!Mfrs In tit hitnr.
THE COLONIAL CHURCH DEBATE.
_London, 20th May1852.
Sin—The discussion in the House of Commons upon Mr. Gladstone's Colo- nial Church Bill afforded materials for a few notes on points which appear to have been imperfectly perceived by those who record the speeches in the morning journals. Sir John Pakington's speech contained the ease against the bill. His manner of speaking is not ineffective, and is well adapted for dry statements merely requiring clearness of expression and methodical arrangement. He enunciates distinctly, and makes himself intelligible : now and then he amuses one by exacting attention from any careless anditor,—no doubt, a quarter-sessions habit, which the courtesy of the House evidently submits to with impatience. His arguments against the bill ranged themselves under three heads— matters of substance, form, and innuendoes. In substance, he admitted the necessity of legislation, and the general principle of the bill. Formally, he took objections to the vague language of some of the clauses, whieh I think were fairly open to criticism, and might have been amended in Committee. He laid great stress on a parley now going on between the Bishop of Sydney and the Archbishop of Canterbury touching legislation for the Colonial church; which in fact furnished strong argument in favour of the bill, as at once supplying the Australian Church with the means of doing what it requires. But the whole weight and point of his speech fall under the last head, and are purely matter of innuendo. He had discovered dark ulterior designs under the fair outside—deliberate assaults upon the Supremacy— sinister intentions to break up the unity and integrity of the Church—the foreshadowing of a system of priestly domination. All this his keen eye had detected under an ominous clause which prescribed the oath of alle- giance, without the oath of supremacy, to persons assuming clerical offices. The odium of all this he delicately fastened upon Mr. Gladstone—though, with compassionate considerateness, he was slow to believe anything so bad of him.
Sir John's speech was artful enough. It addressed itself to the weaknesses and superstitions of the House. Probably it was intended to damage a dan- gerous opponent. I have no doubt it was addressed to Exeter Hall and the May meetings ; of which many shining lights were in the gallery. The and of it all was plain enough—namely, to manufacture a small additional bit of political capital to trade on at the elections. It may be put down in the same category with the Anti-Maynooth speeches, and the like.
The House evidently went with him—swallowed with readiness the argu- ment against giving the Church in the Colonies power of independent go- vernment, for fear she should split into fragments and break away from the standard of unity and orthodoxy prescribed by the Privy Council. The liberty of meeting, and of making laws for their own government without control, might evidently lead to such results, and so endanger the supremacy of the Crown, which he would defend to the last extremity, Sze. &c. &o.
In support of his views, he quoted addresses from different colonies, pray- ing generally for the liberty of managing their own concerns, but declaring their fidelity to the Church of England, and their desire to remain in affilia- tion to her : whence he argued, with somewhat infelicitous logic, upon the danger and inexpediency of trusting to such bodies the right of self-govern- ment, and the likelihood thereby of occasioning a disruption of the Church. The sum-total of his speech was a manful declaration of his intention to stand by the Crown, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Privy Council, the Act of Supremacy, and the unity and indivisibility of the Church of Eng- land, against any wicked attempts at dismemberment by the creation of separate Colonial Churches, with separate and independent rights of self- government. I have noticed Sir John's speech somewhat fully, because it contains a dis- tinct announcement of the policy of Lord Derby's Government towards the Colonial Church, and in that respect is not an unimportant fact.
But, strange to say, the whole of his speech (the substance of it at least) was demolished—clean--the whole fabric, as I may say, knocked down, swept away, and the rubbish shot, by his own colleague, the Attorney-General. In a speech able and clear and honest, (as Sir Frederick Thesiger always is,) he stated emphatically. his opinion, that, so far from the bill containing any novel or strange principle all the power which Mr. Gladstone seeks to con- fer upon the Colonial Church it already has; that the Acts of Submission, ke. do not apply to the Colonies; that it has full liberty to meet, make laws, &c., without any control from the local authorities in this country ; and thence he drew a legitimate inference against the bill as simply unneces- sary. It is needless to point out the irreconcileable difference between the Colonial Secretary and the Attorney-General.
Of course, if such be clear law, (which I think may on such authority be fairly assumed,) there is no need of special legislation ; and I should think Mr. Gladstone and his client the Colonial Church may be fairly content with a dictum entitled to so much weight. Sure I am, if the Colonial Church were to act upon it, no harm would come of it. Mr. Adderley spoke out fearlessly and effectively, as he always does in sup- port of Colonial nghts. Mr. Bethell added a few cobwebs of law to the discussion. They were swept away by Sir W. P. Wood; who stated with great fairness the whole question, and put to shame Sir John Pakington and his hostility to se- parate independent Churches, by the notable instance of the American Church. In the course of the discussion, Sir Robert Inglis twaddled as usual about Church and State ; and Mr. Horsman quarrelled with Episcopal stipends. The only additional feature of note, was Mr. Gladstone's indignant repu-. diation of Sii John Pakington's innuendoes. So the Rouse passed to the Orders of the Day, and the question stands over
Previous page
