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

Molesworth) remembered in 1833, a young nobleman of ex-
traordinary powers and of surpassing eloquence, raised
to the high rank of Secretary of State for the Colonies—a
young and _lmprudent man—who presumed to address the
Assembly of Canad2.inlanguagewhichthat Assembly justly
denounced as ill-advised, unconstitutional, insolent, and in-
sulting—(hear, hear) ;—and that language tended in some
degree to bring about that unhappy conflict which cost
this•country so serious an amount of money. (Hear, hear.)
Now, Lord Durham, in his report in 1839, asserted that
the question of the clergy reserves affected the inhabitants
of both provinces. That statement was perfectly true in
principle. The question of the clergy reserves affected the
whole of Canada, with the exception of that portion of
Canada which became private property before 1791. The
first provision of this kind made in Canada was in 1791, by
'the first Quebec Act, which proceeded on a principle of
religious equality, for it provided that the clergy of every
character and sect should be supported by the payment 43-_
tithes. At that period the great majority of the inhabitants
of Canada were Roman Catholics. The Protestants were

few in nunaber, widely scattered, and unwilling to pay tithes;
and therefore it appeared to the Government in 1791, that
it was expedient to make further provision for the support
of the Protestant clergy, after a plan and manner stated to
have existed in the State of Pennsylvania. The act of
1791 provided, among other things, that the Legislature of
Canada should have the power to abolish the tithes, sub-
ject, however, to the consent of the Crown, which was not
to be given in the event of either house of Parliament
addressing the Crown, within a certain time, praying
that that consent might be withheld. One-eighth of the
land in Canada, which had not been reserved before 1791,
was then reserved for the support of the Protestant clergy.
In Lower Canada, however, by a manifest violation of the
law, instead of one-eighth, one-fifth was reserved for that
purpose ; and in Upper Canada, instead of one-eighth, one-
seventh was so reserved. But the right hon. baronet was
quite mistaken when he asserted that the representatives
of Upper Canada were as nearly as possible divided on this
question. He (Sir William Molesworth) thought the right
hon. baronet bad confused together two very distinct ques-
tions which were brought under the consideration of the
House of Assembly of Canada las's autumn—the one was a
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
party question was whether the Go-
vernment should first state to the House of
cAlesis.gebrelyservwofhesa6n Thea
what were e the views o 2 the Government of
Canada as to the final disposal of those clergy reserves in
the event of the proposed transfer. On the party ques-
tion the 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 Canadian members who had voted
against that resolat/bn were the largest in Upper Canada.
That was an argument which he (Sir W. Molesworth)
hardly expected to hear from the representative of the infi-
nitessimally small constituency of Droitwich. He had ascer-
tained what were the numbers of the population represented
by members who were in favour of the proposed transfer,
and he found that the population represented by the nine-
teen members who voted in favour of the real resolution
amounted to 474,000, whilst the population represented by
the fifteen other members who voted against the resolution
was only 350,000. The population of the eastern town-
ships represented by the six members who were in favour of
a similar resolution amounted to 77,000, while that repre-
sented by the one member who voted against the resolution
was only 16,000. What better test could they have cf the
popular feeling on the subject? He asserted that if they took
1 those who voted and those who did not, there was a large
majority represented whose known opinions were in favour
of Mr. Hinck's motion, which had a similar object to the
bill now under consideration. The right hon. ba7rnet, in
his embryo dispatch, contended that the act of 1840 was
regarded in this country, as well as in Canada .as a final
settlement. 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 ("rote,
and many other political philosophers, whose views had,
from time to time, been adopted by the great leading states-
men of the day, and he would presume to tell his hon.
friend that the words in question did mean other clergy-
men besides those of the Church of England. In the year
1819, Lord Bathurst, then Secretary of State for the Colo-
nies, applied to the law officers of the Crown to know the
meaning of those words ; and those learned gentlemen gave
it as their opinion that the Protestant clergy were not con-
fined solely to those of the Church of England in the co-
lony, but would imlude those of the Church of Scotland,
if there were any there. They stated, however, that the
words did not apply to dissenting ministers. The ques-
tion was afterwards submitted to the judges, in pursuance
of a motion in the House of Lords ; and their unanimous
decision showed—fa-at, that the claim of the Church of
England to the exclusive property in the clergy reserves
was not valid ; secondly, that the claim on the part of the
ministers of the Church of Scotland was valid, and that
that of other Protestant ministers might be valid. That
decision of the judges was in conformity with the inten-
tions of the origkal framers of the act of 1791. The
powers of a previous act provided that the clergy of all
denominations of Christians should be maintained, Roman
Catholics from Roman Catholic funds, and Protestants
from Protestant funds. This fact showed that the legisla-
ture of Upper Canada did not consider that the clergy re-
serves should be appropriated exclusively to one particular
denomination of Christians. This decision was come to
evidently partly on the ground of religious equality, and
partly on the ground of the Roman Catholics being desti-
tute of endowments, and without the means of supporting
their clergy. They came to the conclusion that the best
mode of applyinc, these reserves to the payment of all de-
nominations of Christians would be to sell them, and ap-
ply their proceeds to purposes of general education. From
the years 1826 to 1839, upon fourteen different occasions,
and in four different legislatures of Upper Canada, it was
declared by large majorities that the clergy reserves should
be sold, and their proceeds so applied. Numerous bills
and numerous measures were passed by the Legislative
Assembly, but every one of them was rejected by the Le-
gislative Council, a body which, as every body knew, was
most unpopular, and which was composed chiefly of nomi-
nees, and was known under the name of " The Family
Compact." From the years 1826 to 1839 two royal commis-
