Sitting of 31 March 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. James, Greg. R. Walker, Somers, Briscoe, G. Langton, M. Philips, C. Berkeley, Wallace, Easthope, Thorneley, Marsland, H. Hinde, Wilbraham, Clay, Brotherton, O'Connell, Muntz, T. Duncombe, Ward, Macauley, Morrison, Redington, Hawes, John Martin, Hume, Baines, Slaney, Warburton, Gillon, B. Wood, the Attorney-general, Sirs M. Wood, J. C. Hobhouse, G. Staunton, Colonel Davies, and General Johnson, from several hundred places, for, and by Messrs. Pakington, G. Knight, Barneby, B. Baring, G. Palmer, C. C, Cavendish, Neeld, Round, Waddington, Basset,

287
Bagge, Darby, Sanford, J. Young, R. M. Milnes, Pringle, O'Gore, Sirs B. Hill, J. Tyrrell, C. Burrell, E. Knatchbull, Lord Worsley, the Earl of Lincoln, General Lygon, Captain Perceval, and Colonel Rushbrooke, from several hundred places, against, the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Goring, from Worthing, against the Grant to Maynooth College—By Mr. M. Philips, from the Beer Sellers of Manchester, to be placed on a footing with the Licensed Victuallers.—By Messrs. Blackburne, Christopher, and Moneypenny, from three places, for Church Extension.—By Sir J. Duke, from Boston, for opening the Beer Trade.—By Mr. Lockhart, from Lanark, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By the hon. H. T. Liddell, from the Dean and Chapter of Durham, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Stockport, for the Release of John Thorogood, and the Abolition of Church Rates; also against the Opium Trade.—By Lord Clements, from Carrickfergus, for an Extension of the Suffrage.—By Lord Sandon, from Liverpool, for Protection to the West India Produce; from Maidstone, against the Opium Trade; and from three places, for Protection to that same Trade.

THE KING OF HANOVER.
Mr. Horsmanwished to put a question to the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo relative to what was understood to have been stated by him the other night with regard to the King of Hanover. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was understood to deny the statement that application had been made, at the instance of her Majesty, to the King of Hanover, to allow his apartments in St. James's Palace to be occupied by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and that such application had been refused. Some days having now intervened, affording to the hon. and gallant Member an opportunity to obtain further information, he preferred inquiring of him whether he still persisted in that denial, to putting a question directly to the Government upon the subject.
Colonel Percevalsaid, he had not stated on the occasion alluded to, that no such application had been made to the King of Hanover. He said no such application had been made by the Duchess of Kent; and, lest any misconception should arise as to what fell from him on a matter of so much delicacy, after the observation of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, that what he had stated was new to him, he begged to remind the House that he rose immediately after the noble Lord had sat down, and requested, as an indulgence, to be allowed to read the statement he now held in his hand, and which, with the permission of the House, he would again read, as the best answer to the question which had been put to him. These were the very words of the statement;—
"It has been erroneously conceived that the
288
King of Hanover's apartments in St. James's Palace were required by the Duchess of Kent. In fact, her Royal Highness did not only not express any wish for them, but even asserted they would not suit her; and her Royal Highness was not pleased that her name had been made use of in connexion with them."
His statement was, not that no application had been made to the King of Hanover, but that the application was not made by the Duchess of Kent, and that the Duchess of Kent was dissatisfied that such application had been made. He might also say, that since Friday last he had been in communication not only with Sir F. Watson, but also with a Member of the Government, and he was authorized to say, first, that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had applied to the King of Hanover for the use of his apartments, which application had been refused, and that subsequently the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Lord Melbourne, had made the same application, which was also refused. He repeated his statement went only thus far—he denied that any such application had been made by the Duchess of Kent; and declared that her Royal Highness had expressed her disapprobation of the application.

PRIVILEGE—ARREST OF MR. HOWARD.
On the Motion of the Attorney-General,the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared at the bar, and acquainted the House that on Saturday last, the assistant-sergeant and four other officers of the House were served with a notice that a declaration in an action had been filed against them in the Court of Queen's Bench, at the suit of Thomas Burton Howard, and he had thought it his duty to obtain a copy of that declaration.
The declaration was then delivered in, and read by the clerk at the table. The damages were laid at 1,000 l.
The Attorney-Generalthen said, that in the absence of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, it became his duty to make a motion on this subject, in which he had the concurrence of his noble Friend. From the verbiage of the document which had just been read, it was difficult to discover either what was the exact form of the action to be brought, or what it was of which the plaintiff complained. It did not appear that he questioned the privileges of the House or the

289
legality of the warrant, but what he said was, that there was an excess of violence on the part of the officers of the House in the execution of that warrant. The hon. and learned Member for Ripon, whom he did not then see in his place, had, he believed, received a letter from Mr. Howard on that subject, and he himself had received one purporting to come from Mr. Laurie, Mr. Howard's solicitor, in which he stated that the complaint was of excess of violence on the part of the officers of that House. The question was, what course ought the House to adopt under these circumstances. He thought there could be no doubt, that whenever an action was brought involving the privileges of this House, the House had a right, and was called upon to interfere in a summary manner with its authority. He did not regret what the House had already done in vindication of its privileges; on the contrary, he thought that it had only exercised a constitutional and very wholesome power. The question, however, involved in the present case, was whether the officers of the House had been guilty of any excess in executing the warrant of the House; and this was a question which the House, and the House only, had a right to inquire into. The Court of Chancery, it was well known, would not allow an action to be brought against one of its officers for any alleged excess in the execution of their duty, but upon complaint made would cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances, would punish the offender if there had been any breach of duty on his part, and award compensation to the injured party. And was the House not to do the same by its officers if it thought proper? If any complaint were made by petition, alleging that its officers had acted improperly in the execution of the warrants of the House, it ought to interfere, inquire into the circumstances, and award such compensation as the case seemed to merit. But the question in this case was whether under all the circumstances, it would be expedient for the House to exercise this power in the present case. He thought as the privilege of the House had not been called in question by the plaintiff in this action, that the House should resolve, not that the Attorney-general should be instructed to appear and defend the action, but that the servants of the House, being the defendants in this case, should be
290
allowed to appear to and defend the action. For his own part, he had no doubt that it would be found that the defendants had been guilty of no excess in the execution of their duty, and that they had done no more than the warrant of the House justified and required them to do. It appeared that they had merely entered the house of Mr. Howard—that no opposition had been made to their so doing—that interchanges of civilities had passed between them and the parties in the House whilst they remained there—and that it was only after frequently calling, that they were enabled to execute the warrant against Mr. Howard. On such evidence as this, he (the Attorney-general) thought there must certainly be a verdict for the defendants, as they had done nothing more than their duty, and what the House required of them. He thought, under all these circumstances, that the most prudent and dignified course for the House to adopt, would be to allow the servants of the House (the defendants in this case) to appear to and defend the action; and he would therefore conclude with a motion to that effect.
Viscount Howickrose, and said, that it was not his intention to take up the time of the House by entering into any arguments against the course which the lion, and learned Gentleman had just advised the House to pursue in this matter, because he was well aware of the large majority that was ready to support that course. He could not, however, allow the House to submit to this further concession, and still more humiliating course than any to which they had already given way, without entering his protest against it. Any one who had listened to the lion, and learned Gentleman on this occasion, must have observed that he himself felt the humiliating submission which he was advising the House to enter into. He tells the House that the Court of Chancery would not suffer its privileges to be invaded by any law proceedings against its officers for an excess of duty, but would take into its own hands the punishment of those officers, and the compensation of the injured parties, if an excess had been committed; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman recommends the House of Commons to submit to what the Court of Chancery would not tolerate. It could not be denied, that the constitutional mode of proceeding would be for the parties

291
complaining of any excess of duty by the officer of the House to petition the House to punish the offending party, and compensate the injured. Why, then, was the strict Parliamentary course to be now departed from? What indulgence, he would ask, did the complaining party here deserve from the House of Commons. Mr. Howard had brought repeated actions questioning their privileges, and he was now in Newgate for that offence, and he had never yet offered to make the slightest concession. This was the person for whom they were to depart from the usual constitutional course. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, he is confident that no trespass has been committed, and that such will be the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now he was confident of no such thing. After the decisions to which that court had already come upon this subject, directly opposed as they were to all former decisions, he had no confidence whatever in that court. The Court of Queen's Bench might lay it down, that the officers of the House had no right to enter Mr. Howard's house at all; and there might be found many other grounds on which the court would decide against the defendants. The House was now about to submit itself unequivocally and for ever to the Courts of Law. This was the consequence of the false step they had taken by introducing the bill which they had passed the other night. They must hold all their privileges for evermore at the discretion of the Courts of Law, and must submit to have every exercise of their power questioned in those courts. "I, for one," said the noble Viscount," will not be responsible for the adoption of this humiliating and injurious course; for if I stand alone I will give my negative to the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman."
Mr. O'Connellquite agreed in the views of the noble Lord who had just spoken upon this subject. The House had over and over again by resolution asserted its privileges by large majorities. There was an unanimous opinion amongst all legal men in the House, that the Court of Queen's Bench was wrong. Not only those on his side, but also the very eminent Gentlemen on the other side. They might differ as to the reasons, but they all unanimously came to the same conclusion, that the Court of Queen's Bench was wrong. The jury might be so di-
292
rected by the judge, and might have given the entire of the 1,000 l. at which the damages were laid; or the judge might for the trespass direct the jury to give one farthing, and the jury, turning rampant, might give the whole amount at which the damages were laid. The House was then asked to do what the Court of Chancery would not condescend to do—and was virtually called upon to affix a limit to its privileges—by submitting to a court of law the time (whether two minutes, or two minutes and a half, and that by a stop watch, perhaps) in which the officers of the House would be justified in remaining in the house of a person to whom the Speaker's warrant might be directed. Such a shrinking from the assertion of its privileges on a former occasion had involved the House already in difficulty, and would involve it in further difficulty. It would be a much more eligible course to examine the officers of the House at the bar, to ascertain from them what they had done Mr. Howard would then have an opportunity of contradicting or affirming their statements by a petition to the House, and could, as he had already done, communicate with such Members of the House as he thought most likely to support him. He could also claim compensation from the House for whatever (if any) excess in the discharge of their duties had been committed by the officers of the House; but he must protest against the question being referred to the Court of Queen's Bench or to any other legal tribunal, because the consequence of such reference would create a conviction in the public mind, when they saw the House shrinking from the assertion of its privileges, that no such right or privilege did exist.
Mr. T. Duncombeadmitted the imputation which had been thrown out against him by the hon. and learned Member who had last spoke, of having been in correspondence with Mr. Howard. [Mr. O'Connell said, that he alluded to the hon. and learned Member for Ripon.] Yes, but the same remark applies equally to me. The hon. and learned Member for Ripon, and it seemed the Attorney-general also as well as himself, had been in communication with Mr. Howard, who on that occasion did not complain against the warrant or its just execution, but he complained because it had been illegally executed. In fact, he complained of excess being committed by the officers

293
of the House; that his house had been broken open; that the officers were ten hours in possession of his house and created great disturbance. For that outrage he sought compensation from the laws of his country—and to that redress, supposing; the excess to have been committed, he was justly entitled. It was said that Mr. Howard might petition the House for redress. Mr. Howard had had already experience sufficient of the mode in which redress had been given to petitioners by that House. Mr. Howard had written a letter, dated Newgate, March 12, 1840, stating that had not Mr. Gossett kept out of the reach of the service of the writ, the declaration would have long since been filed, and notice of such declaration served upon him. For that reason he hoped for the support of hon. Members to oppose the bill (the Printed Papers Bill) then in progress through the House, and to prevent his becoming the object of ex post facto legislation, by depriving him of the redress to which he would be entitled in a Court of Law for the excess committed by the officers of the House. In his opinion Mr. Howard was perfectly right not to petition the House for redress—for no attention would be paid by the House to his petition or to its prayer. A petition had been presented from Mr. Stockdale a short time ago, and it was decided that the petition was an insult to the House, and that it ought not to be received. It was read twice, and he sincerely believed that if it had been read the third time it would be received; for many hon. Members, not knowing their own minds, had followed the opinions propounded by the two noble Lords who took so prominent a part in rejecting that petition, and if an opportunity offered of reconsidering that opinion they would vole for its admission. Mr. Howard was of right in appealing to a Court of Law. Did the House, on a former occasion, interfere and prevent Sir Francis Burdett from taking an action against Mr. Speaker Abbot? Was that hon. Baronet then told to petition the House, and seek redress from its justice for the excess which formed the ground of his action against the Speaker? No such intimation was given by the House, and if it were offered it would not very probably be accepted.
Mr. Prymecontended that there was no such plea in the declaration as that of
294
excess; so that the superstructure of the argument of the hon. Member who had last spoken entirely failed. The declaration stated the trespass of entering his house, &c.; and it was only in the replication to the pleading of the defendant that the excess could be pleaded. He would support the motion.
Sir W. Follettapproved of the course suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and cited the recent instance where the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to make a return to the writ of habeas corpus issued by the sheriffs, when the Court of Queen's Bench decided that they would not inquire into any thing but the Speaker's warrant. When the question of compensation in damages for the alleged excess came before the Court of Queen's Bench, it would, no doubt, adopt a similar course of proceeding, and the question at issue between Mr. Hansard and the officer of the House was one which was strictly a question for a Court of Law and a jury to decide. No such intimation as that suggested by the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland land, had been given to Sir F. Burdett who brought an action against the Sergeant-at-Arms (as well as the Speaker) for an excess in the discharge of his duty.
The Attorney-Generalin reply protested against the imputation of concession or retractation of the privileges of the House, which had been urged against him.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid that it was a duty which he owed himself to give his unqualified and utter dissent to the course then pursued by his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General. He did so with regret; but he did it from paramount self-justice.
The House divided. Ayes 142; Noes 51— Majority 91.

