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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 12. 1853,

41 Alegi as delegated as well as themselves. Were theyesa-
tistied that that would be the case? Suppose they le-
gated to the Canadian Legislature the duties they had,
im-
posed on themselves by the acts of 1791 th
they sure the Canadian Legislature, all the influence
pressing upon it,sure it was ca-
was capable of dealing With the question
would ? Were they
as they themselves w
pable of adjusting all the differences thathadarisbede
enlaen—d
that would arise between the different religions
between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, the
Presbyterians and the Episcopalians—between those who
were advocates for secularization and those who were ad-
y catcs of religious endowments ? Unless they were satis-
fied of 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 i 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 duly fulfilled, 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 1?
(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 by whom
the act was done. But then arose the qu theie
not such a trust as that to which he had That
lir
must be determined by reference to the statutes or chailtert
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, therefore,
the Parliament of this country, by a bill in 1774, secured
to the Roman Catholic clergy all their accustomed 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 secured
to the Protestant clergy who might go opt 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 be applied to the purpose. The
title of the Roman Catholics and the title of the Protes-
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 distinctly 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 to the
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 there 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 leislating 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.
It that act it was provided that the reserves should
he ‘ 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-
sidered 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 : 1

" 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 toto
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, iukthe 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 theland ; 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 Parliament 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 sa 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 4 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? Ho 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, 011 a former occasion, that the compact rest-
ing on this country
annum to the Canadianrendered it liable to pay 10,0001. per
lature be theft in clergy, should the Canadian Legis-
formed bye noble lord
respect ; bat the house was in-
Legislature should think opposite that if the Canadian
in thefit
the mother country,to secularize these reserves,
the Crown, was not bound by of the law officers of
given. Surely, it was not Y the guarantee which it had
guarantee BO solemnly given
,seriously propounded that a
of a subsequent event, not at all to be set aside by reason
the guarantee was made. (Hear, elanitemplated at the time
to the noble lord the words what he:l.') H. would recall
l
the house in 1840, when describing the changes
addressed to
bean made in the bill then before tho house,
which had
of the communications that had taken uptlinbetweenconsequence
Archbishop of Canterbury as representing the
Government of the day as represented by Church, the
the nob]. I
and Sir R. Peel, and the Duke of Wellington as 0 ord,
represent-
ing the party of which the present Chancellor of the then formed one. The noble lord said : E.
" There was this further proposition—that, such being the
general division of the proceeds of the clergy reserves, with
respect to the one-fourth which was already sold, and the
proceeds of which were already partly invested in the funds
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
Lgoble 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 7,700/., and to the chirrch of
Scotland 1,5801. It was now proposed to guarantee the pay-
ment permanently."
proposed to them a bill which
Yet the noble lord now .
at t suie
would enable the Canadian Lep.sl d beino ec lar ze the
whole h
cdang,
time, in the opinion of her at t e same
En
whole of the clergy reserves, b
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

accepting the measure then offered by the noble lord, Sir
Robert Peel said :

" I think that the propositions made by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, distinguished as well for his high station as for
his moderation, comes recommended by justice as well as for-
bearance. Oa the part of the Church of England, all obstacles
are removed from the disposal of the whole of the reserve
lands. The church seeks not to reserve to herself any of these
lands. After the decision of the judges, the church of Scot-
land is admitted to the same right as the church of England ;
and the only difference which exists is the difference arising
from the number of adherents which belong to each. With
this proposition, acquiesced in by the two churches, permit-
ting the sale of the whole of the reserve lands, with the gua-
rantee in perpetuity of the present amount, with one-third of
the proceeds of the future sale, that is a proposal recom-
mended by its intrinsic importance as well as by its justice
and moderation."

Deeply to be deplored was it that thO guarantee thus
solemnly ratified was to be deemed no longer binding than
to the noble lord seemed expedient. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had described with his wonted power the evils
'which he considered likely to arise from the rejection of
this measure • but, whatever those evils might be, it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Walpole) that those ' certain to arise
from its adoption were infinitely greater. He had that con-
fidence in the integrity of many of the Canadian people
that he believed they would still be willing to acquiesce in
'the existing settlement, if the Imperial Parliament pointed
out to them that they, in common with it, were bound in
good faith and honour to observe it. At all events, he
' would have the experiment tried. Be just, and fear not.
There were three dangers which he wished to point out to
the house as likely to arise from the adoption of this mea-
sure,—the first, that it would tend to set -up, the voluntary
system on the destruction of the present religious establish-
mens ; next, that it would tend to excite great religious
strife and controversy with reference to the endowments
not affected ; and, thirdly, that it would shake the confi-
dence which our colonies ought to feel in the protection of
the Imperial Parliament. (Hear.) As to the first of these 1
objections, the noble lord, who had admitted the futility of
asi
the tary system as regarded education, would scarcely 1
con t it would be found valid in regard to religion.
He saw e y where in every part of the world the seeds of
religious strife sown, and he for one would never do any-
thing to facilitate their growth. Was there any way by
which these unfortimate differences could be allayed ? He
believed that there was one way, and only one ; and that
was to maintain with a just but a firm and vigorous hand
every compact which had ever been made under the bond
of a national engagement for the benefit of any religious
body, so long as the purposes for which that compact had
been made were not perverted. (Hear, hear.) That was
the test which he thought should be applied to all these
measures. Let them adhere to that position, and be be-
lieved they might maintain religious peace. Take up any
other, and they would provoke more than ever religious
animosity, which he feared would be greatly increased if
the Imperial Parliament should withdraw its protecting
hand. (Hear, hear.) Parliament had a protecting power
over all the dominions of the British Crown, and that
power they were bound to exercise by defending the weak
against the strong, and not by siding with the strong
against the weak. He should not probably have adverted
-to this at all but for an unfortunate expression which had
fallen from the -Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The
phrase which he alluded to was this—that " the measure
before the house would shake the confidence of the Protes-
tant clergy in the perpetuity of religious endowments."
Let him warn the hon. gentleman that he could not shake
the confidence of the Protestant clergy in religious endow-
ments without shaking the confidence, not only of the
' Protestant clergy, but of every Church in the world, in the
maintenance of any endowments whatever. It was for
that reason that he entreated them to pause before they
passed this bill, shaking the confidence of one Church in
the endowments which belonged to it, and laying the flat-
tering unction to their souls that the confidence of other
Churches in their endowments would not be shaken. The

