The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-12 00:00:00

Were they sa-
duties as delegated as well as themselves.
tisfied that that would be the case ? Suppsose they dele-
gated to the Canadian Legislature the dutieantdhelysohad. ,
were
im-
posed on themselves by the acts of 1791
they sure the Canadian Legislature, with
with
the influence
pressing upon it, was capable owealing i the. question
as they themselves would ? re they sure it was ca-
pable of adjusting all the differences that had arisen, and
that would arise between the different religious bodies—
between the Roman Catholics
.and the Protestants, the
Presbyterians and the Episcopalians—between those who
advocates for secularization and those who were ad-
wvoecretes of religious endowments ? Unless they were satis-
fiedaof that they could not delegate these duties to the Ca-
nadian Legislature. It was the Imperial Parliament
that made the settlement of 1840. By that settlement a
compromise of rights was effected, and that compromise
was matured, according to the opinion of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer; into a distant compact. Parliament
prescribed the trusts upon which this property was to be
held, and guaranteed those trusts in perpetual continuance,
partly by the declaration in the preamble of the statute,
that the settlement was final, and partly by providing that
it should not be disturbed without the concurrence of Par-
liament itself. It was stated by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer that the trusts would be dulyfulfilled, because he
believed that the Canadian Legislature would deal with
this question as the Imperial Parliament itself would, and
would not secularise these reserves; but did the majority
of hon. members in that house entertain that opinion ?
(Hear.) And if the reserves should be secularized in what
position
would Parliament be placed? They were in the
position of trustees, having the control over these' funds,
and, knowing that, would they allow them to disposed of
in a manner contrary to the express terms upon which
they had been held ? Could they do that without making
themselves gravely responsible ? They could not enable
persons to do a wrong act unless they made themselves
equally guilty and responsible with the persons by whom
the act was done. But then arose the question, was there
not such a trust as that to which he had alluded? That
must be determined by reference to the statutes or charters
under which the reserves were given originally, and sub-
sequently confirmed, to the Protestant clergy of Canada.
He believed the title of these reserves was almost co-
eval with the cession of Canada. They were intended
for endowments of the Protestant clergy, and the promo-
tion of the Protestant faith. At the time of the)cession
Canada was peopled by French people of the Roman
Catholic religion. Most properly, and wisely, th6refore,
the Parliament of this country, by a bill in 1774, secured
to the Roman Catholic clergy all their accnstoniad dues
and rights, but, thinking it desirable to encourage Protes-
tant emigration to those new possessions, other dues and
rights which had not been appropriated to the Roman
Catholic clergy were, by the same act, reserved and isecured
to the:Protestant clergy who might go out to Canada, and
they were made up by Royal proclamation in 1775' which
directed for the first time that one-seventh of the non-ap-
propriated lands should he 'applied to the purposi. The
title of the Roman Catholics and the title of the IProtes-
tants, therefore, stood on the same footing. If they shook
the title of the one they shook the title of the other, and
. that title was glistinctly confirmed by the constitutional
act of 1791. The Chief Commissioner of the Board of
Works had rested his argument mainly on that statute,
and thought it gave a less clear and permanent right theto
Protestant clergy of the churches of England and Scot-
land than the act of Victoria ; but that statute showed
that the lands allotted up to that time, and all thereafter
to be allotted, either to the maintenance of the Protestant
clergy or the promotion of the Protestant faith, were given
to them in words and terms drawn up in the best way to
provide for their permanency. It was said therei was a
varying power in that statute which enabled the Canadian
Legislature to deal with these reserves. He thought there
was no such power, and that the clause which was said to
be an enabling clause was but a restraining clause. The
constitutional act of 1791 gave to the Canadian Legisla-
ture the fullest power of legislating on Canadian matters,
with certain restraints, before the assent or dissent of the
Crown could be expressed upon any of their acts. Those
powers were contained in the statute of 1791, before they
came to the 42d clause, which was the important one, and
that clause, instead of being an enabling clause, was a re-
straining clause, which prohibited the Crown from assent-
ing to any law of the Canadian Legislature unless the bill
had been laid before Parliament for 30 days ; and if either
house refused its concurrence in the bill, and addressed the
Crown on the subject within 30 days, the Crown was re-
strained from giving such assent. It must be remembered
that when these appropriations were made all the lands
were the property of the Crown, and the Crown had as
much right to make these appropriations to religious bodies
for the purposes of religion as to dedicate them to any other
purpose. He contended that a pledge was given that the
permanence of the trusts should not be altered ; and, if
that were so, in what way would they displace the right ?
Was the title ever disputed until quite recently ? It was
true that in 1819 there was a contest as to the mode in
which the reserves should be distributed, but that did not
apply to the title. It was also true that in 1827, and down
to 1829, the House of Assembly in Upper Canada tried to
deal with these reserves, and to get the Crown to assent
to it ; but the Legislative Council always resisted it ;
and no change was made in the statute of 1791 by Par-
liament or the Government of this country until 1840.
And in what way were reserves dealt with in that
year ? They were dealt with by the statute of Vic-
toria in very nearly the same way as they were dealt with
in the act sent over from Canada in the previous year.
In that act it was provided that the reserves should
be held exclusively for religious purposes, and that the
English and Scotch churches might be entitled to them in
the same proportions as provided by the act of the Imperial
Parliament, and the only difference between the two acts
was, that by the latter statute one half of the reserves was
to be distributed by the Governor and Executive Council
among the different religious bodies in Canada, while by
the former the reserves were to be distributed with refer-
ence to the proportion of each section of Christians in Ca-
nada. The Parliament that made that settlement con-
skived it final, and the Canadian Legislature, which ac-
cepted that settlement, considered it to be permanent, and
so it continued until 1850, as far as England was con-
cerned. That was proved in the most conclusive manner
by the noble lord the member for London. The noble lord
said it would be better to settle the whole question at once,
and to comprise that settlement in one statute. It was
also proved by the statute itself, which declared that the
settlement was intended to be final, and, as far as Canada
was concerned, it was proved partly by the act of the Ca-
nadian Legislature to which he had referred, and partly
by the declaration of some of those persons who were now
moving for the repeal of that statute. Mr. Robert Bald-
win, late Attorney-General for Upper Canada, declared in
1846, during a debate on the reserves :

