Lords Sitting of 28 February 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Bail in Error. Reported. —Law of Evidence (Scotland).

CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA).
The EARL of DERBY, having presented a large number of petitions from Canada, praying that no alteration may be made in the laws respecting Clergy Reserves (Canada), said: My Lords, I have now to call your Lordships' attention to the prayer of sixty-four or sixty-five petitions, to which, from the importance of the subject to which they relate, and the magnitude of the principles they involve, I have thought it right to call your Lordships' attention by placing a notice on the papers of the House. These petitions are from various bodies belonging to the Church of Scotland in Canada; but it is right that I should state to your Lordships that the object of these petitions is all the same, though expressed in various terms. They pray that your Lordships will preserve inviolate the arrangement entered into in the year 1840, and will not interfere with, nor suffer to be interfered with, that arrangement with regard to the clergy reserves in Canada. It is quite right that I should state that a portion of these petitions were prepared so long ago as 1851, and that they were then brought over to this country with the intention of being presented against a Bill of a similar character to that now proposed, which was at that time before the Legislature. It was then the intention to place them in the hands of the noble Duke, the Lord Privy Seal (the Duke of Argyll), to whose active and unremitting services the House and the country were mainly indebted for the withdrawal of that Bill. The withdrawal of that Bill rendered the presentation of those petitions unnecessary; and equally unnecessary was it, after the declaration of Her Majesty's late Government, of which I was a Member, to present any petition or petitions during 1852; but upon the accession of the present Government, those who were connected with the Church of Scotland felt it to be their duty
698
to renew and reiterate the expression of their former opinions, and they have authorised mo to state that these opinions of the congregations of the great body of the Church of Scotland remain unaltered. And undoubtedly these petitions would have been placed in 1853 as in 1851 in the hands of the noble Duke opposite, but that the petitioners apprehended that they would thereby cause some embarrassment to the noble Duke, who might not feel himself at the same liberty as in 1851 to afford his valuable assistance to the petitioners; and in consequence of the position now occupied by the noble Duke, I have been requested by the petitioners to present their petitions in place of him who would have stated their case with much more ability and power, and to pray the earnest attention of your Lordships to this subject. I confess that it is without any surprise that I saw the present Bill, of which notice has been given to the other House, introduced by some portion of Her Majesty's present Government. I regret undoubtedly to see that it has been
taken up by the Government as a body, and that it has been brought forward by them as a Government measure. I regret it, because, without meaning any disrespect to them, I cannot but look upon this measure as one that will deprive the Protestant Church in Canada of rights which they, as Ministers, are bound to defend, and as a violation of the rights of property of which they are the legitimately constituted guardians. If I could look upon the measure in any more trivial light, I should not be insensible to the many conveniences and temptations to a Minister to acquiesce in the introduction of the Bill, because I do not seek to conceal from your Lordships that the object of this measure is one greatly desired by a large portion of the people of Upper and Lower Canada, by a large majority of the people of the United Provinces, and by a considerable portion of the people of the Upper Province. I cannot deny also the general plausibility of the argument that it is right to leave to the colonial legislature the management of their own property and regulation of their own internal affairs; and I am not insensible to the advantage to be derived to any one who proposes to Parliament a mode which can recommend itself to their consciences of getting rid of a considerable amount of business, in regard to which they feel themselves imperfectly informed. But my sense of public duty compelled me

699
as a Minister to refuse to assent to that of which I saw the expediency, hut of which I felt the viciousness of principle; and the same sense of duty which led me, as a Minister, to refuse my assent, leads me on the present occasion to support the prayer of these petitioners, and to intreat your Lordships not to sanction the present measure. I have said, my Lords, that I admit the plausibility—nay, I admit much more—I admit the justice of leaving to the colonial legislature, as far as possible, the management of their peculiar internal affairs. In 1840, when the civil list was reserved by an Act of the Imperial Legislature out of the revenues of Canada at the time of the union of the Provinces, that interference with the property of the colonists was held by them to be highly objectionable; and although under the circumstances, it was impossible to avoid coming to such a measure, yet it was with great satisfaction that I gave my assent as Secretary of State to the introduction of a measure by which, upon the colonial legislature passing by its own authority such a civil list as might be accepted by the Crown, the statute of the Imperial Legislature dealing with their property could be repealed. The consequence was, that that civil list rested on the authority of the colonial legislature. My Lords, I will go further, and say that I do not think that the mere impolicy of a particular arrangement, as it might strike a Secretary of State or a Minister for the time being, would be a sufficient reason for refusing the assent of the Crown to that which might be proposed by the colonists and passed by the colonial legislature. In 1850, the Government which preceded mine had refused upon more than one occasion their assent, upon the ground of impolicy, to measures passed by the colonial legislature for countervailing bounties and privileges granted to American seamen by the American Government, by countervailing duties on the part of the colonial legislature; and in refusing to assent to Acts passed by the colonial legislature, the ground taken was, that those measures were at variance with the general principle of free trade. My Lords, I mention this merely for the purpose of showing that with regard to Acts of the colonial legislature, I am not averse to leaving them the management of their own affairs bearing on their own interests; and consequently, without expressing any opinion with regard to the policy or impolicy
700
of granting bounties to colonial seamen on the part of the legislature of the colonies, I consented to the measures of my predecessors, and I permitted the colonial legislature to deal with their own revenues as they thought fit for the promotion of their own interests. But my opposition to the measure now under consideration is, that in this ease the colonists are seeking to deal, not with their own property, but with that which never was their own property, over which they never had the right to exercise any control, and which, by competent authority and the strongest guarantees, had not only been otherwise appropriated and taken out of their jurisdiction previously to the establishment of their constitution, but which upon two occasions was made one of the fundamental conditions upon which that very constitution rested. It was as early as the year 1775, when the Crown exercised an uncontrolled authority over the then province of Quebec, that it was thought necessary and expedient, when the principal guarantee was given for the exercise of the religion and the maintenance of the property of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Lower Canada, to afford inducements to Protestants to settle in the province of Quebec, by the promise that they, at all times to come, should have secured within that province as an endowment to the Protestant clergy, one-seventh part of the lands of the Crown, to be guaranteed and appropriated as those lands accrued. There are at present residing in Canada many of the descendants of those who, quitting the United States, settled in the province on the strength of that guarantee, and on the faith of the British Crown, that in all times to come provision should be made from the lands of the province for the Protestant clergy, and the dissemination of the Protestant faith. My Lords, I mention it to the credit of the United States, that there are at this moment, in various of those States, endowments to the Episcopal Church of this country—endowments which were created previous to the Revolution, and which were wholly adverse to the spirit and principle of that great Republic, but which, from that time to this, have been held sacred, and the rights of property have in favour of that Church, granted by the Crown, been respected and upheld. What we ask is, that the British Parliament shall not be less just than the Republic of the United States has been to its own subjects and to the Episcopal Church.

