The Sun. — London, England, 1853-03-05 00:00:00

he begged to give notice that on Monday he would af the noble I lord a question about it. AI.)JOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of Mr. WiLsoN, it was agreed that t he house at 'its rising should adjourn until Monday next. CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA) BILL. On the order of the da y for the second reading of t his bill, Sir J. TAKINGTON presented several petiti , alas from the bishops and clergy of Canada against the in .ea- sure. Sir R. H. INGLIS also presented a petition o ag f ai nst the bill from the Society for the Propagation the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Sir J. P AIUNGTON rose to move that the bill be r e a d a second time upon this day six months. He said tha l the • approached the discussion of this subject with the dee p es t conviction of the truth and justice of the cause whi& a he was about to advocate, and also under serious apprehen sions lest he might be unable to lay before the house, in the course which he thought was due to it, the merits of the case upon which they had to decide. After the extra.- ordinary circumstances which marked the debate upon the introduction of this bill, he must say that he had hoped that it would appeal before them in a different shape. He ' thought he was justified in applying the word " extraor dinary" to the circumstance of the first debate. Let him remind the house who were the speakers who took part in that debate. The bill was introduced by the hon. gentle men opposite, the Under-Secretary of State ; the next speaker was the right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton ; and the third was the noble lord the m em ber for the city of London. Now, what was the language of the hon. gentlemen opposite ? He (Sir J. Pakington) asked the oldest members of the house if they could call to mind a case in which a member of the Government, in bringing forward a measure on the part of the Govern ment, admitted at the close of the speech which he made that the bill was calculated to shake the confidence in all religious endowments. Mr. PEEL—I merely stated that it was calculated to shake the confidence felt by the clergy at present supported out of this fund in the stability of the appropriation of this fund for religions purposes. (Hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON ; He must of course accept any explanation of his own language that was made by the hon. gentleman. If the hon. member wished to recall what he said, he (Sir J. Pakington) could take no exception ; but as a matter of memory he must say that he took a note of the language of the hon. gentleman, and the reports which they read every morning confirmed the version that he had given. It was commented upon by his hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford ; but he was willing to take even the statement now made by the hon. member, and he would declare that never did he recollect a measure being introduced before with such a statement by a minis ter. But what was the next speech? That of the right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith). The same spirit of candour which induced the hon. gentle man the Under-Secretary of State to make the avowal that he had mentioned also led him to touch—he must say very lightly, and as if he were afraid of it—upon the position which some persons had taken up upon this question, viz., that this was only a bill to transfer the power to thelegis lature of Canada, and that it did not repeal the endowment called the clergy reserves. The hon. gentleman touched very lightly upon that argument, but he was succeeded by the right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton, who, following out that candour which marked the debate, threw ridicule rrpon that idea, and frankly said that if they gave up this property they must make up their minds that the legislature of Canada would secularise it. Ho then came to the speech of the noble lord opposite, who said that while he regretted the necessity for this measure, and doubtee the wisdom of reviving the discussion of the sub ject, there were still in the opinion of the Government paramount reasons for urging this bill forward. It was not for him (Sir J. Pakington) to compare the late inex perienced Government to the number of statesmen who sat on the opposite bench ; but he must say that the late Government, inexperienced as they were, did not com mence their administration by apologising for the indiscre tion of their own speeches, nor did they preface their first measure by such declarations as those which had fallen from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. What then was the language which he (Sir J. Pakington) held upon that occasion ? He implored the noble lord to reflect upon' the provisions of his own act of 1840, and to consider whether this country was not bound in good faith to respect the rights of the Churches of England and Scotland to these reserves, and to see whether this bill could not be in troduced in such a shape as would relieve any party in that house from the necessity of opposing it. He now came to the real question before the house. The devotion of these reserves to one sacred object had remained unchallenged for a vast length of time. At the time of the conquest in Canada, in 1760, the rights of the Roman Catholic Church were fairly recognised and allowed. - In 1774, only 14 years afterwards, an act was passed under which the right of the Roman Catholic Church was recognised to her rights and dues (of the nature of, though not strictly tithes) in the districts inhabited by Catholics ; and, at the same time, the Protestant Church was allowed to collect tithes in the districts inhabited by Protestants. In 1791 the 31st Geo. 111. was passed, by which the Protestant tithe was vir tually repealed, one seventh of the land being set apart in lien of it in order to support the Protestant worship in that colony. That act recognised the duty of Parliament to give an endowment to the Protestant Church in Canada. In 1827, an act was passed allowing these reserves to be osoldin consequence of the great discontent that had arisen in con sequence of the blocks of land acting as an impediment to the settlement of the country ; and this act distinctly recog nised the endowment of the Protestant Church. For along series of years afterwards this question became one forparty conflict in the legislature of Upper Canada ; and he must remind the house that this was essentially an Upper Cana dian question. There were constant disputes about the appropriation and the mode of dealing with this property, and until at length the troubles of 1838 came on. After those troubles were put an end to, it was made known that the noble lord opposite desired to reunite these two pro vinces, and it was felt to be essential that this question of the reserves should be settled before that reunion took place. The legislature of Upper Canada accordingly, in 1839, passed an act distinctly vesting these reserves in the Crown of this country, and expressing a desire that it would dispose of them. When that act was sent home, the noble lord who was then Secretary for the Colonies found that for various reasons he could not advise that the assent of the Gown should be given to it ; and he de termined to refer it to the province to decide in what way, subject of course to the consent of the Crown, it was for the benefit of the country that these reserves should be disposed of. The legislature of Upper Canada accordingly, in 1840, sent over an act, dealing with the question, as the noble lord desired. That act preserved the distinction of these reserves to religious purposes, giving a certain por tion to each of the Established Churches of England and Scotland, and directing the remainder to be appropriated to other denominations. When that act arrived here an objection was taken to its legality, and the opinion of the judges being unfavourable to it, the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) passed what he called " the final act of 1840," the provisions of which were identical with those of the act passed by the Canadian Parliament, except as to the changes rendered necessary by the opinion of the judge s. So that if the authority of the Canadian legislature was desired for the legislation of 1840, there was that of the legislature of Upper Canada. From 1774 to 1840 these lands had been appropriated to religions purposes and to the maintenance of the Protestant religion in Canada, and he contended that this country was bound by the most sacred obligations to respect the arrangement made in 1840 so far as its principle went—that principle being the dedication of this property for all time to come to religious uses and the promotion of religion ; and he said again that Parliament was not at liberty, except by an exercise of its power, tyrannical as regarded that helpless minority which came before them with their prayers, to divert this property from those religious uses to which it had been dedicated. (Hear, hear.) He would now call attention to the ground taken by the Government, that the right of self-government in the Colonies was so sacred as to be paramount to the obligations contracted by this long series of acts of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He must, however, s uggest to the Government whether this bill, as it stood, did not in fact violate the great principle of self-government as much as if the house took the view of the subject which he was then commending to them. The second clause declared that it should not be lawful for the Parliament of Canada to violate the rights of individuals. Surely this was an interference with them. He knew it would be said that the Canadian Parliament suggested this clause. But he did not think that answer satisfactory. This portion of the enactment was in fact but altraining at a gnat after swallowing a camel. He thought the sense of Justice that would allow the Govern ment to plunder a Church and sacrifice the property of the body corporate—of the laity, of the Church, and of all who should be members of that Church in all time to come— and yet lead them to say, " Oh, but we maintain the rights of Ilir. A. and Mr. B. to have a pittance for life," was a most extraordinary perversion of the sense of justice. He thought that on their own principles the Government should have given the Legislature of Canada entire control over this Property, and have left them to carry out the offers th e y h ad made with respect to it, and which he had no reason to doubt. Were the Government then borne out by their own argi l govern ment that the colonies had a paramount right to self no Government ha i r ? He must remind the house that _ whose justice more regard to this great prin ciple,lsco fully admitted, than that of Lord Derby, and that the head, uttration of which the noble lord opposite was the e w n f lii - or e - 1; thatH out euwt Government o the principle for which they so largely contended. n a t carry would remind nc the house of some ins p t r a i n n c n e i s p i l n e for were e easons which, if well dis tinctly violated this founded (which he believed tl; (el h w e e sh re oul im d p l . i 3 a ri v a e l admitted to be paramount, viz. hat there a i rLthe colony considerations which overrode this great principle of colonial self-government. I n Is, acknowledged of New Brunswick passed an act g i v i ng cultivation of hemp in that colony. After much cons the ration Earl Grey con firmed that act, but h e a:the saide forbade the governor of that colony even to give hi s consent to a similar enactmen t ; he thought it objectionable ai-i-d. unwise in principle, but would not refuse his assent to the particular act passed, on account of the inconvenience which might have resulted. This was a great griev ance, and it was felt so by the colonists, who remonstrated against it in the strongest m anner. It was also a gr ea t violation of the right of the colonies to self-government ; for New Brunswick is as independent and has the s ame rights as Canada, the only difference between them . In be ing that New Brunswick is wea k and Canada po weEful 1850, again, Earl Grey refused h is assent to a vagrant act e passed by the legislature of New South Wale s , because he said it would operate hardly upon the convicts sent out here, or liberated there with a ticket of leave. That was obviously a refusal to recognise the right of self-government in New South Wales. Prince Edward's Island was a colony possessing the same rights of self-government as Canada, and yet, when he (Sir J. Pakington) entered the Colonial-office, he found that Earl Grey had refused to as sent to an act which the legislature of that island has Pr passed to protect their fisheries, by the grant of bounties, I% __ a ainst the encroachments of the United States. That re 4. , ______ . .in the part of Earl Grey was the subject of great , i ss 4* -s e-S4s; . and the late Government, thinking it well ses - 3,. s AS,4r s : "' .ed the decision of the noble earl, and, C 1 :77 ; t0 . .,4 7 ,.. ~,:,_- e ~:;Proving of the principle of bounties, declared t e---:ls: C'e a - .