The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-29 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 28

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition- of yesterday.)

ABOLITION OF UNIVERSITY TESTS.

Mr. MONCRIEFF moved that the University of
Scotland Bill be read a second time.
Mr. F. SCOTT was in hopes that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman would have stated some grounds to
the House for suggesting the approval of this measure,
and he regretted that, in the absence of any grounds
being advanced, he was compelled to give it his opposi-
tion. This, however, was no new question to the House
or to the country. It appeared to him a great misfor-
tune that a Bill involving a principle in which the
people of England and Scotland took so lively an interest
should be submitted to the House without sufficient
reasons being shown for its necessity, The petitions in
favour of a repeal of these tests were few and scanty, and
the number of signatures attached to them were insigni-
ficant when compared to the extent of the community.
On the other hand, the petitions which were opposed to
the repeal ought to carry great weight with them, not
so mach on account of the number of signatures,
as from the standing and influence of the peti-
tioners. He considered that the House ought to
be very careful before it sanctioned any measure
so subversive of the Scotch Universities and
the position of the Scotch Church, and detrimental
to the education of the youth of Scotland. At the time
of the union a contract was made to the effect that no
professor, minister, or other functionary should be ap-
pointed in connexion with the universities of Glasgow,
Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, and Edinburgh, who should
not subscribe the confession of faith of the established
religion, and their intention of conforming to
the Presbyterian Church. Now he contended
that a treaty ratified in so solemn a manner
should not be set aside but for strong and convincing
reasons. He perfectly admitted that university tests
were not at all times rigidly enforced, but the object of
imposing them on the professors and instructors of
youth was to give some guarantee to the people of
Scotland that their children would be imbued with
sound religious principles and be brought up in the
faith of their forefathers. There was no nation
of religionists who did not think it of the
greatest importance that the teachers of youth should be
attached to the purest form of worship recognised ley the
great mass of the community. The practice of imposing
tests had existed 150 years in Scotland, and its bene-
fieial effects had during that period been thoroughly re-
cognised. In what country was the education of the
people more moral or religious? Where was there
found among the lower orders more signal instances
of moral worth, and what people had more distinguished
themselves by their advance in life in all quarters of the
globe? He considered that no institutions were more
valuable than the parochial institution in connexion with
the Church, by which the people received education. In
1825, in consequence of some relaxation of these tests,
and the rigid interference and control on the part
of the municipal autherities of Edinburgh over the
university of that city, a royal commission was issued to
inquire into the course of education adopted in the
University of Scotland. That Commission was com-
posed of the Earl of Roseberry, the Earl of Aberdeen,
Lord Medwyn, Chief Justice Hope, and other distin-
guished persons, and after considering the
subject of university tests they unanimously
agreed that they should for the future be
rigidly enforced. The report of that Commission, com-
posed of these able individuals, was directly opposed to
theproposal of the Hon. and Learned Member. The
Hon. and Learned Member' when he brought forward
his Bill last year, argued that the Universities in Scot-
land were not founded with the intention of their
being mainly devoted to the education of the
clergy—that they were not appendages to the
Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and that there W 23 no
necessity for a professor in those Universities entertain-
ing any religious opinion or notions whatever. Now he
contended that, inasmuch. as the Universities of Scot-
land were not founded mainly for the education of the
clergy, as the English Universities were, the legislators
of Great Britain ought to ;eke great care that religion
was caudally instilled into the minds of the laity, and
that the- youth of the country should hove a sound
moral combined with a religious education.—(Hear.)
There was, in fact, in England no parochial system of
education whereby the schoolmaster was appointed to
act in co-operation w th the parish authorities ; whereas
that was the case in Scotland, and there was an in-
timate connexion between the Universities and
the Church. New, the object of this Bill was
to sever that connexion, and be wanted to know upon
what ground it was proposed to make the change. Was
it that the Church had unduly exercised its authority,
or was it that the Church had not rigidly enforced the tests?
