IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT 3) 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 i 
 
 "III3.2 ,„„2 2 
 2.0 
 
 m 
 
 840 
 
 IS 
 ■lui. 
 
 1.4 
 
 6" 
 
 1.8 
 
 16 
 
 ^M 
 
 .^^ 
 
 % 
 
 e. 
 
 ^;. 
 
 c^.. 
 
 c^ 
 
 !!^ 
 
 
 %> 
 
 d?;^- 
 
 .« 
 
 Photogreiphic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 ^\^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 
 i\ 
 
 '^".v% ^i.%'^- "^<^ 
 
 ^"^ 
 
K^^^HL^^ 
 
 i 
 
 ? 
 
 ^mL-' ///// ^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <m 
 
 o 
 
 .\ 
 
 <f> 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Hisiorical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1981 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographicaiiy unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilieur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6\6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont paut-Stre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 r~~; Coloured covers/ 
 bi. Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 n 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 v/ 
 
 Pagf*s discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu^es 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 D 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 
 
 P&ges detached/ 
 Pages d^tach^as 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 □ Coloured plates anci/or illustrations/ 
 Planches st/ou iili-Jtrations en couleur 
 
 I 1 Quality of print varies/ 
 
 - I Quality in^gale de I'imp'sssion 
 
 □ Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 
 Ti'jht binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted irom filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines psrjes blanches ajout6es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans lia texte, 
 mais, lorsquo cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 I I Includes supplementary mu"erial/ 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Comprend ou materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible imaye/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t^. filmSes d nouveau de faqon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6montaires: 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 "■^IH ^^1^^^ ^^^^^ M^HBi^ i^B^l^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
i 
 
 tails 
 > du 
 od'fier 
 ' une 
 mage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced t'.anks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library ot the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 pos&.ble considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit gr&ce d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaireb originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim^e sent filmis en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 o'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Id second 
 plat, seion le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 Is dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^ (meaning 'CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre imago de chaque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pout itre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 iilustrent la m£)thode. 
 
 irrata 
 to 
 
 pelure, 
 n d 
 
 □ 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
3^::^^^==is*^«to 
 
 m 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 -: OF THE :- 
 
 im mum mm shiigs^ 
 
 SECTOR AND DEAN OF CHRIST CHURCH 
 CATHEDRAL, VICTORIA. 
 
 Documents, Evidencs, Correspondence and 
 
 Judgments, 
 
 :a8 used and given in the: ; 
 
 BISKOiP'S COXJJR. T., 
 
 : and in the: 
 
 SUPREME COURT OF THE PROVINCE, 
 
 BEFORE THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICF, BEGBIE. 
 
 ! 
 
 f 
 
 PKINTED AT THE VICTORIA STANDARD OFFICE. 
 
 iS^ni^^^hrS^^^^^^iS^^ 
 
 '=^^^^=^^^'^k:^^-p. 
 

 
The ensuing pages contain the documents, evidonoo, 
 correspondence, and judgments of the trial of the Rev. 
 Edward Cridge before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and in the 
 Supreme Court of British Columbia. 
 
 The following are some of the breaches of propriety 
 and discipline alluded to in those documents and papers: 
 
 Disturbing the Congregation. 
 
 Attacking a brother Clergyman before the Congre- 
 gation. , 
 
 Public repudiation of the Bishop's censure. 
 
 Attack upon Episcopacy. 
 
 Kefusal to explain. 
 
 Ketuaal of returns to Visitation Articles of Inquiry. 
 
 Denial of the Bishop's authority at Visitation. 
 
 iJefusal to answer questions at the Visitation. 
 
 Kefusal to produce the Registers. 
 
 Declaring the Bishop to have denied the Queen's su- 
 premacy. 
 
 Declaring the Bishop a seceder from the Church of 
 England. 
 
 Denial of the Bishop's right and discretion as to preach- 
 ing in the Cathedral. 
 
 The proofs aflbrded of so presistent a violation of the 
 rules and discipline of the Church, of vows and promises of 
 obedience, must convince every intelligent and impartial 
 reader tiiat, however painful, it was the imperative duty of 
 tlie Bishop to initiate proceedings for the purpose of vindi- 
 cating the law and order of the Church. 
 
 It is satisfactory to find the proceedings in the Eccles- 
 iastical Tribunal pronounced i)i the judgment of the Supreme 
 Court to have been conducted on the principles of justice, 
 and to have resulted in a right conclusion. 
 
 The readiness of Mr. Cridge to abandon the Church of 
 England, and to express his agreement with the principles of 
 a hostile sect, is a complete justification of thu painful pro- 
 cess of law, and aftbrds a clue to his extraordinary conduct 
 under the long forbearance by which he has been treated. 
 
TRIAL 
 
 OF THE VERY REVEREND DEAN CRIDGE, 
 
 Sept. 10th, 11, 12tb, 14th aud 17th, 18T4, 
 
 COPY OF THE OPENING REMARKS AND JUDG- 
 MENT OF THE RIGHT REVEREND THE 
 LORD BISHOP OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 
 AND THE ASSESSORS' FINDING, ALSO OF 
 THE DOCUMENTS ADDUCED AT THE 
 TRIAL. 
 
 THE BISHOP'S OPENING REMAKKS. 
 
 In opening the painful proceedings of to-day, it is right to state, for the 
 information of the members of the Church of Enghind, that this Tribunal, 
 under the best legal advice, has been constituted in accordance with Iho 
 requirements of the "Clergy Discipline Act of England." (3 and 4, Vic., o, 
 80.) 
 
 That Act is not here in force and does not apply in many respects, but it 
 represents the mode of procedure in the Church at home, which we here aro 
 bound, where possible, to follow. 
 
 That Act not only authorizes tho Bishop to initiate proceedings and to 
 preside, but to appoint assessors to sit with him. 
 
 In accordance with this I have appointed gentlemen to assist and advise 
 me who have been in no way connected with the questions in dispute. 
 
 We have thrown these proceedings open to members of the Church, but 
 as ia religious questions there is always considerable feeling, we hope thero 
 will be no expression of this one way or the other, in order that a calm and 
 orderly consideration may be given, and that quietness preserved which be- 
 comes the gravity of the occasion. On the one hand for consideratioix, is tho 
 conduct, conscientious we are bovmd to believe, of a Minister of our Church, 
 who by his past services has deservedly secured many friends, and on tho 
 other hand arc the laws and discipline of the Church, How far these are iu 
 liarmony— the conduct and the laws— is the question for this Tribunal to do- 
 cide. Both sides must be patiently heard, and a conclusion arrived at with 
 impartiality, justice, and as in tho sight of God. 
 
 Let us hope from neither one side nor the other will escape a word of bit- 
 lerness, but that all things may bo done with charity. 
 
 Wc now call upon the Registrar to read the Citation aud Articles. 
 
2. 
 CITATION. ' 
 
 [n 
 
 To the Voiicmblo Eihvnrtl Ciidgo, Clerk, 
 
 Dean of Cliriir^t Church, Yiclorin, 
 GuKKTixo: 
 
 \Vo, CiCi>rp;n, by Divine porinission, llislinp vif IJiitisli Cohimhin, by 
 vii-tuo of tlie authority vested in us as your ordinary, and of ller Majesty's 
 LettcM's Patent, dated 12i.h January, IHf)!), do ]ierel)y sununon you, llm paid 
 Edwaid Crid;,'(', to appear Ijeforo us at tlio building known as the Tandora 
 Htreet 01uin;ii, on Pandora Street, in tho Citj of Victoria, on the 10th day of 
 Scpt(!niber nc.'xt, at tlie liour often o'clock in the forenoon, to answer llio several 
 articles, matters, and things alicgod, charged and propotmded against you, 
 and which are henjunto annexed; and take notice that in default of your ap- 
 pearing and answering tho several articles, matters, and things so alleged 
 against y<}U, wo shall proceed to hoar and adjudicate upon the same, your ab- 
 sence notwithstanding. 
 
 33ated at Yictoiia, the 27th day of August, 1874. 
 
 G. [L. S.] COLUMBIA. 
 JM. ^V. Tyrwhitt Drake llogistrar, 
 
 by ilobt. E. Jackson, his Attorney. 
 
 AllTICLES. 
 IN 'HIE NAME OF GOD, A^IEN. 
 
 "VVe, George, by Divine permission, IJishop of British Columbia, to you 
 the Bev. Edward CridgCj Licensed Minister of tho Cathedral (Jhurt.li of 
 Christ Church, Victoria, m tlio Pj'ovinco and Diocese of British Columbia, 
 and Dean thereof, do hereby article and interrogate you touching and con- 
 cerning divers matters and things wlicrein you have offended against the laws 
 Ecclesiastical; liave refused to acknowledge our authority; liavo neglected 
 to comply with our la, vful requests, and have obstructed us in tho perform- 
 ance of our Episcopal oflico and functions, as follows: — 
 
 1 AVo article and object to j^ou, the said Edward Cridge, that by the Ecclesi- 
 astical Laws, Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England, all Clerks 
 and Ministers in Holy Orders, holding tho Bishop's license, arc required to 
 obey the said Bisho]i in all lawful matters and things under pain of depriva- 
 tion or other Ecclesiastical punishment or censure as the exigency of the caso 
 and the law thereupon may require and authorize according to tho nature and 
 quality of their offences. 
 
 2 And we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridgo, that on tho 
 24th day of February, 185D, wo were duly consecrated to the See of Britisb 
 Columbia, and that the following, among other clauses, arc in tho Letters 
 Patent from llcr Majesty appointing ut: — 
 
 "And we do fuither by these presents ordain that it shall be competent 
 to the Bishop (meaning ourselves) from time to timo to select any suitable 
 Church already crecteil, oi" which may hereafter be erected, within the limits 
 of the said Bishoprick, or Diocese, to be used as his Cathedral Church. 
 
 "And wo further ordain and declare that the said Bishop of British Col- 
 vmvbia and his successors shall be subject and suboi'dinato to the Archbisliop 
 of Canterbury and his successors, 
 
 "And we do further will and ordain that ev'^''; Bishop of British Col- 
 umbia shall take an oath uf obedioncc to tho Archbishop of Canterbury for 
 the time being, as iiis Metropolitan, which oath shall and may be ministercdC 
 by tho said Archbishop, or hy any other person by him only appointed or 
 authorised for that purpose. 
 
 "And wo do further by those presents expressly declare that the said 
 Bishop of British Columbia, and also his successors, having been respectively 
 ty us, our heirs named and ai)pointed, and by the said Archbishop of Canltr- 
 
8. 
 
 (bin, by 
 iiji'sly'H 
 tlio Pftiil 
 Piindora 
 1 (lay of 
 ) scvcrnl 
 ifit you, 
 ,'our ap- 
 
 I llll0g(!(I 
 
 >'our ftb- 
 
 1, to you 
 luircli ol' 
 olunibiii, 
 aiul con- 
 tlio laws 
 
 ll("{,'l0CtC(l 
 
 Ijorform- 
 
 Ecolcsi- 
 
 lU Clerks 
 
 quired to 
 
 deprivR- 
 
 thc case 
 
 ituro and 
 
 at on tho 
 f British 
 Letters 
 
 ompetont 
 puitablo 
 he limits 
 li. 
 
 itish Col- 
 ch bishop 
 
 itish Col- 
 rbury for 
 linistored 
 ointed or 
 
 L tlio said 
 poctivcly 
 f Canttr- 
 
 btjry, panonically onlainod and oon«prrilod arrordin^ lo tlio form of tlio 
 United Church »»f Kni^laiid and Ireland, may pi-rlorm all tlii> tinu-tions pecu- 
 liar and appropriate to tho olllco of iii>liop, within tliu said Diooose of JJiiti.di 
 Columbia. 
 
 "And for ft declaration of tho spiritual causes and matters in which tho 
 aforesaid jurisdiction may be more especially exercised, we do by theses pres- 
 ents further declare that tho afonssaid IJishop of IJrili-h Columbia, and his 
 HUCCCKSors may exercise and enjoy full jiowcr and aullioiity by himself or 
 themselves, or by the Arcluhjacon or Archdeacons, or tlie Vicar (ieneral, or 
 other ollieer or olficers hereinaficr menlion'tMl, to give in.-titution to bcnelices, to 
 grant lieen.^os to otliciate to all Hectors, Curates^ Ministers and Chaplains of 
 all the Churches or Chapels, or other places within the said Diocc.^o wherein 
 divine service shall bo ceUibrated according to the rites and liturgy of tho 
 Church or' England, and to visit all Hectors, Curates, Ministers ai.d Cliaii- 
 lains, and all I'riests and Deacons in II(dy Orders of tho United Church of 
 Kngland and Ireland, resident within the said Diocese, as also to call before 
 him or them, or before the Arclid(-acon or Archdeacons, or tho Vicar (jieiieral, 
 or other oHicer or oilicers hereinafttir mentioned, at such conipetant days, 
 iKUirs, and places, when and so often as to him or them shall scm most meet 
 and convenient, the aforesaid liectors. Curates, Aliiiisters, Cliajdalns. I'riests, 
 and Deacons, or any of th(!m, and tb en(piire as well concerning their morals 
 or their behaviour in their said ofiioes and stations respectively, subject never- 
 theless to such right of reviev/ and apjieal as are liercinufter given and reserved. 
 "And for the bettor accomplishment of tho puriioses aforesaid wo do 
 hereby grant and declare that tln^ said IJishop of British Columbia, and his 
 successors, may found and constitute one or more; dignities in his Cathedral 
 Church, and also one or more Archdeaconries within tlu; said Diocese, and 
 may collate fit and proi)cr persons to be dignitaries of tlie Cathedral Church, 
 and one cr more lit and proper jiersons to bo the Archdeacons of tho said 
 Archdeaconi ie.-; respectively. 
 
 "Provid('d alwaj's that such dignitaries and Archdeacons rdiall cxorciso 
 such jurisdiction only as shall be committed to them by the said Bi;.-hop or his 
 successors, and tho sad Bishop and his successors may also, from time t(» 
 time, nominate and appoint iit and proper persons to bo respectively tho 
 olUcers hereiiafler mentioned; that is to say to be Vicar Geni-ral, Ollicial Prin- 
 cipal, llural Deans and Commissaries, eitlier general or si)eciai, and may also 
 appoint one or more lit and proper persons to bo llegistrars and Actuaricss. 
 
 " Provided always that the dignitaries and Archdeacons afun.-said shall 
 bo subject and subordinate to the said Bishop of British Columbia and his 
 successors, and shall be assisting to him and thorn in tho exorcise of his and 
 their jurisdiction and functions. 
 
 "And we will and declare that during a vacancy of the said Sec of 
 British Columbia, by the demise of the Bishop theieof, or otherwise, the dig- 
 nitaries and Archdeacons, and Vicar General, and other officers, respectively 
 appointed as aforesaid, shall continue to exercis(>, so far as by law they may 
 or can, tho jurisdiction and functions delegated to them, and that tho said 
 ]legistrars and Acturaries shall resi)ectively continue to dischargo the duties 
 whereunto they have been appointed, until a new liishop of the said See of 
 British Columbia shall have been nominated and consecrated, and his arrival 
 within tilt; limits of tho said Diocese shallliave boon notillod to the said parties 
 respectively. 
 
 "And wo further will and do by those presents declare and ordain 
 that it shall bo lawful for any party against A\hom any judgment, decree, or 
 sentence shall be pronounced by any of the said Archdeacons, or by tho 
 Vicar General, or other oihcer or ofHeers of tho said Bishop, or his successors, 
 to demand a re-examination and rciview of such judgment, <lecree, or sent<Mice, 
 before the Bisho)), or his successors, 'n person, who iipor. such demands made 
 shall Lake cognizance thereof and shall have full power and authority to allirm, 
 reverse, or alter the said judgment, senti'iice, »jr decree, and if any party shall 
 consider himself aggrieved by any judgment, decree or sentence, jnonounccd 
 by the stiid Bishop of British Coliimiiia, or his successors, cither in ca'^e of such 
 review, or in any cause originally instituted before tho said Bi-hop, or his 
 
4. 
 
 Bacccsrtor!", it Khftll bo Iftwful fi»r Uio tn'ul pnHy to npj>o(\l toiho Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, or his successor?, who nhftll lliially dooide and detcniiino tljo snid 
 appoAl. 
 
 •' Provided always that in any puch capo of appeal or review, notice of 
 tho Intention of the party to make such appeal, or demand cueh nn'iew, shall 
 be given to tho UiKhop, or puhordinnte judge, l)y whom the peiiU-nce appealed 
 from, or to Im; reviewed, shall have been pronounced, within flfteeii days from 
 the promulgation thereof. 
 
 " And we do further by tlicsc presents ordain that in all cases in which an 
 nppcal Hhall be made, or review deinand(;d, as ftfore^aid, a copy of the judg- 
 ment, or sentence, in such case promulgatcid or given, slotting luilh the causes 
 thereof, together with a copy of the evidence on which tho 'amo was founded, 
 shall without delay be rcctiticd and transmitted by such subordinata judge to 
 the said Bishop, or his successors, or by the said IJishop, or his successors, to 
 to the said Archbishop of Canterbury, as the case may require." 
 
 3 "VVc article and object to you, tho said Edward Cridge, that you were and 
 arc a Priest or Minister in Holy Orders of the Church of Englan<l, and that 
 on or about tho 17th day of September, 1860, you were duly and lawfully 
 licenscil by us to perform the otHces of clei-gyman in our Diocese in and for 
 the Church of Christ Church, Victoria, and that you did then and there be- 
 fore us take and subscribe the oath of Canonical obedience to us as your IMsiioj) 
 and Ordinary, tho form of which said license and oath is hereunto annexed, 
 and that you liavo been in possebsiou of the said Church of Christ Church ever 
 einco as the Minister thereof. 
 
 4 "We also article and object that you, the said Edward Cridge, were, on or 
 about the 7th day of December, 1865, collated, constituted, and ai)i»ointed by 
 U8 Dean of the Deanery of Christ Church. Victoria, and were ap])oirited uuto 
 the chair of the said Deanery of Christ Cnurch, within the Cathedral Church 
 of Christ Church, savina alw ays tlm Knisco|ml righisi f.f t.lir» .mild \Vis\m\> of 
 l^ritish Columbia, and tlmir succ essors in the said CiLthedml, mid did then and 
 there betbre us swear on the Holy Evangelists that j'ou would pay true and Can- 
 onical obedience to us and our successors. Bishop '>f British Columbia, in all 
 things lawful and honest, and did also then and there before us subsci ibc tho 
 several articles and things, copies of which are hereto annexed, and did then 
 and there receive from us a certilicate of subscriptions and letters of collation, 
 copies of which are hereto aimexed, although no freehold, benclice, property, 
 or emolument is annexed to the said office, or does tho Dean hold any such, 
 t. e. by virtue of such dignity. 
 
 5 Also we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that having 
 received from us on December 14th, 1872, a formal censure for the tlisturbanco 
 of public worship, and for the violation of the 53d Canon, you, on Wednesday, 
 tho 25th day of March now last, at a meeting called by you at the Presbyterian 
 Church, in Pandora Street, did publicly and advisedly repudiate such censure 
 jvnd admonition and set the same at naught, and justilied the acts which 
 called for the censure and admonition, and j'ou did then and there in effect 
 declare that you would act in the same way under similar circumstances, and 
 that you did publish, or cause to be published, such addrtiss on or about tho 
 28th day of March last, wherefore you have been guilty of contempt and 
 contumacy. 
 
 6 Also wo article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that you did 
 fin the said 28th day of March last, publish, or cause to be published, tho 
 following statement: — 
 
 "When any attempt is made to defame my ministry, or intrude upon 
 my office, which I have received in trust for the Church, as well as for my- 
 self, I shall not hesitate, if I believe tho interests of religion require it, to give 
 it to the light of day. 
 
 ♦•I should r have published the Bishop's judgment, had I not pre- 
 viously made my jest endeavours to convince him of what I conceived to bo 
 its true character. 
 
 »• I bring this, (tho censure), before you as an official act on the Bishop's 
 
6. 
 
 to 
 
 m. 
 
 )yteriaii 
 
 coiisuro 
 
 which 
 
 in ert'ect 
 
 ido upon 
 for my- 
 to give 
 
 pnrt, find not n=! a por^onnl mnUor, tho m'\(\ Icltnr Imvinp hoon aonl lij* hitn (o ' 
 t ») Clmrchwiirdi'n.'*, iiiid tln'n »''»i() virlimlly publi.-luid: wlmtl now Miy to you 
 tljoroton! is in norno sonso inv Icfonco. 
 
 " Tliu Iti'st a.i.-wcr I ( mi t^ive to lliis Ictti'r is to rcpcn*. in my prolcjit, nnw '< 
 before yon, all llial 1 did sny. *! .stood up, as I !)cli«;vt;d, for my ma.>.ttr aiid 
 my churcii, in dcftMU'i- of tho n\iiii>try whii'li liad hcon cntrustird to nic.' 
 
 "In facllhiTo was no otlur way of (Ktaling with tliis otU'iiMvo disconriso. 
 
 " It iH a wi'll umhTslood principlt; liiat when a nuxii's otUco, or Ins rij^ht, 
 or his trust is in <huigcr, ho is at liiuTty to utlcr a proti.st, aodonMi sliould hi', 
 in tht^ .sud<K'u uucxpcclcd cmcrfjoncy s-omcwhat i-xcci'd tlio acfuslomrd ro- 
 Btraint" of 'angiuijfo or conduct, it is pardono<l for the; urgency of tho occasion. 
 Tiunnost despotic I'opo would not forbid tliis liberty, for ho mii,'lii hu for- i 
 biddinj? a defcndi'r. 
 
 "If thi* scrmun in question hn<l heen an attack on sculimeiils held l)y tho 
 Bishop, as it was an attack on tliose lu'ld by the .Minister and liis Congrega- ' 
 tion, tlio llishop himsfjlf would hardly have failed to thank his defender, and 
 load hin» with bis best rewards," thus 'etting at nau^luour olUce, and in con- 
 travention of <M,r authority as 3'our ordinary, contrary to your ordination vow ,' 
 and oath of <'aiionici'l obeilienco. ' 
 
 7 AVhorcas, our private admonition and consuro wliicli wi' administered to 
 3'ou on the 14th of December, 1872, for tho hereinafter named otlcnces, ha.-i 
 been of nonelfeet, and has been troattfd by you with contempt 
 
 "VVo article and object to you, tlio said Edward Cridgo, thntyoudidon 
 the 5th day of December, 1872, in Christ Chun^h Cathedral, interrupt tlio ap- 
 pointed order of divine service, and instead of i)roceeding therewilh by giving 
 out tho Hymn after tho sermon, did mako* ai\ addros to the Congregation 
 from the reading desk in irritating, insulting, and (•hiding language t(i\vi".rd« a 
 brotb.er clergyman, who was i>res(!nt, attacking the sermnu wbicli liad just 
 been preached, your words being to tlui etlect that the principles it advocated 
 wer(! contrary to the law of God in the ScriplurC; contrary to the law of Eng- 
 land, and contrary to the Prayer I'.nok, causing a disturbance in tho 
 Congregation, calling forth irreverent noises of stamping of feet and clapping 
 of hands and vehement expressions, unbecoming tin; House (-f (Jod, piodue- 
 iig distress amongst the properly disposed, .ncjer the eli'ect of which .-everal 
 members of the Congregation hastily left the Churcli. 
 
 We artifile and charge you that such conduct on j'our part was an inter- 
 ruption of the due order, and an act of disturbance of public worship, und an 
 otlencc contrary to the Ecclesiastical hiws as contained in Canons It and 18 
 and other Canons, and to the general Ecclesiastical Law, as witnessed in 5 and 
 0, Edward, VI, cap. 4, sec. 1., and other statutes in that behalf. 
 
 [CANOX 14.] 
 
 All Ministers likewise shall observe tho orders, rites, and ceremonies prc- 
 Bcribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading tlie lloiy Scrijjtures 
 and saying of prayers, as in administernig of tlie Hacrainents, witlioi'< <;itlier 
 diminisliing in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, or adUtnt/ c jlktntf 
 in the matter or form thereof. 
 
 [CAXON 18,] 
 In the time of Divine Service, and of every part thereof, all due reverence is to 
 be used, for it is according to the Apostle's rule, "Let all things be dono 
 decently and according to oi-der," answerable to which decency and order wo 
 judge these our directions following, &c., &c. : None, either twin, woman or 
 thild, of what calling soever, shall be otherwise at such times busied in tlui 
 Ohurch, than in quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand, &c.: Neither 
 ^ !nill they disturb the service or sermon liy walking, or lulkmij, or any other toay, 
 nor depart out of the Church during tho time c>f service or liermon without sonuj 
 urgent or reasonable cause. 
 
 [5 AND 6, EDWARB, VI, CAT'. 4, SKC. 1.] 
 
 If any per.'on shall, by words only, quarrel, chide, or brawl in any Church 
 or Churchyard, that then it shall be lawful unto the Ore/mar// of tins place 
 .vhere tlio same ollencc shall bo done and jn'oved by two lawful witnesses, to 
 
6. 
 
 impend emry person ko ofrciidlnrr, nnd if lin Ik. a clorlc, from llio miiiislrnlion of 
 his ofTico for mi lonc^ a time as llio Pud (^nlinnry shall, l)y his discrclion, tliink 
 nioct aiK. oonvoiii(!iit acfonliii/,' to Aw. luult. 
 
 8 "Wiiercas our privato admonition and consnro, whicli wo admini.-tcrod to 
 you on the 14tli of Dooonibcr, 1872, liai-' bofii of non-otlcct, and lias boon troat- 
 ol hy you with contempt, wo aiiiclo nnd object to yo!i, Edward Cridgo, tliat 
 that you _ on the 5th day of Decoinbcr, 1872, in Clirist Cliurcli Cathodi'ai, -lid 
 nftm(!iy of imrposc impi,;^n aimI confute tbo dootrino "wliitdi bad just bo(-n de- 
 livered irt a sermon in tlie same Cluircb," l)y tbo R(!v. S. VV. Koeco, that you 
 did name the proaob.or by name and did say in effect, or in the words hero 
 quoted, that tlie pr'-ioiplos advocated in sucli sermon were contrary to tlu; law 
 of God '.n the Scripiures, contrary to the law of England, and cor.tvary lo tlio 
 Prayer Hook, causing l)y «ucb pultlic dissenting, and contradicting much of- 
 fence ar.d disquiotness unto the Bisliops, Clergy, r.nd people there assemljled, 
 all which your conduct wo articb; and object to, as biing in contravention of 
 the 53d Canon, and tbereforc a grave Ectdesiastical olfonce, and contrai-y to 
 
 the b and G Edward VI, 
 bcluUf. 
 
 c. 4. s. 1., and otlicr statutes and Canons in that 
 
 [OAKOJ^ 53.] 
 
 "If any preacher shall, in the pulpit particularly, or namely of purpose^ 
 impugn or confute any doctrine delivered hy any other preacher ii. the same Church. 
 or in any Church near adjoining, bcfor.' lie bath accpiaintcd tlio IJisbop of the 
 Diocese therewith, and received order from bim wbat to do in that case, be- 
 cause ujion such public dissenting and contradicting there may groio much 
 offence and dixquielness unto the people^ the CInncb wardens or party grieved, 
 sha'l forthwith signify the same to tlie IJisbop and not suffer the same preacher 
 any more to occupy that plarn wh\{;]\]\Q Imth once abused, except he faith fury 
 promise to forbear all such matter of eon ntion in the Church, «S:c." 
 
 9 We also article and object to you, t.ie said EiwarJ Cridgc, that you, on 
 cr aboat the 12'h di\y ot February, and 23 1 ot Marcb l^st, having received 
 from U3 as your Bishop, letters requesting you to expbiia certain statements 
 made and published >)y you in tbe uewspapi^rs cf this Province, particularly 
 on January lOih, 1874, touching coruiin Ecclesiastical matters, you havo 
 neglected and refused to render such explanations, copies of which letters are 
 hereto annexed, or referred to, by which conduct you have set at naught our 
 Episcopal olTice in the lawful exercise of enforcing obedie.ice to the laws 
 Ecclesiastic.-.l, which laws, for instance, Canons 4, 5, G, 7, 3G, 37, 51 and 
 others, require conformity in teaching with the articles, prayer book '<nd 
 ordinal, as do also the Imperial Statutes 13 RLIZ., c. 12, 1 ELIZ., c. 2, and 
 14 CAR. ii c. 4, wliich bear witness to, and coufirm the Ecclesiasiicul lawg 
 of th« Church of England, and respecting any alleged departure from 
 the aforesaid articles, prayer book and ordin!'.!, it is the da'y of the Bnbop 
 to enquire and to demand explanation " that he may determine the matter, 
 nnd take such order therein as hesliail think convenient." ('(Janon 51 '. 
 
 10 Wo ariiclo and object to you, Edwarr'. Cridge, that althou.nrh you iign ^d 
 the 36th Canon on the 17th rieptembci, 18G0, and mn lo the declaration 
 thereby required that you, on several occasions have published stdtements in 
 dlsparagemeat of the Episcopal oflice, and derogatory of the institution of 
 Episcopacy as held in the Church of Enj^land, to wit; in a c<rtaiu letter 
 dated January 9ih, 1874, and juiblislicd in tlio Victoria Standard, of January 
 10th, 18'i4, also in a certain loiter sigr.ed " Expecians," dated January 22nd, 
 1874, and published in tbo Victoria Colonist of January '2r)lh, 1S74, also in ft 
 certain letter signed *' Eccentric," dated January 27lb, 1874, and published 
 in the Victoria Standard. 
 
 The following passages contain the statements aforesaid, and the 
 remainders of the said letters res[)pclive'y, tend to verify the said charge ' . 
 also do other letters referred to in these articles. "Triere is something fascin- 
 ating to many minds in the notion of tiie Church being under one visible 
 head, and invealed wiih divine iiuihorily to rule it. It seem.s to atlurd the 
 fairest promise of unity and p^ace. It hns Ij'i'h tried and found wantivg. ft 
 has proved the friji.fitl soujcc of cilhti' discord or dcadness. And its I lUimate 
 
7. 
 
 I ration of 
 on, think 
 
 i.^tcrod to 
 con trofit- 
 idgc, Umt 
 odral, 'lid 
 L b('(-n (Ic- 
 , that you 
 t'ords here 
 to th(! law 
 ary lo tho 
 much of- 
 LsscinbUul, 
 vcntion of 
 ontmry to 
 >nri in tliat 
 
 me C!nirc/iy 
 diop of the 
 t ca.<", ])C- 
 groiv much 
 ly grieved, 
 mc preacher 
 .". faith fai'i/ 
 
 at you, on 
 Qg received 
 statements 
 articubirly 
 you have 
 ieltcrg are 
 aught our 
 the lf\w3 
 at, El and 
 book 'ind 
 c. 2, and 
 lictvl laws 
 lure from 
 tlie linhop 
 he mailer, 
 n 1. . 
 
 you iign 'd 
 eclaration 
 tements in 
 stitution of 
 ttiiu letter 
 ol January 
 uary 22nd, 
 tilso in a 
 pubLishcd 
 
 I. 
 
 and tho 
 li charge " • 
 hing faacin- 
 one visible 
 iitFurd the 
 'vantir,<). It 
 its I Uimale 
 
 (rntlcnri/ aflcr ar/rs of trial, vinij Ic Icnrned from ihc rrformallcn, and from the 
 last Ecumenical CouncU. The truditioua! traces of it, unhappily are not yet 
 blotied out, in our body nor its nieraory from the minds of those who oq 
 account of prelacy, more than any other thing, left us." Letter of January 
 Oih, 1874. 
 
 •' Tho sword always hanging over ft Pastor'p head." Vnd. •• Tho 
 shadow even of a Bislio[) strikes ono with dread." ibid. I no longer wonder 
 when I look back to the cradle of dissent, a ministry carried on under, or by 
 the side of such a power, must become a ministry of horror and aTcraion, 
 rawher tban of love. This is not irony but truth, ibid. 
 
 •'Tho institution of Bishops which, wiien carried oat according to its 
 original, is a hles'^ing in iho (Jhurcu, has on traditionary principles been 
 e^er produclive of perplexity and strife, and whal is far more deplorable, 
 destructive of charily, and tolerance, There is not a country of Christen- 
 dom which, even while I write is not aQordiog prcgnact and numerous 
 ezatnpies of this fact, 
 
 ECCENTRIC. 
 
 • The Synod, however, in order to make tho Bishop's claim effective, 
 muFt give him a footing in congregations as well as a seat on the throne. 
 The Cl3urchvv,.rden3 must bo declared to be the bishop's oflicers, to be tho 
 Bishop's spies, and the ra'aisiei who was conscious of the ecoentricty of 
 moving in another orbit, than round the Bishop, to dread their approach as 
 familiars of the inquisition." 
 
 EXPECTANS. 
 
 We article and object to you, Edward Cridge, that the 'statemeotB 
 contained in tho foregoing articles are derogatory of the institution of 
 Episcopacy, as set forth in the pr..yer book anil ordinal, tho VII Canon, 
 and in contravertion of the 3Gth Canon, which youjhave subscribed, and of 
 your ordination vow, for instance: 
 Preface to the ordinal. 
 
 '•It is evident unto all men diligently reading tho Holy Scriptures, and 
 ancient authors that from the Apostles tim s, there havo benn these orders of 
 Mir i3tre3 in Christ Chnrch, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Ac,. «fcc. And there- 
 fore to the intent that these orders ?«</// be continued and reverently esteemed.^' 
 
 Almighty God, the giver of all good gifts, who by thy divine providence 
 hath appointed divers orders in thy Church. 
 
 Eniber Week Prayer. 
 
 "So guide the minds of thy servants the Bishop and Pastors of thy flock." 
 
 ibid. 
 
 Article 2 of 3Gth Cancn. " The book of common prayer containelh in 
 it nothing contrary to God's word." etc. 
 
 " I Edward Cridge, do williflgly and ox animo subscribe to tlie threo 
 articles of the SGtb Canon, and to all things fhat are contained ia them." 
 
 , E. C 17th Sept., 1860. 
 
 11 Also, we article and object to you, tho said Edward Cridge, that having 
 received from us, on or thout the 10th day of Febiuary lust, certain visita- 
 tion artich's for you to fill up and return to us, yon have refused and neglect- 
 ed to fill up and return the same, altiiough recjuired by us so to do by letter 
 dated tho 25th of May, 1874; a copy of such visitation articles, and letters, 
 being hereto annexed. 
 
 12 Also, we article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that you did 
 nf. the time of our lawful visitation, on th-^ 3rd ol July, 1874, in our Cathed- 
 ral deny our authority, declaring that you only attended for courtesy and 
 ■peata sake, and that you h^ld the same views as those contained in a letter 
 addresssd to us by the Churchwardens of Christ Church, dated 2nd of /uly, 
 187-*, in which they state that they consider we l ^ave seceded from tho 
 Churoh of Engh.nd ; and you did further state to Ui> iliat tho rolatioi of tho 
 Bishop to yourself and of the Bishop to tho ('hurchwardsns, had entirely 
 changed duJ.ug the lust tew days, thureby iu;plviug tbut in your opiaioa we 
 
8. 
 
 ' woro DO Innpcr jour lawful Bishop, or entitlnd to your obedience in things 
 
 liiw fill Hnil lionrst, wliicli letter of tbe 2ntl of July, and aiao a statemeiit read 
 I by you. Ml y 3rd, 1874, to ug,are annexed hereto. 
 
 , 13 Also, we niticle and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that on or 
 \ about the 3rd day of July Ir.st, when we visited our Cathedral in pursuance 
 
 of a notice to yj;u and the Churchwardens, you did conlumaceously refuse to 
 i hnswer questions put to you by us tonchinp; and concerning the property of 
 
 the anid Cathedral, and other matters, and did obstruct and reader void and 
 1 of no effect our said visitation. 
 I 14 We also article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that on the 
 
 3rd day of July last, when we visited onr said Cathedrdl, and required from 
 
 ■ yon the production of the Registers of Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials, 
 s And which have always hitherio been in your custody and control, and have 
 ', nlwi.ys been produced by you on all former visitations, you did neglect and 
 ; refuse to produce the same. 
 
 I 15 Also, wo articl? and object to yon, the said Edward Cridgo, that on the 
 3rd of July, when we attended to visit our said Cathrdral, you read a paper 
 •, or protest to us with vehement emphasis and insulting tones and looks, and 
 . when we asked you to be shown the coods of the Cliurch, you said, •' Tbe 
 >; Church is open, see for yourself," and when asked by us for the CommaDicn 
 
 ■ plate, you said, " Ask those who have tbe care of it, don't ask ma." And 
 ; on further questions being put to you by us, touching and concerning the 
 
 goods and property of tbe Church, you said, " I refer you to the last par: of 
 
 ; my letter," which is the paper or protest before mentioned, and which is in 
 
 the following words: " I beg to be excused from answering questions, and 
 
 ' that what the Bishop has to say to me, he will put in writing." Aud that 
 
 you did there and then use many other improper and insulting expressions, 
 
 and did neglect to produce any of the articles asked for by us, or to answer 
 
 nny question we put to you, whereby you have contiavened the vow yoo 
 
 made at your ordination, yonr oath of canonical obedience, and have 
 
 repudiated and ignored our authority, and have refused to render us that. 
 
 obedience which is necessary for the proper management and control of the 
 
 . affairs of the Church in our Diocese, 
 
 16 All which conduct in respect of our lawful visitation as exhibited above 
 in the foregoing articles, that is to say, in 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, we article and 
 object to you as constituting ecclesiastical offences as well against our office 
 and authority as ordinary, as against Canons 42, 60, 111, 116 119, 121, 137, 
 which assume the lawfulness of Episcopal visitation and against also the 
 Imperial Statutes, 1, ELIZ., c. 2., e, XXIII. And 2 and 3 VICT. c. 65, s, IV, 
 which assert the legality of the same, and represent the common law and 
 costom of the Church of England. 
 
 17 And we also article and object to you, the said Edward Cridge^ that 
 you, the said Edward Cridge, have from time to time questioned our author. 
 i ty over you, and the Church wherein you minister, and our right to preach 
 and minister in our Cathedral, and have peisistently endeavoured to depre- 
 ciate our odice, in support 'thereof we refer to the several letters written by 
 you to us, which said letters and our replies thereto, we make part of these 
 our 'irticles against you. 
 
 18 And we also artiv,'e and object to you, the said Edward Cridge, that all 
 and singular, tiie premises were and pre true public r.nd notorious, of which 
 proof being mad? to us and our Court, we will that you, Edward Cridge, 
 be duly and canoncally punished and corrected, according to tbe exegencj 
 of the law. 
 
 LICENSE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3. 
 
 George, by Divine VPrmission, Bijhop of Columbia, to our beloved in 
 ■Christ, Edward Cridge, Greeting: We do by these presents give and grant 
 unto you in whoso fidelity, morals, learning, sound doctrine and diligence, 
 we do fully confide, our license and authority to perform the office of Min- 
 ister in Christ Church, Victoria, within our Diocese, and jurisdiction in 
 performing all ecclesiastical duties belonging to the said oiTico, acoordieif to 
 iho form prescribed in the book of common prayer, and not otherwise, you 
 
9. 
 
 baving just before tno subscribed tbo articles, taken the oaths, aod maile 
 Rod subscribed the declr.ration, and ws do by the presents authorize you to 
 receive and enjoy, all and siLgular stipend profits and advantages belonging 
 to said office. In witness, etc., fttc. 
 
 OATn REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3. 
 
 I, Eaward Cridgo, do swear that I will pay true and canoncal obedience 
 to George, lord Bishop of British Colnmbia, in all things lawful and honest. 
 
 So help me God. 
 
 DECLARATION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4. 
 Vth Dec. 1865. 
 
 I, Edward Cridge, now to bo instituted to the Deanery of Christ Church, 
 Victoria, in the Diocese of British Columbia, do declare that I will ccnfrotn 
 to the liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established, and 
 further I do willingly and ox animo subscribe to the three artisles in the 36th 
 Canon, and to all things that are contained in them. 
 Witness my hand, 
 This seventh day of December, in the year of Our Lord, 18C5. 
 
 EDWARD CRIDGE. 
 
 LETTERS OF COLLATION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4. 
 
