THE CROWN AND THE COLONIAL BISHOPS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 299, 12 September 1855, Page 5

THE CROWN AND THE COLONIAL BISHOPS.

The curt answer with which Sir George Grey met Mr. Duulop's 'question respecting the appointment of Bishops can hardly be supposed, either hy the Minister'himself, or by any one else, to dispose ofthe difficulty which was raised. The Legislature of Canada, with the assent of her Majesty's representative, has declared that " it is desirable to remove a semblance of connection between Church and State," yet the semblance,~and something more, is retained, so long as tbe head of the State nominates the chief pastors of the Church. There is no question as to the general policy of the Government towards the provinces of Canada: we prefer to leave their whole internal administration to themselves -, we have recently acted on that impression in a matter deeply affecting theresources and ihe efficiency of the Colonial church. The plain dictates of political logic would seem to require that we should make good our professions in respect to Episcopal nominations, as we have already done in the kindred subject of parochial endowments. Or, if we retain the right, we must prove at least that the Canadian Legislature'did not include its exercise among those political links which connect the Church with the State. As to this, no doubt it may be said that the Canadian Parliament has tacitly assented to tbe continued interposition ofthe Crown in episcopal nominations, and that, so long as no sense of grievance is expressed, it is unnecessary and impolitic for the English Government to prop ise a change. This would not, indeed, be the reply of a far seeing statesman ; but it would be very consistent to the organ of such a Government as Lord Palmerston's, which must regard ecclesias-

tical questions in general as simply an intrusion into ihe sphere of more important affairs. Quieta nan movere would naturally be their maxim, as it was of Sir Robert Walpole, the pattern and hero of universal whiggery. Nor, indeed, can the Canadian Assembly complain with much justice of the existing state of things, so long as the Church herself does not disapprove of it. The Legislature, of its own part, expressly repudiates the right or duty of interfering in the affairs of religious bodies ; _it;:cannot, therefore, with any show of reason, object to their voluntary methods of administration. Whether Queen or Pope, patrons or vestries, be the recognised dispensers of ecclesiastical preferment, cannot be a matler of consequence to that civil power which has washed its hands of the whole concern. In the event of an objection being expressed by the Church, the Assembly wo.uld indeed he bound to support it, and to vindicate in her behalf the colonial freedom which has already been vindicated at her cost. Sir George Grey would then probably feel himself bound to take a little more interest in Mr. Dunlop's question. Meanwhile, we h;»ve no direct evidence as to the real feeling ofthe Canadian Church ; whether she desires to hold fast every link which binds her to the Mother Church, or whether she is drifting willingly towards the position of her American sister. That position is not, perhaps, quite so satisfactory as in our impatience of. Parliamentary control we sometimes imagine. We have been struck by some very sensible remarks on the subject contained in a recent Charge by the Bishop of Montreal, in which that excellent prelate-confirms what has been already said by tbe Bishop of Frederickton as to the limited numbers and scanty resources of the Church in most parts of the United States. It is by no means clear that it would be well for' Churchmen in the Colonies to assimilate themselves more closely to that pattern. The only thing which could fairly oblige them to do so would be an abuse of the power of nomination which the Crown had up to this time ietained. For many years the selection of Colonial Bishops was made on principles so just, and in a .spirit so friendly to the Church, that no one would have taken exception to such a patronage; rather, we were inclined to regret that sucli names, as Selwyn, Field, Medley, Gray, aud many others, had so few counterparts in our diocesan appointments al home. There is less confidence for the future. Sir George Grey, as Secretary for the Colonies, has had the presumption to overrule the opiniou of tbe Bishop of New Zealand as to the arrangements necessary for his own diocese, and interposed the official objections of Downing-stieet against the claims of a missionary prelate, who had laboured, as few ever laboured before, in the isles of the South. So the Bishop has left us, and is now on a wise and well considered plan for the interest of the Church in all time to come. Sir G. Grey knew better than the Bishop, and New Zealand is still an undivided See. If this were a fair sample of Ministerial interference with a Colonial Church, we ould well understand that Canada might wish to enjoy such a privilege no longer. The Crown did not endow her bishoprics, and could not on that plea claim the right ofnoininaiio.u, as iv the older countries of Christendom. Political reasons are expressly overruled by the Colonial Legislature. It remains, therefore, that the Crown should show its warrant for the exercise of the patronage in ..its right discharge, that the continuance of such, a privilege should be justified by a faithful and devoted Episcopate appointed under its powers. — Guardian.