sions wore appointed to inquire into the grievances of
Canada, and both of them had reported in accordance with
the views of the Legislative Assembly of the colony. Lord
Gosford stated in his report that " the only effectual
cure for the evils occasioned by the clergy reserves is to
adopt some mode of making them available to all religious
sects. There would be many difficulties in defining the
various religious sects, and in allotting the proportions to
be given to each ; and, therefore, our opinion would be in
favour of applying the proceeds to purposes of general
education." Lord Durham 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 lie clergy reserves should
be so settled as to give satisfaction to the majority of the
people of the two Canadas, who are mutually concerned in
its settlement, and I know of no mode of doing this but
by repealing all the provisions in the imperial acts relating
to the clergy reserves, and leaving them to the disposal of
the local legislature, and acquiescing in whatever decision
it may adopt." And that was the present proposal of the
Government. (Hear, hear.) In 1832, Lord Ripon, in
reply to a resolution passed in the Legislative Assembly to
the effect that the Imperial Parliament should pass an act
for the sale of the clergy reserves, and to empower the
local legislature to apply the proceeds to purposes of
education, advised the framers of it to exercise the powers
they possessed to vary or alter the provisions of the
existing act. In 1835, Lord Glonelg refused to comply
with the address of the Legislative Council for an ad-
dress to the Crown to advise the Imperial Parliament
to settle the question of, the clergy reserves, as that
address was in direct opposition to the wishes of the
people of Canada. He refused to comply with the request
for two reasons ; first, because imperial legislation upon
subject of exclusive concern to the colony, possessing a
Legislative Assembly, was, as a general rule, unconstitu-
tional ; and, secondly, because the authors of the existing
act had declared that the question of the clergy reserves
was ono in regard to which the initiative was expressly
reserved to, and recognised, as falling within, the peculiar
province and special cognisance of the local legislature. In
1839 the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had refused the assent
of the Crown to a bill of the legislature of Upper Canada
which provided that the clergy reserves should be sold, and
the proceeds devoted to religious pin-poses under the direc-
tion of the Imperial Government. He declined to do so,
because he said that the local legislature could bring to the
decision of the qaestion an amount cil, nformation as to the
gonoral wants of the people of the colony. on the subject
which it was quite impossible the Imperial Parliament
could possess. (Hear, hear.) The right honourable ba-
ronet (Sir J. Pakington) had referred to this act of 1839
as showing the feeling entertained on the subject on the
part of the people of Upper Canada. But that bill was
passed in the last moments of a Legislative Assembly
which did not fairly represent the opinions of the people
of the Colony. Lord Durham, speaking of that assembly,
stated that a large portion of the members had been elected
by the most unscrupulous exercise of the powers of the
governor, and Sir Francis Head said that he had contrived
to add forty supporters of the Government to a house con-
sisting only of sixty-two members. (Hear, hear.) The
bill, as originally proposed in the Legislative Assembly,
left the proceeds of the clergy reserves to the disposal of the
local legislature ; but in the Legislative Council an amend-
ment was introduced, which gave the disposal of the funds
to the Imperial Parliament, and the bill so amended was
carried on the last night before prorogation by the casting
vote of the Speaker. He wouldnext refer to the act of 1840.
Lord Sydenham was governor of Canada in 1840, and he
was anxious that the question of the clergy reserves should
he settled before the union of the two Canadas, and he
used the whole of his influence to bring about a settlement
of that question. He proposed the draft of a bill to the
legislature of Upper Canada, which, with some alterations
which were not considered important, was agreed to. That
bill proceeded partly upon the principle of religious
equality. It provided, with respect to existing interests,
that the clergy reserves should be sold and the proceeds
divided into two parts, one of which was to be appropriated
to the members of the Churches of England and of Scotland
in proportion to their numbers, and the other half divided
among all denominations of Christians in proportion to
their numbers. Lord Sydenham was anxious that this
bill should receive the royal assent, and stated that it
would not be possible to obtain such favourable terms for
the Established Church in any future assembly. Unfortu-
nately, it was not in the power of the governor to obtain
the royal assent to the measure, and when it arrived in
this country it was denounced in the most violent terms
by a right rev. prelate famed for his vast legal lore, and
for that litigious spirit which made him the pest of his
diocese---

Sir R. H. INGLIA rose to order. /The particular indi-
vidual alluded to, who appeared to be a member of the
other house, had been described by the hon. baronet as the
"pest of his diocese." It was not necessary that he (Sir R.
Inglis) should say more than that, whoever that individual
might be who had been thus described, he was a member
of another house, the proceedings of which were not sub-
ject to revision by the House of Commons.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that he should not have
referred to that debate had not the right hon. baronet (Sir
J. Pakington) sp.oken in no very courteous terms of another
right reverend prelate. (Hear, hear.) A motion was car-
..

ried. by the right rev. prelate to whom ho (Sir W. Moles-
worth) had first alluded with reference to the power of the

legislature in Canada to pass such a bill. The question
was referred to the judges, and their decision was in oppo-
sition to that given by the Lord Chancellor, to the opinions
entertained by every member of the Government, by every-
governor of Canada, and by every Secretary of the Colo-
nies for the previous twenty years. The result, however,
was that it was impossible to give the Royal assent to the
bill. Three courses were then open to the Government.
First, they might have brought in a bill empowering ti e
legislature of Upper Canada to dispose of this question o
th clergy reserves ; and such a bill would have been
accordance with the true principles of colonial policy—
that all local questions should be decided by a local legisla-
ture. In 1810, however, the true principles of colonial
policy were not so well understood as they were at present.