third evil consequence which, he thought, would flow from
the adoption of this measure was the loss of colonial eon& ,
dence in imperial protection. He felt this very strongly.
He felt that perfect faith in the British Crown had been
hitherto one of the main encouragements in promoting +
colonial enterprise ; and that, if they once shook that con-
dence, they would strike a blow at colonisation itself. He
was convinced that there was only one mode in which they
could properly deal with our great colonial empire—that
was to treat them as if they were parts of, and one with,
ourselves. In the same way, therefore, that they would
give to any town within this island municipal institutions
which would enable it to deal with its own affairs, so ought
they to give representative institutions to our different
colonies, whereby they might be enabled to deal with their
own affairs. But, as they would never allow a town
to destroy the foundations of any religious or chari-
table institutions which existed in that town before
municipal rights were given to it, so they ought not
to allow any colony of the British Crown, with represen-
tative institutions, to destroy the religious endowments
which had been made and guaranteed by Parliament as
permanent endowments. (Hear, hear.) The minority
in such a town and the minority in the colony had a right
to expect protection. If Parliament denied it, their
confidence in them would be shaken, if not utterly de-
stroyed. For the sake, then, of the colonies generally, for
the promotion and encouragement of colonial enterprise in
all parts of the world, and for the purpose of maintaining
the utmost confidence in the British Crown and the British
Parliament, he begged them to pause before they passed
this bill. But there were other reasons, perhaps, as strong
as that to which he had last alluded. There was the danger
of setting race against race, and people against people.
There was the duty of making religious instruction co-ex-
tensive and commensurate with all the efforts of human
enterprise. There was the further duty of preserving
in-
tact the rights of conscience, and the perpetual mainte-
nance of the national faith. If they forgot these things,
he owned he could not. When he thought of them he was
unable to assent, under the plausible plea of local self-
government, to abandon those rights which had existed
before self-government was conceded, which had been
granted at the time it was conceded, which had been made
the condition of that concession. and which now, he
thought, ought to be upheld on every motive, with one ex-
ception, of policy and expediency, and on every principle,
without one exception, of justice and of honesty. (Hear.)
Mr. 'HUME was of opinion that every argument which
the right hon. gentleman had used should induce the house
to support, and not to oppose this bill. The local Legisla-
ture of Canada had declared no less thah 14 times, almost
unanimously, that the endowments granted to the Churches
of England and Scotland should cease, and that the pro-
perty awarded by the Imperial Legislature should be secu-
larised. They added, moreover, that until that was done
there would be no peace. The alarm of the right hon.
gentleman, therefore, was all moonshine ; and he must ex-
press his thanks to the noble lord for having introduced
this measure, which he believed would remove a great
source of discontent from the colonies. So far from the
abolition of the system preventing colonisation, he be-
lieved that if the Clergy Reserves Bill had never passed,
the colonisation in Canada would have doubled its present
amount ; and that, if these endowments were continued,

Canada would be greatly inclined to repudiate its connec-
tion with England. He would say, with the right hon.
gentleman, "Be just, and fear not." Be just to the people
of Canada, and fear not the consequences. If they were
unjust to them—which they would be if they rejected the
present bill—he had shown them what the results were
likely to be. (Freer.)
Mr. DRUMMOND said that although, as the debate had
proceeded since its first introduction, the nature of the bill
had come to be much simplified and brought more clearly
within the range of what had been called " just alarms"—
for the fact was that it was neither' more nor less than a
measure of church plunder—(cheers from the Opposition)
—yet so many extraordinary things had been enunciated
during the time the measure had been before the house,
that he was loath to take leave of it without giving it a
parting benediction. (A laugh) When his noble friend at
the head of the Government (Lord Aberdeen) first an-
nounced to the public the principles on which he intended
that his Government should be administered, he made use
of the expression " Conservative progress.' Now, that
the present measure was one of progress no one could
doubt ; but he much feared that his noble friend, in ut-
tering his substantive, forget his adjective, for the " Con-
servative" quality of the measure he (Mr. Drummond) was
totally at a loss to discover, seeing that it conserved no-
thing, and that its "progress," not only in the intention
of its movers, but in the intention of every one of its sup-
porters, was towards the destruction of all religious esta-
blishments.

