In his letter to Lord John Russell, the Bishop alludes to two of these decisions in terms peculiarly objectionable, while he omits all reference to the latter. He says:--
The Established Church of Scotland claimed a share of those lands, or the proceeds, as a National Church within the Empire; and in 1819, the Crown lawyers made the discovery that it might be gratified, under the 37th clause of the 31st of George III., chap.
31. Next, the select committee of the House of Commons, in 1828, on the Civil Government of Canada, influenced by the spurious liberality of the times, extended this opinion of the Crown lawyers to any Protestant clergy.
The Bishop thus impugns the impartiality and integrity of the opinions expressed by the law officers of the Crown in England, and by the select committee of the House of Commons, sarcastically calling the one a "discovery," and ascribing the other to "spurious liberality;" while he declares that the Act 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 78 (which only carried partially into effect the decision of the twelve judges, and was, as he states, agreed to by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops in London), "deprived the Church of England in Canada of seven-twelfths of her property."
In other doc.u.ments the Bishop has designated this Act "an act of spoliation," and "robbery" of the Church of England.
When the Bishop employs language of this kind in respect to Acts of Parliament and the official opinions in regard to their provisions, he cannot reasonably complain if other parties should respect them as little as himself, much less regard them as a "final settlement" of a question to which they have not been parties, and against which they have always protested. Under any circ.u.mstances, it is singular language to be employed by a person towards a government by whose fostering patronage he has become enriched. The fact is, that the successive Governors of Upper Canada have been members of the Church of England; that the princ.i.p.al cause of their unpopularity, and the most serious difficulties which both the Imperial and local governments have had to encounter in the colony, have arisen from their efforts to secure as much for the Church of England, in the face of the popular indignation and opposition, so much inflamed and strengthened by the irritating publications and extreme proceedings of the Bishop himself. It is understood that the report of the committee of the House of Commons on the civil government of Canada, in 1828, was written by Lord Stanley.
However that may be, the sentiments of that report on the clergy reserve question were strongly expressed by his Lordship in his speech on the subject, 2nd May, 1828; and he and the other distinguished men who investigated the subject at that time, know whether they were "influenced by a spurious liberality" in the conclusion at which they arrived, or whether they were guided by a sense of justice, and yielded to the weight of testimony. At all events, the grave decision of the twelve judges of England to the same effect ought to have suggested to the Bishop other terms than those of "spurious liberality,"
"spoliation," and "robbery," and to have protected not only the "powers that be," but the great majority of the Canadian people, from the shafts of his harsh imputations.
Here I think it proper to correct the Bishop"s repeated references to the origin and circ.u.mstances of the differences of opinion in Upper Canada, as to the import of the words "Protestant clergy," and the "right of dissenting denominations" to partic.i.p.ate in the benefit of the clergy reserves. He represents those differences as having originated with the clergy of the Kirk of Scotland, and that the idea that any other than the clergy of the Church of England had a right to partic.i.p.ate in the benefit of the reserves was never entertained in Upper Canada until the friends of the Kirk of Scotland commenced the agitation of the question.
So far from this representation being correct, it appears that the first submission of the question to the law officers of the Crown in England took place at the request of Sir P. Maitland, in reference, not to the clergy of the Kirk of Scotland, but to "all denominations" of Protestants--a question on which Sir P.
Maitland, then Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, states in a despatch to Earl Bathurst, dated 17th May, 1819, that there was not only a "difference of opinion" on the subject, but "a lively feeling throughout the Province." It appears that certain "Presbyterian inhabitants of the town of Niagara and its vicinity" (not at that time in connexion with the Church of Scotland), pet.i.tioned Sir P.
Maitland for "an annual allowance of 100 to a.s.sist in the support of a preacher," to be paid "out of funds arising from the clergy reserves, or any other fund at His Excellency"s disposal." In transmitting a copy of this pet.i.tion to Earl Bathurst, Sir P.
Maitland ("York, Upper Canada, 17th May, 1819,") remarks as follows:--
The actual product of the clergy reserves is about 700 per annum.
This pet.i.tion involves a question on which I perceive there is a difference of opinion, viz., whether the Act intends to extend the benefit of the reserves, for the maintenance of a Protestant clergy, to all denominations, or only to those of the Church of England. The law officers incline to the latter opinion. I beg leave to observe to your Lordship, with much respect, that your reply to this pet.i.tion will decide a question of much interest, and on which there is a lively feeling throughout the Province. [See page 221.]