 George, by Divine permission, Bishop of British Columbia, to our well 
 beloved in Christ, Edward Cridge, health, grace and benediction, 
 
 • We do by these presents collate, constitute and appoint you to bo Deaa 
 of the Deanery of Christ Church, Victoria, within our Diocese of British 
 Columbia, to our donation or collation in full right belonging, and we do 
 hereby confer on you the same, n.nd by these presents do canonically 
 institute you in and to the said dignity and Deanery of Christ Church, Vic- 
 toria, and do invest j'oh with all and singular, the rights, members, 
 privileges and appurtcances thereunto belonging, you having first before us 
 taken the oaths, and made and subscribec? the declaration which are in this 
 case required, and we do by these presents assign and appoint unto you the 
 place, chair and seal, of tho said Deanery of Christ Church, Victoria, witbia 
 our Cathedral Church, saving always to ourselves our Episcopal rights in 
 the said Cathedral, 
 
 In testimony whereof, we have caused our Episcopal seal to be hereunto 
 cffixed. 
 
 Dated the seventh day of December, One thousand eight hundred aid 
 eixty five, and of our consecration the seventh. 
 
 G. [L. S.J COLUMBIA. 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF SUBSCRIPTION AND OATHS REFERRED TO IN 
 
 4rn ARTICLE. 
 
 To all Christian people to whom these presents shall come or in any 
 wise concern, 
 
 George, by Divine peimission, Bishop of British Columbia, sendeth 
 greeing : 
 
 Bo it known unto you that on the day of the date hereof, Edward 
 Cridge, B. A. to be collated and instituted to the dignity and Deanery of 
 Christ Church, Victoria, within our Diocese and jurisdiction of British 
 Columbia, did before his collntlon thento persontilly appear before us and 
 subscribe to the articles in the thirty-sixth of the Ecclesiastical Canons inada 
 in the year of Our Lord, One IhouBand six hundred and three, and to all 
 things that are contained iu thcra, and did at the same time on ihe Holj 
 Evangelists, svvoar that he would bo faithful and bear true allegiance to her 
 Majesty, Quceu Victoria, and that he renounced »<.ll foreign jurisdictions, 
 power, sopcriorily pic-oaiiucncc coclesiAatical or spiritual, within her 
 
10. 
 
 Majesty's i .aim, pursuant to an Act of Parliament made and publiihcd to 
 that effect, and further tliat he had not directly or 'ndiiectijr obtained or 
 procnrcd Ihb said dignity or Deanery by any simoniacal payment or con'.'act 
 whatsoever. And that ho would pay true and cunonical obedience to us and 
 our successors. Bishop of Hritish Columbia, in all things lawful and honest. 
 In testim-^ny whereof, we have caused our seal to be hereunto affixed, 
 ')ated iiio seventh day of December, in the year of our Lord, One 
 thousand eight hundred and sixty-live, and of our consecration the seventh. 
 
 Q. [L. S.] COLUMBIA. 
 
 LETTERS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 9. 
 
 [I2th February, 1874, letter from the Bishop to the Dean.] 
 
 Bisuop's Close, iMarch 23rd, 1874. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge, 
 
 It is nearly six weeks since I required from yos an explanation respect- 
 ing certain statements opposed to the principles of the Church of England, 
 published by you in the local papers. In u note dated Fbbruary 14th, you 
 excused yourself from replying at once, formally, on accoui.t of press of 
 work at that time. I must now require an immediate attention to my 
 letter. I am, faithfully yours, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 LETTER REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 11. 
 
 Bishop's Close, May 25th, 1874. 
 My dear sir, 
 
 1 have not received your return to the articles of enqu'ry for 1873, sent 
 you in February last. I must request your replies without delay. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 Very Rev. Dean Cridge. 
 
 LETTERS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 12. 
 
 Victoria, B, C, July 2nd. 1874. 
 My Lord Bishop, 
 
 I bare conferred with Mr. Williams, the other Churchwarden, and 
 pending the result of a memorial to his Excellency, the Governor-General of 
 Canada, a copy of which we forward to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 We, the Churchwardens, most respectfully decline to receive the visit 
 of your Lordship. 
 
 In the address headed " Diocesan Synod," and signed *• G. Columbia," 
 tlie authorship of which you do not deny, but our right to interrogate yoa 
 upon which, you, through Mr. Drake, question, you nppoar to us to have 
 seceded from the Church of England. If you have done so, you cease to be a 
 Bishop of the Church of England, to which we, the Churchwardera of Christ 
 Church, -belong; if you have not seceded from the Church of England in 
 convening a Court of Convocation and Holy ISynod, without the assent of 
 the Queen, you have assumed a greater power than that possi s?cd by tho 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, and we think, havn encroached upon the prerog- 
 ative of the Crown, to which ia, we believe, a misdemeanour. 
 
 I had been Churchwarden of Christ Church, several years before your 
 arrival in Vancouver Island, and after nearly ten years service in that 
 capacity, resigned my office, principally for the following reasons: When 
 you said you would stop up the Roman Catholic approach to the cemetery, I 
 expostulated with you without eiT'ect. You persisted, and the consequence 
 was an action at law, in which you were defeated, and the costs of which, 
 some $600 or $800, I believe, you, as trustee of the Church Reserve, 
 charged against Mr. Cridgo's lucome from that source. 
 
11. 
 
 nbliihcd to 
 ibtiiined or 
 or con*:act 
 e to us and 
 ind honest. 
 affizod. 
 Lord, One 
 he seventh. 
 [MBIA. 
 
 1874. 
 
 ion reBpccl- 
 )f England, 
 ry 14tb, you 
 of press of 
 ition to my 
 
 UMBIA. 
 
 1874. 
 
 or 1873, sent 
 
 r, 
 
 UMBIA. 
 
 id. 1874. 
 
 warden, and 
 )r-General of 
 
 rbury. 
 
 ivo the visit 
 
 Columbia," 
 errogftte yoa 
 U3 to have 
 cease to be a 
 erg of Chr'st 
 
 lOnfrland in 
 
 he a!!sent of 
 s=cd by tho 
 
 the prerog- 
 
 s before your 
 vice in that 
 sons: When 
 e cemetery, I 
 consequence 
 its of whicli, 
 reh Reserve, 
 
 When you slated to Mr. Sheppord and myself, as Chnrchwnrdens, that 
 it was your intention to remove the Church to the plot of ground fenced off 
 lor that purpose, and adjoining your Lordship's palace. (?) I strongly 
 objected, notwithstanding a road running through tbe edifice, was placed 
 upon tho official map of the Church reserve, and I believe it still remains 
 there. I would gladly have coniini>ed to avail myself of tho C'?8«ation from 
 from care and anxiety which 1 have enjoyed since my resignation of the 
 office of Churchwarden, now some eight or nine years, but recent events in 
 the Church, call every friend of hers to the assistance and support of one of 
 her most devoted and excellent ministers, our much esteemed, our long and 
 greatly respected Pastor, Mr, Cridge. 
 
 In conclusion, supposing your visitation to bo in the nature of aa 
 Ecclesiasiical Court, if not under liceuse from tho Queen as head of tho Htato 
 to which in your tSynodical address you say you owe no allegiance permit us 
 the Churchwardens, to ask under what authority do you hold a Court of 
 Viditalioo. 
 
 I remain, my Lord Bishop, 
 
 Your very obedient sevant, 
 
 A. F. PEilBERTON. 
 
 For the Churchwardens of Christ Church. 
 
 LETTER OF 3rd JULY REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 12. 
 
 To the Right Reverend Bishop Hills, D. D, 
 
 I, the undersigned, though concurring in opinion with the Churchwar- 
 dens as to the illegality of your proceedings in suudry maltors, affecting the 
 Church under the name of a Bishop of tbe Church of Enj^Jand, do ncverihe- 
 less, for peace and courtesy sake, and not through any diversity ot opinion 
 with them, open the Church on tho present occasion. 
 
 At the same time, I hereby make my respectful and solemn protest as 
 against former acts of your pdministration so against these, viz., Grstyour 
 endeavoring in what I believe to be an illegal manner to draw myself and 
 congregation against our will, away from the protection of the law, under 
 which we at preoent stand, io como under a law other than that of tho 
 Church of England. Thereby introducing discord and division into a 
 hitherto peacelul congregration, and causing grief and great hindrance to 
 myself, both in the discbarge of ray ministry, and iiuthe enjoyment of my , 
 legal rights. And secondly, in this, that notwithstauding my repeated ' 
 remonstrances, you have p_eracverod in preaching to my c on gregation in con - 
 nection with t^ie 8yn(jdic.:il tt^ff vnrnont., dao.trinns whjcll you know to be 
 < ; iffon.qiva to me, as being in the consoipntious persuasion ot my own m-nd • 
 contrary to tho Scripture and the Churcli, a oour.-o tendint? only liuit I liavo 
 felt it my duty to re,«ist the tonptation to provoke polemical strife. And I 
 also declare tn.ut ■■vhat I pay and do in coiiiicclion witli the present occa.-ion is 
 said or done without prejudice to my own rights or inivil(;ge.*, wliich by or un- 
 der the la iv I possess, as also to those of tho Churchwardens as appertaining ^ 
 to them by virtue of their office. 
 
 E. CRIDGE, 
 Victoria, B. C, 3d July, 1874. Incumbent of Christ Church. 
 
 I am also coiistrained to add that in tho absence of tho Churchwardens, , 
 and of any other friend, witness or adviser, not bomg able, through wearines.'., 
 to obtain one in time for tho present occasion, I beg to be excused from 
 answering questions, and that wliat tho Bishop has to say to me ho will put in . 
 writing. E. C. 
 
 LETTERS EEFEIIRED TO IN ARTICLE 17. 
 
 July 28th, 1873.— Letter from the Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 
 •' " from the Very Rev. E, Cridge to tho Bishop. 
 
 July 20tb, «« " Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 
 Aug. 18th, " «' Very Rev. E. Cridge to tlio Uishop. 
 
 " 27th, " «« Bishop to tjie Vcryjiev. E. Cridge. 
 
12 
 
 lliii 
 
 Very JI2V. E. Cridgo to the Bishop. 
 IJishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridgo, 
 Very Rev, E. Cridgo to the Biyhop. 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 Very Rev. E. Cridgo to the Bishop. 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E, Cridge. 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 And all other letters which have been written and scut by the said Edward 
 Cridge to the Bishop, and in support of all the Articles the following letters 
 will be referred to: 
 
 Dec. 7lh, 18'72. — Lottor from the Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge, 
 Very Rev. E Cridge to the Bishop. 
 
 Sept. 3d, 
 
 i( 
 
 11 
 
 " 8th, 
 
 (1 
 
 II 
 
 «• 17th, 
 
 it 
 
 II 
 
 «« 22d, 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 Oct. 14th, 
 
 (t 
 
 II 
 
 *• 18th, 
 
 ti 
 
 II 
 
 •« 27th, 
 
 CI 
 
 II 
 
 Nov. let. 
 
 li 
 
 II 
 
 «« 25tb, 
 
 (1 
 
 II 
 
 Dec. 1st, 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 •« 16th, 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 " 26th, 
 
 it 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 (I 
 11 
 <l 
 
 July 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 Aug 
 
 II 
 II 
 II 
 i( 
 11 
 II 
 
 9tb, 
 
 10th, 
 
 13tb, 
 
 Utb, 
 II 
 
 28th, 1873 
 II 11 
 
 29th, •< 
 18th, " 
 27th, 
 Sept. 3d, 
 • « 4ih 
 •« 8th, 
 «« 22d, 
 Oct. 14th, 
 «« 18th, 
 11 27th, 
 Nov. 1st, 
 ♦« 25th, 
 Dec. Ist, 
 •» 16th, 
 26th, 
 9th, 1874 
 22d, 
 23d, 
 
 (I 
 
 Jan. 
 ti 
 
 II 
 It 
 II 
 11 
 II 
 II 
 II 
 II 
 It 
 It 
 II 
 II 
 It 
 
 It 
 
 u 
 
 i( 
 
 26th, 
 
 << 
 
 27tb, 
 
 l( 
 
 29th, 
 
 (I 
 
 29th, 
 
 Feb. 
 
 12tb, 
 
 Mar. 
 
 23d, 
 
 May 
 
 25tb, 
 
 Julj 
 
 2d, 
 
 II 
 
 3d, 
 
 {( 
 (( 
 l( 
 (i 
 a 
 
 i( 
 
 II 
 
 u 
 11 
 
 li 
 
 It 
 
 It 
 
 II 
 
 It 
 
 11 
 
 It 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 It 
 
 II 
 
 It 
 
 It 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 11 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 It 
 II 
 It 
 II 
 It 
 tt 
 tt 
 tt 
 tt 
 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 II 
 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 II II 
 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 II II 
 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 
 Bishop to the Vnry Rev. E. Cridge. 
 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bisbop. 
 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridgo. 
 
 Very Rev. E, Cridgo to the Bishop. 
 
 Bishop to the Very Rev. E. Cridge. 
 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 
 " Expectans" to Editor of Colonist. 
 
 " One of the Eccentric" to the Editor of 
 
 Standard. 
 
 "Ignoramus" to the Ed, of Standard. 
 
 "Eccentric" " " 
 
 "fl. K. W," " " 
 
 "One of the Simple" " 
 
 Bishop to the Very Rpv. E. Cridge. 
 (I II 
 
 ft tt 
 
 A. F. Pemberton to the Bishop. 
 Very Rev. E. Cridge to the Bishop. 
 
 [2.] 
 
 THE CITATION AND ARTICLES DELIVERED TO THE REV. 
 
 E. CRIDGE, ON 28tii JULY, 1874. 
 
 These Articles arc embodied in the Articles delivered to the Rev, E, 
 Cridge, on the 27th August, 1874. 
 
.13. 
 
 isliop. 
 
 ridge. 
 
 iahop. 
 
 Iridge. 
 
 iisbop. 
 
 !ridge. 
 
 ishop« 
 
 'ridge. 
 
 >ishop. 
 
 Jridge. 
 
 tisbop. 
 
 Jridge. 
 
 id Edward 
 
 Dg letters 
 
 ridge, 
 isbop. 
 ridge, 
 isbop. 
 
 ridge. 
 
 ishop. 
 bridge, 
 (ishop. 
 bridge, 
 Hsbop. 
 
 >idge. 
 
 [3] 
 
 Victoria, V. I., Sipt. 7lb, 1871. 
 
 ishop. 
 ;ridge. 
 
 ishop. 
 
 ridge. 
 
 isbop. 
 bridge. 
 
 ishop, 
 Jridge. 
 
 isbop. 
 
 loaist. 
 
 e Editor of 
 
 Standard. 
 
 a 
 
 (( 
 'ridge. 
 
 (isbop. 
 
 HE REV. 
 
 Iho Rev. K. 
 
 The Very Reverend Dean Cridgi*, 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 I have the honor *o inform yoa that at tbo hearing on the lOtb inst., at 
 Pandora Street Church, of the clitirged set forth against you in the Articles 
 dated on or about the a7th day of Aujiust last, it will bo contanded that the 
 articles and the proof thereof ulTord sutlicieut ground to justify the revocation 
 of your license to preach and ollici.ite as set forth in the said articles and 
 otherwise, and the suspension of you, the said E. Cridge and other, the 
 censures of the Cliurch. 
 
 I am, yours tailblully, M. W. T. Drake, Registar, 
 
 by Robert E. Jackson, his Attorney, 
 
 HEADS OF PROTEST. 
 
 Soptombor lOtb, 1874. 
 
 Tho Doan protected that ho appeared before the Bishop ns Bishoi), and 
 so far as ho is lawfully Bisiiop, and as dudge of an Ecclesiastical Court, that 
 is a Court of lega'. or conipolent jurisdicliun; i.either tho Li'tters Patent, nor 
 the consensual compact supposed to exist between the Dean and the Bishop, 
 through tho oath of canonical obedience, being clfectual of thcuiselves tocrcato 
 such jurisdiei ion. 
 
 Tho Dean protested fui-ther against the jurisdiction of this court, on tho 
 ground that it may hereaft(!r ]m deciilcd Unit the contract reft-rred U) is dis- 
 solved by reason of the Bishop having seceded from tlie Church of England, 
 and referred ti) published address on Diocesan Synod by the Bishoii, tlated 
 February 25tl', IH74: "Though a vol unta.y body, etc.;" and last resolution 
 in same; Avhcreby tho supremacy of the (^ueen is virtually impugned. 
 
 The Dean protested on the ground that the Bishop was an interested 
 party, having, as it would appi>ar by the trust deed, the next preferment; this 
 being contrary to the Cburcii Discipline Act. That the Dean is not a mem- 
 ber of a church disconnected with tho State, but of one of which tlie (^ueen is 
 Head, byth in Church and State; aiul it jnay be found that tlie Bishop, 
 through the above Act, is not the Bishop to wliom tho Dean promised canon- 
 ical obedience. 
 
 The above are the heads of protests as delivered by mo, Sei)t. J/^+h, 1874. 
 
 E. CRJDGE. 
 
 [5.] Soptombor nth, 1874. 
 
 My Lord Bishop and Gentlemen Assessors: 
 
 I have an application to make to the Court, it is that you will permit mo 
 to read a statement by way of protest, 
 
 I obji^ct to the fornnition of this Court and deny its competency to sit in 
 judgment upon me, on tlu^ following grounds: 
 
 1. — Tho Bishop, who is promoter of this prosecution, in his letter of 
 tho 14th July, 1874, accuses me of havnig committed one olfence, namely, 
 that wliich occurred us asserted at his visitation on the 3d July last, and 
 threatened to initiate proceedings again*t me if I did not acknowledge my 
 fault. Not being conscious of having committed any olfence, I made no re- 
 l)ly. Hence the proceedings now instituted, amounting to eighteen articles 
 for alleged alienees committed during a period of nearly two years. I consider 
 this action on the part of the Bishop oi>i»r(>ssivo. 
 
 2. — There is an anomaly and inconsistency running through P"- whole of 
 t^is prosecution, namely, that there is apparently one law for the Bishop and 
 another for the Rector. As an example take tho 30th Canon, wliich has 
 been extracted from the code of laws and made part of the articles against me. 
 The Canon consists of three subdivisions. 
 
 1. — The oath of Supremacy of the Queen as Head of tho Church in all 
 Her Dominions. 
 
N!! 
 
 14. 
 
 2. — Tliat the Book of Common Pmycr nntl Onloring of Bibhops, Priests 
 and L)eacon.s, conUiinH noUiing contrary lo tho word of God. 
 
 3. — That tho ;jy Articles of llolij,'ion arc agrwablo to tho word of Gad. 
 
 Both tho Bi-lioj) and I have taken this oatli at Ordination. Yet tho 
 Bishop has impugned tho Supremacy of tho Queen in his puhlislied address 
 on tlie Synod, and in ]m letter to tho Churchwardens, wherein ho assorts that 
 it ia lawful for hini to summon a Synod without tho consent of llor Majesty, 
 thus claiming a power superior to that of tho Archbishop of Canterbury, to 
 wliom ho has sworn Canonical obedience. 
 
 Here is a double example of imperium in imperiOj viz.; Tho Bishop's de- 
 nial Oi tho Supremacy of the Queen, and setting at naught his oath of obedience 
 to tho Archbishopj under whose authority he is supposed to act. 
 
 Tho Bishop m his opening address stated that the proceedings in this 
 Court would bo in conformity to the English Church Discipline Act, 3 and 4 
 Vict. That act requires that one of tho Assessors shall bo learned in law, and 
 I object to the formation of tho Court in this respect. I object to Mr. 
 O'Keilly as a legal ./Vssessor for tho following reason: 
 
 When Mr. O'lieilly camo to this Colony, ho applied to Mr. Pemberton 
 for instruction as to his duty as a Magistrate, presenting a letter of introduc- 
 tion from the then Ct)lonial Secretary, Mr. Youngj and I am informed and 
 believe that Mr. O'lieilly was engaged in tho Excise Department in Ireland 
 before ho camo to Vancouver Island. 
 
 I applied yesterday for time to consider Iho legal points raised by Mr. 
 McCrcight, and was told by the Court that owing to other duties devolving 
 upon the members who compose this Court, as Assessors, it wa^ impossible to 
 grant my request. 
 
 I am thus deprived of opportunity to defend myself effectively. 
 
 On these grounds, and others which I laid before the Court yesterday, I 
 object and ' •otcst against being tried before this Tribunal. 
 
 E. CRIDGE. 
 
 [0.] 
 
 Date, January 12Ui, 1859. 
 
 VICTORIA by tho Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great 
 Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of tho Faith: 
 
 To all to whom thoso presents shall come, Greeting: 
 
 Whereas, the doctrine and discipline of the United Church of England 
 and Ireland are professed and observed by many of our loving subjects, resi- 
 dent within our Colonies or Territories of British Columbia and Vancouver 
 Island, respectively, as each of the same is at present established, and wherca* 
 our said subjects are deprived of some of the offices prescribed by tho 
 Liturgy and Usage of the Church aforesaid, by reason that_ there is not a 
 Bishop residing or exercising jurisdiction and canonical functions within tho 
 
 Bame. . i -, ^ 
 
 And whereas for remedy of tho aforesaid inconveniences we havo deter- 
 mined to erect our said Colonies or Territories of British Columbia and 
 Vancouver Island into a Bishop's See or Diocese, to bo styled "Tho Bishop- 
 ric of British Columbia." Now knywye thatin pursuance of sucli our Royal 
 intention, we, by these, our Letters Patent, under tho Great Seal of Our 
 United Kingdom of Greet Britain and Ireland, do erect, found, make, ordain 
 and constitute our said Colony or Territory of British Columbia, as at present 
 established, and our said Colony or Territory of Vancouver Island, as at pres- 
 ent established, into a Bishop's See or Diocese, and do declare and ordain 
 that the same shall be styled "Tho Bishopric of British Columbia," saying 
 nevertheless unto us, our heirs, and successors, the power of altering from time 
 to time, with tho consent of the A rchbishop of Canterbury, for the time being, 
 if the said Seo be vacant, or otherwise, of tho Biphop of the said Sec for the 
 time being, tho limits of the said Diocese, or of tho jurisdiction of tho Bishop 
 thereof. 
 
 Ill- 
 
15. 
 
 >3, Priests 
 
 of God. 
 
 Yet tho 
 ;(1 address 
 ,sscrt9 thfit 
 r Majesty, 
 Lcrbury, to 
 
 ishop's de- 
 f obedicnco 
 
 ings in this 
 ct, 3 and 4 
 in law, and. 
 )ject to Mr. 
 
 Fcmbcrton 
 jf introduc- 
 formod and 
 t in Ireland 
 
 ,ised by Mr. 
 38 devolving 
 mpossiblo to 
 
 yesterday, 
 XIDGE. 
 
 ,h, 1859. 
 om of Great 
 
 of England 
 mbjccts, rcsi- 
 (l Vancouver 
 
 and wherea* 
 ■ibcd by tbo 
 Ihero is not a 
 Ins within tho 
 
 Ire have detcr- 
 (oUimbia and 
 I The Birihop- 
 Ich our Koyal 
 [ Seal of Our 
 [make, ordain 
 Ij as at present 
 Ll, as at prss- 
 Ire and ordain 
 jibia," saving 
 [ng from time 
 lo time being, 
 [id Sec for the 
 1 of the Bishop 
 
 And to tho end that this our intention may ho carried into duo oflecl. wo, 
 having great conddeiKO in tin; learning morals and i>n)l)ity of our well be- 
 loved George llilis, Doctor of JJivinHy, do name and appoint hini to bo 
 ordained and consecratod Bishop of the said So»» of British Columbia. 
 
 And we do hereby signify to the Most Kevorened Father in God, John 
 Bird, by Divine Providence Lord Arohbisl op of Canterbury, Primate of all 
 England and Metropolitan, the erection and constitution of the said See and 
 Diocese, and our nomination of the said George Ililis, recpiiring and by tho 
 faith and love whereby he is bound imto us, conunanding the said jVIost 
 Reverend Father in God to ordain and consecrate tho said Gcorg*; Hills to bo 
 Bishop of the said See and Diocese in manner accustomed, and diligently 
 to do and perform all other things appertaining to his otiicc in this behalf 
 •with elfoct. 
 
 And wo do ordain and declare that the said George Hills, so by us nominated 
 and appointed, after having been ordained and consecrated thoreui\to as afore- 
 said, may, by virtue of such appointment and consecration, enter into and 
 possess tho said Bishop's See as Bishop thereof, without lot or impediment 
 from us, our heirs and successors, for tho term Oi. his .wral life, subject 
 nevertheless to the right of resignation, hereinafter more particularly expressed. 
 
 Moreover, we will and grant by these presents, that the eaid Bishop of 
 British Columbia, shall be a body corporate, and so ordain, make and cod« 
 stitate biiB to be a perpetual corporation, and to have perpetual successioa 
 and that be and his successors be for ivor hereafter called or known by tha 
 name or title of the '*Lord Bishop of British Columbia." And that he and 
 his successors by the name and title aforesaid, shall bo able and capable ia 
 the law and have full power to purchasi-, have, take, hold and enjoy, manors, 
 messuages, lauds, rents, tenaments, annuinities, and hereditaments, of what 
 naturw or kind soever in fee or inperpetuily, or for a term of life or years, and 
 also all manner of goods, chattels and things personal whutsoever, of what 
 nature or value soever. And that ho and his successors, by and uuder tha 
 said name or title, may prosecute, claim, plead, and be impleaded, defend, 
 and be defended, answer, and be answered, in all manner of courts of us, our 
 heirs and successors, and elsewhere in, and upon all, and singular causes, 
 actions, suits, writs and demands, real and personal, and mixed, as well 
 spiritual as temporal, and in all other things, causes and matters whatsoever, 
 and that the said Bishop of British Columbia, and his successors, shall, and 
 may forever hereafter, have and use a corporate seal, and tho said seal from 
 time to time, at his and their will and pleasure, break, change, alter or maka 
 anew, as he or they shall deem expedient. 
 
 And, we do further by theso presents ordaia, that it shall be competent 
 to the Bishop from time to time, to select any suitable church already erect- 
 ed or which may hereafter be erected within the limits of the said Bisopric 
 or Diocese to be used as his Cathedral Church. 
 
 And we further ordain and declare, that the said Bishop of Briti?h 
 Columbia, and his successors, shall bo subject and suborinate to the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury and his succ«ssor3. 
 
 And we do further will and ordain, that every Bishop of British Colum- 
 bia shall take an oath of obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for tho 
 time being, as his Metropolitan, which oath shall and may be ministere dby 
 the said Archbishop or by any other person by him duly appointed or authoriz- 
 ed for that purpose. 
 
 And we do further by these presents, expressly declare that the said 
 Bishop of British Columbia, and also his successors, having been respectively 
 by us, our heirs, named and appointed, and by the said Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, canonically ordained and consecrated, according to the form of 
 the united Church of England and Ireland, may perform all the functions 
 peculiar and appropriate to the otSce of B.shop, within the said Diocese of 
 British Columbia. 
 
 And, for a declaration of the spiritual causes and matters, in which the 
 aforesaid jurisdiction may be more specially exercised, we do by these 
 presents, further declare that the aforesaid Bishop of British Columbia and 
 his Buccessors, may exerciao and enjoy full power aud authority by himeclf, 
 
Vk 
 
 I 
 
 
 or llicmsclves, or by llic Arrlidoficon, or ArclulcncoriB, or the Vicar-general 
 or other odicer, or ofliccrs, horcinnfipr mentioned, to give inatitution to 
 bencficfS, lo (irint licenses to olliciiti', to nil Uectors, Curates, iMinistera, and 
 Ohiiplaina, of nil tlie chnrcheH or clmpels, or otiier places within the said 
 Dioceae wherein Divine .Service aliall be cclebnited accordinp lo the rites 
 And liturfty of the Chnrch of Knglnnd, and to visit all liectora, CurateSi 
 Ministers and Clinplnin?, and nil I'ries's and Pcacons in Holy Orders of the 
 Dnitcd Church of Kiiglitnd and Ireland, rcHidenl within said Diocese, as also 
 to cull before him or them, or before the Arilnl-acou or Archdencona, or the 
 Vicar-penerrtl, or other odicer orodicers bereiatiftfr mentioned, at such com- 
 petent days, hours and placen, when, id so often as to him, or them, ahull 
 Beem meet and convenient, the aforcgnid Hectors, Curates, Ministers, Chap- 
 lains, Priests and Deacon?, or any of them and to enquire as well concerninif 
 their morals as their behaviour in the*r sfiid oRioea and staiions respectively 
 Bubject nevertheless to such right of review and appeal as are herciDufter 
 given and reserved. 
 
 And for the better accomplishment of the purposes aforesaid, wo do 
 hereby grant and declare that the said Mishop of Hriiisli Columbia and hia 
 successors mny found and constitute one or more dignities in bis Cathedral 
 Church, and also one or more Arclideaconries within the said Uioceso, and 
 may collate fit and proper persons to be dignitaries of the Cathedral Church 
 and one or more lit and proper persons to be the Archdeacons of the iaid 
 Archdeaconries respectively, provided always, that such dignitaries and 
 archdeacons shall exercise such jusisdiclion only as shall be coutoiilted to 
 them by the said Bishop or his successors. And the said liishop and his 
 successors, may also from lime lo time uomiuale and appoint Jit and proper 
 persons, to be respectively the odicera hereiiialter mentioned, that is to say, 
 to be Vicar-tJencnil, (>friciil I'lincipal, Uuml Deans, uud Commissaries, 
 either general or special, and may also appoint one or more ill and proper 
 persona to be Registrars and Actuaries. 
 
 Provided always, that the Dignitaries and Archdeacons aforesaid, shall 
 be subject and subordinate to the said Bishop of British Columbia, and his 
 successors, and shall be assisting to him and them in the exercise of his and 
 their jurisdiction and functions. 
 
 And we will and declare, that during a vacancy of the said See of 
 British Columbia, tjy the demise of the Bishop thereof or otherwise tho 
 Dignita' ''^s, and Archdeacons, and Vicar General, and other odicers respect- 
 ively, appointed as aforesaid, shall continue to exercise so tar as by law, 
 they may or can, the jurisdiction and functions, delegated to them, and that 
 the said Registrars and Actuaries, shall respectively continue to discharge 
 the duties whereunto they have been appointed, until a new Bishop of the 
 said See cf British Columbia shall have been nominated and consecrated, 
 and tiis r.rriral within the limits of the said Diocese shall have been notified 
 to the said parties respectively. 
 
 And we further will, and do by these presents declare and ordain, that 
 it shall be lawful for any party, against whom any judgement, decree or 
 sentence, shall be pronounced by any of the said Arclideacons, or by the 
 Vicar-General, or other odicer or odicers, of the said liishop or his successors 
 to demand a reexamination and review of such Judgement, dt-creo or sentence, 
 before the ITishopor his successors in peson, who, upon such demand made, 
 shall take cognizance thereof, and shall have full power and authority to 
 afBrm, reverse, or alter, the said judgement, sentence, or decree. And if 
 any party shall con.^ider himself aggrieved by any judgment, decree, or sen- 
 tence, pronounced by the said Bishop of British Columbia or his successora 
 either in -jase of such review or in any cause originally instituted before the 
 said Bishop cr his successors, it shall be lawful for the said party to appeal 
 to the Archbishop of Canterbury or his successors, who shall finally decide 
 and determine the said appeals. 
 
 Provided always, that in any such case of appeal or review, notice of 
 the intention of the party to make such appeal or demand, such review shall 
 be given to the Biahop or subordinate jud^e, by wboai the sentence appealed 
 
 f 
 
^ 
 
 17. 
 
 from, or to bp rpvirwed, 8lmll liaTo been prononnccil within fifteen days from 
 llie pronmlffiiiion thereof. 
 
 And we do fi.rtlipr liy tlio^o prcsenls ordain that in all crscs In wliicli i\n 
 appeal shall he ciadc, or review demanded as aforesaid, a copy of Iho judfr* 
 nienl or sentence in such case promulpaled or given, pelting forth the canscs 
 thereof, togetlier with acopy of thj evidence on wliich the same wa8 founded, 
 ahull, witliout delay, be rectified and transmitted by snch subordinate Jud|;o 
 to the said IHshop or his successors, or by the a:»id l)is<hop or bia Bucccsaors, 
 to the said Archbishop of (yanterhu-y, as the case may require. 
 
 Moreover it is our will and pleasure, and we do hereby declare and 
 ordain, that nothing in these preseois contained, shall extend or be coo* 
 aimed, to extend, to reppHi, vary or alter, the provisions of auy charter 
 whereby Ecclesiastical jurisdiction has been given to any conrt of judic* 
 ature withir. the limilg of the said Diocese. 
 
 And for removing doul)t3 with respect to the validity of the reflignntioti 
 of the said office and dignity of I'/tshop of British Columbia, it is our further 
 will, that if ihe daid I5ishop or any of his successors, shall by instrument 
 nnder his hand and seal, delivered and sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
 for the lime being, and by him nccepted and registered in the (rffice of the 
 Vicrtr-General of the said Archbishop, resign the office and dignity of Bishop 
 of Iiritish Columbia, such Bishop shall from the time of such acceptance and 
 resignation, cense to bo Disbop of I'ritish Columbia, to all intents and 
 purposes, but without prejudice to any responsibility to which he may be 
 liable in law or equity in respect of his conduct ii. his said olTice. 
 
 And lastly to the end, that all things aforesaid, may be firmly holden 
 and done, we will and grant to the afoicsaid George Hills, that he shall have 
 our letters patent, under our great seal, of our said united kingdom, duly 
 made nnd scaled. 
 
 Jti witness whereof, wo havo caused these, our letters, to bo made 
 patent. 
 
 Witness, ourself, at Westminster, tho twelfth day of January, in thq 
 twenty-second year of our Reign. 
 
 liy Warrant, under the Queen's Sign, Manuel, 
 
 C. IJOMIl^I^X.. 
 
 [7.] 
 EXTKACTof a dlspalcli from llio Duko of Newcastle to, Governor Sii. 
 
 P. E. Wodcliouso, K. C. i;., dated Itli February, ISC-l. No. 73G. 
 
 In the first place I am advistid thai (asf^mning that there is no local law " 
 to tlio eontviii-y) tlie iiKnuburs of the Church of Eiif^daiid iiui Colony in which ' 
 that Church is not cstahlishcd have the same lil)erty of af-:scnd)liii^ for any 
 hiwful purpose which is possessed by ineinbei's of any other religious denoin- 
 inalion, and that it would be lawful for a Colonial Bishop, or Metropolitan, 
 without the consent t)f the Crown, and without any express legislative author- 
 ity to stnunion inccUngs of the Cleigy and Laity of thu Church, under the 
 di'sijijiiatiou of Provincial or Diocesan Synods, or any other designation, for 
 tlu; puri)()se of deliberating on matters coikcenung the weilfare of tlif Church. 
 The powers of such a meeting may be gathered from the foUuwing extract . 
 from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. 
 
 "The Church of England, in phices whore there is no church established ■ 
 by law, is in the saitu' situation with any other religious body, in n(» b(;tter, 
 but in no worse i)osilion, and tlu; members may adoiit, as mejiibers of any 
 other communion may adofpt, rules for enforcing di^cii)line within their body, 
 which will bi! binduig on those who expressly, or by imj)licalion, have abr 
 sented to them," ' 
 
 It folli>ws tiiaL tho rules passed for each an assondjly as I have describe^ 
 (unless in themselves conti'ury to law) arc binding, not indeed on all j)rufesscd 
 nn.'mburs of the church over whom tlu; L>isliop has biien ii|)pointed to preside, 
 but on all tliose who expressly, or by implicatit)ii, have assentt:d to thfse rules. 
 
 So long, therefore, as the action of the Synod ih conlliicd within these 
 limits, I shuuld wi.di you to rccogidxe it ullicially-— to lieat it a,-: being what it 
 
f; 
 
 [ 
 
 I 
 
 18. 
 
 viiiually iri, Iho n-prosontiUlvcof Uio AnKlicuu Church, nnd to phioo nl itn ili^:- 
 poKiil, without iiKiuirinf? into its iiitoninl ri-hUioiis or di>«i»,jfrccin«'ut>, tlic fulul^ 
 •wliich jnny ho voted from tinio to tiiuu by tho Icgishiturti iu aid of the AiikH- 
 can Coiiuiiuniun. 
 
 For the i»ro.HOUl, however, I have in^tructcid you not to "tftko offlrinl cog- 
 nizance" of thn Acts of the Assciiiihly "until steps liuve boon tal««n to clear it 
 from the imputation of ille^'ality, whieh at present uttaehe.H to it." 
 
 "When 1 gave 3'ou these instructions 1 supposed that tho JJisliop eould 
 havo little rcMil ditllculty in ascertaining how far the proceedings of the Synod 
 had violated, or had appeared to violate, the jirineiplcs laid down hy the 
 Court of Appeal, and 1 hoped, (as indec;d 1 still hope), that the memhers 
 of the Church of England woulcl \m wise enough to cancc^l all such procec^d- 
 ing.M, and hy ho doing to i)lac e their institutions on a footing whieh woulil 
 enable the OovcjrnmcMit to counteminee them, and to abandon a ponition whieh 
 must obstruct Iheir relations with tho Civil Power, and expose them to contin- 
 ual collision with the law of tho Colony, to disastrous litigation, and perhaps 
 to embarrassing defeat, 
 
 "With these fecilings and wishes I consider that it would bo most conven- 
 ient for the Bishop and tho Church that I should leave them at liberty in the 
 first instancH! to place thciir own construction on tho judgment, and to submit 
 for my considcu-ation such amendments of their existing rules as, with least 
 detriment to their own i>osition, would enable the Civil Tower to give them its 
 cordial co-operation. The JJisbop, howtv, er, i^rofesses his inability to under- 
 stancl mc!, and, I as.-ume, de.ircjs me to exi)lain myself with more! fullness. 
 Ilis principal dilllculty is, 1 supposOj to ascertain what measurcts I hold recpiisito 
 to remove tho imputation of illegality to which I have alluded. The follow- 
 ing opinicjns on this subject embody the advice which has been furnished me 
 on this head. 
 
 The Judical Commiltco, I am fully aware, did not decide that it was un- 
 lawful for the Bishop, with such Clergy and Laity of the Church as might 
 concur in any scheme or arrangement for that purpose, to moot in a voluntary 
 Synod, and to pass rules and icigulations, by whieh those who assented to 
 them might be bound; they decided only that some of tho particular acts and 
 resolutions of tho Synod in ciuestion had exceedcnl those lawful limits, and that 
 Mr. Long, tho appellant in the case, Avho was not a party, and had not as- 
 tented to those resolutions, could not be compelled to give notice of any 
 meetings of such Synod, or cjf any proposed elections thereto, or to attend il, 
 or to be bound by its procciodings. Mr. Long, under an express contract with 
 the Bishop, would apparently have becMi bound to give that notice, if tho 
 Synod had been a body recognized by the existing law of the Church of Eng- 
 land. There Lordships are of oi)iiiion that the Synod was not siich a body. 
 
 The portion of the judgment which relates to tho illegality of some act of 
 
 the Synod, is in these terms, (p. 1(5): — "The Synod which actually did meet 
 
 passed various acts and constitutions purporting, without the consent either of 
 
 Crown or of the Colonial Legislature;, to bind persons not in any manner 
 
 <• \o its control, and to establish Courts of Justice for some temporal as 
 
 -piritual matters, and in fact tho Synod assumed iwwcrs which only 
 
 islaturo could jwssoss." 
 
 There could be no doubt that such acts wove illegal." 
 It is obvious that in this passage relerronco is more particularly made to ' 
 those parts of the "Acts and Constitution" of tho first Synod, (the very term 
 •* Constitutions," seems to imply the assumi)tion of some binding authority), 
 which are mentioned in the paragraphs beginning, "Various Kules, &c., and 
 '♦'a Consistoriai Courts, «S;c.," at page 8, of the printed judgment. 
 
 The surest mode, I conceive, of relieving the Assembly in question from 
 the prejudical cftect of those errors in its past proceedings, will be for some 
 ; future nieotings, with tho concurrence of the Bishop, to review all the acts of 
 : the fonner Synods for the purpose of removing from them, both in substance 
 i and in form, civerjihing which has the appearance of an assumption of any 
 • compulsory p weis, or of any attempt to create tribunals similar to thoso which, 
 j in countries where there is an established church, exercise a legal and coercive 
 .1 jurisdiction, It would be desirable expressly to declare that the Synod alto- 
 
 1 
 
19. 
 
 le lo' 
 lorm 
 
 tuid 
 
 Rothnr iliHclrtlms tlio powoi of loplslnlinpf so fts to l»irul nny pr>ri»onp, who do not ' 
 voluntnrily nsscMit, ixiid ngrt'c to to be Jiound l>y itsn:l«>s; tlml thn tormH, "Cor.- 
 htituti»>MM," " ('<)iHi>toriiil Courts," niul tin; liko, shuuldbo dit'iiscd. niul that 
 llio ndt>, "tlmt all I'rccbyttTs mid Doat'ons, bofons institution or iiKliiction, or 
 bt^lbn^ rt'CiMvinj? a llocn-t! fmm the l{i^ll<>p, and as a condition of rtK'civing 
 such in.«titution, induction or liccnxc, shall sij(n a declaration that tlicv will 
 sub.scribf! to all ndns and constitutions cnacttfd by tho Synod of tho Dlo( -"o of 
 (!apo Town," (Judgment, p. H), und any other rules, (if there are any), of a 
 liko nature should be reficinded. 
 
