House of Lords, Tuesday, March 25th. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE COLONIES.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 558, 20 August 1851, Page 3

House of Lords, Tuesday, March 25th. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE COLONIES.

The Bishop of Oxford said he bad a question to put to the noble earl tbe Secretary of State for the Colonies, upon a bubject which occupied the attention of their lordships last Bession — he meant the legal stains of the Church of England in the colonies of the British em. pire. The noble earl undertook, when the mutter was brought before their lordships, to institute an inquiry with tbe view of preparing matters for &uch action, as the result of that inquiry might show to be needful. He wished to a^k the noble earl whether, during tbe course of the recess, he had been able to make any such inquiry ? lie believed he should find that the noble earl had been waiting for the result of a certain synod or gathering of the Bishops of tho English church throughout the Australian colonies. If that were so, he thought it was a good and sufficient ground for waiting, in so tar as inquiry on the spot in the colonies was concerned ; but it nppeared to him that there was a very important separate inquiry which it was very desirable should be made at home : be alluded to the inquiry as to what was the legal ttutitb of the church in the colonies, and in how fur the statutory restrictions which applied to the chuich at liomp applied to the church there, a question about which their lordships expiessed a considerable diffidence of opinion in the course of last session, — because, whatevf r might be the result of the meeting of the colonial bi-.hops, the question to which he referred would be no further advanced unless the Government was piepared to say how far those statutes did or did not apply to the colonies, and what was really the legal status ot the church of England in the colonies, respecting which complaints have been mad-. It would, therefore, be a great solace to himself and to ninny others to know that, at all events, the attention of the noble earl had been directed to the question without waiting for returns from Australia. (Hear.) Earl Grly said, that the position of the English church in the British colonies was undoubtedly a subject of vast importance. At the same time, ho had to remark, that from no one of the colonies had any complaint reached him from tbe members of that church with respect to any grievances under which they laboured which were not capable of being removed by the colonial Legialalures. (Hear, hear.) In the couise of the debate which took place last year, he took the liberty of expressing bis opinion that, upon points on which the colonial Legislatures had power to act.it w r as highly inexpedient for Parliament to interfere. (Hear, hear.) Now, it had so happened, as he had said, that neither the prelates nor the members of the church of England in any of the colonies had brought under the attention of Her Majesty's Government nnv grievance [ of any kind under which they weie at present labouring | which was not capable of being removed by such colonial legislation. (Hear.) It was quite tiue that various questions, rather theoretical than otherwise, were suggested in the debate of last year, but no practical measures were pointed out as desirable to adapt. That heing tho state of things, when, in consequence of the promise he had given in the course of the debate referred to, he came to look into the subject during the recess, the difficulty which he found was this, — that he did not know to what particular points to address himself; he did not know what extension of poiver or privilege to the church of England was really desirable or required. He could find no measuie pointed out as necessary or required in the colonies ; neither could he perceive, by a careful reference to the records of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, any distinct point upon | which Parliamentary legislation had been suggested. (Hear.) Under ihese circumstances, and finding likewise that the position of the church was very different in different colonies in consequence of the different legislation of each colony, n appeared to him that, if anything was to be done, the first step they should take was to have an inquiry into the different groups of colonies as to what was the real position of the church there, and what alteiations it might be expedient to make. He had piepared during the recess a despatch to the Governor of New South Wales — which was the colony where grievances were principally complained of—insuucting him to appoint a commission, including tbe prelates of the chuich of England in the colonies as members of that commission, for purpose of inquiry; but while the mode of conveying those instructions was under his consideiation, intelligence was received in this country — not in an official shape certainly, but still in a shape which left no doubt of the accuracy of the information — that the subject of the condition of the church of England in tbe colonies was already under the consideration of the prelates of the church on the spot, that a meeting of the Australian prelates was to take place at Sydney for the purpose of considering that very point. Under those circumstances, he certainly thought that as the meeting of the bishops at Sydney could not fail to thiow much light on the subject, it would be inexpedient to send out any instiuctions for a further inquiry, until he knew what was the result of the inquiry that was going on. (Hear, hear.) Such was the present condition of the question. Certainly it did not appear to him that any advantage at the present moment could arise in this country from an inquiry into what seemed to him a speculative question of law, which was in no manner a practical question, as to the opera tion of certain statutes in the colonies. As far as he could form an opinion, it appeared to him that in the colonies those statutes were in no respect operative, and he thought that the meeting which had been adverted to proved that they were not consideied as operative theie. (Hear, hear.) As m the course of a short time the result of that meeting would bu known in this country, it appeared to him, and he was most happy to say that the most lev. prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) concurred witn him m thinking that he ought to postpone taking any fuither step at pre.sent. (Hear, hear.) Lord Monteaglf said, that great anxiety was ft It on the subject of validity of marriages effected in the colonies before an}' peisoii except a cleigynau of episcopal '-•idination. There was great doubt whether Scotch marria „«■», for instance, pi i formed in piesence of a minister ot tbe chuicb ot broiland, weie valid in the colonies, lie wished to know from the uoble eail whether