List of the AYES.

Alston, R.

Bruce, Lord E.

Bailey, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Buck, L. W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Buller, C.

Barnard, E. G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Barneby, J.

Clay, W.

Barry, G. S.

Clerk, Sir G.

Basset, J.

Collier, J.

Bethell, R.

Compton, H. C.

Blackburne, I.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Bradshaw, J.

Darby, G.

Briscoe, J. I.

Darlington, Earl of

Broadley, H.

Denison, W. J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Dick, Q.

295

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mahon, Viscount

Duffield, T.

Marton, G.

Duke, Sir J.

Maunsell, T. P.

Duncombe, T.

Milnes, R. M.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Monypenny, T. G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Du Pre, G.

Muskett, G. A.

Egerton, W. T.

Neeld, J.

Eliot, Lord

Neeld, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Nicholl, J.

Fitzalan, Lord

Norreys, Lord

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Paget, F.

Fitzsimon, N.

Pakington, J. S.

Fleming, J.

Palmer, R.

Follett, Sir W.

Palmer, G.

Forester, hon. G.

Parker, R. T.

Fort, J.

Patten, J. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gaskell, J. M.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Phillpotts, J.

Gordon, R.

Planta, right hon. J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Polhill, F.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Praed, W. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Pusey, P.

Grimsditch, T.

Richards, R.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Rolleston, L.

Hawes, B.

Round, C. G.

Hayter, W. G.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Heneage, E.

Sheppard, T.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Slaney, R. A.

Herbert, hon. S.

Smith, R. V.

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hodgson, F.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hodgson, R.

Stewart, J.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hope, hon. C.

Sturt, H. C.

Hope, G. W.

Style, Sir C.

Houstoun, G.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hughes, W. B.

Thesiger, F.

Hurt, F.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H,

Turner, W.

Jackson, Serjeant

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

James, W.

Vernon, G. H.

Johnstone, H.

Villiers, Viscount

Jones, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Kemble, H.

Waddington, H. S.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Wall, C. B.

Ward, H. G.

Lambton, H.

Wilshere, W.

Langdale, hon. C.

Winnington, Sir T. E

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Winnington, H. J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Wyndham, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wyse, T.

Lister, E. C.

Yates, J. A.

Lucas, E.

Young, J.

Lygon, hon. General

TELLERS.

Mackenzie, T.

Campbell, Sir J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Busfeild, W.

Beamish, F. B.

Corbally, M. E.

Bellew, R. M.

Courtenay, P.

Bewes, T.

Craig, W. G.

Brabazon, Lord

Davis, Colonel

Brodie, W. B.

Divett, E.

Brotherton, J.

Dundas, F.

296

Edwards, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Evans, Sir De L.

Protheroe, E.

Evans, W.

Pryme, G.

Ewart, W.

Redington, T. N.

Fenton, J.

Rundle, J.

Finch, F.

Sanford, E. A.

Gisborne, T.

Scholefield, J.

Hector, C. J.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Horsman, E.

Turner, E.

M'Taggart, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Marsland, H.

Warburton, H.

Martin, J.

White, A.

Melgund, Viscount

Wilbraham, G.

Morris, D.

Williams, W.

Muntz, G. F.

Wood, B.

O'Brien, W. S.

O'Connell, D.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, J.

Howick, Viscount

O'Connell, M. J.

Wilde, Sir T.

INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES.
Mr. C. Bullerrose lo move for the following papers, without which, he stated that the reports of the Commissioners for Inquiring into Charities would be useless:—
An Analytical Digest of the whole body of Reports made by the Commissioners for Inquiring into Charities, upon the plan adopted in a digest relating to certain counties, in pursuance of an order of this House made on the 27th day of March, 1835. Also a more particular digest of all schools and charities for education reported on by the said commissioners, setting forth, as far as appears from the said reports—1. The date and mode of foundation. 2. To what persons the government is intrusted. 3. To whom the patronage belongs. 4. Whether there is any special visitor. 5. The qualifications required in the masters. 6. The instructions prescribed. 7. Who are entitled to the freedom of the school. 8. Whether any exhibitions are attached to it, and whether they are made available. 9. The amount of the income, distinguishing whether it is improvable or not. 10. The state of the school at the time of the inquiry, with the date thereof, as regards the instructions afforded therein, and the number of free and other scholars, with a note of such observations as the Commissioners may have made on the case; and that such Digest may distinguish and classify such schools and charities in the following manner—first, all schools in which Greek or Latin is required to be, or in fact is taught; secondly, all other schools: thirdly all charities for the purposes of education not limited to any particular local establishment. Also, Return of all Charities for the poor of any parish or district, the income whereof is or may be distributed in money, fuel, or other articles, with a note of such observations as the Commissioners may have made, on the case distinguishing and

297
classifying such charities as follows—first, those given for the poor, or the use or benefit of the poor, without any directions or reputed directions by the donor as to the description of poor persons, or the mode of distribution; secondly, those as to which the donor has or is reputed to have limited the application only by describing the objects as poor and receiving parish relief; thirdly, those in which the donor has or is reputed to have given some other directions as to the selection of the objects of the charity, or as to the mode of distribution. Also an alphabetical index to the whole."
Sir R. Peelhad stated last year that he thought it highly desirable that some summary remedy should be adapted for the abuses pointed out by the commissioners. He knew several cases of endowments for the education of the poor in which, owing to the neglect of the trustees the proper number of trustees had not been filled up, and consequently the acts of the present trustees were invalid. Hence they had no control over the education provided in those institutions. In one case with which he was acquainted the original appointment was, that there should be four trustees. There were now only three, owing to neglect of re-election. The master of the school had been appointed by the requisite number, and therefore his appointment being legal his removal by three trustees would be invalid. In these circumstances, no power could be had to review his acts or control the appropriation of the revenue, except by an application to the Court of Chancery. The endowment was 30 l. a-year, which, if properly applied, would suffice for the education of the whole parish, and as the application to Chancery would cost 70 l., he did not think himself justified in advising them to sacrifice two years' income for the purpose. He thought it of great importance to education, and with reference to the original intentions of the testators, that some simple mode should be devised of application to a proper tribunal to provide that the trustees should be properly appointed. Such a measure might be attended with very valuable results, and he hoped the Attorney-General would turn his attention to the subject.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the object was one of great national importance. No doubt, the endowments for education were not of one tenth part the benefit that they might be. He should be glad if a good measure could be framed, but there would often be very great diffi-
298
culty in carrying into effect the wishes of the testator, or in finding what he would wish at present if he were summoned back to this world.
Mr. Hopesaid, he had long thought that the best means of settling doubts oil this subject would be through the appointment of a secretary for grammar schools, by whom applications might be made to the Master in Chancery.
Mr. Estcourtwould mention another instance of an endowment, where there was an insufficient number of trustees, and the funds were consequently misapplied. He also knew a case where some of the trustees wished to resign their trusts, owing to infirmity, but though the funds were ample, the invalid trustees were going on in the office, rather than apply the funds to the expenses of an application to Chancery for the power to resign.
Mr. Slaneysaid, it was absolutely necessary for the interests of the poor that some cheaper and more effectual mode should be found for securing the appropriation monies which had been left for their education. Some system of inspection over trustees ought to be adopted. A great number of these trustees were persons in the humbler classes, who wished that the education given should be narrowed rather than extended; and he knew one instance where, whenever an examination of the scholars took place, the trustees used to rejoice rather when the children could not spell, because they said that they would make better servants.
Mr. J. Stewartwas satisfied that the Court of Chancery without any new machinery was a proper tribunal for the rectification of these abuses. A great portion of the expense of an application, fees namely, for filing bills and for briefs, would be avoided by authorizing an application to the master without going to the court at all.
Motion agreed to.

CANADA—CLERGY RESERVES.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, deep as were his feelings of indignation with regard to the whole nature of the Clergy Reserves Bill, and strong as his opinions were as to the want of policy of that act, he should, nevertheless, not go into a discussion on that wide subject on an incidental motion of this kind. The returns for which he was about to move were such as the House had a right

299
to expect. If the Clergy Reserve Bill remained on the table of the House thirty days, it became the law of the land; the House ought not, therefore, to be left in ignorance on this subject. He was inclined to suspect either that the Colonial-office did not know the extent of this bill, or that it was disposed to conceal it from the House. They had a right to expect distinct and explicit information on this subject. He had a right to ask that they should have distinct return on the table of the limitations to be made. He therefore moved for
"A return of 'the religious bodies or denominations of Christians,' who would be entitled, in the event of the Royal assent being given to the Clergy Reserve Bill, passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada, to receive a portion of the proceeds of the reserved lands."
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, without saying a word on the Clergy Reserves Bill, he entertained an opinion as directly opposite to that of the hon. Member as words could express. He denied that there was any intention of concealment. He believed it was his noble Friend's (Lord J. Russell's) intention to lay the acts and ordinances on the table; further than that he did not think that the information which the hon. Gentleman seemed to require, could be obtained in this country. If the hon. Member wrote to Canada, he apprehended his object would be answered, though too late to be of use. He did not wish to oppose the motion; he only gave the hon. Member warning, that the probable answer would be "no return in the Colonial-office of this country," which would involve the necessity of writing to the colonies, and the information would arrive too late to be of use before the passing of this measure.
Sir R. Inglistrusted that without the necessity of writing to Canada, the hon. Member would find either in the library of that or the other House of Parliament, sufficient information on the subject.
Motion agreed to.

LORD SEATON'S PENSION.
Mr. J. Parkerbrought up the Report on Lord Seaton's Pension.
On the question that it be agreed to.
Sir R. Inglissaid, in the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he gave notice, that in a subsequent stage of this bill, be should
300
call the attention of the House to the unequal measure of justice which had been awarded to another governor of that colony, Sir Francis Head. He did not object to the honour awarded to Lord Seaton, but he felt also that in the case of Sir F. Head—[Mr. Hume;—Hear.] He could understand that cheer perfectly from the friend of Mr. Mackenzie. When he considered how that man was put down not, as had the day before been stated by Sir J. Colborne, but by Sir F. Head, he could understand that what he had stated should be disagreeable to the hon. Member. He considered that under Providence, Sir Francis Head had done great service to this country, and he trusted that there would be found some occasion in which he might justifiably call the attention of her Majesty's Government to the meritorious services of that Gentleman. He was most unwilling to make that House the dispenser of the favours of the Crown. He held that they should come from the unprompted liberality of the Crown, and the unprompted sense of public services; but when he saw such services so long neglected, he felt that it was due to the public character of this country to draw the attention of her Majesty's Government to them.
Sir C. B. Veresaid, whenever the House should be called on to assent to any declaration of the services of Sir Francis Head, he hoped it would be by a measure totally distinct and separate from any other.
Mr. Humesaid, that when this motion about Sir Francis Head should be brought forward, he should be quite ready to prove that that man who had been branded as "a traitor" to his country, would, under circumstances of success have been called a "patriot." He could prove, and would pledge himself to prove that Sir Francis Head did not deserve the character which the right hon. Baronet had given to him. He should be very glad to prove, when the right hon. Baronet brought forward his motion, who were the parties who did put down that rebellion.
Report agreed to.

