PARLIAMENTARY EXTRACTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 94, 23 October 1852, Page 5

PARLIAMENTARY EXTRACTS.

Colonial Bishops' Bill. Sir J. Pakington—adverting to an intimation given by Mr. Gladstone, that, as the Government intended to oppose the bill, he wished for a delay of 14 days to consider what course to pursue—said he should be glad if he could be spared one of the most painful and difficult duties he had ever undertaken, that of stating the views he entertained regarding a bill which, though brief, and at first sight simple in its phraseology and enactments, was, when closely looked at, one of the most important measures in relation to ecclesiastical matters ever submitted to the House, and. which, if passed in its present form, would be the first step towards changes which, however desired by a certain party, were decidedly opposed to the opinion of the great body of the people, not only in this country, but in the colonies. The speech of Mr. Gladstone, in moving the second reading, was addressed to a point upon which he (Sir John) agreed with him, namely, the expediency of giving greater freedom of action to the Church of England in the colonies, which laboured under certain disabilities, the great defect being the want of power to carry out its discipline, the authority of the bishops being autocratic; and he was prepared to concur with Mr. Gladstone, that there ought to be a change in the law, and that the Church in the colonies required some legislative assistance that would prevent the bishops from retaining a power at once dangerous and invidious. The attention of the Archbishop of Canterbury had been directed to this subject, and, thinking the time had come for placing the Church in the colonies upon a better footing, his Grace had opened a communication with the Bishop of Sydney, as colonial Metropolitan, respecting the mode and form in which the imperial legislation for that object should be conducted. Pending these communications he would, independent of other "considerations, have suggested whether it was desirable to press the bill during the present session. But it was impossible for him, Sir John added, after the manner in which Mr. Gladstone had argued the measure, to refrain from entering into what he believed to be its scope, object, and tendency, the terms in which the bill was drawn being so indistinct that he questioned whether any two lawyers would agree in their construction of its language. He could not doubt that Mr.Gladstone's object was to place the Church of England in the colonies upon the same footing as other religious denominations; but he believed if carried out, its effects would be, first, to exalt the Church of England in the Colonies into a state of dominance ; secondly, to break it up into small separate churches ; and thirdly, to destroy the supremacy of the crown, and even to overrule all

legislation, imperial and colonial. The last clause introduced an important alteration of our ordination service, by dispensing with the oath of supremacy—the first attempt ever made to enable persons to hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church of England without taking that oath. He might be told that the supremacy of the crown in ecclesiastical matters did not extend to the colonies; but this doctrine would be repugnant to the statute Ist Elizabeth, and to the express words of the Quebec act. Mr. Gladstone had rested his case, Sir John remarked, upon demands made by the colonies themselves, but had not cited a single application for the passing of such a bill, or for separating from the Church of England, or for renouncing the Crown's supremacy ; whereas he (Sir John) could show a contrary desire on their part; and with that view he read extracts from memorials and resolutions transmitted from different colonies in Australia and Tasmania. With these facts and views, he could not consent to the further progress of a bill involving such grave considerations. He would, even as a private citizen, be no party to the breaking up of the Church of England into branches, or the impugning the supremacy of the crown, which he believed was one of the surest guarantees for the religious liberty we enjoyed. He entreated Mr. Gladstone to abandon the bill, and moved that the House proceed to the other orders of the day. Mr. Gladstone complained that Sir J. Pakington had, unintentionally, grossly misrepresented him as having dispensed with the oath of supremacy, inasmuch as the bill required subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, one of which (the 37th) declared the supremacy of the Crown, and was precisely equivalent to the 36th canon; so that the oath of supremacy was superfluous. Sir J. Pakington contended that this explanation did not touch his objection, that the bill did, in fact, dispense with the oath of supremacy, and that this was the first attempt to ordain to ecclesiastical offices without taking that oath. Mr. Oswald charged the Secretary for the Colonies with ignorance of the " Book of Common Prayer," and reminded him that in the " Ordering of Deacons" the oath of supremacy occurred. Mr. Adderley, seeing the urgency of the measure, could not submit to delay upon grounds so wholly futile as those assigned by Sir J. PaVington, every one of whose arguments against the bill was based upon a simple assumption. Sir E. Inglis opposed the bill, which he looked at with extreme aversion and distrust. Mr. A. B. Hope supported the bill, which was he said, merely a measure of exemption from certain liabilities standing in the way of the colonies taking their own course. The Attorney-General admitted, with Mr. Gladstone, that the established Church in the colonies was in a most disadvantageous position, deprived of the privileges and the freedom of action possessed by other denominations and by the mother Church. This arose from the colonies not having the ecclesiastical rights which existed in this country, especially the jurisdiction of spiritual courts ; in consequence of which the colonial bishops had an arbitrary and irresponsible power. But as, in his opinion, the Act of Submission (25th Henry VIII.) did not apply to the colonies, it was not necessary to permit the clergy and laity there to assemble and make regulations, since no law forbade it; therefore the bill must be intended to give a legal sanction to something not now sanctioned by law. Mr. Bethell did not think it was competent to the clergy of the colonies to adopt anything like synodical action, which would interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. He suggested various objections to the bill. Sir W. P. Wood said the avowed object of the bill was to enable the Church of England in the colonies to regulate its own matters like any other denomination. If any of the clauses went beyond that object they could be modified, but there was not the slightest tendency in the bill to make the Church dominant in the colonies. Some such measure should be introduced in order that the Church of England in the colonies should be left unfettered. Mr. Horsman asked what was meant by leaving the Church unfettered? He agreed that perfect religious equality was the best principle that could b<; adopted in the colonies ; bat his objection to this bill was, that while it released

