Sitting of 15 March 1841

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Sewers.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Easthope, Mr. Hume, Mr. Baines, Mr. B. Wood, and others, from Gaddington, Northamptonshire, Alfreston, Sussex, Eye, Devonshire, Portsmouth, and a great many other places, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and the Release of Mr. Baines.—By Sir B. Hall, Mr. W. Duncombe, Mr. T. Parker, Sir E. Wilmot, and others, from Mary-le-bone, Adlington, Cowick Unions, in Yorkshire, and other places, against the New Poor-law Amendment Act—By Mr. Sheppard, Mr. C. Berkeley, Lord C. Somerset, and others, from Frome, Cheltenham, Pontypool, and other places, against, and by Mr. Hume, from Bridgenorth, in favour of the Medical Profession Bill.—By Mr. Scholefield, from Birmingham, and by Mr. Divett, from the Town Council of Newport, in favour of the Jews Declaration Bill.—By Mr. Oswald, from Glasgow, and other parts of Scotland, and by Mr. R. Steuart, from places in the counties of Haddington, and Kincardine, against Church Patronage.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from inhabitants of Nottingham, for the Liberation of Frost, Williams, and Jones; and from inhabitants of Dublin, for the Liberation of all Prisoners for Political Offences.—By Mr. Hume, from inhabitants of Middlesex, against Plurality of Votes in Vestries; and from Socialists of Battersea, for an Investigation.—By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from a Town in Kerry, in favour of Lord Morpeth's Parliamentary Voters Bill.—By Sir J. Graham, from a parish in Roscommon, in favour of Lord Stanley's Registration Bill.—By Colonel Sibthorp, from a parish in Lincolnshire, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Denison, from Farnham, against the Employment of Troops in connexion with Idolatrous Worship in India.—By Sir John Scale, from Dartmouth, in favour of the Government plan with regard to the West-India Mails.—By Sir John Campbell, from the Town-council of Edinburgh, for a Bill for the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland.

THE GREEN PARK.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that several paragraphs had lately appeared in the public journals, as to the intention of the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests to plant the Green Park, and to encroach considerably on the privileges which the public now enjoyed there; he wished, therefore, to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, whether there was any just foundation for any or all of those paragraphs.
Mr. Edward J. Stanleysaid, that almost all the statements which had appeared in the public journals were incorrect; there was no intention on the part of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, to exclude the public from any portion of the Park to which they had hitherto had access. There was no intension to shut it up for planting, or to erect entrance-lodges, and close it at night. The works going on at present were solely for the purpose of draining, and of sowing the Park with grass seeds; and, of course, till these seeds sprung up, it would be necessary to have some temporary fences.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
The House in Committee on the South Australian Acts.
Lord John Russellrose to move the resolution of which he had given notice,
"That it is the opinion of this committee, that her Majesty be authorized, by an act of the present Session of Parliament, to guarantee a loan, not exceeding 210,000 l., to be contracted for by the commissioners for South Australia, and that provision be made out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for the payment from time to time of such sums of money as may become payable under such guarantee."
The committee which had been appointed upon this colony, differing, the noble Lord said, upon the one point, whether they, as a committee, should give any opinion to the House upon the subject, were at the same time agreed, that if it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose such a loan, no delay ought to be permitted in bringing the question before the House. And with regard to responsibility, the Government had already undertaken, that, in bringing the state of the colony under the notice of the House, the steps which had been taken by the Secretary of State last autumn, in conjunction with the Treasury, and the course adopted by the commissioners on their suggestion, had shown
244
what was the opinion of the Government, and he could have no hesitation, upon the responsibility of the Government, in now bringing forward this resolution. But as the committee, in agreeing to certain resolutions which had been presented to the House, had recommended that, in addition to the liabilities already incurred being charged on the state, there should be a sum of 56,000 l. allowed for emigration, he thought it necessary, when making a proposition to the House on the subject, to make also a statement with regard to the colony of South Australia. The colony of South Australia was founded upon two Acts of Parliament, and upon two Acts of Parliament, containing provisions differing in several most material details from what Parliament had provided with respect to other colonies. Generally speaking, our colonies were founded upon one of two species of government; they were founded either upon local government, consisting of a representative assembly, or in some form or another of the inhabitants of the colony, who directed the taxes, and the affairs generally of the colony, in some measure under the Crown; or the colony was more directly under the Crown, either by means of a governor appointed immediately by the Crown, and governing in its name. The government of the colony of South Australia was of a totally different nature. It was neither a government wholly in the hands of persons resident within it, nor wholly under the control and direction of the Crown itself. The first act of Parliament specified, that certain commissioners were to be appointed by the Crown, but when once they were appointed, there was a direction, by the 18th section of the act, that the whole of the expenses of the Government of the colony should be defrayed under the direction of these commissioners. This was an act proposed, in the first instance, by some Members of Parliament, and by other persons out of Parliament. The act contained other provisions with respect to emigration, and to the sale of lands for the purpose of promoting the emigration. From the first it seemed that there had been considerable difficulty as to the interpretation of the act, and as to the mode in which the Government should be conducted. Lord Aberdeen had asked the law officers of the Crown whether the commissioners were to be considered as responsible to the Treasury generally for the expenses which they incurred or sanc-

245
tioned, and the law officers made a reply, referring to certain details into which he need not then enter. At a later period, the law officers were asked, on the part of the Crown, whether or no the Treasury and the Secretary of State were to be considered as directing the expenditure of this colony, and the reply of the law officers of the Crown was, that the whole of these matters were in the hands of the commissioners. From this time, as he conceived, it became perfectly impracticable for the Secretary of State or for the Treasury to conduct the affairs of the colony. Therefore it; was, that Lord Glenelg had deferred to the opinion of the Commissioners in all matters respecting the Government. Their opinion was taken as to the governor, and in every instance the opinion of the commissioners was embodied in the orders given to the colony. But there were other difficulties in the colony. There was, according to the first act, a governor, and also a resident commissioner for the sale of Crown lands, and these two persons differed as to the extent and nature of their respective authorities. There was also a dispute between the governor and the first settlers, the governor thinking that he ought to exercise a certain degree of authority, which the settlers were not disposed to admit. The consequence was, that, after a certain period, Lord Glenelg and the commissioners agreed that Captain Hindmarsh could not carry on the Government in a manner that would be useful to the colony or to this country. He was, therefore, recalled. He was succeeded by Colonel Gawler, who, upon his arrival, wrote home a despatch, which showed that the affairs of the colony, and that the finances, were in a very bad condition. It seemed to the commissioners at that time, that this state of affairs might be remedied, and that Colonel Gawler might be able to put the colony into a good condition. But in the course of the last year, and not long after the new commissioners were appointed, there arrived from the colony accounts of an expenditure far exceeding the revenue of the colony. It at first appeared, that instead of the expenditure being according to the revenue, 20,000 l. or 30,000 l. a-year, it rose to the rate of 80,000 l. or 90,000 l., and afterwards to the enormous expenditure of 130,000 l. for a year. In July last, the commissioners ascertained such to be the state of affairs, and on representing it to him
246
(Lord John Russell), he said immediately that this rate of expenditure must be stopped, that the governor must be called to account for it, and that, as the colony had been founded by acts of Parliament, he would immediately, at the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, move for the appointment of a committee to examine into the whole question of what ought to be done with respect to the colony. In the month of October, after further reports from the commissioners, and representations of their total inability to pay the bills which were drawn from the colony, he requested the attention of the Treasury to the subject, and they appointed one of the Lords of the Treasury to make a report to them with regard to the financial affairs of the colony. A report was made, and the opinion of the Treasury, as well as his own opinion, was, that in the existing state of affairs of the colony, it was necessary, if the colony were to be preserved, that Government should state to the parties who were willing to lend their money on security, that her Majesty's Ministers would undertake to propose to Parliament to guarantee the loan. The effect of that declaration did not produce a loan to the colony, but it did quiet the alarm which at the moment prevailed, and induced parties to withhold demands for payment of the bills for expenses that had been incurred till the meeting of Parliament. At the meeting of Parliament, as this was a subject exceedingly complicated in its nature, and as Parliament itself, by its own acts had regulated the colony, he thought it was much better that a committee should be appointed, of which the several Members might, make themselves masters of the whole transaction, than that he should endeavour to explain the whole of the affairs of the colony to the House, and ask the House to adopt his opinion, because, in that case, it had appeared to him that a demand for inquiry was certain to be made, which, as it was reasonable, it would not be possible to resist. He had now no hesitation in stating in what respect he thought the acts relating to South Australia were defective—in what respects they had contributed to the present state of affairs in the colony, and what was the general course by which Parliament should be guided—without saying what particular provisions should be made in legislating for the future government of this colony. The acts re-

247
lating to South Australia were, as he conceived, founded on two general principles; one of them appeared to him to be an exceedingly sound and useful principle—a principle which had been acted upon before to a certain degree, and which had been acted upon since to a much larger extent, viz. the principle that uncultivated public lands in a colony instead of being, as in former times, granted in very large proportions to individuals, without the means of cultivating them, should be sold at a certain price, and the produce thus obtained should be employed in sending labourers to the colony. He believed that this was a sound principle, because, on the one hand, it supplied capital to the colony by inducing those who had capital to lay it out in buying lands in the colony; whilst on the other hand, it supplied to the colonies labour from the money paid for the purchase of land; and thus both capital and labour were brought forward to aid in the progress of a new colony. So far as this principle was embodied in the South Australian Acts, he conceived that Parliament acted wisely in enacting it. But it occurred to him that at the same time they had adopted another principle that was far more doubtful, which might succeed in certain instances, but which it was not probable could be carried out satisfactorily in most colonies. That principle was, that the colony should be what was called "a self-supporting colony;" that is, that the whole of the expenses of its administration, of its judicial system and otherwise, incurred in its management, should be defrayed by the colony at once, without any demand being made upon the mother country. It was proposed that this should be done by two modes, at first out of the revenues of the colony alone; and in the next place, by the aid of a loan upon the emigration fund; namely, the fund that would be derived from the sale of the lands in the colony. Now he did not think that it was probable a revenue, could be raised in the colony itself, at its very commencement, which should be adequate to defraying all those expenses to which a new colony was naturally subject. There were certain expenses in a small colony which must necessarily be as heavy as in one much larger. For instance, the salaries of the officers and of the persons administering justice must be equally paid in both and a colony at its first foundation could
248
scarcely be able to defray all these. In the second bill there was a provision that certain loans might be made upon the faith of the emigration fund, with a proviso that at the end of a year not more than one-third of the whole sums received from the sale of land should be owing from the revenue fund to the emigration fund. The obvious consequence of that was, that the colony was to be, in a great degree, supported by loans. The intention was, that, although at certain times such loans were to be paid, yet there were to be large sums constantly borrowed, which were to defray the ordinary expenses of the colony. Now, there were many ways in which such a provision might be altogether defeated or attended with dangerous results. In the first place, if there were to be certain sums derived from the revenues of the colony, and certain other sums from a vote of Parliament, and if the expenses of the government of the colony were to be confined to those sums, the Treasury would take very good care that there was no very great excess, and so long the country would have security that the funds were properly managed. But when once they said that a colony should be made to flourish by artificial means, that it should exist upon borrowed money—and when they made it a part of this system to give the whole control of the expenditure to certain commissioners, setting aside the Secretary of State, and, above all, setting aside the control of the Treasury—they did give encouragement for needless expenditure, and for the adoption of rules for the immediate support of the colony by a large supply of money, by which the permanent interests of the colony would be sacrificed. Secondly, the plan went on the supposition that there would be an almost inexhaustible supply of land, fit to be cultivated, that could be sold. If they found that the sales of land went on regularly year by year, the loans might be repaid; but they could not be certain in such a colony as South Australia, where the land had been laid out within geographical limits, that they would continue to find fertile land, or it might not be sold for other reasons; and then having contracted the debt, the colony might be unable to repay the proportion to the fund. In the third place, there might be other difficulties that would overtake the colony; they might come from a foreign enemy, or from the elements; for instance, the harbour

249
might be greatly injured by a storm, and great expense might be rendered necessary, and the colony might by those means become embarrassed. In short, he thought that there were various means by which a colony which was dealt with on the principle of not asking for any support from Parliament, and of not being under the control of the Treasury, might fail as he had stated, be deprived of credit, and fall into exceeding embarrassment. With regard to South Australia—without saying how far Colonel Gawler had been to blame, for he had as yet really given no reason for the extraordinary outlay—he could not but think, that the governor had yielded in a great degree to the temptation that had been thrown in his way by the South Australian Act. Besides, there was in the second act a provision which was in itself either very dangerous or totally impracticable. There were to be loans on the emigration fund, but at the end of the year they were to be repaid to a certain amount. Now one of two things might happen; in the one case, the commissioners having borrowed the full amount of money allowed on the faith of the emigration fund, might, if their credit were good, go on making fresh loans, and incurring a great amount of debt, on the fallacious assumption that there might be means of repayment; and in the other case, it might happen, as it did last autumn, that the commissioners might find that they were totally unable to comply with the provisions of the act, because they might have to pay away large sums of money for emigration and for other purposes. They must even go into the market on their own credit to borrow fresh sums, and would fail. Parties having money to lend would look to the present state of the revenue, and could it be expected when they saw an expenditure of 100,000 l. a-year, with a revenue of only 20,000 l., that they would be very willing to lend their money? or they would, in the next place, inquire into the future resources of the colony, and it might turn out that there was no more fertile land to be permanently sold, so as to give no assurance of affording further money, and it might therefore be found totally impossible for the commissioners to comply with such an Act of Parliament. He had now stated the manner in which, as he thought, the embarrassments of South Australia had arisen; and without saying at that moment, and whilst the committee were still sitting,
250
how much the Government, or how much the Secretary of State, or how much the commissioners were severally to blame in the different parts of these proceedings, he had still given his reasons for thinking that these embarrassments of South Australia were naturally derived from the Acts of Parliament on which that colony was founded. It was to him a matter of regret, that what he considered an entirely sound principle, that the sale of the crown lands at a certain sum, and the application of the sums arising from these sales—either in the whole or in part, to the purposes of immigration—he did regret very much that so sound a principle should have been mixed up in these acts with other provisions which were very objectionable, and which had led to the present ruinous state of the financial affairs of this colony. But when he stated this with regard to the monetary affairs of the colony, and while he could not state, that in the present limited resources of the colony it would be able to pay the outstanding bills and liabilities, yet he believed that upon the whole it was a colony which, even at the present period, contained within itself very considerable resources, with a great display of industry, and with a considerable appearance of exertion; and he was convinced that if it were supported by Parliament, it would be able to get through the difficulties which had now arisen. At the same time, he did not think that Parliament ought to agree to the continuance of the present system. He had very great doubts whether they ought to raise any money for the purposes which the committee approved of—56,000 l., which it was proposed should be applied to emigration. However, the committee had adopted that course, and his doubt was rather whether it were not better to go into the whole inquiry as to what was preferable to adopt, than to propose such an effort now. But it was his opinion that they ought, at all events, by an Act of Parliament, to relieve the commissioners from the difficulty of being obliged to repay to the emigration fund the money already borrowed; for unless they were relieved from this duty by Act of Parliament, the commissioners would feel that they were bound by the present Act of Parliament to repay the loan which had been borrowed on the emigration fund: and he, therefore, thought that in voting the sum of 56,000 l. for the purposes of emigration, they ought to repeal

251
that provision of the existing act. In proposing that they should relieve the colony from its present financial embarrassments, it was not perhaps necessary that he should state his opinions as to the manner in which the colony should be in future governed; but he had no hesitation in stating, that he thought the principles of Government which were applied to the other colonies should be applied to the colony of South Australia. That making what provisions they thought proper with respect to the sale of land and the application of the money derived therefrom, the provisions which placed the government of the colony in the hands of commissioners, and directed that the whole of the expenses of the colony should be defrayed by their orders, and not by the Treasury, should be repealed, so as to bring the colony into the same state as other colonies with regard to its government. That if the Crown was to do anything for the colony, the responsible ministers of the Crown should have a more direct control; that the governor appointed by the Crown should correspond, not with the commissioners, but with the Secretary of State and the Government; and with respect to the financial question, that when the governor should write home, his application should be referred to the Treasury, and that their opinion, as well as that of the Secretary of State, should be taken before the directions of the Government were sent out. For himself, he could see no good, indeed he could see nothing but mischief, in that anomalous kind of government in which the Crown having a nominal direction, yet, in fact, left everything to the commissioners, whilst the commissioners felt bound by the Act of Parliament, so that neither could be considered as responsible. If the committee thought it proper that the colony of South Australia should govern itself, and that the persons there should have a representative constitution, although he confessed that that was not his opinion, he should feel no insuperable objection to it. He should feel, that it would in time, though perhaps not until after a considerable time had elapsed, struggle through its difficulties, and obtain considerable prosperity. Let this course be taken, or let that which he had proposed be adopted, but let them not any longer continue this third course, which had been most embarrassing to the Secretary of State, which had led the Government and the commis-
252
sioners into a series of measures which he thought highly unadvisable, and which were entirely at variance with those principles upon which a colonial government was usually conducted. He trusted that the committee, and that Parliament, would think it right that they should extricate the colony from its present difficulties.
Lord Stanleysaid, that the noble Lord who had just sat down had correctly stated that, in the committee which had been appointed to inquire into the original causes of the present situation of South Australia, although considerable difficulty might exist as to the propriety of the advance of money, there was very little doubt upon one point—namely, that whatever steps it was deemed advisable should be taken, ought to be made known, and the intentions of Parliament ascertained with the least possible delay. The noble Lord, in the observations which he had made, had dwelt, he thought, with undue weight upon the opinion of the committee, because, before the time at which that committee was appointed, he had fell, and he had expressed his opinion, that the subject was one which was not properly referred to the consideration of a committee, but that the responsibility of providing for the immediate relief of the financial embarrassments of the colony, and in bringing forward a plan for the alteration of the system on which the colonial government was carried on, rested with the Government. And on this point so strongly did the committee feel, that although their report proposed to recognise the advance of money, in the terms which were specified in their resolution, yet the resolution, as it was eventually completed, was one which placed the whole responsibility of this proceeding in the hands of the Government; and that resolution was carried, not only by no large majority, but actually by the casting vote of the chairman alone, who was a member of the Government, two other members of the Government, who were in the committee, voting in favour of the same recommendation. There was something more also in the proceedings of the committee worthy of note, with reference to the share of the responsibility which the Government seemed disposed to take upon itself. The noble Lord said that he entertained great doubts himself whether he should agree to the recommendation of the committee, that the sum of 56,000 l. should be made good; but he

253
said that he had had the recommendation of the committee, and he appeared to rest upon the responsibility of that committee, by which the recommendation had been made. Now, rather a singular scene took place in the committee. He had expressed an opinion that it was proper that no recommendation should be made, but that the Government should take its own course for relieving the embarrassments of the colony; and having given that opinion, he felt that he was not bound to offer any expression of his views whether 150,000 l. or 200,000 l. should be the amount of the assistance which should be given; and most of those who agreed with him, agreed also in abstaining from saying what the amount should be. But there were two hon. Members who voted in favour of making a specific recommendation that an advance of money should take place, stating also that the responsibility rested with the Government; so that, at the same time that they advised an advance, they thought all else should be left to the Government to decide; and it was remarkable that they were themselves members of the Government, who were sent to the committee for the purpose of leading it, and stating the views which the Government entertained upon the subject. When the noble Lord had proposed the appointment of the committee, he said that in assenting to it, the colony having been originally founded by an act of Parliament under peculiar circumstances, he could not but say, that he entertained a strong opinion that it was not the duty of the Government to throw the question loosely before the committee, but that going down to Parliament on their own responsibility, they ought to recommend the course to be taken, and afterwards they should refer that course to the committee for the purpose of obtaining information, and making a full investigation upon the subject. But he remained of the opinion still that, notwithstanding the appointment of the committee, it was still the duty of the Government to come down to Parliament not only with a proposal for relieving the embarrassments of the colony, but with a statement of their views, and a proposal to carry those views into effect, as to the alterations which their experience suggested to them were necessary to be made in the constitution of the colony. The noble Lord had, to a certain extent, done
254
so, and he should do him injustice if he did not admit that, in the majority of his propositions, he fully concurred. He concurred with him in what he had said as to the many evils of the original constitution of the colony, and in much that he had said in tracing the causes of the existing distress in the colony, as well as in the belief that, under certain limitations, the plan of devoting the proceeds of land sales to the purposes of emigration was a good one. He also concurred with him as to the condition to which he had referred, for it was that upon which the colony was originally formed—he meant the self-supporting system. He had always been of opinion, that it was impossible to act upon that system; that it was impossible that a colony at the commencement of its existence should bear its own expences; and that the success of an undertaking founded upon such a principle must be hazardous in the extreme. He must take leave to say, that the original act upon which the colony was established was introduced most hastily, and with very little due consideration of many of the most important points which required to be well weighed by Parliament. The noble Lord had adverted to one point—to the inconvenience experienced by reason of the constitution of the colony—from its being neither a chartered colony nor a Crown colony, from which circumstance the authority and the responsibility were alike divided; and in the censure which the noble Lord had expressed upon that subject he entirely concurred. He had recorded his opinion upon this point, in a letter which was written by Mr. Lefevre to Mr. Whitmore in March, 1834:—
"He perceives also that, as the proposed charter is framed, the whole active legislative power over the colony is to be taken from the Crown, and is to be placed in the hands of commissioners, not (except in the first instance) selected by the Crown—not removable, except for positive misconduct or neglect—not responsible either to the colonists or the Government at home for the measures which they may propose, and not personally interested in the success of the undertaking which they are to conduct. On the other hand, the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, who will be unable to carry into effect any measure whatever, however essential he may consider it to the welfare of the colony, will still have the task of checking and controlling the proceedings of this new legislative body, and will therefore be subject to the responsibility of the failure of the experiment, without being able to

