§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONrose to put the question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, of which he had given notice on Friday last, and which notice was rendered necessary by the fact of the noble Lord's answer on Friday last not having met the most important part of the question he then put to him. He begged to ask the noble Lord what, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government—he of course meant the opinion founded on the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown—would be the force and effect of the guarantee upon the Consolidated Fund, in Section 8 of the Act 3 & 4 Vict., c. 78, in the event of the clergy reserves being secularised by the Legislature of Canada?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL,in reply, said that Her Majesty's Government had not asked for the written opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown; but he had seen those hon. and learned Gentlemen, and they had given it as their opinion that, in the event of the clergy reserves being secularised by the Legislature of Canada, and that Act receiving the Royal Assent, there would be no claim upon, and no payment made out of, the Consolidated Fund.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONThe answer of the noble Lord made it necessary to ask another question—namely, whether, during the progress of the Clergy Reserves Bill through the House of Commons, it was the noble Lord's intention, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to take any steps to give effect to the guarantee, the obligation of which he had distinctly recognised?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLIt was certainly not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any clause to make that guarantee binding in the event of such a contingency.