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

THE STYX LONDON, CAVURDAY EVENING, MARCH 19, 1858.

c ccession of such property, would they not. be-euabled to
change the succession of the Crown ? Why, they might
ome to a resolution of suspending in the colony the Habeas
Corpus Act—to repeal trial by jury. (Hear, hear.) On
.the principle of self-government., this right must be
conceded. The noble lord said that this bill provided for
the preservation of the life interest of those persons whose
property was now affected. In his (Sir It. H. Inglis's)
estimation, that provision was only an aggravation of the
Wrong done—(hear)--for it assumed that the
parties pro-
testing against the measure had only a pounds, shillings,and pence interest in the matter. (Hear, hear.) The
question was one of Protestant faith, not of a paltry
amount doled out to the ministers of religion. It was the
duty of the British Parliament to support the capitol on
which rested that Protestant faith. (Hear, hear.) He
should vote upon this occasion as he had done heretofore,
only with a deeper sense of the injustice of the measure,
which was contrary to the original bill of the noble lord.
The present bill he believed to be at variance with the
pledged faith of the Crown and the Canadian Parliament,
and to be hostile to that connection between the mother
country and the colony which it was so desirable to main-
tam. (Cheers.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON was of opinion that the raising of
this new issue would much enlighten and instruct the
country as to the real scope and character of the present
measure. He was glad to see homage paid to truth, how-
ever unconsciously that homage might be rendered
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But he must, at the same
time, say that the objections urged against the scope and
nature of this bill had been met vague generalities. It
was the details of this bill which he (Sir J. Pakington)had
discussed, not its principle. The noble lord the member
for the City of London had observed that these clergy re-
serves in Canada produced neither wheat, barley, nor oats,
but were fruitful only in strife and disunion. But what
had. that to do with the question ? (Hear.) The noble
lord confessed that the words of the first clause were not
quite clear or intelligible, and that they must be amended
on the report. The words of the noble lord, however,
were distinctly at variance with the statement of the
right honourable baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) and the
hon. gentleman (Mr. F. Peel). Those gentlemen said
the object of the bill was to place the Roman Ca-
tholic and the Protestant endowments on the same
footing. The noble lord said quite the reverse ; that they
were going to strip the Protestants of those rights which
previous acts of Parliament had given them. This bill he
(Sir J. Pakington) contended was introduced without its
framers being aware of its details, or was brought in under
false pretences. (Hear, hear.) All mystery in this respect
was now at an end. (Hear' hear.) The house were now
informed that the Roman Catholics were to have their
rights respected, but not the Protestants, and the country
would have an opportunity of forming a judgment upon
that assertion. (Hear, hear.)
11r. GOULBURN said the question had been asked why
this bill dealt only with clergy reserves? The answer was
this—the Canadian Legislature had limited themselves to a
complaint of a particular grievance, and it was this parti-
cular grievance which the bill proposed to redress. He
complained that under cover of a complaint as to a parti-
cular clause it was dexterously attempted to re-open a dis-
cussion on the principle of the measure.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 2,
Sir F. THESIGER drew attention to the words of the
clause, which were to the effect that it should not be law-
ful for the colonial legislature to annul or reduce any exist-
ing stipends of the clergy of the Church of England or
Scotland (save and except where the faith of the Crown
had been pledged). Now, were the words in this paren-
thesis intended to be merely explanatory, or were they in-
serted as a qualification ? He confessed that, in his mind,
they only raised doubt and confusion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the words in
the parenthesis were a transcript of words in a previous
statute, 3d and 4th Vic., c. 38.
Mr. NAPIER wished to know whether these words were
meant to assert that there were any grants to the preser-
vatiOn of which the faith of the Crown had been pledged ?
Now, he contended that the whole of this property was pro-
perty to which the faith of the Crown had been pledged.
He really was utterly at a loss to understand the meaning
of the words in the parenthesis. For he could not see how
grants to the Church could be dealt with as if it were a
mere question of local rates.
31r. ADDERLEY said that hon. gentlemen seemed to
regard these reserves as a specific endowment, which they
were not. These reserves were nothing more than a per-
petual appropriation to a varying body, exactly upon the
same footing as the endowment to Maynooth, which the
hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down was
willing to meddle with. (Hear.) To illustrate his position
he would point to the Free Church of Scotland, to which
the faith of Parliament was not pledged.
Lord J. MANNERS would like very much to know
whether the Government were willing to accept the inter-
pretation of his hon. friend (Mr. Ad derley) and were these
reserves to be placed on the same footing as the revenues
of the Free Church of Scotland ? It was, therefore, essen-
tial that there should be a distinct and authoritative decla-
ration as to the meaning of the clause.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was understood to explain
that the words which were so much commented upon were
especially introduced from a former act, with a view of
preservinc, intact the stipends of the clergy.
Sir F. THESIGER said, that there was every reason
'why the words should have been introduced in a former
act. In one act the stipends were chargeable upon the
Consolidated Fund ; in the other they were treated as re-
serves.