701
I said that in 1775 this provision was made by Royal proclamation. In 1791, as your Lordships are aware, the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were separated; these institutions were remodelled, and a constitutional government was given to the province of Upper Canada;—and let mo observe, in passing, that it is mainly, though not perhaps exclusively, to the province of Upper Canada, or that portion of Canada which was formerly Upper Canada, that this question relates. A constitutional government was given, and in the very Act which constituted and established that Province, there was reserved, by the power of the Legislature, and confirmed by the Crown and by the Act of the Imperial Parliament, that reservation of the clergy reserves which had been previously given by Royal proclamation in 1775. I am not speaking of the policy of that endowment, or of the reason or farsightedness of the separation of the two Provinces;—I am not speaking of the meaning which may be involved in the terms "Protestant clergy;"—but there is no doubt that at the time when that grant was made, that time being previous to the establishment of the constitution itself, and of the rights of the subjects of the Crown in Canada, that special reservation was made of one-seventh of the land, under authority perfectly competent to make it, and made, too, in the most solemn terms by the Act of the British Parliament for the maintenance, for all time to come, of the Protestant clergy in that Province. Therefore I contend that one-seventh, being already alienated and appropriated by authority perfectly competent, being sanctioned by the highest authority of the Crown and of an Act of Parliament, being declared to be a permanent endowment, and being the inducement by which many loyal Protestants were led to settle in that province, on the faith of the Crown and of Parliament—I say this is not a subject with which the provincial legislature can claim to deal; it is private property, withdrawn and exempted from their jurisdiction at the very time when that general jurisdiction was conferred upon them. For a very con siderable period of time those reserves were altogether unproductive. They were more than unproductive—because, there being no power to sell any portion, but only power of leasing, in a country where leasing was unknown, and the possession of property was easily attainable, it was im-
702
possible to realise any considerable sum for the maintenance of the clergy; and in the mean time the lands remain uncultivated and waste, an impediment to the advancement and general progress of the provinces. In 1819, a question arose, and an opinion was given by three very learned persons—Lord Gilford, then Attorney General, Sir Christopher Robinson, and a noble and learned Lord, who was at that time Solicitor General, Lord Lyndhurst—to the effect, that by the term "Protestant clergy" was to be understood the clergy not merely of the Church of England, but the clergy of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the clergy of other denominations. I do not pretend to say how far that opinion might have been in accordance with the original intention of the Royal Proclamation and the Act of Parliament. If I might venture to hazard an opinion, it would be that in 1791 the endowment of the Church of Scotland did not enter into the intentions of the founders of the Canadian constitution, but that it was intended to endow the Church of England merely under the terms "Protestant clergy;" for a provision had been made from time to time for erecting rectories according to the principles of the Church of England. However, the opinion being given, and on very high authority, that whatever might be the original intention, the terms "Protestant clergy" did not exclude the Church of Scotland, from that time Secretaries of State and Governors of Canada successively acted upon that principle, and in point of fact the proceeds of the reserves, such as they were, were apportioned between the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. In 1827 the inconvenience to which I have before adverted was so much increased, that an Act of Parliament was passed, not by the colony, but by the Imperial Parliament, namely, the 7th and 8th Geo. IV., by which authority was given, not only to lease but to sell a certain amount of the reserves, and invest in British security the proceeds of such sales, the proceeds of course to be applied to the same purposes to which the land was applicable. Under that Act of Parliament the reserves gradually became more productive and more an object of interest to the various denominations; and I cannot conceal from your Lordships that at that time the province of Upper Canada, being largely increased in population by inhabitants from the United States, amongst

703
whom there was a strong feeling against any endowment of any religious denomination whatever, there did spring up a strong and earnest desire to deal with those clergy reserves, some persons desiring to appropriate them to the general maintenance of all denominations of Christians, some being anxious to devote them to purposes of education, while some were willing to secularise them altogether, and to devote them to the purposes of the State. This was a subject of frequent conflict from 1827 up to 1840. At that period a great change, as your Lordships are aware, took place in the Government of Canada. After the suppression of the rebellion it was deemed necessary, or, at all events, advisable, to provide for the future government of Canada, and it was hoped that in so providing for it dissensions between the two provinces might be avoided by amalgamating in one Chamber the Legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada. At that time it was felt that, with regard to the religious endowments more especially, that amalgamation of the provinces must produce an extraordinary change of circumstances; that whereas, to a certain extent, by provision of the Act of 1791, the provincial legislature, subject to the control of Parliament, had a prospective power of altering the arrangements with regard to the reserves, and of modifying their future allotment and appropriation, it was a very different thing to have that power vested in a legislature, a vast majority of whom were of the Protestant religion, and leaving it in the hands of a united legislature, nearly one-half of whom were Roman Catholics, and who, by a union with the minority of the Upper Province, might have the power of altogether secularising the endowment, and of diverting it from its original purposes. It was felt, therefore, that it was necessary at the time of establishing the union between the two Provinces, again to confirm in the most emphatic manner, and in the strongest terms, the original appropriation of the reserves, or the proceeds of them, to the purposes of the Protestant clergy, and to make provision for the permanence of that arrangement, whatever might be the future views of the united Legislature with regard to those endowments. Mr. Poulett Thompson, when Governor General of Canada, obtained, with considerable difficulty, from the Legislature of the Upper Province an Act which, to a certain extent, carried into effect the original intention, by securing an endow-
704
ment, though only a partial one, for the clergy of the Church of England and of the Church of Scotland. An Act was passed by which those reserves, and the proceeds of those reserves, were ever hereafter set apart for the endowment of the clergy of those Churches in certain proportion, and of all other denominations of Christians, and for the maintenance of public worship. When that Bill, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act of 1791, was submitted to the consideration of Parliament—for it was one of the provisions of the original Act that the measures of the colonial legislature must be submitted to the consideration of both Houses of Parliament before receiving the sanction of the Crown—upon laying that Bill upon the table of the House, the question arose whether the local legislature had not, in so dealing with those reserves, exceeded the power conferred upon them by the original Act. Questions were submitted to the consideration of the Judges, whether in three specified points the legislature had not exceeded their powers; and the Judges, by the mouth of Lord Chief Justice Tindal, on the 4th of May, 1840, stated that all the Judges, with the exception of Lord Denman and Lord Abinger, were unanimous in their answers to the questions which had been put to them. They were unanimous in asserting that the words "a Protestant clergy" did extend beyond the narrow construction which would have limited the clergy reserves to the clergy of the Established Church. And when he asked what other denominations might be included besides the Church of England, they answered that the Church of Scotland also might be included. They were asked whether the effect of the 41st section, by which the local legislature, subject to certain conditions, were authorised to modify the appropriation, was to be considered as applying prospectively or retrospectively, as applying to the allotments and appropriations previously made, or such as might be the produce of sales thereafter to be made. Upon that subject the Judges were unanimous in declaring that the colonial legislature had exceeded their powers—that they had no power under the original Act to deal retrospectively—that the rights of property were beyond the control of the legislature—and that all they had the power of doing, even subject to the control of Parliament, was the prospective disposal of the funds thereafter to be raised. They further stated that they

705
were of opinion that the Legislative Council and Assembly in Canada had exceeded their authority in passingan Act to provide for the sale of the clergy reserves, and the distribution of the proceeds thereof, in respect of both the enactments specified in your Lordships' question—that was, in reference to the power granted in 1827 to sell certain portions of the clergy reserves, specially vesting the proceeds of the sale in British securities; whereas, the colonial legislature had appropriated the proceeds of the sale, and vested them in colonial securities. Upon all these three subjects the Judges were unanimously of opinion that the local legislature had gone beyond their powers, and had dealt with subjects over which they could exercise no control. It was, therefore, necessary to introduce a measure into the Imperial Parliament to remove the serious difficulties which had arisen to the settlement of that great and important question; and after grave discussion and deliberation, after no slight amount of objection from those who thought that by the Act so introduced their rights were seriously infringed, Parliament, with tolerable unanimity, sanctioned the adoption of a measure by which a settlement of the dispute in question was made, and by which, for a second time, in establishing anew the constitution of Canada, the right was reserved to the Imperial Parliament alone to deal with the question of the clergy reserves, which, as a matter of property, were again withdrawn from the control of the colonial legislature. That Bill was
introduced by the noble Lord the present leader of the House of Commons (Lord John Russell), and it is impossible to exaggerate the strength of the expressions with which the noble Lord vindicated the partial departure from the principles of the Act of 1791. He emphatically declared that it was all-important and essential that this great question should be finally and at once withdrawn from the possibility of future controversy, and that a settlement should be made which should be accepted by all denominations as final. and which should ultimately restore, by the authority of the Imperial Parliament, peace upon this much-vexed question to the Legislature of Canada, by withdrawing the question wholly from their jurisdiction. And to show the animus by which the Government of that day, composed of a large portion of the members of the present Government, were actuated, I may state that they, in a most marked
706
manner, omitted from that new Act the conditional permission granted in the Act of 1791 to the colonial legislature, to deal even prospectively with any portion of the arrangement. Under that Act an arrangement was made by which a distinction was drawn, following the decision given by the Judges, between property already realised, and property thereafter to be realised. Two-thirds of the amount already realised, was reserved for the clergy of the Church of England, and one-third for the clergy of the Church of Scotland; and these reserves were vested in bodies constituted for the purpose, and charged with the administration of these funds. The funds so dealt with amounted to but one-fourth of the estimated amount of the whole of the
clergy reserves; and with regard to the other three-fourths similar arrangements were made. The three-fourths were divided into two equal portions. With regard to one of these portions, it was divided between the clergy of the Church of England and the clergy of the Church of Scotland as before. The other half was left entirely to the disposal of the colonial legislature, to be dealt with as they might think fit for the object of promoting religious worship—even going such a length, in their desire of conciliating all parties within the province, and to leave no cause of complaint, as to omit the words, "Protestant clergy," and to allow the application of a portion of that half, not only to Protestant Dissenters, but to be employed for the purposes of the Roman Catholic clergy. It is impossible to exaggerate the strength of expression used by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) on the part of the Government in moving the Bill, or of the Governor General of Canada in recommending its adoption. The Governor General of Canada, on that occasion, went the length of saying that, unless this question were then finally and for ever disposed of, the union of the two provinces would be useless, and worse than useless; and up to the year 1846 the most liberal Members of the provincial Parliament held the strongest possible language with regard to the finality of that arrangement, declaring that they adopted it as a permanent and final settlement, and that they would look upon it as a curse to the country if that arrangement should be withdrawn, and the element of religious discord again introduced.
My Lords, it is the maintenance of that establishment, of that contract, and of

