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

THE KAFIR WAR.

Mr. ADDERLEY asked the Under-Secretary of State for
the Colonies what news of the Kafir war had been received
by the Sydney packet, and whether orders in council, com-
pleting the Cape constitution, and settling the limits and
defences of the colony, had been sent out by the mail lately
dispatched, and if so, how soon copies of such orders might
be laid before the house ?

Mr. F. PEEL stared that the packet which touched at
the Cape had brought no dispatches from General Cath-
cart. He had stated on a former occasion that he had
reason to believe that the ordinances which had passed the
Legislative Council at the Cape, with respect to the con-
stitution and the settlement of the civil list, and which
had been transmitted to this country for the assent of the
Crown, would be sent to the colony in the course of the
present month, and he was now enabled to state that these
ordinances had been sent back on the 14th inst. With re-
spect to the latter part of the question, no order in council
had been issued respecting the limits and defences of the
colony.
AUSTRALIAN MAIL PACKET SERVICE.
Mr. DUNDAS wished to know whether her Majesty's
lt ern ate Company,menthsin lieu of
permitting other parties, who had proved their utter who car-
Government proposed to take any steps to arrange a
monthly mail to Australia—one that might be depended
on, regular, expeditious, and certain, such as that convoyed
rhieendc e b
the
Australiany the Peninsular
mails sand
on Oriental
alternate
inca-
pacity to perform the contract they had undertaken, con-
tinuing to attempt to carry mails the delivery of which
they were instrumental only in delaying.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he thought it would be rash
on his part, or that of the Government, to advise the adop-
tion of any plan which might be depended upon to make
the communication with Australia regular, expeditious,
and certain." The experience which he bad had at the Ad-
miralty had led him to believe that the communication

with Australia by packet was irregular, tardy, and not per-
fect. (Hear.) All he could say was, that the whole question
of the packet service was now under consideration, and
those contracts which could be sustained would be rigidly
enforced; and those which could not be maintained would
be abrogated with the least possible delay. (Hear.)
SIR JAMES BROOKE.
Mr. DRUMMOND said, that as a most infamous slander
had been propagated against Sir J. Brooke, under the title
of " Specimens of Sir James Brooke's Veracity," he wished
to know whether the Government would consent to lay be-
fore the house a copy of the last dispatch of the Secretary
for Foreigh Affairs to Sir J. Brooke, with the answer of
Sir J. Brooke thereto ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say that he
would consider the subject, and give the hon. member an
answer in the course of the evening.
THE GOVERNMENT OF KEROWLEE.
In reply to a question put by Mr. OTWAY.
Sir C. WOOD stated that he had been incorrectly re-
ported in his answer to the hon. member on Thursday, and
had been made to give an answer directly the reverse of
truth. What he stated was, that the question had been
referred home for the decision of the home Government,
and that the home Government had decided to sanction
the mission to the government of Kerowlee of the young
man adopted by the late rajah.
TURKEY.

Lord STANLEY wished to know if the Government had
received any information with respect to statements made
in tho public journals to the effect that the resignation of
Fuad Effendi had been accepted by the Sultan, and that a
dispatch had been forwarded by the British charge-d'affaires
to the admiral of the fleet in the Mediterranean, requesting
him to send up a portion of the fleet now in the Mediter-
ranean to anchor in the Archipelago.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that telegraphic informa-
tion had reached the Foreign-office, stating that such a
request had been made by the British charge d'affaires at
Constantinople to the admiral • but no dispatch had been
received either from Colonel Rose, or the admiral com-
manding the fleet, corroborating that report.
COLONIAL COPPER COINAGE.

Mr. WILSON took the opportunity of correcting a
statement which he had made the previous evening, with
respect to the subject of copper coinage in the colony of
South Australia. He had said that arrangements had been
entered into for coining five tons ; he should have said five
hundred tons of copper.
CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA) DILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill, and on
the first clause being proposed,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that it was not his intention
to offer any opposition to any of the clauses in the bill until
he saw the shape which the bill would ultimately assume
after the amendments to be proposed by the noble lord the
member for the city of London had been disposed of. He
wished, however, to call attention to a discrepancy which
, appeared to him to exist between the words of the first
clause of the bill and some expressions made use of by the
right hon. gentleman (Sir W. Molesworth) the First Com-
missioner of4Works, upon the occasion of the second read-
ing of the bill. The right hon. gentleman gave to the house
a long tale of the history of this subject in Canada, and
assumed with some degree of self-complacency that there
were few, if any, hon. members in the house, beside him-
self, who knew anything upon the subject. It was, there-
fore, incumbent upon the right hon. gentleman to be cor-
rect in the statements which he made. Towards the close
of his speech he said—" It should be remembered that if
this bill passes, the Canadian Legislature will only acquire
the same power over Protestant endowments as it now has
over Roman Catholic endowments." He (Sir J. Pakington)
was under the impression that the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer used similar language. Now,
he was under the impression that the right hon. gentleman
(Sir W. Molesworth) was wholly in error in making that
statement to which he had referred. Under the act of 1791
no act of the Legislature of Canada affecting Protestant or
Roman Catholic endowments could become law until it had
been sent home to the Imperial Government, and had been
laid for thirty days on the table of both Houses of Parlia-
ment, previous to receiving the royal assent. Under the
bill, as it now stood, it would be competent for the Gover-
nor-General of Canada to give the royal assent at once to
any bill passed by the Canadian Legislature without com-
plying with the securities to which he had referred. He
wished to know whether it was intended that these securi-
ties to the Protestant property should be taken away, be-
cause, if so, the house ought not to be told that by this bill
the Roman Catholic and Protestant endowments would
hereafter be placed upon the same footing. If, on the other
hand, it was intended to retain that security, he thought
such intention ought to be more clearly defined than it was
in the first section of the bill.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had no hesitation in
stating clearly the intentions of her Majesty's Government.
It was intended that any act passed by the Legislature of
Canada, and duly assented to by the Crown, should not be
subject those provisions contained in former acts of Par-
liament, by which the bills were required to remain for
thirty days on the table of the house, and in the event of
an address from either home of Parliament were not to
become law. It was intended most decidedly that such
regulations should not continue with respect to the dis-
posal of the clergy reserves of Canada. There was some
difficulty in finding phrases which would clearly express
that intention in the bill ; but if any words more clear
than those which had been adopted should be suggested,
he would offer no opposition to their insertion.
Mr. WALPOLE said that the principle on which the
Government was proceeding was, that the Canadian Legis-
lature should have full dominion over all the lands of the
clergy reserves lying within the provinces of Upper and
Lower Canada. He wished to know whether it was in-
tended
that any control whatever was to remain in the
Crown ? Supposing the Canadian Legislature appropriated
those reserves to any purpose mentioned in the 3d and 4th
Vict. to entirely secular purposes, such as railways or
canals, was it, or was it not, the intention of the Govern-
ment that an effective control should be reserVed in the

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

Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that considerable
difficulty had presented itself in the working of the clauses
of the bill. He was of opinion, however, that, looking to
the provisions of the 31 Geo. 111., and also those of the 3
and 4 Viet., c. 35, the bill as at present framed would be
sufficient to exclude iheoperation of the 42d section of the
31 Geo. 111. It might, however, be advisable, in bringing
up the report, to introduce some words which would make
the intentions of the Government more clear, if it should
be considered that the bill as it now stood was not suffi-
ciently explicit.
Sir F. THESIGER said that, whatever might be the
effect of the clause as it now stood, the intention of the
Government was clearly that the Canadian Legislature
should have absolute power to deal with the clergy reserves
and with the investments which had arisen from the pro-
ceeds of their sale, without any of those securities which
were provided by the 42d section of the Act of Union, and.
her Majesty's Government would no doubt take care to in-
troduce words expressive of that intention. It was im-
portant to ascertain what the intentions of the Govern-
ment really were upon the whole subject. It had been
said that the effect of repealing the act of 1840 would be
to bring things back to the state of things as they existed
in 1791. He contended, however, that such would not be
the effect of repealing the act of 1840. It was quite clear,
upon turning to the 41st section of the act of 1791, and
considering its provisions in conpection with the provisions
of that act, that the lands set apart for the clergy reserves
were set apart for clergy purposes. The act of 1791 was
intended to provide a permanent provision for the Pro-
testant clergy ; but the Legislature of Canada was em-
powered, as the population of the country increased, to
vary its provisions by leasing one-seventh of grants from
the Crown lands for the clergy. But it was now proposed
to take away the securities provided in that act of 1791; and
the house was told they were placing the Canadian Legis-
ture in the same position that they were in under that act,
whereas in two most important particulars the provisions
of that act were positively violated. The bill was contrary
to the opinions of the judges expressed in 1840, that the
Canadian Legislature had no power over the allotments,
inasmuch as it provided that the local Legislature should
have absolute powerover the investments arising from the sale
of lands, and it took from the Imperial Legislature the secu-
rities provided by the act of 1791. Under all the circum-
stances, he was sure that when honourable members came
to consider the provisions of the bill in respect to these
important particulars, they would find it to be an inter-
ference with vested interests and rights, and the most
startling breath of faith ever committed or attempted to
be committed by any legislature. (Hear' hear.)
