IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 Ui 128 |2 5 1^ Ik lb 12 U ill 1.6 0^ <^ ,^- 4 y '^ ^^ ^^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attemnted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliogrephically 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 microfiimt le meilieur exemplaire qu'il lui a At6 possible de se procurr/. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-clte uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. r~7l Coloured covers/ \y \ Couverture de couleur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ D D Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missir.g/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages rastaur6es et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es D D Coloured ink : quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivan'ss unt 6t'j reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire filmi, 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 exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont fiim^s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la ddrnidre page qui cumporte 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 premiere 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 "I. or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derni^re image 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 film^s i des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 i partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gau*"^? d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 ^t^T!^;-?!!^'^^ fc: "Itai"' iw|««m. r; ... ,-.i-. ^ A .^^ Letters Of tie Bishop of Nova Scotia, IM<^-U^1 AND TRS EEV. MB. PITZOBBALD'S BEPLIES THEBETO. <&c., &c., &c. PUBLISHED BY RE<|iEST. 1873. >«.#^^l^P^^^ip^ V^ H n ' t^^ Prtee 14 €ents. Public Archives of Nova Scotia HALIFAX, a S. ^Wf^ '-::.:.'f^-.:^ i U |hit "|talf" |ui!stion. i"t The following correspondence has arisen in conse^uonco of the Rector's refusal to admit the Birihop's Staff into Bt. Paul's Church, in which ho was supported by the Church Warden then present : — ClIARI.OTTETOWN, Auglist "29, 1872. 77ie Church Wardens of St. PauVs Churrfi:— Gentlemen: — In consc(|ncncc of an insult oirorctl to mo this morning, by your Hector, in the Vestry Room of St. Piuil's Churoh,and bis determined resistance to my Episcopal antlior- ity, in which lie was 8upi)ortod by one of yourselves, (in the name of the congrefration), I am compelled, most reluctantly, to inform you that I cannot, consistently with duo regard to my office, subject myself to the risk of a repetition of such con- duct, by again officiating in that Chnn^h, while the present Rector continues to officiate, or the congregation, as repre- sented by their church officers, acquiesce in his opposition. It is of no consequence whether the matt*-, in question bo im- portant or otherwise If a Rector may dictate to his Bishop the mode of his administration of any ono rite or ceremony of the Church, he may do so also in any other case. A great principle is at stake: and it would be a gross derel'ction of duty on my part to submit to such dictation. It is pari icnlarly to be observed that the Rector was 7iot refjuircd to x>crform any act, and that there could be no responsibility on his i)art; for ho can have neither a legal nor a moral right to control his Bishop's acts. He was perfectly at liberty to express a wish, or an opinion, as to tho expediency or propriety of any particu- lar act, but no further interference could bo justified. Whereas this morning he positively declared that the T^\>\\l.^\^ should not, according to his ordinary inactico when lie is attended by a Chaplain, have his stall <;arried before him in St. Paul's Church. With respect to tho use of tho Sfalf, I have fo inform yon, that I have used it ever since I rccoivod one presontod hy a large body of the clergy of Nova Scotia, and (hat tho noigbor- ing Bishops of Newfoiinilla'id and Fredericton have habitually ^^z A.r::.?ves of Nova Scotia HALIFAX, N. .a. used a P:i«(oriil SlnfT for maiiv years, as a snitalilo and apjiro- priafo cmblern (»!" ollico. Neither in there anything; inoro Rii|MTK(itiiiiH or oltjiMiionnbk in it, than in the marr, or other oillrial insi;,'nia, liorno hclore sonic hi;L,'h eivil functionaries. However, tlie propriety or improiiriuty ol using the l*asloral Stall" is a matter of opinion, which I need not disonss. The question is:— Onglit a Bishop to submit to the dictation of one of Ins cler;,'y as to his vestments, or ornamenta, or mode of offlciatinjr on any occasion? Ho who would allow snch dicta- tion, would sanction the subversion of all order, and some- thing worse than anarcliy in the churcli, in which he liis been invested with authority and responsibility. ;:^^ Although on some points, I may unfortunately diflcr from the Hector and congregation of St. Paul's, I have always treated their wishes and feelings with great consideration; and if your church were more frequently opened for public worship, I would gladly avail myself of the ojjportunity to unite with you in ►'Uoh worship. When taking part in the service there, (notwithstanding that it is my duly to guide rather than to follow,) I have always refrained, as far as possible, from any variation in the order to which you have been accustomed ; and although 1 think there is room for improvement, and that much more life and heartiness might be imparted to them, 1 have not interfered. It is perfectly well known that I aju ready to concede the utmost liberty to all parties, within tliQ broad limits allowed by the Church of lOiigland, without par- tiality, and without undue i>referencc of one to another, but I caimot sanction the assumiition by any individual clergyman of the right to dictate to his brethren, or to coerce his Bishop> even where that individual is himself a scrupulous observer of all the rules and orders of the church in whicli he ministers. Being, for mauy reasons, deeply interested in the congregation aBsorabling in St. Paul's Church, and sincerely anxious fdr their welfare, it is with extreme reluctance that I have to aiuiounco to you the consequences of the conduct ol the Hector and Church Warden this morning. My decision is not hastily formed, with reference to this particular case, for I have long been convinced that, in case of any such unwarrantable inter- ference with my functions, as that to which I have boon sub- jected today, it would be my duty to sei)aratc myself from the minister and people by whom the oflice of the Bishop is so liuliily reganled, until they return to a better mind. Ileal lily praying that you may be guided aright, / " . 1 am, dear Sirs, yours faithfully, U., Nov.v Scotia. At a meeting of tlic Congrogation, hcKl (»n I ho I'Jth September, to take into coiiHideration the foregoing letter, the lleetor handed in a IIkI of aiithorltien iu jublilicutiuu of the action he had taken, and is as follows: — The First luitliorWy I prodiico in support of wljat I have done, is llic IM (Jcorgc .'