IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 2^ ^ ^ // ,<^ t k^ /. /a i.O I.I M 2.2 — 6" i.8 L25 iu 111111.6 ^^ ^ 7. Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716)872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de mlcrort With the full text of the Judgment rendered by the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council at ■ Whitehall, January 2l9t, 1882. ^^^o "^Rtciht anb ^mr not^ Toronto, l«82. .. 'yi i?iiO •»T' •* fl MAY 1 1948' 111 ^ lA TfiB lemoMm Fund: ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY. Ill I fin The Temporalities Fund, ^127,448 5.?., was founded !)y 73 self- sacrificing ministers of the Presbyterian ChurcJi of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, of whom 40 are now dead. The survivors differ with each other as to the disposition of this fund, which originat- ed thus : — The ministers of the Church of Scotland in Canada were re- cognized by Imperial and Canadian Acts of Parliament as being entitled to State subsidy, in the form of an annual allowance of ^^150 each, pay- able out of the sales of the Clergy Reserve Lands, supplemented when these were insufficient by payments out of the Exchequer of Creat Britain. In 1853, Imperial and Canadian Acts authorized the C Government of Canada to settle or commute these allowances, and to ])ay to the several ministers of the church a block sum, representing the capital value of the allowance, calculated at six per cent, interest upon the probable life of each minister. By this plan each of the 73 ministers was entitled to receive and apply to his own personal uses capital sums averaging from $8,000 to $10,000 each. Well knowing that they became entitled to these sums on account of their being ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, they determined in 1855 to unite the several sums they were entitled to receive into one sum for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE, and upon certain fundamental principles. 'I'hesi'Kcii-ic PURPOS.: was, that the United Sum should constitute, "under Providence a j^ermanent endowment" for the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scodand. The fundamental principles upon which it was founded, were :— I. That each minister should receive an annual allowance from the fund of ^112 los. . , , „ , 2 That if any minister ceased his connection with the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, he should thereby forfeit his interest in the principal and interest of the fund. The Spkcific 1'urposk— Permanent Endowment,- and the " Fundamental Principles " were expressed in writing and declared to be unalterable by the Synod without the consent of all che ministers a-reein- to them. This agreement constituted a contract between the parties.'and neither a majority of the contractors or a majority of the Synod has ony power to change it. The Synod approved the contract and conditions by resolution, and an Act of Parliament (22 Vic, Cap. 66 ) called The Temporalities Act, 1858, was applied for and obtained, creating a Corporation to hold the fund in trust for the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, in ac- cordance with the above conditions. This is the Act the judgment of the Privy Council declares to be in force The Corporation created by it is called '• The Temporalities Board;" the Fund entrusted to it, ^127,448 ss. "The Temporal- ities Fund." ^, J f ^u In 1875 a majority of the members present at a Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, determined to unite with three other distinct religious organi- zations, and to form a new church under the name of the " Presbyterian Church in Canada." The minority dissented formally against '.he acts of the majority of the Synod, and notified them they would continue the Old Church and claim its properties. The majority took possession of the funds and church property, and obtained legislation from the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which had the following objects : I St. To extinguish the Old Church. 2nd To deprive the Old Church of the " permanent endowment ' referred to, and to vest it in the new organization, "The United Church.'' 3rd. To deprive the founders who adhered to the Old Church ^ I m c;'*^ ^ of f/ie r/\''/// fo administer their (ni>n property, only nienihcrs of the United Church being eHj,'il»lc to fill vacancies on the Hoard. With specious generosity the majority allowed to those whose foith in the old connection remained unshaken, the annual allowance of ;^' I I 2 \os. ! Of 33 commuters and founders who were ah^e at the time ( 1875,) -5 preferred to join the new organization, and 8 opposed it. If later events could have be^n foreseen, it is doul)tful whether a single founder would have left the Old Church. The Synod was composed of a large number of ministers, but the Synod could not over-ride the Act of Parliament regulating the Temporalities Fund, and its members had no i)ower to affect the contract between the founders. Neither had the majority of the surviving Founders any pover to vary the contract. By the contract, the 25 founders who joined the New Church for- feited their interest in the capital and income, under the stipulations agreed to by themselves. As to the shares of the 40 men who died before 1875, leaving the contract creating the endowment as a last will and testament, interference with their wishes was wanton violation of a Sacred Trust. The minority, in the name of the Reverend Robert Dobie, instituted an action to restrain the Temporalities Board as composed by the Pro- vincial Acts, and to have the Fund put back under the Temporalities Act, 1858, which says it must be held by the corporation "in trust for the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland." After losing their case in the Canadian Courts, the minority succeeded before the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, in England, and it is to destroy the effect of their Lordships' decision, and to prevent the P'und pas!.ing into the hands of a Board rightfully composed for behoof of the Old Church that the New Church is now seeking legislation. By their Lordships' decision (which is given at length in the Appendix III.), the appellant, Mr. Dobie, obtained "substantial success.'* I St. The unconstitutional legislation was set aside. 2nd. The Act of 1858 was declared in force. 3rd. It was unnecessary to say that the fund should be administered for the benefit of the Old Church, as the Act of 1858 says so ; and it would certainly have been " inexpedient " to enjoin a Bo;ud illegally constituted to administed the fund in any way. 6 4th. The members of the new Board were declared to be " admin- istering without holding legal title," and an injunction was made against them. Now it must be clear from this that the only undecided question is, Which is thk Pkesbytkrian Church in Canada in connection WITH iHK Church of Scotland? This cjuestion could not be de- cided by their Lordships, because neither the New nor the Old Church is incorporated, and consequently neither could be parties to the Privy Council suit. Hut how can it be doubted that the ministers and mem- bers who adhere to the Old Church, which has continued its existence, though des])(nlcd of its patrimony by unconstitutional legislation, are the Old Church. It has its clergymen, its congregations, its Synods — ^in a word, its membership and organization <:omplete. That it is reduced in numerical strength is not its fault ; that it existed, is surprising. Legis- lated out of existence, its faithful adherents in adversity were subjected to contumely and insult. That