 In place of the nisolutioiis as to th(> f!onsistorial Court, deemed objection- 
 able by tho Judical CVtnnnittee, I am advised that it would boconii)etent totlio 
 Sj'nod to i)ass resolutions reconinn-Mdnig for the adoption of their Bishop, 
 suitable forms of proceeding, (a.i in foro domestico), for the invtistigation, 
 trial, and decision of offences against the laws of the Church, before the liishop 
 lumself, or bc^fore persons appointed liy him upon principles similar to tlioso i 
 which prevail for tho nivessary preservntion of good order and discipline in all 
 voluntary religious bodies, and I appnlicnd that all persons who hud assented 
 to such resolutions would be bound by what th(! IJishop, from time to time, 
 might reasonably do in accordance with th(! forms so recommended. Upon 
 this point 1 again refer to the words of the judgment: — " It may bo further 
 laid down that where any r'ligious, or other lawful association, has not only 
 agre(!d on thetermsof its union, but has also con.slituted a tiibunal to detennino 
 whether tho ruh's of th(i association have been violated by any of its membors 
 or not. and what shall be the conseipience of such viuiation: then the decision 
 of sucli tribunal will bo binding when it has acted within the scope of its au- 
 thority, has observed such forms as the rub -^ require, if any fonns bo 
 prescribed, and if not, has p'-ocecded in a manner consonant with tlie principles 
 of justice. 
 
 "In such cases tho tribunals so constituted aro not in any sonso courtsj 
 they derive no authority from the Crown; they have no power Oi" their own 
 to enforce their sentence's; they must apply for that purpose to tho Ccairts 
 established by law, and such Courts will give effect to their decisions, as they 
 give effect to tho decisions of arbitrators whoso jurisdiction rests entirely ui)on 
 the agreement of the part'es." 
 
 Having expressed the opinion tluit tho Synod should repeal that resolu- 
 tion of their body, which reipiires all PresbytcM-s and Deacons before institution 
 or induction, or before receiving a license from the IJishop, to subscribe all 
 their rules and constitutions; it is proper forme to itato fiu'thor to what extent 
 the Executive Government should recognize tlu* rig'it of the IJij-hoj) to enforce 
 practically, on his own authority, tho resolution, which in its present form, 
 the Synod is called upon to cancel. 
 
 I am informed that it would bo competent to the IJishop to adoi>t llio 
 course prescribed by that resolution with respect to matters as to which ho 
 has by law a free and unfettered discretion. 
 
 Thus, ho may decline to confer holy orders on persons unwilling to bo 
 bound by the resolutions passed at siich meetings, without being liable to any 
 interference on the part of any civil court; but with respect to the power of 
 the Bishop to make assent to such resolutions, tho conditions of licenses, ud- 
 
 m'ssions or institutions, of clerks to spiritual odiccs, benllces or cures 
 
 a 
 
 distinction must bo made according to the nature of tho ofTice, benefice or euro, 
 If there be no previous contract or trust expressed or implied between I tin 
 fiishon and the ^>atron, or the ijishop and tlic presenter, and if the offlee 
 beneflce, or cure, in question, lias not been foumled, endowed, or established 
 by any positive law or enactmiiiit, or by any other mode of legal foundation, , 
 inconsistent with the exercise, in that respect, of a free and uncontrolled dis- 
 cretion by the Bishop, in these circvuustances, I am advised that it would bo 
 competent to the Bishop to make tho license, admission, or injititution, of a 
 clerk to a spiritual office, benetice, or cure, conditional on hi,? assent to such ' 
 resolution. But, if tho Bishop bo bound, with respect to such benefice, or : 
 cure, by any antecedent contract or trust, (liko the engagement to ap)K)int tlu; 
 nominee of Mr. Hoots), by tho terms of any legal foundation, of vhich assent 
 or obedience lo such resolutions fi)rms no part, ho cannot, under such circum- '• 
 
 ti 
 
20, 
 
 I stances. Irtwl'iilly exact IVoiu any cKtI; ciilillcjd to clinin IVoiii liii.i liociiso, 
 I ikdiHUsion, or iii.«liLuti(ji), to such oilurf, Ik-ikMicc or cure, tliut siicli clurk 
 
 should, as a condition of receiving such licen.se, or institution, iigreo to bo 
 i bound by such resolutions. 
 
 Within tlio limits tlius laid down, the exorcise of the llishoii's discretion 
 
 in this ii'«}X;ctshould be recognised bytlie Executive Government as legitinnitc. 
 
 Liist'ly, the liisliop requires to be informed " wluither tlic document, which 
 !ias been j.laced in liis hand- l)y the Crown, is in all respects, as it confessedly 
 is in some, an illegal instn .;nt; wliether any, and if so, wiiich of its provis- 
 ions are valid u\ law; whelii.'r it conveys any rights^ title or authoi'ity to the 
 BJsliop of tliis Dioc'ase, and the Metropolitan of this Province, or not." 
 
 The words of the Judicial Comniiltee, to which the Bishop, I presume, 
 refers, (page 13), are as follows: — "Their Lordships state the Supreme Court 
 of the Capo to have been of opinion 'that the letters patent of IS,");}, bi'ii:g 
 issued after a Constitutional Gov(!i-nnient had been establi-lu'd in the Capo of 
 Good Hope, were inelfectual to cri;ate any jurisdiction, E:H^lesiastieal or Civil, 
 within the Colony, even if it were the intention of tlie Utters patent to create 
 such jurisdiction,' which they think doubtful." 
 
 "In these coi^clusicns," they add, "we agree." 
 
 The lettei's patent tlum, were ultra vires and invalid, if and so far as they 
 purported to convey to the Bishop any power of coercive jurisdiction, irrespect- 
 ively of tiie sanction of the local legislature, and of the consent, express or 
 implied, of those over whom it might be exercised. 
 
 I am aware of no reason whatever for supposing them to be invnb'd, 
 
 otherwise than as they may assume to grant this coercive jurisdiction. .The 
 
 Bishop's corporate character and any other incidents of his Episcopal position 
 
 ■ which result from the letters patent remain untouched by the recent judgment. 
 
 [8.] 
 DIOCESAK SYNOD. 
 
 TO THE OLEUay AND liAITY OP TUB CUUUCU OP ENGLAND IN UKITISH COLUMBIA. 
 
 Dear Rev. Brethren and Hrelhren of the Laity: — 
 
 A geniral desire for a Diocesnii Synod having hocn expi eased, and sonae 
 matters seriously needing that organization, I invito your co-operatiou in 
 the el«ctiou of Lay Rcprosentatives in the second week after Etister, with a 
 view to the asaembiing of a Convention of Bishop, Clergy, and Laity, early 
 in July. 
 
 The ofGco of the Coavention will bo to consider and agree to a declara- 
 tion of priaciplos and tuadameatal provisions as the basis upon which the 
 Synod will be formed. 
 
 The first assembly will not therefore be the Synod, but a body author- 
 ized by the Parishes to agree upon a Ooostitution, rid then, if ihero bo such 
 agreement, to resolve itself into the Synod, 
 
 In framing Laws and Regulations respecting Bishop, Clergy and Laity, 
 property, Onancc, discipline, spread of the Cospel, and ii< adc,,king measures 
 proved Buccessful in other branches of our Communion, it must beour endeav- 
 oar to adhere closely to the principles if the Church of Buglaad, of which we 
 desire to remain an integral part. Though a voluntary body, so far as discon- 
 nection with ihe State is concerned, wo claim no liberty to chooso for our- 
 selves any other system of eccles.ajtical order than that of our Mother 
 Church. 
 
 The deep importance of subjects to come under consideration presses 
 upon all Electors the great desirability of choosing lleprosenlatives well 
 known and trusted for intelligent attachment to the Chuich, and whoso time 
 and energies wi!l bo readily and heartily givci:. 
 
^ 
 
 L 
 
 21. 
 
 I ndopt nnd recomraond to you the Rogolutions passed at ftti influcnlial 
 meetini; of Chnrch Committees last monlb in Victoria, as the uiiidt: for our 
 first proceedings and the understandinir upon which we meet in Convention. 
 I append a copy of those Resolutions, and also some directions kindly 
 d-awn up from lhe>.T by the Registrar of the !)ioce?e. Roi|'ue?tinir you to 
 take the nrcesi.iry steps, should you decide to join the Syni'd, and piirneally 
 truslinf^ thtit in this inijiortant niidcrtakinfj wc may nil bo euided with wi"- 
 dom from fibovc, so that nur conclusions may be for the promotion of God's 
 glory and the true edification of His Church. 
 1 am, 
 
 Dear Rev. Brethren and Brethren of the Liiity, 
 
 Your sincere friecd ami Pnptnr. 
 
 G. COLUMUIA. 
 DisHOp's Closk, Victoima, February 2.'), IST*.- 
 
 OIKKCTIDNS POn THK ELECTION OP LAY UIOI'IIESENTATIVES TO TUB I'inST CON- 
 VENTION. 
 
 1. The Roll of Rlpctnrs is to be entsred in a hook, and the followinjf 
 decl'iniration is to be signed in the book by every one who desires to becoroo 
 an Elector: — 
 
 " I, A R , do solemnly declare that I am a member of the 
 
 Church of England, and am an accustomed member of the corgrcgalion 
 of and do not belong to any othor denomination." 
 
 2. The Chnrch Committee will appoint a Select Committee to make up 
 the votinp roll, and where no Church Committee, the congregution will 
 delegate this duty to three of their body. 
 
 .'!. The Churchwardens or Clergyman will give notice in church or on 
 the church doors, or by both methods, of the intended election 14 days at 
 least before the time appointed, in the following form : — 
 
 "NoTir'K. — An election of Lay Representatives to the Convention, for the 
 purpose of establishing a Synod in this Diocese, will take place in this Church 
 on the day of at o'clock. All per.tons who are SPatliolders or members of 
 this congregation, of the age of 18 years, will be entitled to vote on subscrib- 
 ing the declaration in the Roll of Voters, at any time before the election." 
 
 > Committee. 
 
 ^. The election will take place in the vestry or other appropriate place 
 to be appointed by the Committee, at which meeting the Clergyman shall be 
 the Chairman, and in his absence a Chairman shall be appointed by the 
 Committee, who shall take the votes, and whose duty will be to see that no 
 one votes who has not fulfilled the prescribed formalities. 
 
 5. Each church or congregation will be entitled to one or more Lay 
 Representatives in the following proportion, namely : Two Delegates for 20 
 or ander 20 qaalified voters of the ago of 18 years; four Delegates for 50 or 
 under 50 qualified voters, and six Delegates for more than 50 voters. 
 
 C. No person caa be eleoted ai a Lay Representative unless he is « 
 communicant, and unless he signs the following declaration, also to bo en- 
 tered in the book of votes ; — 
 
 •'I, A — -B , do solemnly declare that I am a communicant of 
 
 the Church of England, and belong to no other religious denominatiou." 
 
 7. Every Clergyman, or the Churchwardens, shall keep, or caaes to he 
 kept, r roll with the names of all the communicants entered therein. 
 
 J. Every Lay Representative, when duly elected, shall receive from 
 the Chairman a certificate to the following elTect : — 
 
 "1 hereby cerci/y that at a meeting of the electors of Church, or 
 
 District, held on the day of 187 A B , whc is a 
 
 communicant of this church, was duly elected a Lay Representative to llio 
 Convention for the establishment of a Diocesan Synod." 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 0. The Chairman flhall also forward to the Bishop of the Diocese a 
 certificate of the result of the election in the following form :•- 
 
22. 
 
 "T hereby cprtify that Rt a meeting of the electors of Charch, or 
 
 Diiirict, held on the day of 187 the following peiaoos, commu- 
 
 nicants of the Church, were duly elected as Lay Representatives to tke 
 CoaventioQ for the establiBbmeot of a Diocesan Synod : 
 
 raoFKssiON. 
 
 A. B. 
 
 of 
 
 CD. 
 
 of 
 
 E. F. 
 
 of 
 
 G. H. 
 
 of 
 
 And I further certify that there ai'6 entered on the Roll of Elec<'.jr8 per- 
 
 8009 entitled to vote at this election. 
 
 Chairman. 
 ''0. In the case of the death or resignation of any Lay Representatives 
 80 elected as aforesaid, the Church Committee, or where no Church Com- 
 mittee, the electors Eball as soon as practicable select some other duly 
 qualified person to fill the vacancy. 
 
 RK80I.UTI0N3 OF TUB MEKTlNG OP OHnRCH COMMITTEES UKLD IN VICTORIA, 
 
 JANUARY StB, 1874. 
 
 1. "That it is eypedient that a Convention be fornaed consisting of the 
 Bishop, the Clergy of the Diocese holding the Bishop's license, and Lay 
 Delegates for the purpose ot organizing a Diocesan Syuod." 
 
 2. "That every congregation of the Anglican Church, with twenty or 
 less qualified electors, may elect two Lny Representatives, and every congre- 
 gation having over twenty qualified electors up to fifty inclusive may elect 
 four Representatives, and having over fifty qualified electors may elect six 
 Representatives." 
 
 3. "That the election of Lay Representatives shall be decided by the 
 vhole body of seatbolders, and of those who are accustomed members of the 
 congregation not being seatbolders, of the age of eighteen years and upwards 
 who shall sign a declaration as follows : 
 
 I, A- 
 
 -B. 
 
 — , dc solemnly declare that I am a member of the 
 Church of England, aud am an accustomed member of the congregation 
 of and do not belong to any other denomination." 
 
 4. "That no person shall be qualified for election as a Lay Represen- 
 tative, or be permitted to take his seat as a Delegate, unless be be a male 
 communicant of the Church, of the age of '.wenty-one years, and upwards, 
 and have j!gned a declaration that he is a communicant of the Chrrch of 
 England, and belongs to no other religious denomination, as follows : — T, 
 
 A ^B , do solemnly declare that I am a communicant of the 
 
 Church of England, aad belong to no other religions denomination." 
 
 6. "That the list of voters shall be made up by a special Church Cem- 
 mittee to be selected by the Church Committee of each congregation, and in 
 places where no Church Committee exists, by three persons to be selected by 
 such 'congregation, as such Committee, and the seid list shall be signed by 
 a maj jrity of such Committee; and no one shall be entitled to vote who is not 
 included in such list/' 
 
 6. "That the election for Delegates shall take place on the second 
 Monday a ; Easter, 1874. 
 
 7. "That a certificate of election shall be given to each Representatire 
 by the Chairman of the meeting at which the election took place, who shall 
 also forward to the Bishop immediately after the election a certificate of the 
 due election of a Representative." 
 
 8 "That thu Convention of Bishop, Clergy and Laity shall meet the 
 second week of July next, at Victoria." 
 
 9. "That no net of the Convention shall be valid and binding unless it 
 has received the assent of tie iiishop, a majority of th( Clergy, and a major- 
 ity of the Laity voting by orJ*>r8." 
 
 M 
 
23. 
 
 EVIDENCE ON THE TfdAL OF TUE llEV. DEAN CKIDGE, 
 
 it 
 
 ! . 
 
 11 
 
 stfttod: I know tlio Imml writing of 'Mt. 
 to tlio lotler dated Dt'ceuibor 7th, to be that 
 
 1st "WiTXKSs. — R. E. Jackson 
 Cridgc nnd bcliovo tho signatur 
 of the Doan. 
 
 2d WiTKKSS. — Tliomas Holmes Lovg, stated : I was j»ssist(!d hy the Dean 
 nnd Mr. Williams in juxpaiing the address which appeared in the Standard 
 of the 28tli March, 1874, the heading of which is "Address of the Dean of 
 Christ Church to the Congregation." 
 
 The letter in the Standard of the 10th January, 1874, nnd headed "to kho 
 Eiglit Reverend George Hills, D. D.," was handed to me by the Dertu for 
 publication. 
 
 I decline to say who is the author of a letter signed "Eccentric," nnd 
 which appeared in the same paper. 
 
 I am one of the Editors and owners of the Standard newspaper. 
 
 3rd "WiTXKss. — W. C, Ward, stated: I know the handwriting of Mr, 
 Ciidge; the letters produced I believe to bo in his handwriting. 
 
 It is dated 7th December, 1872. 
 Also one dated 10th December 
 
 (( 
 (( 
 t< 
 '.( 
 (( 
 (t 
 <( 
 i( 
 i( 
 ti 
 <( 
 <( 
 
 u 
 (I 
 <( 
 (I 
 (( 
 (( 
 <( 
 u 
 (( 
 (( 
 u 
 (( 
 (( 
 
 1872. 
 <( 
 
 1873. 
 i< 
 
 (( 
 (( 
 (( 
 (( 
 li 
 (( 
 {( 
 
 1874. 
 
 13th " 
 
 29th July 
 28th " 
 18th August 
 
 3rd September 
 
 4th " 
 
 17th " 
 
 14th October 
 27th " 
 25th November 
 IGth December 
 14th February, 
 28th March 
 
 I also know Mr. Pembcsrton's handwriting; I believe that the lett(;r pro- 
 duced, dated 27th June, 1874, to be in his handwriting, as also one of the 2iid 
 July, 1874, also produced. • 
 
 The letters dated 2nd and 3rd July, 1874, I believe to be in the hand- 
 writing of ;Mr. Cridge. 
 
 I recollect on the day of the consecration of Christ Church at Christ 
 Church, and during the evening service a sermon being prenclud l)y the Kev. 
 Archdeacon Rcece, at the close of which, Mr. Cridge, instead of giving out 
 the hymn, proceeded to address the Congregation. His address was some- 
 thing to the etl'ect that h'l had pr(^acbcd for 17 years, and that this was the 
 ilrst occasion on which Ritualism bad been openly preached from that pulpit; 
 that, though very painful to him, he felt bound by everysen.se of duty to i)ro- 
 test against it, and that he was prepared to shew that it was contrary to tho 
 Book of Common Prayer, contrary to the law of God. and contrary to tho 
 law of the land, and could not be pro\(;d fiom the Scriptures. Mr. Cridgo 
 Appeared much excited and spoke with evident warmth; his address called 
 forth some noise, such as applause, he appealed to them, and asked them to 
 remember that they were in the House of God; that was the substance of 
 what he said. 
 
 I was very much pained to see the scTvice disturbed; several persf)n<« left 
 tlie Church. Mr. Cridge spoke in a very earnest way, and said that his* re- 
 marks were nf»t intended to provoke any controversy; ^Mr. Reece of course 
 was present. The sermon was referred to by the Dean as that of the Arch- 
 deacon. I don't recollect that any name was used. 
 
 I var. Churchwarden of Christ Church for two years; the Comnnuiion 
 Plate \va.«, as far as I know, always kei)t by the Dean, and under his control; 
 so I always imderstood. 1 was the Dean's; Churchwarden. The R(!gisters of 
 Raptism and Marriage were always kei)t by th(! Dean, 1 believe at his houst;; 
 there u a safe in the vestry in which they might be kept, and 1 believe tho 
 
24. 
 
 DoiMi kept Ihc key of it ; I don't know tliat tluj I'liilc was k(;pt 'usro; I ncvor 
 hinl tlio k(!y under my control, or do I bclievutUut it was under tlio control of 
 thc! other Churchwarden, 
 
 Faamincd by Mr. Mnson. 
 
 Tho address (jflhe Dean was so snddon that it made a deep iniiircssion ort 
 mo; several persons left tho Churchj tho service was subsequc'ntly proceeded 
 with. 
 
 4th "VVlTXKSs. — /. E, Curtis^ stated: I M\\ clerk to ^lossrs. Drake and 
 Jackson; tiie ditciiment produced is a copy of one served by nvc on the liev. 
 Mr. Cridgo on Sth Scptonibor last, and is a list of letters that he was rcquireil 
 to produce. 
 
 I produce a copy of a letter dated September 7th, 1S74, the orifnnal of 
 which I left at >[r, Cridgc's house; 1 beli(!ve tlie Articles are in ^Nfr. Drake's 
 handwriting; I served the Dean with a copy O'f thc Articles now produced on 
 the U7th August last. 
 
 I also sc.'ved a coi>3' of tho Art ichjs pi'odueed on tho Dean about thc end 
 ©•f July, but I cannot say the exact date, 
 
 5th Wjtxkss. — Thc Bishop^ stated: I recollect sending a letter dated 7th 
 Dee., 1872, to 3Ir. Cridge; tlic subject of it was witli reference to the occur-' 
 ranee that took place at thc evening ser-icc on the day of Coiisccration of 
 Christ Church. 
 
 I also sent 3Ir. Cridge a letter dated Dec. Dth, 1872; a true copy of which 
 13 now produced. • ' 
 
 The book now ' "oduced contains true cojiies of the following letters sent 
 by me to Mr. Ciidge. 
 
 Letter dated Dec. Mlh, 1872. 
 .iulyl'Uvh. 187;}. 
 August 27t]i, 187.1,. 
 September 8t]i, 18715. 
 " 22d, 1873. 
 October 18th, 1873. 
 November Isl, 1873. 
 DcGcuiber 1st, 1873. 
 
 (< 
 
 
 t( 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 <( 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 H- 
 
 
 li- 
 
 
 lt 
 
 
 tl 
 
 
 (i 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 (1 
 
 201 h, 1873. 
 
 February li^th, 1874, 
 3larch 23d, 1874. 
 ]May 2r)th, 1.^74. 
 
 1 have Letters Patent appointing mo liishop of Britiab Columbia; Letteftf 
 Patent produced; I believe the license produced ia a true copy of the 
 license to Mr. Cridge to preach; it is dated bept. 17th, 18U0. 
 
 The oath produced is a f.uc copy of the Caaonical Oath of Obediencti 
 taken by Mr. Cridge, Sept. 17th, 18(!0. 
 
 I Lave the subecriptiou book before nie; I saw Mr. Cridge sign it; the 
 date is Dec. 7th, 1865; the Oath of Canonical Obedience was talien before mo 
 by Mr. Cridge ai, the same time, Dec. 7lh, I8G5; I have no doubt that the 
 Letters of Collation referred to in Article 4 are correot copies; also the Cer- 
 tificate of Subscription and oaths in Article 4 ia a correct copy. 
 
 I recollect sending, on Feb. 10th, 1874, certain Articles of enquiry to Mr. 
 Cridge; they are the usual Visitation Articles; no answer was returned tome 
 by Mr. Cridge. 
 
 On May 25th, 1874, I again appfied for an answer to mine of Feb. lOth; 
 copy produced. 
 
 I attended visitation, July 3d, 1874, at Cliriat Clinrcb, tiaving first writ- 
 ten to iMr. Cridge, under date .1 'ue 22d, 1874, iulormiiig him tluTCof; I also 
 wrote on tlie same date to liic Clinrchwardeus to the same etlect. 
 
 I received a letter from Mr. remberlou, Churchwarden, dated June 23cf, 
 187 1, of which that jiroduced is a copy. 
 
 On 20tli June. 1 wrote to Mr. Criugc , appointing July 3d, 1874, for my 
 Tisitatton, alao to the Churchwurdeus ua the same date and to the same 
 effect. 
 
 1 received a letter dated July 2d from Mr. Pcmbertou, Churchwarden, 
 declining to rcceivu my visiluliou. 
 
 / 
 
25. 
 
 Ith; 
 
 rit- 
 hlso 
 
 3d[, 
 
 my 
 
 .lue 
 
 eD, 
 
 T (ilao received, on July 2d, 1,874, fl letter from Mr. Cridge, declining; 
 my visitiitioD, on tbo ground tLut a memorial bad been sentto the Goreraor- 
 General. 
 
 (Ja the same date T wrote to the Churchwardens, stating my intention to 
 hold the visitHiion; I also wrote to Mr. Cridpe. 
 
 I received no other letter before attendinu visitation; on 3d July, 1874, 
 I went to Christ Cliurch, ace )mpanied by i\lr. Drake, the Registrar; Mr. ' 
 Cridge was in the Vestry, and on our entering he said he requested to read ft 
 letter which he produced; h- read the letter signed 3 i July, (a copy of which ' 
 hi»8 already been put in evidence), with strong emphasis and vehement ges- ) 
 lure, evidently laboring under great excitement. ,' 
 
 On his fiuishi :g the letter and sayin? that the Churchwardens would 1 
 not be present, I said: Mr. Cridge I am fulBlling the duties of my oflSce, and 
 I come to visit you ns well hs the Churchwardeoa. I request you to prodnco 
 the registers and inventory in order that I may proceed with my visitation, 
 fie said, I refer you to the latter part of my letter. 1 said, will yon produce ' 
 the register books. He said, I have not got them; I have not the key; the 
 Churchwardens have it. 1 said, you have always kept it and tbe Church- 
 wardens could only have obtained it from you and w'th yonr consent, in ' 
 order to frustrate my visitation. He said, I have not the key; why do you ' 
 expect me to have it? and referred .c a book of tbe Canons, one of which re- ' 
 quires a coffer to be kept with three locks, implying that he cotild not ' 
 produce the registers without tba presence of the Churchwardens. 1 said, 
 you know Mr. (bridge this is now never the case, and you alone have the caro J 
 of the registers; do you refu-e to produce them? lie said, I refuse to pro- i 
 duce nothing. I said, I cannot proceed witb my visitation unless you' 
 produce these things, and other property of the Church. He said, why do | 
 you a^k me, ask those who have the custody of the goods of tbe Church T | 
 the Church is open, you can go and see for yourself, I again flSked him .' 
 to produce the registers and plate; ho made no reply. I said, do you then ! 
 refuse to produce them? He said, I refuse nothing; the relation which you i 
 hold towards me, and which you hold towards the Churchwardens, has on-j 
 tirely changed during the last few days; put your questions down in writing. • 
 I said, this is a subterfuge, you have connived with the Churchwardens to ; 
 defeat my lawful visitation. He expressed himself offended at the words 
 BHbterfugo and connive. I satd, it is too true. I agnin asked him to pro- ; 
 duce the registers; he made no answer. I then said, this is couturaacy, and ' 
 came away. On previous occasions, when I visited Christ Church, Mr. Cridge , 
 always had the keys and produced them, I have visited Christ Chnrch per- 
 iodically for tbe ,)ast 15 years, and 1 have never before bat' any difficulty; 
 whatever in seeing these articles. 
 
 The letter dated July 3d, 1874, was tbe one he read and handed to me. 
 On the same day, on my return home I received a letter from the 
 Churhwardens, dated July 3d. I asked for the Communion Plate; I think 
 the answer was, ask tbosb who have the charge of the Church; when 1 
 asked questions he said, I beg to be excused from answering questions, and 
 what the Bishop has to say to me he will put in writing; he said, see the 
 concluding part of my ietler dated 3d July. i.ir. Cridge's demeanour was 
 uuhappily not that which a clergymam should assume towards bis Bishop, 
 Both in tone and gesture I considered it to be insulting. 
 
 I selected a Cathedral; 1 am empowered to do so by my Letters Patent ; 
 I selected Christ Church and havu used it as sucb since 18i>5. The seal 
 produced ij mine, and the Articles ajjpended are signed by me. 
 
 After Mr. Reece descended from llie pulpit on the 5th Dec, at evening 
 service, Mr. CriJge proceeded to address the congregation in a state of 
 considerable excitement; he said something to the effect that the sermon 
 which had just been preached by Archdeacon Reeco, mentioning bis name, 
 contained doctrines which had never been preached in Christ Church during 
 bis time of 17 years, aud never should be while he was Pastor of the Church; 
 bo said that Ritu.ilism. which had just been advocated, was contrary to the 
 Law of God in the Scripture, iho Prayer Book, and the law of the laud; I 
 couuulletl with Bidbop Morris as lu what abuuld bo done under ao exiruuidi* 
 
■ 
 
 26. 
 
 iiarjr aud unhappy ao iulcrruplion; we considered it best for the a \.ke of the 
 )ieAce of the Churcli not to siop what was goinp; on, there being evidence of 
 considerable excitement in the congregation; I heard noise* which appeared 
 to me like the naovement of feet, clapping of bands, and expressions ot voice; 
 several persons left the Church. 
 
 I received a number of letters from Mr. Gridge, these letters were read 
 jeaterday, I received them all. 
 
 1 have the original book of subscriptions, and I produce it. 
 
 The letter siftined and dated 17th September, 1S60, was bigned by Mr. 
 Cridge in my presence. 
 
 Mr. Cridge has not any benefice, there is no benefice in this country. 
 
 6th WiTNisss. — Charles Oood^ stated: I was in Christ Church on the day 
 of Consecration, December 5th, 1872; at the erening service, after the sermon 
 by the Rev. Reece w as terminated, at the usual time for giving out the hymn, 
 the Dean, instead of giving out the hymn, faced the cougregution and ad- 
 dressed them on the subject of the Archdeacon's sermon; he took exception 
 to the doctrines preached by him in being in favor of Ritualism; he stated 
 that be could aot hIIovv his pulpit to be used without warning his congrega- 
 tion against any such doctrine. 
 
 Considerable excitement was manifested both during and at the close of 
 his address, by clapping of hands, stamping on the tloor, aud ejaculations; 
 0D« person in the uhoir having said " Bully for Cridge." 
 
 To tho Very Rcvcnnd Dean Cridge: 
 
 Takk NoTicK that you are reijuinKl to lyrockice to tlio Court on the hear- 
 ing of the charges s 't forth in tlie Artielco d.ited on or ubuut the 27tli day of 
 August last, the following documents: — 
 
 Dec. 
 <( 
 
 7th, 
 
 9th, 
 
 14th. 
 
 1872, Letter from the Bishop lo yourself. 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 ti 
 
 ^•. 
 
 873 
 
 
 i( 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 it 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 (1 
 
 
 (( 
 
 
 1874, 
 
 
 
 <( 
 
 
 (( 
 (( 
 t( 
 (( 
 (( 
 (( 
 u 
 (( 
 << 
 (( 
 tc 
 u 
 (( 
 (i 
 
 July 28th, 1873 
 
 " 2yth, ■ 
 
 Aug. 27th, 
 fcjcpt. 8tli, 
 
 " 22d, 
 Oct. 18th, 
 Nov. 1st, 
 Dec. 1st, 
 
 " 26th, 
 Fcb'y 12th, 
 March 23d, 
 May 25th, 
 
 And your certificate of pubscriplions, and all other docun ^nt*, letters, 
 papers, oud writings whatsoever in any wise relating to the charges against 
 you. Your.?, etc., 
 
 M. W. T. DEAKE, Registrar. 
 By RoBT. E. Jacksok, his Attorney. 
 
 u 
 (i 
 (( 
 (( 
 tl 
 (( 
 <( 
 <( 
 (I 
 i( 
 <( 
 (( 
 (( 
 t( 
 
 (( 
 (< 
 (( 
 (( 
 (( 
 i( 
 (( 
 (( 
 (I 
 (( 
 l( 
 i( 
 (( 
 
 [11.3 
 
 Bishop's Close, Victoria, Dec. Tin, 1872. 
 My dear Mr. Dean: 
 
 It is with very great pain that I write to you in referrence to the unhappy 
 scene which occurred in Christ Churcli last Thursday. 
 
 I am stire you were in igimrance that you were committing a grave offence 
 against the laws Ecclesiastical, and tlie Statute Law of the Realm, in disturb- 
 ing the order of public worshii), and in ushig irritating words respecting a 
 brother clergyman, who was present, and who had just performed a duly 
 assigned to him. 
 
 As your Bishop the subject is one wliich I cannot pass over, and I now 
 
27. 
 
 write '.n lh« oftrr\o?t hope tlint I iinvo not mifjponstniM your olinrnctor, 
 V)ut that wlion it lin.s bcM'u slu-wn tliat i\ brt'iich of order and jiroitricty has bt'oii 
 conirnittod, and one which must inevitably cause ott'cuce to many inemboi-s of 
 liie Cluiroh, ynu will h(\ the first to cxi)rc.ss your rogrtit for the occurrcnco, and 
 render my duty les^ itainful. 
 
 I ora. my dear Mr. Dean, very f-Mtlifully your;!, 
 
 G, COLUMBIA. 
 
 My d car Lord : [ ^ '-^ • ] 
 
 In rcf(*rcnco to your letter of this day's date, I trust, that "when it hafl 
 been sliewn," and I am convinced that 1 liave committed tiie wronj^s imputed 
 to me in that letter, your hope will not be disai)i)()intcd, and that I siiall bo 
 the tlrst to express ntgret for vi(jhiting what 1 liave ever been foremost to up- 
 hold amongst my people, order, diarity, .nd law; but I find it impossible till 
 after Sunday to consider the authorities and reasons on which j'our slaiements 
 are grounded, and which 1 gather from the Lmor of j-our letter, you will deem 
 just to shew me. Yours faithfully, 
 
 7th December, 1872, E. CRIDGE, 
 
 [13] Bishop's Close, Dec. 9th, 1872. 
 
 My dear Mr. Dean: 
 
 As you desire to be furnished with the authorities on whicli nay reasons 
 for writing to you are fVnnided, I will mention that your action on the r)th was 
 in direct contravention of the 58rd Canon, and conies within the provisions of 
 the Act of 5 and 0, Ed. VI. c. 4. 
 
 I shall be most jiappy to allow you to inspect these authoritiei". but I was 
 in hopes that my letter would have found you, on a calm reconsideration of 
 the circumstances, to have come to the conclusion that the mode you adopted 
 for the expression of your views on the (iu(;stions raised by the Archdeacon's 
 ,sernion was illjudged, out of all order, and calculated to produce distress and 
 olfeiice in the Congnsgation. 
 
 Trusting that my endeavours to avoid a disagreeable and most painful 
 duty will be assistcnl by your good sense and right feeling, 
 
 I ani, my dear Mr. Dean, very faithfully 3'ours, "■ 
 
 G, COLUMBIA, 
 
 My Dear Lord: [14.] 
 
 Will you kindly send by tlic bearer the books you said you would athnv 
 ine to inspect. 
 
 Yours faitJifulIy, 
 10th Dec, 1872, E, CRIDGE. 
 
 g a 
 uty 
 
 low 
 
 My Lord; [15.] 
 
 1 have carefully looked into the authorities which you have submitted to 
 my inspection, as well as reviewed my own conduct in addressi"n^ my tiock on 
 Thursday evening, and I conscic'ntiously bc^lieve that 1 have not cither in 
 lett«!r or si)irit violaUid any order of the Church or law of the realm. 
 
 If the step was unusunl. the occasion was almost without precedent. At 
 the sanu: time I beg n\ost respectfully to answer your LonNhip that 1 had no 
 thought or intention of impugning in any way the authority of the, ]}ishop, 
 but only to fullill my duty as the ordained and licensed minister of the Church 
 and oongregaiion whom i serve. I beg to remain with all respeet and duty, 
 
 Your Obedient Servant, 
 
 Dee. 13, 1872. 
 
 The Loid Bishop of Columbia. 
 
 E. CRIDGE. 
 
28. 
 
 [1'5 1 Uishop's CloHo. Viotorift, Dec. Mlh, 1872. 
 
 Revfirond Sir: 
 
 Having oiFLTod you, with no good rosuK, povoml opporlunitios of nxproPH- 
 ing rryrot at your condiu'.t on the r»th of l>w., ft nijjrist whwli sliould bo 
 (ixpnissrd to 3'our IVishop, who was unhiipiiiiy present, an eye and ear witness 
 of the sad sceiio, to your hrolhor niini.ster, wlioni you openly in>ulted in tlio 
 House of God, and to the conj^ relation wlioiii you di.-turlied and dislressi-d, it 
 now remains for nie. to discharge a most painful <hity, the more painful con- 
 Bidering your position as Dean of tlie Cathedral, and as stjnior clergj'man of 
 Diocese, from whom miglit be expected at least an example of self control , 
 propriety and order. ' 
 
 On the Sth of D(!C(!ml)er at the; Evening Service of the Day of Consecra- 
 tion of Christ Ciuirch, immediately after tlie sermon by the Archdeacon of 
 Vancouver, instead of proceeding with the service, you stood up and in irri- 
 tating and ehiding language you denouneed your brother clergyman by name, 
 and amongst other words dciansd that he had violated the law of the Church, 
 the law of the land, and the law of God in the Scriptures. Being evidently un- 
 der excitement your inanntir and language caused unseemly disturhaiuo in the 
 «;ongregation. There were vehement expre>,-ions, such as are only heard in 
 secular buildings and in drinking saloons, stamping of feet, chipping of liands, 
 and other unseemly noises. 
 
 Much distress was created amongst all the properly disposed and legulnr 
 members of the congregation, in the midst of which several persons hastily 
 left the Church. 
 
 The deepest pain was caused to the Bishop of Oregon, myself, the Clergy 
 and the congregation gen<irally. 
 
 To the eneui / of nsligion and to the careless and profane an occasion has 
 been given to blasphem(! and to ridicule the sacr(>d cause of God, and a stiun- 
 bling block has been placed in the way of the w(!ak. 
 
 You have committed tlie grave otfence which is described both in the 
 Kcclesiastical Law and in the Statute Law of the Empire by the tcn-m of 
 brawlinffj an net of disturViance of divine worship, punishable in a layman by 
 line or imprisonm<:nt, in a clergyman by suspension. 
 
 Moreover you violated the oSrd Canon of tlie Church of England, which 
 forbids public opftosition between clergymen, and requires the clergyman 
 oftending to be mhibiled "because uiioii such publie dissenting and contradict- 
 ing there may grow much offenco and disquietncss unto the people." 
 
 No provocation is allowed to justify a violation of these laws. If the 
 Archdeacon's scirmoii had contained error, there are means to be adopted by 
 which he could be called to account. 
 
 If, as was tlu! case, you disajiproved of the view he took of a particular 
 subject you have; abundant oiqtoitunities of teaching your congregation what 
 you consider to be right, your attack upon him in the House of God was the 
 nion* unjustifiable, siiic(^ ho had occupied the pulpit by yowv own suggestion, 
 and he is a nuimber of the Cathedral body. 
 
 Considering all these circumstances, considering the public scandal you 
 have caus(Hl, tlu; outrages upon order and propriety in divii^e worship, and 
 violations of the laws expressly framed to prevent such uidiappy exhibitions, I 
 Bhould probablj' be justified in taking a course much more scivere; considering 
 however, also, your long and faithful service in the Church, that you were 
 probably unaware of the; laws which i)roliibit such actions, and that this is the 
 first grave otfence of any kind in tlu; Dioeeso which I have been called ujion 
 to notice, I take the most lenient course I can adopt, and inflict upon you only 
 a grave censure. 
 
 As your Bishop, then, I censure you for j'our conduct on Tlnirsdaj', tho 
 5th day of December, 1872, and I admonish you to be more careful in tho 
 
 future. 
 
 Witness my hand this l-ith day of Dccen\bor, 1872, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 Tlie Very Ecv. E. Cridge, 
 
 Rector of Christ Church Victoria, 
 
 And Dean of the Cathedral. 
 
29. 
 
 My ilnnr IJisliop of Coluniliia: [17.] 
 
 JJcfon^ I icctivi'il iiotilicnlion of your iiilcnlion to vUit Chri^t Cluivfli to- 
 dny, 1 hud ronuoil nn onjifnKt'iiu'nt wliicli will hiiul(>r me from Ikmdi? pro^jii 
 lnjt wliiili I <li<l not trtk(( to niiiid wliiiii Mr. AViinl spoko to inc. 
 
 This lu'ing so, 1 ))i'<i^ most vcsiKvtfiilly to rcdtiirni my piiriiDso, siiicircly 
 und coiiscic'iitiously, ti» follow tlui liiw« of our Church, so far ns flioy iiri' in 
 force und npiiliciihlo horc. As I do not soo tlmt tho visitation Uh held by you 
 on certain former occasions, and attcdidcd by me out of courtesy, 1;; n.Mjuif^iJe 
 or nee(;ssiiry by any law ^r eti.-tom of our Church. 
 
 I do not regret the circumstance which spares tlio necessity of a porsonixl 
 stfttetnent of this view. 
 
 While 1 acknowledge myself ready to he corrected, if I am in error, you 
 will not be surprised if I leel that my course must b(! guidedrathei- l)y i)urt5 
 duty and obligation, than courte^^y. At th(! same time 1 should b(^ sorry 
 that you should suppose that in anything tliat relates lo your ei)iseopal otlice, 
 I shall he conttMitciil to act from cold constraint. I shall hope ever to perform 
 my duty with the earnei-tncss and rcsjiect which are du(! totlie sanie. Pressure 
 of duti(!s has hindered nu; from writing before with the consideration which 1 
 felt necessary. 
 