Mr. WALPOLE could not imagine what use there was
in dismissing the bill, if its clauses were not understood.
His hot. and learned friend had been told by the Govern-
ment, that by the insertion of the parenthesis the faith of
the Crown was pledged to certain things. Now, two ques-
tions arose out of this :—First, what was that faith pledged
to ; secondly, how was it pledged ? Having himself gone
through all the various acts of Parliaments,,from the 31st
Geo. 111. to the 3d and 4th Viet., cap. 78, and through the
present bill, he could not see, neither did he think the com-
mittee saw, how the faith of the Crown was pledged to
these particular stipends, unless it was by the bill now
before them.

Sir F. THESIGER wished to point to the phraseology
of the clause. It was meant, as stated, to protect the sti-
pends and allowances which had been already assigned or
given to the clergy of the Church of England or Scotland,
or to any other religious denomination. Now, what he
wished his hon. and learned friend to state was, whether
there were any allowances or stipends given to any religi-
ons denomination to which the faith of Parliament was
not pledged. If that were so, he could understand the
meaning of the parenthesis, but otherwise he could not
understand the reason of words being introduced which
could only be regarded as mere surplusage.
Lord J. RUSSELL repeated the explanation which had
been given, that as they were professing to copy a former
act, the words were introduced from that act, and could
have no other effect than to pledge the faith of the Crown
in a more pointed manner.
After some further observations from Mr. Mang and
Mr. WALPOLE,
The clause was agreed to.
On the third clause being brought up,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was his intention to
move the omission of this clause. The question of the
clergy reserves had been for a long period a source of con-
tention in the province of Upper Canada. And so im-
pressed was Lord Sydenham with the mischief which the
discussion of the question would create, that he was most
anxious that it should be finally settled before the Act of
Union was carried into operation. He believed that Lord
Sydenham was fully justified in the opinion which he
entertained, and that the exasperation which prevailed
was •so great, that if the question had remained unde-
termined, the Act of Union between the two provinces
of Upper and Lower Canada would never have been
effected on terms likely to lead to a state of permanent
peace. That opinion, rightly or wrongly, was shared in
both by Lord Durham and himself when he held the seals
of the Colonial Office. Lord Durham, however, was
successful in procuring the passing of a bill which
prepared the way for the final settlement of the clergy
reserves, and he was in hopes that the Crown would have
been enabled to give its assent to that act. But, on con-
sultation with the law officers of the Crown, it was found
that the Imperial Parliament had exceeded its powers, and
that therefore the assent of the Crown could not be given
to that act. It became necessary, therefore, that heshould
introduce into the House of Commons a bill as nearly as
possible in accordance with the terms of that which Lord
Sydenham had ascertained would be likely to satisfy the
provincial legislature. Bnt, soon after the introduction of
the bill, it became apparent that, even should he be suc-
cessful in carrying it through the House of Commons,
it would never pass through the other House of Parliament.
He, therefore, felt a good deal embarrassed at the situation
of affairs, and he was greatly disheartened at finding that
BO beneficial a work was likely to be marred from a differ-
ence of opinion between the two branches of the home
Legislature. At that period the late Sir Robert Peel, with
some of his political friends, endeavoured to frame the out-
line of an arrangement, with which it was thought that
the other house of Parliament might be satisfied. That
outline was communicated to him, and it was intimated
that if it was proposed first inalthe souse of Commons, it
might subsequently be expected to receive the support of
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other prelates who
generally concurred with Sir R. Peel. Upon these terms,
therefore, although he saw very clearly that it would not
satisfy the province of Upper Canada, and although it did
not meet his own views, he accepted that arrangement,
and he consented to introduce such amendments as might
insure the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and
the other house of Parliament. Sir Robert Peel expressed
himself favourable to the measure, and when the divi-
/'lon tame there were only six votes against it, and
91-cthat way the Union Act and the Clergy Reserves
expressed,
were carried at the same time. No doubt he had
eaParle.,_Bl3% himself too confidently with regard to the
take rtitttihnient of the measure; lint he had made no mis-
lieved, indeed, arrangement he had then proposed. He be-
colony eecl, that the prosperity and -the loyalty of the
the
ecriedattiol have been excited to the same degree un-
less
legislation. The ofi the clergy reserves was made a matter
that wastion,
made in is/louse was aware that the settlement
of 1791,_ because it dig was different from that of the act
legislature to deal withiltt give the power to the colonial
the disposition then made it
reserves. But whatever was
sent Parliament or the dot ought not to control the pre-
to
i;vfo nment in endeavouring
confer upon the legislature
an entirely fresh arrangemenanada the power of making
of the clauses the sum of 7,700/11. PCo the subject. By one
secured to the clergy
of the Church of England out of tiZspeoroteteeds of these re-
serves, and a sum of 1,580/. to th©
sr fear that
nun-
Archbishop of Canterbury expressed rib. Church ; but
less some guarantee were given that the
funds
ofintro-
duced amount to a certain sum the clergy Might noeterrveS would
stipends they were then receiving, and a clause was the
given out of
that in case of any deficiency in the fun
clergy reserves, a collateral security should be
the Consolidated Fund. He (Lord J. Russell) stated that
he thought that security would be a collateral one, that the
Church of England and the Church of Scotland should
always receive that amount. It struck him that they were
thereby placed in a somewhat different position with regard
to these from all the other sums paid out of the clergy
reserves. It was not a question with regard to which any
hamediate difficulty could arise, because by the second
clause the legislature of Canada were bound to secure to
the clergy of the Church of England the sums they at pre-
sent received, during the lives of the parties receiving it.
The sum at- present paid to the Church of England was
15,0001., and the sum to the Church of Scotland 10,0001. ;
so that it was evident for a considerable time to come there
was no likelihood of a resort to the guarantee. But with
regard to the future, should the legislature of Canada de-
cade that the clergy of the Church of England were not to
receive that sum, then the time would arrive when a de-
mand would be ade upon a Consolidated Fund. That,
he thought, was a qiiestion of considerable difficulty and
intricacy, If the act of 1840 had remained in force there
would
be no fear that the Consolidated Fund would be
called upon. If they now endowed these sums in perpe-
tuity,„ there would be considerable discontent excited in
'maeanadt4Lbdecbause such a proposition had not before been
Lord Gre y the Governor-General in his dispatches to
head of theCr
olonial recently to his noble friend at the
dopartment. Seeing those difficul-