it does exist, and has a large numerical following, is undoubted. It could scarcely be expected that many new clergymen would join a Church during its years of trial, while legis- lated out of existence, deprived of its endowments, church edifices, and of its University. But it has survived adversity and contumely, and its cause has triumphed in the highest Court of the Empire. Then how can it be said that the New Union Church is the " Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland." Did the latter Church absorb the other three Churches with which it united ? The " Free Churchmen " might easily answer this question. To claim the benefits of the Temporalities Fund it must show that the New Church is the Old Church, for whose benefit alone that Fund was formed. The new Ijody took a new name, was com- posed of new constituents, adopted government by General Assembly as a Supreme Ecclesiastical Court, instead of by Synod as the Old Church was governed. The Churches that united with the majority of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland to form one new Church — the ''Presbyterian Church in Canada "—were : (i) The Canada Presbyterian Church. {2'> The Church of Mie Maritime Provinces in connection with the Church of Scotland. (3) The Presbyterian Church of the Lower Provinces. i\ 1 c J * A[ 1 i X These three Churches were distinct and separate religious organi- zations, existing in different parts of the Dominion of Canada. The Old Church only existed in Ontario and Quebec. These three bodies were not identical in their standard or doctrines with the established Church of Scotland, or with its branch in Canada — the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland. The principal difference between them consisted in the views as to the power and duty of the Civil Ma^Hstrate in relation to the Church, and to mat- ters ecclesiastical and si)iritual, as set forth in the Westminster Con- tession of Faith, and as to the cjucstion of state establishments and endowments of religion. By far the largest of these three Churches, viz., the Canada Presbyterian Church, was itself a fusion of two distinct Churches, "The Presbyterian Church of Canada" and "The United Presbyterian Church." Of these "The United Presbyterian Church " never was in connection or communion with the Established Church of Scotland ; but on the contrary differed widely from it in its standard of doctrine, especially in regard to the points above mentioned, being com- posed in fact of dissenters and voluntaries in principle, " The l^resby- terian Church of Canada," on the other hand, was composed of seceders from the " Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland," who, in consequence of the secession from the Established Church of Scotland in 1843, and the formation in Scotland of the so-called " Free Kirk of Scotland," and out of sympathy with the opinions of the said " Free Kirk " quitted in 1844 the communion of the " Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland," because of that connection, and formed a new and inde- pendent organization, bearing the same name, exce[)t the words " in connection with the Church of Scotland," were omitted. This new or- ganization, "Free Church," in 1846 applied to the Covernment of Canada for a continuance of their state allowances from the Clergy Reserves, but the law officers of the Crown advised the (govern- ment of Canada in 1848 that the F>ee Church ministers, having seceded from the "Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland," had forfeited all claim to share in the state subsidy. It was precisely to prevent a recurrence of such a claim by any subsequent seceders, that in 1855 the founders of the Temporalities Fund stipulated and agreed with each other with the approval of the Synod, " That it shall be considered a fundamental principle that all -A A persons who have claims to such benefits (upon the Temporalities Fund) shall be ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in con- nection with the Church of Scotland, and that they shall cease to have any claim on, or be entitled to any share of said Commutation Fund whenever they shall cease to be ministers in connection with the said Church." The New Church is— what it is — a distinctly new Body — composed of a [)ortion of the Old Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, and of three other distinct organizations ; but it has no claim or right to be regarded as identical with the Old Church. With far greater reason might the Province of Quebec pretend to be the Dominion of Canada. Apart too from this reasoning, there remains the unanswerable fact that the rightful heir and claimant, the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scot- land is in existance. Now, how should the question, which is the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, be determined and declared ? Clearly by the Courts. Lp"' suits are now pending in which this question can and must be decided. Two of these suits were taken in October last (1881) to oust cer- tain members of the Board, which the Privy Council has since declared to be "holding and administering without legal title," These suits must prove successful to the Old Church. There is a third — a suit calling upon the illegal members of the Board to render an account of their illegal administrr. .ion. This suit must succeed. A fourth suit is an action to oust all the present members of the Board " holding and administering without legal title," and to put in their places members lawfully elected in June, 188 1, by the Old Church Synod. The 1'emporalities Act, 1858, declared to be in force by the Privy Council, requires, that the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland shall appoint the members of the Temporalities Board, and as that judgment declares: " /^ was expressly oiadcd (in that x\ct, 1858; that all members of the Board should be members of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in con- nection witli the Church oj Scotland/" In this action the Courts will have to decide whether the new men which it is sought by the minority to place upon the Board are properly qualified and elected by the proper body. — the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in con- %\ \ 9 Aii. i:i nection with the Church of Scotland. A legally elected Board does exist. This Board was elected after the Privy Council suit was insti- tuted — in anticipation of a favourable decision. But the fact of its elec- tion and existence was not founded upon by the Old Church in the suit —as its election took place later than the institution of the suit, and its existance could not affect their Lordships' decision on the issues presented. The minority have no doubt about the successful issue of this suit. Once its nominees are placed upon the Board, it would take possession of the fund and administer it, as the Privy Council says it should be administered, for., the benefit of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland. The Old Church contends : I St. That it is the Presley terian Church of Canada in connec- tion with the Church of_ Scotland, and it asks for an Act of In- corporation. 2nd. That all funds now or heretofore held in trust for the benefit of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland should be held for the benefit of said Church. 3rd. That the Courts alone should decide the question as to Church property, and that Parliament should not interfere with the rights of parties in process of determination before the Courts. 