Mr. ADDERLEY said the honourable and learned gen-
tleman was totally mistaken when he said the object of the
present bill was to go back to the state of things which
existed in 1791. Nobody in their senses could ever have
asserted such a thing. The object of the bill was to remove
to the colonial legislature that power of revision which was
now possessed by the Imperial Parliament during a period
of 30 days. At the same time he had no very clear idea
of the effect of the first section, and he thought that the
repeal of the 42d clause in the act of 1840 would be the
simplest mode of attaining that which he conceived to be
the object of the measure. As the bill stood he believed it
would keep alive that 42d clause; so that, if he were right
it would, after all, be nugatory.
Lord J. MANNERS said it had been made perfectly
clear that the intention of the bill was to take away from
the clergy reserves in Canada that protection which they
had hitherto enjoyed under the 42d clause in the act of
1840. But it was said that the bill did no more with re-
spect to the property of the Church of England than it did
in relation to the religious endowments of the Church of
Rome in Canada. Now he was anxious to obtain from
the legal advisers of her Majesty's Government a distinct
declaration of the law upon that proposition. He thought
this matter so important that he should take the liberty of
reading the emphatic declaration of the honourable gentle-
man the Under-Secretary for the Colonies when he intro-
duced the bill, and the still more emphatic declaration of
the right honourable baronet the Chief Commissioner of
Works, in which both laid down the untenable position,
that this bill would place 'the property of the Church
of England in Canada upon precisely the same foot-
ing as the property of the Church of Rome. The
honourable gentleman (Mr. Peel) said—" In the very
constitutional act of 1791 this very provision was made
which we now wish to adopt for these Protestant
endowments. The 35th claw), after the declaration that
I have referred to, says, ' Be it enacted that the said de-
claration shall remain and continue to be of full force and
effect in each of the said two provinces of Upper Canada
and Lower Canada respectively, except in so far as the
said declaration, or any part thereof, shall be expressly
varied or repealed by any acts which may be passed by the
Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the said
provinces respectively, or which may be assented to by
her Majesty, or any of her successors, under the restric-
tions hereafter provided. Therefore, you see that the
Roman Catholic endowment of tithes and dues, which
those of the Roman Catholic persuation are now bound to
pay to the clergy of that Church, may at any time be
abrogated by an act of the colonial legislature ; and inas-
much as all that we propose now to do, is to place the Pro-
testant endowment in Upper Canada on precisely the same
footing, I cannot see why the Roman Catholic members
of the local legislature should be objected to because they
took part in a decision upon this subject. (Hear.) Upon
these grounds, then, I beg leave to introduce this bill."
Now he asked the right hon. baronet the Chief Commis-
sioner of Works, and any legal gentleman upon either side
of the house, whether on reading the bill they could say
that, dealing as it did upon the face of it with the clergy
reserves, and the clergy reserves alone, it repealed the
enactments of the 43d section in the act of 1840, so far as
the property of the Roman Catholic Church was con-
cerned? If they could not say this from the words of
that clause, what was the meaning of the declarations

made by her Majesty's Government? They said it was
purely a measure of religious equality, and that it sought
to place Protestant endowments upon the same footing as
Roman Catholic endowments. But he (Lord J. Manners)
maintained, and it was as clear as the sun light, that, so
far from these endowments being upon the same footing,
from the moment this bill became law in its present shape
the stringent clause in the original act of 1791, and re-
enacted in that of 1840, which related to the whole reli-
gious property belonging to any Church or communion in
Canada, would be retained only for Roman Catholic en-
dowments in that country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord
read the clause at length, and again asserted that the reli-
gious endowments of the Church of Rome, would, after the
passing of the bill, be guarded by provisions which were
expressly repealed' so far as concerned the clergy reserves
of Canada. Now he put it to any gentlemen who wished
to carry out what he conceived to be a most melancholy
and disastrous policy—that of leaving the ecclesiastical en-
dowments of all religious communions, without favour or
regard to their religious tenets, to the unlimited control of
the Canadian legislature—whether this was acting upon the
principle of equality ? The right hon. baronet the Chief
Commissioner of Works laid it down in such distinct terms
that there could be no doubt upon the subject, that the
Roman Catholic endowments were to be upon the same
footing as the clergy reserves ; for he said, ' there was
no statutory provision preventing the legislature of
Canada from dealing with this property in any manner
they might think proper." Then would the right hon.
