Lords Sitting of 21 July 1853

Preamble
MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Missionary Bishops.
2a Entails (Scotland).
Reported.—Coinage Offences (Colonies).
3a Copyholds; Battersea Park; Westminster Bridge; Transportation.

COLONIAL CHURCH REGULATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order) (on Re-commitment).
On Clause 1,
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYsaid, that the Bill had had its origin in a circumstance known to many of their Lordships, which was, that for some years great discontent had been felt in many of the Colonies, and especially in those of Australia, in reference to the want of any regular administration of Church affairs there, the laws for the regulation of the Church in this country not being applicable to the Colonies, and no legislative enactment having been passed to meet that state of things. Many attempts had been made to cure the defect, and he had himself that evening laid on their Lordships' table petitions which he had received from Cape Town and Graham's Town, praying their Lordships and the other House of Parliament to take the matter into their consideration. In all the petitions and memorials which had come from the Colonies on this subject, there was a remarkable unanimity in respect to the grievances of which they complained, and which the Bill now before their Lordships sought to remedy. In the memorial which he had received, there was a general concurrence of opinion: first, that some legislation was necessary on the part of the Imperial Parliament; next, that whatever plan was laid down for the government of the Church in the Colonies, laymen should

513
have a considerable share in the administration of its affairs; and, thirdly, that no Bill should be agreed to which should have my tendency to separate the Church it; he Colonies from the Church in the mother country. The Bill before their Lordships; inter alia, proposed the establishment of conventions in which clerical and lay members of the Church should appear by representation, and share in the framing of such rules and regulations as might from time to time be deemed necessary for its discipline; providing, at the same time, that no alteration should be made in the formularies and articles of our Church, and that In cases of difficulty or doubt there should be an ultimate appeal to the Metropolitan in the mother country. Those were the principal objects of the Bill, and he trusted it would meet with their Lordships' concurrence. Great pains had been taken in preparing the measure, to avoid all those objections and to prevent all those jealousies which were likely to arise among colonial population in regard to legislation on a subject of this kind; and he trusted, with that explanation, their Lord-ships would give their concurrence to the provisions of the Bill.
EARL WALDEGRAVE,who was inaudible, was understood to express his approval of the measure.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, having been entrusted with a very important petition from the inhabitants of Australia, bearing on the subject of the present Bill, he was desirous of obtaining from the most rev. Prelate some explanations as to certain portions of the proposed measure. The problem sought to be solved was, how to give certain means of self-government to the Colonial Church with the least possible risk of producing concurrent danger and inconvenience. The great risk in legislating on a subject of this nature was, that, whilst going in search of unity, and wishing to preserve the peace of the Church, Parliament might too late discover that it had taken a step calculated to produce at once disunion among the bishops, and contests between the lay and clerical members of the Colonial Church. Approving of the object sought to be attained by the Bill, if that object were defined and limited, his fear was, that the Bill went beyond that object, and would work in a sense inconsistent with the important petition with which he had the honour of being entrusted by the members of our Church in Australia. The right rev. Prelate proposed
514
to give to the two assemblies—namely the diocesan and provincial meetings, a power of making "regulations." He should like to know whether these "laws and regulations" were intended to have the force and authority of canons, and the without any security analogous to the Act of Submission? No such power was enjoyed by the Church at home; and the possession by the Colonies of an unrestrained ecclesiastical power which the Mother Church did not possess, was it self an anomaly; but it was also a serious danger. It was true that the Act provided that no regulations should be made so as to alter or be at variance with the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles. With these exceptions the power of the synods would be unlimited. He apprehended that the assemblies would therefore have power, within the terms of the excluding words, of raising up questions for controversy touching faith and doctrine. He would remind their Lordships of the controversy that had already taken place in one of the colonies, when a certain number of bishops decided in one way whilst another of their body decided in a contrary sense, and the colony was thrown into confusion by the contest. He alluded to the unhappy controversy which originated with the Australian bishops at Sydney. If this Act should admit of the raising of the same point, or similar disputes, he thought that the most rev. Prelate's words of protection were not sufficient to guard against the great and manifold inconveniences that might arise. He begged to call the serious attention of the House to the powers conferred by this Bill on the Assembly for regulating the general affair of the Colonial Church; and he would ask most respectfully, on behalf of the numerous and respectable members of the Church of England in Australia who had placed their petition in his hands, whether it was not indispensable to guard by more stringent words against the inconveniences which they apprehended, if matters of controversy were permitted to be unrestrainedly discussed in these new Church assemblies? He would not take the liberty of suggesting any words of his own, but would submit for the adoption of the most rev. Prelate the words which had been suggested by the colonial bishops themselves. It was stated in a memorial that had originated in the bishopric of Montreal, but which spoke, he believed, the opinions of the whole of the bishops of North America,