\ ' .ny should be allowed to take that course ' which - ser; ..," xaeedient with respect to them. The next in the aa . :...a. aeatii, yielded to New South Wales. In 1850, Lord .41 r_ ,, , 1 .. ..z ~ 2; 1 1 ll . u. 1 .. . o the desire of the Canadians to deal I ; _l! vvitu T i l mall (t; ort t o t n - svas a limited land question, dealing ' _.-- of l a nd—land that had been reserved AS" TRH SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 5, 185:3. by the Crown for a particular purpose ; and what was done by Lord Grey and the noble lord opposite—who was mixed up with the acts of Lord Grey, who was Prime Minister, and responsible for his acts ? Lord Grey, who had complied with the prayer of the Canadians to deal with its reserved lands in 1850, refused the prayer of the New South Wales legislature in 1851 to deal with their lands. (Hear, hear.) He understood the noble lord to nod assent during the dis cussion last week, when he advanced the proposition that the question of leaving the land to the colony was a ques tion of policy, and undoubtedly was not a question of right; that the right of all colonial land was in the Crown, until they made it over formally to the colony ; and he was glad to see that the noble lord again assented to the proposition. (Hear, hear.) This brought them to the real substance of the argument for colonial self-government, and on reading the petition that had been sent over by the colonial legis lature it would be found that that legislature demanded those reserves as a matter of right, and he (Sir J. Paking ton) disputed that right altogether. (Hear, hear.) The right was in the Crown, and Lord Grey had contended for that right in the case of Australia. That noble lord con sidered that it was a question of policy, and that the right was in the Crown; and when Lord Grey used that language with regard to New South Wales, he (Sir John Pakington) did not see on what principle it could be contended that it was the right now of the legislature of Canada to deal with those reserved lands that never were given up to them by the Crown, but were distinctly !disposed of for another purpose by the act of 1840. (Hear, hear.) But, even if they recognised the principle which involved the concession of those lands to the colony, he would ask the house again whether an arrangement made before the union of the two provinces did not prevent the united legislature from dealing with those lands? (Hear.) The noble duke the Secretary for the Colonies had taken exception to the language which he (Sir J. Pakington) had bald on this subject in a former debate. The language which he (Sir J. Pakington) had held was that the arrangement made in 1810 was made with a view to the union—that they could not now fairlydepart from that arrangement, which was made previous to the union—and that the united legislature was contemplated by the contract that was then made ; and he had asked whether he was not borne out by the facts in this case. But the noble duke said no--he said the Union Act was passed early in the session, and the Clergy Reserves Act was passed towardi the end of the session of 1840 ; but he (Sir J. Pakington) considered, nevertheless, that there was the clearest evidence that the Clergy Reserves Act was urged by Lord Sydenham, and passed by the Government here, in special reference to the act uniting the two colo nies. Lord Sydenham wrote to Lord J. Russell, then Co lonial Secretary, on the 22d of June, 1840, in these words: " That there is no subject of such vital importance to the peace and tranquillity of the province as the clergy reserves ; that there is none, with reference to the future union of the two provinces—(hear)—which it is more necessary to deter mine without delay ; that it has been for many years the source of all the troubles in the province, the never-failing watchword at the hustings, the perpetual spring of discord, strife, and hatred ; that to leave this question undetermined would be to put an end to all hope of re-establishing tran quillity within the province, but to establish the union with out settlement of it, and to transfer the decision to the united Legislature, would be to add to the sources of discord which then prevailed in Lower Canada an entirely new element of strife—(hear) —for among the various evils by which. Lower Canada has been visited, one and only one, perhaps the greatest of all, has been wanting—religious dissension ; that he was satisfied that the value of arriving at a settlement could not be over-estimated ; and that, strong as these feel ings might have been, the immense advantage of having the question finally withdrawn from the sources of popular die cussion and dispute would reconcile all partieS to it." He thought no one could hear the extract from the dispatch of Lord Sydenham, in 1840, without being compelled to admit that that dispatch was written in special reference to the coming union, and that Lord Sydenham not only felt it of importance, but of first and paramount importance, that the clergy reserves should be settled before those two provinces were united. That was the language of the go vernor ; and the following was the language used by the noble lord the member for the city of London, who was then Colonial Secretary:—" He would ask the house was it not most desirable to prevent this question being brought before the united legislature—(hear)—and decided in a manner opposed to the views which Parliament was known to entertain ?" He thought he need not trouble the house with further extracts. He was sorry to see the noble lord had left his place, but he had asserted in the former debate —and the assertion was not denied by the noble lord—that the bill was passed with special reference to the union, and for the purpose of settling the question before the union took place. Those extracts conclusively showed that the bill was passed, and accepted by Canada, as a preliminary to the union, and an essential preliminary to the union, and. he (Sir J. Pakington) contended that the colonial legisla ture were not at liberty to disturb the arrangement that had been made on this subject. In support of his views on this subject he might appeal to the statements he had heard over and over again with regard to a question that had been discussed the other day—the question of May nooth. He had heard it said and constantly urged on both sides that a compact was made before the union, and the faith of Parliament was pledged to the maintenance of Maynooth, and that they were bound to continue the state of things which then existed. The same arguments ap plied to the state of things in Canada, and they were bound to maintain the state of things that had existed be fore the union took place. He had now said all he desired to say on that branch of the subject, and he now asked the house to turn its attention to the policy of this question. The first point to which he would refer with regard to the policy of the question was one which he thought must come home to the feelings of every man, not only in that house but in the country. It was point to which ho invited the most deliberate consideration of the house ; it was simply this, that if the Protestants of Up per Canada, instead of being as loyal a people as ever lived under the the Crown of England, had for feited their allegiance and had annexed themselves to the United States, this property would have been respected. (" Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) Surely no man on either side of the house would deny that that was a most serious aspect of the question. A pamphlet had been published by Archdeacon Bethune, in which he men tioned two endowments made before the revolution, namely, the endowment of Trinity Church, in New York, and an endowment in Vermont, which were respected by the Government of the United States after• the revolution. He (Sir J. Pakington) had been greatly struck with that statement ; but thinking there might be some mistake, he had thought it to be his duty to communicate with an Ame rican gentleman now in London, who was conversant with the laws of the United States, and competent to give him information. He was not at liberty publicly to mention the name of the gentleman to whom he referred, but he was a high authority on the affairs of the United States, and he (Sir J. Pakington) was willing in private to communicate his name to the noble lord or to any gentleman that might desire to know it. (Hear hear.) He had called upon that gentleman and submitted to him the discussion they were likely to have on this subject, and asked him to do him the favour of telling him whether the representation was a correct one, that the United States, in the event of Canada being annexed to the country, would respect its Protestant endowments. The answer the gentleman gave . him was this :—" You may rely upon it that if Canada were annexed to the United States those endowments would be rigidly respected." He thought the statement was so important, bearing so closely as it did on the question they were now discussing, that he asked this gentleman if he would write him his opinion. The gentleman said he had books in London to which he would refer, and that he would write to him and give him. a statement of the law of the United § - Wes on the subject. (Hear, hear.) During that conversation he (Sir J. Pakington) put to him this further question—" Suppose the State legislature should seize this property?" and his answer was—"lf the State le gislature were to seize the property, the Supreme Court would overrule the State legislature, and restore the pro porty to the colony." (Hear, hear.) He held in his hand the letter which, in fulfilment of his promise, this gentle man had written to him, and he begged the permission of the house to read a portion of it :—" I have seen the de bate of last evening in the House of Lords as published in the morning papers. The remarks of the Earl of Derby are, no doubt, perfectly correct, that Church endowments made previously to the Revolution have been held sacred in the United States. A question seems to have been agitated whether a new distribution might not be made of Canadian reserves, without disturbing the original grant. That is quite distinct from the question of the validity of the grants themselves. I have no doubt of their being sustained in their integrity. They would be regarded as contracts, subject as such to no such violation by State legislation, or otherwise. I have thus probably covered the whole ground of the inquiry which yoit did me the honour to make yesterday. Canadian reserves would be in no danger, if within the United States, unless the proposed alteration should be within the scope of the original grant." The letter went on and gave a third distinct instance in which the United States Supreme Court, in the case of the Dartmouth College, did respect an endowment that was given before the Revolution. He could not read that letter without asking the noble lord whether the state of things therein rererred to, and which was accepted as settled without contradiction, did not suggest grounds for serious reflection ? (Hear, hear.) He would remind the noble lord, who had taken such a prominent part in the passing of the act under Lord Melbourne's