REMARKS AND OBSERVATIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF THE CANADAS, 
 
 CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL; 
 
 WITH A VIEW TO ITS AMENDMENT: 
 
 INCLUDING 
 
 SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NOT BEFORE 
 PUBLISHED. 
 
 BY A LAYMAN 
 
 OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 AN APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING SEVERAL INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT PAPERS. 
 
 *7 1 - . -fiim 2. i 1 y 
 
 C ' t * W • • 
 
 MONTREAL: 
 
 PRINTED BY JAMES STARKE & CO. 
 
 1 & 38 . 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The writer of this pamphlet has, for several reasons, deemed it proper 
 to withhold his name from the public ; but many, with whom he is 
 personally acquainted, will, on perusal, readily ascribe it to him. 
 Only a small number of copies have been printed, intended for distri- 
 bution among some public characters and others, upon whose opinions 
 and decisions the settlement of Canadian affairs may be considered 
 chiefly to depend. 
 
 In giving the substance of, or quoting from, different authorities, 
 great care has been taken to refer to them so particularly that any 
 person, who chooses to take the trouble, may be satisfied whether or 
 not anything be advanced inconsistent with such authorities. In every 
 particular that is of much importance, the writer considers himself 
 borne out by the writings, Acts of Parliament, &c. to which references 
 are made ; and his name, no more than that of any other private 
 individual, could confer very little additional authenticity, beyond the 
 narrow circle of his own acquaintance. He hopes that the different 
 topics, briefly noticed or treated of, in this production, may not in 
 future be discussed in that angry tone and virulent style, sometimes 
 too prevalent in many newspapers and other publications. With this 
 view he has, as much as possible, abstained from using opprobrious 
 terms and acrimonious expressions, in speaking of those who do not 
 coincide in his opinions ; being wrell convinced that a good cause is 
 frequently much injured by intemperate language and violent contro- 
 versy. 
 
11 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 In the pamphlet there occurs a repetition of some arguments or facts 
 that appear also in the Appendix, No. V. That long article was 
 occasioned by debates of the Legislature of Upper Canada, in 1835 ; 
 the other, being written three years after, and touching in several parts 
 on the same or similar topics, in consequence of subsequent occur- 
 rences and proceedings, some repetitions were unavoidable. However, 
 it is believed they will not occasion any objections nor prove tiresome 
 to the reader. 
 
 The speech of the Solicitor General, given in the Appendix, No. 6, 
 does not appear to be the same version referred to by Mr Cartwright 
 and Mr Manahan, in the explanatory letter and certificate that follow 
 it. The writer has not seen the paper called the “ Constitution,” 
 spoken of by Mr Cartwright, but he has read a longer and more 
 detailed, though not exactly contradictory, report of the speech in the 
 Bathurst Courier, of 3 d March , 1837. It is to that version which he 
 more particularly alludes in what is said in page 51. It contains some 
 more irritating expressions and remarks applied to the Scottish nation, 
 which it would serve no good purpose to republish. The names of 
 two other ministers of their Church (besides one mentioned in the 
 Appendix) are also introduced, in no very complimentary style. In 
 consequence, one of them published in the newspapers, a very spirited 
 letter on the subject, addressed to the Solicitor General. 
 
 Montreal, Lower Canada, 1 
 31s< October , 1838. ) 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 OR 
 
 REFERENCES TO THE MATTERS THAT APPEAR OF THE 
 MOST IMPORTANCE. 
 
 Object of the publication, 
 
 Reasons, comprehending proceedings at different times, that are supposed 
 at last to have led to the late Insurrection Division of the Province 
 
 Remarks on the Ecclesiastical part of the constitutional Act Reports 
 
 of the Commissioners of Enquiry Attempt to unite the Canadas, in 
 
 Exertions of the Roman Catholic Clergy to restrain their flocks Sup- 
 posed views of the Insurgents Injudicious conduct of the British 
 
 Government by imitating too closely the Constitution of England 
 
 The House of Assembly have fallen into the same mistake Union of 
 
 the Canadas recommended ; and the use of the English Language in 
 written legislative proceedings. — Suggestions for quieting the Religious 
 
 fears of Roman Catholics No progress yet made in their conversion 
 
 Conditions in favour of their Religion, in the Treaty that ceded 
 
 Canada to Great Britain, 24 
 
 Difficulties greater now than in 1822, in Uniting the Canadas Some 
 
 notice of discontents that have occurred in both Provinces, and of the 
 conduct of their inhabitants, previously to and during the last war, 
 
 which commenced in 1812, 42 
 
 Further observations on our Constitutional Act, and on various Provincial 
 Acts ; in so far as they relate to Ecclesiastical matters and to Marriages, 
 
 Lands reserved for the Support of a Protestant Clergy, &c. — The 
 Act of Union between England and Scotland. — The Voluntary System. 
 
 The Canon Law of England, 48 
 
 Remarks on some writings of Dr Strachan, Archdeacon of York; and 
 on the erection and endowment of Rectories in Upper Canada, &c. . 61 
 
 Mistake of some writers who support the claims and rights of the Scottish 
 Church in the Colonies. — Conclusion, 75 
 
 1 Pastoral Letter of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal, injoining 
 
 loyalty and obedience to his flock 
 
 of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada, 
 
 6 
 
 1822. — Licentiousness of the Press, 
 
 18 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 77 
 
ZJ 
 
 lv CONTENTS. 
 
 Pttje 
 
 II — Declaration of the views and motives of the Loyal Canadian Asso- 
 ciation of Montreal, 81 
 
 III — Loyal behaviour of the Canadians generally, in 1775-76; and in 
 
 the war of 1812, with the United States: also notice of the good con- 
 duct of the Inhabitants of Jersey and Guernsey, at different times, . 85 
 
 IV — Mr Hagerman’s speech, in the House of Assembly of U. Canada, 
 
 on the 4th March, 1835 ; in support of the exclusive claims of the 
 English Church, 33 
 
 V — Arguments against the claims set up by Mr Hagerman on behalf of 
 
 the English Church, in the Colonies, . 102 
 
 VI — Speech of Mr Hagerman on the same subject, 9th February, 1837, 117 
 
 VII. — Message sent to the Legislative Council and House of Assembly 
 
 of both the Canadas, in January, 1832, regarding the Clergy Reserves, 122 
 VIII — Instructions from the Colonial Secretary, in 1825, to the Lieut. 
 Governor of U. Canada, directing him to erect and endow Parsonages 
 or Rectories, in every Township within that Province, 123 
 
 errata. 
 
 Page 49, line 3, after Canada , add in favour of the Church 
 stand as follows 
 
 of Scotland ; the sentence will then 
 
 The only movement, that I am aware of, by the Legislature of tt™™,. n , . 
 
 the Church of Scotland (and that was by the Assembly alone l Canada ’ ™ favour of 
 
 which is introduced into the evidence of Mr J. C Grant befor 10U , t0 the Kmg '’ in l824 ’ 
 
 House of Commons, on the 17th June, 1828. ’ * ** Canada C °™*tee of the 
 
 Page 95, line 8 from foot— for confirming read conforming . 
 Page 96, line 8 from foot— for destitute read desolate. 
 
REMARKS, OBSERVATIONS, &c. 
 
 After the inhabitants of the Canadas, generally, had main- 
 tained their allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain, during 
 the invasion by the revolted Colonies in 1775 ; and again so 
 nobly defended the country during the war with the United 
 States, that began in 1812 ; it has occasioned great surprise and 
 excited indignation, that they should, in 1837 , have raised the 
 standard of rebellion, without any real grievance or oppression 
 to complain of; and at a time when they could have no reason- 
 able hope of success, the United Kingdom being at peace with 
 all the world. 
 
 My object, therefore, in taking up the pen, is to endeavour 
 to account for the insurrection, or to point out some of the 
 causes that appear to have led to this deplorable and extraor- 
 dinary state of public affairs: to make some remarks on the 
 remedies proposed from different quarters, particularly when 
 they appear inadequate to the end proposed : and, lastly, to 
 recommend or suggest, as occasions offer, such remedies and 
 healing measures as appear most just and efficacious for remov- 
 ing all reasonable complaints, and restoring peace, contentment, 
 and general loyalty throughout both Provinces. I am well 
 aware of my inability to do justice to this important subject, 
 from want of the requisite education and knowledge of public 
 affairs ; also, from not having the necessary access to authorities 
 and public documents which it would be desirable to consult ; 
 
6 
 
 so, in some cases I must trust to memory and to public noto- 
 riety, in matters of recent occurrence. 
 
 Several causes have no doubt operated in originating and in- 
 creasing the strong party feeling which at last produced an 
 insurrection in the District of Montreal. Sir Charles Grey, in 
 the minute added to the General Report of the Commissioners 
 of Enquiry, at page 65, speaks of “ the state of repulsion and 
 antipathy towards each other (no gentler terms will convey the 
 truth) in which, as far as all questions of internal policy are 
 concerned, the two parties exist.” And, at foot of the same 
 page, he says, “there are pretensions on either side which 
 must be repressed.” 
 
 The chief causes that have produced this unfortunate hostile 
 feeling, are, the difference in language and religion of the two 
 parties; and in their customs and manners, which have pre- 
 vented them from coalescing and forming, as it were, one so- 
 ciety in the cities, towns, and villages ; to which may be added, 
 the injudicious and mistaken policy of the Provincial, and like- 
 wise the British Government, at different periods. The inju- 
 rious effects of lods et ventes, by operating as a heavy tax on 
 industry and improvements; and the many disastrous conse- 
 quences to commerce, arising from secret and general mortgages, 
 have also occasioned serious and just complaints by emigrants 
 from Great Britain and Ireland, or their descendants. Many 
 of these, with other complaints from both parties, have been 
 ably investigated by the Royal Commissioners of Enquiry; and, 
 as their Reports have been published, it would be superfluous 
 and presumptuous in one, who has not made the law his study, 
 to attempt a revision of their labours. But this will not prevent 
 me from freely stating my opinion on any topic within my com- 
 petence, though it may differ from what has been expressed by 
 them or others. ^ 
 
 When the Provincial Parliament of this Province first met 
 in December 1792, both Houses were occupied for some time 
 in framing rules and regulations for their proceedings. In the 
 House of Assembly a question arose which occasioned warm 
 debates and tried the strength of the two parties. The French 
 Canadians, as they are now usually called, argued that the text 
 
/ 
 
 of the Acts to be passed (la langue statuante) or the enacting 
 language , should be French , which they had been accustomed 
 to in public proceedings, and which was the only language they 
 understood : those of British and Irish origin or descent, on the 
 contrary, maintained that it ought to be English. After much 
 discussion, a compromise was spoken of among some of the 
 leading members ; namely, that the text of criminal laws should 
 be English , the English Criminal Law having been previously 
 introduced into the Province ; but the text of all other 
 laws should be French. The Lieutenant Governor, General 
 Clarke, who knew what was going on, but could not with pro- • 
 priety interfere directly, had sent them a message, on the 8th 
 January, 1793, containing information of instructions he had 
 received : and, among other things, that he could not assent to 
 any Bill, unless the preamble contained certain words, reciting 
 the title of the British Act of Parliament, under the authority 
 of which, the Provincial Legislature had met. On considering 
 this part of the message, it opened the eyes of both parties ; 
 for these words being all English, unaccompanied by a transla- 
 tion, they found that the Governor would assent to the English 
 version only : and that, if any change was to be made, it could 
 not be effected by their Resolutions, but only by an Act of the 
 whole Legislature.® One circumstance may probably have 
 caused some excitement among the French members on this 
 occasion. The Governor had, unnecessarily and injudiciously, 
 given English names to the greater part of the counties into 
 which the Province was divided. Some of the names were dif- 
 ficult of pronunciation to the inhabitants, and one (Warwick) 
 contains a letter not to be found in the French alphabet. Most 
 of these names have since been changed, and several of the 
 counties subdivided, by a late Provincial Act passed in 18*29. 
 
 At the same time that General Clarke was giving English 
 names to many counties, with the view, as may be presumed, of 
 
 a Some of the arguments used on this occasion appear in the Quebec Maga- 
 zine for January and February, 1 793. This publication is now very scarce : it 
 was not continued after 1794. For other arguments in favour of the French 
 text, it refers to the Quebec Gazette of the 31st January and 7th February, 
 1793. 
 
8 
 
 gradually anglifying the inhabitants, a mistaken policy of quite 
 an opposite tendency existed in regard to the militia, at least 
 in the cities of Quebec and Montreal. They were divided into 
 British and Canadian militia, and the privates were obliged to 
 enroll themselves accordingly. This distinction was in use when 
 the Province was invaded, in 1775, by the revolted Colonies, 11 
 and in full force when the writer arrived at Quebec in 1790: for, 
 he well remembers to have heard mention made of some young 
 Canadian lads who, not long before that date, had enrolled 
 their names with British officers, which excited the jealousy of 
 • the Canadian officers, who complained and had them fined (10s. 
 each, it is believed) for disobedience of orders. This was con- 
 sidered bad policy, as tending to alienate the affections of these 
 young men from the British Government. The Militia was 
 governed, in 1790, by Ordinances of the Governor and Coun- 
 cil : however, since the Provincial Parliament was constituted, 
 Acts have frequently been passed to regulate the Militia, but 
 they have either been temporary or, if permanent, soon amended 
 
 of the “ ° f S,nith ’ 8 HiSt0r - V 0f Canada > a " account is given 
 
 British fr r r * a " ° ffiCer ° f the ^ arrison - He cften speaks of 
 
 th “ C ; na ian (SOmetimUS En e" ish and Fre,loh J Militia: the former was 
 he official distinction, as appears from the following statement of the force of 
 the garrison, on the first of December, 1775. 
 
 70 Royal Fusileers, 
 
 230 Royal Emigrants, 
 
 22 of the Artillery, Fireworkers, &c. 
 330 British Militia, 
 
 543 Canadians, 
 
 400 Seamen, 
 
 50 Masters and Mates of Vessels, 
 
 35 Marines, 
 
 120 Artificers. 
 
 1800 men bearinjr arms 
 
 The number of souls within the wails computed at five thousand. 
 
 In the Journal of the House of AsspmMxr . ^ 
 
 25th November, 1793, there is an official retm rf 1 M'l "• 1>arIiament > 
 traction is also observed. The recapitulation of r ° ltla ’ where the dis - 
 all grades, absentees, infirm and exempted, amounts to^fi 045 “ eludin & 
 
 Tne recapitulation of British Militia, with the ’° 45, Wlt l 8617 Fuslls - 
 
 mention of Fusils. ’ ^ Same det ^> » 1401, and no 
 
or repealed and new enactments made, apparently by way of 
 experiment. The invidious distinction of British and Canadian 
 Militia continued until about 1802 or 1803, when it was 
 abolished, in name at least, though in practice there were bat- 
 talions kept up, the officers of which were generally natives of 
 Britain and Ireland, or their descendants : and their men con- 
 sisted of all those who were not French Canadians, and who 
 were scattered over the whole town and suburbs. The acts of 
 1803 and 1812 also provided that the militia, in general, should 
 be mustered or drilled on a Sunday or holiday ; but that the 
 Protestant battalions might be assembled on any other days. — 
 This religious distinction and mistaken policy was, however, 
 finally abandoned in practice as well as in name^ in 1828: and 
 since then every captain of the sedentary militia has a particu- 
 lar section or district assigned to him, and the whole of the 
 militia-men residing therein compose his company. These de- 
 tails will not be thought too minute or unnecessary, when the 
 importance of the subject is considered : and, it is still requisite 
 for my purpose that the Militia Act of 1830 should be noticed, 
 which, as usual, was only for a limited time. It required a cer- 
 tain qualification of fixed property in the officers or their 
 fathers, according to their respective ranks; and, by a retro- 
 spective operation, revoked the commissions then held by offi- 
 cers not so qualified. Something of the kind, but not to the 
 same extent, was introduced by a temporary act also during the 
 government of the Duke of Richmond, to which he assented 
 with great reluctance, as declared in his speech on proroguing 
 the Legislature, the 24th April, 1819. The Act of 1830 de- 
 prived many officers of their commissions, at least in Quebec 
 and Montreal ; and now, within the last few months, since the 
 insurrection broke out, the government has found it advisable 
 and necessary to violate its own Statute Law, if I am not mis- 
 taken or misinformed, by employing officers not qualified ac- 
 cording to law. A sort of supplementary Act was passed soon 
 afterwards, to constitute courts for enquiring into or trying the 
 qualifications of officers. Thus the governor assented to the 
 complete restraint of his discretionary power and prerogative, 
 
10 
 
 in appointing or retaining militia officers, however long and 
 meritorious might have been their services. 
 
 It was about the same time that an act was passed, requiring 
 a certain qualification in property for Justices of the Peace, 
 which many persons thought should still be left to the discretion’ 
 of the Governor as heretofore. More especially as no qualifi- 
 cation is required in this Province for the legislators who frame 
 those laws, which the former only assist in administering 
 Another ill-judged and unfortunate measure, adopted" by the 
 British Ministry, was the surrender to the House of Assembly 
 of the Crown duties, as they were called, by an Act of the 
 Imperial Parliament (1 and 2 Will. IV. c. 23) without any 
 condition or security that a proper civil list would be provided • 
 but trusting entirely to the liberal professions and sense of jus- 
 ice of the Provincial Legislature, in which the Ministry have 
 been grevmusly disappointed. This act may be considered as 
 the immediate cause of the judges and other civil officers of 
 government being so long deprived of their salaries, without 
 any complaints against them in the discharge of their duties- 
 
 ■ 1 ™“’ ' '» 
 
 The Governor and Legislative Council have frequently given 
 to he popular branch (contrary their bet ’ r 
 
 may be supposed): witness several temporary acts that have 
 been passed, exclusive of those called Money Bills, which “he 
 Council may reject but cannot amend. This system of tem- 
 porary acts commenced, I think, about eighteen or twentv 
 ago, in the House of Assembly; and fo/some Z e 
 a new act was passed, separately, for each act that f ? ’ 
 
 continued; but, during the few last years it }, , * t0 be 
 
 .0 introduce a Bill “into tlm, H^w « W ,7*°,”^ 
 passed into a law, « to continue for a limited time " i 
 therein mentioned;” which, perhaps, included six eio-ht 
 acts. It would seem as if this were considered - g °* m ° re 
 suggested by experience; but it is not easy to i m ! " npr0Vement 
 better calculated to produce confusion ^ S " le a s J stem 
 Provincial Statute Book ”" d » our 
 
 The Legislative Council appear have acted iuconAtently, 
 
li 
 
 on one occasion, at least, if not more ; for, as I understand, 
 they refused to pass a Supply Bill in the spring of 1824 and 
 again in 1826, though they passed one similar to these two, if 
 not exactly the same, in 1825. But, as their proceedings and 
 debates are not regularly reported in the newspapers, their con- 
 duct is not so generally and publicly known, and does not at- 
 tract equal attention with that of the other House. 
 
 Some of the leading members of the House of Assembly, 
 with Speaker Papineau at their head, whenever the opportunity 
 occurred of the House being in Committee, have been in the 
 habit, for several years past, of censuring and declaiming 
 against all the governors of the Province, generally, ever since 
 its cession to Great Britain ; and more particularly against Sir 
 James Henry Craig and Lord Dalhousie, as having acted in an 
 arbitrary and tyrannical manner. It is foreign to my purpose 
 to discuss whether or not they acted judiciously in every in- 
 stance ; but it is proper to assert, contrary to these harangues, 
 that neither of them acted illegally : for, when Sir James im- 
 prisoned several persons, the habeas corpus act was suspended, 
 and under a warrant signed by three Executive Councillors, any 
 suspected person might be arrested and kept in prison, without 
 trial, during the continuance of the temporary suspension. As 
 to the dismission of militia officers by Lord Dalhousie, for 
 which he has been so much censured, it was merely an exercise 
 of the well known and undoubted prerogative of every Governor. 
 It is very doubtful whether this Province has ever had any Go- 
 vernor superior to these distinguished men ; and the chief rea- 
 son for mentioning their names, is in order to notice the quite 
 opposite policy of their immediate successors, in conformity, no 
 doubt, with instructions from the Colonial Office : this could 
 not well be considered otherwise by the public, than as an im- 
 plied censure on their conduct, and does not appear to have 
 had any beneficial or lasting effect on the feelings of those that 
 were expected to be thereby conciliated. On the contrary, it 
 seems to have encouraged the popular branch of the Legisla- 
 ture to increase its demands to such a length, that they were at 
 last refused ; then the majority went so far as to deny the para- 
 mount authority and power of the Imperial Parliament ; not- 
 
J 
 
 12 
 
 withstanding that every Bill which passes through their House 
 acknowledges, in the preamble, that they are “constituted and 
 assembled by virtue of and under the authority of,” an Act of 
 the British Parliament. I have adverted above to Acts of the 
 Executive Government and the proceedings of the Legislative 
 Council, m order to shew my reasons for believing that there 
 has been sometimes mistaken policy in their conduct also; and 
 shall m the sequel, have occasion to return to the same topic. 
 The faults and backshdmgs of the Assembly are better known 
 to the public; particularly of late, since the publication of the 
 Reports of the Royal Commissioners of Enquiry; also from 
 the able pamphlet published last winter, and ascribed to their 
 Secretary, Mr. Elliott. The pamphlet is not at present in my 
 possession, but, if my memory be correct, it contains some ani- 
 madversions on the Assembly for not proceeding on the ques- 
 mn of the Clergy Reserves, as recommended by message from 
 he Governor. It is very probable, as has often happened that 
 the message was not treated with proper decorum and respect • 
 but, as these Reserves are for the maintenance of “a Protestant 
 Clergy, only, and a great majority of the members are Roman 
 Cathohcs, it could scarcely be expected that they would dispose 
 of the question m a satisfactory manner. It may rather J ? 
 posed, if we could know their thoughts, that they were not sorry 
 to observe such difference of opinion, on this subject h t J 
 the two Protestant Churches of Great Britl T H 
 
 member that our House of Assembly in the,’ 1 ^ J®* re ' 
 grievances, have ever complained of the I 1 1,1301 1StS ° f 
 
 Protestant Clergy as such fth^h * 
 
 (No 18 ) annexed to a petition from individuals to 1?“ 
 and laid before the Special Committee of the House of r^’ 
 mons in 1828 , there is a complaint of waste lands bl T 
 
 m large portions or reserved by the Crown h ^ £ rantec * 
 Clergy Reserves, “ to the grievous ^burZ If t h "° menti ° n ° f 
 the hindrance of new settlers, and the obstruction of tb 
 increase and prosperity of the Province.” f gC ' leral 
 
 These Reports of the Commissioners onrl , 
 
 their Secretary, relate chiefly to recent events • bu/T^ ° f 
 understand more fully the state of the case,' it is neeessf^ 
 
 n 
 
 
 f 
 
 

 13 
 
 refer to the proceedings of former years. The debates in the 
 Assembly, at the first meeting of the Provincial Parliament, 
 have already been noticed. It was several years afterwards, in 
 February, 1810, that the Assembly made a voluntary offer to 
 provide for the expenses of .the Civil Government, in the course 
 of that Session. The Governor, Sir James Henry Craig, at the 
 same time that he consented to transmit their addresses to the 
 Imperial Legislature, making the offer, must have foreseen 
 something of what has since occurred in the conduct of the 
 House of Assembly. For he took occasion to remark, that 
 there was no precedent of the House of Commons having of- 
 fered a grant of money to His Majesty, when no application 
 had been previously made to them ; and, also, that their offer 
 was inefficient, without the assent and concurrence of the 
 Legislative Council, and it does not appear that an application 
 was ever made to them for their assent. It was at that time 
 suspected and foreseen by others, besides Sir James, that the 
 House had other objects in view than merely to relieve the 
 Mother Country from the burthen of the Civil Government of 
 the Province. The next proceeding of much moment, was the 
 impeachment of the two chief Justices : the articles of impeach- 
 ment . , or heads of accusation (opinions were not agreed which was 
 the most proper term) were submitted to the Prince Regent in 
 Council. The decision, to the best of my recollection, was in 
 substance, that some of the accusations were frivolous, the 
 whole unsupported by evidence, and as to the most serious 
 charge (against the Chief Justice of the Province for High 
 Treason, by giving bad advice to the Governor) it could never 
 be sustained; because, if the Governor acted improperly or 
 illegally, he himself must answer for it, not his Councillors. 
 This decision was not pleasing to the Assembly, and their pro- 
 ceedings thereupon induced the Administrator of the Govern- 
 ment, Sir Gordon Drummond, to dissolve the Parliament in 
 the Spring of 1816. Not long afterwards, the late Judge 
 Foucher was also impeached; but as this is particularly noticed 
 in the first Report of the Royal Commissioners, it is sufficient 
 merely to mention it. 
 
 The offer made in 1810, to provide for payment of the Civil 
 
 H 
 
14 
 
 List, was no more heard of until January, 1818, when Sir John 
 Cope Sherbrooke, in his speech at the commencement of the 
 Session, informed the Legislature that it was accepted; and 
 from that time the financial difficulties of the Province may be 
 said to have commenced. A few years after, when the Assem- 
 bly found they could not appropriate the revenue, without the 
 concurrence of the Council, they allowed certain temporary 
 acts, some of them imposing duties on imports at Quebec, to 
 expire : and, as Upper Canada was entitled to a share of these 
 duties, loud complaints were of course made from thence. The 
 Imperial Parliament in consequence, made certain enactments 
 in the Canada Trade Act (3 Geo. IV. cap. 119) to revive these 
 duties and also to restrain the Legislature of Lower Canada 
 from exercising such a control in future. There was, however, 
 no interference where Upper Canada was not interested ; and 
 the consequence has been, that during two years at different 
 
 periods, no tolls could be collected from the Lachine Canal. 
 
 We must not omit a remarkable occurrence that took place in 
 the spring of 1820. The Duke of Richmond died the pro- 
 ceeding summer, and Sir Peregrine Maitland, Lieutenant Gov- 
 ernor of Upper Canada, had received instructions to administer 
 the Government and meet the Legislature of this Province, 
 until the Duke’s successor should arrive. Accordingly, he ar- 
 rived from York early in February, dissolved the existing Par- 
 liament, and called a new one, to meet about the end of March 
 or beginning of April. When the new House met, the Speaker 
 was chosen and confirmed by Sir Peregrine, who made a speech 
 to both Houses, as usual, and of course the business of legisla- 
 tion was expected to proceed. But, when the Assembly 
 returned to their own Chamber, they soon came to the resolu- 
 tion, that they were incompetent to proceed to business The 
 reason assigned was, that there was no return from the County 
 of Gaspe, so that there were only forty-nine, whereas the Con- 
 stitutional Act required not less than fifty members The dav 
 fixed for the return from Gaspe had been extended, by a Pro- 
 vincial Act, beyond the time allowed for the other parts of the 
 Province; and whether the Governor acted legally or not in 
 convening the Parliament before the day fixed for the return of 
 
15 
 
 the Writ for that County, was never satisfactorily ascertained, 
 as they had declared themselves incompetent for business ; 
 though, if the Governor, or any of his officers, had done an ille- 
 gal act, it was natural to expect that the popular branch would 
 have made some exertions to prevent its recurrence. On the 
 contrary, the fit of incompetency continued for twelve days or 
 more, during which they could not, or would not, receive a 
 message from the Council, but shut their door in the face of the 
 messenger. Nobody can tell how long this fit might have con- 
 tinued, had not the accounts of the demise of the King (which 
 was known at its commencement) been officially received by 
 Sir Peregrine: which, as the law then stood, occasioned an im- 
 mediate dissolution of the Provincial Parliament. We may 
 have heard of Courts of Law, when their jurisdiction was ob- 
 jected to, admitting their incompetency to decide the case; but 
 the novelty of a popular Assembly voluntarily stultifying itself, 
 created very great surprise, and attracted much public attention. 
 The House of Assembly, however, does not always act consis- 
 tently nor follow precedents set by former Houses : for, at the 
 general election in 1827, one member was returned for two 
 places, and another died before the meeting of the Legislature, 
 so that when the House met in November, it consisted of forty- 
 eight members only ; and, moreover, the Governor refused to 
 confirm their choice of a Speaker. Yet, strange to tell, they 
 insisted that they were competent and right or wrong, would 
 proceed to the despatch of business : until the Governor sent 
 to the lodging of the Speaker elect, a proclamation proroguing 
 the Provincial Parliament. The later proceedings of our 
 Legislature are already publicly known, as formerly mentioned ; 
 I shall, therefore, proceed to make some observations on our 
 Constitutional Act, and other matters connected therewith. If 
 we can trace our present evils to their source, it will be a great 
 step towards applying the necessary and proper remedies. 
 
 In the first place, the division of the Province of Quebec 
 was very injudicious, though the end thereby proposed was very 
 necessary and desirable. Those who suppported and those who 
 opposed this measure, had the same objects in view. In the 
 House of Commons (on the 8th April 1791) Mr Fox said “Of 
 
IG 
 
 all the points of the bill, that which struck him the most for- 
 cibly was, the division of the Province of Canada. It had been 
 urged, that by such means we could separate the English and 
 French inhabitants of the Province; that we could distinguish 
 who were originally French, from those of English origin. ° But 
 was this to be desired ? Was it not rather to be avoided ? Was 
 it agreeable to general political expediency? The most desir- 
 able circumstance was, that the French and English inhabitants 
 of Canada should unite and coalesce, as it were into one body ; 
 and that the different distinctions of the people might be extin- 
 guished for ever, &c. Mr Pitt, in answer said, “ As to the 
 division of the Province, it was in a great measure the funda- 
 mental part of the bill ; and he had no scruple to declare, that 
 
 lie considered it as the most material and essential part of it. 
 
 He agreed with the right honorable gentleman in thinking it 
 extremely desirable that the inhabitants of Canada should” be 
 united, and led universally to prefer the English Constitution 
 and the English Laws. Dividing the Province he considered to 
 be the most likely means to effect his purpose,” &c &c 
 
 The House in Committee, 11th May, “Mr Hussey objected 
 to the division of the Province, stated in the bill, a measure 
 Much he considered as not suited to the purposes of legislation. 
 He thought they all would become British subjects sooner if 
 he division did not take place. He considered it, inste d of 
 «ndm, to heal their differences, as calculated to preserve ,n ( 
 inflame their animosities. Commerce was the chief point of 
 lew m which Quebec was of importance to this con, Hr, It 
 
 behoved the House, therefore, p rovid e for that most essentU 
 object, the security of property. We ought to introduce the 
 English commercial law, and leave the House of Assembly m 
 mate such alterations as they should find rendered expedient 
 by their own peculiar circumstances.” ^ 
 
 Mr Pitt again defended the division of th* P • 
 
 Quebec. Mr Burke did no, disappro Ld Sh m ,d 
 
 and Mr Fox spoke against it • Sir L i o , • L d Sheffield 
 .0 prevent it, which » „ega«^T“ * 
 
 It does not appear, no, have I been able to discover that 
 any petition or application had ever been made to Palme" 
 
17 
 
 for the division of the Province of Quebec. Mr Lymburner, 
 agent of the petitioners of this country for the Constitution, 
 did not know of such an intention, until he saw the bill, when 
 he raised his voice against several parts of it, more especially 
 the division of the Province, which he characterized as a violent 
 measure . He was the bearer of a petition numerously signed 
 by the old and new subjects (which was then the usual distinc- 
 tion), inhabitants of what is now Lower Canada. It is dated at 
 Quebec, the 24th November, 1784, in English and French, 
 and was printed in London, 1791, with the subscribers’ names 
 to both versions. He was allowed to read a paper at the bar of 
 the House of Commons, on the 23d March, 1791 ; and from 
 his knowledge of the country, was enabled to state reasons 
 against it, apparently unknown to the House and which were 
 overlooked in the subsequent debates. It is well worthy of 
 perusal at this period, and does great credit to the writer’s 
 judgment and foresight; a few short extracts, however, must 
 suffice. “ I cannot conceive what reasons have induced the 
 proposition of this violent measure. I have not heard that it 
 has been the object of general wish of the loyalists who are 
 settled in the upper parts of the Province ; and I can assure 
 this Honorable House, that it has not been desired by the in- 
 habitants of the lower parts of the country. I am confident 
 this Honorable House will perceive the danger of adopting a 
 plan which may have the most fatal consequences, while the 
 apparent advantages which it offers to view are few, and of no 
 great moment.” In another place he states that articles for 
 the upper parts of the country as well as exports from thence, 
 must be landed and stored at Quebec or Montreal, and in pass- 
 ing through, must “ become subject to the laws, regulations, 
 duties, and taxes, which may be imposed by the legislature of 
 the lower country.” He then speaks of the revenue that will 
 probably be raised by duties in this way for public purposes, 
 and of the discontent that may be expected among the people 
 inhabiting the Upper Government, when the revenue thus raised 
 is not under their control or for their benefit ; he then adds, it 
 may be said with prophetic accuracy, what is now nearly, if not 
 actually the state of the case. “ It is impossible, Sir, if the 
 
18 
 
 Province of Quebec is divided, for the wisdom of man to lav 
 down a plan for these objects that will not afford matter of dis- 
 pute, and create animosities between the governments of the two 
 Provinces, which in a few years, may lead to the most serious 
 consequences. This would be sowing the seeds of dissension 
 and quarrels, which however easy it may be to raise, will be 
 found extremely difficult to appease.” 
 
 It appears, however, that Mr Pitt and the other Ministers of 
 the Crown had previously formed the plan of dividing the 
 Province of Quebec; and Mr Lymburner’s remonstrance,” as it 
 may be termed, with the opinions afterwards expressed against 
 it, in the debates that ensued, had no effect in changing that 
 part of the bill. At present, I have not access to the proceed- 
 ings m the House of Lords; but, if my memory does not de- 
 
 "T™’ t l le,r Lordshl P s P assed it without amendment and 
 with little, if any, debate. 
 
 In the next place, I come to say something of what may be 
 termed the Ecclesiastical part of our Constitution, and the man . 
 ner m which it has been administered, which has no doubt had 
 
 statT^f rese 6 P m bnnging i b ° Ut tHe FeSent Unfortuna te 
 
 state of these Provinces, particularly in Lower Canada. The 
 
 subject would require a more able hand to treat it according to 
 
 its importance; but, though sensible of my incapacity to do it 
 
 justice it must not, on that account, be passed over in silence. 
 
 The Royal Commissioners of Enquiry have i 
 
 matter incidentally only, though it seems they intended"! make 
 
 a separate Report thereon, including other matters: for, at the 
 
 beginning of their General Report, they say “ On the Clergy 
 
 Reserves, and on some important petitions recently received on 
 
 other matters, we shall submit our opinions hereafter ” Rm 
 
 when the statement of Sir Georo- e Ginns M f \ i e 1 Vx ^ 
 hor lftfifi \ .1 , , ™ t^ipps, (dated 15th Decem- 
 ber, 1836,) was added to that Rcnm-t Si,, r-i, , ^ 
 
 taken his departure for England; and Lord Gosford remained 
 
 met since, to^nfoly Report’ ‘t “° ^ haTO not 
 n • • J , report. However, one or all of 
 
 Commissioners may have given their individual „pi„i„ n Z u' 
 Colonial Secretary; and it is very probable that ? , 
 
 1- done so, as he seems duly impressed with ,h. 
 
