Page images
PDF
EPUB

ments were not for their benefit, and preferred the voluntary principle-if that was their deliberate conclusion-they must follow their own will. Self-government in local concerns was the only principle upon which we could retain Canada; and if our legislation was founded upon generous principles, the connection would continue and be a source of prosperity to both countries.

Upon a division, the third reading was carried by 288 to 208, and the Bill passed.

In the House of Lords, on the 22nd of April, the Duke of Newcastle moved the second reading of the Bill, giving a masterly and close exposition of the history and arguments that justify the final surrender of the clergy reserves to the colonial Legislature. He showed from the example of the episcopal endowments, which the state of New York has maintained inviolate to the present time, and from the happy consequence of placing reliance on Canadian loyalty, that the only policy which can promise hope, either for church or union, is that of trusting to the colonists outright.

The Bishop of Exeter moved "That the Bill be not read for six months." He sustained this amendment with the old arguments, that the Bill could only pass if Parliament would reserve a guarantee that the clergy reserves should not be secularised, and an extensive but peculiar array of precedents. He quoted Wilberforce, Romilly, Earl Bathurst, Sir Fowell Buxton, Lord John Russell, Mr. Stanley (of Alderley), and Mr. Gladstone, to support the principle that the Imperial Parliament has power to control the Colonial Parliaments; and that, in fact, it has done so, in

compelling the emancipation of the West Indian Blacks, and on other occasions.

The amendment was supported by Lord St. Leonards, with a long technical examen of the effect of previous compacts and statutes. The Bill was supported by Lord Lyttelton and the Bishop of Norwich, on the ground of the practical necessity of leaving such matters to the conscientious responsibility of the colonists themselves.

The Earl of Derby put the contest on a new footing. If he had been minister, no consideration on earth-not even the chance of the severance of Canada from this country-could have induced him to disturb the settlement of 1840. But he could not shut his eyes to the altered state of the question, from the promises of two successive Governments, and the sanction of the Commons in passing this Bill. He was therefore anxious to escape from the necessity of giving the Bill a distinct negative; and would content himself with moving in Committee certain propositions, granting more extensive power to the Legislature of Canada than the Act of 1791 conveyed, but maintaining inviolate and for ever all the appropriations for the Church of Scotland or for the Church of England.

Earl Grey eloquently warned the House against the wicked attempt to govern Canada in spite of her Parliament and the wishes of her people,-provoking a quarrel without a chance of success, without a retreat of honour; precipitating the severance of which the late Colonial Secretary admitted the risk. In the course of his able speech, Lord Grey utterly denied the right of any Parliament or of any one generation to bind

succeeding Parliaments or succeed ing generations.

On the understanding of Lord Derby's intention, the Bishop of Exeter said he would not trouble their Lordships to divide, and the Bill was then read a second time.

On the 25th of April, the Earl of Derby, in accordance with the intention announced by him, on the House going into Committee upon the Bill, moved the following amendment to the first clause :"Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect the interest and dividends accruing upon the investment of the proceeds of clergy reserves sold or to be sold, or the interest to accrue upon sales on credit of clergy reserves under the authority of an Act passed in the 8th year of the reign of King George IV., entitled An Act to authorise the sale of a part of the Clergy Reserves in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada,' nor any rents arising from clergy reserves that may have been or may be demised for any term of years under the authority of the said Act, nor the interest or dividends accruing upon the investment of such portions of the proceeds of any sales of such clergy reserves effected before the passing of this Act, under the authority of an Act passed in the fourth year of her present Majesty, entitled An Act to provide for the sale of the Clergy Reserves in the province of Canada, and for the distribution of the proceeds thereof,' as are by the said Act appropriated respectively to the churches of England and Scotland, in Canada; but that all and every the proceeds of such investments, and all such interest and rents as aforesaid, shall continue to be appropriated and paid in such manner as is directed

by the said last-recited Act; that is to say, the share allotted and appropriated to the Church of England shall be paid to such persons as shall be from time to time appointed to receive the same by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and the share allotted to the Church of Scotland to such person as shall be from time to time appointed by the Board of Commissioners elected, or to be elected, under the provisions of the said Act."