These views of the proper course of policy to be adopted in
the colonies, owing partly to the discussions on the rebel-
lion in Canada, and .the reports of Lord Durham, Mr.
Gibbon Wakefield, and Sir C. Buller were now generally
acknowledged. They had been acted upon by Lord John
Russell, Earl Grey, and even the right hon. baronet (Sir J.
Pakington) had in some measure shown himself a not inapt
scholar in the school of colonial reform, although upon
this question of Canadian policy. he still appeared, how-
ever, to remain in a state of Stygian darkness. (A laugh.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I supported the bill of 1840.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH—It was quite true that the
right hon. baronet supported the bill of 1840 ; but he op-
posed the first measure introduced by the Government.
The second course which was left open to the Governmental°
adopt was to bring in a bill similar to that which had passed
the leglegislature of Canada, but that they were prevented
from 'doing by the opposition of the right honourable
baronet and his friends. The remaining course for the
Government to adopt was to take the least bad of the mea-
sures which could be carried, and a bill was introduced,
founded on a compromise between the friends of the
Church of England and the Church of Scotland. The act
of 1840 proceeded upon the policy of favouring the Churches
of England and Scotland, and provided that the clergy re-
serves should be sold, that the proceeds of those sold before
1840 should be divided into three parts, two of which were
to belong to the Church of England and one to the Church
of Scotland, but that the reserves sold after that period
were to be divided into six equal parts, two of which were
to be given to the Church of England, one to the Church
of Scotland, and the three remaining parts to be applied by
the local government to purposes of public worship and re-
ligious education. The total population of Canada in 1851
was 952,000, and the proceeds of the clergy reserves had
been appropriated in the following proportions :—The total
amount of the clergy reserves appropriated had been within
this period 271,0001. Of this sum the Church of England,
numbering 223,000 persons, or about one-fourth of the
population, had received 148,0001., or more than one-half
of the whole amount. The Church of Scotland, numbering
58,000, or one-sixteenth of the population, had received
64,0001., or about one-fourth of the whole amount. The
Church o Rome, amounting in numbers to 168,000, one-
sixth of the population, °illy received 20,000/. ; while all
other denominations of Protestants, numbering altogether
441,000, or four-ninths of the population, had obtained
only 18,0001, or about - one-fifteenth of the entire sum.
(Hear, hear, hear.) The act of 1840 was, therefore,
merely a compromise between the conflicting and con-
tending parties in that house, and not a compromise
between the conflicting and contending parties in Canada,
who had a deep interest in the settlement of the question.
It was a compromise entered into between parties
who had only an indirect or imaginary interest in the
matter, and in opposition to the wishes and feelings of the
people of Canada, and in order to gratify the feelings of a
portion of the menabers of the Imperial Parliament, of
whom the right honoirable baronet (Sir J. Pakington) was
one. (Hear, hear.) When the act reached Canada it was
condemned in the strongest terms by Lord Sydenham, who
" stated 'that the proportion allotted to the Church of Eng-
land was monstrous, that it was a complete perversion of
previous acts of Parliament, and that the portion set apart
for those unconnected with either of the Churches of Eng-
land or Scotland was miserable. That this act was never
accepted as a final settlement by the people of Canada was
evident from the fact that a resolution proposed for adop-
tion, to the effect that the people of Canada concurred in
that final settlement of the clergy reserves, was rejected by
a majority of 50 to 18. (Hear, hear.) The first persons
who endeavoured to upset the settlement of 1840 were
members of the Church party themselves, but the report
of the committee obtained by the movers in the business
in. 1845, was rejealed by the Legislative Assembly. As-
suming, however, that the act of 1848 was accepted as ar
final settlement of the question, had not the people of
Upper Canada a right to change their minds on the
subject? (Hear, hear.) Did the right honourable baronet
imagine that he was entitled to a. monopoly of change of
opinion ? (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) That the right
honourable baronet had changed his opinion on the sub-
ject was evident from one of his latest despatches, in
which he said, "it may possibly be desirable that the
distribution of the proceeds of the clergy reserves should,
from time to time, be re-considered ; and any proposal
of such a nature her Majsty's Government would be
willing to entertain." If the right hon. baronet still con-
tinued of the same opinion, the issue between them was
not whether the act of 1840 was a final measure, but by
whom it was that from time to tinae'these alterations were
to be made, by the Imperial Parliament or by the local
legislature. The right hon. baronet contended that the
Imperial Parliament should undertake the duty ; but why
should that house undertake so difficult and arduous a
task. But even if they did undertake the duty, they could
discharge it but in one or two ways —either in accordance
with the wishes of the people of Canada, or in opposition
to their wishes. (Hear.) If Parliament was disposed to
alter the settlement according to the wishes of the people,
it would be necessary for them first to ascertain what those
wishes were, and the only constitutional mode of ascer-
taining the feelings of the people was by the opinion of
their representatives in the local legislature ; and the En-
' perial Parliament could not accept petitions, however nu-
merous, indicating that the wishes of the people were in
opposition to those of their representatives. If the opinion
of the local legislature were to be considered as the guide
of Parliament, it would be bettor to let them have the
power to deal with the subject at once. The second rea-
son, then, why the house should undertake the task was,
that it might be the wish of Parliament to alter the exist-
ing act in opposition to the wishes of the people of Canada.
