said, he rose on the part of the Committee appointed by the House to consider the amalgamation of railways, to move the Motion of which he had given notice. It was the object of the Committee, who were about to examine on the next day the first witness upon the subject referred to them, to insure to the House the greatest possible benefit from their inquiry, and not to compromise the perfect freedom of the House in dealing with the subject, and at the same time to inflict upon those whoso Bills would be delayed a short time in consequence of the pendency of the inquiry as little inconvenience as possible; and upon the result of that examination the Committee came to the conclusion, that if they permitted parties to read their Bills a second time before Easter, so long before Easter that the time required by the Standing Orders for the presenting of petitions against such Bills would have expired before the Easter recess, and that the parties promoting the Bills would, therefore, be able to go into Committee on those Bills immediately after the Easter recess, the amount of inconvenience would, in his opinion, be the smallest possible. With regard to the proceedings of the House, the Committee came to the conclusion that the inconvenience would be next to nothing. There was, however, one inconvenience to which the promoters of Bills would be subject, namely, that parties desirous of opposing Bills would obtain a little longer time to make up their minds to petition. The Committee were desirous of obviating that objection if they could; but upon the examination of the gentlemen before them, and a full consideration of the case, they came to the conclusion that they would be exposing themselves to the risk of inflicting on persons in the country governed by a knowledge of the Standing Orders very great injustice and inconvenience, if they made any further concessions to the promoters of Bills. Guided by these principles—considering that they ought not on any account to compromise the perfect freedom of the House—and feeling the importance of the subject referred to the Committee, they felt they had no alternative before them in the discharge of their duty than to ask for some limited postponement of the second reading of Bills, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that the particular proposal which he was about to make would subject the promoters of Bills to the smallest amount of inconvenience. This being the unanimous decision of the Committee, he trusted that the House would consider that he was only discharging a public duty, and would give him their general support. Since he came into the House he had been requested to add some words to the Motion, which he had taken upon himself to do without consulting the Committee, and the responsibility of which he was prepared to take upon himself. It appeared that some of the Bills contained clauses for amalgamation or combination in conjunction with other clauses more important, and that the promoters would be willing to abandon the amalgamation clauses rather than incur any risk with regard to the more valuable parts of the Bill. He thought it perfectly safe to admit that exception to the rule, being desirous of not inflicting upon parties any inconvenience which could be avoided. It had also been suggested that some difficulty might arise as to the technical distinction between the connecting of Railway Bills and the connecting of Railway and Canal Bills. It appeared to him that the words he was about to move would include both classes of Bills. The Resolution which he intended to move was—

"That no Railway or Canal Bill containing any powers of Amalgamation, Lease, Working Arrangement, or other combination of interest between different Companies, be read a second time before the 14th day of March next, unless the parties interested in promoting such Bill shall elect to proceed with the same on the terms of striking out in Committee all such powers aforesaid."

said, he wished to know whether that notice would apply to Bills brought in during the present Session forming new companies, which could not become companies until their incorporation by Act of Parliament?

said, that certainly was his intention. He conceived that a Bill intended to create a combination of interests between two new companies was included within the words; but if there was any doubt on the subject, he should be happy to introduce words to make the Resolution more explicit.

said, he believed that the greatest benefit would result to the railway interest from the inquiry now placed in the hands of the Committee. The railway interest was now so extensive and complicated, that nothing short of Imperial legislation could put it to rights, or do justice to the body of railway proprietors. He fully concurred in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

begged to inquire if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to add to his Motion the words "if required so to do?"

said, the question had been very fully discussed by the Committee, and they considered that they would be wanting in their duty if they permitted a second reading affirming a principle of any combination to be once passed, before the House was in full possession of the proceedings instituted by the Committee. He thought the addition which he had already made calculated to meet every reasonable wish on the part of the promoters of Bills.

said, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had the other night given some explanations respecting the business of the Session; but a difference of opinion existed as to what were his real intentions with regard to the income tax. The reports in the papers on the point rather differed, and he wished now to ask the noble Lord what were the real intentions of the Government—whether they meant to continue the tax in its present state for another year, or whether they intended to make any, and what, alterations?

I am very glad, Sir, to have the opportunity of stating what I really did say on the occasion to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It has been supposed that I stated that it was the intention of the Government to propose a renewal of the tax without al- teration for another year. [Mr. HUME: Hear!] What I stated was, that if the Government should introduce a Reform Bill in the course of the present year, in that case it would he necessary to propose a continuance of the income tax without any alteration for a short period. But, not taking that course, I stated that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would immediately after Easter, on the occasion of giving the explanations of the financial year, state the intentions of the Government with respect to the income tax. I have only further to say that—until that period arrives—until the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes that statement—it is not the intention of the Government to furnish any information upon the subject.

In that case, then, he trusted the Government would have no objection to a renewal of the Committee on the Income Tax, for the purpose of completing the information, which was alleged to be defective. He would put a question on that subject on Friday.

said, he rose to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the sale and purchase of land; no person doubted the necessity of such alteration, and the only question related to the means by which it could be best effected. If they all put their shoulders to the wheel, something might be done; yet, by the conduct of proprietors and lawyers, difficulties were thrown in the way of the sale of land; for, so long as landed proprietors would burden their lands in the absurd manner in which they were accustomed to burden those lands, so long would it be utterly impossible to place them on the same footing with persons who held land unencumbered—so long would it be impossible to put them on a level with those who had well conducted the management of their property. Gentlemen must remember what was the origin of their tenure. It was derived from the times when the possession of land carried with it military service, and the consequence was, that we found many instances in which, where the land fell into the hands of women, they were not allowed to marry any person except by consent of the Crown. But landed proprietors then acted as landed proprietors did now, and tried to escape from the restrictions imposed on them. Securities were sought for on all sides, and unfortunate Jews and merchants who had lent money to the owners of land would have been robbed had not the lawyers stepped in and said to the landed gentlemen, "Well, we cannot take away the land from you, but we will take care that you shall not have one blade of grass or one ear of corn that grows on it;" and they succeeded by taking away what they called the usufruct from the owners. Still the landowners went on increasing their possessions, gratified with the extent of acres which were nominally theirs, but which were of no use to them; and to this day the same thing continued. There was Still a continual anxiety to borrow money in order to buy land, and the consequence was, that when purchased, it became a dead loss to the possessor; and the lawyers, too, continued the same system of taking away the usufruct from the owners of the land, and giving it to those who had lent the money for the purchase of the land. The system of landed tenure which had grown up out of the state of things which he had described must be wholly unsuited to the present state of society, and unless the landlords themselves would consent to some radical change in the mode of entailing property, the transfer of land would every day become more difficult. Now, observe how the thing worked. No lawyer believed that you were the owner of your estate. If you said that you were the owner of a certain quantity of land, he would reply, "Well, perhaps so, but I should like to see your title examined." The person who lent money on land said to the owner, "Let me see that you are really the possessor of the land." The owner replied, "Let the title be shown to Mr. Preston, or some other conveyancer;" and in case he was satisfied, the money was lent. In a short time, perhaps, some more money was wanted to be raised, and the lawyer of the lender said to the owner of the land, "I will examine your title." "Oh, it has been already shown to Mr. Preston, and he was satisfied." But that answer would not do, for the party says, "I should like to have the opinion of my own conveyancer, I don't believe one word of what Mr. Preston says, I wish to have the opinion of Mr. Bell;" and the title must be shown to Mr. Bell, or some other conveyancer, before it would be believed that you were the owner of the land. Now he (Mr. Drummond) said, that after your title had been tried by a competent tribunal, its decision ought to be sufficient, and therefore in the plan which he should submit to the House, his object would be to have titles registered, together with a machinery for properly examining them, and that once on the register they should stand undisputed for ever afterwards. The more remote the title, the worse it often turned out for the owner; because, as the party insisted upon an examination of the title-deeds, it incurred additional expense. It was all to no purpose that an owner might say to the lawyers, "There has been no dispute about my property—my title-deeds are mentioned in Doomsday-book;" they would reply, "That is the worst title you could have; it has never been examined." After the Report of the Real Property Commissioners had been issued, the House of Lords declared that the marketable value of real property was seriously diminished by the tedious process of examination; "that they were anxious for a thorough revision of the whole system of conveyancing, and the disuse of the present vexatious system; and that the registry of the titles of all real property was highly essential to the success of any attempt to improve the system of conveyancing. He (Mr. Drummond) wanted to get leave to bring in a Bill to frame a registry of title I to all real property, in compliance with the Resolution of the House of Lords; and he wished it to be remembered that this was no crotchet of his own, but was based upon a solemn decision of the other House of Parliament, backed by the recommendation of the Commissioners appointed by the Crown. When the Real Property Commission was issued, the Commissioners said that the expediency of registration was so obvious that their duty was less to search for reasons in favour of registration, than to weigh the force of the objections which had hitherto proved fatal to it; and throughout the whole of their Report no valid reason was alleged against registration. He remembered that, at one time, some of the most eminent members of the profession resisted a Motion of this character; but he believed that now all the members of the profession wore convinced that such a measure was necessary; and most certainly the large mass of landed proprietors were anxious that some general system of registration should be established. The system of registering had been repeatedly adopted in different parts of the kingdom. He had already described how the first tenure of land arose; that system began to give way about the time of Henry VIII., and the consequence was, that in 1535 there was an enrolment of deeds, which again took place in 1677. In 1703 the Yorkshire registry was enacted, and in 1708 the Middlesex registry. In 1728 a Bill was brought in for the registration of Surrey, which was lost, as was also another Bill for Derby in 1732. In 1739–40 the House of Lords directed the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges to prepare a Bill, and bring it in, for a general scheme of registration. They brought in the Bill, which passed through both Houses, and was only lost in consequence of the prorogation of Parliament. It was to that Bill he (Mr. Drummond) would go back, for reasons which he would show them presently. It was brought in again on a subsequent occasion; but then began for the first time the remonstrances of the conveyancers of London, followed up by the attorneys; and the senseless cry which then commenced about the danger of exposing titles, lest some flaw should be discovered, was continued to this day. The Bill was lost in the House of Commons by a majority of one, and nothing further was done till 1813, when the question was taken up, but without success, by Sir Samuel Romilly. The subject was again brought forward in 1830 by Lord Campbell, who brought in a Bill prepared on Mr. Duval's plan, which, however, came to nothing. In 1834 there were three Bills on the subject before the House of Commons, and in 1845 Lord Campbell again brought in his Bill. He (Mr. Drummond) did not like to express an unfavourable opinion of anything of which Lord Campbell was the author; but he was strongly inclined to doubt whether that House had not done wisely in throwing out the Bill, for the more he examined it the more he was convinced that while it would have made a total alteration in practice, it would only have substituted one cumbrous machinery for another, besides entailing on the owners of land greater expense. His opinion was founded on the fact that under that Bill there was to be compulsory registration of assurances, private Acts of Parliament, commissions of bankruptcy, judgments, informations, and other documents, which would have rendered no fewer than fourteen indexes necessary for the purpose of reference. A great many Bills had been framed since that period, but they had all been tarred with the same feather, and had all of them enacted the details of the machinery by which they were to be carried out. It might be thought presumptuous in him to criticise an Act of Parliament drawn up by a lawyer; and he supposed it was, and that he must be liable to an imputation of that sort. He was quite aware that dilettante reading of the Mirror of Magistrates, and other light works of that kind, was not so effectual in conferring knowledge on such subjects as the prospect of a fee "looming in the distance;" but lawyers, they found, were not always the best persons at drawing Bills. Everybody knew that some very great men had carried through Bills which had been very incomprehensible. He could relate an anecdote to the House in illustration of that truth. He was once sitting next to Sir Robert Peel, when a certain Bill which had been introduced by the Government was under discussion; and he pointed out to Sir Robert a particular clause in the Bill, saying to him, "Is not this clause perfect nonsense?" Sir Robert looked at the clause, and then said, "It is nonsense; you had better go and show it to Lord John." He (Mr. Drummond) walked across the House, and showed it to the noble Lord, who said, "The clause is nonsense, but I have nothing to do with it; it is Peel's Bill." He (Mr. Drummond) brought the Bill back to Sir Robert Peel, and told him what the noble Lord had said, when Sir Robert replied, "It is true I brought it in, but it was by the order of the Government; and old Eldon was Chancellor at the time, and he never would let the law officers do their duty. He would always meddle with it, and the clause certainly was nonsense." Now he (Mr. Drummond) would go back to the Bill which he had already named, which had been brought in by the Lord Chief Justice and the Judges in 1739, and passed both Houses. The peculiarity of that Bill was this—it appointed the Master of the Rolls as Registrar. At the present day the Master of the Rolls had evidently a great deal to do, and it would be necessary to appoint some other person to that that office; but it might still be left, as that Bill enjoined, to the Registrar, to provide the machinery necessary for carrying out the business named in the Act. He had no doubt that they would be obliged to come to Parliament from time to time to amend the law, but he saw no objection to that course. It was better than enacting a great machinery at first, which it was always the ambition of lawyers to do, in order that it might be hand- ed down to posterity to show what great men they were. What he (Mr. Drummond) wished was to have a registration of titles, which was a thing totally separate from a registration of deeds. They might have a registration of deeds if they pleased, but in the meantime, what he wanted was a registration of titles. Lord St. Leonards stated, only last night, in the House of Lords, when speaking on this subject, that—

"what many persons desired was this—not simply to reduce the transfer of land by the easiest of all plans, but they wanted to stop all dispositions of land for the purpose of family enjoyment, and of supporting the dignities their Lordships possessed."

