The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 184, 15 July 1854, Page 6

The L yttelton Times.

July 15, 1854. The Reports of the proceedings in the General Assembly, as given in the Auckland papers, are eminently meagre and unsatisfactory. They have to us more the appearance of a bare transcript of the journals of the two Houses than a record of the views which our Representatives entertain. In one respect they leave us more in the dark than the official reports of the proceedings in Sir George Grey's nominee Councils.

These last at least contained the stereotyped notice of " Debate ensued" whenever a debate took pkce, but the Auckland papers fail to give us even this piece of information; so that so far from being made acquainted with what our Representatives have said, we do not even know upon what occasion they have said anything at all. Notwithstanding this inconvenience, however, the proceedings in the Assembly have been so keenly ciiticised that the mere publication of the division lists has afforded abundant matter for discussion both here and elsewhere. Upon one question, especially,—we allude to the proposal for opening the proceedings with prayer, —it would have been desirable to have had a fuller report. Almost^'the sum total of what we know is, that the"proposal was adopted by a majority often, and that the Assembly invited a minister of the Church of England to officiate, asserting at the same time that it was not thereby intended to confer or admit any preeminence to that Church. Now we cannot believe that a question of this nature, —a question necessarily involving principles of very high importance in a country which has not yet established a predominant church, or become committed to its maintenance, —could have been dismissed in so short and off-hand a manner as is represented : and on this account we regret the more that *ye have not been enabled to gain a fuller insight into the opinions expressed upon it by the different members. Without such information, the more superficial part of the public are disposed at first sight to judge of the two parties in a summary way, and to characterize the one a^ the religious and the other as the irreligious body. On more nearly examining the division list, however, it will at once be obvious to all who are acquainted with the character and sentiments of the individuals, that this assumption will not hold good; consequently, that some other motives than a love of, or a dislike to religion must have influenced the votes. Now a man may be most sincerely pious, and most earnestly devoted to the interests of religion, and yet we can conceive that there may be occasions upon which such a person would think it neither judicious nor proper to introduce prayer. There may, for instance, be occasions when prayer would be an unmeaning mockery rather than an edifying exercise, and here a really religious man would be more averse to it than one who was less scrupulous. We do not of course mean to imply that on the occasion in question this would have been the case; we merely adduce this example as an illustration of a case when a man would not be considered less religious, but rather more so for opposing a proposal to P ray Publicly. In like manner, there may be occasions when in the interest of religion itself it may be expedient to refrain from an open manifestation of religious feeling. It has been matter of surprise in some quarters that any representatives, from this settlement—founded, as it was, on religious principles, should so far have forgotten those principles as to have voted against a proposition to open the proceedings with prayer. It must, however, be remembered that it was not so much a vague and undefined idea of encouraging religion generally which prevailed in the foundation of this settlement, as an organised and maturely-considered plan for plant«jg a branch of the Church of England in this colony. To any thinking mind there is a wide difference between these two ideas.

The one is nearly allied to latitudinarianism, the other is the profession of a specific creed ;—the one supposes a system of compromise, the other represents the principle of dogmatic teaching. Now this last is emphatically the principle of the Church of England, and we can easily conceive how a strict member of that Church might shrink from joining in prayer upon an occasion when he thought that the maintenance of this principle, in all its integrity, was endangered. Shylock said that he was willing to join in common matters with men of hostile religion, but that he would not eat with them, drink with them, nor fray with them, —all these actions being connected with his devotional observances. And Shylock was at least true to his own principles in so saying. We cannot help thinking that the greater part of those who voted for prayers would have been somewhat shocked, had a Mormonite preacher been introduced as the leader of their devotions. We will not now enter upon what we may call the politico-ecclesiastical view of this question. Time and space forbid. But we have no doubt that some of those who opposed the motion questioned on general grounds the expediency of the union between Church and State, and argued on the broad principle, " Render unto Ceesar (he things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The way in which the original motion was carried out strikes us as strangely inconsistent.. The motion was introduced by a member of the Free Kirk of Scotland, and, upon its being carried by a large majority, a Roman Catholic Speaker sent for a clergyman of the Church of England, with a request that he would officiate. This is certainly one manner of asserting the principle of religious equality—but we scarcely think it the right one. We are more inclined to agree with those who think it better not to bring religion forward at all, where the manner of so doing -is likely to clash with the feelings and principles of a large number of those present. Some people may think that this principle has been carried to an extreme. The most consistent course to have adopted would, we think, have been one similar to that adopted in this Province at the opening of the Provincial Council. If the Representatives, who were so disposed, had attended the services of their own Church, then every member could have joined in that form of prayer which clashed neither with his principles nor his feelings. The question altogether is one which is open to many varieties of opinion. What we wish to point out is— that consistent members of any one Church are perfectly justified in refusing their sanction to any sj'stem of worship which might compromise even for a moment that footing of equality which they claim for their own Church, and which they are ready to yield to any other.

We observe that our contemporary the Canterbury Standard is settling down to its work. This week's number has given a most interesting account of all the local news attainable. The tone and temper of the Standard from its first issue lead us to hope that this Settlement will prove itself able to support two newspapers, without requiring either of them to descend to the level of an " Eatanswill Gazette," or a "Pottsville Independent." Though the Standard and ourselves are likely to differ on many points of Colonial Policy—in the main point of all we shall cordially co-ope-rate—in upholding the interests of this Settlement, and in an endeavour to elevate the tone of our local politics. We invite the Standard to join in the effort which we have always made to suppress all tendency to the scurrility and low personality which often find their way into

newspaper correspondence, and which have been too long the disgrace of the Colonial Press. If the Journals of this Settlement, the youngest born of England, unite in setting a good example to older colonies, in this respect alone, they will be doing a good work, the effect of which will be felt through a farther extent of time and place than we should be inclined at first sight to imagine.