any inquiry was iii pi ogress with respect to mairhges geneially in the. colonies, and if so, whether the lesult would be laid bnfoie Parliament Eatl Giiey said, that Laving teceived no notice of the noble loid's intention fo ask (his question, he was afraid he could not give him n vpiy clear answer. He Tather believed tliat some mquny was in progress with respect to the effect in this country of raarnages celebrated in the colonies — not as a colonial question, but as affecting the position of persons in this rountry. As a question purely aftec ting the colonies, he took it that it was a subject which the colonial Legislatures had ample powess to deal with. If they bud not, h« was persuaded tint the Legislature of New S<mth Wales would hare brought the subject under the notice of Her Majesty's Government by an address to the Crown; but no such address had been received, doi had a complaint of any sort been received from the colony of New South Wales with lespuct to any imperial law being required. Lord Cam pbl.il had no doubt the colonial Legislatures had power to deal with the subject; but he thought it would be bettor if thore were an imperial law providing a uniform mode of celebrating marriage all over the British empire, and that it should not be left to the dili'eient colonies to legislate for themselves on the subject. ] Eail Gukv entirely differed from the noble lord on this subject. Considering that the marriage law wns dilieient iv England, Ireland, aud Scotland — (Lord Campbell—" Not iv England and lieland.") Yes, the common law was the same in England and Ireland, but the statute l.ivr was different, theip being nothing analagous to marriages before the Registrar in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Consulting, then, the differences of the marriage law among ourselves, and considering especially the varied circumstances of our numerous colonies, to sweep away the ma<s of legislation in forty diffeient colonies, and to establish a uniform system, to be earned out by the agency of officers who did not exist m many of the colonies, was a mode of proceeding which he would certainly not recommend their lordships to adopt. hear.) He believed that the law of marriage depended tor its efficiency upon the fact of its being adapted to the state of society in the particular country where it existed. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that of all the subjects in the world which might most properly and fitly be left for the internal legislation of the several colonies this was the one, and he hoped that no imperial legislation upon it would be attempted. (Hear, hear.) The Bishop of Oxfohd was sorry to gay that the answer which the noble Earl had returned to his question had not at all removed bis difficulties, and that he consiileied it very unsatisfactory. It seemed to him to throw the question back to the point where it stood before the discussion of last session. At the beginning of I;iotI ;iot session the noble lord made the same statement he had made that night — that no special grievance had been brought under the notice of Government. That led him (the Bishop of Oxford) to point out to the noble lord that, so far from being the case, the Bishop of Van Dieuaan'd Land had sent an archdeacon all the way to this country to press the grievances of the colonial chinch upon the attention of the Government. He (the [ Bishop of Oxford) also pointed out that to apply to a 1 church situated as that iv the colonies was with none of the advantages of an establishment, all those restrictions which bound the free agency of the church at home, was felt to be a great evil in the colonies, and that one of the evils was, that it foiced the bishops, in spite of themselves, to act in cases of discipline as absolute autociats without the forms of law, because by acting otherwise they would run the risk of being tried for libel. (Hear, hear.) It was admitted by the Government on that occasion that he had established a case of grievance, and he was told that if he left the matter in their hands an inquiry would be made. When the noble Earl talked of the grievances being purely speculative, he would remind him that in the debate on the Australian colonies he (the Bishop of Oxford) proposed the nit! eduction of a particular clause to give the members of the Church of England the power of acting freely of themselves, and that lie had only withdrawn it because he consideied it difficult to say how far the statutes did or did not apply in their case, and because he was ioo glad to have the Government in a friendly spirit to take up the matter as a subject for inquiry, or, if necessary, of future legislation. But when the noble Earl now said that the matter was a purely speculative one, and if there was now any practical grievance the colonial Legislatures could provide a remedy for themselves, and that he considered the fact of the bishops meeting in synod, as proving that the statutes did not operate in the colonies, the matter was thrown back as far as ever. (Hear, hear.) But the meeting of the bishops was not a s^ nodical meeting, legally speaking. It was not a meeting lor adapting the rules of the Church to the necessities of their infant state. It was merely a meeting for taking friendly counsel as individuals with each other. (Hear, hear.) And while H was right to wait until the result of that meeting was known, be had hoped that the noble Earl would have brought befoie the law officers of the Crown the question how far the imperial statutes which applied to the church at home wore applicable to the colonies — in which case the colonial legislatures were not free to deal with it — or whether they were free fiom thoae statutes, and had power to adapt the machinery of the church to their new position. (Hear.) Earl Ghlv said that the right rev. prelate had misunderstood him. He had never said that there were no grievances complained of by members of the church in the colonies ; or that they were grievances merely speculative. What he said was, that no grievance had been brought undt'r his notice from the colonies which was not capable of being removed by colonial legislation. (Hear, hear.) It was quite true that the Bishop of Tasmania had mentioned a series of embarrassments and difficulties to which he was exposed in consequence of the siate of the law preventing him frcm conducting certain iuquuies into the conduct of his clergy, but he had not even suggested that those difficulties were such as that the colonial Legislature could not remove them. What he stated was, that the colonial Legislature was indisposed to give the church the necessary powers. (Hear, hear.) If that was the real feeling of the population of the country — if they, from an ill-conceived jealousy, it might be, of the Church of England, believed that the difficulties complained of could not be removed without giving undue preference to the members of the Church of England over other churches — if this feeling was so strong, even before a representative Legislature was established, and with a Legislature consisting principally of persons named by the Crown, or, in great measure, of persons holding office under the Crown — if even such a legislature was indisposed to pass the necessary low when the matter was purely a domestic concein, his argument was, tbat it was inexpedient for Parliament to interfere with it. (Hear, hear. ) He thought it very possible that when the matter came to be looked into, the colonial Legislature would find that tbere was much tbat could be done with advantage to assist not only the Church of England but other churches, to give themselves more regular and complete organization. But even if this should not be so, it appeared to him tbnt to bring imperial legislation to bear on the condition of the church in the colonies until they knew the result of the inquiry which was at present being conducted on the spot would be altogether premature. (Hear, hear.)