HC Deb 13 April 1840 vol 53 cc1026-7
Mr. Pakington

said, that considerable misapprehension having arisen respecting what had passed in another place with regard to the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill, he wished to remind the noble Lord that he had admitted the other night that the bill was illegal, so far as it repealed the 7th and 8th George 4th, and he wished to ask the noble Lord whether what was represented to have been stated in another place had actually been stated—namely, that the bill was illegal, and that in consequence of that illegality the bill was so far invalid that no consent of the Crown could make it valid?

Lord J. Russell

said, that what he had stated before was, that after the lapse of the thirty days and an additional period, in consequence of doubts which had been entertained respecting the vacation, he should consult the Law Officers of the Crown and take their opinion before he advised the Crown on the subject. To that statement he adhered. It had, he believed, been stated in another place, that on the supposition that the judges gave certain answers to certain questions which were to be proposed to them, it would be impossible for the advisers of the Crown to recommend that the Royal Assent should be given to the bill. But that must depend upon what the judges might answer, and was quite a different question from this.

Mr. Pakington

said, his question was, whether the bill being admitted to be illegal so far as it repealed the 7th and 8th George 4th, that, in the opinion of the Government, disabled the Crown from giving the Royal Assent.

Lord J. Russell

said, what he had stated the other night was, that the bill went to repeal a clause of the Act of the 7th and 8th George 4th, and that it could so far have no legal effect unless it were confirmed by Act of Parliament. What he now stated was, that after the judges should hare answered the questions to be put to them, he should have to consult the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor.

Sir R. Peel

I think that I can answer the question on the part of her Majesty's Government more satisfactorily than the noble Lord. I was in another place, which I must not name, the other night, and I heard from the highest authority that if the bill was in any part illegal, that would invalidate the whole.

Lord J. Russell

said, he should not advise the assent of the Crown until after he had taken the opinion of Parliament on a bill which he should bring in. This was a very material question, and there should be no omission on his part to make the settlement of it such as should be satisfactory to the colonies and to Parliament.

Subject at an end.