Sitting of 28 February 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Slave Trade (New-Granada); Slave Trade (Sohar, in Arabia); Commons Inclosure (No. 2).

CLITHEROE ELECTION COMMITTEE.
MR. MILNES GASKELL, the Chairman of the Clitheroe Election Cammittee, appeared at the bar and reported, that the Committee had unanimously determined that Matthew Wilson, Esq., was not duly elected a Burgess to serve in the present Parliament for the Borough of Clitheroe; that the last Election for the said Borough
734
was a void Election; and that the Committee had unanimously agreed, that the said Matthew Wilson, Esq., was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating, at the last Election for the Borough of Clitheroe, but that it was not proved that such bribery and treating had been committed with the consent or knowledge of the said Matthew Wilson, Esq. The Committee also reported that it appeared that extensive and systematic treating, together with other corrupt and illegal practices, prevailed at the last Election for the said Borough; that violent and tumultuous proceedings appear to have taken place at the said Election, and that hired bands of men, armed with sticks and bludgeons, were introduced into the said Borough for purposes of undue influence and intimidation.
Report to lie on the table.

FROME ELECTION COMMITTEE.
MR. G. A. HAMILTON, the Chairman of the Frome Election Committee, appeared at the bar and reported that the Committee had determined that Colonel the Hon. Robert Edward Boyle, having at the time of the last Election held an office of profit under the Crown, created since the 25th day of October, 1705, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Frome; that the Election for the Borough of Frome is a void Election.
BRIDGENORTH ELECTION COMMITTEE.
MR. BOUVERIE, the Chairman of the Bridgenorth Election Committee, appeared at the bar and reported that the Committee had determined that Henry Whitmore, Esq., is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bridgenorth; that Sir Robert Pigot, Bart., is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bridgenorth; that the last Election for the said Borough is a void Election, so far as regards the ret urn of the said Sir Robert Pigot; that Sir Robert Pigot was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the last Election; that it was proved to the Committee that Joseph Mason was bribed with the payment of 10 l., but that it was not proved that such bribery was committed with the knowledge or consent of Sir Robert Pigot; that the Committee have ordered that all costs and expenses incurred by reason of such unfounded allegations shall be paid by the petitioners and their sureties to the said Henry Whitmore, Esq.

EXCHEQUER LOAN FUND.
MR. RICHsaid, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he proposed to pursue with regard to loans issuable by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners Act, 57 Geo. III., cap. 24; also, whether any portion of the 633,000 l!. which, from a return from these Commissioners, appears to be the amount of interest on the repayment of loans estimated as likely to accrue in 1852, will be applied to the liquidation of the public debt, in the event of a diminution or cessation of such loans?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the question which had been put by the hon. Gentleman divided itself into two parts; the latter part of which, perhaps, he had better answer first. It was, "whether any portion of the 633,000 l. which, by a return from these Commissioners, appears to be the amount of interest on, and repayment of, loans estimated as likely to accrue in 1852, will be applied to the liquidation of the public debt in the event of a diminution or cessation of such loans?" And the former part was, "what course the Government proposed to pursue generally on the subject of loans under the Exchequer Loan Fund Act?" In the first place, with regard to the application of the sum of 633,000Z., and of all the repayments of the Exchequer Loan Fund, as they might come in, the application of those sums was already provided for by Statute, and would go forward, independently of any intervention of that House, in the regular course. There was likewise a provision by Statute for the issue, subject to the discretion of the Government, of the sum of 75,000 l. per quarter for the purposes of the Exchequer Loan Fund; and the idea upon which that sum was fixed was that it would balance the average repayments. The provision made, therefore, by law at present was this: that there was power to issue 300,000 l. annually in four quarterly payments of 75,000 l. each, for the purpose of new advances to be made by the Exchequer Loan Fund Commissioners; and there was also a provision for carrying the repayments of the Commissioners as they came into the account of Ways and Means for the year. The repayments were going on without any intervention on the part of the Government. But at the close of the last quarter, on examining the state of the account, it appeared that the coming demands on the fund were not likely to
736
absorb the whole amount standing to its credit, and consequently he thought it his duty to stop the payment of the sum of 75,000 l., which would have been carried to the credit of the fund for the last quarter. That was the only step of any kind that had been taken since he came into office with regard to the actual distribution of the fund. With regard to the general question, as to what course the Government proposed to take on the subject of the Exchequer Loan Fund, the course which he had pursued was this. It did not appear to him that the papers on the table of the House contained information sufficiently full and distinct to enable the House to form a satisfactory and final judgment on the expediency of continuing the system of the Exchequer Loan Fund; or, on the other hand, of abolishing it, as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). The House was aware that the Exchequer Loan Fund Commission had been in the habit of discharging by one and the same machinery very different functions. It had been, firstly, in the habit of making loans on its own discretion exclusively, after inquiry into the merits of the applications submitted; and, secondly, it had also been used by Parliament as an organ for issuing money under compulsion for purposes which had been called loans, but which had rather been in the nature of gifts obtained under false pretences. It had likewise been in the habit of issuing money in various modes intermediate between those two, sometimes under positive order from the Treasury, and sometimes upon the recommendation of the Treasury. And, again, it had been in the habit of issuing money from special funds appropriated for particular purposes. Now, what he had desired to be done, and what he hoped soon would be accomplished, was this: that all the transactions under each of those heads should be carefully separated the one from the other; that a balance sheet should be prepared under each of those heads, in order that they might have the means of seeing what the Commissioners had done, whether as the organ of Parliament, or as the servants of the Treasury, or whether upon their own free discretion, or in any other capacity; and when they had obtained those returns, they would be able to see exactly the results of the transactions of the Exchequer Loan Fund up to the present time under each head. Then, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would

737
agree with him that Parliament and the Government would be in a condition to form a judgment upon the question whether it was expedient that the system of loans by the Exchequer Loan Fund Commissioners should or should not be continued.

THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—KAFIR WAR.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask a question of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, of which he had not given notice, and therefore, if it was inconvenient to answer it now, he would postpone it till to-morrow. But his question was with reference to the intelligence brought by the Indiana today from the seat of war in South Africa. He had lately put a question to the hon. Gentleman relating to the advance of troops against a fresh tribe, a very warlike one; and the hon. Gentleman informed him that the troops had advanced to their territory, but that he did not think it was likely to lead to hostilities. Now, he wished to know if there was any further information that the hon. Gentleman could communicate to the House which would in any way give a more satisfactory account of the hostilities than the one that had appeared in the public papers of that day; and if he would also inform the House whether the extension of the war into a fresh territory was intended to be progressive, and whether the constitution which he had understood from the hon. Gentleman was certainly to go out by the next mail, would leave the conduct of the war and the defence of the frontier, the recapture of cattle, and the retaliation of depredations, to the Colony itself to maintain?
MR. FREDERICK PEEL, in reply, said, that though the hon. Member had not given him any notice of his intention, yet, anticipating that he might ask some such question, he had taken the precaution of looking at General Cathcart's despatches received that morning. The hon. Member was aware that General Cathcart went into the Orange River territory for the purpose of compelling Moshesh to pay a fine which had been imposed on him in the early part of last year by the two Assistant Commissioners (Major Hogg and Mr. Owen), in consequence of robberies of cattle and horses committed by his people. General Cathcart proceeded into the territory,, and on the 13th of December called on Moshesh to pay a certain fine, which
738
Moshesh objected to do. On the non-payment of the fine, an advance took place on the part of our troops, which terminated in an encounter, the particulars of which were accurately published in the papers of that morning. The result of that encounter, although attended with considerable loss of life to the Queen's troops, and to the 12th Lancers in particular, was the complete submission of the chief Moshesh; and, as a proof of the sincerity of his submission and of its reality, he (Mr. Peel) might mention, that the week afterwards one of the Assistant Commissioners (Mr. Owen) had an interview with that chief, who assisted him in burying the officers and soldiers killed on that occasion. General Cathcart had returned to Graham's Town; and he would read what that officer said with regard to the state of the territory in question, and the prospect of peace being re-established along the whole frontier. In a despatch from General Cathcart, dated Graham's Town, Jan. 13th, he wrote—
"The Orange River Territory is at peace, as well as the whole extent of the frontier, 400 miles of which I have traversed on my return."
And, referring to certain terms he had offered to the chief Kreili beyond the Kei, General Cathcart added—
"These I have no doubt he will willingly subscribe to, and I think they will complete the final accomplishment of the task imposed on me when I assumed this command: that of the reduction of the rebellious Kafirs and Hottentots, their complete submission, and the restoration of permanent peace and security to the colonial frontiers."

THE FACTORY ACT.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in presenting a petition from Todmorden, complaining of the evasion of the provisions of the Factory Act by certain master manufacturers, he would avail himself of that opportunity to put to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department the question of which he had given notice. The House would remember that they had been told on the passing of the Compromise Act, as it was called, in 1850, that that Act would be received by the manufacturers as a final settlement of the question, and that its provisions would be loyally and cheerfully carried out by them. He regretted, however, to see from the last half-yearly Report of the Factory Inspectors that the evasion of the law in some parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire

739
had lately been most systematic; and, he regretted to add, with perfect impunity. Mr. Horner, in his Report, said—
"I regret to say that the offence of working young persons and women for a greater number of hours daily than is legal, long complained of, still prevails to a considerable extent in some parts of my district. In my last two reports I have dwelt at some length on this subject—on the wilful commission of the fraud by persons of large property—on the mean contrivances to which they have recourse in order to elude detection—and the obstacles which the Inspectors meet with, from the imperfect provisions of the Act, in their endeavours to put down an evil so great as a systematic violation of the law—one so justly complained of by millowners who are strictly obeying the Act. All that I have stated in these Reports is equally applicable to the last half-year and to the present time."
MR. HUMErose to order, because, if this question of the noble Lord's was to merge into a statement of the case, he should ask permission to be allowed to answer it. He had a strong opinion upon this subject, and he did not think it fair that a statement of this kind should be made without any opportunity of a reply being presented.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood the noble Lord to be only reading an extract from a report.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was merely clearing the way so as to make the question intelligible. The extract he was about to read was this:—
"This illegal working of young persons and women will never be effectually put down without an amending Act, which shall take away the facilities for evading detection and punishment now existing, which shall make the occupier of the factory alone responsible, and which shall, moreover, inflict, as the lowest penalty, such a sum as will at least considerably diminish the gain by fraudulent working; for the shame of a prosecution appears to be no restraint on such men."
In a newspaper published in Manchester only on Saturday last, no less than seven distinct firms were reported as being charged with and convicted of evading the provisions of this Act. He begged, therefore, to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure, or to take any steps whatever, for the preventing of such evasions for the future? On the part of the working people it was evident that these attempts to evade the provisions of the Act would lead to—["Order, order!"]
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the
740
Government would see that the present Act was duly enforced; and, if it should appear that there were difficulties in the way which prevented the proper execution of the laws, it would be their duty then to consider whether, perhaps, any and what amendment of that Act could be effected.
Subject dropped.

