THE HISTORY OF THE CLERGY RESERVES, (1791-1854)
For a long period in the history of Canada the development of several
provinces was more or less seriously retarded, and the politics of the
country constantly complicated by the existence of troublesome
questions arising out of the lavish grants of public lands by the
French and English governments. The territorial domain of French
Canada was distributed by the king of France, under the inspiration of
Richelieu, with great generosity, on a system of a modified feudal
tenure, which, it was hoped, would strengthen the connection between
the Crown and the dependency by the creation of a colonial
aristocracy, and at the same time stimulate the colonization and
settlement of the valley of the St. Lawrence; but, as we shall see in
the course of the following chapter, despite the wise intentions of
its promoters, the seigniorial tenure gradually became, after the
conquest, more or less burdensome to the _habitants_, and an
impediment rather than an incentive to the agricultural development
and peopling of the province. Even little Prince Edward Island was
troubled with a land question as early as 1767, when it was still
known by the name St. John, given it in the days of French rule.
Sixty-seven townships, containing in the aggregate 1,360,600 English
acres, were conveyed in one day by ballot, with a few reservations to
the Crown, to a number of military men, officials and others, who had
real or supposed claims on the British government. In this wholesale
fashion the island was burdened with a land monopoly which was not
wholly removed until after the union with the Canadian Dominion in
1873. Though some disputes arose in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
between the old and new settlers with respect to the ownership of
lands after the coming of the Loyalists, who received, as elsewhere,
liberal grants of land, they were soon settled, and consequently these
maritime provinces were not for any length of time embarrassed by the
existence of such questions as became important issues in the politics
of Canada. Extravagant grants were also given to the United Empire
Loyalists who settled on the banks of the St. Lawrence and Niagara
rivers in Upper Canada, as some compensation for the great sacrifices
they had made for the Crown during the American revolution. Large
tracts of this property were sold either by the Loyalists or their
heirs, and passed into the hands of speculators at very insignificant
prices. Lord Durham in his report cites authority to show that not
"one-tenth of the lands granted to United Empire Loyalists had been
occupied by the persons to whom they were granted, and in a great
proportion of cases not occupied at all." The companies which were
also in the course of time organized in Great Britain for the purchase
and sale of lands in Canada, also received extraordinary favours from
the government. Although the Canada Company, which is still in
existence, was an important agency in the settlement of the province
of Upper Canada, its possession of immense tracts--some of them, the
Huron Block, for instance, locked up for years--was for a time a great
public grievance.
But all these land questions sank into utter insignificance compared
with the dispute which arose out of the thirty-sixth clause of the
Constitutional Act of 1791, which provided that there should be
reserved for the maintenance and support of a "Protestant clergy," in
the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, "a quantity of land equal in
value to a seventh part of grants that had been made in the past, or
might be made in the future." Subsequent clauses of the same act made
provision for the erection and endowment of one or more rectories in
every township or parish, "according to the establishment of the
Church of England," and at the same time gave power to the legislature
of the two provinces "to vary or repeal" these enactments of the law
with the important reservation that all bills of such a character
could not receive the royal assent until thirty days after they had
been laid before both Houses of the imperial parliament. Whenever it
was practicable, the lands were reserved under the act among those
already granted to settlers with the intention of creating parishes as
soon as possible in every settled township throughout the province.
However, it was not always possible to carry out this plan, in
consequence of whole townships having been granted _en bloc_ to the
Loyalists in certain districts, especially in those of the Bay of
Quinté, Kingston and Niagara, and it was therefore necessary to carry
out the intention of the law in adjoining townships where no lands of
any extent had been granted to settlers.