baronet tell him what force attached to the 42d section of
of the act of 1840 ? Had he, by his epse dixit, repealed the
legal effect of that remarkable provision ? Could he point
out any statute subsequent to 1840 which abrogated or di-
minished the force of that provision ? If he could not, he
(Lord J. Manners) would ask the right hon. baronet for
an explanation of the extremely determined manner in
which he vindicated the bill, whilst there was no statutory
provision whatever to prevent the Canadian Legislature
from dealing in any manner they thought proper with the
endowments of the Roman Catholic Church ? If the right
hon. baronet meant to say that the safeguard of the 42d
section in the act of 1840 was no safeguard at all, then
why not give the clergy reserves of Canada the same pro-
tection as the endowments of the Church of Rome ? At
any rate, lot not the liberal members of that Church-
-above all, let not the Roman Catholic members of the
house, be deluded into the belief that in passing this bill
they were passing one which, as the right hon. baronet
said, was based upon the principles of religious equality.
Mr. PEEL said that, as the noble lord had pointedly re-
ferred to him, ho would trouble the house with on or two
observations. Tie had stated when he introduced the bill
that the effect of it would be to give the colonial legisla-
ture of Canada power to dispose of the lands and to alter
the appropriations made under the act of 1840 ; and that
in giving the local legislature this power they were doing
no more than had already been done with regard to the
Roman Catholic endowments in Lower Canada. He also
quoted an extract from the constitutional act of 1791,
showing that the legislature had power to alter the dues
which the people were legally bound to pay to the priests
of that persuasion. The noble lord, however, had not noticed
this point; his argument had rather been directed to the
manner in which restrictions had been exercised by the
Crown upon the power of the local legislature. This point
had been considered by he? Majesty's Government, and
they were of opinion that restrictions should not be placed
upon the Crown's exercise of its right. That right would
continue to be exercised, subject to the opinion of the
Secretary of State. The noble lord contended that by this
bill Protestant endowments were put upon a different foot-
ing to those of the Roman Catholics. The answer which
he (Mr. Peel) had to make to that was, that the noble lord
seemed to have forgotten what had been said by his right
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was
incorrect to designate these reserves as a Protestant endow-
ment. They were so under the act of 1791 • but under
the act of 1840 the Roman Catholics were permitted to par-
ticipate in one half of the produce of the sales under that
act. But even admitting the view of the noble lord, that
the clergy reserves were substantially a Protestant endow-
ment, he could not see that the reservation of the thirty
days' proviso would be any real advantage to the Church
of England or to any other religious body interested in the
fund, because it would give an appearance of support which
would be perfectly delusive. At the same time, if it were
thought that the Church of Rome really enjoyed an advan-
tage from both houses of Parliament being able to exercise
a veto, and any hon. gentleman would bring forward a bill
for the express purpose of repealing the 42d clause, as it
was supposed to effect them, there would be no disposition
on the part of her Majesty's Government to offer opposi-
tion to such a measure. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER contended that the language held by dif-
ferent members of the Government upon this question was
not uniform, and that in consequence no two men out of
doors could understand the exact point in discussion. On
the 23d of March, 1840, Lord John Russell stated, in
answer to a question for Sir Robert Peel, that there would
be reserved to the two houses of Parliament the power
given by the act of 1791, and for the Crown to refuse its
assent. The right hon. gentleman the member for the
University of Cambridge said it was only on that ground
he could give his consent to the bill. When the bill of 1840
was introduced, it was not anticipated that the reserves
would be disposed of by the local legislature. But it was
important to get the question speedily settled ; the impe-
rial legislature therefore interposed its power, and made
what was considered a final arrangement and compromise.
Suppose that imperial arrangement should be broken up,
and the power given to the colonial legislature, then the
important point for the committee to find out was, the
terms upon which the power was transferred to the local
legislature. Now, what was proposed by the noble lord
was totally different from the terms used by the honour-
able gentleman who introduced the bill, and from those of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in supporting it, while it
was totally different from what the noble lord said himself
when he proposed the act for the union of the two pro-
vinces. The hon. gentleman the Under Secretary for the
Colonies urged the house to accept the bill, on the ground of
religious equality. The right hon. baronet who spoke on
the second reading, and the right hon. the Chancellor
of the Exchequer supported it upon the same principle.