19 
 
 and difficulty of the subject, which will appear from his state- 
 ments annexed to different Reports. In the conclusion of that 
 appended to the third Report, he says: — “ From this descrip- 
 tion of the prospect I have made one exception, it is religion, 
 an element which, in its volatile state, is beyond the control of 
 governments, which is not at present in a state of greater action 
 than is salutary, and possibly may not be inflamed, but which, 
 if ever it should become so, whether by the oppression of the 
 Protestant or the Catholic Church, will be the signal for gene- 
 ral confusion.” The following quotations are from the conclu- 
 sion of the minute of Sir Charles, annexed to the General 
 Report : “ It is not without a due sense of the grave and mo- 
 mentous considerations which are connected with the task of 
 altering a Constitution, that I say this ; but if the Act of the 
 31 Geo. III. c. 31, be divested of its ecclesiastical provisions, 
 it will be perceived that it is not of a very difficult or complex 
 structure, yet might serve as a precedent for what would be now 
 wanted.” He then goes on to propose, “ that Lower Canada 
 be divided into several subordinate Legislatures, with one gene- 
 ral and controlling one,” &c. &c. After having mentioned dif- 
 ferent conflicting claims set up and urged by the French 
 Canadians and by the British, he adds, what is very evident, 
 “ There are pretensions on either side which must be repressed.” 
 In a note added to this minute, Sir Charles says, “ he had pre- 
 pared notes on different points, that required only to be copied;” 
 one point is, “ institutions for religion and education.” The 
 whole of these notes, if published, could not fail to be useful 
 and very interesting, at this particular juncture. These subor- 
 dinate legislatures with a general one to control them, could 
 not be considered an efficient remedy for the dissensions that 
 have so long distracted the Province, as will probably be mani- 
 fest on a little reflection. One of the pretensions that requires 
 to be repressed, not particularly noticed by Sir Charles, and 
 which is coeval with our Constitutional Act, or rather was re- 
 vived about that time, is, the assertion brought forward as an 
 axiom not to be controverted, that, the Church of England is 
 the Established Church in all the British dominions , Scotland only 
 excepted . The Legislatures of the Canadas, particularly that 
 
•20 
 
 of Upper Canada, appear generally, with but few exceptions, 
 to have acted on this untenable assumption, which will be 
 noticed more particularly afterwards. At first it was not pub- 
 licly advanced, but was mentioned incidentally only, as occasions 
 occurred ; and, during the first twelve or fourteen years of my 
 residence in this Province, from 1790 until about 1803 or 1804, 
 
 I do not remember to have heard the term Established Church 
 used, as applicable to this country. The claim, however, has 
 been boldly and frequently asserted of late years, in both 
 Houses of the Legislature of Upper Canada, and also in dif- 
 ferent publications there. 
 
 The disagreements and difficulties between the House of 
 Assembly and the other two branches of the Legislature of 
 Lower Canada, seem to have increased and taken a more se- 
 rious and decided turn since the year 1820. It would appear 
 by a speech of Mr Speaker Papineau, at his election that 
 ummer, that he had then no grievances to complain of: and 
 that he was fully sensible of the privileges and advantages k 
 enjoyed by the Province, in consequence of its cession to Great 
 Pritam. c The same Summer, it was announced, by an adver- 
 tisement in the Official Gazette, that the Protestant Bishop 
 and his Clergy, were erected into a corporation for managing 
 
 Lt?bT rr VeS: " r 0dy ab ° Ut the Same time > I believe! 
 
 In fr i0n f0r the advancement of Learning was 
 constituted, though the act empowering the Governor to do so 
 
 into The 8 1l g f P 180L ^ 18 ' 22 ’ a biU was brought 
 
 into the House of Commons to reunite Upper and Lower 
 
 Canada, which would probably have passed, had it not been 
 
 opposed by Sir James Macintosh. When the details of the 
 
 bill were known here, there was a decided anJ n- .. 1 • 
 
 lion to the measure, b, what are called the 
 
 A pub he meeting was called and numerously attended at Mon- 
 treal, by whom a most respectable commit 
 
 thirteen or perhaps fifteen members, to preple H f 
 
 use all lawful means prevent the unL^ChT. , 
 objections to the detads, but the strongest were again's, the a p- 
 
 • Thl. Sp-.rli 1». been r.publi.k.d ft*. ft. ^ 
 
21 
 
 proval of the Governor, which was required before their Bishop 
 could legally place his curates or priests, and also that their 
 language was excluded from the Legislature, not only in the 
 written proceedings, but, after fifteen years, also in debates. — 
 These, and several other objections, were allowed to be well 
 founded by Mr Wilmot Horton, in his evidence before the 
 Canada Committee in 1828. When the Legislature met next 
 winter, the Governor, in consequence of instructions he had 
 received, recommended the consideration of the subject to both 
 Houses. The members, generally, had previously made up 
 their minds; and, in the Council six voted for and eight 
 against the Union, as published in the newspapers at the time ; 
 for their journal does not show the majority, though the names 
 of the minority appear to their reasons of dissent. In the As- 
 sembly it was voted down, I believe, without much debate, there 
 being thirty-one against, and only three members in favour of 
 it : the names of all appear in the Journal. It would perhaps 
 have been more advisable not to object altogether to an Union, 
 but only to such principles and details as appear objectionable ; 
 and for each House to have stated the manner in which they 
 would approve of its being carried into effect. In Upper 
 Canada, both Houses took up the question, though not particu- 
 larly recommended to them ; but, so far as my memory serves 
 me, neither expressed itself very decisively either for or against 
 the measure. Mr Papineau was one of the agents that carried 
 petitions to London against the Union; and while he was there, 
 a pamphlet was published in the form of a letter to the Earl of 
 Liverpool by a member of Parliament. It related to the eccle- 
 siastical and political affairs of the Province; and declaimed 
 with much virulence against the Church of Rome ; the Church 
 of Scotland also came in for a share of censure; and complaints 
 were made of the countenance and support afforded to both in 
 this country. The author is not yet certainly known, perhaps 
 more than one had a hand in it ; but, if not written here, it is 
 evident the materials were furnished from hence. It was not 
 intended for circulation here ; Mr Papineau, however, sent out 
 a copy, which was handed about and freely discussed in the 
 newspapers. All these circumstances occurring together, or 
 
 c 
 
u 
 
 22 
 
 following one another closely, tended, no doubt, to create 
 jealousy, suspicion, and distrust in the minds of many people, 
 where such feelings did not previously exist. 
 
 Another fruitful source of much bad feeling and party spirit 
 must not pass unnoticed. It is the national distinctions and 
 other irritating topics introduced into newspapers, or speeches 
 made at public meetings, and reported afterwards in the papers. 
 This licentiousness of the press has no doubt done much mis- 
 chief on both sides for many years past ; but more particularly 
 at, and since the general election in 1827. The French Cana- 
 dians, as they are called, have sometimes been mentioned as a 
 conquered people, at other times represented as in general dis- 
 loyal, &c. I have not regular files of newspapers to refer to, 
 but any person residing in this country may have noticed it. 
 However, I happen to have before me one number, dated 16th 
 August, 1832, of the oldest and perhaps the most influential 
 paper in this district, from which an extract follows, which may 
 be reckoned a fair specimen of the publications alluded to.— 
 The editor, after remarking on some very improper resolutions 
 passed at a public meeting in a country village, concludes with 
 the following threat : “ Let us no longer hear of our being- 
 
 only one-tenth, by emigration alone, our population was in- 
 creased, during the last six years, upwards of 23,000; the stream 
 continues to flow towards us, and, despite of the party , we will 
 continue to increase and multiply in the land, settle the soil, 
 and introduce, in due course of time, our institutions, our lan- 
 guage, and our laws.” It is easier to imagine than to express, 
 what discontent and alarm such paragraphs must excite, when 
 rendered into French, and widely circulated with editorial re- 
 marks as has often been done, for the purpose of agitation.- 
 The bad effects and injustice of such writings and national 
 distmc ions are well set forth in an address, dated January, 
 
 ef t Tk A "'I ° f L ° ngUeuil t0 the Governor-in- 
 Chief. The following is the passage alluded to : « The fever- 
 ish and disturbed state from which the excited parts of this 
 district are recovering, is attributable, not only to the disloyal 
 writings, speeches, and meetings, which have attracted public 
 notice as the immediate causes thereof-but, in no small degree 
 
2:3 
 
 to the virulence and irritating language used by miscalled loyal 
 papers, and to the haughty and arrogant conduct of men, who, 
 pretending to exclusive loyalty, abuse without measure all who 
 are opposed to their narrow and selfish policy, thereby enter- 
 taining national distinctions, (than which, nothing is more 
 foreign, to the notion of the Canadian people,) purposely keep- 
 ing alive political prejudices, and exciting to disaffection, a 
 people whose loyal conduct has at different epochs received the 
 praises of your Excellency’s predecessors, and of the Imperial 
 Government.” 3 
 
 These different causes, particularly the attempt, (if not real 
 at least apparent,) to undermine or curtail the religious liberty 
 of the Canadians, produced, as might have been expected, 
 fears, distrust, discontent and not unfrequently opposition to the 
 plans of government. An English gentleman, since deceased, 
 who was a Roman Catholic and had resided in the Province 
 since 1780, disapproved very much of that part of the Union 
 bill which he considered as an improper interference with the 
 functions of the Roman Catholic Bishop : though he had no 
 community of political feelings with L. J. Papineau and his ad- 
 
 d See the Montreal Morning Courier of 26th January, 1838. 
 
 It will not be considered out of place here, to give the opinion of John 
 Neilson, Esq. regarding the French Canadians, which appears in his examination 
 by the Commissioners of Enquiry, annexed to their first Report, page 61 : 
 
 Q. 424 “ To what extent do you consider the French Canadians to be 
 
 under the influence of the leaders, and to be an excitable people? I consider 
 that they are quite excitable, but not for theories of government ; anything that 
 will insult them, or affect them in their feelings and interests, will stir them up 
 very readily. The mass of them are not very much under the influence of 
 their leaders. The truth is, that the best of the French Canadians will take 
 very little part in the public affairs of the community : those affairs are in the 
 hands of lawyers, doctors, notaries, surveyors, small traders, tavern-keepers and 
 mechanics : many of the most respectable habitans take no interest in political 
 transactions.” 
 
 Q. 425 “ Do you think that if there were some scheme to sever Canada 
 
 from Great Britain, and it were discovered, the majority of the people would 
 be prepared to assist in putting it down ? I am clearly of opinion that they 
 would. If the question advert to anything in the shape of a plot or treasonable 
 conspiracy, or to anything to be carried by violence, or connexion with a foreign 
 power, I am persuaded the people would gladly see it defeated.” 
 
124 
 
 herents: for he remarked, that it was like putting armb into the 
 hands of these factious men. He was also sorry, when the 
 Bishop of his Church was called to the Legislative Council, 
 about eighteen or twenty years ago, I think; because, as he 
 said, it would occupy too much of his time and attention, which 
 ought to be entirely devoted to his episcopal duties. His suc- 
 cessors have not attended the Council ; but whether they de- 
 clined the honor, or that it was not offered to them, is unknown 
 to me. In the journals, he is styled, “ Rev. J. O. Plessis, 
 Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Quebec the Pro- 
 testant Bishop is styled, “ Lord Bishop of Quebec a distinc- 
 tinetion that could not be very flattering to the former, nor to 
 the numerous members of his Church. The same causes mav 
 likewise account for the leading men in the House of Assembly 
 being long supported by their constituents, among whom are 
 many intelligent, as well as conscientious men ; perhaps they 
 may have been encouraged even by some of their clergymen ; 
 but that cannot be easily ascertained, as they do not openly in- 
 terfere in politics, except on some very urgent occasion. As 
 soon, however, as it became evident that, under the specious 
 name of Reform , these men aimed at revolution, denying the 
 paramount authority of the British Parliament, and seeking to 
 dismember the Canadas from the Empire, then it was, that the 
 well disposed Canadian gentlemen, and the Catholic Clergy of 
 the District of Montreal, (for many years the head quarters of 
 agitation,) came forward to stem the torrent, and if possible, to 
 restore peace and obedience to the laws. The Rev. John James 
 Lartique, Catholic Bishop of Montreal, issued a pastoral letter, 
 dated the 24th October, 1837, to be read in all the Churches 
 of his Diocese. 6 This was of course done, and his views were 
 generally seconded by the clergymen under him ; which, There 
 can be no doubt, had a powerful effect in preventing the' "insur- 
 rection from becoming general over the whole District. He 
 describes in a strong and feeling manner, the horrors of civil 
 war ; which, thank God, were only partially experienced, yet 
 
 e Sec Appendix, No. I. 
 
25 
 
 enough was realized on the banks of the Richelieu and at St. 
 Eustache, to verify his description. 
 
 It has just been stated that religious scruples and conscien- 
 tious feelings must have had a large share in bringing about the 
 present unfortunate state of affairs in this Province. It is not, 
 however, to be inferred from this, that the leaders in the late 
 insurrection were either religious fanatics or sober serious Chris- 
 tians, attached to the services and worship of the respective 
 churches to which their ancestors adhered ; though there can 
 be no doubt that many of them, for several years before, had, 
 by wearing the mask of religion, taken advantage ef the alarms 
 on that score, which were felt by many of their more conscien- 
 tious countrymen, to excite discontent and resistance to the 
 government and laws. On the contrary, when they were about 
 to break out into open rebellion, they treated their clergymen, 
 and Bishop Lartique’s pastoral letter with contempt, and in 
 several parishes many of them left the churches when their 
 Priests began to read it. Indeed, they seemed disposed, had 
 they not been timeously checked, to follow the example of the 
 French Revolutionists of last century; and it has been stated, 
 (but I have seen none of his papers for several years) that 
 Mackenzie, the arch-rebel of Upper Canada, recently pub- 
 lished part of the treasonable and blasphemous writings of Tom 
 Paine. 
 
 It has been stated and may be credited, that many of the 
 country people, or habitans , were promised, as an inducement 
 to take up arms, that la dime , or tithe payable to their Priests, 
 would be abolished, as well as the rents due to the Seignieurs, 
 without their having to give any indemnification to either. 
 Robert Nelson, in his declaration, as President of the Provisional 
 Government , promises a discharge for all arrearages due in virtue 
 of any Seigniorial rights, real or supposed, as an allurement to 
 all who shall bear arms, or otherwise assist in this contest for 
 emancipation. Perhaps he declined speaking of the dues pay- 
 able to the Priests, lest he might shock the religious prejudices, 
 as he would say, of the farmers and others, whose assistance he 
 hoped to obtain. This declaration, without date of time or 
 place, it appears, was printed in Vermont, and intended to be 
 
26 
 
 
 dated and circulated so soon as he got a footing in the Pro- 
 vince : but, by some bad luck, it got into circulation about the 
 first of March, 1838, before he had any hold of Canada. 
 
 It is truly said, in a late provincial publication, that “an 
 abundant source of error, as to all Colonial affairs is, too ser- 
 vile a reference to the proceedings of the government in Eng- 
 land, as a model, without bearing in mind the marked difference 
 which exists between the society there and here,” &c. It may 
 be attributed to this source, that the Protestant Bishop of 
 Quebec was called to the Executive and Legislative Councils 
 of both the Canadas, and as Executive Councillor, he is also, 
 ex officio, a Judge in the Court of Appeals; he has likewise 
 other offices assigned to him. I believe he has never taken his 
 seat in either Council in Upper Canada; but that of course de- 
 pended merely on his own pleasure. To the same source may, 
 probably, also be traced the assent given in 1830, to the bill 
 requiring a qualification for officers of militia ; which, as I am 
 informed, is the uniform practice, if not the law, in England; 
 perhaps also in Scotland and Ireland. On the other hand, the 
 House of Assembly has laid claim to the absolute control of all 
 the money raised in the Province, far beyond the claims and 
 privileges of the House of Commons. Money bills originate 
 in the Assembly, a privilege that has never been denied to it. 
 They also claim the right to stop the supplies of money, as 
 being one of the privileges of the British House of Commons. 
 A privilege, however, which is seldom exercised ; and if it ever 
 should, there can be no similarity between the effects there and 
 in the Canadas. There, the practice is to settle and appro- 
 priate by an Act of Parliament at the commencement of each 
 reign, the amount of annual supply that may be required to 
 carry on the civil government during that reign: but, depend- 
 ing on an annual act for other grants that may be required for 
 the public service. Thus, the privilege and right of the Com- 
 mons is confined principally to withholding or curtailing the 
 supplies hat may be asked, for keeping up or augmenting the 
 army and navy; with the view entertained, perhaps, by the 
 ministers of the Crown, of establishing an arbitrary govern- 
 ment; or of carrying into effect ambitious schemes of foreign 
 

 27 
 
 conquests, which might prove injurious, in the highest degree, 
 to the commerce and prosperity of the Empire. The case of 
 the Canadas and other Colonies who pay their civil officers on- 
 ly, but contribute nothing, directly, to their defence ; is so very 
 different and has been so fully exemplified of late in this Pro- 
 vince, that is sufficient merely to have mentioned it. 
 
 Our Assembly have eagerly adopted and applied to them- 
 selves an insufficient reason that has sometimes been given for 
 this “ antient indisputable privilege and right of the House of 
 Commons.” A privilege so ancient, that the record of its date 
 and true reason of its first adoption, appear to be lost or un- 
 certain. 66 The general reason given for this exclusive privilege 
 of the House of Commons, is, that the supplies are raised upon 
 the body of the people, and therefore it is proper that they 
 alone should have the right of taxing themselves. This reason 
 would be unanswerable, if the Commons taxed none but them- 
 selves : but it is notorious, that a very large share of property is 
 in the possession of the House of Lords ; that this property is 
 equally taxable, and taxed, as the property of the Commons ; 
 and therefore the Commons not being the sole persons taxed, 
 this cannot be the reason of their having the sole right of raising 
 and modelling the supply. The true reason, arising from the 
 spirit of our constitution, seems to be this : the Lords being a 
 permanent hereditary body, created at pleasure by the King, are 
 supposed more liable to be influenced by the crown, and when 
 once influenced to continue so, than the Commons, who are a 
 temporary elective body, freely nominated by the people. It 
 would, therefore, be extremely dangerous, to give them any 
 power of framing new taxes for the subject : it is sufficient, that 
 they have a power of rejecting, if they think the Commons too 
 lavish or improvident in their grants.” f But the House of As- 
 sembly of Lower Canada have carried their pretensions and 
 claims much farther; for they seem to have expected that 
 money bills passed by them, ought to be sanctioned by the 
 other two branches of the Legislature, notwithstanding whatever 
 conditions were tacked to them. This disposition was first pub- 
 
 f Blaokstone Corns, vol. i. page 169. 
 
 x 
 
•28 
 
 licly shown in the addresses of 1810, which, as already stated, 
 
 Sir James Crahr did not fail to notice. 
 
 © 
 
 Having pointed out the principal causes of the discontent 
 and difficulties that have existed for many years in this Province, 
 and that have also occurred between the Upper and Lower 
 Provinces, I shall now propose, what appears the best, if not 
 the only remedies that can be applied. And first, as being the 
 greatest, the Canadas ought to be re-united. But before 
 speaking of the details, it will be proper to notice some other 
 schemes that have been thought of, as remedies for the evils 
 arising from their having been separated. The chief plan, is to 
 annex Montreal and another portion of this Province to Upper 
 Canada, so as to give it a port of entry and clearance for ves- 
 sels from sea. This was first talked of ten years ago or more ; 
 and many speeches and writings have since appeared in its fa- 
 vour, especially in the Upper Province. But, in that case, the 
 same details would be necessary, and the same difficulties must 
 be overcome, as in uniting the two Provinces. And, after all, 
 it would not prove a remedy to the existing difficulty regarding 
 the public revenue. It is well known to every one acquainted 
 with the commercial business of Montreal, that the chief part 
 of the goods imported are opened there, and afterwards sold to 
 merchants and shopkeepers there, and in other parts of that ex- 
 tensive district; part also goes to the district of Three-Rivers, 
 and occasionally to the city of Quebec, when any articles there, 
 bear better prices than in Montreal : a great part of the imports 
 there, also go to Upper Canada, for I believe not one half of 
 the goods, liquors, and groceries consumed there are imported 
 in separate packages and for account of the merchants residing 
 in that Province; but, that they purchase their chief supplies 
 from the importers at Montreal, and, such is now the facility of 
 carnage by steamboats, that they sometimes make purchases in 
 Quebec. It is thus evident that, if Upper Canada collected 
 the duties levied at Montreal, the same difficulty of giving to 
 each Province its just and equitable proportion, would & still 
 exist: the only difference being, that Lower Canada would 
 then have to apply for her share to Upper Canada 
 
 In perusing the Reports of the Royal Commissioners of En- 
 
quiry, we are disappointed in net meeting with any decided 
 opinion on this point ; though they seem rather to discourage 
 than recommend the Union. In the Second Report, paragraph 
 17, they think the question ought not to be entertained, “ ex- 
 cept with a very general prevalence of opinion in its favour in 
 both Provinces.” On this it may be remarked, that there are 
 many persons in its favour in both Provinces; and also not a few 
 against it, especially in Lower Canada. But, as to the general 
 opinion in either Province, it cannot easily be ascertained. — 
 For, there is not perhaps one in five hundred, who is able and 
 will also take the necessary trouble to form an opinion of his 
 own ; though many will sign, without reading, a petition either 
 for or against it, as the case may be, on the strength of some 
 favourite name that precedes their own. 
 
 The General Report of the Commissioners, (section VI, 
 paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9,) details the difficulties arising from the 
 apportionment of duties, and from certain clauses of the Canada 
 Trade Act, 3, Geo. IV., c. 119: they then express the “wish 
 that each Province could be enabled to raise and regulate its 
 own revenue but they have not heard any good suggestion, 
 neither have they any of their own to offer, as a remedy for 
 these evils ; therefore, “ the necessity of the present arrange- 
 ment justifies its continuance,” &c. Sir Charles Grey added a 
 minute to this Report, at the end of which, in a note, he speaks 
 of certain notes that he had made on different subjects, one of 
 which is the Union of the two Provinces ; but, if these notes 
 were given into the Colonial Secretary, they have not been pub- 
 lished, so that his opinions on these points are not known. — 
 There is also a statement from Sir George Gipps added to the 
 same Report in which, under the head of “ Changes in the 
 Constitution of the Province,” there is a suggestion, that, in- 
 stead of giving Montreal to Upper Canada, it might be declared 
 “ an absolutely free trading port,” &c. &c. He has not ex- 
 plained fully, and without explanation, it is not easy to compre- 
 hend how his suggestion could be carried into effect, in such a 
 manner as to afford a remedy for these increasing difficulties. — 
 As to the wish that each Province may be enabled to raise and 
 regulate its own revenue, a slight consideration of the trade car- 
 
30 
 
 ried on between them, which centres chiefly in Montreal, and 
 for timber, partly in Quebec, added to their geographical posi- 
 tion, will clearly shew that it is utterly impracticable ; as was 
 foretold, in the quotation already given from Mr Lymburner’s 
 paper. It is proper to notice, more particularly, the opinion of 
 Sir Charles Grey, expressed in the conclusion of his minute 
 annexed to the General Report. He there refers to what the 
 minister of the day, Mr Pitt, stated, in debate, the 11th May, 
 1791, as his reasons for dividing the Province of Quebec; and 
 supposes that, if the division had not taken place, we would now 
 see, “ the whole inhabitarits of the old Province of Quebec ar- 
 ranged in two parties, of nearly equal numbers, and perilously 
 opposed to each other.” He then goes on to explain his 
 scheme of obviating the present difficulties and party differences; 
 and suggests that our Constitutional Act, if “ divested of its 
 ecclesiastical provisions,” might serve as a precedent for what 
 would now be wanted. Then he proposes that Lower Canada 
 
 may “be divided into several subordinate Legislatures, with one 
 general and controlling one.” This plan is much too compli- 
 cated and difficult of execution to answer well in practice. Sir 
 G. Gipps, near the end of his remarks upon Sir C. Grey’s 
 paper, hints also at a Federal Union of all British America; 
 and it has been said that such a scheme was recommended by 
 some persons in 1823, in place of the Incorporating Union of 
 the two Provinces, the last of which was then much discussed. 
 This scheme is also too complex; and both appear to be imita- 
 tions of the Federal Union of the United. States, which does 
 not seem to answer very well there, and would be still more un- 
 suitable under a Monarchal Government. The Legislative 
 Council of Upper Canada, in a Report on the state of the Pro- 
 v, nee m February, 1838, speak of the Federal Union of British 
 North America, and of the annexation of Montreal to their 
 Province, with apparent complacency and approbation. But 
 none of these schemes includes any feasible plan for remedving 
 or removing the existing financial difficulties between the "two 
 Provinces With respect to what might have been the present 
 state of the Province of Quebec, had it remained entire, it is 
 difficult to say, as it was not tried; but it is hardly possible it 
 
01 
 
 could have been in a worse condition than are the Canadas just 
 now, hoping soon to recover from the effects of an insurrection, 
 that lately broke out in both, at a time when the Mother Coun- 
 try had no foreign enemies. It must be borne in mind, as has 
 been adverted to already, that several members of the House of 
 Commons condemned the policy of dividing the Province, as did 
 Mr Lymburner, who entered more into detail and predicted the 
 difficulties relating to the public revenue, just as they have oc- 
 curred and do still exist. Yet, such is the veneration for great 
 and eminent men, like Mr Pitt, that even their mistakes and 
 errors, from which none can claim exemption, are more dan- 
 gerous than those of ordinary men, being frequently followed 
 and held sacred ; which is the only way of accounting for the 
 opinion of Sir C. Grey, abovementioned, contrary to what was 
 so clearly foreseen and is now confirmed by experience. 
 
 In proposing the re-union of the Canadas, I am well aware 
 of the details and difficulties that must attend it, and the pru- 
 dence and caution that must be observed in effecting it ; arising 
 from the different origins, languages, manners, customs, laws 
 and religions of the inhabitants ; yet it is the best, or rather the 
 only means, of removing the existing evils and preventing their 
 return. The mode adopted in uniting England and Scotland, 
 may, with some variation, serve as a precedent. Let Commis- 
 sioners be appointed by the British Government or by the par- 
 tieSj as may be considered most advisable, on behalf of each 
 Province ; with instructions to draw up articles of an Incorpor- 
 ating (not a Federal) Union, or a constitution for the Provinces 
 when united, on some general plan to be suggested to them ; in 
 which neither Province is to have any advantage or preference 
 real or apparent over the other ; unless the good of the whole 
 Empire or the stipulations of the treaty of 1763 require it. The 
 written daily proceedings of the United Legislature, to be en- 
 tered on their journals, should be in English only ; but, a 
 French translation of the most important parts might be printed 
 at the public expense, after each session, for the use of mem- 
 bers, &c. One English translator, if not more, would also be 
 constantly required for some years, to render motions, reports of 
 committees, &c. into that language. The acts should be printed 
 
32 
 
 together in English only, being the original or text : and an au- 
 thorized translation would be required, separately, for the use 
 of those entitled to copies of the laws, and who do not under- 
 stand English ; with some extra copies for sale at the same 
 price as the original text. The debates and proceedings will 
 be translated in the daily papers, as heretofore, for the infor- 
 mation of their subscribers and the public. The provision in 
 the Bill of 1822, requiring the debates to be also in English, 
 at the end of fifteen years, was very ill-judged and could not 
 easily have been enforced; in fact, it looked like an infringe- 
 ment on the liberty of speech, and may be called over legislat- 
 ing: for, if the practice be adopted of using only English, in 
 the written ^ daily proceedings, it will f„U 0 „ lt ,„ as , „ mttcr 
 
 of course, that the debates will also bo ill that language. There 
 are other reasons in favour of using onl, English in° the daily 
 proceedings; however, I shall notice only , he great savino of 
 precious tune, a matter of considerable importance, especially 
 
 nT"!”," pai4 “ at <0 ' 'heir atten- 
 
 dance. Neither ought the electors to complain nor think it a 
 
 I ' a T’ i “ 1 understand > 'here are many electors, in Ire- 
 land, Scotland and Wales, who do not understand English, and 
 
 C 721 T * Jet, in the debates and^ed- 
 
 ., B I i |Krl '' Perhament, nothing is used but English 
 ho gh perhaps no, always quite pure; and (he acts are pifmeS 
 
 The F 7T ’T hout P™* any translations. P 
 
 Curts of" Uw, in 
 
 as being most competent to decide on wlnt 1 °*r ^ ^ 
 
 proper to be made in that respect The I ° langeS ’ ,f 
 require also to be amended and’ , ,!i " “ res P ects 
 
 effected in that respect in this Pr • Ung ,na - v probably be 
 '.thes place, ' he U ” i0 " 
 
 own Provincial Legislature being suspended in “ °“ r 
 
 the popular branch having committed ' S , C ° nsequence of 
 
 gratifying to observe that « the W al (S ‘ T ^ * b 
 
 Montreal,” in a declaration dated fir t of Fet “ AsS ° Clation of 
 
 nist 01 February, 1838, ad- 
 
units, that many amendments and improvements are required in 
 the laws of the Province, which the members will labour to ef- 
 fect. 6 But, they are strenuously opposed to the Union of the 
 Canadas: that opposition will doubtless be diminished or vanish 
 altogether, should the following scheme and suggestions be 
 adopted. The principal and most difficult part of which, is, to 
 secure to the Roman Catholic Clergy their present support, 
 even when lands in the country parishes come into the posses- 
 sion of those who do not belong to their communion. In order 
 to do this effectually and to avoid future mischief and difficul- 
 ties, it will be requisite to appoint Commissioners in every 
 county, or to ascertain by some means, what quantity of grain, 
 &c. each farm in every parish, has contributed towards the sup- 
 port of the Priest for the last three years, or any greater or less 
 number that may be considered necessary. Then the lands to 
 be made liable to the Priest of the parish for the average quan- 
 tity of these years, to be paid annually in kind by the owner or 
 occupier of the farm, no matter to what church he may belong. 
 This is a more equitable and secure maintenance for the cler- 
 gyman than tithes, or a certain proportion of each year’s crop, 
 or than a fixed annual allowance in money, the value of which 
 is so liable to fluctuation. Besides, a proportion of the yearly 
 crop would only increase the present evil, by operating as a tax 
 on industry, and bringing the inhabitants of the parish, especially 
 those not of his church, into collision with the Priest. But, by 
 the proposed plan, any person leasing or purchasing a farm 
 could know exactly what he had to furnish yearly to the Priest 
 and would make his bargain accordingly. Something similar to 
 this was effected in Scotland about two hundred years ago ; and 
 improvements have been made in the present century, by the 
 Acts, 48 Geo. III. c. 138, and 50th year same reign, c. 84; 
 so that the Clergy of Scotland are now enabled to receive their 
 teinds in money, the grain being valued at the annual current 
 price. It is no doubt chiefly owing to these judicious laws and ar- 
 rangements, that we scarcely ever hear of complaints by Roman 
 Catholics and other Dissenters in Scotland, against the payment 
 
 s See Appendix, No. IT. 
 
34 
 
 of teinds to the Scottish Clergy. On the contrary, there ap- 
 pears to exist more cordiality there, between different denomi- 
 nations of Christians, than in other parts of the United 
 Kingdom. As an illustration and confirmation of this, I mav 
 refer to Wellwood’s Life of Erskine, published in 1818. H e 
 gives a letter to Dr Erskine, from the celebrated Mr Burke 
 dated in June, 1779: and after making some observations on’ 
 the state of public feeling at that period, which produced 
 serious disturbances in Scotland, and the terrible riot in Lon- 
 don ml 78 0 Sir H. M. Wellwood then speaks of the contrast 
 the time he was writing, twenty years ago. The following 
 passage is selected from his remarks on that head, page 311° 
 Since that time the disabilities, which affected the Catholics 
 with regard to their property, have been, in a great measure’ 
 removed, without having created any opposition, or excited any 
 discontent or alarm; and even the right of presenting to a church 
 
 patrol t ° h m t ^ ,?°! Z** * Cath ° lic 
 
 ' ' to what ls called the voluntary system, which has 
 
 -d me for few ^ in ScotJ 4 . > ^ £ 
 
 dered as a temporary clamour, and, by being properly met and 
 treated, it may be soon expected to subside. It may d so be 
 taken ,n,o consideration, in examining , he detail, of J tl]e 
 p measure, whether some provision might not be made for 
 he support of Roman Catholic Priests in tire unconceded parts 
 
 »ishT s ”Jle Th ° tller ^ T CatMic ">«!>• 
 
 . , ttle * Tlle want of something of that kind, appears 
 
 to be one great reason which prevents them from leaving their 
 
 native parishes and forming new settlements. ° 
 
 It is not improbable that some of both clero-v and t 
 two Protestant Churches of Great Britain wfl excl J ° f the 
 .he whole of this p l an , a „ d insisl that «**'« 
 
 oug . no. cherish ..,1 perpetuate Zr 
 
 Without attempting either to expose or nalliof J ' 
 
 Church of Rome, which must be left to those f 
 by education and study, I shall merely observe that 1. 
 with us in the great essential truths of Christianity a g rees 
 m the Apostles’ creed; the Lord’s 
 
 their catechism; but the ten commandments differ s^ewhat! 
 
35 
 
 though they are not absolutely contradictory to our translation. 
 A gentleman of that Church, lately deceased, used to say “that 
 they believed all we did, and a good deal more.” The same 
 thing is also noticed in the memoirs of the great Sully, for the 
 year 1604, as may be seen in a translation, printed at Edin- 
 burgh, in 1773: the original work I have not met with. 
 
 It must not be forgotten, also, that all the efforts hitherto 
 made to convert the Roman Catholics of Lower Canada, have 
 signally failed of success ; and it may now be considered hope- 
 less, unless some new and more efficacious scheme be devised 
 for that purpose. It was generally believed, and is now evident 
 that the Royal Institution for the advancement of Learning was 
 expected to be the means of bringing up many of the rising 
 generation to the English Church ; which may be inferred, in- 
 dependently of its subsequent policy, from the members being 
 selected chiefly from that church, with the Bishop as Principal: 11 
 but the measure did little more than creating jealousies, without 
 attaining the chief object in view. But farther, the act of 1774, 
 and our Constitutional Act, in • 1791, provided that the Roman 
 Catholic Clergy should enjoy all their rights, dues, &c. “with 
 respect to such persons only as profess the said religion.” It is 
 farther enacted, that Protestants shall pay tithes, so as to form 
 a fund for the maintenance of a Protestant Clergy ; but tithes 
 have never been collected from Protestant proprietors of farms, 
 and cannot now be collected, after this enactment has remained 
 so long a dead letter. So that in practice, though not by the 
 letter of the law, whenever a cultivated farm in a Roman 
 Catholic parish is sold to a Protestant, which is frequently the 
 case, the Priest loses his tithe or dues, and the purchaser pays 
 none. This will sufficiently account for the great aversion 
 manifested by the French Canadians to the settlement among 
 them, of emigrants from the British Isles, many of whom are 
 Protestants ; particularly when they are threatened with the ex- 
 tinction of their institutions, language and laws. It may be 
 observed that, institutions being a general term, may perhaps be 
 
 h See Neilson’s Quebec Almanack ; I have not a regular series to consult, 
 but that for 18*22 is sufficient. 
 