707
those rights of property so solemnly and so repeatedly guaranteed, that the petitioners, not desirous of disputing the right of the colonists to deal with affairs exclusively their own, pray that your Lordships will not sanction a departure from the great settlement then made—will not deprive them of the rights and property guaranteed by the highest authority—and will not again introduce into the councils of Canada the elements of religious discord which must lead to interminable confusion. The object of the great bulk of those who are seeking the right to deal with this property, is not, as your Lordships might be led to suppose, an appropriation and allotment amongst the various religious denominations, more in accordance with their respective numbers, and with the liberties of a country in which no dominant Church will be tolerated or supported. The object is one of a very different character. The object is to alienate from religion altogether that provision which the piety of former Sovereigns and former Parliaments granted for its support, and to introduce throughout the length and breadth of Canada the republican principle of voluntaryism adopted in the United States. Do not deceive yourselves by supposing that the object of these parties is a better distribution of the revenues for the purposes for which they were originally intended—the maintenance of the Protestant clergy, the support of the Protestant religion, or the support of any religion whatever. The object—the avowed object—of a large portion of those who are proposing to deal with the question, is the secularisation of those revenues, and their application to other than religious purposes. I know it will be said with regard to measures of this kind, that if such an attempt were made, the right of the Crown still remains, and the Secretary of State might interpose the Royal veto upon such an Act. I hardly think the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonial Department will rely upon that argument; because the argument of the present Government is, that with regard to these affairs the colonial legislature is the best and the only judge. And to give the colonial legislature the power of dealing with these revenues, and then to control them in so dealing, is granting a boon which, if you would maintain your position, would he a mockery, and which an attempt to maintain must lead to indescribable discord and confusion. Grant that the local legislature have the power of dealing with
708
these clergy reserves, I will defy you not to follow up this principle, and say that the mode in which they deal with them is a question as exclusively within the right of the colonial legislature as the right of dealing with them at all, and that from the moment you sacrifice any authority or control which the Crown and the Parliament possess, you give up the rights and property which the Crown and Parliament have guaranteed and are bound to maintain, and you practically constitute Canada an independent country. I speak with a full sense of the gravity of the alternative when I say, that if in truth it be the desire of the people of Canada that they should exercise a wholly independent power of legislation—that they should in no respect be checked by the authority of the Crown or by the interposition of Parliament—I say far better admit that principle frankly, and at once relieve the Minister of the British Crown from a nominal and often a very painful responsibility—declare openly that over the legislation of Canada Parliament exercises no control, and refuse to go through the farce, as it will then be, of advising the Crown by a responsible Minister to assent to, or withhold its assent from, any specific measure that may be passed. Admit the independence of Canada, and if the colony be still connected by the tie of the Crown with this country, in that case let it be distinctly understood that the Crown acts upon the advice, not of the Imperial, but of the colonial legislature, and that you stand towards Canada in the same relation as you stood to Hanover. I do not say that such an arrangement would not give me much cause of regret; but it would be far preferable to that doubtful position in which you at present stand, affecting to exercise a control which you dare not exercise, and responsible, or nominally responsible, for the approval of measures which—whether you approve or whether you do not approve —whether they be in violation of a plighted faith, in violation of the guarantee of the Crown, in violation of the rights of property—you equally hold yourselves bound to assent, on the general and broad principle that the colonists are the best judges of their own affairs; and that that which the legislature of the colony-has acceded to, the Crown is not justified in forbidding in this country. In a pecuniary point of view, no doubt, the advantages of such a separation would be very great. With regard to the friendly rela-

709
tions which may still be continued, I do not despair but that those relations might be maintained and upheld, and perhaps even improved, by the absence of a nominal control; and if the Province desires to place itself in that position, 1, for one, would not be the person to withhold the assent of Parliament, But as long as the province remains a province—so long as a Minister of the Crown is charged with the vindication of the rights of British subjects—so long as Parliament reserves any portion of colonial legislation in its own hand, and maintains the rights of British subjects guaranteed by that legislation—so long, whatever may be the hazard, I will not be a party to assent to the sacrifice of those rights, or allow any interposition with regard to the rights of property which I would not sanction in this country —which I would not sanction with regard to the rights of the Church of Scotland—which I would not sanction with regard to the rights of the Church in Ireland—which I would not sanction with regard to the rights of any portion of the community whose rights and whose property were guaranteed to them under the faith of the Crown by an authority competent to guarantee them.
Do not flatter yourselves, my Lords, that if you pass this Bill you will by so doing avoid future controversy and future religious discord. You will more probably perpetuate, and aggravate, and embitter it. First of all, when the colonial legislature shall be enabled and empowered to deal with these clergy reserves will arise the bitter strife between all the contending parties who seek to appropriate these reserves each to their own body, and between them and that larger body still which seeks to deprive the religious bodies of all, and to secularise the whole amount of these revenues. Remember that this is a question which mainly applies to the province of Upper Canada, But in Lower Canada there are very large endowments in land; there is a very large property; there are very large compulsory payments in aid of the Roman Catholic clergy. These rights rest on a footing not a whit more strong than the clergy reserves, ["Hear, hear!"] The two noble Dukes opposite (the Dukes of Newcastle and Argyll) cheer that observation—do they foresee, do they believe it possible, that with the sanction of the Government principle of secularisation once introduced, the Protestants of Upper Canada and the Protestant minority
710
of Lower Canada will be satisfied with the assertion of that principle that there shall be no dominant Church as relates to the Protestant body; that all territorial and other revenues appropriated to the purposes of the Protestant clergy shall be secularised and converted to other purposes? And do they believe that that same body of men, with that sanction on the part of the Legislature and the Government, will tamely submit to the continued endowment of the Roman Catholic Church with such enormous revenues, as the only endowed Church, after the British Parliament shall have sanctioned the confiscation of the only provision which our ancestors have made for the conservation of Protestant worship in the Protestant portion of the colony? From that moment arises a bitter feud for the alienation and confiscation of the provision made for the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada: from that moment all the differences of race and creed are brought into immediate and hostile conflict. At the present moment the superintending and controlling' authority of Parliament keeps all these elements in check, and by sanctioning a provision which has received the acceptance of all as a final arrangement and compromise of this difficulty, has withdrawn these elements of controversy and contention from the province of the local assembly, and has thereby to a great extent saved the colony from the agitation which would arise out of them. But the instant you sanction this new principle of confiscation, the differences of religion and race again rise, and you will have aggravated, embittered, and perpetuated those differences and dissensions which, for so long a time, were the bane and curse of Canada, and the obliteration of which, by one great act of justice, was the object of the union of the provinces in 1840. Do not flatter yourselves, my Lords, that by a dereliction of princiciple you escape from the difficulties of asserting the jurisdiction and supremacy of the Crown. Do not think you will introduce peace into the province. You will introduce perpetual and increased discord; and when you have made this great concession you will find yourselves, step by step by step, involved in difficulties in which, in vindication of the rights of property, of the Crown, and of your fellow-subjects, you are unable to interfere, and one after another you will be compelled to give the unwilling—I had almost said the

