The Sun. — London, England, 1850-05-07 00:00:00

ilw . " - interest. cksl'b ._ ne 131 a to e lan, but P leg ii r if P°s a .011 cible the prerog fitted net ha d w i t hout visions, reatest dllOll, • 'e,:f t he bea ts. ,i p i e of e c . t t he to reo lnil ,: r able the 1-I °""i f its i t h o ut ievo f 1. ga l „,, Aa ° bu the ptou l i e , ild i (' o car t (o f ,e l, 3 ! ) er to 10 1 c a to !ser f 9r ~0 ) 1* G ' O ll jj, Th o j " -° bg his Og ec 0 ade g i b ° , the P' 00 he Eri 11 0 , pre ° 2rb. gre at o ,,cf ri° Y s e2; ttn o foisil toere' , th e ; said - r , Id o ° l, o ;eV be so n o ie re i t ri bete ossibiliq ices lb° to ;race• arta!' r . a lp rind For the motion ••• ••• ••• 42 Against it ... 165 Majority a ga i ns t re-committal -123 gon On our re- a d m i ss i on, we found under de b ate the qua. ss COLONIAL ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS. e ale GLADSTONE was saving—tle proposed, what Es tablis a b s m v u e e r h ulight be the state of the law in this country, inas great doubts existed about the right of the i up Spiritual matters, " That it shall be lawful for the 001e n 4 1 3 or bishops of any diocese or dioceses in the said order s e or in any colony which her Majesty shall, by ter us council, declare to ha joined to them for the f u _ Peses next hereinafter described, and the clergy and tnY piersons, being declared members of the Church of th o t and • or being otherwise in communion with him or and , r espectively, to meet together from time to time, at such meeting, by mutual consent, or by a majo resl of voices of the said clergy and laity, severally and 0 10 , 1)13(4 ' 0 Y, with the assent of the said bishop, or of a k erns , of the said bishops, if more than one, to make uch regulations as may be necessary for the better 1 1 4 :pet of their ecclesiastical affairs, and for the Ise din g of meetings for the said purpose thereafter." tho_ deeply regretted her Majesty's Government had not e. Light it a necessary part of their duty to include this in Light subject in their Australian Bill. He thought Act which had dregard to the government of our tr elinn colonies it was the absolute duty of Govern ha! to ,have considered the state of the colonial church. who had the best means of discharging this duty, t h,,, r assed it e n ti re l y; h e h a d, t h ere f ore , s t e pped into ~L ple, and, with th e view of submitting some Za p, to lac e, House to accomplish the purpose he had in iod u i ne hoped w h a t h e sa id w ould be received with ve l i asi F e nee by that House, and that the legal talents 5 r ,,,,1: 1 ought to be e e gag e3, not in criticising, but in platod"To ng Measures to this end, would show mehey rc and g s e nen with regard to the propositions had " e ' among the list of motions, which be hoped, if IN °l ?ted, would put the colonies, in regard to a o r t !tual matters, on a more rational and suitable a it ln g• The House ought to understand that the e e t o ' en l, of an established religion did not prevail in the pal ll 'es for any useful or rational purpose; that it was Yer eductive of mischief and vexation; that it was an whipfe e l i n i ment to law and rule, disturbing the minds and ilge of men, giving occasion to the raising of claims whatever might be their value here, there were to the l out of place—never leading or expected to lead recognition of claims wholly alien to society in the / 4 , fl ies, but introducing confusion and dissension where f ore ee and harm on y oug ht o nly to prevail. He, there ttr called on the House not to take upon itself to de tine what the system of Church discipline in Aus srs a should be, for in doing so it would be acting in ofl •sror. out to untie the hands of their fallow-subjects sa d Members of the same religion to which this country tb: ere d—to untie the hands of those who bad carried L arne faith and the same principles to distant lands, ti le w ho , when th ere , f oun d themselves divested of all t . a dvantage s we possesse d by l aw , an d every advan %go mwhich even di ssen ti n g societies possessed in virtue Q h ei r constitutional rights and privileges as English joa(lllear.) If the House valued the principles of ti le as much as they did those of order and liberty, would admit the absolute obligation on them to pro to °°ll e of two things, either that the Established Church Which the m a j or ity o f the colonists might perhaps bee e l g , should carry to the colonies the privileges they e tc enj privi l eges as it plainly appeared, it was not elolritbia these should be carried out, then that t ur v llrusient fall back on principles of original and na to :1! freedom, and that there should not be an exception l e ,;.'e general system of freedom in the colonies, by p ose the colonists under disabilities which the law c u on them, without any compensating advantages. 001 t (lil e ar, hear.) The clause which stood on the votes ti t . al lied five provi s ons, all limiting, to a certain extent tiPowers that would arise on a declaration of the re e 411011 to original freedom. He did not believe in b.. e ed A s olute necessity of the provisions, as strictly justi eePtlen II Principle; for he did not think a system of ex °n k . a ems non Lot be he most advisable for adop sis bma our colo a nies. But at the same time the provi tiem ^ere consistent with the attainment of the prac , object ho hai in view. He did not intend, accord sg to ti the . h as e first provision, " that it should be lawful to di rse or inflict any temporal or pecuniary penalty or tie o 4bil , i tY, other than such as might attach to the avoid - °' any office or benefice held in the said Church." 2 . That no suc h regu l at i on s h a ll b e bi n ding on any %sen or p ersons ot h er t h an th e sa id bi s h o p or bi s hops, aid the cler g y an d th e l a y p erso ns within the said colo a thwno are or may be declared members of the Church e 'L ll gland, or otherwise in communion with him or respectively. el 3 . That any suc h regu l a ti on , t ouc hi ng the existing re o a t tie n of the said bishops, clergy, and ot'aers, to the t roa r ePolitan see of Canterbury, shall be forthwith aros sMitted hy the presiding bishop or his deputy, to the all "bishop of the said see, and shall be subject to die %ranee by the said archbishop, under his hand and the' at any time within 12 months from the passing of Ab e - said regulation, or within six months from of r • e neiPt thereof by the said archbieh')p, bat not •erward s . cler gy, That it s h a ll b e com p e tent to the said bishops, and lay persons, or any of them, to pass any ettilat• t o . lon affecting the rights of the Grown in the bent 0 ll ation of bishops , without the consent of i onies. Majestys Principal Secretary of State for the a t ; 5 . That no suc h regu l a ti on ma d e as t eforesaid shall t e ho rise the bishop of any diocese to con firm or con aocirllte, or to ordain, license, or institute any person to cl er; s ee, or to any pastoral charge or other episcopal or di office, office, except upon such persons baying imme oPY before taken the oath of allegiance to her - I,, es tY, and having likewise subscribed the Articles United Church of England and Ireland, and o;', ar ing his unfeigned assent and consent to the Book thaw Prayer. t 811 W no injustice in requiring the clerg yto conform .0 +1 to e principles of the religious system of . this country, 4 1 ;14 as they remained in communion with it. There ai .6 "t be some jealousy created if greater latitude were atbelij 'et) colon if his own opinion were asked, he should I),sts would not use unlimited freedom i i m - thl e riY; and that if unlimited freedom were placed n it hands, we should be perfectly safe. He would ask l louse to consider they were not dealing with the e q u o"l e.h es at home, but with the Church as it existed in the from . The as state of the Church in the colonies differed t n eacother much as it differed from the Church it li t e u r n°. In the West Indies there was a quasi Estab h ed Church which enjoyed every privilege there which ,e Church enjoyed at home. If they went to the North otornericart colonies they would find great differences 141 5 . 11 g the Churches, yet all possessing some valuable . Qoctio Though there were the reserved lands, ns• thed among the several religious bodies, they e re thd s not divided according to the number of r e i t e ; bodies, therefore it could not be said that th s l°ll9 e iequality prevailed in Canada. He would ask % t eat:else to ut aside all idea of the Church at home, 110, the Church as established in the West Indies and o h t a u America, and look at the religious condition of p rit - Australian colonies. In those colonies there was a Pe o rl t ` e al equality. The Church of England enjoyed no th in those colonies. It is true the ministers of 1: 0 . 1/ „ Church were salaried, and received stipends— toiobier, in some instances, than the iacomes of other R ag but not larger by any act of the state. There e itt - a certain sum devoted to religious purposes, which ti es divided simply and solely according to the respec- Th .° number of the Zdifforont religious communities. ei4„ re Was nothing of a permanent character in these a tea ' a 'reents—Parliament provided a certain sum, which ro,,,, a et apart to pay ministers of all religions. Parlia eoo3,,' might alter this arrangement, and, if they pleased, os : 4 dt) it under the present Bill. There was not 111": element of permanence in the existing arrange ovelltat nay, he did not think thk holders had any vested interests in their appointments Th ai s held the salary only for the time being. p o aPpointments were not endowments because of any o,ocalitir religious profession--they were open to all reli• e orh il e which were included in the number of Christian o - e n innities. If this were so, then it was not just that svh ; r eligious profession should rest under disabilities el 'en the other did not. All ought to be put on an the tialit Y• Government had no right—he would not say "ad not the power—to leave them under exist in g es s 4 b e i s lit ies, owing to laws at home, when those la ws had t eu to have any power here. It was a case of _ur ea t e l ? Open to the House. They could not play pr anks, Ivi th - IY had been playing pranks in the Church_ here,.. pra s ,;" great principles of order, without producing tb e il;_etti evils. He would show that evils did exist, and bp i ,,lue Present state of thing h s ad been suffered to grow ew colonie?. He would refer to our colonies of It t ; south Wales and Van Diemen's Land—of South l e ?tralia and West Australia—but West Australia was roe u insi gnificant that he would not refer to it. With Na t to South Australia, the Parliament bad not etili,,7 e nt practical information. He did not re ha any kind of endowment ou of the Church Il e ,„een voted from colonial resrces.