These members of the Government said the bill was
founded on religious equality; but religious equality was not
carried out in its provisions. The fact was pointed out, and
the Government turned round upon the opposition and said,
" We admit it is not religious equality ; but will you bring
in another bill applicable to the endowments of the Roman
Catholic Church." The Government having committed
spoliation on the Church of England, advised them to com-
mit spoliation on the Church of Rome, so as to place the pro-
perty of both Churches on the same footing. It was not a
question of the Church of Rome, but a question affecting
the rights guaranteed by the Imperial Act of 1791, and he
would never be a party to appropriating that which had
been sanctioned by Parliament. (Hear, hear.) It was
neither fair nor reasonable that the second reading should
be obtained on one assumption, and the bill•passed through
committee on another assumption. He wished the matter
to be clearly understood between the Government and that
side of the house, that the country might understand it.
He did not expect the question to be got rid of by the con-
venient argument that it must be left to colonial self-legis-
lation. There might be other rights superior to colonial
self-legislation, the rights of the Churches in Canada.
(Hear, hear.) The act of 1791 was prospective. This act
was retrospective. The act of 1791 reserved imperial con-
trol. This act substituted the mere will and pleasure of
the Secretary of State. The act of 1791 was the funda-
mental act, and by the act of 1840 that control was ex-
pressly reserved. Upon all these grounds, therefore, he
called on the Government for explanation, that on the
third reading the question might be plainly and clearly
brought before the house and the country. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL thought there could not be much
doubt about the principle of this bill. The hon. and learned
gentleman who had just sat down, and gentlemen on the
other side, had said a great deal about the Roman Catholic
endowments and establishments. That was very much
beside the question now before the committee ; and al-
though the right honourable gentleman averred that he
would not be put off by that answer, the question really
was, the self-government of the province of Canada.
(Hear, hear.) The question with regard to Roman Catholic
endowments was chiefly a question arising before the act
of 1791, because the rights of the Roman Catholic Church
in Canada were acquired before that act; and if such a bill
had been introduced as that to which his honourable
friend had alluded, the question would rest upon a dif-
ferent state of things altogether. (Hear, hear.) The
Protestant clergy reserves were first made by the act of
1791. They were created by act of Parliament at that
time, and the question was whether they would reserve
or not the power given by the act of 1791 to either
house of Parliament to prevent the consent of the
Crown being given to a colonial act. It was no
doubt a question of some importance, but it was not a
question of chief importance, with regard to this subject.
Even in that respect, however, it was evidently the inten-
tion of the act of 1791 that the colonial legislature should
have in the first place the power to legislate—that they
should be enabled by the 41st to legislate under certain re-
strictions imposed by the 42d section. But the question
of much more importance was really whether they were to
allow the colonial legislature to legislate on that subject.
(Hear, hear.) These clergy reserves were accompanied
with provisions which certainly had not operated in a man-
ner to induce any wish to maintain the act of 1791. They
all knew that the clergy reserves had been a source of great
evil to the province. The lands reserved had been barren
of wheat, barren of barley, and barren of oats, but fruit-
ful of discontent, fruitful of strife, and fruitful of ill-luck
—(hear, hear)—a source of despondency to the cultivator,
often preventing roads being made, but a subject of hope
to every agitator in the colony. (Cheers.) Therefore,
there twits nothing in the practical of that act, by which
they were created, to induce him to wish to maintain it.
(Hear.) But then there was certainly in that act of 1791 a
provision, to which he had alluded, that if any act were
made for the purpose of dealing with the reserves in the
colony, for thirty days it should be' laid before the two
houses of Parliament, and they should have the power to
prevent its taking effect. What he said was, that that
provision was inconsistent with the principle which the
Government had adopted, namely, that the colonies should
have the power to legislate for themselves. (Hear,- hear.)