If this Bill was proposed upon either of those grounds,
he was prepared to controvert the position . Had the Church
rigidly enforced in all cases these tests he could have un-
derstood the motive for introducing the Bill; but as the
Church had wisely, and judiciously, and graciously exer-
cised its authority, the House ought to hesitate before
it adopted this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Bat he might be
told that the Church was not so powerful as it was for-
merly, and its followers were on the decline. Well, if
that really was so. why introduce a measure which could
have no other effect but to still further weaken the
Church?—(Hear.) On all grounds then he opposed the
principle of this measure.—(Hear, hear.) Then, as re-
gards the professors, were they to reduce the qualifica-
tion of those officials? Certainly not, and as the pro-
fession of Christianity, as taught by the Established
Church of Sootland,was considered the main qualification,
he could be no party to its abolition in the manner pro-
posed by the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) But were these tests
peculiar to the Established Church ? He believed not,
for all the doctrines of the Christian Church required
that their collegiate teachers should subscribe to some test
of one sort or another, and if this were not so, he
wanted to know what security there would be against
the teaching of irreligion and the growth of scepti-
cism.—(Hear, hear.) It was for this very reason
that not only Scotland, but every other Christian
country, insisted that their university professors should
give some guarantee of their religious belief, and if the
House determined to alter that system as regarded
Scotland, he was convinced her Universities would
rapidly decline.—(Hear, hear.) If this measure were to
pass a very great injury would be inflicted upon the
Universities, because it would admit professors into their
chairs who were followers of no religion at all, and as the
present was not the time for abolishing any of the oaths
established by law, he demanded that the Bill should
be thrown out.—(Hear, hear.) The Protestant religion
of the country was not so free from attack as to make
the parsing of such a Bill safe, and he would
undertake to say that nothing was more cal-
culated to promote scepticism and irreligion than the
abolition of the tests enforced by the Universities of Scot-
land.—(Elear, hear.) Recent events had served to bring
to light the enemies who were prepared to assail the
Church of England, when the opportunity for doing
20 shall present itself ; and he could assure
the House that those enemies were comparatively feeble
when compared with the enemy which this Bill, if it was
ss'ed, would raise up against the Church cf Scotland.—
(Sear, hear.) It was one thing to relax the teats, and
another to repeal the:a altogether; and since the Church
of'ltlie d"Pitrd a. sound discretion in the administration
,
testa. he protested against any change being
mate in t
system.—(Hear, hear.) He should there-
fore move
as
an amendment that the Bill be read a
second lime that
Me, hiCiagea, day six months.
not new to
the
said the subject of the Bill was
matter e House, for as far back as 1845 the
therefore did underwentnot a full discussion, and he
motion for the ; think it necessary to preface the
( Hear, hear.) Reeed_nd reading with any remark--
grounds upon tat;,fdild, however, now explain the
that the Government
heathe proposed it. He was sorry
to the adoption
of did rant see their way
hid measure, because
former Governmente a
of those Honourable GatittYnee'
to it, as well as some
Treasury bench. He aednr zi who now occupied the
Steed that 52 petitions had
been presented in favour of the
and 48 against
it, bat these latter -did not
Scotland, but the Church, while the from the people of
tee former came prin-
cipally from your counces and corporations,
which showed pretty conclusively that ti a fact
Scotland were net oapesee to 44, ,2 people of
nee hear
Ha keno, indeed, that they had no eat), to -)
dal
_pot value -them
these tests; they , but, on mthaetntain
,
vary, they ,wished to see them abolished, and necothr";
Church could
not enter: c 3 theinty it was ridiculous to tell
him that this Bill, if. eastied, world endanger the stabi-
lity of the Church. Fie
proposed
.tondo away with a greet
practical evil, for a religious tent wen-311 was so roi_.ously
disregarded was veottliless.—(Hear, hear.) ecoula
only be enforced for the g
ehe of caprice, while it ex-
cluded those from the 'Universities whom the frau:lota of
exeitute.—(ll-ear, bear.) But
the tests had no desire to
nor had it
the tests were:
.worthiess becaa -o the Church
had not the pewer to enforce !Meal'
any control, ovtr the professoeY,. (Hear, hear.)
All classes of, relieioniate atteaded the Universites
of Scotland, as
teem ewes no domestic or rd.:ere:Re
discipline obterved sneh as was to be foaled prevailing in
the Bigliele Univereitieseand when the student left the
univaesitibe ;yea beyond the, central
of his professor.
N.)W, what was the oriein of these tests? Why they
were established by: two Acts, one passed in 1690, and
the other in 1703, and it woulcaseom the object of these
Acta W 23 to, exclude Epieeopalians.from the Universitie.s.