—[An Hon. tb e. i'wer here made some remark.] He was informed ;l et setnething slight of the sort had occurred. T h e m en ' s in operation in New South Wales and Van Die them L and was so nearly akin that he would take ex ot . a s if the same; and inasmuch as the law was more l Ar a j: BB , in Van Diemen's Land than in New Sout h th© i s s, he would refer to the law and the actual state of With Church in V an Di emen ' s L a nd. The provisions tai„ regard to endowments were these:—When a ter tian flambe- of adults declared they belonged to a Chris ter ti, °ln tailnity, and had subscribed a certain amou n t th e Stipend of the minister and their Church, then eery e l ate stepp e d i n an d gave it s a id in the shape of a th e l a Pending contributioa. It was also provided by g t hat no salary should be paid to a clergyman Jest s e appointment had been confirmed by her Ma coai E tnd the governor—that such salary should not be h e d ri lled to be paid after such time as a minister might rel o :P r iyed of his ecclesiastical office, according to the p royiej f the community to which ho belonged—that eei stec fn should be made, in case sufficient ground t ar ,„ for suspecting that a minister was not en• 1 1 4 . 1 , r,1n the duties of his office, to cause inquiry to be depiVnto the fact, and if found not to be so engaged, to Co ure v , e , him of his salary. This was the nature of the oo Church in the Australian colonies. It took eb ur france whatever of the difference between one Chu rch a nd any other Church. There were only three of 8, 0 . 1 , 3 a named—the Church of England, the Church Pow er and, and the Church of Rome; but there was ehur.,.,to_ endow all other communiti e s of a Ch r i s ti a n th e 7Ler• Therefore, the equality of those religions in Va s of the law was perfect and absolute. There el loro ?'Y this difference—that the appointment of the Icy" , 1 ; 4 En land ministers rested with Government, IQ", certainly, the recommendation et the bishop had ecol osi l great weight. In those colonies where th e tuad stical laws of the Church of England be „ bee n nominally tra n sf e rred, nothing could Thou more complete delusion and imposition leetA,:lat transfer. There was not a single "" of the ecclesialtical laws of the Churoh THE SUN, of England of which the observance could be enforced. Whatever was done in the colonies was done by the good-will, the sense of propriety, and the right feeling of the parties themselves, but not by the law. The law was bad here, and Acts had been F.assed to amend it; but those Acts had no force. The ecclesi astical laws were modified when carried over to the co lonies; but under existing circumstances no modifications would render them applicable the colonies. There. fore they might be swept away at one blow without in convenience. Some biehops had endeavoured to enforce the powers with which they presumed they were en dowed by the Crown. They attempted to erect courts and to administer oaths; but it was soon discovered the power they were presumed to be invested with was per fectly worthless. It was actually found that the Queen had committed an illegal act in giving these powers to the bishops. The Queen had committed successive ille galities, not confined to one set of Ministers. It was, therefore, only necessary that the coercive powers given to the bishops should be ob jected to, to be condemned as illegal. These powers were, in fact, for any legal purpose perfectly valueless, as, on the other band, was the corrective power, for an appeal to the archbishop was an appeal upon paper only. In the case of a clergyman who came to prosecute an'appeal, the late Archbishop of Canter bury informed him that he had no power to help him, except to write a letter to endeavour to influence the Bishop of Van Diemen's Land. That was the legal state of things in the colonies—a state of anarchy tem pered only by the good feelings and good conduct of the bishops, clergy, and members of the Church.—(Hear, hear.) Now, let the House consider the matter a little more in detail, for he did not wish them to deal with general assertions only. Now what was the position of the bishop? He was not wholly without power. On the contrary, he had a large power in his hand, to which he was about to call the attention of the House. If a li mitation should be placed on that power, he would be stronger for useful purposes than he was at present, for now he had not the means of bringing matters to a set tlement, whereas he had the power of inflicting the most grievous hardship oa clergymen. The bishop had no power to do justice as a judge—he had no power to call witnesses to give evidence as to misconduct. If he had, there would be the greatest fear on the part of witnesses that they might be open to an action for libel. The bishop possessed this great power; no clergy man could officiate in the colony without the licence of a bishop, the issuing of which eas an act of pure will on the part of the bishop. No one could :compel him to issue it. Withbut a licence no man could officiate, and when the clergyman was officiating it was entirely in the breast of the bishop to revoke that licence at any time, and on any ground, without giving any reasons for his course of proceeding.—(Hear, hear.) Was that a power which ought to exist? The effect of the Act for the regulation of salaries in Van Diemen's Land had been to establish this conclusion, that when the bishop's li cence was withdrawn, and when it became illegal for him to officiate, the effect of the withdrawal was to de prive the clergyman of his maintenance, and every cler gyman in the colony was liable to the sudden and arbi trary withdrawal of his maintenance by the discretionary act of the bishop. This might be just or it might be un just. But it was without the forms of justice, and had none of the conditions which wore considered essential to the administration of justice. It might not be in our power to remedy this state of things, but the parties belonging to :the Church of England in the colonies might do so, if properly authorised. The clergy in Van Diemen's Land and New South Wales consisted of three classes—the old colonial chaplains, sent" out before the present indiscriminate system of Church endowment was adopted; the chaplains appointed to cures under the present Church Acts; and the missionary chaplains sent out by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. But on all these the law operated substantially alike.— (Hear, hear.) The English law recognised a clergyman having the cure of souls as a freeholder. But in the colony there was no such thing. Let the House look at the case of Mr. Wigmore. That clergyman was sus pendsd on the ground of repeated insolvency. His li cence having been so suspended, he applied to the Su preme Court in Van Diemen's Land, a court having ec clesiastical jurisdiction for testamentary purposes, but not having jurisdiction to interfere in any spiritual or ecclesiastical case. After a long discussion the Court refused to interfere, on the ground that the Bishop had the power to grant a licence sic volo or to withhold it sie volo. Why did the Bishop exercise these autocratic powers ? Because he was prevented by the uncertain state of the law hem acting otherwise; for he found that if ,he made a public investigation he migh be liable to an action on civil grounds, and that the witnesses were also liable. Many other cases had occurred in Van Diemen' Land and New South Wales, In the former country there was the case of Bateman, and in the latter a most painful controversy had arisen between the Bishop of Sydney and two young men amongst his clergy. Ile need not go on citing cases, for he had already said enough to show that the prac tical working of the law was, that when the bishop with drew the licence of a clergyman he avoided his office, and was held to be dismissed according to the law and usages of the Church to which he belonged.—(Hear.) But if the law had been misconstrued—if it was necessary in order to displace a clergyman, that a real trial should take place and a real sentence be pronounced, his case was just as strong. As there was no process in law for a legal trial of these offences they had to choose between the continuance of the present system and the adoptirn of a rational system,—namely, to recognise the state of things which prevails in the colonies, and authorise the bishops, clergy, and members of the Church of England in the colonies to frame a system con jointly, which would become a compact among them, and be capable of enforcement as a matter of private obligation.—(Hear.) Having stated the situation in which the Bishop was placed, he would now presume the case of an oppressed clergyman who had been wronged by his bishop. What was he to do? Was he to appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury? A man with 150/. or 2001. a year was not in a condition to make an appeal under ordinary circumstances. He had consulted legal friends, but had not been able to find out how a clergy man oppressed by a bishop could obtain legal redress. — (Hear.) Then what was the case with respect to the laity, as members of the Church ? It was important for him to know the terms on which he was to partake of the ordinances of the Church. It was important that he should have the means of repelling those who aro un worthy, and providing against the repulsion of those who are not unworthy. What remedy had the lay man ? Absolutely none. So far as the a dministration of any religious office is concerned, commencing with baptism and ending with the funeral service, there did not exist any means to compel the a dministration of these offices, either by public law or private compact. He hoped the House would not be a party to the con tinuance of such a state of things. He could not help expressing his surprise at the unwillingness of the Government to undertake the introduction of some re medy. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal said there was a legal machinery capable of being put into operation. [Mr. Anstey—" Yes."] He hoped the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would explain the nature of that machinery, and whether it was con sistent with the state of society in those colonies. Now what was the objection to the plan which he proposed? If these gentlemen were incompetent to the management of their own affairs—if the members of the Church of England in the colonies could not do for themselves what the Romanists, the Baptists, the Wesleyans, and other religious communities did for their respective bodies, let them bear the penalties of their own incompetency and incapacity, but let us rid ourselves of all responsibility. At present they could not take a single practical step in that direction.