The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-01 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN SEWERS.

Yesterday a special court was held, Mr. R. Jebb in
the chair, the object being the annual audit of the ac-
counts of . the commission for the past year, in accord-
ance with the 127th clause of the 11th and 12th of Viet.,
cap. 112, i.e.:—

" And be it enacted, that the commissioners shall, after
such audit of the accounts as aforesaid, cause an account in
abstract to be prepared, showing the receipt and expendi-
ture under this act for the preceding year, under the
several distinct heads of,receipts.and_e,xpenditexe,xith the
statement of the allowance of the auditor or auditors; if lie
or they shall have allowed such accounts, or of the parts,
if any, which he or they shall have disapproved of such
accounts, and also a summary statement and report of all
contracts entered into by the commissioners in such pre-
ceding year, and of the monies owing to and debts owing
by the commissioners on the 31st of December, in the year
named."

Sir J. Fellowes, Bart., and G-. S. Smith, Esq., were also
present.
The SECRETARY (Mr. Woolrych) read the report of the
committee in approval of the auditor's examination of the
state of the funds. A copy of the document was ordered to
be transmitted to the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, in compliance with the terms of the statute.
Subjoined is tho extract :
General cash balance due Dec. 31, 1851 £3,355 11 3
Total receipts during tho year 134,999 18 5

£138,355 9 8
Payments during the same period 122,098 11 11

Cash balance Dec. 31, 1852 '.£16,25G 17 9
The statement having been unanimously passed,
The AUDITOR begged leave to say, in the presence of the
Commissioners, that his thanks were due to the gentlemen
connected with the secretary's and accountant's depart-
ments of the commission, for the ready and valuable assist-
ance they had invariably afforded to him in tho prose-
cution of the arduous work in which he had been engaged.
(Cheers.)
Tenders for works having been entertained and disposed
of, the Commissioners adjourned until this day.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

PORTSMOUTH, FED. 28.

The Thomas Arbuthnot, freight-ship, with the head-
quarters of the 48th Regiment on board, sailed last
night from the Motherbank for Corfu.
The Black Eagle, Admiralty steam-yacht, Master-
Commander Petley, returned this afternoon with the
Ordnance inspection party from the Channel Islands.
The London, 90, Captain Mundy, sent up topmasts
and topgallantmasts this morning, bent sails, and crossed
royal yards in readiness for going to Spithead to-mor-
row. - - .

The Duke of Wellington, 131, Captain H. B. Martin,
C. 8., has been docked to-day to be coppered.
Her Majesty's yacht Victoria and Albert, Commodore
Lord Adolphus Fitzclarence, G.C.H., Captain Crispin
second in command, was docked to-day to undergo her
annual refit. _ . -

The Illustrious, 72, was docked to-day for conversion
into a block-ship.

PLYMOUTH, FEB. 28.

The screw steam-frigate Desperate, Captain W. Cham-
bers, which left Plymouth at one p.m. on Thursday, for
Cork, was 25 miles north of the Longships on Friday at
12, with the wind at W.N.W., when a sea struck her,
and knocked in her stern ports and window sashes, and
destroyed the contents of the captain's cabin, washing
the stores, &c. about in all directions. It was with con-
siderable difficulty that a temporary planking was fixed
inside, and this only partially stopped the leakage. We
are afraid that the Desperate must be classed among the
already large number of useless ships in her Majesty's
navy. Her stern gun, 95 cwt.; was removed after the
experience of her insufficiency in towing the ships of the
Arctic Expedition from Scotland. She now has six 68's
and one 95. Her machinery is excellent. The great
disadvantage of the Desperate appears to arise from defi-
ciency of beam ; the length is about 182 feet, and breadth
only 36 feet ; her quarter falls in, and, having a screw
weighing 71 or 8 tons, the stern is plunged deeply into
the water, whenever a heavy sea is encountered. She
was built,
at Pembroke, from designs furnished by the
School of Naval Architectnre, and was fitted at Sheer-
ness. 18, was taken out of No. 5 dock last
Australian, mail packet, was taken in
evening,
the same tide. This morning two waggon loads of mail-
bags have been taken out of her and conveyed to Ply.
mouth, where they will be properly dealt with. They
g,Nifndodthe
appeared to be completely drenched d
with water.
with
stores from Pembroke, will load at once again with iron
The Diligence, transport, boun to Devonport,
ballast ; 800 tons will be required for the James Watt
by the end of March.
Mr, William Browett, mate of the Devon, lighter,
has been appointed master of the Tortoise, vice Harris,
superannuated.
In the Sound—The Queen, 116 ; Vulture, 6 ; and
Argus, 6.
In larbour—The Impregnable, St. George 120 , ;
Vengeance, 84 ; Edinburgh, 58 ; Hogue, 58 ; Valorous,
14 ; Desperate, 14 ; and Sylph, Avon, Nautilus, Con-
fiance, Devon, and Tortoise lighters.

VICE-ADMIRAL AISCOITGH.—This gallant officer was
taken alarmingly and dangerously ill on his journey from
his residence at Southampton to Folkestone, en route to
Paris, but succeeded in reaching Boulogne, where he ob-
tained the eminent services of Sir Robert Chermside
and Dr. Lucas, and though the life of the admiral was
for two days despaired of, we rejoice to state he is so
far recovered as to give great hopes to his friends and
anxious family of his perfect recovery.—Naval and Mili-
tary Om*.

The Archbishop of YORK presented several Petitions,
praying for inquiry into the Coll eof Maynooth.
The Archbishop of CANTEM3 RY presented a Ipe-
tion, praying for Parliamentary p ers.
The Earl of MALMESBURY, gave notice that he
would to-morrow move for certain returns relative to
accidents on railways during the last year, and that he
would draw the attention of the Government to the sub-
ject, _

The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a petition from
Portsmouth, in favour of the admission of Jews into
Parliament. .f
REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BELL.

Lord ST. LEONARDS gave notice that on the motion
for the second reading of this bill, which stood on the
paper for Thursday next, he should move that the bill
be read a second time this day six months.
The Earl of DERBt presented several petitions
against the admission of Jews into Parliament. The
noble lord said that if the bill -which had been intro-
duced into the other house by a small majority were
brought into this house, he hoped that their lordships
would deal with it as they had dealt with former bills.
The Law of Evidence (Scaland) Bill was passed
through committee.

CANADIAN CLERG RESERVES.
The Earl of DERBY again r-. and said—My lords, I
have now to call your lordships'' tention to the prayer of
64 or 65 petitions to which, fro the importance, of the
subject to which they relate, I halve thought it right to call
your lordships' attention by placitig a notice on the papers
of the house. These petitions are from various bodies be-
longing to the Church of Scotland in Canada. [His lord-
ship hero enumerated several orth ' 'es from whom the
petitiona-emartatt•thn•-n • -44.4.1...