And if the house meant to adopt that principle in its fair
and full extent, they must omit that provision of the act
of 1791, as they did remit the control now possessed by
the Imperial Parliament. (Hear, hear.) It had been
urged by the right honourable gentleman, that his right
honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
drgued this bill as if it proceeded upon the principle
of the act of 1791. (Hear.) His right honourable friend
only meant, that inasmuch as the principle of the act
of 1791 allowed legislation by the provisional Parliament,
and did not intend it with regard to that provision,
that either house of Parliament might have the power
of control. It was, therefore, he thought, abundantly clear
what were the intentions of the Government on this sub-
ject. (Hear.) With respect to the particular framing of
the, clause, it might be advisable, perhaps, to put some
words with regard to the 37th and 38th sections of the
Union Act of 1840, to make the provision more clear than
it was at present. The principle which he understood was
approved by the house when the second reading of this bill
was carried by so large a majority was, that the people of
Canada, as represented by the Crown and the two
housesof legislature, should have full power,
reserving the life
legislate on this subject. (Hear, hear.)
interests of the present holders of the clergy reserves, to
the Government meant. That was the principle to which
hat was what
they would adhere. He believed it to be a sound prin-
principle they intended to
ciple, and upon that
(Cheers.)proceed.
Mr. HENLEY said the Government had rested their
support of this bill on the gliotund that it would place all
parties on the same footinr,
whether that principle was Carried out or not. He concurred
was for the house to see
with his right hon. fri
this bill would deal end
(Air. Napier) in believing that
way and with Roman with Protestant foundations in one
only answer was If Catholic foundations in another. The
clergy, bring ii: You mean to rob the Roman Catholic
a bill immediately."
friend had said nothing His right lion.
commit an
act of spoliation should induce him to
e Go-
vernment were
body, and that
Considering the on the Roman Catholics because
about to
sound principle.
on the Protestant
amount of ability concerned
was a veryperlietrate one
(Hear, hear.)
in con-
this this vastmeasure, it was not a little extraordinary that

three short clauses should be so obscurelfdrawn that the
learned Attorney-General thought it might be necessary
to introduce some provisions, though he did not tell them
what those provisions were. The Government argued the
measure on two grounds—that the Legislature of Canada
would have power to deal with the clergy reserves, and
that the bill would place all the different religious
bodies on a footing of equality. If there was no inten-
tion of mystifying the house,. the Government might
have given the colonial legislature full power to
deal with such a subject, in a plain, clear, and unequivocal
manner ; but they did not see fit to do so. But granting
that it did give the Canadian Legislature that power, he de-
nied that it secured religious equality, and he believed
many votes were given upon that ground which would be
withheld on the third reading. (Hear, hear.) The argu-
ment which had been used by the right hon. the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer that, having dealt with these en-
ddiodwsmeeemntstobyhimthe
alacmt
osoftlonB4oa,oeoit
unwastahplroe.iserThapediaevtertofthlemom,
was quoted over and over again to show that they had
varied the appropriation of these reserves, as if, having
varied the appropriation, they could not be found fault
,with for altogether diverting them. He could not under-
stand that argument in 1835 and 1836 when it was applied
to secularising Church property in this country. He pro-
tested against it then, and he should protest against it now.
Mr. FIUME was sorry' to see so much opposition to a bill
of so much importance. The noble lord had repeated his
explanation of the intention of the bill, and no doubt could
remain on the subject. It was to remove discontent, and
to bring matters back to the period of 1791. (Hear, hear.)
The people of Canada told the Government, end so did the
legislative assembly, that if the objectionable clause in the
bill of 1340 was removed, it would give general satisfac-
tion. (Hear, hear.) The people of Canada were better
judges of what would satisfy them than hon. gentlemen
opposite. They said, if this were done, the Roman Catho-
lic endowments would be placed on an equal footing.
(Hear.) It was so intended by the act, and if it did not
do so, something ought to be put into it to make the ques-
tion clear.
This bill, if passed, would give peace to Canada.
He wished to give peace to Canada—to attach Canada to
England—and this bill would do that. It was justice, as
well as policy, to remove the known cause of dissatisfac-
tion ; and this measure would effect that purpose. Me was
obliged to the noble lord, who he believed had taken• the
right means to redress the evils of former bad legislation,
and he believed the bill would be as valuable to Canada as
to this country. With regard to the Catholics, the bill left
them in possession of all their rights. At present, land, if
in the hands of Protestants, paid no tithe, but if in the
hands of Catholics it was made liable to tithes. This bill
would interfere with no vested rights, but would do much
good, and he would support it.