THE SIX-MILE BRIDGE AFFAIR.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANEsaid, that in accordance with the notice he had given, he begged to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether the exposition of the law with regard to the duty of soldiers in riots or on emergencies, as set forth by Judge Perrin in his charge to the grand jury of the county of Clare on the subject of the Six-mile Bridge affair, was really the law, and whether it was in accordance with the opinions of Her Majesty's legal advisers?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that in answer to the question which the noble Lord bad done him the honour to put to him, he had only to say that he thought it was the duty of the Attorney General, as well as of other members of the profession to which he belonged, to take the law as it came from the Judges; and he hoped, therefore, the noble Lord would not think him inconsistent if he declined to pass any judgment upon the law as it fell from the learned Judge on the occasion referred to.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANEthen gave notice that on Friday, March 4, on the Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, he would move—"First, that the exposition of the law as set forth by Judge Perrin, with regard to the duty of soldiers employed for the suppression of riots, or on emergencies, is in direct contradiction to the instructions contained in Her Majesty's regulations for the Army, and antagonistic to the principles laid down in the Mutiny Act; second, that in the opinion of this House the soldiers of the 31st Regiment were fully justified in their conduct on the occasion of the riot at Six-mile Bridge, and are entitled to commendation for the discipline and forbearance they showed on that occasion."

THE NORWICH ELECTION PETITION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, in pursuance of notice he had given, he would now move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the petitions against the return of the sitting Members

741
for the city of Norwich have been withdrawn; and that the petitions presented to this House upon the 24th day of February be referred to the said Committee.
MR. WARNERsaid, he did not mean to oppose the Motion, but he wished to state, as one of the Members who had been petitioned against, that he had no acquaintance whatever with Mr. Brown, the Parliamentary agent, and was ignorant of the motives which had induced him to withdraw the petition; but he begged to state that no offer of a compromise was ever made to him, and that, had such an offer been made, it would have been most distinctly rejected.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read. On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to one or two points respecting the administration of the Army, previous to Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair. In 1837 a Committee was appointed to consider the various Naval and Military sinecures, and the general pay to colonels of regiments, with a view, if possible, of putting an end to the outcries then being raised against colonels of regiments being tailors, and curtailing the vestments of the soldiers for their own profit. That Committee consisted of a great portion of the members of the present Government, and they recommended that the allowances to colonels of regiments of the line should not be less than 1,000 l. But they made a distinction. They agreed that the regiment held by the Duke of Wellington should, in consideration of the great and glorious services rendered by his Grace, be exempt from the alteration proposed by them, and that no change should be made in the emoluments attaching to the colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards, so long as the Duke should hold the command. Agreeably to that recommendation, an exception was made in the case of that regiment and of the Coldstream and Fusileer Guards, and it was agreed that the colonelcies of those regiments should he retained as the reward of long and distinguished services. He complained, however, that the late Government had not attended to the recommendation of that Committee on the demise of the Duke of Wellington, but had conferred the command of the Grenadier and Fusileer regi-
742
ments—the first valued at 3,000 l., and the other at 2,000 l. yearly—upon Prince Albert and the Duke of Cambridge respectively, without any reduction of the allowances. Now, although he was willing to give all possible credit to Prince Albert, and to acknowledge that he filled the position he now held with credit to himself and advantage to the country, he thought the appointment of his Royal Highness and of the Duke of Cambridge was an interference with the recommendations of the Committee, and that he was warranted, therefore, as a member of that Committee, and the person who had moved for it, to call the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers and the House to a proceeding which was an infraction of the recommendations of that Committee. The right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) well recollected those recommendations, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to state his opinion of them. He begged also to call the attention of the Government to another important point. No one was more anxious than himself to produce efficiency in the Army, and he had therefore for many years pressed upon the House the advisability of removing an anomaly which existed in this country as regarded the civil administration of the Army. In 1837 a Commission was appointed, of which Earl Grey, then Lord Howick, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell), and Sir John Hobhouse, were members; and they recommended, in page 9 of their Report—
"1. That the greater part of the authority, with reference to the Army, which at present belongs to the Secretaries of State, should, for the future, be vested in the Secretary at War. 2. An alteration should be made in the form of the appointment of the Secretary at War:—First, that he should in future be always a member of the Cabinet, Second, that he should be the Minister by whom the advice of the Cabinet, as to the amount of the military establishments, should be laid before the King. Third, that he should be the person to consider and act on all points with the Commander-in-Chief on behalf of the Administration, and to be immediately responsible to Parliament for all the measures of the Government with reference to the Army. Fourth, that he should assume all the merely formal duties relating to the subject now performed by the Secretaries of State, such as the preparing and countersigning of military commissions, and the issuing of orders for the delivery of arms to the troops."
And at page 10 of the Report:—
"3. The Secretary of State, to whom the civil administration of our numerous colonies, with all

743
their complicated interests, is intrusted, cannot possibly give the attention to the subject (amount and distribution of the Army) which it requires. 4. The Secretary at War, by whom the Army Estimates are now moved in the House of Commons, seems to us to be the person to whom the important duty of watching over the whole military administration of the country should properly be committed. 5. To give him (the Secretary at War) a direct control over those large branches of business relating to the military service of the country which are now managed by the Board of Ordnance and by the Commissariat department of the Treasury. 6. With respect to the Ordnance, we think this might best be accomplished by dividing the civil from the military duties of that department. First. The latter (the military duties) should be left, as at present, in charge of the Master General, who should exercise the same authority he now has in all matters of discipline, promotion, &c, subject only to the general orders of the Government, to be conveyed to him, as we have already explained, by the Secretary at War, instead of by the Secretary of State. Second. He should also retain under his immediate orders the Inspector General of Fortifications, and be charged with the duty of superintending the execution of all military works. 7. The civil business, on the other hand, should be brought under the more direct control of the Secretary at War, by making the board officers, by whom it is more immediately conducted, subordinate to him instead of the Master General and Board of Ordnance; so that their separate divisions of the business would become branches of the War Office, and the whole expenditure connected therewith would be provided for in the general Army estimates."
He wished to see a Minister of War who should be responsible for all matters connected with war and the defence of the country. The Ordnance expenditure amounted to no less than 3,000,000 l per annum, and there would be both a reduction of expense and an increase of efficiency in bringing the present establishment in Pall-mall under the control of the Horse Guards. He thought it very objectionable that the Ordnance should be kept separate from the rest of the Army, and also that the function of deciding the number of troops to be voted by Parliament should be committed to the Secretary for the Colonies, instead of the Secretary at War. All these arrangements tended to inefficiency and expense. The Secretary for the Colonies had the charge of forty-two dependencies, any one of which would be sufficient to occupy the time and attention of an ordinary man, and he could not possibly have the leisure requisite for attending to the administration of the Army. He considered that the management of the Army wanted an entire change—responsibility, economy, concentration, and individual action, and that by judicious alterations an enormous saving of expense might
744
be effected. He wished to know whether the Government meant to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, or whether they were prepared with any other suggestions on the subject?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, in reference to the observations which his hon. Friend made on the question of fusing the Ordnance and Army administrations into one department, he would recall to the hon. Member's recollection that though a Committee had made recommendations tending' to that result, and though during the several years that had elapsed Members of that Committee, whose opinions were favourable to it and carried great weight with the House, had filled various posts in the Government, and yet had not attempted to enforce the views recommended by that Committee, as also by the Commission appointed to inquire into the administration of the Army. He believed that, with the experience they had since acquired, their views had been modified in respect to the expediency of carrying out the recommendations thus made. Supposing that a separate Ministry for the War Department solely were constituted, as his hon. Friend wished, he asked how the Minister could decide what amount of military force would be requisite either for this country or the Colonies, without first of all consulting the two Secretaries of State for the Home and Colonial Departments? That seemed to be rather a question of form, therefore, than substance. His hon. Friend differed essentially from the recommendations of the Committee in one particular, because he thought that the military administration both of the Army and Ordnance should be placed in the same hands, whereas the recommendations of the Committee applied to the civil branch of the administration only. He could not give his hon. Friend any assurance under these circumstances that the Government intended to carry out the recommendations of the Committee as given in their report: for whenever the subject came to be dealt with, those recommendations would require careful revision, and the whole subject to be reconsidered.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he wished to say, as his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had appealed to him, that when he accepted the office of Secretary at War, he had done so only on con-condition that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into all the emoluments of the Army. One of the reasons why he moved for that Committee was, that his

745
hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), thelate Sir Henry Parnell, and other hon. Gentlemen, used to keep them four or five weeks discussing almost every item of the Estimates, stating from other official sources very different facts from those given by the persons in authority with reference to the accounts of Army expenditure. It did so happen, and it was a very great gratification to him, that during the whole of the sittings of that Committee, composed as it was of the most eminent Members on both sides of the House, the late Sir Robert Peel, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), the present Viscount Hardinge, and other important personages, it was not his misfortune to differ from his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose in respect to any of the questions which were submitted to the decision of the Committee. It was owing to the inquiries made by the Committee that they had been since enabled to pass the Army Estimates in a single night's discussion. In reference to the regiments of Guards, the Committee had recommended that the emoluments of the Duke of Wellington, as colonel of the Grenadier Guards, amounting to between 4.000 l and 5.000 l., should not be interfered with during the Duke's lifetime. It was also agreed that the allowance for the colonelcies of the three regiments of foot guards should be fixed at 3,000 l. for the Grenadier Guards, and 2,000 l. for each of the other two, and that they should be reserved as rewards to be given for distinguished military services. To that proposition he (Mr. Ellice) obtained his hon. Friend's vote, and the unanimous vote of the Committee. He could not sit down without expressing his great regret at the statement just made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War. He knew as well as his right hon. Friend, the great difficulty of approaching the question of amalgamation of the Army and Ordnance administrations; but he told the House that, unless the question was seriously taken up, and some measures adopted which would ensure responsible control over the Army expenditure in its various branches, the House need not expect to ensure economy in the future administration of the Army. He had sat last year on a Committee for Inquiry into the Commissariat, and he found that there was an immense expenditure intrusted to the civil officers of the two branches of the Ordnance and Commissariat. It appeared that the Ordnance officers in some colonies were doing the
746
same duty as the Commissariat, and he believed that one officer might do the work of both departments. He could not understand why this country should be called upon to pay the expense of police in Canada; for no other purpose could small bodies of soldiers be kept up throughout that country. There was a great disposition on the part of the witnesses connected with the Army, Navy, Ordnance, or Commissariat, to defend their profession, and especially to defend the particular situations they held. But the duty of that House was to take care that the public service was carried on with as few employés as possible. But when they were told that no steps were to be taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committees, and that it would be impossible for the Secretary at War to know what the relative force at home and abroad ought to be, surely that individual, being a Member of the Cabinet, might concert with the Secretaries for the Home Department and the Colonies as to the forces necessary, and then it would be in his power to exercise a general control over the expenditure of the forces, which was all that he was wanted to do. But, if nothing was to be done to centralise or control the expenditure, it made him despair to find we were to go on without the least reform or additional economy in matters in which savings could be made. How was it possible for the Secretary for the Colonies to attend to the constitutional affairs of the Colonies, and at the same time to control their military expenditure? He had so much to do that he could not possibly find time for such matters.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid that some mistake might arise if he did not say a few words on what had fallen from his right hon. Friend. It seemed to him that the observations of his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War had not been altogether correctly apprehended by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. His right hon. Friend had no intention whatever of saying that nothing whatever should be done with regard to the great question of consolidating the Army and Ordnance departments. All that his right hon. Friend said was, that it behoved the Government to observe a due and prudent reserve in any determination which they might adopt with reference to the subject. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellice), however, had travelled into a much larger

747
subject—to one, which he agreed with him, was of vital importance. In his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion, the main and principal hope which justified
the House in looking forward to a reduction in the military expenditure was to he found in the course which our colonial policy might take. Certainly, he should be sorry at that, almost the first moment of their accession to office, if it went forth that Her Majesty's Government felt any indifference on such a subject; and he, therefore, should beg to assure his right hon. Friend that no such indifference existed. But his right hon. Friend would agree with him that it was impossible for those who acceded to office only at the commencement of January to have so framed the Ordnance Estimates of this year as to give adequate consideration to the subject: it was quite impossible to have made the necessary communication with the Colonies. But in the principle? which the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) laid down, he most heartily concurred, though none did so more heartily than those who were charged with the destinies of our Colonial Empire. It was impossible, however, for his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies to take extensive measures with regard to the military posts in Canada until he had an opportunity of communicating with the Governor General, and it was impossible to put the Governor General in a condition to examine into a question so important in time to embody the result in the Estimates then upon the table of the House. One little crumb of comfort, however, he could give his right hon. Friend with regard to Canada; and, though the change effected was perhaps of not much value as far as regarded the amount of money in question, still it was important in principle. The House and his right hon. Friend were very conversant with the name of the Rideau Canal. It was very well known that enormous sums of British money were expended in its construction; in fact, it had swallowed up more hundreds of thousands of pounds than he cared to name, and without any commensurate benefit to the Home Treasury. Her Majesty's Government, however, were of opinion that the outlay on this account should be put an end to, and a correspondence on the subject had taken place between the Home and Colonial Government. The Colonial Government pleaded poverty, and though Her Majesty's Government did not return exactly a similar plea, they formed a very
748
strong conviction that things ought to come to an issue. Demands had come from Canada on account of the repairs of certain locks on the Rideau Canal, and it was proposed to provide for them in the Ordnance Estimates for the year; but the Government, holding in mind the determination which had been formed, entirely declined to submit the matter to Parliament, and the charge was therefore struck out of the Estimates. The vote was of no great consequence—a few thousands; but it showed the view which the Government were inclined to take of the necessity of reducing our colonial expenditure as much as possible. He hoped his right hon. Friend would hold this to be indicative of what the feelings of Her Majesty's Government were on the subject he had referred to. There was, however, another portion of the Colonial Empire with regard to which a similar determination had been come—namely, with respect to the West India Islands. It appeared to the Government that nothing could be more ridiculous in a military point of view, or nothing could be more unnecessary in a social point of view, than the maintenance of a vast number of small Ordnance establishments in these islands. His noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had, therefore, determined to concentrate the Ordnance establishments in the principal West India colonies. He was unable to say that many of those charges were erased from the Estimates of the present year, but he was in a position to state that his noble Friend had come to the conclusion to diminish the number of those establishments. He hoped his right hon. Friend would feel satisfied with the explanations which he had given.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he only wished to observe, in reply, that he was the last person in the world to impugn the good intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers; and that if the observations of his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War had been as full and explanatory as those of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should not have felt it necessary to have said anything.
House in Committee; Mr. Wilson Fatten in the Chair.
(1.) 17,598 l. Ordnance Military Corps.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he trusted he should be able to satisfy the Committee that the expenditure to be provided for in the present Estimates, though in excess of the previous year, could not be reduced without detriment to the public service. He might

749
observe, that almost every recommendation made by the Committee of 1849 had been carried out in reference to the department. The duties of storekeeper and barrack-master had been combined in several additional instances, especially in the West India and other colonies; and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just announced, it was the intention of the Government still further to reduce the colonial expenditure. With regard to stores, the Committee's recommendation had also been strictly followed, and with the most satisfactory results. The first vote was 807,507 l. for pay, allowances, and contingencies for 17,598 officers, non-commissioned officers, and men composing the several Ordnance military corps. This vote was 12,642 l. less than the vote of last year. The second vote was 373,217 l. for commissariat and barrack supplies for Her Majesty's forces, great coats for the Army, clothing for the militia, &c. The increase in the number of the artillery had been made at the least possible expense: no new commissioned officers had been appointed; the additional strength which had been given to that arm of the service being confined to men and non-commissioned officers. With regard to the state of the artillery, it had never been more effective than at present; and some of the eminent foreign officers who had visited this country on the occasion of the Duke of Wellington's funeral, had, since their return home, expressed their high opinion of the organisation of our artillery, and of its merits as an effective force. He might add, that those improvements to which his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War had alluded on Friday night as having been carried out in regard to the general Army, had been adopted in the artillery also. The schools, which had been added to considerably, were flourishing; and, besides the ordinary schools, there was one at Woolwich in which geometry, mensuration, the theoretical knowledge of fortifications, and other branches of instruction connected with the artillery service, were taught. There were at the present time twenty-four non-commissioned officers in regular attendance at that school. There were also similar schools established in the Colonial and other stations. There were libraries at many of those stations, and at Woolwich. In the Woolwich library for non-commissioned officers there were 3,399 volumes, and it had 426 subscribers, the public contributing only 30 l. a year to-
750
wards it, the subscriptions paying the rest of the expense. In the gunners' library there were 4,000 volumes; the number of subscribers was 898, and the cost to the public only 41 l. It was gratifying to know that there had been a considerable improvement within the last few years in the health of this force. In 1849–50 the mortality was at the rate of 17¼ in the 1,000. In 1850–51 it was 16| in the 1,000, and in the last year it was only 12½ to the 1,000. With regard to punishment, there had been a considerable diminution, he was happy to say, in the number of instances in which corporal punishment had been inflicted during the last two years. In 1849 the number of corporal punishments had been twenty-three, the average strength of the force being 10,000; in 1850 the number was only nine, the average strength being about 11,000; in 1851 it wag also nine, the strength being more than 11,000; and in 1852 the number was reduced to five, the average strength being 12,000 men. In the latter half of that year there had been no case of corporal punishment in the artillery in Great Britain. There was one point in regard to the practical education of the artillery, upon which, probably, the Committee might consider there was some reason to complain—that was, the absence of a sufficient practice ground at Woolwich. It was true there were practice grounds at Shoeburyness and Sheerness; but they could not be used by more than two companies each, and it was therefore impossible to give the men that practice which was necessary for their perfect efficiency. He adverted to this in order to afford the Committee an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. In this vote there was an increase of 71,528 l. over the vote of last year, which was occasioned by the forage of 1,000 extra horses, the increased price of rations, two months' forage for Ireland, which last year was provided for by the Commissariat department, the clothing for the militia, and an additional charge for great coats to make up the stock, which at the commencement of the year was lower than necessary. In the next vote, for Salaries and Contingencies of the Ordnance Office, there was a decrease of 1,611 l., but it was occasioned chiefly by the transference of certain parts of that establishment to the Tower. In the fifth vote, Establishments at Home and in the Colonies, there was an excess over the amount granted last year of 3,344 l., a portion of which

