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.