He could understand that their might be reasons why the
Imperial Parliament should interfere in opposition to the
wishes of the colonists. But was it to the interest. of the
British empire that the Imperial Parliament should un-
dertake from, time to time the duty of altering the act of
1840 in a manner opposed to the wishes of the people of
Canada ? From the year 1791 down to the present time
every authority upon this matter had considered the dis-
posal of the proceeds of the clergy reserves as essentially a
local one. There had been for years past a steady progress
'of opinion on this subject, consequent upon the progress of
the opinion of religious equality. Formerly it was held
to be the duty of the State to encourage one form of
Christianity, and to discourage all others. That opinion
could not, however, now be maintained. 'lf the legislature
of this country was not entitled to interfere in the religious
opinions of the people at home, it surely could not be con-
tended that it possessed any right to interfere with religious
belief in the colonies, or to induce the colonists to adopt ono
form of Christianity in preference to another. But the
right hon. baronet said that if they transferred to the Le-
eislature of Canada the power of dealing with the question
o'f the clergy reserves, they would disendow the Churches
of England and Scotland, and by so depriving them of their
rights be guilty of a violation of the rights of propeity.
The principle of property, however, required that the rights
of existing and individual interests should be respected,
and that their rights should not be disturbed without due
compensation. The present bill did 'respect existing inte-
rests, and it did so at the especial desire of the Canadian
Legislature. The principle of property did not require that
unborn expectations of non-existing rights and of uncreated
interests should be respected. The law of this country ab-
horred perpetuity, and it interfered with certain descrip-
tions of property as they passed on from generation to ge-
neration. Upon precisely the same principle that a man
had not the power to entail his estate in perpetuity, the
Legislature ought not to entail any portion of the public
estate for ever. He contended, therefore, that the Legisla-
ture was not bound to respect existing endowments from
any moral power arising out of the principle of property
itself, but solely upon grounds of public benefit, public
utility, or the inexpediency of disendowing. If this bill
passed, the Legislature of Canada might secularise the
Church estates without any violation of the rights of pro-
perty if it thought proper to do so, provided it respected
existing rights. The right honourable baronet had said
that to disendow the Church of England in the colony
would be to it a serious injury. He (Sir W. Moles-
worth) would be sorry to support any measure which he
thought seiculated to injure the Established Church, be-
cause) as an individual, he preferred its doctrine and disci-
pline to that of any other religions denomination. He dike
agreed entirely with the right hon. baronet in thinking
that if the Legislature of Canada were to secularise the
clergy reserves, they would do any real damage to thB
Church of England ; because there was throughout the
whole colony so strong a feeling against religious endow-
ments by this country, and such a strong feeling in favour
of the voluntary principle, that the fact of the Church of
England being endowed by the State made it an object of
suspicion and jealousy to the Canadian people, and thus
did it more real injury than tho benefit which it derived
from the proceeds of the property. He had now replied to
the whole of the arguments urged by the right hon. baro-
net against the second reading of the bill. The real ques-
tion for the consideration of the house was, whether it
Mould now adopt as a rule of colonial policy that all ques-
tions which affected exclusively the local interests of a
colony possessing legislative institutions should be regu-
lated by the local legislature of the colony ? This ought
to be the fundamental axiom upon which our whole sys-
tem of colonial government should be carried on, for it
was one which more than anything besides would tend to
render firm and prosperous the great colonial empire of
Great Britain. He now asked the house to apply that
principle to the greatest of our colonial dependencies by
passing the bill now under consideration.
Lord J. MANNERS thought her Majesty's Govern-
ment had introduced the most unjust and unwise of legal
robberies under the specious guise of a concession to re-
ligious equality, and a recognition of just principles of
colonial government. Unless they were prepared to
run counter both to the act of 1791, and the opinions of
the judges given in 1840, ministers must so alter their
measure as to guard the whole of
the land already,
settled and appropriated, and to restrict it to the com-
paratively small quantity of land yet unsold. Nothing
could exceed the solemnity of the settlement of 1840, and
yet they were now called upon to repeal and annul it. If
they were to adopt in all its fulness the dogma laid down
by the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and give
to each colony the right of deciding what is and what is
not a matter of purely domestic interest, then those colo-
nies would be colonies no longer. The appeal now made
by the Canadian Legislature showed that in 1840 this ques-
tion was universally considered by all engaged in its settle-
ment as ono not purely domestic. So far from the popu-
lation of Canada being favourable to the bill, he believed
it was certain that the great mass of the property and
ability in the colony was hostile to its passing. In proof
of this, he examined the state of colonial parties in refer-
ence to the measure. If it was necessary to declare the
virtual independence of Canada, let our troops bo recalled,
and let her be free to throw herself if she chose into the
'arms of the United States, whose Supreme Legislature
would protect the weak against the encroachments of the
strong, and grant to the struggling Cliurch of Canada that
justice which she demanded in vain from the Parliament
of once Imperial England.
Mr. G. VERNON defended the bill, as more in accord-
ance with the changed 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 not
with the Roman Catholics, as had been erroneously wstaas tecl,
but with the Free Church of Scotland and the Protestant
Dissenters that the agitation to overturn the settlement of

1840 originated. It was not by forcing your Church on a
free people, or by trenching upon their constitutional rights,
that you were likely to attach them to your institutions,
and increase their affection for the sway of the mother
country ; far more surely would this result be attained
by placing unreserved confidence in the colonists and their

legislature.
Mr. LIDDELL thought that if this measure of Govern-
ment were to be looked upon as a friendly one, the Church
of England, both in Canada and this country, would look
with considerable distrust and suspicion upon such friends.
Jle considered it certain that its effect would be to shake
public confidence in all religious endowments, and also to
excite a spirit of jealousy and animosity between Protestant
and Roman Catholies in Canada, which did not now exist.