751
was occasioned by the transfer of certain charges from other departments. For the establishments at home 4,644 l. more was required than in the last year; but 1,300 l. less would suffice for the establishments abroad, the increase at home being made up by the new charges for the establishment of the Tower. There was an extra charge for storekeepers consequent upon the establishment of a convict establishment at Perth, in Western Australia, which had rendered a military establishment necessary; but there was a reduction in the charge for barrack masters in Canada, Jamaica, Halifax, and Hobart Town. The next vote was for Wages, and the amount was 141,437 l., while that of last year was but 124,346 l., the excess being 17,091 l., which arose principally from additional works at the various manufactories at Woolwich, the charge for which was over 19,000 l. That amount, however, was reduced by about 2,000 l. in the colonial charge, arising principally from the decision to which the Government had come, and to which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded, namely, to at once terminate the expenditure, as far as this country was concerned, on account of the Rideau Canal. The next vote was for Stores; but before proceeding to that he would shortly refer to the course now pursued by the Ordnance department in regulating the stores at the various depots. It would be recollected that great dissatisfaction was expressed by the Committee of 1849 at the accumulation of obsolete and unserviceable stores, and the attention of the principal storekeeper was directed to the subject with a view to the removal of the anomalies that then existed. The Committee might not perhaps be aware that half-yearly returns were now required from all the establishments at home and in the colonies of the quantity and description of stores in stock, showing what were serviceable and what were not. But in addition to these, triennial returns—more elaborate and searching returns—were sent in, to test the manner in which the half-yearly returns were made out. The question, however, was, whether the system which had been established had succeeded or not? He believed it had, and he would state why. He had called frr returns of unserviceable and obsolete stores at Quebec, Gibraltar, and Dublin, and in each of these stations there were hardly any of that description. The unserviceable stores had either been sold on
752
the spot, or, if worth the expense, sent home. He believed in the other colonies and stations the same results would be found, and that no stores were now in stock which were not serviceable; and a Committee, appointed by the Treasury last year, had reported that the system was now so complete that they did not think any improvement in the mode of keeping down surplus stores could be effected. That Committee deliberately stated that "it did not appear to them that any improvement can be made in the system under which the depots of Naval and Ordnance stores are at present maintained." One great item in the excess of this vote was the charge for arms consequent on the introduction of a more efficient description of small arms into the service. There was also an additional sum for guns, gun-carriages, and for 200 new shot furnaces. The vote required for works, buildings, and repairs was 695,655 l., which was 246,627 l. in excess of last year's vote. This excess was caused chiefly by fortifications. One of the principal items was connected with the fortification of our great naval arsenals, which at present were not safe against the assault of an enemy. It was hardly possible to conceive that any person could object to this expenditure; for, whatever difference of opinion might prevail as to the expediency of providing naval arsenals in the first instance, there could be none as to the necessity of maintaining them in a state of efficiency now that they were formed. It was perfectly obvious that in a few hours injury might be done to them, which, as a mere matter of money, putting aside national honour and means of naval defence, would be most serious. The average amount expended on works of defence since 1815 was very small. It would probably cause surprise when he stated that the country had spent on an average only 13,000 l. a year in providing for defences. Even in the period since 1846, during which the attention of Parliament and the public had been more particularly directed to the subject, we had spent only at the rate of 32,000 l. a year upon works. There were, he believed, few countries which had not during the same period expended larger sums upon single fortifications than we had done upon the whole of our defences. Under these circumstances, and considering that the attention of the country was now, for the first time, roused to the necessity of providing for its defences, the Committee

753
would not be surprised that the sum required for fortifications was larger than munl. The total amount which would be required for fortifications was 85,904 l., and for fortifying the arsenals, 57,472 l. There was also 60,000 l. required for improvements in the fortifications of the Channel Islands, and for barracks connected with those fortifications, 33,400 l., amounting together to 236,776 l. There was also an item of 7,100 l. for the repurchase of a workhouse in Cork, which was originally erected as a barracks, but had been taken, in 1840, by the Poor Law Commissioners, for the purposes of the Poor Law. There was 3551 l. for the purchase of the rent-charge of Richmond Barracks. There was a sum of 10,000 l. for the purchase of ground for the increase of the Wellington Barracks, which had been rendered necessary by the lease of the Portman Barracks being about to expire. There was also a sum of 3,050 l. for repairs of the Ordnance Office, and another of 7,868 l. for converting the vacated part of the Ordnance Office at the Tower into a storehouse. It would be remembered that the storehouses were burnt down in 1841, and since then, in consequence of the accumulation of stores, many of which were kept in tents, and some were now suffering serious injury from exposure to the weather, it was essential that these works should be proceeded with without delay. With regard to the buildings abroad, the excess was mainly to be accounted for by the necessity of rebuilding barracks which had been destroyed by a disastrous fire in Quebec, and for which 3,206 l. would be required. The Commit-tee was well aware of the fatal fever which had occurred at Barbadoes, and it was considered advisable to endeavour to improve the sanitary condition of the garrison by the building of a main drain at an outlay of 1,893 l 2. There were also sums of 1,485 l. for works in Jamaica, and of 12,981 l. for continuing the building of new barracks at Halifax, which were progressing rapidly. These were the principal items of excess, and the Committee would perceive that this excess had principally arisen out of the necessity which existed for placing the defences of the country in a respectable state. And here he might observe that if the different fortifications had not been suffered to fall into decay, the amounts required now would not have been so large. The next vote was for the scientific branch, on which there was an excess of 19,306 l.
754
Part of that excess would be found to be for the Ordnance survey, which the Government had thought it best and most economical to have it proceeded with, energetically and rapidly. There was an increase of 311 l. at Chatham for the expense of giving instruction to the soldiers of the line in field works. There was also an increase for the Royal Military Academy of 573 l. In the next vote, that for the non-effective department, there was a decrease on the last year's estimates of 1,141 l. He had thus endeavoured to explain the different items of diminution and excess in the year's Estimates; and he would only add that he should be happy to answer any questions which might be put to him by hon. Members. He would now beg to propose the first vote for 17,598 Officers and Men.
MR. HUMEsaid, that having already made some observations on the subject of the Ordnance on the Motion for going into Supply, and believing that there was no chance of doing anything to decrease these Estimates, he thought the best way would be to have the whole of these Votes read through by the Chairman, and agreed to at once. But he would only say, that if they went on spending money in this way, there could be no hope of any reduction of taxation. The amount of the present Estimates for the Ordnance was 3,053,567 l., while from 1829 to 1834 the average was 1,700,000 l. Since that time they had risen every year until last year, when they reached 2,529,821 l.; and in this year they had increased to their present amount. He would also compare the number of men voted in the present year with that in 1834 and the subsequent years, and which showed a great increase. He must also protest against the expenditure on barracks. It seemed, however, that people were quite mad on the subject of defence, and so alarmed that no one in that House could attempt with success to curb this expenditure. The best course would be to put all the items into one vote, and not enter into any particulars. In 1828 the number of men in the Artillery was 8,682, and now they were 17,598. The increase had been going on from that time, and now we had arrived at the present state of things. Something had been said about the necessity of getting a quantity of great coats, and it was said that it would be difficult to get contractors for them when they were wanted. Did any one ever hear of contractors being wanted?
MR. MONSELLsaid, that it was not contractors that would be wanted, but that it would not be easy to get the work completed on a sudden emergency, and so the great coats were kept in store.
MR. HUMEsaid, that this was the most objectionable part of the Ordnance. Why should there be three different contracts for the clothing of the Army and the Navy? The Ordnance supplied great coats to the Army, the rest of their clothing was supplied from another source, and the Navy was clothed by a third means of contract. Then, as to their fortifications, what was the use of all their Martello towers? They had built forts in those places which, if there was to be an invasion, would be avoided, and they left 500 places unprovided for. Amongst other things, he would refer to the absurd expenditure of 8,000,000 l. during the last war in fortifying the heights of Dover; and he appealed to the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir George Pechell), for a confirmation of the inefficiency of such means of defence as were proposed for the coast of Sussex. As it was his belief that it was perfectly hopeless to oppose the Estimates as proposed with any chance of success, therefore they had better be passed at once.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLhoped, that the Committee would take the advice of the hon. Member for Montrose, and vote the whole sum at once. Many of their fortifications were only objects of ridicule, particularly those in the neighbourhood of the Isle of Wight. If they wanted to have the country really defended, as it ought to be, it must be by the instrumentality of an efficient Navy, and not through brick and mortar. In 1849, when there was a demand for an increase in warlike stores, he asked for a return of the number of guns lying in the different arsenals of the country. After considerable delay and difficulty he procured that information, and he then discovered that they had 14.961 serviceable guns in the arsenals of Woolwich, Chatham, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Hull. In fact, they had in those four places 23,963 cannon, large and small. He observed an item of 8,000 l. for gunpowder. He supposed that this increased demand for gnnpowder was in consequence of the quantity expended in firing over the graves of military men. There were also 50,000 for great coats for the militia; and 41,000 l. for accoutrements, colours, &c, for the militia. The Committee were thus
756
called on to vote 100,000 l. for fitting out the militia, over and above the large sum they had voted before when the subject of the enrolment of the militia was under consideration; and of this the country had good cause to complain. He had no objection to their defensive measures in the Isle of Alderney, as they appeared to be so much afraid of the port of Cherbourg; but he altogether objected to the expenditure of the public money for fortifications above Rochester Bridge and at the Isle of Wight.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. and gallant Officer whether the report which was prevalent was true, namely, that the reason why the roll in Sussex for the militia force was not filled, was owing to what he must call, if the statement were correct, the extraordinary and improper conduct on the part of the large proprietors in that county, who held out the threat to young men anxious to serve in the militia, that if they did join that force they would never under such circumstances give them employment?
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he could not answer for what took place in every part of a county nearly 100 miles long and 30 miles wide; but this he knew, that some landowners there had declared that 100,000 men were ready to march to Manchester or Birmingham. In his district everybody was employed and satisfied. The people no longer put any trust in Protectionist landlords, but relied on their own resources. They were not frightened by the threatened humbug of invasion, but would be ready to come forward when any foe dared to attack their hearths and firesides.
GENERAL ANSONsaid, he had heard the hon. Member for Montrose suggest on a former occasion that it would be better to take the Estimates in a lump.
MR. HUME: You never heard that before. Never—never since I have been in Parliament.
GENERAL ANSONimagined that he had heard his hon. Friend say something very like it. He had at least heard him say that the Estimates were such a mass of confusion it was impossible to separate one item from another. He (Gen. Anson) had then pointed out to the House that unless they took the trouble of analysing the Estimates, and looking through them, it would be very difficult to understand them. The first thing was to separate them; and if his hon. Friend would do that, he was

