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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 19.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yester day.)
COLONIAL BISHOPS BILL.
On the order of the day being read for resuming the
adjourned debate upon this Bill,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought it would be very
inconvenient to go on with a debate which was not
likely to be attended with any practical result. Ho
hoped that when the Secretary of State for the Celonies
had stated his views on the subjeet he would move the
adjournment of the debate.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said, after the course
taken by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the
University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) he felt it his im-
perative duty to explain to the House the views which
he entertained with respect to the Bill. Though at first
sight the Bill appeared to be very simple and straight-
forward, yet, on looking into it more closely, it would
be found that it was the worst measure on ecclesiastical
matters which had for years been introduced into the
House. If passed in its present form it woalci be the
first step towards changes which might be desired in
our ecclesiastical polity by a certain party, but which
were opposed to the wishes of the great body of the
people both in this country and the colonies. While he
admitted that the Right Hon. Gentleman was actuated
by most pure and conscientious motives, he would not
yield to him in attachment to the Church, or in a desire
to hand down to their descendants in the possessions of
the British Crown all the blessings of the Church, with
its Protestant simplicity, purity, tol ration, and charity.
—(Hear.) He wished our distant colonies, which in-
herited our language, laws, literature, and freedom,
to possess also the blessings that were to be derived
from the reformed Christian faith, which was
so closely associated with freedom. The wants
of the Colonial Church *vete chiefly threefold—.
first, its inability to make regulations for its own
discipline ; second, its want of synodical action,
and, lastly, its want of power to adopt Its
forms and liturgy to the requirements of a
missionary Church, which the Colonial Church to
a great extent was. Sir J. Pakington then alluded to
the agitation which took place in Australia respecting
the Gorham case, and to the resolution come to by the
colonial bishops to exclude every one from the Church
who dissented from the decision of the Privy Council
in that case-
Meetings of the clergy and laity were
held in the colony on the subjece•and addresses were
presented to the Crown against the resolution of the
bishops. Now, though (Bir J. Pskington) wool' never
be a party to narrow the broad and comprehensive basis of
the Church, he ugreel with his Right Hon. Friend that
there ought to be some change of the law. In conse-
quence of- the representations sent home, the attention
of the Archbishop of Canterbury was drawn to the sub-:
ject, and he fel:, it was time some legislation should take
place, in order to put the Colonial Church on a better
tooting. He wrote to the Bishop of Sydney, and he re-
ceived a reply from him sating that he would as-
nemble the clergy and laity, and collect their opi-
nions with the view of estistieg towards the pre-
parsticn of some leg;sletive measure. Now
did the Right Hen. Gentlemen think it expedient to
press the Bill while this iequiry was pendires? He
thought the mach hstter cents- would ha to eithdraw it
for the present session. The Bill was drawn in terms so
iedistincc, and in language so open to doubt that he ques-
tioned whether any two lawyers ce,ul.l be found who
would agree as to its reel effect. lie doebted whether
any colony would venture to adopt the Bill, or whether
any church would vsionre to regulate its proceedings
by it. If pess(-d, the Bill would have a threefold
eff,et; first, instsrot ot eirieg the Colonial Church that
evality which had beta meetioned, it would place it in
a state of dominstion which it rover before possessed;
secondly, it wcuid tend to brink up the Church Eog-
land into a number ot small :separate churches,.
and; thirdly, it would tend to destroy the supremacy of.
the-Crown. One part of the hilt provided that no
person -should be confirmed, consecrated, ordained, or
presented to any living who had not previously taken
the oath of allegiance. This involved an alteration
of the service ot the Church of England, because tee
oath of supremacy which is es now required to be taken
had been dispensed with, and the oath of allegiance sub,
stituted for ihee(Loud cries ot " Hear, hear.") This
was the first time of its being proposed to
appoint persons to ecclesiastical posts in the Church of
England without requiring them to take the oath of
supremacy. It might be said, however, that the reguls-
tion did not extend to the colonies; bat as early as the
reign of Elizabeth, it was enacted that the sepre•
many of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical extended
to all the realms and dependencies of the Crown.
With reference to the demand made by the colonies
themselves, he fully agreed that from Canada, Australia,
and the Cape of Good Hopo.there had proceeded re-
quests for legislation in order to give them more
liberty of self-government; bat be did not know of any
request having proceeded from any one colony
praying to have this Bill passed as it now stood,
or of any 'desire having been manifested to separate
from the connexion of the Church of England, or to
reject the supremacy of the Crown. In fact, the desires
of the colonists were by no means directed to such a
sepatation or repudiation, their only object was to
obtain greater freedom of action, and he held in his
hand expressions of opinion from Melbourne, Adelaide,
Tasmania, and Cape Town, which entirely repudiated
any wish to separate from or to weaken the connexion
with the Church at England, but rather to strengthen
it. Being convinced, therefore, that this Bill
went to 'destroy the connexion—though he
thought that the Right Hon. Gentleman him-
self would be slow to du that if ho know it—
he could have no other coarse but to oppose this Bill. He
hoped that the Right Hen. Gentleman would not proceed
ihrther with this Bill, seeing that negotiations were now
going on between the Archbishop of Canterbury and
the Metropolitan of Sydney, from which, no doubt,
some measure would result, and he would say this mnch,
that if the H.mourable Gentleman would consent not to
go farther with this Bill it should not be his fault if in
another year some legislation did not take place. Agree-
ing, to a considerable extent with tee principle of the
Bill, he would not move tbet it' he reed a second thee ou
that day six mouths but wotild propose that the House
shoukl now pies to the other orders of the day.
