Sitting of 15 February 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Office of Examiner (Court of Chancery); Sale and Purchase of Land; Grand Jury Cess (Ireland).

RAILWAY AND CANAL BILLS— AMALGAMATION.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he rose on the part of the Committee appointed by the House to consider the amalgamation of railways, to move the Motion of which he had given notice. It was the object of the Committee, who were about to examine on the next day the first witness upon the subject referred to them, to insure to the House the greatest possible benefit from their inquiry, and not to compromise the perfect freedom of the House in dealing with the subject, and at the same time to inflict upon those whoso Bills would be delayed a short time in consequence of the pendency of the inquiry as little inconvenience as possible; and upon the result of that examination the Committee came to the conclusion, that if they permitted parties to read their Bills a second time before Easter, so long before Easter that the time required by the Standing Orders for the presenting of petitions against such Bills would have expired before the Easter recess, and that the parties promoting the Bills would, therefore, be able to go into Committee on those Bills immediately after the Easter recess, the amount of inconvenience would, in his opinion, be the smallest possible. With regard to the proceedings of the House, the Committee came to the conclusion that the inconvenience would be next to nothing. There was, however, one inconvenience to which the promoters of Bills would be subject, namely, that parties desirous of opposing Bills would obtain a little longer time to make up their minds to petition. The Committee were desirous of obviating that objection if they could; but upon the examination of the gentlemen before them, and a full consideration of the case, they

123
came to the conclusion that they would be exposing themselves to the risk of inflicting on persons in the country governed by a knowledge of the Standing Orders very great injustice and inconvenience, if they made any further concessions to the promoters of Bills. Guided by these principles—considering that they ought not on any account to compromise the perfect freedom of the House—and feeling the importance of the subject referred to the Committee, they felt they had no alternative before them in the discharge of their duty than to ask for some limited postponement of the second reading of Bills, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that the particular proposal which he was about to make would subject the promoters of Bills to the smallest amount of inconvenience. This being the unanimous decision of the Committee, he trusted that the House would consider that he was only discharging a public duty, and would give him their general support. Since he came into the House he had been requested to add some words to the Motion, which he had taken upon himself to do without consulting the Committee, and the responsibility of which he was prepared to take upon himself. It appeared that some of the Bills contained clauses for amalgamation or combination in conjunction with other clauses more important, and that the promoters would be willing to abandon the amalgamation clauses rather than incur any risk with regard to the more valuable parts of the Bill. He thought it perfectly safe to admit that exception to the rule, being desirous of not inflicting upon parties any inconvenience which could be avoided. It had also been suggested that some difficulty might arise as to the technical distinction between the connecting of Railway Bills and the connecting of Railway and Canal Bills. It appeared to him that the words he was about to move would include both classes of Bills. The Resolution which he intended to move was—
"That no Railway or Canal Bill containing any powers of Amalgamation, Lease, Working Arrangement, or other combination of interest between different Companies, be read a second time before the 14th day of March next, unless the parties interested in promoting such Bill shall elect to proceed with the same on the terms of striking out in Committee all such powers aforesaid."
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEsaid, he wished to know whether that notice would apply to Bills brought in during the present Session forming new companies, which
124
could not become companies until their incorporation by Act of Parliament?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that certainly was his intention. He conceived that a Bill intended to create a combination of interests between two new companies was included within the words; but if there was any doubt on the subject, he should be happy to introduce words to make the Resolution more explicit.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he believed that the greatest benefit would result to the railway interest from the inquiry now placed in the hands of the Committee. The railway interest was now so extensive and complicated, that nothing short of Imperial legislation could put it to rights, or do justice to the body of railway proprietors. He fully concurred in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
COLONEL FORESTERbegged to inquire if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to add to his Motion the words "if required so to do?"
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the question had been very fully discussed by the Committee, and they considered that they would be wanting in their duty if they permitted a second reading affirming a principle of any combination to be once passed, before the House was in full possession of the proceedings instituted by the Committee. He thought the addition which he had already made calculated to meet every reasonable wish on the part of the promoters of Bills.
Motion agreed to.

THE INCOME TAX.
MR. HUMEsaid, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had the other night given some explanations respecting the business of the Session; but a difference of opinion existed as to what were his real intentions with regard to the income tax. The reports in the papers on the point rather differed, and he wished now to ask the noble Lord what were the real intentions of the Government—whether they meant to continue the tax in its present state for another year, or whether they intended to make any, and what, alterations?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I am very glad, Sir, to have the opportunity of stating what I really did say on the occasion to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It has been supposed that I stated that it was the intention of the Government to propose a renewal of the tax without al-

125
teration for another year. [Mr. HUME: Hear!] What I stated was, that if the Government should introduce a Reform Bill in the course of the present year, in that case it would he necessary to propose a continuance of the income tax without any alteration for a short period. But, not taking that course, I stated that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would immediately after Easter, on the occasion of giving the explanations of the financial year, state the intentions of the Government with respect to the income tax. I have only further to say that—until that period arrives—until the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes that statement—it is not the intention of the Government to furnish any information upon the subject.
MR. HUME: In that case, then, he trusted the Government would have no objection to a renewal of the Committee on the Income Tax, for the purpose of completing the information, which was alleged to be defective. He would put a question on that subject on Friday.

SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND BILL.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, he rose to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the sale and purchase of land; no person doubted the necessity of such alteration, and the only question related to the means by which it could be best effected. If they all put their shoulders to the wheel, something might be done; yet, by the conduct of proprietors and lawyers, difficulties were thrown in the way of the sale of land; for, so long as landed proprietors would burden their lands in the absurd manner in which they were accustomed to burden those lands, so long would it be utterly impossible to place them on the same footing with persons who held land unencumbered—so long would it be impossible to put them on a level with those who had well conducted the management of their property. Gentlemen must remember what was the origin of their tenure. It was derived from the times when the possession of land carried with it military service, and the consequence was, that we found many instances in which, where the land fell into the hands of women, they were not allowed to marry any person except by consent of the Crown. But landed proprietors then acted as landed proprietors did now, and tried to escape from the restrictions imposed on them. Securities were sought for on all sides,
126
and unfortunate Jews and merchants who had lent money to the owners of land would have been robbed had not the lawyers stepped in and said to the landed gentlemen, "Well, we cannot take away the land from you, but we will take care that you shall not have one blade of grass or one ear of corn that grows on it;" and they succeeded by taking away what they called the usufruct from the owners. Still the landowners went on increasing their possessions, gratified with the extent of acres which were nominally theirs, but which were of no use to them; and to this day the same thing continued. There was Still a continual anxiety to borrow money in order to buy land, and the consequence was, that when purchased, it became a dead loss to the possessor; and the lawyers, too, continued the same system of taking away the usufruct from the owners of the land, and giving it to those who had lent the money for the purchase of the land. The system of landed tenure which had grown up out of the state of things which he had described must be wholly unsuited to the present state of society, and unless the landlords themselves would consent to some radical change in the mode of entailing property, the transfer of land would every day become more difficult. Now, observe how the thing worked. No lawyer believed that you were the owner of your estate. If you said that you were the owner of a certain quantity of land, he would reply, "Well, perhaps so, but I should like to see your title examined." The person who lent money on land said to the owner, "Let me see that you are really the possessor of the land." The owner replied, "Let the title be shown to Mr. Preston, or some other conveyancer;" and in case he was satisfied, the money was lent. In a short time, perhaps, some more money was wanted to be raised, and the lawyer of the lender said to the owner of the land, "I will examine your title." "Oh, it has been already shown to Mr. Preston, and he was satisfied." But that answer would not do, for the party says, "I should like to have the opinion of my own conveyancer, I don't believe one word of what Mr. Preston says, I wish to have the opinion of Mr. Bell;" and the title must be shown to Mr. Bell, or some other conveyancer, before it would be believed that you were the owner of the land. Now he (Mr. Drummond) said, that after your title had been tried by a competent tribunal, its decision ought to be sufficient, and

127
therefore in the plan which he should submit to the House, his object would be to have titles registered, together with a machinery for properly examining them, and that once on the register they should stand undisputed for ever afterwards. The more remote the title, the worse it often turned out for the owner; because, as the party insisted upon an examination of the title-deeds, it incurred additional expense. It was all to no purpose that an owner might say to the lawyers, "There has been no dispute about my property—my title-deeds are mentioned in Doomsday-book;" they would reply, "That is the worst title you could have; it has never been examined." After the Report of the Real Property Commissioners had been issued, the House of Lords declared that the marketable value of real property was seriously diminished by the tedious process of examination; "that they were anxious for a thorough revision of the whole system of conveyancing, and the disuse of the present vexatious system; and that the registry of the titles of all real property was highly essential to the success of any attempt to improve the system of conveyancing. He (Mr. Drummond) wanted to get leave to bring in a Bill to frame a registry of title I to all real property, in compliance with the Resolution of the House of Lords; and he wished it to be remembered that this was no crotchet of his own, but was based upon a solemn decision of the other House of Parliament, backed by the recommendation of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown. When the Real Property Commission was issued, the Commissioners said that the expediency of registration was so obvious that their duty was less to search for reasons in favour of registration, than to weigh the force of the objections which had hitherto proved fatal to it; and throughout the whole of their Report no valid reason was alleged against registration. He remembered that, at one time, some of the most eminent members of the profession resisted a Motion of this character; but he believed that now all the members of the profession wore convinced that such a measure was necessary; and most certainly the large mass of landed proprietors were anxious that some general system of registration should be established. The system of registering had been repeatedly adopted in different parts of the kingdom. He had already described how the first tenure of land arose; that system began to give way about the time of Henry VIII., and the
128
consequence was, that in 1535 there was an enrolment of deeds, which again took place in 1677. In 1703 the Yorkshire registry was enacted, and in 1708 the Middlesex registry. In 1728 a Bill was brought in for the registration of Surrey, which was lost, as was also another Bill for Derby in 1732. In 1739–40 the House of Lords directed the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges to prepare a Bill, and bring it in, for a general scheme of registration. They brought in the Bill, which passed through both Houses, and was only lost in consequence of the prorogation of Parliament. It was to that Bill he (Mr. Drummond) would go back, for reasons which he would show them presently. It was brought in again on a subsequent occasion; but then began for the first time the remonstrances of the conveyancers of London, followed up by the attorneys; and the senseless cry which then commenced about the danger of exposing titles, lest some flaw should be discovered, was continued to this day. The Bill was lost in the House of Commons by a majority of one, and nothing further was done till 1813, when the question was taken up, but without success, by Sir Samuel Romilly. The subject was again brought forward in 1830 by Lord Campbell, who brought in a Bill prepared on Mr. Duval's plan, which, however, came to nothing. In 1834 there were three Bills on the subject before the House of Commons, and in 1845 Lord Campbell again brought in his Bill. He (Mr. Drummond) did not like to express an unfavourable opinion of anything of which Lord Campbell was the author; but he was strongly inclined to doubt whether that House had not done wisely in throwing out the Bill, for the more he examined it the more he was convinced that while it would have made a total alteration in practice, it would only have substituted one cumbrous machinery for another, besides entailing on the owners of land greater expense. His opinion was founded on the fact that under that Bill there was to be compulsory registration of assurances, private Acts of Parliament, commissions of bankruptcy, judgments, informations, and other documents, which would have rendered no fewer than fourteen indexes necessary for the purpose of reference. A great many Bills had been framed since that period, but they had all been tarred with the same feather, and had all of them enacted the details of the machinery by which they

