The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-12 00:00:00

accepting the measure then offered by the noble lord, Sir
Robert Peel said :
" I think that the propositions made by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, distinguished as well for his high station as for
his moderation, comes recommended by justice as well as for-
bearance. On the part of the Church of England, all obstacles
are removed from the disposal of the whole of the reserve
lands. The church seeks not to reserve to herself any of these
lands. After the decision of the judges, the church of Scot-
land is admitted to the same right as the church of England ;
and the only difference which exists is the difference arising
from the number of adherents which belong to each. With
this proposition, acquiesced in by the two churches, permit-
ting-the sale of the whole of the reserve lands, with the gua-
rantee in perpetuity of the present amount, with one-third of
the proceeds of the future sale, that is a proposal recom-
mended by its intrinsic' importance as well as by its justice
and moderation."
Deeply to be deplored was it that the guarantee thus
solemnly ratified was to be deemed no longer binding than
to the noble lord seemed expedient. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had described with his wonted power the evils
which he considered likely to arise from the rejection of
this measure ; but, whatever those evils might be, it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Walpole) that those certain to arise
from its adoption were infinitely greater. He had that con-
fidence in the integrity of many of the Canadian people
that he believed they would still be willing to acquiesce in
the existing settlement, if the Imperial Parliament pointed
out to them that they, in common with it, were bound in
good faith and honour to observe it. At all events, he
would have the experiment tried. Be just, and fear not.
There were three dangers which he wished to point out to
the house as likely to arise from the adoption of this mea-
sure,—the first, that it would tend to set up the voluntary
system on the destruction of the present religious establish-
mops ; next, that it would tend to excite great religious
strife and controversy with reference to the endowments
not affected ; and, thirdly, that it would shake the confi-
dence which our colonies ught to feel in the protection of
the Imperial Parliament. (Hear.) As to the first of these
objections, the noble lord, who bad admitted the futility of
the voluntary system as regarded education, would scarcely
I contend that it would be found valid in regard to religion.
He saw everywhere in every part of the world the seeds of
religious strife sown, and he for one would never do any-
thing to facilitate their growth. Was there any way by
which these unfortunate differences could be allayed ? He
believed that there was one way, and only one ; and that
was to maintain with a just but a firm and vigorous hand
every compact which had ever been made under the bond
of a national engagement for the benefit of any religious
body, so long as the purposes for which that compact had
been made were not perverted. (Hear, hear.) That was
the test which he thought should be applied to all these
measures. Let them adhere to that position, and
.be be-
lieved they might maintain religious peace. Take up any
other, and they would provoke more than ever religious
animosity, which he feared would be greatly' increased if
the Imperial Parliament should withdraw its protecting
hand. (Hear, hear.) Parliament had a protecting power
over all the dominions of the British Crown, and that
power they were bound to exercise by defending the weak
against the strong, and not by siding with the strong
against the weak. He should not probably have adverted
to this at all but for an unfortunate expression which had
fallen from the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The
phrase which he alluded to was this—that " the measure
before the house would shake the confidence of the Protes-
tant clergy in the perpetuity of religious endowments."
Let him warn the hon. gentleman that he could not shake
the confidence of the Protestant clergy in religious endow-
ments without shaking the confidence, not only of the
Protestant clergy, but of every Church in the world, in the
maintenance of any endowments whatever. It was for
that reason that he entreated them to pause before they
passed this bill, shaking the confidence of one Church in
the endowments which belonged to it, and laying the flat-
tering unction to their souls that the confidence of other
Churches in their endowments would not be shaken. The
third evil consequence which, he thought, would flow from
the adoption of this measure was the loss of colonial confi-
dence in imperial protection. He felt this very strongly.
He felt that perfect faith in the British Crown had been
hitherto one of the main encouragements in promoting
colonial enterprise ; and that, if they once shook that con-
dence, they would strike a blow at colonisation itself. He
was convinced that there was only one mode in which they
could properly deal with our great colonial empire—that
was to treat them as if they were parts of, and one with,
ourselves. In the same way, therefore, that they would
give to any town within this island municipal institutions
which would enable it to deal with its own affairs, so ought
they to give representative institutions to our different
colonies, whereby they might be enabled to deal with their
own affairs. But, as they would never allow a town
to destroy the foundations of any religious or chari-
table institutions which existed in that town before
municipal rights were given to it, so they ought not
to allow any colony of the British Crown, with represen-
tative institutions, to destroy the religious endowments
which had been made and guaranteed by Parliament as
permanent endowments. (Hear, hear.) The minority
in such a town and the minority in the colony had a right
to expect protection. If Parliament denied it, their
confidence in them would be shaken, if not utterly de-
stroyed. For the sake, then, of the colonies generally, for
the promotion and encouragement of colonial enterprise in
all parts of the world, and for the purpose of maintaining
the utmost confidence in the British Crown and the British
Parliament, he begged them to pause before they passed
this bill. But there were other reasons, perhaps, as strong
as that to which he had last alluded. There was the danger
of setting race against race, and people against people.