Now, it was his (Mr. Drummond's) opinion, that there could be no sound reform of the Legislature which did not insure that a Member of the House of Peers should be possessed of a certain amount of property. It was for the public good that the House of Peers should be bonâ fide men of landed property. But entails were not necessary for others; and therefore, while Lord St. Leonards' observations were perfectly true to a certain extent, they were not true universally. Lord St. Leonards proceeded to say—

"This question produced most important social and constitutional considerations. It was ridiculous to speak of it as the transfer of land; it involved every question upon which the happiness and prosperity of this country depended; and this he would venture to say, that no man could prove to their Lordships that a general registration would in any way shorten by a single line the conveyance of land."

That might be true, but a registry of titles would shorten the abstract, and in that sense would enable land to be transferred as easily as stock. Every one knew that land must be measured and described, and therefore it was not possible that its transfer should be as short as that of shares and stocks; but that was no reason why they should not have a registration of titles. He had thus briefly stated the object of the Bill, without mentioning the machinery by which that object would be carried out, and he now moved for leave to bring in the Bill.

, in seconding the Motion, said that the hon. Member for West Surrey deserved the thanks of the House and the public for his unwearied perseverance in endeavouring to improve the law concerning real estate by facilitating the sale and transfer of land, and providing a registration of titles. His hon. Friend had for a considerable number of years laboured with great patience and perseverance, to promote a national object of the greatest possible importance. In 1849 his hon. Friend brought a Bill forward on this subject, but at that time he did not receive any very cordial support. The Bill was, however, read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee, on which he (Mr. Headlam) sat; and he could take upon himself to say, that the ultimate failure of the measure was not due to any lack of industry or zeal on the part of his hon. Friend, but to the insuperable difficulty attending any independent Member seeking to legislate on so difficult and complicated a subject. The present Bill was introduced under different circumstances, and he hoped the Government, if they did not adopt the measure, would at least embody its principle in some Bill of their own, so that a law upon the subject might be practically carried this Session. He had the strongest possible opinion of the benefits which the country would derive from a well-conceived scheme for facilitating the transfer of land, for no one could exaggerate the evils arising from the difficulty of transferring land under the present law. Great labour and expense were incurred in ascertaining the title to land. Every hon. Member who had over had anything to do with the sale or purchase of land, must have felt in his own person the cost, both of money, and of time and trouble, incident to such transactions. But the evil did not rest there. After the purchaser had gone through the investigation of the title, taken a conveyance, and paid his money, he was still insecure in the possession of what he had bought. The Courts of Law afforded many instances of cases in which it appeared that parties had purchased estates with defective titles, or subject to heavy incumbrances not known to exist at the time of the purchase. If the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in his financial statement to put a tax on the transfer of stock, making it as difficult and expensive as the transfer of real estate, every holder of stock would feel that his property was materially depreciated, and yet the practical effect of the law affecting real estates was the same as such a tax on the transfer of stock would be. He wished to impress on the House, in consequence of what had been said elsewhere by a high authority, that neither that Bill nor a Bill for the registration of deeds, would in the slightest degree affect the control which every owner of real estate had over his property. It would not prevent estates tail, settlements, mortgages, or any other power over the land which its owner now could exercise either by deed or will. There might be objections to the Bill, but no objection of this description could arise. Neither did the argument as to the exposure of family affairs, apply to the Bill now before the House. In order to illustrate its principle, he would say that the object of the Bill was to make a transfer of land similar in many respects to the transfer of stock. At present, the House was aware that the transfer of stock was easy and inexpensive, and that the purchaser was secure of the title to what he purchased. Nevertheless, stock was made the subject of marriage settlement, and limited interests in it were given through the medium of trustees. Moreover, no disclosure of the trusts of settlements of stock was made to the public. He would not pretend to go into the details of the measure—indeed he was not prepared so to do, inasmuch as he had not road the Bill of his hon. Friend, but he had heard enough of its principle (which he believed to be a practical one) to give the present Motion his most cordial support; and, afterwards, when this Bill and the measure of the Government were both before the House, he should give his utmost endeavour to procure an enactment of the best possible form, and to ensure the passing, during the present Session, of an Act to Improve the Law of Real Estate, and facilitate the transfer of Land.

said, that as the Bill was only permissive, it would not be of that use which otherwise it might be. The present system entailed a great loss on landed proprietors. He believed that there was a difference of two years and a half purchase in the sale of an estate in Scotland, and an estate of equal value in England. With this fact before it, it was extraordinary that a nation which boasted of its good sense had so long tolerated so vicious a system. He was present on an occasion when an estate in Belgium was conveyed in five minutes. Any plan that would introduce similar facilities in the sale and transfer of land in England, would confer the greatest benefit on the public, and on the owners of real property.