 I beg to acknowledge the rcccsipt of your intcMition to hold a coidirmalion 
 at Christ Church on Octobtsr llith, und shall do all in my ])ower to make every 
 preparation which the solenuiity of the occasion nMpiires, and to carry into 
 etl'tict any wishes you may ])avc in rcifcrenci? to the same. 
 
 1 beg to renuiin, yours, faithfullv, 
 
 E. ClliDGE. 
 July 28th, 1873. 
 
 [18.] Bi.-hop's Close, July 2!)th, 187^. 
 
 My dear Sir: 
 
 I am sorry you have again placed j'ourself in opposition to tlui'laws and 
 customs of the Church. " V'i.-ilation " of all Clei'gy, Churches and Purislios, 
 is a 5)rinnuy duly of tlic olhcc of Ui>ho)). 
 
 Th(i att(Mul)incc of th(! Clergy ut such visitations is not ojitional but a duty 
 to wliitJi each on(! has bound himself ijy his oath of Canonical Ubcdicnce, and 
 recei)tion of the bishop's license. 
 
 In the present case; I gave you amjtle notic(i of my visitation and if there 
 liad been any sufficient objection to tins day and hour aiiiiointed, you wimo 
 made aware that I was rciudy to iix another time. Under the^e cin umstances 
 you have exposed yourself to the charge of a grave ecclesiastical oiicnce. 
 
 On my arrival at the Cathedral yesterday, at the time named, the doors 
 were locked, and after waiting some time I was comi)elled to <li'ipart without 
 being abb; to carry out my Episcopal duties. This, to say the very leasl, is a 
 very culpable neglect. 
 
 I am unwilling lo believe it was intentional, but I must investigate! the 
 circumstances, and have lixcl half-past two o'clock to-day for my visitation, 
 at wliicli I require j'our attendance*. 
 
 I am, dear sir, faithfullv yours. 
 Very Kcv. E. Cridgo. Cr. 'COLUMBIA. 
 
 [I'-^.l 
 I have nothing to alter in my letter of 28 July, 1873, to the Bishop. 
 
 I b<dieve the Bishop to be as much bound by the laws and custom of the 
 Church as others. 
 
 With all respect and duty, with much pain, and only in behalf of (he 
 past liberty and scriptin-al ])urity of the Church, I beg to express my con- 
 scientious belief that the Bishoji has arbitrarily and unjustly violated both in 
 connection with Christ Church during the past year. 
 Victoria, 2<) July, 1872. "E. CTJT>GE, 
 
 (Turn ovei'.) Dean and Rector. 
 
 I duly gave orders for the Church to be open for the reception of the 
 Bishop at 1 o'clock, p. m., on Monda3', July 28th, 1873. 
 
■ 
 
 80. 
 
 [20.] Vidorin, August IP. 1873. 
 My (It'nr Bishop of Columhin: 
 
 Jii riiltillint^ iny uiulcrtnldiifr, mndn nl tlio vostry on Ihn first ooonsion of 
 my iniM'tiiit? yoii tliis ycsir in tin? iirv^Jiijioo of tlit! ('liurcliwiiiili'iis of Christ 
 Churcii, to stiil(f tilt' ffnmiiils on which 1 hclicvt-d tho liishop to hiivc acted 
 iiiijiistiy in till! (liscluirgi; of his oilico. I may use liic more frctMJom in tlmt it 
 is tho right of till who helieve tlietnsolves to linvfi bec'n wrongr-d, wlictlier in 
 their own person or in their lawful calling and oflico, tonii)crately to 
 declare it. 
 
 In onler to make my nienning mnro plain I will confine myf^idf in this 
 hitter to till! Hishoi)'s ccusun! of my conduct in my protest against the ritual- 
 istic teaching of tlu; Archdeacon, (Irlivered to my congregation on tho occasion 
 of the ol)ening of the Cliurch. In the document conve.ying that censuns, you 
 accused me of oU'enccs whiiih, if true, would prov(! mo imllt for tho ministry, 
 nnd imwoilhy of tho esteem of my congregation, and indicted on mo, as you 
 paid, under your hand as Bishop, a gravo (M-nsure. You did this, although I 
 had pleaded, "not guilty" to y<»ur accusations, without hearing the; grounds of 
 my pica, (u* giving me opportunity of stating them; without confronting mo 
 with my accusers, or with tho witncss(!H who testilled against mo, and whoso 
 names, except your own, (and I deem it impossible that you grounded j'our 
 Kontenco solely cm your own t(!stimony), I do not know to this daj', you con- 
 demned mo, and inflicted this punishment (whatever it was) ujion mo. 
 
 This i)roceeding I believo to ho arbitrary, luijust, and a groat wrong. To 
 render impossible such wrongs law is framed. To i>rcvent injustict; being 
 done through hasto, passion, inadvertence, or private ends, it is provided by 
 the laws of (!ven heathen nations that no one shall bo trio"', cojidemned or 
 punished "before that ho which is accused have the accuser \\wa\ to face, and 
 have liconso to answer for himself concnrning tho crimes laid against lum." 
 J{y no law except over infants or slaves can any one combino in his own i)er- 
 Kon, as the ]ii.-hop api>cars io have done in this case, the functions of accuser, 
 witness, govcM-nor, and judge. Tho laws of the Church do not overlook this 
 fundamental principle of justice. I will refer lo only one authority at present. 
 The "Church Discijilino Act" in England has been caniful not to give tho 
 ]{i>hops, ('although Ijords in a National Church), any pretext for tho cxorciso 
 of arbitrary powers, but has tied them up to tiie forms of justice and to lay 
 control. Though in this land tlu! IJifthop, being a pimple minister of religion, 
 has no juiwer under this Act to h >1(1 or order a legal investigation, thej!>r<:n- 
 ciples of justice! might have been satisfied in another way. 
 
 The sentence in question was not one of those admonitions which, with 
 no pretence of judicial authority, an; always respected b^' the well disposed ou 
 account of the presumed gof)d intention and allowed legitimate office of those 
 who administered them, Tho liishop gave to this censure, ilhigal as it was, 
 official form and elfect, fo far as he could, by sending it to the (Jiuirchwardens 
 of my congregation, as well as to myself. I need not say that such a censure, 
 8o given, if it bo anything at all, is in its i)uipose and character as much a 
 punishment or penalty as suspension or deprivation. 
 
 It is moreover a principle of justice that the person who judges must be 
 an uninterested person. In this case if, by the promulgation of the sentence 
 and its <'tfoctSj I had been harassed into resigning my incumbencj', tho next 
 presentation, if the trust deed is valivl to this eilect, devolved on you. You 
 could have put into my room one of your own clergy, that is one of those, 
 who derive their status here solely from your own choice and appointment, 
 and did not as myself possess it before the recognition, or even tli(! existence! 
 of your Episcopate. Nor perhaps is this the only respect in which the IJishop 
 is not j\;i inditferent person. 1 should be sorry that you should take this 
 remnrk in an otlensive scmiso, it is not so mcjant; it belongs to my argument and 
 is m ide to shew the reason of the care with which the law fences the, rights of 
 man against the encroachments of arbitrary pow(!r and the iteration of inter- 
 «'>tcd motives. 
 
 The evil consoqucncos also, which are apt to result from unjust judgments, 
 prove the necessity of all alike being under the dominion of the law and it-^ 
 forms. 
 
81. 
 
 )» 
 
 Ptjrmit me to \W\\\t out n Asw of tlio nii^'fliicfs wlutli inijjclit nml Imvo rc- 
 sult(!<l, or inny cvoii In- rc^ultiiif'', from tli(< jii(lt,'iin'iil in <iui'-<tioii. 
 
 1 might, for itistsuiot', Imvo Im! -n initul*!'! I»y wlmt I liilicvc*! to l)0 n libol 
 of a liiji;lily crimiiiioin lunl, wlioovt-r iiiny huvu liccn llid IJi-iliop'H iii- 
 formmils or rouiif^cUors, uiitnu! clmruotrr, into goinif to law with tlio 
 IJishop, and liavn only btuMi rcslraincd by a scuso of what might bo my duty 
 ns a Christian in tlio matti^r. 
 
 • Tht! Churcliwardi'ii-', conndiiig in the Bii'hop's wif^dom, or awed l>y liis 
 ofltce, miplit, by promulgating it, Inivc icndi'rcd themselves simihirly obnox- 
 ious to the hiw, or tliey might havt; ciianged in their fon(hict towanls their 
 minister, contctmned his rule, (iiscotiiaged liiin in Ids ministry, or thrown uji 
 th(fir olHco. Or to i)rcserve friendly r( hit ions between the l{i>hop and tlm 
 congregation they might, although not unconscious of the injustice' (jf ihedoe- 
 lunent in riucstion, havu allowt;d it to stiuul against llieir minister without 
 remonstranco or jtrotcst. Or by taking ollieial notieo of it they luight Imvo 
 divided the. congregation into jiarties, marred the integriiy of tiie ministry, and 
 alienated from the order and administration of tho Chundi some of its devout 
 members. Or the minister himself, ])elioving the cause of tnith to have been 
 wronged in' his own por.-on, might have maintainotl a constant, though for 
 quietness sake i)rivate, jnotost, so long a.s there remained against his ministiy 
 imputations niady at any time to be revived, as in fact they have been ruvivod 
 up to a recent period by tin; Bishop liimself. 
 
 Tiieso are not imaginary things, but evils either actual or imminent, in 
 great i)art as it api)cars to mo in connection wilh the; judgment in <iueslio!i. 
 To avoid such evils surely it is that law forliids arbitrary juilgments as i)eing 
 unu.-milly impotent for anything but mischief, productive often of ilissentiou 
 and strife, latlorness and disquietude, there being no arbiter of tho question 
 thus generated, but not decided, but tlic truth, tho mercy of God, and tho good 
 sense and discernment of tlio petqde. 
 
 In svating tlie grounds on which I conscientiously iK^liin'o tlio Bi.-hop to 
 have acted arljitrarily and unjustly in the discharge of his ollicc. 1 havo 
 studied to use the words of truth and soberness. 
 
 After waiting several months without i)erceiving any indications ofcon- 
 pciousnesson the IJishop's part of having commit led a wrong, (but tl;( contrary), 
 I embraced witli jiain and reluctance th(! opportunity above referrcKl to of 
 ))ointing it out, well believing it a duty which I owe to my ministry, to tho 
 Church, and to tho interests of justice and religion to do so. 
 
 I remain, my dear IJishop Hills, 
 
 Yours, failhfullv, 
 
 E. ClllbGE. 
 
 -ure, 
 
 4 1)0 
 
 ion CO 
 
 Inoxt 
 
 IYou 
 
 hose 
 
 lient, 
 
 |enc(! 
 
 -hop 
 
 this 
 
 and 
 
 Is of 
 
 iter- 
 
 JMlts, 
 
 I its 
 
 [21.] Bishop's Close, August 27, 1873. 
 
 Dear Mr. Crldge : 
 
 The authority of the Bishop may be exercised by private censure as well 
 as by public trial. The former course was adopted out of kiuduesa to you, 
 and to avoid wider exposure of scaudal to our Church. 
 
 The od'eace having been committed iu the jjreseuce of the Bishop, and in 
 n public manner, formal evideace was uanecessarj; there could be no ques- 
 tion of fact. 
 
 Justice to those whom you aggrieved, tho Clergy and the Church at 
 large, demanded there should be recorded proof that the olfeuce had not been 
 passed over by the Bishop, and heuce the formal character of the censurCi 
 and the communication of it to the Churchwardens. 
 
 Had the offence not been dealt with privately, opportunity having been 
 given for explanation and expression of regret, a public Urial would have 
 been demanded by others, and then as serious consequences were involved, 
 the forms of justice usual iu such cases would have been strictly observed. 
 
 JSo long as you hold it lawful for a clergyman (I) to stuj) the appointed 
 order of divine service at his iileasure, give vent to excited feelings, and 
 disturb the peace of a cougregatiuu, and (2) to attacii aud deuouucc u brother 
 
^•2. 
 
 olJTKyrnnn Itofitre llio cotiKropulioa aa lio (loaonndf) from iho pulpit (or ft ilif- 
 forciico of opinion, you iiro in conflict with tlio lnws of tho (Church of 
 ICnKli^iid, wliicli you havo solomnly ohkukcmI to oboy, find by which, in Iho 
 nuni)* of order, sobriety, and charity, ihe^c acta are m>iri(ed aa grave oll'encca, 
 nnd, if havin( committed them, you show no regret for ihe scandal they hitre 
 caiiHed, yuii must not wondur if the uiipulaliuua upon your character aa ti 
 clergyman HJiould reniaiu. 
 
 f)uch eiil const'(iu(!nceH m thoau yon nliudo to vbould be trncod back , 
 not lo the exeriiHO ot authority for an offence clearly ostabliahed, lj>it to tlu 
 wrong doing in the firat iuatuuce by youraelf. 
 
 I am, faithfully yours, 
 
 O. OULUMIilA. 
 
 I Hi! 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 1 
 
 [22.] Victoria, Sept. 3, 1873, 
 
 My de".r fJishop of Columbin: 
 
 In aiiHwcr to my complaint thnt yon hRV<» aa Uiahop wronged me in my 
 person and olHcc, your arirnment, if I understand it arighi, is as follows: — 
 
 That (IB the Hishop and Iho public were witiiessea of my conduct on tba 
 occasion referred to, there wna no need of evidence to prove that the ISiahop's 
 Recount of the same was true. Truly, thonch a thousand persons wiinesa 
 a proceeding, it does not follow that a certain one who tealifies to it, tettifica 
 truly. Many hcnrd our Lord speak when ho said, (or seemed to say), that 
 ho would destroy the Temple, yet this did not make the testimony which two 
 uf them bore as to what he did say true. Notoriety is gooil to prove that 
 something happened, tliougii not what. Though I believe that notoriety iu 
 this case, (v. the public papers), is adverse to the truth of the Bishop's cen« 
 sure, whiit took place la still unsettled. There can, therefore, be "queaiioQ 
 of fact," seeing that I, the accused, say tbitt what I am accused of is not truo 
 Aud by no means was done. 
 
 Vour reasoning that though a "formal" censure was "just," for the 
 satisfaction of "the Cbnrch at large," "formal" evidence was not necessary 
 for the sake of the accused, seems to mo to confound equity. Vou say llint 
 if yon had not dealt with tho ca=!o privately, though without the forms of 
 of justice, others would havo demanaod that it should be denlt with publicly, 
 with the forms of jusiice. How tho justice, which would havo ijeen done in 
 the supposed method, can excuse the absenca of justice in the actual, is not 
 clear to my understanding. Hut the forms of justice, the Bishop says, would 
 bavc been observed in the supposed case, bi-causo th«i consequences would 
 havo been serious. The loss of character, which the Bishop readily udmita 
 to be a natural consequence of tho method actually pursued by him, is in- 
 delibly affixing, if not wiped out by confession. The "imputation" of 
 wrong doin^ upon mc is not, it would seem, a consequence sufficiently ser- 
 ious in the Bishop's estimation to render any form of justico necessary in 
 that method. 
 
 Still, the consequences in the supposed metb'i ! of trial would have been 
 80 serious that tho Bishop determined, out ..: ! indness to me, to save mo 
 from them by publishing me through a private 'insure to tho "Church at 
 large" as an evil doer of a bad type. While I ttil the Bishop, that all things 
 considered, I do not recognize this feature in his proceedings, I must alao 
 Bay, for the cause sake, that I am not troubled about my character, as I 
 tnigbt have been, had I done the evils, instead of being accused of them. 
 
 The Bishop appears to refer to bis authority in justification of his pro- 
 ceedings. To this I answer, that no authority can justify a wmng, which I 
 have proved this to be, which the Bishop has not denied, still less disproved, 
 least of all redressed. 
 
 Although, therefore, the question of authority does not affect my argu- 
 ment, and although this is not the moment to go into that question, though 
 important, still, as you have given me the opening, I will brietiy point out 
 what appcara to mo to be a double fullary in your definition uf tho scope of 
 the"aulhunty of u Bishop," uumeiy: that ilia "exercised by private cen- 
 
33. 
 
 lecn 
 
 mo 
 
 at 
 
 ings 
 
 S I 
 
 Iro- 
 Ib I 
 
 3d, 
 
 ■ure ti% wnll as by public Irial," which to my nppreheniloD contains, flrat : 
 A distinction iu 8<iniid atul not in serse, a private or finy censure beintr * 
 penalty nnd not a trial, and comin({ nfter a triitl, whether public or prirate; 
 Becondly: an iissumntiin roncei\Ipil under tiie double meatiinn of the lerin 
 "rtuth >riiy," lis it ilie liinliop s uulhDrity were hy Uw, wnich it is not, nod 
 not I y ciirn(Mii, wliich It is, with in "cope nu'l ofTect yet undefined. In a 
 npiffUltounnk: churc*i, if I remember riK'nIy, the B ihop has authority to ad- 
 minister a Cfnmirii, whether pnitlic or privnte hu» not to ti\ke part in the (rial. 
 by which it is awarded. In another nBijrhhorinpr church no authority to ad- 
 uiinistor cuKgurc is ttllowed iit itll, iippireniU bfCAuso the authority tniKht, 
 as I submit is the ciisa of your ceiisurc Mgaiiist mo, come into collision with 
 the liiw of the land. I think it not in evelanl also lo remark that there is ft 
 certain (>tri'tice ajjainsl the tSiate, implied in the enforcement of Eccle9inttic<\l 
 law, wiien not autlicirized by the law of the land. It may be preanmpliTe in 
 ino to instruct the Bishop, hut it is not unlawful to defend mynelf. The 
 Bishop ouKht not to be it^nonint that when a person assume*), without the 
 authority of the Slate, the oHlce o. Jiidjr", such a document as that which 
 tile Bishop has procnetled to publish apainst me, i^ not a judgment, but a 
 lil<el, and an oi't-ucu aijainsi tlit- law, for which the alleged Kccleiiasiical 
 HUthority ot the Bishop alTord-i no shelter, while, on tlie other hand, luch a 
 judgment proceediuR from a person with authority to judge, would oooitituta 
 a wrong under another name, hut equally open to redress by the law. 
 
 One error into which I submit the Bi:<hop has fallen is a failure to per- 
 ceive the distinction between evulence >\\\(\ laiu. The first thing ia *ev^Tj 
 cause is to show what has been done, this is the function of (vidence. The 
 next IS to ilitt inline what i(j(t' it any hiv^ been broken, and to award thn 
 penalty, this is the ofli<-e of the «/'<'//;«, the last thing is to administer the 
 corrvCtion or pardon the ofronce. This iS the prerogative of the Oovernor. 
 The prhiciphx which nictate thf-se forms mu-t be observed in private or 
 conventinnul prociodiiigs t(> make them just. 1 submit that the Bishop has 
 confounded all these functions together iu one abitrary assumplioo. 
 
 To say that I denounced, and attacked, and brawled, and caused scan- 
 _ dal, and grieved the Church, and upon the mere strength of these dennncia- 
 tioiis, (inpi'iciil to the document itself for the accuracy of the words), to 
 inflict ond publish a penalty, is, I Hubmii, the language of abuse and slai - 
 tier, and an act of lawless authority ; the crinies thus imputed having been 
 manifested by no evide-ice, proved by n > '.aw. The Bishop aflTums them, I 
 deny them. Ttio Bishop has Judged the cause, I Judge it not. I appeal, God 
 will judge. 
 
 I have now only to ask the Bishop one question. In your last letteri 
 (27 Aug.,) you repeat your accu.sation of aUucking and denouncing a broth- 
 er clergyman. In your censure you Buy: — 
 
 '• Von denounced your brother clergyman by name, and amongst other 
 words, declared that he had violated the l.iw of the church, the law of tha 
 land, and the law of (iod in the Scriptures." 
 
 Task, did you say this of yourself, or did others tell it you of me? I 
 request also that the l!isho[) will i;i*'<' tne the words, or reasonably near the 
 words, which I am said to have uttered, and to give them, not obliquely or 
 constructively, as ii the censure, but directly and as spoKeo, 
 
 I ask also tor the names of the other witnesses, if any. The Bishop 
 will, I presume, also deem it right to give mc the minutes of any (/ouncil 
 which he, as Bishop, may have held iu this mutter, as also any record he n)ay 
 have made, or caused to be made, in relcreuce to it in the Archives of the 
 Diocese. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 E. CRIDGE. 
 To the Bight Reverend G. Hills, D. D., 
 
 Bisli p ol Brilis'i Coluuibitt. 
 
h^^nMM.i 
 
 34. 
 
 [23.] 
 
 New Westroinistar, Sept. Jth, 1873. 
 
 Dear Mr, Cridge : 
 
 Much oFyour complaint is founded npon the aspumption that the Bishop 
 in this Provinco has no legal authority. In this you are mistaken. The au- 
 thority of the Bishop can be Ibgaliy exercised first, undtr the Letters Patient, 
 which, having been granted by Her Mttjnaty before coDstitutional powers of 
 Government bad been conferred upon tue Colony, are offeree and validity, 
 and secondly, under the contract into which every clergyman has entered bj 
 acceptance of the Bicibops Liceuse, and the oath of canonical obedience, to be 
 governed by the laws of the Church ot England. All acta of eclesiastical 
 dicipline done under these nanctions are legal, and must be reelected by the 
 civil courts, [See Long v. Bishop of Cape Town]. Bishop of Natal v. Glad- 
 stone. You next complain that this authority has been exercised in an arbitrary 
 manoor, and that you have been treated unjustly. In the exercise of dici> 
 plioe it is true that the Episcipal office has the heavy reoponsibility of 
 combining in itself several fonotious. The Bishop may have to initiate pro- 
 ceedings and be as it were, both prosecutor and jud^e; of this, however, you 
 cannot reasonably complain, seeing that, pis a minister of the Church of 
 England, you have accepted this form of government over you, nor is there 
 injustice in my having acted on the evidence of my own eyes and ears. 
 What is the use of evidence, but to bring to the mind of the Judge a clear 
 preception of the facts as tliey actually occurred? It is uoi uecedsarily an 
 injustice to pass sentence in spite of a plec of not guilty, and denial of the 
 charge ; is not this done every day ? 
 
 With regard to the mode of procedure, the private method is the most 
 usrial. A Bishop is not bound to proceed in any particular manner. His 
 forum domestieum is under little restraint from the forms observed in conten- 
 tious suits in courts of justice," [leport of theComiasioners on EcclQSiastical 
 Courts, 1832 p. 54]. 
 
 In EuiJf'.and, notwithstanding the Clergy Diocipiine Act, he can proceed 
 pe'sooally, and without process in court, to enquire into and adjudicate 
 upon the alleged oCfeuce, '*Crip|i8," S2. He can in some cases deprive a* 
 clergyman of his license and cure, refusing; his demand for a public trial and 
 to have his accusers face to face, (see Poole and Bishop of London). la 
 this land, w^£re Statutes of English Law affecting the Church are not in 
 force, the Bishop's discretion is still more unfettered, and must remain so 
 until a Synod shall establish a Tribunal of Discipline. The principles of 
 sab itantial justice essential to everv proceeding, are stated by Dr. Lushing- 
 toD, in. Poole v. Bishop of London, lo be these, viz ! — 
 
 1. That the accused should know when an accusation is brought 
 against him. 
 
 2. That he should know what is alleged against liim. 
 
 3. That the matter alleged must be stated with sufficient precision. 
 
 In my letters to yoH of Dec. 7 and 9; In my forwarding at your request 
 the Ecclesiastical law books, marked iu the places where the oilf'ences charg- 
 ed are described, and in giving you opportunity to explain your conduct, or 
 to ofiTer any plea in extenuation before the censure, these principles of justice 
 •were satisfied, and having endeavored, under a painful necessity to execute 
 my office in a way usual in such cases, not without legal advice, I do not 
 see that yoa can justly complain of any wrong having been done; having 
 also carefully considered all yon have advanced, I see no good reason to 
 re-open further this matter, which was decided in December lr.^t. 
 
 If yon still feel aggrieved you can appeal 'rom my decision to the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 I am, Dear Mr. Cridge, taitbfully yours. 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
3ion. 
 buest 
 [arg- 
 il, or 
 nice 
 ;ute 
 not 
 ring 
 to 
 
 the 
 
 35. 
 
 [24.] 
 
 Victoria, B. C, Sept. 4, 1873. 
 My dear Bishop of Columbia: 
 
 Some members of the Congregation having expressed regret at your not 
 having preached at the Cathedral of late, and wishing to know why, I have 
 referred them to you for information. 
 
 On this subject I huve but two things to say vith regard to myself per- 
 sonally. 
 
 First, as long as you c;)nsider ''ri.>udlism" to be a mere "difference of 
 opinion" between clergyman, and do not consider its advocacy in the Cathe- 
 dral pulpit to be a matter of which any formal notice can be taken, I can have 
 no assurance but you may one day advocate the same yourself, or at least 
 favour its doctvine in your own teaching. I do not judge the accuracy of 
 your view, as if my judgment could decide the question, but I must judge for 
 for my own ministry, which is inviolate and independent, as long as I do not 
 therein depart from the doctrine of God's word and of the Church, 
 
 Your view of the import of this subject is essentially opposed to the whole 
 basis and subslanee of my ministry, I hold, (and my doctrines have always 
 been notorious to all my brethren), that ritualism and more especially the doc- 
 trines of which it is the informal expression and which doctrines may be and 
 often are fostered and taught apart from ritualism are irreconcilable with the 
 doctrines of our church, our rending tli.it church to pieces in England, anvl 
 are a deadly attack upon the cause of the reformation, whose battle is being 
 fought over again. 
 
 You are not bound to be of this opinion because I hold it as manifestly 
 you are not, but my conscience binds me to say that I cannot welcome or invite 
 to any participation in my jjersonal ministry any clergyman, however high 
 his order may bo, who holds the view* on this vital question which you 
 have expressed in connection witii the same. 
 
 But to say that I will oppose your access to the pulpit as Bishop is an- 
 other thing, and when any request is made to me on the subject it will I hojie 
 receive from me the attention and respect which the otQce of Bishop demands 
 from every clergyman of the church. 
 
 Sept. 17. I beg to api)end to the above written last Thursday weejt my 
 acknowledgment of your letter of the inst. in whicii j'ou declined to an- 
 pwt.'r my question as to the evidtince on which you grounded the censure which 
 has been the subject of this correspondunco." 
 
 It is not to continue a correspondence of which, for the sake of my rias- 
 toral work I am glad -o be relieved, that I write this, but to make still more 
 apparent to you th^ jiioti:.'} (from my view) of my determination not to im- 
 pugn the authority of the Bishop but to preserve, as far as in me ]'"}.s. my own • 
 ministry, pure and violate. I will, however, state that I was prepared unless 
 you bad silenced me to prove further that you have wronged me by partialiti/ 
 against me in your oversight as Bishoj); l)y insincerity towards me in your 
 statement as to other modes of redress open to me uj\der the outrage 1 protest- 
 ed against, by misquotation of authorities and to sum up all that in a manner 
 contrary to equity, and justice, truih, fidelity, and law 3'ou used your oihee as 
 Bishop to intimidate me in the honest faithful and lawful discharge of my , 
 ministry. These things I submit in./o'-o con.ocientice, and leave Ihem. 
 
 I am glad to be reminded that it was a "contract" and not a bond of 
 ficrvitude under which we entered into the relation of Bishop and Presbyter, 
 and must Ix^ permitted to observe that there are always two sides to a contract, 
 and that it was never heard of that one party to a contract should be both 
 " prosecutor and judge" of the otliers violation of it except in ecclesiastical 
 matters, in which it would apjiear from your arguments that a Bishop is not 
 bound by the »ame kind of justice which governs other men. 
 
 It IS because 1 believe j'ou have violated the implied contract between your- 
 self and the church at large no less tlnui that which you have referred to us ex- 
 siting between ourselves by your claiming for ritualism a right to be re(!0g- 
 nized or at least to liave a footing as a part of the allowable teaching of our 
 church that I as a Prcspyter of the eluuch having a right to a voice equal with 
 your own, have written the f hove. 
 
36. 
 
 I hold your reference to the Arclibishop of Cantonbury for redress to be 
 only a confirmation of your resolution to maintain this view. 
 
 A more just and satisfactory way would be to refer it to the churcli in 
 this country in which the Hupreme authority resides not the Church as consti- 
 tuted in synod on the principles publiihed under the sanction of your name, but 
 exercising a free voice. 
 
 Before the whole body of the church then, I am willing if God help mo. 
 to undertake to maintain, whether with voice or pen, against any one that you 
 as Bishop may appoint, the atfirmation against, ritualism and your action m 
 connection with it which I havr made above. 
 
 Meanwhile I can only pray that the merciful Lord will bring deliverance 
 and quiet to our unhappy body in his own way, but above all that in this 
 land and within our church the notion of liberty to discuss doctrines under the 
 r>aK>.o of opinions a notion wliich 1 believe to tend only to make tlie cliurch the 
 bold of every foul spirit and a cage of every uncleun uird, may be disallowed 
 aud come to naught. 
 
 I will only add in conclusion that if I have said one word in this corres- 
 pondence but what is reasonable just and true as pertaining to the rights of 
 the meanest man, to say nothing of those of a minister of the church I shall 
 he glad that it be pointed out and I will readily retract it. 
 
 With sincere prayers for the unity of the church in the Protestant faith, 
 sealed With the blood of Bishops and martys. 
 
 1 am sincerely nnd faithfully yours, 
 
 E. CRIDGE. 
 The Right Reverend Geo. Hill. D. D. 
 
 Bishop of British Columbia. 
 
 Pressure of pastoral duties compels a little untidiness which I hope will be 
 overlooKed. E. C. 
 
 [25.] 
 
 [The Bishop to Rev. E. Cridg°.] 
 
 Sapperton, Sep. 22, 1873. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge. 
 
 Upd some things contained in your letters of the 4lli and 17th, I wish 
 to observe as follows : — 
 
 1. The staieooent in the sermon attributed the rituilistie movement to 
 certain causes upon which there is, and may fairly he a dillereiice of ofiii.- 
 icn; no particular practices were advoca'ed and while tlif movement wm 
 Invorably regcrdcd, the apfiroval was limited by the expri'ssion ol n hope 
 that the extrnvajjances would iu lime suhsido iini the good rem un. Tuough 
 I did not agree with all that was said I heard notliirnj ihii was uoi neimis-i- 
 l)le within tha limits allowed in the church of Kiiij;lau<i, to this exient, ihen-- 
 fore, was the slaiement a matter ot opiuiou. Hut evtu if serious error h d 
 be«n taught, that would have b^eu no iu:Jti-licatioa for a disturonnce of the 
 order ot service, or for an attauk upon a brother miuister befoie tae cungre- 
 tiou. Tl<ree modes of redress were, l"nitiuiatrly open : — 
 
 1. To present the alle^jed error to ihe ordinary who would be compell« 
 ed to deal with the charge according to the 1 uvs ut tht church. 
 
 2. To give an expcs tioii from the pulpit on the earliest O' casioa of tl>a 
 truth according to your view upon the sut)ject 3, To publish your views 
 Hud protestaiiuii. 
 
 2. In oppoainp; any system in whicli we believe there is error, it is hard- 
 ly christian, certaiidy not wise, to reluto lo aoknowledi^e whatever in it 
 iheie may be of good. 1 observe you speak of ritualism as entirely evil, 
 I ot 80 others who are living in the mid^l of it At a meeting ol the Hural 
 Leans and Principal Clergy of the Diocese of Winchester about two months 
 Rgo nadertbe preiidemy of the late lamv*iitdd liishop, the subject wkj dis- 
 cussed in this tor"i. ''How can tuu earnestacss aud encrfjies of those called 
 Ilitualtsts be directed lo the bcbl pur^iosi:, and tue evil rooted up without 
 
 ^ 
 
37. 
 
 deatrojing tie good ?" Let ue recognize use, and bold fasft whatever Is good; 
 while we as zealously and as faiihfully abbor and eschaw thai which is evi!- 
 but do not let us eall (rood evil any more than call evil good. 
 
 3. With regard to the inlepeiidence of a clerayinan of the f^huroh of 
 England in his ministry, he is of course, not independeot of the laws of the 
 church ; he aiust not leach coiiirary to the doctrines of the church as laid 
 down in the Prayer Book and Articles. Holdiny; a license to ofliciaie (roin 
 the Bishop, he is removeatile tor just cause. But having been appointed to 
 a Cure no one can olliciate in it without his coasent, with the exception of 
 the Bishoi), or whoever exv-'rcises the otlice of ordinary. Tiie Bishop is the 
 cbief Pastor of the Diocese, of clergy and people of the church, a>.d ean visit 
 and excccise his ministry in every church wherever h.' pleases; usually he 
 does this at confirmations and at his visitations ; and in practice at other 
 times preach .'8 only when reqaested. In a Cathedral, however, the case is 
 different. In it is the Cathedra, or seat of the Bishop, and there he is to bo 
 most frequently present, the law being, see Barnes' ecclesiastiial laws (by 
 Philjmore) vol. 1. p. 21. " Bishops si^all abide at their Cathedral churches 
 and officiate on the Chief Festivitls and on the Lord's Days and in Lent and 
 Advent." Not only does the Bishop by right more ''requently preach in his 
 cathedral than in any other church, it is customary for him to appoint on 
 certain occasions other preachers, as for instance »it his ordiuiitions and gen- 
 eral visitations. Christ church was constituted the Bishop's Cathedral, the 
 Deanery created and the Dean appointed under the powers contained in the 
 Letters Patent ; by which also the Bishop is authorized to appoint other 
 clergy to have places and consequently a right to ofliciate in the Cathedral. 
 Subject to these conditions which only follow the custom of the church, the 
 Dean if he is also a Parochial minister can otherwise independently carry 
 out his ministry. Under this view which I believe to be correct, you will 
 perceive that the Bishop officiates by right and not through consent of any 
 other person when he ministers in his Cathedral, and that the contjregatioa 
 there assembled are as much his flock as Chief Pastor as they can be to any 
 one who holds his license. j;- 
 
 I am, dear Mr. Cridgo, very faithfullj- votirs, ,, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 14th, Oct.., 1873. 
 My dear Bishop of Columbia. 
 
 Prtgtoral duties disable me at present, (l)ut it is only I fear a doty de- 
 ferred) from entering into assumptions contained in y^ur letters; assump- 
 ti ' n which tome are subversive of all faith, sanctity ixui peace in the church 
 ■' "'■ tend only to one thing, the erection of an iniane of Papal domination 
 1 ' ;. ' .lidst; the darling object of the sacrrdoial body in our cliurch and of 
 n AC J than lh(j late Bi.-hop of Winchester whom you quote, but who to 
 
 me 1^ ' • last and leHSt of all authorities. 
 
 I C(i . .i)t however allow the season of confirmation to pass without 
 drawing your alt.nlion to points on which I belie\e you have violated or de- 
 parted from the order and doctrine of the chui'h. 
 
 1. The service of coutirmaiiou :s not the Bishop's service (as yon term 
 it, and evidently reit?.:'' ii; 'my conhrmalion"), but it is a rite of the church 
 to be ministered according to a prescribed order from which the Bishop h^i 
 CO au'horiiy to depart. It is as competent for the Pastor of a conj^regHtion 
 t» stop thf appointed order of morning E'rayer (for instance) before the re- 
 cital of the Creed by the congregation, and to direct a [)ause for Silent Pray- 
 
 • for the increased solemaiiy ol that act and to deliver aidresses with that 
 '^tiw as it is for the Bishop to do 80 and as you have done in thb "order of 
 fi afirmation." 
 
 2. You attribute Grace to the laying on of hands in confirmation a 
 grace restrained in t me to that act. This I believe to be entirely without 
 warrant either fiom Scriplurcd or 'he church. 
 
88. 
 
 3. You attribute to Bishops descent from the Apo^.lea in respect to 
 their being a distinct order in the church and in other respects. This also 
 I believe to be devoid of authority as above. T believe I can give reasonably 
 near your words if you i squire. 
 
 May I kiope if you see fit to instruct my ignorance in this matter that 
 jon will for the sake of precious time, refer, not to vague an 1 disputable, 
 but conclusive authorities. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 E. CKIDGE. 
 The Right Rev. Geo. Hills, D. D. Bishop of British Columbia. 
 
 [27.] 
 [The Bishop to Uev. E. Cridge.] 
 
 Kew Westminister, 10th October 1873. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge, 
 
 From the tone of your letter of the 14th, , nd some expressions in it 
 there would seem little likelihood of any profit from a correspondence upon 
 the points you have raised. Let me refer you to the present Bishop of Win- 
 obester's work upon the 39 articles, and Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity tor 
 information to enable you to judge bow far your opinions agree with the 
 conclusioa of the most learned aid most moderate Divines of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 Faitiifuily yours, 
 
 a. COLUMBIA. 
 
 28.] 
 
 Victoria, 27th, Oct. 1873. 
 My dear Bishop of Colombia: 
 
 If you will point out any expression in my letter of the 14th, whica 
 taken in its full and proper reference, goes beyond the just liberty of a min- 
 ister in repelling, according to his couvictiops, erroneous doctrine from bis 
 flock, or in defending his office, the authority of which is not of raan, but of 
 the Holy Ghost, from what he believes to be illegal and unscriplural dom- 
 ination or in guarding the due order of the church a duty as much binding on 
 one as another ; I will gladly wilbdniw It. 
 
 If in the support of the doctrines and acts complained of you refer to 
 anthors, it is obvious tha t I c an do the same; and must be permitted to spenk 
 of them &s I esteem tbem, and not as .you esteem ^ben^. while on the other 
 hand if wishing to settle tbe mntler, you refer to iawtully constituted author- 
 ities, I must cither bend to your reference or show reason why not. 
 
 Hooker's Ecclesiastic il I'ohty is not an aurhority in this8ei.''e. Besides 
 which his argument is in part applici\l)le only to the affairs of a national 
 church ; lain part a matter of expediency, and in part is disputed by many 
 both within ani w ttiout the church. 1 referred to that work before writing 
 to you on confirmation and order.^, and cc id meet you on this ground, but 
 larely it would be waste of lime and to no purpose, settling nothing. 
 
 I, as I think a faithful and accountable minister of tho church, am en- 
 gaged in defending my flock Irom erroneous doctrines and my ministry from 
 threets and irritation. The prayer Book and the Homilies, with final refer- 
 ence, in case of question to the Scriptures are authorities which all must 
 respect, and one clear sentence from these (E. G. from the 39 articl^e them- 
 eelves instead of from any t^ishop's work on the same), would settle more 
 than volumes from authors, however eminent. 
 
 The rule and principle of my ministry are plainly different from those 
 which you would have me follow. I do not find in either of the above u.v ■ 
 thorities any reference to •' moderate divinity ". Truth is one and oinipie, 
 and admits of no degrees ; ministers as it appears to me aro not bidden 
 whether by the word ofGod or by tho order of the church to follow "moder- 
 ate divines", but to speak as the oracles of God. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 E. CRIDGE. 
 
[29.1 
 [The Bisliop to the Rev. E. Cridge.] 
 
 New Wesliuinister, Nov. 1st, 1873. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge: 
 
 The tone and cxprcs.sions of your letter of the 14th, to which I aUudod 
 were in part the soreness and irritation iiiidor wliicii you seem to write. To 
 this I attribute the discourteous language in your last paragraph, your absurd 
 and morbid statement of an attempt to erect "an image of Papal domina- 
 tion in our midst", and your unreasonable attack upon the ordinary mode of 
 conducting a confirmation. I much regret to learn that you deny confirma- 
 tion to be a means of Grace, for I do not see how any chirgyman of the 
 Church of England can consistently hold so extreme an opinion. The two 
 authorities were not given on account of any estimateof mine respecting them, 
 but beeaupe they are acknowloged Text books of the Church of England, uni- 
 versally required to be studied by all candidates for the ministry as mosi fair 
 and very learned expo itions of the doctrines and principles of our church. 
 "With itiese you found your views upon confirmation and orders do not agree 
 and accordingly you are prepared to depreciate them, It does not occur to 
 you that they may possibly be right and you wrong : at least that they may 
 hold some truth wliich you have overlooked, but you assume, as a matter of 
 course, that your own opinions must be right and those who differ from you 
 all wrong. 
 
 So very confident a tone may lead to mistakes, and when driving away, 
 what, from your ext feme point of view, j'ovi deem to be erroneous doctrine, 
 you may be misleading your people, and fighting against the truth of God. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 [ao.] 
 
