The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

COLONIAL CHURCH REGULATION BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY stated that this

was a permissive and not a compulsory measure. Its
main object was to empower the ecclesiastical authorities
in the colonies to hold conventions, and to frame rules
and regulations for the management of their Church.
Lord MONTEAGLE urged several objections 'to the
bill, which he declared would be an apple of discord
amongst the colonial clergy.
The Bishop of LONDON said that whilst his noble
friend in the first part of his speech expressed great
pleasure at the introduction of. the bill, which was calcu-
lated to remove all the objections of the petitioners, the
remainder of his speech was occupied in showing—he
trusted not to the satisfaction of their lordships—that
the difficulties.werb not removed by this bill, and that it
was calculated to introduce greater evils than ever. He.
thought the bill effectively provided against the dangers
pointed out by his noble friend. He hoped, therefore,
that their lordships would pass the bill.
The Earl of EIARROWBY said that the bill seemed
to him to omit that which was its very object, 'namely,
the providing of some tribunal for getting rid of improper,
clergymen. (Hear, liear.)
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said that not
only was there no specific provision for that purpose in
the bill, but it was intentionally left out, because it was
considered that this was a, matter which would be better
lift to those in the eolony, than that they should consti-
tute such a tribunal here, at so great a distance from the
colony.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said the bill was intended.
to be merely permissive. It was to enable the members
of the Church of England to do such things as the mem-
bers of ail other religious communities could do. It was
a case, therefore, in. which they were not to look for
compulsory power, either from the local assembly or the
crown, or, least of all, from the imperial legislature, to
give force to these regulations.
The Earl of DERBY said that in that case the synods
would have the same power which the dissenting bodies
had, namely, would be able to deprive clergymen of
their benefices.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that was most
carefully guarded against, not only by the fourth clause,
but also, by the way in which the first clause was drawn,
from which it would be seen that these synods would
have no power whatever over or against the laws of this
country or the colonial laws. Everything of a compul-
sory or enacting nature was carefully avoided through-
out the bill. It gave, no additional privileges to the
Church of England beyond what it now had, and it
merely removed such disabilities as placed them at the
present moment in an inferior position to dissenting
bodies. There were three objections made to the bill.
The first was that they were creating a dominant church
in that colony. But that was not the objection which
his noble friends (Derby and Harrowby) felt. The se-
cond objection was that they were likely to create dis-
sensions amongst different members of the Church of
England. That was a result which he should deprecate
as much as any one, but the clauses of the bill were so
carefully drawn that he thought that danger was com-
pletely obviated. The third objection related to the
supremacy of the crown, which it was said was placed
in jeopardy by this bill. But the rights of the Crown
were not only specifically saved by the power of the
veto, but also by enacting provisions which declared no
regulations should be made against the Thirty-nine
Articles. He did not apprehend any danger therefore
from the bill. -So far from there being any danger that
clergymen would be removed from their benefices by the
synod, he was inclined to think that the only danger
was that, by endeavouring to save the rights of the colo-
nial legislature in every instance, so that there might be
no dominant church, there might be wanting some of
the power which it might be desirable the church should
possess if it was not objectionable on other grounds than
those which exclusively referred to the church.
The Earl of HARROWBY did not not think that any
answer had been given to his objection.
The Bishop of SALISBURY said he conceived the
state of the case to be this. 'Every church had in itself
a natural and inherent right of regulating it own discip-
line. Therefore every church had the right to make ar-
rangements is to the manner in which its own discipline
should be exercised unless that power should be prevented
by extraneous impediments. They believed that the
church in the colonies had the right to exercise discipline
of this kind, but certain imperial laws put such incon-
veniences in the way that that power was not capable of
being exercised. The object of the bill was to remove
those impediments, and to give power to assemblies in
the colonies to define the rules• under which that power
should be exercised.
The Earl of HARROWBY said that after all he had
heard it appeared to him that the bill ought not to pass
in its present shape.
The Bishop of OXFORD said the church in the colo-
nies was to be regarded as a purely spiritual body,
while the church at home was a mixture of persons hav-
ing different spiritual and temporal rights. The bill
would give no power to depose clergy from any civil
status which they might possess. There were few cases
in the colonies of clergy being possessed of benefices ;
the great body received stipends or salaries, so long as
they held the license of the bishop of the diocese ; but
when that license was withdrawn, the salary was stopped
also. This had been felt to be a great hardship ; and it
was therefore proposed to give the synods such powers
of discipline as the church at home would possess if it
were not in alliance with the State. The synods would
have no power to remove those clergy who were in pos-
session 'of benefices, which were civil rights. The bill
was confined to regulating spiritual rights. He could
not approve the suggestion which bad been thrown out
of giving ecclesiastical courts in this country juris-
diction over the church in the colonies. This would
be an interference with the rights of the colonies, and
would not be received with favour. To establish such
ecclesiastical courts in the colonies would have the effect
of exciting the jealousy of other religious bodies, who
would see in it an attempt to elevate the church on a
pedestal above them. By merely assisting the colonial
churches, as it were, in the formation of synods, the bill
went as far as it was safe to proceed in that direction.
It would strengthen the Church of England by enabling
it to lay down rules for its own conduct ; and he hoped
the house would consent to it. It was objected that
the bill gave power to an ecclesiastical body • but it only
gave that power to the whole body of the church, lay as
well as clerical, by agreement amongst themselves. It
was the only means of enabling the church in the
colonies to manage its own affairs.
After a few words from the Earl of DERBY,
The LORD CHANCELLOR suggested that the
objections might be removed by the insertion of a few
words at the end of clause 3 ; to the effect—" or de-
prived of any civil rights to which he may be by law
entitled."