4th. That the New Church— the Presbyterian Church in Canada- is not and cannot be regarded as identical with the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland. 5th. That the Temporalities Fund isa sacred trust left in 1855 as a pei- manent endowment for the benefit of the Presbyterian Church of Can- ada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, by seventy-three founders who entered into a contract with each other upon certain fundamental and express written conditions, which neither the Synod nor the contracting parties could change, unless all the contracting parties consented ; that more than a majority of said contracting members have since died, and it would be an insult to their memories and a gross violation of the sacred trust left by them for a specific purpose— if a majority of the sur- vivors, against the express stipulations of the contract, could divert the Endo\v'ment Fund to a new body ; that the shares of the deceased Founders, and of the eight living Founders who wish to adhere to the bond must be regarded as a»sacred and inalienable bequest bestowed upon the Presbyterian Chiirch of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scof- l l N 10 land, and that by the strict terms of the fundamental conditions upon which the Fund was formed, the majority of the survivors having left the Old Church, have forfeited all claim to benefits, according to the terms of the contract they themselves agreed to. The minority does not insist upon the forfeiture clause, i)rovided the seceding commuters and others return to the Old Communion, but ihey claim the administration of the Fund in its entirity. There can be but two rights in this Fund : ( 1 ) The rights of the founders and annuitants. (2) The rights of the Church. One paragraph of the Privy Council judgment declares the rights of the founders and annuitants : "The appellant is not a mere annuitant, and his right to an annual al- lowance does not constitute his only connection with the Fund. He is likewise one of the commuters, one of the persons by whom the Fund was contributed for the purposes of the Act 22 Vict, cap. 66, and in that capacity he has a plain interest, and consequent right, to insist that the Fund shall be administered in strict accordance wicii law." The founders did not surrender the capital values of their state sub-sidies — they did not renounce .^150 a year for life, and accept instead from the Temporalities Fund ^i 12.10s, as a matter of personal investment. Their noble self-sacrifice was induced by the earnest promptings of religion to permanently endow their mother Church, and to so endow it that while provision was made for the new ministers joining it, the Fund itself should be kept intact against reductions of any kind, and sacred against the claims of disloyal and seceding members* The founders and annuitants have the "plain interest, and consequent right, to insist that this Fund shall be administered in strict accordance with law," and the plain duty of this Board is to so administer it. {2) What are the rights of the Church ? The rights of the Church cannot exceed the provisions of the Act and of the fundamental conditions made by the founders, and every line of the Act and of the contract, contemplates the application of the Trust Fund for one purpose only — the permanent endowment of the "Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scot land." The applications to Parliament involve other questions that need not be here discussed, but which will require the best consideration o f t n * m I. 11 the Legislature — the destination of the Colleges of the Church ; the rights of the Church in congregational property ; the administration of the Ministers' Widows and Orphans Fund, and other matters. The object of the members of the Presbyterian Church in Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, is, to maintain and per- petuate their Church. Its endowments are only held in trust to be transmitted to future generations as means of promoting Charity, Peace and Truth. It disclaims antipathy to any other creed or Church. It only asks for its own existence— for the patrimony transmitted to it by self-denying founders, for the aid of the Courts of Justice in preserving that patrimony, and if need be, the protection of a just Parliament over sacred and vested rights of an historic and loyal Church. m 12 APPENDIX I. THE CONTRACr OI' THE FOUNDERS OF TEMPORALITIES FUND. THE The following is a true extract from the Minutes of the pro- ceedings of the Synod of the said Church, dated eleventh January, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, containing the resolutions and instruc- tions of the Synod, and the conditions upon which the Temporalities Fund was formed :.■ — " The Synod, having heard the Report of the Committee appointed by the Synod to watch over the interests of the Church, in as far as these might be affected by the action of the Legislature on the Clergy Reserves, and, also, the verbal reports of such members of the Com- mittee as had been in communication with members of the Govern- ment on the subject, — and, having seriously and maturely considered that clause of the Clergy Reserves Act, lately passed by the Provincial Parliament at its present Session, by which his Excellency the Governor in Council is authorized, with the consent of the parties interested, ta commute the salaries or allowances of ministers chargeable for life or during their incumbencies on the Clergy Reserves Fund, for their value in money, — Resolved, " First That it is desirable that such commutation, if upon fair and liberal terms, should be effected ; and that the Rev. Alex. Mathieson, D.D., of Montreal, the Rev. John Cook, D.D., of Quebec, Hugh Allan, Esq., of Montreal, John Thompson, Esq., of Quebec, and the Hon. Thomas McKay, of Ottawa City, be the Synod's Commissioners, with full power to give the formal sanction of the Synod to such commuta- tion as they shall approve, the said Commissioners being hereby instructed to use their best exertions to obtain as liberal terms as possible ; the Rev. Dr. Cook to be Convener ; three to be a quorum ; the decision of the Majority to be final, and their formal acts valid; but that such formal sanction of the Synod shall not be given except in the case of ministers who have also individually given them, the said Com- missioners, power and authority to act for them in the matter to grant acquittance to the Government for their claims to salary to wJiich the f\ ^ JL. SO 13 faUh of the Croivn is pled<>;ed; and to join all sums so obtained into one fund, which shall be held by them till the next meeting of Synod, by which all further regulations shall be made, the following, however, to be a fundamenUxl principle, which it shall not be competent for the Synod at any time to alter, unless with the consent of the ministers granting such power and authority ; that the interest of the fund shall be devoted, in the first instance, to the payment of ^112 105. each, and that the next claim to be settled, if the fund shall admit, and as soon as it shall admit of it, to the ;^ii2 los., be that of the ministers now on the Synod's Roll, and who have been put on the Synod's Roll since the 9th May, 1853 ; and, also, that it shall be considered a funda- mental principle, that all persons who have a claim to such benefits, shall be ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, and that they shall cease to have any claim on, or be entitled to any share of said Commutation Fund whenever they shall cease to be ministers in connection with the said Church. " Second. That so soon as said commutation shall have been de- cided