He described this amendment as based on a principle so sacred that their Lordships would agree to it if they entered upon its discussion free from party prejudice. It would place unappropriated lands absolutely at the disposal of the Canadian Legislature as respects existing appropriations, he held the old compact to be still binding, though he would not go the length of saying that it was possible for any man to bind successive Parliaments. But the appropriations have been rendered the inalienable property of the churches of England and Scotland; and the compact of 1840 maintained the distinction between prospective and retrospective power set up by the Act of 1791. If the House affirmed the Bill as it stood, it would affirm Lord Grey's corollary from it, that the Church is dependent on the State, and its revenues are at the disposal of the State; and that rule might be applied to the Church in England, or still more to the Church in Ireland. He defended himself against the charge of having diminished the number of bishops in Ireland, by the effect of that measure in rendering the property of the Church inviolate. He criticised the vacillating conduct of ministers in withdrawing the

clause repealing the guarantee; conduct which showed that they had not matured their measure, and that they could not refuse to recognise the guarantee of 1840. After the declaration of the Duke of Newcastle, that the effect of that omission would be to continue the guarantee, Lord Derby heard with astonishment that the law-officers of the Crown were of opinion the guarantee would not be worth anything whatever. It was subversive of all confidence in the statements of public men, first to tell the colonists that the measure left the guarantee unimpaired, and then that by some legal construction the provisions of the Bill fell to the ground the moment the Canadian Legislature should exercise the power given to them. He defied the Government to vindicate that transaction. It was their imperative duty to see the guarantee maintained in its integrity, and not by shuffling evasions to enable themselves to frustrate the guarantee. He maintained that the provision for existing interests is inconsistent with the argument that it is their duty to give uncontrolled power to the Colonial Legislature. He would rather the Bill passed without any reservation, because, by it they sanction the principle laid down by the Legislature that the rights belonged to "individuals" and not to the "body of communicants or churchmen," and that, provided existing interests were maintained, they might deal with any property whatever.

The Duke of Newcastle said he would not follow the example of Lord Derby, who, in a speech an hour and a half long, which ought to have been delivered on Friday last, had dwelt on the principle of the Bill now in Committee.

The noble Earl was a great tactician as well as a great orator; whether or not such tactics as he had used were appropriate in discussing a Bill of this kind, in order to obtain a chance majority on a measure which he did not venture to divide against on the second reading. They were told the Bill was sacrilege, and a gross infraction of the rights of property; and yet the "Conservative party" were so conservative of the rights of the Church of England that they would not divide against the second reading of a measure so described. Lord Derby was not only a great tactician, but a great artist; for he had concealed the vicious principle of the amendment, which was liable to the same objections as those he had urged against the Bill. He, the "Conservative" leader, the leader of the landed aristocracy of England, came before them that night, and called on the House to give that respect and stability to money revenue which he denied to land. It was a novel doctrine from any one, and more especially from a Conservative leader, to say that he wished, if the Bill should pass, the reservation of existing interests should be omitted. But had they no precedent for the course pursued by Government? When Lord Derby abolished ten Irish bishoprics, he saved the rights of the then existing bishops. As to the guarantee, that would stand on the same ground after the Bill had passed as it does at the present moment. It was said the amendment was just and moderate; and it was so in the sense of " "splitting the difference"-saying, "We will give over to you one-half of that which you claim for your right, and retain for ourselves the other half." Lord Derby thought the Govern

ment had shown great vacillation and infirmity of purpose; but what was the purpose of the noble Earl? He stated he was willing to forego the principle of the Bill on condition that their Lordships assented to an amendment by which onehalf of the Bill was conceded and the other half rejected. It would have been far better that the Bill should have been rejected on the second reading. But Lord Derby would never take warning. Why did the Act of 1840 fail? Was it because the arrangement it sanctioned was unjust?-No; but because it was made by the Imperial Parliament without the consent of the Parliament of Canada.