515
that whilst it was considered to be necessary that a body should be formed with power to frame and enforce regulations for the government, discipline, and internal management of the Church; they wisely added these significant words, "such power, however, in no manner to extend to matters of faith, or to interfere with or alter the doctrine or form of worship of the Church of England." These words were suggested by the colonial bishops themselves, and would go far to exclude the matters of controversy against which he had taken the liberty of warning their Lordships. It was objected with truth that the resolutions entered into in Australia by the assembled bishops, affected the supremacy of the Crown; and an endeavour had been made to explain that away by saying that such was not the intention of the parties. But it was clear that Parliament would not be justified without the previous approval of the Crown in passing any Act that would have such effect, or even such tendency. The most rev. Prelate might say that if any measure of that kind were adopted by the proposed synods, there was a home authority empowered to disallow it when sent for the sanction of the Sovereign this remedy was in his judgment insufficient, for every person acquainted with colonial affairs must be aware of the inconvenience that would arise from an objectionable law passed in the Colony, and coming into operation, even though it might be set aside subsequently in this country. Undoubtedly, looking to what had occurred in Australia, there was a strong disposition shown at the first meeting to do those very acts which might prove most dangerous, and which therefore ought to be prohibited by this Bill. What did their Lordships think of one of the suggestions made in Australia affecting the whole law of marriage? It was stated at that meeting that whilst there was every disposition to recognise as good a marriage declared valid by the law of the land, there was this reserve to be made, that those marriages so to be recognised should be good only when consonant with Church authorities. It was surely most objectionable, that high authorities of the Colonial Church should have thus put forward a kind of provisional engagement to obey or recognise the law of the land according to their own view of its accordance with what they might decide to be the law of the Church. The petition that had induced him to occupy their Lordships' at-
516
tention was framed with the utmost care, and with the greatest respect for the Church of England; it was signed by various members of that Church; and the most rev. Prelate, he rejoiced to see, had attended to many of the most obvious and important requests made in that petition; but if he allowed his proposed ecclesiastical synods or convocations to interfere in matters of faith and doctrine, the result would be that such an enactment would produce as great a state of confusion in the whole of our Colonies as had been produced by the proceedings in Australia to which he had already referred.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that his noble Friend, in the beginning of his speech, had expressed his satisfaction at the measure that had been brought forward, because it was calculated to obviate many of the objections contained in the petition presented by his noble Friend; but the remainder of his noble Friend's speech went to show (he hoped not to their Lordships' satisfaction), that the evils were unremoved, and that the Bill was calculated to produce great difficulties. His noble Friend had expressed very serious apprehensions lest these synods should take upon themselves to frame canons; but his noble Friend seemed to have forgotten that canons, in the proper sense of the term, which was simply that of "rules" or "regulations," would not affect matters of doctrine, but only matters of discipline. Surely, the words that had been inserted in the Bill—namely, that those rules and regulations should not be contrary to or at variance with the established doctrines and formularies of the Church of England, were as strong as any words that could be devised by his noble Friend. As to the constitution of these assemblies, they would consist of clergymen and laymen, and there must be a majority of both, and the Bishop must assent, to give validity to the regulations; and the resolutions agreed to by the three parties that passed them would not be effective until they were sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and passed through him to Her Majesty, and received Her Majesty's sanction as head of the Church, before they would become valid. He did not think that any more effective recognition of the Royal supremacy could be devised, because no regulation of the colonial synod could be of any effect until it had received of the sanction of Her Majesty. He could not himself conceive any measure that was

517
better calculated to obviate dangers and evils arising from differences such as his noble Friend thought it was likely to introduce into the Colonial Church. They had adopted in this Bill all the best principles that were contained in the petition that had been presented by his noble Friend. It did not appear to him that the addition which his noble Friend proposed would make the provisions more stringent, or give greater security for the prevention of those dissensions which his noble Friend feared might take place amongst the members of the Church. The establishment of these assemblies would give an opportunity for the discussion and settlement of questions which might otherwise be matter of continual dispute; and, far from producing the evils anticipated, it appeared to him that this was the best measure that could be devised for preventing their recurrence. He saw no reason to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend, for no words more stringent than those in the Bill, and to which be had already referred, could be introduced.
