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

~~ 9ln t he i nte' —• , 4-cierat LO a/ 31.1;?tiered delec; 9, d c " al hich he inctmen ts it necf6sB od their Lord' Ai) fivlcl of n, but et the 110 0, e , aid be r ng certs aember the colon` 'eservirlq Eng for P; 0 ) 3.. GreY p, The 14 ' his Rig 1 0 'rade vvb o' g the . P l 0 the o' tl prerig great ey sbo m e extra 10 as fatal oti rto ell t he it and o r tnd un l t he Qd on folf be so , 0 00 the r' 00 bets possit 000 ;flees THE SUN, F'o; t h" Mr , tlOn cLg4inst it ... 165 Oa „u Majority a g a in s t re-eounmittal -123 tio n of r re - adtniasion, we found under debate the que,T.- ever CO LONIAL ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS. '' i LADSTONE was saying—He proposed, what reuehmigbt be the state of the law in this country, inas teabras great doubts existed about the rigt,t of the hal he Church to make better regulations for cote hishoPiritual matters, " That it shall be lawful for the cel oo P or bishops of any diocese or dioceses in the sesid ore ee , 2 , or in any colony which her Majesty shall, by tptillyripteaelniris c 9 , n e s un b ei e l i , n d g eclare to be joined to them for the i i -P ° ses next hereinafter described, and the clergy and declared members of the Church of te s g oi d, or being otherwise in communion with him or ta d, respectively,a to meet together from time to time, ty Gf . such meeting, by mutual consent, or by a majo rpeervoices of the said clergy and laity, severally an d tosj eri I°6 Y, with the assent of the said bishop, or of all so of the said bishops, if more than one, to make soed e regulations as rally be necessary for the better bone: . of their ecclesiastical affairs, and for th , e , fie d .g ,of meetings for the said purpose thereafter. th ou ',_ ° PlY regretted her Majesty's Government had not ir eno gut it a necessary part of their duty to include this le r e j ta nt subject in their Australian Bill. He thought st ostr 4 nt which had regard to the government of our t eot al lau colonies it was th e a bsolute duty of Govern- The Lora have consid ere d th e s tate of the colonial church. 1 40 3' , who had the best means of discharging this duty, theirPaised it entirely; he had, therefore, stepped into Na ti te P i l ,acre and, with the view of submitting some ee 'ne Rouse t o accom pli s h the purpose he had in itidteepe ' l e hoped what he said would be received with , -1 ° by that House, and that the legal talents e oughtl to be engaged, not in criticising, but in r n e., iteh i rg measure s t o this end, would show mercy and Ple eet ric° with regard to the propositions he had Mom: 14 ° 11 g the list of motions, which he hoped, if S Pirit "; Would put the colonies, in regard to fe otin nat matt ers, on a more rat i on al and suitable 'lateen, The Hou s e ought to understand that the sol o of of an est a bli s h e d re li g i on did not prevail in the oo _ y ties for any useful or rational purpose; that it was l eme lr educti ve o f m i sch i e f an d vexat i on; that it was an B o li n u ment to la w an d ru l e , disturbing the minds and ahi e h h , s 01 men, giving occasion to the raising of claims eside W hatever might be their value here, there were to t h nt lY out of place—never loading or expected to lead rele e t tec ognition of claims wholly alien to society in the Isis e „ - ` 9, hat introducing confusion and dissension where fo re a nd harm on y oug ht on ly to prevail. He, there terrti.eelled on the Hou s e not to take upon itself to do trtli I n° what the system of Church discipline in Aus sreora.should b e , for in doing so it would be acting in , but to untie the hands of their fellow-subjects Otle e tt e e e t nbers of th e same re ligion to which this country the sa me faith untie the hands of those who had carried faith and the same principles to distant lands, the when there, found themselves divested of all te "outages we possessed by law, and every advan- Re wh ste w ich ev en di ssen ti ng s o c ieties possessed in virtue leer, their c onstitutional rights and privileges as English . Antic swear.) If the House valued the principles of the s as much as they did those of order and liberty, fide would admit the absolute obligation on them to pro to two things, either that the Established Church ' e u the majority of the colonists might perhaps ter e "g; f aimuld carry to the colonies the privileges they lee r ,JYed; or if, as it plainly appeared, it was not G eye a r u ti le these pri v il ege s should be carried out, then that tee @ Ment fall back on principles of original and na to th 'reedoue, and that there should not be an exception la w ge , nerat is system of freedom in the colonies, by lee ed g tne colonists under disabilities which the law im eltu°ll them, without any compensating advantages. soe t .:ar• hear.) The clause which stood on the votes th e In c(' five provieone, all limiting, to a certain extent tte r v2,arera that would arise on a declaration of the re the .1"tal to original freedom. He did not believe in tedlusolute necessity of the provisions, as strictly justi eseeto nrineinle• for he did not think a system of ex reo tio o sal legislation to be the most ad visable for adop liees .4 our co l on i es. B ut at t h e same ti me the provi tam w ere consistent with the attainment of the prae• ° biect he had in view. He did not intend, accord to th abp o , a first provision, " that it should be lawful to di teh : e „ or