86 
 
 understood to include even the Seminaries of learning where 
 their Priests are educated. It deserves to be particularly 
 noticed, as an important fact, that, since Protestants pav no 
 tithes, a pecuniary temptation or premium is thereby held out 
 for Roman Catholic farmers to join either of the Protestant 
 Churches, or some of the Dissenters from them ; yet we have 
 not heard of a single convert being made from among the far- 
 mers, whether French Canadians or Roman Catholic emigrants 
 from the old country, considerable numbers of whom must have 
 settled in this Province, especially within the last twenty-live 
 years. 
 
 It thus appears that, notwithstanding this accidental induce- 
 ment, and all the means used since the cession of the country, 
 yet the conversion of the inhabitants to the English Church 
 has made no progress; but they are attached, as much as ever, 
 to the Church of Rome. Is it not, therefore, the best policy 
 to make no further exertions to prevent it; but, rather to give 
 them more facility to educate young men for their church, and 
 to support them m a respectable planner after they are ordained 
 Rut there is yet a stronger reason than the good policy of the 
 measure ; it is a stipulation in the treaty by which Canada was 
 ceded to the crown of Great Britain. The following extract 
 rom the fourth article, which is placed at the beginning of our 
 Provincial Statute Rook, contains all that relates to this matter 
 the i-eaty. “ IBs Britannic Majesty, on his side, agrees to 
 grant the liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of 
 anada: he will consequently give the most effectual orders, 
 iat h, s new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship 
 
 , r ® h ° lon ’ accordln g t0 the rites of the Romish Church 
 as far as the laws of Great Britain permit.” 
 
 The British Parliament, in the Act, (14, Geo. III. c «q i 
 framed an oath of allegiance expressly for the new To * j- ’ 
 subjects who might be appointed to certain offices; whidn" 
 again enacted, with some additional words, in the Constit / i 
 Ac, (31, Geo. III. c. 31). So .ha, .hi only ,S To f Tt 
 moment then remaining, not permitted bv the' h« - S ( r”' 
 Britain, was the Ecclesiastical L, in some cases ne l 
 poral jurisdiction usurped or assumed by the Homan^onUff; 
 
37 
 
 which is prohibited by the Statute, 1, El. ch. I. This difficulty 
 appears to have been amicably arranged to the satisfaction of 
 both parties; for no complaints arising therefrom, have ever 
 been heard publicly from either side. And, as this relates 
 chiefly, if not entirely, to the Royal prerogative ; if the Sove- 
 reign and Privy Councillors are satisfied, surely no others have 
 a right to complain, and least of all the Protestant subjects of 
 a distant Colony like Canada. 
 
 I have not hesitated to recommend the use of the English 
 language only, in all the written daily proceedings of the Legis- 
 lature, and also in the Courts of Justice, when not incompatible 
 with the ends for which these courts are constituted. Because, 
 it is only from an indulgence, if not a mistaken policy, of the 
 
 Executive Government, that this did not take place before. 
 
 The former laws were also continued, or rather resumed after 
 being laid aside for ten years, by the Act of 1774; and, as 
 neither their laws nor language were guaranteed at the cession 
 of the country, there ought to be no hesitation on one side, nor 
 complaint on the other, in consequence of the changes that are 
 so much required for the public good. But it is quite different 
 in regard to their religion, which is secured to them by treaty ; 
 and it would be ungenerous as well as unjust, in a powerful 
 nation like Great Britain not to observe it religiously towards a 
 weak colony like this. It must not be merely a toleration, as 
 contended for in the letter to Lord Liverpool already referred 
 to, but the free and secure exercise of their religion, with all its 
 rites and ceremonies. And, if this be secured to the French 
 Canadians, as they are frequently called, in such a manner as to 
 be unalterable by the United Legislature of the two Provinces ; 
 there can be little doubt that it would reconcile them to the 
 Union, with the necessary changes in the laws of Lower 
 Canada, and to the disuse of their language, as abovementioned. 
 Perhaps, even to the Governor’s approbation being required, of 
 the Priest or Cure , which their Bishop is about to place in a 
 vacant parish. 
 
 It is not, however, desirable by any means, that their lan- 
 guage should fall into disuse or be discouraged more than is 
 absolutely necessary. For, there can be no doubt that, with the 
 
 E 
 
38 
 
 free exercise and security of their religion, and the use of their 
 language (which it would be impolitic and is impossible to 
 abolish entirely) they will form the strongest bulwark against 
 the flood of infidelity on the one hand, and of religious fanati- 
 cism on the other, with which we are endangered by unprincipled 
 adventurers from the old country, and more especially from 
 among our southern neighbours. The Canadian priesthood and 
 intelligent laymen, have, for a long time, been well aware and 
 duly sensible of the many advantages they enjoy under the 
 Monarchial Government of Britain, compared with what they 
 might expect, were the United States to become masters of 
 this country. The atrocious calumnies, widely circulated and 
 believed by many, against their Nuns and Priests in the name of 
 Maria Monk ; together with the total destruction of a nunnery 
 near Boston by a frantic mob, for which the State could not or 
 would not grant any compensation, have very recently exhibited 
 the contrast in strong colours. The Priests, from the influence 
 they possess over their flocks, have, generally, been always a 
 strong support to the British Government in this Province. At 
 the siege of Quebec, in 1775-76; during the progress of the 
 sanguinary French Revolution, when exertions were made to 
 revolutionize this country; also in the war with the United 
 States, begun in 1812 ; l and, lastly, the late insurrection in the 
 District of Montreal would undoubtedly have been much more 
 
 extensive and alarming, had the Priests not exerted themselves 
 to prevent it. 
 
 For these reasons, and for the benefit of the inhabitants of 
 Montreal generally, it may be hoped the Government will be 
 induced without delay, to settle the existing difficulties with the 
 Samt Sulpicians, as Seigneurs of the island, in conformity with 
 their offer and with the recommendation of the Roval Commis- 
 sioners of Enquiry. 
 
 The laws of Great Britain, relating u, ecclesiastical affairs, 
 ha,e never been general^, extended to the Colonies, though i^ 
 some cases they have. But they are much mitigated and re- 
 laxed of late years, particularly since the Catholic Emancipation 
 
 See Appendix, No. III. 
 
Bill passed into a law^lO, Geo. IV. c. 7.). The supreme Le- 
 gislature of the Empire having wisely and liberally followed up 
 the suggestion and recommendation of Sir W. Blackstone, in 
 1765. After stating various penal and disabling enactments 
 made at different times against the papists, he adds, “ But if a 
 time should ever arrive, and perhaps it is not very distant, 
 when all fears of a Pretender shall have vanished, and the 
 power of the Pope shall become feeble, ridiculous, and despic- 
 able, not only*in England but in every kingdom of Europe, it 
 probably would not then be amiss to review and soften these 
 rigorous edicts ; at least till the civil principles of the Roman 
 Catholics called again upon the Legislature to renew them: for 
 it ought not to be left in the breast of every merciless bigot, to 
 drag down the vengeance of these occasional laws, upon inoffen- 
 sive, though mistaken subjects, in opposition to the lenient in- 
 clinations of the civil magistrate, and to the destruction of every 
 principle of toleration and religious liberty.”* 
 
 Before quitting this part of the subject, I must endeavour to 
 obviate and remove an objection or opinion started by Mr Ques- 
 nel, advocate, which is plausible and may perhaps appear just 
 to many others, besides him. In the Appendix to the Fifth 
 Report of the Commissioners of Enquiry, page 180, his exami- 
 nation by them is given. Regarding the property held by the 
 Seminary of Montreal, the question is put, 66 Have you formed 
 any opinion on the right to that property ? I have. The Law 
 of Nations materially influences the question. A capitulation 
 must be held sacred, as the expression of the conditions on 
 which a nation or a province is surrendered. In Canada, in the 
 capitulation of 1760, it is stipulated, that the religious com- 
 munities shall hold their property, moveables, seigneuries, &c. 
 &c.; and this was granted. The subsequent treaty of peace, in 
 1763, contained nothing to alter the capitulation; but, on the 
 contrary, by its silence, acquiesced in that agreement. How 
 the Imperial Legislature afterwards, in 1774, in recognizing the 
 laws and property of the country, made an exception of the re- 
 ligious communities , is to me inexplicable. The law is strong, 
 
 k Commentaries, vol. iv. page 57- 
 
40 
 
 and I suppose we must defer to it ; but I cannot feel that by 
 that Act, passed so long after the solemn capitulation, which 
 had been tacitly confirmed by the succeeding treaty of peace, 
 the Seminary could justly be deprived of its property.” 
 
 At first sight there appears a discrepancy between some ar- 
 ticles of the capitulation and the treaty of peace; but not between 
 the latter and the Act of 1774. However, after looking more 
 attentively into the treaty and capitulation, the difficulty of re- 
 conciling them will disappear. In the capitulation of Quebec 
 the preceding year, the sixth article asks for protection of the 
 communities and the exercise of the Roman religion, &c. more 
 in detail ; but only “ until the possession of Canada shall be 
 decided by a treaty between their most Christian and Britannic 
 Majesties which was granted. The thirteenth article of the 
 capitulation signed at Montreal, asks certain conditions in case 
 news of peace should arrive and Canada remain to the King of 
 France, before the embarkation of the Marquis of Vaudreuil, 
 &c. The answer was, “whatever the King may have done on 
 this subject, shall be obeyed.” The demand in article twenty- 
 seventh, was granted in part; the rest was to depend on the 
 Kings pleasure. The demand in the thirtieth article, which 
 was refused, was made on the supposition of Canada remain^ 
 in possession of the Crown of Great Britain. On the other 
 hand the treaty also contains some restrictions and provisions, not 
 to be found in the capitulation : such as granting to those that 
 wished to leave Canada, eighteen months to dispose of their 
 property &c. and restricting the sale of their estates, to be 
 made only to British subjects ; likewise, in granting the liberty 
 of the Catholic religion, &c. it was to be done, “as far as the 
 aws of Great Britain permit.” It must be well attended to, 
 that some of the articles of capitulation were to be in force only 
 until the conclusion of a definitive treaty, that others regarding 
 the prisoners, &c were executed without delay; and that those 
 who negocated them were not specially appointed for that pur- 
 pose, and cannot be supposed much conversant in such matters- 
 whereas the definitive treaty was concluded by able negociators’ 
 who had full powers from their respective Sovereigns expressly 
 for the purpose; and contains no mention nor allusion to any 
 
41 
 
 capitulations, though the preliminaries of peace, signed 3d 
 November, are referred to. From all these considerations and 
 reasons, we come irresistibly to the conclusion, that, where the 
 treaty does not refer to, and confirm the capitulation in any 
 particular, the latter, in place of being acquiesced in, is super- 
 seded by the former, which is subsequent thereto, and of a nature 
 much more formal and solemn. Moreover, the definitive treaty 
 of 1763, cedes to Great Britain, Mobile and other territories on 
 the left side of the Missisippi; and likewise, by the ninth 
 article cedes the islands of Grenada and the Grenadines. It 
 does not appear whether or not any capitulations had been en- 
 tered into for these places; but these cessions, in both the 7th 
 and 9th articles, are made, “ with the same stipulations in fav- 
 our of the inhabitants of this colony, inserted in the fourth ar- 
 ticle for those of Canada.” But farther, the King of Spain was 
 also a party to that treaty, and in consequence of conquests 
 made in the Island of Cuba being restored to him, he cedes to 
 Great Britain, by the 20th article, 66 Florida, with Fort St. 
 Augustin,” &c. Now, in the capitulation of the Havannah, by 
 articles 6, 7, and 8, much more detailed and full freedom and 
 scope were granted to the religion of the inhabitants than to 
 those of Canada by the capitulation of Montreal ; and it might 
 be supposed that his Catholic Majesty would have claimed the 
 same for the inhabitants of Florida, as had been granted in the 
 capitulation of the Havannah ; but the words, though not pre- 
 cisely the same, are of the same import as in the 4th article: to 
 wit, “ His Britannic Majesty agrees, on his side, to grant to 
 the inhabitants of the countries, above ceded, the liberty of the 
 Catholic religion, he will consequently give the most express 
 and the most effectual orders, that his new Roman Catholic 
 subjects may profess the worship of their religion, according to 
 the rites of the Romish Church, as far as the laws of Great 
 Britain permit.” 1 Some persons may perhaps think, that more 
 has been said than is necessary on this point; but it is an object 
 
 1 The capitulations of Montreal and of the Havannah, with the definitive 
 treaty of 1763, may be seen in the Annual Register for the years 1760 and 
 1762. 
 
42 
 
 of much importance, to vindicate the British Parliament, when 
 it can so easily be done, against the insinuation of having passed 
 an Act contrary to the stipulations of a solemn treaty. It mav 
 however, be observed, that “the liberty of the Catholic reli- 
 gion could not well be enjoyed, were the King to deprive the 
 m a itants, by a suit at law, of one of their principal institutions 
 for the education of young men for their church. In this mat- 
 
 ot virrT* seems to have acted up ° n the n ° bie ***** 
 
 of King John of France, “though good faith were banished 
 from the rest of the earth, she ought still to retain her habita- 
 tion in the breasts of princes ” m As t lio c r 1 j 
 tain in Ti v U j AS the Sa,1C laW does not ob- 
 
 c n the British dominions, we may add, and princesses 
 
 XI m t,,e emctio " « — rz 
 
 the City of Montreal, have not been sought to be removed 
 o erwuse than by amicable negociations with the Priests of the 
 Montreal Seminary, notwithstanding all that has hn ! 
 
 by individuals, in t a,„„ r of . differ J h “ ^ «£ 
 
 this amicable method we mnv 1 e ain £* 
 
 finally accomplished, to the satisfaclnTall 0bjeC ‘ 
 
 made; the following.may be mentioned & 7™ formerI y 
 
 siderable. The criminal lawTt thai l ’ “ g ^ m ° St con - 
 in both Provinces f was the same 
 
 it is believed in either, uponTheTriminaf WrfEi W) made 
 stood in 1774, when it was introduced by Art f p T “ * 
 into the Province of Quebec In this’ V A ° f Parl:ament > 
 
 terations have yet been made; whereas inTlter ^ 
 
 by following the example of the Imperial P, i Pro ™ce, 
 
 Sir Robert Peel’s labours were conspicuous theT"-’ “ WhicH 
 gislature, within a few years has ™ ’ . Prov mcial Le- 
 
 gated the criminal code, especially bv thl” A f ng ° d and miti ~ 
 c. 4. This chcrns^, aS ' tfd ^ ° f ?'• 1 
 
 their other laws, suggests the expediency and J 
 mg different Judges after the Union / \i essit y of ,j av- 
 
 now distinct Provinces; at least until’ their hws b^ ^ 
 
 laws become more 
 
 m Hume’s History, Edward III. 
 
 A - H. 1363. 
 
43 
 
 assimilated, if such should ever be the case. The Judges for 
 the part now forming Lower Canada, ought, as at present, to 
 understand, and be able to speak from the Bench, both English 
 and French. 
 
 There is another matter that will require serious deliberation 
 and perhaps occasion some difficulty before it can be satisfac- 
 torily adjusted. Lower Canada is free from debt : whereas the 
 public debt of Upper Canada has been increasing for several 
 years and is now very considerable. At a conference between 
 the two Houses in February, 1838, the members attending on 
 behalf of the Council, stated, as the chief reason for not pass- 
 ing several money bills, “ that the debt of the Province already 
 amounts to more than one million currency.” It is proper here 
 to notice an unusual proceeding, which, so far as my information 
 goes, is without a single precedent. The House of Assembly 
 of that Province, last session, agreed upon an address to Her 
 Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to re- 
 commend to Her Parliament to pass an Act imposing a duty of 
 2^ per cent, ad valorem , on imports into Lower Canada, to be 
 applied to the payment of interest on the debt of Upper 
 Canada, &c. This is not mentioned for the purpose of offering 
 an opinion on the propriety or impropriety of the proposed 
 measure ; but merely to point it out as a consequence of divid- 
 ing the former Province of Quebec. The House of Assembly 
 also framed an address to the Throne, accompanied by a series 
 of Resolutions and the Report of a Special Committee on the 
 political state of the Canadas, and recommending their being 
 united on certain conditions, some of which will probably be 
 considered inadmissible ; but it is not necessary to make many 
 observations thereon. It is, however, proper to notice that they 
 have fallen into some mistakes, through inadvertence and inat- 
 tention to recent events and to the History of Canada since its 
 cession to the Crown of Great Britain. For example, at page 
 7 of the Report, it is stated that disaffection in Lower Canada 
 is exclusively confined to Canadians of French origin, from a 
 “ hatred of British rule and British connexion and, though 
 this assertion is somewhat qualified in page 16, yet even there 
 it is not correctly stated. For, on examination it will, I am 
 
44 
 
 persuaded, appear evident that, in proportion to the relative 
 numbers of the two races, there are nearly, if not fully, as many 
 disaffected persons and traitors, of the leaders at least, among 
 those of British and Irish birth and descent, as among the 
 French Canadians. These leaders it is clear, have a dislike or 
 hatred not only to British rule, but also to rule of every des- 
 cription; for their ambition and hearts’ desire is bent on becom- 
 ing themselves riders! At page 22, there is a boast of the 
 loyalty and exalted patriotism of the Upper Canadians : now, 
 though this is readily admitted to be the real character of the 
 inhabitants generally, yet truth requires they should be put in 
 mind that, at different periods, there have been many excep- 
 tions, who created much agitation and internal disquiet; more 
 indeed or fully as much as existed in this Province, until the 
 late troubles which produced an open rebellion last year. It 
 then soon became evident that the conspiracy extended also to 
 Upper Canada, and had been hatching for several years. 
 
 There are still many persons living in that Province who must 
 istmctly remember the intestine excitement and troubles, for 
 about ten years preceding the war of 1812, connected with the 
 names of William Weekes, John Mills Jackson, Joseph Will- 
 cocks, Judge Thorpe, and Mr Wyatt. Shortly after the peace 
 much agitation and trouble was also occasioned, for a few years’ 
 by Robert Gourlay. When the war broke out with the United 
 States many people left the Province and joined the enemy, 
 among whom were three men who were at the time, or had been 
 
 tTwYT > ° f tHe H ° USe ° f AsSem %’- ^eir names 
 were Willcocks, above mentioned, Merckle or Marcle and 
 
 th^ the V f ° 7" y had lefttheir homes and turned traitors, 
 hat they formed a battalion in the enemy’s ranks, called the 
 Canadian Volunteers,” under the command of Joseph W 
 cocks, who was killed in a skirmish near Fort Erie A death 
 too honorable for such a man, as was remarked at the time. On 
 the shore of Lake Erie, eighteen traitors were taken in arms 
 having joined a party of the enemy to plunder their fellow sub- 
 jects in the Autumn of 1813. They were tried at Ancas t r • 
 nnd fifteen were convicted, of whom eight suffered tor Z fr 
 
45 
 
 crimes." In Lower Canada the Militia turned out bravely to 
 defend their country; and it is not known that any of them 
 ever deserted to the enemy or were concerned in any treasonable 
 practices. The Militia of Upper Canada also did their duty, 
 in general, most gallantly and perseveringly ; and these excep- 
 tions and particulars are stated, merely to show that they have 
 been overlooked by the Assembly of that Province, in estimat- 
 ing the loyalty of the Canadas. It is not with the intention of 
 increasing or creating loyalty in the Canadas, that I recommend 
 /heir being re-united, though that is very desirable, if it could, 
 with certainty, be depended on as a consequence of their 
 Union; but it is to cure the evils and remove the complaints of 
 Upper Canada, arising from the want of a seaport and the diffi- 
 culty, we may say the impossibility, of apportioning the public 
 revenue, so as to give satisfaction to both Provinces. Some 
 sections of the United Province would no doubt occasionally be 
 dissatisfied with their shares of money granted for public im- 
 provements, &c. and this has sometimes occurred in Lower 
 Canada between Quebec and Montreal ; particularly in regard 
 to the duties levied on imports, many years ago, for building 
 jails in the different Districts : but such local complaints cannot 
 be attended with any permanently bad consequences. The As- 
 sembly suggest the annexation of a considerable part of the 
 Lower to the Upper Province; or a Legislative Union of all the 
 British North American Provinces. The Legislative Council 
 of Upper Canada suggest, and seem to recommend, something 
 like a Federal Union of these Provinces. But, let any person 
 consider and examine all the three schemes in detail, how they 
 are to be effected and in what manner they would operate, and, 
 if I am not much mistaken, he will soon be convinced that none 
 of them could cure or remove the difficulties that were foretold 
 
 * Th< >se who are too young to remember these circumstances, will find them 
 fully detailed in William James’s Military Occurrences, two volumes. 
 
 On the return of peace the Prince Regent gave up the forfeited estates of 
 traitors, towards indemnifying the sufferers by the war in Upper Canada. In 
 consequence, a Provincial Act was passed (58, Geo. III. c. 12,) to authorize the 
 appointment of Commissioners, &c. and to regulate the disposal of these estates, 
 which appear, from the preamble, to have been numerous. 
 
 F 
 
46 
 
 by Mr Lymburner, in 1791, and which now. actually exist, and 
 have existed for many years, between Upper and Lower Canada. 
 
 It cannot, however, be expected that the Union will operate 
 immediately as a talisman or specific remedy for all complaints; 
 on the contrary, it will require some time, and a little forbear- 
 ance from all parties, before its beneficial effects can be sensibly 
 felt and seen. And, while the Mother Country does not 
 relinquish the power of disallowing Provincial Acts, neither 
 Province has much to fear from the Union. This power, to be 
 sure, has seldom been brought into action : one instance I re- 
 collect several years ago in Upper Canada, regarding the will 
 of a person who had acquired property in the Province, though 
 an alien, which was afterwards satisfactorily arranged : another 
 case occurred in this Province, not more than three or four years 
 ago, in consequence of some improper enactments in an election 
 law. The reservation of such a power by the Supreme Go- 
 vernment, and the knowledge that it will be exercised when 
 necessary, must prove a strong check on the Provincial Legis- 
 latures. 
 
 Some people in each Province seem to view the proposed 
 Union with awe, as an event that will likely be followed by dire 
 effects. This alarm is probably natural to mankind, when con- 
 templating any change about to take place in their condition or 
 government, and even in more trivial matters. Thus, in the 
 year 1748, on the return of peace in Britain, the increase of 
 commerce and manufacture brought also a tide of luxury, im- 
 morality and profligacy; and the erection of new turnpikes was 
 considered, in some parts of the Island, as a great evil and was 
 forcibly resisted. “ The whole land was overspread with a 
 succession of tumult, riot, and insurrection, excited in different 
 parts of the kingdom by the erection of new turnpikes, which 
 the Legislature judged necessary for the convenience of inland 
 carriage. In order to quell these disturbances, recourse was had 
 to the military power; several individuals were slain, and some 
 were executed as examples.’’ 0 I have also read, (but forget 
 where) that when the change from old to new style was under 
 
 0 Smollett’s History. Vol. Hi. book 3, ch. i. section 29. 
 
47 
 
 consideration, only three years afterwards, the whole country, 
 from John o’ Groats’ House to the land’s end, was in anxiety 
 and dread of the consequences! Yet the inhabitants of Britain 
 have long ago been reconciled to the payment of toll at the 
 turnpikes, and to the change of style. Such, I am confident 
 will also be the case after the Union of the Canadas, if effected 
 on proper principles and with due precautions. The measure is 
 urged, chiefly on the ground that it is absolutely necessary to 
 avert greater evils. If “each Province could be enabled to 
 raise and regulate its own revenue,” then they might be allowed 
 to remain as at present ; but, owing to their geographical posi- 
 tion, that is impracticable. There is yet another strong reason 
 for the Union, which must be noticed : when forming only one 
 Province, the inhabitants will be much more able and efficient 
 in quelling any intestine commotion and in resisting foreign ag- 
 gressions, than they can possibly be when separate. This 
 reason was urged by the minority, on the question of the Union, 
 in the Legislative Council of this Province, in 1823, and ap- 
 pears on their Journal. 
 
 In perusing the Report adopted last Session by the Legis- 
 lative Council of Upper Canada, it is a disappointment to me, 
 that they have not entered into some details, as to the principles 
 and terms on which they consider the Union might be effected; 
 more particularly as it was attempted, without success, fifteen 
 years ago, and has often since occupied the public attention. — 
 There is, however, one paragraph of the Report, in reference 
 to Lower Canada, which strikes me forcibly, as well deserving 
 of attention and serious consideration. It occurs in page 64, 
 as follows : 
 
 “ Your Committee do not hesitate to say, that a representa- 
 tive form of Constitution should never have been conferred on 
 any Colony, until the administration of Justice, and the neces- 
 sary charges for the Civil Government, had been so provided 
 for as to secure them against the caprice of either branch of 
 the Legislature — or at least the passing an Act for that pur- 
 pose, in the first Session, should have been the condition on 
 which alone their charter should continue in force; and such an 
 Act would be the best evidence a Colony could give of its de- 
 
48 
 
 sire to guard the integrity of its institutions. The observation 
 of what has passed in Lower Canada within the last twenty 
 years can leave no doubt on this point.” 
 
 We shall now refer more particularly to the provisions and 
 enactments of our Constitutional Act, (31, Geo. III. c. 31,) as 
 they have been interpreted and acted upon, at different times, 
 in the Canadas. It has been already stated that the Legisla- 
 tures of these Provinces have generally acted on the untenable 
 assumption that the Church of England is the Established 
 Church in these and all the other Colonies, which has proved 
 unjust and injurious to the claims and rights of the Church of 
 Scotland. It would be tedious and not interesting* to enter 
 much into detail on this point; it is therefore considered suffi- 
 cient to refer briefly to some of their Acts. In Upper Canada, 
 the 33, Geo. III. c. 5, gives power and authority to Justices of 
 the Peace to solemnize marriages, where no minister of the 
 English Church resides within a limited distance ; but ministers 
 of the Scottish Church are not mentioned, thereby giving a 
 preference over the latter to Justices of the Peace (as far as a 
 Provincial Act can do it). The Act, 38, Geo. III. c. 4, reser- 
 ved for His Majesty’s pleasure, authorizes ministers or clergy- 
 men of the Scottish Church to celebrate matrimony, under 
 certain conditions and restrictions, not at all flattering ; but, on 
 the contrary, degrading to the ministers and other members of 
 that Church. The next Act worthy of notice is the 9, Geo. 
 IV. c. 2, passed in 1828, “for the relief of the Religious So- 
 cieties therein mentioned.” It enumerates ten different de- 
 nominations of Christians, to whom, under a prescribed form, 
 power is given to hold land in perpetuity, but not more than 
 five acres for any one congregation. At the head of the list 
 are placed Presbyterians, which of course includes the Church 
 of Scotland. The last Act on this subject, that I am aware of 
 (not having seen those of several of the latest Sessions) is the 
 1, Will. IV. c. 1, passed in 1831, to make valid certain mar- 
 nages, &c. It prescribes rules for registering marriages; and 
 that the clergyman or minister must obtain a certificate from 
 the Justices in Quarter Sessions of the Peace, &c. before he 
 can solemnize matrimony. These provisions extend to nine or 
 

 49 
 
 ten different denominations, at the head of which are placed 
 “ Members of the Church of Scotland.’' The only movement, 
 that I am aware of, by the Legislature of Upper Canada^ (and 
 that was by the Assembly alone) is a petition to the King in 
 1824, which is introduced into the evidence of Mr J. C. Grant, 
 before the Canada Committee of the House of Commons, on 
 the 17th June, 1828. 
 
 In Lower Canada there is no objection against the first Act 
 (35, Geo. III. c. 4,) relative to the Registry of Marriages, &c. 
 But, in 1804 another Act was passed (44, Geo. III. c. 11,) “to 
 confirm certain marriages therein mentioned,” which is very in- 
 imical, though in a covert manner, to the Scottish Church. It 
 consists of two Sections only ; the first confirms certain mar- 
 riages, including those previously solemnized by ministers of 
 our Church, with respect to which no doubts had ever before 
 been raised ; the second clause takes special care, in the last 
 sentence, to enact that nothing in the Act shall be construed or 
 taken “to confirm any marriage which shall be celebrated after 
 the passing of this Act.” Thus raising doubts and then dis- 
 pelling them, so far as relates to the past ; but, at the end leav- 
 ing them in full force for the future ; which occasioned some 
 wag to remark, that this Act, like a wasp, carried the sting in 
 its tail A similar Act was passed several years after, (1, Geo. 
 IV. c. 19,) regarding marriages in the Inferior District of Gaspe. 
 In 1827, an Act (7, Geo. IV. c. 2,) was passed with some diffi- 
 culty, by the exertions of a late much esteemed legislator}’ to 
 prevent the bad consequences that might possibly ensue to indi- 
 viduals or to the community by allowing such Acts to remain 
 on the Statute Book without amendment. The last of this de- 
 scription is the Act, 10 and il, Geo. IV. c. 58, “for the relief 
 of certain Religious Congregations therein mentioned.” This 
 seems to be an imitation and of course is intended as an im- 
 provement of the Upper Canada Act of 1828: and, instead of 
 specifying different denominations, it is for the relief of “any 
 Religious Congregation or Society of Christians.” They are 
 
 p The Hon. John Richardson, a member of the Legislative and Executive 
 Councils. 
 
 ^ erf ^ <rrf 
 
50 
 
 enabled, by appointing trustees, &c. to hold only eight arpents 
 (an arpent being nearly an acre) of land in the country; and in 
 towns no more than half an arpent , for the use of any one con- 
 gregation. It is somewhat singular and appears as an anomaly, 
 that two Acts have been passed within the last eight years, to 
 incorporate the congregations of two Scottish Churches in the 
 City of Quebec: the 10 and 11, Geo. IV. c. 57, and 1, Will. 
 IV. c. 55; they were both reserved by the Governor, and in 
 due time received His Majesty’s assent. Each congregation is 
 enabled to purchase, accept by gift, or otherwise to acquire real 
 estate, and to sell or dispose of the same ; but are restrained 
 from holding more than to the annual value of eight hundred 
 pounds sterling at one time, for each congregation. And, when 
 a minister is appointed, he must be approved of by the Gover- 
 nor before he enter on his ministerial duties. 
 
 In Upper Canada the most conspicuous and zealous ad- 
 vocates of the exclusive claims of the English Church are 
 Dr Strachan, the venerable Archdeacon of Toronto, in the Le- 
 gislative Council ; and in the House of Assembly, Mr Hager- 
 man, now Attorney General. When Solicitor General, in 
 1835, he made a long elaborate speech, intended to prove ’the 
 legal right of that Church to all the lands set apart for the sup- 
 port of “a Protestant Clergy,” and to the right of beino- the 
 Established. Church in all the British Colonies." These claims 
 were denied by some speakers on the other side, but’ none of 
 them seemed fully prepared to controvert in a proper manner, 
 e doctrines that he advanced, by referring to authorities and 
 meeting him on his own ground. This occasioned a Iona article 
 to appear sometime afterwards, in an Upper Canada newspaper, 
 containing remarks on his speech and endeavouring to refute the 
 claims he put forth on behalf of the English Church/ The 
 speech of the Solicitor General on such an interesting question 
 was of course copied into all the papers of any consequence in 
 the Province and generally read: while the long remarks to 
 which it gave rise, were inserted only in the m„ * , • , 
 
 Ihe, were addressed, and being anonymous, were! if may" 
 
 Sec Appendix, No. IV. 
 
 See Appendix, No. V. 
 
51 
 
 sumed, read by only a very few persons, and could produce no 
 effect on the public opinion. This, and perhaps other causes, 
 seems to have emboldened Mr Hagerman, for in 1837, only 
 two years after, when the same subject was under consideration, 
 he made a speech in the House, very unbecoming the situation 
 he held and the place where he stood ; and which, I may ven- 
 ture to say, has few if any parallels, for its vituperation, hostile 
 spirit and irritating language towards the Scottish Church.’ 
 This speech, though not so injurious to our real interests as that 
 delivered in 1835, yet had the effect of arousing the members 
 of our Church, and occasioned the mission of Mr Morris to 
 London. 
 
 The Acts incorporating two congregations in Quebec were 
 obtained with much trouble, and it is believed at considerable 
 expense. The other Acts of both Provinces, for the “relief of 
 certain congregations,” including those of the Scottish Church, 
 seem to have been considered as valuable boons conferred on 
 that Church, with which she ought to be satisfied ; though no 
 more than Jive acres in one Province, and eight arpents in the 
 other, can be held by any one congregation, even though they 
 find the means of purchasing property, or receive it by gift, or 
 have it bequeathed to them! While at the same time, the 
 English Church has set up a claim to all the lands reserved in 
 both Provinces for the support of “a Protestant Clergy.” And 
 this claim is still persisted in, notwithstanding that our Constitu- 
 tional Act, Sections 35 and 41, enacts that the provisions 
 regarding the land so reserved, & c. “ shall be subject to be 
 varied of repealed,” by the Provincial Legislatures, under the 
 formalities and restrictions prescribed by Section 42. But fur- 
 ther, the matter was actually referred to the Legislatures of 
 both Canadas in January, 1832, by messages that were penned 
 at the Colonial Office, in His late Majesty’s name : as is stated 
 in Lord Goderich’s despatch to Lord Aylmer, No. 70, dated 
 21st November, 1831, and communicated to our Assembly in 
 November, 1835. The messages are exactly the same to both 
 Legislatures, changing only the words that obviously require to 
 
 8 See Appendix, No. VI. 
 
52 
 
 be changed; and they distinctly admit and recommend the 
 concurrent claim of the Church of Scotland/ 
 
 This claim is founded, not only on the Act of Union between 
 the two kingdoms, but also on the 31st of Geo. III.; for it is 
 beyond a doubt that the Ministers of our Church come under 
 
 the general term, a Protestant Clergy , for which the provision is 
 made. And it was so understood, by some members at least, 
 when the Bill was debated in the House of Commons ; and has 
 since been declared to be so, by the opinion of the crown law- 
 yers, in 1819. In the Commons, on the 8th April, 1791, in 
 answer to some remarks from Mr Fox regarding the appropria- 
 tion being too large, Mr Pitt, among other observations, said, 
 “if it turned out to be too much in future, the state of the land 
 appropriated to the clergy, like every thing else provided by the 
 bill, was subject to revision.” Thursday 12 th May, in commit- 
 tee of the whole house ; Mr Pitt spoke of Protestant Clergy, 
 and the “ Protestant Clergy of the established church,” which 
 the act gives authority to endow with lands ; and explained, 
 “ that this was done t0 encourage the established church, and 
 that possibly hereafter it might be proposed to send a Bishop of 
 the established church to sit in the Legislative Council.” Mr 
 Pox disagreed with the whole of this plan. He said “he 
 thought the Roman Catholic religion ought to be the establish- 
 ed church of the Colony, or the Presbyterian (that of the kirk 
 of Scotland). He conceived setting aside a seventh part of the 
 lands granted for the maintenance of the Protestant Clergy 
 was too great an allotment, and that the idea of sending a Bi- 
 shop of the established church of England to sit in the Legisla- 
 tive Council was in every point. of view unjustifiable.” Mr 
 Buncombe and Mr Ryder said each a few words-then a-ain- 
 
 hoI^uTt , the whole plan ’ and remind&ed the 
 
 house that Mr Dundas had, two evenings since, boasted that 
 the security of the kirk of Scotland was its being erected on the 
 rock of poverty : according to the provisions of the bill, Mr Fox 
 said, even the clergy of the kirk would have larger incomes in 
 Canada than in Scotland.” 
 