LtssAi

ties, and believing that the course at the present moment
would be the freest from objection, he proposed the omis-
sion of the third clause until they had had time to com-
municate with Canada. Although his noble friend the
Duke of Newcastle had been no party to the arrangement
of 1840, he felt the obligation that was imposed on him,
and his noble friend agreed that it would be better to write
,to Lord Elgin, the Governor-General, and state to him the
difficulty of the case, and requesting him to lay the whole
case before the legislature of Canada, stating the wish of
the Government that it would make some provision that
would meet the justice of the case. He thought that course
would be the freest from objection as regarded all parties.
He did not think it would be wise at the present moment
to enact a clause in the bill proposing to get rid entirely of
that engagement of providing for any deficiency out of the
Consolidated Fund. After communicating with the Cana-
dian Legislature, Parliament would be better able to de-
cide on the whole case, and he felt confident it would de-
cide with justice, and at the same time take into considera-
tion the expectations that were entertained.
Mr. MIALL had listened to the statement of the noble
lord with surprise and commiseration. (Laughter.) The
noble lord in 1840, whatever might have been the nature of
the measure which he had himself introduced, was obliged
to receive a changeling and adopt it as his own. Although
his original conceptions might be fair, and honest, and good,
he was never able when they referred to the church to
carry them into effect. (Hear, hear.) In the present case
a bill had been introduced to give to the legislature of Ca-
nada the disposition of their clergy reserves. That bill
seemed to a considerable number of members on that side
of the house to embody the principles of self-government
for the colonies in all matters which affected their purely
local interests. The bill seemed to be clear and straightfor-
ward, and under that impression they had given the noble
lord their hearty and zealous support, in consequence of
which the second reading was carried by a majority of 83
votes. Ten days afterwards the noble lord gave the house,
the first intimation of his intention to make any alterations
in the measure. That evening they had heard an explana-_
tion of the circumstances which had induced him to make
that alteration ; and he (Mr. Miall) must confess that he
could not see anything in those circumstances which did not
apply when the bill was brought in. (Cheers.) When the
noble lord stated his intentions at the commencement of
the session, and when the Under-Secretary for tie Colonies
gave an outline of the measure on its introduction and on
the second reading, it might have been perfectly fair, and
honest, and candid, to have stated that the bill was in-
tended to give effect to the principle of self-government in
the colonies at some considerable expense to the English
people. (Hear, hear.) The clause, as it stood, had refer-
ence to a contingent liability created by the Bth section of
the act of 1840. That liability they had never been mile
upon to make good ; not a single farthing had been pai ,
th.e proceeds of the clergy reserves having been amply su
cient ; and, as the noble lord had well said, the guaran
was a mere collateral security. It was proposed now
give the Canadian Parliament power to secularise thos
reserves, if they pleased ; and if they did that, the Con -
lidated Fund was to become chargeable to the amount f
7,900/. for the clergy of the Church of England, and
1,580/. for the clergy'of the Church of Scotland in perpe-
tuity. (Hear, hear.) That was to say, we were to pay 4
certain amount of money to some power—the power that
seemed to bring so much pressure to bear upon the nob/
lord—a sum which, being capitalised, would be equal t
300,000/. and upwards, in order that the Canadian Legi
lature might deal as it pleased with its own affai
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman, the President of th
Board of Trade, had well observed the other night tha
there was no interest that stood so much in need of protec
tion as the Consolidated Fund. When any other interes
was assailed, those who had the guardianship of it weri)
always ready to repel all such attempts ; but whenevek
tbose of the Church of England were in question, he obi
served that the Consolidated Fund seemed to be a most ac'•
cessible and convenient instrumentality. (Cheers.) He
was as willing as any one could be to make a considerabl
sacrifice, in order that the Canadians, might enjoy what h
thought they were well entitled to, the right of sel
government. (Hear, hear.) He would also increase tha
sacrifice, in order that they might realise the object upon
which they had set their hearts—namely, to throw off that
incumbrance which had pressed so long upon the infant
energies, preventing their natural development, fostering
an odious spirit of exclusiveness, and setting together by
the ears the teachers of different denominations. To gelj
rid of this incumbrance he would submit to a large sacri.:
fice, but he did not think that the people of this country
should be called on prospectively to sacrifice their hard
earnings, not to give free government to the Canadians,;
but to satisfy the dema,nds of some party in this country
which did not make its appearance, but operated on th
mind of the Government in order to obtain compromise
such as was now proposed, just as Mr. Brown and Mr.l
Coppock compromised election matters. (Hear.) He coutd
not see the object of leaving out this clause, unless it was'
that whatever was done of justice to the Canadians was
obliged to be purchased. In continuing the guarantee, the
object of the noble lord could hardly be directed to the
question of religion in Canada. Lord Grey admitted that
the maintenance of religious institutions was a purely local
question, and if the people of Canada were not to be
trusted with that they could not be trusted at all. At all
events it was somewhat anomalous that we should be giv-
ing a perpetual guarantee to keep up a church in Canada
which they would not retain unless that was done—that is
to say, that the Government and the Church of England
were desirous that no sanction should be given to the vo-
luntary principle. That principle he (Mr. Miall) felt bound
always to defend when it was attacked, andhe put forward
a few facts relating to that principle as it existed in North
America, which might serve as a guide to show what it
might effect in Canada. The hon. gentleman here read the
following statement, drawn up from the religious statistics
of the United States :