inflict any temporal or pecuniary penalty or ar e . i ,ttY, othe r th an suc h as might attach to the avoid ,-2t4 anY office or benefice held in the said Church." liar s That no such regulation shall be binding on any a 44 ,M or p ersons ot h er t h an th e sa id. bi s h o p or bishops, Lisa th e l ergy and the lay persons within the said colo of t a no are or may be declared members of the Church th ern a gland, or o th erw is e in communion with him or -1 3 respectively. ren it; . That any such regulation, touching the existing me t ; n n of the said bishops, clergy, and others, to the tr ah -° l 3 olitan see of Canterbury, shall be forthwith e reh s b ta i itted by the presiding bishop or his deputy, to the Clo w s hop of the said see, and shall be subject to dis "ce by the said archbishop, tinder his hand and tha• at any time withia 12 months from the passing of the said regulation, or within six months from 4 tter e eiPt thereof by the said archbishop, but not ord s . ele rf 4 * That it shall be competent to the said bishops, reWatt 4, and lay persons, or any of them, to pass any ti,or e , °n affecting the rights of the Crown in the sem i of bishops, without the consent of C o l o utjesty's P r incipal Secretary of State for the p ities. % eth '. Th a t no suc h regu l a ti on ma d e a s a foresaid shall ke er . ° 4 ll se the bishop of any diocese to confirm or con key or to ordain, license, or institute any person to rl eri se , or to any pastoral charge or other episcopal or die te e i a t office, except upon such persons havingtiommheer before taken the oath of allegiance of th "Y, and having likewise subscribed the Articles de c k ° . 'United Church of England and Ireland, and of Co ring his unfeigned assent and consent to the Book toruon Prayer. sa • . . to th a w 0 . 0 injustice in requiring the clergy to conform s e Principles of the religious system of this country, tel ge as they remained in communion with it. There giv en be some jealousy created if greater latitude were Sly thou g h if hi s ow n opinion were asked, he should KZ °, colonists would not use unlimited freedom irn the"l; and that if unlimited freedom were placed in the r b .-ands, we should be perfectly safe. He would ask church to consider they were not dealing with the el o - e re .h at home, but with the Church as it existed in the fr ee ," l es• The state of the Church in the colonies differed !it W e e ttoh other as much as it differed from the Church tith In the West Indies there was a quasi Estab thee' Church which enjoyed every privilege there which AkiChurch enjoyed at home. If they went to the North ote n e e ri °on colonies they would find great differences tli n - i"„g the Churches, yet all possessing some valuable distr e t ions• Though there were the reserved . lands, *e r .`u among the several religious bodies, they th e ; not divided according to the number of bodice, th e r e fore it could not be said that %A n us equality prevailed in Canada. He would ask otie - `,, O nse , to put aside all idea of the Church at home, 4 0 ,,,ue Church as established in the West Indies and opt wineries, and look at the religious condition of le ts Australian colonies. In those colonies there was a Pter e equality. c al The Church of England enjoyed no th renee in those colonies. It is true the ministers of ltret e Church were salaried, and received stipends— tOilier, in some instances, than the incomes of other As a ste rs; but not larger by any act of the state. There te m 3 certain sum devoted to religious purposes, which tin e derided simply and solely according to the respec- Th er n urnber of the Zdifforent religious communities. qie,: e was nothing of a permanent character in these ae s "Ments—Parliament provided a certain sum, which tee et se t apart to pay ministers of all religions. Perim toeie 'tight alter this arrangement, and, if they pleased, ap e 40 it under the present Bill. There was not ll lensent of permanence in the existing arrange heo's; nay, he did not think thk holders had - the a ny vested interests in their appointments ee, e sY held the salary only for the time being. Pe e - ,:: appointments were not endowments because of any ak ee "uor religious profession—they were open to all reli t% -4 which were included in the number of Christian tel eo . . on e tithes. If this were so, then it was not just . _that hi religious profession should rest under disabilities sti e e , h t . the other did not. All ought to be put on an th e Ity. e . Government had no right—he would not say 11 41 C L ad not the power—to leave them under existing e ht kl ee "' ti es, owing to laws at home, when those laws had ten s ta ti s e - s" to have any power here. It was a case of if °Pen to the House. They could not play pran ks, wi th had been playing pranks in the Church here, le es t h e great principles of order, without producing th e ;"cal evils. He would show that evils did exist, and i e t he present state of things had been suffered to grow kf e ," l e Our colonies. He would refer to our colonies of A tis - f °outh Wales and Van Diemen's Land—of South i t , 4l !lia and West Australia—but West Australia was re so Pguificant that he would not refer to it. With not e s," to South Australia, the Parliament had not eela;nt practical information. He did not re- W k s that any kind of endowment of the Church )1 4 e' e n voted from colonial resources.