The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-18 00:00:00

0.11 Matt GOVERNMENT IN NEW ZEALAND.

The Zyttelton Times (which arrives very irregulArly,
and with great gaps in the dates) of March 20, last year,
contains a very important and interesting meeting at
Christ Church) en the subject of Church government in
New Zealand. The mbst important feature in the meet-
ing was a speech from Mr. J. R. Godley, who, in pro-
posing the first resolution, spoke as follows :
" The resolution which I have to propose is one which may
be said to express a truism. The Church in New Zealand, as
elsewhere, is a society having a definite mission and certain
practical ends to accomplish. Its essential principle, the very
condition of its existence, its work. To my mind, the notion
of an inactive or passive Church seems almost an absurdity,
Indeed, what I say of a Church, applies more or less to every
associated body. When men form or join a society, ecclesias-
tical or secular, this idea .is almost necessarily involved of
their doing something in combination which as individuals
they could not or would not do ; otherwise, why should they
combine ? But a society in order to work must have an or-
ganisation and a government ; it must have forms, laws, qua-
lifications, executive instruments ; it must have a head and
hands. Accordingly, every association of men, for any pur-
pose whatever, begins by constituting its government ; on
however small or humble may be its scale and its object, whe-
ther it be a penny club, or a building society, or a political
union, or a religious sect, as a matter of course it appoints its
managing committee, or its president, or its synod, or what-
everelse it may please to call its legislative and executive organ.
Through the medium of this organ it acts and speaks, and does
its business; without this organ it would be an unmeaning and
objectless list of names. Therefore I call it a truism to say that
it is exceedingly desirable for the Church of England in New
Zealand to have a form of government. The wonder is, indeed,
that at this stage of our ecclesiastical existence we should have
to enunciate so self-evident a proposition. Yet so it is ; this
truism is not merely ignored ; it is actually disputed. While,
so far as I can recollect, there is not in the world another in-
stance of a society without a government, to many English-
men it appears right and proper that such should be the
normal state of their Church. If you go to the shareholder
in a joint-stock bank, or of a railway company, or to a Wes-
leyan or Presbyterian, and ask him how the society he belongs
to is governed, that is to say, who makes and who executes
its laws, not one of them would be for a moment at a loss for
an answer ; he could inform you with respect to its organisa-
tion as easily as he could with respect to its character and
object. But if you go to a member of the Church of England
and ask him the same simple question, what answer can he
give ? Is there any one here present who can tell me how
the laws of the English Church are made, who speaks our
collective voice, who does what we have as a corporation to
do—in a word, who manages our affairs ? One may refer me
to certain laws made in the year 1603 for the government of
the Church, and may reply to me by describing the judicial
machinery provided for the execution of them ; another may
tell me that Parliament governs the Church 1 another that
the Queen ; auoth er that the Bishops govern it. And in each
of these answers there would bo a certain amount of apparent
truth. The canons are nominally the statute-book of the
English Church; Parliament does occasionally legislate in
matters ecclesiastical; the Queen is, in theory her executive
head; the bishops exercise after a fashion certain govern-
mental functions in their respective dioceses. But still
the question, ' Who governs us?' taken in its ordinary
common-sense meaning remains unanswerable. The canons
are necessarily and properly, for the most part obso-
lete and unexecuted, as indeed it is absurd to suppose
that any human authority could devise complicated rules of
action for a society which would answer its purposes and sup-
ply its needs for two hundred and fifty years without addi-
tion and alteration. Parliamentary legislation in Church mat-
ters is a usurpation founded simply upon might ; the Queen's
authority is as purely nominal in ecclesiastical as in civil
affairs, the bishops have no recognised collective authority at
all ; and in their respective dioceses exercise the simply minis-
terial office of carrying out the existing laws. No real govern-
mental power resides in any of these functionaries, because
a right to make laws is an essential attribute of a real govern-
ment; and no existing authority has a right to make laws for
the English Church. In considering this state of things, I
confess it seems to me to resist the conclusion that even the
endurance of it implies, in a degree paralysis ; contentment
under it would imply the absence oilife. A society that can-
not make a law for the regulation of its own affairs, or express
a corporate opinion, or do a corporate act, that is unable, in
short, to perform any of the functions of life, can only by a
