v»<
,v ^ oOi*
>r^%.
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
1.0
I.I
■28 I
-1^
E Hi ■
■u
2.S
2.2
1.8
IL25 i 1.4
Hiotographic
Sciences
Corporation
23 WEST MAIN STREET
WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580
(716) 872-4503
m
f\
iV
:\
\
^&v
Ij" ^ '%
«-
I/.
CIHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
rriicrofiches.
Canadian Institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.
D
D
n
D
D
Colcured covers/
Couverture de couleur
I I Covers damaged/
Couverture endommag6e
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e
I I Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque
I I Coloured maps/
Cartes gdographiques en couleur
Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)
I I 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/
Lareliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte.
mais. lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film^es.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires:
L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilSeur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.
D
D
D
D
D
Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur
Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes
Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es
Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes
Pages detached/
Pages ddtachdes
FT] Showthrough/
Transparence
Quality of print varies/
Quality in^gale de I'impression
Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire
Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponibie
The«
toth
Thei
possi
of th
filmii
Origi
begir
theli
sion.
othei
first I
sion,
or illi
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 filmdes d nouveau de fap on d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.
The I
shall
TINU
whici
Maps
differ
entire
begin
right
requi
meth
This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous.
10X
14X
18X
22X
26X
30X
V
12X
16X
20X
24X
28X
32X
ire
details
168 du
modifier
ler une
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 la
g6n6rositA de:
La bibliothdque des Archives
publiques du Canada
Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire fiimd, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
6es
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 imprim6e sont fiimds en commen^ant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniire page qui comporte une empreirte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmds 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"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
Un des symboles suivnnts apparaftra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ► signifie 'A SUIVRE ", le
symbols V signifie "FIN".
re
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
fiimds 6 des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 6 partir
de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la m6thode.
y errata
)d to
nt
ne peiure,
igon d
1 2 3
32X
1
2
3
4
5
6
' *
l^^^'v^*
MEIi
wV,
^«-^
,• ^-^ -^ «^*
sn
!<»«»» »»»»«»«y»»»j»»-»^»»<»»»»»»»»»»'»»«»«»<» »»»»»» »«»»^<»»
J
V
I
<>
REPLY
OF
V •*
%
V
%
WlLLIAMfMORRIS,
MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
OF UPPER CANADA,
TO .
SIX LETTERS,
ADDF^ESSED TO HIM
Bt
JOHN ST R A CHAN, D. D.,
rfSV
ARCHDEACON OF YCK|p'
4>
■■%y,.
>
TORONTO:
r«i!NTfin AT THE SCOTSMAN OFriQE, 34, NEWGATE STREET.
MDCCCXXXVIII.
f— ' i '
III ' - 1 r -
wiPd
LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
&L' —
A\U
MECHANICS' INSTITUTE.
(i/l4.
I3SrsTITXJTEr> 1823.
i\C(»i:pokatki> isot.
=^A
m
a
<?
y.
^ 7cy
REPLY
OF
L
.■^
^'
WILLIAM MORRIS,
MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,
TO
SIX LETTERS,
ADDRESSED TO HIM
BY
JOHN STRACHAN, D. D.,
ARCHDEACON OP VORR.
TORONTO:
PRINTED AT THE SCOTSMAN OFFICE, M, NEWGATE STREKT.
NDCCCXXXVIII.
l^bS-
ii
i i
t s
\ I
f
Perth, U. C, I3th December, 1837.
To the Hon. and Ven.
The Archdeacon of York.
Sip.,— To the politeness of the Rev'd Editor of the Church
I suppose I am indebted for Nos. 25 and 26 of that paper, which
reached me last night. In them I perceive numbers i and 2 of
a series of letters which you are addressing to me through the
medium of ihat journal, and this is briefly to say that when you
have completed the series, and when the enemies of our country
are subdued, you shall receive a reply from,
Sir,
Your obedient humble servant,
wm. morris.
Perth, Upper Canada, January, 1538.
To the Hon. and Yen.
The Archdeacon of York.
Sir,— I have neither time nor inclination to enter into a
minute investigation of all the charges which you have thought
proper to bring against me and those who deputed me to repre-
sent their claims with Her Majesty's Government, but shall
content myself with noticing the principal allegations contained
in the several letters which you have been pleased to address to
me in the columns of "The Church," published at Cobourg,and
also in the address to your Clergy of the 13th September last ;
and in doing so it will be my study to avoid t^^ use of language
calculated to awaken angry feelings, or bitter j;< •collections, and
thereby put it out of your power to complain that either the
violence of my manner or the wickedness of my motives are
unbecoming the solemnity of the subject connected with which
all these disputes have arisen. How far you were under the
influence of such a desire when you penned your recent address
to the Clergy of your Archdeaconry, and your letters to me, I
leave to the impartial and candid judgment of those who may
have read these documents.
The conclusion is irresistible, that if assertion is proof, the
reader of much you have written in support of the claim of the
Church of England to enjoy the whole oi the Clergy Reserves,
and in opposition to that of the Church of Scotland to a portion
thereof, must be of opinion that the clergy and members of the
Church of Scotland in the Provinces of Canada are unworthy of
the christian name, and have forfeited all right to be regarded as
possessing either honest or honorable principles, else it would be
wrong in you to say that we are "anxious for the destruction of
your church;' and attempt to "rob and plunder" her, that we
are " deplorably hypocritical," and under the influence of many
other evil motives and passions, which you have pourtrayed in
no very measured terms. If I, or those who think with me on
these conflicting claims, are indeed as " foolish," " absurd," and
" wicked" as you have described us to be, we need not complain
that you have not exercised christian charity in making up your
judgment on our proceedings; for besides being very "senseless,"
you say that we urge apprehensions without foundation, " and
which we do not believe to be true." It may create surprise that
the assertion of a claim to a national right, which you denounce
as absurd, senseless, and wicked, should, from the very first mo-
ment that it was preferred, find so many eminent members of the
English Church to give it countenance and support,— eminent
not only on account of their exalted character and rank in socie-
ty, but some ol them from their extensive legal acquirements,
and Parliamentary experience. Can they with propriety be
charged with lukewarm or other unbecoming feelings towards
the venerable establishment to which they belong 1 or is it at all
likely that their respect for the Church of Scotland, and their
sense of justice, could so bewilder their judgment that they would
violate the most sacred obligations as christians and men of honor,
and join in a deliberate act of "robbery" and " plunder"? where
the very possibility of private interest or local feeling is out of the
question !
:!i
i 1 1
Need I refer to the opinion of the three legal advisers of the
Crown in the year 18 191 — to Lord Grenville, who was a member
of the House of Commons when our Constitutional Act passed,
and who actually framed the bill 1— to the Earl of Haddington 1
— to the Earl of Harrowby's speech in the House of Lords on
the 26th June, 1828, when the petition of the Presbyterians of
Lower Canada was laid on the table ?; on which occasion His
Lordship remarked that he "would not have said a word upon
" tlie subject of the petition presented by the noble lord (Had-
•
the
** ilington) had not a reference been made to the opinion of Lord
*' Grenville ; but as sucli reference had been ninde, he felt hiin-
" self called upon to state, that he had repeated conversations
" with that noble lord (Grenville) upon the subject, and he
** (Lord Grenville) had not only expressed his opinion so, but
*' had requested him (the Earl of Harrowby) if any opportunity
" should offer, to state that both his own and Mr. Pitt's decision
" was, that t"he provisions oi the 31 Geo. 3 were not intended for
** the exclusive support of the Church of flngland, but for the
** maintenance of the clergy generally of the Protestant Church,"
In answer to this authority you may appeal to the Parliamentary
Register, and shew, that when the bill was first introduced, Mr.
Pitt did say that the reservation was intended for the support of
the clergy of the Church of England ; and to meet that ground,
I take the same record, to prove that that distinguished statesman
must have altered his views on the subject during the progress
of the bill, else he could not have suffered Mr. Dundas to remark
that "by the provisions of the bill, the clergy of the Church of
" Scotland would have better livings in Canada than they have
" in Scotland," without contradicting him. I have quoted Mr.
Dundas's observations from memory, but I think they will be
found, upon reference to the printed debates, to be circumstan-
tially correct. This view of the subject may account for the
" decision^* which Lord Grenville said he and Mr. Pitt had come
to. Surely it would be unreasonable to imagine that the Mar-
quis of Lanadowne would be guilty of robbing the Church of
England in this or any other part of the world. Hear, then, his
words on the same occasion ; I mean in the House of Lords in
June 1828. " The Marquis of Lansdowne said he did not feel
" anxious to prolong an mcidental discussion upon a subject of
*" such great importance, the moie particularly as a committee
*' of the other House were at that very time engaged in submit-
" ting the subject to the most accurate investigation, but he could
" not refrain from' ^Uplaring that he never could understand that
" wherever any act of Parliament named the Protestant clergy,
'* it named the Protestant Episcopal clergy. It should be re-
" membered that that was the Legislature ot England and Scot-
'• land, a perfect parity existing between the two. Scotland was
" not to be considered as a dependency from England, but as
** united with her upon the principle of Mr. Pitt— « upon the prin-
"ciple of the union between England and Ireland — upon the
«* principle of perfect union and perfect equality. It was not,
%
G
ij
**thorcforr, to be understood (hat the church ol' Hcotlaud was
"confined to Scotland ; and many years had not elapsed sinci!
** Colonies were ns much connected hy legislation with Hcotkuid
" and the Kirk of Scotland, as they were with Binj^land and the
** Church of England.
" It was determined that the Church of Scotland ought to be
" provided for in the East Indies, as well as the Church ol'Eng-
" land, and, in consequence, a corresponding establishment was
"given to that colony. lie contended that the presumption
*' was, that the act alluded to implied the Protestant Church at
" large, for he thought that reports were not lor a moment to be
" put in competition with the solemn declaration of the noble
" lord who had introduced that nicasure." Even Earl IJathurst,
who spoke next, and who contended that the church of England
should be first provided for, and "that any surplus might be de-
" voted to the use of the Presbyterian clergy," " agreed with the
" noble Marquis that the Protestant establishment was not exclu-
" sively contemplated by that act. He acknowledged in some
"degree the claim of the church of Scotland, according to the
"provisions of the 31 George 3d," and "admitted that the
** allotment of one seventh looked like an intention to make some
" provision for the church of Scotland also." Next in debate
followed Lord Goderich, who "thousfht the act of Parliament
*' contemplated a provision for the maintenance of another Pro-
" testant clergy besides the clergy of the church of England."
]• \
I
I admit that the Bishop of Chester took the same view of the
question that you do, and asserted that, "whenever Parliament
" speaks of a Protestant clergy, by that is always understood
" the Protestant Episcopal Clergy : the constitution lecognises no
" other, except in Scotland," and, he added, " that if any thing
were taken for the support ol the Presbvtman^^In^^roni
the Clergy Reserves, which had been apjfl^TOll! 1?5*fne Tflergy
" of the Church of England, it would be a spoliation." " The
" Earl of Haddington denied that it would be a spoliation to
" give the Presbyterian clergy a provision from the Clergy Re-
*' serves ;" and a similar denial on my part, in Upper Canada,
has frequently, since the year 1823, exposed me to unpleasant
attacks, both in the public prints and otherwise, and lately to
the application of epithets by you, which, if they could injure
me, cannot serve the cause you espouse. It may not be out of
It
<c
■
place, HOW, to notice the Bishop of Chester's explaniUion of
the piiiliurnentary language, " a Prolcslanl Clcrgy^^ and it is
impossible lor nie to do it so elVectually as by quoting? a part of
a debate that took place (hiring the same year, 1828, in the
House of Lords, on the l/ill for the repeal of the Test and Cor-
poration Acts.
" Tlic Earl of Haddington, in reference to what had fallen
" from the Earl of Eldon, contended, that that noble Lord had
" been guilty of an omission, when he stated that the constitu-
'' tion ol this country consisted of the state and of the Church
" of England. The Church of Scotland was as much a part
" of tlie constitution as the Church of England, and for this
*' reason it was not omitted in the preamble of the bill, but the
*' inviolability of both churches was maintained. Tlie Church
" of Scotland, indeed, rcvquired and needed no test, and he
'* would never consent that any should be imposed for its pro-
" tection. He was equally well persuaded that the security of
" the Church of England was not increased by the Corporation
" and Test acts, and, therefore, voted for their repeal." " The
" Earl of Eldon denied that he meant to exclude the cstablish-
'• ment of Scotland, when speaking of the constitution of this
" country in church and state." How far the admission of the
eminent and venerable Earl may serve to elucidate the same ex-
pression in the act appropriating the Clergy Reserves in this
country, may not become me to say ; but I think you will not
venture to assert that you " have authorities which you consider
liir more sound,"
After having given so many authorities in favour of the claim
of the church of Scotland to enjoy a portion of the Clergy Re-
serves ; it may, by some, be thought superfluous to add more,
but when a person of your years, your high standing in society
and in the church, charges me " and my constituents" with
"public robbery and spoliation," to the commission of which you
say we " are urging her Majesty's Government," I may claim
further your attention, while I endeavour to show, that aUhough
our application to government, is styled by you " an aggressive
" attack, as senseless as it is wicked," we have some comfort
in looking at the names of honourable men in England, both in
and out of parliament who have thought it no robbery to give
us their assistance. The Committee of the Houge of Commons-
8
. I
li i
on the civil government of Canada, in 1828, <vas composed of
I think, up>vards of thirty of its most distinguished members,
including, if my memory serves me. Sir Robert Peel and Mr.
