did beyond all doubt, to the new bishopric of Manchester, why should it not apply to the new bishoprics of Adelaide, Victoria, or Van Diemen's Land? At all events his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not answered the doubt which had been raised on that point. But, in truth, the doubt arose on a general proposition of law, namely, how far statutes, which did not seem to apply specially to the Colonies, were to be held applicable to the Colonies or not. He thought it was quite sufficient on the present occasion to say, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not answered that question, and that there existed considerable doubts whether the statute 25 Henry VIII. was applicable to the Colonies. But his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, that it was only necessary to declare a trust for the property of the Colonial Church, and then proceed to the temporal courts to enforce it. But what was wanted in the Colonies was much more than this—regulations were wanted to temper the despotical power of the bishop over the clergy. Now, if the powers to be granted by this Bill were conferred, the Convocation, consisting not merely of the clergy, but of the laity, which he thought a very important object of the Bill, could fetter the power of the bishop. The mode in which the question would arise, would, no doubt, involve the right of dealing with property. The clergyman who was removed by the bishop without preliminary steps and inquiries, would bring his case before the courts of law; and the courts would look into the regulations of the community, and would determine whether the clerk had been improperly removed or not. The result of the inquiry, therefore, though indirectly, would depend upon the regulations made by Convocation. He was now speaking in support of the principle of the Bill, as the House was not discussing the details of the measure, with some of which he did not agree. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in looking through the clauses, made one rather remarkable omission, for he said that he would pass over the third clause, which he (Sir W. P. Wood) thought the most important in the Bill. It provided, "that no such regulation shall be binding on any person or persons other than the said bishop or bishops, and their clergy, with the lay persons residing within the said Colonies, and being declared members of the Church of England, or being otherwise in communion with him or them respectively." It did not affect, therefore, any persons in the Colonies but members of the Church of England, though no doubt the regulations of Convocation would affect future members of the Colonial Church; but so did the regulations of the Wesleyan Conference. Every person joining in communion with the Church would submit himself to the regulations established by the Church;1 but the Church would not have the power of affecting others. That appeared to him to be the whole principle of the Bill. As to the statement that it was intended to make the Church of England a dominant Church, that had been answered by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) who seemed to regret that such was not the case; and the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill expressly said, that its object was religious equality. Whether it were possible to legislate during the present Session was one question, and whether the clauses were all such as were desirable was another; but he would entreat the House not to leave the Church in the Colonies in its present anomalous position. The Church in America was neglected in the same way, and the consequence was, that during the connexion with this country the members of the Church were numerically few, and she was reduced to a mere name. But after our separation from America, the action of the Church in America was freed, and its members and those of each religious community were left unfettered to adopt what course they pleased in their own communion; and the result was, that though at the time of separation the American Church did not possess one bishop, it had now thirty-two bishops with full synodical action, assisted by the laity. There had been universal acquiescence and submission to its regulations, and none of those dissensions which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think must be the necessary consequence of Convocation. If the Church of England were left unfettered, he had that confidence in her integrity that he was certain she would exert and display that beneficent influence which she had already exhibited in America. Although he felt the impossibility of legislating on the subject during the present Session, he trusted that the time was not distant when the Church of England in the Colonies would no longer be left in the melancholy position in which it was now placed.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that after the expression of the wish by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) for the postponement of the discussion for a fortnight, he would not, on the present occasion, go at any length into the question before the House. He would not enter into the question of the law in the Colonies, and the condition of the Church there. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken (Sir W. P. Wood), said that he wished to leave the Church unfettered. But what did he mean by leaving it unfettered? Did he mean to remove all restrictions on the part of the State, and all advantages from connexion with it? But the Bill would not place the Church on a footing of equality with the other Churches —it went to remove it from the control of the State, and yet to leave it from State connexion advantages. The Free Church of Scotland was unfettered in the Colonies; and when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said that he desired to have perfect religious equality, he agreed with him that it was the only principle which, in justice or in sound policy, could be carried out. At the same time, as the House was told that the Secretary for the Colonies had given a pledge that he would legislate on this question next Session, on the ground that the Church in the Colonies was in a very unsatisfactory state, he must say, while agreeing in that statement, that