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

by the Crown for a particular purpose ; and what was done
by Lord Grey and the noble lord opposite—who was mixed
up with the acts of Lord Grey, who was Prime Minister,
and responsible for his acts ? Lord Grey, who had complied
with the prayer of the Canadians to deal with its reserved
lands in 1850, refused the prayer of the New South Wales
legislature in 1851 to deal with their lands. (Hear, hear.)
He understood the noble lord to nod assent during the dis-
cussion last week, when he advanced the proposition that
the question of leaving the land to the colony was a ques-
tion of policy, and undoubtedly was not a question of right;
that the right of all colonial land was in the Crown, until
they made it over formally to the colony ; and he was glad
to see that the noble lord again assented to the proposition.
(Hear, hear.) This brought them to the real substance of
the argument for colonial self-government, and on reading
the petition that had been sent over by the colonial legis-
lature it would be found that that legislature demanded
those reserves as a matter of right, and he (Sir J. Paking-
ton) disputed that right altogether. (Hear, hear.) The
right was in the Crown, and Lord Grey had contended for
that right in the case of Australia. That noble lord con-
sidered that it was a question of policy, and that the right
was in the Crown; and when Lord Grey used that language
with regard to New South Wales, he (Sir John Pakington)
did not see on what principle it could be contended that it
was the right now of the legislature of Canada to deal with
those reserved lands that never were given up to them by
the Crown, but were distinctly !disposed of for another
purpose by the act of 1840. (Hear, hear.) But, even if they
recognised the principle which involved the concession of
those lands to the colony, he would ask the house again
whether an arrangement made before the union of the two
provinces did not prevent the united legislature from dealing
with those lands? (Hear.) The noble duke the Secretary
for the Colonies had taken exception to the language which
he (Sir J. Pakington) had bald on this subject in a former
debate. The language which he (Sir J. Pakington) had
held was that the arrangement made in 1810 was made with
a view to the union—that they could not now fairlydepart
from that arrangement, which was made previous to the
union—and that the united legislature was contemplated
by the contract that was then made ; and he had asked
whether he was not borne out by the facts in this case.
But the noble duke said no--he said the Union Act was
passed early in the session, and the Clergy Reserves Act
was passed towardi the end of the session of 1840 ; but he
(Sir J. Pakington) considered, nevertheless, that there was
the clearest evidence that the Clergy Reserves Act was
urged by Lord Sydenham, and passed by the Government
here, in special reference to the act uniting the two colo-
nies. Lord Sydenham wrote to Lord J. Russell, then Co-
lonial Secretary, on the 22d of June, 1840, in these words:
" That there is no subject of such vital importance to the
peace and tranquillity of the province as the clergy reserves ;
that there is none, with reference to the future union of the
two provinces—(hear)—which it is more necessary to deter-
mine without delay ; that it has been for many years the
source of all the troubles in the province, the never-failing
watchword at the hustings, the perpetual spring of discord,
strife, and hatred ; that to leave this question undetermined
would be to put an end to all hope of re-establishing tran-
quillity within the province, but to establish the union with-
out settlement of it, and to transfer the decision to the united
Legislature, would be to add to the sources of discord which
then prevailed in Lower Canada an entirely new element of
strife—(hear)—for among the various evils by which. Lower
Canada has been visited, one and only one, perhaps the
greatest of all, has been wanting—religious dissension ; that
he was satisfied that the value of arriving at a settlement
could not be over-estimated ; and that, strong as these feel-
ings might have been, the immense advantage of having the
question finally withdrawn from the sources of popular die-
cussion and dispute would reconcile all partieS to it."
He thought no one could hear the extract from the dispatch
of Lord Sydenham, in 1840, without being compelled to
admit that that dispatch was written in special reference
to the coming union, and that Lord Sydenham not only felt
it of importance, but of first and paramount importance,
that the clergy reserves should be settled before those two
provinces were united. That was the language of the go-
vernor ; and the following was the language used by the
noble lord the member for the city of London, who was
then Colonial Secretary:—" He would ask the house was it
not most desirable to prevent this question being brought
before the united legislature—(hear)—and decided in a
manner opposed to the views which Parliament was known
to entertain ?" He thought he need not trouble the house
with further extracts. He was sorry to see the noble lord
had left his place, but he had asserted in the former debate
—and the assertion was not denied by the noble lord—that
the bill was passed with special reference to the union, and
for the purpose of settling the question before the union
took place. Those extracts conclusively showed that the
bill was passed, and accepted by Canada, as a preliminary to
the union, and an essential preliminary to the union, and.
he (Sir J. Pakington) contended that the colonial legisla-
ture were not at liberty to disturb the arrangement that
had been made on this subject. In support of his views
on this subject he might appeal to the statements he had
heard over and over again with regard to a question that
had been discussed the other day—the question of May-
nooth. He had heard it said and constantly urged on both
sides that a compact was made before the union, and the
faith of Parliament was pledged to the maintenance of
Maynooth, and that they were bound to continue the state
of things which then existed. The same arguments ap-
plied to the state of things in Canada, and they were
bound to maintain the state of things that had existed be-
fore the union took place. He had now said all he desired
to say on that branch of the subject, and he now asked the
house to turn its attention to the policy of this question.
The first point to which he would refer with regard to the
policy of the question was one which he thought must
come home to the feelings of every man, not only in that
house but in the country. It was point to which ho
invited the most deliberate consideration of the house ;
it was simply this, that if the Protestants of Up-
per Canada, instead of being as loyal a people as
ever lived under the the Crown of England, had for-
feited their allegiance and had annexed themselves to the
United States, this property would have been respected.