 4 See Appendix, No. VII, 
 
53 
 
 Mr Dundas then gave “ an historical detail of the mode of 
 proceeding, by which the Clergy in Scotland were supported, 1 ” 
 which it is not necessary to insert in this place. From my re- 
 collection of proceedings in the House of Peers, which I have 
 not seen for several years, their Lordships passed the Bill with 
 very little debate and without amendment. 
 
 The truth seems to be, that, whatever may have been intended 
 by the framers of the Bill and the minister who introduced it 
 into the House of Commons, the majority overlooked the effects 
 that might have been foreseen and have already, in part, 
 occurred from the enactments of Section 38, that 66 it shall and 
 may be lawful for His Majesty,” &c. to erect “ parsonages or 
 rectories according to the establishment of the Church of Eng- 
 land,” and to endow them from time to time with the lands re- 
 served for the support of a Protestant Clergy: while he is not 
 invested with a similar permission or power in favour of the 
 Church of Scotland. This omission and the effect it has pro- 
 duced have operated the repeal of a most important part of the 
 fourth Article of Union between the two Kingdoms. However, 
 as it was an incorporating , not a federal union, I admit that Par- 
 liament had the strict legal right to do so. “ Because the Le- 
 gislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, 
 always of absolute authority : it acknowledges no superior on 
 earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if its ordinan- 
 ces could bind the present Parliament.” 11 But, when I admit 
 this absolute power in the three branches collectively, I have at 
 the same time such confidence in their equity, sound policy, 
 justice, and good faith, that I cannot believe the omission would 
 have taken place, had the consequences been pointed out ; or 
 had it been indicated, as might have been done, by some such 
 words as the following: “ Anything in the Act of Union to 
 
 the contrary notwithstanding.” 
 
 The fourth Article of Union is in the following words : — 
 
 M That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full Freedom and 
 Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any Port or 
 
 Blackstone Com. vol. i. p. 90. 
 
 G 
 
 A 
 
54 
 
 
 
 place within the said United Kingdom, and the Dominions and 
 Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there shall be a com- 
 munication of all other Rights, Privileges, and Advantages, 
 which do or may belong to the subjects of either Kingdom ; 
 except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles.” 
 In the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 1 1th, and some other Articles, 
 there are certain express stipulations or provisions in favour of 
 the subjects of one Kingdom, (regarding ships foreign built, 
 grain or victuals, duty on salt, on windows and lights, &c.) that 
 are not granted to those of the other, which explain the excep- 
 tion at the end, and give an explicit and determinate meaning 
 to every word of the fourth Article. 
 
 In claiming for the Church of Scotland, in terms of this so- 
 lemn compact, all the “Rights, Privileges, and Advantages,” in 
 the Colonies generally, and more especially in those acquired 
 since the Union, that are enjoyed therein by the Church of 
 England, I am not so unreasonable as to expect that they will 
 be granted, except on the same or similar conditions (in so far 
 as concerns our temporal interests) as are enacted for the sister 
 Church, in Section 39 of the Constitutional Act. Namely, 
 Soverei G n or some person or persons (other than' cler- 
 gymen of a different Church) appointed by Royal authority, 
 should be the patron or patrons of our Churches. From the 
 precedent of the two congregations already incorporated at 
 Quebec, it may be inferred, that the approval of the clergyman 
 by the Governor would be considered sufficient. However, I 
 am inclined to the opinion that it would suit better for both 
 parties, that he should give a presentation to the presbytery, in 
 favour of the candidate for ordination : but it is difficult to say, 
 as we have not the benefit of experience; perhaps it might be 
 left optional to follow either mode. If they are both contrarv 
 to the peculiar tenets held on this point by some ministers or 
 congregations of our Church, these need not accept the endow- 
 ment or any boon; but may, if they choose, avail themselves of 
 the Provincial Acts now in force; by which they can, in coun- 
 
 the otheT h ° W fiVe ^ 10 ° ne Pr ° VitlCe and ei 9 ht ar pents in 
 
 It has occurred to me, that it would be advantageous to our 
 
Church if a Commissioner, being a layman, were appointed by 
 the Queen or Her Representative here, to be present at the 
 meetings of our Synod, similar to the practice that has long 
 obtained in the General Assembly at Edinburgh. Objections 
 may, and no doubt will, be urged against it ; but I would ask if 
 ever any proposal was or can be made, against which objections 
 could not be started? Against this, some plausible reasons may 
 perhaps be given ; but the beneficial consequences to our in- 
 terests, may be expected to overbalance any disadvantages that 
 would attend its adoption. It is sufficient that I have suggested 
 it for consideration . 11 
 
 It is probable, and I believe certain, that many of the objec- 
 tions, and perhaps the acrimony of some individuals, against the 
 extension or establishment of our Church, arise from the repub- 
 lican or democratic nature of her internal government and dis- 
 cipline, according to what King James the sixth is reported to 
 have said, “ no Bishop, no King.” The fears on that account 
 have vanished since his time; but the prejudice against her still 
 remains with some people/ The recommendations and sugges- 
 tions that I have made, if put in practice, might go far in re- 
 moving such prepossessions: and, being in themselves reasonable 
 and just, I hope the majority of my countrymen will coincide in 
 my opinions on that head. 
 
 Another expedient has occurred to me within the last two or 
 three years, which, if it should be attended with success, would 
 be of great benefit to our Church. At present, when a minister 
 is to be ordained to any newly formed congregation, suppose in 
 a part of the country recently settled; before ordination the 
 Presbytery requires from the congregation what is commonly 
 called a bond, but is nothing more than a subscription list where 
 the amount of individual subscriptions is expressed in figures 
 merely. Sometimes, however, on the strength of such lists, two 
 or three of the congregation undertake to collect the money and 
 
 u All and more than is here recommended, is permitted and sanctioned by 
 our Confession of Faith, chapters 23 and 31. 
 
 v See the letter to Lord Liverpool, already mentioned, page 46 and 47 of 
 
56 
 
 give a bond to the clergyman, though more commonly it is only 
 a written promise, not under seal , to pay him a certain sum an- 
 nually. But, in any of these cases, it is not probable that he 
 could recover the money from their heirs or representatives. — 
 And his successor could not, for want of a corporate capacity, 
 maintain an action against the original subscribers or the bonds- 
 men. It is, therefore, proposed that the owners of land should 
 be encouraged and enabled by law to burthen their farms with 
 such an annual quantity of the produce thereof, as they may 
 think fit, for the support of a Minister of the Scottish Church, 
 and that he, as a sole corporation, should be enabled to receive 
 and exact it. This allowance might be in wheat or other grain, 
 hay, potatoes, fuel, &c. and would prove a much better and 
 more secure support than money, which often fluctuates in value. 
 It must remain a burthen on the property, even though that 
 should afterwards pass into the hands of proprietors belonging 
 to a different church : and it might be left optional with the 
 owner to create the burthen during his lifetime or by his last 
 will and testament. It is hardly necessary to add, that the in- 
 cumbent may commute with the proprietors for the value in 
 money, during his incumbency, on such terms as they may 
 mutually agree upon. In new settlements the farmers in gene- 
 ral are not able to do much for their clergymen ; but yet some 
 of them might give a little assistance in this way, and it would 
 have the great advantage of being permanent. Whether some- 
 thing of the same nature might be attempted in the cities and 
 towns, must be left to the consideration of others better skilled 
 and more learned in the law than the writer. If the voluntary 
 system as it is called, ever produce any beneficial results, it 
 
 must be carried into effect upon some plan of a nature similar 
 to this. 
 
 Tlio remarks on Mr Hagerman’s speech, in Appendix, No. 5, 
 are extended to great length , bnt I must crave the reader’s in- 
 dulgence to add someth, „g more. He speaks much and places 
 great relunee on % supremacy of the Sovereign, as declared 
 by Statute F.rst of Queen Ehsabeth. Hume, in his history of 
 tha Princess durmg the year 1584, gives some account of the 
 occlcs.ast.cal court estabhshed during her reign, and concludes 
 
57 
 
 the paragraph by stating that, as its jurisdiction was destructive 
 of all law, so its erection was deemed by many a mere usurpa- 
 tion; “and had no other foundation than a clause of a Statute, 
 restoring the supremacy to the Crown, and empowering the 
 Sovereign to appoint Commissioners for exercising that pre- 
 rogative. But prerogative in general, especially the supremacy, 
 was supposed in that age to involve powers which no law, pre- 
 cedent, or reason could limit and determine.”* Long afterwards, 
 in the Province of New York, Lord Cornbury, who was Gover- 
 nor from 1702 to 1708, committed some illegal and very 
 oppressive acts himself, and abetted or countenanced the same 
 in others, under the specious pretence or colour of Queen Anne’s 
 ecclesiastical supremacy; complaints were made, and it is added 
 by the historian : “ Her Majesty graciously listened to the 
 
 cries of her injured subjects, divested him of his power, and 
 appointed Lord Lovelace in his stead; declaring that she would 
 not countenance her nearest relations in oppressing her people.” 7 
 
 Mr Hagerman founds, what he considers one of his strongest 
 arguments in favour of the Church of England, upon her laws 
 and canons, which he says declare her “ to be the Established 
 Church throughout the British dominions.” On this point, I 
 must again refer to Blackstone, vol. i. page 82 and 83. He 
 there states what forms the body of the Roman canon law, and 
 then adds : 
 
 “ Besides these pontifical collections, which during the times 
 of Popery were received as authentic in this Island, as well as 
 in other parts of Christendom, there is also a kind of national 
 canon law, composed of legatine and provincial constitutions, 
 and adapted only to the exigencies of this church and kingdom. 
 
 x The ecclesiastical court erected by this Princess, appears to have acted in 
 a very arbitrary and illegal manner ; though she herself is said to have explained 
 the title, “Head of the Church,” assumed by her father, to mean no more than, 
 “ that, under God, she had the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons 
 born within her realm, either ecclesiastical or temporal ; so as no other foreign 
 power shall or ought to have any superiority over them.” Which seems to be 
 all that is now meant by the King or Queen’s supremacy over any other Church 
 than that of England. 
 
 y He was the Queen’s cousin ; see Smith’s History of New York, part iii. 
 
58 
 
 The legatine constitutions were ecclesiastical laws, enacted in 
 national synods, held under the Cardinals Otho and Othobon, 
 legatees from Pope Gregory IX. and Pope Clement IV. in the 
 reign of King Henry III., about the years 1220 and 1268. — 
 The 'provincial constitutions are principally the decrees of pro- 
 vincial synods, held under divers Arch-Bishops of Canterbury, 
 from Stephen Langton in the reign of Henry III. to Henry 
 Chichele in the reign of Henry V. ; and adopted also by the 
 province of York in the reign of Henry VI. At the dawn of 
 the Reformation, in the reign of Henry VIII., it was enacted 
 in Parliament, that a review should be had of the canon law; 
 and, till such review should be made, all canons, constitutions, 
 ordinances, and synodals provincial, being then already made, 
 and not repugnant to the law of the land or the king’s prerog- 
 ative, should still be used and executed. And, as no such re- 
 view has yet been perfected, upon this Statute now depends the 
 authority of the canon law in England. 
 
 “ As for the canons enacted by the clergy under James I., 
 in the year 1603, and never confirmed in Parliament, it has 
 been solemnly adjuged upon the principles of law and the con- 
 stitution, that where they are not merely declaratory of the an- 
 tient canon law, but are introductory of new regulations, they 
 do not bind the laity ; whatever regard the clergy may think 
 proper to pay them.” 
 
 Mr Attorney General Hagerman must give the precise words 
 of the canons he alludes to, or refer to them in such a way that 
 others may also read them and know their import ; he must, 
 besides, shew that they make part of “the laws and canons of 
 the Church of England, which are lawfully made and received 
 in England:' But, until he shall have done all this, the argu- 
 ment he budds thereon is founded on sand, and must fall. 
 
 It seems to be an opinion entertained by many, that there 
 must be in every state or country, some one Church or denomi- 
 nation of Christians, that enjoy greater privileges and support 
 than others, and are to be styled the Established Church; this 
 opinion, though not distinctly expressed, seems to have been en- 
 tertained by some members of the House of Commons when 
 our Constitutional Act was under consideration, as mav be in- 
 
59 
 
 ferred from certain remarks thrown out in debate. This has 
 always appeared to me a mistaken opinion, even when applied 
 to independent states, and still more so in colonies or dependent 
 provinces. In Great Britain, forming only one kingdom since 
 the Union, there is one Church established in the southern and 
 another in the northern part of the Island ; yet no difficulties 
 occur there in consequence, the peculiar privileges and immuni- 
 ties enjoyed by both, being well understood and clearly defined 
 by law. In consequence of this erroneous opinion, when any 
 other Church or denomination of Christians deny the right of 
 the English Church to be called the Established Church of 
 Canada , it appears immediately to be inferred or assumed, that 
 those who oppose their use of this title intend to claim it for 
 themselves. It has no distinct legal meaning in the Colonies, 
 that I am aware of, and appears to have been encouraged, rather 
 by the mistaken policy of the cabinet ministers at different 
 times, than by any positive enactment of the British or the Im- 
 perial Parliament. At the time of the Union such a thing was 
 never contemplated for the Colonies, as will appear by the Act 
 itself and others therein referred to or in part recited. Neither 
 is there any mention of it in the detailed history of the Union 
 by De Foe ; on the contrary, both nations were anxious for the 
 settlement of their religious establishments, within their respec- 
 tive kingdoms only, which is evident from different parts of the 
 history. 2 It must be noticed that he was employed by Lord Go- 
 dolphin, one of Queen Anne’s ministers, and went to Scotland 
 on matters connected with the Union ; which gives his history 
 a degree of interest and authenticity that it would not other- 
 
 x I allude more particularly to page 484 and following, of the London Edition 
 in 1786; but the passage is too long to insert here. After adverting to the 
 long debates, &c. in Scotland, contrasted with the despatch with which the act 
 passed in England, he states that Episcopacy was thereby established in England 
 and Presbytery in Scotland; and then adds a remark that well deserves the 
 serious attention of all parties. “ At the same time, I think the matter clear, 
 that with respect to Union, their establishment is reciprocally secure, and either 
 kingdoms cannot now put their hand to the weakening or injuring the establish- 
 ment of the other, without setting, at the same time, its hand to the destruction 
 of its own constitution.” 
 
60 
 
 wise possess.* But, what puts it beyond all doubt that religious 
 establishments in the Colonies were not even thought of, is an 
 Act of the English Parliament, (3 and 4, of Anne, c. 7,) author- 
 ising the appointment of Commissioners, to treat of an Union of 
 the two Kingdoms. In the last section, it is enacted and de- 
 clared, “ That the Commissioners to be named in pursuance of 
 this Act, shall not by virtue of such Commission, treat of or 
 concerning any Alteration of the Liturgy, Rites, Ceremonies, 
 Discipline or Government of the Church, as by Law established 
 within this Realm.” In the “ Act for securing the Church of 
 England as by Law Established,” which makes part of the Act of 
 Union, this section is recited in the preamble, without omitting 
 the words within this Realm. This Act is for securing, not ex- 
 tending nor establishing, the church of England in places where 
 it was not previously established. It has, therefore, surprised 
 me much to find that the concluding words of the coronation 
 oath, therein prescribed, “the territories thereunto belonging,” 
 are supposed by implication to establish it or that it was pre- 
 viously established by law in the distant dominions and planta- 
 tions of England; though those who hold this opinion cannot 
 shew any other authority than these words of the oath, which 
 evidently refer to Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, and per- 
 laps some other small islands or territories. It may here be 
 observed that this Act, in referring to and confirming former 
 Acts of Parliament, “for the establishment and preservation of 
 »e lurch of England,” &c. specifies only two (13, of Eliza- 
 beth and 13, Charles II.) ; but the first of Elizabeth, on which 
 Mr Hagerman appears chiefly to found the claims of his church 
 m the Colonies was not considered of sufficient importance to 
 be particularized; though it is no doubt included in the general 
 
 W” 2 V nd Tr 8 " 1 ^ ,° ther ActS ° f laments, now in 
 force, &c. &c. The word Realm, just mentioned, also occurs 
 several times in the 22d Article of Union, and always in the T 
 gular number; it is first applied to England alone/then to both 
 Kingdoms after the ratification of the Union, when they were 
 
 printed “1“ * * ** ^ * his History 
 
61 
 
 to become one , under the name of Great Britain. But, notwith- 
 standing all this, if the Attorney General of Upper Canada 
 and the Archdeacon of York or Toronto set to work, 
 
 “ And torture one poor word a thousand ways,” 
 
 They may enlarge its signification, so as to include all the do- 
 minions and plantations that do now, or hereafter may, belong 
 to Great Britain ! It is by thte species of torture that the words, 
 “ a Protestant Clergy,” have been, by some writers, restrained 
 so as to signify only Clergy of the English Church ! The last 
 article is short and seems intended to confirm the whole, “ That 
 all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom, so far as they are 
 contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or 
 any of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease and be- 
 come void, and shall be so declared to be, by the respective 
 Parliaments of the said Kingdoms.” 
 
 Having mentioned the Archdeacon of York, some notice 
 must be taken of his letters to Mr Morris and one to his breth- 
 ren of the clergy and laity, published last winter, first in a 
 periodical called “ The Church,” and afterwards by themselves 
 in a pamphlet. It would be tiresome and unprofitable to myself 
 and my readers to follow him throughout, I shall, therefore, 
 select only certain passages for observation. He and others in 
 this country have set up an exclusive claim, on behalf of the 
 English Church, to all the lands set apart for the support of a 
 Protestant Clergy ; which is at variance with the opinion of the 
 crown lawyers in 1819, and other opinions that appear in the 
 Report and evidence collected by the Canada Committee of the 
 House of Commons, in the year 1828. To these opinions he 
 pays no deference, nor to the more explicit message sent to the 
 Legislatures of both Canadas in January, 1832; for, when 
 there is any appearance of their being acted upon, he talks of 
 the vested rights of his Church, and cries out, “ robbery, des- 
 truction and spoliation of the Established Church,” and again 
 invokes “her vested rights,” &c. Several times he also launches 
 forth an implied or direct censure against the Colonial Depart- 
 ment. In almost every page he speaks of the Established 
 
 H 
 
62 
 
 Church , meaning to apply that term to a branch of the English 
 Church in the Canadas. And also tells us it is, “ the religion 
 of the Sovereign and recognized by the Constitution, u the 
 Church of the Sovereign,’’ and u the National Church, &c. 
 (see pages 8, 9, 11, 30, 33, 34, 47 of the pamphlet). That it 
 is the Church of the Sovereign by a positive and explicit enact- 
 ment of the English Parliament, which is confirmed by the 
 Act of Union, I readily admit. 5 But I deny that it is recognized 
 by any competent authority or power, that has been pointed out, 
 as the National Church or the Established Churchy to the exclu- 
 sion of all other establishments, in any of the Colonies, 
 dominions and plantations beyond the seas ; and the Sovereign 
 is not so illiberal as to require or expect that it should be so. — 
 As to the Acts of Upper Canada, referred to by Mr Hager- 
 man, also some of those passed in Lower Canada; they do not 
 in my mind support his argument, but in general are rather to 
 be considered as examples of the Provincial Legislatures, in- 
 cluding the Governors, having overstept the minute and positive 
 restrictions imposed upon them by Section 42 of their Constitu- 
 tional Act. I have not the same means of knowing the Con- 
 stitution of Nova Scotia, but believe the Legislature must also 
 have exceeded its legitimate power in passing the Act of 1758, 
 referred to in the Appendix, No. 5. 
 
 The Archdeacon in his third letter, page 15, informs us that, 
 by the treaty of Union, members of the English Church are 
 dissenters in Scotland, and on the other hand, members of the 
 Scottish Church are dissenters in England; which has never 
 been denied by either party. But, in the conclusion of the 
 same paragraph, he informs us of something new that we had 
 not discovered before; to wit, that members of the Scottish 
 Church are also dissenters, “ by the fundamental articles of 
 
 b At the Revolution, in the first year of William and Mary, (Session 2, c. 2, 
 s. 9,) the succession was limited to the Protestant line only; which would include 
 the Churches of England and Scotland, and others on the European continent. 
 But, in the Act “for the further limitation of the Crown,” &c. (12 and 13, 
 Will. III. c. 2, s. 3,) it is enacted, “ That whosoever shall hereafter come to the 
 possession of this Crown, shall join, in communion with the Church of England , 
 as by law established.” 
 
the Union, in all the colonies.” But, as he does not quote the 
 words, nor point out in which articles they are to be found, we 
 think he is mistaken. Perhaps his meaning would have been 
 better expressed by saying ‘the Church of England was, by the 
 Act of Union, established in England and all the Colonies, 
 present and future; but the Church of Scotland was established 
 in Scotland only.’ Whichever expression suits him best, he 
 must have inflicted cruel torture on the words of that solemn 
 treaty, to draw any such conclusions from it ! 
 
 In the letter to his “ Brethren of the Clergy and Laity,” the 
 Archdeacon in more than one place, expresses great surprise 
 and astonishment “ that it was reserved for two or three lay- 
 men,” in a remote colony at this late day, “ to discover rights 
 and relations resulting from the Act of Union,” which had 
 hitherto escaped notice in all parts of the British dominions. 
 This is a very convenient and easy mode of argument, to set 
 aside our legal claims, without quoting the words on which they 
 are founded. Let those who read the Archdeacon’s letters, 
 only consider that it does not require great learning nor intense 
 study to understand the subject : a moderate knowledge of the 
 English language and an attentive perusal of the Act, being all 
 that is necessary. Besides, it is precisely in remote colonies 
 that such discoveries may be expected, where the infringement 
 of the fourth Article is seen and severely felt by a numerous 
 and intelligent portion of the colonists. Accordingly, com- 
 plaints, similar to those from Canada, have reached the Mother 
 Country from the distant colony of Van Dieman’s Land, within 
 the last three or four years; and were accompanied by a very 
 well written pamphlet on the subject, printed in Hobart Town. 
 But, farther, Dr Strachan is mistaken in assuming that this is 
 the first time the Act of Union was appealed to in the colonies. 
 This is more particularly noticed in the Appendix, No. 5, where 
 reference is made to Smith’s History of New York; and to the 
 opinions and recommendations of Archbishop Seeker, in 1751 ; 
 in which Bishop Butler had heartily concurred twenty years be- 
 fore, as stated by the Archbishop’s biographers. 
 
 We cannot for a moment believe that these eminently distin- 
 
64 
 
 guished Prelates, who are numbered among the ornaments of 
 the English Hierarchy, were ignorant of the Act of Union. It 
 had passed in their days, 0 and if they had discovered in it, any 
 thing more favourable to their Church in the colonies than to that 
 of Scotland, Dr Seeker would assuredly have availed himself of 
 it in his answer to Dr Mayhew, and in the letter to Mr Wal- 
 pole. The only mention of the establishment of the English 
 Church in the colonies, that I can find in these two productions, 
 is the following : “It is, in some of the Plantations, confessedly 
 the established Church; in the rest are many congregations ad- 
 hering to it; and through the late Extension of the British 
 Dominions, and the Influences of other Causes, it is likely that 
 there will be more.” 0 
 
 No mention, in the above passage, is made of, nor allusion 
 to, the Act of Union; nor is any reference elsewhere to be 
 found in these publications, to that Act or any other that relates 
 to the question at issue. In imitation of the Rev. Dr Strachan 
 we may now be allowed to express our surprise and astonish- 
 ment, that it was reserved for an Archdeacon, with the assis- 
 tance of a Solicitor General, both in the Legislature of a remote 
 colony, “to discover rights and relations resulting from the Act 
 of Union, which were never in the contemplation of those who 
 were parties to that treaty;” and which had escaped the nofice 
 
 and P r en r rat V 0n f tW °, SUCh Gminent men as Archbishop Seeker 
 and Bishop lutler, who had better means of ascertaining if 
 
 rue spirit, and it may be presumed, were at least equal frfthe 
 Archdeacon in zeal, and understood fully as well ,1,1 i h 
 rests of the Church of England. 7 ^ PBal mte ‘ 
 
 In corroboration of the ouinions of . 
 
 against Bishops being invested in ,| le Colon, J Jth a „y 
 
 c Bishop Butler was born in 169*2 and a u . , 
 of Union was passed and took effect in 1707.^ * ° P in 1693 ; the Act 
 
 o Answer to Dr Mayhew, i„ Dr Seeker’s Work^vol • 
 edition, in 1775. The answer was printed in Enela a • P ’ 393 : Dublin 
 in America, as stated in the Review of his Grace’s Vf * ^ anc * re P r inted 
 
 time and previously, it seems to have been the u 'T eter ’ At that 
 
 a capital letter, which has been followed in makingqnotation^" n ° UnS with 
 
65 
 
 poral power, as stated in the Appendix, No. 5 ; it is proper to 
 notice the evidence taken at Quebec, by the Royal Commis- 
 sioners of Enquiry, in 1836; which appears in the Appendix to 
 their third Report, page 129 and 132. John Neilson, Esquire, 
 says : “ The heads of the churches might be in the Council, 
 
 but I should fear danger from it. It might introduce feelings 
 of religious difference into the Council, and dissenters might 
 feel dissatisfaction, from an impression that the clergy had an 
 interest in the Council adverse to their several denominations.” 
 R. E. Caron, Esquire, Mayor of Quebec, was asked; “Do you 
 think it would be acceptable to the country that one or both of 
 the Roman Catholic Bishops and the Protestant Bishop should 
 be in the Council ?” Answer. “ I have never reflected on that 
 subject ; but at first sight my impression is, that it is better to 
 leave the Bishops to their proper and important duties, than in- 
 troduce them into a political body.” These opinions regard the 
 Executive Council only, the members of which may be struck 
 off the list whenever the Sovereign thinks fit ; but they will ap- 
 ply with double force to the Legislative Councillors, who are 
 appointed for life, and cannot be removed at pleasure by the 
 Sovereign. 
 
 When the House of Commons was in Committee, on 12th 
 May, 1791, Mr Fox, amongst other remarks, said, “that the 
 idea of sending a Bishop of the established church of England 
 to sit in the Legislative Council, was in every point of view un- 
 justifiable.” At the time the short Act of 1804, already noticed, 
 was passed in Lower Canada, it was imputed by many, to the 
 influence possessed by the Protestant Bishop in the Councils 
 and Legislature of the Province. 
 
 The Executive Government of Great Britain, it is to be 
 hoped, will no longer pursue the mistaken policy of attempting 
 to force upon the Canadas, contrary to their wishes, any one 
 Church as the sole Established Church of these Provinces. — 
 But, at the same time, there is no necessity for flying to the 
 opposite extreme, and giving equal support and encouragement 
 to all sects who profess to be Christians ; which, in my mind, 
 would be impracticable and also unjust and impolitic. A middle 
 course is undoubtedly the best, and, as I speak only in general 
 

 66 
 
 terms, nothing that is said can prejudice the claim (that mav 
 be founded on equity and good policy) of any particular de- 
 nomination of Christians. Some of them would not perhaps 
 accept of any endowments from the Government, upon the coil 
 
 co t „"" t i„"? eS,ed f0r mJ ' OW, ‘ ChmA: " or > i " J “ d > -pon any 
 
 It has I believe been frequently remarked that clergymer 
 when clothed with temporal power and authority, are very a- 
 o abuse or misuse it; which is in general confirmed by <L e - 
 nence, not excepting those of my own Church. This was pro- 
 bably one reason for the opinions of Archbishop Seeker and 
 Bishop Butler, against investing Bishops with any temporal 
 power m the Colonies. But, whatever reasons they might have 
 he opinions and recommendations of such eminent Prelates on 
 
 ? e ; SSri: T g, f 1 1 have great weight with the -m- 
 
 witl ; A " d,d — f 
 
 against a report to his disadvantage some vears 2 
 similarity he discovered between his own , nd I, * 
 
 illustrious men. On tha, occasion hHl" .. t, ~ 
 of being an apostate from the Kirk of Scotland. We“ l his 
 true, I need not be ashamed of doing what Archbishop T il * 
 son and Seeker, and Bishop Butlef have done 1 f 1 ^ 0t ' 
 
 my case is exactly this.” He then o-ives 1 • f & ° TG mG ’ but 
 
 parentage, dtc. which would no, be £ , "t TT* 
 the reader/ “tciesting or instructive to 
 
 Though the Rev. Dr Strachan’s letters h a ™ • 
 for much animadversion, yet we derive er i f,™ occasion 
 from that which is addressed to the el dera , ble ad ™ntage 
 
 ■o public view.. T hems,^il^~ S ^ 
 
 e Seethe address of the Congreoation-il A • .• 
 vernor of Upper Canada, Sir George -AwrtUt !° ^ Lieutenant G °- 
 
 ° ** H1W * M - dated 27th March, 1838. 
 
 1 See p. 25 of Ur Strachan’s Speech delivers l • .i 
 Upper Canada, on 6th of March, 1828 of ...k- , [ *" ‘ '® Lcglslative Council of 
 at the request of the Council. K ' ° ^ ave a C0 PJ’ for publication, 
 
67 
 
 dated 2d April, 1818, and 22d July, 1825,* addressed to the 
 persons administering the government of Upper Canada at 
 these dates, remained, until the publication of this letter, pro- 
 found secrets to those whose rights and legal claims were to be 
 set aside by such instructions. They were, no doubt, known 
 to the Executive Council, at least to some of the members; 
 but the oath of secrecy, of course, prevented them from being 
 divulged. The legal opinion of the crown lawyers in 1819, 
 which is very much in favour of our claim, was also kept secret 
 until the Canada Committee of 1828 procured and published 
 it. There is a remarkable difference between the instructions 
 of 1818 and those of 1825: the latter are more positive, en- 
 joining the Governor, in substance, to erect and endow Parson- 
 ages or Rectories according to the establishment of the Church 
 of England, within every Township or Parish , now formed , or 
 that may hereafter he formed. Thus leaving him no discretion- 
 ary power, as to townships where there might be very few ad- 
 herents, perhaps none at all, of the Church of England/ The 
 reason of giving such instructions is now seen and accounted 
 for in the last paragraph of the legal opinion of 1819. After 
 stating that “ a Protestant Clergy,” includes those of Scotland 
 as well as England ; and supposing the Governor duly author- 
 ized by the Act, it is said he might apply the rents and profits 
 of the reserved lands for the support of the one as well as the 
 other. Part of the 38th clause is then quoted, giving power to 
 His Majesty to authorize the Governor to erect parsonages or 
 rectories, and to endow them, with the advice of the Executive 
 Council, with so much of the reserved land in such township, 
 as shall be judged expedient; even the whole, in any township 
 where a parsonage is erected. Then comes the conclusion : — 
 “ It would be inconsistent with this discretionary power that 
 any proportion of such lands should be absolutely retained for 
 any other clergy than those mentioned in that clause, and we 
 think it is not incumbent on His Majesty so fo retain any pro- 
 portion of such lands.” 
 
 s See Lord Bathurst’s Despatch of 22d July, 1825, Appendix, No. 8. It is 
 considered unnecessary to insert that of 1818. 
 
68 
 
 Thus, it is now evident, that, because the words of the Act 
 are not mandatory or compulsory on the Colonial Secretary, he 
 chose to use his discretionary power altogether for the benefit 
 of only one of the Protestant Churches of Great Britain. This 
 also furnishes a key to the statement made in Dr Strachan’s 
 speech of 1828; that a letter from Lord Bathurst, relating to 
 the Clergy Reserves, had been read in the House of Commons 
 by Mr Wilmot Horton, in June, 1827, “in which it was stated, 
 that when there was a surplus beyond what the Established 
 Church required, the disposition of it would draw the attention 
 of Government.” The Government had not rejected the ap- 
 plication of the Scotch Clergy, &c. Some such intimation had 
 been given, about three years previously, to a Committee of the 
 General Assembly ; and one of its leading members, in a let- 
 ter, dated in April, 1824, speaks of this surplus as depending 
 on “an event which is very justly represented as in all proba- 
 bility extremely remote.” 
 
 It was the same year, 1825, in which these general instruc- 
 tions (altogether in favour of the English Church) were sent 
 to Sir Peregrine Maitland, that a Despatch was sent from the 
 Colonial Office, dated on or about the ninth of June, to the 
 Rev. Dr Mearns, convener of the Committee just mentioned, 
 in which it was stated ; “ that whenever a congregation in these 
 Provinces (Upper and Lower Canada) shall have erected a 
 suitable place of worship, and be prepared to acknowledge the 
 jurisdiction of the Church of Scotland, and to contribute ac- 
 cording to their means towards the maintenance of a minister, 
 upon their presenting a memorial to the Governor and Council, 
 the Governor will have received His Majesty’s commands au- 
 thorising him, upon being satisfied that these conditions have 
 been complied with, to contribute to the support of the clergy- 
 man in such proportion as, together with the contributions of 
 the parties presenting the memorial, may be sufficient to afford 
 them a competent maintenance.” An application was in con- 
 sequence made some time afterwards, from the congregation at 
 Cornwall, to the Governor-in-Chief, Lord Dalhousie; the an- 
 swer from his Lordship’s Secretary is addressed to Neil 
 McLean, Esquire, and dated at Quebec, 13th May, 1826 and 
 
69 
 
 is in substance, that His Excellency had no funds at his dis- 
 posal for that purpose, “ that there must have been some great 
 mistake or misapprehension on this subject,” and that 66 His 
 Excellency has had no communication from His Majesty’s Go- 
 vernment on the subject.” Other applications have been made 
 at different times since, particularly from two congregations in 
 the city of Montreal, directly to the Colonial Department, but 
 without success; until 1837, when five hundred pounds were 
 granted to assist the clergymen of our Church in Lower Ca- 
 nada for that year, but without any positive assurance that it 
 would be continued permanently. The allowance promised in 
 1825, was similar to a certain assistance intended or provided 
 for congregations of the English and Scottish Churches in fo- 
 reign countries, out of the King’s allegiance; by the British 
 Consul’s Act (6, Geo. IV. c. 87, sections 10 to 15). Our 
 clergymen in Upper Canada have had an allowance from Go- 
 vernment during the last ten or eleven years ; but we believe it 
 is not yet charged upon any permanent fund, being heretofore 
 drawn from instalments payable to Government by the Canada 
 Land Company. 
 
 With respect to the late erection and endowment of a num- 
 ber of Rectories in Upper Canada; we know nothing of the 
 documents or their contents that were submitted, first and last, 
 to the lawyers of the Crown on which to found their opinion ; 
 but, from what we know of public transactions, they must be 
 considered invalid and illegal, in the first instance ; though the 
 approbation, or acquiescence of Her Majesty’s Government 
 afterwards, may have rendered these Acts valid and legal ; but 
 cannot, of itself, authorise the like to be done in future. On 
 this point I have read with much satisfaction, the able arguments 
 contained in the protest of Mr Gale, as Moderator of the Synod 
 of Canada, dated 21st July, 1838; however, I arrive at nearly 
 the same conclusion in a more summary manner. The reference 
 of this matter to the Legislatures of both Provinces, and above 
 all the formal and explicit message, penned in the Colonial Of- 
 fice, that conveyed that reference, (Appendix, No. 7,) are quite 
 sufficient, in my mind, to suspend and annul all former instruc- 
 tions inconsistent with that reference and message ; until they 
 
 i 
 
70 
 
 shall, in their turn, be at any time revoked and cancelled in the 
 same public manner that they were at first promulgated. Not- 
 withstanding what was insinuated or asserted last year, by the 
 Archdeacon of Toronto in addressing his Clergy; this opinion 
 must stand good, for it rests on the same ground that enables 
 commanders in the army and navy to countermand orders that 
 have been issued by themselves or their predecessors ; testators 
 to alter or revoke their wills; and which causes an old statute to 
 give place to a new one." But we do not wish for the “ destruc- 
 tion” of the rectories : we only ask and contend for the rights 
 secured to us by the Treaty of Union ; that the rectors shall 
 be divested of the ecclesiastical authority , so far as we are con- 
 cerned, with which they are at present invested, according to the 
 second opinion of the crown lawyers. And farther, that in all 
 places where congregations of our Church are, or hereafter may 
 be, formed, corporations shall be erected and endowed for their 
 benefit, and that there shall be communicated or granted to such 
 congregations, all Rights, Privileges and Advantages, that do or 
 may belong to those of the sister Church of England. And, as a 
 necessary consequence, that the latter shall abstain from styling 
 herself the Established Church of Canada; and lay aside the re- 
 cent innovation of changing the names of the legal divisions of 
 Toicnships into Parishes. 
 
