§ Lord J. Russellhaving given notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill to continue for another year the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill, said, he was aware that with respect to the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill there were many reasons why it was desirable that the measure should not be pressed at so late a period of the Session. The Session was be far advanced that he knew there would be great difficulty in the other House of Parliament in obtaining such an attendance of the spiritual Peers as would secure a full and fair discussion of the bill. It had also been stated on respectable authority, that an impression existed in the minds of some hon. Members of that House, as well as in the public mind, that some modifications would be proposed in the measure, which were not yet prepared, 964 but which when they were brought forward would be likely to secure for the bill the more willing assent of Parliament and of the Church. Now, it was highly desirable that the bill should have the general consent of Parliament and the Church, and therefore he was not unwilling to postpone the measure for a period in order to attain that object. He should, however, be reluctant to consent to any postponement if by that postponement he was to be understood as at all giving up the objects which the bill was intended to carry into effect, or if he was to be considered as abandoning the principle upon which the bill was founded. He thought it highly necessary that a measure applying certain revenues of the Church to the spiritual instruction of the people in those districts where such instruction was much needed should be carried into effect by a Parliamentary enactment. Therefore in postponing the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, he wished at the same time to introduce the measure of which he had just given notice, and which would suspend for another year certain ecclesiastical appointments which had before been suspended by act of Parliament with a view to carrying into effect at an after period the objects which he had in view for the spiritual instruction of the people. He was aware that this was a course liable to objection, and that it was very inconvenient to suspend those appointments year after year without proceeding to definite legislation. What he proposed was, that the bill of which he had given notice should provide for the suspension of the same appointments as it was proposed ultimately to do away with, and that those appointments which were to be filled up should be filled up in the same order as was provided in the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill. He should therefore postpone the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill for a fortnight, with the view of seeing whether the Suspension Bill which he proposed to introduce was likely to meet with the assent of Parliament and the Church. If that assent was likely to be obtained, then he would give up the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill for the present Session; but if, on the contrary, the Suspension Bill should be opposed, then he should think it necessary to press the former bill, in order to show that he was not disposed to abandon the objects of that bill or the principles upon 965 which it was founded. He should now propose that the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill be postponed for a fortnight.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, he could not have a better opportunity than the present of suggesting that it would be very convenient if the noble Lord would, as he had done last year, announce, not then, but on an early day, what the bills were which the Government actually intended to proceed with in the present Session, and what the bills were which it was proposed to abandon. That was a course which had yearly been pursued for some time back, and he was sure it would tend greatly to facilitate the discussion of such measures as were to be proceeded with, if the Government would, as early as possible, make up their minds what bills were to be pressed forward in the present Session, and what bills were to be abandoned. The remarks he had offered were equally applicable to bills whether relating to England, Scotland, or Ireland. He also wished the noble Lord would state when he intended to proceed with the second reading of the Canada Bill, and with a view to the convenience of the House he should avail himself of that opportunity of stating, that when the noble Lord moved the order of the day for the consideration of that bill, he should feel it his duty to object to the second reading. He did not mean to contest the principle upon which the measure was founded, but he did mean to contest the propriety of Parliament deciding on the principle of a union of the two provinces in the present Session, if they were not to proceed to actual legislation when that principle had been affirmed. He was prepared, if Sir J. Colborne had forwarded all the information which could possibly be obtained, and if the noble Lord opposite told him distinctly that it was bonâ fide his intention to legislate in the present Sessions, to assent to the second reading of the bill. But if they were not to proceed to legislation in the present Session, he was not disposed to proceed to the second reading of the bill, because it was impossible to discuss the subject of a legislative union of the two provinces without entering upon many other and most important considerations, and because, in his opinion, the discussion of those important considerations ought to be followed by immediate legislation; for if that discussion was to take place, and 966 the report of their proceedings to go out to Canada, and if they were to do nothing for seven or eight months in the way of legislation, the objects of the Government and of the Parliament might be misunderstood and misrepresented, and the measure for effecting a union might, as the consequence, be prejudiced in the minds of the people of the colony. Not objecting to the principle of a legislative union, he should not directly oppose the second reading of the bill, but he should feel it his duty to make some motion, such "as the previous question," or "that the House proceed to the other orders of the day," in order to afford the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the wisdom of the policy of pledging the House, in the present Session, to the abstract principle of a union, when their were not to proceed to actual legislation till another year. He also intended to pursue the same course with respect to other bills, if it was the intention of Government, with respect to any other measures before the House, to take the second reading in the present Session, and to postpone their further progress to another year, then, as a general principle, he should pursue the same course with respect to those bills, as he had intimated his intention to adopt with respect to the Canada Bill—that was, he should invite the House to refuse its assent to the principle of any measure which it was not intended to carry into a law during the present Session.
§ Lord J. Russellwould certainly take an early opportunity of stating what bills he intended to proceed with during the present Session, and what bills he proposed to abandon. There were several bills which had already been abandoned, and it would therefore be unnecessary to make any declaration with respect to them. In regard to the statements which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, with respect to the Canada Bills, he was afraid some misapprehension might exist as to the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman if the matter were not cleared up. There were two bills which the Government had obtained leave to introduce with respect td Canada. There was one which, as he had already stated, it was not intended to proceed with in the present Session, but there was also another, with respect to the powers which had been conferred by Act of- Parliament, upon the Governor and Special 967 Council, which Government intended to proceed with in the present Session. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's statement did not refer to the last-mentioned bill, because, after what had passed last year with respect to the judges in Canada, he should think it necessary to press that bill before the Parliament was prorogued. He would not then enter into the question whether it was politic or impolitic to ask the House to consent to the second reading of the bill for effecting a union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada in the present Session, and would reserve his opinions upon that point till the subject was regularly before the House.
§ Sir R. Peelwas quite aware the noble Lord had introduced two bills relative to Canada, and he had distinctly understood that with respect to one of the bills it was the intention of the Government to proceed to effective legislation in the present Session. With respect, however, to the bill for effecting a union of the two provinces, he had understood the noble Lord to state, that it was not his intention to proceed to actual legislation in the present Session, and that he would only call upon the House to pronounce an opinion upon the principle of a union. His objection did not apply to the first of those bills, and his present impression was, that the principle of that bill would not be opposed, and that it would be allowed to be read a second time. Of course he would reserve himself as to the details of the measure, and he would not pledge himself, that some of the minor provisions of the bill would not be opposed. It was the second of the Canada bills which he objected to, not on account of the principle of the measure, but because he contended that it was neither wise nor politic to call upon the House to affirm the abstract principle of a union in the present Session, when they were not to proceed to actual legislation, till some after and indefinite period. That was the ground on which he should resist the bill for effecting a union of the two Canadian provinces.