SALE OF BEER.
Mr. Pakingtonmoved that the Sale of Beer Bill (No. 2) be now read a second time.
Mr. R. Alstonrose to oppose the motion. This bill, which purported to be a measure to afford facilities for the sale of beer, would, if passed into a law, effect a

301
positive, entire, and total repeal of the Sale of Beer Act—a measure which, in his opinion, had been of the greatest possible advantage to the industry of the country. Let any man, knowing the country districts, but look to the 3rd and 14th sections of this bill, and he roust see that its effect would be such as he (Mr. R. Alston) had stated. The 3rd section disqualified a person from having a beer license who was not rated at 15 l. per year—an amount unknown in many rural districts; and the 14th section provided, that no license should be granted except upon the certificate of six individuals, each rated at 12 l.; so that, in fact, licenses in many parts of the country could not be obtained; and hence the present Beer Act would virtually be repealed. He could not think the amount of rating was any test of a man's respectability; and with such clauses as those to which he had alluded in the bill—clauses which could not, he thought, be altered in committee—he would not allow the bill to receive the sanction of a second reading. On these grounds, and remembering, also, that at present there were no less than 45,000 licensed beer-shops in which property had been invested by brewers who had taken up the trade to supply them—remembering, also, the interference which the bill would have with such property, he should move, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. Jamesseconded the amendment. He admitted all the evils attributed to the present system of beer-shops, but still he thought the present bill would not have the effect of remedying those evils. The mode of improving the moral condition of the working people was not by interfering with the beer shops, but by the establishment of an improved system of police, and by the adoption of means for the better education of the people. At all events, so convinced was he of the inutility of the proposed measure as far as his county was concerned, that if the bill went into committee, he should move that Cumberland be excluded from the operation of the bill.
Mr. R. Palmersaid, he had been a member of the select committee which sat on the original Beer Act, and for one, had always been, opposed to that part of it which allowed the consumption of beer on the premises., At the same time, he
302
had always been, and still was, favourable to a free trade in beer, provided that it should not be consumed on the premises. He thought beer ought to be sold with as little restriction as any other article. But he foresaw at the time of the passing of the Beer Bill, the evils which would follow from the establishment of beer-houses in rural districts. As chairman of a bench of magistrates he was well aware of the evils of the beer-shop system, and looking to the morality of the country, he could not but think some advantages might be gained from the bill now under consideration. He concurred in the desire expressed by the hon. Member who had spoken last for an improved system of police in the country; but as this measure would, in his opinion, be productive of utility, he should support the second reading.
Mr. Warburtondid not think the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down could have read the bill. The first clause certainly raised the tax upon the certificates of persons where beer was sold upon the premises, but other clauses raised the rating of persons who sold beer to be consumed not on the premises, and placed other difficulties in their way—what, then, became of his admission, that he wished to see beer sold freely like bread or cheese. The object of this bill was to restore the monopoly as it existed before beer-shops were established. The complaints of Gentlemen had been hitherto confined to beerhouses where beer was consumed on the premises, but this bill would put down nine-tenths of the beer-houses of all descriptions. This was a measure not for confining the sale of beer to respectable houses, but for destroying the trade entirely. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire had alluded not to the large brewers, but to those who had brewed purposely for these houses, and who had invested large amounts of capital in their trade. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to have a romantic attachment to public-houses and persons who brewed their own beer. It was nonsense to attempt preventing the same laws which regulated capital in other trades regulating it likewise in the beer trade. They heard a great deal of the immorality of their houses, but nothing of the immorality of the victualling-houses. There was tippling in clubs and in victualling-houses, and it was rank hypocrisy to talk of the tippling in beer-houses. It

303
was proposed to put on an additional tax on the licenses. Why these houses already paid 45,000 l. a-year more than the victualling-houses. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer never would sanction such a plan. Then with regard to increasing the rating, he would contend that property was not the test of respectability, and in this he was borne out by the noble Lord the Member for Cornwall. Every crime had been attributed to these houses. Chartism, it was said, had sprung out of them. How hon. Gentlemen blew hot and cold. If you looked to Ireland and Father Mathew, they told you temperance was the origin of all evil. If you looked to England, every crime was attributed to beer-houses, so that whether the people tippled, or whether they were temperate, there was no satisfying hon. Gentlemen. The noble Lord, the other night, in allusion to the outbreak in Monmouthshire, had said that it was not the tipplers who were Chartists—the Chartists had other objects in view. There was a Mr. Wright, who attributed all the riots in the agricultural districts to the beer houses. He was glad to hear that charge, because it showed what excellent historians hon. Gentlemen were. Those riots occurred before the Beer Act came into operation. The fact was, that hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to get back the power they had lost by this Bill. The remedy for crime was what hon. Gentlemen opposite were so averse to—a good system of police, and an extension of education. He hoped, if the bill reached a committee, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt the course pursued by his predecessor.
Lord Sandonwould not follow the hon. Gentleman in attributing motives; the complaints against the Beer Bill originated not with the magistrates alone, but with all classes of the community. The whole of the Roman Catholic clergy of Liverpool had petitioned against the present beer-laws. He intended to adopt the course he had pursued last year when the bill was in committee.
The Chancellof of the Exchequerwould not attribute motives to any Gentleman. Undoubtedly, there was a great and, he believed, a most exaggerated idea throughout the country of the evils produced by these Houses. The hon. Gentlemen opposite must be aware that there was an interested and a rival party which had
304
been very active on this subject—he meant the licensed victuallers. They had, during the course of last year, instituted a very active canvass on this subject, not on the score of morality, but because they thought by putting down beer-houses they should improve their own property. That, however, he believed to be a most mistaken view, and he thought that if a bill similar to that which was brought forward last year in the House of Lords, were to pass into a law, the result would be, that they would have annual motions on the subject, and the licensed victuallers would be placed in the same situation in which the beer-sellers were now placed: they would not know, for twelve months together, whether they could venture to carry on their trade or not. He should, with regard to this bill, pursue the same course that his noble Friend had pursued last year with regard to a similar bill, and not oppose the second reading. There were two modes of considering this question—the one was by returning to the old system of monopoly, and destroying beerhouses altogether; and the other was by the introduction of measures for their better regulation. If he thought the object of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this bill was to return to the old system, he should feel bound to oppose its second reading—but he believed his only object was to introduce a better system of regulation. It was, however, his duty to look narrowly into the provisions of the bill, in order to guard against its having the effect of destroying, when it was only desirable to regulate. He did not disapprove of the regulations being made applicable to houses which only sold beer, as well as those where the beer was consumed on the premises, because the result of limiting its application to the latter description of houses would be, that persons would take out a license for beer to be sold out, and they would violate the law by permitting it to be consumed on the premises. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Berkshire had admitted, that those houses which sold beer for consumption off the premises ought to be encouraged; it therefore behoved them to be very careful in the examination of the provisions of this bill, as if they were of too stringent a nature, it should be recollected they would act equally upon those whom they ought to encourage, as well as upon those whom the hon. Gen-

305
tleman wished to discourage. He was of opinion that the rating and rental were, by the proposed bill, fixed at much too high a rate. The object of the hon. Gentleman he understood to be, merely to put down those houses which were the worst conducted, and, from returns which he had seen, he did not think that object would be attained by the means proposed. He must object to the rating clause—the operation of it in the rural parishes must necessarily be, to throw the trade in beer into the hands of one or two individuals, and a great power into the hands of the squire or his steward. So also the necessity of certificates. The result would be, that no one obnoxious to the steward would ever get their licenses. The bill required six certificates from persons rated at 12 l., so that if a butcher or a baker were rated at the desired amount, the applicant for his certificate must deal with them under all circumstances. If such a system was necessary, he would rather, much as he would object to going back, but if such a power were absolutely necessary, he would rather again lodge the power in the hands of the magistrates, for they were gentlemen acting openly before the public. They might pass what laws they pleased, but until they had an effectual and efficient police, they would do no good. He had refrained from bringing the question before Parliament, because the House of Lords had, last year, agreed to resolutions which showed him that they would not agree to anything but a return to the old system. He strongly deprecated the annual agitation of this question; its only effect must be, to prevent any prudent or honest man from venturing his property in a trade which he is not sure he will be allowed to continue for six months. For the reasons he had given, he would not oppose the second reading of the bill, but if it were not greatly altered in committee, he should feel it his duty to oppose it in a future stage.
Mr. Darbyexpressed his determination to support the second reading of the bill, and said that something was necessary to be done to put an end to the present system. He asserted that the class of persons who frequented public-houses were very different from those who were to be found in the beershops. It was an ascertained fact that no respectable labourer would go into a beerhouse, It was in the
306
beerhouses that nightly robberies and all other crimes were concocted. Notwithstanding what had been said about the increased consumption of malt and hops, his belief was that the farmers would be better pleased to have a greater degree of security and a less consumption of those articles. There was a growing feeling throughout the country that the nuisance of beerhouses ought to be got rid of; and, although a police force was now the panacea for all ills, he was convinced that even if they had a policeman to every one thousand persons, they could not prevent the mischief which resulted from beerhouses. The truth was, that beerhouse-keepers were men of straw, put in by brewers—they were the mere servants of the brewers; and while things remained in their present state there could be no doubt that attempts would be made to remedy an evil with which it was the duty of the Government to deal effectually. The statement of the noble Lord the Member for Monmouthshire was perfectly true; for he knew that it was at the beer-shops, and not at the public-houses, that meetings for criminal purposes were held.
Mr. Gisborneadmitted that this bill was more moderate and less objectionable than any previous measure; but although, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had spoken of it as a measure for regulating beerhouses, he regarded it as a bill for their suppression. As this measure was totally opposed to the Act which it sought to amend, and would suppress and not regulate this trade, he felt no difficulty in determining to give his vote against the second reading.
Sir T. Fremantlesaid that, although he approved of the principle of his hon. Friend's bill, he would express no opinion as to its details. Like a good tactician, his hon. Friend had put into his bill more than he wished to carry; but without discussing the nature of the restrictions which the measure proposed, it was impossible for them to conceal from themselves the fact that the beerhouses constituted a most serious evil. He attributed this to the trade being overstocked, and that the number of those houses greatly exceeded the wants of the community. Without encouraging bad characters the beerhouse-keepers could not make a living. Without touching the question as to rating being a test of respectability, he could not help observing that it was perfectly true that

307
here were no persons of either property; or capital in this trade. They were for the most part the mere servants of the brewers. The hon. Member for Bridport had denied that the beerhouses were established prior to the disturbances of 1830. This however, was not the fact, because it was in 1830 that the bill establishing them passed, and it was in the autumn and winter of that year that riots and disturbances took place. Indeed, of the two persons who were left for execution at the Buckingham special commission one was the keeper of a beerhouse; but he mentioned this circumstance only to shew that these houses had given facilities to dishonest and wickedly disposed persons. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the reason why he did not take the matter up was because of the resolutions of another place last year; but could it be doubted that if the right hon. Gentleman were now to introduce a salutary measure it would receive the attentive consideration of the other branch of the legislature? Before the right hon. Gentleman hazarded such an assertion, he surely was bound to make the experiment.
Mr. M. Philipshad long been convinced of the policy of legislating upon this subject. Two years ago he had suggested the appointment of a Select Committee, and had that suggestion been acted upon, he was sure the House would have been enabled, even in the very same session, to have passed some satisfactory measure on the subject, because they would have had clear and positive testimony upon which to proceed. He confessed that in some parts of the country with which he was acquainted, the present system worked so defectively as to convince him of the necessity of some legislative measure, in order to protect the moral as well as general condition of the working classes. He would vote for the second reading of the bill because he thought that the principle it involved, would, if properly worked out, effect that object. He however, hoped, if the bill went into Committee, that such clauses would be introduced as would remedy the abuses which existed in agricultural districts, and at the same time afford a free scope to trade and an adequate supply to the poorer classes.
Mr. Gillonrejoiced at having an opportunity of entering his protest against
308
a measure of so tyrannical a nature, and of expressing his disgust at this species of petty interference with the comforts and recreations of the poorer classes. When hon. Members who supported this bill would consent to regulate the number of bottles of wine to be drunk at their own tables, then, and not until then, would he consent to such a measure as this. They first complained of the great consumption of spirituous liquors, and now that they had got a good beer bill they were not content, and wanted to drive the people back to their former habits, or something worse.
Mr. Estcourtprotested against the doctrine that those who would vote for the second reading of this bill, amongst whom was the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who thereby merely professed to be desirous of amending the present system, were by any means anxious to destroy or interfere with the comforts of the poor. He had no objection to beer-houses when they were well-conducted, but he would ask whether those beer-shops which were erected under hedges, and over which no superintendence could be exercised, could be conducive to the happiness or the morality of the people? He called on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take this measure into his own hands, for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman had given for not doing so, was most unsatisfactory. The resolutions which had been passed in another place were certainly not sufficient grounds for the Government refusing to bring forward a remedial measure upon this important subject. He should give his vote in favour of the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Humeagreed with the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, that the Government ought to take this measure into their own hands. Whatever others might do, that House was bound to perform its duty, and they ought not to be influenced by resolutions passed in another place. He approved of the principles of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he should be glad to see the right hon. Gentleman take this measure into his own hands. He trusted, that whatever might be done on this subject would be done by the Government. He could not give his consent to this measure, and he thought the people had just grounds for complain-