—(Hear, hear.) He believed he was strictly correct in making application to Parliament at the present time, for Parliament was now professing to deal for the last time with the Australian colo nies. He considered the present a matter of strict in ternal legislation. Now, how were they to get through such a mass of confusion as the present state of the law? Could they go to the Colonial Legislature? He thought not. In the first place, the Colonial Legislature would decline to deal with it. The Colonial Legislature would not make exceptional regulations for the members of a particular church. But had the Colonial Legislature toe power to deal with it? The doubts which affected the case of the bishops and clergy were doubts not flow ing from any colonial law, but from the Imperial law, which prevented them from making regulations for themselves; and the Government were now passing a Bill which would prevent them from enacting anything contrary to the laws of the mother country. The only remedy for this state of things was by legislative inter ference on the part of this country. He did not ask any favour, but the removal of a grievous wrong which had been inflicted on the colonies. If any objection was taken to the form of his proposition he was quite ready to sub mit to correction. He called upon the House to do that with regard to matters ecclesiastical which they pro fessed to be doing with respect to matters civil—namely, to establish freed.= for the management of their local affairs. We were now extending the application of that principle. and ought to go as far as possible in that re spect. If it was good for the management of political affairs, it was good for the management of ecclesiastical affairs.—(Hear.) If (said the Right Hon. Gentleman) you can prove you have at this moment in the colonies a system of equality and justice—if you show it is agree able to the principles of religious freedom and order — that it is security for right, or gives redress for wrong, my proposition falls to the ground. If you show me a better mode of attaining my end, I do not object to enter into it. But let us not, by raising imaginary fears, and by going into cases not analogous—let us not throw over the demand which I address to you with confidence upon every ground—whether you are pledged by habit and predisposition to the assertion of principles of order and religious equality, or whether by your love and estima tion for the principles of freedom.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the adop tion of the clause. The question having been put, Mr. GLADSTONE said he wished to observe the usual rule with respect to such provisos, and to put each enacting part separately. Ho also wished to say that he had math) use of the words "declared members of the Church of England," because in Australia the different religious bodies declared themselves under local acts. Mr. LABOUCHERE should not presume to oppose the motion on technical grou nds, but on principle. The Right Honourable Gentleman proposed to engraft on this Bill the establishment in Australia of a local ecclesiastical body indepemlent of the Imperial Parliament or local legislatures. Mr. GLADSTONE—By private consent. Mr. LABOUCHERE—The proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman, in his opinion , was in effect to em power a body of men in Australia to make regulations in Ecclesiastical matters which would have the effect of law irrespective of the Imperial Parliament or local legislatures. [Mr. Gladstone dissented.] Did the Right Hon. Gentleman mean to say that the proposed regula tions would not have the force of law as far as regards members of the Church of England in the colonies? If the colonists were to be at liberty to comply with the regulations of the principal body—if the obedience were to be voluntary—why should . the Right Hon. Gentle man ask the House to arm it with the powers proposed? —(Hear, hear.) Whatever might be the intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman, there could be little-doubt that the effect of the proposal would be the establish ment of an ecclesiastical synod to make laws, irre spective of the local legislature or Imperial Parliament, which should be binding on members of the Church of England in Australia. He did not understand the Right Hon. Gentleman to say that the Colonial Legislature would have any power to confirm or reject the canons passed by such a synod as that proposed. He very much doubted whether an assembly composed of the laity and clergy would be productive of any real benefits to the Church itself. But irrespective of such considerations, he objected to laws being made by any body of men except the local legislature or Imperial Parliament. lie particularly objected to granting such powers to a synod, composed in a manner hitherto unknown in history. In his opinion the Church of England in the colonies should be treated neither with exclusive favour nor with any peculiar disadvantage. He knew not any disadvantage under which it laboured, ex cept such as might be removed by the legis lature of the respective colonies. The Church there fore being treated with no favour. Mr. GLADSTONE—Quite the contrary. Mr. LABOUCHERE could not conceive how it could be viewed with any jealousy by any section of the colo nists. Sir E. Wilmot recommended that any grievances should be remedied by the local legislatures, and Lord Stanley concurred in that opinion. An HON. MEMBER dissented. Mr. LABOUCHERE—It the Hon. Gentleman would refer to the dispatch of Lord Stanley, dated - December, 1844, he would find it stated that he had no objection to the establishment of ecclesiastical courts in the colony, if the Legislature were disposed to allow it.—(Hear, hear.) He could not help thinking, however, that all grievances might be removed without the establishment of such ecclesiastical courts.—(Hear, hear.) He should leave it to his Right Hon. Friend the Attorney-General to deal with any points of law connected with the question. He was alarmed to hoar so high an authority as the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite say that he was quite ready to vote for a clause for the good operation of which he could not answer. The clause had rather the appearance of the heads of a measure afterwards to be worked out, than of any scheme to effect immediately the object the Right Hon. Gentleman had in view. Ho opposed the principle of the clause because he firmly believed the establishment' of any such body as that proposed would be followed with consequences which would be injurious to the Church, and which the Right Hon. Gentleman would himself be the first to regret. Mr. A. B. HOPE said it appeared that all the re ligious bodies in Australia had the power of self-govern ment except the Church of England. The Right Hon. Gentleman, to be consistent, ought to object to such a power being possessed by the members of the Church of Scotland and by the Wesleyans in Australia. Unless there was something dangerous in the Church of England which would not permit it the right of self-government, the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite fell to the ground. The main ground on which the Right Hon. Gentleman resisted the clause was that most con venient one for statesmen—the principle of laissez faire. If, as the Right Hon. Gentleman asserted, the clause contained the heads of future legislation, that was a reason why the House should agree to it, because the Church in the colony should have the power of legis lating for itself. The admission of the laity to an eccle siastical assembly was not a now principle, but had been adopted by the United Protestant Episcopal Church of America, and had been found, he believed, to work well. It' any members were not satisfied with the canons passed by such a synod, they had the remedy in their own hands—they could quit the body.—(Hear.) Ho must say that he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had made out no case against the clause. Mr. ANSTEY said that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the Church of Scotland in Aus tralia had the power of enforcing its discipline on its members, but that the Church of England had no such power. Mr. GLADSTONE—Had no law. Mr. ANSTEY remarked that in Van Diemen's Land the temporal law of the colony, and not any private law of the Church. was the obstacle complained of by the Bishop. The Bishop of Tasmania was so convinced of this, that be had called on the local legislature to em body his views in an Act, but the opinion of the late Lieutenant-Governor was adverse to it. In the petition from the members of the Church of Scotland, the com plaint was against the letters patent empowering the Bishop to establish ecclesiastical courts. These letters patent gave a power to the Bishop not only of holding spi ritual courts, but invested him with the powers possessed by the ecclesiastical courts of this country. It was no wonder, therefore, that other religious bodies had ex pressed their alarm. He thought the Right Hon. Gen tleman had rested his case, not on any denial of tempo ral justice, but on some assumed want of vitality and vigour in the Church of England. If the Right Hon. Gentleman wished that his views should be carried out voluntarily on the part of members of the Church in Australia, what necessity was there for any Act of Par liament on the subject? He maintained that, if there was anything wanting in the laws relating to the discip line or doctrines of the Church of England, that defect could be supplied by the heads of that Church, in the same manner as it was supplied by the Church of Rome or the Church of Scotland. The Hon. Member here alluded to the case of the Bishop of Tasmania, and re ferred at some length to the circumstances of the dif &trance which had arisen between that Bishop and the clergymen. The ecclesisastical law of the colony had been held to be similar to the ecclesiastical law in this country with respect to the Anglican Church, and the local legislature bad fully recognised the right of the Church to exercise spiritual powers, in proof of which he would refer the House to the lith clause of the Colonial Church Act. By that clause the lieutenant-governor had power to de prive of his benefice any person convicted before a supe rior ecclesiastical tribunal of misconduct or neglect cf duty. Thus the power to deprive a man of what might be called his freehold showed that the temporal law acted in accordance with what was the ecclesiastieal law. Having detailed some of the facts of the cases of the Rev. gr. Wigmore, and the Rev. Mr. Bateman, between whom and the Bishop of Tasmania the controversy re ferred to had arisen, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman contended that the bishop had the power to act in those cases, just as well as a visitor to a private charity had the power to exercise a suspending discretion in case of ne glect. If the clergymen were cited before him, and re fused to appear, he could proceed against them in their absence. The Right Hon. Gentleman said the bishop had no right. He maintained that he had; but it was because the Bishop of Tasmania aimed at too much that he had failed. It was proposed now to take the power which it already possessed out of the hands of the Church of England and invest it in a body composed partly of laymen and partly of clergymen. He objected to the proposed amendment on that ground, and because it dealt with the prerogative of the Queen, in endeavouring to cure by letters patent the mischief which had been produced by the letters patent of her predecessors. He did not wish to see the Protestant Church in the colony impaired in its power or efficacy, but he called upon members of all churches in that House not to do anything which would impair the religious equality which now ,existed iu the colonies, nor to sanction that which the Crown had airs sdy renised to do. He concluded by announcing his intention of voting against the amendment proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppposite.—(Loud cries c.f " Divide, divide.") Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the gal leries, having been cleared for a division, were closed for nearly ten minutes. The galleries were then re-opened (no division having taken place), and we found Mr. P. WOOD addressing the House. No practical or legal objection, he said, had been urged against the proposed clause. It had been said that his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General would state his objections to it, but he had not done so. The Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Labouchere) had said that he did not understand the clause. Now he thought the clause was very plain and intelligible. It could not be from the want of under standing that his Right Hon. Friend could not make out the meaning of the clause, but it so happened that people sometimes did not understand what they did not wish to consider.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure if the Government wished to consider the proposed clause they would understand it. What was proposed by the clause was, to give certain persons, members of the reli gious persuasion of the Church of England, the power of meeting together and coming to certain regulations by which they would be themselves bound, in like manner as members of other persuasions could now do in the colonies.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that there was no obstacle iu the way of the Church of England doing that which was proposed now, as well as the Church of Scotland or of Rome. But it should be remem bered the Church cf England was in that peculiar position in the colonies, the precise nature of which neither the Church itself nor the Government under stood.—(Hear, hear.) The Church there had no means of carrying out her useful powers; she might be met in such respects by persons skilled in raising quibbles, and who could obstruct her in her attempts to do anything useful. The Church had such a power in this country, because in this country she was the Church by law established, but such was not the case with regard to the colonies.—(Hear, hear.) A great field was now thrown open to give the Church an opportunity of developing herself, and of showing what she could do when placed in competition with other churches.—(Hear, bear.) The contest, he was convinced, would be a holy one, and free from sectarian or bitter influences; and he thought the Church would come out of it creditably in showing efficiency to preach the truth, and affording that comfor to those who belonged to her which they most needed in the hour of trial and sickness.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Church, ob jected to the present motion, because he saw no prece dent for it. Now the history of the early Christian Church was full of such precedents, and they had the modern instance likewise of the state of the church in America. Had there been any tyranny exercised by, or complaint made against, the American Church? He could not, therefore, see how the -Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Tra3e could, as a Churchman, object to that particular consti tution proposed ley the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ( Mr. Gladdtoue). They were told that such a proposi tion would neither be sanctioned by the local legislature nor by the Parliament of this country. Now the pro posed clause could not have any objectional operation. If persons did not wish to be bound by the opinions of the majority, they could leave the body altogether. There could be no hardship in such a case. Such was the principle upon which all good governments, ecclesi astical, civil, or political, sere formed. He thought the objection that the present proposition was an inchcate I measure which did not come very well from a Govern ment which brought in a Bill giving the colonies power to legislate for themselves, which Bill was avowedly an incomplete one.—(Hear.) His opinion of the proposed LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 7, 1850. clause was that its chief merit consisted in the fact that they did not make a ready cut- ind-iry form for the colonies, but let them enact the precise clauses neces sary for their own government. Indeed, the proposition justice appeared thatto himhe thoughtto embody it co u s l u d c b h e only asimp met simple a b y tof some m o m let al t difficulty. He did not thi n k, h owever , t h a t th e l e gal common objections taken by the lion. and Learned Member for Youghal were tenable. All that was asked was to give the Church of England the same powers which other bodies possessed, and he called upon the members of every religious persuasion to assist them in obtaining that power. Ile would ask the Government what was the nature of the great danger which threatened the social state of Europe at the present moment, and from which this country was happily so free i —(Hear.) Was it not the entire indifference which the people manifested with respect to all religion, rather than an intolerance in the exercise of any sect ? It was the danger of infidelity which they ha t to stern at the present moment, and that could not be done efficaciously without giving free ex ercise for the dissemination of religious instruction and education. The great danger of the age was to be found in that ignorance which led to infidelity, and which incapacitated men from seaing their real and best interests either in this world or in the world to come. He regretted to find that the tendency of all modern govern ments was to thwart any measure calculated to render the Church more useful and effective. That tendency was evinced in a variety of ways. He could perceive it in the choice made of clergymen to fill the office of pre lates, for it was well known that it was not the most elo quent and able men, but the most quiet men that were selected for that office. He asked for no exclusive pri vileges for the Church, and he had no apprehension of her losing her vitality. But he confessed he had serious fears for that state which would not earnestly and sin cerely endeavour to promote every measure that had for its plain and straightforward object the development of religious truth and the preparation of the people for those blessings which would ensure their temporal and eternal happiness. Mr. ROEBUCK said, that under the appearance of a I somewhat mysterious proposition, this was really an im portant one. They had to deal with what the propo sition called " the United Church of England and Ire land in the colonies." Everybody understood what was meant by the United Church of England and Ireland. It was subject to certain laws in this country, and to certain great privileges. But there was a party in this country that wanted to. deal with that Church in a way which the people of this country would not permit.— (Hear.) What did they want? To have the Church above the law—to have convocation sitting by the side of Parliament. " We have put down that, Sir (said the Hon. Member), and we do net intend that it shall ever be revived."—(Hear, hear.) That by a sidewind in the colonies was attempted. But they were not to be mys tified out of their common sense; and no man dare at the present time propose, at least no man with com mon sense could expect, that such a proposition would be attended to, as that convocation should be sitting by the side of the English Parliament.— (Hear, hear.) But there were persons so infatuated with notions connected with the Church, that they wanted to create that thing—(Hear, hear)—to de clare, as to the United Church of England and Ireland, " That it shall be lan fah for the bishop or bishops of any diocese or dioceses in the said colonies, or in any colony which her Majesty shall, by order in Council, de clare to be joined to them for the purposes next herein after described, and the clergy and lay persons, being declared members of the Chuch of England, or being otherwise in communion with him or them respectively, 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 majority of the said bishops, if more than one, to make all such r egu l a ti ons as may be necescary for the better conduct of their ecclesiastical affairs and for the holding of meetings for the said purpose thereafter." Those gen tlemen wished to be placed in the position of a member of any Dissenting community. One of them had told him that he would be content to be put on the same footing as the "Jumpers."- - (A laugh.) Was that so? Were the members of the Church of England—ho would take Van Diemen's Land—to divest themselves of the character of members of that Church, and put themselves on an equality with the Jumpers? An Hon. Member (we believe Mr. Gladstone)—" es." (Laughter.] Let the House understand what that meant. First, he would strike out altogether the name of the United Church of England and Ireland—they were no longer of that sect—they were persons professing anything they liked—a simple body of Dissenters, that chose to meet together, and why, then, should the Im perial Parliament pass anything about them at all ? (Hear.) He wanted to have that question answered. They were going to create a legislature in that country —that would have power over religious sects. The only body of churchmen with whom that House could have any possible sympathy was the United Church of England and Ireland, as it was called ; but that Church held the Queen for its head—it looked to the various arch bishops and bishops for its direction in clerical affairs —it did not presume to meet together, its bishops and laymen, for the purpose of church government, land to set up their opinions against that of the Church as by law established. If they ever established that, there was an end to the Church of England and Ireland, and they would attain that which he (Mr. Roebuck) had so long desired—the complete separation of Church and State.