Sir, I rise to ask for leave to introduce a Bill which shall empower the Legislature of Canada to exercise a control over the provisions at present regulating the appropriation of the clergy reserves in that province; and I trust that the House will bear in mind how important this question is, and how deep an interest the people in that province take in it, if, in doing my best to put the House in possession of the precise nature and object of this Bill, I trespass for some little time on its attention. The clergy reserves constitute a fund of no inconsiderable magnitude. They take their origin from a period as far back as the year 1791. At that time the province of Canada was divided into two parts, and in the place of the single Council of Government which then legislated for the whole province, there were substituted two representative legislatures, one for each division of the province. In the Act known as the Constitutional Act, which made that alteration in the constitution of Canada, it was provided that whenever the Crown disposed of its waste lands, one-seventh in value of the lands which were disposed of should he reserved for the benefit of the Protestant clergy. That proportion of the value of the waste lands disposed of continued to be reserved for a period of fifty years; but in the year 1840 an Act was passed which put an end to any further reservations of land for that purpose. In the course of those fifty years I need not say that a very great quantity of land had been reserved. A large portion of it, however, had been sold, and at the present time the clergy reserves consist in part of land and in part of money, of investments in the funds of this country and of Canada, which have been created by the sale and disposition of lands which originally were reserved. The manner in which this fund is appropriated is this. Its revenue is applied to the payment of stipends to ministers of the different religious denominations. It is not the case that these denominations participate in that fund in proportion to their relative numbers, or to the strength of each, because it will be found that, notwithstanding the change which took place in the year 1840, the Established Churches of England and of Scotland derive by far the greatest advantage from the existence of this fund. I will read an extract from a despatch of Lord Elgin, accompanying what is known as the blue hook for 1851, showing how the clergy reserves were appropriated in that year. I find that in the year 1851 the clergy of the Church of England in the two provinces received a sum of about 12,000l. The population professing that religion were 268,590 in number. The Church of Scotland received a sum of 6,700l., having a population of 61,000 souls. The other churches which received money from this fund were the United Synod of Presbyterians in Upper Canada, 464l.; the Roman Catholic Church, 1,369l; and the Wesleyan Methodists of Upper Canada, 639l. Now, upon what authority is this distribution made? It is made on the authority of an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1840; and as the circumstances which preceded and led to the passing of that Act are considered to exercise a very important bearing on the conclusions which ought to he arrived at in the present day, I will give the House a very short summary of those circumstances. The great bulk of the clergy reserves is placed in Upper Canada. In consequence of a term used in the Constitutional Act of 1791—the term Protestant clergy—the Church of England advanced, and succeeded in establishing, down to the year 1840, an exclusive claim to the advantages of this fund. Meanwhile the majority of the population of Upper Canada professed a religion which was not the religion of the Church of England; and therefore it is not surprising that the monopoly of that Church gave rise to considerable jealousy and agitation in the Legislature of Upper Canada. And you will find that from the year 1823, or so, when the reserves began to be of value, up to the year 1840, there were continual proceedings in the House of Assembly in connexion with the subject of them; you will find motions, addresses, resolutions and bills introduced and passed through that House, at one time urging the admission of other denominations to a participation in the advantages of this religious endowment; at other times proposing that it should he applied to secular purposes. Well, the Legislative Council never concurred in the views of the House of Assembly. The two branches of the Legislature were permanently at variance with each other—they could not be brought to acquiesce even in any compromise of the question; and in the year 1835 the Legislative Council, despairing of coming to any terms with the House of Assembly, proposed that the whole sub- ject should be referred to this country, and that the Imperial Parliament should put an end to the difference between them. Now it is important to notice the words in which Lord Glenelg, at that time Colonial Minister, answered that application in the year 1835. His despatch (to be found in a Parliamentary paper, 205 of 1840) stated—

"The chief practical question is, whether His Majesty should be advised to recommend to Parliament the assumption to itself of the office of deciding on the future appropriation of these lands. There are two distinct reasons, both of which appear to me conclusively to forbid that course of proceeding. First, Parliamentary legislation on any subject of exclusively internal concern in any British Colony possessing a representative assembly is, as a general rule, unconstitutional."

Lord Glenelg gave another reason, which was, that the Constitutional Act of 1791 had purposely left this subject to be dealt with by the local Legislature of the province. That was the impression which prevailed at that time and up to the year 1840, and which, as I shall presently show, turned out to be an erroneous construction of that Act. The Legislature of Canada, thus prompted by the Colonial Minister to dispose of the question, again entered upon its discussion. I find that subsequent to 1835 Bills again passed through the House of Assembly to which the Legislative Council refused its assent; but in the year 1839 both Houses concurred in a measure vesting those lands, free from any condition whatever, I believe, in the Crown, or, at all events, referring this question to be dealt with by the Imperial Parliament. At that time, the noble Lord, now the leader of this House, was Colonial Minister; and this was the language in which he replied to that proposal:—

"I cannot admit that there exist in this country greater facilities than in Upper Canada for the adjustment of this controversy; on the contrary, the provincial Legislature will bring to the decision of it an extent of accurate information as to the wants and general opinion of society in that country on which Parliament is unavoidably deficient."

Thus you see that a second time the Colonial Minister refused to advise the British Parliament to deal with this question, and referred it as one proper to be regulated by the local Legislature. Well, upon this second invitation, I find that the two Houses of Legislature did succeed in agreeing to a measure, and passed—I believe mainly owing to the tact and Parlia- mentary management of Lord Sydenham, then Governor General—a Bill which was carried by a very narrow majority in the House of Assembly; a Bill, I must say, giving the Church of England much more favourable terms than could have been expected when you remember the previous course of the House of Assembly on the subject. That Bill came home to this country, and, according to the constitutional provision, was laid on the table of this and the other House of Parliament for thirty days prior to Her Majesty's pleasure being signified with respect to it. In that interval an objection was taken by the Bishop of Exeter, that the Legislature of Upper Canada had exceeded its powers in dealing with this question—that the Constitutional Act of 1791 gave it no power at all, except such as was prospective only. That question was referred to the Judges, and they reported upon it in these words:—

"We are all of opinion that the effect of the 41st section of the Act of 1791 is prospective, and that the powers thereby vested in the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of either of the provinces cannot be extended to affect lands which have been already appropriated."

Under these circumstances nothing remained but to introduce a Bill into Parliament, embodying the principles and details of the Bill which had passed through the House of Assembly and Legislative Council of Canada, at the invitation of the Government of this country. That Bill was accordingly brought in, but at a period in the history of Canada when it was of the utmost importance that there should be as little division and as great an unanimity as possible in the Imperial Parliament with regard to all measures having reference to that province. It was on this account that before the Bill so introduced left this House, in order to conciliate opposition in the House of Lords, it underwent very considerable modification; and as it was finally passed, it certainly differed very materially from that Bill to which the Legislature of Upper Canada had given its assent, and made a provision very much more favourable to the Church of England and of Scotland than even that which the local Legislature had reluctantly sanctioned. It was hoped at that time that the Act of 1840 might be regarded as having finally disposed of this troublesome question. I myself think it would have been better to have anti- cipated what has now occured; that we might have foreseen that differences of opinion based on principle could not possibly be prevented from breaking out merely by being kept down with the weight of an Act of Parliament. Nevertheless, no such provision was inserted in the Bill; and I need not say that no Colonial Legislature has any power to alter the provisions of an Act of the Imperial Parliament. Now, just see what is the state of things in Canada. Since 1840, twelve years have passed by, a period, in that new country, crowded with events which would suffice to fill an age in the annals of any old one. I find that the population has more than doubled since the year 1840. The religious denominations have shifted about— now this one getting ahead, now another falling into the rear, just as emigration brought an accession to this or that particular creed. Therefore nothing could be less surprising than that a desire should he entertained for a readjustment of an arrangement made so far back as the year 1840. There is nothing unreasonable, I think, in the people of Canada desiring that some particular denomination should have a share of the fund more in accordance with its diminished numbers. I will instance the Presbyterians in connection with the Church of Scotland, who I believe have lost more than one-half of their adherents since 1840. Since that year the schism took place in the Scotch Church, and extended, however unaccountably, to our North American colonies, and I find that the Free Church has now more followers than the body in connection with the National Church of Scotland. They may think, too, that other bodies, the Wesleyans for instance, with 100,000 persons belonging to their communion, should participate to a greater extent than they now do in the revenue from this source. There has also been a desire expressed for the secularisation of the clergy reserves; but it does not matter what is the view entertained— be the force or form of public opinion in that country what it may—there are not any means of giving a legal and constitutional expression to it—there is an insuperable obstacle in the way. That obstacle is the Act of 1840, and the object of this Bill will be to remove that bar. Now I am anxious, Sir, to explain precisely the nature of this Bill. We do not intend by it in any way to alter the present condition of things. We leave the different denominations in that colony, so far as concerns their interests in the reserves, not certainly upon the same footing as that on which they have hitherto stood, but in the same relation which they have hitherto borne to each other. All that we propose to do is to vest in the Legislature of Canada the power, if they think fit to exercise it, of altering the existing arrangement. I think it precipitate to anticipate that these clergy reserves will, in consequence of this concession, be of necessity alienated from religious purposes, and secularised by the Legislature of Canada. There are in that colony many people who think, as I do, that in a new country, perhaps even more than in an old one, it is of the greatest importance to have a public provision applicable to the payment of stipends to ministers of religion. It is only when you have a provision of that kind that you can secure the presence of clergymen and the ministrations of public worship in every community, however poor, however remote it may be from the seat of Government. And, Sir, we ought not to forget that the clergy and the laity of the Church of England, and the other denominations in that colony who are interested in the maintenance of this fund, as a religious endowment, constitute by no means an inconsiderable minority in that country. There is a very just remark made by Lord Elgin, in one of his despatches, where he says that there is this evil attendant on the present arrangement, that—