great stretch of language be said to be a living body. What-
ever may be the numbers and energy of its individual mem-
bers, as a society, I say it is virtually dead. However, such
being the state of the Church of England, she has sent out
numerous bodies of offspring to all parts of the world ; I beg
your pardon ; she cannot send, because, as I have explained
to you, as a Church she cannot do anything: I should have
said numerous bodies of her offspring have gone out from
her, bearing with them the principles and traditions of
their spiritual mother, and they have to adapt these as best
they can, to a new set of political and social circum-
stances. Amongst other things they have to see how they
can get on without government in a state of things which
urgently requires corporate action. Tho Colonial Church is
cast on her own resources altogether; she has, generally
speaking, neither influence nor funds, nor consideration be-
queathed to her or provided for her ready made ; she must
obtain them, as she can, by personal efforts, if I may use the
term. But personal efforts require, of course, a personal
agency; in order to collect funds, to build churches, to get
and keep congregations, to exercise order and discipline
among them, and to convert the heathen, a machinery is
wanted ; the old machinery, such as it is, is inapplicable or
inadequate, and there is no one with authority to create new.
The consequence is, that the Anglican communion almost in-
variably falls, at the commencement of a colony, below the
level of other denominations. Ido not recollect a single in-
stance when, under such circumstances, she can be said to
have held her own. Other sects come out accustomed to self-
organisation and self-government ; each branch is complete in
itself, prepared at all points ready for its work. Anglicans
alone, when removed from the sphere of their old associa-
tions, stand bewildered and apathetic, and unable to move or
act ; looking for help from Government or from the mother
country; from every quarter, in fact, but from themselves.
Though generally richer than other denominations, they can-
not or will not support their own ministers ; at least I
know that in those colonies with which alone I am
personally acquainted it is so. In British America, the
English- people through the Society for the Propagation
of the Gospel and the Additional Bishoprics' Society,
and in New Zealand, the people of England through
the Church Missionary Society and Parliamentary grants,
almost exclusively support the clerical establishments
of communities !which are perfectly well able to do it for
themselves, and would be perfectly willing, too, if they were
not enervated by long disuse of the habit of acting for them-
selves in ecclesiastical affairs. At the same time it would be
only fair to say that the Church of England in the colonies is
far from being on a level with other sects as regards freedom
of action. Deprived as she is of the advantages resulting
(or supposed to result) from State connection, it is believed
(for such is the absurdity of the system that no one seems to
know exactly what its principles or practices are), but it is
believed that she still remains fettered by the liabilities which
were the incidents of her establishment in the mother country.
I will illustrate what I mean by an example which occurred
not long ago in this colony. A member of the Anglican
Church wished to marry a Jewess; the clergyman refused to
perform the marriage, and persisted in his refusal ; but the
Bishop told me he had been informed by the judge, that if
the parties applied for a mandamus to compel the clergyman
to marry them, he (the judge) would have felt it his duty to
grant it. I am not going to enlarge on the intolerable
tyranny involved in the existence of such a state ..of things ; I
allude to it at present as showing the necessity not only for a
complete review of our ecclesiastical affairs, and for the estab-
lishment of new and radically different principles of Church ,
organisation, but also, perhaps, for parliamentary assistance
in breaking our bonds. I have, now, sir, attempted to show
why in the words of the resolution which I am about to propose
it appears desirable thata form of government for the Church of
England in New Zealand should be established as soon as
possible. I have attempted to explain thatovithout it, she can-
not properly fulfil her most ordinary and necessary functions,
and that to the want of it is mainly to be attributed the
apathy and helplessness which are such melancholy character-
istics of our Colonial Churches. J will next endeavour to
corroborate the view I have taken by quoting the example
set to us with respect to this matter by a sister church,
found itself not very long ago in circumstances analogous
our own. I mean the Protestant Episcopal Church of America.lt is which
ehde
r Churchthat
estab-
lishment and her endowments for existence, and incapable of
standing like other ecclesiastical bodies, humanly speaking,
shoeftiesntheasidsrbsaytoenreemofietshoefstthaL, English
by her own strength, and working with her own means ; and
dependneneftoor on her
I should find it difficult to rebut the sneer.