" The number of churches or edifices for public divine wor-
ship in the United States is a fraction over 36,000, or one to
every 666 of the population. The average number that each
building will accommodate is 384 ; and if all the churches
should be filled at one time they would hold 13,849,896 per-
sons, considerably over one-half of the entire population-
-24,000,000. It has been calculated that not more than one-
half of any population can at the same time attend public
worship, and that if accommodation is provided to that ex-
tent, it is all that is required. Here, then, we have provi-
sion for nearly 2,000,000 beyond the estimated requirement
—that, too, in a country where the wide extent of territory
and scattered population militate against the success of volun-
taryism. So much for the actual provision of places of wor-
ship. The same return shows that the total value of church
property is 86,416,639 dollars, or (reduced to English money)
about 17,283,3271. In his statistical paper, read before the
British Organisation of the Evangelical Alliance, in August,
1850, Dr. Baird states that more than 3,000,0001. was raised
by the various denominations, in 1850, for ministerial in-
comes, religious and educational societies, and the erection,
&c., of churches and colleges. Far from these vast resources
for religious purposes being likely to diminish, he shows that
they have for many years past been increasing in a greater
ratio than the population. It is, therefore, now demonstrated
on the most incontestable evidence, that voluntaryism has
amply provided for the religious necessities of the United
States, without a farthing of public money being expended
for that object."

He might add, that in the United States, where there was
no State endowment for religion, religious intolerance was
almost unknown. (Hear, hear.) Sir Charles Lyell in his
account of his second visit to the United States said, " that
after the severe struggle for the presidency between Mr.
Clay and Mr. Polk, few Americans whom he met could
tell hiin to what denomination either of them belonged,
but he at last ascertained that one of them was an Episco-
palian, and the other a Presbyterian ; but that want of
knowledge did not arise from any indifference to religion
or want of regard for moral character, but it was clear that
in the choice of a first magistrate, their minds were occu-
pied by other considerations, and the separation of political
from religious feeling, though far from complete yet, was
one of the most healthy features of the working of the
American system. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Miall) could
not see why Canada should be less happy under the same
system. He intended to oppose the withdrawal d the
clause by the noble lord, because he did not see why a tax
should be saddled in perpetuity on the people of this
country in order that Canada should have the Church of
England, and he should take the sense of the house upon
the question. (Cheers.)