129
were to be carried out. It might be thought presumptuous in him to criticise an Act of Parliament drawn up by a lawyer; and he supposed it was, and that he must be liable to an imputation of that sort. He was quite aware that dilettante reading of the Mirror of Magistrates, and other light works of that kind, was not so effectual in conferring knowledge on such subjects as the prospect of a fee "looming in the distance;" but lawyers, they found, were not always the best persons at drawing Bills. Everybody knew that some very great men had carried through Bills which had been very incomprehensible. He could relate an anecdote to the House in illustration of that truth. He was once sitting next to Sir Robert Peel, when a certain Bill which had been introduced by the Government was under discussion; and he pointed out to Sir Robert a particular clause in the Bill, saying to him, "Is not this clause perfect nonsense?" Sir Robert looked at the clause, and then said, "It is nonsense; you had better go and show it to Lord John." He (Mr. Drummond) walked across the House, and showed it to the noble Lord, who said, "The clause is nonsense, but I have nothing to do with it; it is Peel's Bill." He (Mr. Drummond) brought the Bill back to Sir Robert Peel, and told him what the noble Lord had said, when Sir Robert replied, "It is true I brought it in, but it was by the order of the Government; and old Eldon was Chancellor at the time, and he never would let the law officers do their duty. He would always meddle with it, and the clause certainly was nonsense." Now he (Mr. Drummond) would go back to the Bill which he had already named, which had been brought in by the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges in 1739, and passed both Houses. The peculiarity of that Bill was this—it appointed the Master of the Rolls as Registrar. At the present day the Master of the Rolls had evidently a great deal to do, and it would be necessary to appoint some other person to that that office; but it might still be left, as that Bill enjoined, to the Registrar, to provide the machinery necessary for carrying out the business named in the Act. He had no doubt that they would be obliged to come to Parliament from time to time to amend the law, but he saw no objection to that course. It was better than enacting a great machinery at first, which it was always the ambition of lawyers to do, in order that it might be hand-
130
ed down to posterity to show what great men they were. What he (Mr. Drummond) wished was to have a registration of titles, which was a thing totally separate from a registration of deeds. They might have a registration of deeds if they pleased, but in the meantime, what he wanted was a registration of titles. Lord St. Leonards stated, only last night, in the House of Lords, when speaking on this subject, that—
"what many persons desired was this—not simply to reduce the transfer of land by the easiest of all plans, but they wanted to stop all dispositions of land for the purpose of family enjoyment, and of supporting the dignities their Lordships possessed."
Now, it was his (Mr. Drummond's) opinion, that there could be no sound reform of the Legislature which did not insure that a Member of the House of Peers should be possessed of a certain amount of property. It was for the public good that the House of Peers should be bonâ fide men of landed property. But entails were not necessary for others; and therefore, while Lord St. Leonards' observations were perfectly true to a certain extent, they were not true universally. Lord St. Leonards proceeded to say—
"This question produced most important social and constitutional considerations. It was ridiculous to speak of it as the transfer of land; it involved every question upon which the happiness and prosperity of this country depended; and this he would venture to say, that no man could prove to their Lordships that a general registration would in any way shorten by a single line the conveyance of land."
That might be true, but a registry of titles would shorten the abstract, and in that sense would enable land to be transferred as easily as stock. Every one knew that land must be measured and described, and therefore it was not possible that its transfer should be as short as that of shares and stocks; but that was no reason why they should not have a registration of titles. He had thus briefly stated the object of the Bill, without mentioning the machinery by which that object would be carried out, and he now moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
MR. HEADLAM, in seconding the Motion, said that the hon. Member for West Surrey deserved the thanks of the House and the public for his unwearied perseverance in endeavouring to improve the law concerning real estate by facilitating the sale and transfer of land, and providing a

131
registration of titles. His hon. Friend had for a considerable number of years laboured with great patience and perseverance, to promote a national object of the greatest possible importance. In 1849 his hon. Friend brought a Bill forward on this subject, but at that time he did not receive any very cordial support. The Bill was, however, read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee, on which he (Mr. Headlam) sat; and he could take upon himself to say, that the ultimate failure of the measure was not due to any lack of industry or zeal on the part of his hon. Friend, but to the insuperable difficulty attending any independent Member seeking to legislate on so difficult and complicated a subject. The present Bill was introduced under different circumstances, and he hoped the Government, if they did not adopt the measure, would at least embody its principle in some Bill of their own, so that a law upon the subject might be practically carried this Session. He had the strongest possible opinion of the benefits which the country would derive from a well-conceived scheme for facilitating the transfer of land, for no one could exaggerate the evils arising from the difficulty of transferring land under the present law. Great labour and expense were incurred in ascertaining the title to land. Every hon. Member who had over had anything to do with the sale or purchase of land, must have felt in his own person the cost, both of money, and of time and trouble, incident to such transactions. But the evil did not rest there. After the purchaser had gone through the investigation of the title, taken a conveyance, and paid his money, he was still insecure in the possession of what he had bought. The Courts of Law afforded many instances of cases in which it appeared that parties had purchased estates with defective titles, or subject to heavy incumbrances not known to exist at the time of the purchase. If the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in his financial statement to put a tax on the transfer of stock, making it as difficult and expensive as the transfer of real estate, every holder of stock would feel that his property was materially depreciated, and yet the practical effect of the law affecting real estates was the same as such a tax on the transfer of stock would be. He wished to impress on the House, in consequence of what had been said elsewhere by a high authority, that neither that Bill nor a Bill for the registration of deeds, would in the slightest degree affect
132
the control which every owner of real estate had over his property. It would not prevent estates tail, settlements, mortgages, or any other power over the land which its owner now could exercise either by deed or will. There might be objections to the Bill, but no objection of this description could arise. Neither did the argument as to the exposure of family affairs, apply to the Bill now before the House. In order to illustrate its principle, he would say that the object of the Bill was to make a transfer of land similar in many respects to the transfer of stock. At present, the House was aware that the transfer of stock was easy and inexpensive, and that the purchaser was secure of the title to what he purchased. Nevertheless, stock was made the subject of marriage settlement, and limited interests in it were given through the medium of trustees. Moreover, no disclosure of the trusts of settlements of stock was made to the public. He would not pretend to go into the details of the measure—indeed he was not prepared so to do, inasmuch as he had not road the Bill of his hon. Friend, but he had heard enough of its principle (which he believed to be a practical one) to give the present Motion his most cordial support; and, afterwards, when this Bill and the measure of the Government were both before the House, he should give his utmost endeavour to procure an enactment of the best possible form, and to ensure the passing, during the present Session, of an Act to Improve the Law of Real Estate, and facilitate the transfer of Land.
MR. HUMEsaid, that as the Bill was only permissive, it would not be of that use which otherwise it might be. The present system entailed a great loss on landed proprietors. He believed that there was a difference of two years and a half purchase in the sale of an estate in Scotland, and an estate of equal value in England. With this fact before it, it was extraordinary that a nation which boasted of its good sense had so long tolerated so vicious a system. He was present on an occasion when an estate in Belgium was conveyed in five minutes. Any plan that would introduce similar facilities in the sale and transfer of land in England, would confer the greatest benefit on the public, and on the owners of real property.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry Drummond and Mr. Headlam.
Bill read 1°.

CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA).
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: Sir, I rise to ask for leave to introduce a Bill which shall empower the Legislature of Canada to exercise a control over the provisions at present regulating the appropriation of the clergy reserves in that province; and I trust that the House will bear in mind how important this question is, and how deep an interest the people in that province take in it, if, in doing my best to put the House in possession of the precise nature and object of this Bill, I trespass for some little time on its attention. The clergy reserves constitute a fund of no inconsiderable magnitude. They take their origin from a period as far back as the year 1791. At that time the province of Canada was divided into two parts, and in the place of the single Council of Government which then legislated for the whole province, there were substituted two representative legislatures, one for each division of the province. In the Act known as the Constitutional Act, which made that alteration in the constitution of Canada, it was provided that whenever the Crown disposed of its waste lands, one-seventh in value of the lands which were disposed of should he reserved for the benefit of the Protestant clergy. That proportion of the value of the waste lands disposed of continued to be reserved for a period of fifty years; but in the year 1840 an Act was passed which put an end to any further reservations of land for that purpose. In the course of those fifty years I need not say that a very great quantity of land had been reserved. A large portion of it, however, had been sold, and at the present time the clergy reserves consist in part of land and in part of money, of investments in the funds of this country and of Canada, which have been created by the sale and disposition of lands which originally were reserved. The manner in which this fund is appropriated is this. Its revenue is applied to the payment of stipends to ministers of the different religious denominations. It is not the case that these denominations participate in that fund in proportion to their relative numbers, or to the strength of each, because it will be found that, notwithstanding the change which took place in the year 1840, the Established Churches of England and of Scotland derive by far the greatest advantage from the existence of this fund. I will read an extract from a despatch of Lord Elgin, accompanying what is known
134
as the blue hook for 1851, showing how the clergy reserves were appropriated in that year. I find that in the year 1851 the clergy of the Church of England in the two provinces received a sum of about 12,000 l. The population professing that religion were 268,590 in number. The Church of Scotland received a sum of 6,700 l., having a population of 61,000 souls. The other churches which received money from this fund were the United Synod of Presbyterians in Upper Canada, 464 l.; the Roman Catholic Church, 1,369 l; and the Wesleyan Methodists of Upper Canada, 639 l. Now, upon what authority is this distribution made? It is made on the authority of an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1840; and as the circumstances which preceded and led to the passing of that Act are considered to exercise a very important bearing on the conclusions which ought to he arrived at in the present day, I will give the House a very short summary of those circumstances. The great bulk of the clergy reserves is placed in Upper Canada. In consequence of a term used in the Constitutional Act of 1791—the term Protestant clergy—the Church of England advanced, and succeeded in establishing, down to the year 1840, an exclusive claim to the advantages of this fund. Meanwhile the majority of the population of Upper Canada professed a religion which was not the religion of the Church of England; and therefore it is not surprising that the monopoly of that Church gave rise to considerable jealousy and agitation in the Legislature of Upper Canada. And you will find that from the year 1823, or so, when the reserves began to be of value, up to the year 1840, there were continual proceedings in the House of Assembly in connexion with the subject of them; you will find motions, addresses, resolutions and bills introduced and passed through that House, at one time urging the admission of other denominations to a participation in the advantages of this religious endowment; at other times proposing that it should he applied to secular purposes. Well, the Legislative Council never concurred in the views of the House of Assembly. The two branches of the Legislature were permanently at variance with each other—they could not be brought to acquiesce even in any compromise of the question; and in the year 1835 the Legislative Council, despairing of coming to any terms with the House of Assembly, proposed that the whole sub-

135
ject should be referred to this country, and that the Imperial Parliament should put an end to the difference between them. Now it is important to notice the words in which Lord Glenelg, at that time Colonial Minister, answered that application in the year 1835. His despatch (to be found in a Parliamentary paper, 205 of 1840) stated—
"The chief practical question is, whether His Majesty should be advised to recommend to Parliament the assumption to itself of the office of deciding on the future appropriation of these lands. There are two distinct reasons, both of which appear to me conclusively to forbid that course of proceeding. First, Parliamentary legislation on any subject of exclusively internal concern in any British Colony possessing a representative assembly is, as a general rule, unconstitutional."
Lord Glenelg gave another reason, which was, that the Constitutional Act of 1791 had purposely left this subject to be dealt with by the local Legislature of the province. That was the impression which prevailed at that time and up to the year 1840, and which, as I shall presently show, turned out to be an erroneous construction of that Act. The Legislature of Canada, thus prompted by the Colonial Minister to dispose of the question, again entered upon its discussion. I find that subsequent to 1835 Bills again passed through the House of Assembly to which the Legislative Council refused its assent; but in the year 1839 both Houses concurred in a measure vesting those lands, free from any condition whatever, I believe, in the Crown, or, at all events, referring this question to be dealt with by the Imperial Parliament. At that time, the noble Lord, now the leader of this House, was Colonial Minister; and this was the language in which he replied to that proposal:—
"I cannot admit that there exist in this country greater facilities than in Upper Canada for the adjustment of this controversy; on the contrary, the provincial Legislature will bring to the decision of it an extent of accurate information as to the wants and general opinion of society in that country on which Parliament is unavoidably deficient."
Thus you see that a second time the Colonial Minister refused to advise the British Parliament to deal with this question, and referred it as one proper to be regulated by the local Legislature. Well, upon this second invitation, I find that the two Houses of Legislature did succeed in agreeing to a measure, and passed—I believe mainly owing to the tact and Parlia-
136
mentary management of Lord Sydenham, then Governor General—a Bill which was carried by a very narrow majority in the House of Assembly; a Bill, I must say, giving the Church of England much more favourable terms than could have been expected when you remember the previous course of the House of Assembly on the subject. That Bill came home to this country, and, according to the constitutional provision, was laid on the table of this and the other House of Parliament for thirty days prior to Her Majesty's pleasure being signified with respect to it. In that interval an objection was taken by the Bishop of Exeter, that the Legislature of Upper Canada had exceeded its powers in dealing with this question—that the Constitutional Act of 1791 gave it no power at all, except such as was prospective only. That question was referred to the Judges, and they reported upon it in these words:—
"We are all of opinion that the effect of the 41st section of the Act of 1791 is prospective, and that the powers thereby vested in the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of either of the provinces cannot be extended to affect lands which have been already appropriated."
Under these circumstances nothing remained but to introduce a Bill into Parliament, embodying the principles and details of the Bill which had passed through the House of Assembly and Legislative Council of Canada, at the invitation of the Government of this country. That Bill was accordingly brought in, but at a period in the history of Canada when it was of the utmost importance that there should be as little division and as great an unanimity as possible in the Imperial Parliament with regard to all measures having reference to that province. It was on this account that before the Bill so introduced left this House, in order to conciliate opposition in the House of Lords, it underwent very considerable modification; and as it was finally passed, it certainly differed very materially from that Bill to which the Legislature of Upper Canada had given its assent, and made a provision very much more favourable to the Church of England and of Scotland than even that which the local Legislature had reluctantly sanctioned. It was hoped at that time that the Act of 1840 might be regarded as having finally disposed of this troublesome question. I myself think it would have been better to have anti-