757
sure that his mind was clear enough to see them in quite a different form. He made these remarks because the speeches of his hon. Friend led to the inference that those items were improperly put together, and he was anxious it should not go forth to the public that there was wasteful extravagance in this department. The hon. Member (Mr. Hume) spoke of a large increase in the Artillery; but scarcely another Gentleman in the House but himself would object to an increase of that valuable force, upon which this country must in a great degree depend in case of emergency. He was glad to see that the expense of the Ordnance Office was constantly diminishing. In connexion with the vote for Stores, he was glad to hear from the Secretary at War that a decision had at length been come to by the Government with respect to the musket to be adopted, which he understood would be very nearly two pounds weight lighter, and still carry a ball as heavy as the old percussion musket. He trusted that now the British troops would have a musket not to be excelled by the arms borne by any troops in Europe. His hon. Friend had made some observations about gunpowder. It must not be supposed that they did not require an annual vote for gunpowder. It was constantly being used, and he remembered his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir G. Pechell) making a demand for a quantity to be used on the Sussex coast in connexion with one of the Martello towers. The vote No. 7 was one of great importance, and had, no doubt, attracted the attention of the Committee. But upon such a subject there must be some degree of confidence placed in the Government which undertook measures for the defence of the country. In justice he must say that his noble Friend, who was at the Ordnance when he (Gen. Anson) was there, endeavoured as far as he could to induce the Government to carry out a great many of the works and measures of defence now proposed. Had his recommendations been followed, those works would now have been in a state of great forwardness. He (Gen. Anson) wished to know how it was that the sum for the survey of Scotland was increased from 25,000 l., the amount last year, to 35.000 l.? He did not in the least object to the increase to complete the survey, for the sooner it was done, provided it was done economically, the better.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, the hon. and gallant General had thought proper to
758
amuse the Committee by charging him with having been the cause of an expenditure of gunpowder, and he would therefore explain the circumstances to the Committee. The coast near Seaford was in danger from the inroads of the sea, the mouth of the harbour at Newhaven having changed, leaving a sort of driftway which would enable the sea to come behind this battery and the adjoining land, and do an enormous amount of mischief. A very patriotic gentleman resident in Brighton, having an interest in the neighbourhood, offered to pay the Ordnance a sum of money to assist in blowing up the cliff at Seaford, so as to form a groin, as had been done by the railway company at Dovor. The Ordnance undertook the task. A number of men were sent down, who made several galleries, and not one quarter of the gunpowder was ignited, so that the groin was not formed effectually, and the parties then demurred to paying the money. He believed the hon and gallant General might find some of his gunpowder still in the cliff at Seaford. That which was undertaken by the railway company had the proper effect, and that which was undertaken by the Ordnance had not.
COLONEL BLAIRsaid, the people of Scotland felt very great interest in the completion of the Ordnance survey in that part of the Kingdom, and he had no doubt they would agree with him that that object was now likely to be effected. He cordially approved of the Vote for that purpose.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was the conviction of Her Majesty's Government that if the Ordnance survey of Scotland was to go on, it ought to be pushed with rapidity and efficiency. At the same time, he was anxious that it should not be taken for granted that it would be carried out exactly on the same system as had heretofore prevailed. There were several counties in which the arrangements already made would be adhered to; but the Government thought it their duty to take a deliberate and comprehensive view of the whole subject, to make the best provisions in their power, and to press it forward with vigour, in order to place it on the best footing it was susceptible of, with reference to the interests of the Scottish counties, and indeed the country at large. They were considering, in fact, what improvements could be introduced in the manner in which the Ordnance survey had been hitherto carried on.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, no man was

759
more deserving of the gratitude of the country for his watchfulness in that House over the public money than his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). The Committee should remember that these estimates were increased in the present year by a sum of from 400,000 l. to 500,000 l.; and that it was duo to those who had to supply the money that the fullest explanation should be furnished upon the subject by the Government. He (Capt. Scobell) approved of the increase of 5,000 men in the Navy when it was proposed last year, regarding that branch of the public service as the natural and proper defence of the country. On the same occasion, however, he objected to the increase in the number of the Artillery. He found in the present Estimates, under the head of "levy money" for the Artillery, a sum of 8,444 l., and "marching money," 3,355 l. Now, as the number of men raised was only 1,210, that would give an average bounty of about 9l. 15 s. to each man, which was he believed far beyond that paid in the other branches of the service. Either this bounty was too high, or that for the line was too low; but in either case he thought the amounts ought to be equalised.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that at this moment, in the fortresses of Gibraltar and Malta, where he believed they had not a greater number of guns than were necessary, not more than one artilleryman would be found to a gun, and he understood that the same was the case in many other of our colonies. He was perfectly convinced there was no military force in this country which ought to be kept in a more efficient state than the Artillery. The principal question with him was, how we could best prevent the occurrence of an invasion at all; and he thought that any sum of money which that House could vote that would effect that object, would be a cheap sacrifice in the end. Of the corps of Artillery he had been an admirer from his earliest years. Year after year he had watched its increasing efficiency with the deepest and intensest interest. He was satisfied it was a most important branch of our military defences; and there was no assistance which that House could grant still further to augment its value that he would not gladly concur in. Upon the whole he was disposed to give the present Government credit for a determination to lay out the money which might be voted for the promotion of the best interests of the country; and until he saw that they took any other
760
course he was willing to repose faith in thorn.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he begged to say in reply to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell), that the same sum was paid as bounty and travelling expenses for recruits in the Artillery as was paid in the case of recruits for the regiments of the line.
MR. HUMEsaid, he agreed that the corps of Artillery was a most important arm of our military service; but he begged to remind the hon. and gallant Member (Admiral Walcott), that in the time of Pitt 4,846 men was the whole number of the Artillery establishment of Great Britain. And after the war, from 1815 to 1828, the number of men did not exceed 8,000. In his opinion the Artillery had been increased most immoderately since that period.
MR. LOCKHARTsaid, in reference to the Ordnance survey of Scotland, he begged to express a hope that the question of the cost of survey for towns would be reconsidered. In a sanitary point of view he deemed it of much importance.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(2.) 807,507 l., Pay Allowances, and Contingencies.
(3.) 373,217 l., Commissariat and Barrack Supplies.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he wished to draw attention to the present system of lighting barracks, which he considered a most objectionable one. The practice was to allow two candlesticks to a room, and if more were required the men were obliged to use ginger-beer bottles. An attempt had been made to light the barracks with gas; he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to adopt that mode of lighting? The existing mode of letting canteens, too, was not a good one. They were now let by tender, the highest bidder being usually accepted. The result was, that the canteen keepers screwed the soldiers to the greatest possible extent, and occasionally, as was the case not many days ago at Portsmouth, resorted to the use of false weights and measures. He thought a better system, and one more conducive to the comforts of the soldier, might be adopted; and he trusted the attention of the board would be directed to the subject.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, in some cases gas had been introduced, but in many instances the introduction of it would be so much more expensive, that they had been

761
obliged to forego it. With regard to canteens, it was a mistake to suppose that they always accepted the highest tender. They always inquired into the character of the party tendering.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he could assure the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Lindsay) that the Government were disposed to do everything they could for the comfort of the soldiers. The use of gas in the barracks had been a subject of consideration; but there existed some difficulty as to that mode of lighting being adopted. He might also state, that he believed gas would be more expensive than candles. With regard to the letting of canteens, it was always the practice of the Government to inquire into the character of the person whose tender was accepted.
MR. HUMEsaid, he did not consider the Government were entitled to derive a farthing from letting the canteens. The soldiers ought to be provided with reading and refreshment rooms similar to the coffee-shops, where they could have tea and coffee and read the newspapers, instead of being obliged to go to public-houses. Means of amusement, occupation, and instruction, should he afforded them.
Vote agreed to; as were also the two following Votes:—
(4.) 73,969 l., Ordnance Offices.
(5) 291,657 l., Establishments at Home and Abroad.
(6.) 141,437 l., Wages at Home and Abroad.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, he had to call the attention of the Committee to the great grievance under which his constituents at Portsmouth laboured, owing to the exemption of Government property from the poor-rates, the effect of which was, that the rates were much heavier on the inhabitants. The property in
question was occupied by the Government for national purposes, and it was unfair to throw the burdens which it ought to bear on the locality. If the place was not occupied by the Government docks, no doubt it would he the scene of great private enterprise, which would contribute largely to local taxation. It had been proved by a return in 1840 that the poor-rate at Portsmouth amounted to 6s. in the pound on the average, while it was only 1s, 3d. in other places on a similar rating. The exemption of the Government property was not statutable, but arose from the absence of beneficial occupancy of the premises. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, but the short an-
762
swer to that argument was, that in the Portsmouth dockyard certain officers, such as the naval storekeeper, &c, were made rateable, and the same might be done for the poor-rates.
MR. MONSELLsaid, the question raised by the noble Lord was one of great difficulty, and could not be discussed incidentally in a Committee of Supply. Would the people of Portsmouth, if they complained of this exemption, consent to having all these great public establishments, which gave work to so many inhabitants, withdrawn, and the land left idle?
VISCOUNT MONCKthought the same argument would apply quite as well to any private manufactory, or to the land occupied by any great private establishment.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) 371,697 l., Ordnance Stores.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he wished to inquire whether it was not the case that nearly half the new muskets served out to one regiment in the service had been returned to store, because the sights had not been put on properly? He was afraid the stores of another description served out sometimes were not very efficient, particularly the axes and billhooks. He knew an instance where two companies were set to clear a road through a wood, and the edges of all the axes and billhooks turned immediately.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he was not aware of any complaint against the axes and bill hooks, but he would inquire into the matter. He was sorry to say, however, that the statement of the hon. and gallant Officer respecting the sights on some muskets lately issued was too true. One-half of the muskets issued to a regiment of the Guards had been returned because they were not properly sighted. The Ordnance Board had at once given directions to their officers to inspect the guns, and had called in the assistance of two of the first gun-makers in London; but, as yet, they had not received any reply which would enable the Board to ascertain the quarter in which such culpable negligence existed.
COLONEL NORTHwished to know if it was the intention of the Board of Ordnance to increase the quantity of practice ammunition, as it was, he understood, the intention of the authorities to hire ground for practice in small arms?
MR. MONSELLreplied, it was a subject on which the Master General was extremely anxious, and that he had no doubt