—[An Hon. tettteer here made some remark.] He wes informed e oy fit . s °lnethin g slight of the sort had occurred. The semen Operation in New South Wales and Van Die thee," "'and was so nearly akin that he would take sit e - i . a a if the same; and inasmuch as the law was mor , e V e j e ' sa in Van Diemen'e Land than in New Souta th e he would refer to the law and the actual state of With 'nurch in Van Diemen's Land. The provisions taro regard to endowments were these:—When a ter tian n umber o f a d u l ts d ec l are d th e y b e longed to a Chris for ti c nraunity and had subscribed a certain am ount th e ° Stipend of the minister and their Church, then oorr State stepp e d i n an d gave it s aid in the shape of b a tin) j,P ° nditig contribution. It was also provided y r st tit t a c ia that no sal ar y s h ou ld be paid to a clergyman Ma `Out,appointment had been confirmed by her Ma "nu the governor—that such salary should not be be d tiled t o b e paid after such time as a minister might rule: Nived of his ecclesiastical office, according to the Pro v i Pf the community to which he belonged—that sei ste m lla should be made, in case sufficient ground gaged for suspecting that a minister was not en- Me d , , i n the duties of his office, to cause inquiry to be ae,...viento the fact, and if found not to be so engaged, to QhPtirrleh him of his salary. This was the nature of the no . e ndowment in the Australian colonies. It took ehurgmeance whatever of the difference between one N r c e n and any other Church. There were only three of eeeues named—the Church of England, the Church vowseretlan, and the Church of Rome; but there was cle trtt i t° endow all other communities of a i nChristia Us e e 'er• Therefore, the equality cf these religions w ee e ye, of the law was perfect and absolute. There l iitre nl . ll Y this difference—that the appointment of the thou g h, f England ministers rested with Government, %lino, certainly, the recommendation of the bishop had e o n' e uy great weight. In those colonies where the siastical laws of the Church of England h:u b een nominally t rans f err ed, nothing cou ld the, theore complete delusion and imposition Pot transfer. There was not a single n n of the ecclesiastical laws of the Church of England of which the observance could be enforced. Wautever was 631 - 1 e ill 01,16 by the good-will, the sense cf propriety, and the right feeling of the parties themselves, but not by the law. The law was bad here, and Arts had been rassed to amend it; but those Acts had no force. Tim ecclesi astical laws were modified when carried over to the co lonies; but under existing circumstances no modifications would render them applicable t ) the colonies. There fore they might be swept away at one blow without in convenience. Some bishops 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, fur any legal purpuae perfectly valueless, as, on the other baud, 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 uo 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 th al with general assertions only. Now what was the position of the bishop? He wets 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 bad not the means of bringing matters to a set tlement, whereas he had the power of inflicting the most grievous hardship on 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. Ir 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 was an act of pure will on the part of the bishop. No one could 'compel him to issue it. Without 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.—(Bear, 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, aed had none of the conditions which were 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 our 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 pended 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 fir testamentary purposes, but riot 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 vole or to withhold it sic co/o. Why did the Bishop exercise these autocratic powers ? Because he wus prevented by the uncertain stew of the law from 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 Smith 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 adoption 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 1501. 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 administration of any religious office is concerned, commencing with baptism and ending with the funeral service, there did not exist any means to compel the administration 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."] Ho 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? It these gentlemen were incompetent to the management ef their own affairs—if the members of the Church of England in the colonies could not do for themselves what the liomanists, 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 bad the Colonial Legislature the power to deal with it? The doubts which affected the ease 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 8.11 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. It' 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 freedom 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 fur 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 fur the principles of freedoin.—(Elear, 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. He also wished to say that he had treacle 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 grounds, but on principle. The Right Honourable Gentleman proposed to engraft en this Bill the establishment in Australia of a local ecclesiastical body independent of the Imperial Parliament or local legislatures. Mr. GLADSTONE—By private consent. Mr. LABOUCHERE—The proposal of the Right llon. 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 Parli-ament or local legislatures. [Mr. Gladstone dissented.] Did the Right Hon. Gentlemsn moan 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 re be voluntary—why should the Right Hon. Gentle e. ask tiro Reuse t., a: ;t with the Foams I.,ropeecd ? —(Hear, hrar.) Whams, es might be the intention of the Right Hon. Gent'emar, there could be lit le doubt :het the effect of the proposal would be the e-aehlish ment of en ecclesiastical synod to make laws, ince speetive of the local legislature or Imperial Parlianssnt, which should be binding on members s f the Church of England in Australia. lie did not understand the Right lion. Gentleman to say that the Colonial Le eisla , ure would have any power to confirm or reject the canons passed by such a se pod as that proposed. He very much doubted whether alt assembly composed cf the laity and clergy would be productive of any real benefits to the Church itself. But irrespective of such considerations, ho objected to laws being made by any body of men except the local legislature or Imperial Parliament. He 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 .pith 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 6ist4. Sir E. Wilmot recommended that any grievances should be remedied by the local legislatures, and Lord Stanley concurred in that opinion. An Hote. 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 be 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 hear 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. He opposed the principle of the clause because he firmly believed the establishment of any such,body as that proposed would he followed with consequeeces 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 Scotlend 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 laisrez 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 town eccle siastical assembly was not a new principle, but had been adopted by the United Protestant Episcopal Church of America, and had been found, he believed, to work well. If 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.) He 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 he 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 ont 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 ference 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 had fully recognised the right of the Church to exercise spiritual powers, in proof of which he would refer the House to the 15th 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 tribuaal of misconduct or neglect of 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 ecelesiastieal law. Having detailed some of the facts of the cases of the Rev. Mr. Wignaore, 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. It 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 ho 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. lie 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 in the colonies, nor to saection that which the Crown had already refused to do. He concluded by announcing his intention of voting against the amendment proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppposite.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the gal leries, having been cleared for a division, were closed for nearly ten minutes. Tho galleries wore then re-opened (no division haying 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 lion. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General would state his objections to it, but he had not done so. The Right Hon. Gentlemen 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.—(llear, 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.—(Rear, hear.) It was said that there was no obstacle in 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 of 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, hear.) 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 lion. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could, as a Churchman, object to that particular consti tution proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ( Mr. Gladstone). 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, were formed. lie thought the objection that the present proposition was an inchoate 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, clause was that its chief merit consisted in the fact that they did not m lee a ready cu:- .tucl-:!ry form for tie colunies, but let them enact the precise clauses neces sary for their own goverement. Inileed,the proposition appeared to him to embedy such a simple net of common justice that he thought it could be only met by some legal difficulty. lie did not think, howeeer, that the legal objections taken by the Hon. and Lear. e I Member for Youghal were t.mable. 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. He 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 happfly so free ?—(Rear.) 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 hal to stem 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 seeing 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 aoy 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 eb coent and able men, but the mast quiet men that were selected fur 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 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 l they want? To have the Church above the law—to have convofa'tiowsitting by the side of Parliament. "We have put dovin , that, Sir (said the Hon. Member), and we do not intend that it shall ever be revived."