Mr. LUCAS said no Irish representative need be under
fear that this bill would interfere with Catholic endow-
ments. He had been much affected by the touching and
earnest manner in which the right hon. gentlemen on the
Opposition benches had expressed their apprehensions that
Roman Catholic endowments would not only be affected
in Canada, but in Ireland, if this bill passed. The right
hon. and learned gentleman had declared that no conside-
ration would induce him to touch Roman Catholic endow-
ments, oven though a robbery was perpetrated on Pro-
testant endowments. The right hon. gentleman had not
always held the same opinions, for on the Maynooth ques-
tion he had voted for the repeal of that endowment. For
his own part he would be sorry to trust Catholic endow-
ments to acts of Parliament ; he relied on a far better se-
curity—the sense of right and justice of the people of the
country. (Hear.) He did not desire to see Catholic inte-
rests in Canada protected by the 42d clause of the bill. He
wished to see that clause repealed, and to see the Catholic
endowments to rest on the sense of justice of the whole
Canadian community.
Mr. NAPIER hoped the committee would pardon him
if he• made one or two observations in answer to the very
unexpected and bold attack made on him by the hon.
member who had just sat down. (Hear.) The hon. mem-
ber had told them that he had neither the courage, the
conscience, nor the prudence to vote against the motion for
going into committee on the Maynooth grant. He certainly
had not the courage to vote against his conscience, and,
entertaining the opinions which he did, he had thought it
more honest and upright to go into the lobby in favour of
the motion, than to vote against it, or to absent himself,
and so to evade the responsibility of a vote, and to create a
doubt as to the opinions he held on the.question. (Hear,
hear.) He honestly entertained the opinions which he pro-
fessed on the question, and he should always act manfully
and boldly in avowing his opinions ; endeavouring, as
much as possible, in so doing to give offence to no man.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member had alluded to what he
called the Catholic—but what he (Mr. Napier) called the
Roman Catholic endowments in Canada, and had charged
him with inconsistency in voting against the Maynooth
grant, and in using the argument which he had done with
reference to the Roman Catholic endowments in Canada.
The house would recollect that he had stated that a wide
distinction existed between these endowments and the
Maynooth grant, and the distinction was generally assented
to by the house. In stating his opinions he believed he
had said nothing offensive to any man, and as he was guilty
of no inconsistency, either in his conduct or in his argu-
ment, he would not submit in silence to be bullied and
baited in the way he had been by the honourable member.
(Cheers.)
Mr. J. 3fACGREGOR said he thought ,he had some
knowledge of Canada, and he had no hesitation in saying
that the rejection of this bill would create great discontent
in that colony, and might be productive of fearful results.
When the act of 1791 was passed, it was supposed that the
population of the upper province would be Protestant. He
wished to see the colony governed in the spirit of the act
passed by the noble lord the member for the city of Lon-
don when he was Secretary for the Colonies in 1840.
Mr. C. BRUCE said that he did not deny the advan-
tages which had accrued to Canada from the concession of
self-government, Much had been • said about the liberal
way in which provision was made for religion in the United
States ; but whatever might be the case in the old states,
he had good authority for saying that in the new states in
the west the want of sufficient means for religious pur-
poses was notorious, and that in no instance had a clergy-
man, however popular, been able to secure a maintenance
for two years consecutively. He had no objection to give
to the Legislature of Canada the power to deal with the
unappropriated reserves ; but he desired to respect those
which had been appropriated, and the rights which had
been created in connection with them. He admitted the
kenefits which had arisen from granting self-government
to the colony. Ho admitted that Canada, instead of being
in a state of discontent bordering on rebellion, was now
one of the most loyal portions of her Majesty's dominions
—that it enjoyed an extraordinary amount of prosperity,
and that its population was rapidly increasing. He should,
therefore, with considerable reluctance, vote against the
passing of this bill ; but he must do so unless he found that
existing interests were protected, and appopriated pro-
perty was secured. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PHILLIMORE complicated the right hon. and
learned member for the University of Dnblin on his ability
and that suavity of temper which made him the delight
and ornament of the house, and hoped that the right hon.
and learned gentleman would explain to him the distinc-
tion which he had taken between voting against a parlia-
mentary grant to Maynooth and voting in the way he had
referred to with reference to Roman Catholic endowments
in Canada.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said he could very well understand
the difference. The discussion on the motion of his hon.
friend the member for North Warwickshire did not relate
to the property possessed by Maynooth, but to the yearly
grant from the Consolidated Fund. With respect to the
present bill, he wished the Government would tell him
whether it would affect the property of the Roman Catholic
Church in Canada in the same manner as it would affect
the property of the Protestant Churches in that colony ?
