Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

trench upon the political rights of the Imperial or the Colonial authorities. Of the framework of his measure he said little more than that it included a schedule of Colonies to which it might be applied, and would give the Crown power to add other Colonies by order in Council.

Sir John Pakington, Colonial Minister, said that he should feel it necessary to go fully into the subject. This he could not do on the present occasion: he therefore moved the adjournment of the debate till the 19th of May.

On that day the discussion was resumed, when Sir J. Pakington, adverting to an intimation given by Mr. Gladstone, that, as the Government intended to oppose the Bill, he wished for a delay of fourteen days to consider what course to pursue said he should be glad if he could be spared one of the most painful and difficult duties he had ever undertaken that of stating the views he entertained regarding a Bill which, though brief, and at first sight simple in its phraseology and enactments, was, when closely looked at, one of the most important measures in relation to ecclesiastical matters ever submitted to the House, and which, if passed in its present form, would be the first step towards changes which, however desired by a certain party, were decidedly opposed to the opinion of the great body of the people, not only in this country, but in the Colonies. The speech of Mr. Gladstone, in moving the second reading, was addressed to a point upon which he (Sir John) agreed with him, namely, the expediency of giving greater freedom of action to the Church of England in the Colonies, which la

boured under certain disabilities, the great defect being the want of power to carry out its discipline, the authority of the bishops being autocratic; and he was prepared to concur with Mr. Gladstone, that there ought to be a change in the law, and that the Church in the Colonies required some legislative assistance that would prevent the bishops from retaining a power at once dangerous and invidious. The attention of the Archbishop of Canterbury had been directed to this subject, and, thinking the time had come for placing the Church in the Colonies upon a better footing, his Grace had opened a communication with the Bishop of Sydney, as Colonial Metropolitan, respecting the mode and form in which the Imperial legislation for that object should be conducted. Pending these communications, he would, independently of other considerations, have suggested whether it was desirable to press the Bill during the present session. But it was impossible for him, Sir John added, after the manner in which Mr. Gladstone had argued the measure, to refrain from entering into what he believed to be its scope, object, and tendency, the terms in which the Bill was drawn being so indistinct that he questioned whether any two lawyers would agree in their construction of its language. He could not doubt that Mr. Gladstone's object was to place the Church of England in the Colonies upon the same footing as other religious denominations; but he believed, if carried out, the effects of the Bill would be, first, to exalt the Church of England in the Colonies into a state of dominance; secondly, to break it up into small separate Churches; and thirdly, to destroy

the supremacy of the Crown, and even to overrule all legislation, Imperial and Colonial. The last clause introduced an important alteration of our ordination service by dispensing with the oath of supremacy-the first attempt ever made to enable persons to hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church of England without taking that oath. He might be told that the supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters did not extend to the Colonies; but this doctrine would be repugnant to the statute 1st Elizabeth, and to the express words of the Quebec Act. Mr. Gladstone had rested his case, Sir John remarked, upon demands made by the Colonies themselves, but had not cited a single application for the passing of such a Bill, or for separating from the Church of England, or for renouncing the Crown's supremacy; whereas he (Sir John) could show a contrary desire on their part; and with that view he read extracts from memorials and resolutions transmitted from different colonies in Australia and Tasmania. With these facts and views, he could not consent to the further progress of a Bill involving such grave considerations. He would, even as a private citizen, be no party to the breaking up of the Church of England into branches, or the impugning the supremacy of the Crown, which, he believed, was one of the surest guarantees for the religious liberty we enjoyed. He entreated Mr. Gladstone to abandon the Bill, and moved that the House proceed to the other orders of the day.

Mr. Gladstone complained that Sir J. Pakington had, unintentionally, grossly misrepresented him as having dispensed with the oath of supremacy, inasmuch as

the Bill required subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, one of which (the 37th) declared the supremacy of the Crown, and was precisely equivalent to the 36th canon; so that the oath of supremacy was superfluous.

Sir J. Pakington contended that this explanation did not touch his objection-that the Bill did, in fact, dispense with the oath of supremacy, and that this was the first attempt to ordain to ecclesiastical offices without taking that oath.