711
degrading—sanction of the British Legislature to objects and purposes of which that Legislature, perhaps, cannot approve. If I refer to this subject strongly, it is because I feel that the honour and dignity of the Crown
are endangered by the Bill. I know there may be risk from the firm but temperate maintenance of the rights of the Crown; but whatever risk there may he, none can be so great to a British Parliament, or a British statesman, as that of abandoning, for the purpose of expediency, the claims of principle and of justice, and the rights of property. And as while I had the honour of holding office under the Crown, not unaware of all the temptations to hold a different course, I was prepared to risk the existence of the Administration of which I was a Member upon the maintenance of the rights of property; so in my place as a Peer in Parliament I cannot refrain from entering my protest against Parliament being induced to do that which, as a Minister of the Crown, I never would consent to do.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, he was anxious to explain some of the circumstances to which the noble Earl had referred in connexion with himself. It was true that in the course of 1851 a deputation came over to this country from Canada representing the interests of the Established Church of Scotland, and they placed in his hands certain petitions against the Bill which was said to be in course of preparation at that time by the noble Earl who then held the seals of the Colonial Office (Earl Grey), and which was understood to be similar to the Bill lately introduced into the other House of Parliament. It was not true, however, that he in any way expressed any decided opinion upon the policy involved in that Bill. The petitions were brought to him at a rather late period of the Session, and he thought it extremely improbable that a measure would then be introduced; but although he said nothing in that House on the subject, he had certain private communications with the then Colonial Secretary, from which he gathered that during that Session of Parliament no Bill would be introduced. But he had tonight heard for the first time that any representation of his had had the slightest effect in causing the delay. He would frankly say, however, to the noble Earl and to the House, that, upon
the statement submitted to him by the deputation, his own private feelings and opinions were rather against the measure than
712
in its favour. At that time, however, he could not inquire fully into the case; but if a complete statement of the facts had then been made to him, he believed his opinion would have been different from that which he then formed. It was to be remembered, however, that at that time the Parliament of Canada was approaching its close, a new Parliament was about to be assembled there; and he did then think that it would be much better not to proceed with a measure on this subject, important and grave as the consequences might be, until the new Parliament had assembled, and an opinion similar to that expressed by the then existing Parliament had been expressed by the succeeding one. The new Parliament of Canada had since met—a Parliament, be it remembered, elected with this question brought fairly under the notice of the people—and the verdict of that Parliament had been, by a very considerable majority, in favour of the course which the present Government had determined to pursue. As the measure of the Government would come before their Lordships at a later period of the Session, and a full opportunity would be given for its discussion, it was not now his intention to enter upon the whole subject. He was, however, anxious to explain some of the grounds upon which his own opinion had been formed. When the present Government came into office, they found that this great question had been raised by the Parliament of
Canada, and that a formal Resolution was adopted by a considerable
majority of the representatives of both Provinces. In one way or other, therefore, it was clear that that question must be dealt with. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had repeatedly referred to the settlement of 1840 as a final and conclusive settlement of the question. What, however, had been the resolution—or apparently the resolution—of the late Government? The late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir John Pakington), in a despatch, in which he intimated that he was not prepared to proceed with the measure prepared by Lord Grey, said, that although no ground was left for reasonable jealousy or complaint of undue favour to any religious denomination, Her Majesty's Government thought it might possibly be desirable, on account of the changes that might have been effected in the character of the population from emigration and other causes, that the distribution of the fund should "from time to time be reconsidered," The

713
late Government then came apparently to the conclusion that the settlement of 1840 was not a final settlement, but that it should be reconsidered from time to time, and the money redistributed. Now, he wished to ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) upon what principle he had proposed to proceed in that redistribution? He found in one of the printed papers an opinion of the Hon. J. H. Price, late commissioner of Crown lands, and the originator and mover of the resolutions of 1850, declaring "that three-fourths of the people believed that the arrangement was made in injustice and partiality." Did their Lordships suppose, then, that a settlement of which three-fourths of the people of Canada entertained such an opinion could really be regarded as a final settlement? Although he (the Duke of Argyll) was a member of the Church of Scotland, he had not the slightest jealousy of the larger share of these funds which was enjoyed by the Church of England in Canada, and he should be very glad if the existing settlement remained unchanged. He found, however, from papers on the table, that although the adherents of the Church of England were hardly more than one-fourth of the whole population of Upper Canada, they enjoyed considerably more than one-half of the whole of the clergy reserves. He found also, that the Roman Catholics enjoyed from this fund—which was originally intended for the maintenance of the Protestant clergy in Upper Canada —a considerably larger share than the Presbyterians, Dissenters, and the Wesleyan Methodists put together. It was impossible that such a settlement as this, although it might be considered as a compromise for a time, could be regarded as a final settlement. He again asked upon what principle the noble Earl would have proceeded in a redistribution of this fund in accordance with the statement of Sir John Pakington? Would he have set himself to the task of altering what he called the "final settlement" of 1840? Would he have taken something from the large share now enjoyed by the Church of England, with a view to its redistribution among the dissenting bodies of Canada? If the noble Earl had done so, he would undoubtedly have mot with all that opposition from the members of the Church of England which was now manifested against the proposed measure. He had not the slightest doubt that if a measure had been introduced, even by the noble
714
Earl, for the redistribution of these funds, which touched a single fraction of the share now belonging to the Church of England, the proposal would have been met with strenuous opposition, and the noble Earl would probably have been asked by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), in the words which he used the other night, whether he dared to commit the sacrilege of taking one farthing from this fund? The noble Earl had said that by the Constitution of 1791 the provinces of Canada were not entitled to deal with this fund. It was, however, clear, from the wording of the Act of 1791, that it was the intention of the Legislature that the Parliament of Canada should exercise very large powers, not only over the future distribution but the future existence of the fund. The Act declared that the provisions for setting aside the land might be "varied or repealed" by the Acts of the local Parliament. Now, although the opinion of the Judges in 1840 limited this power to future allotments, and placed all past allotments beyond it, it was perfectly clear that if the colonial Parliament had interfered immediately after the passing of the Act of 1791, when not any allotments had been made, they would have had complete power over by far the largest portion of the fund, which now, from their having failed to exercise that power, had accidentally, as it were, passed out of their hands. The noble Earl, referring to a most delicate question of colonial policy, had said that he thought it would be better to abolish altogether the power of the Crown with regard to the colonial Parliaments than to exercise that power upon principles adverse to the Throne and to the Church. The noble Earl, however, seemed to forget that the main object of that power was, not to enable a Colonial Secretary to interfere with Acts respecting domestic affairs to be passed by the colonial assemblies, of which on English principles we might not wholly approve, but to enable him to decide whether such Acts did or did not affect the Imperial interests—whether they were or were not strictly confined to the internal affairs of the colony. He (the Duke of Argyll) maintained that that power should be exercised entirely upon this principle—namely, that of deciding, not whether, in the opinion of the Home Government, the measures proposed would conduce to the internal welfare of the colony, but whether they affected the imperial interests, or the connexion between the mother

