The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-21 00:00:00

LUPE RIAL PARLIA ME NT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)

COLONIAL CLERGY DISABILITIES BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. HADFIELD moved as an amendment that the
bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. A. PELLATT seconded the amendment.

Sir G. GREY said he had read the bill carefully, and
was utterly at a loss to know what was its legal effect.
He hoped the Solicitor-General would explain this, and
also the extent of the power to be given to the colonial
Church synods, whether extending to matters of faith
and doctrine, or only to temporalities. Also, whether
there might under this bill be a different form of Church
government for each colony, and how obedience to the
regulations thus made was to be enforced. (Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that when he
had applied for leave to bring in the bill, his statement
of its objects had not been sufficient to place them be-
yond doubt. He thought that hon. gentlemen would
have seen from the bill, if they had not derived from
his statement, an explanation of the propriety and ne-
cessity of the measure. The necessity for it arose in
this way. In an early parb of the Reformation, in the
25th year of Henry the Eighth, it appeared right to
Parliament and the country, under the influence of that
monarch, to vest in the Crown an absolute power of
prohibiting any meeting whatever of the clergy ; and
the act made it perfectly unsafe for the clergy to meet,
in any form or manner, for the purpose of adopting
regulations, or entering into any contract or agree-
ment touching ecclesiastical matters, unless convened
for that purpose by the express authority of the
Crown. (Hear, hear.) Not only could they not meet
without the authority of the Crown, but if they passed
any resolution, order, or ordinance of any kind at such
meeting, it would have no effect whatever without the
sanction of the Crown. Hon. members would at once
see that when bishops and clergy were sent to a
colony, they were sent there bound by that chain ; be-
cause that statute created a particular relation between
the crown and the clergy ; and when the supremacy of
the crown was afterwards declared, first by the 26th
Henry VIII., afterwards repealed, and then by a subse-
quent statute, the enactment to which he had referred,
entering of necessity into the relations between the
crown and the clergy, would constitute a part of that
which thenceforward became denominated the supre-
macy of the Grown over the church. That act applying
to all the dependencies of the crown, foreign as well as
home, it followed that the clergy of the colonies were
under disability with regard to meeting for the
purpose of making ordnances for the regulation of the
church in the colonies. The bishops, clergy, and laity
of the colonies, were bound by a chain, and the object
of the present measure was to enable them to do that
which all other denominations of Christians were able
to do—namely, to make regulations and ordnances
which would derive their force from mutual agreement
amongst the parties who agreed to be bound by them.
The present state of things was most unsatisfactory, and
at variance with what was essential for the proper main-
, tenance of discipline in the colonies. For instance, in
the case of a complaint against a clergyman in this
country the matter was tried before the proper tribunal,
but in the colonies the only remedy was an appeal to
the bishop, who became thereby a sort of autocratic
power in the colonies. (Hear, hear.) With regard to
temporalities, the state of things in the colonies was
still more unsatisfactory, because, by reason of the
act to which he had already referred, the members
of the Church of England were unable to meet
and make regulations with respect to any endow-
ments or gifts left to the church, whereas the Metho-
dists and other denominations, being under no such
restriction, were able to lay down forms of procedure
by mutual agreement, which secured to them the en-
joyment of their temporalities. In this respect, there-
fore, the clergy of the united church of England and
' Ireland were in an unfortunate situation as contrasted
with other denominations. It appeared, therefore, to
him, that there was a legal and moral necessity for the
introduction of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. CHAMBERS said that after listening to the
speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, he felt more
doubt and difficulty with regard to this bill than he did
previously. (Hear, hear.) What the colonists wanted
was a native, national church, forming an integral part
of their own institutions, though united in affectionate
alliance with the united church of England and Ireland.
Any other system would be a fruitful source of discord,
and give rise to perpetual heartburnings and jealousies.
Mr. MOWBRAY said that the bishops, clergy, and
laity of the colonies had set their hearts on some such
bill as this, which would enable them to make regula-
tions for the welfare and discipline of the church. In
some of the colonies meetings had already taken place,
and it was better to remove any doubts that might exist
as to their being legal or otherwise. (Hear.)
Mr. KINNAIRD did not think the Government had
acted cavalierly in regard to the bill of last year, for
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the best
fight he could. He thought this bill an improvement on
the bill of last year, but as he still entertained suspicions,
that the objections to the former bill were not entirely
removed from this bill, he would vote against the second
reading.

