.0^ S% IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) Ma / ^. / y w/ s ^0 4^^ '/ ^ t/j ^^ y. 1.0 I.I '' IIIIM IIIIM s, 11112 ,°' EM '""^ if **^ IIIIM mil 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 -* 6" ► v^ (^ // "c-l c-: c^J p-^. ^a Couverture de couleur n n □ □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela ^tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t^ film6es. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer, l.es details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du noint de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ n D D D D D D D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Ppges endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d§color6es, tachet^es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du 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 image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. n Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; D 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 SOX y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X i ilaire IS details ques du It modifier (iger une le filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d !a g6n6rosit6 de: La bibl'othSque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte t6nu de la condition at de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec If6 conditions du contrfa'i de filmage. d/ i^u^es 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 exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprlm^e sont film6s en commandant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la 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 image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". :aire 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 etre filmds A des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. by errata . med to rient une pelure, fapon d 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 '°°°°™»~°™'~»™~'~™*~'~'™'™~'™'~'"~™'™" ^t p f V a OHM TT IK im t^-.), Ai m BY ''^ K ^^ % 11^. I 1^ BEFORE THE §rmU Bills Committee of the gouse of (Commons ON MARCH 16th, 1882, With Reference to T^MM WMM^ommiiiwimB Fw^m @/^.^. (Dttafoit, (ih\\. : Printed at the Office of the Daiiy and Semi-Weelrincipl0 fully — and it is (juito unnecessary to i-.iy nnich about it — I am not, I say, as auich disposed to gush over such i stless individuals as Mr. Lang seems to be. But the point l)efore us. as these gentlemen are well aware, is this : whether it is possible for Churches to unite 1 That is the cpxes- tion. We maintain tliat it is ]iossible, and that if any two Churches could \niite those were the two. That is is my first princi])le. Have I made it j>lain ? Is there any member of this Committee disposed squai'ely to deny that Churches can unite ? The second principle is this : Did we go the right way about our union ? That is a still more important question. Did we leave anything undone that could be done l I want the Committee to be seized of this. I would like any member of tho Committee — when I am done, or during the discussion — to mention to me one thing that we omitted to do. Cei-tainly we did not hurry about it ; there is no question about that. You see, gentlemen, our Synod consisted, as a rule, of grave, wise, steady goins? men, wlio wore not in the habit of boiling over vitli enthusiuHin, ami, above all, who had no notion of effecting union through the door of disunion. They had no notion of uniting, if they could not go in as a Church. They repudiated such an idea. They wanted to lessen not to increase the number of sects. If we had dreamed that our action would have led to disunion we would never have thought of action. We were so long a time abo\it it, from 1870 to 1875, that Mr. Lang pleaded ])atheticallr yesterday that his moving the adoption of the basis of union in 1871 should not be referred to now, because there was such "a very long time" between 1871 and 1875. That means, in other words, that he adopted our basis of union in 1871, and til at if we hud only been quicker, if we luid only been in a hurry about it, if we had had, for instance, a little Methodist fire and alert- ness, Mr. Lang would have been mi the union. Rev. Mr. LANG. — My resolution was for amending, not adopting. PiiiNciPAL GRANT. — Amending on a small point, but adopting, as stated yesterday, the basis of union. Rev. Mr. Macdonnell seconded your resolution. Mr. Lang now says, to justify his position : " There is such a thing as principle ; there is such a thing as conscience." No doubt, Mr. Chairman, but I would he had found the principle sooner. Mr. Lang had influence in our Synod. Not only did he move approval, but he was an alternate member of a Committee to draw up the basis of iinion. When we ai)pointed that Committee, we appointed an alternate for each member of it, so that should any member be ill a substitute might take his place. Mr. Lang was an alternate, and so remained for years. There were doubtless humbler and younger membeis who were ready to accept the principle of union because so inflaential a minister as Mr. Lang was in favour of it. Is he not responsible for their action ? Is he not resjjonsible for the position they now occupy 1 I wish to .;ay this to the Committee most emphatically, that if Mr. Lang and his friends had said at the outset, " We are in pi'inciple opposed to this union ; we in conscience are opposed to it," then. Sir, not only the gentlemen who are acting with me here, but the whole Synod, would have dro])ped at once all negotiations for union. That would have been the last of it. Our position was this : " Union is a good thing, but not at the price of disunion among ourselves. We are sorry that these gentlemen have such consciences ; we could wish that their consciences were more enlightened ; but as they are conscientiously opposed to union we mixst drop the subject and attend to our ordinary work." He now says : " I am in favour of union, but am I to sacrifice my position as a Minister of the Church of Scotland ; am I to give up my orders ] " Mr. Chairman, I will not characterize that language by the expression used by Mr. Lang in reference to an accurate statement made by Mr. Fleming — " mendacious." The word is unparliamentary, and therefore G [ shall not usi* it. iJiit, Mv. Chn'uuuxu, if tiio li^^iiiiitivo iiiul expreH-sivo word su^'.ij;t;.stcil l»y Mr, iMaciimstei'.s IViond, Mr. Himtiii, ye.st(!nlay, is parliainoiitiiry — " Imlderdasli" — I would uho that. Mr. lianjj knows well that entering into union involves no sacridoo of position or ot onler.s. JS'ow let nio conio to the point. What was the riglit jirocodure for : . to take when we ilesircd to ollV-ct union< J think I have cstabliHlicd that it was )>oHsiblo to unite, tlnit if ever two Ohurche.s cotdd unite we were the two. NVliat v IS the right method fcr us to take ? Three things had to bo done. irst, wo had to ])rocecd constitutionally, as far as our own Oliurch Avas concerned. Secondly, we had to ])r()ceed constitutionally as tar as legislarion was concerned; and^ thirdly, we had to didd with coiirtesy towards all men, especially towards those with whom wo were most nearly relatetl. We would not unite until wo had taken those thr(!0 steps. First, wiiat did we do as regards the (Jhurch ? After unanimously a[)proving the principle again and again, after unanimously adoi)ting the basis of union, wo acted according to the constitutional method of our Church, and the constitutional method of all Presbyterian Chui-ches, as stated by the authority that these brethren recognize, our own book of forms, and *' Cook's Styles of the Church of Seotlatid." According to these authorities, wluni the Su- premo Court is attomjitiiig a constitutional change, it must send it down to the lower Courts, that they may consider and vote upon it. They return their views to the Supreme Court;. We sent it down to these lower (Jourts, called Presbyteries. Presbyteries hold somewhat the same relation to the Supreme Coiu't that J3iocesan Synods hold to the Provincial Synod of the Church of Englaml. We sent tho fjuestion, then, down to th(> Presbyt(U"ies, and ten out of our eleven PresbytM'ies re[)orted in favour. A few changes were made to suit men who objected, and it was sent down again, and then every Presljytery adopteil it ; so that we had not onl}' oiu* Synod, but every one of our lower Courts, on the side of union. That is all' that tho Constitution of the Church in Canada, or of th'.'