715
country and her colonies. The present Government, when they came into power, felt that they had but one of two courses to pursue—they might maintain intact the existing system without any alteration whatever, or they might abandon the clergy reserves into the power of the colonial assembly, leaving them to deal with the question as one of purely internal concern. The late Secretary for the Colonies (Sir John Pakington) had indeed taken neither the one nor the other of these courses, but had expressed his opinion that the Imperial Government ought from time to time to reconsider the distribution of these funds. Now, did the right hon. Baronet, before he penned that despatch, consider the state of our great Canadian possessions? During the last ten years the population of Upper Canada had increased, he believed, at the rate of about 50,000 a year, and the total population had been more than doubled. Was it possible that the Imperial Government should have taken upon itself the task of reconsidering from time to time the distribution of these funds, and the various proportions in which they should be distributed among the religious bodies of Canada? He thought it impossible that such a course could have been taken with satisfaction either to this country or to the Colonies. They must take one course or the other. They must either maintain intact the existing system, abandoning altogether the half-promise held out by Sir John Pakington) or they must give over to the Canadas, as a question of merely internal concern, the distribution of these funds according to the changes of the population. The noble Earl had dwelt upon the fact that in the divisions which took place, and ended in considerable majorities in favour of giving to the Canadas entire power over the clergy reserves, only a small portion of those majorities consisted of members for Upper Canada; and that during the course of the debate the members from Lower Canada, representing Roman Catholic interests, were disposed to treat with hostility the Protestant endowments of the western Province. He (the Duke of Argyll) wished to direct the attention of the noble Earl to the following statement in the memorial of the Bishop of Quebec, whom the noble Earl would probably acknowledge as a good authority on this subject:—
"Your Excellency's memorialist believes himself to proceed upon correct information when he
716
states that the members generally from Canada East are understood to have regarded the question as one proper to Canada West, on account, of the greater stake there existing in the reserves, and the far larger proportion of Protestant inhabitants, and, by consequence, to have simply followed the majority of voters from that section."
So that the majority of members from Lower Canada, as stated by this great Protestant authority, had voted, not against the interests of the Protestant clergy, not from any feeling of rivalry of any kind, but solely because they had thought it their duty to support their brethren of the Upper Province. If this statement of the Bishop of Quebec was true, as regarded the motives which influenced the members from Lower Canada, it would appear that if a change of opinion should take place among the representative body in Upper Canada, the members from the Lower Province would support the majority, and would not interfere to disturb the Protestants of the Upper Province in those endowments which they possessed. He was confirmed in this impression by a portion of the speech of the noble Earl. It was perfectly true that a large proportion of the property, or, as it was called, the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, would be as accessible to the Canadian Legislature as the Canadian reserves of the Protestant Church. But observe the effect of this. The consequence would naturally be, that there would be great anxiety on the part of the Roman Catholic members to oppose what the noble Earl called the secularisation of those reserves, from a feeling that if they were secularised there would probably be a great desire to put the Roman Catholic endowment on a different footing also. Therefore he maintained that, if the opinion of a majority of the Protestant inhabitants of Upper Canada should be to maintain the reserves intact on their present footing, or if it should be in favour of a redistribution of the reserves in certain other proportions, but still confined to purely religious purposes, it was extremely probable they would be supported in resisting the secularisation scheme by the Roman Catholic representatives of the Lower Province. The noble Earl had commenced his speech by saying that the measure in question was not one which he would have expected from certain members of the present Government, though he might have expected it from another portion of it. It was perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government

717
did eontain members of the Church of England, and one, at least, of the Church of Scotland, all sincerely attached to the religious bodies to which they severally belonged; but he held that it was no shame to them as public men that in the consideration of questions of Imperial policy they did not feel it to be their duty to act as churchmen merely, but as statesmen who were intrusted with the great responsibility of advising the Crown with respect to the principles on which the connexion between this country and Canada should in future be maintained. He had no hesitation in declaring his opinion, as a member of the Church of Scotland, that the interests of that Church in Canada, whatever they were, must be represented only by their own local members, and that he did not consider it to be his duty as a public man, merely because he happened to be a member of that Church, to act on his own opinion of its interests in connexion with the internal affairs of Canada; on the contrary, he held it to be his clearest duty to agree to the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government, being convinced, as he was, that not only with respect to Canada, but with respect to all our Colonies, the principle on which we must in future proceed was simply this—that in all matters of purely internal concern—the more, and not the less, in all questions which gave rise to religious animosities in the Colonies—the colonial legislatures must be left to deal with them as they thought fit; and that the power of the Crown to review the colonial acts should not be (as suggested by the noble Earl) recklessly thrown away, but maintained solely with the view of enabling the Crown to judge in each particular case whether those acts were matters of local or imperial concern.
The EARL of DESARTsaid, it was shown in a despatch which would be laid that night on the table of the other House, but which was not sent to the colony owing to the change of the Government, that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) fully acknowledged the justice and Propriety of that principle of constitutional government which gave to a colonial legislature the exclusive power of dealing with its own local affairs; but his right hon. Friend said in this case there was an exception, because it appeared there was an intention of taking funds which he considered the British Legislature was bound in good faith to maintain in favour of cer-
718
tain vested interests. There was a very serious opinion prevailing in this country, that, in opposing the wishes of the Legislature of Canada, we opposed the unaniimous wishes of the Canadians. He (the Earl of Desart) did not think that was so. On the contrary, excluding Lower Canada, which he maintained he bad a right to do, seeing that though there was a small portion of the reserves in Lower Canada, the Roman Catholics were in such a large majority, something like 750,000 to 50,000 members of the Church of England—it was quite impossible that their members could represent anything but the Roman Catholic religion, which was embodied there in a richly-endowed Church, and a well-educated priesthood. But in Upper Canada how stood the fact? He had not had an opportunity of analysing the figures, but he could state, on the authority of Archdeacon Bethune, that in the Assembly of Upper Canada there was only a majority of one in favour of the abrogation of the settlement of 1840. He (the Earl of Desart) would say, in conclusion, that he thought this was a question in which the British Government were bound by considerations of good faith to protect and guarantee a settlement made by them, on, the suggestion of the Canadians themselves, and not only made, but accepted by the Canadians as a final settlement.
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, that he had had, in the early part of that discussion, no intention of trespassing upon their Lordships, more especially after he had heard the admirable speech of the noble Earl opposite. The noble Duke near him (the Duke of Argyll) had, however, done him the honour to make some reference to a speech which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had addressed to their Lordships some time ago, and he therefore wished to make some observations upon one or two remarks which fell from the noble Duke. It was flattering to him to be quoted by the noble Duke, but he hoped he should obtain forgiveness if he ventured to express a hope that the next time the noble Duke did him the honour of quoting from any address of his, the incorrectness in stating his (the Bishop of Exeter's) views should be somewhat less marked than it had been upon that evening. The noble Duke had stated that if a measure had been proposed for redistributing the clergy reserves in Canada, it would have met with just as much opposition as the present measure seemed likely to excite, and that be had no doubt