The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, the Bill seemed to him to have omitted altogether one of the main objects, as he had always understood it to be, which was aimed at—namely, the provision of some tribunal for the purpose of getting rid of improper clergymen. The principal inconvenience complained of in the Colonies was the absence of some such tribunal.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYadmitted that the Bill did not specially provide for that object in words or by enactment. Indeed, any provision for that purpose had been intentionally left out, because it was considered that the very object of the Bill was to enable the colonists to do that which they could do better for themselves by having it in their power to establish such a tribunal, and to introduce such rules and discipline as the circumstances of the case might seem to require.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) had misapprehended the intention of the Bill. The intention of the Bill was to be permissive, and not compulsory, and to enable members of the Church of England, in the Colonies, to do such things for themselves as the members of all other religious communions could do. It was merely to enable members of the Church to enter into such resolutions among themselves as they might be pleased to adopt. It was not, therefore, the intention of the Bill to provide compul-
518
sory regulations, but merely to remove those disabilities which it was conceived now prevented members of the Church of England in the Colonies from doing by voluntary agreement among themselves such things as, if those disabilities were removed, they would be able to do in the same manner as the members of all other religious bodies.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, this raised a question of some importance, because he apprehended that, if the powers of self-government possessed by dissenting bodies were extended to the members of the Church in the Colonies, you would enable an eccelesiasticalp body, such as this assembly, to punish by deprivation of a benefice a clergyman who was exercising functions which he would be entitled by law to perform, and thus the authority of the Crown and of the local Legislature would be superseded.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, he could assure the noble Earl that any such difficulty as that to which he had referred had been carefully guarded against. He had been in constant communication with the most rev. Prelate before and subsequent to the introduction of the measure, and many of the Amendments that had been introduced within the last few days were inserted in pursuance of suggestions that had been made by Her Majesty's Government. The danger to which the noble Earl referred was guarded against not only by the fourth clause, which saved the whole of the rights of the Colonial Legislature, but also by the way in which the first clause was drawn; and if the noble Lord would peruse it carefully, he would see that those assemblies could have no power over the laws of this country or of the colony in which such assemblies should be established. He would call the attention of their Lordships to the fact, that throughout the Bill everything of a compulsory nature was carefully avoided, and that from the first to the last clause it was simply an enabling and permissive measure. It was not intended by the Bill to grant any additional powers to the Established Church beyond what it now had, or what was now possessed by any other Church in the colonies. The object was to remove disabilities, which placed the members of the Church at the present moment in an inferior position to that which the dissenting bodies enjoyed. The noble Earl said, that dissenting bodies had power to remove their clergy; but he (the Duke of Newcastle) apprehended that there was a difference between the clergy of the dis-

519
senting bodies and clergymen of the Church of England, who held their benefices under the law. He had been in communication with the most rev. Prelate some time ago, and the Bill was most carefully framed to prevent the possibility of such rights being attacked in any way whatever. As the Bill now stood, even if the fourth clause were omitted, the rights and privileges that attached to the clergy in Canada and Australia could not be removed by any act of this synod; but to prevent all danger the fourth clause was inserted. In the enabling character of this Bill there was nothing that could by possibility militate against the general imperial laws of the country or the colonial laws. He was speaking for himself and the Government, and he was sure for the right rev. Prelates, when he stated that a principal object was that the objections which were made last year should be carefully avoided in the Bill before the House. It was alleged that there was danger of creating a dominant Church in the colonies—that there was danger also of the Church of England being separated into minor churches by dissensions in the assemblies; and there was a third objection, that a provision of this kind might affect the supremacy of the Crown. The difficulty on the first point had, he thought, been completely removed; and with regard to the second, he would do as much as any one could do to prevent the Church of England from being separated into minor churches; but the clauses were so carefully drawn that he thought it would be found that that danger was completely removed, there being a provision for the saving of all rights of the See of Canterbury. With regard to the third objection, that the supremacy of the Crown would be placed in jeopardy by this Bill, he thought it had been aswered by the right rev. Prelate. He could say that if all the objections were not obviated, it was not from want of a desire on the part of the right rev. Bench and the Colonial Department to remove them; and if any suggestions could be given to further the object aimed at, they would no doubt receive proper attention. He was confident, however, that from the pains taken with the Bill, the difficulties and dangers apprehended did not exist; and, so far from there being any danger arising out of the removal of clergymen of the Church of England from their benefices, the only danger was, that by endeavouring to save, as he was most anxious to save, the rights of the
520
Colonial Legislature in all instances, so that there should be no dominant Church in the colony, and no encroachment upon the supremacy of the Crown, there might be wanting some of those powers which it might perhaps be well for the Church of England to possess, if it were not for the existence of other extraneous authority.
The EARL of HARROWBYbegged to remind their Lordships that his question, as to giving greater facilities for the removal of improper clergymen had not been answered.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYconceived that the state of the case was this, that every Church had in itself a natural and inherent right and power to regulate its discipline; and every Church, therefore, had the right of making arrangements as to the manner in which its discipline should be exercised, unless impediments were placed in its way by the existence of some extraneous authority. The exercising of due discipline was an essential part of the functions of the episcopal order; and he believed that the Church in the colonies now had in itself properly the right to exercise discipline of that kind; but there were certain difficulties in the way which prevented the exercise of that power. The object of this Bill was the removal of these impediments, and the formation of assemblies which should be able to define rules under which the power of enforcing discipline should be exercised. He did not say the synods should constitute themselves into courts, but they would make regulations under which the Church would be able to carry into effect the inherent power of discipline it had in itself, and which would not have force until they obtained the sanction of the Crown.
