 
                  
                  Sir F. Rogers
                     I apprehend that the endowment of Churches in new Colonies has long
                     been rejected in practice, and that the endowment of them with rural
                     lands is incontestably objectionable in principle on account of
                     throwing large tracts into unimproving lands, and that endowing them
                     with valuable lots in the middle of a Town, as in the present instance
                     is open to the objection common to all endowments in these new
                     Settlements occupied by people of all kinds of sects, viz that
                     what you give to one Church or Sect, you will assuredly be called
                     upon to give to every other, so that it would be difficult to put
                     bounds to the grants of public land or property for ecclesiastical
                     purposes.
                     
 
                  
                  
                     If therefore the Crown had
given
 given this grant in 
Vancouver, I
                     should have felt rather suprised on account of the deviation from
                     practice which seems dictated by such forcible considerations.
                     Nevertheless if the Crown had done so, I should perhaps have agreed
                     with 
M Murdoch that it would be bound to do the same for the
                     Church of Scotland, although this would have been speedily followed
                     by applications quite as well founded from the Church of Rome and
                     the Free Kirk and any dissenting Bodies which may happen to have
                     large followings in 
Vancouver.
                     
                     But in point of fact, you are aware, the grant, so contrary as
                     I believe to all modern policy of the Queen's Government, was made
                     by the 
Hudson's Bay Company, and the Crown is only so far a party
to
 to
                     it, that in receiving over from the Company the transfer of the
                     Island, it has duly confirmed to the Church of England the property
                     already bestowed upon it by the Company.
                     
                     Under these circumstances I should think that it must be a far
                     more doubtful question whether the Crown ought now to make a grant to
                     the Church of Scotland merely because the 
Hudson's Bay Company several
                     years ago, and prior to any authority in the part of the Crown, made
                     a grant to the Church of England.
                     
                     If it is to be done, the mode of doing it will be no small
                     difficulty. There can no longer be the means, even if it were
                     advisable, of giving a fresh Church a valuable property
in
 in the heart
                     of the Capital. If equivalent property is to be given in the Country, it
                     will imply granting a vast tract, with all the palpable objections to
                     converting such a tract into ecclesiastical property. And when all is
                     done, there will remain as above said the inevitable future claims of
                     other Churches and Persuasions.
                     
 
                  
                  
                     M Elliots view appears to me correct. It is not the policy of
                     Colonial 
Gov to give Churches endowments in land, and the property
                     now belonging to the English Church was given not by the Col. 
Gov
                     but by the H.B.C.
                     
 
                  
                  
                     At the same time I do not think that the arg of the Scotch
                     Church is sound in principle. In 
V.C.I. & other Colonies all Churches
                     are on the same footing in theory. But

 the English Church got
                     possession of the ground—made itself useful, and has reaped the
                     advantage of doing so. I do not know how many clergy there are—but
                     it is something of a body.
                     
                     The Colonial Committee have one clergyman, & claim land
                     to the same amount as the English clergy who—so far as the
                     work is done—have been doing the bulk of it.
                     
                  
                  
                     The Roman Catholics are doing much more & w have a stronger
                     claim than the Presbyterians.
                     
                  
                  
                   
                  
                  
                     It is not clear that Church reserves have been the least improved
                     lands. Evidence the other way. But I would leave it to Local Gov
                     to reserve or grant for Schools or places of Worship of recognized
                     sects what they please, like the U.S.
                     
                  
                  
                   
                  
                  
                     Reply that the grant to Engl. Church was made by H.B.Co. and not by
                     the Crown. That it is not the practice for the Crown to make grants,
                     and [we] are unable therefore to comply with the request of the
                     S.C. & inform Gov.