gallery; 59 of the petitions were from congregations cow
nested with the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in
Canada.] It is right, the noble lord proceeded to say, that
I should state that the object of these • petitions is all the
same, though expressed in various terms. They pray that
your lordships will preserve inviolate the arrangement en-
tered into in the year 1840, and that your lordships will
not interfere with, nor suffer to be interfered with, that
arrangement with regard to the clergy reserves in Canada.
It is quite right that I should state that a portion of these
petitions were prepared so long ago as 1851, and that they
were then brought over with the intention of being pre-
sented against a bill of a similar character, which was at
that time before the Legislature. It was then the inten-
tion to place them in the hands of the noble duke, the
Lord Privy Seal (the Duke of Argyll), to whose active and
unremitting services the house and the country were mainly
indebted for the withdrawal of that bill. The withdrawal
of that bill rendered the presentation of those petitions
unnecessary, and equally unnecessary was it, after the de-
claration of her Majesty's late Government, of which I
was a member, to present any petition or petitions (luring
1852, but upon the accession of the present Government,
those who were connected with the Church of Scotland felt
it to be their duty to renew and reiterate the expression of
their former opinions, and they have authorised me to state
that these opinions of the congregations of the great body
of the Church of Scotland remain unaltered. And un-
doubtedly these petitions would have been placed in 1853
as in 1851 in the hands of the noble duke opposite, but
that the petitioners apprehended that they would thereby
cause some embarrassment to the noble duke, who might
not feel himself at the same liberty in 1851 to afford his
valuable assistance to the petitioners; and in consequence
of the position now occupied by the noble duke, I have
been requested by the petitioners to present their petitions
in place of him who would have stated their case with
much more ability and power, and to pray the earnest at- I
tention of your lordships to this subject. I confess that it
is without any surprise that I saw the present bill, of
which notice has been given to the other house, introduced
by some portion of the Government. I regret undoubtedly
to see that it has been taken up by the Government, and
that it has been brought forward by them as a Government
measure. I regret it because, without meaning any disre-
spect to them, I cannot but leek upon this measure as one
that will deprive the Protestant Church in Canada of rights
which they as ministers are bound to defend, and as a viola-
tion of the rights of property of which they are the legiti-
mately constituted guardians. If I could look upon it in
any more trivial light, I should not be insensible to the
many conveniences and temptations to a Minister to acqui-
esce in the introduction of the bill, because I do not seek
to conceal that the object of this measure is one greatly de-
sired by a large portion of the people of Upper and Lower
Canada, by a large majority of the people of the united
province, and by a considerable portion of the people of the
upper province. I cannot deny also the general plausibility,
of the argument that it is right to leave to the colonial legis-
lature the management of their own property andreg„l„ll,,„
15f thiArir4TlVETerstrgi ailletiMlittellialOtiot insensible to the
advantage to bo derived to any one who proposes to Parlia-
ment a mode which can recommend itself to their consciences
of getting rid of a considerable amount of business, in re-
gard to which they feel themselves imperfectly informed.
But my sense of public duty as a Minister compelled me to
refuse to assent to that of which I saw the expediency, but
of which I felt the viciousness of principle ; and the same
sense of duty which led me, as a Minister, to refuse my
assent, leads me on the present occasionto support the prayer
of these petitioners, and to entreat your lordships not to
sanction this measure. I have said, my lords, that I admit
the plausibility—nay, I admit much more—l admit the
justice of leaving to the colonial legislature as far as possible
the management of their peculiar internal affairs. In 1840,
when the civil list was reserved by an act of the Imperial
Legislature out of the revenues of Canada, that interference
with the property of the colonists was held by them to be
highly objectionable ; and although under the circumstances
it was impossible to avoid coming to such a measure,
yet it was with great satisfaction that I gave my assent as
Secretary of State to the introduction of a measure by which,
upon the colonial legislature passing by its own authority,
such a civil list as might be accepted by the Crown, the sta-
tute of the Imperial Legislature dealing with their property
was repealed. The consequence was that that civil list rested
on the authority of the colonial legislature. My lords, I will
go further, and say that I do not thinkthat the mere impolicy
of a particular arrangement, as it might strike a Secretary of
State or the Minister for the time beinm, would be a sufficient
reason for refusing the assent of the 'Crown to that which
might be proposed by the colonists and passed by the colonial
legislature. In 1850 the Government which preeededdme
had refused upon more than ons occasion their assent, upon
the ground of impolicy, to measures passed by the colonial
legislature for countervailing bounties and privileges granted
to American seamen bythe American Government, by coun-
tervailing duties on the part of the colonial legislature, and
in refusing to assent to acts passed by the colonial
legislature the ground taken was that those measures were
at variance with the general principle of free trade. My
lords, I mention this merely for the purpose of showing that
with regard to acts of the colonial legislature I am not averse
to leaving them the management of their own affairs bearing
on their own interests ; and consequently, without expressing
any opinion with regard to the policy of granting bounties
to colonial seamen on the part of the Legislature, I consented
to the measures of my predecessors, and I permitted the
colonial legislature to deal with their own revenues as they
thought fit for the promotion of their own interests. But
my opposition to the measure now under consideration is,
that in this case the colonists are seeking to deal, not
with their own property, but with that which never
was their own property, over which they never had
the right to exercise any control, and which, by competent
authority and the strongest guarantees, had not only been
otherwise appropriated and taken out of their jurisdiction
previously to the establishment of their constitution, but
which upon two occasions was made one of the funda-
mental conditions upon which that very constitution
rested. It was as early as the year 1775, when the Crown
exercised an uncontrolled authority over the then province
of Quebec, that it was thought necessary and expedient,
when the principal guarantee was given for the exercise of
the religion and the maintenance of the property of the
Roman Catholic inhabitants of Lower Canad.a, to afford
inducements to Protestants to settle in the province of
Quebec by • the promise that they at all times to come
There are at present residing in
Thebnedants of those who, quitting
shouldeo
t,havet
et the r
osteeceut
ariatty
churches withinguaranteed thatef
ono-seventha nv n
d ca ep,p p a
rt
of
ar
so
p ar
ina e dn tachea ena those
da rands
m lands oafn tyh
of
fe
etrCrown,nheeda. e ts
co
the United States, settled in the province on the strength
of that guarantee, and on the faith of the British Crown,
that in all times to come provision should be made from
the lands of the province for the Protestant clergy, and
the dissemination of the Protestant faith. My lords, I
from tthaantd rintime to this
mention it to the credit of the United States, that there
are at this moment, in various of those states, endowments
to the Episcopal Church of this country,p ceipnldeowo'nfatehnatts
which were created previous to the revolution, and which
great were wholly
Republic,
butadverseh
w to tehe h
f s
been held sacred, and the rights of property have in' have
favour
of that Church been respected and upheld. What we ask
is, that the British Parliament shall not be less just than
the Republic of the United States has been to its own sub-
jects and to the Episcopal Church. I said that in 1775
this provision was made by royal proclamation. In 1791,
as your lordships are aware, the two provinces of Upper
and Lower Canada were separated—these institutions were
remodelled and a constitutional government was given to
the province of Upper Canada; and let me observe in pass-
ing that it is mainly, though not perhaps exclusively, to
the province of Upper Canada, or that portion of it to
which this question relates, that constitutional government
was given, and in the very act which constituted and esta-
blished that province there was reserved, by the power of
the Legislature, and confirmed by the Crown and by the
act of the . Imperial Parliament, that reservation of the
clergy reserves which had been previously given by royal
proclamation in 1775. I am not speaking of the policy that endowment, or of the reason or farsighted-
ness of the separation of the two provinces. I am
not speaking of the meaning which may be involved in the
terms " Protestant clergy," but there is no doubt that at
the time when that grant was made, that time being pre-
vious to the establishment of the constitutionitself, and of
the rights of the subjects of the Crown in Canada, that
special reservation was made of one-seventh of the land
under authority perfectly competent to make it, and made,
too, in the most solemn terms by the act of the British
Parliament for the maintenance, for all times to come,
of the Protestant clergy in that province. Therefore,
I contend that the alienation of that one-seventh,
being already alienated and appropriated by authority
perfectly competent, being sanctioned by the highest au-
thority of the Crown and act of. Parliament, being de-
clared to be A permanent endowment, and being the in'