(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) Surely no
man on either side of the house would deny that that was
a most serious aspect of the question. A pamphlet had
been published by Archdeacon Bethune, in which he men-
tioned two endowments made before the revolution,
namely, the endowment of Trinity Church, in New York,
and an endowment in Vermont, which were respected by
the Government of the United States after• the revolution.
He (Sir J. Pakington) had been greatly struck with that
statement ; but thinking there might be some mistake, he
had thought it to be his duty to communicate with an Ame-
rican gentleman now in London, who was conversant with
the laws of the United States, and competent to give him
information. He was not at liberty publicly to mention the
name of the gentleman to whom he referred, but he was a
high authority on the affairs of the United States, and he
(Sir J. Pakington) was willing in private to communicate
his name to the noble lord or to any gentleman that might
desire to know it. (Hear hear.) He had called upon
that gentleman and submitted to him the discussion they
were likely to have on this subject, and asked him to do
him the favour of telling him whether the representation
was a correct one, that the United States, in the event of
Canada being annexed to the country, would respect its
Protestant endowments. The answer the gentleman gave
. him was this :—" You may rely upon it that if Canada
were annexed to the United States those endowments
would be rigidly respected." He thought the statement
was so important, bearing so closely as it did on the question
they were now discussing, that he asked this gentleman if he
would write him his opinion. The gentleman said he had
books in London to which he would refer, and that he
would write to him and give him. a statement of the law
of the United §-Wes on the subject. (Hear, hear.) During
that conversation he (Sir J. Pakington) put to him this
further question—" Suppose the State legislature should
seize this property?" and his answer was—"lf the State le-
gislature were to seize the property, the Supreme Court
would overrule the State legislature, and restore the pro-
porty to the colony." (Hear, hear.) He held in his hand
the letter which, in fulfilment of his promise, this gentle-
man had written to him, and he begged the permission of
the house to read a portion of it :—" I have seen the de-
bate of last evening in the House of Lords as published in
the morning papers. The remarks of the Earl of Derby
are, no doubt, perfectly correct, that Church endowments
made previously to the Revolution have been held sacred
in the United States. A question seems to have been
agitated whether a new distribution might not be made of
Canadian reserves, without disturbing the original grant.
That is quite distinct from the question of the validity of
the grants themselves. I have no doubt of their being
sustained in their integrity. They would be regarded as
contracts, subject as such to no such violation by State
legislation, or otherwise. I have thus probably covered
the whole ground of the inquiry which yoit did me the
honour to make yesterday. Canadian reserves would be in
no danger, if within the United States, unless the proposed
alteration should be within the scope of the original grant."
The letter went on and gave a third distinct instance in
which the United States Supreme Court, in the case of the
Dartmouth College, did respect an endowment that was
given before the Revolution. He could not read that letter
without asking the noble lord whether the state of things
therein rererred to, and which was accepted as settled
without contradiction, did not suggest grounds for serious
reflection ? (Hear, hear.) He would remind the noble
lord, who had taken such a prominent part in the passing
of the act under Lord Melbourne's Government, during
that critical period of Canadian history, of the events that
had then occurred. (Hear, hear.) He would not stop to
consider whether the union of the provinces was a wise or
unwise policy, but he would ask the noble lord to recollect
the painful struggle that had taken place in Canada during
the reign of her present Majesty, and he would remind him
that the disturbances were quelled by the loyalty of
the Upper Canadians. (Hear, hear.) There was not within
the circle of the British dominions a body of men more de-
voted and loyal. They were descended from those loyal
subjecis of the British Crown in the United States who,
after the revolution and the rapture between the United
States and the Home Government, left the republic—left
the homes in which they had lived, from their attachment
to British institutions, and had settled in Upper Canada,
where, as members of the Church of England and Church
of Scotland, they formed as loyal a population as ever
breathed. That loyal population had shed their blood and
risked their property to quell the insurrection of 1838.
But what was the effect of your policy on them ? The effect
of your policy on those loyal men was, that you bound them
at the feet of a majority widely different from them in
laws, language, and religion. That was the first blow to
the loyal feelings of the people of Canada ; and what was
the next? The next was the Rebellion Losses Bill, which
mast
be fresh in the recollection of honourable gentlemen
opposite. (Cheers.) He saw one right hon. gentleman
opposite who entertained, if he remembered rightly, strong
feelings on that subject. He would not stop to consider
whether there were paramount considerations of policy
which justified the Canadian Parliament in passing that
Rebellion Losses Act, or whether there were considera-
tions 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-
lic act that had wounded the feelings and shaken
the loyalty of loyal men, it was the Rebellion Losses
Act, as :81 shown by
lar,e the effect which it had produced
portion
oyal
in their allegiancethat loyal population were really shaken
population. He did not believe that any
tihetrho
jecbCreg
began from
were some persons who
it were
oral orpoprupaideanttiotonagiovre
of annexation to
at further wound to the feelings
assailing thfetrheoeligion which they love, and
He would ask the noble lord if
wound them in the tparty,by
o
depriving that religion o
f ten-
deresttha
solemnly guaranteed to it? Wassu p?tort which bad been
show those loyal subjects, attached to their wise orprudent to
the means given for the support of that Church, to
that
the monarchy of England disregarded and repudiatedt while
those
obligations, the republic of America was 'willing to
recog-
nise them ? (Hear.) If they wanted to retain Canada in
with the Crown of England, they should en-
courageinthose who were attached to the Crown of England
t" ons who loved those institutions
and to their iustitu , and
and
country, who would
the monarch of this not desert
rust toi
them unless they drove them away. (Hear.) They were
the tt to t • ere
rus main an the co
the parties to whom they sho
flexion with Canada— xtot t those who