Mr. V. SMITH said he could not exaggerate the impor-
tance of the question. He was so axious for the passing of
the measure that he would be willing to make some sacrifice
to obtain that object ; for if they failed in passing the
present bill, he was afraid that they would never hear
again of the clergy reserves in that house. After the state-
ment made by the noble lord, he was at first disposed to
hesitate before they wpnt on with the bill. The noble lord
stated that the Duke of Newcastle had written out to the
colony to know whether the colonists would take on them-
selves the guarantee whiCh was given by the measure of
1840. Now, until the answer of the colonists was received,
he (Mr. Smith) thought it would be imprudent for them
to strike out the clause. The guarantee simply amounted
to this—that in each year a certificate shall be given by the
registrar-general of the amount of the proceeds to be paid
to the several churches, and if it fell below a certain sum,
the charge shall be thrown On the Consolidated Fund. The
guarantee, which was formerly a contingency, would, if
the course proposed were adopted, be reduced to an abso-
lute certainty. He implored the house to take great care
as to the way they should deal with the Church of Eng-
land in the colonies. (Hear.) Hon. gentlemen should re-
collect when they spoke of the Roman Catholic Church as
an analogous case, that they were now dealing with the
Church of Encilandi alone, and the argument as to the Ro-
man Catholic Church had nothing whatever to do with the
present question. The guarantee appeared to him to apply
entirely to the distribution of the clergy reserves. If they
now -withdrew the clause, he confessed he did not see why
the bill should have been introduced. They ought to be-
ware of placing the Church of England in such a position
as to be always a source of war in the colonies. He trusted
his noble friend would not insist on his withdrawal of the
clause, but would allow it to stand until the answer to. the
letter of the Duke of Newcastle had arrived—or that he
would so amend the clause as to make the guarantee stand
exactly in the same position as it did before the present bill
was introduced. ' (Hear.)
Mr. ADDERLEY said that, while agreeing with what
had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who spoke last,
he did not think it would be wise to delay the measure
until they saw what would be the answer from the colony.
He believed that those who advocated a free Government
for Canada must believe that any Government that under-
took to subsidise our colonies would be pursuing the worst
line of policy that could be thought of, and that such a
course would inevitably break down. Any attempt made
to subsidise the churches of the colonies would in like man-
nor inevitably break down. He would ask those who were
anxious that the Church of England should flourish, whe-
ther, for the sake of the paltry- sum of 7,7001. a year, they
would be prepared to place the Church in such an odious
position as it at present stood in Canada. They had heard
that the Church of England had received an undue share
of that which was originally intended to be more generally
distributed. They were passing an act which was calcu-
lated to remove the odium which had been cast upon the
Church. Did any one suppose that this grant would be
noaintained out of the Consolidated Fund? If they did
hatvep aBaansseateohnnenilniad,ies.
debate.sauyr
Maynooth
as it
rt stood,wot
du
pthis
forma
question
nee w t would
Maynoothw 0 be-
come
steovoalntoce for some
11:ine member of the North Warwickshire
ear—(laughter)—for it was not
had been conceived by
every one that ickelvgir:Tz very fine distinctions which
the University of Dublin (Mr.on. and learned member for
Napier). It seemed to him
to be a somewhat parallel
case with the case of Maynooth.
Did the noble lord for a moment
conceive that the Cana-
dian Parliament would take on itselfsuggestion
heth theresponsibility of
ry
accompany the passing of
thethe
graceguaranteetat?woTuhlde
otherwisee
v
ought destroyed
the act. (Hear, hear.) If the Canadian Parliamentul
dined to acknowledge such guarantee, he would ask tdhee-
noble lord what he would do ? He would
decidedly sup-
port the amendment of the hon. member for Rochdale
vounteofthe house
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said: he
could not help thinking that the hon.. gentleman who had