Stanley, but as you have access to the journals of that body,
you can easily ascertain if I am mistaken ; and that tribunal,
after a laborious and patient investigation, during which were
called to the aid of its own judgment and legal knowledge, the
research and investigation of Lord Sandott, Mr. Wilmot Hor-
ton, then under Secretary of State for the Colonies, James
Stephen, junr., Esq., employed at that time as counsel to the
colonial department, and now one ot the under Secretaries of
State, and to whose sound judgment and legal acquirement you
have borne honorable testimony, I say, that talented committe e,
with all the information that viras necessary to lead their minds
to a correct conclusion, and with a full knowledge of the ar-
guments that have been urged for and against our claim, pro-
nounced the following important decision :
" The act of 1791 directs that the profits arising from this
" source shall be applied to a Protestant clergy : doubts have
" arisen whether the act requires the government to confine
'* them to the use of the Church ot England only, or to allow
" the Church of Scotland to participate in them. The law
" officers of the crown have given an opinion in favour of the
" rights of the Church of Scotland to such participation, in which
** your committee entirely concur."
Besides the opinion of the noble Lords, and members of this
committee, unhessitatingly declared in favour of the just, legal,
and constitutional rights of the Scottish church, Mr. Horton,
on his examination before the committee, (see the committe e's
report published by order of the Assembly of Lower Canada,
page 312) was asked the following question : " Should you
** not be disposed to say that government and the Legislature of
" England should be very cautious of doing any thing which
** could give rise to the slightest suspicion that there was any in-
** tention of establishing a dominant church in that country ?"
and after giving several reasons as the ground of his belief, he
added, "as I conceive the words " Protestant Clergy' to refer
** to clergy of the two recognized establishments ; and it ap-
** pears to me, from the construction of those clauses, that a
** special endowment of laiid, in cases where there was a de-
<^
fil
<<
((
i<
<(
(i
ti
ft
€t
i(
I<
<C
<t
((
((
mand, for the Church of England was provided for, whereas
there was no provision made for the Scotch Church. I con-
sequently consider that I am justified in inferring that the
Church of England was intended to be so far a dominant
church as to have the advantage of lands specifically appro-
priated for its maintenance, as contradistinguished I'rom the
Scotch Church, which was to have such proportion of the
profits, rents and emoluments of those reserves as, under th ^
discretion of the Executive Government, it might be expedient
to allot to them. But it appears to me quite conclusive, that
there was no intention of necessarily establishing the Church
of England as a dominant church, inasmuch as the 4lst
clause gives a power to the local legislatures, with the consent
of the crown, of altering all the provisions which are con-
tained in the 36th, 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th clauses."
It is not for your information that I quote all those opinions^
for I cannot suppose for one moment that you never read them^
or having read, that they have escaped your recollection ; but
t am anxious that many persons in the colony, who may never
have seen the proceedings of the committee of the House of
Commons on the civil Government of Canada in 1828, and the
other documents and debates to which I refer, and who may
have your version of the matter put into their hands, should
know the other side of the question also, and thereby be en-
abled lo judge of the propriety of your unmeasured abuse of the
clergy and members of the Church of Scotland, heaped upon
them for no other reason than their constitutional advocacy of
claims and rights, which they conscientiously believe to be found-
ed on law and justice, and which have uniformly received the
countenance and support of many of the first men of the nation,
as sincerely attached to the Church of England as you or any
other individual who may uphold your exclusive claim to the
whole of these appropriations.
Mr. Stephen, after communicating to the committee his
opinion that the act of 31st Geo. 3, contemplated a provision
for other clergy than those of the Church of England, was
asked, " when you speak of the Royal Bounty, do you mean
** the rents, and profits that may be made from the Clergy Re-
serves ? " &c., he said, " not the rents and profiits merely. I
•♦ apprehend that the King might, if it should please him, ap-
B
10
" proprittte in perpetuity a certain portion of land for the susteff-
" tation of one or more English clergymen, or of one or more
*' Presbyterian clergymen of the Church of Scotland." And
although that gentleman has had nine years to deliberate on the
soundness of that opinion, and to consider your arguments on
the subject, as contained in the speech you deliveied in the
Legislative Council on the 6th March 1828, and which was
published in pamphlet form and widely circulated, — I say, not-
withstanding these opportunities of maturing his judgment and
correcting any error which he might have fallen into, he inform-
ed me in June last, that " the opinion I gave to the Committee «i
1828 is my opinion now,^^ and thus has Mr. Stephen rendered
himself obnoxious to a portion of the censure which you are
pleased to bestow on all those who question the legality of your
position.
Although what I have already adduced to sustain the claim
set up by the members of the Church of Scotland is to my mind
quite conclusive against your exclusive pretensions in favour of
what you are pleased to denominate the " Church of the Em-
pire ; " yet I think it is material to return to the proceedings of
the Imperial Parliament, when the act 7th and 8th of Geo. 4th,
authorizing the sale of a part of the Clergy Reserves, was under
consideration, by whish it will be seen that a solemn pledge, in
favour of the Church of Scotland, was given in the House of
Commons by the Right Honorable R. W. Horton, under Se-
cretary of State for the Colonies, who introduced and had the
management of the bill, which pledge had the effect of remov-
ing a strong opposition to it on the part of Mr. Baring, Mr.
Stanley and other Members. The observations are taken from
the report, given by the London Cornier, of the proceedings of
the House of Commons, when in committee on the bill for the
sale oi the Canada clergy reserved land.
" Mr. W. Horton proceeded briefly to state the nature of the
'* bill. *•**«* *'And hei-e he feU himsef authorized
** to state, that the government would have no objection to ap-
" propriate part of the profits to the maintenance of the clergy
** of the Church of Scotland *in Canada, as well as to the support
'* of the Established Church ; and the reason why such appro-
" priation had not taken place before, was, that the lands being
*' inalienable, and, therefore, generally unproductive, did not
"K
II
" bring such an amount of income as would be sufficient to sup-
" port the cleriry of even the^Established Cliurcli. The present
*' bill, then left the matter of appropriation still open. The pro-
*' gressive sale of the lands was its sole object ; snd as to the
" objection, that the maintenance of the clergy of the Church
*« of Scotland was not contemplated in that appropriation, he
" would read the House a letter on the subject from the Hishop
" of Quebec, which would set all doubt upon the point at rest.
" (Here the right honorable gentleman read a letter from the
** Bishop of Quebec, the sum of which purported, that in the
" writer's opinion the maintenance of the clergy of the Church
" of Scotland, out of the profits of the reserved lands, was
" warranted by the act of 1791.)" In support of this branch
of my defence I will add another authority, which it might be
supposed you would how to with humble submission, had you
not already declared, in your second letter to me, that your
*' confidence in our natural and constitutional protectors has
*' been shaken," and that you have " resolved to pass all inferior
" authority, and to a[)peal to Her Majesty the Queen in Par-
" liament." The authority I mean is the message of His late
most gracious Majesty King William the IV., communicated to
the Provincial Parliament, on the 25th January, 1832, by His
Excellency Sir John Colborne, in which you may remember
His Majesty spoke of some changes which " may he carried into
*' effect without sacrifcing the just claims of the established
" churches of England and Scotland. The waste lands •which
*' hdve been set apart as a provision for the clergy of those ve-
" nerable bodies, (he said), havcjiitlicrto yielded no disposabh^
C(
revenue
I might, in addition to the many wise, virtuous, and exalted
public characters referred to, as favourable to the view I have
long entertained of the claim of right set up on behalf of the
Church of Scotland, mention the names of Lord Glenelg and
Sir George Grey, and their recent correspondence with Princi-
pal Macfarlane and Dr. Black ; but as you have declared in
your address of" the 13th September last, already alluded to, that
you will not " admit the opinion of individuals however high in
" the legal profession or in official rank, to di.-^pose of our vested
" rights," I need only mention the names of those amiable
members of your own communion, to show more forcibly the
impropriety of the serious charges you haye brought against those
12
I ^
It
who deny " that the proviHions of the statute contemplate the
" clergy of the Church of England and no other body' — char-
ges which I will not repeat too often here, but which the render
may see in your address to the clergy and in your letters to me ;
nnd having seen and read them he may probably admit, that his
curiosity found a painful gratification.
Having shewn, as I tiust I have successfully, that our claim
is not only considered just and reasonable by many of the first
men of the nation, but legal also, I appeal to your own sober
judgment if we have not great reason to complain of your oft
repeated impeachment of our motives. Have we not a right to
urge our claim, so often acknowledged by Her Majesty's Govern-
ment to be well founded, until we realize some advantage by its
possession*? or are we to be told, when asking for what His late
Majesty said was our own, that we are actuated by '* the most
malignant passions,'' and are seeking to '• break down" your
church, that ours may " rise on its ruins,'' and that "we would
" much rather see you prostrate in the dust than actively em-
" ployed in carrying the truths of the Gospel to the destitute
" settlers" ? Surely such language cannot tend to any good. —
If the dispute is ever to be settled, reason and argument will be
found to be much more useful auxiliaries, and will better accord
with the " meekness and tranquillity" which you say your people
have exhibited. We are not ** enemies of your church," — we
make no attack on her; we admire her creed, we sec in her doc-
trines, precepts and principles essentiallyjike our own, — we
acknowledge her great usefulness— ^ we venerate her many shining
luminaries, who by their lives and writings have shed a glorious
light on the religious world, and we wish her peace and prosperity.
At the same time, when we seek for some of the benefits which
the clergy lands afford, we believe that we only ask for what
law and justice would bestow, and we do not, cannot feel, that
we do the church of England any violence, or should in conse-
quence be styled her enemies. We make no attack on her, but
we oppose the high handed intolerant measures which you have
so industriously attempted to establish here, much to the injury
of the cause you suppose you are promoting, and to the disap-
probation of very many of the members of your own community.
u
You say in your first letter, that " the contest respecting the
Clergy Reserves was commenced by the members of the Kirk,
I''
** and by them it has been continuLMJ, For a time you made a
*' coumion cause with other denominations against the Established
" Church; but since your connexion with the National Church
^' of Scotland has been indirectly ackn jv/ledged by the General
*' Assembly, you have deemed it prudent to drop your former
" associates. You made use ot them as lonj^ as they couid be
" turned to your advantage, and now you cast (hem off as a tat-
** tered garment," &c. This charge is so very general and un-
defined that it cannot well he met without occupying more of
your attention than I have any inclination to do ; still, as it con-
veys a censure, as I conceive, undeserved, it would be wrong to
let it pass without animadversion, if your aim is to exhibit the
part which I took in these matters, I am wholly misrepresented.
The leading circumstances are these: — la the fall of 1823 I
happened to read in the Parliamentary debates* the proceedings
which took place in the House of Commons when the Act 31,
Geo 3, cap. 31, was under consideration, and to my surprise and
gratification, I saw that Mr. Dundas expressed his satisfaction
at the provisions of the bill, which he said would afford better
livings to the clergy of the church of Scotland in Canada than
they enjoyed in Scotland, and as the remark was permitted to
pass without observation or contradiction, I naturally supposed
that Mr. Pitt had agreed to change the object of the bill dining
its progress ; for when the subject was first under consideration,
he said distinctlv that the reservation of lands was intended for
the support of the clergy of the church of England ; hence the
" decision'^ that he and Lord Grenville came to. No sooner did
T see this important, and, to me, new matter, in its proper light,
than I resolved to bring the subject before the House of Assem-
bly, in the shape of Resolutions preparatory to an address to the
King, and accordingly I prepared what I thought was sufficient
to assert the right of the church of Scotland, and laid the paper
before the House. After some alteration, which implied a doubt
as to the claim, and which I much regretted at the time, the.
Resclutions passed by a lai-ge majority, and were sent to the
Legislative Council for concurrence, and as you say in your
printed speech, which I have already noticed, " ix^tev n hwi and
" warm debate, they were rejected. Harl it noi bff'ii t'or the
" first and second, there tvould have been no diipu'c in regard to
" the fifth ; for I believe it was the wish of every member that
*' some provision should be made for the ministers of so respecta-
** ble a body as the church of Scotland. I well recollect my
M
" regret at findinj? myself compelled to oppose the Resolutions
" on account oltlic assertions made in the two first," &c.
Now I would just ask, if it was your wish that soma provision
should be made for the ministers of the Scottish Church, why did
you vote ag^alnst the 5th Resolution, which you say there would
have been no dispute about had it not been in company with
the first and second 1 Was it not competent for you to ask a
conference with the lower House on the subject, and there have
proposed what you say was the wish of every member ? But
did you do so, or in any other parliamentary way evince the
slightest approbation of encouragement to the Church of Scot-
land 1 The Journals of the Legislative Council say not. No
amendment was proposed by you to the report of the committee
of the whole hduse rejecting the application altogether. Had
you felt the least desire to see any support afforded to that body,
how could you vote ogainst the 5th Resolution which is in these
words ?
" Resolved — That an humble address be presented to His
Majesty, founded on the foregoing resolutions, praying that
His Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct such measures
as will secure to^he clergy of the Church of Scotland, resid-
** ing, or who may hereafter reside in this Province, such sup-
port and maintenance as His Majesty may think proper."
f(
tt
C(
(C
This certainly was a favourable opportunity for the manifestnlion
of that friendship which you professed to feel, and how did you
embrace it ? Not by amending the resolutions in your own
house, nor by proposing to the other body any change which
might remove your objections to the general measure ; but .ns it
turned out, when the journals of your house were searched, by
a committee of the Assembly, by rejecting it wholly without as-
signing a single reason, as the following entry will shew : —
1823 )
^' ^' ) Pursuant to order, the House resolved
itself into a committee of the whole to take into consideration
the resolutions on the subject of the claims of the Church of
Scotland received from the Commons House of Assembly on
Tuesday last
1 *
House ill Committee.
Mv. Mcintosh in the chair.
The Speaker resumed the chair.
The chairman reported that the committee had taken the said
resolutions into consideration, and would not recommend them
for the concurrence of the House, and the question being put
if the Report be accepted, it was carried in the affirmative. On
motion made and seconded, the contents and no-contents werQ
taken as follows : —
Content
s.
The Hon. James Baby,
& Rev. John Strachan,
Angus Mcintosh,
Joseph Wells,
Duncan Cameron,
Geo. H. Markland, 6.
a
it
((
Non-contents
Hon. JohnMcGill,
William Dickson,
Thomas Clarke,
George Crookshank,
" John Henry Dunn, 5.
(C
»c
«
Thus did you reject the first & most important opportunity which
ever came before you in your Legislative capacity, of showing
the sincerity of your wish, that some provision should be made
ior the clergy of the Scots church ; and in the whole proceed-
ing from that day to the present time, it does no.t appear that the
members of the Church of Scotland " made a common cause
" with other denominations against (what you call) the church,'*
but what would more properly be styled the unreasonable pre-
tensions of yourself and a few other of her mequbers. One
thing I know, that the course which I felt proper to pursue,
respecting the matter afterwards, was not with their sanction,
ior I had not their authority by correspondence or otherwise. I
acted on my own responsibility, and I have never yet seen cause
to regret what I did.
I think it was about two years afterwards that Lord Bathurst
returned a very uncourteous answer to the address to His Majes-
ty, in which he said the clergy lands were intended for the
Church of England only. (At this time it was not known- in
the colony, that his Lordship had been informed, by the law
officers of the crown, that such was not the case : nor was it
'4
16
known either how, or for what particular object the school lund*
were set apart.) Considering the injustice of the answer, when
compared with the opinion of Mr. Dundas in the House of
Commons, and also the unreasonable attempt to secure to any
one church, in a country whose pof)ulation is composed as in
this, one-seventh part of the soil, 1 thought then as I do now,
that it would be better for the future interests of the communi-
ty generally, that the whole resiervation should be applied to the
support of education ; and, therefore, under the authority of the
41st clause of the act I introduced the resolutions which appear
in the journals, on the 22d Oct., 1826, and which were laid be-
fore the committee by Mr. G. Ryerson, as proposed by a person
whose name shall not be written by me. Mr. R. no doubt fell
into an unintentional error, for the individual in question had no
other hand in the matter than that of proposing an additional
resolution after the others were adopted ; and under the influence
of these views 1 continued to act until the Home Government
recognized the claim of the church of Scotland, by the message
of the 25th January, 1832.
Whatever you may think of my conduct regarding the various
shapes in which the question came up during the period between
the years 1S23 and 1832, the clergy and members of the Scottish
church cannot justly be said to have made a common cause with
other denominations against the Reserves, for that cause was that
they should be sgld and the proceeds applied to "education and
general improvement ;" and when the address to the King to
that effect passed on the 2Qth March, 1828, the members of the
Assembly of that body, including your humble servant, voted
against it. ,But you say, further, for what object I cannot tell,
that after using the other sects for our own purposes, we cast
them off like a tattered garment; — where is the proof? in what
instance did the ministers and members of the Scots church act
in the way you represent 1 If my recommendation to Her Ma-
jesty's Government may be regarded as speaking the voice of the
parties accused, the very reverse is the fact. Surely you could
not have noticed my letter to Lord Glenelg of the 26th June
last, when you made this assertion ; for so far from '• casting
off" the denominations you speak of, I proposed that one third
part of all the Clergy Reserves should be given to them ! And if
»t is an object to secure the alFection and good will of all classes
4he sooner this is-done the better. And notwithstanding that my
i)
\7
letter proposing^ luch a distribution of the Reierves hai been
some months betbre the public, I have not heard any objection
on the part of the Scots church to the plan I proposed.
You profess to be quite .willing to submit the settlement of tho
Clergy Reserve question to the wisdom and justice of the Imperial
Parliament, and you state that your church,as far back as the year
1822, proposedthismode for its fmal adjustment. If you are per*
fectly willing to submit to a declaratory Act of the British Parlia-
ment, I cannot account for the language you use in anticipation
of a part of the Reserves being applied to any other purpose than
the support of your clergy ; for when you say that " what the
** hana of violence takes away will be more than made up by the
" affections of our people ;" and again, " if, therefore, the proper-
*• ty of the church be taken from us by legal oppression, we must
** receive it as a trkl ofour faith." 1 say when you use such lan-
guage in referenft tothe action of the Imperial Government, your
readers may well suppose that you do not look with dutiful re«
spect to- any decision of the highest authority known to the
constitution, if that decision should happen to be contrary to
your wishes ; and also, that your advice to the members of your
church to abstain from any proceedings calculated to rouse their
passions, would seem not to come with a good grace from one who
teaches them to regard the constitutional amendment of the Act
31 Geo. 3, as " legal oppression." Had any of the clergy of
the Scottish church spoken of the constitutional authorities of the
Imperial Government in the strong terms of distrust and even
disrespect which 3'our address breathes, you would have been the
very first to call them to a sense of their duty, and a due regard
for the Queen and Parliament, by language such as this : ** Our
*• clei^y and laity are attached by taste, habit, and affection to
*• the mother country ; our church is essentially peaceable and
" loyal," which means, I suppose, that the clergy and laity of
the Scots church entertain sentiments, the opposite of these com-
mendable attributes. The late civil commotion afforded a fa-
vorable opportunity for testing the applicability of the inference,
and I trust the verdict of the province is an honorable acquittal.
And if I were to resort to the same method to ascertain the
number of disaffected persons in the Province that you have
done to prove how many of the inhabitants belong to the church
of England, it would be the greatest libel on a loyal people that
could possibly be invented. Of the number of traitors who had
G
18
scnts In the House of Assembly, perhaps not one belonged
to the Church oF Scotland ; but would that circumstance
prove that none of the rebels did ? and because several of them
are said to be Episcopalians, are we to infer that a propoitionate
number of rebels are such ? — the very idea is absurd. Surely
you were not in earnest when you devised this ingenious rule,
knowing as you did that neither national origin nor religious pro-
fession was ever looked to by the electors of the Province as a
guide for the exercise of their elective franchise. And it is a
great pity that you should m the present excited state of public
feeling, or indeed under any circumstances, direct the attention
of the freeholders to the introduction of a system so subversive
of the most invaluable principles of the Constitution. As your
notice of the amount subscribed by the members of your church
to aid their neighbors in the erection of the Scots church at To-
ronto, is quite in keeping with the above, I shall pay no further
attention to it. ,^^
You remark that *' the religion of Scotland is confined ex-
*' pressly, by the articles of union as well as the laws, to Scot-
** land — while the laws and religion of England extend, and
" ever have extended, to all the colonies." The difference be-
tween us on this point is, simply, that you did not add to the
above sentence these words, " of England." As to the British
colonies, I mean those acquired by the United kingdoms of Great
Britain and Ireland, they come not within the provisions of the
Treaty of Union, for it is wholly silent on the subject ; and the
church of England is no more established, by virtue of the Arti-
cles, or Act of Union, than the church of Scotland, and can
only be so by an enactment of the United Legislature, such as
that which was made, with regard to Canada, in the year 1791 ;
and if that statute excludes the church of Scotland from bene-
fits which the sister church enjoys, so does it interfere with the
" fundamental and essential conditions" of the union, which,
according to the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Blackstone, was
intended to ** preserve the two churches of England and Scot-
" land, in the same state that they were in at the time of the
*' union ; and the maintenance of the acts of uniformity, which
i^ established our Common Prayer, are especially declared so
« to be. 3. That, therefore any alteration in the constitution
" of either of these churches, or in the liturgy of the church of
England (unless with the consent of the respective churches,
ii
19
" collectively or representatively given), would be nn infringe-
" ment of their * rinulainental and essential conditions* and
*• ipeatly endanger the union." lidter writers have doubted
whether such an infringement would, of itself, dissolve the union,
tliotigh they agree that it would be a manifest breach of good
faith.
The words in the act 5th Ann, <* and the Territories there-
unto f)clongitig," you construe as embracing the territories which
might ihcreufter be acquired by the United Kingdom ; whereas
nothing can be moie eironeous, for it is plain and obvious that
the expression applies exclusively to the colonies that then belong-
ed to the Kingdom of Kngland, and not prospectively to those
possessions which the United Kingdoms might secure by treaty,
conquest or discoveiy, and any person who will calmly and dis-
passionately read the articles and acts in question, must come to
this conclusion, unless his understanding is warped by the sophis-
try of special pleading. For the 5th clause of the Scottish act,
which is recited in, and confirmed by the British act, enacts, that
*' the Parliament of England may provide for the security
*' of the church of England as they think expedient, to
'* take place within the bounds of the said Kingdom of England^
" and not derogating from the security above provided for estab-
" lishing of the church of Scotland within the bounds of this
" Kmgdorn.'' The oath which the Scottish act imposes on the
sovereign of the " Kingdom of Great Britain, at his or her acces-
sion to the crown'^ isi***^ that they shall inviolably maintain and
preserve the aforesaid settlement of the true Protestant religion,
with the government, worship, discipline, rights and pri-
" vileges of this church, as above established by the laws of this
** kingdom in prosecution of the claim of right." And this oath
was taken by her present Majesty, as I understand, according
to the form of the church of Scotland.
<(
(C
C(
The oath which the English act requires of the sovereign is,
that he or she sliall " maintain & preserve inviolably the said set-
" tlement of the church of England, and the doctrine, worship,
" discipline and government thereof, as by law established, within
" the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales
" an(l Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the territories there-
"unto belonging" — belonging to what ? to the kingdoms of
England and Ireland, and not by the utmost stretch of legal
>
to
fDgenuihf to the future colonics of England, Ireland and Scot-
land. The Church of England, '* as by Ihw established" at that
period, extended not beyond the kingdoms of England and
ner territories, and nothing but an act of the British Parliament
can place her in the position, with respect to the British colonies^
that you contend for. No such enactment has yet been nmde,
and I trust never will. You niny call those *' silly,'' who, like
me, take this view of the subject, and stand foilh in support of
the rights of our native country ; but ^ look forward at no dis-
tent period to the time when the highest authorities of the laud
will aeclare your opinion of the lo;v unsound.
If the Church of England were, as you assert, the *' church
of the Empire," she would not, according to Blackstone, be
** in the same state that she was in at the time of the union,"
and consequently that interference, with the essential conditions
of the treaty, which he so strongly deprecated, must have taken
place ; but, probably our " ignorance'' prevented us from dis-
covering how or when. What do you think of Blackstone's
declara)ion, that no alteration, even of the liturgy of the Church
of England, can take place unless with the consent of the Church
of Scotland? -
I will now turn to what you say on the establishment of the
67 Rectories— and without paying attention to the manner in
which you discuss the subject, or the unworthy motives which
you say actuated the ministers and members of the Scottish
Church, content mys^H with a few observations explanatory of
what appears to me to be the merits of the case.
By the constitution of the Province, the Lieutenant Gover-
nor in Council has an undoubted right, when authorized by our
Sovereign, to establish and endow Rectories; and by your ad-
dress to the clergy of your Archdeaconry, it would seem that
such authority or instructions had been received by the Colonial
Government during the administration of '* President Smith in
•* 1818, and another by Sir Peregrine Maitland in 1825, besides
*♦ ft strong admonition from Lord Ripon in 1832." You ioWovr
up the above information by telling your clergy that as these in-
Btruetions have not been abrogated or withdrawn, they would
enable the present r?overnment to endow Rectories through the
irhole Province. It may be so, but as passing events have ere-
n
21.
atcd A doubt in my ntitid, and qi I have no wi^h to conceal (1m
cause, it is at your service in the shape of interrogatories, which,
perhaps, you may not decline answering.