ducement by which many loyal Protestants were led to
settle in that province, on the faith of the Crown and of
Parliament—l say this is not a subject with which the
provincial Legislature can claim to deal ; it is private pro-
perty, withdrawn and exempted from their jurisdiction at
the very time when that general jurisdiction was conferred
upon them. For a very considerable period of time those
reserves were altogether unproductive. They were more
than unproductive, because, there being no power to sell
any portion, but only power of leasing, in a country where
leasing was unknown, and the possession of property was
easily acquired, it was impossible to realise any consider-
able sum for the maintenance of the clergy, and in the
mean time the lands remained uncultivated and waste, an
impediment to the advancement and general progress of
the provinces. In 1819, a question arose, and an opinion
was given by three very learned persons—Lord Gifford,
then Attorney-General, Sir Christopher Robinson, and a
noble and learned lord, who was at that time Solicitor-
General, Lord Lyndhurst—to the effect that by the term
"Protestant clergy" was meant the clergy, not merely of
the Church of England, but. the clergy of the Presbyterian
Church of Scotland, and the clergy of other denomina-
tions. Ido not pretend to say how far that. opinion might
have been in accordance with the original intention of the
royal proclamation and the Act of Parliament. If I might
venture to hazard an opinion, it would be that. in 1791
the endowment of the Church of Scotland did not enter
into the intentions of the founders of the Canadian consti-
tution, but that it was intended to endow the Church of
England merely under the terms " Protestant clergy."
However, the opinion being given, and on very high au-
thority, that whatever might be the original intention,
the terms "Protestant clergy" did not include the
Church of Scotland, from that time Secretaries of State
and Governors of Canada successively acted upon that
principle, and in point of fact the proceeds of the reserves,
such as they were, were apportioned between the Church
of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. In
1827 the inconvenience to which I have before adverted
was so much increased, that an act of Parliament was
passed, not by the colony, but by the Imperial Parliament
namely, the 7th and Bth Geo. 'IV., by which authority
was given, not only to lease, but to sell a certain amount
of the reserves, and invest in British security the proceeds
of such sales, the proceeds of course to be applied to the
saula.Purkosef3 as .t land. Under that Act of Parlia-
ment the rereficig' gr adtally becterneP 'irror-e---produetiuo.
and more an object of interest to the various denomi-
nations; and I cannot conceal from your lordships that
at that time the province of Upper Canada, being
largely increased in population by inhabitants from
the United States amongst whom there was a strong
feeling against any endowment of any religious denomina-
tion whatever, there did spring up a strong and earnest
desire to deal with those clergy reserves, some person,s de-
siring to appropriate them to the general maintenance of
all denominations, some being anxious to devote them to
purposes of education, while some were willing to secu-
larise them all together, and to devote them to the pur-
poses of the State. This was a subject of frequent con-
flict from 1827 to 1840. At that period a great change, as
your lordships are aware, took place in the Government of
Canada. After the suppression of the rebellion it was
deemed necessary, or, at all events, advisable, to provide
for the future government of Canada, and it was hoped that
in so providing for it dissensions between the two provinces
might be avoided by amalgamating in one Chamber the
legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada. At that time
it was felt that, with regard to the religious endowments,
more especially, that amalgamation of the provinces must
produce an extraordinary change of circumstances ; that
whereas, to a certain extent, by provision of the act of
1791, the provincial legislature, subject to the control of
Parliament, had a prospective power of altering the
arrangements with regard to the reserves, and of modifying
the future allotment of the proportions, it was a very dif-
ferent thing to have that power vested in a united legisla-
ture, nearly one-half of whom were Roman Catholics, and
who, by a union with the minority of the upper province,
might have the power of altogether secularising the endow-
ment, and of diverting it from its original purposes. It
was felt, therefore, that it was necessary at the time of
establishing the union between the two provinces again to
confirm it in the most emphatic manner, and in the
strongest terms, the original appropriation of the reserves
or the proceeds of them to the purposes of the Protestant
clergy, and to make provision for the permanence of that
arrangement, whatever might be the future views of the
united legislature with regard to `those endowments. Mr.
Poulett Thomson, when Governor-General of Canada, ob-
tained, with considerable difficulty, from the legislature of
the upper province an act which, to a certain extent, car-
ried into effect the original intention, by securing an en-
dowment, though only a partial one, for the clergy of the
Church of England and of the Church of Scotland. An
act was passed by which those reserves, and the proceeds
of those reserves, were ever hereafter set apart for the en-
dowment in certain proportions of the Church of Scotland
and other denominations of Christians, for the mainte-
nance of public worship. When that bill, in pursuance of
the provisions of the act of 1791, was submitted to the
Parliament—for it was one of the provisions of the original
act that the measures of the colonial legislature must be
submitted to the consideration of both houses of Par-
liament before receiving the sanction of the Crown
—upon laying that bill upon the table of the house,
the question arose whether the local legislature had
not, in so dealing with those reserves, exceeded the
power conferred upon them by the original act.
Questions were submitted to the consideration of the judges
whether in three specified points the Legislature had not
exceeded their powers ; and the judges, by the mouth of
Lord Chief Justice Tindal, on the 4th of May, 1840, stated
that all the judges, with the exception of Lord Denman
and Lord Abinger, were unanimous in their answers to the
questions which had been put to them. They wore unani
.moos-in asserting-that the worrie-,`a.Protestani-aloposr:

did extend beyond the narrow construction which would
have limited the clergy reserves to the clergy of the Esta-
blished Church. And when asked what other denomina-
tions might be included besides the Church of England,
they added that the Church of Scotland also might be in-
cluded. They were asked whether the effect of the 41st
section, by which the local legislature, subject to certain
condition, were authorised to modify the appropriation,
was to be considered as applying prospectively or retros-
pectively, as applying to the allotments and appropriations
previously made, or such as might be the produce of sales
thereafter to be iade. -Upon that subject the judges were
unanimous in declaring that the colonial legislature had
exceeded their powers—that they had no power under the
original act to deal retrospectively—that the rights of pro-
perty were beyond the control of the legislature—and that
all they had the power of doing, even subject to the control
of Parliament, was the prospective disposal of the funds
thereafter to be raised. They further stated that they
were all of opinion that the legislative council and assem-
bly in Canada had exceeded their authority in passing an
act to provide for the sale of the clergy reserves, and the
distribution of the proceeds thereof, in respect of both the
enactments specified in your lordships' question—that was
in reference to the power granted in 1827 to sell certain
portions of the clergy reserves, specially vesting the pro-
ceeds of the sale in British securities ; whereas, the colo-
nial legislature had appropriated the proceeds of the sale,
and vested them in colonial securities. Upon all these
three subjects the judges were unanimously of opinion
that the local legislature had gone beyond their powers,
and had dealt with subjects over which they could exercise
no control. It was, therefore, necessary to introduce a
measure into the Imperial Parliament to remove the seri-
ous difficulties which had arisen , to the settlement of that
great and important question ; and after grave discussion
and deliberation, after no slight amount of objection from
those who thought that by the act so introduced their
rights were seriously infringed, Parliament, with tolerable
unanimity, sanctioned the adoption of a measure by which
a settlement of the dispute in question was made, and by
which, for the second time, in establishing anew the con-
stitution of Canada, the right was secured to the Imperial
Parliament alone to deal with the question of the clergy re-
serves, which,as smatter of property,were again withdrawn
from the control of the colonial legislature. That bill was
introduced by the noble lord the present leader of the
House of Commons, and it was impossible to exaggerate the
strength of the expressions with which the noble lord al-
luded to the partial departure from the act of 1791. He
emphaticallydeclared that it was all-important and essential
that this great question should be finally and at once with-
drawn from the possibility of future controversy, and that
a settlement should be made which should be accepted by
all denominations as final, and which should ultimately re-
store, by the authority of the Imperial Parliament, peace
upon this much vexed question to the legislature of Canada,
by withdrawing the question from their jurisdiction.
(Hear.) And to show the animus by which the Govern-
ment of that day, composed of a large portion of the mem-
bers of the present Government, were actuated, I may state
that they, in a most marked manner, omitted from that
new act the conditional permission granted in the act of
1791, to deal prospectively with any portion of the re-
serves. Under that act an arrangement was made by
which a distinction was drawn, following the decision
given by the judges, between property already realised and
property thereafter to be realised. Two-thirds of the
amount already realised was reserved for the clergy of the
Church of England, and one-third for the clergy of the
Church of Scotland ; and these reserves were vested in
bodies constituted for the purpose, and charged with the
administration of these funds. The funds so dealt with
amounted to but one-fourth of the estimated amount of
the whole of the clergy reserves ; and with regard to the
other three-fourths, similar arrangements were made. The,
three-fourths were divided into two equal portions. With
regard to one of those portions, it was divided between the
clergy of the Church of England and the clergy of the
Church of Scotland. The other half was left entirely to
the disposal of the colonial legislature, to be dealt with as
they might think fit fer the great object of promoting religi-
ous worship, and even going such a length, in their desire of
conciliating all parties within the province, and to leave
no cause of complaint, as to omit the words " a Protestant
clergy," and to allow the application of a portion of that
half to be applied not only to Protestant dissenters, but to
be employed for the purposes of the Roman Catholic
clergy. The Governor-General of Canada, on that occa-
sion, went the length of saying that, unless this question
were then finally and for ever disposed of, the union of the
two provinces would be useless, and worse than useless ;
and up to the year 1846 the most liberal members of the
provincial Parliament held the strongest possible language
with regard to the finality of that arrangement, declaring
that they adopted it as a permanent and final settlement,
and that they would look upon it as a curse to the country
if it was not observed. My lords, it is the maintenance of
that establishment, of that contract, and of those rights of
property so solemnly and so repeatedly guaranteed, that the
petitioners, not desirous of disputing the rights of the
colonists to deal with affairs exclusively their own, pray
that your lordships will not sanction a departure from
the- great settlement then made—will not deprive them
of the rights and property guaranteed by the highest au-
thority—and will not again introduce into Canada the con-
sideration of elements of religious discord which must lead
to interminable confusion. (Hear.) The object of the
great bulk of those who are seeking the right to deal with
this property is not, as your lordships might be led to sup-
pose, an appropriation and allotment amongst the various
religious denominations, more in accordance with their re-
spective numbers, and with the liberties of a country in
which no dominant Church will be tolerated or supported.
The object is one of a very different character. The object
is to alienate from religion altogether that provision which
the piety of former sovereigns and former parliaments
granted for its support, and to introduce throughout the
e
length and breadth of Canada the republican principl of
voluntaryism adopted in the -United States. (Roar.) D,;