—(Hear, hear.) But let them not misunderstand themselves. There was a High Church party—those who called themselves a supereminent and peculiar Church party, who went back to mediwral Church literature, painted windows, and all the fantastic proceedings which arose out of a peculiar state of ignorance —(Hear, hear, and laugh)—thesea persons said " Let us go back to that mediaeval state which we believe to be a state of excel lence," and they traced out those ideas in their own way. They appealed to America.—(Hear.) What did they find there? No established church—perfect equality— freedom amongst all sects—(Hear) —no power derived from the state, and no money from the state—(Hear, hear)—and that was a very particular item in this mat ta.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, if they were prepared to deal thus with the colonies, were they prepared to deal thus with England? Because, if that were fitting for our communities that went out into the wilds of America, or South Australia, or South Africa, let them say it should be so here.—(Hear, hear.) He objected to a church establishment; he wanted to see a separa ration between Church and State—(Hear, hear)—and when he made a motion on that subject as to Ireland, as he hoped to do on the 28th of this month, he trusted he should have the sapped of those gentle men. It might depend upon his motion. He would un undertake it should be so unlike the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it should be perfectly intelli gible to everybody.—(A laugh.) lie had tried to under stand this motion. lie had asked many of his Hon, Friends around him to direct their minds to it; he had gone through it word by word, passage by passage; he had tried his ingenuity, and puzzled his own brains about it, but the words, as it were turned round, and he could not get at the meaning of them.—(A laugh.) (The Hon. Member read the first part of the motion.) Was it at all in the scope of the English Church, was it in the character or spirit of that Church, that the people should meet together, with the bsshop at their head or outside, and that in Van Diemen's Land they should come to the conclusion that if ;he bishop did not accede to their proposition, then it was to be no proposition, but if he did accede to it then it was to be a proposition? What was the ecclesiastical revenue of that state—what was the item in the miscellaneous estimates brought before that House to pay the said bishop? [Mr. Gladstone— " There was no estimate."] Then let them have no bishops. But there was an estimate ; before many day s they would find there was an ecclesiastical estimate for all our—[Several Hon. Members—. No such thing."] I Well, then, let them pass that by, if they liked—(Hear, and a laugh)—and when it came before the House he would point it out to them, and then they would under stand the value of that cheer.—(Hear, hear.) He had fought that question too often in that House not to know distinctly that there was a constant yearly payment for the purpose,of the English Church, which he could well understand with the ordinary feelings of the English Church, but which he could not understand when they made that Church, as it were, a separate and independent establishment, without the pale of the Church of Eng land, and of Ireland, deriving support from the House_ It was not what they ought to do as an independent com munity; but he denied that character to them. If they asked for it, he was perfectly willing they should be an independent community of religionists, but first, as such a body, they wanted no proposition from that House, and next, they were about to be under a Legislature in dependent of that House, and might be, what they de clared they wished to be—like Jumpers."—(A laugh.) He was told there were three bodies which they recog nized—the Church of England, the Church of Rome, and the Church of Scotland; but this body did not come within any of those categories, they were of a fantastic sort of religion, and wished to be considered as some thing peculiar in themselves, who wanted all the charac teristics of an ancient community, and all the liberty of any modern community c f religionists that could be de vised. But that was not to be permitted. If they belonged to the Church of England they must submit to its ordi nances, and if they did not belong to it, let them call themselves Dissenters, and be would ask and demand for them perfect freedom to do what they liked, however ridiculous it might be—(A laugh)—but let them not ask the State in any way to sanction any of their proceed ings. They were bound then to oppose the p ropos i t i on of the Right Hon. Gentleman; it was not a motion which a Member of the Church of England, as such a member, ought to propose. If the Right Hon. Gentleman had proposed it as a " Jumper"—(A. laugh)—he should have thoroughly understood him, and would have seconded it; but not having done so he felt bound to oppose it. Mr. R. PALMER said be was afraid, from the speech they had just heard, and from other symptoms which unfortunately nn one could help perceiving, that we were approaching times in which the principle on which an established church was maintained would be dis cussed under far different cirumstances from those to which they had hitherto been accustomed, or those upon which those who were friendly to the Church, to the Monarchy, or to the English Constitution, could wish to see it discussed.—(Elear, hear.) There were men—and ho believed he was doing no wrong to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman if he inferred from his speech that he was one of the number—there were men who were unfriendly to the principle of an established church, who did not think it beneficial to the great interest of the country, and who rejoiced at everything that tended to impair its efficiency or to retard its progress. But he did not believe that that was the principle upon which either the House, or the country, or her Majesty' s Government—to whose sincere desire to promote the best interests of the Church he was most ready to bear his testimony—he did not believe that was the principle on which they would oppose the clause then under the consideration of the House. The only principle upon which an established church could ever exist in any country—the only principle on which it was defensible was, that it was the embodiment of the religion believed by the mass of the people. The power which it possessed over the minds of the people was originally derived—not from their laws or establish ment, but from its intrinsic truth and its power over the consciences of men. Tho Establishment was upheld by the belief of the people, and not the belief of the people by the Establishment.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Roe buck.) Therefore in legislating with regard to it, it had always been the practice to consider what would be calculated to promote the efficiency of the Church, the extension of its principles, and to remedy the evils which might arise within it, without wishing to interfere with the freedom of other men's convictions. They would vindicate for others the same liberty of conscience which they desired for themselves; but they could nut perma nently maintain the Church upon any principle incon sistent with paying the same respect to liberty of con science and belief in Churchmen which they always extended to every community of Dissenters. The prin ciple enunciated by the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield was a tyrannical principle. According to his principle they would first make the Church their help in the great work of government, and then turn round on it and say, " We will make use of the connexion, be cause it is useful to us in maintaining the foundations of soeiety, not for the purpose of extending its efficiency according to its own principles, but for the sake of cramping its efficiency and preventing its extension ; taking care it shall not accommodate itself to the chang ing circumstances and wants of mankind, as other reli gious communities are able to do. The Church shall have no such power, but shall be kept in that state in which it has remained for the last 200 years." It was idle to say that Parliament could make the requisite changes. To leave it to Parliament was to say they should not be made at all. Would that House endure debates on questions of a purely spiritual character ? It would be impossible, even if they all belonged to the same religious community; besides, they were not re turned for such a purpose. It came to this, were they to accept this proposition it being impossible for Parliament to deal with the subject; or would they assert that nothing should be done, and that the Church should re main in precisely the same attitude in which it had stood for centuries past ?—(Hear.) If there was any one thing which caused that increase of ignorance and vice now growing up throughout the country, it was the want of provision for the spiritual wants of the people. The Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield had spoken of the convocation as though it were something new in principle. lie denied that. Every one knew that it was as much a part of the constitution that the spiritual wants and necessities of the people should be considered by the bishops and clergy in convocation, as that their political wants and necessities should be considered by that House. Every change since the Reformation had been made by the convocation, on whose resolutions the Parliament acted. But in the statutes passed in the reign of Henry VIII., defining the constitution and the royal prerogative in matters ecclesiastical, it was dis tinctly laid down that the Constitution of England had always consisted of a temporal and spiritual element, and that the latter was represented in convocation. That went down to the reign sof George 11. When the Prayer-book was last revised, in the reign of Charles 11., that Monarch stated in the preface, which any one might see who would take up his Prayer-book, that, as often as it should be necessary to consider and debate matters affecting the spiritual welfare of the Church of England, the convoca tion should be consulted.