Churches alone,
side so the picture. When the United
But I can show another
States declared their independence, it maybe said (humanly
1 confess, if I were to look at the present state of our Colonial
speaking again) that the Church
withll monarchy; epis-
copacy,theChurch of England,
s not ou yunfashionable, but almost in-
was, for obvious reason _
ts of the church, vrhich had been large in
famous ; the endowmen
some of tho States, were taken away ; her edifices were de-
stroyed ; even her communion plate was sold ; numbers of
' nted together with the most earnest members
her clergy emigrated
it is
of their flocks. In short, impossible to conceive a more
especially in communion w
complete and overwhelming prostration than the American
Episcopal Church then suffered ; one would have said that
within the lifetime of a generation, her existence in the United
States, like that of the British constitution on which she is
said to depend, would be a matter of history. Now let us look
at the sequel. For some little time the depression consequent
on the resolution continued, but the American Churchmen who
were left were not dismayed ; they had sense to see that new
measures were required to meet the emergency, and faith to
believe that they would be sufficient to meet it. Now, it is
instructive for us to remark that the first step they took,
when forced to shift for themselves, was the formation of a
governing body. The first general convention of the Ameri-
can Church met in 1785, only three years after the peace ;
the first American Bishop was consecrated in 1787. The
Church was organised with a rapidity and completeness emi-
nently characteristic of the administrative talents of the peo-
ple, the civil constitution of the Republic serving naturally
to a great extent as a model. A general convention was con-
stituted, consisting of all the Bishops, and of clerical and lay
representatives from each diocese, and possessing full legisla-
tive powers for the whole Church. Diocesan conventions
exercised similar powers within their respective jurisdictions.
Vestries administered parishes. By degrees the outline thus
sketched was filled up ; canons of discipline were passed ; the
liturgy was revised ; provision was made for education, for
foreign missions, for domestic extension. Scattered and
helpless individuals became an animated, active, working
body, far inferior, indeed, to most of the other denominations
in outward circumstances, but at least able for the first time
to do justice to itself and make free use of its own resources.
Before I describe the result of these measures, I must remind
you that the Episcopal Church had another disadvantage to
America, a comparatively small - proportion are even
nomi-
nally members of the English Church. The f. this
and the fact is are too obvious to require enumerations,
contend with. It is notorious that of the emigrantsto
if it hoped to hold
forced to rely largely upon proselytism,
un-
doubted. The American Episcopal
to fluence. But to return theits own in numbers and in
number of his-
torical facts. I cannot find out what the Episco-
palianfter the revolution. I can only ascertain
clergymen was a
of New York, which, in
Church, therefore, was
such isolated facts as that the Statein I
1844, had 304 clergymen, had only fivel7B7. .am com-
pelled,my general comparison at a
1814, I find that the Episcopal Church later date. In
num-
bered 240 clergymen officiating in organised parishes ; in 1844,
year for which I have been able to procure the sta-
tistics,the last
it had 1,202. Assuming that its congregations multi-
plied
and there seems no
in equal proportions, reason for
therefore, to begin
doubting it, we have here the fact that in thirty years the
that the proportion of
number of AmseitihcsanwhCobluercphmovuelnatiinocnreoafsethdefitivenfioslud., ois'oabthouatt
twice as fast a
even if we allow for argument that immigration supplied
them proportioned to an extent proportioned to their ori-
ginal numbers, they must havecmonogirevtgahatniodz:bsl.et:mtheetmhosdelivstess
by
conversioss alone in thirty years. And that they have done
oi likely to tthiEt sdh.baevelennbe Presbyterians,
been not
la r sayg larger ramong the i°n
so at least seems to be shown by the fact, that in 1839 more
than one-half of their clergy, and nearly one-half of their Bi-
shops,onv converts is
congregationse
among those who rose to office and dignit in the Church,
Again,
Again, the American Church gets plenty of money. Her

clergy, which must now amount to at least 1,( 90, have an
average income of 2001. a-year, and if I add the funds raised
for church building, education, missions, and other Church