not deceive yourselves by supposing that the object of these
parties is a better distribution of the revenues for the.pur-
poses for which they were originally intended—the main-
tenanoe of the Protestant clergy, the support of the Pro-
testant religion, or the support of any religion whatever.
The object—the avowed object—of a large portion of those
who are proposing to deal with the question is the secula-
risation of those revenues, and their application to other
than religious purposes. know it will be said with regard
to measures of this kind, that if such an attempt were
made the right of the Crown still remains, and the Secre-
tary of State might interpose the royal veto upon such an
act. I hardly think the noble duke the Secretary for the
Colonial Department will rely upon that argument ; be-
cause the argument of the present Government is, that
with regard to these affairs the colonial legislature is the
best and the only judge. And to give the colonial legisla-
ture the power of dealing with these revenues, and then to
1 controul them in so dealing, in granting a boon which, if
you would maintain your position, would be a mockery,
and which an attempt to maintain must lead to indescrib-
able discord and confusion. (Hear, hear, hear.) Grant
that the local legislature have the power ofi dealing with
these clergy reserves, I will defy you not to follow up this
principle, and say that the mode in which they deal with
them is a question as exclusively within the right of the
colonial legislature as the right of dealing with them at
all, and that from the moment you sacrifice any authority
or control which the Crown and the Parliament possess
you give up the rights and property which the Crown and
Parliament have guaranteed, and are bound to maintain,
and you practically constitute an independent country.
(Hear.) I speak with a full sense of the gravity of the
alternative when I say that if in truth it be the desire of
the people of Canada that they should exercise a wholly in-
dependent power of legislation—that they should in no re-
spect be checked by the authority of the Crown or by the
interposition of Parliament—l say far better admit that
principle frankly, and at once relieve the Minister of the
British Crown from a nominal and often a very painful re-
sponsibility—declare openly that over the legislation of
Canada Parliament exercises no influence, and refuse 'to go
through the farce, as'it will then be, of advising the Crbwn
by a responsible minister to assent to, or withhold its assent
from, any specific measure that may be. passed. Admit the
independence of Canada, and if the colony be still con-
nected by the tie of the Crown with this country, in that
..ease let it be aLiatinelizainderstood . that the Crown acts
upon the advice not of tlirriiiieriat-liiirdf-the colonial -
legislature, and that you j stand towards Canada in the
same relation as you stand to Hanover. Ido not say that
such an arrangement would not give me much cause of
regret, but it would be far preferable to that doubtful
position in which you at present stand, affecting to bxer-
cise a control which you dare not exercise, and responsible,
or nominally responsible, for the approval of measures
which—whether you approve or whether you do not ap-
prove—whether they be in violation of a plighted faith, in
violation of the guarantee of the Crown, in violation of the
rights of property—you equally hold yourselves bound to
assent, on the general and broad principal that the colo-
nists are the best judges of their own affairs ; and that that
which the Legislature of the colony has acceded to, the
Crown is not justified in forbidding in this country. (Hear,
hear.) In a pecuniary point of view, no doubt the advan-
tages of such a separation would be very great. With
regard to the friendly relations which may still be con-
tinued, I do not despair but that those relations might be
maintained and upheld, and perhaps even improved, by
the absence of a nominal control ; and if the province de-
sires to place itself in that position, I, for one, would not
be the person to withhold the assent of Parliament. But
as long as the province remains a province—so long as the
Minister of the Crown is charged with the vindication of
the rights of British subjects—so long as Parliament. re-
serves any portion of colonial legislation in its own hand,
and maintains the rights of British subjects guaranteed by
that legislature—so long, whatever might be the hazard,
I would not be a party to assent to the sacrifice of those
rights, or to allow any interposition with regard to the
rights of property which I would not sanction in this coun-
try—which I would not sanction with regard to the rights
of the Church of Scotland—which I would not sanction
with regard to the rights of the Church of Ireland—which
I would not sanction with regard to the rights of any por-
tion of the community whose rights and whose property
were guaranteed to them under the faith of the Crown by
an authority competent to guarantee them. (Hear.) Do
not flatter yourselves, my lords, that if you pass this bill
you will by so doing avoid future controversy and future
religious discord. You will more probably perpetuate,
and aggravate, and embitter it. First of all, when the colo-
nial legislature should be enabled and empowered to deal
with these clergy reserves, arises the bitter strife between all
the contending parties who seek to appropriate these
reserves each to their own body, and between that larger
body still which seeks to deprive them of all, and to
secularise the whole amount of these revenues. Remem-
ber that this is a question which mainly applies to
the province of Upper Canada. But in Lower Canada
there are very large endowments in land ; there is
a very large property ; there are very large com-
pulsory payments in aid of the Roman Catholic clergy.
These rights rest on a footing not a whit more
strong than the clergy reserves. • (Hear, hear.) The
two noble dukes opposite (the Dukes of Newcastle and
Argyll) cheer that observation—do they foresee, do they
believe it possible that with the sanction of the Goverment
principle of secularisation once introduced, the Protestants
of Upper Canada and the Protestant minority of Lower
Canada would be satisfied with the assertion of that prin-
ciple that there shall be no dominant Church as relates to
the Protestant body—that all territorial and other revenues
appropriated to the purposes of the Protestant clergy should
be secularised and converted to other purposes ? And ..
they believe that that same body of men, with that,
tion on the part of the Legis/atuia4fd
_go Go 1% ...;"
'll-temely 01.0 PM-to—the contriirecr einlovhuent of . 0
Roman Catholic Church with such enormous revenues, as
the only endowed church, after the British Parliament
shall have sanctioned the confiscation of the onlyprovision
which our ancestors have made for theconservation of Pro-
testant worship in the Protestant portion of the colony !
From that moment arises a bitter feud for the alienation and
confiscation of the provision made for the Roman Catholic
Church in Lower Canada—from that moment all the differ-
ences of race and creed are brought into immediate and hos-
tile conflict. At the present moment the superintending
and controlling authority of Parliament keeps all these ele-
ments in check; but the instant you sanction this new prin-
ciple the differences of religion and race again rise, and you
aggravate, embitter, and perpetuate those differences and
dissensions which, for so long a time, were the bone and
curse of Canada, and the obliteration of which, by one
great act of justice, was the object of the union of the pro-
vinces in 1840. (Near.) Do not flatter yourselves that by
a dereliction of principle you escape from the difficulties of
asserting the jurisdiction and supremacy of the Crown. Do
not think you will introduce peace into the province. You
will introduce perpetual and increased discord, and when
you have made thisgreat concession you will find yourselves,
step by step, involved in difficulties in which,in vindication
of the rights of property, of the Crown, and of your fellow-
subjects, you are unable to interfere, and one after another
you will be compelled to give the unwilling—l had almost
said the degrading—sanction of the British Legislature to
objects and purposes of which the Legislature, perhaps,
cannot approve. If I refer to this subject strongly it is
because I feel that the honour and dignity of the Crown is
endangered by the bill. I know there may be risk from the
firm but temperate maintenance of the right of the Crown;
but whatever risk there may be, none can be so great to a
British statesman as that of abandoning, for the purpose of
expediency, the claim of principle and of justice, and the
rights of property. (Hear.) And as while I had the
honour of holding office under the Crown, not unaware of
all the temptations to hold adifferent course, I was prepared
to risk the existence of the Administration upon the mainte-
nance of the rights of property, and so in my place as a peer
in Parliament I cannot refrain from entering my protest
against Parliament being induced to do that which, as a
Minister of the Crown, I never would consent to do. The
noble earl concluded by laying the petitions on the table.
The Duke of ARGYLL—My lords, it is true that in
the course of 1851 a deputation came over from Canada,
representing the! interests of the Established Church in
Scotland, and placed in my hands certain petitions against
a bill at that time in preparation by the noble earl then at
the head of the Colonial-offiCe—a bill similar to that which
has recently been introduced in the other house of Parlia-
ment. But it is not true that lin any way expressed my
decided opinion upon the policy involved in that hill.
(Hear, hear.) The petition was brought to me at a late
period of the session, and I thought it extremely improb-
able that a bill could then be introduced. Although I said
nothing in the house with reference to the subject, certain
communications took place between me and the noble earl,
from which I gathered that no measure would be intro-
duced, and I have to-night heard, for the first time, that
any representations of mine had the slightest effect in pro-
curing the delay. But this I will say frankly to the noble
earl, and to the house, that upon the statements made by
the deputation from Canada, my own private feelings were
rather against the measure than in its favour. But had
all the facts been before me at that time, my opinion would
have been different from what it then was. At that time
the Session in Canada was approaching its close, and a new
Parliament was about to proceed to be assembled, and I
thought it was much better not to proceed with such a
measure until the opinion of that 'now Parliament should'
be expressed. The question has been fairly considered, and
a considerable majority has declared in its favour. (Hear.)
As the measure will come before your lordships at a future
perm • d, and ample time will then be afforded for its discus-
sion, I will not now enter into the whole subject ; but I
wish to make one or two remarks. The noble earl has re.
ferred to the settlement of 1840, as a final and conclusive
settlement of this great subject. But what was the course
taken by Sir John Pakington, the Colonial Secretary under
the noble earl ? In one of his dispatches, in which he in-
timated that he was not prepared to proceed with the
mea-
sure proposed by Lord Grey, he said no ground
was left for
any reasonable complaint on account of undue favour any particular religious denomination, but the
Govern-
count thought it might possibly be desirable e, onovern
count of the changes taking place in the ch meter of as
time should be considered.
population, that the distribution of the funds from time to
ask on what principle the noble
(Hear, hear.) Now, I wish to
earl proposed to proceed in
such distribution of the funds ? (Hear, hear.) Mr. Price,
a Commissioner of the crown lands, and the originator
and mover of the resolution of that
three-fourths of the people believed lthBs:'arrasanidgement
was made in injustice and partiality. Do your lordship/
suppose that a settlement which ple of Canada -fourths of the 'Dee-
,zenatrid_er unjust ctahrn eieie considered a final
settlement, of the
(Hear hear.) hear.) Although a member
Church of Scotland, I have no jealousy of a larger "went
being enjoyed by the Church of England, be
and I Bhralcdged.
glad to allow the existing settlement to remain uTic of Eng-
land find that although the members of the Church
oulation
of
land are hardly more than one-fourth of themfy4l3)than one-
the upper province, they get considerably
~_lles enjoy from
half. And I find that the Roman:jaw°
maint
harene than f
the
a considerably the
the fund originally intended for i
arger
Protestant clergy stl

