The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-11 00:00:00

COURSE OF EXCHANGE—This DAY.

Amsterdam 11 13% Gibraltar ..............
Ditto, three months .. 11 151/, Leghorn .............. 30 57%
Rotterdam ............ 11 15% Genoa ........... ..... 25 55
Antwerp .............. 25 17% Milan ................
Brussels .............. 25 17% Venice ...... .
Ilamburgh ............ 13 4% Naples ................ 41%
Altona ................ 'Palermo .............. 125
Paris • • ........ .• • • .... 24 97% Messina .............. 125%
Ditto, throe months • • 25 35 'Lisbon 53
Marseilles. ....... • ... 25 35 !Oporto
Bourdeaux ............ Rio Janeiro . .....
Frankfort-on-Maine .... 118% Buenos Ayres
Berlin ................ New York, 60 days' sight.
Vienna 13 46 Philadelphia ..........
Trieste ................ 13 50 PRICES OP BuLt.Tox, plat oz.
Petersburgh.... • • ...... 32% Foreign Gold in Bars XS 17 9
Madrid ................ 50% Portugal Gold Coin .. 0 0
Cadiz ........ 50% Mexican Dollars .... 0 5 0%
Barcelona • ..... New Dollars ...... 0 0 0
Seville ................ silver in bars ...... 0 5 1%

igion.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMIONS-(YESTERDAY.)

COLONIAL CLERGY DISABILITIES BILL.
The house then. went into committee on this bill.
Mr. DUNLOP said, in proceeding to move amend-
ments in this bill, he must at once deny that he was
actuated by any feeling of hostility towards the Church
of England. The ;eneral object which he had in view was
to prevent the ball from giving that church a status
in the colonies which it did not now legally possess.
He denied that the prerogative of the Crown extended
to giving either th e Church of England or the Church of
Scotla-nd the posit ion and character of an establishment,
and- he proposedi therefore to leave out the words
"diocese" and "p rovince." He did not know how a
diocese mold be es tablished in a colony where there was
a colonial legislatit re, on the mere authority of the crown,
when none could he established in this country without
an act of Parliament. How could the crown be justi-
fied in establishing a Protestant diocese in the midst of
the Roman Catholics of Lower Canada ? He earnestly
entreated the Govi irninent to accede to his amendment,
and not to persist i n a course which would probably have
the effect of bringing the church into collision with
the colonial legislature. The hon. member concluded
by moving the omission of the words, " the metropolitan
of any province, or the bishop of any diocese," and the
insertion of " bisheps and clergy."
Mr. ELLICE felt great pleasure in seconding the
amendment. He never saw a bill of this kind without
feeling that, instead of benefitting the episcopal church
in the colonies, arid making it popular among the people,
it was likely to have the contrary effect. (Hear, hear.)
He could not conceive of what use the bill could pos-
sibly be. If there was any statute which interfered
with the regulation of its own affairs by the episcopal
church, let Parliament either repeal it or give the colo-
nial legislature the power of doing so. He was not for
retaining any restriction which interfered with the use-
fulness either of the Church of England or of the Church
of Scotland. (Hear, hear.) Half a century ago he saw
the result of an attempt to set up the Church of Eng-
land in the colonies, and to give it an exceptional posi-
tion. He recollected that when a bishop was first sent
to Upper Canada he called himself " Lord Bishop,"
taking precedence of almost every one else in the colony,
he was much disliked ; and the result was that the
legislature adopted a resolution, by a majority of 36 to
4, declaring that the Church of England, as by law esta-
blished, was not the religion of the inhabitants of that
colony. This was the tendency of all such interference
as that now proposed. The Reformed Church was one
of the most popular ministries in the United States ; and
those who had any regard for the English Church should
endeavour to bring it into the same position in the colo-
nies. He did not see why the position of the Church of
England in the colonies should not be precisely similar
to its position in Scotland. It was very common in
patents to call bishops " Lord Bishop." He objected to
that title, as altering their status ; and as it did not
give them any additional civil rights, he thought it would
be best to discontinue a practice which made them less
respected and less useful.
Mr. HUME wished to' know what really were the
grievances to be remedied by this bill. If an act of Par-
liament pressed unfairly upon the colonies, why not re-
peal the act, and then leave the colonies to arrange their
affairs as they chose. These things could not be so well
arranged in the mother country as in the colony. The
contrary course of action had already caused many ab-
surdities. What could be more ridiculous than to send
a bishop to Hong-Kong, when there were not more
than 20 episcopalians there, or to require that such a
bishop when he went on board one of her Majesty's ves-
sels should be saluted with 7 guns? (Hear, and laughter.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL begged to remind hon.
members that this measure was now in committee, and
that the objections which had been made referring rather
to the principles than the details of it, were not alto-
gether in place. (Hear.) At the same time he could
not object to the observations which had been made, for
they rather tended, when properly explained, to support
the bill than otherwise. He entirely agreed with the
hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that the colo-
nies ought to have a power of regulating their own
ecclesiastical affairs—(hear)—and he no less fully sub-
scribed to the ideas that it was desirable to keep the
colonial Church as free from the legislative interference
of Parliament as possible. It was that object which he
had before him in the present measure, which proposed
only to give the colonial Church liberty of action and
freedom of management. But it would not do to carry
out that eud by repealing the statute of Henry VIII., as
his hon. friend the member for Montrose seemed to
think, because that statute comprised a variety of ob-
jects, and it was most essential to preserve it in order that
the supremacy of the Crown might be preserved. (Hear.)
The act of Henry VIII. prohibited any convocation of
the clergy without the previous royal permission to meet;
it provided also that no convocation should discuss
any new canon of the Church without the authority of
the Crown, and that no canon should be passed contrary
to the canon law as recognised and established by the
common law of the realm. Now, the two last provi-
sions it was necessary to preserve, and hence it was
manifestly impossible to repeal the act. (Hear, hear.)
There seemed to be on the part of some hon. members a
misapprehension with regard to the position of the colo-
nial Church. That Church was a portion of the united
Church of England and Ireland, and great care had '
always been taken to preserve to it that character. In
the earliest colonial bishopric that had been created—
that of Calcutta—the bishop was expressly termed
"Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland'"
This course had been followed in the 5 Vict., c. 6, which
appointed a " bishop of the United Church of England
and Ireland in Ireland." Neither in these acts of Par-
liament, nor in the letters patent under them, were the
bishops given the title of " Lord," and with regard to
the salvo of seven guns—mentioned- by the hon. mem-
ber for Montrose—he (the Solicitor-General) could
only say that if any indiscreet captain thought the
bishop required such an expenditure of gunpowder, the
matter must be ascribed rather to naval ideas than to
episcopal requisitions. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.)
The amendments of the hon. and learned gentleman
(Mr. Dunlop) went to change the principle of the law.
(Hear, hear.) He (the Solicitor-General) intended to
remedy a specific evil by a specific remedy—not to alter
the foundation of the law. This was the desire of the
colonists themselves, as he had been assured by a dis-
tinguished member of the colonial Legislature who was
at present in this country. The colonists, by which he
meant those colonists who were episcopalians, desired
only that the Church of England in the colonies should
be put on the same footing as other sects were, and this
was the object proposed by the present bill.
Sir J. PAKINGTON concurred in thinking that this
was not a moment for discussing the principle of the bill.
He thought that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General
had not stated sufficiently what were the feelings of the
colonists on the question. He (Sir J. Pakington) was
disposed to view all these bills with suspicion, and be
should, in fact, move amendments to the present mea-
sure, bat he could not forget that the colonists loudly
demanded the bill. (Hear, heai.)
Sir G. GREY thought the question was being dis-
cussed in the dark, and that the committee had not been

sufficiently informed what was the position of the Church
of England in the colonies, and what were the disabilities
which this bill was to remove. He had not been able to