Mr. SEYWER assured the hon. gentleman that he was
mistaken in supposing that every soul who supported the
Government in the present measure did so with the inten-
tion to promote the secularisation of the clergy reserves.
He assurred him also that he believed he was acting not
as a Radical but as a consistent Conservative in support-
ing a measure which would preserve the union between
Canada and the mother country. In his opinion he was
the Conservative and the hon. member was the Radical—
for he had pointed clearly, and at no distant period, to
the loss of our colonial empire. He (Mr. Seymer) knew
no greater proof of the progress of public opinion than the
present state of the clergy reserves question. With these
views, he would give his cordial support to the measure
proposed by her Majesty's Government.
Mr. LIDDELL contended that the lands in question
never properly belonged to the people of Canada, but were
won by the sword, and paid for with the money, of this
country, and therefore the Canadians had no right to deal
with them.

Sir E. DERING, after disputing the doctrine of finality,
said that he had no desire to deprive the clergy of any-
thing to which they were entitled, but that his vote for
this measure was given in favour of self-government, and
that he believed the Canadians would deserve any confi-
dence we might repose in them.
Mr. CHILD opposed the bill, remarking that those who
were indifferent to religion might be careless about preserv-
ing its rites, but that there was a moral responsibility at-
taching to the Legislature.• He was for retaining the en-
dowments which the wisdom and forethought of our
fathers had created ; and he quoted from Malachi the re-
ference to those who " rob God."

Mr. PEEL felt it necessary to advert to some of the
arguments which the right hon. gentleman, late Secretary
for the Home Department, had urged in opposition to the
measure. In common with every member of the house,
he entertained the greatest respect for the right hon. gen-
tleman, but it would appear that, with reference to this
question, he had permitted his zeal to get the upper-hand
of his habitual regard for candour and impartiality. The
right hon. gentleman had unintentionally, no doubt, en-
tirely misrepresented what fell from him (Mr. Peel) in
introducing the bill. What he said upon that occasion
was not intended to apply to religious endowments in
general, but to one particular country and to one particular
description of endowment—namely, the clergy reserve fund
of Canada. It ought not to be supposed that, because he
pressed the adoption of this bill on the house, he wavered
in any degree in his attachment to the Established Church
of England. He supported the Church of England in this
kingdom because he belonged to it, and because the great
bulk of the people held sentiments in unison with his own
on that subject. It was one thing, however, for Par-
liament to support for itself, and by itself, a Church Esta-
blishment, and another to support by its authority an
tii!Establishmentatco,:t in Canada,possibly without the concurrence, 1
and it might be
bill violaterYda. Tll
Crown and Legislat
oven against the will, of the people of
The right hon, gentleman argued that the
compact, to which the faith of the
examined ge d
the
ebgupotoLivt
saipopnesa appeared to
thet
him that any persenn;ebewas
tenable. The bill was framed position
was
measure must perceive that this • •
to the obligations of public faith. quite un-
servulous regard
rights of all existing incumbents protected?" Were not the
( Hear,
and a laugh.) Every clergyman, of whateverd
t securedi cna, n now inthsepirimitioiyalincehantrgoef ohfisaninyediomsteridcut Caenniinng t uh d°t:an:ni-cvnu
raa e-s
of his incumbency.
The right hon. gentleman anticipated
that the successors of the present incumbents would not
enjoy a similar advantage. That might be, but the t
cir-
cumstance would not constitute a breach of trust. All that
Parliament was bound to do was, to protect existing in-
terests. The moment the Legislature passed beyond that
point it was disembarrassed of all considerations respecting.
endowments, and was free to travel in the open path of