The amendment was supported by the Earl of Wicklow and the Earl of Desart, and opposed by the Duke of Argyll.

The Bishop of London said it was contended that the colonial Legislature have an inherent right to discuss and decide on all matters relating to their internal affairs; but if they have that power, where is the necessity for this Bill? If they have not that power, the House should hesitate to grant

[blocks in formation]

Leonards had intended to illustrate exactly this, that their Lordships are going to be parties with the Canadian Legislature in pillaging a third party; and because they only take half of the purse, they absolve themselves from the guilt? That was a difficulty altogether inevitable in the position taken up by Lord Derby. The bishop denied that the reserves stand upon the same footing as the property of the Church of England and Ireland. The reserves were granted by Parliament to be administered for the province of Canada. The property of the Church of England was granted to specific parishes, for the purpose of providing the inhabitants with religious instruction; and it stands on the footing of private property. See what a difference there is in these cases! Equity dictates that the Canadians should manage their own affairs; and it amounts to atheism to represent equity and religion as opposed to each other."

The Committee divided, when the second reading was carried by 117 to 77. The clauses of the Bill were then agreed to.

No opposition was offered to the third reading on the 28th of April. In reply to a question from the Earl of Wicklow, the Duke of Newcastle repeated what he had previously said, that the guarantee clause will continue on its present footing. Should the fund from which the existing incumbents are paid prove deficient, the guarantee will be valid to that extent, but should the fund be secularised, then, according to the Crown lawyers, the guarantee would fall of itself to the ground, the condition on which it was given being removed.

CHAPTER II.

Lord J. Russell moves for a Committee of the whole House to consider the Jewish Disabilities—It is opposed by Sir R. Inglis, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Napier and Mr. Wigram, and supported by Lord Monck, Mr. W. D. Seymour, Mr. O'Connell, and Lord Drumlanrig-Upon a division the Motion is carried, and a Bill ordered to be brought in-The Bill is debated on the Second and Third Reading, but no new arguments are adduced— The principal speakers against it are Sir F. Thesiger, Lord Graham, Mr. H. Drummond, Lord Adolphus Vane, Mr. Henley, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Cumming Bruce, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Goulburn, and Mr. Walpole-In its favour are Mr. B. Osborne, Mr. J. Herbert, Lord J. Russell, Serjeant Murphy, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Fitzroy-The Bill passes the Commons-In the House of Lords the Second Reading is proposed by the Earl of Aberdeen-The Earl of Shaftesbury moves that the Bill be read a second time that day six months-A debate ensues, in which the Bill is supported by the Earl of Albemarle, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of St. David's, and Lord Brougham, and opposed by the Earl of Darnley, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Earls of Winchilsea and Harrowby, and is lost upon a Division by 164 to 115-On the 7th of April the Earl of Aberdeen announces to the House of Lords the Birth of a Prince, and their Lordships vote a congratulatory Address to her Majesty-The same vote is passed in the House of Commons on the Motion of Lord John Russell, seconded by Mr. Disraeli. NATIONAL EDUCATION-Lord John Russell states at great length the views and intentions of the Government upon this subject-Remarks of Mr. Ewart, Mr. Hume, Mr. W. J. Fox, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Phinn, Mr. Wigram, Mr. Blackett, Lord J. Manners, and Mr. Gladstone. FINANCIAL AFFAIRS-The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces his resolutions on the subject of the National Debt-After a number of observations and criticisms by various members, they are agreed to. THE BUDGET-The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a most lucid and able address of five hours, lays before the House of Commons his Financial Scheme-Leading topics of his Speech-Alterations in the Income Tax-Irish Consolidated Annuities-Legacy Duties-Spirit Duties-Licences-Assessed Taxes -Tea Duties and Remission of the Soap Duties-His statement is received with great applause.

N the 24th of February, Lord John Russell in the House of Commons moved for a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration certain civil dis VOL. XCV.

ON the 24th of February, Lord

abilities affecting the Jews. He only proposed so far to complete the edifice of civil and religious liberty, as to admit the Jews to the same rights and privileges as [D]

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »