CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA) BILL.

HC Deb 18 March 1853 vol 125 cc450-504

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 1.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, that it was not his intention to trouble the House with any Amendment on this or indeed on any other clause of the Bill. He observed, however, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had given notice of one Amendment, and he trusted that in its present progress through Committee, or, at all events, before it went to a third reading, it would undergo other amendments. Of course, he reserved to himself the right to take such course as he might deem expedient when they came to read the Bill a third time. He now rose more especially to call attention to some expressions which fell from the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) on the second reading of the Bill, and which expressions he thought were hardly consistent with the words of the clause before them. Now, as in the course of the right hon. Baronet's speech, and the long details he gave the House of the history of the clergy reserves in Canada, he rather assumed, with some degree of self-complacency, that there were few, if any, Gentlemen on the Opposition benches who understood the subject. He (Sir J. Pakington), therefore, thought it was at least incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to have avoided any errors on his own part. It was not his intention to go into the charges which were contained in that speech respecting Sr Francis Head, though he believed they were most unfounded and erroneous charges. But that eminent and distinguished man (Sir Francis Head) was well able to fight his own battle upon all subjects; and he had addressed a public letter to the right hon. Baronet with respect to those charges, to which public letter he (Sir J. Pakington) had as yet seen no public reply. The expressions in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought to be inconsistent with the first clause of the Bill, were these:— It should be remembered, also, that if this Bill passes, the Canadian Legislature will only acqure the same power over Protestant endowments as it at present has over the Roman Catholic ones."—[3Hansard, cxxiv. 1114.] Speaking from memory, he was also under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used similar language. Now, he was strongly under the impression that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) was wholly in error in making this statement. The House would hear in mind, that under the Act of 1791, confirmed by the Act of 1840, the Legislature of Canada could touch no Roman Catholic endowment without sending the Bill home to lie on the table of the House for thirty days; and that if there were an Address from either House of Parliament against the Bill, it could not become law. Under the Bill as it stood he had a right to say that there would be no such security remaining for the Protestant endowments. And he now begged to ask the Government what was their real intention on this subject? Was it intended that that security should be taken away? If it were, then they had no right to tell him that Roman Catholic and Protestant endowments would hereafter be on the same footing. But if it were intended to retain that security, he must then express his opinion, that that intention ought to be more clearly defined than it was by the words of the first section. If they meant to revert to the Act of 1791, and to retain that security, why did they not in terms advert to the 42nd section of the Act of Union?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that he had no hesitation in stating clearly the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It was intended that any Act passed by the Legislature of Canada, and duly assented to by the Crown, should not be subject to those provisions contained in former Acts of Parliament, by which the Bills were required to remain for thirty days on the table of the House, and in the event of an Address from either House of Parliament were not to become law. It was intended most decidedly that such regulations should not continue with respect to the disposal of the clergy reserves of Canada. There was some difficulty in finding phrases which would clearly express that intention in the Bill; but if any words more clear than those which had been adopted should be suggested, he would offer no opposition to their insertion.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that by this clause the Legislature of Canada, by an Act made in the manner and subject to the conditions required by 3 & 4 Vict., c. 35, sees. 37 and 38, might alter the appropriation of the clergy reserves; but the 35th section of the Act referred to contained these important words:— That whenever any Bill which has been passed by the Legislative Council and Assembly of the province of Canada shall be presented for Her Majesty's assent to the Governor of the said province, such Governor shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject, nevertheless, to the provisions contained in this Act, that he assents to such Bill in Her Majesty's name, or that he withholds Her Majesty's assent, or that he reserves such Bill for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon. In that section it would be observed that there were the very important words, "subject, nevertheless, to the provisions contained in this Act." And one of such provisions was that contained in the 42nd section of the Act, which enacted— That whenever any Bill or Bills shall be passed by the Legislative Council and Assembly of the province of Canada containing any provisions to vary or repeal any of the provisions now in force contained in an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain passed in the 14th year of the reign of his late Majesty George III., entitled An Act for Making more Effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec, in North America,' or in the aforesaid Acts of Parliament passed in the 31st year of the same reign, respecting the accustomed dues and rights of the clergy of the Church of Rome; or to vary or repeal any provisions respecting the allotment and appropriation of lands for the support of the Protestant clergy within the province of Canada, or respecting the constituting, erecting, or endowing of parsonages or rectories within the province of Canada, &c., every such Bill shall, previously to any declaration of Her Majesty's assent thereto, be laid before both Houses of Parliament; and that it shall not be lawful for Her Majesty to signify her assent to any such Bill until thirty days after the same shall have been laid before the said Houses, or to assent to any such Bill in case either House of Parliament shall within the said thirty days address Her Majesty to withhold her assent from any such Bill. And that section was not exactly, but almost word for word, similar to the section which the noble Lord had adverted to in the Act of 1791. Another point to which he requested attention was this: The principle upon which the Government were proceeding was, that the Canadian Legislature should have full dominion over all the clergy reserves, and the proceeds of those reserves lying within the united provinces of Upper or Lower Canada. He wished to know, therefore, if it was intended that any control whatever should remain in the Crown? Supposing the Canadian Legislature appropriated those reserves to any purposes other than the religious purposes mentioned in the statute of 1840—the Act of Union—in other words, supposing the Canadian Legislature were to apply the whole of these reserves to an entirely secular purpose—take, for instance, the construction or railways or canals—was it, or was it not, the intention of the Government that an effective control should be reserved to the Crown, or was that control to be merely nominal? The answer to that question would, in his mind, make an important difference as to the propriety of assenting to or dissenting from the Bill; and he should be glad to know of the Government, therefore, if it were intended that the control so reserved to the Crown was to be effective or nominal. His reason for being so particularly anxious upon this point had reference to a subsequent part of the section which dealt with the proceeds of these reserves; because, as he understood the first section, it would be in the power of the Canadian Legislature to deal with the proceeds of any of the lands which had been sold since 1791, the investments of which were in this country, and which proceeds and investments formed no part of the local territory of Canada.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he admitted that the construction of the Acts of Parliament relating to the subject was a matter of very great difficulty and doubt. The English Judges had unanimously decided that the moment the lands were al- lotted and appropriated to the purpose of maintaining the Protestant clergy, the 31st of George III. was functum officio, and would have no further operation. It struck him and his Colleague, therefore, that they wanted no positive enactment in the present Bill to suspend the operation of the 42nd Clause. It seemed to him, however, desirable that at the bringing up of the Report they should insert some more positive and clear enactment in the Bill for the purpose of removing all doubt.

SIR FREDERIC THESIGER

said, he understood that whatever might be the effect of the clause in its present shape, it was the intention of Government that the Canadian Legislature should have absolute power to deal with the clergy reserves, and with the investments which had been made of the proceeds of the sale of those reserves, without any of the securities which were provided by the 42nd section of the Act of Union. That being the intention of the Government, it seemed to be very immaterial what might be the exact construction of the words that were used. The Government would, of course, take care to introduce words expressive of their intentions; but then the Committee should understand precisely what those intentions were. It had been stated, that to repeal the Act of 1840 would be to bring matters back to what they were under the Act of 1791. With great submission, he contended that it would do no such thing, because the Judges in 1840 declared that the 41st section of the Act of 1791 was prospective, and that the Canadian Legislature had no power whatever over lands which had been already allotted and appropriated. Therefore the Bill before the Committee, in explaining the Act of 1840, and in dealing with the clergy reserves in Canada, was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1791, inasmuch as it gave absolute power of appropriation over the produce of the sales of this property to the local Legislature. It was consequently a violation of the principle of that Act, instead of being, as had been stated, in strict accordance with its provisions. Any one who considered the 41st clause of the Act of 1840, in connexion with the Act of 1791, would at once come to the conclusion that it never had been contemplated in either that the clergy reserves of Canada should be appropriated to secular purposes. The Act of 1791 contemplated a provision for the support of the clergy, in view of the extension of the province. To adopt the principle of the Bill would be to take away the security conferred by that Act. Nevertheless the Committee was told that the Bill was but a return to that Act, and that it was only placing the Canadian Legislature in respect to these reserves in the same position it was in before that Act had passed. The Bill, however, took away the power of addressing the Crown conferred by that Act upon either House of Parliament, with the view to refusing assent to such Acts of the Colonial Legislature as might be deemed incompatible with Imperial interests. It was, in short, an interference with vested interests and established rights—one of the most startling breaches of faith ever attempted, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) was only astonished at the confidence with which hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House asserted the contrary.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) was totally mistaken when he said the object of the present Bill was to go back to the state of things which existed in 1791. He should conceive that no one in his senses could ever have asserted such a thing. The object of the Bill was to remove to the Colonial Legislature that power of revision which was now possessed by the Imperial Parliament during a period of thirty days. At the same time he had no very clear idea of the effect of the first section, and he thought that the appeal of the 42nd clause in the Act of 1840 would be the simplest mode of attaining that which he conceived to be the object of the measure. As the Bill stood he believed it would keep alive that 42nd clause; so that, if he were right, it would, after all, be nugatory.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, it bad been made perfectly clear that the intention of the Bill was to take away from the clergy reserves in Canada that protection which they had hitherto enjoyed under the 42nd clause in the Act of 1840. But it was said that the Bill did no more with respect to the property of the Church of England than it did in relation to the religious endowments of the Church of Rome in Canada. Now he was anxious to obtain from the legal advisers of Her Majesty's Government a distinct declaration of the law upon that point. He thought this matter so important that he should take the liberty of reading the emphatic declaration of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. F. Peel), when he introduced the Bill, and the still more emphatic declaration of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Molesworth), in which both Gentlemen laid down the untenable position that this Bill would place the property of the Church of England in Canada upon precisely the same footing as the property of the Church of Rome. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) said— But in the Constitutional Act of 1701 this very provision was made which we now wish to make applicable to the Protestant endowments. When Canada obtained a free Parliament instead of the nominated Council of Government, it was thus provided by the 31 Geo. III., c. 31, s. 35. After reciting the declarations in the latter part of the above clause, and also certain instructions of the King for the application to the support of a Protestant clergy of tithes due from Protestants, the Act proceeds in the following terms:—'Be it enacted, that the said declaration and provision contained in the said abovementioned Act, and also the said provision so made by His Majesty in consequence thereof, by his instruction above recited, shall remain and continue to be of full force and effect in each of the said two provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada respectively, except in so far as the said declaration or provisions respectively, or any part thereof, shall be expressly varied or repealed by any Act or Acts which may be passed by the Legislative Council and Assembly of the said provinces respectively, and assented to by His Majesty, his heirs, or successors, under the restrictions hereinafter provided.' Therefore you see that the Roman Catholic endowment of tithes and dues, which members of the Roman Catholic persuasion are now bound to pay to the clergy of that Church, may at any time be abrogated by an Act of the Colonial Legislature; and inasmuch as all that we propose now to do is to place the Protestant endowment in Canada on precisely the same footing, I cannot see why the Roman Catholic members of the local Legislature should be objected to for taking part in the divisions upon this subject. Upon these grounds, then, Sir, I beg leave to introduce this Bill."—[3 Hansard, cxxiv. 142.] Now be asked the right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works, and any legal Gentleman upon either side of the House, whether on reading the Bill they could say that, dealing as it did upon the face of it with the clergy reserves, and the clergy reserves alone, it substantially repealed the enactments of the 42nd section in the Act of 1840, so far as the property of the Roman Catholic Church was concerned? If they could not say this from the words of that clause, what was the meaning of the declarations made by Her Majesty's Government? They said it was purely a measure of religious equality, and that it sought to place Protestant endowments upon the same footing as Roman Catholic endowments. But he (Lord J. Manners) maintained—and it was as clear as the sun light—that, so far from these endowments being upon the same footing, from the moment this Bill became law in its present shape, the stringent clause in the original Act of 1791, and re-enacted in that of 1840, which related to the whole religious property belonging to any Church or communion in Canada, would be retained only for the protection of Roman Catholic endowments in that country. [The noble Lord read the clause at length.] He said he must again assert that the religious endowments of the Church of Rome would, after the passing of this Bill, be guarded by provisions which were expressly repealed so far as concerned the clergy reserves of Canada. Now he put it to any Gentleman who wished to carry out what he conceived to be a most melancholy and disastrous policy—that of leaving the ecclesiastical endowments of all religious communions, without favour or regard to their religious tenets, to the unlimited control of the Canadian Legislature—whether this was acting upon the principle of equality? The right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works laid it down in such distinct terms that there could be no doubt upon the subject, that the Roman Catholic endowments were to be upon the same footing as the clergy reserves; for he said, "there was no statutory provision preventing the Legislature of Canada from dealing with this property in any manner they might think proper." Then would the right hon. Baronet tell him what force attached to the 42nd section of the Act of 1840? Had he, by his ipse dixit, repealed the legal effect of that remarkable provision? Could he point out any Statute subsequent to 1840 which abrogated or diminished the force of that provision? If he could not, he (Lord J. Manners) would ask the right hon. Baronet for an explanation of the extremely determined manner in which he vindicated the Bill, whilst he asserted that there was no statutory provision whatever to prevent the Canadian Legislature from dealing in any manner they thought proper with the endowments of the Roman Catholic Church? If the right hon. Baronet meant to say that the safeguard of the 42nd section in the Act of 1840 was no safeguard at all, then why not give the clergy reserves of Canada the same protection as the endowments of the Church of Rome? At any rate, let not the Liberal Members of that Church—above all, let not the Roman Catholic Members of that House, be deluded into the belief that in passing this Bill they were passing one which, as the right hon. Baronet said, was based upon the true principles of religious equality. Under these circumstances he should give the Bill his decided opposition.