309
ing of the course of legislation pursued in that House, as it too often interfered with their comforts and amusements, and exhibited a partiality for the higher classes. Why should not the poor man be allowed to spend his twopence in any manner he might think proper, as well as the hon. Member who had brought forward this measure, his half-guinea or guinea, upon wine? Why, if the principles of the hon. Gentleman were to be adopted, should not hon. Members interfere with those who spent their money and ruined their health in taverns, as well as with those who went to beer-shops? The reason was, because the hon. Member was one of that class himself. If it was light to put down beerhouses because there were some of the keepers of those houses who could not make a living, then they might just as well limit the number of butchers and bakers, because all those employed in those trades were not equally prosperous. The effect of this bill would be to create a property qualification for the sale of beer, and that was carrying the principle of a property qualification to a very improper extent. If a property qualification was to be required for the sale of beer, why should they not require grocers, and bakers, and butchers, to possess a house of the value 8l. or 10 l. before they were allowed to embark in their respective trades? How was it possible to have men of property in beer-houses when every year the Legislature was threatening those houses with destruction? This bill would not put down crime, and the only way to diminish the amount of crime was to extend the means of education to the people, and in that manner they would go to the root of the evil. He contended, that the object of this bill was to keep up the influence of the magistrates in the counties. Upon the whole, he considered this a most unjust and objectionable measure, and he should certainly oppose the second reading.
Mr. Ricewould support the second reading of the bill, and his object in doing so was thereby to declare, that some measure of this kind was necessary. He, however, would pot pledge himself to support the details when the bill came to be considered in committee, and he agreed with those who wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the subject into his own hands.
Mr. Protheroesupported the bill, and said, that he had gone into beer-houses,
310
and found that the beer sold there was mere trash. The Legislature had failed, by its former Acts, in giving a wholesome beverage to the public, and he thought that in supporting a measure of this description, he should be contributing to the comforts, the happiness, and the morals of the poor.
Mr. Muntzcould not allow this bill to go to a second reading, without slating his objections to what he considered a most unjust and unnecessary measure. He had yet to learn why beer was not to be sold as other articles. His experience on the subject was very considerable, and, so far as that went, he had never seen a great increase of crime occasioned by the beer-houses. One circumstance Gentlemen had forgotten, or, rather, perhaps, never knew, when they said, that if the beer-houses were shut up, publicans would not take in the same men. They were much mistaken. All publicans had two classes of customers—one higher and one lower, and took low company as well as the beerhouses. He believed there had been a great increase of crime, and particularly within the last twelve months, but to what was it to be attributed? Not to the beer-houses, but to the pressure on the working classes, which always increased crime; but if he could agree to the general principle of the bill, there was one provision in it he could never vote for, which was the disfranchisement of those parties who now held licenses under a certain amount, which he considered would be most unjust—as unjust to the beer-house keepers as the establishment of beer-houses was to the licensed victuallers.
Sir C. Burrellconsidered that a measure of this description was absolutely necessary, for the existing Beer Act had been most injurious in its operation, and had completely disappointed the wishes and intentions of the Legislature. It had; been stated that this bill was introduced for the purpose of keeping up the influence of the magistrates, and he could only say in reply to that charge, that the power of licensing beer-houses was one of all others the least desired by the magistrates. He knew that in many parts of the country the morals of the people had been greatly injured by the existing act, and he thought that it was the duty of the Legislature to pass some remedial measure of this description.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that the present

311
beer-house system had been productive of an injurious effect upon the morals of the people in all the mining districts of the country. In that particular district where there had recently been disturbances, it was the unanimous opinion of the magistrates who had been employed for a length of time in the investigation of those disturbances, that the beer-houses had much to do with the unfortunate disposition of the people. It was at those beer-shops that the people congregated, and it was there that they read those inflammatory publications which had so strong an influence over them. That was the unanimous opinion of the magistrates, an opinion which he believed had been expressed in a communication made to the Government. In that opinion, too, the mayor of Newport, himself a Liberal, had concurred. He therefore thought that something ought to be done in order to remedy the evil which was allowed to exist, although he would not agree to all the provisions of the bill before the House. That, however, was no reason why he should oppose the bill going into committee, where alone its details could be amended. He should therefore vote for the second reading.
Mr. B. Woodthought it was impossible that a bill containing so much that was objectionable could ever be carried into operation after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his opinion, a measure of this description ought to be taken up by the Government. The House had created the property which now existed in beer-shops, and he thought it would be exceedingly unwise should they now interfere to destroy it.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, that on a former occasion the hon. Member for Bridport had interfered in such a manner as to prevent the progress of this bill at that time, but the hon. Gentleman had not done so till after he had made his statement to the House. Having, then, addressed the House, at the period to which he alluded, at considerable length, he should only trouble them with a few observations on the present occasion. During the whole debate he had not heard anything which ought, in his opinion, to induce the House to refuse its assent to the second reading of this bill. The details could be amended in committee if they were found objectionable, but he thought it could not be denied that some
312
measure of the kind was necessary to remedy the evils which were allowed on all hands to exist. A great number of petitions had last year been presented upon this subject, and the magistrates of from thirty to forty counties has come to that House, praying by petition for some alteration in the present beer-laws. These petitions were not confined to one class of politicians, for they came from men of all parties, and the magistrates had been strongly supported by the clergy and by the most influential inhabitants of the country districts. A number of petitions had that night been presented in reference to this bill, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the hon. Member for Bridport and other hon. Members, and what, let him ask, was the character of those petitions? He believed every one of them came from beer-sellers, and he therefore contended that they were not entitled to the same weight as those petitions which came from the magistrates and clergy. The mover of the amendment had said, that this was a measure of repeal, that it was of a destructive character, and that he would therefore oppose it. But let them contrast that statement with what had fallen from the seconder of the amendment. The seconder of the amendment said, that the system of beer-houses had been productive of an increase of crime, and he had opposed the bill, because in his opinion its provisions did not go far enough. Looking at these conflicting statements, he was inclined to draw the inference that this was a fair and moderate measure, and he contended he was not open to the charges which had been made against him. Some persons thought that the Beer Act ought to be repealed, and others that the consumption of beer on the premises only ought to be prohibited, but he had not adopted either of those plans, and he thought that the plan which he had proposed was reasonable and moderate. He had been charged with having a wish for repeal, and with a desire of restoring a monopoly to the magistrates, but he must deny that he was open to those charges. This was not a sweeping measure, and if it could be proved in committee that any of the provisions of the bill were unfair and oppressive, he should be ready to alter them. It had been said that this measure would do away with nine-tenths of the beerhouses, but such was not his wish, and he

313
believed that that statement was a great exaggeration of what the real effects of the bill would be. He was convinced that if this bill were passed to-morrow, there would be no diminution in the consumption of beer. He was asked, why not deal with the licensed victuallers? But they were not within the scope of his bill, as they were under the control and superintendence of the magistrates, while the beer-houses were not. He was sorry the Government had taken the course it had adopted upon this question. He quite agreed that this was a bill which ought not to be in the hands of a private Member of Parliament. He had only taken it up because the Government had refused to grapple with the evil. At all events, it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitting, as he did, that the beer-houses required regulation, admitting the necessity of legislation, either to take the bill out of his hands, or to render him every assistance in his power to enable him to accomplish his object.
The House divided on the original question. — Ayes 110; Noes 30; Majority 80.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Estcourt, T.

Attwood, W.

Evans, W.

Bailey, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Bailey, J. jun.

Feilden, W.

Baines, E.

Fellowes, E.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Barnard, E. G.

Fleming, J.

Barrington, Viscount

Greene, T.

Basset, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Bell, M.

Halford, H.

Bethell, R.

Hall, Sir B.

Blackburne, I.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Blakemore, R.

Hawkes, T.

Bradshaw, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Bramston, T. W.

Hector, C. J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Henniker, Lord

Broadley, H.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hindley, C.

Brotherton, J.

Hodgson, R.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Hope, hon. C.

Buck, L. W.

Hughes, W. B.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hurt, F.

Burroughes, H. N.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Jermyn, Earl

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Jones, Captain

Chetwynd, Major

Kemble, H.

Compton, H. C.

Knight, H. G.

Darby, G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Duffield, T.

Lennox, Lord A.

Dundas, C. W. T.

Liddell, hn. H. T.

Du Pre, G.

Lygon, hn. General

Eastnor, Viscount

Mackenzie, T.

Egerton, W. T.

Mild may, P. St. J.

314

Miles, W.

Slaney, R. A.

Monypenny, T. G.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Packe, C. W.

Sotheron, T. E.

Paget, Lord A.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Palmer, R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Parker, J.

Thornhill, G.

Parker, R. T.

Townley, R. G.

Patten, J. W.

Turner, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Philips, M.

Vivian, J. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Waddington, H. S.

Praed, W.T.

Walker, R.

Protheroe, E.

Welby, G. E.

Pusey, P.

White, A.

Rice, E. R.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Richards, R.

Winnington, H. J.

Rolleston, L.

Worsley, Lord

Round, C. G.

Wyndham, W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Young, Sir W.

Rushout, G.

Sandon, Viscount

TELLERS.

Scarlett, hn. J. Y.

Pakington, J. S.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Sanford, E. A.

List of the NOES.

Beamish, F. B.

Muskett, G. A.

Busfeild, W.

Pryme, G.

Duke, Sir J.

Rundle, J.

Ewart, W.

Scholefield, J.

Finch, F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gillon, W. D.

Thorneley, T.

Gisborne, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wallace, R.

Hume, J.

Ward, H. G.

Humphery, J.

Williams, W.

James, W.

Wilshere, W.

Johnson, General

Wood, B.

Jones, J.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Warburton, H.

Muntz, G. F.

Alston, R.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Cleveland, the Marquess of Westminster, and the Earls of Rosebery, and Radnor, from a great number of places, for, and by the Dukes of Wellington, and Richmond, and the Marquess of Bute, from a number of places, against, the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Duke of Cleveland, from Durham, against the Opium Trade.—By the Duke of Richmond, and the Marquess of Bute, from several places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By Viscount Melbourne, from the Ministers and Elders of the General Assembly, against the Decision of the Court of Session.