^, Cap. 0: An act for tho better and more clloctual establishment of the Church of England in this Island. Tho 1st section of this act says : — ** Be it therefore enacted by the Lieut. Governor, Council and Assembly, That the sacred rites and ceremonies of Divine Worship, according to the Liturgy of the Church established by the laws of England, shall bo doomed tho fixed form of worship amongst us: and the place wherein such Liturgy sliall be used, shall bo respected and known by the name of the Church of England, as by law csta}>Ii8hed. And that for the preservation of unity and purity of doctrine and discipline in the Church, and tho right administration of Sacrament, no minister shall be admitted to offlciate as a minister of the Church of England, but such as shall produce to the Governor, Lieut. Governor, or Commander-in-Chief for the time being, a testimonial that ho hath been duly licensed by the Bishop of Loudon, or by the Bishop of Nova Scotia, and shall publicly declare his assent and consent to tho Book of Common Prayer, and shall subscribe to be conrormablc to the orders and constitutions of the Church of England, and the laws there established." According to this act, I conceive that the same laws, which from time to time govern the Church of England in the mother country, govern also the several churches in this Colony which are in connection with it, and that the several judgments of the Privy Council are binding upon its ministers. , If then a Bishop, in accordance with the Liturgy of the Church of England, has received no authority at his consecra- tion for the use of a Pastoral StafTin the ministrations of his oillcc in the church at home, be has received none for its use iu the churches here. 2. My next authority is: That the alleged discretionary power of the Bishop, as referred to in the Preface to the Prayer Book, gives him no rii^ht to introduce any novelties, or unauthorized ceremonies, into our church. IJere it is said:— "And forasmuch as nothing can almost be so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise iu the use and |»nictie uII micL ilivemly, (if any urisc,) aud for tlu; rcnohitioii of nil doubta concerning tbo iiiamior liow lo uiuicrsfand, do, juid execute llic tliin;p< con- lulnud in (liin Book; the imrtiesthat ko doubt, or diversely tuke any tlilii<;, hIiuII alway resort to the Bishop of tlio DioceHe« who by liis discretion Hhall take order for tlic quieting and appoa8in«; of llic sanio; ko that the H^uno order bo not contrary to anything contained in tiiia Book." The discrctionar>' power liere given, docs not ai)ply to the uiso before us. The Itector and the congregation arc not in doubt al)out the illegality of the introduction of a J'astoral Stall', and they have not referred the mutter to the dccif:M)n of the Bisliop, and even if tbcy liad any order made by him in support of its use, must be in opposition to the order of the i'raycr Book as shown in the fcr.n of consecrating Biishops where no such stall is used. 3. My next aullioriiyis the Jd Kevised Book of Eklward Vl., contrasted with the 1st Book passed iu the second year of his reign. In the 1st Book, 1.")19, certain notes were api>ended at the end for the more plain explication and decent ministration of things contained in this Book, one of which was:— ''And wlicnsoever the Bishop shall celebrate the holy commnnion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, be shall have upon him, beside his rochett«, a surplice or alb, and a cope or vestmciit, and also his Pastoral Staff in his hand, or else Ijorne or holden by his chaplain." ' But iu the 2d or llevised Book, 1552. a notice iu an altered form appears at the beginning of the Book after the Act of Uniformity whicb gave authority for its use, and is as follows: " And here is to bo noted, that the minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times iu his ministration, shall use neither alb, nor cope, but being Archbishop or Bishop, he shall w^ar a rochet, and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and weir a surplice only." In this alteitli,willioiic; uKcnitionoriulditionorcfi'taiiilrssoiiH to be used on every Sunday in tlic year, and (lie form of tlio Litany altered and coiTCctud, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the sacrament to the cominnnit;auls, and none other or otherwise." And tlic last clause in the act de- clares " that all laws, statutes and ordinances, wherein any other Bcrvico was established, sliall from henceforth be utterly void and of none elTect." Thus was the L'd Book of Edward restored and made legal, and the Ist Book repealed. 5. My next authority Is the universal practice of the chunrli from the passing of this act to the present time. Dr. Nicholl's, in his commentary on the Book of Common Prayer, published in the reign of (^uccn Anne, over 1(50 years ago, says: — " In the rubric of King Edward's second Common Prayer Book, confirmed likewise by act of Parliament, the cope and pastoral staff are omitted, and therefore were not used by the Bishops, either since the Restoration or all along Queen Elizabeth's tline, that I can ilud." Bishop Burnett, in his History of the lleformation, says: — ♦' On tho 17th ot December, Parker was consecrated in the chapel of Lambeth, by Barlow, Scory, Coverdalc and Ilodgkins, according to tho Book of ordinations mode in King Edward's time; only the ceremony of putting the staff in his hands was loft out of the office in this reign,' and Robertson, as quoted by Blakency, says, " That no Bishop since the days of (^ueen Mary, has used a pastoral staff." And wo know that, until the last few years, no Bishop of the Church of England has even assumed any such badge of his office, or used it in the minis- tration of the church ; and that from the lime of the restoration of the 2d Book ot Edward, to the last revision in the time of Chailcs '2d, down to the present day, uo Bishop has received any such emblem when consecrated to his high and holy office. C. My next authority is the 11th Canon, which says: " All ministers, likewise, shall observe the orders, rites and cere- monies, prescribed in the Book of Common Priiyer, as well in reading tho Holy Scriptures, and saying of prayers, or in administration of the sacraments, without cither diminishing in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, o r adding anything in iha matter or form thereof." If then notlung is to be added to citlicr the matter or form, as prescribed by tho I*rayor Book, where is tho authority of a Canon (as errouo- \ oiifliy allojjniith Canon requires every one about to bo received into tho ministry to declare " that ihe Rook of Common Prayer, and of ordering of RishopB, Priests and Deacons, contairieth in it nothing con- trary to the word of Cod, and that it may lawfully so bo used; and that ho himself will use tho form in the said Rook pro- scribed, in public prayer, and administration of the sacra- ments, and none other." . , >. r ■ r r Tills Rook of Common Prayer, which all ministers have agreed to conform to, and to uge, gives no authority in any form or ceremony therein, for a JJishop either to use a pastoral stair, or to force it upon a reluctant people. 