MR. FREDERICK PEEL

said, that as the noble Lord who had just sat down had particularly referred to him, he would trouble the Committee with one or two observations. He had stated, on introducing the Bill, that its effect would be to give the Legislature of Canada power to dispose of the lands and alter appropriations made under the Act of 1840, and that this was doing no more than had been already done with regard to the Roman Catholic endowments in Lower Canada. He had also quoted the Act of 1791 to show that under it the Legislature had power to alter the payments which Roman Catholic proprietors were legally bound to pay to the priests of their own persuasion. The noble Lord had not disputed the accuracy of this statement, but had alluded rather to the mode in which the Crown should exercise its rights as a branch of the local Parliament. The Government had carefully considered that point, and were of opinion that no restriction should be placed on the exercise of that right, which would continue to be exercised subject to the advice of the Secretary of State. They thought that far the best course. If it was just that the united Parliament should surrender its control over the clergy reserves, surely what the Parliament was collectively doing, each House might be called on to do separately. It would be a mere contradiction to affect to give up this control of Parliament, and still to retain in the hands of each House the means of rendering nugatory anything that might be done by Canada in the exercise of the functions to be vested in it by this Bill. The noble Lord said this Bill placed Protestant endowments, as he called them, upon a different footing to Roman Catholic endowments. He seemed to have forgotten that it was incorrect to designate these clergy reserves as Protestant endowments. They were so under the Act of 1791; but under the Act of 1840 Roman Catholics had been permitted to participate to the extent of one-half in the produce of sales under that Act. But admitting that they were substantially a Protestant endowment, he could not see that the reservation of this thirty days' proviso would be an advantage to the Church of England, or to any other religious body interested in this fund; because it would give an appearance of support which would be illusory and useless in the event of any pressure upon that House. It might even induce the Canadian Legislature to deal with these reserves, for the sake of challenging the Imperial Parliament to exercise a power so anomalous and objectionable. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really thought that the Church of Rome enjoyed any positive advantage from either House of Parliament being able to exercise a veto on an Act of the Canadian Legislature, let them bring forward a Bill for the purpose of repealing the 42nd Clause of the Union Act of 1840, and he believed there would be no disposition on the part of the Government to offer opposition to such a measure.

MR. NAPIER

said, that the hon. Gentleman had first insisted that the Bill would place Protestant and Roman Catholic endowments on an equality. Now he proposed that the admitted inequality might be corrected by inflicting a similar injustice on Roman Catholic property as on the Protestant endowments. In such a principle he (Mr. Napier) could never agree. He, for one, would not consent to remedy the spoliation of the Protestant Church by the spoliation of that property which had been secured to the Roman Catholic Church in Canada by the faith of the Crown and the Acts of the Legislature. The hon. Gentleman intimated the opinion of the Government on the subject; but nevertheless the great difficulty in the discussion was to find out what the views of the Government really were. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, had argued on a former occasion that the Bill was only intended to be a return to the principles of the Constitutional Act of 1791; and this statement was borne out by the despatch of the Duke of Newcastle [Parliamentary Papers, p. 14, Feb. 11]. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, and the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), stated other and inconsistent grounds. The greatest confusion existed in fact; and no two men out of the House knew exactly what they were about. One portion of the Government said they were on the broad principle of Colonial self-government; another said they went on the broad principle of religious equality; a third said they went back to the Constitutional Act of 1791. He (Mr. Napier) wanted to know the exact position of the question, and upon what real grounds it was supported. He understood the noble Lord to state that it was not the intention of the Government to continue that control over local legislation in Canada conferred by the Act of 1840; while the Chancellor of the Exchequer took another and a dissimilar view; and there was a further difference between them and other Members of the Government. The second reading of the Bill had therefore been discussed upon one view of the subject, and the discussion in Committee was, in fact, taken upon another view. That was a grave objection to proceeding with the measure—if none other existed. One of his (Mr. Napier's) arguments against the second reading of the Bill was to the effect that the Act of 1840 which it proposed to abrogate was a permanent arrangement, and that therefore it should not be meddled with. In the debate on the Act of 1840—on the 23rd March—the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had, in reply to a question put by the late Sir Robert Peel, stated that in respect of the clergy reserves of Lower Canada, the proceedings of the Colonial Legislature would be subject to the provisions of the Act of 1791, by which the Crown was empowered to refuse its assent to any measure infringing on them; and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had subsequently stated that it was only on this ground he gave his support to the Bill—namely, that the matter should not be left in the power of the provincial assembly. It was most important not to violate the Act of Union of the provinces in any particular, and it was manifest, therefore, that this Act did not contemplate the control of the clergy reserves being placed in the hands of the local Legislature. The Act of 1840 was, in fact, founded upon a compromise made by the Church through the Archbishop of Canterbury; a circumstance which gave a final character to the arrangement. Supposing, however, that this arrangement was now to be broken, it was important for the Committee to see on what terms the power over these resources was given to the Colonial Legislature of Canada. The noble Lord's statement of these terms was totally different from that of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, whilst it was equally at variance with that of the right bon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even with what he said himself when he passed the Act of 1840. On this matter he found so much confusion that his only object was now to see that the point was made as clear as possible. It had been asserted by the hon. Member who brought in the Bill, that by the Bill it was proposed to put all parties upon an equality. But were they doing that? The only three Members of the Government who had spoken argued in favour of the Bill on the principle of religious equality, and on the assertion that the reserves should be regulated according to the Act of 1791. But it had since been found out that this object would not be accomplished by the Bill, and the only remedy suggested for this defect was for hon. Members on his (Mr. Napier's) side of the House to bring in another Bill. It was now admitted that the principle of religious equality was not carried out; that great difference would exist between Protestant endowments and Roman Catholic endowments; but Government said, in addition, if you make a proposition for the spoliation of the Church of Rome we will assist you. You have agreed to spoliate the Protestant property, and we are willing to reduce the Roman Catholic endowments to the same condition of spoliation. He, for one, would never admit such a principle. The property in question was placed under Imperial control, in order to restrain the colonists from dealing with it improperly. It was, therefore, not fair, after the Act of Union, and the Canadian Legislature had recognised this principle, to seek to remove from the Imperial Legislature this salutary control, and to transfer it to the Canadian Legislature. He wished the matter to be clearly understood, what was the issue really to be determined, and he wished the country to be in possession of the information in order that there might be no mistake about it. It was alleged that colonial self-legislation was only aimed at; but there were other rights paramount to that object—there were the rights of property and the rights of the Church, both of which were superior to the accomplishment of colonial self-legislation. The Act of 1791 secured the reserves to the clergy, and the Crown had control in this respect. The Bill before the House had no such distinction; and when he found the Secretary of State was to be substituted for the Crown—however highly he might respect the holder of such a high office—he could not consent to see the wishes of Crown, Lords, and Commons set aside at his will and pleasure. He (Mr. Napier) relied on the Act of 1791, because it was a fundamental and constitutional Act; and he relied on the Act of 1840, because, when the union of the Canadas was agreed upon, the security of the reserves, or so much as was not given up under the compact, was made the basis of the compact. Upon all these grounds, therefore, he called on the Government for explanation, that on the third reading the question might be plainly and clearly brought before the House and the country.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he thought there could not be much doubt about the principle of this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, and Gentlemen on the other side, had said a great deal about the Roman Catholic endowments and establishments. That was very much beside the question now before the Committee; and although the right hon. and learned Gentleman averred that he would not be put off by that answer, the question really was, the self-government of the province of Canada. The question with regard to Roman Catholic endowments was chiefly a question arising before the Act of 1791, because the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada were acquired before that Act; and if such a Bill had been introduced as that to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) had alluded, the question would rest upon a different state of things altogether. The Protestant clergy reserves were first made by the Act of 1791. They were created by Act of Parliament at that time, and the question was whether they would reserve or not the power given by the Act of 1791 to either House of Parliament to prevent the consent of the Crown being given to a Colonial Act. It was no doubt a question of some importance, but it was not a question of chief importance, with regard to this subject. Even in that respect, however, it was evidently the intention of the Act of 1791 that the Colonial Legislature should have in the first place the power to legislate—that they should be enabled by the 41st Section to legislate, under certain restrictions imposed by the 42nd Section. But the question of much more importance was really whether they were to allow the Colonial Legislature to legislate on that subject. These clergy reserves were accompanied with provisions which certainly had not operated in a manner to induce any wish to maintain the Act of 1791, They all knew that the clergy reserves had been a source of great evil to the province. The lands reserved had been barren of wheat, barren of barley, and barren of oats, but fruitful of discontent, fruitful of strife, and fruitful of ill-luck—a source of despondency to the cultivator, often preventing roads being made, but a subject of hope to every agitator in the colony. Therefore there was nothing in the practical portion of that Act: by which they were created, to induce him to wish to maintain it. But then there was certainly in that Act of 1791 a provision, to which he had alluded, that if any Act were made for the purpose of dealing with the reserves in the Colony, it should he laid before the two Houses of Parliament for thirty days, and they should have the power to prevent its taking effect. What he said was, that that provision was inconsistent with the principle which the Government had adopted, namely, that the Colonies should have the power to legislate for themselves. And if the House meant to adopt that principle in its fair and full extent, they must omit that provision of the Act of 1791, as they did not omit the control now possessed by the Imperial Parliament. It had been urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), that his (Lord J. Russell's) right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued this Bill as if it proceeded upon the principle of the Act of 1791. His right hon. Friend only meant, that inasmuch as the principle of the Act of 1791 allowed legislation by the provincial Parliament, and did not intend it with regard to that provision, that either House of Parliament might have the power of control. It was, therefore, he thought, abundantly clear what were the intentions of the Government on this subject. With respect to the particular framing of the clauses, it might be advisable, perhaps, to add some words with regard to the 37th and 38th clauses of the Union Act of 1848, to make the provision more clear than it was at present. The principle which he understood was approved by the House when the second reading of this Bill was carried by so large a majority was, that the people of Canada, as represented by the Crown and the two Houses of Legislature, should have full power, reserving the life interests of the present holders of the clergy reserves, to legislate on this subject. That was what the Government meant. That was the principle to which they would adhere. He believed it to be a sound principle, and upon that principle they intended to proceed.

