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

he begged to give notice that on Monday he would ask
the noble lord a question about it.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

On the motion of Mr. WILSON, it was agreed that the
house at its rising should adjourn until Monday next.
CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA) BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this

bill,
Sir J. PAKINGTON presented several petitions
from the bishops and clergy of Canada against the mea-
sure. _

Sir R. H. INGLIS also presented a petition against
the bill from the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Sir J. PAKINGTON rose to move that the bill be read
a seond time upon this day six months. He said that he
approached the discussion of this subject with the deepest
conviction of the truth and justice of the cause which 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 appear 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 mem-
ber for the city of London. Now, what was the language
of the hon. gentlemen opposite ? He (Sir J. Pakington)
asktid 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 religious 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 the legis-
lature of Canada, and that it did not repeal the endowment
called the clergyreserves. 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 upon 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. He 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 hie 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
lieu 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 soldin
consequence of the great discontent that had arisen in con-
sequence of the blocks of land acting as an impedimentto
the settlement of the country ; and this act distinctly recog-
nise(' the endowment of the Protestant Church. For along
series of years afterwards this question became one forparty
conflict in the legWature 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. Afte
those troubles were put an end to, it was made known tha
the noble lord opposite desired to reunite these two pro
winces, 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 Crown 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 judges.
So that if the authority of tho Canadian legislature was
desired for the legislation of 1840, there was that of the
legislature of Upper Canada. From 1774 to 1810 these
lands had been appropriated to religious purposes and to
the maintenance of the Protestant religion in Canada, and
ho 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 Nthe 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, suggest 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 straining 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 membeas of that Church in all time to come—
and yet lead them to say, " Oh, but we maintain the rights
of Mr. 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 they had made with respect to it, and which he had
by their
no reason to doubt. Were the Government then borne out
own tegument the colonies a paramount
t that had
right to „If
no who government ? He must remind the house that
ciplc, sent had shown more regard to this great prin-
Derby, and justicet he fully admitted, than that of Lord
Wasat
thethe administration of which the noble
lord opposite
for which they so l bead, did not carry out the principle
.argely contended. He would remind
the house of some instances in which that Government dis-
tinctly violated thishopurinvelle, for reasons which, if well
founded (which he
they were not), he should have
admitted to be paramoun, that there were imperial
considerations which ovegrrovedevinztieentreat and acknowledged
principle of colonial self-
In 1848 the colony
of New Brunswick passed an act
cultivation of hemp in that a,ninny!"'lll a bounty for the
he at the same
ration Earl Grey confirmed that act, butArnuch e°nside-
bis
assent
tle and
to eve consent
forbade the gbvernor of that colony even
objectionable
to a similar enactment ; he thought it
unwise in principle, but would not refuse
particular act passed, on account of the inconveniencet°the
which might have resulted. This was a great grievance
and it was felt so by the colonists, who remonstrated
against it in the strongest manner. It was also a
;
great
violation of the right of the colonies to self-
government
for New Brunswick is as independent and has the same
rights as Canada, the only difference between them ho-
in that New Brunswick is weak and Canada powerful. In
38'50, again, Earl Grey refused his assent to a vagrant act
paaled by the legislature of New South Wales, because he
said it would operate hardly upon the convicts sent out
That was here, or liLerated there with a ticket of leave.

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 u
Colonial-office, he found that Earl Grey had refused to as-
sent to an act which the legislature of that island has
passed to protect their fisheries, by the grant, of bounties,
against the encroachments of the United States. That re-
fusal on the part of Earl Grey was the subject of great
complaint ; and the late Government, thinking it well
founded, overruled the decision of the noble earl, and,
without approving of the principle of bounties, declared
that the colony. should be allowed to take that course which
i t
4ixe3 met expedient with respect to them. The next in-
-I.eyehwtmais thfidcase of New South Wales. In 1850, Lord
with its ed to the desire of the Canadians to deal
It with a small was a limited land question, dealing
Portion of land—land that had been reserved

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 1810. (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 notprevent 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 held 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 towards 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 yisited, 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 dis-
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 he
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 wore 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 States 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—" If the State le-
gislature were to seize the property, the Supreme Court
would overrule the State legislature, and restore the pro-
perty 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 c'by State
legislation, or otherwise. I have thus probably covered
the whole ground of the inquiry which you 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.) Ho 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
must bo 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 pawing that
Rebellion Losses Act, or whether there were considera-
tions of policy which justified the Government of
the noble lord in consenting to it; but this he would
say. without the fear of contradiction, that the noble
lord was fully aware that if ever there was a pub-
the act that had wounsled the feelings and shaken
loyalty of loyal men, it was the Rebellion Losses
in their 3.lleiao
t, as shown by the effect which it had produced
upon a loyal population. He did not believe that any
were Sonic
hrge portion that loyal population were really shaken
personsnco whot h
bean
fnr
0,
mb utth
atthteiym
ea ltl
ok ntalk
wl
otuliceurye
it were wise orprudinenetricagi.