137
cipated what has now occured; that we might have foreseen that differences of opinion based on principle could not possibly be prevented from breaking out merely by being kept down with the weight of an Act of Parliament. Nevertheless, no such provision was inserted in the Bill; and I need not say that no Colonial Legislature has any power to alter the provisions of an Act of the Imperial Parliament. Now, just see what is the state of things in Canada. Since 1840, twelve years have passed by, a period, in that new country, crowded with events which would suffice to fill an age in the annals of any old one. I find that the population has more than doubled since the year 1840. The religious denominations have shifted about— now this one getting ahead, now another falling into the rear, just as emigration brought an accession to this or that particular creed. Therefore nothing could be less surprising than that a desire should he entertained for a readjustment of an arrangement made so far back as the year 1840. There is nothing unreasonable, I think, in the people of Canada desiring that some particular denomination should have a share of the fund more in accordance with its diminished numbers. I will instance the Presbyterians in connection with the Church of Scotland, who I believe have lost more than one-half of their adherents since 1840. Since that year the schism took place in the Scotch Church, and extended, however unaccountably, to our North American colonies, and I find that the Free Church has now more followers than the body in connection with the National Church of Scotland. They may think, too, that other bodies, the Wesleyans for instance, with 100,000 persons belonging to their communion, should participate to a greater extent than they now do in the revenue from this source. There has also been a desire expressed for the secularisation of the clergy reserves; but it does not matter what is the view entertained— be the force or form of public opinion in that country what it may—there are not any means of giving a legal and constitutional expression to it—there is an insuperable obstacle in the way. That obstacle is the Act of 1840, and the object of this Bill will be to remove that bar. Now I am anxious, Sir, to explain precisely the nature of this Bill. We do not intend by it in any way to alter the present condition of things. We leave the different denominations in that colony, so far as
138
concerns their interests in the reserves, not certainly upon the same footing as that on which they have hitherto stood, but in the same relation which they have hitherto borne to each other. All that we propose to do is to vest in the Legislature of Canada the power, if they think fit to exercise it, of altering the existing arrangement. I think it precipitate to anticipate that these clergy reserves will, in consequence of this concession, be of necessity alienated from religious purposes, and secularised by the Legislature of Canada. There are in that colony many people who think, as I do, that in a new country, perhaps even more than in an old one, it is of the greatest importance to have a public provision applicable to the payment of stipends to ministers of religion. It is only when you have a provision of that kind that you can secure the presence of clergymen and the ministrations of public worship in every community, however poor, however remote it may be from the seat of Government. And, Sir, we ought not to forget that the clergy and the laity of the Church of England, and the other denominations in that colony who are interested in the maintenance of this fund, as a religious endowment, constitute by no means an inconsiderable minority in that country. There is a very just remark made by Lord Elgin, in one of his despatches, where he says that there is this evil attendant on the present arrangement, that—
"those in communion 'with the churches peculiarly benefited by this fund, instead of trying to influence the public mind of the colony, are continually looking to the opinion of the mother country, and content to take shelter under the shadow of an Act of Parliament, while, if left to themselves, there may be very good ground to anticipate that they will be able to make their opinions shared in by others."
Why, I see it stated that at the last general election in the colony, in the month of December, 1851, they put forth their strength, and succeeded in carrying no less than nine elections, displacing from the Legislature some of those who took a most prominent and active part in advocating the secularisation of these reserves; and, therefore, I am not altogether without hope that the party which is interested in preserving the existing appropriation of this fund may possibly be able to bend the Colonial Legislature into taking that direction which they consider that the well-being of the country requires. But, be that as it may, I contend that the subject

139
is solely and exclusively one for the consideration of the Colonial Legislature. It is not an imperial, but a local concern. That is the ground that we occupy in bringing forward and pressing upon, the House the adoption of this Bill. We say that in bringing it forward we are carrying out the principle which has guided the policy of Parliament towards that colony of late years. It is a liberal, but, at the same time, as I believe, a just and a well-founded confidence in the good sense and the loyalty of the inhabitants of Canada, which has prompted us to extend to them an almost unlimited measure of power of self-government. They have now a Legislature, the popular branch of which is freely chosen by themselves upon any electoral basis they may prefer. They vote their own civil list; they have the exclusive control over their land fund, and the disposition of its proceeds. Even within late years we have made other great concessions in the same direction—we have surrendered to the colony the management of the customs department—we have discontinued levying imperial duties, and since the repeal of the navigation laws we have removed every restriction upon their trade with ourselves, our colonies, and with foreign countries. We have gone even a step further, and given them what is there denominated responsible government. Until the other day their executive was nominated by ourselves, and the principles of its policy were the principles of the Administration at home; but now they have an executive whose policy follows the policy favoured by the majority in the House of Assembly. Well, then, I cannot see why you should make any distinction with regard to this particular description of property; nor why you should not place at their disposal this portion of the public lands of the colony. I see in a pamphlet of Archdeacon Bethune that in respect to the claim of the Colonial Legislature to have the disposition of their lands, he states that "these lands were bought with the money of the British Treasury, and that we still pay salaries and pensions to the Indians for having taken their land from them." He refers, I suppose, to the 13,000 l which is paid every year in pensions to the Indians; but then that is paid, not in respect of land taken from those Indians, but in respect of services rendered to us by them in war. The Annuities which the Indian tribes receive as compensation for land of which they
140
have been dispossessed, are granted out of the Colonial Revenue. Now, if what I have stated be true—if that legislature represents so large a population, and is in the exercise of such important and varied functions, I am sure that this House will be disposed to pay great attention to its wishes and representations. How then stands the question in this point of view? I need not go to an earlier period than the month of June, 1850. At that time the House of Assembly passed several resolutions, and an Address to Her Majesty, praying that the power which we now propose to confer on them might be granted. Earl Grey, who was then Minister for the Colonies, told the Earl of Elgin, in a despatch dated January 27, 1851, in answer to that Address and those resolutions, that he regretted that the agitation of this question had been revived—that he had hoped that the Act of 1840 had permanently disposed of it; but as it was the wish of the Legislature of Canada to deal with it again, that he, regarding it entirely as one of local concern, was prepared to recommend the introduction into the Imperial Parliament of a measure conferring the requisite power for that purpose. Upon that despatch being received in Canada, I find that both Houses, not only the House of Assembly which had voted the Address, but the Legislative Council as well, passed Addresses of thanks to Her Majesty for the communication they had received from Her Minister. Later in the same year, Earl Grey announced to the Earl of Elgin that, in consequence of the extreme pressure of business in that Session (1851), he had found it impossible to introduce the measure; but he undertook to bring it forward early in the Session of 1852. I need not say that we had not gone far into that Session when Earl Grey and his Colleagues retired from office. Earl Grey was succeeded in the colonial department by the right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite (Sir J. Pakington). That right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt, gave all the consideration to this subject which its importance demanded of him; but he came to the conclusion that he could not advise the introduction of the measure which Earl Grey had undertaken to bring in in the course of that Session. I now come to the resolutions which were passed by the Legislature of Canada so late as the month of September last year, on the receipt of the intelligence sent by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In December,

141
1851, there was a new Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman stated, among other reasons for postponing the measure, that since the Addresses were passed by the Canadian Legislature, there had been an appeal to the country, and he understood that the laity and clergy of the Church of England had succeeded in carrying several of the elections. [Sir J. PAKINGTON was here understood to dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman understood that there had been a change in the opinions of the House of Assembly, and he would wait to hear the result of a reference being made to it. I will quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman, as they are found in a despatch dated April 22:—
"I have in the first place taken into consideration the circumstance that since any opinion on this difficult subject was expressed by the Legislature of Canada, a general election has taken place in the province, and it is as yet uncertain what the views of the new House of Assembly as to the disposal of the clergy reserves may be."
Now, Sir, there cannot now be any doubt as to what the views of the present Assembly are. They have passed a resolution in strong terms remonstrating against the decision of the Colonial Minister; and a material point to observe is, that this resolution was brought forward upon the Motion of Mr. Hincks, the head of the Government in the Colony. Therefore you have in the year 1850 the House of Assembly, in 1851 the Legislative Council, and in 1852 the Administration of the country, all concurring in pressing this Motion on the adoption of Parliament. I know that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said—
"That the divisions which carried the resolutions do not express fairly the opinion of the country, because you must bear in mind that this is not a Canadian question—that the great bulk of this property is in Upper Canada, and that the divisions, which show a majority of thirty or forty on the question, include the Roman Catholic members of Lower Canada; and it seems but fair, in a question which solely and exclusively concerns the upper province, that they should refrain from taking part in those divisions."
Now, I differ here entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. I think the Roman Catholic members were perfectly justified in taking part in these divisions, because you must remember, that there has been no proposition for the secularisation of this fund since the year 1840, or, if there has been, it has received very inconsiderable support—three or four votes at the utmost. All that the Roman Ca-
142
tholic members do in supporting these resolutions is to say that they think these funds ought to be left to be dealt with by the local Parliament as it deems fit, and that they wish to put the Protestant endowment in Upper Canada on precisely the same footing as their own endowment in the lower province. That is all the Roman Catholics seek to do; and I will show the House that the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy in Lower Canada may be dealt with by the local Legislature if it thinks proper to do so. By the terms of the capitulation of Montreal, the Roman Catholic clergy were secured in their accustomed tithes and dues from the members of their own communion. I believe that as a general rule the terms of a capitulation remain in force till the general peace, when, if the terms are to continue to be respected, the usual course is to embody them in some legislative enactment. Now, I find that an Act was passed—the Quebec Act, as it is called—in which this provision was made:—
"For the more perfect security and ease of the minds of the inhabitants of this province, it is hereby declared that His Majesty's subjects professing the religion of the Church of Rome of and in the said province of Quebec, may have, hold, and enjoy the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King's supremacy; and that the clergy of the said Church may hold, receive, and enjoy their accustomed dues and rights, with respect to such persons only as shall profess the said religion."
If that was the only Act affecting the endowments of the Roman Catholic Church, they would be placed in the same position as the endowments of the Protestant Church stand at this moment, and there would be no power in the Colonial Legislature to alter them; but in the Constitutional Act of 1791 this very provision was made which we now wish to make applicable to the Protestant endowments. When Canada obtained a free Parliament instead of the nominated Council of Government, it was thus provided by the 31 Geo. III., c. 31,s. 35. After reciting the declarations in the latter part of the above clause, and also certain instructions of the King for the application to the support of a Protestant clergy of tithes due from Protestants, the Act proceeds in the following terms:—
"Be it enacted, that the said declaration and provision contained in the said above-mentioned Act, and also the said provision so made by His Majesty in consequence thereof, by his instruction above recited, shall remain and continue to be of full force and effect in each of the said two pro-