—(Hear, hear.) That was in active operation down to the'time of George 1., and they all knew under what circumstances it was stopped. The Minister of the day appointed a man to be a bishop who did not hold the doctrine§ of the Church, for Bishop Headley belonged to the class of Unitarians. The con vocation took up the matter, and the Crown suspended its sittings; and from that time to the present the Crown had, by suspending the sittings of the convccation, in principle done the same thine 6 as King Charles attempted to do when he prevented Parliament meeting from time time for the dispatch of business. The constitutional law, however, remained the same, and the convocation possessed the same functions as ever, and the reason why no motion was made for its restoration was because it was a body imperfectly and unsatisfactorily consti tuted, and did not furnish a true representation of the Church of England.—( Hear, hear.) What was desired was a practical bona fide representation of the feelings of the Church. Was it a matter of no practical importance that whilst the power of self-legisla tion had been suspended in the Church, they had seen the great Wesleyan body impelled by the purest motives, and the most admirable zeal and piety, breaking off from the Establishment ?—(Hear, hear.) Was it nothing that they had seen the continual growth of Dissenters from the Church, which might easily have been checked had proper steps been taken in time, and a persistence in the same course could not fail to result in ever-increasing dissent. The end—if they persevered in the same policy, even at home— would be that they would ace the Church fsll to pieces, and the enemies of the Establishment, being no longer opposed by the united force of its friends, would inevi tably prevail, simply because they refused to give the Church sufficient internal power and energy to develope itself in the natural way. With respect to the colonies, the case was much stronger, because the circumstance; were different. Take New Zealand and India, for in stance, where they had to deal with a large heathen po pulation. They had their liturgies, articles, and ser vices, all constructed with reference to a nation already Christian. To say that there should be no authority capable of determining on the mode of operations neces sary with reference to the necessities of a heathen coun try, was in substance, to refuse that libertyand natural de velopment which was enjoyed •by Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and every sort of Protestant Dissenters. Was it impossible that the Established Church should hate the same power, and yet be useful to the State? Look at the Established Church in Scotland. It might be said that there, too, a secession had taken place. Granted. But that was due, principally, to a disregard of the religious opinion, and a desire to carry a tem poral law too far and beyond its province, and without any sufficient necessity; and when they wished to re trace their steps it was too late. They did, however, re trace their steps. They came down to the House and proposed a law that if any reasonable cause could be shown against it, the nominee of the patron should not have the benefice. Had that been done at the time a great evil might have been averted. But they had not taken away the power of self-legislation from the Scotch Church because of the secession. Upon all these grounds he had no hesitation in saying that he would vote for the motion of his Right Honourable Friend, not merely because he conceived what he proposed to be necessary—not only because he thought it desirable that the Church should do the work for which it WIL3 in tended, but also because he believed, though circum stances hal induced them to impose arbitrary restric tions on the Church of England through a long series of years, and though the imperfect constitution of the con vocation might make it impossible to restore it, that be fore long some such tribunal must be provided. Sir G. GREY, without entering at length on the great question of the connexion between the Established Churcu and the State, would content himself with saying that he totally differed from the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield, who wished to see a dis union between them. Differing from the Hon. and Learned Member in that, and anxious as he was to see the Church made an instrument cf increasing usefulness to all classes, he could not help deeply regretting the course taken by some members of the Church, which had led to proceedings tending to exhibit the Church in a state of disuniou—(Loud cheers) —thereby impairing its efficiency, and diminishing its usefulness.—(Re newed cheers.) After the speech of the Right lion. Gentleman, he had not anticipated that they would have been led into that far wider question recently adverted to, because the Right Hon. Gentleman based his motion on their having no Established Church in the colony to which it applied. All he appeared to ask was that the Church of England should be placed on the same footing as other denominations. He had listened with attention to the speech of the Right Hon. Gentle man, and had read the motion, and his impres sion certainly was that the object of it was to enable the body which he proposed to constitute of the bishops, clergy, and laity, to make regulations which should have the force of laws.—(Hear, hear.) True, they were limited to particular objects, but etill they would not only be binding on the members of that com munion in foto conscientia, but have the force of law. There was one express provision in which the prero gative of the Crown was saved, intimating that with the exception of that case the prerogative was to be curtailed. Another provision transferred the power ex ercised by the Crown to the Archbishop of Canterbury. If there were any defects at present existing in the power of enforcing the ecclesiastical authority by mem bers of the Church of Ehgland, the Bill passed by Lord Stanley gave a remedy by application to the colo nial Legislature. The Right Hon. Member fur the Uni versity of Oxford, however, was not satisfied with the constitution of that body, because it was not composed exclusively of members of the Church of England; but if the objection was worth anything it applied equally to the House of Commons. All that had spoken had failed to convince him that the Church of England in Van Die men's Land and New South Wales suffered under any disability which prevented its bishops, clergy, and mem bersb by v o f l r u o n m t ay makingr agreement, any which regul might stionsth in e b yp d lea t s hm e e din in te f r o s r e e , conscientie, just the same as Romanists, Wesleyan:, them any other denomination. Why, then, con fer on force of laws? It had been hinted that the If England laboured under some special disability. so, and place the Church let it be pointed out and removed, the dangerous power of making regulations chabvuirnegbthoef n on ot an gi e v r s a p l ec fo ia o l t pretence of disabilities.—(Cheers:) t privilegesh et religious un d er bodies,tthe specious p a e n e d i o d u o s Mr. ADDERLEY said the Right lion. Baronet had challenged them to name any disability under which the Established Church laboured. The disability was that the Church could not meet together to pass bye-laws, o in r g p w ec i u th lia o r like any other corporation, under the penalties of pra munire. The whole object of his Right Hon. Friend's motion was simply that the members of the Church might bo able to meet and pass bye 'awe, without licences from the Crown. That was the disability, and if they were prepared to remove that, he asked no more. But he contended that it was a disability, and that not an argument bad been urged in its defence.— (Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that some mysterious power was being asked for by the Church of were proposed by the Right Hon. to make a sort of imperiuni E pznio n ewi g mn l ei a pbr n see d rr oi , off a o osrl legislation were to have extensive reduon it that would bind every man, woman, and child, and enable it even to ira tgithfbiseel i atcUtibonunivreecos—nit conferred if it pose penalties. But nothing of the sort was proposed. And, with regard to the provisos, his Right Hon. Friend had stated his willingness to postpone them, in order to give the Government an opportunity of deciding upon Isome meats of relieving the Church from the disability of which it now complained. His Right Hon. Friend had moved, and he (Mr. Adderley) took the proposition ' and should vote upon it simply as it stood, that it should be lawful for the ,bishops and officers of the Church of England to meet together without incurring penalties. The Hen. and Learned Member for Sheffield appeared to think, which he (Mr. Adderley) had never heard before, that it was essential to the character of the Church of England to be connected with the state. This was the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's whole and sole argument—that whereas the Church of England was connected with the state in this country, therefore it should be connected with the state in the colonies ; that it should be put on a footing of equality with the Jumpers. He did not know exactly what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant by that; but the position of the Church in the colonies was, that whereas it was not fairly connected with the state there, in England it was connected with the state; that in the colonies it was only partially connected with the state, and that the connexion was such that it had all the dis ability and none of the advantages. That was the simple position of the Church in the colonies. It was just so far connected with the state as to be unable to act for itself, without a single privilege being given in return for that disability ; and it only asked that it should be placed up m the'same footing as other religious denomi nations, and have the power of making bye-laws for itself in the same manner as any common corporation in this country, and no more. Mr. lIUME said he took it for granted that no court of justice in the colonies would allow a prosecution for prcentunire; and he thought that nothing could be more dangerous to the peace and welfare of the colonies than for Parliament to give any one sect privileges such as were now asked for.—(Divide, divide.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if he were of opinion that the rejection of the clause would impair the Church of England in the colonies, it would not be opposed by him.