There was the duty of making religious instruction co-ex-
tensive and commensurate with all the efforts of human
enterprise. There was the further duty of preserving in-
tact the rights of conscience, and the perpetual mainte-
nance of the national faith. If they forgot these things,
he owned he could not. When he thought of them he was
unable to assent, under the plausible plea of local self-
government, to abandon those rights which had existed
before self-government was conceded, which had been
granted at the time it was conceded, which had been made
the condition of that concession and which now, lie
thought, ought to be upheld on every motive, with one ex-
ception, of policy and expediency, and on every principle,
without one exception, of justice and of honesty. (Hear.)
Mr. HIT3IE was of opinion that every argument which
the right hon. gentleman had used should induce the house
to support, and not to oppose this bill. The local Legisla-
ture of Canada had declared no less than 14 times, almost
unanimously, that the endowments granted to the Churches
of England and Scotland should .cease, and that the pro-
perty awarded by the Imperial Legislature should be secu-
larised. They added, moreover, that until that was done
there would be no peace. The alarm of the right hon.
gentleman, therefore, was all moonshine ; and he must ex-
press his thanks to the noble lord for having introduced
this measure, which he believed would remove a great
source of discontent from the colonies. So far from the
abolition of the system preventing colonisation, he be-
lieved that if the Clergy Reserves Bill had never passed,
the colonisation in Canada would have doubled its present
amount ; and that, if these endowments were continued,
Canada would be greatly inclined to repudiate its conned'-
tion with England. He would say, with the right hon.
gentleman, "Be just, and fear not." Be just to the people
of Canada, and fear not the consequences. If they were
unjust to them—which they would be if they rejected the
present bill—he had shown them what the results were
likely to be. (Hear.)

Mr. DRUMMOND said that although, as the debate had
proceeded since its first introduction, the nature of the bill
had come to be much simplified and brought more clearly
within the range of what had been called "just alarms"—
for the fact was that it was neither more nor less than a
measure of church plunder—(cheers from the Opposition)
—yet so want' extraordinary things had been enunciated
during the time the measure had been before the house,
that he was loath to take leave of it without giving it a
parting benediction. (A laugh) When his noble friend at
the head of the Government (Lord Aberdeen) first an-
nounced to the public the principles on which he intended
that his Government should be administered, he made use
of the expression " Conservative progress.' Now, that
the present measure was one of progress no one could.
doubt ; but he much feared that his Noble friend, in ut-
tering his substantive, forget his adjective, for the " Con-
servative" quality of the measure he (Mr. Drummond) was
totally at a loss to discover, seeing that it conserved no-
thing, and that its " progress,» not only in the intention
of its movers, but in the intention of every one of its sup-
porters, was towards the destruction of all religious esta-
blishments.

Mr. SE YDIER assured the hon. gentleman that he was
mistaken in supposing that every soul who supported the
Government in the present measure did so with the inten-
tion to promote the secularisation of the clergy reserves.
He assurred him also that he believed he was acting not
as a Radical but as a consistent Conservative in support-
ing a measure which would preserve the union between
Canada and the mother country. In his opinion he was
the Conservative and the hon. member was the Radical—
for he had pointed clearly; and at no distant period, to
the loss of our colonial empire. He (Mr. Seymer) knew
no greater proof of the progress of public opinion than the
present state of the clergy reserves question. With these
views, he would give his cordial support to the measure
proposed by her Majesty's Government.
Mr. LIDDELL contended that the lands in question
never properly belonged to the people of Canada, but were
won by the sword, and paid for with the money, of this
cotintry, and therefore the Canadians had no right to deal
with them.

Sir E. DERING, after disputing the doctrine of finality,
said that he had no desire to deprive the clergy of any-
thing to which they were entitled, but that his vote for
this measure was given in favour of self-government, and
that he believed the Canadians would deserve any confi-
dence we might repose in them.