 We must here briefly notice two Reports of the Legislative 
 Council of Upper Canada on these matters. The first, regard- 
 ing the lands reserved for a Protestant Clergy, is dated in April, 
 1835 ; in which they recommend, as a final measure, that the 
 question should be referred to the “Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council,” to give the true and legal interpretation of our 
 Constitutional Act. In the Second Report dated in February, 
 1838, on the state of the Province, the same thing is again sug- 
 gested, though not so strongly recommended. To this reference 
 there are several weighty objections, but it is sufficient to men- 
 tion one only, which supersedes all the rest. That is, whatever 
 may be the opinion or decision of that tribunal, it cannot amend 
 or change one word of the law; which, in some of its enact- 
 
 ,l Black. Com. vol. i. page 89 . 
 
71 
 
 merits and still more in the mode of its administration, has ef- 
 fected an infringement of the Act of Union between the two 
 kingdoms : and we are “ in decency to conclude that this con- 
 sequence was not foreseen by the parliament,” &c. 1 It is only 
 « the overruling power” (as Dr Strachan justly terms it) of the 
 supreme Legislature of the Empire, that can (by amending the 
 Act of 31, Geo. III. cap. 31,) restore to our Church and her 
 members in Canada, those rights that have so long been with- 
 held. 
 
 Hitherto I have, as much as possible and to the best of my 
 judgment, treated the claims of the two Churches established 
 in Great Britain as a legal question ; which is all that was in- 
 tended, and, however inadequately or feebly the task has been 
 performed, it is hoped that what is done may draw attention to 
 the subject and induce others, better qualified, to come forward 
 in support of the rights of our Church in the Colonies, particu- 
 larly in Canada, so that the Imperial Parliament may be moved 
 to interpose and prevent them from being altogether wrested 
 from us. It would lead me too far, and I shall not attempt, to 
 depict the impolicy of the conduct that was long observed to- 
 ward us by the Colonial Department. Let us hope that those 
 now in power hold more correct opinions as to the policy, equity 
 and justice of paying respect to our rights and claims. In the 
 meantime, our exertions must not be relaxed; we must con- 
 tinue, legally, constitutionally and firmly, to urge our claims and 
 rights in the proper quarters ; remembering that if we patiently 
 persevere in a correct course, as was done for the abolition of 
 slavery and other great national concerns, we may also hope that 
 our exertions will finally be crowned with success. 
 
 There is one imputation or aspersion that has sometimes been 
 unjustly brought against us, and which it is proper to repel. — 
 That the Government cannot depend upon our patriotism and 
 loyalty to the Sovereign, which, by some writers, is claimed ex- 
 clusively for the Church of England. This charge is boldly 
 made against us in the letter to Lord Liverpool, formerly men- 
 tioned. Dr Strachan claims exclusive loyalty for his Church, 
 
 
 1 Blaekstone, vol. i. page 91. 
 
ZJ 
 
 and leaves his readers to infer disloyalty against ours, from in- 
 sinuations rather than direct accusations. Thus, in the fifth 
 letter to Mr Morris, he speaks of “ the difference of the Go- 
 vernment of the two Churches.” And not a great many vears 
 ago he stated, “ Had the Church of England been adequately 
 supported in the Colonies, now the United States, they would 
 have retained their allegiance .” 11 This was new and surprising 
 to me ; and, as he does not refer to, nor quote, any authorities, 
 neither can he affirm it “from personal knowledge,” I cannot 
 give credit to this broad unqualified assertion, so far, at least, as 
 it may be intended to apply to us. At the time when the 
 colonies revolted, the people of North Britain almost to a man, 
 proffered life and fortune in support of the measures adopted 
 by the Government for suppressing the revolt : and were also 
 very anxious for the establishment of a militia in Scotland; 
 which, however, did not succeed in Parliament . 1 Now, it is ex- 
 tremely improbable that members of our Church in these 
 colonies, would be more disloyal than others, when those of their 
 Church in the Mother Country were so zealous in supporting 
 the Government. 
 
 Doctor Strachan appears to have forgotten the brief and vivid 
 description of the conduct and sufferings of a clergyman of our 
 Church, with which he favoured the public a few years pre- 
 viously, which militates strongly against the accuracy of his as- 
 sertion. This short biographical notice is to the following 
 
 porary compliance, and boldly declared for the King. The 
 
 Lo 
 
 in — — . w. n.v, vi ijpptjr \_;anacia. 
 
 ■ See History, in the Annual Register for 1776, chapters iii. and vii. 
 
73 
 
 public profession of his principles made him odious to the In- 
 surgents, who treated him in the most cruel and oppressive 
 manner. He was detained for many months a prisoner of war — 
 he was marched on foot from Charleston to New-York, among 
 the common captives, and no attention paid to his rank or 
 situation — obliged to sleep on the ground, and exposed to every 
 privation and insult; he suffered with so much Christian for- 
 titude and mildness, as to astonish his persecutors, and his kind 
 attention to his fellow sufferers gained their hearts and afforded 
 him the blessing of turning many in the Prisons, where he was 
 immured, from the evil of their ways.” 
 
 After being exchanged, he was some time chaplain to a 
 Scottish Regiment. 66 On the return of Peace, he accompanied 
 his people, many of whom from his influence and example had 
 joined the Royal Standard, to Upper Canada.” His diligent 
 and useful labours in the ministry, during thirty years in that 
 Province, are then noticed, and the article concludes with the 
 following quotation from the 37th Psalm : “ Mark the perfect 
 
 man, and behold the upright : for the end of that man is 
 peace.” 1 " 
 
 The character and conduct of this worthy man ought to be 
 kept in perpetual remembrance, in honour of his memory and 
 as an example to his posterity and countrymen, both clergy and 
 laity. It was he also, who first directed attention to Smith’s 
 History of New-York, when the invasion of our rights in Lower 
 Canada was first openly attempted, in 1803 or 1804. 
 
 In order to shew that, at the present day as well as in 1776, 
 loyalty is not confined to members of the English Church, we 
 may refer to the late events in both the Canadas. This is ably 
 set forth in a paragraph of the Report, last February, of the 
 Legislative Council of Upper Canada, page 10, from which the 
 following is an extract : — “ But there is nothing connected with 
 this remarkable crisis upon which it is so satisfactory and pleas- 
 ing to reflect, as the very striking proof it has afforded of the 
 
 m See No. I, of the Christian Recorder, for March, 1819. This periodical 
 publication was conducted hy Doctor Strachan : it was printed at York, U. C., 
 and continued for two years. 
 
 
74 
 
 loyal and patriotic feeling of the great body of the people of 
 Upper Canada. The instant it was known that the Government 
 was threatened with violence, all distinctions of religion and 
 country were laid aside, and with a noble ardour which can never 
 be forgotten by those who witnessed it, the people rushed for- 
 ward to put down rebellion, and to preserve the supremacy of 
 the laws. While neither wealth nor station was felt to place 
 the possessor above the common duty of opposing with arms 
 this unnatural rebellion, the humblest inhabitant of "the country 
 gave also his services with cheerfulness— and none more so than 
 the coloured population, whose brave, faithful, and steady con- 
 duct, have entitled them to great credit.” 
 
 The Archdeacon of York, however, seems to have argued 
 himself into the belief that the assertion he made in 1827, was 
 then and still is, really correct, and has acted upon that assump- 
 tion. For, during these general exertions to put down rebellion 
 and preserve the supremacy of the laws , his letters to Mr Morris 
 and one to his brethren, written in a very acrimonious style and 
 dated from 17th November to 12th December, 1837, were is- 
 suing from the press at Cobourg. Mr Morris at first wrote him 
 a few lines only, saying he had received the two first letters, but 
 would delay his answer until a more fit season." The answer 
 is dated in January, 1838, in quite a mild moderate style, which 
 added to the other parts of his conduct; when put in compari- 
 son with those of the Archdeacon, make a very striking and at 
 the same time an agreeable contrast ! 
 
 n The following is the letter of Mr Morris 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Perth, U. C„ Dec. 13, 1837. 
 To the Hon. and Ven. the Archdeacon of York. 
 
 To the politeness of the Rev. Editor of the Church t 
 indebted for Nos. 25 and 26 of that paper, whieh reached me last E. In 
 them I perceive Nos. 1 and 2 of a series of letters which vou ar P ° • 
 me through the medium of that journal, and this is briefly to say that 'h*** 
 have completed the series and when the enemies of our county are 1^7 
 you shall receive a reply from, J *>uDauea, 
 
 Sir, your obt. humble servant. 
 
75 
 
 Since the foregoing was written, I have observed that some 
 of my countrymen, in urging the claims of our Church in the 
 Canadas, make a distinction between such as were English Co- 
 lonies before, and those acquired since, the Union. This is a 
 mistaken opinion, and is in fact compromising or abandoning the 
 Rights of our Church in the old Colonies: for the Act of Union 
 makes no distinction, and the moment it was ratified by both 
 nations, the names of England and Scotland were laid aside, or 
 merged in that of Great Britain; consequently, the foreign 
 “ Dominions and Plantations’’ became also British . However, 
 the withholding of our Rights and Privileges in Colonies ac- 
 quired since the Union, may appear to many as a more glaring 
 and a greater infringement of that solemn Treaty, than in Co- 
 lonies settled or acquired by England before the Union. 
 
 Considerable newspaper discussion has recently taken place 
 regarding an Union, supposed to be in contemplation, of all the 
 North American Colonies ; but on what plan or principles does 
 not clearly appear, nor whether it is to be a federal or an incor- 
 porating legislative Union ; or to consist partly of both. From 
 what has been already said on this subject, it will be apparent 
 that the writer cannot perceive any beneficial consequences 
 likely to result from such an Union. But, he is decidedly of 
 opinion that the Canadas should be re-united, as soon as it can 
 be carried properly into effect : and there must also be some 
 amendments made in the ecclesiastical part of their constitution; 
 and a course of policy adopted, quite different from what was 
 formerly followed in that respect. These improvements and 
 amendments are loudly called for, in order to restore and pre- 
 serve internal tranquillity and contentment in the Canadas. 
 But, until that shall be accomplished, it is unnecessary and not 
 satisfactory to consider or discuss more comprehensive schemes, 
 such as a federal or incorporate Union of the British Colonies 
 in North America. 
 
 In conclusion, it is proper to notice, what has been occasion- 
 ally recommended and urged, during the last twenty years or 
 
 
70 
 
 more, by some cool, calculating, but mistaken politicians. This 
 is no less than that the North American Colonies cost Great 
 Britain more than they are worth ; and, therefore, the sooner 
 they are sold or disposed of in barter for some valuable con- 
 sideration, so much the better. Those who sport such opinions, 
 forget that the United Kingdom, considering its small popula- 
 tion compared with some other European states, and from its 
 insular situation must depend for its wealth, safety and glory 
 even for its very existence as an independent state, upon “Ships’ 
 Commerce and Colonies for which Buonoparte so ardently 
 wished, as the most likely means by which he hoped to vanquish 
 and subjugate Britain, which stood between him and almost 
 universal empire. In all that has been said on different topics 
 touched upon in this production, I have never lost sight of what 
 must be the heart’s desire and fervent prayer of°every true 
 n on; namely, that all the dependencies and most distant 
 provinces of the British Empire may be preserved to her entire 
 And particularly in this quarter of the world, not to look “f or - 
 
 17^° ° f a f Parati0n between these Colonies 
 
 and the Mother Country within a century or three centuries, or 
 
 a thousand years;- but, on the contrary, to use every energy 
 
 and exertion to cement and preserve the connection, “as W 
 
 as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.” 1 ' ° 
 
 the^OthJ^lS "ffi! Lordlh t0 ? ^ to hi “* * Kingston, 
 
 and oral replies to some other Ad^ses. 6 * 1 ^ 11 S1I " llar Sentiments in written 
 
 p Psalm lxxii. 5. 
 
APPENDIX, No. I. 
 
 (See page 24. ) 
 
 We subjoin the pastoral letter of his Lordship the Catholic Bishop 
 of the Diocese of Montreal, which was promulgated in this city 
 last Sunday. — Morning Courier , 31s£ Oct , 1838. 
 
 For a length of time back, dear brethren, we hear of nothing but 
 agitation, and even of revolt, and this in a country which has hitherto 
 been distinguished by its loyalty, its spirit of peace, its love for the 
 religion of its fathers. On every side, we behold brothers rise up 
 against their brothers, friends against their friends, citizens against 
 their fellow-citizens ; and discord from one extremity of this Diocese 
 to the other, seems to have burst asunder the bonds of charity which 
 united the members of the same body, the children of the same 
 church, the children of Catholicity, which is a religion of unity. In 
 circumstances of such moment, the only position that we can take, is, 
 not merely to stand to an opinion (which nevertheless, as citizens, we 
 and our worthy fellow-laborers in the holy Ministry should have, 
 equally with others, the right of emitting), but to act up to the obli- 
 gation which the Apostle of the Gentiles imposes upon us by saying — 
 Wo is unto me if I speak not the Gospel : for a necessity lieth upon 
 me ; Necessitas enim mihi incumbit . I, Cor, lx. 16. 
 
 No, dear brethren, no one of you is ignorant of these truths ; — that 
 the duties of the different members of society form as essentially a 
 part of Christian morality, as the duties of the different members of a 
 family ; that this divine code of morality is a portion of the sacred 
 deposite of Faith, which has been transmitted to us by the pure chan- 
 nel of Scripture and Tradition ; and that We, as a successor of the 
 Apostles, are bound to transmit it to you with equal fidelity. 
 
 There is moreover nothing that can render us the object of suspicion. 
 In our veins, as in yours, flows Canadian blood : We have given fre- 
 quent proofs of the love we have for our dear and common country ; 
 and, as the Apostle, so can we take God to witness, how we long after 
 you all, in the bowels of Jesus Christ. Philip, i. 8. Besides, you 
 know that we never received anything from the Civil Government, — 
 
 JOHN JAMES LARTIQUE, 
 
 FIRST BISHOP OF MONTREAL, &c. 
 
 To the Clergy , and all the faith ful of our Diocese , Health and Benediction. 
 
 K 
 
78 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. I. 
 
 as we expect from it nothing but that justice which is due to every 
 British subject. And we bear testimony to the truth, when we so- 
 lemnly protest, that in speaking to you on the present occasion, we 
 speak of ourselves, impelled by no exterior influence, but solely ac- 
 tuated by motives of conscience. It is not, then, our intention to give 
 an opinion, as a citizen, on this purely political question : among the 
 different branches of government, which is in the right, or which is in 
 the wrong; (this is one of those things which God has delivered to 
 the consideration of men: mundum tradidit disputatione eorum .*) 
 but the moral question, namely, what is the duty of a Catholic towards 
 the civil power established and constituted in each state? This reli- 
 gious question falling within our jurisdiction and competency, it is un- 
 doubtedly the province of your Bishop to give you all necessary 
 instruction on this subject, and your province to listen to him. For, 
 as the celebrated Lamenais says, “ Bishops being commissioned by 
 the Holy Ghost to govern the church of God, under the direction of 
 the Sovereign Pontiff, we profess that we believe that in every thing 
 which appertains to the spiritual administration of each Diocese, clergy 
 and laity ought, faithfully, to obey the orders of the bishop instituted 
 by the Pope.” 
 
 This, then, is what the sacred Scriptures teach you on the above 
 question. “ Let every soul,” says St. Paul, — Rom. xiii. “ Be subject 
 to the higher powers, for there is no power but from God, and those 
 that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power 
 resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to 
 themselves damnation. The ruler is the minister of God to them for 
 good. He beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of 
 God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil, wherefore 
 be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience 
 sake.” — Rom. i. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. “ Be ye subject therefore,” adds St. 
 
 Peter, the chief of the Apostles, “ to every human creature for God’s 
 sake ; whether it be to the King, as excelling ; or to the governors as 
 sent by Him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of the 
 good. For so is the will of God. As free and not as making liberty 
 of malice, but as the servants of God, honour the king. Servants, be 
 subject to your masters with all fear : not only to the good and gentle, 
 but also to the froward. For this is thanks worthy, if for conscience 
 towards God, a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully.” — I. St. 
 Peter, ii. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 
 
 Such, dear brethren, are the oracles of the Holy Ghost, as we find 
 them in the sacred volume; such the doctrine of Jesus Christ, as the 
 apostles Peter and Paul, had learned it from the mouth of their 
 Divine Master. But clear as these words may be in themselves, a 
 Christian does not interpret the word of God by his own private judg- 
 ment ; he knows that it is a fundamental point of his faith, that the 
 sacred Scriptures, as St. Peter assures us, II. Ep. i. 20, are not to be 
 understood according to each one’s private interpretation ; and that it 
 belongs to our mother the Catholic Church alone to expound them to 
 us, according to the decision of Jesus Christ in the gospel ; “ If he 
 will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the 
 
APPENDIX, NO. I. 
 
 79 
 
 publican/’ — St. Mat. xviii. 17. Now, his present Holiness, Gregory 
 XVI. has expounded from his pontifical chair, these passages of Scrip- 
 ture. He has interpreted the passages which we have cited from the 
 sacred volume, according to the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and 
 the perpetual tradition of the Church, from its establishment down to 
 the present day : he has dictated their true meaning to the Christian 
 world, in his Encyclical letter, addressed in the beginning of his Pon- 
 tificate, to the Bishops in every part of the world. Not a solitary 
 Bishop since that period has raised his voice against the doctrine of 
 that letter, so that it has received at least the tacit consent of the great 
 body of Pastors, and consequently, it must be looked upon as an au- 
 thoritative decision in point of doctrine. . 
 
 a As we have learned,” says the Holy Father, (it is not our voice 
 that you are now going to hear, but that of the V icar of Jesus 
 Christ )— 44 as we have learned that writings disseminated among the 
 people proclaim doctrines which shake the fidelity and submission due 
 to Princes, and cause the standard of revolt to be raised on all sides, 
 it becomes necessary to use every precaution to prevent deluded mul- 
 titudes from being drawn out of the line of duty. Let all bear in 
 mind according to the advice of the Apostle 4 that there is no power 
 but from God; and therefore he thkt resisteth the power, resisteth the 
 ordinance of God : and they that resist purchase to themselves dam- 
 nation ’ Both human and divine laws rise up in condemnation of 
 those who, by schemes of sedition and revolt endeavour to shake alle- 
 giance to Princes, and hurl them from the throne. It was for this 
 reason, and in order to avoid sullying themselves with such a crime, 
 that the first Christians, amidst the fury of persecution, remained 
 faithful to the Emperors, and sought, as it is certain they did, the in- 
 terests of the empire. Of this they gave abundant proofs, not only 
 by faithfully executing every order that was not contrary to religion, 
 but bv shedding their blood on the field of battle. 1 he Christian 
 SL s.J* Sl Austin, (in Psultn 124, No. 7) ,er,o4 . He.thon 
 Empire: but when there was question of the cause ol Jesus Christ, 
 thev acknowledged only Him who reigns in Heaven. 1 hey distin- 
 guished eternal from their temporal Lord: and yet for the sake their 
 eternal Lord, they were submissive to their temporal one. This it 
 was that the invincible martyr St. Mauritius, commander of the 
 Theban legion, had before his eyes, when, as St. Encherms relates, 
 he answered the Emperor:— We are your soldiers, Prince, but we are 
 at the same time the servants of God ; and now, even the danger of 
 losing our lives, with which we are threatened, docs not induce us to 
 revolt. We have our arms in our hands, and we resist not ; because 
 we prefer to suffer death rather than to inflict it. 1 his fidelity of the 
 Christians of old acquires new lustre, if we remark with Tertulhan, 
 that they were deficient neither in number nor in power, had they 
 chosen to declare themselves enemies to the state. 
 
 These splendid examples of inviolable submission to Prln( ' e ^ whlch 
 were the necessary consequences of the precepts of the Christian re- 
 ligion, condemn the error of those who, infatuated with the ove of 
 unbridled liberty, direct all their efforts against the rights of authority, 
 
80 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. I. 
 
 “ whilst, upon the people, they entail only slavery under the mask of 
 liberty. Such was the tendency of the evil designs of the Waldenses, 
 of the Beguards, of the Wickliffites, and of others against whom the 
 anathemas of the Apostolic See have been so frequently directed; and 
 they who walk in their footsteps, have no other object in view but to 
 boast with Luther, that they are free from all control of persons and 
 of things.’ , 
 
 . “ I<; ,s 011 y° ur P art an obligation of duty,” adds the same Pontiff, 
 m his brief of July 1832, to the bishops ‘of Poland, “it is on your 
 part an obligation of duty to watch with the utmost care, lest evil- 
 minded men, propagators of false doctrine, spread among your flocks 
 the contagion of demoralising theories. These men, with ieal for the 
 public good in their mouths, impose upon the credulity of simple men, 
 who blindly become their tools in disturbing the public peace and 
 overthrowing the established order of things. For the good, and for 
 the honor of the Disciples of Jesus Christ, it is fitting that their false 
 doctrines should be exposed: the falseness of their principles must be 
 shown by the immutable word of the sacred Scriptures, and by the 
 indisputable monuments of the Tradition of the Church.” 
 
 Such is the doctrine of the supreme Pastor of souls, of the vene- 
 rable 1 ontiff now sitting on the eternal chair, in conjunction with the 
 documents of the Church in all ages and in all places. You must 
 now feel, dear brethren, that we could not, without violating our duty 
 and endangering our personal salvation neglect the direction of your 
 consciences in circumstances so critical. For as a Catholic cannot 
 pretend to choose what point of faith he will admit, and what point 
 he will reject: and as St. James says, (Ep. ii. 10,) “lie who offends 
 
 ln iv e *r\l S bo ?? me 8 ullt y of all >” the present question amounts to 
 nothing less than this— whether you will choose to maintain or whether 
 you will choose to abandon the laws of your religion. Should then 
 any one wish to engage you in a revolt against the established Govern- 
 immt, under the pretext that you form a part of the Sovereign People 
 
 venHon°nV V F UrSe Ve !i t0 Sed " ced * The too famous National Con- 
 vention of France, though obliged to admit the principle of the Sove- 
 reignty of the people, because it was to this principle that it owed its 
 existence, took good care to condemn popular insurrections, by insert- 
 
 n 795 n tW Sr" f ^ which heads the conation of 
 17 Jo, that the Sovereignty resides, not in a part, not even in the 
 majority of the people, but in the entire body of the citizens • adding 
 that no individual that no partial union of citizens can pretendto 
 the Sovereignty. But who will dare to say, that in this country tl e 
 totahty of cit.ze.is desires the overthrow of the Government ” 7 
 
 We conclude, dear brethren, by appealing to your noble and <mne- 
 rous hearts. Did you ever seriously reflect on'the horrors of a chil 
 war? Did you ever represent to yourselves vnnr / 
 
 hamlets deluged with blood, the innocent and ’the guilty carried offby 
 the same tide of calami y and wo ? Did you ever reflect on what ex- 
 
 irrrvtr :ns? ? h op t ular -4 
 
 Philosopher of Geneva, the author of the social contract, theVea” 
 
APPENDIX, NO. II. 
 
 81 
 
 upholder of the Sovereignty of the people, says himself, that a revolu- 
 tion which cost only one drop of blood, would be too dearly bought ? 
 We leave these important reflections to your feelings of humanity, and 
 to your sentiments as Christians. # 
 
 “The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and 
 the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. H. Cor. 
 
 This charge shall be read and published at the Parochial or princi- 
 pal Mass of each Church, in chapter by each community of our 
 Diocese, on the first Sunday or Festival after its reception. 
 
 Given at Montreal , the 24th Oct . 1837. 
 
 John James Lartique, Bishop of Montreal 
 
 No. II. ( See page 33 .J 
 
 Declaration of tiie Views and Motives of the Loyal 
 Canadian Association of Montreal. 
 
 (From Morning Courier, March 17, 1838.) 
 
 Encouraged by the rapid extension of the Loyal Canadian As- 
 sociation, and impelled to action by the unjust pretensions of a 
 small portion of our co-subjects of British origin, who, m the avowed 
 hope of wresting from the majority of the inhabitants of this country 
 all Constitutional influence, eagerly seize upon the false position in 
 which the deplorable attempts of a few of our fellow-countrymen 
 have placed us, to assail our institutions with bitter violence and evi- 
 dent dishonesty ; relying with the utmost confidence on the benevo- 
 lence of our august and well-beloved Sovereign, and on the justice of 
 her Government, and convinced that upon our zeal to defend our 
 religion, our laws and customs, must depend the maintenance and 
 preservation thereof in this Province, the Committee of the Loya 
 Canadian Association for the City of Montreal, while they eschew all 
 prejudice, jealousy, and repugnance, and appeal to the true friends o 
 tlm country, inviting them, in the interest of all, to unite their efforts 
 to those of the Association, deem it their duty to declare publicly, 
 and in detail, the motives which have given birth to this Association, 
 as well as the views, for the furtherance of which it was formed 
 
 It cannot be denied that there still exists a great number of abuses 
 which weigh heavily upon all the inhabitants of this Province, and 
 
 ret mth1Xt^rhTs d been S too great an adherence to discussions both 
 idle and envenomed by party feeling, on matters which were assure . 
 
82 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. II. 
 
 not the principal cause of the political disquiet under which the coun - 
 try languished. 
 
 The woful experience we have recently had, of the consequences of 
 such aberrations from a wise policy, should engage every good citizen 
 to return to better principles, and abandon all secondary views, to ap- 
 ply their energies solely to the leading interests of the Province. 
 
 The leaders of the Reform party have for some years past, strangely 
 mistaken their mission. They have lost sight of those improvements 
 which it was in their power to effect, and only laboured to introduce 
 doubtful theories which if reduced to practice, might have been ac- 
 companied by disadvantages of the most serious nature ; and having 
 once passed certain limits, they could not stop until their ever increas- 
 ing exactions hurried them into the excesses which have all but anni- 
 hilated our liberties, and well-nigh blotted out all hope of ever 
 attaining a state of reasonable reform. 
 
 While thus divulging their views with reference to those unfortunate 
 circumstances which, with others hereafter alluded to, have contributed 
 to bring on the crisis we have of late experienced, the Committee do 
 not mean to try the past at their tribunal, but solely to indicate its 
 faults and make it be understood that their aim will ever be to avoid 
 all errors of a similar nature. 
 
 One of the causes, nay, the first and principal cause, of all the evils 
 which have afflicted the country, has been the constant opposition and 
 extravagant pretensions of a small portion of our fellow-subjects, who, 
 priding themselves on a particular origin, have ever refused to form 
 one people with us. 
 
 Too long the objects of a system of odious favouritism, these men 
 became persuaded that they were alone entitled to all offices, honours 
 and advantages, at the disposal of Government, and have ever sought 
 to exclude our fellow-countrymen from the administration, and en- 
 deavoured by dint of calumny to prolong the existence of that place- 
 speculation which they had set on foot with so much advantage to 
 themselves. 
 
 The existence of this faction, and of the abuses perpetuated by it, 
 gave birth to that Reform party, whose opposition was long sustained 
 m a spirit of generous and honourable patriotism. 
 
 Unfortunately the violence, the precipitation, and more especially, 
 the extravagant pretensions of some of their leaders, have, of late years, 
 perdled the reforms already effected, as well as those which might 
 have been subsequently obtained. 
 
 The deplorable events which have recently occurred have afforded 
 a triumph to that faction which it was essential to repress, and we 
 now behold it seizing upon isolated transgressions to make them ap- 
 pear general, in order to obtain the overthrow of all the institutions 
 we hold from the capitulation and the benevolence of our late august 
 Monarch George III. of glorious memory. 
 
 But the Reform party is not annihilated by the errors and the fall 
 of a few individuals. Its spirit will ever be found in the midst of the 
 inhabitants of this country of every origin, who profess that true 
 
APPENDIX, NO. II. 
 
 83 
 
 liberalism which consists in the exercise and maintenance of equal 
 
 rights. . ~ 
 
 It is this numerous class of our fellow-subjects, to whom the Com- 
 mittee of the Loyal Canadian Association do appeal this day, calling 
 upon them to rally round the happy Constitution which we possess, 
 and which assures to every man the same extent of liberty, and the 
 free exercise of his language and his religion. # 
 
 Amongst the various reforms we should aim at, in order to enect a 
 regeneration of this country, some depend on the Mother Country, 
 by whom, as we have every reason to believe, our solicitations to ob- 
 tain them, will, in the interest of her colony, be most favourably re- 
 ceived ; others are within the power of our local Legislature to enect, 
 and the people of this Province may obtain them by directing their 
 attention toward the choice of their Representatives. 
 
 Amongst those of the first class we may designate : — 
 
 Istly.— The composition of both Councils, Executive and Legisla- 
 tive, the nomination of whose members should remain with the Crown, 
 but accompanied by such guarantees as would effectually prevent the 
 evils often occasioned by those bodies in the conduct, of public busi- 
 ness. It is by continuing to reform them, and especially by enectmg 
 that reform in accordance with the spirit which dictated the Constitu- 
 tion of 1791, that we may at length succeed in restoring harmony to 
 administrative action, and in putting an end to those party contentions 
 which have been so baneful to the interests and prosperity ot the 
 
 PU 2ndiy.— The accumulation of offices which has tended solely to 
 create bitter jealousies, and to maintain a number of sinecurists who 
 are ever opposed to all improvements which may aftect their interests. 
 
 3dly. The reservation to the Provincial Legislature, ot the right 
 
 of appropriating the revenue on condition that a civil list be granted 
 to ensure the service of the civil and judicial administration ot the 
 
 4th lv. The appointment of Judges for life, in order to give them 
 
 that degree of independence which they have not now', but with 
 which they should be invested for the interests of justice ; subjecting, 
 however, such appointments to certain restrictions of good conduct 
 
 and integrity. , _ . r i i 
 
 5tbl\\— The creation of a tribunal to take cognizance of, and ad- 
 
 judge upon, crimes committed by public functionaries. 
 
 Amongst those of the second class, we would indicate 
 Istly.— Certain modifications in our system of Judicature, which, 
 owing to the increase of population and the spread of new settlements, 
 now rests upon a basis both insufficient for, and ill adapted to, the 
 requirements of the country, and exposes persons located at ^distance 
 to an expense so ruinous as to amount, in many cases, o a 1 
 justice, -not omitting in this reform that of the Court o Appeals, 
 which is constituted in such a manner as to render it incapable 
 complishing the object of its institution. . . T a 
 
 2dly. — A revision of the laws relating to Feudal Tenures with a 
 view to abolish those enactments which tend to affect the increase of 
 
 
84 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. II. 
 
 property and to fetter industrious enterprise ; without sacrificing how- 
 ever the interests and actual rights of either the Seignior or the Cen- 
 sitaire. 
 
 3dly. — A modification also of the laws regulating the customary 
 Dower, which often occasions the ruin of families, and prevents num- 
 berless transactions from being advantageously concluded. 
 
 4thly. — The establishment of an hypothecary system which would 
 protect at once the proprietor and the creditor, and allow capital to 
 rest safely upon a certain pledge. 
 
 5thly. — Commercial laws, better calculated to regulate and secure 
 the interests of trade, as also mutual arrangements with the sister 
 .Province to facilitate as much as possible, her commercial communica- 
 tions with us. By extending and strengthenng the chain which binds 
 the commercial interests of the two Provinces, a new vigor will be 
 infused into trade and agriculture, which are the principal sources of 
 a country s wealth. 
 
 Such a re, with others of a minor importance, the reforms towards 
 which the attention of the Association will be especially directed in 
 the hope of removing the obstacles which have impeded the prosperity 
 oi this country, and which, notwithstanding the advantages it should 
 have derived from its extent, its salubrious climate, its extreme fer- 
 tility, and, more especially, from the character of its inhabitants, who 
 claim descent from the two nations which stand highest in the scale of 
 European civilization and industry, have hitherto, nevertheless, pre- 
 vented it from rising to a level with the countries which surround it. 
 in accordance with the views and sentiments of the Loyal Canadian 
 
 Association as above set forth, its objects will therefore be : 
 
 lstly. To labour earnestly towards the restoration of union and 
 concord among all her Majesty's subjects in this Province ; such con- 
 cord and union being the sole basis upon which the prosperity of all 
 can be made to rest. r r j 
 
 2ndly -T° oppose all party excesses and all doctrines tending to 
 subvert public morals or public order. b 
 
 3dly— To propagate all doctrines calculated to ensure the happiness 
 of the people, or to strengthen and enlarge their institutions. 
 
 . r ° exe J t a11 Its influence toward the encouragement of the 
 agriculture, manufactures and trade of the country, and also toward 
 the extension and improvement, not only of its interior communications 
 
 ” “ I,ed ,or 
 
 5thly — To labor toward the diffusion of the blessings of education 
 amongst all classes of the people, the extent of whose knowledge with 
 reference to the mutual bonds of society, is their sole rule of modern- 
 
 7thly — And finally, to guard, with the strictest vigilance, the pre- 
 servation of all the rights, libert es and privileges wh.Vh “ P j 
 
 by the Constitution to the people of Z 
 
APPENDIX, NO. III. 
 
 85 
 
 before it, to oppose with all its energy, every demand tending to a re- 
 union of the two Provinces, which would have the effect of destroying 
 all those advantages, and would plunge this Province, for an unlimited 
 period, into a state of disorder and confusion. 
 
 Pierre De Hocheblave, Presidents 
 
 H. Guy, 
 
 H. E. Barron, 
 
 Secretaries . 
 
 Montreal , February 1, 1838. 
 
 No. III. ( See page 38 . ) 
 
 The Deputies from the revolted Colonies, who met « General 
 Congress* at Philadelphia, in September, 1774; among ot herpro- 
 ceedings, framed an Address to the Canadians, to induce them to 
 join the other colonies. The substance, which is too long for inser- 
 tion here, is given in the Annual Register, for 1775. In that able and 
 respectable publication, this address is characterized as follows. 
 