1st.— If the instructions sent out in 1818 arc in force still, and
you have said so, how did 't fmppen that fresh ones were
necessary in the reign ol George the 4th, i.e. in the year
1825, for the ..^^ does not speak of a ** double set*' /
2d.— If I am right in m^ conjecture, that the instructions re-
ceived in 1818, dunng the reign of His Majesty Geo. 3d,
lost their power and authority at his death, and made it
necessary to send a fresh "set" in the next Reign, in 1825,
would not they also become powerless in 1830, wnen George
the Fourth died ?
8d.— If either or both were in force, as you triumphantly declare,
tell me why it was that the Executive Council established
and endowed the 57 Rectories without the aid of these old
\ documents.
4th. — If the Rectories were not established without the author-
ity of the instructions sent out in the years 1818 and 1825,
how is it that the Order in Council of the I5th January,
1836, makes no mention of them, but rests solely on the
paper from Lord Ripon, which you call an admonition, for
justification of the proceeding 1
£th, — And lastly, if that ''admonition** was ample authority for
what the council did, please inform me why it is now neces-
cessary to revert to the old instructions 7
... - ■ ,..
All this, to me, has the appearance of lame management on
your part, and may exonerate Lord Glenelg from the heavy load
of blame with which you charge him lor submitting an imperfe<it
case to the Grown Lawyers. What other case, 1 would ask,
could he submit than that which the council furnished 1 Surely
it never could have entered His Lordship*s head to go back to
the reign of former Kings for directions to guide the Colonial
Government, on a subject that had deeply engaged the attention
of the Colonial Department under his own immediate superin-
tendence. He knew that since the year 1827 the entire policy
of Ihe Home Government with respect to the Clergy Rosenres
22
had -undergone a change, ami theiefore might well inl'orm His
Excellency Sir F. 13. Head, in the despatch of the Cth July last,
that " you are aware that your despatch of the 17th Dccemberj
*' 1836, contained the first official intimation which ever reached
*' me of the Rectories having*- been either established or endowed.
** The fact had been asserted in Parliament, but I was not only
** officially uninformed, but really ignorant that it had occured."
I say he might well express his surprise at the report which
reached the government, awaie, as he was, that no authority
to his knowledge had been forwarded to Canada for tliUt pur-
pose ; and little dreaming that a matter of so much importance
could engage the attention of the Colonial Council without his
direct and special sanction.
You say in your letter. No. 2, that there is " no controversy but
entire agreement that no other church can be endowed with
lands, but the Church of England ;" in this you are mistaken,
for Mr. Stephen states distinctly in his evidence, that he thinks
the act authorises the Sovereign to appropriate in perpetuity a
part of the Clergy Reserves to the sustentation of clergymen of the
Church of Scotland ; and when the committee asked him how he
" reconciled that answer with the statement, that the act appears
*' to contemplate an endowment only of the Church of England,"
" he replied, '* Because I apprehend that it is one thing to
€rect a parsonage and endow it with a glebe, and a different
" thing to appropriate a piece of land for the maintenance of a
** clergyman." You go on to say, that in accordance with this
point, which is universally admitted. Sir John Colborne, after
long deliberation, did, v/ith the advice of his Council, in Jan'y.
l&o8, erect 57 Rectories. The expression "after long delibera-
tion,'' convinces me that that excellent man and gallant officer,
would have deliberated until now without assenting to any such
proceeding had it not been laid before him, under circumstances
of embarrassment and perplexity which pressed on his mind, at
the moment of his departure from the colony, and which it
would be indelicate in me to say more about, suffice it to men-
tion that Lord Glenclg says it was almost the last act of Sir
John's government, and you know that he had little opportuni-
ty for deliberation at that trying moment.
Knowing
these
cn*-
cumstances, I have always heard, with extreme regret, any
censure cast on Sir John Colborne for the part he took in this
affair, and think the whole bkunc should rather bo charged
against his advisers.
23
5?
after
[an'y.
lera-
ticer,
such
mces
|], at
h it
icn-
Sir
Ituni-
cir-
any
this
[rged
You speak of the formation of the Rectories, in all you have
written, as a proceeding which no one had a right to complain
of, or feel surprise at,and which the members of the Scots church
have alone found fault with. But when you treat the subject in
this light, you surely do not reflect on the impression which the
public mind received against any such attempt, by the investiga-
tion in the House of Commons of ever;, .■ n.ing connected with the
appropriation and application of these lands. The question put
by the committee to the Right Hon. R. W. Horton would, I
conceive, lead any one to imagine thai, nothing could be further
from the intention or understanding of the committee than that
the Government had any such design. The} said — " should you
" not be disposed to say that Government and the Legislature of
" England should be very cautious of doing anything which could
*' give rise to the slightest suspicion that there was any intention
** of establishing a dominant church in that country ?" and after
the various reasons which he explained, and which I have already
referred to, lie added, " but it appears to me quite conclusive
** that there was no intention of necessarily establishing a domi-
*' nant church, inasmuch as the 41st clause gives a power • to
*' alter the provisions of the act,' " &c. Besides this, the speech
of Mr. Horton in the House of Commons, on the Clergy Re-
serve sale bill,wherein he said the matter of appropriation was still
left open for future consideration, led the public to believe that
there was no intention on the part of Government to carry the
provisions of the act into force ; and this belief was again materi-
ally strengthened by the message to both houses of the Provincial
Parliament of the 25th January, 1832, "inviting the Legislature
** to consider how the powers given to it by the Constitutional
'* Act, to vary or repeal this part of its provisions can be called
" into exercise most advantageously for the spiritual and temporal
"interests of His Majesty's faithful subjects in this Province." —
And not only the message but the bill which was submitted to the
Assembly by the Attorney General immediately after, had the
effect of convincing all who read it that no intention could exist
of forming and endowing Rectories. One of the clauses is as
follows, " That all the lands heretofore appropriated within this
" Province for the support and maintenance of a Protestant cler-
** gy,now remaining unsold, shall be and they are hereby declared
to be vested in His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, as of his
and their estate, absolutely discharged from all trusts for the
" benefit of a Protestant Clergy, and of and from all and every
<c
(<
u
*Mhe clalmi and demands of such ckr^, upon or in
" respeci of the same." By Lord Goderich*s despatch of the
8th Nov. 1833 the same understanding is i<ept up, for his Lord-
ship rema.-ks that " His Majesty has studiously al stained from
" tne exercise of his undoubted prerogative, ot founding and en-
"dowing Literary or IJeligious Corporations, until he should
** obtain the advice of the Representatives of the people for his
" guidance in that respect."
The proceedings of the Legislative Council during the sessior
of 1835, which terminated in an Address to the King, tended
likewise to a confident understanding on the part of the public,
that the Executive Government would not interfere with the
Reserves, for in that address, which it is more than probable you
approved of, is the following language: — " And we think it is for
*• many reasons much to be desired, that a speedy and final de-
" cision should take place of the questions which have arisen
*' upon the effect of the statute referred to, and that it should be
*' plainly, certainly, and firmly established, to what specific objects
" the Clergy Reserves shall be permanently applied. Confiding
** freely in the wisdom and justice of Your Majrsty and of Par-
" liament, we earnestly hope, that with as little delay as the sub-
** ject m?/ admit of, such an enactment may be passed as shall
** not leave any room for doubt or question in regard to the objects
" to which the proceeds of the clergy Reserves are to be applied."
Now, after all these proceedings, ought it to be cause of
offence to you, or any other person, that the public should feel
not only disappointed but indignant that the settlement of the
question respecting the Reserves should have been interfered
with by the Executive Council before the Imperial or Colonial
Legislatures had disposed of it, and without recent positive in-
structions to that effect ?
But you say, in your address to the clergy of your Archdea-
conry, when speaking of our "deplorably hypocritical" conduct
in finding fault with the establishment of the Rectories, " that so
" perfectly destitute of any foundation are such allegations, that
** no complaint has been made on the subject by any other deno-
" mination of christians in the province, several of which are un-
" questionably no less alive to their civil and religious rights than
the Church bf Scotland." How you could possibly venture up-
in
25
on such an assertion is to inc utterly incomprehensible, and I am
sure every person in the colony at all acquainted with its public
affairs, will feel equal astonishment. If the " Christian Guar-
dian," published at Toronto, may be supposed to be the mouth
piece of that numerous and respectable sect, the Wesleyan
Methodists, and I believe this cannot be doubted, they, as well
as the ministers and members of the Scots church, strongly con-
demn the measure, as the following editorial article, published in
that paper in April 1836, immediately after the matter became
known, will clearly shew: —
"church establishment!
" We have learned with extreme regret that His late Excel-
lency Sir John Colborne has thought proper, during the latter
part of his administration of the affairs of this Province, to take a
step which, we are confident, will meet with the strongest disap-
probation of nineteen-twentieths of its inhabitants, and which will
have a greater tendency to create discontent, than any other act
of his administration. We allude to the establishment of Recto-
ries, to the number oi forty -four, each with an endowment of
from 105 to 800 acres of Clergy Reserves^ some including valua-
ble Town lots, as will be seen by the Schedule which we publish
to-day. The value of the endowments is not so much the subject
of animadversion as the principle involved in the act itself, a
principle directly opposed to the known wishes of the country,
and, in our opinion, directly at variance with its religious interests.
After the repeated expression of the opinions of His Majesty's
subjects in this colony against the establishment of any church
with exclusive rights and privileges, — opinions expressed time
after time in addresses from the popular branch of the Legisla-
ture, in which all parties have been nearly unanimous, and in
numerously signed petitions to His Majesty's Government and
the Imperial Parliament, supported by christians of every denom-
ination, including a very respectohle portion of the members of
the Church of England, — we had been led to entertain a hope,
almost amounting to certainty, that no attempt would be made
to force upon this country an established religion. But the act
has been done, and a'system has been introduced, the ultimate
result of which, if persevered in, will be to establish a dominant
priesthood of one church entirely independent of the people as it
respects their support.
1*
26
' «* That it was the prerogative of His Excellency to do as he
has done in this particular, we have no disposition to question. —
The Constitutional Act evidently vests in him that authority, with
the advice and consent of the Executive Council ; but many
things are lawful, the expediency of which is very questionable,
and in this particular instance the inexpediency of exercising the
constitutional prerogative was most obvious.
" His Majesty's Government has declared an anxious desire
to settle this long agitated question, in the manner which would
be most fully in accordance with the views and wishes of His
Majesty's subjects here, and has avowed a readiness to acquiesce
in any measure for that purpose, in which the two branches of
the Provincial Legislature should agree; and although we strong-
ly disapprove of the tenacity with which each branch has hitherto
clung to its own particular scheme, and thereby kept the subject
open to discussion, to the disquiet of the community, yet we were
entirely unprepared for the intelligence that an under-current
was at work, by which the wishes of the great body of the popu-
lation, and the declared conciliatory intentions of His Majesty'
Government, were to be so effectually frustrated.
" We can sec no plan so feasible for putting a speedy termina-
tion to the bickerings and jealousies of which the Clergy Reserves
have been so fruitful a source, as the reference of tlie whole
affair to His Majesty's decision, accompanied with representations
of the views ofboth branches ofthe Legislature, and with petitions
expressive ofthe anxious wishes ofthe people from every part of
the Province. The Royal word has been pledged that those
wishes shall be the rule of decision, and in that word wc do re-
pose the most implicit confidence."
Thus the public will see that your attempt to prove that the
members of the church of Scotland are the only discontented
portion of the community, on the subject ofthe Rectories, is an
cndre failure, for the Rev. Editor of the Guardian has extensive
opportunities of knowing the public mincL and his sentiments and
iaforjuatioa are in direct opposition to yotjir assertion.
This IS not all ; — I do not rest my case on the opinion of the
Editor of the Guardian, although from his known respectability
of character and talen^ he could not make such representations.
«?
uncontradicted as they are, were they not fully borne out by the
entire conviction of a great majority of the people ; for two
months after that article was written, the Conierence of the
Wesleyan Methodist Church, assembled at Belleville, prepared
and forwarded to His late Most Gracious Majesty, an address
containing the following paragraph: —
" We also beg leave most humbly to represent to Your Majesty
that we, togtiher with the great majority of your loyal subjects,
are conscientiously and firmly opposed to the recognition of
any church establishment within the Province. It is, therefore,
with extreme regret we have learned that during the past
year fitty-seven Rectories have been established, and endowed
out of the lands set apart for the support of a Protestant clergy,
notwithstanding the wishes of its inhabitants, so often constitu-
tionally expressed by petition, and through their representa*
tives in the House of Assembly.
(C
((
ft
(I
iC
((
«
" We should not discharge the duty we owe to Your Majesty
in the present posture of the affairs of this Province, did we
not most humbly and respectfully convey to Your Majesty our
full conviction,that nothing could tend more directly to weoken
the attachment of the people of this country to the parent state
than the contimiance of this system of exclusive patronage of
any one church ; nor could any measure more happily con-
duce to allay existing agitation and dissention, and to produce
a more affectionate and enthusiastic devotion to Your Majesty's
Government, than an assurance that tnis system will no longer
be pursued.
