§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYrose to present—
A Petition from the Bishop, Clergy, and Lay Representatives of the United Church of England and Ireland, in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia, praying that no Steps may be taken which will enable Bishops to be consecrated in and for the Colonies in a Manner contrary to the recognised Rules of Ecclesiastical Policy and the Ordinances 373 of the United Church of England and Ireland, or which will in any Way affect the Relation of the Members of the Church in the Colony towards the Church in the United Kingdom, or weaken the Connection between the Church in the Colony and the Church in the United Kingdom.It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that when the measure to which this petition referred was introduced into Parliament last Session considerable doubts were expressed as to what would be the effect of the measure, and among others he himself expressed his doubt whether it would be acceptable to the parties for whose benefit it was professedly intended; and he suggested, on the withdrawal of the Bill, that advantage should be taken of the interval to ascertain the opinion of the colonies, in order that Parliament might not legislate on a question of such importance without giving the parties affected an opportunity of being heard. It so happened that, by the force of circumstances, that Bill was not proceeded with, and the question remained unsettled, though it was understood that the Government intended to introduce a measure to the same effect in the course of the present Session. The interval between the two Sessions had been employed by some at least of the colonies in considering the subject; and the result was the petition he held in his hand, signed by 120 of the clergy of the diocese of Sydney, which was the metropolitan see of the Church of England in Australia. The prayer of the petition was in effect that no such measure as that of the last Session should receive the sanction of their Lordships, and specifically against the proposal contained in one of the clauses of that measure, whereby a colonial Bishop might have been consecrated by the laying on of hands of a single Bishop, as contrary to the universal practice of the Church, which had always been that the consecration must be performed by three Bishops. It was therefore clear that the measure of last year, in the opinion of the united synod of the colony, lay and clerical, would have been most injurious to their feelings. He believed that a similar petition from the diocese of Melbourne was in the hands of a noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon), and no doubt the feeling of other colonies was very much the same, and he could not but congratulate their Lordships on the delay which had fortunately interposed to prevent the passing of that measure. It had always seemed to him that it was a very short and perfunctory mode of dealing with 374 the unquestionable difficulties incident to the relations between the colonial Churches and the mother church, merely to turn them loose, and leave them altogether to themselves. Yet this was, in fact, the purpose and object of the Bill of last Session. Many of the difficulties which existed, or were supposed to exist, when the Bill was introduced, had since been diminished to a considerable degree by the decision of the Master of the Rolls, from which it appeared—and the decision had not been overruled—that there was not that total failure of effect in the patents of the Crown which had been supposed, and whatever difficulties might exist, surely arrangements might be made by which an appeal might be secured for the benefit of the colonial Churches to the ultimate resort of the Privy Council. He was aware that that course was not very agreeable to certain parties, for there had been growing up of late a very great aversion to the jurisdiction of that Imperial, or indeed of any civil courts in ecclesiastical matters. There might be objections to the constitution of the Privy Council; but he could not but think, whatever objections might exist, that we should not impose on the daughter Churches against their will the necessity of abstaining from appeal to that tribunal which decided all similar cases in the mother Church. He desired to express his strong feeling that the question referred to in the petition was one that ought to be referred to a Committee of their Lordships' House, in order that the difficulties connected with it might be fully investigated before the whole House was called upon to come to any decision on the subject. With these observations, he begged to lay the petition upon the table.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was confident there was a great misunderstanding as to the intention and effect of the Bill of last Session. The noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) had spoken as if the effect of the measure would be to deprive the members of the Church of England in the colonies of the appeal to the Privy Council which the Church of England now enjoyed. But that would in no way have been the effect of the Bill. The appeal would remain precisely on the same grounds as the appeal of any other religious body. Since the close of last Session, when he addressed the House at some length on the subject, and, in consequence of the observations he then made, one or two communications had been addressed to him on 375 the part of colonists; and, as far as he understood them, they did not seem to understand the question, and appeared to think that there was some connection between the Crown and the Church of England in the colonies which did not really exist. As the Master of the Rolls had said—