—(dear, hear.) That by a sidewind in the colonies was attempted. But they were not to be mys tided 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 wide of the English Parliament.— (Heei, 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 lassfull fir 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 th e assent of the said bishop, or of the majority of the said bishops, if more than one, to make all such regulations 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 placei 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—he 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)— ,, Y es ." (Laughter.] Let the House understand what that meant. First, he would strike out altogether the name of the United Church of England and Ii eland—they were 1,0 longer of that sect—they were pers?ns professing anything they libel-3 simple body of Dissenters, that chose to meet together, and why, then, should the Im perial Parliament pass anything about them at all ? (llean) 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 heal—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 mediaeval Church literature, painted windows, and all the fantastic proceedings which arose out of a peculiar state of ignorance —(Bear, hear. and a laugb)—these persons said " Let us go back to that medieval 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 ter.—(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; ho 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 23th of this month, he trusted he should have the support 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.) He bad tried to under stand this motion. He had asked many of his Hon. Friends around him to direct their minds to it; ho 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 p ar t o f t h e motion.) Was it at all in the scope of the English Church, was it in the c h ar acter or spirit of that Church, that the people should meet together, with the bishop at their head or outside, and that in Van Diemen's Land they should come to the conclusion that if she bishop did not accede to their proposition, then it was to be no proposition, but if ho did accede to it then it wa s t o b o a proposition? What was the ecclesiastic a l reve nue o f th a t state—what was the it3m in the miscellaneous estimates brought before that House to pay the said , bi s h o p? [M r . Gl a d s ton e — Then let them have no bishops. estimate ; before many days they would hileatrheeewerdeas was n an m there est w i as a te e . n ' ecclesiastical estimate for all —and when it came before the House he our—[Several Hon. Members—. No such thing."] ) it out to them, and then they would Well, then, let them pass . that by, if they liked—(Rear, point t alue of that cheer.—(Hear. hear.) He had under standwo and u l a d hp a eo u could ordinary not fought that question too often in that House not to know distinctly Oat there was a constant yearly payment for the purpose of the English Church, which he could well Church,ul: clerstsibidutthe English feelingsu ncierste of d when they made that Church, as it were, a separate and independent establishment, without the . eale of the Church of Eng land, and of Ireland, deriving. support from the HOLM_ 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 pettedly they should be an independent community of religionists , but first, as such w w i h th ich t l h ie e a body, they wanted no propositon from that House, and next, they were about to be under a L eg i s l ature in dependent of that House , and might be, what t h ey de clared they.wished to be—like • Jumpers."- -( A laugh.) Ile was told there were th ree bodies which they recog nised—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 a 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 he would ask a . nd de man d 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 proposition 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"--(' laugh)—he should have thoroughly understood him, and would have seconded it; but not haying done so he felt bound to oppose it. Mr. R. PALMER said ho was afraid, from the speech they had just heard, and from other symptoms which unfortunately no one could help perceiving, th a t 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 bad hitherto been accustomed, or those upon which those who were friendly to the . Church, t o th e Monarchy, or to the English Constitution, could wish to see it discussed.—(Hear, hear.) There were men—and he believed he was doing no wrong to the H on . an d Learned Gentleman if he inferred from hie 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 be 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 consiCeration of the Hou se . The only principle upon which an established church TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 7, 1850.' could which it as d of the ,(:14c+inscieneesefra. yfni : ni, e i tdr nbe s i: t ppeteeresionn i ii cse n :i.:ipnvei:l a btierli n —isii, y enhbanwsayeionaccEtt)sh o that country—the ifia s it s wasof only t Itlha ee p f r n i bn people.ac d i n l principle The was d v tfs e rint. r uoaorb t th h i t e ashhhnee r t(:e belief f sir eepment w,fs(olo:pewee or e t t trh e i b p s o :t h, e l. :b . 