General Assembly.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 583, 5 June 1858, Page 3

General Assembly.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,

The following is a continuation from our last issue of the discussion on the Church Trust Bill, in the Legislative Council. On the 22nd of April, the debate, which had been adjourned on the 19th, was resumed. Mr. Swainson, after a few prefatory observations, moved the adoption of the 2nd clause which had been previously read. The Chief Justice regretted to find himself in opposition to the remaining part of the bill. He could not tell what might be the opinions of other hon. members on the question, but was aware that a considerable proportion of them were pledged to that measure. If any differed, he wished some one had risen^ instead of leaving to him the painful duty of what might appear an isolated opposition. He regretted especially to oppose a bill introduced by his honorable and learned Mend (Mr. Swainson), who had been to him a friend and counsellor, since his arrival in New Zealand, towards whom he' felt great obligation and re^ gard, and of whom the House must have observed, that, during its course of legislation upon the various bflls before it, scarcely a sugr gestion had been offered by his honorable friend^ which the House had not found an improvement. Perhaps, then, the Council would extend its indulgence while he (the C. J.) explained why that subject was novel to him, and how he became placed in his then position. Since the Council separated on Monday, certain docur xnents had been supplied to him, which showed that the Constitution, adverted to in the 2nd and 3rd sections of that bill, was not assented to till the month of June last. In ordinary course, therefore, that Constitution and the proceedings that led to it would not find their way into the' English journals, till he was leaving or had left England. He had no means, therefore, of becoming informed upon the subject until his arrival here. But, upon landing in New Zealand, he found not the most distant allusion, either in the public press or in private society, to that important measure for the Government of the Church. Upon being

called to that Assembly, and entering that Council, he heard not a whisper upon the subject, and to that hour he looked in vain for any expression of the wishes, of the people by petitions on that table. The notice of motion by his honorable friend enlightened him but little, for that notice contained no mention of the Constitution according to which, it how appeared, the management of church property was in future to be regulated, but simply informed the Council that his hon. friend wished to introduce a bill to facilitate the transfer of certain property from the Bishop of New Zealand to other trustees. It was not until his hon. friend on Monday last opened the subject to that Council, that he (the C. J.) learned the true nature of that bill. Then it was that his hon friend informed the Council the bill was not a mere transfer of trusts bill, by a bill by ! whiclr the Bishop, Clergy, and Laity were to be organised, sound doctrine and discipline maintained, the patronage of the church distributed, tribunals erected, clergy paid, and the whole body of the church governed. For his hon. friend, in then drawing a golden future of the unity of the church to result from that measure, informed the Council that nearly the whole of the real property of the church had become vested in the Bishop of New Zealand, but reminded the Council that until that property was transferred to the trustees contemplated by that bill, the basis of church government was wanting. What course could he (the C. J.) pursue ? Had he at once left the Council, there being but six or eight members .present, he would have appeared disrespectful to the hon. mover, and to the Council, besides exposing himself to misrepresentation; if he remained, he must either vote for the bill, or give a silent vote against it, or adopt the course he was then taking. Ought he to have opposed the second reading p It was said he ought, and1 that having allowed the first section to pass in committee, sub silentio, he could not reasonably object to the remainder of the bill. But as to opposing the second reading, he did not wish to force himself, in opposition to any mea-; sure upon the Council: and as to allowing the first section to pass, he approved of their excellent Bishop relieving himself from the burdensome management of the trust estates, nominated by the Bishop, or by others in whom that excellent prelate reposed confidence, provided only that the trusts were preserved, as he assumed was the intention of the first section of the bill. It was in the second section that mention was first made of the so-called Constitution for the Government of the church. What, then, was that Constitution ? His hon. friend (Mr. Swainson) had kindly favoured him with a sight of various papers; viz., a copy of "The Constitution" itself the schedule thereto; a report of certain proceedings out of which that Constitution resulted, and list 9of resolutions passed by a certain Conference in reference to the same. The second section of the bill proposed that the new trustees shall be compelled to administer their trusts in accordance with that Constitution, and by the laws of the Constitution the trustees were under the direor tion of the General Synod. For by that section not only were the powers pf selling, leasing, and exchanging, to be exercised as the Synod should direct, but any trustee who should assert an independent action might be dis- | missed from his trust at the pleasure of the l; Synod for the time being1. That General Synod was first specifically mentioned in the3rd section. But he would, by permission of the Council, spare them a double argument, and read the second in connection with the third. Now, he would be no party to trusting that Synod with the management of the church property. He was not opposed to the synodical action of the church. He earnestly wished to see that synodical action established. ,He would fain see "4avger powers conferred upon the bishop, he would strengthen the hands of the parochial clergy, he would gladly see proper tribunals erected to determine those controverted points of doctrine, which sometimes ran into the deepest mysteries of Christianity, and he would j guard against the scandals which arose out of I such enactments as the English Church Discipline Act. But for the management of large estates,, he had no faith in geueral synods. A general synod would only end (practically) in a j compact ecclesiastical body., In such bodies the . dominant party of the church would reign supreme. Such bodies might be entrusted with matters of doctrine, and even, to some extent, , of discipline. If stirring questions were mooted some of the laity might be induced to join their influence, but in the every day of management of property the influence of the laity soon became merged in the power of the clergy. In the- earliest ages of the church, doubtless, the laity had their influence, but in what did it result? What had passed at our own reformation ? What had they of late years not witnessed in Spain, in Portugal, and still more re- - cently in Sardinia? The legislators, such ab those countries possessed, had been compelled to interfere at last with a rough hand, and assert, on behalf of the laity and the State, their authority over the property of the church. It' was all very well to say such evils wosld be prevented by the action of the laity, in general Synod assembled; but the answev was, you could not get the laity to attend. The scheme looked well on paper. He could well understand that at first a few earnest and holy men such as he had had the happiness to be introduced to since his arrival in New Zealand, might succeed in prevailing with a few of the better class of their congregations, or parishioners to lend their assistance towards the working of the synod; but their action would soon cease. The laity were and ever would be gradually withdrawn, and the general synod would become an association of ecclesiastics, the endow-