143
vinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada respectively, except in so far as the said declaration or provisions respectively, or any part thereof, shall be expressly varied or repealed by any Act or Acts which may be passed by the Legislative Council and Assembly of the said provinces respectively, and assented to by His Majesty, his heirs, or successors, under the restrictions hereinafter provided."
Therefore you see that the Roman Catholic endowment of tithes and dues, which members of the Roman Catholic persuasion are now bound to pay to the clergy of that Church, may at any time be abrogated by an Act of the Colonial Legislature; and inasmuch as all that we propose now to do is to place the Protestant endowment in Canada on precisely the same footing, I cannot see why the Roman Catholic members of the local Legislature should be objected to for taking part in the divisions upon this subject. Upon these grounds, then, Sir, I beg leave to introduce this Bill. On the part of the Government I disclaim its being brought forward in any unfriendly spirit towards the Church of England. No doubt the concession that we propose to make, does shake the confidence which is now felt in the perpetuity of the fund as an endowment for religious purposes. But, regarding the Church of England as a body of individual clergy in that country, we have taken ample guarantees for their continued enjoyment of the stipends now allotted to them, and we have the full concurrence of the Legislature and the Executive of Canada in doing so. We have inserted a clause in this Bill which will render it impossible for those clergy to be deprived of their emoluments so long as they live, or continue in their incumbencies. It would have been impossible for us to assent to any other regulation in the matter. The clergy went out to that country in reliance upon the Act of Parliament, and good faith and honour require that their rights should be respected. But, looking at the Church of England not as a collection of individual clergy, but as an establishment—as an incorporated institution— if you ask us to maintain a Church Establishment in Canada against the wishes of the people of that country, I, for one, would shrink from such an undertaking. If you were to engage in it, I undertake to say that you would never issue from it with either credit or success. I am convinced, Sir, that we are taking the right course even in the interests of the Church of England herself. I believe that if that Church has to encounter a spirit of antagonism and
144
jealousy, aroused by a feeling of undue partiality and favour shown to her, she is weighted with a burden which no endowment can possibly counterbalance or compensate. The Church of England, I doubt not, will win its way in that country as it has done in the United States. Whether it be confirmed or not in its existing share of these reserves, it will derive its strength, not from the liberality of the public, but, as it has done elsewhere, from the purity of its doctrines—from the soundness of its teaching—from the virtues which are illustrated in the lives of its clergy. Sir, I beg to ask the permission of the House to introduce the Bill of which I have given notice.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that it was not his intention to oppose the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill, and he would not therefore detain the House by following the hon. Gentleman at any length through the speech which he had just delivered, or by entering into any detail into the various considerations connected with this most important subject. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and the declarations of the intentions of the Government, with regret, but without surprise. He had heard the speech in which the noble Lord, now the leader of the House, had stated, the other evening, the measures which the Government were about to introduce, but had wisely abstained from referring to the principles of the Administration. He had heard in that speech with sorrow, but with no feelings of surprise, that the first of these measures was to be the present Bill. While reserving his final opinion upon the Bill until he had seen it, he must say that he feared it would simply be a measure to commit a grave breach of national faith, and to deprive our Protestant fellow-subjects and brother Christians in Canada of an endowment guaranteed to them as solemnly as any endowment could be guaranteed by the Legislature. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies was a little too candid in some parts of his speech, for, referring to a despatch which he (Sir J. Pakington) sent to Canada in April last, conveying the decision of the then Government upon the prayer of the Canadian Legislature, the hon. Gentleman read a passage noticing the contingency of the then approaching elections. And he then with great frankness told the House that the result of those elections in Upper Canada, which was the province mainly affected by

145
this question (although there were indeed some clergy reserves also in Lower Canada), had been, that the party opposed to this course of legislation had gained several seats. The hon. Gentleman might also have gone on to state that the largest and most popular constituencies in Upper Canada had returned members opposed to the breach of this endowment. When they were dealing with a question which was mainly an Upper Canadian question, they were, he thought, bound to recollect that the representation of that province was as nearly as possible equally divided upon this question. There were forty-two members returned to the National Assembly from Upper Canada, the representation of Niagara being, however, vacant at the time he quitted office; and the result of inquiries which he then caused to be made was that, of the remaining forty-one members, twenty were in favour of retaining the reserves in the hands of their present owners, and twenty-one against it. The hon. Gentleman had also adverted to that most delicate part of this question, which was connected with the tenure by which the Roman Catholic Church held their endowments. Now, these endowments were secured to the large Roman Catholic population of Lower Canada at the time of the conquest, and the stipulations then made by the British Government had since then been religiously observed. The Act of 1840, in like manner, guaranteed their endowments to the Protestants of Upper Canada; and he wished to know upon what principle the Government could contend that the guarantee given by the Crown at the conquest was more solemn or more binding than that given by the Parliament of Great Britain in the Act of 1840. The hon. Gentleman said that all the needful provisions would be inserted in the Bill to secure the rights of the existing incumbents; and no doubt this must be done, unless the Government were prepared to commit a breach of faith so grievous that it could hardly be anticipated as possible. But he could not help hoping that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would go somewhat further than this. He implored him to respect the Act of 1840, of which he was the author; and to recollect the peculiar circumstances under which it was passed. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had stated, with perfect accuracy, that that Act was introduced by the noble Lord in consequence of an Act passed by the Canadian Legislature being
146
found open to some legal objections. But the latter Act, although containing some alterations suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury, was, in its general principles, founded on the former; and when it was passed, it was felt that before we tried the perilous experiment of uniting the two provinces, we were bound to settle the question of the clergy reserves; and it was on account of that impending union, and of the approaching junction between the Protestant upper province and the Roman Catholic lower province, that this Act was passed. One of the most interesting and able State papers with which he was acquainted was the protest of the late Duke of Wellington against the union of the two provinces; in that his Grace dwelt upon this important question, and called upon the Legislature to remember the differences of religious opinions that existed between the two provinces. It was a fact also pressed upon the Government by Lord Sydenham, and every one else who had studied the affairs of Canada, that before they ventured to unite the two provinces they must pass a measure to prevent the Protestants of Upper Canada and the Roman Catholics of Lower Canada coming into collision on the subject of these endowments. It was in this spirit that the Act of 1840 was introduced, and he entreated the noble Lord to remember the words of the preamble:—
"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the final disposition of the lands called clergy reserves in Canada, and for the appropriation of the income arising therefrom for the maintenance of religion and the advancement of Christian knowledge in the said provinces," &c.
He submitted to the noble Lord, and to the House, that these words amounted to as solemn a guarantee as Parliament could give to our Christian fellow-subjects in Canada. He entreated the noble Lord to recollect the solemnity of these guarantees, the sacredness of the subject, and the interests of posterity, before he determined lightly to concede the prayer of the Canadian Legislature. He should not oppose the introduction of this Bill; but he had not shrunk from opposing, almost alone, the union of the two provinces of Canada, and if, as he apprehended, this Bill should amount to a breach of a solemn engagement, which he should regard as inconsistent with the duty of any Government or any Parliament, he would not shrink, even if he were again unsupported, in opposing a measure of such a nature.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat, had completely avoided giving any opinion upon the great question involved in this Bill, whether the Parliament of Great Britain should allow the colony of Canada to legislate for itself, or should legislate for it. He seemed to have felt himself hampered by the declaration he had made in one of his despatches with respect to the feelings of the majority of the people of Canada, and he endeavoured to set the opinion of the people of Canada, as collected from petitions and letters sent to him from the bishops of the colony, against the declarations of the Assembly. When, however, we had once established a Legislative Assembly, he (Mr. Smith) thought we must adopt their declarations as the opinion of the people of Canada. But the right hon. Baronet had broached a still more singular doctrine, for he had told the House that although there was a division against the reserves, yet that the Members for the large constituencies wore in the minority. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reserve that argument for a future time, and that when other reforms were mooted, he would be preferring the opinion of the larger constituencies to that of Droitwich. It was true the Imperial Parliament had agreed to the Act of 1840, which had been brought forward by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell); but it could not be so irreversible that the Imperial Parliament could not now alter it. That would be to settle upon his noble Friend a new finality. The Bill of 1840 had given the colony ten years of tranquillity, so that it had not wholly failed of its effect. The right hon. Baronet had concluded by telling them that he did not imagine that the terms of the capitulation of Lower Canada were more binding on the country than the provisions of an Act of Parliament. But he thought it could hardly be contended that Parliament had no power to repeal an Act passed no longer since than 1840. As to the statement of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that if the question was left to the Legislature of Canada, they might deal with it as it was dealt with at present, he must confess that his own opinion in 1840, when the existing Act was passed, was that the public opinion of Canada was in favour of the secularisation of the reserves; he did not know how it might have been modified since. This, however, was not a question with
148
which he as a Member of the Imperial Legislature had to deal. He felt bound to support the principle of giving the colonies self-government, and he would not maintain any theory of his own in opposition to that great principle.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that he felt disappointed that his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of the Colonies should have waived his opposition to this measure until a future stage; for were not its principles as patent in the speech of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, nay in the very title of the Bill, and in the history of the whole transaction, as they could ever be made by any Bill, however carefully prepared and worded? This was a measure to enable the Legislature of Canada to deal, not with religious principles, but with property; and the question was not whether the inhabitants of Upper or Lower Canada should have one creed more or less in their Prayer-book, or be obliged to support the professors of one or more creed, but whether the property which had been attached to a particular body of men should or should not be taken from them. What was meant by the word "clergy?" It would not be denied by any lawyer—nay, hardly by the most ignorant Radical in the House—that the word "clergy" had as definite and well-understood a meaning in law as any other legal phrase. And when it was said that property was given to the "Protestant clergy," he apprehended that in the dominions of the Queen of England that would mean the clergy of our own peculiar Church; and he appealed to the hon. and learned Solicitor General as to the correctness of his statement. At all events, he would defy any man to say that it could mean anything else than the clergy of the Church of England in Canada at the time that these reserves were established (whatever extension it had since received to another Protestant Church), and the House had now to deal with the application of that word to Canada. Now, there was no denial of the right of the Crown to make this grant, or of the right of Parliament in 1791 and 1840 to deal with this property as they had done, or of the right and duty of the local Legislature to acquiesce as they had done in the Act of the Imperial Parliament, which was passed only thirteen years ago, as a final settlement of the question; and if, therefore, this was not allowed to stand as a final settlement, what security would there be

