Sir R. Peel: I think it necessary to state, that the opinions which I have on different occasions delivered upon the subject of Canada, remain entirely unchanged. With respect to the clergy reserves, I hope this measure will be discussed in the same spirit as the union of the Canadas-and I would appeal to the House if it could be asserted, of the propositions made to the noble Lord, and by him to the House, that the Church of England had been governed by a rigid adherence to his own interests. I think that the proposition made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, distinguished as well for his high station as for his moderation, comes recommended by justice as well as forbearance. On the part of the Church of England, all obstacles are removed from the disposal of the whole of the reserve lands. The Church seeks not to reserve to herself any of these lands. After the decision of the judges, the Church of Scotland is admitted to the same right as the Church of England; and the only difference which exists is, the difference arising from the number of adherents which belong to each. With this proposition, acquiesced in by the two churches, permitting the sale of the whole of the reserve lands, with the guarantee in per support of the hon. Member for Newark; | ation of the House. The noble Lord it has had the support of the noble concluded by moving the postponement of Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, the question of the clergy reserves to it has had, lastly, the able support, Thursday next. founded upon reasons, which, in my opinion, could not be answered, and which certainly were not answered in the debate, of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who, in addition to his own individual merits, had filled the highest station in the councils of his Sovereign. In this House, it has been carried by almost unanimous consent, there being one hundred and fifty-six in its favour, and but six opposed to it. He could not but refer to these circumstances, and he would be most unwilling, when another question was introduced relative to Canada, not to endeavour to obtain for it something of the same general assent. He should be anxious to send to the Canadas the measures of the union and of the clergy reserves, not only by the authority of the Government, but with the general consent of the whole House. He could not persuade himself that any person deeply and extensively considering the whole interests of Canada would disappoint the hopes which were entertained, that in the present Session we shall be able to settle the affairs of Canada. Though one measure may be preferred to another though he was not prepared to say, that another measure might not be better than the union of the Canadas-yet it would be most dan-petuity of the present amount with onegerous to induce in Canada a belief, that the Legislature were not acting upon any settled plan with respect to that province, but with capricious and party views. Be-justice and moderation. It would be unlieving this to be the case, and feeling that he should be responsible if in Canada parties should make it an excuse, that one Church had been treated with undue favour rather than another, yet, feeling the greater responsibility if he opposed any obstacle, on his part, to the settlement of a question on which the welfare of Canada depended, he should move, on Thursday next, in the form of an amendment, the propositions which he had detailed. Though they were not the propositions which he might think the best, yet, considering that those who had made them had conceded much of their own opinions as to what they think due to the Church of England in making these propositions, he should willingly accept them in the way he third of the proceeds of the future sale, that is a proposal recommended by its intrinsic importance, as well as by its fortunate, indeed, if this question should remain unsettled. It is to me a source of the greatest satisfaction, that the noble Lord acquiesces in the proposal made by the Church of England. In acceding to that proposal, I think the noble Lord has acted wisely; and I sincerely hope that this measure will be discussed in the same spirit as the question of the union, and I trust that the two measures will pass into a law with the general concurrence of the House, and by doing so, be the foundation of a happy relation between this country and Canada. In answer to Mr. C. Buller, Lord J. Russell replied, it is proposed to leave one-half of the three-fourths to the disposal of the Governor-general and of religious worship, and for education. This was done to promote unanimity in the House, because there were Opposition hon. Members who would object to any portion being grauted to the Roman Catholics. AUSTRIAN TREATY OF COMMERCE.] Mr. Labouchere brought up the report of the committee on commerce and navigation, as follows "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a bill, to enable her Majesty to carry into effect certain stipulations contained in a treaty of commerce and navigation between her Majesty and the Emperor of Austria, and to empower her Majesty to declare, by Order in Council, that ports which are the most natural and convenient shipping ports of States, within whose dominions they are not situated, may in certain cases be considered, for all purposes of trade with her Majesty's dominions, as the national ports of such States." The right hon. Gentleman moved, that the resolution be agreed to. No ago a treaty was concluded between this country and the government of Austria, having for its object that which all persons who took a just view of the interests of the two countries must concur in facilitating to the utmost of their power. individual felt more than he did the importance of drawing closer the ties of friendship, and of intercourse between this country and Austria. There was no state with which at all times and under all circumstances it was more important or more desirable that this country should be united; but in the present state of the continent, and in relation to passing and future events, the importance of this connexion was still further increased. In 1838, her Majesty's Government took great praise to themselves for having surpassed all their predecessors, and for having, by their superior skill, effected a commercial treaty with Austria, and thereby opened a new way for the extension of our trade. He concurred in the object, but with others he lamented that Mr. Herries thought that some explan-they had taken unskilful means to carry ation would have been given by the right their intentions into effect. Instead of hon. Gentleman for such an extraordinary the treaty being an improvement on