upon, and agreed to by the said Commissioners, the Rev. John Cook, D.D., of Quebec, shall be fully empowered and authorized, and this Synod hereby delegate to the said Rev. Dr. John Cook full power and authority to endorse and assent to the several Powers of Attorney from the individual parties on behalf of the said -Synod, and in their name, and as their Act or Deed, as evidencing their assent thereto. " Third. That all ministers be, and they are hereby enjoined and entreated (as to a measure by which, under Providence, not only their own present interests will be secured, but a permanent endow- ment for the maintenance and extension of religious ordinances in the Church) to grant such authority in the fullest manner, thankful to Almighty God that a way so easy lies open to them for conferring so important a benefit on the Church. " Fourth. That the aforesaid Commissioners be a Committee to take the necessary steps to get an Act of Incorporation for the manage- ment of the General Fund so to be obtained ; the aforesaid Commis. sioners to constitute the said Corporation till the next meeting of Synod, when four more members shall be added by the Synod. 14 APPENDIX II. PROTEST ACiAINST UNION. The following is a copy of the Protest of the minority of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, from the Synod Minutes of June 15th, 1875 '• — ■ " We, ministers and elders, members of the Synod, heartily attach- ed to the Church, hereby dsssent from the resolution of this Court to repair to the Victoria Hall for the purpose of consummating the pro- posed Union with the other Presbyterian bodies and thereby to form the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. We further protest agninst the declaration that the United Church shall be considered identical with the Presbytertan Church of Canada in con- nection with the Church of Scotland, inasmuch as this Synod has no power per saltitm, to declare other Bodies in addition to itself to be possessed of the rights, privileges ^nd benefits to which this Church is now entitled. We declare, therefore, our continued attachment to the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, and do hereby enter our protest against the empowering of the present Moderator to sign in its name the preamble and basis of Union and the resolutions connected therewith. And further, we, min- isters and elders of this Synod, holding views opposed to Union, and declare that, if consummated, we will claim and continue to be the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scot- land. " (Signed) " Robert Dobie, " WiM. Slmpson, " Robert Burnet, " Day. Watson, " J. S. Mullen, " Wm. McMillan, " Thomas McPniiusoN, " Roderick McCrimmon, " John Davidson, " John Macdonald, fll *' \ , ;ii lv. 0\ 15 . /iPPENDIX III. Ju(/(/ment of the Lonh of the Jadicial Committee of the Privy Coimcil on the appeal of the Rev. Robert Dohie, v. the Board for the maiuKjement of the Temporalities Fund of the Pres- byterian Church, of Canada in connection ivith the Charch of Scotland, et (d. from, the Cmrtof Queens Bench, delivered iJlst January, 188. J. V ?i Present : Lord Blackburn. Lord Watson. Sir Barnes PeacOv.... Sir Montague Smith. Sir Robert P. Collier. Sir Richard Cough. Sir Arthur Hobhouse. The first (juestion raised in this appeal is whether the Legislature of the Province of Quebec had power, in the year 1875, to modify or repeal the enactments of a statute passed by the Parliament of the Prov ince of Canada in the year 1858 (22 Vict., cap. 66), entituled " an Act to " incorporate the Board for the management of tl..; Temporalities Fund "of The Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of " Scotland," The fund subject to the administration of the Board constituted by the Act of 1858 consisted of a capital sum of ;!^i 27,448 5s sterling, which was paid by the Covernment of Canada under the following cir- cumstances : The ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, in connection with the Church of Scotland, were entitled by virtue of certain Imperial statutes, to an endowment or annual subsidy out of the revenues derived from colonial lands, termed clergy reserves, and irom moneys obtained by the sales of portions of these lands, supple- .Ji 16 merited, when necessary, from the exchequer of Great Britain. Jkit this connection between the Presbyterian Church and the State was at length dissolved. In 1853, an Act was i)assed by the British Parlia- ment (16 Vict., cap. 21), authorizing the Legislature of the Province of Canada to dispose of the clergy reserves, and investments arising from «ales thereof, but reserving to the clergy the annual stipends then enjoy- ed by them, and during the period of their natural lives or incumben- cies. In 1855 the Legislature of Canada, in exercise of the power thus conferred, enacted that all union between Church and Flato should cease, and that those ninisters who were admitted to office after the 9th May, T853, being the date of the Act, 16 Vict, cap. 21, should receive no alU;\vance from the Government. It was however, provided that rights of ministers entitled, at that date, to participate in the State subs- idy, should be reserved ent're, power being given to the Governor- General-in-Council to commute the annual stipend payable to each individual so entitled for the capital value of such stipend calculated at six per cent, on the probable life of the annuitant. All the ministers interested consented to accept the statutory terms of commutation, and agreed to bring the amounts severally payable to them into one common fund, to be settled for behoof of the Presby- terian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland. In accordance with the resolutions unanimously adopted by the Church in Synod, assembled on the nth January, 1855, they further agreed that the interest of the fund should be devoted, in the first instance, to the payment of an annual stipend of ;^it2 ids. to each commutor, and that the claim next in order of preference should be that of ministers then on the roll, who had been admitted since the 9th May, 1853. The arrangement thus effected was carried out by eight Commissioners duly appointed for that purpose, of whom three iwere ministers and five were laymen. They received payment of the commutation moneys to the amount already stated ; and in order to provide for the management of the fund thus obtained, the Legislature of the Provinee of Canada, upon the application of the Commissioners passed the Act, 22 Vic, Cap. 66. By the first clause of the Act in question, the Commissioners were, along with four additional members and their successors, declared to be a body politic and corporate, by the name of the " Board for the II 6 A 1 17 ^' fi d Management of the Temporalities I .nd of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland :" and the funds held by them as Commissioners were vested in the Board " in trust for the said Church," subject to the condition that the annual interest thereof should remain chargeable with the stipends and allowances payable to the parties entitled thereto, in terms of the arrangement under which the fund was contributed by the commutors. It was enacted that, at the first meeting of the Synod held after the passing of the Act, three commissioners one minister and two laymen, should re- tire from the Board, and that seven new members, consisting of four ministers and three laymen should be elected by the Synod. The Board thus reconstituted was composed of six ministers and six laymen, and it was provided that at each annual meeting of the Synod held thereafter, two ministers