The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-19 00:00:00

gentlemen were invited to give by his noble friend the
member for the City of London. He should state that he
repudiated in the most distinct terms the statement that
compromise or secret influence, as advanced by the hon.
member for Rochdale, had anything to do with the course
now proposed by her Majesty's Ministers. No indivi-
dual opposed to the Ministry had anything to do with
that course, and it }vas simply the result of delibera-
tion amongst the members of the Government on the me-

rits of the queation itself, and their recollections of the

circumstances of 1840, and their sense of the obligation of
that period, that influenced them solely. It appeared to
him that the question was not altogether understood by
the last hon. gentleman who addressed the house, and who
described the evils that must result by pensioning the
Churches of England and Scotland out of these funds. His
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) experience impressed
him with the belief that the colonies wore not very fasti-
dious as to grants given to either churches or bodies as
long as they were paid by Great Britain. (Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) He agreed, however, with the hon. gentle-
man, that these Churches should not be pensioned. But
that was not the question before the house. The question
before the house was as to the proper form, manner, and
proceeding of dealing with these funds. He (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) had been a party in 1840 to the
arrangement made by the noble lord the member for the
City of London (Lord J. Russell), and nothing could be
more fair or distinct than the character of the provisions
of that act, which amounted to a compact. (Hear, hear.)
At that time the Church of England was contending for
the exclusive possession of these funds, and looked on the
Church of Scotland as a mere intruder. The House of
Lords was prepared, under the leadership of that illustrious
man the Duke of Wellington, to vindicate that right ; and
it was under these circumstances that an arrangement was
made by formal communication between the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the late Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of
Wellington, and the Administration of the day. The
question now arose—was it wise or just to sacrifice the
guarantee then entered into without first consulting those
who were to be affected by it in Canada. But he asserted
this was not the proper time to deal with the question of
the guarantee. The simple question just now was this—
whether that guarantee should be maintained or cancelled?
The guarantee becoming a reality altogether depended on
the contingency whether the Canadian Legislature would
or would not secularise the reserves. If they did not, then
it would remain a guarantee on paper as at present ; but,
supposing they did, then it would be the duty of the Mini-
ster of the day to raise the question in Parliament, and to
consider the course to be taken in reference to it. He
hoped the secularisation never would take place ; but even
if it did, the guarantee could not come into force for 15 or
20 years. It appeared to the Government that whatever
they did in this matter, the question of the guarantee was
a peculiarly British question. The proper course to adopt
would be to separate the two questions of the guarantee
and the power to deal with the reserves. He wished to
bear his testimony to the fact that the noble lord the mem-
ber for London was enabled in 1840 to effect an arrange-
ment which, at the time, was both vital and essential to
the welfare of Canada ; and though it might be easy to ca-
vil at present at that proceeding, yet he hoped the house
would not act precipitately on the important question now
submitted to its consideration. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer
should defend the Consolidated Fund. He admitted that
the state of Canada in 1840 was very unsatisfactory, be-
cause the Administration of the day took up a nominee
council at variance with the whole country. (Hear.) The
lands, though comparatively poor in 1840, now yielded
31,0001. a year ; and why should they give them up now,
and saddle prospectively the Consolidated Fund of this
country ? (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAEL—I may have misapprehended the ob-
servations of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer,
but it appeared to me his observations were entirely di-
rected against the third clause. The right hon. gentleman
informed us of the circumstances under which this bill was
prepared. It was doubtless prepared after due and matured
deliberation, after a complete acquaintance with well-veri-
fied facts, and after a perfect recollection of the very pecu-
liar circumstances under which the act of 1840 was passed.
But the right hon. gentleman does not seem to-night to
vindicate this third clause ; and if I do not misapprehend
him, he seems to express astonishment as to the mode and
manner by which it was introduced into the bill. (Hear,
hear.) The bill consists of only three clauses, and this is
very important—as, at the first blush, it does not appear
to bear the stamp of that high ability that so eminently
characterises the present Administration. (Cheers and
laughter.) The first clause is to be altered, the second
consists of a parenthesis, and the third is to be emitted.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Yet this is a bill of the first
magnitude, and for the purpose of carrying it the energies
.of the house have been unusually taxed. (Hear, hear.)
We have been told that the question of the guarantee is
one that should be settled at home ; and therefore the
colony is to be communicated with on the subject. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) I confess I can give only one interpre-
tation of the ingenious statement, and it is this—that
there is a change of policy on the part of the Administra-
tion. (Cheers.) I should very much like to hear the
opinions of the right hon. baronet the First Commissioner
of Works on this very clause. I wish to know whether he
gives his complete adhesion to this policy? We have been
favoured with the opinion of the hon. member for Mon-
trose, who understands this question. There is no doubt
that ultimately these clergy reserves will be secularised—
so thinks the honourable gentleman the member for Mon-
trose, and I wish the hon. genttlemen on both sides of the
house who give my hon. friend credit for great sagacity
will bear in mind the immediate consequences of the secu-
larisation of these reserves. When we are told by the
First Minister of the Grown in this house that the Secre-
tary of State has only just sent a dispatch to the colony on
this subject, and that we are to wait for the decision of
the colony, I agree with the hon. member for Northampton
that it would be only decorous to wait for such decision.
It appears to me that under these circumstances, and in