the motion, especially as he had given notice treaty negociated by the Earl of Aberof motion of certain resolutions, the effectdeen, it had been the subject of continued of which would be some such measure as difficulty; and, instead of producing a that which the right hon. Gentleman now better understanding between the two professed his desire to bring forward. The countries, it had led to long protracted immediate effect of the present motion and hitherto unfinished negotiations. would be, to interpose between his mo- There were two articles in the new treaty tion, which was for an address to her which differed from the previous treaty, Majesty, praying her to take some steps and embodied, or were intended to emto put an end to the state of things body, one of the great principles of the now existing. He had thought, that the commercial treaties with other countries, right hon. Gentleman would have ex- and which was called "reciprocity." plained under what circumstances and for This principle was embodied in Articles what purposes he came forward in the 4 and 5, and to them he would call the year 1840, and asked for a power to be particular attention of the House. Each placed in the hands of Government, en- of these articles was in contravention of abling them at their discretion to set the laws of this land. The first was a aside the Navigation Act, for the purpose direct violation and contravention of the of carrying into effect a treaty with navigation laws; the second was also at Austria made two years ago. He would variance and deviation from that same venture to say, that it was an unexam- law. He mentioned both together, bepled circumstance for a member of the cause it was necessary that the House Government to come down and propose a should bear in mind that with respect to measure of such an extraordinary cha- the 5th Article the difficulties which the racter, without saying a word in its sup- navigation laws threw in the way of the port. Was it for hon. Gentlemen on his execution of that article had been reside of the House to explain why this moved by a special application to Parliaextraordinary power was requisite? Yet ment. At the end of the Customs Bill it was necessary that he should state to of last year, and on the third reading, a the House that which the right hon. Gen-clause was introduced enabling the Go tion Act, to give effect to the 5th Article of the Austrian treaty, which provided, "In consideration of British vessels arriving from other countries than those belong ing to the high contracting parties being admitted with their cargoes into Austrian ports, without paying any other duties whatever than those paid by Austrian vessels, so also the productions of the soil and industry of the parts of Asia or Africa situated within the Straits of Gibraltar, which shall have been brought into the ports of Austria, may be reexported from thence in Austrian vessels directly into British ports, in the same manner and with the same privileges as to all manner of duties and immunities, as if these productions were imported from Austrian ports in British vessels." The clause enabling the treaty to be carried into effect was smuggled through Parliament; if he had been present, and the purport of the clause had been mentioned, he would have made no objection. The 5th Article being thus disposed of, they came now to the 4th Ar ticle, and if it had not before that time been made the subject of particular observation in that House by any independent Member, the neglect might well be excused, because if any one read the article alone, it was impossible to be understood to construe at first into a contravention of the Navigation Act. It had not, however, escaped the notice of the Earl of Aberdeen, who called the attention of the public to the latter part of the clause which required much explanation. It was so ambiguous that it could not be understood by any person not aware of the spirit with which it was framed. But an instance had occurred since, which gave a practical illustration of what was intended, and showed that it was a direct violation of the navigation laws. An Austrian ship had arrived, and attempted to do that which this article professed to give it the right to do. In consequence of this, the parties making the attempt were guilty of a violation of our navigation law, the ship and cargo were seized, and after much negotiation with the public departments they were released, on the payment of a small fine, such small fine being expressly imposed to prevent the assumption that the importation was authorized by the existing law. Now, though the Austrian ship had acted against the navigation law, it had acted according to the treaty of commerce. By the 4th Article of that "All Austrian vessels arriving from the ports of the Danube, as far as Galacz inclusively, into the ports of the United Kingdom of Great shall, together with their cargoes, be admitted Britain and Ireland, and of all the possessions of her Britannic Majesty, exactly in the same manner as if such vessels came direct from Austrian ports, with all the privileges and immunities stipulated by the present treaty of navigation and commerce." It then went on to say, their cargoes, shall continue to be placed upon the same footing as Austrian vessels, whenever such British vessels shall enter into or depart from the same ports.” "In like manner, all British vessels, with Here was an authority given to the English to go with equal advantages to the Austrians, and enter ports in which Austria had not one foot of land. The reciprocity which Austria gave was the right of English vessels to go into Turkish ports in the same manner as Austrian ships. This most extraordinary provision did not fail to attract attention. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth, had endeavoured to obtain an explanation, and that explanation he certainly did not obtain. The same question being asked in two different places, it was said in one place "it is true, there certainly does appear to be a difficulty on this account, but a treaty will very soon be made with Turkey, by which effect will be given to this article, and undoubt edly something must be done before the Austrian treaty that has been ratified can be executed. But in that House, when the same question was asked, the reply was, that no such treaty with Turkey was necessary. The noble Lord, at the head of the Government, had said in another place, that a treaty would be formed, and in that House, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department said, that a treaty was not necessary. No doubt it was not necessary, unless some effect were intended to be given to the stipulations of the treaty. The fifth article of the treaty contravened the Navigation Act, and needed a legislative measure to give it effect; and it now appeared by events which had since disclosed the fact, that the fourth article was even more at variance with the Navigation Act. Why had not the Government, in fairness and justice, asked the House at the same time that the fifth article was remedied, for an authority by which the fourth could be carried into effect? other state. The navigation laws were Gentleman to explain, and not merely to put a paper into the hands of the Speaker in the careless way in which he had just done. The right hon. Gentleman had not only to explain why he did now ask for this power, but also why he had not asked for it long ago? Lord Melbourne had said, that he might be asked why this had not been done before, and that his reply was that the right hon. Gentleman formerly at the head of the Board of Trade, knowing that a treaty with Turkey was on foot, had thought it better not to come twice to Parliament. But the Government had already come once, and by the course they were now taking they had come twice. He had a right to ask those who applied to the House for powers to enable the Government at their own will and pleasure to set aside the navigation laws to state the grounds for the application. He had himself given his notice of motion because it was a matter of notoriety in the commercial world; and if this motion had not intervened, he had intended to move resolutions declaring that what had been done had been in contravention of the law, that the Government officers had interfered to mitigate the effect of the law, that such a state of things in respect to a treaty with a foreign power was unbecoming us as a nation, and that, therefore, the House would address the Crown, praying it to take such steps as were necessary to put an end to a state of things which was alike unsuited to the regular administration of the law, and to the punctual fulfilment of her Majesty's engagements with foreign powers. He was not prepared to say, that he would oppose the bill; but he doubted whether this was the best course for applying a remedy to the evil to which the want of due caution on the part of those who had had the care of our foreign and commercial affairs had exposed this country. The reason why the attention of this country had not been so much directed to these articles was, that it was possible to conceive that the vessels might arrive with an Austrian cargo, and if so, it would be consistent with the Navigation Act, because Austrian ships might bring an Austrian cargo from any port; it was not necessary that it should come from an Austrian port. It might have been thought that the Government never would have given a power to any state to bring There was no recommendation for "Board of Trade, Whitehall, 12th Sept., 1839. Council for Trade have considered the appliSir-The Lords of the Committee of Privy cation of Mr. John Routh, of the 2nd instant, transmitted by you, on the subject of a cargo of Turkish corn, imported from a Turkish port in the Danube in an Austrian ship; and their Lordships having adverted to the language of the 4th article of the Austrian treaty, referred to in your letter, have directed me to state their opinion, that although there may be no concurrent law for carrying that article into effect, according to the construction put upon it by the shippers at Galacz, it would be proper to give some relief in this and in similar cases. I am, therefore, to request that you will inform the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, of the opinion of the Lords of this Committee, that such cargoes should, for the present, be admitted to entry for home consumption, upon the payment of a moderate fine, which they think should be demanded, in order to prevent the assumption that the importation is authorised by the existing law." measure which was proposed was, to give of things. There was no "concurrent" law, said the Board of Trade. It was rather an ingenious way of putting it. There was no "6 concurrent" law. No; there was a distinct law against it. That was what ought to have been stated. Yet this did not cause the Government to alter the treaty that had been negociated, or to come down to the House for means to carry it out. They did neither one nor the other. He asked, then, who was responsible for this act? Was it the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had framed this treaty in direct violation of the law of the land? Was it the Board of Trade? Because there were many particulars in relation to these treaties on which the Board of Trade used to be consulted, and he presumed still was. Did the Board of Trade advise the passing of the 4th article, and its being ratified without any means existing for carrying it into effect? Suppose the Foreign-office had forgotten, as commercial matters sometimes escaped diplomatic characters of the highest character, could not the Board of Trade recollect the state of the laws? The year 1838 passed. The year 1839 passed over without any step being taken by the Board of Trade. Then, again, were the law officers forgotten? The custom used to be, and he presumed it was the same now, to submit all treaties before they were ratified, to the law officers of the Crown; these legal functionaries were conversant with the law of the land. Did they not know the extent to which the treaty went in consequence of its ambiguous wording? Did they think it was no concession? Did they think, that there was no harm in a treaty, by which we gave Austria what we could not do by laws, and Austria conceded to us what she had no power to concede? Perhaps, under these circumstances, the Mr. Labouchere said, that he had made law-officers considered the article of little no exposition of the grounds upon which or no value, and so gave no opinion upon he had made this motion, because he had it. Still, all those three departments thought that it would be better to wait were responsible for an article, which was until he saw the nature of the accusations a direct violation of the law, and which brought against the Government before could only be acted on by an alteration of he attempted to make any explanation of the law, or, as was now proposed, by his conduct, or of the conduct of those giving the Government the power to dis- with whom he had had the honour to act. pense with the law. He objected to the With regard to the speech of the right latter mode, and he thought that the ob-hon. Gentleman, he must say, that he had jection was good, unless the treaty was never heard more fallacious observations admitted by the noble Lord and the right addressed to the House, or observations and |