^ ^ ■'^^ 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ■^^^l-^- 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 UiU2A |2.5 
 
 |iO "^ ■■■ 
 
 Hf ■:£ 12.0 
 
 — "™^ ilM 
 
 %. 
 
 <^ ' >^ 
 
 / 
 
 ^' 
 
 >:) 
 
 >' 
 
 
 /A 
 
 /; 
 
 W/ 
 
 O 
 
 7 
 
 Hiotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STRUT 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. U5E0 
 
 (716) »72-4503 
 
 ^.^v^ 
 
 
 ■'o^ 
 
 ^ 
 
A 
 
 
 10 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Tachnical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bioliographiques 
 
 The ( 
 tothi 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 □ Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I — I Covers damaged/ 
 
 I — I Covers restored and/or faminated/ 
 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 Covers restored and/or fai 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculAe 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I — I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes giographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I — I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 D 
 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Rail* avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior marg'n/ 
 
 La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorslon le long da la marge Int^rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissont dans la texte. 
 mais, lorsque cela «tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas M filmtes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a itA possible de se procurer. Les ditsils 
 de cet exemp iire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point da vue bibHographique. qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mAthode normale de filmaga 
 sont indiqute ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagies 
 
 r~~] Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages dicoiories, tacheties ou piquies 
 
 The I 
 poss 
 ofth 
 fllmli 
 
 Orlgl 
 begii 
 the I 
 sion, 
 othe 
 first 
 sion, 
 or ill 
 
 □Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditachies 
 
 EShowthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 r~n Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Qualiti inigaie de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplAmentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 The 
 shal 
 TINI 
 whi< 
 
 MaF 
 diff< 
 entii 
 begl 
 righ 
 reqi 
 met 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partieilement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, 
 etc., ont Ati film6es A nouveau de fa^on A 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 1SX 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jdx. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 
 
 
 itx 
 
 
 
 
 20X 
 
 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed hare has baan raproducad thanks 
 to tha o«narosity of: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Quean's University 
 
 The images appearing here are tha beat quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract spaclflcationa. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covera are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or Illustrated Impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page whh a printed or Illustrated Impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol -*- (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one expoaura are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illuatrata the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grice h la 
 gAnArositi da: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 Lee images suivantes ont 4tA raproduites avac la 
 plua grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at 
 de la nattet* de l'exemplaire film*, et en ' 
 conformit* avac las conditions du contrat de 
 fllmage. 
 
 Lea exemplairas originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimis sent fllmte en commenpant 
 par la premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernlire page qui comporte une emprelnte 
 d'Impresaion ou d'illustration, soit par la second 
 plat, salon la cas. Tous las autres exemplairas 
 originaux sent fiimis en commenpant par la 
 pramiire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impreaalon ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la 
 darniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols -^ signlfia "A SUIVRE ". le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN ". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre 
 fllmte A des taux de riduction diffirents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul clich*, 11 est film* * partir 
 de I'angle supirieur gauche, de gauche k droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'imagea nteassalre. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mithoda. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 THE SPEECH 
 
 OF THB 
 
 RIGHT HONOUBABLE 
 
 Em 
 
 it'! 
 
 SIR JOHN S. PAKINGTON, BART. 
 
 HEB HAJESTT'S SfiCBETTABT OF STATE 
 FOB THE COLOinES. 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 On Wednesday, May 19, 1862, 
 
 ON THE SECOND BEADING OF THE 
 
 COLONIAL CHUKCH BILL. 
 
 N^ 
 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN OLLIVIER, 50, PALL MALL. 
 
 HJJWVI<XI> 
 
 

 ne EDITH afjd LORNE PIERCE 
 COLLECTION of CANADI ANA 
 
 ^een's University at Kingston 
 
 COLONIAL CHURCH. 
 
 Sir J. Pakington— 
 
 Sir— I can assure the House that I should gladly have been 
 spared one of the most painful as well as one of the most diflicult 
 tasks I have ever undertaken : but I think the House will feel-- 
 and I am glad the noble lord, (John Russell) has made the admis- 
 sion— that after the course which the right hon. gentleman the 
 member for the University of Oxford, thought it his duty to take 
 on this day three weeks, when I put it to him not to proceed 
 with a subject of such extreme importance and difficulty under 
 circumstances which made it impossible for me to reply to him— 
 I sav I think the House will feel that I am only acting under a 
 sense of imperative duty in now availing myself of the oppor- 
 tunity of reading the order of the day, to state the views which I 
 entertain upon tie subject. (Hear, he^.) I^^'i' ^i^^'f^A tn 
 be favoured with the attention of the House while I proceed to 
 state my opinions upon this bill, which, although brief m its 
 contents, and at first sight simple in its phraseology and enax3t- 
 ments, is, I believe, when closely looked at, the most important 
 bill upon ecclesiastical matters that has been for years submitted 
 to thfs House, and one which, in my belief, if it were to pass m 
 its present form, would be the first step towards a change m our 
 ecclesiastical polity which may be desired by » ^ert^^ p«rty m 
 this country, but which I believe to be decidedly opposed to the 
 opinions of the great body of the people not only in this country, 
 but in the colonies no less. (&ar hear.) f nse «?der the 
 unusual disadvantage of replying to the speech of my right ho^ 
 friend after an interval of three weeks since that speech was 
 delivered ; but I consider that this difficulty, although it cannot 
 fail to be one, will be less than it otherwise would be, masmuch 
 as the speech of my right hon. friend was for the most part 
 addressed to those points upon which I am happy to say 1 
 
 aeree with him, viz. tne necessn-y ut a,iiOi«xx.K v..-.- - 
 
 the colonies more freedom of action than they now possess. 
 2 
 
 
 ...^,^„.„.^M1»M8**4 
 
CE 
 
 ave been 
 t difficult 
 riU feel-- 
 tie admis- 
 eman the 
 by to take 
 5 proceed 
 Ity under 
 to hira — 
 g under a 
 he oppor- 
 3 wliich I 
 jrefore, to 
 [>roceed to 
 rief in its 
 md enact- 
 important 
 submitted 
 bo pass in 
 Qge in our 
 1 party in 
 )sed to the 
 lis country, 
 under the 
 right hon. 
 peech was 
 1 it cannot 
 inasmuch 
 most part 
 ►y to say I 
 ['.hurches in 
 )W possess. 
 
