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

THE KAFIR WAR.

with Australia by packet was irregular, tardy, and not per-
fect. (Hear.) All he could say was, that the whole question
of the_packet service was now under consideration, and
those contracts which could be sustained would be rigidly
enforced; and those which could not be maintained would
be abrogated with the least possible delay. (Hear.)
SIR JAMES BROOKE.
Mr. DRUMMOND said, that as a most infamous slander
had been propagated against Sir J. Brooke, under the title
of " Specimens of Sir James Brooke's Veracity," he wished
to know whether the Government would consent to lay be-
fore the house a copy of the last dispatch of the Secretary
for Foreigh Affairs to Sir J. Brooke, with the answer of
Sir J. Brooke thereto ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say that he
would consider the subject, and give the hon, member an
answer in the course of the evening.
THE GOVERNMENT OF KEROWLEE.

In reply to a question put by Mr. OTWAY.
Sir C. WOOD stated that he had been incorrectly re-
ported in his answer to the hon. member on Thursday, and
had been made to give an answer directly the reverse of
truth. What he stated was, that the question had been
referred home for the decision of the home Government,
and that the home Government had decided to sanction
the mission to the government of Kerowlee of the young
man adopted by the late rajah.
TURKEY.
Lord STANLEY wished to know if the Government had
received any information with respect to statements made
in the public journals to the effect that the resignation of
Fuad Effendi had been accepted by the Sultan, and that a
dispatch had been forwarded by the British charge-d'affaires
to the admiral of the fleet in the Mediterranean, requesting
him to send up a portion of the fleet now in the Mediter-
ranean to anchor in the Archipelago.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that telographio informa-
tion had reached the Foreign-office, stating that such a
request had been made by the British charge d'affaires at
Constantinople to the admiral ' • but no dispatch had been
received either from Colonel Rose, or the admiral com-
manding the fleet, corroborating that report.
COLONIAL COPPER COINAGE.
Mr. WILSON took the opportunity of correcting a
statement which he had made the previous evening, with
respect to the subject of copper coinage in the colony of
South Australia. He had said that arrangements had been
entered into for coining five tons ; he should have said five
hundred tons of copper.

CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA) BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill, and on
the first clause being proposed,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that it was not his intention
to offer any opposition to any of the clauses in the bill until
he saw the shape which the bill would ultimately assume
after the amendments to be proposed by the noble lord the
member for the city of London had been disposed of. He
wished, however; to call attention to a discrepancy which
appeared to him to exist between the words of the first
clause of the bill and some expressions made use of by the
right hon. gentleman (Sir W. Molesworth) the First Com-
missioner of tWorks, upon the occasion of the second read-
ing of the bill. The right hon. gentleman gave to the house
a long tale of the history of this subject in Canada, and
assumed with some degree of self-complacency that there
were few, if any, hon. members in the house, beside him-
self, who knew anything upon the subject. It was, there-
fore, incumbent upon the right hon. gentleman to be cor-
rect in the statements which he made. Towards the close
of his speech he said—" It should be remembered that if
this bill passes, the Canadian Legislature will only acquire
the same power over Protestant endowments as it now has
over Roman Catholic endowments." He (Sir J. Pakington)
was under the impression that the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer used similar language. Now,
he was under the impression that the right hon. gentleman
(Sir W. Molesworth) was wholly in error in making that
statement to which he had referred. Under the act of 1791
no act of the Legislature of Canada affecting Protestant or
Roman Catholic endowments could become law until it had
been sent home to the Imperial Government, and had been
laid for thirty days on the table of both Houses of Parlia-
ment, previous to receiving the royal assent. Under the
bill, as it now stood, it would be competent for the Gover-
nor-General of Canada to give the royal assent at once to
any bill passed by the Canadian Legislature without com-
plying with the securities to which he had referred. He
wished to know whether it was intended that these securi-
ties to the Protestant property should be taken away, be-
cause, if so, the house ought not to be told that by this bill
the Roman Catholic and Protestant endowments would
hereafter be placed upon the same footing. If, on the other
hand, it was intended to retain that security, he thought
such intention ought to be more clearly defined than it was
in the first section of the bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had no hesitation in
stating clearly the intentions of her Majesty's Government.
It was intended that any act passed by the Legislature of
Canada, and duly assented to by the Crown, should not be
subject those provisions contained in former acts of Par-
liament, by which the bills were required to remain, for
thirty days on the table of the house, and in the event of
an address from either house of Parliament were not to
become law. It was intended most decidedly that such
regulations should not continue with respect to the dis-
posal of the clergy reserves of Canada. There was some
difficulty in finding phrases which would clearly express
that intention in the bill ; but if any words more clear
than those which had been adopted should be suggested,
he would offer no opposition to their insertion.
Mr. WALPOLE said that the principle on which the
Government was proceeding was, that the Canadian Legis-
lature should have full dominion over all the lands of the
clergy reserves lying within the provinces of Upper and
Lower Canada. He wished to know whether- it was in-
tended that any control whatever was to remain in the
Crown? Supposing the Canadian Legislature appropriated
those reserves to any purpose mentioned in the 3d and 4th
Vict. to entirely secular purposes, such as railways or
canals, was it, or was it not, the intention of the Govern-
ment that an effective control should be reserved in the

person of the Crown, or was it to be merely a nominal
control ? He was anxious to obtain a clear explanation
upon this point, as he perceived by the second clause of
the bill it would be in the power of the Canadian Parlia-
ment to deal with the proceeds of any of the land reserves
sold since 1791, which wore now invested in this country,
and were in no part of the local territory of Canada at this
moment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that considerable
difficulty had presented itself in the working of tho clauses
of the bill. Ho was of opinion, however, that, looking to
the provisions of the 31 Geo. 111., and also those of the 3
and 4 Viet., c. 35, the bill as at present framed would be
sufficient to exclude the operation of the 42d section of the
31 Geo. 111. It might, however, be advisable, in bringing
up the report, to introduce some words which would make
the intentions of the Government more clear, if it should
be considered that the bill as it now stood was not suffi-

Mr. ADDERLEY asked the Under-Secretary of State for
the Colonies what news of the Kafir war had been received
by the Sydney packet, and whether orders in council, com-
pleting the Cape constitution, and settling the limits and
defences of the colony, had been sent out by the mail lately
dispatched, and if so, how soon copies of such orders might
be laid before the house?
Mr. P. PEEL stated that the packet which touched at
the Cape had brought no dispatches from General Cath-
cart. He had stated on a former occasion that he had
reason to.believe that the ordinances which had passed the
Legislative Council at the Cape, with respect to the con-
stitution and the settlement of the civil list, and which
had been transmitted to this country for the assent of the
Crown, would be sent to the colony in the course of the
present month, and he was now enabled to state that these
ordinances had been sent back on the 14th inst. With re-
spect to the latter part of the question, no order in council
had been issued respecting the limits and defences of the
colony.
AUSTRALIAN MAIL PACKET SERVICE.
Mr. DUNDAS wished to know whether her Majesty's
Government proposed to take any steps to arrange
CialliteenrntaalteCmomonptahnyl sin lieu of
permitting
monthly mail to .Australia—one that might be depended
rsi,lsawnolidno had proved their utter Inca-
on, regular, expeditious, and certain, such as that conveyed
who car-
:contract they had undertaken, con-
tinuing to attempt to carry mails the delivery of which
they were instrumental only in delaying.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he thought it would be rash
or that of the Government, to advise the adop-
tion efpaaa/plan which might be depended upon to make
communication commucation with Australia regular, expeditious,
and certain." The experience which he had had at the Ad-
miralty had led him to believe that the comrawikation