01 ;1 1 :1 t s r P b,i h; by the Eetehlishment.—("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 there elves; but they could not 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 society, 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 sax 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. He denied that. Every one know 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 bad always consisted of -a temporal and spiritual element, and that the latter was represented in convocation. That went down to - the reign of George IL 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 doctrines 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 convocation, in principle done the same thing as King Charles attempted to do e hen 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 r.s ever, and the reason why no motion was made for its restoration was because it was a body imperfectly and unsatisfacterily consti tuted, end 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 offfrom 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 fall 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 circumstances 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 have 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 ratron 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 float 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 be thought it desirable that the Church should do the work for which it was in tended, bat also becaeso he believed, though circute starces hat 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 Church 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 of increasing usefulness to all classes, he could not help deeply regretting the course taken by some members of the Church, which had lei to proceedings tending to exhibit the Church in a state of disunion—(Loud cheers) —thereby impairing its efficiency, and diminishing its usefulness.—(Re newed cheers.) After the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he had not anticipated that they would have been led into that far wider question recently adverted to, because the Right lion. 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. Ile 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 still they would not only be binding on the members of that com munion in fot o conseientice, 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 transf,rred 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 for 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 tngland; 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 bers from making any regulations they pleased inter se, by voluntary agreement, which might bind them in fora conseientim, just the same as Romanists, Wesleyans, or any other denomination. Why, then, confer on them the dangerous power of making regulations having the force of laws? It had been hinted that the Church of England laboured under some special disability. If so, let it be pointed out and removed, and place the Church on an equal footing with other religious bodies, and do not give special or peculiar privileges under the specious pretence of disabilities.—(Cheers.) Mr. ADDEIiLEY said the Right Hon. 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, like any other corporation, under the penalties of prce munire. The whole object of his Right Hon. Friend's motion was simply that the members of the Church might be able to meet and pass bye-laws, 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 had 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 England, us if it were proposed by the Right Hon. Member for the University to make a sort of intperium in imperio of the Church—as if it were to have extensive powers of legislation conferred upon it that would bind every man, woman, and child, and enable it even to im 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 some meins 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 Tote upon it simply as it stood, that it should he lawful ter the ,bishops and officers of the Church of England to meet together without incurring penalties. The Hot. nod 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 lion. 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 fur that disability ; and it only asked that it should be placed upon the same footing as other religious denomi nations, aad have the power of making bye-laws for itself in the same manner us any common corporation in this country, and no more. Mr. HUME said he took it for granted that no court of justice in the colonies would allow a prosecution for promunire; 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 prcemunire ; but surely the Hon. Gentlemaa must be aware:that trio statutes of pre munirs 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 loek at the terms of the Right Hon. Gentleman's mo tion. He 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 aid the Right Hon. Gentleman mean by the conduct of ecclesiastical affairs ? Did he mean the alteration of the Church service or the making of regulations for the direction of those who were members of the Church ? Ho 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 nic,, why not have a similar enactment far thit country ? It was supported neither by practice nor precedent, and ought not to he adopted. Mr. WALPOLE could not bat 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 tot 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 affairs. 