Earl Bathurst"s reply to this despatch is dated "Downing Street, 6th May, 1820," and commences as follows:--
Having requested the opinion of His Majesty"s law officers as to the right of dissenting Protestant ministers, resident in Canada, to partake of the lands directed by the Act of the 31st George III., c. 31, to be reserved as a provision for the support of a Protestant clergy, I have now to state that they are of opinion that though the provisions made by the 31st George III., c. 31, ss.
36 and 42, for the support and maintenance of a Protestant clergy, are not confined solely to the Church of England, but may be extended also to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, yet that they do not extend to dissenting ministers, since the terms Protestant clergy can apply only to the Protestant clergy recognized and established by law.
It is thus clear that the question of the right of different Protestant denominations to partic.i.p.ate in the benefit of the clergy reserves did not originate in any claims or agitation commenced by the clergy of the Church of Scotland; that as early as the beginning of 1819, (only four years after the close of the last American War, during which, as the Bishop truly says, "the attachment of the inhabitants to the British empire was a second time signally displayed,") there was "a lively feeling throughout the Province" on the subject. The first Loyalist settlers, and their immediate descendants, were opposed to the Bishop"s narrow construction of the Act 31st George III., chapter 31; their representatives in the Legislative a.s.sembly maintained invariably the liberal construction of the Act; the select committee of the House of Commons in 1828, on the Civil Government of Canada, after taking evidence as to the intentions of the original framers of the law, expressed the same opinion, and that opinion was ultimately confirmed by the decision of the twelve judges in 1840. The Bishop is, therefore, as much at fault in his facts on this point, as he is in the language he employs in reference to Imperial legal opinions, and an Imperial Act of Parliament.
It now becomes my duty to examine another large cla.s.s of statements, which I have read with great surprise and pain; and which are, if possible, less excusable than those which I have already noticed. I refer to the Bishop"s statements in regard to the influence of the union of the two Canadas on the votes and proceedings of the Legislative a.s.sembly of the united Province, on the question of the clergy reserves.
The Bishop, in his letter to Lord John Russell (referring to the Address of the Legislative a.s.sembly, at the session of 1850, to the Queen), states as follows:--
Before the union of Upper and Lower Canada, such an unjust proceeding could not have taken place, for, while separate, the Church of England prevailed in Upper Canada, and had frequently a commanding weight in the Legislature, and at all times an influence sufficient to protect her from injustice. But since their union under one Legislature, each sending an equal number of members, matters are sadly altered.
It is found, as was antic.i.p.ated, that the members returned by dissenters uniformly join the French Roman Catholics, and thus throw the members of the Church of England into a hopeless minority on all questions in which the National Church is interested.
The Church of England has not only been prostrated by the union under that of Rome, and the whole of her property made dependent on Roman Catholic votes, but she has been placed below Protestant dissenters, and privileges wrested from her which have been conferred upon them.
In his recent charge to the clergy of his Diocese, the Bishop remarks again:--
So long as this diocese remained a distinct colony, no measure detrimental to the Church ever took effect. Even under the management and prevailing influence of that able and unscrupulous politician, the late Lord Sydenham, a Bill disposing of the clergy reserves, was carried by one vote only--a result which sufficiently proved that it was not the general wish of the people of the colony to legislate upon the subject.