. parent Church, recjuired us to do ; because, gentlemen, our Courts are understood, like your high Court of Parlianuiut, to represent the iieople. Our Synod and Presbyteries have no $5 or .$50 men in them. They are representative. Mr. MACMASTEll.— Or half a million dollar men. PniNCiPAL GRANT. — No ; our Church does not believe in selling the right to deliberate or the right to vote. That, I say, is all we need liave done. The Presbyteries had spoken, and that was enough. But we said, " This is a matter on which people feel strongly ; we are living in a country that is essentially democratic in spirit, and we will send it down to the congi'egations. And when did we send it down ? Only after they had hail time to discuss it and re discuss it. It had been in every |mpci' for yeiirs, and tlio jiooplo know wliat was itivolvetl. They knew tliiit any coni^rcg.ttiou tli:it ilitl )iot vote would bo held a.s assent- ing to the well understood mind of tho Synod on tlie subject. As a matter of fact, it was \inderstood tliut tliose congregations that did not vote were in favour of uTiion. Those congregations canu! into the union, and are in tu this day. What, tlien, was the result of appealing to the congregations { Why, u greater degree of unanimity than could have Vk'cu anticipated ; v^tstly greater, certainly, than you cvreme. I am willing to be corrected if anyone denies this or any point I make. I wish, then, the Connnittee to consider this question : Seeing that the Local Legislatures are a part of the law making power of Canada, when they acted in good faith, and we acted in good faith, and when their Acts were assented to by the Governor in Privy Council, was or was not the public faith pledged to us 1 It seems to me that in the casu even of a landlord and his stewuid there can only be one answer. Suppose, for instance, the stewai'd, in virtue of a written instrument, had made a bargain with regard to some property with n. company or an individual, that the steward believed he had power by virtue of the instrument, that the landlord believed that he had the power, and that the company then, on the faith in and invested all its ]»roperty and l)Ound up the wives and children with their action. Siip|)Ose then the pertinacious investigation of some ingenious lawyer, seven or eight years after, it was found that this instrument did not technically give the stewaixl the necessary power, would not tho company come to the landlord and say, " Of course you will make this all right " ? And would ho answoi' " Oh ! it is prepostei'ous ; if you hold tht^ property legally you can hold it ; if not, go to the Courts and find out your rights there." A landlord woidd have the power to say that ; would an honest landlord say so 1 Gentlemen, you are the honest land- lord. If right would be done in tho case of a landlord and his agent how much luore so when it is between two constituent I^egislatures who are the law making power of the country ] For if the one Legislature despises the other, then there can be no harmony in our Dominion. of that, went fat<^ of their that througli 14 May I bo pardoned if I illustrate tliis by a concrete case. I wish to show how we, trusting lo the public faith, acted. Sometimes men can see more clearly when a thing is stated in a single case than by abstract reasoning. Pv".rhai)S the Committee will ])ardon me if I take the case with whic'i I am most familiar. I do so with the less hesitation be- cause Mr. Macmaster referred to Queen's College in his speech yester- day. Well, four or five years ago I was requested by the Trustees of Queen's University to accept the Principalslnp of that Institution. The Trustees, acting under the Ontario Act, appointed me. No one objected ; no one told me that they had not the jjower. Even if Mi-. Lang had told me, I should have thought the Legislatui'e knew its own business better than my candid friend did. At any rate, no one did tell mc Now I am told that because of an inference from this decision of the Pi'ivy Council the appointment was illegal, and that I liave no right to be Principal. Hero is a writ that was served the other day. An in- junction is claimed against the Trustees. You know what an injunction meant as regards the Temporalities Fund — it locked it up. What does an injunction mean as regai'ds (Ji^ieen's College 1 Why, if no administra- tion can take place for two or three years, you might as well give me a box of matches and ask me to put it under the institution. It took 7 or 8 years to get one question about the T(!mi)oralities Fund settled. If Queen's is closed for that length of time it had better be closed altogether. Yet sve are told to go and litigate ; that we have no remedy. What does this one case mean I It means that I am sent back to my native Province. That is a small matter. I have no objection to go back ; 1 cannot get my old position, but doubtless I can get another. But there are other matters involved that cannot be mended. During the last 4 or 5 years I have got over $150,000 subscribed for Queen's College, that is, more than double the amount of the whole permanent endowment of this Temporal'- ties fund ; for we were shown yesterday that the permanent endowment was only about $G0,000. I got ihat |1.50,000 from over one thousand ])eople. For whom I For the institution in connection with our united Church. Not an anti-Uniorist gave a dollar. They said it was theirs ; but they proved that they diu not believe their say, for they would not ])ut a dollar into the College. And, gentlemen, I cannot return that .