made by her Majesty's Onvernment ? Thertiltir was
purely a measure of religious equality, and that it sought
to place Protestant endowments upon the same footing as
Roman Catholic endowments. But he (Lord J. Manners)
maintained, and it was as clear as the sun light, that, so
far from these endown'ents being upon the same footing,
from the moment this bill became law in its present shape
the stringent clause ip the original act of 1791, and re-
enacted in that of 1840, which related to the whole reli-
gious property belonging to any Church or communion in
Canada, would be retained only for Roman Catholic en-
dowments in that country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
read the clause at length, and again asserted that the reli-
gious endowments of tjte Church of Rome, would, after the

passing of the bill, be guarded by provisions which were
expressly repealed so far as concerned the clergy reserves
of Canada. Now he put it to any gentlemen who wished
to carry out what he conceived to be a most melanchol,

and disastrous policy—that of leaving the ecclesiastical en
dowments of all religious communions, without favour or
regard to their religious tenets, to the unlimited control of
the Canadian legislature—whether this was acting upon the
principle of equality ? The right hon. baronet the Chief
Commissioner of Works laid it down in such distinct terms
that there could be no doubt -upon the subject, that the
Roman Catholic endowments were to be upon the same
footing as the clergy reserves ; for he said, " there was
no statutory provision preventing the legislature of
Canada from dealing with this property in any. manner
they might think proper." Then would the right hon.
baronet tell him what force attached to the 42d section of
of the act of 1840 ? Had he, by his ipse dixit, repealed the
legal effect of that remarkable provision ? Could he point
out any statute subsequent to 1840 which abrogated or di-
minished the force of that provision ?. If he could not, he
(Lord J. Manners) would ask the right hon. baronet for
an explanation of the extremely determined manner in
which he vindicated the bill, whilst there was no statutory
provision whatever to prevent the Canadian Legislature
from dealing in any manner they thought proper with the
endowments of the Roman Catholic Church ? If the right
hon. baronet meant to say that the safeguard of the 42d
section in the act of 1830 was no safeguard at all, then
why not give the clergy reserves of Canada the same pro-
tection as the endowments of the Church of Rome ? At
any rate, let not the liberal members of that Church-
-above all, lot not the Roman Catholic members of the
house, be deluded into the belief that in passing this bill
they were passing one which, as the right hon. baronet
said, was based - thr tiles of ,N3lioi‘-- -nor

'aid, was bast. . upon e principles of religious eq tity.
Mr. PEEL said that, as the noble lord had pointedly re-
ferred to him, he would trouble the house with on or two
observations. He had stated when he introduced the bill
that the effect of it would be to give the colonial legisla-
ture of Canada power to dispose of the lands and to alter
the appropriations made under the act of 1840 ; and that
in giving the local legislature this power they were doing
no more than had already been done with regard to the
Roman Catholic endowments in Lower Canada. He also
quoted an extract from the constitutional act of 1791,
showing that the legislature had power to alter the dues
which the people were legally bound to pay to the priests
of that persuasion. The noble lorl, however, had not noticed
this point ; his argument had rather been directed to the
manner in which restrictions had been exercised by the
Crown upon the power of the local legislature. This point
had been considered by her Majesty's Government, and
they were of opinion that restrictions should not be placed
upon the Crown's exercise of its right. That right would
continue to be exercised, subject to the opinion of the
Secretary of State. The noble lord contended that by this
bill Protestant endowments were put upon a different foot-
ing to those of the Roman Catholics. The answer which
he (Mr. Peel) had to make to that was, that the noble ford
seemed to have forgotten what had been said• by his right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was
incorrect to designate these reserves as a Protestant endow-
ment. They were so under the act of 1791; but under
the act of 1840 the Roman Catholics were permitted to par-
ticipate in one half of the produce of the sales under that
act. But even admitting the view of the noble lord, that
the clergy reserves were substantially a Protestant endow-
ment, he could not see that the reservation of the thirty
days' proviso would be any real advantage to the Church
of England or to any other religious body interested in the
fund, because it would give an appearance of support which
would be perfectly delusive. At the same time, if it were
thought that the Church of Rome really enjoyed an advan-
tage from both houses of Parliament being able to exercise
a veto, and any hon. gentleman would bring forward a bill
for the express purpose of repealing the 42d clause, as it
was supposed to effect them, there would be no disposition
on the part of her Majesty's Government to offer opposi-
tion to such a measure. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER contended that the language held by dif-
ferent members of the Government upon this question was
not uniform, and that in consequence no two men out of
doors could understand the exact point in discussion. On
the 23d of March, 1840, Lord John Russell stated, in
answer to a question for Sir Robert Peel, that there would
be reserved to the two houses of Parliament the power
given by the act of 1791, and for the Crown to refuse its
assent. The right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Cambridge said it was only on that ground
he could give his consent to the bill. When the bill of 1840
was introduced, it was not anticipated that the reserves
would be disposed of by the local legislature. But it was
important to get the question speedily settled ; the impe-
rial legislature therefore interposed its power, and made
what was considered a final arrangement and compromise.
Suppose that imperial arrangement should be broken up,
and the power given to the colonial legislature, then the
important point for the committee to find out was, the
terms upon which the power was transferred to the local
legislature. Now, what was proposed by the noble lord
was totally different from the terms used by the honour-
able gentleman who introduced the bill, and from those of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in supporting it, while it
was totally different from what the noble lord said himself
when he proposed the act for the union of the two pro-
vinces. The hon. gentleman the Under Secretary for the
Colonies urged the house to accept the bill, on the ground of
religious equality. The right hon. baronet who spoke on
the second reading, and the right hon. the Chancellor
of the Exchequer supported it upon the same principle.
These members of the Government said the bill was
founded on religious equality ; but religious equality was not