 Victoria, Nov. 2r)th, 1873. 
 My Dear Bihhop of Columbia: 
 
 Permit me in reference to your letter of Nov. 1. without preface to ob- 
 Bcrve, that; 
 
 1. I no not think the words " image of Papal domination " bear on 
 the face of them anything that is " morbid" or "absurd". They are part 
 of a sober proposition wliich wherever I see occasion or you shall require, I 
 am prepared to maintain: viz. that the rule wliicli you aspire to exercise o 3r 
 your brethren is a close resemblance in its nature, ground and origin to that 
 sj'stem which under pretinice of a paternal domestic authority', has, i)roceed- 
 ing from small beginnings, for so many ages, lorded it over God; Heritage. 
 
 2. It was a sincere and lawful request which I made in the last para- 
 graph of my letter and one which I again respectfully and earnestly draw 
 your attention as that which if complied with would sellle more than volumes 
 of writing. 
 
 H. T made no "attack" on the usual way of conducting a confirmation, 
 C which I am persuaded yours was not ), but in words of simplicity, and I believe 
 of truth, pointed out your imautlioi-i/ed doctrines and yo ur violation of the 
 'ioixler" of the chvu'ch, a view which, in the absence of alld 's i)roof. I must still 
 hoki; 
 
 4. The sti'ictures of your letter, so far as I can sec, are absolutely against 
 nothing else but my refusal to violate my ordination vows, and to sacrifice my 
 own permations "g \<^ <l'e iiin' nocfrino^ of God's word to human ojiinionj ^ 
 
 5. It gives me pain to advert to another point in conneclion wiTh this 
 part of the correspondence. 
 
 In my complaint against your te^aching on the day of confirmation, I did 
 not, according to one of the laws you laid down, make a public protestation, 
 but wrote privately to yourself. No soul know of that hotter from me ; yet 
 I find it has been communicated to members of my congregation. 
 
 Now, Sir, if 1 sought personal justification I could wish nothing bettor 
 
40. 
 
 tlian tliat it and all my lotlors should bo publi.-,ht;d ; bull cannot think it 
 quite tho act of a Bishop, ospocial'y of ono who claims judicial powers, to re- 
 sort to private; inlhiencc against a pnisbytor amonp the flock of th(; latter. 
 
 As fur myself I can use only, and when the lime shall come, the open 
 method. As a Christian, a gentleman, and a man, 1 eannot resort to whisper- 
 ing or detraction, ev(!n in defence of a ju»t cau^^(!. 
 
 But tli(! d(;clriiies and practices which 1 believe to be subversive of the 
 pure (iospcl and of all ,-;iiictity and peace in tlie church, 1 must ever, both 
 openly and privately, in season and out uf season, endeavour to put down. 
 
 I nuist again express my regret if I have used any word in this corres- 
 pondence contrary to charity and respiu't ; 1 cannot give the time reipiired for 
 complimentary language, and ojdy hope my words will be construed with 
 charity in their literal signilication. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 : E. CEIDGE. 
 
 [:u.] 
 
 [Tho Bishop to tlie Kev. E, Cridge.] 
 
 New "Westminister, Dec. 1st, 187;?. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge: 
 
 Tt is not necessary to think so badly of j^our Bishop as that he can "resort 
 to private influence " whispering or detraction "against any Presbyter" of 
 his Diocese. 
 
 It is simply his duty to confer with Hk! failhful laily on matters respect- 
 ing their clergy and it is fortlu; interest of tiie Presbyters tiiat he should do >■• 
 
 Your extraordinary letter of October 14th was not nuirked jirivate, ami i 
 cannot sec that you have any just ground for objecting to tho ctnnmunication of 
 its contents to any person to whom I mic^ht tliink riglit 1o show it. 
 
 Faith I'uiiv vours, 
 
 G.' COLUMBIA. 
 
 [.Hli.] 
 
 December, 10th, 1873. 
 
 Dear Bishop of Columbia: ^ « 
 
 In referenee to your note of Dec. 1st, permit me 1o ask, does the Bishop 
 think it his "duty," by private ciMiferenee with tlie "faitliful laity," to excitis 
 their animosity, and to instigate Ihcm to use inflammatory language against 
 their Pastor ? Yet such has been the ejfect^ (not the only one,) of his communi- 
 cations in the present instance, and while I ask the Bishop to shew how sueh 
 methods can bo for "my interest," I would remind him that it is not the 
 simple perusal of a letter, but the manner and purpose with which it is com- 
 municated, that produce certain eU'ects. 
 
 Permit me als(i to say tliat my letter of the 14th Oct., was only so far 
 extraordinary "as the proceedings which called it forth were so." Tho 
 Bishop is well aware that 1, in common with a vast number of Protestants, 
 both in and out of our church, hold tho doctrin(!s in question to bo of an essen- 
 tially Romish tendeiKy and tliat to instil tliem under tho curcumstanccs cculd 
 not but cause dissatisfaction and protest. 
 
 I might, in reference to this and other matters between us, have agitated 
 tho church by persuing certain methods indicated by yourself, but I have 
 sought the peace! of the church, beyond all other things, next to its soundness 
 in the faith. What less, with my convictions could 1 do, than writi; plainl3' to 
 yourself? Is it wrong for the Pastor of a church to endeavour as he can to 
 banish and drive away strange and <MTonous doctrines from his flock ? "What 
 Pope even ever dari'd to say so ? I have acted only on tho dcfeiit-ive through- 
 out and in defence of my flock, in defimce of my ministry; actuated still by the 
 .^ame motives, I must with pain exjiress the convictions which has been formed 
 in mv mind, (and for which I am i>repared to give reasons), that you favor tho 
 sacrcdotal doctrines, and their Inid, "ritualism." It is surely better, that such 
 
 ■I 
 
 ■ ( 
 
41. 
 
 being my conviction, I Shovild slate it. And hnving said this much I hope I 
 may also, without presumption, ask whether the last clergyman you have 
 brought iiere, ^Mr. Mason, favours or holds tlio pame, or whether you have 
 taken steps to ascertain ? I Bhall deem it only a duty to state my reasons for 
 asking this question, should any more be needed, than the interest which every 
 member has in the welfare of the body. 
 
 I am sorry that you are offended with my confident tone, yet looking at 
 our vows and standards, what bui r.edence in our belief, if we bo ready al- 
 ways t V give a reason for it, othci , iso confidence may be only a folly and 
 arrogance, becomes us as ministers of Christ and clergy of the church ? I could 
 wish all the latter no harm, but to forsake the dr.rk and restless sea of views 
 and opinions and to preach, defend and uphold the word. Dissensions and 
 disputations would then have but little place among us, 
 
 Meanwhile I must ask one question, if yuu can answer it; how can two 
 walk together except they be agreed ? 
 
 Yours, sincerely, 
 
 E. CRIDGE. 
 
 [33.] 
 
 [The Bishop to the Bev. E. Cridgo.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, Dec. 26lh, 1873. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge: 
 
 Your letter of the 15th I founl on my arrival from Cowichan, and I have 
 been much occui)icd since. 
 
 I regret to learn that members of j'our congregation have shown "ani- 
 mosity" and used towards j'ou "inflammatory language," but I am not 
 surprised, for complaints have reached me of provoking expressions in your 
 sermons; and misgivings are entertained as to your loyalty to the Church of 
 England. 
 
 So long as j'ou set up your own opinions, which you appear to me to do, 
 a? an infallible standard, and fraternize with those who arc conscientiously 
 opposed to the doctrines and order of the Anglican Church; it is not strange 
 that you first misunderstand, and then designate as erroneous in tendency, 
 teaching which is perfectly consistent with the doctrines of our churcli, or that 
 you should be le.^ into uncharitable suspicions. 
 
 I must now beg to close this unprofitable sort of controversy. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 [34.] 
 
 [To the Right Rev. George lUWa, D. D ] (fji/f/tj/, J ,£>- 
 Dear Bishop Hills: "^ ^^ ^^^^Ouu: 
 
 I should not have chosen this public mode of ntating my sentiments with 
 regard to tbe movement just cooimeQced under your direction, for orgaaiz. 
 lag a Diocesan tiynod, had time been allowed me to be prepared for tbo 
 meeting on Monday last, I did not receive your letter till Fridaj — and bad 
 it evea reached me on its date — tbe Tuesday preceding, — I could not have 
 been ready, tbe time cboaea for this important movement being, as you are 
 very well aware, thr: busiest time of the year for most clergymen. At tbo 
 same time, knowing that von have no objection to this mode of delivering a 
 protestation, I am glad to ndopt it as a means of making known to yourself, 
 my brethren, and my peopie, both tbe reasons of my absence from the meet- 
 ing in question, tind, to some extent, my sentiments on its object. 
 
 And first, I feel that tbe proper mode of proceeding in a movement 
 where not mere ideas, but interests and consciences were concerned, was to 
 bave made known to tbe clergy and their congregations the matters of which 
 it was proposed that tbe Synod should take cognizance, as well as tbe eon* 
 stitutioQ of tbe Synod itself, in order that tbey might freely and deliberately 
 
42. 
 
 consider bow far it might be safe to ooDient to be bound by its decisions, 
 not to seels sack assoraoee before throwing mjself into ibe movement, wuuld 
 have been, I feel, on mj part at least, not only unwise, bat a culpable dis- 
 regard of the icost sacred interests and obligations. 
 
 Besides which, there are matters on which I for one, could not consent 
 td be bound by a body constituted rh you prescribe; as for instance in the 
 erection of a tribunal of discipline. I have been struck in reading the history 
 of synodical movements in a sister Province, at the suppressed but resolute 
 eagerness of the Bishops, to get hold of the whip over their brethren. 
 
 There are other matters on this bead which I will not now advert to; 
 but I trust I shall not be deemed personul if I state that my radical objec- 
 tion to a synod, conscitued as proposed, is the nature of the authority of the 
 Episcopate. As the Bishop must needs be, oof a President, but an estate ia 
 that body, it is imperative that I state my views with plainness. 
 
 On this subject I entirely dissent from the views of Archdeacon Gilson, 
 published with your approval; and I presume, under your direction; senti- 
 ments by so much the more dangerous as the character of that divine 
 amongst us was held in such high esteem; who, in ascribing to the Bishop a 
 divine commission with a divinely conferred right of ruling the church, 
 leaves vast number of our fellow Protestants without a ministry, aad without 
 a church. With these sentimeuls your own statements I mitintain, fully 
 harmonize; the authority of the Bishop over the clergy, in your view, being 
 such that it is independent of the ordinary rules of justice; that he can 
 without evidence, trial, or law, even deprive them of their cure, — that is, 
 their office and their living; from which it would appear that ceither a 
 clergyman's character, nor bis subsistence, can be deemed secure, except 
 through the Bishop's clemency or discretion. These assumptions, moreover, 
 rest in great part on old laws, customs, traditions, and such like, so that no 
 one who does not possess a library of this complexion, with leisure to con- 
 sult it, can be in the least aware bow he stands; and so far as any certainty 
 of knowing what the law is, is concerned, it is a standard which can be 
 compared to nothing so properly as the Roman Catholic rule of faith. 
 
 It is the dread that I shoald give even an implied assent to so tremen- 
 dous an authority, that has made me hesitate to join the movement for a 
 synod. When one knows whether by words or deeds, of the sword which 
 — according to this view — is always hanging over a pastor's head, the 
 shadow, even of a Bishop, strikes one with dread. I no longer wonder, 
 when I look back to the cradle of dissent. A ministry earned on under or 
 by the side of such a power, must become a ministry of horror and aversion, 
 rather than of love. This is not irony, but trutb; and I declare it as the 
 strongest evidence of my sincerity in shrinking from the proposed synod. 
 A good conscience (I trust) and a higher name, and the word of truth con- 
 taining no such thing restore my confidence, and disperse my fears. And I 
 may, I trust, innocently express the hope that even a synod, with such 
 blood as we have amongst us, may do more than Arcbdeason Gilson allows 
 it to be competent to do; and that it will not only limit, but correct this 
 authority. 
 
 Permit me on the other hand to state what I believe to be truths of scrip- 
 ture and the church; and the principles on which alone I could be one of a 
 Synod. 
 
 I believe that every congregatio n, with its accepted pastor, is a a^mnle t.ft 
 church (the word and sacraments being duly administered therein); that a 
 Diocese is no necessary part of a church; but that so far as it docs not belong 
 to a national church, a Diocese is a voluntary cQulcflLctatiflP of churches, 
 presided over by a Bishop, chosen or accepted" as their federal head, for cer- 
 tain common purposes; the words " Church of England," and such like 
 expressions, being used in the sense of law or accepted doctrines, and do not 
 designate the present actual church or congregation of faithful men. 
 
 The scriptures alone are binding on the consciences of churchmen, and 
 are therefore the virtual law; the prayer book, as containing the accepted 
 interpretation of the scriptures, is the actual or express law. Law, then, is ibo 
 
 l.t:i 
 
48. 
 
 bond of unity which bishops and all must obey; and, as in the State, so in the 
 Church, law is Iho guarantee of liberty. 
 
 The only accountable and lawful expounder and interpreter of this law, 
 whether of the doctrine, ritual, or order, is the pastor of the congregation 
 ( persona ecclesiw, the ncUml church ), to whom not even the Bishoi) can dic - 
 tate; into whose church he cannot come to share his ministry, or to oppose his " 
 order. If a pastor and a bishop, whether under the name of a cathedral or 
 otherwise, sliould, for convenience, honour, or gain, enter into a compact 
 whereby the former -iompromises his accountability, so as to wink at or give 
 place to erroneous doctrine, or unauthorized ritual, or violation of ordc.', for a 
 single moment, both he and the Bishop arc guilty — sowards God of simony, 
 towards the church (the actual congregation) of treachery. 
 
 But the Bishop- may use his eves : l iis office is his Je^• and he should 
 neither be blind to things which others gee, nor be too seeing where he might 
 better be blind. If the pastor offends against the law in any of the above re- 
 spects, then it is the office of the Bishop — if appointed thereto or accepted by 
 the church, and being moved by the people — to take steps to bring him to 
 account; ]}ut he cim^int jndtfe; h e is a narlv interost(!(j : either ho may have a 
 friend or client to put into the living (if the congregation delegate to him this 
 power); or he may be actuated by personal animosity; or by interested 
 motives. The Synod of a sister Province — by what influence moved can \ 
 easily be seen — has overruled this just principle of English and all law; 
 another risk of synodical action which I Would by no means consent to incur, -, 
 
 On the other hand, the principles of the American Convention?, which 
 Archdeacon Gilson objects to, as cuitailing the divine rights of Bishops, are ^ 
 that the Bishoj) (in the confederation of churches) is bound by the majority 
 without the pow r of a veto. 
 
 .The Bishop in this Province, on account of the invalidity of the Queen's 
 letters patent — which in any case arc entirely inconsistent with the rights of 
 the church — through the incompatibility of those letters with pre-existing con- 
 stitutional rights of the Legislature, cannot bring an offender to justice except 
 through the law courts and under particular trusts. And I confess that 
 under present circumstances, I would prefer being tried by christian lay gen- 
 tlemen, who are accustomed to weigh evidence, and to hold the scales of 
 justice evenly, than by a tribunal constituted in the way in which I have 
 little doubt a Synod would be taught to constitute it. 
 
 There is something fascinating to many minds in the notion of the churuh 
 being under one visible head, invested with divine authority to rule it. It 
 seems to afford the fairest promise of unity and peace. It has been tried and 
 found wanting. It has proved the fruitful source of cither of discord or dead- 
 ness, and its legitimate tendency, after ages of trial, may be learned from the ' 
 Reformation, and from the last Ecumenical Council. The traditional traces ' 
 of it, unhappily are not yet blotted out in our own body; rior its memory from , 
 the minds of those who, on account of prelacy, more than any other thing, 
 left us. 
 
 "When I first came to this country, a parent (still a respected resident in 
 our vicinity) hesitated to allow me to baptize his child, until he received an 
 assurance that it would not belong to the Bis ho p , not good Bishop Demers, 
 but some supposed lord of mine elsewhere. "The Pope's recent letter to the 
 Emperor of Germany, with that potentatcs's noble reply, may illustrate how 
 the principles of divine authority in the episcopate, may be only papal domin- 
 ation in a more limited field. 
 
 The truth is, my dear Bishop, the divine authority is in the bodjy of the 
 church ij ififllfi yhp n^t^tuflj oongreija^y i. and not in anv man or order of men. 
 X doulit not that you, as Bishop, \vith (as you suppose apostolical succession, 
 are most sincere in your convictions, that if all the clergy would consent to 
 be, not what they are, the churches' curates, but the bishop's, it would be for 
 the good of the church. The church would be a happy family; the pastor 
 would be spared the pain of driving away strange doctrines through tho 
 Bishop's being recognized as the supreme and only arbiter. 
 
 But it cannot be. Our vows before God and man will not permit. 
 
 ;} , 1 
 
44; 
 
 In conclusion let me express. my solemn conviction thfit vhi? is a lime for 
 rU protcstant bodies (to say no more) to be united m the common faith, nud 
 in christian works; not ft time for joftlousies and cnvyings nnd mftl<ing prose- 
 lytes, but a time in wliich the christiftn nrmy, eacli soldier steadfast to iii.- own 
 Standard, should, under one head, to wlioso authority all bow, march against 
 the common foe; defend the citadel of Christianity itself, rather than too zea- 
 lously seek their own tiling.-; defend, I say, our common faith against attacks 
 wliich, but for tho rock on wliich it stands, could hardly fail to overthrow it. 
 
 With every feeling of good-will towards yourself personally, and with 
 earnest prayers that the peace of the present season, descending, may unite in 
 love and truth tho members of the Holy Catholic Church, which is the blessed 
 company of all christian poojUe disponjcd tliroughout tho whole world: 
 
 I remain, youra voiy sincerely, 
 Victoria, B. C, Jan. "th, 1S74. E. CRIDGji. 
 
 [35.] 
 [Tlio Bishop to the Kev. E. Cridgo.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, Feb. 10th, 1874. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge: 
 
 I herewith forward to you the usual Articles of Inquiry. 
 
 I am, faithlully yours, 
 
 G. C0LU3IDIA. 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 ) 
 
 [36.] 
 [Bishop of Columbia to Bcv. E. Cridge.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, Feb. 12th, 1874. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge: 
 
 My attention has been directed to certain letters recently published by 
 you in the local papers, one with j*our own name at attached, dated January 
 9th, and four with anonymous signature.^, in which you enunciate principles 
 in variance with tlio.se of the Church of England. 
 
 You have been made aware, by a resolution of your Church Committee, 
 how much faith is felt in the Congregation at the substance and tone of this 
 correspondence. 
 
 A feeling widely prevails that j'ou arc using the position of a trusted 
 Minister of the Church in a mam .ir not consistent with good faith, and it is 
 my painful duty to call upon you for an explanation. Out of many mislead- 
 ing statements, I will select threv particulars in which you appear to impugn 
 the plain teaching of the church, nnd to violate your vows. 
 
 let. As to tho necessity of the Episcopal Office and Diocesan organization 
 in the Church of England, your words are: "Every congregation, with its 
 Rccepted pastor, is a complete church." "A Diocese is no necessary part of a 
 church." " Our church does not make the regimen of the church by Dioceses 
 necessary to a church." "The reproduction or that mode in a voluntary 
 church depends of right in the free choice of that church." This is opposed 
 to the clear teachinc of all the Formularies of the Church, the Prayer Book, the 
 Ordinal, the Articles and the Canons, which assume throughout, the necessity 
 of the Episcopal office for the supply of full ministrations and oversight to every 
 congregation. How can there bo a pastor at all in the Church of England 
 without Episcopal ordinat'on ? How can confirmation be supplied ? The 
 Bishop, by the rules of the church, has a Pastorl interest in every congrega- 
 tion, and it 's a direction of the Prayer Book that "concerning the manner 
 how to understand, do, ^nd execute the things contained in this book, the 
 parties that doubt or diversely take any thing shall always resort to the Bishop 
 of the Diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and ap- 
 peasing of the same." 
 
 The Canons, by which the discipline of the church is everywhere regulat- 
 

 
 
 1 
 
 hr 
 
 
 nd 
 
 
 'C- 
 
 
 1st 
 
 
 in- 
 
 ,. 
 
 ks 
 
 
 it. 
 
 
 Ill 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 45. 
 
 ofl, abounfl in eimilar recognition of tho authority of the " Bishop of the 
 Diuciwu" in connoctiun with every coiijj i>gntion. 
 
 2<l. As to tho ijoverning atUhoril)/ yuiir words firo : " Ti>o truth is 
 that divine luithoiity is in the ])ody of the church itself, the fiotunl congrogft- 
 tiun, nnd not in any nmn or order of men." " The governing ftutliority of 
 JJi-shops in the Church of Enghmil in not inherent in tiie olllcc." "The gov- 
 erning authority in tli(Mhiy» of the Apostles was in tlu; hody of the church 
 itself." These statements contradict the jirincii>les of the Church of England 
 wliii'h dechue that I'ishops are admitttd to ^'government in the Church oft 
 Clnibt," and each IJishui) is thus charged **to correct and ]>unish according to 
 such authority as you hiwve by God's word suchaslio unquiet, disobedient and 
 criminous within your Diocese." (See consecration of JJisliops.) You have 
 your»elf boon solemnly asked at your ordination, "will you reverently obey 
 your ordinary and other ciiief ministers unto whom is committed tlie charge 
 nud government orer yon?" And you have answered, "I will do so, tlio 
 Lord being mylielper." 
 
 You have also more than once taken the oath of canonical oheditnee to 
 the Bishop of the Diocese. IIow can you now declare that the governing au- 
 thority is not in the Episcopal office in any man or order of men, when you 
 j'our>elf polenuily and imblicly recognized it? 
 
 i5. — The obligation of Riles and Ceremonies. You say, our church makes 
 •Jliles and Ceremonies not of Divine Institution to be not binding on the con- 
 science. You have subscribed a declaration "that the book of Common 
 I'rayer and of Ordering l]isho]>s, Pri(\-^ts and Deacons, contain in il nothing 
 contrary to the word of God, and that you will u.->e the form i)rescribcd in the 
 said book, and none other." 
 
 Do you mean to say after this that it is not binding on yo\ir conscience to 
 use, uphold and defend the rites and ceremonies in tliat book, whicli are not 
 of Divine Institution, tliat you may if you please omit the use of them, or 
 disparage tlu^m ? So far from admitting this right, the church, in Article 
 XXXIV, which you have also subscribed, declares: — 
 
 "Whosoever, through his private jiidgmeut willinjjly and purposelj 
 doth openly bretik the traditions and cireniouics of the church which be not 
 repugnaut to the word of God and be ordered and approved by common 
 authority, ought to be rebuked openly, that others may fear to do the like 
 as he that oBendeth against the common order of the church." 
 
 To claim the liberty not to observe what you have s j solemnly engaged to 
 do is immoral. Many of your expressions are designed evidently to biing 
 into contempt the Episcopal office; such as " its sword always hanging over 
 R Pastoi's hend;" "the shadow of a 15ishop strikes one with dread;" the 
 unworthy motives you attribute to the " 13. shops of a sister Province in their 
 suppressed but resolute eagtiraess to get hold of the whip over their 
 brethren;" ycur story about the ignorant settler who wished for baptism 
 but objected to a Bishop; that about the "crozier" your ungenerous attack 
 upon your Churchwardens to whom yen have been so much indebted " as 
 spies of the Bishop;" and other remarks in a similar spirit. All ibis would 
 not be surprising in a bitter congregationalist, or an open enemy, but ii 
 indefensible on any principle of christian charity or common honesty, io one 
 who is acting as a minister, and eating the bread of the Gbarcb of England. 
 
 Regretting to be constrained under a sense of duty thus to write, 
 
 I am, dear Mr. Cringe, 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 G.COLUMBIA. 
 
 [37.] 
 
 Dear Bishop Hills: 
 
 My thcagbts are 80 much occupied at present with arrangementa for 
 Lent that I cannot now formally answer your letters, especially that received 
 yesterday in refereace to my protestation against your asaamptioa la tb« 
 matter of Synods. 
 
46. 
 
 I am eztremelj glad of the proapect of the opportunity, (and I trust I 
 •ball have grace to eoibrace it witb bunaiiity and trulbfuloeas), of fnrtber 
 Tindicating the principles of charity and sound doctrine, as taught by oar 
 church according to the Scriptures, as well as the fldeliiy of my owa 
 ministry, 
 
 Meanwhile I must protest (with all respect to yonr office) agniost your 
 making my pulpit (as lasl month) the arena for designedly teaching doctrines 
 contrary to those which I teach, against which, prirutely imd publicly, I 
 havo to yourself protested as entirely unauthorized by Scripture or by our 
 obarch. 
 
 Your letter of Dec, 30tb, signifying your ''purpose" to preach at stated 
 times, I havo as yet, for peace anke, forborne to aoswer, and not bectose I 
 admit the assumption which it appears to advance. 
 
 I will only in conclusion ngain repeat my unaltered determination to 
 abide by the doctrine and order of onr church "in all things lawful and 
 honest," and again, untreat you to do the same, in the spirit of Apostles and 
 of Our Lord himself. 
 
 Your*, faithfully, 
 Feb. 14th, 1874. E. ClilDOB. 
 
 [38.] 
 
 [The Bishop to the Rev, E. Cridge.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, March 23d, 1874. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge: 
 
 It is nearly six weeks since I required from you an explanation respect- 
 ing certain statements opposed to the principles of the Church of 
 England, published by you in the local papers. !n a note, dated Feb. 14tb, 
 you excused yourseif from replying at once formally on account of press of 
 work at that time. 
 
 I must now require an immediate attention to my letter. 
 
 lam, faithfully yours, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 [39.] 
 
 DIOCESAN SYNOD.— ADDRESS OF THE DEAN OF CHRIST 
 CHURCH TO THE CONGREGATION. 
 
 Editor Standard, Sir: 
 
 At the request of several members of the congregation, I avail myself of 
 your columns to publish the following address to the congregation of Christ 
 Church. 
 
 The obvious tendency of the Synod, on the principles proposed,. is to estab- 
 lish a system of centralization, highly prejudicial, in my opinion, to life in the 
 church, and one which, I tliink, every church person throughout the Province 
 should seriously consider before consenting to it in any way. 
 
 The whole course of events, from the ritualistic teaching of the Arch- 
 deacon at the consecration of the church, down to the covering of the church 
 doors with electioneering placards, without my knowledge or consent, is so 
 illustrative of the danger in which we stand, that I feel it my duty to raise the 
 voice of warning. 
 
 For myself, personally, I feel little concern what may be said of mc. I 
 may bo mad, or false, or anything else. But when any attempt is made to 
 defame my ministry, or intrude upon my office, which I havo received in 
 trust for the church, as well as for myself, I shall not hesitate, if I believe the 
 interests of religion require it. to give it to the light of day. I only hope the 
 congregation will bear this disquietude in hope of a greater peace in a brighter 
 day. I have supplied two or three points accidentally omitted inthe delivery. 
 
47. 
 
 I may observe that I »hould not havo publifihed tl»o Birthop'g "judRmont" 
 ..-a I not proviouHly used my best endeavors to convince him of what I con- 
 ceived to bo it8 truo character. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 March 2flth, 1874. B. CKIDQE. 
 
 Dear Brothron, 
 
 In addressing you on the subject of the proposed synod I wish to be plain, 
 inasmu(;h as it is a public question, ufVectinjf church people throughout tho 
 Province* and the public acts of all co'^curned are open to discussion. 
 
 But I wish also to address you in the spirit of ciindour and charity, ns 
 one who would in all things seek the edification of tho churtdi, and the ad- 
 vancement of true religion. And inasmuch as this is purely a pastoral address 
 I do not propose that there should be on the present occasion any dii-c ussion 
 or resolutions. And I am sure, as this is, in a sense, a religious meeting, you 
 will also concur in tho desire tnnt there should be no demonstratit.n, whether 
 of applause, or otherwise; for although personal qui'sticms must uiiavoiilably 
 be touched, it will not, I hope, be in a personal maimer. 
 
 And here I may offer a word of exi)lanation as to the course I havo 
 pursued in reference to the movtiment so far, and my reasons for not joining 
 in it. My reason is simply this, that neiilusr the congregation nor myself 
 havo had a free voice in tho matter. "\Vo have been expected to mov(( in a 
 channel marked out for us; that channel, unhajipily, being one which my own 
 conscience could not approve. 
 
 It wag right that tho Bishop should have set forth his views before tho 
 congregations. But, that being done, ho should, in my humble judgment, 
 havo retired, and left the congregations and ministry free to deliberate on his 
 proposals. 
 
 Oa this ground I protested three several times against the evident 
 unfairness of expecting myself and coDgregation to ho bound by a movement 
 of the nature and ends of which the mnjorily, I r. perauiided, are still pro- 
 foundly igooraut. And I must also observe thm this movement, so far ai 
 authority is coDcerned, is only the act of individuals, however highly es- 
 teemed, and not of the congregation. 
 
 Now I believe that the true business and end of a synod is that of a 
 voluntary union ot congregations, who have agreed on their common faith, 
 to combiae their strength in spreading abroad the gospel and in common 
 christian works. And had these been purely the ends of the present move- 
 ment, I for one would not have opposed it. So far from this being the case, 
 it has at the outset been grounded on principles utterly repudiated by a large 
 body in the Church of Kngland. 
 
 I must put this matter plamly before you, because I declare to you ray 
 convictioa that the purity of the reformed faith is in danger from those 
 principles. 
 
 Had it not been for the occurrences which took place at tho consecra- 
 tion of the church, when, before you all, I protested against ritualism; and 
 had it not been for what has ensued from that protest; I, too, might have 
 been led into the unconscious acceptance of principles, the nature of which 
 I might have discovered wbeu too late. 
 
 What has subsequently happened I feel I must now briefly put before you. 
 It is a duty which I owe to my ministry and the cause of truth; to my family, 
 and to you, my beloved brethren. To you, the congregation, because ever since 
 that protest there has been a something, you scarcely have known what, dip_ 
 torbing your quiet if not obstructing your edification; to my ministry, that j 
 may not be supposed to have exercised it anlawfuliy; to my children, that m^. 
 name may not be a reproach to them when my lips are silent, 
 
 I must therefore put a certain letter before you; a letter which, wbat« 
 ever others may have done, I have never communicated, nor spoken of 
 except to some very few members of the congregation, who have sought of 
 me an explanatioa; and jou will beai' me witness, my friendi, that whatever 
 
48. 
 
 ?vrorig may havf been done to me, I have not pfone whispering among jou to 
 foment di8Benf'.>n8, What I say, therefore, I say openly. 
 
 The letter to v/liicb I allude isa judfyment passed upon me by th« Bidiiop 
 for the protest which I uttered on the occasion referrsd to; and I produce it 
 uow in order, first, that this element of disquiet, — so far at least as it is a 
 hidden one, — may be be removed from amongst you; and also, because it 
 forcibly illustrates what 1 wish to say as to the dangerous nature of the 
 principle on which the projected synod is virtually based; the doctrine, I 
 mean, of the apostolical succession; the controversy of age and of all the 
 churches. 
 
 And here I wish you to bear in mind, that I bring this before you as an 
 offici ! net on the Bishop's part, and not as a personal matter; the =aid letter 
 heving'bpen sent by him to the Churcbwardens (who did not send it back) 
 ftnd iberefort virtually published. What I therefore now eay to you is in 
 Eome sense my defence, as well as pertinen' to my general argument. 
 
 This is the letter : — 
 
 Bishop's Close, Victoria, December 14, 1872. 
 Rev. Sir:— 
 
 H:\vinp offered yotj, with no pood re."ult, severaF opportunities of ex- 
 pressing regret at your conduct on the 5th of December, a regret which 
 should be expressed to yoor Bishop, who was unhajipily present an eye and 
 ear witness of the sad scene; to your brother minister, whom you openly 
 jnsulifid in the House of 'jiod, ard to th'e concregation whom you disturbed 
 iiud distressed, it now rera;iiu3 for me to discharge a most painful duty, the 
 more painful considering your position as Deai of the Uathedral, and as 
 senior clergyman of the diocese, from whom might be expected at least ao 
 exaaiple of self-control, proprirty and order. 
 
 On the 5lli of December, at the eveninjr service of the day of Consccra- 
 • tion of Christ Church, immediately after the sermon by the Archdeacon 
 of Vancouver, i itead of proceeding with the service, you stood up, and iu 
 irri^aling and chiding language you denounced yoar brother clergyraati by 
 name, and Hinongst other words declared thai he had violated the liuv 
 of the church, ihi' law of the land, and the l<iw of God in the Scriptures. 
 
 Bei.ig evidently under excitement, your manner and language causnd 
 unseemly disturbance in the congregation. There were vehement expres. 
 eions such as are only heard in secular buildings and in drinking saloons, 
 .stamping of feet, clapping of hands, and other unseemly noises. Much dis- 
 tress was created amongst all the properly disposed and regular members of 
 the congregation, in the midst of which several persons hastily left the 
 church. The deepest pain was caused to the IJishop of Oregon, rayseH, the 
 c)t 'gy, and the congregation generally. 
 
 To the enemy of religion and to the careless and profane, an occasion 
 bas been given to blaspheme and ridicule the sacred cause of God, and a 
 stumbling block bas been placed in the way of the weak. 
 
 You have committed the grave oJence, which is described bo:h in the 
 ecclesiastical law, and the statute law of ihe empire by the term of hraivling, 
 Bn act of Uisturbauce of divine vorship punishablt m a layman by fine or 
 imprisonment, in a clergyman by suspension. 
 
 Moreover you violaliKl the 53rd Canon of the Church of England, which 
 forbids public oppofiition between cle-rgymon, ami requires the clorgy men of- 
 fending to be inhibited, ''bccai' • upon such imblie dissenting and contradicting 
 tliere may give mucli oife:ice nnd disiuictncss unto the people." 
 
 No piovocfttion is allowed to justify n viol ::tion of these la v.'s. If the 
 Arolideacon's sermon had contained error there are means to be adopted by 
 ■whieli lie could be called to account. ^f, as was t^iC case, you differed from 
 the view he took of a fimiliir subject, you I.avo abimdant opi)ortunities of 
 teaching your congregation what you consider to be right. Your attack upon 
 liiin in the House of God was the more unjustifiable si.ice he occupied the 
 pulpit at your own * suggestion, and he is a member of the Cathedral body. 
 
 ♦ M»d« to privent his preaching on Sunday eTening.— E. C. 
 
49. 
 
 ires- 
 
 ms , 
 
 ie- 
 
 of 
 
 tf.e 
 
 the 
 
 )ion 
 id a 
 
 licb 
 ot- 
 iiig 
 
 the 
 by 
 
 oni 
 of 
 
 >on 
 
 Lhe 
 
 iy. 
 
 it 
 
 'i 
 
 \ c 
 
 Considering all tliose circumstances, considering the public scflndnl yotl 
 have caused, the outrage upon order and propriety in divine worship, and 
 violation of the laws expressly framod to prevent such an unhappy exhibition, 
 I should probably be justified in taking a course much more stvere; considei- 
 ing, however, also your long and faithful service in the church, that you were 
 probably unaware of the laws which prohibit such actions, and that this is the 
 first grave oftence of it.. y kind in the Diocese which I have been called upon 
 to notice, I take the most lenient course I can adopt, and I inflict upon you 
 only a grave censure. 
 
 As your Bishop then I censure you for your conduct on Tlmrsday, the 
 5th day of December, 1872, and I admonish you to be more careful in future. 
 Witness my hand this 14th day of December, 1872, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 To the Very Eeverend Edward Cridge, 
 
 Eector of Christ Church. Victoria, 
 And Dean of the Cathedral. 
 
 Now, my brethren, the best answer I can give to this letter, is to repeat, 
 in my protest now before you, all that I dtd say, as word for word I may aver 
 I wrote it down, after delivery, having spoken with deliberation. Its tenor is 
 confirmed by otliers who also wrote for me their recollections; I am confident 
 you will llnd in it nothing that will contradict your own. 
 
 After a pause, and tlie preacher had left th pulpit, and before giving out 
 the hymn, I turned myself to th(> ongregation, and said: — 
 
 M3- very dear brethren and friends, it is with feelings of sorrow and 
 humiliation that I feel myself compelled to take an unusual course. Some- 
 thing has been said in your ears this evening, upon which I feel myself 
 impelled by my conscience as your pastor to have the last word. (Subdued 
 applause.) I do entreat you to remember thai this is the house of God. 
 (Perfect quietnes.^ to the end.) I have ministered among you on this spot for 
 nineteen years, and this is the first time, — and I humbly pray to God it may 
 be the last, — that I have hoard ritualism advocated here. I know I am weak, 
 but I trust I can say in dependence on God's help, that ritualism shall not be 
 introduced among you, as long as I have a voice to raise against it. I have 
 three reasons for this, which I give to you in no controversial spirit, — first, 
 that it is contrary to the Scriptures. The temple is referred to in support of 
 ritualism, but it, with all its ceremonies, was according tc a pattern froni 
 heaven, and is therefore no authority to us. Secondly — it has been declared 
 to be contrary to the law in England. And thirdly, it is not found in this 
 book — the Prayer I?ook, — which is my only guide for ministering among you. 
 Fur these are the reasons, which I trust with God's help not to give my con- 
 sent to its introduction in this church. 
 
 Now, my friends, it is a well understood principle that when a man's 
 office, or Jiis rights, or his trust, is in danger, he is at liberty to utter a 
 protest. And even should ho in tin; suddiui unexpected emergency, somewhat 
 exceed the accustomed restraints of language or conduct, it is pardoned for 
 the urgency of the occa-ion. The mi>st despotic pope would not forbid this 
 liberty; for he might be furbifldiiifr n tlcfondor. If thesern.on in question had 
 been an attack on sentimepts held by the Bishoj), as it was an attack on those 
 
 held by the minister and iiis congregation, — th(^ Bishop himself w->uld hardly 
 have failed to thank his defender, and to load him wi^^i his best i-evf.'Js. 
 
 believed, for my master, 
 
 more, when I stood 
 church, 
 the 
 
 up, 
 
 How much 
 
 and for my church, in defense of the ministry v Inch had been en- 
 trusted to me with the most solemn adjurations. Still, had I acted in the 
 manner described, I should have been unworthy of the ministry. 
 
 I have th(! consolation of believing, from nunierous testimonies, that the 
 step was approv(!(l by the congregation generally, — some of whom even on 
 their dying bnls, have ivferred to it with tears. 
 
 But in fact th(;re was no other way open to mo of dealing witi *hh of- 
 f«;iisivo discourse. There was no tribuniil in the country which could have d.-'alt 
 with the erroneous doetri-ie which I believed it to ooniain. I had no hope 
 that the Bishop would rebuke the preacher. He has indeed since intimated 
 that there w&t nothuig in the sermon which went beyond the li r y of opin- 
 
50. 
 
 ions allowed in the Church of Engltind, and of which any fdrmal notion 
 could be taken. I may obsei-ve, my brethren, in passing, that the preacher* 
 on that occasion, was guilty of a great breach of trupt in using my pulpit to 
 teach doctrines which Iks knew were notoriously adverse to my own. The pulpit 
 is under the exclusive control of the niinist(;r who, as ho must have known, is 
 accountable for the doctrine taught, so fur as in liim lies. 
 
 I say, then, that in this case, — in the case of the letter I have read to 
 you, condemning me for my protest, — the Bithop, relying doubtless, on tho 
 irresponsible authority which I am sure he sincerely believes ho possesses, 
 combined in his own person the functions of prosecutor, witness and judge; 
 functions which, I venture to say, except in the ecclesiastical law, (if this be 
 lav/) or in your Government over infants or slaves, are never allowed to meet 
 in one i)erson. 
 
 I must also observe, that on applying to tho Bishop to know what others 
 witnessed against me, 'hi what council, if any, this sentence was decided on; 
 and what record, if any, was made in the archives of the diocese; this infor- 
 mation was refused, and I was referred, for redress, to the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, which moans, I believe, a costly lawsuit. lam quite sure if 
 Archdeacon Gilson knew these things, he would write somewhat differently 
 from that which I road from his pen in tho "Standard" of to-day's date. 
 
 Now brethren, I put this case in connection with the synod from a chris- 
 tian point of view. 
 
 It has, I believe, been impressed upon you that the synod is to heal tliis 
 and every other wound of the church. 
 
 Now it is not a synod in itself that I object to, but the principles on which 
 the proposed synod is grounded. And seeing iii this case the working of these 
 principles, and feeling certain from the very nature of the assumption on 
 which they are based, that they will still work, though in another form, the 
 question arises, is it safe to go into such a synod ? 
 