" Signed by order and on behalf of the Conference,
" Wm. Lord, President.
"Wm. Case, Secretary.
" Belleville, Upper Canada, >
"June 13th, 1836." J
And to this address Lord Glenelg gave a very polite answer on
the 14th September of the same year. What must now be
thought of your declaration in the first letter, that ** no other de-
*' nominations have had any public meetings or proceedings on
**^the subject."
You complain that the petitions to the Legislature against the
J e
■■^>
■^ 1'
28
Rectories, *' were conceived in language of great bitterness and
hostility,'' and I readily grant that some of them were couched in
terms that I would not have recommended, and which appeared
to me to convey more feeling than was necessary or commenda-
ble. At the same time, it ought to be borne tn mind that the
parties complaining wrote under a strong sense of injury, and
with a firm persuasion that they had been deceived, whether by
the Home or Colonial Government they could not tell , and it is
quite natural, when people believe they have sulFered wrong, to
express their mind more treely, than under ordinary circumstances
they themselves would approve ot. This is the only explanation I
can give for the temper you find fault with. But if they have
erred in that respect, what must be said of the outpouring of your
mind aganst them and me ? for if I am capable of forming an
opinion, the heat you censure in them, is wholly extinguished
by the raging fire of your ungovernable passion.
You animadvert very strongly no ihe principles embraced
in the 7th resolution, adopted by the Delegates at Cobourg, and
"vvhich formed part of the prayer of the petitions to His late
Majesty and the Parliament, and I am free to admit that they
are such as I could never assent to, for they would confer power
beyond what I conceive would be prudent or safe, to clothe any
church with in this country, however salutary I believe them to
be in Scotland ; and when the proceedings of that meeting
reached me, I felt very strong regret that the members of it had
incautiously adopted a resolution that was likely to create divi-
sion. In fact it would have been out of my power to advo-
cate the measure, and before I left this for England I was poss-
essed of d writing which freed me from any obligation to urge that
point ; and this I explained to Lord Glenelg— so that although
the petitions contained the application, which you have drawn
the attention of your clergy to, it was understood by the govern-
ment as not insisted on or desired — indeed I believe the delegates
did not perceive the full extent of that resolution, and would not
again adopt it.
The only reason for not printing, in the pa mphlet, the Peti-
tions to the Imperial Parliament, was, that they are verbatim
the same as that to His Majesty. Your remark on their absenc>.'
would seem to imply the existence of some other motive.
I could not but be atiuck with the singular neglect of fucts
29
v'hich appear in many statements you have made, and among
others the following : " Had His Lordship (Glenelg) been made
*' aware of the grave decision of the House of Assembly, in fa-
»* vour of the Rectories, and the more than sufficient authority
** in possession of the Provincial Government for their erection*
** we cannot believe that he would have called their legality in
'< question, much less allowed, as a nobleman of the nicest honor,
" an inaccurate case to have been submitted to the law officers
" of the crown." Is it not strange that you should resort to
such excuses to palliate what you represent as improper in his
Lordrhip's proceedings ? for 1 contend that you had no right to
address letters to me complaining of the correspondence I held
with the colonial department if you never read it, nmch less to
infer that his Lordship was intentionally kept in ignorance of so
important a matter as the proceedings of the Assembly. Can
it be necessary that you should learn from me, that all such im-
portant information is promptly foi warded to the Colonial Secre-
tary from the office of His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor ?
The journals were printed daily, and it is not very reasonable to
suppose that the questions put on so interesting a subject as that
which engaged the consideration of the Assembly on the 9th
February last, would be kept back. But even if the information
had not been forwarded by His Excellency, still his Lordship re-
quires no such excuse from you. He was made aware of the
** decision" of the House of Assembly, as my letter of the 5th
June plainly shows, and how you could induce the reader of your
letters to me to think otherwise, requires explanation. It is true
I did not represent the decision as a " grave" one, for the pub-
lished account of the debates that evening did not lead me to
understand that it was particularly so ; still his Lordship knew
when the despatch of the 6th July was signed, in which he ques-
tions the legality of the Rectories, that the Assembly had come
to a vote which " regarded as inviolable, the rights acquired un-
*' der the Patents by which Rectories have been endowed." —
And I may mention to you what I told His Lordship in that let-
ter, that I do not believe the Assembly would have passed any
such resolution, had it not been supposed that the "sanction'' of
the Uome Government affixed the seal to each Patent.
You allege that His Lordship " allowed" an inaccurate case
to be laid before the Crown Lawyers : if so, whose fault was it?l
xieitainly not His Lordship's; for after applyi n g to the Piovircia
: i
30
Government for information respecting uie authority under which
the Rectories were establlslied, he made out a case from llie pa-
pers with which lie was furnished, including the minute of'council
of the 16th January, 1836, and other instruments which are
referred to, and after consulting all these documents, he came to
the conclusion, " that no such sanction had ever been given."
So far I have written in reply to your arguments in the Addrrss
and in the Letters, without regard to any arrangement in cither,
but under the impulse of promiscuous ideas connected with both;
and now 1 shall endeavor to explain what you have attempted in
your second letter to exhibit as a misrepresentation on my part.
1 mean the picture which I drew, for Lord Glenelg's information,
ol church patronage at the Seat of Government, and which you
are pleased to say is one of the *' shifts to which the enemies of
"your church are driven, in their vain attempts to make out a
" case against her." This is the old tune that seems to suit every
kind of metre, and the only one, it would appear, that }ou can
play. It is not the church I find fault with, 1 disclaim any deiVire to
"disparage" her, and nothing 1 have ever said or done can fair-
ly be represented in that light. The church of England in the
Province has not yet received the possession of either buihlinglots
or glebes at all adequate to my estimation of her necessities,
although in some particuh: • places I think an over anxiety to
secure glebes has been shewn, and the only real difference be-
tween us on this head is, that while I am anxious to sec your
church thriving in company with ours, you are so selfish that if
you can only provide well lor your own, you are quite content
that ours should starve !
The old maxim of " live and let live," would seem to form
no part of the code of regulations which you have framed
for the government of your proceedings in church matters. —
Even the "refreshing" lovely spectacle which London annually
presents, of churchman and dissenter cordially uniting in the
many munificent works of christian charity, with which that
mighty metropolis abounds, receives the scowl of your unac-
countable condemnation. What must be the surprise of those
great and good men, both clerical and lay, who are not ashamed
to be found " on the platforms of promiscuous religious assem-
blies," contributing their wealth, their influence, and their talents
for the dissemination of the Scriptures of truth, among the be-
SI
nlghtcd millions of the human family in every corner of the
globe. Yes, what will be their astonishment, amidst the consoling
rede^rtions on time thus spent, to be told by you that they are the
vofaiies of a • liilse liberality, which is so much the lashion of the
*'tiincs, r.nd wljich consists in insincerity, absence of nil princi-
" pies, fickleness, niystery, ond false hijonie ;" and that the ''(rue
*' churchman caimot conscientiously join those who diifer from
*'hiin in societies for the promotion of religious purposes" !!! —
Alas! that mere mortals of the dust, the Irail it»habitants of the
passing moment, should on their journey to an endless eternity fall
out with their fellow travellers by the way, r.nd reftife each other
help to secure a safe entiance to that abode, where they must all
occupy the same platform, forgetful of the jealousies and secta-
rian strifes which seem so all important now. All churchmen
are not actuated by such leelings ; there are many of your order
who will not withhold their meed of approbation from their lellovr
laboiu'ers of other christian comtnunities. How I was delij;hted
with the eulogistic eloquence of the Uev. Dr. Crolly, bestowed
on the church of Scotland, in his splendid speech at the Conser-
vative Festival in London in June last, anil with what heartfelt
cordiality did the clergy of the church of England prcsent,applaud
every sentence of approbation which fell from the lips of this
eminent divine in favour of Scotland's clergy. 1 could not but
think of Upper Canada, and lament that no such heart cheering
demonstration of christian philanthropy is countenanced by Eng-
lish church diijnitaries there. The toast which occasioned the
brilliant speech I refer to, was "The Archbishop of Canterbury
and the Established churches."— Not "the Church of the Em-
pire," — not "the Established church," — but truly and really
what it ought to be, " the Established Churches," and this toast
was rapturously received by more than two thousand English
churchmen, from men of noble rank down to the respectable
merchant and tradesman, including many persons of eminence
in the church, the senate, and at the bar.
So far from having painted the view you find fault with, in
colours calculated to give a wrong impression of the original, I,
for fear of such complaint, intentionally kept the light and shade
too dim, and thereby have verified the old adage. To prove to
his Lordship that the Scottish inhabitants of the Province had
reason to ti!id fault with the distinction manifested between your
church and ours, I said, that at the Seat of Government,
3Z
{ 1,
The Englisi) congregation had received 8cvcral most valuahter
grants of land, and one thousand pounds to assist in building
their church-
That the Catholic congregation had received three building lot»
there,—
But that the Scots congregation had ne\er received one foot.
And pray have you shown that this statement is not true to the
very letter 1 I think you have not. My observations were intend-
ed to apply exclusively to lots granted in Toronto, and by your
own statement the Scots congregation of that city has never been
favored with one. " The Town lot consisting of half an acre,'*
which you say " was set apart as a burial ground for the Presby-
terians in connexion with the church of Scotland," in "December
1824," cannot certainly be regarded as a grant made to assist
the congregation I am speaking of, as it was not at that period
in existence, nor even contemplated. But you give as a reason
for their not getting a grant in the city, that the lots at the time
this congregation was formed were all either sold or granted. '—
Look, if you please, at the records, and perhaps you will discover
that a grant or grants were made to the Catholic congregation
since 1830, besides 15 acres to your congregation^ worth at pre-
sent jC60 per acre, and more. This would seem to remove
one ground you take against my complaint, for if lots could be
found for one purposei they might have been got for rr><)ther, had
the will accompanied the power. How easy it was to say to the
Trustees of the church in question, "We have no building lots
" that will answer your object, but you are very welcome to one
" in the Garrison Reserve, or to one of the Park lots on the east
"side of the town, which you can dispose of,and with the proceeds
" discharge the debt due to the magistrates for the piece of ground
** they sold you off the Court House Square." Such encourage-
ment woiild have been duly appreciated, and it was easy of
accomplishment ; only think how many exchanges have taken
place for the accommodation of various churches in your con-
nexion, and a little countenance of this kind to the Scots inhabit-
ants at Toronto would not have been lost on them. But you say
*• on the 3d September, 1835, a grant of one hundred acres was
" ordered to the Scotch Church at Toronto," and by that circum-
stance you suppose you have made out a clear case ol mistate-
ment against me, but as I have already said, when I drew the
1 i !
$$
comparison, I ipok« of grants in Toronto and had no regird t^
Glebe Lots ; for if I bad, a mucb stronger contrast i Vight bavv
been exhibited, giving you at the same time every praise for this
very liberal appropriation. No, no> I never imagmed that this
inconsiderable grant of 100 acres in the country, would be urged
by you as conclusive evidence that the Scots church had not,
according to my shewing, been il^sed with respect to a grant
in the city. For if I had, it would have been an easy matter to
place it in juxta-position with the 3000 acres given to your con-
gregation. However as my statement, correct as it is, has given
you so much offence, I will put down in opposite columns all
the lands which to my knowledge have been granted to the three
congregations, whether situated in town or country, and that
you may have no further occasion to find fault, I will even insert
the half acre burying ground, although it was not located for tho
congregation I was treating of, and I am much surprised to hear
that the church of Scotland had such grant at all. The lots
and farms to your church, St. James*, Toronto, embrace all
that you state to have been received by the incumbents up to the
date of your letter to His Excellency Sir J. Colborne, of the
SIst January, 1835.
Grains to the Episcopal Catholic, and Scots Congregations in
in the City of Toronto.
Episcopal, Church of Englandt
Park lot No. II, 100 acres, on
which the buildings of the
Law Society are now erect-
cd,— very valuable.
Acres in the centre of the
town, — very valuable.
1 acre old Gaol ^ rented at
ground. f £250
I acre Hospital r per
ground. ^ annum.
Glebe lot No 14,?d C. E.Yong«St.
<» «« It fl,2 <« <«
« 4( f< '11 fl « '*
« <i « 9^2 " •«
" " •• 17,3 " ••
Containing 1000 acres.^
A grant of 2000 acres in the vi-
cinity of Toronto, also very va-
luable.
Another grant of IS acres in tke
dty near the C«thoUc Chnrcltt
qmt« recently worth onetiieo
sand pounds.
S
Catholic Church.
Church of Scotland.
Building lot, GarrisonRe-
serve.
Park lot. East of town. J Pa^k lots^Nonc.
Building, lot, centre of Ruildine Lots,— None,
town. ^ Glebe,200 acres-Granted in
Council, but after one of the
trustees called at least a
dozen times at the publio
offices without being able to
prorure a lot worth taking,
he gave up all hope of sue*
cess.
Burial ^ound, — None. The
statement respecting tho
half acre for that purpose,
is without foundationi M •
letter from the trustees la
the appendix will shew.