The state of the Canadian legislature was very unfavour-
able to the impartial consideration of the question, and the
name of Papineau, who was amongst the most prominent
advocates of the measure, was not eplculated to inspire
confidence in their intentions. _ _

Mr. ADDERLEY contended that the Canadians were
entitled to a parity of rights with the people of the British
islands, in having the uncontrolled disposal of their own
funds, and especially those intended for the support of
religion. The breach of faith and violation of principle
would lie in the rejection or delay of the measure, not in
its passing. Nothing could be more beneficial to the
Church of England in Canada than to get rid of an odious,
noxiour, and unprofitable claim, or to teach it to look to a
support less treacherous and inefficient than the Imperial
Parliament. _ __ _

Mr. A. MILLS opposed the bill. He should be unwil
ling to offer any opposition to a measure intended to give
efficacy to arrangements for the support of religion, but
where a particular allocation of funds for religious pur-
poses had been guaranteed by act or Parliament he could
not consent to disturb that guarantee. There must be
some limit to the principle of local control, and where a
series of acts of Parliament had guaranteed the application
of funds to particular objects, that limit appeared to him
to be reached.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he un-
derstood his hon. friend who had just sat clown to say that
ho rose in that house partly because he desired to bear
testimony to the sentiments of the people of Canada on
this important question. The hon. gentleman then pro-
ceeded to inform the house that a project of the present
kind was regarded in Canada as a mere political matter,
that the feelings expressed to the Imperial legislature
were merely those of local excitement, and that the sub-
stantial sense of the population of Canada was entirely
distinct from those feelings. (Hear, hear.) Now he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not conceive
a higher authority than his hon. fri end on these points ;
but he should nevertheless caution the house against
passing over the wishes of the constitutional organs of the
legislature, in order to give ear to the representations of
those who had but a mere passing knowledge of the coun-
try. (Hear.) Amongst the many benefits attendant on
establishing free legislatures, not the least was that these
legislatures should have a free and untrammelled voice ;
otherwise, when the colonies were not endowed with that
blessing, it was always an impossibili:,y for even the very
best Minister to ascertain the real souse of the colony with
the control of whose affairs he was charged. (Hear, hear.)
But when the Imperial legislature placed suffrages
hands of a people, and gave them the power to select re-
presentatives, and when these representatives met in free
discussion—in which, for instance, the people of this
country placed its glory—then it became necessary that the
deliberate opinions and expressions of these representatives
should be taken as evidence of the sense of the colonial
population. (Hear, hear.) When a course opposlte to that
was taken, and when the shreds of scattered state-
ments—no matter how well arranged—were placed
in competition with the deliberate judgment expressed
by the local legislature which this imperial Parliament
had created, then a deadly blow was struck at the
principle of free government, and it were infinitely better
never to have established those free colonial institutions.
But what were the facts of this case ? An address of the
legislative assembly of Canada, conjoined with an address
of the legislative council, prayed that they might be per-
mitted to repeal the act of 1840, which restrained the Ca-
nadian legislature with respect to the disposal of the
clergy reserves. To that prayer her Majesty's ministers
urged the house to accede ; but they were met by a motion
on the part of the right hon. baronet the late Secretary for
the Colonies (Sir J. Pakington) which went to the rejec-
tion of the bill altogether. What did the proposal of the
right hon. baronet amount to ? To this—that as regarded
the present question they (the Imperial Parliament) should
bind down the Canadian legislature to total exclusion
from all share and discretion with regard to the disposal
of these lands. In 1791, when those who were now a
powerful community were a few scattered settlers, our fa-
thers committed the initative power of legislating to them
without any other limit than the veto of the Imperial Le-
gislature ; and he wished to know, were the privileges con-
ceded at that period to a few villages of settlers, to be
denied now to a colony which possessed its cities and
counted its population at 2,000,000? What were the 41).
jections ? There was an objection founded on an appre-
hension that the power thay were about to bestow would
be misused ; whilst, on the other hand, the ground on
which the bill was recommended was, that this country
had no right to base its judgment on the mere opinion it
may entertain on the question. The question was, not the
ase to be made of the power, but the hands in which that
power was to be lodged. (Hear, hear.) Was the ques-
tion a local one or not ? For upon that the votes of
hon. gentlemen must turn. If it could be shown that
the question belonged to the category of Imperial
interests and considerations, and that the power should
be reserved to the Imperial Legislature to deal with these
reserves, then the present bill should be rejected. But what
arguments had been adduced, or what proofs had been
supplied, to show that it should be taken out of the cate-
gory of local questions ? (Hear, hear.) In 1791 Mr. Pitt
left the Canadian legislature to legislate on the question,
which proved the question was a local one. The people of
Canada and their representatives, if they did not believe it
to bo a local question, how came they, time after time,
and session after session, to send to this country acts of
their legislature, aiming at the disposal of the clergy re-
serves ? Was there an hon. gentleman present who could
say that an Imperial interest was involved ? It was said
a question of public faith was involved." (Hear, hear,
from the Opposition.) Was that an imperial interest ?
(Oh, oh.) If it were so, then the question was so far dis-
embarrassed. He asserted the question was purely local,
and alone concerned the population of Canada. He desired
to know from what source these lands derived their value ?
Certainly not from the skill or labour, or capital, of the
people of England. The enactment of the Imperial Legis-
lature found these lands in a state of primitive wildness,
and it was the skill, and labour, and energy, and capital of
the Canadian population that imparted value to them.