CORN-LAWS.
The Duke of Clevelandpresented a petition from the county of Durham, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws. He regarded the present high price of bread as the cause of the distress and poverty that existed in many parts of the country, and, although there were many strenuous advocates for the continuance of the Corn-laws, yet, in his opinion, they ought to be revised. Much of the property and the comforts he enjoyed were derived from agriculture, and he could not, therefore, be supposed to be influenced by interested views in advocating an alteration in the Corn-laws. His wish was, to follow the maxim of "Live, and let live."
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that although he could not boast of the same power, influence, and property in the county of Durham as the noble Duke who had just spoken, yet he knew, that not an inconsiderable portion of the agriculturists of that county were hostile to any change in the Corn-laws. He had risen, however, to ask a question of the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. He wished to know whether what he had seen stated in the journals of this day, relative to a certain meeting in Downing-street of a number of delegates, to the amount of about 200, and who seemed to have taken Downing-street by surprise, and to have entered into a discussion on the Corn-laws to a considerable extent with the noble Viscount, was correct? He wished also to know in what manner that meeting was to be viewed; because, at the close of it, the report stated, that the declarations of the noble Viscount were made in his private, and not in his official, capacity. Now, he could not understand how such a meeting could be received by the noble Viscount
258
except in his official capacity; and he should, therefore, like to know whether the statement in the report were true, and whether the communication of the noble Viscount to the delegates was to be considered by the people of England as merely his private opinion, or whether it were given as an official Minister of the Crown. There was a remarkable discrepancy between what was stated in the report to have been said by the noble Viscount, and his statement of last year, and also of the other night, in answer to a question by a noble Lord on his side of the House. He wished, therefore, to know what the noble Viscount intended to do. There was a mystification in this case, which he thought wholly unworthy of the position which the noble Viscount held, and unbecoming of a Minister of the Crown.
Viscount Melbournecould not say whether the report referred to by the noble Marquess were a correct statement of what had passed on the occasion of the meeting in Downing-street or not, for he had not read that statement. But what he apprehended the noble Marquess referred to was, not that which had formed the main object of the discussion that took place, but some opinions which he had stated in the course of that discussion. The subject of foreign trade having been mentioned, he certainly had stated it as his opinion, that they could not, by relaxing the Corn-laws, obtain any great facility with foreign Governments for the introduction of our own manufactures. But when he was asked by some person at the meeting whether he delivered that as his own opinion, or as that of the Government, he said generally, it was his own opinion.
The Marquess of Londonderryread an extract from the report of the interview in the newspaper, to the effect that Lord Melbourne said, that "the total repeal at present would be most injudicious; to give all at once was not the way to obtain concessions from Foreign Powers." He wished to know whether that was to be one of Mr. O'Connell's instalments. He thought the noble Viscount should state the determination of the Government on the subject.
The Earl of Radnorwas understood to say, that, in consequence of the lateness of the two last Sessions, there would be a famine, if the Corn-laws were not repealed. He begged their Lordships to attend to

259
the effect of the Corn-laws on the Poor-laws. The object of the Poor-laws was, to produce a free competition of labour, but that ought to be accompanied with a free trade in food. Although he was favourable to the Corn-laws, yet he would support a modification of them, if an alteration were not made in the Poor-laws. The avowed object of the Corn-laws was to keep up the price of bread. That was declared to be the object when they were established, and it was said at that time, that if the landlords were not protected in that way, they would be ruined.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, the great object of the present Corn-laws was, that we should not be dependent on foreign countries for corn. He had not the slightest doubt that the great body of the people of this country, if they were asked to sign a petition for cheap bread, would sign it; and so, as the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Cleveland) could inform their Lordships, would they sign a petition for cheap coals. Let it be put to the labourers, "Will you rather have bread at a dear price, and 10 s., or 12 s., or 14 s. a-week wages and constant employment, or cheap bread and no employment?" and the answer would be apparent. A great portion of the people of this country would be turned out of employment, if the agricultural interests were not protected. He would ask their Lordships to look at the returns that had been made from the different savings'-banks in the country, and see whether they were not proofs of the prosperity of the labouring classes. In the year 1838, there were 690,138 depositors, the average of whose deposits was about 7l. a-piece; which showed to what class of society they chiefly belonged. In the year 1839, however, there were 40,000 more depositors up to November than in the preceding year, and the amount of money so invested was 1,200,000 l. more. He contended, that wages in this country had increased, and would continue to increase, if the Corn-laws were not agitated; but the farmers would not increase wages now, because they did not know how soon the Corn-laws might be overthrown. In his part of the country the farmers were giving 12 s. a-week regular wages, and some of the labourers were making in task-work about 15 s. They asked for no unfair advantage over the manufacturing interests; their interests were the same; but they did object to have persons getting
260
up a clamour on the subject. Last year it was said, that it would not hurt the agricultural interest at all. Now, however, it was said that it would.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that on the one side there was a great deal of argument and assertion, and on the other simple facts. The Corn-laws had the effect of raising the price of corn when it was too low, and of repressing it when it was too high. Having been concerned all his life in these matters, he must say he thought that the noble Earl was wholly unfounded in his view of the Corn-laws as to their effect on the labourers of this country; and, above all, in supposing that if the farmers were depressed, they could still find them employment, and give them adequate wages.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Viscount Melbournepresented a petition from the ministers and elders in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, complaining that the rights and privileges and the constitution of the Church had been infringed by the decision of the Court of Session, and praying for relief.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that the noble Viscount had expressed his readiness to come to a speedy decision on the matter upon this especial ground, that if her Majesty's Government resolved not to propose to Parliament any measure relating to it, time and opportunity might be afforded to other Peers to supply the deficiency and take the matter up. Until now it never entered into his mind that he ought to undertake any measure upon this subject. It appeared to be so clearly the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to propose measures to Parliament upon such a question, it was one so immediately affecting the peace and good order of the community, that he took for granted that the responsible advisers of the Crown would not abandon a duty so imperative. The noble Viscount opposite, however, had taken that course which he conceived to be consistent with the duty which he owed to his sovereign and to the country; and under present circumstances he felt it incumbent upon him to bring forward some measure calculated to give peace to the Church of Scotland and to the country generally. With this view he should immediately after Easter present to their Lordships a bill calculated, as he hoped, to produce that effect.

CANADA—CLERGY RESERVES.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved, that there be laid before the House copies or extracts of all despatches or correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, from the year 1819 to 1839, on the subject of the clergy reserves in that part of her Majesty's possessions.
The Bishop of Exeterrejoiced that the noble Viscount had made the motion which the House had now heard. It was a motion to which, of course, he should not offer any opposition, but, on the contrary, give it his most cordial support, hoping, as he did, that it would include all the information that he sought by the motion of which he had given notice, and which stood for their Lordships consideration that evening. If, however, he should move specially for any other documents by way of addition to those moved for by the noble Lord, he trusted that the Ministers of the Crown would as readily agree to the papers for which he intended to move as he did to their motion. He repeated that he rejoiced to see that the Government had thought it necessary to bring forward a proposition of this nature, for he thought it only due to the House that there should be laid before their Lordships every information which Ministers possessed upon a question so important. Nevertheless he was astonished, if the advisers of the Crown had thought proper to bring the matter forward at all, that they had not done so much earlier; and he was still more astonished at the communication made by the right hon. C. P. Thomson, Governor-general of Upper and Lower Canada, to the right hon. Lord J. Russell, her Majesty's principal Secretary of Stale for the Colonies, introducing to his notice the bill now before their Lordships. It astonished him exceedingly that such a despatch should have been written by any public functionary holding a situation so high and responsible as that occupied by Mr. Poulett Thomson. He should not say, that the Governor-general of the Canadas had been guilty of the suggestio falsi. He should make no charge of that kind against so eminent an individual; but this he would say, that the averments contained in the despatch of the Governor-general were as contrary to the truth as any statements could possibly be. He did not mean to say that those untrue averments were in-
262
tentional; he said nothing of the sort, though he was utterly unable to understand by what process the right hon. Gentleman arrived at such conclusions as those which were contained in his despatch; he confessed that it did appear to him incomprehensible, how the right hon. Gentleman could have felt himself at liberty to make such statements. The despatch in question was dated "Toronto, 22nd of January, 1840," and contained this most remarkable sentence—
"But no one who had not had the opportunity of examining upon the spot the working of this question can correctly estimate its importance."
That was the language held by the Governor-general before he had been one month in her Majesty's North American possessions. It must be quite evident to their Lordships, and indeed to every one who looked at the despatch and bore in mind the date of the right hon. Gentleman's departure from this country, that the knowledge which he alleged to be so necessary for arriving at sound conclusions upon the subject could not have been acquired by himself. It was impossible, that within one short month he could have acquired any personal knowledge of the least practical use, and yet he declared that knowledge to be of the highest necessity. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say of this question, that—
"It has been for years the source of all the troubles in the province, the never-failing watchword at the hustings, the perpetual spring of discord, strife, and hatred."
These were, perhaps, amongst the strongest terms which the language could furnish; but he requested permission to call the attention of the House for a moment to the instructions given to Sir Francis Head, dated the 5th of December, 1835, and written by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he spoke of the conflict between the two Houses (those constituting the Legislature of Upper Canada), and pronounced that conflict to involve no danger to the peace of the colony. The words were these—
"The conflict of opinion between the two houses upon the subject, much as it is to be lamented, yet involves no urgent danger to the peace of society, and presents no insuperable impediment to the ordinary administration of public affairs."
The writer of those instructions was a

263
Member of the late Cabinet, and his statement was, that the differences referred to involved no danger to the peace of the colony. That might be true, but he must be permitted to say, that the same noble Lord subsequently permitted himself to administer a stimulant to the languid agitation then going forward upon this subject. The noble Lord said,
"It is not difficult to perceive the reasons which induced Parliament in 1791 to connect with a reservation of land for ecclesiastical purposes, the special delegation to the Council and Assembly of the right to vary that provision by any bill, which, being reserved for the signification of his Majesty's pleasure, should be communicated to both Houses of Parliament. Remembering, it should seem, how-fertile a source of controversy ecclesiastical endowments had supplied throughout a large part of the Christian world, and bow impossible it was to foretell, with precision, what might be the prevailing opinions and feelings of the Canadians upon this subject at a future period, Parliament at once secured the means of making a systematic provision for a Protestant clergy, and took full precaution against the eventual inaptitude of that system to the more advanced stages of a society then in its infant state, and of which no human foresight could divine the more mature and settled judgment."
He wished to know whether or not those instructions were intended to be kept private. The House had been, upon a former occasion, told, that instructions had been sent out to the Governor directing that those instructions should be published in extenso. Subsequently, that was thought inconsistent with the dignity of the Government, and it was intimated that the substance only ought to be published; but this was accompanied by a remark that the more that was published the better. That these instructions acted as a stimulant upon the languid feeling of the colony there could not be a shadow of doubt. He should now supply the House with the means of forming some judgment between the sentiments of the present Colonial Secretary and Lord Glenelg, the writer of the instructions which he had just read to the House. So recently as last Tuesday, the noble Lord, the present Secretary of the Colonies, expressed himself in these terms:—
"There can be no doubt that this is a question upon which a very strong feeling has existed in Canada—so strong, indeed, that I have heard from more than one quarter that part of the insurrection which took place three
264
years ago in Upper Canada was to be attributed far more to the excitement that prevailed upon this topic, than to any wish to separate the colony from the Crown."
Such was the statement which this high authority upon Colonial affairs was reported to have made. He should heartily rejoice to see those documents upon the Table of their Lordships' House, which would set controversies of this kind completely at rest. He confessed, that the statement to which he had just called attention had greatly startled him, for he concluded that it never could have been made upon anything less than the authority of positive despatches, and he, therefore, applied upon the subject to one to whom the country was most deeply indebted, and one whom he had the honour and the happiness of calling his Friend, one who had done more for the Colonial empire of England than any other individual whatever—one of whom he would say generally that the country owed him more than to any other individual, save one now present, whose merits exceeded all those of all other men. He addressed a letter to Sir Francis Head, from whom he received this reply;—
"My dear Lord Bishop,—I have this moment received your letter of the 28th, in which you ask me, whether you are right in thinking that the clergy reserves had nothing to do with the insurrection in Upper Canada in 1837. My own opinion is scarcely worth your acceptance, but I send you—1. A letter from Mr. Speaker Papineau to Mr. Speaker Bidwell, dated March 15, 1836. 2. A paper headed 'Independence,' printed and published at Toronto, by Mr. M'Kenzie, on the evening before the rebellion broke out. 3. A proclamation addressed by Mr. M'Kenzie to the inhabitants of Upper Canada, dated Navy Island, Dec. 13, 1837 (nine days after the rebellion.) To these documents I may add the fact, that the rebellion of 1837 was suppressed by the militia of the province without the slightest regard lo religious distinctions. The officer commanding the skirmish, or as it is called in Upper Canada, 'the battle' of Gallows-hill, was a member of the Church of England. Some of the most distinguished in the ranks were Presbyterians and Catholics; and I remember, just as we came in sight of the rebels in their position at Gallows-hill, the Rev.—Evans, attended by the principal of the Wesleyan Methodists, who had voluntarily walked by the side of my horse to the point, in bidding me adieu pronounced these words;—'Our men are with thee; the prayers of our women attend thee.' From the above facts you will be best able to form a correct judgment. My own humble opinion is, that the