Mr. CHILD opposed the bill, remarking that those who
were indifferent to religion might be careless about preserv-
ing its rites, but that there was a moral responsibility at-
taching to the Legislature. He was for retaining the en-
dowments which the wisdom and forethought of our
fathers had created ; and he quoted from Malachi the re-
ference to those who " rob God."
Mr. PEEL felt it necessary to advert to some of the
arguments which the right hon. gentleman, late Secretary
for the Home Department, had urged in opposition to the
measure. In common with every member of the house,
he entertained the greatest respect for the right hon. gen-
tleman, but it would appear that, with reference to this
question, he had permitted his zeal to get the upper-hand
of his habitual regard for candour and impartiality. The
right hon. gentleman had unintentionally, no doubt, en-
tirely misrepresented what fell from him (Mr. Peel) in
introducing the bill. What he said upon that occasion
was not intended to apply to religious endowments in
general, but to one particular country and to one particular
description of endowment—namely, the clergy reserve fund
of Canada. It ought not to be supposed that, because he
pressed the adoption of this bill on the house, he wavered
in any degree in his attachment to the Established Church
of England. He supported the Church of England in this
kingdom because he belonged to it, and because the great
bulk of the people held sentiments in unison with his own
on that subject. It was one thing, however, for Par-
liament to support for itself, and by itself, a Church Esta- '
blishment, and another to support by its authority an
Establishment in Canada, possibly without the concurrence,
ill violated a compact, and it might be even against the will, of the people of 1
that country. The right hon. gentleman argued that the
that
e munys tp ersou
perceivew h who examined
to which the good faith of the
Crownln and Legislature was pledged ; but it appeared to
measur mthiin:dpetshiteiepnrowviassioncitiis
quite
un-
tothetenable.
rights of all exisj
The bill was framed with scrupulous regard
the obligation of . public faith. Were not the
incumbents protected?" ( Hear,
and a laugh.) fisting incumbents
of whatever denomina-
tion, now in spiritua7charge of any district in Canada
secured in the enjoyment of his income du • the ' was
right hon. gentleman anticipated
thathi st
the in
csuumc cbeesns oe yr s.
enjoy a similar adyanta present incumbents would not
Altelntuhraet
eodconstituteo a breach of trust .
at might but the cir-
cumstance would not
protect existing
Parliament was was bonofnThdthet,
terests. The moment the Legisallt to
point it was disembarrassed of all ure
• passed beyond that
considerations respecting
endowments, and was free to travel in the open path of

' public policy alone. Viewed in that light, could it be de-
nied that, as a measure of public policy, the bill was en-
titled to the consideration of the house? (Hear, hear.)
The bill would place the Church of England in Canada on
the same footing, with respect to endowments, as the Ro-
man Catholic Church. In Lower Canada there were 500
Roman Catholic parochial clergymen, possessing, on an
average, an income of 2501. each, aid this appropriation
rested on the good pleasure of *he Canadian Parliament
alone. It appeared to him that the provision made for the
Church of England should be placed on precisely the same
footing. No argument had been more reiterated in the
course of this discussion than that the act of 1840 was in-
tended and accepted as a final settlement ; and yet, singu-
larly enough, every party interested in maintaining the act
had taken the course best calculated to sap its foundations
and render its stability precarious and uncertain. Take,
first, the conduct of the people of Canada themselves.
Certainly the Imperial Government would never have
moved in the matter had it not been for the representations
of a change of opinion on the part of the people of Canada.
Three times—with a general election intervening—had the
Canadian Parliament passed resolutions condemnatory of
the act of 1840. Under these circumstances it might be
fairly assumed that the opinion of the people of Canada
was in unison with their Parliament. This being the case,
he was entitled to ask those who were prepared to reject the
bill what they were prepared to do ? They would be called
on year after year, and session after session to repeat the vote
they were about to give that night. Turning from the people
of Canada to the Imperial Government, let the house con-
sider its position in regard to the question. In 1850
Lord Grey undertook, on the part of the Government, to
bring forward a measure similar to that now before the
house ; but before he could execute his intention he was
succeeded in office by the right hon. baronet opposite.
Now, no man had done more than the right hon. baronet
to render the maintenance of the act of 1840 impracticable.
The right hon. baronet took this course ; he said ho would
not fulfil the pledge given by Lord Grey, but that he was
prepared from time to time to reconsider it, and make a
redistribution of the funds settled by it. (Hear.) The
right hon. baronet's proposition, however, did not meet
the requirements of the case, for what the Canadians
complained of was, not so much the arrangement effected
by the act of 1840 as of the power assumed by the Impe-
rial Legislature to take the matter out of their own con-
trol. It was said that the lands in question were never the
property of the Canadians, but had been acquired by Bri-
tish blood and treasure. If that argument were worth
anything, it applied equally to the whole Canadian terri-
tory, and ought to have estopped the legislation by which,
10 or 15 years ago, we surrendered to the Canadian Par-
liament all the waste lands of the Crown. (Hear, hear.)
That proceeding was a precedent for the course which Go-
vernment now called upon the house to adopt. The Legis-
lature of Canada represented a population of 2,000,000.
It had been set up by ourselves for the moral and material
improvement of the people, and it seemed but reasonable
that it should control every agency that could aid it in the
cause of good government. (Hear, hear.) If they founded
in that country a provision for public worship,' it did
strike him as an anomaly that the Parliament of Canada
should not have the power of regulating that provision,
and deciding what was the End of public intruction to be
supported out of it, (Hear, hear.) They had left to the
colonists every other institution to regulate and govern,
and why, then, were they called upon to act as a buttress
from without to a church establishment in that country ?
And would they not be called upon, on the same principle,
to give extraneous aid to every institution in Canada ?
(Hear, hear.) He would ask gentlemen opposite on which
of the two acts—that of 1791 or that of 1840—they wished
to fall back on this question ? If they relied on the act of
1791, did they not in so doing impugn the act of 1840 ?
The right hon. gentleman opposite said the act of 1791 was
applicable to the maintenance of the Protestant clergy re-
serves ; but he forgot that by the act of 1840 the Roman
Catholics had been admitted to share in those funds, and
he must also' remind him that from 1819 down to 1840
attempts were made, from time to time, to disturb-the
arrangements of that act. (Hear, hear.) Successive
Legislative Assemblies in Canada attempted, session after
session, to change that act, and appropriate the reserves
to other purposes. (Hear, hear.) Could that grow up as
a right which was daily denounced as a wrong ? Could
a prescriptive right be given to the Church of Eng-
land in Canada when it was daily remonstrated against ?
The right honourable gentleman said it was a final
act, but it was . only final in the hope then entertained
that the Canadian people would come to agree upon
that which had proved to be a great source of dis-
sension. (Hear, hear.) He referred to the preamble of
the act of 1840, but that preamble had reference not to a
final settlement of the question, but simply to the final dis-
position of the land for sale. (Hear.) It was also said
that the act of 1840 followed the act of the Upper Cana-
dian Legislature prior to the union. On the contrary,
there was a material difference between them, and it was

impossible to say that the act of 1840 expressed the views
of the Canadian Legislature of Upper Canada. (Hear,
hear.) He must be permitted to doubt, also, whether that
act was accepted as a final measure by the Canadian Par-
liament. The right hon. gentleman bad read certain
Speeches and the report of a committee, but he failed to
show that the report of that committee was followed up by
any resolution of the house itself. (Hear, hear.) On the
whole, then, he had come to the conclusion that the de-
mand of the local Parliament was one that they were bound
to concede. (Hear.) How they would exercise their power
was a question he did not care to consider. But he would
say this, that in their strict observance of constitutional
decorum, during the three years they had been endeavour-
ing to obtain this power—(hear, hear)—in their ,not at-
tempting to override the British Parliament, but showing
a readiness to wait the pleasure of that house—they had
given a good earnest of the spirit with which they -were
willing to approach the question. (Hear, hear.) The
Church of England would at least derive one great ndvan-
tage from the passing of this bill. She would not hence-
forth be indebted for her endowments to a harsh ind un-
questionable interference of the Imperial Parliament with
the property that belonged to the Canadian ipeople.
(Hear, hear.) She would owe them to their spontaneous
liberality or their spontaneous forbearance. (Hear; hear.)
He would only add that the course they were now taking
was not altogether without a precedent. There was a por-
tion of the history of our colonies in Australia which might
be not inaptly cited on this occasion. There, as in Canada,
they had determined to establish the Church of England,
and there they gave that Church the right to one-seventh
of all the waste lands of the colony. But they retraced
their steps before it was too late ; and what had been done
with these Church lands, that now yielded 4,0001. a-year ?