255
contribute to its success. Unless this important feature of the proposed charter is abandoned, unless the government of the colony is to be left in the hands of the Crown and its constitutional advisers until it is able to govern itself—unless, in fact, the provisional committee of the association find themselves able to assimilate in a much greater degree their project to that which I have above sketched out as meeting Mr. Stanley's views, Mr. Stanley will be under the necessity of declining to proceed any further in this negotiation with the South Australian Association; a course which, the intrinsic merits of their plan, considered as a means of facilitating emigration, and the respect which he entertains for the distinguished individuals composing the committee, would lead him sincerely to regret. I am further to add, that, in the event of the association ultimately deciding to treat for the purchase of a tract of land upon the terms above suggested by Mr. Stanley, Mr. Stanley would not object to the following stipulations being made in their favour, namely, that the minimum price at which the Crown should sell any additional land to individuals, should be somewhat higher than that at which the company should have purchased it; and that a considerable part of the purchase-money of such additional land should be expended in promoting emigration upon such principles as might be hereafter agreed on by the association and her Majesty's Government."
Some modifications were then proposed, and further negotiations took place in the month of April; but they went no further on either side than a general statement of the principles upon which the measure proposed was to be founded. He quitted office in May, and almost the very day afterwards his successor was pressed to adopt the measure which had been proposed. So rapidly did his successor bring forward that measure, that in two months after he had acceded to office it had passed through both Houses of Parliament, with a declaration from the hon. Gentleman, that he had given his assent to the bill, without at all referring to the fitness of the site selected however, although that had been the very first point which he (Lord Stanley) had marked out to be ascertained and decided upon before he would enter into any further negotiations at all. There was no question, that where one spoke of legislative power and governing power, the governing power would rest with the body which exercised authority by means of the expenditure of the finance, and it was impossible to suppose, that a Government not entrusted with the expenditure of the finance would not feel itself cramped and controlled in its proceedings. This was
256
the very evil which was found to have arisen, and which he had anticipated, and without the removal of which he had declared, that he could not consent to the establishment of the colony. The result had only been the natural consequence of the establishment of a colony which had commenced on the principle of loans, which had continued on a system of credit, whose prosperity had been fictitious, and now the bubble was burst and the full mischief which had been created had been discovered. He did not wish to enter into details, but when they saw, that at the expiration of four years from the commencement of a colony there was an expenditure of 140,000 l. per annum, the revenue of the colony not being more than 20,000 l.; that the government-house had been built at an expence of 24,000 l. on sanctioned authority that 22,000 l. had been laid out in the formation of a road across a swamp, for the purpose of improving a harbour, originally badly chosen; that lands bought for 12 s. an acre were sold in the hardly created town of Adelaide for 500 l. 1,000 l., or 1,500 l. an acre, a price which he would venture to say would hardly have been obtained in Liverpool itself for any large quantity amounting to an acre; that there had been established three banks, carrying on business, and issuing their own paper; that labour had reached the price of from 6s. to 12 s. per day; that a body of police was established, paid at the rate of 1l. 19 s. per week each man, who complained of the inadequacy of their wages, because they were unable to procure their white trousers and gloves to be washed for it—all of which showed a disposition to transfer all the comforts and luxuries of the civilised world to a barely formed colony at the antipodes, and they could not be surprised at what had occurred. What, he asked, was the consequence of all this? That there were not two hundred acres of land in the colony actually under tillage for the support of the colony; and instead of the first colonists who went out attempting to cultivate the land, they suffered themselves to be supplied with flour sent from England to New South Wales, and then imported from other colonies at an enormous price, and that the whole of the colonists directed their attention to land jobbing and speculation, and that a profligate waste of money had taken place, in a manner utterly inconsistent with the success of

257
the colony. The noble Lord had referred to giving the produce of the land sales for the purposes of emigration. He (Lord Stanley) assented to that principle, but he supported the principle of fixing a price for land—not a uniform price, but a minimum price. He thought that the facilities given to colonists in obtaining land in many of our colonies had produced an excellent effect on the people resorting to them. He thought that the principle upon which those facilities were founded was one to which it was exceedingly desirable to adhere, but that there should not be a uniform price at which the land should be purchased, and that a fair minimum price should be determined upon, so that some competition might take place, and a fair price obtained, and he thought this advisable on more grounds than one. It had not unfrequently happened that land had been sold at 20 s. an acre for want of competition, when on the same day as much as 30 s. or 40 s. might be obtained; and this he looked upon as throwing away the money which ought to be collected for the support of the colony. But there was a gross and crying evil committed upon the first settlers, if proper precautions were not taken, and if the land was not properly allotted out. A survey ought to take place, the expenses of which should be charged upon the land fund, and the proceeds applicable to the purposes of emigration should be the net produce of the sales, and not the gross produce, without any deductions being made from it; because it was clear that the expense of the survey was one which was incurred for the purpose of creating that value for the land, without which, in fact, it was not marketable at all. In the case of the colony of South Australia there had been no survey, and the result had been that, instead of the settlers directing their attention to the cultivation of the soil, they turned to land-jobbing and speculation. The noble Lord had stated his intention, without reference to the recommendation which the committee had made, to bring forward his own measure for the alteration of the acts relating to South Australia in those respects in which he considered that they were deficient. Amongst others, the noble Lord had very properly adverted to the monstrous proviso contained in the third clause of the second act, whereby the principle of the original act was departed from, and power
258
given to borrow from the emigration fund for the purposes of the colony.
"Provided always, that the amount advanced from the said emigration fund, in aid of the revenues of the colony, together with the debt which may have been due to the said emigration fund at the commencement of any year, shall not at the close of any such year exceed one-third of the amount which may have accrued to the said emigration fund in the course of such year."
The fifth clause provided:—
"And whereas, it is in and by the said Act provided, that in case the commissioners should be unable to raise, by the issue of colonial revenue securities, the whole of the sum of 200,000 l. therein mentioned, or that the ordinary revenue of the said province should be insufficient to discharge the obligations of all or any of the said securities, the public lands of the said province then remaining unsold, and the moneys to be obtained by the sale thereof, should be deemed a collateral security for payment of the principal and interest of the said colonial debt, but no moneys obtained by the sales of public lands were to be employed in defraying the principal or interest of the said colonial debt, so long as any obligation created by the public land securities in the said act mentioned should remain undischarged. And whereas, the commissioners have raised the sum of——by issue of colonial revenue securities, but the said commissioners have not issued any South Australian public land securities: And whereas, the ordinary revenue of the said colony hath been from the first issue of the said colonial revenue securities, and still is, insufficient to pay the interest thereon, or on any part thereof; be it, therefore, enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for the said commissioners, by any order or orders signed by them, or any two of them, to direct their treasurer or treasurers to apply so much of the moneys received or to be received, as and for the proceeds of the sales of public lands in the said province as may be necessary in payment and discharge of all or any part of the principal due and owing, and of the interest accrued and to accrue, upon the colonial revenue securities issued or to be issued by them, and so from time to time. Provided always, that in case the said commissioners shall hereafter issue any of the South Australian public land securities in the said act mentioned, then and in such case it shall not be lawful for the said commissioners to issue any such order as here in before mentioned till such South Australian public land securities have been paid off and discharged: Provided also, that the sums so paid in pursuance of any such order shall constitute a colonial debt owing by the said province to the said commissioners as in the said act mentioned."
The consequence of the system which

259
had arisen under these provisions, and of the temptations held out, had been unlimited credit, followed by unlimited expenses, and terminated, he might almost say, by unlimited bankruptcy now. With regard to the general prospects which presented themselves, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord, but he thought, that before he called on the House to vote the large sum of money which he proposed to give without any security for its repayment, or any prospect of the payment of the interest, he should embody his views in a measure which should be submitted to the consideration of the House, and which should contain the proposition which he said he would bring forward. He did not know whether it were in the contemplation of the noble Lord, that on this resolution being passed by the committee, in ignorance of the real state of the colony on the part of the great majority of those hon. Gentlemen to whom he addressed himself, because it was impossible that they could have yet read the documents which had been produced last Saturday, as well as the four annual reports, the commissioners should go into the market, and raise the necessary loans on the supposed guarantee of Parliament. Much as he desired that the present difficulties in which the colony was placed should be relieved, he did not think the House could be called upon now to pass those resolutions, if this were to be the result. Was it in fact to be an absolute grant of money out of the consolidated fund, or was the security of the consolidated fund to be introduced as a collateral security to the revenues and land fund of the province, and were the revenues and land fund to be made primarily liable to the amount of the loan and interest upon it? On that point, he thought that the noble Lord had not sufficiently explained his views. As far as he had explained them, he (Lord Stanley) admitted, that he was disposed to concur with him, and he thought, that in the state in which the colony was, without entering into minute particulars as to the means by which it had been brought to its present condition, it was necessary for Parliament to interfere now for the protection of the 15,000 individuals who had embarked their capital and their personal services in the colony, on the faith of the security of Government and the acts of Parliament. But he thought that it was
260
not right on the part of Government, who had had the whole recess before them, and who had been cognisant of all the circumstances since the 26th August last—who might have known from the despatch of Colonel Gawler, which they might have received so long ago as June, 1839, the critical position of the colony, in consequence of the act of Parliament—to call on this House now to sanction a grant of money without giving an account of any of the provisions of the bill which they proposed to introduce to effect the alterations in the colony which they had in view. He should be very sorry under existing circumstances, to interpose anything like a negative to the proposition of the noble Lord to raise a sum of money, but he really wished to press it upon the House whether it was not due to the magnitude of the question, to the importance of the interests involved, and to the principles upon which the House was to proceed, that they should take these two questions into consideration together, and should not be called upon to advance a loan without knowing the principle to be in future acted upon, or what security was to be given for the money advanced? Without, therefore, introducing any unnecessary details, he ventured to express a hope, that the noble Lord would permit the chairman to report progress, and postpone the consideration of the question until some future time, with an assurance on the part of the House of their desire to consider the exigencies of the colony and the means of meeting them, and that, in the meanwhile, the noble Lord would lay on the Table of the House in detail those measures which he intended to propose for the adoption of Parliament.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he had originally brought forward this question, and had referred it to a committee because he thought that the committee would be able to form an opinion upon the subject of a loan being made when that question was brought forward, and also as to the future government of the colony. He was in hopes that the proposition which he had now made would have been acceded to, and the report of the committee deprecating above all things any delay in the determination of the question to be decided, he had considered it to be his duty to bring forward that measure which he considered necessary immediately. The measure, which he was

261
able to bring forward without delay, was one to guarantee a loan to the colony; and he did not think that he should have been justified in proposing a bill to the House liable to the objection, as it would hate been, that it had not proceeded from the committee. That there should be a guarantee for the future payment of the loan, and that a measure should be prepared for the future government of the colony, he was wilting to admit; but in bringing forward the present resolution, he had thought above ail things that, it was necessary to proceed without delay. Having acted entirely in this matter upon the report of the committee, he thought that it would be hardly fair that his proposition should be postponed without any opinion being expressed, but that the committee should either declare their concurrence in it, or their dissent from the principle which was embodied in it. If they should agree in the propriety of its being adopted, he should be ready, in any bill which he might introduce, to lay down general principles as to the future government of the colony, but he hoped that the committee would not, in the mean time, entirely abandon the matter under consideration.
Sir Robert Peelthought that the noble Lord had given no answer which tended to remove the difficulty suggested. It was desired to be known whether the noble Lord meant, if the resolution were agreed to, that upon the guarantee of Parliament the loan might immediately be raised?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the real object was to meet the difficulties under which the colonists laboured; and the committee must remember that there were many bills in actual existence, the non payment of which might produce serious inconvenience. Sufficient money might be raised to meet the pressing exigency relating to them, while the rest might be a subject of future consideration.
Viscount Howicksaid, that it appeared to him that whatever arrangement might be adopted with regard to the future management of the colony, whether the colony succeeded or failed, at all events those bills which had been circulated under the authority of an Act of Parliament must be paid. If they were to be paid, they had it on the report of the committee, that it was of the utmost importance that they should be settled without delay; and it was to be observed, that if they should be
262
returned to the colony protested, there would be an additional expense of 20 per cent. incurred. He thought, that it was unfortunate that there had been any delay, and that some mismanagement must have taken place to produce it; but he was of opinion that they should provide for the money being raised at once, and it appeared to him that by taking the course suggested by the noble Lord opposite still further delay must arise. [Lord Stanley: Only a week.] Either it must be more than a week, or the bill which was introduced would be hastily drawn and imperfectly considered. He should suggest, that the committee should now consent to the resolution proposed, that the resolution should be reported, and that the Government, having then the authority of the House upon the subject, would be enabled at once to raise the loan, or at least so much of it as would be required to meet the immediate difficulties of the colony. But before the House was called upon to pass a bill which authorised the payment of money out of the consolidated fund the Government, he should say, should be deemed bound to produce a measure which should contain provisions as to the future Government of the colony; and he could not help thinking that that would be the better course to take, instead of bringing a bill hastily before the House in the manner proposed by the noble Lord opposite. It appeared to him that this would be the mode of proceeding which would best meet what was due to private parties interested in the colony, and what was due to that House and to the country for providing for the security of the public money. He would not follow the noble Lord through the statement which he had made. Opportunities would hereafter arise of discussing what was to be done in respect to the Government of the colony, and all they had to do now was to provide for its present pressing emergency.
Mr. Huttrose, not to oppose the views of the noble Lord who had moved this resolution, but in consequence of the attack that had been made on the colony, and on the views of those who were engaged in its establishment. A more un-rounded statement he had never heard, even from that noble Lord. The noble Lord had spoken of the extravagance with which the finances of the colony had been administered, for the purpose of giving it a fictitious appearance of prosperity; but

263
he denied the accuracy of that statement, or that a single sixpence had been expended by the authority of the commissioners except for objects strictly consistent with economy. He could not help wishing, that the noble Lord, before making statements so painful to the feelings of the parties, had taken the trouble to make himself aware of the real facts of the case. However, as the conduct of the commissioners had been called in question, and as he had been one of those commissioners during four years from the establishment of the colony, he trusted the House would permit him to make a few general observations in their defence. He would first remark, that the colony had not, up to this period, cost the country one sixpence, either for military or naval stations or other establishments. Yet the population amounted to no less than 15,000, of whom the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had remarked, that they exhibited every indication of activity and good conduct. Although the colony had only existed four years, it already contained a far larger amount of stock than there was in New South Wales, after thirty years existence as a colony The fixed capital of the colony was out of all proportion, even to the floating capital. All this had occurred under the administration of the commissioners, and the colony was generally in a most prosperous state, when the management of its affairs was handed over by them to the successors appointed by the Government. Since the appointment of those successors, however, every thing seemed to have gone wrong. He did not impute anything to them, but he was bound to state the facts—that the land sales had ceased, and that emigration had almost entirely ceased; and now had come over these untoward bills. The commissioners had deferred raising the necessary money to meet them until it was too late—till the colony had lost its credit, and they could not get any one to lend the money. Under these circumstances, the noble Lord came down to them with his present proposition, and as the colony presented every circumstance of economy calculated to afford a prospect of security he, (Mr. Hutt) trusted the House would accede to it.
Mr. Mackinnon: I have listened to the speech of the Member for Hull, which, in fact, throws more blame on the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the
264
Colonial Office, than any thing said on this side of the House. Having been one of the commissioners for South Australia, I feel myself called upon to give the outline of the state of affairs in that colony, in a few words. It is briefly as follows:—In May, 1835, a commission for South Australia was gazetted, consisting of ten Gentlemen, who were willing to undertake, without emolument, the management of that colony, and to have the control of the Emigration Land Fund. The leading principle of the act of Parliament on which the power of the commissioners rested was, that the commission should have the power of selling land in South Australia, at a certain price which they should determine, for the purpose of creating a fund, which fund should be applicable to the free transport of labourers and their families, by which means, it was supposed, that persons with a certain capital, would immigrate into that country, and labourers qualified to cultivate their lands, would be supplied. The chief duty therefore of the Board was, to superintend, and to encourage the sale of land, and to superintend and encourage the transport of labourers of good character to the colony, free of expense. In short, the steam power, or main spring of the whole machinery was, the power of raising money by the sale of lands in South Australia. From 1835 to 1839, this system steadily and progressively improved; so much so, that in the latter year (1839) the late commissioners had sold nearly fifty thousand acres of land, and held a considerable balance in hand, upwards of 70,000 l., to further the objects already mentioned. They had cancelled to the amount of 2,400 l. of bonds, part of a debt necessary to incur, at the commencement of their proceedings, and were in treaty to cancel 10,000 l. more. Such was the state of their affairs at the close of the year already named. Some time in December, in that year, a new commission was issued by the Crown, recalling the powers granted in 1835, to the ten non-salaried commissioners, and appointing in their place three commissioners with a salary*, to whom the management of the affairs of South Australia was entrusted. Since that period, Dec. 1839, it seems the new com-
*Colonel Torrens, hon. Edward E. Villiers, T.F. Elliot, with a salary of 1,000 l. a year each.

265
missioners have expended the sums transferred to them by those whom they succeeded; they have, in the first instance, attempted to raise a loan, in which they have failed, as not a single tender was made: they have again failed in another attempt to raise money, having in this second trial, obtained the guarantee of the Colonial Secretary for their loan, yet even this was found to be ineffectual; in short, not having the means of raising the funds for the necessary business of the colony, and the bills drawn on them by the local Government, they have been under the necessity of applying to this House for the purpose of obtaining the funds required. Now, in this statement, I do not mean to cast any blame on the new commission; I am ignorant whether they have behaved indiscreetly or otherwise, in the fulfilment of their duty; all I know is from their own letter, addressed to the Secretary for the Colonies, dated July 7, 1840, in which they say, "the sales in England, since November last, have been of no material amount". It appears they have sold, during the year 1840, about 7,000 acres, of which 4,000 were contracted for with the late commissioners, so that, in fact, the present Board, in 1840, has sold 3,000 acres of land in South Australia, when the former commissioners, in 1839, sold 50,000 acres! ! No wonder, such being the case, that the Board should have no money. The steam, therefore, or the main spring of the machinery being at a stand, the machine cannot advance. For this singular change in public opinion, in reference to South Australia, I do not blame the new commission, but I think that the former commission had either more influence with the country, or more means of getting the land in repute. I hope, however, this sort of stand still will not be injurious to the colony, and I will cheerfully give my vote for the amount required. Before I sit down let me correct a mistake which has been made, not only was no salary ever expected, but all thoughts of a salary were uniformly rejected by me, and by, I believe, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Hall, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Palmer. Now, Sir, before I sit down, allow me to state, that the bills drawn by the local Government at Adelaide have been much over-rated, they amount to only the sum, as I will here mention, of 15,262 l. 9s. 9d. The other sums are only likely to be called for.
266

£.

s.

d.

Total of Bills drawn from the Colony, and refused acceptance June 30, 1841.

15,262

9

9

Supposed amount to this date, if the Resident Commissioner has received the interdict sent out by the Commissioner

65,000

0

0

Supposed amount at the present rate of expenditure, 140,000 l. per annum, with a revenue of 20,000 l.

