§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, I rise to put the question to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) of which I gave notice yesterday, and I think the noble Lord will feel it is very important for the House to be in possession of the information this question seeks to obtain, especially after the opinion that has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir J. Graham). I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he has consulted the law officers of the Crown, or is otherwise prepared to state the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, whether, in the event of the Clergy Reserves Canada Bill, now before this House, being passed into a law, and the Legislature of Canada exercising the power that would be given to them to secularise the clergy reserves, the guarantee upon the Consolidated Fund, which is given to the Churches of England and Scotland in Upper Canada, by section 8 of the Act 3 & 4 Vict., c. 78, would still be in force, and would permanently secure to those Churches respectively the annual sums specified in the said section of the Act?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLSir, with respect to the stipends that are now assigned and paid to the clergy of the Churches of England and Scotland, I imagine there cannot well be a doubt with respect to the provision of the Bill. Those clergy would still have the right by law to claim the stipends that have already been assigned to them, and provided that after the passing of the Clergy Reserves Bill the fund was not sufficient, and an additional fund was required for paying those 805 stipends, they would then have the claim upon the Consolidated Fund that is given to them by the existing law. I think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to ask further, whether, in case the clergy reserves shall be secularised, any other clergy that may hereafter be appointed will have a claim upon the Consolidated Fund. On that subject the law officers were not consulted, and it is a question of law on which the Government is not prepared to give an answer.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONAccording to the noble Lord's statement, the guarantee on the Consolidated Fund will only be secured to the existing holders of stipends, and will go no further. May I ask the noble Lord if he will obtain the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to whether it will have any further operation?
§ MR. BRIGHTI beg to put a question to the noble Lord on the same subject. I understood the noble Lord to say, on the debate on this matter, that an understanding was come to with the Archbishop of Canterbury. I do not know if the noble Lord said that he was himself the person who negotiated that understanding or not; but perhaps the noble Lord will inform the House whether on that negotiation the contingency was alluded to, that possibly the clergy reserves would be alienated or secularised by the Canadian Parliament. I beg also to ask if the Archbishop of Canterbury took upon himself to negotiate on the part of the Church of Scotland—a Church that repudiates the bishops altogether?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLI have stated to the House what took place on that occasion. Sir Robert Peel was the person who undertook to negotiate on this subject. I did not see the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor had I any communication directly with him. My communication was directly with Sir Robert Peel; but the Archbishop of Canterbury did not, I believe, take into his contemplation the secularisation of the clergy reserves. I certainly do not remember any such contingency being mentioned to me. As to the other point, the Archbishop of Canterbury did not take upon himself to answer for the Church of Scotland; but I believe that he or Sir Robert Peel communicated with certain persons entitled the Commissioners of General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, who are held to represent that Church, and their authority to agree to the understanding entered into, was not, I believe, afterwards disputed.
MR. HUMEIf it shall appear to be the law that we shall be liable for the payment of the stipends of the clergy subsequently appointed, I beg to give notice that I will move for the reinsertion of the third clause, to free the country from that charge.