 My speech will be rather addressed to that part of the subject 
 
 on which I have the misfortune to differ from him, and differ 
 
 widely, viz., the provisions and enactments which are contained 
 
 in the bill ; but I cannot differ from the right hon. gentleman 
 
 in any degree without saying that I do so with the greatest pain. 
 
 No one more willingly recognises the great capacity of the right 
 
 hon. gentleman than I do : nobody can be more ready than I am 
 
 to admit, that in proposing the bill to the House, upon a subject 
 
 which no one understands better, he is actuated by the most 
 
 pure and conscientious n\otives. (Hear, hear.) But, while I 
 
 fully and entirely make that admission, I feel bound to say that 
 
 I will not yield to the right hon. gentleman in attachment to the 
 
 church of which we are Itoth members— neither will I yield to 
 
 him in the desire to hand down to our descendants in the distant 
 
 possessions of the British Crown all the blessings of that church, 
 
 with her Protestant simplicity and purity, witl^her toleration and 
 
 charity. (Hear, hear.) I distinctly admit that it is part of the 
 
 duty which attaches to the office which I, however unworthily, 
 
 hold, to endeavour to do all I can to accomplish that object ; 
 
 and when I shall look biick upon the period during which I 
 
 have held that office, there is nothing which would give me so 
 
 much satisfaction as to be able to feel that I had contributed 
 
 in any degree, however small, to bring about the result that our 
 
 descendants in distant lands shall inherit from us, together 
 
 with our language, our law s, our literature, and our freedom, 
 
 those blessings which we believe to be the greatest of all, and 
 
 which are closely associated Avith our freedom— viz., the blessings 
 
 which we derive from our reformed Christian faith. (Hear, 
 
 hear.) Approaching the subject with these feelings, I am quite 
 
 ready to admit to my right hon. friend that there are 
 
 respects in which the churches in the colonies are suffering 
 
 great disadvantages, and that I believe they stand in need 
 
 of legislative assistance, in order to enable them to make 
 
 regulations which are essential to their proj)er functions. (Hear.) 
 
 I believe that those disabilities are chiefly threefold; first, 
 
 the inability to make regulations for their own discipline ; second, 
 
 the want of greater power of synodical action ; and third, the 
 
 want of power to adapt their forms and their liturgy to their 
 
 requirements as missionary churches, which I consider one of the 
 
 most important functions which can be discharged by churches 
 
 so situated. (Hear, hear.) I believe that these are the three 
 
 principal difficulties, but one of the greatest is the want of power 
 
 on the part of the bishops to carry out properly the discipline of 
 
 the respective sees. It is commonly supposed that the colonial 
 
 bishops want greater power than they now possess ; but the right 
 
 hon. gentleman pointed out in his speech—and I am happy to 
 
 aow fKa+ in +^n> T narpto with him — that, in fact, the power of 
 
 ho^ 
 
bishops in colonial dioceses is greater than it ought to be ; that 
 they possess, indeed, an autocratical power (hear, hear), and that 
 what is wanted is the means of bringing offences to a fair and 
 proper mode of trial. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend 
 pointed out two cases of hardship which had occurred in the 
 diocese of Tasmania ; and I have myself been told by the Bishop 
 of Cape Town that he was obliged to dismiss three clerg3maen 
 from their cures, acting to that extent by an autocratic power, 
 and that he felt painfully the disadvantage of so acting. (Hear, 
 hear.) Of course, whenever power is carried to an undue extent 
 there is always sure to be a reaction and a large amount of 
 jealousy in regard to it ; however justly it may be exercised, 
 there are always certain to be cases of complaint and question. 
 (Hear, hear.) But a late event brought out this disadvantage, 
 and excited attention to it in a more than usual degree. I 
 allude to the synod, if it may be so called, or meeting of the 
 Australian bishops held at Sydney in 1850. I have here — 
 although I do not mean to advert to them further — ^the minutes 
 of the proceedings on that occasion, from which I find that, with 
 reference to the painful differences which occurred in this 
 country two or three years ago in consequence of the Gorham 
 case, the assembled bishops passed a resolution which was 
 dissented from by one of their number (the Bishop of Melbourne), 
 and which it was thought by many would, if carried into action, 
 have the effect of excluding every one who concurred in the 
 judgment of the Privy Council in the Gorham case. I am far 
 from saying that it is tlieir intention so to exercise the power 
 which they possess, but feeling that it rested on the sole and 
 unfettered discretion of each bishop to grant licences to particular 
 clergymen or to withhold them, to allow licences to remain in 
 their possession or to revoke them (liear, hear) ; feeling, I say, 
 that this power existed and might be exercised against clergjnmen 
 who held different views of baptism from those which were pro- 
 pounded by the bishops, a feeling of panic was created in the 
 minds of a large body of the laity as well as the clergy. I hold 
 in my hand addresses to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 
 Crown, praying that protection may be afforded to those who 
 dissent from the resolution of the bishops. I have no hesitation 
 in saying that I, for one, can never be a party to narrowing the 
 basis — ^the broad and comprehensive and tolerant basis, upon 
 which the Church of England now rests (hear) ; and, seeing the 
 
 {)anic which was created in the Australian dioceses by the reso- 
 ution of the bishops, I am prepared to join my right hon. friend, 
 though perhaps from different motives, in the opinion Avhich he 
 expressed that there ought to be some change in the law, so as 
 to prevent the bishops from maintaining a power which I do not 
 
 
 A. 
 