purpoSea, I sin sure I shall be within the mark if I set the
income of the American Church at half a million sterling an-
nually, that is, speaking roughly, 10s. a-head for the mem-
bers of her communion, or 21. 10s. for every family. In
fact, we do not want money;' says her historian, ' we have
funds enough ; we want men for the ministry.' This is the na-
tural result of the zeal and interest which is engendered among
her members by an active participation in the management of
her affairs. In every department of her proceedings the advan-
tages of her system are visible. When an extension of the epis-
copate is required, she is not obliged to go, like some other
people I have heard of, to a heterogeneous Legislature com-
posed of men of every religion or of no religion, nor to a co-
lonial minister, who may be her bitter enemy, in order to ask
leave to consecrate a bishop, and to discuss the boundaries of
the diocese, and the amount of the endowment. The Ame-
rican Church settles that for herself, as every Church
ought. But I need not expatiate longer on these advan-
tages of system and organisation which the American Church
enjoys. I have been induced to say thus much on her
constitution and progress, because, as presenting the only
instance of an ecclesiastical body in communion of the
Church of England, which possesses a regularly consti-
tuted representative government, she affords the only avail-
able precedent far her own case, and also because the signal
success which has attended a career begun under such dis-
couraging circumstances, seems to show that, in order to
fulfil tier mission, the Church of England does not require
endowments or State connection ; she only wants to have her
hands untied—a clear stage, and no favour. Of course Ido
not suppose that self-government is the only cause of the
success of the American Church, but it does appear not only
to be remarkably coincident with that success, but to consti-
tute almost the only material difference between her position
and that of the Colonial Churches which are so far behind her
in available life and energy. I will next notice one or two of
the objections commonly made to a representative government
for the Church, for I need hardly say that the form of govern-
ment we wish to obtain involves the representative principle
It is said that it would encourage factions, debatiugs, and
party contests. I will not insist on the argument that a si-
milar objection would lie against all representative Govern-
ment, civil as well as ecclesiastical—l would rather point to
the American Church, and ask whether such an effect has
been produced there. Of course I don't mean to say that
there has been no party feeling on church matters in America
—I only say it has not been so strong, nor has it led to such
evil results, as in England ; and that there, as elsewhere, in
the Church as in the State, free and regular institutions have
been, not the cause, but the cure of faction. Again, it may be
said that self-government will lead to rash and heterodox altera-
tions in the formularies of worship, and in the discipline of
the Church ; and here I must not be misunderstood : I would
certainly claim, on the part of the New Zealand Church, the
right of managing to the 'fullest extent its own affairs, includ-
ing of course the regulation of worship, and the control over
formularies. While it is necessary •and right that the formu-
laries of the Church of England should be the basis of union
among those who combine to form a constitution for a Colo-
nial Church, I must say that, after it is formed, I think it
would be unworthy of our position as a National Church to
bind ourselves to these formularies for ever. Why should wo
not have the same right of revising from time to time our
liturgies and articles to suit our circumstances which every
National Church, and which the Church of England herself,
has repeatedly claimed and exercised Are we afraid we
shall exercise that natural and obvious right badly ? It is
possible we may; but I am quite sure, if we are inclined to
do so, no paper restriction will prevent us, nor is it advisable
that it should ; if bishops, clergy, and Caity, should at any
time wish for alterations, I really see no good in trying to
make them use forms which they would on the hypothesis
disapprove of. But having said thus much on the abstract
right to effect changes, I point to the American Church as
my ground for anticipating that they will not be effectual, at
least not to any injurious extent. There was everything in
the circumstances of the American Church and people to
make wide deviations on their part from the English