public policy alone. Viewed in that light, could it be de-
nied that, as a measure of public policy, the bill was en-
titled to the consideration of the house? (Hear, hear.)
The bill would place the Church of England in Canada on
the same footing, with respect to endowments, as the Ro-
man Catholic Church. In Lower Canada there were 500
Roman Catholic parochial clergymen, possessing, on an
average, an income of 2501. each, and this appropriation'
rested on the good pleasure of the Canadian Parliament
alone. It appeared to him that the provision made for the
Church of England should be placed on precisely the same
footing. No argument had been more reiterated in the
course of this discussion than that the act of 1840 was in-
tended and accepted as a final settlement ; and yet, singu-c
larly enough, every party interested in maintaining the act
had taken the course best calculated to sap its foundations
and render its stability precarious and uncertain. Take,
first, the conduct of the people of Canada themselves.
Certainly the Imperial Government would never have
moved in the matter had it not been for the representations
of a change of opinion on the part of the people of Canada.
Three times—with a general election intervening—had the
Canadian Parliament passed resolutions condemnatory of
the act of 1840. Under these circumstances it might be
fairly assumed that the opinion of the people of Canada
was in unison with their Parliament. This being the case,
he was entitled to ask those who were prepared to reject the
bill what they were prepared to do ? They would be called
on year after year, and session after session to repeat the vote
they were about to give that night. Turning from the people
of Canada to the Imperial Government, let the house con-
sider its position in regard to the question. In 1850
Lord Grey undertook, on the part of the Government, to
bring forward a measure similar to that now before the
house ; but before he could execute his intention he was
succeeded in office by the right hon. baronet opposite.
Now, no man had done more than the right hon. baronet
to render the maintenance of the act of 1840 impracticable.
The right hon. baronet took this course ; he said he would
not fulfil the pledge given by Lord Grey, but that he was
prepared from. time to time to reconsider it, and make a
redistribution of the funds settled by it. (Hear.) The
right hon. baronet's proposition, however, did pot meet
the requirements of the case, for what the Canadians
complained of was, not so much the arrangement effected
by the act of 1840 as of the power assumed by the Impe-
rial Legislature to take the matter out of their own con-
trol. It was said that the lands in question were never the
property of the Canadians, but had been acquired by Bri-
tish blood and treasure. If that argument were worth
anything, it applied equally to the whole Canadian terri-
tory, and ought to have estopped the legislation by which,
10 or 15 years ago, we surrendered to the Canadian Par-
liament all the waste lands of the Crown. (Hear, hear.)
That proceeding was a precedent for the course which Go-
vernment now called upon the house to adopt. The Legis-
lature of Canada, represented a population of 2,000,000.
It had been set up by ourselves for the moral and material
improvement of the people, and it seemed but reasonable
that it should dentrol every agency that could aid it in the
cause of good government. (Hear, hear.) If they founded
in that country a provision for public worship, it did
strike him as an anomaly that the Parliament of Canada
should not have the power of regulating that provision,
and deciding what was the kind of public intruction to be
supported out of it, (Hear, hear.) They had left to the
colonists every other institution to regulate and govern,
and why, then, were they called upon to act as a buttress
from without to a church establishment in that country ?
And would they not be called upon, on the same principle,
to give extraneous aid to every institution in Canada
(Hear, hear.) He would ask gentlemen opposite on which
of the two acts—that of 1791 or that of 1840—they wished
to fall back on this question? If they relied on the act of
'1791, did they not in so doing impugn the act of 1840 ?
The right hon. gentleman opposite said the act of 1791 was
applicable to the maintenance of the Protestant clergy re-
serves ; but he forgot that by the act of 1840 the Roman
Catholics had been admitted to share in those funds, and
he must also remind him that from 1819 down to 1840
attempts were made, from time to , time, to disturb the
arrangements of that act. (Hear, hear.) Successive
Legislative Assemblies in Canada attempted, session after
session, to change that act, and appropriate the reserves
to other purposes. (Hear, hear.) Could that grow up as
a right which was daily denounced as a wrong ? Could
a prescriptive right be given to the Church of Eng-
land in Canada when it was daily remonstrated against ?
The right honourable gentleman said it was a final
act, but it was only final in the hope then entertained
that the Canadian people would come to agree upon
that which had proved to be a great source of dis-
sension. (Hear, hear.) He referred to the preamble of
the act of 1840, but that preamble had reference not to a
final settlement of the question, but simply to the final dis-
position of the land for sale. (Hear.) It was also said
that the act of 1840 followed the act of the Upper Cana-
dian Legislature prior to the union. On the contrary,
there was a material difference between them, and it was
impossible to say that the act of 1840 expressed the views
of the Canadian Legislature of Upper Canada. (Hear,
hear.) He must be permitted to doubt, also, whether that
act was accepted as a final measure by the Canadian Par-
liament. The right hon. gentleman had read certain
speeches and the report of a committee, but he failed to
show that the report of that committee was followed up by
any resolution of the house itself. (Hear, hear.) On the
whole, then, he had come to the conclusion that the de-
mand of the local Parliament was one that they were bound
to concede. (Hear.) How they would exercise their power
was a question he did not care to consider. But he would
say this, that in their strict observance of constitutional
decorum, during the three years they had been endeavour-
ing to obtain this power—(hear, hear)—in their not at-
tempting to override the British Parliament, but showing,
a readiness to wait the pleasure of that house—they haft
given a good earnest of the spirit with which they were
willing to approach the question. (Hear, hear.) The
Church of England would at least derive one great advan-
tage from the passing of this bill. She would not hence-
forth be indebted for her endowments to a harsh and un-
questionable interference of the Imperial Parliament with
the property that belonged to the Canadian people.
(Hear, hear.) She would owe them to their spontaneous
liberality or their spontaneous forbearance. (Hear, hear.)
He would only add that the course they were now taking
was not altogether without a precedent. There was a por-
tion of the history of our colonies in Australia which might
be not inaptly cited on this occasion. There, as in Canada,
they had determined to establish the Church of England,
and there they gave that Church the right to one-seventh
of all the waste lands of the colony. But they retraced
their steps before it was too late ; and what had been done
with these Church lands, ,that now yielded 4,0001. a-year ?
They were reserved, not for the advantage of the Church
of England only, but distributed in fair equal parts among
the four denominations in the colony,—he believed with
the active concurrence of the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site. (Hear, hear.) They were distributed among the
Wesleyan Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Roman Ca-
teolics, and the Church of England, and the principle acted
upon was, that they each received shares proportioned to
their numerical strength. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that
Canada would continue to be a home for the Church of
England. He acknowledged that, whatever might be ,the
power which the Church derived from the consciousness of
the divine mission that was intrusted to her, in a new
country like Canada she could not bring home her mission
to the wants of the population unless she was largely en-
dowed by the public. (Hear, hear.) But still the right of
the Canadian Legislature to deal with these endowments
was so strongly fixed in justice that it ought to be conceded,
and, therefore, without believing that the passing of this
bill would cloud the future or darken the fortunes of that
Church, and believing that it would cement and draw more
closely the ties which bound that country to this, he pressed
upon them the adoption of the bill. and hoped they would
pass it at its final stage with a majority as clear, and com-
manding, and conclusive as that which it received on the
last occasion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER denied that the object of this bill was to
place the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches on a
level, and declared that the former was placed lower than,
the latter, and deprived of a protection which was pre-
served to the Church of Rome. He next argued that per-
manence was intended when the guarantee was given, and
that the settlement was designed, and represented to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, as for all time, and not merely
for existing incumbents. If the Crown were not to re-
serve these rights, he would ask what rights it could pre-
tend to keep in a colony, and he entered into a legal argu-
ment to show that it was proposed to interfere with vested
rights and acquired interests, which the act of 1791 did
not do. This was a question of property and of spoliation.
He urged the case of the laity who had gone out to Canada
on the faith that Parliament would abid by its own enact-
ment, and he dwelt upon the great increase which had
taken place in the members of the Established Church,
asking how their spiritual interests were to be provided
for. What right had we to take their property, or to
divest ourselves of our responsibility, or the chance of
what the Canadian Legislature might do ? After various
quotations from speeches by members of the Government,
he urged that the faith of the Crown and of Parliament,
and the duty of England, were absolutely pledged to the
compact, and that Government ought not to ride off from
it on an opinion of their law officers. Whatever it might
be desirable to 'do towards giving the colonies self-go-
vernment, let England, in the first place, preserve her
honour.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that all private
rights were preserved by this bill, but he cautioned the
house not to confound private or Parliamentary rights
with the mere arrangement for distribution of certain
sums, for the benefit of the people of Canada, created by
existing legislation. He denied that any wrong was done
by placing in the control of the people of Canada the carry-
ing out of a provision exclusively intended for their own
benefit, of which they must be the best judges.

