LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

New Zealand Herald and Auckland Gazette, Volume I, Issue 51, 12 February 1842, Page 4

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

From the “ New Zealand Government Gazette,” of Wednesday, February 9, 1842. CHURCH EXTENSION BILL. [continued.] Friday, January 2Sth, 1842. Mr. Earp.—ln rising to second the motion, I inav mention one or two points upon which, I think, the bill may be made more explicit. In the fith clause, for instance, regarding Ministers’ Stipends, there is used the general term of “Ministers of Religion,” without any definition as to hose who ought to be so considered. Now, I im an enemy to quackery of all kinds. It is bad in every shape, but more especially when it masks itself under a garb of religion. In my opinion the quackery of Dr. Eady is preferable to that of Dr. Mawworm. The term “ Ministers of Religion” should, in my opinion, be more acurately defined. You will probably have in this Colony, mt no distant day, a body of Socialists, who may claim, from Government, the aid of Government for thei.r teacher. The Attorney General.—The bill does not make the allowance compulsory upon Government, but gives discretionary power, to His Excellency, with the advise of the Executive Council, to order or refuse such grant. It is not, therefore, very probable that a body of Owenites would be enabled to obtain any grant of public money under the provisions of this bill. The Colonial Secretary.—lt seems to me that the objects of the bill are sufficiently and acurately defined. No money can be granted for “the building of a church or chapel,’’unless it lie designed for “ the exercise of the public worship of some denomination of Christians.” Then as regards stipends, aid can only be granted “towards the support ofMinisters of Religion.”—Socialism, or Owenism, cannot be called “religion,” nor can the professors of such principles come under the denomination of “ Christians.” The Governor.—Probably the addition of one word would satisfy the scruples of tne Hon. Mem-ber-(Mr. Earp), who seconded the motion that the bill be read a second time. The bill provides that Government shall contribute “ towards the support of Ministers of Religion,” and perhaps the word “authorized” ministers of religion would meet the difficulty. The Attorney-General —There are many safeguards in the bill, against imposition. The first clause provides that £3OO must have been sub scribed by the applicants for aid in the erection of a building, before their claim can be considered. Then, as regards stipends, the necessary declaration must be subscribed by at least 100 persons ; and, after all, the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has a discretionary power. Before you give money in aid either of building or endowment, the people themselves must contribute. Mr. Earp.—l do not press the objection; 1 merely make allusion to the wording of the clause, because I thought it might prooably give encouragement to parlies whose claims could not be admitted. But, certainly, no considerable number of people will subscribe largely to satisfy- any idle caprice. The Governor.—We wish to place all professors of the Christian Religion on the same footing. We say we will afford aid, upon a scale which has been laid down, in support of any authorized minister. That is not forcing upon them any doctrine. The Colonial Treasurer. —The question is, what is to be the definition of Ministers of Religion ? There are numerous sects: —the Church of England, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and a great number of others; others of a rather doubtful character. The Colonial Secretary.—The Governor, with the aid of the Executive Council, will exercise a proper discretion as to the parties who have really a claim. A sect has, for instance, recently sprungup, calling themselves “ A Provident Sect,” the object of which is commendable. Should a considerable number of such religionists make application for aid from Government, their claim would be entitled to every fair consideration. The Governor.—On this question I heard a great deal of discussion —probably more than I shall ever hear again—=»when the subject was before the Governor and Council ot New South Wales. Some high Churchmen in that Council were opposed to the measure, on the supposition that its provisions gave too wide a latitude for the admission to pecuniary aid from Government to Dissenters ; but I am glad to state that the alarms of those gentlemen were proved to be erroneous, and their arguments successfully refuted. The motion for the second reading of the bill was then put, and carried unanimously ; and the bill was, upon the motion of the Colonial Secretary committed.

BILL IN COMMITTEE The three first clauses (on being read by the Clerk of Councils), passed sub silencio. On the fourth clause being read, which provides that the Trustees of any church or chapel for the time being, shall set apart sittings marked with the words “Free Seats ;” amounting to not less than one-third part of the whole of the sittings in such church or chapel,— The Governor said, —I wish it were possible to avoid making any marked or apparently invidious distinction, between the seats occupied by those who are pew-renters, and those who are not. I really do not see why we should tell the world that persons sitting in any particular part of a church or chapel, are unable to pay for the accommodation. The Attorney-General.—l should have a strong repugnance to the clause as it now stands, if I believed that marking those portions of the pews or benches, not rented, with the words “ Free Seats,” would give pain to any individual attending Divine Service. I think, on the contrary, that satisfaction would, in almost every instance, be given by such an intimation, on entering a church or chapel. A stranger, for instance, entering a place of worship, would have no difficulty, ob serving certain seats sn marked, in obtaining accommodation. But, on the contrary, were no seats marked “Free.” he might experience inconvenience, not knowing where he could sit, without intrusion on the pew-renters. For myself, going to church on Sundays, seeing a bench with a back against it, 1 am diffident of occupying it; but, if there was any seat marked with the word “ Free,” I should unhesitatingly sit down upon it. The Colonial Treasurer. —Perhaps some other distinction than that of marking the seats might be adopted. A regulation might be made that the seats for non-pew-renters and strangers should be placed in the middle of the church or chapel, or some other place specified. The Attorney-General.-—Such a plan would, in a great measure, be inoperative. Without some distinctive mark, how could strangers know which part of the church or chapel was appropriated for free seats? The plan proposed, of describing “Free Seats” to be such, is adopted in New South Wales; and also, so far as my experience extends, in all the new Churches of England. In fact I rather think there is an express stipulation in “ the Act for regulating theLuilding of Churches and Chapels” to that effect. * • The Governor.- There is certainly great weight in what has been said. It would, no doubt, be very gratifying to mvseff or Honorable Members present, were we to return to England and enter any of the new Churches, to observe a which we could at once occupy, without being subjected to the inconvenience, and discomfort, of waiting in the aisle until some pew-renter wouid invite us to enter. The Colonial Treasurer.—l am only anxious to ascertain whether this clause, regarding “ Free Seats,” may not be construed, by some religious denominations, to interfere with the disciplined their churches, as regards pew-rents. Some religious bodies have no seats in their chapels “free,” and, as Trustees are to be appointed under the sanction of Government, they may deem the regulation of marking any portion of their seats “ Free Seats,” objectionable. The Attorney-General—lt has ever been advanced as an argument in favour of the Church of England, that it is “The Poor Man’s Church.” No place of worship, in connexion with the Church of England —at least in our time—has been built or endowed, without providing due accommodation for those who cannot afford to rent pews. In the Chapels of several denominations of Christians, and, I believe, as regards one class especialv, all but the very paupers are called upon to pay. Mr. Earp. —I agree with much that has been said; but if honorable members are acquainted with the recent regulations of dissenting congregations in England, so far as regards their places of worship, it will be found that very rapid strides have been made for providing Free Seats. This observation applies, I believe, to all religionists except the Roman Catholics. The Governor.—As regards the Roman Catholics I know that they make no such distinction as is now proposed ; every worshipper is at liberty to take possession of any seat which may be at liberty. Mr. Earp. —Then they have no seats at all. The Governor. —I take a very liberal view of the course adopted by Roman Catholics in regard to their places of worship, having seen at Genoa, and other places in Europe, a chief officer of government kneeling down by the-side ot a pauper. So far as regards an equality of right by high and low, it is certainly correct to say that no person has a seat. Mr. Earp.— Such may be the case on the continent of Europe, but certainly a different system prevails in tne Roman Catholic chapels —or at least in many of them—in England and Ireland. [to be continued.]