ritual a priori probable ; yet it is well known that the devia-
tions actually made are altogether unimportant, both in num-
ber and character ; nay it is remarkable, and forms a remark-
able testimony in favour of our formularies, that in several
instances where alterations have been actually made, the
Church has subsequently returned, after experience of the
change, to the more ancient usage. The last, and by far
the strongest objection to representative Government
which I shall consider, is founded on the difficulty of settling
how the lay element in the proposed governing body shall be
constituted; in other words, who shall possess the Church
franchise. This difficulty is undoubtedly a formidable one ;
indeed it is hardly susceptible of a perfectly satisfactory solu-
tion ; for in whichever way it be settled by any particular
class of persons, it is always open to another class to ask them
who gave you authority to settle it. But this is not properly
an objection, it is only a difficulty, and difficulties are made I
to be overcome. Although we may never arrive at the solu-
tion of the question which shall be logically satisfactory, we
may get in a rough and approximate way at a settlement of it
which will be sufficient for all practical purposes, For exam-
ple, a plan might be proposed by the highest authority in our
church, the bishop, or bishops, involving a settlement of the
franchise question, and if that plan were accepted by the clergy,
and the great body of those who call themselves churchmen,
it will probably be thought that as near an approximation
to the desideratum of a general assent as is necessary for
practical purposes would be arrived at. For my own part, I
am very anxious to have this question raised ; and though it
is not strictly relevant to the matter in hand, and the discus-
sion of it may appear premature, I will ask your indulgence
while I say a few words about it. After much and anxious
reflection, I can see no proper qualification for a Church fran-
chise but that of full communion ; and I ray this quite irre-
spectively of any doctrinal opinion about the nature and ef-
fects of that Holy Sacrament ; I say it because this qualifica-
tion, or something strictly equivalent to it, is in consonant 3
with invariable usage in the ancient Church, and also indeed
in every Christian denomination, except our own, of which I
have
otherwise heard ; I say so, moreover, because we can
otherwise absolutely no guarantee that those who as-
sume to legislate for the Church are even nominally
Churchmen, still less that they observe those laws an ob-
servance of which all her members admit to be of the very
essence of Churchmanship, ard while I entertain what many
would consider very democratic views about the participation
of the laity in Church government, it is a slim qua 71071 with
me that they should be Church laity. Now, it seems a con-
tradiction in terms to say that a man is in communion with
the Church who never communicates. The very word com-
munion, as applied indiscriminate's, to Christian fellowship,
and to a participation in the Lord's Supper, proves that the
two ideas are, in the minds of Christians, indentical. In-
deed, I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that those
who hold a different view in this matter either have hardly
thought out the question, or are mainly actuated by what I con-
ceive to be a mistaken view of expediency. Some of them fear
that non-communicants would be offended; but I must say I
think a man who deliberately and habitually abstains from com-
nion with the Church, is not one to whose opinions and feeEngs
Church rules should be made subordinate. Others fear that
a communicant's franchise might lead to a prUhration of the
Sacrament. Have they inquired whether in other religious li
denominations, where conformity to religious ordinances is
invariably required, as a qualification for Church govern-
ment, any such profanatory effect is experienced or even
?sus-
pected. The fact is, it would really not worth aoas
man's
while, for the sake ofbe
so small an inducement, to be .u"
is
Y
guilty of so great a crime. But even if it were found,e
guilt
as ' ,
just possible, that such a rule might aggravateta place their
th
o: a few abandoned individuals, 0u.,-;K we
supposed spiritual interests in competstion with the wel-
fare
of the whole Church? Others, perhajp, have heard the
maxim, that taxation involves repreosnenta.mo, and think ac-
corclingly that every man who pays mosey for Church purposes
has a right to participate in Church Government. Have they
considered how far this abstract proposition would lead them?