265
insurrection in 1837 had nothing whatever to do with religion, with clergy, or with law. On the contrary, it was an attempt to destroy all three, and to exchange British institutions for democracy.
"I remain, &c.
"Hanwell, March 30. "F. B. HEAD."
He should not trouble their Lordships by any reference to the papers which Sir Francis Head had forwarded to him. He thought that the letter was of itself all-sufficient. It was clear, he should say, from this letter, that in the year 1837 the clergy reserves had nothing to do with the discontents. The object clearly was, to get rid of the law of the Church and of British connexion, for the purpose of establishing a democracy upon their ruins. He presumed that most of the noble Lords now present would agree with him that a decision respecting this great question was one which it would be peculiarly unfair to prejudice in any manner whatever, and he, therefore, trusted, that the documents supplied by the Government would include all that could be necessary for enabling Parliament to come to a sound decision upon this great question. He should now proceed to another part of the letter of the right hon. Gentleman, at present in the Government of Canada. At page 2, he says—
"For many years past the representatives of the people have uniformly refused to assent to an appropriation of this fund for religious purposes at all, and have steadily maintained its distribution to educational or general state purposes; and it is only the strong desire which is entertained of coming now to a settlement which has led many, who formerly advocated these opinions with success, now to withdraw their opposition, and to assent to this measure."
That was not only totally foreign, but contrary to the real facts. There were two clear exceptions to this—one in 1834, and one in 1836, which left not a shadow of doubt that nothing of the sort should have been stated so broadly. He regarded such statements as proceeding from incompetent witnesses, and paid to them no more attention than to the idle wind. Towards the conclusion of his letter the Governor-general said—
"I will not believe that any successful opposition to the confirmation of this bill by her Majesty will be allowed to prevail."
He wished to know was not this evidently intended to be laid before Parlialiament. [Cries of "Oh!"] He could also
266
say "Oh, oh! ["Order!"] It clearly was so intended. [The Marquess of Lansdowne—thatdid not appear.] Could anyone suppose that such language was intended to be private? The despatch concluded with these words:—
"Most fervently, then, do I pray that the settlement now agreed to, may be final, and that no obstacle may be opposed to its confirmation by her Majesty. Should it be otherwise, and the question should again be thrown back for decision here, I cannot foresee the consequences; but at least, I know that peace and tranquillity must, in that event, long remain strangers to this province."
Now, he asked, in return for the interruption of the noble Marquess, was that, or was it not, intended to be laid before Parliament? Was it not understood to be a private and confidential letter? He called upon the noble Marquess to answer that question fairly and fully when it became his turn to address the House. He would now proceed to notice one or two more inaccuracies. The despatch went on;—
"I will not believe that any successful opposition to the confirmation of this bill by her Majesty will be allowed to prevail; but, as I am informed that representations may be made at home with that view, I shall beg to send in this despatch a short account of the manner in which this question has for years past been treated in this country, as illustrative of the advantage which the settlement now arrived at by the Legislature holds out, as contra-distinguished from all previous decisions."
From all previous decisions! How many decisions had there been? One and one only. The bill of last year was the only previous decision upon which the right hon. Gentleman presumed to make that statement. Such was the accuracy with which he had indited his despatch.
"I need not advert," continues the despatch "to the early history of the disputes on this subject, until the year 1823–4, when a motion was made in the House of Assembly on the subject by Mr. Morris, for an address to the throne, praying for the recognition of the right of the Church of Scotland to share with the Church of England in the reserves."
Their Lordships would suppose that the natural interpretation to be put upon these plain words was, that the House of Assembly at this time were called upon to send an address to the throne—
"For the recognition of the Church of Scot-

267
land to share with the Church of England in the reserves."
What was the fact? It seemed that, up to this period, no proceedings of any moment had taken place in the Legislature of Upper Canada on this subject; but that, in the Session of 1824, the subject was introduced by those members of the assembly who belonged to the Church of Scotland, they being only two in number, though there were other persons of other denominations, Members of that House of Assembly, who thought it a capital opportunity for overturning the exclusive right of the Church of England to the reserves. Those two members of the Scotch Church joined the various classes of Dissenters, and after some difficulty the House of Assembly passed five resolutions on the subject, the three first of which were introductory to the other two following and to these resolutions he begged their Lordships' attention. He quoted them as given in by Dr. Strachan, now Bishop of Toronto, in his "Observations on the provision made for the maintenance of a Protestant clergy;—
"4. Resolved, that if his late Majesty, when he graciously authorized an appropriation of land for the support and maintenance of a Protestant clergy in this province, did not contemplate a provision for the clergy of the Church of Scotland, that they ought to come now under his Majesty's most favourable consideration by being otherwise provided for. 5. Resolved, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty will tie graciously pleased to direct such measures as will secure to the clergy of the Kirk of Scotland residing, or who may hereafter reside, in this province, such support and maintenance as his Majesty shall think proper."
He could not but express his astonishment at the manner in which Mr. Poulett Thomson had ventured to describe those resolutions in his despatch. He would not go into the details of what took place after that. It seemed that the Ministers of that day did not recognise the right claimed for the church of Scotland. The answer given called upon them to exert themselves before they called for assistance. It was said, "If you help yourselves, we will help you." That was said in answer to the General Assembly in 1832, and he rather thought their Lordships would find that answer when the papers were laid before them. But that did not satisfy them, and when they found they were not to have a share in the re-
268
serves with the Church of England, they took another course. A vast number of sectarians were joined together to pull down the Church, and it seemed that this church of Scotland being unable to prove its right to share in the reserves, immediately turned round and tried to divert them to the reparation of the public roads and other secular purposes. Until the year 1831, the Assembly seemed to have been in the habit of making such motions as he had just read, but at the close of the Session of that year they agreed to address the Crown, praying for a settlement of the question by an Act of Parliament to authorize the sale of the reserves and the appropriation of the proceeds to the purposes of education, and erecting places of worship for various denominations. Now, it was very remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman, in stating what the House of Assembly did, cautiously abstained from giving any account of what the Legislative Council did. On the 16th of March, the very day on which the session closed, the Legislative Council addressed His Majesty, earnestly praying him to preserve the clergy reserves for the purposes for which they were designed, and to do all that was necessary to be done, not only for the safety of religion, but of the principles of the constitution under which they lived, affirming that the church for which the reserves were made was not only known to the constitution, but a part of the constitution itself. But of all that, Mr. Poulett Thomson took care not to inform the Imperial Parliament. In 1832 his Majesty directed the Lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada to send a message to both houses of the Legislature in that colony recommending them to reinvest the clergy reserves in his hands, and telling them at the same time that the sacred duties of his station—or, in other words, his coronation oath—compelled him not to sacrifice the interests of the Protestant churches, and giving them to understand that he hoped to find the means of assisting those interests distinct from retaining these reserves. Such was the nature of the message sent out by the Government of 1832, of which the noble Viscount was a prominent Member. The noble Marquess near him (Lansdowne) and the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, were also Members of that Government. They concurred with his late Majesty in protecting the rights of the Protestant churches in the colonies.

269
His Majesty undoubtedly spoke of both the Church of England and the church of Scotland as the Protestant churches; but that had very little to do with the present argument. The message, however, would of course be included in the returns. But it seemed that after this message the House of Assembly itself was more cautious, and did not for two or three years proceed in this matter; no attempt was made to destroy these reserves, or to apply them to the general purposes of the colony. One or two attempts were made to procure the re-investment of the reserves in the Crown, bills for that purpose being brought in by the Attorney-general, but not proceeded with. But in 1834, a bill for the sale of the clergy reserves for the purposes of education was brought in, and passed by a majority of 22 to 12. But what had occurred before this? M'Kenzie had been in England—he had triumphed in Downing-street, and he returned to Canada exulting in that triumph. [The Earl of Ripon: Without foundation.] Without foundation was it? M'Kenzie thought it a triumph, and the colony thought so too; but their Lordships would have that explained perhaps by and by. At all events, M'Kenzie persuaded the Government of that day to dismiss the Attorney-general and the Solicitor-general of Upper Canada, and why? Because they had said, that this traitor, who was known to be a traitor, who had spoken like a traitor, and had proved himself to be a traitor, as far as he possibly could by the seditious doctrines he had promulgated, ought not to sit in the House of Assembly. He was expelled from that House, not for sedition, but for a gross libel on that house; and the Attorney and Solicitor general had voted for his expulsion because he had proved himself unworthy of sitting in it by endeavouring to degrade it in the eyes of the people. He was re-elected, but the senate of Upper Canada proceeded in a more dignified manner than the English Parliament did in the case of Wilkes; they did not declare M'Kenzie to be ineligible, but they expelled him again. For this, when he came to this country, he induced the Government to dismiss them. [The Earl of Ripon: No.] Well, their Lordships would hear presently what the fact was. M'Kenzie went back, and was received in triumph in Canada, and in 1834, in consequence of this triumph, at the next dissolution great exertions were made by the
270
democratic classes, which were followed in the new Parliament by those measures which brought on the insurrection that took place. All the measures since 1832 had been measures for the support of religion passed by the House of Assembly, and yet their Lordships were told that the reverse was the case. In 1835 the Legislative Council—another bill having been introduced of the same nature as the former bills—addressed his late Majesty, and he would give their Lordships an extract from that address:—
"We look upon these allotments as the only resource whence the ministers of religion can ever derive public support in this colony. But, while we decline to take part in any measure which would deprive the present and future generations of advantages in their nature inestimable, and which we consider to be among the first and most sacred duties of a legislative body to insure and perpetuate, we nevertheless deeply regret that the questions which have been agitated, with respect to the clergy reserves, should continue unsettled; and we think it is, for many reasons, much to be desired that a speedy and final decision should take place of the questions which have arisen upon the effect of the statute referred to, and that it should be plainly, certainly, and firmly established to what specific objects the clergy reserves shall be permanently applied. Confiding freely in the wisdom and justice of your Majesty and of Parliament, we earnestly hope, that with as little delay as the subject may admit of, such an enactment may be passed as shall not leave any room for doubt or question in regard to the objects to which the proceeds of the clergy reserves are to be applied, and that having regard to the present condition and future welfare of this colony, and maturely considering whatever has been urged, or may be urged, in regard to these reserves, your Majesty and the Imperial Parliament will by some measure, which shall be final and unequivocal, make such an appropriation of them as shall appear to be most consistent with a due regard to religion, to the principles of our constitution, and to the permanent welfare and tranquillity of the province."
That was the prayer of the Legislative Council of 1835; but that was unworthy of a place in the statement of Mr. Poulett Thomson. But that right hon. Gentleman in his despatch said, after reciting sundry resolutions—
"This recapitulation, from which your Lordship will perceive, that since the year 1826 the House of Assembly have, on fourteen different occasions, recorded their opinion, that the clergy reserves ought to be sold, and

271
the proceeds applied to education or general purposes."
Fourteen different occasions! Why, six of them were during the republican Parliament elected in 1834, under the fugitive traitors M'Kenzie and Rolph, and the self-exiled Bidwell. The seventh was passed in the preceding Parliament, under the delirium caused by M'Kenzie's triumph; an eighth was subsequently set aside by an opposite vote, thus leaving six out of the fourteen, and these all passed before the message in 1833. He had already said, that Mr. Poulett Thomson hoped no obstacle would be opposed to the confirmation of these resolutions by her Majesty.
"Should it be otherwise," said he, "and the question should be again thrown back for decision here, I cannot foresee the consequences."
Well, then, why should it be thrown back? There was no anxiety on the part of those who wished to support the church to throw it back. Sir George Arthur, in opening the Session in 1839 said, in reference to the settlement of this question,
"Should all your efforts for this purpose unhappily fail, it will then only remain for you to reinvest these reserves in the hands of the Crown, and to refer the appropriation of them to the Imperial Parliament, as a tribunal free from those local influences and excitements which may operate too powerfully here."
It might be said, that this was only the authority of Sir George Arthur. Not so; he sent home a copy of his speech, and Lord Normanby, on the. 13th of April, 1839, acknowledging the despatch which contained that copy, distinctly expressed his approbation of it:—
"I have to convey to you my approval of the course which, in the peculiar circumstances of the province you adopted, with regard to your speech."
Accordingly, under this express approbation of the Government at home, Sir G. Arthur procured the passing of the bill of last year, which, after providing for the sale of the reserved lands, enacted that the produce of the sales
"Should be paid into the hands of her Majesty's Receiver-general of the province, to be appropriated and applied by the Imperial Parliament for religious purposes."
He need not tell their Lordships that
272
that was refused, and why? It was stated in Lord John Russell's instructions to Mr. Poulett Thomson, in December last, that
"Parliament delegated to the local legislature the right of appropriating the clergy reserves, and that the effect of the bill is to re-transfer the duty from the local legislative Parliament with a particular restriction. I am advised by the law officers of the Crown, that this is an unconstitutional proceeding. It is certainly unusual and inconvenient. Her Majesty cannot assume that Parliament will accept this delegated office, and if it should not be so accepted, the confirmation of the bill would be productive of serious prejudices, and of no substantial advantage."
Well, but though the noble Lord, and though the Government did refuse to give the royal assent in December last year to the bill, which was reserved in the Session for the royal assent, yet it was found, that they were quite ready to give their assent to the present bill, which was admitted to be, in one part of it, a contravention of an act of the Imperial Parliament, and was in itself contrary to law; and the noble Lord had no hesitation in assuming that Parliament would not be reluctant in passing a new act to accommodate the colonial legislature, and to secure them in their usurpation. The noble Lord went on to say, in the same despatch—
"Besides, I cannot admit that there exist in this country greater facilities than in Upper Canada for the adjustment of this controversy; on the contrary, the provincial Legislature will bring to the decision of it an extent of accurate information as to the wants and general opinions of society in that country in which Parliament is unavoidably deficient."
So that the noble Lord stated upon his own authority, in contradiction to the repeated, uniform, and constant authority of the Legislative Assembly of that colony, who had all along thought that the bill should be sent to this country, because it could be dealt with without the prejudices that prevailed there, that the bill was most likely to be properly disposed of in that colony itself, and not in the Imperial Parliament. He would now call their Lordships' attention to another document—a petition from the minister, elders, and members of the congregation of St. Andrew's church, Kingston, in connexion with the established church of Scotland, addressed to the Commons House of Assembly of Upper Canada, in provincial