-
whole of the Presbyterian bodies and the Wesleyan 24etho-
dists pnt together. It is impossible that such a settlbmenit,
should be considered a final settlefuent • and
again as on on what principle the noble earl *feinted to pro-
ceed in order to carry out the statent:,Of Sir. John
Pakington? Would he have taken from - Vlserge. Ahare
now belonging to the Church of England ,With the.Nifea; :Or :`';'' P.l
distributing it amen the dissenting bodiefrofthrat
If he had done so he would have met witikaa:Urcoppksi.i,.7t:t
tion from the members of the Church It r 4,04 thiix
new make ; and if he had proposed to to eAraafefsi.sv;.
a shilling he would have been asked by the rightvie.tetri4
prelate, in the words which he used the other ill ,
A
whether he dared to commit the sacrilege of taking one "'
farthing of those funds. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl
said that the provinces of Canada were not entitled to deal
with those funds. Now, it was perfectly clear, from the
wording of the act, that it was the intention of the Legis-
latureto allow the Parliament of Canada to exercise large
powers, not only with respect to the future distribution,
but the future existence of the funds, because it was pro-
vided that the provision should be varied or repealed by
any act of the local Parliament. It is quite clear that,
if the colonial Parliament had interfered immediately after
the passing of the act of 1791, they would have had com-
plete power over the large t portion of the funds, which,
having failed to exercise that power, have accidentally
passed out of their hands. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl,
on the direct question of colonial policy, said it would be
much better to abolish altogether the power of the
Crown to negative acts of the colonial Parliament, than
' to retain that power, if compelled to use it on principles
which may be adverse to our own. But he forgets that
the main object of the existence of that power is not
to enable the Colonial Secretary of England to negative
acts concerning domestic affairs which may be passed by
colonial assemblies, but to decide whether those acts do or
do not affect imperial interests —whether they are or are
not strictly confined to the internal affairs of the colony.
(Hear.) When the present Government came into power
they might have maintained intact the existing system
without any alteration, or they might have abandoned
the clergy reserves to the power of the colonial Assembly,
leaving them to be dealt with as a question of purely
internal concern. When Sir John Pakington penned his
dispatch, did he consider the state of our Canadian poses-
sions ? Daring the last ten years the population of Upper
Canada has advanced at the rate of something like 50,000
a year, or about 101 per cent.

'The- Earl of DERBY—It has doubled within the last
ben years.

