The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-07 00:00:00

THE SUN,

of England of which the observance could be
enforced. Whatever was done in the colonies was done
by the good-will, the sense of propriety, and the right
feeling of the parties themselves, but not by the law.
The law was bad here, and Acts had been F.assed to
amend it; but those Acts had no force. The ecclesi-
astical laws were modified when carried over to the co-
lonies; but under existing circumstances no modifications
would render them applicable the colonies. There.
fore they might be swept away at one blow without in-
convenience. Some biehops had endeavoured to enforce
the powers with which they presumed they were en-
dowed by the Crown. They attempted to erect courts
and to administer oaths; but it was soon discovered the
power they were presumed to be invested with was per-
fectly worthless. It was actually found that the Queen
had committed an illegal act in giving these powers to
the bishops. The Queen had committed successive ille-
galities, not confined to one set of Ministers. It
was, therefore, only necessary that the coercive
powers given to the bishops should be ob-
jected to, to be condemned as illegal. These
powers were, in fact, for any legal purpose perfectly
valueless, as, on the other band, was the corrective
power, for an appeal to the archbishop was an appeal
upon paper only. In the case of a clergyman who came
to prosecute an'appeal, the late Archbishop of Canter-
bury informed him that he had no power to help him,
except to write a letter to endeavour to influence the
Bishop of Van Diemen's Land. That was the legal
state of things in the colonies—a state of anarchy tem-
pered only by the good feelings and good conduct of the
bishops, clergy, and members of the Church.—(Hear,
hear.) Now, let the House consider the matter a little
more in detail, for he did not wish them to deal with
general assertions only. Now what was the position of
the bishop? He was not wholly without power. On
the contrary, he had a large power in his hand, to which
he was about to call the attention of the House. If a li-
mitation should be placed on that power, he would be
stronger for useful purposes than he was at present, for
now he had not the means of bringing matters to a set-
tlement, whereas he had the power of inflicting the most
grievous hardship oa clergymen. The bishop had no
power to do justice as a judge—he had no power to
call witnesses to give evidence as to misconduct.
If he had, there would be the greatest fear on the part
of witnesses that they might be open to an action for
libel. The bishop possessed this great power; no clergy-
man could officiate in the colony without the licence of a
bishop, the issuing of which eas an act of pure will on
the part of the bishop. No one could :compel him to
issue it. Withbut a licence no man could officiate, and
when the clergyman was officiating it was entirely in
the breast of the bishop to revoke that licence at any
time, and on any ground, without giving any reasons for
his course of proceeding.—(Hear, hear.) Was that a
power which ought to exist? The effect of the Act for
the regulation of salaries in Van Diemen's Land had been
to establish this conclusion, that when the bishop's li-
cence was withdrawn, and when it became illegal for
him to officiate, the effect of the withdrawal was to de-
prive the clergyman of his maintenance, and every cler-
gyman in the colony was liable to the sudden and arbi-
trary withdrawal of his maintenance by the discretionary
act of the bishop. This might be just or it might be un-
just. But it was without the forms of justice, and had
none of the conditions which wore considered essential
to the administration of justice. It might not be in our
power to remedy this state of things, but the parties
belonging to :the Church of England in the colonies
might do so, if properly authorised. The clergy in Van
Diemen's Land and New South Wales consisted of three
classes—the old colonial chaplains, sent" out before the
present indiscriminate system of Church endowment was
adopted; the chaplains appointed to cures under the
present Church Acts; and the missionary chaplains sent
out by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
But on all these the law operated substantially alike.—
(Hear, hear.) The English law recognised a clergyman
having the cure of souls as a freeholder. But in the
colony there was no such thing. Let the House look at
the case of Mr. Wigmore. That clergyman was sus-
pendsd on the ground of repeated insolvency. His li-
cence having been so suspended, he applied to the Su-
preme Court in Van Diemen's Land, a court having ec-
clesiastical jurisdiction for testamentary purposes, but
not having jurisdiction to interfere in any spiritual or
ecclesiastical case. After a long discussion the Court
refused to interfere, on the ground that the Bishop had
the power to grant a licence sic volo or to withhold it sie
volo. Why did the Bishop exercise these autocratic
powers ? Because he was prevented by the uncertain
state of the law hem acting otherwise; for he found
that if
,he made a public investigation he migh be liable
to an action on civil grounds, and that the witnesses
were also liable. Many other cases had occurred
in Van Diemen' Land and New South Wales,
In the former country there was the case of Bateman,
and in the latter a most painful controversy had arisen
between the Bishop of Sydney and two young men
amongst his clergy. Ile need not go on citing cases,
for he had already said enough to show that the prac-
