Lords Sitting of 20 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Conveyance of Estates.—Read a third time:—Administration of Justice (New South Wales); Vagrant Acts Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord GLENELG, from Carnarvon, and by the Earl of FALMOUTH, from a place in Cornwall, for the Abolition of Idolatrous Worship in India.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from Stockport, for the reduction of the rate of Postage; and from a place in Ireland, in favour of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—By the Bishop of GLOCESTER, from a place in his Diocese, against any further Grant to the College of Maynooth; from Honiton, North Shields, Warminster, Ottery, St. Mary's, Cambridge, Axminster, and many other places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath; and from a place in Kent, for the Immediate Abolition of Negro Slavery.—By Lord COLCHESTER, from the Guardians of a Poor-law Union in Sussex, against Orders to prevent Paupers from attending the Parish Church.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (CANADA.)
Lord Wharncliffepresented a petition from the Rev. John Taylor, B.A., and rector of Woodstock, in the province of Upper Canada, complaining that the funds derived from the reserved lands in Canada, which were intended for the support of the Established Church there, had not been appropriated to that object. Much inconvenience and injury had been sustained by the Church in consequence, and the petitioner called on the Legislature to make a suitable provision for the Established Church in that country.
Lord Glenelgsaid, that the petition certainly deserved serious consideration, both on account of the high respectability of the petitioner and the importance of the subject to which it related. He felt every disposition to support and further the interests of the Established Church in Canada. If, therefore, the Government could not comply with the prayer of the petition, it did not arise from any indisposition or unwillingness on their part, but was to be attributed entirely to other and very different causes.
The Bishop of Exeterhad not been aware, that this matter was about to be brought under their Lordships' consideration. He was, nevertheless, rejoiced, that it had been brought forward, and he was equally rejoiced at the temperate manner in which the noble Baron who presented the petition had pointed out the course which should be pursued in matters of this description by a Christian Government. This was a colony containing not less than half a million of British subjects, whose spiritual interests it would be in the highest degree criminal to neglect. It was unnecessary for him to dwell upon
378
the great encouragement which had been given to the inhabitants of this country to emigrate to that colony. Was it to be supposed, that they were to be induced to emigrate to a land which was to be cursed, by a short-sighted policy, with an insufficiency of Christian ministers? The sworn servants of her Majesty were bound to provide for the religious instruction of her people in the remotest portion of her dominions, as well as near the seat of Government at home; and from this responsibility there was no shrinking. The noble Baron, the Secretary for the Colonies, seemed to be very desirous to shrink from that responsibility; but if such a position were once laid down, he should have no hesitation in declaring it to be one of the most dangerous doctrines that was ever put forward by a Minister of the Crown. All the responsibility rested with the noble Baron, as the head of this department; and he defied any noble Lord to refute, or even to contradict this assertion. The noble Baron who presented this petition had spoken strongly, but not more so than the occasion justified, of the necessity of having an additional bishop in Upper Canada. The noble Secretary for the Colonies admitted the importance, nay, he thought, that the noble Secretary had gone so far even as to admit the necessity of making this addition. But if this statement upon the part of the noble Secretary was sincere, why did he manifest any reluctance to pay the stipend of the bishop whom he thus admitted the necessity of appointing? Now, what was the conduct of the Government with regard to another personage, who was not a bishop of the Church of England, not a member of the Church of England, but the Roman Catholic bishop of Lower Canada? They did grant an allowance of no less than 1,000 l. a-year to the individual who, at that time, was Roman Catholic bishop in Lower Canada. He repeated, that in spite of the determination of the Government not to continue the allowance of 3,000 l. a-year to the successor of the Bishop of Quebec, 1,000 l. of which he most munificently gave to the Bishop of Montreal, they did propose to Parliament, and Parliament met the proposition with assent, to give 1,000 l. a-year to the successor of the Roman Catholic bishop of Lower Canada. It was also proposed to give to the English bishop of Quebec, not, indeed, the salary which his