Sir J. PAKINGTON was sorry to say that the proceed-
ings of that day had thrown a stain on the character of
British statesmen. His mind was so full of the course
taken by Government that he could not dwell upon com-
paratively unimportant topics, such as the vacillation of
the Administration, and their contradictory statements.
But after what had been said on former occasions by Lord
J. Russell, he was as much bound as a man.could be either
to withdraw the bill or to introduce words for giving effect
to the guarantee. It was a sad day for England when men
of honour were driven to deviate, for political purposes,
and as a Government, from the principles which would
actuate them individually and in private. Having,
in his turn, made quotations from former speeches,
Sir John asked what faith could be placed in words,
if the promises made of a permanent arrangement
were to broken. He next animadverted upon the dispatch
of the Duke of Newcastle to Lord Elgin, written, he said,
as if the writer were afraid of his subject. He would not
repeat the arguments which he had urged on the second
reading, and which some attempts had that night been
made to combat, but he denied that this question affected
the Canadian people as a whole, for it did not affect the
Catholics of the lower province. He charged the Govern-
ment with being accessory to confiscation before the fact,
knowing the object of the Canadians, and yet abandoning
the reserves to them. The bill could not be passed with-
out violating the honour of the country. When the union
of the two provinces was signed, the separation of the
colony from this country was settled, and it was only a
question of time ; but that separation would be hastened
by the deep offence this bill would give to the loyal Pro-
testants of Canada.

Lord J. RUSSELL—I must, in the first place admit
that the hon. and learned gentleman the member for the
University of Dublin, and the right hon. gentleman who
has just sat down, have not shrunk from stating all the
magnitude and all the important consequences of this mea-
sure. They have not shrunk from stating that, supposing
what they hardly seem to deny—that the refusal of this
power to the Legislature of Canada should lead to the sepa-
ration of Canada from this empire, they are prepared to
embrace that consequence. Now, before the house rejects
a bill of which such consequences are predicted even by its
opponents, it is surely worth the while of the house to con-
sider whether there are any sufficient reasons in justice or
in policy why that rejection should take place. The right
hon. gentleman has spoken much of the opinion with which
ho has viewed those guarantees-Lthose principles departed
from, which, he thought, ought to have been maintained;