tical working of the law was, that when the bishop with-
drew the licence of a clergyman he avoided his office,
and was held to be dismissed according to the law and
usages of the Church to which he belonged.—(Hear.)
But if the law had been misconstrued—if it was necessary
in order to displace a clergyman, that a real trial should
take place and a real sentence be pronounced, his case
was just as strong. As there was no process in law for
a legal trial of these offences they had to choose between
the continuance of the present system and the adoptirn
of a rational system,—namely, to recognise the state of
things which prevails in the colonies, and authorise
the bishops, clergy, and members of the Church
of England in the colonies to frame a system con-
jointly, which would become a compact among them,
and be capable of enforcement as a matter of private
obligation.—(Hear.) Having stated the situation in
which the Bishop was placed, he would now presume the
case of an oppressed clergyman who had been wronged
by his bishop. What was he to do? Was he to appeal
to the Archbishop of Canterbury? A man with 150/.
or 2001. a year was not in a condition to make an appeal
under ordinary circumstances. He had consulted legal
friends, but had not been able to find out how a clergy-
man oppressed by a bishop could obtain legal redress.—
(Hear.) Then what was the case with respect to the
laity, as members of the Church ? It was important
for him to know the terms on which he was to partake
of the ordinances of the Church. It was important that
he should have the means of repelling those who aro un-
worthy, and providing against the repulsion of those
who are not unworthy. What remedy had the lay-
man ? Absolutely none. So far as the administration
of any religious office is concerned, commencing with
baptism and ending with the funeral service, there did
not exist any means to compel the administration of
these offices, either by public law or private compact.
He hoped the House would not be a party to the con-
tinuance of such a state of things. He could not help
expressing his surprise at the unwillingness of the
Government to undertake the introduction of some re-
medy. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member
for Youghal said there was a legal machinery capable of
being put into operation. [Mr. Anstey—" Yes."] He
hoped the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would explain
the nature of that machinery, and whether it was con-
sistent with the state of society in those colonies. Now
what was the objection to the plan which he proposed?
If these gentlemen were incompetent to the management
of their own affairs—if the members of the Church of
England in the colonies could not do for themselves what
the Romanists, the Baptists, the Wesleyans, and other
religious communities did for their respective bodies, let
them bear the penalties of their own incompetency and
incapacity, but let us rid ourselves of all responsibility.
At present they could not take a single practical step
in that direction.—(Hear, hear.) He believed he was
strictly correct in making application to Parliament at
the present time, for Parliament was now professing
to deal for the last time with the Australian colo-
nies. He considered the present a matter of strict in-
ternal legislation. Now, how were they to get through
such a mass of confusion as the present state of the law?
Could they go to the Colonial Legislature? He thought
not. In the first place, the Colonial Legislature would
decline to deal with it. The Colonial Legislature would
not make exceptional regulations for the members of a
particular church. But had the Colonial Legislature
toe power to deal with it? The doubts which affected
the case of the bishops and clergy were doubts not flow-
ing from any colonial law, but from the Imperial law,
which prevented them from making regulations for
themselves; and the Government were now passing a
Bill which would prevent them from enacting anything
contrary to the laws of the mother country. The only
remedy for this state of things was by legislative inter-
ference on the part of this country. He did not ask any
favour, but the removal of a grievous wrong which had
been inflicted on the colonies. If any objection was taken
to the form of his proposition he was quite ready to sub-
mit to correction. He called upon the House to do that
with regard to matters ecclesiastical which they pro-
fessed to be doing with respect to matters civil—namely,
to establish freed.= for the management of their local
affairs. We were now extending the application of that
principle. and ought to go as far as possible in that re-
spect. If it was good for the management of political
affairs, it was good for the management of ecclesiastical
affairs.—(Hear.) If (said the Right Hon. Gentleman)
you can prove you have at this moment in the colonies a
system of equality and justice—if you show it is agree-
able to the principles of religious freedom and order—
that it is security for right, or gives redress for wrong,
my proposition falls to the ground. If you show me a
better mode of attaining my end, I do not object to enter
into it. But let us not, by raising imaginary fears, and
by going into cases not analogous—let us not throw over
the demand which I address to you with confidence upon
every ground—whether you are pledged by habit and
predisposition to the assertion of principles of order and
religious equality, or whether by your love and estima-
tion for the principles of freedom.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the adop-
tion of the clause.