" That the bill passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada
in 1840 led to a final disposal of the question by the Imperial
Parliament—that he called on hon. members to mark his
words that, if the question were reopened, former fierce agi-
tation would be resumed—that so much did he dread the re-
newal of agitation, that he had in every instance and in tote
discountenanced such a course ; and that he therefore pressed
upon both sides of the house to forbear reviving the ques-
tion."

Let him cite another opinion delivered at the same time in
the same place. Again, Mr. Price, in 1846, in the same
House of Assembly, declared :

" That the settlement under Lord Sydenham had been con-
sidered final; that peace had succeeded the long and fierce
conflict, and the country was settling down, inXthe hope that
agitation on that subject was at an end ; and that, although
three-fourths of the people believed that the arrangement was
made on injustice and partiality, they quietly submitted, as
the only means of restoring peace to the land ; that propor-
tionate to that hope would be the grief and excitement pro-
duced by the reopening the question."

Yet the Mr. Price who in 1846 delivered this opinion was
precisely the gentleman under whose auspices agitation
had recommenced in Canada for the purpose of destroying
the settlement which so recently he had declared to be
final. (Hear, hear.) A third member of the Colonial Le-
gislature (Mr. Cameron) said on the same occasion :
" That he was one of those who acquiesced in the settle-
ment, and, for the sake of peace, wished never to" hear it
again ; and that he warned the house to let the act of the
Imperial Pariiament take its course. Let the land be sold,
and the different churches get the proceeds, in strict accord-
ance thereto."

The question so discussed in the Colonial Legislature was
referred to a committee of the house, and the report of
that committee was to this effect :
" That the excitement which so unhappily existed on the
subject for so many years was at length set at rest by the
imperial statute 3d and 4th Victoria, chap. 78 ; that it was
intended to be a final settlement of the question ; that, not-
withstanding the inequality of the division, it was accepted
by the inhabitants of the province as such ; and that no
change or deviation from the system then existing should be
sanctioned by the Legislature."

He would ask, then, was it wise, was it decent, to ask the
Imperial Parliamet to set aside a settlement which the
Imperial Parliament had solemnly made, which the Cana-
dian Parliament and the Canadian people had solemnly
accepted ? (Hear, hear.) What were men to trust to if
they were not to trust to such guarantees as these ? Surely
if ever a settlement was solemnly made, if ever a guarantee
was solemnly entered into, if ever a duty was imposed
upon Parliament, that settlement was made, that guaran-
tee was entered into, that duty was imposed in the case
before the House. (Hear.) If he needed a further argu-
ment, he found it in the speech of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in committee. What had been the right hon.
gentleman's justification on the part of the Government for
withdrawing the third clause of the bill? He himself (said
the right hon. gentleman),
" Was a party, in 1840, with his noble friend the member
for the city of London, to the arrangements which then took
place on this subject ; and he really must say that it appeared
to him that nothing could be more distinct than the pro-
visions of that act, which amounted, both in spirit and in
letter, to a compact between this country and that colony. It
was not merely a compact by construction, but a compact of
the most distinct kind."

If, then, this was a compact distinctly imposing an obliga-
tion upon this country, it must surely be regarded as im-
posing an equal obligation on the other parties. The House
had been told, on a former occasion, that the compact rest-
ing on this country rendered it liable to pay 10,0001. per
annum to the Canadian clergy, should the Canadian Legis-
lature be in default in this et bat the house was respe ;
in-
formed by the noble lord opposite that if the Canadian
Legislature should think fit to secularize these reserves,
the mother country, in the opinion of the law officers of
the Crown,
given. Surelyas not bound by the guarantee which it had
so solelmnl as not seriously propounded that a
guarantee
given was to be set
of a subsequent event, not at all contemplaasteiddeatbtyhere
timea o reason
the guarantee was
to the noble lord the woe s (
which Hear,
hh
ee a r.)himself H e
addressed would recallto
the house in 1840, when describing the changes which had
been made in the bill then before the house, in consequence
of the communications that had taken place between the
Arcp of Canterbury as representing the Church, the
as represented by the noble lord,
Government of the daK
as represent-
and Sir R. Peel, and t e Duke of Wellington as Es-
in, the party of which the present
chequer then formed one. The noble lordesld
" There was this further proposition—that, suche being the
r
general division of the proceeds of the clergy serves, with
respect to the one-fourth which was already sold, and
th
proceeds of which were already partly invested in the fundes
of this country and standing in the names of trustees, it
was proposed, reverting to the principle which used to be
adopted and was agreed to by Parliament, but which was
changed in 1833, when some modification was made• by the
noble lord opposite, then Secretary of State for the Colonies,
that the whole of the proceeds now payable to the church of
England and church of Scotland out of the revenue of Upper
Canada should be guaranteed permanently to the church of
England and the church of Scotland. The amount now paid
to the ehurch of England was 7,7001., and to the church of
Scotland 1,5801. It was now proposed to guarantee the pay-
ment permanently."
Yet the noble lord now proposed to them a bill which
would enable the Canadian Legislature to secularize the
whole of the clergy reserves, England being, at the same
time, in the opinion of her Majesty's law officers, freed
from any obligation to observe the compact she had so
solemnly made with her colony. On the same occasion, in