90,000

0

0

£170,262

9

9

Having thus explained myself, I will only repeat, that the distress of the colony, the deficiency under which it labours, is owing in a great measure to the conduct of her Majesty's Minister for the Colonial Department, who has, I believe, acted for the best, but acted under incorrect information, and misdirected judgment on the case.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, it had been charged against the Government that the transfer of the administration of this colony from the body who had held it for four years to those who had since exercised the power of management had been an injudicious act; and the hon. Member for Hull, had in particular stated that from the moment the new commissioners were appointed the affairs of the colony began to decline. The House would, however, recollect what the duties were which the new commissioners had to perform. They had to look into the affairs of the last commission, and while doing so, it was but right that the further progress of the existing system should be stayed—a progress that was in fact not towards prosperity, as had been stated by the hon. Member, but towards bankruptcy. With regard to the bills that had been referred to as an evidence of the mal-administration of the new commission, the House would remember that they had been drawn previously to the appointment of that commission, and therefore that it was utterly impossible that the present commission could be fairly held responsible for them. The noble Lord opposite had proposed delay. He would beg the House to remember that the reason why this report had been made thus early was to obviate any unnecessary delay in the settlement of these pecuniary difficulties, and that, therefore, they ought not now to report progress, but to discuss the subject and settle it at once. He could not now understand the noble Lords' present pro-

267
position of delay, when be read the words of the report of the committee (of which the noble Lord was a member), "that the bulk of the protested bills appear to have been hitherto retained by the holders in this country, in the expectation of the adoption by Parliament of some measures for providing for their payment; but that there is reason to apprehend that protracted uncertainly and delay respecting such measures will tend seriously to aggravate the existing difficulties." Yet notwithstanding this resolution of the committee, the first step of the noble Lord was to come down and propose an adjournment for ten days. The other charges of the noble Lord did not so much surprise him, because they were urged by him in committee. The noble Lord complained that Government had not taken on themselves the responsibility of at once relieving these pecuniary difficulties without applying for the assistance of a committee of that House. But the view taken by the Government was, that this colony was anomalous in its creation, different from all other colonies in that respect. It had been partly the creation of Parliament itself, and they therefore thought it their duty to submit the subject to Parliament, or, what was more convenient, to a committee of Parliament, in order that Parliament might decide what alterations should be made in the acts which it had itself passed. The colony had been founded as a self-supporting colony, and if the result of the few years' experience had been nothing but to prove the necessity of self-supporting colonies, then, supposing that no misery or starvation attended the experiment, he could not but feel satisfied that it had been made. He could remember when the government of South Australia was referred to as a model for all other colonial governments, but now the experiment had ended in bankruptcy. While saying this, however, he felt bound to admit that as a specimen of a self-acting colony, this colony was not establish or conducted on the principle which the advocates of that system pronounced to be the true one, but that it was an anomalous mixture of self-support and government control. He was surprised that the acts which had established it should ever have passed Parliament. With regard to the report of the committee, when they were appointed the first thing they did was to
268
consider the financial difficulties of the colony, and then its future prospects; and shortly after the formation of the committee the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, proposed a resolution to the same effect as that now submitted to the House—that the financial difficulties of the colony should first be put an end to, but that the relief from Parliament should be confined to those embarrassments, without any further additions being made to the emigration fund. It was considered that parties who had gone out there with their families and embarked their property had done so in the belief that the colony was under the protection of the Government, and that therefore those parties could not be allowed to sink, rather than that a re-payment to the emigration fund should be proposed. But putting all these considerations on one side, he certainly did not consider that this colony, on the terms proposed, would be such a dear bargain to this country when its value was compared with that of other colonies in the same part of the world. Western Australia, for instance, had in 1834 cost this country, for the different establishments, 25,413 l. Yet the population of Western Australia amounted to no more than 2,000, while that of Southern Australia was 15,000. If the whole expense of each colony, as compared with the relative population, was considered, it would not be found that there was so great a difference in point of expense between the two according to the arrangement now proposed to be made. They had derived one great advantage from the failure of this colony—they had increased their knowledge as to what were the true foundations on which a system for the establishment of colonies ought to be based. The error that had been committed in the establishment of the colony of South Australia was admitted, even by those who formerly were the most sanguine in support of the theory. Colonel Torrens, in particular, was one of the most eager for the promotion of the colony on that system, but he now declared that the principle of it was erroneous. Colonel Torrens said:—
"Experience has proved that the plan upon which the colony of South Australia was established was essentially erroneous. The expedients which were devised, for the purpose of divesting the Government of pecuniary responsibility, have had a practical effect directly op-

269
posite to that which was intended. The situation and boundaries of the province were fixed by Act of Parliament before any adequate knowledge of the country had been obtained; the money required for defraying the preliminary expenses of establishing the colony was raised at an exorbitant rate of interest; while the divided powers created by the act, by leading one party to conceive that they were upholding the prerogative of the Crown by weakening the influence of the colonization commissioners, and another party to imagine that, by opposing the representative of the Crown, they were defending the peculiar principles of the colony, occasioned such a relaxation of authority, that the administrative functionaries in the colony deemed themselves at liberty to act upon their own responsibility and discretion, regardless of the most precise and positive instructions. The incongruous scheme upon which South Australia was established has now broken down: and the only means by which the principle of self-support can be brought into practical operation is for the Government to retrace its steps, and to take into its own bauds the financial responsibility and control."
With that quotation he would leave the subject in the hands of the committee.
Sir Robert Peelwished that some course should be taken which at the same time would provide for the exigency of the public service as regarded the present, and would give assurance that proper steps would be taken to prevent an improper expenditure for the future. He would appeal to the House, whether the proposition of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) was unwise? His noble Friend said, that it was evident, from the documents on the Table, that it was the duty of the House when it consented, on the part of the public, to grant a loan, to meet the present difficulties, to take care that it had some security as to the future government of the colony; he requested, therefore, that before they proceeded further the noble Lord should bring in a bill to provide for the future government of South Australia. If the noble Lord would bring forward such a bill within eight or ten days from the present time, neither his noble Friend nor himself would object to the course proposed, but they requested, before the committee proceeded further, that the intentions of the Government should be distinctly notified. Was the noble Lord quite sure, that a loan of 210,000 l. would be sufficient for the purposes for which he wished to provide? Was he satisfied that it would not be necessary to come down for a further advance, and that a supplementary esti-
270
mate would not follow the present application? It was by no means certain, that the Governor of South Australia might not proceed in such a course as to render another application to Parliament necessary. If such was the case, the noble Lord might come down to the House with his supplementary vote, and say you granted a loan of 210,000 l. to relieve the colony from its pressing difficulties, but that amount was not sufficient; therefore, on the same principle that you granted the first loan you must grant a second. He would not speak of his own authority, as that might be disputed, as to the probability of future embarrassments in this colony, but he would refer to the statement of Mr. Stephen, as he found it given in the papers on this subject distributed on Saturday. Mr. Stephen says that—
"From those accounts it appears, that the expenditure of the colony for the last quarter of the year 1839 had exceeded 34,000 l. without any prospect of reducing this rate for some quarters to come; that, consequently, the commissioners understand that the expenditure of the colony will continue at a rate approaching 140,000 l. per annum, the revenue being something more than 20,000 l. per annum; that the deficiency is therefore proceeding at a rate of about 120,000 l. per annum, to be provided by bills drawn on the commissioners in England; that if the loan of 120,000 l. were raised, the law would require the appropriation of 90,000 l. from it, before the end of the year to emigration; but that the propriety of negociating a loan at all under such circumstances is very doubtful, unless the whole case were first communicated to the contractors; that the concealment of those facts would be the more indefensible because the lately published report of the former commissioners represent the colony as flourishing to the end of the year 1839; and there is no other accessible official intelligence to counteract the erroneous impression which the contractors might derive from this statement."
No doubt the noble Lord had issued positive directions that there should be a diminution of expenditure, and that every possible reduction should be effected, but would the noble Lord be able to feel secure that this would be sufficient, and that the deficiency of income would not not continue? The hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, stated, that Colonel Torrens was now the first to denounce the system of colonisation upon which this colony had been founded, and of which he was at the head of the Government in this country, and that however sanguine he might have

271
been in the first instance as to the success of the enterprise, he was now of opinion that the scheme had failed. Now he found in the fourth annual report of the colonization commissioners for South Australia which is dated the 8th of January, 1840, and was signed "R. Torrens," chairman of the late commission, the following passage:—
"The unexampled prosperity of South Australia has excited an envious spirit of hostility in persons interested in promoting emigration to the neighbouring settlements, and the grossest misrepresentations have been perseveringly circulated respecting the soil and the climate. We therefore deem it necessary, in justification of ourselves, and with a view to the further progress of the colony which we have established, to refer in this, our concluding report, to the authentic information which we have from time to time received respecting the agricultural and pastoral capabilities of the province, upon the faith of which we have proceeded in directing the tide of emigration and capital to its shores."
And at the conclusion of the report it was stated:—
"In retiring from the important trust so long confided to us, we may be allowed to congratulate ourselves upon having established by practical proof the important fact, that the expense of planting new colonies and of conveying to them the unemployed labour of the parent state may be defrayed by means of the value which the act of planting confers upon the wild lands of an unreclaimed country."
This opinion was given with confidence in 1840, and yet now the hon. Gentleman said, that Colonel Torrens had got a new light on the subject, and that the present case should be a warning to all persons who attempted to colonize on a new system. With these opinions before him, he felt the more confidence in stating, that the proper course for the noble Lord to pursue would be, before he asked the House to consent to the loan, to let them know what steps were to be taken with reference to the future government of the colony. Let there be a direct public intimation of this, in the shape of a bill, from which they would be able to learn what future course was to be pursued. Look, again, at the confusion that had arisen with respect to the treasurers of the colony. When the House recollected the conduct of those who had filled that office in South Australia, as well as the proceedings of the governors, he would ask, had the noble Lord a right to ask them to guarantee this loan, and to sanction a
272
principle which involved the grant of future loans, while the House was in a state of ignorance as to the principles on which the colony was to be governed for the future? Did hon. Gentlemen recollect the grounds on which the two treasurers had been removed from their office? He found it staled in the documents on the Table, that—
"Mr. Fisher, the First Colonial Treasurer, unfortunately set the example of these irregular preceedings; and at length, upon an inquiry being instituted, was removed under circumstances of such grave suspicion, that had he possessed any property, legal measures would have been adopted to recover the sums for which he had rendered no account."
[Mr. Hutt: The statement was erroneous.] If that were the case, it was a strong argument for a delay of eight or ten days. Hon. Members had hardly had sufficient time to consider the subject. The papers with respect to which they were called to legislate were delivered on Saturday, and there had only been the interim for their examination and consideration. The report then proceeded:—
"Mr. Fisher was succeeded by Mr. Gillies, who appears to have been also most irregular, but from the original connexion of this latter gentleman with the promoters of the colony, and certain alleged services rendered by him in its formation, there was a great indisposition on the part of the Governor (Colonel Gawler) to remove him, which indisposition seems fully to have been felt by the commissioners at home."
Under these circumstances, and when they recollected that the two Governors had been removed, were they not justified in demanding from the Government an explanation as to the course that was to be proposed for the future Government of this colony? In the report of the commissioners, dated 7th July, 1840, and signed R. Torrens, T. F. Elliott, and E. E. Villiers, he found it stated:—
"All those districts of the province which lie north and west of the heads of the gulphs have been found, as far as hitherto explored, to consist of sterile and unavailable tracts, and it is only on the Peninsula, bounded by St Vincent, Lake Alexandria, and the Murray, that any considerable extent of fertile land has, been discovered. It cannot be disguised that some uncertainty must exist as to whether a territory thus limited can be made to provide the means of defraying the expense of its local administration."
They had previously been informed in

273
this report that the great error in the original establishment of this colony was, the expecting that it could support itself without the assistance of a loan. The report then proceeded:
"Had the settlement been planted in the most economical manner, had the loans been raised under the guarantee of Government, and had the country been laid out and prepared for the reception of the emigrants previous to their arrival, the discovery that in so large a portion of the province the lands were unavailable must have abated our confidence in the success of the self-supporting principle as applied within the present limits of South Australia. But when, on the contrary, the peculiar disadvantages we have attempted to describe are taken into account, the danger appears the more imminent that the expenses of the colony may ultimately fall upon the mother country. It is, in order to guard against this otherwise probable contingency, that we would throw out the idea of enlarging the boundaries of the province."
It appeared, then, that the time had come when they were called upon to alter the territorial extent of the country and the mode of Government, and he admitted, after what had been stated by the noble Lord, that they should adopt some plan for the constitution of this colony, assimilating it to the other Crown colonies, and making provision for the future Government and welfare of the fifteen thousand persons in that colony. The House should not forget that it was only right and proper that this large body of persons should look to the mother country for protection and support in the difficulties in which they were now involved. He thought, then, that the best course to pursue, both with regard to their interests as well as to the interests of the whole nation, was that the colony should be taken under the protection of the Crown. While, then, he admitted this, and also the force of the objection of his noble Friend to the course proposed, he thought that he could suggest a course which would meet the difficulties of the case. It was admitted on all hands that the demand on the part of the colony should be acceded to for some assistance from the Government, and also that steps should be taken to place the colony on a better foundation. To meet the present difficulty, then, he would suggest that they should postpone the proposition for a loan, or for the guarantee of a loan, for a short time, and that the Government, in
274
the course of the next day or two, should place on the Table of the House an estimate of the expense likely to be incurred, and that they should afterwards propose, in the next committee of supply, a vote of credit to make provision for such charge. It would be unjust to those who had placed reliance on the faith of an act of Parliament, by advancing them money, if they hesitated to make provision for these debts. It would also be unwise in an economical point of view, for if they hesitated now to pay their just demands, they must be paid hereafter, together with all the incidental expenses which would be occasioned by the delay. He would, therefore, urge upon the noble Lord the propriety of postponing the proposition for a loan for almost an indifferent amount for a short time, and to make provision in the meantime by taking a vote of credit. When this was done, let them, independent of all party consideration, proceed to consider what was best to be done for the 15,000 persons in the colony both as regarded their present difficulties and their future government. He repeated, then, give an estimate of the sum that probably would be required, and take a vote of credit for it; of course leaving it open to the Government, at a future occasion, to make provision in the shape of a loan.
Lord John Russellfelt surprised at the opposition of the noble Lord opposite as to the general course of proceeding on this subject. He thought that there would have been little or no doubt as to its being proper that the subject should originate in committee up stairs, and that the Government should state their whole view of the subject to the committee. His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies stated correctly that there were two considerations in this matter; first, the relief of the persons who had advanced money on these bills on the faith of an act of Parliament; and secondly, that the colony should be placed under the control of the Crown. This also was the general view of the committee up stairs, and also that there should be as little delay as possible in making provision for the first of these objects. He was informed also that the noble Lord opposite had complained in that committee very much that any delay should take place; and he found also, by the report of the committee on the Table of the House, that the noble

275
Lord had proposed a resolution on this subject, which commenced as follows:—
"That if it be in the contemplation of her Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament any measures for the relief of their embarrassments, any uncertainty or delay respecting such measures cannot but tend seriously to aggravate the existing difficulties."
Under these circumstances he could not but feel that it was very odd on the part of the noble Lord to ask for what the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to describe as a little delay. He could very well understand a demand for delay if it had been urged on the ground that the whole question should be postponed until it had been reported on by the committee, and that, when this was done, the noble Lord would be prepared to give his support to such measures as might be thought necessary; but the committee had reported, and recommended that the grant of money should be taken into consideration without delay. If, then, the present vote was brought forward, in conformity with the noble Lord's opinion in the committee, and in which opinion the committee concurred, it would not be at all satisfactory to the persons holding these protested bills to be kept without their money. The general views of the noble Lord on this subject had hitherto agreed with those which he entertained; and the noble Lord must be aware that if he had that night introduced the subject in the shape of a bill involving the proposition then before the House, as well as the plan for the future government of the colony, it would have given rise to opposition in other parts of the House, and the relief which it was desirable to grant without delay would be retarded. The result, therefore, of adopting this course of proceeding would have been to have, led to the postponing of the whole of the subject for a considerable period. He thought that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would meet the difficulty of the case, and he had no objection to adopt it; and that, in carrying a motion in committee of supply for a vote of credit they could state in the resolution the special circumstances relating to the acts referring to the government of South Australia.
Lord Stanley—proposing to the committee that any delay as to the carrying out the intention of the Government would be mischievous—a proposition in which I am still more strengthened now, and in
276
the proposal I made to-night I can see no inconsistency; and I say that before the House should be callen on to vote a large sum of money we should be put in possession of the views of the Government as to the future state of the colony. It is not my fault if the noble Lord had not his bill ready at the commencement of the Session. But the noble Lord finds it more convenient to avoid coming to the House to ask for this vote upon the responsibility of his Government, and to throw the responsibility upon the committee. The noble Lord was aware of the facts in August last, and I should have thought that upon the first meeting of Parliament he would have come down to make some proposition on the responsibility of the Government to this House, The noble Lord says he should have met with opposition from other parties had he brought forward this bill in the manner I proposed; but have we not a right to ask the noble Lord what are his intentions? He should learn to make up his mind, and not to be tossed about by hopes of support from this side of the House or from that, and not to relieve himself from responsibility by throw-it upon the committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not help saying, that the noble Lord had adopted a very unfair mode of proceeding, in asserting that it was the intention of the Government, in its present proceeding, to remove the responsibility from itself, and throw it on the committee. There never was a charge more unjust, nor was there ever an occasion on which the Government less wished to remove the responsibility from itself, and place it elsewhere than in the present case. Twice, while Parliament was not sitting, application was made to the Government, to pledge itself to make advances for the relief of these embarrassments. On both these occasions, instead of saying that this was a case in which the Government would not proceed to take any step, or express any opinion, without the sanction of Parliament, it was clearly understood by the parties, that the Government sanctioned the proposition, and were prepared to give a pledge to make these advances. If, then, this was the course adopted when Parliament was not sitting, when his noble Friend readily undertook this responsibility, surely he would not shrink from asking Parliament to agree to sanction the course which he had pursued. Because

277
his noble Friend did not make his proposition in the Committee of the whole House at once, but referred the subject to a select committee, he was charged with wishing to remove the responsibility of the measures to be proposed from himself to the commtttee; but it must be in the recollection of the House, that his noble Friend stated, when he moved for the committee, that he did so for the purpose of laying before it the measures which he intended to propose on the part of the Government. If his noble Friend had come down with a proposition for a loan, and with a bill ready cut and dried for the future government of the colony, they would have heard—and more especially from the noble Lord, who would be the first and the loudest—complaints of the Government asking for a loan of 210,000 l., without information, without inquiry, and without affording the House the opportunity of knowing whether or not the step proposed would work well or ill. As a proof that such complaints would have been made from the other side, he need only refer to what occurred a few days ago, when the Government followed the course recommended by the noble Lord, with reference to the supplementary vote to the navy estimates. The hon. Member for Stamford (Sir G. Clerk) said, that the right course to have pursued would have been, to refer the matter to the consideration of a committee up stairs. In the present case, the Government had done so, and had sent the matter to a committee; and the noble Lord turned round and said that they had done so, because they shrunk from the responsibility of proposing measures. He felt assured, if his noble Friend had brought forward the measures for the two objects which had been described at present, it would have produced a feeling of insecurity as to the property connected with this colony.
Mr. Grotesaid, that he was one of many Gentlemen who supported the original plan for the formation of the colony of South Australia. At the same time, he had not, at that time, nor ever had, one shilling interest, in a pecuniary sense, in the matter; but he had given his cordial support to the plan, and to the bill for carrying it out, because he thought that the colony was about to be founded on a wise principle; and he would wait the result of the present inquiry before he
278
should be induced to say, with any hon. Members, that this colony had proved a failure. His own impression at the present time was, that the colony was directly the reverse of a failure, and if he wished for a confirmation of this opinion, be would only refer to the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. V. Smith). In the same speech in which he declared the colony to be a failure, he stated, if the House consented to make the proposed advance, and took the colony as it was, that it would not be a dear bargain. He did not think that it was very important whether the money proposed to be granted was to be regarded either as a girt or a loan; but he thought there would be great mischief in any delay in the matter. He did not see any objection to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, to take the advance at present as a vote of credit, and only delay this until the next supply day, but if the delay was to be in the shape proposed by the noble Lord, and there was to be no advance or loan until they had decided as to the measures which they should adopt for the better management and government of the colony for the future, it would be attended with the worst consequences. Such delay would be most pernicious, and the result must be, that Parliament, on a future occasion, would be called upon to interfere to a much greater extent than was now necessary. The claims were urgent, and if there was a delay of more than a few days, the measure now proposed would be infinitely less efficacious than if it were at once adopted. On the other part of the subject, the inquiry was now being carried on before the committee. But if the measure for the future government of the colony was to be proposed in a week, they would lose all the advantage of the evidence hereafter to be tendered to the committee. He entertained the fullest confidence in the success of the colony, notwithstanding the noble Lord had treated it as a failure; but he (Mr. Grote) did not think that it was so, or that it would ever became a charge to the public. The committee should not forget that, according to the evidence given before the select committee by a highly respectable witness, the amount of capital now in the colony was not less than 2,500,000 l. of real bona fide property put into the colony. There were 180,000 sheep and 15,000 head of other cattle there; and instead of the colony