just addressed the house did not precisely understand the
and the Government in reference which hon,
position of the question,
asalso
othtoe position

gentlemen were invited to give by his noble friend the '
member for the City of London. He should state that he
repudiated in the most distinct terms the statement that
compromise or secret influence, as advanced by the hon.
member for Rochdale, had anything to, do with the course
now proposed by her Majesty's Ministers. No indivi-
dual opposed to the Ministry had anything to do with
that course, and it was simply the result of delibera-
tion amongst the members of the Government on the me-
rits of the question itself, and their recollections' of the
circumstances of 1840, and their sense of the obligation of
that period, that influenced them solely. It appeared to
him that the question was not altogether understood by
the last hon. gentleman who addressed the house, and who
described the evils that must result by pensioning the
Churches of England and Scotland out of these funds. His
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) experience impressed
him with the belief that the colonies wore not very fasti-
dious as to grants given to either churches or bodies as
long as they were paid by Great Britain. (Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) He agreed, however, with the hon. gentle-
man, that these Churches should not be pensioned. Bat
that was not the question before the house. The question
before the house was as to the proper form, manner, and
proceeding of dealing with these funds. He (the lhan-
cellor of the Exchequer) had been a party in 1840 to the
arrangement made by the noble lord the member for the
City of London (Lord J. Russell), and nothing could be
more fair or distinct than the character of the provisiwis
of that act, which amounted to a compact. (Hear, hear.)
At that time the Church of England was contending for
the exclusive possession of these funds, and looked on the
Church of Scotland as a mere intruder. The House of
Lords was prepared, under the leadership of that illustrious
man the Duke of Wellington, to vindicate that right ; and
it was under these circumstances that an arrangement was
made by formal communication between the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the late Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of
Wellington, and the Administration of the day. The
question now arose—was it wise or just to sacrifice the
guarantee then entered into without first consulting those
who were to be affected by it in Canada. But he asserted
this was not the proper time to deal with the question of
the guarantee. The simple question just now was this—
whether that guarantee should be maintained or cancelled?
The guarantee becoming a reality altogether depended on
the contingency whether the Canadian Legislature would
or would not secularise the reserves. If they did not, then
it would remain a guarantee on paper as at present ; but,
supposing they did, then it would be the duty of the Mini-
ster of the day to raise the question in Parliament, and to
consider the course to be taken in reference to it. He
hoped the secularisation never would take place ; but even
if it did, the guarantee could not come into force for 15 or
20 years. It appeared to the Government that whatever
they did in this matter, the question of the guarantee was
a peculiarly British question. The proper course to adopt
would be to separate the two questions of the guarantee
and the power to deal with the reserves. He wished to
bear his testimony to the fact that the noble lord the mem-
ber for London was enabled in 1840 to effect an arrange-
ment which, at the time, was both vital and essential to
the welfare of Canada ; and though it might be easy to ca-
vil at present at that proceeding, yet he hoped the house
would not act precipitately on the important question now
submitted to its consideration. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HITME thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer
should defend the Consolidated Fund. He admitted that
the state of Canada in 1840 was very unsatisfactory, be-
cause the Administration of the day took up a nominee
council at variance with the whole country. (Hear.) The
lands, though comparatively poor in 1840, now yielded
31,0001. a year ; and why should they give them up now,
and saddle prospectively the Consolidated Fund of this
country ? (Hear_)