carried. out in its provisions. 'The fact was panted: out, and
the Government turned round upon the opposition and said,
We admit it is not religions equality ; but will you bring
in another bill applicable to the endowments of the Roman
Catholic Church.' The Government having committed
spoliation on the Church of England, advised them to com-
mit spoliation on the Church of Rome, so as to place the pro-
perty of both Churches on the same footing. It was not a

question of the Church of Rome, but a question affecting
the rights guaranteed by the Imperial Act of 1791, and he
would never be a party to appropriating that which had
been sanctioned by Parliament. (Hear, hear.) It was
neither fair nor reasonable that the second reading should
be obtained on ono assumption, and the bill passed through
committee on another assumption. He wished the matter
to be clearly understood between the Government and that
side of the house, that the country might understand it.
He did not expect the question to be got rid of by the con-
. .

ciently explicit. • venient argument that it must be left to colonial-self-legis-
Sir F. THESIGER said that, whatever might be the lation. There might be other rights superior to colonial
effect of the clause as it now stood, the intention of the self-legislation, the rights of the Churches in Canada.
Government was clearly that the Canadian Legislature (Hear, heir.) The act of 1791 was prospective. This act
should have absolute power to deal with the clergy reserves was retrospective. The act of 1791 reserved imperial con-
and with the investments which had arisen from the pre- trol. This act substituted the mere will and pleasure of
ceeds of their sale, without any of those securities which the Secretary of State. The act of 1791 was the funda-
were provided by the 42d section of the Act of Union, and mental act, and by the act of 1840 that control was ex-
her Majesty's Government would no doubt take care to in- pressly reserved. Upon all these grounds, therefore, he
troduce words expressive of that intention. It was im- , called on the Government for explanation, that on the
portant to ascertain what the intentions of the Govern- third reading the question might be plainly and dearly
ment really were upon the whole subject. It had been brought before the house and the country. (Hear.)
said that the effect of repealing the act of 1840 would be Lord J. RUSSELL thought there could not be much
to bring things back to the state of things as they existed doubt about the principle of this bill. The hon. and learned
in 1791. He contended, however, that such would not be gentleman who had just sat down, and gentlemen on the
the effect of repealing the act of 1840. It was quite clear, other side, had said a great deal about the Roman Catholic
upon turning to the 41st section of the act of 1794 and endowments and establishments. That was very much
considering its provisions in connection with the provisions beside the question now before the committee ; and al-.
of that act, that the lands set apart for the clergy reserves though the right honourable gentleman averred that he
were set apart for clergy purposes. The act of 1791 was would not be put off by that answer, the question really
intended to provide a permanent provision for the Pro- was, the self-government of the province of Canada.
testant clergy ; but the Legislature of Canada was em- (Hear, hear.) The question with regard to Roman Catholic
powelvd, as the population of the country increased, to endowments was chiefly a question arising before the act
vary its provisions by leasing one-seventh of grants from of 1791, because the rights of the Roman Catholic Church
the Crown lands for the clergy. But it was now proposed in Canada were acquired before that act; and if such a bill
to take away the securities provided in that act of 1791; and had been introduced as that to which his honourable
the house was told they were. lacing the Canadian Legis- friend had alluded, the question would rest upon a dif-
ture in the same position that they were in under that act, ferent state of things altogether. (Hear, hear.) The
whereas in two most important particulars the provisions Protestant clergy reserves were first made by the act of
of that act were positively violated. The bill was contrary 1791. They were created by act of Parliament at that