He did not advocate a system of retaliation, but that all
sects of religionists should be treated alike. He wished,
therefore, to ask whether the bill would equally affect the
property, dues, and titles held by the Roman Catholic
Church in the lower province and that property known as
the clergy reserves ?

Mr. B.CITLLY said that as far as he understood the
question, he could inform the hon. member that the pro-
perty of the Roman Catholic Church in the lower and in
the upper province was liable to be dealt with by the pro-
vincial legislature. So late as 1839 a most important
question was raised with respect to the Roman Catholic
endowment of St. Sulpice, in Montreal, and a bill actually
passed the provincial legislature affecting that endowment,
which was one that amounted to about 40,0001. a year.
The bill before them proposed to give the colonial legisla-
ture the power of dealing with the clergy reserves in the
same way as they had the power of dealing with the Roman
Catholic endowments. Without any further debate of the
principle he should support the measure, and reserve any
further observations he had to make till the third reading.
Sir R. INGLIS said that when he rose half an hour ago,
at the same time as his right hon. friend the member for
the University of Dublin, it was not with any presump-
tuous intention of defending him from the attack which
had been made upon him, for he knew what while no man
so rarely attacked others, so no man was more capable of
defending himself when attacked that his right hon. and
learned friend. (Hear, hear.) He had risen for the pur-
pose of calling the attention of the house to that part of
the subject which related to the distinction which he con-
tended, existed between the condition in which the Church
of Rome in Canada would be left by this bill, and the
condition in which it would place the Protestant churches
in that colony. The hon. member for Meath had told
them that the legislature of Canada would be at liberty
to deal to-morrow, if it liked, with the property of the
Church of Rome, whether the bill passed or not. The
distinction, he contended, was this, that whereas by the
existing state of the law—of two parties each possessed of
1.000 acres—the legislature of Canada could deal with one,
subject to the control not merely of the representative of
the Crown and legislature, but subject also to the control
of the Crown, exercised on an address by either house of
Parliament in this country, while the
restrictions to the
alteration of the Church property ofto
be
eroitlstants were re-
moved, and while that Church was
the opera-
tion of the bill to the tender mercies of the Ct abnyadian legis-
lature, the Roman Catholic Church to enjoy all its
grants under those securitiesThw
ehichh hada been provided for
the Protestant Churches.
forgot to allude to that distinctiLll., 3
memberet) e for l Meath
rested upon it. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies
opponents of measure,
had told the o
that if any of them with great gravity,
purpose of dealing with theintroduce a measure for the
Rome in the colon irk th property of the Church of.
leagues proposed toy'deal e same way as he and his col
of England, such a with the property of the Ch
with the
opposition of the measure would not meet ,.
mired the gra ". e Government. (Hear, hear.) He ad)
-
But the objectors'M of that hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.
to this measure had always contend
against the in' to
of l involved in it. As the
hon. and learned justice
memberthe principle e
University of Dublin had
said,
you wouldc for th
injustice by creating another
not cure one
uld not make a right.
—(hear, hear.)—and two wrongs co
(Hear, hear.) Spoliation of the Roman Catholics was no)
(Hear.
justification for a spoliation of the Protestants.l ,
The question was not one of creed, but of pro perty (
Parliament
hear)—and whether a certain act or acts ofto
certain
had not given a certain amount of property
in-
dividuals. Did h"
times gentlemens
had
not the mean to contend that
England inright to deal with the
formere
e
when that property came
the King of Franc
property of 9
of the Kings of England. (II ear,hear.)
into the possession
He had not heard any hon. member, learned or unlearned,
d against the original right of the Crown
get up and contend
12 hear)—and he trusted he should
to make the gran (
ument urged that the rights of property,
never hear the arg
ed
to
drab,
or blue, or to black, should
whether they belong
t(Hear, hear.) It was
the mercy of a tyrant majority.
I be at .
ty that a specific contract was entered
this proper
to protect country and the • 'al
into between this
oi f Canada. The doctrine, however, now set up of self-
government,
nt meant, in fact, separation. Such separation
'
might not take place in 1853 or 1854, but self-government
meant nothing less than severance from the mother country.
From the moment of such severance there would be an end
of allegiance. It was because he believed our colonies
formed part of the strength of the mother country, that he
did not wish to see them independent of her. If the Cana-
dian Legislature were competent to deal with this property,
would
which itthey not be competent to deal with the principle S* was granted ? If they were enabled to
change the