34
i , \
Now after this second successful attempt to prove the truth of
my complaint, that a *' mark of inferiority had long been at- '
tempted to be placed on the Scottish church in Upper Canada,
it seems to me quite probable, that Lord GIenel{5 will decide that
n picture drawn with materials prepared by yourself, tells much
more strongly in favor of my statement than I had formeily re-
presented to him. ^
I come now to consider the contents of your 4th letter, and
to justify what you call my general accusation, *'that with (ew
exceptions the Scots inhabitants have met with the most discour-
aging obstacles to their applications for grants of land for their
several churches." You say that " in support of this accusation
" I unfortunately depend on a letter with o table and remarks
" compiled by the Rev. Wm. Rintoul." You will see that this is
a mistake, for my letter from which you extracted the above
sentence is dated the I3th July, and Mr. Rintoul's statement did
not reach me till the 16th, as you will perceive by my note to
Lord Glenelg of the following day. So that the table furnished
by Mr. Rintoul could not have influenced anything I had written
previously. I am individually responsible lor what my letter to
His Lordship contains. Of the correctness of Mr. Rintours ta-
ble I have never given an opinion, not being acquainted with all
the facts it embraces. But one thing I am certain of, that he
would shrink as much from the commission of "gross deception'*
as any person with whom I am acquainted, and 1 feel persuaded
that he will be able to account satisfactorily for what he baa
written.
I ought to thank you for the deep interest you feel for the
safety of my reputation, and for your lively regret that prudential
motives had not induced me to withhold a paper so disrespectful
from Lord Glenelg. Having said this, I may acquaint you that
the insinuation, which accompanies your very flattering compli-
ment, falls short of the mark, ibr 1 had no hand in publishing the
table and remarks which appear in the pamphlet, or in withhold-
ing the letter.
My assertion I justify by the Surveyor General's Return of
Glebes of the 7th February, 1834, which you will find in the
Parliamentary Journals, and by many applications which within
my own knowlege met with most "discouraging obstacles," seve-
S6
>'»
the
rnl of which ftre in the very (able No. 2, which jv^n htxyc '^extracted
Jrom the records of the Executive Council and Surveyor GencraVs
Office^'^ to prove that our complaint is groundless. Is it no ob-
stacle to nn application to find that niter the Council hns been
pleased to report favorably on the petition, that no lot worth
acceptance can be procured, although many are vacant?— when
the petitioners point out some clergy lot as vacant, to be told
tliat Mr. this nmd Mr. that had recommended Nun»bcrs so and
so to be kept jr Glebes, and that therefore they cannot be given?
In this wny many of the pa»tics were wearied with disappoint-
ment and took lots, comparatively speaking, of no value. These
you now exhibit on paper as a nios*. bountiful provision, and tell
me that the Scots churches are better endowed, in proportion to
the'r claims and immbers,than the English church with its 57 Rec-
tories ! I feel so astonished at the assertion that argument, how-
ever well supported by plaiw and obvious existing realities, would
seem hereafter to have lost its use. The intrinsic worth of the
grants to your congregation alone are, I firmly believe, in amount
tenfold all thai the church of Scotland congregations have re-
ceived from one end of the province to the other. And you can
scarcely Jook at a Township in the Niagara District, where a
proportion nearly as great will not apply.
In the Surveyor Generals Return, I see that all the Glebe lots
in that beautiful peninsula composed of the Niogara District and
a few townships at the head of Burlington Bay, are marked as
belonging to the church of England ! Not one lot left for the
sister church. Even in Ancastcr, you quietly keep a thousand
acres, unmindful of the wants of the Scots church there, which
by the Return would seem never to have been favoured with a
paddock to feed the minister's cow on. But all this you will say
is just as it should be ; and if I would only remain in torpent
insensibility to the interests and claims of our countrymen here,
no doubt I would be a good fellow, in the every-day acceptation
of the term, and save myself a great deal of trouble, besides being
spared the unpleasant necessity of contradicting you in many
things you have advanced. However, this situation, pleasant as
it might be to some, has no attractions for me; and while I feel
that Scotsmen and Scotsmen's rights are left in the shade, I
inust and will speak and act. Therefore, lash away, I fearlessly
meet you, and so long as I believe the cause is just, I will es-
pouse it, nor be deterred by the application of language tenfold
36
harsher than you have hitherto used> and you have noi been
At all sparing in that commodity.
I repeat that in my anxiety to forward the wishes ot many
congregations, which within the last three years have petitioned
foi- grants of Glebe Lots, 1 have found it almost impossible to
make a location worth possessing, and if you still doubt the fact,
I shall prepare a list of the particular cases and lay it before you
in a subsequent letter ; but I may now again say, that several of
those I allude to, you adduce in support of your refutation of
what 1 have asserted, but these are not nearly all. The Glebe
of 200 acres in Elmsley, for " Perth," which you draw particu-
lar attention to as ** a most valuable tract of land," is no better,
no, not so good, as very many that 1 could name which you
have recently set apart for various English Churches, but even
this lot, would never have been obtained had I not, as the say-
ing is, worked hard for it, and after it was secured, by lease, not
grant, as you affirm, such a hub-bub was kicked up in conse-
quence, at head-quarters, that I at one time intended to advise
the Trustees to relinquish one half of the lot. If you want an
explanation of wffat I mean, I am perfectly willing to gratify you.
Now, with the fact that 1 hint at here, it is noi at all wonderful
that I should refuse my assent to your claiming merit for bene-
volence of disposition in any quarter, as far as this lot is in ques-
tion, however ready I am to acknowledge the kindness of the
council, at which you presided, for making a grant of 200 acres,
although they knew nothing of the situation of the lot, or its qua-
lity. The obstacles I had in view when I penned the complaint
were not intended to apply to the decisions of the Executive
Council, but to that illegal controul over the Clergy Reserves,
which was exercised by the Clergy Corporation, and which ena-
bled its members to mark, as suitable for glebes, vast numbers
of lots, and also to countenance the occupation of many more
by squatters, so that, generally speaking, the congregations of
the Scots Church had either to put up with rejected lots or go
without. I call the Corporation an illegal institution, because it
has excercised power and authority not known to the constitu-
tion ; it was the cause of the evils I have just explained. And
what is further, and more provoking still, the expenses of its
efforts to deprive the Church of Scotland of what is her right,
were defrayed from funds that her clergy should have benefitted
by,— I mean that the clergy of your church were paid their
37
travelling expenses to Toronto on various occasions, and that
your expenses in England, when you were making every effort
against the claim of the Scots church, were also borne out of
the clergy reserve fund, which Her Majesty's Government say
belongs to both churches.
1 have just read your fifth letter to me, but such a letter I
never met with before. You appear to have broken through all
bounds, and set at defiance every rule for the guidance of con-
troversial discussion. My first impulse was to pass it ^er in
pity and in silence : indeed if I sought to injure you, gi^^ that
letter extensive circulation would be a most effectual means ;
but though feelings, okin to any thing but those of anger, per-
plex me, when I look at that most extraordinary production. —
I know not why I should receive without answer some of your
very singular observations, merely because they are conceived in
language the most supercilious and dictatorial that can well be
imagined. Surely the standing of our countrymen on the scale
of colonial society, has descended contemptibly low if the strain
in which you speak of us in this as well as some other of your
late writings can in any measure be justifiable.
After quoting a sentence from my letter to Lordj Glenelg of
the 13th July, you ask the following question : — ** Would not
** any person on reading this passage, infer that the Ministers
** of the Scots Church had been totally unprovided for ; and
*' would he not stare at the hardihood of the writer, when told
'* that a liberal allowance had been made for their support,
" &c. ?" My answer to you is, no I Lord Glenelg to whom !
was addressing myself, and for whose information I wrote that
passage in the letter, as well as the other members of Her Ma-
jesty's Government with whom I was in correspondence, could
infer no such unreasonable idea. The amount paid to our
Ministers, and the temporary fund from whence it is derived,
was the particular subject of frequent conversations with these
honourable individuals, and therefore they might well think it
most singular if 1 had formally announced to his Lordship in
that letter, that those of the Scots Clergy in Upper Canada who
receive aid from Government, are paid £57 10s. sterling each,
out of the Canada Company instalments, which fund will cease
in three or four years. His Lordship and Sir George Grey very
naturally would have said, " we are quite well aware of this fact.
38
" anii you may remember it was perfectly understood in our late
*' con versa! ion, and you urged this approaching difficulty as one
" of the strong reasons for an early payment of your Ministers
** out of the Clergy Reserve fund."
Such I conceive might have been his Lordship's r.nsvver to
me had 1 written anything, along with what you have quoted, to
suit your ideas. I was addressing his Lordship in reference to
the frequently admitted claim of the Scots Church to shnre in
the Clergy Reserves, and also in reference to a conversation
Sir George Grey held with me on the very subject you blauie me
for not mentioning in my letter ; and it appeared to me proper
to express m)' surprise that notwithstanding the olt-repeated re-
cognition of our claim, not one farthmg of the Reserve funds
had ever been paid to our Church ; and then 1 mentioned my
satisfaction that his Lordship by ordering a certain sum to be
paid to the Ministers in Lower Canada, from that source, had
admitted the principle which we had long contended for, and I
said I hoped]that justice would speedily be awarded to the Clergy
in Upper Canada. Now, although this very reasonable, and
proper, and I will add, temperate paragraph has, it would seem
to you, afforded you an opportunity to address me in a way that
does not redound to your credit, I am quite certain that neither
Lord Gienelg nor Sir George Grey will see anything in my re-
mark that required *' hardihood" in the writer. Does it require
hardihood to enable any man to communicate sentiments and
opinions which he sincerely believes are founded on truth and
justice ? Feeling that I neither wrote nor spoke one word to
Her Majesty's Ministers, which the most scrupulous observance
of honourable intention could question, I must express my as«
tonishment at being arraigned in this rude manner by you.
You go on to say "The terms upon which you propose to make
peace with the Chnrch of England," are^no, I shall not attempt
to defend the members of the Scots Church from imputations such
asyournext paragraph contains, resting quite secure in the belief
that few of the members of your own Church will, or can, give
countenance to such language or charges. Suffice it to ob-
serve, that my proposition for the division of the Clerjy Re-
serves I think will be found to be quite as acceptable to the
general wishes of the inhabitants at large iis the recommenda^
Iji
89
(ion iRst February of the Committee of the Home of Assembly,
of which Mr. Draper was chairman.
You say, " had the venerable Clerg}'men, (Drs. M*Leod &
" M'Failane) whom you invited, come to your aid, they would,
" I am fully persuaded, have advised you to pursue the same
"course that Dr. Mearns adopted in 1823.'» Be it known to
you that Doctor Mearns knew nothing in 1823 of the opinion of
the Law Ollicers of the Crown in 18 i9, on the legal construc-
tion of the Act 31 Geo. 3, cap. 31 ; and as to what you sup-
pose those reverend gentlemen would think or do on this subject,
what follows may perhaps change your opinion of them.
" The humble memorial of Duncan Macfarlan, Doctor in Di-
" vinify, Convener of the Committee of the General Assembly
"of the Church of Scotland on Churches in the Colonies,
" Sheweth,
"That prior to the Treaty of Union, between England and
Scotland, Acts of the Legislatures of the two countries were
passed, establishing and confirming the respective Churches
of England and of Scotland, as they then stood established by
law, within the said lespective realms ; and, by the Treaty of
Union itself, it is expressly provided, that there shall be a
commicalion of all rights, privileges and advantages^ which do
or may belong to the snbjects of either kingdom.^^
"That under these securities, Ministers of the Church of
Scotland, settling in the British Colonies, are clearly entitled to
a share of all grants of land, or money, and to all other privile-
ges and advantages, which are bestowed by Government for
the purpose of religious instruction in these Colonies, as am-
ply and beneficially as Members of the Church of England,
or of the Church of England and Ireland, are or can be so
entitled." &c. &c. &c.
July 27th, 1836.
(Signed) D. MACFARLAN.
To the memorial from which the foregoing is extracted, Sir
George Grey, BarL, returned an answer, dated
4(
((
«
((
((
<(
ic
«
(c
(t
t(
((
40
<(
<c
l<
<<
((
4(
i(
«
i(
u
tt
«c
«c
J " Colonial Office, Downing Street*
I ''MgustlUh, 1836.
**To VKR? Reverend Principal Maefarlan.
Sir,
*• 1 am directed by Lord Glenelg to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, accompnied by a
Memorial, setting forth the claims of the Church of Scotland
to support in the British Colonies. In reply, I am to inform
you, that His Majesty's Governmc at entertain the most pro-
found respect for the privileges of the Church of Scotland,
and are fully prepared to admit the claims of that Church,
throughout the British Colonies, to such measure of support
out of the funds applicable to the maintenance of a religious
establishment, and not specifically appropriated to an } parti-
cular Church, as may be proportioned to the number of the
Colonists, who belong to her communion. Wilh reference to
the two distinct claims on behalf of the Church of Scotland,
which have been preferred in the Memorial, his Lordship has
to offer the following observations : —
** First. The appropriation of the Reserves in the Canadas,
*• has, in pursuance of the Constitutional Act of 1791, been re-
"ferred to the Provujcial Legislatures.