The EARL of HARROWBYwas understood to urge upon their Lordships that the Bill should not be passed without affording every necessary protection to clergymen who might be liable to be deprived of their benefices.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, it seemed to him that the difficulty under which the noble Earl laboured originated in his not sufficiently distinguishing between the position of time Church in the Colonies and the Church of England at home. The Church in the Colonies was a purely spiritual body, while the Church at home was possessed of mixed spiritual and civil rights. So far as he understood it, the objection of the noble Earl was, that they were creating a new body, which, without the power of ad-

521
ministering oaths, and being in itself purely spiritual body, could remove from his benefice any clergyman accused of criminal action. Now, he begged at once to impress upon the noble Earl and their Lordships, that this Bill would give to the proposed synod or assembly no power whatever to remove from any civil status, or any civil possession, any clergyman of the Church. His noble Friend was of course aware that the position of the great body of the clergy of the Church of England in the Colonies was not like that of the clergy at home—that there were few cases in which they were possessed of benefices in the same sense in which clergymen were in England. As to those cases, however, where interests of that kind existed the Bill would give the synod or assembly of the Church in the Colonies no power to remove any one such person from any one such benefice. The position of the great body of the clergy in the Colonies was this—they received certain stipends or salaries, which salaries they continued to receive so long as they held the licence of the bishop of the diocese; but, at the same time, matters were so ordained that the bishop had it in his power to stop the recept of that salary by his own mere authority, simply by suspending or withdrawing the licence. Now, that power was felt to operate very injuriously; and therefore the hope of the framers of the present Bill was that the synod or assembly would lay down rules and regulations under which the bishops would in future exercise their powers—rules by which all matters could be examined into, though examined into, he (the Bishop of Oxford) granted, without the power of administering oaths, or without those other civil functions which the Church at home, from its alliance with the State, had attained. Now, there was nothing it the Bill before their Lordships of an enabling character, or allowing such assemblies to deal at all with the civil rights of any of these clergymen. They could be removed only as they were now, by proceedings instituted in the colonial courts for some civil act. Nor could the Bill be quoted as overruling the Colonial Legislature, as its intended operation was confined to purely spiritual points. The scope and object of the Bill their Lordships would find to be that it strengthened the hands of the bishops, by enabling them to act with the manifest assent of the clergy and laity forming the whole community, instead of allowing them to act as now without any consulta-
522
tion elsewhere, and simply by their own autocratic power. The synod or assembly would, however, always remain simply a spiritual body. He wished their Lordships at once to consider whether they were prepared to adopt the alternative, in order to avoid the necessity for creating the assemblies or synods, as proposed by this Bill, of creating ecclesiastical courts in this country, and laying down rules for their management, and giving them civil powers to act in the different colonies. He, at all events, would confess to their Lordships that he was not prepared to adopt such a course; for he believed it would be a direct interference with that colonial liberty of action which it had been the object of Parliament to uphold. He held that if any civil powers of that kind were to be obtained in the colonies for any one religious denomination, that they ought to be obtained from the Colonial Legislature, and not from the Imperial Parliament; and he was also prepared to object to the Imperial Parliament undertaking to constitute ecclesiastical courts in the different colonies, because he thought it would be a wrongful interference with that power which had been already given to the Colonial Legislatures. But he should object to any such steps, also, upon this ground—namely, that it would be impossible to approach that species of legislation without at once exiting an alarm in the different religious bodies in the Colonies, and that they were about to create there an Established Church with powers and privileges possessed by none others. Indeed, so to act would be at once to lift up the Church of England on a pedestal of religious supremacy and civil superiority which it was most desirable to avoid. He would remind their Lordships that whereas the different dissenting bodies could lay down rules for the Administration of their own spiritual concerns, and bring those rules to bear upon the character of those who ministered in their church, it was held that in the Colonies, by the disqualifying statute, the Church of England possessed no such power. The intention of the Bill, then, was to remove all those shackles by which her spiritual power was now fettered, and to permit the assemblies, after their first meeting, to settle everything for themselves. And he must say, he could see no great danger for the Church of England in so strengthening it as to enable it to lay down rules necessary for the proper conduct of its affairs. His noble Friend (the Earl

523
of Harrowby) had used one expression which he (the Bishop of Oxford) felt sure he did not mean to attach so exclusive an interpretation to as it might be capable of bearing, when he spoke of the framers of the Bill seeking to confer powers upon an ecclesiastical body. Now, that expression might be held to exclude the laity; whereas it would not be in the power of any body, otherwise than that constituted by the union of the lay and clerical elements, to do anything whatever under the Act. The Bill was founded upon that principle on which alone they ought to proceed, namely, to enable the Church in the Colonies, so far as was compatible with the preservation of its connexion with this country, to manage its own affairs; and that object could be attained in no safer way than that proposed by this Bill.