 .mmmi t*.*«/«^'. 
 
BHHtMHii 
 
 ns 
 
 be ; that 
 , and that 
 i fair and 
 )n. friend 
 ed in the 
 he Bishop 
 clergymen 
 ic power, 
 r. (Hear, 
 lue extent 
 imount of 
 exercised, 
 
 question, 
 bdvantage, 
 legree. I 
 ng of the 
 ve here — 
 e minutes 
 that, with 
 1 in this 
 3 Gorham 
 ^hich was 
 elboume), 
 ito action, 
 ed in the 
 
 I am far 
 bhe power 
 ! sole and 
 particular 
 remain in 
 ng. I say, 
 clergymen 
 
 were pro- 
 ved in the 
 y. I hold 
 *y and the 
 those who 
 
 hesitation 
 rowing the 
 asis, upon 
 seeing the 
 Y the reso- 
 lOn. friend, 
 I Avhich he 
 
 law, SO as 
 h I do not 
 
 say they will exercise improperly, but which is dangerous and 
 invidious in its nature, and which had akeady in one case led to 
 deep and widely-spread alarm. (Hear.) It is now my duty to 
 state to the House that in consequence of these transactions, and 
 in consequence of representations which were sent to him, the 
 attention of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury was directed 
 to the subject. His grace felt that the time was come whe^i 
 some legislation to place the colonial churches on a better footing 
 ought to be adopted. In consequence of that opinion, his grace 
 wrote to the Bi^iop of Sydney, as the metropolitan of Australia, 
 desiring to know the opinion of the Australian bishops as to what 
 legislation they considered to be necessary, and expressing his 
 readiness, as the head of the Church in this country, to do all he 
 could to promote that legislation, when he had ascertained their 
 wishes. His grace has given me permission to read to the House 
 the following extract from a letter with which he favoured me on 
 the subject : — 
 
 "In consequence of a representation which reached me in 
 July last from the Australian bishops, I wrote to the Bishop of 
 Sydney, as metropolitan, requesting him to send me an outline 
 of the practical dfficulties at present existing, and of the 
 measures by which it appeared to him that they might best be 
 remedied. It seems that some such basis is desirable for any 
 legislative measure which may afterwards be proposed in Parlia- 
 ment ; and with that information it will not be diflBcult to frame 
 a bill after the example of the Clergy Discipline Act, which may 
 remove the impediments now embarrassing ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment in the colonies." 
 
 I will not trouble the House with the rest of the archbishop's 
 letter, which refers strongly and directly to the bill we are nm 
 considering : but it was my intention, had I had an opportunity 
 of speaking on the former occasion, to urge strongly upon the 
 House thac, pending the reference from the archbishop to the 
 metropolitan of Australia— recognising the necessity of legislation, 
 and asking advice from his local knowledge as to the shape in 
 which it should be brought forward, it would not be decorous to 
 press this bill upon the House. But since the right hon. 
 gentleman the member for the University of Oxford made his 
 statement, the archbishop has received an answer to his reference, 
 and I now beg leave to read to the House the answer of the 
 Bishop of Sydney, so far as it refers to the bill now before the 
 House, and the question which was submitted to him by the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury : — 
 
 "The whole subject requires minute and careful discussion, 
 both here and at home. With a view to ascertain the state of 
 5 
 
 . .K .^/' 
 

 feeling and opinion here, I purpose, if God be pleased to permit 
 me, to assemble my clergy early in February ; and, having 
 obtained their preliminaiy advice, shall seek to collect the 
 suffrages of the laity by prudent consultation with them and the 
 clergy jointly, in what may, I trust, be deemed a lawful assembly. 
 But it is not apparent how any determinate conclusions can be 
 arrived at without a fresh discussion at home of the opinions 
 oflfered by the separi^te dioceses, brought collectively under the 
 review of a competent tribunal, to prepare and draw up the 
 terms of a bill to be submitted to Parliament under the 
 sanction of Her Majesty's Ministers." 
 
 Then comes another extract from the same letter: — 
 
 " At the close of our deliberations last year it was a subject, 
 not of debate in conference, but of private conversation among 
 my brethren, whether I, as their metropolitan, ought not to 
 be accredited to proceed to England for the purpose of 
 initiating measures for giving legal effect to our determinations. 
 At that time I certainly gave no encouragement to the 
 
 suggestion I am not prepared to say what my 
 
 determination would be if the call should now be made upon 
 me to undertake a voyage to England. I suspend for the 
 present my judgment as to the most advisable course ; but, on 
 my return to Sydney, will do myself the honour of writing 
 again, when it is possible circumstances may enable me to 
 express myself more decidedly." 
 
 Now I think the House will at once feel that, pending the 
 references between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops 
 of Australia, the bill ought, of course, to be postponed; but, 
 after the manner in which the right hon. gentleman urged the 
 bnl upon the House, and after the statement which he made of 
 the objects of the bill, I should ill discharge the duty which 
 has devolved upon me if I did not enter into the merits of the 
 bill, and show what I believe to be its real scope, object, and 
 tendency. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, let me say that the 
 bill is so drawn — who drew it for my right hon. friend I cannot 
 say — ^but it is drawn in terms so indistinct, in language so open 
 to doubt, that I very much question whether any two lawyers 
 could be found to agree as to what the real effect of the bill 
 would be ; and I also very much doubt whether any colony would 
 venture to adopt it, or whether any church would venture to 
 regulate their proceedings by it. (Hear.) But one fact strikes 
 me at the outset, and that is, that in the preamble of the bill, 
 my right hon. friend says that the bill is necessary on account of 
 certain doubts with respect to the precise rights of the colonial 
 churches, and he told us in his speech that those doubts rested 
 6 
 