legislating for the Church in the Colonies was a matter of extreme difficulty and delicacy, upon which he hoped the [right hon. Baronet would proceed with great caution. If we had now to begin at home, it would be a question with any statesman, whether, considering the diversity of religious sects, it would be wise to establish a State Church even in England; but when the state of the colonial population was considered, that it was but a reflex of the many different religious denominations in this country, and recruited mainly from that class of which a great proportion had no sympathy with a State Church, he thought it would be a very dangerous task indeed for any Minister to do anything to increase in any manner the inequality which he (Mr. Horsman) held to exist in the Colonial Churches. The Bill now under discussion proposed to give to the Colonial Church powers which were not given to the Church at home. It gave it authority to pass ecclesiastical censures—to make regulations with respect to the nomination of bishops—to absolve the clergy from the oath of allegiance to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to do other things which the Church at home was not permitted to do. But his objection to the Bill was, that the equality which it professed to establish was brought about by relieving the Colonial Church from all those responsibilities to the law which were imposed upon it by the State, as a condition arising out of its connexion with the State, while at the same time it left untouched the advantages of connexion with the State, the Church in the Colonies being in many respects highly favoured. The dignitaries of the Colonial Church were appointed by the Crown; they had territorial rights given to them, and their salaries were paid from public sources. The Judges and other authorities in the Colonies were ordered to assist them in carrying out their functions; and in many other respects they and their congregations were, as compared with other sects, in a favoured position. The first clause of this Bill gave them a power which was denied to the English Church at home, though he was far from saying that it was a power which they ought not to have. The same observations might be made upon the second, the fifth, sixth, and seventh clauses of the Bill. Moreover, the Secretary of State said he had been advised that the seventh clause touched on the supremacy of the Queen in the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) denied that, and said that the supremacy of the Queen was acknowledged in the Thirty-nine Articles, subscription to which was made necessary by the clause. But there was an important distinction in the wording of the Articles and of the Canons, which was so far different that in the one the Queen was declared to be supreme in all matters ecclesiastical and spiritual, and in the other in all matters ecclesiastical and civil. He did not wish to enter upon the clauses of the Bill, except so far as to say that at present he gave no opinion whatever as to this or that form of Church government in the colonies. All he said was, that what was proposed in this Bill under the title of the Church of England was very different from any form of Church government known or sanctioned in England. All he said was, that in England the Church had not Church government. The Bill did not establish equality; and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to establish it, he must do what the Free Church and the Dissenters had done, and renounce State connexion. If the Bill were passed, what a position would the House be in! They would have one system of Church authority and discipline at home, and another abroad. Whatever was done, let the object be attained directly. The Bill proposed to give the Church that perfect equality as regarded the law which voluntary bodies possessed, and did not restrain them from from any benefits. [Mr. GLADSTONE: What benefits?] The right hon. Gentleman asked him what benefits they got. In two or three weeks he would have to vote 20,000l. for the Church in the West Indies. [Mr. GLADSTONE: This Bill refers to the Australian Church.] Yes; but the Bill made it lawful for Her Majesty, by an Order in Council, to apply the Act to any other colonies besides those named in the schedule; and it was possible that the country might have a Secretary of State for the Colonies whoso views were so identical with those contained in the Bill, that he would lose no time in recommending that extension. He was perfectly justified, then, in assuming that the House was legislating for other colonies besides those named in the Bill. The views of the right hon. Gentleman were well known. Few men had stated them more publicly, more frequently, or more fully. But all he (Mr. Horsman) said was, let not the Church for which we legislate in the Colonies be partly a State Church, and partly a voluntary Church, claiming the freedom of the one, enjoying the benefits of the other, yet representing itself as identical with the Church of England which is established at home.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would not press the Bill to a division. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies if he had any objection to lay upon the table of the House copies or extracts of the correspondence with the Bishop of Sydney?

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, the correspondence consisted of two letters, one to the Archbishop of Canterbury, from the Bishop of Sydney, which was not in his possession. The letter he had read was from the Archbishop of Canterbury to himself, containing the Bishop of Syd- ney's answer. He could not promise to lay upon the table of the House a correspondence which as it stood was a private correspondence between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Sydney.

MR. GLADSTONE

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inquire about it; for it is obvious that the public are entitled to have this correspondence laid before them.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

had no objection to make such inquiry.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Words added: — Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Ordered —"That the other Orders of the Day be now read."