The EARL of CHICHESTERsaid, the Bill gave the synods the entire power of depriving a clergyman of his office, and, consequently, of its emoluments. He thought it objectionable to give a new power like this to a new body. Some legislation for the Colonial Church was, doubtless, necessary; but if they wished to maintain the connexion of that Church with the Mother Church, there must be some common laws between them.
The BISHOP of OXFORDstated that the third clause expressly precluded these synods or assemblies from inflicting any fine, penalty, or civil punishment upon any member of the Church.
The EARL of CHICHESTERexpressed his apprehension lest the establishment of these synods should injuriously diminish the authority of the colonial bishops.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, that in a great portion of the colonial dioceses the clergy stood in the position of mere licensed ministers, subject to the autocratic power of the bishops; and what the Bill, therefore, proposed was, that these synods or assemblies should lay down rules and regulations for the guidance of the bishops for the exercise of their power. Nor could the danger which his noble Friend supposed arise; for, he would observe, that by the last words of the second clause the consent of the bishops was requisite in order to give effect to any regulations. And, if he understood him right, the complaint of his noble Friend was, that the clergy and laity could manage to override the authority of the bishops; but against such evil the last words of the second clause fully guarded.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that after
524
the discussion which had taken place, it appeared to him that the clergy in the Colonies, being in the position of a licensed corporation, and dependent upon the authority of the bishops, who at any moment could withdraw their licences, the effect of this Bill would be to mitigate the evil of an unchecked authority being exercised over them by the interposition of another body. He would wish, however, to point out to their Lordships that there were others amongst the colonial clergy who were not in quite so precarious a situation, or who rather were in possession of legal rights capable of being enforced. That being so, he would beg their Lordships to consider whether it ought not to be more distinctly expressed with regard to such of the clergy, that the body which it was proposed to constitute should not exercise any authority or power as to them; for he (the Earl of Derby) confessed he saw some reason to doubt that such a determination was sufficiently expressed by the terms of the fourth clause. If words were inserted in the clause, disclaiming in more apparent language any power or authority on the part of the synod to impose penalties upon those of the clergy that were in the position he had stated, he believed it would, at all events, have the effect of removing any needless doubts or alarms that might be felt on the subject. At once, then, he thought it would be desirable to state specifically that it was not intended that the body to be constituted should have any power to interfere with the legal or civil rights of the parties.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, that the Bill had been very materially altered since it was first printed, at his suggestion, in order to avoid all possibility of any such construction; and if the noble Earl would look at the first clause he would see that the danger which he apprehended had been completely provided for. The mode of proceeding in the Bill was this:—The first clause removed from the Church of England in the Colonies all the disabilities under which, by the Statute law, it now laboured, and the next five clauses merely pointed out what the assembly should not be able to do. He himself believed the fourth clause to be unnecessary; but as some of the Colonial Legislatures, Australia and the Canadas, had the power of removing from benefices, he had thought it more advisable to insert the clauses, to prevent all possibility of the Acts of the

525
Legislatures being overridden by the Assemblies.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, the Bill would leave the greater portion of the colonial clergy under the exercise of the episcopal authority, just as they were now, except that that authority would be checked and regulated by the interposition of a synod. The object of the Bill was entirely confined to spiritual duties, and could not, therefore, give any power to interfere with the civil rights of parties. He was of opinion that to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl would place the clergy of Canada in a worse position than they were it at the present moment.
The EARL of DERBYexplained. The right rev. Prelate had misunderstood him. All that he suggested was, that no power of interference should be given, under the authority of this Bill, with the temporal rights which were already guaranteed by law.
The LORD CHANCELLORconsidered the noble Earl to be mistaken in supposing that the Bill would give any such power of interference. But it would be much better that all cavilling on the subject should be stopped. He would, therefore, propose when Clause 3 came under consideration to add the words, "or to deprive him of any civil rights to which he may by law be entitled."
Clause 1 was then proposed.
The EARL of HARROWBYobjected to several portions of this clause, especially those parts of it which conferred certain powers on the colonial bishops among which was the power to compel the clergy of Canada to meet in synod at the seat of the metropolitan dioceses. The difficulty which the clergy in the provinces would experience in attending the synod would give the metropolitan diocess an undue advantage. He also objects to the power given to the synod, to be decided by a majority of voices, consisting of clergy and laity, with the assent, in the case of any diocess, of the bishop, to make regulations for the management the affairs of the Church within the diocess. After some further observations which were wholly inaudible, the noble Earl concluded by moving that the words, "or by a majority of voices of the said clergy and laity, severally and respectively with the assent in the case of any diocess of the said bishop," be struck out.