763
every means would be taken to improve the troops in the use of their arms.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was not satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman respecting the muskets returned as unfit for service. Why should the Government be obliged to apply to private gun-makers? It was rather hard upon the country to pay so high, and then not to have men who could tell whether the Government guns were fit for service or not, or in what department the mischief was done.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) 695,655 l., Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he must ask for an explanation of the extraordinary works going on at Alderney, for which a sum of 160,000 l. was set down in the present Vote? Alderney was a little island with about 1,000 inhabitants in a most out-of-the-way place, and yet we were spending these enormous sums on it, while the amount to be voted against people supposed to be coming up the river to the metropolis was only 5,000 l.
MR. MONSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that works were going on at Alderney for a harbour of refuge, and that, considering the events which might occur at any time, it was necessary to protect that harbour. It was the opinion of the most eminent engineers and officers that at an inconsiderable expense Alderney might be made as strong as Gibraltar.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, no man in his senses would ever think of taking refuge in Alderney in bad weather. No seaman would approach it, unless he sought destruction. It really appeared as if this expenditure was going on without due control or consideration, and he should like to know on whose advice it was taking place.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that certain officers had been sent to report on the state of our defences some time ago, and to indicate those points which were vulnerable. They had made a Report, but the Committee which was sitting at the time, for reasons which were obvious, did not think it advisable the Report should be published.
MR. HUMEsaid, that was the humbug of the day. It was expedient to keep from the House that which any one might come over from the coast of France and see if he wished. All he wanted to know was, whether these officers had reported
764
that the harbour of Guernsey would hold more than one frigate?
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that without offering any opinion one way or the other respecting the harbour of refuge, he would beg to remind hon. Members that if they built a breakwater it would be necessary to protect it by fortifications.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he wished to inquire if any improvements had taken place in barrack accommodation for our troops? It was but too often the case that the way in which the men, and particularly the married soldiers, were provided for, was a disgrace to the country.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that efforts had been made to give the men as many comforts as possible in the new barracks; but he regretted to admit that, in the old barracks, there was still much to be done to make them fit for the proper accommodation of our troops.
MR. HENLEYsaid, we had laid out within the last ten years above 3,000,000 l. in the erection of barracks in the United Kingdom alone. A Committee that sat on the subject, in 1849, reported that accommodation was then given to about 95,000 men in barracks. Since that year about 300,000 l. had been expended in barrack building, and yet the accommodation to the soldiers was bad and inefficient. He did not begrudge the expenditure of large sums of money for public purposes, but he thought that the public should have the worth of their money; and that when large sums were laid out in the building of barracks, our soldiers should not have occasion to find fault with want of room and ventilation in them. He wanted to know if the new barracks contained sufficient space for the men, and were provided with canteens, to which they could retire without being expected to drink, and also if they had washhouses and baths?
MR. MONSELLobserved that the complaints which had been made came from the old barracks, and not from the new. He could not say how many cubic inches of air were allowed to each man; but he knew that regulations had been issued providing for sufficient space, and that the Master General had taken care to give the men every possible comfort and convenience in the new barracks.
CAPTAIN LINDSAYsaid, he willingly admitted that improvements had been carried to a great extent with respect to washing houses and baths, but still the soldiers had not sufficient accommodation.
COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he had never heard a word of complaint against the new barracks. He believed that they afforded proper and efficient accommodation to the soldiers lodged in them. The barracks erected in this country within the last ten years had cost not less than at the rate of 100 l. for every soldier contained within them. Indeed, that erected at Woolwich had cost at the rate of 150 l. for every soldier to whom it gave accommodation.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped the Government would turn their attention to the drainage of barracks. He noticed that the sum of 2,000 l. was required for the drainage of the cavalry barracks at Windsor. This was a large sum to be expended in that way.
MR. MONSELLsaid, the Windsor barracks were old barracks, the drainage of which had been conducted on the old system, and the alterations necessary were therefore extensive.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM, in answer to an hon. Member, said, there was already a breakwater at Alderney, where men of war and other vessels could take shelter. The question now entertained was as to whether that breakwater should be extended further or not, so as to include a larger area of water. That question had not yet been determined.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) 127,213 l., Scientific Branch.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must regret that the right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) should intend putting a stop to the naval surveys, which were so necessary and important to this country. Vessels were coming from all parts of the world, and nothing but proper surveys, with the soundings of the coast, could give such ships a chance of safety. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would reconsider the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had a large number of surveys completed, and it was very desirable that they should be published forthwith. The evidence given before a Select Committee by a distinguished naval officer showed that the want of proper surveys of the west coast of Scotland, from Mull northwards, was most disgraceful.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he was not about to rediscuss the question of the naval surveys. He had already endeavoured repeatedly to express his opinion on that matter to the Committee. He would just say that he had no intention whatever of putting a stop to the surveys, but he
766
had a very fixed intention of reducing the cost. He thought the sum that had been expended for the work done was extravagant; and he believed that the reduced vote that he had asked would be sufficient, while it would neither diminish the efficiency nor the number of the surveyors.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was very happy to hear that explanation; hut if 15,000 l. could be saved in the cost of the surveys now going on, he would urge that that sum should be applied in increasing the number.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he would beg to ask upon what scale the Ordnance survey in Scotland was proceeding, and when it was likely to be completed? Several of the surveys done in large populous districts were now found to be much inferior to those at present going on, and he thought it would be an economical thing to correct them. In populous districts there would be likely to be such a demand for those corrected surveys that they might cost the country little or nothing.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he had presented petitions from Forfarshire for the completion of the surveys there on the six-inch scale, and he would urge the necessity of complying with those requests, for the one or the two-inch scale surveys would be of little or no service.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he was quite aware that there had been many representations made to the Government on this subject from Scotch counties, and the whole question was now undergoing consideration. He was desirous of rigidly and faithfully carrying out all the promises made to the Scotch counties on this subject, and the whole matter would be recon sidered and fixed upon a firm basis, so that the survey might he finished with the least possible delay.
GENERAL ANSONsaid, that the changes of opinion that had taken place on the subject of the Scotch surveys, made their proceedings look ridiculous. The Committee which sat upon the question was principally composed of Scotch Members, and they decided that the surveys should be made upon the one-inch scale, and that they should be completed in ten years, from an annual vote of 25,000 l. As a member of that Committee himself, as being then connected with the Ordnance Department, he dissented from the decision of the majority, and was strougly in favour of the six-inch scale, and he was glad to find that the Members from Scotland were now coming round to his opinion.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(10.) 171,215 l., Non-Effective Services, Military and Civil.
Mr. HUMEsaid, that before these Votes were disposed of, there was one point to which he should like to call attention, and that was the enormous amount of powder wasted in firing salutes.
MR. MONSELLsaid, a very considerable decrease had been effected of late years in this item.
The House resumed.

LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL, &c.

  COMMITTEE—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [24th February], "That Lord Naas be one other Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that before they agreed to this question, the Government ought to inform the House precisely what course they intended to pursue with regard to these Bills. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Napier) introduced one Bill, not in his official capacity, but because he had long been engaged in preparing a measure, and he would not suffer his situation in the last Government to prevent him from bringing it in. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill and the other Bill had both been carried on the second reading, and the principle was admitted; yet it seemed to him (Mr. Drummond), whose name appeared on the list to be nominated, that there were the names of several Gentlemen proposed for the Committee who were entirely opposed to the principle; and the consequence would be, that the Committee would certainly be shut up for the rest of the summer; and he, for one, would not submit to what the late Sir Robert Peel called "intramural interment," and kicking against their coffins for months together. Now, if every Member of the Committee did not agree in the principle, what did the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland mean to do, and had his proposal the sanction of the Government?
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact, that the measures referred to the Committee, though nominally they affected the tenure of land in Ireland, did, in reality, affect the tenure of property throughout the whole kingdom. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding, when
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind
  768
  the hon. Member that the question before the House related to the names of Members to be appointed on the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On Question, that five be a quorum,
  SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he was prepared to answer the question of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond). What had taken place with reference to these Bills would be perfectly in the recollection of the House. Before Christmas the hon. and learned Member for the county of Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) offered a Bill for the consideration of the House; and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), then Attorney General for Ireland, brought in Bills which showed that a great amount of labour and ability had been bestowed on their preparation. The Bills were all read a second time, and ordered to he referred to a Select Committee. The duty which devolved on the present Government was to carry out the order of the House, that a Select Committee should be appointed to whom all these Bills might be referred. He (Sir J. Young) had not the smallest degree of responsibility for either the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, or for those of the late Attorney General for Ireland. Undoubtedly, the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for the Homo Department and he (Sir J. Young) had not acted without the sanction of Her Majesty's advisers with respect to the course they had taken; and when they went into Committee, he had no doubt the Secretary of State would be prepared to inform the Committee what was the course he was prepared to take. There were different opinions entertained by different parties in the House upon the subject. If they went into Committee, by earnestly and carefully discussing the question, he (Sir J. Young) believed they might do great benefit to Ireland, for it was admitted on all hands to be desirable that some settlement of the question should be arrived at, and that, if one were not arrived at, the statesmen of this country should be prepared to give the people of Ireland reasons why the question should not be dealt with. His intention in going into the Committee was to look to the views which might be laid before the Committee. He gave the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin all credit for the pains he had taken and the ability he had shown in preparing measures; and, not agreeing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on all subjects, he should state his own