populatiotno v feur wouldth e rwaos
of annexation to
of that loyal ask the ntohbelefeleolirndgisf
,tiolr to wound them in the ten-
derest part, by assailing
depriving that religion'. of°trholigion which they love, and
Wasaupport which had 'been
solemnly guaranteed to it ?
how those loyal subjects, attached t wise or prndent4o
toatheir pin end
the means given for the support ofdth t Church, that while
the monarchy of England disregar ed and
.repudiated those
ret.tithganada
to recog-
rown of
shouldutons
and en -
noibsleigtahteimons?, theH (Hear.)
otfhAoymwerianctea
devzos
England
the Crown
institutions whottacheodvteod
connexion with the Crown of England, them in
I
country, and who
the monarch of this would not desert
couirajoet
theirho
them unless they drove them away. (Heal.) They were
seinwsthiotiwtieoin.esa,
• to whom they should trust to maintain the
the partiescon-
nexion with e,— Canada--they should not trust to those who

urged them to commit this act, which was considered to be
a breach of their national faith. He begged here to be
allowed to do justice to the conscientious and never-failing
efforts of the Church of England in Canada. Let it not be
supposed that they were relying solely upon those funds—
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
Canadafif 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 be.
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 Roman
Catholic population wore indisposed to this bill. In the
first place, as Christians like themselves—as men profess-
ing, like them, the same doctrine of Christianity—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 100,0001.;
their numerous and most exemplary priesthood were amply
provided for by the religious endowments of a greht 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 thought it consistent with their duty to trust
to that Roman Catholic feeling for the 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, hear.) Looking to the
warnings of Lord Sydenham, and their experience of the
Canadian troubles, they should beware of towing the seeds
of the struggle that might possibly be the result of such
legislation. (Hear.) If they passed this bit' 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 he 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 hoped 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 closed with
these words :—" In 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 fin 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 deal 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
tained, 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
mid 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 these 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 provision
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 assert
that the Roman Catholic religion was munificently
endowed in Canada ; and on the principle of oven religious
equality, he demanded that this bill should pass into $
law. (Hear, hear.) He would assume for tho 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, he (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 majmity 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. Paking-
ton) and deeply regretting that he waa 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
which their predecessors had given to the Legislature of
Canada, and that it was not their intention to permit the
Legislature of Canada to 'deal with this question, painful
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 imprudent man—who presumed to address the
Assembly of Canada inlanguage which that Assembly justly
denounced as ill-advised, unconstitutional, insolent, and in-
salting—(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 of
tithes. At that period the great majority of the inhabitants
of Canada were Roman Catholics. The Protestants were
few in number, widelyscattered, and unwilling to pay tithes ;
and therefore it appeared to the (lovernment 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 had confused together two very distinct ques-
tions which were brought under the consideration of the
House of Assembly of Canada last autumn—the one was a
party 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
clergy reserves. The party question was whether the Go-
vernment of Canada should first state to the House of
Assembly what were the views of 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 representatives 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. anadian members 'Who had voted
against that resolution 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 474,000, whilst the population represented by
the fifteen other members who voted against the resolution
was only 3150,000. 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 of the
Popular feeling on the subject? He asserted that if they took
those who voted and those who did not, there was a large
majority represented whose known opinions were in favour
of Mr. Sink's motion, which had a similar object to the
bill now under consideration. The right hon. barnet, in
his embryo dispatch, contended that the act of 1840 was
regarded in this country, as well as in Canada, as a final
settlement. He (Sir W. Molesworth) denied 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 Grote,
and many other political philosophers, whose views had,
from time to time, been adopted by the great leading states-
men of the day, and ho 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 include 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—first, 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 original 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, anc
partly on the ground of the Roman Catholics being desfi.
tute of endowments, and without the means of supporting
their clergy. They came to the conclusion that the best
mode of applying 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 cnown under the name of " The Family
Compact." From the years 1826 to 1839 two royal commis-
sions were 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
Qosford 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 stated in his 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 question of the 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.) IR 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 Glenelg 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
vas one in eogard 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 reservas should be sold, and
the proceeds devoted to religious purposes 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 question an amount oil uformation as to the
general 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
be settled before the union of the two Cauadas, 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 ofChristians 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 It. H. INGLIS 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 ae the
"pest of his diocese." It was not necessary that he (Sir It.