The Church of England, at a very early period, claimed, as the only
"Protestant clergy" recognized by English law, the exclusive use of
the lands in question, and Bishop Mountain, who became in 1793
Anglican bishop of Quebec, with a jurisdiction extending over all
Canada, took the first steps to sustain this assertion of exclusive
right. Leases were given to applicants by a clerical corporation
established by the Anglican Church for the express purpose of
administering the reserves. For some years the Anglican claim passed
without special notice, and it is not until 1817 that we see the germ
of the dispute which afterwards so seriously agitated Upper Canada. It
was proposed in the assembly to sell half the lands and devote the
proceeds to secular purposes, but the sudden prorogation of the
legislature by Lieutenant-Governor Gore, prevented any definite action
on the resolutions, although the debate that arose on the subject had
the effect of showing the existence of a marked public grievance. The
feeling at this time in the country was shown in answers given to
circulars sent out by Robert Gourlay, an energetic Scottish busy-body,
to a number of townships, asking an expression of opinion as to the
causes which retarded improvement and the best means of developing the
resources of the province. The answer from Sandwich emphatically set
forth that the reasons of the existing depression were the reserves of
land for the Crown and clergy, "which must for long keep the country a
wilderness, a harbour for wolves, and a hindrance to compact and good
neighbourhood; defects in the system of colonization; too great a
quantity of land in the hands of individuals who do not reside in the
province, and are not assessed for their property." The select
committee of the House of Commons on the civil government of Canada
reported in 1828 that "these reserved lands, as they are at present
distributed over the country, retard more than any other circumstance
the improvement of the colony, lying as they do in detached portions
of each township and intervening between the occupations of actual
settlers, who have no means of cutting roads through the woods and
morasses which thus separate them from their neighbours." It appears,
too, that the quantity of land actually reserved was in excess of that
which appears to have been contemplated by the Constitutional Act. "A
quantity equal to one-seventh of all grants," wrote Lord Durham in his
report of 1839, "would be one-eighth of each township, or of all the
public land. Instead of this proportion, the practice has been ever
since the act passed, and in the clearest violation of its provisions,
to set apart for the clergy in Upper Canada, a seventh of all the
land, which is a quantity equal to a sixth of the land granted.... In
Lower Canada the same violation of the law has taken place, with this
difference--that upon every sale of Crown and clergy reserves, a fresh
reserve for the clergy has been made, equal to a fifth of such
reserves." In that way the public in both provinces was systematically
robbed of a large quantity of land, which, Lord Durham estimated, was
worth about £280,000 at the time he wrote. He acknowledges, however,
that the clergy had no part in "this great misappropriation of the
public property," but that it had arisen "entirely from heedless
misconception, or some other error of the civil government of the
province." All this, however, goes to show the maladministration of
the public lands, and is one of the many reasons the people of the
Canadas had for considering these reserves a public grievance.
When political parties were organized in Upper Canada some years after
the war of 1812-14, which had for a while united all classes and
creeds for the common defence, we see on one side a Tory compact for
the maintenance of the old condition of things, the control of
patronage, and the protection of the interests of the Church of
England; on the other, a combination of Reformers, chiefly composed of
Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists, who clamoured for reforms in
government and above all for relief from the dominance of the Anglican
Church, which, with respect to the clergy reserves and other matters,
was seeking a _quasi_ recognition as a state church. As the Puritans
of New England at the commencement of the American Revolution
inveighed against any attempt to establish an Anglican episcopate in
the country as an insidious attack by the monarchy on their civil and
religious liberty--most unjustly, as any impartial historian must now
admit[17]--so in Upper Canada the dissenters made it one of their
strongest grievances that favouritism was shown to the Anglican Church
in the distribution of the public lands and the public patronage, to
the detriment of all other religious bodies in the province. The
bitterness that was evoked on this question had much to do with
bringing about the rebellion of 1837. If the whole question could have
been removed from the arena of political discussion, the Reformers
would have been deprived of one of their most potent agencies to
create a feeling against the "family compact" and the government at
Toronto. But Bishop Strachan, who was a member of both the executive
and legislative councils--in other words, the most influential member
of the "family compact"--could not agree to any compromise which would
conciliate the aggrieved dissenters and at the same time preserve a
large part of the claim made by the Church of England. Such a
compromise in the opinion of this sturdy, obstinate ecclesiastic,
would be nothing else than a sop to his Satanic majesty. It was always
with him a battle _à l'outrance,_ and as we shall soon see, in the end
he suffered the bitterness of defeat.