Was it, then, to be argued that property so created by a
community
of freemen should be 4isposed of by any body
of gentlemen, not excepting the British House of Commons,
without the consent of those to whom it belonged in truth
and justice. The right honourable gentleman urged that
the bill did not satisfy the principle of self-government ;
and why ? because it provided for the vested interests of
the present incumbents. If the right honourable gentle-
man turned to the address of July, 1850, he would there
find the Canadian legislature declaring that "the most
equitable mode of settling the question would be for the
Imperial Parliament to pass an act providing that the
stipend formerly allowed to the clergy, and to which the
faith of the Crown was pledged, should be secured during
the natural lives of the incumbents receiving it. He (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think the right hon.
gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) had indicated to the house
(of course he did not mean to say he made any concealment)
the true standing of the question at present. He had heard
the right hon. gentleman say, unless he was much mis-
taken, that the object of the act, which it was now pro-
posed to repeal, was to maintain a provision for the sup-
port of the Protestant religion. (Hear.) He alluded to
this, because there were many hon. gentlemen in that
house who came in great numbers—prompted of course by
conscientious feelings—to do away with the Maynooth
grant. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was sorry
to disturb the repose that nature required—(a laugh)—but
then it was absolutely necessarythe hon. member for North
Warwickshire—who was doubtless prepared with a con-
scientious vote—should understand the real nature of the
question, and how the Protestant religion wouldbe affected
by the repeal of this act. (Hear, and a laugh.) It was
true that in 1791 the object of the act then passed was in
strict maintenance of the Protestant religion. But thenthe
signification of that phrase " Protestant Church," was,
and always 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, ho admitted. But in 1840 he
conk; tell the hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr.
Spooner) that the Imperial Legislature chose fundamen-
tally to change the basis of the act, and therefore dropped
the word " Protestant" altogether. (Hear, hear.) The
word was not to be found in the act which they were now
seeking to repeal. (Hear, hear.) The act of 1840 provided
that the great bulk of the land should be divided into six
allotments, two of which were to go to the Church of Eng-
land, one to the Church of Scotland, and 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
Roeafveenrit,eauneddewehiemchieaditi ed.
Thethe hfuilindwsaebentewtefeenr
the
clevionds
ryg ya assent,
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 rot urns laid on the
table of the house, he would perceive that a very consider-
able sum had been given to the Roman Catholic Church
out of the proceeds of these
reserved lands, as well as to
the Churches of England and Scoa (Hear,hear.)
The Scotland.
roitwic
The hon. member for D • • h referred to the practice in
the United States, and read a most interesting letter from
a gentleman whom he justly described as a man of the
greatest intelligence, who stated that if these reserved
lands, instead of being
the United States, would be placed beyond the power of
any 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, hoar,
from the-Opposition benches.) He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) greatly respected the farsightedness of the
American statesmen who provided these measures to render
inviolate the public faith and security ; and he greatly
respected the self-command and control of the people of
those states, which rendered the execution of these provi-
sions practicable. Indeed, he thought it would be well if
the British colonies—whenever the natural period of their
independence might anive--should be equally strict and
rigid in the observance of their public faith and undertak-
ings. (Hear.) But did the right hon. gentleman suppose
that there wore no analogous instances to the United.
States ? • Was ho not aware that in the state of Massachu-
setts there was at one time a law in existence which ren-
dered it compulsory upon every one of its inhabitants to
contribute towards the maintenance of religious establish-
ments, while at the same time they were left a free choice
to select the particular establishment towards which that
contribution should go. That was the law, but the law
had been swept away. Again, prior to the American re-
volution, the clergy of Virginia were endowed with a
maintenance strictly analogous to tho maintenance paid to
the clergy in this country, though it was not in the shape
of so many bushels of wheat or grain, but they were en-
dowed with so much tobacco—(a laugh)—and from which
was yielded in many cases a very handsome revenue. But
these endowments were swept away since the revolution,
which showed that, however strict the American Govern-
ment might be with regard to the maintenance of public
faith, nevertheless that it was not unwilling to distinguish
between endowments, properly so called, and for which
there were grantees known to the law, and public funds
levied on the entire country, and appropriated to pasts-war
purposes by an act of the legislaturo. But he must confess

that the right hon. ger tleman opposite was of all others
me of those who was least favourably situated to recom-
,nend the rejection of the bill. For if there was any one
who had made the maintenance of the present law impos-
sible, it was that right hon. baronet. (Hear, hear, from
the ministerial benches.) It was most important that the
house should bear in mind the grounds upon which, in April
last, the right hon. gentleman rejected the petition of the
Canadian legislature. The right hon. gentleman said that
his words were words of peace and conciliation. No dtkubt
they were intended to be words of peace and conciliation,
but that was not everything. It was the habit of those
colonies to look also to deeds—(cheers)—and if the deeds of
the right hon. gentleman were based upon a principlo
at
variance with colonial freedom, he was afraid that, though
soft and fair words might be highly acceptable, his deeds
would be very much more influential. (Hear, hear.) No-w,
he must say there was but one plausible ground on Which
he could possibly have resisted the demands made uP°..n
him. The right hon. gentleman quoted the example of
the United States, and the doctrines on contracts which
were rife there. But was the right hon. gentleman entitlhed.
to quote the doctrine of contracts—he who has told ns tat
it was in the power of a state—nay, that it was the duty 0
a state—to take away from different bodies the various
rights and privileges which they had from time to time
attained ? (Hear, hear.) And if the supreme courts could
prevent that alienation of the reserves which the right hon.
