CHURCH CONSTITUTION IN NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 697, 7 April 1852, Page 3

CHURCH CONSTITUTION IN NEW ZEALAND.

The question of a constitution or an organized government of the Church of England in New Zealand, was exciting a strong degree of public interest in the Canterbury settlement, and meetings had been held at Christchurch and Lyttelton for the consideration of this important subject. At the Christchurch meeting, on the 15th ult., Mr. Godley in a very long speech enforced, by a variety of arguments, the necessity of conferring this constitution, and adduced the present flourishing state of the American Church as an illustration of the favourable effects of tho establishment of an organized government for the Church. On the question of franchise Mr. Godley expressed himself to some length and appears desirous of confining this privilege to regular communicants, to those “in full communion with the Church. ” The following is an extract from his speech:— "‘After much and anxious reflection, I can see no proper qualification for a church franchise but that of full communion ; and I say this quite irrespectively of any doctrinal opinion about the nature and effects of that Holy Sacrament ; I say it because this qualification or something strictly equivalent to it is in consonance with invariable usage in the ancient Church, and also indeed in every Christian denomination, except our own, of which I ever heard ; I say so moreover because we can have otherwise absolutely no guarantee that those who assume to legislate for the Church are even nominally churchmen, still less that they observe those laws an observance of which all her members admit to be of the very essence of Churchmanship, and while I entertain what many would consider very democratic views about the participation of the laity in Church government, it is a sinequa non with me that they should be Church laitv. Now, it seems a contradiction in terms to say that a man is in communion with the Church who never communicates. The very word Communion, as applied indiscriminately to Christian fellowship, and to a participation in the Lord’s supper, proves that the two ideas are in the minds of Christians, identical. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that those who hold a different view in this matter either have hardlv thought out the question, or are mainly actuated by what I conceive to be a mistaken view of expediency. Some of them fear that non-com-municants will be offended ; but I must say I think a man who deliberately and habitually abstains from communion with the Church, is not one to whose opinions and feelings Church rules should be made subordinate. Others fear that a communicant’s franchise might lead to a profanation of the sacrament. Have they enquired whether in other religious denominations, where conformity to religious ordinances is invariably required, as a qualification for Church government, any such profanatory effect is experienced or even suspected. The fact is, it would really not be worth a man's while, for the sake of so small an inducement, to be habitually guilty of so great a crime. But even if it were found, as is just possible, that sueh a rule might aggravate the guilt of a few abandoned individuals, ought we to place their supposed spiritual interests in competition with the welfare of the whole Church ? Others, perhaps, have heard the maxim, that taxation involves representation, and think accordingly that every man who pays money for Church purposes has a right to participate in Church government. Have they considered how far this abstract proposition would lead them ? Certairf it is, that no political or religious community in the world even admitted or acted upon such a principle. No matter how far a nation may go in the direction of universal suffrage, it always stops short of making contribution to its revenue the sole qualification for political power. Women, children, idiots, convicts, aliens, may and generally do contribute to revenue, but they never