The Duke of ARGYLL—Was it possible for the Im-
perial Government to have taken on itself the task of redis-
tributing from time to time these funds in their proper
portions among the different religious bodies of Canada ?
It was impossible to have carried out such a plan with
satisfaction to the country. You must take one course or
the other. You must maintain absolutely the existing
system, or else you must give over to Canada, as a question_
of purely internal ooncern, the distribution of those funds
according to the changes in the population. The noble
earl has intimated that in the divisions which took place,
and which ended by giving a considerable majority in
favour of giving the Canadian Legislature further powers r
over the clergy reserves, only a small portion of it 'consisted 'fi , 2.- -
of the members of Upper Canada. But the members from
Lower Canada representing the Roman Catholic interest
would be more disposed to treat with hostility the Protes-
tant endowments in the Western Province. Now, I beg to
direct the attention of the noble earl to the memorial of
the Bishop of Quebec, whom I think the noble earl will
acknowledge to be an authority on this point. At the end
of that memorial the Bishop of Quebec states, that " the
members generally from Canada East are understood to
have regarded the question as one proper to Canada West,
on account of the greater stake there existing, and the far
larger proportion of Protestant inhabitants." So that the
majority of the members from Lower Canada are stated by
the Bishop of Quebec—a great Protestant authority—to
have voted, not as against the interests of the Protestant
clergy, but solely because they thought this a matter more
particularly affecting the people of the Western Province ;
and if this statement of the Bishop of Quebec be true with
respect to the motives which influenced the members from
Lower Canada, and that a change of opinion took plass in
the representative body of Upper Canada, the members
from Lower Canada would support that majority, and not
interfere to disturb the. Protestants of Upper Canada in
the endowments they possess. I I am confirmed in the im-
pression of the Bishop of Quebec by a portion of the
noble earl's speech. It is perfectly true that a large
part of the property, as it is called, or the endow-
ments of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada,
will be as accessible to the United Parliament of Canada as
the reserves of the exclusively Protestant clergy. But ob-
serve the effect. There will be a great anxiety on the part
•f the Roman Catholic members to oppose what the noble
earl calls the secularisation of those reserves, feeling that the
result may follow that, if the Protestant reserves are secu-
larised, there possibly may be a great desire to put upon an
altered footing the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Ca-
nada • and therefore I maintain, if it is the opinion of the
Protestant majority of Upper Canada that those clergy re-
serves shall be preserved intact, and on their present foot-
ing, or re-distributed in certain other proportions, but still
confined to purely religious instruction, it is extremely
probable that, influenced by those motives, they will be
supported in their resistance to the secularisation scheme
by the Roman Catholic representative of the Lower Pro-
vince.
The noble earl, in the commencement of his speech,
said this was not a measure which he should have expected
from certain members of this house. It is true that the
present Government does contain members of the Church
of England, and at least one member of the Church of
Scotland, who are all sincerely attached to the religious
bodies to which they belong ; but it is no shame to us, as
public men, that in connection, and with a great question
of imperial policy, we should feel it is not our duty to act
in this matter as Churchmen only, but rather as statesmen
intrusted with the great responsibility of advising the
Crown on the principles on which the connection between
this country and Canada shall be maintained. I have no
hesitation in saying, as a member of the Church of Scot-
land, that be the interests of the Church of Scotland what
they may, they must be represented, and represented only,
by its own representatives in the provinces of Canada ; and
it is not my duty, as a public man, merely because I happen
be a member of that Church, to uponmy own opinion
as to what its interests may be in the internal affairs of
Canada ; but, on the contrary, it is ray clearest duty to
agre* in the measur• proposed by the Government, being
n*inced asl am, that not only with regard to Canada, but
be thcl,olotries;-thr-principle on which we" ---
must proceed in future is simply this, that in all matters of
purely internal concern—the more if they are questions
which rouse religious feelings and animosities in this coun-
try—in all these questions, be they what they may, of in-
ternal concern, we should allow the colonial legislature to
deal as they think fit, and that the power of the Crown, as
the noble earl suggests, should not be recklessly thrown
away on our colonial empire, but that it should be main-
tained solely with the view f enabling us to judge in re-
gard to each particular act, and simply whether or not
those acts do concern local interests, or are matters of im-
perial concern. (Cheers.)
The Earl of DESART said, it was shown, in a dispatch
which would be laid that night on the table of the other
house, but which was not sent to the colony owing to the
change of the Government, that his right hen, friend (Sir
J. Pakington) fully acknowledged the justice and propriety
of that principle of constitutional government which gave
to a colonial legislature the exclusive power of dealing with
its own local affairs ; but his right hon. friend said in this
case there was an exception, because it appeared there was
an intention of taking funds which he considered the legis-
lature was bound in good faith to maintain in favour of
certain vested interests. There was a very serious opinion
prevailing in this country, that, in opposing the wishes of
the legislature of Canada, we opposed the unanimous wishes
of the Canadians. He (Lord Desert) did not think that
was so. On the contrary, excluding Lower Canada, which
he maintained he had a right to do, seeing that though
there was a small portion of the reserves in Lower Canada,
the Roman Catholics were in such a large majority, some-
thing like 750,000 to 50,000 members of the Church of
England, it was quite impossible that their members could
represent anything but the Roman Catholic religion, which -
was embodied there in a richly-endowed church and well-
educated priesthood. But in Upper Canada how stood the
fact ? He had not had an opportunity of analysing the
figures, but he could state, on the authority of Archdeacon
Bethune, that in the Assembly of Upper Canada there was
only one majority in favour of the abrogation of the settle-
ment of 1840. He (the Earl of Dosart) would say, in con-
clusion, that he thought this was a question in which the
British Government were bound by considerations of good
faith to protect and guarantee a settlement made by them,
on the suggestion of the Canadians themselves, and not
only made, but accepted by the Canadians themselves as a
final settlement.

The Bishop of EXETER said the noble duke (the Duke
of Argyll) had done him the honour to refer to something
that he had said on a former night in reference to this
question. It was flattering to him to be quoted by the
noble duke; but he ventured to hope that the next time
the;noble duke did him the honour of stating his (the
Bishop of Exeter's) opinions he would do so correctly, and
not incorrectly. (A laugh.) If any of their lordships had
done him the honour to attend to the observations he had
addressed to them on a former occasion on this subject,
they would recollect that he had applied no such word as
" sacrilege" in speaking of the re-distribution of these re-
for re-distribution, but
serves. What he said was this—" Will your lordships
will the British Parliament, will the subjects of the Britiall
Crown, tell their Royal Mistress that she ought to •
&aqui-
°see in a measure which is not oely
which is for confiscation ?" It was upon the •
fiscation that he said the sacrilege would be inpoin of
con.
said if property was once given to Almig
purposes for which it
to the seculari.
y God it could
tha"ctlihleegaep.plied those Words, and to
ht incurred. He
not be recalled again from the sacred mighty
beenof
those given
reserveswithout
hadsao
that he applied them still,
The Duke of ARGYLL begged to reverend prelate if he had misrepresentedapologise to the right
the occasion to which he had f what he said on
Arg,yll's) impression had be thatre erred. His (the Duke of
late had used the term " been . the right reverend pre-
(the Duke of Argyll) had stetrielde.ge" in the sense which he
The Bishop of OXFORD said he
felt called upon to give
a Which he entertained upon utterance to the opinion the
_or
r _
subject under 'their lordships' consideration. He had
many years taken a very deep interest in the welfare of
the
colonial Church, and had long been on terms of personal
intercourse with the right rev, prelates at present at the
head of the Church in Canaria, and it was with no small
e
regret that he felt compelled, by , sense of justithcee, torevccerse
to a conclusion upon the question before
hthadem
.ved.
The
of that at which those right rev.
prelateshito the oonclusion to
first consideration which had
led
dthe nicase of the Parliament
which he had come was, that in
of the clergy re.
of Canada requiring, not a confiscatione
Imperil Parliament to give
serves, but calling upon th
I:th them themselves, he
to them the power of dealing
in whose way, he thought,
perceived a claim of justice,.
should stand. The Go-
expediency
no question of mere
untry had given, or professed to
Go-
vernment
, Canada adathis. power°°
of settling her own internal
give, -- a bound in justice to admit the claims
'and they we_re l .
th any matter which concerned
agues, ' ts to dea wl • mid be shown that it
of the colon's .
airs unless it co
their "Fn aff-- 'al interest. The noble earl 9p.
. matter of Impsn
' was- endeavoured to convince them that evening
posits had
with that masterly
eloquence which he in so eminent a de-
possessed, of the necessity of maintaining intact those
gree
endowments which formed the subject of that discussion.
He confessed that much he
He (the Bishop ofoxfor as
that desired
to come to the same conclusion as at which the noble
earl had arrived, he felt bound altogether to dissent from
the views which the noble earl had expressed. The noble
earl had argued that the imperial legislature of 1791 had so
completely dealt with that question that it would be unjust
now to interfere with the settlement which had then been
made. Now the very terms of the act were inconsistent
with such a conclusion. But the noble earl had quoted
tke opinions of the judges in favour of his view of the case.
He (the Bishop of Oxford) must beg their lordships to re•