Certain it is that no political or religious community in the
world even admitted or acted on such a principle. No mat-
ter how far a nation may go in the direction of universal suf-
frage, it always stop 3 short of making emits:lntim to its re-
venue the sole qualification for political power. Wm-nen,
childeen, idiots, cons:cts, may and generally do con-
tribute to revenue, but they never evioy its supposed correla-
tive—power. Go and subscribe to a iVesleyan meeting-house
or a Presbar tenian chusch, are. see weether your doig will
get you a vote for members of the next confarence orn theso next
assembly. You may reasonably make pecuniary contribution
one sass'ification, but I cannot even conceive a pro-
posal deliberately made that it should be the only one.
On the other hand, I hardly think any one will propose as a
permanent esralification for Church government a simple
statement of Church membership. This asaiu would be ou3te
unheard of ; no religious or political privilege was ever yet
granted on the mere condition that a person claimed it, for it
comes to that ; there is always required some test of his sin-
cetity—something that involves a question of fact upon
which the claimant may be objected to, if he be not telling
the truth. There remains therefore only the alternative of
a double franchise, i. e., a statement of Church membership
combined with a payment ; and this is the franchise
which has been apparently proposed for adoption in
Wellington, and it may be said in South Australia also,
for seat-renting involves in some degree a profession of
Churchmanship as well as a money payment. To this rule
I object, in the first place, that it does not secure the real
churchreanship of the governing body, and, in the second, that
pecuniary payment ought rot to be mixed up with Church
franchises at all. Wherever it is adopted, the best Churchmen
may be excluded because
poor, while persons who are notori-
ously not Churchmen will have votes in Church matters, and
assist in making Church laws. On the whole, therefore, it
does appear to me that no good reason can be assigned why
the Church of England should adopt a more lax rule with re-
spect to its franchises than any oilier ecclesiastical body. I
trust you will pardon me for this digression, if it be one, and
for having intruded my own view of this subject on you at
so much length. My object in doing so is not to pro-
cure any expression of opinion on it, still less the
adoption of any practical step by the meeting, but
merely to bring it before the mind of the public, in the sure
hope that by full consideration and free discussion the objects
which we have all at heart will be best promoted. It will
perhaps be expected that I should say a few words as to the
relation which the proposed body would bear to the Canter-
bury Association. My own view is this. It is perfectly
competent for the association to make any provision it pleases
for the management of its own funds, but I have not the slightest
doubt that if a body be constituted which shall really repre-
sent the Church in this settlement, the association will, as a
matter of course, hand over to it the management of its eccle-
siastical fund. I will conclude by saying that the practical
step we propose to the meeting is merely to elect a corresponding
committee, and to ascertain from the bishop, and the church-
men of other settlements, what it is that they are going to do.
Whether it will be our business afterwards to go
into.
the details of a plan or whether the bishop will be pleased to
draw out a plan, and invite our co-operation in it—whether
we shall begin by petitioning Parliament or, as I should much
prefer, the Colonial Legislature, to make,us'a corporation, or
whether, like the people of South Australia, shall endeavour
to organise ourselves, and go on temporarilyw ewithout being le-
gally incorporated, will depend on the nature of the answer
we receive. I only trust that now, having begun, we shall
not let the matter drop; I trust we shall see that if
our Churchmanship be not a sham, if we really take any in-
terest in our Church, if we care as much about it as we should
do about a joint-stock company in which we had invested
fifty pounds, we shall do with respect to it what as men of
business we should do as a matter of course in a worldly case
—we shall claim for the ecclesiastical society to which we be-
long a constitution and a government

RETURN OF PARDONED CONVICTS.—The Falcon, brig,
with 28 pardoned convicts on Board, arrived at Dept-
ford, on the 12th inst., from Bermuda, which place she
left on the 17th ult. They were landed at the yard on
the following day, received the gratuities due to them
from the storekeeper of that establishment, and once
more allowed to enjoy the sweets of liberty, which it is
to be hoped they will now better appreciate. Several of
the number appeared to have reached the evening of
life. Two of them also, singular to relate, were brothers.
Too much cannot be said in praise of the excellent sys-
tem adopted by the Government of reserving a portion
of their wages until the expiration of their term of cap-
tivity, as it enables them to avoid the temptation to
which they would otherwise be exposed, to return to
their evil ways if turned adrift on the wide world pen.