Lord Howick and Colonial Church Establishment

Peter Burroughs

doi:10.1017/S0022046900049459

Lord Howick and Colonial Church Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011

Peter Burroughs

Show author details

Peter Burroughs: Affiliation:
Professor of History, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Because the Church of England traditionally formed part of the British constitution, Englishmen in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries often discussed the importance of extending the Established Church to settlements overseas. Yet nothing constructive was done in North America before the Revolution to complete the constitution of the colonial Church or reinforce its special position as the partner of the civil government. There were no bishops in America, and the remote bishop of London was left to supervise as best he could an institution that enjoyed few privileges and displayed an inveterate tendency towards independence. After the American Revolution, however, imperial administrators and colonial churchmen appreciated the need to buttress and reinvigorate the Church of England in British North America. In official circles at least, the loss of the Thirteen Colonies was attributed to the growth of a democratic spirit which a debilitated Church had been powerless to check. British administrators consequently agreed that the dangerous development of republicanism and religious dissent might be thwarted in the remaining colonies by strengthening the position of the Church as the ally of government in the task of preserving colonial loyalty.

Type: Articles
Information: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , October 1974 , pp. 381 - 405

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046900049459 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 381 note 1} For these developments and imperial ecclesiastical policy before 1830, see Fingard, J., The Anglican Design in Loyalist Nova Scotia 1783–1816, London 1972, chs. 1–5.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 1} In addition to the issue of slavery and the West Indies, parliamentary interest in colonial affairs was stimulated in the late 1820s by the receipt of petitions of grievance and rumours of maladministration in the Canadas and New South Wales: Manning, H. T., ‘Colonial Crises before the Cabinet, 1829–1835’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXX (1957), 41–61CrossRef Google Scholar; Burroughs, P., The Canadian Crisis and British Colonial Policy 1828–41, London 1972, ch. 2Google Scholar; Eddy, J. J., Britain and the Australian Colonies, 1815–30, Oxford 1971, chs. 1–3.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 2} On the radicals' campaign and the connexion between imperial retrenchment and colonial reform, see Burroughs, P., ‘Parliamentary Radicals and the Reduction of Imperial Expenditure in British North America, 1827–34’, Historical Journal, XI (1968), 446–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 3} Lord King, Hansard, New Series, xviii, 18 March 1828, 1162. Also Hume, H. G. Bennet, John Monck, ibid., x, 12 March 1824, 964–5, 966–7, 968; King, ibid., xviii, 21 March 1828, 1236–41; Hume, Henry Labouchere, ibid., xxi, 6 April 1829, 457, 458; Howick, Robert Gordon, ibid., xxv, 14 June 1830, 341–2.

^{page 384 note 1} Hansard, New Series, xxi, 6 April 1829, 455–6. Also King, ibid., xviii, 18 and 21 March 1828, 1162–3, 1237; Howick, Hume, Daniel O'Connell, John Stewart, Monck, ibid., xxv, 14 June 1830,341, 343–6.

^{page 384 note 2} Nomination meeting, Alnwick, 20 June 1826, reported in Tyne Mercury, 27 June 1826.

^{page 385 note 1} Hay to Goderich, 4 January 1832, and Howick to Goderich, 9 January 1832, Ripon Papers, B.M. Add. MSS. 40,862, fols. 302–15; Howick to Hay, 6 and 10 January 1832, Grey Papers/Hay, University of Durham. Of the permanent staff at the Colonial Office, Henry Taylor sympathised with Howick's attitude to the Canadian Church: Taylor to Howick, 3 November 1831, Grey Papers/Taylor. James Stephen would certainly have agreed, but he was not involved to any extent in these discussions of ecclesiastical policy: see Stephen to Hay, 29 August 1829, C.O. 323/46, Public Record Office.

^{page 385 note 2} Hansard, New Series, XXIV, 10 May 1830, 516.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 3} The Cape benefited by £200 and £650 was granted towards the administrative expenses of the Ecclesiastical Board, a body that was concerned with the activities of the Church of England overseas, though not in British North America: Parl. Papers, 1830 (89) xviii.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 1} Goderich to Colborne, 24 December 1830, C.O. 43/43; Goderich to Aylmer, 24 December 1830, C.O. 43/28; Goderich to Maitland, 1 December 1830, C.O. 218/30.

^{page 387 note 1} Maitland to Goderich, 1 February 1831, C.O. 217/152. For Howick's juggling with the revenues and expenditures of Nova Scotia, see Burroughs, P., ‘The Search for Economy: Imperial Administration of Nova Scotia in the 1830s’, Canadian Historical Review, XLIX (1968), 24–43.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 2} Inglis to Goderich, 28 January 1831, enclosed in Maitland to Hay, 4 February 1831, C.O. 217/152; Goderich to Maitland, 24 November 1831, C.O. 218/30.

^{page 388 note 1} ‘Memorandum on the Parliamentary Grant to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel & the Church Establishment in Lower Canada’, undated [June or early July 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 29. Howick reiterated similar views in Memorandum on the Canadian Church, 19 August 1831, Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 26.

^{page 389 note 1} For a useful summary of the whig view, see Best, G. F. A., ‘The Whigs and the Church Establishment in the Age of Grey and Holland’, History, XLV (1960), 103–18.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 2} Paper on the Irish Church, enclosed in Howick to Graham, 16 March 1835, Grey Papers/Sir James Graham.

^{page 389 note 3} Draft speech on the Irish Church, July 1835, Grey Papers/Ireland.

^{page 389 note 4} Paper on the Irish Church, enclosed in Howick to Graham, 9 March 1835, Grey Papers/Graham. Also draft of a proposed speech defending the enquiry into the Irish Church, June 1834, Grey Papers/Ireland.

^{page 389 note 5} Draft of a speech on the Irish Church, March 1835, Grey Papers/Ireland.

^{page 390 note 1} Paper on the Irish Church, enclosed in Howick to Graham, 9 March 1835, Grey Papers/Graham.

^{page 390 note 2} Paper on the Irish Church, enclosed in Howick to Graham, 16 March 1835, Grey Papers/Graham.

^{page 390 note 3} Hansard, New Series, XXV, 14 June 1830,341.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 1} Draft speech on the Irish Church, March 1835, Grey Papers/Ireland.

^{page 391 note 2} Paper on the Irish Church, enclosed in Howick to Graham, 9 March 1835, Grey Papers/Graham. Also draft of a speech on the Irish Church, March 1835, Grey Papers/Ireland.

^{page 391 note 3} Goderich to Colborne, 5 April 1832, C.O. 43/43.

^{page 392 note 1} ‘Memorandum on the Parliamentary Grant …’, [June or early July 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 29. According to the 1827 census in Nova Scotia, for example, adherents of the Church of England numbered 31,199 in a total population of 142,548. Kempt to Huskisson, 12 May 1828, CO. 217/148; Inglis to S.P.G., 12 February 1829, S.P.G. Journal of Proceedings 39, p. 22, United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.

^{page 392 note 2} Memorandum on the Canadian Church, 19 August 1831, Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 26.

^{page 392 note 3} Draft, Howick to Goderich, undated [19 August 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 26.

^{page 393 note 1} ‘Memorandum on the Parliamentary Grant …’, [June or early July 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 29. On the validity of Howick's assessment, see Fingard, The Anglican Design in Loyalist Nova Scotia, ch. 5.

^{page 393 note 2} For relations between the Canadian assemblies and the Colonial Office, and whig reforms proposed in 1831–2, see Burroughs, The Canadian Crisis and British Colonial Policy, ch. 3; Manning, H. T., The Revolt of French Canada, 1800–1835, Toronto 1962, chs. 19–20.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 3} Draft, Howick to Goderich, [19 August 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 26.

^{page 394 note 1} On the clergy reserves, see Wilson, A., The Clergy Reserves of Upper Canada, Toronto 1968Google Scholar. The complaints against the reserves presented to the Select Committee on the Civil Government of Canada in 1828, Parl. Papers 1828 (569) vii, are summarised in Wilson, op. cit., 96–8.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 2} Goderich to Darling, 14 February 1831, C.O. 202/25; Commission of Inquiry on Colonial Revenues and Expenditure, Parl. Papers 1830–1831 (64) iv, 74.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 3} The act of 1827 had been passed under the prompting of Anglicans in Upper Canada who wanted to counter public criticism of the reserves, increase a vested interest enjoyed by the Church of England, forestall the claims of the Church of Scotland to a share in the endowment, and anticipate the termination of financial aid from the British government and the S.P.G. For the purposes of the act, negotiations over it, and discussions in parliament, see Wilson, op. cit., 88–94.

According to the Colonial Office the 500,000 acres of reserves in Lower Canada had shown their first profits of £177 15s. 6d. in 1828, and £217 18s. in 1829, though 100,000 acres under lease produced a rent of £1,190 a year. The revenue from reserves in Upper Canada had never exceeded £200 a year, which was absorbed by expenses, but if the rent had been collected for the leases issued, it would have yielded £3,350 a year. Goderich to Aylmer, 21 November 1831, No. 69, C.O. 43/28; Goderich to Colborne, 21 November 1831, No. 55, C.O. 43/43.

^{page 395 note 1} ‘Memorandum on the Parliamentary Grant …’, [June or early July 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 29; Draft, Howick to Goderich, [19 August 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 26. Howick apparently did not know that chaplaincies were few in number and often held in conjunction with regular livings, and that colonial clergy were debarred by an imperial act of 1821 from appointment to livings in Britain.

^{page 396 note 1} ‘Memorandum on the Parliamentary Grant …’, [June or early July 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 29.

^{page 397 note 1} Wood to Howick, 5 July 1831, Grey Papers/Halifax. The first Reform Bill was defeated in committee in March 1831, a general election was held in April, and the second bill passed the House of Commons in June only to be rejected by the Lords in October.