That was certainly the object, of the first Act; while m
170aa when the:pion between' the 'two- countries was
under discussion', it was urged
'
that England being
a seppeirter of ?rote. hannetn, the' union would injure
the Presbyterianitin 'of ahhodana. and :he. second Act
waa pasSed to meet that objection.—(llesr, hear.) It
wheelear, therefore, that the object of both Acts was to
exealade Episcopalians, and the Acts provided that all the
professors appointed to Scotch Universities should declare
their adiwsion to the Presbyterian institution of the coun-
try. Well, then, the object of this Bill was to modify that
law, which had never been rigidly enforced, and which
wee openly violated by the 13olingbroke Act shortly
after it ern; enacted.—( rear, hear.) What had
bran effzet of the law? Why it had produced
more miserable biekerings and dissensions in
lees to oeet,han anything else, and he was at a
the ttila ette.nd upon whet ground this remedy
law had could resisted.—(Hear, hear.) The
a rainerity Pna"ttetl the Church of Scotland in
followers, meal °feat, with the people, hut its
nothing but this ~,r;t2"iffered with the Church in
eluded at least half Of taatt—(llear, hear.) The law FX-
not oithstanding that the, People from the Universities,
he insisted it was not the, sound in doctrine, and
They worn the barbarous retsina
maintain those tests.
age; they wore of no use whatever a leaaenlightened
inflicted great injuries *liven atio7t be en the contrary,
woalJ do well to abolish them.—
reale, and the HOMO
was Said it was necessary to preserve thanerbear.) But it
sake a previastinc,,, irreligion and a.. tests for the
these tette do that? Certainly orleism; but did
most bfilliunt professor would never emaaY of our
htd woe obtained

chairs. Indeed, had th,e tests been rigidly enforced,
such men as Forbes and Bf -ewster,
U. who were Episeopa-
liens and could not take
,e oaths, would have been
precluded froth accompiishirk" the wonders they had
done?—(Hear, hear.) Of tho eighty professors in
the Universities, twenty-four had not subscribed to
the tests, while in reference to
many recent appoint-
ments many eminent men, who es, ere sound in doctrine
and unblemished in reputation, heel been excluded from
chairs because the Chen .eh authorities sud-
denly took it into their heads to enforce the
tests.—(Hear, hear.) Now, we s that 5
state of things
which ought to exist, for the se ke of koepisug uP an old
and obsolete law? Well, then, .
upon these grounds he
asked the House to pass tie is Bill, and to do away
with the needless and useless to sts.—(llear, bear.) They
might, perhaps, be modified, bi it that was no reason for
rejecting this Bill, while, wit a regard to the Act of
Union, these tests could be 31 codified or abolished, as
they had served their turn, wit pout in anyway violating
the principles contained in the Act of Union.—(Hear.)
He therefore thought the time was now come when he
might appeal to the House that for the advancement of
science and religion those tests should be repealed.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said th at the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had either I moved too much or proved
nothing at all. Whatever wer e the numbers of the Es-
tablished Church of Scotland, t hey had certain privileges
to which they had a right, a nd he would oppose any
attempt to deprive them ,of! them. It was said
that they had no right :;to impose these tests;
now he would ask any Romans Catholic gentlemen pre-
sent whether he would admit 'kite any college which he
supported a Presbyterian prof at isor, or any Presbyterian
gentleman whether he would eadmit a Roman Catholic
professor? He contended di at the superintendence
over the education of the r .eople of Scotland was
a vested right in the Est ablished Church, and
against this he could listen to no petition, how ever
great might be the personal cet (slides and respectabi:ity
of those from whom they might proceed. For this rea-
son he should oppose this Bill,
Mr. BETHELL supported tb e Bill.
Mr. WALPOLE said that, though the Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman opposite had said that the Bill
was opposed by the Governme I it, even before any mem-
ber of the Government had spoken, it was still quite
true that that was the case, mild, indeed he could scarcely
understand how any Government, whoever they might
be, could do anything but opp ase this Bill. In the first
place, the Bill was a direct vii elation of a national con-
tract at the time of the union, evhich it would now be a
breach of faith to interfere wi tin except on very strong
and conclusive reasons. d,t the time of the
union the Commissioners iv ,re precluded by the
preliminary conditions from in ti 3rfering with the manner
of public worship and with the universities already esta-
blished in that country. He th o ught that the case which
had been mane out for disturbing the Act of Union was
one of the weakest which he had ever heard made out.
The Honourable Gentle= i 3 i opposite had cited
the fact that 24 professorial chairs were now filled
by gentlemen who could not take the tests as an
argument for doing away with t gists altogether—(Hear,
hear)—whereas he took it as !a proof that those who
had the control over these matte rs did not put into force
the full stringency of the powie r in their hands when
they found that it was not necet ,nary for the purpose of
preventing the ingress of person is likely to misuse their
position. Ho had not heard, and he did not know,
that these tests had wee ked ill with regard
to the education of the ;youth of Scotland—
quite the other way, in fact, as fair as his knowledge went.