"those in communion 'with the churches peculiarly benefited by this fund, instead of trying to influence the public mind of the colony, are continually looking to the opinion of the mother country, and content to take shelter under the shadow of an Act of Parliament, while, if left to themselves, there may be very good ground to anticipate that they will be able to make their opinions shared in by others."

Why, I see it stated that at the last general election in the colony, in the month of December, 1851, they put forth their strength, and succeeded in carrying no less than nine elections, displacing from the Legislature some of those who took a most prominent and active part in advocating the secularisation of these reserves; and, therefore, I am not altogether without hope that the party which is interested in preserving the existing appropriation of this fund may possibly be able to bend the Colonial Legislature into taking that direction which they consider that the well-being of the country requires. But, be that as it may, I contend that the subject is solely and exclusively one for the consideration of the Colonial Legislature. It is not an imperial, but a local concern. That is the ground that we occupy in bringing forward and pressing upon, the House the adoption of this Bill. We say that in bringing it forward we are carrying out the principle which has guided the policy of Parliament towards that colony of late years. It is a liberal, but, at the same time, as I believe, a just and a well-founded confidence in the good sense and the loyalty of the inhabitants of Canada, which has prompted us to extend to them an almost unlimited measure of power of self-government. They have now a Legislature, the popular branch of which is freely chosen by themselves upon any electoral basis they may prefer. They vote their own civil list; they have the exclusive control over their land fund, and the disposition of its proceeds. Even within late years we have made other great concessions in the same direction—we have surrendered to the colony the management of the customs department—we have discontinued levying imperial duties, and since the repeal of the navigation laws we have removed every restriction upon their trade with ourselves, our colonies, and with foreign countries. We have gone even a step further, and given them what is there denominated responsible government. Until the other day their executive was nominated by ourselves, and the principles of its policy were the principles of the Administration at home; but now they have an executive whose policy follows the policy favoured by the majority in the House of Assembly. Well, then, I cannot see why you should make any distinction with regard to this particular description of property; nor why you should not place at their disposal this portion of the public lands of the colony. I see in a pamphlet of Archdeacon Bethune that in respect to the claim of the Colonial Legislature to have the disposition of their lands, he states that "these lands were bought with the money of the British Treasury, and that we still pay salaries and pensions to the Indians for having taken their land from them." He refers, I suppose, to the 13,000l which is paid every year in pensions to the Indians; but then that is paid, not in respect of land taken from those Indians, but in respect of services rendered to us by them in war. The Annuities which the Indian tribes receive as compensation for land of which they have been dispossessed, are granted out of the Colonial Revenue. Now, if what I have stated be true—if that legislature represents so large a population, and is in the exercise of such important and varied functions, I am sure that this House will be disposed to pay great attention to its wishes and representations. How then stands the question in this point of view? I need not go to an earlier period than the month of June, 1850. At that time the House of Assembly passed several resolutions, and an Address to Her Majesty, praying that the power which we now propose to confer on them might be granted. Earl Grey, who was then Minister for the Colonies, told the Earl of Elgin, in a despatch dated January 27, 1851, in answer to that Address and those resolutions, that he regretted that the agitation of this question had been revived—that he had hoped that the Act of 1840 had permanently disposed of it; but as it was the wish of the Legislature of Canada to deal with it again, that he, regarding it entirely as one of local concern, was prepared to recommend the introduction into the Imperial Parliament of a measure conferring the requisite power for that purpose. Upon that despatch being received in Canada, I find that both Houses, not only the House of Assembly which had voted the Address, but the Legislative Council as well, passed Addresses of thanks to Her Majesty for the communication they had received from Her Minister. Later in the same year, Earl Grey announced to the Earl of Elgin that, in consequence of the extreme pressure of business in that Session (1851), he had found it impossible to introduce the measure; but he undertook to bring it forward early in the Session of 1852. I need not say that we had not gone far into that Session when Earl Grey and his Colleagues retired from office. Earl Grey was succeeded in the colonial department by the right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite (Sir J. Pakington). That right hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt, gave all the consideration to this subject which its importance demanded of him; but he came to the conclusion that he could not advise the introduction of the measure which Earl Grey had undertaken to bring in in the course of that Session. I now come to the resolutions which were passed by the Legislature of Canada so late as the month of September last year, on the receipt of the intelligence sent by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In December, 1851, there was a new Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman stated, among other reasons for postponing the measure, that since the Addresses were passed by the Canadian Legislature, there had been an appeal to the country, and he understood that the laity and clergy of the Church of England had succeeded in carrying several of the elections. [Sir J. PAKINGTON was here understood to dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman understood that there had been a change in the opinions of the House of Assembly, and he would wait to hear the result of a reference being made to it. I will quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman, as they are found in a despatch dated April 22:—

"I have in the first place taken into consideration the circumstance that since any opinion on this difficult subject was expressed by the Legislature of Canada, a general election has taken place in the province, and it is as yet uncertain what the views of the new House of Assembly as to the disposal of the clergy reserves may be."