and two laymen were to retire by rotation, and four new merr.bers, two clerical and two lay should be elected in their stead. It was expressly enacted that all members of the Board should also be members of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scodand ; and provision was made for filling up vacancies occasioned by the death or resignation of a member, by his removal from the Province of Canada, or by his leaving the communion of the said Church. In the year 1874, serious proposals had been made for an incor- porative union between the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connec- tion with the Church of Scotland, the Canada Presbyterian Church, the Church of the Maritime Provinces in connection with the Church of Scotland, and the Presbyterian Church of the Lower Provinces. The old Parliament of the Province of Canada had by this time been abolished, and its legislative power had been distributed between the two Provincial Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec, and the new Parlia- ment of the Dominion of Canada, under the provisions of the " British North America Act, 1867." With the view of facilitating the con- templated union of the churches, an Act of the Legislature of Quebec was passed in February, 1875 (38 Vic, cap. 62), in order to remove any obstruction which might arise from the form and designation of the several trusts or acts of incorporation by which the property of the Churches was held and administered. By the nth section of that Act, it was provided that, in the event of union taking place, the members then constituting the Board for management of the Temporalities Fund, 18 under the Act of 1858, should remain in office, and pay over the revenue to the persons previously entitled to it ; that any revenue not required for that purpose should pass to and be subject to the disjjosal of the United Church ; and that any part of the fund remaining after satisfying the claim of the last survivor of those entitled should belong to the Su[)rcme Court of the United Church, and be ai)plied to the aid of weak congregations. It was by the same clause enacted that vacancies occurring in the Temporalities Fund Board should not be filled up in the manner theretofore observed, but should be filled up in the manner provided by another Act of the Quebec Legislature. This last-mentioned statute (38 Vict., cap. 64), which received the assent of the (Jovernor-General-in-Council upon the same day as the preceding, was passed with the professed object of amending the Act of theParliament of the Province of Canada, 22 Vic, cap 66. It was thereby enacted that, from the time when the union was effected, the annual al- lowances to which they were previously entitled were to be continued by the Temporalities Board to ministers and probationers then on the roll of the Presbyterian Churcli of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, and these were to be paid, so far as necessary, out of the capital of the fund, and that any surplus of revenue or capital, after satisfying these charges, should be at the disposal of the United Church. Ministers and probationers of the Church, interested in the Temporalities Fund, who might decline to become parties to the union, were however to retain all rights previously competent to them until the same lapsed or were extinguished. The constitution of the Board of Management was altered by the third and eighth clauses of the Act. The third clause is in these terms : — " As often as any vacancy in the Board for " the management of the said Temporalities Fund occurs, by death, " resignation, or otherwise, the beneficiaries entitled to the benefit of the " said fund may each nominate a person, being a minister or member *' of the said United Church, or, in the event of there being more than one vacancy, then one person for each vacancy, and the rem " anent members of the said Board shall thereupon, from among the *• persons so nominated as aforesaid, elect the person or number of per- *'sons necessary to fill such vacancy or vacancies, selecting the person or " persons who may be nominated by the largest number of beneficiaries " but, in the event of failure on the part of the beneficiaries to nominate *' as aforesaid, the remanent members of the Board shall fill up the I 19 V the " vacancy or vacancies from among the ministers or members of the said "United Church." The eighth clause enacts that the third section shall continue in force until the number of beneficiaries is reduced below fifteen, upon which occurrence the Board is to be continued by the remanent members tilling up vacancies from among the ministers or members of the United Church. By the loth section it was declared that the Act should come into force as soon as a notice was published in the Quebec Official Gazette to the effect that the union had been consummated, and that the articles of union had been signed by the Moderators of the respective Churches. On the 14th day of June, 1H75, the Synods of the four Churches met at Montreal, and in each a resolution was carried in favor of union. In the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland it was resolved, by a very large majority of its members, that the four Churches should be united, and form one Assembly, to be known as " The (leneral Assembly of the IVcsbyterian Church in Canada," and that the United Church should possess the same authorities, rights, privileges, and benefits to which the Pres- byterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland was then entitled, excepting such as had been reserved by Acts of Parliament. The minority, which consisted of the apjiellant, the Rev. Robert 13obie, and nine other members, dissented from the action of the Synod, and protested that they, and those who might choose to ad- here to them, remained and still constituted the Presbyterian ( 'hurch of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland. On the 15th June, 1875, the majority of the Synod of the Presby- terian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, and the Synods of the other uniting Churches, met in General Assembly, when the Articles of Union were signed by the Moderators of each of the four Churches, and thereupon one of the Moderators, with the consent and concurrence of the rest, declared the four Churches to be united in one Church, represented by that, its first General Assembly, to be desig. nated and known as "The General Assembly of the IVesbyterian Church in Canada." Notice of the union having been thus consummated was duly published in the Quebec Official Gazette. After publication of the notice, the constitution of the Hoard for managing the Temporalities Fund was altered, and the fund admin- istered, in conformity with the provisions of the Quebec Act, 28 Vic,, 20 cap. 6|. In Do.emlKr, iSyH, tlu- Rev. Robert Dohic, who, with the other members of the protesting minority of i.Sys, and their adherents' maintains that liiey alone represent and constitute the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, insti- tuted, by petition lo the Superior Court for Lower ('anada, the i)roceed- ings in which tlu; present appeal has been taken. i'he leading conclusions of the jjctition are to have it adjudged and declared (i) that the Legislature of (Micbec had no power to alter the constitution of the Hoard or the pinposes of the trust created by the Canadian Act, 22 Vic., cai). 