The United Church of England and Ireland is no part of the Constitution in any colonial settlement, nor can its authority or its Bishops claim to be recognised by the law of the colony, otherwise than as members of a purely voluntary association.That dictum was incompatible with the desires and wishes expressed in so many letters from the colonies. The supremacy of the Crown could not be maintained within the colonies in the same sense in which it was maintained here; the supremacy of the Crown could be maintained in the colonies only so far as it meant supremacy of the law.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYMy Lords, I am glad my noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) has brought the subject again before your Lordships. The question of the connection between the Home and the Colonial Churches is one of great difficulty, and the more it is discussed the more shall we be likely to come to some understanding upon it. The question is how that connection shall be maintained? and it is one on which, undoubtedly, great diversity of opinion prevails. My noble Friend has presented a petition which spoke anxiously in behalf of Bishops being consecrated in England for the colonies, and in behalf of the supremacy of the Crown being maintained as in times past. With regard to the consecration of the Bishops here, there can be no difficulty on the part of the Bishops, but there may be a difficulty in the way of the Crown compelling it. I received by the post yesterday these four answers to questions which had been put by my right rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) in a circular addressed to colonists, with the view of ascertaining the feelings of both the clergy and the laity on the points referred to. The answers are those of one to whom the circular had been addressed:—
I thoroughly believe that that is the best security that can exist, and I do not know that you can find any other which you can force upon the colonists. As to forcing upon them the Royal supremacy, you cannot do it in the way it is done here. Hero the Sovereign is supreme in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil; but then ecclesiastical causes must go through Ecclesiastical Courts. In the colonies there are no Ecclesiastical Courts; therefore, no ecclesiastical causes from the colonies can be brought before the Committee of the Privy Council here. I quite admit that these causes may come through a different channel to the Committee of the Privy Council; they may come through the civil courts in a civil aspect. There are several parallel cases in which doctrinal matters have been dealt with by the civil courts. The case of Lady Hewley's charity will be familiar to many of your Lordships. In the time, I think, of Charles II. Lady Hewley left an endownment for the maintenance of godly ministers, which ultimately fell into the hands of the Unitarians. The matter went to the Committee of Privy Council, and as the persons to whom it had been left held views different from those of Unitarians, the endowment was taken from the Unitarians by the civil court, and given back to those who brought the matter before the court. So in like manner similar matters from the colonies may come before the Committee of the Privy Council. Suppose a voluntary contract were entered into, the Colonial Court is bound to main- 377 tain it in the way laid down in the fourth answer. A clergyman preaches doctrine that is held by the Synod to be contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England; the Synod deposes him; he appeals to the civil courts, they ratify the judgment of the Synod, and he appeals to the Privy Council. That is the mode of proceeding that is still open to either party; and therefore neither is, in any way, cut off from the protection of the Crown. It has been said more than once—"What is to become of these separate Churches? They may drift into all sorts of doctrine. One Church may become Romanist and another Socinian." But they might just as easily have done this before as they can now. What was there to have prevented the Church in New Zealand becoming a Roman Church if it chose? Between the colonial Churches and the mother Church in England, there is the strong tie of reciprocal affection, and there is also, I may add, the tie of interest; and the connection between them may be thus maintained just as strongly and securely in the future as it ever has been in the past.
- "1. I cannot see why the Bishops of British Colonies should receive their mission from the Archbishop of Canterbury, or why, as the English gives and does nothing for the help of the Colonial Church, we should be hampered by its patronage and interference. Such an arrangement would, I conceive, be a source of delays, inconvenience, and weakness; and the English Church would
376 not, I think, be acting the part of a friend if they claimed the right, which would not fail to damage us in the judgments of the other Protestant bodies. - "2. A court of appeal so distant would, I conceive, be worse than worthless, and would be utterly beyond the reach of the poor man. It would, therefore, be a court of appeal only for the rich; while it would clearly imply that we in the colonies are not worthy of being trusted in the management of our own affairs.