  769
  views and offer Amendments; but with respect to the names of the Committee, let the House look at the question as it was. They must, when they looked at it, bear in mind that it had disorganised and disordered the public mind for many years past in Ireland, and that in the state of that country, if they had it in their power to give their attention to a question which it would be so much for the benefit and welfare of the country to settle, it was their duty to apply themselves resolutely to that question, and, if possible, to bring it to some amicable conclusion.
  MR. LUCASsaid, be did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland rightly understood the question of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond); for it did not appear that he had given a very precise answer. The question which he (Mr. Lucas) wished to put was, whether the Government acceded to the principle of the Bills, or whether the Committee were to consider what the principle should ultimately be. The principle of the Bills of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, and of that of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, were precisely the same. There was a great deal of difference, he believed, between the practical arrangements of the two Bills, but the principle of each was identical. What the hon. Member for West Surrey wished to know was, whether the Committee were to determine whether the principle of those Bills was to be adopted, or how that principle should be carried out. Therefore, he (Mr. Lucas) thought the House should be informed of the intentions of the Government in this respect, whether the Committee were to commence de novo, or whether they were to consider that the principle was agreed upon.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, there were certain Bills brought into this House before the adjournment. The House then determined that they should be all referred to a Select Committee. There was a change of Government, and it became the duty of Her Majesty's Government to name a Committee on which the House had previously determined. If the hon. Member, or any one, asked on what conditions the Members of that Committee would go into Committee, the only answer was, that they went into it perfectly unfettered.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions brought up. Nos. 1 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
(15.) Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
MR. VANEsaid, that he should move the postponement of this Resolution unless he received the assurance that Kilmainham Hospital should remain open for the reception of pensioners in the same way as Chelsea Hospital was open. In giving this opinion he was only expressing the interest his constituents felt in the subject. One representation from North Dublin Union, to which he alluded, made reference to a guarantee given by the Act of Union, which imported that this institution should be maintained. Some of his constituents stated that they had expected indulgence from the right hon. Secretary at War, who had large property connected with the city of Dublin. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he looked on this subject as of the same nature as the continuance of the office of Lord Lieutenant, adding that the question was whether they were to have a system of centralised Government, or whether Ireland should retain its local institutions. A new light had broken in upon this country, which now saw the necessity of supporting the institutions of Ireland, and more particularly those in the metropolis of that country, because they thereby thought to stifle the cry formerly raised for the repeal of the Union, and to give satisfaction to a people very easily appeased by just and reasonable methods. He should therefore move that the Resolution be postponed.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH, in seconding the Motion, said that this was not the first time this subject had given rise to debates in the House of Commons. In 1834, the House came to the determination that the hospital should not be abolished; and the late Sir Hussey Vivian had declared that Kilmainham was not only beneficial to the country, but could not be dispensed with without positive injury.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he could not allow the argument used with reference to that part of his property which lay in the city of Dublin to influence his conduct. On this particular case he was not called on to pronounce a decision, because he found that a decision had been taken on the subject with the recorded approbation of the House. A proposition had been made to transfer pensioners to

771
Chelsea, with a view to the reduction of Kilmainham; whereupon it was urged that the reduction should not be immediately pressed, and it was decided that no new appointment should be made to Kilmainham, so that in time Kilmainham should cease to be. To that compromise he had adhered. It seemed to him a just and sound decision. The fact had been brought out in evidence before a Committee that there was no necessity for the maintenance of Kilmainham for the reception of pensioners; and he found that the pensioners at Kilmainham were not exclusively Irish pensioners, so that there were not any feelings of nationality on the part of the pensioners to be consulted; and there were also peculiar circumstances affecting the case—circumstances which the House would ultimately have to consider, in reference not only to the question whether they would have to maintain Kilmainham, but also to the question whether even they would have to maintain Chelsea. Being fully impressed with the wisdom of the decision that there should be no more nominations to Kilmainham, and believing that there was no national reason for maintaining that establishment, he should abide by that decision. He strongly recommended the hon. Member not to press the postponement of the Resolution, for the only consequence would be, not that the resources for the support of Kilmainham would be increased, but that the Hospital would die of starvation.
MR. GROGANsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to take an Imperial view of the question, that there was a strong national feeling in Ireland on this subject. Decisions of Committees were not always ratified by that House; and as far as the particular Committee to which this question was referred, he believed that only one Irish Member, (the late Member for Clare, he believed) served on it. He trusted that the feelings of the Irish people would be considered on the subject, and that one of the last vestiges of their nationality might be left to them.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that he entirely mistook the views of the Committee, and he believed that the two hon. Members would themselves, had they been members of it, have concurred in its recommendation.
The Fifteenth Resolution being read a second time; Motion made, and Question
772
put, "That the said Resolution be postponed."
The House divided: —Ayes 66; Noes 119: Majority 53.
Resolution agreed to.
Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

OFFICE OF EXAMINER (COURT OF CHANCERY) BILL.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. MULLINGSwould move, in page3, line 11, of Clause 2, to omit the first word "such." In moving this Amendment he wished to observe that the first Act passed to regulate pensions for retiring Examiners was the 5th Geo. III., by which they were entitled to 300 l.; but the Chancery Relief Bill of last Session gave a salary of 1,500 l. a year, allowing three-fourths of that sum as a retiring pension. He believed the rule adopted had been that no public servant should receive a retiring pension so long as he might hold another situation with larger emoluments. He would, however, demonstrate that the late Examiner (Mr. C. Villiers), who had retired from his office, and who was now in the receipt of a salary of much larger amount, might not only take the retiring pension, hut also the salary of his present office of Judge Advocate. He only asked that the retiring pension should be suspended while he was receiving the salary of his present office.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the retiring pension would not be given to such officers as held other appointments. In the ease of his right hon. Friend (Mr. C. Villiers), when he retired from the office of Examiner in Chancery, and accepted the office of Judge Advocate, he very honourably declined to accept the pension attaching to the position of a retired Chancery Examiner. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would, if carried, interfere very much with the action of the Statute passed last Session, and would introduce the greatest possible confusion. The objects of the Act were entirely prospective, whereas the proposed Amendment attempted to annex to it the provisions of a former one, and thereby give it a retrospective character.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was very happy to hear from the hon. and learned Solicitor General that it had never been the intention of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton to receive his pension and hold an office under Government at the same

773
time. That had been stated in language so unmistakeable as to give great satisfaction to both sides of the House; for he was sure neither party in that House would wish to see a gentleman permitted to retire upon a very handsome salary, and immediately afterwards accept another office under Government. The only point, then, which ought to beregarded was, whether the question ought to remain determined by the mere declaration of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton; or was the House, now that the opportunity for so doing was before them, to make an explicit statement upon the point? The hon. and learned Solicitor General said, that whether the Act of Parliament allowed of the pension being paid or not, that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to demand it. Now, he (Mr. Henley) ventured to opine that unless some such alteration as that suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) were adopted, it would be competent for him to demand his pension. At all events he thought that the Crown ought to be-protected by a distinct provision in the Act from any claims which might hereafter be raised by the executors of the right hon Gentleman.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he begged to explain that the present Bill was confined to the cases of those Gentle men appointed to the office of Examiner since the passing of the Act of last Session, whereas the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had been appointed twenty years ago.
MR. MALINSsaid, he was quite at a loss to know why the hon. and learned Solicitor General opposed the insertion of the proposed words, as they would only have the effect of relieving the minds of hon. Members from an apprehension that it was possible for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton to be in the receipt at the same time of the emoluments of an existing office and of his retiring pension besides.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he did not believe the matter was at all understood. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be under the impression that some benefit was to accrue to his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton under this Bill. Now, he would derive none whatever, for by the Bill of last Session the option was given to the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the Examiners of the Court
774
of Chancery, to withdraw from his office, as its functions were materially altered. He did retire accordingly, and an order was made entitling him to the pension. A Bill was now brought in, altering the oath to be taken by Examiners appointed to the office as remodelled, and making provision with respect to their salaries and retiring pensions; and hon. Gentlemen opposite proposed to introduce a clause depriving the right hon. Gentleman of the advantages he had secured under the Act of last Session, and upon the faith of which he had resigned. That was not just. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that he should not take the pension while he held office, and the public would appreciate that liberality; but he ought not to be deprived of the merit of that concession by ex post facto legislation.
Question, That the word 'such' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: —Ayes 127; Noes 61: Majority 66.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he should now move that twenty-five" should be inserted instead of "twenty." The object of this Motion was to prevent any one holding this office from becoming entitled to a pension until he had served for twenty-five years instead of twenty, as provided by the Bill.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, 1. 12, to leave out the word "twenty," and insert the words "twenty-five," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Bill."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that he was surprised to see the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), and, he believed, one, if not both, the hon. Members for Manchester (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bright), voting to night for pensions, although on former occasions they had supported Motions for refusing them to those who had a better claim to them than the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. When, however, the pensions were in the hands of their friends, there was no more talk of economy. When those who sat and acted with them were concerned, it was, "I scratch you, and you scratch me." When he saw men professing to support economy, but taking such a course, he was bound to say that he had no faith in them. Take off the mantle which covered them, and let them go forth to the public in their proper shape. "Man-traps and spring-

