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

fliree-slaort- eTa-uses shOliTrEeio oliscurely.drawn that rtliis
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-
dowments by the act of 1840, it was proper to divert them,
did seem to him almost unaccountable. The act of 1840
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. HUME 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, and so did the
legislative assembly, that if the objectionable clause in the
bill of 1840 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. He wag
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 liableito 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, even 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 prudonce to vote against the thotiou for
going into committee on the Maynooth grant. He certainly
had not the courage to vote against his conscience, aud,
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 nrinfully
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
Wited in the way he had been by the honourable member.
(Cheers.)

Mr. J. MACGREGOR 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 1810.
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
benefits which had arisen from granting self-government
to the colony. He 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 potsessed 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?
1115 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 ecreally 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. SCULLY said that as far as he understood the
4uestion, 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 ono 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
navt,
ohne
dt
eh
de , r
was the bi 1 l
this,
that
whereas or not.
them that the legislature of Canada would be at liberty
to deal to-morrow, if it liked, with the property of of
dCishurtincchtioonf ,Rhoemeco,
by the
existing state of the law—of two parties each
1,000 acres—the legislature of Canada could deal ssesshedono!
wit
---
subject to the control not merely of the repre ,
sentat
the Crown and legislature, but subject also toive of
the controly either house of
of the Crown, exercised on an address b
Parliament in this country, while the
alteration of the Church property of pr restrictions to the
re-
moved, and while that Church was to beotestants were
tion of the bill to the tender mercies left by the opera-
lature, the Roman Catholic Chur.f the Canadian legis-
grants under those securities.whi c Was to enjoy all its
the Protestant Churches. The ch had been provided for
forgot to allude to that dist; hen• member for Meath
rested upon it. The hon. lnction, yet the whole case
had told the opponents of the Under measure, with great gravity,
purpose_ of dealing with d introduce a measure for the
Rome in the colon ' the property of the Church of
leagues proposeA colon property the same way as he and his col-
of e Church
England, such deal with the property ofth
not meet with the
opposition of th a pleasure would .
) He e Government. (Hear, bear.
ad-
mired the gravity tleman. (Hear, hear.)
But the objectors of that hon. gen
to this measure had always.
contended
against the injustice of theprinciple involved in it. As the
hon. and learned member Jr the University of Dublin had
said, you would not cure one injustice by creating
a right.anot
another
"Ahear, hear.)—and two wrongs
could
Catholics was no
not make
(Hear, hear.) Spoliation of the RomanP .rotestants. (Hear.)
justification for a spoliation of the
The question was not one of creed, but of property—(hear,
Asia act or acts of Parliament
hear)--and whether a certain
amount of property to certain in-
had
Did
had not given a certain
gentlemen mean to contend that
England informerlm hon.t e bad not the right to deal with the
.
olFrance when that property came
into the possession of the Dings of England ? (Hear, hear.)
He had not heard any d hon. member, learned or unlearned,
against the original right of the Crown
to make the gran
get up and contend aga
t_(
hear, hear)—and he trusted he should
never hear to h argument urged that the rights of property,
to drab, or blue, or to black, should
whether they belonged
(Hear, hear.) It
of a tyrant majority. was
be at the mercy
to protect this property that a specific contract was entered
into between this country and the provincial Legislature
of Canada. The doctrine, however, now set up of self-
government,
ent meant, in fact, separation. Such separation
might not take place in 1853 or 1851, 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 they not be competent to deal with the principle on
which it wins granted : If they were enabled to change the