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 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 moat 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 preeminence, 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.—(flear, 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 sheers.) And most willing was he to sub mit to any limitations, and any phraseology which could be devised or suggested, for the purpose of scouring that he 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 arid 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 rho clause.—(He.tir, bear.) The House divided, when there appeared— For the clause Against it Majority _ The clause was accordingly lost. Mr. ANSTEY moved the addition of the following clause:—" And be it enacted, that the said island of Van Diemen's Land shall, from and ef,er the passing of this. Act, be named and styled Tasmania; and that the said; island, together with the several dependencies of the . same, shall form one and the same colony, and be styled; and reputed as the colony of Tasmania." He thought that as the name of Port Philip bad been changed to. that of Victoria, that of Van Diemen'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 d e : to which they wore accustomed should be continued. 1 was hardly worth while, however , t o raise a discussion on the point without the opinion o f the colony being ex pressed upon it. The clause was negatived without a division. Mr. ANSTEY said the next clause he bad to pro pose was one on which be really must take a division.— (Laughter.) I t was as follows:—" And be it enacted, 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 respectively, shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the passing of the several ordinances co ns tit u ti ng th e sam e, 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 said recited Act contained to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding." No Hon. Member having seconded the motion, it fell to the ground amiist the laughter of the House. Mr. WYLD moved the addition of clauses for the pur pose of creating an executive council in the colony, corn 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 of 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 wa s also fixed for Friday? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would state on Friday what he should do respecting that measure. Mr. STAFFORD said relative to the Bill before the House, that in order to advance 300,0004, 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, miserable, 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 Chancellor of the Exchequer would hnsfa any objection to lay before the House a copy of the directions to the county cess collectors in Ireland ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCLIEQUER—Not the least. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. THE DEFECTS OF LEASES ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill was rca . l a third time and passed. SLAVE•GROWN SUGAR. Sir E. BUXTON stated that he had received that evening a notice from the First Lord of the Treasury to the effect that be was indisposed, and it would be incon 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 offer another day to the Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) Ho 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 itstlt 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 to-morrow (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 CL Brisco, M. Gladstone,`,W. E. Sullivan, Michael Brooks, Lord Gore, W. R. 0. Sutton,'lL M Cobbold, J. C. llornby, Joha Taylor, Thomas E. Cobden, R. Hudson, George Thompson, Alderman 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 Vyso, R. 11. B. H. Duckworth, Sir J. O'nrien Sir Lucius Williams, John Dundas, George O'Connor, Feargus Wyld, James Fitzroy, Henry Scholetield, William TELLIIS. Floyer, John Scott, F. Molesworth, Sir W. Fortescuc, Chichester Seymer, 11. K. Adderley, C. IS. MAJORITY—NOES, 165. Adair, R. Shafto Ferguson, Sir R. Mostyn, E. M. Anderson, Arthur Fitzpatrick, J. W. Norreya, 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, 11. B. Glyn, George Carr Paget, Lord A. Baring, Sir F. T. Grace, 0. D. Paget, Lord G. Barnard, E. G. Graham, Sir James Palmerston, Vis. Bass, Thomas Granger, T. C. Patten, J. W. Berkeley, Admiral Greenali, Gilbert, Peel, Sir Robert Berkeley, Henry F. Greene Thomas Pelham, A. D. Berkeley, C. L. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Pinney, William Bernal, Ralph Grenfell, Charles W. Plowden, W. 11. Birch, Sir Thomas Grey, Sir George Pugh, David Blackall, S. W. Hallyburton, Lord J. Raphael, Alexander Blair, Stephen Harris, Richard Dawdon, Colonel Bouverie, E. P. llatchell, John Rice, E. R. Boyd, John Hawes, B. Roche, E. B. Boyle, Colonel llayter, W. G. Romilly, Colonel Bramston, T* W. Ileadlam, Thomas Rotnilly, 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. Shell, It. L. Cavendish, G. H. Ileywood, James Shelburne, Earl at Cavendish, W. G. Hodges, T. L. Sheridan, R. B. Clerk Sir G. Howard, Lord E. Smith, J. A. Coiebrooke, 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 Jokn Stanton, W. S. Cubltt , William Kildare, Marquis of Stuart, H. Dalrymple, Captain Labouchere, Henry Tenison, E. Y. Davie, Sir,H. Lascelles, W. S. Thlcknesse, 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 Walmsley, Sir J. Ebrington, Viscount