 ff^mi(m,:i) ms 
 
 l#.V/«*^, 
 
upon the statute of Henry VIII. I presume my right hon. fhend 
 adverted to the statute 25th Heniy VIII., chap. 19, known by 
 the name of "the Statute of Submission," which prevents the 
 assembly of convocation without the assent of the Crown ; but it 
 will strike every gentleman who looks at the bill that, although 
 the statute of Henry VIII. is the foundation of the doubts to 
 which my right hon. friend adverted, he fails to repeal that 
 statute. (Hear.) He leaves that act untouched ; it is totaUy 
 unrepealed. The consequence will be, that whatever additional 
 powers the colonial churches are to acquire under this bill must 
 be derived from the enactmenis contamed within the four comers 
 of the bill itself The disabling statute will remam untouched ; 
 and therefore, unless this act sets them free, their disabilities will 
 remain precisely what they were. It becomes necess^y, then, 
 that we should see what is the exact scope and effect of the bm, 
 which is to countervail that statute, and to give these chimjhes 
 powers they do not possess. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend 
 said, that his only object was by this bill to place the Church ot 
 England in the colonies upon an equality with all other denomina- 
 tions of Chiistians. (Hear.) I wiU not pledge myself whether I 
 am prepared to go that length, but I cannot doubt that such is his 
 object : but the bill is worded in such a manner that it is not 
 easy to ascertain what it will do ; I must deal with it upon the 
 assumption that it will be good for what it proposes upon the face 
 of it to do ; and I believe (it is for this reason that I attach such 
 weight to the bill) that if it is carried out, the effect of it will be 
 threefold. In the first pla^e, I think it very doubtful whether, 
 instead of giving equality, it will not place the Church of Eng- 
 land in the colonies in a state of dominancy, which that church 
 has never yet possessed anywhere, and which no other colonial 
 church possesses. In the second place, it will tend to break up 
 the Church of England into a number of small separate churches. 
 (Hear hear). In the third place, it will tend to destroy the 
 supremacy of the Crown. (Hear, hear). I feel tha,t I am 
 dealing with subjects of no ordinary magmtude and difocuity. 
 I can assure the House that I approach them with the most 
 unaffecifed diffidence. (Hear, hear.) If I exaggerate m any 
 degree what the effect of this bill will be, I beg to tell my nght 
 hon friend (Mr. Gladstone) that I will end with such a motion as 
 shall set him free to speak again. (Hear, hear). If I am m 
 error let me be corrected. I have no wish to exaggerate any- 
 thing (hear, hear), but it is my beUef that this will be the effect 
 of the bill. (Hear, hear). The first clause proposes "that the 
 bishop or bishops of any diocese or dioceses in the colonies to be 
 declared by Her Majesty in Council to fall within the operation 
 of the bill, together with the clergy and lay persons being 
 7 
 
 %-%» 
 
 
 -'\\ \ 
 
 
 'CLcuK^ 
 
 X 
 

 
 
 declared members of the said chm-ch, or bein^ otherwise in 
 communion with such bishop or bishops respectively/' — I may 
 here say that I have consulted several eminent lawyers and 
 several eminent divines, but I have not yet met with one lawyer 
 or with one divine who could tell me what these phrases mean 
 (hear, hear), — ^the clause then goes on, " may meet together from 
 time to time, and at such meeting by mutual consent or by a 
 majority of voices of the said clergy or laity, severally and 
 respectively, with the assent of the bishop or of a majority of the 
 bishops, if more than one, make regulationa" Doubts have also 
 been su^ested what is meant by " clergy and laity," of what 
 portions of the laity these meetings are to consist, how they are 
 to be convened, whether they are to vote separately or concur- 
 rently; and these are matters of detail deriving importance from 
 the fact, that as you have no repeal of the disabling statute, 
 these arrangements ought to be clearly enacted, and if they 
 are not, you cannot proceed (Hear, hear). But now comes 
 the really important part of the clause, — that this i^od of 
 clergy and laity — and I entirely concur with my right hon. 
 friend in giving concurrent power to the laity in any synod that 
 may be estabUsl A (hear, hear), — ^this court is to "make such 
 regulations as m 'be held necessary for the better conduct of 
 their ecclesiastical aflfeirs, any statute, law, or usage of the united 
 kingdom to the contrary notwithstanding." Taking the words at 
 the beginning of the clause, that "any diocess" is to meet and 
 make regulations, this clause means (if it means anything — 
 setting aside the indistinctness as to the constitution of the 
 synod), that every diocese shail be a separate church (hear, hear), 
 ^^ and that in every diocese " regulations," of course including 
 '^^^I^^j^^ canons, may be made with the assent of the bishop, setting aside 
 '''***'^ the authority of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) I maintain, that 
 under this clause you would have a separate church in every 
 separate diocese; you might have diflferent regulations, diflferent 
 laws, different canons ; but two things would be clear, — that the 
 separation from the church of England would be complete, and 
 the authority of the Crown would be superseded. (Hear, hear.) 
 This may be a beneficial change, or it may not ; but it is • change 
 the magnitude and importance of which cannot be overrated 
 (hear), and I submit to my right hon. friend whether, if such 
 changes in the church were to be made, they should not have 
 been openly stated upon the face of the bill ? (Hear, hear.) My 
 right hon. friend professes equality; instead of equality he will 
 give dominance, if the clause means anything. I believe, taking 
 this clause as it stands, the regulations and canons of this synod 
 would override alike the statutes of the Imperial Parliament and 
 the laws of provincial Legislatures. There are now very import- 
 ant acts — in New South Wales, Van Dieman's Land, Canada — 
 8 
 