8. My last authority is taken from certain judgMcnts delivered by competent authority in matters connected with tho observ- ance of the rites and ceremonies of tho Prayer Rook, and tho intorpretation of the '' ornaments rubric." Lord Cairns in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council, in the case of Martin v. Mackonachie, says, "Tho object of a statute of uniformity is as its preamble expresses, to produce 'an universal agreement in the public worship of Almighty God,' an object which would be wholly frustrated if each minister on his own view of the relative imjiortancc of the details of the service, were to be at liberty to omit, to add to, or to alter any of these details." Tho rule upon the subject has already been laid down by tho Judicial Committee in AVesterton v. Liddcll, and their Lord- ships are disposed to adhere to it. " In the performance of tho services, "ites and coremouies, ordered by the Prayer Book, tho directions contained in it must be strictly observed, no omission and no addition can be permitted." If then ministers are not to add anything to a ceremony but what is prescribed, in order that there may ho an uniform- ity in public worship, and the manner of conducting the ser- vices of tho Church, surely Bishops, who are ministers also, thoughof a higher order, are not above the law, and are not . at liberty to add anything to the ceremonies of tlie Cliurch, ' and thus produce irregularity in place of uniformity, and dis- I order in place of order. ' j .. '. ! j Again, he says : " The Prayer Book in its preface, divides all ceremonies into two classes : those which are retained are I specified, whereas none are abolished specifically or by name, but it is assumed that all arc abolished which are not expressly retained." According to this rule there being no express direction in the form of consecrating Bishops for handing a I pastoral staff to the newly elected Bishop — such a ceremony is j abolished, and there is no authority for its use. The giving of a staff is not expressly retained^ and thei'qfpre it is abolished. ./: '".."" ■ '-' - ' "- /..-.„. Similar is the judgment of Dr. Phillpols, late Bishop of Exeter, an eminent ecclesiastical jurist. He rebuked one of his clergy for erecting a cross on the communion table, and declared it to be illegpal and inappropriate. On its illegality f he says:— " ' " " ' " " ' ■ • '■ ' '*" •""^' '"^ I . "Now, would it be lawful for any persons whomsoever, even for those officers to whose care the ornaments of the Church are especially committed ; would it be lawful for them * to deck the Lord's table, in preparation for the Holy Com- munion, with vases containing flowers, and with a cross placed on the table for the occasion? Certainly not; unless there be an express or implied direction so to do. It is not enough that tlhere he no express prohibition. The very nature of the case, the general requisition of uniformity, and the positive enact- ment * that no form or order of common prayer, administration of sacraments, rites or ceremonies, shall be openly used, other tlian what is prescribed and appointed to be used,' all alike lead to the same conclusion that it is not lawful for any person whomsoever, to introduce novel ornaments at his own discre- tion. In truth, where would the claims of such discretion end? If one person may, at his pleasure, decorate the Lord's table with a cross, another may equally claim to set a crucifix upon it, whilst a third may think it necessary to erect some symbol of Puritan doctrine or feeling to mark his reprobation of his Romanizing neighbor." According to this sound rule of interpretation, as to what ought to be admitted into the ceremonies of the Church, where would the claims of discretion end? If one Bishop may, at his pleasure, cause an unauthorized staff to be carried before him, another may order a cross to be borne, another may order sundry banners with Iceys, and mitre, and various pictures to I 1)0 carried In procession, or whcro wonld thero bo any uni- formity if reremoiiieK wera to bo allowod, for which there is no express or implied direction ? In a judgment given by Lord Ilatheiiy, on the Vcstmentg question, and the true interpretation ol the ornaments rubric, IIel)bert r. Purcha?, he says: — "The provisions of the rubric of Edward (Uh, are continued so far as they arc not contrariont to other provisions still in force. And here is to be observed again that the rubric was altered after refusal to listen to the Paritan objectors to a form different to that of any former rubric by introducing the word retained. Both in the statute of Elizabeth and the rubric in question, the word retain seems to mean that things should remain as they were at the time of the enactment, chasuble, alb, and tnniclc had disappeared for more than sixty years, and it has been argued fairly that this word would not have force to bring back anything that had disappeared more than a genera- tion ago. To retain means, in common parlance, to continue something now in existence. It is reasonable to presume that the alteration was not made without some purpose, and it appears to their Lordships that the words of the rubric strictly construed, would not suffice to revive ornamonls which had been lawfully set aside, although they were In use in the socond )^oar of Edward Gth. .. ' .v i ; ' I i : u irjii It is quite true that neither contrary practice nor disuse can repeal the positive enactment of a statute, but contemporane- ous and continuous usage (is of the greatest efficacy in law for determining the true construction of obscurely framed docu- ments. In the case of the Bristol charities, Lord El Jon ob- serves: * Length of time (though it must be admitted that the charity is not barred by it) is a very material consideration when the question is, what is the efl'ect and true construction of the instrument?' Is it according to the practice and enjoy- ment which has continued for more than two centuries, or has that praoticc and enjoyment been a broach of trust? We may ask in like manner, what is the true construction of the Act of 1662, and of the rubric which it sanctioned? Is it according to the practice of two centuries, or was the i)ractiGe a continual breach of the law commanded and enforced by the Bishops, including those very Bishops who aided in framing the Act?" That the continued practice was not a breach of the law, tlieir Lordships decided by c.ondomning certain vostments and declaring that they were illegal, though in use at tlie time of the 1st Book of Edward, fjrj j.li;t>fnf:n*i Ik After the reading of these authorities, and some re- marks made thereon by different speakers, the following resolutions were adopted : — ; . • *■' ^' Ist. That Ibis meeting having heard read the letter from the Bishop of Nova Scotia to the Church Wardens, and the state- ments made by the Rector and Church Warden in