member that that opinion of the judges had been delivered
not on what - were the abstract rights of that property, with
regard to wb ich they were to legislate, but what were the
particular p ,ewers of the colonial Parliament under the ex-
isting legislature. By their recent dealings with that pro-
perty they had put the colonial Parliament in the same po-
sition in which the Imperial Parliament then stood. There
was one argument, however, which seemed to him a con-
clusive one -upon that. In 1840' both houses of Parliament
lead aesented legislation,
to a course of which, upon the
principle of the noble earl opposite, must have been spolia-
tion and sacrilege. It had been said that so entirely had the
property in question been made the property of the Church
of England that it was not competent for the Govern-
ment of this country now to deal with it. If so, the appro-
priation of 1,3691. per annum to the Roman Catholics was
an act the most sacrilegious. The measure of 840,
in
his
opinion, effectually disposed of the argument drawn from
the legislation of 1791. But the noble earl had further
argued, that having disposed of the clergy reserves of Ca-
nada by that measure of 1840, and having guaranteed that
propertyto certain parties, this cometrywas precluded from
further interference in connection with it. He (the Bishop
of Oxford) fully admitted that strong language had been
used in support of the finality of the measure of 1840. But
-what measure had ever passed which sanguine men had not
pronounced final with respect to the subject which it af-
fected? It was only a few years ago that they had had
finality preached in that house, as a reason why-they should
agree to the Reform Bill, which was now looked upon as
anything but a final settlement. Human legislation should
be a widely different matter from what it really is, before
legislators could hope to make it conclusive in its effects, or
to render its change impossible and unjust. He was ready
to grant that there might be some risk in leaving to any set
of men the power of dealing with a question so important;
but there was one thing dearer to him than any result could
be terrible, and that was to do justice. On dealing with
that, as with all other subjects, he would say-- Fiat
justitia, mat cmlum." He was desirous to see the colo-
nists possess a direct control over matters in which they
were so deeply concerned. Let that power be given to
them in the manner in which they would be least likely to
to abuse it ; but let them not withhold, through their ap-
prehensions, a privilege which the colonists had already a
right to enjoy. He had the strongest hopes that if the
people of Canada were generously dealt with, their lord-
ships would have no confiscation in the case of the clergy
reserves to deplore. The way to prevent the colony dealing
foolishly with this property was for the home government
to deal generously with the colony. By telling the colonists
that they would not give the property over to them because
they would secularise it, was the very way to lead them to
think about secularising it. The question had been consi-
dered by the Wesleyan body in Canada more suo, and they
had come to the conclusion that it was not a national, but
a provincial question, and without fettering themselves by
any resolution as to what should be clone with the property
if they got it, they were unanimous in asking for power to
deal with it, because they considered that as their right.
They could never hope for the Church to flourish in the
colony so long as she was held forth to the colonists as a
Church which was to be supported against their will, and
in certain exclusive privileges, by &majority in Parliament.
He said, and he said it solemnly, that he believed that the
Colonial Church had a great work to do in this world. He
believed that with the strength of our nation, with its
language, its institutions, and its people, she had a charge
from God of carrying the purest form of His revealed
Word throughout the whole world. He believed that as a
member of that Church it was essential that he should do
all in his power to free her from every fetter that impeded
her spiritual work and disabled her for her high empriso.
He believed from experience that to represent that Church
to the colonists as an endowed section of the Church in the
mother country was the surest way of depriving her of her
strength. The history of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States demonstrated to every candid mind
that nothing could be so unfavourable to the Church in the
colony as any such treatment of her by the Government at
home. So long as the Church in the United States was
dependent on this country—so long as it maintained the
tobacco tithe in Virginia, and its other rights and privileges
—so long was it spiritually weak, distrusted by the nation,
and timid and feeble in itself; and he believed that it only
regained its full vitality when set free. He saw no reason
to doubt—if the minds of the people were not too much
alienated by the hostile legislation of this country—that
the colonists of Canada would follow the wise example of
the United States ; and baying received power to deal
with the question, would do so righteously and wisely.
The Bishop of EXETER wished to say one word with
reference to what his right reverend brother had said with
respect to himself. His right reverend brother had said
that which was not only not true, but which was quite
contrary to the truth. So far was he (the Bishop of Exe-
ter) from having supported the measure of 1840, he had
done his utmost to oppose it. In committee he had moved
the insertion of the word Protestant in one of the clauses
in order to exclude those sects who had no right to the pro-
perty. He divided the house on that occasion, and was
beaten, but he did his utmost to defeat the measure, as he
considered it a breach of faith as regarded the Church.
His right reverend brother had stated that he had surren-
dered to the colony all that had belonged to their domestic
legislation. But that there had been a reservation with
regard to some matters was clearly shown by the colonists
asking the Imperial Parliament for the power to deal with
the reserves in question. It was because the colonists had
not the right that the Imperial Parliament were now asked
to surrender it. The Legislature of Canada had already
swept away a college which had been endowed with grants
of waste land by this country. The right rev. prelate was
proceeding in his remarks, but sat down upon
Lord REDESDALE rising, and expressing his opinion
that, contrary to the rules ofdebate, the right rev. prelate,
while explaining, was entering upon new matter.
The Bishop ofb OXFORD wished also to explain. He
alluded to one or two words in the speech of his right rev.
brother, which though not likely to lead to a hostile meet-
ing, yet required some notice froni him. (A. laugh.) His
right rev. brother had said that what he (the Bishop of
Oxford) had stated was not only not true, but contrary to
the truth. Now, with all humility and. meekness of spirit
(a laugh), he must say that what he had said was not alto-
gether incorrect, for though his right rev. brother had
taken one division on the measure of 1840 with reference to
the insertion of the word Protestant, he had assented to all
the other stages of the bill, and had allowed it to pass
without (as we understood) even a protest.
The Bishop of LONDON said that he should reserve
what he had to say with respect to the impolitic and danger-
ous proposals on the subject of the clergy reserves in Canada
until the measure was before them. His right rev. brother
of Exeter had entered fully into the question, and so had
his right rev. brother of Oxford. With respect to one of
the observations of his right rev. brother of Oxford, on the '
subject of finality, he must say that in his opinion that if
there ever was a question in which finality ought to be
observed it was the question before them. The property
•in question had never been given to the Legislature of
Canada, and they had no right to deal with it. This
question, therefore, was not one of those matters which
pertained to colonial legislation. If Canada were to be-
come independent of this country their Legislature might
then deal with it ; but so long as Canada was a colony of
this country, so long was the Legislature of Canada bound
g by the conditions of a British colony. One of those condi-
tions was the maintenance of the clergy reserves as a means
'of supporting the Protestant Church in the colony'. His
right rev. brother had spoken of secularisation as if it were
a mere shadow, and had said that the Legislature would, no
doubt, make sufficient provision for religious instruction.
But what confidence could be placed in a Legislature which
had acted as in the instance pointed out by his right rev.
brother of Exeter ? He would as soon trust a lamb to a
wolf as hand over the clergy reserves to the Cana.dianLegis-
lature. He could not agree in many of the remarks which
had fallen from his right rev. brother of Oxford. It never
seemed to have struck him that the terms which he had ap-
plied to the Church in Canada might be applied by others to
the Church much nearer home. He for *lie could never
consent to alienate property which had been set apart for
the diffusion of Christianity among Protestants in the
colony. Every year vast numbers of emigrants were going
to that colony ; and what provision, he should like to know,
had the British Government made for their religious in-
struction ? Other countries did not act in that way ?
France never sent out a body of colonists without providing
them with spiritual instruction. In Canada, the Church
of late years had been making great strides. If the whole
of the reserves in question were divided among the clergy
of the 550 parishes in the colony, each clergyman would
not have more than 711. per annum ; and yet they were
about to take from them the means which had been pro-
vided for the support of the Gospel in the colony. He
could not consent to do so, and should vote against any
measure having such an object in view.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he had so recently
addressed,their lordships on the subject, and should so soon
have again to address them, that he would only say one or
two words. It was unnecessary for him to enter at any
length on the question after the able speech of the right
rev. prelate near him (the Bishop of Oxford). With re-
ference to a remark of the right rev. prelate who spoke
last, who had maintained that one of the conditions
imposed on the colonial legislature wag the maintenance of
the clergy reserves, he must say that, on looking through
the whole history of this question from 1775 down to the
present time, he could find no such condition. In referring
to the act of 1840, the noble earl opposite had oonfounded
it with the Canada Union Act of 1840 ; and the right hon.
gentleman who had preceded him in his present office had
stated that there was such a condition in that act, with
.r?7iev, of preventing the Protestant Church in Canada
teilt,i! overthrown by the Roman Catholics. The Act of
11 Preceded the Clergy Reserves Act, bat he could find
no such condition in it. The right rev. prelate opposite
(the Bishop of London)
the Canadian had stated that he had no faith in
awolifegiasslature, and that he would as soon trust
a lamb to the clergy reserves to that legislature.
He regretted that such strong terms had been -used by the
right rev. prelate, bee
a
eleavour to fulfil his use they might induce them to en-
right rev. prelate gr13:211e7. He knew not on what the
his apprehensions. At this
-very moment the Canadian legislature were voting consider-
able sums for the establis
college, and to the clergy within a Church of England
province for educa-
tional purposes. He believed the
heq,Asation to be one ex-
clusively colonial in its character. right rev. prelate
near see
him said that he would sooner the colony inde-
pen a
dent thn place in its legislature the power of dealing
with these reserves.
The Bishop of LONDON said that what he bad stated
was that if Canada was independent then it
Wight deal
with the reserves. -
The Duke of NEWCASTLE accepted the right rev.
late's correction. The noble earl opposite had cheereea;
right rev. prelate's remark, and that noble earl had dis-
tinctly stated that he would sooner see the Canadian Go.
vernment independent of England than see the right of the
Imperial Parliament abandoned.
The Earl of DERBY said that he had stated that if Ca-
nada were independent then it would have the right to
deal with this property, and that he would rather see the
colony independent and possessing such a righttthllinan he a
minister nominally possessing the power of con
ro g the
colonial legislature, and yet compelled to yield to it that
to which it had not the right.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought that that wasmuch
the same thing as that which he had asserted. On that
occasion he should not say more, but should reserve any
further remark till the measure was before them.
The Bail in Error Bill was read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at ten minutes to four
e'eloek.