I shall first notice that part of the Bishop"s statement which relates to Upper Canada, before the union with Lower Canada. The Bishop a.s.serts it not to have been "the general wish of the people of the colony to legislate upon the subject" of the clergy reserves; that the Church of England prevailed, and had sufficient influence to maintain what he regards as her just rights. The Bishop has resided in Upper Canada nearly half a century, and such a statement from him, in direct contradiction to the whole political history of the Province during more than half that period, is difficult of solution, though perfectly easy of refutation. I have already transcribed one of a series of resolutions, adopted by the Legislative a.s.sembly as early as December, 1826, by a majority of 30 to 3, objecting entirely to the exclusive pretensions made in behalf of the Church of England. But I find that nearly a year before this, namely, the 27th of the January preceding, the House of a.s.sembly of Upper Canada adopted an Address to the King on the subject, in which it is stated, respectfully, but strongly,--
That the lands set apart in this Province for the maintenance and support of a Protestant clergy ought not to be enjoyed by any one denomination of Protestants to the exclusion of their Christian brethren of other denominations, equally conscientious in their respective modes of worshipping G.o.d, and equally ent.i.tled, as dutiful and loyal subjects, to the protection of Your Majesty"s benign and liberal Government; we, therefore, humbly hope it will, in Your Majesty"s wisdom, be deemed expedient and just, that not only the present reserves, but that any funds arising from the sales thereof, should be devoted to the advancement of the Christian religion generally, and the happiness of all Your Majesty"s subjects of whatever denomination; or if such application or distribution should be deemed inexpedient, that the profits arising from such appropriation should be applied to the purposes of education and the general improvement of this Province.
The following year (January, 1827), the House of a.s.sembly pa.s.sed a Bill (the minority being only three), providing for the sale and application of the whole of the proceeds of the reserves for purposes of education, and erection of places of public worship for all denominations of Christians. And, on examining the journals, I find that from that time down to the union of the Canadas in 1841, not a year pa.s.sed over without the pa.s.sing of resolutions, or address, or bill, by the House of a.s.sembly of Upper Canada, for the general application of the proceeds of the reserves, in some form or other, but always, without exception, against what the Bishop claims as the rights of the Church of England in respect to those lands.
It is difficult to conceive a more complete refutation than these facts furnish of the Bishop"s statement, that the Church of England prevailed in Upper Canada, and had a commanding weight in the Legislature; nor could a stronger proof be required of "the general wish of the people of the colony to legislate upon the subject," than such a course of procedure on the part of their representatives for so many years during successive Parliaments, and amidst all the variations of party and party politics on all other questions.
It is also incorrect to say that the Bill of Lord Sydenham in 1840 "was carried by a majority of one vote only." A Bill did pa.s.s the a.s.sembly of Upper Canada the year before, by "a majority of one vote only;" but that was a Bill to re-invest the reserves in the Imperial Parliament for "general religious purposes,"--a Bill pa.s.sed a few hours before the close of the session, during which no less than forty-eight divisions, with the record of yeas and nays, took place in the a.s.sembly on the question of the clergy reserves; and after the a.s.sembly had pa.s.sed, by considerable majorities, both resolutions and a Bill to give the Church of England one-fourth of the proceeds of the clergy reserves, and the other three-fourths to other religious denominations and to educational purposes--a Bill which, with some verbal amendments, also pa.s.sed the Legislative Council, and against which the Bishop, joined by one other member, recorded an elaborate protest. But just at the heel of the session, and after several members of the a.s.sembly voting in the majority had gone to their homes, a measure (which had been previously negatived again and again) was pa.s.sed by a "majority of one vote only"
(22 to 21), to re-invest the reserves--a measure which the law officers in England p.r.o.nounced "unconst.i.tutional," as the manner of getting it through the Canadian Legislature was unprecedented. [See page 249.]
But the measure of Lord Sydenham was carried in the a.s.sembly by a majority of 4, and in the Legislative Council (of which the Bishop was a member and voted against the bill) by a majority of 8. A considerable majority of the members of the Church of England of both Houses of the Legislature voted for the bill, and were afterwards charged by the Bishop with "defection," and "treachery" for doing so. [See page 262.]
On this point Lord Sydenham, in a despatch to Lord John Russell, dated Toronto, 5th February, 1840, stated as follows:--
It is notorious to every one here, that of twenty-two members being communicants of the Church of England who voted upon this Bill, only eight recorded their opinion in favour of the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate; whilst in the Legislative Council the majority was still greater; and amongst those who gave it their warmest support are to be found many gentlemen of the highest character for independence and for attachment to the Church, and whose views in general politics differ from those of Her Majesty"s Government.