explanation • of their action, and the anthoritics submitted by the Rector in support of the course pursued by him on the morning of Tues- ' day, 29th August, us well as the opinion now expressed by the different members ot the congregation, are of opinion that ' the Rector and Church Warden wore fully justified in tho course they piirsned, and are entitled to the thanks oi this congregation for their llrui and decided action on that occasion, ill thnK x^rcvcnting his Lordship from introducing noveltJcij into the ceremonies of the Churclj, whiclj, once allowed, might lead to other innovations that would he detrimental to the vital interests of the Church, and tlie preservation of her legal rights and j^rivilegea. There heing, as we conceive, no legal authorit}' for his Lordship to introduce any novelties into tlie services of the Church in this Island, suhjcct as it is by statute (43 Geo. Ill, cap. vi) to the orders and constitutions of the Church of England, and the laws there established. ,, ,, 2d. That this congregation has heard with regret the deter- mination of their Bishop, expressed in his Lordship's letter to the Church Wardens, to the effect that he will not again enter St. Paul's Church. But thoy cannot admit that ftny conduct of their Rector, or their Church Warden, as explained by them, has affoi'dcd any sufficient grounds for such determination. .., A copy of the foregoing Resolutions, with the Rector's statement, having been forwarded to his Lordship, the following reply was received : — • 'J'* "• i'-jAH-rui ion ' V:i^ ;, : ■ '::". ■ ' ':', ■ ■ ' Halifax, October 16, 1872. t)EAn SrRS : — I have to acknowledge your copy of proceed- ings of a meeting held on the 12th ult., to take into considera- tion ray letter of August 29th, addressed to you as Church Wardens of St. Paul's. '■y- I cannot admit that proofs of the illegality of the use of the Pastoral Stafl", if such proof oould have been adduoed, would have justified yeur Rector in the course pursued by him, since he has not been constituted a judge of the legality or propriety of his Bishop's ministrations under any circumstances, least of all could it be so, with respect to a service, with which neither he nor his congregation were at all concerned. He was merely requested to allow his Church to be opened, (at a time when it was not required for any other purpose,) for the solemniza- tion of a Marriage, by the Bishop ; a retated ; and probably most persons would bo sur- l)riged to Icurn, that, instead of the black satin now commonly used, this originally comprised a robo of scarlet cloth, which is still worn by the Bishojjs at the meetings of Convocation. Again, there is no order for the addition of a long train to tlie Arcbbi:«liop's robe ; and, nevertheless, he has one suppotted by train beaicrs on great occasions. Mr. FitztjJerald relies much upon the judgment in tho Pnrchas case, but il does not appear to me to have any bearing upon the pastoral stall ; for that judgment was not, as he supposes, based upon tho word " retained,''^ so much as upon the canon which, having expressly ordered the surplice by implication, disallowed the other vestments. But there is no trace of any similar disallowance of the staff; and, in fact, it appears never to have fallen altogether into disuse. It would rather appear lo be one of the " ornaments," of which, like the cope, tho use had been neglected, but was still according to law. That it was retained up to a lato date, by some of tho Bishops, is certain, notwithstaudijig the authorities quoted by Mr. Fitz- 14 Gerald; lor the staves of two Ui»liops of VViiuhcstcr, who died repcclivcly in 170ii and 1721, arc preserved in tliat (^atlie- dral. Tho sfafl has been used in the nci- resists the entrance into the Church of his Bishop, preceded by - the most fitting and appropriate insignia of his pastoral office 1 1 15 Having carefully road the statcmoiit, ami the resolutions passed hv the mcctiiij^, I must also express my surprise ut the confidence, with which such an assembly decided, after merely hearing' a slutement, without further investiijation, that the conunon practice of so many ot the chief rulers of the church is ille«(al. 1 should have expected the legal gentlemen, at all events, to be a little more cautious, in giving an opinion, in a case ot the merits of which some of them must have been entirely ignorant. Theso resolutions, however, more than justify the determination exprc?>'>'t.' I have ffrieved over the ilulnoss and apathy, whii h aro diir- inj^ the youn«? pooplo away from you, and tho decay of all carnestnoss and devotion, which ninst bo cxpocto I nndor the ministry of your present Kcctor, wlio, hinnolf disinclined to lalmr, is embittered by the contra^tt of tho enerijy and solf- Hacridce of others, and wonld hkc to have all mini«itrations as lifeless and nnattractivc as his own. And now. to my j^roat sorrow, it appears that my foars have boon only too well founded, and that the evil inllnences have at lonwth so tar pre- vailed that my good opinion of you must bo abandoned, since I can no longer look to you as upholder^ of the order and dis- cipline of the Church of England, derived from tlie Holy 8 My Dear Biietiiukn: — While having every due respect for the ofTicc of a Bishop, and with every desire to render unto our chief Pastor true canonical obedience, witli full submission to all his just rights and dignities, I do not, think I would be jus- tified, having due regard to the maintcn:ince of my own rights, and the preservation of your libortios, were I to admit an illegal and confiscated emblem of authority into onr church; nor do I conceive I would be acting with justice towards you, who have confirmed the action already taken in resisting tho use of this staff, were I to allow his Lordship's second letter to remain unnoticed, as silence might b3 taken as an admission ;M .c 17 that liis arguments woro nnanflwcral)lc, and that wo had no reply ^o mako." ' ■ i i>;i vm* -' ,.,,-..•,- i,.;.., .... Hi^ Lordship oommcnoes by myhv^ that, inasmuch as a spe' 'al licen.sc was prepared, and addressed to him, ho alono becamo rcaponsiblc for tho procccdin«,'s under it, and was not bound to recognize the presence of any members of tlic con- gregation outside of the bridal party. IJut his Lordship seems to forgot that the use of the church was given on tho express condition that the marriage ceremony was to be performed as it had been done by himself on a former occasion, and no special license could have given him authority to set aside these conditions, or sanction the Introduction of innovations into the ceremonial of the church which were opposed to the wishes of the Itoctor, and abhorrent to the feelings, not only of tho general congregation, but of tho largo majority of those who composed the bridal party. He then says, that tho non-delivery of the stall at the time of the consecration of the Bishop, does not show that it is illegal to use it, inasmuch as the non-delivery of the chalice at the time of the ordination of Priests, docs