Now, Sir, there cannot now be any doubt as to what the views of the present Assembly are. They have passed a resolution in strong terms remonstrating against the decision of the Colonial Minister; and a material point to observe is, that this resolution was brought forward upon the Motion of Mr. Hincks, the head of the Government in the Colony. Therefore you have in the year 1850 the House of Assembly, in 1851 the Legislative Council, and in 1852 the Administration of the country, all concurring in pressing this Motion on the adoption of Parliament. I know that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said—

"That the divisions which carried the resolutions do not express fairly the opinion of the country, because you must bear in mind that this is not a Canadian question—that the great bulk of this property is in Upper Canada, and that the divisions, which show a majority of thirty or forty on the question, include the Roman Catholic members of Lower Canada; and it seems but fair, in a question which solely and exclusively concerns the upper province, that they should refrain from taking part in those divisions."

Now, I differ here entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. I think the Roman Catholic members were perfectly justified in taking part in these divisions, because you must remember, that there has been no proposition for the secularisation of this fund since the year 1840, or, if there has been, it has received very inconsiderable support—three or four votes at the utmost. All that the Roman Ca- tholic members do in supporting these resolutions is to say that they think these funds ought to be left to be dealt with by the local Parliament as it deems fit, and that they wish to put the Protestant endowment in Upper Canada on precisely the same footing as their own endowment in the lower province. That is all the Roman Catholics seek to do; and I will show the House that the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy in Lower Canada may be dealt with by the local Legislature if it thinks proper to do so. By the terms of the capitulation of Montreal, the Roman Catholic clergy were secured in their accustomed tithes and dues from the members of their own communion. I believe that as a general rule the terms of a capitulation remain in force till the general peace, when, if the terms are to continue to be respected, the usual course is to embody them in some legislative enactment. Now, I find that an Act was passed—the Quebec Act, as it is called—in which this provision was made:—

"For the more perfect security and ease of the minds of the inhabitants of this province, it is hereby declared that His Majesty's subjects professing the religion of the Church of Rome of and in the said province of Quebec, may have, hold, and enjoy the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King's supremacy; and that the clergy of the said Church may hold, receive, and enjoy their accustomed dues and rights, with respect to such persons only as shall profess the said religion."

If that was the only Act affecting the endowments of the Roman Catholic Church, they would be placed in the same position as the endowments of the Protestant Church stand at this moment, and there would be no power in the Colonial Legislature to alter them; but in the Constitutional Act of 1791 this very provision was made which we now wish to make applicable to the Protestant endowments. When Canada obtained a free Parliament instead of the nominated Council of Government, it was thus provided by the 31 Geo. III., c. 31,s. 35. After reciting the declarations in the latter part of the above clause, and also certain instructions of the King for the application to the support of a Protestant clergy of tithes due from Protestants, the Act proceeds in the following terms:—

"Be it enacted, that the said declaration and provision contained in the said above-mentioned Act, and also the said provision so made by His Majesty in consequence thereof, by his instruction above recited, shall remain and continue to be of full force and effect in each of the said two pro- vinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada respectively, except in so far as the said declaration or provisions respectively, or any part thereof, shall be expressly varied or repealed by any Act or Acts which may be passed by the Legislative Council and Assembly of the said provinces respectively, and assented to by His Majesty, his heirs, or successors, under the restrictions hereinafter provided."

Therefore you see that the Roman Catholic endowment of tithes and dues, which members of the Roman Catholic persuasion are now bound to pay to the clergy of that Church, may at any time be abrogated by an Act of the Colonial Legislature; and inasmuch as all that we propose now to do is to place the Protestant endowment in Canada on precisely the same footing, I cannot see why the Roman Catholic members of the local Legislature should be objected to for taking part in the divisions upon this subject. Upon these grounds, then, Sir, I beg leave to introduce this Bill. On the part of the Government I disclaim its being brought forward in any unfriendly spirit towards the Church of England. No doubt the concession that we propose to make, does shake the confidence which is now felt in the perpetuity of the fund as an endowment for religious purposes. But, regarding the Church of England as a body of individual clergy in that country, we have taken ample guarantees for their continued enjoyment of the stipends now allotted to them, and we have the full concurrence of the Legislature and the Executive of Canada in doing so. We have inserted a clause in this Bill which will render it impossible for those clergy to be deprived of their emoluments so long as they live, or continue in their incumbencies. It would have been impossible for us to assent to any other regulation in the matter. The clergy went out to that country in reliance upon the Act of Parliament, and good faith and honour require that their rights should be respected. But, looking at the Church of England not as a collection of individual clergy, but as an establishment—as an incorporated institution— if you ask us to maintain a Church Establishment in Canada against the wishes of the people of that country, I, for one, would shrink from such an undertaking. If you were to engage in it, I undertake to say that you would never issue from it with either credit or success. I am convinced, Sir, that we are taking the right course even in the interests of the Church of England herself. I believe that if that Church has to encounter a spirit of antagonism and jealousy, aroused by a feeling of undue partiality and favour shown to her, she is weighted with a burden which no endowment can possibly counterbalance or compensate. The Church of England, I doubt not, will win its way in that country as it has done in the United States. Whether it be confirmed or not in its existing share of these reserves, it will derive its strength, not from the liberality of the public, but, as it has done elsewhere, from the purity of its doctrines—from the soundness of its teaching—from the virtues which are illustrated in the lives of its clergy. Sir, I beg to ask the permission of the House to introduce the Bill of which I have given notice.