 “ Of all the papers published by the American Congress, their a - 
 dress to the French inhabitants of Canada, discovers the most dex- 
 terous management, and the most able method of application to the 
 temper and passions of the parties, whom they endeavour to ^ai ^ 
 
 In the historical part of the Annual Register, for 1776, it is stated 
 that when the provincial forces entered Canada by Lake Champlain, 
 he preceding year, parties were spread over the country adjacent to 
 St Ens and were every where received with open arms by the 
 Canadians’ &c. However, it appears in the ™W***™™ 
 about 200 Canadian volunteers in St. Johns as part of eg, 
 under the command of Major Preston, who was forced to capitulate, 
 after a brave defence. General Carleton (afterwards Lord Dorches- 
 terT sot together near a thousand men at Montreal, composed princi- 
 pal Canadians, intended for the relief of St Johns. This party 
 was repulsed by the Provincials, in attempting to land at ^"Can 
 Another party near Sorel, under the conmiand of Colonel M b ean 
 hearing of the Governor’s defeat, the Canadians left hun and he was 
 obliged to make the best of his way to Quebec with the emigrants, 
 
 W h e n' * Arno Id * with his party arrived near Quebec through the 
 woods, by the river Chaudiere, the Canadians received them w th the 
 
 same good will th a^Montjoi Arnold 0 Tmmediately pub- 
 
 the same nature with that which hail been t ore ^ colonies 
 
 and Montgomery. They were invited to join with the 
 in an indissoluble union. To range themselves under the s b andard ot 
 general liberty.” &c. &c. Notwithstanding the favourable receptio 
 
86 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. III. 
 
 of Montgomery and Arnold, and the addresses, signed by General 
 Washington, which they published ; yet in the City of Quebec, “ the 
 discontented inhabitants, English and Canadians, as soon as danger 
 pressed, united for their common defence. They became seriously 
 alarmed for the immense property which Quebec contained. They 
 desired to be, and were, embodied and armed.” It is remarked that 
 Arnold’s only hope against Quebec must have been the defection of 
 the inhabitants ; and being disappointed, he drew off his detachment 
 into quarters of refreshment, until Montgomery’s force should join 
 him. In the mean time the Governor, General Carleton, arrived 
 safely from Montreal. “ His first act was to oblige all those to quit 
 the town with their families, who refused to take up arms in its de- 
 fence.” 
 
 . Xt appears from Smith’s History of Canada, and other sources of 
 information ; that, though many of the Canadians joined the rebels, or 
 furnished them with provisions, &c. when they invaded the Province • 
 yet no men of any note were of the number, and in defending the 
 city of Quebec they were not behind the old subjects in zeal and 
 bravery. Mr Beaujeu is mentioned, as having embodied a party of 
 Canadians, somewhere in the country, with a design of raising the 
 siege ; but on their march, they were encountered and dispersed bv 
 the rebels. Smith inserts in his History, a very particular and in- 
 teresting Journal of the Siege, kept by an officer of the garrison 
 
 • i. § a * ant conduct of Monsieur Dambourges, with Major Nairn 
 “ er ° J ,art i cularl y mentioned, on the morning of 31st December! 
 1775, when the rebels attacked the garrison. It is also stated in the 
 Journal. “ The French militia shewed no backwardness ; a handful 
 of them stood the last at Sault au Matelot; overcome by numbers, 
 they were obhged to retreat to the barrier.” In the beginning of 
 April, 1776, sixty Canadians, headed by Mr Bailly, a priest, armed 
 themselves, intending to surprise the guard at Pointe Levi, and then 
 join the Kings friends in Quebec. A villain informed the rebels of 
 the plan, which prevented its success. In the engagement that ensued 
 six rebels were killed, five loyal Canadians fell, thirty-four were taken 
 prisoners, and the priest was dangerously wounded. The siege was 
 , “ th »' M„, by th, arrival of „inforc.„e„tfC 
 home, and on the seventh the journalist, among other incidents, states, 
 “this morning many priests have come to town from the adjacent 
 parishes, with cheerful countenances, to pay their respecL ? 0 the 
 
 fo7aTtv°win n e d v ,nake | the 7 ° be !f a . nc ® t0 the bisho P- Th eir distinguished 
 loyalty will ever redound to their honour; a great number of people 
 
 their fl eve 8 on n th ’ T" y guilt - V faces ’ The peasants, with 
 butter „ JJ® g ’-° U " d ’ C °T sne f ki . n g »n, with a few eggs, milk, 
 i \ * . v/ cringing and submissive, conscious that their base 
 
 conduct merits chastisement,” &c. 
 
 ner'r Jf'nrL ° " otke A e Report of the Legislative Council of Up- 
 
 per Canada, on the state of the Province in February, 1838; in which 
 the loyalty of the Canadians is acknowledged at the time they were 
 
 rtt Of it 7? V0 v 1 1 CoI ? n,e J A [ page 27 > after having mentioned 
 the Act of 1774, which restored to the Canadians their peculiar code 
 
APPENDIX, NO. III. 
 
 87 
 
 of laws, “ in all matters relating to property and civil rights,” the Re- 
 port adds, “ what might have been the conduct of the Canadians 
 under other treatment, we can only conjecture ; but it is certain, that 
 the efforts which were afterwards made by the revolted Colonies, to 
 allure them into their confederacy, were unsuccessful, and that in gene- 
 ral, the population of Lower Canada remained faithful to the Royal 
 cause.” 
 
 Those who are old enough to remember the Revolution in trance, 
 and the war which began with that nation in 1793, will recollect with 
 horror the proceedings that we every day heard of from that ill-fated 
 country. The sanguinary revolutionists spared neither age nor sex ; 
 the ministers of religion were massacred, the Christian Sabbath was 
 abolished, death was decreed to be an eternal sleep, &c. And, this 
 having been formerly a French colony, great exertions were made to 
 revolutionize the province, and confer upon the inhabitants the bless- 
 ings of liberty and equality ! For this purpose emissaries were at 
 different times sent in from* the United States, by the French minister 
 at Philadelphia (then the seat of Government) to the great alarm of 
 the peaceable and well-disposed people of Canada. There is no 
 doubt that we were very much indebted to the influence and exertions 
 of the Roman Catholic Priesthood lor our escape from such liberty . 
 This is so evident to those who were here at the time, as hardly to 
 require any proof. It may, however, be proper to mention, that one 
 of these emissaries was brought to trial for High Treason and exe- 
 cuted at Quebec, in July, 1797. In his plan to “ overthrow the pre- 
 sent existing Government,” he counted upon the assistance and 
 co-operation of a French fleet and troops ; the fiist object was to se- 
 cure the money and valuable property, for defraying the expenses of 
 the war “ and then effectually to secure all the priests and leading 
 characters in the Province.”* This shews that McLane and others, 
 who formed the plan of overthrowing the present existing Govern- 
 ment, were well aware that they had no chance of success, unless all 
 the priests were first effectually secured . 
 
 The war with the United States, which was begun by them, in 1812, 
 is of such recent date that many persons are still living who must 
 distinctly remember with what alacrity the inhabitants in general, of 
 different races and different creeds, turned out to defend the country. 
 This is well described by William James, in his work entitled “Mili- 
 tary Occurrences,” in two volumes. It cannot be doubted that the 
 clergymen were as zealous and active as their flocks ; though their 
 exertions, beino of a more retired nature than the field of battle, are 
 not so likely to°be noticed and recorded by the historian. However, 
 one example to the contrary is spoken of, with applause, to this day, 
 
 * See the evidence on David McLane's trial at Quebec, the 7th July. 1797; 
 particularly that of Elmer Cushing. 
 
88 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 of a Roman Catholic Clergyman (now a Bishop) who publicly 
 encouraged and stimulated the spirit of the militia, at the attack on 
 Ogdensburgh, in February, 1813. 
 
 It is not out of place here to refer to the inhabitants of Jersey, 
 Guernsey, &c. who are descended from Frenchmen; and, though 
 they have retained their language with many of their laws and cus- 
 toms, yet they have on several occasions given convincing proofs of 
 their bravery, loyalty and attachment to the British Sovereigns. The 
 property of Jersey “belonged formerly to the Carterets, a Norman 
 family, who have been always attached to the royal interest, and gave 
 protection to Charles II., both when King and Prince of Wales, at a 
 time when no part of the British dominions durst recognise him.”* 
 Jersey was attacked by a large French force, in 1779; which “met 
 with such a vigorous resistance from the militia of the island, assisted 
 by a body of regulars, that they were compelled to retire without hav- 
 ing landed a single person.” Another unsuccessful attempt was made 
 by France, m 1781, to take this island. A considerable force was 
 landed unexpectedly and gained some advantages by surprise, but 
 were soon overpowered and forced to surrender themselves prisoners 
 ot war, to the number of eight hundred, not one of those who landed 
 having escaped.-)- From the former good conduct of the French 
 Canadians, as they are sometimes called, is it not reasonable and may 
 we not expect the same devoted bravery and loyalty from them at some 
 tuture day, it the occasion should ever require it, provided a different 
 and more judicious line of policy be adopted and continued towards 
 them r 
 
 No. IV. ( See page 50. J 
 
 Mr Hagerman’s Speech on the Clergy Reserve Bill,— 
 Third Reading, 4th March, 1835. 
 
 '^Solicitor General commenced by expressing his sense of 
 the obligations he felt himself under to the house for having yielded 
 to his request, to defer the third reading of the bill until this day, to 
 enable him to offer the observations he had to make against its adop- 
 tion, and which, owing to the measure having been brought up out of 
 the ordinary course, he was unprepared to do the day before yester- 
 day. 1 he question, it would be admitted, was one of very areat im- 
 
 Guthries Geography, London edition of 1788. 
 
 f Ency. Britannica, 4th edition, 
 both under the article Jersey. 
 
 Also Edinburgh Gazetteer, printed in 1822: 
 
APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 89 
 
 portance, involving, as it did, the existence of the Established Church, 
 so far as its existence depended on the public support assigned it by 
 the Constitution ; and therefore it was most desirable that it should 
 be calmly and dispassionately considered. For himself he no longer 
 considered it a party question — it was one on which men of unques- 
 tionable intelligence, integrity, and loyalty were found to disagree, and 
 it must, therefore, depend on the force of truth and argument which 
 was right and which was wrong. He should, with as much brevity 
 as possible, and he hoped for the last time, go over the prominent ob- 
 jections raised by gentlemen, for whose opinions he entertained res- 
 pect, against the exclusive appropriation of the Reserves to the support 
 of the Established Church, and he should do so without any desire 
 to olfend, and he hoped in a manner to free him from any such re- 
 proach. IT 1 1 
 
 In the first place it had been contended, that the Established 
 
 Church of England was not the Established Church of this Province, 
 and although he believed that this opinion was not generally enter- 
 tained in this country, and he believed, was repudiated by all dispas- 
 sionate and well informed persons, he would enter upon its investigation, 
 believing, as he did, that it had not hitherto undergone much discus- 
 . sion. For my own part, said Mr Hagerman, 1 have not the shadow 
 of doubt upon the subject ; and in order the more clearly to explain 
 the grounds of my opinion, I beg, in the first instance, to call the at- 
 tention of hon. members to the state of the Church anterior to the 
 Reformation. It will be recollected, that at that time the Roman 
 Catholic religion prevailed, and was the only recognized religion 
 throughout the Christian world, and that the Pope claimed to be at 
 the head of the Church, exercising unlimited sovereignty over it.— 
 Henry VIII., for reasons not now necessary to advert to, denounced 
 the exercise of this sovereignty within his dominions as an usurpation, 
 declared that he was the head of the Church within his dominions — 
 and denounced entirely the pretensions of the Pontiff. To secure the 
 right thus asserted by Henry, the Parliament of England, in the 26th 
 year of his reign, passed an act, chap. 1, declaring, that “ the King 
 shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head on earth 
 of the Church of England, and shall have and enjoy annexed and 
 united to the Imperial Crown of this realm as well the style and title 
 thereof as all honours, dignities, jurisdiction, authorities, &c. &c., to 
 the said supreme head of the same church, belonging, &c .; any usage, 
 foreign law or authority, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Now what 
 "was the foreign authority here referred to ? Of course that of the 
 Pope ; and how far did this authority extend ? As has been said be- 
 fore, throughout the Christian world ; and, therefore, Henry assumed 
 for himself and his successors that same authority throughout that 
 portion of the world then belonging to, or which might afterwards be- 
 long to the Crown of England. Passing by the acts passed in the 
 reign of Edward and Mary, the next statute which I shall advert to 
 is the 1st Elizabeth, chap. 1, in sec. 16— it is enacted, that “no fo- 
 reign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, 
 shall at any time after the last day of this Session of Parliament , 
 
90 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 use, enjoy^yexercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, 
 authority, pre-eminence or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical within 
 this realm, or ivithin any other your Majesty s dominions or countries 
 that now he , or hereafter shall he , &c.” And by the next section, 
 the 17th — it is “ established and enacted that such jurisdictions, pri- 
 vileges, superiorities, and pre-eminences spiritual and ecclesiastical, as 
 by any spiritual or ecclesiastical person or authority hath heretofore 
 been , or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the ec- 
 clesiastical state and persons , and for reformation, &c., shall for ever 
 be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm.” Here 
 again it is to be asked, 1st. What spiritual or ecclesiastical power 
 existed before the passing of this act ? The answer is, that of the 
 Pope, the same having been restored to him in the preceding reign of 
 Mary. 2nd. What was the nature and extent of this power ? It was 
 the direction, controul and superintendence of the Church throughout 
 the world ; and this power, by this act, was taken from the Pope and 
 annexed to the Crown of England, and declared to extend throughout 
 the Empire and its then dependencies, as well as to such others as 
 might afterwards be acquired. I shall now advert to the Act of 
 Union of England and Scotland, which, of itself furnishes arguments 
 that stand in need of no assistance from other sources to prove the 
 correctness of the position I have advanced. 5th Anne, c. 8, it is 
 enacted, that the Protestant religion contained in the Confession of 
 Faith, and Presbyterian Church government, shall be the only govern- 
 ment of the Church within the kingdom of Scotland ; and by the 
 same statute it is enacted, that the Protestant religion professed and 
 established by law in the Church of England should be unalterably 
 secured according to the laws and statutes having reference to the 
 same, and that every succeeding sovereign coming to the Crown of 
 Great Britain should, at his or her coronation, swear to maintain the 
 same within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominions of 
 Wales and Town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the territories there- 
 unto belonging . It has been argued by some hon. gentlemen, that 
 this oath relates to territories that at the time of passing the Act be- 
 longed to the Crown of England — the fallacy of this argument, how- 
 ever, is apparent upon a moment’s reflection. The act declares that 
 all succeeding Sovereigns as Kings or Queens of Great Britain shall 
 take the same oath, viz : to preserve and maintain the Established re- 
 ligion within the kingdoms of England, Ireland — the territory of 
 "Wales, Town of Berwick-upon-Tweed and territories thereunto be- 
 longing ; an oath which George III., his successor or his present 
 Majesty have taken, without excepting territories acquired since the 
 Act of Union. Having thus noticed Acts of Parliament which apply 
 to the Empire generally; I will next advert to a few that have 
 reference to this country, and which clearly point out the Church of 
 England as the Established Church here, and show that the act of 
 Elizabeth above was considered as in force in Canada. 
 
 The first statute conferring a settled form of goverement on Canada, 
 is the 14th Geo. III. chap. 83. The 5th section of this act secures 
 to His Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects the free exercise of their 
 
APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 91 
 
 religion, subject to the King’s supremacy, declared and established by 
 an act made in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, over 
 all the dominions and countries that then did or thereafter should be- 
 long to the Imperial Crown of this realm.” And the 7th section, of 
 the same statute substitutes an oath to be taken by Roman Catholics, 
 in lieu of that required by the before-mentioned statute of Elizabeth. 
 Now, it strikes me that nothing can more clearly prove that the Bri- 
 tish Parliament held that the Church of England was the Established 
 Church of Canada than this act; if otherwise, the statute of Elizabeth 
 could not apply to its inhabitants, and if it did not apply, there was 
 no necessity for relieving them from taking the oath prescribed in it, 
 to be taken by persons assuming office. _ . 
 
 The next statute I shall refer to, is one of which we are in the habit 
 of speaking in exalted terms, is the act conferring on us our Constitu- 
 tion— that constitution in virtue of which we are authorized to sit and 
 deliberate as representatives of the people, in a Legislative Assembly. 
 The 38th section authorizes the Governor to erect and endow one or 
 more parsonages or rectories as he may think fit, according to the es- 
 tablishment of the Church of England. The 39th section authorizes 
 the Governor to appoint to every such parsonage or rectory an incum- 
 bent, a Minister of the Church of England, who shall have been duly 
 ordained according to the rites of said Church. The 40th section 
 enacts, “ That every such presentation of an incumbent or minister 
 to any such parsonage or rectory, and also the enjoyment of any such 
 parsonage or rectory, and of the rights, profits, and emoluments 
 thereof by any such incumbent or minister, shall be subject and liable 
 to all rights of institution, and all other spiritual and ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction and authority which have been lawfully granted by His 
 Majesty’s letters patent (not by act of Parliament,) to the Bishop of 
 Nova Scotia, or which may hereafter, by His Majesty s Royal autho- 
 rity, be lawfully granted or appointed to be administered and executed 
 within the said Provinces, or either of them respectively, by the said 
 Bishop of Nova Scotia, or by any other person or persons according 
 to the laws and canons of the Church of England which are law- 
 fully made and received in England. Lastly, the 42d section 
 enacts, “That any acts of the Legislature of either Provinces, 
 which shall in any manner relate to or affect the establishment or dis- 
 cipline of the Church of England, amongst the ministers or mem- 
 bers thereof, shall be laid on the table of both houses of Parliament 
 thirty days before the King himself shall assent to them. Now these 
 sections of the constitution prove incontestably one of two things, 
 either that the Church of England was the established Church in 
 Canada before that act was passed, or, that by it that Church was 
 then established, it being declared that al the laws and canons of the 
 Church of England should be in force, and binding on the clergy. But 
 there is no question whatever but there was no necessity for passing 
 this act to Establish the Church— its enactments were intended to 
 authorize the Governor to divide the country into parishes and rec- 
 tories— to provide for their endowment, and to confer on him the 
 power of presenting incumbents to such parsonages and rectories 
 
9*2 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 when endowed. The Church of England was already established, it 
 was a consequence of Canada becoming one of the territories belong- 
 ing to the British Crown, and the only object of the statute was to 
 give effect to its usefulness. The power and jurisdiction of the 
 Bishop of Nova Scotia was founded on no statute, it proceeded direct 
 from the Crown, and before the 31st, Geo. III. was passed, he exer- 
 cised the spiritual power of Bishop of the established Church in 
 Canada, in the manner declared in the 40th section/. 
 
 Having thus remarked upon the different British Statutes relating 
 to this subject, I will next advert to some of the acts of His Majesty 
 and his government, shewing the light in which they regarded the 
 subject. In the first place, by what authority did His Majesty autho- 
 rize the installation and appointment of a Bishop to the Diocese of 
 Quebec, if the power did not belong to him as the head of the church 
 which he had sworn to maintain throughout all his dominions ; and 
 having exercised this power, under what law does the Bishop act, and 
 irom what laws does he derive his ecclesiastical power? Clearly 
 from the laws and canons of the Church of England, which declare 
 the Church of England to be the established Church throughout the 
 British dominions. 
 
 The next evidence I shall advert to is one that I do not attach so 
 much importance to as others may be inclined to do, but I will advert 
 to it as being explicit of the views of the great statesman who intro- 
 duced the 31st, Geo. III. into the House of Commons, I mean Mr 
 1 itt. 1 am aware that it has been supposed by many, that the late 
 Bord Grenville was the author of this act— such is not the case— he 
 had nothing more to do with it than any other member of the cabinet- 
 like all other acts of a similar description, it was originally drawn by 
 
 w 6 fl aW n° ffi 4 erS * °> f th . e , n Cro T’ under S° in g many changes before it 
 was finally adopted. When the clauses relating to the Church came 
 under discussion, Mr Pitt in explanation of the object to which the 
 reserves were to be applied, made use of these words, « The meaning 
 ot the act was, to enable the Governor to endow, and to present the 
 Protestant Clergy of the Established Church to such parsonage or 
 rectory as might bo constituted or erected within every township or 
 parish which now was or might be formed, and to give to such Pro- 
 testant Clergyman of the Established Church a part or the whole, as 
 
 S! W r pe f’- 0f the lands appropriated by the act- 
 
 I j J}? ex P la ined, that this was done “ to encourage the Estab - 
 hshed Church, and that possibly hereafter it might be proposed to 
 
 Coundr ,,h ° P “ C, '"« h “> ■“ i» tlio Legislative 
 
 Nothing can be more explicit than this language, shewing, first, that 
 pjas considered as of course that the Church of England was the 
 Established Church m Canada, and secondly, that the reserves were 
 intended solely for its support. Mr Fox and Mr Dundas were both 
 present, and neither of them denied the accuracy of Mr Pitt’s state- 
 men s or views. Mr Fox contended against the expediency of the pro- 
 vision, alleging that either the Roman Catholic or the Presbyterian 
 religion should be the established religion, — he however did not con- 
 
■ 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 93 
 
 tend that that of England was not so, — and Mr Dundas urged nothing 
 in opposition. I however will defer further remark upon the tendency 
 of these debates until I come to another branch of my argument, and 
 will now proceed to a last, and, what ought to be with us, a conclusive 
 proof in favor of the right of the Church of England to be considered 
 as the established church of these Provinces, — I mean the acts of our 
 own Provincial Legislature. 
 
 The first of these is the 33, Geo. III. chap 2, and the first act 
 passed to provide for the nomination and appointment of Parish and 
 Town officers; and it is somewhat remarkable that in the bill recently 
 introduced into this branch of the Legislature, no notice whatever has 
 been taken of the enactments I am about to notice. By the 7th sec- 
 tion of the act mentioned, it is provided that the inhabitant house- 
 holders of the parish , township, or place, shall at their town meetings 
 choose and nominate two fit and discreet persons to serve the office of 
 Town Wardens for such parish , township or place : but as soon as 
 there shall be any church built for the performance of divine service 
 “ according to the use of the Church of England , with a parson or 
 minister duly appointed thereto, then the said inhabitant householders 
 shall choose and nominate one person, and the said parson or minister 
 shall nominate another person, which persons shall jointly serve the 
 office of Church Wardens , and that such Town Wardens or Church 
 Wardens and their successors shall be as a corporation , ’ &c. 
 Looking to this act only, (if there are not many others of equal im- 
 portance,) nothing could more clearly demonstrate the understanding 
 of the Legislature that the Established Church of England was the 
 Established Church here; and that when parsons and Church Wardens 
 were once appointed to any parish or place, they became as in Eng- 
 land a corporation. This was assumed, — such a law conferring the 
 same distinction on any other religious body was never so much as 
 thought of ; and in confirmation of this opinion, I will next advert to 
 the act passed in the same session of the Legislature, viz. 33, Geo. 
 III. chap. 5. This act was passed to confirm marriages that had pre- 
 viously been contracted within the Province, and to provide for the 
 future solemnization of marriage within the same. \\ hat says the 
 preamble? Why, that “ whereas many marriages have been con- 
 tracted in this Province at a time when it was impossible to observe 
 the forms prescribed by law , (what law ?) by reason that there was 
 no Protestant parson or minister duly ordained residing in any part 
 of the said Province, nor any consecrated Protestant church or 
 chapel within the same ; and whereas the parties having contracted 
 such marriages, and their issue may therefore be subject to many 
 disabilities,— to quiet the minds,” &c. Now this preamble admits 
 that there then were Protestant parsons or ministers duly ordained, 
 who were authorized to solemnize marriage within any consecrated 
 Protestant church or chapel ; and who they were, is clearly enough 
 designated by the reference to consecrated churches or chapels, within 
 which only, according to the laics of England at that time, could 
 marriages be solemnized,— and there only by ministers duly ordained 
 according to the rites and forms of the Church of England ; and this 
 
 M 
 
94 
 
 
 appendix, no. IV. 
 
 interpretation is rendered even more clear by the subsequent parts and 
 enactments of the same law, which confines the confirmation of mar- 
 riages therein referred to, to persons who were under no canonical 
 disability to contract matrimony. The canons of the Church of Eng- 
 land, or such as were adopted by it, no reasonable man will dispute 
 were these here referred to; thereby admitting their validity within 
 the Province. Again, the same statute, for the purpose of facilitating 
 the contracting of marriage in the Province, admits of the ceremony 
 being performed according to the form prescribed by the Church of 
 England by a Justice of the Peace, when neither of the parties reside 
 within eighteen miles of any parson or minister of the Church of 
 England; but so soon as there shall be five parsons or ministers of 
 the Church of England severally incumbent or doing duty in their 
 respective parishes or places of residence within any one district, then 
 the authority given to the Justice of the Peace should cease. No 
 notice of the existence of the ministers of any other denomination is 
 taken here; and why are the ministers of the Church of England thus 
 distinguished ? — obviously because they were the ministers of the Es- 
 tablished Church ; and when resident within any district to the num- 
 ber of five or more, their right to solemnize marriage should supersede 
 all others ; — it was never thought necessary to make a like exception 
 in favor of any other class of ministers. I shall now shortly advert to 
 the acts passed authorizing the solemnization of marriage by ministers 
 of other persuasions than those of the Church of England. The first 
 of these is the 38, Geo. III. chap. 4, and that passed in the present 
 reign extending the provisions of the former. It is enough for me to 
 ask, when it was thought necessary to pass any law authorizing minis- 
 ters of the Church of England to solemnize marriage in the Province 
 of Upper Canada ? No such act was deemed requisite because, the 
 Church of England is the Established Church throughout the British 
 dominions, (Scotland excepted) and therefore its ministers carried with 
 them the power wherever they went within those dominions to solem- 
 nize marriage, in virtue of their ordination. Not so with respect to 
 the ministers of any other denomination, and so thought the Legisla- 
 ture of this Province, and therefore it passed the laws in question — 
 incomplete nevertheless, the revision of which, I most earnestly 
 recommend to those who are interested in their efficiency. 
 
 The last act of our Legislature which I shall notice is one which, 
 so far as it respects its bearing upon this question, is the most impor- 
 tant of all — I mean the act u relative to the right of tithes within this 
 Province” and which became a law in 1823 — having been reserved for 
 the signification of His Majesty’s assent, and being one of the des- 
 cription of bills which by the constitution it was necessary to lay upon 
 the table of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament, before such as- 
 sent could be given. This act declares that “ notwithstanding one 
 seventh of the lands granted in the Province had been reserved for 
 the support of a Protestant Clergy , doubts had been suggested that 
 the tithe of the produce of land might still be legally demanded by 
 the incumbent duly instituted , or Rector of any Parish , and it is 
 therefore enacted, That no tithes shall be claimed, demanded or re- 
 

 APPENDIX, NO. IV. « ° 
 
 ceived by any ecclesiastical parson, rector or vicar of the I rotestant 
 Church, within this Province.” Now this act plainly estab fishes two 
 points; first, that the reserved lands were in lieu of tithes, and secondly, 
 that they were set aside for the Clergy of the Church of England, 
 they only being known or designated as parsons, rectors, or vicars. 
 
 Further comment on the various statutes must be considered super- 
 fluous, and I shall now pass to the last head of this branch ol my 
 argument, by merely mentioning what will not, I believe, be denied 
 by any lawyer, that to libel, or attempt to bring into disrepute the 
 Liturgy of the Church of England is an indictable offence, while in 
 like manner to treat the Confession of Faith of the former or doc- 
 trines of any other Christian sect, (unless some scandal is thereby 
 brought on the Christian religion) cannot find the like protection any 
 where out of Scotland. And why is this? Because the Liturgy of 
 the Church of England is recognized and established by law through- 
 out the British dominions (Scotland excepted), and is therefore pro- 
 tected from contempt or derision, in the same manner that the 
 authority, power, and supremacy of the Crown is protected from msu 
 or seditious attack. The truth is, that wherever the authority of the 
 King of England extends, (Scotland excepted) the existence and pre- 
 eminence of the Church of England accompanies it ; by the terms of 
 the constitution, and in virtue of the coronation oath, the one cannot 
 exist without the other. And here I will dismiss this part of the sub- 
 ject, and proceed to others that have reference to expediency rather 
 than richt. And in the first place it is contended that whether there 
 be an established Church or not; there ought not to be one. I feel 
 how incompetent I am to add any new arguments, to the numerous 
 and powerful opinions that have been advocated by the most enlight- 
 ened of all countries in opposition to this view; I merely recall to the 
 recollection of hon. members a few of the more obvious reasons 
 which are urged in favor of an established Church. And in the first 
 place I will request hon. members to recollect that the connection of 
 Church and State is to be traced to the earliest periods The Jewish 
 religion, the foundation of our own, was identified with the state, the 
 sovereign in fact reigned in virtue of its ordinances, and was bound to 
 their observances; and upon the Christian dispensation, the first mo- 
 narch that embraced its tenets, as was observed by my honorable f.iuid 
 from Lanark, proclaimed it to be the religion of the state. The : great 
 
 Constantine declared himself, by miraculous interposition, a convert to 
 
 the religion of Christ, and whether sincere in his professions of con- 
 version or not, he marched to battle and to conquest under the sign 
 of the cross; and being established on the y 
 
 vouched his sincerity in the faith he had avowed, by 
 
 religion; through whose influence he had conquered, for the rest of ^ 
 his life ; and from that period to the present throughout the w hole y' 
 Christian world (with one exception) there has existed an cstabl.shed 
 religion in every kingdom : at least I am not aware of any other ex- 
 ception than that I have alluded to. And is it not right that it should 
 be P so? if we believe in the supremacy of the Almightv, if we admit 
 that by his permission kings reign and nations exist— if we acknow- 
 
96 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 ledge that from him we derive every blessing — and that by his power 
 we are protected, can any government hope to prosper, that does not 
 shew its reverence and its gratitude, by endeavouring to the utmost to 
 sustain, cherish, and enforce obedience to those divine laws, upon 
 which is based all human institutions — and without which they must 
 perish ? It is true that human laws cannot always restrain the licen- 
 tious practices of the profane, much less can it control the impious 
 mind of man, but it should at least guard against all open avowal of 
 infidelity — and in reverence of the Creator, shew at least a resolution 
 to enforce obedience to his commandments, as far as man can control 
 his fellow. In opposition to this reasoning it is said that the genius 
 of the age is against all restraints upon the conscience whether of reli- 
 gion or otherwise. And as a proof, it is declared that in England the 
 people are anxious for a separation of church and state. Nothing can 
 be more unfounded than this opinion — the people of England on the 
 contrary are enthusiastically attached to the existence of the Estab- 
 lished Church, and no one thing, as has been universally admitted, so 
 powerfully conduced to the overthrow of the late Ministry as the no- 
 tion that prevailed that it was inimical to the Church establishment. 
 It may be recollected that about a year ago His Majesty addressed 
 the Bishops in a speech emphatically declaring that he would sustain 
 in its purity and efficiency the Established Church. I was in England 
 at that time, and it is not easy to describe the enthusiasm with which 
 this address was hailed throughout the kingdom — so much so that a 
 prominent member of the House of Commons, opposed to the views 
 of the King, stood up in his place and declared that “ the opinion of 
 His Majesty had spread like wild-fire through the kingdom, and 
 that he would be sustained by his subjects to an extent that convinced 
 him, His Majesty’s then ministry could not exist.” And the truth of 
 this prediction has been verified. The truth is, that the only unpopu- 
 larity under which the Church in England suffers, is from the mode in 
 which its means of support arc collected — if it were possible to sus- 
 tain the Church there, in the same manner that we have it in our 
 power to do here, we should hear of no complaints — happy would the 
 people be if such means existed among them. 
 
 There are, it is true, examples of the dissolution of the connection 
 between Church and State — France affords the most conspicuous, and 
 what are the lessons it teaches ? For years the disciples and teachers 
 of atheism and infidelity, had taught their pernicious doctrines ; con- 
 tempt and derision of all religious observances were the first fruits — 
 next came clamorous complaint, and open defiance of the laws — revo- 
 lution and bloodshed followed, and the fair fields of France, and of 
 h^ I™ 08 ! beautiful countries in the world, were laid d es titute ; the 
 religion of Christ was denounced, and the altars, dedicated to the 
 worship of the Most High, were cast down and destroyed, and the 
 ministers of His word were slaughtered, and their blood deluged 
 the places sacred to the ordinances of the Almighty. This course of 
 wickedness and impiety however, had its termination ; after a season 
 men began to reflect on the consequences of their unchristian con- 
 duct — reason and religion resumed their sway, and the worship of the 
 
97 
 
 u 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 Almighty was once more restored, and in the re-establishment of His 
 ordinances the throne sought its only certain protection and security. 
 
 A neighbouring country has also been referred to as affording an 
 example of a government existing without the support of an established 
 religion. Of the constitution of the United States I would speak with 
 the”greatest respect, but if I were to point out one proof, stronger 
 than any other of the disadvantages, temporal as well as spiritual, 
 arising from the want of an established religion among the people, i 
 would” point to the example of that country. It is said that the de- 
 claration of independence was drawn up by the late Mr Jefferson ; 1 
 so, the blot which above all others disfigures and disgraces that docu- 
 ment, viz. the absence of all acknowledgment of a superintending 
 Providence, and the want of any recognition of the duties of man to 
 his Creator, may be accounted for by its being the work of one who 
 was confessedly deeply imbued with the infidelity of Voltaire, Kous- 
 seau, and others of the French school, whose writings, it is universally 
 admitted, led to the Revolution, and horrible crimes that attended it 
 in France. May British subjects keep the dreadful lesson constantly 
 in remembrance, and avoid similar disastrous consequences. Writers 
 of every political creed, are, for the most part agreed that the absence 
 of an established religion in the United States, is a want that tends 
 more than any other defect to render the government insecure; it wants 
 the main pillar and support of all earthly governments, viz. the sup- 
 port derived from a direct acknowledgment of the power of the Kin 
 of kin^s, and the recognition on the part of the State, of the duty to 
 yield obedience to his laws, and to punish the transgressors of us 
 commands. The Church of England is abundantly tolerant, and the 
 laws of the empire punish no man for his religious opinions, provided 
 they are not offensively promulgated; but open denunciations of the 
 Christian religion are not only punished because of our duty to shew 
 
 our reverence to what is sacred, but to protect the community from 
 
 the scandal of having the minds and feelings of the pious and virtuous 
 outraged by open exhibitions of irreligious profligacy and blasphemy. 
 The maintenance and protection of the Christian religion is a pi > *»- 
 cble of our constitution, and must continue so while the monarchy 
 exists It is otherwise in the United States; infidelity and blasphemy 
 stalk abroad there, and are openly taught and . avowed without any no- 
 tice being taken of these disgusting enormities by the civil magis 
 trates— if' there be any truth in the predictions of holy writ, a 
 dreadful punishment must, some day or other, fall upon a na ion u^ 
 resrardless of its highest and most sacred duties. But if these exam 
 pics of the opinions of men of other countries are adduced to estab- 
 lish one side of the argument, it is proper « 8 J 0U “ b ™* n ^i n 
 notice the not less valuable opinions of men of our own co™*y, 1 
 
 <r 1 ,h - .rsT 
 
 dissenters in Is it not notorious that recently, at 
 
 influential class f church and State was apprehended, 
 
 a time when the dissevenng ^ ^ ^ institutions of their 
 
 forefathers” and°to^maintain in umpaired vigor, power and purity that 
 
93 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 Church from which they sprung, and in the continuance of which 
 they declared their belief, was involved the security of religion itself. 
 They foresaw that if the Church of England were prostrated, the des- 
 truction of the monarchy must follow, and they would themselves be 
 left without protection ; and happy am I to think that this feeling is 
 rapidly gaining ground in this Province. The union of the British 
 and Canadian Methodists is an event which every good man, every 
 friend to religion and the peace of the country must and do hail with 
 delight ; it disturbs those only who seek discord, and hope to benefit 
 by the disunion of those who alone have the power to frustrate their 
 treasonable designs. This same feeling prevails equally among other 
 
 classes of dissenters, especially those from the Kirk of Scotland they 
 
 may claim a different form of church government for themselves, but 
 they deprecate the attempt to disturb that which binds the State to 
 the protection of religion, by separating it from the established church. 
 And as to the notion that by separating Church and State the minis- 
 ters of the former will avoid all interference in secular matters, nothing 
 can be more fallacious, and in proof of this, let me ask whether minis- 
 ters of the different denominations in the United States, struggle on 
 every occasion of apolitical contest, to gain the ascendancy? It is 
 notorious that such is the case, neither can any one who travels 
 through the country, especially the New England States, fail to be 
 struck with the unhallowed strife that exists between the different 
 sects, especially those who are denominated Orthodox and Unitarian. 
 The existence of an established religion keeps the rivalry under sub- 
 jection, and tends, above every thing else, to sustain harmony among 
 the great family of conscientious dissenters. 
 
 I shall now advert to the opinion entertained by many conscientious 
 men, that ministers of religion should obtain their support from the 
 voluntary contributions of the people, and, therefore, that the Clergy Re- 
 serves should be applied to some other purpose : and I shall best an- 
 swer this position by showing the undeniable advantages that flow from 
 a settled and permanent provision for the Clergy. Public provision 
 being made for the respectable support and maintenance of the minis- 
 ters of religion ensures a more learned body than if left dependant on 
 voluntary contributions. It is not probable that our universities would 
 be thronged as they are now, with the sons of gentlemen and men of 
 fortune, who are looking to the church as their future profession, if 
 when ordained they would be left to voluntary contributions for their 
 maintenance. It unquestionably is, and always will be found to be a 
 powerful motive with all men who aim at being ministers of religion, 
 to pursue their purpose, to be assured that when ordained they are not 
 left to chance for their support ; and if learning be a necessary dis- 
 tinction in a clergyman, (and no one will dispute it) hold out to the 
 youth who are piously disposed, the assurance, that if they devote 
 themselves to study and preparation for their sacred calling they will 
 not be left destitute or dependant on mere charity for their sustenance. 
 This certain prospect of reward has, no doubt, led many men to seek 
 church preferment, who afterwards adorned and enlightened mankind 
 by their piety — their learning — their virtue — their labours and *>*»«*- 
 
u 
 
 1 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 99 
 
 plary duties, which are best calculated to dignify and render happy 
 the whole human race, and who, but for that circumstance, might have 
 turned their attention to pursuits that, comparatively speaking, would 
 have conferred but little benefit on their fellow creatures. When also 
 ministers are raised above dependence on the generosity of their flocks, 
 they feel themselves more at liberty to preach the truth as it is, rather 
 than as their congregation might wish it to be, than they would if 
 their creed, and the support of their families depended on the capri- 
 cious feelings of an uncertain multitude; and, besides, their having no 
 motive to depart from purity of doctrine, and being fearless in the dis- 
 charge of their duty, the parson or rector of the English Church, 
 beimr established in one place, soon acquires a knowledge of each of 
 his parishioners, his wants and his wishes ; he identifies himselt wi 1 
 the prosperity of each; he secures to himself their affection they look 
 up to him not only as their spiritual guide, but as their friend and ad- 
 viser — he becomes the arbiter of all their differences — the reconciler 
 of their disputes, and the preserver of their peace and friendship : in 
 all their difficulties they look up to him for advice, and in their afflic- 
 tions they appeal to him as to a father. These are a few of the many 
 advantages that result from a settled clergy, raised above the necessity 
 of seeking support from charitable or other kinds of voluntary contri- 
 butions. It has been by some asserted, that tithes in England are a 
 heavy burthen upon the people. I will not argue this point, but 1 will 
 venture to say, that the amount levied by various direct and indirect 
 means in the United States for the support of the different ministers 
 of religion, amounts to a far greater amount than is generally levied, 
 probably greater in proportion for the number of inhabitants ot the 
 country than are levied on the people of England. In fact, the whole 
 country is spread over with persons asking support to this minister and 
 to that ; and the amount thus collected, if report be true, is almost 
 incredibly great; and when we come to enquire as to the manner in 
 which these vast sums are applied, it will be found that in many in- 
 stances it is given to defray the fixed salaries of the clergy, placing 
 them as much as possible beyond the reach of chance for their support. 
 This system is pursued by the British Methodists— and from the large 
 funds they now possess, they are enabled to give their Missionaries an 
 outfit, defray the expense of their passage to the places of destination, 
 and when there to pay them a sum that maintains them in respecta- 
 bility ; so that it will be found, that all denominations feel the impor- 
 tance of having some settled support, and that they consider it no 
 small disadvantage to their usefulness to be without it. 
 
 Next, it is asserted that it is inexpedient to continue this approp 
 tion because the people desire to do away with it— others say that all 
 denominations of Christians should participate— and supporter o 
 
 this bill contend that the whole reserves should be apphed to P™P°«« 
 of education. For my own part, I have no proof that tbepeege de 
 sire to do away with the grant set aside, by a gracious Sovereign, tor 
 , f Church he had sworn to maintain throughout his 
 
100 
 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 England, an encrease that may be said to be greater than of any other 
 description of Christians within the Province — the constant and press- 
 ing demand for additional ministers, -and the vast influx of members of 
 the Church from Great Britain and Ireland, I think it may be fairly 
 augured that ere long it will be considered anything but popular to 
 pursue this attack upon the property of the Church. Indeed, I have 
 myself felt satisfied that the members of the Church of England far 
 exceed in number what is generally imagined — in my opinion they 
 rank next to, if not equal with the Methodists, and it would perhaps, 
 be no exaggeration to say that 100,000 souls in this Province may be' 
 pronounced as belonging to the Established Church. One fact may 
 be adduced in some degree shewing the truth of this assertion. When 
 I went to England two years ago I was the bearer of petitions from 
 
 7,000 inhabitants against any interference with Church property and 
 
 these persons signed the petitions without any effort being made to 
 obtain them, beyond fairly and truly explaining the object of these 
 petitions, a course pursued in conformity with distinct instructions to 
 that effect — and well assured am I, that if half the trouble had been 
 taken to procure signatures to these petitions that were used to obtain 
 them to addresses infinitely more exceptionable, that the number 
 might have been doubled. 
 
 As to the division of the reserves among all denominations, the 
 thing is utterly impracticable, and the fancied evil of them belonging 
 to our sect would not be remedied; give to all existing sects to-dayand 
 those that spring up to-morrow will complain that their pretensions 
 were not anticipated. They might be divided among two or three, 
 and but for the unfortunate course which my hon. friend from Lanark 
 has taken, the Kirk of Scotland might have participated, but he has 
 destroyed the hopes they might have entertained ; and finding this to 
 be the case, he has become forgetful of his own safety, and the rights 
 of others — aiming at their destruction, he has brought a falling edifice 
 upon his own head, and buried himself and his friends in the ruins. 
 For my own part I have ever wished to see the Kirk of Scotland 
 maintained and provided for from public resources— and if these have 
 not been granted to a greater extent, the members of the Established 
 Church are not to be blamed. 
 
 With respect to the bill under consideration my present impression 
 is that it is without the limits of our constitutional pow r er to pass it ; 
 we are authorized to regulate the appropriation of our laws, but not to 
 destroy or alienate the endowment. But apart from this, is it not 
 most unreasonable to ask for the whole of these reserves for purposes 
 of education can it be imagined that any such claim will be sanc- 
 tioned ? I feel confident that it will not, because it ought not. Lands 
 have to a large amount been already given for the education of the 
 people of the country, and if more be required they must be sought 
 tor in some other quarter than the reservation for the Church. 1 for- 
 bear remarking upon the insulting language of the preamble and other 
 parts of the bill — as being not worthy of grave consideration. 
 
 And now Mr Speaker, I will ask why is the established Church 
 thus assailed; can it be alleged against her that her Litany is not holy, 
 
u 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. IV. 
 
 101 
 
 that her doctrines are not pure, that her practices or principles are in 
 any respect reprehensible. It is not for human lips to pronounce the 
 eulogy of the Church of England ; as well might we attempt to add 
 dignity to the attributes of the Deity by the praises of mortal man. 
 Again 1 will ask, are the ministers less pious, less learned, or less 
 anxious for the spiritual welfare of their fellow men ; are they found 
 to be intolerant, persecuting or bigoted ? are there any men more de- 
 voted to the sacred duties of their calling? some exceptions may be 
 found among them, as must be the case among all descriptions of per- 
 sons ; but without vain boasting they may challenge comparison with 
 any other class of Christian ministers, and this no persons are. more 
 ready to admit than the respectable portion of the community, of 
 whatever sect or denomination. 
 
 I am aware that it has been alleged that in this country the Clergy 
 of the Church of England have been found to mix themselves too 
 much with political party; but in this as in every thing else the 
 greatest injustice has been done them by those who seem to have taken 
 delight in misrepresenting them. It has pleased the Sovereign to call 
 to his Councils in this Province (without solicitation) one distinguished 
 clergyman of the Church of England ; and because, in the necessary 
 performance of duties thus imposed upon him, he has at times taken a 
 part in the public business of the Province, he has been assailed with 
 a virulence and malignity of enmity that has seldom been surpassed. 
 But, Sir, the force of these assaults have long since been spent, and 
 the justly beloved and honored object of unfounded and ungenerous 
 reproach stands forth at this day with a character as spotless and fiee 
 from stain as it had ever been. Often within my own knowledge has 
 my respected friend been accused of promoting measures v\ hich, by 
 some persons, were considered as injurious to the interests o t le 
 country, when in truth he had used every exertion in his power to 
 prevent them. But the enmity of man against his fellow requires no 
 proof of any accusation, assertion true or false, will answer present 
 purposes, ami that is all that is cared for. Happily, however, better 
 times and better feelings have arisen ; it is beginning to be seen and 
 understood that the Archdeacon of York interferes no further in pub- 
 lic matters than such as are strictly required of him, and which relate 
 to those great interests in the preservation of which he is particularly 
 interested. His labors, untiring and unremitting, for the advancemen 
 of education since he first placed his foot in this Province— the vast 
 benefits he has in that respect conferred on the country his devotion 
 to his sacred duties — his active benevolence — his almost unbounded 
 charity — his hospitality — his goodness of heart* his rmness o 
 friendship— and his unflinching integrity, are qualities too conspicuous 
 in his character to be overlooked or denied ; and when it shallplease 
 Divine Providence to remove Dr Strachan from this world of care 
 and anxiety, lie will be followed to the grave by the tears of the widow 
 and the fatherless, and of thousands 
 
 and who looked up to him with gratitude as their benefactor and 
 friend, -while his memory will be chewed with reverent.al respec 
 by the good and the virtuous wherever he was known. I ought per 
 
102 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 haps to apologize for what might seem a digression, but I could not 
 restrain the humble tribute I have offered to the acknowledged merits 
 of a valued friend. 
 
 I shall now conclude these remarks by expressing an anxious but 
 confident hope and belief, that the attempts now made to destroy the 
 influence and usefulness of the Established Church in this land will 
 prove abortive — for my own part I rest contented in the conviction 
 that that which was bestowed for the wisest and holiest of purposes will 
 be protected and maintained by the Author of all good, in despite of 
 the bad passions of misguided men w^ho are seeking for its overthrow: 
 and although the bitter waters of strife and envy are for a time let 
 loose and are permitted to surround and rage against this heavenly 
 edifice, it will withstand the assault, — its glory cannot be over- 
 shadowed— its light cannot be extinguished, nor its influence destroyed, 
 untd religion and morality shall have been overwhelmed and abolished, 
 by the universal corruption of mankind. 
 
 No. V. ( See page 50 . ) 
 
 (From the Kingstou Chronicle and Gazette, May 9, 1835.) 
 
 Clergy Reserves. Remarks on the Debates upon that 
 Subject, by a Member of the Scottish Church, in 
 Lower Canada. 
 
 To the Editor of the Kingston Chronicle and Gazette. 
 
 Sir — The debate on the Clergy Reserves Bill, in the House of As- 
 sembly of your Province, which took place on the 4th, was inserted in 
 your paper of the 25th and 28th of last month. As the subject is 
 interesting here, as well as with you, I have read it attentively, par- 
 ticularly the speech of the Solicitor General, who enters more fully 
 into the subject than the other speakers and treats it as a legal ques- 
 tion. hew, if any of his arguments are new, having appeared before 
 in several anonymous publications ; but as they are now advanced and 
 avowed by a gentleman holding a high official situation, whose opinion 
 will no doubt have much weight with those who have not examined 
 the question, I request room in your valuable paper to state opinions 
 widely different from his ; and, though I do not feel equal to do jus- 
 tice to the subject, yet what may be advanced on the other side will I 
 doubt not, convince every unprejudiced and impartial mind, that his 
 opinions are not well founded. 
 
 His object is to prove, 
 
 First — That the Church of England is the Estart- ts wrr» 
 Church, in all the British dominions, Scotland only excepted • and 
 Second That the lands directed to be set apart,Vy ^ Constitu- 
 

 ) 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 103 
 
 tional Act, (31, Geo. 111. ch. 31) for the support of a “Protestant 
 Clergy,” are destined by that Act solely for the support of the clergy 
 of the English Church. 
 
 I shall endeavour to examine, as briefly as possible, the authorities 
 and arguments advanced by him in support of these doctrines, in the 
 same order nearly as they occur in his speech. 
 
 He first refers to, and quotes from, the Acts, 26, Henry VIII. ch. 
 1, and 1, Eliz. chap. 1. The object of these Acts, particularly the 
 last, as stated even by himself, was to prevent any foreign power from 
 exercising authority of any sort within the realm and the dominions 
 that then did or afterwards might belong to the Queen and her suc- 
 cessors. But it does not appear that this enactment bears upon the 
 question of establishing the Church of England more than any other, 
 in the Colonies. The Church of Scotland has never acknowledged 
 nor permitted any foreign power to exercise jurisdiction, either 
 spiritual or temporal, in that kingdom nor in the branches of her na- 
 tional Church established in other parts of the British dominions. — 
 And, though she does not admit or understand the King’s supremacy 
 in the same sense as the Church of England does, by allowing him to 
 prescribe to her forms of prayer, &c. yet as she does not recognize any 
 head on earth superior to the King, and he sends a Commissioner 
 every year to sit in the General Assembly of that Church, it must be 
 allowed that she complies with the provisions of the 1st of Elizabeth, 
 since no enactment was made before nor at the time of the Union with 
 England, that ever I heard of, to relax the provisions of that Statute 
 in favor of the Church of Scotland. It may, however, be mentioned 
 as a curious fact, rather than of any importance in the present discus- 
 sion, that the British Parliament, soon after the Union, passed an Act 
 (10, Anne, ch. 7) by which Ministers of the Church of Scotland, as 
 well as Episcopalian Ministers officiating there, are required to pray, 
 once at least every Sunday, for the Queen, without prescribing the 
 form of prayer, under a penalty of twenty pounds for the first neglect, 
 and for future omissions there are more severe penalties. But it is 
 believed this Act was occasioned by the conduct of the non-juring 
 Episcopalians more than that of ministers of the Scottish Church ; for 
 the latter were generally in favor of the Union, and by their modera- 
 tion and firmness contributed much to bring it about.* 
 
 With regard to the new Roman Catholic subjects in Canada : by 
 the fourth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1763 — “ His Britannic 
 Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholic re- 
 ligion to the inhabitants of Canada, &c, as far as the laws of Great 
 Britain permit” And by the Act of 1774, (14, Geo. III. cap. 83) 
 an oath of allegiance is prescribed, expressly for them and their de- 
 scendants. So that it appears they comply in part with the Act of 
 Elizabeth and it has been partly relaxed in their favor. Were it not 
 that, by the Act of 1774 and also by our Constitutional Act, the 
 -PtiesL cannot exact tithes from those who do not profess their religion, 
 the Church of Rome would in fact be the Established Church in all 
 
 * Sec De Foe’s History of the Union, pages 219, 235, 255 and 262. 
 
104 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 the country parishes, at least, that were laid out and settled in 1774- 
 Even as the law now stands, she seems to have as good or rather a 
 better claim to that style and title than any other Church in the 
 Canadas. 
 
 The argument in favour of the Anglican Church drawn from the 
 Act of Union (5, Anne, ch. 8,) is lame and inconclusive. One great 
 fallacy lies, in Mr Hagerman giving (as others have done before him) 
 to the word Territories , at the end of the coronation oath, an exten- 
 sive signification which does not belong to it, so as to include, like the 
 Act, first of Eliz. all the dominions or countries that then did or af- 
 terwards should belong to the Crown of Great Britain. But, what- 
 ever meaning may be assigned to the word as there used; is it possible 
 to believe that the mere form or words of the oath can establish the 
 English Church, or any other Church, in Territories where it was 
 not previously established by some positive parliamentary enactment 
 for that express purpose. After discussing the Articles of Union, the 
 Scottish Parliament, apprehensive that their religious liberties might 
 be in jeapordy when the British Parliament should be formed, where 
 the Representatives of Scotland were to consist of a small minority 
 only, passed an Act for “ securing the Protestant religion and Presby- 
 terian Church Government,” in that Kingdom. In this act it is 
 enacted, — “ And lastly, that after the decease of her present Majesty 
 (whom God long preserve) the Sovereign succeeding to her in the 
 Royal Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain, shall in all time 
 coming at his or her accession to the Crown, swear and subscribe, that 
 they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of 
 the true Protestant religion, with the government, worship, discipline, 
 rights and privileges of this Church, as above established by the laws 
 of this Kingdom in prosecution of the claim of right.” 
 
 In another section of the same act the following words occur, — 
 
 “ declaring nevertheless, that the Parliament of England may provide 
 for the security of the Church of England as they think expedient, to 
 take place within the hounds of the said Kingdom of England” &c.* 
 
 Afterwards, when the Articles of Union came to be considered in 
 the English Parliament, they also passed an Act, “ for securing the . 
 Church of England as by law established .” This act prescribes the 
 form of the coronation oath, and as it has, in my opinion, been much 
 misenterpreted or misunderstood, I give it at length. “ And be it fur- 
 ther enacted,” &c. “ That after the demise of her Majesty (whom 
 God long preserve) the Sovereign next succeeding to Her Majesty in 
 the Royal Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and so for 
 ever hereafter, every King or Queen succeeding and coming to the 
 Royal Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain, at his or her 
 Coronation , shall in the presence of all persons who shall be attend- 
 ing, assisting, or otherwise then and there present, take and subscribe 
 an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the said settlement of the 
 Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and govern- 
 
 * In this, and some other quotations, I have marked words as emphatical, 
 though not so in the original, wishing them to be particularly noticed. 
 
APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 105 
 
 ment thereof, as by laic established within the Kingdoms of England 
 and Ireland, the Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick-upon- 
 Tweed, and the Territories thereunto belonging.” 
 
 This act and that passed by the Scottish Parliament were engrossed 
 with, and make part of, the* Act of Union between the two King- 
 
 doms. . 
 
 I must now refer to a very important part of the Act of Union, as 
 applying to the Colonies generally, and which is not even mentioned 
 by the Solicitor General ; namely, the fourth article, which is as fol- 
 lows . 
 
 “ That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
 shall, from and after the Union, have full Freedom and Intercourse of 
 Trade and Navigation to and from any Port or Place within the said 
 United Kingdom, and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto be- 
 longing : and that there shall be a communication of all other Rights, 
 Privileges, and Advantages, which do or may belong to the subjects ol 
 either Kingdom ; except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in 
 these Articles.” 
 
 The most careless reader will notice the difference between Do- 
 minions and Plantations used here, and Territories in the coronation 
 oath ; and when words so different are used in the same Treaty or in- 
 strument, they must have different significations. In this article. the 
 words in question evidently mean Colonies, Provinces or Possessions 
 at a distance beyond the seas, which are synonymous with Dominions 
 and Plantations ; but I have not seen Territories used in the same 
 comprehensive sense, in any act of Parliament. 
 
 I shall now endeavour to shew that Territories , in the coronation 
 oath, refers only to the Islands of Jersey, Guernsey, and perhaps other 
 small Islands; the ancient Territories of England, ^before she had ac- 
 quired more distant “Dominions and Plantations” beyond the seas. 
 The only act of the English Parliament, before the Union, which can 
 apply to Canada in religious matters, is the first of Elizabeth, on which 
 the Solicitor General relies very much; he also refers with confidence 
 to an act of the British Parliament (14, Geo. III. chap. 83,). But, 
 after what has been said regarding these acts, really I cannot perceive 
 how one or the other, or both together, can be said to establish the 
 Church of England in Canada. Their chief object is to establish the 
 King’s supremacy, in his own Dominions, to the exclusion of *ny °“ 
 reign jurisdiction or power, and particularly that of the Pope of Rome. 
 In "these Acts, supremacy is perhaps not clearly defined, or explained, 
 but if His Majesty and the Cabinet Ministers are satisfied that his 
 supremacy is duly maintained, surely none of his subjects have any 
 
 reason to complain. . . . a ^ 
 
 The Act of Union merely secures the Church of England as then 
 by law established; but does not by any means extend it to places 
 where it was not previously established; it has indeed been attempted 
 by some to misconstrue the exception at the end of the i fourth Article, 
 so as to signify that the religious establishment of the English Church 
 in all the Colonies equally as in England, was excepted; but the 5th, 
 6th, 8th, and 11th Articles contain express stipulations in tavour ot 
 
106 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 the subjects of one Kingdom, which are withheld from those of the 
 other Kingdom, which sufficiently explains and accounts for that ex- 
 ception. Besides, the words of the coronation oath can never, by im- 
 plication merely, extend the Church establishment: for, to do so would 
 require an express enactment or stipulation, in some of the other~ar- 
 ticles, for that purpose. It is proper to consider the acts of the Eng- 
 lish Parliament that are particularly referred to, and confirmed, by the 
 Act of Union in order to see how far they extend or establish the 
 English Church. These are the 13, Eliz. chap. 12, “ An Act for 
 the Ministers of the Church to be of sound religion.” And 13 and 
 14, Charles II. chap. 4 — “ An Act for the uniformity of the Public 
 Prayers,” &c. Also, “ all and singular other Acts of Parliament now 
 in force for the establishment and preservation of the Church of Eng- 
 land,” &c. On referring to 13, Eliz. it will be found that the preamble 
 indeed, states — “ That the Churches of the Queen’s Majesty’s Do- 
 minions may be served with pastors of sound religion, Be it enacted,” 
 &c. But the dominions of England were then very small, there being 
 none on this side of the Atlantic,* and no general words are used to 
 extend the provisions of this Act to Dominions or Colonies that were 
 acquired afterwards ; such as are inserted in the Act of Supremacy, 
 already referred to. The other Act, 13, Charles II. is expressly 
 limited in its operation to England , Wales , and the Town of Ber- 
 wick-upon-Tweed. Also the Test Act (25, Charles II. chap. 2, now 
 repealed or greatly altered) was confined in its operation to all persons 
 holding any office, civil or military, in England , Wales , the town of 
 Berwick-upon-Tweed , or in His Majesty’s Navy, or in the several 
 islands of Jersey and Guernsey, Likewise in an Act passed some 
 years after the Union, (1, Geo. I. statute 2, chap. 13) “ An Act for 
 the further security of His Majesty’s Person and Government,” &c. 
 by sections 2 and 3, the oaths and declarations, to be taken and made 
 in England, are not required farther than in Jersey and Guernsey , and 
 by Officers of the Army and Navy. From these acts it appears that 
 the Church of England is at least partly, if not fully, established in 
 these two islands, and, as they are not named in the coronation oath, 
 it is evident that the word “Territories” is introduced to include them 
 and any other small islands or places where that Church was con- 
 sidered to be established ; for the Union as we have already seen, 
 merely secured the Church Establishment, but did not extend it to 
 places where it was not previously established. 
 
 At the commencement of his speech, Mr Ilagerman says he believes 
 the subject has not heretofore undergone much discussion. This is a 
 mistake, for it appears that in New York and New England, when 
 they were British Provinces, at least eighty years ago, the doctrine 
 was stoutly contended for, that the Church of England was the Es- 
 tablished Church there and in the Colonies generally. Mr Smith 
 took the other side of the question, and in his History of New York 
 
 * The first attempt to plant a Colony in America was made in 1583 or 1584: 
 about the 25th or 26th year of this reign. See Ency’a. Brit’a. 4th edition, 
 article — Raleigh. 
 
107 
 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 (part 6, chap, iv.) published first in 1756, has refuted the chief part 
 of Mr Hagerman s arguments. Indeed much of what I now advance, 
 is only the ideas and arguments of Mr Smith, but not so fully and for- 
 cibly expressed as in his work. 
 
 After speaking of our Constitutional Act, the speaker adds — “ The 
 Church of England was already established, it was a consequence of 
 Canada becoming one of the territories of the British Crown, and the 
 only object of the Statute was to give effect to its usefulness.” He 
 then speaks of the Bishop of Nova Scotia having previously exercised 
 spiritual jurisdiction and power in Canada, which was founded on no 
 statute. Soon afterwards he puts these questions — “In the first place, 
 by what authority did His Majesty authorise the installation and ap- 
 pointment of a Bishop to the Diocese of Quebec, if the power did 
 not belong to him as the head of the church which he had sworn to 
 maintain ^throughout all his dominions ; and having exercised this 
 power, under what law does the Bishop act, and from what laws does 
 he derive his ecclesiastical power?” He then gives the following an- 
 swer to his own questions — “ Clearly from the laws and canons of the 
 Church of England, which declare the Church of England to be the 
 established Church throughout the British dominions.” 
 
 From the interpretation given by the Solicitor General to the coro- 
 nation oath, I cannot help having doubts of his accuracy in what he 
 says of the “ laws and canons of the Church of England more es- 
 pecially as he neither quotes them nor informs us where they are to 
 be found. But, in whatever terms they may be couched, they can be 
 of no force or validity in Canada, except it be in a spiritual sense, un- 
 less confirmed and extended to this country by some Act of Parlia- 
 ment; as will hereafter be shewn. In the above quotation, a doctrine, 
 assertion, or principle is advanced, supposed to be derived from the 
 common law of England. Though it is not new, yet the best autho- 
 rity for it, that has come to my knowledge, is a pamphlet published in 
 London, about twelve or thirteen years ago, and signed a member of 
 Parliament. It is there more neatly expressed, “The conquest of 
 the country carried the King’s religion with it. This doctrine was 
 advanced in New York, about 1753, and was denied and refuted by 
 Mr Smith, in his History of that Province, already referred to. What 
 he says on the subject is too long to find a place here ; suffice it to 
 mention, that, among other reasons to shew its absurdity, he points 
 out as a consequence of its adoption, that if colonies were planted or 
 acquired when the English nation and their King were pagans, or 
 papists, the religion established in such colonies must be paganism 
 
 or popery !* 
 
 ijuuci yi . 
 
 It is proper and requisite to refer also to Blackstone s Commen aries 
 (vol. i. page 106, 107,). In speaking of “Jersey, Guernsey, bark, 
 
 Magazine, in which he was 
 produced. 
 
 stated to be the greatest law character America ever 
 
108 
 
 appendix, no. V. 
 
 Alderney, and their appendages;” among other particulars he states, 
 
 « They are not bound by common acts of our parliament, unless par- 
 ticularly named.” Now as these Islands and their appendages are not 
 named in the coronation oath, is it not plain that the word 
 is added so as to include them? He then goes on to treat of our 
 more distant plantations in America and elsewhere; and classes them 
 into two sorts ; — those that are claimed by right of occupancy and 
 peopled from the mother country ; and those that have been either 
 gained by conquest or ceded to us by treaties ; m this class Canada is 
 included. Having laid down the law regarding the first class, he pro- 
 ceeds to the second class of colonies, as follows: “But in conquered 
 
 or ceded countries, that have already laws of their own, the king may 
 indeed alter and change those laws ; but, till lie does actually change 
 them, the ancient laws of the country remain, unless such as are 
 against the law of God, as in the case of an infidel country. Our 
 American plantations are principally of this latter sort, being obtained 
 in the last century either by right of conquest and driving out the na- 
 tives (with what natural justice I shall not at present enquire) or y 
 treaties. And therefore the common law of England, as such, has 
 no allowance or authority there; they being no part of the mother 
 country, but distinct (though dependent) dominions. They are sub- 
 ject however to the control of the Parliament; though (like Ireland, 
 Man, and the rest) not hound by any Acts of Parliament, unless 
 
 ^Tn'regtrftoTe power formerly exercised in Canada by the Bishop 
 of Nova Scotia, I am not aware whether it was or was not conferred 
 by statute ; but, being a spiritual power, as admitted in the speech 
 (and from the account of his visit to this Province in 1789, it seems 
 to have been nothing more*) he might perhaps hold it from the Royal 
 authority only. However, it must be borne m mind that the Minis- 
 ters of his Church in Canada received their chief support then, as I 
 believe they do still, from the Society for propagating the Gospel in 
 foreign parts; and, had any of them hesitated to submit to his autho- 
 rity his representations to that Society would, doubtless, have brought 
 them to submission, by curtailing or withholding altogether their 
 salaries. Ecclesiastical or spiritual courts and jurisdictions, unless 
 aided by the civil power, are very feeble ; and in many cases require 
 such assistance, “in repressing the insolence of contumacious delin- 
 quents, and rescuing tlicir jurisdiction from that contempt, which for 
 want of sufficient compulsive powers would otherwise be sure to at- 
 
 tend it.” . . 
 
 Possibly the Bishop of Nova Scotia may possess all requisite pow- 
 ers in his own diocese, by the same means as he could heretofore 
 exercise them in Canada; but I am confident he has more power there 
 than ever he had here ; if not by British Statutes, at least by provin- 
 cial acts. For a law passed in that Province, so long a g° a $ 1758, 
 enacts, “ That the sacred rites and ceremonies of Divine worship, ac- 
 cording to the Liturgy of the Church established by the laws of Eng- 
 
 * See the Canadian Magazine for 1825, article, Christ's Church, Montreal 
 

 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 109 
 
 land, shall be deemed the fixed form of worship, and the place wherein 
 such liturgy shall be used, shall be respected and known by the name 
 of the Church of England, as by law established. Provision is made 
 at the same time for the liberty of conscience of those who do not 
 belong to that communion. The clergy of that Church, however, 
 claimed, and it seems still enjoy, the exclusive privilege of marrying 
 by licence ; an attempt, in 1818, to extend it to other clergymen hav- 
 ing proved abortive.* 
 
 Mr Hagerman answers his query, respecting the appointment, &c. 
 of the Bishop of Quebec, in his own way ; but I am not of his 
 opinion. I have not seen nor can readily have access to the Royal 
 Letters Patent, appointing him : on looking, however, at our consti- 
 tutional act, section 40, the construction I put on it is, — that it gives 
 the King the same power in Canada which he possesses in England, 
 of appointing the Bishop of Nova Scotia, or any other person, to 
 “Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Authority,” &c. “accord- 
 ing to tho Laws and Canons of the Church of England, which are 
 lawfully made and received in England.” Were the Church of Eng- 
 land established here, in the sense contended for by the speaker, 
 would not this clause be superfluous ? But farther, Letters Patent 
 were issued, dated at Quebec the 12th August, 1818, a copv of w r hich 
 is now before me ; “ erecting the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
 Montreal in Notre Dame Street, into a Parish or Rectory, and 
 appointing a Rector to the same,” &c. &c. In these Letters Patent 
 the 38th Section of our Constitutional Act is recited as the authority 
 on which they are granted. Now it is not credible, nor can I bring 
 myself to believe that the King could erect an extensive Diocese and 
 appoint the Bishop, merely on his own authority as head of the Eng- 
 lish Church ; yet that he required an act of Parliament to enable him 
 to erect a rectory and appoint a rector to the same ! 
 
 It is proper to notice, that, in the “ Act for securing the Church of 
 England as by law established,” at the Union; previous Acts of 
 Parliament only, are referred to and confirmed, but not a word is 
 said of the common law . The reason is obvious ; because the com- 
 mon law had established the Church of Rome; for though Christianity 
 be part of the common laic,' [ yet the establishment of the present 
 Church of England rests altogether on the statute law. The opinions 
 of the Solicitor General cannot, therefore, derive any strength or 
 support from maxims supposed to be drawn from the common law. 
 One of his arguments I do not remember to have met with before, 
 namely, “ that to libel or attempt to bring into disrepute the Liturgy 
 of the Church of England is an indictable offence,”— that it is so in 
 
 * Halliburton’s Nova Scotia, published in 1829: vol. ii. page 298 to 302. 
 
 England, by Statutes'!, Ed. VI. and 1, Eliz. is beyond a doubt; but 
 these ct.tntnc do not. extend to the colonies, and if such be at present 
 
 f Blackstone Com. vol. iv. page 59. 
 
 o 
 
110 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 
 ch. 83, sec. 11) which confirms the use of the criminal law of England, 
 in this country, where it had been administered for more than nine 
 years, and enacts that it “ shall be observed as law in the Province of 
 
 ^ confirmation of this and other points already advanced, I refer to 
 the Book of Common Prayer itself, where it will be found, that the 
 Forms of Prayer and service, made for the 5th November, 30th 
 January, 29th May and 25th October were, at the accession of George 
 ill. ordered to be used yearly, in all Churches, &c. &c. “within that 
 part of our Kingdom of Great Britain called England, the Dominion 
 of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed.” Likewise at the 
 accession of George IV. and his present Majesty, a similar order was 
 issued for Prayers and sen ice in all churches, &c. “within those parts 
 of our United" Kingdom called England and Ireland.” These orders 
 follow the forms of prayer and service ; the two last include Ireland, 
 being then united to Great Britain: they are signed by the Secretaries 
 of State for the Home Department ; but none of them extend even to 
 the ancient “Territories” of Jersey and Guernsey, much less to 
 “ Dominions and Plantations” beyond the seas. The 5th November 
 and 29th May are fixed as Holidays by Acts of the English Parlia- 
 ment, for the security of their Church, before the Union ; but if they 
 had been extended by the Union according to the Solicitor General’s 
 opinion, as I understand him, they would be in force here and in the 
 
 other colonies. . , 
 
 For the sake of further illustration and confirmation ot what lias 
 been stated relative to ecclesiastical affairs, I refer to two Acts of the 
 British Parliament during the reign of George III. ; the titles of which 
 are sufficient for my purpose. The first is of the 26th year, chap. 84, 
 “ An Act to impower the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Arch- 
 bishop of York , for the time being, to consecrate to the office of a 
 Bishop, persons being subjects or citizens of Countries out of His 
 Majesty’s Dominions.” The second is of the 59th year, chap. 6 ; in 
 which the Bishop of Quebec is also mentioned ; it is entitled, “ An 
 Act to permit the Archbishops of Canterbury and York , and the 
 Bishop of London , for the time being, to admit persons into Holy 
 orders specially for the Colonies.” Thus it is evident that, though 
 the King be head of the English Church, yet he cannot authorise even 
 its Dignitaries to enlarge or extend the exercise of their spiritual or 
 ecclesiastical functions, without an act of Parliament to impower and 
 permit them to do so ! 
 
 The speaker refers to the Debates in the House of Commons, when 
 our constitutional act was under consideration ; but does not attach 
 much importance to this argument. Neither do I, for the speakers 
 appear to have been of different opinions as to the meaning and 
 intention of some parts of the Bill ; besides we are not certain that 
 their speeches are correctly reported. It was during this debate that 
 the difference arose between Mr Burke and Mr Fox, which was never 
 made up ; and the reporters appear to have been more solicitous' to 
 2 ive the particulars of that difference than what related to the Quebec 
 Bill, which was not so interesting to the public. We have now the 
 

 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Bill as it passed into a law, and must be governed thereby, unless it 
 
 contends dost, b, that set, the Clergy Kcservc f« “* 
 
 Church of EngUnd only , but Ms U . forced 
 
 Stasis- *- *• 
 
 L S n0t tenf d 6 als S o to clergymen of the Scottish Church, (if any are 
 Stttodn Canada.) yet £ .cans ” 
 
 sKSSfflf 
 
 ministers of Dissenting^ Pro es ^ * on ° sti tuted or erected in any 
 
 clause, when a parsonage ^ " or rectory may be endowed with 
 
 township or ^parish, such p ° riated in J at township or parish." 
 
 the whole lands allotted an \ l 1 . . incumbent 
 
 This being a ***^^'$5 eft San those mentioned in 
 on his Majesty to retain, y dg> 1 The opinion of the Com- 
 
 that clause, any proportion of s > opin ; 01 ], i s also in favor of 
 
 mittee, though not professing v 'hsh church: but' with respect 
 
 the endowment of the lands generally, they are of 
 
 to the proceeds or revenue , • u* to apply the money, it they 
 
 opinion that the Government has the light to app y * Act of 
 
 think fit, to any Protestant Cler^. I roust agar p arliament 
 
 Union, where you will see iuwnt (which is incorporated into 
 
 for securing their Church Establishment, (wruen ^ 
 
 the Act of Union,) that Establishment is ter n ^ ^ ^ timeg ^ the 
 tant Religion, and these wot _ s jj f England, her establishment 
 
 act. In the act for securing the Church « * . ^ ’ s0 often 
 
 is also termed “the True Protestant Rel^on, teo of 
 
 repeated ; but no other c lure i es ^ y n j on> yet some have stoutly 
 
 Christians are mentioned in ‘ ^.J m| apt? the wor ds “ a Protestant 
 
 maintained, that, in our ^ Church only. In some parts ot 
 
 Clergy,” mean Clergy ot "Z Protestants is used 
 
 Ireland, as I have been ‘"' lish Church ; but that is no rule 
 it always means members ot the * 0 p arliament . Our constitutional 
 for the right understanding ot Acts ^ ^ relig - 10US matters : section 
 
 act, from section 35 to 42, rela y & of the enC ouragement 
 
 35 recites part of the Act of 1774 , whicn P 
 
 'SS 
 
 ■ 
 
1 12 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. V'. 
 
 of the “ Protestant Religion,” and “ support of a Protestant Clergy 
 within the said Province.” The words 44 a Protestant Clergy,” occur 
 frequently in these clauses, as a general term to include other clergy 
 besides those of the English Church ; for when the latter are meant 
 it is expressed so clearly as not to be mistaken ; they are called 
 Ministers of the Church of England, sometimes Incumbents or 
 Ministers. It is necessary to be thus minute and particular, to show 
 that the English Church can have no legal claim to the whole of the 
 lands reserved for the support of “a Protestant Clergy.” The 
 encouragement of the 44 Protestant Religion,” is the object of these 
 enactments, as just pointed out ; and we have also seen that, by the 
 Act of Union, both the Churches of England and Scotland are estab- 
 lished in Great Britain as the true protestant religion . Protestant 
 was also used previously, as a general term in Acts of the English 
 Parliament: for, in the oaths prescribed by 1st Will, and Mary, the 
 Sovereign promises to maintain the “ Protestant Reformed Religion,” 
 and the succession was then considered as limited to the Protestant 
 line; another act was afterwards passed, (12 and 13, Will. III. c. 2,) 
 46 for the further limitation of the Crown,” &c. In this act it is 
 explicitly declared that the succession shall be in the Protestant line; 
 but that term being, apparently, too general to designate the religion 
 of the Sovereign, it is enacted in a subsequent clause, 44 That whoso- 
 ever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join 
 in communion with the Church of England , as by law established.” 
 
 Another argument has sometimes been brought forward in favor of 
 the exclusive claim of the English Church, but it does not appear in 
 Mr Hagerman’s Speech ; perhaps because it is very lame : however it 
 may be as well to notice it — namely : that men in Holy Orders in the 
 Scottish Church are not called clergy or clergymen , but preachers 
 or ministers . The clergymen of both churches are often called 
 
 ministers, in conversation and also in Acts of Parliament : those of 
 Scotland are styled 44 Clergy of Scotland,” in the title of an Act 
 regarding them, (48, Geo. HI. ch. 138,) and in another Act, (50, 
 Geo. III. chap. 84,) in sections 15 and 16, the words 44 Clergy' of 
 Scotland,” occur three several times. 
 
 I consider it proper to advert also to another argument which has been 
 lately adduced, (by whom I have forgotten,) though not in the speech 
 under consideration. It is to this effect, that the claim of the English 
 Church has not, until very lately, been called in question, and therefore 
 a sort of prescriptive right or title is supposed to be thereby acquired. 
 On this it may be observed, that these reserved lands produced no re- 
 venue for many years and were scarcely thought of by the public or by any 
 person. Until in June, 1820, when it was announced in the official 
 Gazette at Quebec, that a* corporation had been erected for managing 
 these reserves, composed of the Bishop and Clergy of the Church of 
 England in the Province. This opened the eyes of the public, and 
 ever since, on all proper occasions, the Members of the Scottish 
 Church in Canada have not ceased, by petitions and other means, to 
 raise their voice against the injustice of this exclusive claim set up by 
 the Church of England. This corporation was created by a Commis- 
 

 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 113 
 
 sion under the public seal of this Province ; and as stated by Mr 
 Stephen, Counsel to the Colonial Department, “ it has always been 
 doubted whether the Governor had any strict legal right to issue such 
 a commission.”* This gentleman gives an interpretation to the above 
 clauses more favorable to the claim of the Scottish Church, than some 
 other lawyers who have been consulted; but still it is more in favor of 
 the English Church than any other : and our Provincial Legislatures 
 and Governors have, at different times, carried their partiality to that 
 Church still farther than the Act will warrant, which Mr Hagerman 
 considers as an argument that it is the Established Church of Canada. 
 This partiality may be accounted for from the opinions formerly held 
 by some persons in the British Colonies, (now the United Sta es,) 
 though refuted by Mr Smith, as above stated. These opinions were 
 entertained, as was said, by the first Governor of your Province, and 
 it is believed also by subsequent Governors and by some ot the Civil 
 Officers of Government, just as they are now maintained by your 
 Solicitor General ; and, in the infancy of the Colony, the influence of 
 the Governor and his legal advisers must have had great, and no doubt 
 have still very considerable, weight in the Legislature. But the Pro- 
 vincial Legislature is not to be considered good authority on this 
 point, for it appears they have, in several instances, overstept the 
 limitations and restrictions imposed upon them in matters regarding 
 religion by the 42d clause of the Act; of which there is only a very 
 short and partial quotation given in the Solicitor General s Speech. 
 
 For besides what he quotes, they are also restrained from legislating 
 definitely on “any provisions which shall in any manner relate to or 
 affect the enjoyment or exercise of any religious Form ot Mode ot 
 Worship, or shall impose or create any Penalties, Burthens, Disabilities, 
 or Disqualifications in respect of the same. Fet, m the face of this 
 explicit and positive restriction, your Legislature passed an Act in 
 1828 19, Geo. IV. chap. 2,) Disabling and Disqualifying certain 
 “Religious Societies” from holding more than five acres of land for 
 any one congregation. Among these Societies, under the name of 
 Presbyterians, is of course included congregations of the Scottish 
 Church, one of the Churches established by law in Great Britain.-— 
 Now Mr Stephen, in his examination above referred to, says 1 
 apprehend that the King might, if it should so please him, appropriate 
 in perpetuity a certain portion of land for the sustentation of one or 
 more English clergymen, or of one or more Presbyterian clergymen 
 of the Church of Scotland,” And, in answer to the next question, 
 he adds— “ Out of the one-seventh.” Were the King of his bounty 
 to do so, would not this Act have the effect of disabling - the Matter 
 
 clergymen from holding or enjoying more than! J^thev wiH ' I believe 
 a careful examination of the other Provincial 
 
 b e found notch of the = ^ dtTef.hS” 
 
 'Zl. till oof bear: for, in .be (.eatable -a Protest.,: 
 
 * See his evidence before the Committee of the Commons, on the Civil 
 Government of C oada, the 21st June, 1828. 
 
 
114 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 Clergy” is mentioned, and in the enacting part, “the Protestant 
 Church,” both of which he restricts to the English Church ; but I 
 have shown, from the best authority, namely, Acts of Parliament, that 
 the Scottish Church is also Protestant and her ministers a Protestant 
 Clergy . In fact, these Acts, instead of proving what Mr Hagerman 
 wishes to infer from them, only prove, in my opinion, that the Provin- 
 cial Parliament, at different periods, evinced a strong desire, beyond 
 its legitimate authority, to make the English Church in reality, The 
 Established Church of Canada, a title or name which she first 
 assumed publicly in this country, I think a little more than thirty years 
 ago. 
 
 On reading the Constitutional Act, and the opinion of Lawyers 
 upon it, I must admit that, though it does not fix the English Church 
 as The Established Church of Canada, yet it is much more favorable 
 to the establishment of that Church than to the Church of Scotland. 
 This I consider as an infringement of the fourth article of Union 
 between the two Kingdoms ; by a fair interpretation of which, the 
 latter Church is entitled to all “ Rights, Privileges, and Advantages,” 
 which are enjoyed by the former in the colonies ; and more especially 
 in Canada, which never was an English colony, but was acquired long 
 after the Union, by the blood and treasure of Great Britain and 
 Ireland.* This view of the matter probably did not occur to the 
 British Parliament, and their attention was not directed to it by the 
 debates ; otherwise we may suppose, some provisions of the Act would 
 have been different ; the present Parliament, however, can at any time 
 repeal or amend the acts of former Parliaments. Its strict legal right 
 to repeal or amend any part of the Act of Union cannot, therefore, 
 be called in question : but, I have so much confidence in the good 
 faith, equity and justice of the British or Imperial Parliament, that I 
 am convinced it has not done so intentionally, nor ever will ; unless 
 upon some urgent necessity, or for the benefit rather than injury of the 
 weaker party; and then it will not be done by implication or what may 
 be called a side wind, but in clear explicit words, not to be mistaken ; 
 such as have been used already, when amendments were made to the 
 Act of Union. 
 
 Having now considered the chief points on which I differ from your 
 Solicitor General, I must in justice own that I agree entirely with him 
 in the advantages to be derived from “a settled and permanent 
 provision for the Clergy,” in opposition to some of the other speakers 
 who refer to the days of our Saviour and the Apostles, and talk of 
 Ministers “ who were called by the Holy Ghost to the Ministry,” as 
 if we were to expect to see miracles in these our days, the same as in 
 the first dawn of Christianity. Considerable assistance may no doubt 
 be expected and relied on from voluntary contributions or pew rents, 
 but some other and certain support should also be provided by law. 
 
 * The following is the substance or meaning of the 4th article, as given in 
 Judge Blackstone’s Cora. vol. i. page 96 — “ There shall be a communication of 
 all rights and privileges between the subjects of both kingdoms, except where it 
 is otherwise agreed.” 
 

 APPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 115 
 
 I agree with him also that, in this Christian country, the Government 
 cannot be sure and stable, unless it be founded on Christianity ; but I 
 do not run into the extreme of believing, as he appears to do, that 
 there cannot be more than one Church established under the same 
 Government. Certain great essential truths of Christianity are 
 acknowledged and believed by all Christians : the Apostles’ creed is 
 taught in the same or synonymous words, in the catechisms of the 
 Churches of Rome, England and Scotland. Many persons appear to 
 be of opinion that there must neccessarily be some one Church 
 established in the Colonies, to overshadow every other, as is the case 
 in England. This has always apeared to me an erroneous opinion : 
 there are two churches equally well established in different parts of 
 Great Britain, and there seems nothing to prevent two or more from 
 being established here, even in the same County or Township, so far 
 as anv Church requires to be established in the Colonies neverthe- 
 less, the stability of the Colonial, as well as the Imperial Government, 
 must still depend on the great truths of Christianity in which all 
 Christians agree. This is so forcibly expressed by a well known 
 author, that no apology is required for quoting his words. “ Doubt- 
 less the preservation of Christianity, as a national religion, is, 
 abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to 
 the civil state : which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate. 
 The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the enter- 
 taining just ideas of the moral attributes of the Supreme Being, and 
 a firm persuasion that he superintends and will finally compensate 
 every action in human life (all which are clearly revealed in the doc- 
 trines, and forcibly inculcated by the precepts, of our Saviour Christ) 
 these are the grand foundation of all judicial oaths ; which call God 
 to witness the truth of those facts, which perhaps may be only known 
 to Him and the party attesting: all moral evidence therefore, all 
 confidence in human veracity, must be weakened by irreligion, and 
 overthrown by infidelity. 
 
 In the Canadas we see that persons who are members ot all the 
 three Churches above mentioned, fill the places of Legislators, Judges 
 and other civil Offices; and, if my information be correct, the person 
 who was Speaker of your House of Assembly a few years ago, does 
 not belong to either of these Churches: whereas in England, ! ,ntl1 , a 
 very few years ago, these offices were required by law to be filled by 
 members 'of the English Church. Is it not then something ^hke usmg 
 words without meaning, to say that the English Church is the Estab- 
 lished Church in the Canadas? I beg leave here to remark, t la , 
 in my opinion, the Ministry allowed the Royal prerogative to be too 
 much restricted and restrained by the Constitutional Act; for, if I 
 understand it rightlv, the King cannot endow or set apart any land for 
 a Roman Catholic Clergyman or congregation. This appears more 
 strange and incongruous since the Catholic emancipation bill passed 
 . n i i k- u the Kind’s prerogative is now so far unshackled, 
 
 Slay* ft “••• t;:*. aT,". 
 
 Catholic Governors in these Provinces; but I have not the Act 
 present by me. 
 
116 
 
 ATPENDIX, NO. V. 
 
 Though I have, to the best of my ability, treated the claims of the 
 Church of Scotland as a legal question only, yet much may also be 
 said in their favor on the score of equity and sound policy ; but this 
 part of the subject I must leave to others better qualified for the task; 
 besides you will perhaps find this communication already too long. — 
 Throughout I have avoided touching on the claims made to a share of 
 the Clergy Reserves by dissenters from the English and Scottish 
 Churches : it is not my business to plead their cause, neither have I 
 said aught against them. 
 
 The Solicitor General’s eulogy on the Church of England requires 
 no comment; neither is it necessary to make remarks on his panegyric 
 upon the Archdeacon of York, who has been called to the Councils 
 of his Sovereign in your Province. This circumstance, however, gives 
 me an opportunity of noticing the injudicious exercise of the Royal 
 prerogative in calling clergymen to the Councils. The present 
 Bishop, like his predecessor, is a member of the Legislative and 
 Executive Councils in both Canadas, and of course also a Judge in 
 the Court of Appeals, besides holding some other offices : and the 
 Archdeacon of York holds the same high offices in your Province. — 
 These appointments have, in my opinion been productive of much 
 jealousy and distrust, and have been followed by consequences inju- 
 rious to the peace and quiet of both Provinces. One would imagine 
 that these Dignitaries of the English Church would find full employ- 
 ment in a Diocese of such wide extent, by attending to their clerical 
 duties alone, without being occupied with matters so foreign to their 
 vocation as clergymen. The truth seems to be, that these appoint- 
 ments have been made from a desire in the Executive Government to 
 copy too closely after the practice in England (not in Scotland) 
 without considering that our Constitution of Government is merely 
 analogous or similar to, not the same as, that of England. The 
 Legislatures of the Canadas have probably also fallen sometimes into 
 error from the same cause. “ An abundant source of error as to all 
 Colonial affairs, is too servile a reference to the proceedings of the 
 Government in England, as a model, without bearing in mind the 
 marked difference which exists between the society there and here,” 
 &c. 
 
 It is a remarkable and very interesting fact, that the inconvenience 
 and bad policy of investing clergymen with temporal power in the 
 Colonies, particularly Colonies circumstanced as the Canadas are, w^as 
 foreseen and pointed out, more than eighty years ago, by Archbishop 
 Seeker. The scheme proposed by him was, that tw r o Bishops should 
 be sent to reside in the British North American Colonies (now the 
 United States) in some of the Provinces where the Church of Eng- 
 land was established or was the prevailing Church ; that they should 
 occasionally visit other parts, but “ have no concern in the least with 
 any persons who do not profess themselves to be of the Church of 
 England that they should confirm members of that Church, ordain 
 Ministers, “ and take such oversight of the Episcopal Clergy” as had 
 been previously done by the Bishop of London’s Commissaries in those 
 parts. These were the only powers he proposed to be exercised by 
 
APPENDIX, NO. VI. 
 
 117 
 
 the Bishops in America.* In the “ Review of his Grace s life and 
 character,” prefixed to his works which were published, by his 
 Chaplains, Dr Porteous and Dr Stinton, it is stated that this intended 
 mode of establishing Bishops in America, was no new scheme ‘ to 
 serve a present turn, being precisely the same with that proposed by 
 Bishop Butler twenty years ago” Had Mr Pitt, and others of the 
 King’s Ministers, been aware of the opinion entertained by iese 
 eminently distinguished men, they surely would have paid some 
 attention to it in placing a Protestant Bishop in Canada ; particularly 
 as it is a subject with which those Prelates must have been more 
 conversant than Mr Pitt or any other Minister can be, and more 
 competent to form a correct judgment of the powers necessary to be 
 
 exercised by Bishops in the Colonies. , • 
 
 In conformity with Mr Hagerman’s recommendation at the. begin- 
 ning of his speech, I have endeavoured to consider and examine ns 
 opinions calmly and dispassionately; and now conclude, with a farm 
 reliance on the sentiment expressed by him, that it m V st ^ e P e P 
 the force of truth and argument to decide which of us is right in our 
 
 opinions and which is wrong. 
 
 Lower Canada , April , 1835 . 
 
 No. VI. ( See page 51 . ) 
 
 Speech of Mr Hagerman, Solicitor General; on the 
 
 Rectories. 
 
 House of Assembly of Upper Canada, in Committee, Feb. 9 , 1837 . 
 
 (From tlie Brock ville Statesman* of 4th March.) 
 
 n nvI , B . T Qoid he should not have risen thus early 
 
 ^\ S °1 L } C t T °lricUt not been for the observation which fell from the 
 m the debate, had d to w hi c h he would enter his decided 
 
 bon. gentleman from will in n0 respect affect the 
 
 protest ; namely, t ricrsv Reserves, he (Sol.) considered 
 
 settlement of the question of 1 ^ ^ 
 
 that it strikes at the very arrangement contemplated 
 
 these Resolutions should be adopted, g ^ be gla( , if 
 
 would be at an end. ( ) • ^ ^ w ith the nature of the con- 
 
 . D, u » -S' STtfS S«5 '5 Orfort 1 * 
 
 « i" »“«• b * “■ — ■*“ h ” 
 
118 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. VI. 
 
 \nd for what purpose ? Was it for the purpose of putting down an 
 Established Church, and placing all persuasions upon the same 
 footing? No such thing. (Hear, hear.) It was for the purpose of 
 gaining for the Church of Scotland one half the Reserves in question, 
 and withholding all participation from ever.y other denomination. 
 (Hear, hear.) That was the object. Now, it would be found that 
 the same principle was attempted to be palmed upon the House of 
 Assembly and the people of Upper Canada, under the false cloak of 
 impartiality, and under the pretence that they are asking equal rights 
 for all denominations. Sir, if the original proposition had been 
 carried, you would have had three Established Churches instead of 
 one, and then you would have had the hon. gentleman from llussell 
 standing up and resisting any interference with the rights of the 
 Church of Scotland, as stoutly as he now denies the rights of the 
 Church of England. This was the origin of the discussion, and it is 
 the principle which still promotes it. Does not the Church of Scot- 
 land claim to be an Established Church co-ordinate with the Church 
 of England. The hon. gentleman has too much candour to deny it. 
 Againf with respect to the hon. gentleman from Glengarry. Suppose 
 the Pope had heard him arguing against Church Establishments: why, 
 he would have been excommunicated. (Hear, hear.) [Mr McDonell 
 said he did not wish to be misunderstood it was the undue exercise 
 of a spiritual jurisdiction by one Church over another, which he com- 
 plained of.] The hon. gentleman’s impetuosity overcomes his reason, 
 
 I tell him that the Roman Catholic Church is an Established Church 
 in some parts of this Province, because they are authorised by law to 
 levy tithes. The hon. gentleman also said, he looks upon it as odious 
 that clergymen of those Churches which are not recognized by law, 
 
 * should be allowed to solemnize marriage. I will not go out of my way 
 to enquire whether a marriage by a Roman Catholic clergyman of two 
 Protestants, would be a good and lawful marriage. 
 
 [Mr McDonell would like to hear the hon. and learned Solicitor, 
 before he goes any further, say whether, in his opinion, such a mar- 
 riage would be legal.] I am not to be thus interrupted, I am defend- 
 ing him and his Church, therefore, I am a better Catholic than he is. 
 (Hear, hear.) We cannot make a Church less an Established Church 
 by declaring that it is not one. But I tell you, the Church of England 
 will be the Established Church in this Province, in spite of the efforts 
 of her enemies. As for the Church of Scotland, she has no more 
 right than the Methodists ; what is more, they will find it to be so, 
 and will be at last obliged to content themselves and submit. They 
 have to go to the Quarter Sessions to obtain permission to solemnize 
 marriage, and if they were to omit doing so, and I were Attorney 
 General, I would indict them. (Hear, hear.) By the Act of Union 
 the Church of Scotland was confined to the Kingdom of Scotland. 
 When George the third came to the throne, what was the oath he 
 took? It was, that he would defend and preserve the Church of 
 Scotland, within Scotland, and the Church of England (Where?) 
 Why, in England, Ireland, Wales, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and in all 
 the Dependencies of Great Britain ; Canada was a Dependency of 
 
1 
 
 VJ 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. VI. 
 
 119 
 
 Great Britain, therefore, in Canada was the Church of England alone 
 to be the Established Church. When George the fourth ascended 
 the throne his oath comprised the same thing, and also that of 
 William the fourth. Does the Act of Union alter this? quite the 
 reverse : it re-enacts the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth 
 regarding this matter. Now, the absurdity of any member of the 
 Church of Scotland, standing up and pretending to advocate the claim 
 of that Church to be an Established Church in this Province, must 
 be evident to any disinterested, ingenious and candid nnnd. Now, is 
 there any Presbytery which has the power of ordination? (Yes.) r o 
 there is not ; and I am glad the hon. and learned Speaker says yes, 
 because I shall be happy to hear him undertake to make good the 
 assertion. I am perfectly persuaded that the majority of the House 
 are not assembled here for the purpose of advocating the claims ot the 
 Church of Scotland. If they pass these resolutions they will declare 
 their willingness to place that Church over all others except the 
 Church of England. This is the end and aim of the members of that 
 Church. [Here the Sol. General read a petition of the Rev. Mr 
 Rintoul; upon which Mr Thomson rose and said, that whoever 
 placed a copy of that petition in the hands ot the hon. and learned 
 Sol. General, it did not redound much to Ins credit. The Solicitor 
 said he protested against the right of any hon. member to withhold 
 from thaf House any information which he might possess on a subject 
 of this nature. Mr Thompson denied that he had been guilty of any 
 dereliction of duty in withholding the petition from the House, 
 because it had not received the sanction of the General Synod.] 
 
 Mr Sol. General replied that he had no doubt he withheld it 
 from conscientious motives, and because he disapproved of it, but 
 would he be told that when a document was put into Ins hands, a 
 document which has for its object the destruction of the Church of 
 which he was a member, would it be said that he was not at liberty to 
 expose it? He affirmed that the Church of Scotland was endeavouring 
 to n errunt the course of proceeding which the House had already 
 decided upon for the purpose of resisting the progress of a measure 
 which was intended to place the matter upon such a footing as would 
 satisfy all classes of the community. \\ hen lie saw such discords 
 attempted to be introduced, it could not but make h.s blood boil with 
 indignation. (Hear, hear.) You may give up your Rectories, and 
 ° • n vour Clergy Reserves, but the Church of England 
 
 CtTefhe Muhed £rch. (Hear, 1, or.) I< . not in the 
 must be tnew to say that, that which has been made 
 
 power of the Leg -j p ar H ame nt, can be put down in any 
 
 universal by act 1 Grrat Britain. Do hon. gentlemen 
 
 Colon, belonging it. th< . Crown of of 
 
 suppose that t e °' c ^ £ Scotland? — he cannot do it. What 
 
 the Qergy Land to the Church t thege Rect ories, you give the 
 
 do the petitions assert -that bycrea ^ jurisdiction ovcr other 
 
 Clergy of the Cffiirqh ^ this assertion have never looked into 
 
 denominations, those w Where is the rector who can 
 
 the law. How is it m g> . ' d ? And he wou ld appeal to that 
 exercise any jurisdiction ot that Kina 
 
 
 u 
 
120 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. VI. 
 
 hon. Committee, whether the Ministers of any Christian denomination 
 have discharged their duties more inoffensively than those of the 
 Church of England. The Rectories take in only the small spot of 
 ground on which the Church stands, and which the burial-ground 
 comprehends. And what lands are they which have been appropriated 
 to those Rectories ? Perhaps it was not generally known that few, if 
 any of the Reserves, had been given to them ; I am not aware cff a 
 single instance in which there has been any of the Reserves given. 
 (Hear, hear.) But wherever glebe lots were found they were appro- 
 priated. (Hear, hear.) But hon. gentlemen say, you should not 
 give them any land at all, but on the contrary, annihilate those trifling 
 endowments already made. They tell you distinctly and plainly, that 
 they wish all those endowments to be rescinded — they seek to do that 
 which was never attempted in any other country. To rob a Sister 
 Church of that which a beneficient monarch has given her for her 
 support. Look at the United States, where they do not even acknow- 
 ledge the existence of an Established Church. Do they ever interfere 
 with their endowments ? No, it is left for Upper Canada to show that 
 spirit of hostility towards the Church, and attempt to take away those 
 pittances which interfere with no right which existed, or can exist, yet, 
 we find the Church is to be assailed and despoiled, and by whom ? 
 By a sister establishment, as the Church of Scotland claims to be. 
 Sir, I cannot give up the question without adverting to some other 
 petitions, emanating, not from uninformed individuals, but from the 
 ministers of the Presbyterian Church, complaining of the infringement 
 upon the rights of that Church. (Hear.) Let the country under- 
 stand it; let it be fairly put: what single right of theirs has been 
 infringed upon? is there a single item of authority which can be 
 exercised by the Church of England now, which could not before. . I 
 am sure hon. members will not affirm it, because it is not true; nothing 
 could justify the assertion. The thing I chiefly complain of (and in 
 this respect, the hon. gentleman who introduced these resolutions, has* 
 much to answer for,) is, that at the time when this House is endea- 
 vouring to set at rest this long agitated question, it should be again 
 disturbed by the interference of the Church of Scotland-— the same 
 party who interfered in the first instance. The contest is now just 
 where it began, in consequence of the Church of Scotland again 
 obtruding her claim, evidently showing that they have never been 
 sincere in anything but in attempting to despoil the Church of Eng- 
 land. And I would ask whether it is thought that these resolutions 
 are such as are calculated to allay the ferment which it is said is 
 excited in the country. For what purpose then are they brought 
 forward ? I call upon this Committee, therefore, as men of honor to 
 reject them. 
 
 Some other members delivered their sentiments, among whom 
 was the Speaker, Mr M c Lean : then 
 
 The Solicitor General remarked, that his lion, and learned friend, 
 the Speaker, had endeavoured to convince the Committee that the 
 petitions contained nothing to give offence to the Church of England. 
 
121 
 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. VI. 
 
 If they did not, what could give offence? Did they not complain of 
 the establishment and endowment of Rectories, which was provided 
 for in the Constitution? Those endowments were worth very little ; 
 not near so much as the salaries which the ministers of the Church of 
 Scotland received from Government. Then, they represented that 
 the ministers of the Church of England wished to lord it over their 
 consciences. Did any person believe it? No, the ministers of the 
 Church of England never thought of such a thing. 1 he hon. and 
 learned Speaker said, there was a spirit in the country that would not 
 submit to domination. He (the Solicitor General) believed it, he 
 would allow no minister to lord it over him ; but there was also a 
 spirit in the friends of the Church of England that would not suffer 
 her to be rode over rough-shod by any body. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 It is fair to give the following explanation of part of the fore- 
 going speech; which must, at the same time, be taken as a tacit 
 admission that the other parts are correctly reported. 
 
 (From the Kingston Chronicle and Gazette of 29th March, 1837.) 
 
 To the Editor of the Chronicle. 
 
 Sir. I have been much surprised to find that such credence has been 
 
 given to the report of the debate on the Rectory question, as pub- 
 lished in the Constitution, when in fact it is misrepresented. 
 
 I was present during the whole of the debate, and although there 
 was a good deal of warmth expressed on both sides of the question, 
 I venture to say that it was not caused by Mr Hagerman. In fact, I 
 cannot fancy how any member of the Church of England could calmly 
 discuss a report which, to say the least of it, recommended a direct 
 violation of the 38th clause of the Constitutional Act, 31st, Geo. III. 
 as well as an act of injustice to their Church. 
 
 I feel called upon in vindication of Mr Hagerman, to refer particu- 
 larly to that part of the debate in which he is made to say, that the 
 Quarter Sessions was a contemptible Court. The words were not 
 gratuitous on his part, but had reference to language applied by others. 
 The report of the Committee stated that the Church of Scotland had 
 equal rights and privileges with the Church of England in this country 
 by the Act of Union ; and Mr Hagerman in his remarks went to 
 prove that it was never so considered in this Province, and instance! 
 as a proof that the clergymen of the Kirk could not soiennnze mar- 
 riage without appearing before the inferior Court of Qoaper Sessic . 
 Some member immediately answered, -that contempt^ 
 it is called ; when Mr H. said, -yes, as it is styled that contemptible 
 Court,” or words to that effect, alluding to an expression said to have 
 been ised in one of the petitions on the subject. And I hue no 
 
12*2 
 
 appendix, NO. VII. 
 
 hesitation in stating that the words were not used in the offensive 
 manner in which they are made to appear. 
 
 I can confidently appeal to many members who were present— Mi- 
 Marks, Mr Manahan, Mr Chisholm, of Halton, Mr McNab— some 
 of whom voted against Mr Hagerman ; but I would observe, that the 
 Editor of the Guardian, who was present during the whole of the 
 debate, states decidedly that the words were used in the way 1 under- 
 stood them ; and surely he is at least a disinterested witness. 
 
 I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 John S. Cartwright. 
 
 Kingston , March 28 , # 1837 - 
 
 In one of my private communications to the Editor of the Chronicle 
 and Gazette, soon after the appearance of the report upon the Rectory 
 question, I informed him that the expressions attributed to the 
 Solicitor General respecting the Court of Quarter Sessions, were 
 misrepresented. I am still of that opinion, and I agree in the version 
 of that debate given by Mr Cartwright. 
 
 A. Manahan. 
 
 No. VII. (Seepage 52.) 
 
 Message sent to both Houses of the Legislatures of the 
 Canadas, in January 1832, by the respective Governors; 
 Changing only the Words requiring Change, in order 
 to suit them to both Houses of the different Pro- 
 
 vinces. 
 
 J. COLBORNE. 
 
 The Lieutenant Governor has received his Majesty s commands to 
 make the following communication to the House of Assembly, in 
 reference to the lands, which, in pursuance of the Constitutional Act 
 of this Province, have been set apart for the support and maintenance 
 
 of a Protestant Clergy. , , ,. 
 
 The representations which have at different times been made to his 
 Majesty and his Royal Predecessors, of the prejudice sustained by his 
 faithful subjects in this Province, from the appropriation of the Clergy 
 Reserves, have engaged his Majesty’s most attentive consideration. 
 
 His Majesty has, with no less anxiety, considered how far such an 
 appropriation of territory is conducive, either to the temporal welfare 
 ofthe ministers of religion in this Province, or to their sp.ntua 
 influence. Bound no less by his personal feelings, than by the sacred 
 obligations of that station to which Providence has called him, to watch 
 
u 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. VIII. 
 
 123 
 
 over the interests of all the Protestant Churches within his dominions, 
 his Majesty could never consent to abandon those interes s 
 view to anv objects of temporary and apparent expediency. 
 
 It L LL been with peeelier 
 
 his inquiries into this subject, his Majesty, hu feund th.t *.^."^ 
 sought for by so large a proportion of the inhabitants of this ^nice, 
 may be carried into effect without sacrificing the f 1 
 
 established Churches of England and Scotland^. The waste lands 
 which have been set apart as a provision for le gy DC riod 
 
 rable bodies, have hitherto yielded no disposable revenue. J . 
 
 it which they might reasonably be expected to become more productive 
 is remote His Majesty has solid grounds for entertaining the 
 hope thatlbefore the arrival It that period, it may be found prac mable 
 to afford the Clergy of those Churches, such a reasonable and mode 
 rate provision as fay be necessary for enabling them properly to dis- 
 
 Ch ^£r«Sifues the House of Assembly of Upper 
 Canada, to consider how the powers given to *e Provincia ®8 is a ; 
 by the Constitutional Act, to vary or repeal this P^t^'tspovi ^ 
 can be called into exercise most advantageously, for the spiritual a 
 temporal interests of his Majesty’s faithful subjects in this Prov . 
 
 Government House, 25th January, 1832. 
 
 No. VIII. ( See page 67 . ) 
 
 Despatch from Bai.umt, S^ta.tot S«two« 
 
 Endow Parsonages or Rectories. 
 
 Downing Street. 22 d July , 1825. 
 
 c « T have received His Majesty’s commands to direct, that you 
 Parsonage or Rectory , j and that you do from time 
 
124 
 
 APPENDIX, NO. VIII. 
 
 lands within such Township or Parish, which shall have been granted 
 subsequently to the commencement of a certain Act of the Parliament 
 of Great Britain, passed in the 31st year of the reign of His late 
 Majesty King George the 3d, entitled, An Act to repeal certain parts 
 of an Act passed in the 14th year of His Majesty’s reign, entitled An 
 Act for making more effectual provision for the government of the 
 Province of Quebec in North America, and to make further provision 
 for the government of the said Province, or of such lands as may be 
 allotted and appropriated for the same purpose, by or in virtue of any 
 Instruction which may have been given by his said late Majesty before 
 the commencement of the said Act, as you shall, with the advice of 
 the said Executive Council, judge to be expedient under the existing 
 circumstances of such Township or Parish. 
 
 “You shall also present to every such Parsonage or Rectory an 
 Incumbent or Minister of the Church of England who shall have been 
 duly ordained according to the rites of said Church, and supply irom 
 time to time, such vacancies as may happen therein. 
 
 I have the honor to be, &c. 
 
 (Signed ). Bathurst.” 
 
 MAJOR GENERAL 
 
 Sir Peregrine Maitland, K.C.B. 
 
 &c. &c. Kc. 
 
 THE END.