149
for the stability of any settlement with regard to any corporation property in any part of the Queen's dominions? They were asked by this Bill to give the consent of the Imperial Parliament that the Canadian Legislature should do that which they could not otherwise do, and which he ventured to say not one of those who were supporting the Bill would say was in itself desirable. "He who allows oppression shares the crime;" and the Imperial Parliament would have to bear the responsibility of the measure for evil or for good. He (Sir R. Inglis) believed it would be for evil; and when the hon. Member (Mr. Peel) said the Church of England in Canada must depend for superiority on the soundness of her doctrine and the sanctity of her clergy, he wished to ask him how far he would carry this argument? Was he prepared to leave religion in England, Scotland, and Ireland without any endowment whatever for the maintenance of its establishments? He had also referred to the prosperity of the English Church in America, without endowment. But the fact was, that the prosperity of the Church of England in the State of New York, where it was most flourishing, was due to its not being dependent on voluntary contributions, but by an endowment of 3,000,000 dollars; the value, as it had become, of dotations made by an English Sovereign, and which had been respected even after the severance of the Province from the Crown. Had it not been for that, he believed that the state of the Church of England in New York would have been as desolate as this measure would perhaps make the Church in Canada. He should give this measure his most decided opposition.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down differs certainly a good deal from the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for the Colonies (Sir J. Pakington). The former states that these grants from the Crown are so irrevocable, that having been once made it is beyond the competence of Parliament to interfere with them; but if that is the case, the final settlement in 1840, argued upon by the right hon. Member for Droitwich, was a most unjustifiable interference with the previous settlement made by Parliament in 1791. But the difference does not even stop here, because the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Droitwich, who argues that the final settlement of 1840 should be adhered to at
150
the present time, has laid down, in his despatch to the Governor General of Canada, that if an alteration in the proportion of the members of the Protestant and Catholic Churches should require it that Parliament should again interfere, and that the irrevocable settlement of 1840 should be disturbed by another irrevocable settlement in 1853. It is clear, therefore, that there is no agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), or even between the right hon. Gentleman's own convictions and the propositions that he has himself laid down as proper to be considered by Parliament. But in considering this measure, it is really not in question whether it is fitting that Parliament should make endowments which should last for ever. The question really is, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith), whether or not Parliament shall adopt the principle that, with regard to a question of local concern—with regard to a question of the settlement of property, be it the settlement of property on a Church or upon lay bodies—securing, of course, the existing interests of those who have a claim upon the good faith of Parliament— it is fitting that we shall allow the local Parliament to decide. Now, upon that plain question, Her Majesty's Government have no doubt whatever. They think that after doing everything that good faith to existing holders requires, and after allowing the Colonial Parliament to act as to them seemed best on many analogous subjects, we should give them permission also to legislate on this when they desire it, as they do now. I confess that I should have been very glad if the Canadian Parliament had been content with the settlement made in 1840. I introduced that Bill in 1840 upon a subject which had given rise to great heat and much dissension in the Legislature of Upper Canada, in the hope that what I thought were its equitable provisions would prove satisfactory for a very long time to the people of Canada, and that no attempt would be made to disturb that settlement. I even doubt now whether the Legislature of Canada is wise in wishing to disturb that settlement; whether, when this power is given them, they may not find that it will raise new heats and animosities; and whether those who wish for the secular appropriation of the property, and those who wish for some other distribution among

151
all religious bodies, may not come to a wide difference of opinion. But although that may he my own opinion, I do not think that I should he justified in putting my own views, or even those of Her Majesty's Government, in contradiction to the opinion of the united Legislature of Canada, which wishes to deal with this question. Looking to the history of this subject, I cannot say that I think Parliament made a wise provision with respect to Canada in 1791. I think the original notion, which seems to have inspired the Ministry and Parliament of that day, of dividing Canada into two portions, one of which should be inhabited by Roman Catholics of the French race, and the other by Protestants from England, Ireland, and Scotland, was a most unfortunate proposition. It tended in the first place to prevent the growth of those relations of commerce and trade which were so important to both provinces; it raised up two Legislatures, who fell into conflict about tolls, tariffs, and every question on which the local Legislatures could decide. In the next place, it isolated two bodies of men, and one of them deeply attached—I will not say through prejudice —by old habit and preference, both to their ancient religion and their ancient French habits and customs which they derived from their ancestors; and it created another body most active and industrious, and inspired with a good deal of that American desire for proceeding onwards at once without much caring about the obstacles that came in their way. Why, naturally these two bodies came into conflict, and the Legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada were a continual source of disturbance in that great province; and a continual source of difficulty to the Government and Parliament of this country. This was so much the case that when Lord Bathurst was Secretary of State for the Colonies, he found no other remedy than taking the revenue of both provinces and distributing it according to the opinions of the Government of this country. That I think was sufficient to show the total failure of the Act of 1791. Although, therefore, the authority of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) is against the measure of the union, I am happy to say that that union has remedied many of the evils which were formerly felt. It has caused the two provinces to meet by their representatives in amicable discussion and harmony. They have both agreed to
152
do away with many obstacles to the physical prosperity of the province; and there can hardly be found any instance of a province, whether under the dominion of the Crown of England or belonging to the United States of America, which has made greater progress than the united province of Upper and Lower Canada since the union. It has done so chiefly because we made it a great united province; because we gave them the power to conduct their own affairs according to their own notions and opinions; because we have adhered strictly and constitutionally to that principle, and they have felt, as they were bound to feel, that they were treated fairly and honestly by the Government of this country. This measure is another instance in which we propose to act according to the same policy; and when this Bill has been passed, I have no doubt that the attachment of the people of Canada to the British Crown, and their confidence in the Parliament of this country, will be largely increased.
MR. HUMEsaid, that having been alluded to, he presumed, as one of the ignorant Radicals in that House, he could not allow the question to pass without thanking Her Majesty's Government for what they proposed to do. They were about to complete that system of self-government that would alone ensure peace in that important colony, because, as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had observed, from the hour responsible government was established, there prosperity had commenced. Having many years ago advised the adoption of the course which was now proposed to be taken, it was delightful to him to see the advance of sound principles, and he begged to thank the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject for the candour with which he had brought forward his Motion. He had done so with great ability; he had omitted nothing that was necessary to elucidate the nature of the object they had in view—to show the evils they desired to remove, and the good that might be expected to arise from the proposed change. He was sure that the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman would be received in Canada in the way they should be received, as embodying the principles that alone could render the colony prosperous. He hoped that this was the commencement of a system which would be also extended to every colony that was entitled to enjoy the advantages and benefits resulting from self-government. He hoped his hon. Friend

153
opposite (Sir R. Inglis), who had objected to the proposition, would venture to take the sense of the House on the question. The Government had proposed to give to the people of Canada the power of dealing with the Church property as they thought fit, and he was sure they would do it in a way that would produce contentment in, and promote the interests of, the colony.
Leave given: Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peel, Lord John Russell, and Sir William Molesworth.
The House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—la Vaccination Extension.

CLERGY RESERVES IN CANADA.
The BOSHOP of EXETER The BOSHOP of EXETER moved, according to notice, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the Government Gazette of Canada, of May 8, 1849, or any other document in the Colonial Office, containing a copy of an Address to the Governor General of British North America, from the Romish Prelates and Clergy of Quebec, in the year 1849, and of the answer of his Excellency to that Address; also a Return whether the two Canada Acts, 12th Vict. cap. 136, and cap. 143, or either and which of them, were disallowed by Her Majesty; and also a copy of any official letter from the Lord Bishop of Quebec to his Grace the Duke of Newcastle, one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, on the matter of Clergy Reserves in Canada. The right rev. Prelate said, that he felt that he owed to their Lordships some explanation for bringing before them at this time any question relative to a subject which it appeared, by the Votes of the other House of Parliament, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deal with by a Bill to be introduced in that House the same night. It might seem strange that he did not await the arrival in their Lordships' House of that measure before he presumed to address to their Lordships any observations he felt bound to make regarding this question; but in truth he must confess, that the introduction of this measure elsewhere was his reason for bringing the subject before their Lordships. He thought that this House had a right to express, he did not say complaint, but he did say surprise, at the course which the Government had adopted; and he was of opinion that they had a right to hope that some explanation would be given by the noble Secretary for the Colonies (the Duke of Newcastle) why that Bill had not first been introduced in the House of Lords. It had emanated from that office, of which

99
the noble Duke was the head; and for that reason, if for no other, they might have supposed that his Grace would have brought it forward himself; especially as at this season of the year their Lordships were not overburdened with business, and it had been a common complaint that they did nothing at the beginning and attempted more than was possible at the end of every Session. But that, he must be permitted to say, was not the only reason why they should have hoped that this Bill would have been introduced in their House. It might, he thought, fairly have been expected, that in a case in which the interests of religion were so immediately concerned, the Bishops would have been allowed an opportunity of expressing their sentiments early on the merits of the proposition, for it was very possible their Lordships would have received some information on the subject from the right rev. Bench. He understood that there could have been no difficulty about this, as the Bill contained no provisions which could not, according to the constitution, have been considered in their Lordships' House. There was nothing in it, as he was informed, which at all interfered with the rights of the House of Commons; and therefore, if he were to conjecture the motive for the preference given to that other House, and if he did not believe the noble Duke incapable of such a design, he could easily have conceived—indeed, it would have been impossible not to see on the face of it—that the object was to control this House by the voice of the other; and that it had been supposed that the Bill would have a better chance with their Lordships if it came to them only after its approval elsewhere. But fully acquitting the noble Duke, whom he could not think capable of taking such an advantage, he would pass on to show other reasons why this measure should not have been introduced, at least, thus early. It was most remarkable that this measure had been brought forward without the colonies having the slightest notion that any such measure was intended to be introduced. The whole history of the question showed that the colonies had been lulled into full security that such a measure would not be introduced without their having the opportunity of sending deputies to this country, who could stand forward and speak for them. Last year Her Majesty's late Government had returned, as its answer to the address of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, a
100
refusal to transfer the power of dealing with the reserves to the local legislature— they were told that this was the resolution of the Government, on a view of what was due to the best interests of the colonies and of the empire. Soon after, the Administration which had shown such readiness to do the colonies justice was displaced; but the opponents of this measure in Canada had the fullest grounds for confidence that it could not, and would not, be introduced by the present Administration. At the head of that Administration they saw the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) whose whole life had been given to the support of those principles on which the security of the clergy reserves depended. They found that noble Earl at once declaring it to be his resolution to maintain the institutions of the country and of the empire; and, judging from the principles which the noble Earl avowed, they would naturally think the interest of religion in the colonies was one of those considerations which would have had a favourable regard and support from such a Government. Not the noble Earl only, but also the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Argyll) seemed a tower of strength to their cause. Certainly the noble Duke had never committed himself in any public way; but from their previous knowledge of him, the colonists still regarded that noble Duke as incapable of seising upon and confiscating the clergy reserves; and he (the Bishop of Exeter) ventured to think that the colonists had sufficient reason to suppose that the noble Duke would have supported them. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would admit that when any statesman found himself involved in the duties of office, it was necessary for him to review the conclusions at which he had arrived on many important matters of public policy, and his duty to correct his previous impressions if required by his judgment and his conscience to do so. If, therefore, though the private impressions of the noble Duke were against the measure, he had substantially changed those opinions, he would be bound still to support the Bill, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) should honour him for yielding to reason and conviction. But whilst this might be so, it must none the less be remembered that the noble Duke's name had been a source of security to the colonists. But there was another noble Duke: to himself, as to them, the noble Duke's accession to office, and becoming an important Member of the new Government, was, he

