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

THE SUN,

F'o; th" Mr,tlOn
cLg4inst it ... 165
Oa „u Majority against re-eounmittal -123
tion of r re-adtniasion, we found under debate the que,T.-

everCOLONIAL ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS.
'' iLADSTONE was saying—He proposed, what-
reuehmigbt be the state of the law in this country, inas-
teabras great doubts existed about the rigt,t of the
hal he Church to make better regulations for cote-
hishoPiritual matters, " That it shall be lawful for the
celooP or bishops of any diocese or dioceses in the sesid
oreee,2, or in any colony which her Majesty shall, by
tptillyripteaelniris c9,nesunbeieli,ndgeclare to be joined to them for the
ii-P°ses next hereinafter described, and the clergy and
declared members of the Church of
tesgoi d, or being otherwise in communion with him or
tad, respectively,a to meet together from time to time,
ty Gf. such meeting, by mutual consent, or by a majo-
rpeervoices of the said clergy and laity, severally an
d
tosjeri I°6Y, with the assent of the said bishop, or of
all so of the said bishops, if more than one, to make
soede regulations as rally be necessary for the better
bone:. of their ecclesiastical affairs, and for th,e,
fie d.g ,of meetings for the said purpose thereafter.
thou ',_°PlY regretted her Majesty's Government had not
irenogut it a necessary part of their duty to include this
le rejtant subject in their Australian Bill. He thought
stostr4nt which had regard to the government of our
teot allau colonies it was the absolute duty of Govern-
The Lora
have considered the state of the colonial church.
1403', who had the best means of discharging this duty,
theirPaised it entirely; he had, therefore, stepped into
Nati tePil,acre and, with the view of submitting some
ee'ne Rouse to accomplish the purpose he had in
itidteepe 'le hoped what he said would be received with
,
-1° by that House, and that the legal talents
e oughtl to be engaged, not in criticising, but in
rne.,
itehirg measures to this end, would show mercy and
Pleeetric° with regard to the propositions he had
Mom: 14°11g the list of motions, which he hoped, if
SPirit "; Would put the colonies, in regard to
feotinnat matters, on a more rational and suitable
'lateen, The House ought to understand that the
solo of of an established religion did not prevail in the
oo_y ties for any useful or rational purpose; that it was
lemelr eductive of mischief and vexation; that it was an
Bolin
ument to law and rule, disturbing the minds and
ahiehh,s 01 men, giving occasion to the raising of claims
eside Whatever might be their value here, there were
to thntlY out of place—never loading or expected to lead
releettecognition of claims wholly alien to society in the
Isise„-`9, hat introducing confusion and dissension where
fore and harmony ought only to prevail. He, there-
terrti.eelled on the House not to take upon itself to do-
trtli In° what the system of Church discipline in Aus-
sreora.should be, for in doing so it would be acting in
, but to untie the hands of their fellow-subjects
Otleetteeetnbers of the same religion to which this country
the same faith
untie the hands of those who had carried
faith and the same principles to distant lands,
the when there, found themselves divested of all
te "outages we possessed by law, and every advan-
Re wh
stew ich even dissenting societies possessed in virtue
leer, their
constitutional rights and privileges as English-
.
Antic swear.) If the House valued the principles of
thes as much as they did those of order and liberty,
fide would admit the absolute obligation on them to pro-
to two things, either that the Established Church
'eu the majority of the colonists might perhaps
tere"g;faimuld carry to the colonies the privileges they
leer ,JYed; or if, as it plainly appeared, it was not
Geyearutile these privileges should be carried out, then that
tee@ Ment fall back on principles of original and na-
to th 'reedoue, and that there should not be an exception
law ge,nerat
is system of freedom in the colonies, by
leeedg tne colonists under disabilities which the law im-
eltu°ll them, without any compensating advantages.