379
predecessor enjoyed, but a salary amounting to 1,000 l. a-year. But they gave the Roman Catholic bishop the same sum which he enjoyed before, while they had done nothing to give the Protestant inhabitants of the colony two English bishops. Therefore, he would maintain, that equal justice had not been done in this case. It was true, that the Roman Catholic bishop was not allowed more by the Government than was given to the English bishop, but then he never had more. Besides this, it was well known, that the English bishop was subject to greater expenses than the Roman Catholic bishop was liable to, and he was also a father, and had a family to support. There was another point of great importance to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, and that was, that the Roman Catholic bishop had another 1,000 l. a-year from the colonial revenues, granted to him by the colonial Parliament in lieu of a certain house called the Palace. At a fitting time he should call the attention of their Lordships to a most important neglect of duty on the part of a noble Earl who was not then present—he meant Lord Ripon—for when that noble Lord was at the head of the Colonial Department this bill passed the provincial Legislature, and the noble Earl, in advising his late Majesty to give the royal assent to that measure, had violated the constitutional law of 1792. The disposition of the clergy reserves was left to the consideration of the Parliament of Lower Canada, but there was no reason why, if Government had thought proper to throw this duty on the Parliament of Lower Canada, the Christian emigrants from this country should be deprived of the bread of life. Was it decent for a colonial Minister to step forward and urge such a plea? Under all these circumstances, he did hope, that some good would result from the presentation of this petition, and although it could not be expected, that the noble Baron would give any pledge on the subject, yet, he trusted, that what had been said would have some effect.
Lord Glenelgwas understood to say, that with respect to what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate upon the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown, he had never said, that Ministers were not responsible, because they acted upon the opinion of the Crown's law officers. All that he had said was, that after the
380
opinion which had been given by high legal authority, Ministers were resolved to act upon it. With respect to the 1,000 l. a-year given to the successor of the Roman Catholic bishop, the present bishop was coadjutor of the late bishop, and every one knew, that in the Roman Catholic Church the coadjutor bishop was as much a bishop, and as certain to succeed to the see, as if he were actually bishop of the see. This case, therefore, did not come within the general purview of the right rev. Prelate's argument. The Government having referred the question of the clergy reserves to the House of Assembly, was bound in common honesty to adhere to that reference. It was no difficult matter, in discussing a question of this kind, to cast out of view the most important features in the case—to disregard the relations subsisting between the colonies and the mother country—to make light of the views entertained by the Colonial Legislature, and then to take up one isolated point, and pronounce oracularly that the Government had been guilty of a dereliction of duty. If he had done otherwise than he had done, he should, indeed, have been guilty of a dereliction of duty, and on this he was ready to appeal to any tribunal under Heaven.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that it appeared to him, that the nation had bound itself to establish rectories, and to furnish endowments for them in Canada. How far the Scotch Church had a right to participate with the Church of England he did not then mean to say, but he could not believe, that it would be legal to make a division of the ecclesiastical property among the different sects.
Petition laid on the table.

PLURALITIES.
The Report on the Benefices Pluralities Bill was brought up.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that considerable discussion had on a former occasion taken place as to the best mode of ascertaining the value of benefices to be held in plurality, the population of each benefice, and the distance between them, and it had been thought that the 113th section of the bill was insufficient for that purpose. He, therefore, now proposed to expunge the 113th clause, and to substitute for it four other clauses, to follow the sixth clause, which he thought would meet every objection which had been raised. We understood

381
their purport to be, that every spiritual person applying to the Bishop for a dispensation to hold two benefices should set forth in writing the value of those benefices, or the average of those benefices, for the three years previous to the application, together with the average amount of the population of each parish during that time, and the distance at which those benefices were separated from each other. The clauses also provided that these statements were to be verified to the satisfaction of the Bishop.
The 113th clause was struck out, and the other clauses were agreed to.
The Earl of Cawdor,who spoke in so low a tone as to be inaudible in the gallery, proposed some amendments, the object of which, as far as we could collect it, seemed to be the abolition of sinecure rectories with a view to their appropriation to the increase of small livings, and also the union of small parishes to large ones adjoining. He had in his own gift a parish which contained only seventy-seven inhabitants, which he wished to see united to a neighbouring living. The amendments which he proposed were in conformity with the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Amendments were ordered to be printed and considered on the third reading. Report received.