$150,000 ; I have not got it ; it has been absorbed. It has been spent on buildings, museum, library, a])paratus, and the endowment of professorshii)S. Professors and assistants have been appointed. They are not in connection with this so called Synod, and cannot hold their positions unless they beg to be admitted — that is, they must })ublicly dishonour themselves. I return then, to Nova Scotia, and I return with this lesson stam])ed on my forehead — should oar Bills, owing to the repi'esentation of these shortsighted men, be rejected — that the Parliament of Canada is indifferent to the public faith, helpless to remedy a great wrong, contemptuous of the solemn Acts IS 15 ve me a : took 7 settled, tter be ; that ' means I small of the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec, sanctioned though these were by His Excellency' and his Privy Council. Ihat is one instance. That is one illustration of how we, as a Church, acted during the past 7 or 8 years. I jould give scoi-es, but I need not. A public man can see at a glance how far reaching the effects of such a course on your part would be. For exam])le, our contention witli our anti-confederate friends in Nova Scotia has always been that when the i)ublic faith was once pledged to Confederation it was as imi)0.ssiljle to undo Confedera- tion as it would be to dislocate a living body — that the public faith was pledged, that the Provinces became then dovetailed, commercially, legally, politically, socially and religiously, into one compact })olitical oi'ganism. You cannot wi])e out history, even for a few years. It is imj)ossible to put the shadow back on the sun dial, or the hands on the clock of time. In a word, a social oi'ganism must grow or it dies. It must always grow. Once a man has attained the age of 20, not all the King's horses and all the King's men can make him 1 2 years of age. But these men think that all this is possible. Should they be listened to, a blow would be struck at thrf public faith that would lie irreparable. We, liaving trusted to it, would be betra3'ed. Alark again, had we gone into this union before Confederation, there would have been no doubt or diUiculty on the subject. We then had the cure in our own hands. We then could have said : " Very well ; we can wait." But, because of an ambiguity in the British North America Act, an ambiguity for which we certainly are not responsible, we are told that we must take the consequence. Wo were not the authors of that Act. The ambiguity of that Act de- ceived the Judges of the country. But simply because of that ambi- xiity we are tokl that we are helidess. Helpless ! No ; I beg pardon of this Committee for assuming, even by liypofchesis, that they will listen to the representations of these men. I say the public faitli is pledged to ns. Is it or is it not ? Pledged to what 1 you ask. Pledged to this, tliat v^e are the historic " Old Kirk " of Scotland in Canada ; that the Presbyterian Church of Canada includes the Old Synod. If any man asks, "Where now is the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland'?" we answer, "In the Presbyterian Church of Canada." But Mr. Macraaster asks, " How cjin that be ? when you united with another body you then lost your identity." When a man unites with a woman does he lose his personal identity 1 I thought he simply became tolas, teres, atqne rotundus, a complete man. Mr. Macmaster seemed to admit that, but he was staggered at the size of the body. That is, he would imply that in case I marry a woman bigger than myself my personal identity is lo.«t. What l)ecame of the personal identity of Solomon, " the sad and splendid," with his sevei-al hundred wives ? Mr. MACMASTEE. — What about marrying three women 1 IG Principal OIIANT. — AVcll, is the man's ]>ei-Hon)\l identity lost '? King Sulonion miirried niuro than tliiee. lint I tliink tlie Com- mittee sees this, I wonltl ask very res|)ectfully : Where is okl Canachi, the okl rrovinee of Canada, now ? Is it in this Dominion or is it not? Tiiere were minorities opposed to Confederation in every Provinee. Suppose a few Canadians, discontented with the Act of Conftnleration, Imd gone away down to Sable Island ; suppose that these sorelieads lia(i gone oil' to any other e(jually delightful spot, and said : " This spot is old Canada, and wo will keep our country." We all know that Canada is ten or twenty times as big as she was ; that her very name was changed from the Province of Canada to the Dominion of Canada, and that it might have been changed entirely. There was a rpiestion whether it should not be so changed, and I believe it was left to the Queen to fix the name. But IMr. Macmaster woukl argue that if one man had remained a sorehead, it would be for him to stand uj), like Simon Stylites, ami to call out to the Universe : " Jiehokl Canada ! VEtat e^est mot!" Or, in our case, ^' L'Ju/llse c'est moi /" But we are asked, "Was tliere not a contract?" X contract with whom? Where in our Minutes is it called a contract? Mr. jVIacmaster calls it that. lie says, and says truly, that the Synod of 1855 implored its ministers to commute in order tliat, under Providence, the mone\' might lie a permanent endowment to the Church. They did so by a majority. When the Ciinrch acce])ted the gift, did tiuit mean that the Chux'ch sold her liberty of action for all time to come for §G0,000 ?• — for that is the amount of the permanent endowment. Mil. iNEACMASTEK. fund was £127,000 ? -Does not the Privy Council say that the PuiNcirAii GRANT. — I am sjieaking of tlu; amount of the permanent endowment. I think I liave e.xjjlained so that every memV)er of the Committee can understand it. I do not guarantee for Mr. IVIac- master. But I will explain it more fully. The amount originally received by the Church was calcula*^ed upon the basis that the ministers had been for a year or two previous in receipt of $600 a year. Their lives wei'e calculated according to the Carlisle Tables of Longtn'ity, and the total amount came to $r)U9, 000. What did that mean? It m(>aut, if these gentlemen got their 8G00 a ye ir, that at the end of their lives, if those tables were correct, there woukl not have been a dollar left. Now, what they k(ipt for themselves I do not call a jiermanent endowment. But they said, " We will take H-t-^O a yea)*." Ciilcnlate how much that would leave, and you will find that it left about 8121,000 as a permanent endowment. But then came in another factor. Between the passing of the Act in Canada and its ])assing in Great Britain, 11 new ministers joined the Church. They Synod said: "These are as much entitled to annuities as we are." But the Parliament of Canada said : " No, we 17 identity tlie Coni- Cauadii, IS it not ? Province, deration, eiuls liad is spot is t Canada anie was lada, and question ^ft to the at if one I u]), like Canada ! Bub we 1 whom '? [acmaster implored le money so by a tl'at the .0,000 ?■- that the L o!i the member Mr. ]\ lac- received hail been ves were the total if these , if those Now, owraent. inch tliat rmanent R passing ministers title! to " No, we vrillnotrecognizctho.se 11 ministers." "Well," said the Synod, "we will jmt them on the list as men privileged to get ^400 a year." That was made a condition also. That would consume about $G1,000 , and so only ^G0,000 were left for a permanent endowment, and the Church increased that by general 8ubscrij)tion8 up to about $78,000, The tallies are here, and I can go over them one by one and show to yoti with absolute accuracy that that is the sum of the permanent endow- ment. I think the Committee understand. Mk. McLean. — I do not think so. Principal GRANT. — They can speak for themselves. They are remarkably silent, as compared co the brethren oi)posed to us. Silence gives consent. Now, says Mi'. Macmaster, the act ot the commuters was •* sacramental." All I have to .say to that, is that I must do a great many sacramental acts. I never ask for money for Queen's College without making the same prayer as the Synod. I say to subscribers, that I hope and believe, under Providence, this money will be a permanent blessing for the Church and the country ; that it shall be a permanent endowment. Do I mean by that, that the Church has no freedom of action 1 Do I mean that this Parliament has no freedom of action 1 That the clutch of the dead hand is on every dollar that