soet.:ar• hear.) The clause which stood on the votes
the Inc(' five provieone, all limiting, to a certain extent
tterv2,arera that would arise on a declaration of the re-
the .1"tal to original freedom. He did not believe in
tedlusolute necessity of the provisions, as strictly justi-
eseeto nrineinle• for he did not think a system of ex-
reo
tioo sal legislation to be the most ad visable for adop-
liees .4 our colonies. But at the same time the provi-
tam were consistent with the attainment of the prae•
°biect he had in view. He did not intend, accord-
to th
abpo, a first provision, " that it should be lawful to
diteh:e„ or inflict any temporal or pecuniary penalty or
are. i,ttY, other than such as might attach to the avoid-
,-2t4 anY office or benefice held in the said Church."
liars That no such regulation shall be binding on any
a
44,M or persons other than the said. bishop or bishops,
Lisa the l
ergy and the lay persons within the said colo-
of tano are or may be declared members of the Church
thernagland, or otherwise in communion with him or
-13 respectively.
renit;.That any such regulation, touching the existing
met; nn of the said bishops, clergy, and others, to the
trah-°l3olitan see of Canterbury, shall be forthwith
erehsbtai itted by the presiding bishop or his deputy, to the
Clow shop of the said see, and shall be subject to dis-
"ce by the said archbishop, tinder his hand and
tha• at any time withia 12 months from the passing of the said regulation, or within six months from
4tter eeiPt thereof by the said archbishop, but not
ords.
elerf4* That it shall be competent to the said bishops,
reWatt 4, and lay persons, or any of them, to pass any
ti,ore, °n affecting the rights of the Crown in the
semi
of bishops, without the consent of
Colo utjesty's Principal Secretary of State for the
pities.
%eth'. That no such regulation made as aforesaid shall
keer.°4llse the bishop of any diocese to confirm or con-
key or to ordain, license, or institute any person to
rlerise, or to any pastoral charge or other episcopal or
dieteeiat office, except upon such persons havingtiommheer-
before taken the oath of allegiance
of th"Y, and having likewise subscribed the Articles
deck°. 'United Church of England and Ireland, and
of Co ring his unfeigned assent and consent to the Book
toruon Prayer.
sa • . .
to thaw 0.0 injustice in requiring the clergy to conform
se Principles of the religious system of this country,
telge as they remained in communion with it. There
given be some jealousy created if greater latitude were
Sly though if his own opinion were asked, he should
KZ °, colonists would not use unlimited freedom irn-
the"l; and that if unlimited freedom were placed in
the r
b.-ands, we should be perfectly safe. He would ask
church to consider they were not dealing with the
elo-ere.h at home, but with the Church as it existed in the
free,"les• The state of the Church in the colonies differed
!it Weettoh other as much as it differed from the Church
tith In the West Indies there was a quasi Estab-
thee' Church which enjoyed every privilege there which
AkiChurch enjoyed at home. If they went to the North
oteneeri°on colonies they would find great differences
tlin-i"„g the Churches, yet all possessing some valuable
distretions• Though there were the reserved. lands,
*er.`u among the several religious bodies, they
the; not divided according to the number of
bodice, therefore it could not be said that
%Anus equality prevailed in Canada. He would ask
otie-`,,Onse, to put aside all idea of the Church at home,
40,,,ue Church as established in the West Indies and
opt wineries, and look at the religious condition of
lets Australian colonies. In those colonies there was a
Ptere equality. cal The Church of England enjoyed no
th renee in those colonies. It is true the ministers of
ltret e Church were salaried, and received stipends—
tOilier, in some instances, than the incomes of other
Asasters; but not larger by any act of the state. There
tem 3 certain sum devoted to religious purposes, which
tine derided simply and solely according to the respec-
Thernurnber of the Zdifforent religious communities.
qie,:e was nothing of a permanent character in these
aes"Ments—Parliament provided a certain sum, which
teeetset apart to pay ministers of all religions. Perim-
toeie 'tight alter this arrangement, and, if they pleased,
ape 40 it under the present Bill. There was not
lllensent of permanence in the existing arrange-
heo's; nay, he did not think thk holders had
-the any vested interests in their appointments
ee,esY held the salary only for the time being.
Pee-,:: appointments were not endowments because of any
akee"uor religious profession—they were open to all reli-
t% -4 which were included in the number of Christian
teleo. .
one tithes. If this were so, then it was not just.
_that
hi religious profession should rest under disabilities
stiee,ht. the other did not. All ought to be put on an
the Ity.
e. Government had no right—he would not say
1141 CLad not the power—to leave them under existing
eht klee"'ties, owing to laws at home, when those laws had
tens tatise-s" to have any power here. It was a case of
if °Pen to the House. They could not play pranks,
with had been playing pranks in the Church here,
lees the great principles of order, without producing
the;"cal evils. He would show that evils did exist, and
iethe present state of things had been suffered to grow
kfe,"leOur colonies. He would refer to our colonies of
Atis-f°outh Wales and Van Diemen's Land—of South
it,4l!lia and West Australia—but West Australia was
resoPguificant that he would not refer to it. With
notes," to South Australia, the Parliament had not
eela;nt practical information. He did not re-
Wks that any kind of endowment of the Church
)14 e'en voted from colonial resources.—[An Hon.
tettteer here made some remark.] He wes informede
oyfit.s°lnething slight of the sort had occurred. The
semen Operation in New South Wales and Van Die-
thee," "'and was so nearly akin that he would take
site-i.aa if the same; and inasmuch as the law was mor,e
Veje'sa in Van Diemen'e Land than in New Souta
the he would refer to the law and the actual state of
With 'nurch in Van Diemen's Land. The provisions
taro regard to endowments were these:—When a ter-
tian number of adults declared they belonged to a Chris-
for ticnraunity and had subscribed a certain amount
the ° Stipend of the minister and their Church, then
oorr State stepped in and gave its aid in the shape
ofb a
tin) j,P°nditig contribution. It was also provided y
rst tit taciathat no salary should be paid to a clergyman
Ma-
`Out,appointment had been confirmed by her Ma-
"nu the governor—that such salary should not be
be d tiled to be
paid after such time as a minister might
rule: Nived of his ecclesiastical office, according to the
Provi Pf the community to which he belonged—that
seistemlla should be made, in case sufficient ground
gaged for suspecting that a minister was not en-
Med, ,in the duties of his office, to cause inquiry to be
ae,...viento the fact, and if found not to be so engaged, to
QhPtirrleh him of his salary. This was the nature of the
no .endowment in the Australian colonies. It took
ehurgmeance whatever of the difference between one
Nrcen and any other Church. There were only three
of
eeeues named—the Church of England, the Church
vowseretlan, and the Church of Rome; but there was
cletrtt it° endow all other communities of a
inChristia
Use e'er• Therefore, the equality cf these religions
wee eye, of the law was perfect and absolute. There
liitrenl.llY this difference—that the appointment of the
though,
f England ministers rested with Government,
%lino, certainly, the recommendation of the bishop had
eon'euy great weight. In those colonies where the
siastical laws of the Church of England
h:u been nominally transferred, nothing could
the,
theore complete delusion and imposition
Pot transfer. There was not a single
nn of the ecclesiastical laws of the Church

of England of which the observance could be
enforced. Wautever was 631-1 e ill 01,16
by the good-will, the sense cf propriety, and the right
feeling of the parties themselves, but not by the law.
The law was bad here, and Arts had been rassed to
amend it; but those Acts had no force. Tim ecclesi-
astical laws were modified when carried over to the co-
lonies; but under existing circumstances no modifications
would render them applicable t ) the colonies. There-
fore they might be swept away at one blow without in-
convenience. Some bishops 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, fur any legal purpuae perfectly
valueless, as, on the other baud, 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 uo 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 th al with
general assertions only. Now what was the position of
the bishop? He wets 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 bad not the means of bringing matters to a set-
tlement, whereas he had the power of inflicting the most
grievous hardship on 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.