- "3. The Royal supremacy question has, I believe, been virtually settled by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Our Bishops, if I recollect rightly, have been told that they can exercise no authority under the Sovereign, and that we are on equal terms with the other bodies. I am unable, therefore, to see that the Royal supremacy is an element of our condition here.
- "4. Unity of doctrine and discipline is, I conceive, the great bond by which we are united to the Church of England; and our New Zealand Church constitution provides that this link shall be maintained inviolate. Whether for good or bad the mother must now part with her child in this island, and she will show her good feeling by frankly wishing it 'God speed.'"
THE EARL OF CARNARVONMy Lords, I have a petition to present to your Lordships from the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of Victoria, and its prayer is much to the same purport as that of the petition presented by my noble Friend. My noble Friend states that his petition deprecates any steps being taken—
Which will enable Bishops to be consecrated in and for the colonies in a manner contrary to the recognized rules of ecclesiastical policy and the ordinances of the United Church of England and Ireland.I must say I fail to understand what is the real meaning of the petitioners in using these words. A few weeks ago I entered very fully into the subject, and I need not repeat what I then said; but I beg the House to remember that a mandate would be issued, through the Archbishop, for a consecration in this country; while for a consecration in the colonies it was unnecessary that the Crown should issue a mandate—and, indeed, it would be against the dignity and credit of the Crown that the Sovereign should be advised to issue a document which, upon the face of it, could not be of any validity in the colonies. Your Lordships will remember that there is an alternative to the appointment of Bishops by the Crown, and that in Canada Bishops are elected by diocesan synods with the most complete freedom. The 378 Bishops are the principal parties to the petition which I have the honour to present to your Lordships' House. The Bishop of Melbourne is even in favour of the colony of Victoria electing its own Bishops, although it is true he desires that the formality of a confirmation of the election should be gone through. I gathered from the petition which was read by my noble Friend, that the petitioners insist upon the maintenance of the old canonical rule that three Bishops should be present at every consecration. Now that I believe is a very wholesome rule, and I have never heard that there was any intention to depart from it. And here I must, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman who was my predecessor in the Colonial Office (Mr. Cardwell), state that my right hon. Friend did not contemplate, either directly or indirectly, when he introduced his Bill in another place last year, to take any step which could be fairly said to be at variance from the ecclesiastical policy and ordinances of the Established Church of England and Ireland. As for myself, I challenge any one to point out an act of mine which would justify the supposition that I intended to take such a step. Then the petition presented by my noble Friend goes on to refer to a larger and far more important question. The petitioners pray that no steps may be taken which might tend to weaken or impair the connection subsisting between the colonial Churches and the mother Church of this country. The only objection I have to that part of the petition is that the petitioners assume as a fact that such steps have been taken or have been contemplated. Now neither my right hon. Predecessor in office, nor any Secretary of State, nor any Government of late years, has done anything to weaken that connection—and for this simple reason—that there is no longer any connection to weaken or impair. The petition then asks that the colonial Church may always be considered an integral part of the Church of England and Ireland as by law established. But let us see what is the meaning of those words. They seem to me almost to be a contradiction in terms. If the petitioners are using these words in a doctrinal sense, and mean that the colonial Church accepts the same standards of faith, and is bound up in the same unity of doctrine, observances, ritual and liturgy with the Church at home, then I agree that the two Churches are one; and in that sense I trust that the colonial Church 379 will always remain an integral part of the Church of England and Ireland. But, if used in any other sense, what is the meaning of the expression, "the Established Church of England and Ireland?" The Church of England and Ireland is, in fact, constituted by statute. As far as its legal status is concerned, it is created under the Act of Union, which combined the two Churches of England and Ireland. It is a very elaborate organization, and in that organization the Bishops and clergy of the Church of England and Ireland have certain recognised positions and functions. But what colonial Bishop or colonial clergyman has any share whatever in this organization? The most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and my noble Friend have touched upon the Royal supremacy; and no doubt this question ultimately resolves itself into that. I spoke in your Lordships' House upon this subject a short time ago, and therefore I shall not make many remarks upon it now. I must, however, point out that the Royal supremacy has really no part or action in reference to the colonial Church. Of all the powers which the