In these later days when we can review the whole question without any
of the prejudice and passion which embittered the controversy while it
was a burning issue, we can see that the Church of England had strong
historical and legal arguments to justify its claim to the exclusive
use of the clergy reserves. When the Constitutional Act of 1791 was
passed, the only Protestant clergy recognized in British statutes were
those of the Church of England, and, as we shall see later, those of
the established Church of Scotland. The dissenting denominations had
no more a legal status in the constitutional system of England than
the Roman Catholics, and indeed it was very much the same thing in
some respects in the provinces of Canada. So late as 1824 the
legislative council, largely composed of Anglicans, rejected a bill
allowing Methodist ministers to solemnize marriages, and it was not
until 1831 that recognized ministers of all denominations were placed
on an equality with the Anglican clergy in such matters. The
employment of the words "Protestant Clergy" in the act, it was urged
with force, was simply to distinguish the Church of England clergy
from those of the Church of Rome, who, otherwise, would be legally
entitled to participate in the grant.
The loyalists, who founded the province of Upper Canada, established
formally by the Constitutional Act of 1791, were largely composed of
adherents of the Church of England, and it was one of the dearest
objects of Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe to place that body on a stable
basis and give it all the influence possible in the state. A
considerable number had also settled in Lower Canada, and received, as
in other parts of British North America, the sympathy and aid of the
parent state. It was the object of the British government to make the
constitution of the Canadas "an image and transcript" as far as
possible of the British system of government. In no better way could
this be done, in the opinion of the framers of the Constitutional Act,
than by creating a titled legislative council;[18] and though this
effort came to naught, it is noteworthy as showing the tendency at
that time of imperial legislation. If such a council could be
established, then it was all important that there should be a
religious body, supported by the state, to surround the political
institutions of the country with the safeguards which a conservative
and aristocratic church like that of England would give. The erection
and endowment of rectories "according to the establishment of the
Church of England"--words of the act to be construed in connection
with the previous clauses--was obviously a part of the original scheme
of 1791 to anglicize Upper Canada and make it as far as possible a
reflex of Anglican England.
It does not appear that at any time there was any such feeling of
dissatisfaction with respect to the reserves in French Canada as
existed throughout Upper Canada, The Protestant clergy in the former
province were relatively few in number, and the Roman Catholic Church,
which dominated the whole country, was quite content with its own
large endowments received from the bounty of the king or private
individuals during the days of French occupation, and did not care to
meddle in a question which in no sense affected it. On the other hand,
in Upper Canada, the arguments used by the Anglican clergy in support
of their claims to the exclusive administration of the reserves were
constantly answered not only in the legislative bodies, but in the
Liberal papers, and by appeals to the imperial government. It was
contended that the phrase "Protestant clergy" used in the
Constitutional Act, was simply intended to distinguish all Protestant
denominations from the Roman Catholic Church, and that, had there been
any intention to give exclusive rights to the Anglican Church, it
would have been expressly so stated in the section reserving the
lands, just as had been done in the sections specially providing for
the erection and endowment of Anglican rectories.
The first successful blow against the claims of the English Church in
Canada was struck by that branch of the Presbyterian Church known in
law as the Established Church of Scotland. It obtained an opinion from
the British law officers in 1819, entirely favourable to its own
participation in the reserves on the ground that it had been fully
recognized as a state church, not only in the act uniting the two
kingdoms of England and Scotland, but in several British statutes
passed later than the Constitutional Act whose doubtful phraseology
had originated the whole controversy. While the law officers admitted
that the provisions of this act might be "extended also to the Church
of Scotland, if there are any such settled in Canada (as appears to
have been admitted in the debate upon the passing of the act)," yet
they expressed the opinion that the clauses in question did not apply
to dissenting ministers, since they thought that "the term 'Protestant
clergy' could apply only to Protestant clergy recognized and
established by law." We shall see a little farther on the truth of the
old adage that "lawyers will differ" and that in 1840, twenty-one
years later than the expression of the opinion just cited, eminent
British jurists appeared to be more favourable to the claims of
denominations other than the Church of Scotland.
