PARLIAMENTARY EXTRACTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 95, 30 October 1852, Page 5

PARLIAMENTARY EXTRACTS.

Rnusrc of Commons, June 23. Mr. Gladstone moved, in committee of the whole house, for leave to bring in a second bill to enable the Church of England in the colonies to meet in synod for the purposes of ecclesiastical government; his object was to make such changes as would meet some of the minor objections to the previous bill (which was opposed by L-oveniinent), and to have it printed in the corrected form, and sent out to the colonies preparatory to legislation in a future parliament. lie answered the objection of Sir J. Pakington, that the measure was opposed to the supremacy of the crown, by saying that subscription to the 39 articles, in which that supremacy was declared, would be required in all cases, and to meet another argument of the same right lion, gentleman's he insisted that the bill would tend to strengthen, instead of to weaken and divide, the church in the colonies. An objection was taken on a point of order whether a bill for the same object being before the house, it was competent to move a resolution in committee for the purpose of getting amendments into the bill instead of inserting them in the usual way, but the question was ruled in Mr. Gladstone's favour. Secretary Sir J. Pakington complained of the course taken by Mr. Gladstone in bringing in his bill, in the first instance late on a Wednesday afternoon, in order that his speech might go out to the colonies unanswered. He repeated his objections to the measure, and bis promise that government would consider the subject, and contended that the house had not information to justify legislation. Mr. Horsman described the bill as a revolutionary bill, intended to introduce ecclesiastical tyranny into the colonies, and reminded the house that it was brought forward by the organ of a dangerous and encroaching party in the church. Sir W. P. Wood denied that the object or tendency of the measure was ecclesiastical tyranny. On the contrary, it proposed to give greater freedom of action, and to extend the power of the laity. Mr. Butt spoke against the bill, and after a few words of mutual explanation between Mr. Gladstone and Sir J. Pakington, the resolution was agreed to. The bill introduced by Mr. Gladstone to relieve the bishops, clergy, and laity in the colonies, in communion with the Chinch of England, in respect to legal doubts or disabilities affecting the management of their church affairs, proposes to enact, that the bishops, clergy, and laity in the colonies shall have full power to meet together, and to make regulations for the better conduct of their ecclesiastical affairs, subject to the local regulations respectively, and to such provisions as they may think proper to enact. The bill then goes on to declare that it shall not be lawful to impose any temporary or pecuniary penalty or disability, other than loss of the emoluments of any ecclesiastical office or benefice, under any sentence or proceeding affecting the tenure thereof. The regulations made on the occasion of these meetings to be only binding upon the before-mentioned parties within the particular colony. The consent of her Majesty is necessary to give authority to these regulations. The subordination of the bishops, cleigy, &c. to the See of Canterbury to be recognized by their regulations, except upon the consent of the Archbishop of the said See, signified under bis hand and seal. The 6th clause is as follows: —"'And nothing herein contained shall beheld to authorize ai"y such regulation which shall director allow the bishop" of any diocese to confirm or consecrate, or to ordain, or to license or institute any person to any See, or to any pastoral charge or other episcopal or clerical office, except upon such poison having immediately before taken the oath of allegiance to her Majesty, and hay-

ing; likewise subscribed the 39 Articles, and having, furthermore declined bis unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer;, but if such See, pastoral charge, 01 episcopal or clerical office be in a foreign country, then the oath of allegiance need not be required to be taken.by such persons."