is given 1 I am talking to reasonable men. All that is meant is that the spirit and fundamental conditions of the gift must be observed. Where, then, is the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland] It is identical, as I declared, with the Presby- terian Church of Canada. Now, with regard to that, I am sorrv to have to call attention to language of Mr. Lang about which I would rather say nothing. The last Minute our Church passed before it united was one declaring its . lentity in these very words, which I read from the authorized Minutes: — The Synod in resolving to consummate tho Union " does at the same time declare that the United Church sliall be considered identical with the Presby- terian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, and shall possess the same authority, rights, privileges, and benefits to which this Church is now entitled, excepting such as have been reserved by Acts of Parliament.' Furbher, next day, when we went into the Union, tlr.s Minute was read to the General Assembly of the United (Jhurch. It expressly declared, and no one dissented, that the one Church was identical with the other. Mr. Fleming temperately said so in his memorandum. Mr. Lang comes out over his own name and calls the statement of Mr. Flem- " I decline," he says, " to discuss so mendacious a state- Mr. Chairman, language is inadequate to characterize so extra- oi'dinary a method of argument ; I am quite satisBed to leave the mat- ter in the hands of the Committee. I say now, if we are the Church, as o ing mendacious ment. 18 I have proven, what are they 1 Simply what they cull thetnaolves, ** dissentients." They could be nothing else. Mr. Lang ndnutted yester- day that 15 were necessary to form a (pxoruni, or constitute a meeting of the Synod. Then, wo ask, how could 7 or 9 constitute a Synod 1 " Oh !" he says, "they just considered that it was the same sederunt, and went ahead with the business." He forgot, or forgot to state, that tlie Synod liad adjourned, and that these men of necessity took part in the adjournment, and that by no j)ossibility could it be tlio same meeting. Eev. Mu. LANG. — In the face of a protest. Prinoipai, grant. — Of course they protested. Tliey liave never done anything else. But the Comnuttoo is aware that if two or three members of the House of Commons protest against the House ad- journing, the House can adjourn all the same, and the protest of the two or three rebellious members makes no dilference. Mil. MACMASTER. — They cannot dissolve themselves entirely. Principal GRANT. — We are talking of an adjournment. Sup- pose that the House of Commons should lind it necessary, because its Chamber, for some special occasion, was not large enough — precise- ly our case — suppose that the House, because of an alarm of fire or for some other reason, should resolve to adjourn to a larger hall for a few hours, and tliat they did adjourn, and regularly depart- ed, with the Speaker . at their head, the (Jlerks, the Mace- whatever the Mace may mean — and that a few malcontents remained, and, pretending that they were the House of Commons, passed laws ; would these be binding on the pco[)le of Canada 1 Suppose that some one should say to the malcontents, or dissenters, " Why ! yon have not even a quorum,", the ready answer would be, " Oh ! to the eye of sense we are only 9, but to the eye of faith we are 200. We include in our number the men who have gone away to do the wicked thing against which we have protested. It is the same sederunt." Quoting a Latin word like that, you know, would clinch the argument. " The same sederunt!" Mr. Chairman, if 9 could do this when 15 were required, could not 5, could not 3 do it ? Could not 1 sit in solitary gi'andeur, and say, '* I am the Old Kirk ; I am going on with the business V I see by the Minutes that there were more members at our meeting in the morning than when the vote was taken the evening before. 126 members of Synod went, with moderator, clerks and documents, to the larger hall ; 9 dissented, and they have remained dissenting pro- testing and litigating to this day. And still they cry, " Give us more litigation ; don't legislate, gentlemen." They have fai'ed so long on litiga- tion that thev want nothing else. I think that I have shown what follows from the principles proved at tho outset, as regards the parties u ill this ciise. May I now submit iip.otlier point. What follows from tlio two jtrincijdos established, as roganls othor Churches, so far as thtjir Ha- lations to Parliamont are coucorned, should this remedial legislation be refused ? This Parliamont is just. It will measure to others — 1 give no taffy — but I think I may assume that Pailiament will mete to others the measure that it metes to us. Now, if you take, with re^ird to \is the action our opponents desire, what must be taken with reganl to «)ther Churches f First, as regards the future : Parlianujnt must refuse legislation to any Churches that resolve to unite, should there be one man oppo.sed to such union. You must say, "You cannot do it ; this one man has the i ight to the property. Oh ! yes, you may unite, but you can- not tak(!your jtrojierty with you." What does this mean ? It means that in the future, if there should bo a man in any Church sufliciently fore- seeing, he may take such a line as this : lie nuiy say, " My Church is ready to unite with a sister Church. 1 will suppoit the proitosid. I will move the adoption of the basis of union. I will get my brethren ]ioj)e- lessly committed. 1 will let years pass away, till my action has perhaps been forgotten. Then, when the others are ready and all things are in readiness, I will (juietly rise in my i)lace and say, ' Centlenien, of course you are perfectly free to unite, but I shall renuiin and I shall demand all the j)roperty." Is not that possible? Is not that what you in j rin- ciple say, if you refuse this legislation ] And this may be a good man, too. He may be convinccid that he is doing right ; he may take his stand upon principle, and say that his conscience is enlightened. There is not the slightest doubt that this could be done, and this Parliament, having taken its i)osition already, is bound to that posirtion, for, as I said, you will mete to others the nie isure you mete to us. And you are lik(dy to be called on to act in the future, gentlemen. At this very moment there are two cases likely enough to come before Parliament some day. The IMethodist Cluurh and the Methodist Episco[)al Church are talking about union. I see in the newspapers that they are having district meet- ings, and that these meetings are unanimously in favour of union. Sup- ])Ose, now, that all tJie district meetings and conferences unanimously resolve to unite; that they have arranged thedetailsandhave got every thing settled ; then, after all the leading ministers and tlie men who will not go back from their fiositions have committed themselves, and they come to you for legislation, should one worthy man rise up and ol>ject, you must say to these half million Methodists,, or their representatives, " We cannot do what you ask ; we liave taken our position ; you can go into the union, but that juotesting individual claims all the property, and it must remain with him." Take another case. The dioceses of the Church of England in the North- West are not now united with the Provincial Synod of Canada. They are connected Avith the Mother Church in England. Suppose they agree — and I liope they will — that there should be but one Episcopal Church in Canada, as there is one Presbyterian Church, and as tliere "ipppiipippiii upppppnp 20 * may shortly bo ono MothotHst Church, in Canada; suppose then that they come horo for the necessary legislation. If one man in tho four dioceses up then; objects, you will have to say : '* Yes, you can unite with your brethren, but only at the expense of your property; we have laid down that jn-inciple and must stick to it." Is this Parliament willing thus to commit itself with regard to tho future 1 And what follows, also, with regard to tlie past] Something more startling, because the past you cannot wipe out, whereas the future is warned. With regard to the ])ast, you lay down this princijde, that any existing minority may now claim tho whole ])roperty of Churches that united. Are you aware, gentlemen, that there were dissentients, not only from the Kirk, but from the other negotiating Churches ; that, for example, thciro were two or thi*ee worthy ministci-s of the Frfio Church who remained out and who still remain out of the union. These Clergymen believe that their brethren were false to their covenant ; they thoioughly believe — and, what is more, they believed from the first ; they did not get new light — that they are the only true Free Church in Canada, and that the him- dreds of their brethren who united thereby ceased to be Free Church- men. But these ministers did not know, or did not care to use, the immense |X)wor they had. They quietly remained outside, just preach- ing the Word of God, and even sending their contributions to their brethren who united. They said " We are too weak to institute missions of our own ; let us then do some humble work in the way of aiding the great missions of the United Church." But, when they hear that this legislation has been refused us, they must discover that they are entitled to all the property of the Free Church ; that Knox College, Montreal College, the Widows' and Orphans' Fund, and all the endowments of their former Church, belong to them. My friend Mr. Macmaster made the ludicrous mistake yesterday of saying^ that the Free Church had no endowments, and was even opposed on principle to endowments. In some respects it had larger endowments than we had. And that any rnan should entertain the idea that the Free Church was opposed to receiviii'; endowments ! Could he think that there was any such Church on tL -i planet ? He startled you, and no wonder. There are Churches that will accept endowments only on certain conditions. To dream that any Church would reject them utterly is a ludicrous mistake. They are only too glad tc get them. Our com- jtlaint generally is that you do not give us endowments enough. But, Mr. Chairman, these worthy dissenting Free Church brethren, when they find that they are the old Free Church, will of course claim and get all the property of their former Church. You say that that would be preposterous. It would. So is the contention of our dissentients. I think Sir, that I have established the two principles with which I set out. I heard no dissent from any member of the Committee. I heard no question from any member. I had no interruption. I think that I have also proved conclusively what follows as regards ourselves, ii iiii «1 «ind wimt follows as regards the relations of all Cliurclies to this Logis- lature, if you accept those propositions. Now, ono woiil in conclusion about tho treatment the minority has received. I am aware that it in not pleasant to bo in a minority, and that as a rule minorities are not .satisfied. 1 am aware that minorities sometimes do not get what they think they are entitled to. Remember that there were minorities on both sides, in our case. There was a minority consisting of forty families at least, represented here by Mr. Morris, Mr. iJennistoun and others, in Mr. Lang's own Ch\irch. These, finding that tho congregation voted itself o\it of the union, had to choose between two sore alterna- tives. They said, " We are in a minority and we have to submit. AN'e do not desire to leave our i)astor and our old congregation.- ]Jul neither do we want to remain in a Church whose sole end and aim in life is litigation. We do not want to be separated from the currents of Canadian Church life. Therefore we will teai- ourselves up by the roots from the old St. Andrew's Kirk, Montreal." One of these men was the Superintendent of the Sabbath School ; his wife taught tho infant class ; others were elders ; anothei- was a professor in MeGill College ; others were liberal sujtportei's and workers. Did these gen- tlemen go and call themselves the St. Andrew's Church of Montreal ? Did they demand the property 1 No. They felt that they, being in the minority, must put up with It the best way they coidd. Mr, M ACM ASTER.— The/ were the seceders. Principal GRANT. — Or "dissentients"; in this case, just a* your friends were in the case of the whole Church. They were the minority, and therefore they went out peaceably and quietly. They got nothing. Waa that the way we acted with onr minority 1 Emphatically, no. Members have Kometiraes said : " Oh ! both parties in this case are extreme ; each party wants the whole fund for themselves." Sir, that is their position. It is not our position. Mark you, their position and our position are represented, not by what this or that man says, but by the Bills before you. What say the Bills ] Their Bill says, " Vest all the property in ns." Our Bill says, " Give to the members of the minority all that tlioy ever liad before ; give to them all that it is proposed that each member of the majority shall have ; give them all that they ever would have had, if no Pinion had taken place." Well, they say that it is humiliating for them to receive their annual payments from another Church. They do not receive tlieni from any Church ; they receive them from a Board on which they are represented, and that Board is responsible, not to our Church, but to tho bene- ficiaries. Whenever you pass our Bill the beneficiaries will have control of tho Board, and if they want amendments to the constitution they will come to you for them. The beneficiaries are the 22 only men who cun propose amendments. Our Churcli does not ])retend for a moment to interfere with it, and cannot inteiefere. It is said, again, " Cannot you come to n compromise 1 " I thought, two or three weeks ago, tliat if we could meet privately and arrange to have only one Bill here, it would save the Committee all this trouble. The re- S[)onse I got from the gentleman with whom 1 communicated was sub- stantially this, that since we had voluntarily left the Church we had better return to it voluntarily. I felt that when men spoke so stoutly, their position must be good. I looked into their position and saw that they were the victims of a fu!.;], resistless, onesided logic. Their posi- tion is logical. The only compromise is that contained in our Bill. For, that Bill was intended as a compromise from the first. It is a compromise, too, by the beneficiaries, the only parties competent to make one. From the first, the fund was one fund. From the first, the ministers could commute only through the Synod. They lost all it they left the Synod. From the first, the fund was to be administered in the interests of the Churcli. Commuters who left Canada, even to become parish ministers in Scotland, lost all right to it. This was so, prior to union. It seems to me, then, that the way to violate the original trust is to break the fund tip into two or more parts. They say : " Give it to ns, for we are the Church.'' If they are the Church, I say : " Give it to them.'' Their ])osition is logical, I grant that fully. But, though we are the (Jhurch, we do not ask for all. Our Bill is a compromise. Our Bill says, " Let it be administered by tlie Board, subject to the beneficiaries " :Mk. MACMASTEB.