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

he begged to give notice that on Monday he would af
the noble I lord a question about it.
AI.)JOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On the motion of Mr. WiLsoN, it was agreed that t he
house at 'its rising should adjourn until Monday next.
CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA) BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of t his

bill,
Sir J. TAKINGTON presented several petiti, alas
from the bishops and clergy of Canada against the in .ea-

sure.
Sir R. H. INGLIS also presented a petition o
agfai nst
the bill from the Society for the Propagation the
Gospel in Foreign Parts.
Sir J. P AIUNGTON rose to move that the bill be r ead
a second time upon this day six months. He said thal the
• approached the discussion of this subject with the dee pest
conviction of the truth and justice of the cause whi& a he
was about to advocate, and also under serious apprehen-
sions lest he might be unable to lay before the house, in
the course which he thought was due to it, the merits of
the case upon which they had to decide. After the extra.-
ordinary circumstances which marked the debate upon the
introduction of this bill, he must say that he had hoped
that it would appeal before them in a different shape. He
' thought he was justified in applying the word " extraor-
dinary" to the circumstance of the first debate. Let him
remind the house who were the speakers who took part in
that debate. The bill was introduced by the hon. gentle-
men opposite, the Under-Secretary of State ; the next
speaker was the right hon. gentleman the member for
Northampton ; and the third was the noble lord the m em-
ber for the city of London. Now, what was the language
of the hon. gentlemen opposite ? He (Sir J. Pakington)
asked the oldest members of the house if they could call to
mind a case in which a member of the Government, in
bringing forward a measure on the part of the Govern-
ment, admitted at the close of the speech which he made
that the bill was calculated to shake the confidence in all
religious endowments.
Mr. PEEL—I merely stated that it was calculated to
shake the confidence felt by the clergy at present supported
out of this fund in the stability of the appropriation of this
fund for religions purposes. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON ; He must of course accept any
explanation of his own language that was made by the hon.
gentleman. If the hon. member wished to recall what he
said, he (Sir J. Pakington) could take no exception ; but as
a matter of memory he must say that he took a note of the
language of the hon. gentleman, and the reports which they
read every morning confirmed the version that he had
given. It was commented upon by his hon. friend the
member for the University of Oxford ; but he was willing
to take even the statement now made by the hon. member,
and he would declare that never did he recollect a measure
being introduced before with such a statement by a minis-
ter. But what was the next speech? That of the right hon.
gentleman the member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith).
The same spirit of candour which induced the hon. gentle-
man the Under-Secretary of State to make the avowal that
he had mentioned also led him to touch—he must say very
lightly, and as if he were afraid of it—upon the position
which some persons had taken up upon this question, viz.,
that this was only a bill to transfer the power to thelegis-
lature of Canada, and that it did not repeal the endowment
called the clergy reserves. The hon. gentleman touched very
lightly upon that argument, but he was succeeded by the
right hon. gentleman the member for Northampton, who,
following out that candour which marked the debate, threw
ridicule rrpon that idea, and frankly said that if they gave
up this property they must make up their minds that
the legislature of Canada would secularise it. Ho then
came to the speech of the noble lord opposite, who said
that while he regretted the necessity for this measure, and
doubtee the wisdom of reviving the discussion of the sub-
ject, there were still in the opinion of the Government
paramount reasons for urging this bill forward. It was
not for him (Sir J. Pakington) to compare the late inex-
perienced Government to the number of statesmen who
sat on the opposite bench ; but he must say that the late
Government, inexperienced as they were, did not com-
mence their administration by apologising for the indiscre-
tion of their own speeches, nor did they preface their first
measure by such declarations as those which had fallen
from the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. What
then was the language which he (Sir J. Pakington) held
upon that occasion ? He implored the noble lord to reflect
upon' the provisions of his own act of 1840, and to consider
whether this country was not bound in good faith to respect
the rights of the Churches of England and Scotland to
these reserves, and to see whether this bill could not be in-
troduced in such a shape as would relieve any party in that
house from the necessity of opposing it. He now came to
the real question before the house. The devotion of these
reserves to one sacred object had remained unchallenged
for a vast length of time. At the time of the conquest in
Canada, in 1760, the rights of the Roman Catholic Church
were fairly recognised and allowed.- In 1774, only 14 years
afterwards, an act was passed under which the right of the
Roman Catholic Church was recognised to her rights and
dues (of the nature of, though not strictly tithes) in the
districts inhabited by Catholics ; and, at the same time,
the Protestant Church was allowed to collect tithes in the
districts inhabited by Protestants. In 1791 the 31st Geo.
111. was passed, by which the Protestant tithe was vir-
tually repealed, one seventh of the land being set apart in
lien of it in order to support the Protestant worship in that
colony. That act recognised the duty of Parliament to give
an endowment to the Protestant Church in Canada. In
1827, an act was passed allowing these reserves to be osoldin
consequence of the great discontent that had arisen in con-
sequence of the blocks of land acting as an impediment to
the settlement of the country ; and this act distinctly recog-
nised the endowment of the Protestant Church. For along
series of years afterwards this question became one forparty
conflict in the legislature of Upper Canada ; and he must
remind the house that this was essentially an Upper Cana-
dian question. There were constant disputes about the
appropriation and the mode of dealing with this property,
and until at length the troubles of 1838 came on. After