The question having been put,
Mr. GLADSTONE said he wished to observe the
usual rule with respect to such provisos, and to put each
enacting part separately. Ho also wished to say that he
had math) use of the words "declared members of the
Church of England," because in Australia the different
religious bodies declared themselves under local acts.
Mr. LABOUCHERE should not presume to oppose
the motion on technical grounds, but on principle. The
Right Honourable Gentleman proposed to engraft on this
Bill the establishment in Australia of a local ecclesiastical
body indepemlent of the Imperial Parliament or local
legislatures.
Mr. GLADSTONE—By private consent.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—The proposal of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, was in effect to em-
power a body of men in Australia to make regulations
in Ecclesiastical matters which would have the effect of
law irrespective of the Imperial Parliament or local
legislatures. [Mr. Gladstone dissented.] Did the Right
Hon. Gentleman mean to say that the proposed regula-
tions would not have the force of law as far as regards
members of the Church of England in the colonies? If
the colonists were to be at liberty to comply with the
regulations of the principal body—if the obedience were

to be voluntary—why should .the Right Hon. Gentle-
man ask the House to arm it with the powers proposed?
—(Hear, hear.) Whatever might be the intention of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, there could be little-doubt
that the effect of the proposal would be the establish-
ment of an ecclesiastical synod to make laws, irre
spective of the local legislature or Imperial Parliament,
which should be binding on members of the Church of
England in Australia. He did not understand the Right
Hon. Gentleman to say that the Colonial Legislature
would have any power to confirm or reject the canons
passed by such a synod as that proposed. He very much
doubted whether an assembly composed of the laity and
clergy would be productive of any real benefits to the
Church itself. But irrespective of such considerations,
he objected to laws being made by any body of men
except the local legislature or Imperial Parliament. lie
particularly objected to granting such powers to a synod,
composed in a manner hitherto unknown in history. In
his opinion the Church of England in the colonies
should be treated neither with exclusive favour nor
with any peculiar disadvantage. He knew not
any disadvantage under which it laboured, ex-
cept such as might be removed by the legis-
lature of the respective colonies. The Church there-
fore being treated with no favour.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Quite the contrary.
Mr. LABOUCHERE could not conceive how it could
be viewed with any jealousy by any section of the colo-
nists. Sir E. Wilmot recommended that any grievances
should be remedied by the local legislatures, and Lord
Stanley concurred in that opinion.
An HON. MEMBER dissented.

Mr. LABOUCHERE—It the Hon. Gentleman would
refer to the dispatch of Lord Stanley, dated-December,
1844, he would find it stated that he had no objection to
the establishment of ecclesiastical courts in the colony, if
the Legislature were disposed to allow it.—(Hear, hear.)
He could not help thinking, however, that all grievances
might be removed without the establishment of such
ecclesiastical courts.—(Hear, hear.) He should leave it
to his Right Hon. Friend the Attorney-General to deal
with any points of law connected with the question. He
was alarmed to hoar so high an authority as the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite say that he was quite ready
to vote for a clause for the good operation of which he
could not answer. The clause had rather the appearance
of the heads of a measure afterwards to be worked out,

than of any scheme to effect immediately the object the
Right Hon. Gentleman had in view. Ho opposed the
principle of the clause because he firmly believed the
establishment' of any such body as that proposed would
be followed with consequences which would be injurious
to the Church, and which the Right Hon. Gentleman
would himself be the first to regret.
Mr. A. B. HOPE said it appeared that all the re-
ligious bodies in Australia had the power of self-govern-
ment except the Church of England. The Right Hon.
Gentleman, to be consistent, ought to object to such a
power being possessed by the members of the Church of
Scotland and by the Wesleyans in Australia. Unless
there was something dangerous in the Church of England
which would not permit it the right of self-government,
the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite fell
to the ground. The main ground on which the Right
Hon. Gentleman resisted the clause was that most con-
venient one for statesmen—the principle of laissez faire.
If, as the Right Hon. Gentleman asserted, the clause
contained the heads of future legislation, that was a
reason why the House should agree to it, because the
Church in the colony should have the power of legis-
lating for itself. The admission of the laity to an eccle-
siastical assembly was not a now principle, but had been
adopted by the United Protestant Episcopal Church of
America, and had been found, he believed, to work well.
It' any members were not satisfied with the canons passed
by such a synod, they had the remedy in their own
hands—they could quit the body.—(Hear.) Ho must
say that he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
had made out no case against the clause.
Mr. ANSTEY said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite had stated that the Church of Scotland in Aus-
tralia had the power of enforcing its discipline on its
members, but that the Church of England had no such

power.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Had no law.
Mr. ANSTEY remarked that in Van Diemen's Land
the temporal law of the colony, and not any private law
of the Church. was the obstacle complained of by the
Bishop. The Bishop of Tasmania was so convinced of
this, that be had called on the local legislature to em-
body his views in an Act, but the opinion of the late
Lieutenant-Governor was adverse to it. In the petition
from the members of the Church of Scotland, the com-
plaint was against the letters patent empowering the
Bishop to establish ecclesiastical courts. These letters
patent gave a power to the Bishop not only of holding spi-
ritual courts, but invested him with the powers possessed
by the ecclesiastical courts of this country. It was no
wonder, therefore, that other religious bodies had ex-
pressed their alarm. He thought the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had rested his case, not on any denial of tempo-
ral justice, but on some assumed want of vitality and
vigour in the Church of England. If the Right Hon.
Gentleman wished that his views should be carried out
voluntarily on the part of members of the Church in
Australia, what necessity was there for any Act of Par-
liament on the subject? He maintained that, if there
was anything wanting in the laws relating to the discip-
line or doctrines of the Church of England, that defect
could be supplied by the heads of that Church, in the
same manner as it was supplied by the Church of Rome
or the Church of Scotland. The Hon. Member here
alluded to the case of the Bishop of Tasmania, and re-
ferred at some length to the circumstances of the dif-
&trance which had arisen between that Bishop and
the clergymen. The ecclesisastical law of the colony
had been held to be similar to the ecclesiastical
law in this country with respect to the Anglican
Church, and the local legislature bad fully
recognised the right of the Church to exercise
spiritual powers, in proof of which he would refer the
House to the lith clause of the Colonial Church Act.
By that clause the lieutenant-governor had power to de-
prive of his benefice any person convicted before a supe-
rior ecclesiastical tribunal of misconduct or neglect cf
duty. Thus the power to deprive a man of what might
be called his freehold showed that the temporal law acted
in accordance with what was the ecclesiastieal law.
Having detailed some of the facts of the cases of the

Rev. gr. Wigmore, and the Rev. Mr. Bateman, between
whom and the Bishop of Tasmania the controversy re-
ferred to had arisen, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
contended that the bishop had the power to act in those
cases, just as well as a visitor to a private charity had the
power to exercise a suspending discretion in case of ne-
glect. If the clergymen were cited before him, and re-
fused to appear, he could proceed against them in their
absence. The Right Hon. Gentleman said the bishop had
no right. He maintained that he had; but it was because
the Bishop of Tasmania aimed at too much that he had
failed. It was proposed now to take the power which it
already possessed out of the hands of the Church of England
and invest it in a body composed partly of laymen and
partly of clergymen. He objected to the proposed
amendment on that ground, and because it dealt with
the prerogative of the Queen, in endeavouring to cure
by letters patent the mischief which had been produced
by the letters patent of her predecessors. He did not
wish to see the Protestant Church in the colony impaired
in its power or efficacy, but he called upon members of
all churches in that House not to do anything which
would impair the religious equality which now ,existed
iu the colonies, nor to sanction that which the Crown
had airs sdy renised to do. He concluded by announcing
his intention of voting against the amendment proposed
by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppposite.—(Loud cries
c.f " Divide, divide.")
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the gal-
leries, having been cleared for a division, were closed for
nearly ten minutes.

The galleries were then re-opened (no division having
taken place), and we found
Mr. P. WOOD addressing the House. No practical
or legal objection, he said, had been urged against the
proposed clause. It had been said that his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Attorney-General would state his
objections to it, but he had not done so. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade

(Mr. Labouchere) had said that he did not understand
the clause. Now he thought the clause was very plain
and intelligible. It could not be from the want of under-
standing that his Right Hon. Friend could not make
out the meaning of the clause, but it so happened that
people sometimes did not understand what they did not
wish to consider.—(Hear, hear.) He was sure if the
Government wished to consider the proposed clause
they would understand it. What was proposed by the
clause was, to give certain persons, members of the reli-
gious persuasion of the Church of England, the power
of meeting together and coming to certain regulations
by which they would be themselves bound, in like
manner as members of other persuasions could now do
in the colonies.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that there
was no obstacle iu the way of the Church of England
doing that which was proposed now, as well as the
Church of Scotland or of Rome. But it should be remem-
bered the Church cf England was in that peculiar
position in the colonies, the precise nature of which
neither the Church itself nor the Government under-
stood.—(Hear, hear.) The Church there had no means
of carrying out her useful powers; she might be met in
such respects by persons skilled in raising quibbles, and
who could obstruct her in her attempts to do anything
useful. The Church had such a power in this country,
because in this country she was the Church by law
established, but such was not the case with regard to the
colonies.—(Hear, hear.) A great field was now thrown
open to give the Church an opportunity of developing
herself, and of showing what she could do when placed
in competition with other churches.—(Hear, bear.) The
contest, he was convinced, would be a holy one, and
free from sectarian or bitter influences; and he thought
the Church would come out of it creditably in showing
efficiency to preach the truth, and affording that comfor
to those who belonged to her which they most needed
in the hour of trial and sickness.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Church, ob-
jected to the present motion, because he saw no prece-
dent for it. Now the history of the early Christian
Church was full of such precedents, and they had
the modern instance likewise of the state of
the church in America. Had there been any tyranny
exercised by, or complaint made against, the American
Church? He could not, therefore, see how the -Right
Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Tra3e
could, as a Churchman, object to that particular consti-
tution proposed ley the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
( Mr. Gladdtoue). They were told that such a proposi-
tion would neither be sanctioned by the local legislature
nor by the Parliament of this country. Now the pro-
posed clause could not have any objectional operation.
If persons did not wish to be bound by the opinions of
the majority, they could leave the body altogether.
There could be no hardship in such a case. Such was
the principle upon which all good governments, ecclesi-
astical, civil, or political, sere formed. He thought the
objection that the present proposition was an inchcate
I measure which did not come very well from a Govern-
ment which brought in a Bill giving the colonies power
to legislate for themselves, which Bill was avowedly an
incomplete one.—(Hear.) His opinion of the proposed