Government, during that critical period of Canadian history, of the events that had then occurred. (Hear, hear.) He would not stop to consider whether the union of the provinces was a wise or unwise policy, but he would ask the noble lord to recollect the painful struggle that had taken place in Canada during the reign of her present Majesty, and he would remind him that the disturbances were quelled by the loyalty of the Upper Canadians. (Hear, hear.) There was not within the circle of the British dominions a body of men more de voted and loyal. They were descended from those loyal subjecis of the British Crown in the United States who, after the revolution and the rapture between the United States and the Home Government, left the republic—left the homes in which they had lived, from their attachment to British institutions, and had settled in Upper Canada, where, as members of the Church of England and Church of Scotland, they formed as loyal a population as ever breathed. That loyal population had shed their blood and risked their property to quell the insurrection of 1838. But what was the effect of your policy on them ? The effect of your policy on those loyal men was, that you bound them at the feet of a majority widely different from them in laws, language, and religion. That was the first blow to the loyal feelings of the people of Canada ; and what was the next? The next was the Rebellion Losses Bill, which mast be fresh in the recollection of honourable gentlemen opposite. (Cheers.) He saw one right hon. gentleman opposite who entertained, if he remembered rightly, strong feelings on that subject. He would not stop to consider whether there were paramount considerations of policy which justified the Canadian Parliament in passing that Rebellion Losses Act, or whether there were considera tions o f p o li c y w hi c h j us tifi e d the Government of the n o bl e l or d i n consen ti ng t o it ; b u t this he would say. without th e f ear o f contradiction, that the noble lord was fully aware that if ever there was a pub lic act that had wounded the feelings and shaken the loyalty of loyal men, it was the Rebellion Losses Act, as :8 1 s h own by lar , e the effect which it had produced portion oyal in their allegiancethat loyal population were really shaken population. He did not believe that any ti he t r h o jecbCreg began from were some persons who it were oral orpoprupaideanttiotonagiovre of annexation to a t further wound to the feelings assailing th f e t r h e o e ligion which they love, and He would ask the noble lord if wound them in the tparty,by o depriving that religion o f ten deresttha solemnly guaranteed to it? Wassu p? t ort which bad been show those loyal subjects , attached to their wise orprudent to the means give n for the su pport of that Church, to that the monarchy of En g land disre g ar ded and repudiatedt while those obligations, the republic of America was 'willing t o recog nise them ? (Hear.) If they wanted to retain Canada in with the Crown of England, they should en courageinthose who were attached to the Crown of England t" ons who loved those institutions and to their iustitu , and and country, who would the monarch of this not desert rust to i them unless they drove them away. (Hear.) They were the tt to t • ere rus main an the co the parties to whom they sho fl exion with Canada— xtot t those who urged them to commit this act, which was considere d to be a breach of their national faith. He begged here to be allowed to do justice to the conscientious and neve, c-failino. efforts of the Church of England in Canada. Let it not be supposed that they were relying solely upon those ftmds— they were not, and had made efforts to sustain the Church. Where the population was dense, and the congregations were large, they exerted themselves for the Church ; but there were parts of Canada in which the pioneers of civi lisation were advancing into the wilderness ; they were scattered thinly over the ground, and, under those circum stances, were unable to exert themselves. To those men the Gospel was preached, and by whom? By the travelling missionaries, who went about from township to township, and who collected congregations where they could, and where they could not collect a congregation they pro ceeded from house to house. Those missionaries were supported out of the fund which they were about to endanger by enabling the Legislature to destroy it ; and if the Legislature availed themselves of that power the ministration of religion in those districts would be at an end. That did not apply to Upper Canada alone • it applied to Lower Canada also, where the Church of Eng land was, he believed, a poor Church ; it was surrounded by the Church of Rome in wealth and pomp—and what was to become of the Protestant population of Lower Canadar,if this aid were withdrawn ? There was one other consideration to which he begged to call the attention of the house, and it was the view that he could not help bee lieving was taken by the Roman Catholic population of Lower Canada on this subject. Although some Roman Catholic members of the lower province had, he was sorry to say, swelled the majorities in the late division, there were grounds on which he must believe that the oman Catholic population were indisposed to this bill. In the first place, as Christians like themselves—as men profess ing, like them, the same doctrine of Christian ity—they must be indisposed towards this measure. Then the Ro man Catholics of the Lower province were endowed with great wealth, drawing tithes to the extent of 163,0001.; their numerous and most exemplary priesthood were amply provided for by the religious endowments of a great State, and he could not help believing that the Roman Catholic population of that province had not any desire to deprive their fellow Christians in the upper province of the compa ratively small pittance they received. (Cheers.) He per fectly understood that cheer; he understood it in this way —that they tfiought it consistent with their duty to trust to that Roman Catholic feeling for th.e protection of the Protestant endowments. They had no right to rest upon that ground ; they could not tell - what excitement might prevail, or what party influence might be used, and they had the fact before them, that some of the late divisions were carried by the votes of the Roman Catholic mem bers of the lower province. (Hear, hear.) The second ground on which he could not believe that the Roman Catholics would be desirous to sanction the enactment of this bill was the ground already adverted to by an hon. gentleman opposite, namely, that their own endow.. ments would be assailed. (Hear, hoar.) Looking to tho warnings of Lord Sydenham, and their experieiwe of the Canadian troubles, they should beware of sowing the seeds of the struggle that might possibly be the result of such legislation. (Hear.) If they passed this bill the Roman Catholic endowments might be endangered from attacks being made upon them by a combination of indignant Pro testants, and that was a state of things which ho hoped would not arise. (Hear.) From the time the act of the noble lord had passed, religious peace prevailed, and for the sake of that peace he hop:: d the house would. not con sent to pass this bill. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he would call their attention to the last words of the petition that had been presented by his hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford, from the Society for the Propa gation of the Gospel, and which was signed by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. The petition dosed with these words :—"ln conclusion, the society solemnly ap peals to the members of your honourable house, as they respect Him in whose hands are the destinies of nations, nations, and by whose approbation and favour their wel fare can be secured, to see that they disregard not that justice which He commands for the interests of that reli gion of which He is the author." An appeal in more solemn language was never made to the justice of the house, and he adopted every word of that appeal. (Hear.) He had already said he approached this subject with no extreme views ; he would gladly approach it in the spirit of peace, and entrust to the colonial legislature the distri bution of this property, provided only security could be taken that the interests of the inhabitants of the upper provinces would not be forgotten in its appropriation. (Hear.) But if the noble lord persevered in forcing this bill on Parliament in its present shape—if he - was content to abandon that sacred trust which he (Sir J. Pakington) maintained Parliament took on itself by the act of 1840 — then he (Sir J. Pakington) had no alternative ; and he must tell the House of Commons that he was bound to condemn, denounce, and resist this as a most unrighteous bill. (Cheers.) Sir W. MOLESWORTH said the right hon. baronet who last addressed the house commenced his speech by deprecating the treating of this bill as a party measure. He cordially concurred with the right hon. baronet in that deprecation. The bill raised two questions of the utmost importance; the first was the great fundamental question of the colonial polity of the British empire—whether it ought to be a rule of colonial polity that all questions af fecting the local interests of a colony possessing representa tive institutions should be dealt with by the local legisla ture. That ought to be the axiom on which the whole system of our colonial government ought to depend, and if acted upon, it would tend greatly to strengthen and con solidate the relations between this country and its colonies. The next question which this bill raised was whether this boon ought now to be extended to an English dependency with a population of 2,000,000 souls—namely, Canada—in reference to the disposal of the clergy reserves in that colony. The object of the bill was to transfer to the Cana dian legislature the power of dealing with the proceeds of the clergy reserves, irrespective of the mode or manner in which that legislature might think proper to (Teal with those reserves. He contended that it was not a question for this house to determine, whether the present applica tion of those clergy reserves should or should not be main tamed, or whether they should be secularised. That was a question which ought to be left entirely to the decision of the colonial legislature. The right hon. baronet, in his dispatches and speeches, had admitted that the rule of colonial policy 'which he (Sir W. Molesworth) had laid down was the general rule which ought to be observed and acted upon ; but the right hon. baronet contended that the treatment of the clergy reserves ought to be considered as an exceptional case. The reasons the right hon. baronet assigned in support of that exception were two ; first, he asserted that the question of the clergy reserves was essentially an Upper Canadian, and not a Pro testant question ; and secondly, that the act of 1840 ought to be considered a final settlement of those reserves. The right. hon. baronet asserted that the question of the clergy reserves was an Upper Canadian one, and that the majority which carried the resolutions which the House of Assembly passed last autumn with reference to the bill now under consideration consisted of a large portion of Roman Catho lic members, whose religion was already amply and muni ficently endowed in Canada. The right hon. gentleman in the course of his speech, and in his despatches, had laid great stress on the circumstance of the Roman Catholic religion in Canada being munificently endowed. He (Sir W. Molesworth) did not think that statement altogether correct. The endowments of which the right hon. baronet spoke were not strictly the property of the Roman Catholic clergy, but were chiefly applicable to educational and cha ritable purposes, and to the conversion of the Indians ; and there was no statutory provision to prevent the legislature of Canada from dealing with this property in any manner it might think proper. (Hear, hear.) The Roman Ca tholic clergy in Lower Canada were now supported as they were supported before the conquest of the colony, namely, by tithes