Another objection he had to th is Bill was that it was a
violation of the Ecclesiastical El :ablishment of Scotland;
and if they did it in this inse ince they must do it to
England and Ireland as well. He had objections
to the details of the Bill, and ho thought that
the second section of the Bill, .which went to retain the
tests as applied to the theoles 'kill and church-history
chairs, was of itself a proof th.e t the framer:, of this Act
thought that it was to a t* rtain degree' necessary
to fence about with tests the mil gious educationb of the
country. For that reason he felt It his duty to oppose
thi.; Bill.

ANSTEY supportEd the second reading of the
Bill. He considered th© 0pp0Z.72, ion as prompted by the
bi7,ot3 of the Church of Scotland.

Mr. E WAR r said the Bill wa necessary, in the first
place, losceuse the law had :area ly been violated, and
secondly, because they had now only an uncertain tribu-
nal to regulate those matters.
Sir A. CAMPf3ELL joined issue with the Hon.
Member who had just sat down as to the violation of
the treaty of union, which he Lad said afforded a suffi-
cient reason for passing the Lill. He did not consider
that either the alteration of the representation of Scot-
land by the Reform Bill, or toe alteration of the right
of patronage in that tour ,try, was an infraction
of the treaty. That treaty was made between
two independent countries, and any interference
with its articles would be a positive violation of good
faith. The House could not fail to arrive at the con-
clusion that the Bill originated with those who opposed
the Established Church of Scotland and the church esta-
blishments generally, and he warned the House against
giving its sanction to a principle which, if adopted,
would lead to the entire subversion of the established
religion of that country.
Mr. HUME entered into a statement of the number of
students who matriculated at the colleges of Cork and
Galway, for the purpose of showing that Roman Catho-
lics were not afraid to send their sons to seminaries
presided over by Protestant professors. He considered
that this measure was consistent with the wishes and
wants of the majority of the Scotch people, who were
opposed to the continuance of any religious tests in
universities.

Sir G. CLERK observed that the tests were first im-
posed to guard against the Jacobite party, who wished to
seethe exiled family restored to the throne of Scotland.
He thought that the recommendations of the Royal Com-
mission to continue the imposition of the tests ought to
have great weight with the House, composed as it was
of members of different denominations and of every shade
of political opinion. It was the general opinion in Scot-
land that these tests ought not to be abolished, because
they were the only link connecting the Universities
of Scotland with the Church of that country. When
the tests were enforced, in consequence of the
suggestion of the Commission, no dissatisfaction
was occasioned, though it was a time of great excite-
ment, when there were loud outcries for the redress of
all kinds of grievances. On the contrary, a disposition
was evinced by the people to maintain that form of re-
ligion to which they were sincerely attached, and for
which their forefathers had bled. Neither was there
any objection to the tests during the excitement
produced by the Reform Bill. The movement
which originated the present Till took its rise on a
more recent occasion—he alluded to that great seces-
sion from the Church in 1344, which he, as a Scotch-
man, looked upon as ono of the most unfortunate and
melancholy events which had ever taken place in the
country. He contended that the people of Scotland
wore justified in availing themselves of their ancient
right to prevent persons becoming professors who would
not submit to the discipline of the Church. Ho was de-
sirous that Scotland should maintain that proud distinc-
tion for learning and science for which it had been so long
distinguished, but the effect of the Bill would tend in the
other direction, and, besides, he thought it was only the
first step towards a greater alteration in the constitution
of their universities and seminaries. He hoped ,the edu-
cation of the youth of the country would never
be entrusted to the hands of those who
would not subscribe to the belief and great
doctrines of the Christian faith. This was only
the commencement of a very grave change in the edu-
Cational system of the country as by law established,.
and, once sanctioned, it would be impossible to maintain
the Church of Scotland in its integrity. The Bill was
intended to apply to Scotland, hut would be extended to
the English Universities, and also to private schools. It
was on these grounds that he opposed the Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL owned that he had heard
nothing which ought to induce him to oppose this Bill.
The speech of his Hon. Friend who had charge of the
Bill, he thought, was unanswerable, and the last speaker
had failed to controvert any arguments which had been
urged in favour of the Bili.—(Hear, hoar.) It was said,
indeed, that the law as it now stood was not obeyed, and
the House was asked of what use the repeal would be.
—(Hear, hear.) And he was surprised to hear the
Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the
Home Department following up the same ar-
gument; for he for one believed that a
law, which was systematically disobeyed, ought no
longer to remain in force. In point of fact the law was
never enforced at all except in some few individual
cases, and in the generality of these cases the law never
contemplated touching those individuals. Well, then,
ought such a state of things to continue? He confessed
he Wee favodrable to a change, and nothing which he
:had heard in the hostess() of this debate was calculated to
alter that opinion. The last speaker told them that the
student's were not subject to any test, and the consequence
grace to the
isallhlassti's of religionists were admissible into the
professors Universities
werey eth et
owtaenatc. wanted
thoseto im psotsuedteensttss._up(oHn
students.—(Hoar,
rant, and
heat.
monc.e
cto.
ar.) Such an anomalous state of things was a dis-
Legislature; it was both unjust and intole-
hpeurned to a conviction that the House ought
!th end to it.—(Hear, hear.)
The practical of lightly to BRUCE insisted that the law ought not
repealed and done away with.—(Hear.)
the existence of °tree:llene° was supposed to arise from
further reasons for e tests, and in the absence of any
the Bill than those which he had
already heard, es
its further progtess.—rniateesoffer his decided opposition to
r, hear.) Religion and edu-
cation should not be separated,theP.3oi and that, he believed,
Bill would have that effect thee of
was the opinion of
Scotland; and as this
it wttree
Houseunanimously
then poapy-
more delay to reject this
posed to it.—(Hear, hear.)
some deference to the opinion of the great body of the
,0 epee and agree without
'highlyu objectionable, because irreligious measure.
-
Mr. OSWALD claimed the attention of the
a short time upon this momentous question. (:I!3° for
He die not
jeientt, bhealt in least
disguise the momentous nature of the
sub-
-1843 the House neglected to take advantage
of the crisis that then existed to settle this matter, and
they had only themselves to blemo for the delay which
had taken pleca in the settlement of it.—(Hear,
i hear.) Fie lean listened attentively to the arguments
which had been urged from the Treasury bench
against this Bill, acid ho confessed without hesitation
that he had heard nothing which should induce him to
first
to the
hot lawyer
reject the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) It was said in the
place that the Bill was opposedi Act of Union,
and in the second that it mut& endanger the religion of
firsNtOoWf thhesee :Tenons but he
the Act of Union' which
eSnegutig4hnlito•—d(clicideleru' pboneatrh.)o .
thought there was nothing
doingin the
'las to the other • •
°base-
Steitland—(Eleer, hear)—white,
of
ought to prevent the House ustice to the people of
igeore ear.)
rel. • —(H
rather than promoted the interest of
it
tion, he knew that the existence these tests retarded
to inquire
Go-
vernment had issued another Commission
It would have been much better, therefore, the

into this subject, rather than oppose the Bill.—(Hear.)
Had the Government taken that course ha should
have been prepared to support them, more espe-
cially as it was exceedingly desirable that this
session should be shortened as much as possible.—
(Hear, hear.) He should, however, vote for the Bill,
and endeavour at all risks to get rid of a grievance
which the people of Scotland could no longer tolerate.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... ... 157
Against it 172
Majority against ... ...-15
The Bill was accordingly thrown out.
COLONIAL BISHOPS BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill,
Sir J. PAKINGTON requested that the motion for
the second reading of the Bill might be postponed until a
future day.
Mr. GLADSTONE, who haTcharge of the Bill, had
no objection to postpone the second reading if the House
would allow him now to state the object of the Bill.
Mr. HORSMAN objected teethis, but was called to
order, there being no question before the House.
Mr. GLADSTONE then rose to move the second
reading, and proceeded to state the object of the Bill. It
was to enable the Church of England in the colonies,
if it could be be legally so designated, to manage
its own affairs, subject to certain limitations,
which Parliament would have to decide.—(Hear,
hear.) The same privilege was enjoyed by every
other church in the colonies, and he hoped the House
would eventually see the necessity of conferring a
similar power upon the clergy and laity of
the Established Colonial Church.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bill in no respect trenched sepeil colonial legisla-
tures, but if it were thought fit he should4bee. very glad
to insert an express clause saving the rights of those
legislatures. The Bill, in fact, was not so much a
Colonial Bishops Bill, but rather a Bill for the colonial
clergy. It proceeded on a great principle which he
hoped to see more acted upon in that House,
that of leaving the colonies in the uncon-
trolled management of their own local affairs,
whether ecclesiastical or civil. He had not the slightest
wish to trench in any degree on the religious liberties
of any community, because, even if the gift of civil pre-
ference in the colonies were offered to what was called
the Established Church in this country, he for one
should reject it as a fatal gift, and one containing a
source of weakness to the Church herself. Full and
perfect equality was the condition which be
chould desire for the Church in the colonies,
wed none other. Ho held in his hand an
Ac..t of the Parliament of Canada for the disendowing of
certa in rectories, in the preamble of which was contained
an eeoress declaration that the principle of perfect re-
ligious equality among all religious denominations was
that on which colonial legislation was to be conducted.