Mr. ADDERLEY rose to move that the debate on
this Bill be postpetted for three days.
The SPEAKER informed the Hon. Gentleman that
there being already one amendment before the House,
that must be disposed of before a second one could be
proposed.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he would not now at-
tempt to reply to the speech of the Bight Hon. Baronet,
for the reasons he had already given; but he had a pain-
ful duty to perform, that of noticing in the speech of the
Right -flon. Baronet one of the grossest misrepresewa-
times he had ever heard. The.main part of the Right
Honourable Gentleman's objections to the Bill
had rested on the assertion that there was
the first attempt to dispense with the supremacy of the
Crown is the colonies, and that in the ordination of
priests the oath of allegience was only required to be
taken, and not the oath of supremacy. Nor was the
selaseription of the 36th canon. The Right Hon. Gen-
t4eaten, in reading the 7th clause, in which he said
thdispensation was contained, had stopped short in the
middle of the sentence, and had forborne to • tell the
~
Itt3e what was the
tha,,es real condition imposed on the eau-
it sh for ordination. The teal condition was not tnat
-child be unlawful for any one to be ordained artier
havin taken
el auseg went merely the oath of allegiance, bat the
the Theft". to say that he should likewise subscribe
his unfeigned :articles, and further declare
gYe'eadialassent and consent to all that
was contained
Now, the 37th.of r thG B k of C3MMOLI Prayer.
avicantvria
da9 Articles contained as full and
coMplete an
Crown, and a ropudittet* gement of the supremacy of the
of Rome, as was contained of the authority of the Pope
in the oath of supremacy,
and the 366 h canon, ana,edt
to his view, the
re-
quiring a subscription 01 Bill, by
tthhe 39
Right Hon Articles—a fact which
had been kept back by
asserted the principle of the. Gentleman—
quite as fullysupremacy of
the Crown as it could have
dens
ein say other manner.
With regard to the veto of the
onasrtireweis, that he should
considerabley; if they chose
• leave in the hands of the Rouse
to retain it he thought it would be ofser-
vice, but if not he should acquiesce lia itsrejection.
' Sir J. PAKINGTON said he was Seery that h
Hon. Friend should have had occasion to
thinkllaa nit
thhe
had been misrepresented by him,
he had not, for form's sake, read t- e and he regretted th out O remainder at
of
the 7th clause. Notwithstanding the remainder of
clause, he still believed, and still asserted, that this Bill
dispensed with the oath of supremacy and wkibeins 36t h
canon of the Church.
Mr. OSWALD said the Right Hon. Baronet gie Se-
cretary of State for the Colonies seemed strangely
ignorant of the Book of Common Prayer, or he would
havelnovro that the service for the ordination of deacon,
contained a subscription of the oath of supremacy and a
renunciation of Papal authority, and as this Bill required
the consent of all persons to be ordained to everything
contained in the Bodk of Common Prayer it could
scarcely be objected to it that it did away entirely with
the oath of supremacy. The Right lion- Baronet's
speech only showed that the Government bad not been
able to make up their minds on this as on every other
subject, political or ecclesiastical.
Mr. ADDERLEY said, it was with great pain that
he found himself compelled to differ from those with
whom he generally acted, but he could not consent to
submit to a delay of this measure, on grounds which he
considered so wholly futile as those which had been given
by the Right Hon. Baronet. He felt the two alternatives
which the House had to choose between were the second
reading of thistßill or an interminable postponliment of
a measure acknowledged on all sides to be necessary.
He therefore pressed upon the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had brought forward this Bill—who was the great
authority and support to whom, as he knew, the colonies
chiefly looked—the responsibility of not consenting to
this delay, and he urged upon him the necessity of great
consideration before acquiescing in the course suggested
by the Government.
„Sir R. H. INGLIS disputed the position which the
e'tous Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire
had taken
up, while he denied the fundamental princi-
pleepoh W bleb it was proposed this legislation should
proceld. Neither the Church of England nor the
Church of Item
the local tlibunal e had ever permitted the existence of
Which this Bill contemplated. There
was a unity of
action in all churches, and in the
heads of all was
disputes between Its vested the !sewer of settling
and me fel bers.—(Hear.)
That was the rule which prevailed in reference not only
to the Church of England and
Church of Rome but
also in reference to the Wesleyan Church and the Free
Church of Scotland.—(gear.)putt
ofn allth these churches,
' evh4o4 had ministers in every
world, the ap-
sospahilsfaitcaees of dispute was to the eentriel head at home,.
I.anCiOwes an every-day occurrence to have
t thori
such appeals
tgiehath Sou. Baronetof
I
hdiephestA of by the superior ecclesiastical
\',1041%ie4 —(Hear, hear.) Like the
Right
! e tart' for the Colonies, he was
one of those'.
Jo ehh Lee ,
‘‘,.7y