and other dues ; but that support had much more the character of voluntary contributions than of local dues; and when, in Lower Canada, a man ceased to be a Roman Catholic, or when he sold his land to a Protestant, the priest immediately iost his tithes. But in Upper Canada tithes had never been paid either by Roman Catholics or Protestants ; and the Romon Catholics, who had become a numerous body in the upper province—nearly as numerous as the members of the Church of England, and three times as numerous as those of the Church of Scotland—had never had any tithes, endowments, or any statutory iprovision for the support of their clergy. The legislature of Canada had the power of abolishing the tithes, and that power was exercised with reference to the Protestant tithes of Upper Canada, in an act which received the royal assent in 1825. He therefore contended it was not strictly correct to assort that the Roman Catholic religion was munificently endowed in Canada ; and on the principle of even religious equality, he demanded that this bill should pass into a law. (Hear, hear.) He would assume for the sake of argument that this question ought to be decided, as the right honourable baronet seemed to think, in accordance with the wishes of the Protestant portion of the population of Canada. But if it were to be decided in accordance with those wishes, ho (Sir W. Molesworth) contended that it would be so decided by the bill now under discussion. He had carefully analysed the division lists of the House of Assembly in Canada on the resolutions which had refer ence to the merits of the question whether the Imperial Parliament ought to transfer to the local legislature the power of dealing with those reserves. He found that House of Assembly consisted of 84 members, of whom no less than 54 were Protestants, and only 30 were Roman Catholics ; therefore there was an absolute majority of Protestant members of the House of Assembly, which was equivalent to an absolute majority of 200 members in the British House of Commons. It was impossible, there fore, that any measure could be carried in that House of Assembly in opposition to the united wishes of the Pro testant members ' • and he found that on every one of the resolutions which had reference to the merits of the ques tion, a decided majority of Protestant members were in favour of the proposed transfer being made. (Hear, hear.) For instance, on the 14th of September last a resolution was moved in the House of Assembly to the effect, that that house deprecated in the strongest manner anyattempt to bring back the question of the clergy reserves to those provinces for future legislation. That resolution was rejected by a majority of 51 against 17; of that'majority 26 were Protestants, and the minority were all Protestants. A second resolution in similar terms was rejected on a sub sequent occasion by a majority of 50 against 18, and 25 of that majority and the whole of the minority were Protestants. Again, on the 17th September, certain resolutions were agreed to for an address to the Crown, condemning, in effect, the conduct of the righthon. baronet (Sir J. Peking ton) and deeply regretting that he was not prepared to bring in a bill to repeal the act of 1840, with regard to the clergy reserves. All those resolutions were carried by a majority of 52 against 22. Of that majority of 52, no less than 26 were protestant members, while of the minority 19 were Protestants. Therefore on every one of those resolutions there was a majority equivalent to a majority of 77 members in a house as numerous as that which decided the fate of the late administration—a fate which saved our colonial empire from utter ruin, for if the views of the right honourable baronet had been carried into effect, the colonial empire of Great Britain would have speedily crumbled into dust. (Cheers.) When 'he (Sir William Molesworth) heard the right honourable baronet on the 3d of December last, in reply to a question put by him (Sir W. Molesworth), state that it was the intention of the Government to refuse to comply with the pledges o w 7.4a l e c ia theirhstaCanada, e do p tf r h e ca d at e n c predecessors Canada sao was r to s nothd e a a d l theirvngi .v t ehnt intentionth this s th q e ues Legislaturetto iopermitn p apainful n the o f visions of the past crossed his mind. He Sir William Molesworth) remembered in 1833, a young nobleman of ex traordinary powers and of surpassing eloquence, raised to the high rank of Secretary of State for the Colonies—a young and _lmprudent man—who presumed to address the Assembly of Canad2.inlanguagewhichthat Assembly justly denounced as ill-advised, unconstitutional, insolent, and in sulting—(hear, hear) ;—and that language tended in some degree to bring about that unhappy conflict which cost this•country so serious an amount of money. (Hear, hear.) Now, Lord Durham, in his report in 1839, asserted that the question of the clergy reserves affected the inhabitants of both provinces. That statement was perfectly true in principle. The question of the clergy reserves affected the whole of Canada, with the exception of that portion of Canada which became private property before 1791. The first provision of this kind made in Canada was in 1791, by 'the first Quebec Act, which proceeded on a principle of religious equality, for it provided that the clergy of every character and sect should be supported by the payment 43-_ tithes. At that period the great majority of the inhabitants of Canada were Roman Catholics. The Protestants were few in nunaber, widely scattered, and unwilling to pay tithes; and therefore it appeared to the Government in 1791, that it was expedient to make further provision for the support of the Protestant clergy, after a plan and manner stated to have existed in the State of Pennsylvania. The act of 1791 provided, among other things, that the Legislature of Canada should have the power to abolish the tithes, sub ject, however, to the consent of the Crown, which was not to be given in the event of either house of Parliament addressing the Crown, within a certain time, praying that that consent might be withheld. One-eighth of the land in Canada, which had not been reserved before 1791, was then reserved for the support of the Protestant clergy. In Lower Canada, however, by a manifest violation of the law, instead of one-eighth, one-fifth was reserved for that purpose ; and in Upper Canada, instead of one-eighth, one seventh was so reserved. But the right hon. baronet was quite mistaken when he asserted that the representatives of Upper Canada were as nearly as possible divided on this question. He (Sir William Molesworth) thought the right hon. baronet bad confused together two very distinct ques tions which were brought under the consideration of the House of Assembly of Canada las's autumn—the one was a p a rty question, and the other a real one. The real ques tion was whether the Imperial Parliament ought to trans fer to the local Legislature the power of dealing with the party question was whether the Go vernment should first state to the House of cAlesis.gebrelyservwofhesa6n Thea what were e the views o 2 the Government of Canada as to the final disposal of those clergy reserves in the event of the proposed transfer. On the party ques tion the representative s from Upper Canada were as nearly as possible equally divided ; but on the real resolution there was a decided majority of the Upper Canadian members in its favour. But the other night the right honourable baronet said that the constituencies'who were represented by the Upper Canadian members who had voted against that resolat/bn were the largest in Upper Canada. That was an argument which he (Sir W. Molesworth) hardly expected to hear from the representative of the infi nitessimally small constituency of Droitwich. He had ascer tained what were the numbers of the population represented by members who were in favour of the proposed transfer, and he found that the population represented by the nine teen members who voted in favour of the real resolution amounted to 4 74,000, whilst the population represented by the fifteen other members who voted against the resolution was only 350,000. The population of the eastern town ships represented by the six members who were in favour of a similar resolution amounted to 77,000, while that repre sented by the one member who voted against the resolution was only 16,000. What better test could they have cf the popular feeling on the subject? He asserted that if they t oo k 1 those who voted and those who did not, there was a large majority represented whose known opinions were in favour of Mr. Hinck's motion, which had a similar object to the bill now under consideration. The right hon. ba7rnet, in his embryo dispatch, contended that the act of 1840 was regarded in this country, as well as in Canada . as a final settlement. H e (Si r W. M o l eswor th) d en i e d that it was so accepted as a final settlement of the question. During the agitation of the question in. Upper Canada, the question was raised as to the precise meaning of the words " Pro testant clergy," as used in the act of 1791. A member asserted that the term " Protestant clergy" was applicable not only to the clergy of the Church of England, but also to those of the Church of Scotland. The clergy of the Church of England in Upper Canada united in an attempt to resist the claim to participate in those funds, when it was made, as it was shortly afterwards, by the clergy of the Church of Scotland. • They addressed the Crown and Parliament, and said that the words " Protestant clergy" could not be ex tended further than to the clergy of the Church of England without producing the greatest confusion. His hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford said the other night, the most ignorant and the most Radical member in the house could hardly deny that the words " Protestant clergy," as used in the act in question, meant only the clergy of the Church of England. He (Sir W. Molesworth) laid claim to the honour of being a Radical. (Ironical cheers, answered by counter cheers)—a name which was borne by a Bentham, a Mill, a Ricardo, a ("rote, and many other political philosophers, whose views had, from time to time, been adopted by the great leading states men of the day, and he would presume to tell his hon. friend that the words in question did mean other clergy men besides those of the Church of England. In the year 1819, Lord Bathurst, then Secretary of State for the Colo nies, applied to the law officers of the Crown to know the meaning of those words ; and those learned gentlemen gave it as their opinion that the Protestant clergy were not con fined solely to those of the Church of England in the co lony, but would imlude those of the Church of Scotland, if there were any there. They stated, however, that the words did not apply to dissenting ministers. The ques tion was afterwards submitted to the judges, in pursuance of a motion in the House of Lords ; and their unanimous decision showed—fa-at, that the claim of the Church of England to the exclusive property in the clergy reserves was not valid ; secondly, that the claim on the part of the ministers of the Church of Scotland was valid, and that that of other Protestant ministers might be valid. That decision of the judges was in conformity with the inten tions of the origkal framers of the act of 1791. The powers of a previous act provided that the clergy of all denominations of Christians should be maintained, Roman Catholics from Roman Catholic funds, and Protestants from Protestant funds. This fact showed that the legisla ture of Upper Canada did not consider that the clergy re serves should be appropriated exclusively to one particular denomination of Christians. This decision was come to evidently partly on the ground of religious equality, and partly on the ground of the Roman Catholics being desti tute of endowments, and without the means of supporting their clergy. They came to the conclusion that the best mode of applyinc , these reserves to the payment of all de nominations of Christians would be to sell them, and ap ply their proceeds to purposes of general education. From the years 1826 to 1839, upon fourteen different occasions, and in four different legislatures of Upper Canada, it was declared by large majorities that the clergy reserves should be sold, and their proceeds so applied. Numerous bills and numerous measures were passed by the Legislative Assembly, but every one of them was rejected by the Le gislative Council, a body which, as every body knew, was most unpopular, and which was composed chiefly of nomi nees, and was known under the name of " The Family Compact." From the years 1826 to 1839 two royal commis sions wore appointed to inquire into the grievances of Canada, and both of them had reported in accordance with the views of the Legislative Assembly of the colony. Lord Gosford stated in his report that " the only effectual cure for the evils occasioned by the clergy reserves is to adopt some mode of making them available to all religious sects. There would be many difficulties in defining the various religious sects, and in allotting the proportions to be given to each ; and, therefore, our opinion would be in favour of applying the proceeds to purposes of general education." Lord Durham st a t e d i n hi s report.