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 whioh 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) spoken in no very courteous terms of another
right reverend prelate, (Hear) hear,) A. motion Was car-
ried by the right rev. prelate to whom he (Sir W. Moles-
worth) had first alliftled 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 the
legislature of Upper Canada to dispose of this question of
the clergy reserves • and such a bill would have been in
accordance with the true principles of colonial policy—
that all local questions should be decided by a local legisla-
ture. In 1840, 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 Governmentio
adopt was to bring in a bill similarto that which had passed
the legislature 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 of Rome, amounting in numbers to 168,000, one-
sixth of the population, only received 20,0001.; 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 members of the Imperial Parliament, of
whom the right honourable 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 M. (Hear, hear.) The first persons
who endeavoured to upset the eettlement 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 rejected by the Legislative Assembly. As-
suming, however, that the act of 1848 was accepted as a
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 time 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 tho opinion of
their representatives in the local legislature ; and the Im-
perial Parliament could not accept petitions, however nu-
merous, indicating that the wishes of the people wore 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 better 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. If 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 one
form of Christianity in preference to another. But the
right hon. baronet said that if they transferred to the Le-
gislature of Canada the power of dealing with the question
of 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 property.
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 untreated
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 ssiculated to injure the Establishel Church, be-
cause, as an individual, he preferred its doctrine and disci-
pline to that of any other religious denomination. He dis-
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 the
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 endpwed by the State made it an object of
suspicion and jealousy to the Canadian people, and thus
did. it more real injury than the 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-
pt as
a rule
of
ff
cothleonhiaol use
policyw ast,h
baro-
net against the second reading of the bill. The real ques-
tion
now adopt
for
the consideration
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 coin.
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-
eat massiot of
passing.the property and
In proof
ment as one not purely domestic. So far from the popu-
lation of Canada being favourable to the bill, he believed
of this, he examined the state of colonial parties in refer-
ence to the measure. If it was necessary to declare the
aitbiwliatys isnerttein colony the
hostile
that
was
virtual independence of Canada, let our troops be 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 Church of Canada that
justice which she demanded in vain from the
of once Imperial England. Parliament

Mr. G. VERNON defended the bill, as more in accord-
ance with the changed circumstances of the colony than the
legislative arrangements of 1791, which had ceased to be
applicable. There had been little wisdom in the settlement
of 1840, which had sought to establish finality. It was not
with the Roman Catholics, as had been erroneously stated,
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.
He 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 Catholics 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 calculated 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 passing. Nothing could be more beneficial to the
Church of England in Canada than to get rid of an odious,
noxious, 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 of 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 down to say that
he 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 impossibility for even the very
best Minister to ascertain the real sense of the colony with
the control of whose affairs he was charged. (Hear, hear.)
But when the Imperial legislature placed suffrages in the
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 opposite 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 eh-
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
use 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 be 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 de-sired
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 gate 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 disposed 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 necessary the 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 would be 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 then the
signification of that phrase, " Protestant Church," was,
and always had been, 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, he admitted. But in 1840 he
could 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.) The
word was not to bo 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, twoof which were to go to the Church of Eng-
land, one to the Church of Scotland, and the remaining
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
Royal assent, and which divided the funds between the
clergy of various denominations. The bill was not for the
maintenance of the Protestant Church ; it was without
limitation as to any Church ; and, if the right hon. gentle-
man took the trouble of examining the returns 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 Scotland. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for Droitwich referred to the practice in
the United States, and road 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 British colonies, were situated in
the United States, would be placed beyond the power of
any legislature 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, hear,
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 arrive—should bo equally strict and
rigid in the observance of their public faith and undertak-
ings. (Hear.) But did the right hon. gentleman suppose
that there were no analogous instances to the United
States ? Was he 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 the 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 partiular
Po/poses by an act of the legislature. But he must confess

that the right hon. gentleman opposite
one of those who was least favourably situated to rewene
mend the rejection of the bill. For if there was sq.,,a-
who had made the maintenance of the present law unx,ie
was of all (Ala:
sible, it was that right hon. baronet. (Hear, heaF,a,"ll,o
the ministerial benches.) It was most important t!i t
house should bear in mind the grounds upon which, the
last, the right hon. gentleman rejected the petitionj4i
Canadian legislature. The right hon. gentleman salo
nbt
his words were words of peace and conciliation.