 n;««s«aMWW(B* i -'mmmt 
 
rwise in 
 — I may 
 
 fern and 
 e lawyer 
 368 mean 
 her from 
 
 or by a 
 ally and 
 by of the 
 tutve also 
 of what 
 they are 
 ■ concur- 
 nce from 
 ; statute, 
 
 if they 
 >w comes 
 i^od of 
 ght hon. 
 nod that 
 ake such 
 [>nduct of 
 tie united 
 ! words at 
 meet and 
 lything — 
 n of the 
 sar, hear), 
 including 
 bing aside 
 rain, that 
 in every 
 
 diiferent 
 -that the 
 »lete, and 
 sar, hear.) 
 9 change 
 overrated 
 r, if such 
 not have 
 jar.) My 
 by he will 
 ve, taking 
 ihis synod 
 ment and 
 ry import- 
 Canada— 
 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 regulating the status of the church in those colonies; they would 
 
 aU, I believe, be overridden by this law. (Hear.) The House 
 
 will perceive that this is a very grave question. (Hear, hear.) ^ ^ , 
 
 But I pass to the second clause, which, like the remammg clauses, ^ 
 
 is in a negative form; but still I apprehend, if it be mtelligible, 
 
 we must suppose that it will enact what is there indicated. Clause 
 
 2 provides, that « it shall not be lawftd to impose by any such 
 
 regulation any temporal or pecuniary penalty or disability other 
 
 than such as may attach to the avoidance of any ecclesiastical 
 
 office or benefice; I presume that a synod so constituted is to be 
 
 able to " avoid any ecclesiastical office or benefice." There is no 
 
 dictinction; consequently bishops may be deposed. (Hear, 
 
 hear.) Here, again, I come to the overriding of acts; and I beg jjl^c^j^ 
 
 to call the attention of the House to an enactment of the^ ^ — 
 
 Imperial Parliament by which rectories are established in Canada, 
 anrf it is declared that they shall be held subject to all the rights 
 by which incumbents hold their livings in England. And let ' ' 
 
 me explain a mistake into which my right hon. friend fell, when * •^' «, 
 
 he referred to an act of the Canadian Legislature lately sent 
 home, and to which he lightly judged' that the assent of the ^ji|^K\ 
 Crown had been given; he said, erroneously, that by this act ^>«8M>J^ 
 these rectories were disendowed; but, if he will refer to the act, 
 he will find that it went no further than to deprive the Crown of 
 the power given by the 31st George III. to establish further 
 rectories. The assent of the Crown has been given to that act, 
 for I thought, as the Clergy Reserves Act of 1840 prevented the 
 endowment of future rectories, it was quite valueless to the Crown 
 to retain the power of creating new rectories. The right hon. 
 gentleman is wrong in supposing that the existmg rectories are 
 disendowed; they are left untouched. (Hear, hear.) But, if this ^ yy 
 clause is to become law, I apprehend that these synods will have / /><^^ 
 th^ power of depriving those rectors of their livings. (Hear.) .P^^^^*-^ 
 Without detaining the House upon the third clause, I will now.^^^)^^ ^ 
 proceed to the fourth, to which the right hon. gentleman seems to 
 trust to qualify or nullify the enormous powers given by the first; 
 it provides, "that no such regulation shall, in virtue of this 
 act, be' held to have any other legal force or effect than the 
 regulations, laws, or usages of other churches or religious com- 
 munions in the colonies." If I am to take it that the regula- 
 tions shall have no other power than that now possessed, for 
 instance, by Roman Catholics, or Wesleyans, gud religious denomi- 
 nations, it will go to nullify the former clauses, and reduce the 
 bill to nothing ; but I am advised by competent lawyers that this 
 clause and the first clause are inconsistent, and cannot stand in 
 the same bill; nobody can construe them together; the first 
 clause gives enormous powers, " any law to the contrary notwith- 
 standing;" this clause says there shall be no such powers. (Hear, 
 9 
 
 J (j^«ft««^ 
 
 
 ^mmm^. 
 
«^ 
 
 
 .1 
 
 //5^ 
 i^^ 
 
 '^U4A' 
 
 4£(kt^ 
 
 
 hear.) I believe it would be an open question among lawyers 
 which constr action the bill would bear. But there is another 
 view of this clause. By the Qu .;bec Act, 14th George III., passed 
 after the conquest of Canada, the Roman-Catholic church was 
 invested with all the rights and powers attaching to that church, 
 and among others the collection of tithes ; there you have " a law 
 of a church in a colony," and 1 believe it is fairly open to argu- 
 ment whether under this clause the church of England may not 
 say, " Here is a law of a colonial church giving the right to col- 
 lect tithes in Canada ; may we not collect tithes in ihe colonies 
 in which we are placed V (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Gladstone). 
 My right hon. friend cheers the observation ; that may not be his 
 mtention, and I suppose it is not ; but I am not dealing with his 
 intentions, for I know them not ; I am dealing with what is 
 within the four comers of the bill. (Hear, hear). The fifth 
 clause restricts these synods from the nomination of bishops, but 
 it applies to bishops only ; in the same breath it takes away from 
 the Crown the nomination to archdeaconries and other ecclesias- 
 tical dignities. But I \yill pass on to the 6th clause — '' That any 
 regulation touching the existing relation of the said bish(tps, 
 clergy, and others to the metropolitical see of Canterbury shall 
 be forthwith transmitted by the presiding bishop to the archbishop 
 of the said see, and be subject to disallowance by him within 
 12 months." The security here taken for a reference to the 
 archbishop is worth nothing at all ; for it will remain in the 
 breast of the bishop to say what " touches that existing relation," 
 and there is no security that he may not say of any regulation 
 that it does not, and that therefore he is not called upon to send 
 it home. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman seems to have 
 founded this clause upon the existing practice with regard to 
 acts passed by a colonial Legislature, where there is a power 
 given to the governor to reserve and send home laws whic6 he 
 may think it his duty specially to reserve ; but there it makes no 
 difference in fact, if the governor is not disposed to reserve an 
 act, for every act is sent home, and is examined at the Colonial- 
 office, and the pleasure of the Crown taken upon it ; and it has 
 no effect for two years, during which period there is a power of 
 disallowance in the Crown. There is therefore a security in the 
 one case, which is wholly wanting in the other. (Hear, hear). 
 Bu\i I must now beg the attention of the House to the seventh, 
 and in my opinion by far the most important clause in this bill 
 — ^most important as going to corroborate and confirm the obser- 
 vations which I made upon the first clause. This clause provides, 
 " that no such regulation shall authorize a biahop to confirm or 
 consecrate, or to ordain, or to license or institute, tj-y person to 
 any see or to any pastoral charge, or other episcopal or clerical 
 office, except upon such person's having immediately before taken 
 10 
 
 ■ '■W6,'!S>^(f|flBP^W™*)W" 
 
the oath of allegiancrto Her Majesty/' ^.These words mvolve a 
 most important alteration of our ordmation service The ordi 
 nation sLice of the church of England requires that no pei^^ 
 shall be ordamed till he ha^ taken the oath of supremacy ^ (He^, 
 hear). No such requirement is here. (Loud cnes ot Hear, 
 hear). The oath of supremacy is dispensed with. (Hear,Jiear;. 
 The iath of allegiance is substituted for it. [A "^«°^^^f '^ ;^^^^^^^ 
 At all events, the oath of supremacy is dispensed with. (Hear, heax). 
 Now what says the 36th canon of our church ?-leaving out words 
 frreTevant to my present argument the 36th canon runs thus :- 
 « That no pe4n shall be received into the «iinistry, nor ad- 
 mitted to any ecclesiastical functions, except he sha31first sub- 
 scribe a declaration, &c., 'That the King's Majesty "J^^^ ^^^^^^^^ 
 the only supreme governor of this realm, and of aU other His 
 ffighneL ^domin-ons and countries, as well m sp^ntual or 
 ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal. (Hear.) Here is 
 opened a question of the greatest magnitude. C^iear Hear.; i 
 am advised that this is thi first attempt that ever ha^ been made 
 to enable persons to hold ecclesiastical office in the Church of 
 England without having first taken the oath of sjjpremacv 
 (Loud cries of " Heai', hear.") This clause sets aside the oath ^ 
 upremacy, and dispenses with the 36th can^n of ^ .C*^"]^^^^ 
 and I mu^ ask my right honourable friend is that designed, or 
 Tit acddfnt or blunder on the part of the gentleman who drew 
 the bill ? (Hear, hear.) This is a grave matter (hear, hear) ; an 
 attempt to do away with that supremacy of the Crown, which let 
 nci gentlemen suppose to date from the Reformation (hear he^^^^ 
 which dates from earlier struggles q^ear, hear) ?^hicb has been 
 lerted and maintained for ages, and re-enacted in related sU- 
 tutes (hear, hear), which is interwoven with our articles and per- 
 vades our canons. (Hear, hear.) I "J^y be told,— I do not 
 Tnow whether the right honourable gentleman is disposed to hold 
 thrianguage,-that the supremacy of the Crown m matters 
 ecclesScal does not extend to ttie coloniea I will not occupy 
 the time of the House with attamiJting to prove what I beheve 
 must be admitted by every one who has studied the laws or the 
 Wstory of his country. (Hear, hear. I will only remind the 
 HousJ that the statutes of Henry VIII. and the 1st of Elizabeth 
 deckre, in language as clear and distinct as language can be, 
 tha the supremacy of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical ex- 
 tends to all the dominions of the Crown. The 1st of Elimbeth 
 speaks of the Queen's supremacy as existing «m this, your realm 
 and other your Highness's dommions and countries Can any 
 man contend that these words do not emW the colonies ? 
 rHear hear.) The Quebec Act, too, to which I have already ad- 
 ;S' enables the Roman-Catholic inhabitants of Quebec to 
 exercise the Romish religion, " subject to the Km^a supremacy. 
 11 
 
 yl^^'^^ 
 
 
 ^% 
 
■I* 
 
 1/ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 declared by the 1st Elizabeth over all the dominions and coun- 
 tries which then did or should thereafter belong to the Impe- 
 rial Crown of this realm." What language can be clearer? 
 (Hear, hear.) I have extracts here from other acts— acts relat- 
 mg to' the East Indies, for instance ; but I will not proceed with 
 them ntiear, hear), because I believe my right hon. friend cannot 
 for a moment attempt to vindicate this bill upon the ground 
 that the supremacy of the Crown does not extend to the colomal 
 possessions of the Crown. (Hear.) But there is one mcje 
 branch of the subject which it remains for me to notice. My 
 right honourable friend rested his case upon the demand made 
 by the colomes themselves ; and he adverted to petitions received 
 from Canada, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Australian colo- 
 After what I have said with regard to the provisions of 
 
 nies. 
 
 this bill, I approach this part of the subject with the most per- 
 fect confidence. I fully admit, not only that there is great 
 necessity for legislation with a view to greater freedom of action 
 in those churches, but that from those colonies there have pro- 
 ceeded strong expressions of a desire that such legislation should 
 take place, to enable them more freely to make regulations for 
 their own government ; but the right honourable gentleman did 
 not cite a single application expressing a desire for this bill as it 
 stands ; much less any anplication from any colony tending to show 
 a desire either to separate from the Church of England, or to afifect 
 the supremacy of the British Crown. (Hear.) I am happy to 
 say, on the contrary, that it is in my power to show, that al- 
 though the colonists want greater powers of self-government, 
 they earnestly desire to keep up the connexion with the Church 
 of the mother country. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") My nght 
 honourable friend read the first resolution agreed to at a very 
 large meeting at Melbourne of the clergy of the diocese, express- 
 ing a desire for a diocesan synod ; but he did not call the atten- 
 tion of the House to two further resolutions passed at the same 
 meeting. They run thus : — 
 
 « We are of opinion that no advantage can be gained by the 
 formation of any provincial assemblies whatever, so long as the 
 present close connexion of our Church in the Australasian colo- 
 nies with the Church in England continues; and we would 
 further state that it appears to us that such assemblies would 
 have a direct tendency to weaken that connexion, and, by the 
 assumption of authority which belongs only to the Queen in 
 Council, to interfere with the independence of the individual 
 bishops and their dioceses." "We are of opinion that in order 
 to maintain and strengthen our union with the Church m Eng- 
 land it would be advisable for each diocess in the separate and 
 
 jurisdiction to be subject to that of Canterbury only." 
 12* 
 
So that their desire is rather to strengthen than to weaken 
 their connexion with the Church of England. (Hear, hear.) At 
 a meeting of the laity held at Adelaide, several resolutions were 
 passed, of which the seventh was, — 
 
 « That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be forwarded by the 
 chairman to tte Lord Bishop of Adelaide and to His Grax;e the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, our Primate, with an earnest supph(»- 
 tion that Ins grace will use his authority to protect the Church m 
 South Australia from any episcopal interference ^it*|,i*s,doctnn^ 
 and discipline which has not previously received the direct 
 sanction of his grace, and of Her Majesty, as the supreme head 
 of the Church." 
 
 (Hear, hear.) The clergy of Adelaide expressed to the bishop^in 
 W language their disapprobation of the declaration wrth 
 regard to baptism arrived at bv the synod assembled at Sydney, 
 and the bishop, in answering them, speaks thus :— 
 
 « I return for publication the resolutions and opinions amved 
 at by the clergy on the minutes of the conference at Sydne3^ 
 which on my return I submitted for their consideration. They 
 appear to me to be characterized by a calm and senous spunt, 
 which under the circumstances of excitement lately prevaihng, is 
 peculiarly gratifying. Should Her Graxjious Majesty, as supreme 
 Tead of ftifchH of England, authc^zethe clergy ^d laity of 
 the Australasian dioceses to frame their own ecclesiastical pohty 
 subject to her approval, ^d should it ^e deemed advisable to 
 depart on any point from the existing constitution of the Enghsh 
 Church, I trust that the pattern of otW reformed Protestant and 
 episcopd churches will be followed, and the relations of the 
 Kps, clergy, and laity, as set forth in the Scriptures, carefully 
 preserved." 
 
 So that the Bishop of Adelaide, one of the authorities on which 
 my right hon. friend relied, has no idea of any remedy which wdl 
 interfere with the supremacy of the Crown. (Hear, hearO ^^^V 
 yesterday I received a letter from the Bishop of Adelaide, ad- 
 dressed to my predecessor, saying— 
 
 <' I have the honour to transmit to your lordship a document 
 connected with the future action and development of the Church 
 of England in this diocese. Our subordinate relation to the 
 mothe? Church, and spirit of obedience to the legal sunreniacy of 
 Te Crown, haVe, I trust, been duly preserved inviolate dm:ing 
 the friendly discussions which have preceded the adoption ot 
 this report. ' 
 
 rHear hear.^ He forwards a report of a committee of the South 
 Australian UfaufCli Qocieij, prupuomg xvx w»:.i«^n*wyu 
 
 18 
 
 '■jf.t*m»Mimtt/>^*. 
 
k 
 
 II 
 
 f f 
 
 draft of a constitution for the church in that diocese;" one 
 article proposed as follows : — 
 
 "The clergy being under the obligation implied in their 
 subscription to the Thirty-nme Articles, as well as the three 
 articles of the 36th canon, it is not competent for the diocesan 
 assembly to make alterations in those formularies." 
 So that they were prepared to adhere to the 36th canon which 
 is dispensed with under this bill. (Hear, hear.) At a meeting 
 of the laity in the northern division of Tasmania, an address 
 was agreed to, which has been forwarded, and which contams 
 this expression : — 
 
 " We are also opposed, in the strongest manner, to any legisla- 
 tive or any other proceedings that will have the effect of taking 
 from the Australian church, in reference to disputed points of 
 doctrine and discipline, the right of appeal in the last resort 
 to the highest ecclesiastical court in England. It is our pnde 
 to look with affectionate regard to the religious and secular 
 institutions of Britain as the worthiest manifestations of her 
 greatness, and we desire to cultivate in the minds, and to 
 transmit to the affections of our children, this sentiment in unim- 
 paired freshness." 
 
 Here is no wish for a separate church, or to set aside the supre- 
 macy of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) I have resolutions of a 
 similar character from the laity of the southern division of Tas- 
 mania. The clergy of Tasmania assembled in unusual numbers, 
 adopted by a very large majority a memorial which has been sent 
 home ; after stating the necessity of some legislation upon the 
 subject, they say — 
 
 "That your memorialists view with much apprehension any 
 measure or act that would have the effect of separating the 
 Australasian branch of the Church of England from all but 
 doctrinal unity with the United Church of England and Ireland 
 as likely, at no very distant period, to lead to the severing of the 
 only remaining link, attid also as tending to dissolve the civil and 
 political bond, which keeps Tasmania and the whole Australasian 
 group of colonies, a portion, and a most valuable portion, of the 
 British empire." 
 I shall now read the prayer of the memorial. 
 
