PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
THC.O. 3
T
·885
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
28
into the Imperial Legislature for this purpose. The authority of the Law Officers on the question of what is law may be great, but I have no deference for their authority on questions of what ought to be Constitutional law.
The legal difficulty appears to be with regard to the consecration of the elected Bishops. It is assumed, I conceive, that other Bishops would be unwilling to consecrate the elected Bishops, unless compelled to do so by Act of Parliament; and to such compulsion the Law Officers seem to entertain strong objections. Is there any practical difficulty about the consecration of Bishops of the Church of England in the United States? If not, why should there be any greater practical difficulty in Canada ? But could not the difficulty, whatever it amount to, be got over by requiring that the election of a Bishop should be confirmed by the Crown, and the Crown, having confirmed it, might then issue letters-patent, &c.?
The Law Officers say that "the election of Bishops might be practically carried into effect with- out the authority of Parliament, by Her Majesty issuing letters-patent in favour of those reverend gentlemen exclusively who might be elected by the Syuod;
but this would be only a practical and indi- rect but not a strictly legal method of accomplishing the object." Could not this method be made strictly legal by Act of Parliament? The Crown is empow ered by Act of Parliament to confirm by means of Order in Council, Colonial Bills reserved for the Royal Assent; why should not the Crown be empowered by Act of Parliament to confirm, by letters-patent, Colonial Bishops chosen by a Synod in Canada ? Do you see any objection to proposing such a measure to Parliament, or what other course you recommend?
Sir F. Head's despatch 3,832, and the Bishop of Toronto's letter 1,131, have both been answered to the effect that their contents will receive the earnest and attentive consideration of Her Majesty's Government. We can say nothing more at present.
W. MOLESWORTH. August 31, 1855.
CONFIDENTIAL.
29
Church of England in the Colonies.
Mr. Labouchere,
IN answer to your direction that I should state
my own views of what is required to place the Church of England in the Colonies legally on a better footing, I will first state the position of the Church and its members in the Colonies as I under-
stand it now to be.
In Canada and the West Indies there are certain modern Acts of Parliament affecting the rights of
the clergy. I do not think these Acts contain provisions of such general importance as to require them to be noticed here..
Leaving them for the present out of the question, the state of the Church of England seems at present to be as follows; but it must be remembered that I am stating the substance of the opinions of able lawyers only. There has been no legal decision whatever respecting the status of the Church of England in the Colonies :--
1. Its clergy cannot meet together, without the laity, to devise rules for its management, without Royal licence, nor with the laity, unless Parliament enable them.
2. If they could meet together their power would,
as it seems, be limited by existing laws governing the Church of England everywhere. They could not, I presume, alter the Prayer Book, by reason of the Act of Uniformity (though in terms confined to England), nor elect bishops, without infringing on the Supremacy, &c.
3. Being, therefore, without regular government, or the means of making one, the Church in the
[342]
B