not prevent them using it in tho administration of tho Lord's Supper. To this it may be rei)liod, that the minister uses the' chalice in his ministrations, not because in former timos ho received a chalice at his ordination, which ceremony was afterwards omitted but, because, on tho administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, he is directed by tho rubric in the Communion service " to use it," and *' to deliver it to the people." And, in passing, we may notice that there seems to have been good reason why the ceremony of delivering a chalice to tho priest, at his ordination, was omitted. In the 1st Book of Edward Vl., in the form of ordering Priests, wo find the following rubric: "The Bishop shall deliver to every one of them tho Bible in tho one hand, and the chalice, or cup, with the bread in tlic other hand, and say : Take thou authority to preach tho Word of God, and to min- ister the Holy Sacraments in this congregation." But in tho 2d Book of Edward this rubric was altered, leaving out the giving of the chs lice, and runs thus: "Tho Bishop shall deliver to every one of them tho Bible in his hand, saying: Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minisLor tho Holy Sacramonts in this congrega- tion, whore thou shall bo so appointed." ' In tho last revision of the Prayer Book, as we now have it, there is no authority to deliver tho chalice with the bread to 18 Uic priofit at his ordination, though ho is directed In the com- mon scrvico toufle the chalice in (ho miuistrution of the sacra- ment. Tl:c quoBtion is, why wiis the »lclivery of Uic chalice jit ordiimtiuu uniitled? bucuiiso it can bo niiown tluit therein uo trace ot such a ceremony iu any Ititual for 1000 years after Christ, and this novelty is uduaittod by the Mayuooth Text liook. The Council of Floronuo declared that tlie matter or visible sign of Priesthood, was the delivery of a chalice with wine in it, but our church which rejected the notion of sacrilicing Priests, and regarded lior ministers as dis|>cnsers of the word and sacraments, wisely rejected a Itomish ceremony in their form of consecration, and would not iiave any cere- monial which would lead the i)ooplo to imagine that minijterg when administering the bread and wine were tlie oticrers of any sacrifice. He charges mc, when using a broad scarf, with wearing an oruiuuent in violation of the law — and with habitually violat- ing the law by going into the imlpit in a black gown, which, says he, is without the shadow of authority. Wiih regard to wearing a scarf over the suri)lice, there is good reason to believe that the scart is really the tippet referred to in the 74th canon, wherein graduates are directed to wear gowns ** with hoods, or tippets ot silk or saicenet." The disjunctive dis- tinguishes the tippet from tltb hood. The oHth canon directs: ** Nevertheless it shall be lawful for such ministei-s as are not graduates, to wear ui)on their surplices instead ot hoods some decent tippets of black, so it bo not silk." It is very clear that the tippet is not a hood. Blslioi) Montagu enquires : — " Doth your minister officiate in the habit of his order, with a surplice, an hood, a gown and a tippet"? The tippet is here added to the liood. The canon does not authorize the wearing of any hoods by non-graduates. Archbishop Grindal calls it a kind ot stole over the neck, hanging from either shoulder, and falling down almost to the heels; which he would not thus designate if it were the stole which he had himself forbidden. Bishop Jebb says that the scarf is to this day in Ireland designated the tippet. There is no reason to doubt the identity of the scarf and tippet, The stole was discarded by the Reformers. The scarf has been used at home as tar back as I have any recollection, and by the oldest ministers of our church, who, doubtless, used it after the example and |)ra(;tice of their predecessors. The use of the scarf diipends on the custom ot t ho place, and ancient pi ivilege. . i 19 In the University it id a mark nl'a doctor's df^steo in nndroRS wheu lie weal's an U.A. gown. If, in holy orders, he wears it over liiH surplice among the clergy, it is the distinction ot a uoblcinan's, or other person's, chaplain. And in parish churches, it follows the custom of the place, depending on the patron, and in general, on manorial rights. Originally it was oi the color of the patron's livery, the incumbent being the patron's chaplain ; for uniformity sake the color was reduced to black, and the patron's mark was lost sight of. So, at funerals, the mourners offer a scarf with mourning colors to the olQciatiug minister. Acting for them in that service, it represents personal dignities, as does the order and collar of the garter over the surplice. The custom and privilege of the place is known by the local usage and precedents of continuous observance, often immemorial and legal in usage thereby. At home it has been the custom to wear a scarf; here [ found it to be also used, and I know no reason why I should now dis- card it, and look upon it as an unlawful ornament. AVith regard to the use of the black gown, alleged by the Bishop to be also illegal, and without the shadow ol authority, the fol- lowing are some of the reasons why I use this dress in the pulpit, and consider it to be perfectly legal, and supported by good authority. The nibrics of the first Book of Edward VI., though giving precise directions as to the use of various vestments in the different services, gives none as to the preacher. The only reference to the point in the first book, is found in the rubric relating to vestments, which is as follows: — " In the saying or singing of matins and evensong, baptiz- ing and burying, the minister in parish churches shall use a surplice. And in all Cathedral churches, &c., the Archdeacon, &c., being graduates, may use iu the (piire besides their sur- plices, su ' hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees, &c. But in all other places every minister shall be at liberty to use any suri)licc or no. It is aho seemly that graduates, vhen they do preach, should tise stick hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees.'' Here it is not said that when they do preach they shall use " beside their surplices " their hoods, an omis- sion which Archdeacon Harrison says " is very remarkable when contrasted with the precise direction given as to the surplice in the other cases, and compared with the clause with which it is associated, relating to its non use." lie further shows that wheu the first book was compiled, preaching was a rai'o occurence unconnected with the ordinary ministrations 20 of IliP i»riosl, uimI says: "The olU<«? of llio prcnchor wns iticntilad rallior with tlm ordinary nie in his proper habit, ho would the i)r('achor in his university habit, or ^'own, with IiIh hood, both alike buinj^ part «'f lii.