06, and, consctpiently, that the administration of the trust, as car- ried on in terms of the Provincial Act of ir in lulinit into that ("luirch, as members of it, the thret' ri'lii,'icnis ixxIIcn with whom they had entered into union. ("onse(iuently tlie learned juslice, though differing in opinion from his brethern Dorion, C". J., and Monk, J., agreed with them in result. Whether the Legislature of ()uebec had |)o\ver to pass ihe Act 38 Vict., ca|). 64, is the (]uestion first refjuiring cr»nsideralion, because, if it be answered in the affirmati\e. die casi' of ihe appellant (•ntiri I\ fails. ■^riie determination of that ipiestion ap|)cars to \\ v'w l.()r(l-;]ii|)s to de- pend U[)on thi' construction of certain clauses in the British North America Act, 1867. 'I'here is no room, in the present case, for the application of those general jirinciples of constitutional law, which were di.scussed I)y some of the iudges in the courts liclow, and which were founded on in argument at the bar. Theie is reallv no practical limi. to the authority of a supreme legislature e.Mi'pt the lack of executive power to enforce its enactments. But the I,egislature of (^)uebec is not .supreme ; at all events, it can onl\ assert its su]n-emac\ within those limits whicli have been assigned to it by the Act of 18G7. The Act of the Parliament of the Province of Canr.da, 22 Vic, cap. 66, was, after the ])as;;ing of the British North America Act, 1S77, continued in force within the Provinces of Ontario and (Quebec, by virtue of Section 129 of the latter statute, wii:-.!i, inl.'r alia, enacts that, except as therein otherwise provided, all laws in force in C'anada at the time of the union thereby affected, shall continue in Ontario and Que- bec.as if the Union had not been made. Hut that enactment is (piali- fied by the provision that all su';h laws, with the exception of those enacted by the Parliaments of (ireat Britain, or of the United King- dom of Oreat Britain and Ireland, shall be subject " to be repealed, abolished, or alteretl by the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislature of the respective jjrovince, according to the authority of the Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act." The powers, conferred by this section upon the Provincial Legislature of Ontario and Quebec, to repeal and alter the statutes of the old Par- liament of the Province of Canada, are made precisely co-extensive with the powers of direct legislation with which these bodies are inve.'=ted by the other clauses of the Act of 1867. In order, therefore, to ascertain ^? 9Q how far the Provincial Legislature of ( )ucbec had power to alter and amend the Act of 1858, incorporating the Board for the management of the Temporalities I'und, it becomes necessary to revert to Sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, which enumerate and define the vaiious matters which are within the exclusive legislative autliority of tlie Parliament of Canada, as well as those in relation to which the I,egislatures of the res|iective Provinces have the exclusive right of making laws. If it could be established that, in the absence of all ])revious legislation on the subject, the Legislature of Quebec would iiave been authorized by Section 92 to ])ass an Act in terms identical with the 22 Vi<;., cap 66, then it would follow that the Act of the 22nd V^ic. has been validly amended by the 38 Vic, cap. 64. On the other hand, if the Legislature of Quebec has not derived such power of enact- ment from Section 92, the neces.sary inference is, that the legislative authority required, in terms of Section 129, tO sustain its right to repeal or alter an old law of the Parliament of the Province of Canada, is in this case awanting, and that the Act 38 Victoria., cap. 64, was not intra vires of the Legislature by which it was passed. The general scheme of the British North America Act, 1867, and, in particular, the general scope and effect of Sections 9 1 and 92, have been so fully commented upon by this Board in the recent cases of " The Citizen Insurance Company of Canada v. Parsons," and " The Queen Insurance Company v. I'arsons," that it is unnecessary to say anything further upon that subject. Their Lordships see ho reason to modifiy in any respect tlie principles of law upon which they proceeded in de- ciding these cases ; but in determining how far these principles apply to the present case, it is necessary to consider to what extent the cir cumstances of each case are identical or similar. The case of "The Citizen Insurance Company of Canada v. Par sons " conies nearest in its circumstances to the present, as in that case the appellant company was incorporated by, and derived all its statutory rights aiul privileges from, an Act of the Province of Canada, whereas "The (^ueen Insurance Company" was incorporated under the pro- visions of the British Joint Stock Companies Act, 7 and 8 Vict., cap. no. In both cases the validity of an Act of the Legislature of Ontario was impeached on the ground that its provisions were ?^//;"rt! zvm of a Provincial Legislature, and were not binding unless enacted by the Parliament of Canada. It was contended on behalf of the Citizen In- il (V 23 / k i|5 4V surance Company that the statute complained of was invalid in respec that it virtually repealed certain rights and privileges which they enjoyed by virtue of their Act of incorporation. That contention was rejected, and the decision in that case would he a precedent fatal to the conten- tion of the appellant, if the provisions of the Ontario Act, 39 Vict, cap. 31, and the Quebec Act, 38 Vict, cap. 64, were of the same or sub- stantially the same character. But upon an examination of these two statutes it becomes at once apparent that there is a marked difference in the character of thei* respective enactments. I'he Ontario .-Xct merely prescribed that certain conditions should attach to every policy, entered into or in force, for insuring property situate within the Pro- vince against the risk of fire. It dealt with all cor])orations, companies, and individuals alike who might choose to insure property in Ontario, — it did not interfere with their constitution or status^ but required that certain reasonable conditions should be held as inserted in every con- tract made by them. The Quebec Act, 38 Vict, cap. 64, on the con- trary, deals with a single statutory trust, and interferes directly with the constitution and privileges of a corporation created by an Act of the Province of Canada, and having its corporate existence and corporate rights in the Province of Ontario, as well as in the Province of Quebec. The professed object of the Act, and the effect of its provisions is, not to impose conditions on the dealings of the corporation with its funds within ''-.e Province of Q xebec, but to destroy, in the first place, the old corporation, and create a new one, and, in the second place, to alter materially the class of persons interested in the funds of the cor- poration. According to the principle established by the judgment of this -Board in the cases already referred to, the first step to be taken, with a view to test the validity of an Act of the Provincial Legislature, is to consider whether the subject matter of the Act falls within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in Sec. 92. If it does not, then the Act is of no validity. If it does, then these further (piestions may arise, viz. " whether, notwithstanding that it is so, the subject of the Act does not "also taU witniii v^..