Now this., Act had gone through the usual formulas, it
had bema laid on the table of both Houses for
forty days, and had, therefore, with the consent
of both Houses, received the assent of the Crown, and
this House now stood committed, as well as the
House of Lords, to the principle of religious equality in
the colonies. He hoped, therefore, he should have the
assent of Hon. Gentlemen in his efforts to establish a
system founded on this principle of religious equality.
a system which in his opinion was the only one that
could be made to work in the colonies. In 1850 he had
introduced a subject of this nature to the atten-
tion of the House. The ground of his case
was that the state of the law in the colonies
was so tangled that it was impossible for any one to
understand it and act upon it. The objections which
were urged against that Bill—that it was a part of
ecciosiastical legislevion, that it was partial, that there
was no evidence, that by adopting the Bill they would
be acting in ignorance of the views of the parties
oe,cei—were no longer applicable to the pre,
eseonn re
tßelL—(flear, hear.) There was a great
difference of opinion among lawyers as to whether
the ecclesiastical law of this country could be extended
to the colotdes; but wh-itever might be the real strength
of the legal power, this was certain, that for all prac-
tical purposes the ecclesiastical law had no' operatior
,hhtevor in the colonies. There were no ecclesias-
tical courts in the colonies; nor was he one who would
be ready to introduce them there. Efforts, however,
had been made to establish such courts, particularly by
the Bishop of Tasmania; but his efforts had re-
sulted only in an examination by the Dis-
senters, who objected to these courts, of
the very patents under the authority of which
the Bishop propoed to establish them, and
in the ultimate decision by the law officers of the
Crown that the patent had pretended to give power
to the Bishop which her Majesty was not competent to
give, and therefore the whole attempt fell to the ground.
The whole power exercised by a bishop in the colo-
nies was merely arbitrary; he did not mean it offensively;
but there was no legal authority to back hisj udgments, and
he had no means of satisfying the public that justice had
been done. This he thought was not what ought to be
the state of the case, and he called on the House to
step in and alter it. It was said by some persons
that there was a power of appeal from the
colonial bishop to the archbishop at home; and with-
out dwelling on the fact how absurd it was to send a
man 16,000 miles for redress, he himself was not certain
that there was such a power of appeal. In fact,one gentle.
man,. Mr. Wigmore, had travelled the sixteen thou-
sand miles to appeal against his bishop to the late
Archleishop of Canterbury, who, however, was obliged
to tell him that he had no power because there had
been n o process. If such was the case with the
clergy, it was much worse with the laity, who had no
appeal whatever even in cases most extreme in their
nature. With respect to the feelings of the colonists
themselves on the subject, they were well aware
of the difficulties of their position ; they dis-
claimed any civil preference whatever. Out of
the thirteen dioceses to which his Bill would be
extended, eleven of the bishops had expressed their de-
cided opinion in public acts that some provision was
necessary to give a more settled and legal
position to their powers and operations. The
same was the case with the clergy and the laity in at
least iseven of these dioceses, who had declared their
opinion to the same effect, that for the government
of the Church some synodical action ought to be
given by legislative enactment to the clergy and
laity of each diccese. The question was, how the
remedy -was to be applied. Some advocate the es-
tablishmeeit of a Parliamentary constitution of the
Church in the colonies. Ho would be the last
man to sanction any such establishment, neither
did he think the House of Commons would sanc-
tion the introduction of such a scheme, nor the colonists
accept it. He himself wished to leave it a matter for
the colonial legislatures and the members of the Church
themselves to settle what should be their mutual rela-
tions and connexions. The Right Hon. Gentleman
concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that after the able speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Louse would feel that
it would be requisite for him (Sir J. Pakington) to go at
some length into this subject. He should therefore
move the adjournment of the debate.
The debate was then adjourned until the 19th of May.
The House adjourned at Six o'clock.