consideration of the omissions to be made, notwithstanding
the glowing picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the measure is immature ; and it appears to me the wisest
course would be to pause ; and, therefore, the best thing I
can do will be to move, sir, that you report progress, and
obtain leave to sit again. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL.—I have already given my reasons
for the course I propose to adopt. The right hon. gentle-
man who spoke last stated that we proposed to refer the
question to the colony for its decision. The fact is we are
about to write to the colony that if, at some future time,
they should think proper to agree to divert these clergy
reserves to other purposes, it is our hope they will take
into consideration this part of the act of Parliament. The
hon. member for Montrose talked of our waiting for an
answer, which we might have in 30 days. But the dis-
patch should be sent, the governor should assemble the
parliament of Canada, and ask them to consider the ques-
tion of the clergy reserves. Of course they would take
time to consider it. It would then go through all its
stages ; and yet it was to be supposed that they could have
an answer in 30 days. It is clear no such thing could re-
sult. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Northampton
proposed that we should delay the whole subject, and make
our legislation contingent on the result in Canada. The
parliament of Canada has asked us to give them power to
legislate on this subject. I am ready to give them that
power. (Hear, hear.) But hon. gentlemen who differ
from us say, " do not give them that power ; write to them,
and wait until you get an answer." But I say, by the time
we could get that answer it would be very late in the ses-
sion, and it would be almost impossible to legislate on the
subject. (Hear, hear.) What we now wish is, that this
bill should pass the house, and in the manner most likely
to enable the Canadian Legislature to deal immediately
with the subject. (Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT thought the committee would be inclined
to come to the conclusion, from the speech of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, that considerable difference of
opinion prevailed in the Government with regard to the
question they were then discussing. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman had treated the question with a
vivacity which the noble lord had completely failed in call-
ing to his aid. Now, if ever, was precisely the time when
this question should be settled, if there were anything in the
guarantee at all ; but he took the liberty of saying that
it was with him very doubtful if there were anything in it.
(Hear, hear.) For his own part, he had read the clause of
the act several times over, and so complex had it been
made by the lawyers, that he believed the house did not
know what it was called upon to agree to. He doubted,
however, if any lawyer could make it appear clear that
should these reserves be entirely secularised, there would
be any mode of proceeding by which this house could be
called upon to make good the deficiency out of the Conso-
lidated Fund. Supposing they were secularised, as he
hoped and believed they would be, and that in a short
space of time the question was if the guarantee was any-
thing or nothing. Upon that point there seemed to be a
great difference of opinion; but he took it that the noble
lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded it in the
light of a guarantee. If the committee divided on the
clause, he (Mr. Bright) should vote for retaining it, because
he should thereby put out of question all liability on the
part of this country to pay these Churches the amount of
the guarantee, for he contended there was never a more
impudent thing proposed to the house than that the people
of this country, who were not possessed of one-half the com-
petency of the people of Canada, should be taxed for the
support of the establishment of a sect of 3,000 or 4,000
across the Atlantic. (Cheers.) The fault he had to find
with the noble lord was the want of grasp he exhibited
when he came to grapple with questions of this nature. If
the noble lord would only learn to rely upon that which
was just and which might be fairly recommended to the
hor est opinion of the people, he would often find that he
commanded a larger amount of support than he had calcu-
lated upon, and be thus enabled to carry more extensively
beneficial measures through both Houses of Parliament.
The amendment having been withdrawn,
Sir G. GREY said that with regard to the nature and
extent of the guarantee, he was compelled to arrive at the
conclusion that the Legislature, when the act was passed,
never contemplated a guarantee against such a contingency
as that which had now arisen—namely, the absolute secu-
larisation of the clergy reserves. On reference to the act it
would be seen that the mode in which the fund was to be
distributed was specified with great care; and the gua-
rantee was intended only to make good any deficiency
which occurred in the revenue whilst the property re-
mained liable to the appropriation fixed by the act. In
voting for the omission of the clause, which he should do,
he trusted he should not be considered as expressing an
opinion the reverse of that which he really entertained,
that in the event of a diversion of this property by the co-
lonial legislature from the object contemplated by the act
of 1840, there would be a charge on the Consolidated Fund
of 15,0001. a year. Thinking it was a guarantee with re-
gard to any deficiency that might arise between the
amount annually published, and the sums mentioned in
the act, he could then see that there was the same possibi-
lity of that deficiency arising when the colonial legislature
became empowered to deal with this subject as existed
now when the Imperial Legislature was dealing with it.
To this extent he felt bound to maintain the guarantee ;
and understanding it in that limited sense, he should vote
with the Government for the omission of the clause.
The committee divided—
For the motion .
Against it...

Majority against the clause 6B
The clause was therefore ordered to be struck out of the
bill, and the house resumed.
. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.

The order of the day for the third reading of this bill
having been read,
Mr. TOLLEMACHE presented a petition against the
bill from the clergy and inhabitants of the city of Chester,
and a similar petition from the inhabitants of Ashbocking,
in the county of Suffolk.
Captain ARCHDALL presented a petition to the same
effect, from the inhabitants of the parish of Galloon, in the
county of Fermanagh.
The thud reading of the bill was then, on tho motion of
Lord J. RUSSELL, postponed until Monday, the 11th of
April.

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Th LORD-ADVOCATE, in moving the second reading
of this bill, said that its object was to extend to Scotland
an amendment of the law which had already been adopted