MR. HENLEY

said, he thought before the Bill passed it might be advisable to introduce some alteration in the clauses, in order to make their intention more clear. The Bill had been advocated by hon. Gentlemen on the other side on the distinct ground that all parties would be placed by it on the same footing. But when the Bill came to be considered, it was found that this was quite a mistake. While control over the reserves was taken from the Protestants, and given to the local Legislature, the Roman Catholics retained their power over their property. When this was pointed out, the answer of the Government was, "Bring in a bill to rob the Roman Catholics, and we will help you." By this Act it was proposed to deprive Protestant endowments of the security of Parliament, while Roman Catholic endowments were fenced in by double securities. He did not think it was easy to understand how a measure so constructed could be based on religious equality. Unless equal power to deal with both questions were given to the Colonial Legislature, he did not see how the plea of equal self-government could serve them for one moment. Why not sweep away the guards round Roman Catholic endowments, the same as was done with Protestant endowments? It was a sound principle that you could not justify an act of spoliation in one body by an act of spoliation in another body. Government said they wished to give power to the local Legislature to deal with the subject. If Government intended the local Legislature to have power to deal with the whole question, they would have made their enactment general, not special. It was very extraordinary to find a short Bill like this so obscurely drawn that the hon. and learned Attorney General himself was obliged to argue on the meaning at great length; and then, after giving a doubtful opinion, to say it would be necessary to have some provision added to explain what was intended, and to let it be known that by this Bill Government intended to give the Canadian Legislature power to deal with the reserves, and that all parties were to be placed on a religious equality. If there was no intention to mystify, why could Government not place their views in a clear, plain, and unequi- vocal manner on the Bill before the House and the country? By this Bill the Protestant foundations were dealt with one way, and the Roman Catholic foundations another. He thought some votes on the second reading had been given on a different understanding, and that a different view of the question might possibly have been taken by those hon. Gentlemen had they found that the Bill did not secure that equality it professed to give. An argument had been used by the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Peel) so unaccountable that he felt bound to advert to it. It was said, if you have dealt with the endowments at one period, and varied the appropriation of them, you could not be found fault with for dealing with them at another period, and again altering their appropriation; that, in fact, having destroyed the character of these endowments by the Act of 1840, which varied their appropriation, they had ceased to become endowments. He never could understand the force of such an argument. In 1835–6, when a proposition for secularising the property of the Church was made, a protest was entered against the doctrine that Parliament had power to deal with such property in any way they pleased, and at their own discretion. His protest against that doctrine was again made, now it was again raised on the question of the Canada reserves.

MR. HUME

said, he was sorry to see so much opposition to a measure of so much importance. Until he heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), he was not aware that any one entertained a doubt about the intention of the Bill. Discontent had prevailed in Canada ever since the law was altered, and it was now proposed to bring matters back to what they were in 1791. This Bill would give peace to Canada, by removing the grievances of the people, and bringing matters back to the condition they were in in 1791. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, who were the best judges—those in the country—or those who knew nothing about it? The people of Canada and the Legislature had expressed their opinion that this Bill, if it were passed entire, would give satisfaction, by putting the Roman Catholics on the same footing as the Protestants. ["No, no!"] That was the opinion in Canada. He regretted the passing of the Act of 1840; he had been one of those who opposed it. From that hour it had proved a curse to the country, and had supplied a cry to the discontented throughout the provinces. He was anxious, by passing the present Bill, to give that colony peace, to unite it more closely to England, and to make it valuable to this country. He wished to impress on the Roman Catholic Members opposite that this Bill would in no way interfere with the rights of the Roman Catholics of Canada. They were not dealt with in that province as they were in Ireland, for the land, when held by a Roman Catholic, paid tithes to his own community; and, when it passed into the possession of a Protestant it paid none; there was, therefore, no inducement to either party to invade the rights of the other.

MR. LUCAS

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) that he need be under no apprehension of any Irish Member thinking the rights of the Roman Catholics would be interfered with by this Bill. He wished, in rising at that time, also to express to the Committee the feelings of surprise with which he had heard the concern and interest entertained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) for the protection of Catholic endowments. His care for these endowments, his tenderness towards them, was extremely touching—quite affecting. It appeared that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and some of those near him, felt an apprehension that Roman Catholic endowments, if touched in one of the countries, would not be safe either in Canada or Ireland. Really the noble Lord the late Chief Commissioner of Public Works (Lord John Manners) made a powerful appeal to reject this Bill, because if it passed he said he could not even answer for the endowment of Maynooth. But his feelings had been still more affected, when he heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin say he would never be induced—nothing in the world, no consideration of interest, could ever induce him to touch a Catholic endowment secured by Act of Parliament, and even to make up for robbery and confiscation perpetrated on Protestant endowments, would not be an inducement sufficient to prevail on him to touch Catholic endowments, when granted and secured by Act of Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told them that ten years was now considered to be a long time for any gentleman to be tied up to any political opinion, and there should be a statute of limitations confining it to six years. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant was, that six weeks was an excessive period for an opinion to be maintained if found inconvenient to its possessor, and even the shortest notice was sufficient for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to change his opinions on the subject of Catholic endowments, created and maintained by Act of Parliament. On the 23rd of February there was a division in that House. The subject before them was the Maynooth grant, and the question was a Motion by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the 8 & 9 Vict., c. 25, commonly called the last Maynooth Act, with a view to repeal those clauses which provided money grants in the way of endowment to the said college. Most of the right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House stayed away from that division. To do them justice, he really believed they did not wish to interfere with that grant. He believed that by walking out of the House they went as far as they dared in separating themselves from the bigotry and intolerance with which the Motion was supported. One noble Lord (Lord Stanley)—and he spoke of it with gratitude—adopted a bolder, more resolute, more honest course—he did not leave the House, but voted against the Motion. One right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) who had taken part in this discussion adopted neither of those courses—he had neither the courage nor the conscience to adopt the course of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, nor the prudence—he was about to use a stronger word—of other Members to walk out of the House. But he had the courage and he had the conscience to stay and vote against a Catholic endowment secured by Act of Parliament on the 23rd of February; and he now came down to the House on the 18th of March, and told them not to grant the power of self-legislation to Canada in this matter of the clergy reserves, because nothing could induce him, no arrangement could persuade him, to adopt the principle of this Bill, not even if he were offered the confiscation of Catholic endowments to sweeten the bitter pill which he must swallow. He (Mr. Lucas) should be very sorry to trust any Catholic endowment, either in this country, in Ire- land, or the Colonies, to the tenacity of principle and the resolute conscience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. God forbid that the time should ever come when the security of Catholic property should rest on principles which could not hold out for six weeks! He hoped they had a better security for their property, their interests, and their rights in the sense of justice entertained by the people of this country, which in the main, and with some exception, was fairly expressed by the sense of the House, which could pass this Bill, and disregard the inconsistent and extraordinary protests of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not wish to go at any length into the discussion of this Bill. He had voted for it, and believed he should vote for it to the end. There was no desire that any Catholic interests should be protected by the 42nd clause. As far as he represented those interests, he wished the 42nd clause to be repealed, content to rest their security on the will and pleasure and sense of justice of the Canadian Legislature. He did not vote for this Act with the view of assisting any particular appropriation of property by the Canadian Legislature. He did not wish that property to be secularised. He did not claim for the Catholics one sixpence or one fraction of it. He did not express any opinion on the future appropriation of it. With regard to all property and all endowments, whether arising from Acts of Parliament or the private munificence of individuals, he was content that they should be left unreservedly to the justice, wisdom, and policy of the Canadian Legislature. His only desire was that if the Bill needed amendment it should be amended, that the intention of Parliament might be carried out most fully, without the slightest wish to take away from the Protestant clergy of Canada any endowment which properly belonged to them, which they could claim under the Act of Parliament, and to which no other person could make any claim but themselves.

MR. NAPIER

said, he was sure the Committee would pardon him for offering a few observations on the sudden and bold attack which had just been made on him. He had been taunted by the hon. Member who had last spoken with the vote he gave on the Maynooth grant. The hon. Member had told them that he had had neither the courage, the conscience, nor the prudence to vote against the Motion for going into Committee on the Maynooth grant. He certainly had not the courage to vote against his conscience, and, entertaining the opinions which he did, he had thought it more honest and upright to go into the lobby in favour of the Motion, than to vote against it, or to absent himself, and so to evade the responsibility of a vote, and to create a doubt as to the opinions he held on the question. He honestly entertained the opinions which he professed on the question, and he should always act manfully and boldly in avowing his opinions; endeavouring, as much as possible, in so doing to give offence no man. The hon. Member had alluded to what he called the Catholic—but what he (Mr. Napier) called the Roman Catholic endowments in Canada, and had charged him with inconsistency in voting against the Maynooth grant, and in using the argument which he had done with reference to the Roman Catholic endowments in Canada. Now he was in the recollection of the Committee if he did not state on a former day when this question was under discussion, that there was a difference between Church property and Parliamentary grants. He argued that the right of the Church of Rome to the property in Canada did not rest on religious grounds at all: it was not granted by the Legislature—it was the property of that Church long before it was recognised by the Act of Parliament, and that the same Act of Parliament which recognised the property of the Church of Rome recognised also the property of the Protestant Church granted by the Crown. By that Act both properties were put upon the same footing. The hon. Member had said God forbid that the property of the hon. Member for Meath's Church should be under his (Mr. Napier's) control! God forbid that the property of the Protestant Church should be under the control of the hon. Member! He would defy the bon. Member, or any other, to point out any inconsistency between this argument and his vote on the Maynooth grant. That grant was an annual advance taken out of the Consolidated Fund of this country. It was granted for a particular purpose, and it was open to show either that the principle on which it was given was erroneous, or the purpose for which it was given, was not accomplished. Was he not, then, to be allowed to express his opinions without having this personal attack made upon him? Was he to be intimidated from the discharge of his duty? He appealed to the Committee against such unfair attacks. He did not see any inconsistency in his conduct. He had only asked for information to make matters clear, and was he to be bullied and baited by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) in this way? He had endeavoured honestly to assist the deliberations of the Committee; he had done so, he trusted, without giving offence to any man, and he claimed for himself freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. He threw himself upon the good feeling of the Committee, and he trusted that he should always be able to discharge his duty fairly and openly.

MR. JOHN MACGREGOR

said, that having been long and intimately connected with Canada, he was able to say that if they rejected this Bill, they would cause so much discontent in that country as to be productive of the most painful results. The subject of the clergy reserves had long been the source of discontent and heartburning in that Colony. He had seen all improvements in their neighbourhood arrested in consequence of their existence. He had heard the Americans on the opposite side of the St. Lawrence reproach them with not being able to make a provision for the ministers of religion, except at the expense of the material improvement of the country. He hoped, therefore, that the House would legislate upon this subject in the spirit of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) when he was Colonial Secretary. The Colonies were never better governed than when the noble Lord held that office; and he would go further, and say, that if the noble Lord had not taken the Colonial Department at that time, they would never have had a union of the two provinces. Considering the vast emigration from this country and from Scotland to Canada, it was the duty of Parliament to preserve to the Church of Canada the property which had been already appropriated to it. Seeing how rapidly the population of Canada was increasing, and how great were the advantages which had grown out of the concessions already made, it would be with reluctance that he withheld his consent from the present measure; but he could not, as a matter of principle, support it unless not, only existing interests were protected, but also the property already appropriated to the Protestant religion in Canada was considered sacred.

MR. CUMMING BRUCE

said, he would be the last man in that House to deny the advantages which Canada had secured in having obtained the right of self-government. If he did not altogether consent to the proposal before the Committee, it was from no feeling of that nature, but because he thought that in conceding the claims of existing interests, the Canadians had in part given up the right to legislate upon that portion of the reserves which had already been appropriated. Because, in dealing with existing interests, they must look to objects, not to individuals; for the individuals passed away, but the objects remained. Much had been said about the provision which was made for the interests of religion in the United States, and he was willing to admit that that was so in the settled districts; but he had been led to make particular inquiries into the subject, and he found that in the new settlements no clergyman, however popular, was able to secure for himself a decent living for two years consecutively. Now, he saw that there was an enormous emigration going on to Canada, and especially among his own countrymen; and he thought that the Church of Scotland, and the other Protestant Churches, had a vested right in those reserves which were already appropriated. He did not object to the Canadian Legislature dealing with those reserves which still remained unappropriated. It was with great reluctance he came to the conclusion of opposing the Bill to this extent, for he was not blind to the advantages resulting from the granting of self-government to the Canadas, so that that province, from being constantly in a state bordering on rebellion, and occasionally overstepping that border, had now become one of the most loyal dependencies of the Crown; the population of which within the last ten years had increased 104 per cent, and which consumed three times as much of British manufactures as were consumed by the people of the United States; while, if the consumption of the Upper Province alone were taken, he believed it would amount to a great deal more. It was, therefore, with great reluctance he offered any opposition to the Bill, but it was matter of conscience with him, and he could not consent to the measure unless the property that was already appropriated was secured.

