The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-20 00:00:00

who could not reconcile the various clauses of this Bill
with each other; for instance, mulct the provisions of
this Bill, men who were not members of the Church of
England in full communion might overpower those who
were, by their majorities, and thus be enabled to change
or alter the liturgy of the Church.—(Sear, hear.) And
yet another clause professed to give. a dominant cha-
racter to the Church of England, but before such a
legislature as that which prevailed in Canada and
other colonies, the Church of England would be
powerless, and declared members of the Church would
have no difficulty in overriding, for sinister motives,
the feelings and wishes of those members of the Church
of England who were in full communion.—(Hear, hear.)
Besides, if this Bill passed, the local synods would he
iu a position to place the home authorities at defiance,
and he was sure the House would never consent to the
second reading of a Bill which sanctioned such a prin-
ciple as'that.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.') But it was said
some change in the existing law was absolutely neces-
sary, and it was suggested that a Royal Commission
should be appointed to inquire into the matter in the
colonies themselves.—(Hear, hear.) He, however, did
not acknowledge such a necessity, nor did he think
this Bill was demanded by the colonies, and as it would
have the effect of separating the Colonial Church from
the State, he must give his vote in favour of the amend-
ment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. B. HOPE denied that the object of this Bill
was to place the Church of England in the colonies in a
state of supremacy, as was alleged by the Right Hon.
the Secretary for the Colonies, or to put the Church in
a state of degradation, as was declared would be its effect
by the last speaker.- (Hear, hear.) The object of the
Bill was to leave the disputes which might arise in
the Colonial Church to be settled by the
local clergy in connexion with the local legislature,
and as that was an object which was desired by the colo-
nists themselves, while it would elevate the character of
"the Church, he was at a loss to understand why the
House should ha called upon to withhold its sanction to
the motion for the second reading.—(Hear, heat)

The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said there were one
or two points connected with this Bill upon which he
wished to say a few words. He fully admitted
that the Right Honourable Gentleman who had
charge. of this Bill had made out his case that
the Colonial Church was in a most unsatisfactory state.
It did not enjoy the laws which appertained to the
mother Church, nor had it the same powers and privi-
leges which existed at home. There was no efficient
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the colonies, and the colonies
were, in fact, without the institutions which were known
at home as ecclesiastical courts. The only
power which the colonial bishops enjoyed
was that of removal without appeal, but the clergyman
obtained his stipend from the local lagialattrrt-, Over
which the bishop had no control whatever. There was,
absolutely no power of appeal or correction vested in
the bishop under the existing law, and as parts
of this Bill Wi37.t upon the supposition that
there was, it must be cleur to the House
that it would prove wholly inoperative. But, then,
it might be said the Bill would do this good—it
would empower the Colonial Church, both clergy an I
laity, to men and make rules for their own internal
government in the manner ahthorh:ed by the 25th of
henry VIII.; but the House must be made acquainted
with the fact that, in a lege! sense, the 25th of Henry
VIII. did not apply to the colonies, and was wholly
inapplicsble to the circumstances in which the
eelenies were at .present placed.—(Hear.) It would,
therefore, be quite impossible to carry out the provi-
sions of this Bill unless the Colonial Church were sepa-
rated from the State, and at once constituted a free and
independent church, which he was sure neither the
Houste"-nor the colonies wished to tee accomplished.—
(Hear.) Of what use, then, would be the passing of
this Ili!)? It would indeed be little less than a dead
letter, and he therefore hoped the House would refuse the
second reading.—(Hear.)
Mr. BETHELL did not think that the Act of Henry
VIII. gave the right of synodical action to the
Church. Mr. Gladstone had said that the mem•
hers of the Church of England its the colonies were
under great disabilities as compared with other
religious communities; but this was not so,
the fact being that the law afforded them the same faci-
lities for the regulation of their affairs as other religious
bodies. The Bill would interfere with the prerogative
and supremacy of the Crown, and that being so, he should
give it his opposition. Ho hoped the Right Honourable
Gentleman would withdraw the Bill, and introduce it
again in a shape more acceptable to the House.
Sir W. P. WOOD said it was admitted on all hands
that the Colonial Church ought not to remain in its
present state. He denied that the Church had
all the privileges of Dissenters in regard to
the management of her affairs. The Right Hon. Gen-
tlemen who introduced the Bill said its principle was
simply to remove the obstacles which prevented mem-
bers of the Church assembling and regulating their
affairs in the same way as religious Dissenting bodies,
and if any of the clauses deviated from that object there
would be ample opportunity to amend them in Com-
mittee. He was far from saying that all the clauses
were free from objection, If they gave the Church of
England fair play, and left her unfettered, he had so
much confidence in her integrity, that he believed she
would exert herself, as she had done in America, to pro-
mote the cause of religion. Though there was not
much chance of passing.e. Bill this session, he trusted
the time was not far distant when Parliament would
seriously direct its attention to the subject.
Mr. HORSMA.N observed that Mr. Gladstone had
stated his object was to leave the Church in the colonies
entirely unfettered. Did he mean to say there should
be no State restriction on the one side, nor State advan-
tage on the other? He agreed that perfect religious
equality was the best principle to adopt in the colonies.
The. Secretary for the Colonies had given a pledge
to Isgislate on the subject next year, on the
ground that the condition of the• colonies, in
regard to the Church, was in an extremely
unsatisfactory state, and under those circumstances he
suggested the Bill should not be pressed. He warned
the Secretary for the Colonies that legislation on such
a question would be attended with great diffi-
culty, and would require much caution and delicacy.
The effect of the present Bill would be to establish one
state of church government at home and another in the
colonies, an arrangement which he thought was cal-
culated to give rise to considerable evils.—(Hear.)
It was impossible to show that the provisions
were consistent with the rules and regulations
of the Church of England. The proposer of the Bill
said h wishedecitouagiiity give to the members of the Colonial
Churcho that which was enjoyed by voluntary
religious bodies, but that could be done without an Act
of Parliament The Free Church of Scotland made rules
for her own government, but sheedid not ask for the in-
terference of the Legislature to enable this to be done,
because it wee unnecessary.
Mr. GLADSTONE inquired if the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary of State would have any objection
to lay on the table of the House the correspondence
'between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop
of Sydney ?
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, that .as the correspond-
ence was a private one, he could not undertake to lay it
before the House.

The an,ntimeat was then curried without a division,
and the 1i,06e proceeded to the other orders of the day

COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS BILL.
Lord uonaT GROSVENOR moved the second
reading of this Bill.

Mr. B. DENISON said that, having had
some
p Hence in county elections, he was satisfied ex'
that
county electors might be polled in one (ley. Hehal
scarcely ever known an itee.anee where the result of the
first day's poll bad been reversed by the second day. A
county election was always a holiday, and gentlemen
who were acquainted with the manufacturing districts
would acknowledge, as he did, the evil effects of the
second day's election.
Mr. PACKE opposed the Bill.
Col. SHIT/WRY said the Bill was a disgrace to a
civilised community, and he hoped that the House would
give a decided negative to it.
Mr. W. BROWN thought the Bill would be a great
benefit to county constituencies, and he should therefore
support the Bill.
Mr. LOCKE KING supported the Bill.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought that every Hon. Member
who had any wish to put an end to the system of inti-
midation at county elections, would vote for this Bill.
To say that there was no such thing at county elections
was absurd, when they remembered the very singular
correspondence which had been given to the world within
the last few days between Mr. Ker and the Marquis of
Londonderry.
Mr. BRAMSTON opposed the Bill on the ground
that if a third candidate were suddenly started without
notice on the polling day, there would be no time to
carry out the arrangements.
Mr. R. PALMER thought this was an alteration
which ought to be made at some time, though he did
not think this the proper season.
After some remarke from Sir J. Pakington, Lord R.
Groiiven_br, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
The Bill was read a second time.
motion for
M"NOOTH COLLEGE.—ADJOURNED DE-
Onloth the • theßAfaTrEth.
er adjournment of this
many Hon.
dembarte.
Members thought
said, as that was a day on which
exist, at anyrate
thought that this House would not
allow of an t that it would be too near its end to
he investigationwhivedto of this nature to be carried
out,
those who hive instituted
what were the real intentions of
said that as his Hon. Colleague
Mr. NEvinEaltt=d the motion?
urpOse -
(Mr. Spoonerto)
'wb Eli:* et with an accident he had
h° had
made
ed
progress of this motion.
he thiel
Fdeosriredthihsimp
uo inquiries,give himand
as her Majesty's
the first day on which
ward with a view 'to
faodunayd specially
Ifnetrh the; purpose—(ironical cheers)—he
this motion could be brosugghtitelvfa94o:
re it ho Ltilecni:.ia which the country
mtohboett aiienai ni
renewal of the debate for that day.
discussion. As this was
h of f
hadth e
felt House
him-
self in
illidthbeefo .
Lord J. RUSSELL said that fizin
he thou ht g the debate for so
late a period was, . g , a mere mockery If
twh ae form
as
desirous
to fix hfioexf
was to be an inquiry into the system offsd - • there
sued at Maynootb, it could not b .ucation w-
could not commotion n 7 a Com-
mittee, which its sittings
before the 18th of June, and could not continue them
longer than a few days. He thought this was treating
disregard and
the question with great, he hopede that if-
the question could not be brought on
sooner, that
it would not be brought 011 at all. tie himself
~.
subject,
but not opposed to inquiry on this L.l°bject,
but still ho could not say that he was was prepared to
vote for the motion of the llon. Gentleman, for it was
one thing to propose to inquire whether the spite, of
education at the College of Meynooth was such es it
ought to be, supported by a Government grant,
and another thing to question the very
grotrndi - on. which the grant was, .s made.