775
guns, they will catch you when they can."
MR. HUMEsaid, that the proper time to have inserted a proviso with respect to the receipt of the pension was last year, when the Act was passed, and not now. On that occasion, however, the hon. and gallant Colonel voted for the Act as it at present stood. That Act abolished the office which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton held, and the present Bill created a new one. Notwithstanding, too, that he was entitled to a pension, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had declared his intention not to receive it while he held his present office, so that the public would not suffer any loss from the absence of the proviso which hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to introduce into the Bill.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the late Government having been nearly defeated on Mr. Villiers's Motion, it was natural to expect that he would not be overlooked by his party when they came into office. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not blame them for it. Instead of an obscure office in the Rolls-yard, which was by no means commensurate with his reputation, and which the greater portion of the Members of the House probably did not know he held, he had received the office of Judge Advocate General with a salary of 2,000 l. a year, with a seat at the Privy Council. He, nevertheless, held both offices for six weeks after the present Government came into power (so little confidence had he in their stability), and during that period the pension question was arranged, and then the right hon. Gentleman resigned his office of Examiner in Chancery. He was, therefore, a little surprised that the hon. Member for Montrose should have divided in favour of securing the right hon. Gentleman a pension for an office which was not abolished by the Act of last year; and which underwent no other alteration, except with respect to the mode in which the evidence in Chancery was in future to be taken by the Examiner; the salary being increased from 1,000 l. to 1,500 l. in consequence of the additional labour thus devolving upon him. The office of Judge Advocate General was a higher one than that of Examiner in Chancery, and no gentleman who accepted a higher office had a right to stipulate for a pension in consideration of resigning a lower one. He was astonished that none of the Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who talked so much about
776
economy, should have raised their voices against a matter which he thought savoured somewhat of a job.
MR. COBDENsaid, that in about seven hours and a half, that House had voted about 15,000,000 l. of money for the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, or about 1,000,000 l. for every half-hour that they were in Committee of Supply, and yet they had had less discussion, and that of a less vehement character, on any one of those Votes, than on this question, which did not involve the saving of a single shilling. The clause which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) would not deprive the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers) of a pension; for if he understood the hon. Member correctly, he did not deny his right to a pension, provided he did not hold office under the Crown. Hon. Members wanted to insert a proviso in a Bill having no reference whatever to the case of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. Whatever opinion hon. Gentlemen opposite might entertain of his right hon. Friend (Mr. C. Villiers), he had every faith in his word. There certainly appeared to be something of a personal character in this persevering attack on his right hon. Friend. The public would not be mistaken in the matter. All that they wanted to compel him to do he had done last year of his own free will.
Mr. BARROWsaid, he thought that even law reform might be purchased too dearly if accompanied with arrangements such as this Bill contemplated. He protested against enabling a man of fifty years of age to retire on a pension amounting to three-fourths of his salary.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that although hon. Gentlemen opposite were now showing a sudden sensitiveness to jobs, if he was not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorsetshire held the office of Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer and Judge Advocate at the same time, receiving the salaries of both offices. He was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion that this was not a proper course to pursue.
MR. BANKESsaid, that no one doubted the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton; but the question then was, whether it was not right that the law should regulate that matter for the future, instead of leaving it to the discretion of any individual. He had no difficulty in answering the personal

777
observation made by the hon. Baronet with regard to himself. It was perfectly true that he had held the highly honourable office of Judge Advocate, and also another office, a patent office, and therefore one for life —that of Cursitor Baron. He had, however, never received the yearly salary for both offices. What he might have done at the end of the year he did not know, but he did not hold both offices for a year.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) must have rather had his own case, than his (Mr. Villiers') when he expressed such anxiety to have some general rule laid down in these matters, for his (Mr. Viliiers') case was one that was quite peculiar, and not likely to recur, while that of the right hon. Gentleman, holding two offices at the same time, as he had done, without the slightest intention of giving up either, if he could help it, was extremely likely to happen again As there seemed, however, to be some misconception with regard to the office which he had held, and some anxiety on the other side of the House to misconceive, he might be allowed to state very shortly the facts of the case. He had held the office of Examiner in the Court of Chancery for nineteen years and upwards. He was appointed to that office by Sir John Leach, the Master of the Rolls, in the latter end of 1833. There had just then been a change in the character of the office, and Sir John Leach was of opinion, as was also his predecessor, Sir Thomas Plumer, that the person who filled the office should have had a legal education—that he should have been called to the bar—which was not the case with those who had previously held the situation. There were, then, no great advantages to tempt any one to take the office, because the person who accepted it was precluded from taking other office. or even practising at the bar. It was an office that led to nothing, the duties of it were very irksome, and the salary was only 1,000 l. a year. On the other hand, he (Mr. Villiers) knew that it was a freehold office—an office for life; that while he continued to perform the duties properly as he had undertaken to perform them, no one could remove him from it; and, as Members were already aware, it was compatible with a seat in Parliament, for it was not an office held under the Crown. After having held this office for about nineteen years, he found, in June last,
778
that a Bill was passing through the House which proposed to change altogether the character of the office, by altering the mode of taking evidence in the Court of Chancery. That Bill altered altogether the character of the duties of the officer, and greatly enhanced his responsibility, while no mention whatever was made of the position of the officer. His attention was called to the subject. He did not suppose that the late Government had any intention to do injustice to him as one of the Examiners, because he was their political opponent, nor did he believe that they intended to act less liberally towards the person who held this particular office than to any other officers of the Court. He and his colleague were therefore advised to bring the matter under the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary. They did so, and that right hon. Gentleman gave the subject that attentive consideration which every one had reason to expect from him; and he said, whilst he was in office, that if a clause was proposed to meet the justice of the case, he would not offer any opposition to it. The law officers of the Crown said the same thing. A clause was consequently proposed, which did not originate with the persons who then held the office of Examiners, but was taken from an Act of Parliament which reconstituted and placed the office of Examiner upon a different footing in the 50 Geo. III. The clause gave the option to the persons whose duties were so far altered either to retire or to resume the office with a higher salary; and the Bill passed with that clause. Now, so far from that Bill having been passed at 12 or 1 o'clock at night, as had been insinuated, it so happened that it was passed in the middle of the day, after due notice of the same being given in the Votes. The clause also was brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, who saw no objection to it. He (Mr. Villiers) thought the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mullings) wanted to fix upon him something like an interested object in the matter. ["No, no!"] Well, he thought so. There was surely an imputation that he wanted to get more than he ought to have; but in answer to that he begged to say that he was not at all anxious for that part of the reform in the Court of Chancery effected last year, and which altered the mode of taking evidence, and the character of the office of Examiner. He stated in that House at the time, although he saw his

779
own advantage in the change, that he did not think the measure had been duly considered, and he had stated that opinion with great confidence, and expressed a hope that this change might be more fully considered; and he believed that he was fortified in that view by the opinion of the late Lord Chancellor and one of the most distinguished of the Vice-Chancellors. Well, the Act, with this clause in it, came into operation. His colleague elected to take the increased salary provided for him, and he (Mr. Villiers) elected to take the retirement. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had made a statement which he could not have known was true. That hon. and learned Gentleman had stated as a fact that he (Mr. Villiers) had kept the office of Examiner—which implied that he had received the increased salary—until he ascertained the fate of the Government. The hon. Gentleman intimated as a fact that he (Mr. Villiers) had waited until he was remunerated for the part he had taken on the subject of Free Trade, and that the Government had been found willing to recognise his services, by providing him with a retiring pension. Now, if this statement required any denial, he might inform the House that in the summer he was in very bad health; that he had gone to the Continent in consequence, and that he had returned to London in November, before the resignation of the late Government, for the purpose of claiming his retirement from the office of Examiner. Before the accession of the present Ministry to power, he gave notice that he intended to retire, and that without the slightest intention—or he might say the slightest wish—of obtaining any other office. The delay in availing himself of the retiring clause was owing to totally different causes. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have made such a statement, about the accuracy of which he was bound to have made some inquiries. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings) now proposed, certainly in a very insidious manner, not by an avowed intention to repeal the Act passed last year, but by inserting one word and omitting another, to render the clause of last year granting the retiring annuity wholly inoperative as it affected him (Mr. Villiers), though it was contained in a measure which had been deliberately adopted by Parliament, and had become, like any other Act, the law of the land. If he (Mr. Villiers) had been absent from the
780
country, he might have been deprived of that to which he was entitled under the authority of an Act of Parliament, by the insidious means to which the hon. Member had had recourse. No man's place, no man's property, would be safe if clauses were to be inserted in this way to disturb that which had been settled by previous Acts of Parliament. However, he was not afraid of the Amendment when his attention was drawn to it, for he felt sure, that upon a question of honour and justice, a man might always feel safe in the hands of a majority in that House. He would not say a word himself in favour of the course which he had thought proper to take in this matter—that had been kindly done by others; but he might say this, that on the day he resigned his office he placed a document in the hands of the solicitor of the fund upon which his retirement was charged, that precluded him from receiving it while he held his office.
MR. MALINSsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that nothing was more distant from his mind than to say anything disrespectful of him. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the idea of his receiving at the time two salaries had never entered his mind. He thought the House would do him the justice to recollect that the position he contended for was this, that he was under the impression that from the death of Mr. Plummer, and the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman as Judge Advocate, they had only one Examiner, namely, Mr. Kenyon Parker, who was appointed to succeed Mr. Plummer, and that the gentleman who had been appointed to succeed the right hon. Gentleman was hanging, as it were, between heaven and earth.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he trusted they would now pass to the real subject of discussion, which was simply this, whether with regard to the period for retirement the Bill should contain the words "twenty -five years" or "twenty years." The office they were dealing with was undoubtedly of a judicial character, and he knew nothing more injurious in practice than fixing the retiring pension of a judicial officer at a very late period of life, because the result most likely would be that they would have men in the office who would be incompetent, either from ago or infirmities, to discharge the duties properly. His hon. Friend (Mr. Mullings)

781
had pointed out the possibility, if they fixed the period at twenty years, of men who were appointed at a very early age being entitled to the retiring pension when they were still young men. He did not think such a circumstance was likely to occur; but to meet the objection, he pro-proposed to insert a proviso to the effect that no person should become entitled to the pension under the clause in question if he should be under sixty-five years of age, unless in case of permanent ill-health. It should be recollected that the patronage of the office was exercised by the Master of the Rolls, while the awarding of the pension was in the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, so the Lord Chancellor could not be supposed to have any wish to award the pension through the desire of having an opportunity to appoint a successor to the office. He trusted that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with this proviso, and withdraw his Amendment.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, that he had not intended the slightest offence to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) in making the proposition. The fact was, that, having met the right hon. Gentleman in the lobby of the House, he asked him to say whether he was really entitled to a retiring pension? when the right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said, "Leave it to my own discretion." He then told him that he would not sanction with any Government, the principle of granting to any gentleman a retiring pension at the same time he was receiving a salary as Judge Advocate. He would not press his Amedment.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as soon as it was stated that the right hon. Gentleman had declined to draw his retiring salary while he filled the office of Judge Advocate General, they all felt that such a course was highly honourable to him. He (Mr. Newdegate) never for one moment doubted that right hon. Gentleman's word; but the party with whom he (Mr. Newdegate) acted thought it was a very unsound principle to admit that a matter of so serious a character should be left simply to the discretion of any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who happened to be placed in the situation of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
The House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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