101
confessed, a strong reason for giving that Government credit for an intention to afford a true support to the Church of England— the Protestant Church as by law established. They saw the noble Duke in office, and in him they thought they could place the highest confidence. They saw likewise two Members of the other House of Parliament holding office whom they had the best reason to believe attached to the interests of religion and of our Church. They saw in the Government one eminently distinguished by every private virtue, as well as high in public estimation—one whom it was impossible even for those who disagreed with him to speak without respect and regard—he meant Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer. What did they know of him? That he first became greatly and favourably known to the world by the publication of a work on the relations of Church and State, in which he upheld the opinion that it was the first duty of Government to maintain and to advance true religion. Had not the Canadians, then, a right to suppose that the interests of the Church were safe in the hands of such an individual? Not only was he the author of this book; he had been more than once selected to represent a constituency, in whose judgment faithfulness to religious truth would be deemed an essential qualification of their representative. Nobody, therefore, could have been more trusted in the colonies, for if there was one question more than another on which the University felt strongly, it was this; and it was, of course, natural to expect that the chosen representative of such a body would hold and be faithful to the principles most likely to recommend him there. It was perfectly notorious that, during the late election, strong opinions had been expressed of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman in his adherence to those principles which had recommended him to that constituency in the first instance; and if there was one question more than another upon which the University of Oxford would feel strongly, he repeated, it was that to which he was endeavouring to draw their Lordships' attention. The colonists had a fair right to expect that the present Government would have pursued, in this particular, a course totally different to that which they were taking now, when we had a Bill brought forward in the other House, to confiscate the colonies' religious endowment. It would not, he presumed, be denied, that every member of the Canadian Ministry had committed himself to the
102
secularisation of these resources, if but the power were given; and yet it was attempted to authorise the confiscation without consulting those most concerned—without giving the colonists an opportunity of sending deputations against it. A Canadian bishop was now in London, who, he believed, was not informed till last Saturday of the intended Bill. He then, for the first time, like their Lordships, knew of the proposition, by seeing it in the papers—that, he believed, was the first the Bishop of Quebec knew of the intention of the Government to bring in the measure, the announcement having been made on the previous night. He was sure that the noble Duke, who was officially responsible for the measure, would not do anything unfair; but the result of this proceeding would be to inflict most grievous injustice on the colonists, who were now depending on the pledged faith of the British Government. He hoped he should be excused if he reminded their Lordships briefly of the general history of these reserves. After the peace of 1783, a large number of American loyalists were located in Canada, and they were to a man members of the Church of England. It was because they were persecuted in their own country, and destitute of almost everything but what they carried with them, that they were thrown, he would not say on the generosity, but on the justice, of the British people. In consequence of that state of things His Majesty King George the Third—a name which need only be pronounced to fill every British heart with a grateful remembrance of the virtues with which he adorned the throne—that noble-minded man, that illustrious Sovereign—sent a message to Parliament, upon the settlement of the constitution in Canada, desiring that Parliament would enable him to make a grant of lands for the permanent endowment of the Protestant Church in Canada. That message was received with unanimous gratitude, and an answer was returned to the effect that Parliament would use its best endeavours to secure that which His Majesty desired. A measure was passed reciting the donation of the land by His Majesty, and containing enactments for the purpose of giving effect "in all time to come" to the act of the King, by which those clergy reserves were set apart which they were now called upon to consent to surrender. There was thus strong ground for saying that the national faith was pledged to the maintenance of the grant; and they might well conceive

103
how great an inducement it must have been to the honest and loyal English subjects of those days to settle in Canada, to know that if they went thither they would have the means afforded them of paying their duty to God according to the forms of that Church of which they were the attached children. By the constitutional Act, Parliament and the Crown guaranteed to them that "in all time to come"—those were the very words—there should he that provision for the Protestant religion in the provinces of Canada. Unfortunately the provision was not sufficient to supply churches for the increasing number of inhabitants, and the natural consequence was that a godless population arose—a population that had ceased to have any feeling of attachment to the Church, because there had been no means of extending to them the great plan of the English parochial system. The result was that an agitation sprang up; but there was no agitation whatever in Lower Canada till the end of the year 1849; and it was surely too much to say that they ought to sacrifice to an agitation of three years' duration the claims of reason and justice, and the public faith of the country. In the Upper Province the agitation had existed a little longer; but so late as 1846 the principal leader of it declared that it was impossible to reconsider the question, for it must be looked on as finally settled. Were their Lordships, then, prepared to accede to the principle, that an agitation of four years ought to be allowed its demands? That would be rather an awkward precedent. He must remind their Lordships that agitation was not confined to Canada. Agitation was rife on the other side of the Irish Channel, and the parties who fomented it were at least as powerful as any in British North America. Was it likely that Parliament, by conceding the demands now made for the confiscation of the property of the Protestant Church in Canada, would discourage the agitation which was carried on in Ireland to put down what was called a "bloated nuisance?" He trusted that the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government intended to maintain in its integrity the Protestant Establishment in Ireland; but he would certainly furnish a dangerous precedent by consenting to the subversion of the Protestant Church in Canada. The principle which the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) laid down was, that this was not a matter for the English Legislature, but for the Canadian Legislature
104
to determine, and he might, perhaps, say, that Ireland being represented in the British Parliament, there was a broad distinction between the case of Ireland and Canada. Now if he (the right rev. Prelate) chanced to be an Irish Romanist, he should exult at the prospect of the precedent that was proposed to be set, and still more so at the reason given for it. He should say that, according to the noble Duke's doctrine, Ireland ought to be so represented that the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants should prevail. But then it was said that this was public property. And why public? Because it had been given, not for the permanent enjoyment of any private individuals, of any men, but for the service of God; therefore it was public property, and therefore it ought to be dealt with by the local Legislature. He knew not what their Lordships were prepared to do; but if they sanctioned such a principle as that, they would do what no other House of Lords had ever yet dared to dream of. Every previous House of Lords would have recollected that they would be setting a precedent, not simply for the spoliation of the Church, but seriously affecting many of themselves. If the Legislature had a right to reclaim property which had been granted by the Crown for the service of God, it would be said that it had equally a right to reclaim property which had been granted by the Crown to private persons, especially when that property had been derived in the first instance from the spoliation of the Church. A case had occurred within his own knowledge in which one of the greatest landowners in the country'—a proprietor who was the benefactor of his tenants, and a pattern for the discharge of every duty which property entailed upon its possessors —held under a royal grant a large portion of his estates which had formerly belonged to the Church; and the feelings of his tenantry, so far from partaking of gratitude, was, that they had as much right to his land as he had himself. They openly said, that his lands were public property, because they had been taken from the endowments of the Church. Now he did not say that this was a sound argument, but it was one that would do the work of a sound argument with those to whom it was addressed; and there were many persons who would say, that as numbers of their Lordships held under grants from the Crown property which had been taken away from the Church by the act of the

105
Legislature three hundred years ago, and that as their Lordships had set the precedent of revoking such grants in Canada— they would be justified in carrying the principle a little further. With respect to the papers for which he had given notice to move, he was happy to state that the first had already been laid before them, and therefore he need not trouble their Lordships for it. The second document for which he asked was the Government Gazette of the 8th of May, 1849; and he did so because it contained an address from the Soman Catholic prelates and clergy of Quebec, the first signature to which was that of "Joseph, Archbishop of Quebec," and of the answer of his Excellency to that address. The Pope had not long before thought fit to erect an Archbishopric of Quebec, and the prelate in question had styled himself, according to his directions, Archbishop of that See. The answer to that address was headed, "To his Grace the Archbishop, and to their Lordships the Bishops, and other members of the Catholic clergy of Quebec." Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) would ask whether that was not a recognition by the Government of the Pope's appointment? The next paper for which he moved was a list of the Bills passed by the Canadian Parliament, whether reserved or not, in the year 1849, and a statement whether any, and which, of the same were disallowed by Her Majesty? He had not seen those Bills, hut he had a list of their titles; and one of them, the Colonial Act, 12 Vict., cap. 136, he found was an Act to incorporate the Roman Catholic archbishop, or bishop, and clergy, in each diocese. Their Lordships would see what a large stride this was towards the establishment of popery in that country. The object of the Act was to render the Roman Catholic clergy capable of acquiring property, and to make perpetual the archbishopric which the Pope had created by what had been called an unwarranted act of aggression on his part—not to speak of the other and more violent language which had been applied to it. But there was a most remarkable circumstance connected with this Bill. It was passed in 1849, and came home to the Government; and he wished now to know whether it had received the Royal assent? It might have been annulled any time within two years after its passing—a period which reached many months beyond that memorable November, 1850, when the noble Lord then at the head of the
106
Government and now the leading Member of the Government in the other House of Parliament (Lord John Russell) published that he would not say, verbosa, but grandis epistola, called the Durham letter, which shook the country to its very centre. The noble Lord chose to throw the blame of the papal aggression upon certain members of the Church of England; but while he stated that the papal bull was an unexampled and unparalleled aggression, at that very time a Bill was before him which had been passed in the Canadian Parliament to incorporate the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of Quebec. He (the Bishop of Exeter) merely mentioned this as an illustration of the measure of justice which was dealt out to the Church of Rome and the Church of England. It was the great duty of a Minister of the Crown, both as a public man and as a counsellor of Her Majesty, to maintain the Church of this country; and he was prepared to contend that it was not a mere question of domestic concern whether the true faith, the true Protestant Church, should be upheld or not. It was not open to the Legislature of every country which formed a part of the British Empire to decide for itself, but it was a matter of grave imperial duty. He did, therefore, trust that the noble Duke would pause ere he recommended them to hand over the clergy reserves to the tender mercies of the Canadian Legislature, which had already shown its disposition by secularising a college which had been founded for the purposes of religion, by confiscating all its endowments, and requiring that nothing like religion should be taught, nothing like religious worship offered, within its walls. Another of the Bills which had been passed by the Canadian Parliament in the year 1849, the Act of 12 Vict., c. 143, and which he wished to know whether the Government had suffered to remain unannulled, was an Act to incorporate a religious order which he believed was closely connected with the Jesuits. This Bill was likewise in the hands of the Government during the whole time that such an outcry was raised by them against the aggression of the Pope. The last document for which he would ask was the copy of an Official Letter from the Lord Bishop of Quebec to his Grace the Duke of Newcastle respecting the clergy reserves. He trusted that his Grace would not object to its production. It was written hastily, but perhaps on that very ac-

107
count it expressed more satisfactorily the sentiments of his right rev. Brother. It was couched not only in eloquent terms, but in terms of touching simplicity. The right rev. Prelate said that, if the proposal relating to seize property which had been solemnly dedicated to God, and to apply it to other purposes, was not sacrilegious, he did not know in what sacrilege consisted. And, in truth, sacrilege was branded deeply upon it; and he (the Bishop of Exeter) would ask their Lordships if they were prepared to make themselves parties to such an act? There had been times when the House of Lords would have spurned the proposition. Were any of their Lordships prepared to advise their Sovereign to violate Her coronation oath, in which She had sworn to maintain inviolate the rights of the Church of England and of the Presbytery of Scotland, not only in these islands, but in all the dominions belonging thereto? It had been said that this oath did not bind Her Majesty in her legislative capacity; but the truth was, if plain words were to have a plain meaning, and if they traced the history of the oath itself, they would find that that was precisely the capacity in which it did bind Her. Would they go, then, to Her Majesty and recommend Her to assent to a measure which would have the effect of extinguishing all the provision which had been made for the Church in Canada? If there were no stronger reason against such a step, they would find reason enough by only looking at the position of the Roman Catholic Church in that country. The whole provision made for the Protestant Church, at least in the Upper Province, could never amount to more than 20,000 l. a year, and there was a regulation that of that fund no clergyman should receive of it more than 100 l. a year. Surely it was of the highest importance not to withdraw that small assistance from a poor but increasing Church in the face of a powerful and wealthy community like the Roman Catholic body. Why, the Roman Catholic Church was enormously wealthy—the estates belonging to St. Sulpice alone, and given to them, too, by the British Government, were estimated at 60,000 l. per annum. Were there, then, any reasons why the possessions of the Roman Catholic Church should be held more sacred than those of their own? It was quite true that, by the treaty of 1763, the faith of this country was pledged for
108
the maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion in Canada; and he hoped that nothing, not even the provocation of confiscating the possessions of the Protestant Church, would ever induce their Lordships to be consenting parties to a breach of that faith. But then the faith of the men of England was no less pledged to the loyalists of Canada, who had been obliged to fly from their country to a land where they thought they had found a home, and, what they valued more, an altar. He rejoiced to point to the example which had been set us by a country which had sprung from ourselves—the United States of America. They were not bound by the treaty of 1763 to respect the Church endowments; but they had nevertheless regarded them as sacred. Almost the only endowments for religious worship that were known to the State were those for the members of that Church which was in communion with the Church of England. In the city of New York there was an ancient endowment by the Crown of England, which was now worth 3,000,000 dollars, and that was still enjoyed by the members of the American Church. In the State of Vermont, there having been no body of churchmen, the State occupied the lands allotted, but at length there was one established in that district. The Church immediately took proceedings at law to recover its rights, and the courts allowed the claim. Why then were they to be told that England was to be the country that was to be the first to say that the property of the Church should be taken away from it? He thought he had made out a case which the noble Duke would say was at least sufficient to lead him to grant the papers that he moved for.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: My Lords, I certainly will not complain of the course the right rev. Prelate has thought it his duty to take on this occasion; at the same time I may be permitted to observe it can hardly be considered a convenient one —and if I wanted any proof of its inconvenience, it is afforded by many of the statements in the speech of the right rev. Prelate. Your Lordships will remember that not only is no measure before your Lordships to justify the length at which the right rev. Prelate has discussed the subject, but probably at this very moment an hon. Friend of mine is stating to the other House the very details of the measure which the Government is about to introduce, and of which the right rev. Prelate