the colonial Church from restrictions and responsibilities imposed by the State, it left it the advantages derived fron State connection, and gave it more than it was enjoyed by the Church at home. The amendment, not being opposed by Mr trladstone, was agreed to, and the House passed to the other orders of the day. Mr. Gladstone's bill is, consequently, dropped. NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL. On the order for the second reading of the .New Zealand Government Bill, Sm W. Molesworth gave an able analysis of the scheme presented in the bill, which created, he said, not only an imperium in imperio, but a nest of six little colonies in one with a variety of distinct codes,, that would conflict with each other. He objected to the erection of the provinces into governments they should be municipalities; and to a nominated Legislature—the uomination principle would work worse in New Zealand than in any other colony. He objected, moreover, to the unjust preference given by the bill to the claims of the New Zealand Company. His own opinion of what should be the form of Government for New Zealand was, that it should be one colony, with a single Legislature, and municipalities created by that Legisloture, with power to elect their own officers and make bye-laws. He hoped the house would not pass the bill in its present form. Mr. Adderley supported the bill, deprecating delay in conceding- to the colonies what they asked, the power of self-government, which could not be much longer withheld without raising up discontent in New Zealand. There were only three courses—to continue the Suspension Act, or to allow the act of 1846 to come into force, or to pass the present measure, against which Sir W. Molesworth had not alleged a single objection which had the slightest foundation. The differences between his plan and that of the Government, save in one particular (which he admitted was a blot in the bill), were nominal only. With respect to the New Zealand Company, the colonists were willing to discharge the debt upon the condition stipulated in the bili. Mb. V. Smith agreed in most points with Sir W. Molesworth, and urged upon the house whether it was wise now "to proceed with this bill, which must involve the discussion of almost all the difficult and embarrassing colonial questions. He suggested to Sir J. Pakington to be content with having shown a disposition to give representative institutions to the colony, and not approach these grave questions without more consideration. Mr. E. Denison questioned the policy of encumbering this young colony with an operose and expensive machinery. He did not understand whether it was intended to make the provincial bodies municipalities or petty Parliaments. Mr. J. A. Smith, differing from the Government in respect to some of the details of the measure, should support the second reading, believing that the danger of delay was so great that it would be better to incur the risk of some mistakes than to prolong- it. Mr. F. Peel, though there were points in the bill which he could not approve, did not think it would be mure advisable to suspend the act of 1546 for another year tlia.ii to pass this measure, which would not give to New Zealand representative institutions one day too late. The vindication of the bill, which in its general outline was well adapted to the requirements of society in New Zealand, was to be found in the principle of accommodation to the social and physical circumstances of the colony. He indicated certain portions of the bill of which he disapproved, but he reserved the discussion of these details for the Committee. Mb. Gladstone, looking at this bill as a whole, considering it in many points an advance upon previous colonial administration, could not consent to pass by an occasion of this kind, when the house was called upon to deal definitively with an important colony, without calling its attention to the false position in which we stood in regard to the government of this class of colonies, our proceedings with respect to which, he observed, had been fundamentally wrong. He contrasted our modern principles of colonization with those of our ancestors, who, instead of training colonists for free institutions, allowed them to carry freedom with them; whereas, under the present system, three years might intervene between the passing of a local act upou a local question ami the final decision