After this epitome of references to the proceedings of the people of Upper Canada, through their representatives, from 1825 to 1840, on what the Bishop terms the "rights" and "patrimony" of the Church of England, it is needless to make more than one or two remarks on his statements as to the influence of the union of the Canadas on the proceedings and votes of the Legislative a.s.sembly upon the subject. My first remark is, that the question of the clergy reserves has not been introduced into the present Legislative a.s.sembly by any member, or at the solicitation of any member, from Lower Canada. I remark, secondly, that though there is not a Roman Catholic among the forty-two members elected for Upper Canada; yet when a resolution was introduced into the a.s.sembly, both at the last and during the present session, expressing a desire to maintain the present settlement of the clergy reserves, as provided in the Act, 3 & 4 Vic., chap. 78, only sixteen in the first instance, and thirteen in the second, voted for it--only about one-third of the members for Upper Canada. Should, therefore, the union of the Canadas be dissolved to-morrow, the Bishop would be in as hopeless a minority as he was before the union. The following remarks of a recent speech of Mr.
Lafontaine (the leader of the Roman Catholic French members of the a.s.sembly) will show how entirely groundless are the Bishop"s imputations upon that portion of the a.s.sembly.
He thought the clergy reserves should be fairly divided among the Protestant denominations, and that they should be altogether taken out of the hands of the Government, as the only way to take them out of the reach of agitation. He thought the rectories were vested rights, and should not be disturbed, unless by due process of law, if, as was pretended, they were improperly obtained. If there were any claims in the Act of 1791 which seemed to connect the Church of England to the State, though he did not think they did, they might be repealed, and the Bishop of Toronto seemed to be of opinion that that might be done. Let the appointment of the inc.u.mbents to the rectories, too, be taken from the Government, if it were thought proper, and given to the Church for other uses. He merely suggested that without wishing to impose it. He would conclude with one reflection: Let his Protestant fellow-countrymen remember they would never find opposition to their just rights from Roman Catholics and French Canadians. The latter had repeatedly pa.s.sed Acts in Lower Canada to give equal rights to those who were called dissenters, and Jews, which were rejected by members of the Church of England in the Council, and it was worthy of remark that, at a moment when in England a pretended aggression had given occasion for persecution, the Church of England here had to rely upon Catholics to protect it against the aggression of other Protestant sects.
I shall now make a few observations on the Bishop"s statements respecting government grants to the Church of Rome, and the endowments of that Church in Lower Canada. The Bishop, framing his statements with a view to the Protestant feeling of England, inveighs in general terms against the Government on account of its alleged patronage of the Church of Rome; makes exaggerated statements on one side, and omits all references to facts on the other side which would enable the Protestants of England, to whom he appeals, to understand the part which he has himself taken in favour of grants to the Church of Rome, the manner in which those grants are paid at the present time, and the alliance which he has long endeavoured, and would still wish to form with that Church in respect to endowments. The Bishop says:--
In Upper Canada, the Roman Catholic clergy do not, at present, exceed seventy in number, and the provision for their support is very slender. It depends chiefly on their customary dues, and the contributions of their respective flocks; unless, indeed, they receive a.s.sistance from the French portion of the Province, where the resources of the Romish Church are abundant.
Now, while the Bishop presents an overdrawn and startling picture of the emoluments of the Church of Rome in Lower Canada, he omits all statements of public grants and payments to the clergy of that church in Upper Canada. The Bishop must know, that in addition to their "customary dues, and the voluntary contributions of their flocks," the clergy of the Church of Rome receive 1,666 per annum, and that that sum is paid out of the clergy reserve fund under the provisions of the very Act, 3 & 4 Vic., chap. 78, for the perpetuation of which he contends. The first instructions to support the Roman Catholic clergy in Upper Canada out of public funds, were given by Earl Bathurst, in a despatch to Sir P.
Maitland, dated 6th October, 1826, and which commenced in the following words:--
You will receive instructions from the Treasury for the payment, from funds to be derived from the Canada Company, of the sum of 750 per annum, for the salaries of the Presbyterian ministers, and a similar sum for the support of the Roman Catholic priests.