 Who will suggest a tribunal by which such a case as this could be tried ? 
 For I find in the proposed synod no provision made for trying tlic Bishop 
 himself, Avhoover may be tho incumbent of the office; I wish to speak with all 
 respect. This is a public question. Wo are constituting, or professing to 
 confstitute, the church for our children. And surely we cannot omit from our 
 consideration the chief part of that constitution, — the head. Now, as in tho 
 proposed constitution, the Bishop can say "no" to every proposal of the rest 
 of the body, it is plain that no tribunal can try the Bishop, except a revolu- 
 tionary one, — i. c, one which will destroy the prerogative. 
 
 It may be supposed that the convention will alter this. The Bisliop does 
 not suppose so. He has adopted the resolutions which include, — though they 
 do not express. — the veto, as the "understanding" on which the convention 
 meets. See tlie circular to the "Clergy and Laity." And in looking over 
 the programme cet forth I must express my own feelings that there is appar- 
 ently little that savors of religion in the movement, but much thm resembles 
 an approaching political contest. At least I must say that when elections arc 
 directed to beheM in any church, — for the registrar of the diocese, it would 
 seem, has kindly arranged that this proceeding shall take place in tho .^acred 
 edifice itself; — (subject, I believe, to the approval of a committee) — and when 
 tho communicants and congregation are called to what may be a party strife, 
 T'here no sound of discord should ho heard, it does a little grate on my ideas 
 oi the sanctity and devotion Avhich one would like to see preserved amongst us. 
 
 But to revert to (he question from the Christ Church point of view. How 
 is the synod to heal the wound wliieh was opened at tho consecration, and has 
 been increasing ever since, rendering my ministry a continual protest ? 
 
 Will it forbid me from protesting against faUe doctrines, or compel me 
 to admit those which are subversive of my own ministry ? . Tho synod might, 
 I am well aware, — if one consented to be bound by it, — be taught to put a 
 rod in any bishop's hand, by means of an ecclesiastical tribunal, under his 
 immediate guidance, tu keep ministers who taught contrary to his will, in a 
 kind of subordination ? But what sort of uflity is that which would bo 
 achieved in (his manner? 
 
 It is said, indeed, that a vSynod will not be called upon to give judgme n 
 
51. 
 
 upon doctrines. There i« a frtllncy hero; for one of the objects of a synod is 
 to frame laws of discipline. "Whatever tribunal, therpforo, ihz synod erects, 
 will judge doctrines, — whether they are, or are not those of the Church of 
 England. The meaning, of course, is that the synod will concede to the 
 IJi'^hop, pro])ably with such assessors as he may call to him, the power to deal 
 with doctrines. 
 
 In this way the organizing meeting, — and but for the circumstance above 
 mentioned, I probably should have been one, and have done as my brethren 
 did, without knowing what I was doing, — have virtually decided, by adop- 
 tion, doctrine, vi/. ; the doctrine of apostolical succession, — on which alone 
 the. veto rests. Now, in reference to this doctrine, which we have so quietly 
 accepted, or at least allowed, let me quote a reply of the present Bishop of 
 Exeter, — Dr. Temple — to some of the Tractarian body who wished him to 
 declare that this was the doctrine of the Church of England. lie declined, 
 saying vatlnir felicitously, that while the church had provided that her "min- 
 isters should have that successit)n," "" ' ' ~' " 
 
 traditional sense, — "as a matter 
 
 of 
 
 t. e,, ordination by Bishops in the 
 fact she had omitted from her articles 
 all mention of that succession as a matter of doctrine." 
 
 1 must not pass over the evident intention that the synod shall declare 
 the cViurchwardens to be the bishop's officers. I hope our own churchwardens 
 — ant' I say it with the most sincere aripreciation of their valuable and assid- 
 uous services — will be able to explain at the approaching annual meeting the 
 grounds on which they have, as it apptiars to me, acted for some time past 
 rather as the Bishop's agents than of those who appointed them. Such a 
 canon, if passed, must produce the most disastrous ellects upon the harmony 
 of congregations. 
 
 It has been suggested, and I think it not improper to advert to usage, 
 that there is danger, if I give my consent to a synod, of the Christ Church 
 Trust being atfected. I only glance at this, as the land being part of the 
 fiuppor* of your ministtn*, you are as much interested as myself. And the 
 question has been raised how it may bo consistent with the Bishop's office, as 
 trusi.;e, to pursue a course which may tend to draw the cestin que (ruste, which 
 is myself, into a proceeding which might endanger his vested rights. 
 
 I want you to see how Ibis matter stands in another point of view. I ex- 
 ercise my ministry, and hold what may be called my living, under a trust 
 deed which renders me safe from all molestation as long as I conform to the 
 laws of the Chm-ch of England. That trust deed conflr'.if.'d and conveyed for 
 my beneiit, fust the land which was promised to me by exp. »ss covenant be- 
 fore I left England, and which I entered on some five years before t!u' Bishop 
 came to this country. If I olfend against thes' ctrnies I must be tried for 
 breach of trust bj' ordinary course of just law. if I were not to be bound 
 
 by a sjmod which shall have authority to decide in ly i-ase upon the infring- 
 .. ment of these doctrit ^«,, I come under a different law; and mi ht one day find 
 that in the ostimr.t' \ jf a certain close tribunal, I am judgt d lo have violat'-d 
 these doctrines. 
 
 A looking at the synod in its constitution of voting by orders, what hope 
 might I have m a body where a majority of one's brethren, as I believe is now 
 the case, are dependent on the Bishop for removal on any qnestion in wlii'^h I 
 r might have the misfortune of diflering from the Bishop. 1 say it with nli re- 
 5 spect to such of my brethren and to the Bishop himself. For though I cUt it 
 as a personal question, I doubt not that some of my reverend brethren, whose 
 positions, like iny own, is settled by law, might find themselves in both the 
 above respects in essentially the same altered circinnstances as those which I 
 have described. 
 
 It may be expected that I shovild shew my own views with regara to 
 what might be a desirable constitution for a synod. 
 
 I must first rppeat my sense of the insuperable differences which, to my 
 mind, exist in ao reeonciling religious differences as to render possible an 
 arrangement fur deaii'if; with doctrines wh.ch shall be latisfaolory to all, 
 wheu jou call to tniad (and I speiik this without judging who is right and 
 who is wrong,) that fiiDdamontHl differences exist between the Bishop and 
 some of ^be clergy, and between some of the clergj and othera. Yuu can se* 
 
r I! 
 
 .02. 
 
 the difficulty; tbere are but two wnya of gptlinjr over it both of which are 
 oppnied to hII r>:li){ion and fuith; the first is sabmittiaj^ questions of doctrine 
 to the will of ft majority anoong tlie opponents, or conippliing all lo teach as 
 the Bishop bdliev>3s; which with the most sincere coiivictioo on the Bishop's 
 side thai it is the only means of purity, is, I apprehend, one aiain obji-ct of 
 the morement. 
 
 How much better 'or congregations, being lawfully constituted under 
 Cborrh of England principles, rttther to pray aud trust to u Gracious God to 
 maiatain amongst them its pure faith. 
 
 Bat with this reserve and without knowing until the time comes whiit 
 coarse I might myself feel it right to adopt, I think that the whole body 
 should deliberate together under tue presidency of the Bishop; every question 
 being decided by a majority of clergy and laity with equal votes, the Bishop 
 having when necessary the casting vote. By this method I think all qiie-i- 
 tioo3, — those of doctrine being as above excepted, might most satisfacto/ily 
 be dealt with. 
 
 I shoald deem it just also that questions affecting thu internal affairs of 
 congregations should be communicated to all the congregations beforehttnd 
 with a view to their being determined at a subsequent session, aud only 
 congregatioQB to be boand by such decisioa as con^ eut to it. 
 
 For I see no necessity for the iron band of unforraity being so stringent- 
 ly placed on congregations as to destroy their independence and freedom of 
 action on their own internal aifairs. And I hope to see our own congrega- 
 tion waking up to a more lively interest in itj own alf.iirs. 
 
 At the same time I consider that the Prayer Book must as it now is be 
 adopted in its integrity, subject only lo such exceptions as are demanded by 
 our own situation outside the national cliuruh and for the reasons I have 
 above stated, any cases of violation of it should be dealt with simply on the 
 grounds of a breach of trust by the ordinary tribanuls. 
 
 I would make one remark in reference to a wild statement I have been 
 told has beet; made, that I have asserted that Bishops are not necessary in 
 the Church of England. Why my brethren, I am by birth and education an 
 Episcopalian, and by choice, an Episcopal minister, I believe the Episcopal 
 office when exercised according to the principles of our church, to be most 
 reverend and beneCcial, and is just authority to be most readily and gladly 
 submitted to by all who are under it. Bat I ask is the Episcopal office, that 
 is as in the Church of England, necessary in the Presbyterian, or other 
 churches? You know that this has been one of my objections to the doc- 
 trine of the apostolic succession; which however its consequences may be 
 deprecated by charitable kind hearted men like Archdeacon Gilson does, as 
 we bear it taught, and I fear, see it prt.cticed, involve as its logical sequence 
 the conclusion that such bodies ere uot proper churches at all. 
 
 I thank you very much for your kind forbearance in listening to me this 
 evening, I have no doubt omitted points of interest and perhaps of impor- 
 tance; but I hope you will give me credit for a sincere desire and endeavour, 
 however I may come short in the performance, and however I may differ from 
 some whom I respect and have to form all my conduct and sentiments as 
 near as 1 can according to the will of God. 
 
 '"' I would only, in conclusion, ask you to make those matters the subject 
 of your earnest prayers. 1 will not disguise from you that I view the future 
 with some anxiety, but not without hope, God is light and wiil guide us it 
 we look to Him. One of oui greatest evils is interference. If we can but 
 have peace — a blessing indeed most to be desired by a christian people — it 
 seems sometimes to matter little what, on a point more or less, is our faith. 
 The chief danger I shculd apprehend to the congregations should a synod as 
 proposed be carried into effect, is the settling down into a dead level of 
 uniformity, with peace purchased by no little aucritice of tru'i. May God 
 avert the danger. 
 
 I i; 
 
been 
 ry ia 
 aa 
 opiil 
 moat 
 adly 
 that 
 ther 
 doc- 
 y be 
 8, as 
 ence 
 
 thta 
 
 ipor- 
 
 our, 
 
 from 
 
 ,B as 
 
 )ject 
 lure 
 us it 
 but 
 -it 
 litb. 
 
 ti HS 
 
 il of 
 lUod 
 
 63. 
 
 I 40.] 
 Dcfar Bishop Hills: 
 
 I tiiid it unposdible to deal with the allegaiiong id your letter till after 
 Easter. 
 
 Ideanwhili? I feel it a cbristiaa duty not only to nffirm that its accusa- 
 tions are groundless, but also that the letter ilaclf abouiuls with iiiaccurticits 
 both of statcnent ard reference. I mention this in order that, should you 
 Eee tit to review it, you may have the opportunity of doing so. 
 
 Yours, faithfully, 
 
 March 28th, 1874. E. CRIDGE, 
 
 [41.] 
 
 [The Bishop to the Rev. R. Cridge.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, May 25th, 1874. 
 My dear Sir: 
 
 i have not received your return to the Articles of Enquiry (or 1873, sent 
 you in February last. I must request your replies without delay. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 Very Rev. Deau Cridge, G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 [42.] 
 
 -r [Bishop of Columbia to the Churchwarde- s.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, June 22d, 1874. 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 It is my intention to hold my annual visitation of the Cathedral on 
 Thursday next, at 2 o'clock. Should that day and hour be inconvenient to 
 yourselves or the Dean, I shall be glad to be nciified, that I may fix another 
 day. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 To the Churchwardeas of the Cathedral, G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 [43.] : ^ 
 
 [Bishop of Columbia to Rev. E. Cridge.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, June 22d, 1374. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge: .i^r; - . «:^: ,; m •'tU:» 
 
 It ia my intention to hold my annual visitation of the Cathedral on 
 Thursday next, at 2 o'clock. Should that day and hour be incuavenient to 
 yourself, or the Chuichwardena, I shall be glad to be notified, '.hat I may fix 
 another day. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 .::.v ■>.-..,;, uu,i- ;''f-i ■.-.,, I .. .:; V,, ^ ■> ,,.; G.COLUMBIA. 
 
 [44.] 
 
 -; -Aii ,f "? 
 
 ^..o^ ,',r 
 
 Victoria, B. C, 23d Jane 1874. 
 My Lord Bishop: 
 
 In reply to your letter of yesterday, I beg leave to say that it will not be 
 convenient to receive your Lordship's visit at Christ Charch Cathedral on 
 Thursday next. 
 
 I will confer with the Dean, and my fellow Churchwarden, and will - 
 write to your Lordship again upon the subject. 
 
 My Lord Bishop, your very obediebt servant, i 'I 
 
 A. F. PEMBERTON, Churchwarden. 
 The Very Rev. the Lord Biehop of Columbia. 
 
h 'i 
 
 54. 
 
 1.45.1 
 [The Bishop of Columbia to Rev. E. Cridge.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, Juno 29th, 1874, 
 Dear Mr. Cridge. 
 
 Mr. Pemberton having informeo me that the day T named was in*- 
 convenient, I now appoint Friday next, July 3d. at 4 o'clock, for my 
 visitation ot the Cathedral. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 i 
 
 [46.] 
 
 Victoria, B. C, 2d July, 1874. 
 My Lord Bishop: 
 
 I have conferred with Mr. Williams, the other Churchwarden, and pend- 
 ing the result of a memorial to His Kxcellency the Governor-General of 
 Canada, a copy of which we forward to the Archbishop of Canterbury, w*, 
 the Churckwardens, most respectfully decline to receive the visit of your 
 Lordship. 
 
 In the address headed '« Diocesan Synod," and signed " G. Columbia," 
 the authorship of which you do not deny, but our right to interrogate you 
 upon which, you, through Mr. Drake, question, you appear to us to have 
 seceded from the Church of England. It you have done so, you cease to be a 
 Bishop of the Church of England, to which we, the Churchwardens of Christ 
 Church, belong; if you have not seceded from tbo Church of England in 
 convening a Court of Convocation and Holy Synod, without the assent of 
 the Queen, you have assumed a greater power than that possessed by the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, and we think, have encroached upon the prerog- 
 ative of the Crown, to do which is, we believe, a misdemeanour. 
 
 1, I had been Churchwarden of Christ Church, several years before 
 your arrival in Vancouver Island, and after nearly ten years service in that 
 capacity, resigned my office, principally for the following reasons: When 
 you said you would stop up the Roman Catholic approach to the cemetery, I 
 expostulated with you without effect. You persisted, and the consequence 
 was an action at law, in which you were defeated, and the costs of which, 
 some $600 or $800, I believe, you, as trustee of the Church Reserve, 
 charged against Mr. Cridge's income from that source. 
 
 2. When you stated to Mr. Shepperd and myself, as Churchwardens, 
 thatit was your intention to remove the Church to the plot of ground fenced 
 off for that purpose, and adjoining your Lordship's palace. I strongly ob- 
 jected, notwithstanding a road running through the edifice, was placed upon 
 the official map of the Church reserve, and I believe it still remains there. 
 I would gladly have continued to avail myself of the cessation from care and 
 anxiety which I have enjoyed since my reoignation of the office of Church- 
 warden, now some eight or nine years, but recent events in the Church, call 
 every friend of hers to the assistance and support of one of her most devoted 
 and excellent ministers, our much esteemed, our long and greatly respected 
 Pastor, Mr. Cridge. 
 
 In conclusion, supposing your visitation to be in the nature of an 
 
 Ecclesiastical Court, if not under licenso from the (Jueen as head of the State 
 
 to which in your Synodical address j/oj/ say you^Oive no allegiance, permit us, 
 
 the Churchwardens, to ask under what authority do you hold a Court of 
 
 Visitation. 
 
 I remain, my Lord Bishop, 
 
 Your very obedieat Ecrvant, 
 
 A, F. PEMBERTON. 
 For the Churchwardens of Christ Church. 
 
65. 
 
 [47.] 
 bear Bishop Hills, 
 
 I have received a comniunicaUon from the Churchwardens, stating that 
 tbey havo inforinea you that ihey respectfully dtclin« to receive your visita- 
 tion pendiug ihe result of a memorial to the Governor-fieneral of Cauada, 
 aud DOtifying me that it will be therefore useless for me to attend. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 Victoria, B. C, 2d July, 18U. E. CRIDGE. 
 
 [48.] 
 
 [Bishop of Columbia to the Churchwardens,] 
 
 Bishop's Close, July 2d, 1874. 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 There is nothing in your letter signed by Mr. Pemberton which I have 
 just received, to justify your refusal to attend ray lawful visitation of Christ 
 Church. I therefore intorm you again of my iotentioa to hold my visita- 
 tion to-morrow, at four o'clock, and shall require the doors to be opened, 
 the books, registers u.d other goods of the Church to be ready for my 
 inspection. 
 
 I am. Gentlemen, Faithfully yours, 
 Messrs. Pemberton and Williams, G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 Churchwardens ot the Cathedral. 
 
 [40.] 
 [The Bishop of Columbia to Rev. E. Cridge.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, July 2d, 1874. 
 Dear Mr. Cridge. 
 
 I am sorry to have again to inform you that it is my intention to hold 
 my annual viaitatioa at Christ Church to-morrow, at four o'clock. The 
 Churchwardens to whom I have repi ed, are leading 70a into a serious posi- 
 tion if they inddce you to refuse 10 attend 
 
 I am, Dear Mr. Cridge, faithfully yours. 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 .>:;.' h-; - [50] •^; 
 
 v*, V , ■:■■■ Victoria, B. C, July 3d, 1874. 
 My Lord Bishop. 
 
 By courtesy, we address you as formerly. 
 
 In reply to your letter of last evening, we beg to say that as you have 
 failed to inforruj^us according to our request under what authority and by 
 what law, you hold a Court of Visitation, aud without any legal summons or 
 citation, require our attendance thereat, we must still respectfully decline. 
 
 As soon as you shall make us aware in this or any other of your episco- 
 pal acts, that we are bound by law, we as law-abiding, will most cheerfully 
 conform. .... 
 
 We remain, your very obedient servants, 
 
 A. F. PEMBERTON \ „. , , r ni. • . ou u 
 
 ROBERT WILLIAMS J" d^fchwardens of Christ Church. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Columbia. 
 
 [51.] 
 
 [To the Right Reverend Bishop Hille, D. D.] 
 
 I, the undersigned, though concurring in opiniou with the Churchwar. 
 deny as to the illegality of your proceedings in sundry matters all'ecting th 
 
56. 
 
 Gburcb, nndcr the name of a Bisbop of the Cbnrch of Kn^land, do neverthe-" 
 less, for pcHCP and courtesj's aake, and not tbrongb tnj diversity of opiDion 
 wilb tbem, open the Cburcb on tbe present occasloo. 
 
 At the same time, I hereby make my respectlui and solemn protest as 
 B|;ait<Bt former acts of your admidistration, so aftninst tbese, viz: First your 
 endeavoring, iu what I belive lo be an illegal manner, to draw myself and 
 conKregAiion against our will away from the protection of the law under 
 which weal present stund, to come under a law other than ibat of tLe 
 Ciiurch of lini/land. Th-reby introducing discord and Jivision into a 
 hitherto peaceful congreualion, and causing grief and great hindrance to 
 myself both in the discharge of my ministry and in tlie enjoyment of nay 
 legal riuhls. And secondly in Ibis; Tliat notwithstanding my repeated 
 remonstrances, you have persevered in preaching to my congregation in con- 
 Dfutioa with the synodical movement, doctrines which you know to be 
 otIeuBive to me, as being in the conscientious pursuasion of my own mind, 
 coiitrary to tbe Scripture and tbe Church, a course tending only that I have 
 fell it my duty to resist the temptation to provoke a polemical strife. 
 
 And I also declare that what I say or do in connection with the present 
 occasion. Is said or |dooe witho-it prejudice to any of my own rights or pri- 
 vilf'ges which by or under the law I possess, as also to those of the Churcb« 
 wardens as appertaining to them by virtue of their oflice. 
 
 E. CRIDGE, 
 
 Incumbent of Christ Church. 
 Victoria, B. C, July 3d, 1874. 
 
 I am also constrained to add that, in the absence of tbe Churchwardens 
 iind of any other friend, witness or adviser, not oemg able through weariness 
 to obtain one in time for the present occasion, I beg to be excused from 
 answering questions, and that what the Bishop has to say to me bn will put 
 in writing. E. C. 
 
 K 
 
 m 
 
 [52.] 
 
 Biabop's Close, July 14th, 1874. 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 Ten dnys having elapsed without any intimation of regret or apology 
 for your conduct in reference to and on »be occasion of ray visitation at the 
 Cathedral on the 3d inst., I am forced to tbe painful necessity of in'tiating 
 proceedings for your defiance of the Episcopal authority, and of the laws of 
 the Church, contrary to your ordination vow, and your oatb of canonical 
 obedience. 
 
 Deeply pained to be compelled to take this course, I now ofiferyou before 
 formal steps are begun, the opportunity of acknowledging your fiiult, ex- 
 pressing regret, and submitting yourself in future to lawful authority. 
 
 I am, faithfully yours, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 Y»rj Rev, Dean Cridge, 
 
 [53.] 
 JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE VERY REV. E. CRIDGE. 
 
 The piiinfiil office now devolv(is upon us of declaring tlio judgment of this 
 tribunal upon the Very Reverend Edward Cridge, in respect of certain charges 
 preferred against him before us, and our assessors, on the 10th, 11th, 12L]i and 
 14th days of the present month of September, 1874, 
 
 After careful and lengthened consideration of the evidence adduced, in 
 support of the said charges, the assessors, vi/.:, Mr. P. O'Reilly, County 
 Court Judge; the Venerat>le Archdeacon Woods, and the Rev. G. Mason, 
 have reported to us their unanimous conclusions. 
 
 Of the eigliteen articles of charge, they declare sixteen proved. 
 
 Of theoo sixteen, five arc of a more formal character, viz:, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 
 18. 
 
 " 
 
67. 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 Artido 1 rocifes thftt nil clorks find ministurs in holy ordors, nro roquirod 
 by tlio oi osiiisticjil hiws, ciiion?, niul conslitatiDii of lli(> Clniicli of Eiiglsind. 
 liulilinjj llio Bishop's license, to ohoy the snid lli^hop in all liiwful nuittei'.s and 
 things. 
 
 Artiolft 2 recitos tho Royal L,'ltor.s Patent of January 12th, ISoO, consti- 
 tuting tho Eishoprio of British Columbia, and confVtr.ing jurisdiclion upon 
 George, Bishop of British Columliia, and his succes-^ors. 
 
 Ariiclo 3 recites that ll.!V. Elw.ini Cridge was duly and lawfully licensed 
 to the Cure of Christ Church, Victoria, on or about the 17th day of Septem- 
 ber, 18(50, and did then take the oath to us, and our successors, of canonical 
 obedience. 
 
 Arlicie 4 recites that the said Edward Cridge did, on the 7th day of Sep- 
 tember, 180"), again take the oath of canoiucal obedience, and was by us col- 
 lated to the dignity of Dean of Christ Church, Victoria, 
 
 Articles 5 and contain the chargi; that tho said Kdward Cridge having 
 received fiom u-j, on December Hth, 1.S72, a formal cen-ure for di-turbanco 
 of public worship, and fur violation of the r);5i<l canon, did, on W>'dnesday, 
 the 25lh d:>y of ^[arch, now last, publicly and advisedly repudiate such con- 
 sure and admonition and did set the same at nought, and did justify the acta 
 which call for t,he censure and admonition, and did then and there in oHect 
 declare that he would act in the >aine wiy uiuLt similar tireuin-tances, con- 
 trary to his ordiiiatiou vow, and oath of canonical obedience. Tb(.'se articles 
 having been report mI to us, by our said assessors, as proved, we declare our 
 judgment in rti-p'ct of the same to be revocation of the; li(;enso granted by 
 us to the said Edward Cridge, on the 17th of September, 18(jO. 
 
 Article 7 charges the said iijv. E. Cridge vvilhc\u-ing, at Christ Church 
 Ca'.hjdral, D cember 5th, 1872, a disturbance in the congregation, cabing 
 forth irreverent noises of stamping of fust, and cla!)ping of hands, and 
 vehem.nit expressions unbecomi.ig the llou^e of God, producing distress 
 amongst the properly dispo-ed, und n* the ellV'ct of which several members of 
 th-^ congregation ha-lily left the church; and that such conduct on his, the 
 eaid Reverend E. Cridge's part, was an interruption of the due order, an act 
 of disturbance of public worship, and an oll'ence contrary to the ecclojiastical 
 law.-. _ _ . 
 
 Our said assessors having reported to us this article proved, wo decree 
 our judgment to be, in resp'ct of the same, tho revocation of our lictmse which 
 wo granted to the said Edward Cridge, on the 17th of September, 18()0. 
 
 Article 8 charges the said Rev. Edward Cridge that he did, on the 5th 
 day of December, 1872, in Christ Church Cathedral, viz.: of purpo.-e impugn 
 and confute tho doctrine which had just boon delivered, in a sermon in the 
 same Church, did name the preacher by name, and did cau>e thereby much 
 otil-nce and di>quietne?s; such conduct being in contravention of the 5od Canon, 
 and therefore a grave ecciesitistioal otf.'ncc. 
 
 Our said assessors have reported to us this article as proved, we 
 decree our judgm(Mit, in rerpect of the same, to be revocation of the license 
 which we granted the said Edward Cridge, on the 17th day of September, 
 18G0. 
 
 Articles 9 and 10 our assessors have reported to us as not proved. 
 
 Articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 10, chargt; various culpable acts and omis- 
 sions against the said Edward Cridge, in connection with our lawf.il visitation 
 of Christ Church Cathedral, July od, 1871, namely, that he ii'fuxjd to make 
 returns to the visitation articles of enquiiy; that ho denied our authority over 
 him at the time of our said visitation, and imputed that wo had s«!cedi'd from 
 the Church of England; that !)(> refused to aiu-wer qiujstions it was our duty 
 to put; that he refused to produce the Registers of Baptisms and Marriages, 
 which are necessary for our proper visitation; d(jing other disobedient and 
 contumacious acts, all of which are ecclesiastical olf'nces, as well against our 
 office and authorit3' as ordinary, as against sundry canons which assume the liw- 
 fulness of episcoi)al visitations, and also against c -rtain Imperial Statutes, 
 which asi-ert the legality of the same and represent tho common law and cus- 
 tom of the Church of England. These charges our assessors have rei)orted 
 to us as proved, and we decree our judgment, in respect of the same, to be 
 
68. 
 
 revocation of tho liconso jfranted by us on the 17th day of September, 1800, 
 to the said Rev. E. Cridgo. 
 
 Article 17 charges the r"id Rev. E. Cridge with having, from time to 
 time, questioned our authc. ity over him, and our right to preaeh and minister 
 in our Cathedral, and wi'h persistently endeavoring to depreciate our ollicoj 
 in support of which charge various letters are referred to. All which charges 
 our said assessors have reported to us as proved, and we decree our judgment 
 for tho same to be a formal admonition to the said Rev. E. Cridge to abstain 
 from such conduct in future. 
 
 Considering that through a l(Migthoned correspondence between us and 
 the said Rev. Edward Cridge for more than a year and a half, touching the 
 matters now before refeiTcd to, and throughout the present painful proceed- 
 ings there has been no expression of regret on his part for acts proved to be 
 contrary to the laws of tho Church, nor any sign of submission in the future, 
 we are compelled to mark still further such a deliberate and long continued 
 resistance to lawful authority, as is proved in the various articles heretofore 
 referred to, and to decree our judgment to be that the said Edward Cridge be 
 suspended from tho office and dignity of Dean of the said Cathedral Church, 
 until he submit himself to our lawful authority. 
 
 Our judgment on the present proceedings, therefore, is that the license 
 granted by us on the 17th September, 1860, to the said Rev. E. Cridgo, be 
 revoked; that ho be suspended from the aforesaid office and dignity of Dean, 
 until ho submit himself to lawful authority, and that he be admonished so to 
 submit himself in tho future. 
 
 "Witness our hand, this seventeenth day of September, in the year of Our 
 Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four. 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 Victoria, B. C, 
 
 In presenting their report my assessors have unanimously expressed the 
 hope that in administering this necessary discipline the past faithful labors of 
 Mr. Cridgo may be recognized to mitigate, where possible, the force of any 
 judgment passed in this case. 
 
 I can truly say I sincerely enter into this feeling. There is no intention 
 or wish on my part to remove Mr. Cridgo permanently from Christ Church, 
 It will rest with himself, not with me, whether he bn removed from the parish 
 or not. 
 
 A license may be revoked the and clergyman holding it cease to be able 
 legally to minister in the Diocese, but if the cause of the revocation be removed, 
 the revocation can be annulled and another license may be granted, and the 
 clergyman, on due submission to the laws of the Church, may be reinstated. 
 
 That such may be the case in the present instance is my earnest hope. 
 After Monday, when the formal revocation of the license will be issued, the 
 Cure of Christ Church will be vacant, and it will be my duty to provide in 
 the best way I can for the services. 
 
 An arrangement will be sanctioned in consultation with Mr. Cridge's 
 frienJs whereby, for a period during the vacancy, a portion of the income of 
 Christ Church may be allowed to him and his family. 
 
 [54.] 
 
 The Right Reverend, 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Columbia, 
 
 IN RE 
 
 The Very Reverend Kdword Cridge, 
 
 Dean of Chriet Church, Victoria, V. I. 
 
 We, the AssesBors in tlis above cause, find as follows: — 
 
 Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are proved. 
 
 Articles 9 and 10 are nnt proved. 
 
 Articles 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are proved. 
 
 Article 18 is proved, excepting as to Articles 9 and 10. 
 
 Witness our hands this 16th day of September, IS 
 
 CHARLES T. WOODS, Archdeacon of Columbia. 
 
 QEOHQE MASON. 
 
 P. O'UEILLY. 
 
 ' 
 
69. 
 
 [55.] 
 
 Victorift, Sept. 14th, 1874. 
 
 I appear this morning to state that I decline to plead before this Court. 
 
 First — Because it is not a court of legal or competent jurisdiction. 
 
 Secondly — That 1 have been refused time to consider and reply to the 
 arguments of the counsel on the question of the jurisdiction before procoedmg 
 with the evidence. 
 
 Thirdly — That the constitution of the court is not just, there being on it 
 no one of legal standing, learning and e::pt!rience, qualified to try the case, 
 and the ecclesiastical members belonging to one of the two great bodies into 
 which the church is divided, and myself to the other, and that although the 
 published correspondence articled agamst me ref»rred to the subject of a 
 synod, to which I was adverse, one of the assessors is, I believe a delegate 
 to the synodi 'ul convention. 
 
 Fourthly — That the Bishop is interested in this case in an unusual degree, 
 not only by having the preferment, (as is supposed), but in other important 
 respects. 
 
 Fifthly — That whereas the Bishop stated that the rules of the Church 
 Discipline Act had been followed as nearly as circumstances would permit, 
 it has been needlessly df^parted from in more than one important respect. 
 
 Sixthly — That th(! articles, which I have been alforu;yl r,o opportunity, 
 (notwithstanding my protests), of having amended, are by t eir defects, their 
 excesses, and their errors, illegal and unjust. 
 
 Seventhly — That the Bishop has combined, in his own person, functions 
 which are irreconcilable with justice and law: and 
 
 Eighthly — That I believe the Bishop to oe personally disqualified by any 
 authority of Hc^r Majesty to try this case by reason of his having denied the 
 Queen's supremacy, and thus virtually seceded from the Church of England. 
 
 And any other reasons which I may have laid before the court iu other 
 protests. 
 
 E. CRIDGE. 
 
 ■ 
 
 [56.] ^ 
 
 The following sentence, or judgment, in consequence of the said decision, 
 was likewise served upon the defendant, on the 22d day of September, A. D., 
 1874, and his license to officiate thereby revoked. 
 
 George, by Divine permission, Bishop of British Columbia, to the Very 
 Rev. Edward Cridge, Clerk, B. A. 
 
 Whereas, we did on or about the 17th day of September, in the year of 
 Our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty, by a license under our 
 Hand and Episcopal Seal, grasit unto you our license to p<;rforni the otfice of 
 minister in Christ Church, Victoria, Vancouver Island, within our Diocese 
 and jurisdiction: Now, we, by virtue of the power and authority given to us 
 in this behalf, by certain Royal Letters Patent, dated January 12th, 1859, and 
 of all and every other power and authority vested in us. Ordinary or Episco- 
 pal, in anywise enabling us in that behalf for sufficient causes us. hereunto 
 moving, do by these presents revoke, annul, and make void the said license. 
 And further, we do hereby dismiss and remove you, the said Edward Cridge, 
 from the Cure of Christ Church, as aforesaid, from the day of the date of these 
 presents. 
 
 Given at Victoria, the twenty-first day of September, in the year of Our 
 Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, and in the sixteenth year 
 of Our Consecration. Aa witness Our Hand and Episcopal Seal, 
 
 Q. [L.S.] COLUMBIA. 
 
 [57.] 
 
 < 
 
 George, by Divine permission. Bishop of British Columbia, to the Very 
 Rev. Edward Cridge, Clerk, B. A. 
 
 Whereas, we did, on or about the 7th day of December, 1865, appoint 
 and collate you to be Dean of the Deanery of Christ Church, in Victoria, our 
 
60. 
 
 Catliodrfil, wo now for sufficient cnusrs um, horounto movin^f, do puspond you, 
 tho saul Edwnrd Gridgn, from th« snid ollloi! mid dignity of Dt^nn of the 
 Dennnry nf iii'^nid. yViid fiirthor, wo do mispond you fiorn all nnd sinjjulur 
 the rightx, nKMnlturs, nnd nppuiti'niuiPCH thenutilo liclonging, if nny, from tho 
 day of the diito of these presents until you have Hubniittud yourself to our 
 lawful fluthorily. 
 
 Given ii( Victoria, tho twenty-Hrst day of September, in tho year of Our 
 Lord, one thousand eight hundred nnd st^venty-tour, nnd in the wixteonth year 
 of Our Consecration, As witness Our Hand and Kpi.>-cop»l Seal. 
 
 G. [L.S.] COLUMBIA. 
 
 [58.] 
 
 Bishop's Close, Sept. 25th, 1874. 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 It is my intention to perform the services myself ns>'istcd by my Chaplain 
 at tho Cathedral, on Sunday next, morning and evening. 
 
 1 am, faithfully yours, 
 
 G. COLUMBIA. 
 
 A. P\ Pemberton, E.q., \ churchwardoQs. 
 E. Williams, Lsq., J 
 
 i 1 
 
 [59.] 
 To the Right Reverend Bishop Hills, D. D. 
 
 Sir: — In refiironco to tho sentence of suspension that you have passed and 
 served upon me, and which in 3'our notices to myself and the Churchwirdcins 
 you are apparently endeavouring to carry out, as if etl'octual and binding in 
 law, I beg most respectfully to quote the following passage from the judg- 
 ment of tlic; Privy Council in the similar case (so ihr as legal jurisdiction is 
 concerned) of the senleiioo of deprivation passed upon the Bishop of JSatal by 
 his Metropolitan, the Bishop of Cape Town. 
 
 " Suspension or deprivation is a matter of coercive legal jurisdiction, and 
 not of mere spiritual authority." 
 
 1 have already protested against the proceedings which in mj' estimation 
 render your sentence on other grounds illegal and unjust, but with the above 
 judgment in view, guarding as it evidently docs, benelicial interests and civil 
 rights against sudden and arbitrary encroachments, I must at present regard 
 the sentence in question as of none effect in law, and continue to pursue (he 
 duties of my cure as heretofore. 
 
 In this course I am sustained by the authorities of the congregation and 
 have no intention, as I have never had any, of resisting the lawful authority 
 of the Bi.-hop. 
 
 I beg to remain. Right Reverend Sir, 
 
 Most respectfully yours. 
 The Parsonage, E. CRIDGE. 
 
 Victoria, Sept. 26lh, 1874. 
 
 [60.] 
 Victoria, Sept., 26th, 1874. 
 
 Victoria, 26th Sept., 1874. 
 My Lord Bishop: 
 
 In reply to 3'our letter of yesterday wo beg to inform you that before re- 
 ceiving it, arrangements had been made for conducting the services to-morrow, 
 as heretofore, by our Rector, Mr. Cridge. 
 
 We remain, your obedient servants, 
 
 A. F. PEMBERTOX, 
 ROB'T WILLIAMS, 
 Lord Bishop of Columbia. Churchwardens of Christ Church. 
 
 V 
 
61. 
 
 [61.] 
 
 Tho Reverend E. Cridgo, V'ctoria: 
 
 Sopteraber 28th, 1874, 
 
 Doftr Sir: — In reply to your lottor of tho 2flth inst., T nm roquostod hy tho 
 BiHhop to oxproas his regret to lind you hiive igtion-d thy revocation of your 
 lioonse: but aH you statu you have Imd no intention of resisting tho lawful 
 authority of the Birthoj), and as IiIh Lord>hip has not, and never had, any 
 desiro to enforce more than his lawful authority, as his duty proscribes, tho 
 main question appjars to be, what is "lawful authority ?" 
 
 It Ima been represented to his Lordship that tho question may bo decided 
 by tho Supreme Court, on a case to bo stated as agreed upon by counsel on 
 both sides, and ho is willing for his part to adopt this course, as by so doing 
 the groat ovil of further hostile proceedings might be avoided. 
 
 Yours, faithfully, 
 
 M. W. T. DRAKE, 
 By Rob't E. Jackson, his Attorney. Registrar. 
 
 [62.] 
 My Lord Bishop: 
 
 In dotoi''nce to tho suggestion of tho Chief Justice, who has stated from tho 
 Bench that tho protest which I delivered on the occasion of tho sermon of Arch- 
 deacon Roeco was, as to the time and place of its delivery, a violation of the 63d 
 Canon of the Church, which I had promised to obey, I consider it my duty 
 as a christian minister to express my regret for this involuntary broach of the 
 law. And this I do in full cont^ifctency with the statement which I made to you 
 in my letter of 19th Sept., and which I now repeat, that '* I have not, and 
 never had, any intention of resisting your 'lawful' authority as Bishop." 
 
 I am, yours faithfully, 
 23d October, 1874. E. CRIDGE. 
 
 V 
 
' ■'■> . ].. 
 
 \\ 
 
 ^■«i- !>t !f'i^. 
 
 lii>fi 
 
 J ' 
 
 
 ■■'^ -'/f ,r--^i-.t .-T.tV'^''irv;j 
 
 '* >'i fy.:', !<■ '! . ,v ..' 
 
 [ £«'! 
 
 >iy;' ikfh} ■: i^ 
 
 ■""■ n i-t'i ■■, i 
 
 '' 1 
 
 
 'i i. 
 
 :--*.u' ;..;,.v^'-^^ 
 
'I ■ 
 
 If H'l 
 f 
 
 or ur D c^ m: s; ir ^- . 
 
 BISHOP OJ' COLUMBIA rersus REV. MR. CRIDGE. 
 
 Judgment rendered on Saturday, Octobor 24lli, 1874, at 11:20 o'clock, A. M. 
 
 TliiB (8 a case of an application for an injunction on a 
 bill tiled by tlio Lord liishop of tlin Diucest; of UritiMli 
 Culunilila against llcv. Kdward Cridtrc, clerk, prujinn 
 lliat tho defendant may bo restrained from jireacliing or 
 oficiating in tlie cure of Christ Cliurch and from acting; 
 elsewhere in tho dioceso as a clergyman of the ostab- 
 lished church, and for a declaraiion that tlie defendant's 
 liceiisft lias been duly ruvokod and i hat the defendant 
 has fa, red to conform to the discipline and dcx'trix- of 
 the Church of Knglaml, and is liable to bo removed, and 
 is no lonirer entitled to the benefits of tho trust of thOj 
 Indenture of titli May, 1804. The iiresent application is 
 for an injunction to restrain tho dotenilaiit from 
 ij'preaching or olticiatinf; in the said church of Christ 
 (,'nurch or otherwise acting in thocuroof thusald church 
 acconling to his foriner license or elsewln-ro in the, 
 dioccBO as a minister of the Church of Knglantl." 
 
 The Rill sets out t'-o f.'tters Patent ana consecration 
 of the plaiLititT to be liishop of Hritish Cidumbia, his 
 arrival h{'r(^ and license granted to the defendant to 
 "lireach and oHiciate," his selectioii of Christ Church to 
 be his Cathedral, his collation thf-^realtor of the doiend- 
 ant to be tho Dean of the said C.ithedral Church. 
 