-> own proper drc»s, und therelbro not provided by the itarlih"? '• it was the custom,' says Dr. Ulukoney, *' before the liel'orination, for the preacher to appear in his ordinary attire, and our Ueformers made no alteration in this, merely directing' in the lir.it book tliat it was ' seemly that j;iaduates when they dd preach should use suoh hoods as por- taineilj to their several ilejjices,' a direction, which evidently imi)li(s that the cope, thcii used in the communion service, was not the pulpit dress, fur who would think of putting a liood over either ve^tmenl or coi)e, richly embroiilered as they were." That the gown has been always recognized as the garb of the preacher, is evident from the following authorities. In li")OL', propositions for ecclesiastical reform were made to con- vocation. Amongst which were the following: — "That (he use of copes and surplices may be taken away, so that all ministers in their ministry use a grave, comely and side garment, as coinmonly Ihcy do in preaching." The latter l»art ot this passage sbows plainly that the surplice was not the garb of the preacher. Amongst the canons of lo7I, we tind the following: "In l)reaching they shall use a very modest and grave garment, which may become and adorn the minister of God, and such as is prescribed in the book of advertisements." The reference to the b(»ok of Advertisements relates evidently to the oixlinary apparel of the minister there described. The general practice of the Church at that early period is very clear from these documents; and if further evidence were needed, it is found in the fai^t that the I'uritans ridiculed not only the change of dress, but the gown itself. Strype informs us that about the year loG-"), a book was published under the title of '* A Plea- sant Dialogue between a soldier of lierwick and an English Chaplain," in which the Puritan author ridicules the change of dress: " Now black, now white, now in silk and gold, and now at length in this swonping black gown, and this sarcenet ilaunling tii)pct," in alhi-ion to the ordinary dress, the surplice, the cope worn in Cathedrals, the preaching gown and tippet. 21 •' Tliid lostiniony," says Ilanii^on, " floems concliisiyo as to tlie chuiigo ot (IrosH." Aocoidinjily, wo lliid that Mr. Win. Day, ut the o])cniii^ ot the Convocation ol' 1062, which OKtublished tlio >iU Articles, pruuclictl in 81. I'ttul's, not in the surplice^ bnt in his liabit, as liucliclor of Theology. Anil ho it continued even in HnbHequont reigns. Charles I. scat instructiouH to the ArciibiHhf jjs of Canterbury and York, directing that— '* Whoro a lecture Ih sot up in a market town, it may bo road by a com- pany of grave and orthodox divines near adjoining, and in the same diocose, and thai tlceyjireach in yowna, and not in clonks, as too many do use." Archbishop Laud, in his Motropolitlcal Injunctljns of 1035, inquired: — " ^ 'heihor have you any lecturer in your parish who hath preached in his cloak and not in his yoion.^* The works of the Dean of Caniorbury were published in 1022, dedicated to James I-, in which, amongst some medal- lions, is one representing tho clergyman in tlio pulpit in the fall sleeved {/own, and weariuj^ his hood. The surplice is directed to bo used in tho pulpit in Cathedrals according to tlic I'.'ith canon, and it may bo shown that it was in some instances used in other churches, but these are ex- ceptions to the general rule. Cripps gives tho law of the case as follows: — ♦* As to tho use of the surplice as a proper habit for the preacher, it never appears to have been even contemplated cither by tho canon or statute law, the directions of which appear so plainly to indicate tho ditlcrent times at which the surplice is to be used, that it is nob easy to imagine in what manner an opinion could have prevailed, that its use had ever been considered proper in the pulpit.'' The practice of preaching in the gown is regulated by cus- tom. It was recognized by the Canons of 1571, and by tho articles of Episcopal Visitations. It was continued in the days of tho lleforraation, and from that time to tho present, and has ever been tho dress ol tho preacher except in Cathedrals, whose laws are peculiar, and yet tho Bishop says that preaching in the gown is without the shadow of authority. The proof is rather the other way. Tliero is no shadow of authority for preaching in the surplice in parish churches, or for tho rejec- tion of the gown. Uis Lordship is then pleased to say that I was defiant and insolent both in manner and language. This 1 most emphati- cally deny, and I appeal to the Church Warden, who was pre- 22 sent, if siicli was the case. There was neither insult nor dictation intended in wliat 1 said or did, nor for one nionicnt oilorcd. I simply refused to admit an unauthorized emblem of authority into our Church, which had not been in use in the ceremonies of our Church for hundreds of years, and was known to be distasteful, if not abhorrent, to the feelings and wishes of thj congregation. I do not conceive that the just maintenance of individual rights should be construed as de- fiant and insolent, least of all the action of an incumbent, when defending his own undoubted rights, and protecting the rights and privileges of the congregation committed to his care. On the contrary, I should say that the minister who would (juiotly allow innovations of a dangerous character to be brought into his Church, or see the rights and privileges of his people in- vaded, without resistance, or sutler his flock to be distracted or torn asunder by the introduction of illegal and unauthorized ceremonies and ritualistic observances through fear of being supposed to h ",ve acted in an unbecoming maimer, would be guilty of betraying his trust, and be unworthy of his position. The Bishop iurther says, that if at any time a Bishop should act illegally, let tlie case be referred to the Archbishop, or let legal proceedings be taken against him. I have no objection whatever that his Lordship should refer the matter to the Archbishop, and tell him that I refused to admit an author- ized staff into our Cliurch. But it is unreasonable, as veil as impiacticable, to expect a Tlectoror a congregation to pr >mote a soit of discovery to find out the legality of unaccustomed observances. If we have acted illegally, let the Bishop show that we have done so. It is enough for us to know that the introduction of a staff, after 300 years of contimious disuse, is an innovation, and an innovation always carries a presumption ot illegality. It is for the Bishop to show the legality, or get these inno- vating staves decreed by lawful authority, and their legality cannot be shown by quoting the acts of other innovating Bishops, or presentations by a Ilomani/.ing party in the Cliurch, nor by special pleadings on a suppresj^cd book and former rubrics. lie says that the stalfis an appropriate emblem of his office, and that it was presented to him 1)y a large body ot his clergy. Now, there is no such emblem of the Bishop's office, in use in the ministrations of the llcformed Church of England, as shown in her Prayer Book. In truth, it is an emblem of power, (long since happily done away), and