Until 1836--the year preceding the rebellion--the excitement with
respect to the reserves had been intensified by the action of Sir John
Colborne, lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, who, on the eve of his
departure for England, was induced by Bishop Strachan to sign patents
creating and endowing forty-four rectories[19] in Upper Canada,
representing more than 17,000 acres of land in the aggregate or about
486 for each of them. One can say advisedly that this action was most
indiscreet at a time when a wise administrator would have attempted to
allay rather than stimulate public irritation on so serious a
question. Until this time, says Lord Durham, the Anglican clergy had
no exclusive privileges, save such as might spring from their
efficient discharge of their sacred duties, or from the energy,
ability or influence of members of their body--notably Bishop
Strachan, who practically controlled the government in religious and
even secular matters. But, continued Lord Durham, the last public act
of Sir John Colborne made it quite understood that every rector
possessed "all the spiritual and other privileges enjoyed by an
English rector," and that though he might "have no right to levy
tithes" (for even this had been made a question), he was "in all other
respects precisely in the same position as a clergyman of the
established church in England." "This is regarded," added Lord Durham,
"by all other teachers of religion in this country as having at once
degraded them to a position of legal inferiority to the clergy of the
Church of England; and it has been most warmly resented. In the
opinion of many persons, this was the chief predisposing cause of the
recent insurrection, and it is an abiding and unabated cause for
discontent."
As soon as Sir John Colborne's action was known throughout the
province, public indignation among the opponents of the clergy
reserves and the Church of England took the forms of public meetings
to denounce the issue of the patents, and of memorials to the imperial
government calling into question their legality and praying for their
immediate annulment. An opinion was obtained from the law officers of
the Crown that the action taken by Sir John Colborne was "not valid
and lawful," but it was given on a mere _ex parte_ statement of the
case prepared by the opponents of the rectories; and the same eminent
lawyers subsequently expressed themselves favourably as to the
legality of the patents when they were asked to reconsider the whole
question, which was set forth in a very elaborate report prepared
under the direction of Bishop Strachan. It is convenient to mention
here that this phase of the clergy reserve question again came before
able English counsel at the Equity Bar, when Hincks visited London in
1852. After they had given an opinion unfavourable to the Colborne
patents on the case as submitted to them by the Canadian prime
minister, it was deemed expedient to submit the whole legal question
to the Court of Chancery in Upper Canada, which decided unanimously,
after a full hearing of the case, that the patents were valid. But
this decision was not given until 1856, when the whole matter of the
reserves had been finally adjusted, and the validity of the creation
of the rectories was no longer a burning question in Upper Canada.
When Poulett Thomson came to Canada in the autumn of 1839 as
governor-general, he recognized the necessity of bringing about an
immediate settlement of this very vexatious question, and of
preventing its being made a matter of agitation after the union of the
two provinces. The imperial authorities had already disallowed an act
passed by the legislature of Upper Canada of 1838 to reinvest the
clergy reserves in the Crown, and it became necessary for Lord
Sydenham--to give the governor-general's later title--to propose a
settlement in the shape of a compromise between the various Protestant
bodies interested in the reserves. Lord Sydenham was opposed to the
application of these lands to general education as proposed in several
bills which had passed the assembly, but had been rejected by the
legislative council owing to the dominant influence of Bishop
Strachan. "To such a measure," says Lord Sydenham's biographer,[20]
"he was opposed; first because it would have taken away the only fund
exclusively devoted to purposes of religion, and secondly, because,
even if carried in the provincial legislature, it would evidently not
have obtained the sanction of the imperial parliament. He therefore
entered into personal communication with the leading individuals among
the principal religious communities, and after many interviews,
succeeded in obtaining their support to a measure for the distribution
of the reserves among the religious communities recognized by law, in
proportion to their respective numbers."
Lord Sydenham's efforts to obtain the consent "of leading individuals
among the principal religious communities" did not succeed in
preventing a strong opposition to the measure after it had passed
through the legislature. Dr. Ryerson, a power among the Methodists,
denounced it, after he had at the outset shown an inclination to
support it, and the Bishop of Toronto was also among its most
determined opponents. Lord Sydenham's well-meaning attempt to settle
the question was thwarted at the very outset by the reference of the
bill to English judges, who reported adversely on the ground that the
power "to vary or repeal" given in the Constitutional Act of 1791 was
only prospective, and did not authorize the provincial legislature to
divert the proceeds of the lands already sold from the purpose
originally contemplated in the imperial statute. The judges also
expressed the opinion on this occasion that the words "Protestant
clergy" were large enough to include and did include "other clergy
than those of the Church of Scotland." In their opinion these words
appeared, "both in their natural force and meaning, and still more
from the context of the clauses in which they are found, to be there
used to designate and intend a clergy opposed in doctrine and
discipline to the clergy of the Church of Rome, and rather to aim at
the encouragement of the Protestant religion in opposition to the
Romish Church, than to point exclusively to the clergy of the Church
of England." But as they did not find on the statute book the
acknowledgment by the legislature of any other clergy answering the
description of the law, they could not specify any other except the
Church of Scotland as falling within the imperial statute.