279
being, as anybody would suppose from the noble Lord's speech, a place in which nothing but cheating and jobbing had been going on from the beginning, it was a place in which honest and intelligent industry, coupled with well directed capital, had been introduced in a greater and more continuous stream than ever was the case in any colony established from the English shores before. Nor was it to be forgotten, that though this colony was now reduced to the painful necessity of asking for parliamentary aid, this might equally have happened to a colony established on other principles. The evil of a governor of a colony being extravagant, and utterly mistaking his duty, was not necessarily peculiar to a colony established on the self-supporting principle. Looking at this matter divested of party feeling, far too much of which had been introduced into the subject, any hon. Gentleman would see that here were two distinct questions; the first, as to rescuing the colony from the pressing exigency in which it had been involved; and the second, as to giving it an improved constitution, and the providing some security against a repetition of the mismanagement from which it had so severely suffered. This separation of the subject into two parts, if admitted, should be complete; and it appeared to him, that the first question should be decided as soon as possible, and not be mixed up with the second question. Let the committee bear in mind, that there were now in the city bills to a very large amount, drawn by the governor and dishonoured, and that a ship would sail this week for the colony. It was clear, that the existing mischief would be greatly aggravated, if, by that ship, intelligence was to reach the colonists, that a proposition made to the House of Commons for interposition had been postponed for an indefinite period, and, that, indeed, there was some doubt whether the House was disposed to interfere at all. He therefore trusted, that the committee would not sanction delay in the very pressing urgency of the affairs of this colony.
Lord Eliotsaid, as a Member of the committee to the proceedings of which so much reference had been made, he felt himself called upon to make a few obsertions. He concurred with the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire in the opinion, that it was the duty of the Go-
280
vernment not to wait for the recommendation of the committee before they applied to Parliament on this subject; and, having accepted the honour of sitting as a Member of that committee, he could not help saying, that the examination of the circumstances attending this question had produced in his mind an impression that the immediate interposition of Parliament was necessary. He had not heard without considerable surprise the speech of his noble Friend; for he thought there had been no doubt with the committee as to the necessity of the interposition of Parliament, and that any delay must be prejudicial. The delay, therefore, which his noble Friend proposed, short as it might be, he could not but consider as uncalled for. But it was impossible the House could lay aside the circumstances that had created the present difficulty. Bills to a large amount drawn by the governor were now lying in London, and the holders of them could not without great inconvenience and risk to themselves retain them in their own hands, and if they sent them back to the colony it would produce great confusion and disaster, and lead to the almost irretrievable ruin of the affairs of the colony. As the committee of which he was a Member were still engaged in considering all the circumstances of the case, any expression of an opinion on his part might be premature; but, as his noble Friend had taken this opportunity of indulging in what he (Lord Eliot) thought a sweeping censure on the proceedings of the colony, and on what he considered a sound principle, the principle of a self-supporting colony, he might he permitted to say one word on that subject. He thought his noble Friend had overlooked many circumstances that were in favour of the colony; whilst on the other hand, he bad overrated some that were against it. With respect to the value of the acre of land to which his noble Friend had alluded, his noble Friend had omitted to mention that a considerable sum had been expended by the Government in the immediate neighbourhood of it, and that that had tended to raise its value. With respect also to the principle of a self-supporting colony, his noble Friend had spoken of it as though this was the first colony that had been founded on that principle. His noble Friend seemed to have forgotten, that the origin and pro-

281
gress of what now constituted the United States were on that principle; and, instead of attributing the distress of this colony to the real cause, he had gone into various points all wide of the mark. The governor, Colonel Gawler, might have had good reason for what he had done; but certainly his conduct had been one of the proximate causes of the difficulties under which the colony now laboured; and yet for that his noble Friend had cast no inconsiderable degree of blame or censure on the colonists, who had had no control whatever over the proceedings of the governor. The bills were drawn for works that had been done for the benefit of the colony, no doubt; but at the same time with too little regard to the means of the colony; but that expense was now incurred, and though he could not but regret, that the conduct of the governor had been so hasty and inconsiderate, yet he did not regret on the whole that the outlay had been made. He believed, that the statement which had just been made by the hon. Member for the city of London, was borne out by the accounts from the colony, that its prosperity was increasing, and that ultimately this country would not be called on to make good the loan. If that should prove to be the case, he would then ask whether any colony, whether founded on the same principles or not, had ever been founded at a less cost to the mother country than the colony of South Australia.
Mr. John Parkerwas understood to say, that with reference to the report which he had drawn up on this subject, and which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Hull, he had endeavoured to make it a fair and honest report, and he had in the first instance laid it for consideration before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It certainly might contain some technicalities, but he believed he had not made any substantial errors.
Mr. Hopesaid, that the House had two questions to consider. The one was whether any alteration as to the government of this colony should be made; and the other was, whether this loan should be guaranteed under the existing circumstances. In his opinion some further statements on the subject should be made by the Government before they proceeded to come to any decision on either point.
Mr. Divettsaid, that another vessel ought not to be allowed to leave this coun-
282
try for South Australia without some decision being come to as to what was to be done in regard to this colony. No doubt certain errors had crept into the management of the colony that had led the people to suppose that its resources were endless; but at the same time he could not agree with what had been stated by the noble Lord. He believed that the colony had received full value for the capital that had been expended there; and that in a few months there had been effected by that expenditure as much as would have taken years to accomplish without it. In his opinion the House very much underrated the resources of the colony; for all the accounts which he had seen convinced him that the land was of the highest quality, and most advantageous for sheep farming. He had seen a letter from a farmer there, an emigrant from that part of England with which he was connected, who said, he only wished some of the hard-working farmers of Devonshire could see how comfortable he was after having been there only twelve months; there was scarcely any one there, said the writer, who was disposed to work hard who might not very soon make himself comfortable. He thought the House could be hardly aware that at this moment there were at least 180,000 sheep in the colony; a great many had been imported from New South Wales, and many were bred in the colony; and in all probability in a few years this colony would become the emporium of the very large district of South Australia, because it was in the vicinity of the largest river yet discovered in that district. But with regard to the present financial crisis, it was impossible it should not have resulted from a system of drawing bills by the governor in this manner. He would, however, implore hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they did not then agree to the vote, not to oppose it when it was brought forward again; for no delay should arise in any way to prevent those persons who had been so unfortunate as to receive these bills from being paid the amount that was due to them.
Resolution withdrawn, to be brought forward on the ensuing Friday.
The House resumed.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
On the Order of the Day for further considering the eighth resolution of the Committee of Supply—Ordnance Estimates,
Captain Bolderosaid, that pursuant, to his notice, he wished to draw the attention

283
of the Master-general of the Ordnance to the expense incurred by Great Britain in furnishing arms, &c. to the Grand Sultan. He objected to the excess of the estimate for the ensuing year for ordnance stores over that of last year. The estimate for the ensuing was 328,000 l., whilst the expense last year had been only 207,000 l., so that there was an excess of 121,000 l. on that one vote alone. Now, in 1834, the estimate was only 55,000 l., in 1815, it was 65,000 l.; in 1836, 75,000 l.; so that there was a gradual and progressive increase of 10,000 l. in each of these three years. But the vote of this year, exclusive of civil expenses, of ordnance stores—gunpowder, arms, and amunition, was 24,000 l. Taking the average of the three years from 1834 to 1836, the vote was 65,000 l. The House was quite ignorant of the causes of this large increase, and he thought it ought to be informed. He would, no doubt, be told that the expense of the expedition to Syria was a principal cause of the great increase; but he would ask how much of that expenditure was the Sultan to pay? There were a large number of muskets supplied to him, and it was to be supposed that ammunition also was supplied, for arms would be of no use without ammunition. The Sultan ought in justice to pay the whole of the expense which this country had been put to with reference to his affairs. If it were asked why that expenditure on the coast of Syria had been incurred, would not the House be informed that it was to support the integrity of the Ottoman empire; and we were, in this country, to bear all the expense. If the Sultan had been told, when we were about to interfere, that we should require him to bear the expenses which should be incurred on his account, there could be no doubt he would have most willingly assented to such a proposition; but now it appeared that this country was to bear all the expense of operations which were avowedly proceeded with for the purpose of supporting the balance of power in Europe. Why, he asked, should England be obliged to bear nearly all the expense? We had been successful at Acre; the Skill and courage of the British forces employed had conquered; but see what a risk had been encountered. If the result had been different no one could tell what consequences might have ensued. It might be thought that objecting to this country bearing nearly all the expense would partake too much of the character of what Buonaparte had
284
called a nation of shopkeepers, but Buonaparte had not been found to act in that manner; he did not oblige France to pay for wars entered into on the part of others. He could not conceive why the Sultan should not defray the expenses of operations which were carried on for his interest. The House ought, at least, to have definite information as to the amount which the Grand Sultan was to pay out of the enormous expense to which this country had been subjected. We had sent to the Mediterranean, he believed, the largest fleet which had ever been in that sea before; a fleet which, exclusive of steamships, carried 1,850 pieces of cannon, of all sizes; and that number of guns would require, at a fair average, 13,875 men: in fact, this country had been at an expense of between 2,000 l. and 3,000 l. per day. In Spain we had also interfered, with nearly a similar result; but Spain had acknowledged our claim upon her to the extent of half a million, and, under those circumstances, it would be desirable to know how much Turkey, the richer power, was to contribute. It was most essential to know how much the Sultan was to contribute towards defraying the expenses which had been incurred to support that Power, and he should feel it necessary to move for a copy of all the correspondence between her Majesty's Government and the Turkish authorities upon the subject, showing the expense which Turkey was to bear out of the aggregate expenditure which had been incurred by this country.
Sir H. Vivianonly rose to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman with respect to the department over which he presided. It was true that the expense of the ordnance department had risen within the last four years, but he had explained the reasons at length the other night. For instance, on the estimate for one article, namely small arms, the increase was 130,000 l., owing to the change of percussion for flint locks. The new armament for the army and navy had been determined on, and that had increased the expense. With respect to the supplies to the Sultan, the quantity of arms given was 24,000 stand, with proportionate ammunition, and the whole had been positively agreed to be paid for by the Grand Sultan. He did not know of any commissariat supplies, certainly there were none for the ordnance department. A quantity of entrenching tools, sufficient for the sappers and miners who had sailed from Gibraltar, had been sup-

285
plied, but the cost was not more than a few hundred pounds. He could not go into a discussion of the policy of the operations in the East, but if the hon. Gentleman chose to bring the question regularly forward, he would find hon. Gentlemen who could answer him. In answer to the him. Gentleman's question, he could only say, that his only claim upon the Sultan was for 24,000 stand of arms and proportionate ammunition.
Resolution agreed to.

EAST INDIA RUM.
On the Order of the Day for bringing up the report on the East India Rum Bill,
Mr. Labouchereproposed some verbal amendments in the preamble, to meet the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Ripon. He had, also, an amendment of a more material character to propose. Judging by the evidence before the East India Committee, he had been led to believe that East India sugar was the bonà fide produce of the sugar-cane and nothing else. In the bill, therefore, he had limited the permission to introduce rum to the produce of the sugar-cane, and in doing so he thought he was giving all that the East Indies asked. It had been stated however, by Gentlemen possessing local and practical knowledge on the subject—by the hon. and learned Member for Beverley, and the hon. and learned Member for Newark, who, he believed, was an East India, as well as West India proprietor, that the exclusion of the produce of the date-tree would render the bill a dead letter in Bengal. If that were the case—if date-tree rum was produced like sugar-cane rum, and that its admission would not open a door to fraud, or the introduction of spirits of all kinds under the name of rum, there was no fair reason for excluding it. He thought that in admitting the produce of the sugar-cane, they were certainly conferring a great benefit. He was satisfied that in Benares, the great country of the sugar manufacture, inasmuch as the date-tree either did not grow, or did not produce fruit, the sugar must be entirely the produce of the sugar-cane. On the other hand, he was satisfied that in Bengal Proper, and particularly in the low alluvial grounds near the sea, there were extensive manufactories of sugar from the date-free, and in many places the sugar was made indiscriminately from the date-tree and the sugar-cane, and it would be
286
exceedingly difficult to distinguish between sugar made from one and the other. He thought, therefore, in admitting sugar from the date-tree as well as the sugarcane, it was only fair, and carrying out the principle, to admit the accompanying spirit with the former as well as the latter. At present sugar was not cultivated to a great extent in Bombay, but when it came to be, the date-tree would certainly prevail to a great extent. For these reasons, be thought he was only acting in consistency with his former declaration in consenting to an alteration by which spirit, the produce of the date-tree should be admitted on the same grounds with spirit the produce of the sugar-cane. He should therefore propose that, after the words "sugarcane," the words "date or palm-tree" be inserted.
Mr. Haweswas glad that the right hon. Gentleman went so far, but he thought there ought to be no difference whatever between East and West India produce.
Mr. Goulburnwould not oppose the amendment. He thought the principle of the measure fairly applied to the produce of the date-tree.
Amendments agreed to. Report also agreed to. Bill to be read a third time.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Advocate The Lord Advocate moved the second reading of the Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill.
Sir W. Raesaid, that as he did not object to the principle of the bill, he would not oppose the motion to have it read al second time. However, be entertained very great objections to many of the details, and particularly to the constitution of the proposed Court of Review. It was proposed that the new court should be composed of three barristers to be appointed by the Speaker of that House. Now, he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman could have sufficient knowledge of the qualifications of Scotch barristers to enable him to make those appointments. Besides this, he entertained several other objections to the bill; but as they were not objections of principle he would not oppose the second reading.
The Lord Advocatefelt obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the attention be had paid the subject. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had no objection to the establishment of one Court of Review, as it was highly desirable to have a

287
uniformity of decision. With respect to the constitution of the new court, he did not apprehend the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and he thought that they would be able to find at the bar in Scotland men fully qualified officially to discharge those duties. He begged to say, that he had framed his bill as carefully as possible, and he trusted that the House would discuss it in a fair and candid spirit.
Bill read a second time.

DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
Mr. Handley Mr. Handley moved the second reading of the Drainage of Lands Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the bill as unconstitutional and tyrannical. He, for one, would never consent to allow a surveyor to come into his ground and survey it at the command of others, who, perhaps, themselves did not possess an acre of land. The machinery of the bill also was most expensive and absurd. The hon. and gallant Member moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. G. Berkeleyseconded the amendment. He should not, however, have so much objection to the bill if the county of Gloucester were exempted from its operation. The existing Court of Sewers, in the county of Gloucester, was altogether unobjectionable.
Mr. Darbyalso opposed the bill. The powers granted by it were monstrous; and, even if the county with which he was connected were not included in its operation, he should still oppose it, as being a most unjust and oppressive measure.
Mr. W. Milessaid, that the bill might be useful if its operation were confined to lands that had never been drained, but at present the powers granted by the bill were far too extensive, and might be converted into engines of great mischief and injury. Unless the bill was greatly amended he should oppose it.
Mr. Handleysaid, that many of the principles of this bill had been adopted by the noble Lord below him in the bill which he had introduced with respect to Ireland. He would, however, admit that this measure was not necessary in Lincolnshire, although he was convinced that it would be productive of the greatest benefit in many other counties of England. In a great many places the Court of Sewers was found so clumsy a machine as to be
288
never used. He thought the objections against the bill were more fit for the consideration of a committee than for the consideration of that House, and he trusted, therefore, that, as on former occasions, they would consent to the second reading.
The House divided on the question that the bill be read a second time:—Ayes 31; Noes 19:—Majority 12.
Bill read a second time.

MONUMENT TO SIR WALTER SCOTT.
Sir W. Raethen rose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the erection, at Edinburgh, of a monument to the late Sir Walter Scott. A proper site for the intended monument could not be obtained without an Act of Parliament, as two public acts stood in the way. The subscribers were anxious to have a public bill, and to have it pass through the House as a public measure, and it was for that reason that his notice stood in the list of public business for that evening. He was sure that it was unnecessary for him to say a single word in support of his motion, as there could be but one feeling in that House in respect to Sir Walter Scott, whose great talents had been universally admitted, and who had done so much to illustrate the manners and improve the morals of his country. He might, however, mention that the subscription was deficient to the extent of about 2,000 l., and he did so in the hope that the people of England would not be slow, when the state of the case was made known, in coming forward to testify their respect for this great and good man. He should trouble the House no further, and he should only move for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. F. Mauleseconded the motion. It was not necessary for him to dilate on the merits of the great man for whom the monument was to be erected. He believed that a proposal to pay a public testimonial to him who had been justly called "the Great Wizard of the North," would meet with the approbation of all c ses.
Leave given, bill brought in and read a first time, referred to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITION OF CAPTAIN LAROCHE.
Mr. Alston Mr. Alston moved that the petition of Captain La Roche, presented on the 9th

289
of March, be printed, and circulated with the votes.
Mr. Greenesaid, he had not seen the petition, but he understood that there was an objection to its being printed. He suggested the postponement of the motion.
Mr. Alstonsaid, he could not consent to postpone the motion, as he had given notice that, on Thursday next, he would call the attention of the House to the subject.
The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 20:—Majority 4.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Copyhold; and Customary Tenure.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Normanby, and the Earl of Rosebery, from Aberdeen, and Stirlingshire, against Church Patronage.—By the Bishop of Exeter, from the Bath Church of England Association, for Church Extension; from various places, against con-
194
tinuing the Grant to the College of Maynooth; and from the Clergymen of the Diocese of Elphin, against Incorporating the Ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice.—By the Earl of Clare, from the Nobility, Clergy, Gentry, and others of Carmarthenshire, against the Union of the Bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By the Earl of Warwick, from the Leamington division of Warwick, against their defraying a part of the Expense caused by Riots at Birmingham.

CANADA—ST. SULPICE.
The Bishop of Exeterrose in accordance with the notice which he had given to submit to their Lordships a motion for an address to the Crown, in consequence of the ordinance agreed to by the Governor and Special Council of Lower Canada, relative to the incorporation of the ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice; and, in doing so, he hoped that he should be permitted to state his reasons for adopting this course. When he first brought this matter before their Lordships, it would be in their Lordships' recollection that he said it was his intention to state the reasons which struck his mind in favour of the prayer of the petition, the contents of the petition, and the objects which the petitioners had in view. On that night, if he had experienced any grave opposition to the observations which he had addressed to their Lordships; if he had encountered any grave opposition founded on solid argument, he should have paused and hesitated before he took the decisive step of submitting to their Lordships the motion which he was about to lay before them. But when he found that all he had said on the petition was remarked on by the noble Viscount near him (and he made the observation will all respect to the noble Viscount's fine talents) in a manner that seemed to him to be no answer to his observations, when he saw the importance that was attached to the statement and arguments which he had offered to their Lordships, when he recollected the noble declaration of the noble Duke opposite (that declaration being, that he was strongly and decidedly opposed to this first attempt to break in on the principles laid down at the Reformation); and when, moreover, he found that the sentiments of that illustrious man were re-echoed throughout the empire by every individual who seriously considered the subject, he felt that he had no other course to pursue but that which he had adopted. Such being his impression, he at once informed those who were more immediately interested in the subject, that he meant to give notice of that motion which he now brought forward. And yet, he frankly

195
confessed that he was greatly surprised at circumstances which had since occurred. He had been cheered by the ardent assurance of sympathy in the success of his motion on the part of many noble Lords in that House, and he had been urged on by that assurance, he would say, up to the very day for which he had given his notice; but rumours had since reached him—rumours which those who went through the streets could not help hearing, that new lights had broke in on the noble Lords opposite, that they now have found out that their sympathy had been misapplied; that it was a mistake; that he was wrong; in one word, he was told, that he could not bring forward his motion with any hope of success. The consequence was, that he felt himself placed in a situation of much difficulty; that he felt himself disappointed, discouraged, dispirited; nay, almost already discomfited. Still he was determined, under all the circumstances, to perform his duty to his country, to the British parts in Lower Canada—to the cause of true religion in that most interesting and valuable colony—from that no consideration should induce him to shrink.
The discussion of the present evening would be greatly simplified by one important admission that was now made; namely, that the Seminary of St. Sulpice had no legal right to the endowment which the ordinance of the Governor and the Special Council sought to bestow on it. In lieu of legal right, however, another claim was set up—that the ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice were entitled to this boon in equity; that claim in equity being founded, it seemed, on the suffrance of the Government during the last sixty or seventy years, and the intention manifested by different Ministers, one after another, to deal liberally with that which the recent ordinance professed to give at once. Now, as to this statement, be must remark, in the first place, that the statute called the Quebec Act was directly opposed to the principle on which the ordinance was founded; for that Act, in the very clause which assured to the Canadians the full enjoyment of their property, expressly excepted the religious orders and communities; and, in the next place, the principle on which the ordinance was founded, was not only not supported, but was directly opposed by all the law officers, who, on repeated occasions, had been called upon to give, and had given, their opinions on the question; and, in the
196
next, that principle was not, in any instance, supported by the law officers. Now, he believed, that the Crown was not in the habit of consulting the law officers, from time to time, for the purpose of acting contrary to the opinion of those law officers, when it happened not to be in accordance with the views of particular individuals. Every instance when the law officers were applied to, ought in fairness to be considered as a notice to the Seminary of St. Sulpice, that their claim was considered to be of a doubtful character, and that it was intended to act in conformity with the opinion given. A noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ripon), when at the head of the Colonial-office, had entered into a correspondence on this subject. He directed Lord Aylmer to enter into a negotiation with the heads of the seminary, and stated what terms were to be offered to them. The noble Lord said, "If they do not accept of these terms" (the noble Lord spoke it with all kindness and courtesy, but he did speak it), "if they do not accept of these specific terms, he must, however reluctantly, apply to the Crown to assert its just claims." But if those parties had a legal claim, or a claim founded in equity, what ought to be the result? Would it not have been necessary to concede the whole; to do all that was demanded; to give to those parties everything they asked, every thing, at least, which was included in the right asserted on the one hand, and conceded on the other? And yet, there is no doubt, no question, that the ordinance exercised a certain discretion with respect to what it gave It gave largely, enormously, much more than, he hoped, their Lordships would tolerate; but it did not give all; and by refusing to give all, it thus let in the whole question of what it was right and fair to give.
In this case their Lordships were called on by the constitution of the country to exercise their discretion. The law which required, that the ordinance should be laid before them, imposed on them this duty; and therefore it was necessary for him to ask their Lordships, in exercising that discretion, to consider what was the amount, and what was likely to be the result, of the gift now about to be conferred on this body of ecclesiastics. This was manifestly the more necessary, because, as he informed their Lordships on a previous occasion, the council, presided over by the Governor-general, had thought fit to refuse all in-