— Do you ofier to divide it with usi Pkincital grant. — We do divide it with you by our Bill. I asked it any further compromise could bo ctlected, and I have told you the answer I received. Rev. Mr. LANG. — What was the answer? Sir Albkrt J. SMITH.— Is it too late now to con)[iromise'? Principal GRANT. — I think it is, because the two Bills are here. I think a large body like this Committee cannot go into the exact particulars of a just division ; the only body competent to do that is tho beneficiaries. The original fund was one trust, and it was never intended to be broken up. I think the only way now is to proceed and to take the compromise ofiered by our Bill, and leave the matter with the beneficiaries. Mr. magma STER. — Do you now make that statement? I would like to say here, while that (pieaLiou of compromLsc is up, that 23 ot pretend It ia said, ^o or three have only The re- l was sub- ;h we iiad so stoutly, I saw that rheir posi- 01! r Bill. ;. It is a ipetent to le first, the lost all if nistered in i, even to lis was so, /iolate the rts. They lie Church, that fully. IV Bill is a he Board, s? nr Bill. I e told you isel Is are here, the exact do that is was never roceed antl latter with menti I is up, that the side I have the honour to represent are not averse to a compro- mise. They take the position in tlie Bill that this fund should be vested in the Old Church, because the Privy Council judgment says that it must be administered in accordance with the Act of 1858, which says that it is for tlie benefit of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in con- nection with the Church of Scotland. Wo claim to be logical, as my friend says, and wo must ask that the fund be vested in that Church. We must take that position in our Bill. And I want to say, on behalf of our friends, that to a fur, nnd just, and reasonable compromise we are not averse. We have un offer of compromise made to us, but w6 da not consider it a just offer of compromise. But we say new, and I have authority to say, that the Church of Scotland jieople will be pre- ])ared, on receiving their Act of incorporation, to accept such compro- mise as may l)e deemed just and reiisonal)le in the o[)inion of reasonable and disinterested men. We only ask for justice. PniNCiPAL GRANT. — It is to be re_2;retted that even so much was. not said yesterday, when a member of the Committee asked Mr. Mac- master wliat he would consider fail-, and the answer substantially was : " Give us the whole." No man on the Temporalities Board made the oft'er JMr. Macmaster refers to. Mr. jMACM aster. — Are you not aware that an offer was made by Mr. Sandford Fleming 1 Principal GRANT. — Certainly ; but neither of us is a mem- ber of the Board. I have already stated that, two or three weeks ago, I hoped that an amicable arrangement was possible, and I did my utmost to try and have it brought about, ho])ing that I would be met in the same sinrit. I was not so met. Then, feeling that gentlemen, who could affoi'd to snub mo, must feel that they occupied an impregnable position, I looked more closely into the case, and, as I said, I found that they were certainly logical. Bcv. Mr. LANG. — I cannot allow that statement to pass without correction, if the Committee will allow me. That there was a com- ])romise spoken ot 1 freely admit, and terms wei'o spoken of, first to Sir Hugh Allan, and ne.xt to ]\Ir. Macmaster and myself. But I am not aware, and 1 would not like the impression to go abro:»d in this Com- mittee, that there was a distinct oQer on either side. But it has j)assed, and I think that Princi[)al Grnnt might, in common I'airness, mention it now. We did meet once or twice, and \e,yy nuturally the question arose : Can you carry your friends with you 1 Dr. Gi-ant knows that that actually did ])ass. Mr. Snndford Fleming knows that that jiassed between us. But these gentlemen are not in the forefront of this movement. Dr. Grant has notliiug to do with the Temporalities Fund. 24 He did not, in origin, belong to the Synod of the Church of Scothmd in Cana 1 1, and we very naturally asked : For whom do you speak 1 And the iu.jiiiry was made, either by these gentlemen or for them, whether such proposals as had been spoken of in conversation would be enter- tained by those who were really in the forefront of the party, and the answer was unequivocally returned that they could only speak tor themselves, and could not guarantee that those who wei'e in the fore- front would agree to proj)osals that might be made. I think that, in common fairness, the matter should be put in the right form. There was'no breaking off of negotiations on the subject, none whatever. Sir Hugh Allan can bear out this statement. I say it boldly at the bar of this Committee, there was no bar put on the subject ; the bar was dis- tinctly because those who were not in the forefront of this movement could not come forward and authorize these gentlemen to speak for them. in Prin'CIPal grant. — I am generally supposed to ha\e " common fairness," and, if this Committee think I exaggerate in one point, it is I who shall suffer. I fully understand my position. Since the matter has been brought up in this way, then, I may say something further. No summary of mine, it seems, can satisfy these gentlemen. As already stated, I did think two or three weeks ago that if we could get together and come to some arrangement, all this contest might he. avoided. I did hope and ])ray that it might be avoided ; and so, when Mr. Fleming brought Sir Hugh Allan to see me, I asked if he had any details to submit. He said he did not know the details, but that as their body was small it would be easy to get details from them, whereas our body was large and it would not be so easy. My answer was : " I know that ; I can oniy speak for myself ; but I will tell you what I will do. If I think your proposals reasonable, I will go before the Committee and advocate them. If it is worth your while to acquaint me with such proposals, I will tell you in a moment whether I consider them reasonable or not." Acting on that, when these gentlemen came up we had a little talk together, and a division of the Temporalities Fund was suggested. I think that Mr. Macmaster referred to a division as possible, wlien he handed me a copy of the Montreal Gazette, con- taining the report of his address to Sir John A.Macdonald in introducing a deputation, saying to me that the address embodied his views. I saw, when I read his address, that he suggested that, while they claimed the whole Fund, it would be a generous thing on their part to give us about a third. Mr. MACMASTER.— Are you quoting entirely 1 Principal Grant. — Am I not stating it correctly ? Mr. MACMASTKR. — I wish to keep you correct. 