Mr.-NAPIER confessed that after all he had heard he
was not able up to the present time to understand the
bill. (Laughter.) He would, therefore, look at the bill
itself, and kis vote should be guided by the result of that
investigation. As at present advised he preferred the
bill of last year, because it appeared to be more distinct.
Mr. WALPOLE said it was clear to his mind, and
he thought it must be clear to the mind of every gentle-
man, who had read the account of what took place in
the colonies, that the church there laboured under dis-
abilities which it was necessary for the legislature to '
remove. There were two practical grievances that re- '
quired this, but before they went into committee upon
it considerable time should be allowed for ascertaining
if the bill accomplished the object in view without inter-
fering with the supremacy of the crown or law of
England.
Mr. MIALL was willing on all occasions to extend
religious liberty to any religious denomination, even
though that denomination inflicted upon the dissenters of
this country great injustice and wrong ; but when it
was said that this bill would place the church of Eng-
land upon the same footing of equality as the voluntary
body, he must be allowed to ask whether the church of
England would be placed on the same footing as the
other denominations with regard to its connection with
the state. It was because there was a political con-
nexion between the two, that this bill was required, and
it was clear to his mind that the object of giving this
liberty to the church of England was to maintain that
political tie. He should, therefore, vote against it.
Lord J. RUSSELL rose, not with the view of
explaining this bill, which he would not attempt to
undertake—(a laugh)—but with the view of explain-
ing what his object was in voting for the second
reading. It was simply with the view that the church
of England should have the same power which other
communities had. The honourable member for Mor-
peth was quite willing to consent to a bill of this
kind if the church were entirely a colonial church, and
ceased to be connected in its operation and spirit from
the Church of England, but that was not the liberty
which the other communities enjoyed. (Hear, hear.)
The Roman Catholics, for instance, were not separated
from Rome, but their meetings and regulations were
subjected to or in some way connected with the decisions
which the head of the church may have made at Rome.
The Church of Scotland in the colonies and the Free
Church had their assemblies, but these assemblies had a
connexion with the assemblies of the Church of Scotland
and the Free Church sitting in Scotland. So in like
manner the Wesleyan body in the colonies had a con-
nexion with the same body at home, and meetings of
conference were often held by the Wesleyan body in this
country for the purpose of electing persons to go out
and take part in the ecclesiastical affairs of the Wesleyan
body in the colonies. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, what
justice was there in this case ?—the Roman Catholics
might be connected with their church in Europe—the
Scotch church might be connected with their church in
Scotland—and the Wesleyan body might be connected
with the Wesleyan body in England, but the members
of the Church of England were to be prohibited
from having any connexion with the Church of
England in this country. (Hear, hear.) Then
the hon. gentleman who spoke last says he would
agree to the bill if there was no political connexion be-
tween the Church and the State ; but he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) did not imagine that the same political connexion
prevailed between the Church of England in the colonies
and the State, as existed between the Church of Eng-
land in this country and the State. The only tie between
the two churches was a general agreement of creed or
with respect to matters of doctrine ; beyond that there
was no connexion between the two or with the State,
except that the bishops were usually appointed by the
Crown in this country. (Hear.) It seemed to him
therefore to be only right to relieve the people who be-
longed to the Church of England from any disability
which the law of England might impose upon them ; it
was quite right to maintain these disabilities in this
country because so long as the Established Church was
directly connected with the State, it was only right that
the State should have a practical control over its mem-
bers, but with regard to the church in the colonies there
was no reason at all for having that control. (Hear.)
He thought, then, that the restrictions complained of
ought to be taken away by bill. As for the provisions
suggested by the right hon. baronet, the member for
Droitwitch, he did not wish to say a word upon that sub-
feet beyond this, that it was a question well worthy
of consideration as to what manner the restrictions
should be removed. (Hear, hear.) But that was not
the question of the day, the question of the day was,
whether they would give the same freedom to the mem-
bers of the Church of England in the colonies that was
enjoyed by every other sect, and upon that question he
was prepared to vote in the affirmative. (Hear.)
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ............... 196
Against it ............................... 62-134
The bill was accordingly read a second time, and or-
dered to he committed.
INCOME TAX.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to give notice, that
with respect to the proceedings to-night.
The SPEAKER—The hon. baronet must be good
enough to defer his notice until after the orders the
day.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the order of the day
he postponed, to enable the hon. baronet to give his
' notice, which was agreed to.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said, having been acciden-
tally prevented from bringing forward his amendment
on the income tax resolution in the committee of ways
and means, he simply wished to give notice that he