Mr. DISIIAEL—I may have misapprehended the ob-
servations of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer,
but it appeared to me his observations were entirely di-
rected against the third clause. The right hon. gentleman
informed us of the circumstances under which this bill was
prepared. It was doubtless prepared after due and matured
deliberation, after a complete acquaintance with well-veri-
fied facts, and after a perfect recollection of the very pecu-
liar circumstances under which the act of 1840 was passed.
But the right hon. gentleman does not seem to-night to
vindicate this third clause ; and if I do not misapprehend
him, he seems to express astonishment as to the mode and
manner by which it was introduced into the bill. (Hear,
• hear.) The bill consists of only three clauses, and this is
very important—as, at the first blush, it does not appear
to bear the stamp of that high ability that so eminently
characterises the present Administration. (Cheers and
laughter.) The first clause is to be altered, the second
consists of a parenthesis, and the third is to be omitted.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Yet this is a bill of the first
magnitude, and for the purpose of carrying it the energies
of the house have been unusually taxed. (Hear, hear.)
We have been told that the question of the guarantee is
one that should be settled at home ; and therefore the
colony is to be communicated with on the subject. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) I confess I can give only one interpre-
tation of the ingenious statement, and it is this—that
there is a change of policy on the part of the Administra-
tion. (Cheers.) I should very much like to hear the
opinions of the right hon. baronet the First Commissioner
of Works on this very clause. I wish to know whether he
gives his complete adhesion to this policy.? We have been,
favoured with the opinion of the hon. member for Mon-
trose, who understands this question. There is no doubt,
that ultimately these clergy reserves will be secularised--
so thinks the honourable gentleman the member for Mon-
trose, and I wish the hon. genttlemen on both sides of the
house who give my hon. friend credit for great sagacity
will bear in mind the immediate consequences of the secu-
larisation of these reserves. When we are told by the
First Minister of the Grown in this house that the Secre-
tary of State has only just sent a dispatch to the colony on
this subject, and that we are to wait for the decision of
the colony, I agree with the hon. member for Northampton
that it would be only decorous to wait for such decision.
It appears to me that under these circumstances, and in
consideration of the omissions to be made, notwithstanding
the glowing picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the measure is immature; and it appears to me the wisest
course would be to pause ; and, therefore, the best thing I
can do will be to move, sir, that you report progress, and
obtain leave to sit again. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL.—I have already given my reasons
for the course I propose to adopt. The right hon. gentle-
man who spoke last stated that we proposed to refer the
question to the colony for its decision. The fact is we are
about to write to the colony that if, at some future time,
they should think proper to agree to divert these clergy
reserves to other purposes, it is our hope they will take
into consideration this part of the act of Parliament. The
hon. member for Montrose talked of our waiting for an
answer, which we might have in 30 days. But the dis-
patch should be sent, the governor should assemble the
,parliament of Canada, and ask them to consider the ques-
tion of the clergy reserves. Of course they would take
time to consider it. It would then go through all its
stages ; and yet it was to be supposed that they could have
an answer in 30 days. It is clear no such thing could re-
sult. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Northampton
proposed that we should delay the whole subject, and make
our legislation contingent on the result in Canada. The
parliament of Canada has asked us "to give them power to
legislate on this subject. I am ready to give them that
power. (Hear, hear.) But hon. gentlemen who differ
from us say, " do not give them that power ; write to them,
and wait until you get an answer." But I say, by the time
we could get that answer it would be very late in the ses-
sion, and it would be almost impossible to legislate on the
subject. (Hear, hear.) What we now wish is, that this
bill should pass the house, and in the manner most likely
to enable the Canadian Legislature to deal immediately
with the subject. (Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT thought the committee would be inclined