25 otlantl in k1 And whether be enter- , and the ])eak lor the fore- i that, in I. There ver. Sir he bar of was dis- lovement speak for ' eonimon Dint, it is le matter further. s already ould get night be, so, when had anj t that as whereas was : " I a what I efore the acquaint consider I en came es Fund I'ision as •ttfi con- ioducing I saw, med the us about Principal GRANT. — The desire to do so is most manifest. But in what point have you shown me to be incorrect] I read tne news- ])aper report and I saw that it was substantially thi3, that, while they claimed all, it would be a generous act on their part, and the most that could be asked of them, to divide the fund and give to us, the vast majority, about one-thii'd, while the two-thirds remained with them. Was, or was not, that substantially your statement 1 Mr. MACMASTER. — Don't attempt to cross examine uie. Don't think although you are Principal of a College you can put to me a categorical question. (Loud cries of Order I order ! from the Com- mittee.) I desire to be respectful, gentlemen, and I also desire not to be misrepresented, and I expect that I shall not be, beforeafair Committee. I stated to Principal Grant that I was acting in the capacity of lawyer ; that the views I was authorized to put forward were embodied in the newspaper which, I believe, he holds in his hands now, I there made a statement of what I conceived to be a reasonable position, but I tolil Principal Grant that I was not authorized to compromise the matter, but that the view put forward was mine, as far as I was concerned, and that it would be better for him to come properly authorized from the side he represented to meet plenipotentiaries or representatives from our side properly authorized to settle this matter, and they could then come, perhaps, to some reasonable and just basis of settlement. Principal Grant proposed to me another basis, which I do not think could be entertained. From that day to this, with the exception of a letter that was written by Mr. Fleming, I have had no communication with the gentlemen whatever. I thought they liad given up the compromise idea completely. Still, that was the ^iew then put forward ; a view that seemed reasonable, considering our legal victory and ft jm a legal standpoint. I now say, and have always said, that so far as our side is concerned we are disposed to what may be considered a fair and rea- sonable compi'omise in the minds of reasonable and disinterested men. They may think they are entitled to one thing, while we think we are entitled to another. We are, doubtless, both biassed. But my constant position was this, that whatever just and reasonable men would consider to be a right and proper compromise, so as to put an end to this strug- gle, would be acceptable to us. Mr. MACDOUGALL. — Some members of the Committee are of the opinion, and I apprehend that, as has been stated by Principal Grant, it is also the opinion of the gentlemen concerned, that these dis- cussions, and proposals, and attempts at settlement and compromise, which came to nothing, are of no particular interest to us. The CHAIRMAN. — I was just going to make the same remark. I think it would be better for Principal Grant, so soon as convenient, 26 to finish his address. Wo liave allowed him very considerably to ex- ceed the allotted time. After that, in accordance with the understand- ing, I believe a gentleman from the other side will be lieard, and then. I will have a suggestion to make to the Committee in reference to these Bills. Principal GEANT. — I am delighted to see that the Committee un- derstands the case. I would have ended my remarks long ago had it not been for wholly iiTelevant and unnecessary interiuptions. Gentlemen, the question just comes back to the point from which I started. Bid we, as a Church, do a right act, a competent act, and did we do it in a right way, so far as human foresight could suggest I We know that we did a right thing ; I have proved that we did it in the right way. You know it, and history has shown it. Our progress since the union has heen at the average rate of 20 congregations and ministers a year added to our Church ; that is, doulile the number, each year, of the whole anti- imionist body. Whereas not one young minister has joined them ; not one convert whose name they can quote has joined them during all these eight years. The young men of Canada know where the Church is. Rea-. Mr. LANG. — We have three Divinity have ministers who have joined us since 1875. students. We Principal GRANT. — It is a pity that their names are not given. Mr Lang seemed to object yes,terday to our union, because it is not com- prehensive enough. He is williiig, that is, to take the whole flight of stairs, but not the first step. T want to know who is the truest friend of union, the man who, standini; at the foot of a flight of stairs, says, " I would like to get to the top, ')ut I decline to take the first step," or the child who is willing even to crawl up the stairs, one step at a time J Mr. Lang says, " If any man is a ( 'hristif n he is my brother." Suiely we are Christiana and brothers ; can lie not, then, worship God and do His work in this land with us ? It may be that this form of (/hristianity is like that well understood by Wamba, the son of Witless. When the knight craved forgiveness of the fair Rowena, she answered, " I forgive you with my whole heart, as a Christian," and Wamba whispered " which means that she does not forgive him at all." A Scotchman, po.ssibly the ancestor of a gentleman in this r^om, was dying. Tlie good priest told him that he could not shrive him until he forgave his enemy. He held out, but the priest was firm. The old man then looked at his wasted arm, unable to wield a brand, and slowly uttered the required formula, " I forgive him." Being shriven, ho turned to his son, who stood, like a young Hei'cules, by his bedside, " And now, Donald, your father's and your grandfather's curse be upon you if you forgive him." This is Christian union — or Christian forgiveness. It is like DeBi-acy's idea : " There is Bois-Guilbert, whose religion is to hate a 27 y to ex- derstand- aud then e to these littee un- lad it not jntlemen, ed. Did lo it in a r that we ,y. You nion has sar added hole anti- em ; not all these ch is. its. We ot given. not coui- flight of st friend irs, says, step," or b a time '\ lurely we d do His tianity is '^hen the I forgive I " wliich possibly )d priest ny. He d at his required ion, who lid, your L forgive [t is like to hate a Jew, and the Templar, whose religion is to slay a Saracen, and if these are not good Christians I wouk^ like to see who are." So, the Christian idea Tiovv is, " Let us have litigation." Friends of union ! What is a man's love for aU women worth if he is not willing to marry one] I am supposed by my friends to be us Catholic as Mr. Lang, but I speak of my Catholicity only in fitting places. I speak of my love for other denominations when I am not expecting anything from them and at other fitting times. I was touched yesterday, however, I must say, at Mr. Lang's allusion to the Church of Scotland. It drew me to him more than anything else he said. I saw that there was a tide of generous Scottish feeling, or prejudice, rimning in his veins. And I do not honour a man who has no national " prejudices." But can he not believe that Canadians are animated with like sentlnieuts for the land of their birth 1 Can he not believe that there is a tide of generous enthusiasm for our country boiling in our veins, and that we do not think that there is any disloyalty to the old Church when sho has expressly repudiated the notion. Are we not to love the land in which we wei'e born, the natal soil where our children and our children's children are to live and die ? Is it not right that, in obedience to this sentiment of patriotism, we should desire to see a Canadian Church 1, Ought we not to try to forget the feuds im- , l)Orted from beyond the sea? We know we did right in so acting and so forgetting. Other Churches have approved our action. When we united, the Anglican Synod of the Dioces6# of Toronto sent their hearty Christian congratulations, to whom I — to these gentlemen as representing the Church of Scotland 1 No ; to us who had united ; and that Anglican Synod even said that they were willing to consider the (luestion of union with us on the basis of the first four (.jeuei-al Councils. They named even a basis of union to show how they interpreted the act we had done. Tlie other Churches recognized our act ; history ha."