but before we assent to his doctrine on this subject, let us
look a little as to what has been the nature of this pro-
perty of the clergy reserves, and what is its present posi-
tion. In 1791 Mr. Pitt, proposing to separate Canada into
two provinces, of which the one should be French and Ro-
man Catholic, and the other should be English and Protes-
tant, proposed that, in order to maintain the Protestant
in respectability, one-seventh of the property of the
=the waste lands of the Crown—should be devoted
maintenance of the Protestant clergy. When pressed
tcbteortwiErYlear Fox as to the inconvenience of such an arrange-
ment as to the number there might be inhabiting that pro-
vince who were not Protestants, Mr. Pitt said fairly and
candidly—" This is an arrangement open to revision ; if it
should be found that the quantity of land is too much, that
the Protestant clergy do not require so large a provision,
this, like every other act of Parliament, will be subject to
revision ;" and, accordingly, a power to vary and repeal
that act, was inserted in the act. In 1831, Lord Goderich,
with the approbation of ,the Crown, advised the Legislature
of Upper Canada to part with the endowment altogether,
and appropriate otherwise the funds arising from that en-
dowment. So little did Lord Goderich, then Secretary of
State for the Colonies, suppose this was an inalienable
endowment, with regard to which the honour of the ,
Crown Was pledged. In 1840 a bill came over from
Canada, proposing to make alterations in the distribution
and proceeds of these clergy reserves. I found it was im-
possible to obtain the approbation of Parliament to that
bill; as a Canadian bill it was liable to objection in point 1
of law. I found also that an arrangement of a similar
kind was not likely to pass through either house of Par-
liament, and I consented, although I did not think the
arrangement an equitable one, to a division of.the proceeds.
I am quite ready to state that I considered this as a final
arrangement of the matter ; I believed that the Church of
England and the Church of Scotland would divide those
sums which were devoted to them by that act of Parlia-
ment.
At the same time, it was easy to foresee, in the
course of events, that the affairs of Canada must take a
complexion in which it would be impossible to maintain
that guarantee. And what has happened ? For many
years the arrangement was disturbed. The right hon.
gentleman says the arrangement was but lately 'withdrawn.
Was it so in JulylBso, when the Canadian Assemblyaddressed
the Crown to have the power of disposing otherwise of the
clergy reserves or the funds arising from them ? That was
considered by the Government of the day, and Lord Grey
answered that it was a matter exclusively affecting the
domestic concerns of Canada, and therefore her Majesty's
Government greatly regretted that the act of Parliament
should be disturbed, yet they could not, according to the
principles which they had held and professed, refuse to
Canada the power of interfering with that arrangement,
and of making a new dstribution. Now, was it a matter
of domestic concern for Canada or not ? Was it such a
matter, that at a time when the members of the Church of
England were one-eighth of the population of Upper
Canada, they should have one-half of the proceeds of this
fund ? (Hear, hear.) Was it a domestic concern of
Canada, or of the empire at large ? I think it cannot be
denied that the Protestants interested in that arrangement
were people of Canada; but what did the right hon. gen-
tleman say when he was Secretary of State ? Ho said he i
was for redistribution (hear, hear)—and now he says re-
distribution is entirely different from spoliation—(cheers,
and counter cheers) ;—and that my right hon. friend the
member for the University of Cambridge is engaged in
redisfribution, but in a very different process from spolia-
tion. What my right hon. friend is engaged in doing is
transferring property which it held by the clergy of the
Church of England in one portion of England to the clergy
of the Church of England in another portion of England.
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition, answered by counter
cheers.) Therefore, what is proposed in Canada is not a 1
redistribution of those funds, but it is to give to those
other Protestant subjects, and even to Roman Catholics—
ironical cheers, answered again by counter cheers)—accord-
ing to ther number, where the Church of England are a
small proportion of the population, and they comprise
seven-eighths of that population, the power to make a dis-
tribution of those revenues more in conformity with the
demands of the country. That •• is totally different from the
redistribution with which my right hon. friend is concerned;
and if such are the doctrines which the right hon. gentleman
holds, friend as he is of the Church of England, they will not
apply to the Church of England in this country. I hope we
shall not hear from him that any redistribution of the
funds of the Church of England, of the Wesleyan Metho-
dists, Presbyterians, or Baptists would not be spoliation,
and thai. is a measure which might fairly be resorted to
under the modest form of religion.. The right honourable
baronet is himself, however, not free from this charge of
proposing a different distribution of the reserves. (Hear,
hear.) The point upon which the right honourable baronet
had laid the greatest stress was the Bth section of the act
of the guarantee proposed from the Consolidated Fund.
But he had omitted one part of the statement which I
made the other night when I proposed to leave out the
third clause. I stated that the consequence of leaving it
ont would be argued in two different ways, either that the
guarantee was only to be considered as contingent upon
the failure of the clergy reserves to form a sufficient fund,
or as an absolute guarantee, and upon that question I said
that I would give no opinion whatever. All I stated was,
that I thought all the benefits which could in law be de-
rived from that clause ought to remain with the two
churches to which it was given. (Hear, hear.) The right
honourable baronet has pressed me to obtain the opinion
of the law officers of the Crown upon that point. I have
obtained it for him—(a laugh)—and it seems to have given
him that peculiar kind of satisfaction which he expresses .
by the word " pain." (Laughter.) In point of fact, the
pleasure and pain of the right honourable baronet seem
closely allied. It may have been a great object with him
to obtain that opinion, but I doubt whether in Canada
those who wish these funds to be preserved in part to the
Church of England will thank him for his exertions.
(Hear, hear.) But the great point is that the settlement
of this question is one of purely domestic concern, upon
which the people of Canada ought to legislate for
themselves. What did the right honourable ronet say
last year ? He stated that he could not bear that
a subject so sacred should be decided by accidental