ment of that synod would end in ecclesiastical , power and aggrandizement, but the influence of the laity would become a mere shadow. Jf that was true of large communities, it whs especially bo in a small population, distributed about among scattered hamlets, isolated stations, and a few little coast towns, as in New Zealand. And how did the present Constitution propose to associate the laity to the control of the property of the church f That Constitution comprised, besides its preamble, thirty-two articles, of which the first six contained the fundamental provisions, while a schedule of seven clauses was appended, embodying certain specified trusts and powers. These, however, must all be read in connection with certain resolutions to which he would presently advert. But, at the outset, this document was an earnest of. .the future influence of the laity, and of the spirit in which the Council might expect church property would probably be administered, under the direction of this particular synod. In addition to the two | bishops and six archdeacons, members of the conference, whose names are appended to the Constitution, the Council would find the names of two clergymen, and seven laymen, and of. these laymen five if not sis lived in Auckland or its immediate neighbourhood. Otago, he found, was not intended to be of the general synod at all, for in his hasty review of the resolutions he did not observe Otago mentioned, although he was informed it was one of the most thriving provinces in the colony. Turning to the Constitution itself, the Council would find that its framers were not content with the authorised version of the Scriptures, Book of Common Prayer, and the 89 articles of the church. He begged pardon. He was not going to weary the Council by going through the articles of that Constitution for the government of the church. It was a large subject, one which some hon. member present had more considered, and understood it much better than' himself. He was compelled, however, to ask the Council to read with him the Bth clause, which provided, inter alia, that the first gene-; ral synod should consist of the bishops and of such and so many members to be "elected in' ; such manner as the then conference shall pre-' scribe. (His honQr read the Bth clause.) Now; the first synod would probably determine the character of the next. He begged the Council therefore to turn with him to the resolution, by which the conference hnd fixed the standard of qualification, for those of the laity who should' be allowed to vote. Every elector is to be compelled to sign the vo|ing paper as follows: (His honor read the vonng paper proposed.) Aud, thus the Council would perceive, that, be the parishioner ever so true and faithful a member of the church, be he a regular communicant, a constant worshipper at divine service, let him combine the highest intelllige-nce with the. most unsullied character, still he can never be permitted to have a voice in electing even a member for that (so called) general synod, by whom the property of the church is"to be administered, unless he consent to bind his conscience to i the laws of that Constitution. There were parts of that Constitution to which many persons might object. Some might object for instance, to the second article, which provided that even the general synod, which they were called upon to set up, should never be, permitted to accept, and consequently that the Church in New Zealand, should never be permitted to adopt, any alteration of the formularies of the church, although such alterations were sanctioned by the Crown, and adopted by the united Church of England and Ireland, unless the Synod and the church of New Zealand had afco the consent of convocation—many men distrusted convocation as at present constituted. What means the branch of the Church of England in New Zealand possessed of getting herself represented in convocation, whether her bishops could gain admission into that body, or would find the doors of convocation closed against them he would not stop to enquire; although he was ' not an entire stranger to the attempts made by certain colonial dignitaries to obtain admission there, nor for a once projected application for a mandamus, which however, he believed the Court of Queen's Bench were neyer invited to grant or pained by refusing. But this he would say:—property held by trustees for the benefit of the church ought not to be applied at the discretion of a mere section of that * church ; and if the House were asked to place that property under the control of a representative body, those who asked such powers should see that the representation was thrown open. Every bona fide member of the church should be admitted to vote, or at all events the church constituency should not be confined to those only who would subscribe the constitution before the House. He 'was aware it would be said they left the rights of churchmen untouched, and the 32nd article would be quoted as if churchmen required foresooth the guarantee of that general synod in behalf of their rights and liberties. But what were the rights reserved? The members of that House had J probably been baptized, they had some of them j been married, aud all might in turn be buried. ", But when that conference deprived all churchmen save those who subscribed that constitution of all right ever to vote for a candidate of that body by whom the property of this church was to be managed, the conference cut 'them off from rights which especially bound them to that church. The right of the laity was admitted by the terms of that constitution, while the enjoyment of that right was arbitrarily restricted to a limited class. He begged to assure the House he did not wish to treat the Bill before the House in any captious spirit. "What the trusts were upon which their excellent bishop held that property, property which the honorable mover described as the property of the church, aud which he (the Chief Justice)