M'Taggart, SirJ. Wellesley, Lord C 7 Ellice, Edward Martin, - John Westhead , J. P. Ellis, John .., Matheson, James Wilson, James Elliot, J. E. Motile, Fox Wilson, Matthew Enfield, Lord Weigand, Viscount Wood, Sir Charled Estcourt, J. B. B. Milner, W. M. Wrightson, W.B. Euston, Earl 2dilnes, R. M. Young, Sir John Evans, Sir De Lacy Morgan, H. K. I'ELLIZS. Fagan, W. Morison, Sir W. Hill, Lord 3/. , 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 the management of the internal affairs thereof in the said alenies, 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 the 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." The House divided Adair, Hugh E. Archdall, Captain Bailey, Joseph Baldock, E. H. Bankes, G. Miles, W. Molesworth, Sir . W. Mailings, J. It. Mundy, William Naas, Lord Patten, W. Plowden, W. H. Rushout, Captain Sandara, Joseph Scholetleld, W. Scott, Francis Seymer, Henry liter Simeon, John Sotheron, T. 11. Stafford, Augustus Stanford, J. F. Stanley, Edward Stuart, 11. Stuart, J. Taylor, T. E. Thesiger, Sir F. Tollemache, John Trevor, G. It. Verner, Sir W. Villiers, Viscount Vyse, Walpole, B. II Wellesley, Lord C. Williams, T. P. Willoughby, gir H. Wood, W. P. Young, Sir John TELLERS. Adderley, C. B. Palmer, Roundel' MINORITY—AYES, 102. Disraeli, B. Drumlaurig, Via. Drummond, Home Duncuft, John Dundas, George East, Sir J. Edwards, Henry Evelyn, W. J. Farrer, James Fellowes, E. Filmer, Sir E. Floyer, John Forbes, William Fox, S. L. Gladstone, W. E. Greenell, Gilbert Grogan, Edward Gwyn, Howel Hale, R. B. Hamilton, G. A. Hamilton, Lord C. Harris, Captain Heneage, G. 11. Herbert, Sidney Hervey, Lord A. Hildyard, R. C. Hodgson, W. N. Hope, A. Hudson, 0. Hughes, W. B. Jocelyn, Viscount Johnstone, Sir J. Lockhart, W. Lowther, Colonel Manners, Lord G. Baring, Francis Batcson, Thomas Beckett, W. Bennet, F. Bentinck, Lord 11. Beresford, William Bernard, Viscount Best, John MAJORITY-NOES, 187. Grenfell, C. P. Owen, Sir Jahn Grenfell, Charles W. Paget,:Lord A. Grey, Sir G. Paget,,Lord George Grosvenor, Lord R. Palmerston, Vie. Hall, Sir Benjamin Pechell, Sir G. llallyburton, Lord Pelham, D. A. Hanmer, Sir J. Pigott, Francis Hardcastle, J. A. Pilkhigton, James llarris, Richard Raphael, Alexander thistle, Alexander Rawdon, Colonel Hastie, Archibald Ricardo, J. L. Ilatchell, John Ricardo, Osman Hawes, Benj. Rice, E. R. Hay ter, W. G. Rich, Henry Readlam, T. E. Robartea, T..f. Hcathcoat, John Roche, E. B. Henry, Alexander Roebuck, JA. Heywood, James Rom'llY , — ii - j — ok , Ileyworth, Lawrence Remitly, llobhouse, Sir John B itn se b° , l , d i, S . C a . B. Hobbouse, T. B. Rutherierd, A. Hodges, T. L. Scrope, G. P. Rollend, Robert Seymour, Lord Shell, R. L. Shelburne, Earl of I ii Howard.oo w w a r a rd d , JE L . o . f cc id K. U. E . Sheridan, R. B. Howard, I'. H. Smith, J. A. KA Howard, Sir R. Smith, J. Benjami n Hums, J. Aid * Somers, J. P. Ilumehern Jervis, Sir John Somerville, Sir W. Keating, Robert Spearman, 11. J. Kershaw, Stanton, W. H. Kildare am , j arqui es s Stuart, Lord J. Labouchere, Henry Stuart, Lord Dudley Laseelles, W. S. Sullivan, Michael Lemon, Sir Charles Talbot, C. R. Lewis, George C. Tancred, H. W. Lindsay, Colonel Tenison, E. K. Littleton, E. It. Thickness, Ralph Loch, James Thompson, Colonel Locke, Joseph Thornely, Thomas NV Gregor, John' Towneley, John M'Taggart, Sir J. Townley, It. G. Marshall, William Townshend. Captain Martin, C. W. Tufhell, Henry Martin, Samuel Verney, Sir H. Matheson, J. Villiers, Charles Mauls, Fox Walmsley, Sir J. Melgund, Viscount Watkins, Colonel Milner, W. M. Wawn, J. T. Milton, Viscount Westhoad, J. P. Mitchell, T. A. Wilcox, Brodie Morgan, H. K. G. Williams, John Morris, David Williamson, Sir IL Mostyn, E. Wilson, James Mowatt, Francis Wood, Sir CharleS Mulgrave, Earl Wyld, James Norreys, Lord Wyvill, M. O'Connell, Maurice O'Flaherty, Anthony mew. Ogle, S. C. Hill, Lard Manna Ord, W. Grey, It. W. Osborne, Ralph Blair, Stephen Blandford, Marqula Boldero, Henry Booth, Sir R. G. Boyd, John Bramston, T. W. Bremridge. Richard Brisco, M. Brockman, E. D. Brooke, Lerd Buller, Sir Y. Campbell, W. F. Carew, W. P. Chatterton, Colonel Cobbold, J. C. Cocks, Thomas S. , Co d r i n gton, Sir IN . Co!vile, C. R. Conolly, Thomas Corry, CuriiC, 11. Ramer, Colonel Adair, R. A. Anstey, Tkomas Armstrong, Sir A. Armstrong, R. B. Bagshaw, John Baines, M. T. Baring, Sir F. Barnard, E. G. Bass, M. T. Bellew, B. M. Berkeley, Admiral Berkeley, H. F. Berkeley, C. L. G. Bernal, Ralph Birch, Sir T. Blackall, S. W. Blake, Martin J. Bouverie, E. P. Boyle, Colonel Bright, Jelin Brocklehurst, John Brotherton, J. Browne, R. D. Bulkeley, Sir R. Burke, Sir T. J. Carter, J. B. Caulfeild, J. M. Clay, James Cobden, Richari Cockburn, Alex. Collins, William Corbelly, M. E. Cowan, Charles Cowper, W. F. Craig, Sir W. G. Crawford, W. S. c C D r ua o ri w ry n de i s, d er , Captain DaW6Oll, T. Y. D,Eyecourt, C. T. Divett, Edward. Duff, George S . . Duff. u n k c Douglas, 6 r V Ja me s sll James e O Duncan, l t Duncan, George Dundas, Admiral Dundas, Sir David Dunne, Colouci Ebrington, Lord Ellis, John Elliot, John Estcourt, J. B. B. Fergus, John Fitzpatrick, J. W. Fordyce, A. D. Forster, M. Freestun, Colonel Gibson, T. M. , Goddard, A. L. Grace, 0. 1). Greene, John UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON•—The Council 13 their session, on Saturday last, appointed Mr. Edward J. Chapman to the Professorship of Mineralogy, recently in: stituted by them. d- 1