Under these circumstances the imperial government at once passed
through parliament a bill (3 and 4 Vict., c. 78) which re-enacted the
Canadian measure with the modifications rendered necessary by the
judicial opinion just cited. This act put an end to future
reservations, and at the same time recognized the claims of all the
Protestant bodies to a share in the funds derived from the sales of
the lands. It provided for the division of the reserves into two
portions--those sold before the passing of the act and those sold at a
later time. Of the previous sales, the Church of England was to
receive two-thirds and the Church of Scotland one-third. Of future
sales, the Church of England would receive one-third and the Church of
Scotland one-sixth, while the residue could be applied by the
governor-in-council "for purposes of public worship and religious
instruction in Canada," in other words, that it should be divided
among those other religious denominations that might make application
at any time for a share in these particular funds.
This act, however, did not prove to be a settlement of this disturbing
question. If Bishop Strachan had been content with the compromise made
in this act, and had endeavoured to carry out its provisions as soon
as it was passed, the Anglican Church would have obtained positive
advantages which it failed to receive when the question was again
brought into the arena of angry discussion. In 1844 when Henry
Sherwood was solicitor-general in the Draper-Viger Conservative
government he proposed an address to the Crown for the passing of a
new imperial act, authorizing the division of the land itself instead
of the income arising from its sales. His object was to place the
lands, allotted to the Church of England, under the control of the
church societies, which could lease them, or hold them for any length
of time at such prices as they might deem expedient. In the course of
the debate on this proposition, which failed to receive the assent of
the House, Baldwin, Price, and other prominent men expressed regret
that any attempt should be made to disturb the settlement made by the
imperial statute of 1840, which, in their opinion, should be regarded
as final.
A strong feeling now developed in Upper Canada in favour of a repeal
of the imperial act, and the secularization of the reserves. The
Presbyterians--apart from the Church of Scotland--were now influenced
by the Scottish Free Church movement of 1843 and opposed to public
provision for the support of religious denominations. The spirit which
animated them spread to other bodies, and was stimulated by the
uncompromising attitude still assumed by the Anglican bishop, who was
anxious, as Sherwood's effort proved, to obtain advantages for his
church beyond those given it by the act of 1840. When the
LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry was formed, the movement for the
secularization of the reserves among the Upper Canadian Liberals, or
Reformers as many preferred to call their party, became so pronounced
as to demand the serious consideration of the government; but there
was no inclination shown by the French Canadians in the cabinet to
disturb the settlement of 1840, and the serious phases of the
Rebellion Losses Bill kept the whole question for some time in the
background. After the appearance of the Clear Grits in Upper Canadian
politics, with the secularization of the reserves as the principal
plank in their platform, the LaFontaine-Baldwin cabinet felt the
necessity of making a concession to the strong feeling which prevailed
among Upper Canadian Reformers. As they were divided in opinion on the
question and could not make it a part of the ministerial policy,
Price, commissioner of Crown lands, was induced in the session of 1850
to introduce on his sole responsibility an address to the Crown,
praying for the repeal of the imperial act of 1840, and the passage of
another which would authorize the Canadian legislature to dispose of
the reserves as it should deem most expedient, but with the distinct
understanding that, while no particular sect should be considered as
having a vested right in the property, the emoluments derived by
existing incumbents should be guaranteed during their lives. Mr.
Price--the same gentleman who had objected some years previously to
the reopening of the question--showed in the course of his speech the
importance which the reserves had now attained. The number of acres
reserved to this time was 2,395,687, and of sales, under two statutes,
1,072,453. These sales had realized £720,756, of which £373,899 4s.