* . recognized ; and I believe, with all submission, that this Parliament will recognize it, because the glory of this Parliament is the glory that irradiates every true Parliament, namely, that it represents people The chairman.— In accordance with the understanding, another gentleman should bo hoard on the side of the Old Kirk. I now call upon Mr. McLean to address you. Principal GRANT.— Not the Old Kirk, but the anti-Unionists. Rev. Mr. LANG. — I canno'j allow that remark to pass. I pro- test, Mr. Chairman, when you sicV from the Chair that a gentleman from the other side' is to bo hoard, that we shoidd be met by these epithets. When you sjpeak of this side; by the proper term we are told on the other side that this is the anti-Unionist side. Now, Sir, I must distinctly take exception to the statement. I am not an anti-Unionist^ 28 I am a Minister, and Moderator of the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland. I think it is only fair the Committee should understand of what spirit at least some of the gentlemen are, in regard to those who honestly and conscientiously hold an opposite opinion. I think there might be common courtesy and common fairness shown. We have not hurled epithets at those on the other side. We have always spoken of them with kindness. We have not objected to them going into the union ; we wish them God speed. Principal GRANT. — We cannot allow Mr. Lang to take the name of the Old Kirk, simply because that would unchurcli ourselves. They call us secessionists, and other similarly absurd terms. We must call them anti-Unionists, for if we give them our name we unchurch ourselves. The chairman. — I did not intend to decide the question. I used the word Kirk for shortness, as the other distinction is a very long one, and takes some time to utter. We will now hear Mr. McLean. APPENDIX. INDEPENDENCE OF THE CANADIAN KIRK DECLARED WITHOUT RESERVE IN 1844 AND IN 1833. In 1844 the Synod of the Canadian Church passed, without a dis- senting voice, the following Act, which loas made a fundamental and essential part of its constitution, to which every Minister had to assent, and to which Mr. Lang assented, before he could be inducted in Canada. " Whereas this Synod has always, from its first establishment, possessed a perfectly free and supreme jurisdiction over all the Congre- gations and Ministers in connection therewith ; and although the inde- pendence and freedom of this Synod, in regard to all things spiritual, cannot be called in question, but has been repeatedly and in most ex- plicit terms affirmed, not only by itself, but by the General Assembly of the Chuich of Scotland, yet, as in present circumstances it is expe- dient that this independence be asserted and declared by a special Act : " It is hereby declai'ed. That this Synod has always claimed and possessed, does now possess, and ought always in all time coming to have and exercise a perfectly free, full, final, supreme and uncontrolled power of jurisdiction, discipline and government, in regard to all mat- ters, ecclesiastical and spiritual, over all the Ministers, Elders, Church Members and Congregations under its care, without the right of review, appeal, complaint or reference by or to any other Court or Courts what- soever, in any form or under any pretence ; and that in all cases that may come before it for judgment the decisions and deliverances of this Synod shall be final. And this Syn«d further declares that, if any en- croachment on this supreme power and authority shall be attempted or threatened by any person or persons. Court or Courts whatsoever, then the Synod; and each and every member thereof, shall, to the utmost of their power, resist and oppose the same. And whereas the words in the designation of the Synod " in connection with the Church of /Scot- land," have been misunderstood or misrepresented by many persons, it is hereby declared that the said words imply no right of jurisdiction or control, in any form whatsoever, by the Church of Scotland over this Synod, but denote merely the connection of origin, identity of standards, 29 T^"-^ 30 and ministerial and Churcli communion. And it is furtliei' enacted, thai this supreme and free jurisdiction is a fundamental and essential part of the Constitution of this Synod ; and, that this may be fully known to all those who may hereafter seek admission into our Church, it is enjoined that all Presbyteries shall preserve a copy of this Act, and cause it to be read over to, and assented to by, every Minister and Probationer who may apply for ordination or induction into any pas- toral charge." The Mother Church hold i)recisely the same view. In the same year, 1814, the following words occur in a letter from the Colonial Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to the said Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland : " The Church of Scotland has never claimed any authority nor exercised any control over your Synod ; neither has she ever possessed, or desired to possess, the right of any such inter- ference. Her efforts have been limited to the cultivation of brotherly affection and tlie rendering of pecuniary aid to those who had many claims on her regard." The relations were the sanio, from tlie formation of the Canadian Synod : — What is called the Declaratory Enactment, j)assed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and appearing in the Minutes of the said Synod of the Presbyterian Churcli of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, at page 42 and 43 of Synod Minutes of eighteen hundred and thirty-three, in reply to the application of the said Synod found on page 4 of the Minutes, June seventh, eighteen hundred and thirty-one, shows this, that the General Assembly of the Chtirch of Scotland simply undertook to give advice on any question with regard to which said Synod may choose to consult the Church of Scotland, and afford said Synod such aid as it may be in the power of the Colonial Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to give in all matters affecting their rights and interests. This Declaratory Enactment was declared by the said Synod to form part of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connection with the Church of Scotland, as appears at page 43 of the Minutes of said Synod, eighteen hundred and thirty-three. enacted, essential be fully ■ Church, this Act, ister and any pas- bhfi same Colonial id to the :ion with • claimed ither has ch inter- brotherly ad many ?anadian ' General inutes of innection inutes of n of the eighteen ly of the question hurch of power of liurch of ;s. This I part of nnection nutes of 'H