MR. R. PHILLIMORE

said, he would not have risen on the present occasion but for the last speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. He had the highest respect for the ability of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as well as for his good temper and suavity of manner; but he wished to ask him what was the distinction he drew between voting against the Maynooth grant, and voting against the clergy reserves, since both rested upon the same foundation—that was to say, an Act of Parliament? He had listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he declared himself quite at a loss to undestand what sanctity there was in the Canada clergy reserves which did not in an equal degree pertain to the Maynooth grant.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he could not pretend to answer the question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), but he apprehended that there was this distinction—the Maynooth grant originally rested upon a vote of that House which was given from year to year—it was an endowment, while the clergy reserves in Canada constituted an absolute property. But his main object in rising was to ask Her Majesty's Government, for his own information and that of other hon. Members, whether this Bill was intended to place the clergy reserves in Canada, and the right of the Roman Catholic clergy in Lower Canada to certain dues and revenues, on one and the same footing? Because, though he felt, with the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, that all attacks of retaliation were unjustifiable, still, when Her Majesty's Government came down to that House and claimed that this Bill should pass on the ground of religious equality, he thought he had a right to ask whether the titles to the property of all the different religious bodies in Canada were to be put upon the same footing?

MR. F. SCULLY

said, he wished to state that the property of the Roman Catholics in Lower and Upper Canada, as Catholic endowments, were at this moment capable of being legislated upon by the provincial Legislature. By the Act of 1791 a control was given by the Imperial Parliament to the provincial Legislature to deal with the property of the Church in Canada, and lie believed that that control had been exercised over all such property. In 1839 a question arose as to the great Catholic College of St. Sulpice—one of the largest endowments in Canada—whose property amounted to between 30,000l. and 40,000l. a year. On that occasion the provincial Legislature did legislate with regard to that college, thus showing that the property of the Catholics was subject to legislative control in Canada. Now, how were the funds arising out of the clergy reserves apportioned? The population of the Church of England members in Upper Canada amounted to 220,000, or about a fourth of the population, while in three years they received no less than 44,797l., or a half of the fund. The members of the Church of Scotland amounted to 57,500, or one-sixteenth of the population, and they received 22,387l., or a fourth of the fund. The Roman Catholics in the province amounted to 167,700, or a fifth of the population, and they only received 4,968l., or one-sixteenth of the entire fund. There were other religious bodies which did not receive a single farthing from the fund, and he would ask the Committee whether they called that religious equality? The Bill now before the Committee did not secularise the property of the Church of Canada; it merely gave the provincial Legislature a power of dealing with it; and believing, as he did, that it was the wish of the Canadians not to secularise the property, he thought the Bill might be safely passed without prejudicing the rights or interests of the Church in Canada. He hoped that hon. Members would leave discussing the principle of the Bill, and go at once to the details.

Sin ROBERT H. INGLIS

said, that when he rose half an hour ago, at the same time as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, it was not with any presumptuous intention of defending him from the attack which had been made upon him, for he knew that while no man so rarely attacked others, so no man was more capable of defending himself when attacked than his right hon. and learned Friend. He had risen for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to that part of the subject which related to the distinction which, he contended, existed between the condition in which the Church of Rome in Canada would be left by this Bill, and the condition in which it would place the Protestant Churches in that Colony. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had told them that the Legislature of Canada would be at liberty to deal to-morrow, if it liked, with the property of the Church of Rome, whether the Bill passed or not. The distinction, he contended, was this, that, whereas, by the existing state of the law—as affecting the two parties; or, say for the sake of illustration, as affecting two individuals, each possessed of 1,000 acres—the Legislature of Canada could not at present deal with either, except subject to the control, not merely of the Representative of the Crown in the Colony itself, but of the Sovereign at home, and also of either of the two Houses of Parliament in this country, exercised on an address from either the Lords or the Commons;—it is now proposed to remove these safeguards, so far as they surround the 1,000 acres of one of these two inhabitants of Canada, leaving him henceforth to the tender mercies of the Canadian Legislature, while it is proposed at the same time to retain all these securities in favour of the 1,000 acres of the other of these two inhabitants. The Parliament of Canada is to be at liberty to deal at its pleasure with the lands of the Protestant Church, and is to be prevented by the existing restrictions from dealing with the property of the Church of Rome in the Colony; or, rather, they may, indeed, deal with both; but they are unrestricted as to the Church of the Sovereign of the country, and are restricted only so far as relates to the Church of a Foreign Bishop. Their measures are complete in Canada itself, so far as the Protestant Churches are concerned; and are not complete, so far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, if the Crown and Parliament of England shall refuse their assent. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) forgot to allude to this distinction, yet the whole case rested upon it. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Peel) had told the opponents of the measure, with great gravity, that if any of them would introduce a measure for the purpose of dealing with the property of the Church of Rome in the Colony, in the same way as he and his Colleagues proposed to deal with the property of the Church of England, such a measure, he had reason to believe, would not meet with the opposition of the Government. He admired the gravity of his hon. Friend in making this suggestion. But the objectors to this measure had always contended against the injustice of the principle involved in it. As the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) bad said, you would not cure one injustice by creating another; so he (Sir R. H. Inglis) contended two wrongs could not make a right. Spoliation of the Roman Catholics was no justifica- tion for a spoliation of the Protestants. The question was not one of creed, but of property, and whether a certain Act or Acts of Parliament had not given a certain amount of property to certain individuals. Did hon. Gentlemen mean to contend that England in former times had not the right to deal with the property of the King of France when that property came into the possession of the Kings of England? On the occasion of the second reading he had stated that this was a simple question of property, for it could not be denied that in 1763, when Canada was ceded to the Crown by France, the King of Great Britain had power to grant land which had been acquired by conquest; nor that Parliament in 1774, 1791, and 1840, had a right to confirm the grant, or, with the consent of all parties, to redistribute it. He had not heard any hon. Member, learned or unlearned, get up and contend against the original right of the Crown to make the grant; and he trusted he should never hear the argument urged that the rights of property, whether they belonged to drab, to blue, or to black, should be at the mercy of a tyrant majority. It was to protect this property that a specific contract was entered into between this country and the provincial Legislature of Canada. The doctrine, however, now set up of self-government, meant, in fact, separation. Such separation might not take place in 1853 or 1854, but self-government meant nothing less than severance from the mother country. From the moment of the enactment of self-government, there ceased to be any security either for connexion, or for allegiance. It was because he believed that our Colonies formed part of the strength of the mother country, that he did not wish to see them independent of her. If the Canadian Legislature were competent to deal with this property, would they not be competent to deal with the principle on which it was granted? If they were enabled to change the succession of such property, would they not be enabled, so far as their own boundaries extended, to change the succession of the Crown? Why, they might come to a resolution of repealing in the Colony the Habeas Corpus Act, or of abolishing trial by jury. On the principle of self-government this right must be conceded. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said that this Bill provided for the preservation of the life-interest of those persons whose property was now affected. In his (Sir R. H. Inglis's) estimation, that provision was only an aggravation of the wrong done; for it assumed that the parties protesting against the measure had only a pounds-shillings-and-pence interest in the matter. The question was, as he contended, primarily a question of property; but when you proceed further, and look to the trusts for which that property is now held, you find, that it is for the maintenance and advancement of the Protestant faith, and not for the mere paltry amount doled out to-day to the ministers of that faith. It is for the perpetuity of Protestantism in the Colony. It was the duty of the British Parliament to support the capital on which rested that Protestant faith. He should vote upon this occasion as he had done heretofore, only with a deeper sense of the injustice of the measure, which was contrary to the original Bill of the noble Lord. The present Bill he believed to be at variance with the pledged faith of the Crown and the Canadian Parliament, and to be hostile to that connexion between the mother country and the Colony which it was so desirable to maintain.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he did not rise with any intention to avail himself of that privilege which all hon. Members were allowed, while a Bill was in Committee, of speaking more than once on a subject; but having raised a question in this case, he thought it was not unfair in him to ask the indulgence of the Committee while he addressed a few remarks to them. He must say he was well satisfied at having raised the question which he submitted to Her Majesty's Government at the opening of the debate. He thought the result had been a most instructive debate, and one which had thrown much light on the real scope and character of the Bill. He was always glad to see homage paid to truth; and he thought that homage had been now paid to truth by the course adopted by hon. Members on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. F. Scully) had remarked that he hoped they would put an end to the discussion of the principle of the Bill. Why, he (Sir J. Pakington) had raised no question of principle, but of the particular details of the Bill. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had given them a speech intended and fitted only for the second reading; and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had remarked that the clergy reserves of Canada grew neither wheat, bar- ley, nor oats, but were only fruitful of strife and dissension. But what had that to do with the question? Nothing whatever. That was true once, but it had been disposed of by the Act of 1827, and further by the Act of 1840; and that remark had nothing to do with the specific question he (Sir J. Pakington) had raised upon the clause. He had asked the Government to declare what were their intentions and objects; and what was the answer? The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said lie confessed the clause was not very clear or intelligent, and he thought it must be amended in the Report. But he went further, and stated his intentions as to the clause. The statement of the noble Lord was distinctly at variance with what the Committee had heard from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Works (Sir W. Molesworth), and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. F. Peel). They both declared, in the most distinct terms, the object of the Bill was to place Protestant and Roman Catholic endowments upon the same footing. But the noble Lord came forward and said, "No; we are going to strip the Protestant endowments of the securities of the Act of 1840, but which the Roman Catholic endowments will still retain." One thing was now, however, perfectly clear by the result of the debate—either that the Government introduced this Bill without knowing their own measure, or that different Members of the Government had given different accounts of it. That was now at an end. They had this avowal, that the Roman Catholic endowments were still to have that security which was to be taken away from the Protestant endowments, and he thought the country and the Committee would now know how they ought to proceed.

MR. GOULBURN

said, he did not intend then going into the details of the subject, but he thought some of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side overlooked a material consideration when they said there was great injustice imposed on the Protestants in Canada by this measure, because a majority of the Canadian Legislature were Roman Catholics, and would have the power of legislating on Protestant endowments; but they saw no injustice on the other side, in Roman Catholic endowments being dealt with here in the Imperial Parliament, the majority of whom were Protestants. As he had previously stated, he did not mean to go into the de- tails of the measure; but the right hon. Member for the county of Oxford (Mr. Henley) seemed to argue that this was altogether an improper measure, because the Bill was limited to dealing with the clergy reserves. But what was the reason of that? Why, because the Assembly and Legislative Council of Canada bad concurred in an Address to the Crown, stating that they felt the clergy reserves to be a practical grievance which ought to be remedied, and said nothing about any other grievances; so that, dealing with the clergy reserves, the Government had confined themselves to the practical and specific complaint brought before them. And if the right hon. Gentleman was just in his complaint, he should have complained long ago. The Act of 1840 gave the power to provide a civil list in Canada, over which that House should have control; but Canada remonstrated, and that was repealed; and in the same manner they had remonstrated against the hardship of so large a portion of their territory being locked up in those clergy reserves, and it was to deal with that they now sought for the present Bill. He believed that Bill would tend most to the advantage of religion in Canada, and most of all for the advantage of the Protestant religion itself.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2, which provides for existing interests.

