A CHURCH BUGBEAR.
Ie the Colonial Church Regulation Bill had been rejected on its merits as a measure, it would be necessary to suppose that Parlia- ment had not perused the document itself; but the fact is, that it was thrown out in fear of a bugbear supposed to lurk behind. As that lurking monster, however, could not be avowed, it was ne- cessary to blacken and deform the bill as much as possible. The truth is, that it was in itself a measure both commendable and harmless.
The position of the Church of England in the Colonies is pecu- liar. Not possessing there the wealth, the corporate machinery, and the influence by prescription that it possesses in England, it is necessarily thrown upon the principle of self-support. There is no difficulty in finding a favourable disposition towards the Church ; since from Scotland, where the Episcopal Church is a dissent, to the Antipodes, membership in that communion is re- garded socially as a thing comme it faut ; and in some colonies the mild rule of Episcopacy has contrasted favourably with the bitter dissensions of the various sects. But, by the disabilities which augment the dignity of the Church in the midst of its luxurious machinery at home, it is precluded from developing a real colonial existence. It is like a Chinese nobleman with his unhandy finger- nails, in a working settlement—very dignified, but very helpless. From that disability the Regulation Bill proposed to relieve the Church, by raising it to a level with other religions bodies. That was to be done by enabling members of the Church to em- body themselves and manage their own affairs, colony fashion ; and to do which it is not necessary to give them new powers as civilians and colonists, but to relieve them from present disabilities as members of the Church.
Sir James Stephen, from his chair at Cambridge, volunteered to denounce the bill through the columns of the Times, in a letter addressed to Lord Harrowby. He selects his ground with his usual skill. The bill, he says, " will infringe the sacred colonial franchise of self-government." " It will establish in all our colonies an ecclesiastical law at utter variance with that of England," "and the colonists will resent it as a breach of our recent solemn pledges not to interfere in their local affairs." Now the fact is, that the bill provided against the establishment of an ecclesiasti- cal law at variance with that of England, by requiring that the regulations to be passed by the Colonial Synods shall be submitted to the highest ecclesiastical authority at home. Indeed, the bill gave no power to establish ecclesiastical law at all—it only gave pow- er to make regulations for necessary ministration according to the circumstances of colonies—regulations which are expressly required to be in accordance with Imperial law. Nor could the bill infringe Colonial self-government, because it contained no powers that could be at variance with Colonial law. In the first place, it was expressly provided that no regulation, &c., should be binding on any person or persons other than the clergy or members of the Church of England ; nor upon such person excepting in regard to his ministry or membership. In the second place, it was " provided, that no regulations of any such Assembly shall have legal force or validity as against the acts or ordinances for the time being in force of the Local Legislature of the Foreign or Co- lonial possession in which such Assembly shall be holden." It was to be supposed that Sir James Stephen would not neglect to present something like a case. The regulations which we have already quoted are the basis of his argument ; and while he states facts not to be denied, his representation suggests to the reader conclusions at variance with the truth. He presumes that the following remark will be sufficient " to supersede the necessity for any more prolonged discussions on this topic."
" The conditions, subject to whioh the contemplated Synods are authorized to make 'regulations,' are borrowed, not only in their structure and design, but in their whole technical phraseology, from those royal charters, com- missions, and instructions, by which the Crown has in all former times de- fined and restrained the legislative authority of the various Colonial Assem- blies. It follows, therefore, that, if those instruments were sufficient to call into existence new lawmaking powers, this bill must also be sufficient for the same purpose. It is in these respects a mere echo of them. All law- yers in the Colonies are so conversant with these instruments, that this fact will be as perceptible to them as it is to me; and they will of course infer from this remarkable identity of language a corresponding identity of de- sign." On reference to the bill, however, this appears to be a most un- warranted statement. The conditions "subject to which" &c. are restrictions : they are restrictions which prevent clergy and mem- bers of the Church of England from doing anything at variance with Colonial law, with the Imperial law, with the Royal supre- macy, the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles, or the standards of faith and doctrine. Thus, from restrictions to prevent, Sir James infers powers to infringe. Because the old royal charters which contained these restrictions called into exist- ence lawmaking powers, he presumes that this bill must also be sufficient for the same purpose. The whole style of the argument against the bill may be judged from this type.
The bugbear, however, peeps out through its portrait, like that of the Jocose sitter who substitutes his own face for that in the canvass. " The bill," says Sir Tames, "would create Synods such as were never known in this realm, nor, as I believe, in any other
state in which the episcopacy has been established by law. We have no constitutional right to force upon the colonists such an extraordi- nary innovation." There is no appearance of force in this. The bill, however, applies not to colonists as such, but to members of the Church of England who happen to be in the Colonies. It does not compel them, it enables them ; it does not enable them to infringe the right of others, it restrains them. But it establishes Synods,— that is to say, in communities where members are desirous of importing the Church of England, but where everything must be accommodated to the principle of self-government, it empowers members of the Church of England to possess their church, and to adapt it to self-government, by clergy and by laymen. Without such a condition, the Church cannot find any existence in the Co- lonies ; with such a condition, it may be incorporated, and become the Church not only of metropolitan England but of the empire of England. But then, those Synods !—there is a talk of esta- blishing them in England, and what if the measure were to suc- ceed in the Colonies ? Why, then, the Church succeeding, the Synods also would succeed; and then, how would Low Church objectors against Convocation, or against any plan for the self- government of the Church, be able to maintain their prophetic dogma that Synods cannot succeed and must be tyrannical?
Previous page