«<
it
t.
It
u
tt
tc
((
tt
ti
*' Secondly. With regard to Van Die man's Land, and also to
New South Wales, His Majesty's Government have recently
adopted the principle that contributions shall be supplied from
the public Revenue in aid of religions worship, in proportion
to the voluntary exertions made by the members of certain re-
ligious communions, among which the Presbyterian Church is
included, for the support of their respective Ministers. By
the arrangement which has, on this principle, been recom-
mended to the local legislative bodies, the Church of Scotland
will, in these Colonies be, for the future, equally entitled with
the church of England to share in the public funds applicable
to the general object of religious instruction, in prop'^rtion to
the amount of private contribution.''
(Signed) GEORGE GREY.
I would ju9t ask you what will be the surprise oi the Rev.
41
gentleinAn, respecting whom you have used such fine " sui^ared
language," when they discover that the principles they advocate
are by you characterised as " tearing to pieces the Church of
the sovereign 1" For your information 1 add an extract of an-
other memorial from the same Committee an^ signed by Doc-
tor Macfariane, at Edinburgh, 2Ist March, 1837. It is ad-
dressed also to Lord Glenelg, as principal Secretary of State for
the Colonies*
" The memorialists beg leave to repeat the assertion of a
** principle which they apprehend cannot he controverted, viz :
** That by the Treaty of Union, the ministers and other mem-
" bers of the Church of Scotland are entitled, in every colony
"settled or acquired since the year 170S, to be put on a perfect
•* equality in all respects with those of the Church of England,
*'in proportion to the number belonging respectively to eachde*
** nomination."
The following is part of the answer which Sir George Grey
gave to this memorial, and which he obligingly read to me on
the 3d of June last. It is dated 3ist May, 1837.
" His Majesty's Government see no reason to dissent from the
** general principles asserted by the memorialists. They are de-
** sirous of giving to it the fullest practical operation, which the
*f means at their disposal, for this purpose will allow."
" With re[;ard to the application of the proceeds of the Cler-
** gy Reserves in Canada, Lord Glenelg directs me to observe,
** that notwithstanding the extent of these reserves, the profits
** derived from them were, for many years, only sufficient to
"defray the expense of management, and that it was not until
** after the passing of act 7 and 8, George 4th, C. 62, authorising
** their sale, that any net sum was realised from them.
-If
** While Lord Glenelg is prepared fully to admit the right of
**the Ministers of the Church of Scotland officiating in the Col-
** ony, to participate in the proceeds of the fund raised from such
** sale, he regrets, that owing to doubts formerly entertained on
** the construction of the Act of 1791, on this subject, there is not
** at present any unappropriated revenue derived from those lands
** m the Upper Province, out of which stipends could be immc-
42
*' diately assigned to Ministers of the Church of Scotland. In
" that Province, however, the annual sales arc so considerable,
** that His Lordship sees reason to hope that this difficulty may,
" at some early period, be overcome, even if no steps should
previously be taken by the Provincial legislature for setting at
rest the questions respecting the Clergy Reserves."
4(
x(
Signed,
GEO. GREY,
There is one other expression in this notable letter of yours
that I may now remark upon, it is this, "your reception, I con-
** fess, would have surprised us, if any thing in the present times
" could surprise us." The insult and rebuke which this
sentence contains are applicable not to me alone, but strike with
direct force both Her Majesty^s Government and the Scottish
population in Upper and Lower Canada, whose agent I was.
What reception did I meet with at the Colonial office that the
respectable people who sent me there had not a right to expect
at the hands of Gentlemen 1 Her Majesty's officers of that de-
partment treated me with ordinary business-like civility, and
nothing beyond that : and this, forsooth, is to come under the
ban of your high displeasure. Things certainl' would come to
a pretty pass it no individual could be permuted to enter the
door of the Colonial office without a certificate from you. Lord
Glenelg must, in future, be cautious how he transacts business
with any one from this colonyr who carries not your recommen-
dation with him !
You have oftener than once said, that if the Scots Church de-
sired to obtain a portion of the Clergy Reserves that it should
have resorted to some judicial proceeding, to ascertain the mean-
ing of the act of 1791, or have appealed to Parliament to. get
the statute altered so as to embrace that church. But why, I
would ask jou, should we do any such thin^? we are satisfied with
the protection ot the act as far as that question is concerned. —
The highest legal authority confirms our right. Her Majesty's
Government admit, to the fullest extent, the principle and
claim we have asserted : wherefore,!^ then, are we to become
litiganis with you ? We stand ready to abide the decision of
Her Majesty's Government. You set that authority at nought
We received with gladness His late most gracious Majesty's as-
surance, on behalf of both churches. You have all along des-
pised his parental concern for the welfare of any other than yoar
43
own. We find no fault with tlic reception uj iicr Majesty'sF
Government of our national claims, which you say are " sense-
less'' and " wicked.'» You pronounce that reception to be the
working of a false liberality, and proclaim that you no longer have
that confidence in the justice of Government that you formerly
entertained. From all which, it appears, that we obey the will
of Her Majesty's Government ; you oppose it !
Your sixth letter I have seen by accident, and there is little
in it that I shall take the trouble to notice. You say that I am
** displeased with the composition of the College Council ; but
** certainly with little reason :'' And in proof of this you inform
me, that by the original charter, that body consisted of nine
members, all of whom, the Chancellor excepted, were to be
members of the Church of England — that the amended charter
increases the number to twelve, and that they need not belong
to the Church of England. I have not the smallest doubt but
that you consider my reason for being displeased at the compo-
sition of the Council, as groundless as you state, for in all your
schemes to promote your favourite objects, it never enters into
your mind that the members of the Church of Scotland are en-
titled to consideration or ought to exp ress an opinion. The
fault I find is, not that the members need not be of the Church
of England, but that in practice it is proclaimed, that a mem-
ber of the Church of Scotland shall not sit at that board ; but
you have a convenient method of surmounting all such difficul-
ties, and in this instance you let us know that our countrymen
who belong to the national church, are not sufficiently respect-
able to be associated with vou.
I perceive you would fain persuade the House of A ssembly
that I have aspersed its character. This attempt may be classed
with your evident anxiety to produce unfriendly relations be-
tween the clergy of the Church of Scotland and their dissenting
brethren. If you derive pleasure from such attempts I shall not
mar your enjoyment by dwelling longer on the subject. ^^
You say that the feelings of the members of the Legislative
Council were " so far from being hostile to the Church of
•' Scotland that they unanimously recommended that a Theolo-
** gical Professor of the Church of Scotland should be appointed
" as soon after the college went into opeiation as might be con-
i|
i
44 %
" venient." I thank the members of the Couucil foi their liber-
ality. But you know how that recommendation originated
in the select committee ; and to convince you how little value I
attoch to if, 1 need only cay, that 1 Icnr the (atal words ♦* after"
and *' convenient" will exclude, during your lifetime at least,
the old fashioned Geneva gownficm the precincts of the College
Avenue.
You "hold me amenable for the contents of nil thelettersnnd
" documents which 1 delivered to the Colonial Department." —
What an amount of responsibility I must bear ! Shall I tell you
how many letters 1 delivered l Only one ! Mr. IJintoul's, when
I was on the eve of departure^, and without making a single ob-
servation on the subject. He, no doubt, will notice your extraor-
dinary language respecting him, but l trust will never follow
your example when he does. As to documents, " all" 1 deliver-
ed was that address to His late Majesty upon which you have
bestowed so many compliments.
You inform me that it was your '• intention to animadvert on
" some of the many passages of my correspondence so rudely
"oflensive to those whom 1 believe hostile to the objects of my
*' mission, but fmding it a sickening task, you forbear.'' I should
have had no objection to this mode of retreat which you have re-
sorted to, had you published the parts of my correspondence with
Lord Glenelg, which you are pleased to condemn in this man-
ner : (or in that case it would have been competent for the read»
er of your letters to judge whether your very summary sentence
was warranted by fact. ]3ut 1 must protest against any such
unjust decision without proof, and now cull upon you to point
out, in all my letters to his Lord&bip, a single expression which
can, in the estimation of any honourable and'impartial mind, be
regarded as *'. rudely offensive." . .
Two letters of mine addressd to Mr. Gale, after my return
trom England, which 1 never intended for publication, I regret
to say, happened to be added to the correspondence ; and al-
though they contain nothing but the sentiments which I enter-
tained when I wrote them, yet being expressed with more free-
dom than I should use in any thing 1 intended for public observa-
tion, they may be regarded as too severe ; but even these letter9
^e mild indeed when compared with your free 6tyle of late.
45
The remaining part of the last paiftgraph of your closing let-
ter 1 really deem unworthy of notice as (ar us it applies to myselt
— hut thai you should brand the Uev. Editor of the Examiner,
n person by education, talent and character, quite as respecta-
ble as yourseir,n "contemptible and veiiemous writer,'' appears
to me incompatible willi that christian charity which we are en-
joined to exercise tovvauls f ach other, and which a minister of
the gospel, of all other men, should sciupulously observe.
You sneer at my propasition for the settlement of the Clergy
Reserve que-?tion, aUhou:;h it would secure to your Church up-
Avard.s of 80;),000 acres of land in Upjjer Canada, or more than
3000 acres i;i each township often miles square, an endowment
which the Imperial Parliament may yet consider quite ample
for the m:iint(.'nance of your clergy ; but you say, " had 1 gonft
"to London merely to propose this ])lan, and not for the des*-
" truction of the Rectories, you should not have coniplained."
Would you not ? Let the public read your letters to mejand
your address to your clergy, of the iSth September last, and
decide.
What follows, I wrote after.my arrival at Toronto, on the 14th
instant, and I may observe, that although I prepared an answer
to your extraordinary letters to me, yet it was not my intention
to publish it (as / intimated to you on the 13th December last)
until the alarming state of the Province had been restored to
tranquillity by the subjugation of her enemies. I think you
would hive consulted the good of the country had you postponed
the publication of your l;;tters until rebellion and intestine trou-
bles had disappeared, for although your first letter to me is da-
ted on the 17th NoveiJiber, it was actually promulgated through
the columns of " The Church" on the 2d of December, just two
days before the rebels attempted to take and plunder Toronto,
and you have kept up an incessant fire at me ever since. And
not content with the circulation which " The Church" could give
to the letters, I perceive that you now have them printed in pam-
phlet form, and that they are liberally distributed among the
members of the legislature, and no doubt much pains will be ta-
ken to supply Her Majesty's Ministers and the members of the
Imperial Parliament with the information which the pamphlet
contains, to the end that I and those who sent me to England
last spring may be stigmatized as people of disreputable charac*
46
icT, whose state men ta ought not to he believed. Under these
circumstances I have determined no longer to keep bnck this,
my answer, believing thut it contains a powerlul antidote, sufFi-
cient to dispel the injurious operation of your most singular as-
sertions.
It would be uncandid in me to say that I feel indifferent to the
charges which you have brought against me, or that I disregard
the consequences of your endeavour to injure my character as a
man of truth. 1 trust I shall never so far sink into insensibility
as to hear, without pain and concern, imputations brought against
my veracity, which, if well fjunded^ would justly forfeit my
right to mix in society with honorable men. I must be depraved
indeed, if it is true, as you assert, that I i)€rmitted myself to be-
come the " channel of much calumny and falsehood," that I
** departed from accuracy of statement," that the matters of
i^hich I complained to Her Majesty's government arc, *' in a
" great degree frivolous, deficient in christian candour, and not,
in all respects consistent with truth and accuracy of statement,"
that I made representations to the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, which required " boldness" and " hardihood,*' in fine,
that I was guilty of " gross deception" and " falsehood.'* These
are charges which you have preferred against me in the publi-
cations I am now considering, and were I unable to answer
what you allege in support of allegations so deeply affecting my
reputation as the father of a family, as an inhabitant of the pro-
vince and member of the legislature, never again ought I to be
regarded as fit to associate v/itlniionest men ; & well might Lord
Glenelg look on me and those whose interests I represented, as
an unprincipled faction. But what have you endeavoured to
substantiate against me in support of accusations so very seiious ?
Nothing that I can discover in your letters but what relates to
my complaint on the subject of grants of land to certain congre-
tions of the City of Toronto, and also regarding my declaration
that obstacles had been thrown in the way of applications lor
Glebes to the Scottish Church. I shall treat of these two mat
tcrs separately, and first, with respect to the comparison I drew
for Lord Glenelg's information of church patronage at Toronto.
v^ To prove that my r.tatement is untrue, you address the follow-
ing observations to me in your 3d letter, page 20 of the pamphlet:
•t''.'.* ^fi'y'^ i *"'
47
ns-
"So long ago as th'j lirtst of December, 182 J, a town lot,
'" Consisting of half an acre, 'vas set apart as a burial ground for
'*the Presbyterians in connexion with the church of Scotland,
"and a Patent granted in trust for the same." * * ♦ ♦
it
((
((
i(
((
i<
it
" Such is the true state of the two cases brought forward in
accusation of the Colonial Government, and in disparagement
of the established church. The Scotch congregation was not
organised till very lately, when it was not in the power of the
local government to bestow convenient grants of land ; yet a
burial ground was set apart, in anticipation that such a con-
gregation would at somp time be collected, and the Provincial
authorities evidently shewed a friendly anxiety to do every thing
possible for their accommodation."
