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

into this subject, rather than oppose the Bill.—(Hear.)
Had the Government taken that course he 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 got 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 tho motion for
the second reading of the Bill might be postponed until a
future day.
Mr. GLADSTONE, who had charge of the Bill, had
no objection to postpone tho second reading if.the House
would allow him now to state the object of the Bill.
Mr. HORSMAN objected to this, 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 upon colonial legisla-
tures, but if it were thought fit he should be 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 he
should desire for the Church in the colonies,
and none other. Ho hold in his hand an
Act of the Parliament of Canada for the disendowing of
certain rectories, in the preamble of which was contained
an express 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 been 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. Ho 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
ecclesiastical legislation, that it was partial, that there
was no evidence, that by adopting the Bill they would
bo acting in ignorance of the views of the parties
concerned—were no longer applicable to the pre-
sent Bill.—(Hear, hear.) There was a great
difference of opinion among lawyers as to whether
the ecclesiastical law of this country could be extended
to the colonies; but whatever might be the real strength
of the legal power, this was certain, that for all prac-
tical purposes the ecclesiastical law had no operation
whatever 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 eatablish 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 proposed 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; ho did not mean it offensively;
but there was no legal authority to back his; 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 ho called on the House to
stop 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, ho 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
Archbishop of Canterbury, who, however, was obliged
to tell him that ho had no power because there had
been no 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 seven 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 diocese. The question was, how the
remedy was to be applied. Some advocate tho es-
tablishment 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 tho Bill.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that after the able speech
of the Right Hon. Gentleman the House would feel that
it would bo requisite for him (Sir J. Pakington) to go at
seine length into this subject. Ho should therefore
move the adjournment of the debate.
The debate was then adjourned until the 19th of May.
Tho House adjourned at Six o'clock.