as such cannot 23 come except from the Crown, for tho inferior clergy cannot jpve an iiuthority which never lay in them. So that under the plea of receiving a stalf from the clergy of a Diocese which is governed by a Synod, and not by the laws of tho established Church, the liishop in reality usurps tho functions of the Crown, and seeks, under the threat of excommunication, to force a conliscatcd and unauthorized emblem upon us, who are a separate and independent Colony, and are governed by the rules and constitutions of the Church of England, as by law established. Continuous cnstoni, usage and precedent are on our side, and these tbrm proofs presumptive in favor of or against a doubtful act. Uesidcs, we have an Act of Parliament on the specific subject and orders in Council, as to tfie disposal of the pastoral stall' being one of those ornaments which the Crown abolished, and ordered to be destroyed. Edward VI. and his Council appointed Commissioners in the spring of the year 1553, who were directed to go through- out England and visit the several Cathedrals and parish churches, and after reserving for every Church one chalice or cup, with table cloths for the Communion board, to take pos- session of all remaining church goods — that is to say, jewels of gold and silver, crosses, candlesticks, censers, chalices, and all other such like, with their ready money, and deliver them to the master of the King's Jewels in the Tower of Loiulon, — and to deliver all copes and vestments of cloth of gold, cloth of tissue and silver, to the master of the King's Wardrobe in London; and to sell all other copes and vestments and orna- ments, and to deliver tho money to the King's Treasurer. All this was done — staves were confiscated, crosses were sent into the Treasury, melted down and destroyed, as appear by the Chronicle. The fact that the " staff" at St. Paul's Cathedral was not destroyed, and that the staves of two Bishops of Winchester, who died respectively in 17()() and 1721, (as alluded to by the Bishop ot Nova Scotia) are preserved in that Cathedral, is, however, by no means a proof that the stalf is a legal orna- ment, and may be used in any or every Church, for in tho case of St. Paul's Cathedral, tho staff was allowed there by special privilege, as (he Dean and Chapter requested the Com- missioners who had authority to destroy it, to allow it to re- main; and with respect to Winchester, here also it may have been allowed by special privilege. Ou the Bishop's own showing, the staff is a novelty un- 24 known to the Reformed Church, and without usage or prece- dent, for he sites two separate and discontinuous cases in only one Diocese of England, and that Diocese pretending to ex- ceptional and feudal privileges, as having been once a royal residence, and even in this case, two only out of the entire body of Bishops, who successively ruled in this Diocese, can be found who violated the law, and were the bearers of this relic of the dark ages, emblem of medieval pomp, and badge of temporal power. Surely two isolated cases cannot create usage, or be quoted as a precedent, and it was only last year that the Bishop of Hereford, in accepting a staff presented to him, expressly stated that he would not introduce it into any Church where the incumbent objected to it. This promise on the Bishop's part appears to have followed and llowed out from our refusal, and so far fortifies us in its continuance, for if lawful no Bishop ,vould surrender his right, nor could a right to object be acknowledged. The Bishop also speaks of Episcopal vestments. The term vestment is not now used for the apparel of either Bishops or Clergy. The Bishop's dress consists of two parts, the " rochet," or surplice of lawn, with- out sleeves, and " the rest of the P]piscopaI habit." or the outer garment of black satin to which the lawn sleeves are attached, called the Chimere. This style of dress has been in continuous use since the 6th of Edward VJ. Dr. Blakeney says that in the reign of Elizabeth it was changed from scarlet to black, owing to the objections of Bishop Hooper. This was by an order in Council, the Crown ordering all official habits in the realm, and checking them by presentation at Court. In lo52, we find Bishop Ridley, of London, when the New service book of Edward was introduced, i)reacliing at St. Taul's, in his rochet only, without cope or stafi". The Chronicle of that year thus reads : "The 1st of November being the Feast of all Saints, the new service book called of Common Prayer, began in St. Paul's Church, and the like through the whole city; the Bishop of London, Dr. Ridley, executing the service in his rochet only, without cope or vestment * * * By this Book of Common Prayer, all copes and vestments were forbidden through England, and the prebends of St. Paul's left oil' their hoods, the Bishops their crosses, &c., as by an Act of Parliament at large is set out " Hero the cr jss or orozier disappears, and under the *" &c ," the Chronicle includes all other disappearing emblems, as tho staff, the pall, the ling, and the mitre, formerly borne on every occasion, If I understand aright, his Lordships rtMuarks, about tho 25 nature of the dress which Bishops may weai*, it would appear they may still use the scarlet robe, which was discardo.l as an Episcopal habit, by order of Council, but is this the case 't The robe the Bishop speaks of is the University robe of a D.D., and not the Episcopal habit, and the Bishops sit as Doctors iu Convocation jast as they vote in their Doctor's gown, tho proctors refusing' to accept their votes in Episcopal robcc, black and lawn. ■ The Archbishop's train is part of his Episcopal habit, in fact the habit prolonged, the rubric not troubling to define the cut, or length, or fashion of the habit or gowii. The Bishop brings forward the practice of the Bishops of Frederictou and Newfoundland — as well as that of some of the Bishops at home, within the last few years, and iu the Colonies, in support of his use of the staff. But the example of some contemporary Bishops, either at home or abroad, cannot be quoted as an authority; their act forms no precedent of usage, and the legality is 5'et to be discovered. For, like all ministers of the Church, the Bishops are bound by the declared la\^ of the Church and realm, and can no more revive suppressed observances or ceremonial at their own will or judgment of expediency, than their clergy can revive vest- ments, banners, processions, or practices long since annulled, and recently declared illegal. ■ The Bishop tells us that *^ a great principle is at stake," but TV^hat it is for which he seeks to force his staff upon us, he has not condescended to explain. It is better to wait for this information, for the staff in itself is the emblem of jurisdictions that have carried with them to many churches of old, and very many lowly members of Christ, sorrow and tribulaiiou in this world. It remaitls to be seen whether it bad not been better for the sake of truth and peace, that the Bishops had