do
they were intended to be words of peace and conalt
atlonr
but that was not everything. It was the habit of tle'ri
colonies to look also to deedsb---(cheers)—and if the eDlecilsvt
the right hon. gentleman were based upon a prilrF„ab
variance with colonial freedom, he was afraid that,ittra,
soft and fair words might be highly
would be very much more influential. (Hear, bear') which
he must say there was but one plausible ground eine
he could possibly have resisted the demands ram" le of
him. The right hon. gentleman quoted the exarnP4c,b
the United States, and the doctrines on contracts
acceptable, his
thled
were rife there. But was the right hon. gentleman ens oil
to quote the doctrine of contracts—he who has told y 11,4
it was in the power of a state—nay, that it was the (tans
a state—to take away from different bodies the
.1' To
rights and privileges which they had from time %et'
attained? (Hear, hear.) And if the supreme courts hon.
prevent that alienation of the reserves which the right
,061
gentleman anticipates is to happen in CanadtAhe:t 011
ask whether the dicta of the supreme court woe"- "-„, aac
corpertiovoiced
just as heavy by withdrawing from one
Flying property to another corporation which wa; weal
in the distribution of the right hon. gentleman itorenet
Well, if there was a way which the right
old stat'
might have made lighter the maintenance of therh,t of e,
of things, it was by putting his case, not as rich
its°
national endowment, but as that of' a cert.!" rich it
fund which had been already dealt with, ana,,sr witb.
would be unwise, as well as unlawful, to lner such
But the right onourable gentleman adoPtel`nodhe'
actually on the contrary, he disapproved of. iit;,ll,,t the
said the very reverse of this. He state" "„t the
Government most be prepared to take into accent' 0 of
uji,tio a
changes which might be effected in the PeP s• as
Canada, the extensive emigration or other caul,
that the distribution, therefore of those funds outa be
time' to time to be reconsidered—(hear)--and td cone'
right hon. gentleman, with his words of peace among
liation, went on to say—"any proposal of the terws.
Majesty's Government would be willing te tioll
Well, now were these words of peace and cone/11;4W
Canada ? were
said " she asked for the disposal
own reserved lands," and the Secretary of State 0
"No doubt your reserved lands cannot be re ...„0000
fixed endowments ; the question must remain an Tieg to
—it must be reconsidered from time to time, ac,eeT-10
the circumstances of the country, and the men Who totally
it—(hear, hear)—and though some of them were twat;
unfit to discharge the functions which devolved upol!.reiast'
and,. moreover, though there were many opinions ,n' d air
ing in Canada of which the Government of Enge.c.xl awe
approved, he would 'beg to assure them that if tee•7oligil
with a proposal to her Majesty's Government, thel o
be willing to entertain it." Now a more distill ic
0000
violation of every principle on which colonial free!' wise
based than that, he (Mr. Gladstone) could not le one
(Cheers.) However, it was perfectly plain that to
had ventured to declare that the present state e'f ogee
was to be maintained, on the ground that the (Pa not
had been finally disposed of. (Hear, hear.) Axid,, far °
with reference to the question of public faith. of the
the continuance of these reserves in the hale% los?,
clergy beyond the lives of the present incumbents, that be
his right hon. friend the member for Droitwich the
should leave that part of the argument ; becanngeat°
public faith was pledged to anything, it was not Pfierthert
an abstract regulation—to the maintenance and.
on,
of public worship and religious instrucleoft'
to consider the present distribution and the pres°%srose
ment of proprietary rights, which the right boa' „ there
had declared he was ready to unsettle, beca,ins" /.10"
happened to be the question of a balance of %twill per'
he thought there was great force in what fell hon
haps great simplicity of language—from his ,„a Do.
friend the member for Staffordshire. He said be, T,
intend to attempt the maintenance of the present- ale"
hat.
specting the reserves on the ground of its possibility t
it struck him that there was was very great force :1 Ass
He (Mr Gladstone) believed that the word p?ssibilll had
rather a material word • that it was a topic whyiereoosr
some weight—(laughter)'—and he would thereforee, coo'
mend hon. gentlemen, before they commenced 'ale oti,
test, to consider where and in what it was e
(Cheers.) It seemed to him that if there was
more necessary than another for the maintenance
dignity of Parliament, it was that they should "°ad ets:
crover again the game of the American war. )
prolonged cheering from the Ministerial ben°
them not commence any conflict or controversy „Oa".
colonies, unless they felt convinced that their AT& .01"
were sufficient, not only to be produced once a tvr'ilen
debate, but to stand the brunt of controversY ;0130
came to be ranged with other and more serious di /0 &sr,
out of doors, to meet the agitated mind of a vitheee't,''
munity indignantly demanding their rights. (Gres.; whit
Do not let them commence a controversy en laalw•
they would come in like the lion, and go out like tll'ola by
Let him not be told that they were intending to nilioestl
their vote that night the appropriation of funds testae',
in former times for the maintenance of the Fr°3
religion, for they would be obliged to explain holt iitere°
that the arrangement of 1791 was so essentially into
in 1840. (Hear, hear.) And having then, text the
their own hands that privilege of power to deal Cans
affairs of Canada, were they now going to deny te
,wer
that same right now that they had acquired the P't.9s'
do so ? He must say, as a member of the Church °{a
land, and as one he hoped not indifferent to her w rs)---4°
(oh, oh, and great cheers, followed by counter cht P;
such he earnestly desired the passing of this measure' lie
could conceive nothing more detrimental to the Chn
England than that she should be found engaging her: es'
a struggle perfectly hopeless, and in his opinion 600
tirely devoid of justice as it was of truth. (I011:°, oPe
cheering from the ministerial benches.) There Wit,ogr
portion of a speech made the other evening oh the orriot.
tion benches in which he entirely concurred—that tat+,
ever may be the abstract merits of the volentaryinriecilaA
not been generally
and he was inclined to believe that its performan,ly,,b
encouraging that be that as it: n 1 ad"
was miserably adapted to the circumstances of can
(Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend near him Oro a
Molesworth) took a very desponding view of the ur'
public endowments and establishments for relibgie "(gr. G.)
poses throughout the Canadian provinces; stillen-dowinei,utt
hoped they might indulge the hope that these „1"' d say that
might be preserved to the Church ; yet he sc°",„,fiscatier
if they wanted to render that alienation—that nigh"
as sure as possible they would, by their vote tu'aice the
reject the bill. (Cheers.) If they wanted t 0 olv h°-
position of the Church of England, which was 'let the°,
noured and revered in Canada, weak and odious, &idle
combine the maintenance of her claims with the hers,/
of the principle of colonial legislation. (Loud
But the right hon. baronet was pleased to-night to that
a right rev, prelate in another place, and t° sah,. Ye pp,-
he had invented plausible fallacies to supPor" "4. place'
sent bill. Now, he (Mr. Gladstono), in the firs" jos'
considered that it was much more befitting topics
bers of that house to confine their attention itein West
arising before them, than to seek for amusement that
occurred elsewhere. ;But really he was eaten's' hinisem.
the right hon. gentleman should have thought pl AO'
warranted with so much coolness to write down as ribet`
sible fallacies what an hon. friend of his had des°,,,,,,,ret
to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) late "of
the least brilliant orations ever delivered by a Pre +, rS e
must rank in this country as one of the first inas-i°itg of
as not alo-20
oratory. But he rather wished to speak of the,,.,1„,i
that speech. He felt glad that a bishop of the tie, OWI
l
England should have come forward in support 4:4 0,10:
like that, notwithstanding the obloquy which be n
have to encounter from his professional brethren. ll
lieved that that right rev, prelate had judged w-ine t°
wisely in supporting the bill. Were they then g°os--'
enter upon this struggle without any hope of sued that
without a chance of maintaining it ? He had hen-jareit'f:
passage of the speech of the right hon. member ferthaell-
wich (Sir J. Pakington), in which he told the Par,'7o the
of England that they were making their appet,i,
wrong portion of the population of Canada j".v.,„" elan:
greatest pain. It was high time for the people 0, rn'of
to have done with making appeals to one diviner- fore
population. They knew of the old meaning t
of that oil";
—they knew of the disasters flowing from such aof it
ciple. (Loud cheers.) They knew that the effect
had been to create cliques and knots of intrigutrinati..;
put forward the profession of British spirit, bu)stil
the denial of the name of loyal subjects the Shibb";-odgee
their adoption. (Hear, hear.) It must be acknowl..