They were reserved, not for the advantage of the ,Church
of England only, but distributed in fair equal parts among
the four denominations in the colony,—he believed with
the active concurrence of the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site. (Hear, hear.) They were distributed among the
Wesleyan Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Roman Ca-
teolics, and the Church of England, and the principle acted
upon was, that they each received shares propprtioned to
their numerical strength. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that
Canada would continue to be a home for the Church of
England. He acknowledged that, whatever might be the
power which the Church derived from the consciousness of
the divine mission that was intrusted to her, in a new
country like Canada she could not bring home her mission
to the wants of the population unless she was largely en-
dowed by the public. (Hear, hear.) But still the right of
the Canadian Legislature to deal with these endowments
was so strongly fixed in justice that it ought to be conceded,
and, therefore, without believing that the passing of this
bill would cloud the future or darken the fortunes of that
Church, and believing that it would cement and draw more
closely the ties which bound that country to this, hepressed
upon them the adoption of the bill, and hoped they would
pass it at its final stage with a majority as clear, and com-
manding, and conclusive as that which it received on the
last occasion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER denied that the object of this bill was to
place the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches on a
level, and declared that the former was placed lower than
the latter, and deprived of a protection which was pre-
served to the Church of Rome. He next argued that per-
manence was intended when the guarantee was given, and
that the settlement was designed, and represented to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, as for all time, and not, merely.
for existing incumbents. If the Crown were not to re-
serve these rights, he would ask what rights it could pre-
tend to keep in a colony, and he entered into a legal argu-
ment to show that it was proposed to interfere with vested
rights and acquired interests, which the act of 1791 did
not do. This was a question of property and of spoliation.
He urged the case of the laity who had gone out to Canada
on the faith that Parliament would abide by its own enact-
ment, and he dwelt upon the great increase which had
taken place in the members of the Established Church,
asking how their spiritual interests were to be provided
for. What right had we to take their property, or to
divest ourselves of our responsibility, or the chance of
what the Canadian Legislature might do ? After various
quotations from speeches by members of the Government,
he urged that the faith of the Crown and of Parliament,
and the duty of England, were absolutely pledged to the
compact, and that Government ought not to ride off from
it on an opinion of their law officers. Whatever it might
be desirable to do towards giving the colonies self-go-
vernment, let England, in the first place, presehe her
honour.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that all private
rights were preserved by this bill, but he cautioned the
house not to confound private or Parliamentary, rights
with the mere arrangement for distribution of certain
sums, for the benefit of the people of Canada, created by
existing legislation. He denied that any wrong was done
by placing in the control of the people of Canada the carry-
ing out of a provision exclusively intended for their own
benefit, of which they must be the best judges.
Sir J. PAKINGTON was sorry to say that the proceed-
ings of that day had thrown a stain on the character of
British statesmen. His mind was so full of the course
taken by Government that he could not dwell upon com-
paratively unimportant topics, such as the vacillation of
the Administration, and their contradictory statements.
But after what had been said on former occasions by Lord
J. Russell, he was as much bound as a man could be either
to withdraw the bill or to introduce words for giving effect
to the guarantee. It was a sad day for England when men
of honour were driven to deviate, for political purposes,
and as a Government, from the principles which would
actuate them individually and in private. Having,
in his turn, made quotations from former speeches,
Sir John asked what faith could be placed in words,
if the promises made of a permanent arrangement
were to broken. He next animadverted upon the dispatch
of the Duke of Newcastle to Lord Elgin, written, he said,
as if the writer were afraid of his subject. He would not
repeat the arguments which he had urged on the second
reading, and which some attempts had that night been
made to combat, but he denied that this question affected
the Canadian people as a whole, for it did not affect the
Catholics of the lower province. He charged the Govern-
ment with being accessory to confiscation before the fact,
knowing the object of the Canadians, and yet abandoning
the reserves to them. The bill could not be passed with-
out violating the honour of the country. When the union
of the two provinces was signed, the separation of the
colony from this country was settled, and it was only a
question of time ; but that separation would be hastened
by the deep offence this bill would give to the loyal Pro-
testants of Canada.

Lord J. RUSSELL—I must, in the first place admit
that the hon. and learned gentleman the member for the
University of Dublin, and the right hon. gentleman who
has just sat down, have not shrunk from stating all the
magnitude and all the important consequences of this mea-
sure. They have not shrunk from stating that, supposing
what they hardly seem to deny—that the refusal of this
power to the Legislature of Canada should lead to the sepa-
ration of Canada from this empire, they are prepared to
embrace that consequence. Now, before the house rejects
a bill of which 'such consequences are predicted even by its
opponents, it is surely worth the while of the house to con-
sider whether there are any sufficient reasons in justice or
in policy why that rejection should take place. The right
hon. gentleman has spoken much of the opinion with which
he has viewed those guarantees—those principles departed
from, which, he thought, ought to have been maintained;