those troubles were put an end to, it was made known that
the noble lord opposite desired to reunite these two pro-
vinces, and it was felt to be essential that this question of
the reserves should be settled before that reunion took
place. The legislature of Upper Canada accordingly, in
1839, passed an act distinctly vesting these reserves in the
Crown of this country, and expressing a desire that it
would dispose of them. When that act was sent home,
the noble lord who was then Secretary for the Colonies
found that for various reasons he could not advise that the
assent of the Gown should be given to it ; and he de-
termined to refer it to the province to decide in what way,
subject of course to the consent of the Crown, it was for
the benefit of the country that these reserves should be
disposed of. The legislature of Upper Canada accordingly,
in 1840, sent over an act, dealing with the question, as the
noble lord desired. That act preserved the distinction of
these reserves to religious purposes, giving a certain por-
tion to each of the Established Churches of England and
Scotland, and directing the remainder to be appropriated
to other denominations. When that act arrived here an
objection was taken to its legality, and the opinion of the
judges being unfavourable to it, the noble lord (Lord J.
Russell) passed what he called " the final act of 1840," the
provisions of which were identical with those of the act
passed by the Canadian Parliament, except as to the
changes rendered necessary by the opinion of the judges.
So that if the authority of the Canadian legislature was
desired for the legislation of 1840, there was that of the
legislature of Upper Canada. From 1774 to 1840 these
lands had been appropriated to religions purposes and to
the maintenance of the Protestant religion in Canada, and
he contended that this country was bound by the most
sacred obligations to respect the arrangement made in
1840 so far as its principle went—that principle being the
dedication of this property for all time to come to religious
uses and the promotion of religion ; and he said again that
Parliament was not at liberty, except by an exercise of
its power, tyrannical as regarded that helpless minority
which came before them with their prayers, to divert this
property from those religious uses to which it had been
dedicated. (Hear, hear.) He would now call attention
to the ground taken by the Government, that the
right of self-government in the Colonies was so sacred
as to be paramount to the obligations contracted by
this long series of acts of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
He must, however, suggest to the Government whether
this bill, as it stood, did not in fact violate the great
principle of self-government as much as if the house took
the view of the subject which he was then commending to
them. The second clause declared that it should not be
lawful for the Parliament of Canada to violate the rights
of individuals. Surely this was an interference with them.
He knew it would be said that the Canadian Parliament
suggested this clause. But he did not think that answer
satisfactory. This portion of the enactment was in fact
but altraining at a gnat after swallowing a camel. He
thought the sense of Justice that would allow the Govern-
ment to plunder a Church and sacrifice the property of the
body corporate—of the laity, of the Church, and of all who
should be members of that Church in all time to come—
and yet lead them to say, " Oh, but we maintain the rights
of Ilir. A. and Mr. B. to have a pittance for life," was a
most extraordinary perversion of the sense of justice. He
thought that on their own principles the Government
should have given the Legislature of Canada entire control
over this
Property, and have left them to carry out the
offers they had
made with respect to it, and which he had
no reason to doubt. Were the Government then borne out
by
their own argil
government that the colonies had a paramount
right to self-
no Government hair ? He must remind the house that
_ whose justice more regard to this great prin-
ciple,lsco fully admitted, than that of Lord
Derby, and that thehead,uttration of which the noble
lord opposite was the
ewnflii-ore-1; thatH out
euwt
Government
o the principle
for which they so largely contended. nat carry
would remind
ncthe house of some insptrainncneispilne
for
were
eeasons which, if well
dis-
tinctly violated this
founded (which he believed tl;
(elhweeshreoulimdpl.i3arivael
admitted to be paramount, viz. hat there
a irLthe colony
considerations which overrode this great
principle of colonial self-government. In Is, acknowledged
of New Brunswick passed an act giving
cultivation of hemp in that colony. After much
cons the
ration Earl Grey confirmed that act, but he a:the saide-
forbade the governor of that colony even to give his consent
to a similar enactment; he thought it objectionable ai-i-d.
unwise in principle, but would not refuse his assent to the
particular act passed, on account of the inconvenience
which might have resulted. This was a great grievance,
and it was felt so by the colonists, who remonstrated
against it in the strongest manner. It was also a great
violation of the right of the colonies to self-government ;
for New Brunswick is as independent and has the same
rights as Canada, the only difference between them .
In
be-
ing that New Brunswick is weak and Canada po weEful
1850, again, Earl Grey refused his assent to a vagrant acte
passed by the legislature of New South Wales, because he
said it would operate hardly upon the convicts sent out
here, or liberated there with a ticket of leave. That was
obviously a refusal to recognise the right of self-government
in New South Wales. Prince Edward's Island was a
colony possessing the same rights of self-government as
Canada, and yet, when he (Sir J. Pakington) entered the
Colonial-office, he found that Earl Grey had refused to as-
sent to an act which the legislature of that island has
Pr passed to protect their fisheries, by the grant of bounties,
I%
__ a ainst the encroachments of the United States. That re-
4. , ______ . .in the part of Earl Grey was the subject of great
,iss 4* -s e-S4s;
.and the late Government, thinking it well
ses-3,. s AS,4rs: "' .ed the decision of the noble earl, and,
C 1:77;t0
..,47,..
~,:,_- e ~:;Proving of the principle of bounties, declared
te---:ls: C'e a- .\ ' .ny should be allowed to take that course' which
- ser;
..," xaeedient with respect to them. The next in-
the aa.:...a. aeatii,
yielded to
New South Wales. In 1850, Lord
.41 r_,,,1 .. ..z
~ 2;11ll.u. 1... o the desire of the Canadians to deal
I;
_l!
vvituTilmall(t;orttotn-svas a limited land question, dealing '
_.-- of land—land that had been reserved
AS"