upon it notified from the mother country. The old idea of a colony was a municipality or corporation ; hut now all matters within the proper cognizance of such bodies wese reserved for Downing Street, and the election of their rulers and officers by a colony was called a dismembering of the empire. With regard to the measure before the house, he thought that, upon the whole, it was creditable to the Government, and that, although it did not go back to the principles of the Rhode Island Charter and the American Constitutions, it indicated a real intention to concede a larger measure of freedom to a colony than in any previous modern example of colonial legislation. Mr. Gladstone then pointed out what he considered to be the distinctive merits of the bill, which gotrid, he said, of many modern superstitions; and next suggested certain parts of the measure which lie thought open to the criticism of Sir Wm. Molesworth, especially the concurrent jurisdiction of the legislative bodies—which meant conflicting jurisdiction— and the subjecting local legislation for local purposes to a delay of two years. In one particular the bill degenerated from the plain of Lord Grey, who proposed that the Central Legislative Council should be elected by the Local Legislatures; whereas by this bill it was to be composed of nominees of the Crown. He hoped the Goyernraent would re-consider this question. Mr. Gladstone concluded a speech of great length with some remarks upon the New Zealand Company and their " unpaid bill," which, instead of being a third mortgage, was converted into a prior claim upon the colonial demesnes. Sir J. Pakington briefly noticed a few of the topics introduced by Mr. Gladstone, and replied to the objections raised to the bill, which, he observed, were founded, first, upon the lateness of the session, and secondly, upon the provisions of the measure, which were not, as Sir Wm. Molesworth assumed, objectionable to the colonists. Upon the subject of the New Zealand Company, he observed that he had introduced that clause in the bill solely on the principle of justice. Sib J. Gsaham. would not oppose the second reading of the bill, and was ready to go into Committee for the discussion of its provisions with a view of passing it this session. He, however, concurred with Mr. Gladstone in regarding that part of the bill relating to the New Zealand Company as of immense importance. Sir James offered some comments upon the arrangement between the Government and the Company, respecting which Mr. Mangles gave explanations on behalf of the Company. Mr. Walter, in allusion to a remark of Sir J. Pakington, showed the essential distinction between an Upper Chamber in the United States and in this country. After a few observations from Mr. Anstey, the bill was read a second time. When the Bill was moved into Committee on a subsequent evening, the following important admissions by Sir J. Pakington were received with general cheering :— He mentioned the changes which he had resolved to introduce into the details, after consultation with several gentlemen of great influence in New Zealand, and now in this country ; and after anxious consideration on the suggestions which had proceeded from influential members of the House. These suggestions referred mainly to two points—the mode in which the superintendents should be appointed,, and the course tobe taken with the New Zealand Land Company. In reference to the first point, his proposal now was to make the superintendents elective by the s:ime constituency which would elect the members of the Provincial Legislatures, instead of being appointed by the Go-vernor-in-Chief. It was also proposed to strike out the provision relative to the £500 of salary to be allowed to each of the superintendents, and to leave to the Provincial Legislatures the option of paying them salaries or not. With regard to the New Zealand Land Company, Sir John Pakington deemed himself bound to abide by the adjustment which was ratified by the act ol 1847. Should it be the option >>f the House, however, that the stipulation of ss. per acre was not a Judicious arrangement, he was quite willing to stipulate that die company should have a fourth of flic sum derived from the land sales. There was another point to which Sir John was anxious to advert. As there was no determining where gold might not be fold, he proposed to insert a clause, pros' juing that, iii the eveut of gold, or pther pre-

cious minerals, being found in New Zealand, the profits should go to the provincial legislatures. He had already acted upon that rule in the case of the Australian colonies, having intimated by Thursday's mail that all the revenues derived from the gold fields should be unrestrictedly placed at the disposal of the Australian legislatures. The Bill was read a third time on the) 17th of June, and passed, after an ineffectual attempt of Sir William Molesworth to have the Land Clauses omitted, which-was negatived by 99 to 21, and the bill was sent up to the Lords. In the House of Lords on Wednesday, June 23, the Earl of Desart moved the second reading of the New Zealand Government Bill, and after urging on the House the importance of that colony, and giving a sketch of its rise and progress, called on their Lordships to consider the.measure in no party spirit, but with the same forbearance that had been shown to it in the House of Commons.' , , ; Lord Lyttelton expressed his acknowledgments to the Government for bringing in the bill, though he thought it open to objection when compared with the Constitutions granted to the early American colonies. " 'Lord Wodehouse apprehended that the bill was open to many theoretical objections, but thought that its defects might be remedied by the large powers of adjustment, for which allowance had been made. The Duke of Newcastle declined to follow Lord Lyttelton into a discussion on the principles of colonization, but confined himself to the bill before the House, which he was disposed to approve as conferring a larger amount of colonial freedom than had been conceded by any similar measure. There were, however, some parts of the bill which he could not regard with a favourable eye, and especially that clause which regulated the constitution of the Upper Chamber. The Government ought to have abandoned the principle of nominee appointments to the Upper House, and he thought that in retaining it they were dropping the substance of a really Conservative form of Government to grasp at a shadow. To say that there was any resemblance between a nominee Upper Chamber of the kind proposed and their Lordships1 house was simply ridiculous, and the more the scheme was practically considered the more shadowy and unreal would it be found. He also objected most strongly to the contemplated arrangement with the New Zealand Company, and trusted that this portion of the bill would not be proceeded with. Earl Grey regretted that a rising colony should be burdened with such a charge as that contemplated by this measure, but still justice must be done to those who created the Colony. He had been no fosterer of the Company, but he was bound to say that the run now made against it was as unmerited as the support it had at first- received had been exaggerated. The noble earl then proceeded to defend the Company at considerable length, and afterwards addressed the House on the bill. The bill was then read a second time, and their Lordships adjourned after despatching some other business. On the 25th, the Bill went into Committee, when the Duke of Newcastle moved the omission of the 33rd and following clauses, and to substitute others, so as to make the Upper Chamber an elective one. Earl Desart opposed the motion. After some remarks from the Earl of Harrowby and the Earl of Derbythe amendment was negatived without a division. The other clauses were agreed to. '■•-■■