SIR FREDERIC THESIGER

said, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to the words which were inserted in a parenthesis in the clause, "and to which the faith of the Crown is pledged." The clause enacted— That it shall not be lawful for the said Legislature, by any Act or Acts thereof as aforesaid, to annul, suspend, or reduce any of the annual stipends or allowances which have been already assigned and given to the clergy of the Churches of England and Scotland, or to any other religious bodies or denominations of Christians in Canada (and to which the faith of the Crown is pledged) during the natural lives or incumbencies of the parties now receiving the same," &c. He wanted to know what those stipends were to which the faith of the Crown was pledged, because, if the words introduced by way of parenthesis meant that the faith of the Crown was only pledged to particular interests, questions would arise on every occasion what those particular interests were.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that the words were nothing more than a transcript from the 3rd clause of the 3 & 4 Vict., c. 78, being introduced merely to give a description of the extent of the stipends which had been already granted, and which it was the object of the present Bill to preserve inviolate.

SIR FREDERIC THESIGER

said, he must complain that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not given him the slightest explanation of the meaning of the parenthesis. Either the words were a bare assertion that the faith of the Crown was pledged to the stipends already granted, in which case the words were surplusage, or they implied that the faith of the Crown was only pledged to particular interests, and disputes would constantly arise whether the faith of the Crown was pledged to this or that interest. He begged to ask in which way the Government meant to read the clause?

MR. NAPIER

said, he understood the clause to say that any grants to which the faith of the Crown was pledged, were not to be touched by the Colonial Legislature. If so, the faith of the Crown was pledged not merely for particular incumbencies, but for ever. He hoped, therefore, some member of the Government would tell the Committee precisely what was intended by the clause.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, he hoped to be able in a few minutes to dispel the confusion which appeared to exist in the minds of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen below him (Mr. Napier and Sir F. Thesiger). The hon. and learned Gentlemen treated the clergy reserves as if they were specific endowments to specific grantees, whereas they were a varying appropriation of funds to various religious denominations. This being the case, it became necessary to limit the Bill to the persons who were in receipt of the grant, and the faith of the Crown was pledged to them and to nobody else. The faith of the Crown was not pledged to all the ministers of religious denominations. The faith of the Crown was not pledged to the Free Church of Scotland, as it was not in receipt of any funds over which the Government had control.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought it curious that the Government seemed at a loss to answer the question so fairly and clearly put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger), as to what was the interpretation to be put upon those words. It was essential that the Committee should have distinct and. authori- tative declaration on the subject from Her Majesty's Ministers, and not from the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), or any other private Member.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the present Bill preserved the integrity of those stipends, and in order to preserve them intact, the words had been continued which had been used in the third clause of the old Act. Nothing could be more plain to those who desired to understand, but to those who did not desire to understand, these words, or any other words, would be difficult of comprehension.

MR. WALPOLE

said, there was no use in discussing Bills of this sort unless explanations were to be given of the difficulties that might occur in various clauses. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) had asked a very proper question, namely, when the faith of the Crown was pledged in a parenthesis, what that faith was pledged for, and how was it pledged? He (Mr. Walpole) would like to know how the faith of the Crown was pledged to the stipend mentioned in those clauses. He had gone over all the Acts of Parliament relating to this subject, and he could not see how or in what manner the faith of the Crown was pledged to those stipends unless it was by those Acts of Parliament.

SIR FREDERIC THESIGER

said, he would be very glad if any Member of the Government who understood the meaning of the clause, or any hon. Member of the Committee who understood it, would condescend to explain it. He wished to know whether the Government meant to say that they believed that there were any stipends assigned to which the faith of the Crown was not pledged? If they meant this, he could understand them; but he was at a loss to know why those words were introduced, as they appeared to him to be entire surplusage.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he certainly considered that the explanation given by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General ought to have satisfied the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stamford, if he was capable of being satisfied by any explanation. That explanation was, that, by the Act of 1840, certain stipends were to be paid, on which the faith of the Crown was pledged; and that now, having introduced another Bill, it was natural, and almost inevitable, that the same words should be introduced, so as to include the same religious bodies to whom the faith of the Crown was pledged. But what a triumph the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger) would have had if these words had been left out. How he would have exclaimed—"Here is an Act before you, which you profess to copy, and you leave out those words; it is clear, therefore, that you do not intend to keep the faith of the Crown." He was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had not so good a case, as the Committee would no doubt have been amused by the dexterity with which he would have seized upon it. The hon. and learned Gentleman, not finding such a case, was discontented because the Government had followed exactly the words of the Act of Parliament upon which these stipends depended.

MR. HUME

said, he thought the explanation as clear as possible. It was, that there were certain sums, for which the faith of the Crown was pledged, and others for which it was not pledged. It became necessary, therefore, to describe those for which the faith of the Crown was pledged.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he believed the real truth was, that the stipends to which the faith of the Crown was so pledged by the 3rd section of the 3 & 4 Vict., c. 78, were pledged in precisely the same manner, and in precisely the same words, as the pledges would be if given to other religious bodies for whom the clergy reserves were set apart.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (So much of the said Act of the third and fourth years of Her Majesty, cap. 78, as charges the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with, or authorises any payment thereout, of the sums needed to supply such deficiency as in the said Act mentioned, shall from and after passing of this Act be repealed).

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Sir, I wish now to call the attention of the Committee to this clause, and it is my intention, of which I gave notice, to move the omission of this clause. In order to give my reasons for doing so, it will be necessary for me to revert to the circumstances attending the Act of 1840. The clergy reserves, as the Committee well knows, have been for a very long period a source of contention and dispute, especially in the proovinc of Upper Canada. During the discussion of the question of the union in Upper Canada, the question of the clergy reserves came up; and Lord Sydenham was so impressed with a sense of the mischief which was occasioned by the discussions on that question, and by the prospect of those discussions being carried into the United Parliament, that he wrote in very strong terms to the Government here, advising that there should be, if possible, a settlement of this question of the clergy reserves before the Union Act was carried into operation. I believe he was fully justified in the opinions he entertained. I believe, considering the exasperation which prevailed, and the discontent which was excited on the one hand, and the strong and determined adherence there was to the former settlement on the other—that if that question had been brought into the Parliament of the United Provinces immediately on its assembling, there was great danger that the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada never would have been united on such fair terms as would have established permanent peace in those provinces. At all events, whether that opinion was right or wrong, it was shared by Lord Melbourne, and by other of my Colleagues at that time. Lord Sydenham was successful, after very considerable efforts, in effecting the passing of a Bill which proposed fresh arrangements for the distribution of the clergy reserves, and produced the final disposal of the lands so assigned. He was in hopes that the Crown would have been able to give its assent to that Act; but the then law officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that the provincial Parliament, in prescribing what the Imperial Parliament should do, and confining the Imperial Parliament within certain limits, had exceeded its powers, and that consequently the assent of the Crown could not be given to that Act. It was upon that, that I introduced a Bill into the House of Commons. I introduced that Bill as nearly as possible according to the terms which Lord Sydenham bad mentioned, and to what the provincial Act pointed out as likely to be satisfactory. But on the introduction of that Bill, or very soon afterwards, it became apparent that if I should be successful in carrying it through this House of Parliament, it never would pass through the other, owing to the strong objection entertained towards it there by a party who certainly would have formed the majority. I certainly felt a good deal embarrassed by that situation of affairs. I had believed that the union of the provinces would prove, as it certainly has done, a source of wealth and prosperity to the colony, and of strength to the United Kingdom, and would conduce to greater union between this country and the people of Canada than had ever before existed. I was therefore greatly concerned to find that the whole work was likely to be marred by the difference of opinion which prevailed between the province and one of the Houses of the Imperial Parliament on this subject of the clergy reserves. At this period Sir Robert Peel, with some of his political friends, endeavoured to form an outline of an arrangement by which he thought the Government and the Church of England as represented in the House of Lords might be satisfied. The outlines of that arrangement were communicated to me by Sir Robert Peel, with the intimation that he thought, if proposed in the House of Commons, they would probably obtain the assent of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of other prelates, with whom he had consulted. Upon the consideration of these terms, although I saw very clearly that they would not satisfy the province of Upper Canada, and though certainly they did not entirely meet my own views, yet I thought the object of such very great importance, and I was so sanguine that these questions might be set at rest by the acceptance of that arrangement, that I introduced the measure into this House, so amended, I thought, as to ensure the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the other House, and to lead to the settlement of the question. In that expectation I was fully justified. Sir Robert Peel was a most strenuous and, I need not say, a most able supporter of the Bill. On the third reading of that Bill he delivered a speech of very great power; in the division there were but six who divided against it. Thus the Union Act and the Clergy Reserves Act were both carried into effect. Now, I have no doubt I was wrong in being so sanguine as I was that the final settlement of the question might by such means be effected. I might have expressed myself too strongly upon that point; but I do not think I made any mistake in accepting that arrangement; and I am fortified in this opinion by the twelve years of peace and contentment in Canada that we have since had. On the contrary, I believe that such prosperity and such loyality as have been experienced would not have existed, at least to the same degree, unless the question of the clergy reserves had at that time been made the subject of legislation by the Imperial Parliament. The Committee is well aware that the settlement made in 1840 differed from the Act of 1791, not only in various provisions as to the distribution of the sum arising from the clergy reserves, but in not giving the power of legislation to the Legislature of Canada, reserving that power to the Imperial Parliament. On the contrary, the Act was entirely absolute; it was an Act assuming that the clergy reserves were to be finally sold, and pointed out the distribution. It seems to me, for reasons which I do not wish to repeat, that whatever was the disposition then made, it ought not in any way to control the present Parliament, or to control the Government in endeavouring to sanction the power of the Legislature of Canada to make an entirely fresh arrangement on that subject, if they so think fit. But there is one clause in that Act to which I must now call the attention of the Committee. It is the clause by which the guarantee is given from the Consolidated Fund of 7,700l. to the clergy of the Church of England, and of 1,580l. to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, being the sums they were respectively in receipt of at that time. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in making what he thought very considerable concessions on this subject, had expressed a fear that, unless there were some guarantee, the clergy reserves might, perhaps, be some day insufficient, and that the clergy would not receive the allowances and stipends which they had hitherto received. In order to quiet that apprehension, a clause was proposed with regard to the payment of this sum, which provided that in case of a deficiency in the clergy reserves, a collateral security was to be given from the Consolidated Fund. I stated that I thought this security would be a perpetual guarantee to the Church of England and the Church of Scotland for the payment of those sums which I have named. Sir Robert Peel, who took part in the debate, used nearly the same expressions, and said the House ought to accept the settlement, as there was the guarantee in perpetuity. It certainly strikes me that these sums are thereby placed in a somewhat different situation from all the other sums which are to arise out of the clergy reserves. It is not, however, a question out of which any immediate difficulty is likely to arise, because, by the second clause, we have secured, and the Legislature of Canada are bound to secure, to the clergy of the Church of England, and to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, the sums they now receive during the lives of the present recipients. The sum at present received by the clergy of the Church of England is, I believe, about 15,000l., that by the clergy of the Church of Scotland 8,000l.—[An Hon. MEMBER: 10,000l.]—or, as I am corrected, 10,000l. a year. It is, therefore, evident that, for a very considerable time, there will be no difficulty about this guarantee. But with regard to the future, when the time does come, supposing the Legislature of Canada to propose that the clergy of the Churches of England and Scotland should not receive a sum equal to that amount, or that there should be a larger distribution of those sums for education, there might be a demand from the Consolidated Fund. Now, I think that the question is one of very considerable intricacy and difficulty. As to payment from the Consolidated Fund, it may be urged with great force that this was but a collateral security—that the whole intention of the clause was to provide for the case of the sums arising from the clergy reserves not being sufficient—that that was the only case Parliament had in contemplation—that that is not the case we are present considering—and that, supposing the Act of 1840 not to be touched, there is no danger whatever of the Consolidated Fund being called on for any payment whatever. On the other hand, if it were said the payments in question partook of the nature of a perpetual allowance, and if it were proposed to put the case to the Canadian Legislature as an obligation on the terms that Parliament could not agree to pass this Bill, and could not allow the Legislature of Canada to dispose of any of those sums, unless they agreed to a perpetual endowment of these two sums at least to the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland, very considerable discontent would be excited in Canada, not only on other grounds, but upon this ground in particular, which was a very just one, that it had not been before mentioned, and that in the original despatch of Lord Grey, while he declared what was the constitutional and just doctrine on the subject, no mention was made of this particular provision. So in the despatch of the Duke of Newcastle there was no question of this particular provision; and so Her Majesty's Government could hardly propose to introduce in this Bill any compulsory clause, enacting that, unless the Legislature of Canada made provision for payment of those sums, no Bill could be passed. The Duke of Newcastle, feeling with his Colleagues the obligations imposed in 1840, proposes to write to the Governor General of Canada, to state to him the difficulties we are under, and that the terms proposed by us we shall strictly adhere to, and to desire him to lay the whole case before the Legislature of Canada, explaining the wish of the Imperial Government, and asking them to make some provision to meet the justice of the case. I don't know what better course we can take that seems fair to all parties. I have already stated the general nature of this question, and I do not now propose to return to it. But I think it would not be wise at the present moment to enact this clause, which proposes entirely to get rid of the guarantee imposed on the Consolidated Fund. After communication with the Canadian Legislature we shall be better able to decide upon the whole case. I feel confident that they will decide according to justice, and at the same time will take into consideration the expectations entertained. I now move, Sir, that the third clause be omitted.