majorities ; upon which Mr. lainckes replied to him that if
accidental majorities were not to decide questions, what
was the meaning of constitutional government, and of the
many decisions which had been come to by the Pasha-
anent of this country during the last century? He also
argued that it would not be an accidental majority of the
Canadian legislature which would decide on this subject,
because the whole question had been argued fully and de-
liberately, and upon the justice of the question the people
of Canada could have no doubt. It was certainly very
mortifying, and I confess I felt myself humbled, to hear
the Colonial Secretary of the Government of this county
so completely defeated in argument by a member of the
colonial legislature. (Cries of " Oh, oh," and " hear,
hear.") I own that it appears to me the question can be
decided upon no other ground than that which has been
taken horn the beginning, viz., that it is a question upon
which tie people of Canada and their representatives alone
must decide. We have never denied that the great issue
to be decided is, whether or no you will give to the pro-
vince of Canada the power of legislating upon this subject.
(Hear, sear.) And that is my answer to the hon. member
for Midhurst, who told the house that the voluntary prin-
ciple wig a very bad one, and that the principle of the
Church establishment was a very good one, and leads Ito
prosperity and happiness. All I have to say is, that
that is an arrangement which I advise the honourable
member to address to the Assembly of Canada. If I
were arguing in this house with respect to the establish-
ments of the United Kingdom, I should say that I en-
tirely agree with him in the arguments which he has put
forwaro. (Hear, hear.) But with respect to this ques-
tion, if the people of Canada—and I do not shrink from
the consequences—say, " We are of opinion that Church
establishments are not for the benefit of Canada ; that
religion will be increased by adopting the voluntary prin-
ciple ; and that neither the Church of England, nor the
Church of Rome, nor the ministers of any other denomina-
tion shall have any income from the State, or any part of
the clergy reserves," I say, if that is their solemn and
deliberate conclusion, they must have their own will upon
that subject. (Hear, hear). If, on the other hand, they
should think that at least a large proportion of these
clergy reserves should be distributed equally among the
ministers of various religious denomination, I believe they
the legislature.
though
(Hear, hear)
endeavouring
he
right honourable baronet had argued as though this were
t o
will come to that very wise conclusion, but it is a conclu-
sion with respect to which I will use no force, nor compul-
sion,
p
whatever
principle, u h
establisha new
rin
some principle hitherto unknown. If the house,
however, will look back to the debates in 1791, they will
see that upon the first introduction of the constitutional
act by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox laid down that rule which we
now adopt. This, in fact, is the only principle by which
de as
hh
gwe
were
we can hope to arrive a prosperity, and to maintain har-
mony and union between this country and the colonies. If
we insist that we must have own notions carried out, and
our own ideas prevail, the connection between this country
and that province of Canada will be very short. If you
wish to retain your colonies your legislation must be
founded upon liberal principles, and if so founded, the
connection will long endure, and the colonists will value
your generosity and maintain their reverence of the name
of " Britain." I believe such a connection would be highly
honourable, both to this country and the colonies,. and it
is a connection which may be a source of prosperity to
both. If, on the other hand, you select to go back to the
system of minute regulations in local affairs, then indeed
you must bid adieu, not only to this noble colony of
Canada, but to many others. These principles are not
new, they are the ancient principles upon which your
colonial empire was founded, and I trust you will not de-
part from them ; and if you confirm the third reading of
this bill, I belive you will promote a long continuance of
this honourable connection between this empire and its
colonies. (Hear, hear).
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 2OB
Against the amendment 2BB
Majority against the amendment —BO.
The bill was accordingly read a third time and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND AND NATIONAL DEBT
REDEMPTION ACTS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in moving
that the report of the committee of the whole housp on
these acts be considered, said that on the 6th resolution,
which provided that if the South Sea Company should on
or before "the 3d of June" signify their assent to com-
mute their stock, he should propose to substitute the
words " the Ist of July," because it had been represented
to him that the South Sea Company would require to give
three montis' previous notice before the business connected
with such commutation could be transacted. In resolution
15, which provided that the trustees, &c., converting South
Sea Stock should be indemnified, he proposed to insert the
words, " as well as in respect of other stock."
The sevorfi resolutions were then read, and as amended
were agreed to,
In answer to a question from Mr. WALPOLE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the notices inquired by the resolutions were quite optional.
The only notice to which the law had reference was in the
case where 4e redemption was in money. The right hon.
gentleman tlen moved an address to her Majesty that she
would be phased to direct the necessary notices required
to be given by an act passed in the 12th year of King
George 1., edified. " An Act for granting to his Majesty
the sum of :,000,000/. to be raised by way of lottery," be
issued.—Agreed to.
COPYHOLDS BILL.

--- -
The bill was read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted on 31mday next.
SHERIFF AND COMMISSARY
... COURTS (BER-

WICKSHIM BILL.

This bill vent through committee.
PLACES OF RELIGIOUS_ WORSHIP REG,ISTRA-

TION BILL.
This bill vas,read a second time, to be committed pro
formel on Thursday next, when amendments will be In-
troduced.
LAW DF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed, and, the
other business on the paper having been disposed of, the
house adjowned at a quarter to 1 o'clock.

r 0 BE SOLD, in One Lot, pursuant to an
Order of the High Court of Chancery, made in a cause of
" Bray Y. Aubry," with the approbation of Joseph Humphry, Esq ,
one of the Masters of the said Court, at thp Auction Mart, in the
City of London, some time in the mouth of May next, of which due
notice will be given, a LEASEHOLD DWELLING, HOUSE and
PREMISES, situate and being No. 18, Queen-square, Bloomsbury, in
the 'ounty of Middlesex, late the property of John James Hopwood,
deceased.