719
that the right rev. Prelate who had on a former occasion said, "Will you dare to commit so gross an act of sacrilege as to touch those reserves?" would have been one of the loudest in his opposition. He (the Bishop of Exeter) was sure their Lordships would recollect that he had applied no such word as "sacrilege" to the "redistribution" of those reserves;—but he did apply that term to the "confiscation" of the clergy reserves; and he would again ask if the British Parliament would consent to any measure for such a purpose? He would still continue to apply the word sacrilege in the same way in which he had on a former occasion used it, because he held that money once devoted to the service of the Almighty could not be torn away from the sacred purpose for which it had been given without incurring the guilt of sacrilege; but it was not to be inferred from that that he was not ready to acquiesce in a measure for the redistribution of the Canada clergy reserves. He might resist such a measure, but certainly not upon the grounds of its being a sacrilege. A breach of faith he should consider it, and a violation of the coronation oath; but most certainly not an act of sacrilege.
The DUKE of ARGYLLbegged to apologise to the right rev. Prelate for having misrepresented his meaning, but he certainly had understood him to say that he would have considered it sacrilege to take away any portion of the money which had been given to the Church of England.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, he should have been well content to wait for the opportunity which would be afforded them for the future discussion of this important question under ordinary circumstances; but in the present state of this question, and considering the effect which this discussion would have out of doors, he felt that it ought not to go further without his raising his voice upon it—he felt it was impossible for him not to give utterance to the conclusion at which be had arrived upon it after a very careful investigation of the matter. He had taken for many years a very deep interest in the welfare of the Colonial Church, and he had consequently been led into habits of personal intercourse with the right rev. Prelates at the head of the Church in Canada. It was with no small pain, therefore, that he found himself upon this occasion obliged by a sense of justice to come, upon this great question, to a conclusion the reverse
720
of theirs. But, as he had been brought to this conclusion, he thought it due to the public to state that such was his opinion, and briefly to state the reasons why he had formed it. The first, the chief, and indeed he might say the whole consideration which had brought him to this conclusion was this—that in answer to the Parliament of Canada, requiring not the confiscation of the clergy reserves—far from it, as he should presently show—but calling upon the Imperial Parliament to give them the power of dealing with them, he thought that a claim of justice was involved; and if he was right in supposing that a claim of justice was involved, then no views of expediency as regarded any religious body should with him ever stand in the way of its acknowledgment. He thought there was a claim of justice, and that this claim could be stated in a few words. The British Legislature had given, or professed to have given, the Canadians the power of settling their own internal affairs. They had given them a responsible Ministry. What, then, was the meaning of this boon if, on matters affecting the internal concerns of the colonists —in which, probably, the opinions of the Imperial Parliament would lie one way and the opinions of the colonial Parliament the other—they did not allow the Colonial Parliament, and not the Imperial Parliament, to settle the question, provided they did not touch imperial interests, or subjects upon which the Imperial Parliament itself was precluded from legislating? He said that if that was the position in which they stood, they were bound in justice to admit their claim when they made it, unless you can show that it is a question of imperial interest, or a matter so reserved that it cannot be touched, even by the Imperial Parliament itself. If they had made over all that is not Imperial to the settlement of the Colonial Parliament, they must allow them, on every separate point, to decide, unless they could show that the Imperial Parliament itself was precluded from legislating on the matter. Now, was the Imperial Parliament precluded from legislating on this subject? The noble Earl, with his masterly power of eloquence, and his surpassing skill in putting a case plainly and strongly, so as to carry it home to the convictions of every one who heard him, had argued in favour of maintaining intact the endowments of the English Church. Now, he (the Bishop of Oxford) went entirely along with the

721
noble Earl in his desire to effect that object, if it were at all practicable; but he was of opinion that the argument of the noble Earl would not at all hold good, and, therefore, much as he desired to arrive at the same conclusion as the noble Earl, he felt himself driven, as an honest man, and by the process of his understanding, to adopt an opposite conclusion. The noble Earl had rested his case on two principles. The first was, that the Imperial Legislature of 1791 had so completely dealt with the question that it was not just afterwards to legislate upon it; because, in point of fact, the property was so alienated to the purposes of the Church that it could not afterwards become a subject of legislative interference. Now, he {the Bishop of Oxford) maintained that the very words of the Act of 1791 itself, allowing interference "from time to time," was utterly inconsistent with that conclusion. The noble Earl had quoted the opinion of the Judges to strengthen his conclusion on this point; but he begged their Lordships to remember that the opinion of the Judges was given, not as to what was the abstract right of the property as a subject of legislation, but as to what was the particular power of the Colonial Parliament under the existing legislation. Now, that entirely changed the aspect of the case, and took away the whole force of the noble Earl's argument as drawn from the legislation of 1791—because at that time, as the law then stood, the Imperial Parliament could deal with it, the Colonial Parliament could not. But by a recent dealing, they had put the Colonial Parliament in the same position in which the Imperial Parliament was then. In 1840 both Houses of Parliament at home, and the Crown, had assented to an Act which, according to the noble Earl's argument, was spoliation and sacrilege. The noble Earl held that in 1791 the reserves were so entirely set aside for the benefit of the Church of England, or "the Protestant clergy," that it was not competent now to deal with them. If this were so, the 1,369 l. per annum which was given to the Roman Catholics in 1840 was a most direct act of spoliation and sacrilege, according to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter). He contended, then, that the legislation of 1840, to which the right rev. Prelate was an actively assenting Member, cut down altogether the argument that the legislation of 1791 had so dealt with the property
722
that it could be a subject of legislative interference no more. But the noble Earl said, that the Act of 1840 did so guarantee the property that that legislation, at all events, was final, and that they had no right to deal with it any more. He (the Bishop of Oxford) perfectly admitted that certain strong language was used as to the Act of 1840 being a final settlement; but what great question had ever been settled by Parliament of which some sanguine men had not dreamt that the settlement was final? Only a few years ago the finality of reform was preached in the other House of Parliament as a reason for agreeing for a Reform Bill which had proved anything but final. Was not that always the case? He confessed that, on principle, he entertained great apprehensions when he heard the words "finality" and human legislation come together. Finality with reference to distinct principles of right and wrong, and finality with regard to different interests and questions of expediency, were very different things. Human legislation must be widely different from what it was at present when we should be able to argue backwards, that because some sanguine legislator had declared a measure to be final, therefore all future legislation on the subject must be impossible and unjust. It appeared to him that legislation could only be final in a case such as this: when two independent parties, each of whom had the right of dissenting, agreed upon a common conclusion, which would take from one of the assenting parties the right of dissenting or of resuming his position in future; such a case, for instance, was that of two independent legislatures agreeing to an act of union, where one of the assenting parties was by that act put in a different position from what it occupied when the compact was entered into. But was there anything of this sort in the legislation of 1840? He was astonished when he heard people say that the legislation of 1840 was to be final. If the legislation of 1840 had been only upon general principles, as opposed to considerations of right or wrong, final, then it came into the category of all human legislation, and must be revised. He contended that it had always been so understood by the members of our own Church; and this was proved by the application which had been made by the Bishops of Quebec and Montreal for changing the rectories of those countries, which involved an entire alteration of the Act of 1840.

723
That was a good alteration, he admitted, but still it was altogether incompatible with the argument that the Act of 1840 was a final arrangement. And then consider for a moment what he had already alluded to—the despatch of the late Colonial Secretary (Sir John Pakington). One part of this subject had not, he thought, been fully brought out; it was this—if the measure of 1840 were a final settlement at all, it was a final settlement of that which from 1823 to 1840 had been disturbing and tearing into pieces the colony—and what was that? It was the question of the degrees and proportions in which the property should be distributed among the different religious teachers. If the Act of 1840 was to be final, it was to be final on the subject matter to which it related, and that matter was the partition of the common sum among the various recipients. He came to the conclusion, then, that neither by its original constitution, nor by its understanding as tested afterwards by different parties, was there anything more than the natural hope of settling long disputed quarrels, to give to the Act of 1840 any title to be considered as a final legislation upon the subject. If that were the case then, the question returned again—what was there to justify Her Majesty's Government in saying to the Canadian Legislature that they would reserve this subject when they had professed to leave to their own control all subjects of internal legislation? It was upon this principle that his mind had been made up. He granted that there were risks in giving this, as there were in giving any power to any set of men. The risks might be great, and involving various interests; but one thing was dearer to him than any such considerations—that was to do justice; and, even in this highest subject-matter, he would say, Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum." But there was another consideration, and he said that there was in the whole treatment of this question another difficulty. They were told, "then you really are going to agree to a confiscation?" He owned to no such thing. If the question were proposed, "Will you vote for secularising these reserves? no voice should be more distinct, no vote more emphatic, than the negative which he should give to such a proposition. He knew very well how that might be taken advantage of in debate. He knew it might be said, as it had been said, that if you gave to a man
724
who was going to do an evil deed the power of doing it, you did it yourself; and that if you lent a man a knife to commit a murder, you became a guilty participator and accomplice. His right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Exeter) would pardon him if he thought the argument illogical and the illustration bad. The argument was illogical, for it turned altogether upon a double use of the word "power." If we had already given to the Canadian Legislature the right to deal with this question when they asked it, and they came and asked it, we did not now give them the power; it had been given them already when we gave them the right which he now contended for. He thought that the illustration also was bad, and that the true illustration was this:—He would suppose one who had committed to him the guardianship of a minor with large estates; that he had faithfully nursed those estates; that his ward at last reached his majority; and that he saw in his ward's character certain evidences, that as soon as he obtained possession of his estates he would recklessly squander and dissipate them, and that in courses which would bring misery and sorrow to himself. The guardian said, "What am I to do to prevent such a result? If I make these estates freely over to him, he will dissipate them. What I do by another I do by myself, and I shall be guilty of their dissipation." Was he, therefore, to withhold these estates? The true way in which he should act was this:—He should say, "I will use all legitimate means, all affectionate influences, all wise advice to counsel him on his conduct, but I will be guilty of no act of injustice. I must conceal no deed, and must hide nothing which will give him immediate possession of his lawful rights, because I foresee that if he gets them he may injure himself in the use which he will make of them." Now, here was the application:—We had given a majority to our colonies. We felt that if we allowed them to exercise the privileges of one of age, they would use them to their own injury. Then, he said, let us do all that in us lay by affectionate advice and wise counsel to prevent that abuse; let us give them their power in such a way as that they would be the least likely to abuse it; let us accompany the gift by everything which wisdom could suggest to prevent the evil we feared; but let us not unjustly withhold, through our apprehensions, that which they had already a right