—" The re sult of any determination on the part of the British Go vernment or Legislature to give to one sect a predominance or superiority would be but to endanger the loss of the colony. . . . The questio n o f lie clergy reserves should be so settled as to give satisfaction to the majority of the people of the two Canadas, who are mutually concerned in its settlement, and I know of no mode of doing this but by repealing all the provisions in the imperial acts relating to the clergy reserves, and leaving them to the disposal of the local legislature, and acquiescing in whatever decision it may adopt." And that was the present proposal of the Government. (Hear, hear.) In 1832, Lord Ripon, in reply to a resolution passed in the Legislative Assembly to the effect that the Imperial Parliament should pass an act for the sale of the clergy reserves, and to empower the local legislature to apply the proceeds to purposes of education, advised the framers of it to exercise the powers they possessed to vary or alter the provisions of the existing act. In 1835, Lord Glonelg refused to comply with the address of the Legislative Council for an ad dress to the Crown to advise the Imperial Parliament to settle the question of, the clergy reserves, as that address was in direct opposition to the wishes of the people of Canada. He refused to comply with the request for two reasons ; first, because imperial legislation upon subject of exclusive concern to the colony, possessing a Legislative Assembly, was, as a general rule, unconstitu tional ; and, secondly, because the authors of the existing act had declared that the question of the clergy reserves was ono in regard to which the initiative was expressly reserved to, and recognised, as falling within, the peculiar province and special cognisance of the local legislature. In 1839 the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had refused the assent of the Crown to a bill of the legislature of Upper Canada which provided that the clergy reserves should be sold, and the proceeds devoted to religious pin-poses under the direc tion of the Imperial Government. He declined to do so, because he said that the local legislature could bring to the decision of the qaestion an amount cil, nformation as to the gonoral wants of the people of the colony . on the subject which it was quite impossible the Imperial Parliament could possess. (Hear, hear.) The right honourable ba ronet (Sir J. Pakington) had referred to this act of 1839 as showing the feeling entertained on the subject on the part of the people of Upper Canada. But that bill was passed in the last moments of a Legislative Assembly which did not fairly represent the opinions of the people of the Colony. Lord Durham, speaking of that assembly, stated that a large portion of the members had been elected by the most unscrupulous exercise of the powers of the governor, and Sir Francis Head said that he had contrived to add forty supporters of the Government to a house con sisting only of sixty-two members. (Hear, hear.) The bill, as originally proposed in the Legislative Assembly, left the proceeds of the clergy reserves to the disposal of the local legislature ; but in the Legislative Council an amend ment was introduced, which gave the disposal of the funds to the Imperial Parliament, and the bill so amended was carried on the last night before prorogation by the casting vote of the Speaker. He wouldnext refer to the act of 1840. Lord Sydenham was governor of Canada in 1840, and he was anxious that the question of the clergy reserves should he settled before the union of the two Canadas, and he used the whole of his influence to bring about a settlement of that question. He proposed the draft of a bill to the legislature of Upper Canada, which, with some alterations which were not considered important, was agreed to. That bill proceeded partly upon the principle of religious equality. It provided, with respect to existing interests, that the clergy reserves should be sold and the proceeds divided into two parts, one of which was to be appropriated to the members of the Churches of England and of Scotland in proportion to their numbers, and the other half divided among all denominations of Christians in proportion to their numbers. Lord Sydenham was anxious that this bill should receive the royal assent, and stated that it would not be possible to obtain such favourable terms for the Established Church in any future assembly. Unfortu nately, it was not in the power of the governor to obtain the royal assent to the measure, and when it arrived in this country it was denounced in the most violent terms by a right rev. prelate famed for his vast legal lore, and for that litigious spirit which made him the pest of his diocese--- Sir R. H. INGLIA rose to order. / The particular indi vidual alluded to, who appeared to be a member of the other house, had been described by the hon. baronet as the "pest of his diocese." It was not necessary that he (Sir R. Inglis) should say more than that, whoever that individual might be who had been thus described, he was a member of another house, the proceedings of which were not sub ject to revision by the House of Commons. Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that he should not have referred to that debate had not the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) sp . oken in no very courteous terms of another right reverend prelate. (Hear, hear.) A motion was car .. ried. by the right rev. prelate to whom ho (Sir W. Moles worth) had first alluded with reference to the power of the legislature in Canada to pass such a bill. The question was referred to the judges, and their decision was in oppo sition to that given by the Lord Chancellor, to the opinions entertained by every member of the Government, by every governor of Canada, and by every Secretary of the Colo nies for the previous twenty years. The result, however, was that it was impossible to give the Royal assent to the bill. Three courses were then open to the Government. First, they might have brought in a bill empowering ti e legislature of Upper Canada to dispose of this question o th clergy reserves ; and such a bill would have been accordance with the true principles of colonial policy — that all local questions should be decided by a local legisla ture. In 1810, however, the true principles of colonial policy were not so well understood as they were at present. These views of the proper course of policy to be adopted in the colonies, owing partly to the discussions on the rebel lion in Canada, and .the reports of Lord Durham, Mr. Gibbon Wakefield, and Sir C. Buller were now generally acknowledged. They had been acted upon by Lord John Russell, Earl Grey, and even the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had in some measure shown himself a not inapt scholar in the school of colonial reform, although upon this question of Canadian policy . he still appeared, how ever, to remain in a state of Stygian darkness. (A laugh.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—I supported the bill of 1840. Sir W. MOLESWORTH—It was quite true that the right hon. baronet supported the bill of 1840 ; but he op posed the first measure introduced by the Government. The second course which was left open to the Governmental° adopt was to bring in a bill similar to that which had passed the leglegislature of Canada, but that they were prevented from 'doing by the opposition of the right honourable baronet and his friends. The remaining course for the Government to adopt was to take the least bad of the mea sures which could be carried, and a bill was introduced, founded on a compromise between the friends of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. The act of 1840 proceeded upon the policy of favouring the Churches of England and Scotland, and provided that the clergy re serves should be sold, that the proceeds of those sold before 1840 should be divided into three parts, two of which were to belong to the Church of England and one to the Church of Scotland, but that the reserves sold after that period were to be divided into six equal parts, two of which were to be given to the Church of England, one to the Church of Scotland, and the three remaining parts to be applied by the local government to purposes of public worship and re ligious education. The total population of Canada in 1851 was 952,000, and the proceeds of the clergy reserves had been appropriated in the following proportions :—The total amount of the clergy reserves appropriated had been within this period 271,0001. Of this sum the Church of England, numbering 223,000 persons, or about one-fourth of the population, had received 148,0001., or more than one-half of the whole amount. The Church of Scotland, numbering 58,000, or one-sixteenth of the population, had received 64,0001., or about one-fourth of the whole amount. The Church o Rome, amounting in numbers to 168,000, one sixth of the population, °illy received 20,000/. ; while all other denominations of Protestants, numbering altogether 441,000, or four-ninths of the population, had obtained only 18,0001, or about - one-fifteenth of the entire sum. (Hear, hear, hear.) The act of 1840 was, therefore, merely a compromise between the conflicting and con tending parties in that house, and not a compromise between the conflicting and contending parties in Canada, who had a deep interest in the settlement of the question. It was a compromise entered into between parties who had only an indirect or imaginary interest in the matter, and in opposition to the wishes and feelings of the people of Canada, and in order to gratify the feelings of a portion of the menabers of the Imperial Parliament, of whom the right honoirable baronet (Sir J. Pakington) was one. (Hear, hear.) When the act reached Canada it was condemned in the strongest terms by Lord Sydenham, who " stated 'that the proportion allotted to the Church of Eng land was monstrous, that it was a complete perversion of previous acts of Parliament, and that the portion set apart for those unconnected with either of the Churches of Eng land or Scotland was miserable. That this act was never accepted as a final settlement by the people of Canada was evident from the fact that a resolution proposed for adop tion, to the effect that the people of Canada concurred in that final settlement of the clergy reserves, was rejected by a majority of 50 to 18. (Hear, hear.) The first persons who endeavoured to upset the settlement of 1840 were members of the Church party themselves, but the report of the committee obtained by the movers in the business in. 1845, was rejealed by the Legislative Assembly. As suming, however, that the act of 1848 was accepted as ar final settlement of the question, had not the people of Upper Canada a right to change their minds on the subject? (Hear, hear.) Did the right honourable baronet imagine that he was entitled to a. monopoly of change of opinion ? (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) That the right honourable