understand why a simple act, repealing so much of the
objectionable part of the act of Henry VIII. as referred
to the colonies, could not meet the requirements of the
present case. It seemed to him that the object of the
Solicitor-General was to give to the colonial Church all
the benefits of a state, and also of a free Church.
Mr. NAPIER said the hon. and learned Solicitor-
General asserted that to understand the bill it was only
necessary to understand the law. Did he mean to assert
the converse, that whoever did not understand the bill
was ignorant of the law ! If so, he (Mr. Napier) feared
he must come under the category of the ignorant.
(Laughter.) The hon. and learned gentleman said that
the object of the bill was to cement the connection be-
tween the church at home and in the colonies. He
(Mr. Napier) feared that its effects would be to sever
that connection. The common law ordained that no
ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be independent of the
royal supremacy, but here in the bill that supremacy

was dispensed with, with the abolition of the royal
license. The hon. and learned member proceeded to
quote from Hansard a speech of the Solicitor-General,
made in a former year, when the subject of the colonial
church was under the consideration of Parliament, and
which he (Mr. Napier) contended was hostile to the

principle contained in the present bill. What he com-
plained of was that the bill did not give the church in
the colonies proper power to regulate its doctrine, dis-
cipline, and government—matters the government of
which was properly inherent in the church. He was
willing to join in any attempt to make the church in

the colonies more efficient, but he would never give his
vote for any measure which should have the effect of

damaging the supremacy of the crown in matters of re-

Mr. HENLEY said that the church in the colonies
was part and parcel of the Church of England, and
therefore he felt that the amendment would be quite out
of place.

Mr. WALPOLE said that the grievance of the
church in the colonies was that the clergy were paid by
salary which they received from the civil authority,
while at the same time they could hot preach without
license from the bishop. The bishop had thus an au-
tocratic power over them from which there was no
appeal. The next question was how. they were to re-
dress that grievance. Repeal of the statute of Henry
VIII. would not redress it. Ecclesiastical courts might
do so ; but would the colonies tolerate them or would
that house permit them ? (Hear.) Some hon. members
were of opinion that the best remedy would be total se-

verance from the Church of England. . He did not think

so. He believed the operation of this clause would be
to put the members of the Church of England in the
colonies in exactly the same position as any other reli-
gious body in the colonies, while it would enable the
church to make rules, or enter into contracts for its own
government, without any control or appeal whatever.
He did not believe the bill wculd interfere with the su-
premacy of the crown ; but, at the same time, he thought
it would be advisable to insert a proviso declaring the
bill should not disturb the Act of Supremacy, nor should

it enable to make orders or regulations for its govern-
ment which, either in terms or spirit, were contrary to
the Book of Common Prayer, or the doctrines contained
in the Thirty-nine Articles.
Mr. DUNLOP replied, and insisted that nothing had
occurred in the course of the debate to shake his confi-

dence in the amendment he had proposed.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, upon a reconsi-
deration of the subject, he had no objection to the amend-
ment, and therefore he would not trouble the committee
to divide upon it.
Sir J. PAKINGTON remarked that the amendment
would make such a material alteration in the bill, as well
as so largely alter the character of the Established

Church in the colonies, that he must divide upon it if no
ono else would.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied
that it would disturb either the position or character of
the Church, and since there was something fair and
equitable in the proposition of the hon. member for
Greenock, it certainly deserved support. At present
the Church in the colonies exercised its diocesan functions
under an authority derived from the prerogative of the
Crown, and the simple object of the amendment was to
withhold from this bill anything like a statutory recogni-
tion of that authority which its provisions would give if
it were passed without the proposed alteration.
After a feW words from Mr. Henley, the Solicitor-
General, and Mr. Walpole, the committee divided, when
there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
The amendment was accordingly agreed to.
Mr. DUNLOP then proposed in page 2 to leave out
lines 4 and 5, and insert " of churches in communion
with the United Church of England and Ireland, and the
lay members of the congregations of such clergy."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not accede to
this amendment, but he should propose to leave out the
words objected to, with the view of inserting others
which would accomplish all that the hon. member had
in view.