Particulars and Conditions of Sale may shortly be had Gratis, at the
said Master's Chambers, in Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lace,
London ; or % r. Henry Thomas, No. 35, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Solici-
tor ; of Mr. Shuttleworth, No. 3, South-square, Gray's-inn, Solicitor;
of ‘%lr. Bray, Auctioneer, 259, iligh Holborn, London ; and at the
Mart.

ItOYAL PRINCESS'S TEIEATEK, OXFORD-STREET.
Under the Management of Mr. Charles Kean.
THIS EVENING, ,kraft. 12,
Will be performed the new and original Comedy, in three acts, by
Douglas Jerrold, entitled ST. CUPID ; or, Dorothy's Fortuna.
Principal characters by Messrs. W right, W. Lacy, Harley, J. Vin-
ing, Terry, F. Cooke, Everett, and Chester; Mrs. W. Lacy and Miss
slurray.
After which will be performed the new Drama, adapted from the
the French of Mons. Scribe, by Mr. Paigrave Simpson, called
MARCO SPADA.

ROYAL LYCEUM THEATRE.
Under the Management of Madame Vestria.

THIS EVENING, APRIL 12,

Will be performo i THE GAME OF SPECULATION. Charac-
ters by Messrs. C. Mathews, F. Matthews, R. Roxby, Baker, Suter,
and Butler ; Mrs. Horn, and Miss M. Oliver. •
After which, LITTLE TODDLEKINS.
To conclude with A HOUSE OUT OF WINDOWS.

THEATRE ROYAL ADELPHI.
Proprietor, Mr. B. Webster —Directress, Madame Celeste.
THIS EVENING, APRIL 12,

Will be presented WEBSTER AT HOME, AN ADELPHI FARE
4` THREE ItEM,ArES AND A DESSERT. Characters by Messrs.
i. Webster, L. Murray, Keeley,. &c.; Miss F. Haskell and Mrs. L.
Murray; Sae.
Atter which, never acted, A DESPERATE GAME.
With TO PAREXT.3 AND GUARDIANS.
THE PRETTY GIRLS OF STILBERG.
PEPINO THE DUMB BOY, AND PUG, HIS MONKEY.

ROYAL OLYMPIC; THEATRE.
Lessee and Manager, Mr. Farren.
THIS EVENING, APRIL 12,

Will be presented SALVATORI ; or, the Bandit's Daughter.
Characters by Messrs. H. Marston, Robson, Diddear, Morgan, and
Bender; Mesdames Anderton and H. Gordon.
To conclude with LIFE IN AUSTRALIA. Supplrted by Messrs.
H. Marston, Robson, Diddear, Shalders, G. Cooke, Morgan, aud
Bender; Mesdames A. Phillips, Anderton, H. Gordon, E. Turner,
and Bartlett.

ASTLEY'S ROYAL APAPHITIIEATRE.
Sole Lessee and Manager, Mr. W. Cooke.

Unprecedented success of the New Spectacle, which nightly in-
creases in popularity and attraction.—The novel and wondrous
Feats of the Horses, the Passage of the Bunting Forest, the Leap
through Fire, and the terrific spring of Amakosa's Steed from the
fearful Heights over the Falls of the Umtata are nightly hailed
with perfect enthusiasm. Mr. Cooke has been for months training
the Horses for the astonishing Feats.
THIS EVENING, APRIL 12,

AnS during the Week, the Performances will commence with the
magnificent spectacle entitled AMAKOSA; or, Scenes of Kafir
Vi rfare ; with new and brilliant scenery, costumes, and appoint-
ments.

To be followed by an entire change in the ever-popular Scenes
in the CIRCLE, introducing the most accomplished Equestrian and
4ytnnastic Artistes of the day.
To conclude with a Laughable FARCE.
Boa-once open daily from Eleven to Four. Stage Manager, Mr.
West.

DAILY WEATHER TABLE.

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1853.

State of the wind and weather at each of the following
)laces at nine o'clock yesterday morning. The stations
re arranged in order of latitude.
HASTINGS—N., gentle breeze—cloudless.
SOUTHAMPTON--N.W., gentle breeze—foggy.
FOLKESTONE—W., light breeze—partially. cloudy.
TUNBRIDGE—N.W., gentle breeze—cloudless.
K BASINGSTOE—N.., gentle breeze—partially cloudy.
GREENWICH—N.W., gentle, breeze—overcast.
STROOD—W. gentle breeze—partially cloudy.
SWINDON—N.W., gentle breeze—partially cloudy.
YARMOUTH—W., gentle breeze—cloudless.
The returns from the following places indicate the state
of the weather on Saturday morning at nine o'clock :
HOLYHEAD—W., gentle breeze—fine.
LANCASTER—S., calm—cloudless.
DARLINGTON—N,W., gentle breeze—cloudless—frost.
SHAP—N., calm—partially cloudy—hard frost.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
"ins Del, —Morning 6 min. after 4 Evening 22 min.aft. 4
fo-Monow--Morning 35 min. after 4 I Evening 50 min.aft. 4

THE WEATHER.—SUN Orrice, APRIL 12.
THERMOMETER, IN THE SHADE.
59—highest since noon yesterday.
46—lowest this morning and during the night.
56 this day at noon.
BAROMETER, 30'06.
WIND, N. to N.N.W.—Light breeze, and cloudy, with
occasional sunshine.

g:,44iVamiteriGOrV