Royal supremacy is supposed to carry with it there is not one, with the exception of the appointment of Bishops, which has ever been exercised by the Crown in those colonies which are possessed of independent Legislatures. I think it will be admitted that if the Royal supremacy was possibly carried by settlers from this country to distant colonies, it must have been carried wholly or not at all. I myself entertain the opinion—which I believe is held by the highest legal authorities—that the Royal supremacy was never carried into distant colonies by settlers from this country. If, however, I should be overruled in this particular, and it be held that these settlers did take out the Royal supremacy with them, the question would arise whether they carried it out altogether. If it went out altogether it was, of course, subject to curtailment, abridgment, and abrogation just in the same way as it might have been modified in this country. And, indeed, the Royal supremacy has been modified in this country by a succession of statutes. It has been modified also in the colonies—in Victoria, for instance; in Canada, too, it was reduced to the merest shadow by an Act passed some ten years ago; and by the recent judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council it was reduced to a shadow in all the colonies which are 380 possessed of independent Legislatures. Therefore, to raise the question of Royal supremacy is to raise up a mere phantasm. I admit that there are considerable difficulties in the present position of the colonial Churches; but those difficulties are to a great extent of our own making. My Lords, I have a strong sympathy with those Churches. I believe that very much has been done by them in their respective colonies, and therefore I should be sorry that the remarks I am about to make should be in any way misapprehended. We have committed the great mistake of training the colonial Churches in a spirit of dependence on the mother Church. We gave these Churches false and fictitious supports, which have been suddenly swept away. The Churches consequently find themselves placed in a position of extreme difficulty and embarrassment. I should not be at all surprised if at first they fail to perceive that their real strength does not rest so much in statutes and Acts of Parliament as upon their own inherent strength—their own inherent power of drawing closer together the bonds of that spiritual union which has hitherto connected them, and will, I trust, in all times, connect them with the mother Church. But we have also created other difficulties. Successive Governments have advised the Crown to issue letters patent to the colonial Churches, and the colonial Churches have acted on the supposition that these letters patent were valid. Suddenly, however, everything is changed, and it is discovered that the letters patent are null and void. The consequence is that questions are arising with regard to the legal and proper transmission of Church property in the colonies, and as to the position of the Bishops and the validity of the acts done by them, and as to the status of the clergymen ordained by these Bishops. Then if you look beyond that, as it was my duty to do a short time ago, you find a mass of legislation which would perplex any lawyer, and which to a layman is absolutely bewildering. That legislation was conducted at different times, by different persons, and under different circumstances. The same words and the same phrases are used in different senses in different Acts. I believe there are two ways of dealing with the difficulty. First of all, you may sweep clean away all this mass of conflicting anomalous and irreconcilable legislation, and place the whole matter on a simple and intelligible basis. That, in my opinion, would be the best, 381 the simplest, and, if I may use the expression, the most workmanlike way of proceeding. If it be objected that that scheme is too large and extensive, the next best plan would be to repeal those particular clauses which inflict great inconvenience, and even personal hardship, and to place the law with regard to the admission of Bishops and clergy and the transmission of Church property on an intelligible basis, which should be fair and equitable as regards other sects. I do not consider it necessary to carry the subject further. I have thrown out suggestions for the consideration of my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Secretary of State). I trust he will give those questions his best attention, and carefully entertain those measures of procedure which I have just now described. I am sure this is a matter which presses for decision; but, at the same time, it is one of those questions which I should rather see not legislated on at all than legislated on hastily. I have only further to remark that while those difficulties do exist and are such as ought to be removed by the Government and Parliament, on the other hand I do not think that the colonial Church is in that hopeless condition which many persons have represented it as occupying. There are synods in almost all our free colonies. You have the organization of a great voluntary association. But the difference between such an association and an established Church, I take it, is this—that whereas an established Church rests on the law, and the members of it have a status in the eye of the law, the voluntary organization is not recognised by the law, and the members of the voluntary association have no legal status. Thus, a parish clerk in the smallest parish of the country has a legal status, while a Roman Catholic Bishop has as such no status at all. This