—(hear.) As he understood it, the principal objection to the existing system was, that the members of the Church of England had not a church government to refer to—that having the establishment and the ministry of the Church, they had not the courts of the Church to control and direct them. It was true, that, on the first institution of bishops in the colonies, it was thought that the Crown could give them the power of establishing these courts. But upon further investi gation it was ascertained that it could not be done. He apprehended, however, that it was by no means necessary to the efficiency of the Church in the colonies that there should be ecclesiasticrl courts and ecclesiastical censures, or any of the various modes for the govern ment of the Church which were established in this coun try; and that it was quite enough, if there were grounds of complaint, that parties connected with the Church should be placed on a footing with other denominatiens The Hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had stated that there was an objection to the parties meeting together and arranging the conduct of the affairs of the Church, because they were apprehensive that they would render themselves liable to a premunire ; but surely the Hon. Gentleman must be aware:that the statutes of pre munire were territorial enactments, and were not applica ble to the colonies at all. If these parties were to be upon an equality with other persuasions, let them do as other persuasions had done, establish rules amongst themselves, by mutual consent, for their own govern ment. But if this were not adequate, what, then, was the proper course to be adopted in this Bill? The principle of the measure was that of self-government in the colonies, and yet it was now desired to insert an exception to that principle, and create a concurrent authority to make particular laws upon particular subjects. But, in order to see the dan gerous character of the proposition, it was necessary to look at the terms of the Right Hon. Gentleman's mo tion. Ile did not propose that the bishops, clergy, and laity should meet and 'establish a simple Church government for the conduct of their ecclesiastical affairs, but meet from time to time, and when they did meet, to make provision for meeting for the same purpose thereafter. What did the Right Hon. Gentleman mean by the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs ? Did ho mean the alteration of the Church service or the making of regulations for the direction of those who were members of the Church ? He left the question entirely vague. It was impossible to understand it. But if they took the provisos it would be seen that they gave power even to impose pecuniary penalties. It they adopted a clause of this sort, as applicable to the colo nies, why not have a similar enactment for thit country? It was supported neither by practice nor precedent, and ought not to ho adopted. Mr. WALPOLE could not but think, from the re marks which had fallen from Mr. Labouchere, Sir G. Grey, and the Attorney-General, that the object of the proposed clause was totally misunderstood by the Go vernment. If the object were, as it was supposed, to give pre-eminence to the Church of England, he for one, considering the circumstances of the colonies, would not assent to the proposition. But he thought he could satisfy the House that, in point of fact, this clause simply proposed to put the Church of England upon the same footing in the colonies as the other religious denominations, so that they might manage their own affair 3. His Hon. and Learned Friend had stated that if they chose to meet together and form arrangements for themselves, they could do so without subjecting themselves to any fine; but he forgot that by the sta tute of Henry VIII., whereby the clergy were to submit to the Crown in all their proceedings, none of the clergy or members of the Church could meet to gether and make regulations for themselves without the assent of the Crown, unless they subjected them selves to severe fine or imprisonment. He presumed that when a colony was constituted in a distant pos session of the Crown, and the Church of England was established there, it carried with it the laws of the Church, and that the Church could not have free action except in obedience to and in compliance with those laws, the consequence of which was, that if a clergyman in the colonies disobeyed the injunction of the spiritual head of his Church there were no means whatever of en forcing obedience. The motion would not establish a, legislative authority in the Church, but merely allow: it to make its own arrangements, and then enforce them in the civil courts in the same way as the arrangements of any other religious body might be enforced in those courts. That being so, surely it was most unreasonable for the Government to refuse their assent to the motion. Let them remember that they did not want to establish consistorial courts. The Church merely asked, not pre-eminence, but equality, and if that equality were denied, it would remind him of those days when, in the history of our own country, there was toleration granted to everybody but members of the Church of England, and they were refused the free permission to use, either in public or in private, the common prayers of the Church of England.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE, in reply, said all he asked was, that the House should give to the members of the Church of England, in the Australian colonies, the same power, neither more nor less, and the same means, nei ther more nor less, which were at this moment possessed and exercised by every other religious body in the colo nies. —(Loud eheers.) And most willing was he to sub mit to any limitations, and any phraseology which could bo devised or suggested, for the purpose of securing that ho should gain nothing more than that object.—(Hear, hear.) Moreover, he could say this, that if he received from her Majesty's Government a pledge that they would examine the subject with the means they possessed. would ascertain, to the best of their power, the state of the law, and would engage that that same power and no other, which all voluntary religious societies possessed in the colonies, should be secured to the members of the Church of England in the colonies, he would withdraw the clause.—(Bear, hear.) The House divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against it Majority —Bs Tho cluso Was accordingly lost. Mr. ANSTEY mov,d the addition of the following clause:—" And be it enacted, that the said island of Van Diemen's Land shall, from and after the passing cf this Act, be named and styled Tasmania; and that the said island, together with the several dependencies of the acne, shall firm one and the same colony, and be styled and reputed as the colony of Tasmania." He thought that as the name of Port Philip had been changed to that of Victoria, that of Van Diemcn's Land might be changed to Tasmania—the name that was generally adopted in the colony itself. Mr. WYLD seconded the motion. Mr. LABOUCIIERE would prefer that the old name to which they were accustomed shou ld be continued. It was hardly worth while, however , to raise a discussion on the point without the opinio n of the colony being ex pressed upon it. The clause was negatived without a division. Mr. ANSTEY said the next clause he had to pro pose was one on which he really must take a division.— (Laughter.) I t was as follows: — " And be it en ac t e d, that the first writs for the election of the several legis lative councils of the said colonies of Victoria, Van Diemen's Land, South Australia, and Western Australia resp ect i v ely, shall, as soon as conveniently may be after t h e passing of the several ordinanc es const i tut i ng t h e same , be issued by the governors, lieutenant-governors, or persons actually administering the government of the said colonies respectively, and that such ordinances shall have and obtain the force of law from and immediately after the passing thereof respectively, anything in the ;aid recited Act contained to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding." No Hon. Member having seconded the motion, it fell to the ground amidst the laughter of the House. Mr. WYLD moved the addition of clauses for the pur pose of creating an executive council in the colony, com posed of the principal officers of the state, who should have the direction and control of the convicts there. In this case also there was no seconder, and the mo tion was therefore not put from the Chair. Mr. E. DENISON and Mr. MowATT both postponed to the third reading cf the Bill the amendments of which they had given notice. The report on the Bill was then received, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time on Monday next. DISTRESSED UNIONS ADVANCES AND RE PAYMENT OF ADVANCES (IRELAND) BILL. On the order of the day for the third reading of this Bill, Mr. DISRAELI asked if the Irish Franchise Bill, which was fixed for Friday, would come on first on that day ? Sir G. GREY said it was the intention of his Noble Friend to bring it on first. Mr. DISRAELI—The Stamp Acts Bill was also fixed for Friday? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would state on Friday what he should do respecting that na:asure. Mr. STAFFORD said relative to the Bill before the House, that in order to advance 300,000 L, they made the property of Ireland to the amount of 4,700,0001, liable, and placed it solely at the disposal of one man, instead of the measure being a boon to Ireland, it was going upon the old, m iserable, disastrous system of compelling those unions that managed their accounts well to pay for those that managed their accounts ill. He wished to know whether the Chancel,lor of the ExchEquer would have any objection to lay before the House a copy,A • directions to the county cess collectors in Irelastl3.; -.-;:- ‘ p.. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEctouL4 .. - . the least. s'' '" - P 7 ' P'*: l: -:lte i : 6 The Bill was then read a third time at4seetik ;=, ''''l` , "' f THE DEFECTS OF LEASES ACT tAh/BNDIMIT 7 r..,' BILL. • -- . .-.,.; tiN\ I t - ~.4,,,, -\, This Bill was read a third time and passed. ' ...,'? !:',,* A i x e . t 4 yi SLAVE-GROWN SUGAR. " -, l't; l'. p,,,,, Sir E. BUXTON stated that he had receive , d '.c‘tir evening a notice from the First Lord of the TresSn 4 / 44-4,,, the effect that he was indisposed, and it would bliiinbon,!:o—,'” venient for him to attend in the House to-morrow.;This induced him to postpone his motion respecting slave grown sugar. Whilst he intended then to put off his motion he threw himself upon the generosity of the Noble Lord and of the Government to give him another day, so that the subject might undergo discussion during this session. Mr. DISRAELI observed that the Hon. Baronet spoke of the generosity of the Government, when, in point of fact, they in a spirit of justice ought to offor another day to the Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure it would be very agreeable to the House that they did so.