4d. had been paid, and £346,856 15s. 8d. remained still due. Counting
the interest on the sum paid, a million of pounds represented the
value of the lands already sold, and when they were all disposed of
there would be realized more than two millions of pounds. Price also
pointed out the fact that only a small number of persons had derived
advantages from these reserves. Out of the total population of 723,000
souls in Upper Canada, the Church of England claimed 171,000 and the
Church of Scotland 68,000, or a total of 239,000 persons who received
the lion's share, and left comparatively little to the remaining
population of 484,000 souls. Among the latter the Roman Catholics
counted 123,707 communicants and received only £700 a year; the
Wesleyans, with 90,363 adherents, received even a still more wretched
pittance. Furthermore 269,000 persons were entirely excluded from any
share whatever in the reserves. In the debate on the resolutions for
the address LaFontaine did not consider the imperial act a finality,
and was in favour of having the reserves brought under the control of
the Canadian legislature, but he expressed the opinion most
emphatically that all private rights and endowments conferred under
the authority of imperial legislation should be held inviolate, and so
far as possible, carried into effect. Baldwin's observations were
remarkable for their vagueness. He did not object to endowment for
religious purposes, although he was opposed to any union between
church and state. While he did not consider the act of 1840 as a final
settlement, inasmuch as it did not express the opinion of the Canadian
people, he was not then prepared to commit himself as to the mode in
which the property should he disposed of. Hincks affirmed that there
was no desire on the part of members of the government to evade their
responsibilities on the question, but they were not ready to adopt the
absurd and unconstitutional course that was pressed on them by the
Clear Grits, of attempting to repeal an imperial act by a Canadian
statute.
Malcolm Cameron and other radical Reformers advocated the complete
secularization of the reserves, while Cayley, Macdonald, and other
Conservatives, urged that the provisions of the imperial act of 1840
should be carried out to the fullest extent, and that the funds, then
or at a future time at the disposal of the government "for the
purposes of public worship and religious instruction" under the act,
should be apportioned among the various denominations that had not
previously had a share in the reserves. When it came to a division, it
was clear that there was no unanimity on the question among the
ministers and other supporters. Indeed, the summary given above of the
remarks made by LaFontaine, Baldwin, and Hincks, affords conclusive
evidence of the differences of opinion that existed between them and
of their reluctance to express themselves definitely on the subject.
The majority of the French members, Messrs. LaFontaine, Cauchon,
Chabot, Chauveau, LaTerrière and others, voted against the resolution
which affirmed that "no religious denomination can be held to have
such vested interest in the revenue derived from the proceeds of the
said clergy reserves as should prevent further legislation with
reference to the disposal of them, but this House is nevertheless of
opinion that the claims of existing incumbents should be treated in
the most liberal manner." Baldwin and other Reformers supported this
clause, which passed by a majority of two. The address was finally
adopted on a division of forty-six Yeas and twenty-three Nays--"the
minority containing the names of a few Reformers who would not consent
to pledge themselves to grant, for the lives of the existing
incumbents, the stipends on which they had accepted their
charges--some perhaps having come from other countries to fill them
and having possibly thrown up other preferments."[21] The address was
duly forwarded to England by Lord Elgin, with a despatch in which he
explained at some length the position of the whole question. In
accordance with the principle which guided him throughout his
administration of Canadian affairs--to give full scope to the right of
the province to manage its own local concerns--he advised Lord Grey to
repeal the imperial act of 1840 if he wished "to preserve the colony."
Lord Grey admitted that the question was one exclusively affecting the
people of Canada and should be decided by the provincial legislature.
It was the intention of the government, he informed Lord Elgin, to
introduce a bill into parliament for this purpose; but action had to
be deferred until another year when, as it happened unfortunately for
the province, Lord John Russell's ministry was forced to resign, and
was succeeded by a Conservative administration led by the Earl of
Derby.
The Canadian government soon ascertained from Sir John Pakington, the
new colonial secretary, that the new advisers of Her Majesty were not
"inclined to give their consent and support to any arrangement the
result of which would too probably be the diversion to other purposes
of the only public fund ... which now exists for the support of divine
worship and religious instruction in the colony." It was also
intimated by the secretary of state that the new government was quite
ready to entertain a proposal for reconsidering the mode of
distributing the proceeds of the sales of the reserves, while not
ready to agree to any proposal that might "divert forever from its
sacred object the fund arising from that portion of the public lands
of Canada which, almost from the period of the British conquest of
that province, has been set apart for the religious instruction of the
people." Hincks, who was at that time in England, at once wrote to Sir
John Pakington, in very emphatic terms, that he viewed "with grave
apprehension the prospect of collision between Her Majesty's
government and the parliament of Canada, on a question regarding which
such strong feelings prevailed among the great mass of the
population." The people of Canada were convinced that they were
"better judges than any parties in England of what measures would best
conduce to the peace and welfare of the province." As respects the
proposal "for reconsidering the mode of distributing the income of the
clergy reserves," Hincks had no hesitation in saying that "it would be
received as one for the violation of the most sacred constitutional
rights of the people."