81
34-47

Sir J. PAKINGTON wanted to know before the
clause passed who was to put these bodies in motion ;
was it to rest with the laity or the bishops, or would
it entirely rest with the latter ?
The CHAIRMAN held that the proper time had not
arrived Yet for discussing that question.
Mr. J. B. SMITH observed that there was so much
uncertainty and confusion about the bill, that the best
thing they could do was to report progress. He should
therefore move that the chairman do leave the chair.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS seconded the amendment, be-
lieving that it was impossible for the framers of the bill
or anybody else to comprehend it, or to say what its
effect would be when passed, if it ever arrived at that
stage.

Mr. R. PALMER opposed the motion.
A short conversation ensued, in which
Sir J. PAKINGTON spoke in favour of continuing
the discussion.
Mr. A. KINNAIRD said it was impossible, as the
bill stood, to understend it ; that there was no strong
feeling on the subject in the colonies ; and that it was
better to leave it to be dealt with by the colonial legis-
lature ; which opinion
Mr. F. PEEL combated, stating that the colonies
generally had petitioned in favour of some such tries,
sure ; and
Mr. MIALL urged that the whole difficulty com-
plained of by the colonial clergy arose out of their con-
nection with the state.
Ultimately the motion for reporting progress was
withdrawn.
Mr. DUNLOP'S amendment to insert the words " of
churches in communion with the united churches of
England and Ireland was then put.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected that the
amendment assumed that there was in the colonies a
Church in communion with the united church of Eng-
land and Ireland not being a part of that Church, which
was not the case, historically, legally, or practically ;
and if the words were introduced they would destroy the
efficacy of the bill. It had been asked why had this
bill been introduced? By the common law of England
the clergy of the united Church of England and Ireland
were prohibited from meeting for the' purpose of dis-
cussing matters of ecclesiastical regulation ; and by the
statute of Henry the Eighth that common law had been
declared. Both in England snd Ireland this prohibi-
tion existed. The hon. and learned gentleman then
urged that the bishops and clergy of the colonies had no
power of investigating or instituting inquiries and taking
proofs in matters of clerical discipline, and that state of
things must continue unless the Legislature gave a civil
authority and ecclesiastical power to the bishops and
congregation, and it was to enable the bishops and
clergy to meet and adopt some mutual arrangement to
effect this object that the present bill was designed,
whilst they could not do otherwise without incurring
the penalty attached by the act of Henry VIII. to the
bishops and clergy meeting to discuss ecclesiastical
matters. He denied that he had asserted that the act
of Henry VIII. had no jurisdiction in the colonies, for
he had repeated again and again that that act was a
part of the law relating to the supremacy of the crown,
and prevailed in all the dominions of the crown.
For that reason the bishops and clergy of the colonies
were bound by a statute which ought not to hind
them. As to the Established Church in the colonies,
there was no such Established Church, inasmuch as the
Church there possessed no civil or ecclesiastical autho-
rity, but only a spiritual power, which entitled it
to be designated as a part of the'united Church of Eng-
land and Ireland. It was intended, therefore, by this
bill, to relieve the bishops and clergy of the colonies from
personal disability to make any future arrangement
among themselves for the discipline of the church. With
regard to adopting the amendment of the hon. member
for Greenock, by leaving out of the clause the words
" province and diocese," which implied an ecclesiastical
authority, which it was not the intention of the bill to
recognise, there was no inconsistency on the part of the
Government. The words would therefore read thus—
" Bishops and clergy, and lay members of the congrega-
tion of such clergy in the colonies, being members of the
united church of England and Ireland."
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE denied the assertion of the
Solicitor-General that the spiritual supremacy of the
Crown was part of the common law. Sir Thomas More
lost his head because he denied that doctrine ; and he
quoted him rather than Bishop Fisher, who was a clergy-
man, and whose opinion might not be viewed with so
much confidence as that of Sir T. More, who died in de-
fence of his opinion. It was impossible not to see that
this bill was an attempt to establish in the colonies the
convocation of the church, which was not allowed to be
in action here. What else was meant by the petition for
synodal action presented by the hon. member for Bury ?
Since 1717, when convocation played such a part to-
wards Bishop Hoadley, it had been found necessary to
suspend its operation in this country, and what reason
was there to suppose that its existence would benefit the
colonies ? The hon. member for StaffOrdshire wished the
bill to be passed because the colonial legislature would not
do so, and that was the very reason why it should
not be passed. As to putting the church in the colo-
nies on the same footing as the dissenters, this bill did
more, for it gave the power of enforcing its provisions
personally on members of the Church. In his opinion
the suspension of the powers of convocation in this coun-
try was wise, and he objected to its powers being ex-
tended to the colonies.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entered
his earnest protest against the course taken by the hon.
and learned gentleman and other members, for they were
now for the fifth time discussing on the amendments the
principle of the bill in every imaginable form, and then
gentlemen complained of there being confusion. If you
wanted a recipe for confusion about a bill, you had but
to mix up discussions of the principle with verbal results
and the result would be certain confusion. He denied
the assertion of the hon. member for Leominster, that
the petition from the diocese of Toronto praying for
synodal action was a prayer for the establishment of con-
vocation ; and this was the first time he ever heard that
these two things were the same. So far from establishing
convocation in the colonies, all that was wanted was a
power to enable members of the Church to meet and
make any compact among themselves to meet their local
difficulties and such matters as disturbed the tranquillity,
of their Church ; and it was not too much for our colo-
nial fellow-subjects to ask that when matters were at
stake which they considered of vital interest, that these
matters should be treated by that house with as much
consideration as a railway or turnpike bill. As to the
immediate amendment he thought, in order that it might
be known what they were discussing, it would be better
for the chairman to put it again.

Mr. NAPIER contended that what this bill really
meant to do was not to interfere with the statute of
Henry the Eighth, but with the common law relating to
the supremacy of the crown, which did extend to the
colonies, and if by that law the bishop and clergy were
forbidden to meet for ecclesiastical purposes, the com-
mon law provided a remedy. For the same thing might
be done as was done in Ireland, where a license was
given to the bishop and clergy for the purpose of allow-
ing them so to meet. He looked at this bill with great
distrust, and should give it all the opposition in his
power.

Mr. Serjeaut SHEE said he had listened to the de-
bate, and tried to understand what was meant by the
united Church of England and Ireland. It was urged
by Mr. Napier that it was a part of the common
law that an acknowledgment of the supremacy of the
crown should accompany the Church of England where-
ever it went. Was it meant by that that no one but
subjects of the crown of England could belong to the
church ? And must all who believed in that church ac-
knowledge the supremacy of the Queen ? (Hear hear.)
If that was so, could it be called a Catholic church ?
The amendment of the hon. member for Greenock re-
moved this difficulty. The probability was that in the
colonies the members of the united church of England
and Ireland would be in a miserable minority ; but they
would get rid of the difficulty that would put them in by
adopting the amendment of the hon. member for
Greenock. •

Mr. DUNLOP said he must persist in his amend-
ment ; the words proposed by the Solicitor-General
would not, in his view, meet the difficulty.
The committee divided, and the amendment was ne-
gatived.
Mr. MOWBRAY asked the meaning of the words
"bishops and clergy." Would not those terms apply
to any bishops and clergy ? There might be a synod of
the character of the synod of Thurles in one of the
colonies, and the words " lay members of the church of
England" would not override the words " bishops and
clergy."

The SOLICITOR -GENERAL said he should not
have consented to the introduction of the words if they
had been liable to the interpretation that the hon. teem-
her put upon them, but they cou!d not be so construed,
inasmuch as the preamble spoke of " bishops and clergy
of the united churches of England and Ireland in the
colonies," and therefore they could apply to no other
bishops and clergy.
Mr. MANGLES said it appeared to hint very ob-
jectionable that amendments of this kind should be
brought in without notice.

Sir J, PAKINGTON opposed the clause as proposed
;o be altered by the Solicitor-General.

Mr. G. BUTT said it was quite clear that what was
meant was that the bishop of a diocese or the metropo-
litan should meet with his clergy and lay members, but
now, as the Solicitor• General had got it, that all the
bishops and laity should meet together.
Mr. WALPOLE suggested that the difficulty could
be overcome in a proviso ; and after some further con-
versation the clause was agreed to, the Solicitor-General
promising oorefully to reconsider its laugnAge, with a ,