The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-23 00:00:00

COLONIAL CHURCH.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of
the whole House on the Ecclesiastical Laws.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the immediate object of this
Committee was to enable him to do that which he could
have done had the House passed the second reading of a
former Bill which he had introduced. His intention
would have been, had that Bill been read a second time
to commit it pro forma, With the view of introducing
amendments which could afterwards be printed and
sent out to the colonies for consideration during the re-
cess. The Government, however, announced their de-
termination to oppose the Bill, and under all the circum-
stances of the case ho did not feel himself bound to press
the second retying. It was, nevertheless, desirable that
that the measure should be pot in such a shape as it
could be seat out to the colonies. All, therefore, that
he now proposed to do: was to move a resolution
to sanction the printing of the Bill with
amendments, which he would preset:fly explain to the
Committee. The time had arrived when it was indis-
pensably necessary that some legislation should take
place in regulating ecclesiastical affairs in the colonies.
Now there were two modes of proceeding for effecting
that object. They might legislate directly, and proceed
to establish ecclesiastical courts in the colonies, or
they might pass a Bill which should clear up the doubts
which at present prevailed in the colonies as to the con-
struction to be placed on the existing ecclesiastical law.
Diescpirolintested against passing anything like a Church
p
e Act for the colonies, because such
a course
would be unwarrantable interference with the
domestic affairs of the colonies. What they had now to
decide was -
on the
Subject or content themselves .
with simply passing
the law and
a declaratory and
the, colonial Churce.eertain powers and functions upon
confer permissive Act, which should explain
they knew not the a. It was objected, however, that
but so far from that teerneap.°fthe celnuies on the subject,
colo-
nial bishops was hoer the of
it was unanimously resolved Sydney, in 1850, when
to manage their own domestic a law, tare should be petitioned to that the British Legisla-
case, a meeting
as political matters. He knew, from in church as well
recently received from the colonies, information he had
were still of that opinion, and his enabling them
.that the colonies
solution as should
this Committee was to pees such a r Ject in proposing
meet those views. The Right Ilon,
which
formerly
the supremacy
Se-
cretary for the Colonies, when this eubjeet
Gentleman the
he had
before the House, complained that the Bill
brought in would place the Church of Engiattitliell
`destroy
dominant position, or destroyu a pre-
Crown, or break up the colonial Church into ofeetehie;
district churches, and for that reason the Right suo-r-i-
Gentleman withheld the sanction of the Government t •
the Bill. Now, the Bill was open to none of those oob-
jections; indeed, the charge that the Bill would
the supremacy of the Crown was not only unfounded,
but perfectly ridiculous. Tree, the Bill might absolve the
clergy from taking the oath of supremacy, because it was
useless to impose unnecessary restrictions upon the
Colonial Church. He therefore proposed to make no
change in that part of the Bill which related to the
Thirty-nine Articles, but with regard to the
oath of supremacy: there was a wide difference
between the colonies and the mother country.
At horns the oath was absolutely necessary,
but it was not so in the colonies. .But did he propose to
abolish the oath in the colonies? Certainly not. All
that he proposed to do was to leave it for the Colcnial
Church to decide whether the oath should be taken
in- the manner specified in the Thirty-nine Articles, or
in some other shape more adapted to the circumstances
of the colonies themselves. Restrictions, he repeated,
ought only to be imposed in cases of absolute imperil
necessity, and acting
upon that impression, ho had re-
frained from introducing a clause into the Bill pro-
viding that each law passed by the Colonial Church
should be subject to the vet s of the Crown, but that was
a mutt.er of detail which the Ht•use would hive to de-
termine when they came to consider its clauses. The only
real and practical relation that subsisted between the Co-
lonial Church and the Crown was that recognised in the
principle of patronage, and he proposed to niake provi-
sion in the Bill for continuing that relation
~and securing
the rights-of the Crown in that respect. His object was
that this Bill should be a relievinc, and a permissive
Bill, not an enacting Bill ; and he had accordingly
made certain changes in the phraseology of the Bill
so as to prevent its having the appearance of the latter
character. In the former discussion objection was taken
to the phrase " declared member of the Church of
England.' Now in England that was a phrase little un-
detstood, but in New Aealand it was well understood;
but, nevertheless, in order to remove this objection he
proposed to make the phrase run thus:—" Declared a
I boil fide member of the Church of England." These
were all the changes that he proposed, except that
he intended to add to the schedule, and it now
only remained for him to move the following resolution:
__.

" That the Chairman be directed to move the House,
that leave be given to bring in a Bill to relieve bishops
in the colonies in communion with the Church of Eng-
land, and the clergy and laity in communion with them,
in respect to legal doubts or disabilities affecting the
management of their Church affairs."
Sir J. PAKINGTON believed the Right Honourable
Gentleman who made this motion was actuated by the
purest and most conscientious motives; and it had been
painful to him to oppose the Bill which the Right
Honourable Geptleman introduced on a former
occasion. He repudiated, however, all idea of
being actuated by a party object in op-
posing the Bill. He complained of the course
which had been taken in reference to this subject. The
second reading of the Bill was ni`ove,d in the month of
-April, at a must inconvenient time, although the Go-
vernment had no intention of thWerting the Bill, and it
Was to be regretted that his sugggestion to postpone the
measure was not adopted. In spite of his remonstrance the
Right Hon. Gentleman made a long speech in moving
the second reading, and three weeks had to elapse before
he could reply to it. The consequence was that the
Right HondGentleman's speech worked its way in the
colonies without a reply, and three weeks afterwards the
would
felt great
Right lion. Gentleman wished for them to adictura
the debate, but he refused to accede to that
itp ro ()tad be
proposal, and he made his reply at length, concludiuz
witn a motion. Five weeks had elapsed since then, -
now the Right Hon. Gentleman came prepared witahnd
lengthened rejoinder to that reply. He admitted, with
previously
the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the colonies w—
reoCPehrurchtoof England,
interest in this subject, but
such a measure as this withour, c"d
with
indecorousconsulting
thaahnedads oifmthp
home and in the colonies. That opinion both at
the House on the former
the
he stated to
that they still remained without the et, and he repeated
lation ou the subject. Notwithstan-d-
-°unawork for legis-
had fallen from the Right Roe. Ging, therefore what
objections which he had already entleman as 'to the
former Bill, he begged to state urged against the
that
those objections, and he must he adhered to
pass such a Bill would be strikingrtspeat his fears that to
roacy of the Crown, and a a blow at the supre-
nial Church.—(Efeae, hear,
damaging the Colo-
)
Alter a brief discussion
.
Mr. HORSMAN said on a point of order, .
with
great caution in this they ought to proceed . h
twitter. The principles nest be
shown to be clear and
say he 'A as at ale unambiguous,
bag be was sorry to
object of
loss to discover what really was the
the Ileaht a
- - on. Gentleman in pressing :the
resolution.

(LEFT SPEAKING•)