Question put, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

MR. MIALL

said, that he had listened to the statement of the noble Lord with feelings of great surprise and some commiseration. He did not, indeed, know that he should feel surprise in connexion with any changes of purpose in reference to this question of the clergy reserves in Canada, for all the antecedents of the question might have induced the expectation that a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers, so short, so simple, and so efficient, would not be allowed to pass through Parliament as it then stood. The noble Lord had stated that, whatever might have been the nature of the measure which he introduced in 1840, he was compelled to receive a changeling and adopt it as his own; and indeed it appeared that although the noble Lord's original conceptions might be fair, honest, and good, he was never able to carry them into effect when they related to Church affairs. Some mysterious influence was always sure to intervene between the original conception and the act, and to take away the greater portion of that virtue which the noble Lord himself had intended. Believing that the Bill would give the colony of Canada the power of self-government in all matters of purely local interest, hon. Members on that side of the House had given it their hearty and zealous support, in consequence of which the second reading had been carried by a majority of eighty-three; and now, ten days afterwards, the noble Lord came down to the House and proposed an important alteration in it. That evening they had heard an explanation of the circumstances which had induced the noble Lord to make that alteration; and he (Mr. Miall) must confess that he could not see anything in those circumstances which did not apply when the Bill was brought in. When the noble Lord stated his intentions at the commencement of the Session, and when the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies gave an outline of the measure on its introduction and on the second reading, it might have been perfectly fair, and honest, and candid to have stated that the Bill was intended to give effect to the principle of self-government in the colonies, at some considerable expense to the English people. This clause had reference to a considerable liability imposed on the Consolidated Fund by the 8th section of the Act of 1840. That liability, however, we had never been called upon to fulfil to the extent of a single shilling, as the proceeds of the reserves had been amply sufficient to cover it, and the consequence was, as had been explained, that this was simply a collateral guarantee. But when we gave the Canadian Legislature full liberty to dispose of these reserves, we must do so in the full expectation that they would take advantage of the liberty given to them, and certainly in the reasonable anticipation that they meant to use their power to secularise them. When they were so secularised, the life interests would be first paid, under the second clause of the Act; but, as he understood, when the life interest dropped in, the effect would be that the Consolidated Fund would be chargeable in perpetuity to the amount of 7,700l. per annum to the clergy of the Church of England, and of 1,580l. to those of the Church of Scotland, or for a capitalised sum of 300,000l. and upwards, in order that the Canadian Legislature might deal as it pleased with its own affairs. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cardwell) had well observed the other night that there was no interest that stood so much in need of protection as the Consolidated Fund. When any other interest was assailed, those who had the guardianship of it were always ready to repel all such attempts; but whenever those of the Church of England were in question, he observed that the Consolidated Fund seemed to be a most accessible and convenient instrumentality. He was as willing as any one could be to make a considerable sacrifice, in order that the Canadians might enjoy what he thought they were well entitled to, the right of self-government. He would also increase that sacrifice, in order that they might realise the object upon which they had set their hearts—namely, to throw off that incumbrance which had pressed so long upon their infant energies, preventing their natural development, fostering an odious spirit of exclusiveness, and setting together by the ears the teachers of different denominations. To get rid of this incumbrance he would submit to a large sacrifice; but he did not think that the people of this country should be called on prospectively to sacrifice their hard earnings, not to give free government to the Canadians, but to satisfy the demands of some party in this country which did not make its appearance, but operated on the mind of the Government in order to obtain compromises such as was now proposed, just as Mr. Brown and Mr. Coppock compromised election matters. The object of the Government in withdrawing this clause could hardly be to secure the maintenance of religion in Canada, for Earl Grey, in his despatch, admitted that nothing could be more a matter of local concern than the maintenance of religious institutions; and if we could not trust the people of Canada to maintain these, we could not trust them with anything. It certainly seemed a little odd that we should, by a sort of perpetual guarantee, engage to keep up amongst them a Church for which we suspected they had no affection, and which we believed they would not maintain unless we enforced it upon them by a compulsory Act. The only explanation he could give of the matter was, that the Government and the Church of England were desirous that no sanction whatever should be given to the voluntary principle. The whole tone of the Members of Government, when speaking on this Bill, had indeed been so adverse to that principle, that he should be wanting to his own convic- tions if he did not state why he thought that the future maintenance of religion in Canada might be safely left to its operation. The last census for the United States gave the number of churches and edifices devoted to religious worship in that country as a fraction over 36,000, or one to every 666 persons of the population, and the average number of persons which each church would accommodate as 384; so that if all the churches were filled at any one time, they would hold 13,824,000 persons, nearly 2,000,000 more than one half the population, which was estimated at 24,000,000. Now, it was calculated that not more than one-half the population of any country could attend divine worship at any one time. According to the same return the value of church property in the United States was 86,413,639 dollars, or about 17,283,327l. sterling; and from a paper read by the Rev. Dr. Baird at the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in 1850, it appeared that 3,000,000l. were annually raised by the various denominations for the salaries of their ministers; and that that sum was annually increasing in a greater ratio than the population. In the United States there was no State endowment, and there religious intolerance was almost unknown; Sir Charles Lyell, in his account of his second visit to the United States, mentions that after the severe struggle for the presidency between Mr. Clay and Mr. Polk, few Americans whom he met could tell him to what denomination either of them belonged, but he at last ascertained that one of them was an Episcopalian, and the other a Presbyterian; but that want of knowledge did not arise from any indifference to religion, or want of regard for moral character, but it was clear that in the choice of a first magistrate their minds were occupied by other considerations; and the separation of political from religious feeling, though far from complete, yet was one of the healthy features of the working of the American system. He (Mr. Miall) could not see why Canada should be less happy under the same system. He intended to oppose the withdrawal of the clause by the noble Lord, because he did not see why a tax should be saddled in perpetuity on the people of this country in order that Canada should have the Church of England, and he should take the sense of the Committee upon the question.

MR. VERNON SMITH

said, that anxious as he was for the success of this mea- sure, of which he had been a most zealous supporter, and hopeful as he was that if a measure of this kind were passed the Imperial Parliament would never more hear of these Canadian clergy reserves, he hesitated, after hearing the statement of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), whether they should proceed with this measure immediately. The noble Lord had stated that the Duke of Newcastle had written out to the Colony to know whether they would consent to take upon themselves the guarantee which was given under the Bill of 1840; and until an answer had been received, he thought it would be imprudent to give up the clause. The noble Lord had stated what passed in 1840 between himself and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Sir Robert Peel, by which he was enabled to pass the Act of Parliament that year; but neither the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Robert Peel, nor any one else, could prevent Parliament from altering the Act of 1840. The guarantee which it gave amounted to this: That in each year a certificate should be given by the Registrar General of the amount of the proceeds payable to the several Churches, and if it fell below a certain amount then the charge was to be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. But surely that certificate must apply to the proceeds of some fund applicable to this purpose. It never could be supposed that if the reserves were completely alienated, if the colonists were to proceed upon the advice given them the other night by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), and annex themselves to the United States, the guarantee would then continue, if nothing whatever was derived from the clergy reserves. He implored of Gentlemen to take care how they dealt with this question of the Church of England in their Colonies; and he could not understand how Gentlemen who called themselves the advocates of the Church of England should take such a course. Comparisons were made between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, and it was said, why not deal with the Church of Rome as well as with the Church of England? The reason was, that they had nothing to do with the Church of Rome—no person had asked them to deal with it—they had been asked to deal with the one, but not with the other. When it happened that they mixed up the Church of England with other questions, it was often most unfortunate for the Church of England. It was equally an evil to impose upon a Colony a Church, and to put the Church of England in a position that it would always be at war with the Colony. He trusted his noble Friend would allow the question to stand over until an answer was received to the despatch of the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Department.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, that while agreeing with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he did not think it would be wise to delay the measure until they saw what would be the answer from the Colony. He believed that those who advocated a free government for Canada must believe that any Government that undertook to subsidise our Colonies would be pursuing the worst line of policy that could be thought of, and that such a course would inevitably break down. Any attempt made to subsidise the Churches of the Colonies would in like manner inevitably break down. He would ask those who were anxious that the Church of England should flourish, whether for the sake of the paltry sum of 7,700l. a year, they would be prepared to place the Church in such an odious position as it at present stood in Canada. What was the cause of the irritation that had already existed? The injustice of the appropriation of the funds, and the feeling that the Church of England had received an undue share of the appropriation which was intended to be a general appropriation for local purposes. Did they think they were serving the interests of the Church, or did they hope to remove the odium, by taking the course proposed? Did any person believe that the grant would be maintained out of the Consolidated Fund? Would it not become another Maynooth question, and a subject for annual debates? Would they not find some Member of the North Warwickshire school to take up this question? It was not every person who could see the distinction between this subject and the Maynooth grant, which the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had discovered. They would rest upon the same footing—a Parliamentary grant—and they would have two sets of Maynooth debates in future Sessions. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) thought he had got over the point by referring to the Canada Government; but did he think the Canadian Parliament would take this guarantee upon themselves? He (Mr. Adderley) thought it was exceedingly doubtful. It would be an invidious task to impose upon them; and they would destroy the grace of this Act if they inflicted that task upon them. They might put themselves in a position of conflict with the Canadian Parliament in a way most disastrous to the interests of this country and the Colony, and therefore he would vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall) for the retention of this clause.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had he might say uniformly the pleasure of agreeing with his hon. Friend who had just sat down on every question of interest relating to the Colonies, and he regretted therefore that on the present occasion their opinions were not found to be in unison. But he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend did not precisely understand the position of the question, or the effect of the vote which his noble Friend the Member for the City of London invited the Committee to give. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) repudiated in the most distinct and emphatic terms the imputation of anything like compromise or secret intelligence, which the hon. Member for Rochdale had suggested. Whatever the proposal might be, it did not arise from any secret intelligence between the Government and any person; it was the simple result of the deliberations of the Government on the merits of the question itself—their recollection of the circumstances that had occurred in 1840; and their sense of the obligations which those circumstances entailed. His hon. Friend who just sat down had spoken of the evil that would be done by their proposition to the Church of England in the Colonies; but the experience which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had of the Colonies induced him to believe that the colonists were not so fastidious with regard to grants in favour of religious bodies, or of any other persons, at the expense of the British Government, and he never knew a case in which there was any great objection in a Colony to the expenditure of British money. At the same time, and while he could not go the whole length of his hon. Friend, he agreed with him that it was not desirable that the Church of England, or any other Church, should be perpetually pensioned out of the funds of this country in Canada or elsewhere. But that was not the question before the Committee: the question was, what was the proper manner and mode of proceeding in dealing with the subject now before them? He had been a party in 1840, as well as his noble Friend the Member for the City of London, to the arrangements which then took place; and nothing could be more distinct than that the character of the provisions of the Act, which amounted both in the spirit and the letter to a compact—not as between this country and the colony, but as between all the parties that influenced, and swayed, and governed the deliberations of the Parliament. It was not a compact merely by means of construction, but a compact of the most distinct kind. They had the Church of England contending for the exclusive right to the possession of those reserves, and considering even the Church of Scotland as an intruder; and they had the House of Lords, with that illustrious man the Duke of Wellington at their head, prepared to vindicate its rights. It was under those circumstances that the arrangement was made; it was made by a distinct and formal communication between the Archbishop of Canterbury on the one hand, as representing the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and the Colonial Church, and by Sir Robert Peel and his political friends; and on the other, by the Administration of the day; and the basis of the arrangement was, that on the one hand the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland with it, should make a concession of any exclusive claim, and that neither the Church of England, nor the Church of Scotland, nor both together, should advance such a claim; and the consideration they obtained in return was nothing else than the clause which gave the guarantee on the Consolidated Fund. That was the equivalent, and the sole equivalent, by means of which, in 1840, the settlement of this question was effected. If that were so, the question arose, was it wise or just, without any reference to the parties, to sacrifice that guarantee at the present moment? If it were made as an arrangement with them, were they not entitled to be, heard on the question? Was that, then, the proper and legitimate time to deal with the question of that guarantee? It was said that they were going to renew the guarantee; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged to say that they were going to do no such thing, and were not now going to add any authority to that guarantee. This guarantee was merely a guarantee on paper, and whether they would have to deal with it depended upon the contingency whether the Canadian Legislature proceeded to secularise the reserves; if they did not, the guarantee would remain as it was—a guarantee upon paper; but supposing the Canadian Legislature proceeded to secularise the reserves, then he would say that at the time that Act took place, and when it came to receive the Royal Assent, it would be the duty of the Minister of the day to raise the question of this guarantee, and it would be the duty of Parliament to consider what course they should take with respect to it. That contingency of secularising the reserves was a contingency that he hoped might never occur; but if it did occur, then the guarantee could not come into force until after fifteen or twenty years; and it would take the dropping of lives for fifteen or twenty years before this guarantee could become a reality. There was no question at all as to the re-affirmation of this guarantee, and they were not adding any authority to it. His right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. V. Smith) had said that the better course would be to wait for an answer to the communication that had been sent to the Colony; but from that course he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) altogether dissented. It appeared to the Government that whatever they did with regard to this matter, the question of guarantee was exclusively a home question—that any embarrassment regarding the guarantee was an embarrassment arising out of the arrangements at home, and they would not allow any course they took with regard to it to interfere with the fulness and fairness of the boon they were giving to the Colony. That, he thought, was a conclusive reason against the course recommended by his right hon. Friend. Inasmuch as the guarantee was dependent, first of all on the contingency of the Canadian Legislature taking a particular course on the subject of those reserves, and then on a long lapse of time, the proper line for the Committee now to take was to separate the question of dealing with the guarantee from that of dealing with the clergy reserves. There would be ample time for Parliament to deal with it when the Canadian Legislature should have proceeded, if indeed it did ever proceed, to secularise this ecclesiastical property. The simple effect of omitting this clause would be that the entire question was reserved for the consideration of Parliament at a future time, without any prejudice to the settlement of it one way or the other. He thought they would find, when the question came to be discussed, and the total change of circumstances was properly represented, that it would be no difficult matter to come to a satisfactory arrangement with the Colonial Churches; but at present the matter was not in a state in which they could apply to them. How could they go to the Church of England or to the Church of Scotland in Canada and ask them to abandon their guarantee? This would be to assume that the Canadian Legislature was about to take the course so much apprehended; but it would be time enough to ask them to do this when the Canadian Legislature should have authentically expressed its intention to divert those funds from ecclesiastical purposes. Clearly, therefore, it would be much more reasonable and wise for Parliament to wait till the contingency arose—if it ever should—on which alone this question of the guarantee could become one of the slightest practical importance. By means of the clause relating to the Consolidated Fund, on which so much censure was now freely cast, his noble Friend the Member for the City of London was enabled in the year 1840 to effect that arrangement which was so essential to the peace and welfare of Canada. It was easy to say that that was a bad and improvident arrangement, and placed a burden on the Consolidated Fund. His hope was that no burden would be imposed on the people of England by this guarantee clause; but it would not be consistent with the scrupulous and highly honourable manner in which that House generally dealt with questions of public faith, if, after having given this guarantee in 1840, and obtained for it so large an equivalent, it should now, without communication with the parties, and before the necessity had arisen, proceed precipitately to its withdrawal. To him it appeared that the fairest course by far was that which his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) had proposed. It was asked why that clause had been introduced into the Bill? For his own part he did not hesitate to say that the circumstances which occurred twelve years ago were not so fresh in his mind at first as they became when the matter was revived; but the records of the transaction were perfectly authentic, and it clearly appeared that the Imperial Government then obtained a most valuable and important concession, which he hoped the Committee would not now consent precipitately to withdraw.