PRIVATE BUSINESS. .
Agricultural Com-
The following bills were read a second
.time, and or-
dered to Le committed :--Australian Agricul .
pany, Blyth and Tyne Railway, Bognor Railway,
Edinburgh Bigh-street and Railway
Electric Telegra.ph Company Kilkenny and Great
Station, &C.,
Southern and 'Western Itailv,4 Llanidloes and New-
town Railway, London and North-Western Railway
(Coalbrook b?.le, &), Londonderry Coleraine and
Belfast Junctlon Railway. Maclrag Vailway, Newport,
Abergayenny, and Hereford Rai
lway, (Brecon), Norwich

and Spalding Railway, Scottish Central Railway, Stock-
ton Dock, Swansea Vale Railway, Tynemouth Docks
and Morpeth and Shields Direct Railway, United
Guarantee and Life Assurance Company, Victoria
(London) Docks, Waveney Valley Railway, Whitehaven
and Furness Junction Railway.
CLITHEROE ELECTION.

Mr. GASKELL reported that the committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the petition against the return
for Clitheroe, had come to the determination that Mr.
Matthew Wilson was not duly elected for the borough
at the last election ; that the election was a void election ;
and that Mr. Matthew Wilson was by his agents guilty
of bribery and treating at such election.
On the motion of the HON. MEMBER the report was
ordered to be laid on the table. The hon. member gave
notice that to-morrow he would move that the issuing
of a new writ be suspended until Monday, the 11th of
April.

FROME ELECTION.
Mr. HAMILTON reported that the committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the petition, against the return
for Frome had come to the resolution that, as Colonel
Boyle held an office under the Crown, he was not duly
elected, and that the last election for the borough was a
void election.

BRIDGNORTH ELECTION.
Mr. BOUVERIE reported that the committee had
decided that Mr. Henry Whitmore was duly elected for
Bridgnorth, but that Sir R. Pigot, Bart., was not duly
elected ; and that he was, by his agents, guilty of bribery
at the last election for Bridgnorth.
Sir J. SHELLEY gave notice that to-morrow he
would move that the evidence taken before the com-
mittee be printed, and that the new writ be suspended
until the evidence was in the hands of members.
(The decisions of the above committees appear verba-
tim in another part of The Sun.)
_ _

BLACKBURN ELECTION.
Sir J. SHELLEY gave notice that to-morrow he
would move that the evidence taken before this com-
mittee be printed, and that the new writ for Blackburn
be suspended until that evidence was in the hands of
members.
Mr. -WILCOX presented a petition from Southampton
against the increase of public houses.
Lord HOTHAM presented a petition against the ad-
mission of Jews into Parliament.
Mr. OLIVEIRA presented a petition in favour of the
reduction of the duties on foreign wines.
Mr. BLACKETT presented a petition from Northum-
berland against the taxes on knowledge.
Sir R. INGLIS presented several petitions against
the admission of Jews into Parliament ; also a petition
from ministers of different religious sects resident in
Western India, against the encouragement given to

idolatry in that country by the Government.
Mr. A. PELLATT presented a petition from a nume-
rous body of dissenters in the metropolis, against the
endowment to Maynooth and all other religious endow-
ments ; also a petition against the opening of the Crystal
Palace on Sundays.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented two petitions from
post-office letter-carriers, praying for an inquiry into
their grievances ; also a petition in favour of a reduction
in the duties on post horses.
Mr. C. BERKELEY presented a petition from Bath
in favour of the distribution of Parliamentary papers to
literary societies.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Mr. H. BROWN gave notice that, on the 16th of
March, he would move a resolution to the effect that it
was the duty of the Government to take more effectual
measures for the prevention of railway accidents.
OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE COMMISSION.
Mr. HEYWOOD wished to ask the Secretary of State

for the Home department, whether it is the intention of
the Government to lay on the table of the- house copies
of the Oxford College statutes, and of the Cambridge
University and College documents, recently published
by the direction of the Oxford and Cambridge Commis-
sioners ; and also, whether any steps can be taken for
the preparation of such academical collections, under
the care of the University Commissioners.
Lord PALMERSTON was understood to say that
he should not feel entirely justified to put the country
to the expense of complying with the lion, member's re-
quest.
PUBLIC HOUSES' (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. BOUVERIE said the motion for the second
reading of the bill stood for Wednesday next. He should
be glad to know if the hon. member for Liverpool pro-
posed to bring it on then ?
Mr. F. MACKENZIE replied in the negative, and,
on the motion of the hon. member, the order of the day
was read for the purpose of being postponed until the
9th of March.