The BISHOP of OXFORDtrusted their
526
Lordships would not adopt this Amendment. Great consideration should be given; to this fact, that these regulations had not been hastily assumed or framed on any speculative notion of what would be best for the Colonial Church, but had been patiently considered in conjunction with bishops from every part of the colonial empire, acting on behalf of the Colonial Church. They had in this Bill the results of their consultations, so far as regarded the removal of the immediate practical difficulty. They ought to pause before, in deference to a merely problematical objection, they struck out a part of the Bill which the whole body of the colonial bishops, through their representatives denoted to England, after consulting their several dioceses, adopted and sanctioned. This Bill, let it be observed, did not compel any set of provincial dioceses to meet together in a synodical session; it simply removed the disabilities which prevented them from holding such a synod, if they on the spot thought it expedient so to meet. He thought it far safer to leave; the settlement of doubts to those who were principally acquainted with local questions, and concerned to deal with them, whilst relieving them from a disability most fatal to their spiritual interests. They, being on the spot, would be aware of the difficulty of going to a common centre, of the possibility of dissensions arising, and such contingencies; but if they thought that a solution of existing difficulties would be best arrived at by acting in concert, this Bill would remove all disabilities preventing them. It gave no compulsory power to the metropolitan of convoking synods, or compelling the bishops and clergy to meet together. This system was at present in daily operation in their sister Church in North America, and not one of the evils which his noble Friend was pleased to anticipate had arisen from it. On the contrary, it had produced unity of action, harmony of feeling, and mutual understanding on the subjects of their common wants and requirements. His noble Friend said the measure would lead to danger of separation from the Church at home. It was his (the Bishop of Oxford's) firm belief that nothing would so tend to maintain that union, which it was the great desire of the Colonial Church to preserve. For this purpose it was highly desirable to apply a moderate check upon eccentricities of action by giving the

527
members of the Colonial Churches an opportunity of consulting together on all matters concerning their internal management and regulation, with a view of seeing whether they could not establish a system of united action. There was nothing whatever in this Bill to oblige these provincial synods to be held always in the metropolitan dioceses. Its framers had felt it their duty not to enact any particular rules as to times or places of meeting, but to leave it open to the Colonial Churches themselves to adopt such regulations as in their judgment would best promote the ends in view.
The EARL of HARROWBYhad strong objections to giving any controlling power to provincial synods over particular dioceses, and wanted to know what in reality were the powers of such a synod.
The BISHOP of OXFORD,in order to make the simply enabling character of the Bill more distinct, would propose to introduce explicit words in the 17th clause, According to ecclesiastical law no diocess was bound by the decision of a provincial synod; the only consequence of such diocess standing aloof would be, that it would lose the advantage of united action. He thought the wishes of the Colonial Church should overrule merely hypothetical objections, it being distinctly understood that only an enabling power was to be given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 2 and 3.
On Clause 4,
LORD MONTEAGLEwished to know, supposing a provincial synod were to pass enactments on any matter of ceremony or discipline—making new regulations for the ceremonial of marriage, for instance—would such regulations, if not annulled by special enactment in this country, override the imperial law on the subject? If there was a discrepancy between the local law and the general ecclesiastical law of England, which would prevail?
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the clause provided that canons of provincial synods should not have legal force against any acts of the Colonial Legislature for the time being. As to acts of the Imperial Parliament, such a provision was quite unnecessary.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 5, which provides that none of the regulations of synods should alter the faith and doctrine of the Church,
LORD MONTEAGLEmoved an Amendment, with a view of extending the restrictive operation of the clause, so as to prevent discussions taking place in those assemblies upon matters of faith and doctrine. The necessity for such an Amendment was not merely hypothetical, because the case had already occurred in Sydney, and might again occur hereafter, namely, that the synod which they were framing for one purpose might be diverted to another that was inconsistent with the peace of the Church, and the unity of her faith and doctrine. Therefore it was of the utmost importance to prohibit the entertaining of these questions in the same way as they prohibited the entertaining of questions at variance with the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles, and the Form of Ordination. The attachment of the Colonies to this country was not more strongly pronounced than their desire in all things to maintain the supremacy of England in relation to the Colonial Church. The noble Lord then moved an Amendment prohibiting in the synod discussion upon points of faith and doctrine.