is the position in which the Church of the colonies is placed. She is placed in the position of a voluntary association, whether that may be for the better or whether it may be for the worse. The Crown is supreme in controlling the terms of the contract, whether expressed or implied, between the various members of the body. In that sense, and that sense alone, the Crown is supreme. The colonial Church receives the protection which the Crown gives; she receives all the advantages which a civil court can give; but I do not apprehend that she has, or that she could have, the power of appeal, in ecclesiastical cases, to the Judicial Com- 382 mittee of the Privy Council in England. If there is a question of appeal, it must come as a civil question raised on a point of fact, brought from the civil courts in the colonies to this country. My Lords, though, no doubt, the petition which has been presented by my noble Friend, and that which I am now about to present, speak in common terms, stating as they do that there should be a connection established between the colonial Church and the mother Church of this country. Do not let us deceive ourselves in supposing that this is the feeling of each and all the colonial Churches. I think it right to say that there is a great division of opinion on the subject, and it is well to recognise the fact. It is perfectly true that the Synods of Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide, are agreed in favour of a connection with the mother Church of this country; but the Synod of Canada repudiates anything like the connection asked; and we know that in New Zealand no less than five Bishops, supported, as I understand, by the concurrence of the clergy and laity of their dioceses, have tendered their resignation of letters patent back into the hands of the Crown, Therefore I say that we have no right to suppose that these two petitions represent the common view, or in any degree the general sense of the colonial Churches. Therefore, the only safe course to adopt is, to respect in ecclesiastical matters just as we have with regard to civil matters the perfect freedom on the part of the colonists to self-government. This is the one great principle to observe, and if we stray out of that track it seems to me that we shall involve ourselves in difficulties. To attempt to build up upon a shadowy foundation of prerogative in the colonies a quasi-established or privileged Church would be to confer on them a useless and, I hold, even a mischievous boon; and, in the next place, it would inevitably place Parliament in collision with the colonial Legislatures; and I venture to say that in that conflict neither this House nor the other House of Parliament would ultimately prevail. I beg, my Lords, to present the petition of which I have given notice.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONI beg to explain to what I understand the petitioners to allude when they ask that no legislation may take place which contravenes the usages of the Church. There was a clause—the 10th in the old Bill—introduced, I presume, per incuriam—which contained a provision wholly unknown in the practice 383 of the Catholic Church—it enacted that a Bishop might be consecrated by one instead of by three Bishops; but that Bill having been withdrawn we have nothing to do with it now. What we have to regard is the prospect of legislation in the future. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) seems to think there is no real force in the desire expressed by the petitioners that the supremacy of the Crown should be maintained; and he showed very lucidly how difficult it is in the totally different circumstances of the colonial Churches to maintain the Royal supremacy in the way in which it is maintained at home. But I think the noble Earl has not done sufficient justice to the importance of one point—namely, the consecration of Bishops under licence or mandate from the Crown. I attach much importance to that point on account of a recent decision, as your Lordships are aware, of the Rolls' Court. Many think that by the decision to which I refer a great deal of light has been thrown on this complicated question, while others no doubt think it has made the question more obscure. But be this as it may, that decision has been much canvassed in the colonies; and, as I understand it, the result of the judgment of the Rolls' Court is that a Bishop consecrated under licence or mandate from the Crown is in a different position from a Bishop consecrated without that licence or mandate. The judgment lays down this—that if a Bishop be consecrated by the authority of the Crown and goes to a colony with a territory assigned to him, within that territory he has the same powers as a Bishop at home, with this difference, that, whereas the latter may make good his claim by appeal to his own court and to that of the Archbishop, such a Bishop in the colonies can only make good his claim in a civil court, which, in consequence of his having been consecrated by mandate or licence, will maintain his power according to the law of the Church of England. If that be law, it makes all the difference whether a Bishop be consecrated by licence or mandate from the Crown or not; and therefore the petitioners are not desiring anything altogether impossible or useless when they ask that the Royal supremacy may be maintained. What they desire is simply this—that matters should remain in statu quo—that the decision of the Rolls' Court, which has not been appealed against, should remain the true exposition of the law as regards the status of Bishops now in possession of sees, or quasi- 384 