4entielnan anticipates is to happen in Canada, he would
aek whether the dicta of the supreme court would not fell
just as heavy by withdrawing from one corporation and
giving leoperty to another corporation which was involved.
in the distribution of the right hon. genticexteli (Hear?
Well, if there was a way which the right hon. baronet'
might have made lighter the maintenance of the old state
of things, it was by putting his case, not as that of O.
national endowment, but as that of a certain limited
fund which had been already dealt with, and which it
would be unwise, as well as unlawful, wi
to meddle
But the right honourable gentleman adopted no such.
ground ; on the contrary, Ire disapproved of it ; and be
actually said said the very reverse-of this. He stated that the
Government most be prepared to take into account the
changes which might be effected in the population of
Canada, the extensive emigration, or other causes ; and
that the distribution, therefore, of those funds ought from
time to time to be reconsidered—(hear)—end then the,
right hon. gentleman, with his words of peace and conci-
liation' went on to say—" any proposal of the kind he;
Majesty's Government would be willing to entertain.
Welk-, now, were these words of peace and conciliation to
Canada ? Canada said " she asked for the disposal of her
own reserved lands," and the Secretary of State replied,
"No doubt your reserved lands cannot be regarded as
fixed endowments ; the question must remain an open one
—it must be reconsidered from time to time, according t°
the circumstances of the country, and the men who inhabit
it—(hear, hear)—and though some of them were totally
unfit to discharge the functions which devolved upon them;
and,. moreover, though there were many opinions circulat-
ing in Canada of which the Government of England dis-
approved, ho would beg to assure them that if they came,.
with a proposal to her Majesty's Government, they might
be willing to entertain it." Now a more distinct act of
violation of every principle on which colonial freedom W 5
based than that, he (Mr. Gladstone) could not imagine-
(Cheers.) However, it was perfectly plain that no one,
had -% entured to declare that the present state of things
was to be maintained, on the ground that the question
had been finally disposed of. (Hear, hear.) And noW
with reference to the question of public faith. So far as
the continuance of these reserves in the hands of the
clergy beyond the lives of the present incumbents, it was to
his right hon. friend the member for Droitwich that he
should leave that part of the argument ; because if the
'public faith was pledged to anything, it was not pledged to
an abstract regulation—to the maintenance and further
promotion of public worshipjand. religious instruction, but
to consider the present distribution and the present enjoy-
meal of proprietary rights, which the right hon. baronet
had declared he was reedy to uneettle, because there
happened to be the question of a balance of 20,0001. New.
he thought therewas great force in what fell—with Per'
haps great simplicity of language—from his honourableot'
friend the member for Staffordshire. He said he did 31
ieteud to attempt the maintenance of the present law re-
spezting the reserves on the ground of its possibility. Not
it struck him that there was was very great force in the
He (Mr Gladstone) believed that the word possibility' wact
rather a material word ; that it was a topic which IA
some weight—(laughter)--and he would therefore ready'
mend hon. gentlemen, before they commenced their col
test, to consider where and in what it was to OW'
(Cheers.) It seemed to him that if there was one thies
more necessary ,than another for the maintenance of the
dignity of Parliament, it was that they should not Pled
over again the game of the American war. (Loud all
prolonged cheering from the Ministerial benches.) lie
them not commence any conflict or controversy with tr
colonies, unless they felt convinced that their argumen.
were sufficient, not only to be produced once or twice Tt'
debate, but to stand the brunt of controversy Whe?epel
came to be ranged with other and more serious difficw"--
out of doors, to meet the agitated mind of a whole com-
munity indignantly demanding their rights. (Great cheat;
Do not let them commence a controversy in erhice"
they would come in like the lion, and go out like the lawb-
Let him not be toldOlhat they were intending
their vote that night the appropriation of funds allocatl
in former times for he maintenance of the Protesten.,
religion, for they would be obliged to explain how it wci
that the arrangement of 1791 was so essentially alte_llo
in 1840. (Hear, hear.) And having then, taken in.',
their own hands that privilege of power to eaf with
to uphold h3f,
affairs of Canada, were they now going to 'deny to Can
that same right now that they had acquired the power le'
do so ? He must say, as a member of the Church of Eng-
land, and as one he hoped not indifferent to her welfare---___
(oh, oh, and great cheers followed by counter cheers)
such he earnestly desired passing of this measure. .13'i
could conceive nothing more detrimental to the Church
•
England than that she should be found engaging herself ""'
a struggle perfectly hopeless, and in his opinion as °lr.
tirely devoid of justice as it was of truth. (Irian:Lenge
cheering from the ministerial benches.) There was one
portion of a speech made the other evening on the oppose
tion benches in which he entirely concurred—that what-
ever may be the abstract merits of the voluntarylprinciplei
and he was inclined to believe that its performance bad
not been generally encouraging—that be that as it may,
was miserably adapted to the circumstances of CanS:
(Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend near him (Sir of
Molesworth) took a very desponding view of the steroid,.
public endowments and establishments for religiVVG.;
poses throughout the Canadian provinces ; still he (wn,"—. cuts
hoped they might indulge the hope that these ene-0-.,;. tat'
might be preserved to the Church ; yet he would sf;legjore
if they wanted to render that alienation—that com:'„ight,
as sure as possible they would, by their votes tthe
reject the bill. (Cheers.) If they wanted to un'i; ho-
position of the Church of England, which was ne
t then'.
floured. and revered in Canada, weak and odious, -•e-,ionial
combine the maintenance of her claims with the ‘7,ore.)