baronet had changed his opinion on the sub ject was evident from one of his latest despatches, in which he said, "it may possibly be desirable that the distribution of the proceeds of the clergy reserves should, from time to time, be re-considered ; and any proposal of such a nature her Majsty's Government would be willing to entertain." If the right hon. baronet still con tinued of the same opinion, the issue between them was not whether the act of 1840 was a final measure, but by whom it was that from time to tinae'these alterations were to be made, by the Imperial Parliament or by the local legislature. The right hon. baronet contended that the Imperial Parliament should undertake the duty ; but why should that house undertake so difficult and arduous a task. But even if they did undertake the duty, they could discharge it but in one or two ways —either in accordance with the wishes of the people of Canada, or in opposition to their wishes. (Hear.) If Parliament was disposed to alter the settlement according to the wishes of the people, it would be necessary for them first to ascertain what those wishes were, and the only constitutional mode of ascer taining the feelings of the people was by the opinion of their representatives in the local legislature ; and the En ' perial Parliament could not accept petitions, however nu merous, indicating that the wishes of the people were in opposition to those of their representatives. If the opinion of the local legislature were to be considered as the guide of Parliament, it would be bettor to let them have the power to deal with the subject at once. The second rea son, then, why the house should undertake the task was, that it might be the wish of Parliament to alter the exist ing act in opposition to the wishes of the people of Canada. He could understand that their might be reasons why the Imperial Parliament should interfere in opposition to the wishes of the colonists. But was it to the interest. of the British empire that the Imperial Parliament should un dertake from, time to time the duty of altering the act of 1840 in a manner opposed to the wishes of the people of Canada ? From the year 1791 down to the present time every authority upon this matter had considered the dis posal of the proceeds of the clergy reserves as essentially a local one. There had been for years past a steady progress 'of opinion on this subject, consequent upon the progress of the opinion of religious equality. Formerly it was held to be the duty of the State to encourage one form of Christianity, and to discourage all others. That opinion could not, however, now be maintained. 'lf the legislature of this country was not entitled to interfere in the religious opinions of the people at home, it surely could not be con tended that it possessed any right to interfere with religious belief in the colonies, or to induce the colonists to adopt ono form of Christianity in preference to another. But the right hon. baronet said that if they transferred to the Le eislature of Canada the power of dealing with the question o'f the clergy reserves, they would disendow the Churches of England and Scotland, and by so depriving them of their rights be guilty of a violation of the rights of propeity. The principle of property, however, required that the rights of existing and individual interests should be respected, and that their rights should not be disturbed without due compensation. The present bill did 'respect existing inte rests, and it did so at the especial desire of the Canadian Legislature. The principle of property did not require that unborn expectations of non-existing rights and of uncreated interests should be respected. The law of this country ab horred perpetuity, and it interfered with certain descrip tions of property as they passed on from generation to ge neration. Upon precisely the same principle that a man had not the power to entail his estate in perpetuity, the Legislature ought not to entail any portion of the public estate for ever. He contended, therefore, that the Legisla ture was not bound to respect existing endowments from any moral power arising out of the principle of property itself, but solely upon grounds of public benefit, public utility, or the inexpediency of disendowing. If this bill passed, the Legislature of Canada might secularise the Church estates without any violation of the rights of pro perty if it thought proper to do so, provided it respected existing rights. The right honourable baronet had said that to disendow the Church of England in the colony would be to it a serious injury. He (Sir W. Moles worth) would be sorry to support any measure which he thought seiculated to injure the Established Church, be cause) as an individual, he preferred its doctrine and disci pline to that of any other religions denomination. He dike agreed entirely with the right hon. baronet in thinking that if the Legislature of Canada were to secularise the clergy reserves, they would do any real damage to thB Church of England ; because there was throughout the whole colony so strong a feeling against religious endow ments by this country, and such a strong feeling in favour of the voluntary principle, that the fact of the Church of England being endowed by the State made it an object of suspicion and jealousy to the Canadian people, and thus did it more real injury than tho benefit which it derived from the proceeds of the property. He had now replied to the whole of the arguments urged by the right hon. baro net against the second reading of the bill. The real ques tion for the consideration of the house was, whether it Mould now adopt as a rule of colonial policy that all ques tions which affected exclusively the local interests of a colony possessing legislative institutions should be regu lated by the local legislature of the colony ? This ought to be the fundamental axiom upon which our whole sys tem of colonial government should be carried on, for it was one which more than anything besides would tend to render firm and prosperous the great colonial empire of Great Britain. He now asked the house to apply that principle to the greatest of our colonial dependencies by passing the bill now under consideration. Lord J. MANNERS thought her Majesty's Govern ment had introduced the most unjust and unwise of legal robberies under the specious guise of a concession to re ligious equality, and a recognition of just principles of colonial government. Unless they were prepared to run counter both to the act of 1791, and the opinions of the judges given in 1840, ministers must so alter their measure as to guard the whole of the land already, settled and appropriated, and to restrict it to the com paratively small quantity of land yet unsold. Nothing could exceed the solemnity of the settlement of 1840, and yet they were now called upon to repeal and annul it. If they were to adopt in all its fulness the dogma laid down by the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and give to each colony the right of deciding what is and what is not a matter of purely domestic interest, then those colo nies would be colonies no longer. The appeal now made by the Canadian Legislature showed that in 1840 this ques tion was universally considered by all engaged in its settle ment as ono not purely domestic. So far from the popu lation of Canada being favourable to the bill, he believed it was cer t a in that the great mass of the property and ability in the colony was hostile to its passing. In proof of this, he examined the state of colonial parties in refer ence to the measure. If it was necessary to declare the virtual independence of Canada, let our troops bo recalled, and let her be free to throw herself if she chose into the ' arms of the United States, whose Supreme Legislature would protect the weak against the encroachments of the strong, and grant to the struggling Cliurch of Canada that justice which she demanded in vain from the Parliament of once Imperial England. Mr. G. VERNON defended the bill, as more in accord ance with the changed circum s t ances o f th e colony than the legislative arrangements of 1791, w hi c h had ceased to be applicable. There had been little wisdom in the settlement of 1840, which had sought to establish finality. It not with the Roman Catholics, as h a d been erroneously w st a a s tecl, but with the Free Church of Scotland and the Protestant Dissenters that the agitation to overturn the settlement of 1840 originated. It was not by forcing your Church on a free people, or by trenching upon their constitutional rights, that you were likely to attach them to your institutions, and increase their affection for the sway of the mother country ; far more surely would this result be attained by placing unreserved confidence in the colonists and their legislature. Mr. LIDDELL thought that if this measure of Govern ment were to be looked upon as a friendly one, the Church of England, both in Canada and this country, would look with considerable distrust and suspicion upon such friends. Jle considered it certain that its effect would be to shake public confidence in all religious endowments, and also to excite a spirit of jealousy and animosity between Protestant and Roman Catholies in Canada, which did not now exist. The state of the Canadian legislature was very unfavour able to the impartial consideration of the question, and the name of Papineau, who was amongst the most prominent advocates of the measure, was not eplculated to inspire confidence in their intentions. _ _ Mr. ADDERLEY contended that the Canadians were entitled to a parity of rights with the people of the British islands, in having the uncontrolled disposal of their own funds, and especially those intended for the support of religion. The breach of faith and violation of principle would lie in the rejection or delay of the measure, not in its passin g . Nothing could be more beneficial to the Church of England in Canada than to get rid of an odious, noxiour, and unprofitable claim, or to teach it to look to a support less treacherous and inefficient than the Imperial Parliament. _ __ _ Mr. A. MILLS opposed the bill. He should be unwil ling to offer any opposition to a measure intended to give efficacy to arrangements for the support of religion, but where a particular allocation of funds for religious pur poses had been guaranteed by act or Parliament he could not consent to disturb that guarantee. There must be some limit to the principle of local control, and where a series of acts of Parliament had guaranteed the application of funds to particular objects, that limit appeared to him to be reached. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he un derstood his hon. friend who had just sat clown to say that ho rose in that house partly because he desired to bear testimony to the sentiments of the people of Canada on this important question. The hon. gentleman then pro ceeded to inform the house that a project of the present kind was regarded in Canada as a mere political matter, that the feelings expressed to the Imperial legislature were merely those of local excitement, and that the sub stantial sense of the population of Canada was entirely distinct from those feelings. (Hear, hear.) Now he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not conceive a higher authority than his hon. fri end on these points ; but he should nevertheless caution the house against passing over the wishes of the constitutional organs of the legislature, in order to give ear to the representations of those who had but a mere passing knowledge of the coun try. (Hear.) Amongst the many benefits attendant on establishing free legislatures, not the least was that these legislatures should have a free and untrammelled voice ; otherwise, when the colonies were not endowed with that blessing, it was always an impossibili: , y for even the very best Minister to ascertain the real souse of the colony with the control of whose affairs he was charged. (Hear, hear.) But when the Imperial legislature placed suffrages hands of a people, and gave them the power to select re presentatives, and when these representatives met in free discussion—in which, for instance, the people of this country placed its glory—then it became necessary that the deliberate opinions and expressions of these representatives should be taken as evidence of the sense of the colonial population. (Hear, hear.) When a course opposlte to that was taken, and when the shreds of scattered state ments—no matter how well arranged—were placed in competition with the deliberate judgment expressed by the local legislature which this imperial Parliament had created, then a deadly blow was struck at the principle of free government, and it were infinitely better never to have established those free colonial institutions. But what were the facts of this case ? An address of the legislative assembly of Canada, conjoined with an address of the legislative council, prayed that they might be per mitted to repeal the act of 1840, which restrained the Ca nadian legislature with respect to the disposal of the clergy reserves. To that prayer her Majesty's ministers urged the house to accede ; but they were met by a motion on the part of the right hon. baronet the late Secretary for the Colonies (Sir J. Pakington) which went to the rejec tion of the bill altogether. What did the proposal of the right hon. baronet amount to ? To this—that as regarded the present question they (the Imperial Parliament) should bind down the Canadian legislature to total exclusion from all share and discretion with regard to the disposal of these lands. In 1791, when those who were now a powerful community were a few scattered settlers, our fa thers committed the initative power of legislating to them without any other limit than the veto of the Imperial Le gislature ; and he wished to know, were the privileges con ceded at that period to a few villages of settlers, to be denied now to a colony which possessed its cities and counted its population at 2,000,000? What were the 41). jections ? There was an objection founded on an appre hension that the power thay were about to bestow would be misused ; whilst, on the other hand, the ground on which the bill was recommended was, that this country had no right to base its judgment on the mere opinion it may entertain on the question. The question was, not the ase to be made of the power, but the hands in which that power was to be lodged. (Hear, hear.) Was the ques tion a local one or not ? For upon that the votes of hon. gentlemen must turn. If it could be shown that the question belonged to the category of Imperial interests and considerations, and that the power should be reserved to the Imperial Legislature to deal with these reserves, then the present bill should be rejected. But what arguments had been adduced, or what proofs had been supplied, to show that it should be taken out of the cate gory of local questions ? (Hear, hear.) In 1791 Mr. Pitt left the Canadian legislature to legislate on the question, which proved the question was a local one. The people of Canada and their representatives, if they did not believe it to bo a local question, how came they, time after time, and session after session, to send to this country acts of their legislature, aiming at the disposal of the clergy re serves ? Was there an hon. gentleman present who could say that an Imperial interest was involved ? It was said a question of public faith was involved." (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Was that an imperial interest ? (Oh, oh.) If it were so, then the question was so far dis embarrassed. He asserted the question was purely local, and alone concerned the population of Canada. He desired to know from what source these lands derived their value ? Certainly not from the skill or labour, or capital, of the people of England. The enactment of the Imperial Legis lature found these lands in a state of primitive wildness, and it was the skill, and labour, and energy, and capital of the Canadian population that imparted value to them. Was it, then, to be argued that property so created by a community of freemen should be 4isposed of by any body of gentlemen, not excepting the British House of Commons, without the consent of those to whom it belonged in truth and justice. The right honourable gentleman urged that the bill did not satisfy the principle of self-government ; and why ? because it provided for the vested interests of the present incumbents. If the right honourable gentle man turned to the address of July, 1850, he would there find the Canadian legislature declaring that "the most equitable mode of settling the question would be for the Imperial Parliament to pass an act providing that the stipend formerly allowed to the clergy, and to which the faith of the Crown was pledged, should be secured during the natural lives of the incumbents receiving it. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) had indicated to the house (of course he did not mean to say he made any concealment) the true standing of the question at present. He had heard the right hon. gentleman say, unless he was much mis taken, that the object of the act, which it was now pro posed to repeal, was to maintain a provision for the sup port of the Protestant religion. (Hear.) He alluded to this, because there were many hon. gentlemen in that house who came in great numbers—prompted of course by conscientious feelings—to do away with the Maynooth grant. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was sorry to disturb the repose that nature required—(a laugh)—but then it was absolutely necessarythe hon. member for North Warwickshire—who was doubtless prepared with a con scientious vote—should understand the real nature of the question, and how the Protestant religion wouldbe affected by the repeal of this act. (Hear, and a laugh.) It was true that in 1791 the object of the act then passed was in strict maintenance of the Protestant religion. But thenthe signification of that phrase " Protestant Church," was, and always h a d b een , a vexed question. Some contended that the clergy of the Church of England were alone em braced by it. Others thought it capable of wider expan sion, and extended it to the Church of Scotland also ; and others again believed it to be the intention of Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville to have included in the term " Pro testant clergy" the ministers of various Protestant de nominations. (Hear, hear.) The object of the act of 1791 was strictly Protestant, ho admitted. But in 1840 he conk; tell the hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) that the Imperial Legislature chose fundamen tally to change the basis of the act, and therefore dropped the word " Protestant" altogether. (Hear, hear.) Th e word was not to be found in the act which they were now seeking to repeal. (Hear, hear.) The act of 1840 provided that the great bulk of the land should be divided into six allotments, two of which were to go to the Church of Eng land, one to the Church of Scotland, and th e rema i n i ng three to be appropriated for purposes of public worship and religious instruction in Canada. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) knew well that the bill of 1840 was founded on the same principle as the act just received from the Canadian legislature for the Ro e a fv e e n ri t, e a u n e d de w e hi em ch iea di ti ed. Thethe hfuilindwsaebentewtefeenr the cle vi on d s r y g ya assent, maintenance of the Protestant Church , it was without li m itation as to any Ch urc h ; and, if the * right hon. gentle man took the trouble of examining the rot urns laid on the table of the house, he would perceive that a very consider able sum had been given to the Roman Catholic Church out of the proceeds of these reserved lands, as well as to the Churches of England and Scoa (Hear,hear.) The Scotland. roitwic The hon. member for D • • h referred to the practice in the United States, and read a most interesting letter from a gentleman whom he justly described as a man of the greatest intelligence, who stated that if these reserved lands, instead of being the United States, would be placed beyond the power of any legisl a t ure to touch, because they would be placed un der the protection of the supreme court, which would over ride any attempt made to violate public faith. (Hear, hoar, from the-Opposition benches.) He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) greatly respected the farsightedness of the American statesmen who provided these measures to render inviolate the public faith and security ; and he greatly respected the self-command and control of the people of those states, which rendered the execution of these provi sions practicable. Indeed, he thought it would be well if the British colonies—whenever the natural period of their independence might anive--should be equally strict and rigid in the observance of their public faith and undertak ings. (Hear.) But did the right hon. gentleman suppose that there wore no analogous instances to the United. States ? • Was ho not aware that in the state of Massachu setts there was at one time a law in existence which ren dered it compulsory upon every one of its inhabitants to contribute towards the maintenance of religious establish ments, while at the same time they were left a free choice to select the particular establishment towards which that contribution should go. That was the law, but the law had been swept away. Again, prior to the American re volution, the clergy of Virginia were endowed with a maintenance strictly analogous to tho maintenance paid to the clergy in this country, though it was not in the shape of so many bushels of wheat or grain, but they were en dowed with so much tobacco—(a laugh)—and from which was yielded in many cases a very handsome revenue. But these endowments were swept away since the revolution, which showed that, however strict the American Govern ment might be with regard to the maintenance of public faith, nevertheless that it was not unwilling to distinguish between endowments, properly so called, and for which there were grantees known to the law, and public funds levied on the entire country, and appropriated to pasts-w ar purposes by an act of the legislaturo. But he must confess that the right hon. ger tleman opposite was of all others me of those who was least favourably situated to recom ,nend the rejection of the bill. For if there was any one who had made the maintenance of the present law impos sible, it was that right hon. baronet. (Hear, hear, from the ministerial benches.) It was most important th at the house should b ear i n m i n d the grounds upon which, in Apri l last, the right h on . gen tl eman rejected the petition of the Canadian legislature. The right hon. gentleman said that his words were words of peace and conciliation. No dtkubt they were intended to be words of peace and conciliation, but that was not everything. It was the habit of those colonies to look also to deeds—(cheers)—and if the deeds of the right hon. gentleman were based upon a principlo at variance with colonial freedom, he was afraid that, th ou g h soft and fair words might be highly acceptable, his deeds would be very much more influential. (Hear, hear.) No - w, he must say there was but one plausible ground on Which he could possibly have resisted the demands made uP°.. n him. The right hon. gentleman quoted the example of the United States, and the doctrines on contracts which were rife there. But was the right hon. gentleman entitlhed. to quote the doctrine of contracts—he who has told ns tat it was in the power of a state—nay, that it was the duty 0 a state—to take away from different bodies the various rights and privileges which they had from time to time attained ? (Hear, hear.) And if the supreme courts could prevent that alienation of the reserves which the right hon. 4entielnan anticipates is to happen in Canada, he would aek whether the dicta of the supreme court would not fell just as heavy by withdrawing from one corporation and giving leoperty to another corporation which was involved. in the distribution of the right hon. genticexteli (Hea r ? Well, if there was a way which the right hon. baron et ' might have made lighter the maintenance of the old state of things, it was by putting his case, not as that of O. national endowment, but as that of