MR. HUME

said, that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the defender of the Consolidated Fund. The Committee was now about to part with the property to which the guarantee of 1840 referred, but they were called upon to continue their liability. There was, no doubt, some influence had been at work in the matter. They had been told what influence had been exercised in 1840—that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the Duke of Wellington. Now, the Committee had nothing to do with such things. What they had to consider was, whether they were to give up lands producing about 30,000l. a year (but which only produced 2,000l. or 3,000l. a year when the guarantee was given), and saddle the Consolidated Fund with that amount. He thought they ought to postpone the question until the opinion of the Canadian Government—which might be obtained in some thirty days—was received. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) might rest satisfied, from what had already taken place, that the Assembly of Canada would secularise these reserves.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he might have misapprehended the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it appeared to him that they were entirely directed against the third clause. The right hon. Gentleman had informed them that the Bill had been prepared after due and mature deliberation, upon complete acquaintance with well-verified facts, and with a perfect recollection of the very peculiar circumstances under which the Act of 1840 was passed. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem, however, to vindicate the third clause; but if he (Mr. Disraeli) did not misapprehend him, he appeared to express some astonishment as to the mode in which that clause had been introduced into the Bill. The Bill consisted only of three clauses, of which the third was the most important. Well, at the first blush, then, there did not seem to be that evidence of mature consideration, of complete acquaintance with well-verified facts, and of the general accomplishment of conducting public business, which might have been expected from the present Administration. The Bill contained three clauses. The first the Government had acknowledged must be altered; the second consisted of a parenthesis; and the third was to be omitted. Yet this was a Bill of the first importance, and for the purpose of carrying it the energies of that House had been taxed for the last four hours. They had been told by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that the question of the guarantee was a question that ought to be settled at home, and, therefore, it had been the policy of the Government to communicate with the colony, through the Secretary of State, to ascertain the opinion of the colonists. He (Mr. Disraeli) could only give one interpretation to the incompatible statements and the incongruous reasonings to which he had listened for the last three or four hours. It was, that there had been a change of policy upon this subject on the part of the Administration, and he would be glad to hear the opinion of the First Commissioner of the Board of Works (Sir W. Molesworth) with reference to the third clause. There might appear some discourtesy in a Member on that side of the House appealing to the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, even though he was a Member of the Cabinet, to favour them with his opinion upon colonial subjects under ordinary circumstances; but he was sure the right hon. Baronet would not accuse him of any want of courtesy when he asked the Committee to recollect the paternal interest the right hon. Baronet had taken in this project of legislation. He would be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Molesworth) had given his complete adhesion to the present policy of the Government. They had been favoured to-night with the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who, he believed, thoroughly understood the Canadian question, and who expressed his opinion that there was no doubt the clergy reserves would ultimately be secularised. The hon. Gentleman told them this with perfect frankness. Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) wished hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to bear well in their minds what must probably be the immediate consequence of the secularisation of the reserves with this guarantee. When they were told by the First Minister of the Crown that the Secretary of State had only just sent a despatch to the colony, on this important subject, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) that it would be more than discreet—it would be decorous, to wait for the decision of the colony upon the point which had been referred to their adjudication. It appeared to him that, under the circumstances—considering the admissions that had been made by the Government—considering the evidence they had, that, not- withstanding the glowing and picturesque description given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the pains that had been taken by the Government to prepare this Bill, it was a measure most immature and unsatisfactory—it appeared to him that the wisest course would be to pause in this legislation; and he really thought the best thing he could do was to move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, that having already given his reasons for the course which the Government proposed, he only wished at present to set some hon. Gentlemen right with regard to the facts which they had stated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had said that the Government had referred the question to the colony for its decision. The fact was, that the Government were about to write to the colony, stating that if at some future time—it might be five or ten years hence—the Assembly and the Legislative Council should think proper to agree to divert the clergy reserves to some other purposes, it was hoped that they would take into consideration that part of the Act of Parliament of 1840 relating to the guarantee. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had said, that an answer could be obtained from the colony in thirty days. Why, a despatch must be sent out to Canada, the Governor would then have to assemble the Parliament, and ask them to consider the question of the clergy reserves; the Government would have to bring forward a Bill, which they might not have any wish to propose at the present moment; that Bill would have to go through all its stages and be agreed to by the Assembly; and the hon. Gentleman expected an answer in thirty days from the time of the despatch being sent out! It was obvious that such a thing could not happen; nor was it the desire of Her Majesty's Government that the Legislature of Canada should be assembled for that purpose, or that they should change the general dispositions made by the Act of 1840. The right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) proposed that instead of sending to the colony an Act which the colonists were anxiously expecting, and which would enable them to legislate upon this subject, the whole question should be deferred, and the passing of an Act should be made contingent upon the decision of the colony. He (Lord John Russell) did not think that would be fairly complying with the wishes of the Parliament of Canada, who had asked us to give them the power of legislating upon this subject. He was quite ready to give them that power, and to make no conditions with them about this clause relating to the Consolidated Fund. His right hon. Friend, however, would not give them that power, but would write to Canada and wait until they had an answer, saying what the Canadian Legislature wished to do. If the Colonial Government replied that they wished to have no legislation on this part of the subject, it would be so late in the Session when that answer was received that it would be quite impossible to legislate at all, and, in justice to Canada, he felt it quite impossible to agree with his right hon. Friend. He (Lord John Russell) hoped that this Bill would pass that and the other House, and so give the Parliament of Canada power to legislate on the subject.

MR. HUME

said, he wished to know if the Parliament of Canada did not in their Address ask for the repeal of that part of the Act of 1840 giving the guarantee?