said, that it was not his intention to oppose the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill, and he would not therefore detain the House by following the hon. Gentleman at any length through the speech which he had just delivered, or by entering into any detail into the various considerations connected with this most important subject. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and the declarations of the intentions of the Government, with regret, but without surprise. He had heard the speech in which the noble Lord, now the leader of the House, had stated, the other evening, the measures which the Government were about to introduce, but had wisely abstained from referring to the principles of the Administration. He had heard in that speech with sorrow, but with no feelings of surprise, that the first of these measures was to be the present Bill. While reserving his final opinion upon the Bill until he had seen it, he must say that he feared it would simply be a measure to commit a grave breach of national faith, and to deprive our Protestant fellow-subjects and brother Christians in Canada of an endowment guaranteed to them as solemnly as any endowment could be guaranteed by the Legislature. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies was a little too candid in some parts of his speech, for, referring to a despatch which he (Sir J. Pakington) sent to Canada in April last, conveying the decision of the then Government upon the prayer of the Canadian Legislature, the hon. Gentleman read a passage noticing the contingency of the then approaching elections. And he then with great frankness told the House that the result of those elections in Upper Canada, which was the province mainly affected by this question (although there were indeed some clergy reserves also in Lower Canada), had been, that the party opposed to this course of legislation had gained several seats. The hon. Gentleman might also have gone on to state that the largest and most popular constituencies in Upper Canada had returned members opposed to the breach of this endowment. When they were dealing with a question which was mainly an Upper Canadian question, they were, he thought, bound to recollect that the representation of that province was as nearly as possible equally divided upon this question. There were forty-two members returned to the National Assembly from Upper Canada, the representation of Niagara being, however, vacant at the time he quitted office; and the result of inquiries which he then caused to be made was that, of the remaining forty-one members, twenty were in favour of retaining the reserves in the hands of their present owners, and twenty-one against it. The hon. Gentleman had also adverted to that most delicate part of this question, which was connected with the tenure by which the Roman Catholic Church held their endowments. Now, these endowments were secured to the large Roman Catholic population of Lower Canada at the time of the conquest, and the stipulations then made by the British Government had since then been religiously observed. The Act of 1840, in like manner, guaranteed their endowments to the Protestants of Upper Canada; and he wished to know upon what principle the Government could contend that the guarantee given by the Crown at the conquest was more solemn or more binding than that given by the Parliament of Great Britain in the Act of 1840. The hon. Gentleman said that all the needful provisions would be inserted in the Bill to secure the rights of the existing incumbents; and no doubt this must be done, unless the Government were prepared to commit a breach of faith so grievous that it could hardly be anticipated as possible. But he could not help hoping that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would go somewhat further than this. He implored him to respect the Act of 1840, of which he was the author; and to recollect the peculiar circumstances under which it was passed. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had stated, with perfect accuracy, that that Act was introduced by the noble Lord in consequence of an Act passed by the Canadian Legislature being found open to some legal objections. But the latter Act, although containing some alterations suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury, was, in its general principles, founded on the former; and when it was passed, it was felt that before we tried the perilous experiment of uniting the two provinces, we were bound to settle the question of the clergy reserves; and it was on account of that impending union, and of the approaching junction between the Protestant upper province and the Roman Catholic lower province, that this Act was passed. One of the most interesting and able State papers with which he was acquainted was the protest of the late Duke of Wellington against the union of the two provinces; in that his Grace dwelt upon this important question, and called upon the Legislature to remember the differences of religious opinions that existed between the two provinces. It was a fact also pressed upon the Government by Lord Sydenham, and every one else who had studied the affairs of Canada, that before they ventured to unite the two provinces they must pass a measure to prevent the Protestants of Upper Canada and the Roman Catholics of Lower Canada coming into collision on the subject of these endowments. It was in this spirit that the Act of 1840 was introduced, and he entreated the noble Lord to remember the words of the preamble:—

"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the final disposition of the lands called clergy reserves in Canada, and for the appropriation of the income arising therefrom for the maintenance of religion and the advancement of Christian knowledge in the said provinces," &c.

He submitted to the noble Lord, and to the House, that these words amounted to as solemn a guarantee as Parliament could give to our Christian fellow-subjects in Canada. He entreated the noble Lord to recollect the solemnity of these guarantees, the sacredness of the subject, and the interests of posterity, before he determined lightly to concede the prayer of the Canadian Legislature. He should not oppose the introduction of this Bill; but he had not shrunk from opposing, almost alone, the union of the two provinces of Canada, and if, as he apprehended, this Bill should amount to a breach of a solemn engagement, which he should regard as inconsistent with the duty of any Government or any Parliament, he would not shrink, even if he were again unsupported, in opposing a measure of such a nature.

said, it appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat, had completely avoided giving any opinion upon the great question involved in this Bill, whether the Parliament of Great Britain should allow the colony of Canada to legislate for itself, or should legislate for it. He seemed to have felt himself hampered by the declaration he had made in one of his despatches with respect to the feelings of the majority of the people of Canada, and he endeavoured to set the opinion of the people of Canada, as collected from petitions and letters sent to him from the bishops of the colony, against the declarations of the Assembly. When, however, we had once established a Legislative Assembly, he (Mr. Smith) thought we must adopt their declarations as the opinion of the people of Canada. But the right hon. Baronet had broached a still more singular doctrine, for he had told the House that although there was a division against the reserves, yet that the Members for the large constituencies wore in the minority. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reserve that argument for a future time, and that when other reforms were mooted, he would be preferring the opinion of the larger constituencies to that of Droitwich. It was true the Imperial Parliament had agreed to the Act of 1840, which had been brought forward by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell); but it could not be so irreversible that the Imperial Parliament could not now alter it. That would be to settle upon his noble Friend a new finality. The Bill of 1840 had given the colony ten years of tranquillity, so that it had not wholly failed of its effect. The right hon. Baronet had concluded by telling them that he did not imagine that the terms of the capitulation of Lower Canada were more binding on the country than the provisions of an Act of Parliament. But he thought it could hardly be contended that Parliament had no power to repeal an Act passed no longer since than 1840. As to the statement of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that if the question was left to the Legislature of Canada, they might deal with it as it was dealt with at present, he must confess that his own opinion in 1840, when the existing Act was passed, was that the public opinion of Canada was in favour of the secularisation of the reserves; he did not know how it might have been modified since. This, however, was not a question with which he as a Member of the Imperial Legislature had to deal. He felt bound to support the principle of giving the colonies self-government, and he would not maintain any theory of his own in opposition to that great principle.

said, that he felt disappointed that his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of the Colonies should have waived his opposition to this measure until a future stage; for were not its principles as patent in the speech of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, nay in the very title of the Bill, and in the history of the whole transaction, as they could ever be made by any Bill, however carefully prepared and worded? This was a measure to enable the Legislature of Canada to deal, not with religious principles, but with property; and the question was not whether the inhabitants of Upper or Lower Canada should have one creed more or less in their Prayer-book, or be obliged to support the professors of one or more creed, but whether the property which had been attached to a particular body of men should or should not be taken from them. What was meant by the word "clergy?" It would not be denied by any lawyer—nay, hardly by the most ignorant Radical in the House—that the word "clergy" had as definite and well-understood a meaning in law as any other legal phrase. And when it was said that property was given to the "Protestant clergy," he apprehended that in the dominions of the Queen of England that would mean the clergy of our own peculiar Church; and he appealed to the hon. and learned Solicitor General as to the correctness of his statement. At all events, he would defy any man to say that it could mean anything else than the clergy of the Church of England in Canada at the time that these reserves were established (whatever extension it had since received to another Protestant Church), and the House had now to deal with the application of that word to Canada. Now, there was no denial of the right of the Crown to make this grant, or of the right of Parliament in 1791 and 1840 to deal with this property as they had done, or of the right and duty of the local Legislature to acquiesce as they had done in the Act of the Imperial Parliament, which was passed only thirteen years ago, as a final settlement of the question; and if, therefore, this was not allowed to stand as a final settlement, what security would there be for the stability of any settlement with regard to any corporation property in any part of the Queen's dominions? They were asked by this Bill to give the consent of the Imperial Parliament that the Canadian Legislature should do that which they could not otherwise do, and which he ventured to say not one of those who were supporting the Bill would say was in itself desirable. "He who allows oppression shares the crime;" and the Imperial Parliament would have to bear the responsibility of the measure for evil or for good. He (Sir R. Inglis) believed it would be for evil; and when the hon. Member (Mr. Peel) said the Church of England in Canada must depend for superiority on the soundness of her doctrine and the sanctity of her clergy, he wished to ask him how far he would carry this argument? Was he prepared to leave religion in England, Scotland, and Ireland without any endowment whatever for the maintenance of its establishments? He had also referred to the prosperity of the English Church in America, without endowment. But the fact was, that the prosperity of the Church of England in the State of New York, where it was most flourishing, was due to its not being dependent on voluntary contributions, but by an endowment of 3,000,000 dollars; the value, as it had become, of dotations made by an English Sovereign, and which had been respected even after the severance of the Province from the Crown. Had it not been for that, he believed that the state of the Church of England in New York would have been as desolate as this measure would perhaps make the Church in Canada. He should give this measure his most decided opposition.