As soon as the Canadian legislature met in 1852, Hincks carried an
address to the Crown, in which it was urged that the question of the
reserves was "one so exclusively affecting the people of Canada that
its decision ought not to be withdrawn from the provincial
legislature, to which it properly belongs to regulate all matters
concerning the domestic interests of the province." The hope was
expressed that Her Majesty's government would lose no time in giving
effect to the promise made by the previous administration and
introduce the legislation necessary "to satisfy the wishes of the
Canadian people." In the debate on this address, Moria, the leader of
the French section of the cabinet, clearly expressed himself in favour
of the secularization of the reserves in accordance with the views
entertained by his Upper Canadian colleagues. It was consequently
clear that the successors of the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry were
fully pledged to a vigorous policy for the disposal of this vexatious
dispute.
A few months after Lord Elgin had forwarded this address to the Crown,
the Earl of Derby's administration was defeated in the House of
Commons, and the Aberdeen government was formed towards the close of
1852, with the Duke of Newcastle as secretary of state for the
colonies. One of Sir John Pakington's last official acts was to
prepare a despatch unfavourable to the prayer of the assembly's last
address, but it was never sent to Canada, though brought down to
parliament. At the same time the Canadian people heard of this
despatch they were gratified by the announcement that the new
ministers had decided to reverse the policy of their predecessors and
to meet the wishes of the Canadian legislature. Accordingly, in the
session of 1853, a measure was passed by the imperial parliament to
give full power to the provincial legislature to vary or repeal all or
any part of the act of 1840, and to make all necessary provisions
respecting the clergy reserves or the proceeds derived from the same,
on the express condition that there should be no interference with the
annual stipends or allowances of existing incumbents as long as they
lived. The Hincks-Morin ministry was then urged to bring in at once a
measure disposing finally of the question, in accordance with the
latest imperial act; but, as we have read in a previous chapter, it
came to the opinion after anxious deliberation that the existing
parliament was not competent to deal with so important a question. It
also held that it was a duty to obtain an immediate expression of
opinion from the people, and the election of a House in which the
country would be fully represented in accordance with the legislation
increasing the number of representatives in the assembly.
The various political influences arrayed against Hincks in Upper
Canada led to his defeat, and the formation of the MacNab-Morin
Liberal-Conservative government, which at once took steps to settle
the question forever. John A. Macdonald commenced this new epoch in
his political career by taking charge of the bill for the
secularization of the reserves. It provided for the payment of all
moneys arising from the sales of the reserves into the hands of the
receiver-general, who would apportion them amongst the several
municipalities of the province according to population. All annual
stipends or allowances, charged upon the reserves before the passage
of the imperial act of 1853, were continued during the lives of
existing incumbents, though the latter could commute their stipends or
allowances for their value in money, and in this way create a small
permanent endowment for the advantage of the church to which they
belonged.
After nearly forty years of continuous agitation, during which the
province of Upper Canada had been convulsed from the Ottawa to Lake
Huron, and political parties had been seriously embarrassed, the
question was at last removed from the sphere of party and religious
controversy. The very politicians who had contended for the rights of
the Anglican clergy were now forced by public opinion and their
political interests to take the final steps for its settlement. Bishop
Strachan's fight during the best years of his life had ended in
thorough discomfiture. As the historian recalls the story of that
fight, he cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the settlement of
1854 relieved the Anglican Church itself of a controversy which, as
long as it existed, created a feeling of deep hostility that seriously
affected its usefulness and progress. Even Lord Elgin was compelled to
write in 1851 "that the tone adopted by the Church of England here has
almost always had the effect of driving from her even those who would
be most disposed to co-operate with her if she would allow them." At
last freed from the political and the religious bitterness which was
so long evoked by the absence of a conciliatory policy on the part of
her leaders, this great church is able peacefully to teach the noble
lessons of her faith and win that respect among all classes which was
not possible under the conditions that brought her into direct
conflict with the great mass of the Canadian people.