^{page 397 note 2} Minor of Parliament, 26 July 1831,861.

^{page 397 note 3} Hansard, 3rd Series, v, 25 July 1831, 296. There was a further Commons* debate on religion and politics in the Canadas on 14 October 1831, ibid., viii, 767–81.

^{page 398 note 1} Draft, Howick to Goderich, [19 August 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 26.

^{page 399 note 1} Howick's views at this time were set out principally in his Memorandum on the Canadian Church, [19 August 1831], Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 26, but also in a ‘Memorandum on Clergy Reserves ’, 2 November 1831, ibid., Canada 21, and cancelled draft of a despatch to Aylmer, November 1831, ibid., Canada 23.

^{page 399 note 2} ‘Memorandum on Clergy Reserves & Clergy Salaries’, 2 November 1831, loc. cit.

^{page 399 note 3} Taylor to Howick, 3 November 1831, Grey Papers/Taylor.

^{page 399 note 4} Howick to Grey, 7 November 1831, Grey Papers/2nd Earl Grey.

^{page 399 note 5} Howick to Hay, 17 November 1831, Grey Papers/Hay.

^{page 400 note 1} Balfour to Howick, 22 November 1831, Grey Papers/Balfour.

^{page 400 note 2} Memorandum on draft despatches, 13 November 1831, and undated draft despatch to Aylmer, Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 19–20; Goderich to Aylmer, 21 November 1831, Nos. 69, 70, and confidential, C.O. 43/28; Goderich to Colborne, 21 November 1831, Nos. 55–57, C.O. 43/43.

^{page 400 note 3} Goderich to Aylmer, 21 November 1831, No. 70, C.O. 43/28; Goderich to Colborne, 21 November 1831, No. 56, C.O. 43/43.

^{page 401 note 1} Undated draft despatch to Aylmer, Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 20.

^{page 401 note 2} Cf. alterations to undated draft despatch to Aylmer to make it applicable to Upper Canada, Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 20, and Goderich to Colborne, 21 November 1831, No. 57, C.O. 43/43.

^{page 401 note 3} See Burroughs, The Canadian Crisis and British Colonial Policy, ch. 3.

^{page 402 note 1} See Wilson, The Clergy Reserves of Upper Canada, 123–4. For diverse reactions and solutions when Edward Stanley submitted the question of the clergy reserves to the cabinet in 1833, Confidential Paper for Lord Grey's Cabinet, 20 November 1833, and minutes by Holland and Russell, undated, and by Ripon, 21 December 1833, Derby Papers, Box 16.

^{page 402 note 2} For developments to 1854, see Wilson, op. cit., chs. 8–14. Ironically, Howick again confronted the problem of the clergy reserves in 1850 during his colonial secretaryship as the Third Earl Grey, and even then he could not finally resolve the question: Wilson, op. cit. 202–8.

^{page 402 note 3} Goderich to Aylmer, 21 November 1831, confidential, and 1 December 1831, C.O. 43/28.

^{page 402 note 4} Sales of reserves under the act of 1827 nearly doubled during 1830, and after levelling off in 1831 to 28,583 acres for £17,430, soared in 1832 to 48,485 acres for £32,288. Between 1 January 1829 and 31 December 1832 the sale of 129,792 acres produced £86,343. For the volume of sales, see Wilson, op. cit., 103–4, 117.

^{page 403 note 1} Goderich to Colborne, 21 November 1831, No. 57, C.O. 43/43.

^{page 403 note 2} Memorandum, 18 November 1831, Grey Papers/Colonial Papers, Canada 30.

^{page 403 note 3} Howick to Hamilton, 12 December 1831, S.P.G. Journal 42, II. Also Howick to Treasury, 21 November 1831, and minute of Lords of Treasury, 25 November 1831, Parl. Papers, 1831–1832 (362) xxvii.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 4} Hamilton to Howick, 9 January 1832, S.P.G. Journal 42, 17–30.

^{page 403 note 5} Cancelled draft to Hamilton, undated, Grey Papers/Hamilton.

^{page 404 note 1} Howick to Hamilton, 24 February 1832, S.P.G. Journal 42, 81–83. What reconciled Goderich to this course of action was probably his confidence that the income from the reserves in Upper Canada would go far towards replacing the parliamentary grant, as Colborne reassuringly predicted. Goderich to Hamilton, 28 April 1832, S.P.G. and Government concerning North America, 1831–56, quoted in Millman, T. R., The Life of Charles James Stewart, London, Ont., 1953, 116.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 2} Howick to Treasury, 18 January 1832, Parl. Papers, 1831–1832 (362) xxvii.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 3} Parl. Papers, 1831–32 (362) xxvii, 1833 (169) xxiv, 1834 (184) xlii.

^{page 404 note 4} Millman, op. cit., 117.

^{page 404 note 5} Parl. Papers, 1835 (144) xxxviii; Millman, op. cit., 118.Google Scholar

Article contents

Lord Howick and Colonial Church Establishment

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests