Page images
PDF
[table][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

one which gave in perpetuity a grant of 1,000/. a-year to the Roman Catholic bishop, in lieu of what was called his episcopal palace. He would advert to the subject again, before the termination of ihe present Session.

The Earl of Ripon was anxious that the matter should be accurately understood, and he hoped it would not be allowed to hang over till next Session. At the same time, he could easily endure the weight of the charge.

Conversation ended.

The Bishop of Exeter, seeing the noble Secretary for the Colonial Department in his place, would now ask the question of which he gave notice on Friday, namely. —" whether, in the official letter addressed to the Earl of Durham, or in the instructions directed to him, there were any variations from, ortnodifications of, the standing instructions given to his predecessors, since the acquisition of Canada, so far as respects the conduct which he is to pursue towards the Established Church in that colony, or towards those who are not in communion with it, especially the Roman Catholics?" Now, he found in the letter of the noble Lord, the following passage :—

"The old standing instructions having been framed before the passing of the law for the relief of the Roman Catholics from the disabilities under which they formerly laboured iu this country, are in many particulars conceived in a spirit opposed to the principle of religious toleration as now understood and practised. It is almost superfluous to observe, that to this extent they must be regarded as obsolete."

Did that passage, he asked, constitute part of the instructions given to the Earl of Durham?

Lord Glenelg: It did.

The Bishop of Exeter said, that as the passage which he had read was admitted to be a part of the official instructions sent out to the Earl of Durham in Canada, he could not but venture to express some surprise at the answer which the noble Baron had given him on Friday night, when he asked whether, in the new instructions, there was any departure from the instructions that had been uniformly acted on since the accession of the colony. The noble Baron had said, no material alterations had been made. Now, he was quite sure, that the noble Baron was convinced at the time, that any alteration which had

been made, was in accordance with the old instructions, and was not material. But when the matter was considered, the contrary would be found to be the fact. He would ask the noble Baron, in what particular the old standing instructions were "opposed to the principle of religious toleration as now understood and practised?" In the first place, he would call the noble Baron's attention to the instructions given to Lieutenant-general Sir George Prevost, as Governor-in-chief of Lower Canada, in 1807, and which were laid before Parliament in 1813. The 42d paragraph was most important. It set forth—

"Whereas the establishment of proper regulations on matters of ecclesiastical concern is an object of very great importance, it will be your indispensable duty to take care, that no arrangements in regard thereto be made, but such as may give full satisfaction to our new subjects in every point in which they have a right to indulgence on that head, always remembering, that it is a toleration of the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome only to which they are entitled, but not to the powers and privileges of it as an established Church, that being a preference which belongs only to the Protestant Church of England."

He believed, that he was correct when he stated further, that to give the established Church its just supremacy, any encroachment upon its jurisdiction was liable to be visited with severe penalties. Was that, he wished to know, one of the particulars from which the noble Baron authorized the noble Earl to depart? It was also provided,

"That no vicarial power shall be exercised by any person professing the religion of the Church of Rome, except in so far as it is absolutely necessary to the free exercise of the Romish religion, and not to be legal, except under the seal of the said province, and under such limitations and restrictions as are provided under the Act of Parliament of the 14lh year of our reign ; and you ure authorized to remove all priests from their benefices for criminal offences, or who are accused of having attempted to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the Government.''

These, so far as he recollected, were the only points of instruction given, at the time to which he referred, to which the paragraph of the new instructions which he had read could allude; and he demanded, whether they formed the particulars referred to by the noble Buron? He should now read an extract from the treaty of peace concluded in 1703, by

[ocr errors][graphic]