— (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that there could be no doubt the Government would feel itself bound to give the Hon. Baronet another day. MONEY. PAYMENT OF ADVANCES OF WAGES (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill passed through Committee. REGISTRATION OF DEEDS BILL. This Bill passed through Committee. To be re committed on Friday. CONVICTS' PRISONS BILL. This Bill was read a second time. To be committed on Monday next. SUPPLY. Mr. DISRAELI wished to know what day would be fixed for a Committee of Supply. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied it would not come on before Monday. ASSESSED TAXES. Mr. BLACKSTONE gave notice he would bring on his motion tomorrow (this day). PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. A brief discussion took place as to the second reading of the Bill, which was finally agreed to. To be com mitted that day fortnight. MEDICAL CHARITIES BILL. Sir W. SOMERVILLE stated this Bill would be brought forward that day week. PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND). Sir W. SOMERVILLE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws regulating the proceedings at petty sessions, and the duties of justices of the peace out of quarter sessions, in Ireland. The House then adjourned at Half-past Twelve. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) MONDAY, MAY 6. AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL, As amended, considered ; Motion made, and Question put, " That the Bill be re-committed." The House divided : MINORITY—AYES, 42. Adair, Hugh E. Fox, S. L. Stanley, E. H. Booth, Sir R. G. Gibson, T. M. Sturt, Henry G. Brisco, M. Gladstone,*.W. E. Sullivan, Michael Brooke, Lord Gore, W. R. 0. Sutton,,H. M Cobbold, J. C. Hornby, Jolla Taylor, Thomas E. Cobden, R. Hudson, George Thompson, Aldermiut Conolly, Thomas Lennox, Lord A. Turner, George Currie, Henry Lushington, Charles Tyrell, Sir J. Deedes, W. Manners, Lord G. Verner. Sir W. Disraeli, B. Napier, Joseph Vyse, R. H. H. H. Duckworth, Sir J. O'Brien Sir Lucius Williams, John Dundas,.George O'Connor, Feargus Wyld, James Fitzroy, Henry Scboledeld, William TELLERS. Floyer, John Scott, F. Molesworth, Sir W. Fertescue, Chichester Scymer, H. K. Adderley, C. Is. MAJORITY-NOES, 165. Adair, R. Shafto Ferguson, Sir R. Mostyn, E. M. Anderson, Arthur Fitzpatrick, J. W. Norreys, Lord Anstey, T. C. Fordyce, A. D. O'Connell, Maurice Armstrong, Sir A. Forster, Mathew O'Flaherty, Anthony Baines, M. T. French, F. Ogle, S. C. Baring, H. B. Glyn, George Carr Paget, Lord A. Baring, Sir F. T. Grace, 0. D. Paget, Lord G. Barnard, E. G. Graham, Sir James Palmerston, Vie. Bass, Thomas Granger, T. C. Patten, J. W. Berkeley, Admiral Greenall, Gilbert: Peel, Sir Robert Berkeley, Henry F. Greene Thomas Pelham, A. D. Berkeley, C. L. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Pinney, William Bernal. Ralph Grenfell, Charles NV. Plowden, W. H. Birch, Sir Thomas Grey, Sir George Pugh, David 131ackall, S. W. Ilailyburton, Lord J. Raphael, Alexander Blair, Stephen Fiords, Richard Itawdon, Colonel Bouverie, E. P. Batelle% John Rice, E. R. Boyd, John Hawes, B. Roche, E. B. Boyle, Colonel Hayter, W. G. Romilly, Colonel Bramston, V W. Headlam, Thomas Hominy, Sir John Brotherton, Joseph Heald, James Russell, E. Buller, Sir J. Y. Heathcote, G. J. Rutherford, A. Burke, Sir T. J. Heneage, G. H. W. Scrope, G. P. Campbell, W. F. Henry, Alexander Seymour,;Lord Caulfeild, J. M. Hervey, Lord A. Sheil, It. L. Cavendish, 0. H. Heywood, James Shelburne, Earl of Cavendish, W. G. Hodges, T. L. Sheridan, R.B. Clerk Sir G. Howard, Lord E. Smith, J. A. Colebrooke, Sir T. Howard, C. W. Smith, John B. Collins, W. Hume, Joseph Somers, J. P. Colvile, C. R. Humphery, Ald. Somerville, Sir W. Cowan, Charles Hutchins, E. J. Stanfield, W. R. C. Cowper, W. F. Jervis, Sir John Stanton, W. S. Cubitt , William Kildare, Marquis of Stuart, H. Dalrymple, Captain Labouchere, Henry Tenisos, E. K. Davie, Sir H Lascelles, W. S. Thicknesse, R. A. Dawson, T. V. Legh, G. C. Thompson, Colonel Denison, Edmund Lemon, Sir C. Thornely, T. Denison, J. E. Lewis, G. C. Townahend, Captain D'Eyncourt, C. T. Lindsay, Colonel Trelawny, J. S. Divett, Edward Littleton, E. R. Trollope, Sir J. Duff, James _.: Loch, James Tufnell. H. Duncuft, John Lygon, General Vane, Lord H. Dundas, Admiral Mackinnon, W. Verney, Sir H. Dundas, Sir David M'Cullagh , W. T. Vivian, J. H. East, Sir:J. B. M'Gregor, John Wahnaley, Sir I. Ebrington, Viscount M`Taggart, Sir J. Wellesley, Lord C, Ellice, Edward Martin, - John Westhesul o J. P. Ellis, John , Matheson, James Wilson, James Elliot, J. E. Motile, Fox Wilson, Matthew Enfield, Lord Weigand, Viscount Weod, Sir Charles Estcourt, J. B. B. Milner, W. M. Wrightson, W.B. Easton, Earl Milnes, R. M. Young, Sir John Evans, Sir De Lacy Morgan, 11. K. TELLTAI. Fagan, W. Morison, Sir W. Hill, Lord M. 1 Ferguson, Colonel Morris, David Bellew, R. M. Clause (And whereas doubts have existed as to the rights and privileges of the bishops, clergy, and other members of the United Church of England and Ireland, in regard to th• management of the inte mai affairs thereof in the said Col•aies, Be it Enacted, That it shall be lawful for the bishop or bishops of any diocese, or dioceses, in the said Colonies, or in any Colony which her Majesty shall, by Order in Council, declare to be joined to them for the purposes next herein after described, and the clergy and lay persons, being de clared members of the Church of England, or being other wise in communion with him or them respectively, 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 a majority of the said bishops, if more than one, to make all such regulations as may be necessary for th• better conduct of their ecclesiastical affairs, and for the holding of meetings for the said purpose thereafter) brought up, and read a first time :—Motion made, and Question put, " That the said Clause be now read a second time." Th e House divided : MINORITY—AYES. 102. Adair, Hugh E. Disraeli, B. Miles, W. Archdall, Captain Drumlanrig, Vie. Molesworth, Sir W. Bailey, Joseph Drummond, Home Mullings, J. R. Baldock, E. H. Duncuft, John Mundy, William Bankes, G. Dundas, George Naas, Lord Baring, Francis East, Sir J. Patten, W. Bateson, Thomas Edwards, Henry Plowden, W. H. Beckett, W. Evelyn, W. J. Rushout, Captain Bennet, P. Farrer, James ganders, Joseph Bentinck, Lord H. Fellowes, E. &Littlefield, W. Beresford, William Filmer, Sir E. Scott, Francis Bernard, Viscount Floyer, John Seymer, Henry Set Best, John Forbes, WllMut Simeon, John Blair, Stephen Fox, S. L. Sotheron, T. H. Stafford, Augustus Stanford, J. F. Blandford, Marquis cr G r la e d e s n to a r7 G , W. r t . Bolder°, Henry Grogan, Edward Stanley, Edward Booth, Sir R. G. Stuart, H. Boyd, John G w y n, Bowel Bale, R. B. Stuart, J. Bramston, T. W. Taylor, T. E. Brisco, M. Hamilton, Lord C. Thesiger, Sir F. Bremridge, Richard H a milton, G. A. _ Brockman, E. D. Harris, Captain Tolletnache, JOlll/1 Brooke, Lord Heneage, G. H. Trevor, G. R. B u ller, Sir Y. Herbert, Sidney Verner, Sir W. C am pbell, W. F. Hervey, Lord A. Villiers, Viscount Carew, W. P. Hildyard, It. C. Vyse, H. Cha tt e rton, Colonel Hodgson , W. N. Walpole, S. II 1 Cebbold, J. C. Ho p e, A. Wellesley, Lord C. Cocks, Thomas S. Hudson, G. Williams, T. P. Codrington, Sir W. Hughes, W. B. Willoughby, Sir IL Colvile, C. R. Jocelyn, "Viscount Wood, W. P. Conolly, Thomas Johnstone, Sir J. Young, Sir John Corry, IL Lockhart, W. TILLM. Currie, H. Lowther, Colonel Adderley, C. B. Darner, Colonel . Manners, Lord G. Palmer, Roundell MAJORITY-NOES, 187. Grenfell, C. P. Owen, Sir John Grenfell, Charles W. Paget,;Lord A. Grey, Sir G. Paget,2Lord George Grosvenor, Lord R. Palmerston, Vie. Hall, Sir Benjamin Pechell, Sir G. Hallyburton, Lord Pelham, D. A. Ilanmer, Sir J. Pigott, Francis HardcasUe, J. A. Pllkington, JAWS. Harris, Richard Raphael, Alexander Hustle, Alexander Rawdon, Colonel Haste, Archibald Ricardo, J. L. Hatchell, John Ricardo, Osman Hawes, Benj. Rice, E. B. B lißßßi g il i atrteghb i; elcl: Y k,::Cnr s j. i r oTa.yl.Ao : n o .e. kn l Hayter, W. G. Headiam, T. E. Heathcoat, John Heywood, James ef T t am and e e s r Heyworth, Lawrence RomillY._ Hothouse, T Si . r ß J . ohn ul li ts ui hsee b ilr t l i d. C ,C . A. E : Hodges, T. L. Scrope, G. P. Hollond. Robert seymour, Lord Howard, Lord E . Shell, R. L. H ow ard, J. K. Shelburne, Earl of H o ward, E. O. H o ward, •P • H. Sheridan, R. B. Smith, J. A. ,4,..741 H o ward, Sir R. name, ..T. Smith, J. Benjamin Humpbery, Aid. Somers, J. P. Somerville, Sir W. Spearman, H. J. Stanton, W. H. IC 1 lic J ens. gosling, r a r il aw . 8 i:Ej Marquis joambohnert" Stuart, Lord J. Labouchere, Henry Stuart, Lord Dudley Lascelles, W. S. Sullivan, Michael Lemon, Sir Charles Talbot, C. It. Lewis, George C. Tancred, H. W. Lindsay, Colonel Tenison, E. K. Littleton, E. R. Thickness°, Ralph Loch, James Thompson, Colonel Locke, Joseph Thornely, Thomas M'Gregor, John' Towneley, John M'Taggart, Sir J. Townley, R. CL Marshall, William Townshend. Captain Martin, C. W. Tuthell, Henry Martin, Samuel Verney, Sir H. Matheson, J. Villiers, Charles Maule, Fox Walmsley, Sir J. Melgund, Viscount Watkins, Colonel Milner, W. M. Wawn, J. T. Milton, Viscount Westhead, J. P. Mitchell, T. A. Willcox, Brodie Morgan, li. K. G. Williams, John Morris, David Williamson, Sir H. Mostyn, E. Wilson, James Mowatt, Francis Wood, Sir Charles Mulgrave, Earl Wyld, James Norreys, Lord Wyvill, M. O'Connell, Maurice o'Flaherty, Anthony TILLERS. ogle, S. C. Hill, Lord Marcus Ord, W. Grey, R. W. Osborne, Ralph Adair, R. A. Ansley, Thomas Armstrong, Sir A. Armstrong, R. B. Bagshaw, John Baines, M. T. Baring, Sir F. Barnard, E. G. Rasa, M. T. Bellew, R. M. Berkeley, Admiral Berkeley, H. F. Berkeley, C. L. G. Bernal, Ralph Birch, Sir T. Blackall, S. W. Blake, Martin J. Bouverie, E. I'. Boyle Colonel Bright, John Broeklehurst, John Brotherton, J. Browne, R. D. Bulkeley, Sir R. Burke, Sir T. J. Carter, J. B. Caulfeild, J. M. Clay, James Cobden, Richard Cockburn, Alex. Collins, William Corbally, M. E. Cowan, Charles Cowper, W. F. . U. wford, S. wder, M mpie, Captain DevCCCDrurraa:Eoaa Craig, y Vyneourti yl Divett, Edward, Douglas, Sir C. Dua, George S. Duff, Jame, Sir James Duncan, Viscount DUncan, George Duudas, Admiral Dundas, Sir David Dunne, Colonel Ebrington, Lord Ellis, John Ellio . t, John Estcourt, 3, B. B. Fergus, John Fitzpatrick, J. W. Fordyce, A. D. Forster, M. Freestun, Colonel Gibson, T. M. , Goddard, A. L. Grace, 0. D. Greene, John UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.—The Council a t their session, on Saturday last, appointed Mr. Edward T. Chapman to the Professorship of Mineralogy, recently in: etituted by them. 1