rebuked rather than accepted these unaccustomed, and, as it now appears, suppressed, forbidden, and confiscated emblems. I Onr refusal 10 admit the staff is not unwarranted nor with- out sufficient grounds. Tlie uee leads to superstitious ideas, for the plea of ''The llitual Touch " is already put forward as attaching to these staves, as if he hand of the Bishop, or at least, his Chaplain, a magic ^ cached, and a virtue passed by them from the Bishop's banu, so that without this magic wand his ceremonial act was incomplete; whereas, our Church has BKide the investiture of a Bishop complete in his habit and his c/tair, and hasejccluded all other emblems what- 2<; ever. Omission is the silent condemnation and rejection of customs, forms, and rites before allowed. Not only are these magical virtues and superstitious pre- tences put forward and openly ascribed, but the staff exhibits pretensions to a jurisdiction incompatible with the Supremacy ves»cd in the Crown ; and threatens a repetition of the previous coiitem ions between the Temporal and the Spiritual Powers. These are deep questions, but the withdrawal of the Royal Mandate and the Letters Patent, throws on the laity the neces- sity of protecting themselves from the encroachments of the spiritual power, as fidelity to the Crown obliges to a refusal of the emblems, that were confiscated for the very reason that they challenged the Royal supremacy. As the Black Gown and surplice opened tlie whole trouble of late years, the pretensions of a Priesthood, and the Sacra- mental heresies, so in the staff lies ye hid times of conflict between the spiritual and the temporal powers — the usurpation of a Priesthood, and the erection of an attempted universal Theocracy, to the overthrow of the liberties of every congrega- tion — for are not the Colonial Bishops, who have got rid of the Royal Mandate, and the Letters Patent, under which the lay lights were lod ged in and protected by the Crown, now crying out for powers to enforce their jurisdiction, and the jurisdic- tion is represented by the Pastoral Staff and the Archiepiecopal Cross. Hence the solemn duty on our part, not merely of a protest, but of active resistance, unless we value not our liberties, and are unmindful of our rights.. An idle, formal protest, while at the same time we allowed the objected emblem, such as some have supposed would have been sufficient to protect our rights, and such as the Bishop proposed, would not have protected our Church from its in- trusion, but would have led to the introduction of other novel- ties, and illegal observances, which would have tended to break lip the Church, and scatter its members to the winds. ' . Every additional enquiry fortifies me in the position which we originally took up, and justifies us in still continuing our refusal to admit any such emblem into our Church. His Lordship relies much on the " ornaments rubric" as his authority for using the staff, but this rubric is unquestionably restrained by the limitations contained in that of the second Book of Edward VL, and as Lord Hatherley has shown, con- tained in the word " retained," else a former book superseded by a later act, and a later book, would over-ride the subsequent 27 enactment, but it is needless to repeat this argument on this part of tlie question, as I have fully entered into it in my first reply. He further says that there is no trace of any disallow- ance of the use of the staff, that it was one of those ornaments which like the cope had fallen into neglect, but was still according to law. This I do not conceive to be the case, for the staff was not only left out of the ceremonial, in the form of consecrating Bishops, as prescribed by law, but it was actually confiscated by the Crown, destroyed by the Commissioners appointed by the King and Council, and has never since been restored to the use of the Church, nor even used, with the exception of a few isolated cases, by any of the Bishops from 1552 to the present time. Staff not disallowed, says the Bishop, when it was actually confiscated and destroyed ! ! He speaks also of its being something worse than anarchy for the priest to dictate to his Bishop what ornaments he shall use on any given occasion, but the charge of rousing dangers and anarchy rests rather on the innovator than on those who stand on precedent and custom, observing the Nicene injunc- tion, " to suffer only ancient customs, refusing all innovations." The introduction of an unauthorized and confiscated stafi, the emblem of sacerdotal pomp into the ceremonial of our Reformed and Protestant Church, is unquestionably an inno- vation no matter by whom introduced, and such an innovation cannot be covered by pretences of '^ improvement," '* higher devotion," greater •'life and heartiness " for all rites, cere- monies and customs, have been fixed and settled lojug since by supreme authority, and when examined these pleas resolve themselves into forms of a more objective and sensuous cere- monial, approaching the ideal Laodicean Church of the last times, on which the Holy Ghost has affixed the stigma of being . gorgeous Church, increased with goods, in want of nothing, but Christ, The pretence of obtaining greater devotion by the introduc- tion of novelties, and the use of a gorgeous ceremonial appears, to be a slander against the faith and hope of our forefathers, who diecarded such things ; men of proved piety and zeal, who gave cviOence of the genuiness of their faith by their willing- ness to lay down their lives in its defence. The Bishop declares that he withdraws from us, not we from him ; we do not cease our communion with the saints of God for the matter of an earthly and superstitious bauble. Better far to have the good hand of the Lord oar God with us, . 28 tlie fellowfliip of his Spirit, and (lie synipathy and snjiport of every true-hearted and right-minded member of our Clinrch, than the usurped dominion of carnal elements and the super- stitious ofa"I'itual touch," by emblems of barbaric show against the cnef»fteliments of Parliament, and our fidelity lo the undivided Supremacy of the Crown. What his Lordship says about your having suflered much through the neglect and inefficiency of your ministers, their imperfect teaching and disinclination to labor, 1 shall not condescend to answer, leaving you lo judge whether such statements are true or not. Trusting that wo will all be found faithful in our allegiance to the Crown, and, above all, to the chief Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, and be ever ready to give a willing obedi- ence in all things lawful and honest, to those whom He may set over us iu spiritual things. I remain, dear brethren, your ever faithful Pastor. D. FitzGerald. After the reading of the foregoing, a vote of thankp was given to the Rector for his able explanation, and a copy of his reply was ordered to be forwarded to his Lordship, and thus the matter remains for the present. \ Public Arc!Mv:3 of Nova Scotia . HALIFAX, N. a- ol h, n- w 10 ;ll ir n ;h e d «