725
to enjoy. This was the principle which should guide his judgment. He was anxious to suggest, however, to the Government, one safeguard which violated no principle. He meant that the power which we were about to give to the Canadian Parliament to deal with thi3 matter might most justly be reserved in its operation until the election of another Parliament, which would know practically that it was about to deal with this question. He felt convinced that nothing could he so injurious to that religious body of which he was, he trusted, a faithful, certainly a devoted member—that nothing could be so fatal to its interests in the colonies as to separate it by our legislation from colonial interests, and to lead it to ally itself and to trust to strength ministered to it from home. He wished to allow our Church in the colonies a large liberty in spiritual matters—a liberty as large for all the arrangements of its internal concerns as was compatible with its connexion with the Church at home. He held that he should be one of the most inconsistent of men if, having condemned altogether the opposition which was made in the last Session of Parliament, by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, to any attempt practically to give that power in spiritual things to the colonies, he now joined in the cry that, in giving a parallel power in matters temporal, we were doing anything short of a direct act of justice. He did not undervalue what the evil would be if this property were ever secularised. He clearly saw the exceeding importance to a country like Canada of maintaining intact such a reserve for the payment of its religious teachers. He saw plainly that the consuming of such a reserve upon mere secular matters would be a degree of folly which would be barely equalled by consuming the seed corn of a colony, which could alone reproduce its future nourishment. He had, therefore, the strongest hope, if the colonies were only generously dealt with, that we should see no such confiscation of the clergy reserves; nor could be make his consent to this measure depend upon such a possibility, because he relied upon the bare claim of right and justice; but the way to prevent the colonies behaving in that foolish manner with their property was to treat them in a confiding spirit at home. The noble Lord the late Under Secretary for the Colonies (the Earl of Desart) had argued as if there was no doubt that the Canadian Legislature in-
726
tended to secularise this property the moment they obtained the power. But why suggest to them that which was evil? On what ground did the noble Earl say that? Because they had refused the offer made by the Imperial Parliament to reconsider this question from time to time. That was a ground which was given to them in that House; but it was not the ground which was given by themselves. On the contrary, they said, "What we want is, not that you and the Imperial Parliament should from time to time reconsider, but that you should give us outright to consider it for ourselves, and then we will do that which is just." So far was the question of the clergy reserves being a settled question, that the Wesleyan. Conference in Canada had considered the question more suo, and had come to the conclusion unanimously that it was not a denominational but a provincial question, and, therefore, without at all committing themselves as to what they would do with the allotment if they got the power, they would join unanimously in seeking to get the power, because it was the right of the province to have it. It should be observed that the great estates of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada were held by a title which was not more secure than that which, the Protestant Church had to the clergy reserves; and upon giving the colonial legislature the power to deal with the latter, what would be more likely than that we should unite the two bodies whom circunastances bad separated? By giving them a common interest they might be got to act in common. He must say that it could not be hoped that the Protestant Church of England would flourish in Canada so long as the people of that country were led to believe that, against their will, this Church, was supported in its exclusive privileges by a majority in the British Parliament. He said, and he said it solemnly, that he believed our colonial Church had a great work to do in this world. He believed that with the spread of our nation, of our language, of our institutions, and of our blood, we had the charge from God of carrying the purest form of His revealed Church throughout the whole world. He believed, above all things, that it was essential to him as a member of that Church that he should do what in him lay to free her from any fetter which could impede her spiritual action and disable her from her high emprise. He believed from experience, as he believed from theory, that

727
to represent to our colonies the Church as an endowed section, maintained from the mother country in hostility to their own feelings, was, of all ways, the most certain to deprive her of her utility. He believed it was established as a matter of demonstration to any fair man, that nothing could be so fatal to the Church in the colonies as that sort of treatment at home. He believed they would find, that so long as the Church in what was now the United States was taught to depend upon the support which it received from the Parliament at home, so long it was weak spiritually, and distrusted by the population, and timid and fearful in itself. But, so soon as it was set free, it began to regain its vigour. The strange argument which had been employed by his right rev. Friend from the facts connected with the endowments of the Church in the United States, seemed to him to tell with overwhelming force in the opposite direction. There were continued attempts to upset these endowments so long as they depended, not upon the affections of the people, but upon the British Parliament; but when the question of those endowments became no longer a matter of provincial right, but of spiritual expediency, those States did preserve—to their honour be it spoken—those endowments. He saw no reason whatever to doubt (if the minds of the people of Canada were not already too much alienated by our legislation) that they would follow the wise example which had been set by the people of the United States, and that, having received a just power, they would deal with it righteously and wisely.
The BISHOP of EXETERsaid, that what his right rev. Friend had said of his (the Bishop of Exeter's) having supported the measure of 1840 was not only not true, but was quite contradictory to the truth. Grateful as he was, therefore, that his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) should do him the honour to quote from him, he should feel obliged if, upon another occasion, he would take the trouble to quote correctly. There might have been more than one division, certainly, and he could not charge his memory with all that took place; but this he remembered perfectly, that so far from assenting to that measure, he had done his utmost to oppose it, and in Committee he had moved the insertion of the word "Protestant" for the very purpose of preventing that which his right rev. Friend had charged him with desiring to effect. Upon that
728
occasion he had even gone so far as to divide the House, but he had been beaten. His right rev. Friend had objected to his illustration, and had favoured their Lordships with what he called the "true illustration." Upon that subject he left the two before the House; but he would venture now to suggest some little fallacy in the illustration which his right rev. Friend had employed. He said that the case was as if he were trustee for a minor, and, though he saw that the minor would dissipate all his fortune, yet he must give him up his fortune when he became of age. But the real illustration would have been, that there should be a reserve in the trust to the effect that he should have the enjoyment of the estate upon the payment of certain charges for the benefit of the Church in his parish. Would his right rev. Friend say that he was to dispense with that condition, and allow the minor to neglect altogether that reserve? His right rev. Friend contended that we had already conceded to Canada the right of legislating upon all domestic matters; but, if so, and this Bill came within that category, whence was the necessity of introducing it in the Imperial Parliament? It was because the right was withheld that their Lordships were called upon to consider the whole question; it was because the colonial legislature had not had these reserves surrendered to it, that their Lordships had still to consider whether they would surrender them to it. Then, again, his right hon. Friend had told them, that if Parliament treated the colonial legislature generously, they would behave generously and justly. But how had this liberal colonial legislature behaved already? There was a college in Canada, founded and endowed by the British Government, and it was the earnest desire of William IV. that there should be instituted a Professor of Divinity in that college. What had become of that endowment? Why, the very liberal local legislature had swept away the whole of it, had prohibited religious instruction from being given within the walls of the college, and had even made ineligible as members of the governing body any minister of religion.
LORD REDESDALErose to order. The right rev. Prelate was going far beyond the limits of explanation. It was quite contrary to the rules of the House to introduce new matter in explaining that which had been misunderstood by previous speakers. If irregularities like these were