supposed the bishop himself considered he held in trust for the church, what those trusts were the House was not informed. " (Mr. Swainson) intimated that in some out of he believed, 70 conveyances, the words were "for religious and charitable purposes." At all events (said his Honor, the House must suppose that property, which re to be managed under control of a general synod of the church, is now held in trust for that church, and it vas the duty of that House not to lend its assistance in favor of a section of that church alone. He would not refer to the 13th and 14th articles. They with several others might deserve comment. But by the 20th article of the constitution, diocesan synods were to be erected. Only let the House suppose that at some future day a controversy arose like that which had so recently vexed the church in England, upon baptismal regeneration or any other mysterious doctrine. Did any man inthat House suppose that the weaker side, it might V.edioce.sf, would not be outvoted by the majority in synod, and thus driven to appeal to parliament for a share in the property of the church from which the synod (in their opinion unjustly) excluded them. To guard against such diinculties the law might be called in to aid against any improper administration of a trust, provided the legislature had not placed that trust and the trustees who administer it out of the control of the law. And this reminded him that amongst other provisions the constitution claimed a right for the general synod to constitute its own tribunals, besides a court of appeal. Thus, he supposed, they were to have a court for each province with an appeal court wholly independent ef the Crown. It appeared to him then that the real object of this bill was, not as its title professed, to enable the bishop to transfer those properties to trustees to be appointed by the synod, but to place the property under the control of that synod. Meanwhile its tendency was to stop parliament ! from ever after exercising its control over the property of the church. It sought to raise a power superior to parliament, and set the church , above the law. If this were not the object the bill was wholly unnecessary. Why w&uld not a simple transfer of trusts bill, with powers to perpetuate trustees suffice ? He had no hesitation in saying, that if hi 3 honorable friend j would be satisfied with even enfbodying in the bill the trustees clauses in the schedule to that constitution, only worded so as to protect the trustee from all interference (an the part of the synod) with themselves in their discharge of the trusts, he would withdraw his opposition to the 2nd section of the bill. As to the 3rd section, however, it was wholly new. It was neither required by the resolution of the conference upon which this replication was founded, nor did it concern the, bishop's trusts, nor was it ever hinted at in the notice for introducing that bill. He objected to it on principle. Far from advising parliament to repudiate all control of church property, he would prefer seeing: that property administered by a separate board under the sanction of parliament itself. They might thus sewire an equal, careful, and impartial management, wholly uninfluenced by narrow considerations. Holding such views he could not rote for any scheme which should have the effect of placing the church property under the control, direct or indirect, of any synod whatever.

After an anxious and animated discussion of upwards of two hours and a-half, the bill passed through committee, and was reported without amendment. The bill was ordered to be read a third time on the following day.