of the principle of colonial legislation. (Loud eu"
But the right hon. baronet was pleased; to-night to that
a right rev, prelate in another place, and to say ro-
he had invented plausible fallacies to support the lace,
sent bill. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone), in the first P
considered that it was much more befitting 73 jeo
I bers of that house to confine their attention tO topiobt
arising before them, than to seek for amusement in. that
occurred elsewhere. ißut really he was astonished „if
the right hon. gentleman should have thought 11111-5-oe
warranted with so much coolness to write down se ,Ebod-
Bible fallacies what an hon. friend of his had desn'''
cfst
to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as not areellio
the least brilliant orations ever delivered by a prelate " of
must rank in this country as one of thefirst masters f
oratory. But he rather wished to speak of the me cll5 othat speech. He felt glad that a bishop of the Chill.- bill
England should have come forward in support of Reiee
like that, notwithstanding the- obloquy which' helm 15)0-
have to encounter from his professional brethren. ;, told
Hovel that that right rev. prelate had judged Wan'
wisely in supporting the bill. Were they then g°ln7o---
enter upon this struggle without any hope of acct that
without a chance of maintaining it ? He had hesrd nit-
passage of the speech of the right hon. member for Pr,,ot
with (Sir J. Pakington), in which he told the Parliainiee
*of England that they were making their appeal
to the
wrong portion of the population of Canada with' eeid-
greatest pain. It was high time for the people of Eng- f
to have done with making appeals to one division ore,
population. They knew of the old meaning of that g' in-
-they knew of the disasters flowing from such P. it
ciple. (Loud cheers.) They knew that the effect of
had been to create cliques and knots of intriguers,„;ele
put forward the profession of British spirit, but '''`,ll of
the denial of the name of loyal subjects the Shibbole,'red
their adoption. (Hear, hear.) It must be a,cknowlena
that for all mistakes in legislation Parliament were ore
the main responsible ; and it had been the error of ';'-o of -
recent times to diveree from the wisdom and predeneo to
those who had precede% them—who were wont to lel'',,eee
colonial subjects the undivided and uncontrolled 113,1tV if
meat of their local affairs. His fervent hope was,
they passed this bill the endowments would be preser`
to
(Laughter on the opposition benches.) He would, press
those gentlemen opposite, that though there migh'eeble-
times be wisdom in laughter, that here it was inaPP-"cbeieg
Did they imagine that the chance of those reserves
ef, be
maintained was increased by ridicule? For his Pe.l, oe-
happened to know that there were opinions in Callao; id
titled to the greatest weight—men whose judgmen,erell
whose powers of judging were excellent, most ain't' boy/
sanguine in their belief as to their maintenance. 13_n 000
was it that the continuance of those religious end'," it by
had been effected in the state of New York Was e,
an IMperial act, binding down the colonial LePte
tying its hands, and forbidding it to meddle in its e"- the
timate transactions ? No, but it was by your leavingent;
people of New York uncontrolled freedom of nianeVf their
and if now they told him that there was no chance c' the,.
'maintenance in Canada, he hoped and believed the,eise,
overstated the case; but if the result should be otheoif teo
they must receive it as the necessary fulfilment ote-
policy, of this country, which had associated the goreece
nance of endowments with the principle of into ;lea
in the local affairs of our colonies—a princiPle 'lfaos
odious in their eyes. It was not because the .„en 10, or.
had violated their allegiance, that they were rebeloneaterel
that they wore disloyal,- but' it was because it vras eir oign
that they should take the management of th de-
affairs, that they came before us with thti ge n'
mends. They are doing) said the right honour: at yo
tlernan, pointing to the opposition bencheal logleea
would do in their case. (Cheers.) Were Can 3, there
and were England Canada, I do not believe thev
veto to;
one gentleman opposite that would reject by iiiso,„„,eol
night the second reading of this bill. Sir, 1 r.ecivise
this bill to the adoption of the house because it 15 1)00°
prudent, but emphatically, and above all things, so thel
it is righteous and just. (The right hon. gentian?
_ring.
resumed his seat amidst loud and
onolng-continued on eoe:
Mr. NAPIER took his stand the act ofl79le!n, was
tended that it was competent for the Crown, havlcelesi;
at its disposal, to make a grant in perpetuity to
astical corporation. The act of 1840, though al? !...itiol, 313't
of .the first compact, was a measure of CO be
ewe ' ise
compromise, passed with the consent of the ate gn„s
the bill now proposed was an act of tyranny 11l
religie"
of, moderation, attempted under, the name of
equality. old "
g
did not wish at that late hour of the night to 110,
Sir R. H. INGLIS, amid calls for a division, the
attention of the house but for a few minutes. ee;ooorec'',
been so pointedly alluded to by the First Conan
0d
Public Works in his speech that evening, he "kw petrol,
Public
Bien to make a few observations.
(Sir W. Molesworth) had claimed the clistinefaoo,,ir
one of those "ignorant Radicals" to whom 11
Inglis) alluded to on a former night. Now ne
ever believe that right hon. gentleman ignorannt-3t01et34
was a Radical might be a matter of sincere
to himself, as well as to his constituents, wheoT the libe7,
be to others. When he (Sir It. H. Inglis)f.,tres
_eat b gofer'
of interrupting the right hon. gentleuen,i_ ho'"
lacen 00
siderecl was an abuse of the privilege honolnti' eee
His re' *ght..linon.of bosoo,
ring to a speech made by a noble lord 3
other house of. Parliament, that right
.712017i-gbt
gybed
said that he mig as Secretary have interrarineue colonieS, view,
baronet, the late of State fo , MOP
lie referred to a, glaeNch rarade the PgJav AV"