197
formation as to the amount of property to be given to this seminary under the ordinance. On that account the petitioners had deemed it necessary to inform their Lordships, through him, of the amount to which the intended donation would extend. The value of that property, according to the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry appointed in 1836, an extract of which he would read, was as follows:—

"The assessment on landed property within the city of Montreal is 2½ per cent, on the rental; and, according to evidence furnished to the Commissioners of Inquiry in 1836, the assessments in that year amounted to 4,150 l. Buildings being supposed to pay on an aver age 8 per cent, interest, this would give the total value of property within the city as

£.2,075,000

The island of Montreal, exclusive of the city, contains about 140,000 acres, mostly in a high state of cultivation. There are several villages in the island, and numerous country seats in the neighbourhood of the city. An average valuation of 10 l. per acre is considered too low by those who are well informed on the subject

1,400,000

£3,475,000

"The commutation fixed by the ordinance varies from 5 to 12½ per cent., according to the extent of improvement on the land. Assuming an average of 7½ per cent., the St. Sulpicians would receive for the commutation of Lods et Ventes

£260,625

"St. Gabriel Farm, of 300 acres, comprised partly within the city limits. Fief Nazareth, adjoining this property, has been conceded on building leases, at an annual rent of 3l. for the eighth part of an acre; and, besides paying that rent, the lots bear a value of from 10 l. to 75 l. each, according to situation. St. Gabriel Farm would certainly produce at present, if divided into building lots and sold on credit, a sum of not less than

50,000

£310,625

"The assessment on buildings within the city is, generally speaking, below the real value, and on farms, orchards, and vacant lots, forms no criterion as to the actual worth. The assessed rental of four properties Collectively, is 207 l, which, according to the previous calculation, would represent landed estate to the value of 2,587 l., and

198

yield to the St. Sulpicians, on a commutation of 7½ per cent., the sum of 194 l. The real value of these properties being 26,400 l., the St. Sulpicians would actually receive 1,980 l., being more than ten times the amount previously estimated.

"Not much more than one-fourth of the land within the city limits is yet built upon, and, taking that circumstance into view, together with the manner in which the assessment roll is usually prepared, vacant lots being frequently altogether omitted, and the number of valuable buildings erected since 1836, the St. Sulpicians will probably receive for commutation, within the city, over and above the amount already stated, a sum of not less than

50,000

"The arrears of Lods et Ventes, in the city of Montreal, by the Seminary's statement to the commissioners in 1836, amounted to

34,000

£394,625

"The value of the other seignories held by the St. Sulpicians cannot be so satisfactorily established as that of Montreal. The seignory of the lake of the Two Mountains and its augmentations contains about 200,000 acres, a great part unconceded, and having a valuable growth of timber. The number of inhabitants is supposed to be between 9,000 and 10,000, and there are two villages of some magnitude, St. Benoit and St. Scholastique. The seminary has two corn-mills and eight or ten farms in its own management, and several saw-mills and manufactories are possessed by individual proprietors.
"The seignory of St. Sulpice contains about 70,000 acres, all conceded. The population is about 12,000. There are three villages in this seignory, St. Jacques, St. Sulpice, and L'Assomption; the last named contains about 200 houses, many of them costly and commodious stone buildings.
It would occupy too much space to go into a minute detail as to the probable sums to be levied on these two seignories on the terms provided in the ordinance; but it may be assumed with certainty, that the capital represented by the Cens et Rentes, the farm property, and the commutation of Lods et Ventes, would amount to more than 100,000 l., yielding to the St. Sulpicians, the seignory of Montreal inclusive, a sum total of about 520,000 l., in addition to which they would acquire a valid title to nearly 150,000 acres of land in the seignory of the Lake of Two Mountains, and the arrears of Cens et Rentes and Lods et Ventes on the two seignories amounting it may be supposed to a large sum."
The entire value of the property was

199
estimated, it would appear, at 520,000 l. He believed that the value was not overstated. If, however, any doubt was felt on that point, one or two of the parties who so estimated it were now in town, and would be glad to be examined at their Lordships' bar in support of the accuracy of their valuation. Now, the interest of money in Lower Canada was 6 per cent., which on 520,000 l. gave an income of something more than 30,000 l. a-year. The amount was no reason why the grant should be withheld, if it were demanded by justice, and he for one would not join in an adverse vote, if such were the case. But as this is not the case, as, on the contrary, the claim of right is abandoned, it behoved the Legislature of a Protestant country to consider well before they gave so enormous a sum for the support of the Roman Catholic religion—before they agreed to allow so enormous a sum for such a purpose in a country where 30,000 l. a-year, an extremely large sum in any country, was absolutely appalling when they reflected on the purposes to which it would necessarily be applied. That sum was equal to one-third, or nearly so, of all the revenue of the lower province. He could not conceive how they could, consistently with their duty, give to a body of Ecclesiastics a sum equal to one-third of the revenue of the province for the purpose of maintaining the Roman Catholic religion. Why, the church of Rome in that province was already enormously richer than the Church of England—it was richer than the Church of England beyond all calculation—and the sum which they were now, by this ordinance, about to bestow on the seminary was an additional grant to seven times the whole amount that was given by the Government to the parochial clergy of the lower province. Let their Lordships also bear in mind that the miserable 4,000 l. a-year given to the church in Canada was not settled in perpetuity. There was an absolute pledge given, that it should be contracted as the individuals dropped off to whom it was now doled out. But with respect to the Roman Catholic seminary, they were called on permanently to endow it, so that, through all generations, this Popish establishment might be upheld and supported. It ought to be recollected that Montreal was a city to which vast numbers of needy emigrants from this country resorted. There were no Poor-laws there—there were no means of relieving the distresses
200
of the poor. Under these circumstances, to give 30,000 l. a-year to be dealt with by this ecclesiastical corporation, amidst such a population, was, in fact to enable them to plant triumphantly the standard of the Roman Catholic church throughout the whole province. Why this liberality to the Roman Catholics? Were their Lordships justified in this course, and were they even doing that which they were bound to do by the statute-law of the land? Not even so. By the statute law of England, by the statute law of Canada, and by the instructions which were issued to all governors of this province, and he supposed, therefore, to the present noble Governor, all the tithes due from Protestants were to be employed for the purpose of maintaining the Protestant Establishment. Not only was this the case, but it was also ordered by the instructions to which he alluded, that the amount of funds derived from vacancies in the church, should be employed in the same way. Such were the requirements of the statute law, and of the instructions issued by the Government to the governors of the province; but at this hour there was not an instance of a cure of the Roman Catholic church having a legal right to tithes; because none of them had received the licence of the governor. This had been told him by a high authority in the province, on whose testimony he placed the fullest confidence, and if he were wrong, there were some of their Lordships would have the power of contradicting him. The result was, that all the tithes in right belonged to the Protestant clergy, for there was no lawful Roman Catholic incumbent; yet, as they were not paid directly to the Protestant clergy, but through the governor, the Protestant church had lost every shilling of the amount. On this subject it was impossible to forget the measure of last Session in reference to Canada. Their Lordships had seen what a meagre and beggarly support had been given to the church of England in Canada, while that church, with others of a similar faith, had a clear, an exclusive, and an admitted right to the whole of the clergy reserves. Their Lordships were then quite willing to yield at the bidding of other parties, who required them to sacrifice the legal rights of the church—rights which it was their sacred duty to preserve—and yet he feared that they would be ready that night to act on a contrary principle, and would profess to admit the sacredness of

201
not legal, not equitable—but factitious and merely colourable—claims. In short, he feared that a majority of their Lordships would that night manifest a disposition to deal lavishly in favour of the church of Rome. That that church might have a claim on some persons he would not deny, but if it were admitted by their Lordships generally, he must presume that it would be admitted from a deep sense of duty. Yet how can a sense of duty lead them to such an admission? If this ordinance passed, it could only be regarded as a measure for Papalizing Lower Canada. Such would be the result, and if their Lordships consented to this ordinance they had better make up their minds to see it speedily realized. If their Lordships were resolved to give up this property to the Papists, if they thought that such a course was the best that could be adopted for attaching the Roman Catholics of Canada to Protestant England, and if for this reason of supposed expediency they were willing to sacrifice the interests of true religion, they must act as they saw fit; but for himself, he had a duty to perform to a Higher Power, and to a Higher Authority than any which he saw around him, and he should not shrink from the performance of that duty.
Whatever right the Roman Catholics had to this property—whether they had a claim in equity, or a claim on their generosity—it must at all events, be admitted, that that claim could not be on a better footing now than it was when the parent seminary was in possession under the rule of the French King. This seminary was an offshoot of the seminary of St. Sulpice at Paris, which, in 1667, was endowed with the seignory of Montreal by Louis 14th. The letters patent of 1667 were in the following words:—
"Louis, by the Grace of God, &c. Whereas the ecclesiastics of the seminary of St. Sulpice, of the Fauxbourg St. Germain de Paris, have humbly exposed to us that the Sieurs Faucamp, &c., have, by deed of gift, bearing date the 19th of March, 1663, given and conveyed to them the seignory of the island of Montreal, in New France, with its appurtenances and dependencies, whither they have sent priests, who have laboured in the conversion of the savages with so much success, that they have determined to send out other priests, to the number of fourteen, to establish a community, if it be our pleasure to grant them the necessary letters patent for this purpose—for these reasons, be well informed that we cannot do anything more advantageous for the propagation of the faith, and for the establishment of the Christian religion in our province of New France, and being willing to
202
favour the said memorialists, we have permitted, and by these presents do permit them, to erect a community and seminary of ecclesiastics in the island of Montreal, there to labour, according to the intentions of the petitioner, in conformity with the holy councils of the church, and the ordinances of our kingdom, in the conversion and instruction of our subjects, and in prayer to God for us and our royal successors, and the peace of the church, and of our kingdom."
Such was the state of the seminary while Lower Canada was under the dominion of France. The ecclesiastics of that institution were bound to the performance of certain specified duties, in consideration of the vast endowments which were bestowed upon them, and the Crown of France had a right, and was bound, to see how the purposes for which the seminary was instituted, were fulfilled. This was an institution, not established for private, or even for merely charitable, purposes. France had a great state object in view—namely, the conversion of the Indians, and the instruction of all the subjects of New France, or Canada. Before the conquest of Canada, the seminary held its property under the Crown of France in consideration of the performance of the duties which he had mentioned, and the Crown of France was bound to see how those duties were discharged. Now, he need not tell their Lordships, that on the conquest, England obtained possession of Canada with exactly the same rights which were enjoyed by the kings of France. The right of conquest was, that the conquering sovereign should succeed to all the rights, power, and authority in and over the conquered province which were possessed by the sovereign from whom it was acquired. At the peace of 1763, Canada was ceded to this country, and by the express words of the treaty which was then concluded, all the rights, power, and authority possessed by France, were transferred to Great Britain. Their Lordships would therefore see, that the seminary of St. Sulpice was, even after the conquest, bound to dispense the funds arising from its vast endowments in the fulfilment of the great public purpose for which it was originally established—the conversion of the Indians, and the instruction of all the subjects of Britain in the province of Canada, and that under the direction of the Crown of England. Such was the necessary result of the conquest of Canada by England. From the circumstances of the province at that time, however, it was not surprising that England should have

203
been unwilling, immediately after the conquest, to exert the full right and authority over the seminary which she had acquired—that she did not at once insist on the funds arising from its possessions being applied to the conversion of the Indians, and to the instruction of all the subjects of England in Canada according to the principles of that religion which was acknowledged as true by the Crown of England. Yet, that England had that right was unquestionable, as their Lordships would find, on reference to the third book of Grotius's work De Jure Belli et Pacis, chap. 8. There the principle was distinctly laid down, that the conquering sovereign succeeded fully to the rights, power, and authority, enjoyed by the conquered sovereign, and he therefore held that, unless there were any special stipulations to the contrary in the treaty of peace, England had obtained over the seminary of St. Sulpice, all the rights which had been enjoyed by France. Now, in what way was it that this principle operated? Under the conquest, it became the duty of Great Britain to see that the funds arising from the original endowments of the seminary should be disposed of in the way appointed by the deed of Louis 14th, that was, for the conversion of the Indians, and for the instruction of all the subjects of the British Crown in the province, according to the doctrines of the Church of England. He was not going to claim it as the bounden duty of the sovereign of this country, that he ought to take possession of the whole funds, and that he ought to insist on their being applied solely in promoting instruction, according to the doctrines of the Church of England. He had no such intention; but the least measure of the duty of the Crown of England was, to see that a fair proportional part of the revenue of the seignory should be devoted to the religious instruction of Protestants; that was the least duty of the sovereign of this country, under the rights which were obtained by the conquest. If there were any doubt on their Lordships' minds on this point, he would remind them that the Sovereign of this country had entered into the most solemn and stringent engagements, in regard to this subject, and the Ministers of the Sovereign, offering their advice to the Crown, were bound by their oaths to hold those engagements sacred. Let them for a moment suppose, that while the seminary held its possessions under the Crown of France, the body politic in that nation had thought fit
204
to dissociate itself from Rome, and to become Protestant; what, under such circumstances, would have been the duty of the King of France? Had France become reformed, the King of that country must have insisted on the seminary employing its revenues in the promotion of religious instruction according to the doctrines of the Reformation. If there were any doubt on this point, then he would ask how was it, that, in this country, those endowments which had been granted in Popish times for the support of the Roman Catholic Church, were transferred at the Reformation to the Church of England? The same principle must necessarily have been acted upon in Canada, supposing France had become, like England, a reformed country, and had separated herself from the Church of Rome, and this seminary would then have been bound to administer its revenues for the promotion of the doctrines of the reformed religion. If this were the correct principle to be applied in the case of France which he had supposed, was it not to be equally applicable to England? Was the right of England less than the right of France? Was the right of a foreign sovereign greater than that of their own? England, now that it had possession of Canada, had the same rights and duties as France would have had, had France become reformed. If it were not so what would be the consequence? If great Britain had obtained possession of the colony, and if France had become reformed as well as England, then, if the doctrine which he had contended for were not correct, neither Great Britain nor France could have touched the revenues of the seminary nor applied them to any other than Roman Catholic purposes, even should both nations have become Protestant. Such was the manifest tendency of any doctrines at variance with the principles which he advocated.
In other words popery would have acquired in Canada a surer and more unalterable establishment by that province becoming a part of the dominions of the Crown of England, than it could have had while it continued a dependency of France.
They had heard a great deal of the consequences which it was asserted would result from denying this ordinance, and within the last twenty-four hours he had listened to much about the agitation and excitement which a refusal to sanction it would create. They were even told, perhaps by way of threat, that such a

205
course would revive a third rebellion in the province, and they were asked whether the prevention of such consequences would not be cheaply obtained by allowing the ordinance, recommended as it was by the Governor of Canada and his Special Council? He was not, however, aware that the noble Governor of the colony or his Council was infallible. They might err like other men, and he had the satisfaction on a former occasion of hearing from the noble Viscount near him a statement to which he now wished to call the attention of their Lordships. In reference to a dispatch from the noble Governor of Canada, in which he stated that he had pressed forward this ordinance in conformity with instructions from the Government at home, the noble Viscount had said that the Government had given no instructions upon the subject: all they said was, let some ordinance be passed. At least, then, he was warranted in concluding that this ordinance had not the sanction of the judgment of Her Majesty's Ministers. But were there no authorities on the other side of the question, and against the ordinance, as well as against the fears which some entertained of the consequences of refusing to sanction it? The British petitioners in Montreal—that body which in times of danger and difficulty had loyally supported the rights of the Crown—stated, that they apprehended no such danger, and they expressed their confident hope and prayer that the ordinance would not be passed, for this only reason, because to pass it would not be less unjust than it would be mischievous—mischievous, because tending to destroy the peace and tranquillity of the province. They had also the almost unanimous resolution of the magistrates of Montreal—eighteen out of twenty-four—not contradicted by any one of the other six against the ordinance, and expressive of their opinion that no bad consequences would result from its rejection. Nor was this all. The Solicitor-general of the colony also thought that no danger would result from its rejection. There was also the authority of four members of the Special Council to the same effect, and this was not all the authority they had upon the subject. He was able to state, upon the authority of two gentlemen of Montreal, that no danger was to be apprehended from the course which he advocated. One of those gentlemen had expressed his astonishment on this point in the strongest terms.
206
So strong, indeed, was his language, that he had begged leave to write it down, but the gentleman to whom he alluded was willing, if their Lordships saw fit, to state his opinions at the bar of that House. He had informed the noble Viscount who those gentlemen were, and, from the conversations which he himself had held with one of them in particular, he was satisfied that his statements were entitled to the utmost consideration. This gentleman was cautious in stating facts, he was a religious man, and anxious to correct any exaggeration into which he might have fallen. He would now read to their Lordships what this gentleman had stated. Mr. Matthewson, a member of the corporation of Montreal, on reading Lord Sydenham's despatch of January 20, 1841; in which he says that "all excitement has subsided," declared, in very strong terms, "that this averment is most delusive. (Of course, not written with a delusive intention on the part of the governor.)
"True it is, they say, that there is now a cessation from active measures of resistance. But this proceeds from the British party being satisfied that they have done all that is in their power against the ordinance, and because they have a confident hope that their petition to Parliament will be successful. Should this hope be disappointed, a feeling of deep dissatisfaction and discontent would be produced, though they may be too loyal to attempt any resistance to what, would then be law. One gentleman, a member of the Special Council, who had himself previously to the ordinance commuted his property and was therefore interested in seeing the claim of the seminary established, was yet strenuously opposed to the ordinance, because, as he publicly said, he considered it most iniquitous, and likely to endanger the safety of the colony, by weakening the attachment of the British population. Many other persons have said the same to these gentlemen, adding that they would gladly sell their property, if they could do so without a ruinous loss, and quit the colony for ever, rather than live there, when it is thus given up to a Romish seminary. They themselves had this feeling. There is a strong feeling on the part of the Protestants that the ordinance deals unfairly with them, who stood by the British Crown in the day of danger. There is scarcely one of the petitioners who did not take up arms and expose his life for the maintenance of the British Crown in Canada. On the other hand, few of the Canadians of Montreal, and those few connected by marriage or otherwise with the British, took up arms."
In the battalion in which Mr. Matthewson himself bore the commission of captain, a battalion between 700 and 800 strong,