a certain limited fund which had been already dealt with, and which it would be unwise, as well as unlawful, wi to meddle But the right honourable gentleman adopted no such. ground ; on the contrary, Ire disapproved of it ; and be actually said said the very reverse - of this. He stated that the Government most be prepared to take into account the changes which might be effected in the population of Canada, the extensive emigration, or other causes ; and that the distribution, therefore, of those funds ought from time to time to be reconsidered—(hear)—end then the, right hon. gentleman, with his words of peace and conci liation' went on to say—" any proposal of the kind he ; Majesty's Government would be willing to entertain. Welk-, now, were these words of peace and concili a tion to Canada ? Canada said " she asked for the disposal of her own reserved lands," and the Secretary of State replied, "No doubt your reserved lands cannot be regarded as fixed endowments ; the question must remain an open one —it must be reconsidered from time to time, according t° the circumstances of the country, and the men who inhabit it—(hear, hear)—and though some of them were totally unfit to discharge the functions which devolved upon them; and,. moreover, though there were many opinions circulat ing in Canada of which the Government of England dis approved, ho would beg to assure them that if they came,. with a proposal to her Majesty's Government, they m i g ht be willing to entertain it." Now a more distinct act of violation of every principle on which colonial freedom W 5 based than that, he (Mr. Gladstone) could not imagine (Cheers.) However, it was perfectly plain that no one, had -% entured to declare that the present state of things was to be maintained, on the ground that the question had been finally disposed of. (Hear, hear.) And noW with reference to the question of public faith. So far as the continuance of these reserves in the hands of the clergy beyond the lives of the present incumbents, it was to his right hon. friend the member for Droitwich that he should leave that part of the argument ; because if the 'public faith was pledged to anything, it was not pledged to an abstract regulation—to the maintenance and further promotion of public worshipjand. religious instruction, but to consider the present distribution and the present en j oy- meal of proprietary rights, which the right hon. baronet had declar e d he was reedy to uneettle, because there happened to be the question of a balance of 20,0001. Ne w. he thought therewas great force in what fell—with P er ' haps great simplicity of language—from his honourable ot' friend the me m b er f or St a ff o rdshire. He said he did 31 ieteud to attempt the maintenance of the present law re spezting the reserves on the ground of its possibility. Not it struck him that there was was very great force in the He (Mr Gladston e ) believed that the word possibility' wact rather a material word ; that it was a topic which IA some weight—(laughter)--and he would therefore ready' mend hon. gentlemen, before they commenced their col test, to consider where and in what it was t o OW' (Cheers.) It seemed to him that if there was one thies more necessary ,than another for the maintenance of th e dignity of Parliament, it was that they should not Pl e d over again the game of the American war. (Loud all prolonged cheering from the Ministerial benches.) li e them not commence any conflict or controversy with tr colonies, unless they felt convinced that their argum en . were sufficient, not only to be produced once or twice T t ' debate, but to stand the brunt of controversy Wh e ? e p e l came to be ranged with other and more serious difficw" -- out of doors, to meet the agitated mind of a whole com munity indignantly demanding their rights. (Great cheat; Do not let them commence a controversy in erhice" they would come in like the lion, and go out like the lawb- Let him not be toldOlhat they were intending their vote that night the appropriation of funds allocatl in former times for he maintenance of the Protesten., religion, for they would be obliged to explain how it w c i that the arrangement of 1791 was so essentially alte_ l l o in 1840. (Hear, hear.) And having then, taken in.', their own hands that privilege of power to eaf with to uphold h3f, affairs of Canada, were they now going to 'deny to Can that same right now that they had acquired the power le' do so ? He must say, as a member of the Chu rch of Eng land, and as one he hoped not indifferent to her welfare---___ (oh, oh, and great cheers followed by counter che ers) such he earnestly desired passing of this measure. .13'i could conceive nothing more detrimental to the Chur ch • England than that she should be found engaging herself ""' a struggle perfectly hopeless, and in his opinion as °l r. tirely devoid of justice as it was of truth. (Irian:Lenge cheering from the ministerial benches.) There was on e portion of a speech made the other evening on the oppose tion benches in which he entirely concurred—that what ever may be the abstract merits of the voluntarylprinciplei and he was inclined to believe that its performance bad not been generally encouraging—th a t be that a s it may, was miserably adapted to th e c i rcums t a n ces o f CanS: (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend near him (Sir of Molesworth) took a ver y d espon di ng v i ew o f the steroid,. public endowments an d es t a bli s h men t s f or religiVVG.; poses throughout the Canadian provinces ; still h e ( wn ," —. cuts hoped they might indulge the hope that these ene -0- .,;. tat' might be preserved to the Church ; yet he would sf;l e gjore if they wanted to render that alienation—that com:'„i g ht, as sure as possible they would, by their votes t the reject the bill. (Cheers.) If they wanted to un' i ; ho position of the Church of England, which was ne t then' . floured. and revered in Canada, weak and odious, -•e-,ionial combine the maintenance of her claims with the ‘ 7, or e.) of the principle of colonial legislation. (Loud eu" But the right hon. baronet was pleased ; to-night to that a right rev, prelate in another place, and to say ro he had invented plausible fallacies to support th e lac e, sent bill. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone), in the first P considered that it was much more befitting 73 j e o I bers of that house to confine their attention tO topiobt arising before them, than to seek for amus em ent in. that occurred elsewhere. ißut really he was astonished „if the right hon. gentleman should have thought 11111-5-oe warranted with so much coolness to write down se ,Eb o d- Bible fallacies what an hon. friend of his had des n ''' cf st to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as not areellio the least brilliant orations ever delivered by a prelat e " o f must rank in this country as one of thefirst m asters f oratory. But he rather wished to speak of the me cll5 o that speech. He felt glad that a bishop of the Chill.- bill England should have come forward in support of R ei ee like that, notwithstanding the - obloquy which' helm 15)0- have to encounter from his professional brethren. ;, tol d Hovel that that right rev. prelate had judged Wan' wisely in supporting the bill. Were they then g° ln 7 o --- enter upon this struggle without any hope of acct that without a chance of maintaining it ? He had hesr d nit passage of the speech of the right hon. member for Pr,,ot with (Sir J. Pakington), in which he told the Parlia in iee *of England that they were making their appeal to the wrong portion of the pop u l a ti on o f Canada wi th ' eeid greatest pain. It was hi g h ti me f or the people of Eng - f to have done with m a ki ng appeals to one divisi on o re, population. They k new o f the old meaning of that g ' in -they knew of the disasters flowing from such P. it ciple. (Loud cheers.) They knew that the effect of had been to create cliques and knots of intriguer s, „; e le put forward the profession of British spirit, but '''`,l l of the denial of the name of loyal subjects the Shibbole,'red their adoption. (Hear, hear.) It must be a,cknowlena that for all mistakes in legislation Parliament wer e o re the main responsible ; and it had been the error of ';' - o of - recent times to diveree from the wisdom and pred en eo to those who had precede% them—who were wont to le l '',,eee colonial subjects the undivided and uncontrolled 1 13 ,1tV if meat of their local affairs. His fervent hope wa s, they passed this bill the endowments would be preser` to (Laughter on the opposition benches.) He would, press those gentlemen opposite, that though there migh'eeble times be wisdom in laughter, that here it was inaPP - " c beieg Did they imagine that the chance of those reserves ef, be maintained was increased by ridicule? For his Pe.l, oe happened to know that there were opinions in Callao; i d titled to the greatest weight—men whose judgme n , e rell whose powers of judging were excellent, most ain' t ' bo y/ sanguine in their belief as to their maintenance. 13 _ n 0 00 was it that the continuance of those religious end'," it by had been effected in the state of New York Was e, an IMperial act, binding down the colonial LePt e tying its hands, and forbidding it to meddle in its e" - the timate transactions ? No, but it was by your leavingent; people of New York uncontrolled freedom of nianeV f t heir and if now they told him that there was no chanc e c ' the ,. 'maintenance in Canada, he hoped and believed the,eise, overstated the case; but if the result should be othe o i f teo they must receive it as the necessary fulfilmen t ote policy, of this country, which had associated the goreece nance of endowments with the principle of into ;lea in the local affairs of our colonies—a princiPl e 'lfao s odious in their eyes. It was not because the .„en 10 , or. had violated their allegiance, that they were rebeloneaterel that they wore disloyal, - but' it was because it vra s e i r oig n that they should take the manage men t of th de affairs, that they came before us with th ti ge n' mends. They are doing) said the right honour: at yo tlernan, pointing to the opposition bencheal logleea would do in their case. (Cheers.) Were Can 3 , t here and were England Canada, I do not believ e thev veto to; one gentleman opposite that would reject by iiiso,„„,eol night the second reading of this bill. Sir, 1 r. ec iv ise this bill to the adoption of the house because it 15 1)0 0 ° prudent, but emphatically, and above all thing s, so thel it is righteous and just. (The right hon. gentian? _ring. resumed his seat amidst loud and onolng-continued on e oe: Mr. NAPIER took his stand the act o fl7 9l e! n , wa s tended that it was competent for the Crown, havlcelesi; at its disposal, to make a grant in perpetuity to astical corporation. The act of 1840, though a l ? ! . .. i tiol , 313' t of .the first compact, was a measure of CO be ewe ' ise compromise, passed with the consent of the a t e g n „s the bill now proposed was an act of tyranny 11l religie" of, moderation, attempted under, the name of equality. old " g did not wish at that late hour of the night to 110 , Sir R. H. INGLIS, amid calls for a division, the attention of the house but for a few minutes. ee;oo orec'', been so pointedly alluded to by the First Conan 0d Public Works in his speech that evening, he "kw petrol, Public Bien to make a few observations. (Sir W. Molesworth) had claimed the clistinefaoo,,ir one of those "ignorant Radicals" to whom 11 Inglis) alluded to on a former night. Now ne ever believe that right hon. gentleman ignorannt-3t01et34 was a Radical might be a matter of sincere to himself, as well as to his constituents, whe o T the libe7, be to others. When he (Sir It. H. I ng lis) f., t r e s _ eat b gofer' of interrupting the right hon. gentleuen,i_ ho'" lacen 00 siderecl was an abuse of the privilege honolnti' eee His re' *ght..linon.of bosoo, ring to a speech made by a noble lord 3 other house of. Parliament, that right .712017i-gbt gybed said that he mig as Secretary have interra r in eu e co l o nieS, v ie w, baronet, the late of State fo , M OP lie referred to a, glaeNch rarade the PgJav AV" 1 j