This was agreed to, and the clause as amended was
adopted.
The Earl of HARROWBY moved the omission of a
portion of the first clause.
The Bishop of OXFORD said that the bill was the
result of very careful deliberations, at which three
bishops of the North American Church, and episcopal
representatives from Australia and the Cape had as-
sisted. ' The bill expressed the wishes of the colonic
church, and ought not lightly to be altered by their lord-
ships. It simply removed the disabilities of the imperial
law, which prevented the colonial bishops from meeting
together in synod, if they thought it desirable, to con-
sult for the good of the church ; but it gave no powers
of compelling attendance, or of legally enforcing the de-
cisions of such synod. The system was already practi-
cally at wock in the church of the United States, and
had been found very greatly to promote unity of feeling
and action. He trusted, therefore, that their lordships
would not allow any mere theoretical objections to
weigh against the bill ; for he considered that nothing
in'the'world would tend • more to maintain the connec-
tion between the church at home and in the colonies,
than this very moderate check upon 'individual eccen-
tricities.

After some conversation 'the amendment was with-
drawn, and the clause was agreed to.
On clause 5, which provides that none of the acts or
regulations of the synod, shall be at variance with the
Book of Common Prayer, or the 39 articles of faith,
Lord MONTEAGLE found fault with the clause, be-
cause it provides against the discussion of doctrines of
faith, or secure the supremacy of the crown. Nothing
had produced so much discord in the Australian colonies
as the wrangles about faith and doctrine which had taken
place amongst the clergy, and now that this bill was
before their lordships something should be done to pre-
vent a recurrence of these unseemly divputes, and he
would therefore move the- insertion of words providing
that the acts or regulations of the local synods should
not effect matters of faith or doctrine, or the supremacy
of the crown.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY 'said the words
proposed to be inserted would render the clause vague
and uncertain, and he would much rather that the clause
passed as it stood.
Lord MONTEAGLE said the clause would not pre-
vent those unseemly differences in discussions upon
matters. of faith or doctrine which had given rise to so
much dissatisfaction in Australia, and he was afraid if
the clause were not altered in the manner that he pro-
posed, the bill would be little better than a firebrand to
the colonies.

The Bishop of OXFORD said the noble earl was
quite mistaken in supposing that it was the discussions
'or controversies of the clergy which created so much
dissatisfaction in the Australian colonies. What created
that dissatisfaction was the absence of any ecclesiastical
assembly which embraced the lay element. The ground
of complaint on the part of the colonists was a just one,
for they thought the bishops and clergy were going to
constitute themselves into a provincial synod, while the
orders and regulations 'of the Church would be altered
or amended, without the assent or intervention of the
laity. While he was upon this point, perhaps their
lordships would permit him to correct an error which a
morning journal had fallen into with reference to him•
self. He was represented to be opposed to the intro-
duction of the lay element into the assemblies authorised
by this bill, but so far from that being the case he ap-
pealed to his noble friend in the chair to state whether
he did not distinctly declare the other night, when lie
was moving the pro forma committal of this bill, that he
thought the laity had a right to the power which the
measure gave them. (Hear, hear.)'
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, lie had no
objection to introduce words into the clause which should
provide that none of the acts or regulations of the assem-
blies should be at variance with the standard of faith
and.doctrine.
Lord MONTEAGLE, adverting to what had fallen
from the Bishop of Oxford, said, on the third reading of
of the bill, he should be prepared to prove, from the re-
cords of the colonial synod, that the dissatisfaction