 " Your memorialists, therefore, most humbly present this their 
 memorial, earnestly praying that your grace and all the arch- 
 bishops and bishops will be pleased to give it your early and 
 careful consideration, and that you will sanction no imperial 
 
 leglSlaiilOn WiUUU WUUIU lUVWlVC » viiallgu O^ i^s^vS- s- — s-- 
 
 mother church, or fail at leaat to secure the right of appeal 
 14 
 
 -., ,-»«..«•«». : miDtm> %m. ^^*''' 
 
ese; one 
 
 to the highest ecclesiastical authority m Eiiglaiid,^Mid fu^ to 
 ^bli8h1h?righ1. and Uberties of the clergy m the diocese of 
 Tasmania.'* 
 
 I have called attention to .the memorial of t^^^ P^l^^^f^ 
 Lwing what IB the real desire of the colom^a I J^^J^^ J^ 
 to a peltion which haB ^en presented from the B^h^^^^ 
 Town Mv right hon. friend presented that petitwn oeiore pro 
 ceXg to mofe the second reading of his bill, and m the course 
 of KeTI^verted, I understood (but I «peak fjder coire^ 
 tJnnif I am wrong), to the views of the Bishop of Cape lown 
 
 *a^?hoseon^Sierfor the^i{!.:> -7 .f f, J^ K/S 
 sented- him aTfavourable to the biU as it standi As my "ght 
 W^Mend put the Bishop of Cape Town forward as a petitioner 
 tthe WU, W ^ I believe that^right rev. prelate tojeona of 
 the most eiemplary and admirable of our bishops (hear hear), I 
 thoughf it du7t^e right rev. prelate that there should be no 
 mistak e as to what his v^ reafiy ijere. I made it my duty to 
 S-to the Bishop of C5e Town on the subject of the bill I 
 told him my opinion, founSed on the highest advice I could take, 
 was STt^wSild b;eak up the ChurcS of England, andmake 
 rtveiy colony a separate"^ church, that it would impugn the 
 SipScy of tie Crown; and I asked him if ^e was prepared 
 to petition Parliament for those objects. (A laugh.) The right 
 rev prelate gave me authority to state that m petitioning for this 
 m he desirf d no more than to petition for greater freedom of 
 action, that he shrank from impugning the suprenucy of the 
 Cri^, and that, so fax from wishing the church m the colonies 
 to iTsepaxate from the church in the mother country, his anxious 
 desire wlTif possible, to draw closer the bonds of umon between 
 the ChCh oHnglid and the colonies. Whh these views 
 which I have stated^a. clearly as I can^ though at a length which 
 I fear may have wearied the House (hear, hear), it is impossible 
 forme to consent to the further progress of the bill I consent 
 to the principle of it, so far at leaBt a^ to agree with the right 
 hon. gentleman that legislation conferring greater powers m 
 the colonies may be desirable, but I cannot eonsent to that 
 principle when it involves the grave considerations to which 
 ! have adverted. Whatever my position m life may be, whether 
 a^ a Minister of the Crown, as an independent member of this 
 House or a^ a private citiyer of the ^tate, I will be no party 
 to breaking the^ Church .' ^Wand into fragments, or to 
 impugning that supremacy oi the Crown, which I m my 
 conscSicI believe to be one of ^he surest guarantees of that 
 religious liberty which we enjoy. (Hear, hear.) Under these 
 r^cLsUmces, 1 implore the 4ht hon. gentlem^^^^^^^^^ 
 with the biU, wiiicU l am siow w uuucvc nc x.«« xx..-.r« ^ ^««-» 
 15 
 
 j,^.-.i.si«sSiKiim-.v 
 
/ 
 
 <^^^i^ 
 
 
 hear," from Mr. Gladstone^, — ^I accept tliat cheer most tha&kftdly, 
 — I am willing to believe ne does not intend to do that whidi I 
 think his bill would bring to pass. I entreat him not to talk of 
 putting it ofif to this day fortnight, but I entreat him to withdraw 
 it, on the groimd that negotiations are in progress between the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury and the Metrophtan of Sydney, which 
 may lead to useftil legislation. If I retain my ofl&ce for another 
 year, it will not be my feult if some legidation does not take 
 place ; but, seeing that negotiations are taking place, and seeing 
 the grave doubts, at least ^hat I am sure he cannot deny), which 
 surround the enactments of this bill, I entreat my right hon. 
 friend to pf)stpone it for the present I have no wish to move 
 that the biU be read a second time this day six montha I wish 
 to treat him in the most fcriendly spirit ; but I trust he will not 
 drive me to the necessity of considering whether, consistently 
 with my duty as a Minister of the Crown, I could advise Her 
 Majesty to give her consent to the further progress of a measure 
 which I believe would invade her juafe- prerogative and put an 
 end to her undoubted supremacy. I beg to move that the House 
 do proceed to the other orders of the day. 
 
 In reply to observations made by the Right Hon. W. K Glad- 
 stone, 
 
 Sir Jv Pakington regretted that he had not read the 
 remainder of the 7th clause, after the construction put on what 
 he had said by his right hon. friend the Member for the 
 University of Oxford. But what his right hon. friend said did 
 not touch what he (Sir J. Pakington) had said. He had said 
 that this was the first attempt which had been made to ordain 
 persons to ecclesiastical office, being British subjects, without 
 takmg the oath of supremacy. (Hear, hear.) It was no answer 
 to tell him that among the Thirty-nine Articles there was one 
 which touched the subject Taking that omission in connexion 
 with the power given to the bishop instead of the Crown by the 
 first clause, he was advised, and he believed, that the pro- 
 visions of the bill went to doing away with the supremacy of 
 the Crown. 
 
 J. Ouxrvm, Peintbb and Pobushbb, 69, Pall Mall. 
 
->a 
 
 ■ J <'■'■ ■!",.>■■ <<-•■ 
 
 i