During the discussion two points were strongly insisted on by the opponents of my resolution, which contained an amendment of the Constitution, affirming the necessity and the responsibility of the Church for its own self-government. The first of these, I am free to admit, needs very careful consideration; viz.: the risk which our Church property may incur, should any step be taken by Synod legally affecting the right of the Church acquired by, or given to it, as part of the Established Church at Home. That is a question which might involve some civil legislation to establish the identity of the Church here, as it was at first, and as it is now in its altered circumstances.
The other point I regard as indefensible. It was argued that our Constitution ties our hands; that we have accepted the Doctrines and Practice of the Mother Church, and have bound ourselves to make no change or alteration in them. The answer seems complete. If, in 1857, we saw fit to tie our own hands, there can be no reason why we should not untie them in 1874. No external authority compelled our action; it was our own doing; and it was not done in consideration of any value received. We are as free now to modify what we then did, as we were to impose restraints on ourselves. And, no Legislative Body, such as Synod is, can legislate for all time. The Synod of 1857 had no power to tie the hands of Synod in 1874.
Further, my argument went to show the facts of our position. In spite of our Constitution and its restraints, we have been obliged to act for ourselves. We have had to choose and consecrate Bishops, and, in doing so, omit from the service in the Prayerbook that which relates to the Queen's mandate; the oath