MR. BRIGHT

said, that from the speech of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer the Committee might fairly conclude that there was some difference of opinion among the Members of the Government on this question. He (Mr. Bright) suspected that the right hon. Gentleman, being one of the trustees, or magnates, of that antiquated society embodied for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, took a very peculiar interest in this particular clause. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the solemn compact of 1840, the parties to which were, among others, the Bishops and Archbishops, Sir Robert Peel, the House of Lords, and the then Whig Government; but he said nothing at all about any expression of public opinion on the subject on the part of the people of England, and still less of the people of Canada. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman spoke with a vivacity which the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) was unable to summon to his assistance in his speech that evening. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was not the time to take the question of the guarantee into consideration, and that it would be time enough to do so ten or fifteen years hence, when the country was asked to pay the money from the Consolidated Fund. Now, he begged to differ from the right hon. Gentleman in that opin- ion. He thought that this was precisely the time to discuss the question, and for this reason: At present there were two securities for the sum guaranteed, namely, the Canada clergy reserves, and the Consolidated Fund of this country; but by the Bill they were then passing they were letting slip the first of these securities, and rendering this country liable for the whole. He took it for granted, then, that any man of business would see at a glance that this was precisely the time to settle the question. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this guarantee, whatever it was, would not be altered by anything the House now did. But he begged hon. Members to observe how hollow and worthless this argument was, even upon the right hon. Gentleman's own showing. The right hon. Gentleman said, that a compact or solemn engagement had been entered into on the subject in 1840; but, if so, it was a compact which nobody had ever heard of except some half-dozen of the officials of the time. [Lord J. RUSSELL: It was stated to the House at the time.] At any rate, it had not been mentioned in the Act of Parliament; and it was clear that statements made, either to put down opposition on the one hand, or to gain support on the other by the Ministry of 1840, could not be taken as binding upon the House of Commons of 1853. If what was stated in the House of Commons in 1840 was to be held as binding upon the House now, he should like to know what would be said ten years hence of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that night. It would be said that after mature deliberation the Government of 1853 proposed the present measure—that it was pressed on the House by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Moles-worth), in a speech which did him the highest honour, and such as had seldom been heard from the Treasury bench—that the Commons, in a full House, went to a division upon it, and that the second reading was carried by a majority of eighty-three. It would be said that in a few days afterwards the leader of the House of Commons came down to the House and said that he had an important change to make in the Bill; that he had to recommend the withdrawal of a clause of great importance; that he made two speeches in one night in favour of its withdrawal; and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had with great earnestness argued strongly against the clause which had been introduced by his own leader and his own Government. Ten years hence, therefore, it would be said that the Government had recognised the validity of the guarantee, and it would be asked whether it was possible for the House of Commons, consistent with good faith to the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in Canada, to abandon an engagement which had been solemnly entered into, and of which there was abundant testimony to be found in the speeches of the Ministers of the day. He repeated, therefore, that this was precisely the time to settle the question with respect to the guarantee, if there was really anything in it; but, for his part, he was inclined to think, after a good deal of consideration, that there was not very much in the question, for he doubted whether any lawyer could make it appear clear that when the reserves were entirely secularised there was any mode of proceeding by which the Consolidated Fund of England could be called upon to make good the guarantee. And here, he begged to say, that he took it for granted the reserves would be secularised. He was not like the Gentlemen on the Treasury bench, for he hoped they would be secularised, and he had no doubt they would be in a short time; but whether that would be so or not, this much was certain, that as they were to give the Canadian Legislature the power of dealing with the matter as they pleased, the House was bound to look this circumstance in the face, that it was possible the reserves would be secularised in the course of twelve or eighteen months, and to consider the question whether the guarantee was anything or nothing. There was a difference of opinion about that. He took it for granted that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer really believed the guarantee was a bonâ fide guarantee; but if the Committee divided upon the question of retaining the clause, he (Mr. Bright) should feel bound to vote in favour of retaining it, and put beyond question all liability on the part of this country for payments to Churches in Canada. It appeared to him that a more impudent thing had never been proposed than that the people of this country, who were not in half so good a condition as the people of Canada, should support the various Churches of that flourishing Colony. He begged to say a word to the noble Lord the Member for London before he sat down. He found the noble Lord, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall) had so well said, having just and honest conceptions of questions of this kind; but he found, at the same time, that somehow or other he wanted strength to grapple with them when they came before that, and especially the other, House of Parliament. If the noble Lord would only learn to rely upon what was just, and upon what might be fairly recommended to the honest judgment of the people of this country, he (Mr. Bright) believed the noble Lord would find far more support than he usually calculated upon in carrying his measures through both Houses of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had proposed that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. He (Mr. Bright) did not believe that be intended by that to wait until there was an opportunity of ascertaining whether the Canadian Government would take this guarantee upon themselves. The idea of asking that the Canadian Government would undertake a guarantee which they never entered into, and which that House did not enter into, partook of a degree of simplicity which he never expected to find in any Government, much less the present one. He contended that this was not a question between that House and the Canadian Legislature at all, because having affirmed the principle of this Bill, which was complete local self-government on the part of the Colony, it was the duty of that House to promote the Bill, in some shape or other, for that special object, which was not an Imperial but a local object, and to pass it as quickly as possible. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) would not press his Amendment; if lie did, he (Mr. Bright) must vote against it. If the Committee divided on the main question, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that before the Committee divided on the main question, he was anxious to say a few words with respect to the reasons which influenced him in the vote he should give. He was certainly disposed, from a careful perusal of the Act of 1840, to come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) as to the nature and extent of the guarantee comprised in the eighth clause of that Act. If hon. Gentlemen would only take the pains to refer to the terms not only of that but of the preceding clauses, relative to the distribution of the fund, they could hardly fail to come to the conclusion that it was not in the contemplation of the Legislature when the Act was passed to give any guarantee against such a contingency as was now under consideration—he meant the absolute secularisation of the fund arising from the reserves. If hon. Members would refer to the Act, they would find that the mode in which that fund was to be distributed, was specified with great care. They would find that it was to be divided into six parts, and that two-sixths were to be set aside for the Church of England, and one-sixth for the Church of Scotland. They would find that the Receiver General was annually to deliver to the Governor a certificate of the net amount which would be applicable to each of those Churches out of the said fund under the provisions of the Act, and that it was only when the sum mentioned in the certificate should be less than 7,700l. in the one case, and 1,580l. in the other, that the Consolidated Fund was to be called upon to make good the deficiency. In point of fact, the whole of these funds had, by law, been ascertained, previous to the passing of the Act, to belong to the two Churches. Half of the funds were now taken from them; and an apprehension appeared to have been entertained that the revenue thereafter to be derived from their share of the property might fall below the amount then actually received by those Churches. Under these circumstances the guarantee had been given to make good the deficiency thus arising. He hoped, therefore, that in voting for the omission of this clause, as he should do, he should not be considered as in any way implying an opinion directly the reverse of that which he entertained, that the guarantee amounted to one which would impose a charge upon the Consolidated Fund of 10,000l. a year, or of any other amount in the event of the diversion of that property by the Colonial Legislature from the purpose to which it had been devoted by the Act of 1840. The object of the Bill before Parliament was merely to give to the Colonial Legislature the same power of dealing with the fund which the Imperial Legislature now possessed; and if that power should be used to secularise it—and he hoped it would not—the Receiver General could not give those certificates which must be the basis of any payment out of the Consolidated Fund. Thinking, as he did, that it was a bonâ fide guarantee with regard to any deficiency that might arise in the amount annually payable under the Act, the appropriation remaining undisturbed, he could conceive the same possibility of that deficiency arising when the Colonial Legislature should have power to deal with the subject as now, when the Imperial Legislature dealt with it. To that extent, therefore, he thought that we were bound by that guarantee; and he certainly regretted that a clause had been introduced into the Bill which had repealed it. Understanding the guarantee in this limited sense he was prepared to vote with Her Majesty's Government.

Question put, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 176: Majority 68.

List of the AYES.
Adderley, C. B.	Heyworth, L.
Atherton, W.	Hindley, C.
Bailey, C.	Hume, J.
Barnes, T.	Hutchins, E. J.
Barrow, W. H	Jackson, W.
Bell, J.	Keating, R.
Bellew, Capt.	Kennedy, T.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Kershaw, J.
Biggs, W.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Blackett, J. F. B.	Locke, J.
Bowyer, G.	Lucas, F.
Brocklehurst, J.	M'Cann, J.
Brotherton, J.	Magan, W. H.
Bruce, H. A.	Martin, J.
Carnac, Sir J. R.	Massey, W. N.
Chambers, T.	Meagher, T.
Cheetham, J.	Milligan, R.
Clay, Sir W.	Mitchell, T. A.
Cobden, R.	Moore, G. H.
Coffin, W.	Morris, D.
Cowan, C.	Muntz, G. F.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Murrough, J. P.
Crook, J.	Oakes, J. H. P.
Crossley, F.	O'Brien, P.
Devereux, J. T.	O'Brien, Sir T.
Duke, Sir J.	Otway, A. J.
Duncan, G.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Esmonde, J.	Peel, Sir R.
Ewart, W.	Pellatt, A.
Fagan, W.	Peto, S. M.
Filmer, Sir E.	Phinn, T.
Fitzgerald, Sir J. F.	Pigott, F.
Forster, M.	Pilkington, J.
Forster, C.	Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Fortescue, C.	Price, W. P.
Fox, W. J.	Ricardo, O.
Gardner, R.	Scholefield, W.
Gaskell, J. M.	Scully, F.
Geach, C.	Scully, V.
Goodman, Sir G.	Seymour, Lord
Gower, hon. F. L.	Seymour, W. D.
Grace, O. D. J.	Shee, W.
Greenall, G.	Shelley, Sir J. V.
Greene, J.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Grenfell, C. W.	Stapleton, J.
Greville, Col. F.	Sullivan, M.
Hadfield, G.	Swift, R.
Headlam, T. E.	Tancred, H. W.

Thicknesse, R. A.	Wilkinson, W. A.
Thompson, G.	Williams, W.
Thornely, T.	Wise, A.
Vane, Lord H.	Wyvill, M.
Vivian, H. H.
Vyse, Capt.	TELLERS.
Walmsley, Sir J.	Miall, E.
Warner, E.	Bright, J.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
A'Court, C. H. W.	Gregson, S.
Alexander, J.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Anson, hon. Gen.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Gwyn, H.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Halsey, T. P.
Ball, E.	Hamilton, G. A.
Bankes, rt. hon. G.	Hanbury, hon. C. S. B.
Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Barrington, Visct.	Harcourt, Col.
Bennet, P.	Heneage, G. H. W.
Berkeley, Adm.	Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Bethell, R.	Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Biddulph, R. M.	Hervey, Lord A.
Blair, Col.	Hogg, Sir J. W.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Booker, T. W.	Hudson, G.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.	Hume, W. F.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Ingham, R.
Bramston, T. W.	Jermyn, Earl
Brand, hon. H.	Kendall, N.
Bremridge, R.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Brisco, M.	King, J. K.
Brooke, Lord	Knatchbull, W. F.
Browne, V. A.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Lacon, Sir E.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Langston, J. H.
Burghley, Lord	Langton, W. G.
Butler, C. S.	Lawley, hon. F. C.
Byng, hon. G. H. C.	Lennox, Lord A. F.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E.	Lennox, Lord H. G.
Caulfeild, Col. J. M.	Lewisham, Visct.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Liddell, H. G.
Cavendish, hon. G.	Lockhart, W.
Chelsea, Visct.	Lowe, R.
Child, S.	Macartney, G.
Cholmondeley, Lord H.	MacGregor, J.
Christy, S.	Mandeville, Visct.
Clinton, Lord R.	Manners, Lord J.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.	Maule, hon. Col.
Cocks, T. S.	Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Cowper, hon. W. F.	Miles, W.
Dering, Sir E.	Mills, A.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B.	Mills, T.
Drax, J. S. W. S. E.	Michell, W.
Drumlanrig, Visct.	Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.
Drummond, H.	Monck, Visct.
Dundas, G.	Moncreiff, J.
Egerton, E. C.	Monsell, W.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Montgomery, Sir G.
Evans, W.	Moore, R. S.
Fellowes, E.	Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Fitzgerald, J. D.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Fitzgerald, W. R. S.	Mure, Col.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Murphy, F. S.
Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.	Napier, rt. hon. J.
Forster, Sir G.	Newdegate, C. N.
Freestun, Col.	Noel, hon. G. J.
Frewen, C. H.	Norreys, Lord
Gladstone, rt. hon. W.	North, Col.
Glyn, G. C.	O'Connell, M.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Osborne, R.

Ossulston, Lord	Thesiger, Sir F.
Owen, Sir J.	Tollemache, J.
Paget, Lord A.	Traill, G.
Paget, Lord G.	Turner, C.
Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.	Tyler, Sir G.
Palmer, R.	Vance, J.
Palmerston, Visct.	Verner, Sir W.
Peel, F.	Vernon, G. E. H.
Phillimore, R. J.	Villiers, hon. F.
Portal, M.	Waddington, D.
Robartes, T. J. A.	Waddington, H. S.
Robertson, P. F.	Walcott, Adm.
Rolt, P.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Rumbold, C. E.	Wells, W.
Russell, Lord J.	Whalley, G. H.
Russell, F. C. H.	Whitbread, S.
Russell, F. W.	Whitmore, H.
Sawle, C. B. G.	Wickham, H. W.
Scott, hon. F.	Wilson, J.
Smith, J. A.	Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Smith, W. M.	Wyndham, Gen.
Spooner, R.	Wyndham, W.
Stafford, A.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Stanley, Lord	Young, rt. hon. Sir J.
Stephenson, R.
Stirling, W.	TELLERS.
Strutt, rt. hon. E.	Hayter, W. G.
Taylor, Col.	Berkeley, C. G.

Clause struck out.

The House resumed; Bill reported.

The House adjourned at one o'clock till Monday, 4th April.