273
Parliament assembled. The petition ran as follows:—
"That your petitioners, while they are happy to perceive that the attention of your hon. House is invited to the long-disputed question of the clergy reserves, would, in the words of his Excellency the Lieutenant-governor, beg to express their confidence in your honourable House, that 'by moderation and sound discretion, you will overcome the obstacles that have hitherto attended its discussion.'"
"Your petitioners would not be understood as intending to convey any distrust in the wisdom and integrity of your honourable House, in submitting for your consideration whether the Imperial Parliament, by their entire removal from the conflicting interests and endless variety of opinions which have for so many years agitated the country and perplexed the provincial Legislature, in reference to the clergy reserves, are not qualified to explain their own act, and definitively to settle what is doubtful in the existing statute, without the danger of further disturbing the tranquillity of the province, or of occupying so much of the time of your honourable House in discussions and proceedings that must ultimately be referred to, and approved of by that august body.
"Your petitioners cannot forbear to express their apprehensions, that any means adopted by the provincial Legislature for the appropriation of the clergy reserves, however just and equitable in itself, would neither be so satisfactory nor so stable as a declaratory enactment on that subject, originated in and passed by the Imperial Parliament, who it may be trusted, in explaining the provisions of the Act, will be careful to preserve our 'constitution inviolate.'
"Wherefore, your petitioners pray, that your honourable House will be pleased to do in the premises as your honourable House in its wisdom may deem meet.
"And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
"JOHN MACHAR, Minister,
"And 213 others, Elders and Members of the Congregation of St. Andrew's Church, Kingston, in connexion with the Church of Scotland.
"Kingston, Nov. 23, 1836."
He repeated, therefore, that their Lordships had very high authority indeed, for believing that the better and fairer course would be, that a question of this kind should be decided by the local Legislature. He abstained, however, from entering upon any further details, which would be more properly brought under their Lordships' consideration, when the motion of the most rev. Prelate came before them, and he should now, rejoicing that
274
no opposition would be offered to the motion with which he should conclude, move an address to the Crown that there be laid on the Table "such part of a despatch from Sir Peregrine Maitland to Mr. Huskisson of the 15th of December, 1827, as relates to the clergy reserves in Canada, with various other papers.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that although unquestionably he had informed the House that no objection existed to the production of the papers for which the right rev. Prelate had moved, yet he was far from complaining of the right rev. Prelate for calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject to which his motion related, considering the great importance of the question itself, and considering that it was in the power of the House by one single vote to bring about most important results; and therefore he could not find fault with the right rev. Prelate for calling their Lordships' attention to the question, since by turning their attention to it, they would be best enabled to make themselves acquainted with the subject, and thus come to an ultimate decision with a full and accurate knowledge of its bearings and relations. He entirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate in thinking, that it was unfitting and unbecoming to prejudice the discussion and consideration of this question by adopting the lone of alarm, still less by employing the language of intimidation. At the same time, he trusted, that their Lordships would approach the consideration of this subject, weighing fully in their minds the consequences to which their decision might lead, and fully considering both the circumstances of the country for which they had to legislate, and the real state and nature of the question upon which they had to decide. But, although he did not in the slightest degree complain of the course which the right rev. Prelate had pursued in expatiating upon the topics which had formed the subject matter of his motion, and in entering into matter connected with it, although he did not mean to say, that in doing so, the right rev. Prelate had done more than was his duty, or convenient to their Lordships, he could not extend the same degree of indulgence to the manner in which the right rev. Prelate had brought forward his motion, to the tone in which he had indulged, or to the bitterness and acrimony which had broken loose from his tongue.

275
To bring forward the motion with which ha had concluded, formed a task not unfitting for the right rev. Prelate, but the tone of asperity which marked his observations, did not become either his high and reverend calling, the station in which he was placed, or the assembly in which he was speaking. He could not help thinking, that in much of the right rev. Prelate's reference to the language of the Governor-general, there was, if not the suggestio falsi, at least a good deal of the suppressio veri. The right rev. Prelate had not entered upon the subject at any length, but if he had, it could hardly have justified the exhibition of that bitterness and acrimony, which neither became the right rev. Prelate, nor the place in which he delivered himself of it. At the same time, he begged leave to say, that there was not the slightest ground or foundation for the observations which had been made on the letter of his right hon. Friend. His right hon Friend said, "I will not believe, that any successful opposition to the confirmation of this bill by her Majesty will be allowed to prevail." But in saying so, his right hon. Friend meant nothing more than to express his opinion of the importance of the subject, adding a strong hope, that it would be considered in Parliament with that anxiety to do what was right, and to take those measures which were necessary for the prosperity of her Majesty's dominions in that part of the globe, and which to the wisdom of Parliament might seem fitting; and when his right hon. Friend went on to say, that since the year 1823, the representatives of the people had refused to distribute the funds accruing from the reserved lands for any but the purposes of general education, or the general purposes of the state, his right hon. Friend stated nothing more than was perfectly correct. The right rev. Prelate said, that the Governor-general had referred only to the opinions of the representatives of the people, and not to those expressed by the Legislative Council. But his right hon. Friend said, that he had only referred to the opinions of the representatives of the people. His right hon. Friend referred to a bill for applying the reserves to the purposes of general education, which in 1835 passed in the Legislative Assembly by a majority of thirty-nine to seven. This bill having been sent up to the Legislative Council, that House, instead of proceeding with it,
276
adopted a series of resolutions, stating the various claims made on the clergy reserves, and praying the Imperial Parliament to deal with the question. This was the statement made by his right hon. Friend himself. The right rev. Prelate had abstained from going into the whole merits of the question, which, as he had said himself, it would be more fitting to discuss upon the motion of which notice had been given by the most rev. Prelate near him, and upon that occasion, when the papers for which the right rev. Prelate had moved had been laid upon the table, the merits of this question might be discussed more in extenso, and their Lordships would be able to enter upon the consideration of its details with greater accuracy and precision. It appeared to him, however, that on these papers as they stood his right hon. Friend the Governor-general was justified in saying, that ever since 1823–4 the constant and perpetual expression of the opinion of the representatives of the people in that country had been against the application of the clergy reserves to any other purposes than those of general education and the general improvement of the province. That was said to be unquestionably the popular opinion in Upper Canada. The right rev. Prelate had found great fault with his right hon. Friend for having said that this subject was a source of great heartburnings and discontent in the province, and the right rev. Prelate said, that this was entirely contradictory to the tenour of the despatches sent home by Sir F. Head, which amounted to something of this kind—that the agitation of the question did not threaten the immediate tranquillity of the province. But there was nothing inconsistent in these two statements. The question might excite discontent in the minds of men, and yet not threaten the peace of the province, and still less throw any obstacle in the way of a settlement. He should hope, however, that whatever view their Lordships might be inclined to take on this question, they would come to a consideration of this subject with a proper feeling of its importance, and with a full knowledge of its nature and extent. He had hoped that they would come to a consideration of it without anything of bitterness, acrimeny, asperity, or party feeling; but he owned that his hopes on that subject were very considerably diminished

277
when he found that on the very first occasion which presented itself a clergyman of the Church of England—a dignitary of the Church of England, unprovoked, unexcited by debate, in the very outset and beginning of the discussion, exhibited an asperity, a virulence and a spirit of attack which could hardly be justified by the warmth and violence to which a debate might give rise. He trusted, however, that their Lordships would not allow themselves to be influenced by the tone which the right rev. Prelate had adopted, but that they would approach the consideration of the despatch of the Governor-general with that coolness, that gravity, and that disposition to do what was right, which became the situation which their Lordships filled as legislators for this great country.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas disposed to approach this subject in the spirit which had been recommended by the noble Viscount who bad preceded him, but he confessed he was not surprised that some feeling should have been excited by what had passed on this subject, not only by what had appeared on the face of these papers, but by what had passed in that House of Parliament, and also in another place. It appeared that this act of the Canadian Parliament was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Governor-general of Canada, who had recently gone out there to take upon himself the government of that province. It appeared also, that this act of the Parliament of Upper Canada, of which he should say but little, as it would come hereafter under the consideration of their Lordships, although it was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman to the Parliament of Canada, did not meet with the entire approbation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, at least it appeared that the noble Lord would not have suggested that particular mode of legislation and this particular act of Parliament. The suggestion, then, came as the suggestion of the Governor-general himself, not that of his employer, the Secretary of State, and the suggestion had given rise to this act of the Parliament of Canada, upon which the Imperial Parliament was called upon to give an opinion, by addressing the Crown against it, or by giving none, to allow the act to pass into a law. Now, it might so happen, as had been suggested by the noble Viscount, that the right rev.
278
Prelate had referred to papers which had been moved for. He (the Duke of Wellington) might have seen some of them in the course of his official duty, but as he had no copies, he could not compare them, and under these circumstances he should refrain from making any observations on them. He must, however, say, that if the right rev. Prelate had any knowledge of these papers, it was not extraordinary, that having called for some of them, he should have pointed out the bearing of those papers and their relation to the conduct of the Governor-general, who appeared to be the suggester of this act of Parliament. Now, he should say no more of this act of the Parliament of Upper Canada than this, that one of its objects certainly was, to repeal and alter an act of the British Parliament, and this act, as he had said more than once, was suggested by the Governor-general. He really must say, that he was not astonished at the feeling which had been excited, and he could not help thinking that the right rev. Prelate, who had a knowledge of the contents of these papers, would not in moving far their production have been justified if he had not let the House know what he had become acquainted with, having a regard to what might pass in that House hereafter, so that their Lordships might then come down to the House and give their votes on the motion of the most rev. Prelate according to the best of their judgment.
The Bishop of Londonperfectly agreed with the noble Viscount, in thinking that it was desirable to enter upon a consideration of this question with that calmness and coolness which befitted a legislative assembly, but he must be permitted to say that the noble Viscount had not much reason to be surprised, perhaps he might say not much reason to be dissatisfied, if he found that others might not approach this question with the same degree of philosophic indifference with which the noble Viscount himself treated it. The question raised was neither more nor less than this—whether they should consent to the spoliation of the Church of England, in one of our distant provinces, by depriving it of nearly the whole of its property. If he were stopped by a highwayman, who put a pistol to his head and took away his purse, which might contain his all, and he were then recommended to preserve a philosophic calmness and in-

279
difference, he should think that his plunderer made an unreasonable request. There were reasons why the prelates of the Church should feel sensitive as to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, whom the noble Duke had so properly and so strongly pointed out as the suggester of this measure. It was not the Government, but the Governor-general of Canada, to whom the act was to be attributed. They were the more strongly moved by indignation at what had passed, when it was recollected that at the very same time when the Governor-general proposed this alienation of the property of the Protestant Church, he recommended that a bill should be introduced for the purpose of vesting in the college of St. Sulpice, at Montreal, a small community of monks, property not less in value than 500,000 l., nearly the value of the property, of which it was now proposed to deprive the church in Canada, and much more than double its amount if this bill should pass into a law. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that a bill should be introduced to give this vast property to these monks, although he had been informed, in a despatch from the Secretary of State, that they had no legal right to the property, and although he had been instructed to take legal measures for the purpose of recovering it for the use of the Government. It could not then, be wondered at that, looking on this side of the picture and on that, a feeling should exist that there prevailed in Canada an injurious spirit of hostility to the Established Church.
The Earl of Haddingtonrose only to advert in a very few words to the interest which, in a certain view of it, the Established Church of Scotland might be supposed to have in this question. If her Majesty's Government should succeed in establishing the opinions which they entertained, and in negativing the motion of the most rev. Primate, there was undoubtedly an end of the question. If, on the other hand, their Lordships should agree to the motion of the most rev. Prelate, and present an address to her Majesty, praying her not to give the Royal assent to the act relating to the clergy reserves, then a settlement of the question would become necessary. He hoped that their Lordships would be of opinion that the Established Church of Scotland would put forward no claims to
280
which she did not conceive she was fully entitled. The Scotch clergy considered that the term "Protestant" clergy included those of the Established Church of Scotland, as well as those of the Church of England. They considered that if it had been intended to confine the clergy reserves exclusively to the Church of England, a form of words would have been used, expressly excluding the other Established Church of Britain, which would have left no doubt on the subject. The whole question depended, he conceived, on the legal import of the words "the Protestant clergy;" and in the event of the most rev. Prelate succeeding in the motion which he would have to make to their Lordships, it would be necessary, as a matter of justice, that their Lordships should settle the legal import of those words, and whether they meant simply the Church of England, whether they meant the Churches of England and Scotland, or whether the phrase "Protestant clergy" extended still further to the sectaries who had ministers in Canada. He had no opinion whatever on the point; it would be very presumptuous in him to give an opinion, only he would say he had always understood (but he spoke in the hearing of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, who was able to set him right if he were in the wrong), that the word "clergy" in an Act of Parliament, was confined to the clergy of an Established Church. Most unquestionably he was not influenced in saying these few words by any feeling but this—that there was a great population of his countrymen in Upper Canada; that he was anxious that justice should be done to them in the most important matter in which any human being could claim to have justice done to him—namely, that he should have afforded to him the means of religious instruction. If, therefore, the clergy of the Scottish Church were by law entitled to any share in those clergy reserves, he trusted it would not be withheld from them. If they had not the right in law, some other means must be found to afford religious instruction to the numerous natives of Scotland who inhabited the colony.
The Archbishop of Canterburyentirely agreed with the noble Earl who had just sat down, in the expediency of determining this question, which had been decided in various ways by different persons, It had

281
not yet been settled either by Parliamentary or by judicial authority, and he wished extremely in any settlement of the question, that the respective rights of the several parties who claimed a share in this property should be settled by the highest judicial authority in this country. He thought this was necessary for the ends of justice, whatever might be their future proceedings with respect to the measure which was now laid upon their Table. When their Lordships had settled whether they would assent to the measure or not, the proper time would have come for considering what ought to be done for that Church in which the noble Earl very naturally felt so strenuous an interest, which had so many of its members in Canada for whom some provision had already been made by Parliament, and of which certainly it was not his (the Archbishop of Canterbury's) disposition or feeling to speak in any terms but those of respect. It certainly appeared to him to be highly necessary this question of right should be settled. He had a decided opinion on the subject; he had no difficulty in saying that he thought the Church of Scotland had no right to participate in the clergy reserves under the act, and he felt still more strongly that the clergy of other denominations who had long ministered in the colony had no right at all. No legal opinion had ever been given in favour of their claim; it rested solely on the demand they had thought proper to set up, following the example of the Church of Scotland, after the right of the Church of England had remained undisturbed for thirty years.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the notice given by the right rev. Prelate to move that certain questions be proposed to the judges referred only to certain parts of the bill of the legislature of Upper Canada now on the table. Now, the point on which the most rev. Prelate had just addressed the House was by no means necessarily connected with that bill—he meant the question, whether, under the act 31 George 3rd., the clergy of the church of Scotland were to be included in the term "Protestant clergy," as well as those of the Church of England. Under the circumstances, he thought it was not too much to ask the right rev. Prelate to lay on the table on Thursday the specific questions which he was to propose to the House, on Friday, should be addressed to
282
the judges. In point of fact, nearly the whole question depended on the manner in which they might be put, and he thought that their Lordships should be allowed at least 24 hours for considering them. He wished to reserve his opinion on the subject, important as it was, to the last moment, and, therefore, he would say nothing on the general question which had been opened by the right rev. Prelate. But he wished to address one question to the noble Viscount, which he hoped would be answered. He thought it a matter of some importance that their Lordships should understand among what religious denominations of Christians it was meant that the funds should be divided. It was said, among all denominations that were now recognised by the law of the province, and he wished to know who these were?
Viscount Melbournereplied, all sects would be included that were mentioned or recognized in certain acts of the colonial legislature, which acts would be laid upon the table.
The Archbishop of Canterburywished to explain that what he had said had no reference whatever to any motion that might be made by the right rev. Prelate, but he had thought it right to give an answer to what had fallen from the noble Earl. If it should be their Lordships' pleasure to accede to the motion he would have the honour of making on Monday, the 13th of April, he was inclined to think it would be the duty of Government to ascertain the right of the several parties who claimed an interest in the reserves, before they proceeded to legislate, that they might proceed upon the basis of justice to all parties.
The Bishop of Exeterthought that nothing could be fairer than what the noble Baron, who had last addressed their Lordships had suggested, that the questions to be proposed to the judges should be placed before their Lordships at least 24 hours before the motion was made. He would tell the House frankly why he was not at present prepared to state them. He wished very particularly, before announcing them, to communicate with a noble and learned Lord whose present state of health prevented him from attending that House, and who had an especial claim to be consulted, inasmuch as communications on this subject had already passed between them. He could not say positively, but he believed that the construction of the

283
term "Protestant clergy," would be one of the points embraced in the questions. If he proceeded with his motion on Friday, he would give full information as to the terms of the questions on Thursday; but, at all events, he would not proceed without previously giving full information. He wished to mention, that, when he spoke of Mr. M'Kenzie's triumph, in the observations he had already made to their Lordships, he was not aware that the noble Earl (Ripon) had given some explanation last year on that matter. He would now, with their Lordships' permission, advert to some remarks which had fallen from the noble Viscount (Melbourne.) The noble Viscount had taken him to task for the tone in which he had addressed their Lordships. He did not mean to enter into any justification of that tone, but he must say, that never yet was a human being so totally ignorant—the noble Viscount would not be surprised at that expression from him, and would forgive him for using it—of the grounds on which he (the Bishop of Exeter) rested his case. The noble Viscount had the confidence to tell their Lordships that he made this charge upon the authority of papers of which he alone was in possession, at least which were not generally known, and he had said that he charged Mr. Poulett Thomson with wilful misstatement. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had disclaimed such an intention; he meant it sincerely, and he was surprised that the noble Viscount should not have understood him as disclaiming such a charge against that right hon. person. His authority for the statement he had made was a paper which the noble Viscount had laid upon the table—he meant the letter of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and never had he heard, even from the noble Viscount, who had so often astonished their Lordships by his declarations of ignorance, more especially Ins ignorance of colonial policy—never had he been so much astonished as at the declaration which he had heard from the noble Viscount o-night. He was quite sure the noble viscount had never read the despatch of Mr. P. Thomson, or he never would have dared to make the statement he had made; but without reading the despatch, the noble Viscount had had the confidence to State that the right hon. Gentleman proved throughout his despatch that ever since the year 1823 or 1824, the house of Assembly had maintained a constant, per-
284
petual, and universal protest against appropriating the clergy reserves to any other than general purposes, or those of education. He re-affirmed in the teeth of the noble Viscount, the assertion that he had made,—that the right hon. Gentleman contradicted himself, and he entreated the noble Viscount's attention for a few moments, while he detailed the facts on which he rested his justification for having said so. The right hon. Gentleman asserted that ever since 1823 or 1824 the House of Assembly had refused to grant the clergy reserves for any purposes but those of education or general improvement, rejecting all proposals to apply them to the support of religion. Now, according to the despatch of Mr. P. Thomson himself, in the session of 1836–7, a resolution was adopted in the assembly, by thirty-five to twenty-one,
"That it is desirable that the lands commonly called clergy reserves, and the proceeds arising from the sale thereof, be appropriated for the promotion of the religious or moral instruction of the people throughout this province."
[Viscount Melbourne: Religious and moral instruction.] Oh! the noble Viscount was going to special plead on the phrase instruction. He would remind the noble Viscount that the term "religious instruction" was the point on which the whole discussions respecting the property of the Church of Ireland had turned. [Viscount Melbourne: He meant education.] What Mr. Thomson meant they had nothing whatever to do with. The noble Viscount knew what the assembly meant. Mr. Thomson stated,
"That this resolution was communicated, for concurrence, to the Legislative Council, who, in reply, stated, that if by 'moral instruction' was meant nothing distinct from, or independent of, religion, they would be ready to concur in it, and that they would be ready to go any reasonable length in meeting the wishes of the other branches of the legislature, keeping in view the necessity of making provision for the religious instruction of the people, and the maintenance of public worship."
In 1837–8, a resolution was adopted in the Assembly, by a majority of twenty-one to seventeen, for re-investing the reserves in the Crown, "for the support and maintenance of the Christian religion within the province;" and a bill for that purpose was brought in. What would the noble Viscount say to this? There

285
was no room for special pleading here. The noble Viscount had studied in a special pleader's office, and had shown that he had profited by his legal education; but how could he, with all his ingenuity, get rid of the phrase "Christian religion." In 1839, the Assembly, according to Mr. Thomson, adopted a bill founded upon the following resolutions:—
"1st. To pay to each clergyman of the churches of England and Scotland, resident, according to the first resolution, an annual stipend not to exceed 100 l. 2nd. To pay to the Wesleyan Methodist church, in Canada, in connexion with the English conference, or their proper officer, a sum not to exceed 100 l. per annum, for as many ministers of that church as there shall be lots granted and conveyed in each circuit, according to the second resolution. 3rd. The surplus of interest, not otherwise disposed of, to be expended in aid of the erection of places of public worship throughout the province generally."
Thus, in three instances successively, the Assembly, upon Mr. Thomson's own showing, had done that which he declared they had constantly and regularly refused to do. What happened afterwards? In that very year the Assembly concurred with the Legislative Council in passing that bill, which was not laid on their Lordships' Table, because Government did not choose to give it their sanction, but which left the disposal of the reserves to the Imperial Parliament, with the restriction of appropriating them to religious purposes. Ever since the year 1836, the Colonial Assembly had practised that which Mr. P. Thomson said they had constantly refused to do. He said, therefore, that that right hon. person had mis-stated the fact, and also that the noble Viscount had mis-stated the fact, inasmuch as he said, that the right hon. Gentleman had made out what he had failed to make out.
Lord Ellenboroughwished to say a few words, as he was afraid that what had fallen from him might be erroneously construed into an approval of the proposal for consulting the judges. He did not mean to give any opinion on the propriety of that course. He apprehended that questions ought to be put to the judges where it was necessary for their Lordships to have legal advice for their guidance in legislative proceedings. But that was not the present case. It was now the duty of the Ministers of the Crown to go to their legal advisers, and ask their opinion as to the legality of the measure to which they
286
were called upon to give their assent, but he apprehended it was not their Lordships' duty to give advice to the Crown as to the legality of a measure which came before them under such circumstances. It was their duty, if they thought it necessary to advise the Crown on the subject of the justice or expediency of the measure, but the question of its legality ought, he considered, to rest with the legal advisers of the Crown. He threw this out for the consideration of the right reverend prelate and the House, because he would not have the right reverend prelate proceed, in making his motion, on the erroneous supposition that any questions he might wish to have answered were to be proposed by the House as a matter of course to the judges.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he would be sorry to anticipate the discussion on his motion, and he thought it would be more convenient to enter into those remarks when the question was before the House.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that, on Friday next there would be only three judges in town, the rest being on the circuit. With respect to the despatch to Lord Bathurst, containing the opinions of the legal advisers of the Crown in Canada, for which the right reverend Prelate had asked, it was not the usual course to produce such opinions, and it might lead to great inconvenience if the rule were departed from.
The Bishop of Exeterthought that the paper could not, in common justice, be refused. The whole question arose from the notoriety which had been given to the opinions of the law advisers of the Crown, given in 1819. Since the latter had been made public, he could not see why the opinions of the legal advisers of the Crown in Canada should not be produced, as well as those of its advisers in England.
Address agreed to.