Mr. Adderley, seeing the urgency of the measure, could not agree to delay upon grounds so futile as those assigned by Sir J. Pakington, whose arguments against the Bill were all based on a simple assumption.

Sir R. H. Inglis opposed the Bill, which he looked at with much. distrust.

Mr. A. B. Hope supported the Bill, which he regarded as a measure of exemption from certain restrictions which impeded the free agency of the Colonists.

The Attorney-General agreed with Mr. Gladstone, that the Established Church in the Colonies was in a most disadvantageous position, deprived of privileges and the freedom of action possessed by other denominations and by the mother Church. This arose from the Colonies not having the ecclesiastical rights which existed in this country, especially the jurisdiction of spiritual courts; in consequence of which the colonial bishops had an arbitrary and irresponsible power. But as, in his opinion, the Act of Submission (25th Henry VIII.) did not apply to the Colonies, it was not necessary to permit the clergy and laity there to assemble and make regulations, since no law forbade it; therefore

the Bill must be intended to give a legal sanction to something not now sanctioned by law.

Mr. Bethell did not think it was competent to the clergy in the Colonies to adopt anything like synodical action, which would interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. He suggested several objections to the Bill.

Sir W. P. Wood said the avowed object of the Bill was to enable the Church of England in the Colonies to regulate its own matters like any other denomination. If any of the clauses went beyond that object, they could be modified, but there was not the slightest tendency in the Bill to make the Church dominant in the Colonies. Some such measure should be introduced, in order that the Church of England in the Colonies should be left unfettered. Sir W. Wood guarded himself against being understood to assent to the AttorneyGeneral's opinion with respect to the application of the Act of Submission to the Colonies.

Mr. Horsman asked what was meant by leaving the Church unfettered? He agreed that perfect religious equality was the best principle that could be adopted in the Colonies; but his objection to this Bill was, that while it released the colonial church from restrictions and responsibilities imposed by the State, it left it the advantages derived from State connection, and gave it more than was enjoyed by the Church at home.

The amendment not being opposed by Mr. Gladstone, was agreed to, and the House passed to the other orders of the day.

A plan for reforming the Church Establishment at home in regard to the duties of ecclesiastical persons, and the management and

distribution of episcopal and capitular incomes, was submitted to Parliament this year by the Marquis of Blandford-whose exertions in this cause gained him much credit in the House of Commons. The noble Marquis moved, on the 29th of April, for leave to bring in a Bill, of which he explained the nature and objects.

His motives in introducing the measure were, first, to enable the Established Church to extend its ramifications through all the masses of the rapidly-increasing population; secondly, to assist in giving a practical remedy for abuses which had drawn down some degree of scorn and sarcastic reflection upon the Church. The main features of his plan were, that the incomes of the bishops should be fixed at precise sums named by him, which would save 30,000l. a year; and that 35 deaneries and 46 саnonries be suppressed or merged in bishoprics, which would save 62,000l. these sums, with others to be obtained by other means, would amount to about 122,000l.; Iwith which he would endow sixteen new bishoprics, and effect a large advance in augmenting the inadequate clerical stipends throughout the country. The Bill would also place the whole management of Church property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Lord Blandford varied and strengthened his case in support of the Bill by details of the evils of the present sinecure offices of large numbers of the deaneries and chapters of the Established Church; and of the bad, and in many instances unfaithful, management of Church property, in past times, by prelates of the Church since dead.

Lord Robert Grosvenor second

ed the motion, which was supported with warm commendations by Mr. Cowper, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Mr. Hume. Sir R. Inglis, however, received it with dissatisfaction and distrust. Mr. Walpole, on behalf of the Government, expressed their views respecting the measure. He said that, knowing the great pains which the noble Lord had taken upon this question, and knowing, moreover, that he entertained the most friendly feelings towards the Church, and was actuated solely by a desire to promote the spiritual instruction and improvement of the people, he should indeed be ungrateful to him if, on the part of the Government, he should submit that leave to bring in his Bill should not be granted. But these were not the only circumstances which induced him to give his assent to the introduction of the Bill; he thought that there was much weight in the arguments and observations which the noble Lord had offered to the House, and that the House and the country should have an opportunity of considering his large and comprehensive measure; but, at the same time, it was so large and comprehensive that he thought it much better to see its details before they ventured to give a decided opinion upon it. So far as he understood the objects of the Bill, they were, first, to increase the episcopate of the country by erecting new sees; and, secondly, to provide for the better management of episcopal and capitular revenues. Now, he concurred with the noble Lord in the desirableness of accomplishing those two objects, provided they could

be done with satisfaction to the Church and its members; but this was a question which could only be answered after they had had an opportunity of seeing the details by means of which he proposed to carry the measure out. He (Mr. Walpole) owned he entertained considerable doubt with regard to some portions of the measure which had been shadowed forth. He entertained some doubt, for instance, with regard to the suppression of deaneries and canonries to the extent proposed. At all events, it could not be determined without more information and discussion than had hitherto been given to the subject. But he admitted that, while it was desirable to increase the episcopate, the funds from which it was increased ought to come from the sources of the Church itself. At the same time he thought that, concurrently with that proposal, it would be advisable, supposing the funds to be sufficient, that they should provide more effectually for the parochial clergy at the same time that they increased their number. But he did not think it right to provoke discussion upon these topics until they had seen the details of the Bill.

The Bill was afterwards brought in, but the early termination of the session, and the pressure of other business not allowing time for a full consideration and discussion of so important a scheme, the Marquis of Blandford was under the necessity of withdrawing it for the present, expressing his determination to take a future opportunity of submitting a similar measure to Parliament.

CHAPTER V.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE:-Motion of Mr. Spooner, for Inquiry into the System pursued there-His Speech-Mr. Walpole states the Views of the Government on the Subject-Speeches of Mr. Gladstone, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Serjeant Murphy, Mr. Napier, Lord John Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Members-The Debate is several times adjourned, and at length falls to the ground, on the 9th of June, without any Division on the Motion taking place. RIGHTS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD:-Outrage on Mr. Mather, at Florence, by the Police Authorities of Austria-Lord John Russell brings the Case, and the General Foreign Policy of the Government, before the House of Commons on the 14th of June-He comments with some severity on the Conduct of the Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury, and on the general course pursued by the Ministry-He is answered by Lord Stanley-Speeches of the Marquis of Granby, Lord Palmerston, Lord Dudley Stuart, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who vindi cates the Foreign Office and the Ministerial Policy-The same Question is discussed in the House of Lords, where it is introduced by Lord Beaumont-The Earl of Malmesbury announces the Adjustment of the Dispute respecting Mr. Mather on the 1st of July. FINANCIAL AFFAIRS-Mr. Frewen moves for a Remission of the Hop DutyThe Chancellor of the Exchequer promises to give the Subject full consideration, and Mr. Frewen consents to withdraw his Motion-Mr. Milner Gibson moves Three Resolutions condemnatory of the Paper Duty, the Advertisement Duty, and the Stamp on Newspapers-The Motion is seconded by Mr. Ewart, and opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer-Speeches of Mr. Wakley, Mr. Cowan, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Clay, Mr. Mowatt, Mr. J. L. Ricardo, and other Members-The Three Resolutions are rejected, after Two Nights' Debate, by large Majorities. THE BUDGET:-On the 30th of April Mr. Disraeli makes his Financial Statement-He draws very favourable Picture of the Commerce and Finances of the Country, and concludes by proposing the continuance of the Income Tax for One Year-His Speech is much commended, and the Proposals favourably received-Remarks of Mr. T. Baring, Mr. Gladstone, Sir C. Wood, and other MembersDebate on the Income Tax Renewal Bill in the House of LordsSpeeches of the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Berners, the Earl of Albemarle, and Earl Granville-The Earl of Derby explains and vindicates the Policy of his Government-The Bill is passed-Conclusion of the Session-An unusual number of important and useful Measures are carried-Measures of Law Amendment and Sanitary Reforms— Review of the Legislation of the Session-Lord Lyndhurst compli ments the Government on the Success of their Parliamentary opera

« EdellinenJatka »