that for all mistakes in legislation Parliament wte'-,eof°,
the main responsible ; and it had been the error ce fora
of
recent times to diverge from the wisdom and Prlidenve t°
those who had preceded them—who were wont to 1e°040.;
colonial subjects the undivided and uncontrolled °flat in
meat of their local affairs. • His fervent hope was, wife'
they passed this bill the endowments would be Preg-i
(Laughter on the opposition benches.) He would °sole-
those gentlemen opposite, that though there mighty sable
times be wisdom in laughter, that here it was inaPP'ebeir4
Did they imagine that tho hance of those reserves t, he
maintained was increased by ridicule ? For his Pa(f, ea;
happened to know that there were opinions in Caus Alla
titled to the greatest weight—men whose judgment
ercil
whose powers of judging were excellent, most But eats
sanguine in their belief as to their maintenance. eats
was it that the continuance of those religious en.„,,d°"; 't
had been effected in the state of New York ? " :tare'
an Imperial act, binding down the colonial Leg'-'1142 is'
tying its hands, and forbidding it to meddle in its 0 the
timate transactions ? No, but it was by your leavi'l7,ol3
people of New York uncontrolled freedom of managc't.their
and if now they told him that there was no chance et 111e1
maintenance in Canada, he hoped and believed th,arwiser
overstated the case; but if the result should be 00°,4 the
they must receive it as the necessary fulfilment ;dote'
policy of this country, which had associated the gone°
nance of endowments with the principle of inte,
in the local affairs of our colonies—a princiPie ;alas°
odious in their eyes. It was not because the Ca,r or
had violated their allegiance, that they were rehelu°,,t;iol
that they were disloyal ; but it was because it was n 010
that they should take the management of thetr d°-
affairs, that they came before us with thfire
mends. They are doing) said the right honour'," t yos
tleman, pointing to the opposition benches) wpes„.iand,
would do in their case. (Cheers.) Were Canada "leo
and were England Canada, I do not believe that t
00 {p-
one gentleman opposite that would reject by his vtioneilei
night the second reading of this bill. Sir, Ire and
an°
this bill to the adoption of the house because it is 11olise
prudent, but emphatically, and, above all things, be setben
it is righteous and just. (The right hon. gentlenia ripg.)
resumed his seat amidst loud and long-continued °heed cow
Mr. NAPIER took his stand on the act of 1791, an lode
tended that it was competent for the Crown, havin,,g,clesi"
at its disposal, to make a grant in perpetuity to 9jl;;ctled
dl
astical corporation. The act of 1840, though an int!'
of the first compact, was a measure of conciliati bet
compromise, passed with the consent of the Church,„„tso
• the b" s
the bill now proposed was an act of tyranny rdigioa-
of moderation, attempted under the name °' -
equality.
„id h°
Sir R. H. INGLIS, amid calls for a division, ~.,. the
did not wish at that late hour of the night to on'ir'' l-ing
na f
attention of the house but for a few minutes. • nor °t
been so pointedly alluded to by the First Corainis,a'7l.,olo
Public Works in his speech that evening, he asked Pfriend
sion to make a few observations. hi, right holl;f being
(Sir W. Molesworth) had claimed the distinction It. 0•
one of those "ignorant Radicals" to whom he (Sir eolilJ
Inglis) alluded to on a former night. Now no Fers°Ast he
ever believe that right hon. gentleman ig,norant. ".-ation
was a Radical might be a matter of sincere congrabt`;ight
to himself, as well as to his constituents, whate
bel t'9
be to others. When he (Sir R. H. Inglis) took the con-
of interrupting the right hon. gentleman for what refer-
sidered was an abuse of the privilege of the house 10:0 the
ring to a speech made by a noble lord in his plaCeltieman
other house of Parliament, that right hon. gents boo•
said that he might as well have interrupted the ri.gno
baronet, the late Secretary of State for the C010nie2..0501
he referred to a speech wade by the riiiLt Foe P.'

ii