to come to the conclusion, from Ile speech of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, that considerable difference of
opinion prevailed in the Government with regard to the
question they were then discussing. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman had treated the question with a
vivacity which the noble lo.id had completely failed in call-
ing to his aid. Now, if ever, was precisely the time when
'this question should be settled, if there were anything in the
guarantee at all ; but he took the libertj of saying that
it was with him very doubtful if there wffe anything in it.
(Hear, hear.) For his own part, he had read the clause of
the act several times over, and so complex had it been
made by the lawyers, that he believed the house did not
know what it was called upon•to agree to. He doubted,
however, if any lawyer could make it appear clear that
should these reserves be entirely secularised, there would
be any mode of prdceeding by which this house could be
called upon to make good the deficiency out of the Conso-
lidated Fund. Supposing they were secularised, as he
hoped and believed they would be, and that in a short
space of time, the question was if the guarantee was any-
thing or nothing. Upon that point there seemed to be a
great difference of opinion ; but he took it that the noble
lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded it in the
light of a guarantee. If the committee divided on the
clause, he (Mr. Bright) should vote for retaining it, because
he should thereby put out of question all liability on the
part of this country to pay these Churches the amount of
the guarantee, for he contended there was never a more
impudent thing proposed to the house than that the people
of this country, who were not possessed of one-half the com-
petency of the people of Canada, should be taxed for the
support of the establishment of a sect of 3,000 or 4,000
across the Atlantic. (Cheers.) The fault he had to find
with the noble lord was the want of grasp he exhibited
when he came to grapple with questions of this nature. If
the noble lord would only learn to rely upon that which
was just and which might be fairly recommended to the
honest opinion of the people, he would often find that he
commanded a larger amount of support than he had calcu-
lated upon, and be thus enabled to carry more extensively
beneficial measures through both Houses of Parliament.
The amendment having been withdrawn,
Sir G. GREY said that with regard to the nature and
extent of the guarantee, he was compelled to arrive at the
conclusion that the Legislature, when the act was passed,
never contemplated a guarantee against such a contingency
as that which had now arisen—namely, the absolute secu-
larisation of the clergy reserves. On reference to the act it
would be seen that the mode in which the fund was to be
distributed was specified with great care ; and the gua-
rantee was intended only to make good any deficiency
which occurred in the revenue whilst the property re-
mained liable to the appropriation fixed by the act. In
voting for the omission of the clause, which he should do,
he trusted he should not be considered as expressing an
opinion the reverse of that which he really entertained,
that in the event of a diveriion'of this property by the co-
lonial legislature from the object contemplated by the act
of 1840, there would be a chargd on the Consolidated Fund
of 15,0001. a year. Thinking it was a guarantee with re-
gard to •• any deficiency that might arise between the
amount annually published, and the sums mentioned in
the act, he could then see that there was the same possibi-
lity of that deficiency arising when the colonial legislature
became empowered to deal with this subject as existed
now when the Imperial Legiilature was dealing with it.
To this extent he felt bound to maintain the guarantee ;
and understanding it in that limited sense, he should vote
with the Government for the omission of the clause.
The committee divided—
For the motion
Against it

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

JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.

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

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

in this country. The measure had passed through the
House of Lords, and it had received the unanimous ap-
proval of the profession in Scotland.
The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday, the 4th of April.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE of YESTERDAY.

ST. JAMES'S-PALACE, MARCH 17.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint the Honourable
Mary Bulteel to be one of the Maids of Honour in Ordinary
to her Majesty, in the room of the Honourable Amelia
Matilda Murray, resigned.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint the Honourable
Amelia Matilda Murray to be Extra Maid of Honour to
her Majesty.