full and due protection to the Roman Catholic religion in Canada. Whatever was to be done respecting the Canadian Roman Catholics he contended should be done openly, and he was sine their Lordships would not sanction instructions addressed to her Majesty's representative in Canada, suggesting the adoption of rules, or rather the revival of obsolete regulations, which were intended to destroy the Church of Rome in that colony. He maintained that the old instructions could not be carried into effect. One of them was, that no person could hold a benefice in Canada without the leave of the Crown, unless he happened to be born in that colony. Again, any Roman Catholic priest might be deprived of his benefice on due proof of any seditious attempt to disturb the public place. He would ask what did the words "due proof mean? They could mean nothing else than that which appeared to the mind of the governor " due proof." There was no noble Lord, he believed, would say that it meant anything but that which the governor of Canada for the time being should, without conviction or even trial, consider to be " due proof." If the old instructions were followed out to the letter, the penalties attaching to a Roman Catholic priest for entering into the holy state of matrimony could not be enforced. Surely this mode of administering the government of Canada would not be advocated by any but those who held that the end sanctified the means. Another of the old instructions declared that all burial-grounds should be open to all descriptions of persons. By the Roman Catholics indiscriminate burial was deemed gross desecration; there could, therefore, be no greater act of tyranny than the enforcement of such an instruction. The next of these instructions which presented itself to his mind was that which would deprive a Roman Catholic priest of his benefice for merely converting a Protestant. Were those regulations such as could in the present day be carried out, or were they not utterly opposed to religious toleration, as now understood and practised? Was any man bold enough, any persecutor insolent enough, to say that those regulations could be carried into effect?

The Bishop of Exeter said, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies appeared to him to speak under a misapprehension of the facts. The Romish

Church was not the established Church in Canada, and in the original instructions, although it was declared that the Roman Catholics were to be tolerated, yet it was as distinctly affirmed that the Roman Catholic Church was not to have any power, pre-eminence, or authority. The Government of this country never had recognised any, except Prelates of the Established Church, as bishops of dioceses in Canada. Till within the last four or five years—a period with which he did not profess to be particularly well acquainted—the Roman Catholic bishops in Canada resided there, not of right, but by permission. In the instructions issued by Lord Egremont in 1763, there was a passage which declared that the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in Canada was limited by the laws of Great Britain: surely, those laws prohibited the existence of a Popish hierarchy in the colonies. Now, what he complained of was, that the instructions to Lord Durham were conceived in a tone not merely of toleration towards the Roman Catholics, but in a spirit far exceeding anything that could be called toleration. He would move for copies of the instructions issued to the Governor-general of her Majesty's provinces in North America, together with copies of such portion of the commission under the great seal relating to the Call ad as as had not already been communicated to Parliament, as also the letter from Lord Glenelg to the Earl of Durham, dated the 21 st of April 1838.

Lord Glenelg was understood to say, that he felt no objection to communicate the papers moved for by the right rev. Prelate. He was sure their Lordships would agree with him in thinking that it was absurd to suppose that the old instructions could be carried into effect. As to the recognition of Roman Catholic Prelates in Canada, he could assure the right rev. Prelate that he was mistaken, for long before the last four years, the recognition had taken place, and that too by acts of the Legislature.

The Bishop of Exeter begged it to be understood, that he did not assent to the statement made by the noble Lord respecting acts of Parliament.

Lord Glenelg, it was done by provincial statutes which had received the sanction of the Crown.

The Bishop of Exeter said, that those acts ought to have been on the tattles of both Houses for thirty days before they

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

expediency of a living being held in plu-
rality, the moat rer. Prelate would hare to
je saiLidcd, not only of the fitness of the
cierzyman appointed, but of the espe-
li.eocy of his holding two preferments.
Now, it would be • great grievance upon
a ckrgysaa that hts patron should not
aioce be permitted to judge of his fitness,
bat that he must undergo a further inves-
t«zat>3n by the most rer. Prelate. There
were ■any other points to which he ob-
jected, bat to which it was needless to
he did not intend to oppose the
j of the bill. He, however, felt,
:nit legislation in this matter had been
bt-gun at the wrorg end, and that the re-
sult of this bdl would be to force a full re-
cons.dera:;oo of the whole subject.
B;d

[ocr errors]

Prisoxs.1 On the motion of Lord J. Russell, the order of the day for resumtris tr.e jdionrned debate on the third reading of the Prisons ^England) Bill, wr« read.

n was

[ocr errors]

pcs'Nco involving the same principle stood oo the piper under the came of his hon. , Frie-. d and colleague (Mr. F.$tconrt\ bothe 1 shou':d oppose both, on the same ground, i However obl'gatory it might be on the . | conscience ot' icJiwduats to provide he (.Lord Portman\ however, did not ' spintu tl instruction tor the destitute perdoubt the most rev. Prelate would exercise j sous of their ova Church, the nation was

to the manv cases of exemption from residence which were embod'ed in this bi I, and under it would be sanctioned. Again, the sixth clause imposed up.-n the nx-st rev. Prelate (the Archb.shop of Camerbury^ a most pa:r-ful duty—a dutv which

« PreviousContinue »