109
seems to me to be extremely ignorant. Although he recognised the fact that the only object of the Bill will be to give to the Legislature of Canada fall power over these lands called reserves, the right rev. Prelate, through the whole of his speech, argued as if the measure the Government is about to introduce is one, as he terms it, of confiscation. Without raising any quibbles as to what this measure really is, I can assure your Lordships its intention is totally different from that assumed by the right rev. Prelate. Before I proceed to comment upon the remarks which the right rev. Prelate has made on this Bill, which is not yet introduced into either House, and of which the right rev. Prelate is to a certain extent ignorant, I think it my duty to observe on some of his preliminary statements; and, in the first place, I will reply to the question, why this Bill has not been introduced into your Lordships' House? I believe that the precedents with regard to Bills of this character—although I readily admit there are no absolute Parliamentary rules and forms—prescribed the course which the Government has taken on this occasion; and if your Lordships want any further reason why we have preferred to introduce the measure in the other House, you have only to glance at the present condition of this House, and I will ask whether it is desirable that a measure of this magnitude and importance should be introduced at the commencement of the Session, when so few noble Lords attend in their places? The right rev. Prelate assigned as another reason why he conceived the Bill ought to have been first introduced in your Lordships' House, that the bench of Bishops necessarily take a great interest in the subject. With the highest possible respect for the right reverend Bench—and disposed as I am to pay the greatest deference to their opinions on all matters, and especially on matters of this character—I consider it far better that the Bill should be fairly and fully discussed in another place befere it is brought for the final arbitration of this House, of which the right rev. Bench forms so important a part, rather than be brought into this House originally. The right rev. Prelate then went on to complain that the colony of Canada will be taken by surprise, and that they have not been consulted as to the course which the Government propose to take. Now, I do not mean to say that since the present Government has been in office we have received
110
any fresh intimations of the opinions of the colonists, or that we have been in communication with the colonists on the question But this is no new question, on which the feelings and views of the colonists have to be tested. It has been a disputed question throughout Canada for years past. In different shapes and ways the subject has been in agitation for the last thirty years; and I believe, with the exception of the view taken by the late Government— and that view is by no means so clear and decided as has been represented by the right rev. Prelate—with this single exception, no Secretary of State, for the whole of that period, has failed to admit that it is a matter for the legislation of the local Parliament of Canada, and not of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain. The right rev. Prelate has said that the late Government refused their assent to any such measure as that proposed by the colony. Undoubtedly the late Government did refuse to assent to any measure by which future legislation on this subject should be transferred from the Houses of Parliament of Great Britain to the Houses of Parliament of Canada; but certainly the late Government did not altogether refuse to deal with this question; they did not stand on that high ground which has been taken by the right rev. Prelate; they did not say, any Act which touched the Act of 1840 would be sacrilege. Her Majesty's present Government do not propose to enter on the question, whether it is best to leave the Act of 1840 as it is, or to alter it; but we do say, in the present state of the colony of Canada—looking at the importance at which it has arrived, endowed with a responsible Government—we cannot refuse to give that Colony one of the proper attributes of government, namely, the right to deal with this question in any manner it may think fit. I hold in my hand a despatch from my predecessor in office, dated on the 22nd of April last year, in which he says—
"On account of the changes in the state of the colony, from emigration and other causes, it is obvious that the distribution in question under the Act of 1840 should from time to time be reconsidered, and any proposal of such a nature Her Majesty's Government are willing to entertain."
He then states that Her Majesty's Government will not entertain the exact proposal submitted by the colony. Surely the colony cannot be said to be uninformed, with this despatch, and a preceding one from

111
Lord Grey, before them, showing that it was fully contemplated that any Government would deal with the question; but I can only say, in addition, that Archdeacon Bethune, who is now in England, has published a pamphlet, expressing the expectation that the Legislature will take up the question. It cannot for a single moment be said that the colonies will be taken by surprise on a question which they have so frequently and earnestly urged the Government of this country to entertain. The right rev. Prelate said the Bill which we are about to bring in is a Bill to confiscate the clergy reserves. As I have said, I am not about to split words on this subject; but in order that the right rev. Prelate may see that his interpretation of even the probable consequence of the Bill we are about to bring in is unfounded— that others do not entertain the same opinion —and, moreover, that the same opinion is not generally received in the colony; I will read to your Lordships a few lines from a Canadian newspaper, which was put into my hands this afternoon, in consequence of the notice of Motion of the right rev. Prelate. I am assured this paper is one of the most respectable and best conducted in the colony, and, moreover, professes strictly Conservative opinions. What does it say? Does it deprecate the course the Government are about to take, or characterise any such measure as an act of confiscation? No; it deprecates most strongly the course which was about to be taken by the late Government, and says that decision would have the effect of throwing into Canada an element of discord and confusion. I will not detain your Lordships with many extracts, because I am anxious to reserve any lengthened statements to a future occasion. After a certain amount of argument strongly urging the course of legislation upon which we are about to enter, this writer proceeds:—
"This is a question of our political connection with Great Britain, upon which all Conservatives, as well as Reformers, are cordially agreed. No matter what may he our opinion on the final adjustment of the clergy reserves, we claim it as the indefeasible right of the Canadian Government to legislate in the matter."
After some further remarks, the writer continues:—
"There is no probability, in the present state of parties in Canada, if the privilege be granted, of the reserves being diverted to other purposes than those to which they are now applied; but however that may be, all we ask is, the power to legislate for ourselves on subjects altogether of a local character."
112
I will not venture to express an opinion whether the sentiments of this newspaper be correct or not. I frankly admit I hope they will prove correct. In the despatch to which the right rev. Prelate has alluded, I have expressed my regret that the Canadian Legislature should wish to reopen this question, and that my desire was that it should remain as settled by the Act of 1840. I do not express any opinion whether the reopening the question will be of advantage or not; but I say this, whatever the result, it is no longer tenable that we should retain in our own hands a power which, upon every argument of justice and expediency, ought to be allotted to the Canadian Legislature. The right rev. Prelate referred to what he said are the known opinions of the Members of the Government of Canada. I know not what the opinions of those Ministers may be, but this I do know, that the Ministers of the Governor General of Canada stand on the same footing that Her Majesty's Ministers stand to the Legislature in Great Britain; and I will add this, whatever may be their individual opinions, no measure can be carried out for the purpose of confiscating this property unless it be the earnest desire and firm determination of the inhabitants and people of Canada. I say, therefore, the right rev. Prelate has attached undue importance to anything which has been said by the Ministers of Canada—if anything has been said—and that nothing which has fallen from them can be used as the basis upon which to raise an argument as to the probabilities of the course which at any future time will be taken. I am sorry to trouble your Lordships on any small matters, but some misrepresentation on the part of the right rev. Prelate—unintentional, no doubt—it is desirable I should correct. He has represented, in support of the argument he has used, that every one has been taken by surprise—that the Bishop of Quebec, who is now in this country, never knew until last Saturday that this measure was to be brought forward. I am surprised the right rev. Prelate should have come to a conclusion so contrary to the fact. So little has the Bishop of Quebec, or any one in this country a right to say they have been taken by surprise, that some time since I informed Archdeacon Bethune what the Government were about to do, and I undertook, the moment it was settled when the Bill should be introduced, to inform him of the precise day. Within an hour of the day being fixed, I instructed my

113
private secretary to address a letter to the Archdeacon in fulfilment of that promise; and I can only say that not only no attempt has been made by Her Majesty's Government to take anybody in this country, any more than in the colony, by surprise, but no pains have been spared to give information to all parties who ought to receive it. The right rev. Prelate asked whether the Government would yield to agitation, and whether an agitation of three years' standing can be considered sufficient, and he alluded to agitation in Ireland. I venture to submit that this argument leads to rather a dangerous doctrine—that where an agitation of three years' standing is not sufficient, an agitation of something more than three years may be sufficient. Does the right rev. Prelate wish every measure to be caried by agitation? I venture to think it the duty of the Government, when the wishes of the people have been distinctly ascertained, to come forward with the desired measure and prevent that agitation which most unquestionably the speech of the right rev. Prelate this evening will tend to encourage. But I do not defend this measure on the absence of agitation, but upon a great principle—the principle of self-government—a principle which cannot be contravened without damage to the happiness and prosperity of the country. The right rev. Prelate has made allusion to some person as an agitator in the Assembly of Canada—I presume to Mr. Price—and has spoken of that person accepting the Act of 1840 as a settlement of the question, and now using it as an instrument of agitation for the mere purpose of agitation. I think it highly probable that such may have been Mr. Price's opinion; and, for all I know, such may be the course he takes, and such may be his motive. But what is the lesson I derive from that? Why, I see that, as long as a question of this kind is left pending, as long as we leave this religious question to excite the people of Canada, we are in danger of disturbing and disorganising the whole foundations of Government in one of the tenderest points on which it can be affected. We propose, therefore, to leave the Legislature of Canada to deal with this question instead of ourselves, and agitators will not then have the means to excite the minds of the people upon a topic affecting the religion of a large part of the community. I wish as much as possible to abstain from going into details, or tracing the his-
114
tory of this measure, as that ought to be reserved until the Bill is before your Lordships' House; and I think when it does come before your Lordships, that I shall be able to prove that from 1791 but one course and one view have been generally taken in this country with regard to this measure. I think I shall be able to show that it is neither breach of faith, nor confiscation, nor sacrilege which is involved in the measure which will then be under discussion; and I shall be prepared to show you many details which I feel some confidence in believing may change the opinions —I will not say of the right rev. Prelate, but of others who entertain doubts of this measure. I will not, therefore, refer to the parallel which the right rev. Prelate instituted between the Church of England in Canada, and the Church in Ireland, but will content myself by saying that such a parallel cannot be supported. The objections which the right rev. Prelate has taken, are, in fact, objections to the details of a measure he has not seen. He has not attempted to prove that we have not the right to take the course we are about to take, but be has gone through a series of objections of a general nature, and embracing many abstract propositions, which may be raised on future occasions, and I dare say will be raised when the Bill is before your Lordships, I have felt it my duty to endeavour to controvert some of the statements he has made, however inconvenient the course may be, and I believe I shall be consulting the inclination of your Lordships, who may attend the discussion on some future occasion, if I confine the few remarks I have now to make to the subject of the particular Motion with which the right rev. Prelate concluded. With regard to the four papers he desires to have laid on the table of your Lordships' House, I have no sort of objection to give them, or any others that may throw any light on the subject. I believe all the papers relating to this subject, with the exception of these four, are already in your Lordships' hands; but if not, they shall most readily be given. I am only sorry I am not able to produce the Government Gazette of Canada immediately; for this simple reason, that as far as we have been able to search since the right rev. Prelate gave notice last night, there is no copy in the Colonial Office; but by the next mail a letter shall be sent requesting the immediate transmission of a copy of that Gazette. The right rev. Prelate says, that Earl Grey ad-