The BISHOP of LONDONthought the original words of the clause were precise and comprehensive, and the language of the noble Lord's Amendment would either carry no meaning at all, or create vagueness and uncertainty.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that if such a restriction as he suggested had existed, the distraction which had occurred in the Church at Sydney would have been obviated. If this Bill was really intended merely to provide for the internal rule of the Church, and not to touch faith or doctrine, let it be declared plainly and intelligibly.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, he wished to correct an error which might be injurious in its consequences if not contradicted, as to the cause of the dissension which had broken out in the diocess of Australia. The real ground of that dissatisfaction was, that the colonists were unwilling that their bishops should, unstrengthened by consultation with the presbyters, and without the representation of the laity, undertake to alter in any way the standard of faith. He (the Bishop of Oxford) and his right rev. Brethren had most earnestly supported the giving of a due representation to the laity; but his views on this point had been misrepresented. The words which he used the other evening, when this Bill was under discussion, had been accurately re-

529
ported by all the newspapers; and yet, in a leading article in one of those journals, he had been represented as having opposed the views of his Grace (the Archbishop of Canterbury), and it was stated that in spite of his opposition the proposition in this Bill for introducing the lay element had been carried against him; whereas their Lord ships would recollect that he had advocate the full amount of lay representation which this Bill was intended to give. He was, therefore, glad to have that opportunity of setting his conduct in this matter right before their Lordships.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYwas understood to express his willingness to adopt the words, "provided that no such regulations shall affect the standards of faith or doctrine, or alter or be at variance with the Book of Common Prayer," if they would satisfy the noble Lord who moved the Amendment.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had no fear of an alteration in the standards of the Church. What he wanted to do was to prevent the discussion of these questions which could only create serious mischief, and risk the great calamity of a difference between the Church in the Colonies and the Church in this country.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that the stifling of discussion was totally foreign to the object and scope of the clause. Its object was to prevent the adoption of any regulation affecting the doctrine of the Church.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEwas surprised that any noble Lord should rise in that House, and call upon them to direct penal Act against discussion. The Legislature of this country dealt with the results of discussions—with acts, and not with words used; and how could they possibly restrain these assemblies or any other assemblies which might take place anywhere from discussing what they pleased? They might restrain any acts resulting from discussion. [Lord MONTEAGLE: Hear, hear!] Well, that was precisely what this Bill did and what the most rev. Prelate was endeavouring to do by introducing this clause. When it was hinted that the clause, as it stood, would send a firebrand into the Colonies, he felt bound to explain how it came to assume its present shape. When the Bill was first drawn by his Grace (the Archbishop of Canterbury) it provided that "no such regulations shall affect the standards of faith and doctrine." When his Grace
530
submitted the Bill to him (the Duke of Newcastle) and his colleagues, after careful consideration, they felt, with all due deference to the most rev. Prelate, that that phrase, however well understood in common parlance, would be too vague and informal for an Act of Parliament; and therefore they suggested that other words should be introduced to the effect that no regulation should be allowed which was at variance with the Book of Common Prayer or the Thirty-nine Articles. This was in accordance with the object which the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) professed to have at heart; and what had been done now? Why, his Grace had consented to the insertion of words which, although they might not much strengthen the clause, would yet show that every available means would be taken—not to prevent the discussion of points affecting faith or doctrine, for that would be utterly imposible, but—to prevent these assemblies from dealing with them in any capacity which might enable them to alter the standard of the Church's faith and doctrine.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, he was decidedly opposed to placing the Church of England in the Colonies in a position of dominancy, or to the giving of credit and legal effect to any of her decisions; but he thought that that Church ought not to be denied he free action which was given to all other ecclesiastical bodies in the Colonies; and if she was entitled to manage and regulate her own affairs at all, he must say that he thought it would be the height of absurdity; to constitute for her these ecclesiastical assemblies, with a full representation of both clergy and laity, and having called them together, leave them no work whatever to do save to exchange the compliments of the season. If the regulations drawn up by them were not to be suffered to alter any of the standards of faith or doctrine, surely that was a sufficient guarantee. As to the right of discussion, he could not see how they could entertain any questions at all if the Amendment of the noble Lord were to prevail, because in a country where no question could arise with regard to the regulation of church endowments there was hardly a question which could come before them which might not be regarded as more or less affecting matters of faith and discipline. Indeed, if anything, he thought this Bill tied the hands of the Colonial Church much more than it ought to do; at all events, it, conferred the minimum of power which could be conferred upon the Church's as-

531
semblics in the colonies; and he should certainly vote against the Amendment of the noble Lord on the cross bench, if he pressed it to a division.