Sir, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down differs certainly a good deal from the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for the Colonies (Sir J. Pakington). The former states that these grants from the Crown are so irrevocable, that having been once made it is beyond the competence of Parliament to interfere with them; but if that is the case, the final settlement in 1840, argued upon by the right hon. Member for Droitwich, was a most unjustifiable interference with the previous settlement made by Parliament in 1791. But the difference does not even stop here, because the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Droitwich, who argues that the final settlement of 1840 should be adhered to at the present time, has laid down, in his despatch to the Governor General of Canada, that if an alteration in the proportion of the members of the Protestant and Catholic Churches should require it that Parliament should again interfere, and that the irrevocable settlement of 1840 should be disturbed by another irrevocable settlement in 1853. It is clear, therefore, that there is no agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), or even between the right hon. Gentleman's own convictions and the propositions that he has himself laid down as proper to be considered by Parliament. But in considering this measure, it is really not in question whether it is fitting that Parliament should make endowments which should last for ever. The question really is, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Vernon Smith), whether or not Parliament shall adopt the principle that, with regard to a question of local concern—with regard to a question of the settlement of property, be it the settlement of property on a Church or upon lay bodies—securing, of course, the existing interests of those who have a claim upon the good faith of Parliament— it is fitting that we shall allow the local Parliament to decide. Now, upon that plain question, Her Majesty's Government have no doubt whatever. They think that after doing everything that good faith to existing holders requires, and after allowing the Colonial Parliament to act as to them seemed best on many analogous subjects, we should give them permission also to legislate on this when they desire it, as they do now. I confess that I should have been very glad if the Canadian Parliament had been content with the settlement made in 1840. I introduced that Bill in 1840 upon a subject which had given rise to great heat and much dissension in the Legislature of Upper Canada, in the hope that what I thought were its equitable provisions would prove satisfactory for a very long time to the people of Canada, and that no attempt would be made to disturb that settlement. I even doubt now whether the Legislature of Canada is wise in wishing to disturb that settlement; whether, when this power is given them, they may not find that it will raise new heats and animosities; and whether those who wish for the secular appropriation of the property, and those who wish for some other distribution among all religious bodies, may not come to a wide difference of opinion. But although that may he my own opinion, I do not think that I should he justified in putting my own views, or even those of Her Majesty's Government, in contradiction to the opinion of the united Legislature of Canada, which wishes to deal with this question. Looking to the history of this subject, I cannot say that I think Parliament made a wise provision with respect to Canada in 1791. I think the original notion, which seems to have inspired the Ministry and Parliament of that day, of dividing Canada into two portions, one of which should be inhabited by Roman Catholics of the French race, and the other by Protestants from England, Ireland, and Scotland, was a most unfortunate proposition. It tended in the first place to prevent the growth of those relations of commerce and trade which were so important to both provinces; it raised up two Legislatures, who fell into conflict about tolls, tariffs, and every question on which the local Legislatures could decide. In the next place, it isolated two bodies of men, and one of them deeply attached—I will not say through prejudice —by old habit and preference, both to their ancient religion and their ancient French habits and customs which they derived from their ancestors; and it created another body most active and industrious, and inspired with a good deal of that American desire for proceeding onwards at once without much caring about the obstacles that came in their way. Why, naturally these two bodies came into conflict, and the Legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada were a continual source of disturbance in that great province; and a continual source of difficulty to the Government and Parliament of this country. This was so much the case that when Lord Bathurst was Secretary of State for the Colonies, he found no other remedy than taking the revenue of both provinces and distributing it according to the opinions of the Government of this country. That I think was sufficient to show the total failure of the Act of 1791. Although, therefore, the authority of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) is against the measure of the union, I am happy to say that that union has remedied many of the evils which were formerly felt. It has caused the two provinces to meet by their representatives in amicable discussion and harmony. They have both agreed to do away with many obstacles to the physical prosperity of the province; and there can hardly be found any instance of a province, whether under the dominion of the Crown of England or belonging to the United States of America, which has made greater progress than the united province of Upper and Lower Canada since the union. It has done so chiefly because we made it a great united province; because we gave them the power to conduct their own affairs according to their own notions and opinions; because we have adhered strictly and constitutionally to that principle, and they have felt, as they were bound to feel, that they were treated fairly and honestly by the Government of this country. This measure is another instance in which we propose to act according to the same policy; and when this Bill has been passed, I have no doubt that the attachment of the people of Canada to the British Crown, and their confidence in the Parliament of this country, will be largely increased.

said, that having been alluded to, he presumed, as one of the ignorant Radicals in that House, he could not allow the question to pass without thanking Her Majesty's Government for what they proposed to do. They were about to complete that system of self-government that would alone ensure peace in that important colony, because, as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had observed, from the hour responsible government was established, there prosperity had commenced. Having many years ago advised the adoption of the course which was now proposed to be taken, it was delightful to him to see the advance of sound principles, and he begged to thank the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject for the candour with which he had brought forward his Motion. He had done so with great ability; he had omitted nothing that was necessary to elucidate the nature of the object they had in view—to show the evils they desired to remove, and the good that might be expected to arise from the proposed change. He was sure that the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman would be received in Canada in the way they should be received, as embodying the principles that alone could render the colony prosperous. He hoped that this was the commencement of a system which would be also extended to every colony that was entitled to enjoy the advantages and benefits resulting from self-government. He hoped his hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Inglis), who had objected to the proposition, would venture to take the sense of the House on the question. The Government had proposed to give to the people of Canada the power of dealing with the Church property as they thought fit, and he was sure they would do it in a way that would produce contentment in, and promote the interests of, the colony.