115
mitted a measure passed by the Canadian Parliament, affecting injuriously Protestant interests, after a certain grand epistolary missive, as he calls it, had been issued. The question is one of time; and whether the right rev. Prelate's statement prove correct or not, I think he should have reserved his comments until the fact is ascertained by the production of the papers he has moved for. I should be sorry to follow the example of the right rev. Prelate, in commenting on what I have not seen; but I received only yesterday the letter from the Bishop of Quebec to which he has alluded, and, having read it carefully and with the attention and respect due to so high an authority, I am bound to say I do find in it many assertions and many arguments— assertions which I cannot admit, and arguments which on a future occasion it will be my duty to confute. The right rev. Prelate in one part of his speech characterises any interference with the Act of 1840 as sacrilege. That really is a charge of so grave a nature that, however anxious I may be not to enter prematurely into details, I do feel bound to say I cannot in any way recognise its justice or its truth. If this measure is one of sacrilege, I should like to know what is the Act of 1840 itself? We do not propose to deal with the clergy reserves as they were dealt with in 1840. We simply propose to transfer to the Canadian Legislature the power of disposition of the funds. But even assuming that we went the whole length of secularisation, and that we applied the funds at once to civil purposes, I will ask the right rev. Prelate what does he maintain was the character of the Act of 1840, which he supported? If he conceives this to be an act of sacrilege, I apprehend that was an act of sacrilege. Sacrilege cannot be a question of degree. If a man breaks into a church and steals one piece of the communion plate, he just as much commits sacrilege as a man who takes the whole service. They are both equally guilty of sacrilege in the one case as in the other. What did you do by the Act of 1840? What did the right rev. Prelate and all the bench of Bishops do by that Act? I do not say this for the purpose of attacking the right rev. Prelate; but I say he should maintain his own consistency, and that Her Majesty's Government ought not lightly to be taunted with so serious a charge as that of sacrilege. The Act of 1840 took from the Church of England a large portion of
116
the clergy reserves, and appropriated them, not only to other forms of Christianity, but to secular purposes. What are all the preceding Acts since 1791? What the views of successive Ministers of State? What the course taken by the Canadian Legislature? What the orders sent out by Lord Glenelg and Lord Goderich and other Secretaries during the last thirty years? If this be an act of sacrilege, what is the act which the right rev. Prelate defends of the late Government? Did my predecessor take this high ground and say, "Not one inch or tittle will we yield of the Act of 1840?" Did he say that? No. But he said that he was prepared to deal with the question; that he would not give the Canadian Legislature power to deal with it, but he would deal with it himself. He recognised the altered circumstances caused by immigration and other events, which made it necessary and right to have a redistribution of these funds, which must be of course be adverse to the Church of England. How does the character of the measure of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir John Pakington), which the right rev. Prelate defends, differ from our measure, assuming for the sake of argument that we propose to abandon the whole of these funds to secular purposes? So far as the Church is concerned—so far as the religious question is involved between me and my predecessor—it is a mere question of degree; but as regards the measure in one of its most important bearings—as regards the great question of Colonial self-government—it is not a matter of degree, but of principle. The whole question involved is this—is this to be a Colonial, or is it to be an Imperial, question? Are we to follow out to its legitimate conclusion, not merely the representative, but the responsible, government given to the Colonies, or are we in this one particular to deprive them of the full advantages of a responsible government, and thereby place a great community in a dangerous and anomalous position? I have already said the late Government did not consider the Act of 1840 was a final settlement; and I find that in 1846, and in succeeding years, the Bishop of Quebec and other dignitaries of the Church wished to reopen the question. That fact puts an end to the asserted finality of the Act of 1840. Can the same parties now turn round and say that for one purpose, the Act was not to be final in 1846; for another, it is to be final in 1853? The whole question must stand

117
on different grounds. The grounds which have been stated by the right rev. Prelate, I feel confident, are not tenable. I feel confident, when your Lordships arrive at the consideration of this question, you will come to the conclusion with me that purely and strictly on colonial grounds this question ought to be settled, and that it must be settled in the way proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The right rev. Prelate has entered into the matter of the Coronation oath. This measure will not affect it in any way whatever. The Queen will have the same power of exercising Her veto on any confiscation of these revenues being proposed as She has now. The right rev. Prelate has drawn a comparison between the condition of the Church of England and the Church of Rome in Canada. I can assure the right rev. Prelate, that whatever may be the actual state of things—and I believe he has greatly exaggerated the wealth of the Church of Rome in Canada—that Church will stand precisely on the same footing with regard to liability to be dealt with by the Canadian Legislature, as will the clergy reserves, if this measure should pass as it stands now. The right rev. Prelate has dealt with the subject of endowments in Canada, as if they were entirely secured to the Roman Catholics by some Act of Parliament, and that we were now about to leave that Act in force, whilst we erased the Clergy Reserves Act from the Statute-book. [The Bishop of EXETER made a remark.] I know the right rev. Prelate referred to the treaty; but if he turns to that treaty, and applies to it the great powers of mind which he possesses, and which I do not think he has yet done, but has rather adopted the vulgar opinion of it, he will find what that treaty does confirm is little more than perfect freedom, in religious worship, of the Roman Catholic population of Canada, and does not give that extreme security to Roman Catholic endowments generally supposed. Besides, he will also find those endowments are, for the most part, not of a parochial, but of a charitable character. Even with regard to the particular instance to which the right rev. Prelate alluded—the large endowments of St. Sulpice—what is the title which the corporation of St. Sulpice has to its present large possessions? It is not derived from the treaty. That was considered to be so weak a foundation that some time ago a Canadian ordinance was passed confirming the title, and by that ordinance
118
alone these possessions are now held. The right rev. Prelate must see at once that no measure which may now pass with regard to the clergy reserves can possibly place them on a weaker foundation than that on which the possessions of St. Sulpice are now held. And then with regard to the tithes enjoyed by the Roman Catholic clergy—those tithes are not payable, as they are in this country, by all classes living within the parish; but the tithes are payable by those persons only who are of the Roman Catholic communion; and so much is the payment restricted to those parties by the law, that every man who changes his religion is by that very act exonerated from the payment of tithes. Such is the tenure by which the Roman Catholic clergy hold the tithes in Lower Canada. But what is the fact with regard to Upper Canada? There tithes have been altogether abolished by an act of the Canadian Legislature; and I believe, though I am not positive as to the fact, that it was in consequence of that act that the Governor of Canada conferred upon the Roman Catholic population a grant out of these very clergy reserves, so that the Roman Catholics receive about 1,600 l. a year from the clergy reserves, and their title to them will stand upon exactly the same footing as that of the Established Church. There has been, I must say, a vast amount of mystification and misrepresentation upon this subject, which I hope the discussion in this and the other House of Parliament will tend to clear away when that discussion shall come regularly before your Lordships. I do not despair, notwithstanding the firmness of character of the right rev. Prelate, that even he may be induced to take a different view of the subject from what he now does; but if not, that at least many of the right rev. Bench will view this question, not as one involving the guilt of sacrilege, but as a great national question, to be dealt with in the spirit of liberality and conciliation; and if they should do so, I am sure it will be for the great advantage of the Church in Canada, and will tend to mollify those angry feelings which have been called into existence by the Acts that have gone before in reference to this subject. The right rev. Prelate referred to the respect which had been paid to ecclesiastical endowments in the United States; but I doubt whether it would be found on investigation that the population of the United States have adhered in every instance to the

119
rule of never altering the destination of endowments. I doubt whether he will not find that in one of the greatest States of the Union a church which was originally endowed in connexion with the Church of England is now held by the Unitarians; but I agree with the right rev. Prelate that, generally speaking, the endowments of the Church of England have been respected in the United States; and let me say that I gather from that precedent this example and warning—if you trust men with their own concerns, and place in their hands the management of their own affairs, they will be more induced to respect previous engagements and old settlements than if they extort their privileges after long agitation, and the ferment caused by a heated contest with those who are disposed to keep them out of the possession of them. But even if my opinions were different, and if I believed that the certain consequence of this step would be that these reserves would be appropriated by the secular power, still so strong is my conviction that we ought to act upon the principle of colonial freedom in all questions relating to the internal administration of their own affairs, that I am prepared, without reference to the result of the measure now to be proposed to Parliament, to take the course which I am now pursuing. But allow me to say that I am confident a great deal will depend, with regard to the future issue of this question, upon the conciliatory course that we may adopt—upon our discussing it apart from the bias of party feeling—apart from that irritation which is so ready to rise whenever questions occur in which religious feelings are concerned. I am sure that the final issue of this question will depend upon the tone, and temper, and spirit in which it is discussed in both Houses of Parliament.
The EARL of DESARTregretted that the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby), who had been very anxious to be present at the discussion of the question, was unavoidably detained from attending on this occasion, and had therefore devolved upon him (the Earl of Desart) the task of remarking on the observations which had been made on the subject, as an individual —though he was aware that there was an inconvenience in a discussion upon a subject of which the details were not before them— still he felt that thanks were due to the right rev. Prelate who had brought the
120
question before their Lordships, as he thought the public ought to be put in full possession, by a discussion in Parliament, of the bearings of a step which, in his opinion, would prove a great blow to the Protestantism of Canada. He said that advisedly, because, though the agitation was directed to the Imperial Parliament, abandoning its control over the clergy reserves in Canada, yet the agitators made no secret that their intention was to divert those reserves from their present ecclesiastical purposes. With regard to the views which were entertained by his right hon. Friend Sir John Pakington, the noble Duke was right in saying that his right hon. Friend was fully open to consider any proposal which the Canadian Legislature might make with regard to a redistribution of the clergy reserves, considering that the Canadian Legislature were the best judges of the local wants of each district; but, being aware of the intention of the Canadian Legislature to divert these funds from their application to ecclesiastical purposes, he had refused to give them power in the matter, and had wisely reserved it for Imperial legislation. He had only one word further to say upon a subject which he thought was not fully understood by the public. It was generally considered in this country that the change was desired by the whole Canadian population as well as by a majority in the Canadian Assembly. Now that was not so. There was a considerable minority in the Canadian Legislature against any change; and that minority had increased of late in Upper Canada, who were, after all, the only Members the House need consider, because the Members for Lower Canada represented a Roman Catholic and a French population, and had no interest in these reserves. The minority in Upper Canada had increased of late from 22 to 24, and not only that, but the minority was really returned by a larger constituency than the majority, the one body being elected by 24,000 votes, the other by 23,500. It was stated by the right rev. Prelate that this agitation had been the growth of the last three or four years. It was true that there had been for a long time in Canada an agitation respecting these reserves; but it was to be remembered that these very agitations induced the Canadian Legislature, in 1839, to place the settlement of this question in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, because it was a question which they could not

121
settle themselves. It was in consequence of that reference that the present settlement was come to in 1840; and so late as 1846, when Mr. Price, a Member of the Canadian Legislature, was urged to reagitate the question, he said he was unwilling to disturb the Act of 1840, which had been so advantageous to the people of Canada. All he (the Earl of Desart) could say was, that the people of Canada might justly complain that to a certain extent they had been taken by surprise by the proposal of the Government; for though the late Government had stated their willingness to consider the redistribution, they had not admitted for a moment the principle of diverting the fund from its existing—that was to say from ecclesiastical—purposes. These remarks he (the Earl of Desart) felt bound to make in the absence of his noble Friend the head of the late Government, and in consequence of his recent connection with the Colonies.
On Question, agreed to.

THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
LORD COLCHESTERthen asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay before the House any Consolidation and Amendment of the Laws relating to the Mercantile Marine? Their Lordships were all well aware that it was the policy of this country to encourage British shipping and British seamen, and to promote that object no fewer than ten or eleven Acts of Parliament were passed, defining and regulating the duties, powers, and privileges of the Mercantile Marine of this country. The question had come before the Board of Trade last summer, and it had been decided to consolidate the whole into one general Act. The Bill was prepared accordingly, with great care, and it had received the most minute attention from the right hon. Gentleman the President of that department (Mr. Henley.) The change of Government had, however, prevented it from being laid before Parliament. There was another subject which was of great importance also to the shipping interest—namely, the establishment of schools for seamen. Two schools were already in existence, and he (Lord Colchester) desired to know if it was the intention of the Government to continue and to extend these excellent institutions?
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEYadmitted that these subjects were of the greatest importance; but as his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Trade
122
had given notice for Tuesday next, of a Bill for Pilotage and other cognate subjects, and as on that occasion his right hon. Friend would refer to the subject of these questions in the course of his explanations, he trusted the noble Lord would excuse him from replying on that occasion.
House adjourned to Thursday next.