The EARL of HARROWBYobserved that the question was as to a Church in union with the Church of England, which was under the Royal supremacy, and as to which it was necessary to provide for the due exercise of that supremacy. The object was to prevent the Colonial Church from narrowing or enlarging the terms of admission into her communion.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, if that were so the object was already attained, and would be prejudiced by the Amendment; for the Bill as it stood would prevent the assembly from altering the terms of communion, while the Amendment, by precluding them from agreeing to any regulations which might affect faith or doctrine, would really deprive them of all power to prevent the grossest departures from the faith, or protect their Church against the rankest heresy.
The BISHOP of OXFORDconcurred in the observation of the noble Duke. If the Amendment were adopted, no regulation could be laid down to prevent any clergyman from preaching the doctrines of Socinianism, or any other heresy. It would in fact strike at an essential attribute of the Church, and reduce the whole of the measure to an absurdity.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he took the words which the most rev. Prelate had kindly offered to introduce as an approximation to what he intended by his own Amendment.
The CHAIRMANof the Committee then read the formal question, which was to insert after the word "shall," "alter the standards of faith and doctrine."
LORD MONTEAGLEwished to add the words "or which shall affect the Royal supremacy of the Crown of England."
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, that although he entirely agreed with the object of the proposed addition, he thought the supremacy of the Crown was already absolutely and abundantly provided for by the provision which rendered it necessary to send home the enactments for the express purpose of receiving the approval or disapproval of the Crown. The additional words were therefore totally unnecessary; and, at the same time, they might hereafter be found to hamper the actions of the synods.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that the plan, as sketched by the right rev. Prelate, was not the law of England. The Parliament of Great Britain could not legislate on any question which affected in any degree the rights or prerogatives of the Crown, even on a question affecting the smallest estate, or on matters ecclesiastical, until the consent of the Crown had been previously obtained. He had looked at the resolutions which had been adopted by various bodies of Churchmen in the Colonies, and he found that they all prayed that the supremacy of the Crown should be maintained—
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: In what quarter?
LORD MONTEAGLEwould refer his noble Friend to the records of his own office, where he would find several remonstrances addressed to his predecessors against the proceedings of the synod held at Sydney, which they all held to be infringements of the rights of the Crown. He would also ask their Lordships whether they did not recollect that, in the discussions which took place upon this subject in March last in their Lordships' House, it was not the fact that the doctrine of the supremacy of the Crown was made to rest upon the Articles and Canons of the Church, and not upon what he (Lord Monteagle) conceived to be its substantial and legitimate foundation—the law of the land, which had been consented to by Parliament. Unless some such provision as that he proposed was introduced into this measure, they might have regulations adopted in the Colonies affecting the prerogatives and supremacy of the Crown, which regulations would remain in force a considerable time before the veto of the Crown could be put on their operation. He thought it was much better, therefore, that this clause should be inserted, which would have the effect of rendering any measure contrary to it void from the beginning. rather than to disallow an ordinance six or seven months after it had been in operation.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, he had ventured to interrupt his noble Friend by asking the question to what quarter he referred, for he anticipated that his noble Friend was referring to the proceedings of the synod at Sydney. He begged now to say that he had read over the records to which his noble Friend had referred him, and from those records he could positively assert that the colonial bishops were not anxious to remove the supremacy of the

533
Crown, but rather that that supremacy should be maintained. His objection to the Amendment of the noble Lord was, that it introduced words which were not only useless in themselves, but which actually threw doubts upon the supremacy of the Crown in other matters. He would not, however, rest the question either upon his own authority or upon that of the right rev. Prelate; he would refer the matter to the legal opinion of the Lord Chancellor; and if his noble and learned Friend were not prepared with an opinion at the moment, he would suggest that the further consideration of this particular clause should be in the meantime postponed.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, as his noble Friend had appealed to him, he would state to their Lordships what he believed to be the present state of the law with respect to the Queen's supremacy. At the time of the Reformation, among other statutes there was this one passed which—he was quoting from memory—said that our Sovereign Lord the King was supreme head of the Church of Christ in England, or words to that effect. Their Lordships all knew the course which matters subsequently took—in the reign of Mary all the statutes passed with reference to the Reformation were abolished; but by the Act of the 1st of Elizabeth they were all revived, with the exception of that particular statute. But on the contrary there was an enactment passed which stated that our Sovereign Lady the Queen was supreme in all causes civil and ecclesiastical: and therefore, in common parlance—which he did not think was at all inaccurate—they spoke of the supremacy of the Crown. With regard to the present Amendment, his impression was that its adoption in the clause would lead to doubts and inconveniences in other matters; for as the Queen was supreme in all causes civil and ecclesiastical, there was nothing which this House or any other body could do that would not in some way or other affect the supremacy of the Crown. He concurred, however, in the suggestion that the clause be postponed, and if that were so, he would give his best consideration to the matter.
LORD MONTEAGLEhaving consented to the postponement of the Amendment,
Clause postponed.
Other clauses agreed to.
Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.