But what is remarkable is, that this very policy of granting aid to the Roman Catholic priests in Upper Canada, for which Government has been so much blamed by the Bishop"s friends in England, was urged by, if it did not originate with, the Bishop himself. For, in a speech delivered by the Bishop in the Legislative Council of Upper Canada, 6th March, 1828, and afterwards published by himself, I find his own statement of his proceedings in this matter, as follows:--
It has always been my wish to see a reasonable support given to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, because they belong to a Church which is established in one section of the empire; and to the Roman Catholic Church because it may be considered as a concurrent church with the establishment in the sister Province; and to this end I have, at all times, advised the leading men of both those churches to make respectful representations to His Majesty"s Government for a.s.sistance, leaving it to Ministers to discover the source from which such aid might be taken.--His Excellency, the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province (Sir P. Maitland), having represented in the strongest manner to His Majesty"s Government the propriety of making some provision for the clergy in communion with the kirk, and also of the Roman Catholic clergy resident in Upper Canada, a reference was made to me on that subject, while in London, in June, 1826. On this occasion I enforced, as well as I could, the recommendations made by His Excellency, in respect to both churches.
Thus four months before Earl Bathurst sent out instructions to give salaries to Roman Catholic priests in Upper Canada, the Bishop states that he urged it upon the favourable consideration of His Lordship. The Bishop then significantly adds:--
I did flatter myself that they would have been satisfied, as indeed they ought to have been, and that henceforth the clergy of the two denominations, the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian, while discharging their own religious duties, would cordially co-operate with those of the establishment in promoting the general peace and welfare of society. It is gratifying to me to state that, as far as I know, the Roman Catholic clergy, during this contest, have observed a strict neutrality.
However ingenious it may be, I cannot regard it as ingenuous that the Bishop should promote the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy in this country in order to secure their political alliance and support against other Protestant denominations, and then appeal to Protestants in England against the Government and Legislature in Canada, because of the countenance given to the Church of Rome. It is hardly fair for the Bishop to act one part in Canada and another in England; and it is fallacious and wrong to represent the votes of Roman Catholics as exerting any influence whatever on the state of the question in Upper Canada--as of the twenty-five Roman Catholics who voted on the question last year, twelve voted on one side and thirteen on the other; and they are known to hold the opinion declared by their leader, Mr. Lafontaine, that the proceeds of the clergy reserves belong to the Protestants of the country in contradistinction to Roman Catholics.
The Bishop"s statements in regard to the endowments of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada are most extravagant. They cannot affect, in the least, the merits of the question which has so long agitated Upper Canada; and they appear to be introduced merely for effect in England, where the social state and position of parties in Canada are little known or understood. It is needless to examine the Bishop"s statements on this subject in detail; but I will make two or three remarks, to show the fallacy of both his a.s.sertions and his reasoning. He gives no data whatever for his perfectly gratuitous and improbable a.s.sumption of four hundred parish priests in Lower Canada at a salary of 250 each, exclusive of those employed in colleges, monasteries, and religious houses, making, he says,
The revenue of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, 100,000 per annum, a sum which represents a money capital of at least 2,000,000!
This imaginary estimate of the Bishop is simply absurd, and supposes in Lower Canada ten-fold the wealth that really exists.
The Bishop also gives a return of the seignorial lands of several religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, then invests those lands with a fict.i.tious value, and sets them down as representing "a capital of 700,000!" whereas the rights to these lands are simply seignorial, and the annual revenue arising from them does not amount to threepence per acre. The Jesuits" estates, 891,845 acres--by far the largest item in the Bishop"s paper--are in the hands of the Government, and not of the Roman Catholic Church at all.
The fallacy of the Bishop"s reasoning on this point will appear from the facts, that the British Crown has never made a grant or endowment to the Roman Catholic Church in Lower Canada, or to any religious order of that Church; that whatever lands or endowments that Church or its religious communities may possess, were obtained either from the Crown of France, and therefore secured by treaty, or by the legacies of individuals, or by purchase. The island of Montreal was obtained by purchase; the rights are merely seignorial, or feudal, and yield to the seigneurs 8,000 per annum.
There is, therefore, no a.n.a.logy whatever between endowments thus obtained and held, and lands appropriated by the Crown for certain general objects, which have been vested in the hands of no religious community, and over which Parliament has expressly reserved the power of discretionary legislation.
I shall now offer a few remarks on the Bishop"s statements respecting the Toronto University and system of public schools in Upper Canada. As these are questions which have been set at rest by local legislation, by and with the sanction of the Imperial Government, I need only refer to the Bishop"s statements so far as to remove the erroneous impressions and unjust prejudices which they are calculated to produce.
In reference to the Bishop"s statements, that "graduates in holy orders are declared ineligible as members of the Senate," I remark that such graduates are and have been members of the Senate from the commencement.