Ir 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 was an act of pure will on
the part of the bishop. No one could 'compel him to
issue it. Without 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.—(Bear, 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, aed had
none of the conditions which were 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
our 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-
pended 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 fir testamentary purposes, but
riot 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 vole or to withhold it sic
co/o. Why did the Bishop exercise these autocratic
powers ? Because he wus prevented by the uncertain
stew of the law from 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 Smith 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 adoption
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 1501.
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."] Ho
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?
It these gentlemen were incompetent to the management
ef their own affairs—if the members of the Church of
England in the colonies could not do for themselves what
the liomanists, 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 bad the Colonial Legislature
the power to deal with it? The doubts which affected
the ease 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
8.11 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. It' 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 freedom 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 fur 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 fur the principles of freedoin.—(Elear, 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. He also wished to say that he
had treacle 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 en this
Bill the establishment in Australia of a local ecclesiastical
body independent of the Imperial Parliament or local
legislatures.
Mr. GLADSTONE—By private consent.
Mr. LABOUCHERE—The proposal of the Right
llon. 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 Parli-ament or local
legislatures. [Mr. Gladstone dissented.] Did the Right
Hon. Gentlemsn moan 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

re be voluntary—why should the Right Hon. Gentle
e. ask tiro Reuse t., a: ;t with the Foams I.,ropeecd ?
—(Hear, hrar.) Whams, es might be the intention of
the Right Hon. Gent'emar, there could be lit le doubt
:het the effect of the proposal would be the e-aehlish-
ment of en ecclesiastical synod to make laws, ince
speetive of the local legislature or Imperial Parlianssnt,
which should be binding on members s f the Church of
England in Australia. lie did not understand the Right
lion. Gentleman to say that the Colonial Le eisla,ure
would have any power to confirm or reject the canons
passed by such a se pod as that proposed. He very much
doubted whether alt assembly composed cf the laity and
clergy would be productive of any real benefits to the
Church itself. But irrespective of such considerations,
ho objected to laws being made by any body of men
except the local legislature or Imperial Parliament. He
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
.pith 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-
6ist4. Sir E. Wilmot recommended that any grievances
should be remedied by the local legislatures, and Lord
Stanley concurred in that opinion.
An Hote. 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 be 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 hear 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. He opposed the
principle of the clause because he firmly believed the
establishment of any such,body as that proposed would
he followed with consequeeces 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
Scotlend 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 laisrez 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 town eccle-
siastical assembly was not a new principle, but had been
adopted by the United Protestant Episcopal Church of
America, and had been found, he believed, to work well.
If 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.) He 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 he 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 ont
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-
ference 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 had fully
recognised the right of the Church to exercise
spiritual powers, in proof of which he would refer the
House to the 15th 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 tribuaal of misconduct or neglect of
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 ecelesiastieal law.
Having detailed some of the facts of the cases of the
Rev. Mr. Wignaore, 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. It 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 ho 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. lie 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
in the colonies, nor to saection that which the Crown
had already refused to do. He concluded by announcing
his intention of voting against the amendment proposed
by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppposite.—(Loud cries
of " Divide, divide.")
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the gal-
leries, having been cleared for a division, were closed for
nearly ten minutes.
Tho galleries wore then re-opened (no division haying
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 lion. and
Learned Friend the Attorney-General would state his
objections to it, but he had not done so. The Right
Hon. Gentlemen 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.—(llear, 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.—(Rear, hear.) It was said that there
was no obstacle in 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 of 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, hear.) 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
lion. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade
could, as a Churchman, object to that particular consti-
tution proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
( Mr. Gladstone). 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, were formed. lie thought the
objection that the present proposition was an inchoate
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