((
It \s a painful duty to detect and expose such inaccuracy of
** statement ; but it is necessary, in order to defend the innocent,
*• and to show to what shifts (he enemies of our church are driven,
** in their vain attempts to make out a case against her.*'
This same grant of land is again referred to at page 25, in
your 4th letter, as follows: —
^•Toronto. — Granted on 3d September, 1833, southei'ly half
^' of lot No. 2, in the 4th concession, east of Yonge Street, 100
" acres ; again 7th April, 1836, on relinquishing the above the
" Commissioner of Crown Lands is instructed to set apart 200
" acres in some convenient place for the purpose prayed for,
" besides the government lot north side Dutchess street contain-
** ing half an acre ; granted a tract on 1st Dec. 1834, for a burial
"ground.'* And to give this statement the weight of official au-
thority, you have headed the information as follows: —
<t
: I
"Table 2." -''
Of applications made by congregations in connexion wit1i
** the Kirk of Scotland, for land, and the result to September
" 1837, extracted from the records of the Executive Council
" and Surveyor General's Office." ,:'
It would be disingenuous in me not to own that when I first
read the above statements, I felt much surprise ; for having had
jfrequent conversations with the Trustees of the Scots church oi'
48
Toronto, indccnl hnving taken a lively interest in the formation of
the church, nml in an application for a lot upon which to erect the
building, I thought it strange that they should own a burini ground
without my knowledge ; hut when you puhlishc:! tlie fact ns
taken from the records of the Governmcn^y (K-'clfirinij nt t!ie snnic
time that the lot wns not only granted lor a congregation in con-
nexion with the church of .Scotland, hut that it was set apart •*in
"anticipation that such a congregation would at some time be
"collected," I of course supposed I was mistaken, and wrote
what 1 have previously said on the subject under that impression.
From the solemn manner in which you declared " it is a
" painful duty to detect and expose such inaccuracy of state-
** nient," I am held forth to the public by you in no very enviable
light, and some of your friends and 8uj)poMers, in consequence,
do not hesitate to give opinions against the truth generally of my
correspondence with Her Majesty's Government.
Determined to ascertain without delay all the particulars con--
nected with the grant of this burial ground, I liavc examined the
Government Patent, and find that tlierc is not the slightest foun-
dation for what you have state<l respecting it in your letters to
me. The facts of the case are these, as contained in the patent,
which I have read from beginning to end : — That on the 1.5th
April 1825, the half acre lot on Dutchess Stieet was granted lor
a Durial ground to "the Presbyterian Congregation resident in
the Town of York;" and it was conveyed to "Colin Drummond,
<♦ Jesse Ketchum, William Stevenson, Peter McPhail, and Wil-
<* liam Ai'thur, and their successors in otlice, as Trustees, nn-
•* nually to be chosen by the Presbyterian congregation resident
"in the town of York." Not only was it not *'set aj?art as a
** burial ground tor the Presbyterians in connexion with the
*' chui'ch of Scotland," or "in anticipation that such a congrega-
** tion would at some time be collected," but the lot was positively
and expressly granted to a congregation of Presbyterians, then
and still in existence, and who arc as well known to the people
of Toronto to have no connexion with the church of Scotland
as any fact can possibly be, about which there never was a doubt.
Wher'C is the inhabitant of Toronto who does not know that the
congregation who worship in the small brick meeting house, erect-
ed by Mr. Ketchum, never had, or professed to have any kind of
connexion with the Scots church ? On the contrary, who can be
»
49
iffuorant of the fuct that its members condemn all connexion with
the govern ment,and for that reason some years ago withdrew from
the dissenting body with which they were associated, in conse-
quence of the public allowance mado to its ministers 1 Such are
tne weapons used to assail my reputation, and to convince Her
Majesty's Ministers that I imi)osed on tliem statements so inaccu-
rate that it was "painful" for you to "detect !" What reparation,
I ask, can you make to me for the injury you have done not only
lo my feelings, but also to my character with the members of the
Episcopal church scattered all over the Province, who read "the
Church," and who may never liave an opportunity of seeing my
defence ? for I scarcely hope that my vindication will ever ap-
pear in that journal which has been the means of spreading
unfounded statements so injurious to my good name.
After investigating the very extraordinary circumstance which
I have just detailed, I naturally turned my attention to other
parts of the table, in order to discover if all the grants stated by
you, to have been made for congregations in connexion with the
church of Scotland were in reality so, for some of them I felt
convinced were in parts of the country where the church of
Scotland never had a congregation. The following is the re-
sult of my search, or rather the search of the clerk of the council.
See your pamphlet, p. p. 24 and 25.
" Table 2.
" Of applications made by congregations in connexion with
the Kirk of Scotland and the result.''
" OsNABURGH.—Granted on 6ih
"October, 1826, the Western
' "half of the Centre Common
" in the township of Osnaburgh
" 24 acres. Patents issued.
" WiLLiAMsBORGH. — Granted 6th
"October, 1826, the Westerly
" half of a strip of Land, situat-
" ed in the centre of Williams-
" burgh, 70 acres. Patents is-
" sued.
" PicKERiNQ.— Granted 27th Oct.,
" 1836, 200 acres not yet loca*.
' "ted." . , ■
The minute of Council proves ihat
this is incorrect, no grant was
ever made in that township, as
stated, for the Church of Scot^
land.
Also incorrect like the former.
Alike incorrect.
ill
50
1 endeavoured to examine some other grants set forth in your
table, respecting which I have doubts, but as I could not tell the
clerk the names of the petitioners, it was out of his power to find
the minutes relating to them ; should they also turn out like the
foregoing, you shall be made acquainted with the circumstances
hereafter. Looking at what you say, page 25, regarding •' Lan-
ark," it appears to me that " the westerly half of lot No. 2, in
" 2d concession" of that township would only contain 100
acres. You state that the *' Patent for 200 acres issued;" pray
is not this another error 1 So anxious are you to swell the
amount of endowments to the Scots Church, that you are not
content with telling me that one solitary acre was granted to the
congregation at Kingston, but you add that it " contains five
*' building lots." My argument would require a knowledge of
the number of building lots belonging to your Church there, and
the amount of revenue derived therefrom, but this kind of infor*
mation you have no wish that I should possess.
A considerable number of the other cases in the table, the
lature of which was not familiar to me before I reachedToronto,
iLvolve the same kind of difficulties which induced me to com-
plain to Lord Glenelg of the " obstacles" felt by the Scots con-
gregations when they applied for Glebe lots, and will more than
justify my complaint, even had I known of no such instances be-
fore. Now, Sir, let me ask you what has become of the un-
truths which you have charged me with telling to Her Majesty's
Ministers ? You are now placed in a position in consequence
of your rash attack on my character, which you can never^ex-
tricate yourself from, without at the same time atoning for the
injury I have sustained at your hands.
You accuse the Members of the Scots Church of making an
unworthy use of the other sects to suit their own purposes, and
that afterwards they cast them off like a tattered garment. You
next say that no body of christians in tlie Province, but those of
the Scots Church, expressed any disapprobation at the formation
of the Rectories.
To make your case complete, and to support your charges of
falsehood against us, you are at pains to compile a table, (as if
by authority) of grants of land to our congregations — and what
do all these efforts ^on your part amount to 1 Look at my re-
»'
51
the
pray
I the
! not
the
1 five
je of
, and
infor-
commendalioii for a division of the clergy lands — see the edito-
rial observations from the " Christian Guardian,^* and the ad-
dress to the King from the Wcslcyan Methodists against the Rec-
tories—examine closely the letter which you received on the 19th
instant, from the Trustees of St. Andrew's Church, Toronto,
(and which I append to this,) and also the inaccuracies which I
have pointed out in your table, and where are your arguments,
your justitication for the harsh epithets you have so unfeelingly
bestowed on us 1 all gone ! scattered to the winds, and you
stand unsupported by a single fact to g-ive you countenance.
You may talk of grants to the Presbyterians, and of the
" friendly anxiety of the Provincial authorities to do everything
*' possible for our accommoilation," and you may continue to
write about lots and burying ground set npart for purposes that
nobody ever heard of hut yourself — all this you may do ; but it
cannot remove from the minds of the Scottish and Irish Presby-
terians of Canada the neglect and contempt our respectful ap-
plications have in many instances received, chiefly through your
instrumentality, as is generally believed. Nor can the respecta-
ble Presbyterian inhabitants of Toronto, and others, who joined
them in a petition to Sir P. Maitland,for a grant of land for a burial
ground, cease to remember how that respectful application was
treated, and how they were forced to purchase a few acres for
which they paid £75, whilst you had no ditficulty, not long ago,
in procuring a grant of 15 acres, near the catholic church, for
a similar object, as I am informed.
* In your table, No. 2, 3'ou say, ** The answer to the following
applications by the Governor in council was," * that in the pre-
* sent state of the clergy reserve question, the council do not think
* it advisable to recommend any further appropriations.' I hope
the council felt equally scrupulous with regard to your applica-
tion ; indeed I have no reason to suppose they did not, other than
the assertion you n)ade to the clergy of your archdeaconry, on
the 13th September, that " twenty or twenty-two thousand
*' acres were attached to 57 Rectories," when contrasted with
your second letter to me, dated the 23d November, in which you
state that 27,169 acres had been so appropriated.
Although you have furnished matter for much more exten-
sive investigation and exposure than I find it convenient to make,
^M-
I shall conclude by saying, that every particular contained in my
correspondence with the colonial department, is such as I would
again represent without the slightest alteration, and such as I
should desire, above all things, to submit to the investigation of
any competent tribunal in this colony ; convinced as I am that
the complaints we have made do not embrace nearly all the
grounds which have long existed, and which, it is to be feared,
will still continue, if your counsel is permitted to influence the
administration of the Government.
I remain, Sir,
Your obdt. servant,
W. MORRIS.
APPENDIX.
(Copy.)
Toronto, I9lh January, 1838. , .
Honourable and Venerable Sir,
We, the undersigned, Trustees of St. Andrew's Church,
having frequently asserted that we had never received any lands
jn aid of our church from the Government of this Province, think
it due to our character io advert to certain statements which
have been pubiis-hed i.i newspaper;? throughout the country, in
the form of letiors, wvuten by you, and also in a pamphlet under
the authority of your name, alleging that the Presbyterian church
in connexion wiih the church of vScctland in this city has received
from the Colonial Government v.-uious grants of land, ail of
which you specify in sold letters and pamphlet; the terms whereof
as res, 'cts Toronto, arc as follows: —
*- '^ •" Ao. — Granted on 3d September, 1835, southerly half
" of lot No. 2, in the 4th concession, enst of Yonge street, 100
" acres ; again, Ttli April, 1S3G, on relinquishing the above, the
" Comi.-iissioncr of Crown Lands is instructed to set apart 200
" acres in some convenient place for the purposes prayed for,
"besidc-vthc Governnient lot north side of Dutchess Street, con-
" taing hnlf an acre ; granted a tract on 1st December, 1824, for
"a burial ground."
We assure you, on the contrary, (hat (hough granmg may
have been with you equivalent to receiving £ome(hing, the case is
widely different wilh us. Notwithslarding the statements so con-
fidently set forth, we pray you to be informed that we have re-
ceived no lots, nor )>icco of ground whatever, not so much as
space to build our church upon. It is tru%that some time ago
the Commissioner of Crown Lands was instructed to set apart
200 acres in seme convenient place, and for the purposes prayed
for, but, in point of laet, whatever lots were made known to us
as so set apart, were found upon examination to be of little value
to any one, and to us, so far from being in some convenient
54
place and for the purposes prayed for, not worth accepting. This
wp found to our disappointment, after most diligent search and
repeated applications, after many petitions expressed in the most
respectful terms, and signed* by most respectable persons in this
city.
As to your statement respecting the Government lot north
side of Dutchess street, containing half an acre, which by a cu-
rious grammatical construction, you, unwittingly, no doubt, lead
the public to believe is separate and distinct from " a tract for a
burial ground," whereas they are one and the sr.me, we beg you
to take our word for it, that this lot, or these if you please, were
never granted to us, nor to any Presbyterian congregation in
connexion with the church of Scotland, nor ever by us, or by any
one else, so far as we know, understood to be so granted.
We are.
Honourable and Venerable S!r,
Your most obedient humble servants,
Ic. Buchanan, Chairman.
John Ewart,
Wm. Ross,
W. Rose,
Andrew Tod,
Geo. Henderson,
A. Badenach.
To the Hon. and Ven. John Strachan, D.D.,
Archdeacon of York.
This
;h and
e most
in this
t north
y a cu-
t, lead
}t for a
leg you
;, were
tion in
by any
man.