enjoy its supposed correlative, that is power. Go and subscribe to a Wesleyan meeting-house or a Presbyterian church, and see whether your doing so will get you a vote for the next Conference or the next Assembly. You mav reasonably make pecuniary contribution one qualification, but I cannot even conceive a proposal deliberately made that it should be the only one. On the other hand, I hardly think any one will propose as a permanent qualification for Church government a simple statement of Church membership. This again would be quite unheard of; no religious or political privilege was ever yet-* r<t*.>ted on the mere condition that a person claimed it, for it comes to that; there is always required some test of his sincerity ; something that involves a question of fact upon which the claimant may be objected to, if he be not telling the truth. There remains therefore only the alternative of a double franchise i. e. a statement of church membership, combined with a payment; and this is the franchise which has been apparently proposed for adoption in Wellington, and it may be said in South Australia also, for seatrenting involves in some degree a profession of churchmanship as well as a raonev payment. To this rule I object in the first place, that it does not secure the real churchmanship of the governing body, and in the second, that pecuniary payment ought not to be mixed up' with Church franchises at all. Wherever it is adopted, the best churchman may be excluded because poor, while persons who are notoriously not Churchmen will ,havq._votes ip Church matters, and assist in making Church laws. On the whole, therefore, it does appear to me that no good reason can be assigned why the Church of England should adopt a more lax rule with respect to its franchises than any other ecclesiastical body.” The following resolutions were adopted by the meeting:—Moved by Mr. Godley, seconded by the Rev. H. Jacobs,— “That it is extremely desirable that some form of government for the Church of England in New Zealand should be established with as little delay as possible.” Moved by Mr. Pritchard, and seconded by Mr. Rose, — “That with a view of promoting this end, a Committee be appointed to represent this settlement, to consist of the Licensed Clergy, and an equal number of laymen, and that the Committee have power to add to their number so as to arrange that the number of Clerical and lay members be always equal.” Moved by Mr. Worsley, and seconded by Mr. Packer, — “ That Mr. Tancred, Mr. Rose, Mr. Brittan, Mr. Pritchard, and Mr. Woolcombe be requested to act as lay members of the said Committee.” Moved by Mr. vVoolcombe, and seconded by Dr. Gundry,— “ That such Committee be authorised and instructei! to !tsdf j>» \cjth tHc Bishop of New Zealand, and with the Committees which have been, or which may hereafter be appointed at other settlements for similar purposes, and to adopt in concert with them, such measures as may be deemed advisable with the view of obtaining for the members of the Church of England in this colony, the power of managing their own ecclesiastical affairs.” At the Lyttelton meeting,"at wlii&h resolutions of a like nature were adopted, similar opinions on the franchise were expressed by Mr. Fitzgerald, Captain Simeon, and the’ Rev. B. W. Dudley. Mr. Chohnondely, on the other hand, while confessing his opinions on this question to be in a great measure unformed, reminded the meeting that “ Church privileges were generally conceived as being attached to Church membership, and could never be denied to those who have been received into the Church by the Sacrament of Baptism.”

We print below, for the information of our readers, a circular which was issued by the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners just before the Agra’s departure to the various absentee proprietors in England;— Colonial Land and Emigration Office, Park-street, Westminster, 185 . Sir, —I am directed by. the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners to inform you that ber Majesty’s Government have had under their consideration the system heretofore observed by the New Zealand Company, in respect to the registration and certifying of transfers of land orders in the several settlements of the Company in New Zealand. You are aware that in the laud orders issued by the Company it was announced that transfers of such land orders would not be recognised, unless a declaration, or in later cases, a deed, of transfer was signed by both buyer and seller, and left for registration, either at the New Zealand House in this country, or with the Company’s Agent in the colony ; and that it was the practice of the Company, on receiving such a declaration or deed of transfer, to grant a ceitificate of if, under the signature of their Secretary, and to register the transaction in a book kept for that purpose.

Her Majesty's Government have been advised by the law officers of the Crown, that it is not incumbent on the Crown, under the Act 10 and 11 Vic. c. 112, to follow the practice of the Company in this respect, although the Crown is bound to fulfil the contracts of the Company, and, in the case of a holder of an instrument of transfer. to co* vey the land described to him. Iler Majesty’s Government do not propose, under these circumstances, to grant any further certificates of transfers, or to establish any registry of them in this country, as was done by the NewZealand Company, anxious that land orders should, as early as possible, be exchanged for Crown Grants of the land to which they refer. Such Crown Grants, however, can only be issued in the colony, and on the application to the Local Government of the holders of land orders or certificates of selection, or their duly authorised atlornies. 1 am accordingly to suggest to you that you should at once instruct your attorney in New Zealand to apply for a Crown Grant or Grants in exchange for the land orders or certificates of selection belonging to you ; or if yen have as yet no attorney in the colonv, I am to suggest that you should immediately appoint one, and give him the necessary instructions for his guidance. In order to facilitate (he obtaining of a Crown Grant, it would be desira-

ble that your attorney should be furnished with, — Ist. Your original laud order anil its counterpart. 2nd. Jhe certificate of selection of the laird to which the land ind.-i relets. 3rd. Ihe ceiiifieaie rd selection of any land for which a land order was not issued. 4th. In the case of persons, not original purchasers, such papers as may be necessary to prove the right to the laud order or certificate of selection, us the case may be, —as for example, the certificate of transfer issued by the New Zealand Company. With a view to factli ate the proceedings of the Local Government, and to remove the necessity of their instituting an enquiry into the continued validity of powers of attorney, which may have been granted some time since, it is proposed that absentee proprietors should notify to rhe Emigration Commissioneis, in order that the Commissioners may report to lire Governor, the name of the person holding an absentee’s power of attorney, with a statement that that power is still in force. I enclose a form of letter for that purpose, to be filled up and signed by you, and returned to me ; and 1 am to point out that a compliance with the arrangement on your part, may probably prevent an inconvenient delay in the issue of any crown grant to which you may be entitled. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, Secretary.