to the opinions of the judges expressed in 1840, that the time, and the question was whether they would reserve
Canadian Legislature had no power over the allotments, or not the power given by the act of 1791 to either
inasmuch as it provided that the local Legislature should house of Parliament to prevent the consent of the i
have absolutepower over the investments arising from the sale Crown being given to a colonial act. It was no
of lands, and it took from the Imperial Legislature the seen- doubt a question of some importance, but it was not a
rities provided by the act of 1791. Under all the circum- question of chief importance, with regard to this subject.
stances, he was sure that when honourable members came Even in that respect, however, it was evidently the inten-
to consider the provisions of the bill in respect to these tion of the act of 1791 that the colonial legislature should
important particulars, they would find it to be an inter- have in the first place the power to legislate—that they
ference with vested interests and rights, and the most should be enabled by the 41st to legislate under certain re-
startling breath of faith ever committed or attempted to strictions imposed by the 42d section. But the question
be committed by any legislature. (Hear, hear.) of much more importance vas really whether they were to
Mr. ADDERLEY said the honourable and learned gen- allow the colonial legislature to legislate on that subject.
tleman was totally mistaken when he said the object of the (Hear, hear.) These clergy reserves were accompanied
present bill was to go back to the state of things which with provisions which certainly had not operated in a man-
existed in 1791. Nobody in their ;senses could ever have ner to induce any wish to maintain the act of 1791. They
asserted such a thing. The object of the bill was to remove all knew that the clergy reserves had been a source of great
to the colonial legislature that power of revision which was evil to the province. The lands reserved had been barren
now possessed by the Imperial Parliament during a period of wheat, barren of barley, and barren of oats, but fruit-
of 30 days. At the same time he had no very clear idea ful of discontent, fruitful of strife, and fruitful of ill-luck
of the effect of the first section, and he thought that the —(hear, hear)—a source of despondency to the cultivator,
repeal of the 42d clause in the act of 1840 would be the often preventing roads being made, but a subject of hope
simplest mode of attaining that which he conceived to be to every agitator in the colony. (Cheers.) Therefore,
the object of the measure. As the bill stood he believed it there was nothing in the practical of that act, by which
would keep alive that 42d clause; so that, if he were right they were created, to induce him to wish to maintain it.
it would, after all, be nugatory. t (Hear.) But then there was certainly in that act of 1791 a
Lord J. MANNERS said it had been made perfectly provision, to which he had alluded, that if any act were
clear that the intention of the bill was to take away from made for the purpose of dealing with the reserves in the
the clergy reserves in Canada that protection which they colony, for thirty days it should be laid before the two
had hitherto enjoyed under the 42d clause in the act of houses of Parliament, and they should have the power to
1840. But it was said that the bill did no more with re- prevent its taking effect. What he said was, that that
spect to the property of the Church of England than it did provision was inconsistent with the principle which the
in relation to the religious endowments of the Church of Government had adopted, namely, that the colonies should
Rome in Canada. Now he was anxious to obtain from have the power to legislate for themselves. (Hear, hear.)
the legal advisers of her Majesty's Government a distinct And if the house meant to adopt that principle in its fair
declaration of the law upon that proposition. He thought and full extent, they must omit that provision of the act
this matter so important that he should take the liberty of of 1791, as they did remit the control now possessed by
reading the emphatic declaration of the honourable gentle- the Imperial Parliament. (Hear, hear.) It had been
man the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whenlhe intro- urged by the right honourable gentleman, that his right