729
permitted, there would be no end to their Lordships' debates.
The BISHOP of OXFORD, for his part, did not mean to violate any of the rules which regulated their Lordships' debates; but he had to call upon his right rev. Brother of Exeter for an explanation. Their Lordships need not apprehend that this demand for an explanation would involve a hostile meeting; but, all a churchman's humility of mind, all a Bishop's meekness of spirit made allowance for, he must really put it to his right rev. Brother, that it was not agreeable to hear it roundly stated that what one had said was not only not true, but was wholly contradictory to truth. He would really suggest that such phrases as these had better not be bandied about. He was quite aware that his right rev. Brother had divided the House upon the word to which he had referred; but there was much in the measure which his right rev. Brother should, on the same principle, have resisted, but which he had not resisted, either by vote or by protest.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that if ever there was a question on which finality ought to be observed, it was the measure which assigned to the Protestant clergy in Canada these reserves. At that hour he would not trespass long on their Lordships' time. The simple proposition on which he proceeded was, that the Canadian Legislature had no right whatever to deal with the property of the Church in Canada. Such a right was never given to that legislature; on the contrary, the maintenance intact of these clergy reserves was one of the conditions of the Canadian constitution conceded by this country. Were Canada to become independent, the question might assume a different form; but so long as its dependence on this country subsisted, that condition would subsist also. His right rev. Friend had spoken of the secularisation of the property under the proposed change as a far remote contingency—a vision: but he must confess, after maturely considering the history of the proceedings of the colonial legislature, that such a result appeared to him by no means a vision, and anything but remote. He would quite as soon trust to the Canadian Legislature the disposal of the clergy reserves, with the notion that it would deal generously with them, as he would trust the lamb to the wolf. Assuredly, if the language of his right rev. Brother of Oxford were based on truth and jnstice, he did not see on what grounds any Church endowments could be maintained.
730
With slight variation, the arguments of his right rev. Brother applied to the case of Churches nearer at home. It appeared to him (the Bishop of London) that the clergy reserves of Canada were a sacred trust placed in the hands of the Imperial Parliament; and that to permit the alienation of any portion of that fund, more especially at a crisis like the present, would be a criminal abandonment of that trust, a flagitious violation of a sacred compact. As he looked upon the property placed in the hands of the Church at home as a trust reposed in her for the diffusion of the light of the truth through the two kingdoms, so he recognised the property given to the Church in Canada as being the means to enable her to disseminate Christianity through that colony, and he should feel that he was weakening the hands of those who preached the gospel were he to consent to this measure. Consider the state of things in Canada; look at the tide of civilisation flowing thither year after year, at its accession of immortal souls year after year, numbering in each twelvemonth, he believed, not fewer than 50,000. What would become of this great population without spiritual instruction? And whence was it to derive spiritual instruction, except from the provision set apart in these reserves? Was England, then, after all, to stand alone in withholding from her distant dependencies that support which every Christian nation in the world deemed it a sacred duty to supply to those of its subjects who had left its shores for distant provinces within its realm? No colony, no dependency of France, with all her faults and with what he thought her erroneous religion, was left unprovided with a bishop and clergy of her National Church. Was it to be the reproach of England, that her dependencies alone were to be deprived of this consolation and support? It was only wonderful how-much the clergy of Canada had done with the miserable pittance placed at their disposal; a pittance which, were it equally divided among the 550 parishes of the province, would give to each clergyman no more than 75 l. per annum. There was no doubt that since 1840, when this question was thought to be finally settled, the Church in Canada had greatly progressed, and agitation against it greatly diminished, many had come within her pale—a, result attributable to the indefatigable energy of our clergy, and to the admirable manner in which their very limited resources had been husbanded

731
and applied to the best possible advantage. Now, however, they were proposing to take away these resources from those who were not independent of them, and who without them did not possses the means of disseminating the gospel. Earnestly, then, would he oppose any measure which went to deprive this valuable branch of our Church of means with which so much good was effected; a measure, too, which could only be justified upon principles which had been universally and most properly condemned, the principles of temporal expediency.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, that having so lately addressed their Lordships on this question, and having, as he anticipated, at no distant date, to address their Lordships, probably at some length, in explaining the measure which the Government had prepared on the subject, he should not have thought it necessary to go into any explanation of the Bill on the present occasion; and especially should he have deemed this unnecessary after the eloquent and powerful speech of the right rev. Prelate who had spoken last but one (the Bishop of Oxford), and who had supplied such cogent arguments for passing the measure about to be proposed to their Lordships. He should, then, have been well content for the present, to let the matter rest, had it not been for some observations which had fallen from the right rev. Prelate who had last addressed the House, and which appeared to him calculated to produce an erroneous impression out of doors, if not upon the minds of their Lordships. The right rev. Prelate, combating the opinion that the Canadian Legislature had a right to deal with these reserves, contended that no such right could exist, because, as he said, it was an essential condition to the Canadian constitution that these clergy reserves should be maintained intact. Now, on reviewing the whole history of this question, outlined by the noble Earl opposite, from 1775 to the present time, he (the Duke of Newcastle) had been wholly unable to trace any such condition. On the contrary, it appeared to him, at every stage of the case, perfectly clear that no such condition existed, or could be established. How stood the Act of 1791? Was there any condition imposed by that Act that these clergy reserves should be maintained inviolate? Quite the reverse; the 41st clause of that Act specifically vested a power of an alteration in the hands of the colonial legislature. Again, how
732
stood the Act of 1840? And here let him correct a fallacy, which had been put forward elsewhere by his right hon. predecessor in the Colonial Department (Sir J. Pakington), and again that evening in their Lordships' House—the fallacy, namely, which mixed up together the Canadian Clergy Reserves Act of 1840 with the Canadian Union Act of the same year as measures passed conditionally the one upon the other. Now, the Clergy Reserves Act of 1840 was as utterly distinct from, as utterly unconnected with, the Canada Union Act of 1840, as any two distinct things could be. It had been represented by the right hon. Baronet that there was a kind of bargain and condition when the union of the two provinces took place in 1840, that the Clergy Reserves Act should be passed to secure the Protestant Church. Now, not only was there no such condition or arrangement, but, in point of fact, the Canada Union Act was passed quite at the commencement of the Session of 1840, the Canada Clergy Reserves Act quite at its close, and in consequence of the failure of a measure which had been sent over from Canada on that subject. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) declared that he had no faith in the generosity of the Canadian Legislature; and that, judging from all experience, he would as soon trust a lamb to a wolf as these reserves to that Legislature. He was very sorry that the right rev. Prelate should employ such strong language, for phrases like these from such lips had a tendency to produce thier own fulfilment, as a natural effect of the irritation of those against whom the imputation was directed He knew not on what fact the right rev. Prelate based his opinion; but he should, on the proper occasion, be provided with documents to prove that, so far from its being the fact that the Canadian Legislature was antagonistic to the maintenance of our Church, it voted annually a considerable sum for the support of a college established, not merely for the education of members of the Church of England, but for the training of clergymen of the Church of England. He contended that we ought to discard the whole question of probabilities, and deal with the question of right, which he considered the right rev. Prelate near him (the Bishop of Oxford) was correct in saying belonged to the colonial legislature. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had cheered the right rev. Prelate when he said that

733
sooner than place in the hands of the local legislature the power of dealing with these reserves, he would prefer that Canada should be altogether independent—
The BISHOP of LONDONhad said no such thing; he had merely argued that not until Canada was independent could this power at all fairly fall within the scope of its Legislature.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEbegged pardon if he had misunderstood the effect of the right rev. Prelate's observations; but, at any rate, the noble Earl opposite distinctly said that he would sooner see Canada become independent of England, than see this right surrendered by the Imperial Parliament.
The EARL of DERBYmust correct the noble Duke's misconception. What he had said was, that he would rather see Canada, as an independent State, avowedly exercising this right, than see a Minister of the British Crown, professing responsibility in the matter, handing the power over to a dependent Legislature.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE, said, that the explanation of the noble Earl seemed to him a distinction without a difference. He would not, however, on the present occasion detain their Lordships with any further discussion of the subject; but, strongly protesting against the charge of spoliation or sacrilege—strongly maintaining that the proceedings of the late Government left the fact of the non-finality of the Act of 1840 clearly established—he Would sit down, trusting that, on the proper occasion, he should be able fully to justify the measure which Her Majesty's present Government had prepared on this important subject.
Petition to lie on the table.
House adjourned till To-morrow.