 Cerf.iin Articles, dghteen in number, are then sot 
 forth in the l.ill. impeaching the conduct of the de- 
 fendant In his uijnistry, appenileil to which are many' 
 lettors and documen; • ,.;me of great interest to the par- 
 ties to tho correspondoncu, but not very important to 
 the determination ot thu precise ((ue>tlon before me. j 
 Whrther tho allegations of tli' articles thus stated are 
 to be taken as allegations made In the Itlll Itself may or| 
 may not bo ail important queslioii at the hearing The 
 ipiestiou whether they are well iiloaded by this bill has 
 not been ralsoil on tho arguments now before me, which, { 
 iu justice to tho dofendant it must be said linve been, 
 directed more to tho matters really lying at tho root ofj 
 the unfortuuato ditrerences between titu plaln'IIT and; 
 defendant than to th" toclinlcalitios or lovms of plead \ 
 Ing, or evoii to tho licts really necessary to be con- 
 sidered for the' deternuuution of this interlocutory ap- 
 plication. 
 
 Tho (piestion whotlier tlio Attorney General should 
 or not be a party, was In like mannor banished from the 
 argument probal ly through similar considerations ; ami 
 tho parties did not conceal that tlwlr chief desire now 
 was t) obtain from mo an expression of my views upoii 
 the two very Intenstlng quostlons, viz.- tho visltcu'ial 
 powers of tile liishop and the legality or legal conso- 
 iiuenjos of holding synods, tho latter of which, howi-ver, 
 could not, Dxcept hi a very indirect wiy, c.nuo into con- 
 sidoralioii at all. 
 
 .\9 tho result of tho inquiry upon thn articles referred 
 to tho Bishop's assessors lound all the chargeii ot Infrac- 
 tion of clerical duty to bo prove I, except two numbered 
 '.t and 10. Si.tteen articles therefore were repotted as j 
 jn-ovod. Tho I'.ishop thereupon delivered judgement on' 
 each of tho l)roTod charge^ separately, on the ITtli '»fi 
 ."September, 1871. The investigation had been o|)eu. 
 Th ro were four assessors, two cierifymoii and two l;iy- 
 niisfi. County Court juilgos, one of whom was compelled ^ 
 to retire o;i pu!)llc buslt.'oss aftor the fir-t day. The In-, 
 vostigatlon continued tb' dv: in lUnu for four days, viz. : j 
 on the 10th, lltli, 12th and Ufh of Soptemner, the do-| 
 fondant having had ample notice, and being in fact pro-| 
 soBt, and with every opportunity apparently to examine! 
 or cross-oxaiuino witnesaeH. lie Heenis, however, to! 
 have remained as a gpectator, merely, aft«r i 
 iianiing in a protust aganiut tho procoodlngs. i 
 The form of the address iu which the 
 sontence^ of tho Bishop in respect of tho several charges i 
 proved, is not pi'rhaps, free from being excepted to, i 
 Uut neither, usually is the addruso in wiiich an ordinary j 
 court of Justice conveys its reasons for a decision. Tho, 
 loparato Bontencu on fourteun ot tho |>roved uhurgoa is 
 
 revocation of tho license on one, viz. : that on Article 
 17, a formal admonition ami then, without noticing 18, 
 the Uishop says, he must still add furllie-- ]iunishmeiit 
 and decrees snsiieiision from the Deanery, and thou gives 
 as his judgment, on tho whole proceedings, to be revoca- 
 tion ot the license to preach and olliciatu, Buspension 
 from the o, flee or dignity of Dean until submission and 
 a formal aa.nonltion. This is tlie sentence, la fact, tliu 
 logical results of which the plaliititf now hoeks to liave 
 enforced by tho decree (d' this ("ourt 
 
 In Considering whether tlii» Court will grant lt« 
 auxilliary aid. the only ()ueslion8 to consider are those 
 which arose iu Dr. WarriMi's case, and In Long v.s. The/ 
 llihhop of Capo Town. The liishop having no coercive I 
 jurisdicfion, had he, however, jurisdiction to summon 
 the ilefeiidant to piiiiuire Into his conduct, to i)ass this 
 judgment spiritually as it may be said. Unless he had 
 such a right this Court will not Interlere or assist liini 
 in any way. .Neither alll this Court assist him if it ap- 
 pears 'hat tho proceedings were conducted in an oppres- 
 sive way, or in any manner contrary to tho )irlnciplos 
 oil which questions are examined and determined here. 
 .Veither will It assist him if tho sentences appear to bo 
 <lisproportioiiato to tho alleged oft'el^('o, or contrary to 
 public ixdicy, to he allowed « (i. If tho ilefendaiit had 
 lieon sentenbed to do penance in a sheet with a ta|ier, 1 
 do not lliiiik this Court would have anything to say to 
 such a sentence as that, or if ho were sontonced to do- 
 privation or sns|i"iislon for once oiiiltting a genuflexion, 
 file ber,t test to apply Is this: t'(Utaiiati ly wo area 
 branch of tlu> Churcli of Kn^iand not "in union and full 
 eoimniinioir' »inly. but a branch of that very church. 
 II we had hero O'tablishd syn xls and ('anoin and rej^ula- 
 tioiis of our own, tho invesfigition now wouldlie more in- 
 tricati^ and dllllcult,according to the observalions of th» 
 .Master of tho Rolls in .Natal vs (JIadstouo, p. 37, hero till 
 we hive to emjuire is whvthur the olfencos alleged 
 W(mld, if coinmittud by a clerk ivi Kngland, lie triable 
 before the IM^hop of the dioceso, and punishable as this 
 is pumsheil, and [ apprehenil that there is no doubt liut 
 tliat these questions must subji'ct to some observations 
 about the Chnrcli Discipline .4ct, iukI the dlfteroiit rela- 
 tion of the Uishop hero (/m; patronage, bo aiiswerd in 
 th'! allirmafivo. 
 
 In my opinion tho Church Discipline Act — 3 and 4 
 Vict., c. 86 — it is impossible to comply with here, at 
 least in its entirety, and therefore at least, in its ontiroty 
 is not. law. In particular, it would boimpossiblo to have 
 a trilniiial of the five assessors therein reforreil to. Tho 
 assessors chosen hero wore, however, a better tribunil 
 than I should have expected to have found here. Th« 
 defenlint objects first that none ot them belonged to 
 the ^:lM;tion id' the cliurch to which ho says bo belongs, 
 ami tlie argument addressed to ine seemed really to liiivo 
 boon tiiat lio was entitled to have one or two partisans 
 am mg the assessors, perhaps on the principle of a jury 
 le meilietate, which Is now abolished, in civil casus as 
 I'rom January 1st, 187J. Hut of ciuirso there was no 
 shadow of reas'ju in such an objection. Tho next objec- 
 tion was that luasmuch — it Is not Very easy to state it — 
 iuasmucth as those assessors might more closeiy liava ap- 
 proximated to the assessors descrlbod in the Churcli 
 Discipline Act. though I can scarcely see how, thorufore 
 those proceedings w(^^o a nullity. But, Ist. It was not 
 shown that better assos.sors could have boon procured. 
 '2nd. It is not pret>'uiled that even In Kngland tho asses- 
 sors niiLtt bo of the character in tho Act mentioned, but 
 only that such assessors will be considered satlsfact ry. 
 3r(L It is not pretendi-d that the Act i» applicable hero, 
 or is law here at all. To impugn a judH;niont (if(>ther» 
 wise reasonable) becauso the prnccodlngs on which it In 
 based, do not tally closely enough (as alleged hut not 
 proved) with certain proceedings mentioned, not required 
 in Knglanii by a statute which is nou-oxisteut bore la 
 surely rather far. 
 
n. 
 
 Theu Mr. Robertson nrge<I that tlie Bi»<hop ticrc ah n 
 matter ot fact nppointH mid licrnvi-R all tlic difTeront 
 niiiiititerM in the (liocpee to their difl'eretit cures; tliat liy 
 revoking defendant'H lit'enso, l).v Buspeiidinp him, liy 
 perhaj'H iiltliiiati'l.v dcjiriving him of this cunt altoge- 
 ther, he will ncqiiiro a right of preRenfalioii t" this curv, 
 (which I oliserved counsel un hoth sided carefully 
 atiBtuined from calling "h living") end that this rig^ht of 
 presentation is an interest in the Bishop, which disquali- 
 lies him from being a judge, even in the preliminary 
 matter of censure ; tor it was urged, the neglect even of 
 a censure may lead to further eccletiiasticul proceedings, 
 and bo up to the most hardened contumacy, and incur- 
 able obstinacy, only fit to be cut oft. And the presence 
 of an interest in a judge utterly disqualifies him and 
 annulu his judgment. Now 1 am not sure that interest 
 muflt not mean some interest which might be turned 
 into canh. Apart from the simoniacal odor of such an 
 idea, it is not shown to me that this right of presenta- 
 tion is ot the smallest money value, lint in the next 
 place the ar^iument is not pushid, nearly far enough, 
 but is ingeniously placed just far enough to embrace 
 'the defendant's case and no other. If it be unlawful for 
 'the liishnp to cen'-ure because the neglect of that may 
 lead to suspension and so on, neither is it lawful 
 for him to direct, becausie the neglect of his dir- 
 ection may lead to a censure and the neglect of censure 
 I to suspension, and sw on. On the other hand the Itisliop 
 ; here qua Itishop appoints not only to this cure, but to 
 every cure iu the diocese, ijo that the argument fairly 
 Carried out is this: That because a man is the Ui.sh«p 
 pt' the dicceso, Untrefon for that reason alone, virtutf 
 officii, he is doliarred from either directing or suspemting 
 any of the iiiferior clergy whom he may once have ap- 
 pointed to a cure, notwitlistaiKiitig any solemn vows and 
 promises they swore tc liod. and to him when he placed 
 tliem there. In (act tlnit on the sole ground of his being 
 a liishop, he is disabled from beluga Ui-'hop. I'or I wish 
 a;;ain to impress upnti the delendant the consideration 
 which I threw out in argument, that the very first and 
 higl'.est trust and duty, more than a right or |)rivilege 
 of a liiishop — his ralinfjr.istrntti — the reason for callitig him 
 what he is called is that he is to visit his clergy, "Itis- 
 liop," "Visitor " "Overseer." the three words are alniosi 
 ideutical; and the chief ditfereiice between them is that 
 they are derived from the Ureek, Latin and Teutonic 
 roots reMpoctively. In at least one place of the new testi- 
 ment the authorized version translates, "Kl'ISKOl'OS" 
 (Ejiiscopos) by the word ' Overseer " Mr. Kol)ert- 
 sou's argument came to this; That because tli>i duties of 
 an overseer are ou here somewhat iiicotuparable there- 
 fore liecoultl not overwoe; at least that though he might 
 lawfully perform ruch duties as the defendant liked he 
 was lint to perform such duties as the defendant objected 
 to; for it is lo be observed that this is just as much an 
 objection to the power of appointing, as to the power of 
 oenisuring. The two powers it is said, are incompatible, 
 t'.erefore I claim, says the defeiident, not that both 
 powers are void, but (hat I may trxat the one as valid, the 
 other as invalid T!ie Bishop may lawtuliy appoint me, 
 but caiiuot lawfully censure me. But in fact contindic- 
 tory powiTH are olten in case of necissity placed in one 
 hiiiid. ill this very Colony there is almost a caso in 
 point. Nothing surely can be more important than to 
 keep quite distinct the judicial and executive functions. J 
 No maxim of our criminal court is better kuMwn than, 
 that ill the absence of ceiiiisel, thejudge is lo be counsel 
 for a prisoner. Vet the legislature has thought it ex- 
 pedient by repeated acts which have always obtained 
 Her Mt^jesty's sanction to leave it to the judge to nomi- 
 nate a sheriff /'fo rt »a<((, and in criminal trials iip the 
 country it has occai^ionally happaiied in the aliseuco of 
 liny cauiisel fur the prosecution that the jutlge has been 
 (■(impelled to indicate to the i\egistrar or to a constable, 
 what st;itute apjieared suitaldo for the occasion and in 
 what liook tlieloiin of the indicltUv-nt mus shown. In 
 fact all ther'ti regulations are means to nil en t — that end 
 is the iidininirtlration ofjuitice and the repression of 
 disonler — and to ailhere to forms and priiuiples in such 
 away as to suffer crime to go at large uiipiiiiishod, and 
 di»or>ior to bo unreHtraiued, woultt be "to neglect the 
 ojr«*er for the sake of the shell.'' 
 
 snops, 
 ternisl 
 xceed-l 
 liict."' 
 
 I Kcclesinrtiral Tribunals Jinve alwuys lieen negligent ol 
 ; the forms whidi Knglit-h I.iiy 'lribniia!x have t..- 'ned 
 lUsefuI, and all but Ksceniial. I Kay Ki; ti^^^ j^y 'jyjIiu 
 iials, for in many other countriefi. othei principles than 
 lOnis are considered to lie most confoin .ib'e witli tlie ad 
 minigtratioH of justice. And the most prejudiced mind 
 must admit that sentences may bi- just ll.uugh nrit ar 
 rived at by the machinery of jury. 'I he judgnienfN e.r 
 i'olomon have been considered ns not without meiii. 
 though every one of them lutrageti the whole spirit of 
 Magna Cliarta. In cunsidering the charges, and sen 
 tences »f September last, 1 think however, that as to the 
 scene in the Cathedral, of the 5th Unci niber, 1872, it whs 
 not competent to the Bishoii to lenew any charge or in- 
 flict any further punishment for that oflenn?. Ifahivm^ 
 Cnvfti-vltvi nnim nobody dihpiitoK — not Mr. Koliertcon 
 himself, that there was a clear iTeaeli by tlie defendant 
 not only of the Canons of the Chun h tind of the laws of 
 Christian Charity and dedinni, which are not always 
 present to our minds, but of social etiquette and pro- 
 priety — restoaints to which we are more habitually ac 
 customed, every one of which forbad the defendant "froiii 
 thrusting himself forward in thejireseiice of two Blshojis, 
 one a stranger to condemn a brother I'restyter, in terms 
 wliich the defendant liimself s«ems to be aware "ex 
 ed t)ie accustonikd reslraints of language mid con 
 (Vide defendant's address ot March 28111, 1874 ) Really I 
 cannot conceive any other course to l>e taken Ijy the 
 defendant himself than to say. as soon a« rhe irregularity 
 was pointed out, or as soon as he hnd sufficiently recovei - 
 ed his "accustomed restraint of language and conduct," 
 "I sec I have clearly broken the canon which I swore to 
 observe, and I have contravened thestatiite 'ly which all 
 men are bound, and I have clearly exp()se<l myself to 
 suspension, I am very sorry and beg yon will remit tli« 
 punishment." It is iieedbsH to say that lie never says 
 anything of the sort. Iliiwever, 1 coii»ider that the 
 Bishop has dealt with that ofleiice by his ci-nsure of the 
 14th December, 1S72. And ti'-mn ?).< il,1.,>l vexari is a 
 I maxim which our law baa liorrowed from the Romans 
 and which I think is of natural justice. " I think 
 I therefore, the Bishop had no rif;lit to renew that charge 
 ]ln I'atidora street. Of course the defiance wiih wliicli 
 j the defendant met the censure was a new act of di.'*- 
 lobedience, and it is not easy to see the real giounds for 
 jit. Tliat might well justify a iieW ptiniKhinent. Up to 
 the 2Mth day of March last, the tlefeiuiant seems to have 
 Isupposod that he wa.s resis itig "an attempt to dofani» 
 Ibis ministry and to intrude on his oificc which ho had 
 |r(!ceived in trust tor the chiiich as well as himsolf, 
 "that his ofHco or IiIh trust was in danger." That, I 
 KUjiiiose, must refer wholly to the sermon of Archdeacon 
 Kecce. as to which it i.s diilietilt to perceive how it would 
 aft'ect the defendant at all or any right or privilegeof his. 
 But afterwards in the letter of tlieSid of .Inly, he takes, 
 I think, other grounds; at least he expresses what per- 
 haps may have bouu only inteiuled before; and after re- 
 ferring to aoiiio opinions of the (Churchwardens (not 
 uecessarely, tlioii;j:h poNsibly. those contained in tlieii 
 letter of the 2nd of .Inly,) and taking nior» intelligilil,' 
 ground (as might be expectcnl) than they do, ho points 
 out that the proposetl Synodical moveineht might re 
 suit in placing himself and his congreg itioii under a 
 different law than that of the Church of Kngland. Tins 
 1 hav;> already stated my tirtii ccmviction to be a ve. v 
 real npiu?heiision. It :nuy be a danger to be avoided, ii 
 may be a benefit to he desired, but so sure as this 
 Synodical movement does proceed, ko surely as the 
 church here assumes power to make laws and constitii 
 tions for this diocese, and to constitute the Bishop an 
 Kcclesiastical Tribunal with power to enforce obeilienc(> 
 and no appeal except lo the -Archbishop of Canterburv 
 for the time being, as ajornm dmntxtinim, so surely will 
 the church hero (I fear) one day differ widely from tlf 
 .Mother Church in forms and ordinances ami matters of 
 Church tiovernment, and probably also by degrees, even 
 in some particulars of doctrine. I was about to refer to 
 Lord Roinllly'n judgment in "The Bi.liop af Natal vs. 
 Oladstono," but I fiiiil I hire nearly repeated his word* 
 which have imprinted thomselvei: on my memory. 
 
 The position advanced at the bar, however, and which 
 was probably necessary for the rebutting the whole oaao 
 
iii. 
 
 iirglifceiit ol 
 ivo ».<• 'iK'n 
 I Lay Triliii 
 nciplcR tlinii 
 vitli tlie »tl- 
 idiccd ntiiiit 
 iipli not ar 
 ii(ipni**iitn f'f 
 lioiit nit-iit. 
 ole Bjiiiit ol" 
 8, aiirl ticn- 
 int nH to ttiM 
 1872, it WHO 
 ^liuige or in- 
 1'. liahnniK 
 . Roliei'tMiii 
 10 dpfeiidiint 
 f tlie InwK III 
 ' not aUvnvK 
 :te «n(l imi- 
 nljilnally i»<' 
 rrniiaiit frciu 
 two UisliopH, 
 tpr, in tcrnm 
 urtt "oxccert- 
 iid conduct.'" 
 4 ) Really I 
 ukon by tliB 
 ■ irregularity 
 •ntly ret'ovei- 
 nd ronduct." 
 "Ii 1 HW()r(< to 
 'ly which all 
 'il myself fi> 
 111 remit Hi« 
 <• never wivh 
 der that the 
 • nsure of tl(P 
 ' ^r:xari in a 
 the Komano 
 " 1 think 
 that charpf' 
 with which 
 ,v act of di.-t- 
 KinnndH for 
 iicnt. Up to 
 ems to have 
 • t In dotani« 
 Il It'll hu hail 
 
 hIniHnlf, 
 r.' That, I 
 Archdeacon 
 i.w it would 
 ilegeof his. 
 ', he takei", 
 what per- 
 ml after re- 
 \rdenM (not 
 lied in tlieii 
 intelligib!.' 
 
 ho point" , 
 It might re 
 in under n 
 and. Thin 
 o he a veiy 
 avoided, il 
 ire as thin 
 ely as the 
 |iil conRtitii 
 Bishop ail 
 obedience 
 anferhiirv 
 urely will 
 ly from the 
 niatterH of 
 reoR, oven 
 o roftT to 
 Natal VM. 
 his words 
 >ry. 
 
 n 1 which 
 hole cas» 
 
 of tlio plaintltr woat far beyond thin. Had the dofondantlland, and hiiK been placed if I may without presumption 
 conliiied hiinfell'to the re.isoiiahlo view which it mliilitMay mi upon a cli ir miil witisrarlory fuiiinlfttloti. Of all 
 be contended wii- all he inrant in that letter '-f the 3rirtliiit light and of all those discussioim I can now avail 
 of .Inly, what ni.iy ill fact bo a fair construcjon to put invHelf 
 
 upiTi It, iirolai-edwith au ai-kiiowledgment ofhin frriir. 1 IJiit if a v(diinlary aflnociation out here had been 
 II he had Haid "my breach of the Ciinuii and of Ihe; lorined of pernonn holding the iluctrines of tin- Clunrli 
 Btiiliitw and of good iiiaiinerK, I am heartily nnrry I'or.'ot England lnU rjecting or altering wholly or in putt 
 and 1 liilly intend to otf'nd rfo no more, and 1 thank you the discipline and g.ivei nment of the Church of KiiKlaiul 
 for yoiir lenity in only censuring me for my otfeiio, I — that would bi' a coin>e pei fi ctly open to any numlii.T 
 know that every man in the dioccMe whorie opinion inof |ier.siii« to pursue I apprehend, and the present 
 worth caring for, my own counsel and all, are heartily Hl^hop might he among tluin— hut that association 
 Hony that I iicti-il so. Your visitatloii I wllldutilnlly re- woiid not he an iiclnal lir.in.li of the C'hiiirh ol Kng- 
 A'eivo. Kverything shall he at ymir service. The pnl- land, thomih il miuhi insist that it was in full union 
 pit of the cathedral 1 Have no Ihonght of closing to ymi. and communion with it, and hi-ld all lis doilrines. II 
 liut as to the synodical movement which your lordship illssi'iisions arose in siuh an assoe|;iliiin Its lui'inhern 
 is HO earnest in pressing on my congregalion and else- would have reeoiusK 'o llie ilvll tiilmnals and any ques- 
 \\ hero in your sermons and discourses. 1 would with tjons wuuld have lo be tried by their i.wii rules and 
 like I arni'Stiiess entreat you toconsider and w"II wf yh ordlinnccs, whiili wnnld hive to be piuvid by evidence 
 l^ird Homilly's words. I know it is not for us to jitdae In the usual maiiin'r, and have to be ciiii.«trued by tie- 
 of )».ur doctrine, but for you to ju.lgc ot ours, lint this Court just like the resulalimis of a new joint stock coin- 
 is a point of practi'e and exjiediency not of doclpany. 1 need not point out the aildltional dillicully and 
 trine and we wish to rrinaiii under the laws otjresponsibllity which wou'.d then I 'y be imposeil im tl 
 ilie Church of Kngland which we know, and not to beljudges, and the a'idlliuiial nmer t:iinly and in«eciirity 
 liable to future laws and law makers uf which we know | felt in any coiistrncl'on lo be plac d on such ordinances: 
 iiotliing, and under which old deidsions will not aid iis the decisions of Knulish courts wnild not b(> binding and 
 to undi'istalid our rights and duties. We wish lo adhere' might not be apposite, not being in i>nri in'ih'rui. 
 lo the supreinaey of the Crown, and the deeislons of' Korluuately no sncii <-ase exists here. 'I'lie juris lic- 
 Criiwu Courts, and not to have any I'urum J"iii'SfiV(Oii 'tioii lure episcopal, judicial, and consensual, appiars t 
 
 with which we ale ii'iaoiiuaintud, aid whiih may im- 
 percrptibly as Loid Uomilly points out lonslllnte the 
 eliiircli hee to b" a sep irate ciiiircli, the ("hiiri'h of 
 llritlsh ('olnmbia, and not a liraixh any longer of our 
 .dd Church of Kiigland." If 1 say the defendant had 
 spoken tlius, who could have been offended ? 1 for my 
 pirtnotnow spetking as a judge at all. but as a mem- 
 ber of the church mit hern really feel ilis])oseil to say 
 
 be exactly fie" same — founded on instruments verbally 
 identical — with the case of the .See of Natal (Uishopiif 
 Natal vs (.ilad-tiunV What that Is may be giveu in Him 
 words iif Lord lloiuilly. After st itinu at very coiisidrr- 
 •ti>le b'liglh all the cireninstances and the ditf rent 
 cases in which the unfiirtniiate dilferences between 
 li'sliops, I>eans and Ministeis in iiioiifU .Vlrici had been 
 idiscussi'd, 111! says, '-The result >li.>ws that tin! Dintrii t 
 
 <? 
 
 illiat I have myself I'dt inclined to niike such an appeii lOr Colony of Natal is a district presided over by a Bishop 
 '.\iiditwill abiindiiitly appear in the course of these of the Church of Kngiand which is properly termed a 
 observations that the fact of the plaintilf's h ..iiig see or diicese ; that the ministers, deacons and priests 
 Jiitherto failed lo carry out his iippareiit iiiteiilions is •illiciatiiig within that diocese and iiNo all laymen |iro- 
 iiot uniinpoilaiu for tiie success of the presviit aiipli-,lessiiig to be inemlji rs of the Chtu'ch of Kii!.;land, con- 
 dition istltiile nut a church in Natal in union and full com- 
 Kor it is to bo noticed that up to the present time there iiiiinlou with Hie (."iiurch of Knul iiid, but a part of tlm 
 is not the least iiidiciition — there is no evidence and no Church of Kngland itself; and that all ih.- ministers, 
 argument — thiit the c mrch here is not a branch of the priests and deacons there ofliciating and all persons rom- 
 Cliurch of Kugland, to be governed and guided by ■11 posing the several tl 'cks are m 'mbcrs and brethren -d 
 her practices and discipline by wlii.ili all the Church of Kugland in the siric! sense of the term, 
 her members are houii I, aid defei'tive only In this Tlin cunseqiionije is, tint they have in all m itters eccf'- 
 respect, that when such practice and discipline reiiuirus siastical, voluntarily siiluiiltted themselves to thi? com- 
 10 be legally eiifiTcei by the strong arm, that strongtrol of th'! Bishop uf Natal, s'. long as it is exercised 
 arm must be put in motion by tlie jud.;ment of this within the scope uf his authurily, a curdiiij; to the priii- 
 coart following (If it thinks fit to follow; the sentence (d ci(iles prescribed by the Ciiiircn of Kiiglin I. If, liow- 
 the Bishop, and it may not be put in luoti m by virtue oficver, any sentence of the Bishop of Xat.il should be 
 the sentence of the iiccleslistieal /o/vd/t aline as in Eiig-iCoutest"d, recourse must lie ha<l to the courts estab- 
 l.'iiid. That is all the dnf-reiice. lam hound to ex-|llshed by law which will enforce that uentence if pro- 
 amine to a certain extent the -sentence nf thij Bishop :!iioniiced .virliiii the scope of the legal authority of the 
 if I lind it in ciiiit'oriulty wiili the pr.ictlce in the Kstab- Bishop, and if ho has in arri>iug at the sentence pro- 
 lish'd Church of Kiigl ind f am bound to order it lo be c.eed"d iu a manner conson.iiit with the principles ot 
 enforced ; then the I'll .'.,• if necess iry is applied uu ler justice. hihI Iii *<> doing the (^uirl established by law will 
 my order not purely as in Kugbuid on the episcojial proceed upon th'i laws of th'.- Church of Knglanl. f'o 
 .lulhority ; and the disobeilieuce then becomes and islfar as they .ire applic.ihlo in Natal." i. <'., the spirit 
 iniuishablo us disobediencu of my order and not though nut the letter of the Church Uiscipline .Vet, is lo 
 as disobedience only of the Bishop's onler. he adhered lo. Ills not law here but t is to be t.ikeii 
 fhe circumstanci) tliit the pliinlitf his hitherto failed, as a giiid.'. .Now I apprehend evi.'ry worn of that ipiobi- 
 t 1 carry out his apparent or presuiuod inlenlions .is lo a tiou is not only very giiod law, hut very good sense, and 
 •"vnod is also to myself personally a m itlio' on which I not only good sense and law, but a most convenient law 
 iiiojt sincerely congratiilato myself and for this rea- for the protection of rights. N'lt only for obtain iicj: 
 6-111, I lUi-an uot now t I express my per^unal predH'C-jiidicial decisions upon them, hut for knowing befjre- 
 tions at all, but sitting hero as a judge I feel howim-;liaud and without litigation, the limits of rights and 
 ^ meiiSidy my responsibility is h-s.oned and luy abilily forjduties of all members of the Church laymen and clerica', 
 c inijirehending the po.sition incroasod in comparison; It only reijulres that the name slioiibi he cli mii'id ; for 
 with the oi:c,isioii whi-n somewhat similar ijuesi ions ".Natal" read "British (')lnmhii." and oii this particu- 
 were brought for the lirst time oii sum .(vvhat simllarjiar point it exactly r-t.ites the posiliui liwre. 
 disputes before tlio Supreme (;,iiirt in .South Virica. Tlieso considerations make it cluir as I have said 
 .Since that time a flood of light his been poured upon botor»,thit it was necessary for the defendant's case to 
 . iliH constitutional iiuestions, and Hie relations of oecle-jgo tar beyond any reasonable or indeed posslldo con- 
 » s'.astical and civil jurisdiction in the colonies by the struction of the ilefeiidant's letttjr of the 3i'd of .July, 
 lalors of tho gn^at judges ami civilians in tho Privyieven if that letter embodied or referred to the church- 
 t>)Uucil and elsewhere, and tliK whole niattor has been i wardens letter of the ".ind of .Inly, which it is !>■• no 
 discussed repeatedly in various courts on various rights, means clear that it did. The defendant < aiiiiot maintain 
 by various minds of ihu most leavno I lawyers and mustihi.i present position of pre.iching and officiating iu 
 diticoro and earnest ohi<r -lini 'ii an I statfsiueH in Eug-lChri*t Church or in any Church of England in tho 
 
IV. 
 
 dioof-s" or at all uh a clcrnvniiin of tli<i C 
 
 li (if KiiK-'witli a liir'„'c support of tho ignorant missels sot 
 
 liiMil, liy niaintaiiig liirt ri^jht to do wlial IumIM on the tlu'iiisi'lveH up as iiuipirccl liy an imicr lijtlit, and uiilhor- 
 (Iiiy of til'- coiiwi.Tiiitioi) (if llii' new ratli''dral, wliicli wa.i |i/i'il h.v it to aiiiioiiiu'e a new order ot tllillp^<. 'I'lioir 
 tho position ho to<d4 on tlio '2sth M.inli. It is not 'I'odo of nioral.-t wan lli:it to tin- truly rlKliti'om all thiiiL's 
 enontcli for him now to alh'^jo an in Ids letter ol tlie 3rrl ' were hiwtul. 'I lie prii'mliood tliey anno\inci'd to Ik? a ;;eii- 
 of .Iw!y vaRiie charifeH of the "iHejrality of the Bishop s < lal difinity to whieli all mm niijiht iiMpire. As to teiniior- 
 
 proceedinjif 
 
 thelh-hop 
 
 M 
 
 edinjifsi in sundry matters atfi ctiiif; the (diurch," or al thin};s their argument was very short. It cmisi'-ted of 
 
 endeavorin'^todraw dolendant and his con-] three plain and very i nt(dli;ia hie sent ei 
 
 •Tin 
 
 irtli 
 
 gre;;atlon' away urn 
 
 ir anollier law than the (^liurrh of i-i the l.ord's ami tlie fulli:ess thereid'. 
 
 'Tho liord h:ith 
 
 's or preachins^ d ictrioi'8 olfensive to the ilefcnd-'i^iviui tho earth to ho an iidieritanco for his Saints 
 
 Kn 
 
 imt. th<J\lnh the (pieslic 
 
 synod or no s 
 
 ynod' 
 
 ■ n; 
 
 are tho Saints 
 
 The CiUKlusion was ohvious. 
 
 no (luestion of d^ictriiu' at all, hut aiily ot expediency ori'l'lio name idtho '• Anahaptists"' was t^iven to them, not 
 utility. It is not even enough to alleico as in tlic without -lonie injustice to llie orij:iii;il proprietors of that 
 churchwar lens letter of the 'lui} of July (hut I acain Idesignalion ; hut it remaineil with this now sect, if they 
 ohsorve that I do not think it jjroved that the defendant; they can \ie calleil a sect. It is not (juito (dear that their 
 has assurned tho responsihility of this letter) hut it j principles are wholly "Xtinet. However these men car- 
 would n<d ho enoujili to I'llejje as is there alle^'Ml in the| ried their jninciples into lorcihlo oi>eraliuil throUiilKUit 
 alternativo "that tim lilsliop iipi)oars to have seceded Isorno of the principal provinces of Kinopi*. They con- 
 fram the Chur<di of l-hi.t;land, or if ho have not seceded, trived to cmnlrine in a great measure the excesses of tho | 
 that he is at lea.st guiUy of a misdomoanour." All Ihosej I'aris (,'ommune with the excesses of lirigham YouiiJ 
 
 allegations might ho made and might he capahle id|They 
 
 Id put (1 iwu witliout lir< 
 
 sword ; many 
 
 and his acts would he episcopal acts and (daim ohediencel 
 from all his (d(!rgy until declared null hy a competent! 
 court. For tho i>roper dcdeuce of the position taken hy 
 Mr. Cridge, Ids ahle counse' p<'rceived that nithing ot; 
 that kin i would sufllco ; that n ithing w luld do hut to] 
 contend lliat his client was not and is not an nnliceiisedj 
 clergymen of the Chur(h of Kngland, for that he once 
 had a license and that the license liad never heen revoU-i 
 ed hy a liishop of the Diocese. Me therefore hcddly, hut 
 hy the ni'cessily of his argument, advanced tli(« proposi { 
 tion that the liishop is in very fact not a hishop at Mil. 
 hut iiii e:;com:nunioated person to whom no niemher of 
 the Chur( li id" Knghunl owes any olieilienco and is in! 
 diM'd to lie avoided, according to the 33d aitiide of l{e-i 
 ligion. And to supiiort that position lie lead from the 
 I'itli f'anon, A. l> iliO'i, as follows : "MaintMinrrs idcoii- 
 stitulions iii;ido in conTeiiticles censured," " Whosoever 
 Bliall liereaftir afhiin that it is lawful for any sort ot 
 minir.ters .ind lay iiersous or cither of them to join to-! 
 gether and make rules, orders, or constitutions in cau.s(-s 
 ecch^siastical without tlie King's authority and shall j 
 sulunit themselves to he ruleil and gcj.enied hy tliem,i 
 let them he excoinmnnicati'd ('/'••'o /'(((7 ). and not ho ro-j 
 stored until they repent and pulditdy revoke tlioso wick-! 
 ed and anahaptistical errors " .Now the lirst oliservation 
 tint arises on that is, that if there were anything in the 
 ohjection, ^Fr. Iv)iig and tin' liishop of Oape Town, and 
 the liishop of .Natal and >lr Ciladstone and hord llith i- 
 ly, the Coleridgcs, IJoundell I'alrners, liaddeji.ya and 
 otlicr learned c vi ians the Lord Chuncidlor and ineni- 
 hors of th(! Judicial committee, who have b' en engaLred 
 for so many years in sifting tho South African cases, had 
 all heen heating tho wind, and expending all their learn- 
 ing ami aculonoss and distilling principles nut (d" the 
 Aleiiihic of Kcclesiastical suits. Privy ("ouiu il ajipeals 
 and (diancery suits to very little jiurposo Indeed all 
 tliat has 1)0011 said in all these coni|ilicated rojiorta is 
 quite unnecessary and niiy be treated as uliiti'r ditd, if 
 this contention is niaintaiii ihlo. For nothing I laipposo 
 is cloar'T than that liishiH) (iray had actually carried 
 into practice in huig detail and personal application 
 everything and more than ovoiythiii:; that the present 
 pluintilf is even supposed not ever to liaV'' done, Init to 
 have wislfd to have done, lint in tliat case Mr. Itohert- 
 son's artcuiHeiit would he very short. Hisliop (iray from 
 tho moment he asserti'd the legality of a synod, (-easiHt to 
 he a liishop at all of any legal diocese (I do not know 
 that it is necessary for the argument that ho i;w" f'lrtn 
 C(!asod to he wlut may ho termed a liishop unattached I, 
 conseipiontly from that moment had not nor could have 
 any jurisdii tion qua hishop over any inombo'- of the 
 Church of Kn;4land. It is odd tliat nohody over thought 
 of til It before, that is it would la; oild, if there were any 
 show of reason in t'lo argument, lint in fact tlie errors 
 denounced hy tliis canon are as it expressly says, "n/i 
 ainiplis-ficdl errors." In tho previous century, scarce 
 II geiieratiou before tho canons, curtain fanatics. 
 
 the greatest ol niodern composers in tlii^ production of a 
 groat work of art, ami I sh nid have thought that mod- 
 ern popular melody might have conveyed a ray of his- 
 tory wiiich in itn turn might have thrown a light iti 
 theology sullicient to raise some (loubt at le ist as to tho 
 constiuction of tliis canon. It is expressly aimed at 
 disowning on tho |>art of the Church ot Kngland tho 
 ecclesiastical part of the usurpations of these Anaha])- 
 tists wlios(t ver.v name inspired liornu' as tliat of the 
 c.''.;)imi(/i« does to-day Tiieir views on temporal matters 
 it was prolialdy flup|>osed iiiigiit ho saftdy hit to tho 
 secular legislature. The canon conlines itsell to their 
 soirilual excesses. lint what can ('(jual the imprudeiico 
 of the defolidant's advi-ors in sn.gosting Ihoic rilh-c- 
 tions? Is it the plaintilf wlio alliriiis tliat it is lawful lor 
 'aiiv sort of minislcrs '', i. c,, unliceii-ecl preacliiis or 
 others, to join with "lay persons" whether churchwar- 
 dens or not and make rules and regulations or adopt 
 resoiutioiis withinit any autli rity or color of authority 
 whatever from the Ci own, either hy direct coininissioii 
 or by any Act of I'arhament or throiigii tho or linary 
 Courts of Justice? Is it tho plaintilf who alleges that 
 such an unlicensed preaidier with Ins lay partisans ma.v. 
 hy the simple expression of their oninion, annul the 
 Queen's Letters I'ateiit, fulminate senteiii'es id'oxcomniu- 
 nication Mini d<'privatioii, come tu a rosolution that their 
 loader is entitled to the full eiijoyineiit of valualile 
 lands, decide cm the intcipri lation ol a deed of trust and 
 (leterniino that tho same hader is ontitleil to the berietit 
 ofth.it.' and ahscdve wliom they please- Irom the ohserv- 
 aiico of solemn vows? Is it the plaintilt ho advances 
 those proposteroiis pretention!:? Do thi^e terms convoy 
 an exaggerated expression of the defendant's c.ise ? 
 
 It is hardly worth while to go on hroaking this Init- 
 tertly on this whecd. Vet these furtlnu' oliservatio'.iH 
 may bo useful wlii(di by themselves disjiose of the whole 
 argument on this head, even if my view id' the meaning 
 of llioCanon (haw 1 from history lie wholly wrong. It 
 is quilo true, as .Mr Long olisirves in his letter, (cited 
 and approved by Lord Itomilly, p. 48j that a man ei'iu 
 a liishop, may by his own act secede Irom a church. 
 Kvon secession, however, would probably still leave iiiiii 
 a liishop until he bo deposed or di'priv.jil, by tnosentoiico 
 of a competent court consei|Uk'iit on his secession, iiiit 
 still if a liishoi) had openly aiiiioiinceil his secession 
 that would greatly excuse the disoli.dienco of his cbMny 
 ovoii bohuo any lortnal si-ntenco ol dopii\atioii. What 
 .Mr. KoPortson failed to establish is tho tirst step, that a 
 man can commit oxcoinmmiicatioii upon himselfor de- 
 clare himself excimimiinicatecl. All ho can himself do 
 in this way, is to excoininuniiato all tho rest ol the 
 world, as 1 believe one or two faiialics liavo lieen found 
 mad enough to do liy declaring all mankind eternally 
 lost except thoniselvii'S. A man m.iy un li'iibiedly com 
 niit an olb'iice which exposes him i/«r)/'Ht" to o.v oniniu- 
 nicalioii: that is whe.i brought up bid"'ro a proper court, 
 the iiccu.-^or has but to examino this one point: ilpruvod; 
 
 liroof, and yot until provoil and followed by the sentence, town.s and cities were devastated either b.y them or byj 
 of deprivation of his see, pronounced by a court ofcom-iiloir iqiponents in (|ue||ing them Tim f.ito of one ofl 
 potent jurisdicti 111, tho liishop would still bo hishop j their leaders known as ••'I'he i'rophid" has inspired one ofj 
 
Xx- \'«L. 
 