207
there were not more than twenty Canadians. He reckoned the number at the highest: he did not know that they were more than ten. Yet in the other three battalions he believed they were still fewer; for his battalion was formed of the inhabitants of the West Ward, in which the Canadians abound, it being in that part of Montreal which is mixed with the country. Mr. Matthewson said, he was confident that an address from that House against the ordinance, thus remitting the question to the provincial legislature, would not make the Canadians disaffected. He believed fully that they would be themselves glad of it, though under the influence of their priesthood they had supported the measure. He gave an instance. He himself carried the petition round his own ward, and on asking a most respectable Canadian, a Roman Catholic, a particular friend of his, an active magistrate, and most loyal man, one whose loyalty had exposed him to the threats of the rebels, one of the six aldermen of the corporation of Montreal, a churchwarden of the Roman Catholic church, to sign the petition, that gentleman read it and answered,
"You know the situation in which I am placed; I wish you to go on and prosper. If you had in your petition asked the Government to give the seminary something handsome, in consideration of their long possession, I would have signed your petition."
Now, these petitioners said nothing to the contrary; nay, they were prepared to have joined in such a measure, and if a measure to settle this question could have been brought forward in the British Parliament, he had been furnished with documents by the petitioners which proposed to give to these ecclesiastics, or to the objects or establishment of which they were the head, a sum of not less than 8,000 l. per annum, a sum equal to all that hitherto had been received by them. These then were authorities—important authorities, against the notion, which it had been attempted to make prevail in England, of the probability of a fresh rebellion in Canada, if this ordinance were not carried into effect. It seemed, however, that under this erroneous notion the British population in Canada, who already considered themselves much injured—they who had offered to shed their blood for this country, were to be sacrificed to the supposed interests of those who had rendered necessary the offer of that sacrifice. But these were not the only authorities with which he was pre-
208
pared. The fact was (and it was a fact not to be denied), that one of the greatest inducements, one of the most successful excitements to the rebellion in Canada, was, that if the rebellion succeeded, the population would get rid of all seignorial dues. So much was this felt that when Mr. Nelson attempted to re-excite the rebel feeling after it had been put down by the petitioners under the wise governors at that time placed over them, in one of the proclamations which be issued from the American borders, he stated as one of the grounds why he called upon the Canadians to renew the rebellion was, that by so doing they would get rid of all seignorial dues: and yet the House was to be now told, that if it interposed between the Governor and Council of Canada and the Crown in this instance, and thus obtained for their fellow-Protestants an act of mere justice, that then, forsooth, there would be a fresh rebellion. But while their Lordships were considering these matters, whether they were to encourage rebellion by pursuing one course, or to repel it by following another, he (the Bishop of Exeter) must remind them that there were other considerations which ought to have some weight. Was not right, was not duty right, was duty still to be considered of some weight? He knew not whether or not the time was gone by for such considerations, but here there was a claim of common honesty to be preferred—a claim which he trusted their Lordships would not lightly abandon. He repeated that the funds which these ordinances disposed of were not the Queen's, nor the governor's, nor the legislature's to give—they had already been given, and they belonged to the consolidated fund of the province—they had been surrendered already, and surrendered too on terms which formed one of the conditions of the union of the two provinces. Their Lordships knew well that all hereditary, territorial, and other revenues at the disposal of the Crown had been fully surrendered by the Act of Union to the provincial legislature. On a former occasion he had shown that the claim of the Crown to the property in question, was stated by the commissioners in 1836 as one item of value in the list of the boons which were to be given in exchange for a civil list. He had, however, since heard it remarked, that in another report a few months afterwards these very commissioners had said, that Parliament ought in generosity, or rather in the equity of generosity, to have given

209
this property to the seminary. Now, with all respect to the commissioners (and for one of whom he entertained the highest respect), there were no grounds for the position they had taken. Be this, however, as it may, what was the real course of the proceedings of these commissioners. In the January of that year they had offered to the Legislative Assembly all the hereditary revenues and (eo nomine) claims of the Crown in the Seminary of St. Sulpice for a civil list. The offer was refused by the Legislative Assembly, and therefore the commissioners were not bound to act thereafter in the same way, and they were at liberty to advise a different disposal of these funds, and so they did. Their advice, however, was not taken, and what then? Was this the last time they had heard of the proposition to surrender all the revenues of the Crown in exchange for a civil list? No; for the offer had been repeated by Sir George Arthur. The noble marquess (Normanby), reminded him, that Sir George Arthur was in Upper Canada. That was quite true, but in his time a bill on the subject had been proposed, which ought, if it stood alone, to have no operation on the question now before their Lordships. But when Lord Sydenham went out as governor of the whole province he opened the Parliament of Upper Canada in these words:
"I am commanded again to submit to you the surrender of the casual and territorial revenues of the Crown in exchange for a civil list."
He admitted this offer could not be held to include the revenues of the lower province, but then this was not all that passed on the subject: for four days afterwards Lord Sydenham sent a message to the Legislature of Upper Canada as to the terms of the union of the two provinces: and in that message what did he say? The noble Lord stated three conditions upon which the union was to be based, and of those conditions the second stipulation was the grant of a sufficient civil list. The legislature of Upper Canada, the only constitutional legislature then existing, answered that demand of the governor, accepting the offer he had made to surrender the Crown revenues, and engaging to unite with the lower province on condition that there should be a surrender of all the revenues of the two provinces. [Lord Ellenborough.—No, no, not a word about it.] The noble Baron would have an opportunity by and by of showing there
210
was not a word about it; but in the mean time he thought he should be able to prove that there was a word about it. These, he repeated, were the terms offered for the union of both provinces; the second stipulation for the grant of a sufficient civil list; and the third for the charge of a portion of the debt incurred by the upper province upon the lower province. In the despatch he admitted that nothing was said in terms about the surrender of the Crown revenues; but that had been said before, and the question really was, whether the revenues of St. Sulpice were at the disposal of the Crown at the time the ordinance passed, or rather at the time the Act of Union passed. It could not now be denied that such was the case; but it would, perhaps, be said, that these ordinances took place before the Act of Union, and the revenues of St. Sulpice were therefore separated from the revenues of the Crown. He denied that the ordinance in question was worth the paper on which it was written until it had received the Royal sanction. The noble Viscount near him (Viscount Melbourne) shook his head. Why, true it was, that till November, 1842, the ordinance would be available if the Crown does not disallow it; but after that date, without the express sanction of the Crown, the ordinance would be absolutely void, and the House was that night called upon to decide, whether they would not advise the Crown to withhold its sanction of the ordinance.
He contended there could not be a permanent union under the Act of Union, unless all the stipulations made in that act were faithfully fulfilled, and one of those stipulations, he repeated, was, that all the property of the Crown should be placed at the disposal of the legislature of the province. The present question, therefore, was not an affair of generosity, for the funds had already been disposed of; it was a question upon which their Lordships ought to bear in mind the old adage "Be just before you are generous." These funds, the property of the Crown, had been placed at the disposal of the provincial legislature, and, therefore, in common honesty their Lordships were bound to remit the question back for the consideration of the provincial legislature. This was one of those points upon which on a former occasion he (the Bishop of Exeter) had the honour to receive the support of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington). The noble Duke had (as he

211
always did) stood forward plainly, simply, but manfully, in asserting the duty of this country to look to the distinct obligations which justice imposed, and he had recognised this as a clear and prominent claim of justice. Having already on a previous evening occupied their Lordships' attention, and feeling very much indisposed to trespass longer, there remained but one more topic upon which at present he desired to touch. It related to the character of that corporation which would be created by the ordinance, if permitted to pass. It professed to make an ecclesiastical corporation of these Popish ecclesiastics. Now, with all respect to the opinions of noble and learned Lords, (of whom he regretted there were at present only two in the House), he would in their presence venture to say, that no body of Popish ecclesiastics could be constituted an ecclesiastical corporation without violating the fundamental principles of our constitution. Let them but look to the purposes for which this body was to be incorporated, and the two noble and learned Lords present would, he was sure, sustain him in that opinion. It was the purposes for which it was incorporated not the persons incorporated which made it, or not, an ecclesiastical corporation. He had seen, it was true, an instrument which professed to incorporate some Popish ecclesiastics in Canada by letters patent, passed by George 4th, during the administration of colonial affairs by Earl Bathurst. That was not, he contended, an ecclesiastical corporation, and no attempt had been made to make it so. If the noble Earl opposite or any other noble Lord urged that instrument as a precedent on this occasion, he should listen with patience to the reasons why it should be so regarded, and either be convinced or have an opportunity of answering them; but, until he was better informed on the subject, he maintained with confidence that the purposes for which a corporation was designed could alone make it an ecclesiastical corporation. This was the language of a high authority on the subject of corporations (Kidd on Corporations):—
"Ecclesiastical corporations are those of which not only the members are spiritual persons, but of which the objects are spiritual. It is not the description of persons forming the members of the corporation, but its objects, which make it a lay or spiritual corporation."
The colleges at Oxford and Cambridge were corporations, some of them consist-
212
ing principally of ecclesiastics, but they were not ecclesiastical corporations. He would not say whether it was within the power of Parliament itself to establish such a popish corporation as was intended in this ordinance, but he must deny the right to incorporate, salvâ republicâ such an institution in this country, or in any of its dependencies; it would be at variance with the Act of Supremacy He must entreat their Lordships to remember that the statute of the 1st of Elizabeth was made by subsequent Acts of Parliament specially to apply to Canada. Both the statute of 1774, called the statute of Quebec, and the 31st of George 3rd, ch. 31st, specially decreed that the supremacy of the Crown, as established by the 1st of Elizabeth, should be maintained, not only in England, but in all countries which either then were, or thereafter should be, under the dominion of the Crown of England; therefore, above all countries that could be named, Canada was that in which it would be most presumptuous in any government to violate the supremacy. That it was violated by this ordinance, was, he thought, pretty clear. He begged to ask, who would have jurisdiction over the incorporated body of Roman Catholics? On looking at the conclusion of the ordinance concerning St. Sulpice, he found these words.
"And be it further ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that the said ecclesiastics of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, of Montreal, and their successors, as to temporal matters, shall continue and be subject to the same powers of visitation as in like cases were possessed and exercised by the kings of France before the conquest of the province, and are now possessed and exercised in that behalf by her Majesty in right of her Crown."
Here, then, was an abandonment of the Crown's supremacy in spiritual matter, in this very ordinance. Would it be said, that in spite of this abandonment by implication, it could not be got rid of? If so, he wanted to know how the Crown was to visit the seminary. By the common law of this land all ecclesiastical corporations were visited by the ordinary. The ordinary of Montreal was Dr. Mountain, the Protestant bishop. Was he to be the visitor of this Popish seminary? If not, who was? The name of the Roman Catholic bishop of Quebec was mentioned, but the noble Marquess had stated this arose from a mistake. He

213
was glad to hear it, far a Secretary of State to ascribe to a Popish ecclesiastic a diocese within the dominions of the Queen of England would be a high crime and misdemeanour. Chief Justice Holt laid down that all ecclesiastical corporations must have a visitor; here there could be none, and on all these accounts he maintained, that it was plain that the establishment of an ecclesiastical corporation of Popish priests was contrary to the fundamental principles of the laws of the land. It yet remained for him to notice one particular of much less importance than others that he had considered, but yet absolutely conclusive as to this ordinance. By the very terms of the Act of Parliament, which gave to the Governor-general and special council in Canada, the power of making ordinances at all, they were precluded from making such an ordinance as that now upon their Lordships' Table. They were strictly precluded from making any ordinance which should alter or affect, (the act did not go so far as to say "damage") any spiritual or temporal rights of the clergy of the Church of England, or of the ministers of any religious community. Now, if these words had any meaning, it was manifest that they must extend so as to exclude the ordinance before the House, because the provisions of the 31st George 3rd, especially said, that nothing should be done in the way of benefiting any individual member or minister of any religious communion, without certain restraints, which restraints must in fairness be taken to explain the language of the statute in respect to the ordinance now under consideration. He submitted, therefore, that the special council of Canada, in adopting this ordinance, had exceeded its power, and consequently that the ordinance ought to be protested against by their Lordships. For all these reasons he humbly implored their Lordships to interpose between the special council of Canada and her Majesty, to prevent the commission of what he could only regard as a very great national crime. He repeated, that a measure which went to papalize a whole province, under a Sovereign who was sworn to maintain the Church of England to the utmost of her power—a measure which sought to give what it was not in the power of the Legislature to give, nor in the power of those who by this ordinance professed to have
214
the power to give—a measure which was a violation of the fundamental laws of the land—such a measure, he repeated, could never receive the sanction of their Lordships' House; and to pass such a measure, he asserted, would amount to a great national crime. He implored their Lordships, therefore, to step forward and exercise the power which the constitution had wisely given them. Need he say, how much this country—how justly this country—looked up to their Lordships for a vindication of all its dearest rights, and, above all, its rights of religion? The Protestant feeling of this country demanded from their Lordships such an evidence of their sympathy, as would be exhibited by their Lordships supporting him (the Bishop of Exeter) in the motion with which it was his duty now to conclude; viz.,
"That a humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to withhold her assent to the ordinance for incorporating the Seminary of St. Sulpice, in Montreal."
The Marquess of Normanby, before he proceeded to offer such observations as he might think necessary, in opposition to the motion with which the right rev. Prelate had concluded, and in answer not only to the speech with which the right rev. Prelate had proposed that motion, but also to many portions of the speech which the right rev. Prelate had addressed to their Lordships on a previous occasion, could not avoid saying one word on the subject with which the right rev. Prelate commenced, namely, the assurance that but for the manner in which this question was met on the last occasion on which he brought it before the House, and when be addressed their Lordships merely on presenting a petition, he should not have thought it necessary to trouble their Lordships with the present motion. It was, of course, impossible for him to penetrate the right rev. Prelate's intentions; he could only judge by the right rev. Prelate's words; and in the course of the address which the right rev. Prelate made in presenting the petition, long before he was aware of the tone and manner in which that address would be received, or the manner in which it would be answered, he declared his intention of applying to their Lordships for their decision upon this question. Nay, the right rev. Prelate not only made that declaration, but actually stated the character in which he

215
should appeal to their Lordships that he should call upon them as legislators. The right rev. Prelate now stated that his noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne) had given him but a very feeble answer upon that occasion. But how was the subject brought forward? The right rev. Prelate, upon the mere presentation of a petition, in reference to which he announced his intention of afterwards making a motion, took not only the unusual, but, he believed, the unprecedented course of entering into a detail of the whole history of Canada in a speech which occupied in the delivery no less a space of time than two hours and a half. But what was the state of the House at the time? He appealed to the noble Duke (Duke of Wellington) in what manner the right rev. Prelate's speech was received. The right rev. Prelate addressed himself in vain to one after another of those noble Lords who in former times had filled the office of Colonial Secretary; but one after another he found them all absent, because nobody had an idea that the right rev. Prelate's intention in presenting a petition was to enter into a detailed statement which should occupy two hours and a half. Under these circumstances could any one blame his noble Friend that he had waited for a more appropriate occasion to discuss the comprehensive topics, thus irregularly brought forward by the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate had divided his objections to this ordinance into three principal heads:—first, that it was unconstitutional, and unprecedented secondly, unfair towards the parties; and, thirdly, that it was unjust towards the province generally. But before he proceeded to combat the right rev. Prelate's objections—before he proceeded to state the conduct of preceding governments, he begged to direct their Lordships' attention to what, within the last two years, had been their own conduct—a point upon which the right rev. Prelate had not said one word. The right rev. Prelate throughout the whole of his statement had always assumed that the ordinance of which he complained was a fancy of the noble Lord (Lord Sydenham) at present at the head of the government in Canada—that it was a whim that had occurred to that noble Lord—a project that had never before been heard of. But their Lordships would recollect that during the time of the administration of his lamented friend, the late Lord Durham, in Canada, there was a report made by Mr. Charles Buller—a very able and elaborate
216
report—upon the circumstance connected with this seminary. That report was adopted by Lord Durham; and subsequently acted upon by their Lordships: for in the next year, in the month of June, he had upon the Table a despatch from Lord Durham, embodying the report of Mr. Charles Buller, and at the same time a draft of the ordinance intended to be submitted by Lord Durham, and afterwards actually passed by Sir John Colborne. It was true, that the ordinance passed by Sir John Colborne passed only as a project, because the special council at that time had not the power of passing permanent laws. But what did he himself state in opening to the House the Amended Act of 1839, as one of the two grounds why he considered it necessary that the imperial Legislature should give its assent to the ordinance which he suggested? Why, he stated that it was for the very purpose of giving effect to the arrangement proposed by Mr. C. Buller with respect to the seminary of St. Sulpice, was then there any objection taken to the proviso inserted with the express intention, of giving permanent effect to a precisely similar ordinance. He (the Marquess of Normanby) said, therefore, that the character of that House and of the Imperial Parliament was involved in their Lordships not forgetting what they did two years ago. For their Lordships to adopt the course now suggested to them by the right rev. Prelate, would be most unjust and unfair. The question, after all, was one of bargain, a bargain already agreed upon, and to some extent in operation. With what justice could their Lordships step in to prevent one of the parties to the bargain from giving the equivalent agreed upon? Their Lordships had induced certain parties to part with a portion of their property, upon the understanding that, in return for that property, they were to receive the advantages contemplated by this ordinance. If their Lordships did not fulfil the terms of the bargain, they would be inflicting upon those parties a signal injustice. The right rev. Prelate in the course of his speech had remarked—a remark that he (the Marquess of Normanby) had never before heard—that the bargain, in this instance, was a very improvident one—that the profits given to the seminary of St. Sulpice would be enormous; and then the right rev. Prelate proceeded to lay before

217
their Lordships an estimate of the immense funds which would be at the disposal of these ecclesiastics. The information that he had received upon that point differed materially from the statement made by the right rev. Prelate. He believed that those persons had been commuting their property at only 50 per cent. upon the real value, so that instead of possessing the vast sums ascribed to them by the right rev. Prelate they were, in fact, in possession of no more than 200,000 l. or 260,000 l. at the very utmost. Then, in what manner did these persons spend their money? Why it appeared that they spent annually 100 l. each on themselves, and 47 per cent. of their income in charity. The right rev. Prelate had referred to the authority of two Gentlemen connected with Canada to show that the ordinance was universally unpopular in that country. He (the Marquess of Normanby) had also some acquaintance with gentlemen connected with Canada, and in opposition to the statement made by the right rev. Prelate, he could refer to the testimony of a gentleman, a barrister, and a member of one of the oldest Protestant families of the province, who assured him that many of the old British families were very much in favour of the ordinance. He had also made inquiries of another gentleman of considerable station in the colony, as to the character of the two individuals quoted by the right rev. Prelate, whose names he had previously communicated to his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne). He must say, that it was not a very available piece of candour to give names merely, unless the right rev. Prelate had given the facts to which he meant to append their authority. This indeed might have really seemed to elicit the truth, but without invidiously canvassing the evidence of the parties whose names were thus given, he felt bound to state, that he did not believe, they occupied a position in the colony which gave much weight to there opinions. One had been but recently settled there, the other had merely made his money in a retail trade, being respectable people in their way, no doubt, but not authority on which the Governor-general's official report could be invalidated. The right rev. Prelate then proceeded to discuss the question of the legality or illegality of the ordinance. The right rev. Prelate contended that it was contrary to law, because it was at variance with the supre-
218
macy of the Crown. He was not qualified to speak with any authority upon that point. All he could say was, that upon that point, as upon all others of a legal nature, the greatest pains had been taken to obtain the best legal opinion. Previous to his leaving the Colonial-office, he asked this opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon the very point of how far it was, or it was not, competent under the act, for the special council of Canada to enact this ordinance. The opinion of the law officers was strong and decided; they said that there was nothing whatever to prevent the special council from passing such an ordinance. His noble Friend (Lord John Russell), now at the head of the Colonial department, since the passing of the ordinance, had submitted it to the consideration of the same legal authorities, and the reply received from them was of the same decided character. A further proof of the legality of the ordinance, and of the power of the special council to pass it, was furnished in the fact that Sir J. Stewart, the highest legal authority in the province, had voted in favour of it. The right rev. Prelate always spoke of Canada as if it were a Protestant colony. But was it so? He (the Marquess of Normanby) would presently quote authorities to show that it had not always been so considered. What happened at the very time of the capitulation of Montreal? The treaty of capitulation declared, that all the community and all the priests should retain their moveables and other property in the seignories, and that they should be preserved in all their rights and privileges. Then they came to the treaty of Paris, and much of the legal part of this question turned upon the validity of the deed of gift of the seignory of Montreal to the seminary of St. Sulpice. Now a communication had been made by the commissioners in 1764 to Lord Halifax, in which it was stated, that the King of England had engaged himself to leave in Canada the free exercise of the Catholic religion according to the laws of England. [The noble Marquess was proceeding to read the communication, translating it into English, when a noble Earl (Earl Mountcashel, we believe) appeared to dispute the correctness of the version given by the noble Marquess. The Marquess of Normanby then immediately read the whole extract in the original French, as follows:]—

219
"My Lord Halifax—Lui a dit que, quoi-que le Roi d'Angleterre se fut engagé, par le traité, à laisser en Canada le libre exercice de la réligion Catholique et Romaine, suivant les lois d'Angleterre, il ne s'ensuivoit pas que des biens fonds, situés en Canada, pussent continuer d'appartenir à des Francais, vivent en France, et sujets du Roi de France. Que S. M. B. consent que les prétres du séminaire de Montréal continuent à en jouir, mais sans dépendence du séminaire de Paris."
This without entering into the question of its legal effect at least gave the Seminary an equitable claim upon the justice of the Government, by showing the object for which the transfer was made with the assent of the Bristish Crown. He would next call their Lordships' attention to the manner in which the act of 1774 had been received, not only by those who had supported, but by those who had opposed it, for the purpose of showing their Lordships what had been considered would be the effect of that bill. When the measure was under discussion in their Lordships' House, one, whom he believed the right rev. Prelate himself would admit to be of some authority—he meant Lord Chatham—was reported thus to have delivered his sentiments:—
"When their Lordships came to the religious part of the question he directed his discourse to the bench of bishops, telling them that as by the bill, the Catholic religion was made the established religion of that vast continent it was impossible they could be silent on that occasion."
But he was quite mistaken; for the report goes on to say although several right rev. Prelates were on the bench, none of them made any opposition to the clause, they all voted with the Ministry, no bad precedent perhaps in those times. He would also quote to their Lordships what was said by Colonel Barré in the House of Commons.
"By this bill you establish the Roman religion where it never was established before, and you only permit the practice of your own. You do not even let them go hand in hand. For what purpose is the Ohio and the Illinois to be Roman Catholic?"
Noble Lords would perceive that through, out these discussions, the principal object-tion taken was to the extension of the limits of the province of Quebec. Every one seemed to admit, that Canada was Catholic. He had been hitherto reading to the House the opinions of the opponents of the bill, and he would now call their
220
Lordships' attention to what had been said by the Prime Minister of that day. Lord North said,
"After once fixing the government of Quebec in the hands of this nation, it was a matter of indifference to him what law or religion was established, so that it made the people happy."
That was the manner in which Lord North spoke upon the subject of the Quebec Government Bill. It should be remembered that Lord North was a favoured minister of that "excellent Sovereign George 3rd, whose name was never to be mentioned but with reverence." Lord North was not one of those ministers whom that "excellent Sovereign" sometimes thwarted, but one whom he stood by through good and through evil, through much unpopularity and odium, and whom he retained for many years as his adviser. There was under the circumstances of the province much good sense in these expressions of Lord North, but he much doubted whether in these "degenerate days," his noble Friend behind him would venture to say as much. Such, then, had been the opinions on both sides in 1774—such were then thought to be the effects that would result from that bill which the right rev. Prelate, inventing a new word, said had "papalized" the colony. In such a manner had that bill been treated by Lord North, Lord Chatham, and Colonel Barré, in 1774. But there was another authority to which he would refer there Lordships—a philosopher whose name was held in respect and esteem—he meant Edmund Burke. That great man, in a letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, in 1792, upon the subject of the Irish Catholics, thus expressed himself:—
"I voted last Session, if a particular vote could be distinguished in unanimity, for an establishment of the Church of England conjointly with the establishment which was made some years before, by Act of Parliament, of the Roman Catholics in the French conquered country of Canada. At the time of making this English ecclesiastical establishment, we did not think it necessary for its safety to destroy the former Gallican church settlement."
These were the opinions of Mr. Burke, and he thought the right rev. Prelate might have found leisure during the recess, and in the course of the months that had elapsed since he had first brought the subject before their Lordship, to have informed himself of those various opinions which he (the Marquess of Normanby)

221
had been quoting, before he (the Bishop of Exeter) came down to the House and asserted that all these things were the "new lights" of 1841, and that this was the first time an attempt had been made to papalize what he called a Protestant colony. He would now beg leave to call their Lordships' attention to what had taken place in 1821 under Lord Bathurst. The incorporation at that time of the Seminary of St. Nicolet, was a precedent in favour of the present ordinance. Now, if the right rev. Prelate had been able to establish the fact that the corporation of St. Nicolet then created by Lord Bathurst was not a corporation of Romish priests, would lie have omitted the opportunity? [The Bishop of Exeter: It is not.] He should be glad to know how the right rev. Prelate could draw any distinction between the two colleges. How did the right rev. Prelate make it appear that St. Nicolet was not an ecclesiastical corporation of Romish priests? Could it be called a lay coporation, seeing that it consisted of the Roman Catholic bishop for the time being, his coadjutors for the time being, two vicaires grands for the time being, and the senior curé of the district for the time being? Was not that an ecclesiastical corporation? The right rev. Prelate said, it was a corporation for the purposes of education. For what purposes, then, was the Seminary of St. Sulpice established? The right rev. Prelate had described them in the last debate. Were they not the same in both cases? He was really at a loss to conceive how any distinction could be drawn between the two establishments. But, before he went any further, he should like very much to ask the right rev. Prelate whether he was aware of the existence of the document to which he now referred—the charter of the corporation of St. Nicolet, before he first brought this subject under the notice of their Lordships? [The Bishop of Exeter replied in the negative.] The right rev. Prelate did not know of the existence of that document then, and his ignorance in that respect must be his excuse for addressing their Lordships in such language as that on the 4th inst. In reference to the present ordinance, the right rev. Prelate said,
"But there were absolutely higher considerations, which proved the illegality of this ordinance. It professed to be in effect an ecclesiastical incorporation of Romish priests, and this was the first time such an attempt had
222
been made, King James the 2nd durst do no such thing. Father Peter never claimed it. The attempt was reserved for the year 1841—a new age of new lights."
He might here observe, that however striking those "lights" might be, they could not pierce the eyes of those who were wilfully blind. The right rev. Prelate ought to have inquired if there had been a corporation. If the right rev. Prelate had read the protest of his noble Friend upon the subject, he would have seen the words, "In Canada, of late years, more than one Roman Catholic college had been established." That was the sort of information of which the right rev. Prelate ought to have availed himself before he made to their Lordships the assertion that this was the first time that Roman Catholic priests had been incorporated. He could not at this moment help asking the right, rev. Prelate whether he did not think some explanation was due to their Lordships of the manner in which he had thought proper to read a despatch of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen); and of the use which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had made of the authority of the noble Earl in his absence, and when he (the right rev. Prelate) must have known from the document he held in his hand that if he had proceeded to read only one sentence further, he would have found that the sentiment quoted had nothing to do with the views attempted to be inculcated by the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate, in quoting the despatch, made the following selection:—
"Finally the terms of this bill are so chosen, that I apprehend they would terminate the question so long in debate, whether the corporate character, asserted by the priests of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, really belongs to them or not. The decision of that question in favour of the seminary would involve consequences which every Canadian, whatever his national origin or religious persuasion, would alike have reason to deprecate."
When the right rev. Prelate used these words, he thought there was something behind them. The right rev. Prelate carefully selected sentences, which in the common and correct use of words did not bear out the inference he wished to draw. The right rev. Prelate broke off at the point, and then said be was proud that he had the authority of the noble Earl the Colonial secretary to the noble Duke in favour of the petitioners. But what was the very next, sentence of the despatch? [A noble Lord: What was the despatch about?]

223
It was on the subject of education, and it did not involve the tenure of one corporation only, but related to the bill that had been passed by the provincial legislature, conferring a corporate character upon every institution which might be possessed of lands to the amount of eight acres only, devoted to the purposes of education. But he was about to observe, that the very next sentence of the despatch, if the right rev. Prelate had chosen to go into it, was this: "Such as the necessity of holding a great commercial city upon a feudal tenure—" [The Bishop of Exeter: These words I added.] He thought the right rev. Prelate's memory had failed him in that respect. All he could say was, that he had not the slightest recollection of having heard those words used by the right rev. Prelate, neither had his noble Friends near him any recollection of their having been quoted. There were several reports of the right rev. Prelate's speech, and in all those reports except one, those words were omitted. But in the only report which contained those words in the extract quoted by the most rev. Prelate, there was an "&c." The "&c." had probably been copied from those extracts, which noble Lords and right rev. Prelates sometimes furnished to reporters after the debate. It still appeared that the right rev. Prelate was mistaken; that he did not read the words attributed to him; that the report in which those words were inserted happened to be one in which the right rev. Prelate had communicated his extracts. But if the right rev. Prelate had made no such communication—[The Bishop of Exeter: I did make a communication of extracts.] He still thought the recollection of the right rev. Prelate had failed him, as to having read the words in question, and the House would perceive that those words would completely have deprived the right rev. Prelate of the absurd authorities, to which he was appealing, as they would have shown that the objection felt by that Colonial Secretary was to a consequence which it the object of the present ordinance to remove for ever. The right rev. Prelate in the course of his speech, had made an attack upon his (the Marquess of Normanby's) noble Friend behind him, and also in the latter part of his tirade had attacked him, a humble member of the Government of the noble Viscount. The right rev. Prelate had said, that the present was
224
a Government, the effect of the acts of which was, somehow or other, more than any other, to support the Popish religion in preference to their own, and the right rev. Prelate had complained that he had, in a despatch, given to the Roman Catholic bishop of Quebec the title of Bishop of Quebec. Why, what were the terms of the capitulation? Had not Lord Bathurst called him Bishop of Quebec? Perhaps that was one of the papers which the right rev. Prelate had been so glad to receive. If the bishop was not so styled, what else was he called? He was really bound to say that this was a most inefficient ground—and, if the speech had not come from reverend lips, he should have said a most ridiculous ground—whereon to form a charge against the Government. He had had all the despatches in the Colonial-office which he had written, most carefully searched, and none could be found in which he had talked about the Bishop of Quebec. But, if even the right rev. Prelate had been right in his fact as to that despatch, which he doubted, if even he had used the phrase attributed to him, he did not think he should have been singled out for attack in consequence of having done that which Lord Bathurst had done in 1821. Lord Bathurst had called the rev. Gentleman alluded to, the Bishop of Quebec. Indeed, it appeared the Bishop of Quebec had rather presumed in those days, and had assumed the title of archbishop, for Lord Bathurst, before he proceeded to grant the charter referred to in his despatch, had been obliged to write as follows to the Earl of Dalhousie:—
"Downing-street, 6th April, 1821.
"My Lord—Since I had the honour of conveying to you his Majesty's approval of the appointment of the Rev. J. J. Lartigue and F. Proxencheur, as assistants to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec, in the administration of his diocese, the enclosed paragraph from a North American newspaper has been brought under my consideration. After the communication which took place with the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec in this country, I can with difficulty credit the information contained in it; for I cannot believe that the bishop could have so far misunderstood the views of his Majesty's Government as to conceive himself at liberty to assume within the province, the title of archbishop, or to consecrate a bishop for a new diocese within his Majesty's dominions, without his Majesty's authority.
"Should M. de Plessis, however, have been so ill-advised as to assume the title of arch-

225
bishop, or should he have consecrated Mr. Lartigue as the Bishop of Montreal (of which facts your Lordship cannot fail of being correctly informed), it becomes highly necessary to mark his Majesty's disapprobation of such proceedings, and to withhold the sanction which his Majesty has been otherwise prepared to give to the appointment of two ecclesiastics as assistants to the Roman Catholic bishop, and to the establishment of a Roman Catholic school at Nicolet. Your Lordship will, therefore, not act upon the instruction of the 2d instant, unless in the event of being satisfied that the Roman Catholic bishop has not assumed the title of archbishop, and that he has not done more than appoint Mr. Lartigue and Mr. Proxencheur as assistants in the administration of his diocese.
"Should your enquiries lead to a different conclusion, you will confine yourself to communicating to Mr. de Plessis the reasons which now prevent an acquiescence in his wishes, and the regret which his Majesty feels in being compelled, by this undue assumption of authority on the part of the bishop, to withdraw his Majesty's sanction from an arrangement which the Roman Catholic bishop appeared to have much at heart, and to which, but for this circumstance, his Majesty would have had much pleasure in acceding.—I have,&c.
(Signed)"BATHURST.
"The Earl of Dalhousie, &c."
So much, then, for the accusation brought by the right rev. Prelate against him. But the right rev. Prelate was very apt, indeed, in making such accusations. He (the Marquess of Normanby) would say, that upon trivial and inefficient grounds, a serious accusation had been very ill supported—an accusation against the Ministers of the Crown, that they were supporting another religion at the expense of their own. What the Ministers were doing—and it was what he trusted they would continue to do—was to attempt to give a full and fair operation to the act of the noble Duke opposite for Catholic Emancipation. Such he felt to be the duty of her Majesty's Government. The right rev. Prelate, too, who is so fond of throwing out taunts, had not on that occasion given a continuance of his former vigorous opposition to that bill. The right rev. Prelate was at that time wielding not, indeed, a crosier, but a pen, and the right rev. Prelate very soon after the Catholic Emancipation Bill had been carried—he (the Marquess of Normanby), would not say, in the words which the right rev. Prelate had used the other night, ergo propter hoc, but certainly post hoc—had given their Lordships the advantage of his presence in that
226
House. But to the point. The right rev. Prelate was perfectly aware of the nature of the corporation of St. Sulpice. He well knew, that they were a body of secular ecclesiastics. They were not therefore in that sense a monastic body. The right rev.Prelate said, that the exception proved as to the religious orders barred their claim as well as their right. Was it so? In all the instructions issued to the different Governors of Lower Canada they were called the Society of the Seminary of St. Sulpice. The King of Great Britain, on the capitulation of that province, entered into possession of all the rights previously engaged by the King of France as Visitor of the Seminary. That was the condition of the treaty of surrender—that was the spirit of the ordinances in question, and their rights were protected in the ordinances by requiring all the actual rules and regulations of the society, to be submitted to the Governor for the time being. [The Earl of Ripon: And the expenditure.] And the expenditure also. The right rev. Prelate had inveighed against the existence of the society as unconstitutional, but he in reply to that invective, would call upon the House, before it decided the question as between the right rev. Prelate and the Government, on that ground to take into consideration the locality of that institution, the circumstances under which the province of Lower Canada was annexed to the British Crown, and the manner in which that colony had always been treated by the Parliament of this country. The House was also bound to bear in mind, that the act of 1774—the act under which this corporation was confirmed—was admitted to create a province in which the Catholic religion was established, and this act supported by men of all parties; likewise, that the seminary existed on the additional security of the good faith of the assurances given by all Governments from that period to the present. If, however, the House chose to exercise the power which it undoubtedly possessed, in the way pointed out by the right rev. Prelate, then it would exercise it with singular inconsistency as regarded itself, and with gross injustice as regarded others. He trusted, however, that their Lordships would not accede to the motion of the right rev. Prelate, and that they would refuse, by their vote on the question before them, to fling into a civil community the curse of

227
religious discord; a community, be it remembered, too, which, whatever had been its character for political strife, had always been remarkable for a Christian spirit in matters of religion, and a most peaceable piety on the score of faith. He also fondly hoped, that the vote to be come to that night by their Lordships, would be made the means of winning back to loyalty and good feeling a distracted colony, which had erred much, but which had suffered more. Under these circumstances, he hoped their Lordships would not advise her Majesty to refuse to confirm the ordinances which, he believed, in general equity, in justice to each individual, would have the effect of putting an end to one of the most oppressive and vexatious causes which now interrupted the growing progress of one of the most highly commercial communities in colonial connection with this country. He, therefore, trusted, that their Lordships, by a large majority, would mark their sense of the impolicy of the motion of the right rev. Prelate.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that although it appeared by the papers on the Table of the House, that he was more or less concerned in the affair before their Lordships, he nevertheless, did not feel it incumbent on him to enter into any lengthened argument in support of the principles or details of the ordinance of the Special Council of Lower Canada, now submitted to their consideration. He had listened to the speech of the right rev. Prelate with attention; but he was completely at a loss to discover on what specific grounds the House could be called on to support his motion. Judging from the speech made the other night on the presentation of the petition, as well as from some expressions which had been dropped to-night, one certainly would have supposed, that the objection of the right rev. Prelate was entirely and exclusively one of principle—that in every part of her Majesty's dominions, in England, Scotland, Ireland, in colonies settled by British subjects, by authority solely of the Crown, or in colonies acquired by conquest, nothing should be done which could be considered as tending to support the Roman Catholic religion. But when, in another part of his speech, the right rev. Prelate referred to the course he would himself have been disposed to pursue in settling this question, he appeared altogether to abandon the high ground of principle. He said, that he, and the petitioners themselves, would have been ready to give
228
up to this body a certain portion of those sums which, under this ordinance, would fall into their, hands. But surely if it were right to give them any portion, the question of principle entirely fell to the ground; and the right rev. Prelate's objection was founded on the principle in question, then he ought not to consent to appropriate the smallest portion of this property to that body; if not, they were as well entitled to all as to a portion of it, and the question was merely a matter of regulation, and of degree, not of principle. This the admission of the right rev. Prelate effectually made it. But there was one point of view in which the right rev. Prelate either did not see this subject, or forgot to consider it; and that was the position of the colony of Lower Canada to the Crown of England. When it was conquered, it was not of the Church of England; and a different religion was found to be established, perhaps exclusively among its inhabitants. Was that religion—were the institutions of that religion to be extinguished, and the established religion of Great Britain and its institutions substituted in their stead? No; justice as well as sound policy forbade it; and in fact, the policy pursued by England in all cases of colonies conquered from an enemy and subsequently retained upon a peace was wholly different. And it never happened yet, that instructions were issued to a general, or clauses inserted in a treaty containing such a principle. The province of Lower Canada was French Catholic when it passed into the possession of England; and common sense, as well as common justice, taught every succeeding government that they could never hope to retain its dominion with anything like a friendly feeling on the part of the inhabitants by the pursuance of any such course. In fact, such a colony could never be kept in a state of harmony with this country, if the stringent principles laid down by the right rev. Prelate were to be applied to it. So much for the general subject. He should next say a few words respecting his own part in the transaction under discussion. When in office, in reference to this question, he found that since the conquest of Canada the seminarists of St. Sulpice had exercised all the rights and privileges of the property now proposed to be confirmed in their possession by the charter, and from the conquest of Canada to that time, no one had ever set up a pretence in the province or out of it,

229
that they should be debarred from these rights and privileges because they were Roman Catholics. The only question ever raised on the point was a purely commercial or political one in the city of Montreal, and that was, whether it was proper that any corporation—it mattered not, lay or clerical—should be permitted to hold feudal powers such as they possessed. He (the Earl of Ripon) had never heard of any other objection to them. Under these circumstances he had only to deal with the case as it stood; and, in doing so, he felt bound to advert to the course taken by his predecessors in office, Lord Bathurst, Sir G. Murray, and others. Now, he found, that not one of his predecessors in office had ever proposed to deprive the seminary of St. Sulpice either of its corporate character, whatever that might be, or of the usufruct of the property which it claimed to hold of right, and which it held de facto. The right rev. Prelate laid much stress upon what he called the undoubted rights of the Crown as respected the corporation in question, and argued, and asserted, that in the course pursued by him and subsequent secretaries for the colonies these rights were improperly abandoned; and he argued that successive Attorneys and Solicitors general had given opinions favourable to these rights. Neither of these facts, the rights of the Crown, or the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, did he (the Earl of Ripon) dispute; but neither the government nor these legal authorities ever thought for a moment of driving the corporation into a court of law, for the purpose of having these rights asserted if such a course could be avoided. On the contrary, if ever there existed a case in which it was fit, proper, prudent, and honest, to propose a compromise, it was the case in question. On that conviction he (the Earl of Ripon) proceeded in his instructions for the government of the colony of Lower Canada. He did not deny the existence of the rights of the Crown, but he considered, that it would have been a most invidious act if the Crown pressed them to their full extent. It was a clear case for compromise, and as such he dealt with it. He should, perhaps, prefer his own plan to that propounded in the ordinances then under discussion; but he was of opinion, that if settled at all, it was far better that the question should be settled amicably than that any dispute should arise on it. It was only by dealing with the seminary of
230
St. Sulpice as a corporation which it had always been recognised to be, that the rights of the Crown could be asserted; but the admission of a corporate faculty, which that argument involved, struck at the root of the case of the right rev. Prelate, the gravamen of whose charge was, that this ordinance created the seminary into a corporation for the first time; and thus relieved the ordinance from his charge of being a great national crime. The right rev. Prelate stated, that the rights of the King of France devolved on the King of Great Britain by the conquest and capitulation of Lower Canada. True, they did so, but the duties of the King of France devolved upon the drown of Great Britain also; and it was certainly no part of those duties to seize on the property of those individuals under any pretence of right, or power, or privilege. To argue, therefore, that the Crown of England should seize on this property in pursuance of such a right, was, to say the least of it, preposterous. These were the reasons why he (the Earl of Ripon) supported the government in respect of the question before their Lordships, and in doing so, he did not consider that he compromised the Church of England in the slightest degree. He felt for the position of the Church of England in Lower Canada—in the midst, as it were, of another established church—for, in many material respects, such as a right to levy tithes from those of its own communion, the Roman Catholic church was established in that province, though not, perhaps, in the same manner as the Protestant Church in England—but he should not consider himself guilty of any crime, or conceive that he had done anything for which his conscience could reproach him, in supporting the ordinances of the Government on this occasion, and voting against the motion of the right rev. Prelate.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, in consequence of the few observations I made to your Lordships on this subject she week before last, I think it my duty to state to your Lordships the course I shall pursue in regard to the motion of the right rev. Prelate, and also to state to you the reasons which induce me to pursue that course to-night. My Lords, I entirely concur in the latter part of the speech of the noble Marquess opposite, when he says, that whatever might become of the greater portion of the property now in dispute, stated by some to belong legally to the

231
Crown, by others to the seminary called St. Sulpice—that body has an equitable title to a part of it. My Lords, I could never feel otherwise than this, whatever may be done with the great bulk of this property, made over to Canada, I conceive that there can be no doubt in the minds of any that ample provision should be made for all equitable rights to it, and all equitable claims, of which there is no doubt, and which right I consider exists in St. Sulpice. Of that I never entertained any doubt myself, and I concluded, that if this property had been made over under the Act of Union of the Canadas, and with the concurrence of the united Assembly of the provinces, of couse provision would be made for this seminary. And I confess I was of opinion that it also would have been desirable on other grounds, that this course should be taken, because I doubted exceedingly the propriety of another establishment of ecclesiastical corporations in these days, under the ordinances before your Lordships. But, my Lords, I must confess I was not then aware of what had passed on this subject, and on similar subjects on former occasions. I was not aware of it, my Lords, because I had totally forgotten these transactions. I must have been a party to some of them, for I was in the Cabinet in 1822, when Lord Bathurst wrote the instruction respecting St. Nicolet, I generally knew what was passing, and I conclude that I knew all about this; but I had certainly forgotten the circumstances. For, until I read the papers laid on the Table of the House, I had no notion that the subject was one of this nature; that the ordinance in question was but a copy of former transactions, the originals of which lay before me. The right rev. Prelate has attempted to draw a distinction between the corporation as established in Canada by Lord Bathurst under the Government of the Earl of Dalhousie, and that established by these ordinances. He has sought to make it clear, that the latter is an ecclesiastical corporation for ecclesiastical objects, because reference is made to ecclesiastical subjects in it, while he has endeavoured to establish in your Lordships' minds, that the former was not an ecclesiastical, but a lay corporation. But how stands the fact, my Lords? The former refers to precisely the same matters—in almost the same words as the latter, and they are identical in their objects in
232
every respect. I admit, my Lords, that I must have been a party to this transaction; I admit, that the corporation in question was an ecclesiastical corporation, composed of persons, all or for the greater part Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, and that it was established for the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical objects, and no others. My Lords, there are, I am free to confess, many other transactions connected with this subject to which I might have been, nay, was a party, and which happened at a period later than that I have mentioned, which had also escaped my recollection. I was in the administration with my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen), in 1834 and 1835, when he wrote and sent that despatch, which has been already quoted. In that despatch directed to Lord Amherst, allusion is made to a list of ninety-two grievances which had been brought forward in the Assembly of Lower Canada. The instructions refera-able to the point now before us were directed to the object of removing one of those grievances, and no man who was a party to those instructions could now say, I will not consent to the formations of this institution, on account of certain religious principles. No man could justly vary so in consequence of anything that has since passed. Therefore, my Lords, I cannot now stand on the ground which I stated to your Lordships the other night had caused me to object to this ordinance, having been a party to the despatch in question. Arrangements of the same kind have been made in Canada on previous occasions. The right rev. Prelate has spoken at some length on the enormity of the grant made to the seminary of St. Sulpice, which, he says at six per cent, would give a revenue of 30,000 l. per annum. Now, I do not suppose it is necessary to remind him of anything contained in the volumes before me on this subject, but if he reads the proceedings of the commissioners he will see the revenue set down under various heads, opened. I cannot now find the place—referring to the volume,—but I beg the right rev. Prelate to observe that the ordinance provides for the disposal of the revenue and the expenditure to certain objects under the direction of the State. Public education and religious worship are amongst the objects to which it is to be applied. The right rev. Prelate will find that the expenditure is to take place under the control

233
and sanction of Government, and the expenses to be incurred are nearly equal in amount to the revenues. Now that, I must say, is a complete answer to that part of his speech relating to the amount which the right rev. Prelate stated is placed under the control of the seminary. The expenditure is, in fact, to be under the control of Government. My Lords, another observation made a few nights since by the right rev. Prelate made a great impression—that relating to the disposal of this property to the Legislature of Lower Canada in composition for a Civil List. It appears the ordinance was passed in Canada some two or three months before the Act of Union was passed, and it may be a question whether that ordinance is law in Canada at this moment; for it is one which requires the sanction of her Majesty, which sanction has not yet been given. We shall, therefore, probably hear again of this transaction. The noble Lords opposite will have to examine this matter, and decide on a remedy for the inconvenience. It may be that the act of Parliament, disposing of the property to the legislative chambers, overrides the ordinance. I think, therefore, the right rev. Prelate might as well not put the House to the inconvenience of calling on us to vote. He might as well leave the ordinance to its own difficulties. Would he not do well to consider whether the subject may not be reconsidered, by leaving it thus to its difficulties without now pressing a division upon us? At all events, whatever course the right rev. Prelate may adopt, I certainly shall not vote in favour of his address. I entreated your Lordships, a few nights ago, when the subject of this ordinance was before us, to look carefully over the documents referred to by the right rev. Prelate, to consider his statements, and well weigh the subject before you voted on it. I asked your Lordships to do so, and I have done so myself. I have referred to the documents then alluded to, and to others which were not; but which perhaps, should have been mentioned, and to many of which I had lost all recollection. It is, therefore, my Lords, and on the conclusion at which I have thus arrived, that I feel called on to give my vote against the proposition of the right rev. Prelate, and I have deemed it proper to place before your Lordships the reasons that have determined me to adopt this course.
The Bishop of Exeterfelt certain that he should obtain the indulgence of their Lordships, while he made a few observations, as, indeed, he was bound to do, in reply to what had fallen from noble Lords at both sides of the House. And first, with reference to what, had fallen from the noble Person, who had last addressed them, and who on this, as on every occasion, was entitled to the first consideration. However he (the Bishop of Exeter) might be disappointed at the vote which the noble Duke had announced his intention to give, he should not utter the slightest complaint respecting it, or respecting the difference, as might strike himself or others between the noble Duke's declaration that night and his speech on the last occasion, when this subject was before their Lord-ships. Whenever that noble Duke addressed their Lordships, his mind was actuated only by the highest principle, and always, he was sure, intended to advise what was best for the good of his country. Most sincerely, and from his heart, did he say that. It was not in his power (who had the power?) to praise the noble Duke, but most readily and cheerfully did he express the sentiment which he had just uttered. His respect for the noble Duke should not, however, prevent him from remarking, that some of the positions laid down by the noble Duke were not quite correct. With regard to the revenues of the seminary, he (the Bishop of Exeter), had complained of an ordinance which placed 30,000 l. a-year at the disposal of Popish ecclesiastics, being no less than four times the amount of their present income. The noble Duke said, the fact as to the increase of their revenues was not what he had stated, for that the expenses now incurred by the seminary were nearly equal to 30,000 l. a-year. Now, the noble Duke referred for this information to the report of the commissioners. On turning, however, to that report (and it was Appendix No. 2, 5th Report of Commissioners), he found the whole amount was more than what the noble Duke stated; but then it was for five years, and not for one. The income for five years was given at 41,000 l., and the expenditure at 39,000 l. From the general accuracy of the noble Duke in quoting documents, he was surprised at the representation which he had made with respect to the amount of expenditure of this body. He had been unwilling to remark on any inaccuracy of the noble Duke, but as this had a bearing on one of his

235
strongest positions, namely, that they were arming with new and enormous power this Popish corporation (and he should continue to use that phrase, however it might offend the ears of the noble Marquess), he was bound to insist on the justness of his observation on this part of the subject.
Again, he had said, that there was an unexampled attempt made by this ordinance to establish an ecclesiastical corporation of Popish priests, In spite of all lie had heard from the noble Duke and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby), he persisted in that assertion. And, however lightly the noble Duke and noble Marquess might treat the distinction which he drew—not on his own authority but from every legal book which treated of the subject—between a corporation and an ecclesiastical corporation, as shown, not in the persons, but in the purposes, of such a body, he was quite sure, that a noble and learned Lord, who had since retired, and the other noble and learned Lord, who was still present (Lord Langdale), however reluctant he might be to declare his opinion in that House, would, if the question arose in that court, over which he presided with so much dignity and honour, not shake his head in doubt of his position, but that if he shook his head at all, it would only be in astonishment, that such an assertion as he had made, could be doubted for a moment. The noble Duke had said, that he (the Bishop of Exeter) had sought to draw a distinction between the two documents, referring to St. Nicolet and St. Sulpice, whereas they were almost the same in purport, and nearly in the same words. Never had any statement astonished him more. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would be under the painful necessity of collating the two documents which the noble Duke said were so nearly alike in purport, and even in words. Now, to his mind, no two documents could be more distinct. The charter of incorporation of St. Nicolet, after referring to the petition of Joseph Plessis, was expressly stated to be for purposes of general education. The petition stated, that Latin, French, English, philosophy, mathematics, history, poetry, and rhetoric, were to be taught in the institution; but there was not a word about religion. The noble Duke said, that that institution was established for Roman Catholic purposes, but the petition of M. Plessis showed great dexterity in excluding every thing of the kind, and the charter
236
was granted by the Government, of which the noble Duke was a Member, for purposes of general education, and not for Roman Catholic objects. But, in respect of St. Sulpice, the very first object mentioned was the cure of souls. Was not that an ecclesiastical object? Another was the spiritual care of the Iroquois, the Algonquins, and other tribes of Indians. Were not both these ecclesiastical objects? He wished to know whether it were possible to contradict more strongly the assertion (made, no doubt, from a too hasty perusal), that these two documents were precisely similar.
One part of the noble Duke's speech gave him great satisfaction—very great satisfaction. It was the assertion, that this question would not be settled by the vote of that night, but still remain to be considered. In consequence of that declaration, he should not ask their Lordships to divide. The noble Marquess laughed. Now he had not the slightest objection, however ridiculous it might appear to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) to walk below that bar on a division, not, as he was sure, unattended—but if alone, with no sense of shame for himself, however, he might entertain that feeling as regarded others.
He would now turn to what had fallen from the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had said the Roman Catholic Church in Canada was an established church. [Viscount Melbourne: The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ripon) said the same.] He was quite willing to admit that. But he should not be deterred by any declarations from either or both sides of the House, from giving his own opinion, and the authorities on which it was founded. The noble Marquess referred to the opinions of Lord North, on whom he was somewhat facetious. He had also indulged in some sneers at King George the 3rd. [No, no, no!] He might be mistaken, but he did think, that the noble Marquess asserted, that that Sovereign, whose name they all venerated and esteemed, had a peculiar facility in getting suddenly rid of his Ministers. That declaration, applied to one for whose pious and most estimable character, he (the Bishop of Exeter) had a special reverence, did strike him as something like a sneer. The noble Marquess also enlarged on the authority of Mr. Burke, and relied on it to prove, that the Church of Rome was established in Canada. Now he should refer, to prove the contrary, to no opinion given in a casual debate, not even to advised speaking; but

237
against all the authorities quoted by the noble Marquess, he should produce an authority which the noble Marquess, he was sure, would not treat with disrespect. It was the authority of the noble Marquess himself—an authority which extended beyond him to all the noble Lords, who sat on the same bench with him, as well as to those who composed the Government of which the noble Earl of Ripon was Colonial Secretary; to all the noble Lords opposite, to all the Ministers, in fact, who had served the Crown, since 1775. It was a most authoritative document; for it was neither more nor less than the Royal Instructions given to every Governor-general, including Lord Sydenham, who had ever been sent to Canada. These instructions had been drawn up with the utmost care as containing matter of the utmost moment. They had been recognized by the 31st George 3rd. They said:—
"Whereas the establishment of proper regulations on matters of ecclesiastical concern, is an object of very great importance, it will be your indispensable duty to take care, that, no arrangements in regard thereto be made, but such as may give full satisfaction to our new subjects in every point to which they have a right to any indulgence on that head."
Now came the pinching part:—
"Always remembering that it is a toleration of the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome only, to which they are entitled, but not to the powers and privileges of it as an established church, that being a preference which belongs only to the Protestant Church of England."
He heartily thanked the noble Marquess for enabling him to cite this document. The noble Marquess might quote jocosely or seriously the opinions of Lord North, Lord Chatham, or whomsoever he pleased, but still he affirmed, and he rejoiced in having so high authority for affirming, that according to what was recognized as a fundamental principle, the Church of England was the only Established Church in Canada. The noble Marquess thought, that the 34th article of the capitulation clearly established the right of the seminary, and had referred to it in spite of the advice of the Crown lawyers. In looking for what might be favourable to his view in that capitulation, he had overlooked what was unfavourable. The fact was, that the privilege had been asked for, but refused. [The Marquess of Normanby: Read the 32nd article.] He could only read one at a time. The 32nd article granted to the nuns the continu-
238
ance of their privileges and of their property; the 33rd asked for similar concessions to St. Sulpice. He admitted, that the demands were the same, but the difference was, that whilst in the one case they were granted, in the other, the case of St. Sulpice, they were refused till the King's pleasure should be known. This was the purport of the 33rd article. The commissioners who were sent out to Canada, friendly as they were to the Seminary of St. Sulpice, nevertheless disposed of the 34th article, on which the noble Marquis relied by reference to the 33rd. The noble Marquess had quoted a communication of Lord Halifax, in 1764, to show that the English Court, was favourable to the grant made by St. Sulpice of Paris, to St. Sulpice at Montreal. Yet, what was this quotation made by a Colonial Secretary? On what authority did it rest? Was it drawn from the records of the Colonial-office? No. It was but the hearsay of a hearsay. It was a communication said to have been made to the Court of France in a despatch from their ambassador to England. The report, of the commissioners gave the authority on which they referred to this supposed admission of Lord Halifax, namely, that of M. Quiblier, the Superior of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, speaking after some written paper communicated from Paris. This the noble Marquess had forgotten to state. The noble Marquess had referred to part of a protest of Sir C. Grey, in which he mentioned, that more than one Roman Catholic college had been erected into corporations. There might be a dozen. He was not now speaking of colleges. These were lay incorporations. The noble Viscount must see the distinction, if the noble Marquess closed his eyes to it. The noble Marquess had accused him of garbling the despatch of the noble Earl opposite, and stated that it appeared in only one newspaper. He had received an application from the reporter of The Times, requesting the use of the documents referred to by him in the course of his speech, and feeling the great importance of having all the information laid accurately before the public, he had readily forwarded them to him. But since the noble Marquess had made the assertion, he had received a letter from the gentleman who made that application to him, a part of which he should endeavour to read. [A Laugh from the Marquess of Normanby] The noble Marquess laughed. He perceived

239
that the noble Marquess did not give that authority to this note which he did. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had not the least doubt as to the accuracy of what this gentleman stated, and his entire confidence in his accuraay was not in the slightest degree affected by the laugh of the noble Marquess. The right rev. Prelate then read as follows—
"Gallery of the House of Lords, March 15, 1841.
"The reporter to The Times, who reported part of the Bishop of Exeter's speech in the last debate on the Seminary of St. Sulpice, begs to inform his Lordship that he has in his notes, taken at the time, the very words to which the Marquess of Normanby has taken exception this evening—viz.,'Such as holding a great commercial city upon a feudal tenure,' &c. The reporter to The Times will show the Bishop of Exeter his note book if his Lordship think fit."
[Cries of Order!] Their Lordships expressed their indignation at this breach of order; but was he the first to commit it? Did not the noble Marquess found his statement against him on the authority of reports of different newspapers? Now where was this virtuous indignation, this zeal for the maintenance of order, when the noble Marquess thought fit to refer to these reports, for the purpose of charging him with disingenuousness? Noble Lords were then all silence.
The Earl of Suffolk—I rise to order. The right rev. Prelate has no right to read a letter from a person admitted, and very properly, by courtesy, into the Gallery of this House; and then to found a lecture upon it. Really, this is quite out of order.
The Bishop of Exeteradmitted that this was a violation of order, but it was rendered necessary by the noble Marquess's previous violation of order.
The noble Marquess had made some remarks on what he had said in respect to the noble Marquess having called the Roman Catholic Bishop "the Bishop of Quebec." Lord Bathurst called him the "Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Quebec." The noble Marquess knew very well, that the title of "Bishop of Quebec," implied a jurisdiction, whilst that of "Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Quebec," which had been given by Lord Bathurst, implied no jurisdiction at all. To give such jurisdiction to a Roman Catholic was at variance with the 1st of Elizabeth, and he was quite certain, that Lord Bathurst would have avoided such
240
a mistake. The demand in the sixth article of the capitulation of Quebec, it was true, mentioned the Bishop of Quebec, but the answer to that demand did not recognize him or his office permanently. But before Quebec was surrendered at the peace, he was unquestionably Bishop of Quebec, and he continued to be styled so to the end of his life, for he died within a few months after the capitulation, and before the definitive treaty of peace. The 6th article demanded safe-guard to religious houses, and particularly for the bishop, who should be permitted to perform all his functions. The concession given was, that he should exercise freely the functions of his office as he thought proper till the possession of Canada should be decided by a treaty. He thought the noble Marquess would agree with him, that this was no recognition of the Bishop of Quebec, as it was only sub modo and for a time, till the definitive treaty of peace which put an end to it by saying that—
"His Britannic Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will consequently give the most effectual orders that his new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their religion, according to the rites of the Romish Church, as far as the laws of Great Britain permit."
And yet they were told that night, over and over again, that the laws of Great Britain were not to operate so as to affect the entire right of the Roman Catholics to claim for their religion all the privileges of an established religion. According to the treaties, and according to every act of Parliament that had passed subsequently, the Roman Catholics of Canada were to enjoy the free exercise of their religion, only so far as the laws of England permit. He would not trespass longer on their attention. He repeated, that however indifferent he should feel to walk out alone below the bar, he yet sincerely rejoiced, that what the noble Duke had said would enable him not to take that course, and that if this address should not be carried, the question would be left for re-consideration, which he presumed, meant in the province.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he certainly did not state exactly that. His argument for what he stated, as an argument, might be a very bad one. He might be quite mistaken. What he said was, that it might be found, that this ordinance was not the law in Canada at this moment; and that if it were not the law in Canada

241
at this moment, and if it were not the law in Canada before the act of Parliament of last year established the union of the provinces, it might be found, that the act of Parliament over-rode the ordinance. If it should over-ride the ordinance, the noble Lord might find a remedy, and possibly the right rev. Prelate might find it convenient to leave the question with all these difficulties surrounding it between the passing of the ordinance and the act of Parliament, and not put the House to the inconvenience of a division.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, the noble Duke might be quite right, that it might not be desirable to press this subject to a division. He understood the noble Duke to express a doubt, because it was possible that it might be found, that the ordinance was either contrary to the act of Parliament which authorized the Governor with the Special Council to pass it, or that it was inconsistent with the union. He was quite sure, that that was the best way in which it could be left; and he was quite sure, that the noble Lords near him would enter on its consideration with that view. [No, no!] The noble Lords near him would not reconsider this, whether law or not. They were only asked, if they found, that this ordinance was not valid, because contrary to law, to take means to remedy it, and they said, "no, no;" but if it so turned out they would be obliged, he suspected, to remedy it.
The Marquess of Normanby: I am really very sorry to deprive the right rev. Prelate of any consolation which he can draw from the words of the noble Duke, but I must repeat, that all the circumstances bearing on this ordinance were submitted to the law officers of the Crown after the passing of the Act of Union, and they are decidedly in favour of the legality of the ordinance. I will just ask one question of the right rev. Prelate. He has alluded to a notice said to have been taken by me, somewhat after the manner of Lord Bathurst's despatch to the Earl of Dalhousie, of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec. I wish to know, for my own satisfaction, on what document he founds his assertion?
The Bishop of Exeter: If the noble Marquess had told me, that he required proof of the fact, I should be prepared with it. He had not the paper now with him. It was a return of the Colonial-office when the noble Marquess was Colonial Secretary, and was a statement made of the ecclesiastical establishments in Ca-
242
nada, in which a sum of 2,000 l. was set down for the Roman Catholic bishop, under the title of "bishop of Quebec." That is my authority.
The Marquess of Normanby: So, then, this signal proof of my recognition of the Church of Rome as an established religion is not conveyed in any letter to a Governor of the colonies—is not even my own individual act, but a return made in my official character to this House, and not only by me, but by my predecessor and successor.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that he must really try to set the noble Marquess right; he had totally misunderstood the facts of the case. Instead of this return being one that was regularly laid upon the Table, he believed, that it was never produced until specially moved for in the year 1839.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid that all he could say was, that the expression in question was the same as was used in all similar returns which he had seen. He could not undertake to say how far they went back.
Motion negatived.
Adjourned.