The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-22 00:00:00

Lord MONTEAGLE said the clause would not present
those unseemly differences in discussions upon matters of
faith or doctrine which had given rise to so much dissatis-
faction in Australia, nod he was afraid it the clause were
not altered in the manner that he proposed, the bill would
be little better then a firebrand to the colonies.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, he bad no
objection to introduce words into the clause which should
provide that none of the acts or regulations et the assem-
blies should be at variance with the standard of faith and
doctrine.
Lord MONTEAGLE, adverting to what had fallen from
the Bishop of Orford, said, on the third reading of the bill,
he should be prepared to prove, from the records of the
Colonial Synod, that the dissatisfaction arose not so much
from the cause stated by the right rev. prelate, as the fear
that the controversies of the clergy, backed by the authority
of the bishops, were calculated to narrow the communion
of the church.
After a few words from the Bishop of LONDON; who sup-
ported tle clause sa it stood,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said the noble earl had
shown that controversial discussions had arisen without any
act at all, and he for one very much doubted whether any
legislative enactment could suppress them ; but as for advo-
elites the suppression of discussioa by a specific act of
parliament, when so many of their own proceedings teemed
with the result of discussion, was simply ridiculous.
The Duke of ARGYLL, for his part, thought the bill
was by far too stringent in its restrictive powers end
'
if it had been proposed by an independent member
without the support of the government, he should have felt
bound to resist it. (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of HARROW BY suggested the propriety of in-
troducing words to prevent the assemblies from widening or
narrowing the church.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said tho only effect of such
an amendment as that would be to prohibit the synod from
interfering with the rankest heresy that might spring op in
the church.
The Bishop of OXFORD contended that the clause was
sufficiently stringent to keep the synod within the bounds of
the prescribed formulas of the church, while with regard to
that pert of the amendment which related to the supremacy
of the crown, what necessity was there for that when the
bill distinctly provided that all the acts of the colonial
synod should be subject to the veto of the crown.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE contended that the intro-
duction of the words "the royal supremacy of the crown
of Beg:and " was quits superfluous and unnecessary. It
was because he wished the supremacy of the crown to
remain undisputed that he opposed the introduction of
those words.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that at the time of

the reformation amongst other statutes there was one
which said "our sovereign lord the king shall have the
title of supreme head of the church of Christ in England,"
or words es that effect. That set was with others repealed
in the reign of Mary, but they were revived by the first of
Elisabeth, which did not, however, revive the title in ques-
tion ; nevertheless, at the same time, it said " her
sovereign lady the Queen shall be supreme in all eases, stela-
siastkal and civil." Therefore by common parlance, and
not at all inaccurately, we spoke of " the supremacy of the
crown." In the sense of being at the head of the eceletias-
tied as well as the civil establishments of the realm, the en-
acting that nothing could be done that would affect the
supremacy of the crown would be tantamount to saying that
nothing should be done which would affect the supremacy
of the crown in temporal matters, and every act of parlia-
ment which was passed did that; it would therefore be
unnecessary.
The clause was then agreed to, as were the remaining
clauses, and the preamble.
The house then adjourned at half-past 9 o'clock.