 -V' v-^ 
 
 V. 
 
 m IHSCS Hot 
 
 , iiiiil aiithor- 
 liiiips. 'I ln;ir 
 )iii all thiiiL'8 
 m1 t(i \i(' a j;i'ii- 
 Ah to tcrii|i(ir- 
 [t coii>i'-t(vl (if 
 ; '-The ciirtli 
 riin I/i)iil liilh 
 liin Saintis " 
 wan (il)viiiiH. 
 to tliclll. not 
 rk'tuiH of that 
 V Hi'CA, it' tli( y 
 car that their 
 Kiso iiii'ii car- 
 1 thmuirhotit 
 Thi'v coii- 
 <cesH('s of the 
 iihain Youiiir. 
 swoitl ; many 
 y Ihi'tii or liyj 
 
 'itl! of OIU) ot'l 
 
 nspiriMl one of j 
 
 Dihictioii of ill 
 
 ;ht tliat Miod- 
 
 a ray of his- 
 
 iii a li^ht )ii 
 
 (Mt-t as to tlui 
 
 sly aiiiii'cl at 
 
 KiiiJ^lainl thu 
 
 lii'so Aiiahul)- 
 
 i tliut of the 
 
 poral iiiatt<rrt 
 
 y lilt to tho 
 
 tsclf to their 
 
 o imiirinh'iico 
 
 ; tlie.-,p rrlh'O 
 
 t is lawful for 
 
 Iireaeli.-is or 
 
 ■r clnirchwar- 
 
 ons or ailo|it 
 
 of authority 
 
 t coiniiiissioii 
 
 he or liuary 
 
 alleges that 
 
 I'lisaiis may. 
 
 , aiiniit thu 
 
 iif exooiiiuiu- 
 
 >ti thit their 
 
 of valuiilile 
 
 of ti'ust auil 
 
 the hiTiefit 
 
 I the oliwerv- 
 
 lio advances 
 
 ■nils convey 
 
 s c.iiie ? 
 
 |ii!i this but- 
 
 hservatio'.iH 
 
 f the whole 
 
 lie liiealiiiii; 
 
 wrong. It 
 
 letter, (ciloil 
 
 I man ei'i u 
 
 II a ehureli. 
 
 III leave iiini 
 iioseutunc'o 
 l.ssion. J!ut 
 
 (teeession 
 
 his clergy 
 
 on. What 
 
 tep, tiial 11 
 
 usi-'lf or lie- 
 
 himself ilo 
 
 est of the 
 
 leeii fonml 
 
 eternally 
 
 Itedly com 
 
 c.y onunu- 
 
 hper court, 
 
 : il provoU. 
 
 
 Bentenco of excoin: ;iinicati»in nuy ho pron mcodat oneo, 
 without more. It is jn'ohahle ivlio that in hucIi a case 
 the (M>iise(iueiice3 of the sentence, wli"n iironainced. 
 would have reference hack to the heretical, or other act, 
 on which the sentence is bused ; much in the same man- 
 ner as an adjudication of b inkruiitcv relates back to the 
 net of bankruptcy, and does iint cmnit for all purposes, 
 from the date of ilie adJiidicaliiMi only. Il're tlii're i- 
 no dellnile act of baiikiuiitcy even alleged. Hut si.ntence 
 of excomniuncati mi bo pronounced. It must be 
 proii'iunceil by acoinjiu court, and after iv trial at 
 least conformable with natural justice, upon proof, 
 and afer summoning the accused. Aiki sentence 
 of excommunication nay be followed no doubt 
 in the ease of a iiisliop by Kentenco of suspeiisioii 
 or deprivatiiMi, or such other seiiience as a court of com 
 pi^tent juri*lictipii may think fit to [ironouce, if an>. 
 Hut that too must be by a court of coinpi't lit juris lic- 
 tioii,, after a trial consistent u'itli natural jus- 
 tice ami HO on. It would be a poor jest 
 to ask if any such investi:; ition or sentence has taken 
 place. Hut what is, perhaps, not niiiiitiiiestin<4 to re- 
 mark, is the extraordinary iiicaiiacity of I'ven tho most 
 con(?eioiitious man to act towards others on tli" j^oMi'ii 
 rule of donrj; as he would be done by. ' Here is a man 
 who, for olfeuci'S r»ally open, ulariiip:, not denieil, but 
 gloried iii,olfences aj;aiiist canon law,a^;ainst stutue law, 
 JiKainst common seiisw and ordiiiarj' good manners, 
 after the utmost lenity and forbearance shown towards 
 him, is at last cited, before a s«!l-orgaiiized tribunal, 
 not a cmirt of( oiirs'j in any legal seus(!, or with .■my 
 legal powers, but as good a triluinal as could be formed 
 in the diocese — i learjy as respe table a Iriliunal as any 
 Chamber or Commerce or Hoard of Surveyors — and after 
 weeks of notice, and days of trial in his pri'senco, -s at 
 last found, by that so-cal|pd "Court or Board of liLjuiry" 
 to have committeil act- which, as 1 have said, be never 
 denied, and openly gbiries in; and yet for weeks the 
 whole city has been disturbed by the vocif- 
 erous (damcuirs of his partisans — 1 will not say of hiin- 
 Belf, for I believe he is but the instrument of otlu'rs — 
 against tho illegality, the injustice, tho mo'istrous 
 nature of tho tribunal, and the tindingand the sentence: 
 and at least if the (hdendaiit does not openly join In 
 these clamours, he utters no word to brand them as un- 
 founded and sl.indorous. N.iy, his counsel here argues 
 most temperately and discreetly I admit, but still 
 vigorously, on the same side, namely, that the S'ntence 
 against thu defendant was inconsisleut with nattiial jus- 
 tice. And yet this same man thinks it coii-istent with 
 natural justice, and that he is dispensing to otlnus the 
 same measure of justice, whi^rewitU ho seeks to be 
 judged hiiiisi If, that the liishop should be held to have 
 lost his whole position without any trial, by tln^ sentence 
 of iio('oiirt or any triliunal resembling a court, without 
 notice, without summons, without buiiig even put on his 
 defence, by a mere oril suggestion of couns' '. Surely 
 the old proverb of straining at a gnat and sw.i;. owing u 
 caimd never received so exaggerate 1 an illustration ! 
 
 The positi<ui and statu.s of the plaintitf lure seems to 
 be much misunderstood The fict is that the Lord 
 Bishop of liritisli Columbia holds his jurisdiction, his 
 powers, and his authority so far as it can I'C derivid from 
 liny temiioial authority, from the sann- Koyil an I 
 Supreme SouriM> (,f all authority in the liritish Doniin 
 ions, by an inst unieiit .is solemn as I hold my own Co n- 
 mission and derived clirectly from the Crown under llei- 
 Majesty's Si;:n Mainril. It is true the powers so piven 
 reipiire to be supplemental, souk^ of t .em iiy the author- 
 ity of an Impeiial lU' local Act of I'.irli inii'iit. My own 
 ciminiission is sancti<uied oy both, and that bi'irm the 
 method by whiidi II. m- Mi losty can <;onstitiilionally give 
 coercivejiir'.idiciion,coercivejui isdietion is placed in the 
 limiils of myself ami the ditftuMit judgi's in the various 
 Supreme Courts tnroiighi ut the liritish Domiiii<ii;s. 
 N'.wilie plaintitf's Letters I'ateiit .issiime to givi^ him 
 full jurisdction, and they Wniild prolnibly liavi; at once 
 giwi him such jurisdiction if his dioces" had been in a 
 Crown I oloiiy, — though I rather doubt this — but the 
 terms are certainly ample (o giv(! him full jurisdiction, 
 and would ilo so if the Ijetters weri' based on, or confirm- 
 ed by, ail Act of rurliumuut. i ussibly if a louul Act were 
 
 [passed here, recognizing or contlrming the Lette'8 
 j Patent, the Iiisliop wonid have full coercive jiirisdiclio'i 
 jas from that time. I am fir from saying that this i^* 
 probable or even desirable. I think that Mich jiiiisdic- 
 tion ii niuidi more safely and benelicially for all parties, 
 jdai-ed in the hands of this Court Not that I have tho 
 Isniallest opinion tli it my judgment is siipirior to that of 
 itlie plaintitf, on the contiMiy, I wish to be understood 
 as placing very little coiilidence in my own judgment, 
 lint I have the greatest cnnlideHce in the .Indicial Com- 
 mittee of the ! rivy Council, and so long as the pl.iintitrs 
 sentences have to come to tlii.-t court to be enforced, ho 
 ind all the ( liiirch hen, ami in fact all denominations 
 and religions have the adv iiitage of the appeal to the 
 I'rivy Council, which otlierwir-e would nut lie, but there 
 won ill be iihly an appeal from the plain Ulf to the Arch- 
 bishop of (.'anterluiry for the time being. N iw placing 
 as I do, great conlideine in tim wisdom an-l learning of 
 that great prelate and d' those who may succeed him, I 
 mii-t say that I nevrtheless feel very iiiiich m»ire eontl- 
 deiice in the wisdum. in the learning, and above al' in tho 
 eoheri'iiey a'id (•misi tency of the .iiidicial Committee, 
 UmiI in the decisions of a series of .Vichbishops id' what- 
 ever see. Then besides the seciil.ir jurisdiction thus 
 imperfectly bestowed, the plaiutilf has his spiritual 
 authority derived from the imposition of hands, which 
 though vague, mid I con"eive, left by our o lurch, pur- 
 posely indefinite, can never be treated by any church- 
 man as less solemn on that account, but rather iis all tho 
 more impressive He is sent out here by all the author 
 ity i/f the Crown and of our chin eh not to be tanglit, but 
 t I teach orthodoxy, not to be rvvilod, but to rejndvo 
 error, and to receive all due ohe liencn from the mem- 
 bers ot the (^hiiri'li of Knglaiid here. 
 
 The Iiisliop till he be duly deposed or deprived will 
 be consider. 'il as a Iiisliop exactly in the same way as a 
 licensed clergyman until his license is duly revoked, is 
 to be considereii a licensed clergyman still, whatever 
 his offence. I should wish Mr. ilohertson to try and 
 find out how Ion lly Ins client would have protested if 
 the Iiisliop had said nothing for the last two years : no 
 Pandora street trial had taken place but, — Mr. Me(Ji eight 
 had suggested yesterday lor the first time, "Oh I tho 
 defendant appears to us to have committed an odence on 
 the 5th of December, 1872, for which the statute nays 
 the Bishop should su.-ipeiid him. It is true we have 
 never nieiitioned tho matter since then, but we now 
 submit that he must be considered as h.iving lu.en sus- 
 pended as from tint date." Yet this is really les* than 
 the measure wherewith he seeks to mete out justice to 
 his antagonist. 
 
 At* obvious comparison may servo to explain the 
 matter to the non-i rclesiastical mind. Suppose a trader, 
 a~ many traders do, to have committed an act ol l)ai:k- 
 ruptcy upon which no steps were taken and after a 
 lapse of time a cii-tomer were to say, "I shall not pay 
 you for tho. e goods I have received from you, you are 
 en uncertificated bankrupt," 1 ai prebend the rejily 
 ; would be in a tone of indignant surprise. "It is ti no 
 some time ago I committed or siltfered siicli an act, 
 which Would have empowered a Court of competent 
 jurisdiction, if they had thought fit alter Kumiuoning 
 me and hearing thr whole case, to have adjiiilii ated mo 
 a bankrupt, lint who are you? Mid whiu right lia\o 
 you to taku upon yoiirS' If to say what decision tiie court 
 might h.ive I' line to? Now I shall make you pay even 
 to the uttermost farthing." This I say would probibly 
 be the laiigu lite between men of biuiness. .\'nd how 
 iiiuih strongiT would the case be, if the trad, r could 
 consci'iitioiisly deny that he ever had committed an act 
 of liankiilptcy ,it all, and that the act of bankruptcy 
 existed only in the imagination of the man who w.is on 
 this pretense en'de.ivoring to eseupo from a ver> clear 
 obligation; whatever reputation for conscientiousness 
 the customer may liave cl.iime.l for hini.ielf, I am afraid 
 the trader uieJ tlie world generally would place it at a 
 very low standard. 
 
 This cont.'iitiou, however, by the defendant's counsid, 
 that the plaintiff is not in fict a Itishup of the Churcli 
 of England at all makes it im|ossible f u- mo to lake any 
 longer tl:e favorabhMMiistrui.tion which I felt disposed 
 [to ]itiice yesteriluy on his stutement iu thu letter uf tUo 
 
 C « /• 
 
VI. 
 
 26tli Scptonibnr, to flic ofTi't-t (itiiidiod) timt lio only ili- 
 tfiiiluil lo rc^sist till) unlawful, not tlii luwriil, excrfiiii tit 
 tho HIhIiiip'h iiutliority. For it now iippoiirs tliiit flic 
 (Icfoiidant must tliorcby liuve incnnt tliat lidonly iritcnil- 
 w(l to rt'.sint tho InwlMlncHs of tli« UislKjp's iiuiiiority 
 altoguthi-r, iiinl not the cxoroiso of it, it it wnrt hcM 
 iiltiinali'ly to ho lawi'nl. Tliat of course is liohling out 
 no olivn hranch at all 
 
 llavint; then examined thnsp Pandora stroet pro- 
 ceccliiiKs inurh inoro luiiiiitidy than perhaps I havo any 
 ri};ht to ('xaniinc tlii-ni (loolviiig to Dr. \Varri'n"H c ihc>) I 
 havo eonic to lli" ('onoliision tlia thu pliiintifT is a Hislmp 
 of the (Jhiirch of Kny;lanil, and the diMciidant is a clerf^y- 
 niaii of tho aanio ohiii'<-li ; that tho proiu'odinps iii Pan- 
 <1mi- I "tToot tliou^^h not aocordinf^ to the prci'iso form 
 »iiggeat"d (not reijuirod) hy tho Church Disciplirn Act 
 in Kngland. woro yot in a roasonahh, analogy with it, 
 tho assossorial part b.t'iig diltcrontly conHtrnctcd troin 
 that in liongvs. the iJisImp ofCipo Town; that tho i)r;i- 
 coodingH w<M'o conducted in a way consonant witli th(« 
 l)rim;lplo'i of .jur.tico as nndorstood in a (/oUit of Kipiity ; 
 that tini Hndings were true, and that tho sonti'ncc's and 
 whole. judgmorit ri^asonahlo ami appropriat(i enough to 
 tho otTenci). It is therpforo Just that it slmul ' hi' car- 
 ried out, an<l if 110 other ground e\i ti?d, the in ihil'ty of 
 the liishop to oxecuto justice for hims(df is one of tho 
 lior.ds of ecpiity whicli will niaiiitain a hill. I consiili'r 
 it a nocossary inforonci^ from tho cases in and from 
 South Africa that tho local civil courts are hound to in- 
 torforo on llio ai>plii;atioii of either i)arty, in these 
 Bpiritnal disputoj on a proper oaso hoiui shown. Hiit 
 more than that; tho IJisliop lias a trust to oxecuto, and 
 ho liaH a right to conio iioro as tn '00 to prevent a mis- 
 application of tho funds aid lands and liuiidiniis just as 
 1 iipprehend the tleasurer or other proper otlicer of an 
 iii-.iiranco comp my would have a right to come horo ami 
 demand the aHsi>tance of tho court to get rid of a sus- 
 pended iiiana.'ei who rehised to givo up the hooks or tho 
 key of the ollice. .Moreover tho plaintilf has |)ro aldy a 
 right to coinii hero in his cluiractorot general ovorseer of 
 tho Church of Kngland t > prevent his suhirdiiiatos Ironi 
 infringing statutes. And by tho 14 Charles II, no uii- 
 licoiisod IMinister may proacli uiidor tho penalty of tlireo 
 months iiii|irisoiiment. It is true tho Hisliop might pro- 
 bably proceed by indictment ninlor this statute, liiit 
 tlKue is no reason why he sleinld he driven to a inoie 
 toilions remedy and wait for tho \ssi/,es hero wliii'h may 
 not bo hold for some time. IJesides the ilel'einlant surely 
 dues not wish to bo proseciiteil as a criminal. I should 
 he sliockel if anybody were to attribnte to him tho s(a'- 
 (liil ambition id' wishing to appear a martyr. And if the 
 Hishop were to await tbr tho Assizes, the illegal pioai h- 
 ing Wduld bo going on in the meaiitiine. Finally in 
 onb'r to carry out tho object and spirit n( this Siimo 
 statute, the Itishop's maniiest duty which he is com- 
 liellod to discharge is to take steps fur excluding him 
 IVont the pulpit; can I possibly s ly tho Ifishop has no 
 riuht 10 intortero xtIioii it is 0110 ot tho duties of his high 
 o'lico which he is bound to discharge; or that he his a 
 loss right to have a wnmg r dressed hoc iiise it is also a 
 Btatutory misdemeanfir? Then again as to tho ipies- 
 tioii of marriages. It is Impossible to decide anything 
 just now as to the validity of a marriage by an un- 
 licensed clergyman of tho ('hiindi of Kiigland. Tho 
 Ktatuto says that tho clergyman in each ileiioinination 
 may celelnate mariiam's accurding to tho rite-iand ceie- 
 inonirs of their respective chniclies and all other mar- 
 riages are to lie vuid. Whether any ('lergymau who h is 
 been unlicensed can, consistonlly with tho rites and 
 coronioiiies of tho Cliundi of l';ir.;laiid celebrito a mar- 
 riage or indei'd olflciate in any way as a clergyman of 
 that (hiircli is the ^luestioii to bo argued and on which 
 tliw validity of the,-o n.arriages dopetuls. It is a gravo 
 point, but it cannot be decided now If I woro imw to 
 o,x|)ioss myself, or if all the throo judges were hero and 
 expressed themselyos over so decidedly in fivorof tho 
 validity of the mairiiges that could deiudo n itbing 
 'J he question may bo raised over and over a^aiu as 
 touching tho status of every wife and husbind, as 
 touching tlio legitimacy of every child, of every UMr- 
 riage celebrated by the defen laiit, and tho do -isi 01 in 
 one ciiso will uot bo of any binding I'oico iu any otliur 
 
 icaso Kvon if every rno of theso marriages shall be 
 severally docidod to bn valid, there is ill tho inoantimi* n 
 ,cloiid and a disuraco necessarily hangiiigovor every wifti 
 and every child of such a niarria.,0 , tho niero doubt is 
 lalmost as bad as tho certainty of tho invalidity. It is a 
 , liesh instaiico of tho pxtremo danger ot listening to 
 'what wo i*ni)poHo to bo tho voice of oonscionco ; horo is a 
 jnian generally re|)uted to be of the utmost humanity and 
 tho utmost conscientiousness, who disobeys the clearest 
 words of II solemn and reiterated vmv, with the nucos- 
 aary and deliberate result of intlii'tiiig the most criiol in- 
 jury upon iioor woinon wlnim perhaps In- iiovor Haw 
 before, and generations, perhaps of unborn children, 
 and this in obedience, as he sii|)pose8 to tho dictates of 
 his conscionco. It is siinply an abiiHO nf tonus. Tlioro 
 is no conscionco in tho matter at all, in tho hgiiso iu 
 wl''ch that word is undorstoo 1 by tho Court or by any 
 person of nndorstaniliiig. It was long ago pointed out 
 by Lord Coke tImt a good man will obey the laws, and 
 ho ipiiitos tho heathen poet, (who ni ly give many les- 
 sons to us Christians), answering the ipiostion " I'tc- 
 hiinii.'^ i:<l fiiii.ii'" with tho ready and obvious reply, 
 "yiti iv)iis'»//ii iKilnuii ijui U-'ji:^ jurH'iHe .<i'/Tat " It ia 
 tine the heathen moralist inimnliatoly goes on to insist 
 upon the necessity cd' iiiiii li iiiuro than a iiirro obsorv- 
 anco of the letter of tiio law I olbro ho will concoilo to 
 any man tho epithet ot "good; "' a mail may, ho shows, 
 comply with the letter and yot depart from tho spirit of 
 a law. lint how can lio who loarle-^sly transgresses 
 liotli, lay claim t) tho epithet ? or plead coiiscioiitiou8- 
 iiess. 
 
 j Tho letter of tho defendant which was this day road at 
 the roipiost of his counsol in oiien {!onrt, throws a singu- 
 lar light on tho whole of the ilofeiidaiifs conduct, in le- 
 foronce to tho scene of the olh Doceinber, I87-. Hero is 
 a itilo restraining heated controversies, and contradis- 
 tiotis likely to lead to heat expressoil in four lines of tho 
 pliiinost Knglish, and with tho nio-t jtididotis good 
 sense. The olitd canon stiys • "If any proaclier shall in 
 the piilpii, particularly or namely, ol purpose iiiipugtx 
 or roiij'nte any doctriiio doli\erod 1 y any other preacher 
 in the same church or in any church near adjoining 
 boforo hi! hath acipiainted tiio Kishop of tho diocesa 
 therewith and rocoived order from liiin what to do in 
 tliat case, because uiioti such public dissenting and con- 
 tradicting;, there may grow much ollouco an i disiiuiot- 
 nes- niiti) tho peo|ilo." "the Churchwardens and Hishop 
 are to prevent the otfeiider Iroiii again preaching until 
 satisfiction bo given by him "' No preacher is even 
 allowi'd to •'nityt nil' ; " the olfenco is ipiite irrespective of 
 th ■ truth or falsohooil of the doctrine impngned. ;\o\v 
 any child can s'l.'o that tho defendant's conduct on tho 
 .'itli December. 1ST2, was a In each of this canon, except 
 some ipiestioii be raised on tho word "•puliiit," but tho 
 spirit ot it was most clearly broken, and ho Mitiri ho ex- 
 ceoiled tlio '•customary restraints of latigiiago and of 
 ciuidiict.'' What is roquirol from him is tirst an 
 acknowledgment of bis transgres-ion and then an I'X- 
 pression of regret at having traiiSiiressed. It is not an 
 apology that is wiiiited by the l!islio|), but '■epontanco. 
 I'he Kishop iloos not ask for the de ten hint's humilia- 
 tion, but he wants the dolViidant himself. Ho is ready 
 always to iiardoti the man, but how can ho restore tho 
 presbyter without an acluiowledgmont by defendant that 
 lie has erred. To this hour tiio def-'iidant ret'uses to 
 iiiako any such iuktio\vled.rm"nt. It is true his I tter 
 to-day 4iys tint in def loiico to my opinion ho is ready 
 to admit tint ho has misread the canon. Ihit to this 
 liiuir ho refuses to at ktiuwbdgo that he has commiito 1 a 
 fault ; his letter lU't'ely am mnts to this, '•There ara 
 two ways of reading the canon, tho Court says it is to 
 bo taken as me;inlng Olio tiling, and I bow to tho ileci- 
 sion ot the Court ; but I do not adiuit that construction 
 to bo right.'' In other words he still adheres to his 
 error. What i.s required trom him is, not an ackiiow- 
 leilginent that my opinion must prevail over his. but 
 that ho fowls him-iolf to bo wrong. Now, of two things, 
 on-! Kither his a lvi<ers must bo aw ire tli it ho is 
 wrong, but will not iiibnit it — and then what becomes of 
 conscience ? — or else tlioy ire in roility iiioiit ally iii- 
 c.ipable of niiderstan ling four linos of pure plain Eng- 
 lish and good sunso, in which casu with what coiintuu- 
 
V 
 
 VI 1. 
 
 II' nieaiiliriic n 
 
 VVV ('V(U'.V Wifrt 
 
 iiii'i'o (liiiilit ia 
 iility. It in a 
 
 lirtti'llill^ to 
 
 'iH'c ; licit! Ihii 
 liiiiiMiiity iiii'l 
 H tliii cloiirc'st 
 itii tlic iiuceg- 
 iiiiirtt cnml in- 
 
 lic Ill'VLT HilW 
 
 loi'ii children, 
 
 till' (lict.ltl'H of 
 tlTIIlrt. TlltM'O 
 
 I tlio 8on.si! ill 
 lilt or liy iiiiy 
 ;ii pMiiitcd ciiit 
 tliu laws, iiiid 
 ivo iiiiiiiy les- 
 iK'stion " I'tV- 
 bvi(jus reply, 
 sirmt " It ia 
 cs on to iiisi>it 
 
 nirro olisorv- 
 
 II coiic'L'do to 
 lay, he shows, 
 n the spirit of 
 
 .' tnillHSI'l'8^88 
 
 coiiscioiitious- 
 
 lis (lay ruail at 
 lii'ow:* a siiigu- 
 ■oiiilnct. ill le- 
 1H72. IKti- ia 
 11(1 coiitliulis- 
 iir liuc-s of tho 
 ulicioils ji;<'""l 
 ■achur shall in 
 .rpuso impii;;ix 
 |>tlii'r priMclic'r 
 u' adjoiiiinn; 
 tlid iliocesa 
 at to lie in 
 11^ Mild ooii- 
 \< i disiinlL't- 
 uid lilsJiop 
 (•hill.; until 
 r is i-yen 
 I'-pi'ctivi' of 
 iii'd. .vow 
 liiot on llio 
 1011, oxcupt 
 t," lint tho 
 '■•(iV* lif I'X- 
 igH luid of 
 is lirst an 
 then an I'X- 
 It is not an 
 •cpi'iitinco. 
 °H hiiiiiilia- 
 llu is ri-ady 
 restore tlio 
 eiidant that 
 reliises to 
 ! Ills 1 ttiT 
 he is ready 
 lint to thia 
 iiiiiiniitul II 
 I'here ara 
 ys it is to 
 tho (leci- 
 iistinction 
 res to his 
 11 aelini'W- 
 r his. lint 
 wi) tliini^s, 
 lilt lie ia 
 eeonies of 
 lit. illy iii- 
 iliiiii I'liig- 
 ,t counteu- 
 
 din 
 
 ancc can he or they claim to form even a conjectural 
 opinion upon iniittMrs really obscure? II' a man cannot 
 uiiiliMiiaiiil till" OJid caiiiiii how ciiii lio claim to direct lis 
 in the nia/.es of eci lesiustical l,-.iV ? "A mighty ii.azo 
 thou;;h 'lot without a plan.'' Unt how can tho defend-, 
 ant III! iiiia^ineil to Imvu a clew to it '! or claim a ri^ht to 
 direct others In it? or own to walk in it by himself ?i 
 If any man ever wantud an uvorsuer, surely thi« 
 man does. I 
 
 The ;;raiitint? and revocation of a license are very 
 much ill tho episcopal diricrction (I'ooln'n case) at least 
 as to curates who enjoy only a stipend, 'riie case miiy 
 or may not lie dilfereiit, wliuro tliu revocation duprives; 
 a cler;;yiiiaii of hid rinht to a freohold benefice. Allj 
 that need bo 8aid on that iirnunii'iit is, that it does not 
 arise here On the materials now bei'oro me I must 
 take i! il all events, that there is no iVeeliold beiielicc! 
 hold i> tlie liceii-e. It was very strongly urued, liuw-i 
 eve . at the bar, lint where a license is so coupled Willi 
 pec iiiary einoluinent that the money cannot be pocket- 
 ed unless the license lio continued, such licmiso caniioi 
 lio ail'itiMiily revoked, either in an|oci;li'siastical or diiy 
 other case. There is miicli force in tlis arj;umeiit so far 
 as the word "•arbitrarily" enters into it. Dr. I'ovah's 
 case is an ailthoriiy for that. In fact I'onle's case, 
 tliiiiiich it dechires that the Uisliop or Arclibisho]) has a 
 (llncretion, insists also tli it that discretion shall be dis- 
 creetly exercised, i. e., not wantonly nor without due 
 ciuisiileration. nor without notice to the ciirale ; but 
 when so exercised tills iliMietion will not be iiiterlcreil 
 with. I'liere must be some authority somewlierc. I 
 have little doubt but that it evisis ill this Court, to 
 exainiiu! i.n iitiinlmnn<, or proliibition, or bill fir iii- 
 junclioii, or in some way, into tlm exercise of this discre- 
 tion by the IJishiip. i. e , as in I'ovah's ease, into the 
 minni'r in which tho discretion has been exercisBil. 
 liiit if the Itishiip his exaniiied duly and disaoproves, 
 L 'rd Klli'iib.irou^li intimates that the Court wiil nut 
 say •'approve tlioimh you do not approve, take mir (mii- 
 Kciffiice instead ofyoiir own." This is especially true 
 jieriiaps il the license is ace impani-id liy any interest or 
 illj^iiity. Ill fict 1 II ive been I ximiiiiiif; into that dis- 
 cretion in this very case; I am not sure tli it I was aii- 
 thnri/.ed to do so, luit it seemed to be the ib'sire of both 
 parties and the ilefendunt at least loudly demanded it. 
 Ido not say tiiat my eoielnct in this vesp -ct is to torn, a 
 precedent. In Dr. Warren's case the Court beiiif^ onci" 
 salistied that the Wesl-yan Contereiice was iiutliorized 
 to act, refused to examine into or to at all to consider 
 the I ropiiety oT the particuhir lino the Coiiferelico hid 
 thnui^ht lit to adopt. The lata! m'ror in the deieiidaiit 
 is. that he has taUoii no steps to rectify or annul the 
 orroiienns revoc;ation, if it were erroneiiiis. I[i.' Ins not 
 even atteiiiptid to ri'Slrain the plaintilf's conduct. 
 Itiit until set aside the revocation is of course in .ixistenco 
 anil in I'nrco 'lake iii cxan'iilc from this very Court. 
 
 'file Older wliicli I am .ihoiit to make, iii.iy in tliw op 
 iiiioii of the ileri-iidant's advisers bewioiii;. i!ut really 
 until it is set aside, 1 i/iiist warn them that they must 
 ('I'ey it It will not do lor them to say that 1 have in ide 
 a mistake, .'ind therefore it appears to them that I have 
 reniiuiced my ade^iance and torn up my ('.iinmission, 
 and I am i'/imj f'<i'ti not a Jiidj^e of the rsiipiemo Court, 
 Till! otJior two jiidijcs will soon be here, and this order 
 may by them be reviewed, I am happy to say peril ips. 
 reversed. l!ut until it is rev rsod. tii.ise two jud;j;es will 
 enlorcrt its observunce in all its strictness and in wlitt 
 they, not the defend iiit's advisers, deem a conscientious 
 liii'Miier. anil they wmild proliably be inclined to treat 
 any sii.li line of action as that which 1 lia\ e sii:j;j;es'od 
 very seriously; and this. altlioii;ili they should both have 
 formed tho opinion that my order on le-exaliiiiiatioii 
 could not be allowed to stand, it must slaiiil until it is 
 dissolved And so witli the def ■ndant's I cense, until he 
 fiets a license Iniin the |{.shii|i either coinpiilsorilv or by 
 the order of some coinpteiit court, cr voluntarily by 
 making a proper ackiiow b;dmeiit ot his errors, and priiv- 
 iii;.; for>;iveiiess anil promisim; amendmeiit he is an nil 
 licensed cltrgyman. Tho Act of Uniformity, says lie 
 Hiiiill n it III* allowed to preach cir oDiciate. not at least 
 lis a clergyman of the ('liiirch of Kiigland, nor in a 
 building cousecratod to the service of the (.'hurcli ul 
 
 Kiigland Nor lias tho Itishop any choice whether lie 
 will or not take these proceedinifs or Hiune proc^e(lin({9 
 for preventing him froiii ho doing. The Itishop, to use tho 
 words of .'^ir llwrbert .leniier Fust, in IJiirder i'.'' I.aiigley, 
 "would not have properly discharged the duties of bin 
 high olUce," if he liiid permiitid iiii unlicensed person 
 so to preach or olliciato. There is ofcuuise iinlimifed 
 free loin of conscience hero as in Knglaiiil. I'.verybody , 
 whether he has ever been ordained in the Church or not. is 
 at liberty so far as tlio lay courts are conceined, to preai li 
 what he likes and where ho likes, (within certain limilu 
 of public ilucency.) Only the law says, "You shall not do 
 iliis in the character of a clirgynmn of the Cliurch of 
 I iigliiiid, nor in any Kiiglish Chinch, without the liceaso 
 of the Uishop. You may not run with the ll,•^re and hunt 
 with the lionnds." The defendant's ciyiiiiKel urged that 
 this iiile does not apply to the defendant, because to 
 apply tho rule would lie to ibpiivo him of $JlO }»r 
 (tiiiiitm. Keall.v I think that is a case of oppri'ssion of 
 c uiscience, this is a very curious line ot argiimeut. 
 Y'oii are oppressing a man's (!oiisiii-iice ifyoii refuse to 
 allow him to ciiitinue receiving $1 mi per aiinnni when 
 he breaks every stipulation upon wliicli it was to bo 
 'paid to him. Nriwthelaw lays down the same rule fir all 
 |religioiis denomiiiations and iiidinl for all voluntary 
 associations here ndigious or secular, Leave the n« 
 sociatioM and yoti may do as you like. Hut you shall 
 not be allowed to occupy the Chiiri h of your denomin- 
 ation or I'le .illices of your .loiiit Stock Company ( I ninke 
 the compirison with some apology, but really the prin- 
 ciple is exactly the same) and at the same time set at 
 detiance the riib's of the voluntary associ.i ion to which 
 you say you belong. Nay, more; you shall not be allow- 
 ed to act here or hod yourself out as the agent ol tho 
 association, trading or otherwise, against and in deliaiica 
 iof their rules. Kverybody will see the monstrous in 
 justice of allowing tin." ."^i crelaiy of an Insiir.ince Co 
 aller he Ims been suspended by the manager, to continue 
 in occiipalion of the Company's offices, or allowing him 
 to set up next door, or anywhere within the sphere of 
 the Company's Iiii»iiiess, aini hold himself out to tho 
 Will Id as SI cii tary to the Company still. And surely 
 the injustice t 1 tho Company woulil not he less if the 
 court by reliising to iiiierl'ero enabli'd this .<oi ''i.<'(u< 
 secretary to draw salary out of the coiiipanv'ij funds, 
 fliat really is the whole of the i use. The manager may 
 be wrong but while tho secretary is siisiiended, ho 
 really may not stay there. 
 
 I I have elide ivored to iiiako clear to Hio defendant in 
 the course ot the argument, the result to which every- 
 thing pointed, and I have givi-n (Very opporlmiiiy in my 
 power, ami used every eigiiment which suggested it- 
 self, to endeavor to heal an anticipated breach in our 
 little cmiiHiunity. I feel sure that if the deleiidaiit 
 would but listen to llie words of his counsel, instead of 
 yielding to the fatal inllueiice of heated and ignorant 
 partisans, matters might even now be healed, .As to 
 this beluga ipiestion of conscir'Uce or coiiscieiili. il>iiess, 
 it is a luer.' delu-ion ti suppose that conscience has 
 aiivthing to do with the present dispute. .Mr. Ueece's 
 d letiiiii,' has never been approved. The defendant's 
 doctrine has iiiVer been Idaiiiid. liotli gentlemen aro 
 probibly within the true limits of doririne deemed by 
 ourChurh to be necessary. No right of conscience |g 
 or ever has been sought to be ilivaiieil here, except 
 the right tint every man m.i.v do just that which is 
 good in his own eyes. If fliat be what is meant I y 
 •'rights ot 'Hscience" tlieie is no mere to lie said, but 
 that all cases and instances of society, in Cliurch and 
 in State, in trade and in the family, the most savage iiiid 
 the most polite alike, are coiisti ucted and can aloim 
 cohere on the exactly opposite luinciple: viz., that 
 if society is to subsist at all. men can wit be perinittc.l 
 to do everything that is right in their own eyes. And 
 all laws iilid regiilationsof SOI iety, are at bottoiil nothing 
 more than a statement of what a man may do, and what 
 a man may not do, of those tli ings which apjiear to liilil 
 right, or desirable. The plainti If in thii« case appears to 
 me to have acted with excessive forbearance and loiii; 
 sulfering. lie now comes here in pertormaiice of ii 
 statutory duty, the contained neglect of which would 
 Biitijecl Liiiu to Very painful personal conaequonces, and 
 
Itevcn Hppoai'i to nio (hit tlio Cliurcliwanlcns of CliriHt 
 Omrcli, or porlmp^j any tlin'o or iiioro iiKMuhcrH of tlin 
 coiinro)?aiioij mij^iit [irobalily hiivu HUccui'sCiilly upplii'd 
 for a mitnilitmus very many iiiunths ajio ti noini.ol the 
 liirthop to inturfort) iiiiicli iiiDro vigorously than hu hati 
 dono I iini very far I'roni nnyi-if^ tho court couM intor- 
 foro withotit tho Hhhop, or in any way except siiuply 
 to supply cotircivt) power to a lawful or;U'r. Ilin rt<- 
 luuUncu tof^xi'it hit pciwnr tn ly hownvcr, ohvl (Unly h<- 
 iniputHit to m itivus of thu ni >hi ohrusihin forb(;;traiicu; ii 
 is Ihf) proverbial pr pcnsity of hishoiin wlii( h ^ivi-s riHc 
 continually to coinplalntH. It ct-rtalnly iIohh not llu in 
 the ilolonilauti mouth to raiso any ohjuciioiiH on tin- 
 score of liicUeH, and to ilo him jusrico, ho did not rune 
 any such ol)|ectiou. But it the di-iendant had lioon »i 
 ouco ia fieceiubor, 1S7:^, excluded Iroin tUo pulpit of 
 
 'CliriHt Church, until duH Rubmlssion I should not now 
 j have had thu most paintul duty of attpn<lliiK to thii did- 
 I truHMiti); caxe, ami probibly much norriMpoHilencu uf a 
 juiost diHi<;r(ti*ilde nature wou d have been avi iled. 
 
 lliore inU'it be an Injilnctioii, uh tlio defendant will 
 not nial<e proper Hubnilrtsion, which even now 1 hlMull 
 sMOMgly BUHiiBsf to the piaintilf'a couumd to accept if 
 offered. Tliero is no oiler, KO thttr-i must be an iuiuuc- 
 tion an prayed. It will be uniii (urtner orders I hope 
 t tlie ilefendant will HUlimlt that this order may by con- 
 sent l<e iiresi'iitly diHsolve I and the whole bill dismlMHed. 
 I make no otlioi' order except fir the injun<'tion which 
 will he dintinctly nnderrfto >d to extend most especially to 
 cuiebratiug marriut;eH, 
 
 MATXUEW B. BEQBIE, 0. J. 
 
 ^ 
 
 f 
 
'iild iiDt now 
 K to tliU (lid. 
 (iHileiKte of a 
 
 Bfoiidiitit will 
 "w I hh'iuM 
 1 to iicci'pt if 
 >^ 'III iii|iiiic> 
 It'is. 1 iiopa 
 
 m ly by cou. 
 ill diHiiilHN(>(]. 
 icliim wliloli 
 
 cspeciiilly to 
 
 IK, C. J. 
 
 EmmmiK 
 
 -0- 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 No. of 
 Document. 
 
 Page. 
 
 of Newcastle's 
 
 Preface 
 
 Charges against Mr.* ciiclgo .'.*.'.'.". 
 
 Protests of Mr. Cridge ".*''' 
 
 Letters Patent of tliw iVishop '*' 
 Lawfulness of Synods; Duke" 
 
 Dispatch 
 
 Letter of the Bishop calling Con'v.'nUon 
 
 iiiVidence 
 
 Correspondence before theCenVure 
 
 The Censure 
 
 Visitation of Cathedral* 1*873.''.'..'.'.*.!!!*. 
 
 Correspondence respecting the 'Cen'siire 
 
 Correspondence respecting C...nfii'mation,"&*c 
 Mr. Cridge' s attack upon Episcopacy 
 
 Explanation called for 
 
 The Censure repudiated....'.'..* 
 
 Visitation of Cathedral, *i8*74*.'.*.!!! 
 
 Report of Assessors 
 
 Judgment of the Bisliop! 
 
 Eevocation of License and Su*sp'e'n*Jio*n"from**th*e 
 
 D(;anery 
 
 Refusal to admit the Hishop't'o tho'Cat'hedral" 
 
 Resistance to the Bishop's Judgment 
 
 Bishops otter to subm it a case to the Supreme Co'ui't 
 Apology of Mr. Cridge during the trial in tile 
 
 Supreme Court 
 
 The Judgment of the Hon. Mr. Ju*siice*B;gb,*e'in 
 the Supreme Court, granting Injunction 
 
 1. 
 
 4, 5, 55. 
 6. 
 
 7. 
 
 8. 
 
 9, 10. 
 
 11 to 15. 
 
 16. 
 
 17, 18, 19, 
 
 20 to 25. 
 
 26 to 33. 
 
 34. 
 
 36, 37, 38, 40 
 
 39. 
 
 35, 41 to 52. 
 
 54. 
 
 53. 
 
 50, 57. 
 58, 60. 
 
 59. 
 
 61. 
 
 62. 
 Appendix. 
 
 2-12 
 
 13-14-59 
 
 14-17 
 
 17-20 
 
 20-22 
 
 23-26 
 
 26-27 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 30-37 
 
 37-41 
 
 41-44 
 
 44-46, 53 
 
 40-52 
 
 44, 53-56 
 
 58 
 
 56-58 
 
 59-60 
 60 
 00 
 61 
 
 01 
 i-viii