^ ./. ^\.c enumerated classes of subjects in Sec. 91, "and whether the power of the Provincial Legislature is or is not thereby "overborne." Does then the Act 38 Vict, c. 64, fiMI within any of the classes enumerated in Sec. 92, and thereby assigned to the Provincial Legis i 24 latures? Their Lordships arc of o[>inion that it does not ; and conse- quently that Its enactments are invalid, and tlint the constitution and duties of the Hoard for managing the Temporalities l*'und must still be regulated by the Act of 1H58. It was contended for the respondents that the Quebec Act of 1875 is within one or more of these three classes of subjects enumerated in Sec. 92. - "(7). Tile establishment, maintenance, and management of hosfji- tals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the Province other than marine hositals." '\ II.) The incorporation of companies with ])rovincial objects." "(13.) I'roperty and civil rights in the Province." The most plausable argument for the resjiondent was founded upon the terms of class (13), but it has failed to satisfy their Lordships that the statute impeached by the appellant is a law in relation to prop- erty and civil rights within the Province of Quebec. 'I'he Quebec Act of 1875 does not, as has already been pointed out deal directly with property or contracts affecting property, but with the civil rights of a corporation, and of individuals, present or future, for whose benefit the corporation wa., created and exists. If these rights and interests were capable of division according to their local position in Ontario and Quebec respectively, the Legislature of each Province would have power to deal with them so far as situate within the limits of its authority. If, by a single Act of the Dominion Paniament, there has been constituted two separate corporations, for the purpose of working, the one a mine within the Province of Upper Canada, and the other a mine in the Province of Lower Canada, the Legislature of Que- bec would clearly have had authority to repeal the Act so far as it is related to the latter mine and the corporation by which it was worked. The Quebec Act 38 Vict., cap. 64, does not profess to repeal and amend the Act of 1858, only in so far as its provisions may apply to or be oi)erative within the Province of Quebec, and its enanctments are apparently not framed with a view to any such limitation. The reason is obvious, and it is a reason which appears to their Lordships to be fatal to the \alidity of the Act. The corporation and the corporate trust, the matters to which its provisions relate, are in reality not divisi- ble according to the limits of Provincial authority. In every case where an Act applicable to the two Provinces of Quebec and Ontario, can now ( ii ..3Ii!i.yLiLi»ii .^' 25 { A be validly repealed by one of them, the result must be to leave the Act in lull vigor within the other Province, But, in the present case, the legislation of Quebec must necessarily affect the rights and status of the corjjoH'tion as previously existing in the Province of Ontario, as well as the rights and interests of individual corporations in that Province. In addition to that, the fund administered by the corporate lioard, under the Act of 1858, is held in perpetuity for the benefit of the ministers and members of a church having its local situation in both Provinces, and the proportion of the fund and its revenues falling to cnthtr Pro- vince is uncertain and fluctuating, so that it would be impossible for the Legislature of (Quebec to appropriate a definite share of the cor- porate funds to their own Province without trenching on the rights of the corporation in Ontario. These observations regarding Classes (13) apply with equal force to the arguments of the respondent founded on Classes (7) and (n). Even assuming that the Temporalities Fund might be correctly described as a " charity " or as an " eleemosynary institution," it is not in any sense established, maintained or managed " in or for '' the Provmce of Quebec; and if die Board, incorporated by the Act of 1858, could be held to be a "company" within the meaning of Class (in. its objects are certainly not provincial. The respondents further maintained that the Legislature of Quebec had power to pass the Act of 1875 in respect of these special circum- stances, (i)that the domicile and principal office of the Temporalities Board is in the cit) of Montreal ; and (2) that its funds also are held or invested within the Province of (Quebec. These facts are admitted on record by the appellant, but they do not affect the question of legisla- tive power. The domicrile of the corporation is merely forensic, and cannot alter its statutory constitution as a Board in and for the Provinces of U|)per Canada and Lower Canada, Neither can the accident of its funds being invested in Quebec give the Legislature of that l^rovincc authority to change the constitution of a corporation with which it would (Otherwise have no right to interfere. When funds belonging to a corporation in Ontario are so situated or invested in the Province of Quebec, the Legislature of Quebec may impose direct taxes upon them for provincial purposes, as authorized by Section 92 (2), or may impose conditions u])on the transfer or realization of such funds ; but that the (Quebec Legislature shall have power also to con" r^' 26 fiscate these fnnds, or any part of tliciii, for prcjvincial purposes, is a proposition for which no warrant is to be found in the Act of 1867, i-ast of all it was argued for the res])ondents that, assuming the in- competency of either J'rovincial Legislature, acting singly, to interfere with tl e Act of 1858, that statute might he altered or repealed by their joint and harmonious action. The argument is based upon fact, be- cause, in the year 1874, the Legislature of Ontario passed an Act (38 Vic, cajj. 75), authorizing the union of the four Churches, and contain- ing provisions in regard to the Temporalities Lund and its IJoard of management, substantially the .same with those of the Quebec Act, 38 Vic, cap. 62, already refei d to. It is difficult to understand how the maxim juncta jttvant is applicable here, seeing that the power of the Provincial Legislature to destroy a law of the old Province of Canada is measured by its capacity to reconstruct what it has destroyed. If the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec were allowed jointly to abolish the Board of 1858, which is one corporation in and for both Provinces, they could only create in its room two corporations, one of which would exist in and for Ontario, and be a foreigner in Quebec, and the other of which would be foreign in Ontario, but a domestic institution in Que- bec Then the tunds of the Ontario corporation could not be legiti- mately settled upon objects in the Province of Quebec, and as little could the funds of the Quebec corporation be devoted to Ontario, whereas the Temporalities fund falls to be applied either in the Pro- vince of Quebec or in that of Ontario, and that in such amounts or pro- portions as the needs of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connec- tion with the Church of Scotland, and of its ministers and congrega- tions, may from time to time require. The Parliament of Canada is, therefore, the only Legislature having power to modify or repeal the provisions of the Act of r858. \ On the assumption that the Legislature of Quebec had not power to alter the provisions of the Act 22 Vic, cap. 66, the respondents still maintain that the ap[)ellant cannot prevail in the present action, in re- spect that he has not sufficient interest to entitle him to sue, and that, even if he has such interest, he is barred from challenging the Act of 1 775' hy the resolutions of the majority of the Synod, which are said to be binding ujjon him. As regards the first of these objections, it is true that the appel- lant's right to an annuity from the Temporalities Fund is reserved in its I w ( nt / 4 integrity by the Act which he impugns, and his own pecuniary interests are, therefore, not affected by its provisions. Hut the appellant is not a mere annuitant, and his right to an annual allowance does not con- stitute his only connection with the fund. He is likewise one of the commutors, one of t1ie persons by whom the fund was contributed for the pui poses of the Act 22 Vict., cap 66, and in that capacity he has a pkin interest, and consequent right, to insist that the fund shall be ad- ministred in strict accordance with law. The second objection is derived from the resolutions in favor of union carried by the majority of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland on the 14th June, 1875. The Quebec Act 38 Vic, cap. 64, deals with the Temporalities Fund in conformity with these resolutions ; and it is the contention of the respondents that the appellant is bound by the resolutions, and can- not, therefore, impeach the s'^atute which gives effect to them. That is a startling proposition. If the Legislature of Quebec was incompetent to enact the statute of 1875, it is not easy to understand how the Synod could have power, either directly or indirectly, to validate that Act, or to set aside the enactments of 22 Vic, cap. 66. The respondents do not, indeed, allege that the Synod was possessed of legislative powers, but they assert that the majority, by resolving that the fund, settled under the Act 22 Vic, cap. 66, should in future be administered accord- ing to a scheme inconsistent with the provisions of that Act, bound all its menbers to acquiesce in that new course of administration, and to abstain from enforcing the statute law of the land. It may be doubted whether a court of law would sustain such an obligation, even if it were expressly undertaken ; but it is unnecessary to discuss that point, because their Lordships are of opinion that the respondents have failed to es- tablish that the appellant, as a member of the Presbyterian Church in connection with the Church of Scotland, undertook any obligation to that effect. Whether the appellant is bound, as alleged by the lesppndents, is, in this case, a (lucstion relating exclusively to civil rights, and must, therefore, be dealt with as matter of contract between him and the Synod or Church of which he was admittedly a member at the time the resolutions in favor of union were carried. In the case of a non- established Presbyterian Church, its constitution, or, in other words, the terms of the contract under which its members are associated, are ! 28 rarely embodied by a single document, and must, in i)art at least, be gathered from the pro(cc(lin,L,^s and practice of its judicatories. Every person who becomes a member of a chur-;h so constituted must be held to have ^atis^led hims; If in regard to the proceedings and practice of its courts, and to ha\e agreed to submit to the precedents whieh these establish, 'i'he respondents were, therefore, justilied in referring to the Minutes of the Synod from 1831 to 1875. ^r the i)urpose of showing the extent of the ])ower vested in majorities by the constitution of the Church. The Minutir,, which were founded upon by counsel for the respondents, afford abundant evidence to the effect that, in all matters which tile Synod was 'competent to deal with and determine, the will of the majority as expressed by their vote was l)inding upon every mem- ber of the Synod, a ])roposition which the ap[)ellant did not dispute. But they contain nothing whatever to show that, in cases where the ad- ministration of church property was regulated by statute, the Synod ever asserted its rights to set aside that legal course of administration, and to restrain dissentient members from challenging any departure from it. 'Hieir Lordships are, therefore, of o])inion that the appellant is en- titled to have it declared that, notwithstanding the ])rovisions of the (^uebee Act of 1875, the constitution of the 1-oard and the administra- tion of the Temiwralities Fund are still governed by the Canadian Act of 1858. and that the respondent Board is not duly const if 11 ted in terms of that Act ; and also to have an injunction restraining the respondents from paying away or otherwise disj)Osing of either the principal or in- come of the fund. The Api)ellant,'in his application to the Court below, asks a declara- tion to the effect that the fund in (]tiestion is held by the respondents, "in trust, for the benefit of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in con- nection with the Church of Scotland, and for the benefit of the ministers and missionaries who retain du'ir connection therewith, and who have not ceased to be ministers thereof, and for no other ])urpose whatever." It is obviously inexpedient to make any declaration of that kind. It would be a mere repetition of the language of the Act of 1858, by which the trust is regulated, and would decide nothing as between the parties to the present suit. 'I'he appellant also seeks to have it declared that six reverend gentlemen who, at and prior to the union of 1875 were members of the Presbyterian (Ihurch of Canada in connection with the Church of Scot- :k ')i 'N 4 t^ .. u 29 land, have ceased to possess tliat rliaracter, and that they have no ricjht to the benefits of the 'renijioralities l'"iind ; and he conchides for an in- junction against the respondent rorporation makintr any i)avn-icnt to them. Their I ,ordsIiii)s are of o])inion that these are matters which cannot bejcomi)0tently decided in the presentaction. Then- decision dependsiipon the answer to be •^iven to the cjuestion, which Church or aggregate of Churches is now to be considered as being or representing the Presbyterian Church of Canada in concction with the Chureh of vScotland, with'ni the meaniiJij^ of the Act 22 Vict, cap. 66? But the two churches which appear from the record to have rival claims to that position are not represented in this action; and of the six ministers whose pecuni- ary interests are assailed by the ap])ellant, he has only called one, the Reverend Dr. Cook, as a Respondent. That question bet-een the Churches must be detenniiied somehow before a constitutional Board can he elected : and, unless the Dominion Parliament intervenes, there will be ample opportunity for new and protracted litigation. It cannot be determined now, because the appellant has not asked any order from the Court in regard to the formation of the new Board, and has not made the individuals and religious bodies interested parties to this cause. Substantial success being with the api)ellant, he must have his costs as against the Respondents. But their Lordships are of opinion that neither the Respondents own costs, nor those in which they are found liable to the appellant, ought to come out of the trust fund, which they are holding and administering without legal title. The Appellant's costs must therefore be paid by the members of the Respondent Corpora- tion as individuals. Their Lordships will, accordingly, humbly advise Her Majesty that the judgements under appeal ought to be reversed, and that the cause should be remitted to the Court of Queen's Bench, Lower Can- ada, with directions to that Court to give effect to the declarations recommended by this Board, and also to issue in the Appellant's favor an injunction and decree for costs as directed by this Board. Mr, Horace Davey, Q.C., and Mr. Donald Macmaster, Q.C., were the counsel for the Appellant ; Mr. J. P. Benjamin, Q. C, and Mr. J. L. Morris, for the Respondents.