sees, in colonies. My reason, however, for rising is to express my full concurrence in what fell from the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and the two noble Earls, when they fully acknowledged the great importance of this subject, and the propriety of its being considered with reference to the opinions of the colonists themselves. We received a general statement last Session of the desire of the colonists to be altogether set at liberty, as it was called—from the fetters by which they were bound to the Church and State at home. It is now acknowledged that there is a great diversity of opinion on this subject, and this is a very important point. I mentioned on a former occasion that I had taken the liberty of writing letters to many of the Bishops and clergymen in the colonial dioceses; and in that manner I have obtained a full explanation of the opinions entertained in thirty of these dioceses. My own calculation is that colonial opinion on the subject is pretty equally divided between those who wish to be free and those who desire to keep up the connection as pointed out in the decision of the Rolls' Court. It may be true that these persons scarcely understand the whole difficulty of the matter; but if the subject be brought before us in the shape of a Bill it would be of the utmost importance that the Bill should go before a Select Committee, and that evidence should be taken as to the opinions and wishes of the colonists. I hold in my hand two petitions—one from the Cape diocese, and the other from the diocese of Grahamstown. These are, I believe, an expression of the opinion of the minority in these places. It is of great importance that the opinion of the minorities in the several dioceses as well as of the majorities should be considered. The petitioners say it has been laid down by the Privy Council that in the colonies members of the Church of England are in the same position as the members of any other body; but that they are not if you prevent them from that which they consider essential to their Church—namely, a connection with the Crown of England as regards the appointment of Bishops and a strict adherence to the doctrines and principles of the Church of England. It is true there may be a voluntary agreement to adhere to the doctrines and principles of the Church of England; but, on the other hand, there may not, and persons who are attached members of the Church of 385 their fathers may thus be forced into a position, which on principle they repudiate. A very strong feeling exists among the colonists in favour of maintaining their connection with the Church in which they were baptized, and to which their forefathers belonged; and that feeling is not growing weaker, but has been strengthened owing to the facilities of communication which now exist between the mother country and the colonies. In fact, is it not true that many of those who formerly looked forward to the entire separation of the colonies from this country, as was the case with the ancient republics and their colonies, have now modified their opinion, in view of the opportunities which exist for colonists to visit the mother country, and of the increasing desire manifested on their part to keep up their connection with Great Britain? The right rev. Prelate then presented the petitions he had referred to.
§ LORD MONCKtrusted that in any measure that might be framed upon this subject we should not throw overboard in matters of an ecclesiastical nature the principle which had been adopted with such eminent success in civil matters—namely, that of leaving the colonists the most perfect liberty to manage their own affairs. That was the object of the Bill of last year, and such he knew was the intention of his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) to have carried out, had he remained in office as Secretary to the Colonies. He was satisfied that the connection between the Church of England and the Church in the colonies could not be maintained by any attempt on the part of Parliament to coerce them into uniformity; but by trusting to the identity of religious sentiment—to that good feeling towards this country and its institutions generally which he was happy to say prevailed in all our colonies. He could speak from his recent connection with our great colony of Canada, to the vitality, growth, and vigour which the Church had obtained in that colony from the complete freedom of government which it enjoyed; and he was sure, both with regard to the feelings of the country and the best interests of the colonies, they would do well to base any measure which the Government might be about to introduce on the principles which had been enunciated by his noble Friend.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, he condemned the practice of discussing this question on the assumption of a departure from unity of doctrine on the part of the co- 386 lonial Churches. If he saw any danger of a loss of that uniformity, he should be ready to entertain the question; but he thought the apprehension expressed on the subject argued a lack of faith—evinced a want of faith in the truth and position of the Anglican Communion, which was highly derogatory to it. There was not the slightest danger to be apprehended on that point. All the evidence showed that if there had been any danger of that kind, it would have been realized in the Episcopal Church of America. The United States obtained their independence under circumstances ill calculated to foster any affection towards the secular or ecclesiastical institutions of the mother country; yet the Episcopalian body in that country, instead of deviating from the doctrines of the parent Church, came and sought ordination for their bishops in this country. The American Church, indeed, rendered great service in promoting friendly relations between the United States and this country, and this had been recently shown in a very interesting way. When the Civil War broke out, the Northern and Southern Churches naturally separated, in the expectation that they would belong to different commonwealths, but when the contest came to an end overtures for re-union were promptly made. There was some difficulty as to a bishop of either section preaching the opening sermon at the triennial convocation, and it was settled by the choice of the Bishop of Montreal, who went over to Philadelphia and took part in the consecration of some bishops, great satisfaction being expressed at his presence and fellowship with them; and it was a remarkable fact that he was the first bishop connected with the colony who assisted at the consecration of the American bishops. The Americans had always shown the strongest affection for the Church of this country. He thought there was at present no need of legislation to secure uniformity of doctrine in the colonial Churches. He hoped that in any legislation that might be adopted that nothing might be done or thought of upon that particular point. Some colonies might desire a connection with the mother Church in one form, others in another: and he did not see why the colonies should not be permitted to adopt their own views with regard to their connection with the Church in this country, or even to separate from it if they thought it best. 387 Their great object must be to sweep away that which had created the difficulty, and to do all that was encouraging, and that would give the greatest amount of liberty. And if they proceeded in that spirit he did not see the necessity of a long inquiry as to what their legislation should be.
§ LORD TAUNTONsaid, he had so recently expressed his opinion on this subject that he should not on the present occasion trouble the House with many observations. He had ever approached this subject with great distrust. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that schisms should arise in the colonial Churches—one party constituting itself a Free Church and the other continuing a sort of quasi-Establishment. It was fervently to be desired that the members of the colonial Church should guard against internal dissensions. The noble Lord (Lord Monck) had testified to the energy and self-reliance displayed by the Canadian Church after it had obtained the power of self-government; and the American Church, though it had had an independent existence of nearly a hundred years, had not, he believed, deviated in any material point of doctrine from the English Church, though it had made a few alterations in the Prayer Book, some of which were regarded as advantageous by many persons in this country. He trusted the Government would not permit the matter to rest, but would speedily introduce a Bill with a view to having the question settled. The Colonial Office had excellent legal assistance and the best information to enable it to prepare a satisfactory measure. He especially desired that the measure which he hoped soon to see would not be referred to a Select Committee, but that the whole responsibility would be thrown upon the House at large; and he trusted their Lordships would deal with the whole subject impartially and comprehensively.
§ EARL STANHOPEjoined in the desire that the subject might be taken up by the Colonial Office; and he also hoped that the noble Duke now at the head of that Department (the Duke of Buckingham) might adopt the views of his predecessor in office in framing a measure to settle this difficult question. In asking him, however, his intentions with respect to this question, he did not press for hasty or precipitate legislation, for he felt that there would be difficulty in dealing with this question when there were matters of the utmost urgency pressing upon the attention of the House of Commons; but it would be satisfactory 388 to the House and the country to know that an intention existed at the Colonial Office to put an end to the state of uncertainty in which those connected with the colonial Church were placed, so far as legislation could do so.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, he thought it would not be advantageous, having regard to future discussions upon the subject, if he were to enter at all upon the merits of the measures which had been suggested or to make any remarks upon the discussion which had taken place. He would, however, say that he participated very largely in the opinion expressed by his predecessor in office when he said it was advisable that the question should be submitted at no very distant day to the consideration of Parliament; and he also agreed with the remark that it was desirable when the question was submitted that it should assume the shape of a Bill introduced on the responsibility of the Government. Although some little delay might have arisen from official changes, he believed that in the course of a few days he would be able to submit to his Colleagues a measure which he hoped they would approve, and authorize him to introduce to their Lordships.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in reply, expressed his concurrence in the opinion that nothing of a coercive measure ought to be attempted. All that the colonists desired was that security should be taken in some form or another for the continued connection of the colonial with the mother Church.
§ Petitions ordered to lie on the table.