ducod the bill, and the still more emphatic declaration of honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
the right honourable baronet the Chief Commissioner of argued this bill as if it proceeded upon the principle
Works, in which both laid down the untenable position, of the act of 1791. (Hear.) His right honourable friend
that this bill would place the property of the Church only meant, that inasmuch as the principle of the act
of England in Canada upon precisely the same foot- of 1791 allowed legislation by the provisional Parliament,
ing as the property of the Church of Rome. The and did not intend it with regard to that provision,
to put some
honourable gentleman 'Mr. Peel) said—" In the very that either house of Parliament might have the power
constitutional act of 1791 this very provision was made of control. It was, therefore, he thought, abundantly clear
which we now wish to adopt for these Protestant what were the intentions of the Government on this sub-
endowments. The 35th clause, after the declaration that ject. (Hear.) With respect to the particular framing of
I have referred to, says, 'Be it enacted that the said de- the clause, it might be advisable, perhaps,
daration shall remain and continue to be of full force and words with regard to the 37th and 38th sectionsof
thisof
that the people of
wthhilaesl
effect in each of the said two provinces of Upper Canada Union Act of 1840, to make the provision more dear thane
and Lower Canada respectively, except in so far as the it was at present. The principle which he understood
said declaration, or any part thereof, shall be expressly approved by the house when the second reading
reserves, to
varied or repealed by any acts which may be passed by the was carried by so large a majority. was,
Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the said Canada, as represented by the Crown and the 0
provinces respectively, or which may be assented to by of legislature, should have full power, rese • houses
Tying the life
her Majesty, or any of her successors, under the restric- interests of the present holders of the, clergy
tobe
aso u
sound
od whichpriu.
principle t
tions hereafter provided. Therefore, you see that the legislate on this subject. (Hear, hear.
Roman Catholic endowment of tithes and dues, which the Government meant. That was the
principle That Was what
those of the Roman Catholic persuation are now bound to they would adhere. He believed itth
pay to the clergy of that Church, may at any time be ciple, and upon that
abrogated by an act of the colonial legislature ; and inas- (Cheers.) hey intended to proceed.
much as all that we propose now to do, is to place the Pro- Mr. HENLEY said the Government
testant endowment in Upper Canada on precisely the same support of this bill' on the
had rested their
footing, I cannot see why the Roman Catholic members parties on the same footing, It was for the house toace see
ground that it would p l all
of the local legislature should be objected to because they whether that principle
took part in a decision upon this subject. (Hear.) Upon with his right bon. was carried out or not. He concurred
friend (Mr. Napier) in believing that
way and with Roman these grounds, then, I beg leave to introduce this bill." this bill would deal with Protestant foundations in one
Now he asked the right hon. baronet the Chief Commis-
sioner of Works, and any legal gentleman upon either side only answer ur Catholic foundations in another. The
of the house, whether on reading the bill they could say clergy as, "If you mean to rob the Roman Catholicl
bill immediately."
that, dealing as it did upon the face of it with the clergy friend had 'bringsaidi,anoathing should induce him t 4) commit G
His right oan.
reserves, and the clergy reserves alone, it repealed the act of spoliation on the Roman Catholics because the o-
as venal:neat were about to perpetrate one on
Go-
enactments of the 43d section in the act of 1840, so far
the property of the Roman Catholic Church was con- body,(Hear, hear.)
corned? If they could not say this from the words'
of
Considering and that was a very sound
concernedprinciple. (gear, .
eon.
that clause, what was the meaning of the declarationsl the vast
1 +;—the Protestant
amount of ability
extraordinary
that
coo wwg this measure, itnot a little extrao
was